Reviewer Comments - EERE

More documents

Recommendations

Info

2011 Algae Platform Review – Reviewer Comments Reviewer Comments are direct transcripts of commentary and material provided by the Platform’s Review Panel. They have not been edited or altered by the Biomass Program. has met its objectives in achieving milestones and overcoming technical barriers Reviewer Comments Reviewer: 1 Criteria Score: 5 The progress is adequate to the time spent on the project so far. Reviewer: 2 Criteria Score: 6 Progress in this project is satisfactory, but the things mentioned in the approach section would likely improve the project. Reviewer: 3 Criteria Score: 4 Development of a GIS-based Biomass Assessment Tool that integrates high-resolution data with biophysical models to provide spatially/temporally explicit estimates of production potential and resource demands and constants Reviewer: 4 Criteria Score: 7 See Overall Impressions text. Reviewer: 5 Criteria Score: 6 Scientists have not finished different modules, but indicated that milestones will be accomplished by the project deadlines. Reviewer: 6 Criteria Score: 7 No problem - good work progress. Reviewer: 7 Criteria Score: 4 Progress falls significantly short of the state that should be required before specific estimates are presented and published. Presenter Response [2.1] N/C --- [2.2] See Response 1.2(a-c) --- [2.3] N/C --- [2.4] N/C --- [2.5] The project in on track to meet project milestones and deadlines. --- [2.6] N/C --- [2.7] The research, methodology, and products developed under the current project provide key building blocks to realizing the ability to represent the full lifecycle process. We feel that sufficient progress has been made to establish national baseline conditions under well-specified assumptions and limitations (Wigmosta et. al 2011). As such, there are clear benefits to the scientific research community to share periodic and logical progressions within specific lifecycle stages; the current project has benefited from such presentations and publications from others, and our assumptions, results and contributions have been peer-reviewed by experts in the field and published in Wigmosta et. al (2011). Wigmosta, M. S., A. M. Coleman, R. J. Skaggs, M. H. Huesemann, and L. J. Lane (2011), National microalgae biofuel production potential and resource demand, Water Resour. Res., 47, W00H04, doi:10.1029/2010WR009966. 3. Project Relevance The project both identifies with and contributes to meeting the platform goals and objectives of the Biomass Program Multi-Year Program Plan The project has considered applications of the expected outputs Page 94 of 223
2011 Algae Platform Review – Reviewer Comments Reviewer Comments are direct transcripts of commentary and material provided by the Platform’s Review Panel. They have not been edited or altered by the Biomass Program. Reviewer Comments Reviewer: 1 Criteria Score: 7 This project has high relevance for the OBP program Reviewer: 2 Criteria Score: 8 This kind of model is very important to DoE efforts to reach affordable, sustainable production of algal biofuels in US. Reviewer: 3 Criteria Score: 4 This study provides DOE and industry with the first spatially-explicit estimate of open pond microalgae production potential and resource demands for the conterminous United States. It realistically addresses critical questions of how much energy can be produced, where production can occur, and how much land and water resource will be required. Reviewer: 4 Criteria Score: 7 See Overall Impressions text. Reviewer: 5 Criteria Score: 6 The project is highly relevant to platform goals. However, the ultimate utility of this tool will depend on the transparency of its assumptions (and the ability to change them). Reviewer: 6 Criteria Score: 6 Relevance will shoot up to 9 or 10 once they incorporate the follow-on perspective of the farmer. Reviewer: 7 Criteria Score: 4 A survey that includes estimates of all major factors has great relevance. The current state of this survey has signficant omissions. Presenter Response [3.1] N/C --- [3.2] N/C --- [3.3] N/C --- [3.4] N/C --- [3.5] The Biomass Assessment Tool (BAT) webinterface allows a user to access, query, and interact with all national datasets and models produced under this project. Ultimately, the user will have control to adjust spatial filtering parameters as well as model parameters to screen existing databases for elements such as minimum suitable land area, geographic boundary, proximity to nutrient source, proximity to CO2 source, climate ranges, biomass production rates, lipid production rates, percent of national production target, and temporal ranges. The BAT is constructed such that when more current or detailed knowledge is available for particular algal strains in specific geographic domains this information can be incorporated. We have intentionally designed the BAT and the algal growth model such that we can readily incorporate more accurate information or improved models for specific algae strains, environmental conditions, and downstream lifecycle processes as they become available. For example, we are closely monitoring ongoing and planned technology development efforts by the NAABB Algal Biology and Cultivation Teams where there is a focus on increasing overall productivity of biomass accumulation and lipid/hydrocarbon content and increasing overall productivity by developing and optimizing scalable cultivation practices and growth rates under various environments. We also are interacting with PIs at PNNL, Utah State University, University of Arizona, and Texas A&M to evaluate their results, and as appropriate, incorporate them into the BAT. Finally, we are continually reviewing the algae and bioenergy literature to identify potential enhancements to BAT as appropriate. --- [3.6] We agree with the need to incorporate farmer/operator experience. This is part of current and planned future work; please see Response 1.2b. --- [3.7] The current state of our study provides a high spatial/temporal evaluation of open pond microalgae production Page 95 of 223
Page 1 and 2:
2011 Biomass Program Algae Platform
Page 3 and 4:
2011 Algae Platform Review - Review
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44: 2011 Algae Platform Review - Review
Page 93: 2011 Algae Platform Review - Review
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
Page 215 and 216:
Page 217 and 218:
Page 219 and 220:
Page 221 and 222:
Page 223:
show all

Reviewer Comments - EERE

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?