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. Reviewer: 4 See Overall Impressions text. Reviewer: 5 Technology transfer partners (within NAABB) have been identified but there was no indication of any current interaction with them. The project would be benefit from early and frequent interactions with potential users. Reviewer: 6 No problems here. Reviewer: 7 Tech transfer should have been limited to within the Integrated Assessment Framework team until a complete an accurate model is developed. Presentation and publication of survey results prior to validation may be counter-productive. Presenter Response [5.1] Selected results from NAABB will be integrated into the Biomass Assessment Tool (BAT) and be available to the academic and investigative communities (as well as industry and other interested parties) though its web-based interface (additional detail is provided in Response 3.5). Results of this project will also be disseminated through BAT linkage to the DOE Bioenergy Knowledge Discovery Framework (KDF), as well as, peer-reviewed papers and technical reports. --- [5.2] We will continue to disseminate project results; please see Response 5.1 for more details. --- [5.3] N/C --- [5.4] N/C --- [5.5] 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, U of Arizona, and Texas A&M to evaluate their results, and as appropriate incorporate them into the BAT. In addition, results, methods, and models developed under this project will be distributed through the BAT and the KDF. --- [5.6] N/C --- [5.7] We feel 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 by others and our results and contributions have been peer-reviewed by experts in the field and published in Wigmosta et. al (2011). 6. Overall Impressions Please provide an overall evaluation of the project, including strengths, weaknesses, the project approach, scope, and any other overall comments. Reviewer Comments Reviewer: 1 The project has a good feel to it. Information of value to the development of algal biofuels will be an outcome. Reviewer: 2 The project is proceeding satisfactorily. Page 98 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: 3 Are there any conclusions drawn from the work so far? A tasks, milestones and timetable slide would be useful to add. Is the analysis dependent on the biological system, i.e., the species to be used? Greenhouse covered ponds, which allows controlled energy and water vapor transfer with the atmosphere, would be an untenable situation for biofuels production, as it will make the process cost prohibitive. A lot of this work has already been done ad infinitum by the "race track" and "photobioreactor" field. Thus, work in this project is redundant, as it repeats what is already in the literature. Reviewer: 4 Overall Impression: 7 CO2 is probably the most limiting resource, but it seems to be near the last that is going to be implemented. Similarly, it's not clear how much has been accomplished on the Biomass Growth Model. Presumably it would show that the upper tier states cannot produced economical quantities of biomass due to a short growing season. That would eliminate the need for the detailed analysis of the other resources in these regions. Hopefully, not much effort was expended to model land and water resources in non-viable locations (i.e., no CO2, wrong climate). The land available would be expanded somewhat by considering degraded cropland rather than excluding all cropland. It was not clear if the water use considered blowdown disposal in addition to evaporation. Ground-truthing of some specific sites should be done early in the program to have an idea of how many false positives/negatives are being generated. Important project. Reviewer: 5 This is a good project, but it would be even better if potential users were consulted frequently and some sort of "ground-truthing " of the results could be incorporated. The presenter seems well aware of the model's limitations and is willing to improve the model's transparency (with respect to basic assumptions). Reviewer: 6 A very good start to a very important study. The PI's are encouraged to incorporate the added perspective of the farmer and land developer to further down select sites that pass the resource nexus criteria. Will become a very important study once this is completed. Reviewer: 7 The survey has very high potential value but needs further refinement and validation and integration into a broader assessment model before it is useful. Key assumptions need to be challenged and reviewed. Uncertainities need to be estimated and included when meanignful quantitative resutls are presented. Publishing that 17% of U.S. transporation fuels could be produced by algae should be discouraged when it is know that including techno economic factors makes the error range of the estimate 0% to 100%. Presenter Response [6.1] N/C --- [6.2] N/C --- [6.3] An important step to realizing the potential of algae is quantifying the demands commercial-scale algal bevel production will place on water and land resources. This study has Page 99 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:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48: 2011 Algae Platform Review - Review
Page 97: 2011 Algae Platform Review - Review
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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?