2005 obp biennual peer review summary of fuels effort thomas foust nrel biomass program november 15,...

2005 OBP Biennual Peer Review

Summary of Fuels Effort

Thomas Foust

NREL Biomass Program

November 15, 2005

Overview

Objective: Overall Barrier to Deployment is the inability to compete on an economic basis with petrochemicals.

The Fuels economic targets are based on reducing the cost of ethanol production in both existing and future lignocellulosic facilities.

Existing facilities• “recalcitrant” starch utilization• Utilization of all available five carbon sugarsTarget cost reduction - $0.13/gallon of ethanol based on an estimate of current

production costs of $0.90-$1.00/gallon.

Developing lignocellulosics facilities• Directly link with Biochemical Platform goals• Reduce ethanol costs from $2.26/gallon to $1.07/gallon• Develop new strains to utilize all biomass sugarsTarget Cost Reduction - $0.39/gallon of lignocellulosic ethanol

Budget & Funding Partners

BudgetCorn Refiners AssociationNational Corn Growers AssociationNRELBiodiesel project participantsWest Central CooperativeThe Consortium for Plant

Biotechnology Research: 42 Universities, 12 Affiliated Universities, and 35 Companies. They have selected 88 companies to be co-investors/customers. It is a putative earmark for FY06 and so no budget numbers are included in the FY06 total to your left.

Current Funding Partners

Products Platform

4.0Products Platform

4.1Fuels

4.2Chemicals & Materials

4.3Combined

Heat & Power

4.4Analysis for Products

7.0Earmarks

Products Platform R&D

4.0Products Platform

4.1Fuels

4.2Chemicals & Materials

4.3Combined

Heat & Power

4.4Analysis for Products

4.1.1Biological Conversions

4.1.2Chemical Conversions

4.1.3Hybrid Chemical/

Biological Conversions

4.1.4Separations


4.2.2Chemical Conversions

4.2.3Hybrid Chemical/

Biological Conversions

4.2.4Separations

4.3.1Thermochemical

Conversions

4.3.2Demonstration Projects

4.3.3Separations

4.4.1BiorefineryIntegration

4.4.2Product

Opportunities

Fuel ProductsR&D Agreements

4.1Fuels


New Yeast Fundamentals

Engineering Thermotolerant Biocatalysts for Biomass Conversion to Products

7.0Earmarks

Reactive Distillationfor Esterification of

Biobased Organic AcidsMaine Forest Bioproducts R&D

Biobased Development ofSustainable Biobased Products

and Bioenergy at PurdueCenter for Catalysis

Heat and Power Biomass Project

Energy from BiomassResearch and TechnologyTransfer Program Project

National Agricultural-BasedIndustrial Lubricants Center Project

E-Diesel research by NCGA

Biobased Products by the New Uses Information and Entrepreneur

Development Center, Belvidere, IL

Biodiesel Demonstrationin School Buses

Research in Nebraska onImproved Soybean Oil

for Biodiesel Fuel

Agricultural bio-fueled generationof electrcity and development of

durable and efficient NOx reductionDevelopment and Optimization of

Novel Biodiesel ProductionTechniques, Mississippi State White Pine County NV

Public School Heating ProjectEastern NV Landscape Coalition

for Biomass Restoration

Strategic Fit With Program Elements/Pathways

Thermo ChemicalR&D

FeedstockR&D

BiochemicalR&D

IntegratedBiorefinery

Corn Wet Mill Improvements

Corn Dry Mill Improvements

Agricultural Residue

Processing

Energy Crops

Pulp & Paper Mill

Improvements

Forest Products Mill

Improvements

Corn

Other Grains

Corn StoverWheat StrawRice Straw

Perennial GrassesWoody Crops

Mill WastesWood

Mill WastesWood

Systems- level demonstration & validation of technologies to

improve corn wet milling facilities using corn grain feedstock by

2008


improve corn dry milling facilities using corn grain feedstock by

2008


utilize agricultural residue feedstocks in existing or new

facilities by 2009


utilize perennial crops in existing or new facilities by 2012

Systems- level demonstration & validation of technologies to improve pulp & paper mill facilities and/ or produce

additional products from wood by 2012

Systems- level demonstration & validation of technologies to improve forest products mill facilities and/ or produce

additional products by 2012

ProductsR&D

New Products fromC5/C6 Sugars

Products from Oils

New Products from

C5/C6 Sugars

Products from C 5/C6 Sugars, Lignin , Synthesis Gas , New

Process Intermediates

Products from C 5/C6 Sugars, Lignin , Synthesis Gas , New

Process Intermediates

Products from C 5/C6 SugarsProducts from BL Syngas

Products from Synthesis GasProducts from Bio -oil

Costs in 2002 Dollars

$0.00

$1.00

$2.00

$3.00

$4.00

$5.00

$6.00

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

Min

imu

m E

than

ol Se

llin

g P

rice

($ p

er g

al) Enzyme

Feedstock

Conversion

DOECost

Target

DOECost

Target

State of TechnologyEstimates

Feed $53 per ton

Feed $45 per tonYield 75 gal/ ton

2005 Yield65 gal/ ton

Feed $30 per tonYield 90 gal/ ton

Platform Cost History and Targets

$0.095

$0.063

$0.120

$0.00

$0.01

$0.02

$0.03

$0.04

$0.05

$0.06

$0.07

$0.08

$0.09

$0.10

$0.11

$0.12

$0.13

2005 Post Enzyme-Subcontract Case

FY07 Budget Target(9.5¢ Sugars)

DOE 2020 Cost Target

Min

inu

m S

ug

ars

Sell

ing

Pri

ce,

MS

SP

($ p

er

lb S

ug

ars

)

Barrier Cost Targets

$0.00

$0.50

$1.00

$1.50

$2.00

$2.50

$3.00

ME

SP

($

/ga

llon

)

Improved Fermentation

Improved Pretreatment

Improved Cellulase

Reduced Feedstock Cost

R&D StrainState ofTechnology

2020 DOE Cost Target

Mature TechnologyEstimate

2005 Post-EnzymeContracts

Barriers/Technical Targets

Cost of LiquidTransportation Fuels

Product YieldProduction Rate

Final ConcentrationProduct Recovery

Capital Costs

OrganismDevelopment

CatalystDevelopment

1st Tier

2nd Tier

3rd Tier

Biological Chemical





Capital Costs



Capital Costs

OrganismDevelopmentOrganismDevelopment

CatalystDevelopmentCatalystDevelopment

1st Tier

2nd Tier

3rd Tier

Biological Chemical

Barriers Supporting Platform Objectives and Economic Targets

Milestone HierarchyCorn Wet Mill Pathway

A-level B-level

Ethanol Production From Mixed Sugars

Demonstrate and validate economical conversion of mixed sugars to ethanol in a wet mill ($X/gal EtOH) by 2008

C5 or C6 or mixed C5/C6 Sugars conversion to Chemical and Material Products

Demonstrate and validate economical new products from C5 or mixed C5/C6 sugars in a wet mill ($/lb product) by 2008

Demonstrate and validate economical new products from C6 sugars in a wet mill ($/lb product) by 2008

MiscellaneousDemonstrate and validate economical new

products from corn-derived oils in a wet mill. ($/lb product) by 2008

Milestone HierarchyCorn Dry Mill Pathway

A-level B-levelBiomass Fractionation with Sugar

ProductionDemonstrate and validate economical residual

starch conversion in a dry mill ($/lb fiber) by 2009


Demonstrate and validate economical conversion of mixed sugars to products in a dry mill. ($/lb product) by 2008

Demonstrate and validate economical new products from C6 sugars in a dry mill. ($/lbs product)


Demonstrate and validate economical conversion of mixed sugars to ethanol in a dry mill. ($/gal EtOH) by 2009

Milestone HierarchyAg Residue Processing Pathway

A-level B-level


Demonstrate and validate chemical building blocks,

chemicals, or materials from 5 biomass sugars

that are economically viable (multiple cost targets for specific products) ($/lbs product)

Ethanol Production from Mixed Sugars

Demonstrate and validate ethanol from 5 biomass sugars that are economically viable (multiple cost targets for specific products) ($/gal EtOH)

Lignin Intermediates/Residue Conversion to Products

Demonstrate and validate high value chemical

and material products from lignin intermediates ($/lb product)

Demonstrate and validate fuel products from lignin intermediates ($/gal)

Demonstrate and validate combined heat & power

from lignin intermediates/residues ($/KwHr, $/Klb Stm)

Clean Syngas Conversion to Products

Demonstrate and validate products (i.e. ethanol from mixed alcohols) from lignin or biomass derived syngas for $0.60/gal by 2025

Demonstrate and validate H2 production from lignin or biomass derived syngas for $xx/kg by 2025

Demonstrate and validate CHP production from lignin or biomass derived syngas by 2025

Milestone HierarchyEnergy Crops Processing Pathway

A-level B-level


Demonstrate and validate ethanol from 5 biomass sugars that are economically viable – similar to agro. residues with different biorefinery opportunities ($/gal EtOH)


Demonstrate and validate products from 5 biomass sugars (need multiple cost targets for specific products) – similar to agro. Residues with different biorefinery opportunities ($/gal EtOH)

Lignin Intermediates/Residue Conversion

to Products

Demonstrate and validate high value chemical and material products from lignin intermediates ($/lb product)

Demonstrate and validate fuel products from lignin intermediates ($/gal)

Demonstrate and validate combined heat & power from lignin intermediates/residues ($/KwHr, $/Klb Stm)

Clean Syngas Conversion to Products

Demonstrate and validate products (i.e. ethanol from mixed alcohols) from lignin or biomass derived syngas for $0.60/gal by 2025Demonstrate and validate H2 production from lignin or biomass derived syngas for $xx/kg by 2025

Demonstrate and validate CHP production from lignin or biomass derived syngas by 2025

Advanced Biomass Fractionation

and Conversion

Demonstrate and validate products from new fractionation/consolidated process intermediates

R&D Approach

• Potential feedstocks considered in the Products Platform are derived from the outputs of the Sugars and Thermochemical Platforms, along with the already-existing outputs of the current biomass industry.

• The basic feedstocks from the Sugars Platform and existing biomass industry include C5 and C6 sugars, lignin, oil, and protein. The feedstocks from the Thermochemical Platform include syngas and pyrolysis oils

• Within the barrier hierarchy for transportation fuels there are two major technical elements that need to be addressed to reduce the cost of liquid transportation fuels

• The MYPP outlines the specific research needs within each barrier that need to be addressed to meet the established economic target.

R&D Portfolio for Fuels

Project Title Barrier Addressing

Yeast/Strain Fundamentals – Arjun Singh/Min Zhang, NREL (formerly known as “Development of L-Arabinose Fermenting Yeast - NCGA Arabinose Yeast CRADA Project”)

Biological/Organism Development

Engineering Thermotolerant Biocatalysts for Biomass Conversion to Products – Dr. K.T. Shanmugam, University of Florida


EARMARKS related to Fuels

Center for Catalysis, Iowa State – Dr. Victor Lin, Iowa State University

New Biodiesel Feedstocks**

Energy from Biomass Research and Technology Transfer Program Project – Dorin Schumacher, Consortium for Plant Biotechnology Research, Inc


**Not currently an OBP Pathway

Products Interim Stage Gate ReviewAugust 9-10, 2005

Objectives:• Evaluation of technical progress

• Alignment with program goals, barriers, and milestones

• Plans forward

• Commercialization pathway and any preliminary business plans

20 projects reviewed- 18 funded by DOE/OBP and 2 funded by USDA3 technical areas reviewed: Analysis, Chemicals and Materials, and Fuels.

Review PanelMartha Schlicher, National Corn-to-Ethanol Research Center

John Houghton, USDOE Office of Science

Frances H. Arnold, Cal Tech, Chemical Engineering

Richard J Higgins, Ceramem Corporation

Christopher Guske, Tate and Lyle

New Yeast FundamentalsArjun Singh, NREL

Technical Target – Improved yeast pentose fermentation performance by metabolic pathway and transporter engineering

Critical Issues Addressed in Biocatalyst Development for Lignocellulosic Biomass Conversion to Ethanol

$0.00

$0.50

$1.00

$1.50

$2.00

$2.50

$3.00

ME

SP

[M

inim

um

Eth

an

ol

Sell

ing

Pri

ce]

($/

gal

Eth

an

ol)


Improved Pretreatment

Improved Cellulase Cost& Performance

Lower Feedstock Cost

Mid-Term Technology

Market Target

2004 State of Technology


• Ethanologen tolerant to inhibitors in concentrated hydrolysates (>20% solids)

• High ethanol yield (90% or above)

• Complete fermentation of hexoses and pentoses

• Minimize byproducts

• High productivity (>1 g/g/hr for pentose)

• Efficient sugar transport

• Rapid pentose metabolism

• High ethanol concentration

• >10% (w/w)

• Stable and robust biocatalyst

New Yeast FundamentalsStrengths and Weaknesses

Strengths• Performance targets and metrics identified.• Did give show stoppers and risks and showed what they were.• Threshold for success was a useful way to look at it.• Engineering done on strain was good.

Suggestions and/or Weaknesses• Metrics or data from literature, even though have industry partners.• Two industries out there now claiming to have yeasts working fine.

Therefore, why do we need to continue this in a limited funding scenario?• Success of FY08 solicitation not dependent on this.• Need to do a better job justifying work on arabinose vs. xylose.• Didn’t address competition at all.• Don’t agree with development vs. discovery argument. This is detailed

investigation/exploratory research.• Suggest to have another outside review of the fermentation of 5C sugars

effort to determine what is really important. Need fermentation colloquy updated.

Engineering Thermotolerant Biocatalysts for Biomass Conversion to Products

Dr. K.T. Shanmugam, University of Florida

Technical Target - Construct Novel Thermotolerant Biocatalysts (Second Generation) that Function Optimally with Fungal Cellulases (50°C, pH 5.0) for Ethanol Production from Biomass-derived Sugars

• Simultaneous fermentation of glucose and xylose

• Fermentation duration of <72 h • Cellulase requirement – ~5 FPU/g

cellulose• Development of genetic exchange system• Ethanol yield of >90%• Ethanol concentration in the broth > 4%

Critical Issues Addressed in Biocatalyst Development for Lignocellulosic Biomass Conversion to Ethanol

Future Plans and Partners Involved in Completion

• Replace the lactate pathway with ethanol pathway

• Achieve 90% yield from hexoses and pentoses

• Achieve ethanol titer of 4% or higher

• Reduce fermentation time to 24 h

• Further metabolic engineering and process development, as needed

• Evaluate the biocatalyst at the pilot plant level

Engineering Thermotolerant …Strengths and Weaknesses

Strengths• Thermophile offers good potential to overcome barriers, reduce costs.

• Very good understanding of their competitive position.

• Clear build on their first project.

• Carbon economy is good.

• Use of genomics and sequencing information may lead in the long term to higher upside potential.

• Good critical metrics.

Suggestions and/or Weaknesses• Need to incorporate industry in project to understand their willingness to use

the organism – industrial need.

• Not enough attention to contingencies.

• Need to say more about economics – initial estimates.

• No show stoppers identified (e.g. recombination success, industrial need, getting fermentation times down).

• Goals seem to be optimistic based on resources.

• Need to continue to consider up stream issues (hydrolysate, inhibitors)

Center for CatalysisVictor Lin, Iowa State University

Technical Targets• To construct a catalytic system that will

produce biodiesel from high free fatty acid-containing feedstocks without any pretreatment.

• Explore the feasibility of using ionic hydrogenation to convert glycerin into 1,3-propanediol, a component in polymers.

Future Plans and Partners Involved in Completion

Go/No Go Decision Points• Is cost of catalyst lower than

homogeneous catalyst?• Can the Conversion of Glycerol

process be scaled up?

Partnership with West Central Cooperative• state-of-the-art, 9,000 square foot

facility • 12 million gallons of biodiesel

annually• largest biodiesel plant in the US• Pilot-scale catalyst evaluation • Reaction scale-up • Evaluate process economics for the

glycerol work

Critical Issues Addresed

Biodiesel Catalysts• Synthesis of materials with both general acids and bases.• Identification of optimal catalysts for biodiesel generation

from soybean oil.• Functionalization of the exterior surface of the materials

with catalytic groups for the esterification of free fatty acids.

• Identification of optimal catalysts for making biodiesel from fat.

• Investigation of recyclability of optimal catalysts.

Glycerol Conversion• Optimize the conversion of glycerin• Scale up optimized reaction to a kilogram scale.• Evaluate process economics of the optimized reaction

Center for CatalysisStrengths and Weaknesses

StrengthsFor the two projects presented

• Good quality resulting research of the two presented.

• Total overall potential is good for producing biodiesel.

• Great involvement of commercial entity that is engaged in metrics.

• Willingness to license

• If approach for these two projects is representative for all selected projects, then the technical barriers are well defined with a clear path forward.

• Novel use of silicon chemistry.

Suggestions and/or Weaknesses• Can’t comment on Center for Catalysis process implementation because not presented.• Would like to know more about the other 7 projects – don’t know if the two presented are

representative?• DOE should be included in technical review of the proposed projects (not on the selection

committee)• Limiting it only to Iowa limits the capabilities that could be brought to a center of excellence

since it’s receiving Fed$ not state funds.

For the two projects presented:

• No global show stoppers identified in projects presented.

• Suggest additional validation by other companies

• Is industry partner cost sharing and to what degree?

Energy From Biomass Research and Technology Transfer Program

Dorin Schumacher, CPBR

• Bring together industry, academia, and federal resources to conduct research in plant biotechnology.

• Facilitate technology transfer of the research results.

• Facilitate the commercialization of the results.• Improve the utilization of plants as energy sources.• Facilitate the replacement of petroleum by plant-

based materials.• Create an energy supply that is safer in its effect on

the environment.

Technical Targets Future Plans and Partners Involved in Completion

Consortium for Plant Biotechnology Research• 42 Universities, 12 Affiliated Universities,

and 35 Companies• 88 companies selected to be co-

investors/customers.

Critical Issues AddressedTechnical: Exploratory research is high-risk. Peer review mitigates risk. Equipment reliability: University and Matching company provide equipment.Business: Matching company determines. Market: Matching company determines. Environmental: NEPA review process. Legal: University and matching company handle. Intellectual property: Handled between university and company.

Energy from Biomass…Strengths and Weaknesses

Strengths• Open to all states, universities, and companies.• Cost share significant. Industry/commercial partners upfront.• Scientific scrutiny of technical merit and budgets.• Repeat industrial customers.

Suggestions and/or Weaknesses• Not mission oriented to DOE-OBP. Needs to relate CPBR’s

broad based research so that it is relative to their mission.

• What does research incubator mean?

• Scientific peer review should be open to scrutiny for its rigor.

• DOE should be included in technical review of the proposed projects (not on the selection committee)

• Research results not presented. Success of CPBR unknown. Ultimate commercialization tracks unknown.

Energy From Biomass……Milestones and Metrics

Milestones and Metrics• Most are two-year projects funded one year at a time• Scientific progress report after 6 months• Second year application:

• Scientific progress report for Year One• Objectives for Year Two• Matching company’s evaluation of scientific progress, satisfaction with communication

with PI• Final scientific reports and company metricsQuarterly fiscal monitoring, including expenditures of matching funds

Accomplishments to date (Selected)• Mark Eiteman and Elliot Altman – “A metabolic engineering approach to improve protein

production”• Eric A. Grulke and Jose Collucci - “Ultrasonication for improved biodiesel production”• Sue N. Nokes and Herbert Strobel -“Development of novel technology for in situ

saccharification and biomass conversion”• Galen Suppes, Fu-Hung Hsieh, Rakesh Bajpai - “Highly functional polyols for polyurethanes

derived from vegetable oil”• Kelly A. Rusch, Chandra Theegala, Todd Monroe, and Ioan Negulescu - “Degradation

behavior characteristics of bioplastics”• S.T. Yang - “A spouted bed bioreactor for solid state fermentation to produce enzymes”

Biodiesel Earmarks Overview

OrganizationR&D or Demonstration

NextEnergy Earmark Demonstration

VT Sustainable JOBS Fund Earmark Demonstration

AgraPure Earmark Demonstration

McMinnville Electric System Earmark Demonstration

Mississippi State University Earmark Demonstration

University of Nebraska Earmark Demonstration

Energy & Environmental Research Center Earmark Demonstration

MS Soybean Association Earmark Demonstration

Advanced Carbon Materials Center Earmark Demonstration

University of Minnesota Earmark Demonstration

Total Funding: DOE Portion $6,391,000, matching $2,509,570 Total Project Cost $8,900,570

Pathways Addressed: None – OBP currently does not have an oils platform

Stage Gate Review Comments: A review was held on June 8, 2005 in Golden, Colorado – all ten projects gave a 20 – 30 presentation

Achieving and improving biodiesel standards are a necessity

Meeting was positive and resulted in better communications and will be continued

Summary and Future Work

• Program has several specific projects that are addressing the barriers identified in the multi-year technical plan

• Barriers are identified within each project and progress is monitored project by project to ensure progress towards overall program goals

• Project portfolio is well suited to support the biorefinery concept-several projects are poised for commercial success

• In the future, product specific projects will be rolled up into the biorefinery program

• Core research directed at overcoming major barriers will continue

• Continuation of projects will be based on likelihood of success, commercial potential and availability of funding

• Backup slides

Not all barriers fully addressed

• The program recognizes that it currently has major technology gaps in the area of converting sugars to liquid transportation fuels.

• The primary gaps are in the utilization of five carbon sugars and the overall robustness of available organisms.

• The following is a list of the specific areas of R&D required to meet the goal of reducing the cost of ethanol production by $0.18/gallon.

• Biologically derived production of ethanol• Conversion efficiency

• Pentose utilization• Hydrolysate toxicity• Advanced metabolic engineering tools development• Organism robustness• Separation and purification

• Thermochemical conversion to produce fuels: the primary gaps are in the development of robust catalysts that afford high selectivity to the desired products. The specific research needs to achieve an economically viable fuel is given below. The overall economics are still being developed and will lead to a specific cost target for conversion.

• Chemically derived fuels from pyrolysis oils• New catalyst systems

• Effective catalyst design• Selectivity and yield

• Catalyst lifetime

New Yeast FundamentalsReviewer Comments

Reviewer Comments DOE Requested Responses/Follow up from PI:

• May have a fit but needs a bit better rationalization of the need for this work. Q&A point out they had a yeast colloquy that highlighted needs and requirements and they claimed these haven’t changed.

• Could have used more direct customers on tech advisory versus corn refiners/NCGA only dry grind plants

• What role are partners truly playing (i.e. metrics from published data not industry partners)• Need true commercial partner with biotech expertise• Customers need to be on review panel• What is distinct about their approach versus others?• Reasonable explanation of progress versus plans and performance targets. Would like to have

seen how the performance metrics are being met. Are they 50% on the path to the goal or 30%?

• Need some feedback from the strain development industry on the ability to turn this into a commercial strain and what needs to be done. Not clearly articulated beyond cost and yield

PI Response• No proof justifying industry claims that yeast ferments pentose efficiently - technical hurdles

and issues raised in earlier yeast colloquies still remain• A successful biorefinery will require a robust ethanologen. Our proposed research

compliments other efforts• Past CRADA work with CRA and NCGA, were interested in arabinose because arabinose it is

a significant component of corn fiber and DDGs

Engineering Thermotolerant …Reviewer Comments

Reviewer Comments DOE Requested Responses/Follow up from PI:

• Need to incorporate industry in the project at least understand the willingness to use the organism. Could be a showstopper

• No feedback from industry to justify this approach. However, they have good arguments to justify their approach.

• PI Response

• BC Intl. and Purac have expressed an interest in these organisms for ethanol and lactic acid production, respectively.

• We are working closely with BC Intl. in developing these biocatalysts for biomass to ethanol conversion.

Center for CatalysisReviewer Comments

Reviewer Comments DOE Requested Responses/Follow up from PI:• Can only judge projects presented – would have been nice to see process of overall selection and

review• The specific projects presented here seem to have made good technical progress; however, they did

not refer to quantitative performance milestones aside from economic targets. Difficult to determine how competitive the process was

• Disappointing that it is limited to Iowa State researchers: should solicit best projects for biocatalysis worldwide to be truly worldwide

• Not clear on overall strategy and approach of center• It is uncertain that all of the current and future projects funded by this group are aligned with the goals

of OBP.• The competitiveness of their process with other diesel production methods has to be considered. Their

technical approaches have significant innovation, but the ultimate technical feasibility is still highly questionable.

• Not a clear set of economics using glycerol cost sensitivities although they did acknowledge it. Still in early stages of R&D for getting numbers, but have demonstrated the concept.

• If cannot overcome catalyst operation cost vs basic methanolysis then this will be a problem.• Showstoppers not well addressed. • Dependent on continued DOE funding (earmarks)? Alternatives?

PI Response covered in Poster Session…

Energy from Biomass…Reviewer Comments

Reviewer Comments DOE Requested Responses/Follow up from PI:• Difficult to determine alignment with DOE objectives• Would be good to have DOE a part of review process• Not clear how projects are measured or criteria against which they are measured• (Critical Success Factors and Showstoppers) Not addressed – but assume addressed

by company• What level is DOE funding this program on an annual basis?• It is very important that CPBR systematically track any follow-on R&D, and

commercial development that evolves from the “seed projects” that they have funded.

• Significant cost-sharing by industry members implies that there is both commercial relevance and good technical competence in the projects, and some anecdotal information supporting this point was presented. But was this cherry-picking?

• Hard to obtain info from industry on real applications, but should continue to seek information on that front from industry.

• Said had funding from EPA. Does that mean money from EPA or more earmarks? • Disappointed that didn’t bother to even make slides of the research results. Very

vague quotes of research plans and results. • Presentation so far from the scope of the review that the “project” was difficult to

review.

PI Response covered in Poster Session…

2005 obp biennual peer review summary of fuels effort thomas foust nrel biomass program november 15,...

Documents

products platform rd

biomass restoration

biomass research

ncga biobased products

program elementspathways

thermochemical conversions

gallon of ethanol

fuel products rd agreements