**U.S. Department of Energy**

**Biomass Program Peer Review**

November 14-16, 2005

Arlington, Virginia

![](media/image1.png){width="2.422222222222222in"
height="0.7527777777777778in"}

**Final Report**

Dear Colleagues:

This document summarizes the comments provided by our panels of expert
reviewers at the Office of the Biomass Program Biennial Program Peer
Review, held November 14-16, 2005 in Arlington, VA. The work evaluated
in this document supports Department of Energy Biomass Program and the
results of the review are major inputs used by the Program in making
programmatic and funding decisions for the future. The recommendations
of the panels have been taken into consideration by our Program Manager
and our Technology Managers in the development of work plans for FY 2006
and future years.

We would like to express our sincere appreciation to the members of the
Review Panel. Your diligence and hard work during the review process
resulted in many insightful comments that will help us improve our
Program.

Regards,

Larry Russo

Technology Manager

DOE/EERE Office of the Biomass Program

**Table of Contents:**

1.  Introduction

    1.  Review Design and Evaluation Process

    2.  Lessons Learned

2.  Reviewer Feedback

    1.  Programmatic Review

    2.  Feedstock Infrastructure

        1.  General Platform Comments

        2.  Analysis

        3.  Feedstocks Interface

    3.  Biochemical Conversion

        1.  General Platform Comments

        2.  Analysis

        3.  Targeted Conversion

        4.  Pretreatment & Enzymatic Hydrolysis

        5.  Summary of Processing Integration Effort

    4.  Thermochemical Conversion

        1.  General Platform Comments

        2.  Analysis

        3.  Feed Processing & Handling

        4.  Thermochemical Processing

        5.  Clean-up and Conditioning

    5.  Biobased Products Development

        1.  General Platform Comments

        2.  Analysis

        3.  Chemicals and Materials

        4.  Fuels

    6.  Integrated Biorefineries

        1.  Project Title: Integrated Biorefinery Analysis Task

        2.  Project Title: Integrated Corn-based Biorefinery Project

        3.  Project Title: Making Industrial Bio-Refining Happen!
            Project

        4.  Project Title: Collection, Commercial Processing, and
            Utilization of Corn Stover Project

        5.  Project Title: New Biorefinery Platform Intermediate Project

        6.  Project Title: A Second Generation Dry Mill Project

        7.  Project Title: Advanced Biorefining of Distiller\'s Grain
            and Corn Stover Blends: Pre-Commercialization of a
            Biomass-Derived Process Technology Project

        8.  Project Title: Separation of Corn Fiber and Conversion to
            Fuels and Chemicals: Phase II, Pilot-Scale Operation Project

        9.  Project Title: Demonstration of BLG at Big Island Project

        10. Project Title: Southeast Alaska Ethanol Project

        11. Project Title: City of Gridley Biofuels Project

> Appendix A: Attendee List

**1. Introduction**

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy (EERE) leads the federal government's research,
development, and deployment (RD&D) efforts in energy efficiency. The
EERE Office of the Biomass Program (OBP) strives to strengthen the
nation's energy security by reducing its dependence on foreign oil
through the development of technologies used in the production of
biobased fuels, products and power.

This report includes a summary of comments from the Review Panel at the
OBP Biennial Program Peer Review, held on November 14-16, 2006 in
Arlington, VA. The evaluated portfolio represented approximately 80-90%
of the FY 2005 OBP budget, achieving the EERE budget target for biennial
review.

The objectives of this meeting were as follows:

-   Review and evaluate FY 2004 and 2005 accomplishments and progress,
    including:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   the current goals and ongoing R&D,

-   the effectiveness of the program structure and R&D pathways,

-   the Program's approach to achieving future goals, and

-   progress towards completing goals and objectives.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Provide an opportunity for program participants (the national
    laboratories, industry, and universities) to shape the DOE-sponsored
    R&D portfolio so that the highest priority technical barriers are
    addressed. The meeting also serves to facilitate technology
    transfer.

The opening plenary session on the first day of the review provided an
overview of OBP programmatic structure, organization, goals, and
achievements. Program management gave presentations on the overall
program structure and organization, the strategic approach, R&D
pathways, systems integration, program analysis, and planning. The
Steering Committee was asked to use this information in evaluating the
overall program effectiveness. Programmatic factors that the committee
was asked to evaluate included the management approach that OBP has
designed and implemented to achieve programmatic, economic and technical
goals; the studies and analysis utilized to determine the program
pathways; and the progress made toward meeting the economic and
technical goals. In addition to the Committee evaluations, the audience
was asked to provide comments on the overall effectiveness of the
Program.

The second portion of the meeting was focused on the review of the OBP
R&D portfolio, which was divided into separate sessions by the four
program platforms. For the platforms that conducted interim stage gate
reviews prior to the peer review -- Feedstock Infrastructure,
Biochemical Conversion, Thermochemical Conversion, and Biobased
Products, the platform's research portfolio was presented in multiple
presentations focused on technology development in different task areas.
Reviewers were asked to evaluate the overall performance of these task
areas, judging how the group of projects were managed and integrated
within the platform and whether they supported OBP goals. The Integrated
Biorefinery platform was the only platform to not hold a public stage
gate review prior to the review; the projects in its portfolio were thus
required to provide individual presentations for review. Projects were
evaluated on relevance, approach, and technical accomplishments and
progress.

Smaller projects from each platform that had not previously been
reviewed were presented as posters for the reviewers' evaluation.
Project evaluations conducted in the poster session can be found in
Appendix D. Projects were evaluated on relevance, approach, and
technical accomplishments and progress.

**1.1 Review Design and Evaluation Process**

A total of 19 reviewers participated in the OBP Biennial Program Review
and reviewed a total of 98 projects (including the projects that had
been reviewed in preceding interim stage gate reviews). The reviewers
were asked to provide evaluation forms on both the task area (how a
group of projects was performing) and on the individual projects. The
Steering Committee was asked to evaluate the overall program based on
the information provided during the entire review.

[Programmatic Review Criteria:]{.underline}

The four Steering Committee members were asked to evaluate the overall
program by responding to eight questions on their evaluation form. They
were requested to provide both a numeric score (on a scale of 1 to 5,
with 5 being the highest) and specific comments that supported their
scores.

The questions were as follows:

1.  Is the overall OBP portfolio appropriately balanced to achieve
    program goals? What resources could better OBP's chances at
    achieving their goals: reallocation of funding, increased funding,
    additional analyses, etc?

2.  Are OBP's targets and end goals realistic and logical? What types of
    changes or reorganization could OBP implement to make them more
    realistic?

3.  Is the Program managed in a way that facilitates reaching its
    proposed end goals? What changes would increase the efficiency of
    the Program?

4.  Does OBP measure its progress and external market changes
    efficiently? How could OBP measure these differently?

5.  Does OBP use the right tools to accomplish its end goals? How could
    OBP better accomplish its end goals?

6.  How effectively are the resources leveraged? Is the R&D integration
    among platform sufficient to justify resource allocations?

7.  How would you assess the quality of the program's multi-year
    planning (MYPP)? How could OBP improve its MYPP? (not scored
    numerically)

8.  What area(s) should OBP focus on next? Are there any current areas
    that over- or under- represented? (not scored numerically)

    [Task Area Review Criteria:]{.underline}

A total of 13 technical areas were reviewed at the meeting. The members
were asked to provide numeric scores (on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being
the highest) for four questions on the presented research.

The four questions were:

1.  Are the goals in the Task Area properly prioritized? How could the
    goals be improved to reach the Task Area's potential?

2.  Are the sub-tasks/projects managed in a way that facilitates
    reaching the end goals of the Task? What changes could be made to
    increase management efficiency?

3.  Are the subtasks integrated to help achieve a common Task Objective?

    -   What could be done to improve R&D integration across the Task
        Area?

    -   Do the goals of the sub-tasks/projects support the goals of the
        Task Area?

    -   Are there any outlying sub-tasks/projects that do not seem to
        support the goals of the Task Area?

4.  Are there other strategies that should be pursued to overcome the
    technical barriers of the Task Area that are not currently being
    focusing on? Is there a strategy being focused on that should no
    longer be pursued?

    [Project Evaluation Criteria:]{.underline}

A total of 35 projects were reviewed at the meeting. The members were
asked to provide numeric scores (on a scale of 1 to 4, with 4 being the
highest) for five aspects of the research on their evaluation form.

The five criteria were:

-   Criterion 1: Relevance to overall DOE objectives;

-   Criterion 2: Approach to performing the research and development;

-   Criterion 3: Technical accomplishments and progress toward achieving
    the project and DOE goals;

-   Criterion 4: Technology transfer and collaborations with industry,
    universities, and other laboratories; and

-   Criterion 5: Approach to and relevance of proposed future research.

Reviewers were also asked to provide qualitative comments on the five
research platforms, as well as the specific task areas and individual
projects. These comments, along with the quantitative scores, are
provided in Section 2 of this report.

**1.2 Lessons Learned**

The comments received from various participants at the OBP Biennial
Review, as well as, the OBP planning team's thoughts on the review
process are summarized below:

[Planning]{.underline}

-   The reviewers needed to be given more time to "do their homework"
    prior to the review. Reviewer materials should be given to the
    reviewers at least 3 weeks in advance.

-   More background material on the task areas should have been provided
    to the reviewers, with the specific project detail available
    electronically.

-   Reviewers should have been provided more downtime to adequately
    complete their evaluation while at the review.

-   A post-review plenary session should have been held for the
    reviewers to provide their initial feedback on the platforms and
    overall program. This would have reduced any confusion as to what
    the reviewers were being asked to provide, as well as, providing
    preliminary feedback to the Program.

    [Review]{.underline}

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Do not have the poster sessions at the same time as the oral
    presentations as reviewers missed some of the orals that were of
    interest.

-   Reviewers noted that it would have been helpful to receive a sample
    of a properly completed evaluation showing the detail required.

-   A few reviewers felt like the question and answer period was
    inadequate and should have been extended.

-   A few reviewers would have preferred that all presentations be given
    orally, eliminating the need for the poster session.

-   The presentations needed to show a connection between their work and
    the final goals of the program.

-   Reviewers felt that more time needed to be allotted to the feedstock
    platform.

    [Logistics]{.underline}

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The hotel was great \-- very adequate, but it may be too small as
    the meeting gets larger.

-   The general consensus of the attendees was that the review was well
    run and they benefited by attending.

-   It was suggested that if the attendees are being charged a fee, they
    should be provided a plated lunch.

**2. Reviewer Feedback**

This section details the feedback provided by the reviewers at the
review. Section 2.1 is the evaluation summary of overall Program,
completed by the Steering Committee. The four Steering Committee members
were asked to provide both a numeric score (on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5
being the highest) and specific comments that supported their scores.
Sections 2.2 through 2.5 are the Platform summaries, completed by the
technical reviewers. The members were asked to provide numeric scores
(on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being the highest). Section 2.6 is the
technical reviewer feedback for the individual Integrated Biorefinery
Projects that were presented at the review.

**2.1 Programmatic Review**

  ------------ ----------- --------- ------------ ---------- --------- ------------ ----------
  ** **        Portfolio   Logical   Program      Program    Program   Resource     Program
               Balance     Targets   Management   Measures   Tools     Leveraging   Planning

  **Reviewer   4           4         5            4          4         5            N/A
  1**                                                                               

  **Reviewer   3           3         4            3          N/A       4            4
  2**                                                                               

  **Reviewer   3           4         4            4          3         3            4
  3**                                                                               

  **Reviewer   N/A         N/A       N/A          N/A        N/A       N/A          N/A
  4**                                                                               
  ------------ ----------- --------- ------------ ---------- --------- ------------ ----------

**Question 1:** *Is the overall OBP portfolio appropriately balanced to
achieve Program goals? What resources could better OBP's chances at
achieving their goals: reallocation of funding, increased funding,
additional analyses, etc?* **(Scores: 4, 3, 3)**

-   Funding is insufficient. This is a key portion of our national
    energy mix. It is Green House Gas neutral for incremental energy and
    GHG positive for displacement of fossil fuels. Additional R&D should
    be placed on pyrolysis oils and oil upgrading. This path (if the oil
    can be stabilized and upgraded) may bypass the gasification clean-up
    issue.

-   The basis for the economic analysis on capital charges is not
    compatible with industry standards. The 10% IRR is low and will give
    a false sense of final prices.

-   Looking across the program matrix, I think the program is balanced
    appropriately in terms of resource allocation at the
    pathway/platform level. I also feel that within all the platforms
    the resources allocation is appropriate. However, in the feedstock
    platform I think the platform might benefit by allocating some
    resources to look at the infrastructure/system that will be
    necessary to move and store very large amounts of biomass. The
    current focus in harvesting and storage is fine, but I think the
    quantities of material to be brought to a conversion facility will
    require a rethink about infrastructure.

-   Understanding program balance would be facilitated by a "risk and
    rewards" statement\
    and program timetable focused on the goals from each program element
    e.g., "to reduce liquid petroleum fuel consumption by XX million
    gallons by XXXX through the use of a biofuel or to reduce the cost
    of bio sugars to \$0.07 by 2012. This followed by a "state of the
    program statement" will orient participants to the focus of each
    element and its current performance against completion milestones.

-   Program is under-funded. The platforms complement each other. More
    sharing between the platforms would be good -- Intellectual
    Properties (IP) is a necessary evil in this arena.

**Question 2:** *Are OBP's targets and end goals realistic and logical?
What types of changes or reorganization could OBP implement to make them
more realistic?* **(Scores: 4, 3, 4)**

-   End goals are positive.

-   Bringing in industry gives good checks to R&D direction. However,
    economics (cost of capital) needs to be based on industry standards
    \[15% IRR after tax or 70% debt, 30% equity with a debt service
    overate ration of 1.5 to 2.0\].

-   Gate reviews need to address where the specific projects fit in the
    overall picture.

-   Based on my experience gained during 20 years in Canadian
    biomass/bioenergy, I agree completely with the logic of OBP\'s
    targets and end goals. They are also realistic in terms of
    ultimately being \"doable" but source anticipated achievement dates
    may be a bit aggressive. I think this latter comment applies to
    thermochemical particularly which has been aggressively researched
    for many years but still seems disappointingly far from
    commercialization - particularly producing syngas as a chemical
    intermediate.

-   Internal check pointing in the technical programs does an excellent
    job of self-evaluation of the technical aspects of the undertaking.
    They do not address the economic value or the timeliness of the
    particular undertaking or its relationship to other competing or
    complimentary efforts.

-   Macro efforts also overlook simpler intermediate steps i.e.
    modifying current combines to capture corn cobs is an easier
    solution to capturing more high value biomass than reworking the
    existing harvest system and demands a much lower investment in
    capture and transportation techniques.

-   The goals are realistic assuming the funding and/or government
    incentives are there. The pathways make sense, near-term focus on
    wet/dry mills is good.

**Question 3:** *Is the Program managed in a way that facilitates
reaching its proposed end goals? What changes would increase the
efficiency of the Program?* **(Scores: 5, 4, 4)**

-   The limited funds are a problem. Without additional funds, the
    program needs to concentrate its resources in areas where industry
    can support the work.

-   In my opinion, program management is excellent. The management
    structure/system is logical and thorough and the program staff
    dedicated and well qualified. The program openness to public
    scrutiny and participation is something I find particularly
    refreshing. No suggested changes.

-   Specific internal program controls appear adequate. Overall control
    would improve by evaluating performance to date against program
    timelines expected tech progress and the availability of new or
    complimentary technology.

-   The program management is good. The effort to bring industry &
    financial specialists into the Program should continue. Focusing on
    an integrated bio-refinery is excellent.

**Question 4:** *Does OBP measure its progress and external market
changes efficiently? How could OBP measure these differently?*
**(Scores: 4, 3, 4)**

-   Long-term goals such as ethanol at \$1.07 in 2020 are good. However,
    you need to revisit what to do with C5 sugars. Is ethanol the right
    answer or are other pathways more important. Also should more
    emphasis be placed on oils (via pyrolysis or indirect gasification
    (RTI) for direct substitution in the current system?

-   The measurement of progress and external market changes is handled
    quite efficiently by OBP. The analysis task/activity input to R&D
    activities as a means of ensuring that the R&D is consistent with
    current or projected markets is appropriate. No suggested changes.

-   Good internal controls. Inadequate targets and timelines to direct
    overall program management i.e. "1+ billion tons of biomass
    available for bioenergy and bioproducts" When? At what cost per
    unit? Are we doing this because we can or because it makes sense?
    Long-term viability of this approach/technology? Is it a durable
    long-term solution or an intermediate step to be replaced by new
    technology or approaches when available? Is this approach compatible
    with the existing order or will it require disruptive change for
    other key players in the product chain? Are the other players
    supportive or hostile? Can they help or hurt our effort(s)?

-   Other than an updated financial model, the tools to measure progress
    seem on track.

**Question 5:** *Does OBP use the right tools to accomplish its end
goals? How could OBP better accomplish its end goals?* **(Scores: 4,
3)**

-   OBP needs to modify its capital recovery criteria to sit more inline
    with industry to accurately define its end point. This may change
    the emphasis of some work. That said, the program is well laid out.
    However, more funds are needed.

-   The tools currently used are fully appropriate; however, I feel
    given to an integrating/outreach activity that seeks to more fully
    coordinate and lever OBP activities with analogous programs in other
    federal departments, particularly USDA, and state programs. My
    impression as an outsider is that the program is very DOE-centric.

-   Key reality tests should be incorporated. Will biofuel technology
    advance to the place that tax subsidies can be replaced by market
    economics? At what fuel and biofuel price will this happen? When, if
    ever? Answers to those issues will provide a natural management tool
    for the funding and direction of the program and might even help in
    containing the earmark problem.

-   The system integration is an enormous undertaking, but it is moving
    in the right direction. Two people are not enough to give it a
    realistic chance.

-   The financial model needs some tweaking to reflect the real market.

**Question 6:** *How effectively are the resources leveraged? Is the R&D
integration among platforms sufficient to justify resource allocations?*
**(Scores: 5, 4, 3)**

-   C5 sugar use, other than ethanol.

-   Pyrolysis oils - if they can be upgraded

-   Early concentration on already colleted ag residues (corn cobs, rice
    hulls, cotton gin, etc) to bring the price of the products down.

-   Biodiesel - use waste fatty acids

-   From the information contained in the presentations, it is my
    opinion that resources are effectively leveraged and that the
    leverage is consistent with the state of maturity of the technology.
    The meaning of the second question is unclear, but my assumption is
    that \"justify\" can be considered to mean \"support\". If this is
    the case, my response is a simple \"yea\". I heard no problem
    assessing R&D integration among or between platforms or along
    pathways.

-   With the alternative energy area maturing and winning increased
    acceptance, EERE has successfully addressed or anticipated a number
    of impediments to continued growth i.e. finding an economic use for
    the excess glycerin produced with biodiesel. That foresight seems to
    run through the program, but some additional attention should be
    focused on storage and transportation issues to support the
    migration of the fuel production business from petroleum refiners to
    agricultural processors.

-   A balance between spending a lot of resources on heavy research and
    funding a near-term winner is mandatory, i.e. the corn cob instead
    of all of the stover.

**Question 7:** *How would you assess the quality of the program's
multi-year planning (MYPP)? How could OBP improve its MYPP?* **(Scores:
4, 4)**

-   1\) Better integration between the platforms and better knowledge of
    what is going on in industry so as to be complementary helps.\
    2) The systems integration pieces is very positive

-   I don\'t feel that I have had long enough exposure to the program at
    the level of detail required to assign a numerical rating or suggest
    improvements to the planning process.

-   With the alternative energy area maturing and winning increased
    acceptance, EERE has successfully addressed or anticipated a number
    of impediments to continued growth i.e. finding an economic use for
    the excess glycerin produced with biodiesel. That foresight seems to
    run through the program, but some additional attention should be
    focused on storage and transportation issues to support the
    migration of the fuel production business fro petroleum refiners to
    agricultural processors.

-   The organization and planning are very good - the more diverse the
    evaluators and advisors the better.

**Question 8:** *What area(s) should OBP focus on next? Are there any
current areas that are over- or under-represented?*

-   The general direction is good. Off ramps need to critically reviewed
    to redirect funds to more promising work.

-   In terms of other areas on which to focus, I would suggest 1) the
    use of municipal solid waste (MSW) as a feedstock and 2) anaerobic
    digestion. Not withstanding that the primary mandate for these may
    reside outside DOE, I feel they should be given serious
    consideration for inclusion, at least in part. I realize anaerobic
    digestion (AD) is not considered economic purely from the
    perspective of energy; however, when environmental factors are
    included in the analysis, the analysis may indicate otherwise. It
    would be interesting to look at the contribution AD could make to
    the overall economic viability of certain biorefinery
    configurations.

-   The hydrogen economy is a distant dream! The problems in the Middle
    East and our present energy infrastructure are real and immediate.
    How soon can EERE help bridge that gap? What can be done to
    accelerate that process? Will that approach contribute to an
    integrated efficient bioproduct industry or will it lead to a highly
    fractionated, inefficient industry with competing rather than
    complementary goals?

-   More focus on C5 pathways (other than EtOH)

-   Focus specifically on a technical & financial balance i.e. corn cob
    to ethanol, continue R&D on other ag waste, but funding this looks
    like a great chance to have a winner sooner than later.

-   Funding work in pulp and paper (P&P) that extracts the hemicellulose
    and converts to another product is worth pursuing. P&P should be
    carrying the bulk of the black liquor gasification, not D&E.

-   Not much work in pyrolysis - seems like a realistic pathway to
    liquid fuels.

**2.2 Feedstock Infrastructure**

[2.2.1 General Platform Evaluation Summary:]{.underline}

  ------------ ------------- ------------ ------------ ---------------- ---------------
  ** **        Platform      Program      Platform     Effectiveness\   Effectiveness
               Performance   Relevance    Management   (barriers)       (goals)

  **Reviewer   4             4            3            4                4
  1**                                                                   

  **Reviewer   4             4            3            2                3
  2**                                                                   

  **Reviewer   3.5           3            3            4                4
  3**                                                                   
  ------------ ------------- ------------ ------------ ---------------- ---------------

Platform Performance: (**Scores: 4,4,3.5**)

-   More emphasis on existing woody biomass/forest thinnings and
    residues is needed. This is a huge biomass resource that is already
    available below the projected current costs of biomass in many
    regions, and the pulp and paper industry is in the process of moving
    partially to South America.

-   The platform is operating well within the funding limits imposed by
    the budget and earmarks present.

-   Funds should be considered for integrating modeling activities
    within other platforms. This need/opportunity was especially evident
    during the integrated biorefinery discussion.

-   The current performance could be enhanced by Canadian partnership
    funding due to come into the modeling activity this fiscal year.
    These funds are targeted to dry land cereal harvest systems
    initially. This should help fill a gap in the US program in this
    area.

-   Sensitivity of feedstock costs versus annual collection volume could
    be included in the analysis.

-   As this area combines energy conversion, agronomy, and economics it
    struggles with communication between disciplines. Needs to work with
    the alternate fuel sources study and Chariton Valley to validate
    models. Needs a site to dig in collecting various types of biomass
    test price point reactions, supply logistics model verifications.
    Pilot plant non commercial scale.

Program Relevance: (**Scores: 4,4,3**)

-   All projects address the programs goals. Funding has obviously
    limited the scope of the work. However feedstock related activities
    in other platforms, most notably the biorefinery platform, as noted
    above could be accounted for within this platform.

-   All of them had some relation to goals and seemed to add on to
    comply with goals. Some were to advanced to provide immediate
    results.

Platform Management: (**Scores: 3,3,3**)

-   This platform deserves a greater proportion of total funds than it
    is currently receiving, relative to conversion technologies,
    especially recognizing the diversity of feedstocks, climates,
    regions, and the many environmental implications. It is well known
    that feedstock supply is almost always the most formidable element
    of a system that processes large volumes of biomass (consider the
    sugar cane and pulp and paper industries as models).

-   Feedstock platform activities within other platforms should at least
    be acknowledged within this platform, so that information and data
    can be better managed and shared. Current state of information
    transfer between platforms containing feedstock interests,
    activities and information limits the effectiveness of management of
    this platform.

-   All the base-line data collection and modeling is good but you need
    a biorefinery to test supply assumptions price response and allow
    innovation to occur to meet biorefinery needs.

Platform Effectiveness (approach to overcoming technical barriers):
(**Scores: 4,2,4**)

-   Seems like leaders of different projects do not meet to explore
    opportunities to coordinate different projects. This would likely
    improve integration of projects

-   Funding definitely limits effectiveness and integration.

-   Evidence of lack of data sharing evident during other platform
    presentations.

-   Lack of GHG and energy analysis during the discussion raises doubts
    about the rigor of some of the analysis. This work, in combination
    with an inventory activity, should be considered to assist with the
    development of appropriate policy and support.

-   There needs to be a more apparent focus on returns to producers or
    at least to rural communities.

-   Feedstock leaders and managers need to be involved in all of the
    other 3 platform discussions.

-   Need to continue validating models-these models are key to future
    commercialization.

Platform Effectiveness (towards addressing Program goals): (**Scores:
4,3,4**)

-   Goals need to be expanded to include a greater range of feedstocks
    and geographical regions

-   Funding limits activities.

-   Wood needs to be included in the analysis because of the move of
    pulp and paper to offshore and the subsequent expected availability
    of this feedstock for bioenergy or biomaterial uses.

-   Eco-cluster activity should be considered to examine synergies
    between biomass opportunities.

-   Let go of input cost per ton. If a prototype conversion plant is
    built, the feedstock program can be tested to delivery more than
    paper studies and computer simulations.

On-going Work to be Aware of:

-   The platform leaders have been made aware of some of the Canadian
    activities that will support USDA/DOE interests in the platform.

-   It seems members of this platform are aware of all of most of work
    globally.

Additional Technical Barriers:

-   Inadequate attention given to storage and to total feedstock supply
    system development for various size plants.

-   An inventory activity needs to be supported along with the modeling
    to facilitate field evaluation, GHG and LCA analysis and
    exploitation of the information.

-   I would like to see more work done on waste wood.

[2.2.2 Analysis Task Area:]{.underline}

Presenter: Shahab Sokhanasanj

Performance:

-   Greater emphasis needs to be placed on storage of feedstocks. Also,
    more field verification of models is needed.

-   The program places the appropriate priority on the feedstock types.

-   Model development is an excellent integrator of the information
    under development within the field related task.

-   Integration with inventory activities and the model should be
    considered.

-   More money; the work done to date was critical to build on. Models &
    Date built will need multiyear validation. Inventory work will have
    to be refined regularly as well.

Management:

-   Seems like management cannot be very efficient with the physical
    separation of the task area leader from the research sites.

-   Improved connection to the conversion and biorefinery activities
    should be considered when funds are available.

-   Wood systems need to be added given the potential for this material
    as wood fiber industries close and move their production offshore.

-   The economic analysis needs to state that its pricing is based on
    constant dollars, likely 2001 US Dollars. Otherwise, the results are
    meaningless and unclear. This leadership could then be used to
    facilitate oranges to oranges analysis between feedstocks,
    conversion systems, and platforms.

-   Looks as if they are concentrating on crop residues at this time and
    preprocessing. I believe this appears to be appropriate. Some of the
    results will change as they test different crop years, moisture
    contents, and crop types.

Project Integration:

-   Connection to feedstock field activities should be strengthened
    between this task area and other platforms/task areas.

-   The sub-tasks definitely support the overall task area goals. No
    outlying activities were evident during the review.

-   Such a big job-just keep filling holes. Integration can be done when
    more data available. Money seems low for this but not serious to
    worry about.

Additional Strategies:

-   Seems like more emphasis could be given to field chopping. When
    asked about this, answers about this being an energy intensive
    operation were vague. The real question is whether or not it pays,
    and what the capital cost of the needed equipment is. Our experience
    suggests that this is a real option. If it were not, why is it so
    widely used in the forage industry?

-   Energy and GHG LCA information needs to be collected and included in
    the IBSAL model once the systems are developed in this platform and
    in other platforms.

-   Specific requirements concerning moisture, size, volume, etc. needs
    to be transferred from the conversion platforms back to the
    feedstock platform. This may be occurring, but limited time was not
    available for questions or presentation information on this concern

-   They have built some great tools that will need constant
    verification to be useful to future businesses. Build a biomass
    standard or measure quality for various applications, define quality
    criteria to different conversion systems. \*\*Preprocessing is a
    good concept that does not seem to add value to the biomass
    (\$30/ton). The \$30 by 30 number seems to be hard wired into the
    system. Tons produced levels off, which scares feedstock suppliers.
    Biomass products are highly variable, and vary field to field and
    year to year. Will have to do some tests for several years running
    to confirm the good work already done.

[2.2.3 Feedstock Interface:]{.underline}

Presenter: Richard Hess

  ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- -----------------
  ** **             Performance       Management        Project
                                                        Integration

  **Reviewer 1**    4                 4                 4

  **Reviewer 2**    4                 4                 3

  **Reviewer 3**    4                 4                 4
  ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- -----------------

Performance:

-   Greater emphasis needs to be placed on storage of feedstocks.

-   The program is well adapted to the circumstances within Idaho. Work
    may need to be done to export the concepts to dryland cereal
    regions/systems.

-   Pre-processing work will likely impact the system design as well

-   A wide area to cover, just keep moving along and fill holes. Needs
    bigger budget. Good progress must continue but repeat tests on
    future years and agricultural residues.

Management:

-   Enhanced interaction with the IBSAL model effort and other feedstock
    activities occurring within other platforms should be encouraged
    if/when funding is available.

-   Integration of wet & dry feedstock systems should be evaluated.
    Access to multiple feedstock types/sources lowers the price risk to
    a conversion interest as well as increasing the amount of feedstock
    accessible within a close radius to that interest.

-   I think they are doing great. Spread out sample trials and replicate
    to make sure the results are consistent. This is critical data to
    build on and should answer some questions to give future businesses
    confidence to invest.

Project Integration:

-   Connection to similar feedstock activities should be strengthened
    between this task area and other platforms/task areas.

-   Time did not allow for full disclosure of communication between the
    modeling and field efforts within the feedstock platform. Therefore,
    recommend that management simply ensure this information is
    transferred.

-   They appear to be working hard at this. Keep the pressure on to keep
    the high level of integration.

-   Yes, I am sure they are developing more as knowledge advances.

-   I didn't see or read them all but projects all look solid.

Additional Strategies:

-   Seems like more emphasis could be given to field chopping. When
    asked about this, answers about this being an energy intensive
    operation were vague. The real question is whether or not it pays,
    and what the capital cost of the needed equipment is. Our experience
    suggests that this is a real option. If it were not, why is it so
    widely used in the forage industry?

-   Energy and GHG LCA information needs to be collected once the
    systems are developed.

-   Specific requirements concerning moisture, size, volume, etc. needs
    to be transferred from the conversion platforms back to the
    feedstock platform. This may be occurring, but limited time was not
    available for questions or presentation information on this concern.

    -   Build a prototype biorefinery to a feed.

**2.3 Biochemical Conversion**

[2.3.1 General Platform Evaluation Summary:]{.underline}

  ------------ ------------- ----------- ------------ ---------------- ---------------
  ** **        Platform      Program     Platform     Effectiveness\   Effectiveness
               Performance   Relevance   Management   (barriers)       (goals)

  **Reviewer   4             N/A         N/A          4                5
  1**                                                                  

  **Reviewer   3             4           4            3                5
  2**                                                                  

  **Reviewer   N/A           5           5            N/A              N/A
  3**                                                                  
  ------------ ------------- ----------- ------------ ---------------- ---------------

Platform Performance: (Scores: 4,3,-)

-   The "value" of this program is to "knit" together the various
    activities at National Labs, universities, and industry.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Most of the presentation times focused on the activities at the
    National Labs. This is understandable; researchers want to tout the
    value of their contribution. The individual NREL presenters did
    document collaboration with certain colleagues at universities and
    in industry. These collaborations are a strength, and in a period of
    declining budget, they will be increasing importance. How many
    faculty visit the National labs for study leaves? How many students
    intern there? How many industrial teams used the pilot plant
    facilities, and some of the very expensive laboratory equipment, at
    the National labs? This reviewer had trouble finding this data in
    the presentations. It is a positive contribution by this Platform
    \-\-- lets see it lifted and emphasized.

-   The platform appears to be performing well. Tools such as systems
    integration and project management are in place. However the review
    was at a rather low level of detail. It is difficult to know whether
    previous established targets have been met. The emphasis of the
    review was on future activities and current tools and programs.

-   I suggest that the next review focus on the degree of achievement of
    milestones and objectives.

Program Relevance: (Scores: -,4,5)

-   These comments do not address "projects" but the "goals".
    Continuously, not only this Platform but others as well, feedstock
    cost was listed as a "Major General Barrier". U.S. agriculture has
    mature technologies for collecting biomass from the projection
    fields (combines for grain, cotton pickers for cotton, balers for
    hay, forage chopper for silage). The labor productivity of these
    machines is extraordinary. *We know how to collect biomass from the
    fields!* The ag. equipment industry is making incremental
    improvements to their mature technology. There is very limited
    opportunity to make cost reductions. There is some opportunity to
    improve handling (and thus reduce cost). As the pre-processing plant
    concept is accepted, there is increased opportunity to learn how to
    optimize handling. The result of these studies will be a realistic
    estimate of how much feedstock cost can be reduced from the current
    estimated cost of \$60 to 70/ton delivered to a conversion plant.

-   There are no outlying projects. It does seem that the pathways of
    corn wet and dry milling are somewhat removed from the goal of
    processing 1B tons per year of lignocellulosics.

-   Goals are clear and well stated. Priorities appear to support the
    goals. Here it would be helpful to have the probability of success
    stated. It appears that work is aligned to maximize the forward
    progress. The team responds to suggestions and incorporates the
    changes reflecting technical reviewers other.

Platform Management: (Scores: -,4,5)

-   None.

-   I believe all the tools are there but the performance was hard to
    judge at this review. Management is a large word and includes key
    aspects such as recruiting and retention of scientists, as well as
    motivating performance. This was not discussed.

Platform Effectiveness (approach to overcoming technical barriers):
(Scores: 4,3,-)

-   R&D Integration

-   Increased integration with the Feedstock Platform is needed now that
    the "pre-processing plant" concept has emerged. It can be envisioned
    that the pre-processing plant will do one or more of the following
    unit operations: cleaning, size reduction, grading, densification,
    pre-treatment (maybe steam explosion and densification) to achieve a
    higher value product per unit volume of transport. Cost at the
    conversion plant gate will increase but so will the feedstock value.
    System integration is of increasing importance. Statements like,
    "Operation of the receiving facility is estimated to cost \$4/ton so
    we reduced the feedstock target from \$35 to 31/ton", are
    inappropriate. The team (Feedstock Platform and Biochemical
    Platform) exists to solve the problem, not stand at boundaries and
    toss targets at each other.

-   It is important to ensure that we are not duplicating work done by
    others. We have to avoid the "not invented here" syndrome. Other key
    research is being done throughout the world.

-   Also-managing a group of researchers from around the country is a
    distinct challenge. It might be useful to create metrics for how
    this is going.

Platform Effectiveness (towards addressing Program goals): (Scores:
5,5,-)

-   Based on my observation of the review presentations, all work is
    relevant.

-   The Platform goals support the Program goals.

On-going Work to be Aware of:

-   There is work where the biomass is gasified and the "smoke" is the
    carbon source for an organism that produces ethanol. The Platform
    may have studied this approach and rejected it. Gasification
    certainly reduces all structure.

-   Are yields just too low?

-   It would be useful to consider the wet oxidation of biomass to
    generate sugars in the manner of some Danish researchers.

-   Anaerobic digestion of process residues to provide energy for the
    ethanol production might be an alternative to F-T syngas production

Additional Technical Barriers:

-   Some areas for consideration are overall water use, waste treatment,
    environmental impact analysis and mitigation.

[2.3.2 Analysis Task Area:]{.underline}

Presenter: Kelly Ibsen

  ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- -----------------
  ** **             Performance       Management        Project
                                                        Integration

  **Reviewer 1**    4                 3                 5

  **Reviewer 2**    3                 3                 3

  **Reviewer 3**    5                 5                 N/A
  ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- -----------------

Performance:

-   Goals should be prioritized to get the maximum return for the
    dollars available. As best as I can discern, this is being done.
    Some cost estimates have more uncertainty than others. This would be
    useful information to have in a presentation like this. For example,
    if a pre-treatment step is being done on a commercial scale, the
    cost is well-defined by that experience. The analysis can spend less
    time on this cost category.

-   Not enough money is available to do all the analyses needed.
    Technology research is getting ahead of the ability to a analyze it.

-   Goals are clearly outlined, priorities are aligned to meet the
    goals, barriers (They should be called "hurdles," barriers imply
    exclusion) are clearly identified and progress toward goals are
    clearly and credibly demonstrated.

Management:

-   It is my view that the analyst needs to function like an "Inspector
    General", and the manager should understand and support this. The
    analyst must press and ask the hard questions to keep the whole
    Platform grounded. No hyped claims \-\-- just the facts, and a best
    guess of the certainty of these facts. This management may already
    be in place. Researchers will always hype the importance of their
    contribution \-\-- this is human nature. My research is always vital
    and important until someone asks me the hard questions.

-   This Task is a support function. The presentations focused on the
    program goals. No evidence of the management of [this]{.underline}
    Task was presented.

-   Good integration across task areas, good use of economic model to
    keep project on target. However, the Dupont presentation indicates
    that they may have achieved some targets already, and perhaps NREL
    should integrate with their (DuPont) information where possible. If
    DuPont has succeeded in achieving high conversions and solids, NREL
    may have a supportive role if reasonable access can be negotiated.

Project Integration:

-   I simply want to reiterate a point made in the overall platform
    evaluation. The strength of the Office of Biomass Program is the
    opportunity to integrate the efforts across the country, not only at
    the National Labs but also universities and industry. At one point,
    the presenter of this task responded to a question by saying the
    Feedstock Platform had supplied, or had not supplied certain data.
    Remember the other sources and use them. More staff positions would
    make this admonition easier to implement. I am sensitive to this
    limitation. One example on how to use other sources \-\-- there is a
    commercial hay company in Virginia that harvests 2000 ac/y.
    Operating data from this company is real, on-the-ground data, and is
    very valuable in accessing costs for a biomass producer growing
    perennial grass as a feedstock for a conversion plant. Find these
    sources and use them. I complement this platform for more
    integration with the Feedstock Platform than any other Platform.

-   Not enough detail was provided for this reviewer to comment on the
    effectiveness of this function. The budget for this task is very low
    \~1 person/year.

Additional Strategies:

-   None with current limited staffing.

-   I would like to see some examples of the analyses performed, i.e.
    the outputs of this position. The progress of the other tasks could
    be left to others.

    [2.3.3 Target Conversion Effort:]{.underline}

Presenter: Mike Himmel

  ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- -----------------
  ** **             Performance       Management        Project
                                                        Integration

  **Reviewer 1**    5                 4                 5

  **Reviewer 2**    5                 5                 5

  **Reviewer 3**    5                 5                 N/A
  ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- -----------------

Performance:

-   Do not have a broad enough knowledge base to comment. The
    sophistication of the science presented was impressive. I learned a
    lot.

-   The primary goal of overcoming the recalcitrance of biomass is the
    most important goal in the hydrolysis and fermentation of biomass.

-   Goals and priorities are well aligned. Mike is probing deep and
    elucidating barriers on a fundamental basis. This may result in
    changing priorities from time to time, but that is the way of truly
    fundamental research.

Management:

-   Corn stover can be chopped such that the leaf can be separated from
    the stalk. The ultimate mechanical separation technology is found in
    the cotton ginning industry. Tiny pieces of leaf, stem and dirt are
    separated from the cotton fiber. If this type of separation needs to
    be done with corn stover, it can be done. There is a cost and this
    cost must be balanced against any pre-treatment benefit. Management
    should encourage the ultimate exploration of this interaction, and I
    expect plans are already in place to do so.

-   Task leaders have been appointed for each subtask. New microscope
    tools have been acquired. Partners include three industry reps.

-   Good use of contractors and new instrumentation. Managed very well
    to reach the goals. This is really plowing new ground and can't be
    managed as a typical project.

Project Integration:

-   Activities appear to be well integrated. I simply restate my
    continuing theme that the analyst must be supplied with good
    performance estimates so that an accurate score card on platform
    progress can be maintained. Yes, the new knowledge is an important
    result. Yes, it will contribute to society's needs at some point in
    the future. However, this program is narrowly focused on the ethanol
    from lignocellulosic feedstock goals.

-   Well integrated. No extraneous tasks.

Additional Strategies:

-   None.

    [2.3.4 Pretreatment & Enzymatic Hydrolysis Effort:]{.underline}

Presenter: Rick Elander

  ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- -----------------
  ** **             Performance       Management        Project
                                                        Integration

  **Reviewer 1**    5                 4                 5

  **Reviewer 2**    4                 4                 5

  **Reviewer 3**    5                 4                 N/A
  ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- -----------------

Performance:

-   Broad-based effort which addresses a very significant barrier. I am
    impressed with the activities reported on.

-   Will we be able to avoid one of the more severe, and thus more
    costly, pretreatments? It certainly is important to work toward this
    goal.

-   The goals are listed but not prioritized.

-   Goals are well structured and priorities aligned to meet the
    targets. Managing a number of sub-tasks and keeping them integrated
    to move project forward.

Management:

-   I specifically acknowledge the research that directly examines cell
    wall components. I was also very impressed with the organization and
    management of the Consortium on Applied Fundamentals and Innovation.
    This is a model for a Consortium that might be organized in the
    Feedstock Platform as well.

-   Partners and budget are described. Management is not really
    mentioned. The interim Stage Gate review was carried out with no
    major criticisms. As previously mentioned in another evaluation,
    management is a very large function.

-   Recruiting, motivating and retaining staff as well as performance
    evaluation are all critical parts of management.

-   Good job shown of managing a number of sub-tasks and keeping them
    tied together. Good use of economic modeling to manage tasks and
    prioritize to achieve targets. May need to re-evaluate in light of
    DuPont success with conversion.

Project Integration:

-   Integration of efforts at NREL, Genencor, and Novozymes is
    impressive. Also, the integration of efforts in CAFI project is very
    impressive.

-   Integration is described in the presentation as "highly integrated".
    It's difficult to know at such a high level meeting whether this is
    taking place. The tools are there.

Additional Strategies:

-   I realize that due to lack of funding not all projects can go
    forward. At this point there is no work on wheat straw even though
    two proponents are preparing to build demo plants based on this
    feedstock.

-   A lot of work has previously been done on pretreatment and
    hydrolysis. It would be nice to situate current work in the context
    of what has already been done. What is different now that will
    ensure success?

-   A schedule is outlined in the document in the reviewer's handbook
    ("Integration of Leading Biomass....etc). Some of the dates
    mentioned have passed and it's not clear whether the milestones were
    met.

-   I think more attention should be paid to analyzing progress based on
    previously stated milestones to ensure that we don't have
    unrealistic expectations.

    [2.3.5 Process Integration Effort:]{.underline}

Presenter: Dan Schnell

  ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- -----------------
  ** **             Performance       Management        Project
                                                        Integration

  **Reviewer 1**    5                 4                 5

  **Reviewer 2**    4                 4                 5

  **Reviewer 3**    5                 4                 N/A
  ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- -----------------

Performance:

-   Broad-based effort which addresses a very significant barrier. I am
    impressed with the activities reported on.

-   Will we be able to avoid one of the more severe, and thus more
    costly, pretreatments? It certainly is important to work toward this
    goal.

-   The goals are listed but not prioritized.

-   Goals appear to be properly prioritized. Good grasp of what needs to
    be done to achieve target. Good awareness of pitfalls and barriers.

Management:

-   I specifically acknowledge the research that directly examines cell
    wall components. Organization of the Biomass Surface
    Characterization Laboratory (BSCL) for use by several Task Areas in
    a very positive step forward.

-   As stated previously it is uncertain how well the projects are being
    managed. Only a broad brush was used to describe this task. A
    stage-gate review was held that supported the program.

-   May need to address the mass balance delta more vigorously, and set
    a higher priority on what the inhibitors are. Overall, project is
    managed well; if possible, work more closely with DuPont to see what
    complimentary information can be negotiated.

Project Integration:

-   Integration of the work on reactor design . . . using computational
    fluid dynamics was not explained as well. It was not clear (maybe a
    deficiency of this reviewer) why this work is needed at this time.
    This question was answered later by an explanation of mass transfer
    limitations in high-solids stirred tank reactors.

-   These are good sub-tasks and they are necessary for achieving the
    Task goal.

Additional Strategies:

-   Ultimately, attention needs to be paid to water minimization, waste
    water treatment, water and air emissions. LCA is important from a
    public perception point of view.

**2.4 Thermochemical Conversion**

[2.4.1 General Platform Evaluation Summary:]{.underline}

  ------------ ------------- ----------- ------------ ---------------- ---------------
  ** **        Platform      Program     Platform     Effectiveness\   Effectiveness
               Performance   Relevance   Management   (barriers)       (goals)

  **Reviewer   3             4           5            4                3
  1**                                                                  

  **Reviewer   4             4           4            4                5
  2**                                                                  

  **Reviewer   3.5           3.5         3.5          3                3.5
  3**                                                                  
  ------------ ------------- ----------- ------------ ---------------- ---------------

Platform Performance: (Scores: 3,4,3.5)

-   The platform is moving in the right direction -- cost-especially in
    the gas treatment area seems to be the biggest barrier and an
    emphasis on cost reduction (a goal) should be the top priority.

-   More emphasis on the production of pyrolysis liquids from
    lignin-rich fractions and the upgrading of these liquids for
    chemical feedstocks or fuels, i.e., make "something" that behaves
    more like petroleum and can be stored and shipped. Hopefully less
    severe and less capital-intensive processing (than syngas
    production) can be used. Consider both "slow" and "fast" pyrolysis.
    Don't focus on yields alone; look at what can be made or what is
    easiest to upgrade. The "rest" that has low upgrade or liquid value
    can always then be separated and gasified to make syngas.

-   The platform has performed the tasks chosen months ago admirably.
    The group seems to work well together and good information has been
    provided. There are a number of suggestions enumerated in the task
    area evaluations that might serve to redirect the focus of the
    platform slightly. I realize I have only heard one presentation of a
    project that has been engaged for a number of months; hence, I may
    have missed some clarification. I believe in the choice of fuels,
    but I think some fine-tuning might be beneficial to narrow the focus
    to achieve more immediate success that might stimulate an
    accelerated achievement of DOE/OBP's goals.

Program Relevance: (Scores: 4,4,3.5)

-   Some of the earmarks don't fit, but that's beyond your control.

-   It seems that a lot of money is committed Black Liquor Gasification,
    why?

-   \(1\) Black liquor gasification is too specific to pulp
    manufacturing and not directly applicable to direct gasification
    because of the sulfur and salt recovery. The business decision to
    use the technology will always be based on the pulping end of the
    business, not the biomass refinery, because of the perceived risks,
    relative to making pulp. (2) Feedstock preparation is not a high
    technical barrier, and there is a wealth of prior art.

-   The costs of development for any required feedstock handling will be
    small relative to the overall projects costs, and should be
    perceived as relatively low risk. **(3)** In-Process removal of tars
    from raw gas should be considered very long range because of likely
    mass transfer limitations; the removal becomes less efficient as tar
    concentrations decrease.

Platform Management: (Scores: 5,4,3.5)

-   The platform is organized pretty nicely -- Hopefully the SI will
    facilitate the focus in the right direction.

-   The platform is well managed. However, consider less emphasis on
    "funding support" of the National Labs and more industrial
    participation, especially by small businesses. This assumes that the
    same amount of money would be available for the Platform, but this
    could be a shaky assumption.

-   Management seems to be good. Please see the Task Evaluations.

Platform Effectiveness (approach to overcoming technical barriers):
(Scores: 4,4,3)

-   Focusing on process residues of sugar-based biorefineries is a good
    place for the program to be.

-   More emphasis on making sure that projects (even earmarks, if
    possible) have clear objectives, goals, and a methodology to reach
    the goals. The best way to produce this is through the evaluation
    criteria in the RFP(s), i.e., perhaps less focus on quantifying
    benefits and other criteria.

-   There are a few barriers that need to be addressed. Emissions
    potentials and tramp removal need to be added.

Platform Effectiveness (towards addressing Program goals): (Scores:
3,3.5,5)

-   I think the program would benefit from having more
    industry/financial reviews integrated into the solicitation
    selection.

-   The Platform is probably underestimating the cost of the commercial
    technologies. While the relative costs are probably accurate, the
    absolute costs of new chemical technologies are always
    underestimated, because of the lack of a detailed design on which to
    base an accurate estimate. Most of the capital cost for a project is
    not in the process equipment, but is in the other disciplines, e.g.,
    pipe layouts and routing, or items (local labor costs, material
    costs) that are typically poorly factored. To get an accurate
    estimate (±10% for a site-specific project) requires spending about
    1% of the total project cost, i.e., preparing at least a 30%
    front-end loaded design. Unfortunately, the lack of this information
    represents a cost risk to the commercialization of most portions of
    the Platform. While rectifying this dilemma is outside the budget of
    the Program, some acknowledgement of this problem and how to deal
    with it would help.

On-going Work to be Aware of:

-   I think more work in pyrolysis would benefit the program.

-   It wasn't clear from the presentations whether the Thermochemical
    Platform was following the pyrolysis oil developments in the
    European Community.

Additional Technical Barriers:

-   Not focusing on (or at least quantifying the risk of) -- Scale-up of
    the proposed technologies from the current level of
    investigation/data production.

[2.4.2 Analysis Task Area:]{.underline}

Presenter: Rich Bain

  ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- -----------------
  ** **             Performance       Management        Project
                                                        Integration

  **Reviewer 1**    N/A               N/A               N/A

  **Reviewer 2**    3.5               4                 3.5

  **Reviewer 3**    4                 4                 4
  ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- -----------------

Performance:

-   The data and focus in promising (bio-renewables in petroleum
    refineries is great). The financial basis may need some adjustments.

-   Current and future cost targets aren't particularly attractive
    considering fossil options. I'm wondering if some innovative costing
    could be used to reduce the syngas product. For example, the most
    advantageous costing for syngas and ultimately transportation fuels
    would be delivery to the end user at the refinery, preferably
    without road tax. Farmers delivering fuel would use the synfuels the
    facility generated. We need legislated incentives to stimulate
    commercialization by large corporations.

-   Per Platform comments, place less emphasis on black liquor
    gasification and more emphasis on pyrolysis oil production from
    lignin and oil upgrading/selective oil products production.

Management:

-   The structure is good. The SI program should facilitate transfer of
    useful info and prioritizing goals.

-   The project appears to be well managed within the parameters of the
    chosen task.

-   The subtasks seem to be managed very well. However, be very
    forthright about relative accuracies and sensitivities of the
    analyses. Try to quantify the absolute cost accuracies in order to
    develop and acknowledge the cost risks that apply to
    commercialization. This will be painful (i.e., your absolute
    accuracies are probably only ± 30%), but will enhance program
    credibility.

Project Integration:

-   Don't think that so much effort on black liquor gasification is
    justified.

-   If a particular technology choice like catalytic reforming or
    ceramic membrane doesn't appear to work with chosen fuels, either
    reconsider the fuels to improve success or eliminate the technology
    choice. There isn't enough money available to attempt to engineer
    new catalyst. We need to achieve success quickly and let a deeper
    commercial pocket do the research to refine for specific fuels with
    specific problems.

Additional Strategies:

-   Emissions points and factors are critical for commercial permitting.
    If emissions can't be controlled, the project is dead regardless of
    the technical success.

    [2.4.3 Feed Processing & Handling Effort:]{.underline}

Presenter: John Jechura

  ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- -----------------
  ** **             Performance       Management        Project
                                                        Integration

  **Reviewer 1**    N/A               N/A               N/A

  **Reviewer 2**    3.5               4                 3.5

  **Reviewer 3**    4                 4                 4
  ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- -----------------

Performance:

-   A key in any biomass gasification to produce chemicals or fuels is a
    pressurized gasifier. This needs a pressurized feed system. I did
    not see this being addressed. This area appears to focus on
    fermentation residues (ok) but atmospheric pressures.

-   A better connection to the program goals would be helpful. If liquid
    fuels are the desired outcome then a pressurized system is needed.
    Or as an alternative pressurize the gas after cleaning (task,
    clean-up & conditioning).

-   The work done in FY 2005 seems appropriate for the Platform to get
    grounded in the technical requirements and costs, but this type of
    work does not have high technology barriers, and can be developed in
    relative short time when needed. This is appropriately reflected in
    the FY 2006 budget of zero.

-   Realizing small pilot plants are being used, the fuels fed these
    small systems must be artificially sized to be functional in them.
    Unfortunately, pelletizing is not typical in commercial gasifiers.
    Pelletizing is expensive from an energy and maintenance standpoint
    plus tramp material must be removed prior to pelletization or the
    equipment will be destroyed. A full-scale gasifier should be
    designed with the provision for tramp removal with all the emissions
    and equipment that entails.

Management:

-   Are we looking at all relevant areas -- no. Feed composition is
    important. However, physical characteristics are also is key
    ingredient. Look to see where industry is to determine what R&D if
    any needs to be done .

-   Goals have been reached.

-   The project appears to be well managed within the parameters of the
    chosen task.

Project Integration:

-   Characterization of feedstocks is a good start. But they need to be
    characterized on a physical basis to determine appropriate methods
    of feeding. Review of commercial applications for both low and high
    pressure should be done.

-   Feed handling needs to address not only low pressure feeding (which
    should be commercial) but high pressure feeding which aside from
    pelletization and lock hoppers is not commercial. Relying on hoppers
    (w/pelitization) is an expensive route.

-   Fuels should be prioritized for degrees of success. Start with the
    best fuel and move to worse fuels to find the point where problems
    occur. While it is noble to chose "off Spec." fuels, if you are
    already making an artificial size to feed the little gasifier
    (pelletization) you aren't enjoying a true "off spec" condition
    since you have removed the rocks and other materials inherent in bad
    fuels.

Additional Strategies:

-   Check literature on high pressure feeders (any pressure above 50
    psig).

-   Look at pulp & paper digesters, medium density fiberboard (Tom Miles
    of Portland, OR).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Try for success, initially. Make the best case for the technology,
    get a baseline that would be attractive for commercialization, then
    explore the outer limits. Look at all the potential costs for
    development of a full scale facility including tramp removal, heat
    exchange options to remove the sensible heat, and environmental
    permitting ramifications.

    [2.4.4 Thermochemical Processing Effort:]{.underline}

Presenter: Don Stevens

  ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- -----------------
  ** **             Performance       Management        Project
                                                        Integration

  **Reviewer 1**    N/A               5                 N/A

  **Reviewer 2**    3.5               4                 3.5

  **Reviewer 3**    4                 4                 4
  ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- -----------------

Performance:

-   Many individual programs: basis should be manofactor of liquid fuels
    (basic gasification is proven). Need to compare catalytic tar
    reduction approach with what is commercial (example, Great Plains
    gasification) and a second stage of increased temperature. Also look
    at a ceramic "guard bed" at reduced temperature to "recycle" tars.

-   Only limited work on tar cracking. Are there other clean up methods?

-   What is the limit of fuel moisture that makes sense to gasify and
    transport? Perhaps it has been previously described, but what energy
    density of each fuel can be economically supplied to a refinery of
    some particular size? If incentives like biofuel supply to farmer's
    trucks without taxes, what happens to the model?

-   Focus more on pyrolysis oil production from lignin (see below). Drop
    black liquor gasification; industry goals do not mesh with Task
    goals and are subject to a lot of market conditions that have
    nothing to do with the biorefinery concept. Fermentation of gas
    products seems very promising in the long term and holds promise for
    using less severe gasification and dirtier gas than thermochemical
    conversion of syngas. Study the trade-offs between drying or not
    drying gasifier feedstocks and come to some programmatic conclusions
    on which route(s) to pursue.

Management:

-   BL gasification should be heavily co-funded with industry. This
    basic process is commercial and industry should provide major
    support.

-   3.2.3 tasks are worthwhile -- but data needs to be published.

-   The project appears to be well managed within the parameters of the
    chosen task.

-   Effort seems to be managed well for the current end goals.

Project Integration:

-   Basic gasification studies (3.2.1) should end since their work
    should be done and other data may be available: modeling is useful.

-   Add a pressurized gasification test to see effect on gas output.
    This will give some assistance to see if you should pressurize the
    gasifier or the syngas.

-   Task area is pretty well integrated and the projects support the
    goals. However, I would recommend changing the goals (see other
    comments).

Additional Strategies:

-   Check Siemens-Westinghouse on gas clean-up (now moderate (750^o^F)
    temperature process).

-   Corn cobs may be a cheaper feedstock -- this could be reviewed to
    see if you would expect different results.

-   Ceramic membrane filters haven't worked for particulate collection,
    does it make sense to give them a more difficult duty to remove
    particulate and change molecular structures.

-   Expecting refining industry interest in pyrolysis oil may be futile
    because of the small scale; a ton of dry biomass is only going to
    yield at most on the order of a barrel of petroleum oil equivalent,
    if the cellulose is used to make ethanol. Pyrolysis oils from lignin
    must be stable and contain compounds worth extracting or upgrading
    rather than maximizing yield. Pyrolysis oil used as a refinery
    feedstock must mimic crude oil or oil fraction properties; no one is
    going to want to transport or use bio-oil that might affect current
    selectivity, yields, operating costs, or maintenance. Still, all of
    this should be able to be done with less capital intensive
    processing that is required to make syngas, and has the benefit of
    not competing against syngas from coal. Spend some money on bench
    scale chemistry to see what can be done to make pyrolysis oils from
    lignin look attractive to potential users. And play with the
    production conditions to see what you can get if you don't try to
    maximize yield, but make specific products.

    [2.4.5 Clean-up and Conditioning Effort:]{.underline}

Presenter: Dave Dayton

  ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- -----------------
  ** **             Performance       Management        Project
                                                        Integration

  **Reviewer 1**    N/A               N/A               N/A

  **Reviewer 2**    3.5               4                 3.5

  **Reviewer 3**    4                 4                 4
  ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- -----------------

Performance:

-   Basic comparison of approach (catalytic tar destruction), with tar
    removal (by washing or filtering w/sorbent) should be included. Also
    an increase in temperature of the particulate removal should be
    compared to current approach.

-   Goal is to produce competitive liquid fuels -- the projected syngas
    price may be too high to achieve this goal. This should be reviewed.

-   The goals need to be evaluated in the context of "universal"
    applicability to raw gas feeds. Every biomass feedstock/gasifier
    combination is going to produce a different gas that needs to be
    cleaned. If the projects that are chosen can't do this, or at least
    clean up the more likely gas product streams, then the technologies
    that are being pursued are very narrow and less likely to lead to
    commercialization.

-   Scale-up of both the gasifier technologies and the cleanup
    technologies is a huge risk. This needs to be dealt with.

-   Beware of creating nasty toxic waste streams when removing the
    metals. Evaluate these potential costs upfront.

-   Perhaps it would make sense to use the best possible biomass fuels
    to achieve the longest catalyst life. With the funding available,
    maximizing the potential for success and minimizing the time to
    potential commercialization may entice deep pocket private investors
    to help with funds to explore worst-case fuels for catalyst life.
    Clearly, you have thought about it.

Management:

-   Are catalysts the best approach? What other approaches for tar
    removal are considered besides therminator?

-   Determine cost goals for the clean-up technologies to evaluate their
    viability. This should be used as a screening tool.

-   Look at mass transfer limitations when evaluating projects and use
    it as a screening tool.

-   The project appears to be well managed within the parameters of the
    chosen task.

Project Integration:

-   Check alternatives for tar destruction -- external to the reactor.

-   What about trying to improve raw syngas cleanliness during
    production of the gas?

Additional Strategies:

-   Siemens-Westinghouse multistage gas clean-up for sulfur and
    particulate

-   Comparison with E. Great Plains Clean-up as a conventional benchmark
    (Prior to Rectisol)

-   As stated above, look more at in-situ methods during gasification to
    improve raw syngas cleanliness.

-   What level of S, Cl, N, and alkali (heteroatoms) in the proposed
    fuels is too much for sorbents and refractory to handle in the
    expected on-stream time for a full-scale facility? Research is
    needed but can a go/no go decision be made with literature research
    of the currently available sorbents?

**2.5 Products Utilization**

Information to Come

**2.6 Integrated Biorefinery**

[2.6.1 Analysis Task:]{.underline}

Presenter: Robert Wallace (NREL)

  ------------ ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------
               Relevance   Approach    Progress    Success     Future
                                                   Factors     Plans

  **Reviewer   4           4           4           3           3
  1**                                                          

  **Reviewer   4           4           4           3           3
  2**                                                          

  **Reviewer   3           3           1           4           4
  3**                                                          

  **Reviewer   4           4           4           4           4
  4**                                                          
  ------------ ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------

**Specific Comments:**

Relevance:

-   All aspects are being met.

-   Overall model. Must be done for a good understanding of biorefinery.

-   Integrated biorefinery crosses all other sectors.

Approach:

-   Have developed or working with several models to validate

-   Integrate many tech.

-   Tools look good.

-   Have several models.

Progress:

-   Modeling of systems are good corn & wet mill. Use for strategic
    development.

-   Just starting.

-   Has good work.

Success Factors:

-   All national Labs. What industries?

-   Working with all National Labs not sure about university and
    producers.

Future Plans:

-   Complete models if model becomes too large -- what then?

-   Good goals.

**Additional Comments:**

Strengths:

-   Integrate all the various components into model.

-   Excellent approach. Good to see acid hydrolysis was mentioned as one
    route to consider.

Weaknesses:

-   Energy balance in model?

-   Need to get inputs from engineering firms & operating companies.

Recommendations for Additions/Deletions to Project:

-   Models are only tools -- if they become too cumbersome, they may
    become ineffective.

    [2.6.2 Integrated Corn-based Biorefinery Project:]{.underline}

Presenter: Bill Provine (DuPont)

  ------------ ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------
  ** **        Relevance   Approach    Progress    Success     Future
                                                   Factors     Plans

  **Reviewer   4           4           N/A         2           N/A
  1**                                                          

  **Reviewer   3           3           3           3           3
  2**                                                          

  **Reviewer   4           4           4           4           4
  3**                                                          

  **Reviewer   4           4           4           4           4
  4**                                                          
  ------------ ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------

**Specific Comments:**

Relevance:

-   Objectives are clearly defined.

-   Integrated, good partnerships.

-   Right on.

-   Develop & demonstrate ICBR process for renewable fuels.

Approach:

-   Barriers are identified and addressed.

-   Well organized. Don't know about technical feasibility.

-   Liaise with NREL and other industry.

Progress:

-   Working on 90% yields.

-   Aspen modeling -- benchmarking with NREL. Zymomonas is a very
    sensitive -- results shown seem quite optimistic.

-   High solids pretreatment. New enzyme.

-   Has come long way 90%+ yield.

Success Factors:

-   Participation with others.

-   Good partnerships.

-   Partners.

Future Plans:

-   Building plant by 2012.

-   Good scale up plan -- if results are repeatable over a large scale.

-   Process optimization. Optimize enzyme.

-   Will build plant by 2012 1-5 million gals.

**Additional Comments:**

Strengths:

-   Partnerships. 2009 demo.

Weaknesses:

-   Zymomonas claims seem unrealistic.

-   Yields are optimistic.

Recommendations for Additions/Deletions to Project:

-   Compare Diversa results with Novozymes and Genencor to reduce
    redundancy.

-   Current Plans: -- liters (gal) scale at moment. -- 1-5 M Gal/yr PP
    planned (2009). -- Using Aspen models. -- Acid hydrolysis is one
    step followed by enzyme treatment

    [2.6.3 Making Industrial Bio-Refining Happen! Project:]{.underline}

Presenter: Bob Wooley (NatureWorks, LLC)

  ------------ ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------
               Relevance   Approach    Progress    Success     Future
                                                   Factors     Plans

  **Reviewer   4           4           3           3           3
  1**                                                          

  **Reviewer   4           N/A         4           4           4
  2**                                                          

  **Reviewer   4           4           4           4           4
  3**                                                          

  **Reviewer   4           3           4           3           3
  4**                                                          
  ------------ ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------

**Specific Comments:**

Relevance:

-   Goal defined with specific on focus on process.

-   All feedstocks have been corn saver.

-   Lower lactic acid costs v. important lactic acid derivatives could
    displace 25 million barrels of oil.

Approach:

-   Considerable work had or being don on biomass and lactic acid.

-   Described NREL/DOE barriers, described NatureWorks barriers.

-   Have improved yield 2008 lactic acid fermentation plant. Corn stover
    feedstock.

Progress:

-   Showing progress on productivity key steps verified.

-   Show where they are and target.

-   Cost reduction from process improvement.

Success Factors:

-   Abengoa, Genecor, Iogen, Cargill

-   Abengoa doing hydrolysis development. York, NE.

-   Iogen doing ethanol fermentation.

Future Plans:

-   Integrate commercial facility at Blair plant, quarterly reviews w/
    DOE, Cargill and Abengoa.

**Additional Comments:**

Strengths:

-   Good partnerships

-   Looking at lactic acid and ethanol as starchy blocks.

Weaknesses:

-   Not sure about Iogen relationship -- are you shipping Abengoa
    produced hydrolyzate to Iogen or are they using wheat.

Recommendations for Additions/Deletions to Project:

-   Start up plan is optimistic.

    [2.6.4 Collection, Commercial Processing, and Utilization of Corn
    Stover Project:]{.underline}

Presenter: Bob Wooley (for David Glassner) (NatureWorks, LLC)

  ------------ ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------
  ** **        Relevance   Approach    Progress    Success     Future
                                                   Factors     Plans

  **Reviewer   3           2           2           3           3
  1**                                                          

  **Reviewer   4           4           3           4           3
  2**                                                          

  **Reviewer   4           4           3           3           3
  3**                                                          

  **Reviewer   4           N/A         4           3           N/A
  4**                                                          
  ------------ ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------

**Specific Comments:**

Relevance:

-   Biomass by 2007.

-   Harvest, transportation, storage 2000t/d feed handling.

-   Biomass hydrolyzate by 2007.

Approach:

-   No experience to date fermenting unused corn.

-   Existed feedstock evaluated for ethanol? No.
    Well-designed/integrated.

-   Aggressive goals to get commercial, but except for etOH
    fermentation, should be doable.

-   Build on IP position already established improve biocatalyst.

Progress:

-   More investigation necessary. Question the term "lowest one pass
    equipment" exists. Bunkers are constructed but not enough research.

-   Project fairly new -- Storage has moved along and ready for
    commercial use. Have not processed ensiled stover -- problem?

-   Proven results.

-   Harvest technology need and measured against current -- one pass
    harvest advantage.

Success Factors:

-   Group is working with top notch groups but question next steps
    regarding stover.

-   Good collaboration.

-   John Deere, Abengoa, MAT, DuPont, NREL?

-   John Deere worked with Iowa State.

Future Plans:

-   Future should focus xylose bio catalistic. Harvest/bunker is
    questionable.

-   Need to look at front end processing/storage for a 2,000 t/d plant
    -- is it tech and econ feasible?

-   Good plans for each area.

-   No experience of fermentation of unsiled stover.

**Additional Comments:**

Strengths:

-   Wet storage & one-pass are good harvesting systems suggestions.

-   Good approach. Working with partners for development.

Weaknesses:

-   Very little practical trials so far.

-   Cost evaluation/prediction?

-   Do not see any interaction with OBP's other R&D efforts.

-   Need to evaluate front end processing -- radius, transporation,
    storage -- is tech or econ feasible.

Recommendations for Additions/Deletions to Project:

-   Need to know real cost of ensiling and storage of corn stover. I
    hear its \$60/t not \$35.

-   Need to start work with stored material through the process to check
    for effects on fermentation.

    [2.6.5 A New Biorefinery Platform Intermediate Project:]{.underline}

Presenter: Jim Millis (Cargill)

  ------------ ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------
  ** **        Relevance   Approach    Progress    Success     Future
                                                   Factors     Plans

  **Reviewer   3           4           4           4           4
  1**                                                          

  **Reviewer   3           4           N/A         N/A         N/A
  2**                                                          

  **Reviewer   3           3           3           3           3
  3**                                                          

  **Reviewer   4           4           4           4           4
  4**                                                          
  ------------ ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------

**Specific Comments:**

Relevance:

-   New top ten products -- 3HP.

-   Difficult approach on fermentation.

-   Not ethanol fuel as a product. 3-HP, A top ten product. Feedstock --
    wet mill sugars.

-   DOE 50% of project will be completed in 05 1 year later. 13 HP is
    novel platform chemical.

Approach:

-   Econ & tech advantages explored. Re-evaluated if price falls.

-   Using other labs for critical development with tech is good.

Progress:

-   Cost evaluation good.

-   Moving to generating acrylic acid as future product. 3HP is 1^st^
    stage. Good results so far.

-   Create new enzyme which doesn't exist in nature.

Success Factors:

-   2 partners Codexis and PNNL.

-   Working with PNNL and Codexis.

Future Plans:

-   High productivity no met -- optimistic about reaching goals. Corn
    wet mill first then dry mill and ag. residue.

-   Right on.

-   Competitive advantage.

**Additional Comments:**

Strengths:

-   Realistic goals for commercialization.

Weaknesses:

No weaknesses were provided by the reviewers.

Recommendations for Additions/Deletions to Project:

No recommendations were provided by the reviewers.

[2.6.6 A New Biorefinery Platform Intermediate Project:]{.underline}

Presenter: Steve Lewis (Broin)

  ------------ ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------
  ** **        Relevance   Approach    Progress    Success     Future
                                                   Factors     Plans

  **Reviewer   4           4           4           N/A         4
  1**                                                          

  **Reviewer   4           4           4           4           4
  2**                                                          

  **Reviewer   4           4           4           4           3
  3**                                                          

  **Reviewer   4           4           4           4           4
  4**                                                          
  ------------ ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------

**Specific Comments:**

Relevance:

-   Appears to have aggressive and focused goals.

-   Refinery of dry mill.

-   Fits with OBP's goals. Working with NREL.

-   Extension of existing project 80% complete. Partners NREL and SDSU
    subcontractors funded by DOE.

Approach:

-   Have proved they can integrate products into systems.

-   Well designed -- good effort integrated team to accomplish goals.

-   Has two plants built from what has been done by fractionation.

Progress:

-   Have demonstrated and commercialized several products and processes.

-   Good progress -- commercialization emphasis lower emissions --
    good!!! 20-25% decrease in energy usage. Economics are encouraging.

-   Parts of project are commercial.

-   Some bottlenecks mainly microorganisms for sugars.

Success Factors:

-   Strategic partnerships with 18 plants plus enzyme companies, NREL
    and universities.

-   NREL, Novozymes, SDSU with 18 plants.

-   Working with NREL, SDSU.

-   Worked with NREL true dry mill industry corn now be developed lipid
    stream developed. Novozymes developing improved raw starch.

Future Plans:

-   Have demonstrated ability to overcome barriers, will continue to
    enhance conversion processes.

-   Built 2 commercial fractionation 2002 & 2005 Scottland, Iowa. Secure
    tech to reduce risk.

-   Moving to PP work.

-   Teamed up with Novozymes. Second generation project has created new
    model.

**Additional Comments:**

Strengths:

-   Has developed fractionation process to reduce per gallon energy cost
    and will continue to enhance fermentation and energy processes.

-   Pilot and commercial operation good.

-   More options (product) from dry mill or corn. Lowered emissions,
    lowered energy usage bypasses jet cooking.

-   Parts of project has moved to commercialization stage.

-   Has developed fractionation in dry milling. Yields from corn higher
    and energy use reduced.

Weaknesses:

-   Still need to improve pretreatment processes.

Recommendations for Additions/Deletions to Project:

No recommendations were provided by the reviewers.

[2.6.7 Advanced Biorefining of Distiller\'s Grain and Corn Stover
Blends: Pre-Commercialization of a Biomass-Derived Process Technology
Project:]{.underline}

Presenter: Patrick Mulvihill (Abengoa)

  ------------ ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------
  ** **        Relevance   Approach    Progress    Success     Future
                                                   Factors     Plans

  **Reviewer   3           4           3           4           3
  1**                                                          

  **Reviewer   4           3           3           4           3
  2**                                                          

  **Reviewer   4           4           3           4           4
  3**                                                          

  **Reviewer   4           4           3           3           4
  4**                                                          
  ------------ ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------

**Specific Comments:**

Relevance:

-   Fits within their process and possible commercialization.

-   Fits with/in DOE and Abengoa goals.

-   Fits with OBP goals.

-   Identified several changes and improvements using corn stover.

Approach:

-   Goals are well defined and attainable.

-   Addressed barriers well-designed.

-   Working with established Labs and companies -- good.

-   Technology and products comparable with current ethanol production
    from cereal.

Progress:

-   Enhanced fermentation yield conversion to 2.9. Biomass models have
    been developed.

-   PP did not achieve exp results. Costs need to be evaluated on all
    steps.

-   Increase yield to 2.9 gallons/bushel.

Success Factors:

-   Working with Novozymes, NREL and others.

-   Novozymes, NREL, NatureWorks, Novum KS AU.

-   Working with NREL and industry partners.

-   Work done with NREL.

Future Plans:

-   Financial analysis showed no economical improvement by itself. Going
    forward.

-   Right on.

-   Not sufficient yield (2.9 gpb) to pay for project. Develop xylose \>
    EtOH cost of enzymes too high.

**Additional Comments:**

Strengths:

-   Trial runs have provided enhancement of yields but not definitively
    proven.

-   PP schedule\<5 g/min corn stover -\> ethanol.

-   Working with NERL and other Labs and industry partners.

-   Plans for pilot plant.

Weaknesses:

-   Is PP economic size -\> predicted costs?

-   Several improvements needed in Biomass part of projects in EtOH
    yields, etc.

-   No real positive results on improving yield sufficiently.

Recommendations for Additions/Deletions to Project:

No recommendations were provided by the reviewers.

[2.6.8 Separation of Corn Fiber and Conversion to Fuels and Chemicals:
Phase II, Pilot-Scale Operation Project:]{.underline}

Presenter: Nathan Fields (NCGA)

  ------------ ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------
  ** **        Relevance   Approach    Progress    Success     Future
                                                   Factors     Plans

  **Reviewer   3           3           N/A         3           3
  1**                                                          

  **Reviewer   4           3           4           4           4
  2**                                                          

  **Reviewer   4           4           4           4           4
  3**                                                          

  **Reviewer   4           4           4           3           4
  4**                                                          
  ------------ ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------

**Specific Comments:**

Relevance:

-   Can be integrated with existing process.

-   Corn fiber; wet mill application.

-   Fits with OBP goals.

-   Improve ethanol yield extract high value oil components.

Approach:

-   R&D is being done at NREL and ADM.

-   Well designed program tech & econ feasible.

-   Good approach with Nat Labs and ADM Labs.

-   Broken down into subgroups: -- ydolysis -- oil recovery -- catalysis
    -- fermentation.

Progress:

-   Accomplishment fermentation of corn fiber; sugar conversion; ROI
    28%.

-   Good use of existing PP; 3^rd^ party analysis -- good.

-   Initial goals were met.

-   100% solubilization starch, 50% sol. corn fiber, 90% utilization of
    glucose & xylose, 90% utilization of remaining sugars, 90% recovery
    of fiber cost.

Success Factors:

-   ADM & PNNL.

-   ADM, NCGA, PNNL, U of Ill -- Good players.

-   Working with ADM and National Labs.

-   NCGA, ADM, PNNL, NREL.

Future Plans:

-   Barriers have been identified and focus is on improvement.

-   No/go decision -- based on economics -- good and results.

-   Will use NREL pilot plant for part. ADM pilot plant for part. PNNL
    catalysis PP All Good. University of Ill also doing some work on
    products and hydrolysis.

-   Ready for commercial launch.

**Additional Comments:**

Strengths:

-   Good success in Phase I and II.

-   Like economic evaluation of overall process.

-   Next step -- commercial integration from PP.

-   Good mix of industry & national labs, univ of Ill, Purdue.

-   The ROI 28%.

Weaknesses:

-   Bio oil will not complete on time.

Recommendations for Additions/Deletions to Project:

-   Continue on track to complete pilot plant work.

-   Suggest a demo plant at larger scale that is integrated to get good
    scale up data before going to commercial scale.

    [2.6.9 Demonstration of Black Liquor Gasification at Big Island
    Project:]{.underline}

Presenter: Larry Rath (NETL -- Representing Georgia Pacific)

  ------------ ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------
  ** **        Relevance   Approach    Progress    Success     Future
                                                   Factors     Plans

  **Reviewer   3           4           N/A         3           N/A
  1**                                                          

  **Reviewer   4           N/A         N/A         N/A         N/A
  2**                                                          

  **Reviewer   4           4           4           4           4
  3**                                                          

  **Reviewer   3           4           4           2           3
  4**                                                          
  ------------ ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------

**Specific Comments:**

Relevance:

-   Integrated biorefinery in paper/pulp industry.

-   BL big problem like pulp and paper funding utilization efforts.

-   Fits with improving pulp & paper industry.

-   Demonstrate steam recovery: identify barriers, identify capital
    costs, demonstrate energy benefits, demonstrate costs, demonstrate
    integration of technology.

Approach:

-   Project has been constructed now working on current barriers also
    currently doing R&D on tar carbon conversion.

-   Project built -- 3/04 first BL fired.

-   Built & operated since 3/04. 15 runs completed. Good plans to
    resolve barriers.

-   Demonstrate objectives & barriers to a biorefinery tar formation top
    technical barrier.

Progress:

-   Environmental emissions test below permit level. Able to run 50%
    higher than design rate.

-   Running PP -- modify system to remove tars.

-   Plant is up & running to provide data and research experiments to
    resolve tar problems.

-   Modifying clean up train so can isolate certain tars. Use of super
    heaters so can gain temperature.

Success Factors:

-   Working with 3 universities.

-   IPST, NETL, Univ of Utah, TRI, Norampae.

-   Using industry & National Labs.

-   Univ of Utah.

Future Plans:

-   More research is needed for fluidizing bed design.

-   Tars, fluidization, bed particle size -- all being studied,
    redesigned, etc.

-   Must resolve tar problems.

-   Original design of pulse heater failed -- task gps include ORNL,
    Univ of Missouri -- Rolla.

**Additional Comments:**

Strengths:

-   Good list of accomplishments.

-   Good listing of barriers & how handling addressed economics.

-   Good mix of partners. Project is well on way to completion.

Weaknesses:

-   Bed fluidization.

-   Heat tube life -- 5 years? Include temp to reduce tars?

-   None that cannot be resolved technically.

-   Lots of failures. Whether or not they can be resolved is
    questionable.

Recommendations for Additions/Deletions to Project:

-   Might be nice to see economic sensitivities would like to see genial
    material/energy balance at paper mill -- all BL -\> gasification,
    how affect energy balance of plant & raw material input &
    environmental.

-   Need to prove concept -- more energy out than in.

    [2.6.10 Southeast Alaska Ethanol Project:]{.underline}

Presenter: Fran Ferraro (Merrick)

  ------------ ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------
  ** **        Relevance   Approach    Progress    Success     Future
                                                   Factors     Plans

  **Reviewer   N/A         3           N/A         4           N/A
  1**                                                          

  **Reviewer   4           4           4           3           3
  2**                                                          

  **Reviewer   4           4           3           3           3
  3**                                                          

  **Reviewer   3           4           3           N/A         N/A
  4**                                                          
  ------------ ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------

**Specific Comments:**

Relevance:

-   Gasification technology (steam reforming) ethanol conversion.

-   Supports DOE goals.

-   Fits OBP goals to use wood residue to EtOH.

-   Select gasification technology, select ethanol conversion, pilot
    test, design commercial facility, construct and operate wood residue
    conversion.

Approach:

-   Approach & design appears to be well defined.

-   Identified tech barriers well designed -- seem familiar with other
    US tech.

-   Thermochemical platform, products.

-   Barriers -- feed (prep, contaminents), gasification, conversion,
    process efficiency, process integration.

Progress:

-   Integrated pilot testing.

-   Completed prelim econ integrate heat/energy.

-   Tests currently taking place.

-   Base yield on .70 gal/dry ton, comparable with feedstock product,
    risks readiness.

Success Factors:

-   Partners -- DOE, USDA, NREL, some engineering companies.

-   Working with other comp. Gaddey Co. Out.

-   Working with National Labs.

-   Project collaboration, USDA, DOE, NREL.

Future Plans:

-   Design/build demo.

-   Economic prediction used for go/no go. Some tech. risk wherein could
    kill project.

-   Plans for a full scale demo plant.

-   Pilot testing now.

**Additional Comments:**

Strengths:

-   Salt water contaminated feedstocks.

-   Have a customer.

-   Provides tech to handle a need in AK.

-   Have a looked at other gasification projects.

-   Good layout of milestones.

-   Well on way to demo plants.

-   For economics need \> 70 gallons/ton.

Weaknesses:

-   Go/no go -- economic return on investment.

-   Not sure feedstocks will be free, when have free feedstock & plant
    built, then "free" feedstock all of a sudden wants fee.

-   Need longer rungs with integrated PP.

-   Will economics stand up without government help of \$.90/gal?

-   Problem with salt contamination may be no go.

Recommendations for Additions/Deletions to Project:

No recommendations were provided by the reviewers.

[2.6.11 City of Gridley Biofuels Project:]{.underline}

Presenter: Dennis Schuetzle (TSS -- Representing the City of Gridley)

  ------------ ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------
  ** **        Relevance   Approach    Progress    Success     Future
                                                   Factors     Plans

  **Reviewer   N/A         3           N/A         4           3
  1**                                                          

  **Reviewer   4           4           4           4           4
  2**                                                          

  **Reviewer   4           4           3           3           3
  3**                                                          

  **Reviewer   3           2           3           4           3
  4**                                                          
  ------------ ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------

**Specific Comments:**

Relevance:

-   Converting rice straw to ethanol 72% complete.

-   Relates to many DOE objectives.

-   Rice straw to EtOH. Fits OBP goals.

-   70% complete: - Economic viability -- High energy efficiency --
    least impact on environment -- evaluation of tech.

Approach:

-   Have all barriers been addressed.

-   Well-designed. Improved w/ evaluation of over 400 tech.

-   Several vendors seem to have appropriate technology to help with
    barriers.

-   Ethanol product ion of competencies 1.096/gal -- 1.39/gal. Rice
    straw to ethanol.

Progress:

-   Greater than 99% conversion of biomass to energy. Syngas composition
    can be controlled to optimize the production of electricity of
    ethanol.

-   Good progress -- going to make it to commercial.

-   Carry out additional pilot plan work. Validate the reverse water gas
    shift reactor. Design & build demonstration plant.

Success Factors:

-   Long list of collaboration.

-   Great collaborator list.

-   Can produce EtOH or electricity.

Future Plans:

-   Straw handling will be a challenge.

-   Cost -- comparing 3 systems so should have at least 1 success.

-   Catalyst efficiencies, cat life, still needs work.

**Additional Comments:**

Strengths:

-   Excellent conversion of biomass to energy or fuels.

-   Demo(ing) 3 tech. Decision made by 2007.

-   Good organization to make project happens.

-   Can be used for ethanol or electricity. Some work needed for
    ethanol. 100 gallons/ ton rice straw.

Weaknesses:

-   Straw handling.

-   How about straw handling. Transportation & storage systems? Worked
    out yet? Silica?

-   Economics will determine if project can move to next stage.

Recommendations for Additions/Deletions to Project:

-   Demo plants should have recycle streams.