11
2005 BIOMASS PROGRAM Biennial Peer Review WELCOME AND INTRODUCTION Larry Russo November 14, 2005

2005 BIOMASS PROGRAM Biennial Peer Review WELCOME AND INTRODUCTION

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

2005 BIOMASS PROGRAM Biennial Peer Review WELCOME AND INTRODUCTION. Larry Russo November 14, 2005. EERE Program Peer Review Criteria. “In-Progress” Review (minimum every 2 years) Project Level: Are Projects being done right? Program Level: Are the right projects being done? - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Citation preview

Page 1: 2005 BIOMASS PROGRAM Biennial Peer Review  WELCOME AND INTRODUCTION

2005 BIOMASS PROGRAMBiennial Peer Review

WELCOMEAND

INTRODUCTION

Larry RussoNovember 14, 2005

Page 2: 2005 BIOMASS PROGRAM Biennial Peer Review  WELCOME AND INTRODUCTION

EERE Program Peer Review Criteria

• “In-Progress” Review (minimum every 2 years)• Project Level: Are Projects being done right?• Program Level: Are the right projects being done?

• Rigorous, Formal and Documented

• Objective Criteria

• Qualified and Independent Reviewers (COI disclosure)

• Reviewer Judgments Relate to Criteria and Associated Questions

• Program Manager Review and Response

• Peer Review Report is a Public Document

Page 3: 2005 BIOMASS PROGRAM Biennial Peer Review  WELCOME AND INTRODUCTION

Why Are We Here ?

Why a Peer Review• Biennial program reviews are an EERE requirement• More Importantly, provides input necessary to keep the program on point and

focused• Transparent, non-biased evaluation of technical, scientific, and business aspects

of the program projects, project results, and program management• Opportunity for an outside perspective• Results of the review will be used by the program to guide future activities

Objectives: • Evaluate the Programs’ approach

• Is there continuity?, Is it functional?• Are we working on the right things?• Does our structure lead to accomplishing the Program’s, EERE’s and DOE’s

goals and objectives?• Is our Portfolio balanced?

• The right mix of core R&D and pre-commercialization efforts• Have we identified the right technological barriers and are they being addressed?

Page 4: 2005 BIOMASS PROGRAM Biennial Peer Review  WELCOME AND INTRODUCTION

Review Scope and Process

REVIEW SCOPE• 85% of Program spending is required to be reviewed• FY 2005 R&D Portfolio worth approximately $80.2 million, including

congressionally directed funds• All competitively awarded, congressionally directed, and program management

projects, active in FY 2005, will be reviewed• Each program platform has performed interim project reviews, the results of

which will be summarized in each platform session, along with a summary of analysis efforts associated with that platform

• Some projects will be reviewed via poster sessions• The reviewer comments will all be included – consensus opinions and comments

are NOT encouraged

REVIEWER SELECTION• A Steering Committee was selected by the program staff to lead the review effort

according to EERE guidelines• The Steering Committee has knowledge of the Program BUT have no active

projects or affiliations with the Program or projects being reviewed• Steering Committee identified non-biased technical reviewers for each portion of

the program according to EERE guidelines• ALL REVIEWERS HAVE IDENTIFIED ANY POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF

INTEREST

Page 5: 2005 BIOMASS PROGRAM Biennial Peer Review  WELCOME AND INTRODUCTION

OBP Recent Review History

Sub-Program

or Project

SpecificReviews

Oct 2003 Dec 2005

11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Nov 2003OBP Peer Review MYTP EmphasisAfter merger of 3 former programs;

BioPowerBiofuels

Bioproducts

Nov 2005OBP Peer Review

Biorefinery Emphasis

AugNew EERE

Peer Review Guidance

Mar DOE/USDA

JointFeedstocks

Portfolio S/G Review

JanNew EERE

MYPP Guidance

Nov 2004OBP ImplementedNew Biorefinery

Pathway Approach

SepNREL Sugar

Platform Integration

Project S/G Review

AugMajor

Public-Private Partnership

Project S/G Reviews

MayNREL Sugar

Platform AppliedFundamentals

ProjectS/G Review

JunThermochemical

Platform Portfolio &

Sugar Platform Pretreatment/Hydrolysis

Portfolio S/G Reviews

20052004

AugProducts Portfolio

S/G Review

AugOBP

MYPP Updated

Page 6: 2005 BIOMASS PROGRAM Biennial Peer Review  WELCOME AND INTRODUCTION

OBP Goal Hierarchy

DOE's Strategic GoalProtect our national and economic

security by promoting a diverse supply of reliable, affordable and

environmentally sound energy.

EERE Strategic GoalsDramatically reduce or even end

dependence on foreign oilCreate the new, domestic bioindustry

Feedstock GoalDevelop sustainable technologies to supply biomass to biorefineries

Biochemical Platform GoalDevelop biochemical conversion technologies to produce low-cost

sugars from lignocellulosic biomass

Thermochemical Platform Goal

Develop thermochemical conversion technologies to

produce chemical building blocks from lignocellulosic biomass

Products GoalDevelop technologies to produce fuels, chemicals and power from bio-based sugars and chemical

building blocks

Integrated Biorefinery GoalEstablish integrated biorefineries

through public-private partnerships

Biomass Program GoalsDevelop biomass and biorefinery-related technologies to the point that they are cost and performance competitive and are used by

the nation’s transportation, energy, chemical and power industries to meet their market objectives.

Page 7: 2005 BIOMASS PROGRAM Biennial Peer Review  WELCOME AND INTRODUCTION

OBP Peer Review Structure

FeedstockInterface

Reviewers

BiochemicalConversionReviewers

ThermochemicalConversionReviewers

ProductsPlatform

Reviewers

IntegratedBiorefineryReviewers

Steering Committee ReviewersSelect Technical Reviewers

Review Entire ProgramEnsure Program Integration and Connectivity

Page 8: 2005 BIOMASS PROGRAM Biennial Peer Review  WELCOME AND INTRODUCTION

Role of Reviewers and Audience

Steering Committee• Independently select technical review teams• Review program structure, mgt & portfolio decision making

processes, portfolio balance, connectivity to outputs• A 30,000 foot view of the portfolio

Technical Reviewers• Identify technical gaps• Evaluate projects for technical soundness and strategic fit• Evaluate whether the Technology Elements aligned to the pathways

Audience Members • Identify potential new areas of interest to the Biomass Program• Provide feedback on both the portfolio and program level.

Page 9: 2005 BIOMASS PROGRAM Biennial Peer Review  WELCOME AND INTRODUCTION

Steering Committee

Carol Babb - Amgen

Bill Cruickshank - Natural Resources Canada

Joe Fagan - Strategic Funding Resources

Herb Kosstrin - R.W. Beck

Page 10: 2005 BIOMASS PROGRAM Biennial Peer Review  WELCOME AND INTRODUCTION

Technical Reviewers• Feedstocks

• David Bransby, Auburn University• Mark Stumborg, Agriculture and Agrifood Canada• Blair Wright, Transfeeder, Inc.

• Biochemical• Bob Benson, Private Consultant• Don Johnson, Grain Processing Corporation (Retired)• John Cundiff, VT – Biological Systems Engineering

• Thermochemical• Doug Albertson, Energy Products of Idaho (Retired)• Andrew Himmelblau (Geo-Centers)

• Products• Fred Barlow, Eastman Chemical (Retired)• Angelo Montanga, Consultant• Ron Rosseau, Georgia Tech

• Integrated Biorefinery• Jacqueline Broder, TVA• Dave Kelsall, Ethanol Technology• Frank Aerstin, Midland Engineering• Jim Stewart, Stewart Consulting

Page 11: 2005 BIOMASS PROGRAM Biennial Peer Review  WELCOME AND INTRODUCTION

Agenda

Day 1

Biomass Program Overview 8:30 AM 2:30 PM

Biomass Feedstock Interface 2:30 PM 4:05 PM

Thermochemical Conversion Platform 4:05 PM 6:00 PM

Day 2

Biochemical Conversion Platform 8:30 AM 11:00 AM

Poster Sessions 11:00 AM 2:00 PM

Products Platform 2:00 PM 4:30 PM

Day 3

Integrated Biorefinery 8:30 AM 5:00 PM

Closing 5:00 PM 5:30 PM