Please find below the
Finalist Evaluation
Judges'' comments
- Proposal for small-scale cultivation of cyanobacteria in bioreactors. Proposal has not been updated since initial review.
- Interesting idea, but who would carry it out, and what are the costs? Needs a lot more work. Maybe the proposer should come back next year with some more detail.
- No improvements to second round of submissions. Earlier comments are noted here: (1) The proposal has a very complete list of items that are well addressed in this presentation. (2) It provides a good cost and actions description. (3) The program is best suited to large cities that will house urban bioreactors. The project plans to place it in sub-Saharan Africa. (4) The "key benefits" section contains an inadequate explanation.
Semi-Finalist Evaluation
Judges'' ratings
| • | Novelty: | |
| • | Feasibility: | |
| • | Impact: | |
| • | Presentation: |
Judges'' comments
Novelty: 3/5 Small-scale cultivation of cyanobacteria in bioreactors is not particularly novel.
Workability: 3/5 Relatively easy to create a prototype, but scalability of the technology is much more challenging.
Effectiveness: 2/5 Climate impacts will depend on life-cycle of the biomass produced, which is not considered in detail in the proposal. Additional focus on the usage of the biomass (for biofuel or fertilizer) would strengthen the proposal. Emphasis on the biomass production is understandable, but the proposal needs a description of the context and rationale for the production technology. Overall net benefits may be questionable, considering embodied energy, nutrient provision, biomass drying, pH adjustment, etc.
Thoroughness: 3/5 Not very clear what is proposed to do and when. What specific actions will be taken, who will take them, and when? The various component costs should be summed and a total proposed cost should be indicated. The time line should be elaborated on—what does “short term” mean?
Presentation: 3/5 OK generally, but lacking in several key areas (biomass usage, proposed activities, costs). The proposal hasn’t made a compelling case that this will lead to benefits.
---
(1) It is a very complete list of items that are addressed in this presentation.
(2) It provides a good cost and actions description.
(3) The program is best suited in large cities that will house urban bioreactors. The project plans to place it in sub-Saharan Africa.
(4) The key benefits information is an inadequate explanation.
0comments
Share conversation:
Share via:
No comments have been posted.
