Please find below the
Finalist Evaluation
Judges'' ratings
| • | Novelty: | |
| • | Feasibility: | |
| • | Impact: | |
| • | Presentation: |
Judges'' comments
SUBJECT: Your proposal has been selected as a Finalist!
Congratulations! Your proposal in the Energy-Water Nexus contest has been selected to advance to the Finalists round.
Be proud of your accomplishment – more than 350 proposals were submitted and only a very small number have been advanced through these two rounds of judging.
As a Finalist, your proposal is eligible for the contest’s Judges Choice award, as well as the contest’s Popular Choice award, which is determined by public voting.
If you haven’t already, you will soon receive an email from the Climate CoLab staff with details about the voting period. If you don’t receive that email within the next day, or have other questions, please contact the Climate CoLab staff at admin@climatecolab.org
All winners will be announced the week after the voting period ends, on September 12, 2015 at midnight Eastern Time.
Both Judges Choice and Popular Choice will receive a special invitation to attend selected sessions at MIT’s SOLVE conference and present their proposals before key constituents in a workshop the next day, where a $10,000 Grand Prize will be awarded. A few select Climate CoLab winners will join distinguished SOLVE attendees in a highly collaborative problem-solving session. Some contests have additional prizes given by the contest sponsor.
We have attached the final judging comments below.
Thank you for your work on this very important issue. We’re proud of your proposal, and we hope that you are too. Again, congratulations!
2015 Climate CoLab Judges
This proposal incorporates the judge suggestions well and is promising. Vertical farming for both plants and protein would be great for wealthy areas that like 'farm to table' and are willing to pay. We understand the difficulty in creating and maintaining Hubs of this nature in underserved communities, but applaud the commitment to maintain this directive. The discussion on the costs of this project and a more thought-out role out was welcomed. The diagram was very helpful and the project was tied into the energy-water nexus better. The discussion regarding reusing water was important, especially given the drought concerns in a state like California. One of the great strengths of the proposed project is its modular, local attributes - it has potential to direct the entrepreneurial energies of individuals and communities motivated to invest in the qualitative improvement of their environments. The primary barrier seems less related to finances and more related to entrepreneurial spirit, which in the experience of this reviewer is not in short supply. This proposal seems ahead of its time - many need to catch up on urban agriculture. In the meantime, there is great potential for funding. For one, take a look at the NSF INFEWS grants.
Can the economics work as a way to address urban revitalization? An interesting addition to this would be to consider the feasibility of partnering with a water resource recovery facility (wastewater plant) could provide water reuse, nutrients (from biosolids), heat and electricity (from anaerobic digestion and CHP). a deeper conversation of the exact policies and programs that would benefit a project like this would make this proposal stronger. Some of the potential policies and participants seemed a bit too broad. More specifics about the support needed to create and maintain Hubs like the one you are proposing are needed. You lay out the structure of the organization well, but a case example would make this proposal stronger. For example, you have it set that Boston will be the location of the first Hub. It would have been helpful then to have a discussion about who in Boston would be a potential partner or what location exactly would be the ideal site for a Hub of this nature. We encourage you to consider partnering with other community-revitalizing movements that bring together local artisans in shared retail and manufacturing space (such as the collaboration of beer brewers, coffee roasters, chocolate makers, and restaurateurs in Somerville, who have already invested great effort in establishing an efficient local market and industry) and would likely be open to mutually-beneficial exchange of resources, space, and local (market, zoning, etc.) knowledge. It seems that a significant hurdle will be initial community embedding, zoning, local buy-in, etc., and a robust community of partners will be key to short-term profitability. discussion on the relationship Hubs like this would have with a state agriculture industry would be beneficial. Since you are proposing growing water and energy efficient food, what relationship, if any, would your program have with the greater agriculture industry?
Semi-Finalist Evaluation
Judges'' ratings
| • | Novelty: | |
| • | Feasibility: | |
| • | Impact: | |
| • | Presentation: |
Judges'' comments
SUBJECT: Your proposal has been selected as a Climate CoLab Semi-Finalist!
Proposal: Sustainable Urban Food Initiative (SUFI) for Climate Change Resilience
Contest: Energy-Water Nexus
Congratulations! Your proposal submitted to the Energy-Water Nexus contest has been selected to advance to the Semi-Finalists round.
You will be able to revise your proposal and add new collaborators if you wish, from July 1st until July 14, 2015 at 23:59pm Eastern Time.
Judges' feedback are posted under the "Evaluation" tab of your proposal and below. Please incorporate this feedback in your revisions, or your proposal may not be advanced to the Finalists round. We ask you to also summarize the changes that you made in the comment section of the Evaluation tab.
At the revision deadline listed below, your proposal will be locked and considered in final form. The Judges will undergo another round of evaluation to ensure that Semi-Finalist proposals have addressed the feedback given, and select which proposals will continue to the Finalists round. Finalists are eligible for the contest’s Judges Choice award, as well as for public voting to select the contest’s Popular Choice award.
Thank you for your great work and again, congratulations!
2015 Climate CoLab Judges
The proposal is well thought out and well written. This proposal seems interesting and practical; the proposal hits on a lot of topics. Vertical farming for both plants and protein would be great for wealthy areas that like 'farm to table' and are willing to pay.
The portion about proposal costs needs to be fleshed out a bit more. A diagram of the actual Hub would be useful. The political and policy challenges though should be addressed thoroughly. More focus is needed on how this ties in to the energy-water nexus challenge. Think more about the costs/benefits of having Hubs of this nature in urban and heavily populated areas as proposed. Think about which areas Hubs of this nature would make more sense. The proposed action could be more detailed. An interesting addition to this would be to consider the feasibility of partnering with a water resource recovery facility (wastewater plant) could provide water reuse, nutrients (from biosolids), heat and electricity (from anaerobic digestion and CHP). The proposal should also address how the idea can be scaled.
2comments
Share conversation:
Share via:
 Sarah Brezniak Jul 14, 2015 08:00  | Proposal creator
A summary of revisions is as follows:
1. Added a diagram of a notional Hub.
2. Described how the Hub model addresses the energy-water nexus from a food perspective.
3. Clarified our intention/preference to work with underserved, urban communities.
4. Added significant detail to proposed actions including discussion of policy environment (I found it bit difficult to include a thorough analysis within the constraints of this format, that could be a whole separate proposal.)
5. Described where Hubs might be best located in terms of site selection criteria.
6. Explored feasibility of partnering with WWT plant. After conferring with some experts, concluded that the benefits do not out weigh the additional constraint on Hub location and its ability to provide other social/economic benefits. The amount of makeup water needed to recharge nutrient reservoir is relatively nominal and the biosolids from digestion are also not suitable as nutrient feeds (hydroponics) or fish feed (aquaponics). So I have included this as an optional Hub component, on site or in conjunction with a nearby WWT facility.
7. Modified the CEA component of the Hub to be based on hydroponics instead of aquaponics. Conversation with experts indicate that hydroponics has longer, better track record or working at large commercial scale. Compared to hydroponics, aquaponics has additional challenges such as:
physical weight of system limits site options and ability to tier systems; practicioners have only been able to optimize for plant or fish, not both; fish add complexity, making yields unpredictable; uses noticeably more energy for moving a lot more water around.
|
Sarah Brezniak Jul 14, 2015 09:56 | Proposal creator
Also, aquaponics would not qualify for HACCP certification.
|
