Question 18:
In regards to the first requirement for AOI4, “Details of novel low-PGM (<0.2 mgPt/cm2) cathode oxygen reduction catalyst synthesis and electrode layer design,” does this refer only to catalyst particles that are themselves lower in PGM? Or are electrode designs which achieve far lower loading of, e.g., pure Pt particles acceptable?
Can you also please clarify “Details of how the approach increases understanding of degradation”? Does this mean we need to include a fundamental study of degradation mechanisms?
Answer 18:
The topic targets the development of MEAs that meet performance and durability requirements for heavy-duty transportation applications. The platinum group metal (PGM) loading is limited to <0.2 mg/cm2. The electrode design to achieve these objectives is not specified.
The application does not need to include a fundamental study of degradation mechanisms.
Question 27:
1. Within Topic 1b, how much work can be focused on combustion of syngas in diesel engines? Or does the project need to be focused just on cleaning syngas to get "pure" syngas that can be used in engines?
2. The requirement of 1b is to demonstrate the reduction of LCOE by 25%. Can this be achieved by switching to negative feedstock such as sludges and biosolids?
Answer 27:
Syngas is not called out in the “applications specifically not of interest” section. However, the application would need to make a strong techno-economic case how syngas would be compatible with the existing fuel infrastructure if diesel engines were the target.
Sludges and biosolids are allowable feedstocks as articulated on p.9 of the FOA. The TEA would need to include credible justification for whatever feedstock cost figures were submitted
Question 28:
1) Since the calculations of LCOE and EROI are required, and thus I believe we need to include a TEA component in the application. However, what about LCA? Is it also required? Or at least preferable to include? What is the criteria for the project goal from the LCA standpoint?
2) We target to produce liquid fuel product(s). Could the endproduct(s) be a bioblendstock to gasoline or diesel? Or it is required that the endproduct(s) must be directly used as a fuel for medium-/heavy-duty vehicles?
3) We will target on the production of liquid fuel from waste; wondering whether the testing/evaluation of the end-product as a fuel or fuel bioblendstock necessary in this project? In another words, do we need to include fuel combustion and engine testing components for this project?
Answer 28:
1) The solicitation does not mention LCA for topic 1b, and there is no specific goal. However, if an LCA was included, it would be considered as part of the overall application.
2) This area of interest seeks "proposals to convert these valuable resources into biopower and/or intermediates that are potentially useful as medium-/heavy-duty vehicle fuels, such as renewable natural gas, or in the production of biopower at appropriate scales (less than or equal to five dry tons/day).” The application would need to be clear how the proposed blendstocks would ultimately be converted to fuel or biopower.
3) The solicitation does not state any requirements for engine testing under topic 1b. However, applicants may include such steps if they make the case that doing so would add value to the overall proposal.
Question 31:
This question pertains to AOI 1b: Research: Waste to Energy. It would help to clarify two points:
1) Can the input feedstock to the proposed system be biogas? On page 9, the call states: "Applications must employ an organic waste feedstock, with particular emphasis on the following: ...biogas produced from any of the above."
2) Can the purpose of the proposed technology/system be to upgrade the input biogas feedstock to renewable biomethane as the output?
Answer 31:
1.) Biogas can be the feedstock for the proposed system.
2.) As stated on page 8, processes to produce renewable natural gas from biogas are permissible.
Question 45:
1. The solicitation states the cover page should include the project title, the specific FOA Area of Interest being addressed (if applicable), both the technical and business points of contact, names of all team member organizations, and any statements regarding confidentiality. If there is room left on the cover page, can we include some of the Technical Description and Impacts that were identified in the solicitation to be included on pages 2 – 4?
2. If a National Lab (FFRDC) is being proposed as a subrecipient for a program, do we need to provide written authorization from the cognizant CO as part of our concept paper submission documents?
Answer 45:
1. The cover page is limited to the information specified in the concept paper cover page content. Any technical description and impacts must be presented in the remaining 3 pages.
2. Written authorization for FFRDC participation is not required as part of the concept paper submission.
Question 47:
This question is regarding one of the AOI 5 General Requirements on Page 22. The requirement states, “A cost analysis of the proposed technologies that demonstrates an operating cost payback of less than two years.” To ensure that the proposed technology will meet the requirements we have the following questions:
1) Is there a recommended procedure or model for calculating the payback? And more specifically,
2) We assume that the payback will be based on the incremental capital cost of the proposed technology over incumbent technologies. Is this a valid assumption?
3) We assume that the cost assumptions for both equipment and fuel will can be projections at scaled production. Is this a valid assumption?
4) Can we use DOE MYRD&D Technical Targets for some or all of those cost assumptions?
Answer 47:
1) There is no recommended procedure or model
2) Yes, this is a valid assumption
3) Yes, this is a valid assumption
4) The DOE MYRD&D technical targets apply to fuel cell technologies rather than off-road vehicles, so their use may not be appropriate for this topic.
Question 48:
1. In the EERE webpage section for creating control numbers and submitting concept papers, do we need to include the FC-PAD organizations, the respective leads and percentage of effort in the “add key team members” or “add key participants” section ?
2. What is the difference between Key team member and key participant? I understood that participants include all personnel working on the project from all teams. Is that correct? How do we know who from the Fc_PAD organization will be working on the projects if we are not allowed to communicate with them.
Answer 48:
1. It is not necessary to include the FC-Pad organization percentage of effort or list their team members at the concept paper phase of the application process.
2. There is no signficant distinction between key team members and key participants. Both represent personnel with a signifcant role in in completing the proposed project.
Question 62:
Page 19 of the FOA states letters of support from Industry are encouraged for AOI 3.
1. Is this applicable to the other AOIs as well?
2. Are letters of support from industry included in the Letters of Commitment upload?
Answer 62:
1. The letters of support are not applicable to the other AOIs.
2. The letters of support for AOI 3 should be included in the Letters of Comittment pdf file.
Question 65:
1.- Can the lead organization provide a smaller percentage of contribution to the project? Also, can the Lead organization provide a smaller cost share contribution than the secondary applicants?
2.- Is there a contact list of the interested in the FOA that can be shared by DOE to find a suitable partner?
Answer 65:
1. As stated in section III.B.ii of the FOA, " Each project team is free to determine how best to allocate the cost share requirement among the team members. The amount contributed by individual project team members may vary, as long as the cost share requirement for the project as a whole is met." This means the cost share contribution by the prime applicant could be less than the contribution by the subrecipients.
2. DOE does not have a contact list of potential partners.
Question 72:
Can you explain how FFRDC costs should be treated in the budget?
Answer 72:
For the purpose of developing the project budget, all FFRDC costs should be included on the EERE 335 contractual tab and included in the total project costs. These costs are part of the approved budget, used to establish the total project costs and subsequently the amount of any required cost share.
If an applicant ultimately receives an award, the FFRDC costs will be paid directly to them by the federal government and not included in the award agreement with NETL.