text:
Design for the Environment/Automobile Engines I

The Fleet Services in the City of Toronto provides responsive and comprehensive support to public programs and services in the Greater Toronto Area. They are mainly using mid-size car with gasoline internal combustion engine. The pollutants created from the combustion of gasoline such as carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxide, and carbon monoxide are becoming a major source of concern. The city of Toronto has committed to lower the emissions of greenhouse gases by 6% below the 1990 level by 2012, the Fleet Service is taking an initiation to help achieving the city’s environmental objective.

The Fleet has approximately 4,300 vehicles in service around the Greater Toronto Area The vehicles are heavily operated around the city and have frequent stop and go. This makes the gasoline internal combustion engine very energy inefficient. The current baseline is midsize vehicle powered by convention gasoline internal combustion engine (ICEV). The alternatives for comparison are mid-sized cars powered by plug in hybrid (PHEV), and hydrogen fuel cell with metal hydride hydrogen storage (FCV). The ideal vehicle for the Fleet should have prices ranged from low-end to moderate, and be classified as mid-sized vehicles for the transportation of equipments while maintaining low energy consumption. The Chevrolet Malibu was chosen to represent this class of vehicles, specifically the 2008 Chevrolet Malibu, 2008 Chevrolet Malibu Hybrid and a hypothetical hydrogen fuel cell vehicle with metal hydride hydrogen storage derived from the current Chevrolet Malibu models. The hybrid vehicle is assumed to be similar to the Honda FCX Clarity.

Highlights and Recommendations
The ICEV was initially assumed to be the most harmful to the environment, and the FCV was assumed to be the least harmful to the environment. Hybrid and fuel cell vehicles consume less energy and emit fewer or in the case of fuel cell vehicles almost no pollutants; however, this statement does not account for the energy consumed and pollutants emitted during the production and disposal of the vehicles. The technical, environmental(Streamlined LCA and EIOLCA), and economic performance of the vehicle is ranked in the table below with a score of 3 being the best and 1 being the worst.

Based on the scores the ICEV is the best while the FCV was the worst. The SLCA showed that the hybrid vehicle is the best while the EIOLCA shows that the ICEV was the best. In terms of technical performance, the hydrogen fuel cell is the least durable due to the presence of hydrogen embrittlement.

Based on the results of the analysis, ICEV is still the best solution from the environmental and economic aspects in the near future. However, taking into consideration of the shortage of fossil fuel and fluctuation of gasoline prices in the future, the PHEV and FCV can lower the demand of fossil fuels and would be considered as a long term solution. The recommendation is that it is not necessary for the City of Toronto to replace all vehicles with PHEVs at once, but can slowly replace with PHEVs when their ICEVs have reached their end-of-life. The use FCVs may be considered for the more distant future as infrastructure becomes more available and the technology becomes more mature.

Functional Analysis
The functional performance is evaluated by four aspects: durability, reliability, mechanical performance and fuel availability. Each category is rated in a scale of 0-10.

Based the comparison, the ICEV, and PHEV have similar overall functional performance, while the FCV received a significant lower overall rating. The major functional concern of using FCV is the fuel availability. Infrastructure for filling hydrogen into FCV is rarely available in North America. However when the technology becomes more popular and widely used in public, the availability of fuel will increase as well. In the other hand, PHEV has been increasingly attractive to many car manufacturer, for example GM, Fisker, Toyota, etc. In terms of mechanical performance, the PHEV, and FCV can provide a higher low-end torque for acceleration which makes it more suitable for frequency stop and go service vehicle. Also the relative low rating for FCV in the durability and reliable is due to the fact that hydrogen storage system has a generally low service life of 1500 cycles and hydrogen embrittlement can potentially pose an engineering problem to the vehicle. These are both dependent on the engineering design and quality of the vehicle and may improve as the technology develops. Since hybrid vehicle uses both gasoline and electricity to provide power, the additional feature regenerative braking, helps regain electricity especially when the car in the city, as above mentioned, needs to stop and go frequently. One advantage of PHEV compared with a conventional hybrid vehicle is that, as implied by the name, the vehicle may be pluged into the electric grid and charged. However, the capacity and the service life of the hybrid vehicle batteries still limited, but is expected to improve as the technology develops.

Streamlined Lifecycle Analysis (SLCA)
All three alternatives are assumed to be manufactured at the GM facility of Orion Assembly at Michigan. Since the vehicle’s intended use is in Toronto, it is also assumed disposal occurs there. Based on the above assumptions, we will only present the points where there is a significant difference between each alternative's scores.

For SLCA, it is necessary to take in account that different stage of a vehicle has different environmental impact. As such, weight has been incorporated into the stages accordingly. The delivery stage will have the least impact, and is given a weight of 0.5. The use stage will have the most impact due to the time span and the intensity of the stages, and consequently is given a weight of 2. The impact of other stages are relatively similar and thus retain the weight of 1.

For the delivery stage, the environment impact is assumed to be equivalent for all three alternatives. The plastic and bubble wrap for packaging used in Orion Assembly plant are returnable and used, therefore minimized the material used and solid residue in packaging. The vehicle is assumed to be delivered by train and truck and therefore required appreciate amount of energy in the process. The liquid residue comes from the detergents and wax that are use for cleaning.

Internal Combustion Engine Vehicle
Resource Extraction

GM North America recycles 83% of all the waste materials in 2005. However, components like chassis demands high usage of raw materials including rare metals. Extraction of raw material requires the most intensive amount of energy for mining equipments and transportation based on data obtained from EIOLCA. Raw material extraction is known to produce moderate amount of residues. Companies use open-cast miningresulting in significant soil displacement. Natural gas requires significant amount of water for extraction. The production of iron and steel releases substantial amount of gas residues: industrial emissions of CO at 28% and Total Particulate Matter, Volatile Organic Compounds, NOx and SOx at 3%. Manufacturing

The vehicle is assumed to be manufactured at the Orion Assembly plant where efforts and techniques to reduce the use of hazardous materials are implemented. The plant recycles solid and liquid wastes, such as Plastics Caps and Plugs as well as batteries. Aside from coal, the assembly receives the energy from landfill gas (LPG) as an alternative which cuts coal usage down to 25% annually. Due to increased production, solid residue has been decreased due to recycling effort but liquid and gas residue has been increased significantly due to the painting process. Use

The Malibu LS uses exclusively gasoline for internal combustion. Produced from petroleum, gasoline is not renewable. The energy efficiency is poor due to nature of IC engine and frequent ‘stop and go’ during city driving. Automobiles do not produce significant amount of solid or liquid waste, providied they are maintained properly. In contrast, air emission is the greatest environmental concern in operation of gasoline-based vehicles. Although use of technologies such as catalytic converter and Malibu’s ECOTEC engine allow pollution reduction to 97% compared to 1970s, it is somewhat counter-balanced by miles driven presently. End of life

Being composed of primarily steel and due to GM’s recycling effort, the Malibu LS contains minor hazardous materials. The primary material steel is recycled using electric arc furnace with less energy effort than raw material processing. However, the vehicle must be disassembled into its constituents for salvage or scrap. The vehicle’s fluid are easily accessible with possible recovery, but major operation is needed to render them harmless or useful. At disposal, nearly 50% of gaseous residues are emitted into the ozone layer from the initial refrigerant. Gaseous residues are difficult to recover and capture, and is produced significantly during waste incineration.

Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle
Resource Extraction

PHEV required large capacity batteries, which leads to increases in the vehicle weight. Therefore, a large amount of copper and aluminium is used in order to reduce the weight of PHEV. NiMH batteries are less detrimental to overall environmental health compare with other type of batteries. However, in a certain extent the mining of copper, aluminium, and nickel is unavoidable. Extraction of nickel required medium energy use, with SO2 and CO2 are used and released in aqueous ammoniacal leach solution, one of the steps to extract nickel.

Manufacturing The vehicle is assumed to be manufactured at the Orion Assembly plant where efforts and techniques to reduce the use of hazardous materials are implemented. Especially for Hybrid Malibu assembly, the plant recycles solid and liquid wastes, also encourage labour in the plant to recycle and reuse materials that is necessary for the assembly of Hybrid Malibu.

Use PHEV uses both electric motor and gasoline IC engine to generate power. Therefore, it reduces fuel consumption. Malibu Hybrid has a 2 MPG reduction in both city and highway fuel economy. This can lead to a reduction in gaseous residues. However, recharging of the batteries require electricity of power generation plant. As such, gaseous residues and energy use is greatly increased due to the power generation. Although energy used to charge batteries in PHEV is very high, the regenerative braking system helps the PHEV to regain some energy while traveling.

End of Life At the end of the useful lives of PHEV, more than 75% of the vehicle can be recycled and reused. Batteries and other components can be returned to the Orion Assembly plant to be reused or recycled. As such, the solid and gaseous residues and materials are being significantly minimized. However, coolant and cleaner are not recycled and treated as liquid residues.

Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicle
Resource Extraction Fuel cells require platinum group metals (PGM) as catalysts which are considered rare materials. The extraction of these metals is expected to produce significant negative impacts on the environment due to fact that the concentration of PGM is approximately 100 to 1000 grams per ton of material mined. The energy required to extract the metals is expected to be significant due to the amount of material that needs to be processed given that the concentration of PGM is relatively low. The extraction process requires the use of hydrochloric acid and chlorine which are toxic and harmful to the environment. Due to the fact that the concentration of PGM is relatively low, significant amounts of tailings will be generated in the extraction process. A significant amount of copper is required to manufacture the motor.

Manufacturing The vehicle is assumed to be manufactured at the Orion plant where efforts and techniques to reduce the use of hazardous materials are implemented. The facility receives the energy from both coal and landfill gas. The facility recycles solid and liquid wastes and volatile solvents. The vehicle requires PGM ; however, the use of PGM is likely minimized due to the cost of PGM.

Use The vehicle is fueled with hydrogen which can be produced from renewable resources and wastes streams and will reduce the consumption of non-renewable resources. The fuel cell is approximately 50% efficient as opposed to 20-30% efficiency for internal combustion engines. The motor is expected to not run while the vehicle is stopped. The vehicle uses regenerative braking which recovers energy and reduces the usage of conventional brakes which reduces the amount of brake dust generated. The electric motor does not require engine oil or coolant which reduces the amount of fluids that need to be disposed of during maintenance. The fuel cell is expected to emit only water vapour which is not considered a pollutant.

End of Life The proton exchange membrane of the fuel cell is difficult to recycle. The membranes are expected to be incinerated at end of their service life. Incineration generates toxic gases and fly ash. The toxic gases are removed using scrubbers which generate waste water which must subsequently be treated. The fly ash is toxic and must be disposed of in specially designed land fill to prevent ground water contamination. The incineration process recovers energy from incinerated waste.

Economic Input-Output Lifecycle Analysis (EIOLCA)

Note: The EIOLCA will be based on the manufacturing and use phase as they have the most significant environmental impact in road vehicles. Pre-manufacturing is implicitly considered in the manufacturing phase, the delivery phase is considered trivial as all vehicles are transported in the same method and the disposal phase is not considered due to the difficulty to obtain reliable information relative to the time span. Although the report is ideally targeted towards the City of Toronto, but as a Canadian EIOLCA model is not available, the result should approximate the North America population. All present values are calculated using an average inflation rate of 3%, fuel cost is assumed to have a 10% increases in price annually due to global energy supply/demand and a 5% increases in indirect electricity cost is applied to compensate the increasing energy demand. According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, the average life spans of a vehicle over 13 years and have a final mileage of 230,000km. Due to the heavy usage of a service vehicle, life span is assumed to be reduced to 10 years and the mileage increase to around 300,000km.

Internal Combustion Engine Vehicle
Manufacturing The Malibu LS 1997 producer price is $13,580.37 and used in eiolca.net under the general automobile manufacturing sector. The power generation and supply sector is a primary contributor of conventional air pollutant by generating the majority of SO2 at 70% of the total and a significant amount of NOx at 30%. It is also a primary contributor of greenhouse gas by generating about 30% of the total GWP and nearly 35% of the total CO2. The iron and steel mills and aluminium production sector both generates a fair amount of CO. The iron and steel mills and truck transportation sector also produced a fair amount of CO2 and GWP at 10 – 15 % of the total.

The majority of energy comes from natural gas and coal at 41.7% and 25.2% respectively. The power generation and supply sector consumes majority of coal at 92.3 % and 11.6% of natural gas. The iron and steel mills consumes significant natural gas amount at 23.3%. Furthermore, the motor vehicle parts manufacturing consumes 16.7 % of electricity and 9.3 % of natural gas. The iron and steel mills sector contribute significantly to toxic release: About 57% of total water releases and 46.6 % of total offsite transfers. The automobile and light truck manufacturing sector contributes significantly to air at about 17.7 % of total point air and 16.2 % of total air releases.

Use Besides the manufacturing phrase, the use phrase of an automobile and fuel production also has a tremendous environmental impact. Malibu LS is assumed to produce 2.4kgCO2/L.The environmental impact of the use phrase is summarized below:

The amounts of energy used, toxic chemicals and greenhouse gases produced are summarized in the table below:

Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle
Manufacturing The manufacturing of PHEV in our analysis is separated into 4 sectors in www.eiolca.net; general automobile manufacturing, manufacturing of batteries, electric motor and other electrical components manufacturing. Table below shows 1997 producer price fro each economic activity.

Power generation and supply along with iron and steel mills results in the most production of conventional air pollutants as well as the greenhouse gas emission. Over half of the SO2 emission is generated by power generation and supply, and it also generates one quarter of the overall Global Warming Potential (GWP) which is a significant amount of greenhouse gas contribute to global warming. In terms of the toxic release, the major source of total releases is in the topic of Copper, nickel, lead, and zinc mining. Moreover, land releases contributes almost 99% of the total releases in the topic of Copper, nickel, lead, and zinc mining. This is common in nonferrous metal mining industry because most of the nonferrous metal waste can’t be reuse and has to be landfilled.

Use The use stage of the vehicle has an enormous effect on the environment and has to be included in our analysis. Assume a mid-size vehicle has a use life mileage of 300,000km and produces 2.4kgCO2/Litre of gas. Table below shows the use stage environmental effect.

Plug-in charging of the batteries is also an area where our analysis is covered. The average ON retail price of electricity is 5.4 cents/kWh. A nickel metal hydride battery has a capacity of 13.2kWh. Assume a 9000 cycles life for a NiMH battery, $4863.81 of 1997$ is input to the power supply sector in eiolca.net.

The global warming potential and energy used in power generation are almost double in the oil refineries activity, which create has a significant effect on the cost in which lead to further dicussions in the Cost Analysis section. In conclusion, the total environmental effect are list in the table below.

Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicle
Production The production of the FCV is modeled as a standard automobile with the addition of a fuel cell, storage batteries, and an electric motor and associated controllers. The fuel does have a corresponding sector in the EIOLCA. The fuel cell is modeled as a primary battery because a primary battery, by definition, directly converts chemical energy to electrical energy. The producer costs of components of the vehicle are divided into the sectors in the following table along with their corresponding economic input in 1997 US dollars.

The economic inputs to the Automobile and light truck manufacturing sector is obtained from the base MSRP from Car and Driver and General Motors’ 2006 profit margin. The inputs to the next three sectors are determined using the estimated cost per kilowatt and estimated power of the components. Use The direct use of the FCV should not produce greenhouse gases because hydrogen is not a greenhouse gas and the chemical between hydrogen and oxygen does not produce greenhouse gases; however, the emission greenhouse gases is expected to occur during hydrogen production. Based on the assumed service life of 300,000 km and a fuel economy of 68 miles per kg of hydrogen or approximately 109.435 km/kg, the vehicle is expected to consume 2,741.35 kg of hydrogen. From the energy content of 142 MJ/kg the vehicle is expected to consume 389.2717 GJ of energy. The hydrogen is assumed to be produced at the fuel station using electrolysis of water. The energy efficiency of electrolysis water is 70%. The compression and transfer of hydrogen are expected to be 90% and 97% efficient respectively. The well-to-tank efficiency is 61.11%. Based on the well-to-tank efficiency, energy consumption of the vehicle and the assumption that electricity is the only source of energy used to make and compress the hydrogen, 637.0016 GJ or 176,944.889kW-h of electricity is needed for the process. The energy loss associated with the transfer of hydrogen is assumed to be associated only with the escaping of hydrogen gas. The electrolysis is assumed to have 100 % water usage efficiency. Using the previous two assumptions, 25.2562070 m3 of water would be needed to produce the hydrogen. Based on the estimated electricity consumption 1997 equivalent producer price is $8,859.46. The 1997 producer price of water is is $3.06. The economic inputs are summarized in the table below

Results The EIOLCA model predicts the following environmental impacts. The amounts of energy consumed, toxic chemicals generated, and greenhouse gases emitted are listed in the table below.

Internal Combustion Engine Vehicle
The details of Malibu LS is listed for comparsion with the alternatives. Furthermore, The other alternatives use the same non-vehicle specific assumptions made here. The direct cost of Malibu LS emerges from fixed, fuel, maintenance, insurance and service cost. The average fuel economy is assumed to be 25 MPG with fuel cost of $1.03/L as of March 2008 in US. The indirect cost considered are environmental and health costs. The manufacturing of car and its components has a huge impact on environment due to its air pollution and thus the producer is responsible for the cost of such an effect. The external and health costs related to air emission’s effect on the environment is calculated based on “Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Goods and Services”. Moreover, a study conducted by Victoria Transport Policy Institute on 2002 has estimated the air pollution cost by vehicle emission to be $0.045 per miles travelled.

Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle verse Internal Combustion Engine Vehicle
Although PHEV has a better fuel economy relative to Malibu LS with a 2 MPG decreases, it also a $6,000 increase in the capital cost and electricity cost for charging the batteries. The maintainence cost of PHEV is also reduced by 50% compared with the convnetional IC engine vehicle due to its regenerative braking system. Therefore, the direct cost of PHEV is more than $10,000 difference compared with Malibu LS. Electricity generated by power plant has an enormous effect on the environment. The power plant generates much more air pollutants and greenhouse gas which increases the health and environmental cost.

Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicle verse Internal Combustion Engine Vehicle
Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicle has an amazingly high capital cost due to the fuel cell technology is still underdevelopment and high production cost. However, since the fuel cell vehicle uses hydrogen to generate power, therefore the price for hydrogen is much cheaper than gasoline for conventional IC engine vehicle. For indirect cost comparison, hydrogen fuel cell is considered to be an zero emission vehicle which only emit water into the air. Therefore reduces a large number of air pollutants and greenhouse gas, which in turn reduces enormous amount of environmental and health cost.

Societal Analysis
The safety issue is a major aspect in the societal assessment. All three alternatives poses potential hazard when accident occurs. Gasoline and hydrogen are both dangerous fuels and the high voltage battery in PHEV is hazardous as well. It is difficult to draw a conclusion on which alternative have a better safety performance. Another aspect to concern about is the general acceptance of the public. The conventional gasoline internal combustion engine has been utilized for decades so it should not create any major public acceptance problems. However, the hydrogen fuel cell is a rather new technology and the acceptance of the public is still unknown, especially when hydrogen is generally known as an explosive gas to the public. The popularity of PHEV is increasing rapidly and has reputation as being a green vehicle. This can provide a green image to the Fleet Service as it is taking an initiation to improve air quality and reduce emissions of greenhouse gases in the City of Toronto.


text:
Design for the Environment/Off-Grid Electricity for Cottages

Spending weekends at a cottage with families and friends has become an increasingly popular lifestyle for the Ontario urban populations. Ever since the economic boom of the 1980s, a part of central Ontario known as “cottage country” had seen a constant growth and development in the resort and cottages industry. This implied that large amount of urban populations decided to get away from the fast pace city momentum and spend quality time with their families in rural area on weekends as the quality of life increases resulting from the steadily increasing average household income. As the demand for cottages increases and easily accessible lands are taken up by previously built cottages, new cottages have to be built in increasingly remote locations, posting a major logistical problem: the lost of connection with the utility grid. In this analysis, only electricity generation was analyzed.

Although power lines that distribute electricity to cottage country exist according to, connecting a remote cottage to the utility grid is not economically sound in some cases. According to, one Georgian Bay, Ontario cottage owner estimated that the cost for connecting her cottage to the electricity grid to be $60,000 (CAD) since a cable of over 1 km long has to be run from her cottage to the nearest utility outlet.

The life-cycle of three small scale off-grid electricity generation methods: diesel generator – the baseline for comparison, solar panel (PV cells), and micro-hydro system were analyzed based on a typical Ontario cottage setting.

Project Information
Analysis conducted by:

Section 02 Group 11 (B11)
 * J. Lau (JLau)
 * E. Zhuang (j.zhuang)
 * J. Sin (Ckjackysin)
 * B. Wong (Bwong)

Highlights
The cottage analyzed was assumed to be located in a remote area adjacent to Lake Muskoka. The power consumption of the cottage was assumed to be 170 kWh/wk and 6.9 kWp. As a result, actual commercial products that met the functional requirements were selected to conduct the analysis. Based on the expected life span of each alternative, a study period of 300 years was used. Read more on the major assumptions made in this analysis.

From the technical side of the alternatives, micro-hydro turned out to be the most efficient alternative with an efficiency of 65% in converting gravitational potential energy from the water into electricity. Followed closely behind is diesel generator with an efficiency of 45%. When the availability of the energy is considered, however, diesel generator is superior due to the fact that diesel is available as long as petroleum is available. Solar panel lacked behind in both of this category with an availability of energy of only 22% and an efficiency of only 17-20%. Yet, solar panel is easier to be implemented than micro-hydro while diesel generator requires very little effort in its implementation.

The Streamlined Lifecycle Assessment (SLCA) concluded that micro-hydro system have the least environmental impact with a score of 56/80. Diesel generator scored the lowest due to its heavy dependency of petroleum product during its use stage and the existence of petroleum residue at its end of life. Solar panel also got a relatively low score due to its energy intensive pre-manufacturing and manufacturing stage. The delivery stage of all three alternatives was ignored because they are the same and therefore will not affect the score.

From an Economic Input-Output (EIO) LCA, a decision on the the system with least environmental impact was very hard to be made. During the manufacturing stage, solar panel emits less conventional air pollutants than micro-hydro system. Yet, the Gross Energy Requirement (GER) and Global Warming Potential (GWP) for solar panel is higher than micro-hydro. Diesel generator lacked behind in all categories except for lead emission and Solid Waste Burden (SWB) because manufacturing it does not require silicon or copper as a source material.

Based on an economical assessment, micro-hydro system is the most economical alternative with only half of the cost required to buy and run a diesel generator. The cost of a solar panel over the entire study period is also slight lower than a diesel generator, but its capital cost is almost 14 times the capital cost of a diesel generator. The capital cost of a micro-hydro system, on the other hand, is only 3 times a diesel generator.

Recommendation
After considered all aspects of the analysis with environmental impact receiving the biggest weight and the technical aspect receiving the lowest weight, the micro-hydro system was considered as the best off-grid electricity generation alternative and diesel generator was considered as the worst off-grid electricity generation alternative. Although the amount of lead emission during the manufacturing of a micro-hydro system is 7 times greater causing a SWB to be 9 times greater when compared to diesel generator, micro-hydro scored much higher in the other categories than the other two alternatives.

Another recommendation is to combine a diesel generator with PV cell or micro-hydro to create a hybrid system as suggested by. Although this recommendation will not decrease the environmental impact of the system and will yield a system with a higher cost, the reliability of the system will be significantly increased. Since both PV cell and micro-hydro system depends on the weather, the diesel generator will be used to act as a backup power source.

Functional Analysis
The major components of a diesel generator include a diesel engine and an electrical generator – actuator. The diesel engine generates power through an internal combustion process in which the fuel would be ignited by direct injection into a chamber filled with compressed high temperature air. The efficiency of a diesel engine is around 45%, where each gallon (3.8 L) of diesel fuel contains approximately 20x106 J more than each gallon of gasoline. Therefore diesel generator may be deemed an efficient way of generating electricity, and had been commonly used for industrial purposes as well as certain residential needs. The diesel generator is also a highly reliable method of electricity generation due to its readily available potential energy in diesel fuel, as compared to other methods that may rely on natural conditions.

Product Selection
In determining a suitable size of the diesel generator, a 6kW power output was arbitrarily chosen for the purpose of this analysis. Based on the estimation of 679.549kWh/month energy requirement of the cottage and energy density on diesel fuel of 10.11 kWh/litre, a 6kW diesel generator shall only need to operate for 3.78 hours a day and consume approximately 150 litres of diesel each month. Therefore a 70 litres fuel tank should be considered as an accessory so that the user can reduce the frequency of refilling diesel generators, since the generators’ fuel capacities are usually only around 10-15 litres. This fuel tank will add $336.75 on top of the capital cost.

A battery will be used to store energy from the generator. It will allow the generator to only operate when energy is needed and not produce excessive electricity to be wasted. However, this is identically implemented in the other two alternatives (micro hydro and solar); hence its effect will not be evaluated in the analysis.

Functional Analysis
A solar electric system generates electricity directly using Earth’s most sustainable and abundant energy source – sunlight. PV system has the advantage of generating “free”, clean and emission-free (no noise, smell and GHG) electricity. Also during its useful life, a PV module requires very little maintenance. However, this method of converting energy into electricity is not as efficient as other methods such as hydroelectricity generation; typical module efficiency from today’s technology ranges from 16% to 21%. Moreover, the performance largely depends on the weather (sunny hours). The average peak sunlight hour (from May to October) estimated from insolation data is 5.2 hours, 22% availability a day.

Product Selection
The initial cost of such system is however relatively high. For example, according to our power consumption estimation, the cottage requires 680 kWh per month and a maximum of 6.9 kW at anytime from a PV off-grid system. Estimating from the sizing sheet provided by, a 7 kW system is needed. Mitsubishi Electric PV-UD185MF5 which claims to have 185W peak power is selected for the analysis. Full specification can be found in. It costs $833 each and 38 such modules are required for the desired output. The total cost is $31,654. Another important performance measurement is the average cost per kW-h generated over its life span, which was estimated to be about 35 cents per kWh, shown later in Cost Analysis, assuming the system fully satisfies the power consumption. The PV modules can be placed on the roof of a cottage to save space; nevertheless, space requirement for the PV system is calculated to be 52.5 m2 in total, using module’s specification.

Functional Analysis
The micro-hydro system is hydroelectric power installation with 65% efficiency which normally generates up to around 100kW of power. It transfers potential energy into electricity continuously as long as water stream runs along the river at which the system is installed. It is one of the most environmental friendly energy conversion alternatives available, because running water is a renewable energy source and unlike large-scale hydro power, it does not interfere with water flows significantly. It also operates quietly and without odour. Moreover the aesthetic problem can be basically solved by careful design of pipeline route. For the purpose of this analysis, our micro-hydro system will be asuumed built at a 50 feet head and 600 foot long creek, and the cottage is located 200 feet from the creek. This scenario allows a micro-hydro system to generate up to 110kW .A micro-hydro system can normally last for at least 20 years if maintenance is performed regularly. However, there are certain disadvantages: 1. the size and the flow of the river constraint the expansion of the system as the electricity demand increases. 2. In some regions, the climate will affect the speed and the amount of water flow in the river. An example is solidification of the water during winter. 3. Construction of the system will affect the ecology and the civil infrastructure of the area around the system.

Product Selection
In order to maximize efficiency, micro-hydro system is generally custom made to fit the specific terrain. The space occupied by the water turbine is approximately 12 x 12 x 12 ft3, and the typical price of such system ranges from $1,000 to $20,000 CAD.

Streamlined Life Cycle Assessment
Figure on the right shows the scores of each stage in the life cycle for three alternatives studied. Overall, micro-hydro scores the highest and diesel scores the lowest of the three. The following highlights the reasons behind the scorings:

Pre-manufacturing
PV receives relatively lower scores than the other two mainly because extraction of silicon requires both virgin materials and intensive energy input ; however, for diesel and micro-hydro, recycled materials such as scrap steels can be used to reduced various impacts such as energy consumption and air pollutions.

Manufacturing
PV is rated the lowest because in the production of PV cells, hazardous chemicals, intensive energy are required and significant amount of toxic materials is released. On the other hand, production of diesel generator and micro-hydro turbine utilize recycled materials and require less energy input and release either no or negligible toxic materials.

Use
Diesel is rated the lowest because during use phase, diesel generator requires the use of highly toxic and hazardous consumables such as fuel and oil etc. Also, large amount of GHG and toxic air pollutants are released during generator’s internal combustion process. PV and micro-hydro are rated perfect because they require little maintenance during their respective useful life.

End of Life
Diesel receives relative lower scores than other two alternatives because most of the components in PV module and micro-hydro system can be recycled yet diesel generator is turned into scrap and it requires considerable amount of energy during disposal.

Methodology
Since the scale used in the EIOLCA model on www.eiolca.net is quite large, an economic activity of 1000 systems is used for the input. For each alternative (Diesel, PV, Micro-hydro), EIOLCA is only performed on the diesel generator, PV module, micro-hydro turbine and copper piping respectively. Diesel Sectors selected: 1. Other engine equipment manufacturing sector 2. Petroleum refineries sector Respective economic activity at 1997 Dollars: 1.5 Million and 10.6 Million Life span: 15 years  PV Sectors selected: Semiconductor and Related Device Manufacturing Economic activity at 1997 Dollars: 24 Million Life span: 25 years  Micro-hydro Sectors selected: 1. Primary smelting and refining of copper sector 2. Turbine and turbine generator set units manufacturing sector Respective economic activity at 1997 Dollars: 3.8 Million and 2.5 Million Life span: 20 years

Results from EIOLCA
Conventional Air Pollutants

Diesel has the most impacts on SO2, CO, NOx and VOC emissions, accounting annually for 3.2 Mt, 5.1 Mt, 1.9 Mt and 2.0 Mt respectively, but least in lead (0.0005 Mt). This is the result of cracking and coking chemicals required during refinement. PV contributes the least of the conventional air pollution except lead, 0.86 Mt, 2.0 Mt, 0.6 Mt, 0.5 Mt and 0.18 Mt for SO2, CO, NOx, VOC and PM10 respectively. Nevertheless, the semiconductor sector itself contributes negligible impact on conventional air pollutants emission. Micro-hydro poses moderate impact on most of the pollutant emissions except for Lead where it contributes most of the three. Yet the impact of lead is considerably small for all three alternatives, annually accounting for only 0.0005 Mt, 0.001 Mt, 0.003 Mt respectively.

GWP – Global Warming Potential Annually, Diesel poses the largest GHG emissions and thus the most GWP among the three alternatives, accounting for more than 1500 MTCO2 of GWP while PV and Micro-hydro contribute only around 400 MTCO2 and 200 MTCO2, respectively. These result from the fact that the diesel fuel needed during the use stage constitutes 64.3% of the total GWP while PV and Micro-hydro require no input during the use phase; their GHG is mostly incurred during production and delivery stages.

GER – Gross Energy Requirement Diesel requires the most energy input, accounting for 18.3GJ annually. Over 55% of the energy is consumed in petroleum refineries, which indicates the great impact of the diesel fuel during use stage. The other engine equipment manufacturing sector itself however consumes relatively much less energy. On the other hand, PV and Micro-hydro requires relatively the same amount of energy input, annually 4 GJ and 3 GJ respectively. Nevertheless, production of PV and Micro-hydro system is also very energy intensive as they require 100 GJ and 60 GJ respectively to produce one system.

SWB – Solid Waste Burden  Micro-hydro has the greatest toxic release of all three alternatives, producing total of 6550 Kg toxic releases/transfers annually. This is due to the requirement of copper piping in the system which induces the majority of the toxic releases from mining and primary smelting of copper. Moreover, they are primarily concentrated on the land releases because the dust and solid residues from the mining dumps. Diesel and PV produce negligible toxic releases compared to Micro-hydro because they do not require extraction of materials that produces lots of wastes.

Cost Assessment
 In order to compare the life-cycle costs for diesel generator, PV cell, and micro-hydro, it is necessary to divide the life-cycle cost by the life span for each alternative and then evaluate them.

 The capital cost of diesel generator consists of the retail prices of diesel engine and a 70L fuel tank which sum up to be $2330.75 CAD. . Diesel generator is much cheaper than PV cell because its capital cost is solely consisted of solar panels with $31,654 CAD. On the other side, the capital cost of micro-hydro is $6380.43 CAD which is intermediate among the alternatives. It includes the retail prices of Copper Pipeline and micro-hydro turbine.

 Due to the 25 year warranty of the solar panels, PV cell generation does not require any operation cost. In contrast, extensive of diesel fuel is needed for the operation of diesel generator; moreover, transportation of the fuel to the cottage and engine oil refill also contribute a significant amount to the operation cost. Thus, the total operation cost of PV cell generation is $16,418.89 CAD. The maintenance cost of Micro-hydro is is the maintenance of copper pipeline and turbine and it is assumed to be $4624.25 CAD based on the replacement of piplines and turbine.

 For the disposal stage of micro-hydro diesel generator, since it is assumed that disassembly of the system is done by the cottage owner, there is only the cost of the transportation of the scrap materials. The price of gasoline in 2028 is assumed to be the same as the price in 2008 excluding inflation of the currency for simplicity. Thus, $31.20 CAD is required to dispose micro-hydro system and diesel generator. It is assumed that the cost of processing recycled modules (silicon wafers effectively) is about ¼ of the cost to produce new wafers. Silicon wafer is responsible for 50% of the cost of manufacturing a module. Thus, $1,168.44 CAD is the total disposal cost for PV cell and it is the highest among the alternatives.

 Indirect costs include health and environmental costs are calculated based on the output of EIO-LCA and the cost per emission obtained from the research in University of Alberta. . As a result, the total indirect cost for diesel generator is $5005.42 CAD, PV cell is $3292.61 CAD, and micro-hydro is $2747.29 CAD. Thus, micro-hydro costs the least to the environment and health in a financial point of view.

 Finally, as the direct cost and indirect cost are added together, this becomes the total life cycle cost.

Other factors
There are some concerns excluded from the analysis. The implementation of diesel generator would have minimal effect on society due to cottage's afar location from city. However, there is still a minor probability of ignition of spilled fuel, or unexpected particle in combustion chamber causing ignition, which could lead to burn down of trees nearby. This highly improper situation would result in serious environmental damage. Residents living near by may as well oppose the installation of micro-hydro system due to its destruction of natural aesthetic of the river as well as potential recreation area. Approval from the residents in the area and government permission are therefore needed prior to its installation. Technological advancements and environmental/climate changes can also affect the performances of above alternatives, in effect changing the available power output, lifespan, operation cost etc. These factors are difficult to account for yet may significantly affect the accuracy of this analysis.

Topographical and Geographical Assumptions
The cottage is assumed to be located at a site next to Lake Muskoka in central Ontario. Terrain and geographical features includes: The above assumptions resemble a typical remote cottage that allowed the possibility of all three alternatives after studying geographical features of central Ontario using.
 * Open field suitable for large scale PV installation
 * Minimal trees coverage allowing exposure of cottage roof top to solar radiation
 * Next to a small creek of 20 m elevation over a distance of 200m that transports runoff water into adjacent Lake Muskoka
 * Nearest gas station that offer diesel is 10 km away

Power Consumptions Estimate
Based from the table above, the weekly energy consumption of the cottage is 170 kWh with a peak power consumption of 6.9 kWp. This peak consumption is based on the power required when using all of the following appliances concurrently: Clothes Dryer, Computer, Air Conditioner, Hair Blow Dryer, Lighting, Refrigerator, and Television. This power consumption simulates a possible evening setting. All power consumptions data are based on, and. The cottage was assumed to be only in use during weekends while only the refrigerator will be on during the week. The cottage will only be used during cottage season which is from May to October.

Other Assumptions
The off-grid electricity generation system was assumed to follow the remote area power supply (RAPS) system model which contains an electricity generation method, an AC/DC converter for converting electricity into DC for battery storage and back to AC for household use, and batteries. Please refer to Figure A-2 for a diagram of RAPS system. Since the RAPS system is the same for the diesel generator and micro-hydroelectricity alternatives, and only required minor modification for the PV alternatives, the AC/DC converter and the battery will not be included in the LCA.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
User talk:JLau

Hello, welcome around here. I hope you succeed in your learning goals. Below more info about Wikiversity, Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 16:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Welcome
Hello JLau, and welcome to Wikiversity! If you need help, feel free to visit my talk page, or contact us and ask questions. After you leave a comment on a talk page, remember to sign and date; it helps everyone follow the threads of the discussion. The signature icon in the edit window makes it simple. To get started, you may
 * Take a guided tour and learn to edit;
 * Explore our learning projects;
 * Browse our portals, schools, and research activities;
 * Read and help develop our community policies；or
 * Chat with other Wikiversitans on #wikiversity-en.

And don't forget to explore Wikiversity with the links to your left. Be bold, and see you around Wikiversity! Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 16:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Two files
Hello. The following files have been tagged for proposed deletion. If you wish to retain them in Wikiversity, please remove the prod tags but note they may be nominated for deletion.
 * File:IMG 2363.jpg
 * File:IMG 2094.jpg

-Green Giant (discuss • contribs) 11:13, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

title: User talk:JLau


text:
User talk:Tony.tam

Hello, welcome around here. I hope you succeed in your learning goals. Below more info about Wikiversity, Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 16:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Welcome
Hello Tony.tam, and welcome to Wikiversity! If you need help, feel free to visit my talk page, or contact us and ask questions. After you leave a comment on a talk page, remember to sign and date; it helps everyone follow the threads of the discussion. The signature icon in the edit window makes it simple. To get started, you may
 * Take a guided tour and learn to edit;
 * Explore our learning projects;
 * Browse our portals, schools, and research activities;
 * Read and help develop our community policies；or
 * Chat with other Wikiversitans on #wikiversity-en.

And don't forget to explore Wikiversity with the links to your left. Be bold, and see you around Wikiversity! Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 16:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:Tony.tam


text:
User talk:Frankie Yau

Hello Frankie, welcome around here. I hope you succeed in your learning goals. Below more info about Wikiversity, Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 17:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Welcome
Hello Frankie Yau, and welcome to Wikiversity! If you need help, feel free to visit my talk page, or contact us and ask questions. After you leave a comment on a talk page, remember to sign and date; it helps everyone follow the threads of the discussion. The signature icon in the edit window makes it simple. To get started, you may
 * Take a guided tour and learn to edit;
 * Explore our learning projects;
 * Browse our portals, schools, and research activities;
 * Read and help develop our community policies；or
 * Chat with other Wikiversitans on #wikiversity-en.

And don't forget to explore Wikiversity with the links to your left. Be bold, and see you around Wikiversity! Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 17:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:Frankie Yau


text:
Design for the Environment/Residential Micro-cogeneration

This page is part of the Design for the Environment course As the demand for energy grows and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions becomes more important, cogeneration (combined heat and power) solutions emerge as an immediate solution. Considering that the residential sector accounts for 17% of Canada’s energy utilization, reducing the electrical demand could alleviate the need to use non-renewable energy sources and develop new power generation facilities. Residential micro-cogeneration systems act as an alternative or supplement to provide electricity and heat to a home by burning fossil fuels with net efficiencies of up to 90%. The energy obtained from these methods, will have lower greenhouse gas emissions than that from typical fossil fuel electricity generating stations running at an average of 30 – 35% efficiency.

This article focuses on the investigating the practicality of implementing cogeneration units into a new residential subdivision in Brampton, Ontario. The baseline alternative is to purchase grid electricity from Hydro One Brampton and natural gas from Direct Energy to be used in a conventional furnace and water boiler. The two cogeneration alternatives being investigated are the Stirling Engine and the Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cell (PEMFC). The three alternatives are compared based on their ability to produce 1.96kW electrical power and 7.86kW thermal power to a single home. The recommendation to the developer of the residential subdivision is based on functional, environmental, economical and social factors.

Project Information

 * MIE315 Section 1 Group 1
 * Andrew Lui (Andrewlui)
 * Kun Liang (liangkun)
 * Damon Quan (DamonQuan)
 * Alain Liu (liualain)

Highlights and Recommendations
Functional The capability of each alternative to meet the required energy demand is undoubtedly the most important aspect of this analysis. The baseline alternative is not limited with respect to the obtainable quantities and can therefore meet the functional requirement of 1.96kW electrical and 7.86kW thermal power. Both of the cogeneration alternatives can not meet the electrical power requirement and must therefore supplement grid power. In addition, the Ebara-Ballard PEMFC can not meet the thermal demands and must supplement extra thermal power. The two cogeneration alternatives run on natural gas and therefore would not require little change to the typical household infrastructure to be implemented. While all the alternatives are capable of meeting the functional requirement, the reliance of the cogeneration systems on the baseline without any advantages (except for backup power during blackouts) makes the simplest solution the superior one. Based on functional requirements, the baseline provides the simplest and most reliable solution.

EIO-LCA The EIOLCA results of the three alternatives show similarities with respect to the stages which pose the greatest environmental concern. The resource provisioning stage which includes the production and distribution of electricity and natural gas, accounts for between 40-70% of ongoing GHG emissions. Observing the relationship between the GWP due to electricity generation and natural gas distribution, the environmental contribution of lowering the electrical demand seems to be generally negated by the increase in demand of natural gas. The process implementation phase is representative of the environmental effects of the capital cost of each system. While there are effects of implementing the furnace and water boiler, they are neglected because the cogeneration alternatives require them as supplements. The manufacturing of the fuel cell not only has less of an environmental impact than the Stirling engine, but it also has twice the operational lifespan. The main concern in the process operation phase is the GWP due to the burning of natural gas. Since the Stirling engine generates both electricity and heat from natural gas, it burns about 50% more gas and results in about 50% more CO2 emissions when compared to the baseline. Even though the emissions of the fuel cell itself is low, the emissions from the steam reforming to extract hydrogen and supplementary thermal power generation end up resulting in a higher GWP than that of the baseline. In addition to the baseline having the lowest GWP in this phase, it also has the lowest on-going (resource provisioning + process operation) GWP and NOx emissions while having only slightly higher SO2 emissions. From the environmental aspect, using grid electricity and natural gas heating alone is the most favourable on-going solution. Not only does it result in the lowest net GWP and toxic relaeses, but the implementation of the baseline has the least complexity. It can be safely concluded that the baseline is the currently the most environmentally friendly of the available options for this situation.

SLCA The results from the streamlined life cycle assessments of the three alternatives yield similar findings. The resource provisioning stages are consistently scored low in all fields because of the impacts involved in obtaining the natural gas required to power all of the alternatives. The process implementation phase is scored in a similar way due to the need to use mostly metal in the manufacturing of the alternatives. In the case of the PEMFC, in which platinum is needed, the material choice is the main problem. The operation phases are generally scored high because the principal concern is the gaseous residues from burning natural gas. The fuel cell appears to be the most environmentally friendly based on its total sLCA score primarily due to the fact that the operation has very low emissions.

Economics The capital cost of the baseline has not been considered since all the alternatives need to have it. As an additional cost to this however, the WhisperGen Stirling engine requires about $6100 CAD and the Ebara-Ballard PEMFC requires $11600 CAD. Whilst the PEMFC seems impractical at such a high cost, it has twice the lifetime of the WhisperGen, making the WhisperGen the most expensive alternative (assuming continuous replacement) in terms of capital costs. As shown in Figure 1, the annual savings obtained from using less electricity is outweighed by the cost of extra natural gas and maintenance of the cogeneration devices. This is largely due to the low cost of electricity in Ontario created by government subsidies. The summarized data shows that the baseline not only has a lower capital cost but also has a lower annual operating cost. The baseline is therefore the most economically viable alternative to use.

Societal While the two cogeneration alternatives provide a sense of preparation for an upcoming blackout, they come with many hassles not seen by the baseline alternative. Both the WhisperGen and the Ebara-Ballard PEMFC give off background noise. While the noise levels are stated to be relatively low, the baseline alternative has no noise, which is preferable. The lifespan and maintenance of the alternatives varies significantly. The WhisperGen requires maintenance every 1000 working hours and has a short lifespan of 2.3 years (running all the time). The Ebara-Ballard PEMFC has twice the lifetime of the WhisperGen (running all the time), making its apparent value higher. The baseline has the least maintenance that has to be done by the consumer, and the lifetime of the furnace and boiler range from 10 – 25 years.

Final Recommendation Based on the obtained data and the results summarized above, the baseline is the most promising alternative from the environmental, economical and societal aspect. From the functional perspective, none of the options seem to have a specific advantage. The Ebara-Ballard PEMFC would be ranked second and the WhisperGen Stirling engine would be the least practical option.

Baseline: Grid electricity & Natural Gas water heater, furnace
The base line, which is grid electricity and natural gas heating, is to be analyzed and compared with the alternatives. Grid utilities has been in service for many decades and is capable of reliably providing continuous electrical energy flow of 1.96KW and 7.86KW thermo energy flow as required. The main advantage of grid utilities are their wide coverage. In addition, the energy lost during transmission is very small .For grid electricity, the energy lost is only 7.2% during transmission. The main concern of the baseline is the pollution and GWP resulting from electricity generation and natural gas extraction and combustion. In fact, power generation plants release large amount of pollutants and “OPG (Ontario Power Generation) [is] Canada’s largest individual air pollution source in its coal fired generating stations.”. Furthermore, since the grid lines are interconnected, when the energy sources have problems, many consumers will be affected due to cascading failure.

Alternative 1: Stirling Engine

The WhisperGen on-grid Stirling engine is capable of providing up to 1000W of electrical power and 7.5-12kW of thermal power. While the thermal output meets the functional requirement but the electrical component does not, therefore additional electricity must be supplied via the grid. It is assumed that the Stirling engine is to run 24 hours a day. The Stirling engine is a closed system engine and operates between a temperature differential. The difference in temperature drives a piston inside the engine that is confined with a working fluid which in this case is compressed nitrogen. Also most types of Stirling engines have the bearing and seals on the cool side of the engine thus reducing lubricant usage and reducing maintenance. Furthermore, the Stirling engine does not produce a lot of noise and runs quietly without any air supply. On the other hand, the Stirling engine requires heat exchangers that operate under high temperature differences resulting in specific material choice. Large radiators are also required to increase thermal efficiency.

Alternative 2: PEM Fuel Cell
The Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cell (PEMFC) is a technology in its early commercial stages before cost effective production. The Ebara-Ballard Mark1030 v3 unit is currently one of the fuel cell units in field testing in Japan, with subsidies provided by Japan’s Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI). While providing at rated, 1kW of electric and 1.52kW thermal power (overall efficiency is 74.5%), it can not meet the electrical or thermal requirements alone, therefore additional electric and thermal power must be supplemented via the baseline. The principle behind the PEMFC’s operation is reverse electrolysis of hydrogen gas. Natural gas (primarily composed of methane) is reformed under heat and a catalyst (platinum or its alloy), and is converted to hydrogen gas and carbon dioxide. The hydrogen is then separated from the electron by the water filled polymer membrane (Nafion), again in the presence of the catalyst, platinum. The electron is used to generate DC power which is converted into AC for home use. The amount of water within the membrane is critical in producing maximum power, which is electronically controlled and supplied by the reverse electrolysis process and the house’s water supply. The most delicate component of the fuel cell is the Membrane Electrode Assembly (MEA), which houses the platinum catalyst and Nafion membrane. Platinum is easily susceptible to CO contamination and the membrane’s efficiency is affected by dehydration, or other molecules puncturing the membrane. Thus it is only rated for a service life or 40,000 hours.

Economic Input Output Life Cycle Analysis
Economic Input Output Life Cycle Analysis (EIOLCA) is an excellent tool to analyze the environmental impacts of a sector. However, during the primary and secondary process phase, it was impossible to EIOLCA thus a hybrid approach was used. Each alternative was assumed to run for 24 hours a day for a span of one year.

Baseline: Grid electricity & Natural Gas water heater, furnace
The baseline EIOLCA is split into two different sections, gridline electricity and natural gas. Also, the resource provisioning stages in both sections are accounted for when calculating the distribution of natural gas and grid electricity.

Grid electricity:

Process Implementation: The implementation process of a power plant is neglected because it is not in the scope of a house hold. In addition, the environmental impact for installation of circuit breaker and ground wire for a house is considered insignificant. Furthermore, since both alternatives use the grid electricity, for the purpose of comparison, the environmental impact of manufacturing electrical components is neglected.

Primary and Secondary process: The environmental impacts are due to the delivery and power generation of 17.2MWh of grid electricity annually.

End of Life: The disposal of electrical components at end of their service life will not produce significant environmental impacts therefore negligible. In addition, the electrical components can be recycled through Region of Peel, a waste management company in Brampton, which contributes to reduction of virgin material use.

Natural gas:

Process Implementation: Similar to grid electricity, natural gas distribution facilities are shared among many homes, the environmental impact due to a single home is negligible. In addition, the environmental impact of installing natural gas water heater and space heating furnace are very small and is also negligible. The environmental impacts caused by manufacturing of water heater and space heating furnace can be obtained from EIOLCA.

Primary and Secondary process: This phase consist mainly extraction, distribution and combustion of natural gas. The environmental impacts of natural gas extraction and distribution can be modeled using EIOLCA but the environmental impact of burning natural gas is obtained from.

End of Life: The disposal of natural gas station and natural gas distribution system is not residential level. Also, the environmental impact due to disposal of natural gas water heater and furnace are not significant. Thus, the pollution from end of life is negligible.

Results: The GWP from primary process is significantly greater then resource provisioning and process implementation where 35% is from power generation and 65% from combustion of natural gas. Furthermore, during process implementation, toxic releases are greater than GWP but still insignificant compared to the GWP in the primary process.

Alternative 1: Stirling Engine
EIOLCA accounts for mining minerals and transportation when analyzing the manufacturing process. Thus the analysis of resource provisioning and process implementation phase was grouped together.

Resource Provisioning and Process Implementation: The WhisperGen Stirling engine is to run on natural gas and the distribution and extraction of natural gas was taken into account. Also the WhisperGen Stirling engine is composed of a burner module, stirling engine, generator module and microprocess controller. It was assumed the cost of a WhisperGen Stirling engine is divided into 60% for the engine, 20% for the burner module, 15% for the generator and 5% for the microprocessor.

Primary and Secondary Process: The use phase consists mainly of burning natural gas and supplementing the difference in electrical output with gridline electricity.

End of Life: The WhisperGen Stirling Engine is composed of mainly steel and aluminum, it is assumed that at the end of life it is going to be recycled. With this assumption, the environmental impacts are mainly transportation from the product to the recycling centre. The energy input to disassemble the engine and melt the metals to recycle and reuse. These emissions are assumed to be insignificant compared to natural gas distribution and primary process of the WhisperGen.

Results: As shown, GWP during the primary process stage with 30% from power generation and 70% from combustion of natural gas. Also, GWP from resource provisioning is approximately 31.5% of GWP during primary process. Process implementation does not produce as much GWP but significantly larger amounts of pollutants and toxic releases as the other two stages.

Alternative 2: PEM Fuel Cell
Resource Provisioning: Using the suggested electric and thermal demands for each Toronto household, the excess electric and thermal power demands for a Brampton household using an Ebara-Ballard unit at the average load, is estimated to be: electricity from the grid: 8.42 MWhr/yr and total natural gas is: 54.34 MWhr/yr.

Process Implementation: The target price for 2008 has been ¥1.2 million ($11 400 USD) [29, 30]. The component cost distribution is broken down as follows: Fuel Cell Stack (65%), Reformer (25%), Heat exchanger/Water System (5%), and Control Electronics (5%).

Primary and Secondary process: The operation of the fuel cell requires inputs of water, oxygen gas and natural gas. The unit would be with water initially and any additional water would be taken in from the utilities. Although it automatically regulates the amount of water needed for the fuel cell, its assumed that the cost would be insignificant compared to the total water usage of the household.

End of Life: With information quoted from Ballard, most parts of the fuel cell are reusable or recyclable. Also, there have been developments in recycling the Nafion membrane at the end of the unit’s life cycle. Regardless, if there are any laws to enforce recycling of decommissioned units, there is great incentive to recycle the unit, especially the MEA subassembly, which would reduce costs and environmental impacts dramatically. A rough estimate was done to simulate the effects of recycling platinum and Nafion, two of the most expensive and highly recyclable materials.

Results: Toxic releases from PEM are higher than the baseline method and WhisperGen Stirling engine with a total of 15.43kg of toxic releases mainly from process implementation and primary process. This is because the mining sector has a large influence on land release due to the fact that there is a growing demand for platinum and technologies for loading the catalyst is still being optimized.

Streamlined Life Cycle Analysis
SLCA was performed on the different options for home energy usage. The guidelines for assessing each life cycle stage and environment stressor can be found in ‘Streamlined Life Cycle Analysis’ by T. Graedel. The Resource Provisioning stage represents the acquisition of resources to generate energy to meet consumer demand. Process Implementation would involve the transmission and the manufacturing of equipment involved in generating energy (Power plant, transmission lines, WhisperGen, Ebara-Ballard Mark1030 v3). Primary Process Implementation involves the actual generation of energy, such as the use of Uranium or the combustion of natural gas, while Secondary Process Implementation involves the operation of sub-assemblies indirectly involved in the production of electricity or heat. Lastly, the End of Life stage represents the disposal phase of such equipment or infrastructures.

Baseline: Grid electricity & Natural Gas water heater, furnace
The SLCA for generating electricity and natural gas for home use are treated as two different environmentally responsible processes. The final combined score is calculated using weights given by the percentage of their annual energy consumption (20% for electricity and 80% for thermal). It is shown through the subtotal that the Resource Provisioning stage has the most environmental impact for both the electricity and natural gas generation. Both utilize non-renewable resources such as uranium for nuclear power, and natural gas is extracted with equipment running on fossil fuel. Also, there are significant amounts of residues released during both processes . Also, during the process operation stage, coal is used for electricity production in coal power plants, which emits a lot of pollutants such as SOx. In EIOLCA, similar results are obtained. For natural gas, it can be seen that resource provisioning (natural gas extraction from mining), process implementation (construction of infrastructures, water heater, and furnace), as well as natural gas combustion produce significant amounts of pollution. The disposal of infrastructures for natural gas distribution and electricity generation uses large amount of energy and release significant amounts of solid and liquid residues similar to the implementation process . Overall, the natural gas process scored slightly higher in all categories, except for the primary phase when some emissions are given off when natural gas is burned. The use phase for electricity is not significant as it produces no direct emissions from the usage of electricity. The adjusted total score of these two process is 51.6.

Alternative 1: Stirling Engine
Life stages that could potentially present itself as environmental liabilities are Resource Provisioning and Process Implementation stages. Mining metal ores and producing steel creates a lot of residues such as slag and bauxite residue and also, producing metal alloys in factories creates a lot of gaseous residues, as well as red mud and sludge.

Comparing these results to the EIOLCA, it was predicted that the process implementation stage would have a lot of emissions and high residues, but in fact the manufacturing phase of a WhisperGen does not emit as much GHG compared to other stages such as resource provisioning and primary process. Additionally, SLCA is less accurate than EIOLCA due to lack of quantifiable information and the use of personal opinions. The total score for the life cycle of a Stirling engine is 51.

Alternative 2: PEM Fuel Cell
Although natural gas and hydrogen fuel cells have been publicly viewed as a “clean” fuel, the burden of the environmental impacts and pollution are in the other life cycle stages. Both SLCA and EIOLCA clearly show that there are emissions related to the processing of natural gas, similar to the results in the other alternatives. The scores for the use phase of the PEMFC are relatively high, since the process of converting natural gas to hydrogen is fairly clean and the usage of hydrogen in the fuel cell is very direct. But it is still a non-renewable resource and would still have CO2 emissions from reforming. In the process implementation and disposal stage of the PEMFC, there comes great concern of how much virgin material, specifically platinum and Nafion, are used for each unit of PEMFC. With demands and prices for platinum rising, it is vital that platinum and Nafion be recycled within a closed loop, due to the impacts of mining and chemical processing . The total score for the life cycle of a PEMFC is 59.

Direct Cost
The direct cost is cost paid by the consumers and it is one of the main factors that can influence the consumer’s decisions. The direct cost analysis is conducted based on the average energy consumption of a house in Brampton, Ontario. As mentioned previously, the annual electricity consumption is 17.2MWh and the natural gas consumption is 68.8MWh. All costs are converted to Canadian Dollars.

Baseline (Grid electricity and natural gas water heater, furnace) The long product life and maintenance-free equipments provide economic advantages.
 * The life expectancy of the water heater and furnace is approximately 15 years.

Alternative 1(Stirling engine): The short product life is an economic disadvantage.
 * The life expectancy of the Stirling engine is 2.28 years.

Alternative 2: (PEM Fuel cell)
 * The life expectancy of the PEM fuel cell is 4.6 years . One of the major costs associated with PEMFC is the expensive initial cost, which is an economic disadvantage.

According to the cost graphs above, clearly, it can be seen that the baseline has lowest capital cost per product life year compared to the alternatives. In addition, the baseline has lower annual operating cost compared to the alternatives. Thus, economic wise, the baseline is the recommended option for the consumers.

Indirect Cost
The indirect costs include environmental protection and health care costs from the pollution paid by the government. These costs are directly proportional to the pollutant emission. Based on the EIOLCA and SLCA, it can be concluded that the baseline, which is conventional grid electricity and water heater, furnace, option produces slightly higher pollutant emission than the Stirling engine option, while the PEM Fuel Cell option produces a lot less pollutant emission. Therefore, the PEM Fuel Cell option is expected to have lower indirect cost compared to the conventional grid electricity and natural gas water heater, furnace and Stirling engine. However, this result will not have significant influence on consumer’s decision making because indirect costs are not paid by the consumers

Operating Environment
The size of a WhisperGen is 0.48m x 0.56m x 0.84m (w x d x h), this is about the size of an average dish washer. Furthermore, during operation it produces a noise level of 63dB which is about the average noise level of conversational speech or business office. Depending on the lifestyle of the consumer, the noise level might deter consumers. Sound from running the PEMFC would not pose a problem as it does not contain any moving mechanical parts; only the fan or compressor can be heard. The PEMFC unit is less than a meter tall and can be placed indoors or outdoors with the hot water tank.

Consumer Motivation
In Canada, the nominal price of the grid electricity is increasing, the real price shows a decreasing trend, so the cost of grid electricity and natural gas are affordable by most consumers. The WhisperGen unit has a life span of 2.28 years (20000 hrs) and is sold for £3000 ($6,005 USD). The Ebara-Ballard unit has a predicted lifespan of 4.6 years (40,000 hrs) and costs ¥1.2 million ($11,400 USD) . The question of “is it worth it?” might come up due to the low life span of the both cogeneration units and whether or not it offers significant cost savings over the traditional system.

Government Intervention
Currently in Ontario, nuclear power has been subsidized by the federal government for a long time. The result of these actions artificially made the price of electricity cheaper than what it actually costs. However, the usage of cogeneration options for residential use should rise in the foreseeable future. With heavy marketing campaigns to promote the “clean” side of using natural gas, against higher electricity prices, micro CHP would be a very attractive option, as currently it is done in Japan. Also, subsidies from the government would greatly promote and increase awareness. Currently, Japan’s Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) is leading a program to subsidize fuel cells in Japan for the average consumer before it reaches a mass production stage. A good example is the heavy involvement from METI to support PEMFC companies to meet demands from the Kyoto Protocol. From 2004 to 2008, the price of the Ebara-Ballard unit has decreased approximately nine times ($95,000 to $11,400 USD) .


text:
User talk:Andrewlui

Hello, welcome around here. I hope you succeed in your learning goals. Below more info about Wikiversity, Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 17:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Welcome
Hello Andrewlui, and welcome to Wikiversity! If you need help, feel free to visit my talk page, or contact us and ask questions. After you leave a comment on a talk page, remember to sign and date; it helps everyone follow the threads of the discussion. The signature icon in the edit window makes it simple. To get started, you may
 * Take a guided tour and learn to edit;
 * Explore our learning projects;
 * Browse our portals, schools, and research activities;
 * Read and help develop our community policies；or
 * Chat with other Wikiversitans on #wikiversity-en.

And don't forget to explore Wikiversity with the links to your left. Be bold, and see you around Wikiversity! Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 17:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

File:Cogen in house 2.JPG
Hi! I noticed that you uploaded File:Cogen in house 2.JPG some time ago. This was great, and it has worked well in the article. However, recently we've been looking at whether or not we can replace some non-free images with free ones, in order to meet the images policy on Wikiversity. As it was possible to replace that image, I've done so with a new version - however, if that's a problem in any way feel free to undo my change. If you do wish to remain with the old image, you will need to provide a template:Fairuse rationale to the work - and if you decide to take that path, I'm happy to help if I can. Thanks again for helping to develop Wikiversity! - Bilby 08:28, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Andrewlui


text:
User talk:EugenSpierer

Hello Eugen, saw your edit here. Perhaps you wanna also add some points (why from your point of view it wouldn't be that difficult) here: Creation of Free Online University ? Below more info about Wikiversity, Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 18:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Welcome
Hello EugenSpierer, and welcome to Wikiversity! If you need help, feel free to visit my talk page, or contact us and ask questions. After you leave a comment on a talk page, remember to sign and date; it helps everyone follow the threads of the discussion. The signature icon in the edit window makes it simple. To get started, you may
 * Take a guided tour and learn to edit;
 * Explore our learning projects;
 * Browse our portals, schools, and research activities;
 * Read and help develop our community policies；or
 * Chat with other Wikiversitans on #wikiversity-en.

And don't forget to explore Wikiversity with the links to your left. Be bold, and see you around Wikiversity! Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 18:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Wiki Campus Radio -- Reloaded
Hi,

I responded to your comment on colloquium, but I was wondering if you might be interested in participating in WCR? Thanks, Historybuff 18:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:EugenSpierer


text:
User talk:RMFan1

Hello RMFan1, welcome around here. I hope you succeed in your learning goals and a ping. Below more info about Wikiversity, Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 18:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Welcome
Hello RMFan1, and welcome to Wikiversity! If you need help, feel free to visit my talk page, or contact us and ask questions. After you leave a comment on a talk page, remember to sign and date; it helps everyone follow the threads of the discussion. The signature icon in the edit window makes it simple. To get started, you may
 * Take a guided tour and learn to edit;
 * Explore our learning projects;
 * Browse our portals, schools, and research activities;
 * Read and help develop our community policies；or
 * Chat with other Wikiversitans on #wikiversity-en.

And don't forget to explore Wikiversity with the links to your left. Be bold, and see you around Wikiversity! Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 18:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:RMFan1


text:
User talk:Tappie

Hello Tappie, welcome around here. I hope you succeed in your learning goals. Below more info about Wikiversity, Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 20:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Welcome
Hello Tappie, and welcome to Wikiversity! If you need help, feel free to visit my talk page, or contact us and ask questions. After you leave a comment on a talk page, remember to sign and date; it helps everyone follow the threads of the discussion. The signature icon in the edit window makes it simple. To get started, you may
 * Take a guided tour and learn to edit;
 * Explore our learning projects;
 * Browse our portals, schools, and research activities;
 * Read and help develop our community policies；or
 * Chat with other Wikiversitans on #wikiversity-en.

And don't forget to explore Wikiversity with the links to your left. Be bold, and see you around Wikiversity! Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 20:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:Tappie


text:
Talk:Sustainability

On deleting the entire project called "Sustainability"
This project (including all subpages) is likely to be deleted on the date specified on Sustainability. I will support keeping this only if someone edits this page to emphasize that all subpages are short stubs. The introduction must encourage newbies to make their first edit on one of the subpages. And, someone must be willing to help with the editing of this resource. --Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 21:50, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Prior discussions can be found at Special:Permalink/1419932, which links to very old efforts on Talk:Sustainability

 * I'd prefer to keep the landing page but delete the subpages that have no educational value. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 19:22, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you mean some or all the subpages? In other words its the distinction between "delete the subpages that have no educational value" versus "delete the subpages, (comma) that have no educational value". I can make the decisions if you wish. Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 20:39, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @Guy vandegrift I would delete only the subpages which have no educational value. Keep any that might be useful. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 15:28, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Sustainability


text:
User talk:NSiders

Hello, welcome around here. I hope you succeed in your learning goals. Below more info about Wikiversity, Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 22:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Welcome
Hello NSiders, and welcome to Wikiversity! If you need help, feel free to visit my talk page, or contact us and ask questions. After you leave a comment on a talk page, remember to sign and date; it helps everyone follow the threads of the discussion. The signature icon in the edit window makes it simple. To get started, you may
 * Take a guided tour and learn to edit;
 * Explore our learning projects;
 * Browse our portals, schools, and research activities;
 * Read and help develop our community policies；or
 * Chat with other Wikiversitans on #wikiversity-en.

And don't forget to explore Wikiversity with the links to your left. Be bold, and see you around Wikiversity! Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 22:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:NSiders


text:
User talk:Skillbush

Hello, welcome around here. I hope you succeed in your learning goals. Below more info about Wikiversity, Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 22:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Welcome
Hello Skillbush, and welcome to Wikiversity! If you need help, feel free to visit my talk page, or contact us and ask questions. After you leave a comment on a talk page, remember to sign and date; it helps everyone follow the threads of the discussion. The signature icon in the edit window makes it simple. To get started, you may
 * Take a guided tour and learn to edit;
 * Explore our learning projects;
 * Browse our portals, schools, and research activities;
 * Read and help develop our community policies；or
 * Chat with other Wikiversitans on #wikiversity-en.

And don't forget to explore Wikiversity with the links to your left. Be bold, and see you around Wikiversity! Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 22:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:Skillbush


text:
Women in literature

Why should we study women and literature? What, if anything, distinguishes female writers from male writers, female protagonists from male protagonists, feminine language from masculine language? This course is a study, intended for women and men, of the tradition of literature by women and its relationship to movements and periods of the mainstream male-dominated canon. Begun by students at BMCC, New York City, Spring 2008.

Textbook
The Norton Anthology of Literature by Women: The Traditions in English, by Susan Gubar and Sandra M. Gilbert. Page numbers are from the 3rd edition in two volumes.

Instructions
Homework can be completed here each week. First, after each class, you will formulate a question branching off from the discussion that day and read at least 10 pages of other literature not assigned or critical essays addressing that question. You might choose other works by authors discussed in class or works on similar subjects by male writers. Write and post a paragraph or more responding to your findings, on a new page if necessary, and place a link to that page on that week's discussion so that your classmates can see it and comment on it. Read and comment on classmates' work.

Your second weekly assignment is to write down a discussion question for the assigned reading for the upcoming day of class. This question can deal with one text or the relationship between several texts. Post that discussion question on the next week's discussion before class.

Your final paper should be written or posted in drafts on a page of your own, linked to the pages of the authors it concerns and to the main page here. Name the page as a subpage of this page.

Syllabus
Week 1: Virginia Woolf: “A Room of One’s Own”; Anne Bradstreet: “The Author to her Book”

Week 2: Marie de France: “Yonec”, “Bisclavret”; Margery Kempe: Chapters 3, 4, 11

Week 3: (Vol. 1) Cavendish: "The Poetess' Hasty Resolution" (160); Killigrew, "Upon the Saying That My Verses Were Made by Another" (234); Astell, "Ambition" (262); Dickinson: “441-This is my Letter to the World" (1055), "508-I'm ceded-I've stopped being Theirs" (1047), "613-They shut me up in Prose" (1052), "709-Publication is the Auction" (1062)

Week 4: (Vol. 1) Lanyer: “Eve’s Apology in Defense of Women” (42); Rossetti: “Goblin Market” (1089), “Eve” (1101); Fuller: “Muse and Minerva” (564); Julian of Norwich: “God the Mother” (41); Burney: "The Diary and Letters of Madame D’Arblay" (242) Week 5: (Vol. 2) Stein: “Ada” (165); Loy: “Gertrude Stein” (250); Smith: “Souvenir de Monsieur Poop” (582); Rich: “Diving Into the Wreck” (970); Plath: “Disquieting Muses” (1047); Walker: “In Search of Our Mother’s Gardens” (1296); Brown: “Forgiveness” (1432)

Week 6: (Vol. 1) More: from “The Gin Shop” (324); Wheatley: “On Being Brought” (359); Wollstonecraft: “Introduction” (373); Sojourner Truth: “Ain’t I a Woman?” (510); Wordsworth: from the "Grasmere Journals" (319)

/Week 7/: (Vol. 1) Charlotte Bronte: Jane Eyre (636)

Week 8: Midterm exam, Jane Eyre continued

/Week 9/: (Vol. 1) Kate Chopin: The Awakening (1253)

/Week 10/: (Vol. 1) Charlotte Perkins Gilman: “The Yellow Wallpaper” (1392); Emily Dickinson: “280-I felt a funeral in my brain” (1047), “1705- Volcanoes be in Sicily” (1067)

/Week 11/: (Vol. 2) Dinesen: “Blank Page” (276); H.D.: “Eurydice” (285), “Helen” (291); Rukeyser: “The Poem as Mask” (649); Plath: “Mirror” (1050); Rich: from “21 Love Poems” (973); Atwood: “There was once” (1217), “Spelling” (1205); 3-4 rough pages of final paper due

/Week 12/: (Vol. 2) Porter: “The Jilting of Granny Weatherall” (340); Millay: “Women have loved before as I love now” (453); Bonner: "On Being Young--a Woman--and Colored" (524); Walker: “Whores” (721)

/Week 13/: (Vol. 2) Kingston: “No Name Woman” (1229); Butler: “Bloodchild” (1307); Brooks: “the mother” (781); Nin: “Birth” (588); informal presentations of final papers /Week 14/: (Vol. 2) Hurston, "How It Feels to be Colored Me" (357); Angelou: from “I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings” (926); Anzaldua: “Tlilli, Tlapalli” (1255); Harjo: “Deer Dancer” (1377); final papers due

Final Papers:
(place your last name here with a link to the page for your final paper.)

Useful Links:

 * Grammar Cheat Sheet
 * Purdue OWL Research Paper Guide
 * JSTOR
 * BMCC Library Student Resources
 * FreeRice.com

title: Women in literature


text:
Women in literature/Week 10

(Vol. 1) Charlotte Perkins Gilman: “The Yellow Wallpaper” (1392); Emily Dickinson: “280-I felt a funeral in my brain” (1047), “1705- Volcanoes be in Sicily” (1067)

Discussion Questions:
Dickinson and Patriarchal Meter: A Theory of Metrical Codes A. R. C. Finch PMLA, Vol. 102, No. 2 (Mar., 1987), pp. 166-176 Published by: Modern Language Association
 * How can a Yellow Wallpaper have so much personality, and confuse someone so much to the point where it makes you crazy ?
 * I don't quite understand why poems of Emily Dickinson are so weird? How come I don;t understand them??? What was on that woman's mind? And why are they so valuable in literature???
 * Look up this article for an interesting discussion of Dickinson's metre:

Homework:
(For now, you can just post your response here with your name at the end. Separate pages might prove too cumbersome.)

title: Women in literature/Week 10


text:
Women in literature/Week 11

(Vol. 2) Dinesen: “Blank Page” (276); H.D.: “Eurydice” (285), “Helen” (291); Rukeyser: “The Poem as Mask” (649); Plath: “Mirror” (1050); Rich: from “21 Love Poems” (973); Atwood: “There was once” (1217), “Spelling” (1205); 3-4 rough pages of final paper due

title: Women in literature/Week 11


text:
Women in literature/Week 12

(Vol. 2) Porter: “The Jilting of Granny Weatherall” (340); Millay: “Women have loved before as I love now” (453); Bonner: "On Being Young--a Woman--and Colored" (524); Walker: “Whores” (721)

title: Women in literature/Week 12


text:
Women in literature/Week 13

(Vol. 2) Kingston: “No Name Woman” (1229); Butler: “Bloodchild” (1307); Brooks: “the mother” (781); Nin: “Birth” (588); informal presentations of final papers

title: Women in literature/Week 13


text:
Women in literature/Week 14

(Vol. 2) Hurston, "How It Feels to be Colored Me" (357); Angelou: from “I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings” (926); Anzaldua: “Tlilli, Tlapalli” (1255); Harjo: “Deer Dancer” (1377); final papers due

title: Women in literature/Week 14


text:
Women in literature/Week 9

(Vol. 1) Kate Chopin: The Awakening (1253)

Homework:

title: Women in literature/Week 9


text:
User talk:DrWhoToo

Welcome
Hello DrWhoToo, and welcome to Wikiversity! If you need help, feel free to visit my talk page, or contact us and ask questions. After you leave a comment on a talk page, remember to sign and date; it helps everyone follow the threads of the discussion. The signature icon in the edit window makes it simple. To get started, you may
 * Take a guided tour and learn to edit;
 * Explore our learning projects;
 * Browse our portals, schools, and research activities;
 * Read and help develop our community policies；or
 * Chat with other Wikiversitans on #wikiversity-en.

And don't forget to explore Wikiversity with the links to your left. Be bold, and see you around Wikiversity! Jtneill - Talk 00:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:DrWhoToo


text:
User:DevilBlueEye

Devil Blue Eye
So, I guess this is a page devoted to myself. Not much to say, really. I will be using this site mostly from work. I will update more later.

title: User:DevilBlueEye


text:
User:Hillgentleman/monobook.css

 * 1) n-Browse {display:none;}
 * 2) n-Random-topic {display:none;}
 * 3) n-Random-page {display:none;}
 * 4) n-help {display:none;}
 * 5) n-Help-desk {display:none;}
 * 6) n-sitesupport {display:none;}
 * 7) p-community {display:none;}

title: User:Hillgentleman/monobook.css


text:
Horticulture

Welcome to the learning project on Horticulture!

The following is a suggested list of headings for a learning project. For more information, please read the directions. Please organise the page as you see fit.

Learning project summary

 * Project code: HRT
 * Suggested Prerequisites:
 * Time investment:
 * Assessment suggestions:
 * Portal: Portal:...(List main portal/s here)
 * School: School:... (List main school/s here)
 * Department: Topic:...
 * Stream:
 * Level:
 * Department: Topic:...
 * Stream:
 * Level:

Content summary
Students will develop a broad understanding of the components of horticultural theory and can participate in suggested practical activities to enhance the theoretic knowledge garnered from the materials.

Goals
This learning project aims give students the knowledge to:
 * Collect and classify plants
 * Acquire specialist knowledge
 * Plan and manage long term weed, pest & disease control
 * Establish and maintain turf
 * Design plant displays
 * Manage plant health
 * Manage a controlled growing environment
 * Assess trees

Contents
Def. the "art or science of cultivating gardens" is called horticulture.

Def. "the process or action of cultivating of the soil, particularly in" an "outdoor area containing one or more types of plants" is called gardening.

Learning materials
Add learning materials here. See also the box below.

Readings and other resources
Each project/lesson/activity may have a suggested reading selection. For example:
 *  Horticulture
 *  ...

Lessons

 * Lesson 1: /How to Identify plants/
 * Lesson 2: //* ...

Activities

 * Activity 1:
 * Activity 2:

Tests and quizzes

 * Quiz 1:
 * Quiz 2:
 * Test 1:

Subpages
Subpages can be created - using the syntax '/concepts/' (for concepts involved in this learning project & without the quotes).

Active participants
Active participants in this Learning Group
 * --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 05:32, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Inactive participants

 * HortMan 12:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

{| width="100%" style="background:#FFFCCF; border:1px solid #DAA520"

Learning materials
Learning materials and learning projects are located in the main Wikiversity namespace (i.e. without any prefix such as 'Topic:' or 'School:'). Simply make a link to the name of the learning resource, lesson, or learning project (these are independent pages in the main namespace, and sometimes subpages when appropriate) and start writing!

You should also read about the Wikiversity:Learning model. Lessons should center on learning activities for Wikiversity participants. Learning materials and learning projects can be used by multiple projects - and you are encouraged to cooperate with other departments that use the same learning resource.

 * }

title: Horticulture


text:
MediaWiki talk:Recentchangestext

Hmm. What if we added some links here to maybe requested pages, rages for deletion and maybe some others? You can see what Wikibooks has done here & Wikibooks:Special:RecentChanges --Remi 05:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Number of foreign Wikiversities
We've now 13 Wikiversities, please add: Best regards, JackPotte 19:00, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * ar:Special:Recentchanges
 * sv:Special:Recentchanges

Topics
The link Topics is now red so it would need to be removed. Moreover, when I've tested its random page it gave me Topic:Electrical engineering/box-footer, which should have been filtered. JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 07:03, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

 * ✅ -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 14:23, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

title: MediaWiki talk:Recentchangestext


text: User:Thuvack/box-header

title: User:Thuvack/box-header


text: User:Thuvack/box-footer

title: User:Thuvack/box-footer


text:
User:Thuvack/Todo Thuvack

 * Do some face lift to School of Electrical Engineering.-✅

 * Finish pimping my User Page, enter shortcuts to my frequently visited pages on campus.-✅

 * Finish pimping my talk page. -✅

 * Face-lift the following talkpages:

 * School of Electrical Engineering talk page.-✅

 * Engineering Orientation course talk page.-✅

 * School of Electronic Engineering talk page.-✅

 * Face-lift School of Electronic Engineering page.-✅

 * Suggest a Face-lift for Electric Circuit Analysis to conform to wikiversity lesson template suggest this at school talk page - ✅

 * EE-102 :Electric Circuit Analysis - List for Content Addition / Revamp

 * Merge EE 101 Electric Circuit Analysis with Electric Circuit Analysis!.- ✅

 * Do/Finish Lesson #1: Passive sign convention - ✅

 * Do/Finish Lesson #2: Simple Resistive Circuits - ✅

 * Do/Finish Lesson #3: Resistors in Series - ✅

 * Do/Finish Lesson #4: Resistors in Parallel - ✅

 * Do/Finish Quiz Test: Circuit Analysis Quiz 1 - ✅

 * Do/Finish Lesson #5: Kirchhoff's Voltage Law - ✅

 * Do/Finish Lesson #6: Kirchhoff's Current Law - ✅

 * Do/Finish Future Lesson: Nodal Analysis - ✅

 * Do/Finish Future Lesson: Mesh Analysis - ✅

 * Do/Finish Quiz Test: Circuit Analysis Quiz 2 - ✅

 * Do/Finish Home Laboratory: Circuit Analysis - ✅

 * Add a Featured Engineer part into Electriocal Engineering Department Portal - ✅

title: User:Thuvack/Todo Thuvack