text:
User talk:Geordan~enwikiversity

 Hello Geordan, 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.
 * Visit a (kind of) random project.
 * Browse Wikiversity, or visit a portal corresponding to your educational level: pre-school, primary, secondary, tertiary, non-formal education.
 * Find out about research activities on Wikiversity.

 * Read an introduction for teachers and find out how to write an educational resource for Wikiversity.
 * Give feedback about your initial observations
 * Discuss Wikiversity issues or ask questions at the colloquium.
 * Chat with other Wikiversitans on #wikiversity-en.

And don't forget to explore Wikiversity with the links to your left. Be bold to contribute and to experiment with the sandbox or your userpage, and see you around Wikiversity! --Gbaor 12:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

 Hello , we are the Baah and Bahh twins and we'd both like to welcome you to Wikiversity. While you sit back and explore Wikiversity, enjoy some of our fresh goat milk. You can help us learn by creating new learning resources or help us by improving the guided tours and other exploration tools. We look forward to seeing you around. Baaaahbye for now.

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Geordan. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Geordan~enwikiversity that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 23:37, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 06:09, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Geordan~enwikiversity


text: User:Ambrose.chongo

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

title: User:Ambrose.chongo


text:
Reflections on Tatum

== Tatum, Beverly Daniel (1997): ”Why are all the black kids sitting together in the cafeteria?” And Other Conversations About Race. Basic Books. Parts I, III & V. ==

Beverly Daniel Tatum’s book of 1997 deals with a matter that is a constantly pressing issue in the society, namely racism. The book’s title is intriguing, arousing curiosity of what’s to come. Beginning with the question presented in the title, Tatum defines the terms used in the book and discusses the development of racism in both intra-personal and societal levels, a task that she continues to do during all the three parts discussed here.

When it comes to the development of racism intra-personally, Tatum suggests that a great part of the process is unconscious and unintented. According to her, most of the early information we receive about others in our childhood – people racially, religiously or socioeconomically different from ourselves – is not a result of firsthand experience, but most often filtered through adults and older children we interact with, through media, literature and so on. The secondhand information we receive has in its turn been distorted, shaped by cultural stereotypes and left incomplete. In other words, we are more or less unintentionally being raised to be thinking categorically, or if you wish to say so, racist. The stereotypes and prejudices we have are both results of “information” and disinformation, as well as information that we lack (1997:4-6).

Cultural racism is described by Tatum as “smog in the air”, at times visible, but mostly invisible but yet existing and affecting our perceptions, ideas and thoughts (1995:95). The presence of the smog does often go unnoticed, but nevertheless, it is still there – and after being exposed to the smog for a long time it becomes not only a natural part of our lives, but even a necessity for experiencing stability in the world. The metaphor is effective and well-functioning in this context.

Tatum defines racism “as a system of advantage based on race”, rather than a personal ideology based on racial prejudice. Instead, when racial prejudice is combined with social power, that is when it leads to the institutionalization of racist policies and practices (1997:7-8) The systematization of advantage in the society is being presented in an interesting contrast to the idea of American meritocracy, i.e. a system where one’s possibilities and opportunities in life should be determined by one’s talent and abilities. This is the matter of fact in the US, but also a common starting point for an ideal society in Scandinavia. Wisely, Tatum reminds the reader about the fact that race is not the only factor determining dis/advantage in the society. Other factors such as gender, socioeconomic status, age, sexual orientation, religious affiliation, mental and physical ability are also mentioned (1997:22). To understand this, we need only to look at ourselves. From my perspective, for instance, I can quickly establish in which terms I have more (being White, well-educated, Christian, heterosexual, healthy) and less (female, a member of a cultural/linguistic minority) advantage, and as such, chances to be heard and seen in the society. All these parts construct also my identity and just as Tatum presents it, it is only seldom that I am aware of all of them and the effect they have or lack.

Speaking in terms of dominance and subordination is another way of looking at the system of advantage in the society. According to Jean Baker Miller, dominant groups, holding authority and power, are the ones that set the parametres in which the subordinates operate, often leading to a situation where the subordinate group is labeled defective or substandard and the dominant group is seen as the norm of humanity (1997:23-24). Tatum discusses this imbalance from several differens points of view, mentioning e.g. the imbalance in information concerning the other group (1997: 25-26). A disctinct method of survival for the subordinate group is to acquire knowledge and information about the dominant group, but this doesn’t work vice versa. Knowledge of the subordinate group doesn’t in itself grant advantage in the society (or hold symbolic power, to speak in Bourdieuan terms), so it is rarely acquired by the dominant group. Apart from power, awareness, or the lack of it, is something that Tatum discusses from several points of view, wheter it comes to Whites’ position of dominance or advantage in society, to realizing that we all are “normal” and “abnormal” at the same time, to being individuals yet simultaneously members of groups or to denying or not being aware of the racism that lies beneath our skins.

The terms “White” and “Black” are the starting point in Tatum’s discussion about race, but she makes it clear that the categories are not cemented and that categorization, stereotyping, and prejudice, not to mention racism covers also other groups and subgroups. Several times in her text, she touches upon intersectionality, though not mentioning it explicitly. My guess is that the term was not commonly used in 1997. It is also obvious that the book is written with the American society as its main starting point and focus, but the way the issues are presented makes them universal.

Tatum’s perspective on racism is constructive, based on the assumption that racism is something that we can get rid of, but only through conscious and hard work. In chapter 6, she presents a six-step model for abadoning racism, originally introduced by the psychologist Janet Helms. The steps are briefly presented below. In order to achieve a more universal understanding, I have in most cases, replaced Tatum’s “Whites” with “the dominant group” and “Blacks” with “the disadvantaged group”.

The books’ final chapter encourages the reader to embrace a cross-racial dialogue. Tatum calls for a meaningful, productive dialogue to raise consciousness which in its turn can lead to effective action and social and societal change. Having earlier in the book focused on the emotional constraints of racism, Tatum doesn’t forget them here, either. She discusses the paralysis of fear, the fact that challenging “common truths” and taking action against offensive behaviour often seems like a too big thing to do in terms of what we are afraid of sacrificing. Being passive can have its roots in many things, in fear of isolation, of offending someone, of losing privilege, of not knowing how to address the problem, of being forced to accept anger and frustration (1997:194-198). Tatum’s argument for challenging these fears is simple: we cannot afford not to do so. As a society, she writes, “we pay a price for our silence”, listing the costs of personal, institutional and cultural racism in loss of human potential, lowered productivity and negative spiral of fear and violence in our society (1997:200). On a more personal level, having fear and not challenging one’s and others’ “truths” means losing opportunities for greater insight into ourselves (1997:201). Having courage is necessary, Tatum stresses, and can be acquired through education, seeking for support in others and most of all; accepting that even though one cannot change the entire world, everyone can start making a difference in one’s own sphere of influence, within one’s own network.

title: Reflections on Tatum


text:
User talk:Ambrose.chongo

 Hello Ambrose.chongo, 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.
 * Visit a (kind of) random project.
 * Browse Wikiversity, or visit a portal corresponding to your educational level: pre-school, primary, secondary, tertiary, non-formal education.
 * Find out about research activities on Wikiversity.

 * Read an introduction for teachers and find out how to write an educational resource for Wikiversity.
 * Give feedback about your initial observations
 * Discuss Wikiversity issues or ask questions at the colloquium.
 * Chat with other Wikiversitans on #wikiversity-en.

And don't forget to explore Wikiversity with the links to your left. Be bold to contribute and to experiment with the sandbox or your userpage, and see you around Wikiversity! --92.43.64.81 14:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC) 92.43.64.81 14:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

title: User talk:Ambrose.chongo


text:
User talk:Bqtinh

 Hello Bqtinh, 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.
 * Visit a (kind of) random project.
 * Browse Wikiversity, or visit a portal corresponding to your educational level: pre-school, primary, secondary, tertiary, non-formal education.
 * Find out about research activities on Wikiversity.

 * Read an introduction for teachers and find out how to write an educational resource for Wikiversity.
 * Give feedback about your initial observations
 * Discuss Wikiversity issues or ask questions at the colloquium.
 * Chat with other Wikiversitans on #wikiversity-en.

And don't forget to explore Wikiversity with the links to your left. Be bold to contribute and to experiment with the sandbox or your userpage, and see you around Wikiversity! --Victuallers 14:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC) Victuallers 14:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

title: User talk:Bqtinh


text:
LMCC/Nutrition

 * Lesson of The digestive system

Every being needs to absorb some energy in order to develop itself. The alimentary adaptation to satisfy physiological needs is called dietetic. It makes intervene some nutriments from different natures in variable quantities. Some are fresh and need to be conserved in the fridge at +4°C.

Food Guide Recommendations

 * 1) The energy contribution of main nutrients is :
 * 1g of carbohydrate gives 4kcal or 17kJ.
 * 1g of protein gives 4kcal or 17kJ.
 * 1g of lipid gives 9kcal or 38kJ.
 * 1g alcohol gives 7kcal or 29kJ.
 * 1) Below is the percent of each macronutrient that your diet should consist of each day :
 * 55% of carbohydrate (including 2/3 of complex ones)
 * 30% of protein (including 1/2 from a vegetarian origin)
 * 15% of lipid (including 1/2 from a vegetarian origin)
 * 1) Because the sensation of satiety from the stomach to the brain takes 15 to 20 minutes, eating more slowly can help prevent overeating.  Also, one should drink 8 oz of water a day, where more than 25 % comes from the food that you ingest, which should be preferably cooked properly and thoroughly chewed in order to facilitate digestion and avoid food poisoning.
 * 2) Between 2 to 6g of salt per day.
 * 3) Nature of nutrients :

Cardiovascular Disease Prevention
The nutritional content children are getting is a serious problem in the United States as well as many other developed countries. Improving children’s nutrition will help decrease the leading causes of death and improve the most important determinants of health. Many such problems with nutrition include the following: Research suggests that not having breakfast can affect a child’s intellectual performance. Nearly 80% of students do not eat fruits and vegetables 5 or more times per day. Also, the prevalence of overweight among children aged 6 to 11 more than doubled in the past 20 years, going from 7% in 1980 to 18% in 2004. 61% of overweight young people have at least one additional risk factor for heart disease, such as high cholesterol or high blood pressure. Children who are overweight are also at greater risk for the following problems: bone and joint problems, sleep apnea, social and psychological problems, poor self-esteem, more likely to become overweight or obese adult, type 2 diabetes, stroke, several types of cancer, and osteoarthritis. These are some shocking results that are affecting children everyday. Healthy lifestyle habits, including healthy eating and physical activity, can lower the risk of becoming overweight and developing these related diseases.

One way to make sure your child is getting the nutrition he/she needs is to make sure they "eat the rainbow": The darker the fruit or vegetable the healthier it is (for example, it is healthier to choose deep green spinach over light green lettuce).
 * 1) Red- Bell peppers, Cherries, Watermelon, Strawberries, Beets, Radishes, Grapes
 * 2) Orange- Apricots, Cantaloupe, Mango, Carrots, Peaches, Sweet potatoes
 * 3) Yellow- Bananas, Pineapple, Squash, Star fruit, Yellow onion
 * 4) Green- Asparagus, Broccoli, Honeydew melon, Spinach, Kiwi, Peas, Grapes
 * 5) Blue/Purple- Blackberries, Eggplant, Figs, Plums, Raisins, Grapes

title: LMCC/Nutrition


text:
User:VolkovBot

 * Botmaster: w:ru:User:Volkov (talk)

title: User:VolkovBot


text:
User talk:VolkovBot

To leave a message, please use w:ru:User talk:VolkovBot

title: User talk:VolkovBot


text:
Anatomy & Physiology

Basic A & P

 * Anatomy/Introduction
 * Anatomy/Terminology
 * Lungs
 * Brain
 * Heart

Regional Anatomy

 * Head and Neck
 * Lower limb
 * Upper Limb
 * Pelvis
 * Abdomen
 * Thorax

Systemic Anatomy

 * Cardiovascular system
 * Digestive system
 * Endocrine system
 * Lymphatic system
 * Musculoskeletal system
 * Nervous system
 * Reproductive system
 * Urinary system

title: Anatomy & Physiology


text:
User talk:Eskedar seleshie

 Hello Eskedar seleshie, 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.
 * Visit a (kind of) random project.
 * Browse Wikiversity, or visit a portal corresponding to your educational level: pre-school, primary, secondary, tertiary, non-formal education.
 * Find out about research activities on Wikiversity.

 * Read an introduction for teachers and find out how to write an educational resource for Wikiversity.
 * Give feedback about your initial observations
 * Discuss Wikiversity issues or ask questions at the colloquium.
 * Chat with other Wikiversitans on #wikiversity-en.

And don't forget to explore Wikiversity with the links to your left. Be bold to contribute and to experiment with the sandbox or your userpage, and see you around Wikiversity! --Juan de Vojníkov 02:40, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

title: User talk:Eskedar seleshie


text: File:Bzh Barnstar.png

title: File:Bzh Barnstar.png


text:
User:Htejas

Tejas Hoskatti

title: User:Htejas


text:
User talk:Htejas

 Hello Htejas, 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.
 * Visit a (kind of) random project.
 * Browse Wikiversity, or visit a portal corresponding to your educational level: pre-school, primary, secondary, tertiary, non-formal education.
 * Find out about research activities on Wikiversity.

 * Read an introduction for teachers and find out how to write an educational resource for Wikiversity.
 * Give feedback about your initial observations
 * Discuss Wikiversity issues or ask questions at the colloquium.
 * Chat with other Wikiversitans on #wikiversity-en.

And don't forget to explore Wikiversity with the links to your left. Be bold to contribute and to experiment with the sandbox or your userpage, and see you around Wikiversity! --Victuallers 14:15, 4 April 2009 (UTC) Victuallers 14:15, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

title: User talk:Htejas


text:
User:Nauman khan

= 'Kashmir Issue' = Core Problem

India's denial of right of Kashmiris to self determination.

But Self determination was common ground between India, Pakistan and people of Kashmir; was supported by the U. N Security Council without dissent.

Indian claim that Kashmir is integral part of India is false. Basis of claim (26 Oct, 1947 accession) is fraudulent, because Indians invaded Kashmir beforehand. Date of signature of alleged accession document is false. No accession document exists.

Integrity of Indian Union

India fears that if Kashmir is given up, it will create pressure for secession elsewhere e.g. Punjab Assam, Tamil Nadu. But Kashmir is altogether different and not a precedent.

Terrorism

India claims to be defending itself against external (Pakistan) supported terrorism

But this ignores genuine Kashmiri opposition to Indian Occupation But Indian state is itself practicing terrorism in Jammu and Kashmir.

Fundamentalism

India claims to be defending "Secularism" against "Islamic Fundamentalism" But Kashmiri Muslims are historically not extremist and believe in communal harmony. But It is India who officially tolerates Hindu fundamentalist armed gangs. But it hints at repercussions for its Muslim minority if Muslim countries press Kashmiri cause.

Negotiations

India insists that basis for any negotiation must be Simla Agreement (bilateral talks with Pakistan) not UNSC Resolutions.

India denies right of the basic party to be part of the resolution process.

title: User:Nauman khan


text:
Français II/Leçon 3 - Common Irregular Verbs; Reflexive Verbs

Common irregular verbs
Irregular verbs have slightly different conjugation rules then other verbs. So far you have already encountered avoir and être as the first two, but there are other verbs that change wildly.

Aller:
 * Je vais
 * Tu vas
 * Il va
 * Nous allons
 * Vous allez
 * Ils vont

Venir:
 * Je viens
 * Tu viens
 * Il vient
 * Nous venons
 * Vous venez
 * Ils viennent

Reflexive verbs
Reflexive verbs is used with a pronoun that indicates the same person or thing as the subject. In French, a reflexive verb is called verbe pronominal réfléchi.

Let's take the example of the verb se lever which means to get up.

Se lever:
 * Je me lève
 * Tu te lèves
 * Il se lève
 * Nous nous levons
 * Vous vous levez
 * Ils se lèvent

Some commonly used reflexive verbs are:

Some verbs are exclusively reflexive: se suicider, se souvenir, s'enfuir, s'évanouir ...

Some others can be both reflexive and non-reflexive. If the action can be performed on someone else, the verb looses its reflexivity. For example: Je me lave I wash myself. And Je lave mon chien I wash my dog.


title: User:Tpa2067


text: User:Eme

title: User:Eme


text:
Design for the Environment/Disposable Coffee Cups

This page is part of the Design for the Environment course

Early in the 20th century, it was common to have shared glasses or wood cups at public water sources such as trains, schools and subway stations. This shared-use caused public health concerns. In 1909, Lackawanna, the first railway company began to use disposable paper cups. After 100 years, in 2009, disposable coffee cups are widely used in the public service. The usage of the disposable coffee cups creates a significant impact to the environment. According to statistics in 1997, the world consumes more than 300 billion disposable cups every year. All processes from the collection of raw materials to manufacturing, then to public use, and finally the product’s disposal stage, would create an impact on the environment. Therefore, it is worthwhile to look into the various environmental impacts caused by different kinds of disposable cups.

The objective of this project is to investigate the entire life cycle of all three kinds of coffee cups and their environmental impacts through EIOLCA and SLCA. In addition, detailed cost analysis and societal analysis will also be conducted to see the trade-offs between the environment and other important design factors. Three kinds of the disposable coffee cup made in different materials are comprehensively analyzed in this project. The three proposed designs are (1) Disposable paper cup that is currently being used in Tim Horton’s in North America. (2) Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) plastic cup. (3) PLA cup which is derived from renewable sources such as corn oil, starch and is able to be biodegraded at the end life stage.

The baseline alternative is the disposable paper cup currently being used in Tim Hortons in North America. At present, Tim Hortons’ paper cups are not recyclable or biodegradable because they contain a plastic liner and are varnished in wax. Nevertheless, the company’s official website states that Tim Hortons is always exploring alternative packaging materials, particularly those that are recyclable or biodegradable. The non-recyclable and non-biodegradable disposable paper cups from Tim Hortons have introduced serious environmental impacts and societal concerns. According to a 2004 litter survey conducted by Nova Scotia's Department of Environment and Labour, Tim Hortons' disposable cups are the most common item littering public spaces. According to the survey, Tim Hortons is a significant contributor to North America's litter pollution levels. In Nova Scotia, Tim Hortons cups accounted for 22% of all identifiable waste.

The design alternative 1 is the coffee cup made of polyethylene terephthalate (PET). PET is a very lightweight material and makes a good gas and moisture barrier. It is strong, impact-resistant and naturally colorless with high transparency. PET is widely made into the bottle for soft drinks. It has a resin identification code of 1. One of the uses for a recycled PET is for the manufacture of polar fleece material. It can also make fiber for polyester products.

The design alternative 2 is Biodegradable coffee cup. It is made of biodegradable plastics that can be broken down by enzyme-producing organisms. These materials are derived from renewable sources such as starch and vegetable oil and can be decomposed into the water, carbon dioxide and non-toxic compounds at the end of their life stage. Biodegradable cups are environmentally friendly since no petroleum is used as a direct material source. Also, no harmful substance is released during its use and disposal. However, the energy cost associated with manufacturing these cups might be higher than those of the traditional cups due to different production method and there is no mass demand on these cups on the current market as well. The specific product researched in this project is one-way PLA (polylactic acid) plastic cups.

Project Information
       Section 1 Group A22 Xiao, Geng (Gengxiao) Huake, Kang (Huakekang) Tian, Zhu (txzhu) Yang, Du (YangDu&Niyade)

Key Features
The Disposable Paper Cup is relatively inexpensive, which costs only 1.35 cent US in 1997 per unit. However, it causes serious environmental impacts in the pre-manufacturing stage and relatively large impacts in the manufacturing and disposal stages. It is neither recyclable nor biodegradable, which is against the public wish and is very wasteful in material considering its very short use phase. The trade-off here is clear: environment and virgin material are sacrificed for lower cost.

The Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) Plastic Cup is inexpensive, about 1.73 cent US in 1997 per unit. Most of its environmental impacts are during the pre-manufacturing stage, and its manufacturing process is relatively simple, inexpensive, and does not create many environmental impacts. The PET cups can be recycled to many other products like polyester fibers. But to use PET coffee cups, public education is needed to make people realize that PET has a relatively high recycle rate and low environmental impacts during the manufacturing stage. PET is actually a rather environmental friendly material to make coffee cups.

The Biodegradable Plastics (PLA) Cup is the most expensive alternative. It is about 3.27 cent US in 1997 per unit. PLA coffee cups produce no toxic releases at the end of their lives. The direct material source is corn, which is renewable and easily biodegradable at the end of its life. Despite this environmental advantage, PLA production still requires petroleum as its energy source. In addition, results from EIOLCA show farming is a major energy-consuming stage.

Comparison and Recommendation
For the Functional Analysis, the baseline alternative of the traditional paper cup that is currently used in Tim Hortons meets the specified function and constraint requirements. For design alternative 2, PET can withstand temperature up to 260 °C .,and it is already widely used in bottle water industry. For design alternative 3, the PLA plastics have a melting temperature of 150-165 degree Celsius and do not produce any toxic residue during its use phase. Therefore, all three alternatives meets the functions and constraints for a disposable coffee cup.

For the Economic Input-Output Life Cycle Analysis, the results show that biodegradable plastic has the least Energy used (10.073TJ), GWP creation (988.3 MTCO2E), toxic air release (361.314kg), toxic water release (27.784 kg), and toxic land release (47.643kg) among the all three alternatives.

For the Streamlined LCA Analysis, biodegradable plastic cup scores 9 in Pre-manufacture stage, 10 in Product Manufacture stage, 13 in Product Packaging and Transportation stage, 20 in Product use stage and 18 in Recycling Disposal stage. Compare to the other two alternatives, alternative 2 has higher scores in all stage except in the Product Manufacture stage.

For the Cost Analysis, biodegradable plastic cup turns out to have the highest total cost and traditional paper cup has the lowest total cost. The difference of total cost between PLA cup and Paper cup $0.01652, which means that the total cost of PLA cup is 92.39% higher than that of the Paper cup.

For the Societal Analysis, each alternative has its own societal issue, and it is directed by the public wish and media. For paper cup, people often care more about the disposable stage than the pre-manufacturing stage, although data show that the pre-manufacturing stage creates much more severe impacts to the environment. For the PET cup, the majority of the public still have the bias that plastics are not environmental friendly. People do not realize that significant amount of energy and residues are reduced during the manufacturing and recycling stage. For the PLA cup, the public would worry that large requirement of corn starch can cause corn price to increase and affect farmers’ lives.

From the tables shown above, it is clear that Alternative 1 - PET cup has the least environment impact per cup. PET cup is the most environmental friendly design and the most economical alternative. The currently used baseline alternative - paper cup has moderate environment impact per cup, and surprisingly, the biodegradable alternative – PLA cup creates the most environment impact per cup. Maybe in the foreseeable future, when better energy methods and more economical manufacturing processes are developed, PLA cup will be the most advisable design. However, for the present time, the PET cup is the most environmental friendly and economical alternative.

Disposable Paper Cup
The disposable paper cup is used to hold hot liquid during its use phase. Therefore, its design function is to hold hot liquid with a temperature range from -10°C to 110°C without leaking or deforming. In addition, the cup should not release any toxic release into the hot liquid, and it should be easily disposable and handed by human hands. The baseline alternative of the traditional paper cup that is currently used in Tim Hortons meets the above function and constraint requirements.

Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) Plastic Cup
PET is a very lightweight material and makes a good gas and moisture barrier. It is strong, impact-resistant and naturally colorless with high transparency. . The PET can withstand temperature up to 260 °C, and is already widely used in bottle water industry with no toxic released. Therefore, PET coffee cup meets all the function and constraint requirements.

Biodegradable Plastics (PLA) Cup
TPLA plastics have a melting temperature of 150-165 degree Celsius and do not produce any toxic residue during its use phase. Therefore it meets all the functions and constraints

Economic Input-Output Life Cycle Analysis
Economic input-output life cycle Analysis can quantify how much environmental impact is directly attributed to each sector of the economy and how much each sector purchases from other sectors in producing its output by using aggregate sector-level data. . In this section, all three designs are conducted by Economic input-output life cycle Analysis. In addition, EIO-LCA analysis traces out the various economic transactions, resource requirements and environmental emissions required for producing a particular product or service. .

Disposable Paper Cup
EIOLCA is conducted by using the industrial sector Paperboard Container Manufacturing to represent Tim Hortons’ disposable paper cup. The major industries involved in making disposable paper cups are logging, pulp mill, paperboard mill, PVC lining, paperboard container manufacturing, truck transportation, and power generation.

The major environmental impacts are induced in the pre-manufacturing stage. Pulp mill and paper and paperboard mills account for most of the toxic release and majority of the energy use and GWP creation. In addition, power generation and supply is another sector that contributes significantly in terms of toxic air/land release, energy use, and GWP creation. On the other hand, the environmental impacts from manufacturing stage and delivery/packaging stage are minor compare to the above two. EIOLCA also proves that disposable paper cups create significant toxic land release at the end of its lifecycle.

In addition, PVC lining on the paper cup does not cause significant environmental impacts in the pre-manufacturing and manufacturing stages. Both Coated and laminated paper and packaging materials industry and Paint and coating manufacturing industry cause ignorable environmental impacts compare to other industrial sectors. However, it is realized that PVC lining causes the paper cups to be impossible to biodegrade or recycle, and it is the ultimate reason for the enormous landfill caused by these paper cups.

Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) Plastic Cup
The Sector #326160: Plastics bottle manufacturing from US 1997 Industry Benchmark Model is used for design alternative 2. Since both the coffee cups and bottles are using the same material (PET), and share the similar manufacturing process, no hybrid or customer build model is needed for this analysis.

The power consumed during the making of PET cups actually contributes a huge amount of environmental impact to the whole life cycle. Beside the power generation, the major environmental impacts happen during the pre-manufacturing stage. The industries from other stages of the life cycle, plastics cup manufacturing, waste management and remediation services, and truck transportation, compared to pre-manufacturing stage, only account for small amount of energy use and GWP generation.

Biodegradable Plastics (PLA) Cup
EIOLCA for biodegradabble PLA cups is generated using the hybrid method. Plastic packaging materials, sheets and film sector is chosen as a base model. Research shows that PLA cups consumes only 2/7 of the fossil resource and the extra money goes into farming and wet corn milling in an assumed 1:1 ratio.

The resulted EIOLCA shows that the major environmental impacts occur in the premanufacturing and manufacturing stage. Grain farming and plastic materials and resin manufacturing account for the 2nd and 3rd most GWP release while plastic materials and resin manufacturing and plastics packaging materials, film and sheet account for the 2nd and 3rd most total energy use. In addition, power generation and supply consumes most energy and releases most GWP throughout the life cycle of the product.

Disposable Paper Cup
SLCA shows that pre-manufacturing stage of paper cups creates the majority of the environmental impacts in the life-cycle, and the environmental impacts from manufacturing stage, delivery stage, and disposal stage are much smaller. In addition, SLCA shows that the environmental impacts in the use stage are negligible.

The results from SLCA largely agree with the results from EIOLCA. SLCA gives an exceptionally low score for the pre-manufacturing stage because this stage creates serious environmental impacts, such as severe toxic release and large energy consumption. EIOLCA also shows that most of the environmental impacts occur at this stage. In the disposable stage, SLCA gives a 0 score for solid residues, and EIOLCA also shows that the only significant environmental impact at that stage is land toxic release. The results from the two LCA’s for manufacturing stage and delivery and packaging stage also largely correspond to each other.

Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) Plastic Cup
PET is made from petroleum. It is very common and not in restricted supply. It is not a renewable material. A significant amount of toxic is released when making PET; therefore the pre-manufacturing stage creates the most environment impacts. The PET cups manufacturing processes are quite simply, and only account for very little energy consumption and toxic releases. The PET cups have no diversity, no disassemble needed, and all PET are recyclable. PET can be recycled to make many other products like film, bottles, fiber, and filament. .

The result from SLCA also basically agrees with the result of EIOLCA. The pre-manufacturing stage creates the most environmental impacts.The only difference between EIOLCA and SLCA occurs at the disposal and recycling stage. The data of EIOLCA is from 1997, and the recycling rate is only about 9.8%, but in 2007 the recycling rate grows to 69.2%. . Therefore the huge solid residues in EIOLCA are no longer valid.

Biodegradable Plastics (PLA) Cup

SLCA of the PLA cups shows that the pre-manufacturing stage creates the majority of the environmental impacts in the life-cycle, followed by manufacturing stage, delivery stage, disposal stage and use stage. The environmental impacts in the use stage and disposal stage are minimal.

The results from the SLCA largely agree with the results from EIOLCA. SLCA gives a low score for the pre-manufacturing stage because farming process depends mainly on non-renewable energy source and toxics are produced from fertilizers and pesticides. EIOLCA also shows that most of the environmental impacts occur at this stage. In addition, SLCA gives a high score of 18 to the disposal stage. This is because that the disposal method is biodegradation which produce no toxic.

Disposable Paper Cup
Material Cost: The weight of a medium sized (9 oz) Tim Hortons paper cup weights 5.67g, and 1 ton (1000 kg) of single side PE coated paper’s price is 1300 USD. Assume 15% material waste, the material cost for one cup is $0.0087

Printing Cost and Cutting Cost: Multi-color printing cost for each cup is $0.001. Cutting cost is only $0.0001 per cup.

Manufacturing Cost and Labor Cost: Assume paper cup machine ZBJ-9A is used, and this machine’s price is 30000 USD. Its efficiency is 3000 pieces/hr, and it requires only 1 labor to operate. Its power is 4kw. The manufacturing cost of one cup includes the machine depreciation, labour cost, and energy cost, which is a total of $0.00748.

Packaging and Transportation Cost: The packaging cost is about $0.0002 per cup. The transportation cost is variable depending on the distance, and it is assumed to be 5% of the manufacturing cost, which is $0.0004.

Total Cost: Therefore, the total cost of one cup is 0.01788 USD, which is equivalent to 0.0135 USD in 1997.

Indirect Cost: The product’s direct disposal cost is very low, since the cups are non-recyclable or biodegradable, so no cost is needed to recycle or biodegrade them. However, the indirect cost for its disposal is very high. Landfill practice raises serious environmental and social costs, such as waste of land, sacrifice of scene, and cost of waste management.

Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) Plastic Cup
Material Cost: The weight of a medium sized (9 oz) PET cup weights around 10g by experiment and calculation. The price of PET is $427/tone. . 1 ton of PET can make 1000000g x 0.95 / 10g = 95000 cups (assume 5% of the material will be wasted during the injection molding). The material cost for one cup is $427/ 95000 = $0.0045

Printing Cost and Cutting Cost: Multi-color printing cost for 1000 cups is $1 ,so for each cup, the printing cost is $0.001.

Manufacturing Cost and Labor Cost: Assume One step Injection Blowing Molding Machine (PET machine) model DC-ZLC-150 from Guangzhou Dechuang Silicone Machinery Co., Ltd. is used to manufacturing PET cups. The price of the machine is $ 39,500. It can produce average around 2000 cups/hr and requires 1 labour to operate. The power of the machine is 20kW. Assume this machine is depreciated at 15% of its value every year, the cost of equipment each year is $5925. Assume this machine is operating 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, then it can produce 2000 pieces/hr x 8 hr/day x 5days/week x 52 weeks = 4160000 cups per year. Assume the labor cost is $20 per hour, and then the labor cost for operating this machine for one year is $41600. Also, the energy used by this machine for one year is 8320kWh, and assume the price is 7cent/kWh, so the total cost for energy is $2912. Therefore, the total manufacturing cost for one cup is (5925 + 41600 + 2912)/4160000 = $0.012.

Packaging and Transportation Cost: The packaging cost is about $0.0002 per cup. The transportation cost is variable depending on the distance, and it is assumed to be 5% of the manufacturing cost, which is $0.0006.

Total Cost: Therefore, the total cost of one cup is 0.0183 USD, which is equivalent to $0.0131 USD in 1997

Biodegradable Plastics (PLA) Cup
Material Cost: Assume each cup is 6 g in mass and The price for PLA is $2300USD/ton. Assume 10% material waste, the material cost for one cup is calculated to be $0.0153.

Manufacturing Cost and Labor Cost: Assume Plastic Cup Making Machine (FJL-660SB-B) is used, and the machine’s price is $31000. Its power is 7.5kW and it requires one labour to operate. The manufacturing cost of one cup is then $0.01724 including the machine depreciation, labour cost, and energy cost.

Packaging and Transportation Cost: The packaging cost is about $0.0002 per cup. The transportation cost is variable depending on the distance, and it is assumed to be 5% of the manufacturing cost, which is $0.00086.

Total Cost: Therefore, the total cost of one cup is 0.0344 USD, which is equivalent to $0.026 USD in 1997.

Indirect Cost: The product needs to be collectively recycled after its use stage for biodegration. This price is about $87USD/ton which is $0.0052USD/cup. However, some PLA cups are mixed with other types of commercial cups and are incinerated. The incineration price is 150€ per tonne which is $0.013USD/cup.

Disposable Paper Cup
Although EIOLCA and SLCA show that the majority of the environmental impacts occur at the pre-manufacturing stage, the public’s focus is more on the disposal stage of this issue. This fact is very important for Tim Hortons and all other commercial organizations relate to cup containers. They may want to make the disposal stage of their cups more environmental friendly at the cost of making more environmental impacts in other life stages to suit the public and even the government preference.

Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) Plastic Cup
The main obstacle about using PET coffee cups is that the public still have the bias that the plastics is not an environmental friendly material. Most people, when thinking of plastics as an alternative, do not realize the reduction on huge amount of energy and residues during the manufacturing and recycle stage. The public still holds the idea that the most PET bottles and cups are land filled, while the recycle rate of PET increased from 0.4% in 1993 to 69.2% in 2007, and is still growing. because many other products are created from recycled PET, including film, bottles, fiber, and filament ,in order to make the coffee cup with PET, it is important to bring up the public awareness that PET is actually an environmental friendly material.

Biodegradable Plastics (PLA) Cup
As the PLA cups commercializes, the general public might be more aware of some environmental issues. Also, large requirement of corn starch can cause corn price to increase and affect farmers’ lives.


title: User:Kaushani123


text:
Design for the Environment/Automobile Car Flooring

Project Information
Section 1 Group A23
 * Poya Rahmati
 * Mohammed (Viquar) Zia
 * Michael Li
 * Alizera Moeini

Alternative 1: Polylactic Acid
Polylactic Acid (PLA) is a semi-synthetic polymer created from renewable natural resources. The starchy plants necessary for synthesizing PLA can be harvested continually, guaranteeing a continual supply of raw material. The primary advantages of PLA are its recyclability and biodegradability. After use it's use in car mats, polylactic acid potentially be reused for other applications. If this is not possible, exposure to a suitable environment promotes degradation into it's constituent compounds. Finally, PLA car mats can undergo combustion, releasing water and carbon dioxide back into the atmosphere.

Alternative 1: Polylactic Acid
Polylactic acid exhibits multiple characteristics which support its use as a material for car mats. According to industry sources, it possesses good abrasion resistance, impact resistance and toughness. These properties indicate that PLA car mats will be able to withstand the daily physical rigours of an automobile floor. Impact forces from feet or cargo and shear forces from horizontal movement across the floor can be tolerated by PLA. Additionally, PLA is resistant to grease and oil, reducing the cleaning effort required when spills occur. Finally, PLA is resistant to heat and generally inflammable. When heated substances like cigarette lighters drop on the floor, PLA car mats will not ignite or deform significantly. Despite its biodegradability, polylactic acid is rigid and non-degradable when properly used.


text:
Spanish/Spanish Three/Exact pronunciation

This is a page designed for students to improve and develop their spanish pronunciation. In this part of the course, we will be using IPA (International Phonetic Alphabet) in order to make learning how to pronounce the spanish language easy, effective and exact, and to reduce the accent a student may have when speaking. If there are any objections to this page, then please discuss.

Contents

 * Introduction
 * What is IPA?
 * Learning Spanish with IPA
 * Vowels
 * Pure Vowels
 * Semi-vowels
 * Consonants

To learn more about Spanish phonology, please look at Wikipedia:Spanish phonology.

To hear IPA audio, please go to https://www.paulmeier.com/ipacharts.

Click here to go back.


text:
Talk:Spanish/Spanish Three/Exact pronunciation

This is a page I decided to make to try and help with pronunciation. If there are any problems or objections, please discuss


text:
Spanish/Spanish Three/Exact pronunciation/Vowels

This page is designed to help students learn to pronounce the spanish vowels, and reduce their accent. In this part of the course we will be learning about the vowels that appear in standard castillano spanish, and learn how to pronounce them correctly with as little of an accent as possible. This unit consists of pure vowels and semi-vowels.

Lessons

 * Lesson on Pure Vowels
 * Lesson on Semi-vowels

To learn more about vowels, please go to [w:Vowel]. To learn about semi vowels, please go to [w:Semivowel].

Click here to go back.


text: File:Familiarization Tutorial Part 2 Computer Science School.pdf


text:
Coffee

The coffee industry has grown dramatically in the past decades with the Starbucks Coffee Company dominating this emerging market. Coffee is both rich in history and in cultural meaning throughout the world. As an industry, consumers often embrace socially progressive movements, and therefore encourage stock holders and executives to adopt more socially responsible practices.

The Boston Tea Party in 1773 marked an important moment in US history. Angry colonial protesters boarded a boat in Boston Harbor and threw the tea overboard because of recent tariffs that Great Britain had started to enforce. Supporters of this action proudly drank coffee as a sign of opposition against the British and turned coffee into a patriotic icon.
 * United States of America
 * Philosophy and Art
 * Political Movements

More at Wikipedia.org Coffeehouse

 Get to love the competition  First, don't be afraid of Starbucks. In fact, make her your best friend. As Chinese general Sun-tsu from 400BC said, "Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer." Here is a list of reasons why this is true in starting your own coffee shop.
 * Many of your potential customers like coffee, but hate Starbucks
 * Starbucks has made a point of moving in near local coffee shops, do the same so that people will start to come to that part of town where all the coffee shops are.
 * Hire disgruntled or even part time Starbucks barristas to cut down on training costs.
 * Have friendly competition fundraisers for local schools and causes to bring awareness of your shop, its a fun and uplifting way of stealing Starbucks customers.
 * The general public thinks Starbucks is overpriced, you will be the affordable competitor.
 * Right now McDonald's and Dunkin' Donuts are launching campaigns to compete with Starbucks, join them

 Location Location Location  The best general advice for a start up coffee shop is to follow the pack. Find a Starbucks and move in across the street. It is vital for long term success to move with the market and not against it in these early stages of your shop. There are certain businesses that thrive off of each other, for instance a 24/7 diner across from a bar. In fact, in every town you will find that successful bars clump together and thrive. One big reason for this is that every time your potential customer goes to your competitor they will see your business, and become comfortable with your location. The one day that your competitor gets too crowded, gives bad service, or isn't open then they will come to you.

It is also good to make your sign visible and appealing to the type of customer you are looking for. Think about a sign of a big steaming mug in fluorescent lights vs a sculpture of a coffee farmer filling a burlap bag with beans. They send different signals and will attract different kinds of coffee drinkers.

 Purist vs Poly-product  Some shops exclusively cater to the gourmet coffee drinker, while others diversify with similar products, services, and gimmicks. Be careful when adding anything other foods and drinks into your shop. If you want to attract the high end crowd of coffee connoisseurs then you must not have competing fragrances in your shop from candles, food, incense, a fireplace, or tobacco. Now if you don't have a comfortable place for people to smoke and socialize, then you lose out on a huge market of coffee addicts who religiously smoke when they drink.

Every new thing that you introduce to your shop has risks that will potentially lose a segment of the market. A coffee shop with a cigar cellar can be a great mix, but a large selection of fruit smoothies might spoil that environment. It will be difficult to balance the noises of the blender screaming in the background over Blue Like Jazz; as a teenage girl is talking on her cell phone while a retired business man sips his coffee puffs his cigar.

As a rule, if your shop is going to be a hip teenage lounge, expect a demand for blended drinks, sugary stuff, and soft drinks. Your business will be at the whim of whether it is trendy to go to a coffee shop; live music will help attract this crowd of young hipsters. On the other hand, if you are aiming for business people, then be prepared for the morning rush with grumbles coming from behind newspapers and Blackberries. Many of them will never sit down or get a drink in a "for here" mug. They will expect the barista to memorize their drink, and will often tip well for quality service.

Within psychology
Coffee contains caffeine which is an addictive drug. There are even psychiatric diagnoses related to caffeine intoxication, caffeine induced anxiety disorders, caffeine induced sleep disorders, and of course, "not otherwise specified".

title: Coffee


text:
Design for the Environment/Power Generation for Ontario

In contemporary societies, power generation has become as basic of a need as agriculture. However, this basic need has severe environmental impacts that originate mainly from gaseous emissions and exploitation of natural resources. The role of gaseous emissions in global warming, ozone depletion and causing chronic - sometimes fatal - respiratory diseases has been the main reason for bringing this issue into international debate. In addition, exploitation of non-renewable natural resources and its ability to limit efforts of implementing Sustainable Development has made power generation a social issue that has to be immediately resolved.

With the rise of “Environmental Awareness” around the globe, there have been efforts to replace coal - the oldest and mostly utilized resource in power generation – due to its dangerous environmental impact. Ontario’s main electricity supplier, Ontario Power Generation (OPG), which is responsible for about 70% of the province’s electricity generation, provides almost 29 TWh annually from 6,450 MW of coal-fired power plants, almost one-fifth of total provincial generation. After years of lobbying and litigation, that the Province of Ontario has ordained all coal-fired power plants to be shut down and replaced, by fully nuclear and hybrid natural gas/nuclear plants by 2014. This article studies the most appropriate power production methods for the province of Ontario, Canada. For this reason, analysis and comparison of three power generation alternatives have been conducted: Coal, In-lake Wind Power and Nuclear Fusion Power.

Project Information
Section 2 – Group B8 Andrew Lazzaro (Andrew00) Ahmed Mahmoud (ahmedm) George Naguib (naguibge) Mohamad Nsouli (nsoulimo)

Coal
Given the abundance and manageability of coal, it’s no surprise that it is one of the most important fossil fuels used in Canada, and particularly in Ontario, which itself holds 1.3 billion tonnes of proven reserves. Ontario’s main electricity supplier, Ontario Power Generation (OPG), which is responsible for about 70% of the province’s electricity generation, provides almost 29 TWh annually from 6,450 MW of coal-fired power plants, almost one-fifth of total provincial generation.

The Nanticoke plant in Haldimand County is OPG’s flagship coal-fired power plant. With 8 generating units capable of producing up to 3,920 megawatts of power and an annual production in the range of 20 to 24 billion kilowatt-hours, enough “to run nearly 2.5 million households for a full year,” the Nanticoke plant is by far the largest in North America.

A Pulverized Coal (PC) plant generates its electricity by grinding chunks of coal into fine powder then combusting it in an industrial furnace surrounded by walls of water-filled boiler tubing. The heat causes the water to boil into steam, which moves at a high speed to the turbine. There, it pushes the blades of the turbine and causes it to spin at a very high speed. The turbine is connected to a rotor, which is a large electromagnet that produces rotating magnetic fields. These fields move across coils of wire in the generator, producing electricity that can be sent across transmission lines to customers.

This method was so successful because it is simple, cost-effective, tried-and-true, and sustainable in the short-run due to coal's abundance. It has been in use as early as the 1920s, constitutes almost 18% of Canada’s power generation, and has is of great importance to the Canadian economy, as coal mining and coal power plants contribute about $5 billion to the economy and employ almost 396,000 Canadians.

However, as the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) will show, coal-based power generation has profound environmental impacts which render it Sustainability unsustainable]. Specifically, coal is a non-renewable resource, with estimates of its lifetime running as low as 100 years. Further, every, the flue gas produced in coal combustion contains almost 128,000 tons of CO2, which contributes greatly to global warming, as well as 620,000 tonnes of SOx and 262,000 tonnes of NOx, which can “severely impair respiratory functions and change metabolic rates of humans” and “cause corrosion to building materials,” as well as 1990 kg of Mercury which is one of the most damaging pollutants to the ecosystem. Several studies have found that coal-fired plants are the biggest source of mercury, which results in almost 4,400 premature deaths annually in Canada.

Already Canada exports $2.2 billion worth of coal, and as Ontario approaches the phase-out date, Canadian coal miners have shifted towards exporting more coal in order to offset the economic impact of the phase-out.

Wind Power Generation
Wind turbines generate power which can be supplied to an existing power grid and supplemented for more environmentally damaging power generation techniques. The basic components of a wind turbine are the rotor and blades, hub, driveshaft, gearbox, generator and tower. The rotor converts wind energy into mechanical energy which then is fed through the gearbox and converted into electrical energy via the generator. Submarine cables then transfer the newly acquired energy to an offshore transformer station where the voltage is stepped up and sent to the onshore power grid.

Wind power, being a clean energy source, reduces the current reliance on non-renewable resources that produce greenhouse gas emissions and toxic releases for power generation. There is a great potential for large projects offshore, higher available wind speeds and a reduced amount of turbulence and wind shear. This allows for greater efficiency while reducing turbine height requirements and fatigue when compared to onshore projects. However, capital investment and operation and maintenance costs are higher for offshore farms due to the increased technical challenge. This is mostly due to limited access to the site. Specific hydraulic barges and offshore cranes are required.

Nuclear Fusion Power Generation
With growing populations, economic instability, and the problems associated with destruction of the environment in power generation, the world is in need of a new technology which – when fully established – can generate power for larger populations while keeping in mind the economic and environmental impacts of such technology. For a number of years now, the technology of Nuclear Fusion has been under consideration. When implemented, this state-of-the-art technology will provide power for growing populations with no negative effects on the environment due to its minimal emissions.

Advantages of Nuclear Fusion

1.	 Fuel Supply : The fuel used in Nuclear Fusion is readily available in the environment. Deuterium is found in seawater and tritium can be produced using lithium which is also found abundantly in the earth’s crust.

2.	 Environmental : With no carbon emissions, this energy source is immediately placed at a higher environmental standard than most other sources. Also, the radioactive waste is very minimal compared to conventional nuclear fission reactors.

3.	 Melt-down avoidance : Due to the nature of the fusion reaction, there is only enough fuel in the plasma for approximately 5 minutes of operation, and in the case of a loss of coolant, the reaction would naturally ramp down.

4.	 No Nuclear Proliferation : Unlike the dangers associated with nuclear fission reactors, there aren’t any fissile materials necessary for nuclear proliferation.

5.	 High Energy Concentration : In relation to the amount of land and natural resources used, the energy production concentration far exceeds any other current power generation source.

Research into the Nuclear Fusion technology has been a worldwide effort since the late 1980’s. For the purpose of this report, we will use the 500MW ITER (International Thermo-Nuclear Experimental Reactor) Project as the basis for our analysis. ITER’s research is based in USA, Canada, Japan, Russia, and the European Union.

Suggested power generation operations are to contribute to 30% of Ontario’s need. The three alternatives were compared based on the following criteria: Functionality, Economic Input-Output Life Cycle Analysis (EIOLCA), Streamlined LCA (SLCA), Expenses, and Societal Impact. The aim of this report is to inspect the feasibility of an innovative and reliable process to produce “Green Energy”.

Highlights and Recommendations
Three proposed alternatives to provide power to the Province of Ontario were analyzed and compared. Comparison was made based on the following criteria:

•	Functionality: Ability to provide Ontario with 500 MW-hr of “Green Electricity”

•	Economic Input-Output Life Cycle Analysis (EIOLCA): Combined Economic expenses and Environmental Impact (i.e. Emissions)

•	Streamlined LCA (SLCA): Scoring based on Guidelines and Protocols presented in the course

•	Expenses: Costs incurred by each alternative

•	Societal Impact: the effect of each alternative on the society

The following table ranks each alternative based on its performance in each category:

The above table shows a trend that places In-Lake Wind Power ahead of Nuclear Fusion and Coal. The Streamlined Life Cycle Analysis revealed that In-Lake Wind Power and Nuclear Fusion Power supersede Coal-Based Power. However, “subjective” SLCA can not be utilized to order the alternatives, especially with the insignificant score difference between Nuclear and In-Lake Power. In addition, all three alternatives had negative and positive societal impact; therefore, this criterion can not be used for ranking alternatives.

Coal, In-Lake Wind Turbines, and Nuclear Fusion Reactors can provide Ontario with 500 MW-hr of electricity. Coal has serious health consequences (chronic diseases) and environmental impacts: Global Warming Potential. In addition, operational costs of a Coal Power Plant exceed those of a Nuclear Fusion Reactor and In-Lake Wind Turbines. For these reasons, it is recommended that Coal-Based Power Plants not be considered as good alternatives for power production.

As for the Nuclear Fusion Power and In-Lake Wind Power, this report revealed that both alternatives are environmentally friendly. However, In-Lake Wind Power has fewer emissions and environmental depletion potential than Nuclear Fusion Power. In addition, In-Lake Wind Power is less expensive to utilize over a 20 years period than Nuclear Fusion Power. Based on these results and on the fact that Nuclear Fusion Technology is still in the experimental phase, In-Lake Wind Power is the best Power Generation alternative.

However, as mentioned earlier in this article, In-Lake Wind Power is not as reliable as Nuclear Fusion Power. Therefore, a detailed study on the reliability of In-Lake Wind Power is recommended before the construction of a network of In-Lake Wind Turbines.

Functional Analysis
All 3 power generation alternatives can provide 500 MW-hr of electricity for the province of Ontario. The use of coal in power generation causes gaseous emissions and exploits reserves of this natural resource; thus, Coal-Based Power Generation is not environmentally friendly. On the other hand, In-Lake Wind Power can meet the power generation requirements with no significant environmental impact. Being Offshore, turbines used in this alternative will require cutting-edge technology to implement an efficient (minimal loss) power transmission network and to maintain the turbines being exposed to high winds and aquatic stresses. Finally, Nuclear Fusion Power Generation is an efficient power generation method (1,758 output to input energy ratio) with no significant environmental impact during the power generation process (not including sectors that feed the process). Both Nuclear Fusion Power Generation and In-Lake Wind Power can produce 500 MW-hr with no significant environmental impact; however, Nuclear Fusion is more reliable than In-Lake Power since the latter depends on the intensity of winds (uncontrollable factor) while the inputs (fuel) and outputs (thermal energy) of Nuclear Fusion cycles are controllable.

Streamlined Life Cycle Analysis (SLCA) Highlights
In comparing the Streamlined Life Cycle Analysis (SLCA) of the 3 alternatives, it is obvious that Coal-Based Power Generation falls behind both In-Lake Wind Power and Nuclear Fusion power in its total matrix score. This is expected since the use of coal causes high emissions (Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs), CO2, SO2) and resource depletion (Coal Mining) especially in the Primary Process Operation. Comparing Nuclear Fusion Power and In-Lake Wind Power reveals that Wind Turbines are more environmentally friendly than Fusion Power Plants especially in Power Generation (Primary Process Operation) and End of Life. However, SLCA scoring is based on personal judgement and a final decision on whether Nuclear Fusion or In-Lake Wind Power Generation is more environmentally friendly can not be made with such a insignificant score difference. Therefore, Streamlined Life Cycle Analysis just implies that Coal-Based Power Generation has higher environmental impacts than the other two alternatives.

Coal
Referring to and to acquire figures pertaining to Global Warming Potential per LC stage, it is obvious that the Use phase, during which combustion of coal produces some 11.9 million mMTCO2E, of which 35 million, is the most environmentally-impacting, whereas the Process implementation and Decommissioning phases have minimal impact since they occur once in the plant’s lifetime (maintenance and retrofitting part of Use phase). As well, referring to the EIOLCA, almost 5.5 mMTCO2E of GWP are associated with the resource provisioning phase, a result of coal and ore-mining equipment emissions and transportation costs.

For conventional air pollutants, again the Use phase has the largest environmental impact owing to the combustion of coal as well as auxiliary emissions attached to facility operations. Second, with almost 50,000 mt of air pollutants, is resource provisioning in which emissions are associated with providing energy for transportation and other vigorous mining activities. It should be noted that due to the inefficiency of coal, tonnes of it have to be extracted and therefore a lot of pollution is involved in extracting it, along with concrete-making process and iron extraction and processing. In all, based on the EIOLCA figures, a 500MW plant releases, during its lifetime, an average of 1.99 kg/kW-hr of CO2, 0.00142 of kg /kW-hr of CH4, 0.00124 kg/kW-hr of CO, 0.00369 kg/kW-hr of SO2, 0.00652 kg/KW-hr NOX. Energy follows a similar pattern due to the close correlation between the two.

Looking at total releases & transfers, which encompass air, water, land, and underground releases of toxics, predictably, we find that resource provisioning results in the most toxic releases (11,900,000 kg). This is consistent with studies EPA TRI data. Releases from process implementation are a direct consequence of coal processing and wastes incurred during construction such as lubricants used in machinery (also in resource provisioning . As with the prior analytical parameters, the Use phase has massive releases attached to it including flue gas, ash (which is recycled) and residuals which have a negative impact on the environment such as wastewater.

In-Lake Wind Power EIOLCA
The EIOLCA model, calculated through capital and annual costs over a 20 year lifespan, provides a wide range of data which quantifies the environmental impacts of a 500MW offshore power plant. In order to allow easier comparison, all sectors were then broken down into the following umbrella sectors: pre-manufacturing, manufacturing, transportation and operation.

EIOLCA Model for Offshore Windfarm

Minimal economic activity is present in the transportation life stage of the model. The bulk of the transportation costs occur up-to and including the assembly of the wind turbines which represents only a small portion of the life cycle. Once the turbines become operational, the power produced is sent through power lines; this accounts for negligible values of costs and emissions.

The largest areas of economic activity and energy use, at $73 M and 7200 TJ respectively, occur in the operation stage of the wind farm. Although there are high capital costs in a project of this size, over 20 years, the costs associated with operation and maintenance, as well as administration and engineering, outweigh the other life stages present in the model. In contrast with the previous statement, the operation life stage displays the lowest Global Warming Potential (GWP) of all sectors with a value of 530 MTCO2E. This can be accredited to the fact that there are no greenhouse gas emissions during the power generation of the wind farm. This demonstrates the great advantage of wind energy as it is very environmentally friendly during operation. Pre-manufacturing of the offshore wind farm is determined to be the largest contributor of greenhouse gases at 26524 MTCO2E. This can primarily be accounted for by the mining and refining of virgin materials required in the manufacturing of the turbines, foundations, submarine cables and transformers.

The trends displayed in the total air, water, land and underground releases act similar to those seen when considering sulphur dioxide (SO2) emissions. Pre-manufacturing and manufacturing stages generate relatively large values while the transportation and use life operation account for very little. This is again caused by the fact that the gathering and production of the many metals, mainly steel, have a high environmental impact, especially when considering the clean energy source of a wind turbine.

Nuclear Fusion Reactor EIOLCA
In order to complete an EIOLCA analysis for the Nuclear Fusion Reactor, two separate EIOLCA analyses were combined into one custom EIOLCA for more accurate results. The first comprises of the input-output figures for the construction of the reactor, while the second is for the operation of the reactor.

•	Construction cost per year = $273.25 million/ year

•	Annual operating cost = $308 million/ year

In analysing the outcome of the EIOLCA, several conclusions can be made regarding the environmental impacts of constructing and operating a nuclear fusion reactor. As stated earlier, one of the main advantages of the nuclear fusion reactor is the lack of carbon emissions that are involved in older technologies such as coal power plants.

The above data suggests that the majority of GWP emissions are involved in the premanufacturing stage of the reactor’s life-cycle. As expected, GWP emissions related to nuclear fusion are unrelated to the actual operation of the reactor. In constructing the reactor, several metallic alloys require processing – thus contributing to the overall GWP emissions during the reactor’s lifetime. The premanufacturing of a fusion reactor requires heavy duty processing of thermal materials with very precise specifications, thus calling for substantial amount of energy input. The EIOLCA output indicates that all GWP emissions during the operation of the reactor are due to secondary actions which occur during normal operation of the plant. For example, telecommunications involved in normal operations contributes to more GWP emissions than the reactor’s operation itself. This places the environmental sustainability of such technology in good perspective.

Comparing the SLCA and EIOLCA for the ITER

The EIOLCA and SLCA go hand-in-hand when analysing the environmental impact of any product or process. The preceding custom EIOLCA indicated that the GWP emissions associated with constructing and operating the ITER fusion reactor are mainly due to the premanufacturing processes involved with the reactor. The SLCA is in agreement with the EIOLCA in this sense. Of the 5 life stages, resource provisioning and end-of-life are shown to have the lowest total ratings, again, due to reasons explained in the EIOLCA section.

Although there is some agreement between the two analysis methods, it must be noted that the EIOLCA, in its very nature, gives a very broad definition of the problematic areas among the product or process. For example, the EIOLCA of a power generating station is not made specific to a fusion reactor, and is therefore generalized among other technologies such as coal, wind, nuclear fission, and so on. Therefore, unless the EIOLCA is quite specifically hybridized, the outcome is meaningless when used to compare and contrast to other technologies.

Coal
The cost analysis for the 500MW PC plant was based upon a 20-year lifespan and assumes that the life cycle begins with mining for the coal and raw materials used in the construction of the plant, specifically steel and concrete, to the decommissioning of the plant

As can be observed from the figures above, the resource provisioning phase is the most economically-demanding since coal-fired plants require tremendous amounts of coal, steam, water in order to build and run the plant. The other substantially costly phase in the life cycle is the process implementation, which even though involved mostly one-time costs, is particularly important because it involves the purchase and installation costs of very expensive equipment such as the boiler, turbines and other infrastructure.

In order to quantify environmental impact of coal-based power generation, an engineering consulting firm DDS Management, along with the Ontario Ministry of Energy co-authored an exhaustive study based on hospital data and air quality measurements in which they compared economically the environmental impact of a traditional PC plant with two alternatives: The same plant with stringent controls and a Nuclear Fission plant. The findings of the study are summarized in the table on the right.

It is obvious that, due to the deleterious impact of unmitigated flue gas from coal combustion, the traditional PC plant incurs a heavier environmental cost than the alternatives.

In-Lake Wind Power Cost Analysis

The following cost analysis is in CDN for a 500MW offshore wind farm over a 20 year useful life consisting of 139 turbines, each producing 3.6MW. The wind farm is located 20km offshore with a 30km onshore distance to the nearest high voltage substation where it is connected to the existing power grid

Major Cost Breakdown

Capital costs of the project are estimated to be $1,144 M. The largest capital cost of this project, at a value of $ 632 M, is the cost of the wind turbines themselves. Construction of the foundations for the offshore turbines, offshore transformers and other onshore facilities is about $201 M; power grid connection cost totals to $224 M. On the lower end are the internal electric grid and offshore transformer station at $62 M and $25 M respectively.

The annual operating costs of the project are estimated to be $100 M. Engineering and Administration accounts for 50% of the total annual cost while the other $50 M is split evenly between Operation & Maintenance and Miscellaneous fees. Decommissioning of the entire wind farm after the 20 year lifespan is estimated to be a total of $30 M or about $220,000 per turbine.

Nuclear Fusion Reactor Cost Analysis
The benefits of environmental sustainability often come at a price. The many benefits of a nuclear fusion reactor may often be overlooked by the hefty price tag that comes along with it. In comparison with other power-generating technologies, the ITER reactor’s costs seem to be overwhelming. The following is a detailed cost breakdown of the ITER reactor and is based on a 500MW output power.

•	The total construction cost of the ITER was estimated at $5.465 billion

•	Over a 9 year period, total costs to construct the reactor – including direct construction and labour costs – was estimated at about $607 million/ year

The annual operating cost was estimated to at $308 million/ year, with the following breakdown:

•	Personnel costs: 32%

•	Energy and tritium fuel costs: 20%

•	Capital improvements, materials, spare parts, and waste management: 48%

•	Decommissioning of the ITER was estimated to cost $665 million

The following pie chart shows a detailed breakdown of the construction costs for the ITER reactor:

It is quite evident that the costs associated with the ITER are significant compared to other power-generation technologies and industries in general. For the Province of Ontario to choose an appropriate technology for power generation, a delicate analysis should be done to compare the costs associated with the environmental benefits of such a state-of-the-art technology.

Coal
A study conducted by the Ontario Ministry of Energy has found that Canadians are slightly ambivalent with regards to coal power, with the opinion tilted mostly against the use of coal to generate electricity. Frequently, grassroots activists with organizations such as Greenpeace will attempt to disrupt coal shipments orrally in front of power plants in order to draw attention to their cause. . The issue of public opinion was brought to public attention following Ontario’s decision to phase out coal by 2012. On the one hand, environmentalists claimed a victory predicated on the grounds that their efforts spurred the public to pressure government officials to take actions against what they saw dated and economically unfriendly infrastructure. “A poll of Ontario voters conducted last month found concerns about pollution and global warming trumped all other issues, including health care.”. Specifically, “69 per cent question using coal to generate electricity, because the process still causes pollution.”

And 89% supported initiatives to use renewable energy sources. . On the other hand, a Pollara poll taken in 2007 found that 80 percent of Ontarians find that nuclear energy is a reliable source of power; 68 percent believe it is environmentally clean; “65 percent that it is extremely safe; and, 62 percent that it does not emit greenhouse gases. However, 64 percent of Ontarians feel they are more likely to support nuclear power knowing that the Canadian nuclear industry is based in Ontario and that the industry provides jobs for thousands of people in the province, and 56% support the use of ‘clean coal’ technologies” such as Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC), which turns coal into gas (called syngas), and then strips the raw coal from impurities and thus resulting in fewer emissions.

In urban areas such as Toronto, where smog is a great inconvenience, people are more likely to be against the use of coal for power generation. In rural areas, where the coal industry has a huge economic impact, communities have tried to fight back and contested coal plant closured in courts. Further, in some areas, such as Atikokan in Thunder Bay, coal mines and power plants have become an integral part of the community, much like the town church or school, and inhabitants have taken steps to try and save their local plant.

In-Lake Wind Power Societal Analysis
These are the most identifiable social impacts that offshore wind farms induce. The idea of having large steel wind turbines clustered in the city’s lake can be unsettling because it will be disturbing one of few natural occurring views left to enjoy. Turbines also create large amounts of noise during power generation. These sounds have the potential of polluting the areas close to the shore.
 * Visual and Sound Pollution

The biological impact that offshore wind farms have on birds is considered the most important environmental. The main concerns regarding birds include overthrowing birds from their natural feeding routs and potential collisions with the turbines or construction equipment during feeding or migration. Not only does noise and vibration during operation and construction affect humans, it is also a concern to birds, sea mammals and fish. It can encourage the ousting of birds as well as loss in habitat for sea mammals and fish. These biological factors have an impact on the social view of offshore wind turbines and their place in Ontario. Ship collision with a turbine is also an important social impact which must be considered. This must be done in order to minimize accidents and unwanted losses. There are many risks when considering the possibilities of ship collisions with the wind farm. The wind turbines themselves, as well as the ships, can become damaged due to a crash and passengers may face serious injury or death. The project may also suffer losses in energy production and initial investments, and well and environmental damages caused by the possibilities of toxic chemical spills.
 * Biological
 * Collisions

This may occur with: existing ship lanes, cable lines, pipelines and other industries such as fishing and mining. Even radar and radio signals have be directly disturbed by the presence of offshore wind farms. Radar can produce false echoes due to the turning of the blades which may then be transmitted to an aircraft causing confusion and a possible threat. Disturbances in radio signals are due to reflections off the tower which diminishes the radio signal; this is also a potential threat for a pilot.
 * Conflict of Interest

Nuclear Fusion Reactor Societal Analysis
The research into Nuclear Fusion has had many societal benefits, thus giving reason and motivation for the further advancement of this technology. A number of technological spin-offs have occurred due to fusion research, including Medical imaging technologies and new expertise in superconductors, remote handling, cryogenics, and surface hardening/coating. With the addition of jobs created and knowledge gained by this technology, our society is left with a strengthened economy and brighter minds for future innovation.

With the recent public discourse on nuclear proliferation, a fusion reactor would put to rest the public’s concerns regarding possible terrorist attacks in a fission reactor This reassurance creates a significantly positive societal impact. The effect of putting to rest an entire population’s concern of the well beings of their families is of immeasurable value. This must be a major consideration in analysing the pros and cons of different power generating technologies for the Province of Ontario.


text:
User talk:Yuvvani

hi,ob recording workshop is scheduledin april 09

title: User talk:Yuvvani


text:
User:Nirdh

Hi this is Nirdh

About me:

 * IT student, having good knowledge of c++ language.

 * Perfection is the key to make best programs in c++.

 * If in case anyone needs help in c++, surely approach me.

--Nirdh 09:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

title: User:Nirdh


text:
User talk:Nirdh

Hi people out there, this is Nirdh.

Anyone who has discussions about c++, is welcome.

--Nirdh 09:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

title: User talk:Nirdh


text:
User:Strickentedberlin

I earned my PhD at Washington University in Saint Louis, in the Department of Germanic Languages and Literatures.

title: User:Strickentedberlin


text:
Design for the Environment/Converting Garbage to Energy

This page is part of the Design for the Environment course

The accumulation of solid waste is a serious issue as cities continue to grow. Toronto is one such city that has been challenged by this issue. When Toronto closed the Keele Valley Landfill, waste was diverted to a dump in Michigan. Between January and August 2007, approximately 441,363 tonnes of solid waste (which could fill 74 trucks) was sent to the Michigan landfill daily. However, the Michigan dump has given the Toronto Solid Waste Management until 2010 to reroute their garbage to another location. As a result, several options of how to deal with Toronto's trash must be assessed for the client, the Toronto Solid Waste Management. This article focuses on the broad option of converting the garbage into energy as it deals with the issue of solid waste accumulation and provides an additional energy source. The option is divided into three alternatives, a baseline alternative which is using gas generated from landfills and two newer alternatives which are incineration and gasification. Two of these alternatives are currently in place in Toronto. The city recently opened the Green Lane Landfill which could be an adequate source of landfill gas. In addition, the City of Brampton, situated near Toronto, has an incineration facility. There is no gasification facility in Toronto; the nearest facility is an experimental facility located in Ottawa. Each alternative will be compared based on their functional, environmental, cost and social impacts.

Project Information
MIE315, Section 2, Group B15

Khalil Heileman [Heileman]

Micael Tecle   [teclemic]

Animesh Roy [Royanimesh]

Sara Makaremi [Makaremi]

Highlights and Recommendations
In terms of environmental impacts, gasification is the best alternative for dealing with Toronto's solid waste. As indicated by the chart below, the gasification alternative has the strongest results in the EIOLCA and the highest score in the SLCA. However, it should be noted that the SLCA is a subjective analysis and the EIOLCA is based on many assumptions. Gasification is also supported by the fact that it does not have a lot of social controversies surrounding it, unlike incineration. Because of the social controversies, incineration, a more established alternative, meets heavy public resistance. The main issue with gasification is that the technology is relatively new. As a result, there is not a lot of available experience in handling gasification facilities. In addition, gasification is an expensive process and this cost will be carried on to taxpayers. Using landfill gas is another common alternative, however this alternative does little to reduce the large volumes of garbage generated by Toronto. The Toronto Solid Waste Management should continue developing landfill gas technologies at the Green Lane Landfill; however, gasification technology should be researched to make it cheaper.

Functional Analysis
The main function of each alternative is to convert garbage into energy. The energy conversion should be accompanied by a reduction in garbage volume. As each alternative uses different kinds of garbage, for the sake of a simple comparison, only plastics and organics as input garbage will be considered. Organic garbage releases energy in all of the alternatives. Although plastics yield little energy in landfill gas, they are critical for energy yield in incineration and gasification. As a result, the impact of plastics cannot be overlooked. Other garbage streams like metals have no energy yield in all processes, so their effects can be disregarded. Since all of the alternatives are supposed to receive their garbage stream from the city of Toronto, the impacts of collecting garbage will be ignored. Each of the processes are broken down into five life stages: resource provisioning, process implementation, primary process operation, secondary process operation and end of life.

Baseline Alternative: Landfill Gas to Energy

Landfill gas (LFG) is produced upon the anaerobic decomposition of waste buried in the landfill. This process is carried out by anaerobic microorganisms. This gas is primarily composed of methane (CH4) and carbon dioxide (CO2), with trace amounts of other components such as oxygen compounds, sulphur compounds and hydrocarbons. The produced LFG is collected and extracted from vertical gas wells located in the landfill, treated, and subsequently used to generate electricity. The utilization of LFG to generate electricity usually involves the use of either internal combustion engines or steam turbines. The primary advantage of using LFG to generate power lies in the fact that the process makes optimal use of the inevitable presence of landfills. Furthermore, the presence a gas collection system reduces the amount of gas seeping through the landfill and escaping into the atmosphere.

Alternative 1: Incineration

The more recent alternative is using an incinerator where garbage is burned directly to extract energy. The advantage of incineration is that energy can be yielded at the same time as large reductions in garbage volumes are taking place. However, the disadvantages of this process include its output of ashes and toxic chemicals. Bottom and fly ashes, toxic metals such as mercury, acid gases and dioxins are some of the by products of incineration that have high negative impact on the environment as well the public health. . Some of these are highly toxic pollutants, especially dioxin which could cause serious health problems such as cancer, neurological damage, thyroid damage, respiratory issues. It is clear that extreme caution is required to minimize the amount of toxic products from being released in to the atmosphere when using the incineration method. Consequently, the control system for the reduction of toxic products could be undesirably expensive. See chart below for cost analysis of the overall system.

Alternative 2: Gasification

In the final alternative which is the gasification process where carbon-based waste are heated at high temperature (700ºC) and pressure. CO and H2 are removed from the complex blend of gas resulting from the process to produce a fuel gas, called Syngas. To avoid oxidation, this endothermic process is implemented in an oxygen-limited chamber .The process yields three by-products:

1-accumulation of inert solid slag from non-volatile waste which is vitrified to be used in road pavements and asphalt

2-sulphur that can be added to soil

3- heavy metals such as mercury that should be disposed safely in landfill

According to PlascoEnergy of Ottawa, One tonne of garbage results in 150 kg of slag, 5 kg of sulphur and 1.3 kg of heavy metals. It should be noted that chlorine-rich plastics such as PVC cannot be gasified due to their sever emissions. They can be gasified only if the chlorine content is removed. The contaminants emerging from gasification depend on the quality of the equipment and the processing temperature. Oil refining industry uses the hydrogen from Syngas to purify fuels and to enhance heavy crude oil. Conventionally, natural gas was used to provide the required hydrogen. However, the cost of natural gas has been increasing. Therefore, the new technology helps refiners to convert low-value feedstock to valuable hydrogen and to generate power needed for refining infrastructure at the same time.

Streamlined Life Cycle Assessment (SLCA)
The SLCA is a semi-quantitative approach for life cycle assessment of alternatives. It comprises a matrix of 5×5 where each alternative is given a score between 0 (most adverse environmental impact) to 4 (least environmental impact). The total score for each life stage and environmental impact is obtained by adding the corresponding scores in each row and column. The columns are divided into five life stages, that is process implementation, resource provisioning, primary process operation, secondary process operation and end of life. The rows are divided into process inputs (material and energy) and process outputs (gaseous, liquid, solid). The following matrices are created for the SLCA comparison:

 Landfill Gas SLCA Chart

The above table shows that the process implementation stage, which involves the construction of the landfill and power-generating facility, has the most adverse effect on the environment. The primary materials used in the construction of these facilities are concrete, steel, clay, geosynthetics and sand. While none of these materials are toxic, steel production makes use of virgin iron ore as well as energy-intensive furnaces in many of stages. While the process implementation phase of using LFG to generate power can be seen to be energy-intensive, no other feasible alternatives are present.

The overall process of using LFG to generate power received low score in the "Gaseous Residues" sector. This is primarily due to the emissions of sulphur dioxide (SO2), nitrous oxides and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) that can take place during the combustion of LFG.

Incineration SLCA Chart

Gasification SLCA Chart

From the above table it can be predicted that resource provisioning and secondary process (cleaning and filtering) are the life stages with the least environmental impact. This results from the fact that the material input to the process is invaluable waste and the environmental impacts mainly result from collection and haulage activities. In contrast, building the infrastructure for the facility requires construction materials such as steel and cement. Steel production from virgin ore uses energy intensive-furnaces, while production of one tonne of cement releases one tonne of CO2. Also, the mechanical devices such as turbines and torches in the facility are manufactured from metal alloys. Therefore, the process implementation requires a higher material and energy input compared to the other life stages.

Cost Analysis
The cost analysis presents a method to compare the costs of each alternative at different life stages. The analysis also provides economic information that can be input into the EIOLCA model software available at http://www.eiolca.net/. The EIOLCA will be discussed in the following section. Some of the dollar values in the cost analysis are converted to their $1997 equivalent using the inflation calculator.

Landfill Gas Cost Analysis

The above table lists the capital and annual costs associated with constructing and subsequently operating and maintaing a landfill with a power generation facility. It should be noted that the entire project spans 40 years. The initial 20 years involves filling up the landfill to its capacity and subsequently closing it. The next 20 years involves generating power from the closed landfill using the LFG generated from it. Although the entire project spans 40 years, the annual costs for “Process Implementation” and “Primary and Secondary Processes” can be compounded into a single 20-year period while constructing the EIOLCA model. This is because they are each applied over a period of 20 years, and their periods of implementation do not overlap.

Incineration Cost Analysis

The above financial analysis was directly obtained from a report performed for the new incineration site that is being considered to be constructed in the Durham/York region, Ontario. Assumptions made by the report on cost analysis include:
 * The facility would operate at a capacity level of 140,000 tonnes per year
 * EU stands for European Union standard. The EU standard table including the
 * Since this is just a proposal report, the analysis done by the experts was for worst case scenarios.
 * The life span is assumed to be 20 years.
 * The energy output is assumed at 14MW capacity

Gasification Cost Analysis

The following table summarizes the cost analysis of a 56 MW integrated biomass gasification combined cycle power plant.

The above values are obtained by assuming that 140,000 tonnes of garbage is processed by gasification annually. For the resource provisioning stage, it should be noted that waste transportation cost strongly depends on the location of the plant. If the plant is far from the municipality, where the garbage is collected, more energy will be required to transport the garbage. From above values it can be concluded that the primary process has the highest cost among the life stages. The complexity of gasification process that requires the integrity of several operating processes and the cost of electricity to run electric heaters, turbines, steam cycles, etc result in its high operating cost. Moreover, depending on the input waste to the system, some mechanical pre-processing of the feedstock is required after the recyclable materials and metals and inerts are removed. Coarse shredding, fine shredding, sorting and elaborate front-end processing are a few examples .This complexity requires high capital investment. As a consequence, its application was previously focused only on destroying hazardous waste.

Economic Input Output Life Cylce Assessment (EIOLCA)
The EIOLCA is used to obtain quantitative information about environmental impacts of the process life stages. The United States Department of Commerce has divided the American economy into hundreds of economic sectors. Of these sectors, the ones that are inputs in the different life stages of each alternative process are analyzed. These inputs are measured in dollars and the dollar values are input into a software available at http://www.eiolca.net/. Since the software is based on information available in 1997, all dollar values must be converted to 1997 dollars. The software then outputs values of the input sector contribution to the environmental impacts. The impacts highlighted in this EIOLCA are global warming potential (GWP) measured in metric tons of CO2 equivalents, conventional pollutants (CO, NOx, SO2, VOC and PM10) in metric tons, energy use in terajoules and toxic releases in kgs. The inputs made for the EIOLCA model are all annual expenditures. Capital costs are taken into account by being equally distributed over the predicted lifespan of the process.

Landfill Gas

For the gasification process, the GWP chart obtained from EIO-LCA reveals that the contribution of resource provisioning to the global warming is 50%. This could be predicted from the fact that waste haulage is the main activity in resource provisioning stage. At this stage truck transportation contributes to high CO emissions; as it is depicted in the conventional pollutants graph. The truck usage also explains why the resource provisioning stage of gasification has the highest energy use. High emissions of CO can lead to global warming. In contrast to resource provisioning, process implementation and primary process have negligible conventional pollutant emissions. The primary process has the highest toxic air releases from the conversion of garbage into syngas.

Societal Analysis
Baseline: Landfill Gas

A portion of society has concerns about noise, odours and low aesthetic appeal of landfills. Because of the effects of landfills, few people want to live near one. As a result, issues between the landfill and neighboring communities arise often.

Alternative 1: Incineration

There has been strong public opposition for the incineration facility proposed for Durnham region near Toronto due to its highly contaminating process. In fact, about 43 doctors and many citizens have signed a petition to express their opposition on the proposed construction of the facility. They are skeptical about the proposed control system of the facility that would supposedly minimize toxic releases. . The resistance to the proposed Durnham incinerator demonstrates that many inhabitants of Toronto are not willing to accept incineration as a solution to Toronto's garbage problem.

Alternative 2: Gasification

Gasification may lead to societal concerns due to litter, dust and noise that mostly result from the haulage activities.


text:
User talk:Selfconcordance

Self-concordance refers to a specific type of goal oriented or teleological experience. A self-concordant goal is a goal that aligns with an individual's enduring values and interests.

title: User talk:Selfconcordance


text:
User:Selfconcordance

I am a professor of philosophy interested in the intersection of Aristotle's ethical theory and self-determination theory.

title: User:Selfconcordance