text:
Design for the Environment/Oil Sands Extraction Technique

Consider that Suncor Energy requires the extraction of bitumen from its new project site, Millennium site. Out of the several possible extraction techniques, the four alternatives considered are Surface Mining, SAGD (Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage), THAI (Toe to Heel Air Injection) and VAPEX (Vapour Extraction process).Suncor also requires that this bitumen is converted to an equal volume of synthetic crude oil.

The purpose of this project is to investigate into functional, environmental, economic and societal feasibility of these alternatives if implemented. The study was done such that the common goal to be achieved by each of the alternatives is to extract 250000bpd of crude bitumen from the Millennium mine site and convert it to an equal volume of synthetic crude oil. Surface Mining is extensively followed by Suncor Energy on its existing mine sites. Hence this is chosen to be the baseline technique. The rest of the techniques are relatively novel ideas.

Project Information
 Name of project  Section 2 - Group B20

 * Leo Joseph (Leojohnjoseph)

 * Qasim Khan (qasim.qasim)

 * Baber Ali (knight87)

 * Usman Ahmed (usmanahmed)

 * Bilal Yaseen (bilalx)

Background
Catering to the rising world oil demand has developed the need for finding new oil reserves. Hubbert's theory, named after American geophysicist M. King Hubbert, predicts that upon discovering new reserves, production increases exponentially till peak production is reached. Peak production is then followed by an approximated exponential decline. Hubbert's model did correctly predict US peak production period and as he predicted, the US has been experiencing production decline since 1970. The International Energy Agency, upon probing into production information from around the world, predicts the peak of world reserves to be reached between 2013 and 2037.

The discovery of Canadian Oil Sands reserves has shifted this peak by 50 years. This signifies the importance of Canadian Oil Sands reserves in meeting world oil demand. However, exploitation of these reserves comes with the cost of detrimental environmental effects at a local and global scale. Oil Sands reserves contain crude bitumen. This bitumen has to be extracted and needs to undergo a series of processes to obtain synthetic crude oil. Suncor Energy is the world’s second largest producer of oil sands crude. This company was chosen to be the group’s client since they would be interested in the findings of this study.

Highlights and Recommendations
Certain decision parameters were chosen. These parameters prove to be significant in determining which alternative is most suitable for the desired objective. A scoring scheme was used to determine how each alternative weighed with respect to the decision parameter under consideration. The decision parameters are as follows:

Economic Profitability
The costs that would be incurred by Suncor Energy if it were to undertake the project using each of the alternatives are discussed in the details of cost analysis section. The analysis reveals that VAPEX is the most profitable with a profit of 90.1$ per barrel of synthetic crude oil produced. This is because energy inputs during the primary operation stage of VAPEX are the least.

Economic Input-Output Life Cycle Analysis (EIOLCA)
To draw a conclusion on which alternative is the least destructive to the environment, certain gauging parameters were considered.

GWP
GWP which directly relates to the release of Green House Gases (GHG) is taken seriously. This is because the project has to comply with government GHG emissions. Implementation of the Surface Mining alternative would result in the emission of largest quantity of GHGs (120 million MT CO2). This quantity accounts for emissions produced during all the five life stages and over a period of 30 years. The primary process operation over this 30 years accounted for most of the emissions. With similar considerations, THAI if implemented emits least quantity of GHGs.

Energy usage
Energy usage is a factor that is critical to the decision making process. The enegry used during the operation lifestage of each of the alternatives are primarily reliant on the natural gas reserves of the region (Western Canada Sedimentary Basin (WCSB)). Assembly of plant equipment are usually done locally and so depend on these reserves. This dependency has not bee appropriate acconted for in the EIOLCA model. Higher energy use would result in the faster depletion of these resources and also add to the overall GWP. THAI stands out as that alternative which is the most energy demanding, 8.42 million TJ (over what 30 years of operation). VAPEX consumes the least amount of energy. This gives one more reason to implement VAPEX.

Land usage and land releases
Setting up of facilities essential to each of the techniques requires a large amount of land. To meet this demand for land, deforestation of the site becomes inevitable. The Boreal forest becomes victim to this deforestation and this tampers with the natural ecosystem of the region (hyperlink this to the jpeg of the map). Surface mining requires the highest land use. Land remediation activities that occur in par with surface mining operations ensure that land releases are removed and the soil becomes reusable. However, the displaced wildlife are able to return to these lands only after several years which again indirectly affects the ecosystem. To deal with this issue Group B20 strongly recommends that National parks in the nearby areas be interconnected. As for the in-situ techniques, lesser land is required. THAI and VAPEX require the injection of solvents which overtime are absorbed by the soil and could potentially contaminate it.

Water usage and Water releases
The project site is situated in the midst of two river banks, the Athabsaca River and its tributary, Steepback River. Positive height gradient of the location is responsible for the flow of contaminants downstream. Surface Mining in particular use tailing ponds which release harmful chemicals like Naptha (reference qasim) into the Athabasca river body. Depletion of water in the Athabasca river and its tributary has been an issue of excruciating importance. Dwindling water levels is primarily due to Oil Sands operations. This adversely affects the availability of water for drinking and sanitation. The Athabasca River aquatic ecosystem is highly dependent on water level and flow rate. Depletion of water quantity could lead to destruction of habitats of different species. Therefore, water usage poses to be of grave importance. During the Extraction phase of Surface Mining, water from the river would be used extensively (close to 1.9 million cubic metre of water per year) to separate the oil sands into 3 layers that has bitumen in it (reference from qasim). VAPEX requires no water at all for involved operations. Here too VAPEX outweighs the rest of the alternatives.

Streamlined Life Cycle Analysis (SLCA)
The SLCA revealed neck to neck scores for all the alternatives. This analysis proved to be insufficient in reaching a conclusion. This is because this is a very subjective analysis technique. Scores of 0 and 4 are given to fixed parameters as given by the scoring guidelines. But, scores of 1, 2, and 3 are based on personal judgement. This accumulation of inaccuracies detrimentally affects the potential of the SLCA in helping to a judgement on which alternative is the best. However, the group tried hard in making sure that similar assumptions were made and scoring was done fairly and uniformly. This way VAPEX had the highest score.

Time efficiency
If an alternative takes relatively less time to produce 250000 barrels (not per day) of synthetic crude oil, then, it has the potential to focus on increased production during the time saved over the rest of the day. This would proportionally increase negative environmental impact. However, economic profitability due to increased production outweighs costs associated with the environmental impacts. Surface Mining took 1.56 seconds/crusher to produce one barrel of synthetic crude oil. This method is the fastest. This explains why Surface Minig is more extensively (quicker returns).

Land use efficiency
The significance of this parameter can be explained using the following example. An alternative that uses 30% of the available land on the project site can utilize the rest of the site for increased production. In this respect, THAI outweighs the rest of the alternatives. It needs 800 hectares of land to produce 250000 bpd while Surface Mining requires 150 this area.

Associated Risk
The chances of on-site explosions increase if pressure and temperature conditions to be maintained for the operations are high. A highly inaccurate approximation revealed that SAGD maintains the most dangerous of conditions because of the high pressure of steam and solvents rushed into the resevoir.

To compare the alternatives using these parameters, a scoring scheme was used wherein the highest score of 3 is given to that alternative which performed the best with respect to the parameter considered. These scores can be seen in table E1.

Surface Mining
Please refer to Fig A1 for the details of the steps involved in producing synthetic crude oil from Surface Mining. 1) In the mining phase, the oil sands (overburden and bitumen) are mined approximately 75 m deep using shovels. This is then transported to sizing plant using heavy dump trucks. The overburden is restored back to the mined site during the reclamation process . 2) At the sizing plant, the ore is crushed and is delivered to the extraction plant. 3) The ore enters rotary breakers where it is crushed further, mixed with hot water to form slurry . The ore is then mixed in large tumblers to separate the ore into three layers: bitumen, midlings, sand. The midlings are further processed in a secondary separation to get more bitumen froth . The sand clay mixture is sent to tailing ponds where it accumulates. 4) The diluted bitumen is sent to the upgrading plant where bitumen goes through a coking and distillation process that lowers the weight of the bitumen and removes harmful contents like Sulphur.

The end product is synthetic crude oil that is acceptable by oil refineries.

SAGD
Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage (SAGD) is an in-situ oil sands recovery technique which involving the use of steam to heat and then extract bitumen out of reservoirs too deep for surface mining to be economically viable. Initiation of the process involves the digging of a well pair with each of the wells being 75 to 150 metres deep and upto a 1000 metres long horizontally (wells dug form an L-shape). The two wells' horizontal parts are vertically aligned with the upper of the two being 5 metres above the lower one and the vertical components approximately 20 metres apart. The lower of the wells is called the production well due to the fact that the bitumen is pumped out of this well for production, while the upper one is named the injection well referring to the fact that this well is responsible for the injection of the steam which heats and mixes with the bitumen allowing it to flow. The oil and the condensed steam are pumped out via the production well and then separated allowing the transportation of the oil by a pipeline to an upgrading plant where it is upgraded to synthesized crude oil. The de-oiled water from the seperation process is recycled by treating it and then feeding it back into the system via the steam generators.

THAI
The process involves injection of air under pressure into vertical injector wells up to a depth of 300m. This Air burns the bitumen in the reservoir hence creating a combustion front. Heat generated from the process increases the fluidity of the bitumen allowing for an easy flow along the production wells where it is collected by gathering lines and transported to upgrading plants where final conversion to synthesized crude oil takes place. For a more detailed summary refer to chart C1 ].

VAPEX
The VAPEX process is an in-situ method where the bitumen is recovered from the reservoir by injecting a hydrocarbon solvent into it by oil wells. The solvent dissolves the bitumen in place reducing the viscosity of the bitumen. This allows the btiumen to flow into the wells allowing it to be pumped to the surface where the bitumen is separated from the solvent and transported to an Upgrading plant where it is upgraded to produce synthesized crude oil. recycled by feeding it back into the system. The solvent extracted from the mixture is recycled by feeding it back into the cycle through the injector pumps.

Introduction
The cost analysis was done over a study period of 30 years. A lifetime of 30 years was chosen because this time span roughly accounts for the operational lifespan of the equipment and infrastructure in use. This choice does not affect the study since a linear scaling is used to account for cost variations over time. To proceed with the cost analysis, complexities in involving certain cost drivers had to be dealt with by making some simplifying assumptions.

To do the analysis, direct and indirect costs over the 30 years are considered. Expenses involved in the process implementation, operation and disposal/remediation stages are part of the direct costs category. The only indirect cost considered is that of the GWP of each of the alternatives. Royalties worth $18.81 billion [E.6] (in 2007 dollars, for each of the alternative) are paid to the government over 30 years. It is assumed that all alternatives operate within government regulations and hence, no fines are incurred. Costs per unit of service, i.e. production of 1 barrel of synthetic crude oil, are found for each alternative. Upgrading costs are the same for all.

Surface Mining
The capital costs are high due to upgrading plant and surface mining equipment costs. However, the capital costs are minor (10 billion $2008) in comparison to the operational costs that are incurred over a period of 30 years (90 billion $2008) as shown in Fig A2.

The highest operational costs arise during the upgrading process because upgrading bitumen to synthetic crude oil involves energy intensive processes like distillation and hydrotreating. This brings forward the need for large quantities of natural gas and coal that adds to operational cost. The comparison of operating costs is shown in Fig A3.

Overall, the profit generated per barrel of synthetic crude oil from surface mining technique is $63.3 ($2008).

It is worth mentioning that there are indirect costs as well as disposal costs. However, these are minor costs and account for less than 10%.

SAGD
An SAGD setup of a 250000bpd capacity has capital costs of approximately $7.61 billion with the upgrading plant followed by the power generator and the steam generators being the most expensive. Operating costs were calculated to be $48.9 billion for producing 2.74 billion barrels over a period of 30 years. Total project costs with operating, capital and disposal costs came to $72.3 billion this leads to a per barrel cost of $26.39, converting these costs to 2007 and calculating profit at a per barrel price of $107 leads to a profit of $74.72 per barrel.

THAI
The entire cost of the project was converted to $2007 .Final profit calculated in terms of profit/barrel was $87.5. Capital cost calculated for the project was approximately $6.93bn. Power plant and upgrading facility proved to be the largest contributors. Operating cost accounted for approximately 70% of the overall cost at approximately $27.35bn. Besides these major costs, royalties and external cost of GWP emissions was also determined which also had a signifant impact on the overall cost. It was noticed that the major operational cost was incurred during the upgrading operaton, followed by cost of power input for air compression and injection into the wells as well as to pumps and motors associated with the motion of oil along the wells. Disposal cost were althouh large, but as compared to the overall cost of the entire project, proved to have no major influence in driving the cost.

VAPEX
The cost per barrel for the VAPEX process at a production rate of 250000bpd is $16.9, which results in a profit of $90.1 for every barrel produced. The Operating costs are claculated to be $2.628 million per day, which are high due to the energy consumption of solvent separation process. The Capital costs are $4821 million in which well drilling and power plant construction are the most expensive. The Disposal costs are $253 million of which recycling is $221 million. Indirect costs are $796 million which are accounted by GWP emissions. A sensitivity analysis shows that increasing the operating costs by 25% increases the cost per barrel by only $4.8.

Assumptions made to perform cost analysis
Over 30 years it is assumed that the operation costs and production rate of 250000bpd remain static. The latter assumption avoids the need to consider purchase of more inventories in future. Current oil prices are assumed to be 107$/barrel [D.8]As the world energy demand increases over this interval, static supply gives birth to higher oil prices. However, it is assumed that, to cater to this rise in demand, additional supply is met by other oil reserves. (explain hubberts theory in the summary section) This assumption ensures that oil price over the 30 year study period remains constant.

Introduction
The EIOLCA model (available at www.eiolca.net) developed by Carnegie Mellon University, accounts for the entire supply chain requirement to achieve the goal of each life stage of the process. The model uses a linear scale simplification. To achieve the common goal of obtaining 250000bpd of synthetic crude oil from an equal volume of bitumen, each of the processes were broken down into four life-stages, namely; process implementation, primary, complementary process operation and decommissioning cum reclamation of the project site. A Hybrid EIOLCA is done because sectors that correspond to the different life-stages of the individual processes were not readily available in the software. Therefore costs of inputs to the different life-stages were determined prior to using the software to investigate into their individual environmental impacts. Certain simplifying assumptions were made. Owing to the expanse and complexity of the project, determining costs of all equipment, involved in the resource implementation stage, were impractical. Only those equipments that individually accounted for more than 10% of the overall costs were accounted for in the EIOLCA. This could generate misleading environmental impact results; i.e. a machine that accounts for only 1% of the overall costs could potentially cause 80% of the overall environmental damages. However, it should be noted that, equipment involved in the resource implementation and operation stage (for all alternatives) can be broadly classified into four categories: The environmental effects for the manufacture of these equipments are a direct function of size and number of equipment used. Environmental impact of the operation of these equipments is directly related to the energy intensiveness of the activity. This justifies the assumption that, there is only the need to account for those pieces of equipment that account for more than 10% of the overall project cost because only these equipments are responsible for significant environmental damage. Costs for some equipment were deduced from manufacturer’s price quotes. Wholesale prices were used instead of retail prices since these are closer approximations to manufacturing costs. Detailed EIOLCAs for the alternatives are documented below:
 * mechanical drives that convert electric or fossil fuel energy into rotary, linear motion or a combination of both (for examples; rotary breakers, conveyer belts, shovels, centrifuges )
 * Heat exchangers (for examples; boilers, air coolers)
 * Pressure drives (for examples; pumps, pipelines, solvent injectors)
 * Equipment required for infrastructure setup and oil wells (if required)

Surface Mining
The surface mining operations has the highest GWP contribution over a course of 30 years (116 million MTCO2E); hence, it has the largest environmental impact as shown in Fig A4 in comparison to the process implementation and disposal stage.

The Oil and Gas and petroleum refining sector contributes maximum to the GWP contribution and accounts for 92% of GWP (results in CO2 emissions) and almost 100% of the total energy needed for surface mining operations. Most energy is obtained from fossil fuels that are needed for the mobile equipment for surface mining and for other equipment during extraction and upgrading process that result GHG. Table A1 below shows the energy consumption and GWP from top sectors:

Upgrading plant, during operation, has the highest energy and GWP contributions mainly because huge amounts of natural gas are used to carry out the distillation and hydro treating processes and the fossil fuels required during the process are extracted from energy intensive processes. Table A2 gives the GWP and energy consumption during the life stage of the surface mining operation.

SAGD
The EIOLCA provided us with a variety of data, with some of it conforming to expectations while some of it not being exactly as expected. Much of the data that was not meeting expectations was due to the fact that the sectors in the EIOLCA method are an aggregate of many different sectors rather than just the required sector. The total GWP for the process over a thirty year period came out to be 90.3 million metric tons with 95% of this value coming from the operational phase. Major contributors to the operational GWP were the water treatment and reservoir stimulation. The high energy requirements for the reservoir stimulation and the air releases for the water treatment phase seem to be responsible for the GWP values. For the operational energy consumption, reservoir stimulation and transportation are the top two sectors confirming expectations. The process implementation phase (capital costs) had power generator plant and water treatment plant construction as the major GWP contributors. The power generator’s construction is within expectations but the water treatment plant’s construction is too high due to the fact that the sector also has urban water treatment as a component (a major GWP contributor). As for the energy consumption in the initial setup, power generator, well pair/pad setup as well as the steam generator required the bulk of the energy use, a representation meeting expectations.

THAI
The figure on the right is an indicator of the environmental impacts for the complete life cycle of this alternative. For simplicity environmental impact was measured primarily in terms of GWP emissions and energy consumption. Total amount of GWP emissions was calculated to be 58.9bn Mt/CO2E and Energy input of 8.49mn TJ. Quantitative environmental impacts of the primary process phase out numbered the impacts of all the remaining stages with a total of 55.9bn Mt/CO2E and an energy consumption of 8.42mn TJ. Disposal phase accounted for approximately 382040 Mt/Co2E and an energy consumption of 3402.8 TJ. Hence the influence of environmental impact disposal phase was negligible as compared to the overall environmental impact

VAPEX
The EIOLCA analysis was carried out for 250000 bpd operation which required 1000 well pairs to achieve capacity. The total GWP emissions for the whole project over 30 years are 61,297,419 MTCO2E and the total energy usage is 559,279 TJ. The Process Implementation phase had 2,476,429 GWP MTCO2E emissions and used 31,457 TJ of energy. The main reason is due to the high power and material processing needed for well drilling and power plant construction. The Process Operation phase had 58,505,850 GWP and 5,191,395 TJ of energy consumption. Most of the energy usage is consumed by the boilers and compressors which can be seen by that 86% of the GWP emissions for this phase are from the “Power and Generation Sector”. The Disposal phase has 315,140 GWP MTCO2E and 8683.8 TJ of energy usage. Recycling accounts for 202,000GWP and 8,325TJ of that. This is due to the high amount of steel used in all the equipment and its resulting environmental impact by refining.

Introduction
Performing a Streamlined LCA of each of the alternatives gives a rough indication of how these alternatives affect the environment. This analysis is largely qualitative since it depends on personal judgements unlike the EIOLCA technique. Appendix B of the book ‘Streamlined Life Cycle Assessment by T. Graedel’ was used to assign scores to the SLCA matrix elements. Higher the numerical value of the summated total of the scores, the less detrimental is the alternative’s effect on the environment. The streamlined LCA for each of the alternatives are detailed below:

Surface Mining
The streamlined life cycle assessment for surface mining technique showed the following results:

From table A3 it is observed that the primary process and resource provisioning has the lowest scores (5 and 7 respectively). This is due to two reasons. First, high amounts of fossil fuels are needed for the upgrading and extraction process and these processes also release toxics in the form of tailing ponds. Second, CO2 emissions result due to the high amounts of natural gas needed during the mining (dump trucks), upgrading phases, and natural gas and coal extraction (main energy source).

The results from SLCA matched very well with the EIOLCA analysis for surface mining technique. The primary process operation has the highest GWP and energy consumption and, therefore, a low score in SLCA agrees well with EIOLCA results.

SAGD
Resource Provisioning (11/20): Major resources provisioned are water needed to create steam and natural gas to fulfill energy requirements. Extraction of said resources result in various levels of residues and mediocre energy usage. Process Implementation (5/20): Due to the massive scale of the equipment used, such as power generator, upgrading plant etc. energy used for the manufacture and transportation of equipment will be immense. Primary Process (9/20): The primary process of extracting bitumen using steam requires massive amount of energy which is obtained by burning natural gas this results in sizable amounts of greenhouse gas emissions. Other than the massive amount of water being used to produce the steam required the primary process life stage has no additional environmental impacts. Complementary Process (11/20): Maintenance and cleaning operations are performed during this phase. It is a low energy consuming process since such operations are performed on an infrequent basis. Refurbishment, disposal (7/20): It is a high energy consuming process mainly due to the equipment recycling. The primary material used, however is steel that can be recycled using electric arc furnace using relatively low energy. Power plant upgrade is a part of the plant decommissioning which is also a high energy consuming process.

THAI
A qualitative analysis of the environmental impacts was performed from which it was predicted that the primary process phase had the largest negative environmental impacts followed by the process implementation. Upgrading to crude oil and pumping operations within the wells were predicted to be the largest contributors to environmental impacts due to large amount of conventional pollutant, toxic waste and non-point air emissions associated with it. Process implementation phase was also predicted to have significant impacts associated particularly due to greenhouse gas and conventional pollutant emissions from power plant and upgrading facility installation. Complementary process involved cleaning of wells which is however, occasional in such an operation although the material usage phase involved use of CFCs. Disposal phase was also thoroughly researched and involved plugging of thewells, site abandonment and reclamation and thus resulted in high production of solid andgas residue. However, considering that process life cycle is 30 years, the overall environmental impact during the primary process phase was expected to overshadow all other stages

VAPEX
The SLCA analysis reveals that energy usage and gaseous residues score poorly in comparison to materials choice, liquid residues and solid residues. Energy and Gaseous residues have low scores due to the high energy usage at each process stage and hazardous gaseous emissions like VOC’s, NO,CO2,CO, toluene etc. Also resource provisioning (8/20), process implementation(6/20) and primary process(9/20) have low scores as compared to Complimentary Process(12/20) and Disposal(13/20).This is due to the heavy energy usage in manufacturing and operation of the heavy equipment and their resulting hazardous emissions. The Disposal phase scores well due to recyclability of steel. Complimentary process has low energy usage and non hazardous emissions.


text:
Category:Comparative Religion

This portal will give access to all things relating to Comparative Religion.

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

title: Category:Comparative Religion


text: File:Lifecyclebiological.JPG

title: File:Lifecyclebiological.JPG


text: File:EPSSensitivity.JPG

title: File:EPSSensitivity.JPG


text: File:PLASensitivity.JPG

title: File:PLASensitivity.JPG


text: File:Capitalbio.JPG

title: File:Capitalbio.JPG


text: User talk:Ammar Khalid

title: User talk:Ammar Khalid


text: File:DFE2008 Automobile Engines—GER.png

title: File:DFE2008 Automobile Engines—GER.png


text: File:Emissionsbio.JPG

title: File:Emissionsbio.JPG


text:
User talk:Mukhalla

Hello, welcome around here. I hope we can help you succeed in your learning goals. Below more info about Wikiversity, Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 22:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

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

And don't forget to explore Wikiversity with the links to your left. Be bold, and see you around Wikiversity! Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 22:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:Mukhalla


text: File:DFE2008 Automobile Engines—SWB.PNG

title: File:DFE2008 Automobile Engines—SWB.PNG


text:
User talk:Shaheryar

Hello, welcome around here. I hope we can help you succeed in your learning goals. Below more info about Wikiversity, Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 22:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

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

And don't forget to explore Wikiversity with the links to your left. Be bold, and see you around Wikiversity! Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 22:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:Shaheryar


text:
User talk:Knight87

Hello, welcome around here. I hope we can help you succeed in your learning goals. Below more info about Wikiversity, Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 22:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Welcome
Hello Knight87, and welcome to Wikiversity! If you need help, feel free to visit my talk page, or contact us and ask questions. After you leave a comment on a talk page, remember to sign and date; it helps everyone follow the threads of the discussion. The signature icon in the edit window makes it simple. To get started, you may
 * Take a guided tour and learn to edit;
 * Explore our learning projects;
 * Browse our portals, schools, and research activities;
 * Read and help develop our community policies；or
 * Chat with other Wikiversitans on #wikiversity-en.

And don't forget to explore Wikiversity with the links to your left. Be bold, and see you around Wikiversity! Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 22:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:Knight87


text:
User talk:Muliadi

Hello, welcome around here. I hope we can help you succeed in your learning goals. Below more info about Wikiversity, Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 22:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

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

And don't forget to explore Wikiversity with the links to your left. Be bold, and see you around Wikiversity! Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 22:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:Muliadi


text:
User talk:Andrew.demeter

Hello, welcome around here. I hope we can help you succeed in your learning goals. Below more info about Wikiversity, Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 22:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

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

And don't forget to explore Wikiversity with the links to your left. Be bold, and see you around Wikiversity! Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 22:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:Andrew.demeter


text:
User talk:Ckjackysin

Hello, welcome around here. I hope we can help you succeed in your learning goals. Below more info about Wikiversity, Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 22:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

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

And don't forget to explore Wikiversity with the links to your left. Be bold, and see you around Wikiversity! Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 22:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:Ckjackysin


text: File:CapitalSMR.JPG

title: File:CapitalSMR.JPG


text: File:Microhydroplan.JPG

title: File:Microhydroplan.JPG


text: File:Conventional Air Pollutants.JPG

title: File:Conventional Air Pollutants.JPG


text: File:Energy.JPG

title: File:Energy.JPG


text: File:Greenhouse Gases.JPG

title: File:Greenhouse Gases.JPG


text: File:Toxic Releases.JPG

title: File:Toxic Releases.JPG


text: File:EIOLCA.JPG

title: File:EIOLCA.JPG


text: File:Slca.JPG

title: File:Slca.JPG


title: File:Costelectro1.JPG


text: File:GroceryBagComparison.JPG

title: File:GroceryBagComparison.JPG


text: File:Batterybank.JPG

title: File:Batterybank.JPG


text: File:BagasseSensitivity.JPG

title: File:BagasseSensitivity.JPG


text: File:GroceryBagSLCATable.JPG

title: File:GroceryBagSLCATable.JPG


title: File:Table1.JPG


title: File:Table2-1.JPG


title: File:Table2-2.JPG


title: File:Table3-Glass.JPG


title: File:Table3-PET.JPG


title: File:Table4-Glass.JPG


text:
User talk:Melamed1

Hello, welcome around here. I hope we can help you succeed in your learning goals. Below more info about Wikiversity, Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 00:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Welcome
Hello Melamed1, and welcome to Wikiversity! If you need help, feel free to visit my talk page, or contact us and ask questions. After you leave a comment on a talk page, remember to sign and date; it helps everyone follow the threads of the discussion. The signature icon in the edit window makes it simple. To get started, you may
 * Take a guided tour and learn to edit;
 * Explore our learning projects;
 * Browse our portals, schools, and research activities;
 * Read and help develop our community policies；or
 * Chat with other Wikiversitans on #wikiversity-en.

And don't forget to explore Wikiversity with the links to your left. Be bold, and see you around Wikiversity! Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 00:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:Melamed1


title: File:Table4-PET.JPG


text:
User talk:Madhur

Hello, welcome around here. I hope we can help you succeed in your learning goals. Below more info about Wikiversity, Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 00:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

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

And don't forget to explore Wikiversity with the links to your left. Be bold, and see you around Wikiversity! Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 00:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:Madhur


text:
User talk:Jayseraph

Hello, welcome around here. I hope we can help you succeed in your learning goals. Below more info about Wikiversity, Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 00:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

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

And don't forget to explore Wikiversity with the links to your left. Be bold, and see you around Wikiversity! Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 00:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:Jayseraph


text:
User talk:Osmanah1

Hello, welcome around here. I hope we can help you succeed in your learning goals. Below more info about Wikiversity, Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 00:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Welcome
Hello Osmanah1, and welcome to Wikiversity! If you need help, feel free to visit my talk page, or contact us and ask questions. After you leave a comment on a talk page, remember to sign and date; it helps everyone follow the threads of the discussion. The signature icon in the edit window makes it simple. To get started, you may
 * Take a guided tour and learn to edit;
 * Explore our learning projects;
 * Browse our portals, schools, and research activities;
 * Read and help develop our community policies；or
 * Chat with other Wikiversitans on #wikiversity-en.

And don't forget to explore Wikiversity with the links to your left. Be bold, and see you around Wikiversity! Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 00:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:Osmanah1


text: File:Plastic Total EIOLCA Plots.JPG

title: File:Plastic Total EIOLCA Plots.JPG


text: File:Plastic EIOLCA Output Plot.JPG

title: File:Plastic EIOLCA Output Plot.JPG


text: File:Boiler system.png

title: File:Boiler system.png


text: File:Eiolcaelectro.JPG

title: File:Eiolcaelectro.JPG


text: File:Bluphone.jpg

title: File:Bluphone.jpg


text: File:RRRRRRRRRRR.jpg

title: File:RRRRRRRRRRR.jpg


text: File:Boiler system1.jpg

title: File:Boiler system1.jpg


text: File:Bagasse Flow Chart.JPG

title: File:Bagasse Flow Chart.JPG


text:
Design for the Environment/Bus Fuel Alternatives

The Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) operates one of the most heavily used public transit networks in North America. In 2007, TTC had over 1500 public buses in use, with their total operating mileage exceeding 66 million miles. Consequently, it has a high demand for a clean, efficient fuel source to power its bus fleet.

With predictions of a petroleum shortage in the near future, the TTC is looking for new, more environmentally friendly, ways to fulfill its energy needs. The following analysis will attempt to provide an overreaching comparison of petroleum based diesel, biodeisel and hydrogen fuel cells and will recommend one as a viable solution. Although the TTC’s current fleet consists of electric hybrids, diesel and biodiesel fueled buses the analysis assumes the selected alternative would be used exclusively.

Project Information
Group 6, Section 2, Members: Dmitry Lilko       (Dimo) Iman Datta         (Imandatta) Mariam Jawaid Syed (Mariam) Pulkit Shah        (aerodreamer)

Project Background

Diesel is a petroleum derived fuel. Its chemical structure is that of a hydrocarbon chain made up of 10-15 carbons, giving it an average energy density of 40.9 MJ/L. Diesel is combusted in an internal combustion engine, similar to gasoline, and operates on the Diesel cycle. In brief, air is compressed in the combustion chamber followed by fuel injection, at which point the rise in temperature causes the fuel to ignite. In this analysis, diesel with a concentration of 0.05%wt of sulfur is taken to be the baseline fuel source used by the TTC. The Orion Model V is assumed to be the TTC’s only type of bus, simplifying the analysis in the sense that no change in existing infrastructure is needed to accommodate this fuel type.

Biodieselis made by combining oil extracted from the canola seed and methanol. Canola oil and methanol are combined by a process called transesterification. This alternative proposes the use of biodiesel in its pure form (B100) without any addition of diesel fuel. An immediately apparent advantage of biodiesel is that it is a renewable fuel source due to the fact that canola seeds can be continuously produced. Furthermore, biodiesel can be used in the current TTC buses without any significant changes in the infrastructure. However, a cloud point depressor must be added to biodiesel during winter in order to prevent its crystallization.

Hydrogen Fuel Cells are a much more complicated method of energy generation, but also one that shows great promise with further development. Hydrogen is first separated from water, by a process known as electrolysis, using solar power. It is then fed into a fuel cell where it is oxidized producing a flow of electrons which is applied over a load, in our case, the bus motor. Infrastructure changes that go with this method include; equipment necessary for hydrogen synthesis, storing and transport of hydrogen and changes to existing bus motor. In this analysis, Dye-Sensitized Tandem Solar based cells will be used to synthesize hydrogen and Two Ballard 150 kW HD-6 Heavy duty Fuel Cell Modules will be used to generate the required power to operate a bus.

Highlights and Recommendations
Comparison of the SLCA scores show biodiesel to be the best option, with a score of 58, followed by diesel (46) and hydrogen (39.5). We find that the biodiesel is the cleanest fuel source in the premanufacture, manufacture, and delivery stages. The clear advantage is found in the first 2 stages, where we find the farming of the canola seeds and production methods are far more environmentally friendly than the mining and chemical processes associated with hydrogen production and crude oil drilling associated with diesel.

Comparison of EIOLCA analyses for each of the alternatives also showed the biodiesel to be the most environmentally friendly alternative. Separate analysis of relative Global Warming Potentials as well as the relative total emissions of CO, NOx, VOCs, SO2, and PM between each alternative clearly showed that the biodiesel causes the least amount of emissions and represents the lowest Global Warming Potential. This backs up our conclusion from the SLCA that this is they most environmentally viable alternative.

Based on a well-to-wheel comparison of the fuel sources, we also find biodiesel to be the best alternative. It is by far the most efficient fuel source when calculating from a premanufacture stage to use stage. It is almost 4 times more efficient than diesel and more than 50 times more efficient than hydrogen. So as an energy source, this is the most viable option.

Cost comparisons indicate that continuing with diesel would be the cheapest solution for the TTC, costing them about $97 million per year in fuel costs. Switching to biodiesel would increase this number by $10 million. The existing infrastructure of the TTC would not have to change as the biodiesel would be able to be used in existing buses and their engines. The cost of switching to a hydrogen-powered system would be exorbitant in terms of both annual fuel cost and the cost of overturning the fleet into one with fuel cell and hydrogen storage capabilities.

When comparing societal issues we find those involving the biodiesel to be the the most problematic while the hydrogen face the least amount of negative societal impacts. The dangerous impacts of the biodiesel production on food prices and supply seem to outweigh the impacts of the diesel's combustion impact on the environment and pressurized hydrogen tanks' threat to passenger safety.

The relative scores of each alternative according to each analysis (SLCA, EIOLCA, Cost, Functional, and Societal) were scored against each other using a specific rubric for each type of analysis. The direct scores of the SLCA were used in the calculation along with relative Greenhouse Gas and various particle emissions from the EIOLCA. The relative costs were scored against each other and a relative well-to-wheel comparison was used for the functional analysis comparison. For the societal analysis comparison, a subjective measure was used to rate the societal impacts associated with the alternatives against each other. The result is shown in the table below (10 being the best and 0 being the worst):

This table scores a 34 for biodiesel, followed by diesel (22) and hydrogen (16). This clearly shows the superiority of the biodiesel and is the reason we recommend the biodiesel as a new fuel source for the Toronto Transit Commission.

Functional Analysis
TTC’s fleet currently consists of Orion Model V buses which are powered by Cummins ISM M11 engines. Hydrogen buses currently in operation in 9 European countries under the CUTE project are being powered by Ballard P5 Heavy Duty Fuel Cells generating 250kW. The new proposed Mercedes Citaro Buses will use 2 new Ballard HD-6 150kW Heavy duty fuel cells instead.

Efficiency
Diesel as a fuel has a well to wheel energy efficiency of 83%. Biodiesel B100 has a well to wheel efficiency of 320%. The well to wheel efficiency for hydrogen is relatively very low. The Dye-Sensitized Tandem Cell producing hydrogen has an efficiency of only 10%. The fuel cell has an efficiency of about 40-60% resulting in an upper limit efficiency of 6%. Hydrogen storage which is quite energy intensive has not been factored into this calculation.

Performance
The Orion Model V diesel powered buses demonstrate a mileage of 3.4 mpg. When biodiesel is used instead of diesel in the same engine, the mileage drops by 10%, resulting in a mileage of 3 mpg. Hydrogen has a mileage of 3.52 miles/kg H2 which is much higher than diesel’s 1.25 miles/kg diesel. The milage has been calculated based on the range of the hydrogen bus. However, hydrogen is much more expensive to purchase as compared to diesel. Hydrogen fuel cell powered Citaro buses have a top speed of 80 kmph.

Range
Based on calculations with a 150 Gallons onboard diesel fuel tank, the current TTC Orion buses run 510 miles before running out of fuel. When biodiesel is used in the same engine, the range reduces to 450miles. Comparatively hydrogen has a much smaller range of 155 miles on a full tank. The refueling time for hydrogen is approximately 15 minutes.

Materials Choice
For this square diesel receives a low score due to an input material of crude oil, which is a virgin, nonrenewable resource. Biodiesel received an average score due to its different input materials in this stage. It is produced from natural gas (nonrenewable) and canola (renewable) which can be continuously planted without additional fertilizers. The production of hydrogen requires the manufacture of the Tandem Cell at this stage, which requires platinum and ruthenium extraction, both of which are rare metals and cause hydrogen to get a low score.

Energy Use
Immense pressure and heat levels must be used in the drilling of crude oil, especially in the tar fields of northern Alberta, which supplies the most of this material to Ontario. This results in the low score for diesel. The average score for biodiesel stems from the fact that energy use at this stage is dominated by truck transportation between the canola fields in rural areas to the TTC. Energy is also consumed by transportation of methanol. Hydrogen receives a low score due to the energy consumption attributed to transportation of metals from mines, chemical synthesis for dyes that make up the Tandem Cell, and purification process performed after mining.

Solid Residues
Both diesel and biodiesel receive high scores in this category. Minimal solid residues in the form of non-contaminated earth an rock are produced in crude oil drilling for diesel production and no solid residues are produced from biodiesel production. The high material diversity of the Tandem cell consisting of metals with limited recycling capability yield the low score for hydrogen .

Liquid Residues
Liquid residues from crude oil drilling for diesel include oil-polluted water, low-weight hydrocarbons, and inorganic salts as well as other materials, which leads to its average score. The production of biodiesel involves limited residues of pesticides and high amounts of water, which give it a slightly higher score. Iron and platinum extraction for the Tandem Cell cause a low score for hydrogen as mining of these metals cause acid residues.

Gaseous Residues
Flaring out gaseous wastes during oil extraction is a major contributor to gas residue for diesel production, although this has decreased in recent years. leading to its average score. Biodiesel receives a similar score due to pollutants released during canola cultivation as well as CO and CO2 released during methanol extraction. Hydrogen receives a low score due to the fact that the metals that produce liquid residues also produce gaseous residues.

Materials Choice
Diesel refining is not an environmentally friendly procedure, but is done alongside other useful hydrocarbons. Biodiesel gets a slightly better score because the materials do not undergo any highly energy intensive chemical processes in its formation. Hydrogen gets an average score between the high score of light and water used in the Tandem Cells and low score for metals, nafion membrane, and composite materials used in fuel cells.

Energy Use
Fractional distillation of diesel from petroleum is a very energy intensive process, leading to diesel's low score here. Biodiesel's average score stems from canola seed crushing, heating, and transesterification. Hydrogen receives an average score for sunlight input into the Tandem Cell and the energy intensive processes of nafion production and metal production.

Solid Residues
There is very little solid residue in diesel manufacture, leading to its high score. Biodiesel production leads to some soap residue, which gives it a slightly lower score. Hydrogen receives an average score due an average of a high score for input light into the Tandem Cell and low score for materials used in the fuel cell, which are similar to those of Tandem Cell.

Liquid Residues
All alternatives get average scores in this section, with biodiesel slightly better than the rest. Here water needed to wash excess soap is the main residue. The hydrogen gets an average between the minimum residue of the Tandem Cell and the high residues of the fuel cell. The diesel has many different residues.

Gaseous Residues
Fractional distillation causes sulfur oxide, NOx, VOC, particulate, and GHG residue, leading to its low score. The hydrogen gets an average score for the same reasons it does for solid and liquid residues. Biodiesel gets a score of 2 for gases released during transesterification.

Materials Choice
Diesel receives the highest score for this category due to the uniform steel composition of pipelines which transport the fuel source from Alberta. Biodiesel does worse because it cannot be transported in pipelines due to its tendency to freeze in them. Hydrogen does the worst due to need for composite and insulating materials in both pipelines and storage tanks, , .

Energy Use
Biodiesel receives the highest score for this category due to the energy usage from trucks. Diesel and hydrogen get low scores due to the pressures needed to transport the fuel sources (with hydrogen requiring the higher pressures in pipelines and storage tanks),.

Solid, Liquid, and Gas Residues
Both diesel and biodiesel score highly in solid and liquid residues because they are both a minimum. For hydrogen, solid residues are very low due to high material diversity in composites and polymers. Liquid residues gets a higher score, with only steel production causing acid releases. Finally, gas emissions from truck transportation of diesel and biodiesel are the same and are scored higher than the gas residue associated with hydrogen loss from high pressure in pipelines and fuel tanks.

Material Choice
In this category diesel scores the worst as it is the the most unclean fuel at this stage since it causes the emissions of NOx, soot, sulfates, silicates, and other various ash particulates. Biodiesel does better because it provides extra lubrication to the engine, providing better combustion and increasing the lifespan of the engine, despite requiring some additives. Hydrogen does the best here as the only emission from the fuel cell is water.

Energy Use
There is no extra energy loss associated with the use phase of both the diesel and hydrogen, which leads to their high scores. Biodiesel does slightly worse due to additives needed in the combustion process.

Solid, Liquid, and Gaseous Residues
Hydrogen is clearly the best here as the only residue is water vapour. In fact, there are no solid or liquid emissions for any of the alternatives. However, there are various gaseous emissions originating from both diesel and biodiesel combustion, which lead to their lower score.

Recycling and Disposal
This stage is not scored for any of the alternatives as they are all consumed during the use phase, leaving none of the product available for recycle.

Economic Input-Output Lifecyle Analysis (EIOLCA)
EIO-LCA analysis was performed using the GHGenius and US Department of Commerce 1997 Industry Benchmark models. The GHGenius models considers the use phase and the implications of the fuel on the environment while the latter does not. Hydrogen as a fuel would trump other alternative fuels if analyzed from a Pump to Wheel aspect. In reality, TTC would need to lay down an extensive infrastructure before a change can be made. The infrastructure which includes the production of Dye-Sensitized Solar Cells, fuel cells and storage tanks for the hydrogen fuel cell contributes towards increasing the final green house gas and other toxic gas emissions for hydrogen fuel. The cost inputs for the EIO-LCA analysis were calculated over 10 year period for the entire TTC fleet and converted to 1997 dollars using an inflation rate of 4%.

Global Warming Potential
The use phase of hydrogen does not release any green house gas emissions as the byproduct of the chemical reaction in the fuel cell is water vapor. The ‘Power Generation and Supply’ sector is the main contributor towards green house gas emissions which is no surprise as rare metals such as titanium and platinum are being used in the manufacturing of the Tandem cell and hydrogen fuel cell. The nano-crystalline thin film coating of Tungsten on the glass of the first part of the tandem cell and the Titanium dioxide film on the glass of the second half of the tandem cell consumes considerable amounts of energy It was discovered that “use” phase of the biodiesel releases the most amount of emissions because during the use stage, TTC buses utilize the energy stored in biodiesel via combustion in order to operate. Combustion releases a significant amount of gases in the air. During the operation of the buses, 220,298 MTCO2 emissions released for each kilometre travelled by the bus. However, the canola crops absorb an equivalent of 214,682 MTCO2 emissions during photosynthesis, thus reducing the total amount of emissions released in the air. According to the analysis, hydrogen production actually releases more green house gases. Amongst the three fuels, diesel releases the most amount of methane. This is because when the wells are bored during extraction, natural gas is released as it is lighter than diesel and floats above it. Since diesel also releases a lot of carbon dioxide as a result of combustion, it has the highest global warming potential among the three fuels.

Conventional Air Pollutants
The premanufacturing and extraction stage contributes towards the carbon monoxide emissions. However the majority of carbon monoxide emissions comes from unburnt hydrocarbons as a result of incomplete combustion. The most significant source of air pollutant emissions for biodiesel is NOx, with total emissions of 1,309.5 metric tonnes. This increase has been hypothesized to be due to the higher flame point of biodiesel, which in turn increases the temperature of biodiesel during combustion, thus releasing more NOx. A heavy amount of carbon monoxide is released into the atmosphere due to the ‘Carbon and Graphite products manufacturing’ during the production of the fuel cell. Graphite which is the raw form of carbon is weak and brittle. Heat treatment to 2200оC is used to strengthen it. This heating stage results in high carbon monoxide emissions.

Cost Analysis
TTC buses travel an average of 108 million kilometres per year. Consequently, the total cost of employing biodiesel would increase to a total of $106.8 million per year. Since the utilization of the biodiesel requires no changes in TTC buses' existing infrastructure, there are no costs associated with replacement of diesel with biodiesel.

Similarly, the use of hydrogen fuel cells in TTC buses would cost TTC $500 million annually. This cost includes the cost of hydrogen generation, transportation, and storage. The high cost related to the use of hydrogen fuel cells is due to hydrogen generation costs. Currently, the cost of hydrogen production using solar-based electrolysis is $28.19 per kilogram of hydrogen produced. Moreover, the utilization of hydrogen fuel cells would require changes in the buses' infrastructure. The total cost of replacing TTC's entire fleet of buses would be $1.55 billion, excluding the salvage value of the existing buses.

This comparison illustrates that diesel is the most economic alternative.

Societal Analysis
The burning of diesel produces soot particles. Soot particles below a critical diameter may be inhaled and settle in the lungs. Studies have shown that people living in heavily polluted areas raise their risk of dying from lung cancer up to 12%. In addition, almost as much as 11% of infant deaths in the U.S are caused by soot particles . Another potential impact may arise from geopolitical situations. Although Canada does not depend on crude oil import as much as the U.S, conflicts in the Middle East may lead to the rising price of petroleum. Since there would be higher foreign demand for Canadian petroleum, provincial refineries would be forced to compete for it at global prices.

The use of feedstock in biodiesel production may have adverse effects on environmental and economic areas. In order to obtain high quality biodiesel, the most nutritious canola seeds need to be used. This places an increased burden on farmers to produce more quality seeds for human consumption, or may simply lower the overall quality of available stock. This competition may cause inflation in the overall prices of food, which could potentially lead to famine in developing nations. Moreover, continuous cultivation of canola seeds would cause a decline in the soil quality. This would mean that fewer products can be produced and additional fertilizers would be required for the cultivation of feedstock. These additional fertilizers would increase the toxic emissions in the air and increase water pollution.

The proposed hydrogen fuel cell buses use electric motors as the mode of powering the wheels, thus running quieter than combustion engines and reducing noise pollution. In addition, fuel cells would serve to reduce dependence on fossil fuels and frustrating crude oil price fluctuations. Since power generation starts and ends with water, for hydrogen synthesis and as a waste product of the fuel cell, this technology is very close to being self-sufficient. Another aspect is the safety issue with hydrogen storage tanks. It may take a very strong marketing campaign to convince the general public to accept the hazards and dangers of driving around with pressurized storage tanks on their buses.


text: File:FlowofEPS.JPG

title: File:FlowofEPS.JPG


text: File:EIOLCA - results.JPG

title: File:EIOLCA - results.JPG


text: File:EIOLCAresultsEPS.JPG

title: File:EIOLCAresultsEPS.JPG


text:
Design for the Environment/Metal Cleaning

This page is part of the Design for the Environment course

In repair and rebuild shops, engine pistons often need to be cleaned. Most of today’s repair industry uses chemical cleaners as a cost-effective approach to cleaning engine components, specifically pistons. However, companies fail to realize that they are inducing the production of tonnes upon tonnes of toxic waste and harmful chemicals. They get disposed of into the environment, endangering our natural habitats, and eventually our well-being. This project compares 3 cleaning methods for pistons: chemical cleaning, dry ice blasting and UV/Ozone cleaning, with the environment in mind. Each method undergoes functional analysis, streamline and economic input-output lifecycle analysis, and cost analysis. The analyses take into account environmental damage and financial costs to the company, as well any costs that may be inflicted onto society. The study concludes with a recommendation for the best cleaning method based on the overall results from all the analyses.

Background Information
Each method has its own unique nature of cleaning. Chemical cleaning, the baseline, is a very simple process that involves immersing the piston into a chemical bath and allowing the fluid to dissolve any surface contaminants before taking the part out. Dry ice blasting, the first design alternative, involves blasting CO2 pellets (dry ice) onto the piston surface. At impact, pellets will explode and vaporize, causing the contaminants to lift off. To utilize UV/Ozone cleaning, the second design alternative, a confined space is initially filled with ozone using a mercury lamp. UV rays are projected onto the piston, and reacts with the ozone to lift off contaminants.

The piston being cleaned is from a R18A1 engine, which is housed in the 2006 Honda Civic. The outside diameter is 80.890 mm, whereas the height is 80.93 mm. The piston is made of aluminum alloy, with a very smooth finish. The piston is assumed to have been in contact with 89-octane gasoline and motor oil prior to cleaning. Hence, we assume dirt, oils, oil deposits, salt or any other road residue a car would normally be exposed to, as well as potential rust, to be found on the piston.

Project Information
Section 1 – Group 12

Joshua Tam [joshuatam]

Chulsoon Lee [chulsoonlee]

Tae Won Ha [taewonha]

Colin Liu [colin]

Highlights and Recommendations
All results, drawn from this report, seem to lead to one clear winner: UV/Ozone cleaning. From the SLCA, UV/Ozone cleaning attained the highest overall score amongst the three, with dry ice blasting being a close second. Chemical cleaners were too harmful to the environment to rank high in SLCA. However, dry ice blasting did not fair so well in the EIOLCA, where chemical cleaning, according to the results, was more environmentally friendly. Dry ice blasting and chemical cleaning were quite costly when put through cost analysis. On the other hand, UV/Ozone cleaning was superior in both the EIOLCA and cost analysis. Throughout all the analysis methods, one thing kept holding back dry ice blasting from being on top. CO2 production is just too much of an environmental concern to be taken lightly. Heavy tolls on energy are taken to produce it, which in turn renders it not preferable environmentally speaking. Practically, chemical cleaning is still the best at the moment simply because CO2 is too expensive, and that UV/Ozone cleaning does not have enough research information on it to be widely used commercially. Currently, UV/Ozone use is rarely used outside a lab environment. However, because of the results from this report, our group fully recommends that the company consider research and development into this technology.

Functional Analysis
The common function for the processes is cleaning the piston, while maintaining a very smooth finish. Naturally, the methods will be compared based on cleanliness and abrasiveness.

Chemical Cleaning
Chemical cleaning is a process of cleaning parts using a chemical solution. It is a relatively cheap and effective way to remove engine oil, lubricants and other organic substances from the pistions. The cleaners are a combination of various substances like builder, surfactants, sequestering agents, etc . These substances lower the surface tension of a liquid, emulsify oily and greasy soil and prevent soils from settling back on the cleaned surface.

Alkaline-based chemical cleaners are the choice pick for organic soils. The alkaline base softens water, which improves the effects of other detergent effects, and also acidic fatty soils are neutralized and thereby more easily removed. Overall, the quality of chemical cleaning for aluminum alloy parts is generally very good. The metal surfaces are cleaned very well with little or no residue soils. Lifted soils are suspended in the solution, which keeps the metal parts from being re-contaminated with dirt during removal from the baths. The degree of etching on metal surfaces as a result of chemical cleaning depends on the chemical composition of the cleaner itself. For our purpose, non-etching cleaners are chosen as to not harm the piston surfaces.

Dry Ice Blasting
Dry ice blasting is a cleaning process that uses dry ice pellets to blast off undesired layer of rust or contaminants. The dry ice pellets are loaded in to the blasting machine where they are accelerated to high velocity through a hose. When dry ice particles exit the hose and strike the coated surface, they create little explosions upon impact and lifts up undesirable material. After the process, solid dry ice particles turn gaseous and are released to the surrounding atmosphere. Dry ice blasting is very effective since it can scrape off top layers of soils. The dry ice pellets are made from CO2 which is recycled from other industrial plant’s air releases.

The process is very similar to sand blasting and soda blasting method. However, the dry ice is relatively softer than competitive mediums therefore it is less abrasive. Furthermore, phase change from solid to gas of dry ice creates a thermal shock, drawing heat from the top surface of the material. This change in temperature creates shear stresses between the top layer and the underlying layer. This shear stress initiates micro cracks between the contaminant and the part further enhancing the quality and speed of the cleaning process.

UV/Ozone Cleaning
UV/Ozone cleaning is one of the dry cleaning processes utilizing the super low pressure mercury lamp that generates UV rays in two distinct wavelengths, 85% of 254nm and 15% of 187nm. UV ray at 187nm breaks down O2 to O3 and at 254nm O3 are decomposed into O2 and high energy O2-. PL16-110 from OAI is selected as an UV/Ozone surface cleaning device. The size of the chamber is approximately W6”*L6”*H10”, which provides enough space for the piston.

Widely spread in early 1980, this technique can be implemented for not only the cleaning surface of metallic materials, plastics, ceramics, and substrates, but also increasing surface “wettability” by surface modification without etching the surface.

Streamline Life Cycle Analysis
In this section, the three methods will be compared based on their SLCA scores for each process life stage. The scores range from 0 to 4, 0 having the worst impact to the environment while 4 having the least. Guidelines and scoring criteria comes from appendix of textbook "Streamlined Life Cycle Assessment".

Resource Provisioning
Resource provisioning includes all sub-processes involved with preparing the materials and resources needed for the process.

In the case of chemical cleaners, scores were low across the board due to the need for virgin materials and the fact that the base chemicals are mostly hazardous in one way or another (flammable, carcinogenic, etc). As opposed to chemical cleaning, dry ice blasting does not yield waste at the resource provisioning stage. One of the drawbacks that were found was although CO2 is recycled, it is dangerous to humans in enclosed areas and it takes extensive energy to refine and convert to dry ice pellets. When considering UV/Ozone cleaning, no virgin material is used because the device pulls the room air into the chamber for operation. As a result, no energy is consumed and no residues are produced.

A simple comparison of the scores from all three methods suggests that in order to produce chemical cleaners; a good deal of environmental damage is dealt. Both dry ice blasting and UV/Ozone cleaning relatively environmentally friendly, although dry ice blasting requires the constant recycling of CO2.

Process Implementation
Process Implementation includes all sub-processes involved in setting up the process before operation.

Chemical cleaners received relatively high score due to the fact that the cleaning process is fairly simple and does not require complicated machinery. Equipments such as soak tubs can be made with recycled metals. In addition, very little residues are produced during implementation since only the required amount of the cleaner needs to be used with excess stored away for later. Dry ice blasting does not release significant waste during the implementation process. Various virgin materials are used to build the blasting machine; however, they are recyclable making the machine less harmful to the environment. In UV/Ozone cleaning, the comparably low rank is due to the use of mercury in the lamp and the gas waste released from the test experiments for more effective cleaning.

Comparing the scores of all three methods, chemical cleaning scores high due to the simplicity of its transport and setup, interestingly enough. Dry ice blasting and UV/Ozone cleaning lag behind in score because they require transport and setup of machines. Ozone machines require a lot of packaging because of the fragile mercury unit, which reflects the low score in solid waste.

Primary Operation
The primary operation stage includes all sub-processes involved in performing the main function, which is cleaning the piston.

For the primary operating stage of chemical cleaning, material choice scored 0 due to the hazardous nature of the chemical cleaners. Energy is scored high due to the fact that these processes require minimum machine movement and electricity to run. After the cleaning solution reaches is maximum soil saturation point it needs to be replaced with a new batch. The waste solution is considered hazardous waste since it still contains such a high concentration of various hazardous substances. Due to this, the residues for primary process scored very low. Dry ice blasting uses electricity to run the machine for its primary operation. The main source of electricity is combustion of fossil fuel and nuclear power, contributors to green house gas (GHG) and air and radioactive pollutions. Also, the particles blown off from the part is released in to the surroundings, imposing possible danger to the workers and nearby machines. The low score for UV/Ozone cleaning is mainly due to the emission of the CO2 and O3 during cleaning process. These gases are exhausted directly to the atmosphere, but concentration of O3 is substantially diluted because most of O3 has been reacted with the contaminants before exhausted. To reduce the emission of O3 to atmosphere, O3 neutralization filter can be implemented.

Comparing the scores of all three methods, we see that using chemical cleaners are quite hazardous to the environment, making smarter to use the design alternatives. Both dry ice blasting and UV/Ozone are relatively equal in environmental friendliness, differing only in the state of waste they produce.

Secondary Operation
The secondary operation stage includes all sub-processes that do not perform the main function.

For chemical cleaners, the complementary operation is rinsing of the metal part after it has been soak cleaned. Water is used and also becomes hazardous waste after the rinse. For dry ice blasting, there is no significant trace of waste released. It is recommended to vacuum clean the work area since the blown particles could damage nearby machines. Vacuum cleaner and dry ice blasting machine both are equipped with speed controller minimizing energy consumption. As a secondary operation for UV/Ozone cleaning, the exhaustion of gases left from cleaning is required. Since the amount and concentration of the CO2 and O3 gases after primary process are not considerably high and the super low pressure mercury lamp is not required in this process.

The cleanup process for chemical cleaning, when compared to the two design alternatives, is inferior in every aspect. The waste from the rinse is hazardous. On the other hand, dry ice blasting only requires vacuuming. UV/Ozone cleaning only requires gas exhaustion after cleaning. Both cleanups do not significantly harm the environment.

End of Use
The end of use stage includes all sub-processes related to disposal, recycling and refurbishment.

Chemical cleaners score low due to the hazardous nature of the waste at the end of use stage. Specialized waste handling equipments are required and often they are made from non-recyclable plastics and rubbers. Also transportation distances for the wastes will increase since it needs to be delivered to specialize waste treatment facilities. Containers are contaminated when handing hazardous wastes and generates more hazardous waste during cleaning. Dry ice blasting machine scores lower than usual at the end of use for the process. Significant solid and gas waste is released and energy and human labor is necessary to dissemble and recycle the machine. This issue imposes one more weakness to dry ice-blasting method. Regarding UV/Ozone cleaning, the manufacturing company collects the old mercury lamp for recycling hence the scoring is high.

Comparing the scores, chemicals are more hazardous than the alternatives. Chemical cleaners are very difficult to dispose of safely, making it rank low relatively. Dry ice blasting and UV/Ozone cleaning are fairly similar at end of use, requiring the disposal of machines. The difference lies in the size of the machines, where dry ice machines are much larger than ozone machines, making UV/Ozone cleaning more preferable in this case.

Discussion of SLCA

When looking solely at these results from, we see a tremendously low score given to chemical cleaners, mainly due to its toxic nature, making it difficult to dispose of safely. Dry ice blasting and UV/Ozone cleaning, although observing a difference of one, are relatively equal when analyzed using SLCA.

Economic Input-Ouput Life Cycle Analysis
EIOLCA model on www.eiolca.net is used to analyze and compare environmental impacts and energy consumption of three methods of cleaning. To compare methods in equal and fair manner, costs of cleaning 1000 pistons are calculated for each method and are used as monetary inputs for the model.

For the chemical cleaning, “miscellaneous chemical product manufacturing” sector is chosen to represent chemical solutions used in the cleaning process. Estimating that it takes 1100lbs of chemical solutions to clean 1000 pistons and that chemical solutions cost 1.975cents for a lb, the monetary value for the chemical cleaning comes out to be in $ 14,018.22(1997 US worth). $ 14,018.22 as the monetary value, the output of the EIOLCA model is shown below.

The “air and gas compressor manufacturing” sector is used to represent the manufacture of the dry ice blasting machine itself, whereas for dry ice manufacturing, the “basic inorganic chemical manufacturing” sector is used. The monetary input for the sectors came out to be US $ 14,018.22 and US $ 66,358.59 for the dry ice cleaning. With these monetary values, air emission and energy consumption of the two sectors come out as below. It is observed that most of the environmental impact and energy consumption is contributed by dry ice manufacturing stage.

To represent UV/Ozone cleaning, two sectors were also chosen. The “fluid power cylinder and actuator manufacturing” sector represents the manufacturing of the metallic chamber and “electric lamp bulb and part manufacturing” for the super low-pressure mercury lamp. The monetary value for the UV/Ozone cleaning comes out to be US $788.50 and the results comes out as below. It is found that UV/Ozone cleaning has the lowest values in all divisions and is concluded to be the most environmental and efficient method.

The overall results for the three methods are shown above with sensitivity analysis. Dry ice blasting method ranks number one contributor on all divisions due to manufacturing of dry ice. Dry ice blasting is considered as a clean and environmentally friendly technique in the real market because there is no direct waste released during the cleaning process. However, with EIOLCA analysis, dry ice blasting is found out to be the worst cleaning method out of three because manufacturing of dry ice consumes extensive energy and releases tremendous amount of wastes and pollutants. Chemical cleaning comes in second place with fair amount of wastes, releases and energy consumption. UV/Ozone is found to be the most clean and energy efficient method

Sensitivity analysis is carried out to observe the output change when the number of pistons increases by 50%. For the chemical and dry ice blasting method, it is found that with 50% increase of piston units, the output increase nearly 50%. However, for the UV/Ozone method, the % increase went up less than 50%. With more pistons, UV/Ozone cleaning becomes more environmentally efficient. The sensitivity analysis also concludes that UV/Ozone is more environmental and energy efficient cleaning method.

Cost Analysis
Often cost tends to represent only the superficial factors, but in this cost analysis the direct and indirect costs are considered. The direct cost refers to the superficial factors such as capital, operating and disposal costs, and environmental cost is concerned as the primary factor for the indirect cost. For simplicity, there are a few assumptions and omissions made to this analysis. The cleaning process is done for 10,000 parts and increased to 15,000 parts for the sensitivity analysis to examine how the increased number of parts affects the cost. The machines required for each type of cleaning process are subject to resale after one year at the depreciated price, assuming the rate of depreciation is 40% each year, resulting elimination of disposal costs. It should be noted that the indirect cost calculated for the cost analysis contains the environmental cost in the manufacturing stage – process implementation stage – only, while the primary and secondary processes are omitted due to the broad range and high uncertainty of the amount of emission depending on the severity of the contaminants.

Discussion of Cost and Sensitivity Analysis
The numerical results of the cost and sensitivity analysis are presented as a concise table below for comparison among different types of processes.

From the table above, one of the most remarkable points is the relatively low cost of the UV/Ozone cleaning process. This is primarily due to the low capital cost for the machine and low operating cost due to the use of room air for the operation and long lifetime of the super low pressure mercury lamp. As enormously high indirect cost shows, Dry Blasting has a heavy impact on the environment and this should be considered before implementation. The sensitivity analysis shows that direct and indirect costs for dry ice blasting are nearly proportional to the units to be cleaned, but the linearity is not so evident with chemical and UV/Ozone cleaning that the rates of increase in cost are much less than the rate of increased number of parts cleaned. Even though 5000 parts are increased, UV/Ozone economically qualifies best of all three processes.


text: File:Cost-chart.JPG

title: File:Cost-chart.JPG


text: File:BagasseEIOLCA.JPG

title: File:BagasseEIOLCA.JPG


text: File:Bosompraeiolca.jpg

title: File:Bosompraeiolca.jpg


text:
Design for the Environment/Automotive Interior Door Panels/Detailed Graphs of Toxic Release

 * Go back to main article, DFE2008 Automotive Interior Door Panels


text: File:SLCA-matrix.JPG

title: File:SLCA-matrix.JPG


text: File:Energy-chart.JPG

title: File:Energy-chart.JPG


text: File:GEW-chart.JPG

title: File:GEW-chart.JPG


text:
Design for the Environment/Automotive Interior Door Panels/Detailed Graphs of Energy

 * Go back to main article, DFE2008 Automotive Interior Door Panels


text: File:EIOLCA - economic activity plot.JPG


text:
Design for the Environment/Automotive Interior Door Panels/Detailed Graphs of GWP

 * Go back to main article, DFE2008 Automotive Interior Door Panels


text: File:FlowofPLA.JPG

title: File:FlowofPLA.JPG


text:
Design for the Environment/Automotive Interior Door Panels/Detailed Graphs of Air Pollutants

 * Go back to main article, DFE2008 Automotive Interior Door Panels


text: File:Costt.JPG

title: File:Costt.JPG


text: File:EIOLCAresultsPLA.JPG

title: File:EIOLCAresultsPLA.JPG


text: R (programming language)/Tutorials

title: R (programming language)/Tutorials


text: File:Amount Saved in Use Phase.jpg

title: File:Amount Saved in Use Phase.jpg


text: Category:R (programming language)

title: Category:R (programming language)


text: File:LC ECRT.jpg

title: File:LC ECRT.jpg


text:
Reading

Reading can refer both to the act of reading (learning to read) and the practice of learning and utilizing strategies found within books (reading to learn). Courses in reading at the elementary school level usually refer to the former, and at the professional and university level to the latter.

Learning how to read
See Introduction to books and related potential course titles there.

The study of reading
Other courses should be designed for continuing reading practice, and learning how to teach reading to others.

How to pronounce letters
Most letters can be pronounced more than one way.

Note: This list uses IPA (International Phonetic Alphabet) symbols to describe how the letter is usually pronounced in the 'General American' dialect.

This is specifically the English alphabet; these are how letters are pronounced in English. It may not necessarily be the same with other languages.

 * a - makes an /æ/ noise
 * b - makes a /b/ noise
 * c - makes a /k/ noise
 * d - make a /d/ noise
 * e - makes an /ɛ/ noise
 * f - makes an /f/ noise
 * g - makes a /g/ noise
 * h - makes a /h/ noise
 * i - make an /ɪ/ noise
 * j - makes a /d͡ʒ/ noise
 * k - makes a /k/ noise
 * l - makes a /l/ noise
 * m - makes a /m/ noise
 * n - makes a /n/ noise
 * o - makes an /ɑ/ noise
 * p - makes a /p/ noise
 * q - makes a /kwə/ noise
 * r - makes a /ɹ/ noise
 * s - makes a /s/ noise
 * t - makes a /t/ noise
 * u - makes an /ʌ/ noise
 * v - makes a /v/ noise
 * w - makes a /w/ noise
 * x - makes a /ks/ noise
 * y - makes a /j/ noise
 * z - makes a /z/ noise

Reading lists

 * monroe.lib.in.us children's booklists

title: Reading


text:
Talk:Openmoko/Internet Kiosk

Hmm, not many people know about OpenMoko probably. What if the kiosk not only allowed for internet access but was like a min-meuseum of sorts? Sort of like how the Smithsonian shows off science (except this would be much tinier), and those spots on the side of the road display historical information (except this would be about open source and open design). So the kiosk would allow people to access the internet through a screen on the kiosk and also wirelessly, and then also maybe have an OpenMoko device on display and some text about open source and open design and so forth. --Remi 01:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

title: Talk:Openmoko/Internet Kiosk


title: File:Eiolcaelectro1.JPG


text: File:Biosector.JPG

title: File:Biosector.JPG


text:
Evidence based practices

Evidence based practices Lots of products and services are sold, and people are persuaded that their purchases or their actions will lead to certain kinds of results (like health or profits). But is it true? Lets look at a stock broker, a teacher, and a medical doctor. (These are 3 professions that have movements towards using evidence based practices.)

A stock broker may be good at emotionally moving or convincing investors. A stock broker may also have a documented record of producing good returns on investments. Neither of these forms of evidence guarantee that using this particular stock broker will produce a good return on investments. Evidence based practices in stock brokering would use principles of what leads to a good investment. And it would use sound documentation of long-term results applying those principles. In other words, the principles would be backed up by great evidence of success. These principles might include fundamental study of the financial statements of companies under consideration. Evidence-based practice is difficult for people to think about and apply. It is difficult to know what evidence and what principles to use to make decisions. But the alternative, intuition, does not provably lead to good results. Evidence-based practice cannot mean simply using an instruction manual. If all investors used the same instruction manual then all prices would converge on an equilibrium, and there would be no bargains to be found. But if the principles are true then they may be a starting point for good investment decisions. Evidence-based practice means using intuition only when the evidence runs out.

A teacher, similarly, uses a combination of evidence-based practice and intuition in creating, implementing, and testing a lesson design. In the movements towards evidence-based practice in lesson planning, much weight is given to principles and lesson designs that have been tested and proven to produce results in learning, behavior, or some kind of success like grades, inventions, or income. Some people object to it because it seems to remove art and intuition from the profession of teaching. The problem in evidence-based practice is how to use evidence in a smart way.

When you go to a medical doctor, you expect diagnoses and treatments that cure your disease. You expect to be as healthy as possible. How do doctors achieve such results. A lot of study, good grades, completion of medical school and residency, and then professional practice. The science that produced the medical interventions has been based upon scientific evidence. It has been proven effective. But doctors do not have a ready tap into all the evidence in order to do the best thing possible in every circumstance. They use their education, observation, intuition, professional practices, and knowledge that they self-train in, which comes from their practice. They do not always do the "best" thing, because there is no one definitive guide to what the best thing is. Evidence-based practice cannot mean simply following a guide, if doing so is not proven to produce better results. The movement for evidence-based medicine can be seen in the practice of the Mayo Clinic (a group of about 3000 doctors in the US). The idea is not to get rid of all intuition or use a step-by-step guide, but rather to constantly improve our knowledge about what works by keeping better and better records. Between the years 2010 and 2020, the US government plans to support a massive project to collect and share statistics on the effectiveness rates of medical treatments nationwide. Such a database, if properly designed and implemented, is purported by proponents of evidence-based medicine to be able to lead to better and more consistent patient outcomes.

Resources

 * Evidence based practices

title: Evidence based practices


text: File:Cost Summary.JPG

title: File:Cost Summary.JPG


text: File:Demand.JPG

title: File:Demand.JPG


text: File:EIOLCA - GWP.JPG

title: File:EIOLCA - GWP.JPG


text: File:EIOLCA - Releases.JPG

title: File:EIOLCA - Releases.JPG


text: File:SLCA Matrix.JPG

title: File:SLCA Matrix.JPG


text: File:Costtt.JPG

title: File:Costtt.JPG


title: File:Bosompraeiolcasummary1.jpg


text: File:Table 2-1.JPG

title: File:Table 2-1.JPG


text: File:Table 3.JPG

title: File:Table 3.JPG


text: File:Table 4.JPG

title: File:Table 4.JPG


text: File:Table 5-2.JPG

title: File:Table 5-2.JPG


title: File:MIE315waterbottle.JPG


text: File:Table 6.JPG

title: File:Table 6.JPG


text: File:Cost-chartt.JPG

title: File:Cost-chartt.JPG


text: File:GWP.JPG

title: File:GWP.JPG


text: File:EIOLCA Energy.jpg

title: File:EIOLCA Energy.jpg


text: File:ResidentialCogenerationDFE2008AnalysisSummary.JPG


title: File:Bosompraeiolcasummary2.jpg


text: File:IGCC pic.JPG

title: File:IGCC pic.JPG


text: File:Cost.jpg

title: File:Cost.jpg


text: File:SLCA Final.jpg

title: File:SLCA Final.jpg


text: File:Gwpp.jpg

title: File:Gwpp.jpg


text: File:Global-warming.jpg

title: File:Global-warming.jpg


title: File:Picture2.jpg


text: File:Alt. 2 Primary Process Flow Chart.jpg


text: File:SSLCA.JPG

title: File:SSLCA.JPG


text: File:Bosompraeiolcaflowchart.jpg

title: File:Bosompraeiolcaflowchart.jpg


text: File:LC asphalt.jpg

title: File:LC asphalt.jpg


text: File:Fuelll.JPG

title: File:Fuelll.JPG


text: File:Ggloball.jpg

title: File:Ggloball.jpg


text: File:WhisperGen.JPG

title: File:WhisperGen.JPG


text: File:Global.JPG

title: File:Global.JPG


text: File:EbaraBallard.JPG

title: File:EbaraBallard.JPG


text: File:Final cost.JPG

title: File:Final cost.JPG


text: File:Final energy.JPG

title: File:Final energy.JPG


text: Design for the Environment/Automotive Interior Door Panels/Other Graphs


text: File:Alt. 2 Heat Recovery System.jpg

title: File:Alt. 2 Heat Recovery System.jpg


text: Design for the Environment/Automotive Interior Door Panels/Increasing Volume Of Composite


text: Design for the Environment/Automotive Interior Door Panels/Increasing wt% of Reinforcement Material


text: File:Conventional Air Pollutants.jpg

title: File:Conventional Air Pollutants.jpg


text: File:OPG.JPG

title: File:OPG.JPG


text: File:Energy Use FFICE.JPG

title: File:Energy Use FFICE.JPG


text: File:GER GWP SWB.jpg

title: File:GER GWP SWB.jpg


text: File:DFE2008 Automobile Engines—Enviromental Impact of FCV.PNG


title: File:EIroofing1.jpg


text: File:SLCA.jpg

title: File:SLCA.jpg


title: File:EIroofing2.jpg


text: File:Comparison.JPG

title: File:Comparison.JPG


title: File:EIroofing3.jpg


text: File:DFE2008 Automobile Engines—GWP.PNG

title: File:DFE2008 Automobile Engines—GWP.PNG


text: File:DFE2008 Automobile Engines—Lifecycle Cost.PNG


text: File:EIOLCA.jpg

title: File:EIOLCA.jpg


text: File:Dan's Life Cycle flow chart DWG.jpg


title: File:SLCA3.jpg


text: File:Table-For-Hydrogen-FunctionalAnalysis.jpg


text: File:EIOLCA-Energy.JPG

title: File:EIOLCA-Energy.JPG


text: File:EIOLCA 3.jpg

title: File:EIOLCA 3.jpg


title: File:Bosompraeiolcafinal3.jpg


text: File:Economic Analysis.jpg

title: File:Economic Analysis.jpg


text: File:325i specs.JPG

title: File:325i specs.JPG


text: File:Flow Chart.jpg

title: File:Flow Chart.jpg


text: File:SLCAices.JPG

title: File:SLCAices.JPG


text: File:ResidentialCogenerationDFE2008AnalysisSummary2.JPG


text: File:PEMFCenergy.JPG

title: File:PEMFCenergy.JPG


text: File:PEMdetail.JPG

title: File:PEMdetail.JPG


text: File:PEMax.JPG

title: File:PEMax.JPG


text: Category:Adobe Dreamweaver

title: Category:Adobe Dreamweaver


title: File:SLCA4.jpg


title: File:EIOLCA4.jpg


text: File:Economic 4.jpg

title: File:Economic 4.jpg


text: File:Energy Consumptions.jpg

title: File:Energy Consumptions.jpg


text: File:GHG Emission.jpg

title: File:GHG Emission.jpg


text: File:Toxic Release.jpg

title: File:Toxic Release.jpg


text: File:SLCAMatrix(fixed).JPG

title: File:SLCAMatrix(fixed).JPG


title: File:SLCAMatrx2.0.JPG


text:
BCP/Crataegus

Crataegus

title: BCP/Crataegus


text:
BCP/Crataegus/Logs

2008 Logs

 * --SB_Johnny | talk 11:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * --Jomegat 17:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

2009 Logs

 * (no archived logs yet)

Recent Logs

 * Jomegat 00:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

title: BCP/Crataegus/Logs


text: File:Conventional air pollutants comparison.JPG


text: File:GHG comparison.JPG

title: File:GHG comparison.JPG


text:
BCP/Corylopsis

Corylopsis

title: BCP/Corylopsis


text:
BCP/Corylopsis/Logs

This page contains recent bloom logs for the plant Corylopsis (Winter Hazels).

Archived Logs
(If there are more than 5 signatures under the recent logs heading, move the oldest logs to under this heading (generally leave the 3 most recent).
 * (no archived logs yet)

Recent Logs

 * (no logs yet)

title: BCP/Corylopsis/Logs


text: File:OperatingCost.jpg

title: File:OperatingCost.jpg


text: File:OverallScoring.JPG

title: File:OverallScoring.JPG


text:
BCP/Pyrus calleryana 'Bradford'

Pyrus calleryana 'Bradford'

title: BCP/Pyrus calleryana 'Bradford'


title: File:OverallScoring2.JPG


text:
BCP/Pyrus calleryana 'Bradford'/Logs

This page contains recent bloom logs for the plant Pyrus calleryana 'Bradford' (Bradord Callery Pear).

Archived Logs
(If there are more than 5 signatures under the recent logs heading, move the oldest logs to under this heading (generally leave the 3 most recent).
 * (no archived logs yet)

Recent Logs

 * SBJ 10:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC) (finishing up)

title: BCP/Pyrus calleryana 'Bradford'/Logs


text:
BCP/Pyrus calleryana

Pyrus calleryana

title: BCP/Pyrus calleryana


text:
BCP/Pyrus calleryana/Logs

This page contains recent bloom logs for the plant Pyrus calleryana (Callery Pear).

Archived Logs
(If there are more than 5 signatures under the recent logs heading, move the oldest logs to under this heading (generally leave the 3 most recent).
 * (no archived logs yet)

Recent Logs

 * SB Johnny-LM 00:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * --SB_Johnny | talk 11:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

title: BCP/Pyrus calleryana/Logs


text:
User:Cellar door

thinking about me

Kitten purring near

Pink wool

poster falling

drooping

dropping

me

I know a very little bit about human/animal studies and am most interested in it.

I know a bit about gender studies a bit about film and cultural studies and a squidge about psychoanalysis

I am also interested in Rock 'n' roll

title: User:Cellar door


text:
BCP/Ulmus americana

Ulmus americana

title: BCP/Ulmus americana


text:
BCP/Ulmus americana/Logs

2008 Logs

 * --SB_Johnny | talk 09:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * --Jomegat 17:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * --Jomegat 00:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Recent Logs

 * Jomegat 17:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

title: BCP/Ulmus americana/Logs


text:
User talk:Cellar door

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

And don't forget to explore Wikiversity with the links to your left. Be bold, and see you around Wikiversity! --Remi 09:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:Cellar door


text: Category:Term paper collections

title: Category:Term paper collections


text:
File:ELE-PRE-MAT1-1.png

Licensing
. graphs

title: File:ELE-PRE-MAT1-1.png


title: File:ELE-PRE-MAT1-2.png