text:
Design for the Environment/Hydrogen Generation

This page is part of the Design for the Environment course

The drive for clean and green source of energy for the future has surfaced new and previously unknown potential energy sources. The front runner in this race is Solar Photovoltaics. In response a frightened fossil fuel industry is seeking once again to defraud the public with hydrogen derived from the Steam Reforming of fossil fuels. A “Hydrogen Economy” is seriously being touted by the oil and gas industry as an alternative to dependence of the world on fossil fuels despite the fact that hydrogen is almost entirely obtained from fossil fuels and the only economically viable source of hydrogen either now or in future is Natural Gas produced from the environmentally horrific practice of Hydraulic Fracturing of oil shales and tar sands. For those who are concerned for the environment, hydrogen is potentially the largest fraud mankind has ever been exposed to.

A lot of investment has already been made in this field to head off a sustainable economy. Currently automobile manufacturing companies are investing heavily in this technology as they believe hydrogen fuel cell vehicles will destroy the prospects for renewable powered electric vehicles that offer humanity a way out of an environmental apocalypse. The only limitation to having a polluting hydrogen economy displacing renewables and sustainable transportation is awareness and education of environmentally conscious consumers.

The client for the original text of this report was a fuel cell company and hence it was presented with intent to deceive. The report focused on the fuel requirements of buses currently operated by the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) and considers the use of fuel cells to power those buses. Students should be alert to manipulated data and false comparisons.

It concentrates on the demand for fuel and the environmental impacts of the different processes required to meeting those demands. TTC currently has a fleet of around 1500 buses. which run approximately for 107,609,000 km per year. Currently the typical fuel economy of a bus running on hydrogen is 16.09 km/kg, and the energy density of hydrogen is 143 MJ/kg hence the total energy requirement for the year amounts to 6,700,000 kg of heavily polluting hydrogen production from fracking directly displacing 26,613,888 kWh of renewable electricity that would have driven an electric vehicle more than twice the distance owing to the added efficiency of a pure electric drive train.

The three methods that will be discussed in this report to produce the required amount of hydrogen is Steam Methane Reforming (SMR), Electrolysis and Hydrogen production using algal biomass. In SMR natural gas is used in a chemical reaction to produce hydrogen under high temperatures. In electrolysis water molecules are broken down to produce hydrogen using electricity which in the process reviewed is supplied by wind power - a method of production that cannot compete economically with steam reforming of natural gas. The only method of using renewable electricity in an economic setting is by the use of vehicles that are able to be charged directly from the renewable source without the tremendous efficiency losses in the production, compression and transportation of hydrogen and the loss of an additional 40% of the energy content of hydrogen (at a minimum) in reconverting hydrogen to electricity in a fuel cell. Also hydrogen production using algal biomass provides a green alternative to hydrogen production in an attempt to defraud the next generation of consumers and their demand for clean and green source of energy as these processes cannot compete with abundant natural gas from fracking of shales and tar sands either.

Project Information
MIE315 Section 1, Group 6A
 * Rafath Rahman (Rafath)
 * Priyen Patel (Priyen)
 * Hani Mukhallalati (mukhalla)
 * German Ramirez (ramire18)

Highlights and Recommendations
Production of hydrogen as a clean source of fuel for the future depends largely on the efficiencies and the costs of the different methods of production. At present these numbers are less favourable than the current methods of production but growing interest, research and investment in this area would result in higher efficiencies and lower costs in the near future.

Scaled from 1-5 with 1 being the lowest and 5 being the highest

Out of the three methods that are being discussed, only SMR is currently used in large scale production of hydrogen. Although the current price of hydrogen per kilogram produced by this method is less than the other alternatives, SMR requires the use of natural gas which is not a renewable resource and has a significant environmental impact as it produces large amounts of greenhouse gases.

Electrolysis is currently used for small scale production of hydrogen. Due to the high capital costs, most of which is from the installation of wind turbines, the current price of hydrogen produced is more than SMR. Improvements in wind turbines and electrolysis are predicted to lower the costs significantly in the near future thus making it more affordable. Since the main energy input is from wind power and the fuel source is water both of which are renewable resources hence the process has low environmental impacts over its lifetime.

Hydrogen production using algal biomass is currently at a research stage and its efficiency is too low for large scale production. However advancements in genetics and other related technologies would make this method of hydrogen production viable in the near future. Since the process primarily depends on photosynthesis, a lot of energy and water is required. The light for photosynthesis is provided by artificial light which in turn uses a lot of energy. Unless this energy is provided by a renewable resource, the environmental impacts of this process are quite high. Also, since the efficiencies of extracting energy from renewable resources are currently lower than conventional methods, a lot of improvements would have to be made in different sectors before this method of production becomes viable.

As can be seen from the table above, there is no clear winner between the three methods that are being considered. However electrolysis has a greater potential to produce enough hydrogen to meet the demands for the TTC buses in the near future while having less of an impact on the environment. TTC is currently replacing its diesel buses with hybrids to make it more appealing and environmentally friendly. Using hydrogen produced from wind power would further enhance this image.

Functional Analysis
The search for more environmentally responsible fuel sources in the transportation sector, and improvements in fuel-cell technology have steered researchers to hydrogen as a good fuel alternative, and in a transition to a full “Hydrogen Economy”

Steam Methane Reforming
SMR is used mostly in hydrogen production for chemical manufacturing, metal manufacturing and petroleum refining processes; which require high purity hydrogen to be produced and matches the fuel source requirements for fuel-cells in transportation. It relies on natural gas as a feed source to produce the hydrogen, and as such does not fully eliminate our dependence on fossil fuels, but simply shifts it to a less intensive form of fossil fuel. Despite this the SMR process is able to produce very high purity hydrogen (industrial grade, 99.99mol% H2) with good hydrogen to carbon ratios. The process involves four basic steps. Methane from natural gas is first reformed by mixing it with steam and passing it over a nickel-on-alumina catalyst at high temperature (750-800°C), producing carbon monoxide and hydrogen. This step is followed by a catalytic water gas shift reaction to convert the CO to H2 and CO2. Finally, the hydrogen gas is purified with pressure swing adsorption (PSA) and CO2 is sequestered to be used in other processes. Left over gases from PSA form a portion of the fuel that is burned in the reformer to supply the needed heat energy. SMR plants are currently rated by their hydrogen output, and as such a midsized steam methane reforming plant would be required to meet the annual demand of 6.7 million kilograms of H2. This plant size is able to produce approximately 7.9 million kg/year on average which would meet demand even when operating below capacity. Although steam methane reforming is not a completely clean production method in terms of emissions, the wide availability of the feed stock and the already available infrastructure for its distribution make this an attractive and cost effective production method. However a large disadvantage of using this method is that although the feedstock is widely available, it remains a non-renewable, limited resource and thus dependency on fossil fuels would once again increase as demand increases.

Electrolysis

Electrolysis was another alternative to hydrogen production. The electricity used in the process can be supplied by renewable resources such as wind turbines or photovoltaic cells. Wind power was determined to be beneficial for numerous reasons. Based on the approximate power demand needed of 30MW it is feasible to use wind energy to supply electrolysis. Large wind farms are capable of producing approximately 50MW and are continually producing more power as demands increase.

The entire process is undergone in an electrolyser, currently; the largest units available produce approximately 380,000 kg of H2/year. Based on the annual demand of 6,700,000 kg of H2/year, it is feasible to place eighteen full hydrogen forecourts at various bus service locations.

Electrolysis remains relatively inefficient as compared to a direct chemical path, however the maximum potential has not yet been reached. The process life cycle scope was chosen with particular emphasis towards the process of hydrogen production itself, as shown below.

Hydrogen Production Using Algal Biomass
Firstly, algae are grown in the first reactor in a medium with regulated conditions and an environment with low amounts of sulphur and hence begin to produce hydrogen. The second reactor adds new and fresh cells, with a high hydrogen production rate, and rids the reactor of the excess algal biomass at the end of its useful life .To assess the area of algae required to produce about 6,700,000 kg hydrogen, we consider the amount of hydrogen that 1m2 of an algae pond, with 0.2g/L concentration, can produce. The analysis shows that about 3,786,247 m2 of algae in a pond about 2.5 cm deep is needed to produce the amount of hydrogen required. This value is based on a low concentration of algae. The energy content of normal biomass obtained from natural ecosystems contains a minute amount of 0.4% of the main energy received. Currently, algae only manage a small amount of 0.1% and thus do not meet economic feasibility requirements that need an efficiency of 7-10%. Currently available biomass can be approximated to be between 220-335 million tons per year and can produce about 17-26 million tons of hydrogen annually. Currently available biomass is not enough to satisfy the needs of a whole hydrogen economy. Biomass is a renewable resource and is part of the carbon cycle. This minimizes the adverse effects on the environment.

Steam Methane Reforming
The main contributors to hydrogen cost from the steam methane reforming process are natural gas prices and plant size or yield. Natural gas prices are determined in an open market dependent of supply and demand, and have always been tied to changes in oil prices. Trends show a steady increase in the price of natural gas in the past 8 years and are predicted to continue to rise, this would dampen the prospects of maintaining a cheap source of hydrogen from SMR; which is one of the main advantages of this production process. Plant size is not as large a contributor as gas prices but is still important since we must take into consideration the fact that the midsize plant is capable of meeting our demand. Thus our plant is considered large scale production and with large scale production, changes in yield do not affect the price as much as they would with distributed production, seeing as the yields are much higher. Since machinery costs are also much higher for larger scale these are what affect the hydrogen price.

Electrolysis

The best cost analysis for electrolysis approximates costs in the near future as efficiencies and turbine/electrolyser costs change with continued research and demand. Capital costs include the electrolyser which is an approximate cost based on the increased efficiency and lowered cost. The wind turbines are based on a 50kWh demand over 8760 hours and an estimated payback price of $0.036/kWh for large wind farms. The remaining capital is from approximations of typical incurred costs.

The total cost of power by the compressor, electrolysis, and other systems will be offset by the cost savings of renewable energy gained by the wind turbines. The remaining costs are based on fixed operating, capital related charges, and labor for the electrolysers and wind turbines. The total operating costs are approximated to be $16,460,935 /year. The estimated cost for hydrogen per kilogram is $2.70.

Disposal costs will be roughly $3,274,976 at the end of plant life for demolition and decommission. Disposal is 6.2% of the total capital costs, which is based on a ratio of demolition to construction.

All *values from the diagram are derived from.

Hydrogen Production Using Algal Biomass
Since the reactors utilize artificial light to grow algae, these materials are costly and increase the total cost of the reactor. It was assumed that the pond is 2.5 cm deep with a concentration of 0.2 g/L of algae. The bio-reactor cost chosen was $10/m2 and is a good estimate as it is based on a reliable supply of 300kg/day per reactor. Changing any of these factors may significantly affect the analysis and thus the selling price of hydrogen. These numbers are based on $2004.The operating costs for the process involve factors such as electricity, maintenance, pond area, operating (PSA) costs, equipment costs (compressors), and labour. The costs associated with the demolition of the plant and its equipment is assumed to be 6% of the initial capital investment for construction. Hence, 60.5 million dollars x 0.06 = $3,630,000 This is based on the cost of demolition to construction ratio of a coal power plant located in Ontario: Ratio of demolition: construction = 17/274 = 6.2%

Steam Methane Reforming
From this qualitative analysis of Steam Methane reforming it is shown that resource provisioning has the lowest score from the life stages and thus the largest environmental impact, this is due to the necessary mining and refining the metals used in the generation of hydrogen. Toxic residues from mining of nickel and alumina needed for catalysts form acidic mine drainage and toxic fume releases. Energy use appears to have one of the largest environmental effects according to the Streamlined LCA, this can be said to be due to the large energy intensity of all the processes involved in the SMR lifecycle. The secondary process in the generation of hydrogen through this method is carbon dioxide sequestering, this procedure reduces the total CO2 emissions for steam methane reforming and thus lessens the major air pollutant from the SMR process.

Electrolysis
Resource provisioning for Electrolysis has the lowest score and is easily the greatest concern. Nickel is a large factor in the lower score provided in resource provisioning. Nickel involves energy intensive ore mining as well as producing harmful residues. Large amounts of virgin materials will be needed in the construction of wind turbines.

Process implementation also received a low score, which is common as it is an extremely energy intensive procedure; involving large machines for construction and shipping of materials. These machines will introduce a number of greenhouse gases and toxic releases in the burning of fossil fuels.

The advantage of Electrolysis via wind energy is verified in the primary process life stage. A large amount of water is being used, however, the majority of hydrogen gas produced will return to the water cycle. With the use of green energy, large amounts of greenhouse gases from typical grid power are avoided resulting in minimal residual effects.

Energy intensive processes are required in the breakdown of the building and wind turbines. Large machines for the disassembly of the wind turbines and the breakdown of concrete will result in the burning of fossil fuels. While the majority of the steel from the turbines and buildings can be recycled and the concrete sold as aggregate, solid residues are expected.

Hydrogen Production Using Algal Biomass
The EIOLCA analysis shows that most emissions are from the all other crop farming sector. During resource provisioning, there are no solid, liquid, or gaseous residue. A significant amount of releases are produced during process implementation due to construction of the plant and equipment. Construction and demolition produces a considerable amount of inhalable particulates (EIOLCA - 58.2 metric tonnes) that pose serious health risks to humans. Burning fossil fuels such as diesel for shipping and construction vehicles also produces hazardous gaseous emissions such as carbon monoxide (369 mt). During the primary and secondary processes, dead algal biomass can be reused as fertilizer or as an input to other competitive processes. Chemicals such as nitrogen oxides (93.4 mt) and sulphur dioxides (33 mt) are released during algae farming. A large amount of carbon dioxide (13200 mt) is emitted into the atmosphere when the dead algal biomass is processed or used as an input to other processes (ie; combustion of biomass).

Economic Input-Output LCA
An Economic Input-Output Life Cycle Analysis (EIOLCA) is a tool for gauging the environmental impact of a product or service based on a US dollar amount of production or use. The dollar values used in this section are in terms of 1997 US dollars.

Steam Methane Reforming
The economic input-output model for Steam mathane reforming was created based on a hydrogen cost of $1.78/kg H2 from SMR and a demand of 6.7 million kg of Hydrogen giving an annual cost of production of $9.2 million which was used as the input to the model. The major contributor to economic avtivity in the lifecycle was the industrial gas generation sector, this sector is also the largest contributor to many of the enviromental stressors.

Environmental impacts from steam methane reforming come mostly from air pollutants and green house gases. Common toxic pollutants emmissions arelow for steam methane reforming when compared to other environmental stressors and are released mostly from sectors linked to the SMR sector and not this sector directly. As can be seen in the economic input output lifecycle assessment, CO2 is the major pollutant that is released during the lifecycle of this process; totalling 35900 metric tons annually for our expected demand, also more than 50% of this amount comes from the gas manufacturing sector.In order to compare the general common air pollutants to the green house gases we look at their global warming potential and find that these pollutants are equivalent to 95600 metric tons of CO2. This is 2.7 times the total amount of CO2 that is released in the lifecycle of SMR, and tells us that although common air pollutants are not direct emissions from the process but come from the necessary related sectors. SMR’s other major drawback is the energy intensity of the process. Hydrogen generation requires a total of 669TJ of energy yearly originating from the grid in the entirety of its lifecycle, from which the core reforming steps make up 80% of the power requirements.

Electrolysis

A hybrid EIOLCA was used in the case of electrolysis via wind turbines, based on an overall inputted economic activity of $19030827 /year. The “turbine and turbine generator set units manufacturing” sector was the majority of economic activity. A Hybrid EIOLCA was chosen to make adjustments to account for buildings, electrolysers, piping, storage, and distribution of hydrogen.

It can be seen that “Power generation and supply (PG), Turbines (WT), and Truck transportation (TT)” are the leading contributors to conventional air pollutants. WT and PG contribute approximately 42% and 38% respectively for total SO2 emissions. Turbines are amongst the larger sources of NOx and PM10. Truck transportation is the major CO provider at approximately 51%.

Electrolysis does not involve the PG sector directly; however it maintains the largest amount of Global Warming Potential (GWP) and CO2 at around 27% and 31%, respectively. Iron and steel mills are another large source of GWP and CO2. CH4, N2O, and CFC’s are a composition of residual effects from other indirect processes incurred during the supply, mining, and manufacturing of the materials.

Power generation is the leading sectors in coal usage which can be expected, however it is not a direct input in Electrolysis. Iron and steel mills/forging attributes to approximately 50% of the total natural gas consumption.

The largest provider of releases is the land releases from the copper, nickel, lead, and zinc mining sector at 92%.

Hydrogen Production Using Algal Biomass
Using the previously stated demand for hydrogen a hybrid economic input and output model was created to get a better comparison of the different sectors and its environmental impacts. The model followed the cost of the required hydrogen as $2.28/kg for a scale of production of 6.7 million kg per year. This totalled to an amount of 13 million dollars. Some top-level purchases for 13 million dollars (1997) were edited to give a direct hybrid economic value rather than the default value. The purpose of the hybrid model is to give significance to those sectors that affect the process the most. If the simple model was used instead for a 13 million dollar purchase we notice that all emissions decreased by a factor ranging from 1.0-1.35 due to the fact that the simple model does not consider several significant purchases. The study estimated that 253 employees are required in all sectors involved. If the current selling price of hydrogen is used, all emissions increase by a factor of about 2.1 which is actually the ratio of the current to future hydrogen selling price ($4.77/$2.28 = 2.1).

Steam Methane Reforming
From all possible production technologies steam methane reforming may have the most societal issues. With the push for emission free technologies and the volatility of fossil fuel prizes, the public may view steam methane reforming as a pollution generating industrial process and not as a possible clean energy alternative. Plant location is also an important issue which must be addressed, since SMR plants are large industrial facilities they require large stacks to vent the used steam and would become an eyesore near any community. Noise levels from the reforming process would again be an issue of placing the plant near any community and the only possible solution to this and the other societal issues would be to place the SMR plant in a remote location.

Electrolysis

With a growing concern for the environment, Electrolysis using wind energy is a green process which is environmentally friendly. Although it is an excellent option, there are a number of negative aspects. Wind turbines produce acoustic noise, large shadows, impact on bird life, and consider by some as visually unappealing.

Noise and visual effects are remedied by placement of wind turbines in high wind, remote locations. New blade configurations and increased motor efficiency can drastically reduce noise.

Concern for bird life can be solved by greater attention to the sighting of wind farms; however some studies indicate that approximately two birds are killed per year per turbine.


text:
User:Drwfishesman

David R. Wood

Graduate Student studying Aquaculture/Aquatic Science

david.wood@kysu.edu

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

title: User:Drwfishesman


text:
User talk:Liangkun

Hello Kun, welcome around here. I hope you succeed in your learning goals. Below more info about Wikiversity, Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 22:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Welcome
Hello Liangkun, 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) 22:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:Liangkun


text:
User talk:Drwfishesman

Hello David, welcome around here. I hope you succeed in your learning goals. Below more info about Wikiversity, Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 22:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Welcome
Hello Drwfishesman, 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) 22:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:Drwfishesman


text:
User talk:Rafath

Hello, welcome around here. I hope you succeed in your learning goals. Below more info about Wikiversity, Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 22:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Welcome
Hello Rafath, 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) 22:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:Rafath


text:
User talk:Priyen

Hello, welcome around here. I hope you succeed in your learning goals. Below more info about Wikiversity, Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 22:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Welcome
Hello Priyen, 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) 22:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:Priyen


text:
Design for the Environment/Internal Combustion Engines

This page is part of the Design for the Environment course In a world of relentless technological advancement, our resources are subjected to the inverse effect of a continuous, steady decline; our limited and diminishing resources stand as a roadblock in the promise of a progressive and sustainable future. They prove to be an ever increasing worry as energy demands constantly surface due to the development of countries like China or India, with billions in population. The automotive industry is inherently correlated to the economic development of such countries, and plays a major role in global energy consumption. Thus materializes this study and its purpose.

The objective of this study is to compare two potential alternatives, E85 Ethanol-Gasoline and Hydrogen, against Gasoline as a source of fuel in automotive vehicles. In order to conduct this study in a fair and comparative manner, we draw the system boundary around the fuels and its required modifications to function in an Internal Combustion Engine. In each life stage of the fuels, we perform a thorough functional, economic, environmental, costs and societal analysis analysis; thus allowing for a comprehensive evaluation of each fuel’s overall impact, and setting the stage to select the ideal alternative.

Gasoline boasts the highest energy efficiency and mileage, and is employed as the primary source of fuel today. Infrastructure for the production and transportation of gasoline is highly developed, as it has been in constant refinement for over 60 years. However, it is a heavy consumer of our limited natural resources and is also a major contributor of greenhouse gases. Thus it raises the need for alternative fuels, that rely on renewable resources and have lower emissions during its lifecycle.

Ethanol is derived from corn and is highly corrosive; thus it cannot be transported through pipelines and requires vehicular transportation. Production of ethanol is an energy-intensive process but offers low environmental emissions for the IC engine during its use phase. Ethanol-Enriched fuel (E85) is cheaper than gasoline, but has a lower mileage at 14 mpg. Hence, it requires more regular refilling that accumulates to be more expensive in the long run.

Hydrogen fuel offers a gradual transition into the event of a heavy global dependence on alternative fuels. Hydrogen can be produced using existing infrastructure and H2ICEs can be supplemented with gasoline when a hydrogen fuelling station is not available. It can be produced through a wide range of sources and offers zero (negligible) harmful emissions during its use phase. However, it has a mediocre mileage at 4.2mpg and the production of hydrogen is an energy-intensive process.

This report and its results are to be proposed to Toyota, to aid in implementing an environmentally friendly – yet cost-effective – internal combustion engine.

Project Information
       Section 1 Group 3A Wong, Timothy (Timdy.wong) Mohabir, Christopher (Mohabir) Zahedi, Elyad (Elyad,zahedi) Chotai, Tejas (Tejas)

Highlights and Recommendations
When constantly utilized on a global scale, it is imperative that the fuel of choice has the least total harmful emissions throughout its life cycle – especially during its use phase. Hydrogen offers negligible emissions throughout its use phase, but current technology prohibits it from being implemented on a global scale; this is due to its large energy consumption during its manufacturing stage. Hydrogen has the potential to solve our environmental and energy crisis because of its low emissions and its different possible sources of production. Hence, Hydrogen is the preferred design alternative.

A further streamlined, economic input-output and societal analyses of the results weighs Hydrogen and Ethanol-Gasoline relative to the baseline – Gasoline. The following table is attained by a summation of GWPS from the EIOLCA, integrated with essential results from the Functional, Costs, and Streamlined Lifecycle Analysis.

The EIOLCA, rates E85 to be the best fuel with the lowest GWP emissions, and Hydrogen rated a close second. However, it should be taken into account that the use stage of a product results in the highest total GWP and GHG emissions. During the use phase of Hydrogen, there are zero emissions; the resulting emissions for hydrogen result solely from the infrastructure requirements in the pre-manufacturing and manufacturing life stages. Conversly, E85 emits a total of 37,960 MTCO2 (75.6% of the total) during its use phase. Thus, if the manufacturing processes of hydrogen is more energy efficient, Hydrogen has the greatest potential to solve our environmental crisis.

The Functional Analysis, rates Gasoline to be the most practical with a high mileage of 23.3mpg. Accordingly, the average consumer (30,000km/year) would have to refill the fuel tank approximately once every 12, 7 and 5 days for Gasoline, E85 and H2ICE respectively. If hydrogen is implemented, it is a slight deterrent to refill once every five days, but it offers the public an option to do their part for a sustainable future.

In the Costs Analysis, E85 is the most expensive to sustain, which is mainly attributed to the direct costs in its use phase. Costs of fuel throughout the average 16.1 year lifespan of a vehicle are $34845.56 $41677.3 $36162.5 for Gasoline, E85 and Hydrogen respectively. As should be noted, the price for a consumer to purchase hydrogen fuel is relatively similar to that of gasoline.

The Societal Analysis of the fuels all differ significantly, and determining which has the greatest impact would be soley based on subjective reasoning. However, Hydrogen differs only slightly from gasoline, where the main concern is its safety. Like gasoline, hydrogen is prone to exploding if not handled carefully. More improvements in the safety of implementing hydrogen as a fuel would have to be considered.

By a slim margin, the results of the Streamlined Lifecycle Analysis show that Gasoline is the fuel of choice. However, the SLCA weighs the importance of each life stage equivalently, which cannot be the case in a real world scenario. The environmentally-harmful emissions in each life stage differ greatly, and so life stages should be proportionally levied to account for this. If such were the case, and the use phase of the product were weighed to be of higher significance, Hydrogen fuel would have been the clear winner.

Gasoline IC Engine
The following streamlined life cycle analysis outlines the environmental impacts associated with the life cycle stages of a BMW 325i 2996 ccm petrol (gasoline) ICE. Petrol Petrol is derived from crude oil or petroleum, which is of finite supply and requires energy intensive extraction strategies. This extraction process requires the implementation of a pump system that is powered by the combustion of coal, resulting in large quantities of GHG emissions. The refinement of petroleum is carried out in distillation towers and is separated from the raw petroleum at a relatively low temperature of 150 degrees Celsius. Bi-products associated with this refinement process consist primarily of coke, light cycle oil, heavy fuel oil and wastewater. All of these residues, with the exception of wastewater, are used as material inputs for other products. The transportation of petrol is achieved primarily through the means of pipelines. In comparison to the alternative fuels, this form of transport is superior in terms of cost effectiveness and efficiency. Gasoline ICE & Fuel Tank The gasoline ICE is composed primarily of virgin iron, steel and aluminium, whereas the fuel tank is composed of HDPE. HDPE is a superior material choice, requiring relatively fewer energy instensive production processes for its production. Manufacturing the fuel tank, by means of blow molding, requires relatively low levels of heat ranging from 180 to 220 degrees Celsius. The overall recylability of gasoline ICEs and HDPE fuel tanks are generally high as reflected by the EU Directive, (2005/64/EU), stating at least 85 percent of new vehicles are capable of being recycled by December 2008. There are, however, various negative aspects associated with the selection of petrol and HDPE as primary material inputs. Both petrol and the HDPE fuel tank are derived from petroleum which is of finite supply that contains hazardous substances. The performance aspect of gasoline ICE is a positive point. The 325i has CO2 emission levels of 170g/km and fuel consumption rates of 9.8l/km (urban), reflecting efficient levels of energy consumption. Solid residues associated with the use phase of the gasoline ICE and HDPE fuel tank are relatively low. Liquid residues include motor oil which is routinely changed. A significant disadvantage of gasoline ICEs include the quantity of hazardous gases are emitted from the combustion of petrol.

Ethanol-Gasoline Flex-fuel Engine
For an ethanol-enriched fuel, such as E85, the portion of gasoline to ethanol is considerably low. Thus, in scoring processes, the factors related to gasoline are relatively weighted less than those of ethanol. Note that details are not given for factors considered negligible. Ethanol-Enriched Fuel The main resource used in North America to produce ethanol is from corn farms. The energy consumed in farming corn in order to produce 1 liter of ethanol is about 7,440 KJ. Farmers fertilize corn fields with nitrogenbased compounds. The fertilizer run-off flows down rivers into lakes, making algae bloom on the surface, cutting oxygen to creatures that live on the bottom. In total, producing 1 liter of ethanol through dry-milling process requires about 12,350 KJ. Dried distillers grains with solubles (DDGS) and CO2 are formed during this process. DDGS is a common livestock feed and carbon dioxide is captured and sold for use in carbonated beverages and dry ice manufacturing. Ethanol is a highly corrosive substance. Ethanol, once produced, is blended with about 5% denaturant (such as gasoline) to make it undrinkable so as to avoid beverage alcohol taxes. Even this mixture cannot be transported using pipelines due to corrosive characteristic of ethanol. Therefore large tanks that are resistive to corrosion are filled with ethanol-enriched fuel. These tanks are then transported to retailers using barges, trains and trucks. Ethanol FFV ICE & Fuel Tank Primary materials used in ICE are iron and steel. These materials require high levels of energy for extraction and smelting processes (Ranging from 20 to 342 MJ/KG). The extraction of metal ore involves producing solid residues such as waste rocks and liquid residues due to mine drainage. Stainless steel is an iron-carbon alloy with a minimum of 11.5 wt% chromium content. Chromium is considered to be a scarce material and thus is a poor material choice. Polymer production results in a high energy use due to use of high-power water jets. Packaging and transportation for all engines involve similar procedures. However in the case of FFVs, larger and heavier fuel tanks should be considered. Ethanol reduces tailpipe carbon monoxide emissions approximately 30%, toxics content by about 34%, and tailpipe fine particulate matter (PM) emissions by 50%, when compared to regular gasoline engine. Materials used in engines are mostly metals, which are recyclable substances. Teflon recycling involves a less energy intensive method. It’s heated to elevate its temperature and then it’s extruded to form pellets that can be sent back to factory for assembling.

Hydrogen IC Engine
The following is the streamlined life cycle analysis for Hydrogen Internal Combustion Enigne (H2ICE) and for the resource extraction, manufacturing, and transportation of Liquid Hydrogen (LH2). Liquid Hydrogen The two main materials required for hydrogen production via Steam Methane Reforming are water for steam generation and natural gas, a limited resource, for producing mathane gas feedstock. Extraction of naturalgas is a energy intensive procedure powered by coal combustion .Manufacturing stage includes multiple processes, mainly SMR, carbon sequestration and hydroden liquidification. SMR reaction yields a gaseous mixture of hydrogen and carbon dioxide at 700-1000 degrees celcius. Then, hydrogen gas is cooled into its liquid state and stored ; whereas, the resulting carbon dioxides are collected, compressed and injected into underground .One disadvantage of LH2 over a compressed hydrogen gas is that it can not be carried using pipeline because it must be stored at a cryogenic temperature, thus trucks and ships must be used for LH2 distribution .Furthermore, since volumtetric energy density of an liquid hydrogen is a quater of gasoline, LH2 four-times the volume of gasoline must be transported to deliver equivalent energy content.

Hydrogen ICE & LH2 Fuel Tank Primary materials used for engine manufacturing is stainless steel (specifically, X2 CrNi 19 11) for the LH2 fuel tank and cast iron for the engine block. Both of these materials are ferrous metals meaning large amount of wastes are produced from the iron mining.In addition, stainless steel includes significant amount of chromium, which is a scarce material.However, most of these metals are highly recyclable materials and so this design minimizes solid wastes at the end-of-life stage.Manufacturing of the LH2 fuel tank is energy inefficient process. This is because the tank requires high-accuracy manufacturing and it can not be produced in large volume. Regarding the the product delivery, since the fuel tank for Hydrogen vehicle is larger than other alternatives due to low volumetric energy energy density of the fuel, the transportation phase produces correspondingly larger emissions and packaging wastes.However, the main advantage of hydrogen vehicle lies in its use phase. BMW Hydrogen 7 is a near-zero emission vehicle, thus produces significantly low amount of harmful gases when driving on hydrogen.

Economic Input Output Life Cycle Assessment
An economic input-output life cycle analysis allows for a quantitative analysis of environmental impacts in all life stages of each alternative. The EIOLCA tool was used to conduct this study. This assessment is performed for the pre-manufacturing, manufacturing and use life stages of the car. Assuming 185,000 miles covered for the total life span of the car, the life stage that has the most impact is the use phase; the most amount of emissions is emitted and a considerable amount of energy is consumed. Regarding the recycling life stage, most components used in cars are re-usable and the metal components are recyclable. Along with the fact that this life stage is very similar for all three fuels and thus insignificant for a comparison analysis, it is not considered in the EIOLCA. Energy consumption and GWP data for baseline and two alternatives are shown below.

The graphs above show that for Gasoline, the highest emissions are attributed to the use phase of the product. E85 has a lower emission level during its use phase, whereas Hydrogen Fuel has negligible amounts of emissions. Overall, Hydrogen emits the least GWP emissions, but consumes the most energy. It should be noted that the negative effects of hydrogen -high energy consumption and GWP emissions- are mainly attributed to the production phase of the fuel. In due time, technological advances could aid in reducing the pollution and energy consumption of the production of Hydrogen. It offers the ideal amount of emissions, none, during its use phase; thus Hydrogen has the highest potential to solve our environmental crisis.

Gasoline IC Engine
Material costs for this analysis includes only the engine/fuel tank component as the fuel costs were accounted for when determining the operation cost of the product. The cost of the engine/fuel tank is determined to be $387.96.

Significant differences in labour, maintenance and operational costs are primarily influenced by the fuel aspect. For comparative purposes the labour costs associated with the engine component are therefore neglected. Assuming mileage is 70% urban and 30% highway, fuel costs are calculated for one year (11 562miles). These costs were determined to be $1 454.06 and reflect the operation costs of the product. The total direct costs where then found  :

Direct Costs = $34 845.56

Conventional gasoline ICE’s are primarily GHG contributors, as such, the health costs associated with only these emissions will be determined. Health costs induced by GHG emissions are extrapolated by employing data related to total health costs incurred from air pollution and total GHG emissions. This analysis will therefore take into account the pre-manufacturing, manufacturing and use stages of the lifecycle of a gasoline ICE. Health costs generated by GHG emissions were calculated in terms of the indirect cost per unit of the product. This was determined as follows: Total Health Cost / Amount of GHG Emissions = 8.8 $/metric tonnes CO2 equivalent Carbon dioxide emissions are found for all the stages in the form of global warming potential using the economic input-output life cycle analysis:Total GWP = 71.64 MTCO2 Therefore the indirect cost for green house gases emissions is determined to beIndirect Costs = 70.64* 8.8 = $631.86

Ethanol-Gasoline Flex-fuel Engine
Since the mass of Teflon polymer used in the engine is negligible in comparison to other materials, its cost is neglected. Also, since the labour, manufacturing processes and maintenance for engines are similar for each alternative, their cost analysis is not necessary. For operation costs, since the fuel consumption is different for each alternative, the total cost of fuel over life span of the car is calculated. Supposing that a car lasts for 16 years, it would be driven about 11,562 miles per year. Assuming 70% city mileage, 30% highway mileage and E85 price of $2.55, the fuel cost for one year is determined to be Direct Costs = $41,677.3 Since the magnitude of toxic releases and air pollutants are less significant than that of greenhouse gas emission, indirect costs are determined based on Global Warming Potential. First, the indirect costs associated with GHG emissions are determined using the ratio between total estimated health costs and the total amount of GHG released in California in a year. This factor integrates the economic cost associated with health care and it’s calculated as follows: Total Health Cost / Amount of GHG Emissions = 8.8 $/metric tonnes CO2 equivalent Carbon dioxide emissions are found for all the stages in the form of global warming potential using the economic input-output life cycle analysis:Total GWP = 50.24 MTCO2 Therefore the indirect cost for green house gases emissions is determined to beIndirect Costs = 50.24 * 8.8 = $442.11

Sensitivity Analysis
The method used to produce ethanol has been improving in the past couple of decades to reduce the amount of energy consumption. The dry-milling process, consumed about 70,000 Btu to produce a gallon of ethanol in 1980’s. Recently, this amount of energy has dropped to 40,000 Btu per gallon due to advances in technology. Assuming this trend would continue for the next couple of decades, the energy associated with production of ethanol would reduce by almost 40%. This would affect the costs by a large factor and make ethanol-enriched fuels more affordable. Furthermore, the price of gasoline is depended on the crude oil prices, which fluctuate significantly and has been rising due to current events in Middle-East. The continuous ascend in price of gasoline in near future will affect the cost analysis of ethanol-enriched fuel and it will increase the demand for ethanol.

Hydrogen IC Engine
As mentioned earlier, 200kg of weight was added to the vehicle when BMW 760i was modified to operate on hydrogen fuel. The cost analysis below was performed under assumption that this 200kg is the mass of the hydrogen fuel tank, primarily from the stainless steel. Hence, the material costs for the engine and fuel tank component were found by adding 200kg of stainless steel to the model used in Gasoline ICE section.cost was found to be $1123.54. Average lifetime of the hydrogen vehicle is assumed to be total of 185000miles over the span of 16years,so average miles traveled each year will be 11562miles. LH2 fuel cost for current steam methane reforming technology is estimated to be $2.17 /kg. Therefore annual fuel cost can be calculated as $1605.51. Therefore, with the annual compund rate of 4%, the total direct cost of hydrogen ICE over its lifetime is determined to be: Direct Costs = $36162.51

The indirect cost for the hydrogen vehicle was found in the same manner as for other two alternatives. However, the total emmisions produced over the life-cycle of this product was found, using the economic input-output life cycle analysis, to be: Total GWP = 56.631 MTCO2E/Unit H2ICE Therefore the indirect cost for the green house gas emmision is determined to be: Indirect Costs = 56.631 MTCO2E * $8.8/MTCO2E = $499.49

Sensitivity Analysis
It was stated earlier that the hydrogen is produced at a central station plant, large enough to provide up to 2million hydrogen vehicles. In approximately a decade, the cost of hydrogen has the potential to be reduced to $1.72/kg H2 using the same natural gas reforming method. However, the following conditions must apply : · Central Station is operated at full capacity. · Efficiency of SMR process is increased to 68% from current 61% efficiency. · Reduction GHG emissions from power generation sector, meaning more renewable energy generated . If price of hydrogen was lowered to $1.72/kg H2 then the fuel cost for lifetime of one vehicle will be $27773.24 (as opposed to the present cost of $35039.50), which is lower than the cost of gasoline per vehicle. Note that this value was calculated using same method as operation cost calculated earlier.

Gasoline IC Engine
Gasoline is coming under increased scrutiny as interest in alternative fuels and engine developments continually grow. There are a number of incentives for the exploration of a potential successor to petroleum fuels. One of which is the increasing scarcity of crude oil, which has caused steep climbs in North American gas prices. The volatility of these prices has also caused considerable frustration as seemingly bizarre price hikes are justified by conflicts in major oil producing regions such as the Middle East. More recently, society’s awareness of greener alternatives has greatly expanded as exemplified by events such as Earth Hour. This push for environmentally friendly technologies will make the gasoline ICE progressively more irrelevant, as society better understands the negative environmental impact that it generates. The advantages of the gasoline ICE lie in the heavily developed infrastructure surrounding its production. Petroleum refinement has been in major development since 1875 and transport of the fuel was made efficient by investing billions of dollars in pipelines. Rapidly industrializing nations such as China and India have committed to investments in pipeline development and are therefore obligated to maximize their use and in turn maximize profits.

Ethanol-Gasoline Flex-fuel Engine
Fluctuating oil prices, a country’s dependency on foreign oil, global warming threats and the government’s support for alternative fuels all have an influence on people’s preferences of fuel. However, cost is the main and sometimes the only factor. For some, environmental impacts play a greater role. As discussed, the fuel cost for the whole life of a vehicle is more for E85. But clearly, production of FFV’s by car manufacturers has been increasing because of increase in demand for ethanol-enriched fuel as a substitution for gasoline in order to reduce the environmental effects and not because of its lower prices. As the use of alternative fuels increase, the dependency on oil decreases. On the other hand, as the demand for ethanol increases, the need for imported crops rises too. Since ethanol can be produced from renewable sources, it is considered to be a more reliable import good because of the consistency in price. Thus, people would feel safer in terms of long-term financial planning.

Hydrogen IC Engine
One of the biggest societal concern regarding hydrogen is the safety issue. Hydrogen is both explosive and flammable just like gasoline. Moreover, “hydrogen/air mixture requires relatively little energy to ignite and remains ignitable at broad mixture range [43].” Following mechanical requirements must be met to ensure safety of the passengers: · No significant amount of hydrogen must escape from the storage tank [43]. · Cold burns from cryogenic liquids must be prevented [43]. · Ignitable hydrogen/air mixture must not form, especially in closed spaces such as garages [43]. In general, when hydrogen is carried on-board, special caution must be taken for the cryogenic fuel tank because it is the most vulnerable component in the hydrogen vehicles.


text:
Design for the Environment/Road De-icing Agents

The City of Toronto, and any city facing harsh winter weather, is forced to deal with the issue of keeping roads and sidewalks safe by removing ice. Over the last few decades there has been a push encouraged by various groups to move towards greener alternatives to reduce our ecological footprint.

The current method of ice removal is to lower the melting temperature of the ice itself by introducing another substance to the hazardous areas. All alternatives discussed in this report have the same function; to reduce the melting temperature of the ice.

The scope of this project is limited to major roadways only maintained by the City of Toronto, not including any sidewalks or personal deicing. Rock salt is the current product standard, but substance run-off following use is destroying vegetation and harming marine life. We will examine two other alternatives here: potassium acetate and calcium magnesium acetate (CMA), both of which have proven better end-of-life effects. Potassium acetate is currently in use by major airports in North America because it can be used as a preventative de-icer and because of it has a very low melting temperature. CMA has been studied as a replacement for rock salt for its similar properties and significantly reduced end-of-life environmental effects.

Project Information
Section: 2 Group: 24

Group Members:

Cameron Lam (lamcamer) Nick Berube (nick.berube) Louise Bailey (Louisebailey) Alessandra Herrera-Bennett (AHerreraB)

Rock Salt
Rock salt has been commonly used as an ice melting product in North America for over 60 years, having gained popularity following the Second World War. It is most commonly used in the form of sodium chloride (NaCl). The effectiveness of rock salt is increased by friction caused by moving traffic. It is currently the deicer of choice for most cities in North America because of its low cost.

Potassium Acetate
Liquid potassium acetate (CH3COOK) is an organic, biodegradable fluid that is used for de-icing and anti-icing roads. As opposed to rock salt or other alternative road deicers, such as urea-based or glycol-based products, potassium acetate has less of an environmental impact, while being more efficient at removing ice.

Cryotech De-Icing Technologies, and most other suppliers, use potassium acetate deicers as a 50% (wt) potassium acetate solution, added with water and corrosion inhibitors. Currently, Cryotech is the largest supplier of potassium acetate, with its products “E36” being used on several airport runways, and “CF7” used commercially, throughout North America.

Calcium Magnesium Acetate (CMA)
Calcium Magnesium Acetate (CMA) was developed in 1980 in the United States. It was the culmination of new concerns regarding the effects of road salt on the environment. The concerns were lead by a report conducted by the Federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 1976. The report found that the use of road salt as a deicer cost the United States nearly $3 billion dollars (USD 1976) in damage to roads, vehicles and waterways.

CMA can be produced several different ways. Generally, it involves mixing acetic acid with dolomitic lime. Dolomitic lime and dolostone are fairly common, inexpensive aggregates. Acetic acid, however, is much less common and relatively expensive. In 1990, the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario (MTO) released a report on the feasibility of CMA as a replacement for road salt. In the report it was determined that the most economically viable CMA production method involved creating acetic acid by carbonylation of methanol and reacting it with dolomitic lime using a drum pelletizer. All information and figures following will be based on the latter production method (the Monsanto method).

Highlights/Recommendations
Initially it was predicted that the current use of rock salt on our roads today would be much more harmful to the environment than CMA or potassium acetate. Despite the effects of rock salt on its immediate environment upon disposal, the ease of its manufacture and extraction outweighs these issues. The following table will rank each alternative with respect to each method of analysis:

Table 2.1 - Road Deicer Rankings

It should be noted that each analysis is not weighted equally in the final recommendation. The streamlined LCA was performed without weighting, which is the reason for the discrepancies between the other two analyses. In the streamlined LCA the costs of manufacturing, and thus the potential emissions, were only analyzed in the manufacturing stage of life. After conducting our research we have come to the conclusion that manufacturing of products plays a large role in environmental emissions. As examined in the EIOLCA of each alternative we see that 2.75 and 3.75 times the CO2 equivalent emissions are created by the use of potassium acetate and CMA respectively. These numbers were obtained even considering that rock salt damaged only its immediate environment upon disposal. Thus, rock salt shows its advantage by reducing emissions, as well as being a low cost deicer.

The streamlined LCA shows CMA as the most environmentally friendly deicer. This can be directly credited to its ease of disposal and non-harmful by-products, but the cost to create the product is much too great. Upon the completion of this report we would recommend that a heavier weight be placed on the manufacturing and extraction phases of the streamlined LCA to obtain more accurate values.

Based on technical performance both rock salt and CMA are very close in ice melting functionality while potassium acetate shows a clear advantage. However, the scope of our project does not often require the melting temperature of ice mixtures to go beyond either rock salt or CMA’s most extreme operating conditions. For this reason, with respect to our data, the performance of the alternatives can be considered of little importance.

As a final recommendation the continued use of rock salt as the City of Toronto’s primary deicing agent is advised. Although many concerns have been raised over the City’s overuse of rock salts, they have been biased towards the end of life effects which can be related to our streamlined LCA. ''Taking into account the full life cycle, rock salts remain the least environmentally harmful option. However, this report is limited in its studies and it is advisable to continue research on other ‘green’ alternatives for use as deicing agents.''

Rock Salt
The required characteristic of road salt as an alternative is to remove ice from roads. Road salt works by lowering the freezing point of water. This is achieved by creating a solution of salt and water called brine, a Eutectic solution. As more salt is added, the freezing point of the solution drops to a specific minimum temperature; approximately -21ºC for a 25% salt concentration. However, this level of salt is not practical and certainly not ideal for road applications. Because of this, rock salt is only used for temperatures above -12ºC.

The amount of product required to melt the ice is an important factor in deciding which deicer to use. The City of Toronto has 5100 kilometres of roads that need to be deiced, and uses about 150,000 tonnes of salt to do so. This translates to approximately 28.3 tonnes per kilometer of road per year. This quantity must be optimised to keep the roads safe, but excessive use could be detrimental to the environment and costly to the City.

Potassium Acetate
Liquid potassium acetate has very good deicing characteristics when compared to other products. On top of being a good deicer, it is more effective as an anti-icer, and can also be used as a “pre-wetter” with other solid deicers to enhance their performance. However, for the sake of proper comparison, the deicing and anti-icing aspects will be the main focus. It is important to note that for the best results, potassium acetate is to be used in conjunction with manual snow removal, and that the following comparisons are made with that in mind.

When compared to the rock salt, there are already various characteristics that demonstrate potassium acetate’s superior performance, such as being effective at lower temperatures (down to -26°C, as opposed to -12°C for rock salt). This single characteristic reduces the amount of product that is required for deicing during a large portion of the season.

Interestingly, if liquid potassium is used as an “anti-icer”, where the chemical is sprayed down just before icing is anticipated, half the amount is required to melt the same quantity of ice. Consequently, potassium acetate used in this fashion requires half the amount of material, as well as half the number of trucks, reducing costs, waste, and gas emissions.

CMA
It should be noted that, like salt, CMA must dissolve into solution in order to melt snow and ice. Thus, its effectiveness increases with time. Conversely, it is rendered almost completely ineffective at temperatures below -9°C. A study conducted by the MTO in 1991 revealed that CMA was effective in some trials at temperature as low as -12°C, but not lower. Also, the effectiveness of CMA is increased with an increase in vehicle traffic. Essentially, the tires grind the CMA pellets and the snow, thus speeding up the dissolving process.

According to the 1992 MTO study, this is the time taken by approximately 50% of the CMA trials to initiate melting. Further, after 120 minutes, approximately 80% of the trials had initiated melting. According to the City of Toronto Salt Management Plan, there is no formal time scheduled between deicing and plowing. However, it does indirectly indicate that snow removal should be completed approximately 2 hours after deicing is completed. This implies that most roads should be given ample time for CMA to begin melting snow and ice, thus preventing the snow from bonding to the pavement and facilitating plowing.

Unlike salt, it has been demonstrated that CMA is not corrosive. In fact, it may even have corrosion inhibiting properties. This information was gathered in two independent studies conducted by the U.S. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) in 1977 and in 1991. Both studies confirmed the same results: in direct comparison with salt, CMA produced less and often no corrosion on solid rebar. Furthermore, when rebar was first treated with CMA then subsequently with salt, corrosion caused by salt was significantly reduced. Similar tests were conducted for the study involving rebar in mortar, simulating bridge construction. These yielded the same conclusions.

Rock Salt
In order to properly compare deicer alternatives, it is necessary to use an equivalent measure of use. As stated previously, the City of Toronto uses approximately 150,000 tonnes of rock salt annually. This will serve as the value to which equivalent usage levels will be determined for both liquid potassium and CMA. Also, most reference costs will be evaluated on a per tonne basis.

Given that the EIOLCA is based on 1997 USD, all prices found were converted to have equivalent 1997 buying power using the “Consumer Price Index Calculator” from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. This ensured that any numbers found would be properly compared, and would allow for an accurate prediction of the waste and emissions as stated by the EIOLCA per dollar spent in the production and usage of this product.

For rock salt, the entire relevant life cycle cannot be accurately modeled by one sector of the EIOLCA model. Consequently, a custom analysis must be performed; each of the sectors and their associated economic inputs are described below. All calculations which required conversion from consumer cost to service provider or manufacturer cost used an estimated profit margin of 20%.
 * Conversion Factors:
 * $1.00 USD (1997) = $0.758 USD (2008)
 * $1.00 USD (1997) = $0.794 USD (2006)
 * $1.00 USD (2008) = $1.0035 CAD (2008)
 * $1.00 USD (2006) = $1.1337 CAD (2006)
 * Economic Inputs:
 * Materials:
 * Consumer Price: $50.00/tonne CAD (2008)
 * Producer Price: $30.4261/tonne USD (1997)
 * Economic Input: $4,563,915 USD (1997)
 * Sector: Other Non-Metallic Mineral Mining
 * Delivery:
 * Consumer Price: $2.25/tonne CAD (2008)
 * Provider Price: $1.3692/tonne USD (1997)
 * Economic Input: $205,380 USD (1997)
 * Sector: Truck Transportation
 * Application:
 * Equipment Price: $30.00/hour/vehicle CAD (2008)
 * Converted Price: 22.8196/hour/vehicle USD (1997)
 * Estimated Use: 200 vehicles, 400 hours
 * Economic Input: $1,825,568 USD (1997)
 * Sector: Truck Transportation
 * Maintenance:
 * Consumer Price: $320.00/tonne CAD (2006)
 * Provider Price: $230.4404/tonne USD (1997)
 * Economic Input: $34,566,060 USD (1997)
 * Sector: Maintenance and repair of highways, streets, bridges, and tunnels

The estimated 400 hours spent salting per year is based on an annual snowfall of 133 [cm] and an estimated time to clear snow of 24 hours per 8 [cm].

The results are compiled as shown:

The highest contributor to the GWP was the “Power generation and supply” sector with 8,140 [MTCO2E] per year, about 20% of equivalent CO2 emissions per year produced by road salt. The top two sectors for CO2 emissions can be attributed to manufacturing which is highly influenced by the specified material.

Potassium Acetate
The following analysis is made based on the amount of mass of liquid potassium required to perform as well as rock salt as a deicer.

Given that potassium acetate is largely used in the pharmaceutical industry and that this manufacturing requires much more processing and purifying than for the road salt industry, the EIOLCA was calculated using the combined required amounts of potassium carbonate and acetic acid to make the potassium acetate.
 * Chemical Reaction:
 * 2CH3COO + K2CO3 ---> 2CH3COOK + CO2 + H2O

This shows that for one kg of 50%wt. liquid potassium acetate (diluted in water), 0.306 kg acetic acid, 0.352 kg potassium carbonate and 0.454 kg of water are required. For every kg that is made, the natural chemical reaction will give off 0.1121 kg of CO2. Assuming that for strictly de-icing, the mass required is equal to that of rock salt, the amount of potassium acetate solution required is 150 000 tonnes per year. Also, as with salt, an estimated 20% profit margin will be applied for conversion to product/service supplier prices.

All conversion factors remain the same.
 * Economic Inputs:
 * Materials:
 * Potassium Carbonate
 * Consumer Price: $716.5/tonne CAD (2006)
 * Producer Price: $515.9705/tonne USD (1997)
 * Estimated Use: 0.352 tonne / 1 tonne Potassium Acetate
 * Economic Input: $27,243,242 USD (1997)
 * Sector: Other Basic Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing
 * Acetic Acid
 * Consumer Price: $850.00/tonne CAD (2008)
 * Producer Price: $517.2440/tonne USD (1997)
 * Estimated Use: 0.306 tonne / 1 tonne Potassium Acetate
 * Economic Input: $23,741,501 USD (1997)
 * Sector: Other Basic Organic Chemical Mfg.
 * Water
 * Consumer Price: $51/tonne CAD (2007)
 * Supplier Price: $33.7955/tonne USD (1997)
 * Estimated Use: 0.1121 tonne / 1 tonne Potassium Acetate
 * Economic Input: $568,271 USD (1997)
 * Sector: Water, Sewage and Other Systems
 * Delivery:
 * Consumer Price: $2.25/tonne CAD (2008)
 * Producer Price: $1.3692/tonne USD (1997)
 * Economic Input: $205,380 USD (1997)
 * Sector: Truck Transportation
 * Application
 * Equipment Price: $30.00/hour/vehicle CAD (2008)
 * Converted Price: 22.8196/hour/vehicle USD (1997)
 * Estimated Use: 200 vehicles, 400 hours
 * Economic Input: $1,825,568 USD (1997)
 * Sector: Truck Transportation

Note that on top of what is given, 16,815 tonnes of CO2 are emitted due to the chemical reaction. Also note that maintenance costs are not included in the EIOLCA, the reason for this versus the inclusion in the rock salt analysis is because potassium acetate is far less corrosive than rock salt to infrastructure. Maintenance costs are thus considered negligible.

Results are shown as follows:

Using these 5 components in a custom EIOLCA, it was found that the “Basic Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing” sector produces the most GWP and CO2 emissions, weighing 27.6% and 34% respectively. This represents the potassium carbonate component of the product. As can be seen, all of the CO2 emissions compose the whole over GWP from this sector. This is understandable since all carbonates contain CO2, and that the most chemical reactions release the CO2 from the molecules. The predicted 16,815 tonnes of secretions can be assumed to be included in the CO2 emissions from the EIOLCA.

CMA
Since 1980 numerous studies have been conducted in order to test the feasibility of CMA as an environmentally friendly deicer. It appears however, that while many studies have covered the environmental effects of CMA use, none have examined the environmental effects associated with its entire life cycle. The following EIOLCA reveals these hidden effects.

It should be noted that, according to a 1992 MTO report, CMA was 50% as effective as road salt in direct comparison tests. However, in terms of weight, twice as much salt was used. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that the amount of CMA necessary for the City of Toronto will match the current amount of salt used annually: 150,000 tonnes. Also, in all situations that require a conversion from consumer price to producer price, profit margin is estimated to be 20%.

Conversion factors remain the same.
 * Economic Inputs:
 * Materials:
 * Dolomitic Lime:
 * Consumer Price: $7.00/tonne CAD (1990)
 * Producer Price: $8.0335/tonne USD (1997)
 * Estimated Use: 1 tonne / 1 tonne CMA
 * Economic Input: $1,205,025 USD (1997)
 * Sector: Other Non-Metallic Mineral Mining
 * Acetic Acid:
 * Consumer Price: $850.00/tonne USD (2008)
 * Producer Price: $517.2440/tonne USD (1997)
 * Estimated Use: 0.8 tonne / 1 tonne CMA
 * Economic Input: $62,069,280 USD (1997)
 * Sector: Other Basic Organic Chemical Manufacturing
 * Production:
 * Producer Price: $0.055/lb. USD (1986)
 * Converted:  $176.9812/tonne USD (1997)
 * Economic Input: $26,547,180 USD (1997)
 * Sector: Ground or Treated Minerals and Earths Mfg.
 * Delivery:
 * Consumer Price: $2.25/tonne CAD (2008)
 * Producer Price: $1.3692/tonne USD (1997)
 * Economic Input: $205,380 USD (1997)
 * Sector: Truck Transportation
 * Application:
 * Equipment Price: $30.00/hour/vehicle CAD (2008)
 * Converted Price: 22.8196/hour/vehicle USD (1997)
 * Estimated Use: 200 vehicles, 400 hours
 * Economic Input: $1,825,568 USD (1997)
 * Sector: Truck Transportation
 * Maintenance:
 * Economic Input: $0

Note that there is $0 economic input for the maintenance or “end-of-life” portion of the life cycle. This is due to the low residual effects of CMA application; the product is biodegradable and non-toxic. According to a 1992 report, the only noticeable impact concerns the bacterial degradation of the CMA acetate ion in soil, but that this impact is not significant.

The results are summarized as follows:

Based on the data generated by the custom EIOLCA, it is evident that over the entire life cycle of CMA there is a very large amount of CO2 produced. Every tonne of CMA manufactured has the equivalent global warming potential (GWP) of approximately 1 tonne of carbon dioxide. It is important to note that the largest contributor to the GWP of CMA is the production of acetic acid.

Power generation is also a significant contributor to the GWP of CMA. It should be noted, however, that this assumes a CMA production plant would exist within Ontario. Thus, it would be powered predominantly by nuclear power, which produces no carbon dioxide emissions.

Streamlined Life Cycle Analysis
A Streamlined Life Cycle Analysis matrix is used to rank every stage of a product's life cycle in terms of its environmental impact, from pre-manufacturing to disposal. It covers the material and energy input sectors, as well as gaseous, liquid and solid residues produced at each stage.

The rankings range from 0 to 4. A score of 4 indicates a very environmentally friendly sector which produces low or zero emissions and which employ efficient, safe input choices. Conversely, a score of 0 is assigned to any sector which demonstrates poor environmental practises.

This method allows one to easily determine which stages of the product's life may be most detrimental, although the full weight of the environmental effects is not yet obvious. The following briefly breaks down each of the life cycle stages for each of the products:

Rock Salt
Raw rock salts are extracted from the earth through mining, either using fresh water injection and extracting the brine, or the more traditional method of dry mining. This is an energy intensive process; however, salt is plentiful and of pure supply so the process is given an intermediate rating. Salt used in the City of Toronto is mostly obtained within Ontario and Canada, which reduces delivery costs and environmental impacts.

The manufacturing of rock salt is a simple process; the chemical compound NaCl comes out of the ground in almost the same form as is used on the roads. If the brine techniques are used to mine the salt, then the water needs to be evaporated, using methods such as solar energy or electrical heating. The salt is then crushed into small solid grains for ease of use and transportation.

The transportation and packaging of road salts includes the delivery of salts via trucks and also the temporary storage of the salt in city storage yards. Packaging is not an issue because it can be loaded straight into trucks without notable amounts of energy or materials. An issue is encountered in the storage yards because many facilities do not prevent leaching and ground contamination of the salt.

Spreading salt onto the roads and allowing it to mix with ice and snow is considered the use phase. The amount of energy required to run and maintain the City of Toronto’s 200 salt trucks every year is a considerable amount, as can be examined in the cost analysis section of the report. Also, cars and roads experience corrosion which requires earlier repair and maintenance which in turn requires more energy and materials.

Disposal of salt is passive because the city does nothing to control the runoff of salt into the soil. This runoff is detrimental to the surrounding environment and can enter the water system via wells near the roads. At this point, the spread of salt leads to water contamination, which requires costly repairing and water treatment. Roadside vegetation is also negatively impacted. Finally, undissolved salt dries up and can lead to unhealthy airborne particulates.

Potassium Acetate
Material extraction requires the mining of limestone (for potassium carbonate) and the acquisition of wood (for acetic acid). These are subjected to various processes, finally to be sold to deicing companies, such as Cryotech. These materials are readily available and are renewable or in abundant supply. However, these are energy intensive processes, that also produce waste and high carbon dioxide emissions.

The manufacturing of the liquid potassium acetate includes corrosion inhibitors, which are not included in this analysis. These corrosion inhibitors are difficult to evaluate, since these components are kept secret by the manufacturer. However, the actual process of creating the liquid potassium acetate is not energy-intensive, and does not require the disposal of water emissions. There are no solid wastes from the chemical reaction.

The delivery of the chemicals requires durable, metal containers that will be reused. The delivery from the plant is slight, how far the chemicals will have to travel will depend on the suppliers, although it can be assumed that it will not be shipped overseas. The final disposal of the containers will either be recycling or full disposal, and the long length of the life will compensate for these disposal costs and implications.

Using the product requires trucks that use fossil fuels and emit gasses. However, the resulting impact the product has on the environment is nearly negligible. If applied appropriately, there are no liquid emissions, and the solid and gaseous “waste” are considered to be entirely biodegradable and safe for the environment.

The end of life for potassium acetate is ideal, given that there are no toxic or environmentally-non-friendly wastes, and no extra energy required for clean-up. There are negligible maintenance costs in terms of repairing a shortened concrete life, as well as repairing electrical wiring at airports. These concerns have been looked at, and in a number of cases have been compensated for by altering the composition of the concretes used.

CMA
The biggest environmental impact of CMA surrounds the extraction and initial processing of the raw materials. Limestone is an abundant mineral, particularly in Ontario. However, in order to produce dolomitic lime, the mineral must undergo significant heat treatment in a kiln. The heat is generated by burning fuel, generally coal or natural gas, generating between 200 and 300 [kg] of carbon dioxide per tonne of dolomitic lime. This process also releases corrosive lime dust that may not be trapped by all kiln designs. Acetic acid is a much scarcer product, which requires the combustion of natural gas for heat.

The manufacturing process for CMA requires significant water use. Fortunately, water is abundant and it is recycled by distilling before being returning to its source. The water is evaporated during the mixing and pelletization process, whereby acetic acid is sprayed onto dolomitic lime spinning inside a deep drum. It is assumed that energy input is limited to running a motor to turn the drum.

Delivering CMA to the various storage facilities in Toronto is a process very similar to that of salt. There is no packaging required; open-top trailers can be filled directly with CMA and transported by truck from the plant. Consequently, the only downside to this method of delivery is the combustion of fuel by the trucks.

Similar to the road salt, CMA can be simply loaded into the back of a dump truck for application. Pre-wetting can be used in order to yield better performance from CMA. By this process, water is sprayed onto the product as it is distributed. This phase relies upon fossil fuels, thus receiving a poor rating for energy use. Once on the road, CMA does not produce any gaseous residues. It has been known to cause severely slippery slush and sometimes not dissolve at all.

Finally, CMA's end of life does not require any maintenance, so there are no material or energy inputs. As CMA degrades, it does not release any gases, but it often leaves a temporary film on roads which can be slippery for a few days.

Cost Analysis
As with any product analysis, cost is a critical factor in determining the feasibility of road deicers. The City of Toronto has a specific annual operating budget for snow removal and road deicing. During the winter of 2007/2008, approximately $65 million was allocated for these purposes.

The purchase cost for the deicer product is perhaps the most visible dollar value. However, in addition to this, there are several other direct and indirect costs associated with road deicing that can add up to a total cost that is significantly higher than the City's budget. These include product application, infrastructure repair, and environmental maintenance. The following table provides a quick comparison of direct costs for each alternative:

Table 7.1 - Direct Costs of Road Deicer Alternatives *Note: All costs are in CAD (2008)

Rock Salt

 * Direct Costs

 * Most of the salt used on Toronto’s roads comes from salt mines in Ontario and Canada like Sifto and Windsor, which use a variety of mining techniques depending on location. The City of Toronto pays an average price of $50 per tonne for approximately 150,000 tonnes of salt annually. This translates to $7,500,000. On average, the salt industry has a 20% profit margin; this manufacturing sector can produce the road salt used by Toronto for approximately $6 million.

 * The salt must be spread on the roads by trucks, this requires gas, maintenance and human labour. To run the City of Toronto's 200 salt trucks, it costs $30 per hour per vehicle, which comes to a fleet cost of $6,000 per hour. Moreover, each truck requires one operator (per shift), costing the City an additional $19 per hour. It is assumed that when there is ice on the roads, all of the trucks will be employed simultaneously in order to deice the roads as quickly as possible. Given an average of 133 [cm] of snowfall per year in Toronto, it is estimated that all 200 salt trucks will be running for approximately 400 hours per year. These operational costs total $3,920,000 per year.

 * Indirect Costs

 * It is estimated that each car in Toronto depreciates due to salt damage $143 per year. Considering the approximate 2 million vehicles operating in Toronto, the total damage adds up to approximately $286,000,000. This cost is often ignored because the City is not directly responsible for paying it. Road salt also causes damage to bridges, roads, and sidewalks. It is reported that 1.5% of bridges in Toronto are damaged by road salts every year such that they need repair. The cost of this repair is $763 per square meter of bridge.

 * Reversing the damage road salts cause on the environment is hard to quantify because once in the water system the effects of salt can be traced to far extents. The biggest problem is salt contamination of water wells; twenty percent of water wells near highways are damaged due to salt every year. These repairs can cost between $5,500 and $16,000 per well. Damage to vegetation near roads is also a significant effect of road salt; the salt in the soil kills trees, plants and grass. The City does maintain certain roadside vegetation. The cost to replace a mature tree is $866, grass is 3.78/km2, and shrubberies are $25 each.

 * A salt management plan has been recently implemented in Toronto that has reduced the amount of salt released into the environment on the order of tens of thousands of tonnes annually, saving the City millions of dollars.

Potassium Acetate

 * The chemicals required to manufacture potassium acetate are approximately 10 times more expensive than road salt. A Traffic Safety Report estimated that of all accidents, 0.31% result in fatalities, 23.8% result in injuries and 62.6 % result in damages. The average cost for these accidents is: $1,600,000 for a fatality, $28,600 for an injury, $5,700 for damages. In this case study, all weather-related accidents were reduced to zero, from an average of 14 that resulted in damages and 3 that resulted in injuries. From this alone, there was $165,000 in savings.

 * A decrease in concrete repairs result in a total annual savings, based on a repair cost of $763/m2 and annualized over a 30-year period, amounts to approximately $10,700/year (CAD 2004). On average, 1.5% of highways require repairs 15 years after construction. This translates into a savings of approximately $198,000 per year.

 * Although it is difficult to numerically quantify the clean-up costs per tonne of chloride expelled into the environment surrounding roadways, the elimination of chlorine residues through the use of liquid potassium will likely have a significant economical impact. According to one report, chlorine was reduced by 600 to 1200 [kg] per year in the environment surrounding highway ramps alone. It should be noted that potassium acetate is used most efficiently as an anti-icing agent, this reduces the total product required by 50% to 60%.

CMA

 * Direct Costs

 * The initial investment necessary to build a CMA manufacturing plant varies according to location and the nature of the plant, and therefore is difficult to predict. According to a Manitoba Provincial Government 2007 Budget document, the estimated average capital cost of starting up a large manufacturing plant in Toronto is $110 million. Estimating the lifespan of the plant to be 50 years, the amortized cost becomes $2,200,000 annually.

 * The price of dolomitic lime is $10.15/tonne. Similarly, the price of acetic acid is $850/tonne in 2008. The resulting cost of raw materials (assuming 0.8 [tonnes acetic acid] / 1.0 [tonnes CMA]) is estimated at $690.15/tonne of CMA. According to a study of CMA production by Gancy (1986), plant costs are estimated at $233.14/tonne of CMA. For an annual output of 150,000 tonnes of CMA, the combined materials and plant cost is $138,493,500. Assuming the 20% profit margin discussed earlier, the total material cost to the City of Toronto is approximately $168 million, which translates into $1,125/tonne of CMA. In comparison with rock salt at $50/tonne, this cost is several orders of magnitude higher.

 * Further costs incurred by the City include delivery of the product to storage facilities and the cost of spreading the product on the streets. The annual delivery cost is $2.25/tonne or $337,500 and the cost of spreading is $3,920,000.

 * Indirect Costs

 * There is no cost associated with the maintenance of CMA because there is no need to do so. As outlined in the Technical Analysis, CMA has no corrosive properties. Therefore, it can be safely applied to roads and bridges without any fear of infrastructure deterioration.

 * Due to the environmental friendly use phase of CMA, there is little or no negative effect on the environment surrounding the streets and highways of Toronto. CMA may actually benefit the environment; in the soil it biodegrades into calcium and magnesium: two nutrients that are used to enrich soil.


text:
User talk:Richa122

Hello, welcome around here. I hope you succeed in your learning goals. Below more info about Wikiversity, Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 23:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Welcome
Hello Richa122, 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) 23:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Files Missing Information
Thanks for uploading files to Wikiversity. All files must have source and license information to stay at Wikiversity. The following files are missing and/or License tags, and will be deleted if the missing information is not added. See Uploading files for more information.

 * File:WorldCentric Data.JPG

MaintenanceBot (discuss • contribs) 15:31, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

title: User talk:Richa122


text:
User talk:Lamcamer

Hello, welcome around here. I hope you succeed in your learning goals. Below more info about Wikiversity, Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 23:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Welcome
Hello Lamcamer, 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) 23:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:Lamcamer


text:
User talk:Elyad,zahedi

Hello, welcome around here. I hope you succeed in your learning goals. Below more info about Wikiversity, Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 23:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Welcome
Hello Elyad,zahedi, 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) 23:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:Elyad,zahedi


text:
User:Owljjb~enwikiversity

Owljjb is here to learn

title: User:Owljjb~enwikiversity


text:
User:Benja/Sandbox/bib/breyer72copyright

-- Example from w:Wikipedia:Citation templates


text:
User:Benja/Sandbox/bib/cordell01planes

-- Example from w:Wikipedia:Citation templates

title: User:Benja/Sandbox/bib/cordell01planes


text:
User:Benja/Sandbox/ref

This template is an experiment in creating a poor person's BibTeX for MediaWiki. I've created two templates for citations at both copied from w:Wikipedia:Citation templates. Using the template on this page, the following code:
 * User:Benja/Sandbox/bib/breyer72copyright and
 * User:Benja/Sandbox/bib/cordell01planes,

This is a statement which should be supported by multiple sources.

(when placed on User:Benja/Sandbox, to make the relative paths work) is rendered as follows:

This is a statement which should be supported by multiple sources.

title: User:Benja/Sandbox/ref


text:
User:Benja/Sandbox

This is a statement which should be supported by multiple sources.

title: User:Benja/Sandbox


text:
User:Benja/Sandbox/bib/Missing parameter

Error: Call to User:Benja/Sandbox/ref is missing a parameter specifying the reference to include

-- The above is a template that is used with User:Benja/Sandbox/ref


text:
MediaWiki:Recentchangestext/Concept

Track the most recent changes to Wikiversity on this page.

de:Spezial:Recentchanges el:Ειδικό:Recentchanges es:Especial:Recentchanges fr:Special:Recentchanges it:Speciale:UltimeModifiche

title: MediaWiki:Recentchangestext/Concept


text:
Instructional design/Learning objectives/Conditions Self-Test

Navigation
Good job! You have finished the second lesson. Click Next to continue to Criterion for Learning Objectives.


text:
User:Whiteknight/BoeBots/Robotics and BoeBots/Lecture/Students

Hi!!! This is Roshidul Hasan from Malaysia working with spatial relationship. I want to learn about BoeBots. Can anyone help me?


text:
Instructional design/Learning objectives/Examples and Non-Examples of Performance Phrases

Performance Phrase Questions
When constructing the performance phrase for a learning objective, ask the following three questions:
 * Is the performance a main intent of the instruction?
 * Is the performance observable? (If it is covert, can an indicator verb be used that is observable?)
 * Is the performance measurable?

Non-Examples of False Performance

One of the problems with writing the behavior portion of the learning objective is using verbs that are not observable.

For example:
 * Know Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation
 * Understand Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation
 * Appreciate Grunge music
 * Learn the correct steps to CPR

These verbs have been used on examples from classes you have taken before. The actions in these performance phrases are neither observable nor measurable. When the learning goal is covert, an indicator must be used that is observable.

If we want them to know the law of gravity, a better representation would be to
 * State Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation (Knowledge)
 * Explain how Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation affects a falling object (Comprehension)
 * Solve Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation for two objects(Application)!

Non-Examples of Unclear Performance
Another problem with writing performance phrases is a lack of clarification. There are two ways to fix this problem: either add a condition or modify the performance phrase.

For example:
 * Identify the probable cause of the first powered fixed-wing aircraft accident
 * Differentiate between an observation, finding, and cause of an accident

You have probably seen many objectives written with verbs such as identify, discriminate, differentiate, etc. While these performances can be observable and measurable, by themselves there is a potential for misunderstanding "how" the performance is done. Sometimes, we can add conditional phrases (which will be covered in the next lesson). Another solution is to choose another verb that still meets the main intent of the instruction.

If we want someone to identify the probable cause of the accident, an alternate solution would be to:
 * Recite the probable cause of the first powered fixed-wing aircraft accident (Knowledge)
 * Explain the probable cause of the first powered fixed-wing aircraft accident (Comprehension)
 * Summarize the probable cause of the first powered fixed-wing aircraft accident (Analysis)

Navigation
Click Next to continue.


text:
User talk:R.monsour

Hello Riley, welcome around here. I hope you succeed in your learning goals. Below more info about Wikiversity, Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 05:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Welcome
Hello R.monsour, 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) 05:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:R.monsour


text:
User talk:Liualain

Hello Alain, welcome around here. I hope you succeed in your learning goals. Below more info about Wikiversity, Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 05:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Welcome
Hello Liualain, 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) 05:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

File:Trends in cost of electricity in Canada.JPG &
Hi! Some time ago you uploaded File:Trends in cost of electricity in Canada.JPG and File:Tokyo-Vancouver.png. Both were great graphs, and have worked well in the article. However, both were also added as fair use images. This is generally fine, as Wikiversity is happy to use fair use images under the image policy, but in this case both were also replaceable. On those grounds I've created new versions of the graphs so they can be released under a free-use license, and replaced the two you uploaded. However, there may well be a good reason why you uploaded those particular files that I'm missing - if so, no worries, and feel free to undo my changes. In doing so you'll need to add a Template:Fairuse rationale to the two files, but I'm happy to help there if you need any assistance. Thanks again for your work. - Bilby 01:54, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Liualain


text:
User:Abdulqayyoom

My name is Abdul Qayyoom and I am a computer teacher. I like to develop programs in VB6.

title: User:Abdulqayyoom