{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

EAS199 B4-B HW2 Fuels Matrix.pdf

EAS199 B4-B HW2 Fuels Matrix.pdf - Fuels​ ​Concept​...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: Fuels​ ​Concept​ ​Decision​ ​Matrix Group​ ​B4-B Mikaela​ ​Elkins,​ ​Taylor​ ​Mann,​ ​Adam​ ​Sing,​ ​Jacob​ ​Vitko Crude​ ​Oil: Technical​ ​Feasibility-​​ ​Crude​ ​oil​ ​is​ ​commercially​ ​feasible,​ ​meaning​ ​it​ ​is​ ​produced​ ​and​ ​sold​ ​to make​ ​profit. Economic​ ​Viability-​​ ​Production​ ​of​ ​oil​ ​is​ ​past​ ​its​ ​maximum.​ ​At​ ​a​ ​steady​ ​or​ ​increasing​ ​demand, decreasing​ ​the​ ​supply​ ​of​ ​crude​ ​oil​ ​will​ ​cause​ ​prices​ ​to​ ​increase,​ ​affecting​ ​the​ ​U.S.​ ​economy. Capacity/Sustainability-​ ​Crude​ ​oil​ ​is​ ​a​ ​fossil​ ​fuel​ ​and​ ​is​ ​non-renewable.​ ​The​ ​U.S​ ​has​ ​reserves​ ​of oil​ ​and​ ​in​ ​2010,​ ​the​ ​U.S.​ ​had​ ​25.2​ ​billion​ ​barrels​ ​of​ ​proved​ ​reserves. Vulnerability/Stability-​ ​With​ ​the​ ​production​ ​and​ ​transportation​ ​of​ ​oil,​ ​we​ ​are​ ​vulnerable​ ​to natural​ ​disasters​ ​that​ ​could​ ​ruin​ ​potential​ ​drilling​ ​sites​ ​or​ ​spills​ ​can​ ​occur​ ​and​ ​harm​ ​animals​ ​and the​ ​environment. Environmental​ ​Impact-​ ​Consumption​ ​of​ ​fossil​ ​fuels​ ​releases​ ​CO2​ ​and​ ​pollutants​ ​in​ ​the​ ​air.​ ​It can​ ​be​ ​argued​ ​that​ ​the​ ​release​ ​of​ ​CO2​ ​and​ ​pollutants​ ​cause​ ​or​ ​have​ ​an​ ​impact​ ​on​ ​global​ ​warming. Drilling​ ​and​ ​things​ ​like​ ​spills​ ​also​ ​destroy​ ​local​ ​ecosystems. Geo-Sociopolitical​ ​Impact-​ ​Relations​ ​with​ ​allies​ ​may​ ​be​ ​compromised​ ​in​ ​order​ ​to​ ​remain friendly​ ​with​ ​oil​ ​suppliers,​ ​causing​ ​conflict​ ​and​ ​the​ ​possibility​ ​of​ ​terrorism​ ​and​ ​war. Ethanol: Technical​ ​Feasibility-​ ​Ethanol​ ​is​ ​commercially​ ​feasible. Economic​ ​Viability-​ ​Production​ ​of​ ​ethanol​ ​from​ ​corn​ ​seems​ ​economically​ ​unviable;​ ​the​ ​U.S. spends​ ​$2​ ​billion​ ​a​ ​year​ ​on​ ​monitoring​ ​fertilizer​ ​runoff​ ​and​ ​pollution​ ​and​ ​$8​ ​billion​ ​for environmental​ ​damages​ ​from​ ​the​ ​use​ ​of​ ​fertilizers​ ​and​ ​pesticides. Capacity/Sustainability-​ ​The​ ​U.S.​ ​has​ ​the​ ​capacity​ ​of​ ​about​ ​14.7​ ​billion​ ​gallons​ ​of​ ​ethanol​ ​per year,​ ​so​ ​it​ ​should​ ​be​ ​sustainable. Vulnerability/Stability-​ ​Growing​ ​corn​ ​requires​ ​the​ ​highest​ ​amount​ ​of​ ​fertilizer​ ​and​ ​an​ ​increase of​ ​demand​ ​would​ ​create​ ​the​ ​need​ ​for​ ​more​ ​land​ ​for​ ​crops. Environmental​ ​Impact-​ ​Being​ ​that​ ​demand​ ​of​ ​corn​ ​will​ ​increase,​ ​this​ ​requires​ ​a​ ​need​ ​for marginal​ ​land​ ​(often​ ​has​ ​poor​ ​soil​ ​or​ ​other​ ​undesirable​ ​characteristics)​ ​which​ ​will​ ​then​ ​require the​ ​need​ ​for​ ​more​ ​fertilizer.​ ​That​ ​fertilizer​ ​is​ ​a​ ​major​ ​contribution​ ​to​ ​soil​ ​erosion. Geo-Sociopolitical​ ​Impact-​ ​The​ ​argument​ ​of​ ​food​ ​vs.​ ​fuel​ ​can​ ​be​ ​made​ ​when​ ​the​ ​need​ ​for​ ​corn (for​ ​energy)​ ​is​ ​increasing.​ ​A​ ​population​ ​would​ ​argue​ ​that​ ​we​ ​need​ ​corn​ ​for​ ​food​ ​more​ ​than​ ​we​ ​do for​ ​fuel. Bio-diesel​ ​(from​ ​soybeans): Technical​ ​Feasibility-​ ​Biodiesel​ ​is​ ​lab/pilot​ ​feasible,​ ​which​ ​means​ ​it​ ​is​ ​functional​ ​in​ ​a​ ​lab environment,​ ​but​ ​has​ ​not​ ​been​ ​tested​ ​out​ ​in​ ​full-scale​ ​implementation. Economic​ ​Viability-​ ​Production​ ​of​ ​biodiesel​ ​from​ ​soybeans​ ​is​ ​economically​ ​feasible​ ​depending on​ ​whether​ ​plant​ ​capacity,​ ​price​ ​of​ ​feedstock​ ​oil,​ ​and​ ​yields​ ​of​ ​biodiesel​ ​can​ ​be​ ​properly managed. Capacity/Sustainability-​ ​The​ ​United​ ​States​ ​produces​ ​100,000​ ​tons​ ​of​ ​soybeans​ ​per​ ​year, however;​ ​its​ ​yield​ ​for​ ​biodiesel​ ​is​ ​inferior​ ​to​ ​that​ ​of​ ​other​ ​alternative​ ​fuels.​ ​This​ ​means​ ​that​ ​the ratio​ ​between​ ​the​ ​amount​ ​of​ ​soybeans​ ​produced​ ​to​ ​the​ ​amount​ ​of​ ​biodiesel​ ​that​ ​can​ ​be manufactured​ ​is​ ​not​ ​efficient. Vulnerability/Stability-​ ​Soybean​ ​plants​ ​are​ ​vulnerable​ ​to​ ​droughts​ ​and​ ​plant-based​ ​diseases, which​ ​can​ ​be​ ​disastrous​ ​for​ ​fields​ ​upon​ ​occurrence.​ ​An​ ​increase​ ​of​ ​demand​ ​for​ ​the​ ​biodiesel would​ ​also​ ​increase​ ​the​ ​demand​ ​for​ ​cropland. Environmental​ ​Impact-​ ​Nitrous​ ​oxide​ ​released​ ​from​ ​the​ ​fertilizer​ ​from​ ​soybean​ ​production would​ ​produce​ ​more​ ​greenhouse​ ​gases​ ​than​ ​fossil​ ​fuels​ ​at​ ​large​ ​scale.​ ​Also​ ​increase​ ​in​ ​the​ ​need for​ ​cropland​ ​would​ ​increase​ ​the​ ​amount​ ​of​ ​marginal​ ​land​ ​and​ ​soil​ ​erosion​ ​in​ ​the​ ​long​ ​run. Geo-Sociopolitical​ ​Impact-​ ​There​ ​is​ ​an​ ​issue​ ​over​ ​use​ ​of​ ​soybeans​ ​as​ ​food​ ​or​ ​a​ ​fuel.​ ​It​ ​goes between​ ​using​ ​the​ ​United​ ​States​ ​capacity​ ​for​ ​soybean​ ​production​ ​as​ ​either​ ​a​ ​source​ ​of​ ​food source​ ​of​ ​fuel. Bio-diesel​ ​(from​ ​algae): Technical​ ​Feasibility-​ ​Biodiesel​ ​from​ ​algae​ ​is​ ​lab​ ​and​ ​pilot​ ​feasible.​ ​It​ ​can​ ​be​ ​used​ ​in​ ​a​ ​lab​ ​and small​ ​scale,​ ​but​ ​it​ ​does​ ​not​ ​make​ ​a​ ​lot​ ​of​ ​sense​ ​to​ ​use​ ​on​ ​a​ ​large​ ​scale​ ​at​ ​this​ ​point​ ​in​ ​time. Economic​ ​Viability-​ ​Biodiesel​ ​from​ ​algae​ ​is​ ​economically​ ​feasible​ ​based​ ​on​ ​plant​ ​capacity, means​ ​of​ ​obtaining​ ​oil,​ ​and​ ​yields​ ​of​ ​biodiesel. Capacity/Sustainability-​ ​Since​ ​algae​ ​is​ ​already​ ​being​ ​grown​ ​in​ ​lakes​ ​and​ ​ponds,​ ​it​ ​makes​ ​sense to​ ​use​ ​it​ ​as​ ​a​ ​source​ ​of​ ​fuel.​ ​Especially​ ​since​ ​it​ ​can​ ​be​ ​used​ ​to​ ​clean​ ​water​ ​if​ ​grown​ ​in​ ​dirty​ ​lakes or​ ​ponds.​ ​Therefore,​ ​it​ ​is​ ​sustainable​ ​and​ ​feasible. Vulnerability/Stability-​ ​The​ ​process​ ​for​ ​growing​ ​algae​ ​for​ ​the​ ​production​ ​of​ ​biodiesel​ ​is difficult.​ ​The​ ​water​ ​should​ ​be​ ​a​ ​specific​ ​temperature​ in​ ​order​ ​to​ ​yield​ ​maximum​ ​of​ ​oil​ ​for production.​ ​Also,​ ​there​ ​has​ ​been​ ​little​ ​testing​ ​of​ ​biodiesel​ ​in​ ​cars.​ ​So​ ​it​ ​is​ ​vulnerable. Environmental​ ​Impact-​ ​The​ ​growing​ ​of​ ​the​ ​algae​ ​for​ ​the​ ​production​ ​of​ ​biodiesel​ ​would​ ​be​ ​good for​ ​the​ ​environment​ ​because​ ​it​ ​would​ ​put​ ​more​ ​oxygen​ ​into​ ​the​ ​air.​ ​Thus,​ ​bettering​ ​the environment. Geo-Sociopolitical​ ​Impact-​ ​The​ ​main​ ​argument​ ​for​ ​the​ ​use​ ​of​ ​algae​ ​is​ ​food​ ​or​ ​fuel.​ ​Not​ ​food​ ​for humans,​ ​but​ ​disrupting​ ​the​ ​ecosystem​ ​within​ ​a​ ​pond​ ​or​ ​a​ ​lake.​ ​There​ ​are​ ​a​ ​lot​ ​of​ ​creatures​ ​that depend​ ​on​ ​algae​ ​for​ ​nutrients. Hydrogen: Technical​ ​Feasibility-​ ​Hydrogen​ ​is​ ​commercially​ ​feasible.​ ​There​ ​are​ ​hydrogen​ ​stations​ ​and FCV’s​ ​(fuel-cell​ ​vehicles)​ ​that​ ​have​ ​been​ ​put​ ​out​ ​in​ ​the​ ​open​ ​market. Economic​ ​Viability-​ ​Hydrogen​ ​as​ ​an​ ​alternative​ ​fuel​ ​is​ ​not​ ​economically​ ​feasible​ ​yet.​ ​The​ ​cost to​ ​implement​ ​hydrogen​ ​stations​ ​and​ ​create​ ​new​ ​pipelines​ ​nationwide​ ​would​ ​be​ ​excessive. Capacity/Sustainability-​ ​Compared​ ​to​ ​a​ ​typical​ ​gasoline​ ​engine,​ ​which​ ​is​ ​less​ ​than​ ​20% efficient​ ​in​ ​converting​ ​the​ ​chemical​ ​energy​ ​in​ ​gasoline​ ​to​ ​motive​ ​power,​ ​hydrogen-based vehicles​ ​are​ ​40-60%​ ​efficient​ ​in​ ​fuel​ ​consumption.​ ​However​ ​the​ ​majority​ ​of​ ​hydrogen​ ​production requires​ ​fossil​ ​fuels,​ ​which​ ​is​ ​a​ ​nonrenewable​ ​resource​ ​that​ ​will​ ​eventually​ ​deplete. Vulnerability/Stability-​ ​Drilling​ ​can​ ​destroy​ ​landscapes​ ​as​ ​96%​ ​of​ ​hydrogen​ ​comes​ ​from​ ​fossil fuels​ ​and​ ​production​ ​costs​ ​are​ ​excessive. Environmental​ ​Impact-​ ​There​ ​is​ ​no​ ​CO​2​​ ​generated​ ​from​ ​the​ ​burning​ ​of​ ​hydrogen​ ​in​ ​a​ ​fuel​ ​cell. The​ ​only​ ​product​ ​that​ ​is​ ​created​ ​is​ ​water Geo-Sociopolitical​ ​Impact-​ ​To​ ​produce​ ​hydrogen,​ ​it​ ​uses​ ​up​ ​fossil​ ​fuels.​ ​But​ ​it​ ​is​ ​the​ ​least expensive​ ​alternative​ ​fuel. Synthetic​ ​Fuel​ ​From​ ​Coal: Technical​ ​Feasibility-​ ​Synthetic​ ​fuel​ ​is​ ​commercially​ ​feasible.​ ​It​ ​is​ ​a​ ​known​ ​technology​ ​and​ ​has refineries​ ​for​ ​the​ ​coal​ ​liquefaction​ ​process Economic​ ​Viability-​ ​Production​ ​of​ ​synthetic​ ​fuel​ ​would​ ​consume​ ​27%​ ​of​ ​the​ ​US​ ​coal production.​ ​The​ ​cost​ ​of​ ​synthetic​ ​fuel​ ​would​ ​be​ ​at​ ​$35​ ​per​ ​barrel​ ​to​ ​consumers Capacity/Sustainability-​ ​If​ ​the​ ​industry​ ​produced​ ​2​ ​million​ ​barrels​ ​of​ ​synthetic​ ​fuel​ ​per​ ​day, then​ ​it​ ​would​ ​consume​ ​roughly​ ​300​ ​million​ ​tons​ ​of​ ​coal​ ​per​ ​year Vulnerability/Stability-​ ​The​ ​process​ ​of​ ​making​ ​synthetic​ ​fuel​ ​through​ ​coal​ ​liquefaction​ ​is​ ​long, and​ ​sometimes​ ​results​ ​in​ ​dry​ ​coal Environmental​ ​Impact-​ ​Production​ ​of​ ​fuel​ ​with​ ​coal​ ​can​ ​lead​ ​to​ ​released​ ​smoke,​ ​smog,​ ​carbon dioxide,​ ​SO2​ ​and​ ​can​ ​be​ ​harmful​ ​to​ ​the​ ​ozone Geo-Sociopolitical​ ​Impact-​ ​The​ ​production​ ​of​ ​synthetic​ ​fuel​ ​accounts​ ​for​ ​28%​ ​of​ ​Africa’s​ ​fuel needs.​ ​As​ ​of​ ​2004,​ ​there​ ​were​ ​55​ ​synthetic​ ​coal​ ​plants​ ​in​ ​the​ ​US Natural​ ​Gas​ ​(CNG): Technical​ ​Feasibility-​ ​Natural​ ​gas​ ​is​ ​commercially​ ​feasible.​ ​It​ ​is​ ​a​ ​known​ ​source​ ​of​ ​fuel​ ​and​ ​has companies​ ​that​ ​try​ ​to​ ​extract​ ​it. Economic​ ​Viability-​ ​The​ ​cost​ ​of​ ​natural​ ​gas​ ​is​ ​not​ ​yet​ ​permanent,​ ​but​ ​is​ ​it​ ​assumed​ ​to​ ​be​ ​about 30-50%​ ​less​ ​than​ ​the​ ​traditional​ ​source​ ​of​ ​fuel. Capacity/Sustainability-​ ​Natural​ ​gas​ ​is​ ​a​ ​nonrenewable​ ​source.​ ​There​ ​is​ ​still​ ​a​ ​large​ ​amount​ ​of it​ ​under​ ​the​ ​earth’s​ ​surface,​ ​but​ ​it​ ​is​ ​not​ ​renewable.​ ​Thus,​ ​it​ ​is​ ​not​ ​a​ ​sustainable​ ​source​ ​of​ ​energy. Vulnerability/Stability-​​ ​Drilling​ ​for​ ​natural​ ​gas​ ​can​ ​destroy​ ​landscapes​ ​and​ ​the​ ​land​ ​around​ ​the drilling​ ​site.​ ​Fracking​ ​is​ ​known​ ​to​ ​destroy​ ​the​ ​sources​ ​of​ ​water​ ​that​ ​surround​ ​the​ ​drilling​ ​site​ ​and make​ ​the​ ​water​ ​toxic​ ​and​ ​flammable. Environmental​ ​Impact-​ ​The​ ​burning​ ​of​ ​natural​ ​gas​ ​is​ ​better​ ​than​ ​the​ ​burning​ ​of​ ​coal​ ​because​ ​it does​ ​not​ ​release​ ​as​ ​many​ ​chemicals​ ​into​ ​the​ ​air.​ ​But​ ​it​ ​still​ ​has​ ​the​ ​potential​ ​of​ ​destroy​ ​the​ ​land around​ ​it. Geo-Sociopolitical​ ​Impact-​ ​The​ ​main​ ​issue​ ​surrounding​ ​natural​ ​gas​ ​is​ ​the​ ​extraction​ ​process. Fracking​ ​has​ ​destroyed​ ​many​ ​water​ ​sources​ ​and​ ​completely​ ​destroys​ ​landscapes.​ ​Another argument​ ​is​ ​the​ ​fact​ ​that​ ​the​ ​use​ ​of​ ​natural​ ​gas​ ​is​ ​not​ ​sustainable​ ​because​ ​it​ ​is​ ​not​ ​a​ ​renewable source​ ​of​ ​energy. ...
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}