In this lesson, we will discuss the role of technology in society and how it develops on its way to commercialization. You will review the technology readiness level (TRL) scale adopted by a number of government agencies and see what kind of information is needed to estimate it. This lesson also sets the background for using the life cycle assessment methodology (LCA), which allows us to view a bigger picture of a technological process, with its multiple pros and cons and impacts on other parts of a sustainability system. Life cycle assessment is a complex approach, which requires extensive data digging and process expertise. While you will not be asked to perform the complete analysis on your own, some LCA-related exercises in this lesson will help you develop a big-picture mindset about technologies and products. Both TRL and LCA assessment methodologies will be useful in your individual course project, so take notes of the resources provided on those topics.
By the end of this lesson, you should be able to:
Journal article: J.B. Guinee et al., Life Cycle Assessment: Past, Present, and Future, Environ. Sci. Technol., 2011, 45, 90-96. (see Canvas)
US EPA Document: Life Cycle Assessment: Principles and Practice [1], EPA/600/R-06/060, 2006.
If you have any questions while working through this Lesson, please post them to our Message Board forum in Canvas. You can use that space any time to chat about course topics or to ask questions. While you are there, please feel free to post your own responses if you are able to help out a classmate.
How do we define technology? In this course, specifically, we need to look at a particular technology, process, or product as an active part (component) of an anthropogenic system. In such context, a technology is not simply a piece of human knowledge implemented through design and engineering principles, it is considered a "living" part of a bigger organism. Here, we use the word "living" because our interest will be to assess the entire lifecycle of a technology: development, adaptation, operation, interactions with natural and technical environment, aging, and death (in some cases). Further on, we will try to understand how technology development impacts the viability of the whole system.
The common definition of the term technology is quite broad and multi-colored. The most simplistic one is application of scientific knowledge for practical purpose. And as an extension of it, the tool or device enabling that application is typically also referred to as technology. You can read more on the history and usage of this term in a Wikipedia article on Technology [2]. You may recognize that the meaning strongly depends on the context and the professional area you are in. However, in this course, we need to distill this broad perception of technology to a more specific entity that can be used for practical analysis.
The most important ability of almost any technology is conversion. A technology uses inputs of energy or matter to create outputs of energy or matter of a different quality. In a general case, any technology can be represented by the following scheme (Figure 2.1):
So, technology typically serves as a conversion portal in a system. We use energy to produce materials; or use raw materials to produce some more complex products; or we use matter to convert forms energy; etc. Note that conversion can also be performed by natural systems or mechanisms; but we only define technology as a human-made conversion system.
Here are some simple examples:
You can continue this list.
See if you can identify the energy and matter inputs and outputs for the following technologies:
ANSWER
Obviously some technologies are better converters than others, and the following metric allows us to compare different technological options and choose a "better deal" in terms of useful output and money spent.
The key characteristic of any conversion process is efficiency. Efficiency is estimated based on the amount of useful output per unit input. In that sense, it is a subjective value which depends on a particular goal or purpose of a technological process, and a particular input resource we are concerned about. Hence, efficiency has widely varying meanings in different disciplines.
For example, efficiency is a very common metric in the field of energy conversion. According to the energy conservation law, the total energy entering a conversion device should be equal to the total energy output by the device:
Ein = Eout
Some of the output energy can be considered useful (based on the purpose of conversion), and some of it can be considered not useful and attributed to "losses":
Eout = Eout(useful) + Eout(loss)
What is useful and what is not is up to us to define (nature does not care!).
So, efficiency determines the fraction of the useful energy as follows:
Efficiency = Eout(useful) / Ein × 100%
Efficiency is important in the sustainability context because it indicates how much of the resource is put to work, and how much of the resource is wasted in the process. The reasons for losses are process dependent and should be analyzed specifically for each application. A big part of the technological research is aimed at increasing efficiency of the conversion process via minimizing losses.
A typical incandescent light bulb outputs both light and heat. If you ever touched the working light bulb with a bare hand, you know that there is a good amount of heat generated in this kind of energy conversion.
If I use the bulb to lit my dining area, the useful energy I collect is obviously light, or radiant energy, and efficiency of the conversion process would be defined as:
Efficiency = (Light Output / Electricity Input) x 100%
But if I use the bulb to warm my home incubator (with eggs waiting to hatch), the useful energy in this case would be heat. And the generated light would be in fact unnecessary, that is not useful output. In this case the efficiency of the conversion process can be defined as:
Efficiency = (Heat Output / Electricity Input) x 100%
Here we can see that efficiency is often defined in the eye of the beholder.
By the way, the efficiency of the incandescent bulb in the first case is much lower than in the second. Conversion to light is on the average 2.2% efficient, while the rest of input energy (97.8%) goes into heat.
As another illustration of how this concept works, let us estimate the efficiency of a photovoltaic panel. Photovoltaic technology converts visible solar radiation (energy-in) into electric power (energy-out). So, for this estimation, we need to know or measure these two quantities.
Let us assume that the efficiency is measured in the middle of a sunny day, and the panel is installed perpendicular to the incident rays. Under those conditions, the typical incident radiation flux is ~1000 W/m2. We can take this number as the measure of energy-in per unit of time.
Now, let us assume that the panel outputs the power density 120 W/m2. Usually, this value can be obtained by measuring the voltage and current density of the panel (power = voltage x current).
Then, the efficiency value can be calculated as follows:
Efficiency = Eout(useful)/Ein × 100% = 120 W/m2 / 1000 W/m2 × 100% = 12%
This value means that 88% of total solar energy reaching the panel is lost, and only 12% is converted to electricity due to technology limitations or environmental factors. Just FYI, the nominal efficiency of most solar panels on market ranges between 15 and 22% (under ideal conditions). As you can see, efficiency estimations require data on technical performance of the system, so we will be paying attention to how performance of different technologies can be measured and interpreted.
Table 2.1 lists some known efficiencies of various energy technologies for comparison. These are just a few examples to demonstrate the variety of converters. We should note that generally efficiency of a process or technology is not necessarily measured in terms of energy. If the useful output of the converting technology is, for example, some form of matter (e.g., water electrolyzer in this table), the calculation can be made in terms of mass. Sometimes, efficiency analysis is also used to estimate the maximum theoretical efficiency, which cannot be practically exceeded due to inherent physicochemical limitation of the system. Finding maximum theoretical efficiency requires detailed knowledge of how the process works and what unavoidable losses occur in conversion.
Process or Technology | Input | Useful Output | Conversion efficiency |
---|---|---|---|
Gas turbine | Gas flow | Electricity | 40% |
Water turbine | Water flow | Electricity | 90% |
Solar cell | Light | Electricity | 15-40% |
Fuel cell | H2(gas), O2(gas) | Electricity | up to 85% |
Water electrolyzer | Electricity | H2(gas), O2(gas) | 50-70% |
Combustion engine | Fuel (gasoline) | Motion (kinetic energy) | 10-50% |
Geothermal electric plant | Heat | Electricity | 10-23% |
Solar thermoelectric generator | Sun radiation | Electricity | 15% |
Electric motor | Electricity | Motion (kenetic energy) | 30-90% |
Electric heater | Electricity | Heat | up to 100% |
Refrigerator | Electricity | Negative heat | 20-40% |
Fluorescent lamp | Electricity | Light | 8-15% |
Photosynthesis | Light | Biomass, O2(gas) | 3-6% |
Muscle | Metabolic energy | Kinetic energy | 18-25% |
Can energy conversion efficiency be more than 100%? Click on answer below.
YES
NO
Yes, but only in an ideal zero-loss system
Can you calculate the efficiency of an electric motor that consumes 150 W of electrical power and produces 120 W of mechanical power? Click on answer below.
8%
65%
80%
125%
To become part of society life, technology needs to be adapted. Not all technologies invented go through successful adaptation, and there are several critical barriers that need to be overcome in order to create a working interface between technology and society.
Consider the following stages of technology adaptation:
The first three stages of adaptation can be reflected in more detail through the Technology Readiness Level scale (TRL) on page 2.2 of this lesson. The fourth stage of adaptation is closely related to economic assessment, which should answer the question if the technology can support itself and make a profit in the short term or in the long term. Finally, the fifth stage of adaptation includes multiple social factors - how ready consumers are to accept this new technology, and what socal benefits it promises (for example, higher standard of living, job creation, convenience, faster service, improved health, etc.). The sustainability analysis should be comprehensive enough to cover all of these layers of adaptation and recognize connections and feedbacks between them.
Technology readiness assessment is a systematic, metrics-based process that evaluates the maturity of, and the risk associated with, critical technologies under development. It is a commonly accepted approach used in a number of industry and government organizations to assess the maturity of a technology (e.g., device, material, component, process, etc.) on an entire scale - from its invention to commercialization and wide-scale application. TRL rating actually determines how far a particular technology is from being deployed by industry or public. That, in turn, determines the amount of resources - time, funds, intellectual potential, facilities, etc., - necessary to bring this technology to life. We can illustrate the term 'readiness' with a simple example like the one below.
For example, I am a researcher at a National Lab working on a small-size methanol fuel cell - a device that can convert the chemical energy of the fuel (methanol in this case) to electricity. I have my fuel cell stack operating in the lab and producing some great data in terms of power density. “It really works!” – I think. But can I put that fuel cell stack on my bike and have a ride home? Well... not right away, at least. The fuel cell system, the way it is set up and operates in the lab, is not ready for immediate use on a bike. I can possibly spend a few more months to work on the adaptation – fixing the fuel cell system on a bike, attaching an electric motor that would transfer the electrical power from the cell stack to the wheel, finding the regulators that would allow me to control the output during a ride, figuring out the position of the methanol fuel source and lines connecting it to the cell… it is quite an engineering project.
But let us imagine that finally I make it work! But can I offer this technology to bikers around town? I used my special knowledge to make all the technical adaptations and to solve multiple challenges, fixing shortcomings. If something is wrong, I know where to find a problem. But a general biker would not like to do all the work I have done and learn all the details I have learned. They would like it simple and fool-proof. I think, the technology, again, is not ready for public yet at that point. And, again, more resources and time are needed to make it user-friendly and more reliable for marketing.
Addendum: I worked on the methanol fuel cell systems in 2001. Years after some companies (Yamaha is one of them) actually managed to create some slick prototypes of fuel cell scooters, like the one shown here [3]. However, it is unclear if any of those made it to the market. If you find any information or references to it, please let me know!
There are many other examples of technology going through many years of adaptation prior to reaching its broad applicability. What you see in the left-side image below may seem like a hardly recognizable mechanical device. What is on the right side is its contemporary version. The first computer mouse prototype was invented in 1964 by Douglas Engelbart of Stanford Research Institute. The mouse device remained an subject for further development, modifications, demos, and pilot projects for two decades before it was finally adapted for broader use with the personal computer Mackintosh 128K in 1984 (Wikipedia [4])
Technology Readiness Level (TRL) scale was first employed by NASA in 1974 to evaluate the maturity of technologies for spacecraft design as part of risk assessment. It was demonstrated that transition of emerging technologies at lesser degrees of maturity results in higher overall risk.
Later, the TRL scale developed by NASA was also adopted in the U.S. by the Department of Defense (DOD), Department of Energy (DOE), Air Force, Oil and Gas Industry and also in Europe by the European Space Agency (ESA). The main rankings in the TRL method for technology readiness assessment are classified in the table below.
Stage of Development | Technology Readiness Level | Description | Outcomes/Supporting Information |
---|---|---|---|
Basic technology research | TRL0 | Unproven idea | No analysis/testing performed. |
TRL1 |
Basic Principles observed and reported Scientific research begins to be translated into applied research and development. |
Published research that identified the principles that underlie the concept. | |
Research to prove feasibility | TRL2 |
Concept formulated Practical application is invented based on TRL 1. Potential of the applications is speculative and is inferred from general assumptions or some analytical data. |
Published research that outlines the application and initial analysis of underlying principles. |
TRL3 |
Proof-of-concept Analytical and experimental studies are performed on a lab scale to validate analytical predictions. Work is done on various components of the potential technology (which are not yet integrated). |
Experimental data, measured parameters of interest in comparison with analytical predictions. | |
TRL4 |
Lab-scale demonstration (“low fidelity”) Basic technological components are integrated to establish that they will work together. This is relatively “low fidelity” compared with the eventual system. |
Results of laboratory testing. Comparison with system performance goals. | |
Technology demonstration | |||
TRL5 |
Lab-scale demonstration (“high fidelity”) The basic technological components are integrated with reasonably realistic supporting elements so they can be tested in a simulated environment. |
Results of laboratory testing in simulated environment. Identified barriers for target performance goals and plans to overcome them. | |
System development | TRL6 |
Prototype system designed The system is integrated with support elements, and model design is created to be tested in simulated or operational environment. |
Results of the prototype testing in simulated lab environment. Data are close to target expectations. |
TRL7 |
Prototype system tested in operational environment Prototype near or at planned operational system. Represents a major step up from TRL 6 by requiring demonstration of an actual system prototype in an operational environment (e.g., in the field, on aircraft, in a vehicle, or in space). |
Results of the prototype testing in operational environment demonstrate success. | |
System launch and operation | TRL8 |
Actual system completed The system is qualified through test and demonstration. Technology has been proven to work in its final form and under expected conditions. |
Results of testing in its final configuration. Assessment of it meeting its operational requirements. Plans, options, or actions to tune and finalize the design. |
TRL9 |
Actual system proved successful Actual application of the technology in its final form and under mission conditions or on market. |
Reports on real application performance. |
TRL approach proved to be useful as a tool for:
In the context of this course, it will be important to understand the technology readiness levels in order to properly assess the timeline and cost of its development and implementation. When applied to a particular technology, the above listed TRL ranks should be customized for better relevance. Such customization would identify specific milestones as criteria to advance to the next level.
Please watch this 15 minutes and 47 seconds video in which Dr. Sean McCarthy (Hyperion Ltd) elaborates on the TRL concept, provides some examples, and examines the ties of TRL assessment to the decision making and choosing partners for a project. This video is made in the context of the european innovation and technology implementation landscape, but many of those insights are completely transferable to the US soil as well.
Assigning a TRL rank is not a quick task. These are some serious questions that need to be answered and backed by technical data regarding the current status of technology:
You can see that determining the status of technology development often requires search and knowledge of most recent advances, publications, and news releases on the technical performance, demonstration, pilot systems, and prototypes. It also requires independent expertise in subject matter along with understanding the economic criteria, which establish a threshold where the technology becomes economically feasible and is able to compete with existing alternatives.
What kind of data sources can you use for TRL analysis?
Check out the TRL calculation tool developed by the Advanced Energy Technology Group at University of California San Diego, which can be used to automatically retrieve the TRL value for a particular project based on input scoring on each level criteria. The calculator is in the form of MS Excel file, and you need to enable macros to make it work - it is included in Module 2 in Canvas. You are welcome to explore it and use it in your course project when determining TRL for the technology of your choice.
I hope you found content on this page useful. Different assignments in this course will tap into the TRL concept repeatedly, and you will be asked to either estimate the TRL ranking or provide some analysis of technology readiness and maturity in your course project.
An R&D group in a company developed the design and built a prototype of a new car engine. It has been through a set of comprehensive lab tests, which provide excellent results in terms of system performance. What technology readiness level can be assigned to this development? Click on your answer below.
TRL 2
TRL 4
TRL 6
TRL 8
TRL 10
Emerging technologies are technical innovations that breach new territory in a particular field. Over centuries, innovative technologies were developed and opened up new avenues for lifestyle and market transformation. Implementation of an emerging technology involves economic risk, but, if successful, offers a competitive advantage to a company. Some of the emerging technologies are developed via theoretical research, while others are based on commercial research and development.
Often emerging technologies are at the TRL levels 1-5 and require significant research, investment, and marketing to bring them to the commercial stage.
Here are some examples of emerging technologies at various stages of their development. [12]
The following websites post news on emerging technologies and ideas. Check these out - there are a lot of exciting examples of how technological innovations enter society. You may find these resources useful for picking examples for your studies in this course (I keep adding to this list every year:):
Converging technologies develop from the convergence of different systems evolving towards similar goals. Convergence can refer to previously separate technologies, which create new efficiencies when combined together.
Some examples of technological convergence can be the blend of the mobile telephone and the Internet, design of hybrid vehicles, combination of movie and game industry, combination of nano- and macro-scale science in biology, agriculture, and material design, online education…
Unlike emerging technologies, converging technologies are not necessarily based on technical breakthroughs, but rather involve already developed and commercialized technologies to achieve a new level of performance, human ability, societal outcomes, the nation’s productivity, and the quality of life.
Disruptive technologies are innovations that help create new markets and eventually go on to disrupt an existing market and value networks, displacing an earlier technology. This term, coined by Harvard Business School professor Clayton M. Christensen, is often used in business and technology literature to describe innovations that improve a product or service in ways that the market does not expect.
For example, the automobile was a revolutionary technological innovation, but it was not a disruptive innovation, because early automobiles were expensive luxury items that did not disrupt the market for horse-drawn vehicles. The market for transportation essentially remained intact until the debut of the lower-priced Ford Model T in 1908. The mass-production of automobiles was a disruptive innovation because it changed the transportation market.
Check out this "Disruptive innovation" Wikipedia page [24] which contains a list of some well-known examples of disruptive technologies. Many of these disruptions occurred within the past couple of decades, and we can relate to them. Disruptive innovations can change the way people live and work, re-arrange the values in markets, and lead to the creation of entirely new products and services. "The discovery and identification of disruptive technologies require the researcher to think like an innovator and entrepreneur in order to take full advantage of an “epiphany” moment, i.e., a moment in which you suddenly understand something in a new and potentially life-changing way. Such a moment, if properly acted upon, can accelerate your career toward recognition and long-term research funding." (KSRS, 2014)
Which of the following technologies would you consider examples of disruptive technology over the recent decades? (Check all that apply.)
Click for answer.
Sustaining technology. As opposed to disruptive technology, sustaining technology relies on incremental improvements and innovations to an already established technology. Sustaining innovations or technologies do not create new markets but rather evolve existing ones with a better value, allowing the firms to compete against each other's sustaining improvements. Sustaining innovations may be discontinuous (i.e., transformational) or continuous (i.e., evolutionary).
Here, we also need to acknowledge the hierarchy of technologies. As we defined it above, technology is a human-designed system with a conversion function. At the same time, smaller parts of that system can be also considered technologies, and those can be represented as assemblies of even smaller components (sub-technologies). For example, a car may be considered a technology within a transportation system. However, smaller components within the car, such as the internal combustion engine, tire design, air conditioning, navigation, etc., are also technologies in principle. Should those be separately evaluated?
Our criterion for what level technology in this hierarchy we take for assessment is the role of the technology as a functioning element of the whole system. Our assessment targets are the systems (technologies) that can have a potentially disruptive impact on a bigger system, especially in the social and economic context. This is because progress towards sustainable development requires disruptions and seeks a shift in the existing paradigm. If technology is too subordinate to be responsible for disruption in a social and economic context, it’d be rather considered as a technical element supporting the main key technology.
Book: Lucas, H.C. Jr., The Search for Survival: Lessons from Disruptive Technologies, Santa Barbara, CA., Praeger, 2012.
This book provides a comprehensive insight into technology development in present-day society. It is not required reading, but may be an interesting source if you have a particular interest in this topic.
Book: Johansson, F., The Click Moment: Seizing Opportunity in an Unpredictable World, Penguin US 2012, ISBN 978-1-101-60140-2.
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is a "cradle-to-grave" approach for evaluating products, materials, processes, services, and industrial systems with respect to their environmental impacts. Cradle-to-grave process begins with the extracting of raw materials from the earth to manufacture a product and ends at the point when all materials are returned to the earth in some form. LCA looks at all the stages of the product’s life one by one, estimates various environmental impacts at each stage and, as a result, allows selecting the path or processes that are least impactful based on chosen metrics.
LCA studies help decision-makers select the product, process, or technology that would be "least evil" in terms of its environment footprint, however the final judgment and interpretation of the results always depends on the key metrics and criteria that are most important to specific stakeholders. In that sense, LCA objectives should be set early in the analysis to answer the questions relevant to a particular project or application. Classic LCA deals primarily with environmental impacts, but further can be used with other pieces of information, such as cost and performance data, to find optimal solutions.
Support informed decision making for government, industry, and businesses
Provide basis for fair comparison between products and alternatives
Support recommendations for improving design and lowering impacts
The diagram below illustrates the main lifecycle stages to be considered in LCA:
This diagram is based around a box-shaped system that includes four processes and is surrounded by a System Boundary. The four highlighted stages are:
System Inputs are shown as arrows on the left of the system, outside the System Boundary. Inputs are represented by Raw Materials and Energy that flow into the system.
System Outputs shown as arrows on the right and at the bottom of the system, outside the System Boundary. Outputs are represented by Main Product and Co-Products (shown at the bottom), and Atmospheric Emissions, Waterborne Waste, and Solid Wastes (shown on the right).
As you can see in the diagram above, any product or technology would require input of some raw materials and energy at all stages: from acquisition to manufacturing, operation, and finally disposal. All of the mentioned lifecycle stages may produce atmospheric emissions, waterborne and solid wastes, simply because the efficiency of material use and energy conversion is always below 100% - there are losses and by-products, which sometimes can be highly undesirable. LCA helps to keep track of all useful and harmful outcomes, and the diagram in Figure 2.3 provides a guideline to LCA mapping.
A standard LCA study would consist of several key steps outlined below:
The standardized procedure for the LCA recommended for product and technology assessment in the U.S. is documented in the EPA guidelines referred below. Study this document carefully – some parts of this framework will be used as a basis for technology evaluation repeatedly in this course's assignments.
US EPA Document: Life Cycle Assessment: Principles and Practice, EPA/600/R-06/060 [1], 2006.
This document provides a detailed guideline on how lifecycle assessment should be performed. This is a long document and contains a significant amount of information. While I would like you to look through the entire file, here are a few things that you may want to focus on:
In this Lesson, we are going to do an exercise on LCA scoping for a simple product. That would only cover Stage 1 of the entire process. Still, it is a very important step that sets the ground for the entire analysis and provides directions for collecting data and developing metrics during the Inventory Analysis and Impact Assessment stages of the LCA. Please refer to the Canvas Module 2 for specific directions on this assignment.
Website: Design Life-Cycle, University of California, Davis, Department of Design, URL: http://www.designlife-cycle.com/ [26] Accessed: May 2020.
This website presents a very versatile collection of LCA studies of consumer products, fashion, architecture, electronics, and other technologies. Studies are presented in the "nutshell" form and enhanced by infographics. Very fun resource to explore!
Even for relatively small systems, LCA is a comprehensive task that requires interdisciplinary knowledge in the technical and economic areas. Hence, LCA projects are typically assigned to teams of experts and can rarely be performed by a single person with sufficient accuracy.
LCA approach has developed over decades, coming from a product-oriented model used to evaluate environmental impact to a bigger framework that elaborates on a wider environmental, economic, and social scale. At the current stage, LCA is being transformed into Life Cycle Sustainability Analysis (LCSA), which links the sustainability questions with the knowledge and research needed to address them. Check out the following article to learn more about the LCA history and background:
Journal article: J.B. Guinee et al., Life Cycle Assessment: Past, Present, and Future, Environ. Sci. Technol., 2011, 45, 90-96.
This article reviews the history and the most recent advances and trends in the life cycle assessment. It provides some good illustrations of method diversity, which can be both beneficial and challenging in terms of data interpretation and application. The article also exemplifies LCA being linked to policy development and decision making.
This reading is optional, but highly recommended in the context of this lesson. This article can be accessed online through the Penn State Library system database or via link in Canvas.
In Lesson 2 we explored the definitions of technology and attempted to characterize its role in sustainability systems. We learned that before technology can become part of society, it has to be developed and pass through a few levels of adaptation. This process of adaptation is largely governed by social and economic factors, not simply by the technical benefits proved through research and science. Decision making as for to deploy or not to deploy a particular technology, on what scale, at which location and when, would rely on (1) technology readiness (which is determined through TRL analysis) and (2) on technology adaptation to the social, economic, and environmental spheres (which is assessed through the LCA analysis). Both types of assessments are complex, require a significant amount of factual data, and must be system-specific and location-specific. This lesson provides important background on both of the above-mentioned methodologies. The next step will be to choose metrics and to develop quantitative indicators for assessment.
Type | Assignment Directions | Submit To |
---|---|---|
Reading | Complete all necessary reading assigned in this lesson. | |
Discussion |
Define Technology. How would you define technology from your personal perspective? (What comes to your mind when you use this word?) How do you understand the expression "sustainable technology"? Provide some examples to your definition (~1 paragraph). Provide comment on at least one other post on the forum. Deadline for initial posting: this Sunday; post your comments to other threads by the end of this lesson Wednesday |
Canvas: Lesson 2 Discussion |
Activity |
Activity 2 - Develop LCA scope for a particular product. You can use an object from the list or come up with your own choice. The goal of this exercise to apply lifecycle thinking to a simple product and map out all inputs and outputs and identify the potential environmental impacts of each lifecycle stage. You are advised to look up information on manufacturing and materials used in the product lifecycle, but you are not required to present any quantitative information. Please refer to Lesson 2 Activity Worksheet on Canvas for more details. Deadline: Wednesday (before midnight) |
Canvas: Lesson 2 Activity - LCA diagrams |
Individual Course Project |
Become familiar with the Course Project assignments in EME 807 by looking through Lesson 12. Think of a topic that you would like to use for your Individual Course Project. The topic should focus on a particular technology of your choice, and it can be close to your professional area, or it can be a new topic you want to learn more about. You will use this technology or process for comprehensive evaluation using different concepts included in this course. Submit a brief description of the topic with an explanation why you chose it (please limit to 500 words) to the "Course Project - Topic Submission" in Canvas. Deadline: Wednesday (before midnight) |
Canvas: Course Project module |
Links
[1] http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/P1000L86.PDF?Dockey=P1000L86.PDF
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology
[3] https://www.core77.com/posts/4870/Yamahas-nearly-available-fuel-cell-scooter
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_mouse
[5] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:SRI_Computer_Mouse.jpg
[6] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:David_Levy
[7] https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.en
[8] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMshUAqWYz53JFfHYnF6eQQ
[9] https://www.youtube.com/embed/-FLa3lfJkNo
[10] https://www.nasa.gov/topics/aeronautics/features/trl_demystified.html
[11] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=in4TnQZGYj4
[12] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_emerging_technologies
[13] https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2013/02/top-10-emerging-technologies-for-2013/
[14] https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2014/09/top-ten-emerging-technologies-2014/
[15] http://www.weforum.org/agenda/2015/03/top-10-emerging-technologies-of-2015-2/
[16] https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/06/top-10-emerging-technologies-2016/
[17] https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/06/these-are-the-top-10-emerging-technologies-of-2017/
[18] https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/09/top-10-emerging-technologies-of-2018/
[19] https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/07/these-are-the-top-10-emerging-technologies-of-2019/
[20] http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Top_10_Emerging_Technologies_2020.pdf
[21] https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/11/these-are-the-top-10-emerging-technologies-of-2021/
[22] https://theinnovator.news/top-ten-emerging-technologies-to-watch-in-2022/
[23] https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Top_10_Emerging_Technologies_of_2023.pdf
[24] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disruptive_innovation
[25] https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/technology-media-and-telecommunications/our-insights/the-impact-of-disruptive-technology-a-conversation-with-eric-schmidt
[26] http://www.designlife-cycle.com/