Tag Archives: state

HOW ARE THE STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES WORKING TOGETHER TO IMPLEMENT THE COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN

Leave a reply

The Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) is one of the largest environmental restoration projects in history. It involves coordination between numerous federal, state, and local agencies to restore the delicate South Florida ecosystem and restore natural water flows to the Everglades. The CERP was authorized by the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 with the goal to reverse the effects of drainage and development in South Florida over the last century that have seriously degraded the Everglades.

The core federal partner in implementing CERP is the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) which has primary responsibility for designing, constructing, and overseeing restoration projects. The lead state agency is the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) which is responsible for water management, land acquisition, and permitting for CERP projects. Other key federal agencies involved include the Department of the Interior (DOI), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Department of Agriculture (USDA), and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). At the state level, other partners include the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) and Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC). Local sponsors and stakeholders such as water control districts, counties, environmental groups are also involved in providing input and support.

To facilitate coordination between these various partners, an interagency organizational structure was established. The Governor and Corps of Engineers’ Civil Works Director co-chair an Executive Committee which provides overall leadership and strategic direction for CERP. An intergovernmental Task Force made up of representatives from all the involved agencies meets regularly to review progress, address issues, and make recommendations. Technical teams comprised of scientists and engineers from the agencies collaborate on developing restoration designs, monitoring plans, and adaptive management strategies. Stakeholder input is also received through public meetings and partnership programs.

Funding CERP projects requires a combination of federal appropriations managed by the Corps and state funding overseen by SFWMD. Congress typically appropriates several hundred million dollars annually through the Corps’ budget for preconstruction engineering and design, land acquisition, and construction of CERP projects. SWFWMD as the local sponsor is responsible for providing 35% of project costs under the cost share agreement. To help fund its share, Florida voters approved a $200 million Everglades Restoration Bond in 2014 and $624 million Everglades Restoration Investment Act in 2016. Full implementation of CERP’s 68 designated projects is estimated to cost over $16 billion, so securing adequate and consistent funding streams from federal, state, and private sources remains an ongoing challenge.

To execute restoration activities on the ground, the Corps and SWFWMD enter into Project Partnership Agreements (PPAs) for each individual CERP project. These PPAs outline the roles and responsibilities of each agency, division of costs, schedules, and regulatory compliance requirements. The Corps is responsible for carrying out detailed engineering and design work, acquiring lands, and overseeing construction. SFWMWD provides reviews and approvals at critical project milestones, handles state permitting, and contributes its cost share funding. Over time, completed projects are transferred to SFWMD for long-term operation and maintenance. Projects require ongoing monitoring and adaptive management by the agencies to ensure they achieve intended ecological benefits.

Some examples of significant CERP projects that have reached construction or are underway include the Picayune Strand Restoration Project, Indian River Lagoon South Project, Bandon Marsh / C-43 West Basin Storage Reservoir Project, Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands Project, Central Everglades Planning Project, and the Tamiami Trail Next Steps Project. To date, over 30 project components have been completed or are under construction representing over $2 billion dollars invested in Everglades restoration. Substantial work remains to fulfill the vision and timelines established in CERP for the revitalization of America’s Everglades and South Florida’s watershed. The ongoing cooperation between federal and state agencies will be crucial for long-term success implementing and adaptively managing this monumental ecological restoration effort.

Implementation of the ambitious Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan relies on extensive coordination and partnerships between numerous federal, state, and local agencies. This includes leadership through interagency committees, collaboration on project planning and design, agreements defining roles and responsibilities, coordinated review and approval processes, combined funding contributions, and working together to construct and manage projects aimed at recovering the Greater Everglades ecosystem. While progress has been made and lessons learned over the past two decades, full restoration of the Everglades remains a long-term challenge that will continue to depend on cooperation between government agencies charged with overseeing this critical environmental restoration program.

HOW ARE CAPSTONE PROJECTS EVALUATED AND GRADED AT OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY

Leave a reply

At Oregon State University, capstone projects serve as a culminating experience for students to integrate and apply the knowledge and skills they have gained throughout their academic program. Capstone projects take on many forms, including applied research projects, design projects, performances, exhibits, clinical experiences, internships, community service projects, and more. All capstone projects are intended to allow students the opportunity to demonstrate their mastery of the learning outcomes for their degree through an intensive project or experience.

The evaluation and grading of capstone projects at OSU is meant to provide students with meaningful feedback on their work while also assigning a final grade that reflects their capstone achievement. The process involves several key stages and participants to ensure rigorous and fair assessment.

When students enroll in their capstone course, they work closely with a capstone advisor who is typically a faculty member in their major/program. The capstone advisor helps the student develop a clear capstone proposal that identifies the project goals, activities, timeline, and expected outcomes or deliverables. The proposal establishes the scope and expectations for the project that will guide the subsequent evaluation. The capstone advisor is responsible for approving the proposal.

Once the proposal is approved, students carry out their capstone work over the course of a term or academic year, depending on the program. They continue meeting regularly with their capstone advisor for guidance, feedback, and to discuss progress. The capstone advisor monitors the student’s work throughout and may periodically assess elements like preliminary drafts, updates, or work samples using rubrics. Their ongoing input helps students stay on track to meet expectations.

When the capstone work is complete, most programs require students to present their final project or experience to an evaluation committee. Committees typically include the capstone advisor along with other relevant faculty, community partners, or professionals. Committee membership varies by department but aims to bring diverse perspectives relevant to evaluating the work.

The purpose of the capstone presentation is for students to demonstrate how they addressed the proposal goals, to discuss what they learned, and to take questions. Presentations may take the form of reports, posters, performances, demonstrations, or other appropriate formats. Committees often use standardized rubrics to assess all required elements and provide structured feedback.

Following the presentation, committees convene privately to determine two key outcomes – whether the project met the minimum standards to pass, and the overall letter grade. Checklists and rubrics are again used to structure this discussion. Committees consider how well students demonstrated attainment of learning outcomes, the level of analysis, rigor of work, depth of insight, and overall achievement relative to expectations. The capstone advisor’s ongoing input and assessment carries substantial weight.

Once determined by consensus, evaluation committees submit their results including pass/no pass and the letter grade directly to the academic program. Programs have discretion over final grade assignment according to their policies. Grades may factor in both the committee’s recommendation and input from the capstone advisor over the full project duration. The program notifies students of the official results.

Students who do not pass either present again or are asked to improve deficiencies, depending on issues. Those dissatisfied with grades may follow standard departmental protocols for grade appeals. The multi-step evaluation process with involvement from advisor and committee aims to provide robust yet constructive judgment of student capstone work at OSU. The assessment is criterion-based to ensure consistency and fairness across projects and academic years.

Capstone experiences represent the pinnacle of a OSU student’s undergraduate education. The detailed grading process helps validate and recognize each student’s demonstration of expertise through a project designed, executed and presented according to expectations established within their own chosen field or discipline. Through capstones, OSU prepares graduates not just with specialized knowledge but also the higher-order skills of self-directed application to serve them in their careers and communities.

WHICH COMPANIES ARE LEADING THE WAY IN SOLID STATE BATTERY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT?

1 Reply

Toyota Motor Corporation – Toyota is one of the early pioneers in solid-state battery R&D. They established a pilot plant for solid-state battery production back in 2014. Since then, they have continued robust research efforts. In 2022, Toyota announced that they planned to start producing solid-state batteries by the mid-2020s. Their goal is to use solid-state batteries to extend EV ranges to around 500 km on a single charge. Solid-state technologies could also help reduce manufacturing costs over time.

Sakti3 – This Ann Arbor, Michigan-based startup was acquired by Dyson in 2015. Under Dyson, Sakti3 continued its work developing all-solid-state battery cells using a thin film lithium metal anode. In 2020, Dyson announced it would stop work on solid-state batteries, abruptly ending Sakti3’s research efforts and redirecting resources. However, Sakti3 pioneered some key principles in solid-state cell designs during its tenure.

Cymbet – Founded in 1996, Cymbet is one of the earliest companies focused exclusively on solid-state thin film battery technology. They developed a proprietary alloy used in the creation of thin film solid-state batteries. Cymbet produced some of the first commercially available solid-state microbatteries. While they haven’t produced larger battery packs yet, their work established foundational approaches.

Volkswagen – The German automaker established a new business unit called PowerCo in 2020 to focus on battery technology research among other areas. One particular priority is developing solid-state batteries both in-house and through partnerships. VW aims to introduce solid-state designs around the later half of this decade to improve battery performance metrics.

BMW – This luxury automaker has been researching next-gen batteries including solid-state varieties. In 2021, BMW partnered with solid-state battery startup Solid Power to co-develop production-oriented cells. Their goal is to incorporate solid-state designs into vehicles starting in 2025. BMW is taking a collaborative approach which could help accelerate the technology.

QuantumScape – Founded in 2010, this Silicon Valley company went public via SPAC merger in late 2020. QuantumScape is developing solid-state lithium metal batteries using a ceramic separator. Independent testing has shown promising results for the company’s prototype cells including increased energy density and improved safety. They plan to start production in 2024.

Solid Power – Based in Colorado, Solid Power is partnering with BMW and Ford to further develop its sulfide all-solid-state battery technology. The company believes its design could offer 50% more energy density than conventional lithium-ion batteries. Solid Power aims to scale up production and have pre-production cells ready by 2024.

LG Chem – The Korean battery giant established an energy solutions company called LG Energy Solution in 2020. They have an R&D division exploring solid-state technologies. LG aims to mass produce solid-state EV batteries by 2030 that could increase battery capacities by 30%. With significant existing manufacturing scale, LG is well-positioned for future commercialization.

CATL – China’s top battery supplier is also working on solid-state innovations. In 2021, they demonstrated a prototype solid-state battery pack and aims to start production around 2024-2025 pending further testing and optimization. CATL has the resources to scale solid-state rapidly depending on how their research progresses over the next few years.

Ionic Materials – Another US-based startup, Ionic Materials develops a proprietary solid polymer electrolyte material that could provide cost advantages over other solid-state approaches. Partners include Hyundai and Stellantis. Ionic aims to enable high-energy solid-state batteries by 2026 that exceed the performance of today’s lithium-ion packs.

As this overview shows, automakers and battery producers are aggressively pursuing solid-state technologies through both internal R&D and external partnerships. Early prototypes demonstrate the potential for significantly higher energy densities and greater safety. Several challenges around manufacturing processes and long-term cycling still need to be overcome before solid-state designs are ready for commercial vehicle applications. Major corporations are positioning themselves to be ready when the technology matures later this decade. Continued progress in 2022-2024 will become increasingly evident as more collaborative projects bear fruit.

CAN YOU PROVIDE MORE INFORMATION ON THE CHALLENGES OF MANUFACTURING SOLID STATE BATTERIES AT SCALE

Leave a reply

While solid-state batteries offer several advantages over conventional lithium-ion batteries like higher energy density, solid electrolytes, and no risk of fire, scaling their commercial production poses significant technological difficulties that remain unresolved. Some of the key challenges in manufacturing solid-state batteries at scale include:

Interfacial Stability: Achieving a stable interface between the solid electrolyte and the solid electrode materials like lithium metal is hugely challenging. During cycling, lithium metal tends to form dendrites that can penetrate the electrolyte and cause internal short-circuits, limiting lifespan. Extensive research is still needed to develop stable interfaces that prevent dendrite formation during charging/discharging. This stability must be proven over hundreds to thousands of charge/discharge cycles for real-world applications.

Electrolyte Processing: Developing techniques to mass-produce solid electrolytes with the required purity, consistency, thickness, and properties is an immense challenge. Existing methods like thin-film deposition or pellet pressing are unsuitable for large-scale manufacturing. New scalable processes need to be optimized for areas like crystallinity control, uniform thickness deposition, and prevention of pinholes/defects which can fuel internal shorts. High-throughput and low-cost processing methods are lacking.

Low Ionic Conductivity: Most solid electrolytes have significantly lower ionic conductivity than liquid electrolytes at room temperature. This hinders power and charge rates. While conductivity improves at higher temperatures, solid-state designs cannot tolerate the heat generated during fast charging without careful thermal management strategies. Enhancing conductivity through dopants/additives or developing entirely new solid electrolyte compositions remains an active research area.

Cell Design Complexity: Solid-state designs require intricate fabrication methods and non-traditional architectures compared to liquid cells. Assembly of thin film components like the electrolyte and tight control over layer thicknesses and interfaces dramatically increases manufacturing complexity. Achieving adequate sealing and integrating protections against dendrites/pinholes adds further complexity. Developing simpler and scalable processes to assemble solid-state full-cells is challenging.

Cost-Effectiveness: Existing electrolyte preparation and cell assembly methods are often expensive, utilizing specialized vacuum/cleanroom equipment and longer processing times. Complex architectures involving multiple thin film depositions further drive up costs. While solid-state designs promise cost savings long-term from safety and processing simplicity, high early capital costs for factories and R&D slow commercial viability. Further technological advances and economies of scale are required to drive down manufacturing costs.

Testing at Scale: Most research today involves laboratory prototype cells synthesized in gram or kilogram quantities. Comprehensively testing performance, cycle life, and safety in large-format commercial battery packs manufactured using high-speed mass production lines poses considerably greater challenges. This step is crucial to demonstrate technical and economic feasibility at a scale relevant to widespread market adoption.

Overcoming these issues requires extensive research focused on new materials, scalable processes, and simplified cell designs. While promising, bringing solid-state batteries to commercial reality through manufacturing thousands to millions of high quality, low-cost cells presents significant scientific and engineering obstacles that will take time, funding, and innovation to surmount. Continuous progress is being made, but scaled production remains at least 5-10 years away according to most analyst projections without major breakthroughs. Careful development of manufacturing techniques is as important as materials development for widespread adoption of this next-generation battery technology.

Developing efficient and low-cost processes to mass-manufacture solid-state batteries which can provide long cycle life, high power and maintain interfacial stability poses immense technical challenges across multiple fronts. Significant advances are still needed in areas such as electrolyte processing, interface stability, ionic conductivity enhancement, simplified cell designs and scaled testing before this promising technology can be commercially produced at gigawatt-hour levels. Overcoming these production hurdles will be crucial to realizing the full benefits of solid-state designs.