1.- Write the sentences into Spanish. (Biochemical engineering)
By Casey Whelan, Vice President of Strategic Initiatives, U.S. Energy Services
As Congress moves toward implementing a mandatory carbon dioxide (CO2) compliance system, and a cap and trade market, manufacturers need to evolve to keep up with the changing risks and opportunities. In the past, manufacturers only needed to focus on price and reliability. Now, businesses need to account for CO2 content along with direct energy costs.
Earlier this year the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES) passed through the House. Since then, a similar bill has been introduced in the Senate that has a similar structure, without many of the details from the House bill. The Senate bill outlines a rigid near-term target for cutting CO2 emissions, but does not include how pollution credits will be distributed to affected businesses. One item the Senate did include was setting a floor and ceiling on the price of pollution permits.
This new system forces manufacturers to develop a better understanding of how their CO2 profile affects their business and their bottom lines.
How A Carbon Cap-&-Trade Market Works
As part of the proposed cap and trade system, large energy users, including many processors, will have to offset their CO2 emissions by obtaining allowances based on the amount of emissions (per metric ton) the energy user creates. Businesses that emit over 25,000 tons per year of CO2 will be required to obtain carbon allowances for any direct emissions. Many medium- and large-scale processing companies will likely be included in this category.
Under the proposed bill from the House, companies will purchase allowances through quarterly auctions. For the initial years of the program, it is expected that allowances will cost between $10 and $13 per metric ton of CO2 emissions, although under a market system, prices could increase to $28 to $40 within a decade.
1.-Write the sentences into Spanish. (Chemical engineering-Ambiental)
The Effect On Energy Costs
Even though not every manufacturer will have to purchase allowances, there are both direct and indirect costs for all energy end users. While smaller companies might not be held directly accountable for allowances, their energy suppliers (utility companies) will be accountable. The cost of allowances imposed on energy suppliers will likely be passed onto customers.
Mitigating The Cost Of A Cap-&-Trade System
The first step for businesses directly affected by the cap-and-trade system should be to reduce emission levels through improvements in energy efficiency. (Often times this also happens to be the fastest and least expensive solution.) These “low-hanging fruit” projects should be taken care of as soon as possible. Some of these projects include installing high efficiency lighting, boiler retrofits and compressed air upgrades.
It is also a good idea to check with your local utility to determine incentives, tax breaks and loan structures that can help your company become more efficient. Also, state and federal incentives may be available to assist a business to install wind- or solar-generating devices to produce clean power and further reduce emissions.
B&R is integrating the new Intel® Atom™ processor generation in its industrial PC product range, which reduces power loss and increases performance. When used in the Automation PC 620 and Panel PC 700, the system does not require a cooling fan.
A correlation for kLa based on dimensional analysis considering the effects of the geometric parameters, the physical properties of the fluid, and the operational conditions presented a very good fitting to the experimental data. The correlation shows that the influence of the reactor internal diameter on kLa was considered positive. Therefore, in larger-scale reactors an appropriate oxygen transfer can be reached under smaller aeration conditions.
2.- READ THIS ARTICLE AND WRITE THE REFERNTS.
Lawmakers seek bottle law compromise to include water drinks
By David Abel
Globe Staff / July 14, 2010
State lawmakers are hashing out a compromise that for the first time since the landmark bottle law took effect three decades ago could expand the nickel deposit to include bottled water, among the most common drinks sold and most prevalent sources of litter.Expansion of the law would represent a sea change for state lawmakers, whose bills have died each time before getting a committee vote for the past 15 years.
Members of the Joint Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities, and Energy, which has jurisdiction over the bill, are expected to meet in an executive session today and approve an agreement that would put the bill on a path for full votes in the House and Senate. Governor Deval Patrick supports expanding the bottle law, and both committee chairmen said they (1) favor, in principle, expanding the law.
“I’ve been in favor of the bottle bill for months,’’ said Senator Michael Morrissey, a Quincy Democrat who cochairs the committee and said a majority of his fellow senators on the committee support the bill. “I want this on the agenda. We need to put a bill out and let the full bodies of the House and Senate debate it (2) and amend it. But we need to get it out.’’
Morrissey has proposed language that would limit the bill’s expansion to include only “water, nutritionally enhanced water, and any beverage that is identified through the use of letters, words, or symbols on such beverage’s product label as a type of water.’’ His bill would exclude sports drinks, such as Gatorade or fruit juices, as well as proposed increases in fees for redemption centers, both of which he (3) would like to see in a final bill.
“I think it’s easier to move it along if we take a smaller bite,’’ he said.
Morrissey vowed to report the bill out of committee, but it (4) remains uncertain whether Representative Barry Finegold, his cochairman, would agree to a full committee vote, meaning the bill could be reported out of the committee favorably or unfavorably. A favorable report would make it easier to receive a full vote in both chambers.
Morrissey said Finegold, an Andover Democrat, told him he wants to work it out.
In a telephone interview, Finegold would not say how he would vote. “We’re still working on it,’’ he said. “I’m trying to get members’ support.’’
Proponents of expanding the bottle law, which passed in 1981 when lawmakers overrode a veto by Governor Edward J. King, argue it is needed to respond to the dramatic rise in the number of plastic containers. The Container Recycling Institute, a California group that monitors the recycling of bottles, estimated that Americans more than doubled the amount of bottled water they (5) drank between 2002 and 2006, when more than 28 billion water bottles ended up in incinerators, landfills, or as litter.
Moreover, advocates say it could provide a timely boost to lagging state revenues. The Patrick administration estimates that the state would raise about $58 million by allowing the redemption of an additional 1.5 billion containers a year, or about $20 million more than the state earns from the current law, and that municipalities would save as much as $7 million in disposal costs. That additional revenue, however, would be reduced if the final bill included only bottled water.
Senator Cynthia Creem, a Newton Democrat and chief sponsor of the bottle bill in the Senate, said that she (6) would like to see the bill include other beverages but that expanding the law to include bottled water alone would represent “a great victory.’’ “Bottled water is what gets abused the most; we never anticipated years ago that so many people would be drinking bottled water,’’ Creem said. “I would hope that Barry Finegold would see passing this bill as a huge victory for the environment.’’ Opponents of the bottle law say expanding it amounts to a tax that raises the cost of beverages, promotes fraud by encouraging cross-border sales of bottles, and curbs efforts to expand other recycling programs. They (7) say Massachusetts would be better off encouraging curbside recycling.
“Just adding bottled water to the law makes no environmental sense,’’ said Chris Flynn, president of the Massachusetts Food Association, representing more than 50 supermarkets throughout Massachusetts and has long lobbied against expanding the bottle law.
Officials at the state Department of Environmental Protection, however, note that 80 percent of the containers included in the existing bottle law — carbonated soda, beer, and malt beverages — get recycled, while 67 percent of non-deposit containers end up as litter.