• Home

sa-AD


Department of Mechanical and Construction Engineering

Faculty of Engineering and Environment

Coursework Specification (Resit)

Module Information

Module Title

Advance Practice

Module Code Number

KB7056

Module Level and Credit Points

Level 7, 60 Credits

Module Leader

Dr Shahid Rasul

Assessment Component Number (on Module Specification)

01 and 02

Assessment Weighting (on Module Specification)

Component 01 – Pass/Fail

Component 02 – Pass/Fail

Both Components must be passed

Coursework Title

Component 01 – Individual Reflective Report

Component 02 – Group Project Presentation

Coursework Specification Author

Dr Shahid Rasul

Michelle Littlemore

Prof James Martin

Academic Year and Semester(s)

2021/2022

Coursework Submission and Feedback

Release Date of Coursework Specification to Students

22nd August 2022

Mechanism Used to Disseminate Coursework Specification to Students

Via eLP and in class


Date and Time of Submission of Coursework by Students

Group Project Presentation

Presentations (e.g. PowerPoint file) to be submitted Blackboard 6th May 2022 23:58 GMT – Only one member of the team must submit the presentation. The format for handing in the presentation is outlined in the expected size of the submission.

Presentations to academics and external project sponsors where appropriate will be held w/c 9nd May 2022 – you will be informed of a date and time prior to the end of semester 2.

Individual Reflective Report – to be submitted via TurnitinUK 17th May 2022 23:58 GMT

The mechanism for Submission of Coursework by Students

TurnitinUK


Return Date of Unconfirmed Internally Moderated Mark(s) and Feedback to Students

20th June 16:00 GMT

The mechanism for Return of Unconfirmed Internally Moderated Mark(s) and Feedback to Students

• Formative feedback/tutorial support will be given during the stages of the module delivery.

• Summative feedback/feedforward will be made via eLP TurnitinUK and during the Final Presentations

The Advance Practice Award

Your Advance Practice semester will be assessed on a pass/fail basis and does not contribute to the classification of your degree. However when taken and passed it is recognised both in your transcript as a 60 credit Advance Practice Module and in your degree title.



Assessment Details

Module Learning Outcomes (MLOs) Assessed by Coursework

Specific achievements will be defined within your individual learning contract. However, all students are expected demonstrate an ability to achieve the following:

Knowledge & Understanding:

• MLO1: Reflect upon, challenge and extend existing personal knowledge of your discipline.

• MLO2: Evidence an enhanced understanding of your discipline through the application of existing knowledge in unfamiliar learning environments and through the acquisition of new knowledge and perspectives derived from experience out-with your formal taught programme.

Intellectual/Professional skills & abilities:

• MLO3: Exercise self-direction of your own learning by identifying and managing tasks individually and as a member of a team which address your personal goals.

• MLO4: Demonstrate mastery of intellectual and professional skills appropriate to your discipline.

• MLO5: Critically analyse and communicate ideas in appropriate written and verbal forms.

Personal Values/Attributes:

• MLO6: Demonstrate self-awareness of personal development.

Coursework Task to be completed by Students


Component 01 – Individual Reflective Report

During your Advance Practice you will have developed a number of skills and will have experienced a number of emotions. This component gives you the opportunity to reflect, analyse and propose future actions as a result of your experiences during this module in order to enhance your ability to become a reflective practitioner.

The Individual Reflective Report must demonstrate a critical and analytic thought process, a clear line of argument, and the use of evidence through examples of personal experiences, thoughts, and possibly theoretical literature. It must also contain the following 4 Rs of Reflective Writing:

· Reporting and Responding – Describe your experience, report what happened. Why is it relevant? Respond to your experiences with observations or expressing your opinion

· Relating – Draw a relationship between your experiences during the project and past experiences or modules/concepts/theories. Make a connection between how your skills, past professional experiences or discipline knowledge helped you during the project. Did you have the skills and knowledge to deal with task?

· Reasoning – Rationalise your experiences and make sense of the experiences through theory, ethical, social or political factors.

Reconstructing – Develop a plan to change your future actions/behaviours and to develop gaps in your skills. How would I deal with this next time?


Component 02 – Group Presentation.

As an output of your Advance Practice experience, you will be required to present the findings/solutions from your project brief to your industry client. You will also present your findings to a panel of academics for your final assessment.

If you are part of a group, then it is expected that each member of the group will contribute to the presentation and that each person will present an element of the presentation.

The presentation must clearly and concisely communicate the following:

· A brief background to the company and the objectives of the brief

· The research that you undertook

· The methods that you employed

· The findings and the solutions

· Conclusions

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON GROUP WORK

As a member of your project team you are expected to fully contribute to the output of the project brief. If there are any issues regarding you not contributing fully to the task you will be addressed by the module tutor and the Advance practice co-ordinator to assess your position on the project.

Expected Size of Coursework

Individual Reflective Account

· The work should be formatted as a Advance reflective report with numbered headings and subheadings

· The work should be formatted using ‘Arial’ font, of font size ‘11’, with 1.5 line spacing.

· The work shall be a maximum of 3,000 words (max 12 sides of A4 sheets)

· Figures and tables (diagrams, illustrations, photographs etc.) and tables are welcome to support the text. Figures, tables etc must be the author’s own and must add value to the report.

· The work must form a structured and coherent whole. It must contain a contents page and a basic front sheet that identifies the student number (not name), the total number of words used (excluding references, abstract and appendices section), and the number of figures/tables used.

· Submission of the reflective report should be titled in the following format

· Student name followed by Academic supervisors last name followed by the Client and the Project name

For example: Student Name_LITTLEMORE Bowmer and Kirkland Warehouse

Group Presentation

· The presentation will be conducted by all members of the group. The presentation will last 15 minutes with an additional 5 minutes for questions and answers

· The presentation format will be in PowerPoint (PPT)

· Submission of the PowerPoint should be titled in the following format

Group number followed by Academic supervisors last name followed by the Client and the Project name

For example: Group 2 LITTLEMORE Bowmer and Kirkland Warehouse

The University word limit policy is accessible here: https://www.northumbria.ac.uk/about-us/university-services/academic-registry/quality-and-teaching-excellence/assessment/guidance-for-students/

Referencing Style

You are to write your coursework using the Cite Them Right version of the Harvard referencing system. An online guide to Cite Them Right is freely available to Northumbria University students at:


https://www.citethemrightonline.com/

Assessment Criteria


Component 01 – Group Presentation


Pass and Fail grades are determined from the weighted sum of marks from each criterion as defined in the table below:

Criterion/Level


Fail (<40)

Adequate (50-59)

Good (60-69)

Excellent (>70)

Presentation Quality, Clarity and Skill (20%)

A poor presentation that demonstrates no cohesiveness amongst the team. Has little logic and lacks clarity

An adequate presentation that is presented with some logic and clarity but lacks a good level of professionalism

A good presentation that is logical, clear and conducted in a professional manner

An excellent presentation that is logical, clear and conducted in a professional manner

Industrial Sympathy (application in the real world) (30%)

Non-Coherent and no clear advice to the client. Shows limited/no understanding of the technology/knowledge transfer. Unable to defend the success of the project

Adequate advice to the client showing some understanding of the technology/knowledge transfer and risk. Defends the applicable success of the project

Good advice to the client showing good understanding of the technology/knowledge transfer and risk. Defends the applicable success of the project

Coherent and clear advice to client showing clear understanding of the technology/knowledge transfer and risk. Defends the applicable success of the project

Level of expertise in subject matter (30%)

No grip on the subject matter. No grasp of the wider application relating to the subject area

An adequate grip on the subject matter. Limited grasp of the wider application relating to the subject area

A good grip on the subject matter. Grasp of the wider application relating to the subject area

An excellent grip on the subject matter. Expertise evidenced. Grasp of the wider application relating to the subject area

Conclusions and Recommendations (10%)

Poor Clarity. Not clearly defined in a real-world context

Adequate clarity with some evidence of thinking through the process. Some explanation in a real-world context

Good clarity and well thought out process. Clearly explained in a real-world context

Excellent clarity and extremely well thought out. Clearly explained in a real-world context

Management of Questions and Answers (10%)

Poor management of questions

Adequate management of questions

Good management of questions

Excellent management of questions


Component 02 – Reflective Account

Criterion/Level

Fail (<40)

Adequate (50-59)

Good (60-69)

Excellent (>70)

Clarity – 20%

Language is vague and confusing throughout the report

There are frequent lapses in clarity and accuracy in the report

Minor infrequent gaps in clarity and accuracy in the report

The language is clear and expressive. The reviewer can clearly understand the purpose and position of the report

Relevance – 20%

Most of the reflection does not relate to the learning experiences of the student and/or learning objectives in the context of the project brief and learning contract

Student makes attempts to demonstrate relevance, but the relevance is unclear to the reader. Some linkage to project brief, AP learning objectives and the learning contract

The learning experience being reflected upon is good, relevant, and meaningful to the student and the AP learning objectives in the context of the project brief and learning contract

The learning experience being reflected upon is excellent, relevant, and meaningful to the student and the AP learning objectives in the context of the project brief and learning contract

Analysis – 20%

Reflection does not move beyond description of the learning experiences during the AP project

Student makes attempts at applying the learning experience to understanding of AP project concepts but fails to demonstrate depth of analysis

The reflection demonstrates a good level of applying the learning experience and analyses elements that have contributed to the students understanding of the AP project

The reflection moves beyond simple description of the experience to an analysis of how the experience contributed to the students understanding of the AP project

Interconnections – 15%

No attempt to demonstrate connections to previous learning or experiences with AP project

The reflection demonstrates little or no attempt to make connections between the experience and material from other modules at Northumbria University, past experiences and/or personal goals for their AP project

The reflection demonstrates good connections between the experience and material from other modules at Northumbria University, past experiences and/or personal goals for their AP project

The reflection demonstrates excellent connections between the experience and material from other modules at Northumbria University, past experiences and/or personal goals for their AP project

Self-Criticism – 15%

No attempt at self-criticism and relevant improvement strategies

There is some attempt at self-criticism, but the self-reflection fails to demonstrate a new awareness of personal learning developments

The reflection demonstrates ability of the student to question their own biases, project implementation strategy, team dynamics and skills but is limited in formulating new modes of thinking

The reflection demonstrates ability of the student to question their own biases, project implementation strategy, team dynamics and skills to formulation new modes of thinking.

Student Engagement – 10%

(Based on engagement with the process and your team throughout the module)

Less than 50% attendance recorded at scheduled meetings. Little or no information, that has been asked for, has been provided. Lack of engagement with the process and the team

50% attendance at scheduled meetings. An adequate level of the information, that has been asked for, has been provided There has been some engagement with the process and the team.

80% attendance at scheduled meetings and gateways in the module. Most of the information asked for has been provided. Good level of team engagement

100% attendance at scheduled meetings and gateways in the module. All information that has been asked for has been provided. Fully engaged in the team and their activities

Referral

The Referral Attempt opportunity will generally take place after the end-of-level Progression and Awards Board (PAB). If you become eligible to complete a Referral Attempt but are subsequently unable to undertake the opportunity when required, you will be permitted to re-sit the module at the next scheduled sitting of the module assessment. This will typically entail the suspension of your progression on your programme of study until such time that you have completed the level and become eligible to proceed.


Guidance for Students on Policies for Assessment

The University has several policies for assessment. The following information, which is available to you from the link below, provides guidance on these policies, including relevant procedures and forms.

(1) Assessment Regulations and Policies

(a) Assessment Regulations for Taught Awards

(b) Group Work Assessments Policy

(c) Moderation Policy

(d) Retention of Assessed Work Policy

(e) Word Limits Policy

(2) Assessment Feedback

(a) Anonymous Marking Policy

(3) Late Submission of Work and Extension Requests

(4) Personal Extenuating Circumstances

(5) Technical Extenuating Circumstances

(6) Student Complaints and Appeals

(7) Academic Misconduct

(8) Student Disability and Unforeseen Medical Circumstances

https://www.northumbria.ac.uk/about-us/university-services/academic-registry/quality-and-teaching-excellence/assessment/guidance-for-students/



MCE | Learning and Teaching Version 2.0 | Page 1 of 5

MCE | Learning and Teaching Version 2.0 | Page 2 of 5

sa-AD


Department of Mechanical and Construction Engineering

Faculty of Engineering and Environment

Coursework Specification (Resit)

Module Information

Module Title

Advance Practice

Module Code Number

KB7056

Module Level and Credit Points

Level 7, 60 Credits

Module Leader

Dr Shahid Rasul

Assessment Component Number (on Module Specification)

01 and 02

Assessment Weighting (on Module Specification)

Component 01 – Pass/Fail

Component 02 – Pass/Fail

Both Components must be passed

Coursework Title

Component 01 – Individual Reflective Report

Component 02 – Group Project Presentation

Coursework Specification Author

Dr Shahid Rasul

Michelle Littlemore

Prof James Martin

Academic Year and Semester(s)

2021/2022

Coursework Submission and Feedback

Release Date of Coursework Specification to Students

22nd August 2022

Mechanism Used to Disseminate Coursework Specification to Students

Via eLP and in class


Date and Time of Submission of Coursework by Students

Group Project Presentation

Presentations (e.g. PowerPoint file) to be submitted Blackboard 6th May 2022 23:58 GMT – Only one member of the team must submit the presentation. The format for handing in the presentation is outlined in the expected size of the submission.

Presentations to academics and external project sponsors where appropriate will be held w/c 9nd May 2022 – you will be informed of a date and time prior to the end of semester 2.

Individual Reflective Report – to be submitted via TurnitinUK 17th May 2022 23:58 GMT

The mechanism for Submission of Coursework by Students

TurnitinUK


Return Date of Unconfirmed Internally Moderated Mark(s) and Feedback to Students

20th June 16:00 GMT

The mechanism for Return of Unconfirmed Internally Moderated Mark(s) and Feedback to Students

• Formative feedback/tutorial support will be given during the stages of the module delivery.

• Summative feedback/feedforward will be made via eLP TurnitinUK and during the Final Presentations

The Advance Practice Award

Your Advance Practice semester will be assessed on a pass/fail basis and does not contribute to the classification of your degree. However when taken and passed it is recognised both in your transcript as a 60 credit Advance Practice Module and in your degree title.



Assessment Details

Module Learning Outcomes (MLOs) Assessed by Coursework

Specific achievements will be defined within your individual learning contract. However, all students are expected demonstrate an ability to achieve the following:

Knowledge & Understanding:

• MLO1: Reflect upon, challenge and extend existing personal knowledge of your discipline.

• MLO2: Evidence an enhanced understanding of your discipline through the application of existing knowledge in unfamiliar learning environments and through the acquisition of new knowledge and perspectives derived from experience out-with your formal taught programme.

Intellectual/Professional skills & abilities:

• MLO3: Exercise self-direction of your own learning by identifying and managing tasks individually and as a member of a team which address your personal goals.

• MLO4: Demonstrate mastery of intellectual and professional skills appropriate to your discipline.

• MLO5: Critically analyse and communicate ideas in appropriate written and verbal forms.

Personal Values/Attributes:

• MLO6: Demonstrate self-awareness of personal development.

Coursework Task to be completed by Students


Component 01 – Individual Reflective Report

During your Advance Practice you will have developed a number of skills and will have experienced a number of emotions. This component gives you the opportunity to reflect, analyse and propose future actions as a result of your experiences during this module in order to enhance your ability to become a reflective practitioner.

The Individual Reflective Report must demonstrate a critical and analytic thought process, a clear line of argument, and the use of evidence through examples of personal experiences, thoughts, and possibly theoretical literature. It must also contain the following 4 Rs of Reflective Writing:

· Reporting and Responding – Describe your experience, report what happened. Why is it relevant? Respond to your experiences with observations or expressing your opinion

· Relating – Draw a relationship between your experiences during the project and past experiences or modules/concepts/theories. Make a connection between how your skills, past professional experiences or discipline knowledge helped you during the project. Did you have the skills and knowledge to deal with task?

· Reasoning – Rationalise your experiences and make sense of the experiences through theory, ethical, social or political factors.

Reconstructing – Develop a plan to change your future actions/behaviours and to develop gaps in your skills. How would I deal with this next time?


Component 02 – Group Presentation.

As an output of your Advance Practice experience, you will be required to present the findings/solutions from your project brief to your industry client. You will also present your findings to a panel of academics for your final assessment.

If you are part of a group, then it is expected that each member of the group will contribute to the presentation and that each person will present an element of the presentation.

The presentation must clearly and concisely communicate the following:

· A brief background to the company and the objectives of the brief

· The research that you undertook

· The methods that you employed

· The findings and the solutions

· Conclusions

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON GROUP WORK

As a member of your project team you are expected to fully contribute to the output of the project brief. If there are any issues regarding you not contributing fully to the task you will be addressed by the module tutor and the Advance practice co-ordinator to assess your position on the project.

Expected Size of Coursework

Individual Reflective Account

· The work should be formatted as a Advance reflective report with numbered headings and subheadings

· The work should be formatted using ‘Arial’ font, of font size ‘11’, with 1.5 line spacing.

· The work shall be a maximum of 3,000 words (max 12 sides of A4 sheets)

· Figures and tables (diagrams, illustrations, photographs etc.) and tables are welcome to support the text. Figures, tables etc must be the author’s own and must add value to the report.

· The work must form a structured and coherent whole. It must contain a contents page and a basic front sheet that identifies the student number (not name), the total number of words used (excluding references, abstract and appendices section), and the number of figures/tables used.

· Submission of the reflective report should be titled in the following format

· Student name followed by Academic supervisors last name followed by the Client and the Project name

For example: Student Name_LITTLEMORE Bowmer and Kirkland Warehouse

Group Presentation

· The presentation will be conducted by all members of the group. The presentation will last 15 minutes with an additional 5 minutes for questions and answers

· The presentation format will be in PowerPoint (PPT)

· Submission of the PowerPoint should be titled in the following format

Group number followed by Academic supervisors last name followed by the Client and the Project name

For example: Group 2 LITTLEMORE Bowmer and Kirkland Warehouse

The University word limit policy is accessible here: https://www.northumbria.ac.uk/about-us/university-services/academic-registry/quality-and-teaching-excellence/assessment/guidance-for-students/

Referencing Style

You are to write your coursework using the Cite Them Right version of the Harvard referencing system. An online guide to Cite Them Right is freely available to Northumbria University students at:


https://www.citethemrightonline.com/

Assessment Criteria


Component 01 – Group Presentation


Pass and Fail grades are determined from the weighted sum of marks from each criterion as defined in the table below:

Criterion/Level


Fail (<40)

Adequate (50-59)

Good (60-69)

Excellent (>70)

Presentation Quality, Clarity and Skill (20%)

A poor presentation that demonstrates no cohesiveness amongst the team. Has little logic and lacks clarity

An adequate presentation that is presented with some logic and clarity but lacks a good level of professionalism

A good presentation that is logical, clear and conducted in a professional manner

An excellent presentation that is logical, clear and conducted in a professional manner

Industrial Sympathy (application in the real world) (30%)

Non-Coherent and no clear advice to the client. Shows limited/no understanding of the technology/knowledge transfer. Unable to defend the success of the project

Adequate advice to the client showing some understanding of the technology/knowledge transfer and risk. Defends the applicable success of the project

Good advice to the client showing good understanding of the technology/knowledge transfer and risk. Defends the applicable success of the project

Coherent and clear advice to client showing clear understanding of the technology/knowledge transfer and risk. Defends the applicable success of the project

Level of expertise in subject matter (30%)

No grip on the subject matter. No grasp of the wider application relating to the subject area

An adequate grip on the subject matter. Limited grasp of the wider application relating to the subject area

A good grip on the subject matter. Grasp of the wider application relating to the subject area

An excellent grip on the subject matter. Expertise evidenced. Grasp of the wider application relating to the subject area

Conclusions and Recommendations (10%)

Poor Clarity. Not clearly defined in a real-world context

Adequate clarity with some evidence of thinking through the process. Some explanation in a real-world context

Good clarity and well thought out process. Clearly explained in a real-world context

Excellent clarity and extremely well thought out. Clearly explained in a real-world context

Management of Questions and Answers (10%)

Poor management of questions

Adequate management of questions

Good management of questions

Excellent management of questions


Component 02 – Reflective Account

Criterion/Level

Fail (<40)

Adequate (50-59)

Good (60-69)

Excellent (>70)

Clarity – 20%

Language is vague and confusing throughout the report

There are frequent lapses in clarity and accuracy in the report

Minor infrequent gaps in clarity and accuracy in the report

The language is clear and expressive. The reviewer can clearly understand the purpose and position of the report

Relevance – 20%

Most of the reflection does not relate to the learning experiences of the student and/or learning objectives in the context of the project brief and learning contract

Student makes attempts to demonstrate relevance, but the relevance is unclear to the reader. Some linkage to project brief, AP learning objectives and the learning contract

The learning experience being reflected upon is good, relevant, and meaningful to the student and the AP learning objectives in the context of the project brief and learning contract

The learning experience being reflected upon is excellent, relevant, and meaningful to the student and the AP learning objectives in the context of the project brief and learning contract

Analysis – 20%

Reflection does not move beyond description of the learning experiences during the AP project

Student makes attempts at applying the learning experience to understanding of AP project concepts but fails to demonstrate depth of analysis

The reflection demonstrates a good level of applying the learning experience and analyses elements that have contributed to the students understanding of the AP project

The reflection moves beyond simple description of the experience to an analysis of how the experience contributed to the students understanding of the AP project

Interconnections – 15%

No attempt to demonstrate connections to previous learning or experiences with AP project

The reflection demonstrates little or no attempt to make connections between the experience and material from other modules at Northumbria University, past experiences and/or personal goals for their AP project

The reflection demonstrates good connections between the experience and material from other modules at Northumbria University, past experiences and/or personal goals for their AP project

The reflection demonstrates excellent connections between the experience and material from other modules at Northumbria University, past experiences and/or personal goals for their AP project

Self-Criticism – 15%

No attempt at self-criticism and relevant improvement strategies

There is some attempt at self-criticism, but the self-reflection fails to demonstrate a new awareness of personal learning developments

The reflection demonstrates ability of the student to question their own biases, project implementation strategy, team dynamics and skills but is limited in formulating new modes of thinking

The reflection demonstrates ability of the student to question their own biases, project implementation strategy, team dynamics and skills to formulation new modes of thinking.

Student Engagement – 10%

(Based on engagement with the process and your team throughout the module)

Less than 50% attendance recorded at scheduled meetings. Little or no information, that has been asked for, has been provided. Lack of engagement with the process and the team

50% attendance at scheduled meetings. An adequate level of the information, that has been asked for, has been provided There has been some engagement with the process and the team.

80% attendance at scheduled meetings and gateways in the module. Most of the information asked for has been provided. Good level of team engagement

100% attendance at scheduled meetings and gateways in the module. All information that has been asked for has been provided. Fully engaged in the team and their activities

Referral

The Referral Attempt opportunity will generally take place after the end-of-level Progression and Awards Board (PAB). If you become eligible to complete a Referral Attempt but are subsequently unable to undertake the opportunity when required, you will be permitted to re-sit the module at the next scheduled sitting of the module assessment. This will typically entail the suspension of your progression on your programme of study until such time that you have completed the level and become eligible to proceed.


Guidance for Students on Policies for Assessment

The University has several policies for assessment. The following information, which is available to you from the link below, provides guidance on these policies, including relevant procedures and forms.

(1) Assessment Regulations and Policies

(a) Assessment Regulations for Taught Awards

(b) Group Work Assessments Policy

(c) Moderation Policy

(d) Retention of Assessed Work Policy

(e) Word Limits Policy

(2) Assessment Feedback

(a) Anonymous Marking Policy

(3) Late Submission of Work and Extension Requests

(4) Personal Extenuating Circumstances

(5) Technical Extenuating Circumstances

(6) Student Complaints and Appeals

(7) Academic Misconduct

(8) Student Disability and Unforeseen Medical Circumstances

https://www.northumbria.ac.uk/about-us/university-services/academic-registry/quality-and-teaching-excellence/assessment/guidance-for-students/



MCE | Learning and Teaching Version 2.0 | Page 1 of 5

MCE | Learning and Teaching Version 2.0 | Page 2 of 5

sa-AD

HARECRAG – SUSTAINABLE LANDFILL GAS MANAGEMENT

THE TEAM

SHYAMJITH HARIDAS – Technical Lead

Trainee – Oil and Natural Gas Corporation India Ltd

M.Sc, Engineering Management with Advanced Practice (Underway)

AKHIL PADINJARETHIL VARGHESE – Project Manager

Quality Control and Assurance Engineer – Federal Cables, Abu Dhabi (2 years)

M.Sc, Renewable & Sustainable Energy Technologies (Underway)

SESANTH KUMAR CHITTALURI – Communications Lead

Management Trainee – Tata projects

M.Sc, Construction Project Management + B.I.M (Underway)

INTRODUCTION

Sustainable gas management system at Harecrag

Aging Site

5 Proposals

120 KW Generator

DELIVERABLES

Sustainable landfill gas management at site

Permit Compliance

Removal of Generator

A toolbox of solutions

4

CASE

STUDIES ON ALL 5 SOLUTIONS

6

SOLUTIONS

Methane Oxidation

Internal Combustion engines

External Combustion engines

Conversion of L.F.G. to R.N.G.

Energy for Revenue

Low BTU  High BTU

Solar Panels

Renewable Energy Option

BIOFILTERS – CONTAINED / CLOSED TYPE

Change of medium in 5 – 7 years

Upto 90% methane destruction rate

6 biofilters with dimensions of 90m x 18m

Incubation period – 14 days

Highest oxidation rate – 90 days

Methane oxidation layer

Gas distribution layer (32-64mm)

0.8m

0.3m

7

Passive biofilter system

Methanotrophic bacteria

Temperature

14˚C – 18˚C

ph of water

7.5

Soil mosture

40-60%

BIO WINDOWS

Low OPEX and CAPEX make it financially viable

Closed bed is a modular system

Can be installed by any established supplier

BIOCOVERS

Capping of the whole area must be removed

Passive gas management

High surface area yields low local gas loads

SOLAR PANELS

Renewable energy source to replace the generator

Sunpal Quote recieved 120KW off-grid system

709 KWh/day

Encouraged by the agency

Competitors ——————->

10

Let’s look at some numbers

Last 5 years

Diesel + Generator hire + Flare =

£ 98,275

Diesel for 1 hr

Full load : 32 litres

3/4th load : 24 litres

½ load : 16 litres

Cost of fuel

CAPEX

(Off-grid system)

¾ Load  4.25 years

½ Load  6.38 years

¼ Load  12.77 years

Fuel Cost

(3.19 years)

Generator = 1216 hrs in 2021

Full load = 38,912 litres

Avg. cost of red diesel 58.43 p per L = £ 22,736.28

Cost of off-grid system : £ 72,599.84

Newburn power rental

+

Trans cube(Midas UK) for

Fuel tank

11

EXTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES

ORGANIC RANKINE CYCLE ENGINE

Tolerant to low quality gas  

Long engine life

LCOE – $0.3 /KWh

Cost of engine $155,167 in 2017 from Thailand case study

 Potential supplier

ORMAT®

E-Rational ORC

Turboden

STIRLING ENGINE

More robust than internal combustion engines

Generates electricity and heat from lean gas

Modular installation allows expansion

Cleanergy C9G stirling engine, distributed in UK

C9G Model

Even at 12m3 / hr gas – 7.2KW continuously

ROC 2.0 rating

CAPEX – £ 214,000 (ACUMEN 2015)

OPEX – £ 15000/annum

12

INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES

(with portable battery banks)

Portable and customizable

Capable of combusting lower methane content LFG – the gas is losing quality – Phase Ⅴ maturation

Capstone (Supplier – NewEnCo) from C30,C65-C1000

CAPEX £100,000 – depends on the number of turbines

OPEX varies between £5,000 and £10,000 per year.

Detailed case studies

Jenbacher

Capstone

13

LFG to RNG Conversion

Pressure swing adsorption

Highest methane generator (90-98%)

Low BTU gas  high BTU gas

Cost  £ 158,000 – £ 793,000

Investment is quite high, but earnings will help to overcome in future

Lean gas

engines

Recovered methane ———> Electricity

LFG to RNG Conversion

Altamont landfill, USA

Displaced 2.5 million gallons of diesel

13,000 gallons of LNG per day

Fuels 300 garbage trucks

5 SIMILAR CASE STUDIES

Budget as of 2016,

$7 per million Btu (large scale)

$25 per million Btu (small scale)

15

SUSTAINABILITY

CONSIDERATIONS

SOLUTIONS ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICAL
Methane Oxidation × Chemicals Simple systems
Less cost
Internal Combustion Engines ↓ Pollution
↓ Space
Less cost
Portable
External Combustion Engines × Exhaust gas
↓ C footprints
Runs on low methane level
Solar Panels ↓ Greenhouse gas
Replace generator
↓ operating & maintenance cost
LFG to RNG Conversion Traces hazardous pollutants
↓ C footprints
High
Investment ǃǃǃ

16

PERMIT COMPLIANCE

All clauses are examined individually in the toolbox

17

PERMIT : EPR/TP3031LV

Management

Operations

Emissions & Monitoring

Information

Energy Efficiency

Disposal of waste

Minimize pollution

Clause 2.7.1

Water, Air, Land

(generator & flare)

Liaising with agency

CONCLUSION

Intense, in-depth research

Project management tools utilized

5 sets of solutions

Case studies analyzed

Permit compliance

Sustainability analysis of 5 proposals

Thank You

sa-AD

KB7052 Research Project Page 2 of 3

 

  Suggested Format 3000 word Reflective report  ( this is an example and not mandatory) 

Part 1 
500 – 
750 
words 

Abstract of 
Project 

 Abstract description of project 
 The client and specific requirement  
 Project Aims and Objectives 
 Group roles 
 Outcomes Achieved 

 
Part 2: 
1500 – 
2000 
words 

Research 
Methodologies 
Applied 

 Research methodologies applied 
 Target Audience Learning Styles considered to support your 

outcomes (Cognitive/ Psychomotor) 

 Identified Knowledge transfer skills employed to support 
client’s requirements 

 Processes embedded within your outcomes (online 
collaboration/ Video presenting) 

 New skills learnt or adopted 
 Timeline / overview of key stages  
 Evidence of Teamwork/ Collaboration 
 Engagement with the Industrial Simulation 
 Feedback‐ from client/ academic supervisor ( may wish to 

support this with the minutes from meetings)  
Part 3: 
500 – 
750 
words 

Conclusion  Evaluation of outcomes achieved 
 Skills learnt  
 Impact of Covid on Teaching and Learning (changes/ 

knowledge transfer and the lessons learnt) 
What you will do next: 

 Explore some of the theory and processes to support your final 
dissertation 

 Engagement with client to support their needs 
 SWOT assessment      

 
Ray Elysee  updated 17.5.21