Every member of the team had worked in groups before and this meant that we were all quite used to achieving results in this way. However, we all realised that group dynamics plays an important part and it is difficult to predict exactly how well a number of individuals will operate together as a team.

As group members we would all have our own ideas of how something should look, be presented, or be carried out. It was important to be able to compromise on certain matters while other times it would be other people who would allow for concessions. It was also difficult to maintain a benchmark standard for the quality of work, as each team member had a lot of work to complete themselves, so it was left to self regulation. This ultimately resulted in more work at the final editing stage.

Many benefits were realised, as the amount of research and the number of tasks that could be completed in a given time was astonishing. Also, each group member brought their own unique background, experience, skills, and personality to the project.

As part of the requirements of the Part B: Group Projects, each group was required to present themselves, on a fortnightly basis, before tutors. The aim of these presentations (or crits), was to ensure progress was suitable and to receive feedback which could be considered in time for the next critical evaluation.

This is a brief outline to the content of each of our crits and the feedback we received.

CRIT 1 - Background

Main Points:

• Establish what constitutes a biofuel and name the different types
• State the main problems with the demand on road transport
• Ascertain statistics relating to air pollution and greenhouse gases
• Identify the legislation which will prove to be relevant

Points to Address:

• Methods of producing methanol
• Local air pollution – bioethanol vs. biodiesel

CRIT 2 – Further Background

Main Points:

• Discuss methanol production methods
• State the UK biomass resource and its potential use within transport
• Discuss potential problems that biofuels offer
• State how biofuels affect local air quality
• Present work schedule

Points to Address:

• Start stating aims in next critical evaluation
• State what the quantitative core will be

CRIT 3 – Stating project aims

Main Points:

• State aims for quantifying land requirements for fuel crops
• Discuss possible environmental impacts arising from fuel crop
• Assess possible changes required to refuelling infrastructure
• Consider market penetration of fuels
• Focus on waste from fuel – tyre pyrolysis oil
• State quantitative experimentation – biodiesel engine testing

Points to Address:

• Begin presenting quantification results
• Clarify in more detail the experimentation methodology

CRIT 4 – Quantification results

Main Points:

• Relating land use to production – calculation results
• Quantification of waste oil resource
• Calculation of the waste tyre resource
• Discuss market barriers arising from using biodiesel
• Quantification of socio-economic factor – i.e. jobs
• Quantification of ethanol producing capabilities

Points to Address:

• End focus on tyre pyrolysis oil if it is unfeasible
• Begin bringing together results and research

CRIT 5 – Policy proposals

Main Points:

• Describe wheat production method and resource for ethanol
• Describe proposed lowering of tax rates to encourage biofuel uptake
• Consideration of pesticide usage and effects
• Analysis of Austrian and French biodiesel decision process

Points to Address:

• Focus less on wheat production
• Spend less effort on pesticide issues

Week 1:

5 February at 12 noon in post-graduate common room

Present:
Scott Dwyer
Allan Drewette
Vincent Farrell
Andrew Miller

Apologies:
None

Matters arising:

• Nature of project - what angle to take on project
• Literature Search was agreed on to acquire good understanding of topic

Week 2:

12 February at 12 noon in post-graduate common room

Present:
Scott Dwyer
Allan Drewette
Vincent Farrell
Andrew Miller

Apologies:
None

Matters arising:

• Discussion of information gathered so far
• Possible ideas for experimentation
• Narrowing down of feasible fuels

Week 3:

19 February at 12 noon in post-graduate common room

Present:
Scott Dwyer
Allan Drewette
Vincent Farrell
Andrew Miller

Apologies:
None

Matters arising:

• Comparison and verification of land use/resource size calculations
• Decided on exact experimentation we will be performing
• Begun organising apparatus and other materials required for engine testing

• Scott Dwyer (March 12) read out the contents of a letter from a Mr R. Hogg from Compact Power Ltd. They own a pyrolysis and gasification plant in Bristol and told how they had done trials with tyres but said the prime use of their technology was “to produce carbon from tyres for use in rubber manufacture” and also using waste materials “to produce heat and power from steam”. They also attached a number of documents about the specifications of their plant.

Week 4:

26 February at 12 noon in post-graduate common room

Present:
Allan Drewette
Vincent Farrell
Andrew Miller


Apologies:
Scott Dwyer

Matter arising:

• The need to become familiar with engine
• The necessity to acquire various fuel types for testing
• The production of data sheets for test results
• Planning website style, layout, etc.
• Discussed emissions testing equipment we will need

• Contact reached with Mr B. Marshall – who has contacts with the university and deals with experimentation on used tyre oil. A meeting has been arranged for Wednesday this week.

Week 5:

5 March at 11am in post-graduate common room

Present:
Scott Dwyer
Allan Drewette
Vincent Farrell
Andrew Miller

Apologies:
None

Matter arising:

• Decision taken not to pursue tyre pyrolysis oil as a fuel, as problems have arisen as far as obtaining the substance in time is concerned
• Demonstration of engine has been observed and relevant health and safety forms have been filled in and handed back
• Begun running engine
• Research on policy issues still ongoing
• Enquiries made about emissions testing equipment

• Andy spoke with “Global Commodities” and their distributor to arrange purchase of biodiesel. A price and blend was decided on and arrangements were made to deliver the fuel to the university. This was the culmination of several weeks of talks as biofuel manufacturer.

Week 6:

12 March at 10am in post-graduate common room

Present:
Scott Dwyer
Allan Drewette
Vincent Farrell

Apologies:
Andrew Miller

Matter arising:

• Having problems with getting engine running at constant speed – continue trying
• Have had to run engine on one cylinder and managed to attain constant speed – 1500rpm
• Decided to not use ‘Labview’ due to time constraints and other factors
• 100% biofuel delivered to university
• Agreed blends of 5, 10, 20, 40, 60, 80, 100(%) were decided upon
• Discussed the fact of not being able to test emissions and decided that we should just continue without. It is suggested that the problem lies in not just being able to obtain the equipment but also with the layout and set-up of the engine.

Week 7:

19 March at 10am in post-graduate common room

Present:
Scott Dwyer
Allan Drewette
Vincent Farrell
Andrew Miller

Apologies:
None

Matter arising:

• In trying to achieve constant speed in engine the fuel is allowed to run straight through. The resulting air bubbles means that the engine needs to be bled. It has also come to our attention that sediment in the bottom of the fuel tank could also become a problem (lost the prime in the fuel line).
• Web site ready for cutting and pasting of written work completed so far.

Week 8:

26 March at 9am in post-graduate common room

Present:
Scott Dwyer
Allan Drewette
Andrew Miller

Apologies:
Vincent Farrell

Matter arising:

• Finally have engine operating again. Running engine but results from 5% biodiesel suspect. Retesting them is suggested as well as longer running time with each fuel blend. Estimated that testing may last next few days.

• Scott reads out a letter from Anna Hurley of Renault UK relating to their attitude on biofuels. The letter could be interpreted as neither positive nor negative but intimated that they could not answer specific enquiries.

Week 9:

2 April at 10am in post-graduate common room

Present:
Scott Dwyer
Vincent Farrell
Andrew Miller

Apologies:
Allan Drewette

Matter arising:

• The engine test results have been gathered
• The website is taking shape and areas in which there is information missing has begun to be distributed among the group members to be completed.

• Scott read out a letter from psa-peugeot-citroen which replied to say that all the information they had on biofuels was all in their website.

Week 10:

9 April at 9am in post-graduate common room

Present:
Scott Dwyer
Allan Drewette
Vincent Farrell
Andrew Miller

Apologies:
None

Matter arising:

• Calorific value for biofuels measured as well as specific gravity. Some problems were encountered in obtaining instrumentation
• Conclusions from group members discussed

Week 11:

16 April at 9am in post-graduate common room

Present:
Scott Dwyer
Allan Drewette
Vincent Farrell
Andrew Miller

Apologies:
None

Matter arising:

• Contents of final presentation discussed and layout planned

Week 12:

23 April at 10am in post-graduate common room

Present:
Scott Dwyer
Allan Drewette
Vincent Farrell
Andrew Miller

Apologies:
None

Matter arising:

• Last pieces of work handed in to be put into webpages
• Progress of final presentation finishing touches discussed

Week 13:

30 April at 9am in post-graduate common room

Present:
Scott Dwyer
Allan Drewette
Vincent Farrell
Andrew Miller

Apologies:
None

Matter arising:

• Final additions to be made to website
• Times for practicing presentation discussed

We would like to thank our supervisor, Mr R.C McLean for all his support and guidance, Professor J Clarke for his valuable additional assistance, the lab technicians, particularly Eric Duncan and Alistair Duff, who tirelessly assisted with the experimentation in the lab, and also to all our family and friends who were always there to offer us support.