Mobilizing learning: mobile Web 2.0 scenarios in tertiary education

Based upon three years of mobile learning (mlearning) projects, a major implementation project has been developed for integrating the use of mobile web 2.0 tools across a variety of departments and courses in a tertiary education environment. A participatory action research methodology guides and informs the project. The project is based upon an explicit social constuctivist pedagogy, focusing on student collaboration, and the sharing and critique of student-generated content using freely available web 2.0 services. These include blogs, social networks, location aware (geotagged) image and video sharing, instant messaging, microblogging etc… Students and lecturers are provided with either an appropriate smartphone and/or a 3G capable netbook to use as their own for the duration of the project. Keys to the projects success are the level of pedagogical and technical support, and the level of integration of the tools into the courses – including assessment and lecturer modelling of the use of the tools. The projects are supported by an intentional community of practice model, with the researcher taking on the role of the “technology steward”. The paper outlines three different scenarios illustrating how this course integration is being achieved, establishing a transferable model of mobile web 2.0 integration and implementation. The goal is to facilitate a student-centred, collaborative, flexible, context-bridging learning environment that empowers students as content producers and learning context generators, guided by lecturers who effectively model th

Using pressure and volumetric approaches to estimate CO2 storage capacity in deep saline aquifers

Various approaches are used to evaluate the capacity of saline aquifers to store CO2, resulting in a wide range of capacity estimates for a given aquifer. The two approaches most used are the volumetric “open aquifer” and “closed aquifer” approaches. We present four full-scale aquifer cases, where CO2 storage capacity is evaluated both volumetrically (with “open” and/or “closed” approaches) and through flow modeling. These examples show that the “open aquifer” CO2 storage capacity estimation can strongly exceed the cumulative CO2 injection from the flow model, whereas the “closed aquifer” estimates are a closer approximation to the flow-model derived capacity. An analogy to oil recovery mechanisms is presented, where the primary oil recovery mechanism is compared to CO2 aquifer storage without producing formation water; and the secondary oil recovery mechanism (water flooding) is compared to CO2 aquifer storage performed simultaneously with extraction of water for pressure maintenance. This analogy supports the finding that the “closed aquifer” approach produces a better estimate of CO2 storage without water extraction, and highlights the need for any CO2 storage estimate to specify whether it is intended to represent CO2 storage capacity with or without water extraction

Reserves and resources for CO2 storage in Europe: the CO2 StoP project

Th e challenge of climate change demands reduction in global CO 2 emissions. In order to fi ght global warming many coun- tries are looking at technological solutions to keep the release of CO 2 into the atmosphere under control. One of the most promising techniques is carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS), also known as CO 2 geological storage. CCS can re- duce the world’s total CO 2 release by about one quarter by 2050 (IEA 2008, 2013; Metz et al. 2005). CCS usually in- volves a series of steps: (1) separation of the CO 2 from the gases produced by large power plants or other point sources, (2) compression of the CO 2 into supercritical fl uid, (3) trans- portation to a storage location and (4) injecting it into deep underground geological formations. CO 2 StoP is an acronym for the CO 2 Storage Potential in Europe project. Th e CO 2 StoP project which started in Janu- ary 2012 and ended in October 2014 included data from 27 countries (Fig. 1). Th e data necessary to assess potential loca- tions of CO 2 storage resources are found in a database set up in the project. A data analysis system was developed to analyse the com- plex data in the database, as well as a geographical informa- tion system (GIS) that can display the location of potential geological storage formations, individual units of assessment within the formations and any further subdivisions (daugh- ter units, such as hydrocarbon reservoirs or potential struc- tural traps in saline aquifers). Finally, formulae have been developed to calculate the storage resources. Th e database is housed at the Joint Research Centre, the European Commis- sion in Petten, the Netherlands. Background and methods CO 2 storage resource assessment A resource can be defi ned as anything potentially available and useful to man. Th e pore space in deeply buried reservoir rocks that can trap CO 2 is a resource that can be used for CO 2 storage. It is of utmost importance to be aware that the mere presence of a resource does not indicate that any part of it can be economically exploited, now or in the futur

Reserves and resources for CO2 storage in Europe: the CO2StoP project

The challenge of climate change demands reduction in global CO2 emissions. In order to fight global warming many countries are looking at technological solutions to keep the release of CO2 into the atmosphere under control. One of the most promising techniques is carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS), also known as CO2 geological storage. CCS can reduce the world’s total CO2 release by about one quarter by 2050 (IEA 2008, 2013; Metz et al. 2005). CCS usually involves a series of steps: (1) separation of the CO2 from the gases produced by large power plants or other point sources, (2) compression of the CO2 into supercritical fluid, (3) transportation to a storage location and (4) injecting it into deep underground geological formations. CO2StoP is an acronym for the CO2 Storage Potential in Europe project. The CO2StoP project which started in January 2012 and ended in October 2014 included data from 27 countries (Fig. 1). The data necessary to assess potential locations of CO2 storage resources are found in a database set up in the project. A data analysis system was developed to analyse the complex data in the database, as well as a geographical information system (GIS) that can display the location of potential geological storage formations, individual units of assessment within the formations and any further subdivisions (daughter units, such as hydrocarbon reservoirs or potential structural traps in saline aquifers). Finally, formulae have been developed to calculate the storage resources. The database is housed at the Joint Research Centre, the European Commission in Petten, the Netherlands.JRC.F.6-Energy Technology Policy Outloo

Cross-international boundary effects of CO2 injection

The Bunter Sandstone Formation in the Southern North Sea is a regional saline aquifer that extends across the median line between UK and Netherlands territorial waters. Numerical simulations of CO2 injection into a brine-saturated structural closure located in the UK sector have modelled the temporal development of an injection-induced pressure footprint, together with the potential role of faults in brine migration and pressure dissipation in the aquifer. The modelled pressure footprint extends into the Netherlands Sector and if the faults are considered migration pathways, brine expulsion rates of the order of 50 m3/day/km2 could be expected along the fault zones. This is equivalent to just over 105 Ml, during a 50 year injection period, of which approximately 40% is expelled along a fault beneath Netherlands territorial waters. The simulations have shown that brine displacement will facilitate CO2 injection into the Bunter Sandstone by alleviating pressure build-up, but an understanding of potential brine migration pathways, rates and environmental impacts must be demonstrated to regulators prior to injection

How safe is your curry? Food allergy awareness of restaurant staff

Background: Incidents of severe and fatal anaphylaxis to accidentally ingested food allergens are increasing. Individuals are more likely to encounter difficulties when eating away from home. In restaurants, front-of-house and kitchen staff may be called upon to provide information about ingredients or ensure certain food allergens are excluded from dishes. Following a series of reactions related to the accidental ingestion of peanuts in curries we assessed food allergy awareness and allergen avoidance practices amongst the staff of Asian-Indian restaurants. Methods: A questionnaire survey was administered by telephone to one member of staff in each restaurant. Results: Fifty percent (40/80) of restaurants participated. Responders included managers, owners, waiters and chefs. Most (90%) had received food hygiene training, but only 15% food allergy training. 25% could name three common food allergens. 3 in 4 listed nuts, but less than 1in 5 mentioned peanuts. Common misunderstandings included 60% of staff believing an individual experiencing an allergic reaction should drink water to dilute the allergen. A less prevalent, but perhaps more concerning, was the misunderstanding that cooking food would prevent it causing an allergic reaction (25%). Despite poor knowledge, all respondents were comfortable and 65% were “very comfortable” with providing a “safe” meal for a customer with a food allergy. 60% expressed interest in future food allergy training. Conclusions: Despite high confidence in their own understanding of allergy, many staff lacked the knowledge to provide “safe” meals for food allergic customers. Traditionally tree nuts are a common ingredient in Asian-Indian dishes cuisine and there was widespread, but not universal, awareness of tree nuts as a common allergen. Peanuts were less commonly recognised as a common allergen, an observation of extreme concern as peanuts are being substituted for tree nuts as they are cheaper and avoid having to inflate meal prices. Our data highlights the need for greater training of restaurant staff. In parallel, food allergic customers need to exercise vigilance when making meal choices and develop skills to order a safe meal. The management of allergy is multifaceted, and this study indicates the importance of health professionals working beyond the clinical setting to collaborate with colleagues in the hospitality industry, public health and environmental health in coordinated endeavours to improve patient safety

Implementation of the EU CCS Directive in Europe: results and development in 2013

Directive 2009/31/EC of the European Parliament on the geological storage of carbon dioxide, entered into force on June 25th 2009. By the end 2013 the CCS Directive has been fully transposed into national law to the satisfaction of the EC in 20 out of 28 EU Member States, while six EU countries (Austria, Cyprus, Hungary, Ireland, Sweden and Slovenia) had to complete transposing measures. In July 2014 the European Commission closed infringement procedures against Cyprus, Hungary and Ireland, which have notified the EC that they have taken measures to incorporate the CCS Directive into national law. Among other three countries Sweden has updated its legislation and published a new law in their country in March 2014, permitting CO2 storage offshore. The evaluation of the national laws in Poland, which were accepted at national level in November 2013, and Croatia, which entered the EU on 7 July 2013 and simultaneously transposed the CCS directive, is still ongoing in 2014. The first storage permit under the Directive (for the ROAD Project in the offshore Netherlands) has been approved by the EC. While CO2 storage is permitted in a number of European countries, temporary restrictions were applied in Czech Republic, Denmark and Poland. CO2 storage is prohibited except for research and development in Estonia, Finland, Luxembourg, two regions in Belgium and Slovenia due to their geological conditions, but also forbidden in Austraia, Ireland and Latvia. The size of exploration areas for CO2 storage sites is limited in Bulgaria and Hungary. In Germany, only limited CO2 storage will be permitted until 2018 (up to 4 Mt CO2 annually)