Team Report Part

 

Letter of Transmittal

Proposal for Implementation of Biodegradable Primary Medicine Packaging in place of the current PVC Primary Medicine Packaging

Duopharma Research & Development team 

Dear Mr Goh,

We are students from Singapore Institute of Technology (SIT), under the direct honours degree Mechanical Design and Manufacturing Engineering (MDME). The purpose of this letter is to propose the implementation of biodegradable primary medicine packaging in place of PVC medicine packaging. We have researched many companies and have found Duopharma’s extensive history in Singapore and its core competencies in the pharmaceutical industry inclusive of manufacturing, research & development and commercialisation & marketing of over 300 generic drugs to be impressive.

If given the opportunity, we would like to collaborate and further propose our ideas and design innovations to your company, Duopharma, in order to make a change in Singapore’s pharmaceutical industry, and in turn make an impact and dent in our current environment and society’s contribution towards waste in landfills and oceans. With the integration of biodegradable primary medicine packaging in your company, we believe that your company will benefit from the greener image and improve your brand’s reputation amongst Singaporeans.

We would like to thank those who are involved for taking the time to look at our proposal. We believe that our idea can positively impact all aspects, from your company’s image and brand, reputability, as well as making a dent in reducing waste in Singapore’s environment. My team looks forward to your reply.

Thank you and kind regards,

Jenizza Taduran

On behalf of Team EXiT

Week 13: Critical Reflection Essay

When we first started this class, I had no clue what to expect in a module for communications. One of the first assignments we had under this module was to write an email describing myself and my expectations of the module. As this module comes to an end, what I've learnt from the module has become clearer. As a student, I believe that were constantly improving on ourselves. One of my personal goals that I set for myself in the beginning of the module was to voice out my thoughts with the intention of not holding back in a group setting, as one of my fears would be that a discourse would ensue. I think within my team, I was able to voice out my opinions without holding back, such as telling my teammates what I thought of their ideas, whether I disagreed or agreed with what they planned out. Through this team report, I've understood the importance of communication in regards to voicing out our opinions, and the positive and negative impacts that it can have on the report itself, as well as as my teammates. Aside from voicing out my opinions, I believe one thing that I need I can improve upon would be my presentation skills. During the mock presentation, there was a bit of a hiccup as I expected a smaller audience and felt extremely unprepared as my group did not have the time to practice. Once the mock presentation ended, we were given feedback such as not being too runoff or monotone, letting our audience know what the next presenter is saying and so on. I am typically not the type to feel comfortable with winging, and need multiple times of rehearsal if I ever have the need to present. During the actual presentation, I started of confident, but as my nerves got to me, I fumbled my words and felt less confident until the end of my presentation. At the end of our actual presentation professor Brad gave us more positive feedback, which I felt was good confidence wise as students can be too critical of ourselves.

Another thing I learnt from this module is to not be too set in stone in the roles that we are given. In class we were assigned roles including writer, leader and reporter. In a team of 4 ,1 would be the writer, 2 would be reporters and 1 team lead. I chose to be a writer as I felt it was the easiest for myself to jot or type down the minutes for our meetings. However, as we had our meetings, I found that we would take turns with our roles, with the reporters doing the writing, myself giving ideas out to the team and our team lead taking in the feedback. One more hurdle we had as a team is to decide on our topic for the team report. In a team and groups in general, it is hard to come to a conclusion and be satisfied with the outcome that we have chosen. There are disagreements that will come with individuals who have different morals and principles, and even choosing a the topic to write on proved to be difficult. One way to overcome this was to compromise at times and be firm with my beliefs when I felt it was necessary. One example I could think of where I had to compromise would be when choosing the best ideas out of the 4 of us. Despite me thinking that another group member's idea was better, our team lead and the others felt that the idea I had would be best to use a topic for report. In contrast, when our teams were doing slides for our presentation, I asked that my group mates would stick to the format that we had chosen and to try and make it as decent as possible as I feel that better slides would make for a smoother transition and give our audience an easier time understanding the product we were presenting. 

The key takeaways I have for this module is to take in and give constructive criticism, not just with presentations, but in other aspects of life as well. On the other hand, while constructive criticism is a good way to improve on ourselves, I think that we shouldn't take ourselves too seriously and take in positive feedback as well, despite making mistakes. Adding on too not taking ourselves seriously, we can apply this in group settings, where teamwork is essential and to not be too caught up in the roles that we assigned ourselves. Lastly, I think timing is key in knowing when to hold yourself back and when take a step in when it comes to group work. These four takeaways that I have mentioned are what can improve our critical thinking and communication skills, which we can apply to ourselves in and out of the classroom. 

Summary Draft 4: Green Steel

 The article “How green steel made with electricity could clean up a dirty industry" by Crownhart (2022) discusses Boston Metal’s new approach in manufacturing emission-free steel, known as green steel, with a pilot reactor, to combat the rapidly rising carbon dioxide emissions that are currently produced by the steel industry. Boston Metal’s current challenge is to scale up its production, to keep up with the increasing demands in the industry, as steel is used in almost everything, from machinery to construction. Two of the methods to produce green steel are known as molten oxide electrolysis (MOE) and direct reduction. During MOE, electricity is run through a cell containing a mixture of dissolved iron oxides and other oxides and materials, in order to drive the removal of oxygen from steel by heating the cells up to about 1600°C, thus emitting oxygen instead of carbon dioxide. For direct reduction, carbon dioxide is released when natural gas reacts with solid iron ore, to yield iron. When hydrogen is used in place of natural gas, the process is referred to as hydrogen direct reduction, where water vapor is emitted instead of carbon dioxide as stated by Crownhart (2022). Thus, green steel has been cited as a solution to reduce the steel industry’s climate impact. 

However, green steel is currently not a viable option in replacing traditional steel presently due to the production methods’ dependence on electricity, which in turn relies on fossil fuels. The production cost of green steel is also higher as compared to traditional steel.

As fossil fuels are required in the production of electricity, the processes of making green steel still emit carbon at a large rate, regardless of how efficient the steelmaking process is. Despite green steel being marketed as a solution to decarbonising the steel industry, Gordon (2023) states that a notable amount of electricity is still required to produce green steel, as both hydrogen direct reduction and MOE require the use of tremendous amounts of electricity to produce green steel.

Blank (2019) outlines that 2,633 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of power are required to generate hydrogen for every one ton of crude steel produced from iron ore. Additionally, 816 kWh are required for the direct reduction process itself and running the electric arc furnace (EAF) plants. This means that for every ton of green steel produced, 1,713 kilograms of carbon dioxide are released into the air. In comparison, traditional steel made in a blast furnace emits 1,714 kilograms of carbon dioxide. This indicates that the difference in carbon emissions between the production of green steel and traditional steel is similar.

Furthermore, as reported by Gordon (2023), the electricity needed for the green processes must be "must-run" electricity - meaning that electrical generation must continue to operate, even during times of low demand or excess generation because it is deemed necessary for the stability and dependability of the power system. While there is renewable electricity available for the manufacturing of green steel, which would make green steel purely carbon-emission free, there is limited space for wind turbines and solar farms presently. A large demand for renewable electricity coming from many industries, including the steel industry, will make it unlikely that technological developments in renewable energy will be accessible in time to maintain present levels of steel production while achieving zero carbon emissions.

Producing green steel is more expensive than producing traditional steel. According to Gordon (2023), this is because of the scarcity of hydrogen and the limited availability of renewable energy sources. Though there is variance in price per ton of steel, the market price for traditional steel is $550 per ton. In comparison, steel made through hydrogen direct reduction costs about 20 to 30% more as stated by Blank (2019). According to Lea (2022), the cost of green steel needs to be reduced to below $2 per kilogram, ideally around $1 per kilogram, in order to be competitive with traditional steel production prices. Currently, the carbon taxes on green steel are at $90 per ton, making it not cost-competitive with traditional steel and would have to be raised by 33% to $120 per ton in order for green steel to be cost-competitive. Increasing carbon taxes can make traditional steel more expensive to produce because it generates more carbon emissions, thus making green steel more cost-competitive and encouraging producers and consumers to choose the more sustainable option.

Although green steel production has its drawbacks, it also offers advantages. According to Crownhart (2022), green steel production, in particular MOE, is more versatile compared to traditional steel-making processes.MOE allows for the use of a broader range of starting materials. In comparison, traditional steel-making in a blast furnace requires high-quality ore in order to produce high quality steel.

In conclusion, while green steel is marketed as a solution to decarbonising the steel industry, the reality is that it still requires a significant amount of electricity to produce. The processes of making green steel still emit carbon, as fossil fuels are needed to produce the electricity. Additionally, the production cost of green steel is higher than traditional steel due to the limited availability of renewable energy sources and the scarcity of hydrogen. Although green steel represents progress in reducing the carbon footprint of the steel industry, there is still much work to be done in terms of finding cost-effective, low-carbon solutions for the production of steel.

References:

Crownhart, C. (2022, June 28). How green steel made with electricity could clean up a dirty industry. MIT Technology Review. 

https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/06/28/1055027/green-steel-electricity-boston-metal/ 

Lea, A. (2022, June 10). Green steel needs hydrogen price below $2/kg. Commodity & Energy Price Benchmarks.

 https://www.argusmedia.com/en/news/2340240-green-steel-needs-hydrogen-price-below-2kg 

Gordon, O. (2023, January 20). The four-horse race to decarbonise steel. Energy Monitor.

https://www.energymonitor.ai/sectors/industry/the-four-horse-race-to-decarbonise-steel

Blank, T. K. (2019, September). The Disruptive Potential of Green Steel. Rocky Mountain Institute.

https://rmi.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/green-steel-insight-brief.pdf