SNG has a large potential market: essentially any application that currently uses natural gas could use SNG. In particular, gasification can be used on-site for industrial applications to produce SNG (and electricity, if necessary), allowing continued operation of natural gas equipment but from a coal source. The Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration (DOE/EIA) reports in the Annual Energy Outlook 2012 that in 2010, United States industrial use of natural gas was about 27% of the total domestic consumption, a significant fraction of total NG usage. A 2007 NETL study [ZIP] looked at the feasibility of on-site gasifiers in industrial facilities for the production of SNG and found that many industrial sites could benefit from the use of relatively small gasifier systems to produce SNG, power, H2, or syngas. For example, an interesting case to consider in this context is the glass industry. Currently the glass industry is heavily dependent on a reliable supply of natural gas as fuel to create process temperatures high enough to melt glass. This forces them to pay high premiums to utility companies to ensure a consistent supply of natural gas. An alternative would be to employ gasification to convert coal or some other fuel to produce SNG. The more stable price of coal could reduce fuel costs for the plant should natural gas prices rise to certain levels. The production of SNG would also allow for continued use of equipment designed to run on natural gas. For a detailed look at the economics of this gasification application, see Potential Application of Coal-Derived Fuel Gases for the Glass Industry: A Scoping Analysis [PDF].
ChallengesIn a 2007 NETL study, potential industrial customers of coal-to-SNG gasification for onsite use in natural gas applications indicated that reliability (and hence, availability) is important and needs to be near 100%, either through increased performance or redundancy. Some applications are able to also fire oil, allowing for onsite storage of backup fuel. Availability is still a challenge for gasification, although some sites have achieved very high availability. The Great Plains Synfuels Plant, for example, has consistently produced 90 to 92% of its rated output capacity.
for preparation of industrial feasibility study zip
Producing SNG from coal is more expensive than the natural gas it would replace2. For this reason, the aforementioned 2007 NETL study focuses on locations and applications where the gasifier could be integrated with an industrial process that uses natural gas. This would help economics and would allow the facility to guard against fluctuating natural gas prices. Also, the most likely applications would possess well-developed coal transport infrastructure tied with access to both abundant and relatively inexpensive coal.Another challenge to coal-to-H2 or SNG gasification is in transporting a gaseous fuel, which can be difficult because of the gases' low densities. SNG must be cooled and then compressed for transport through a close-to-capacity pipeline infrastructure. In addition, pipelines are restricted by geographical features like oceans, for example. Otherwise, it can be liquefied (called Liquefied Natural Gas or LNG) for transport by ships or tanker trucks.Hydrogen is even more difficult to transport. In fact, even liquefied H2 is four times less dense than liquid gasoline and just to reach a liquid state it must be cryogenically cooled and greatly compressed. Current hydrogen-powered test vehicles store compressed hydrogen at 700 bar (over 10,000 psi; almost 700 times atmospheric pressure). Transporting H2 through pipelines is also difficult because of its low density and high flammability. Finding a way to economically store and transport hydrogen is a major challenge to deployment of H2 as a gaseous fuel.
The structure and approach of a planned special event feasibility study resembles a Traffic Impact Study required for planned developments, as illustrated in Figure 5-5. The figure shows the sequential steps in preparing a feasibility study for a planned special event.
Table 5-10 provides an overview of the first five feasibility study components. The accuracy of one analysis influences that of another. Achieving predictability, a goal of managing travel for planned special events, represents the focus of a feasibility study effort.
The feasibility study gauges the impact a proposed event has on traffic and parking operations in the vicinity of the venue. It determines if a particular planned special event will cause travel problems, where and when the problems will occur, and the magnitude of each identified problem using various MOEs. Initially, the study is conducted without roadway capacity improvements or initiatives to reduce travel demand. Once the feasibility study identifies event travel problems, practitioners can take steps to mitigate transportation system deficiencies. These results define the scope of the traffic management plan required to successfully manage travel for a planned special event.
Feasibility study input data requirements reflect measures of the three core factors that determine the impact of the event: travel demand, road/site capacity, and event operation. Table 5-11 summarizes various types of input data to consider in a feasibility study. This includes transportation system infrastructure, background traffic, and area data and information. With the assistance of other event planning team stakeholders most data types are accessible.
Under the scope of a feasibility study, modal split concerns identifying the existing modes of travel event patrons will use to access the event venue site. Common travel modes include personal automobile, public transit, and walking. Public transit refers to scheduled bus transit or commuter rail. Transit agencies may assist in determining a base transit split, without service incentives or promotion, for patrons traveling to/from the event.
Illustrated in Figure 5-6, some patrons of the 1986 and 1995 U.S. Golf Open in rural Southampton, NY found the Long Island Rail Road commuter rail service an efficient and convenient mode of travel to/from Shinnecock Hills Country Club. To assure consideration of appropriate roadway mitigation, transportation operations planners analyzed a range of modal split percentages in the feasibility study to account for various scenarios. Commuter rail or other people mover systems exist in several metropolitan areas across the Nation and usually provide regular service to city stadium and arena venues. Transit availability includes scheduled express and charter bus service operating from other cities, suburban park and ride lots, and city neighborhoods.
As a preliminary step to assess the need to perform a detailed roadway capacity analysis, draw a circular screen line (e.g., 0.5 to 1 mile radius) around the event venue site. Note each roadway segment intercepted by the screen line, and estimate the segment's capacity in each direction of travel. Create a chart of hourly composite traffic volumes for each identified segment, and assess capacity deficiencies in both directions of travel. Figure 5-13 shows a preliminary road segment capacity analysis conducted as part of a feasibility study for a regional/multi-venue event in Denver, CO.
A roadway capacity analysis uses traffic demand analysis results to measure the impact of a proposed planned special event on roadway system operations. At the feasibility study level, a roadway capacity analysis references existing roadway facility operations and capacity (e.g., no reverse flow operation or other capacity enhancements). The analysis assumes pedestrian access management strategies will minimize pedestrian/vehicular conflicts, and parking area access points provide sufficient service flow rates through proper design. Regardless of capacity analysis outcome, pedestrian accommodation and parking management represent key considerations in a planned special event traffic management plan.
Mitigating anticipated planned special event impacts on travel represents the ultimate goal of conducting a feasibility study. The mitigation of congestion and potential safety impacts identified through a feasibility study requires development of a traffic management plan and complementing travel demand management strategies. In turn, practitioners can utilize the tools and techniques used to determine feasibility study results in order to evaluate various mitigation strategies and determine if the selected strategies adequately mitigate identified transportation system deficiencies.
If the product is a device under section 201(h) of the FD&C Act, then the second question is whether the clinical trial studies a device product subject to section 510(k), 515, or 520(m) of the FD&C Act. In explaining the "applicable device clinical trial" definition in 42 CFR 11.10(a), the Final Rule preamble clarifies that a "device product is considered to be subject to section 510(k), 515, or 520(m) of the FD[&]C Act if any of the following is required before it may be legally marketed in the United States: (1) A finding of substantial equivalence under section 510(k) permitting the device product to be marketed, (2) an order under section 515 of the FD[&]C Act approving a pre-market approval application for the device product, or (3) an HDE [or Humanitarian Device Exemption] under section 520(m) of the FD[&]C Act." (81 FR 65012). In addition, for the clinical trial to be an "applicable device clinical trial," the trial must meet the definition at 42 CFR 11.10(a), its primary purpose must be other than a feasibility study, and it must meet one of the following conditions: (1) at least one study facility is located in the U.S. (or a U.S. territory); (2) the study is conducted under a U.S. Investigational Device Exemption (IDE); or (3) the device product is manufactured in and exported from the U.S. (or a U.S. territory). (42 CFR 11.22(b)(1)(ii)).
Example: A clinical trial that assesses the safety or efficacy of different radiation doses emitted from a device product previously approved or cleared by the U.S. FDA under section 510(k), 515, or 520(m) of the FD&C Act would be considered to "study" that radiation-emitting device product under 42 CFR 11.22(b)(1)(ii)(C). For such a study, the responsible party would list "Yes" for the Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated Device Product data element. The trial would be an "applicable device clinical trial," so long as it is interventional, the primary purpose is not a feasibility study, and it also meets one or more of the following conditions: (1) at least one study facility is located in the U.S. (or a U.S. territory); (2) the study is conducted under a U.S. Investigational Device Exemption (IDE); or (3) the device product is manufactured in and exported from the U.S. (or a U.S. territory). 2ff7e9595c
Comments