Miriam Keep, Codie Sterner, and Michael McKelvey met to discuss progress on embedding projects from the iCAP Portal on the SSC website.

Discussion

• Michael's questions:
  • Ok to move SSC Projects to full-blown content type?
  • Entering funding details options:
    1. Enter details for each status (Requested, Approved, Allocated, Spent, Relinquished)?
       • Pros: can enter very detailed info which could be useful for complicated situations
       • Cons: more laborious to enter
    2. Enter broader details directly into SSC Project record in a single field for each status (less detail allowed, simpler
       • Pros: much simpler to enter
       • Cons: cannot enter very detailed info; may lose ability to represent multiple funding sources for a project (depending on setup)
  • Do SSC Projects ever have multiple funding sources in a single semester?
  • What's the "Other" funding source? (see 2009-2010)
  • Combine Semester and Year into one field? Or leave separate?
• Sheri: can we automate entry of data?
  • Michael: this might be possible, we can look into this in the future

Decisions

• SSC Project full-blown content type is a go!
• Prefer option to enter detailed funding info
• Can ignore "Other" funding source, it was used to trick Tableau into displaying funding info correctly
• Leave Semester and Year separate

Timeline

• Meet next week for final discussions
• Have students start to enter information in the following weeks

TODOs

• SSC Projects:
  • ✔️ Add Image Gallery
  • ✔️ Show Image Gallery in main section
  • ✔️ Move map to sidebar
  • ✔️ Use Featured Image from SSC Project rather than associated iCAP Portal Project
  • ✔️ Add Award Expiration date field
  • ✔️ Merge Active and Closed into SSC Project Status field (Active, Closed)
• Embed:
  • ✔️ Change Project Category to text instead of icon
  • ✔️ Show Semester filter only if Year selected (lower priority, can wait until other changes are done)

Miriam Keep, Codie Sterner, and Michael McKelvey met to discuss the status of embedding projects from the iCAP Portal on the SSC website.

Discussion items:

• Michael shared a demo of SSC project embedding (TEST site) which includes a map which responds to filters.
• Codie suggested adding the following SSC-specific fields to projects:
  • (SSC) Project Lead
  • (SSC) Project Lead Email
  • (SSC) Financial Advisor (all)
  • (SSC) Financial Advisor Email
  • (SSC) Project Advisor (only applicable to student-led projects)
  • (SSC) Project Advisor Email
  • (SSC) Team Members (unlimited plain text fields, just like in Contacts tab)
• Change SSC tab title to: SSC Specifics
• Project Funding discussion:
  • Prefer to separate out the 2 funding sources (SCEF, CETF) - perhaps instead of one "Funding Source" in iCAP Portal for SSC, could have 2 - one for each fund. Funding Type in the Funding Details could be a way to group together all SSC funding regardless of source (?)
  • When SSC funds a project, each semester needs to be reported separately, which is a different structure from how "projects" are represented in the iCAP Portal. For one-off funding, this isn't a problem, but sometimes (~5%?) SSC funds projects multiple times, which would require creating multiple Projects in the iCAP Portal to record SSC info about what the iCAP Portal would consider a single "project." How do we handle this? Some potential options include:
    • Always create a sub-project for each semester of SSC funding related to a project (lots of "extra" projects in the iCAP Portal created only to record SSC funding info). Projects created explicitly for SSC which don't have a more logical parent could go potentially go under the SSC project.
    • Use the Project Funding system in the iCAP Portal to record information by semester. The "Project Funding" content type is meant to act as a bridge between Funding Sources and Funding Details, so it might be the right place to store this information.
    • Create a new content type specifically for SSC projects. Perhaps use Metrics as a template? Not sure if there's an advantage to this over repurposing the Project Funding system, except this would be a single-purpose system built specifically for SSC, so it might be more streamlined.
  • Michael and Codie plan to meet March 22 to continue the discussion.

Michael McKelvey and Codie Sterner met on December 8, 2023 to discuss what information SSC would like to track and display about various SSC-funded projects. Major questions:

• What fields currently in the iCAP Portal are helpful to show for the SSC project listing?
• What new fields would be helpful for the SSC project listing?
• How closely does the current implementation of Project Funding align with what SSC would like to display?
• Discussion of envisioned listings/displays of information, metadata about projects (e.g. funding dates, status, etc.), and connections between different content types (e.g. project updates - how do we show only a project's updates which are relevant to SSC?)

See attached Notes document for details.

Hey Morgan,

A brief discretion of the project,
Developing a working small-scale anaerobic digester with a membrane separation technology to collect separated carbon dioxide and methane that is an economically viable system for small farms. This allows for the farms to lower their carbon emissions, and decrease the need for natural gas extraction, by utilizing natural sources of cattle manure. And can be utilized on the UIUC research cattle farms.

Small-scale anaerobic digestion with membrane filtration is possible for small farms. Illinois specifically does not have any prominent sources of natural gas production, thus, a lot is transported in. By showing that small-scale systems are possible, this can be utilized on the many small farms that are in Illinois to decrease reliance on importing methane, which has leakage issues in the pipeline. The system also allows for capturing carbon dioxide that would otherwise be released from composting, the byproduct creation of fertilizer, and the main point of capturing methane for usage. The project's deliverables would be the small-scale anaerobic digester and then a feasibility study on whether a membrane separation technology would be cost-effective and feasible for the system.

It appears they are building their own and operating it out of a lab.

Codie Sterner

----------------------------

FYI – this is the student application.  Are there code concerns for this project?  Thanks! Morgan

---------------------------------

Good morning Morgan,

Some questions:

• Can ‘small’ be defined?  Pictures?  Dimensions?
• Will the equipment be inside or outside?  If inside, I think we would want a plan indicating the location, and what else is in the building.  Methane is a flammable gas – and CO2 is considered an asphyxiant.  An outside install is less risky than an inside install.  If outside, we would want a site plan.
• “Canisters” of Methane and CO are listed.  What type of volume is proposed?  (Again, outside versus inside is the key factor – if outside, how close will any structures be located?
• Any power requirements?
• Has Safety and Compliance been informed?  Betsy Richardson might have some comments.

katie sperl

-------------------------------

Hi Katie,

That was what I was thinking too. I think it might be a Lab-scale digester like 5/10 L, but they have not specified where they will be building or operating the digester and the team did not define the “scale” of this project. Their faculty advisor, Jiajun He, is an Associate Professor in Mechanical Engineering with a background in Chemistry and a focus on Energy.

I was wondering if they have talked to DRS also.

I agree that Betsy or Colleen should be included. However, if it is a Lab-scale reactor, I don’t know if Betsy or Colleen would be needed.

Thank you,
Sarthak

Attendance: Codie Sterner, Henry Markarian, Morgan White, Quinn Connolly, Daphne Hulse

• The project passed Phase 1 of the SSC application, but did not pass Phase 2. F&S failed the project on its feasibility, because it was expected that a bioreactor would need to be purchased and installed at MicroNano.
  • The project has since received external funding for the bioreactor, and it is now in place at MicroNano. The project's equipment is spread across two rooms of the facility, and the group pays a daily rate for their equipment.
  • The scope of the project is now changing. The equipment is aquired, but the groupr requires student interns to complete the feasibility research. The group would like to compensate students for their work. A new SSC application will be submitted, with a change in how the funds would be used.
• The project would like to next identify places to source food waste from.
  • Morgan noted that the dining halls are the only location on campus that currently have a solution for food waste, but all other producers on campus do not.
  • Daphne sent over a list of university food sources.
  • Bevier Cafe, the Grind2Energy systems, and the Student Sustainable Farm were sources identified by the group as possibly viable. Daphne will connect Henry with Bevier and the dining halls, and Codie will connect Henry with the SSF.

Hi Betsy,

On behalf of the SSC, I am glad to inform you that your Rainwater Managment Step 1 has been approved. I would like to offer my sincerest congratulations! 

I've attached the necessary documents for your Step 2 application with a reminder that the deadline for it is on April 21. 

The board had a few questions with regard to the budget and a more concrete timeline, which should be clarified once the Step 2 is turned in. I just wanted to give you a heads up on which sections to focus on. 

Congratulations again and please do not hesitate to reach out with any questions, comments, or concerns. 

Thank you,

Liz Witek

----------------------------

Hello Rainwater Management Plan team! The Student Sustainability Committee (SSC) accepted the Rainwater Management Plan grant Step 1 Application and requested the Step 2 application be completed by 4/21. I will need to submit it on Thursday 4/20 though because I am busy with Boneyard Creek Community Day (BCCD) planning activities on 4/21.

Colleen and I have completed the Step2 application and am requesting that the team review it and provide comments to me this week. I plan to address all comments on Monday 4/17 because I will be out of the office in training on Tuesday and Wednesday and busy with BCCD on Friday.

Brent, I was recommended to ask you to fill out the Budget and Timeline spreadsheet since you are the Planning designee for this effort, I attached a draft with what I know. I also included your name as the Financial Contact on the application. In the email below, SSC stated they have questions about the budget and a more concrete timeline which should be clarified on the spreadsheet. There are also questions under the application Financial Information section that Environmental Compliance cannot answer (highlighted yellow). If someone else in Capital needs to complete this spreadsheet and the application financial section please let me know today so I can ask for their assistance.  

Thanks in advance for everyone’s help!

Betsy

All,

Just my opinion, but the application tends to vilify Abbott Power Plant by stating that geothermal will “exceed” iCAP goals by “reducing dependance on the Abbott Power Plant”.

Also stated in the application, “The project builds on a new paradigm established with the Campus Instructional Facility, expanding the network of deep green infrastructure and drastically reducing energy reliance on the Abbott Power Plant.”

With the acceptance of Abbott Power Plant into the International Test Center Network for Carbon Capture (ITCN) early this morning in London, England, I think it is important to note that Abbott is involved in other carbon reduction technology development efforts.

To continue to develop negative connotations regarding Abbott Power Plant with the campus community is counterproductive to the resilience of the Universities efforts and mission. I support the impact that geo-thermal can have to help us reach carbon neutrality, but I also support the fact that we still need Abbott to achieve the core mission of the University, and we need to continue to find ecological solutions that support our invested physical plant assets.

Please continue to declare success regarding carbon reduction, but don’t make Abbott Power Plant the bad actor.

Again, just my opinion.

Respectfully,

Rob