• Energy Research
• 13. Climate action close
• AU close
• EU close
• UA close

This edited volume examines the opportunities to think, do, and/or create jointly afforded by digital storytelling. The contributors discuss digital storytelling in the context of educational programs, teaching anthropology, and ethnographic research involving a variety of populations and subjects that will appeal to researchers and practitioners engaged with qualitative methods and pedagogies that rely on media technology.

This edited volume examines the opportunities to think, do, and/or create jointly afforded by digital storytelling. The contributors discuss digital storytelling in the context of educational programs, teaching anthropology, and ethnographic research involving a variety of populations and subjects that will appeal to researchers and practitioners engaged with qualitative methods and pedagogies that rely on media technology.

Microalgae have tremendous potential for producing liquid renewable fuel. Many methods for converting microalgae to biofuel have been proposed; however, an economical and energetically feasible route for algal fuel production is yet to be found. This paper presents a review on the comparison of the most promising conversion pathways of microalgae to liquid fuel: hydrothermal liquefaction (HTL), wet extraction and non-destructive extraction. The comparison is based on important assessment parameters of product quality and yield, nutrient recovery, GHG emissions, energy and the cost associated with the production of fuel from microalgae, in order to better understand the pros and cons of each method. It was found that the HTL pathway produces more oil than the wet extraction pathway; however, higher concentrations of unwanted components are present in the HTL oil produced. Less nutrients (N and P) can be recovered in HTL compared to wet extraction. HTL consumes more fossil energy and generates higher GHG emissions than wet extraction, while the production cost of fuel from HTL pathway is lower than wet extraction pathway. There is considerable uncertainty in the comparison of the energy consumption and economics of the HTL pathway and the wet extraction pathway due to different scenarios analysed in the assessment studies. To be able to appropriately compare methodologies, the conversion methods should be analysed from growth to upgradation of oil utilising sufficiently similar assumptions and scenarios. Based on the data in available literature, wet oil extraction is the more appropriate system for biofuel production than HTL. However, the potential of alternative extraction/conversion technologies, such as, non-destructive extraction, need to be further assessed.

Microalgae have tremendous potential for producing liquid renewable fuel. Many methods for converting microalgae to biofuel have been proposed; however, an economical and energetically feasible route for algal fuel production is yet to be found. This paper presents a review on the comparison of the most promising conversion pathways of microalgae to liquid fuel: hydrothermal liquefaction (HTL), wet extraction and non-destructive extraction. The comparison is based on important assessment parameters of product quality and yield, nutrient recovery, GHG emissions, energy and the cost associated with the production of fuel from microalgae, in order to better understand the pros and cons of each method. It was found that the HTL pathway produces more oil than the wet extraction pathway; however, higher concentrations of unwanted components are present in the HTL oil produced. Less nutrients (N and P) can be recovered in HTL compared to wet extraction. HTL consumes more fossil energy and generates higher GHG emissions than wet extraction, while the production cost of fuel from HTL pathway is lower than wet extraction pathway. There is considerable uncertainty in the comparison of the energy consumption and economics of the HTL pathway and the wet extraction pathway due to different scenarios analysed in the assessment studies. To be able to appropriately compare methodologies, the conversion methods should be analysed from growth to upgradation of oil utilising sufficiently similar assumptions and scenarios. Based on the data in available literature, wet oil extraction is the more appropriate system for biofuel production than HTL. However, the potential of alternative extraction/conversion technologies, such as, non-destructive extraction, need to be further assessed.

AbstractBioenergy projects can lead to direct and indirect land use change (LUC), which can substantially affect greenhouse gas balances with both beneficial and adverse outcomes for bioenergy's contribution to climate change mitigation. The causes behind LUC are multiple, complex, interlinked, and change over time. This makes quantification uncertain and sensitive to many factors that can develop in different directions—including land use productivity, trade patterns, prices and elasticities, and use of by‐products associated with biofuels production. Quantifications reported so far vary substantially and do not support the ranking of bioenergy options with regard to LUC and associated emissions. There are however several options for mitigating these emissions, which can be implemented despite the uncertainties. Long‐rotation forest management is associated with carbon emissions and sequestration that are not in temporal balance with each other and this leads to mitigation trade‐offs between biomass extraction for energy use and the alternative to leave the biomass in the forest. Bioenergy's contribution to climate change mitigation needs to reflect a balance between near‐term targets and the long‐term objective to hold the increase in global temperature below 2°C (Copenhagen Accord). Although emissions from LUC can be significant in some circumstances, the reality of such emissions is not sufficient reason to exclude bioenergy from the list of worthwhile technologies for climate change mitigation. Policy measures to minimize the negative impacts of LUC should be based on a holistic perspective recognizing the multiple drivers and effects of LUC.This article is categorized under: Bioenergy > Economics and Policy Bioenergy > Climate and Environment

AbstractBioenergy projects can lead to direct and indirect land use change (LUC), which can substantially affect greenhouse gas balances with both beneficial and adverse outcomes for bioenergy's contribution to climate change mitigation. The causes behind LUC are multiple, complex, interlinked, and change over time. This makes quantification uncertain and sensitive to many factors that can develop in different directions—including land use productivity, trade patterns, prices and elasticities, and use of by‐products associated with biofuels production. Quantifications reported so far vary substantially and do not support the ranking of bioenergy options with regard to LUC and associated emissions. There are however several options for mitigating these emissions, which can be implemented despite the uncertainties. Long‐rotation forest management is associated with carbon emissions and sequestration that are not in temporal balance with each other and this leads to mitigation trade‐offs between biomass extraction for energy use and the alternative to leave the biomass in the forest. Bioenergy's contribution to climate change mitigation needs to reflect a balance between near‐term targets and the long‐term objective to hold the increase in global temperature below 2°C (Copenhagen Accord). Although emissions from LUC can be significant in some circumstances, the reality of such emissions is not sufficient reason to exclude bioenergy from the list of worthwhile technologies for climate change mitigation. Policy measures to minimize the negative impacts of LUC should be based on a holistic perspective recognizing the multiple drivers and effects of LUC.This article is categorized under: Bioenergy > Economics and Policy Bioenergy > Climate and Environment

The energy considered as waste heat in industrial furnaces owing to inefficiencies represents a substantial opportunity for recovery by means of thermal energy storage (TES) implementation. Although conventional systems based on sensible heat are used extensively, these systems involve technical limitations. Latent heat storage based on phase change materials (PCMs) results in a promising alternative for storing and recovering waste heat. Within this scope, the proposed PCM-TES allows for demonstrating its implementation feasibility in energy-intensive industries at high temperature range. The stored energy is meant to preheat the air temperature entering the furnace by using a PCM whose melting point is 885 °C. In this sense, a heat transfer model simulation is established to determine an appropriate design based on mass and energy conservation equations. The thermal performance is analysed for the melting and solidification processes, the phase transition and its influence on heat transference. Moreover, the temperature profile is illustrated for the PCM and combustion air stream. The obtained results prove the achievability of very high temperature levels (from 700 to 865 °C) in the combustion air preheating in a ceramic furnace; so corroborating an energy and environmental efficiency enhancement, compared to the initial condition presenting an air outlet at 650 °C.