• Energy Research
• Open Access close
• Open Source close
• Embargo close
• 12. Responsible consumption close
• CN close
• AU close

In recent years, the rapid development of the rare earth industry has had a serious impact on the environment. Some enterprises have taken measures to improve the production process. In order to explore the sustainability of this industry and these improvements’ environmental benefits, this paper combines emergy analysis and lifecycle assessment to evaluate and compare the production process of rare-earth oxides considering the three aspects of emergy flow, pollutant emissions, and emergy-based indicators. Changes in the emergy of pollutant emissions before and after improvement of the production process are discussed. The results show that the greatest inputs in the mining and beneficiation stage and smelting separation stage are labor force and service and non-renewable resources, respectively. These two production stages are highly dependent on external input and have weak competitiveness. Both stages place great pressure on the environment, so the bastnasite production process would be unsustainable in the long term. After the improvement, the environmental impact of the production process for bastnaesite changed significantly, indicating that the improvement effect of the wastewater treatment facilities and the change of fuel from coal to natural gas is remarkable.

Decarbonizing the building sector is extremely important to mitigating climate change as the sector contributes 40% of the overall energy consumption and 36% of the total greenhouse gas emissions in the world. Net-zero energy buildings are one of the promising decarbonization attempts due to their potential of decreasing the use of energy and increasing the total share of renewable energy. To achieve a net-zero energy building, it is necessary to decrease the energy demand by applying efficiency enhancement measures and using renewable energy sources. Net-zero energy buildings can be classified into four models (Net-Zero Site Energy buildings, Net-Zero Emissions buildings, Net-Zero Source Energy buildings, and Net-Zero Cost Energy buildings). A variety of technical, financial, and environmental factors should be considered during the decision-making process of net-zero energy building development, justifying the use of multi-criteria decision analysis methods for the design of net-zero energy buildings. This paper also discussed the contributions of renewable energy generation (hydropower, wind energy, solar, heat pumps, and bioenergy) to the development of net-zero energy buildings and reviewed its role in tackling the decarbonization challenge. Cost-benefit analysis and life cycle assessment of building designs were reviewed to shape the priorities of future development. It is important to develop a universal decision instrument for optimum design and operation of net-zero energy buildings.

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

With the aim to fully exploit the by-products obtained after the industrial extraction of starch from sweet potatoes, a cascading approach was developed to extract high-value molecules, such as proteins and pectins, and to valorize the solid fraction, rich in starch and fibrous components. This fraction was used to prepare new biocomposites designed for food packaging applications. The sweet potato residue was added to poly(3-hydroxybutyrate-co-3-hydroxyvalerate) in various amounts up to 40 wt % by melt mixing, without any previous treatment. The composites are semicrystalline materials, characterized by thermal stability up to 260 °C. For the composites containing up to 10 wt % of residue, the tensile strength remains over 30 MPa and the strain stays over 3.2%. A homogeneous dispersion of the sweet potato waste into the bio-polymeric matrix was achieved but, despite the presence of hydrogen bond interactions between the components, a poor interfacial adhesion was detected. Considering the significant percentage of sweet potato waste used, the biocomposites obtained show a low economic and environmental impact, resulting in an interesting bio-alternative to the materials commonly used in the packaging industry. Thus, according to the principles of a circular economy, the preparation of the biocomposites closes the loop of the complete valorization of sweet potato products and by-products.

Points out that sustainability as such does not provide a clearcut guide to policy. First one has to decide what is to be sustained. If this is agreed, it must be in an operational from. However, difficulties may still emerge since opinions may differ about how to achieve. This is illustrated by differences in the views of economists about how sustainable development is to be achieved. Orthodox economists stress the importance of the accumulation of man-made capital to achieve this end whereas neo-Malthusians stress the importance of conserving natural resource and environmental capital. Both take an anthropocentric point of view. For political reasons the neo-Malthusian has had little support but it may eventually turn out to be correct. Economics is concerned with reducing economic scarcity and economists have traditionally suggested four main ways of doing this of which economic growth is one. However, neo-Malthusian economists believe that this may not be a sustainable strategy – it may result in future poverty. It should be noted that economic systems are embedded in social and natural systems and depend on these. Economic sustainability depends on the sustainability of these other systems. So from this point of view, it is just one of several bottom lines. Values must be considered in relation to sustainability. Economics is completely anthropocentric in its approach. Therefore, economic approaches to conservation and sustainability can be at odds with the values of deep ecologists or those willing to accord rights to other sentient beings or ecosystems independent of human wishes, or those who want to make use of value judgments other than those based on the measuring rod of money. Consequently economics evaluation is sometimes ineffective in resolving social conflict, including conflict about what should be sustained. As a rule economics alone should not be the final arbiter of social decisions. It is a part (often an important part) of the social evaluation process but not the bottom line, or just one of many lines.

The ‘4 per mille Soils for Food Security and Climate’ was launched at the COP21 with an aspiration to increase global soil organic matter stocks by 4 per 1000 (or 0.4 %) per year as a compensation for the global emissions of greenhouse gases by anthropogenic sources. This paper surveyed the soil organic carbon (SOC) stock estimates and sequestration potentials from 20 regions in the world (New Zealand, Chile, South Africa, Australia, Tanzania, Indonesia, Kenya, Nigeria, India, China Taiwan, South Korea, China Mainland, United States of America, France, Canada, Belgium, England & Wales, Ireland, Scotland, and Russia). We asked whether the 4 per mille initiative is feasible for the region. The outcomes highlight region specific efforts and scopes for soil carbon sequestration. Reported soil C sequestration rates globally show that under best management practices, 4 per mille or even higher sequestration rates can be accomplished. High C sequestration rates (up to 10 per mille) can be achieved for soils with low initial SOC stock (topsoil less than 30 t C ha− 1), and at the first twenty years after implementation of best management practices. In addition, areas which have reached equilibrium will not be able to further increase their sequestration. We found that most studies on SOC sequestration only consider topsoil (up to 0.3 m depth), as it is considered to be most affected by management techniques. The 4 per mille number was based on a blanket calculation of the whole global soil profile C stock, however the potential to increase SOC is mostly on managed agricultural lands. If we consider 4 per mille in the top 1m of global agricultural soils, SOC sequestration is between 2-3 Gt C year− 1, which effectively offset 20–35% of global anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. As a strategy for climate change mitigation, soil carbon sequestration buys time over the next ten to twenty years while other effective sequestration and low carbon technologies become viable. The challenge for cropping farmers is to find disruptive technologies that will further improve soil condition and deliver increased soil carbon. Progress in 4 per mille requires collaboration and communication between scientists, farmers, policy makers, and marketeers.