• Energy Research
• Closed Access close
• Embargo close
• natural sciences close
• IT close
• NL close

It's not only the carbon in the trees Forest loss affects climate not just because of the impacts it has on the carbon cycle, but also because of how it affects the fluxes of energy and water between the land and the atmosphere. Evaluating global impact is complicated because deforestation can produce different results in different climate zones, making it hard to determine large-scale trends rather than more local ones. Alkama and Cescatti conducted a global assessment of the biophysical effects of forest cover change. Forest loss amplifies diurnal temperature variations, increases mean and maximum air temperatures, and causes a significant amount of warming when compared to CO 2 emission from land-use change. Science , this issue p. 600

It's not only the carbon in the trees Forest loss affects climate not just because of the impacts it has on the carbon cycle, but also because of how it affects the fluxes of energy and water between the land and the atmosphere. Evaluating global impact is complicated because deforestation can produce different results in different climate zones, making it hard to determine large-scale trends rather than more local ones. Alkama and Cescatti conducted a global assessment of the biophysical effects of forest cover change. Forest loss amplifies diurnal temperature variations, increases mean and maximum air temperatures, and causes a significant amount of warming when compared to CO 2 emission from land-use change. Science , this issue p. 600

AbstractIn this work, the drying step for cathodes based on carbon‐coated LiFePO4 prepared in the temperature range of 60–120 °C has been investigated in detail. The microstructure of the cathode shows a homogeneous distribution of the active material and conductive additive particles independent of the drying temperature. However, the results of impedance spectroscopy and cycling voltammetry are affected by the drying temperature. The solvent evaporation temperature, therefore, affects the polymer binder distribution and its characteristics, which include the polar phase content of the polymer and its affinity with the other components of the cathode. The discharge capacity value after 50 cycles is 120 and 81 mAh g−1 for the samples dried at 80 and 60 °C, respectively, which show the best and worst battery performance, respectively. It was concluded that carbon‐coated LiFePO4 cathodes should be prepared at drying temperatures between 80 and 100 °C for optimized performance.

AbstractIn this work, the drying step for cathodes based on carbon‐coated LiFePO4 prepared in the temperature range of 60–120 °C has been investigated in detail. The microstructure of the cathode shows a homogeneous distribution of the active material and conductive additive particles independent of the drying temperature. However, the results of impedance spectroscopy and cycling voltammetry are affected by the drying temperature. The solvent evaporation temperature, therefore, affects the polymer binder distribution and its characteristics, which include the polar phase content of the polymer and its affinity with the other components of the cathode. The discharge capacity value after 50 cycles is 120 and 81 mAh g−1 for the samples dried at 80 and 60 °C, respectively, which show the best and worst battery performance, respectively. It was concluded that carbon‐coated LiFePO4 cathodes should be prepared at drying temperatures between 80 and 100 °C for optimized performance.

This study builds a holistic, transparent life cycle assessment model of a variety of aqueous mineral carbonation processes using a hybrid process model and economic input–output life cycle assessment approach (hybrid EIO-LCA). The model allows for the evaluation of the tradeoffs between different reaction enhancement processes while considering the larger lifecycle impacts on energy use and material consumption. A preliminary systematic investigation of the tradeoffs inherent in mineral carbonation processes is conducted to provide guidance for the optimization of the life-cycle energy efficiency of various proposed mineral carbonation processes. The life-cycle assessment of aqueous mineral carbonation suggests that a variety of alkalinity sources and process configurations are capable of net CO2 reductions. The total CO2 storage potential for the alkalinity sources considered in the U.S. ranges from 1.8% to 23.7% of U.S. CO2 emissions, depending on the assumed availability of natural alkalinity sources and efficiency of the mineral carbonation processes.

This study builds a holistic, transparent life cycle assessment model of a variety of aqueous mineral carbonation processes using a hybrid process model and economic input–output life cycle assessment approach (hybrid EIO-LCA). The model allows for the evaluation of the tradeoffs between different reaction enhancement processes while considering the larger lifecycle impacts on energy use and material consumption. A preliminary systematic investigation of the tradeoffs inherent in mineral carbonation processes is conducted to provide guidance for the optimization of the life-cycle energy efficiency of various proposed mineral carbonation processes. The life-cycle assessment of aqueous mineral carbonation suggests that a variety of alkalinity sources and process configurations are capable of net CO2 reductions. The total CO2 storage potential for the alkalinity sources considered in the U.S. ranges from 1.8% to 23.7% of U.S. CO2 emissions, depending on the assumed availability of natural alkalinity sources and efficiency of the mineral carbonation processes.

Abstract The field of energy harvesting holds the promise of making our buildings “smart” if effective energy sources can be developed for use in ambient indoor conditions. Photovoltaics (PV), especially in its thin flexible form for easy integration, become a prime candidate for the aim, if tailored for low-density artificial light. We designed a test system which enabled us to measure the performance of PV devices under compact fluorescent lamp (CFL) and light-emitting diode (LED) illumination at different illuminance levels and compared polycrystalline and amorphous silicon cells with our own flexible dye solar cells (DSCs). Whereas poly-Si cells, with 15% outdoor efficiency, delivered at 200 lux under CFL only 2.8 μW/cm2 power density (and an efficiency of 4.4%), a-Si specifically designed for indoors, gave 5.9 μW/cm2 and 9.2% efficiency under the same CFL conditions (and 7.5% efficiency under LED). However, we show that the customization of flexible DSCs, by simply formulating ad-hoc less-concentrated, more transparent electrolytes, enabled these devices to outperform all others, providing average power densities of 8.0 μW/cm2 and 12.4% efficiencies under 200 lux CFL (more than quadruple compared to those measured at 1 sun), and 6.6 μW/cm2 and 10% efficiency under 200 lux LED illumination.

Abstract The field of energy harvesting holds the promise of making our buildings “smart” if effective energy sources can be developed for use in ambient indoor conditions. Photovoltaics (PV), especially in its thin flexible form for easy integration, become a prime candidate for the aim, if tailored for low-density artificial light. We designed a test system which enabled us to measure the performance of PV devices under compact fluorescent lamp (CFL) and light-emitting diode (LED) illumination at different illuminance levels and compared polycrystalline and amorphous silicon cells with our own flexible dye solar cells (DSCs). Whereas poly-Si cells, with 15% outdoor efficiency, delivered at 200 lux under CFL only 2.8 μW/cm2 power density (and an efficiency of 4.4%), a-Si specifically designed for indoors, gave 5.9 μW/cm2 and 9.2% efficiency under the same CFL conditions (and 7.5% efficiency under LED). However, we show that the customization of flexible DSCs, by simply formulating ad-hoc less-concentrated, more transparent electrolytes, enabled these devices to outperform all others, providing average power densities of 8.0 μW/cm2 and 12.4% efficiencies under 200 lux CFL (more than quadruple compared to those measured at 1 sun), and 6.6 μW/cm2 and 10% efficiency under 200 lux LED illumination.