• Energy Research
• engineering and technology close
• 11. Sustainability close
• 6. Clean water close
• AU close
• JP close

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

Abstract With promising benefits such as traffic emission reduction, traffic congestion alleviation, and parking problem solving, Electric Vehicle (EV)-sharing systems have attracted large attentions in recent years. Different from other business modes, customers in sharing economy systems are usually price sensitive. Therefore, it is possible to shift the usage of shared EVs through a well-designed Dynamic Pricing Scheme (DPS), with the objective of maximizing the system operator's total profit. In this study, we propose a novel DPS for a large-scale EV-sharing network to address the EV unbalancing issue and satisfy the vehicle-grid-integration (VGI) service based on accurate station-level demand prediction. The proposed DPS is formulated as a complex optimization problem, which includes two Price Adjustment Level (PAL) decision variables for every origin-destination pair of stations. The two PALs are employed to affect the EV-sharing demand and travel time between each station pair, respectively. Physical and operational constraints from both EV demand and VGI service aspects are also included in the proposed model. Two case study are conducted to validate the effectiveness of the proposed method.

Abstract With promising benefits such as traffic emission reduction, traffic congestion alleviation, and parking problem solving, Electric Vehicle (EV)-sharing systems have attracted large attentions in recent years. Different from other business modes, customers in sharing economy systems are usually price sensitive. Therefore, it is possible to shift the usage of shared EVs through a well-designed Dynamic Pricing Scheme (DPS), with the objective of maximizing the system operator's total profit. In this study, we propose a novel DPS for a large-scale EV-sharing network to address the EV unbalancing issue and satisfy the vehicle-grid-integration (VGI) service based on accurate station-level demand prediction. The proposed DPS is formulated as a complex optimization problem, which includes two Price Adjustment Level (PAL) decision variables for every origin-destination pair of stations. The two PALs are employed to affect the EV-sharing demand and travel time between each station pair, respectively. Physical and operational constraints from both EV demand and VGI service aspects are also included in the proposed model. Two case study are conducted to validate the effectiveness of the proposed method.

Abstract: The dynamics of reformation and replacement of gas hydrates were studied under nonequilibrium conditions. It was found that the reformation of gas hydrates is largely affected by the state of the gas‐water system and the restarting temperature. This suggests that the effects are caused by changes in the structure of the aqueous solution at a molecular level. Pure samples of CH4 gas hydrate were synthesized from ice crystals and the dissociated solution using the reformation method. Replacement of CO2 gas hydrate is achieved within a short duration in the solid‐phase sample of CH4 gas hydrate, if the pressure and temperature is precisely controlled in a pressure vessel.

Abstract: The dynamics of reformation and replacement of gas hydrates were studied under nonequilibrium conditions. It was found that the reformation of gas hydrates is largely affected by the state of the gas‐water system and the restarting temperature. This suggests that the effects are caused by changes in the structure of the aqueous solution at a molecular level. Pure samples of CH4 gas hydrate were synthesized from ice crystals and the dissociated solution using the reformation method. Replacement of CO2 gas hydrate is achieved within a short duration in the solid‐phase sample of CH4 gas hydrate, if the pressure and temperature is precisely controlled in a pressure vessel.

Abstract This study demonstrates the possibility to use energy-cost optimal building designs based on life cycle approach. There is a lack of studies that cover the comprehensive assessment of both embodied energy (EE) and operational energy (OE) in a single optimization problem. The primary goal of the current study is to compare the optimized results of using OE+EE together and OE only. The optimization is performed on a case study building (townhouse) in Finland with three structural alternatives (i.e., reinforced concrete (RC); cross-laminated timber (CLT) and Steel). Different options for insulation thickness of external wall, roof, floor and window types were considered as decision variables as the scope of the present study is on building envelope. The objectives of the optimization are to minimize life cycle energy (LCE) and life cycle costs (LCC). The LCE difference between the most and least energy efficient solution on the pareto front is greater in case of the OE optimization, compared to OE+EE optimization. For all studied structures, the EE of the optimal solutions from OE+EE optimization ranges 16%–23% of LCE. Many of the non-dominated optimal solutions obtained from the OE+EE optimization shows a higher U-value for the building envelope components compared to the optimal solutions from the OE optimization. A relationship between both OE and EE with the overall thermal resistance of the building envelope is discussed to obtain a deeper understanding of such differences in U-value for the optimal solutions obtained from the OE+EE and OE optimization.

Abstract This study demonstrates the possibility to use energy-cost optimal building designs based on life cycle approach. There is a lack of studies that cover the comprehensive assessment of both embodied energy (EE) and operational energy (OE) in a single optimization problem. The primary goal of the current study is to compare the optimized results of using OE+EE together and OE only. The optimization is performed on a case study building (townhouse) in Finland with three structural alternatives (i.e., reinforced concrete (RC); cross-laminated timber (CLT) and Steel). Different options for insulation thickness of external wall, roof, floor and window types were considered as decision variables as the scope of the present study is on building envelope. The objectives of the optimization are to minimize life cycle energy (LCE) and life cycle costs (LCC). The LCE difference between the most and least energy efficient solution on the pareto front is greater in case of the OE optimization, compared to OE+EE optimization. For all studied structures, the EE of the optimal solutions from OE+EE optimization ranges 16%–23% of LCE. Many of the non-dominated optimal solutions obtained from the OE+EE optimization shows a higher U-value for the building envelope components compared to the optimal solutions from the OE optimization. A relationship between both OE and EE with the overall thermal resistance of the building envelope is discussed to obtain a deeper understanding of such differences in U-value for the optimal solutions obtained from the OE+EE and OE optimization.