• Energy Research
• Open Access close
• Closed Access close
• 13. Climate action close
• 6. Clean water close
• 9. Industry and infrastructure close
• ES close

This data set contains the essential files used as input for the analysis, intermediate files produced during the analysis, and the key output fields. The code of the analysis is available here: https://github.com/VUB-HYDR/2021_Thiery_etal_Science Input fields: - isimip.zip: Postprocessed ISIMIP2b simulation output. This data set is very similar to the data presented in Lange et al. (2020 Earth's Future) but includes selected additional impact models and scenarios (notably RCP8.5). This data set also includes the gridded population data. - GMT_50pc_manualoutput_4pathways.xlsx: Global mean temperature anomaly trajectories from the IPCC SR15 - wcde_data.xlsx: postprocessed cohort size data originally obtained from the Wittgenstein Centre Human Capital Data Explorer. - WPP2019_MORT_F16_1_LIFE_EXPECTANCY_BY_AGE_BOTH_SEXES.xlsx: Postprocessed life expectancy data originally obtained from the UNited Nations World Population Programme Intermediate files *only use if you're interested in reproducing the results*: - workspaces.zip: Postprocessed ISIMIP2b simulation output. These matlab workspaces contain data on land area annually exposed to extreme events which is stored in a format designed to speed up the analysis. - mw_isimip.mat: ISIMIP2 simulations metadata (e.g. model, gcm and rcp name per simulation) - mw_countries.mat: information on the countries used in the analysis (e.g. border polygon coordinates) - mw_exposure.mat: age-dependent exposure computed from the ISIMIP and population data - mw_exposure_pic.mat: pre-industrial control age-dependent exposure computed from the ISIMIP and population data - mw_exposure_pic_coldwaves.mat: pre-industrial control age-dependent exposure to coldwaves computed from the ISIMIP and population data Output of the analysis: - mw_output.mat: Matlab workspace containing all variables produced during the analysis presented in thepaper. Use this file if you wish to look up certain numbers or want to use the study results for further analysis.

The ECOREST_AUV campaign will focus on monitoring restored populations in closed areas and adjacent fishing grounds to assess the evolution of restored populations and monitor the evolution of ecosystem services provided, as well as the provision of habitat, breeding areas or a possible spillover effect of closed areas in adjacent areas. Oceanographic data acquired during the ECOREST_AUV Cruise (29GD20230602) on board the Research Vessel García del Cid in 2023.

EXport Processes in the Ocean from Remote Sensing (EXPORTS) is a large-scale NASA-led field campaign that will provide critical information for quantifying the export and fate of upper ocean net primary production (NPP) using satellite observations and state of the art ocean technologies. The goal of EXPORTS is to understand how the organic carbon makes it to the twilight zone and deep ocean interior, and how lon it stays there, which is vital to understanding present and future ocean ecosystems and global climate. Oceanographic data acquired during the EXPORTS Cruise (29SG20210503) on board the Research Vessel Sarmiento de Gamboa in 2021.

The MARIBNO project is located in the NW zone of Iberia, which constitutes an ideal environment to raise the following main objectives: 1. Study of the cortical structure at the western end of the Cantabrian Mountains and the transition zone between the western and northern margins of Iberia. 2. Study of the tectonic control exerted by the previous structures during the two main alpine stages. 3. Mapping and characterization of cortical domains using a multidisciplinary approach. Definition and application of geophysical and geological criteria applicable to the zonation of cortical domains in other parts of the world with similar contexts. Oceanographic data acquired during the MARIBNO Cruise (29SG20210914) on board the Research Vessel Sarmiento de Gamboa in 2021.

This study focuses on formulating the most sustainable concrete by incorporating recycled concrete aggregates and other products retrieved from construction and demolition (C&D) activities. Both recycled coarse aggregates (RCA) and recycled fine aggregates (RFA) are firstly used to fully replace the natural coarse and fine aggregates in the concrete mix design. Later, the cement rich ultrafine particles, recycled glass powder and mineral fibres recovered from construction and demolition wastes (CDW) are further incorporated at a smaller rate either as cement substituent or as supplementary additives. Remarkable properties are noticed when the RCA (4–12 mm) and RFA (0.25–4 mm) are fully used to replace the natural aggregates in a new concrete mix. The addition of recycled cement rich ultrafines (RCU), Recycled glass ultrafines (RGU) and recycled mineral fibres (RMF) into recycled concrete improves the modulus of elasticity. The final concrete, which comprises more than 75% (wt.) of recycled components/materials, is believed to be the most sustainable and green concrete mix. Mechanical properties and durability of this concrete have been studied and found to be within acceptable limits, indicating the potential of recycled aggregates and other CDW components in shaping sustainable and circular construction practices. The authors wish to acknowledge the financial support from EU Horizon 2020 Project VEEP ‘‘Cost-Effective Recycling of C&DW in High Added Value Energy Efficient Prefabricated Concrete Compo-nents for Massive Retrofitting of our Built Environment” (No.723582).

Model projections show that production of high-value products from microalgae could be profitable nowadays and commodities will become profitable within 10 years.

Abstract. Reliable quantification of the sources and sinks of greenhouse gases, together with trends and uncertainties, is essential to monitoring the progress in mitigating anthropogenic emissions under the Paris Agreement. This study provides a consolidated synthesis of CH4 and N2O emissions with consistently derived state-of-the-art bottom-up (BU) and top-down (TD) data sources for the European Union and UK (EU27+UK). We integrate recent emission inventory data, ecosystem process-based model results, and inverse modelling estimates over the period 1990–2018. BU and TD products are compared with European National GHG Inventories (NGHGI) reported to the UN climate convention secretariat UNFCCC in 2019. For uncertainties, we used for NGHGI the standard deviation obtained by varying parameters of inventory calculations, reported by the Member States following the IPCC guidelines recommendations. For atmospheric inversion models (TD) or other inventory datasets (BU), we defined uncertainties from the spread between different model estimates or model specific uncertainties when reported. In comparing NGHGI with other approaches, a key source of bias is the activities included, e.g. anthropogenic versus anthropogenic plus natural fluxes. In inversions, the separation between anthropogenic and natural emissions is sensitive to the geospatial prior distribution of emissions. Over the 2011–2015 period, which is the common denominator of data availability between all sources, the anthropogenic BU approaches are directly comparable, reporting mean emissions of 20.8 Tg CH4 yr−1 (EDGAR v5.0) and 19.0 Tg CH4 yr−1 (GAINS), consistent with the NGHGI estimates of 18.9 ± 1.7 Tg CH4 yr−1. TD total inversions estimates give higher emission estimates, as they also include natural emissions. Over the same period regional TD inversions with higher resolution atmospheric transport models give a mean emission of 28.8 Tg CH4 yr−1. Coarser resolution global TD inversions are consistent with regional TD inversions, for global inversions with GOSAT satellite data (23.3 Tg CH4yr−1) and surface network (24.4 Tg CH4 yr−1). The magnitude of natural peatland emissions from the JSBACH-HIMMELI model, natural rivers and lakes emissions and geological sources together account for the gap between NGHGI and inversions and account for 5.2 Tg CH4 yr−1. For N2O emissions, over the 2011–2015 period, both BU approaches (EDGAR v5.0 and GAINS) give a mean value of anthropogenic emissions of 0.8 and 0.9 Tg N2O yr−1 respectively, agreeing with the NGHGI data (0.9 ± 0.6 Tg N2O yr−1). Over the same period, the average of the three total TD global and regional inversions was 1.3 ± 0.4 and 1.3 ± 0.1 Tg N2O yr−1 respectively, compared to 0.9 Tg N2O yr−1 from the BU data. The TU and BU comparison method defined in this study can be operationalized for future yearly updates for the calculation of CH4 and N2O budgets both at EU+UK scale and at national scale. The referenced datasets related to figures are visualized at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4288969 (Petrescu et al., 2020).

[EN]A systematic approach is developed for the conceptual optimal design of biomethane production via carbon capture. A hybrid heuristic-mathematical procedure is proposed to determine the optimal technology and operating conditions. The heuristic step consists of a literature-based screening of the available technologies. After the prescreening stage, the technologies selected are amine absorption, pressure swing adsorption (PSA), and membrane separation. The mathematical stage is composed of two steps. First, different alternatives for each technology are modeled based on first principles and rules of thumb. These models are used to select the optimal configuration for each process considered. Second, a superstructure model for biomethane production is developed integrating the pre-selected upgrading technologies to select the optimal process, as well as to determine the optimal operating conditions. Four waste sources are analyzed: cattle manure, swine manure, municipal food waste, and sludge. The results suggest that the best amine is diethanolamine (DEA), the best membrane material is the polyimide, and the suggested zeolite is 13X among the ones studied. Finally, among the three technologies, the overall results show that carbon capture using a PSA system using zeolite 13X results in lower production and investment costs, but very close to the use of membranes. The results indicate that food waste shows the lowest production cost for biomethane 0.36 €/Nm3, due to the largest organic matter content, whereas the investment costs are 67 M€, considering a biogas production rate of 0.035 kg of biomethane per kg of waste and the processing of 311 kt/yr of food waste. Credits or incentives are still needed for biomethane to be competitive with fossil natural gas. Junta de Castilla y León y USAL