摘要:

A distinctive high-quality journalBuilding a sustainable energy future while addressing associated global environmental challenges is the great problem of our time.Energy & Environmental Sciencewas established in response to the clear and pressing need for a central location for the publication and dissemination of key results and new scientific advances being made towards achieving this goal.As a new journal,Energy & Environmental Scienceis uniquely chartered to act as a bridge between all the diverse communities working in these critically important research areas. Indeed, we are happy that the work published reflects this broad scope—from solar energy conversion to biofuels, from fuel cells to hydrogen storage, from nanotechnology for new energy systems to carbon dioxide sequestration, from catalysis to innovative environmental solutions, and much more besides. Indeed, for a snapshot of some of the work we've already published seeTable 1which lists our most-accessed articles so far.Snapshot of some of our most-accessed articlesTitlesDOIAuthorsSolar water-splitting into H2and O2: Design principles of photosystem II and hydrogenasesDOI: 10.1039/b808792jWolfgang Lubitzet al.The current status of hydrogen storage in metal–organic frameworksDOI: 10.1039/b808322nHong-Cai Zhouet al.Carbon nanotube-modified electrodes for solar energy conversionDOI: 10.1039/b805419nHiroshi Imahoriet al.Synthesis of ammonia borane for hydrogen storage applicationsDOI: 10.1039/b808865aTom Autreyet al.Thermochemical biofuel production in hydrothermal media: A review of sub- and supercritical water technologiesDOI: 10.1039/b810100kAndrew Petersonet al.Electrospun nanofibers in energy and environmental applicationsDOI: 10.1039/b809074mS. Ramakrishnaet al.Advancing beyond current generation dye-sensitized solar cellsDOI: 10.1039/b809672dJoseph Huppet al.Recent developments in proton exchange membranes for fuel cellsDOI: 10.1039/b808149mRam DevanathanSequestration of atmospheric CO2in global carbon poolsDOI: 10.1039/b809492fRattan LalFrom the outset we have shown that we are a truly international journal, with excellent visibility throughout the globe. As is illustrated inFig. 1, submissions to the journal from different geographical areas show an impressive balance.Geographical distribution ofEnergy & Environmental Sciencesubmissions.A key of aim ofEnergy & Environmental Scienceis to “add value” to the existing literature, to maximise the service we offer to the scientific community. With this in mind, we are happy to announce two new developments:• New summary sectionWith such a wide readership, theEnergy & Environmental ScienceEditorial Board has decided that all published work in the journal will be accompanied by a brief paragraph that puts the research into the broader context, highlighting the main advances and their impact on energy and environmental science. The summary paragraph is designed to be easily readable and understandable for the entire readership of the journal, it will be published as a section within an article. We hope the new summary will be a popular addition to the journal.Editor-in-Chief Professor Nathan Lewis with Editor Philip Earis• New article type—“Analysis” articlesAs explained by Editor-in-Chief Professor Nathan Lewis in his Editorial in issue 1 (DOI: 10.1039/b810864c), progress in transitioning to a globally scalable and sustainable energy system is a world-wide problem that demands contributions from scientists, engineers, economists, policy makers, and decision makers around the world. Rapid progress on this urgent issue depends on the integration of perspectives in these areas.To make sure thatEnergy & Environmental Scienceis fully encompassing of all its communities, we are introducing a new article type to cover technology implementation and policy analysis in the wider energy and environmental fields: the “Analysis” article.The purpose of anAnalysisarticle is to quantitatively analyse technologies and technological systems.Analysisarticles will provide in-depth examination of energy and environmental technologies, strategies, policies, and overarching conceptual frameworks of interest to the journal's wide and global readership. Written for a scientifically literate audience they will present new methods and data and fresh insights into energy and environmental research. They will demonstrate scholarly rigor and tightness of presentation comparable to articles in mainstream science and not simply act as a repository of data with superficial or speculative commentary. Instead, through theAnalysisarticles readers ofEnergy & Environmental Sciencewill learn something new about methods or data, be informed about important new technologies or technological strategies, or see a policy argument in a fresh light.Authors of potentialAnalysisarticles are encouraged to contact the Editorial Office, to discuss the scope and suitability of their article. AllAnalysissubmissions will be subject to our usual rigorous and fair peer-review procedures.Of course, we will continue to publish (and actively welcome submissions of) our existing lively mix of article types, including original research Papers and Communications, Reviews, Perspective feature articles, Minireviews, and important Opinion pieces from leaders in their fields. Opinion articles are informative and thought-provoking—seeTable 2for a list of those we have published so far (including in this issue an Opinion by Amory Lovins).Opinion pieces from leaders in their fieldsOpinionAuthorDOIThe unity of scienceDr Raymond L. Orbach, US Department of EnergyDOI: 10.1039/b812783mThe challenge of biofuelsProfessor José Goldemberg, University of São Paulo, BrazilDOI: 10.1039/b814178aProfitable climate solutions:Dr Amory B. Lovins, Rocky Mountain InstituteDOI: 10.1039/b814525nCorrecting the sign error

ISSN:0046-225X    

DOI:10.1039/b820662g

出版商:RSC    

年代:2008

数据来源: RSC

摘要:

Addressing global challengesWe are all aware of the critical importance of ensuring a sustainable supply of energy, and of addressing the associated challenges for the global environment. In response to this, we believeEnergy & Environmental Scienceis a genuinely distinctive journal which is successfully linking together a broad range of communities. Our journal is the ideal platform to present the cutting-edge research which will overcome the global challenges we are facing.To help accommodate our wide readership, which spans many communities, each article inEnergy & Environmental Scienceis accompanied by a brief paragraph which puts the work into the broader context. This summary box (located on the first page of each article) is designed to highlight the importance of the research within energy and environmental science, allowing the entire readership to appreciate its significance.Indeed, the broad range of research whichEnergy & Environmental Sciencepublishes can be seen in this issue with, for example, articles covering research from solar cells to hydrogen storage, from original research on nuclear power to a comprehensive review on carbon dioxide.

ISSN:0046-225X    

DOI:10.1039/b924872m

出版商:RSC    

年代:2009

数据来源: RSC

摘要:

Climate protection, like the Hubble Space Telescope's mirror, got spoilt by a sign error—a confusion between a plus sign and a minus sign. The error originates in misapplied economic theory. Markets are widely but wrongly assumed to be nearly perfect. If they were, everything profitable would already have been done, so any unbought energy efficiency must not be cost-effective unless energy prices were raised (often by simple taxes that depress GDP, not by rebated user fees that raise it.)1In theory, theory and practice are the same, but in practice they are not. If markets actuallywerenearly perfect, all juicy rents would already have been arbitraged out, all innovations invented, and business sucked dry of any fun.Observed physical reality and market behavior are orthogonal to this uninviting picture. In general, climate solutions arenot costly but profitable, because saving fuel costs less than buying fuel. Many leading companies are making billions of dollars' profit by cutting their carbon intensity or emissions at rates of ∼5–15%/y.2Salient examples include reduction rates averaging:• 6%/y for IBM's and STMicroelectronics' carbon emissions with ∼2–3 y paybacks;• 10%/y for DuPont's greenhouse gas emissions (totaling a 72% reduction in 1990–2003) at a $3 billion profit, and 16%/y for Interface's GHG emissions (down 82% in 1996–2007) at a ∼$0.2 billion profit;• 15%/y for United Technologies' energy intensity (down 45% in 2003–07).More examples abound. Dow pocketed $3.3 billion by cutting its energy intensity 22% in 1994–2005; BP earned $2 billion by achieving its 2010 operational carbon-reduction goal eight years early. GE is boosting its energy productivity 30% in 2005–12 to create shareholder value. No wonder business, the most dynamic force in society, is leading climate protection, while gridlocked public policy plays catchup. Whilst politicians debate theoretical costs, smart companies are racing to pocket actual profits before their rivals do.Even widely achieved societal energy savings seem invisible: thirty years of reductions in energy intensity now save the US more energy each year than Europe uses, or 2.3 times total US oil use, but few leaders notice. In 2006, equally unnoticed, US use of oil, gas, coal, and total energydecreasedbecause energy intensity fell more than GDP rose. But whatever exists is possible. When politicians who lament climate protection's supposed costs, burdens, and sacrifices discover and enter the parallel universe of practitioners who routinely achieve profits, jobs, and competitive advantage by wasting less fuel, any remaining political obstacles to climate protection will dissolve faster than the glaciers, because even people unconcerned with climate will presumably have no objection to making money (and incidentally improving security).This could happen faster if policy were less dominated by economic theorists. Even such a worthy analysis as Sir Nicholas Stern's,3whilst mentioning that a considerable amount of energy efficiency may be cost-effective,i.e., profitable, prefers to rely on historic price elasticities rather than the carefully measured empirical costs and physical quantities of energy savings achieved and achievable in buildings, factories, and vehicles. The distinguished IPCC panel responsible for forming energy scenarios and policy options seems to prefer econometric to physical data—perhaps reflecting its dominant discipline's (economists') tendency to interpret behavior through price, to assume that only price importantly influences behavior, and to steer whilst looking in the rear-view mirror. As a practitioner, not a theorist, I think price is only one of many influences on complex human choices and can poorly predict them, so I work mainly with direct physical measurements of energy efficiency, but physical scientists and economists have different ideas of what constitutes evidence. I think historic price elasticities contain useful information, but reflect conditions that no longer exist and that policy aims to change as much as possible, so they cannot be validly used to define future potential.Stabilizing the rate of fossil-fuel carbon emissions requires reducing energy intensity (GJ of primary energy consumption per real dollar of GDP) by raising the canonically assumed 1%/y rate by only one percentage point, to ∼2%/y. Stabilizing climate needs only ∼3%/y; even stabilizing climate very briskly to achieve atmospheric levels fitting the latest and most disquieting scientific findings (i.e., on the order of 350 ppm CO2) needs only ∼4%/y. That is because these faster intensity reductions—plus gradual decarbonization of fuels, as coal and oil switch to gas and renewables—can offset or more than offset projected growth in population and per capita economic activity.4For example, even if, over the next half-century or so, world population nearly doubled and per capita GDP tripled or quadrupled, increasing Gross World Product ∼6–8-fold, fossil carbon emissions could simultaneously bereducedby 3–4-fold. This could be achieved if the carbon intensity of energy fell by 2–4-fold (consistent with historic trends), conversion efficiency from primary to delivered energy rose just 1.5-fold (a modest goal because many power plants in developing countries are very inefficient, and little combined-heat-and-power is used in the United States), end-use efficiency rose 4–6-fold (i.e., at an average compounded rate of ∼2.7–3.6%/y, consistent with many historic US rates), and “hedonic efficiency”—human happiness or satisfaction gained per unit of energy services delivered—stayed flat or doubled, a reasonable range for this poorly understood variable. Clearly the strongest lever is not decarbonizing energy supply, which dominates most policy discussions, but rather reducing energy intensity—a term fourfold bigger historically, and with even greater potential for dramatic future gains.Could global energy intensity actually be reduced by 3–4%/y? Yes: such rates are often observed today. The US has long achieved ∼3%/y—e.g., 3.4%/y in 1981–86, 2001, and 2006—despite inattention, generally anti-efficiency national policies, perverse incentives rewarding more energy sales by electric and gas utilities in 48 states, and more than two decades' stagnation in light-vehicle efficiencies. But efficiency's pace varies widely between US states that pay much or little attention to energy policy: California has generally saved energy about a percentage point faster than the US as a whole. China achieved a percentage point faster still for >20 y until 1997, then nearly 8%/y to 2001, then a temporary reversal in 2002–06.5Raising the global rate of energy intensity reduction to ∼3–4%/y, still severalfold slower than attentive firms profitably achieve, is not so difficult if we pay careful attention to “barrier-busting”—turning the 60–80 known market failures in buying energy efficiency into business opportunities.6It is encouraging that Japanese energy intensity could be reduced by two-thirds7without exploiting much of the applicable efficiency potential identified by others. Since Japan has 2–3 times US and ∼7 times Chinese energy productivity, this implies that, if composition of output converged in the long run, China could ultimately have ∼20 times its current GDP, yet still use less energy than today.Energy efficiency is the main but not the only tool for profitable climate protection. Many kinds of supply-side substitutions and reforms of farm and forest practices can also save carbon at collective, and even at individual, costs ranging from modest to negative. A useful, partial, and technically conservative McKinsey assessment found that 46% of projected global GHG emissions could be saved at an average net cost of just $3/TCO2-equivalent.8But other experience and analysis suggest that profitable energy efficiencyalonecould suffice to achieve ambitious long-term climate-protection goals if pursued to its full modern potential. This typically uses integrative design to achieve expanding rather than diminishing returns (i.e., radical savings atlowercapital cost). This has been demonstrated in a couple of dozen sectors, but its wide adoption awaits a revolution in design pedagogy and practice.9Detailed and uncontroverted assessments have shown how to save half of US oil and gas at respective average costs of $12/bbl and $0.9/GJ (2000 $)10and three-quarters of US electricity at ∼$0.01/kWh11—all well below the short-run marginal cost of delivered supply. For example, tripled-efficiency but safer and uncompromised cars,12trucks, and planes using current technology would respectively repay their extra capital cost in 1, 0.5, and 2–3 years at current US fuel prices.10Now add alternative supplies. Global fossil-fuel carbon emissions come about 2/5 from burning oil and 2/5 from making electricity (the remaining fifth, from directly burnt gas and coal, offers analogous opportunities). Redoubling US oil efficiency at an average cost of $12/bbl, then substituting saved natural gas and advanced biofuels (together averaging $18/bbl) for the other half of the oil, can eliminate US oil use by the 2040s.10Since the average cost of getting completely off oil is ∼$15/bbl (2000 $)—∼$100/bbl below the recent real price—and is falling, this transition will be led by business for profit. Innovative public policies that support, not distort, the business logic can accelerate this transition without needing new fuel taxes, subsidies, mandates, or national laws.10Early implementation progress is encouraging, thanks to “institutional acupuncture”—determining where the business logic is congested, then sticking needles in it to get it flowing.13As for electricity, “micropower”—low-carbon combined-heat-and-power plus zero-carbon decentralized renewables—provided141/6 of the world's electricity and 1/3 of its new electricity in 2005, meeting from 1/6 to over 1/2 of all electrical needs in a dozen industrial countries. Micropower added four times the electricity and 8–11 times the capacity that nuclear power added globally in 2005 and now exceeds it in both respects. Micropower plus “negawatts” (saved electricity), which probably has a similar annual capacity effect, now provide upwards of half the world's new electrical services. Both options' 207 “distributed benefits,” when counted, will widen their already clear economic advantage15by about another tenfold.16These dramatic market shifts in technology and scale are largely unnoticed but well underway: “clean energy” got ∼$63 billion of global investment in 2006, $56 billion of it for distributed renewable electricity. And the shift away from both fossil and nuclear fuels is accelerating. In 2006 worldwide, nuclear energy's added capacity was less than that of photovoltaic energy, one-tenth of windpower's, and one-thirtieth to one-fortieth of micropower's. China's renewables, excluding large-scale hydropower, reached seven times China's nuclear capacity and grew seven times faster. In 2007, the US, China, and Spain each added more windpower capacity than the world added nuclear capacity; US wind capacity additions exceeded the past five years' total US additions of coal capacity; and distributed renewable power worldwide received $71 billion of private investment while nuclear, as usual, got zero, since its only buyers are central planners with a draw on the public purse.17There is no nuclear revival—new US subsidies, though ∼100+% of new plants' cost, are not luring investors—but if there were, nuclear investment would buy 2 to 11 times less carbon reduction per dollar, and do so approximately 20 to 40 times slower, than investment in micropower or energy efficiency.18Those low- and no-carbon competitors, best for climateandsecurity, are winning as exploding sales drive down costs even further, offering lower costs and lower financial risks than their outmoded central-station competitors. For example, even photovoltaics havealreadyachieved cost crossover: in (say) New Jersey they cost less, and add more capacity sooner, than building new nuclearorfossil-fueled generation.19Thus it is not good enough for an energy technology to emit no carbon; it must also provide the most solution per dollar and per year. Buying anything else instead reduces and retards climate solutions. Oddly, this opportunity cost remains unknown to most policymakers and unremarked by the IPCC.In short, the climate problem is neither necessary nor economic, but is an artifact of not using energy in a way that saves money. Climate change can be prevented by taking markets seriously—letting all ways to save or supply energy compete fairly, at honest prices, no matter which kind they are, what technology they use, where they are, how big they are, or who owns them. Internalizing carbon and other environmental costs will be correct and helpful but not essential; not sufficient (because correct prices do not yield efficient choices without barrier-busting); and in the long run not very important (since efficient carbon markets will ultimately clear at low prices).Fair competition can simultaneously solve many other problems. For example, saving electricity needs ∼1000 times less capital, and repays it ∼10 times faster, than supplying more electricity.20This ∼10 000-fold capital leverage can turn the power sector (now gobbling about a quarter of global development capital) into a net funder of other development needs. Profitably eliminating oil use would certainly make the world fairer and safer. A more efficient, diverse, dispersed, renewable energy system can also make major supply failures, whether caused by accident or malice, impossible by design rather than (as now) inevitable by design.21Thus the policy objectives of affordable, reliable, resilient, secure, climate-safe, and benign energy all happen to be satisfied by the same set of technologies—and they are winning in the marketplace wherever they are allowed to compete.The inevitable demise of nuclear power—already stricken by a fatal attack of market forces—can belatedly stem nuclear proliferation too,22by removing from ordinary commerce a vast flow of ingredients of do-it-yourself bomb kits and their innocent-looking civilian disguise. That would make those ingredients harder to get, more conspicuous to try to get, and politically far costlier to be caught trying to get, because for the first time, the motive for wanting them would be unmasked as unambiguously military. Focusing intelligence resources on needles, not haystacks, would also improve the odds of timely warning. All this would not make proliferation impossible, but would certainly make it far more difficult for both recipients and suppliers.Had early analyses of these opportunities been adopted when first published,23we would not now all be worrying about climate change, oil dependence, or Iran and North Korea. But it is not quite too late. As the late Donella Meadows said, “We have exactly enough time—starting now.”So what are we waiting for?Weare the people we have been waiting for. As Raymond Williams wrote, “To be truly radical is to make hope possible, not despair convincing.” And if any of this article seems too good to be true, just recall Marshall McLuhan's remark that “Only puny secrets need protection. Big discoveries are protected by public incredulity.”

ISSN:0046-225X    

DOI:10.1039/b814525n

出版商:RSC    

年代:2008

数据来源: RSC

摘要:

Broader contextAviation in the context of the environment is often seen in the public eye as being responsible for considerable environmental detriment. This, coupled with a limited supply of conventional jet fuel, has resulted in the sector searching for alternative fuels. Recent activity has demonstrated incident free operation—without airframe or engine modification—of fuel refined from both gas and biomass feedstocks. Unfortunately, diversification away from crude oil does not necessarily improve both environmental credentials and supply security. Considering the sector's environmental footprint, the best case test flight achieved a 30% reduction in emissions. The reduction, however, only equates to a potential saving of 0.78% of global CO2emissions. Realising this saving across the sector would require 6% of the world's arable land or 3.2% of global surface area if feedstock (Jatropha) was grown on marginal land. Refinement of gas or coal (Fischer Tropsch process) provides for sufficient feedstock volumes to diversify supply, however, the process is at best comparable to a modern crude oil refinery in terms of well to wake emissions. It is anticipated that market forces will allocate feedstock to sectors which provide the highest level of abatement at the lowest cost, meaning that aviation will need to compete to secure fuel.

ISSN:0046-225X    

DOI:10.1039/b918197k

出版商:RSC    

年代:2009

数据来源: RSC

摘要:

Broader contextExcitonic solar cells (organic, hybrid and dye sensitized) are the best examples of efficient and environmental friendly energy-conversion devices. The possibility of being fabricated by low-cost and easy-scalable solution processing techniques has driven the technology into the marketplace. Nanostructured materials are key constituents of these solar cells. The improvement in photovoltaic efficiency is achievable by the application of advanced structures built at a nanoscale: nanoparticles, nanorods, nanocables, nanosheets, core-shell, among many others. ZnO has become a promising semiconductor oxide when applied as an electron transport material. It presents properties closely related to the best semiconductor oxide used up to date, TiO2, but contrary to the former, it is possible to obtain ZnO in a wide variety of nano-forms by low-cost and scalable synthesis methods. Yet another breakthrough in ZnO-based photovoltaics seems possible if nanostructures could be obtained in a controlled, well-ordered and reproducible manner. This review describes the evolution and future potential for the application of nanostructured ZnO in next-generation excitonic solar cells.

ISSN:0046-225X    

DOI:10.1039/b811536b

出版商:RSC    

年代:2008

数据来源: RSC

摘要:

Broader contextThis analysis highlights the merits of making low-carbon liquid fuels thermochemically rather than biochemically by simultaneously: (i) capturing and storing CO2from biomass to increase its carbon-mitigation potential; (ii) co-processing biomass with coal to exploit the scale economies of coal conversion, the low cost of coal as a feedstock, and, with CO2capture and storage (CCS), the reduced amount of biomass needed to make low-carbon fuels relative to conventional biofuels; and (iii) producing electricity as a major co-product to increase energy conversion efficiency and reduce capital costs relative to separate systems for producing liquid fuels and electricity. It shows the strategic importance of simultaneously pursuing carbon mitigation for transportation fuels and electricity and that the pursuit of carbon mitigation and energy security goals for transportation fuels need not be in conflict. Although the approach involves radically different energy system configurations from systems currently in use, the systems described involve components that are either already commercial or could become commercially available during the next decade. Requirements are: (i) demonstration that CCS is viable as a major carbon mitigation option, (ii) commercialization of large biomass gasifiers, and (iii) commercial-scale demonstrations of co-production systems that co-process coal and biomass with CCS.

ISSN:0046-225X    

DOI:10.1039/b911529c

出版商:RSC    

年代:2009

数据来源: RSC

摘要:

Andrew Peterson is a PhD candidate in the laboratory of Jefferson Tester at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. In addition to his research on chemical and physical processes in hydrothermal media, Andy is active in the energy community at MIT, having recently served as the co-director of content for the 2008 MIT Energy Conference.

ISSN:0046-225X    

DOI:10.1039/b810100k

出版商:RSC    

年代:2008

数据来源: RSC

摘要:

Rufino M. Navarro is a Tenured Scientist at the Institute of Catalysis and Petrochemistry of the National Council of Scientific Research (CSIC). His research focuses on heterogeneous catalysis applied to clean energy production: reforming of hydrocarbon, hydrogen technologies, renewable energies, thermochemical cycles and water splitting technologies.

ISSN:0046-225X    

DOI:10.1039/b808138g

出版商:RSC    

年代:2008

数据来源: RSC

摘要:

Mette MikkelsenMette Mikkelsen did her Master of Science in Chemistry from the Technical University of Denmark (DTU) with a specialty in organic chemistry (1997–2003). She then worked in industry as an organic chemist at LiPlasome Pharma A/S (2003–2004) and as a synthetic chemist at H. Lundbeck A/S (2004–2006) before pursuing PhD studies at Risø National Laboratory, Technical University of Denmark. The topic of her PhD work has been fixation of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere with the purpose of transforming it into a storable and combustible fuel by use of solar energy. Her main scientific interests are synthetic organic chemistry, structural characterization of organic compounds, solar energy, crystallography.

ISSN:0046-225X    

DOI:10.1039/b912904a

出版商:RSC    

年代:2009

数据来源: RSC

摘要:

N. A. ChoudhuryN. A. Choudhury is currently a Research Scholar at the Solid State and Structural Chemistry Unit, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore. His research interests are in materials electrochemistry with emphasis on electrolytes for fuel cells, supercapacitors and batteries.

ISSN:0046-225X    

DOI:10.1039/b811217g

出版商:RSC    

年代:2008

数据来源: RSC