Search

A facility for the upgrading of biogas into biomethane using renewable hydrogen has been analyzed. The biogas source is the organic matter within municipal waste. For biogas to be fed to the grid, CO 2 is to be transformed. Methanation of the CO 2 with renewable hydrogen is carried out. Solar and/or wind energy are the power sources for the facility. The design problem is formulated as a multiperiod optimization one for the selection of the renewable technology or combination of technologies for the production of hydrogen. Two cases of study are evaluated, regions where either wind or solar availability are high, UK and Spain respectively, and two modes of operation, continuum upgrading of the biogas or variable. Continuum upgrading is more expensive due to the large contribution of the renewable hydrogen production into the cost. Variable upgrading rate benefits from biogas storage and makes the most of the available wind and solar energy. While in the UK wind is enough to upgrade the biogas, in Spain Solar is preferred, but the large area required results in the need to use wind turbines in case continuum upgrading is required. The framework is general to analyze the type of facility that operates best in any country. • Biogas CO 2 methanation is evaluated to produce synthetic natural gas. • Renewable hydrogen is produced via electrolysis using solar or wind energy. • Multiperiod optimization for continuum and variable methanation rates are studied. • Spain and UK cases of study are evaluated for prevailing solar and wind resources. • Variable biogas upgrading makes the most of renewable resources. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is an increasing demand to study the long-term effects of land use from both local farm and wider societal and environmental perspectives. This study applied an approach to evaluate both the financial profitability of arable, agroforestry, and tree-only systems and the wider societal benefits over a period of 30-60 years. The biophysical inputs and yields from the three systems were modelled for three case study sites in the United Kingdom, Spain, and Switzerland, using a tree and crop simulation model called Yield-SAFE. A bio-economic model called Farm-SAFE was then used to compare the financial (EAV F) and economic (or societal) equivalent annual values (EAV E) by including monetary values for five environmental externalities: carbon dioxide emissions, carbon sequestration, soil erosion by water, and nitrogen and phosphorus balances. Across the three case studies, arable farming generated higher farm incomes than the agroforestry or tree-only systems, but the arable systems also created the greatest environmental costs. By comparison the agroforestry and tree-only systems generated lower CO 2 emissions and sequestered more carbon. Applying monetary values to the environmental externalities meant that the EAV E of the agroforestry and tree-only systems were greater or similar to that for the arable system in the UK case study. In Spain, the slow predicted growth of the trees meant that, even after including the environmental externalities, the arable system created greater societal benefit than the agroforestry and tree-only systems. In Switzerland, including the environmental externalities increased the attraction of the tree-only system, but the high subsidies for arable and agroforestry systems meant that the EAV E for the agroforestry and arable systems were the most attractive from a farmer's perspective. A breakeven analysis was used to determine the environmental externality values at which the agroforestry and tree-only systems produced the same societal return as the arable system in each case study. In the UK, a carbon price of ₠16 (t CO 2)-1 allowed the EAV E of the agroforestry system to attain parity with the arable EAV E. In both the UK and Spain, an environmental nitrogen cost of ₠3-6 (kg N)-1 was sufficient for the EAV E of the agroforestry and tree-only systems to match those of arable farming. Because trees on farms provide "economies of multifunction" for environmental benefits, the breakeven values will be less if environmental benefits are considered together as packages. The described approach provides a method for governments and others to examine the cost effectiveness of new agri-environment measures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Effects of multi-zone heating systems in residential buildings are assessed. • Data obtained from 336 scenarios in Mediterranean climates are evaluated. • Results are evaluated under economic and energy criteria. This paper explores the effects of multi-zone heating systems in residential buildings in different Mediterranean climates. The aim is to evaluate their potential in residential sectors to provide a general basis from the results (from the energy and economic point of view). In addition, if feasible, a further detailed evaluation of this management strategy for optimising the energy use in residential buildings would also be carried out. To do so, the effects of two different zoning controls in different types of apartment, occupancy patterns, building characteristics and locations in Spain, have been assessed. Different combinations of these parameters have resulted in 336 different scenarios that have been dynamically simulated using Design Builder software. The obtained energy results have been analysed in detail. Moreover, an economic analysis of these results has also been carried out to evaluate the economic feasibility of these systems in residential buildings located in temperate climates. This has been calculated by evaluating the maximum investment that can be assumed in each scenario to achieve different payback periods (namely 10 and 20 years). The results obtained show that these systems could be a cost-effective strategy aimed at reducing the energy consumption in residential buildings, not only in cold climates, such as is shown in the literature (the majority of the studies found are located in the UK and northern countries), but also in more temperate climates, such as that of Spain. Savings of around 20% were obtained in the most usual scenarios in Spain (coherent with results obtained in previous studies in the UK found in the literature), showing that in several cases, the initial investment in zone-controlled systems could be paid off in less than ten years, especially in large apartments and the coldest weather conditions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To conduct an economic analysis comparing the costs of managing adverse events (AEs) and treatment administration in patients with relapsed small cell lung cancer (SCLC) treated either with lurbinectedin or intravenous (IV) topotecan. Lurbinectedin demonstrated consistent cost savings in terms of both treatment administration and management of AEs in Spain and the UK. [Extracted from the article]