Corrigendum to "A comparison between renewable transport fuels that can supplement or replace biofuels in a 100% renewable energy system" [Energy 73, (2014), 110-125], doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2014.05.104

D. Connolly*, B. V. Mathiesen, I. Ridjan

*Kontaktforfatter

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftKommentar/debatForskningpeer review

Resumé

In this communication, we give the following corrigendum to the original paper, “A comparison between renewable transport fuels that can supplement or replace biofuels in a 100% renewable energy system” [1], to correct some typos and a figure which could mislead the readers:

Firstly, the incorrect figure was inserted as Fig. 9. The existing Fig. 9 was part of the supplementary information and it represents the hydrogenation of carbon dioxide using co-electrolysis. The correct Fig. 9 is provided below, which is meant to represent the hydrogenation of carbon dioxide using steam electrolysis.

Furthermore, the stoichiometric equations provided contain two errors relating to the energy densities provided. Firstly, the energy density used for methane in the calculations was 890 kJ/mol and not the 800 kJ/mol presented in the paper. The energy density of methane can vary across this range [2], but the issue is that the energy density assumed in the calculations is 890 kJ/mol, and not the 800 kJ/mol reported.

Finally, the energy density reported here for carbon monoxide is incorrect. It should be 283 kJ/mol, instead of the 393 kJ/mol reported. Again, the correct energy density is used in the calculations, which is 283 kJ/mol, so this is a reporting error.
OriginalsprogEngelsk
TidsskriftEnergy
Vol/bind83
Sider (fra-til)807-808
Antal sider2
ISSN0360-5442
DOI
StatusUdgivet - 1 apr. 2015

Fingerprint

Biofuels
Electrolysis
Hydrogenation
Carbon dioxide
Methane
Carbon monoxide
Steam
Communication

Citer dette

@article{45a35d2d719347468411092153818289,
title = "Corrigendum to {"}A comparison between renewable transport fuels that can supplement or replace biofuels in a 100{\%} renewable energy system{"} [Energy 73, (2014), 110-125], doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2014.05.104",
abstract = "In this communication, we give the following corrigendum to the original paper, “A comparison between renewable transport fuels that can supplement or replace biofuels in a 100{\%} renewable energy system” [1], to correct some typos and a figure which could mislead the readers:•Firstly, the incorrect figure was inserted as Fig. 9. The existing Fig. 9 was part of the supplementary information and it represents the hydrogenation of carbon dioxide using co-electrolysis. The correct Fig. 9 is provided below, which is meant to represent the hydrogenation of carbon dioxide using steam electrolysis.•Furthermore, the stoichiometric equations provided contain two errors relating to the energy densities provided. Firstly, the energy density used for methane in the calculations was 890 kJ/mol and not the 800 kJ/mol presented in the paper. The energy density of methane can vary across this range [2], but the issue is that the energy density assumed in the calculations is 890 kJ/mol, and not the 800 kJ/mol reported.•Finally, the energy density reported here for carbon monoxide is incorrect. It should be 283 kJ/mol, instead of the 393 kJ/mol reported. Again, the correct energy density is used in the calculations, which is 283 kJ/mol, so this is a reporting error.",
author = "D. Connolly and Mathiesen, {B. V.} and I. Ridjan",
year = "2015",
month = "4",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.energy.2015.03.008",
language = "English",
volume = "83",
pages = "807--808",
journal = "Energy",
issn = "0360-5442",
publisher = "Pergamon Press",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Corrigendum to "A comparison between renewable transport fuels that can supplement or replace biofuels in a 100% renewable energy system" [Energy 73, (2014), 110-125], doi

T2 - 10.1016/j.energy.2014.05.104

AU - Connolly, D.

AU - Mathiesen, B. V.

AU - Ridjan, I.

PY - 2015/4/1

Y1 - 2015/4/1

N2 - In this communication, we give the following corrigendum to the original paper, “A comparison between renewable transport fuels that can supplement or replace biofuels in a 100% renewable energy system” [1], to correct some typos and a figure which could mislead the readers:•Firstly, the incorrect figure was inserted as Fig. 9. The existing Fig. 9 was part of the supplementary information and it represents the hydrogenation of carbon dioxide using co-electrolysis. The correct Fig. 9 is provided below, which is meant to represent the hydrogenation of carbon dioxide using steam electrolysis.•Furthermore, the stoichiometric equations provided contain two errors relating to the energy densities provided. Firstly, the energy density used for methane in the calculations was 890 kJ/mol and not the 800 kJ/mol presented in the paper. The energy density of methane can vary across this range [2], but the issue is that the energy density assumed in the calculations is 890 kJ/mol, and not the 800 kJ/mol reported.•Finally, the energy density reported here for carbon monoxide is incorrect. It should be 283 kJ/mol, instead of the 393 kJ/mol reported. Again, the correct energy density is used in the calculations, which is 283 kJ/mol, so this is a reporting error.

AB - In this communication, we give the following corrigendum to the original paper, “A comparison between renewable transport fuels that can supplement or replace biofuels in a 100% renewable energy system” [1], to correct some typos and a figure which could mislead the readers:•Firstly, the incorrect figure was inserted as Fig. 9. The existing Fig. 9 was part of the supplementary information and it represents the hydrogenation of carbon dioxide using co-electrolysis. The correct Fig. 9 is provided below, which is meant to represent the hydrogenation of carbon dioxide using steam electrolysis.•Furthermore, the stoichiometric equations provided contain two errors relating to the energy densities provided. Firstly, the energy density used for methane in the calculations was 890 kJ/mol and not the 800 kJ/mol presented in the paper. The energy density of methane can vary across this range [2], but the issue is that the energy density assumed in the calculations is 890 kJ/mol, and not the 800 kJ/mol reported.•Finally, the energy density reported here for carbon monoxide is incorrect. It should be 283 kJ/mol, instead of the 393 kJ/mol reported. Again, the correct energy density is used in the calculations, which is 283 kJ/mol, so this is a reporting error.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84926407177&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.energy.2015.03.008

DO - 10.1016/j.energy.2015.03.008

M3 - Comment/debate

VL - 83

SP - 807

EP - 808

JO - Energy

JF - Energy

SN - 0360-5442

ER -