Erratum : Levelized cost of CO2 mitigation from hydrogen production routes (Energy Environ. Sci. (2019) 12 (19–40) DOI: 10.1039/C8EE02079E)

Parkinson, B. and Balcombe, P. and Speirs, J.F. and Hawkes, A.D. and Hellgardt, K. (2022) Erratum : Levelized cost of CO2 mitigation from hydrogen production routes (Energy Environ. Sci. (2019) 12 (19–40) DOI: 10.1039/C8EE02079E). Energy and Environmental Science, 15 (12). pp. 5425-5433. ISSN 1754-5692 (https://doi.org/10.1039/d2ee90059a)

Preview

Text. Filename: Parkinson-etal-EES2022-Erratum-levelized-cost-CO2-mitigation-hydrogen-production-routes.pdf Final Published Version License: Download (287kB)| Preview

Abstract

Some of the references had missing or incorrect details; corrected sections of the affected text are provided below. The reference list has also been corrected and is reproduced in full at the end of this correction. In Section 3.1, ‘‘For literature studies including natural gas supply chain contributions to GHG emissions, the reported total range of LCE values are 10.72–15.86 kg CO2e kg-1 H2 (average of 12.4 of kg CO2e kg-1 H2) 26–34 without CCS and 3.1–5.9 kg CO2e kg-1 H2 (average of 4.3 kg CO2e kg-1 H2) with CCS at 90% capture.27,28,32,33,35’’ should read as ‘‘For literature studies including natural gas supply chain contributions to GHG emissions, the reported total range of LCE values are 10.72–15.86 kg CO2e kg-1 H2 (average of 12.4 of kg CO2e kg-1 H2) 30–38 without CCS and 3.1–5.9 kg CO2e kg-1 H2 (average of 4.3 kg CO2e kg-1 H2) with CCS at 90% capture.31,32,36,37,39’’ ‘‘Direct GHG emissions from the SMR hydrogen production phase are approximately 8–10 t CO2e t-1 H2, 60% of which is generated from the process chemistry, while the remaining 40% arises from heat and power sources required.36’’ should read as ‘‘Direct GHG emissions from the SMR hydrogen production phase are approximately 8–10 t CO2e t-1 H2, 60% of which is generated from the process chemistry, while the remaining 40% arises from heat and power sources required.26’’ ‘‘The majority of CO2 produced exits in two streams, a diluted stream (stack gases with CO2 concentration 5–10 vol%) and a concentrated stream (approximately 50% by vol after pressure swing adsorption).37’’ should read as ‘‘The majority of CO2 produced exits in two streams, a diluted stream (stack gases with CO2 concentration 5–10 vol%) and a concentrated stream (approximately 50% by vol after pressure swing adsorption).27’’ ‘‘If deep decarbonisation is required and emissions must be further reduced from the entire process, then an amine solvent (MEA) based CCS process might be used to capture up to 90% of the CO2 contained in the stack gases,38 although demonstrated removal rates are typically 80%.39’’ should read as ‘‘If deep decarbonisation is required and emissions must be further reduced from the entire process, then an amine solvent (MEA) based CCS process might be used to capture up to 90% of the CO2 contained in the stack gases,28 although demonstrated removal rates are typically 80%.29

ORCID iDs

Speirs, J.F. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6729-9831

• Share and Export
  

  RDF+XMLBibTeXRIOXX2 XMLRDF+N-TriplesJSONDublin CoreAtomSimple MetadataReferMETSHTML CitationASCII CitationOpenURL ContextObjectEndNoteOpenURL ContextObject in SpanMODSMPEG-21 DIDLEP3 XMLData Cite XMLRIS (EndNote Online, Zotero, Ref manager, etc)RDF+N3Multiline CSV
• Item metadata

  Item type:	Article
  ID code:	87778
  Dates:	Date Event 14 November 2022 Published 30 September 2022 Accepted 30 September 2022 Submitted
  Notes:	© 2022 The Royal Society of Chemistry. Energy Environ. Sci., 2022,15, 5425-5433 , https://doi.org/10.1039/D2EE90059A
  Subjects:	Science > Chemistry
  Department:
  Depositing user:	Pure Administrator
  Date deposited:	11 Jan 2024 08:49
  Last modified:	11 Nov 2024 14:11
  Related URLs:	Scopus publication
  URI:	https://strathprints.strath.ac.uk/id/eprint/87778