ALBERT

Description: The NASA Discovery Moon Mineralogy Mapper imaging spectrometer was selected to pursue a wide range of science objectives requiring measurement of composition at fine spatial scales over the full lunar surface. To pursue these objectives, a broad spectral range imaging spectrometer with high uniformity and high signal-to-noise ratio capable of measuring compositionally diagnostic spectral absorption features from a wide variety of known and possible lunar materials was required. For this purpose the Moon Mineralogy Mapper imaging spectrometer was designed and developed that measures the spectral range from 430 to 3000 nm with 10 nm spectral sampling through a 24 degree field of view with 0.7 milliradian spatial sampling. The instrument has a signal-to-noise ratio of greater than 400 for the specified equatorial reference radiance and greater than 100 for the polar reference radiance. The spectral cross-track uniformity is 〉90% and spectral instantaneous field-of-view uniformity is 〉90%. The Moon Mineralogy Mapper was launched on Chandrayaan-1 on the 22nd of October. On the 18th of November 2008 the Moon Mineralogy Mapper was turned on and collected a first light data set within 24 h. During this early checkout period and throughout the mission the spacecraft thermal environment and orbital parameters varied more than expected and placed operational and data quality constraints on the measurements. On the 29th of August 2009, spacecraft communication was lost. Over the course of the flight mission 1542 downlinked data sets were acquired that provide coverage of more than 95% of the lunar surface. An end-to-end science data calibration system was developed and all measurements have been passed through this system and delivered to the Planetary Data System (PDS.NASA.GOV). An extensive effort has been undertaken by the science team to validate the Moon Mineralogy Mapper science measurements in the context of the mission objectives. A focused spectral, radiometric, spatial, and uniformity validation effort has been pursued with selected data sets including an Earth-view data set. With this effort an initial validation of the on-orbit performance of the imaging spectrometer has been achieved, including validation of the cross-track spectral uniformity and spectral instantaneous field of view uniformity. The Moon Mineralogy Mapper is the first imaging spectrometer to measure a data set of this kind at the Moon. These calibrated science measurements are being used to address the full set of science goals and objectives for this mission.

Description: Using a platelet glycoprotein Ib (GpIb)-specific monoclonal antibody, AP-1, we have studied cultured human umbilical vein endothelial cells (HUVEC) for the presence of GpIb. Radiolabeled AP-1 bound specifically and saturably to HUVEC in suspension and detected a single class of binding sites (100,000/cell). When Triton X-100 extracts of HUVEC were chromatographed on wheat germ agglutinin (WGA)-Sepharose, radioiodinated, precipitated with AP-1, and subjected to reduced sodium dodecyl sulfate-polyacrylamide electrophoresis (SDS-PAGE), major radioactive bands of 228,000, 145,000, and 130,000 were seen. The latter two bands correspond to the 156,000 and 140,000 bands, representing GpIb alpha and glycocalicin, respectively, which are seen when platelets are subjected to the same procedure. The 228,000 band corresponds to a band previously noted in immunoprecipitates of platelet GpIb but not fully explained. When HUVEC were grown in the presence of 35S-methionine, extracted with Triton X-100, chromatographed on WGA-Sepharose, immunoprecipitated with AP-1, and subjected to reduced SDS-PAGE, radioactive bands of 210,000, 156,000, and 90,000 were seen. We conclude that cultured HUVEC synthesize and express on their surface a glycoprotein immunologically related to platelet GpIb.

Description: Using a platelet glycoprotein Ib (GpIb)-specific monoclonal antibody, AP-1, we have studied cultured human umbilical vein endothelial cells (HUVEC) for the presence of GpIb. Radiolabeled AP-1 bound specifically and saturably to HUVEC in suspension and detected a single class of binding sites (100,000/cell). When Triton X-100 extracts of HUVEC were chromatographed on wheat germ agglutinin (WGA)-Sepharose, radioiodinated, precipitated with AP-1, and subjected to reduced sodium dodecyl sulfate-polyacrylamide electrophoresis (SDS-PAGE), major radioactive bands of 228,000, 145,000, and 130,000 were seen. The latter two bands correspond to the 156,000 and 140,000 bands, representing GpIb alpha and glycocalicin, respectively, which are seen when platelets are subjected to the same procedure. The 228,000 band corresponds to a band previously noted in immunoprecipitates of platelet GpIb but not fully explained. When HUVEC were grown in the presence of 35S-methionine, extracted with Triton X-100, chromatographed on WGA-Sepharose, immunoprecipitated with AP-1, and subjected to reduced SDS-PAGE, radioactive bands of 210,000, 156,000, and 90,000 were seen. We conclude that cultured HUVEC synthesize and express on their surface a glycoprotein immunologically related to platelet GpIb.

Description: The use of carbon dioxide as a feedstock for a broad range of products can help mitigate the effects of climate change through long‐term removal of carbon or as part of a circular carbon economy. Research on capture and conversion technologies has intensified in recent years, and the interest in deploying these technologies is growing fast. However, sound understanding of the environmental and economic impacts of these technologies is required to drive fast deployment and avoid unintended consequences. Life cycle assessments (LCAs) and techno‐economic assessments (TEAs) are useful tools to quantify environmental and economic metrics; however, these tools can be very flexible in how they are applied, with the potential to produce significantly different results depending on how the boundaries and assumptions are defined. Built on ISO standards for generic LCAs, several guidance documents have emerged recently from the Global CO2 Initiative, the National Energy Technology Laboratory, and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory that further define assessment specifications for carbon capture and utilization. Overall agreement in the approaches is noted with differences largely based on the intended use cases. However, further guidance is needed for assessments of early‐stage technologies, reporting details, and reporting for policymakers and nontechnical decision‐makers.

Description: This worked example is part of a series of examples that are designed to provide practical guidance to the application of the Techno-Economic Assessment and Life Cycle Assessment Guidelines for CO2 Utilization. This worked example provides guidance on best practices and potential pitfalls in the production of a LCA inventory utilizing one or more sources of primary/secondary data. The worked example highlights the dangers of “picking and mixing” data by showing how derived results can vary significantly resulting in inconsistencies and uncertainty when considering direct comparisons for products/services and functions. The worked example considers a CO2 to nitrogen rich fertilizer pathway, with 18 inventories produced for assessment.

Description: This report provides guidance to decision makers in all types of public and private organizations involved in the planning and development of CCU. It is prepared within the scope of the CO2nsistent project funded by the Global CO2 Initiative and EIT Climate-KIC, and is based on the published TEA and LCA Guidelines v.1. This report provides user-centered guidance on how to commission and understand TEA and LCA studies for CCU, and how to determine whether existing studies are eligible to be used in a decision making process. Another primary goal of this report is to ensure that disciplinary expertise is effectively taken up by decision makers and all potential audiences. The remainder of this document is structured in two parts. Part A introduces the reader to the concept of TEA and LCA studies: What types of input can such assessments provide for decision making? What are the limitations of their explanatory power? This part focuses on the goal and scope definition for such studies, and on other aspects that are particularly relevant for decision making. The document presents how the decision maker (or commissioner) and the assessment practitioner can jointly set the various assessment phases. These terms are explained in the boxes below. The approach and main components of TEA and LCA studies are described, with the specific goal of making the most sensitive disciplinary concepts clear and comprehensible to all audiences. Part B consists of practical tools to guide actors interested in commissioning TEA and LCA studies, and to support decision makers when evaluating and assessing TEA and LCA studies submitted by third parties. A series of consecutive steps, displayed as decision trees, provide support for checking the completeness of key aspects and requirements of TEA and LCA studies.

Description: This chapter is mainly based on the "Techno-Economic Assessment and Life Cycle Assessment Guidelines for CO2 Utilisation" written by the authors. This chapter provides a brief introduction to techno-economic assessment (TEA) and life cycle assessment (LCA) for CO2 utilisation, and all topics are explained in further detail in the Guidelines mentioned above.

Description: Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our time. Under the auspices of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and through the Paris Agreement, there is a commitment to keep global temperature rise this century to well below two degrees Celsius compared with pre-industrial levels. This will require a variety of strategies, including increased renewable power generation, broad-scale electrification, greater energy efficiency, and carbon-negative technologies. With increasing support worldwide, innovations in carbon capture and utilization (CCU) technologies are now widely acknowledged to contribute to achieving climate mitigation targets while creating economic opportunities. To assess the environmental impacts and commercial competitiveness of these innovations, Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and Techno-Economic Assessment (TEA) are needed. Against this background, guidelines (Version 1.0) on LCA and TEA were published in 2018 as a valuable toolkit for evaluating CCU technology development. Ever since, an open community of practitioners, commissioners, and users of such assessments has been involved in gathering feedback on the initial document. That feedback has informed the improvements incorporated in this updated Version 1.1 of the Guidelines. The revisions take into account recent publications in this evolving field of research; correct minor inconsistencies and errors; and provide better alignment of TEA with LCA. Compared to Version 1.0, some sections have been restructured to be more reader-friendly, and the specific guideline recommendations are renamed ‘provisions.’ Based on the feedback, these provisions have been revised and expanded to be more instructive.

Description: Carbon capture and utilization (CCU) or CO2 utilization technologies attract researchers, policy makers, and industry actors in search of sustainable solutions for industrial processes. This increasing interest can be explained by the fact that these processes comprise the capturing of CO2 – the most relevant greenhouse gas (GHG) – from the air or industrial point sources, and promote its use as a feedstock for the production of goods. CCU processes are expected to contribute to the greenhouse gas neutrality targets of several industrial sectors and the development of a circular economy. Therefore, understanding the environmental impacts and economics of CO2 utilization routes is essential for decision makers from relevant fields, such as technology developers, entrepreneurs, funding agencies, policy makers, administrators and more. A deep understanding of the specific implications of CO2 utilization technologies is needed to make decisions in line with sustainability strategies, and to discard inappropriate solutions. The ‘Techno-Economic Assessment & Life Cycle Assessment Guidelines for CO2 Utilization’1 (henceforth TEA and LCA Guidelines) published by the Global CO2 Initiative (GCI) in October 2018, represent a milestone in the harmonization of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and Techno-Economic Assessment (TEA) for evaluating CCU technologies. Henceforth, we refer to this document as TEA and LCA Guidelines. The TEA and LCA Guidelines provide a guide to overcoming methodological discrepancies that lead to confusion among practitioners, concerning how to conduct assessments, and which often lead to contradictory results.2 3 Documents with a similar focus have also been published by the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL).4 The success of the GCI publication and the demand for such guidelines is evidenced by the strong response that the authors registered in the months following its publication: more than 2,000 copies of the TEA and LCA Guidelines have been distributed in digital form or hard copy, and a growing community of practitioners, and decision makers from science, industry, and public administration are learning how to generate robust and comparable assessments when evaluating CCU technologies. In addition to the guidelines and the present report, the same research group has recently released five illustrative worked examples5 to support the application of the TEA and LCA Guidelines, and three accompanying peer-reviewed articles.6 At the same time, policy officers at national and international levels have frequently signaled the urgency of further developing these tools, to enable evaluation of innovative technologies as a basis for decision making in funding and policy design (e.g., the EU Innovation Fund). Despite the urgent need to address planetary climate change, the development and diffusion of new technologies often takes considerable time. Consequently, leveraging the current momentum amongst all involved actors that CCU has achieved to date is paramount and is an opportunity that must not be missed. Despite demands for aligned assessment methods from the industrial and policy spheres,7 there are evident challenges in dealing with the practical application of such methods in commissioning, reading, and interpreting LCA and TEA studies. There is also a risk of insufficient transfer into policy or other decision-making processes, in cases where the involved actors do not possess disciplinary expertise in the relevant methodology.