View PDF VersionPrevious ArticleNext Article

Open Access Article
This Open Access Article is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported Licence
DOI: 10.1039/C8EE90006J (Correction) Energy Environ. Sci., 2018, 11, 714-714

Correction: Relative costs of transporting electrical and chemical energy

Fadl H. Saadi ab, Nathan S. Lewis *a and Eric W. McFarland *cd
aDivision of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering, 210 Noyes Laboratory, 127-72, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA, USA. E-mail: nslewis@caltech.edu
bDivision of Engineering and Applied Science, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA, USA
cDow Centre for Sustainable Engineering Innovation, University of Queensland, Australia
dDepartment of Chemical Engineering, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA, USA. E-mail: mcfar@ucsb.edu

Received 6th February 2018 , Accepted 6th February 2018

First published on 21st February 2018

Abstract

Correction for ‘Relative costs of transporting electrical and chemical energy’ by Fadl H. Saadi et al., Energy Environ. Sci., 2018, DOI: 10.1039/c7ee01987d.

The sentence “By analogy to oil pipelines, assuming that the capital cost accounts for 38% of the total cost, and assuming a lifetime of 40 years, the total cost per unit distance for transport of gas through pipelines is higher than the cost for oil pipelines by a factor of 5 to 10” in the second paragraph of section 2.2 should read “By analogy to oil pipelines, assuming that the capital cost accounts for 38% of the total cost, and assuming a lifetime of 25 years, the total cost per unit distance for transport of gas through pipelines is higher than the cost for oil pipelines by a factor of 5 to 10”.

Some of the values in Tables 2, 3, 6 and 7 were incorrect. The incorrect values are marked as bold in the lists below.

The values in column 5 of Table 2 on page 3 should read: 0.09; 0.06; 0.06; 0.04; 0.23; 0.14; 0.17; 0.10.

The values in column 4 of Table 3 on page 3 should read: 15; 15; 30; 30; 100; 100; 60; 60.

The heading of column 3 in Table 6 on page 5 should read: “Energy density (GJ m−3)”.

The values in column 5 of Table 6 on page 5 should read: 0.03; 0.02; 0.05; 0.02.

The values in column 4 of Table 7 on page 5 should read: 1.4; 2.3; 2.0; 3.2; 4.7; 8.5; 8.5; 2.9; 4.6; 2.3; 2.4.

The values in column 5 of Table 7 on page 5 should read: 2.2; 1.8; 1.7; 1.3; 0.92; 0.83; 0.76; 1.2; 0.95; 0.48; 0.5.

The Royal Society of Chemistry apologises for these errors and any consequent inconvenience to authors and readers.

This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2018