Особенности разработки термостабилизированных германиевых фотодиодов

Рассмотрены подходы к конструированию лавинных и нелавинных германиевых фотодиодов с применением эпитаксиальных структур и термоэлектрического охлаждения

A multidimensional feasibility evaluation of low-carbon scenarios

Long-term mitigation scenarios developed by integrated assessment models underpin major aspects of recent IPCC reports and have been critical to identify the system transformations that are required to meet stringent climate goals. However, they have been criticized for proposing pathways that may prove challenging to implement in the real world and for failing to capture the social and institutional challenges of the transition. There is a growing interest to assess the feasibility of these scenarios, but past research has mostly focused on theoretical considerations. This paper proposes a novel and versatile multidimensional framework that allows evaluating and comparing decarbonization pathways by systematically quantifying feasibility concerns across geophysical, technological, economic, socio-cultural and institutional dimensions. This framework enables to assess the timing, disruptiveness and scale of feasibility concerns, and to identify trade-offs across different feasibility dimensions. As a first implementation of the proposed framework, we map the feasibility concerns of the IPCC 1.5 C Special Report scenarios. We select 24 quantitative indicators and propose feasibility thresholds based on insights from an extensive analysis of the literature and empirical data. Our framework is, however, flexible and allows evaluations based on different thresholds or aggregation rules. Our analyses show that institutional constraints, which are often not accounted for in scenarios, are key drivers of feasibility concerns. Moreover, we identify a clear intertemporal trade-off, with early mitigation being more disruptive but preventing higher and persistent feasibility concerns produced by postponed mitigation action later in the century

Baseline projections for Latin America: base-year assumptions, key drivers and greenhouse emissions

This paper provides an overview of the base-year assumptions and baseline projections for the set of models participating in the LAMP and CLIMACAP projects. We present the range in baseline projections for Latin America, and identify key differences between model projections including how these projections compare to historic trends. We find relatively large differences across models in base year assumptions related to population, GDP, energy and CO2 emissions due to the use of different data sources, but also conclude that this does not influence the range of projections. We find that population and GDP projections across models span a broad range, comparable to the range represented by the set of Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs). Kaya-factor decomposition indicates that the set of baseline scenarios mirrors trends experienced over the past decades. Emissions in Latin America are projected to rise as a result of GDP and population growth and a minor shift in the energy mix toward fossil fuels. Most scenarios assume a somewhat higher GDP growth than historically observed and continued decline of population growth. Minor changes in energy intensity or energy mix are projected over the next few decades

Enhancing the relevance of Shared Socioeconomic Pathways for climate change impacts, adaptation and vulnerability research

This paper discusses the role and relevance of the shared socioeconomic pathways (SSPs) and the new scenarios that combine SSPs with representative concentration pathways (RCPs) for climate change impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability (IAV) research. It first provides an overview of uses of social–environmental scenarios in IAV studies and identifies the main shortcomings of earlier such scenarios. Second, the paper elaborates on two aspects of the SSPs and new scenarios that would improve their usefulness for IAV studies compared to earlier scenario sets: (i) enhancing their applicability while retaining coherence across spatial scales, and (ii) adding indicators of importance for projecting vulnerability. The paper therefore presents an agenda for future research, recommending that SSPs incorporate not only the standard variables of population and gross domestic product, but also indicators such as income distribution, spatial population, human health and governance

Corrigendum to “Long-term model-based projections of energy use and CO2 emissions from the global steel and cement industries” (Resour. Conserv. Recycl. (2016) 112 (15–36))

The authors regret that, as a reader informed us, the presented historic data for steel production from scrap did not match the available data sources for the USA and Western Europe. A close inspection of the model code revealed that for the historic period 1971–2010, the market share for scrap was erroneously allocated twice (once forced by the scrap availability and a second time as part of the historic data on production shares). As a result, our model indicated a too high production share of steel from scrap in the year 2010, which also influenced the results for 2020 due to slow turnover of the production stock. The results for 2050 were not influenced by this error because there is a full capital stock turnover between 2010 and 2050. Since this error only influenced the market allocation of steel production technologies, and not the total level of steel production, correcting this error only lead to minor changes in the composition of final energy use and CO2 emissions. The regions with the largest adjustments are those with high shares of steel recycling, such as Western Europe and the USA. We have corrected this error, reran all scenarios with the updated model, and present below a corrected version of the text and figures that were influenced by this error. The main changes are related to Section 4.1.1 in the original paper. Instead of electric arc furnace (EAF) accounting for 75% and 66% of steel production in 2010 in respectively the USA and Western Europe, this now only represents around 50% and 42%. Future projections for EAF to account for 60% and 50% by 2050 are similar, but indicate an increase of scrap share rather than a decrease (as mentioned in the original paper). For India and China the share of EAF in total steel production now increases respectively from 10% to 30% and 10% to 50% between 2010 and 2050 (originally the 2010 values were 13% and 18%, respectively). Globally, the share of scrap-EAF increases from 23% in 2010 to over 40% by 2050 (instead of remaining stable around 40% in the entire period). There are only minor changes in the results for energy intensity per tonne steel, carbon intensity per tonne steel and final energy for steel production. These changes do not influence any trends and numbers discussed in the text, but we have included the updated figures in this addendum. The emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) from steel production have changed slightly as result of correcting the error with scrap EAF. Global CO2 emissions are now 3215 megatonnes (Mt) CO2 per year (yr) in 2010 (was 3250 MtCO2/yr) and 3525 MtCO2/yr by 2020 (was 3350 MtCO2/yr) but remain around 2500 MtCO2/yr in 2050. Emissions in the USA and Western Europe are still decreasing from 110 Mt (was 150 Mt) to around 100 MtCO2/yr by 2050 and from 170 Mt (was 180 Mt)