Hydrogen Storage Materials for Mobile and Stationary Applications: Current State of the Art

One of the limitations to the widespread use of hydrogen as an energy carrier is its storage in a safe and compact form. Herein, recent developments in effective high-capacity hydrogen storage materials are reviewed, with a special emphasis on light compounds, including those based on organic porous structures, boron, nitrogen, and aluminum. These elements and their related compounds hold the promise of high, reversible, and practical hydrogen storage capacity for mobile applications, including vehicles and portable power equipment, but also for the large scale and distributed storage of energy for stationary applications. Current understanding of the fundamental principles that govern the interaction of hydrogen with these light compounds is summarized, as well as basic strategies to meet practical targets of hydrogen uptake and release. The limitation of these strategies and current understanding is also discussed and new directions proposed

Project to Establish Growth & Mortality Rates of Three \u3ci\u3eCarex\u3c/i\u3e Species in Two Planting Types at Thomas Dairy Site, Tigard, Oregon

Clean Water Services (CWS) currently increases the diversity of their wetland restoration projects using a plug planting method utilizing juvenile herbaceous plants. They have planted most of their projects using this method and plan to continue until a better one is discovered. According to the literature reviewed in this paper, juvenile plants are smaller and weaker than more mature plants and therefore have higher mortality rates. This paper is the culmination of work completed of phase 1 of this two-phase project. The objective of this project (both phases) was to design and establish a study that would test, in the field, two common wetland planting methods: installation of plugs of juvenile plants at a relatively high density and installation of containerized, more mature plants at a lower density. This study will examine three species of Carex frequently used in wetland restoration (Carex stipata, C. obnupta, and C. unilateralis) and compare the growth and mortality of mature versus juveniles of these species within Thomas Dairy Site in the Tualatin River Watershed. For phase 2, at Thomas Dairy Site, 13 randomly selected plots will each containing six subplots including a subplot planted with monocultures of each of the three plants, and two sizes (i.e., mature C. stipata, juvenile C. stipata, mature C. obnupta, juvenile C. obnupta, mature C. unilateralis, and juvenile C. unilateralis). These will be monitored for five years, during which mortality rates will be recorded once a year and total percent cover recorded three times a year. I hypothesize that the mature plants will have a higher percent cover after five years because juvenile plants are more susceptible to die over that timeframe and may have slower growth rates overall. Answering these questions will allow CWS and other wetland restoration managers to achieve greater plant coverage, reduce waste, and reduce costs

The Landscape Services of Ecology

Connectivity is critical to maintaining ecological functions and benefits in human-modified landscapes, including urban areas. However, the literature on this topic has been limited by inconsistent terminology and methods, and largely omits human access to nature and its benefits as a form of connectivity. We build upon previous theory to present four distinct but interrelated categories of connectivity (habitat, geophysical, eco-social, and landscape) and use the Ecosystem Services framework to review the socio-ecological benefits which depend on them. There are also many overlaps, conflicts, and synergies among connectivity categories and their associated services and disservices. Identifying the services which arise from these four categories of connectivity, and how they interact, can help to maximize the benefits of connectivity, improve understanding of complex socio-ecological systems across disciplines, and develop more holistic decision-making processes. ***NOTE*** This presentation should precede Carole Hardy et al., A framework for incorporating ecosystem connectivity into urban planning for livable cities . We would also like these two topics to be considered for a lunchtime breakout discussion

Ecosystem Connectivity for Livable Cities: a Connectivity Benefits Framework for Urban Planning

Urbanization disrupts landscapes and ecosystem functions, which poses threats to biodiversity, social systems, and human health, particularly among vulnerable populations. Urban land-use planners are faced with competing demands for housing, safety, transportation, and economic development and often lack tools to integrate these with protecting environmental functions. We identify three major barriers to integrating the benefits that flow with connected, functioning ecosystems into land-use planning. The lack of a shared language among planners and stakeholders poses a barrier to the restoration and preservation of ecological features. Methods of incorporating the benefits from connectivity are not standardized because values are not readily available or lack credibility. Ecological restoration tends to be poorly coordinated at broad scales, and thus often fails to achieve landscape-level objectives. To address these challenges, we developed a novel integrated framework, the Connectivity Benefits Framework (CBF), which combines the benefits from three categories of ecosystem connectivity with benefit- and risk-relevant indicators, enabling both monetary and non-monetary valuation of benefits. Moreover, it provides a method to identify and visualize the multiple and overlapping benefits from management actions to aid in prioritizing initiatives that support ecosystem functions. Unlike software tools that incorporate generalized values of ecosystem services at a landscape level, the CBF guides a systematic approach to community-engaged land-use planning that prioritizes localized societal needs while protecting biodiversity and ecosystem function for more equitable, resilient cities. We demonstrate the potential for multiple overlapping benefits from actions that restore and protect ecosystem connectivity by applying the framework to a transit planning project in Portland, Oregon

Habitat, Geophysical, and Eco-Social Connectivity: Benefits of Resilient Socio-Ecological Landscapes

Context Connections among ecosystems and their components are critical to maintaining ecological functions and benefits in human-modified landscapes, including urban areas. However, the literature on connectivity and ecosystem services has been limited by inconsistent terminology and methods, and largely omits human access to nature and its benefits as a form of connectivity. Objectives In this paper, we build upon previous research and theory to define distinct categories of connectivity, considering both ecological and social dimensions, and identify ecosystem services that are supported by them. Methods We reviewed the literature to determine socio–ecological benefits that depend on the categories of connectivity. Results We identified four distinct but interrelated categories of connectivity: landscape, habitat, geophysical, and eco-social connectivity. Each connectivity category directly or indirectly supports many ecosystem services. There are overlaps, conflicts, and synergies among connectivity categories and their associated services and disservices. Conclusions Identifying the services that arise from these four categories of connectivity, and how they interact, can help build a common understanding of the value of connectivity to maximize its benefits, improve understanding of complex socio–ecological systems across disciplines, and develop more holistic, socially equitable decision-making processes, especially in urban landscapes

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Summary: Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health