On systems thinking, systems biology and the in Silico Plant

The recent summary report of a Department of Energy Workshop on Plant Systems Biology (P.V. Minorsky [2003] Plant Physiol 132: 404-409) offered a welcomed advocacy for systems analysis as essential in understanding plant development, growth, and production. The goal of the Workshop was to consider methods for relating the results of molecular research to real-world challenges in plant production for increased food supplies, alternative energy sources, and environmental improvement. The rather surprising feature of this report, however, was that the Workshop largely overlooked the rich history of plant systems analysis extending over nearly 40 years (Sinclair and Seligman, 1996) that has considered exactly those challenges targeted by the Workshop. Past systems research has explored and incorporated biochemical and physiological knowledge into plant simulation models from a number of perspectives. The research has resulted in considerable understanding and insight about how to simulate plant systems and the relative contribution of various factors in influencing plant production. These past activities have contributed directly to research focused on solving the problems of increasing biomass production and crop yields. These modeling approaches are also now providing an avenue to enhance integration of molecular genetic technologies in plant improvement (Hammer et al., 2002).

Fuel cells, hydrogen and energy supply in Australia

Australia is unique in terms of its geography, population distribution, and energy sources. It has an abundance of fossil fuel in the form of coal, natural gas, coal seam methane (CSM), oil, and a variety renewable energy sources that are under development. Unfortunately, most of the natural gas is located so far away from the main centres of population that it is more economic to ship the energy as LNG to neighboring countries. Electricity generation is the largest consumer of energy in Australia and accounts for around 50% of greenhouse gas emissions as 84% of electricity is produced from coal. Unless these emissions are curbed, there is a risk of increasing temperatures throughout the country and associated climatic instability. To address this, research is underway to develop coal gasification and processes for the capture and sequestration Of CO2. Alternative transport fuels such as biodiesel are being introduced to help reduce emissions from vehicles. The future role of hydrogen is being addressed in a national study commissioned this year by the federal government. Work at the University of Queensland is also addressing full-cycle analysis of hydrogen production, transport, storage, and utilization for both stationary and transport applications. There is a modest but growing amount of university research in fuel cells in Australia, and an increasing interest from industry. Ceramic Fuel Cells Ltd. (CFCL) has a leading position in planar solid oxide fuel cells (SOFCs) technology, which is being developed for a variety of applications, and next year Perth in Western Australia is hosting a trial of buses powered by proton-exchange fuel cells. (C) 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

GCMC-surface area of carbonaceous materials with N-2 and Ar adsorption as an alternative to the classical BET method

In this paper we apply a new method for the determination of surface area of carbonaceous materials, using the local surface excess isotherms obtained from the Grand Canonical Monte Carlo simulation and a concept of area distribution in terms of energy well-depth of solid–fluid interaction. The range of this well-depth considered in our GCMC simulation is from 10 to 100 K, which is wide enough to cover all carbon surfaces that we dealt with (for comparison, the well-depth for perfect graphite surface is about 58 K). Having the set of local surface excess isotherms and the differential area distribution, the overall adsorption isotherm can be obtained in an integral form. Thus, given the experimental data of nitrogen or argon adsorption on a carbon material, the differential area distribution can be obtained from the inversion process, using the regularization method. The total surface area is then obtained as the area of this distribution. We test this approach with a number of data in the literature, and compare our GCMC-surface area with that obtained from the classical BET method. In general, we find that the difference between these two surface areas is about 10%, indicating the need to reliably determine the surface area with a very consistent method. We, therefore, suggest the approach of this paper as an alternative to the BET method because of the long-recognized unrealistic assumptions used in the BET theory. Beside the surface area obtained by this method, it also provides information about the differential area distribution versus the well-depth. This information could be used as a microscopic finger-print of the carbon surface. It is expected that samples prepared from different precursors and different activation conditions will have distinct finger-prints. We illustrate this with Cabot BP120, 280 and 460 samples, and the differential area distributions obtained from the adsorption of argon at 77 K and nitrogen also at 77 K have exactly the same patterns, suggesting the characteristics of this carbon.