Correction: Relative costs of transporting electrical and chemical energy

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.