Search

Background and purpose: We used two‐sample Mendelian randomization (MR) to examine the effects of blood lipids and lipid‐modifying drugs on intracranial aneurysm (IA). Methods: Genetic variants for the effects of high‐density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL‐C), apolipoprotein A1, low‐density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL‐C), apolipoprotein B, and triglycerides and targets for lipid‐modifying drugs were selected from the genome‐wide discovery analyses of the UK Biobank. Summary‐level data on IAs were obtained from the International Stroke Genetics Consortium. Univariate and multivariate MR analyses were performed. Results: Univariate MR analyses showed that the HDL‐C was negatively correlated with IA (odds ratio [OR] = 0.816, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.715–0.932, p = 0.003) and ruptured IA (rIA; OR = 0.775, 95% CI = 0.663–0.906, p = 0.001). The multivariate MR–inverse variance weighted analysis showed that the HDL‐C was negatively correlated with IA (OR = 0.655, 95% CI = 0.434–0.988, p = 0.043) and rIA (OR = 0.563, 95% CI = 0.347–0.913, p = 0.02), and the LDL‐C was negatively correlated with IA (OR = 0.402, 95% CI = 0.191–0.848, p = 0.017) and rIA (OR = 0.376, 95% CI = 0.160–0.883, p = 0.025). Using genetic proxies of known lipid‐modifying drugs, we found that the increased HDL‐C with cholesterol ester transfer protein proxies was associated with a decreased risk of rIA (OR = 0.852, 95% CI = 0.747–0.973, p = 0.018), and the decreased LDL‐C with 3‐hydroxy‐3‐methylglutaryl‐coenzyme A reductase proxies was associated with increased risk of IA (OR = 1.772, 95% CI = 1.080–2.908, p = 0.024) and rIA (OR = 1.856, 95% CI = 1.022–3.371, p = 0.042). Conclusions: Genetically determined HDL‐C and LDL‐C reduce the risk of IA and rIA. The effects of different lipid‐modifying drugs on IA need to be further investigated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rooftop photovoltaics (PV) have become widely adopted by domestic customers in tandem with energy storage systems to generate clean energy and limit import from the grid, however most applications struggle to achieve profitability. The level at which energy storage is deployed, be it household energy storage (HES), or as a community energy storage (CES) system, can potentially increase the economic feasibility. Furthermore, the introduction of a Time-of-Use (TOU) tariff enables households to further reduce their energy costs through demand side management (DSM). Here we investigate and compare the performance of HES and CES with DSM. The results suggest that TOU tariffs can effectively shave peak demand by up to 30% and lower energy bills by at least 20%, but do not improve self-consumption or self-sufficiency rate. This study indicates that all cases considered are environmentally friendly and can pay back the total CO 2 emissions associated with the manufacturing within 8 years. However, the levelised cost of storage (LCOS) is still beyond a household's affordability, ranging from £0.4 to £2.03 kWh−1, though CES is proven more effective at improving self-consumption for consumers and shaving peak demand for network operators. The feasibility can be improved by 1) combining different services and tariffs to obtain more revenues for households; 2) more legislative and financial support to reduce system costs; and 3) more innovative business models and policies to optimise revenues with existing resource. • Techno-enviro-economic analysis of energy storage for two communities is presented. • Flat tariff maximises PV consumption; TOU tariff allows greater cost reductions. • Storage feasibility still hindered by expensive LCOS, from £0.4 - £2.03 kWh−1. • Inter-house trading reduces energy cost by 50% but needs policy support. • All cases can pay back total manufacturing CO 2 emissions within 8 years. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Techno-enviro-economic analysis of community energy storage system (CES) presented. • Community self-consumption and self-sufficiency are improved compared to PV-only. • Investment in storage is economically infeasible with payback of 8–14 years. • The value of shared electricity and equipment cost is central to payback time. • Household/community energy storage are environmentally beneficial after 2.5 years. Residential electricity demand is expected to rise in the next few decades due to the electrification of heating and transport. Both European and UK national policies suggest that efforts should be made to reduce carbon emissions and increase the share of renewable energy, an important element of which is encouraging generation, typically PV, in partnership with energy storage systems in the residential sector. The scale of the energy storage system is important, i.e. in individual properties or as a community resource. Many advantages of community energy storage (CES) over household energy storage (HES) have been identified, but the design and operation of CES has received significantly less attention. Most existing research has analysed CES at community level only, but the performance and impact on individual households has yet to be fully explored. In this study an agent-based model is proposed to investigate and analyse CES based on a range of criteria. Results indicate that both HES and CES can significantly reduce the grid peak power import and export, improve the community self-consumption rate (SCR) and self-sufficiency rate (SSR), and contribute to much higher energy saving. Furthermore, optimising the CES capacity leads to more effective use of PV power and better demand localisation during high PV-generation periods. It is found that an important challenge for CES systems is to realise the value of the shared electricity equitably amongst the participants and potentially to seek other revenue streams. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]