MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2492179904 · doi:10.2172/1136526

Development of Technologies and Capabilities for Coal Energy Resources

2013· report· en· W2492179904 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Alan Darby, A. Eastland, S.P. Fusselman, Scott McVey, Kenneth M. Sprouse

Notice bibliographique

Revuenon disponible
Typereport
Langueen
DomaineEngineering
ThématiqueReservoir Engineering and Simulation Methods
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesNational Energy Technology LaboratoryU.S. Department of Energy
Mots-clésPortingTask (project management)SoftwareProcess (computing)Controller (irrigation)EngineeringSoftware engineeringComputer scienceSystems engineeringOperating system

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

This is the final report for the Aerojet Rocketdyne (AR) Advanced Gasification Systems Development (AGSD) project that was initiated on October 1, 2004. The project’s primary objective is to demonstrate technologies that improve the availability and efficiency of gasification-based power plants and to reduce plant capital and operational costs. The objective will be accomplished by (1) development and testing of cooled refractory liners, (2) feed system development and demonstration, (3) pilot plant definition and planning, (4) transport gasifier feed analysis, (5) coal-biomass mixture feed analysis, and (6) coal-biomass mixture pilot scale tests. Task 1, development and testing of cooled refractory liners, was conducted at CANMET Energy Technology Centre in Ottawa, Canada. The test objectives were to screen high conductivity CMC materials with alternate manufacturing methods and a variety of surface treatments for cooled metal tubes in a slagging gasifier environment. During the CMC testing, it was found that a constantly cooled CMC will survive in good conditions and that high porosity CMC resulted in high material erosion and corrosion. During cooled tube testing, it was found that hard metal spray coat and bare Haynes 188 performed the best. Task 2, feed system development and demonstration, was conducted at at the Energy and Environmental Research Center (EERC) at the University of North Dakota (UND). For tasks 2.1-2.6, the test objective was to demonstrate 400-tons/day coal feed system operation (to 1,000 psia gasifier pressures) in ultra-dense phase flow without plugging and to achieve multi-element injector flow-split non-uniformities below 2 %RSD. Testing was successfully completed with no feed system plugging of the feed system. The majority of the other Task 2 activities were associated with the Dry Solids Pump design (Task 2.8 and 2.11), development (Task 2.10), fabrication (Task 2.12), amd testing (Task 2.13-2.15). A variety of tests were performed that verified the capability of the Dry Solids Pump to consolidate various pulverized feedstocks to a state capable of sealing and sustaining downstream outlet pressures during mechanical operation of the pump as well as during periods when the pump was turned off. However, the final operating goals were not achieved. Task 3, pilot plant definition and planning, was to define requirements for an advanced commercial gasifier with a cooled liner and to establish a preferred commercial gasifier system configuration to serve as the reference point for an advanced gasifier pilot plant concept definition. A pilot plant concept was successfully defined that is scalable and traceable to the commercial gasifier configuration. The schedule and cost for design, installation, and long-duration test operation of a pilot plant were estimated at 33 months and $\$$25.6M. Taks 4, transport gasifier feed analysis, was to determine the effects of larger sized transport gasifier low rank coals within the AR dry solids pump. It was found for the two low-rank +100 mesh size transport gasifier coals that the cohesion of these larger materials was significantly less than the coals ground to minus 200 mesh. Also, the gas permeability of the MSL transport coal was found to be significantly higher than the permeability of the PRB transport coal. Task 5, coal-biomass mixture feed analysis, was to determine the effects of coal biomass blends within the AR ultra-dense phase feed system and dry solids pump, and to determine the cost of electricity increase of an integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) operating on coal/biomass blends with the AR dry solids pump and ultra-dense phase feed system. In summary, it was found that 75/25 wt% coal/corn stover blends produce reasonable economic results for IGCC operation with minimal dry solids pump modifications – especially if the coal is a low rank coal and the corn stover biomass is pelletized. The increase in electricity cost was found to be 1.1 cents/kWh. Task 6, coal-biomass mixture pilot scale tests, was to determine which coal/biomass blends could be tested in the current dry solids pump without major modifications. As reported in detail in the reports by Sprouse (2010) and Sprouse and Darby (2013), the coal/biomass blend having the least impact on pump configuration and operation is the 90/10 wt% Illinois #6 to corn stover ratio blend. The AGSD program was initiated on October 1, 2004. The interim final report was submitted on October 21, 2010 and covered Task 1, Task 2.1-2.9, and Task 3, performed during budget period 1. This final report covers Task 2.10-2.16, 4, 5, and 6, performed during budget period 2. The interim final report is attached as part of the appendix to this report.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Méthodes · Signal consensuel: Méthodes
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,914
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,652

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,034
Tête enseignante GPT0,276
Écart entre enseignants0,242 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreMéthodes

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2013
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même sujetReservoir Engineering and Simulation MethodsTravaux en français237 207