MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Fuels, Synthetic, Liquid Fuels

2000· other· en· W1491905247 on OpenAlex
Scott Han, Clarence D. Chang

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueKirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology · 2000
Typeother
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicZeolite Catalysis and Synthesis
Canadian institutionsResearch & Development Corporation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSynthetic fuelOxygenateWaste managementMethaneCoalSubstitute natural gasNatural gasFossil fuelLiquid fuelCoal liquefactionRenewable fuelsSynthetic crudePetroleumGasolineChemistryRaw materialShale oilSyngasCombustionOrganic chemistryEngineeringChemical reaction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The creation of liquids to be used as fuels from sources other than natural crude petroleum broadly defines synthetic liquid fuels. Synthetic liquid fuels have characteristics approaching those of the liquid fuels in commerce, specifically gasoline, kerosene, jet fuel, and fuel oil. For much of the twentieth century, the synthetic fuels emphasis was on liquid products derived from coal upgrading or by extraction or hydrogenation of organic matter in coke liquids, coal tars, tar sands, or bitumen deposits. However, much of the direction involving synthetic fuels technology has changed. The potential of natural gas, which typically has 85–95% methane, has been recognized as a plentiful and clean alternative feedstock to crude oil. The proven technology to upgrade methane is via steam reforming to produce synthesis gas, CO + H 2 . Such a gas mixture is clean and when converted to liquids produces fuels substantially free of heteroatoms such as sulfur and nitrogen. Two commercial units utilizing the synthesis gas from natural gas technology in combination with novel downstream conversion processes have been commercialized. The direct methane conversion technology has received the most research attention and involves the oxidative coupling of methane to produce higher hydrocarbons such as ethylene. A second trend in synthetic fuels is increased attention to oxygenates as alternative fuels as a result of the growing environmental concern about burning fossil‐based fuels. The environmental impact of the oxygenates is still under debate, but these alternative liquid fuels are gaining new prominence. Despite reduced prominence, coal technology is well positioned to provide synthetic fuels for the future. World petroleum and natural gas production are expected ultimately to level off and then decline. Coal gasification to synthesis gas is utilized to synthesize liquid fuels in much the same manner as natural gas steam reforming technology. Although world activity in coal liquefaction technology is minimal, the extensive development and detailed demonstration of processes for converting coal to liquid fuels should serve as solid foundation for the synthetic fuel needs of the future. Coal, tar, and heavy oil fuel reserves are widely distributed. The importance of coal gasification as a means of producing fuel gas(es) for industrial use cannot be underplayed. But coal gasification systems also have undesirable features. A range of undesirable products are also produced which must be removed before the products are used to provide fuel and/or to generate electric power. Natural gas is a plentiful resource, and there has been a marked tendency not to use other fossil fuels as SNG sources. However, petroleum oil shale, and biomass have been the subject of extensive research efforts.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.283
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0040.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0360.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.212 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it