MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1556359489 · doi:10.2172/825258

FIELD TEST PROGRAM FOR EVALUATION OF SORBENT INJECTION FOR MERCURY CONTROL

2004· report· en· W1556359489 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sharon Sjostrom

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMercury impact and mitigation studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSorbentFlue gasWaste managementPower stationMercury (programming language)EngineeringCoalCapital costAsphaltEnvironmental scienceEnvironmental engineeringProcess engineeringChemistryComputer scienceElectrical engineeringAdsorption

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The power industry in the U.S. is faced with meeting new regulations to reduce the emissions of mercury compounds from coal-fired plants. These regulations are directed at the existing fleet of nearly 1,100 boilers. These plants are relatively old with an average age of over 40 years. Although most of these units are capable of operating for many additional years, there is a desire to minimize large capital expenditures because of the reduced (and unknown) remaining life of the plant to amortize the project. Injecting a sorbent such as powdered activated carbon into the flue gas represents one of the simplest and most mature approaches to controlling mercury emissions from coal-fired boilers. The overall objective of this test program described in this quarterly report is to evaluate the capabilities of activated carbon injection at four plants with configurations that together represent 78% of the existing coal-fired generation plants. This technology was successfully evaluated in NETL's Phase I tests at scales up to 150 MW, on plants burning subbituminous and bituminous coals and with ESPs and fabric filters. The tests also identified issues that still need to be addressed, such as evaluating performance on other configurations, optimizing sorbent usage (costs), and gathering longer term operating data to address concerns about the impact of activated carbon on plant equipment and operations. The four sites identified for testing are Sunflower Electric's Holcomb Station, AmerenUE's Meramec Station, AEP's Conesville Station, and Ontario Power Generation's Nanticoke Station. This is the first quarterly report for this project. This report includes an overview of the plans for the project. Field testing is scheduled to begin next quarter. In general, quarterly reports will be used to provide project overviews, project status, and technology transfer information. Topical reports will be prepared to present detailed technical information.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.320 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMercury impact and mitigation studies→French-language works237,207→