Entrained‐flow gasifier fuel blending studies at pilot scale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract For the foreseeable future, coal and petroleum‐based materials, such as petroleum Coke, residuals, and high‐sulphur fuel oil, are being adopted as the feedstocks of choice for gasification projects. Of particular interest from a Canadian perspective is Coke generated from the thermal cracking of the oil sands in Western Canada. Oil sand Coke contains high sulphur (5–6%), and also typically has a low volatile content, and lower reactivity than most coals. Experimental runs have recently been conducted on the pilot‐scale entrained‐flow gasifier at CETC‐Ottawa, blending oil sand Coke with sub‐bituminous and lignite coals, to try and enhance the gasification potential of these materials. Blending Genesee sub‐bituminous coal with the delayed oil sands Coke was found to alleviate problems encountered with slag plugging the reactor when running with Genesee coal alone. Blends of Genesee sub‐bituminous and Boundary Dam lignite coals with Coke achieved higher carbon conversions and cold gas efficiencies than runs completed with the Coke by itself. While using CO 2 as the conveying gas into the gasifier was not found to significantly affect the conversion obtained, steam addition was found to have a marked effect on CO and H 2 concentrations in the syngas.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".