MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1988007285 · doi:10.1115/power2006-88064

The Exergy Underground Coal Gasification Technology as a Source of Superior Fuel for Power Generation

2006· article· en· W1988007285 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Michael S. Blinderman

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMining and Gasification Technologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUnderground coal gasificationIntegrated gasification combined cycleExergyPower stationEngineeringWaste managementElectricity generationCoalCoal gasificationSyngasClean coalEnvironmental sciencePower (physics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Underground Coal Gasification (UCG) is a gasification process carried on in non-mined coal seams using injection and production wells drilled from the surface, converting coal in situ into a product gas usable for chemical processes and power generation. The UCG process developed, refined and practiced by Ergo Exergy Technologies is called the Exergy UCG Technology or εUCG® Technology. The εUCG technology is being applied in numerous power generation and chemical projects worldwide. These include power projects in South Africa (1,200 MWe), India (750 MWe), Pakistan, and Canada, as well as chemical projects in Australia and Canada. A number of εUCG based industrial projects are now at a feasibility stage in New Zealand, USA, and Europe. An example of εUCG application is the Chinchilla Project in Australia where the technology demonstrated continuous, consistent production of commercial quantities of quality fuel gas for over 30 months. The project is currently targeting a 24,000 barrel per day synthetic diesel plant based on εUCG syngas supply. The εUCG technology has demonstrated exceptional environmental performance. The εUCG methods and techniques of environmental management are an effective tool to ensure environmental protection during an industrial application. A εUCG-IGCC power plant will generate electricity at a much lower cost than existing or proposed fossil fuel power plants. CO2 emissions of the plant can be reduced to a level 55% less than those of a supercritical coal-fired plant and 25% less than the emissions of NG CC.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.205 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations2
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMining and Gasification TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207