MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1999016863 · doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2011.02.539

Technology and pilot plant results of the advanced amine process

2011· article· en· W1999016863 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Frédéric Vitse, Barath Baburao, Ross Dugas, Larry Czarnecki, Craig Schubert

Bibliographic record

VenueEnergy Procedia · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicCarbon Dioxide Capture Technologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPilot plantFlue gasWaste managementEngineeringTonneBoiler (water heating)Pilot programProcess engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The development of CO2 capture technologies is being pursued by US, European, Japanese and other suppliers in collaboration with utility companies, universities and Governments in the USA, Europe, Canada and Australia. Among the more promising post-combustion solutions is the Advanced Amine Process (AAP), jointly developed by Alstom and The Dow Chemical Company (Dow). This paper describes the AAP pilot plant located at a Dow-owned site in South Charleston, West Virginia, USA. It provides an update on how the experience from the pilot plant is used to improve the design and predicted performance of large-scale demonstration plants. It will summarize pilot plant results and show the progress of the technology development. The pilot plant is processing flue gas from a bituminous coal-fired boiler with UCARSOLTM FGC 3000 series of solvents, advanced amine solvents specifically developed by Dow for flue gas applications. The pilot plant has a CO2 removal capacity of ∼5 tonne CO2/day and can capture in excess of 90% of inlet CO2. A test program with a wide range of operating conditions provides information on capture performance, including solvent and operational stability. A state-of-the-art laboratory measures solvent composition, CO2 loading, solvent contamination and degradation species. Long term solvent composition is controlled by a combination of flue gas pre-treatment and solvent reclamation. These results are being used to develop a large-scale demonstration plant (above 250 MWe) under the EU Flagship program in Europe.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.175
Teacher spread0.165 · 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

Citations22
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnergy ProcediaSame topicCarbon Dioxide Capture TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207