MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2016059240 · doi:10.4155/cmt.12.11

The potential of waste-to-energy in reducing GHG emissions

2012· article· en· W2016059240 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Munish K. Chandel, Gabriel Kwok, Robert B. Jackson, Lincoln F. Pratson

Bibliographic record

VenueCarbon Management · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicCO2 Sequestration and Geologic Interactions
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of SaskatchewanNorth Carolina State UniversityU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceGreenhouse gasWaste managementLandfill gasMunicipal solid wasteCombustionMethaneCost of electricity by sourceCarbon capture and storage (timeline)Electricity generationEnvironmental engineeringElectricityCarbon fibersWaste-to-energyCarbon dioxideClimate changeEngineeringChemistryMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The combustion of municipal solid waste (MSW) to generate heat or electricity (waste-to-energy [WTE]) could reduce net GHG emissions in the USA compared with combusting methane from landfills. Moreover, negative CO2 emissions could be achieved with CCS because 66% of the carbon in MSW is typically biogenic. Results and conclusion: For the five largest landfill sites in each state, we estimate that at least 58 and 11 sites have enough MSW to fuel WTE plants of >50 MWe and >100 MWe, respectively. Furthermore, half of these sites lie within 20 km of potential underground saline and other CO2 storage reservoirs. We estimate that the levelized electricity cost for WTE without CO2 capture is US$94/MWh and is $285/MWh with amine-based post-combustion capture technology. The cost of CO2 capture is $58/Mg CO2, resulting in a cost for carbon negative emissions of $93/Mg CO2; substantially lower than for some geoengineering methods, including capturing CO2 from air.

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.426
Threshold uncertainty score0.380

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations38
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCarbon ManagementSame topicCO2 Sequestration and Geologic InteractionsFrench-language works237,207