MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2024816077 · doi:10.1115/ijpgc2002-26201

Four Large Units at Lakeview Generating Station Achieve 50% NOx Reduction Cost Effectively With a Reduced Schedule

2002· article· en· W2024816077 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kal Raman, E.S. Schindler

Bibliographic record

Venue2002 International Joint Power Generation Conference · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Power Generation Technologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTurnkeyNOxCombustorWaste managementEnvironmental scienceBoiler (water heating)UpgradeKilnPower stationCoalEngineeringCombustionElectrical engineeringComputer scienceTelecommunicationsChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As part of a much larger Ontario Power Generation NOx reduction program, two separate turnkey contracts were awarded to RJM Corporation to convert the four units at the Lakeview Generating Station located on lake Ontario near downtown Toronto. Lakeview Station Units 1, 2, 5 and 6 are 300 MWe, B&W split furnace, radiant boilers firing bituminous coal. Units 1 & 2 have 24 burners and Units 5 & 6 have 18 burners all located on the front wall. The original B&W register style burners were used as a basis to reduce NOx emissions to the maximum amount possible by means of burner modifications using RJM’s low NOx burner components. This upgrade reduced NOX by more than 50% from the original burner baseline, simultaneously maintained CO below 100 ppm and maintaining a reasonable increase in baseline LOI, with no effect on boiler steam temperatures or performance. RJM Corporation was selected on a competitive bid basis to perform these contracts on a turnkey basis. Stone and Webster prepared the specification and acted as the OPGI engineer throughout the project. The details of the retrofit and the results of the conversion are presented in this paper.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.088
Threshold uncertainty score0.174

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0440.009

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 head0.249
Teacher spread0.190 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue2002 International Joint Power Generation ConferenceSame topicAdvanced Power Generation TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207