MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2031376075 · doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2011.02.068

Technical and economic opportunities for flexible CO2 capture at Australian black coal fired power plants

2011· article· en· W2031376075 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Dianne E. Wiley, Minh T. Ho, Lindsay Donde

Bibliographic record

VenueEnergy Procedia · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicCarbon Dioxide Capture Technologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMcGill University
KeywordsTonneCoal firedFlue gasElectricityWaste managementCoalEngineeringElectricity generationPower stationElectricity demandEnvironmental sciencePower (physics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A significant proportion of the research into CCS in the literature assumes ‘complete capture’ of the CO2, that is at least 85 to 90 percent of the CO2 from the flue gas is captured for the entire operating year (7,000 to 8,000 hours). Only a few papers have examined a model involving ‘flexible’ operation of the capture facility in which the CO2 is captured at variable or reduced rates for all or part of a day, week, season or year. This paper presents an assessment of the operational opportunities for deploying flexible CO2 capture at black coal fired power plants located in the state of New South Wales (NSW), Australia. Different models of flexible capture including part-time operation, partial CO2 capture rates and a combination of both operating modes are examined. The results show that it may be possible to reduce the current CO2 emissions from NSW coal-fired power plants by up to 50% during summer while still meeting the state electricity demand. The estimated cost of CO2 avoided ranges from A$120 to A$190 per tonne avoided for flexible capture.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.073

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.170 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations35
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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