MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2054015997 · doi:10.1002/bbb.1485

Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of electricity generation from corn cobs in Ontario, Canada

2014· article· en· W2054015997 on OpenAlexafffundabout
David Sanscartier, Goretty Dias, Bill Deen, Humaira Dadfar, Ian A. McDonald, Heather L. MacLean

Bibliographic record

VenueBiofuels Bioproducts and Biorefining · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBioenergy crop production and management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of GuelphUniversity of TorontoMinistry of Agriculture, Food and Rural AffairsUniversity of WaterlooSaskatchewan Research Council (Canada)
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversité Laval
KeywordsGreenhouse gasEnvironmental scienceLife-cycle assessmentCoalBiomass (ecology)Soil carbonFossil fuelElectricity generationEnvironmental engineeringWaste managementAgronomyEngineeringSoil waterProduction (economics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Policy initiatives have motivated a search for environmentally sustainable alternatives to fossil‐fuel‐based electricity generation. Agricultural residues such as corn cobs may be a suitable feedstock. A life cycle approach was used to estimate the greenhouse gas ( GHG ) emission impacts associated with the use of pellets produced from corn cobs as the sole fuel for the generation of electricity at a hypothetically retrofitted coal‐fired generating station in Ontario, Canada. Pellets are compared with current coal and hypothetical natural gas combined cycle ( NGCC ) facilities. A life cycle model and soil carbon model calibrated for the agricultural region of interest were combined to quantify the GHG emissions of the biomass product system. The corn cob product system's life cycle emissions (240 g CO 2 eq kWh −1 ) are 40% and 80% lower than those of the NGCC and coal product systems, respectively. If corn cobs are left in the field to decompose, some carbon is sequestered in the soil, thus their removal from the field and combustion at the generation station represents a net GHG emission, accounting for 60% of life cycle emissions. In addition to the GHG impacts of combustion, removing agricultural residues from fields may reduce soil health, increase erosion and affect soil fertility through loss of soil organic carbon and nutrients. Their sustainable use should therefore consider the maintenance of soil fertility over the long‐term. Nevertheless, the use of the feedstock in place of coal may provide substantial GHG emissions mitigation.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.688
Threshold uncertainty score0.254

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.186
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 teacher head, 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

Citations10
Published2014
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiofuels Bioproducts and BiorefiningSame topicBioenergy crop production and managementFrench-language works237,207