MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2077907337 · doi:10.1115/pwr2005-50082

The Use of Selective Bunkering to Optimise PRB Utilisation at Nanticoke Generating Station

2005· article· en· W2077907337 on OpenAlexaffabout
L. Marshall

Bibliographic record

VenueASME 2005 Power Conference · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnergy
TopicCoal and Coke Industries Research
Canadian institutionsOntario Power Generation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGrindingCoalCombustionBituminous coalYardPort (circuit theory)Environmental scienceProcess engineeringPower (physics)Waste managementComputer scienceMechanical engineeringEngineeringChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many stations are currently blending Powder River Basin (PRB) coals with bituminous coals to various blend ratios. However, this blending is almost always accomplished at the port, coal yard or a dedicated blend facility — i.e. prior to introducing the coal to the unit. As a result, the pulverizers and burners are forced to deal with two (or more) disparate coals, compromising the performance of these systems. Research originating in Europe confirms the negative repercussions of grinding and firing dissimilar blends. This paper will describe the “Selective Bunkering” system in place at Ontario Power Generations Nanticoke GS which involves feeding the pure parent coals to individual mills and conducting blending in the furnace. This innovation has increased the maximum PRB blend ratio from 50% to 70% at full load and also allows for a seamless transition to 100% PRB firing at lower loads. The techniques employed to coordinate and optimize the combustion system will be discussed.

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 score0.636
Threshold uncertainty score0.617

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.095
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.203 · 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

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueASME 2005 Power ConferenceSame topicCoal and Coke Industries ResearchFrench-language works237,207