MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2083919190 · doi:10.7122/151341-ms

Energy Efficiency and GHG Emissions for Alternative Iron- and Steelmaking Process Technologies

2012· article· en· W2083919190 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCarbon Management Technology Conference · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIron and Steelmaking Processes
Canadian institutionsHatch (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSteelmakingGreenhouse gasProcess (computing)Efficient energy useEnvironmental scienceEnergy (signal processing)Process engineeringComputer scienceEngineeringMaterials scienceElectrical engineeringMetallurgy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In the changing global market scenario for raw materials for the steel industry, a number of novel iron- and steelmaking process technologies are being developed to provide the steel companies with economically-sustainable alternatives for ironand steel-making. In addition, the steel industry is also focusing on reduction of energy consumption as well as green-house gas (GHG) emissions to address the crucial subject of climate change. In this context, it is important to assess these critical issues for the alternate iron- and steelmaking technologies that have been developed. This paper presents a comparative evaluation of energy-efficiency and GHG emissions for some selected iron- and steelmaking technologies that are being considered for implementation. In this work, Hatch's G-CAP™ and En-MAP™ tools that were developed with the main objective of quantifying and qualifying the potential energy savings and CO2 abatement within the iron and steel industry, were employed in the evaluation conducted. INTRODUCTION The iron and steel industry continues to transform itself and evolve in the ever-changing global market place - the raw material scenario is constantly changing with respect to quality and quantity (availability), there is stiff competition in both global and local markets, and there is increasing pressure to address global climate change issues, especially since the steel industry is highly energy- and carbon-intensive. There is growing importance of steel production in developing countries such as China and India - this means that the steel industry in these countries will play an important role in defining and shaping the future of the industry. Climate change is expected to present new risks to the steel industry with respect to ensuring a sustainable business. Legislators are proposing to limit GHG emission by placing an implicit price on CO2 emission - market-based "cap and trade", carbon tax etc. In this scenario, it is important for the steel companies to reduce exposure to climate-related risks and at the same time, find business opportunities within these risks. Thus, there is a need to strategically manage the climate change risks; the key steps to strategically manage climate change risks are presented in Table 1[1]. Some of the steps that are being taken by the steel industry to address climate change risks are presented as follows:Expand usage of current Energy- and CO2-efficient technologies in steel plants to minimize GHG emissions and energy consumptionDevelop novel iron- and steelmaking technological solutions to significantly reduce specific energy consumption and specific GHG emissionOptimize and maximize recycling of steel scrapMaximize value of steel industry by-products (wastes); recycling of steel plant wastesFacilitate use of new generation of steels to improve energy efficiency of steel-using products in partnership with customers.

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.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.676
Threshold uncertainty score0.792

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.230 · 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