Opportunities for Low-Grade Coals and Biomass for Producing Hydrogen Using Iron Oxide-Based Direct Chemical Looping Combustion with Effective CO2 Separation~!2010-01-02~!2010-02-12~!2010-05-11~!
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Coal and biomass are abundant in supply but contain carbon which, to avoid greenhouse gas emissions, needs to be sequestered after the primary energy conversion.A comparison is reported here of the performance of four different coals and biomass in an iron oxide-based direct chemical looping combustion system.The principal aim is to identify the coal and biomass with the highest H 2 to CO 2 ratio for a given amount of fuel, based on the resources (air and iron oxide) used.The impact of fuel blend (mix of coal and biomass) on hydrogen production is compared, and the effect of moisture content of the source fuel on hydrogen production is investigated.Simulation results suggest that low-grade coal can also produce the same amount of hydrogen as high grade coal, but with additional energy requirements.In achieving maximum hydrogen production, the final 20 to 30% of hydrogen production consumes the same amount of energy required by the initial 70% of production.When biomass is blended with 20% coal by mass, 10% additional hydrogen is produced.A 10% moisture content in the source fuel reduces the hydrogen production by 10% for high-grade coal while it eliminates the possibility for low-grade biomass to produce hydrogen within the available energy region.Potential improvements of the energy requirement to achieve maximum hydrogen production from low-grade solid fuels are also reported.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".