MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2123077325 · doi:10.1016/j.cherd.2015.06.024

Pressurised calcination–atmospheric carbonation of limestone for cyclic CO2 capture from flue gases

2015· article· en· W2123077325 on OpenAlexaff
Masoud Kavosh, Kumar Patchigolla, J.E. Oakey, Edward J. Anthony, Scott Champagne, Robin W. Hughes

Bibliographic record

VenueProcess Safety and Environmental Protection · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicChemical Looping and Thermochemical Processes
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources Canada
FundersEngineering and Physical Sciences Research CouncilCranfield University
KeywordsCalcinationCarbonationSorbentFlue gasMaterials scienceAtmospheric pressureSinteringChemical engineeringWaste managementMetallurgyAdsorptionChemistryComposite materialCatalysisGeologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A study was carried out to investigate the CO2 capture performance of limestone under atmospheric carbonations following pressurised calcination. A series of tests was carried out to study the role of pressurised calcination using a fluidised bed reactor. In this investigation, calcination of limestone particles was carried out at three levels of pressure: 0.1 MPa, 0.5 MPa, and 1.0 MPa. After calcination, the capture performance of the calcined sorbent was tested at atmospheric pressure. As expected, the results indicate that the carbonation conversion of calcined sorbent decreases as the pressure is increased during calcination. Pressurised calcination requires higher temperatures and causes an increase in sorbent sintering, albeit that it would have the advantage of reducing equipment size as well as the compression energy necessary for CO2transport and storage, and an analysis has been provided to give an assessment of the potential benefits associated with such an option using process software.

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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score0.508

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.186 · 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

Citations12
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProcess Safety and Environmental ProtectionSame topicChemical Looping and Thermochemical ProcessesFrench-language works237,207