Oxyfuel CFBC: status and anticipated development
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Many technologies are now being explored to permit the combustion of fossil fuels while achieving CO 2 capture in a state suitable for compression, transporting, and sequestration. Among the chief contenders are processes in which the fuel is first decarbonized, usually by gasification, followed by the use of a shift reaction to produce pure H 2 ; post‐combustion capture, in which the CO 2 is removed from the flue gases either at high temperatures (e.g. carbonate or Ca looping) or at near‐ambient temperatures (e.g. amine scrubbing); chemical looping in which the fuel is converted in the presence of a solid oxide carrier, thus producing a stream of gas consisting primarily of CO 2 and H 2 O; and finally, oxyfuel combustion in which the fuel is burned in a stream of pure, or nearly pure, oxygen. The latter technology is already being investigated for application with pulverized fuel or coal, but more recently, the possibility of using oxyfuel combustion with circulating fluidized beds has been receiving increasing attention. There is already a 30 MWth demonstration unit operating in Spain, with plans to build a 300 MWe plant. This perspective describes the current status of oxyfuel research and development. © 2013 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it