Review of underground coal gasification technologies and carbon capture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract It is thought that the world coal reserve is close to 150 years, which only includes recoverable reserves using conventional techniques. Mining is the typical method of extracting coal, but it has been estimated that only 15% to 20% of the total coal resources can be recovered in this manner. If unrecoverable coal is considered in the reserves, the lifetime of this resource would be greatly extended, by perhaps a couple hundred years. Mining involves a large amount of time, resources, and personnel and contains many challenges such as drastic changes in landscapes, high machinery costs, elevated risk to personnel, and post-extraction transport. A new type of coal extraction method, known as underground coal gasification (UCG), that addresses most of the problems of coal mining is being investigated and implemented globally. UCG is a gasification process applied to in situ coal seams. UCG is very similar to aboveground gasification where syngas is produced through the same chemical reactions that occur in surface gasifiers. UCG has a large potential for providing a clean energy source through carbon capture and storage techniques and offers a unique option for CO 2 storage. This paper reviews key concepts and technologies of underground coal gasification, providing insights into this developing coal conversion method.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".