MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2160845471 · doi:10.13031/2013.23143

Optimizing the Size of Anaerobic Digesters

2007· article· en· W2160845471 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Emad Ghafoori, Peter C. Flynn

Bibliographic record

VenueTransactions of the ASABE · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPhosphorus and nutrient management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFeedlotManureDigestateBiogasAnaerobic digestionTonneEnvironmental scienceBeef cattleAgricultureManure managementAgronomyAgricultural scienceEngineeringWaste managementGeographyForestryMethaneBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Anaerobic digestion (AD) of manure from confined feeding operations (CFOs) to produce biogas and in turn electric power in farm or feedlot based units as well as centralized plants is evaluated for two settings in Alberta, Canada: a mixed farming area (Red Deer County), and an area of concentrated beef cattle feedlots (Lethbridge County). Centralized plants need to transport manure to the plant and digestate back to the source CFO, an added cost relative to farm or feedlot based plants, but gain from the economy of scale in plant capital and operating cost. Based on a county survey of manure sources, a centralized plant drawing manure from 63 sources in the mixed farming area, at a manure yield of 34 dry tonne year-1 km-2, could produce 5.9 net MW of power at a cost of $240 MWh-1 (in 2005 U.S. dollars). No individual CFO in the mixed farming area, including a 7,500 head beef cattle feedlot, could produce power at a lower cost with a farm or feedlot based unit. Based on manure yields from an Alberta-based 1 MW demonstration AD plant, a centralized plant drawing manure from 560,000 beef cattle in Lethbridge County, at a manure yield of 280 dry tonne year-1 km-2, could produce power at a cost of $150 MWh-1. In Lethbridge County, an individual feedlot larger than 20,000 head of beef cattle could produce power at a lower cost than the centralized plant. Commercial processes to recover concentrated nutrients and a dischargeable water stream from digestate are not available. However, the theoretical impact of digestate processing was analyzed based on a capital cost of 2/3 of the AD plant itself. Digestate processing shifts the balance in favor of centralized processing, and a feedlot would need to be larger than 250,000 head to produce power at a lower cost than a centralized plant. Power from biogas has a high cost relative to current power prices and to the cost of power from other large-scale renewable sources. Power from biogas would need to be justified by other factors than energy value alone, such as phosphate recovery, pathogen reduction, or odor control.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.200 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations27
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransactions of the ASABESame topicPhosphorus and nutrient managementFrench-language works237,207