Exploring the Potential of Organic Waste as a Source of Methane Gas for Electricity Generation in Nigeria
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Open dumps and ill equipped landfills are some of the characteristics of solid waste management in Nigeria. This paper therefore seeks to investigate the viability of anaerobic digestion as part of an integrated waste management strategy for the city of Port Harcourt, Nigeria. In order to achieve this aim, the paper reviews literature on solid waste management in the study area. Alaboratory experiment was also conducted using organic solid wastefrom Port Harcourt. From the findings, it was revealed that anaerobic digestion could play a major role towards the attainment of sustainable solid waste management in Port Harcourt. The small laboratory sample of 10 grams used for the experiment produced about 0.796 litres of methane gas, means that 1 tonne of organic waste in Port Harcourt will generate about 79600 litres of methane gas with energy equivalent of about 1592000_kj. The paper concluded that in a city like Port Harcourt where several tonnes of solid wastes are produced every day, a substantial amount of methane gas could be recovered for electricity generation. It was therefore recommended that anaerobic digestion should be used in order to boost the electricity capacity of the city whilst also improving the quality of life of the people.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".