MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2223824189 · doi:10.2172/1023754

Pyramid Resource Center-Green Energy Center

2011· report· en· W2223824189 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Paul Flory

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIntegrated Energy Systems Optimization
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWaste managementMethaneRaw materialNatural gasEngineeringEnvironmental scienceFuel gasRevenueCarbon dioxideEnvironmental engineeringChemistryBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There are currently over 3,500 USA/Canadian landfills listed by the EPA/EC and like numbers in Europe that are producing methane-rich landfill gas (LFG). This gas is typically made up of 50-percent methane (CH4), 35-percent carbon dioxide (CO2), and 2 to 25% nitrogen and oxygen (N2 & O2), plus dozens of dilute contaminants. LFG is classified as a renewable fuel, because it is generated via biological decay of municipal solid waste, a constant byproduct of human activity. To date, most LFG has been allowed to escape into the atmosphere. On account of its high CH4 content, LFG may contribute to climate change, as CH4 is one of the most harmful greenhouse gases with 21 times the global warming potential of CO2. Of the landfills that collect LFG, most simply flare it. In the past decade, some landfills have begun to use LFG for electricity generation or for direct combustion as low Btu gas. Very few landfills upgrade LFG to high Btu gas. A patented CO2 WashTM process developed by Acrion Technologies Inc., and licensed to Firm Green Inc. shows promise as an economically and environmentally sustainable process to recover energy and prevent pollution from landfills. The CO2 WashTM has already been proven at lab-scale. It upgrades LFG, which consists of 50% methane (CH4) + 35% carbon dioxide (CO2) + 2 to 25% nitrogen + oxygen (N2+O2), 1 to 2% water vapor, and dozens of contaminants (which total a few hundred to a few thousand parts per million). CH4, which by itself has an energy content of 1,012 British thermal units (Btu) per standard cubic foot (SCF), is the only component in LFG that contributes to its energy content, which is therefore about 400-550 Btu/SCF. Accordingly, raw LFG is usually referred to as medium-Btu gas. To be salable, it is necessary to remove essentially all the components besides CH4, while keeping the vast majority of the revenue producing CH4. This is high-Btu gas, yielding 850 to 1,000 Btu/SCF. The CO2 WashTM process upgrades LFG to about 930 Btu/SCF, and reduces the contaminants to levels that make it salable as a vehicle fuel in the form of compressed natural gas (CNG).

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.204
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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicIntegrated Energy Systems OptimizationFrench-language works237,207