MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2255712150 · doi:10.33915/etd.4943

Coal Liquefaction Process Development

2012· dissertation· en· W2255712150 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Christopher L. Yurchick

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRecycling and Waste Management Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoalLiquefactionWaste managementCommercializationCoal liquefactionCentrifugeEngineeringEnvironmental scienceGeotechnical engineeringBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The traditional method of liquefying coal operates at extreme conditions consisting of hydrogen pressures of over 2000 pounds per square inch and temperatures of over 450°C. The elevated hydrogen pressure is necessary to hydrogenate the reaction mixture and liquefy the coal molecules. As a result, the processing equipment is very expensive and safety is a major concern. The coal liquefaction process invented at West Virginia University does not use hydrogen overpressure and operates below 500 pounds per square inch. The WVU process has produced 4500 pounds of cleaned de-ashed coal extract referred to as centrate. The centrate was processed into coal tar binder pitch by Koppers Inc. and finally into electrodes for the steel industry by GrafTech International Ltd. The electrodes were tested and passed all of the commercialization tests. Quantex, a Canadian company, licensed the technology from the university in 2007 with the intention of commercializing the process. However, the process had several deficiencies to overcome before it could be economically viable and move towards commercialization.;The centrifuge system removes ash and other solid materials from the mixture after the coal has been liquefied. In the process existing in 2007, the centrifuge residue, or tails, contains only 20% by weight of the ash material with the remaining 80% consisting of valuable products or unreacted coal. Without first increasing the efficiency of ash removal from the coal either before or after the liquefaction reaction, the process cannot be economically viable and is unable to be commercialized. Another drawback of the original process is the reaction and centrifuge systems were not designed or operated to produce reliable mass balance results.;The reaction system was redesigned and constructed incorporating the previously redesigned centrifugation system to produce clean, de-ashed centrate and other products from the raw materials. A vacuum distillation system was designed and constructed that produces quality pitches and condensed liquid volatiles from the clean, de-ashed centrate produced from coal in the previous reaction step. The coking system was designed and constructed to process the coal derived pitches into commercial grade coke and additional condensed volatiles. Each of the three operating systems produces reliable and repeatable mass closure results for individual experiments. All of the products can be collected and samples taken for further analytical analysis. A complete mass balance analysis for the overall process was performed from the raw material through the products produced. The end products were subjected to and passed testing

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.896
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.260 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designOther design
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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRecycling and Waste Management TechniquesFrench-language works237,207