La gestion des biosolides de papetières au Québec : quelle serait la meilleure option pour réduire les émissions de gaz à effet de serre? (Pulp and paper mill sludge management in Quebec: what should be the best option to reduce greenhouse gas emissions?)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Les biosolides de papetières (BP) sont des matières organiques résiduelles provenant du processus d’épuration des effluents de l’industrie des pâtes et papiers. Le gouvernement québécois vise à réduire de 20 % les émissions de gaz à effet de serre (GES) par rapport au niveau de 1990 et à bannir la matière organique des lieux d’élimination d’ici 2020, ce qui affectera probablement la gestion des BP. Cette étude vise à quantifier les émissions de GES provenant des trois principales filières de gestion des BP : l’enfouissement, l’épandage sur sol agricole et la combustion avec récupération de chaleur. Les émissions de GES de l’enfouissement ont été mesurées à l’échelle pilote et celles de l’épandage, l’ont été pour des doses respectant les recommandations agronomiques. Les émissions de la combustion ont été mesurées à la cheminée de chaudières à biomasse utilisant entre 10 et 40 % de BP mélangés aux combustibles. L’enfouissement était la filière la plus émettrice de GES (0,90 t éq. CO2 t-1 BP secs), alors que les émissions étaient inférieures pour l’épandage (0,12 t éq. CO2 t-1 BP secs) et la combustion (0,00057-0,13 t éq. CO2 t-1 BP secs). L’épandage agricole et la combustion seraient de bonnes alternatives à l’enfouissement pour atténuer les émissions de GES. Toutefois, il serait nécessaire de multiplier les mesures d’émissions pour en augmenter la précision et assurer des scénarios robustes si l’on vise à initier l’élaboration d’un nouveau protocole d’obtention de crédits compensatoires pour le système de plafonnement et d’échange de droits d’émission de GES au Québec. \n \nPulp and paper mill sludge (PPMS) is an organic residual generated from the paper mill wastewater treatments. The Quebec’s government policies aim to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) by 20% below the level of 1990 and to ban disposal (landfilling and incineration without energy recovery) of organic material by 2020, which will likely affect PPMS management. This study aims at quantifying GHG emissions from the three main practices currently used to manage PPMS: landfilling, land application in agriculture and combustion for energy recovery. GHG emissions from landfilling were measured at the pilot-scale and those from land were measured following PPMS application at rates based on local agronomic recommendations. GHG emissions from combustion were measured at the chimney of biomass boilers using 10 to 40% PPMS in the fuel. Landfilling had the highest GHG emissions (0.90 t CO2e t-1 dry PPMS) whereas those from land application (0.12 t CO2e t-1 dry PPMS) and combustion (0.00057-0.13 t CO2e t-1 dry PPMS) were lower. Application of PPMS to agricultural land and combustion would therefore be good alternatives to landfilling to abate GHG emissions. However, more measurements would be required to increase the accuracy on the emission quantifications and start building a new offset credit protocol to be used in the Quebec cap-and-trade system for GHG emission allowances applied bylaw.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".