MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2316225583 · doi:10.1021/ef400926x

Emission Reduction Using RTP Green Fuel in Industry Facilities: A Life Cycle Study

2013· article· en· W2316225583 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jiqing Fan, David R. Shonnard, Tom N. Kalnes, Monique Streff, Geoff Hopkins

Bibliographic record

VenueEnergy & Fuels · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicThermochemical Biomass Conversion Processes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGreenhouse gasEnvironmental scienceRenewable energyFossil fuelRenewable fuelsBiomass (ecology)Waste managementRaw materialLife-cycle assessmentBiofuelRenewable resourcePyrolysisEnvironmental engineeringProduction (economics)EngineeringEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

RTP (rapid thermal processing) green fuel, a biomass-derived pyrolysis liquid, is an environmentally friendly fuel for heat and power production because it is renewable and has very low sulfur content. This paper investigates the expected air emissions, energy demands, and other environmental aspects of a fuel produced from sawmill residues in Eastern Quebec. It shows that as much as 98% greenhouse gas (GHG) emission savings is possible relative to a petroleum heavy fuel oil baseline. Most of its energy is derived from renewable biomass as opposed to fossil fuels. Other environmental benefits include lower impacts on human health, ecosystem quality, and fossil resources. Scenario analyses were also conducted to determine responses to model assumptions including different biomass feedstocks, feedstock transport mode and distance, and geographical locations of the pyrolysis process. Although GHG benefits are sensitive to these assumptions, in all cases studied, the savings in GHG emissions are above 70%.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.248
Threshold uncertainty score0.492

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.205 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations4
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnergy & FuelsSame topicThermochemical Biomass Conversion ProcessesFrench-language works237,207