Assessment of operations and design strategy controls to improve landfill gas utilization opportunities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although landfill gas (LFG) has many potential beneficial uses, the initial capital costs required for constructing collection systems and utilization–cogeneration systems are high. Collection and combustion–utilization system must continue to function for many years to reap the benefits of investment. To improve the economics of recovery projects, opportunities to accelerate the generation of LFG and operation and design strategies to improve capture potential and recovery efficiency from landfills are examined. In this paper, mathematical models and input values are used from literature to reflect how fundamental principles that influence LFG generation can be manipulated to improve LFG collection utilization. Model coefficient values are changed to represent changes in landfill design and (or) operational strategies to improve the LFG generation rate. A first-order decay model is used to estimate gas generation for six scenarios. Modelling results (methane flow rates) indicate that moisture elevation, leachate recirculation, and addition of heat, increases the potential gas generation rates, with the highest impact relating to leachate recirculation with heat. Net present values (NPVs) are calculated for each of the six scenarios, based on capital and operation and maintenance (O&M) costs to estimate the economic feasibility of each scenario. The NPVs for each scenario are compared to the revenue generation potential through the sale of electricity and carbon credits (emission reduction credits) through LFG combustion. Based on the NPV estimates, leachate recirculation with heat addition has the highest economic feasibility.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".