Biomass Direct Liquefaction Options: TechnoEconomic and Life Cycle Assessment
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this work was to assess the competitiveness of two biomass to transportation fuel processing routes, which were under development in Finland, the U.S. and elsewhere. Concepts included fast pyrolysis (FP), and hydrothermal liquefaction (HTL), both followed by hydrodeoxygenation, and final product refining. This work was carried out as a collaboration between VTT (Finland), and PNNL (USA). The public funding agents for the work were Tekes in Finland and the Bioenergy Technologies Office of the U.S. Department of Energy. The effort was proposed as an update of the earlier comparative technoeconomic assessment performed by the IEA Bioenergy Direct Biomass Liquefaction Task in the 1980s. New developments in HTL and the upgrading of the HTL biocrude product triggered the interest in reinvestigating this comparison of these biomass liquefaction processes. In addition, developments in FP bio-oil upgrading had provided additional definition of this process option, which could provide an interesting comparison.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 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 it