MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2474239512 · doi:10.1002/cjce.22433

Micro‐syngas technology options for GtL

2016· article· en· W2474239512 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Cristian Trevisanut, Seyed Mahdi Jazayeri, Said Bonkane, Cristian Neagoe, Ali Mohamadalizadeh, Daria C. Boffito, Claudia L. Bianchi‬, Carlo Pirola, Carlo Giorgio Visconti, Luca Lietti, Nicolas Abatzoglou, Lyman Frost, Jan Lerou, William H. Green, Gregory S. Patience

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemical Engineering
TopicCatalysts for Methane Reforming
Canadian institutionsUniversité de SherbrookePolytechnique Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsNatural gasSyngasMethaneRefineryGas to liquidsChemistrySteam reformingHydrocarbonWaste managementLiquefied natural gasSyngas to gasoline plusRenewable natural gasEnvironmental scienceFuel gasOrganic chemistryEngineeringCatalysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Natural gas emissions contribute to climate change, and equally importantly, affect the health of populations near gas fields.[1]At night, the flares from the Bakken fields in North Dakota burn as bright as the lights in cities as large as Minneapolis. Rather than flaring (or worse, venting), this associated natural gas represents a multi‐billion dollar opportunity.[2]Pipelines and liquefying natural gas are cost prohibitive in many cases. Converting methane to fuels is an attractive alternative. We examined three options to convert natural gas to syngas ( and CO), which is the first step to producing fuels: Steam Methane Reforming (SMR), Auto‐Thermal Reforming (ATR), and Catalytic Partial Oxidation (CPOX). Based on a multi‐objective optimization analysis, C hydrocarbon yields are highest with CPOX as the first step followed by Fischer‐Tropsch synthesis (FT). A micro‐refinery with the CPOX‐FT process treating (100 ) natural gas, produces 1300 (8.2 ) of C hydrocarbons. Maximum yields for the SMR‐FT and ATR‐FT processes are 938 and 1100 (5.9 , 7.0 ) of C , respectively. Large‐scale POX and ATR processes produce 1600 L per 2800 kL (10 bbl per 100 MCF) of natural gas.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.196 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations24
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical EngineeringSame topicCatalysts for Methane ReformingFrench-language works237,207