MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2518288546 · doi:10.1021/ef502754h

High-Pressure Oxy-Firing (HiPrOx) of Fuels with Water for the Purpose of Direct Contact Steam Generation

2015· article· en· W2518288546 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Paul Cairns, Bruce Clements, Robin W. Hughes, T. Herage, Ligang Zheng, Arturo Macchi, Edward J. Anthony

Bibliographic record

VenueEnergy & Fuels · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicPetroleum Processing and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaNatural Resources Canada
FundersNatural Resources CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsFlue gasWaste managementCombustionSlurryChemistryDiesel fuelFlue-gas emissions from fossil-fuel combustionEnvironmental scienceEnvironmental engineeringOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

High-pressure oxy-fired direct contact steam generation (HiPrOx/DCSG) can be achieved by the oxy-combustion of fuels in the presence of water. This process is capable of producing flue gas streams containing approximately 90% steam with a balance of primarily CO 2 . The product flue gas is suitable for processes where the purity of the steam is less important, such as the steam-assisted gravity drainage process used for in situ production of bitumen within the Canadian oil sands. This study had three primary objectives: (1) To show that high-moisture HiPrOx/DCSG can be achieved with hydrocarbon fuels. For this purpose, n -butanol was used because of its high volatility and ease of handling. (2) To see if this technology could be applied to fuels with lower volatilities. This was studied by attempting to combust a graphite–water slurry as well as mixtures of graphite–water slurry and butanol. (3) To determine the effects of different fuel mixtures, oxygen-to-fuel ratios, and water inputs on process stability and H 2 O partial pressure in the product gas. This paper describes pilot-scale combustion testing and process modeling of n -butanol, graphite–water slurry, and their mixtures in an atmosphere consisting of oxygen and water at a pressure of 1.5 MPa(g). Graphite/butanol mixtures were selected because certain combinations could represent the range of fixed carbon/volatiles ratios of waste fuels and indicate whether low-volatile fuels will ignite in the high-water moderator environment. Over the butanol test periods, a steam content of around 90 mol % at saturation was achievable; the O 2 in the combustion products was between 0.08 and 3.57 mol % (wet) with an average of 1.13 mol % (wet). The CO emissions were low (<25 ppmv wet, 3% O 2 ) in the combustor. The CO levels indicated that high fuel conversion was achieved with low excess O 2 content in the combustion products. The testing also indicated that operation with extremely low O 2 is possible for specific fuels, which will minimize downstream corrosion issues and reduce the energy consumption and costs associated with oxygen production requirements. Low CO emissions (<25 ppmv wet, 3% O 2 ) and relatively good process stability were experienced for the butanol/graphite–water slurry mixtures containing ∼40% butanol. CO emissions increased and process stability decreased as the graphite content in the fuel mixture was increased. Unassisted combustion of the graphite–water slurry was achieved for a period of 20 minutes until operational problems were encountered, due to burner plugging by the slurry, requiring that the burner be shut off. It was found that the maximum attainable H 2 O content in the product gas increased with increasing hydrogen-to-carbon ratio in the fuel. H 2 O content was around 80 mol % with 100% graphite–water slurry, 81 mol % with a 25% butanol in graphite–water slurry mixture, and around 86.5% in a 40% butanol in graphite–water slurry mixture. It was also found that the fuel H/C ratio, excess O 2, heat loss, O 2 purity, and fuel volatility are important parameters when considering a DCSG system because they directly affect the process performance and quality of the desired product.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.208 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations7
Published2015
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnergy & FuelsSame topicPetroleum Processing and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207