MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Utilization of a High-Alkali Lignite Coal Ash for SO2 Capture in Power Generation

2016· article· en· W2553144229 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Emad Rokni, Yiannis A. Levendis

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Energy Engineering · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCoal and Its By-products
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMcMaster University
KeywordsCoalBituminous coalFly ashCoal combustion productsWaste managementSorbentCombustionChemistrySulfur dioxideSulfurFlue-gas desulfurizationEnvironmental scienceInorganic chemistryAdsorption

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This work explored the use of ashes of a low-sulfur, high-alkali lignite coal for partially capturing the sulfur dioxide emissions from combustion of a high-sulfur bituminous coal. The bituminous coal was mixed with the lignite ashes and then burned in a laboratory drop-tube furnace (DTF) externally heated to 1,400 K. The gas-phase emissions in the combustion effluents of the neat bituminous coal were monitored and compared with those of the bituminous coal mixed either with the lignite ashes or with other additive compounds, such as a specially prepared sorbent from the ash of the lignite coal or with calcium oxide (CaO). All experiments were executed at a molar Ca:S=0.3 in air, under fuel-lean conditions. Coal particles were in the size range of 75–90 μm. Results showed that the addition of lignite ashes caused substantial reductions, by up to 21% in the SO2 emissions of the bituminous coal. Such reduction was akin to that caused by burning the coal mixed with the CaO sorbent. Significant reduction in NOx emission was also attained. This observation, in conjunction with ash analysis, showed that the alkali-rich ashes of the lignite coal acted as sulfur sorbents for the abundant SO2 emissions of the bituminous coal.

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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.192
Teacher spread0.174 · 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

Citations19
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Energy EngineeringSame topicCoal and Its By-productsFrench-language works237,207