Numerical modelling and simulation of hydrogen production via four different chemical reforming processes: Process performance and energy requirements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Methane reforming operated in fluidized bed reactors is modelled and simulated for four different chemical processes: Steam Methane Reforming (SMR) process and the both non‐commercially available Sorption‐Enhanced Steam Methane Reforming (SE‐SMR) process and Chemical Looping Reforming process for non‐autothermal (naCLR) as well as autothermal (aCLR) operation. These processes are operated at relevant operating conditions. The results from the reforming simulations are used as input in a Pressure Swing Adsorption model, where the hydrogen is further purified to about 99.99 % and delivered at 2500 kPa (25 bar) of pressure and 25 °C. The energy consumption for hydrogen production on a mole basis is calculated for each chemical process with and without heat recuperation, with heat recuperation referring in this context to the utilization of the thermal energy available from the cooling of certain fluid streams to power other parts of the process.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".