Comparing Non-Steady State Emissions under Start-Up and Shut-Down Operating Conditions with Steady State Emissions for Several Industrial Sectors: A Literature Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigates the emissions of various industrial facilities under start-up, shut-down, and normal operations. The industries that have been investigated include power and/or heat generation, energy-from-waste generation, nuclear power generation, sulphuric acid production, ethylene production, petrochemical production, and waste incineration. The study investigated multiple facilities worldwide for each of these industrial categories. The different potential contaminants characteristic of each industry type have been investigated and the emissions of these contaminants under non-steady state have been compared to the steady state emissions. Where available, trends have been developed to identify the circumstances, i.e., the industrial sector and contaminant, under which the assessment and consideration of emissions from start-up and shut-down events is necessary for each industry. These trends differ by industrial sector and contaminant. For example, the study shows that sulphur dioxide (SO2) emissions should be assessed for the start-up operations of sulphuric acid production plants, but may not need to be assessed for the start-up operations of a conventional power generation facility. The trends developed as part of this research paper will help air permit applicants to effectively allocate their resources when assessing emissions related to non-steady state operations. Additionally, it will ensure that emissions are assessed for the worst-case scenario. This is especially important when emissions under start-up and shut-down operations have the potential to exceed enforceable emission limits. Thus, assessing emissions for the worst-case scenario can help in preventing the emissions from adversely impacting public health and the environment.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".