MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2956016710 · doi:10.1021/acs.iecr.9b01426

Design of an Air-Cooled Sabatier Reactor for Thermocatalytic Hydrogenation of CO<sub>2</sub>: Experimental Proof-of-Concept and Model-Based Feasibility Analysis

2019· article· en· W2956016710 on OpenAlexafffund
Robert Currie, Sogol Mottaghi-Tabar, Yichen Zhuang, David S. A. Simakov

Bibliographic record

VenueIndustrial & Engineering Chemistry Research · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemical Engineering
TopicCatalysts for Methane Reforming
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCoolantProcess engineeringChemistryNuclear engineeringEnvironmental scienceThermodynamicsEngineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study assesses the techno-economic feasibility of using a single-pass, air-cooled Sabatier reactor for the thermocatalytic conversion of CO 2 into renewable natural gas (RNG). The reactor was first analyzed numerically using a dynamic mathematical model. Effects of the feed rate, coolant type (compressed air vs molten salt), and cooling rate on the reactor performance were investigated. Next, the experimental proof-of-concept was provided using an autonomous Sabatier reactor (62 g of Ni/Al 2 O 3 catalyst), including stability tests up to 100 h time-on-stream. Both simulations and experimental investigation have shown that, with a proper selection of operating parameters, it is possible to achieve CO 2 conversions higher than 90%, while keeping the selectivity to CH 4 production at 100%. On the basis of these results, a large-scale system for RNG generation from landfill gas has been designed, simulated, and analyzed, resulting in the RNG production cost as low as $15/GJ for the electricity price of $0.05/kWh.

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)0.001
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 score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.257 · 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

Citations24
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIndustrial & Engineering Chemistry ResearchSame topicCatalysts for Methane ReformingFrench-language works237,207