A Comparative Life‐Cycle Assessment of Two Cogeneration Plants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Herein, a comparative energetic and life‐cycle assessment (LCA) study is performed on coal and natural gas‐based combined heat and power cogeneration plants. Different types of power plants, including gas turbine, steam turbine, and combined‐cycle plants, are considered. Three types of LCA methodologies, including CML 2001, TRACI, and ReCiPe, are used to analyze the life‐cycle environmental impacts of each plant. The coal‐based cogeneration plant is found to entail the comparatively lowest life‐cycle energy efficiency of 43.6%, and the natural gas‐based combined‐cycle cogeneration plant is found to have the highest efficiency of 59.6%. Furthermore, the coal‐based life cycle is also found to entail the highest life‐cycle environmental impacts comparatively. According to CML 2001, it entails a global‐warming potential of 0.229 kg CO2eq MJ−1 and an acidification potential of 7.03E‐4 kg SO2eq MJ−1. The natural gas‐fired boiler‐type cogeneration plant is observed to have a comparatively higher toxicity and eutrophication potential of 2.72E‐4 kg DCBeq MJ−1 and 2.78E‐5 kg PO4eq MJ−1, respectively. The lowest overall life‐cycle environmental impacts comparatively are found to be associated with the natural gas‐based combined‐cycle cogeneration plant.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".