MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3002524697 · doi:10.7939/r3794198z

Development of Life Cycle Water Demand Footprints for the Energy Pathways

2017· article· en· W3002524697 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Babkir Ali

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity of Alberta Library · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWater-Energy-Food Nexus Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceNatural resource economicsEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The water-energy nexus refers to the relationship between water and energy, wherein each one needs the other. This thesis examines that part of the water-energy nexus concerned with water needed for energy production, conversion, and utilization. There has been limited focus on assessing the life cycle water footprints of energy pathways. Such an approach assesses the water requirement for the various unit operations in energy pathways from fuel extraction to its final energy form. A study of the life cycle water footprints of different energy pathways with a focus on minimizing water use could help in policy formation and investment decisions. The main objective of this research is to establish a benchmark for water demand coefficients for energy pathways based on a complete life cycle. The focus is on the assessment of different energy pathways and development of life cycle water demand coefficients through comprehensive modeling. The research includes the evaluation of energy pathways based on both conventional and non-conventional sources of energy, and the energy sources assessed are coal, natural gas, oil, biomass, wind, solar, hydroelectricity, nuclear, and geothermal. The initial focus is on power production. The conversion efficiency of power generation is correlated to developed water demand coefficients to study the effect of a power plant’s performance on water use. Coal-based power generation has high water use compared to gas-fired power generation due to differences both in conversion efficiency and the unit operations of fuel extraction. Biomass-based power generation has the highest water demand coefficients over the complete life cycle and wind has the lowest. This study found complete life cycle water consumption coefficients for power generation for coal transported by conventional means to be 0.96 – 3.21 L/kWh and 0.07 – 2.57 L/kWh for gas-fired power plants. Excluding biomass and hydroelectricity pathways, non-conventional energy technology has complete life cycle water consumption coefficients of 0.005 – 4.39 L/kWh. The corresponding range for biomass pathways is 259.6 – 1164.01 L/kWh. Throughout the complete life cycle of a transportation fuel produced from the oil sands in Alberta 2.08 – 4.19 volume of water per volume of oil are consumed, and the corresponding fuel from crude oil extracted from five selected oil fields in North America consumes 1.71 – 8.25 volume of fresh water per volume of oil. The water demand coefficients developed in this study could be used in making decision regarding selection of water efficient pathways.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.163
Teacher spread0.149 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUniversity of Alberta LibrarySame topicWater-Energy-Food Nexus StudiesFrench-language works237,207