MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3120142753 · doi:10.1002/cjce.24023

Advanced petroleum coke oxy‐combustion power generation with carbon capture and sequestration: Part <scp>II—E</scp> nvironmental assessment and cost of <scp> CO <sub>2</sub> </scp> avoided

2021· article· en· W3120142753 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Ikenna J. Okeke, Thomas A. Adams

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicCarbon Dioxide Capture Technologies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPetroleum cokeCombustionCost of electricity by sourceWaste managementEnvironmental scienceElectricity generationLife-cycle assessmentDistillationCarbon sequestrationCoalProcess engineeringChemistryEngineeringCarbon dioxideProduction (economics)Power (physics)ThermodynamicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The life‐cycle environmental impact assessment and cost of the CO 2 avoided (CCA) of a petroleum coke oxy‐combustion electric power generation technology operated with and without carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) are discussed. In an extension of our work on the design and economics presented in Part I, the environmental assessment was carried out for three candidate petroleum coke oxy‐combustion designs: petcoke oxy‐combustion operated without carbon capture and sequestration (CCS); petcoke oxy‐combustion operated with CCS; and petcoke oxy‐combustion with CO 2 purification by distillation and CCS. The environmental life‐cycle assessment of the designs was computed using both TRACI 2.1 midpoint and ReCiPe 2016 midpoint and endpoint methods. Using a levelized cost of electricity, the CCA was also employed as a performance metric for each of the designs. The results showed a life‐cycle GWP of 1089 kgCO 2 eq/MWh, 17.32 kgCO 2 eq/MWh, and 75.65 kgCO 2 eq/MWh for the petcoke oxy‐combustion design operated without CCS, petcoke oxy‐combustion design operated with CCS, and petcoke oxy‐combustion with CO 2 purification by distillation and CCS, respectively. It was also found that acidification potential and particulate matter emissions were higher for the petcoke oxy‐combustion design operated without CCS due to the venting of SO 2 to the atmosphere. With a levelized cost of electricity between $90.94/MWh and $102.8/MWh, the CCA of the CCS‐enabled designs were between $10.43/tCO 2 eq and $24.35/tCO 2 eq, which is competitive with most other carbon capture options for large‐scale fossil‐based power plants. When the cost parameters were varied at the worst‐case scenario, the highest CCA observed was $115.9/tCO 2 eq.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.182
Teacher spread0.176 · 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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical EngineeringSame topicCarbon Dioxide Capture TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207