Advanced petroleum coke oxy‐combustion power generation with carbon capture and sequestration: Part <scp>I—</scp> Design and techno‐economic analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study presents a first‐of‐its‐kind design and economic analysis of a petroleum coke oxy‐combustion electric power generation technology operated with and without carbon capture and sequestration. In this work, we examined three petroleum coke oxy‐combustion designs: petcoke oxy‐combustion, petcoke oxy‐combustion operated with carbon capture and sequestration (CCS), and petcoke oxy‐combustion with CO 2 purification by distillation and CCS. The technical and economic performance of the designs were assessed based on thermal efficiency, CO 2 capture rate, pipeline CO 2 purity, CO 2 emissions, and levelized cost of electricity (LCOE). The results of our assessments yielded a base‐case LCOE of $84.24/MWh for the petcoke oxy‐combustion design, $90.94/MWh for the petcoke oxy‐combustion design operated with CCS, and $102.8/MWh for petcoke oxy‐combustion with CO 2 purification by distillation and CCS. Although the design that employed CO 2 purification had higher LCOE than the other designs, its captured CO 2 stream meets pipeline standards. Therefore, this design was selected for the proposed petroleum coke oxy‐combustion technology. Further analysis carried out includes the cradle‐to‐customer gate life‐cycle environmental impact assessment of the petcoke oxy‐combustion power plant which is presented in Part II of this work. Thus, this work represents the first study to present the eco‐technoeconomic and life‐cycle analysis that considered the impacts of O 2 removal from CO 2 captured from oxy‐combustion exhaust via cryogenic distillation for solid fuels in general.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".