MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

What’s the Role Of Corn Ethanol Fuel in China: From the Life Cycle Cost View

2021· article· en· W3135939322 on OpenAlexaff
Yiting Sun

Bibliographic record

VenueIOP Conference Series Earth and Environmental Science · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBiofuel production and bioconversion
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGasolineEthanol fuelWaste managementRaw materialRefineryEnvironmental scienceBiofuelEngineeringChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract China originally planned to use fuel ethanol gasoline nationwide in 2020, and taking corn as an important raw material of ethanol gasoline, this paper analyzed the life cycle cost model of corn fuel ethanol gasoline and traditional gasoline from production to consumption, including internal and external cost calculations. The internal cost is the actual cost of the industry chain, while the external cost is converted into the cost value by examining the environmental impact of pollutant emission levels in each stage of the life cycle of ethanol gasoline production. Based on this model, by selecting the project data of specific regions and manufacturers in China, it can be calculated as follows: The main links affecting the internal cost of ethanol gasoline production are crude oil procurement cost, refinery and ethanol plant construction cost; The main influencing link of external cost is the emission of ethanol gasoline combustion, including the fuel, power and other energy consumption factors in the production of ethanol and gasoline; The cost can be optimized from the perspective of production technology, technological process, energy material consumption and various labor costs. Assuming E10 is used in the whole Chinese market, the empirical results are as follows: among the pollutants produced by the use of ethanol-added gasoline in the whole region, CO 2 emission reduction is the largest, exceeding 53 million tons, followed by CO and wastewater emission reduction of 1.78 million tons and 1.58 million tons respectively. In terms of the conventional gasoline, the CO emission reduction of about 20% is the largest, followed by about 17% reduction of HC, about 15% reduction of SO 2 and about 9% reduction of CO 2 respectively. These results show that the promotion of ethanol gasoline (E10) usage in China has a considerable reduction effect of emission if the availability of raw materials are sufficient. The life cycle external cost of ethanol gasoline is 11.45%, lower than that of conventional gasoline. In 2019, China’s fuel ethanol production capacity was 4.15 million tons, and the actual production was about 3 million tons. Assuming that all of it were used to produce E10 ethanol gasoline, compared with traditional gasoline consumption, the emission reduction benefit of E10 gasoline would be nearly $84.7 million.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.460
Threshold uncertainty score0.384

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.181
Teacher spread0.172 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIOP Conference Series Earth and Environmental ScienceSame topicBiofuel production and bioconversionFrench-language works237,207