Conceptual Process Design, Energy and Economic Analysis of Solid Waste to Hydrocarbon Fuels via Thermochemical Processes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Thermochemical processes use heat and series of endothermic chemical reactions that achieve thermal cracking and convert a wide range of solid waste deposits via four thermochemical processes to hydrocarbon gaseous and liquid products such as syngas, gasoline, and diesel. The four thermochemical reactions investigated in this research article are: incineration, pyrolysis, gasification, and integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC). The mentioned thermochemical processes are evaluated for energy recovery pathways and environmental footprint based on conceptual design and Aspen HYSYS energy simulation. This paper also provides conceptual process design for four thermochemical processes as well as process evaluation and techno-economic analysis (TEA) including energy consumption, process optimization, product yield calculations, electricity generation and expected net revenue per tonne of feedstock. The techno-economic analysis provides results for large scale thermochemical process technologies at an industrial level and key performance indicators (KPIs) including greenhouse gaseous emissions, capital and operational costs per tonne, electrical generation per tonne for the four mentioned thermochemical processes.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".