MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200360959 · doi:10.1002/ese3.1030

A conceptual review of sustainable electrical power generation from biogas

2021· review· en· W4200360959 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEnergy Science & Engineering · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAnaerobic Digestion and Biogas Production
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiogasRenewable energyWaste managementEnvironmental scienceElectricity generationBiomass (ecology)Fossil fuelCogenerationCombustionEngineeringPower (physics)ChemistryElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract High‐energy demand with rapid industrialization and mechanization combined with environmental pollution due to the burning of fossil fuels has driven a shift toward renewable energy. Biogas derived from biomass is a potential renewable energy source that can be used in different sectors such as transportation sector, electricity generation, heat production, combined heat and power (CHP) systems, and fuel cells. Moreover, the upgraded biogas can be applied as transportation fuel via an internal combustion chamber (for internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles), and electricity station (for electric vehicles). In the present work, a conceptual review of biogas‐based electrical power production systems is presented. It is clear that the conventional types of biomass contain a high amount of pollutants and unwanted constituents, which lower the lower heating value (LHV) of biogas fuel. Moreover, the energy and exergy efficiencies of biogas applications are influenced by these components. Consequently, several biogas‐upgrading technologies have been elaborated to increase the LHV of biogas fuel by removing biogas pollutants. So, the energy and exergy analyses of biogas‐driven plants are discussed in this regard. Also, the economic analysis of biogas‐fueled systems is measured through the connection between biogas production, purchased electrical power, and selling of an additional amount of biogas. Biogas represents an important source of renewable energy as shown before, and it helps in waste management and W‐to‐E (waste to energy) conversion, which allows utilizing huge amounts of wastes instead of disposal or landfill procedures. However, handling of biogas from production to utilization has an impact on the environment. Therefore, the assessment of the environmental impacts of biogas plants is presented. In addition, a combination of the biogas energy with other sources, especially renewable energy sources (eg, solar‐biogas, geothermal‐biogas, wind‐biogas, CHP, CCHP, and concentrated photovoltaic‐biogas), and reusing waste energy for other tasks (eg, employing the waste heat from a gas turbine) are examined.

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.

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablelow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Theoretical or conceptualhigh
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.993
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.229 · 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