MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Use of underground coal gasification gas for co-production of electric power and synthetic liquid fuel

2022· article· en· W4214720223 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueVestnik IGEU · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMining and Gasification Technologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUnderground coal gasificationCoalElectricityElectricity generationFossil fuelLiquid fuelClean coalCoproductionWaste managementEnvironmental scienceEngineeringCapital costCoal gasificationNatural resource economicsEconomicsPower (physics)Chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The study is relevant due to increased interest to the underground coal gasification technologies (UCG). The interest is determined by the depletion of world oil and gas reserves, the significant amount of coal deposits in various countries of the world, the growing energy demand, as well as the threat of global climate change. The possibility to use technologies of underground gasification of low-grade coal with complex geological environment is huge. Recently, interest to UCG has grown dramatically. In contrast to all major programs of the 20th century, this unprecedented interest is mainly stimulated by private capital in response to high oil and energy prices. Thus, the studies of UCG are carried out. And more than 30 tests are planned in Australia, China, India, South Africa, New Zealand, Canada, and the United States. The development of competitive gas-based technologies of production of electricity and synthetic liquid fuels is a high-priority task. The studies have been carried out using a mathematical model of the unit for the production of electricity and methanol. To design a mathematical model, a software, or the system of machine programs development (SMPP) has been used. It has been developed at Melentiev Energy Systems Institute of Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences (ESI SB RAS). The article presents the results of the study of the use of UCG for the coproduction of synthetic liquid fuel (methanol) and electricity. A detailed mathematical model of electricity and methanol production unit has been developed. Based on the model, technical and economic optimization of the schemes and parameters has been carried out. It made possible to estimate the competitiveness conditions of the proposed method of coal processing. In addition, the sensitivity of the economic indicators of the unit to changes in external conditions has been studied. Based on the results of the analysis of the cost of diesel fuel in the eastern regions of Russia, the authors have made the conclusion that at present methanol produced by the energy technological unit is as competitive as delivered expensive diesel fuel. The introduction of such systems is economically reasonable in the near future.

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.

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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.325

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.206 · 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