MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4239488706 · doi:10.2172/902845

Evaluation of Sorbent Injection for Mercury Control

2006· report· en· W4239488706 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sharon Sjostrom

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMercury impact and mitigation studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPower stationFlue gasMercury (programming language)Waste managementSorbentCoalEngineeringEnvironmental scienceFossil fuelEnvironmental engineeringChemistryElectrical engineeringComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The power industry in the U.S. is faced with meeting new regulations to reduce the emissions of mercury compounds from coal-fired plants. These regulations are directed at the existing fleet of nearly 1,100 boilers. These plants are relatively old with an average age of over 40 years. Although most of these units are capable of operating for many additional years, there is a desire to minimize large capital expenditures because of the reduced (and unknown) remaining life of the plant to amortize the project. Injecting a sorbent such as powdered activated carbon into the flue gas represents one of the simplest and most mature approaches to controlling mercury emissions from coal-fired boilers. This is the final site report for tests conducted at DTE Energy's Monroe Power Plant, one of five sites evaluated in this DOE/NETL program. The overall objective of the test program was to evaluate the capabilities of activated carbon injection at five plants: Sunflower Electric's Holcomb Station Unit 1, AmerenUE's Meramec Station Unit 2, Missouri Basin Power Project's Laramie River Station Unit 3, Detroit Edison's Monroe Power Plant Unit 4, and AEP's Conesville Station Unit 6. These plants have configurations that together represent 78% of the existing coal-fired generation plants. The goals for the program established by DOE/NETL were to reduce the uncontrolled mercury emissions by 50 to 70% at a cost 25 to 50% lower than the target established by DOE of $60,000/lb mercury removed. The results from Monroe indicate that using DARCO{reg_sign} Hg would result in higher mercury removal (80%) at a sorbent cost of $18,000/lb mercury, or 70% lower than the benchmark. These results demonstrate that the goals established by DOE/NETL were exceeded during this test program. The increase in mercury removal over baseline conditions is defined for this program as a comparison in the outlet emissions measured using the Ontario Hydro method during the baseline and long-term test periods. The change in outlet emissions from baseline to long-term testing was 81%.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.281 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMercury impact and mitigation studies→French-language works237,207→