MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4243141949 · doi:10.5383/ijtee.13.02.010

Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Resulting from Electric Power Generation and Steel Manufacturing using Coal as Fuel Source

2017· article· en· W4243141949 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Aniekan Ikpe, Owunna Ikechukwu, Ememobong Ikpe

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Thermal and Environmental Engineering · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnergy
TopicOil, Gas, and Environmental Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoalEnvironmental scienceElectricity generationElectricityElectric powerWaste managementEnergy sourceEnvironmental engineeringEngineeringPower (physics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Our environment is extremely important to Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (1PCC) and other environmental protection agencies because it is a place where flora and fauna as well as the entire human population of the world exist. This report evaluates the environmental impacts resulting from the use of coal as a source of fuel for electricity power generation and coal as a fuel source to generate electricity for steel production process. GABI models were developed for each of the processes and used for the assessment and analysis to ensure compliance with ISO 14044 standards. After identifying the numerous forms of emission obtained from GABI software, the results were compared to determine the environmental impact and severity of each process. The result for Global Warming Potential (GWP) using coal as a fuel source for steel production accounted for 129.7029 Kg of CO2 equivalence compared to 0.447267Kg of CO2 equivalence result obtained as the GWP for using coal as fuel source for electric power generation. Similarly, the result obtained for acidification when coal is used as a fuel source for steel production recorded 0.360921Kg of SO4 equivalence compared to 1.4026Kg of SO4 equivalence obtained as acidification value for using coal as fuel source for electric power generation. Furthermore, the result obtained for Eutrophication when coal is used as a source of fuel for steel production accounted for -1389.273e-4Kg of phosphate equivalence compared to 2.2417Kg of phosphate equivalence obtained as the Eutrophication value for using coal as a source of fuel for electric power generation. From the aforementioned results, Eutrophication potential and Acidification potential would have lower environmental impacts for both processes whereas, the GWP for electric power generation was quite minimal while GWP for steel production using coal as a fuel source would have relatively high impact on the environment. For this reasons, it was concluded that electric power generation using coal as a source of fuel has less environmental impact whereas, steel production using coal as a source of fuel may not be environmentally friendly due to the high GWP obtained in this report.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.491
Threshold uncertainty score0.672

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.218 · 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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Thermal and Environmental EngineeringSame topicOil, Gas, and Environmental IssuesFrench-language works237,207