MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4297338787 · doi:10.1007/s11837-022-05501-y

Quantifying the Carbon Footprint of the Alouette Primary Aluminum Smelter

2022· article· en· W4297338787 on OpenAlexaffabout
Les Edwards, Maia Hunt, Peter Weyell, Julia Ann Nord, Jules Côté, Patrick Coulombe, Nadia Morais

Bibliographic record

VenueJOM · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemical Engineering
TopicMolten salt chemistry and electrochemical processes
Canadian institutionsAluminerie Alouette (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCarbon footprintSmeltingGreenhouse gasRefineryCarbon fibersEnvironmental scienceAluminium smeltingWaste managementEmission inventoryKeroseneEnvironmental engineeringEngineeringMetallurgyAir pollutionChemistryMaterials scienceGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The Alouette primary aluminum smelter is the largest in the Americas, with an annual production of ~ 630,000 t of aluminum. In this collaborative study, a detailed product carbon footprint analysis was undertaken by Rain Carbon using a large body of primary emissions data to provide a complete cradle-to-gate analysis of the smelter’s emissions. The total carbon footprint of the smelter in 2019 was 3914 kg CO 2 e/t of aluminum for scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions, and 1835 kg CO 2 e for scope 1 and 2 emissions. The modeling results were compared to those for global average and Canadian average smelters, using reference datasets developed by the International Aluminium Institute (IAI) and GaBi Professional Database. Alouette’s carbon footprint is ~ 76% lower than a world average smelter and ~ 25% lower than a Canadian average smelter. For the scope 3 emissions, the primary contributors to the lower carbon footprint are lower emissions from the alumina supply and the calcined petroleum coke supply. Today, Alouette produces among the lowest carbon aluminum in the world, and this is set to decrease further following a switch from fuel oil to natural gas in the anode baking furnaces, and a switch to LNG at the alumina supplier refinery.

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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.275

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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.226
Teacher spread0.209 · 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

Citations15
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJOMSame topicMolten salt chemistry and electrochemical processesFrench-language works237,207