Thermo-Economic Analysis of Integrated Hydrogen, Methanol and Dimethyl Ether Production Using Water Electrolyzed Hydrogen
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Carbon capture and utilization is an attractive technique to mitigate the damage to the environment. The aim of this study was to techno-economically investigate the hydrogenation of CO2 to methanol and then conversion of methanol to dimethyl ether using Aspen Plus® (V.11, Aspen Technology, Inc., Bedford, Massachusetts 01730, USA). Hydrogen was obtained from alkaline water electrolysis, proton exchange membrane and solid oxide electrolysis processes for methanol production. The major cost contributing factor in the methanol production was the cost of hydrogen production; therefore, the cost per ton of methanol was highest for alkaline water electrolysis and lowest for solid oxide electrolysis. The specific cost of methanol for solid oxide electrolysis, proton exchange membrane and alkaline water electrolysis was estimated to be 701 $/ton, 760 $/ton and 920 $/ton, respectively. Similarly, the specific cost of dimethyl ether was estimated to be 1141 $/ton, 1230 $/ton and 1471 $/ton, using solid oxide electrolysis, proton exchange membrane and alkaline water electrolysis based hydrogen production, respectively. The cost for methanol and dimethyl ether production by proton exchange membrane was slightly higher than for the solid oxide electrolysis process. However, the proton exchange membrane operates at a lower temperature, consequently leading to less operational issues.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it