Waste-to-Energy Generation: Complex Efficiency Analysis of Modern Technologies
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
Recycling of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) is a significant challenge all over the world. Waste-to-Energy generation solves the problem of MSW recycling and produces power for urban territories. In this study, the researchers implemented complex economic and ecological efficiency analyses of modern Waste-to-Energy technologies. The fundamental challenge of modern Waste-to-Energy generations is finding the balance between economics, ecology, and productivity. Thus, to assess the effectiveness of various thermal technologies, statistics from enterprises were used. The Balanced Scorecard (BSC) method was implemented to calculate an integral effectiveness of a particular Waste-to-Energy technological approach. Environmental and economic analysess of thermal MSW disposal technologies was carried out by selecting the data from at least 146 functioning plants in Canada, China, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Sweden, and Thailand. The research results confirm that gasification technology was the most promising and the most environmentally and cost effective. Incineration Moving Grate technology was the least effective and attractive Waste-to-Energy technology according to the results of the environmental and economic efficiency assessments. The research results can be used for urban planning in waste recycling projects and the new energy national and municipal agenda. The research results can also be useful for municipal strategic energy and sustainable plans and programs.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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