Enhancing the potential of sugarcane bagasse for the production of ENplus quality fuel pellets by torrefaction: an economic feasibility study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When fossil fuel substitution with biomass is viewed as a potential solution to global warming caused by greenhouse gas emissions, the demand for biomass fuel pellets has increased worldwide. Although agricultural waste is an attractive potential feedstock for fuel pellet production due to its relatively high calorific value and low cost, its excessive ash content is a major drawback. This research investigates the properties of sugarcane bagasse fuel pellets treated by dry and wet torrefaction and evaluates the economic value of selling the fuel pellets, which were priced based on their quality. It was found that the wet torrefaction could significantly reduce the ash content in the product (1% ash content at a torrefaction temperature of above 180°C), resulting in higher quality and more marketable fuel pellets. Consequently, the yield and the net present value of the production of wet torrefied fuel pellets were greater than those of dry torrefied pellets. Nevertheless, the production of fuel pellets from sugarcane bagasse treated by either process is shown to be economically viable.
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 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 | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".