Risk Assessment of CO<sub>2</sub> Pipeline Network for CCS – A UK Case Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) requires new processes for the capture of CO2 using a variety of existing technologies and also potentially new processes which are still under development. Transport of CO2 in bulk, by pipeline from point sources or ship is also new processes and then can produce emerging risks. The majority of existing CO22 pipeline in the USA and Canada are located along with substantial infield pipe work for Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) projects (Kelliher et al, 2008; Kadnar, 2008). The USA experience cannot be easily applied to other regions or situations, in particular in Europe, because the CO2 pipelines in USA are located in areas with low population density. In fact, as stated in the report of the IPCC on CCS (IPCC, 2005), there is a lack of knowledge of safety concerning the pipeline transmission of CO2 in densely populated areas. External safety is one key aspect that should be assessed prior and during the operational phases of CO2 transport. Before starting the design a network, it is necessary select and identified the route corridor of the pipeline.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.030 | 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".