MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401980583 · doi:10.1115/gt2024-122266

Green Methanol Demonstrated as an Alternative Fuel to Decarbonise Gas Turbines

2024· article· en· W4401980583 on OpenAlexaff
Tyler Clifford, Charlie Booth, Michel Houde, R. Fowler, C. Maclean, Madhubanti Basu, Benjamin Witzel, Ghenadie Bulat

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicCatalytic Processes in Materials Science
Canadian institutionsSiemens (Canada)
FundersUniversity College London
KeywordsGas turbinesMethanolEnvironmental scienceElectricity generationProcess engineeringAutomotive engineeringPower (physics)EngineeringChemistryMechanical engineeringPhysicsThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Power generation from gas turbines is responsible for up to 79% of the CO2 emissions generated by the UK Oil and Gas (O&G) industry. Thus, decarbonizing gas turbines is key to reducing emissions in the industry. Siemens Energy, in partnership with The Net Zero Technology Centre (NZTC) and Rolls Wood Group (RWG), successfully demonstrated an SGT-A20 gas turbine running on 100% bio-methanol, reducing the overall CO2 footprint by 60%. The demonstration test was a key milestone in Phase 1 of the Alternative Fuel Gas Turbine project funded by the Scottish government and industry partners. The SGT-A20 bio-methanol test demonstrated the engine operating at various conditions including start-up, shut-down, idle to full power, and transient maneuvers. The engine performed as expected within the standard operating limits. The test also confirmed a reduction in NOx emissions of approximately 80%, a 15% reduction in CO, and elimination of visible smoke in the gas turbine exhaust compared to kerosene fuel.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.291 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCatalytic Processes in Materials ScienceFrench-language works237,207