Sustainable Graphite and Jet Fuel from Biorefinery Residue
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Battery‐grade graphite and aviation fuel are traditionally produced from non‐renewable, fossil carbon feedstocks and result in substantial greenhouse gas emissions. Biomass holds exciting potential as a renewable and sustainable feedstock for the production of graphite and aviation fuel, but challenges exist including the necessity of a catalyst when producing graphite and low selectivity when producing aviation fuel. A process to convert a biomass‐derived feedstock into graphite without the use of a catalyst and fuels with high selectivity towards sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) is innovated. Heavy bio‐oil undergoes a conversion process similar to the commercial production of synthetic graphite including coking at 500 °C, calcination at 1000 °C, and graphitization at 2800 °C. The resulting biographite exhibits excellent performance in lithium‐ion battery configurations with specific capacity of ~330 mAh g −1 and a 96.8 % capacity rebound after high rate cycling. The liquid hydrocarbon co‐product from coking is suitable for hydrotreating into SAF. The aviation fuel fraction (70 wt % of the fuel produced) meets ASTM standards and is composed primarily of cycloalkanes (~80 wt %) which improves energy density compared to paraffins produced by other SAF pathways and may replace aromatics for elastomer swelling in traditional jet fuel with less soot production.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".