A Simulation Study for Fluidized Bed Combustion of Petroleum Coke With CO2 Capture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Petroleum coke is regarded as a difficult fuel because of its high sulphur content and low volatile content. However, its low price and increased production, means that there is a powerful economic stimulus to use it for power generation. In this work, a process simulation has been performed as part of a feasibility study on the utilization of petroleum coke for power generation with low-cost CO2 capture. The proposed system employs a pressurized fluidized bed combustor and a calciner. In the combustor itself, the petroleum coke is burned and most of the CO2 generated is captured by a CaO sorbent under pressurized condition to form CaCO3. The CaCO3 is transported into the calciner where limited proportion of the petroleum coke is burned with pure O2, and calcines the spent sorbent back into CaO and CO2. A nearly pure CO2 stream is obtained from the calciner for subsequent disposal or utilization. The predicted overall efficiency of the combustion is near 40%. The proposed system would also be suitable for firing other high carbon and low ash fuel, such as anthracite.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".