High-Pressure\nOxy-Firing (HiPrOx) of Fuels with Water\nfor the Purpose of Direct Contact Steam Generation
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
High-pressure\noxy-fired direct contact steam generation (HiPrOx/DCSG)\ncan be achieved by the oxy-combustion of fuels in the presence of\nwater. This process is capable of producing flue gas streams containing\napproximately 90% steam with a balance of primarily CO<sub>2</sub>. The product flue gas is suitable for processes where the purity\nof the steam is less important, such as the steam-assisted gravity\ndrainage process used for <i>in situ</i> production of bitumen\nwithin the Canadian oil sands. This study had three primary objectives:\n(1) To show that high-moisture HiPrOx/DCSG can be achieved with hydrocarbon\nfuels. For this purpose, <i>n</i>-butanol was used because\nof its high volatility and ease of handling. (2) To see if this technology\ncould be applied to fuels with lower volatilities. This was studied\nby attempting to combust a graphite–water slurry as well as\nmixtures of graphite–water slurry and butanol. (3) To determine\nthe effects of different fuel mixtures, oxygen-to-fuel ratios, and\nwater inputs on process stability and H<sub>2</sub>O partial pressure\nin the product gas. This paper describes pilot-scale combustion testing\nand process modeling of <i>n</i>-butanol, graphite–water\nslurry, and their mixtures in an atmosphere consisting of oxygen and\nwater at a pressure of 1.5 MPa(g). Graphite/butanol mixtures were\nselected because certain combinations could represent the range of\nfixed carbon/volatiles ratios of waste fuels and indicate whether\nlow-volatile fuels will ignite in the high-water moderator environment.\nOver the butanol test periods, a steam content of around 90 mol %\nat saturation was achievable; the O<sub>2</sub> in the combustion\nproducts was between 0.08 and 3.57 mol % (wet) with an average of\n1.13 mol % (wet). The CO emissions were low (<25 ppmv wet, 3% O<sub>2</sub>) in the combustor. The CO levels indicated that high fuel\nconversion was achieved with low excess O<sub>2</sub> content in the\ncombustion products. The testing also indicated that operation with\nextremely low O<sub>2</sub> is possible for specific fuels, which\nwill minimize downstream corrosion issues and reduce the energy consumption\nand costs associated with oxygen production requirements. Low CO emissions\n(<25 ppmv wet, 3% O<sub>2</sub>) and relatively good process stability\nwere experienced for the butanol/graphite–water slurry mixtures\ncontaining ∼40% butanol. CO emissions increased and process\nstability decreased as the graphite content in the fuel mixture was\nincreased. Unassisted combustion of the graphite–water slurry\nwas achieved for a period of 20 minutes until operational problems\nwere encountered, due to burner plugging by the slurry, requiring\nthat the burner be shut off. It was found that the maximum attainable\nH<sub>2</sub>O content in the product gas increased with increasing\nhydrogen-to-carbon ratio in the fuel. H<sub>2</sub>O content was around\n80 mol % with 100% graphite–water slurry, 81 mol % with a 25%\nbutanol in graphite–water slurry mixture, and around 86.5%\nin a 40% butanol in graphite–water slurry mixture. It was also\nfound that the fuel H/C ratio, excess O<sub>2</sub>, heat loss, O<sub>2</sub> purity, and fuel volatility are important parameters when\nconsidering a DCSG system because they directly affect the process\nperformance and quality of the desired product.
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.
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) | 0.003 | 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 it