MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6889782223 · doi:10.26153/tsw/48622

Carbon adsorption and life cycle analysis of natural gas production and utilization

2023· article· en· W6889782223 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueTexas Digital Library (University of Texas) · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSpeech and Audio Processing
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdsorptionActivated carbonCarbon footprintCarbon dioxideGreenhouse gasNatural gasCarbon fibersFlue gasLife-cycle assessment

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The increasing greenhouse gas (GHG) emission shows unprecedented challenge that should warn governments and industries to address this global issue. Carbon dioxide is the main source of GHG. The carbon dioxide emission should be curtailed by implementing carbon capture projects, including testing of solid adsorbents. As natural gas production and utilization grow in many industries, the carbon footprint should be quantified by establishing a life cycle analysis using “cradle to grave” methodology. Adsorption is one of many methodologies that separate CO₂ from flue gas. In this thesis, Brunauer Emmett Teller (BET) theory is utilized to measure the specific surface areas of solid adsorbents, such as, activated carbon, polyurethane samples and shales (Permian, Mancos and Eagle Ford) from nitrogen adsorption. Next, CO₂ adsorption is measured by using Micromeritcs 3Flex instrument at 0°C. BET experiments show that the activated carbon had a high specific area of 1138 m²/g. In contrast, Ottawa sand and polyurethane samples had low specific surface area. The specific surface area of Permian, Mancos and Eagle Ford shales ranged from 2-8 m²/g, which mainly depends on the clay content of the shale. Carbon dioxide adsorption was measured from 0.1 to 1 atm at 0°C. Adsorption capacity of the activated carbon was around 85 cm³/g whereas for shales was less than 1 cm³/g. This specific surface area correlated with the adsorption capacity. Life cycle analysis (LCA) is a key methodology to assess the carbon footprint of any substance including natural gas. Natural gas is widely used in many service sectors in United States. In this thesis, LCA is pursued to calculate the carbon footprint of natural gas using the cradle to grave method by constructing a simple model using Excel. This model inputs carbon footprint of fuels in gCO₂/kWh and the energy footprint of used materials during LCA such as steel, cement and steel pipes in kWh/kg. The carbon footprint is calculated during the gas extraction, processing, flaring, transportation, utility and plug and abandonment stages. The LCA duration is set to be 10 years. The total carbon footprint is calculated by quantifying the required energy of each stage in kWh then dividing by the total energy produced during the lifecycle in kWh. Additionally, the cost is calculated by averaging the Henry Hub price and the utility price in Rhode Island, which operates 94% of its electric grid by natural gas power plants. This study shows the carbon footprint of natural gas to be 185.7 gCO2/kWh with an average cost of $0.10/kWh. The utility stage has the highest carbon footprint in LCA of natural gas. This model would help in assessing the carbon intensity of natural gas for any country in the world.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.134
Threshold uncertainty score0.340

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.003
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.181 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTexas Digital Library (University of Texas)Same topicSpeech and Audio ProcessingFrench-language works237,207