MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7065377592

Economic feasibility of microalgae as a biological carbon capture solution : financial comparison with traditional chemical carbon capture technologies

2024· other· en· W7065377592 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueTheseus (Ammattikorkeakoulujen) · 2024
Typeother
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicMagnetic confinement fusion research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGreenhouse gasTonneRenewable energyFossil fuelEffluentCarbon capture and storage (timeline)Economic feasibilityCarbon fibersCost effectivenessClean coal
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite the growing affordability of renewable energy, fossil fuels remain the largest source of global power supply, providing two-thirds of the world’s electricity. This is especially true in developingcountries that lack the infrastructure for large-scale adoption of renewable technologies. This highlights the crucial role of carbon capture in mitigating the effect of greenhouse gases on the environment, while non-renewable energy sources remain dominant. \n \nThis thesis evaluated the economic viability of microalgae as a biological method for carbon capture by drawing comparisons with chemical technologies used today. \n \nThe study conducted a comprehensive analysis of literature reviews, simulations, small-scale pilot tests, and real-life projects to thoroughly examine the costs per tonne of CO2 captured using chemical capture technologies and microalgae. Chemical methods were categorized based on their CO2 source: either from effluent gas or directly from the atmosphere. For each category, notable real-life projects were examined, including the Quest project in Alberta, Canada, and the Orca plant in Iceland. \n \nThe findings indicated that the cost of capturing CO2 from effluent gas typically ranges from $40 to $80 per tonne, whereas costs for atmospheric capture are higher, ranging from $100 to $300 per tonne, however, real-life projects for both methods have higher costs, closer to $100 and $1000 respectively. For Microalgae, secondary sources suggest that the costs per tonne for microalgae capture are significantly higher than those for chemical methods, ranging from $800 to $1600, and even under the most favourable conditions are not expected to drop below $225. \n \nThe adoption of microalgae as a biological capture method is highly dependent on the market value of the biomass produced, which could help offset the high capital and capture costs. In its current stage, however, microalgae cannot financially compete with chemical carbon capture technologies.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTheseus (Ammattikorkeakoulujen)→Same topicMagnetic confinement fusion research→French-language works237,207→