4.8 Article

A comprehensive artificial neural network model for gasification process prediction

Journal

APPLIED ENERGY
Volume 320, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2022.119289

Keywords

Gasification; Biomass; Waste; Model; Machine learning; Artificial neural network

Funding

  1. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) Studentship and Programme [EP/V030515/1]
  2. Supergen Bioenergy Hub Rapid Response Funding [RR 2022_10]
  3. Royal Society Research Grant [RGS \R1\211358]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study develops a machine learning method to predict the performance of gasification technology, reducing uncertainty in decision-making. The use of an artificial neural network allows for accurate predictions and broad applicability.
The viability and the relative merits of competing biomass and waste gasification schemes depends on a complex mix of interacting factors. Conventional analytical methods that are used to aid decision making rely on a plethora of poorly defined parameters. Here we develop a method that eschews the uncertainty in process representation by using a machine learning, data driven, approach to predicting a set of 10 key measures of gasification technology's performance. We develop an artificial neural network that is novel in its use of both categorical and continuous data inputs, which makes it flexible and broadly applicable in assessing gasification process designs. It is the first model applicable to a wide range of feedstock types, gasifying agents, and reactor options. A strong predictive performance, quantified by a coefficient of determination (R-2) of 0.9310, was confirmed. The approach has the potential to generate accurate input data for e.g., cost-benefit analysis (CBA) and life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA) and thus allow for more transparency in the decisions made by policy makers and investors.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available