Cited by 20

Energy and material flow models of hydrogen production in the U.S. Chemical Industry

Ozalp, Nesrin·2008·International Journal of Hydrogen Energy

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2008.05.094

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Approximately 99% of the H2 produced and consumed within industry is generated by natural gas reforming, producing high levels of CO2 as by-products.

    “Approximately 99% of the H 2 produced and consumed within industry is generated by natural gas reforming (Hosseini and Wahid, 2016;Mohammadfam and Zarei, 2015;Ozalp, 2008) producing high levels of CO 2 as by-products (National Academy of Engineering, 2004).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 15

  1. Muradov NZ, Veziroglu TN. From hydrocarbon to hydrogen- carbon to hydrogen economy. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 2005;30:225-37.
  2. Shreve RN, Brink JA. Shreve's chemical process industries. McGraw Hill; 1984.
  3. Koroneos C, Dompros A, Roumbas G, Moussipoulos N. Life cycle assessment of hydrogen fuel production processes. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 2004;29:1443-50.
  4. Brown HL, Hamel BB, Hedman BA. Energy analysis of 108 industrial processes. Atlanta, GA: Fairmont Press; 1996.
  5. Wang M, Lee H, Molburg J. Allocation of energy use in petroleum refineries to petroleum products: implications for life-cycle energy use and emission inventory of petroleum transportation fuels. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 2004;9(1):34-44.
  6. Andersen JP, Hyman B. Energy and material flow models for the US steel industry. Energy 2001;26:137-59.
  7. Ozalp N, Hyman B. Energy end-use model of paper manufacturing in the U.S. Applied Thermal Engineering 2006;26:540-8.
  8. Ozalp N, Hyman B. Allocation of energy inputs among the end-uses in the U.S. petroleum and coal products industry. Energy 2007;32:1460-70.
  9. Ozalp N. Modeling industrial energy flow on a national scale. Proceedings of the International Conference on Harnessing Technology (ICHET); October 2008.
  10. McKay G, Holland CR. Energy savings from steam losses on an oil refinery. Engineering Costs and Production Economics 2001;5:193-203.
  11. Bhatt SM. Energy audit case studies. I -steam systems. Applied Thermal Engineering 2000;20:285-96.
  12. Petek J, Glavic P. An integral approach to waste minimization in process industries. Resources Conservation and Recycling 1996;17(3):169-88.
  13. Ozalp N, Hyman B. Calibrated models of on-site power and steam production in U.S. manufacturing industries. Applied Thermal Engineering 2006;26:530-9.
  14. Simpson A, Lutz AE. Exergy analysis of hydrogen production via steam methane reforming. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 2007;32:4811-20.
  15. Ozalp N. Energy, material and emissions flow models of the U.S. Chemical Industry. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Washington, Mechanical Engineering Department. Available at the electronic library of the University of Washington, Seattle; December 2005.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ozalp, N.
Venue
International Journal of Hydrogen Energy
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2008-10
Volume
33
Issue
19
Pages
5020-5034
ISSN
0360-3199
Cited by
20
References
0
Language
en

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review