Energy and Exergy Assessments of a New Trigeneration System Based on Organic Rankine Cycle and Biomass Combustor
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, energy and exergy analyses of a trigeneration system based on an organic Rankine cycle (ORC) and a biomass combustor are presented. This trigeneration system consists of a biomass combustor to provide heat input to the ORC, an ORC for power production, a single-effect absorption chiller for cooling process and a heat exchanger for heating process. The system is designed to produce around 500 kW of electricity. In this study, four cases are considered, namely, electrical-power, cooling-cogeneration, heating-cogeneration and trigeneration cases. The effects of changing ORC pump inlet temperature and turbine inlet pressure on different key parameters have been examined to evaluate the performance of the trigeneration system. These parameters are energy and exergy efficiencies, electrical to cooling ratio and electrical to heating ratio. Moreover, exergy destruction analysis is presented to show the main sources of exergy destruction and the contribution of each source to the exergy destruction. The study shows that there are significant improvements in energy and exergy efficiencies when trigeneration is used as compared to electrical power. The results show that the maximum efficiencies for the cases considered in this study are as follows: 14.0% for electrical power, 17.0% for cooling cogeneration, 87.0% for heating cogeneration and 89.0% for trigeneration. On other hand, the maximum exergy efficiency of the ORC is 13.0% while the maximum exergy efficiency of the trigeneration system is 28.0%. In addition, this study reveals that the main sources of exergy destruction are the biomass combustor and ORC evaporator.
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 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) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".