Exergy Analysis and Sustainability Assessment of a Solar-Ground Based Heat Pump With Thermal Energy Storage
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, both energy and exergy analyses and sustainability assessment of a thermal energy storage system with a solar-ground coupled heat pump installed in a 120 m2 house are performed. The actual operating data taken from the literature are utilized for model validation. The system considered here mainly consists of a solar collection system, an underground thermal storage system, an indoor air conditioning system, and a data collection system. First, energy analysis is employed to the system and its components, and the rates of energy input (solar radiation), energy storage, collector heat loss, and other heat loss are found to be 4.083 kW, 1.753 kW, 1.29 kW, and 1.04 kW for a 5 h working time, respectively, while the energy efficiency of the system is calculated to be 42.94%. Exergy analysis of the entire system is then conducted for various reference temperatures varying from 0°C to 25°C with a temperature interval of 5°C. As a result of this analysis, the rates of the maximum exergy input, exergy storage, and exergy losses are determined for a reference temperature of 0°C to be 0.585 kW, 0.24 kW, and 0.345 kW, respectively. Finally, the maximum exergy efficiency of the system is obtained to be 40.99% and the maximum sustainable development using sustainability index, which is a function of exergy efficiency, is calculated to be 1.6946 for a reference temperature of 0°C. Furthermore, the energy and exergy results are illustrated through Sankey (energy flow) and Grassmann (exergy loss and flow) diagrams.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 it