Assessing Cogeneration Activity in Extraction–Condensing Steam Turbines: Dissolving the Issues by Applied Thermodynamics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Extraction–condensing steam turbines mix cold-condensing and cogeneration activities making the respective power and fuel flows not directly observable. A flawed assessment of the flows is causing confusion and bias. A steam expansion path on a Mollier diagram reveals the design characteristics of a thermal power plant and of its embedded combined heat and power (CHP) activities. State variable data on a unit mass of steam, entering the turboset as life steam and leaving it at one of the heat extraction exhausts, provide the roster of the power-heat production possibility set of the plant. The actual production possibilities are drawn from the roster by applying capacity data and constraints on the heat extraction points. Design power-to-heat ratios of CHP activities are univocally identified, allowing accurate assessments of cogenerated power. This information is needed for proper incentive regulation of CHP activities, pursuing maximization of CHP quality and quantity. Quality is gauged by the power-to-heat ratio, principally a design (investment) decision. Quantity is gauged by the operational amounts of recovered heat exhausts. Optimal regulatory specificity is attained through setting generic frameworks by technology, accommodating investment and operational decisions by plant owners. Our novel method is explained and applied with numerical data, also revealing the flaws in present regulations.
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".