Thermoeconomic Analysis and Optimization of a New Combined Supercritical Carbon Dioxide Recompression Brayton/Kalina Cycle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A new combined supercritical CO2 recompression Brayton/Kalina cycle (SCRB/KC) is proposed. In the proposed system, waste heat from a supercritical CO2 recompression Brayton cycle (SCRBC) is recovered by a Kalina cycle (KC) to generate additional electrical power. The performances of the two cycles are simulated and compared using mass, energy and exergy balances of the overall systems and their components. Using the SPECO (Specific Exergy Costing) approach and employing selected cost balance equations for the components of each system, the total product unit costs of the cycles are obtained. Parametric studies are performed to investigate the effects on the SCRB/KC and SCRBC thermodynamic and thermoeconomic performances of key decision parameters. In addition, considering the exergy efficiency and total product unit cost as criteria, optimization is performed for the SCRBC and SCRB/KC using Engineering Equation Solver software. The results indicate that the maximum exergy efficiency of the SCRB/KC is higher than that of the SCRBC by up to 10%, and that the minimum total product unit cost of the SCRB/KC is lower than that of the SCRBC by up to 4.9%.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".