Economic Solution of the Tri-Generation System Using Photovoltaic-Thermal and Ground Source Heat Pump for Zero Energy Building (ZEB) Realization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The zero energy building (ZEB) is being introduced as a new energy policy in the building sector. Accordingly, to realize the ZEB, renewable energy systems that can produce energy are essential. Various hybrid systems are being proposed to develop a more efficient system than individual renewable energy systems, among which tri-generation systems are attracting attention. In this study, in order to find an economic solution of a tri-generation system for the realization of ZEB, the simulation model using the dynamic energy analysis code was constructed and a feasibility study was conducted. Moreover, the conventional design method and the design method for ZEB realization were proposed, and the return on investment (ROI) was calculated according to four local conditions and two design methods. As a result of energy analysis, the energy self-sufficiency (ES) in Seoul, Ulsan, Ottawa and Toronto were calculated as 62%, 65.1%, 57.7%, and 60.2%, respectively. Moreover, results of feasibility analysis compared to a conventional system showed that the payback period of the tri-generation system in South Korea was within 13 years, and Canada was within 10 years.
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) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".