Energy and Cost Analysis and Optimization of a Geothermal-Based Cogeneration Cycle Using an Ammonia-Water Solution: Thermodynamic and Thermoeconomic Viewpoints
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A cogeneration cycle for electric power and refrigeration, using an ammonia-water solution as a working fluid and the geothermal hot water as a heat source, is proposed and investigated. The system is a combination of a modified Kalina cycle (KC) which produces power and an absorption refrigeration cycle (ARC) that generates cooling. Geothermal water is supplied to both the KC boiler and the ARC generator. The system is analyzed from thermodynamic and economic viewpoints, utilizing Engineering Equation Solver (EES) software. In addition, a parametric study is carried out to evaluate the effects of decision parameters on the cycle performance. Furthermore, the system performance is optimized for either maximizing the exergy efficiency (EOD case) or minimizing the total product unit cost (COD case). In the EOD case the exergy efficiency and total product unit cost, respectively, are calculated as 34.7% and 15.8$/GJ. In the COD case the exergy efficiency and total product unit cost are calculated as 29.8% and 15.0$/GJ. In this case, the cooling unit cost, c p , c o o l i n g , and power unit cost, c p , p o w e r , are achieved as 3.9 and 11.1$/GJ. These values are 20.4% and 13.2% less than those obtained when the two products are produced separately by the ARC and KC, respectively. The thermoeconomic analysis identifies the more important components, such as the turbine and absorbers, for modification to improve the cost-effectiveness of the system.
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".