Exergo‐economic assessment by a specific exergy costing method for an experimental thermochemical hydrogen production system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary In this article, an exergo‐economic study of an experimental lab‐scale integrated copper‐chlorine (Cu‐Cl) cycle of hydrogen production is conducted. The analysis is performed based on a specific exergy costing (SPECO) method to determine the influences of various design criteria on the costs and then identify possible improvements for more cost effective approaches. The article includes an exergy analysis, economic study, exergy costing and exergo‐economic evaluation. Also, a scale‐up analysis is performed to predict the cost of a larger scale facility of 1000 kg per day of hydrogen production. The results of the exergo‐economic and scale‐up analysis are expected to assist in the design, optimization and improvement of a scaled‐up Cu‐Cl thermochemical cycle. Furthermore, the results of this study show that for a large‐scale Cu‐Cl cycle plant with a capacity of 1000 kg/day H 2 , the cost of hydrogen production, excluding the treatment of side reactions, is predicted at about 3.91 $/kg H 2 .
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 | 0.001 | 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".