Energy, Exergy, Environmental (3E) and Parametric Assessment of a Triple-Pressure Reheat Combined-Cycle Power Plant
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In this study, energy, exergy, and environmental (3E) assessments have been conducted on a proposed combined-cycle power plant (CCPP) with three pressure levels of the HRSG and reheating process. 3E design approaches cross-link mechano-electric and environmental objectives. Herewith, the suggested combined-cycle is formed by a gas unit, condenser, steam turbines, triple-pressure heat recovery steam generator (HRSG) and also utilizes reheat facilities and auxiliary components. It is observed that more than 56% of total exergy destruction occurs in the combustor, followed by HRSG (15.29%), steam turbines (roughly 15.02%), gas turbine (8.93%), air compressor (1.79%), and condenser (0.66%). A parametric study is also presented that examines the sensitivity of performance indicators to various environmental states, steam pressures, pinch points, and steam mass flow rates. Moreover, it is presented that the implementation of Siemens SGT-100-1S over other GT configurations can considerably reduce deficiency of the overall cycle. The effects of each contaminant mass flowrate (NOx, CO, UHC, and CO2) and adiabatic flame temperature (AFT) are also studied when the gas unit operates under partial power and incomplete combustion conditions. In conclusion, a number of potential causes of irreversibilities and corrective optimization guidance are offered for each main equipment of the CCPP.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".