Performance Evaluation of Industrial Waste Heat Driven Power Cycles Utilizing Low Global Warming Potential Working Fluids
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The industrial sector is a major emitter of waste heat, and as such many opportunities exist for the implementation of waste heat recovery systems.Selecting the correct waste heat recovery system for any given application highly depends on the temperature at which waste heat is emitted.For example, although data centers are an abundant source of waste heat, emission temperatures from this industry rarely exceed 80˚C.Due to this low temperature limitation, few power cycle options are available for heat recovery.One of the most common in this regard is the heat pump assisted organic Rankine cycle.On the other end of the spectrum are cement plants which commonly emit waste heat at temperatures above 350 o C. Contrary to the case for data centers, high temperature waste heat availability at cement plants allows for multiple power cycle options to be utilized for heat recovery, the most common being the steam Rankine, organic Rankine and Kalina cycles.Although the cycles mentioned above are advantageous in many regards, most utilize high global warming potential working fluids, which are considered to be hazardous to the environment if released into the atmosphere.The main objective of this research is to evaluate the thermodynamic and economic performance of various power cycle configurations utilizing low global warming potential working fluids for waste heat recovery in both data centers and cement plants.For data center waste heat recovery, a numerical model is developed of a heat pump assisted organic Rankine cycle and scenarios are created in which the working fluids R1234yf, R1234ze, R161, and pentane are utilized assuming the system is implemented in a typical 1000-server data center located in Toronto, Ontario.For cement plant waste heat recovery, numerical models corresponding to six different transcritical carbon dioxide power cycles are developed and applied to a system that emulates the characteristics of a conventional cement plant.The Engineering Equation Solver tool is used to develop all models and conduct simulations.To determine the viii 2.2.7 Economic model .......
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".