Energy, exergy, exergoenvironmental, and exergoeconomic (4E) analyses of a gas boosting station
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Energy, exergy, exergoenvironmental, and exergoeconomic analyses of a natural gas boosting station are presented using a real‐gas model and actual operational data. The effect of varies performance parameters on the thermodynamic efficiencies, specific fuel consumption (SFC), gas‐phase emissions, and cost rates are assessed. The results show that, for the actual operational conditions of the gas boosting station, the exergy efficiencies are 76.1% and 73.9% in the hot and cold seasons, respectively. Moreover, the energy analysis at partial load reveals that the SFC varies from 0.285 kg/kWh to 0.302 kg/kWh, respectively, in maximum and minimum ambient temperatures. The exergoeconomic analysis along with the exergoenvironmental analysis shows that the total cost rate of gas boosting stations in hot and cold ambient conditions is 7390 US$/h and 8070 US$/h, respectively, with more than 60% related to the environmental impact. In this system, the highest exergoeconomic factor is attributed to the centrifugal gas compressor at 40.9%‐44.2% and the lowest to the air cooler at 0.030%‐0.036%, depending on the ambient temperature, which specifies the balance between capital cost and the cost of exergy destruction. The cost rate of the exergy destruction is more pronounced in the combustion chamber, and the overall cost rate of the exergy destruction can be improved significantly by increasing turbine inlet temperature which needs additional investment cost for 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.
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 it