Energy, Exergy, Exergoeconomic and Exergoenvironmental Impact Analyses and Optimization of Various Geothermal Power Cycle Configurations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Energy, exergy, and exergoeconomic evaluations of various geothermal configurations are reported. The main operational and economic parameters of the cycles are evaluated and compared. Multi-objective optimization of the cycles is conducted using the artificial bee colony algorithm. A sensitivity assessment is carried out on the effect of production well temperature variation on system performance from energy and economic perspectives. The results show that the flash-binary cycle has the highest thermal and exergy efficiencies, at 15.6% and 64.3%, respectively. The highest generated power cost and pay-back period are attributable to the simple organic Rankine cycle (ORC). Raising the well-temperature can increase the exergy destruction rate in all configurations. However, the electricity cost and pay-back period decrease. Based on the results, in all cases, the exergoenvironmental impact improvement factor decreases, and the temperature rises. The exergy destruction ratio and efficiency of all components for each configuration are calculated and compared. It is found that, at the optimum state, the exergy efficiencies of the simple organic Rankine cycle, single flash, double flash, and flash-binary cycles respectively are 14.7%, 14.4%, 12.6%, and 14.1% higher than their relevant base cases, while the pay-back periods are 10.6%, 1.5% 1.4%, and 0.6% lower than the base cases.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".