Assessment of a novel geothermal powered polygeneration system with zero liquid discharge
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Energy, exergy, economic, exergoenvironmental, and environmental analyses are reported for a novel polygeneration system consisting of a geothermal cycle, a CO2 cycle, a reverse osmosis unit, an electrodialysis unit, a lithium bromide absorption chiller, and a liquefaction unit for natural gas. The proposed system is able to produce electricity, cooling, desalinated water, sodium hydroxide, and hydrogen. To study the environmental aspects of the proposed facility, the associated social cost of air pollution is determined. This parameter implies a comparison between nonrenewable and renewable energy systems to produce the same amount of electricity, while the amount of air pollutants generated and their associated costs are considered. Three scenarios are introduced. The results indicate that the system produces 631 GWh/year electrical energy, 465 GWh/year cooling, 6.22 ton/year NaClO, 1.57 × 108 m3/year hydrogen, and 386,000 m3/year potable water for a geothermal working fluid supplied with mass flow rate of 100 kg/s at a temperature of 150°C and a pressure of 457.5 kPa. Also, the calculated values of the energy and exergy efficiencies are 58.3% and 94.2%, respectively. The payback period is determined to be 5.3 years. The net present value is found to be 113.6 million US$ which is lower than that for all the nonrenewable‐based scenarios considered.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".