Assessment of a novel geothermal powered polygeneration system with zero liquid discharge
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, economic, exergoenvironmental, and environmental analyses are reported for a novel polygeneration system consisting of a geothermal cycle, a CO 2 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 × 10 8 m 3 /year hydrogen, and 386,000 m 3 /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.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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