Environmental sustainability and exergy return on investment of selected solar dryer designs based on standard and extended exergy approaches
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
Different solar dryer designs are available in the literature. However, it is essential to understand how the performance of the dryer designs contributes to environmental sustainability by reducing waste in the exergy-loop and mitigate CO2 emission into the atmosphere. The exergy-based sustainability indices include waste exergy ratio, lack of productivity (LOP), sustainability index, environmental destruction coefficient and exergy recovery ratio. The paper also introduces exergy return on investment (ExRoI) by applying an extended exergy accounting approach with the inclusion of exergy influx of material resources, capital and labor in the exegetic computations of the sustainability index. Four solar dryers consisting of an indirect solar-cabinet dryer, mix-mode solar dryer, hybrid solar dryer and a double-partitioned single-pass-collector solar dryer with a wind generator were used as a case study. Comparatively, the ExRoI is lower than the standard exergy-efficiency for the four dryers by 6.87 to 91.61%. In contrast, the standard exergy-based sustainability index was higher by 5.4 to 61.2%. Total invested exergy ranged from 0.04TJ to 0.081TJ. The values of waste exergy ratio, LOP, ERR, EDC, and carbon credit ranged from 0.47 to 0.79, 0.566 to 16.45, 5.44 × 10−4 to 1.37 × 10−1, 1.57 to 17.45 and 231.45 to $2908, respectively.
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