Thermodynamic Performance Comparison of some Renewable and Non- Renewable Hydrogen Production Processes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper compares thermodynamic performance, through energy and exergy efficiencies, of the some renewable-based (e.g.geothermal) and non-renewable-based hydrogen production processes, namely: (1) steam methane reforming (SMR), (2) hybrid copperchlorine (Cu-Cl) supplied by geothermal heat and electricity from a geothermal power plant, (3) high temperature steam electrolysis (HTSE) supplied by geothermal heat and electricity from a geothermal power plant.These processes are essentially driven by two different sources such as fossil fuel and geothermal.The results show that energy and exergy efficiencies during hydrogen production range from 65-89% and 63-80% for the SMR.The efficiencies of geothermal-based hydrogen production processes seem to be a bit lower than that of SMR.However, these processes can drastically reduce the GHG emissions compared to non-renewable energy based ones, e.g., SMR process.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".