Assessing the Economic and Operational Advantages of Evaporative Cooling in Combined Cycle Power Plants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In regions where ambient temperatures are high, gas turbine-based combine cycle power plants face decreased power output due to lower air density, which restricts compressor mass. Recognizing the need to augment power during these critical hot conditions, this study evaluates the application of evaporative cooling as a method to enhance gas turbine performance. Unlike other augmentation options, evaporative coolers offer a distinct advantage by preconditioning the intake air, thus increasing its density and consequently the mass flow rate through the compressor. This paper presents an examination of the impact of evaporative cooling on gas turbine combined cycle power output and efficiency. By analyzing operational data across various climates, the research reveals that the most significant benefits of evaporative cooling are observed in hot, dry conditions, with performance improvements diminishing as ambient temperature decreases and humidity increases. Furthermore, the financial aspect of evaporative cooling implementation is studied through the computation of the Levelized Cost of Electricity (LCOE). The analysis spans a 20-year operational timeline, reflecting the average lifespan of a gas turbine power plant, and projects Net Present Value (NPV) for the evaporative cooling investment based on enhancements in power production and efficiency. Conclusively, the paper elucidates the multifaceted advantages of integrating evaporative cooling into gas turbine operations, from technical performance improvements to economic viability. The outcomes serve as a comprehensive resource for stakeholders in the power generation sector, guiding strategic decisions towards reliable and efficient energy production in the face of diverse and challenging ambient conditions
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".