## 4 Simulation Results
### Industry  
In industrial applications, high working temperatures and pressures (indicated in Table 7) severely limit the use of many solutions. Among all the working pairs considered, only two (both with water as a refrigerant) are usable: Zeolite SAPO 34 Tianjin/water (CM14) and silica gel Sorbsil/water (CM17).  
Figures 12 and 13 show the energy efficiency of the TES system in the application in industrial environment. In each case considered, the silica gel Sorbsil/water mixture (CM17) represents the optimal choice in terms of performance, with values between 2.89 and 2.30 for t = 0 and between 2.61 and 1.79 for t = \(\infty\). Nevertheless, the use of zeolite SAPO 34 Tianjin as adsorbent (CM14) causes a smaller efficiency loss in the passage from \(\phi=0\) to \(\phi=3\) (in percentage terms, 16.90% compared to 20.47%); the efficiency loss is more similar in the case of long-term storage (29.08% versus 31.29%), as shown in Figure 14. The percentage variation as the storage time varies is approximately the same (it goes from 10% for \(\phi=0\) to approximately 23% for \(\phi=3\)).  
Figure 11: Storage efficiency vs. metal/adsorbent mass ratio for transport sector: (**a**) short-term storage and (**b**) long-term storage.  
Figure 10: Energy efficiency of long-term storage, for transport application (with \(\phi=0\); 0.5; 1; 2; 3).  
Figure 12: Energy efficiency of short-term storage, for industrial application (with \(\phi\) = 0; 0.5; 1; 2; 3).  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Working Pair** & \(\mathbf{T_{1}}\) & \(\mathbf{T_{2}}\) & \(\mathbf{T_{3}}\) & \(\mathbf{T_{4}}\) & \(\mathbf{T_{cond}}\) & \(\mathbf{T_{evap}}\) & \(\mathbf{P_{evap}}\) = \(\mathbf{P_{1}}\) = \(\mathbf{P_{4}}\) & \(\mathbf{P_{cond}}\) = \(\mathbf{P_{2}}\) = \(\mathbf{P_{3}}\) \\  & (\({}^{\circ}\)C) & (\({}^{\circ}\)C) & (\({}^{\circ}\)C) & (\({}^{\circ}\)C) & (\({}^{\circ}\)C) & (\({}^{\circ}\)C) & (\({}^{\circ}\)C) & (\({}^{\circ}\)C) & (mbar) & (mbar) \\ \hline CM01 & \(\times\) & \(\times\) & \(\times\) & \(\times\) & \(\times\) & \(\times\) & \(\times\) & \(\times\) \\ CM02 & \(\times\) & \(\times\) & \(\times\) & \(\times\) & \(\times\) & \(\times\) & \(\times\) & \(\times\) \\ CM03 & \(\times\) & \(\times\) & \(\times\) & \(\times\) & \(\times\) & \(\times\) & \(\times\) & \(\times\) \\ CM04 & \(\times\) & \(\times\) & \(\times\) & \(\times\) & \(\times\) & \(\times\) & \(\times\) & \(\times\) \\ CM05 & \(\times\) & \(\times\) & \(\times\) & \(\times\) & \(\times\) & \(\times\) & \(\times\) & \(\times\) \\ CM06 & \(\times\) & \(\times\) & \(\times\) & \(\times\) & \(\times\) & \(\times\) & \(\times\) & \(\times\) \\ CM07 & \(\times\) & \(\times\) & \(\times\) & \(\times\) & \(\times\) & \(\times\) & \(\times\) & \(\times\) \\ CM08 & \(\times\) & \(\times\) & \(\times\) & \(\times\) & \(\times\) & \(\times\) & \(\times\) & \(\times\) \\ CM09 & \(\times\) & \(\times\) & \(\times\) & \(\times\) & \(\times\) & \(\times\) & \(\times\) & \(\times\) \\ CM10 & \(\times\) & \(\times\) & \(\times\) & \(\times\) & \(\times\) & \(\times\) & \(\times\) & \(\times\) \\ CM11 & \(\times\) & \(\times\) & \(\times\) & \(\times\) & \(\times\) & \(\times\) & \(\times\) & \(\times\) \\ CM12 & \(\times\) & \(\times\) & \(\times\) & \(\times\) & \(\times\) & \(\times\) & \(\times\) & \(\times\) \\ CM13 & \(\times\) & \(\times\) & \(\times\) & \(\times\) & \(\times\) & \(\times\) & \(\times\) & \(\times\) \\ CM14 & 60 & 67.54 & 190 & 174.35 & 60 & 50 & 124.29 & 200.53 \\ CM15 & \(\times\) & \(\times\) & \(\times\) & \(\times\) & \(\times\) & \(\times\) & \(\times\) & \(\times\) \\ CM16 & \(\times\) & \(\times\) & \(\times\) & \(\times\) & \(\times\) & \(\times\) & \(\times\) & \(\times\) \\ CM17 & 60 & 70.55 & 190 & 170.25 & 60 & 50 & 124.29 & 200.53 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 7: Summary of the simulated cycles (industrial sector).  
Figure 13: Energy efficiency of long-term storage, for industrial application (with \(\phi\) = 0; 0.5; 1; 2; 3).