## 3 Simulation Scenarios and Results
It can be observed that increasing the steam turbine inlet pressure from 4 MPa to 16 MPa leads to an increment in the net power output of the Rankine cycle from 6.5 MW to 7.7 MW. The net power output of the total system increases from 15.4 MW to 16 MW. This increase in the steam turbine inlet pressure also increases both the efficiency of the Rankine cycle and the efficiency of the overall system. The steam cycle efficiency increases from 31% to 38% while the overall efficiency increases from 62% to 66%. Figure 2: Impact of varying the pressure ratio of the Brayton cycle on the compressor work and power output. The impact of varying the pressure ratio of the heat pump on its compressor work, the heat pump output, and the COP of the heat pump is illustrated in Figure 5. An increase in the pressure ratio from 1.8 to 3 causes an increase in all the parameters considered. The heat pump compressor work increases from 0.13 MW to 0.29 MW, and the heat pump output increases from 1.37 MW to 1.53 MW. The COP of the heat pump, however, decreases from 11 to 5.3. The resultant changes in the Brayton cycle power output, the combined power output, the net power output of the overall system, and the heat pump output energy are shown in Figure 6 when the combustion inlet energy rate is varied. It can be observed that increasing the combustion inlet energy rate from 25 MW to 35 MW causes an increase in the output energy rate of all the systems. The heat pump output energy rate increases from 1.38 MW to 1.39 MW, while the Brayton cycle experiences an increase in power output from 1.38 MW to 1.39 MW. The heat pump output energy is shown in Figure 7.  
Figure 4: Impact of varying the inlet pressure of the steam turbine on the Rankine cycle output power, Rankine cycle efficiency, net power output, and the efficiency of the overall system. Figure 3: Impact of varying the pressure ratio of the Brayton cycle on the Brayton cycle efficiency, combined cycle efficiency, and the efficiency of the overall system. 8.2 MW to 11.5 MW. The overall power output from the multigeneration system increases from 15.5 MW to 19 MW. The effect of varying the inlet energy rate from the combustion chamber on the \(f_{ei}\) and \(C_{ei}\) is presented in Figure 7. While the \(f_{ei}\) decreases from about 0.51 to 0.3, the \(C_{ei}\) can be seen to decrease from 2.05 to 0.6. The decreasing nature of both factors is a good indicator of the system's reduced environmental impact, and this also shows that the system's irreversibility is decreasing. Figure 8 shows the effect of varying the inlet energy rate from the combustion chamber on \(\theta_{ei}\) and \(\theta_{ei}\) of the system. The \(\theta_{ei}\) decreases from about 1.0 to 0.1, while the \(\theta_{ei}\) increases from 1.05 to 6.1. The value of \(\theta_{ei}\) for a system should be as low as possible, while a high \(\theta_{ei}\) indicates that the system is beneficial to the environment. The effect of increasing inlet energy rate on the ex  
Figure 5: Impact of varying the pressure ratio of the heat pump on the compressor work of the heat pump, the heat pump output, and the COP of the heat pump. Figure 2.0 Impact of varying the combustion inlet energy rate on the Brayton cycle power output, combined power output, heat pump output, and the net power output of the overall system. exergetic sustainability index of the system can be seen in Figure 2.1 The \(f_{\rm es}\) increases from 0.41 to 0.47, while the \(\theta_{\rm est}\) also increases from about 0.6 to 0.64. The factors increasing point to the conclusion about the stability and sustainability of the system upon increasing the inlet combustion energy rate. Figure 2.2 Impact of varying the combustion inlet energy rate on the environmental impact index and the environmental impact factor of the overall system. Figure 2.3 Impact of varying the combustion inlet energy rate on the exergoenvironmental impact factor and exergoenvironmental impact index of the overall system.