## 3 Methodology
### Study Cases: Geothermal Wells 1 and LV5  
The results obtained from the modeling of half-effect cooling systems operating with heat supplied from two real geothermal wells is presented in this section. According to Figure 7, theoretically, well W1 has the capability of transferring heat (<65 \({}^{\circ}\)C) to secondary fluid (water), which would be used to supply energy to the generator of the half-effect cooling system. Tables 3 and 4 present the results of the modeling for refrigeration (\(T_{E}=-6\)\({}^{\circ}\)C) and air conditioning (\(T_{E}=10\)\({}^{\circ}\)C), respectively. As can be seen from Table 3, the system was capable of operating for refrigeration at generation temperatures of 56 and 64 \({}^{\circ}\)C with condenser temperatures of 25 and 30 \({}^{\circ}\)C. The system produced up to 1.05 Kw of cooling at \(T_{E}=-6\)\({}^{\circ}\)C, with a coefficient of performance around 0.3. On the other hand, the system was capable of producing air conditioning at the same generation temperatures, but with condenser temperatures of 25, 30, 35, and 40 \({}^{\circ}\)C. The highest value of the cooling capacity obtained was 1.19 Kw, with a coefficient of performance of 0.36. On the other hand, according to Figure 9, W-LV5 had the capability to transfer heat to a stream of water at temperatures up to 70 \({}^{\circ}\)C, with a mass flow rate of 3.53 kg/s. Tables 5 and 6 summarize the results of the modeling of the coupled system at the same temperatures from Tables 3 and 4 for refrigeration and air conditioning, respectively. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \(T_{C}\) (\({}^{\circ}\)C) & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**25**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**30**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**35**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**40**} \\ \hline \(T_{G}\) (\({}^{\circ}\)C) & **56** & **64** & **56** & **64** & **56** & **64** \\ \hline \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Thermal Power (kW)**} & & & & & \\ \hline \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Decoiling Capacity (\(\dot{Q}_{E}\))**} & 1.19 & 1.16 & 1.16 & 1.13 & 1.10 & 1.09 & 0.98 \\ \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Deco**denser heat duty (\(\dot{Q}_{C}\))**} & 1.29 & 1.28 & 1.24 & 1.23 & 1.17 & 1.19 & 1.06 \\ \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Deco**denser absorber heat (\(\dot{Q}_{A\_LP}\))} & 1.60 & 1.58 & 1.64 & 1.62 & 1.72 & 1.68 & 1.83 \\ \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Low-pressure generator heat input (\(\dot{Q}_{C\_LP}\))**} & 1.71 & 1.71 & 1.75 & 1.74 & 1.81 & 1.79 & 1.92 \\ \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{**High-pressure absorber heat output (\(\dot{Q}_{A\_HP}\))**} & 1.63 & 1.63 & 1.60 & 1.59 & 1.53 & 1.56 & 1.42 \\ \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{**High-pressure generator heat input (\(\dot{Q}_{C\_HP}\))**} & 1.62 & 1.61 & 1.58 & 1.58 & 1.51 & 1.54 & 1.40 \\ \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Deco**denser **(kW)**} & & & & & \\ \hline \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Deco**denser **(\(\dot{W}_{LP}\))**} & \(3.1\times 10^{-4}\) & \(3.0\times 10^{-4}\) & \(1.3\times 10^{-3}\) & \(9.7\times 10^{-4}\) & \(5.0\times 10^{-3}\) & \(2.8\times 10^{-3}\) & \(1.2\times 10^{-2}\) \\ \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Solution pump 2 (\(\dot{W}_{HP}\))**} & \(1.0\times 10^{-3}\) & \(8.5\times 10^{-4}\) & \(1.4\times 10^{-3}\) & \(1.1\times 10^{-3}\) & \(2.1\times 10^{-3}\) & \(1.5\times 10^{-3}\) & \(2.0\times 10^{-3}\) \\ \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Performance Indicators**} & & & & & \\ \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{Coefficient of performance, COP (\(\cdot\))} & 0.36 & 0.35 & 0.35 & 0.34 & 0.33 & 0.33 & 0.29 \\ \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Energy efficiency, \(\eta_{Ex}\) (\(\cdot\))**} & 0.20 & 0.16 & 0.31 & 0.24 & 0.46 & 0.34 & 0.44 \\ \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{Irreversibility, \(\dot{l}\) (Kw)} & 0.38 & 0.45 & 0.35 & 0.42 & 0.32 & 0.39 & 0.35 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Performance summary of the modeling of well W1 coupled to a half-effect cooling system. Case study: Air conditioning (\(T_{E}\) = 10, \(PF\) = 0.7).