[7] explored the advantages of using an underground heat exchanger instead of a wet cooling tower, particularly in terms of energy efficiency and environmental benefits. The research focuses on Mashhad, a region with high cooling demands and limited water resources, using the Faculty of Engineering at Ferdowsi University of Mashhad as a case study. Both cooling systems were modeled and simulated to assess energy and water usage. Findings indicate that the underground heat exchanger cuts energy consumption by 14% and completely eliminates water usage, which is significant given the current water-cooled chillers' high water consumption. Additionally, the economic analysis shows that the underground heat exchanger has a payback period of 1.73 years, demonstrating its feasibility as an alternative cooling method. It can be seen that many authors have researched the subject of improving the performance of cooling towers. One of the best methods to improve the application potential of cooling towers is to use the dew-point cooling process [8; 9]. Dew-point cooling allows significantly extended water cooling abilities by moving their physical limit from the wet-bulb temperature to the dew-point temperature [8,9]. The structure of the dew-point cooling tower (DPCT) compared to the traditional wet-bulb cooling tower (WBCT) is presented in Figure 1. WBCT has all channels wetted with water; due to this fact, its effectiveness is limited by the wet-bulb temperature of the airstream at the inlet to the wet-channel (1\({}_{i}\) in Figure 1a,c). DPCT uses a different plate heat exchanger structure, where half of the plates are covered with cooled water and half of the plates remain dry. The air flows through dry channels first, where it is pre-cooled without change in its humidity ratio (1\({}_{i}\) = 1\({}_{o}\) in Figure 1b,c). After that, it is delivered to the wet channel, where it cools the process water. Due to the pre-cooling effect (cooling the airstream without changing its humidity ratio), the wet-bulb temperature of the airflow decreases (reaching values close to the dew point temperature [8,9]). Due to this fact, the physical limit of the cooling process is the wet-bulb temperature of the airflow at the end of the dry channel, which enters the wet channel (1\({}_{o}\) = 2\({}_{i}\)). Since the wet-bulb temperature of the airstream is much lower, DPCT is able to achieve much lower temperatures than WBCT. Figure 1: WBCT and DPCT. (**a**) Wet-bulb cooling tower. (**b**) Dew-point cooling tower. (**c**) Psychometric chart. The authors have performed a study where they analyzed the potential of applying DPCT and WBCT in different climate conditions [9]. DPCT achieves the highest performance factors in cold and dry climates; therefore, from the economic standpoint of the tower itself, it has the most advantages over WBCT in such climate conditions. However, it can make the most difference in hot and moist climates, where it can visibly outperform the traditional towers, which may be more beneficial for the final user. It was established that DPCT is highly suitable for warm arid and desert climates, especially hot semi-arid climates, hot and cold desert climates, and hot and warm continental climates with dry summers (e.g., Poland). These conditions can be considered optimal for the operation of the DPCT. Lower water temperatures allow for more efficient heat rejection and, therefore, lower energy consumption of the supplied equipment (e.g., power plants, air conditioning systems, and refrigeration equipment). So far, no studies have focused on analyzing the application potential of dew-point cooling towers in energy-intensive applications in order to establish what level of energy savings can be expected when traditional WBCTs are replaced by DPCTs. Due to this fact, the proposed study is focused on analyzing the application potential of the dew-point cooling tower in selected energy-intensive applications in temperate climates (using the example of Poland).