## 1 Introduction
The analysis showed that exergy losses in the KLACC system were 40% higher (mainly in the condenser and the preheater of the second separation tank). As a result, the efficiency of this system was close to the Kalina cycle's efficiency, while the efficiency of the KPCC system was 6.8% higher. From an economic analysis perspective, the unit cost of energy production in the KPCC system was 20.5% lower than in the KLACC system. The analysis also emphasized that efforts to reduce exergy losses should focus on the absorber in KPCC systems and the second condenser in KLACC systems. [PERSON] et al. [18] analyzed the operation of an absorption chiller in an air handling unit with heat recovery using phase change materials (PCM) on building partitions. The authors investigated the benefits of the improvements made to the basic configuration of the system. The use of PCM reduced the cooling energy demand by 6.22%, while heat recovery reduced the demand by 8.38%. The total reduction in energy consumption generated by these improvements was approximately 111 kWh/m\({}^{2}\). The study concluded that for cases with high cooling demand, it is worth analyzing the implementation of such improvements, especially when there is no possibility of using larger cooling-producing equipment. In [19], the economic and environmental costs of using of a device based on solar energy-powered absorption cooling was analyzed and compared to those of a standard inverter device with a heat pump. Those others found that absorption cooling devices used in Australia consume at least 50% less energy than inverter air conditioners, resulting in half the CO\({}_{2}\) emissions. Additionally, absorption chillers consume approximately 75% less peak electrical power (kWp), which is particularly important given the increasing performance issues affecting the power grid. However, due to the significantly higher capital cost of solar-powered absorption chillers, with a long payback time exceeding 20 years, the use of such systems, despite their numerous benefits, is difficult to justify. [PERSON] et al. [20] analyzed a gas turbine-based trigeneration system (GTBS) utilizing waste gasification fuel, which produces electricity and heat that may be used by absorption chillers to produce cooling. It was found that during the winter period, the energy utilization factor of such a device was 47.62% and its exergy efficiency was 20.42%. An environmental analysis showed that the use of the GTBS system reduced potential CO\({}_{2}\) emissions of 9233 tons annually. Further parametric studies conducted by those authors indicated that increasing the gasifier temperature and the inlet gas temperature to the gas turbine increased the energy utilization factor of the device while reducing its exergy efficiency and overall system operating costs. [PERSON] and [PERSON] [21] compared the optimal performance of two gas turbine-based CCHP trigeneration systems: the first, consisting of a steam turbine, a Rankine regenerative cycle with heat recovery, two stages of absorption cooling, and a water heater, and the second, in which the Rankine regenerative cycle was replaced by a steam turbine condensation cycle. Based on a parametric analysis, the optimization of these systems resulted in a slight improvement in energy and exergy efficiency, while the device costs were reduced by 9% and 5.3%, respectively. With such a configuration, the payback time was found to be 10.83 years for the first system and 13.27 years for the second. Furthermore, it was found that under optimal operating conditions, the overall energy production and efficiency of the systems were nearly identical, but the overall cost of the first system was significantly lower than that of the second. In addition, the first system exhibited the lowest specific CO\({}_{2}\) emissions, i.e., 91.75 kg/MWh. In [22], a new CCHP system powered by biogas was proposed, based on secondary exhaust gas injection (due to high exergy losses in systems based on chemical recovery).