Dynamic simulation tool for a performance evaluation and sensitivity study of a parabolic trough collector system with concrete thermal energy storage

Plant developers of parabolic trough collector (PTC) systems for industrial steam generation face various challenges. Some of the main challenges are availability of land, buildings in the vicinity of the plant that cast shadows on the collectors as well as land restrictions. The typical north-south collector axis alignment in many cases may not be possible due to limits of available ground. These were challenges that were faced in the planning phase for installing a PTC plant on the premises of the KEAN Soft Drinks Ltd factory in Limassol, Cyprus. As these issues cannot be avoided they must be accounted for by the plant developer, especially when a performance guarantee is given. This work presents, amongst other things, factors that should be analysed in order to predict the energy yield in the planning phase as best as possible by using a simulation model. In the sensitivity study presented in this paper, several effects on the energy yield were investigated theoretically. These effects include: Tracking inaccuracy, non-parallel collector row axis orientations as well as north-south vs. east-west collector alignment. A dynamic simulation model developed by the Solar-Institut Jülich (SIJ) [1] was further developed and used for the analysis. The simulation model features a deviation between the measured and simulated oil temperature at the collector outlet of only 1.5 K (rms). The findings are presented in this paper and give an insight into the effectiveness of mid-sized PTC systems for the industry sector

Operational experience and behaviour of a parabolic trough collector system with concrete thermal energy storage for process steam generation in Cyprus

As part of the transnational research project EDITOR, a parabolic trough collector system (PTC) with concrete thermal energy storage (C-TES) was installed and commissioned in Limassol, Cyprus. The system is located on the premises of the beverage manufacturer KEAN Soft Drinks Ltd. and its function is to supply process steam for the factory’s pasteurisation process [1]. Depending on the factory’s seasonally varying capacity for beverage production, the solar system delivers between 5 and 25 % of the total steam demand. In combination with the C-TES, the solar plant can supply process steam on demand before sunrise or after sunset. Furthermore, the C-TES compensates the PTC during the day in fluctuating weather conditions. The parabolic trough collector as well as the control and oil handling unit is designed and manufactured by Protarget AG, Germany. The C-TES is designed and produced by CADE Soluciones de Ingeniería, S.L., Spain. In the focus of this paper is the description of the operational experience with the PTC, C-TES and boiler during the commissioning and operation phase. Additionally, innovative optimisation measures are presented

Effect of Hydrocortisone on Mortality and Organ Support in Patients With Severe COVID-19: The REMAP-CAP COVID-19 Corticosteroid Domain Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Evidence regarding corticosteroid use for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is limited. Objective: To determine whether hydrocortisone improves outcome for patients with severe COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: An ongoing adaptive platform trial testing multiple interventions within multiple therapeutic domains, for example, antiviral agents, corticosteroids, or immunoglobulin. Between March 9 and June 17, 2020, 614 adult patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were enrolled and randomized within at least 1 domain following admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) for respiratory or cardiovascular organ support at 121 sites in 8 countries. Of these, 403 were randomized to open-label interventions within the corticosteroid domain. The domain was halted after results from another trial were released. Follow-up ended August 12, 2020. Interventions: The corticosteroid domain randomized participants to a fixed 7-day course of intravenous hydrocortisone (50 mg or 100 mg every 6 hours) (n = 143), a shock-dependent course (50 mg every 6 hours when shock was clinically evident) (n = 152), or no hydrocortisone (n = 108). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of ICU-based respiratory or cardiovascular support) within 21 days, where patients who died were assigned -1 day. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model that included all patients enrolled with severe COVID-19, adjusting for age, sex, site, region, time, assignment to interventions within other domains, and domain and intervention eligibility. Superiority was defined as the posterior probability of an odds ratio greater than 1 (threshold for trial conclusion of superiority >99%). Results: After excluding 19 participants who withdrew consent, there were 384 patients (mean age, 60 years; 29% female) randomized to the fixed-dose (n = 137), shock-dependent (n = 146), and no (n = 101) hydrocortisone groups; 379 (99%) completed the study and were included in the analysis. The mean age for the 3 groups ranged between 59.5 and 60.4 years; most patients were male (range, 70.6%-71.5%); mean body mass index ranged between 29.7 and 30.9; and patients receiving mechanical ventilation ranged between 50.0% and 63.5%. For the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively, the median organ support-free days were 0 (IQR, -1 to 15), 0 (IQR, -1 to 13), and 0 (-1 to 11) days (composed of 30%, 26%, and 33% mortality rates and 11.5, 9.5, and 6 median organ support-free days among survivors). The median adjusted odds ratio and bayesian probability of superiority were 1.43 (95% credible interval, 0.91-2.27) and 93% for fixed-dose hydrocortisone, respectively, and were 1.22 (95% credible interval, 0.76-1.94) and 80% for shock-dependent hydrocortisone compared with no hydrocortisone. Serious adverse events were reported in 4 (3%), 5 (3%), and 1 (1%) patients in the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with severe COVID-19, treatment with a 7-day fixed-dose course of hydrocortisone or shock-dependent dosing of hydrocortisone, compared with no hydrocortisone, resulted in 93% and 80% probabilities of superiority with regard to the odds of improvement in organ support-free days within 21 days. However, the trial was stopped early and no treatment strategy met prespecified criteria for statistical superiority, precluding definitive conclusions. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570

L’état d’urgence au prisme contentieux: analyse transversale de corpus

Stéphanie Hennette Vauchez/ CREDOF, Ce qui reste(ra) toujours de l'urgenceRecherche effectuée par le CREDOF / CTAD dans le cadre de la convention de recherche signée avec le Défenseur des droit

L’état d’urgence au prisme contentieux: analyse transversale de corpus

Stéphanie Hennette Vauchez/ CREDOF, Ce qui reste(ra) toujours de l'urgenceRecherche effectuée par le CREDOF / CTAD dans le cadre de la convention de recherche signée avec le Défenseur des droit

Ce que le contentieux administratif révèle de l’état d’urgence

L’état d’urgence 2015-2017 a été caractérisé par la mise en place d’un large éventail de mesures administratives individuelles défavorables : perquisitions administratives à domicile de jour et de nuit, assignations à résidence, interdictions de séjour, institution de zones de protection et de sécurité, interdictions de manifester, fermetures provisoires de salles de spectacles, de débits de boissons et de lieux de réunion, dissolutions d’associations, remises d’armes, contrôles d’identité, fouilles de bagages ou de véhicules… Individuelles et défavorables, ces mesures ne sont pas publiées. Par extension, elles ne sont pas non plus accessibles aux chercheurs. La présente étude, qui se donne pour ambition d’analyser l’état d’urgence en tant que phénomène juridique, porte dès lors sur le contentieux généré par ces mesures. Malgré sa partialité – étant donné que seulement une partie des personnes-destinataires des mesures d’urgence saisissent le juge – l’analyse de ce corpus contentieux formé par 775 décisions rendues par les juridictions administratives françaises permet de dévoiler certains éléments constitutifs de l’état d’urgence. L’étude met d’abord en avant différents profils-type des requérants ayant contesté en justice des mesures dont ils/elles ont fait l’objet ; elle dresse ensuite une typologie des mesures d’urgence, sur la base de laquelle l’issue des recours et, notamment, l’intensité du degré de contrôle juridictionnel exercé, sont analysés. On révèle ainsi que les mesures de l’état d’urgence s’appuient souvent sur des éléments relevant du comportement et de la vie privée des requérants et des requérantes, et que l’état d’urgence a pu servir de base légale à des mesures non rattachées à la lutte contre la menace terroriste. Surtout, l’étude du contentieux de l’état d’urgence permet de documenter un élargissement des pouvoirs de police administrative. Cet élargissement n’est pas seulement quantitatif (cf. la récurrence de cas dans lesquels une même personne fait l’objet de plusieurs mesures administratives fondées sur la loi du 3 avril 1955), mais aussi qualitatif (à telle enseigne que le contentieux administratif de l’état d’urgence interroge sur le brouillage des frontières entre droit pénal (répression) et droit administratif (prévention). En d’autres termes, l’étude du contentieux administratif révèle la contribution de l’état d’urgence à la transformation, à la faveur de la montée en puissance du paradigme sécuritaire, des frontières entre droit administratif et droit pénal, créant un modèle juridique sui generis.The state of emergency that was in vigor in France from 2015 to 2017 was manifested through a wide array of individual restrictive measures: administrative house searches, house arrests, bans on being in particular places, institution of security zones, bans on demonstrating, shutdowns of theater halls, public halls and bars, administrative dissolution of associations, arms confiscation, identity checks, bag and car searches, etc. To the extent that they were both individual and restrictive, the individual administrative measures themselves are not made public and therefore not open to scholarly enquiry. To overcome this obstacle, the present study seeks to analyze the state of emergency as a legal phenomenon and does so by examining the case law that was triggered by litigation against these individual measures. Although such an approach only captures a partial picture of the state of emergency as legal phenomenon (as not all these measures were litigated), the analysis of a total of 775 court decisions allows us to unearth number of its constitutive features. Firstly, our analysis reveals a typology of the profiles of plaintiffs that took legal action in response to state of emergency measures. It then classifies these measures in relation to the outcome of the litigation as well as to the level of judicial scrutiny that was involved. The study thus reveals that it was often on the basis of their behavior and other elements relating to their private lives that people were subjected to exceptional measures in the context of the state of emergency. We also found that this legal regime accommodated a number of measures unrelated to the fight against terrorism. Overall, this article documents the widening of the power of police endowed with administrative authority (i.e. police administrative). This is not only a quantitative claim based on the numerous instances in which individuals were subject to multiple and repeated measures in the context of the state of emergency, but also a qualitative one given the blurring of divide between criminal and administrative law. Globally speaking, administrative case law triggered by the state of emergency sustains the notion that legal divisions are being affected by the strengthening of a securitarian paradigm, possibly leading to the production of a sui generis legal regime of national security

Ce que le contentieux administratif révèle de l’état d’urgence

International audienceL’état d’urgence 2015-2017 a été caractérisé par la mise en place d’un large éventail de mesures administratives individuelles défavorables : perquisitions administratives à domicile de jour et de nuit, assignations à résidence, interdictions de séjour, institution de zones de protection et de sécurité, interdictions de manifester, fermetures provisoires de salles de spectacles, de débits de boissons et de lieux de réunion, dissolutions d’associations, remises d’armes, contrôles d’identité, fouilles de bagages ou de véhicules… Individuelles et défavorables, ces mesures ne sont pas publiées. Par extension, elles ne sont pas non plus accessibles aux chercheurs. La présente étude, qui se donne pour ambition d’analyser l’état d’urgence en tant que phénomène juridique, porte dès lors sur le contentieux généré par ces mesures. Malgré sa partialité – étant donné que seulement une partie des personnes-destinataires des mesures d’urgence saisissent le juge – l’analyse de ce corpus contentieux formé par 775 décisions rendues par les juridictions administratives françaises permet de dévoiler certains éléments constitutifs de l’état d’urgence. L’étude met d’abord en avant différents profils-type des requérants ayant contesté en justice des mesures dont ils/elles ont fait l’objet ; elle dresse ensuite une typologie des mesures d’urgence, sur la base de laquelle l’issue des recours et, notamment, l’intensité du degré de contrôle juridictionnel exercé, sont analysés. On révèle ainsi que les mesures de l’état d’urgence s’appuient souvent sur des éléments relevant du comportement et de la vie privée des requérants et des requérantes, et que l’état d’urgence a pu servir de base légale à des mesures non rattachées à la lutte contre la menace terroriste. Surtout, l’étude du contentieux de l’état d’urgence permet de documenter un élargissement des pouvoirs de police administrative. Cet élargissement n’est pas seulement quantitatif (cf. la récurrence de cas dans lesquels une même personne fait l’objet de plusieurs mesures administratives fondées sur la loi du 3 avril 1955), mais aussi qualitatif (à telle enseigne que le contentieux administratif de l’état d’urgence interroge sur le brouillage des frontières entre droit pénal (répression) et droit administratif (prévention). En d’autres termes, l’étude du contentieux administratif révèle la contribution de l’état d’urgence à la transformation, à la faveur de la montée en puissance du paradigme sécuritaire, des frontières entre droit administratif et droit pénal, créant un modèle juridique sui generis