EN
Interview II · Extension   ·   Three-Port Thermal Plug   ·   Port 3 · Absorption Chiller · Closed Thermal Loop   ·   2026
IP & Authorship Note — Concepts and system modifications described on this page, including the dual-chamber pressure-controlled LiBr absorption cycle (Q P3-05), represent original engineering thinking first documented by Dimitri Wolf on 30 March 2026. Subject to intellectual property review. All rights reserved.

The Three-Port Thermal Plug

The Reverse Thermal Plug has two established output ports. This extension adds the third — one that does not export heat outward but converts it into cooling and returns it to the source. Waste heat in. Chilled water out. The data centre cools itself.

Dimitri Wolf M.Sc. Mechanical Engineering Architect of the Thermal Plug Standard · Aquatherm GmbH Spring 2026

This page is an extension to Interview II — The Reverse Thermal Plug. It extends the engineering logic established there into subsurface geothermal territory, maps the Thermal Plug pattern across already-operating global projects, and assesses upcoming infrastructure deployments where the Deep Thermal Plug could be implemented. It should be read after Interview II, not independently of it.

Interview II established that the Reverse Thermal Plug is a source-agnostic thermal interface. The question it left open was: what is the most powerful heat source you can connect to it? The answer is underneath your feet. EGS geothermal fluid at 80 to 180 degrees Celsius — commercial systems typically sit above 150 — produced at baseload from hot dry rock at 3 to 6 kilometres depth, is thermodynamically and mechanically compatible with the Reverse Thermal Plug interface concept. The handover skid itself must be rated for the higher source temperature, but the architecture does not change. This extension explains exactly why — and what the full system looks like when you connect the two.

It also does something the first two interviews did not: it looks at what is already being built in the world and names the pattern. Several operating projects are already doing what the Thermal Plug describes. They did not call it that. The vocabulary is ours. The hardware is theirs. Both things can be true simultaneously.

Block I   ·   Engineering Conversation
Port 3 — The Closed Thermal Loop
The Reverse Thermal Plug has two established output ports: bio-processes and district heating. This conversation, with HVAC engineer Vladimir Paul, surfaces a third — one that does not export heat outward but converts it into cooling and returns it to the source. Waste heat in. Chilled water out. The data centre cools itself.

Vladimir Paul, CxA  ·  Commissioning Agent, SGM Engineering Inc.  ·  Florida

Vladimir Paul is a Certified Commissioning Authority and licensed Mechanical Contractor based in Florida, with over two decades of experience across the full lifecycle of mechanical and HVAC systems. His background runs from hands-on field work — technician, foreman, superintendent — through project management and company leadership, including CEO of a mechanical contracting firm, to his current focus in commissioning: the discipline where systems are tested, validated, and verified against design intent in real-world conditions.

What defines Vladimir's perspective is a combination that is genuinely rare: deep practical installation knowledge from years in the field, combined with high-level system commissioning expertise that operates at the intersection of engineering design and operational reality. He sees both what was specified and what actually happens when the system runs. The technical framework for Port 3 emerged from that vantage point — unsolicited, precise, and grounded in decades of watching HVAC systems perform and fail in the field. He is currently pursuing advanced research interests in modified absorption cycles for sub-70 °C driving temperatures. Connect with Vladimir on LinkedIn →

Q P3-01   ·   The Concept

What is Port 3 — and why does the data centre benefit from it?

Ports 1 and 2 of the Reverse Thermal Plug export waste heat outward — to bio-processes and district heating networks. You proposed something structurally different. Walk me through the logic.

Ports 1 and 2 treat heat as a product to be sold or transferred. Port 3 treats it as a fuel. The idea is straightforward: instead of exporting the data centre's waste heat to an external off-taker, you route it into an absorption chiller that produces chilled water — and that chilled water goes back into the data centre's own cooling loop. The data centre partially cools itself using the heat it generates. The thermal liability becomes the cooling asset.

In a conventional data centre, cooling is an electrical cost — compressors, variable-speed drives, refrigerant cycles running continuously. An absorption chiller replaces the compressor with a thermochemical process. The electricity demand for cooling drops. The waste heat that was previously rejected to the atmosphere now does mechanical work before it leaves the building. The interface that enables this is Port 3 of the Reverse Thermal Plug — a third output on the same standardised boundary, feeding the chiller's driving circuit.

You are not exporting the heat anymore. You are putting it to work before it leaves. That is a fundamentally different value proposition — and it closes the loop.
Q P3-02   ·   The Chemistry

How does an absorption chiller actually work? No textbook — explain it like an engineer on a whiteboard.

Most people understand compression cooling. Almost nobody understands absorption. Make it concrete.

Instead of a compressor, you have a bucket of salt. Lithium bromide — LiBr — dissolved in water. That salt solution has an extreme affinity for water vapour. It pulls moisture out of the surrounding air with significant force — think of it as a chemical vacuum pump, except the only energy input is heat, not electricity.

Here is the cycle. The evaporator operates under slight vacuum — water does not need to reach 100 degrees Celsius to boil under reduced pressure. At a few millibars of vacuum, water boils at 4 to 5 degrees Celsius. That phase change absorbs heat from the surrounding circuit, producing chilled water at precisely the temperature a data centre cooling loop needs. The water vapour produced by that boiling is immediately pulled into the absorber chamber by the LiBr solution waiting there.

Now the salt solution is diluted — it has absorbed water and lost its pulling power. You pump it to the regenerator, where the free heat input — your data centre waste heat — drives the water back out of the solution. Concentrated LiBr is restored. The expelled water vapour moves to the condenser, returns to liquid, and cycles back to the evaporator. The compressor has been replaced entirely by the heat-driven regeneration step. No refrigerant. No high-pressure compression. The only moving parts are low-pressure pumps.

LiBr Absorption Chiller — Key Parameters

Working pair: Lithium bromide (absorbent) + water (refrigerant)

Evaporator output: 4–7 °C chilled water · operating pressure: ~6–10 mbar

COP: 0.7–0.8 (single-effect, chiller unit only) · no compressor, no refrigerant circuit

Net system COP (including vacuum pumps, solution pumps, controls): est. 0.45–0.65 under variable-load conditions

Driving temperature required: 70–90 °C (standard) · low-temp variants: 65–70 °C minimum

Commercial reference: Yazaki WFC series (Japan) — low-temperature absorption chillers

Also produced by: Carrier, Trane, Broad — primarily for cogeneration / turbine exhaust applications

Q P3-03   ·   The Temperature Gap

Data centres reject heat at 40 to 60 degrees. The chiller needs 70 to 80. How do you bridge that gap?

This is the central constraint. The technology exists. The temperature does not match. What are the realistic paths?

The gap is real and must not be minimised. Standard data centre waste heat — condenser water return on an air-cooled campus, warm-water loop on a liquid-cooled campus — sits at 40 to 60 degrees Celsius. Even the most temperature-optimised low-end absorption chillers, like Yazaki's WFC series, need a minimum of 70 degrees, ideally 80, at the driving circuit inlet. You are 15 to 30 degrees short depending on the specific installation.

There are two engineering bridges. The first is a heat pump uplift — a relatively small unit sized only for the temperature boost, not for the full cooling load. At a coefficient of performance between 3 and 5 for a lift of this size, you spend roughly one kilowatt-hour of electricity to move three to five kilowatt-hours of heat from 55 to 80 degrees Celsius. The net cooling output from the absorption chiller still exceeds the uplift cost — but only if the waste heat itself is genuinely free. In a data centre, it is. The second bridge is solar thermal collection. In a high-irradiance climate, flat-plate or evacuated-tube collectors can deliver fluid at 70 to 85 degrees Celsius with no electricity cost. The data centre waste heat provides the stable thermal baseload; solar provides the temperature top-up. A buffer storage tank between the two smooths the solar intermittency and feeds the chiller a consistent driving temperature.

Florida makes this argument almost embarrassingly obvious. Vladimir's observation is precise: a car parked in the Florida sun reaches interior temperatures where you could brew tea within two hours. That is not metaphor — that is a solar thermal collector operating at ambient conditions with no engineering whatsoever. With actual collectors and thermal mass, 80 degrees Celsius is a conservative target.

Temperature Bridge — Options

DC waste heat available: 40–60 °C (air-cooled) · 50–65 °C (liquid-cooled)

Chiller driving requirement: 70 °C minimum · 80 °C optimal

Bridge option 1 — Heat pump uplift: ΔT +15–30 °C · COP 3–5 (at this lift) · electrical cost: ~0.2–0.3 kWh per kWh of chilling

Bridge option 2 — Solar thermal: 70–85 °C output · free fuel cost · intermittent, requires buffer storage

Hybrid: DC waste heat (baseload) + solar thermal (temperature boost) + insulated tank (buffer) → stable 75–80 °C driving circuit

Q P3-04   ·   The Unsolved Problem

Where does the system break down? What is the honest engineering challenge that is not yet solved?

The chemistry is proven. The hardware exists. Yazaki is a real company with a real product line. So why is this not already running at data centre waste heat temperatures everywhere?

Because three problems intersect at the system level in a way that none of them does in isolation. The first is thermal storage at small scale. The chiller wants a stable, continuous driving temperature. Data centre waste heat output varies with compute load — predictably over hours, less predictably over minutes. Solar input varies with weather. The buffer tank design that smooths both inputs simultaneously at small scale — 50 to 500 kilowatt thermal range — has not been solved in a cost-effective, field-validated configuration. Large district heating networks have solved this at megawatt scale. The small-scale version remains an open engineering problem.

The second is control. The absorption cycle has a critical timing decision: when do you trigger regeneration — the step where you drive water back out of the diluted LiBr solution using heat? Too early and you waste driving energy regenerating a solution that still has capacity. Too late and the solution is so diluted that cooling output collapses. In a laboratory with stable heat input and stable load, this is manageable. Under variable driving temperature from a real data centre load profile combined with variable ambient conditions, it becomes a real-time optimisation problem. No robust, low-cost adaptive controller for this specific configuration exists in commercial form today.

The third is balance-of-plant cost. The chiller itself — the LiBr unit, the evaporator, the absorber — is not the expensive component at this scale. The heat exchangers, the buffer storage, the control system, the water treatment circuit, and the installation engineering are. The capital cost of the balance-of-plant currently undermines the business case for deployments below roughly 500 kilowatt thermal driving input. Above that threshold, the economics work. Below it, they do not yet.

Operational Risk Register — LiBr Systems

Crystallisation risk: sudden drop of driving temperature below ~55 °C causes LiBr solution to crystallise in circuit — requires controlled shutdown logic and buffer storage as protective layer

Corrosion: LiBr is highly corrosive to ferrous metals — all wetted components must be stainless steel or specified corrosion-resistant alloys

Vacuum integrity: any air ingress into the low-pressure circuit degrades COP rapidly — requires routine leak-testing as scheduled maintenance

Supply chain note: LiBr is produced primarily in China and Japan — EU critical materials exposure exists at scale; no immediate scarcity risk in 2026 but a relevant consideration for 20-year infrastructure planning

Fault handling: each connected off-taker maintains independent backup capacity — the interface is valve-controlled and isolatable in seconds. Full redundancy model defined in Interview II.

Q P3-05   ·   The Research Frontier

You mentioned a modification that has not been tried commercially. What is it?

You described an idea during our conversation that you said you have never seen implemented. It is worth stating precisely.

The idea is to apply a slight vacuum to the condenser chamber — not the evaporator, which already operates under vacuum, but the condenser side. In a standard absorption chiller, the condenser operates at near-atmospheric pressure. The regenerated water vapour condenses there before returning to the evaporator. If you reduce pressure in the condenser, the LiBr solution releases water vapour at a lower temperature during regeneration. That shifts the minimum effective driving temperature downward — potentially by 8 to 15 degrees Celsius, from the 70-to-80 band toward roughly 65 to 70 degrees Celsius — which narrows the gap to the upper edge of the data centre waste heat band and sharply reduces, though does not always eliminate, the uplift requirement.

The engineering constraints are real: the vacuum system adds complexity and energy cost, and there is a threshold below which the vacuum energy demand exceeds the benefit of the lower driving temperature. The lower bound is set by the cooling water — the condenser must still stay warmer than the cooling-water return, so the achievable reduction is climate-dependent. That threshold has not been rigorously characterised for this configuration. A modest reduction from the standard ~65 mbar condenser pressure down toward roughly 40 to 50 mbar absolute might shift the driving temperature enough to be worthwhile at a net energy cost that still makes the system viable. This needs to be modelled first — MATLAB or equivalent — before it is built. But the thermodynamic logic is sound, and to the best of our knowledge, no commercial system has implemented it at data centre waste heat conditions.

Open Research Proposition — Dual-Chamber Pressure-Controlled LiBr Cycle

Hypothesis: reducing condenser pressure from the standard ~65 mbar toward ~40–50 mbar lowers the regeneration driving temperature by ~8–15 °C (from ~80 °C toward ~65–70 °C); lower bound constrained by cooling-water temperature

Required: modelling (MATLAB / EES) of net COP vs. vacuum energy cost across condenser pressure range

If validated: narrows the temperature gap toward the DC waste-heat band, reducing or removing the heat-pump / solar uplift

Status: thermodynamically plausible · not commercially implemented · PhD-worthy research scope

Dynamic system model (Modelica / MATLAB) under development with Vladimir Paul · expected Q3 2026 · contact via LinkedIn for collaboration

Contact: Vladimir Paul on LinkedIn — pursuing this research direction

Q P3-06   ·   The Thermal Plug Integration

How does Port 3 connect to the existing Reverse Thermal Plug architecture?

Ports 1 and 2 are already defined — bio-processes at 35 to 55 degrees Celsius, district heating at 60 to 80 degrees Celsius. Where does the absorption chiller sit on that same interface?

Port 3 taps the secondary loop at the highest available temperature — the point closest to the isolation boundary where the fluid is hottest before any downstream off-take has extracted energy from it. Depending on the driving temperature available and whether a heat pump uplift is included, the chiller's driving circuit receives fluid at 70 to 80 degrees Celsius. The chilled water output — at 6 to 10 degrees Celsius — is returned directly to the data centre's own cooling distribution system, reducing the load on the mechanical chiller plant.

The three ports now cover the full thermal output spectrum of the interface in a logical cascade. Port 3 at the high end extracts value from the highest-temperature portion of the secondary loop. Port 2 — district heating — takes the mid-temperature band. Port 1 — bio-processes — uses the lowest temperature band where biology operates. Nothing is wasted at any temperature level. The interface dispatches heat to the most thermodynamically appropriate use at each point in the cascade. That is what source-agnostic design actually means when fully realised: not just compatibility with different heat sources, but full utilisation of the available temperature gradient across every connected off-taker simultaneously.

Three-Port Thermal Plug — Temperature Cascade

Port 3 — Absorption chiller driving circuit: 70–80 °C · output: 6–10 °C chilled water back to DC

Port 2 — District heating supply: 60–80 °C · output: heat delivered to external network

Port 1 — Bio-processes (biogas fermenters, algae): 35–55 °C · direct temperature match

Cascade logic: highest temperature → most thermodynamically demanding use first

Result: closed thermal loop — DC waste heat partially returns as cooling to the DC itself

Boundary definition: the interface ends at the metered handover skid — ownership, liability, and control responsibility are defined in full in Interview II.

Ports 1 and 2 sell the heat. Port 3 puts it to work — and sends the result back. One interface. Three directions. Nothing wasted at any temperature level.

Why not simply export all the heat externally? Heat export remains an option — it is Port 2. Port 3 answers a different question: what if the data centre does not want to depend on an external off-taker for its cooling economics? Self-cooling via Port 3 lowers PUE directly at the IT load, reduces grid dependency, and eliminates the negotiation with external heat networks. The operator chooses the proportion. The interface supports both simultaneously.

Dimitri Wolf   ·   Reverse Thermal Plug · Port 3
Block II   ·   Validation
This Already Is a Thermal Plug
These projects are already operating. These projects are not Thermal Plugs by name. They are Thermal Plugs by architecture. That distinction matters — and so does the pattern. They were not designed with this framework. They arrived at the same boundary condition by engineering logic and regulatory pressure. Recognising that pattern is not marketing. It is taxonomy.
Block III   ·   Assessment
Where It Could Go Next
Three major upcoming deployments assessed against four questions: Can a Thermal Plug be used here? Is the location viable? Which mode? What is the real obstacle?
Assessment 01   ·   United States · Pennsylvania   ·   Target: 2027–2028
Microsoft — Crane Clean Energy Center (Three Mile Island Unit 1 Restart)
Can a Thermal Plug be used here?
Conditional Yes — but the most accessible application is the data centre Microsoft builds to consume the 835 MW of electricity, not the reactor cooling circuit directly. The reactor condenser operates at 30 to 50 degrees Celsius above ambient — useful for district heating and greenhouse agriculture, but below the ORC power generation threshold. The data centre waste heat is the more immediate Thermal Plug candidate: higher export temperature, no nuclear licensing complexity, deployable on a standard commercial timeline.
Is the location viable?
Susquehanna River valley, central Pennsylvania. Moderate population density within a 20-kilometre radius. No significant district heating infrastructure currently exists — any thermal off-take network would need to be built from scratch alongside the plant restart. Agricultural land surrounds the site; greenhouse operations and controlled-environment agriculture are realistic off-takers without requiring urban pipe infrastructure.
Which mode?
Data centre waste heat → Thermal Plug → district heating (if infrastructure is built) or controlled-environment agriculture (no new urban pipe network required). Reactor condenser → low-grade heat supplement for greenhouse operations. ORC generation is not viable at condenser temperatures.
What is the real obstacle?
Obstacle No pre-existing thermal off-take infrastructure. The Thermal Plug interface must be specified at the data centre design stage — if the facility is commissioned without it, retrofit costs change the economics significantly. The window to influence the design is 2026. After that, it closes.
Assessment 02   ·   United States · Nevada   ·   Target: 2028–2030
Google — Ormat Technologies Geothermal PPA (Nevada)
Can a Thermal Plug be used here?
Strongest Candidate This is the most direct match on the list. (Google's separate Kairos Power SMR programme — a distinct deal, sited primarily in Tennessee with TVA — is a nuclear path, not this Nevada geothermal one; the two should not be conflated.) The Ormat geothermal PPA is structured around always-on baseload power for Nevada data centres. The heat that Ormat's binary cycle plants reject — after electrical generation — exits the system unused. That residual thermal output, routed through a Deep Thermal Plug interface, is the ORC cascade architecture described in Block I. The hardware is already being installed. The thermal interface is the missing component.
Is the location viable?
Nevada Great Basin geology: confirmed hydrothermal and EGS-viable rock, with Ormat's operational expertise already established in the region. Low population density limits district heating as a primary off-take. However, the combination of arid climate, year-round growing season in greenhouse enclosures, and chronic regional water scarcity makes thermal aquaculture and controlled-environment agriculture compelling off-takers. Grid-connected ORC power is the primary value mechanism in this geography.
Which mode?
ORC power cascade first (maximise electrical output from 150 °C+ inlet), then Deep Thermal Plug for data centre thermal management at 80–100 °C, residual heat to greenhouse agriculture or aquaculture. Full cascade utilisation — no thermal output wasted at any stage.
What is the real obstacle?
Obstacle The current PPA is an electricity-only agreement. Google pays for kilowatt-hours delivered to the grid on its behalf. The thermal cascade model requires Ormat and Google to structure a separate heat-supply agreement layered on top of the existing power contract — a different counterparty relationship, a different regulatory category, and a different revenue model for Ormat. The engineering is straightforward. The contractual architecture is not.
Assessment 03   ·   United States · Multiple States   ·   Target: 2027–2035
Meta — 6.6 GW Nuclear Programme (Vistra + TerraPower Natrium + Oklo Aurora)
Can a Thermal Plug be used here?
Partial — three different profiles Meta's programme spans three reactor types with fundamentally different thermal characteristics. Vistra uprates at existing Ohio and Pennsylvania plants are conventional PWR configurations — same model as TMI above. TerraPower Natrium operates a sodium fast reactor with integrated molten salt thermal storage at approximately 500 degrees Celsius — a high-temperature source that requires a bespoke isolation interface, not a standard Thermal Plug configuration. Oklo Aurora Powerhouse units — now rated at roughly 50 to 75 MWe after the design was scaled up for data-centre loads — are designed for siting next to the load and are the most direct fit for a Deep Thermal Plug: compact, sited near data centre infrastructure, producing thermal output in a range compatible with district heating and process heat without reactor-grade interface complexity.
Is the location viable?
Vistra plants: Ohio and Pennsylvania — established industrial regions, existing district heating potential if infrastructure is built. TerraPower Natrium first plant: Kemmerer, Wyoming — remote, low population density, limited thermal off-take demand nearby. Oklo Aurora: siting is flexible by design — Aurora units are built to be positioned next to data centre load in a wide range of geographies, which is precisely what makes them the most viable Deep Thermal Plug host in this programme.
Which mode?
Oklo Aurora → Deep Thermal Plug for micro-grid thermal management at data centre edge: strongest fit, most deployable, shortest lead time. Vistra uprates → Thermal Plug for district heating if infrastructure investment is made alongside uprate capital programme. TerraPower Natrium → industrial process heat via bespoke high-temperature isolation interface: viable at scale but requires purpose-engineered thermal substation, not the standard plug configuration.
What is the real obstacle?
Obstacle TerraPower and Oklo are pre-commercial. Natrium's first plant at Kemmerer, Wyoming entered construction in 2026 and targets commercial operation around 2030–2031. Oklo broke ground on its first Aurora unit at Idaho National Laboratory in 2025, targeting operations in late 2027 to 2028; the Meta-linked campus is a 2030-plus horizon. These remain 4 to 9 year horizon plays. The Deep Thermal Plug must be specified into the plant design at the engineering stage. A thermal off-take agreement retrofitted onto a nuclear facility post-commissioning involves licensing re-evaluation, additional permitting, and capital cost that makes the economics materially worse than designing for it from the outset. The window to influence Oklo's deployment architecture is now — not after first light.

The projects being designed in 2026 will still be standing in 2050. The thermal interface decisions embedded in those designs will determine the bankable optionality of those assets for the next thirty years. The Deep Thermal Plug is not a retrofit. It is a design-stage decision.

Dimitri Wolf   ·   Deep Thermal Plug
Deep Thermal Plug   ·   The Position
Three ports.
One interface.
Nothing wasted.

The Reverse Thermal Plug was introduced in Interview II as a bidirectional thermal utility interface — accepting heat from the outside when the data centre needs it, exporting heat to the outside when it does not. The engineering case was made for biogas fermentation as the anchor off-taker, because the temperature match is exact, the demand is continuous, and the economics accrue from avoided gas consumption rather than a bilateral price negotiation. That case stands unchanged.

What this extension establishes is that the interface was never limited to that application. It was designed to accept heat from any source that delivers it at the right temperature band through a clean secondary loop. EGS geothermal satisfies both conditions. It satisfies them permanently, at baseload, with a capital cost structure that becomes more favourable each year as DOE drilling cost targets are met. The name changes — Deep Thermal Plug — because the source is different. The interface concept does not change; only the skid's temperature rating does.

The existing projects catalogued in Block II arrived at the same architecture independently, by engineering logic and regulatory pressure. They call it district heating integration, waste heat recovery, or thermal reuse compliance. The vocabulary is different. The boundary — a metered heat exchanger skid between the data centre and an external off-taker — is identical in every case. The framework to read those projects as a system, and to project that system into the upcoming deployments assessed in Block III, is what this series provides.

The window to influence the next generation of data centre and energy infrastructure is defined by design cycles, not by opinion. The campuses and plants being engineered in 2026 will lock in their thermal architecture within 18 to 24 months. After that point, the conversation shifts from design to retrofit, and the economics look entirely different. The Deep Thermal Plug is a design-stage position. It belongs in the room before the decisions are made — not after.

Port 3 does not export the heat. It converts it. One standardised interface — three directions, three value streams, nothing wasted at any temperature level. — Dimitri Wolf