isentropic

It's just that the compression and heating that shocks effect causes much greater heating than the isentropic case.

The implication is that the heating is like when one compresses air in a bicycle pump, the increase in temperature that comes from adiabatic (reversible, isentropic) compression of a gas.

For more complex molecules the isentropic exponent approaches 1.1, and for steam 1.14, with a critical pressure ratio of ~0.58.

Placing the Isentropic center near a population center wouldn't give you any advantage there.

The Isentropic advantage is that you don't need a reservoir to store the energy, the storage system can be build regardless of geography.

It's like going to the mechanic with a leaky valve and having the explanation come back in terms of cycle efficiencies and isentropic losses.

For diatomic molecules (our air), the isentropic exponent is 1.4, and the critical pressure ratio at which Mach 1 will be reached is ~0.5, i.e.

There's a company out there, Isentropic Systems, that's trying this.

It's fully characterized through the pressure ratio between high-pressure reservoir (here: inside of bottle) and low-pressure surroundings, and a parameter characterizing the molecular structure, the isentropic exponent.

Unless I missed someone recently receiving a Nobel prize for demonstrating proof of isentropic metabolism, or non-metabolic life, this doesn't answer the question whatsoever.

I think the EPA is referring to isentropic efficiency[0], which is "efficiency" compared to the theoretical maximum for the delta T involved.

(theoretical minimum energy consumption) / (actual energy consumption) In thermodynamic systems the second is often expressed as "isentropic efficiency" or similar.

Isentropic: potentially lower cost than us (gravel's not too expensive), but significantly more loss channels, so a tougher efficiency problem.

Isentropic compression will result in a higher temperature of the compressed fluid.