Performance Analysis and Optimization of Double-Flash Geothermal Power Plants

Ahmet Dagdas
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Yildiz Technical University (YTU), 34349, Besiktas, Istanbul, Turkey e-mail: dagdas@yildiz.edu.tr

One of the most important cycles for electricity generation from geothermal energy is the double-ash cycle. Approximately 25% of the total geothermal based electricity generation all over the world comes from double-ash geothermal power plants. In this paper, performance analysis of a hypothetical double-ash geothermal power plant is performed and variations of fundamental characteristics of the plant are examined. In the performance analysis, initially, optimum ashing pressures are determined, and energy and exergy values of the base points of the plant are calculated. In addition, rst and second law efciencies of the power plant are calculated. Main exergy destruction locations are determined and these losses are illustrated in an exergy ow diagram. For these purposes, it is assumed that a hypothetical double-ash geothermal power plant is constructed in the conditions of western Turkey. The geothermal eld where the power plant will be built produces geouid at a temperature of 210 C and a mass ow rate of 200 kg/ s. According to simulation results, it is possible to produce 11,488 kWe electrical power output in this eld. Optimum rst and second ashing pressures are determined to be 530 kPa and 95 kPa, respectively. Based on the exergy of the geothermal uid at reservoir, overall rst and second law efciencies of the power plant are also calculated to be 6.88% and 28.55%, respectively. DOI: 10.1115/1.2719204 Keywords: geothermal, double ash, power plant, exergy, optimization, performance analysis, Turkey

Introduction

Geothermal energy is becoming an attractive energy resource again because of rising oil prices and environmental pollution. Since oil prices have risen above 55 US$/barrel, geothermal energy is more competitive compared to conventional fossil fuel systems. Particularly, geothermal direct use applications have increased approximately twofold in the last ve years 20002005 1. In the same period, geothermal-based electricity generation has increased by nearly 1 MWe. Geothermal-based electricity generation is expected to continue to increase in the next few years all over the world because of the privatization of construction and operation of geothermal power plants in many countries. With respect to the 2005 data, the number of countries that produce electricity from geothermal resources has reached 24. These countries are listed in Table 1. Also shown in this table are the geothermal-based installed electricity capacities of the countries for the years 1995, 2000, and 2005, and the power increase in between 2000 and 2005. The countries are listed according to installed capacities in 2005. Total installed capacities and electricity produced reached 8912 MWe and 56,798 GWh, respectively, in 2005. The installed capacity increase is 12% from 2000 7974 MW in 2000 2 . Austria, Germany, and Papua New Guinea have entered the geothermal power community since 2000. Geothermal power plants in Argentina and Greece were dismantled in the same period 2 . Geothermal direct utilization capacities reached 27,825 MWt in 2005 1 . This is a nearly twofold augmentation since 2000. Thermal energy used was 261,418 TJ/ y 72,622 GWh/ y . The distriContributed by the Advanced Energy Systems Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF ENERGY RESOURCES TECHNOLOGY. Manuscript received January 31, 2006; nal manuscript received October 9, 2006. Review conducted by Enrico Sciubba.

bution of thermal energy used by category was approximately 33% for geothermal heat pump applications, 29% for balneology spa, thermal bath, swimming pool , 20% for space heating applications of which 77% was for district heating , 7.5% greenhouse and open-area heating, 4% for industrial process heat, 4% for aquaculture applications, 1% for agricultural drying activities, 1% snow melting and cooling, 0.5% for other uses 1 . The distribution of all geothermal power plants in the world with respect to electricity generation technologies is shown in Table 2 3 . As can be seen in the table, the single-ash technology is the most commonly used system. Of the electricity produced from all geothermal power plants, 39.9% comes from single-ash plants. If the geouid remaining from a single-ash system separator has enough temperature and pressure, one more ashing can be performed in order to obtain more steam. Excess steam produced from the second ashing can enter either a separate low pressure turbine or suitable pressure stage of the same steam turbine. This cycle is called a double-ash cycle. Of the geothermal-based electricity produced all over the world, 24.8% is produced with double-ash technology Table 2 . From the same geothermal uid ow rate, the double-ash power cycle can generate 2025% more power than the singleash cycle. However, double-ash technology is more expensive because of the extra equipment 4 . For comparison, the performances of single- and double-ash cycles based on a reservoir temperature of 250 C and a sink condition of 40 C, gave exergetic efciencies of 38.7% and 49%, respectively, assuming 65% mechanical efciency 5 . The ashing and condensation pressures have very important effects on power plant performance and economy. For this reason, these pressures should be optimized as a function of economic limits and local environmental conditions. In the ashing technology, commercial turbine-generator unit capacities are in the range of 10 55 MWe 6 . Examining the applications in the USA, if the geouid tempera-

Table 1

Installed capacity of geothermal power plant, country by country 1995 MW 2817 1227 753 310 632 414 286 50 55 105 45 11 35 0 29 20 5 4 0 0 0 0.3 0 0.2 6797 2000 MW 2228 1909 755 590 785 547 437 170 143 161 45 23 70 33 29 20 16 4 7 0 0 0.3 0 0.2 7974 2005 MW 2544 1931 953 797 790 535 435 202 163 151 127 79 77 33 28 20 16 15 7 6 1 0.3 0.2 0.2 8912 20002005 Increase MW 316 22 198 207 5 12 2 32 20 10 82 56 7 0 1 0 0 11 0 6 1 0 0.2 0 938 Increase % 3 1 16 35 1 Stable Stable 19 14 Stable 182 244 10 Stable Stable Stable Stable 275 Stable New entry New entry Stable New entry Stable 12

Country USA Philippines Mexico Indonesia Italy Japan New Zealand Iceland Costa Rica El Salvador Kenya Russia Nicaragua Guatemala China Turkey Portugal France Ethiopia Papua New Guinea Austria Thailand Germany Australia TOTAL

ture is greater than about 260 C, the single-ash cycle is generally used. If the temperature is in the range of 175 260 C, the double-ash cycle is selected 7 . Table 3 shows the main double-ash geothermal power plants, their power capacities, and geothermal steam temperatures 8 . As an example, the Beowawe geothermal power plant in Nevada, USA, can be considered. This plant was designed with a doubleash cycle and was installed in 1985. Its power capacity is about 16 MWe. Resource temperature and mass ow rate of the geothermal water are 215 C and 157.5 kg/ s, respectively 4 . Turkey has great geothermal potential. There are about 600 geothermal resources in a total of 170 geothermal elds. The total heat potential of the resource is 31,500 MWt. The main uses of geothermal energy in Turkey are space heating and domestic hot water supply, greenhouse heating, balneology, CO2 and dry-ice production process, heat pumps, and electricity generation 9 . The direct-use geothermal capacity of Turkey has reached 1077 MWt according to 2005 data 10,11 . According to the analysis performed, although the geothermal electricity generation potential of Turkey is about 4500 MWe, there is only one geothermal power plant running with capacity of about 10 MWe 12 . A second geothermal power plant is being installed in the Aydn-Salavatl geothermal eld. This plant will use a binary power cycle Organic Rankine Cycle and its power capacity will be 8.5 MWe. The power plant started operation in May 2006. Due
Table 2 Category Dry steam Single ash Double ash Triple ash Binary Flash-binary Hybrid TOTAL Geothermal power plant distribution worldwide 23 Installed capacity MW 2460 3541.39 2196.54 93.8 274.19 300.6 6 8872.52 Percent 27.7 39.9 24.8 1.1 3.1 3.4 0.1 100

to some operating problems, it is planned to produce 6.5 MWe power. In this eld, there are four geothermal wells, namely, AS1, AS2, ASR1, and ASR2. According to the plant project, inlet temperature and mass ow rate of the geouid to the evaporator are 155 C and 153 kg/ s, respectively. The plant will use pentane as the working uid. There are a pair of preheater and evaporator, two turbines, and one generator. The condensing system has an air-cooled condenser. This plant can be characterized as the rst private sector investment in geothermal power. The owner of the plant is MB Holding. Total investment cost of the plant is approximately 15 million US$ and World Bank credits have been used for construction 13 .
Table 3 Main double-ash geothermal power plant worldwide Power capacity MW 55 55 68.75 68.75 68.75 68.75 37.5 37.5 37.5 55.76 35 35 31.5 35.3 52 16 32.2 54 21.7 21.7 Steam temperature C 161.3/ 109.4 164.2/ 106.6 162.3/ 115.6 162.3/ 115.6 162.3/ 115.6 162.3/ 115.6 155.5/ 102.8 155.5/ 102.8 155.5/ 102.8 163.7/ 139.3 168/ 118 168/ 118 188 145/ 121 141.7/ 101.7 145.5/ 99.1 155.5/ 105 170.1/ 115.6 134.4/ 103.8 134.4/ 103.8

Country Japan Japan Philippines Philippines Philippines Philippines Philippines Philippines Philippines Philippines Iceland Iceland Iceland Mexico USA USA USA USA USA USA

Plant name Kyushu Hatchobaru No. 2 Banahaw No. 1 Banahaw No. 2 Banahaw No. 3 Banahaw No. 4 Tongonan No. 1 Tongonan No. 2 Tongonan No. 3 Mindanao No. 2 Kraa No. 1 Kraa No. 2 Nesjavellir No. 4 Cerro Prieto I No. 5 Heber Beowawe Coso No. 1 Salton Sea No. 3 Geo East Mesa No. 1 Geo East Mesa No. 2

Fig. 1 plant

A simplied scheme of double-ash geothermal power Fig. 2 T-s diagram of the double-ash geothermal power plant

It is planned that another geothermal power plant will be installed in the Aydn-Germencik geothermal eld. This plant will also be of the binary type and it will generate 25 MWe of power. The geouid collected from ve production wells in the eld has a temperature of 210 C and mass ow rate of 398 kg/ s 14 . In Turkey, renewable energy law studies are still ongoing. It is expected that the amount of geothermal power generation will increase signicantly if the renewable energy law becomes effective. Particularly, private sector investments will increase signicantly in geothermal power generation.

Analysis

In this paper, the performance analysis and ashing pressure optimizations of a hypothetical double-ash geothermal power plant, shown in Fig. 1, are performed. Engineering Equation Solver EES software has been used for analysis 16 . The selected values for the power plant and the geothermal eld are those of conditions in western Turkey. Reservoir temperature and geouid mass ow rate are selected to be 210 C and 200 kg/ s, respectively. These values are obtainable in western Turkey. Another purpose of this study is to determine the power capacity and efciency values of a double-ash power plant for possible installation in this region. 3.1 Determining the Optimal Flashing Pressures. As mentioned above, ashing pressures have optimal values. In this study, the ashing pressures that yield maximum total net power output have been selected as optimal values. According to computer analysis, optimal rst ashing pressure is 530 kPa Fig. 3 . Optimal second ashing pressure has been determined to be 95 kPa Fig. 4 . After the optimal ashing pressures have been found, other analyses were performed. The inlet data of the computer program are listed in Table 4. 3.2 Energy and Exergy Analysis of the Geothermal Power Plant. The most effective method for evaluating the power plants and other thermal systems performance is to use the rst and

2 Description of the Double-Flash Geothermal Power Plant

Figure 1 shows a simplied scheme of a double-ash geothermal power plant. Once the geouid exits from the resource to the surface, evaporation can begin because of the decrease in pressure. However, the steam obtained is not enough for power generation. For this reason, the pressure of the geouid should be decreased at constant enthalpy. This process is called the ashing process. There is an optimum value of the ashing pressure for maximum power generation 1215 . After the ashing process, two-phase liquid+ steam uid enters a separator to separate steam and liquid via their different specic volumes. The steam gained passes through a high pressure turbine, and a generator coupled with the turbine produces electricity. If the uid extracted from the separator has a high enough temperature and pressure, the second ashing process can be performed. Thus, the twophase uid can be acquired again. This process is called the second ashing process. The twophase uid obtained the second time is separated in the second separator. Saturated steam extracted from the second separator is mixed in a mixing box with other wet steam from the high pressure turbine to obtain greater steam quality. The extra steam gained passes through a low pressure turbine and additional power is produced from the generator coupled with the second turbine. A temperature-entropy T-s diagram of the double-ash geothermal power plant is shown in Fig. 2. The ashing processes are accomplished at constant enthalpies R-1-2 and 8-9 . Separation processes are constant temperature and constant pressure processes 2-8-3 and 9-11-10 . The expansion processes that occur in the high and low pressure turbines are real processes 3-4 and 5-6 . The 3 4s and 5 6s processes shown in the T-s diagram are isentropic processes. These processes represent the turbine expansion at constant entropy.

Fig. 3 Optimum rst ashing pressure of the double-ash geothermal power plant. Second ashing pressure is 100 kPa.

Fig. 4 Optimum second ashing pressure of the double-ash geothermal power plant. First ashing pressure is 530 kPa.

second laws of thermodynamics. The rst and second laws of thermodynamics are related to energy and exergy concepts, respectively. In this way, energy and exergy values of the base points of the power plant can be calculated. In the absence of nuclear, magnetic, electrical, and surface tension effects, the total exergy of a system Ex can be divided into four components: physical exergy Eph , kinetic exergy Ekn , pox x tential exergy Ept , and chemical exergy Ech 17 . x x Ex = Eph + Ekn + Ept + Ech x x x x 1
Fig. 5 Percentage loss in exergy relative to pure saturated liquid water as a function of temperature for various values of NaCl molality 18

Although exergy is an extensive property, it is convenient to express it according to units of mass basis. The total specic exergy on a mass basis e is given by ex = eph + ekn + ept + ech x x x x 2

In geothermal systems, only the physical and chemical exergies of the geouid can be considered. Geouid contains various dissolved solid minerals salts , and these contents also have exergy value. DiPippo 18 did an analysis related to exergy loss of geothermal systems. Figure 5 shows the results of the analysis. In this analysis, western Turkeys geouid conditions have been considered. In this region, geouid contains total dissolved solids of 2500 3200 ppm, typically 12 . In Fig. 5, exergy loss of the used geouid relative to pure saturated liquid water is calculated to be nearly 0.4%. This value is very small and does not affect the general performance of the geothermal power plant, and therefore can be neglected. Geothermal power plants are considered as steady-state systems with only one inlet and one outlet. The rst law of thermodynamics for the open system can be written as follows 19

1 Q W = m h h0 + V2 V2 + g z z0 0 2

where Q is the heat rate, W is the power, m is the mass ow rate, h is the enthalpy of the uid, V is the velocity, and z is the height. The kinetic energy and potential energy differences are very small relative to the enthalpy difference in geothermal power plants. If these terms are neglected, simplied equation can be given as Q W = m h h0 4

The total entropy generation Sgen during a process that may include heat transfer only with the surroundings can be written as 19,20 Q Sgen = m s s0 T0 5

Table 4

The input data for computer analysis 210 C 200 kg/ s 530 kPa 95 kPa 10 kPa 1500 kPa 0.70 0.94 15 C 96 kPa

where T0 is the dead state temperature and s is the entropy. There is no entropy generation in a reversible process. If the geothermal system is accepted as reversible, Eq. 5 becomes Q = mT0 s s0 6

Geouid temperature at reservoir Geouid mass ow rate First ashing pressure optimum Second ashing pressure optimum Steam pressure at low pressure turbine outlet Wellhead pressure of geouid Turbine isentropic efciency Generator efciency Dead state temperature Dead state pressure

By combining Eqs. 4 and 6 , maximum thermodynamic work can be obtained Wmax = m h h0 T0 s s0 7

If the entropy generation is zero, the maximum work of the geouid can be calculated with Eq. 7 . Since the nal state is the environmental condition, this work is equal to the exergy. All exergy quantities of the geouid have been calculated with this

Table 5 Characteristic values of the double-ash geothermal power plant at major locations at optimal pressures Temp. T C 15 210 198.3 154.1 154.1 98.22 98.22 45.85 45.85 154.1 98.22 98.22 98.22 Pressure P kPa 96 1905 1500 530 530 95 95 10 10 530 95 95 95 Mass Flow rate m kg/s 200 200 200 23.61 23.61 42.18 42.18 42.18 176.4 176.4 18.57 157.8 Enthalpy h kJ/kg 63.05 897.5 897.5 897.5 2751 2547 2602 2376 191.8 649.5 649.5 2673 411.4 Entropy s kJ/kg K 0.2244 2.423 2.425 2.463 6.802 7.04 7.189 7.493 0.6491 1.882 1.927 7.379 1.286 Energy ow rate E kW
n

State 0 R 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Exergy ow rate E kW
k

0 166,882 166,882 166,882 63,474 58,653 107,121 97,563 5,432 103,437 103,437 48,467 54,970

0 40,247 40,099 37,953 18,743 12,307 22,511 9,256 271.2 19,226 16,921 10,203 6,717

equation at the base points of the power plant. The dead state condition is represented by the subscript 0. The term in square brackets in Eq. 7 is equal to the specic exergy ex as follows ex = h h0 T0 s s0 en = h h0 8 9 The specic energy en of geouid can be calculated with Eq. 9 where h is the enthalpy of geouid at the given base point. Multiplying specic energy by the mass ow rate of the geouid gives the energy rate En = men 10

All equations are commonly used in the literature 12,2022 . The overall net power output of the plant Wtotalnet can be calculated as Wtotalnet = WnetI + WnetII 11

quite small, it has been omitted in the analysis. This assumption was used in some of the previous articles in the literature see Refs. 1221 . Temperature and pressure losses of the geouid are neglected in the separation and condensation processes. Flashing process is accomplished at constant enthalpy. Conditions in western Turkey have been selected for the dead state data. Dissolved mineral content of the geouid is suitable for the second ashing process. Geouid contents vary with geothermal reservoir characteristics. While some reservoirs can produce clean geothermal water e.g., in Iceland , most of the geothermal uids have dissolved mineral content. Dissolved mineral content in the geouid may affect the performance of the geothermal power plant. The scaling phenomenon is a very important problem in geothermal applications. Heat transfer can be affected by scaling. In this analysis, scaling effects have been neglected.

where WnetI is the net power output of the high pressure turbine and WnetII is the net power output of the low pressure turbine. The geouid enthalpy before the low pressure turbine can be calculated as m10h10 + m3h4 = m5h5 with notation of Fig. 1. The overall rst law efciency of the plant is
I

Results and Discussion

Table 5 lists temperature, pressure, mass ow rate, specic enthalpy, specic entropy, and energy and exergy ow rates of the geothermal power plant at the base points. There is a relationship between the ashing pressure and the steam quality, as shown in Fig. 6. According to this gure, when the ashing pressure decreases, the quality of the steam gained increases, which means that more steam can be produced. One of the limiting factors of the minimum ashing pressure is the dis-

Wtotalnet at reservoir conditions E

nR

12

where EnR is the energy rate of the geouid in the reservoir, and second law efciency is
II =

Wtotalnet at reservoir conditions E

xR

13

where ExR is the exergy rate of the geouid in the reservoir. There are some assumptions in the analysis. Some of them are as follows: Where the geouid exits the reservoir to the surface, enthalpy decrease of the geouid is neglected. The geouid is in a saturated liquid condition in the reservoir x = 0 . Fresh water properties have been used in the analysis, instead of thermodynamic properties of the geouid. As mentioned above, since the chemical exergy of the geouid is

Fig. 6

Steam quality vs rst ashing pressure P9 = 95 kPa

Fig. 7 The variation of mass ow rate of the steam related to rst ashing pressure P9 = 95 kPa

Fig. 9 Overall second law efciency of the power plant vs rst ashing pressure P9 = 95 kPa

solved mineral content of the geouid. When the pressure decreases, these minerals can cause scaling formation in the plant equipment. In the analysis, the geouid is assumed to be fresh water and scale formation is neglected. The relationship between the ashing pressure and the ow rate of the steam gained are shown in Fig. 7. Since the steam quality increases when the ashing pressure is decreased, the steam ow rate also increases in the same ratio. In other words, lower ashing pressure leads to a higher steam ow rate. According to the analysis performed, the optimal rst ashing pressure can be determined by the overall rst and second law efciencies of the power plant. The total net power output and the overall rst and second law efciencies are maximum if the system has optimal rst ashing pressure. These relationships can be seen in Figs. 8 and 9, respectively. In the analysis, the maximum net power output of the plant and the optimum ashing pressures are also examined for different resource temperatures. Variations in net power output of the plant with optimal rst ashing pressure are shown in Fig. 10 for different resource temperatures. When the reservoir temperature decreases, the optimal rst ashing pressure and the power output of the plant also decrease Fig. 11 . In obtaining Figs. 10 and 11, the second ashing pressure is assumed constant. In reality, there should be a relation between the rst and second ashing pressures. That is, if the optimal value of the rst ashing pressure varies, the optimal second ashing pressure should also vary. This means that the maximum net

power output of the plant varies with the two ashing pressures. The optimal second ashing pressure and the total net power output of the plant for different rst ashing pressures are shown in Fig. 12. As can be seen from the gure, total net power output of

Fig. 10 The variation of net power output of the plant related to rst ashing pressure at different reservoir temperatures. The second ashing pressure is 95 kPa.

Fig. 8 Overall rst law efciency of the power plant vs rst ashing pressure P9 = 95 kPa

Fig. 11 The optimal rst ashing pressure vs the reservoir temperature P9 = 95 kPa

Table 6

Results of analysis at optimal pressures 11.81% 23.61 kg/ s 10.53% 18.57 kg/ s 94.43% 96.88% 4821 kWe 7637 kWe 11,488 kWe 6.88% 28.55%

Steam quality after rst ashing Steam mass ow rate after rst ashing Steam quality after second ashing Steam mass ow rate after second ashing Steam quality after the HP turbine Steam quality after mixing box Net power output of HPT Net power output of LPT Total net power output of the plant Overall rst law efciency Overall second law efciency

Fig. 12 Variations of the second ashing pressures and overall net power output of the plant for different rst ashing pressures TR = 210 C

the plant is maximum for the optimal values of the rst and second ashing pressures of 530 kPa and 95 kPa. The other calculated power output values are smaller than this. Figure 13 shows the variation between the ow rate of the steam gained and the second ashing pressure. Figure 14 shows the variation of the overall second law efciency of the plant with second ashing pressure. As can be seen, the overall second law efciency is also maximum at the optimum second ashing pressure. After the analysis, the output values of the power plant are shown in Table 6. According to the results, the net power output

Fig. 13 Computed mass ow rate of the steam at the second ashing process vs second ashing pressures P2 = 530 kPa

of the double-ash geothermal power plant is 11,488 kWe. Of this power, 4821 kWe comes from the high pressure turbine, and the remaining 7637 kWe comes from the low pressure turbine. The overall rst and second law efciencies of the power plant are 6.88% and 28.55%, respectively. Exergy destruction throughout the power plant is illustrated in Fig. 15. During the production and transmission of the geouid from the reservoir to the wellhead, 0.3% of the total exergy destruction occurs. Other exergy destruction amounts and locations are: 5.3% for the rst ashing process, 5.7% for the second ashing process; 6.5% for the high pressure turbine; 14% for the low pressure turbine and generator group; 22.3% for the condenser; 0.7% for the waste condensing steam in the condenser; 16.7% for the waste uid from the second separator. The remaining 28.5% is the net power output of the plant. In reality, the waste uids should not be accepted as exergy lost in geothermal power plant applications. This exergy can be useful for other geothermal applications such as space and district heating, greenhouse and pool heating, and aquaculture and heat pump applications. The other approach to waste uid is reinjection. Reinjection of the used geothermal brine is a legal obligation in the USA and other developed countries. There are some important points concerning the reinjection process. For example, geouid must be reinjected in a suitable place for reheating. When the geouid is returned to its original reservoir, it should be at the original temperature and pressure. Thus, the reservoir can be replenished and geothermal energy can be called fully renewable only in this case. Conversely, the reservoir temperature decreases and the total net power output of the power plant also decreases. To avoid the decrease of the reservoir temperature after power production, there should be a cascaded use of the geouid in various heating applications. In these cases, the geouid that is left from the power plant should be forced into reinjection wells. If the waste uid is reinjected to the reservoir, the pressure and temperature of the resource can be preserved. Therefore, this process should not be considered as an exergy destruction process.

Fig. 14 The second law efciency of the power plant vs the second ashing pressure P2 = 530 kPa

Fig. 15 Exergy ow diagram of the double-ash geothermal power plant

Cost Considerations. Geothermal energy is renewable if the required conditions reinjection, etc. are used. There is no fuel cost in geothermal applications, unlike conventional fossil-fuel systems. For this reason, plant efciencies should not be considered the most important parameter in a geothermal power plant. The essential parameter for a geothermal power plant is the unit electricity production cost. Since the geothermal applications are characterized by high initial investment costs, the payback period of the power plant is longer than in conventional systems 23 . Since the factors that affect the unit power cost are unique to each geothermal plant, various unit electricity costs can be determined. The factors that affect the unit electricity cost are power plant capacity, physical conditions of the geothermal eld, reservoir depth, number of wells, type of power conversion system, pipeline length, unit operating and maintenance O&M costs, and all taxes. Sanyal 24 made an analysis for evaluating the cost of geothermal power. The analysis considers a power capacity of 5 to 150 MW with 50 MW as the base case. Power costs consist of three components: a capital cost component including cost of money , b O&M cost component not counting debt service, which is included under the capital cost component , and c make-up well drilling cost component. Based on GeothermExs experience, the unit investment cost varies from 2500 US$/kW for a 5 MW plant to 1600 US$/kW for a 150 MW plant. If the generated power increases, the unit investment cost decreases exponentially. According to GeothermEx experience, there is a correlation between the unit investment cost with plant capacity as follows 24 Cd = 2500e0.003 N5 12 where Cd is the unit investment cost US$/kW , and N is the plant capacity MW . Based on GeothermExs experience, it is believed that the representative unit operating and maintenance O&M cost ranges from approximately 2.0 US/kWh for a 5 MW plant to 1.4 US/ kWh for a 150 MW plant. The unit O&M cost also declines exponentially with plant capacity. According to GeothermExs analysis, there is a correlation between the unit O&M cost and plant capacity as follows 24 Co = 2e0.0025 N5 13 where Co is the unit O&M cost US/kWh . According to Sanyals results, power cost is most sensitive to unit O&M cost, followed by unit capital cost, interest rate and ination rate in decreasing order of sensitivity. It is relatively insensitive to well productivity, drilling cost per well, well productivity decline rate, and the macro-economic climate. Operating small power plants beyond their typical amortization period of 30 y can signicantly reduce power costs. This reduction is not signicant for plants of 50 MW or larger capacity 24 . In this study, detailed power cost analysis is not targeted. Therefore, the following calculations have been performed only to give one an idea. Using the equations above, the unit investment cost and the unit O&M cost are calculated as 2452 US$/kW and 1.97 US/kWh, respectively. It should be noted that a thermoeconomic optimization can be performed for detailed analysis of double-ash geothermal power plants.

to nd pressure values that maximize the net power output of the plant. These pressures have been accepted as optimal values. The optimum ashing pressures of the designed power plant are determined as 530 kPa for the rst ashing and 95 kPa for the second ashing. According to the results, the net power output of the plant has been calculated as 11,488 kWe with optimal ashing pressures. Of the total net power output, 3852 kWe comes from the high pressure turbine, whereas the remaining 7637 kWe comes from the low pressure turbine. The overall rst and second law efciencies of the power plant are 6.88% and 28.55%, respectively. Main exergy destruction amounts and locations in the power plant are illustrated in the exergy ow diagram. The largest exergy destruction locations are the condenser, the low pressure turbine, and waste uids. Exergy destruction percentages in these places are 22.3%, 14% and 17.4%, respectively. These sections are the heat loss areas of the power plant. The condenser transfers the heat of the working uid geothermal steam to the environment via cooling water. Therefore, most of the exergy loss is here. In geothermal and conventional power plants, the waste heat of the condenser must be evaluated and regained. Some low-temperature applications can be added to this system for heat recovery. Another big exergy destruction location in the plant is the second steam turbine. This is also evident from the low second law efciency of the second turbine-generator system. The main reason for this result is low temperature and pressure values at the second turbine inlet. Waste geouid discharged from the power plant has important energy and exergy content. The energy and exergy rates of the waste geouid have been calculated as 60,404 kW and 6988.2 kW, respectively. These values represent 36.19% and 17.36% of the total energy and exergy rates in the reservoir, respectively. The waste geouid must be reinjected to the reservoir. This process is an obligation with respect to global efciency. The unit investment cost and the unit O&M cost for doubleash geothermal power plants are calculated as 2452 US$/kW and 1.97 US/kWh, respectively.

Acknowledgment
The author would like to thank Prof. Dr. Ronald DiPippo and Prof. Dr. Bahri Sahin for their valuable considerations and technical information.

Nomenclature
Q W T P h s V z g m Sgen en ex En Ex Wtotalnet
I II

Conclusions

Of the total geothermal-based electricity generation worldwide, 25% comes from double-ash geothermal power plants. In this paper, a hypothetical double-ash power plant is examined, and rst and second ashing pressures are optimized. Performance analysis of the power plant is then performed by energy and exergy concepts for western Turkey conditions. Geouid temperature and mass ow rate are selected as 210 C and 200 kg/ s, respectively. A mathematical model of the power plant is set using computer software. The objective function of the optimization is

EnR ExR Cd

heat rate kW power kW temperature C pressure kPa enthalpy kJ/kg entropy kJ/kg K velocity m/s height m gravity acceleration m / s2 mass ow rate kg/s entropy generation kW/K specic energy kJ/kg specic exergy kJ/kg energy rate kW Exergy rate kW total net power output kW the rst law efciency the second law efciency energy rate of the geouid in reservoir kW exergy rate of the geouid in reservoir kW unit investment cost US$/kW

Co e Subscripts 0 R I II Abbreviations HPT LPT

unit operating and maintenance cost US/kWh logarithm dead state reservoir rst law of thermodynamics second law of thermodynamics high pressure turbine low pressure turbine

References
1 Lund, J., Freeston, D., and Boyd, T., 2005, World Wide Direct Uses of Geothermal Energy 2005, Proceedings World Geothermal Congress 2005, Antalya, Turkey, April 2429, pp. 120. 2 Bertani, R., 2005, World Geothermal Generation 20012005: State of the Art, Proceedings World Geothermal Congress 2005, Antalya, Turkey, April 2429, pp. 119. 3 DiPippo, R., 2005, Geothermal Power Plants-Principles, Applications, and Case Studies, Elsevier, Oxford. 4 DiPippo, R., 1999, Small Geothermal Power Plants-Design, Performance and Economics, GHC Bulletin, 20 2 , pp. 18. 5 Bombarda, P., and Macchi, E., 2000, Optimum Cycles for Geothermal Power Plants, Proceedings World Geothermal Congress 2000, Kyushu, Japan, May 28June 10, pp. 31333138. 6 Barbier, E., 2002, Geothermal Energy Technology and Current Status: An Overview, Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev., 6, pp. 365. 7 Braun, G., and Mc Cluer, HK., 1993, Geothermal Power Generation in United States, Proc. IEEE, 81 3 , pp. 434448. 8 Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd., 2005, various company brochures. 9 Gunerhan, G., Kocar, G., and Hepbasli, A., 2001, Geothermal Energy Utilization in Turkey, Int. J. Energy Res., 25, pp. 769784.

10 Hepbasl, A., and Ozgener, L., 2004, Development of Geothermal Energy Utilization in Turkey: A Review, Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev., 8, pp. 433460. 11 Akkus, I., Aydogdu, O., Akilli, H., Gokmenoglu, O., and Sarp, S., 2005, Geothermal Energy and its Economic Dimension in Turkey, Proceedings World Geothermal Congress 2005, Antalya, Turkey, April 2429, pp. 17. 12 Dagdas, A., Ozturk, R., and Bekdemir, S., 2005, Thermodynamic evaluation of Denizli Kzldere geothermal power plant and its performance improvement, Energy Convers. Manage., 46 2 , pp. 242253. 13 Saygl, S., 2005, Field Control Engineer of Aydn-Salavatl Geothermal Power Plant, personal interview. 14 Mertoglu, O., 2005, Geothermal Application in Turkey, Proceedings World Geothermal Congress 2005, Antalya, Turkey, April 2429, pp. 15. 15 Kanoglu, M., and engel, YA., 1999, Retrotting a Geothermal Power Plant to Optimize Performance: a Case Study, ASME J. Energy Resour. Technol., 121, pp. 295301. 16 Alvarado, F. L., and Klein, SA., 2005, Engineering Equation Solver, F-Chart Software. 17 Bejan, A., Tsatsaronis, G., and Moran, M., 1996, Thermal Design and Optimization, Wiley Interscience Publication, New York. 18 DiPippo, R., 1990, Geothermal Power Cycle Selection Guidelines, Geothermal Information Series, Part 2, DCN 90-213-142-02-02, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA. 19 DiPippo, R., and Marcille, D. F., 1984, Exergy Analysis of Geothermal Power Plants, Trans.- Geotherm. Resour. Counc., 8, pp. 4752. 20 engel, Y., and Boles, M., 1996, Thermodynamics: An Engineering Approach, 2nd ed., Literatur Publishing, Istanbul. 21 Kanoglu, M., engel, YA., and Turner, R., 1998, Incorporating a District Heating-Cooling System to an Existing Geothermal Power Plant, ASME J. Energy Resour. Technol., 120 2 , pp. 179184. 22 DiPippo, R., 2004, Second Law Assessment of Binary Plants Generating Power From Low Temperature Geothermal Fluids, Geothermics, 33, pp. 565586. 23 Dagdas, A., 2005, Energy Cost in Geothermal Power Plants, Journal of Engineering and Natural Sciences, 2, pp. 8494 in Turkish . 24 Sanyal, S., 2005, Cost of Geothermal Power and Factors That Affect It, Proceedings World Geothermal Congress 2005, Antalya, Turkey, April 2429, pp. 110.

Ahmet Dagdas is an assistant professor of mechanical engineering at Yildiz Technical University (YTU), Istanbul, Turkey. Some of his research covers energy and exergy analysis of conventional and geothermal power plants, and thermo-economic analysis of thermal systems. He has published several articles about geothermal and conventional power plants in various prestigious international and national journals.