INL/CON-11-21391

PREPRINT

Effect of Ambient Design

Temperature on Air-
Cooled Binary Plant
Output

2011 Geothermal Resources Council

Annual Meeting

Daniel Wendt
Greg Mines

October 2011

This is a preprint of a paper intended for publication in a journal or

proceedings. Since changes may be made before publication, this
preprint should not be cited or reproduced without permission of the
author. This document was prepared as an account of work
sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither
the United States Government nor any agency thereof, or any of
their employees, makes any warranty, expressed or implied, or
assumes any legal liability or responsibility for any third partys use,
or the results of such use, of any information, apparatus, product or
process disclosed in this report, or represents that its use by such
third party would not infringe privately owned rights. The views
expressed in this paper are not necessarily those of the United
States Government or the sponsoring agency.
 Effect of Ambient Design Temperature on
Air-Cooled Binary Plant Output
Daniel Wendt, Greg Mines

Idaho National Laboratory; P.O. Box 1625; Idaho Falls, ID 83415-2208

Keywords
air-cooled binary plant; ambient temperature; EGS temperature decline; plant design; plant
optimization; geothermal fluid exit temperature limit; minimum turbine inlet entropy; retrograde
dew point curve

Abstract
Air-cooled binary plants are designed to provide a specified level of power production at a
particular air temperature. Nominally this air temperature is the annual mean or average air
temperature for the plant location. This study investigates the effect that changing the design air
temperature has on power generation for an air-cooled binary plant producing power from a
resource with a declining production fluid temperature and fluctuating ambient temperatures.
This analysis was performed for plants operating both with and without a geothermal fluid outlet
temperature limit.

Aspen Plus process simulation software was used to develop optimal air-cooled binary plant
designs for specific ambient temperatures as well as to rate the performance of the plant designs
at off-design operating conditions. Results include calculation of annual and plant lifetime
power generation as well as evaluation of plant operating characteristics, such as improved
power generation capabilities during summer months when electric power prices are at peak
levels.

Introduction
Geothermal energy has the potential to be an important part of the worlds future clean,
renewable energy portfolio. Geothermal energy has been used primarily in locations with
geothermal reservoirs with high heat flow and plentiful subsurface water supplies as well as
availability of surface water for use as a cooling medium in power plant heat rejection. As the
worlds energy resources become less plentiful it is anticipated that Engineered Geothermal
Systems (EGS), in which geothermal wells are drilled and stimulated to produce an elevated
temperature fracture network through which a production fluid can be circulated to extract
thermal energy, will provide a mechanism through which geothermal energy can be utilized.
EGS reservoir development will require fracturing and stimulation activities that will result in
significantly higher costs than typical hydrothermal resources. Additionally, it is expected that
EGS reservoirs will be subject to resource temperature decline as thermal energy is extracted.

1
Wendt and Mines

As a result, there will be increased incentive to maximize power plant efficiency and output over
the operating life of the plant when generating power from an EGS or hydrothermal resources
with elevated development costs.

Many sites with significant potential for EGS reservoir development exist in geographic
locations without large quantities of water readily available for evaporative cooling. Water
resources that are available in such locations will likely be required primarily as makeup for
subsurface loss of production fluid. Therefore, it is expected that for many EGS resources it will
be most feasible to generate power through utilization of air-cooled binary plants that reject heat
at ambient temperatures via air-cooled condensers. In contrast to an evaporative cooling heat
rejection sink that effectively operates at the wet-bulb ambient temperature, the heat rejection
temperature for an air-cooled condenser corresponds to the higher, and therefore
thermodynamically disadvantageous, ambient dry-bulb temperature. In addition, because of the
greater variation in dry-bulb temperatures, the power produced by air-cooled binary plants will
vary more on both a diurnal and seasonal basis.

This paper describes an evaluation of designing binary plants using different design ambient
temperatures as a means of mitigating the impact of both varying ambient temperatures and the
resource temperature decline on power production.

Technical Approach
Plant Configuration
The basic plant design evaluated is an air-cooled binary plant. A simple schematic for the plant
is shown in Figure 1. In this plant the energy from the geothermal fluid is used to heat a
pressurized secondary working fluid. The plant may be designed such that the working fluid
exits the vaporizer as a superheated vapor or a supercritical fluid. The high pressure working
fluid vapor is subsequently expanded in a turbine that drives an electrical generator. The low
pressure working fluid vapor exiting the turbine is condensed in an air-cooled heat exchanger
and pumped back to the geothermal fluid heat exchangers. For this study, it is assumed at the
working fluid is vaporized at a single pressure; i.e., dual boiling cycles were not evaluated.

Figure 1. Simple air-cooled binary cycle schematic

2
Wendt and Mines

Operating Constraints
Air-cooled binary plants are constrained to operate within certain thermodynamic limits defined
by the resource (heat source) and ambient (heat sink) conditions. In addition to the
thermodynamic operating limits, certain operational and engineering constraints on the plant
operation also exist.

All simulations had a maximum operating pressure constraint enforced to prevent identification
of plant designs with excessive equipment costs. The authors selected a value of 1200 psi as the
maximum working fluid pressure practical for analysis. This pressure constraint is less than the
maximum pressure rating for an ANSI 600 pound flange at 200C.

Though there has been work that indicates that constraining the working fluid to avoid the two-
phase region for the entire expansion is overly conservative (Mines, 2000), this constraint has
been imposed in these studies. For fluids without retrograde dew point curves, constraining the
fluid entering and exiting the turbine to the vapor phase is sufficient to ensure the two-phase
region is not encountered during turbine expansion. For fluids with retrograde dew point curves,
the method for preventing expansion through the two-phase region varies based on whether the
turbine inlet pressure is above or below the pressure corresponding to the fluid maximum dew
point entropy. Above this pressure, the entropy of the vapor entering the turbine is constrained
to values greater than the fluids maximum dew point entropy. Below this pressure, the fluid is
constrained to the vapor phase at both the turbine inlet and outlet.

Finally, mineral precipitation and deposit from the geothermal fluid onto the heat exchanger
surfaces can be a major operational problem for binary power plants. In this study it was
assumed that the primary source of heat exchanger fouling would be precipitation of amorphous
silica, which could be mitigated by keeping the temperature of the geothermal fluid above the
temperature where precipitation would begin (Gunnarsson and Arnorsson, 2000). Simulations
were performed both with and without the associated geothermal fluid exit temperature
constraint.

Design Strategy
The typical design conditions for an air-cooled binary plant correspond to the median or mean
ambient temperature and anticipated geothermal resource temperature at the plant location. This
study investigates the effect of designing the air-cooled binary plant for ambient conditions other
than the median or mean annual ambient temperature to mitigate the effects of varying ambient
temperature and resource temperature decline. Four discrete ambient temperature points
including the median annual ambient temperature point were chosen as plant design points. The
plant designs at the designated ambient temperature points were evaluated both with and without
the geothermal fluid exit temperature limit constraint.

Results include calculation of plant lifetime power generation as well as evaluation of plant
operating characteristics, such as increased power generation during summer months when
electric power prices are at peak levels and/or improved ability of a design to maintain power
output levels as resource temperature declines.

3
Wendt and Mines

Process Models
Binary plant design models were developed using AspenTech Aspen Plus version 2006.5 process
simulation software. The Peng-Robinson property method was used to calculate working fluid
and air properties, while the STEAM-TA property method (1967 ASME steam table correlations
for thermodynamic properties, International Association for Properties of Steam (IAPS)
correlations for transport properties) was used to calculate geothermal fluid properties.

Plant Design
Aspen Plus was used to establish optimal plant designs for the design scenarios evaluated. These
scenarios included selected ambient and geothermal fluid design temperatures, plant operating
constraints, as well as plant equipment configurations. Each design scenario was evaluated using
identical design operating specifications determined through analysis of actual geothermal plant
operating data and engineering judgment. These design operating specifications included heat
exchanger minimum temperature approach values, magnitude of frictional pressure losses (in all
relevant unit operations and process piping), the preheater outlet temperature, condenser
subcooling, and the turbine, pump, and fan efficiencies. The plant equipment design operating
specifications are summarized in Table 1 below.

Table 1. Plant Equipment Design Operating Specifications

Block Min Temp design  

 design design
Approach
Preheater and 10F 38.0 psi (working fluid) 5.0 psi (from CV)
Vaporizer
Turbine 3.0 psi (from vaporizer) 83% (isentropic)
94% (mechanical)
Condenser 15F 1.0 psi (working fluid) 1.0 psi (from turbine)
0.26 in H2O (air side)
Pump 80% (fluid)
98% (driver)
Control Valve 2.0 psi 5.0 psi (from pump)
Fan 55% (isentropic)
90% (mechanical)

4
Wendt and Mines

Following selection of the equipment design operating specifications, the Aspen Plus process
simulator was used to perform an optimization simulation in which the free variables that existed
in each specific design scenario were varied so as to meet all plant design specifications and
operating constraints while maximizing plant net power output. The objective function used to
maximize net power output is as follows:

 =   
 
where
Wtrb = turbine power
Wpmp = pump power
Wfan = fan power

The free variables which were accessible to the Aspen Plus optimization solver included the
working fluid mass flow rate, air mass flow rate, pump outlet pressure, turbine outlet pressure,
preheater, and vaporizer duty. The working fluid selection was another free variable that was
manually varied by the process simulator user and evaluated for net power production capacity
as well as other operational characteristics such as dew point curve shape, critical point, heat
transfer properties, and cost.

Completed plant design simulations yielded optimized design point operating conditions and
power output as well as specifications for all equipment included in the plant design. The plant
operating and equipment specifications include air, working fluid, and geothermal fluid flow
rates, UAs for all process heat exchangers, turbine throat area and design spouting velocity,
pump head, and piping pressure drop correlation parameters. This information in conjunction
with the equipment design operating specifications and fluid physical properties at the design
conditions can be utilized to specify the equipment used in the plant design.

Plant Rating
The plant performance data associated with the plant design simulations correspond to a single
operating point that is tied to the ambient design temperature and geothermal resource design
temperature. Changes to the ambient or resource temperatures force the plant to operate at off-
design conditions, impacting the plant performance and output. In order to assess the benefits of
the concepts evaluated in an actual plant, plant rating simulations were developed to calculate
the performance of geothermal plants as a function of ambient temperature fluctuations and
geothermal resource temperature decline.

The plant rating simulations utilize the Aspen Plus optimization solver in a similar manner to the
plant design simulations. The plant rating simulations use the same optimization objective
function for plant net power while manipulating a different set of free variables to satisfy the
operational constraints and fixed equipment sizes to maximize net power output. The free
variables accessible to the plant rating simulation optimization solver are analogous to the
operating parameters that would be controlled by the operator of an actual air-cooled binary
plant. These operating parameters include the working fluid mass flow rate, control valve

5
Wendt and Mines

pressure drop, and air mass flow rate. The plant operating point determined by these variables
could be replicated by a geothermal plant operator by manipulating the control valve position,
turbine vane position, and the number of condenser fans in operation.

The plant rating simulations accounted for the physical effects and changes in equipment
performance that were deemed to be the major factors affecting off-design plant performance. A
pump curve was generated by normalizing a representative pump curve to the design operating
conditions specified by the plant design simulations. This pump curve was then used in the plant
rating simulation to predict pump head and efficiency as a function of the working fluid flow
rate. A fan curve was generated and utilized in the same manner. The turbine design was
assumed to be a single stage reaction turbine with variable nozzle geometry. Turbine efficiency
and flow rate were calculated as a function of turbine nozzle position as well as turbine inlet and
exhaust conditions. Heat exchanger duty at off-design conditions was determined by calculating
the changes in heat exchanger overall heat transfer coefficient as a function of hot and cold side
fluid mass flow rates. Off-design condition frictional losses in individual unit operations and in
process piping were determined by applying correction factors incorporating changes in fluid
density and velocity (V2) to the pressure drop values specified in the plant designs.
Collectively, these calculations enabled evaluation of the combined effects of off-design
operating conditions on the performance of specific plant designs. This plant performance data
was then used to determine whether the concepts evaluated increased net power production over
plant operating life for specified ambient and resource temperature versus time scenarios.

Results
Preliminary model development efforts included determining the domain of ambient and
resource conditions within which the plant simulation would operate. Geographic locations with
historical ambient temperature data available through the MesoWest weather service and that are
positioned over zones of high heat flow within the continental U.S. were considered. Grand
Junction, Colorado was chosen as the simulation basis for this study since it is located in a region
having high heat flow and a low median ambient air temperature, making it a potential candidate
for EGS reservoir development and power generation via an air-cooled binary plant.

Calendar year 2009 ambient temperature data for Grand Junction was obtained from the
MesoWest weather reporting web site. The ambient temperature data was analyzed to determine
the median ambient temperature and generate a histogram of the hourly temperature data points.
The median ambient temperature for 2009 of 53.1F (11.7C) served as the design temperature
for the baseline power plant design. The geothermal resource design conditions were assumed to
be 392F (200C) at the pressure corresponding to 50F (27.8C) of subcooling and a mass flow
rate of 1,000,000 lb/hr (126 kg/s).

6
Wendt and Mines

Figure 2. 2009 Grand Junction, Colorado hourly temperature data

A plant life scenario with a defined annual ambient temperature profile and resource temperature
decline function was established for the purpose of comparing plant designs. The plant life was
defined as a 30 year period. The 2009 Grand Junction annual ambient temperature profile was
repeated for each of the 30 years in the scenario. The resource temperature decline function was
defined to be a linear temperature decrease of 1C per year. This linear temperature decline was
evaluated for each hour of operation over the plant life.

Ambient temperature points for plant rating simulations were chosen by dividing the Grand
Junction temperature range into approximately equally spaced temperature intervals between the
minimum and maximum ambient temperatures such that the median temperature point was
included. This was implemented by selecting four temperature intervals of approximately
16.6F below the median ambient temperature point and three temperature intervals of
approximately 15.6F above the median ambient temperature point.

Table 2. Ambient temperature points evaluated with plant design and rating simulations
Ambient Percent of hourly
Temperature temperature data points
F (C) below specified value
-13.1 (-25.1) 0%
3.5 (-15.8) 1%
20.1 (-6.6) 8%
36.6* (2.6) 28%
53.1* (11.7) 50%
68.7* (20.4) 75%
84.4* (29.1) 94%
100.0 (37.8) 100%
* denotes temperature at which a plant design
simulation was performed

Multiple linear regression analysis of plant rating simulation net power output results was used to
develop a correlation for each design predicting net power output as a function of ambient and
resource temperature. The correlations were then used to predict the hourly net power output for
the plant design operating within the defined plant life scenario. This approach allowed
calculation of annual and lifetime power generation.

7
Wendt and Mines

Several candidate working fluids were identified for use in the simulations performed in this
study. These fluids included propane, isobutane, n-butane, isopentane, R-134a, and R-245fa.
The performance of the candidate working fluids was evaluated using the plant design simulation
with the 2009 Grand Junction median ambient temperature and a geothermal resource
temperature of 392F (200C). Of the working fluids evaluated, R-245fa (1,1,1,3,3-
Pentafluoropropane) produced the highest net power output at these conditions and was
consequently selected as the working fluid for the simulations performed in this study.

The analyses were performed for cases both with and without the imposition of a minimum
temperature constraint on the geothermal fluid to prevent silica precipitation. Independent
evaluation of selected plant operating points was performed with an Excel plant model that uses
the NIST RefProp add-in to determine fluid properties. Data and information from an operating
plant were used to assess the validity of models performance projections as well as provide the
basis for assumptions used in the design of the plant.

Base Design
The base design consists of an air-cooled binary plant designed at the 2009 Grand Junction
median ambient temperature of 53.1F and initial resource temperature of 392F (200C).
Figure 3 and Figure 4 below show net power output as a function of ambient and resource
temperature for the cases with the geothermal fluid exit temperature limit and without the
geothermal fluid exit temperature limit, respectively. The lifetime power generation for these
base design scenarios is 2.017109 kWh (2017 GWh) with the exit temperature limit and
2.264109 kWh (2264 GWh) without the exit temperature limit.

Figure 3. Base design net power output as function of ambient and resource temperature with geothermal fluid exit
temperature limit

8
Wendt and Mines

Figure 4. Base design net power output as function of ambient and resource temperature without geothermal fluid exit
temperature limit

These figures illustrate that while imposing the geothermal fluid exit temperature limit decreases
the plant net power output at all ambient and resource temperatures, the effects are the most
severe at low ambient and high resource temperatures. The plant design for the case with the
geothermal fluid exit temperature limit makes less power at design conditions due to the reduced
quantity of heat that can be extracted from the geothermal fluid. As the ambient temperature
decreases, the condenser outlet temperature (and consequently the preheater inlet temperature)
decreases, which causes the exit temperature limit constrained plant to throttle the working fluid
flow rate with the consequence of reducing net power output.

Ambient Temperature Design Point

Plant design and rating simulations were performed for power plants designed for three ambient
temperature points in addition to the annual median ambient temperature point. The additional
ambient temperature design points evaluated were 36.6F, 68.7F, and 84.4F. Simulations were
completed for cases with and without the geothermal fluid exit temperature limit constraint.

Designs with Geothermal Fluid Exit Temperature Limit

In the design cases involving the geothermal fluid exit temperature limit, higher ambient
temperature design points correspond to a plant design characterized by higher working fluid and
air flow rates with more powerful pumps and fans and larger air-cooled condenser, preheater,
and vaporizer heat exchangers.

9
Wendt and Mines

Figure 5. Comparison of base and 68.7F plant design net power output (with geothermal fluid outlet temperature limit)
as function of ambient and resource temperature

At low ambient temperatures where the geothermal fluid exit temperature limit is in effect, the
heat duty that can be extracted from the geothermal fluid by both plant designs is identical, but
the lower temperature plant design operates more efficiently as it is closer to its design point than
the higher temperature plant design. Due to the larger pump size of the higher ambient
temperature design, more control valve throttling is necessary at low ambient temperature
operating points to reduce working fluid flow in order to satisfy the geothermal fluid exit
temperature limit constraint. The greater amount of throttling effectively moves the turbine and
pump further from their design points as well as decreasing the working fluid film coefficients.

At operating conditions where the geothermal fluid exit temperature limit constraint is inactive,
such as high ambient temperatures, the higher ambient temperature design is able to extract more
heat duty from the geothermal fluid due to its larger preheater/vaporizer and larger working fluid
pump, which provide greater heat transfer area and working fluid flow rate, respectively. The
larger condenser design of the higher temperature plant design better accommodates the
additional latent heat rejection requirement associated with the increased working fluid flow rate.
In addition to being able to extract more thermal energy from the geothermal fluid at high
ambient temperature operating conditions unencumbered by the geothermal fluid exit
temperature limit, the higher temperature plant design is closer to its design point than the lower
temperature plant design resulting in greater operating efficiency.

As the resource temperature declines, the geothermal fluid exit temperature limit also declines,
resulting in a lower ambient temperature at which enforcement of the constraint is initiated.
Therefore, the percentage of operating time for which the geothermal fluid exit temperature limit
constraint is active becomes lower as the resource temperature declines. The higher ambient
temperature plant design produces more power when the geothermal fluid exit temperature limit
constraint is not active due to its larger heat exchangers and enhanced ability to extract heat duty
from the geothermal fluid. The power generation advantages of the higher temperature plant
design at lower resource temperatures are attributable primarily to this design characteristic.

10
Wendt and Mines

Figure 6. Comparison of base and 68.7F plant design annual net power output and percent difference in cumulative
lifetime power generation (with geothermal fluid outlet temperature limit)

When the geothermal fluid exit temperature limit constraint is imposed, the power plant designed
for an ambient temperature of 68.7F produces 0.4% more power over the 30 year plant
operation scenario. Although the plant designed for higher ambient temperature does not
produce greater amounts of annual power until year 10 and cumulative power until year 21, this
plant does produce greater power output in elevated ambient temperature conditions from day
one.

Process modeling results indicated that there would be no increase in power generation over the
30 year operating scenario from designing a plant for ambient temperatures slightly below the
median ambient temperature (36.6F) or greatly above the median ambient temperature (84.4F)
when geothermal fluid exit temperature is constrained to prevent silica precipitation.

Designs without Geothermal Fluid Exit Temperature Limit

In the design cases without a geothermal fluid exit temperature limit, higher ambient temperature
design points correspond to a plant design characterized by lower working fluid and air flow
rates as well as smaller air-cooled condenser, preheater, and vaporizer heat exchangers (relative
to lower ambient temperature designs).

These heat exchanger sizing and fluid flow rate characteristics trended in the opposite direction
from plant designs with a geothermal fluid exit temperature limit. A reason for this difference is
that in the absence of the geothermal fluid exit temperature limit constraint, the plant design
simulation generated optimal net power output plant designs operating at the minimum turbine
inlet entropy permitted by the turbine inlet entropy constraint. As the ambient design
temperature increases, the increasing condenser working fluid outlet temperature decreases the
duty that can be extracted from the geothermal fluid, which tends to decrease the size of the
preheater/vaporizer. The optimal turbine inlet pressure increases with an increasing ambient
design temperature. With the turbine inlet entropy constraint imposed, this produces higher inlet
vapor temperatures and enthalpies. Though these inlet conditions require that the working fluid
flow rate be decreased, the pumping power will rise with the increasing turbine pressure. The
optimal turbine design occurs when the difference between the product of the mass flow and
enthalpy change in the turbine and the pumping power is maximized.

11
Wendt and Mines

Figure 7. Comparison of base and 36.6F plant design net power output (no geothermal fluid outlet temperature limit) as
function of ambient and resource temperature

There are several important operational characteristics of plants designed without the geothermal
fluid exit temperature limit constraint. At higher ambient operating temperatures, the lower
temperature plant designs produce nearly the same net power output as the higher temperature
plant designs. This is because at higher ambient temperatures, the lower temperature plant
designs are able to run at an operating point that meets the turbine inlet entropy constraint with
fewer throttling losses, balancing out the decreased rotational equipment efficiency of these
designs at higher ambient temperatures.

At lower ambient operating temperatures, the lower ambient temperature designs produce
significantly greater net power output. This is because the increased condenser size and
decreased low pressure vapor piping losses of the lower ambient temperature plant design
permits lower condensing pressures and therefore lower condenser outlet temperatures. The
lower condensing temperature allows for greater heat extraction from the geothermal fluid and
the rotational equipment designed for lower temperatures perform with high efficiencies at lower
temperatures.

The plant designed for higher ambient temperatures is at a disadvantage at lower ambient
operating temperatures due to its inferior ability to reject heat to the ambient in addition to the
efficiency penalty sustained when throttling the working fluid flow rate from the more powerful
pump to meet the minimum turbine inlet entropy constraint.

Figure 8. Comparison of base and 36.6F plant design annual net power output and percent difference in cumulative
lifetime power generation (no geothermal fluid outlet temperature limit)

12
Wendt and Mines

In the absence of the geothermal fluid exit temperature limit, a plant designed at an ambient
temperature of 36.6F produced 2.3% greater power output over the 30 year plant operating span
than the base 53.1F design. The lower ambient temperature design produced more power in the
first year than the base design and as the resource temperature declined the 36.6F design
performance continued to improve over that of the base design. Plants designed at 68.7F and
84.4F produced 2.5% and 6.1% less power, respectively, than the base median ambient
temperature design over the 30 year plant life scenario. Neither of the plant designs at
temperatures above the median ambient temperature produced significantly more power at
elevated ambient temperature conditions.

Process Economics
Plant equipment, materials, engineering, construction, contingency and other miscellaneous costs
were estimated using cost data compiled from Aspen Icarus Process Economic Analyzer and
indexed to 2010 using the Producer Price Index. The plant costs for the designs discussed in this
report are listed in Table 3 below.

Table 3. Plant design cost summary

air design T (F) 36.6 53.1 68.7 36.6 53.1 68.7
geofluid outlet T constraint no no no yes yes yes
design point net power (kW) 12,311 10,910 9,611 10,376 9,626 8,857
total plant cost ($MM) $32.6 $30.6 $28.6 $25.8 $25.7 $25.2
cost per unit power ($/kW) $2,651 $2,805 $2,980 $2,484 $2,669 $2,840

A discounted cash flow analysis was performed to assess the internal rate of return (IRR) that
would be obtained for each of the plant designs operating in the 30 year declining resource
temperature scenario described previously. The analysis was based on the list of assumptions
that follows. The well field consists of two production wells and one injection well, each with
total development costs of $10 million for a total well field development cost of $30 million.
Well field exploration, confirmation, and development activities last a duration of 1, 1.5, and 2
years at costs equal to 10%, 40%, and 50% of total well field development costs, respectively.
Initiation of power plant construction will last 2.5 years and coincide with the start of well field
development activities, such that total project development lasts 5 years. Contingency costs are
assumed to be 5% of project development costs. Operating and maintenance costs are assumed
to be fixed at $0.025 per kWh of first year power production for the duration of plant operation.
Royalty payments were assigned values of 1.75% of electricity sales for the first ten years of
plant operations and 3.5% for subsequent years of operation.

A discounted cash flow analysis was performed for a range of base electric power sales rates.
The internal rate of return was manipulated such that the net present value of the project was
equal to $0. The resulting internal rate of return vs. base cost of electricity curve for the base
design is plotted in Figure 9.

13
Wendt and Mines

Figure 9. Base plant design internal rate of return as function of base cost of electricity

For the cases with the geothermal fluid exit temperature limit, the 68.7F plant design resulted in
the addition of approximately 0.1% to the base design IRR (from 5.0% to 5.1% as an example)
over the range of electricity prices considered. An electricity rate schedule in which peak
periods exist from noon to 8:00 p.m. in the months of June through September was defined to
determine if the 68.7F plant design would result in a greater IRR than the base design for a
scenario in which power sold at peak times was priced higher by a factor of three than power
sold at off-peak times. For the peak/off-peak scenario, the 68.7F plant design resulted in the
addition of approximately 0.2% to the base design IRR over the range of electricity prices
considered.

For the cases without the geothermal fluid exit temperature limit, the 36.6F plant design
resulted in an IRR approximately 0.1% less than the base design despite superior performance.
This result is a consequence of the greater plant cost associated with the 36.6F plant design. No
peak/off-peak pricing analysis was performed for cases without the geothermal fluid exit
temperature limit as the power output of the 36.6F plant design and the base plant design were
similar at the higher ambient temperatures.

Conclusions
The potential to increase plant output by designing the plant for temperatures other than the
annual median ambient temperature was evaluated. The analysis was performed with calendar
year 2009 Grand Junction ambient temperature data, a production fluid with a flow rate of
1,000,000 lb/hr (126 kg/s) and an initial temperature of 392F (200C), R-245fa working fluid,
and a consistent set of equipment design specifications. The well field development cost and
schedule used in this analysis were assumed to be representative of an EGS reservoir with two
production wells and one injection well.

If there was no temperature constraint on the geothermal fluid, the plant with the lowest design
air temperature considered produced the greatest net power output in the first year of operation
with additional improvement over the base design as the resource temperature declined.
However, the higher plant costs associated with the lower temperature design resulted in an IRR
slightly lower than that of the base design.

14
Wendt and Mines

With the geothermal fluid exit temperature constraint imposed, the design using the mean
ambient temperature produced the most power during the first year; by the last year of operation,
the design for a slightly higher air temperature produced more power. The slightly higher air
temperature design resulted in a marginally higher IRR than the base design. Use of the higher
temperature design with a peak/off-peak power pricing schedule resulted in an additional
incremental increase to the project IRR when compared to the base design.

References
Gunnarsson, I. Arnorsson, S. Amorphous silica solubility and the thermodynamic properties of
H4SiO4 in the range of 0 to 350C at Psat. Geochemica et Cosmochimica Acta, 64 (13), 2295-
2307.

Mines, G.L. Summary of Investigations of the Use of Modified Turbine Inlet Conditions in a
Binary Power Plant. Geothermal Resources Council Transactions, 24, 509-512, 2000.

Southern Methodist University Geothermal Laboratory 2004 Surface Heat Flow Map [Data file].
Retrieved from
http://smu.edu/geothermal/heatflow/geothermal_all_us_clipped_150dpi_pagesize_legend.gif

The University of Utah MesoWest web site [Data file]. Retrieved from
http://mesowest.utah.edu/index.htmlhttp://mesowest.utah.edu/index.html

Wendt, D. S. and Mines, G. L. Interim Report: Air-Cooled Condensers for Next Generation
Geothermal Power Plants: Improved Binary Cycle Performance, DOE Report, September 2010.

Acknowledgement
This work is supported by the U.S. Department of Energy, Secretary for Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, under DOE Idaho Operations Office Contract DE-AC07-05ID14517.

15