Energy Conversion and Management 78 (2014) 39–49

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Conversion and Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enconman

Thermodynamic and economic analysis and optimization of power

cycles for a medium temperature geothermal resource
Ahmet Coskun a,⇑, Ali Bolatturk a, Mehmet Kanoglu b
a
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Suleyman Demirel University, 32260 Isparta, Turkey
b
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Gaziantep, 27310 Gaziantep, Turkey

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Geothermal power generation technologies are well established and there are numerous power plants
Received 22 July 2013 operating worldwide. Turkey is rich in geothermal resources while most resources are not exploited
Accepted 16 October 2013 for power production. In this study, we consider geothermal resources in Kutahya–Simav region having
geothermal water at a temperature suitable for power generation. The study is aimed to yield the method
of the most effective use of the geothermal resource and a rational thermodynamic and economic com-
Keywords: parison of various cycles for a given resource. The cycles considered include double-flash, binary, com-
Geothermal energy
bined flash/binary, and Kalina cycle. The selected cycles are optimized for the turbine inlet pressure
Geothermal power plant
Kalina cycle
that would generate maximum power output and energy and exergy efficiencies. The distribution of
Economic analysis exergy in plant components and processes are shown using tables. Maximum first law efficiencies vary
Exergy between 6.9% and 10.6% while the second law efficiencies vary between 38.5% and 59.3% depending
Optimization on the cycle considered. The maximum power output, the first law, and the second law efficiencies are
obtained for Kalina cycle followed by combined cycle and binary cycle. An economic analysis of four
cycles considered indicates that the cost of producing a unit amount of electricity is 0.0116 $/kW h for
double flash and Kalina cycles, 0.0165 $/kW h for combined cycle and 0.0202 $/kW h for binary cycle.
Consequently, the payback period is 5.8 years for double flash and Kalina cycles while it is 8.3 years
for combined cycle and 9 years for binary cycle.
Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction plant performance. The analysis showed that an increase in the

The rising energy demand, the limited supply of fossil fuels and
their detrimental environmental impacts (e.g. global warming)
have intensified the worldwide search for cleaner sources of en-
ergy. Among renewable energy sources, geothermal energy has a
special place largely because of its vast worldwide resources and
its capacity to provide base-load electricity due to non-intermit-
tent nature of geothermal energy [1].
Geothermal heat comes from beneath the earth surface with
temperatures varying between 50 and 350 °C. It occurs mainly in
the form of steam, mixtures of steam and water or just liquid water
[2].
In literature, there are many studies related to analysis of geo-
thermal power plants. Aneke et al. [2] investigated the IPSEpro
model of the Chena Geothermal Organic Rankine Cycle (ORC)
Power Plant and the results are validated using actual data. IPSEpro
is modular-mode as well as equation-oriented steady state energy
simulation software. The validated model was used to investigate
the effect of variation in the geothermal source temperature on
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +90 246 211 1253.
E-mail address: ahmetcoskun@sdu.edu.tr (A. Coskun).
geothermal source temperature above the design point increases
the working fluid flow rate, decreases the working fluid degree of
superheat at the inlet of the turbine (evaporator exit), increases
the plant net power output, and reduces the efficiency. Kanoglu
and Bolatturk [3] studied a binary geothermal power plant exer-
getically using actual plant data to assess the plant performance
and pinpoint sites of primary exergy destruction. In this study,
the energy and exergy efficiencies of the plant were obtained to
be 4.5% and 21.7%, respectively. Also, the effects of turbine inlet
pressure and temperature and the condenser pressure on the exer-
gy and energy efficiencies, the net power output and the brine
reinjection temperature are investigated and the trends are
explained.
Gabbrielli [4] proposed a novel approach for the design point
selection of small scale ORC binary geothermal power plants. Four
design points relative to different values of the brine temperature
during geothermal well exploitation have been compared from the
economic point of view using off-design simulations of the whole
operating life. In particular, the large increase of the R134a mass
flow rate and, consequently, of the highest pressure implies severe
modifications of the expander outlet. Yari [5] investigated the dif-
ferent geothermal power plant concepts, based on the exergy anal-

0196-8904/$ - see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2013.10.045
40 A. Coskun et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 78 (2014) 39–49

Nomenclature

COE capital cost per unit energy ($/kW h) PWFO&M present value of annual operation and maintenance
C the total expenditure amount including escalation ($) expenses ($)
Ccapital constant annual capital cost ($) PWFcapital present value of the capital cost ($)
CCE constant expenses ($/kW year) ORC Organic Rankine cycle
Cesc the amount of total escalation expenditure ($) Q_ heat flow rate (kW)
Cnon-esc the amount of non-escalation expenditure ($) SPP payback periods (year)
CO&M annual operation and maintenance expense ($) s specific entropy (kJ/kgK)
Cplant the amount of physical construction ($) T temperature (°C)
Csurf unit cost for surface equipment ($/kW) t escalation period (year)
Ctotal total cost (M$) W _ net net power (kW)
Cunit unit cost of plant ($/kW) gth thermal efficiency
e specific exergy (kJ/kg) ge exergetic efficiency
er escalation rate (%)
E_ exergy rate (kW) Subscripts
Ee annual electrical energy production amount (MW h) 0 dead state
Ep unit price of electricity ($/kW h) Cond condenser
Eper percentage of annual expenditure during construction f saturated liquid
(%) geo geothermal fluid
f average annual producer prices inflation (%) HE heat exchanger
HTR high temperature recuperator in inlet
h specific enthalpy (kJ/kg) p pump
i annual interest rate (%) pp pinch point
i⁄ the interest rate including inflation rate (%) r reversible
I_ exergy destruction (kW) t turbine
Lf load factor (%) out outlet
LTR low temperature recuperator reinj reinjection
m _ mass flow rate (kg/s)
n lifetime of the power plant (year)

ysis for high-temperature geothermal resources. In this study, the
considered cycles are a binary geothermal power plant using a
simple ORC, a binary geothermal power plant using an ORC with
an internal heat exchanger (IHE), a binary cycle with a regenerative
ORC, a binary cycle with a regenerative ORC with an IHE, a single-
flash geothermal power plant, a double-flash geothermal power
plant and a combined flash-binary power plant. With respect to
each cycle, a thermodynamic model had to be developed. The per-
formance of each cycle has been discussed in terms of the second-
law efficiency, exergy destruction rate, and first-law efficiency. The
maximum first-law efficiency was obtained to be 7.7% for the ORC
with an IHE with R123 as the working fluid. The first-law efficiency
based on the energy input to the ORC in binary cycle with the
regenerative ORC with an IHE and R123 as the working fluid is
15.4%. The value for the flash-binary with R123 as the working
fluid was 11.8%.
Hettiarachchi et al. [6] investigated a cost-effective optimum
design criterion for ORC utilizing low-temperature geothermal
heat sources. The optimum cycle performance is evaluated and
compared for working fluids that include ammonia, HCFC123 and
n-Pentane. Ammonia has minimum objective function and maxi-
mum geothermal water utilization, but not necessarily maximum
cycle efficiency.
DiPippo [7] presented the second law assessment of binary
plants generating power from low-temperature geothermal
sources. The results show that binary plants can operate with high
second law or exergetic efficiencies even when the motive fluids
are low-temperature and low-exergy. Exergetic efficiencies of
40% or higher have been achieved in certain plants. The main de-
sign feature leading to a high second law efficiency lies in the de-
sign of the heat exchangers to minimize the loss of exergy during
heat transfer processes. Shengjun et al. [8] investigated the
parameter optimization and performance comparison of the fluids
in subcritical ORC and transcritical power cycle in low-tempera-
ture binary geothermal power system. The optimization procedure
was conducted with a simulation program written in Matlab using
five indicators: thermal efficiency, exergy efficiency, recovery effi-
ciency, heat exchanger area per unit power output and the level-
ized energy cost. The analysis showed that the choice of working
fluid varies the objective function and the value of the optimized
operation parameters are not all the same for different indicators.
R123 in subcritical ORC system yields the highest thermal effi-
ciency and exergy efficiency of 11.1% and 54.1%, respectively.
Although the thermal efficiency and exergy efficiency of R125 in
transcritical cycle is 46.4% and 20% lower than that of R123 in sub-
critical ORC, it provides 20.7% larger recovery efficiency. The level-
ized energy cost value is relatively low.
DiPippo [9] found that actual binary plants can achieve relative
efficiencies as high as 85%. The paper discusses cycles using two-
phase expanders that in principle come close to the ideal triangular
cycle. Franco and Villani [10] analyzed that the brine specific con-
sumption, ranging from 20 to 120 kg/s for each net MW produced,
and the efficiency of the plants, ranging from 20% to 45% in terms
of second law efficiency, are dictated mainly by the combination of
the brine inlet temperature, the brine rejection temperature and
the energy conversion cycle being used. It is shown that optimiza-
tion of the plant can yield improvements of up to 30–40% in terms
of reduction of brine specific consumption compared to conven-
tional design.
Coskun [11] studied geothermal sources with low, medium and
high temperatures that may be suitable for power generation in
Turkey. Optimum plants chosen in terms of maximum net power,
thermal and exergetic efficiency were selected according to prop-
erties of these sources. These plants are single flash, double flash,
 A. Coskun et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 78 (2014) 39–49
binary, combined, regenerative binary, regenerative binary with
heat exchanger, binary with regenerator and Kalina cycle plants.
Selected plants were optimized according to turbine inlet pressure
by maximizing net power, energy and exergy efficiencies. An eco-
nomic analysis (the costs per unit energy, payback periods, etc.) in
which interest, inflation and escalation rates were included to the
costs were also carried out. The changes of net power and specific
costs of the plants with geothermal fluid temperatures were inves-
tigated, as well.
In this study, we consider geothermal resources in Kutahya–
Simav region of Turkey having geothermal water at 98–162 °C
range. Kutahya–Simav region located in the west of Turkey. It is
among the most significant 15 geothermal fields in Turkey. The
study is aimed to select the most suitable plant (or plants) based
on the characteristics of the resource. The cycles are to be optimized
based on turbine inlet pressure. The purpose of selecting the cycle
type and the optimization of operating conditions is to maximize
the power production from the geothermal resource. Exergy losses
are evaluated for all plant designs considered. Also, cost analysis of
the plants is performed considering interest, inflation and escala-
tion rates. This study is yield a realistic estimate of the power pro-
duction potential from Kutahya–Simav geothermal region based on
thermodynamic analysis and this information may be used for the
academic and industrial area. Besides the exergy analyses of geo-
thermal power plants have been studied by researchers, in this
study it is determined the most suitable plant for a geothermal re-
source. Furthermore, it is possible to perform the thermodynamics
and economic analyses of the geothermal power plants.
2. Geothermal power cycles
In this study, the thermodynamic cycles shown in Figs. 1–4
(double flash, binary, combined flash/binary, Kalina) are examined
for the considered resource. Flash steam plants are used to gener-
ate power from liquid-dominated resources that are hot enough to
flash a significant proportion of the water to steam in surface
equipment, either at single-flash or double-flash plants. Certain
percentage of geothermal fluid evaporates during the flashing pro-
cess (a throttling process) during which pressure drops while en-
thalpy remains constant.
Binary cycle plants use the geothermal brine from liquid-dom-
inated resources usually at relatively low temperature. These
plants operate with a binary working fluid (isobutane, R-114, iso-
pentane, etc.) that has a low boiling temperature in a Rankine cy-
cle. The working fluid is completely vaporized and usually
superheated by the geothermal heat in the vaporizer. The vapor ex-
pands in the turbine. It is then condensed in a water-cooled con-
denser before being pumped back to vaporizer to complete the
cycle (Fig. 2).
Fig. 1. Double flash cycle.
41
Fig. 2. Binary cycle.
The combined flash/binary design found its way into the prac-
tice to take advantage of the benefits associated with both the flash
and binary designs. Combined cycles are suited for high tempera-
ture geothermal resources. In the combined cycles, brine is flashed
to obtain some vapor, which is directed to a steam turbine to pro-
duce work. The geothermal fluid leaving the separator is used to
vaporize a binary working fluid in a heat exchanger before being
reinjected back to the ground. Binary vapor leaving the heat ex-
changer is directed to a separate turbine to produce additional
work (Fig. 3).
The schematic diagram of the Kalina cycle is shown in Fig. 4.
The ammonia-rich vapor is separated from the liquid phase in a
separator. The vapor and liquid phases are condensed in the con-
denser. Condensing vapor is pumped back to low temperature
recuperator. The vapor and liquid phases are merged together in
the low temperature recuperator. Then, the ammonia-water mix-
ture is heated in the high temperature recuperator. This mixture
is superheated by the geothermal heat in the heat exchanger.
3. Thermodynamic and economic analysis of cycles
Mass, energy and exergy balances for any control volume at
steady state with negligible kinetic and potential energy changes
can be expressed, respectively, by
X X
_ in ¼
m _ out
m ð1Þ
X X
Q_ þ W
_ ¼ _ out hout 
m _ in hin
m ð2Þ
X X
E_ heat þ W
_ ¼ E_ out  E_ in þ I_ ð3Þ
where the subscriptions in and out represent the inlet and exit
states, Q_ and W_ the net heat and work inputs, m _ is the mass flow
rate, h is the enthalpy, and I_ is the rate of irreversibility. The sub-
42 A. Coskun et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 78 (2014) 39–49

Cooled 12 13
1 water
Power Condenser 1
Turbine

2 14 15
Separator
Cooled
10 Flash 11 water 3
Geothermal 7
fluid
Power Condenser 2
Turbine
4

8 6
Pump
5

9
Heat exchanger

Reinjection

Fig. 3. Combined cycle.

NH3+H2O Seperator NH3 4

Power
3
Turbine
Heat 10 H2O
exchanger
Geothermal 1 5
fluid Condenser 12
HTR 8 Cooled
9 LTR
water
2 11 13
NH3+H2O 7 6

Q Pump

Reinjection

Fig. 4. Kalina cycle.

script 0 stands for the restricted dead state. Also, E_ heat is the net _
W
exergy transfer by heat at the temperature T, which is given by gp;e ¼ _ p;r ð8Þ
Wp
X
E_ heat ¼ ð1  T 0 =TÞQ_ ð4Þ where W _ p;r is the reversible pump power, which is equal to W
_ p  I.
_
In the binary cycles, an energy balance can be written for the
heat exchanger as:
The specific flow exergy is given by
e ¼ h  h0  T 0 ðs  s0 Þ ð5Þ _ geo ðhgeo  hpp Þ ¼ m
m _ binary ðht;in  hf;binary Þ ð9Þ
and
Multiplying specific exergy by the mass flow rate of the fluid
_ geo ðhpp  hreinj Þ ¼ m
m _ binary ðhf;binary  hHE;in Þ ð10Þ
gives the exergy rate
where m _ geo and m
_ binary are the mass flow rate of geothermal brine
E_ ¼ me
_ ð6Þ and binary fluid, respectively. hf is the saturated liquid enthalpy
of binary fluid at the saturated (vaporization) temperature. Also,
The exergetic efficiency of a turbine is defined as a measure of hpp is the enthalpy of the brine at the pinch-point temperature of
how well the stream exergy of the fluid is converted into actual the brine.
turbine output. Then, The exergetic efficiencies of a heat exchanger may be measured
by increase in the exergy of the cold stream divided by the de-
_
W
gt;e ¼ _ t ð7Þ crease in the exergy of the hot stream [12]. Applying this definition
W t;r to heat exchanger, we obtain

where W_ t is the actual turbine power and W _ t;r is the reversible tur-
ðE_  E_ Þ
bine power, which is equal to W _ t þ I.
_ The exergy efficiency of the ge;HE;Cond ¼ _out _ in cold ð11Þ
pump is defined similarly as ðEin  Eout Þhot
 A. Coskun et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 78 (2014) 39–49
where the subscripts cold and hot represent the cold stream and the
hot stream, respectively. The difference between the numerator and
denominator of Eq. (11) is the exergy destruction in the heat ex-
changer or condenser. One may take all the exergy given up by
the hot fluid in the condenser as part of the exergy destruction
for the power plant.
Following Kestin [13] and DiPippo and Marcille [14], the energy
efficiency of a geothermal power plant may be expressed as
W_ net
gth ¼ _
mgeo ðhgeo  h0 Þ
where the expression in the denominator is the energy input to the
power plant with respect to the environmental state. Using the
exergy of geothermal water with respect to dead state as the exergy
input to the plant, the exergy efficiency of a geothermal power plant
can be expressed as
_
W portional to the energy production. Unit O&M cost also has an
ge ¼ _ net
Ein
We believe that using energy and exergy content of geothermal
water relative to dead state provides a common base for the com-
parison of various cycles studied in this paper. Then for a given
geothermal resource, the energy input and exergy input values be-
come the same for different cycles. Note that Eqs. (12) and (13) are
analogous to using heating value of the fuel and exergy of the fuel
in the energy and exergy efficiencies of a conventional steam
power plant, respectively.
The investment cost of geothermal power plants is divided into
surface costs (plant equipment and construction) and subsurface
costs (reservoir exploration and drilling). Surface costs can be esti-
mated with relative exactitude for a specific location and reservoir
characteristics; however, a higher uncertainty is associated with
subsurface costs when reservoir characteristics are not well known
[15].
The costs associated with building and operating a geothermal
power plant vary widely and depend on such factors [16] as
 Resource type (steam or hot water).
 Resource temperature.
 Reservoir productivity.
 Power plant size.
 Power plant type (single-flash, binary, etc.).
 Environmental regulations.
 Cost of capital.
 Cost of labor.
The temperature of the resource is an essential parameter
which influences the cost of power plants. Each power plant is de-
signed to optimize the use of the heat supplied by the geothermal
fluid. The size and thus cost of various components (e.g. heat
exchangers) is determined by the resource temperature. As the
temperature of the resource increases, the efficiency of the power
system increases and the specific cost of equipment decreases. The
temperature of the resource is a main criterion for selecting the cy-
cle [17].
The evaluation of the plant cost requires a knowledge of the size
of every major component [18]. Plant size is a significant cost fac-
tor, especially in the case of single unit condensing steam turbines,
but excluding ORC plants which are typically modular. Other fac-
tors to consider are the optimization of condenser pressure, means
of gas extraction, and the use of standard power units [19].
The first three factors influence the number of wells that must
be drilled for a given plant capacity. Using typical costs and power
potential for production wells, a single well can cost 100–400 $/
43
kW. The next three items determine the capital cost of the energy
conversion system; whereas, the last two affect the cost of running
the plant (i.e., debt service, and operating and maintenance) [16].
We will consider, for surface costs, a unit cost exponentially
decreasing from 2000 $/kW for a 5 MW plant to 1000 $/kW for a
150 MW plant. Unit cost for surface equipment ($/kW) is defined
as a function of installed power capacity (MW) [20],
_  5ÞÞ
C surf ¼ 2000 expð0:0045ðW ð14Þ
ð12Þ
Operating and maintenance costs (O&M), both fixed and vari-
able, are assumed equal for steam and ORC section. If both sections
are present, fixed maintenance costs will therefore double with re-
spect to simple binary or flash cycle [18]. The variable portion of
the annual O&M costs vary with the level of generation, such as
costs of supplies, and consumables, [21].
Operating and maintenance cost per year is assumed to be pro-
ð13Þ exponential decline with increasing plant energy production [21].
We will consider a unit cost for O&M that exponentially decreases
from 20 $/MW h for a 5 MW plant to 14 $/MW h for a 150 MW
plant. Operating and maintenance costs can be expressed as a func-
tion of the installed power capacity (MW) [15],
_  5ÞÞ
C O&M ¼ 20 expð0:0025ðW ð15Þ
The amount of physical construction of a geothermal power
plant is given by
_ net
C plant ¼ C unit W ð16Þ
_ net is the net power of
where Cunit is the unit cost of plant in $/kW, W
plant in kW.
3.1. Escalation load
Escalation is the price rise of the material, equipment and labor
used during construction of power plants. Therefore, due to escala-
tion of expenditures made during the plant construction the direct
construction cost will be higher. The amount of non-escalation
expenditure for any year is calculated from
C nonesc ¼ C plant Eper ð17Þ
where Eper designates percentage of annual expenditure during con-
struction. The amount of total escalation expenditure during the
construction of plants is expressed as
X
t
C esc ¼ C nonesc ð1 þ er Þt ð18Þ
t¼1
where er is the escalation rate and t is the escalation period.
3.2. Interest and inflation load
When a loan is used for expenditures during construction of the
power plant, it is also necessary to repay interest load in addition
to the expenses with escalation. At the end of the construction of
the power plant, the total amount that has to be repaid is defined
by
 bt
CðtÞ ¼ C esc ð1 þ i Þ ð19Þ
*
where b is the construction time in year, i is the annual accumu-
lated interest rate including annual producer prices inflation. The
interest rate including inflation rate is calculated from [22]
 1þi
i ¼ 1 ð20Þ
1þf
44 A. Coskun et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 78 (2014) 39–49

where i annual interest rate and f is average annual producer prices  The heat source for the cycles are the flow of geothermal water
inflation. The total expenditure amount including escalation, inter- (brine) entering the plant at 162 °C with a mass flow rate of
est and inflation rates can be calculated from 100 kg/s [24].
 Dead state temperature and pressure for the cycles are 25 °C
X
b
C¼ CðtÞ ð21Þ and 100 kPa, respectively.
t¼1  Turbine and pump isentropic efficiencies are 85%.
 In binary cycle and combined cycle, the binary working fluid is
isobutane. Note that isobutane is commonly used as the work-
3.3. Constant annual capital cost of enterprise
ing fluid for binary geothermal plants using liquid, low-to-med-
ium temperature resources.
Considering that the starting date of repayment of the credit
 In Kalina cycle, the working fluid is NH3–H2O.
used due to the expenditures made at the construction of the
 The pinch-point temperature difference (DTpp) that exists in the
power plant is the delivery date of the power plant, constant an-
heat exchanger of binary and Kalina cycles is taken as 5 °C.
nual capital cost to repay during the lifetime of the power plant
 Ten percent of the power produced is internally consumed in
is calculated as
power plants [25]. Internal power consumption is typically
  n
i ð1 þ i Þ higher than this (up to 25% or more) in binary plants particu-
C capital ¼ C  n ð22Þ larly when condensers are air cooled. However, for uniform
ð1 þ i Þ  1
treatment, we take this 10% for all cycles but the effect of this
where n designates the lifetime of the power plant. Annual amount uncertainty should be kept in mind when interpreting the
of electrical energy production in the power plant (MW h) is given results.
by  Effectiveness of heat exchangers for binary cycles is 80%.
_ net Lf  Lifetime of plants is 25 years.
Ee ¼ 8760 W ð23Þ
 Construction time of double flash, combined and Kalina plants
where Lf is load factor which is taken as 0.90 in geothermal power are 5 years and binary plant is 2 years.
plants.  Interest rate is 7.75% [26]. Escalation rate is 5%.
 Annual inflation rate is 2.2% [27].
3.4. Annual operating and maintenance expenses  The unit price of electricity is 0.05 $/kW h.
 Load factor is 0.90.
In geothermal power plants annual operating and maintenance
expenses are taken as 3% or 4% of the investment costs of power
plants [23]. Annual operating and maintenance expense is defined 4. Results and discussion
as
_ net Using the formulation, cycle data, and assumptions, the cycles
C O&M ¼ C CE W ð24Þ
are simulated in a computer program (EES) with built-in thermo-
where CCE is constant expenses denominated by $/kW year. dynamic property functions [28]. Parametric studies are performed
to study effect of certain operating parameters (such as resource
3.5. Reduction of future expenses to today temperature and turbine inlet pressure) on the thermodynamic
and economic results (such as unit cost and net power) for differ-
The present value of the capital cost at the end of n period can ent cycles considered in this paper. The resource considered in this
be defined as study is a liquid resource at 162 °C. There are other geothermal re-
sources in western Turkey at a temperature close to this value. The
X
n
PWF capital ¼
 n
C capital ðnÞ  ð1 þ i Þ ð25Þ parametric analysis is performed at various temperature ranges
n¼1 suitable for the considered cycles and these ranges also include
162 °C. The assumptions and values given at the end of the previ-
ous section are used in this analysis. Plant operation is simulated
The present value of annual operation and maintenance ex-
using EES program under the stated operating conditions and
penses can be calculated from
assumptions and the results are obtained at different operating
X
n
 n points. The investigation indicates an optimum point of operation
PWF O&M ¼ C O&M ðnÞ  ð1 þ i Þ ð26Þ at a certain turbine inlet pressure for which the net power output
n¼1
is a maximum. As a result, thermodynamic and economic results
not only apply to the specific resource considered in this study
By the proportion of today’s totals of the all expenses made but also applies to similar liquid resources at the given tempera-
throughout construction and operating life of the power plant to ture ranges.
the revenue of energy the power plant will produce during its life- Properties are calculated at all state points for various cycles
time, the following equation is obtained and results are given in Tables 1–4. Note that the pressures in
PWF capital þ PWF O&M the second flash chamber and condenser are subatmospheric.
COE ¼ ð27Þ The condenser pressure in a double-flash cycle is typically very
Ee
low. Having a higher but subatmospheric turbine inlet pressure al-
lows power output from the turbine. This flash pressure is obtained
Here, COE designates the capital cost per unit energy in $/kW h from a thermodynamic analysis but one can use a pressure slightly
The simple payback periods of power plants (year) are defined as above the atmospheric in the flash chamber to eliminate practical
PWF capital þ PWF O&M problems such as air leakage and pump needed to extract liquid.
SPP ¼ ð28Þ The total power output from the plant will not be affected much
Ee Ep
due to such a modification. The values corresponding to optimum
where Ep is unit price of electricity, in $/kW h. values of power cycles considered for this resource are given in
In this study, the following assumptions are made: Table 5.
 A. Coskun et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 78 (2014) 39–49 45

Table 1
Properties and exergy rates for double flash cycle.

State no. Fluid Phase Temperature (°C) Pressure (kPa) Enthalpy (kJ/kg) Entropy (kJ/kg °C) Mass flow rate (kg/s) Exergy rate (kW)
0 Brine Dead state 25 100 104.8 0.37 – –
00 Water Dead state 25 100 104.8 0.37 – –
1 Brine Sat. vapor 121 205.3 2707 7.12 8 4719
2 Brine Sat. vapor 82.6 52.6 2647 7.58 6.5 2552
3 Brine Liquid–vapor 45.8 10 2374 7.49 14.5 2105
4 Brine Sat. liquid 45.8 10 191.8 0.65 14.5 42.1
5 Water Liquid 18 2.1 75.5 0.27 756 263.2
6 Water Liquid 28 3.8 117.4 0.41 756 47.9
7 Brine Liquid 162 650.3 684.2 1.96 100 10,371
8 Brine Liquid–vapor 121 205.3 684.2 1.99 100 9687
9 Brine Liquid–vapor 82.6 52.6 508.2 1.56 92 4324

Table 2
Properties and exergy rates for binary cycle.

State no. Fluid Phase Temperature (°C) Pressure (kPa) Enthalpy (kJ/kg) Entropy (kJ/kg °C) Mass flow rate (kg/s) Exergy rate (kW)
0 Brine Dead state 25 100 104.8 0.37 – –
00 Isobutane Dead state 25 100 599 2.52 – –
000 Water Dead state 25 100 104.8 0.37 – –
1 Isobutane Sat. liquid 29.6 400 270.8 1.25 67 3401
2 Isobutane Comp. liquid 30.9 2316 275 1.25 67 3637
3 Isobutane Sup. vapor 152 2316 805.4 2.68 67 10,457
4 Isobutane Sup. vapor 99.9 400 731.4 2.72 67 4795
5 Brine Liquid 162 650.3 684.2 1.96 100 10,371
6 Brine Liquid 78.5 44.7 328.8 1.06 100 1803
7 Water Liquid 18 2.1 75.5 0.27 737.6 256.8
8 Water Liquid 28 3.8 117.4 0.41 737.6 46.7

Table 3
Properties and exergy rates for combined cycle.

State no. Fluid Phase Temperature (°C) Pressure (kPa) Enthalpy (kJ/kg) Entropy (kJ/kg °C) Mass flow rate (kg/s) Exergy rate (kW)
0 Brine Dead state 25 100 104.8 0.37 – –
00 Isobutane Dead state 25 100 599 2.52 – –
000 Water Dead state 25 100 104.8 0.37 – –
1 Brine Sat. vapor 129.6 266.7 2719 7.03 6.4 4032
2 Brine Liquid–vapor 45.8 10 2301 7.26 6.4 902.3
3 Brine Sat. liquid 45.8 10 191.8 0.65 6.4 18.7
4 Isobutane Sat. liquid 29.6 400 270.4 1.24 53.3 2703
5 Isobutane Comp. liquid 30.1 1400 272.6 1.24 53.3 2801
6 Isobutane Sat. vapor 119.6 1400 749.4 2.61 53.3 6586
7 Isobutane Sat. vapor 83.9 400 698.8 2.63 53.3 3494
8 Brine Sat. liquid 129.6 266.7 544.5 1.63 93.6 5912
9 Brine Comp. liquid 69.4 266.7 290.5 0.95 93.6 1201
10 Brine Sat. liquid 162 650.3 684.2 1.96 100 10,371
11 Brine Liquid–vapor 129.6 266.7 684.2 1.98 100 9944
12 Water Liquid 18 2.1 75.5 0.27 323.8 112.7
13 Water Liquid 28 3.8 117.4 0.41 323.8 20.5
14 Water Liquid 18 2.1 75.5 0.27 545 189.8
15 Water Liquid 28 3.8 117.4 0.41 545 34.5

The cost of energy produced in geothermal power cycles and
the resulting payback periods are given in Table 6. The costs of
plants are taken as 1294 $/kW for double flash cycle, 2259.2 $/
kW for the binary cycle [17], 1850 $/kW for combined cycle, and
1300 $/kW for Kalina cycle [29]. The total cost turns out to be
the highest for the binary cycle and the lowest for the double flash
cycle. The cost of producing a unit amount of electricity is calcu-
lated to be 0.0116 $/kW h for double flash and Kalina cycles,
0.0165 $/kW h for combined cycle and 0.0202 $/kW h for binary
cycle, indicating that double flash and Kalina can provide higher
potential revenues. Consequently, the payback period is 5.8 years
for double flash and Kalina cycles while it is 8.3 years for combined
cycle and 9 years for binary cycle. Sener and Aksoy [30] found the
cost of electricity from geothermal resources in Turkey to be
around $0.057/kW h, with a payback time of 7–8 years for specific
types of investment. These payback periods are typical for new
geothermal power plants in Turkey. Considering that a typical
agreement period for buying geothermal electricity is 30 years,
geothermal power investments remain attractive in most cases.
The change of total cost of the cycles with the net power is
shown in Fig. 5. As seen from this figure, the total cost of the cycles
increases with the increase in the net power. Unit costs of the dou-
ble flash cycle and Kalina cycle are close to each other, and these
cycles are distinguished from the others as the most economical
plant types in terms of the total costs.
Variation of net power and specific cost of the plants with the
temperature of geothermal fluid is presented in Figs. 6–9. As the
resource temperature increases, the net power increases and the
specific cost decreases.
Effect of interest rate on total cost and payback period of double
flash cycle is shown in Fig. 10. As the interest rate increases, both
the total cost and payback period increase, as expected. This trend
46 A. Coskun et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 78 (2014) 39–49

Table 4
Properties and exergy rates for Kalina cycle.

State no. Fluid Phase Temperature (°C) Pressure (kPa) Enthalpy (kJ/kg) Entropy (kJ/kg °C) Mass flow rate (kg/s) Exergy rate (kW)
0 Brine Dead state 25 100 104.8 0.37 – –
00 NH3–H2O Dead state 25 100 599 2.52 – –
000 NH3 Dead state 25 100 1547 6.61 – –
000 0 Water Dead state 25 100 104.8 0.37 – –
1 Brine Sat. liquid 162 650.3 684.2 1.96 100 10,361
2 Brine Sat. liquid 103.5 114.9 434.1 1.35 100 3705
3 NH3–H2O Sup. vapor 152 12,222 577.3 2.03 56.6 13,061
4 NH3 Sup. vapor 152 12,222 1453 4.35 39.6 22,957
5 NH3 Liquid–vapor 29.5 1150 1244 4.47 39.6 13,277
6 NH3 Sat. liquid 29.5 1150 339.2 1.48 39.6 12,743
7 NH3 Comp. liquid 33.1 12,222 360.9 1.49 39.6 13,479
8 NH3–H2O Comp. liquid 50 12,222 44.5 0.61 56.6 14,025
9 NH3–H2O Comp. liquid 69.3 12,222 135.5 0.88 56.6 7474
10 H2O Comp. liquid 152 12,222 648.1 1.85 17 1720
11 H2O Comp. liquid 80 12,222 344.7 1.07 17 525.6
12 Water Liquid 18 2.1 75.5 0.27 857.6 298.6
13 Water Liquid 28 3.8 117.4 0.41 857.6 54.3

Table 5
Net power and energy and exergy efficiencies of cycles for Kutahya–Simav region based on optimum turbine inlet pressure.

Plants Optimum turbine inlet pressure (kPa) Net power (kW) Energy efficiency (%) Exergy efficiency (%)
Double flash cycle 205.3 3991 6.9 38.5
Binary cycle 2316 4184 7.2 40.3
Combined cycle 266.7 4726 8.2 45.6
Kalina cycle 12,222 6148 10.6 59.3

output. In flash cycles, as the flash pressure (i.e., turbine inlet

Table 6
Costs and payback periods of cycles for Kutahya–Simav region. pressure) increases the amount of resulting vapor decreases but
its temperature and specific enthalpy increases. Therefore, there
Plants Total costs Cost per unit energy Payback periods
must be an optimum point for flash pressure to yield a maximum
(M$) ($/kW h) (Year)
total enthalpy. This point also represents the maximum power for
Double flash cycle 9.00 0.0116 5.8
the cycle. The optimum pressure for double flash cycle is deter-
Binary cycle 14.91 0.0181 9
Combined cycle 15.40 0.0165 8.3 mined to be 205 kPa (see Table 5). The analysis of an existing sin-
Kalina cycle 14.08 0.0116 5.8 gle-flash geothermal power plant by Kanoglu and Cengel [31] give
a similar trend for the effect of flash pressure on the net power
output.
The optimum pressure is determined to be 267 kPa in combined
should be similar in other cycles. It is clear that economic feasibil- cycle. In binary cycle, there is no flashing process. The power out-
ity of a geothermal plant investment is greatly influenced by inter- put from the cycle is determined at different heat exchanger (i.e.,
est rate. turbine inlet pressure). It turns out that the net power is maxi-
The effect of turbine inlet pressure on the net power output mized at a pressure of 2316 kPa. This is the pressure of binary fluid
for double-flash, binary, and combined cycles are given in (working fluid) of the cycle. In the analysis of the binary cycle, the
Fig. 11. The analysis is performed fora geothermal resource at turbine inlet temperature is fixed and only pressure is varied.
162 °C. Under the given values and assumptions as specified in Increasing pressure also increases the pumping power but the en-
Section 3, the turbine inlet pressure is varied for the net power thalpy of the fluid at the turbine inlet also increases. As a result,

28
Binary cycle 3000 4000
26 Double flash cycle
24 Combined cycle 2750
Double flash cycle 3500
22
Total cost, C total (M$)

Unit cost, Cunit ($/kW)

Kalina cycle 2500

20
Net power (kW)

18 2250 3000
16
2000
14
1750 2500
12
10 1500
8 2000
1250
6
4 1000 1500
2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000 6500 7000 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155 160
Net power, Wnet (kW) Resource temperature, Tgeo (°C)

Fig. 5. Net power vs. total cost for cycles. Fig. 6. Resource temperature vs. unit cost and net power for double flash cycle.
 A. Coskun et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 78 (2014) 39–49 47

6000 4500 22.5 35

Binary cycle Double flash cycle
5500 20.5
4000 30

Payback period, SPP (year)

18.5
Unit cost, Cunit ($/kW)

5000

Total cost, C total (M$)

16.5

Net power (kW)

3500 25
4500
14.5
4000 3000 12.5 20

3500 10.5
2500 15
8.5
3000
2000 6.5
2500 10
4.5
2000 1500
120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155 160 2.5 5
5 7.5 10 12.5 15 17.5 20 22.5 25
Resource temperature, Tgeo (°C) Interest rate, i* (%)

Fig. 7. Resource temperature vs. unit cost and net power for binary cycle. Fig. 10. Interest rate vs. payback period and total cost for double flash cycle.

4000 7500
Combined cycle 5000
7000 Combined cycle
3500
Binary cycle
Unit cost, Cunit ($/kW)

6500 4500
Double flash cycle
Net power (kW)
3000
6000

Net power (kW)

4000
2500 5500
3500
5000
2000
4500 3000
1500
4000
2500
1000 3500
150 155 160 165 170 175 180 185 190 2000
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
Resource temperature, Tgeo (°C)
Turbine inlet pressure (kPa)
Fig. 8. Resource temperature vs. unit cost and net power for combined cycle.
Fig. 11. Turbine inlet pressure vs. net power for double flash, binary, and combined
cycles.

1400 6300
Kalina cycle
1390 6250
1380 optimization of the operating conditions of the power cycles may
Unit cost, Cunit ($/kW)

6200 lead to an increase in the performance of the designed cycles for

1370
Net power (kW)

6150 Kutahya–Simav region. These plants were optimized according to

1360
turbine inlet pressure maximizing net power, energy and exergy
1350 6100
efficiencies. Especially in double flash and combined plants flash-
1340 6050 ing pressures and turbine inlet pressures were separately opti-
1330 mized. Turbine outlet pressure was optimized according to the
6000
1320 outlet temperature of cooling water used in the condenser. Ther-
5950
1310 modynamic analysis and optimization results as summarized in
1300 5900 Table 5 indicate that Kalina cycle provides the maximum power
140 145 150 155 160 165 170 175 180
output for this resource. The power output in the Kalina cycle is
Resource temperature, Tgeo (°C)

Fig. 9. Resource temperature vs. unit cost and net power for Kalina cycle.
7000
Kalina Cycle
6500
there must be an optimum pressure yielding a maximum net
power for the cycle.
Net power (kW)

6000
A similar study for the Kalina cycle gives an optimum ammonia
pressure of 12.2 MPa (Fig. 12 and Table 5). Thermodynamic expla- 5500
nation of the process to yield an optimum pressure is analogous to
a flash cycle. 5000
Optimum plants in terms of maximum net power, thermal and
exergetic efficiency were selected according to properties of Kuta- 4500
hya–Simav geothermal region at medium temperature. These
plants were optimized according to various parameters. The opti- 4000
10000 11000 12000 13000 14000 15000
mization process was performed to minimize the exergy losses of
Turbine inlet pressure (kPa)
the units of the geothermal power plants. Optimal operating con-
ditions were determined for the net power of these cycles. The Fig. 12. Turbine inlet pressure vs. net power for Kalina cycle.
48 A. Coskun et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 78 (2014) 39–49

about 50% greater than that in the double flash cycle. In Kalina cy-
cle, the ammonia–water mixture has a varying boiling and con-
densing temperatures. This leads to a higher optimum turbine
inlet pressure. The net power, thermal efficiency and exergetic effi-
ciency of the cycle is higher in Kalina cycle compared to other cy-
cles. This is partly due to high values of enthalpy for ammonia at
high pressure. The power outputs in binary and double-flash cycles
are close but much smaller than Kalina cycle. DiPippo [7] also
points out that Kalina cycle can theoretically produce 50% more
power than binary (and double flash) cycles but this is not the case
in actual operations. Kalina cycle produces more power for the
same resource by decreasing the geothermal temperature to lower
values at the plant outlet. Kalina cycle is a new technology com-
pared to flash and binary cycles and technologic developments
may allow this performance to be approached in the future.
The results indicate that at optimum pressures, the power out-
put in combined cycle is 18% greater than that in double flash cycle
and 13% greater than that in binary cycle (Table 5). The power out-
put comparison of these four cycles also holds for the energy and
exergy efficiencies since the energy and exergy input to all cycles
are the same. The first law and second law efficiencies of Kalina cy-
cle are determined to be 10.6% and 59.3%, respectively. These effi-
ciencies are 8.2% and 45.6% for combined cycle, 7.2% and 40.3% for
binary cycle and 6.9% and 38.5% for double flash cycle (Table 5).
The study also includes the effect of ammonia concentration on
the net power. The net power decreases to a certain value, and then
increases again as the mass percentage of ammonia increases, as
shown in Fig. 13.
Exergy analysis can be used for selecting the most suitable geo-
thermal cycle and optimization of cycle operation. It also allows
determination of losses for the system components and the entire
cycle. The minimization of losses allows the system to perform bet-
ter and consequently power output is maximized. Exergy analysis
6500
Kalina Cycle
6000
Net power (kW)
indicates that work potential is lost in turbines, condensers, heat
exchangers, and by reinjection, as shown in Table 7. In Kalina cycle,
condenser exergy losses represents only 2% of the exergy input,
which is one reason for high performance of this cycle. The most
exergy losses are due to high temperature recuperator. In double
flash cycle, reinjection of geothermal water represents 20% of exer-
gy input to the cycle. Most exergy are lost in the condenser with a
rate of 23%. In all geothermal cycles, a significant fraction of the in-
put geothermal exergy to the plant is lost in the reinjection pro-
cess. The analysis here also confirms this finding.
5. Conclusions
Optimum first law efficiencies vary between 6.9% and 10.6%
while the optimum second law efficiencies vary between 38.5%
and 59.3% for the geothermal power cycles. Kalina cycle is followed
by combined cycle and binary cycle in terms of the maximum
power output, the first law, and the second law efficiencies. The
cost of producing a unit amount of electricity is calculated to be
0.0116 $/kW h for double flash and Kalina cycles, 0.0165 $/kW h
for combined cycle and 0.0202 $/kW h for binary cycle. The pay-
back periods of Kalina cycle and double flash cycle are determined
to be 5.8 years while it is 8.3 years for combined cycle and 9 years
for binary cycle.
The purpose of the study is to investigate the determination of
the optimum electricity production by double flash, binary, com-
bined flash/binary, Kalina cycle plants. The study is determined
to the optimum operating conditions of the selected cycles for
the Kutahya–Simav region. Especially, in double flash and com-
bined plants flashing pressures and turbine inlet pressures are sep-
arately optimized. Furthermore, Kalina cycle is also optimized for
the geothermal resource as the Kalina cycle is a new technology
compared to flash and binary cycles and technologic developments
may allow us to approach this performance in the future.
Besides energy and exergy analysis of the plants, economic
analysis (the costs per unit energy, payback periods, etc.) in which
interest, inflation and escalation rates which have been included to
the costs are also carried out. The cost to the operators is an impor-
tant factor due to economic analyses are very important for de-

signer. Therefore, the cost of energy produced in geothermal

5500 power cycles and the resulting payback periods for the geothermal
resource are presented.
5000 The selection of best geothermal power plant design for a given
resource depends on power generation potential and cost results
4500
among other practical considerations. As a result, these analyses
are expected to be very useful for the designers who want to install
a power plant into this region.
4000
0.70 0.73 0.75 0.78 0.80 0.83 0.85 0.88 0.90 Thermodynamic and economic analysis conducted in this study
Percentage by weight of ammonia (%) for a particular geothermal resource indicates that Kalina cycle
presents a viable choice for both thermodynamically and
Fig. 13. Percentage by weight of ammonia vs. net power for Kalina cycle. economically.

Table 7
Exergy losses of cycle components for Kutahya–Simav region, in kW.

Plants Total Net Turbine Condenser Reinjection Parasitic Heat Pump Condenser Condenser HTR
exergy power power exchanger 1 2
Double flash 9042.9 3991 731.5 2063 1814 (20%) 443.4 (5%) – – – – –
cycle (44%) (8%) (23%)
Binary cycle 10370.4 4184 705.2 1394 1803 (17%) 495.7 (5%) 1747 (17%) 41.5 – – –
(41%) (7%) (13%) (0%)
Combined 9944.4 4726 842.4 – 1222 (12%) 537.9 (5%) 924.7 (9%) 17.1 883.7 (9%) 790.6 (8%) –
cycle (49%) (8%) (0%)
Kalina cycle 34556.4 6148 1434 533.5 (2%) 3705 (11%) 1237 (4%) 1069 (3%) 125.9 – – 20,304
(18%) (4%) (0%) (58%)
 A. Coskun et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 78 (2014) 39–49 49

References [16] DiPippo R. Small geothermal power plants-design, performance and

economics. GHC Bulletin; 1999.
[17] Hance CN. Factors affecting costs of geothermal power development. Geothermal
[1] Zhou C, Doroodchi E, Moghtaderi B. An in-depth assessment of hybrid solar–
Energy Association Publications; 2005. http://www.geo-energy.org/reports/
geothermal power generation. Energy Convers Manage 2013;74:88–101.
FactorsAffectingCostofGeothermalPowerDevelopment-August2005.pdf.
[2] Aneke M, Agnew B, Underwood C. Underwood, performance analysis of the
[18] Bombarda P, Macchi F. Optimum cycles for geothermal power plants. In:
Chena binary geothermal power plant. Appl Therm Eng 2011;31(10):1825–32.
Proceedings World Geothermal Congress, Kyushu-Japan, 2000.
[3] Kanoglu M, Bolatturk A. Performance and parametric investigation of a binary
[19] Merz SK. Assessment of current costs of geothermal power generation in New
geothermal power plant by exergy. Renewable Energy 2008;33(11):2366–74.
Zealand (2007 Basis). New Zealand Geothermal Association. <http://
[4] Gabbrielli R. A novel design approach for small scale low enthalpy binary
www.nzgeothermal.org.nz/Publications/Whats%20New/SKM%20Cost%20of%20
geothermal powerplants. Energy Convers Manage 2012;64:263–72.
Geothermal%20Power%20Report %20_2007%20Cost%20Basis%20R1.pdf>; 2009
[5] Yari M. Exergetic analysis of various types of geothermal power plants.
[20] Sanyal, SK, Sarmiento Z. Booking geothermal energy reserves. GRC Trans., V.
Renewable Energy 2010;35(1):112–21.
29; 2005.
[6] Hettiarachchi HDM, Golubovic M, Worek WM, Ikegami Y. Optimum design
[21] Sanyal SK. Cost of geothermal power and factors that affect it. In: Proceedings
criteria for an Organic Rankine cycle using low-temperature geothermal heat
29th workshop on geothermal reservoir engineering, Stanford, California,
sources. Energy 2007;32(9):1698–706.
2004.
[7] DiPippo R. Second Law assessment of binary plants generating power from
[22] Thuesen GJ, Fabrycky WJ. Engineering economy. 7th ed. United States of
low-temperature geothermal fluids. Geothermics 2004;33(5):565–86.
America: Prentice Hall; 1988. 717 pp.
[8] Shengjun Z, Huaixin W, Tao G. Performance comparison and parametric
[23] Hudson R. Electricity generation. Geothermal Energy 1995:39–71.
optimization of subcritical Organic Rankine Cycle (ORC) and transcritical
[24] Akkus I, Akilli H, Ceyhan S, Dilemre A, Tekin Z, Turkiye Jeotermal Kaynaklari
power cycle system for low-temperature geothermal power generation. Appl
Envanteri. MTA Envanter Serisi-201, Ankara (in Turkish), 2005, 849pp.
Energy 2011;88(8):2740–54.
[25] Kanoglu M, Cengel YA. Performance evaluation of a binary geothermal power
[9] DiPippo R. Ideal thermal efficiency for geothermal binary plants. Geothermics
plant in Nevada. Proc ASME 1997;37:139–46.
2007;36(3):276–85.
[26] Central Bank of the Republic of Turkey. <http://www.tcmb.gov.tr>; 2009
[10] Franco A, Villani M. Optimal design of binary cycle power plants for water-
[27] Turkish Statistical Institute. <http://www.beyazgazete.com/haber/2009/11/
dominated, medium-temperature geothermal fields. Geothermics 2009;38(4):
03/ekim-ayi-enflasyon-verileri-aciklandi.html>; 2009.
379–91.
[28] Klein SA. Engineering Equation Solver (EES), Academic Commercial V8.208, F-
[11] Coskun A. Thermodynamic analysis and optimization of power plants for
Chart Software. <www.fChart.com>; 2008
geothermal resources in Turkey. Ph.D. thesis (in Turkish), Suleyman Demirel
[29] Arslan O. Ultimate evaluation of Simav–Eynal geothermal resources: design of
University, 2011, 182pp.
integrated system and its energy-exergy analysis. Ph.D. thesis (in Turkish,
[12] Wark KJ. Advanced thermodynamics for engineers. New York: McGraw-Hill;
Osmangazi University, 2008, 223pp.
1995.
[30] Sener AC, Aksoy N. A general view on geothermal power economy. In:
[13] Kestin J. Available work in geothermal energy. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Proceedings of the Geothermal Energy Seminar on Electricity Production from
Department of Energy. Division of Geothermal Energy; 1978.
Geothermal Energy TESKON 2007, October 25–28, Izmir, Turkey, 2007. (In
[14] DiPippo R, Marcille DF. Exergy analysis of geothermal power plants.
Turkish).
Geothermal Resour Coun Trans 1984;8:47–52.
[31] Kanoglu M, Cengel YA. Retrofitting a geothermal power plant to optimize
[15] Chamorro CR, Mondéjar ME, Ramos R, Segovia JJ, Martín MC, Villamañán MA.
performance: a case study. Trans ASME, J Energy Resour Technol 1999;121(4):
World geothermal power production status: energy, environmental and
295–301.
economic study of high enthalpy technologies. Energy 2012;42(1):10–8.