Dry steam cycle optimization for the

utilization of excess steam at Kamojang

geothermal power plant
Cite as: AIP Conference Proceedings 1984, 020021 (2018); https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5046605
Published Online: 25 July 2018

Lukman Adi Prananto, Gea Fardias Mu’min, Tubagus Muhammad Fauzi Soelaiman, and Muhammad Aziz

ARTICLES YOU MAY BE INTERESTED IN

Optimization of mechanical oil extraction process of Nyamplung seeds (Calophyllum

inophyllum L.) by flexible single screw extruder
AIP Conference Proceedings 1984, 020013 (2018); https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5046597

Development of torre-briquetting process to convert mixed MSW into high energy density
solid fuel
AIP Conference Proceedings 1984, 020028 (2018); https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5046612

Study of Kalina cycle as waste energy utilization system in Wayang Windu geothermal power
plant
AIP Conference Proceedings 1984, 030006 (2018); https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5046627

AIP Conference Proceedings 1984, 020021 (2018); https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5046605 1984, 020021

© 2018 Author(s).
 Dry Steam Cycle Optimization for the Utilization of Excess
Steam at Kamojang Geothermal Power Plant
Lukman Adi Prananto1, a), Gea Fardias Mu’min2), Tubagus Muhammad Fauzi
Soelaiman3) and Muhammad Aziz 1)
1
Institute of Innovative Research Tokyo Institute of Technology, 2-12-1, Ookayama, Meguro-ku, Tokyo 152-8552,
Japan
2
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Graduate School of Engineering, Tokyo Institute of Technology, 2-12-1,
Ookayama, Meguro-ku, Tokyo 152-8552, Japan
3
Institut Teknologi Bandung, Jl. Ganesha No.10, Bandung, Jawa Barat 40132, Indonesia
a)
Corresponding author: lukman.p.aa@m.titech.ac.jp

Abstract. We proposed an additional unit of the geothermal power plant to harness the vacant excess steam emitted to the
atmosphere in the electricity generation cycle of the Kamojang geothermal power plant, owing to high potential of thermal
energy due to the vapor-domination of the steam discharged from the geothermal well. Based on the validated model
calculation, the optimization of the system was carried out through the selection of variations of the gas removal system
(GRS) of the non-condensable gasses (NCGs). Five GRS schemes were carried out in this study: a one-stage steam ejector,
a two-stages steam ejector, a one-stage liquid ring vacuum pump (LRVP), a two-stage LRVP, and a hybrid system (ejector
plus LRVP). The proposed scheme shows that one-stage LRVP system achieved the best model for the GRS in the proposed
plant, generated an electric power of 15.94 MW, representing a 7.6% increase to the current 200 MW installed capacity,
with a house load energy consumption of 755.18 kW.

INTRODUCTION
Despite the clean and sustainability issues promoted by the renewable energy, the fact that some energy sources
e.g. solar and wind only generate power when the sun is shining or the wind is blowing gives major disadvantage for
the development of renewable energy [1]. The intermittent nature of renewable energy sources interrupts the common
methods for electricity distribution due to the unstable power from the plant, hence leads into the need of high capacity
energy storage to overcome the issue. Moreover, the fluctuation pattern of the electricity from renewable sources
creates the sophisticated and costly system for the high scale power plant. Thus, a stable renewable energy sources for
clean energy is very favorable for sustainability [2].
One of the renewable energy sources with the characteristics of clean and stable is the geothermal energy [3]. In
geothermal energy system, high energy water steam harvested from naturally heated earth crust is converted into
electricity by steam turbine and electric generator. Due to abundantly heat energy provided from the underground, the
geothermal system can be run for decades with stable and continuous load for the supply of electricity [4]. However,
due to the diverse heat energy and working fluid condition from the inside of earth crust, the development of this
energy system are focused on the cleaning and filtering of the working fluid [5]. By far, the system is separated into
three main cycles: the dry steam cycle, the flash cycle [6], and the binary-Kalina cycle [7, 8]. Among other geothermal
cycles, the dry steam cycle has advantage in the terms of power plant utilities and power generation capability.
However, dry steam cycle only occupies 5% of all geothermal systems due to the necessity to maintain the condition
of working fluid below the saturated vapor level [9]. Therefore, further utilization of the currently operating dry steam
cycle plant to enhance the performance is necessary for clean and stable renewable energy source.
In terms of energy conversion method, geothermal power plant has similar pattern with the conventional coal-fired
steam power plant, as both are using steam as the working fluid, and employing the steam turbine and generator as
energy converter from thermal to electrical energy. However, while current investigation shows the coal utilization
International Conference on Thermal Science and Technology (ICTST) 2017
AIP Conf. Proc. 1984, 020021-1–020021-7; https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5046605
Published by AIP Publishing. 978-0-7354-1700-7/$30.00

020021-1
can be upgraded from basic electricity generation into more extensive application, e.g. integrated hydrogen production
plant [10,11], the utilities of geothermal power plant is limited in the direct use of the heat or electricity generation.
Moreover, as the working fluid is utilized naturally from the earth crust, the condition is far from pure and ideal
condition. Instead, some non-condensable gasses (NCGs) are often deposited inside the steam and needs further
handling otherwise the NCGs will increase the condenser pressure and reduce the turbine output, resulting lower
capacities of the power plant [12]. Moreover, deposited NCGs inside the working fluid contributes to the piping
corrosion as some gasses are very acid. Hence, numerous investigations of the geothermal power plant were focused
on the gas removal system (GRS) of the NCGs. Previously, an investigation of NCGs handling in Kamojang
geothermal power plant has been carried out by Pranadi et al. [13]. Unfortunately, validation of the model was not
performed to ensure the viability of the system. In this investigation three configurations of GRS (dual liquid ring
vacuum pump (LRVP), dual ejector, and hybrid GRS) were proposed and it was found that dual LRVP showed the
best performance.
Currently, Kamojang geothermal power plant is continually throwing out 28.45 kg/s of the excess steam through
a vent structure. As this unused steam possess beneficial chemical energy potential for electricity generation, as shown
in the Table 1, we established an investigation to utilize the excess steam in the newly installed additional power plant.
This paper provides a model development of the plant optimization by performing validation with the current operating
Kamojang power plant to provide accuracy of the proposed model. To maximize the steam potential, optimization is
carried out by varying five GRS configurations (a one-stage steam ejector, a two-stage steam ejector, a one-stage
liquid ring vacuum pump (LRVP), a two-stages LRVP, and a hybrid system (ejector plus LRVP)) with the
consideration of the limit of condenser pressure.

TABLE 1. Characteristic of excess steam from the Kamojang geothermal power plant
Parameter Value Unit
Discharge rate (mass flow rate) 28.45 kg/s
Pressure 0.65 MPa abs
Temperature 161.9 °C
NCGs content 0.5 %

MODELLING AND SIMULATION

With the condition of the dry steam cycle, Kamojang power plant has favorable chemical energy potential and
carries advantage in the small number of plant utilities. In contrary with flash or binary cycle, the dry steam cycle
plant excludes the flasher or sophisticated separator to extract the steam from the working fluid. The main utilities of
the plant are the turbine-generator and the condensation system. In the condensation process, the plant was furnished
with the main condenser, inter-condenser, after-condenser, and the cooling tower. A system of main cooling water
pump (MCWP) continually provides cooling fluid for the direct-contact main condenser. Temperature in the main
condenser is kept at low point to harvest more energy from the steam turbine. To remove the NCGs from main
condenser, Kamojang power plant employs steam ejector and inter-condenser to condense steam from the ejector. An
after-condenser is furnished to condense steam from a gland ejector and motive steam from the inter-condenser. For
the main cooling system, some units of cooling tower are provided to circulate the cooling water to the main condenser.
In this study, modeling of the process and intensification are carried out with the principles of process integration
technology to improve the total energy efficiency and minimize the exergy lost [14].
In this study, we assumed no heat loss from the heat exchanger utilities to the environment. Moreover, the potential
and kinetic energy were neglected in this model, allowing equation to be simplified to represent the energy balance of
the turbine and pump, shown as follows:

̇ − ̇ = ∑ ̇ ℎ −∑ ̇ ℎ (1)
∑ ̇ ℎ =∑ ̇ ℎ (2)
̇ = ̇ × ℎ, −ℎ , (3)
̇ = ̇ × (4)

020021-2
where, ̇ is the heat content (kW), ̇ is work output (kW), ̇ is the mass flow rate (kg/s), and h is the enthalpy (kJ/kg),
is the efficiency coefficient. The subscripts 'e' and 'i' refer to the exit and inlet, respectively.
For NCGs consideration, we found that the geothermal steam contains various impurities, such as CO2, NH3, H2,
N2, and other non-condensable particulates, in which those gasses are very disruptive to the system. Among all
composition of the NCGs, CO2 occupies more than 90% portion in many cases [15]. Hence, the properties of the
NCGs is assumed as the similar properties with the CO2. Therefore, calculation of the enthalpy of the CO2 is carried
out by Sutton equation, in which an equation to calculate the enthalpy of CO2 based on the temperature [16].

ℎ = −2.18 u 10 − 2.63 u 10 u T + 0.252 u T + 732T (5)

In this study, various LRVP and steam jet ejector configurations were investigated to propose the best GRS
configuration. Model of the steam ejector system was carried out with the principle of venturi pipe where motive
steam injected into the steam ejector is passed by a nozzle to decrease its pressure and remove NCGs from inside the
condenser. In LRVP, NCGs was compressed by the eccentrically positioned vane impeller. It employs water liquid to
rotate the cylindrical ring, resulting a pumping power with positive displacement method. Following equation was
used to approach the power of LRVP [17]:
̇ . .
̇ = −1 (6)
K .

where, y is C 2/C 2, is the gas constant, is the discharge pressure, and is the suction pressure.

METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTION

The optimization of the plant was focused on the investigation of the optimal configuration of GRS. Five schemes
were proposed as the candidates, as illustrated in Fig. 1.

FIGURE 1. Candidate GRS configurations: (A) one-stage steam ejector, (B) two-stages steam ejector, (C) one-stage LRVP, (D)
two-stages LRVP , and (E) two-stages hybrid (steam ejector plus LRVP)

The newly proposed plant design would be adapted from the currently operating Kamojang power plant. The
schematic configuration of steam turbine, electric generator, cooling water system, intercooler utilities, and the mist
eliminator are relatively similar with the currently operating plant. Thus, several assumptions were established from
the common operational data of the geothermal power plant, as given in Table 2.
For the constraint of condenser design, the internal condenser pressure was limited based on the capacity of a
typical design of condenser. The terminal temperature difference (TTD or ∆ ) was set at 2.8 °C, and the temperature
difference (∆ ) between the condenser saturated temperature ( ) and the condenser inlet channel from the cooling
water ( ) was varied between 11 and 17 °C.

020021-3
 TABLE 2. Assumption for the model
Parameter Assumptions
Turbine efficiency 86%
Generator efficiency 97%
Fan efficiency 70%
MCWP efficiency 80%
Pump efficiency 80%
Cooling water temperature 27 °C
Suction temperature of 1st ejector 29 °C
Suction temperature of 2nd ejector 40 °C
After condenser outlet temperature 50 °C
NCG (CO2) weight 44 kg/kmol
Air weight 29 kg/kmol
Steam/Water weight 18 kg/kmol

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Based on the assumptions derived in previous section, ∆ was maintained between 11 and 17 °C based on the
typical condenser design, while the cooling water temperature ( ) and the TTD (∆ ) were 27 and 2.8 °C,
respectively. These constrains led to allowable condenser pressures of 7, 8, and 9 kPa, as the detailed shown in Table
3.

TABLE 3. Calculated temperature differences in the condenser

Condenser pressure Saturated temperature ∆ ∆

5.0 kPa 32.90 °C 2.8 °C 5.90 °C 27.0 °C 30.10 °C
6.0 kPa 36.18 °C 2.8 °C 9.18 °C 27.0 °C 33.38 °C
7.0 kPa 39.02 °C 2.8 °C 12.02 °C 27.0 °C 36.22 °C
8.0 kPa 41.53 °C 2.8 °C 14.53 °C 27.0 °C 38.73 °C
9.0 kPa 43.79 °C 2.8 °C 16.79 °C 27.0 °C 40.99 °C
10.0 kPa 45.83 °C 2.8 °C 18.83 °C 27.0 °C 43.03 °C
11.0 kPa 47.71 °C 2.8 °C 20.71 °C 27.0 °C 44.91 °C
12.0 kPa 49.45 °C 2.8 °C 22.45 °C 27.0 °C 46.65 °C
13.0 kPa 51.06 °C 2.8 °C 24.06 °C 27.0 °C 48.26 °C
14.0 kPa 52.58 °C 2.8 °C 25.58 °C 27.0 °C 49.78 °C
15.0 kPa 54.00 °C 2.8 °C 27.00 °C 27.0 °C 51.20 °C

Table 4 provides the results for each GRS design based on allowable condenser pressure (7, 8, and 9 kPa).
Unfortunately, the simulation in one-stage steam ejector resulted that the air to steam compression ratio in the steam
jet ejector was greater than 10, which is not safe for steam ejector design, therefore the system was unsuitable for the
system due the excess of compression ratio based on the allowable design of steam ejector.

020021-4
 TABLE 4. Plant simulations results
Two-stage steam
Parameters One-stage LRVP Two-stage LRVP Hybrid
ejector
Condenser
kPa 7.0 8.0 9.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 7.0 8.0 9.0
pressure
Power
MW 0.78 0.64 0.56 0.76 0.63 0.55 0.76 0.63 0.55 0.76 0.63 0.55
consumption
Turbine gross
MW 15.49 15.17 14.87 15.94 15.57 15.24 15.94 15.57 15.24 15.89 15.53 15.21
load
Net power MW 14.71 14.53 14.31 15.19 14.95 14.7 15.18 14.95 14.69 15.13 14.9 14.65

Based on simulation results, we found that the configuration of one-stage LRVP with condenser pressure at 7.0
kPa obtained the highest plant performance based on the net power generation owing to the turbine gross load of 15.94
MW and house load operation of 757.31 kW. The net power generation of the one-stage LRVP is quite similar with
the two-stages LRVP configuration with only 100 kW discrepancy. However, since the one-stage LRVP can provide
less plant utilities than the two-stages configuration, it is certain that the most optimum configuration GRS of the
newly proposed power plant is the one-stage LRVP. The detailed schematic configuration and plant specifications are
shown in Fig. 2, and the Table 5, respectively.

FIGURE 2. Schematic of the proposed power plant

020021-5
 TABLE 5. Detailed configuration of the proposed plant

No Specifications Properties
1 Turbine
Power generation, MW 16.434
Inlet Pressure, MPa 0.65
Inlet temperature, °C 161.9
NCGs, %wt 0.5
Mass flow rate, kg/s 28.35
Turbine efficiency, % 86
2 Generator
Power generation, kW 15,941
Efficiency, % 97
3 Condenser
Type Direct contact
Internal pressure, kPa 7
Internal temperature, °C 39.02
Cooling water temperature, °C 27
Water discharge temperature, °C 36.2
Cooling water mass flow rate, kg/s 1503
4 GRS
Type Single stage LRVP
Removal capacity, kW (equivalent) 28.05
5 Cooling tower
Type Mechanical Induced Draft
Fan power, kW 121.27

CONCLUSIONS
An investigation to utilize the unused excess steam discharged into the atmosphere in Kamojang geothermal power
plant has been investigated. Based on the validated model calculation of the plant, we optimized the plant configuration
based on the most optimum design of the gas removal system. Several assumptions were established to maintain the
viability of the plant design, including the allowable condenser pressure based on the allowable temperature difference.
Among five potential gas removal system configurations, the one-stage LRVP system achieved the most optimum
performance with 15.19 MW net power generation, harvested from 28.45 kg/s of unused excess steam. Considering
the working fluid is nearly free of production cost, additional of 15.19 MW (approximately 7.6% of currently operating
Kamojang geothermal power plant) will support the plant capacity and the surrounding area.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors would like to express their deep thanks to Indonesia Power Ltd. for the assistance in providing some
data required in this study. This study is supported by the Indonesia Endowment Fund for Education (LPDP).

REFERENCES
1. R. Bhandari, C. A. Trudewind, and P. Zapp, “Life cycle assessment of hydrogen production via electrolysis - A
review,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 85, 151–163 (2014).
2. M. Z. Jacobson and M. A. Delucchi, “Providing all global energy with wind, water, and solar power, Part I:
Technologies, energy resources, quantities and areas of infrastructure, and materials,” Energy Policy, 39 (3),
1154–1169 (2011).
3. T. A. F. Soelaiman, Geothermal energy, vol. 1, 114–139 (2016).
4. S. J. Zarrouk and H. Moon, “Efficiency of geothermal power plants: A worldwide review,” Geothermics, vol.
51, pp. 142–153 (2014).

020021-6
5. R. DiPippo, “Small geothermal power plants: design, performance and economics,” in Geo Heat Center
Quarterly Bulletin, 20 (2), pp. 1–8 (1999).
6. A. Najafabadi, “Geothermal Power Plant Condensers in The World,” World Geothermal Congress 2015, no. 1,
pp. 19–25 (2015).
7. A. Franco and M. Villani, “Optimal design of binary cycle power plants for water-dominated, medium-
temperature geothermal fields,” Geothermics, 38 (4), pp. 379–391 (2009).
8. C. E. Campos Rodríguez, J. C. Escobar Palacio, O. J. Venturini, E. E. Silva Lora, V. M. Cobas, D. Marques Dos
Santos, F. R. Lofrano Dotto, and V. Gialluca, “Exergetic and economic comparison of ORC and Kalina cycle
for low temperature enhanced geothermal system in Brazil,” Applied Thermal Engineering, 52 (1), 109–119
(2013).
9. R. Dipippo, Geothermal Power Plants: Principles, Applications, Case Studies and Environmental Impact
(Butterworth-Heinemann, Massachusetts, 2008).
10. M. Aziz, I. N. Zaini, T. Oda, A. Morihara, and T. Kashiwagi, “Energy conservative brown coal conversion to
hydrogen and power based on enhanced process integration: Integrated drying, coal direct chemical looping,
combined cycle and hydrogenation,” International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 42 (5), 1–10 (2016).
11. M. Aziz, F. B. Juangsa, W. Kurniawan, and B. A. Budiman, “Clean Co-production of H2 and power from low
rank coal,” Energy, vol. 116, 489–497 (2016).
12. N. Yildirim Ozcan and G. Gokcen, “Thermodynamic assessment of gas removal systems for single-flash
geothermal power plants,” Applied Thermal Engineering, 29 (14–15), 3246–3253 (2009).
13. A. D. Pranadi, Sihana, K. Suryopratomo, and F. R. Salis, “Economic and Thermodynamic Analysis for
Preliminary Design of Dry Steam Geothermal Power Plant (GPP) with Multifarious Gas Removal System (GRS)
in Kamojang, West Java, Indonesia,” IOP Conference Series Earth Environmental Science, 42 (1) (Institute
Technology of Bandung, Bandung, Indonesia, 2016), p. 12011.
14. M. Aziz, “Power generation from algae employing enhanced process integration technology,” Chemical
Engineering Research and Design, vol. 109, 297–306 (2016).
15. Mamrosh DL, McIntush KE, Douglas A, Fisher KS, Juliusson BM, Gunnarsson I, et al. Removal of hydrogen
sulfide and recovery of carbondioxide from geothermal non-condensable gas using water. Proceedings of
Geothermal Resources Council Annual Meeting (Geothermal Resource Council, Portland, Oregon, Sep 28–Oct
1 2014), 673–680.
16. F. B. Hosgor, O. I. Tureyen, A. Satman, and M. Cinar, “Effects of Carbon Dioxide Dissolved in Geothermal
Water on Reservoir Production Performance,” in World Geothermal Congress 2015, p. 11 (2015).
17. P. H. H. Siregar, “Optimization of Electrical Power Production Process for the Sibayak Geothermal Field,
Indonesia,” UNU Geotherm. Training Program., no. 16, 349–376 (2004).

020021-7