International Geothermal Conference, Reykjavík, Sept.

2003 Session #1

Factors influencing the economics of the Kalina

power cycle and situations of superior performance
Prof. Pall Valdimarsson, Digitally signed

Dr. Scient. Ing, Professor, University of Iceland

Mohamad by Mohamad
Ridwan Surono
DN:

Email: pallv@hi.is Ridwan cn=Mohamad

Ridwan Surono,
o=POLBAN,
ou=JTK, c=ID

Larus Eliasson,
Signature
Not Verified Surono Date: 2007.07.02
10:32:26 +07'00'

Dipl.–Ing. Mach, MBA; Marketing Manager of X-Orka ehf

Email: larus.eliasson@vgk.is

Abstract
The Kalina technology has its advantages and disadvantages. Those in favor phrase it
like new godsend while the opponents see in it only difficulties and additional
complexity. The Kalina cycle is a power cycle and does as such compete with Rankine,
Brayton, Diesel and Otto cycles. All theses cycles have their advantages and
disadvantages and they are all a theoretical description of real-world machinery. Since
the Kalina cycle is fully described in its physical values and material properties then we
are able to compare it theoretically with other processes for different boundary
conditions (in real life, energy situations). Accumulated cost-knowledge and operational
experience, enables us to compare the real life performance of these cycles for a typical
geothermal condition, that is source inlet and outlet temperatures and cooling fluid
temperatures. The areas of superiority for the Kalina cycle are then presented.

Keywords: geothermal, Kalina, efficiency, cost.

1 Introduction
The second law of thermodynamics binds the conversion efficiency of low
temperature heat into work or electricity. In addition to that, the conversion of heat
from a heat source with a finite heat capacity has a lower upper bound for the
efficiency due to the reduction of the source temperature as heat is removed from the
source. This results in high cost for such low temperature power plants, as they have
to handle large heat flows in order to produce acceptable power.
The Kalina cycle is a novel approach to increase this efficiency. The main benefit
of the Kalina cycle is that the heat addition to the process happens at a variable
temperature, and can thus be fitted to the falling temperature of a heat source with a
finite heat capacity, reducing the generation of entropy in the heat exchange with the
primary fluid. The temperature range for the boiling process of the ammonia-water
mixture in the Kalina process may be as high as 100°C.
An Organic Rankine Cycle (ORC) is an alternative to the Kalina cycle and has
found widespread use. There the boiling of the secondary fluid happens at a constant
temperature, meaning that the vapour for the turbine in the process has relatively low
temperature compared to the Kalina process.
The adoption of the Kalina cycle to a certain heat source and a certain cooling
fluid sink has one degree of freedom more than the ORC cycle, as the ammonia-water
composition can be adjusted as well as the system high and low pressure levels.
This paper presents calculations of the installed cost of power plants, both for
Kalina and ORC cycles. These calculations are based on cost models from X-Orka
Ltd., calibrated with data from tenders to the Husavik power plant in northern Iceland.
The Kalina cycle was selected for the Husavik plant. In their paper R. Maack and
P. Valdimarsson (2002) give an overview of the operating experience of the power

S01 Paper079 Page 32

International Geothermal Conference, Reykjavík, Sept. 2003 Session #1

plant, as well as discussion on the bids that are used for model calibration in the
paper.

2 The Models
Thermodynamic models have been established for the power cycles treated here. It is
assumed that a fluid is available at temperatures ranging from 100 to 150°C. A heat
customer is assumed for water at the temperature of 80°C, so that the temperature of
the primary fluid after heat has been supplied to the power plant is fixed at that value.
Flow of 50 kg/s is assumed. A large cooling water source is assumed, at the
temperature of 15°C, and maximum cooling water temperature is fixed at 30°C. It is
assumed that a cooling water pump has to overcome a pressure loss of 1 bar on the
cooling waterside in the condenser.
The software Engineering Equation Solver (EES) is used to run the models for
each operating condition, using the thermodynamic properties data supplied with that
software package. Prof. Pall Valdimarsson described the modelling approach is in a
paper (2002).
The cost model keeps the logarithmic mean temperature difference for each heat
exchanger at the same value as found in the cycle data for the tenders for the Husavik
power plant. Estimated cost figures for individual components were then added
together in order to obtain the final cost value.

2.1 ORC Model

The OCR model is based on a system without regeneration. Isopenthane is assumed as
a working fluid. Following is a flow sheet for the cycle.

Turbogenerator
Hot source Boiler

Cooling
tower

Pump Condenser

Figure 1: Typical ORC flow sheet.

2.2 Kalina Model

A Kalina cycle for generation of saturated vapour for the turbine is used. The cycle is
shown on the following Figure. Henry A. Mlcakt’s (1996) Introduction to the Kalina
Cycle contains an overview of the Kalina cycle and its applications.

S01 Paper079 Page 33

International Geothermal Conference, Reykjavík, Sept. 2003 Session #1

Strong mixture

Turbogenerator

Hot source Separator

Lean mixture
Cooling
Brine Regenerator tower
heat
Boiler
exchanger

Pump Condenser

Figure 2: Typical Kalina flow sheet for a saturated vapour cycle.

This cycle will be limited by the dew point of the mixture, that is when the boiling
of the mixture is complete, and no liquid remains at the boiler outlet. The bubble
temperature of the mixture has an influence as well, as it has to be lower or equal to
the primary fluid outlet temperature to ensure safe operation. Then good utilization of
the primary fluid is ensured. A contour diagram of the bubble and dew temperatures
for ammonia-water mixture as a function of ammonia content and pressure are found
on Figures 3 and 4.

Bubble temperature contours

1
30

70
50

0.95
80

0.9
Ammonia ratio [-]

40

0.85
60

70

80
50

0.8

0.75
90
40

60

80
70

0.7

0.65
10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Pressure [bar]

Figure 3: Bubble temperature contour for ammonia-water mixture.

S01 Paper079 Page 34

International Geothermal Conference, Reykjavík, Sept. 2003 Session #1

Dew temperature contours

1

80 10 0 11 0 12 0
90 11 0 12 0 13 0
0.95 10 0
13 0 14 0
12 0
0
Ammonia ratio [-] 0.9 11 13 0 14 0 15 0

16 0
15 0
0
0.85 12 0
14
0 0 17 0
16
13
0.8
0
15 0
0.75 17
0
14

0
0
16 18 0
0.7 19

0.65
10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Pressure [bar]

Figure 4: Dew temperature contour for ammonia-water mixture.

The region of feasible combinations of ammonia content and pressure will be in

the area between the 70 and 80°C bubble contours. The feasible area regarding the
dew temperature for the Kalina cycle studied here is limited on the right and lower
side (south-east) by a contour line with a value some 2-4°C lower than the maximum
temperature of the primary fluid.
A discussion on the general properties of the ammonia-water mixture in the
Kalina cycle, as well as presentation of the cycle in a thermodynamic property
diagram is given in the above cited paper by R. Maack and P. Valdimarsson (2002)
Operating experience with Kalina power plants.

3 Further on the Kalina cycle

3.1 Flexibility
Both high-pressure level and ammonia content are design variables in the Kalina
cycle. This gives the designer additional flexibility in the design of the cycle, and
requires as well a certain design strategy. Market situations may demand that the plant
is designed for absolute maximum power, and less regard paid to the cost per installed
kilowatt, or if the load duration curve is not flat, strong demands on the investment
cost, but less emphasis put on the total power. This is shown on Figures 5 and 6,
where the contour lines for installed cost and power are drawn as a function of
ammonia content and pressure. The source temperature is 100°C. The cost values are
put at 100 for the lowest cost, and the power values at 100 for the highest power. An x
denotes an infeasible solution, the cycle will not be able to run at these ammonia
content - pressure combinations. In Geir Þórólfsson’s MSc thesis (2002) a thorough
study of the influence of these combinations on the final cost figures is made.

S01 Paper079 Page 35

International Geothermal Conference, Reykjavík, Sept. 2003 Session #1

Cost contours, 100°C source

1
4 1
0 110065 3 10 10 2 0 3
0.95 11 10 2
0 10 1
6 1
10

10078
10 9

10 0 5

4
1

10
10

1
4
0.9

10 3
1
10 2
10
Ammonia ratio [-]

10 3
0.85 2 10

110 06
10 3 10 4 71
10
0.8 10 6 10 10
108
4 10 5
10 7
5 8
109

0
10
10 6 9 11
10
0.75 7
10
8 0
10 11
10 9
0.7

0.65
15 20 25 30 35 40
Pressure [bar]

Figure 5: Cost contours for a Kalina cycle running at 100/80° source temperatures.

Power contours, 100°C source

1

90
90 91
92
0.95
91
92 93 95 9442031
90 9 594 9697 999
9912 93 26
9967
98 9993749051
94 9938
5
0.9 95
99 9999621740
97 6
Ammonia ratio [-]

98
90

0.85
91
93

99
876
9995910243
92

98 7601 9
9954293
94

0.8 97 420351
9
99
96 9531
95

9942990
0.75
93910
92
91 90
90

0.7

0.65
20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40
Pressure [bar]

Figure 6: Power contours for a Kalina cycle running at 100/80° source temperatures

It can be seen from these contour diagrams, that the best power and best-cost
points are different. The lowest cost is at 32 bar, 92% ammonia, but highest power is
at 34 bar and 88% ammonia.
This leads to the definition of two different Kalina cycles, the best power and the
best-cost cycles, with different pressure and ammonia content.
The same diagrams for 120 and 150°C source temperature are on Figures 7 to 10.

S01 Paper079 Page 36

International Geothermal Conference, Reykjavík, Sept. 2003 Session #1

Cost contours, 120°C source

1
110
09 110087 10 6 105
110 8 1010 45
104
10 3
0.95 2 101 10 3
10 10 2

10 5
10 3
10 4
10 2

106
107

10 1
0.9
2
10

110
Ammonia ratio [-]

109
10 2

108
0.85 10 1
10 1 3
0
2
10 4
10

10 5
0.8 3

10
4
10 5
10 6 7
10 6
10

0.75 10 7
110
10 9

10 8
8 1010 9
0.7

0.65
15 20 25 30 35 40
Pressure [bar]

Figure 7: Cost contours for a Kalina cycle running at 120/80° source temperatures.

Power contours, 120°C source

1
76 78
80 84 86 88
848286 88 90 9291
93
0.95 90 2931
99 94
78

95 96
70

88

94
76

82

98
84

90

97
72

80

96

0.9
99
74

95
Ammonia ratio [-]

92
91

93

0.85

0.8
78
70

86
76

82
84
72

80

0.75
74

0.7

0.65
22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40
Pressure [bar]

Figure 8: Power contours for a Kalina cycle running at 120/80° source temperatures.

S01 Paper079 Page 37

International Geothermal Conference, Reykjavík, Sept. 2003 Session #1

Cost contours, 150°C source

1
108
107
10 610 5 4
0.95 10 0 3 102 10130 4
1
10 1
1
10

10 8
0.9

10 7

10 2
10 1

10 9 0
Ammonia ratio [-]

11
10 2

10 5
10 6
0.85 10 10 3

10
3

4
10 4
0.8
10 5
10 8

10 10 6
0.75 7
11 0

10 8
10
9

0.7 10 9

0.65
18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36
Pressure [bar]

Figure 9: Cost contours for a Kalina cycle running at 150/80° source temperatures.

Power contours, 150°C source

1
76

94

0.95
82
84

96
80

90
74

93
78
70

95
97
72

0.9
9291
86
Ammonia ratio [-]

88

0.85
76

84
82
80

0.8
74

78
70
72

0.75

0.7

0.65
22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40
Pressure [bar]

Figure 10: Power contours for a Kalina cycle running at 150/80° source temperatures.

4 Comparison
Two ORC companies made a tender in the Husavik bid. Manufacturer A offered a
high power, high cost power plant, where manufacturer B took a more conservative
approach.
Figures 11 and 12 contain the results of the calibrated model. The two ORC power
plants are indicated with dotted lines. Solid lines indicate Kalina power plants, the +
marker the high power variant, and the o marker the low cost variant.

S01 Paper079 Page 38

International Geothermal Conference, Reykjavík, Sept. 2003 Session #1

Kalina vs ORC cost comparison

2400

2200

2000

]
W 1800
k/
$[
t
s
o 1600
c
t
e
N
1400

1200

1000
100 110 120 130 140 150
Source inlet temperature [°C]

Figure 11: Kalina vs ORC cost comparison.

Kalina vs ORC power comparison

2000

1800

1600

1400
Net power [kW]

1200

1000

800

600

400

200
100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150
Source inlet temperature [°C]

Figure 12: Kalina vs ORC power comparison.

5 Conclusion
The model results presented in Section 4 show that the Kalina cycle has similar
installed cost to a high power ORC cycle. The maximum power generated for a given
source is greater for the Kalina cycle.
This leads to the obvious conclusion that the Kalina cycle is well positioned
against an ORC cycle for applications with high utilization time, a base load
application.

S01 Paper079 Page 39

International Geothermal Conference, Reykjavík, Sept. 2003 Session #1

It is to be stated here as well, that the assumption of a heat consumer is beneficial

for the ORC cycle as it results in less temperature change of the primary fluid during
the boiling process. The Kalina cycle has the boiling or vaporization of the fluid
happening over a temperature range up to 100°C, which is beneficial when the
primary fluid return temperature has to be minimized.
There has been a heated debate when one is comparing ORC and Kalina. The
theoretical efficiency and cost/production ratio are much better for Kalina as shown
above. Other arguments like difficulties with machinery and lesser operational
security or uptime are only temporary discussion items, as always for a new
technology. These arguments were exactly the same between conventional flash cycle
and ORC when the latter popped up 30 years ago with better efficiency but little track
record.
Ammonia has been used in a freezing plant for decades and ammonia-water
mixture on heat pumps (and small refrigerators), so the fluid is not new. It has also
been the cornerstone of geothermal utilization to overcome technical difficulties such
as from aggressive geothermal fluid and view such issues rather as tasks than
obstacles in our quest for best possible use of our geothermal resources.

Acknowledgments
This work has been partially funded by the RANNÍS, the Icelandic Centre for
Research. Orkuveita Húsavíkur (Husavik Energy), Husavik, Iceland, Hreinn
Hjartarson and Sigurpall Arnason are thanked for information and cooperation. VGK
Consulting Engineers, Reykjavik deserve thanks for interest, assistance and support.

6 References
Geir Þórólfsson (2002). Bestun á nýtingu lághita jarðvarma til raforkuframleiðslu.
(Optimization of low temperature heat utilization for production of electricity), MSc
thesis, University of Iceland, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering.
Henry A. Mlcak (1996). An introduction to the Kalina Cycle, ASME PWR – Vol. 30
PP765 – 776.
Pall Valdimarsson (2002). Cogeneration of district heating water and electricity from
a low temperature geothermal source, Proc. of the 8th International Symposium on
District Heating and Cooling, NEFP and the International Energy Agency,
Trondheim, August 14- 16, 2002, ISBN 82-594-2341-3.
R. Maack and P. Valdimarsson (2002). Operating experience with Kalina power
plants, VDI- Berichte 1703 Geothermische Stromerzeugung, Potsdam 17. und 18.
Oktober 2002, ISBN 3-18-091703-2

S01 Paper079 Page 40