Energy Conversion and Management 123 (2016) 348–361

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Conversion and Management

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

Thermodynamic evaluation of solar-geothermal hybrid power plants in

northern Chile
José Miguel Cardemil a,⇑, Felipe Cortés a,b, Andrés Díaz a, Rodrigo Escobar c
a
Escuela de Ingeniería Industrial, Universidad Diego Portales, Ejército 441, Santiago, Chile
b
Fraunhofer Chile Research, Center for Solar Energy Technologies (CSET), Vicuña Mackenna 4860, Santiago, Chile
c
Escuela de Ingeniería, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Vicuña Mackenna 4860, Macul, Santiago, Chile

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

Article history: A thermodynamic model was developed using Engineering Equation Solver (EES) to evaluate the perfor-
Received 25 January 2016 mance of single and double-flash geothermal power plants assisted by a parabolic trough solar concen-
Received in revised form 31 May 2016 trating collector field, considering four different geothermal reservoir conditions. The benefits of
Accepted 12 June 2016
delivering solar thermal energy for either the superheating or evaporating processes were analyzed in
order to achieve the maximum 2nd law efficiency for the hybrid schemes and reduce the geothermal
resource consumption for a constant power production. The results of the hybrid single-flash demon-
Keywords:
strate that the superheating process generates additional 0.23 kWe/kWth, while supplying solar heat
Solar energy
Geothermal energy
to evaporate the geothermal brine only delivers 0.16 kWe/kWth. The double-flash hybrid plant simula-
Hybrid scheme tion results allow obtaining 0.29 kWe/kWth and 0.17 kW/kWth by integrating solar energy at the super-
Thermodynamic analysis heater and evaporator, respectively. In this context, the hybrid single-flash power plant is able to produce
at least 20% additional power output, depending on the characteristics of the geothermal resource.
Moreover, all of the cases analyzed herein increased the exergy efficiency of the process by at least 3%.
The developed model also allowed assessing the reduction on the consumption of the geothermal fluid
from the reservoir when the plant power output stays constant, up to 16% for the hybrid single-flash,
and 19% for the hybrid double-flash. Based on the results obtained in this study, the solar-geothermal
hybrid scheme increases the power generation compared with geothermal-only power plants, being an
attractive solution for improved management of the geothermal reservoir depletion rates. The study
shows evidence of existing optimum configurations for the hybrid systems. A relative performance
map was developed in order to determine the best operation approaches according to the reservoir con-
ditions and solar field size.
Ó 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Chile presents a huge potential for renewable energy, especially
in its northern region. The low presence of clouds and high altitude
over sea level in the Atacama Desert result in exceptionally clear
skies with low aerosol contents and high levels of global and direct
irradiation throughout the year. Recent investigations indicate the
existence of a significant solar energy potential in the northern
regions, where the annual average daily global horizontal irradia-
tion (GHI) reaches levels higher than 7.5 kWh/m2 and the daily
average direct normal irradiation (DNI) presents values higher than
9 kWh/m2 [1,2]. Furthermore, the Chilean territory is also located
in the so-called ‘‘Pacific ring of fire” region which accounts for over
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: jose.cardemil@udp.cl (J.M. Cardemil).
15% of the world’s active volcanoes; related to this there are more
than 300 active geothermal areas throughout the country, with an
estimated resource potential of 16,000 MWe [3]. More than 20
geothermal areas are currently under exploration in Chile, where
the geothermal reservoirs present temperatures over 150 °C and
are located no deeper than 3000 m [4]. According to this, the north-
ern region of the country accounts for at least six already explored
geothermal areas and more than 25 other sites with potential for
geothermal generation.
The present study proposes to assess the use of these two
renewable resources combined in a hybrid scheme, thus configur-
ing a power plant capable of taking advantage of the benefits that
each source presents. Solar energy is available during the day
according to the specific climate conditions in a given site, while
geothermal energy does not present variations by season. How-
ever, the installation of geothermal power plants in general

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2016.06.032
0196-8904/Ó 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 J.M. Cardemil et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 123 (2016) 348–361
requires a longer period for deployment than for CSP plants. Con-
sidering the high potential of development for both sources in
the northern region of Chile, the present study focuses on the opti-
mization of hybrid schemes that enable exploiting these two
sources together efficiently.
Hybrid solar-geothermal schemes have been proposed in sev-
eral studies [5–13], which focused on different technologies for
exploiting geothermal resources, such as single flash [7,9], double
flash [5,6,9] and binary plants [7,8,10–12], commonly combined
with parabolic trough solar collector fields. In 2006, Lentz and
Almanza [5] proposed a hybrid system to increase the steam qual-
ity by integrating a solar field into a geothermal flash plant located
at Cerro Prieto, Mexico. This work also analyzed two different
alignments for the solar collectors: N-S and E-W. The authors
showed the feasibility of increasing the steam quality by 10%, thus
increasing the steam generation. Later, Lentz and Almanza [6] also
evaluated the increase in steam production associated with the
liquid-steam mixture by increasing the enthalpy of the geothermal
resource. One of the issues presented in their investigation was the
corrosion caused by the geothermal fluid, which limited the perfor-
mance of the hybrid systems. The authors showed that the flow
enthalpy from the geothermal reservoir increased with the integra-
tion of a parabolic trough solar field. Furthermore, the steam inten-
sification allowed presenting a better geothermal reservoir
classification, thus increasing the capacity factor of the plant. Con-
sidering this aspect, in 2010, Greenhut et al. [7] assessed the per-
formance of the system by including a heat exchanger between
the solar and geothermal fluid to compare the thermodynamic
and economic performance of a binary and single flash system on
a steady-state condition. This last system was selected to examine
the transient performance using historic solar and temperature
data from Nevada, United States, where the solar generation frac-
tion varies from 8% in winter to about 20% during summer.
Astolfi et al. [8] presented a research in which a solar concentra-
tion and a binary geothermal plant based on an organic Rankine
cycle (ORC) were combined. The study considered hourly simula-
tion, where solar resources of two different sites from Italy and
the United States were compared by quantifying the levelized cost
of energy associated with the operation of these plants. The
authors showed the possibility of increasing the energy production
about 15–28% depending on the site, through the integration of a
solar field arrangement. Moreover, the results showed an energy
cost reduction of 54–60% for the hybrid system when compared
to stand-alone solar thermal plant. The research displayed the
attractiveness of incorporating solar energy into low-enthalpy
geothermal systems.
Later, Mir et al. [9] developed an evaluation model for hybrid
solar-geothermal systems in order to estimate the effect of increas-
ing the fluid temperature and enhancing the steam generation pro-
cess, achieving higher power production at the geothermal system
by adding a solar field of parabolic trough collectors. The author
was also able to quantify a reduction in geothermal resource con-
sumption of up to 10%, considering the same power output as with
a stand-alone geothermal plant. The energy generation increased
by 12% when compared to a geothermal-only power plant, follow-
ing the daily peaks of solar radiation.
Recently, Zhou et al. [10] proposed a binary geothermal system
with solar boosting to investigate the effects on the hybrid system
performance of parameters such as ambient temperature, solar
irradiance, geographical location and geothermal resource quality.
Power output and economic performance adjusting parameters
were analyzed and compared to stand-alone solar and geothermal
plants, showing an outstanding potential on these aspects. The
results showed an increased between 22% and 78% on the power
output, depending on solar field size where an increase on the solar
field area resulted in a reduction on the LCOE from 225 $/MWh
349
(geothermal-only) to 165 $/MWh. Zhou [11] continued the
research on this aspect, focusing on the synergies and conditions
from his previous investigation seeking to determine the potential
for improving efficiency and reducing costs. The study proposed a
supercritical and subcritical ORC, combining solar and geothermal
sources to compare the performance of each system. This analysis
identified the conditions under which the hybrid solar-geothermal
systems are feasible, which in the best case can supply between 4
and 17% more power output than the subcritical cycle using super-
critical ORC. The supercritical hybrid configuration presented 51%
of additional power by the addition of the solar field, with an
annual power production of 13,258 MWh.
Ruzzenenti et al. [12] evaluated a hypothetical ORC plant
employing different working fluids. The effect of the fluid used
within the power block on the life cycle assessment and exergy uti-
lization from the geothermal resource was estimated, establishing
that the sustainability of the resource is related to the heat exchan-
ger surface and the operating conditions of the solar field. One of
the most recent studies was developed by Turchi et al. [13], in
which the authors evaluated the use of geothermal resource to
provide feed water heating in a CSP plant. The authors examined
the performance of the proposed system in terms of design, effi-
ciency and power generation. The geothermal energy allowed the
hybrid plant to increase by 8.5% the power output and an increase
in the system efficiency compared to a CSP – only plant. In this
context, the geothermal energy represented 11.4% of the annual
thermal energy input to the hybrid scheme. Additionally, the
authors highlighted the economic benefits of the hybrid design
due to the elimination of the geothermal power block and the
potential of the reduction of the brine flow rate that allows extend-
ing the geothermal reservoir life.
Recent studies evidence the potential of solar-geothermal facil-
ities for poligeneration purposes such as electricity, heating, cool-
ing and even fresh water production [14–16]. In this aspect,
Tempesti et al. [14], proposed two different micro CHP systems dri-
ven by geothermal and solar energy. The first configuration consid-
ered a binary geothermal power plant and an evacuated solar
collector arrangement. The second configuration considered only
heating a portion of the working fluid through a parabolic trough
collectors arrangement. This work considered different working
fluids and the results were evaluated in terms of the conversion
efficiencies and the production of heat and electricity. The results
showed that a single stage arrangement could satisfy the space
heating demand for 30 apartments. In a similar approach, Al-Ali
and Dincer [15] proposed a large scale system for producing power,
cooling, space heating and heat for industrial use, by the incorpo-
ration of a PTC arrangement to a high enthalpy geothermal plant.
A parametric study was conducted to evaluate the performance
of the system and compare the benefits of the polygeneration
scheme. The exergy efficiencies for single-generation and multi-
generation systems were 26.2% and 36.6%, respectively. The
authors justify the importance of the exergy analysis to correctly
analyze systems for multiple purposes. One of the most recently
studies in this matter corresponds to Calise et al. [16], whom devel-
oped a model of a solar-geothermal polygeneration system. The
system proposed was based on an organic Rankine cycle, driven
by a medium-enthalpy geothermal source and a parabolic trough
collector field, the geothermal residual heat was deployed to
power up a multi-effect distillation unit. A 2nd law analysis was
developed to identify the main issues affecting the performance
of the system. The highest exergy destruction were identify in
the ORC module, secondary heat exchanger and parabolic trough
collectors.
The aforementioned studies show a growing interest in hybrid
solar-geothermal power generation systems. However, several cru-
cial issues have not yet been addressed in order to determine the
350 J.M. Cardemil et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 123 (2016) 348–361
real potential of hybridizing both resources. Most of the studies
analyzed the potential for increasing the power output, determin-
ing the economic benefits and comparing all of the proposed con-
figurations [7,8,10,11]. The results from different authors agree in
suggesting that there is an improvement opportunity as the hybrid
solar-geothermal schemes can reduce the high costs associated
with the exploitation of both renewable energy resources. Never-
theless, some important aspects have yet to be investigated in
order to better quantify the potential from these hybrid systems
and the benefits of operating the combined subsystems. In this
context, the exergy or 2nd law efficiency can be maximized by a
proper optimization of the size and the configuration of the hybrid
system.
In what follows we conduct a study of two geothermal tech-
nologies with the objective of developing a thermodynamic model
of a solar-geothermal hybrid system that can optimize its opera-
tion under certain resource conditions, maximizing the 2nd law
efficiency using both energy sources. The intent is to determine
the most effective way to utilize the solar energy captured by the
parabolic trough collectors and address the potential benefits such
as reducing the geothermal fluid extraction rate. To this end, a
wide range of possible geothermal resources are considered to
evaluate the effects of the integration in terms of exergy efficiency
and to determine under which conditions the hybridization of the
two renewable resource benefits the overall system efficiency and
cost.
2. System description
This study focuses on medium-scale (<30 MW) flash geother-
mal power plants as their market availability is higher [17] and
facilitates the hybridization of actual stand-alone geothermal
plants [5–7,9]. The solar thermal energy at medium and high tem-
peratures can be supplied by concentration systems, of which the
parabolic trough collectors are most appropriate for combined
use in a geothermal facility due to their modularity, flexibility in
installation and operation, and availability in the market [18].
2.1. Single-flash hybrid system
The single-flash system is one of the most common schemes for
geothermal power plants in the world, accounting for 40% of the
installed capacity and the energy produced [17]. This type of sys-
tem is the simplest way to convert geothermal energy into electric-
ity when the geothermal fluid is a steam-liquid mixture. Fig. 1
shows a single-flash hybrid system integrated to a parabolic trough
collector array. The proposed hybrid scheme aims to evaluate
either the impact of superheating the steam obtained from the sep-
aration process in the geothermal flash plant (Heat Exchanger 1),
or the increase in the evaporation rate of the geothermal brine
(Heat Exchanger 2) by using thermal energy delivered by the solar
collectors.
2.2. Double-flash hybrid system
Double flash systems are considered an improvement over
single-flash systems as they can deliver 15–25% increase in power
output under the same operating conditions [19] without adding
much complexity to the system. These systems account for 20%
of the geothermal installed capacity and geothermal electricity
production in the world [17]. The double flash set-up takes advan-
tage of the high enthalpy in the first separation process that allows
the geothermal fluid to undergo a second flashing process, thus
supplying additional power with a low-pressure stream. Therefore,
the double-flash hybrid system comprises an additional
superheating process to assess the impact at the low-pressure
steam (Heat Exchanger 3), as shown in Fig. 2.
3. Thermodynamic model
The simulation model for the solar-geothermal hybrid schemes
being proposed here was developed using the EES software pack-
age [20]. This software, which is widely used by the scientific com-
munity for thermodynamic system simulations, not only allows for
solving the algebraic equations governing the thermal and power
cycles but also easily communicates with a property database
based on REFPROP-NIST [21].
The energy analysis is based on the 1st law of thermodynamics,
neglecting kinetic and potential energy variations:
X X
Q_
W
_ ¼ _ out hout

m _ in hin
m ð1Þ
where Q_ denotes the heat transfer rate, W_ is the work transfer from
the system, m _ is the mass flow rate, h is the specific enthalpy and
the subscripts in and out denote the inlet and outlet of the system,
respectively.
The exergy analysis is based on the 2nd law of thermodynamics,
using the following exergy balance expression:
X X
X_ heat
W
_ ¼ X_ out
X_ in þ X_ D ð2Þ
where X_ heat is the exergy transfer by heat, X_ out is the exergy outlet,
X_ in is the exergy inlet and X_ D is the exergy destruction.
The exergy transfer by heat ðX_ heat Þ can be obtained using the fol-
lowing expression:
 
T0 _
X_ heat ¼ 1
Q ð3Þ
T
where T 0 is the ambient temperature and T is the temperature of
the heat source.
The exergy flow in a component is expressed as follows:
X_ i ¼ mi ½ðhi
h0 Þ
T 0 ðsi
s0 Þ ð4Þ
where m_ i represents the flow rate in state i, hi and h0 are the specific
enthalpy at state i and the environmental state, respectively, and si
and s0 are the specific entropy at the same states, respectively.
Hence, to evaluate the performance of the hybrid system, the
2nd law efficiency is used according the following expression:
_
W
gII ¼ _ ð5Þ
X geo þ X_ HTF
_ indicates the net work rate delivered by the hybrid system
where W
and X_ HTF and X_ geo are the exergies delivered by the heat transfer
fluid from the solar field and geothermal field, respectively. The
exergy of the solar field is considered as recycled and not lost
[7,13], as follows:
X_ HTF ¼ m
_ HTF ½ðhHTF;out
hHTF;in Þ
T 0 ðsHTF;out
sHTF;in Þ ð6Þ
where HTF; out and HTF; in correspond to the solar field outlet and
inlet, respectively.
Conversely, the exergy from the geothermal resource is defined
as [22]:
X_ geo ¼ m
_ geo ½ðh1
h0 Þ
T 0 ðs1
s0 Þ ð7Þ
where state 1 represents the thermodynamic state at the geother-
mal reservoir. The exergy of the geothermal resource only takes into
account the reservoir conditions as the brine generated at the sep-
aration process is considered to be an exergy loss according to the
established technical literature [23,24].
 J.M. Cardemil et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 123 (2016) 348–361 351

Fig. 1. Single-flash hybrid power plant.

Fig. 2. Double-flash hybrid power plant.

3.1. Geothermal resource Table 1

Geothermal reservoir characteristics.

For the purpose of this study, four geothermal reservoirs with Resource Temperature (°C) Enthalpy (kJ/kg) Pressure (bar) Reference
different characteristics were examined: two considering com- Case 1 240 1038 100 [25]
pressed liquid (Cases 1 and 3) and two considering a saturated Case 2 235 1351 31 [26]
water-steam mixture (Cases 2 and 4) as shown in Table 1 [25,26] Case 3 210 900 35 [9]
and Fig. 3. Therefore, the brine production of the geothermal field Case 4 205 1146 17 [26]

is assumed to follow the choked well flow proposed in [19], where

the relation between the total mass flow rate of the geothermal
fluid is a function of the wellhead pressure, as expressed by the fol-
lowing equation:
_ geo ¼ 99:663
2:6287P2 þ 0:5802P22
0:04212P32
m ð8Þ
where m _ geo is the mass flow rate extracted from the well and P 2 is
the pressure at which the separator operates. The flashing process,
occurring through the well between states 1 and 2, is considered
isenthalpic, neglecting any change in the kinetic or potential energy
according to previous studies [19,27]. Other operating conditions
for the system considered herein are summarized in Table 2.
3.2. Solar field model
For the purpose of this study, the solar field is composed of
parabolic trough collectors using Therminol VP-1 as the heat
transfer fluid. The performance of the system is determined using
the model developed by Duffie and Beckman [28] and later
adapted by Wendel et al. [29]. The amount of solar thermal energy
output is calculated by accounting for the collector performance
and the loss factors related to the utilization of the DNI as follows:
h i
Q_ solar ¼ A f shadow f corner G_ b;T ða1 þ a2 TÞf dirt IAM
b1 T
b2 T 2 ð9Þ
where Q_ solar represents the solar thermal power, DT is the temper-
ature difference between the average temperature of the HTF and
ambient temperature, and IAM is the incident angle modifier
defined as:
h h2
IAM ¼ 1 þ 0:0003178
0:00003985 ð10Þ
cos h cos h
where h is the DNI incidence angle on the collector surface [28].
352 J.M. Cardemil et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 123 (2016) 348–361

3 Table 3
5 x 10
Case 1 EuroTrough collector specifications.
Case 2
3 Parameters Value
10 Case 3
Case 4 Optical efficiency coefficient (a1) +0.75
Optical efficiency coefficient (a2)
0.000045 °C
1
Thermal efficiency coefficient (b1) +0.039 W/m2 °C
P [bar]

10
2
1 Thermal efficiency coefficient (b2) +0.0003 W/m2 °C2
270°C Collector width (w) 5.77 m
3 240°C Focal distance (Lfocal) 1.71 m
2 Dirt loss factor (fdirt) 0.91
210°C
1 4 Cost (€/m2) 200
10 180°C

0
0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 process. As the moisture increases, the turbine efficiency
10
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 decreases. This effect can be quantified using Baumann’s rule
h [kJ/kg] [19], which proposes that a 1% average extra moisture causes an
approximate 1% drop in the turbine efficiency. Hence, the isen-
Fig. 3. Thermodynamic states of the reservoir considered. tropic efficiency is defined as:
x þ x 
gT ¼ gTD in out
ð13Þ
2
Table 2
Hybrid solar-geothermal reference conditions. where gTD represents the turbine efficiency at dry steam conditions,
xin is the inlet dryness fraction and xout is the outlet dryness fraction.
Parameters Value
Depending on the steam inlet temperature variation, the tur-
Ambient temperature 15 °C bine can also operate in the dry steam region. In this case, the
Ambient pressure 0.8 bar
Heat exchanger effectiveness 70%
steam expansion is an isentropic process. The steam temperature
Solar irradiance 1000 W/m2 at the turbine discharge is estimated by using a relation proposed
Maximum HTF temperature 391 °C in the literature [35]:
50 °C " zðc
1Þ #
Condensing temperature
  1þzð c
1Þ
Pout
T out ¼ T in 1
gTD 1
ð14Þ
Pin

The loss factor due to shadowing between collector rows
ðf shadow Þ in Eq. (9) is expressed as:
L cos hz
f shadow ¼
w cos h
where L corresponds to the distance between the collectors, hz is the
zenith solar angle and w is the width aperture of the collector. The
loss factor due to the collector corners ðf corner Þ is described by the
following equation:
Lfocal
f corner ¼ 1
tan h
Lrow
where Lfocal represents the focal distance of the collector and Lrow is
the length of the collector arrangement. Finally, the optical coeffi-
cients a1 and a2 , the thermal coefficients b1 and b2 and the dirtiness
coefficient f dirt in Eq. (9) are given by the collector properties listed
in Table 3, according to the manufacturer data [30,31].
The EuroTrough collector is used for a variety of applications
such as industrial process heat and electricity generation; this
same model was selected for the solar-geothermal hybrid system
due to its relatively low specific investment cost.
In order to address the performance of the system in steady sate
conditions, it was considered a fixed mass flow rate per loop of
collectors, equivalent to the nominal flow rate of the collector,
7.7 kg/s [32,33]. In addition to the solar collectors, additional sys-
tems, such as pump and heat exchangers, were also modeled.
The power consumption of circulating pumps was estimated as
suggested by [29]; and the heat exchangers were modeled using
the effectiveness-NTU method [34].
3.3. Turbine model
Geothermal steam turbines generally operate with wet steam
conditions and therefore, their isentropic efficiency is affected by
the amount of moisture present in the steam during the expansion
where c ¼ cp =cv is the polytropic expansion factor and z the com-
pressibility factor.
At the same time, the variation in inlet turbine temperature,
ð11Þ caused by solar resource availability and pressure drop at the tur-
bine inlet nozzle limits the mass flow admitted by the device. Sto-
dola [36,37] developed a relationship between the mass flow,
temperature and pressure drop over the steam turbine as follows:
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
K
_ in ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffi
m P2in
P 2out ð15Þ
T in
ð12Þ where m _ in represents the inlet mass flow rate, K the mass flow coef-
ficient, T in the inlet temperature, Pin the inlet pressure and Pout the
outlet pressure. The mass flow coefficient was calculated for each
geothermal stand-alone power plant according to the literature
[38].
3.4. Model validation
The proposed geothermal model was validated using the data
reported in the literature [23,24]. Here, optimum stage parameters
were used and the most relevant results were compared.
The single-flash power plant was compared to the results
obtained by Pambudi [23], who developed an exergy analysis
and optimization of a single-flash power plant located in Dieing,
Indonesia. The power output and 2nd law efficiency achieved by
the author were 21.71 MW and 36.48%, respectively. The present
model results were 21.97 MW of power output and a 2nd law effi-
ciency of 36.93%. In addition, the double-flash power plant was
compared to the results obtained by Jalilinasrabady et al. [24],
who developed an analysis of a power plant located in Sabalan,
Iran. The results achieved by the author were a power output of
49.78 MW and an exergy efficiency of 43.35%. The proposed model
shows a power output of 52.6 MW and a 2nd law efficiency of
45.79%. In this context, the single-flash power plant presents an
error of 1.18% in power output and 0.45% in 2nd law efficiency,
 J.M. Cardemil et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 123 (2016) 348–361
while the double-flash model presents an error of 5.36% in power
output and 2.44% in 2nd law efficiency compared to the literature.
It is worth to note that the main differences between the model
described herein and those from the literature is the turbine model
used. Angung and Jalilinasrabadýs work analyzed the turbine con-
sidering constant isentropic efficiencies while instead in this work
the Bauman’s rule was considered, in order to assess the effect of
moisture on the turbine.
4. Results and discussion
4.1. Geothermal-only power plant mode
In order to establish the baseline of comparison, the operating
conditions of the geothermal-only power plants - both single and
double-flash - were optimized in terms of the separation pressure.
The power output of the plant is maximized according to the reser-
voir conditions since the separation pressure optimizes the
amount of geothermal fluid in the system, the steam generated
at the separator (and therefore the steam mass flow rate), temper-
ature and pressure at the turbine inlet. The maximum amount of
power output possible as function of separation pressure in a sin-
gle flash plant for all four cases is shown in Fig. 4(a). The amount of
power output generated by each reservoir is strongly related to the
thermodynamic state of the geothermal fluid, where the two cases
with higher power production correspond to those showing higher
resource enthalpy. Case 1 presents higher resource temperature,
yet it is not enough to generate a similar power production to that
observed in Cases 2 and 4. The performance analysis of double-
flash power plants is more complex due to the additional degree
of freedom on the operating parameters. For each first separator
pressure, the second separator can present a different pressure
range; one of those pressures maximizes the power output. Once
the pressure at the first separator is defined for each case, the sec-
ond separation pressure does not present a significant variation on
the power output. As expected, the reservoir enthalpy presents a
similar behavior as in the single flash power plant; the higher
enthalpy resources are able to achieve a higher power output.
The additional power achieved by double flash power plants is
caused by the additional steam generated at the second separation
process. In this case, the double flash power plants are able to
achieve 14–20% additional power compared to a single flash power
plant depending on the reservoir conditions. In cases where the
geothermal reservoir presents a two-phase fluid, the second sepa-
rator generates a smaller amount of steam given the high mass
flow rates of steam already present in the first separator.
Fig. 4. Power output of the reservoir as a function of separation pressure for a single flash power plant (a) and double flash power plant (b).
353
4.2. Solar-assisted additional power generation mode
The solar thermal energy in the single-flash hybrid scheme is
supplied to the geothermal power plant through a pair of heat
exchangers (HX) as shown in Fig. 1. The first HX superheats the
steam generated in the separation process, while the second HX
generates additional steam in the separator. The additional electri-
cal power delivered by the cycle per unit thermal power delivered
by each HX when there is solar thermal energy available was eval-
uated for sake of simplicity only considering the reservoir condi-
tions of Case 2, as shown in Fig. 5(a). It can be observed that HX
1 generates more additional power per kWth of solar energy deliv-
ered, with the superheating process generating 0.23 kWe of addi-
tional power output. Delivering the solar thermal power to the
superheating process increases the steam quality at the turbine
discharge, which improves the turbine efficiency. Each kWth sup-
plied to the superheater HX 1 increases the steam temperature
by 0.012 °C. Conversely, HX 2 generates only 0.16 kWe/kWth of
solar energy supplied, resulting in an increase of 0.00035 kg/s of
additional steam to the system. Nevertheless, HX 1 can only super-
heat the steam flow until it reaches 320 °C which corresponds to
the steam temperature limit, when the solar heat transfer fluid
reaches its maximum operating temperature, close to 350 °C.
The double-flash hybrid power plant scheme proposed in Fig. 2
includes three heat exchangers. HX 1 and 3 are used to superheat
the steam flow, while HX 2 generates additional steam from the
residual brine that flows to the second flash separator. Analogously
to the analysis of the single flash system, the performance of each
heat exchanger of the double-flash hybrid plant was analyzed in
terms of additional power generation as function of input solar
thermal power, considering a reservoir with the features of Case
2, in order to compare the results previously obtained for single
flash. The results of the analysis are shown in Fig. 5(b), where HX
1 presents the highest power production rate, producing
0.29 kWe/kWth of solar energy delivered. HX 2 and 3 present sim-
ilar rates of power production: 0.17 kWe and 0.19 kWe, respec-
tively. The difference between the heat exchanger performance
of the single-flash and double-flash schemes is mainly related to
the steam flow rates and the temperatures at the heat exchanger
inlets. As previously mentioned, the superheating process presents
a temperature limit. In the case of HX 1, the maximum tempera-
ture is slightly higher than that of the hybrid single-flash due to
the different steam inlet condition. Meanwhile, HX 3 receives a
small amount of steam from the second separation process and
therefore requires only 5 MWth to reach its maximum capacity
and ceases to have an effect on the increase of kWe/kWth.
354 J.M. Cardemil et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 123 (2016) 348–361
Fig. 5. Additional power output as function of solar thermal power for single flash (a) and double flash (b).
The HXs perform different functions in each cycle for generating
additional power. The superheating maximum temperatures that
can be reached are given by the steam inlet characteristics; as
HX 1 presents a higher steam temperature at the inlet, this enables
the steam to reach higher temperatures at the device outlet. HX 3
has a maximum outlet temperature close to 300 °C, and requires a
lower amount of energy to achieve this temperature due to the low
steam flow rate after the second separation process. The additional
steam generated by HX 2 presents a constant increase as the ther-
mal energy provided increases. The high-pressure turbine operates
with dry steam conditions when the superheated steam reaches
temperatures above 270 °C at a pressure of 7.63 bars. Under those
conditions, the steam at the turbine discharge is saturated vapor
and the expansion through the turbine is modeled as described
in Eq. (14). This effect produces a discontinuity in the turbine effi-
ciency for temperatures above 270 °C. The isentropic efficiency
above this temperature slightly increases from 85%, which is in
agreement with the usual values for geothermal turbines observed
in the literature [19].
4.3. Geothermal flow rate reduction mode
The hybridization of geothermal plant through the introduction
of concentrating solar collectors can also be used for a second pur-
pose: reducing the geothermal fluid consumption, thus allowing an
extended geothermal reservoir lifetime by means of a reduced
reservoir depletion rate. This reduction occurs by assuming that
the power output of the geothermal power plant is fixed. There-
fore, whenever solar energy is available, the hybrid system reduces
the geothermal fluid flow rate and compensates by superheating
the steam or enhancing the steam generation until it reaches the
fixed power output. The geothermal flow rate reduction is achieved
by increasing the separation from the choked well flow considered
in Eq. (8). The superheating process was used for this case due to
the higher power production rate as it is integrated with the solar
thermal system, as discussed in Section 4.2. The effect of adding
solar thermal energy to the geothermal fluid flow rate is studied
for the proposed cases in a single flash scheme as shown in Fig. 6
(a). The higher enthalpy resources present higher separation pres-
sures, allowing to further reduce the geothermal fluid flow rate
given the geothermal well choked-flow conditions. The amount
of geothermal fluid flow rate reduction is directly related to the
separation pressure and the amount of steam that can be super-
heated. Cases 2 and 4 present higher steam flow rates, which are
reflected in a considerable reduction of the geothermal fluid flow
rate. This reduction achieves a stable point when the steam reaches
its maximum superheat temperature as given by the steam
characteristics at the HX inlet. The behavior of the geothermal fluid
flow rate reduction was also studied for the double-flash hybrid
scheme. Although the double-flash system presents two separation
processes, only the first separation limits the amount of geother-
mal fluid flow rate through the system by its pressure. Once again,
the superheating benefits were used in order to reduce the
geothermal fluid flow rate while keeping the power output of the
plant constant. Thus, the effect of thermal energy delivered by
the solar field on the geothermal fluid flow rate used by a
double-flash hybrid scheme is shown in Fig. 6(b). It is noteworthy
that the double-flash hybrid system can achieve lower values of
geothermal fluid flow rate, even with a lower amount of added
solar thermal energy, compared to the single-flash hybrid system.
The superheating process delivers a better quality of wet steam at
the high-pressure turbine discharge, benefiting the efficiency of
the low-pressure turbine, which is reflected in the better
performance.
4.4. Exergetic efficiency
4.4.1. Single flash
The optimization for the integration of both resources was
developed in terms of the 2nd law efficiency, using the separation
pressure and added solar thermal power as independent variables.
The exergy efficiency increases whenever solar thermal energy is
supplied to the superheating process. In contrast, using the solar
energy to generate additional steam produces a lower rate of
power, which is reflected in a reduction of the 2nd law efficiency.
Fig. 7 shows the effect of the solar thermal power addition on
the 2nd law efficiency for the four cases for a hybrid single-flash
plant, and using the two different operating approaches: additional
power output as in Fig. 7(a) and reduction on the geothermal
resource consumption as in Fig. 7(b). When additional power out-
put is expected, the exergy efficiency increases in the four cases
proposed until it reaches a maximum and then decreases. As solar
power is added, the amount required for each case is defined by
the flow rate and temperature of the steam. The geothermal reser-
voirs with high enthalpy allow the separator to produce a higher
amount of steam at a higher pressure. Therefore, the hybrid
single-flash plant requires a higher amount of thermal power as
the enthalpy of the resource increases to achieve the maximum
2nd law efficiency. The maximum exergy efficiency for the pro-
posed hybrid system is achieved once the superheated steam
reaches a temperature of approximately 320 °C. Increasing the
solar field aperture area to deliver additional thermal power to
HX 2 decreases the power production, as shown in Fig. 5(a). This
effect reduces the exergy efficiency.
 J.M. Cardemil et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 123 (2016) 348–361
Fig. 6. Geothermal fluid flow rate reduction as function of the added solar thermal power for a single-flash (a) and double-flash (b) hybrid solar-geothermal power plants.
Fig. 7. 2nd law efficiency of the reservoir as function of solar thermal power for a single-flash hybrid power plant, using the additional power (a) and the reduction on the
geothermal resource consumption (b) approaches.
For the second approach, reduction on the geothermal fluid flow
rate, the high enthalpy resources increase the 2nd law efficiency as
long as the geothermal fluid flow rate is reduced, as shown in Fig. 7
(b). Cases 2 and 4 present a considerable increase in the 2nd law
efficiency caused by the pressure and steam through the system,
5.12 and 2.28%, respectively. Once the superheat process reaches
maximum capacity, the efficiency begins to decrease. Case 1 pre-
sents a geothermal flow reduction, which is still unable to produce
a considerable increase in 2nd law efficiency. As mentioned, the
pressure at which each separator operates according to each reser-
voir condition contributes to reducing the geothermal fluid flow.
Case 3 presents no improvement in 2nd law efficiency due to the
low pressure at which the separator operates, which is determined
by the lower enthalpy from the reservoir. Yet, it is worth to note
that the maximum value of the 2nd law efficiency, achieved by
the reservoir of high enthalpy (43.95%) is higher than the efficiency
developed using the additional power output approach (41.78%).
Nonetheless, that relation is inverted for the other reservoir condi-
tions, since all of the other three analyzed presented better effi-
ciencies using the first approach.
The results of the geothermal-only and single-flash hybrid
power plants are summarized in Table 4. The optimization routine
indicates that the hybrid scheme slightly increases the separation
pressure to achieve the maximum 2nd law efficiency. This increase
benefits the system because a higher separation pressure reduces
the flow rate and increases the steam temperature, which requires
a lower amount of thermal power to achieve the maximum 2nd law
efficiency. In the four cases analyzed for the single-flash power
plant, the efficiency and power output increase as long as thermal
355
power is delivered to the superheating process. The power output
for the single-flash hybrid system presents at least 20% of addi-
tional power output and a 2nd law efficiency increase of more than
2.9% for each reservoir case. The optimum results from the single-
flash hybrid system for geothermal flow reduction are shown in
Table 4. Case 3 does not present any difference because the inte-
gration decreases the 2nd law efficiency. As in the other cases,
the geothermal fluid flow rate decreases while the 2nd law effi-
ciency increases. The geothermal flow rate can be reduced by up
to 16% depending on the reservoir conditions.
4.4.2. Double flash
The performance of double-flash hybrid power plants was ana-
lyzed considering the first and second separation pressures as well
as solar thermal power as independent variables. The highest
power output was obtained using HX 1, which increases the exergy
efficiency. Similar to the single-flash hybrid power plant, providing
thermal energy to HX 2 and 3 delivers a lower power rate, thus
reducing the efficiency. The variation of the exergy efficiency as
function of solar thermal power under considering the additional
power generation approach is shown in Fig. 8(a). In the double-
flash power plant, the steam flow rate at HX 1 is reduced, caused
by the increased separation pressure. Therefore, the hybrid scheme
requires a lower amount of solar thermal energy. Simultaneously,
increasing the steam temperature benefits the low-pressure tur-
bine, delivering a steam with a higher enthalpy at the turbine inlet.
Alternatively, the choked flow condition on the production well
benefits the geothermal fluid flow rate reduction when it operates
at higher pressure. Therefore, the hybrid double-flash scheme
356 J.M. Cardemil et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 123 (2016) 348–361

Table 4
Geothermal-only and hybrid single-flash scheme results.

Parameters Single-flash power plant Additional power generation Geothermal flow rate reduction
Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4
Separation temperature (°C) 138.8 163 123.7 150.6 139.3 167.6 129.2 158.5 179.7 188.7 123.7 185
Separation pressure (bar) 3.49 6.67 2.22 4.82 3.54 7.47 2.63 5.95 9.95 12.19 2.22 11.22
Power output (kW) 8237 14689 5915 10308 10818 18434 7900 13050 8237 14689 5915 10308
Steam flow rate (kg/s) 20.24 30.49 16.71 23.18 20.15 29.6 15.75 21.86 – – – –
Geothermal flow rate (kg/s) 95.77 95.44 96.22 95.76 – – – – 89.44 77.53 96.18 83.71
2nd law efficiency (%) 32.41 38.83 30.33 35.99 35.84 41.78 33.95 38.88 32.71 43.95 30.33 38.27
Solar collection area (m2) – – – – 15000 19600 12200 15000 4300 7900 – 5500

Fig. 8. 2nd law efficiency of the reservoir as function of added solar thermal power for a double-flash hybrid power plant, using the additional power (a) and the reduction on
the geothermal resource consumption (b) approaches.

presents a considerable increase in the 2nd law efficiency for the
four cases, as shown in Fig. 8(b). As expected, the geothermal reser-
voirs with higher enthalpy increase the efficiency more due to the
reduction of the geothermal flow. The main reason for this
improvement is the high pressure at which the double-flash power
plant generally operates. The higher the enthalpy resource is, the
more the thermal energy demand increases because the steam
flow rate to superheat increases. It deserves special attention the
fact that in double-flash scheme, three of the four cases analyzed
herein present higher performance in the geothermal flow reduc-
tion approach, which is additionally higher than the efficiency
developed by the single-flash plants, in the same operating
conditions.
The maximum 2nd law efficiency that each case can reach using
the superheating process is related to the steam flow rate and tem-
perature. As expected, Cases 2 and 4 present better improvements
in terms of the 2nd law efficiency (additional 3.59% and 3.24%,
respectively), given the higher amount of steam through the sys-
tem, which also requires a higher solar aperture area. Moreover,
the hybrid system is able to produce 15–20% additional power out-
put while maximizing the 2nd law efficiency, depending on the
reservoir conditions. The optimum results from the double-flash
and double-flash hybrid power plants are shown in Table 5. The
geothermal fluid flow rate can be reduced from 5% to 19% depend-
ing on the reservoir conditions.
4.5. Relative performance analysis
Flash power plants performance is highly related to the
enthalpy of the geothermal resource, establishing the power gener-
ation and efficiency of the system. The integration of solar thermal
energy to flash geothermal power plants presents a challenge due
to the resource variability depending on the geographic features of
the location [17,19]. Hence, this section presents an assessment on
the effect of the geothermal resource enthalpy in order to deter-
mine the optimum solar-geothermal integration condition. The
domain for this analysis comprises temperatures between 180
and 300 °C, modifying the enthalpy and pressure for each reservoir
by considering different thermodynamic states such as com-
pressed liquid and water-steam mixtures. For this purpose, the
efficiency ratio (Eq. (16)) is defined and used to determine the bet-
ter approach of operation for the hybrid system, in terms of 2nd law
efficiency. This can be done by the additional power generation
strategy or the reduction of the geothermal fluid consumption.
An efficiency ratio over 1 indicates that it is preferable to operate
a hybrid plant with the additional power generation scheme, and
conversely, and efficiency ratio lower than 1 indicates that is
preferable to operate the plant in the fluid flow rate reduction
mode.
gII;additional power generation
w¼ ð16Þ
gII;geothermal flow rate reduction
The methodology used is similar to that of the previous sec-
tions; the integration of the solar thermal energy considers the
optimization of the separation pressure to maximize the 2nd law
efficiency. The efficiency ratio defined in Eq. (16) is used to deter-
mine the best approach according to the geothermal reservoir
enthalpy and solar thermal power available.
The results for single-flash hybrid power plants are shown in
Fig. 9. It can be observed that as the enthalpy increases the addi-
tional power generation strategy presents better performance
given the higher steam available in the fluid. At the same time,
the lower enthalpy reservoir does not present considerable
geothermal flow rate reduction therefore the 2nd law efficiency
does not increase as mention the previous section. This causes
the considerable increase for the additional power generation
approach for low enthalpy resources. Nevertheless, the geothermal
fluid flow rate reduction strategy presents an area of interest
 J.M. Cardemil et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 123 (2016) 348–361 357

Table 5
Stand-alone and hybrid double-flash scheme results.

Parameters Double-flash power plant Additional power generation Geothermal flow rate reduction
Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4
First separation temperature (°C) 162.8 169.6 152.2 166.3 169.6 173 163.1 169.6 185.3 189.3 177.2 187.3
First separation pressure (bar) 6.63 7.83 5.05 7.23 7.83 8.51 6.62 7.83 11.29 12.34 9.38 11.8
Second separation temperature (°C) 103.5 105.7 98.3 104.5 108.6 113.8 104.6 109.8 113.3 114.1 104.3 113.9
Second separation pressure (bar) 1.13 1.23 0.95 1.19 1.36 1.62 1.19 1.42 1.59 1.64 1.18 1.63
Steam flow rate (kg/s) 25.15 37.16 20.28 29.23 24.11 35.78 19.28 28.33 – – – –
Geothermal flow rate (kg/s) 95.46 94.43 95.76 95.06 – – – – 83.33 76.43 91.29 80.2
Power output (kW) 10266 16944 7465 12545 12356 21083 8801 15424 10266 16944 7465 12545
2nd law efficiency (%) 40.52 45.27 38.46 44.12 43.67 48.86 40.89 47.36 43.91 51.71 39.24 48.9
Solar collection area (m2) – – – – 9700 18300 6600 13000 3800 7200 1500 4800

Fig. 9. Comparison of 2nd law efficiencies for single-flash hybrid power plants as function of the geothermal reservoir enthalpy and solar thermal power.

within 1250–1750 kJ/kg and 2500–8000 kW, where the medium
geothermal reservoir achieved the maximum 2nd law efficiency
with lower solar thermal power. This section is determined by
the amount of geothermal flow rate it can be reduced, limiting
the increase of the 2nd law efficiency.
Fig. 10 shows the results for double-flash hybrid schemes,
where as expected, reservoirs with high and low enthalpy present
better performance when the additional power generation
approach is assumed. The section at which the geothermal fluid
flow rate reduction approach shows better benefits is significantly
bigger than observed for the single-flash hybrid scheme. This situ-
ation is due to the higher pressure at which the separator operates
achieving a better performance when the geothermal flow rate is
reduced, causing the increase on the 2nd law efficiency. At the same
time, this condition causes the scheme to require a considerable
lower amount of thermal power to achieve its maximum 2nd law
efficiency.
(understood as power production able to supply expected electric-
ity grid demand as requested with minimum variability) is
achieved by the combination of the solar-geothermal hybrid sys-
tem able to produce baseload conditions. The analysis presented
in the previous sections evaluated the optimum conditions for
the operation of the hybrid systems, in which the 2nd law efficiency
is maximized. In that context, Case 2 was selected to evaluate the
performance of the single and double-flash hybrid system under
the design conditions considering the common variation of the
solar resource along a year. Additionally, in order to present the
behavior of the best configuration, different solar field sizes were
considered for the two mode of operation: 19,000 m2 for additional
power generation and 7500 m2 for geothermal flow rate reduction.
Hence, the transient simulations for the single-flash and double-
flash hybrid system are developed in order to assess the variation
on the power output and the geothermal flow consumption
throughout the year.

4.6. Annual performance 4.6.1. Additional power generation mode

In order to assess the performance of solar geothermal hybrid
plants, a transient simulation was carried out, considering hourly
meteorological data from Crucero (Chile). This location displays
excellent solar resource and is located relatively close to existing
geothermal prospection sites [1,2,4]. Total direct normal irradiance
(DNI) in Crucero amounts to over 3500 kWh/m2 year, one of high-
est levels in the world. For the geothermal flow, we consider that it
presents a high thermal inertia because of minimum variation of
the reservoir conditions throughout the year. The CSP plant
includes no thermal energy storage system due to the higher addi-
tional costs involved and also because the power dispatchability
The results from the hourly simulations are summarized in
Fig. 11. The dark1 blue zones represent the base power production
of the geothermal-only power plants: single-flash as in Fig. 11(a),
and double-flash as in Fig. 11(b), which corresponds to 14.68 MW
and 16.94 MW, respectively. The color code in Fig. 11 corresponds
to the extra power derived by integrating the solar collector arrange-
ment. In both cases, a reduction on the additional generation is
observed in February, due to a meteorological phenomenon called
altiplanic winter, characterized by an increment on cloud cover that
1
For interpretation of color in ‘Fig. 11’, the reader is referred to the web version of
this article.
358 J.M. Cardemil et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 123 (2016) 348–361

Fig. 10. Comparison of 2nd law efficiencies for double-flash hybrid power plants as function of the geothermal reservoir enthalpy and solar thermal power.

Fig. 11. Annual performance of hybrid solar-geothermal plants, adopting additional power generation mode: (a) single flash, (b) double flash.

significantly reduces available solar irradiation. The best perfor-
mance of both configurations is observed during the spring, when
the average power output reaches 17.53 MW and 20.15 MW, respec-
tively. Meanwhile during autumn, the lower performance is
achieved showing an average power generation of 16.71 MW for
the hybrid single-flash and 19.23 MW for the hybrid double-flash
plant. Hence the integration of solar energy allows to increase the
annual generation about 7% for single-flash plant and 9% for
double-flash schemes, when compared to geothermal-only power
plants.
 J.M. Cardemil et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 123 (2016) 348–361 359

Fig. 12. Annual performance of hybrid solar-geothermal plants, adopting geothermal flow reduction mode: (a) single flash, (b) double flash.

Fig. 13. LCOE for the solar assisted additional power generation mode for a single-flash hybrid power plant (a) and double-flash hybrid power plant (b).

4.6.2. Geothermal flow reduction mode
Hourly simulations were also conducted in order to assess the
annual performance of hybrid solar-geothermal plants when oper-
ating using the geothermal flow reduction mode. Fig. 12 shows the
results for single-flash as in Fig. 11(a) and double-flash as in Fig. 11
(b) hybrid plants. The red layer in Fig. 12 represents the flow con-
sumption in geothermal-only schemes, 95.43 kg/s for the single-
flash and 94.42 kg/s for the double-flash. Considering that the
power output is constant, the geothermal fluid consumption can
decrease to 76.84 kg/s and 76.43 kg/s, for single and double flash,
360 J.M. Cardemil et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 123 (2016) 348–361
respectively. Regarding the seasonal average, the best performance
is achieved during the spring, when the flow reduction accounts for
16% of the original consumption in geothermal-only schemes.
Meanwhile, the annual consumption is reduced to an average of
around 7.5% of the original value for both configurations.
4.7. Economic evaluation
An economic analysis was carried out in order to evaluate the
levelized cost of electricity (LCOE), and to establish the benefits
of the hybridization based on the methodology presented in [10].
The general expression of LCOE is suitable for a power plant in
which the hybridization is considered from the beginning of the
project. In this case, the general expression was modified taking
into account the conditions established in this work, where the
assessment of the contribution of integrating a solar thermal field
and heat exchangers to an existing geothermal plant is addressed.
Hence, the cost of additional power output of the hybrid scheme,
due to the solar contribution, was calculated using the following
expression:
IC solar AF þ OMsolar
LCOEsolar ¼ ð17Þ
W hybrid
W geo
only
where IC solar represents the investment costs associate to the solar
field, AF the annuity factor, OMsolar the operation and maintenance
cost of the solar plant, W hybrid the annual electricity generation of
the hybrid power plant and W geo
only the annual electricity genera-
tion of a stand-alone geothermal power plant. The cost of the solar
field considered was 250 $/m2 while the other parameters required
were obtained from Zhou et al. [10].
The results for the LCOE on the hybrid schemes proposed are
shown in Fig. 13 for the single-flash hybrid (a) and double-flash
hybrid (b) as function of the solar collection area. For the single-
flash hybrid scheme the results show a considerable decrease on
the LCOE as the collection area increases for geothermal low
enthalpy reservoirs. Higher enthalpy resources present a stable
reduction until the optimum solar collection area is reached, estab-
lished by the 2nd law efficiency analysis, where the LCOE is also
minimized. The minimum LCOE achieved for the Case 2 corre-
sponds to 64.65 $/MWh. As for the double-flash hybrid scheme,
the results present a stable reduction for the four reservoirs ana-
lyzed, due to the higher pressure at which all the cases operate.
For this scheme, the minimum LCOE for Case 2 corresponds to
56.89 $/MWh. Generally, the LCOE of CSP-only power plants are
about 150 $/MWh, depending on the solar resource available
[10,32]. While the LCOE from geothermal-only power plants varies
from 60 to 205 $/MWh, depending of the power capacity [39]. This
result reflects the benefits and potential that the solar-geothermal
hybrid system has for enhancing the benefits that each resource
presents.
The previous analysis was not applied for the reduction of
geothermal flow consumption, since an evaluation for that mode
of operation depends heavily on the physics and the geology fea-
tures of each reservoir. Hence, evaluating the economic benefits
of such mode of operation does not depends solely on the thermo-
dynamics and the integration of solar thermal energy, but also in
the geologic structure of the geothermal reservoirs.
5. Conclusions
An evaluation of two solar-geothermal hybrid power plant
models was conducted in order to estimate their performance,
and to analyze different approaches for its operation comparing
them with a base case of a geothermal-only plant. The optimiza-
tion of the solar thermal power provided by the solar field shows
that the superheating and evaporating processes increases the
power generation. Nevertheless, the superheating process presents
higher rates of additional power output, 0.23 kWe/kWth and
0.29 kWe/kWth for single-flash and double-flash hybrid plants,
respectively. In addition, delivering thermal energy to increase
the temperature of the steam increases the 2nd law efficiency and
improves the turbine efficiency.
The hybridization for high-enthalpy geothermal resources
shows great promise, given the higher steam flow rates that allow
better performance of the superheating process, additional power
generation and higher exergy efficiencies. The solar field aperture
area that maximizes the 2nd law efficiency for flashing hybrid
power plants is directly related to the steam flow conditions. The
double-flash hybrid power plant shows higher benefits, requiring
a lower solar field aperture area for achieving the optimum condi-
tions and producing a higher additional power output than the
hybrid single-flash plant. Similar results were obtained for reduc-
ing the geothermal flow consumption, showing better performance
for the double-flash hybrid power plant, mainly caused by the sep-
aration pressure at which it operates. The comparison between
both alternatives for different resources shows a higher exergy effi-
ciency for reducing the geothermal fluid consumption given the
characteristics of the choked well. This condition generates a con-
siderable flow reduction after a determined separation pressure,
causing a significant increase in the 2nd law efficiency. Comparison
of 2nd law efficiencies for hybrid power plants as function of the
geothermal reservoir enthalpy and solar thermal power allowed
to identify the best approach to hybridize, depending on the reser-
voir conditions.
The benefits from the hybridization of these renewable sources
are shown in terms of the increased power production during peak
hours and the extended useful life of the production well. Further-
more, the hybrid scheme has a simple design, implementing com-
ponents that are common in a geothermal-only power plant, which
also allows to provide additional power at low costs, such as
US$64/MWh and US$56/MWh, for single and double-flash hybrid
systems, respectively. For the Chilean energy market, the solar-
geothermal power system presents an alternative to fulfilling the
government requirements. These hybrid systems are an opportu-
nity to diversify the energy resources with environmentally
friendly base load energy using the huge renewable potential of
the country.
Acknowledgment
The authors gratefully acknowledge financial support from pro-
ject FONDECYT No. 1130621 and No. 11140725 funded by CONI-
CYT in Chile.
References
[1] Ortega A, Escobar R, Colle S, de Abreu SL. The state of solar energy resource
assessment in Chile. Renew Energy 2010;35:2514–24. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.renene.2010.03.022.
[2] Escobar RA, Pino A, Cortés C, Bueno E, Ramos F, Cardemil JM, et al. Solar energy
resource assessment in Chile: satellite estimation and ground station
measurements. Renew Energy 2015;71:324–32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
renene.2014.05.013.
[3] Hodgson F. Focus on Chile. Geotherm Resour Counc 2013:42.
[4] Lahsen A, Muñoz N, Parada MA. Geothermal development in Chile. In: World
geotherm congr. p. 25–9.
[5] Lentz Á, Almanza R. Solar-geothermal hybrid system. Appl Therm Eng
2006;26:1537–44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2005.12.008.
[6] Lentz Á, Almanza R. Parabolic troughs to increase the geothermal wells flow
enthalpy. Sol Energy 2006;80:1290–5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.solener.2006.04.010.
[7] Greenhut AD, Tester JW, Dipippo R, Field R, Love C, Nichols K, et al. Solar-
geothermal hybrid cycle analysis for low enthalpy solar and geothermal
resources. In: World geotherm congr. p. 25–9.
 J.M. Cardemil et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 123 (2016) 348–361
[8] Astolfi M, Xodo L, Romano MC, Macchi E. Technical and economical analysis of
a solar-geothermal hybrid plant based on an organic Rankine cycle.
Geothermics 2011;40:58–68. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.geothermics.2010.09.009.
[9] Mir I, Escobar R, Vergara J, Bertrand J. Performance analysis of a hybrid solar-
geothermal power plant in northern Chile. World Renew Energy Congr
2011:1281–8.
[10] Zhou C, Doroodchi E, Moghtaderi B. An in-depth assessment of hybrid solar-
geothermal power generation. Energy Convers Manage 2013;74:88–101.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2013.05.014.
[11] Zhou C. Hybridisation of solar and geothermal energy in both subcritical and
supercritical organic Rankine cycles. Energy Convers Manage 2014;81:72–82.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2014.02.007.
[12] Ruzzenenti F, Bravi M, Tempesti D, Salvatici E, Manfrida G, Basosi R. Evaluation
of the environmental sustainability of a micro CHP system fueled by low-
temperature geothermal and solar energy. Energy Convers Manage
2014;78:611–6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2013.11.025.
[13] Turchi C, Zhu G, Wagner M, Williams T. Geothermal/solar hybrid designs: use
of geothermal energy for CSP feedwater heating. In: Geotherm resour counc
38th annu meet. p. 1–16.
[14] Tempesti D, Manfrida G, Fiaschi D. Thermodynamic analysis of two micro CHP
systems operating with geothermal and solar energy. Appl Energy
2012;97:609–17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2012.02.012.
[15] Al-Ali M, Dincer I. Energetic and exergetic studies of a multigenerational solar–
geothermal system. Appl Therm Eng 2014;71:16–23. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2014.06.033.
[16] Calise F, Dentice M, Macaluso A, Piacentino A, Vanoli L. Exergetic and
exergoeconomic analysis of a novel hybrid solar–geothermal polygeneration
system producing energy and water. Energy Convers Manage
2016;115:200–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2016.02.029.
[17] Bertani R. Geothermal power generation in the world 2010–2014 update
report. World Geotherm Congr 2015:19–25.
[18] Peterseim JH, White S, Tadros A, Hellwig U. Concentrating solar power hybrid
plants – enabling cost effective synergies. Renew Energy 2014;67:178–85.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2013.11.037.
[19] Dipippo R. Geothermal power plants: principles, applications, case studies and
environmental impact, 2nd ed., vol. 1. BH; 2008. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/
CBO9781107415324.004.
[20] EES. Engineering equation solver; 2015.
[21] Lemmon EW, Mclinden MO, Huber ML. Reference fluid thermodynamic and
transport properties; 2002.
[22] Kanoğlu M, Çengel YA, Dinçer I, Kanoglu M, Cengel Y, Dincer I. Efficiency
evaluation of energy systems. 1st ed. Springer-Verlag; 2012.
361
[23] Pambudi NA, Itoi R, Jalilinasrabady S, Jaelani K. Exergy analysis and
optimization of Dieng single-flash geothermal power plant. Energy Convers
Manage 2014;78:405–11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2013.10.073.
[24] Jalilinasrabady S, Itoi R, Valdimarsson P, Saevarsdottir G, Fujii H. Flash cycle
optimization of Sabalan geothermal power plant employing exergy concept.
Geothermics 2012;43:75–82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.geothermics.2012.02.003.
[25] Ocampo J, Pelayo A, De León J, Goyal K, Box T. Reservoir characteristic obtained
from steam decline trends in the Cerro Prieto geothermal field. In: 23rd Work
geotherm reserv eng, Stanford (CA); 1998. p. 27–32.
[26] Solutions GS& D. GSDS WellSim. New Zel; 2014. http://gsds.co.nz [accessed
May 20, 2012].
[27] DiPippo R. Geothermal double-flash plant with interstage reheating: an
updated and expanded thermal and exergetic analysis and optimization.
Geothermics 2013;48:121–31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.geothermics.2013.07.006.
[28] Duffie JA, Beckman WA. Solar engineering of thermal processes. 4th ed. New
York; 2013.
[29] Wendel M, Colle S, Cardemil JM, Miller FM. Metodologia para simulação
transiente de una pequena central heliotérmica. CBENS; 2010.
[30] Blanco J, Alarcón D, Sánchez B, Malato S, Maldonado M, Hublitz A, et al.
Technical comparison of different solar-assisted heat supply systems for a
multi-effect seawater distillation unit. In: Sol world congr; 2003.
[31] Lüpfert E, Geyer M, Zentrum D, Schiel W, Esteban A, Osuna R, et al. Eurotrough
design issues and prototype testing at PSA. Sol Forum 2001:1–5.
[32] Montes MJ, Abánades A, Martínez-Val JM, Valdés M. Solar multiple
optimization for a solar-only thermal power plant, using oil as heat transfer
fluid in the parabolic trough collectors. Sol Energy 2009;83:2165–76. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2009.08.010.
[33] Wittmann M, Hirsch T, Eck M. Some aspects on parabolic trough field
operation with oil as a heat transfer fluid. SolarPaces Conf 2009:1–9.
[34] Nellis G, Klein SA. Heat transfer. 1st ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press; 2009.
[35] Chacartegui R, Sánchez D, Muñoz A, Sánchez T. Real time simulation of
medium size gas turbines. Energy Convers Manage 2011;52:713–24. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2010.07.050.
[36] Stodola A. Steam and gas turbine, vol. 1. New York: Peter Smith; 1945.
[37] Chaibakhsh A, Ghaffari A. Steam turbine model. Simulat Model Pract Theory
2008;16:1145–62. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.simpat.2008.05.017.
[38] Dixon SL, Hall CA. Fluid mechanics and thermodynamics of turbomachinery.
7th ed. BH; 1995. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-415954-9.00020-6.
[39] Salvatore Joseph. World energy perspective – cost of energy technologies.
World Energy Counc 2013:42. ISBN: 978 0 94612 130 4.