ARTICLE IN PRESS

Renewable Energy 33 (2008) 2366–2374

www.elsevier.com/locate/renene

Performance and parametric investigation of a binary geothermal power

plant by exergy
Mehmet Kanoglua,, Ali Bolatturkb
a
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Gaziantep, 27310 Gaziantep, Turkey
b
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Suleyman Demirel University, 32260 Isparta, Turkey
Received 1 October 2007; accepted 23 January 2008
Available online 6 March 2008

Abstract

Exergy analysis of a binary geothermal power plant is performed using actual plant data to assess the plant performance and pinpoint
sites of primary exergy destruction. Exergy destruction throughout the plant is quantified and illustrated using an exergy diagram, and
compared to the energy diagram. The sites with greater exergy destructions include brine reinjection, heat exchanger and condenser
losses. Exergetic efficiencies of major plant components are determined in an attempt to assess their individual performances. The energy
and exergy efficiencies of the plant are 4.5% and 21.7%, respectively, based on the energy and exergy of geothermal water at the heat
exchanger inlet. The energy and exergy efficiencies are 10.2% and 33.5%, respectively, based on the heat input and exergy input to the
binary Rankine cycle. The effects of turbine inlet pressure and temperature and the condenser pressure on the exergy and energy
efficiencies, the net power output and the brine reinjection temperature are investigated and the trends are explained.
r 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Exergy; Exergy efficiency; Geothermal power plant; Binary cycle

1. Introduction geothermal power plants are expected to be built. The

Geothermal energy is widely used as a reliable source of
electricity generation. Geothermal plants are in operation
in 21 countries and have a combined installed capacity of
over 6000 MW [1]. Electricity has been generated from
geothermal resources since the early 1960s. Most of the
world’s geothermal power plants were built in the 1970s
and 1980s following the 1973 oil crisis. The urgency to
generate electricity from alternative energy sources and the
fact that geothermal energy was essentially free lead to
non-optimal plant designs for using geothermal resources.
Three major types of power plants are operating today:
dry-steam plants, flash-steam plants, binary-cycle plants
where binary and combined flash/binary plants are
relatively new designs [2]. Even though new geothermal
power plants are being built using the current technologies
such as combined flash/binary cycles, not many new
Corresponding author. Tel.: +90 342 3172508; fax: +90 342 3601104.
E-mail address: kanoglu@gantep.edu.tr (M. Kanoglu).
thermal efficiencies of conventional combustion-based
power plants have increased significantly in recent decades
with the use of combined cycle. The initial cost of building
a geothermal power plant has increased over the years.
There is, however, a great potential to increase efficiencies
of some existing binary geothermal power plants by
replacing the binary fluid for a better match between the
changing resource conditions and the power generation
equipment, using the moderate temperature reinjected
brine for heating and cooling applications, and considering
cogeneration and other means when possible [3–5]. Also,
supercritical cycles for geothermal power generation
systems were studied to raise the power output and thermal
efficiency by selecting the most suitable working fluids and
optimizing the cyclic parameters [6].
Geothermal energy is used to generate electricity and for
direct uses such as space heating and cooling, industrial
processes, and greenhouse heating. High-temperature
geothermal resources above 150 1C are generally used for
power generation. Moderate-temperature (between 90 and

0960-1481/$ - see front matter r 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.renene.2008.01.017
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
M. Kanoglu, A. Bolatturk / Renewable Energy 33 (2008) 2366–2374
Nomenclature
e specific exergy (kJ/kg)
E_ exergy rate (kW)
h specific enthalpy (kJ/kg)
I_ exergy destruction (kW)
m_ mass flow rate (kg/s)
P pressure (kPa)
Q_ heat flow rate (kW)
s specific entropy (kJ/kg K)
T temperature (1C)
Tvap vaporization temperature (1C)
Tpp pinch-point temperature (1C)
W _ power (kW)
DTpp pinch-point temperature difference
(1C)
Zex exergetic efficiency
Zth first-law efficiency
150 1C) and low-temperature (below 90 1C) geothermal
resources are best suited for direct uses. Some novel designs
are proposed to generate electricity from low-temperature
resources economically [7,8]. However, geothermal energy
is more effective when used directly than when converted to
electricity particularly for moderate and low-temperature
geothermal resources since the direct use of geothermal
heat for heating and cooling would replace the burning of
fossil fuels from which electricity is generated much more
efficiently [9–11].
Exergy analysis based on the second law of thermo-
dynamics has proven to be a powerful tool in performance
evaluation and the thermodynamic analysis of energy
systems [12–15]. This also applies to performance evalua-
tion of geothermal power plants. The temperatures of
geothermal fluids are relatively low, so the first law
efficiencies of geothermal power plants are also inherently
low. Consequently, the difference between the first law
efficiency of a good performing and that of a poorly
performing geothermal power plant located at similar sites
is small. It then becomes difficult to make a comparison on
the basis of first law efficiencies only. This is especially true
in binary geothermal power plants since the resource
temperature is lower than in single and double flash
systems.
DiDippo [16] investigated the second law assessment of
binary plants generating power from low-temperature
geothermal fluids. The results show that binary plants
can operate with very high second law or exergetic
efficiencies even when the motive fluids are low-tempera-
ture and low-exergy. Exergetic efficiencies of 40% or
greater have been achieved in certain plants with geofluids
having specific exergies of 200 kJ/kg or lower. The main
design feature leading to a high second law efficiency lies in
the design of the heat exchangers to minimize the loss of
exergy during heat transfer processes. Another important
2367
Subscripts
0 dead state
binary isobutane fluid
cold cold stream
cond condenser
ex exergy
exc heat exchanger
f saturated liquid
geo geothermal fluid
hot hot stream
in inlet
out outlet
pp pinch-point
rev reversible
th thermal
turb turbine
vap vaporizer
feature that can result in a high second law efficiency is the
availability of low-temperature cooling water that allows a
once-through system for waste heat rejection.
Lee [17] proposed that geothermal resources be classified
to reflect their ability to do work. He then classified
geothermal as low-, medium-, and high-quality resources
rather than low-, medium-, and high-temperature resources.
Some applications of exergy analysis to geothermal power
plants may be found in Refs. [15,18–22]. Some of these
studies consider theoretical plants with assumed or ideal
operations. Ozgener et al. [23] conducted the exergy analysis
of a geothermal district heating system. Hepbasli [24] provide
an extensive review on the exergy analysis of renewable
energy systems including geothermal energy.
Current research on geothermal power includes a
European project that aims at improving cost-effectiveness,
competitiveness and market penetration of geothermal
electricity generation schemes with economical power
generation below 80 1C [25]. As part of the work done
within this project, Mendrinos et al. [26] investigated
surface water (once-through systems), wet-type cooling
towers, and dry-type cooling towers type cooling systems
for geothermal binary plants and determined that cooling
with surface water provides the highest efficiency while
requiring the highest cold water supply. In terms of costs, dry
cooling is the most expensive cooling option. Kontoleontos
et al. [27] studied optimal Rankine cycles using isobutane
and R134a as working fluids for two geothermal binary
power systems. A power generating system with a 65 1C
source and a combined power and heat generation system
with a 120–150 1C source are considered and a set of optimal
solutions for both systems are obtained.
Kanoglu and Cengel [4] investigated the effect of
ambient conditions on the power production in a
geothermal power plant in Reno, NV, USA and analyzed
the use of evaporative cooling for decreasing work
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
2368 M. Kanoglu, A. Bolatturk / Renewable Energy 33 (2008) 2366–2374
consumptions in condenser fans in summer months. In this
paper, the same power plant is considered and the exergy
analysis of the plant is performed. The exergy and energy
efficiencies are calculated for both the entire plant and for
the individual plant components. The sites of exergy
destruction are identified and quantified. Also, the effects
of turbine inlet pressure and temperature and the
condenser pressure on exergy and energy efficiencies, the
net power output and the brine reinjection temperature are
investigated and the trends are explained.
2. Plant operation
Binary cycle plants use the geothermal brine from liquid-
dominated resources. These plants operate with a binary
working fluid (isobutane, isopentane, R-114, etc.) that has
a low boiling temperature in a Rankine cycle. The working
fluid is completely vaporized and usually superheated by
the geothermal heat in the vaporizer. The vapor expands in
the turbine, and then condensed in an air-cooled condenser
or water-cooled condenser before being pumped back to
the vaporizer to complete the cycle.
The geothermal power plant analyzed is a binary design
plant that generates a yearly average net power output of
about 27 MW. The plant consists of two identical units,
each having two identical turbines. Only one unit will be
considered for the rest of the paper. Schematic of one unit
and the properties at various states are given in Fig. 1 and
Table 1, respectively. Brine is extracted from five produc-
tion wells whose average depth is about 160 m. The power
plant operates on a liquid-dominated resource at 160 1C.
The brine passes through the heat exchanger system that
consists of a series of counter-flow heat exchangers where
heat is transferred to the working (binary) fluid isobutane
before the brine is reinjected back to the ground. Isobutane
3
Heat
Exchanger
6
Production
pump
5 7
Production
wells
Fig. 1. Schematic layout of the plant.
is found superheated at the heat exchanger exit. An equal
amount of isobutane flows through each turbine. The
mechanical power extracted from the turbines is converted
to electrical power in generators. It utilizes dry-air
condenser to condense the working fluid, so no fresh water
is consumed. Isobutane circulates in a closed cycle, which is
based on the Rankine cycle.
The harvested geothermal fluid is saturated liquid at
160 1C and 1264 kPa in the reservoir. The heat source for
the plant is the flow of geothermal water (brine) entering
the plant at 158 1C and 609 kPa with a total mass flow rate
of 555.9 kg/s. Geothermal fluid remains as a liquid
throughout the plant. The brine leaving the heat exchan-
gers is directed to the reinjection wells where it is reinjected
back into the ground at 90 1C and 423 kPa.
In the plant, mass flow rate 305.6 kg/s of working fluid
circulates through the cycle. The working fluid enters the
heat exchanger at 13.7 1C and leaves after it is evaporated
at 128 1C and superheated to 146.8 1C. The working fluid
then passes through the turbines that each mass flow rate
of 152.8 kg/s. It exhausts to an air-cooled condenser at
about 79.5 1C where it condenses to a temperature of
11.7 1C. Approximately, 8580 kg/s air at an ambient
temperature of 3 1C is required to absorb the heat yielded
by the working fluid. This raises the air temperature to
19.4 1C. The working fluid is pumped to heat exchanger
pressure to complete the Rankine cycle. The isobutane
cycle on a T–s diagram is shown in Fig. 2. It is noted in
Fig. 2 that the saturated vapor line of isobutane has
positive slope ensuring superheated vapor state at the
turbine outlet. Thus, no moisture is involved in the turbine
operation. This is one reason isobutane is a suitable
working fluid in binary geothermal power plants.
The heat exchange process between the geothermal brine
and working fluid isobutane is shown in Fig. 3. An energy
TurbineII
Generator
Generator Air-cooled
TurbineI 4 Condenser
8 9
1
2
Circulation
pump
Reinjection
wells
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
M. Kanoglu, A. Bolatturk / Renewable Energy 33 (2008) 2366–2374 2369

Table 1
Exergy rates and other properties at various plant locations for one representative unit

State Fluid Phase Temperature, Pressure, P Enthalpy, h Entropy, s Mass flow Exergy rate,
no. T (1C) (kPa) (kJ/kg) (kJ/kg 1C) _ (kg/s)
rate, m E_ (kW)

0 Brine Dead state 3.0 84 12.6 0.046 – –

00 Isobutane Dead state 3.0 84 207 1.025 – –
000 Air Dead state 3.0 84 276.5 5.672 – –
1 Isobutane Comp. liquid 11.7 410 227.5 1.097 305.6 221.3
2 Isobutane Comp. liquid 13.76 3250 234.3 1.103 305.6 1768
3 Isobutane Sup. vapor 146.8 3250 760.9 2.544 305.6 41,094
4 Isobutane Sup. vapor 79.5 410 689.7 2.601 305.6 14,528
5 Brine Liquid 160.0 1264 675.9 1.942 555.9 77,656
6 Brine Liquid 158.0 609 666.8 1.923 555.9 75,586
7 Brine Liquid 90.0 423 377.3 1.193 555.9 26,706
8 Air Gas 3.0 84 276.5 5.672 8580 0
9 Air Gas 19.4 84 292.9 5.730 8580 4036

State numbers refer to Fig. 1.

200 T [°C]
3
150 3250 kPa
T6=158
Brine flow
100
T3=146.8
Tpp=133.9
4
T (°C)

50 ΔTpp=5.9
410 kPa Tvap=128
1,2
0 Isobutane flow T7=90

-50

-100
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
s (kJ/kg-K) T2=13.7

Fig. 2. Temperature–entropy (T–s) diagram of binary Rankine cycle. x

Fig. 3. Diagram showing the heat exchange process between the

geothermal brine and the working fluid isobutane in the heat exchanger.

balance can be written from Fig. 3 for the heat exchanger

as: 3. Energy and exergy analyses

m _ binary ðh3  hf;binary Þ

_ geo ðh6  hpp Þ ¼ m (1) Mass, energy and exergy balances for any control
volume at steady state with negligible kinetic and potential
and
energy changes can be expressed, respectively, by
_ geo ðhpp  h7 Þ ¼ m
m _ binary ðhf;binary  h2 Þ, (2) X X
_ in ¼
m m_ out , (3)
where m _ binary are the mass flow rate of geothermal
_ geo and m X X
brine and binary fluid, respectively. hf;binary is the saturated Q_ þ W
_ ¼ _ out hout 
m _ in hin ,
m (4)
liquid enthalpy of isobutane at the saturated (vaporization)
X X
temperature, Tvap to be 128 1C, and hpp is the enthalpy of E_ heat þ W
_ ¼ E_ out  E_ in þ I,
_ (5)
the brine at the pinch-point temperature of the brine.
Solving these equations for hpp, we determine the where the subscriptions in and out represent the inlet and
corresponding brine pinch-point temperature, Tpp, to be exit states, Q_ and W
_ are the net heat and work inputs, m
_ is
133.9 1C. The pinch-point temperature difference DTpp is the mass flow rate, h is the enthalpy, and I_ is the rate
simply the difference between brine pinch-point tempera- of irreversibility (exergy destruction). The subscript 0
ture and the vaporization temperature of isobutane, stands for the restricted dead state. Also, E_ heat is the
resulting in 5.9 1C. net exergy transfer by heat at the temperature T, which is
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
2370 M. Kanoglu, A. Bolatturk / Renewable Energy 33 (2008) 2366–2374

given by or according to the energy of geothermal water at the heat

exchanger inlet:
X T0 _

E_ heat ¼ 1 Q. (6) W_ net;out
T Zth;2 ¼ . (14)
_ geo ðh6  h0 Þ
m
The specific flow exergy is given by
In Eq. (13), the energy input to the power plant
e ¼ h  h0  T 0 ðs  s0 Þ. (7) represents the maximum heat the geothermal water can
give and this can only happen when the geothermal water is
Multiplying specific exergy by the mass flow rate of the cooled to the temperature of the environment.
fluid gives the exergy rate: The actual heat input to a geothermal power cycle is less
E_ ¼ me.
_ (8) than the term in the denominator of Eq. (13), since part of
geothermal water is reinjected back to the ground at a
The exergetic efficiency of a turbine is defined as a temperature much greater than the temperature of the
measure of how well the stream exergy of the fluid is environment. In this approach, the thermal efficiency is
converted into actual turbine output. Then, determined from
_ turb _ net;out
W
W Zth;3 ¼ . (15)
Zex;turb ¼ , (9)
_ turb;rev
W Q_ in

_ turb is the actual turbine power and W_ turb;rev is the The thermal efficiency may be expressed based on the
where W
_ turb þ I._ The heat transfer to the binary Rankine cycle (i.e., the heat
reversible turbine power, which is equal to W
transfer in the heat exchanger):
exergy efficiency of the compressor is defined similarly as:
W_ net;out
_ pump;rev
W Zth;binary ¼ (16)
Zex;pump ¼ , (10) _ geo ðh6  h7 Þ
m
W_ pump
or
where W _ pump;rev is the reversible pump power, which is
_ pump  I._ The exergetic efficiencies of a heat W_ net;out
equal to W Zth;binary ¼ . (17)
exchanger and condenser may be measured by increase in _ binary ðh3  h2 Þ
m
the exergy of the cold stream divided by the decrease in the Using the exergy of geothermal water as the exergy input
exergy of the stream [28]. Applying this definition to heat to the plant, the exergy efficiency of a geothermal power
exchanger or condenser, we obtain plant can be expressed as:
ðE_ out  E_ in Þcold _ net;out
W W_ net;out
Zex;heat exc;cond ¼ , (11) Zex;1 ¼ ¼ (18)
ðE_ in  E_ out Þhot E_ in _ geo ½h5  h0  T 0 ðs5  s0 Þ
m
where the subscripts cold and hot represent the cold stream or according to the exergy of geothermal water at the inlet
and the hot stream, respectively. The difference between of heat exchanger,
the numerator and denominator of Eq. (11) is the exergy _ net;out _ net;out
W W
destruction in the heat exchanger or condenser. One may Zex;2 ¼ ¼ . (19)
take all the exergy given up by the hot fluid in the E_ 6 _ binary ½h6  h0  T 0 ðs6  s0 Þ
m
condenser as part of the exergy destruction for the power For a binary cycle, the exergy efficiency may be defined
plant. This is the value used in exergy destruction diagram based on the exergy decrease of geothermal water or exergy
that will be shown later in the paper. increase of the binary working fluid in the heat exchanger.
In general, the thermal efficiency of a geothermal power That is,
plant may be expressed as:
W_ net;out
_ net;out Zex;binary;1 ¼ , (20)
W _ geo ½h6  h7  T 0 ðs6  s7 Þ
m
Zth;1 ¼ , (12)
_ geo ðhgeo  h0 Þ
m
W_ net;out
where the expression in the denominator is the energy input Zex;binary;2 ¼ . (21)
_ binary ½h3  h2  T 0 ðs3  s2 Þ
m
to the power plant, which is expressed as the enthalpy of
the geothermal water with respect to environment state The difference between the denominators of Eqs. (20) and
multiplied by the mass flow rate of geothermal water. (21) is the exergy destruction in the heat exchanger.
Using the states, it becomes The total exergy lost in cycle is determined from

W_ net;out I_cycle ¼ I_pump þ I_heat exchanger þ I_turbine

Zth;1 ¼ , (13)
_ geo ðh5  h0 Þ
m þ I_condenser þ I_reinjection . (22)
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
M. Kanoglu, A. Bolatturk / Renewable Energy 33 (2008) 2366–2374 2371

The total exergy destruction in the plant is the difference water are used. By doing so, effects of salts and non-
between the brine exergy at the heat exchanger inlet and condensable gases that might present in the geothermal
the net power output from cycle: brine are neglected. This should not cause any significant
error in calculations since their fractions are estimated by
I_plant ¼ E_ in  W
_ net;out . (23)
the plant management to be small. Thermodynamic prope-
This includes various exergy losses in the plant rties of working fluid, isobutane, are obtained from a soft-
components as well as the exergy of brine leaving heat ware with built-in thermodynamic property functions [29].
exchanger. One may argue that the exergy of used brine is a As part of the analysis, we investigate the effects of
recovered exergy, and it should not be considered to be turbine inlet pressure and temperature and the condenser
part of the exergy loss. However, the used brine is re- pressure on exergy and energy efficiencies, the net power
injected back to the ground without any attempt to make
use of it. Turbine Circulation Pump
4822 kW 541 kW
The exergetic efficiencies and exergy destructions of 6.4% Condenser
0.8%
major plant components and the entire plant are calculated Brine reinjection 14307 kW
as explained in this section, and listed in Table 2. All values 26706 kW 18.9%
35.3%
are for one representative unit. To pinpoint the sites of
Heat exchanger
exergy destruction and quantify those losses, an exergy 9552 kW
diagram is given in Fig. 4. An energy diagram is given in 12.6%
Fig. 5 to provide comparison with the exergy flow diagram.
The power output from the turbines is 10,872 kW in
Parasitic power
Turbine I and 10,872 kW in Turbine II. The pump power Net power 3262 kW
requirement for the circulation pumps is calculated to be 16396 kW 4.3%
21.7%
2087 kW. The net power outputs form Rankine cycle then
become 19,657 kW. It is further estimated based on plant Fig. 4. Exergy losses diagram. Given as the percentages of brine exergy
data about 16.6% of the net power generated in the cycle is input (75,586 kW), which is taken as the exergy of brine at state 6 in Fig. 1.
consumed by the parasites of unit of plant, which
corresponds to 3262 kW [4]. Parasitic power includes brine Net power
production pumps, condenser fans and other auxiliaries. 16396 kW
Subtracting the parasitic power from the net power Brine Reinjection 4.5%
202742 kW
generated in the cycle, the net power output becomes
55.7%
16,396 kW.
In Table 1, temperature, pressure, and mass flow rate
data for geothermal fluid, working fluid, and air are given
according to their state numbers specified in Fig. 1. Exergy
rates are calculated for each state, and listed in Table 1. Condenser losses
141271 kW
State 0, 00 and 000 are the restricted dead states for the Parasitic power
38.9%
geothermal fluid, working fluid and air, respectively. They 3262 kW
correspond to an environment temperature of 3 1C and an 0.9%
atmospheric pressure of 84 kPa, which were the values Fig. 5. Energy losses diagram. Given as the percentages of brine energy
measured at the time when the plant data were obtained. input (363,671 kW), which is taken as the energy of brine at state 6 in
For geothermal fluid, the thermodynamics properties of Fig. 1.

Table 2
Some exergetic and energetic performance data provided for one representative unit of the plant

Component Exergy Exergetic Heat transfer or Effectiveness or

destruction (kW) efficiency (%) power (kW) isentropic efficiency (%)

Reinjection well 26,706 – 202,742 –

Heat exchanger 9552 80.5 160,929 47.1
Air-cooled condenser 14,307 28.2 141,271 88.6
Turbine I 2411 81.8 10,872 78.2
Turbine II 2411 81.8 10,872 78.2
Circulation pump 541 74.1 2087 73.4
Parasitic power 3262
Cycle 51,891 41.7 (Eq. 21) 16,396 10.2 (Eq. 17)
33.5 (Eq. 20) 10.2 (Eq. 16)
21.7 (Eq. 19) 4.5 (Eq. 14)
21.1 (Eq. 18) 4.4 (Eq. 13)
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
2372 M. Kanoglu, A. Bolatturk / Renewable Energy 33 (2008) 2366–2374

0.348 0.104 21000 100

0.344 20000 95

Reinjection temperature (°C)

0.102
0.340
19000 90

Energy efficiency
Exergy efficiency

Net power (kW)

0.100
0.336
18000 85
0.332 0.098
17000 80
0.328
0.096
0.324 16000 75
0.094
0.320 15000 70

0.316 0.092 14000 65

2400 2600 2800 3000 3200 3400 3600 130 135 140 145 150 155 160
Turbine inlet pressure (kPa) Turbine inlet temperature (°C)

Fig. 6. Variation of exergy and energy efficiencies versus turbine inlet Fig. 9. Variation of net power and brine reinjection temperature versus
pressure. turbine inlet temperature.

17600 93
0.44 0.14
17400 91
Reinjection temperature (°C)

0.42
17200 89 0.13
0.40
Net power (kW)

17000 87

Energy efficiency
Exergy efficiency

0.38 0.12
16800 85
0.36
0.11
16600 83 0.34
16400 81 0.32 0.10

16200 79 0.30
0.09
16000 77 0.28
2400 2600 2800 3000 3200 3400 3600 0.26 0.08
Turbine inlet pressure (kPa) 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600
Condenser pressure (kPa)
Fig. 7. Variation of net power and brine reinjection temperature versus
turbine inlet pressure. Fig. 10. Variation of exergy and energy efficiencies versus condenser
pressure.

0.346 0.104 21000 91.00

0.344 20000
0.103

Reinjection temperature (°C)

90.98
19000
0.342
0.102
Energy efficiency
Exergy efficiency

Net power (kW)

18000 90.96
0.340
0.101 17000
0.338 90.94
16000
0.100
0.336 15000 90.92
0.099
0.334 14000
90.90
0.332 0.098 13000

0.330 0.097 12000 90.88

130 135 140 145 150 155 160 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600
Condenser pressure (kPa)
Turbine inlet temperature (°C)
Fig. 11. Variation of net power and brine reinjection temperature versus
Fig. 8. Variation of exergy and energy efficiencies versus turbine inlet
condenser pressure.
temperature.

output and the brine reinjection temperature. In order to point temperature difference (6 1C). The brine temperature
facilitate this parametric study, we used the given at the heat exchanger exit (reinjection temperature) and the
geothermal inlet temperature and flow rate values mass flow rate of isobutane are the unknown parameters in
(158 1C, 555.9 kg/s) and the calculated isentropic efficien- this analysis. The results of this parametric study are given
cies for the turbine (0.782) and pump (0.734) and the pinch- in Figs. 6–11.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
M. Kanoglu, A. Bolatturk / Renewable Energy 33 (2008) 2366–2374
4. Results and discussion
An investigation of the exergy pie diagram given in
Fig. 4 shows that 74% of the exergy entering to the plant is
lost. The remaining 26% is converted to power and 21.7%
of this power is used for parasitic load in the plant. The
exergetic efficiency of the plant is determined to be 41.7%
(Eq. 21) and 33.5% (Eq. 20) based on the exergy input to
the isobutane Rankine cycles (i.e. exergy drops of the brine
in the heat exchanger) and 21.1% (Eq. 18) and 21.7%
(Eq. 19) based on the exergy input to the plant (i.e. exergy
of the brine at the reservoir and the heat exchanger inlet,
respectively) (Table 2). Bodvarsson and Eggers [22] gives
the exergetic efficiencies of a single-flash and a double-flash
cycle to be 38.7% and 49.0%, respectively, based on 250 1C
resource water temperature and 40 1C sink temperature.
Both values are significantly greater than the value
calculated for the binary plant analyzed in this paper. This
is expected since additional exergy destruction occurs
during the heat exchange between the geothermal and the
working fluids in binary plants. DiPippo and Marcille [19]
calculated the exergetic efficiency of an actual binary power
plant using a 140 1C resource and 10 1C sink to be 20% and
33.5% based on the exergy input to the plant and to the
Rankine cycle, respectively.
Using low-temperature resources, geothermal power
plants generally have low first law efficiencies. Conse-
quently, the first law efficiency of the plant is calculated to
be 4.4% (Eq. 13) and 4.5% (Eq. 14) based on the energy
input to the plant and 10.2% (Eq. 17) based on the energy
input to the isobutane Rankine cycles. This means that
more than 90% of the energy of the brine in the reservoir is
discarded as waste heat. There is a strong argument here
for the use of geothermal resources for direct applications
such as district heating instead of power generation when
economically feasible. A cogeneration scheme involving
power generation and the district heating may also be
considered when used brine is reinjected back to the
ground at a relatively high temperature. The energy losses
diagram in Fig. 5 shows that 55.7% of the energy of the
brine is reinjected, 38.9% of it is rejected in the condenser,
and the remaining is converted to power. Yet it provides no
specific information on where the power potentials are lost.
This shows the value of an exergy analysis.
The causes of exergy destruction in the plant include heat
exchanger losses, turbine-pump losses, the exergy of the
brine reinjected, and the exergy of isobutane lost in the
condenser. They represent 18.9%, 7.2%, 35.3%, and
12.6% of the brine exergy input, respectively (Fig. 4).
The exergetic efficiencies and effectiveness of heat exchan-
ger are 80.5% and 47.1%, respectively. This exergetic
efficiency can be considered to be high, and indicate
a satisfactory performance of the heat exchange system.
In binary geothermal power plants heat exchangers
are important components and their individual perfor-
mances considerably affect the overall performance of
the plant.
2373
The exergetic efficiency of the turbine is 81.8%, which is
reasonable. The exergetic efficiencies of the condensers are
in the range of 28.2%, making them the least efficient
components in the plant. This is primarily due to the high
average temperature difference between the isobutane and
the cooling air. The brine is reinjected back to the ground
at about 90 1C.
For binary geothermal power plants using air as the
cooling medium, the condenser temperature varies as the
ambient air temperature fluctuates throughout the year and
even throughout the day. As a result, the power output
decreases by up to 50% from winter to summer [4,30].
Consequently, the exergy destruction rates and percentages
at various sites change, this effect being most noticeable in
the condenser.
As part of the analysis, we investigate the effect of some
operating parameters on exergy and energy efficiencies, the
net power output and the brine reinjection temperature.
The energy and exergy efficiencies are those given in
Eqs. (16) and (20), respectively. The effect of turbine inlet
pressure on the exergy and energy efficiencies is given in
Fig. 6. Both the exergy and energy efficiencies increase with
the turbine inlet pressure. The critical pressure of isobutane
is 3640 kPa. As the pressure approaches the critical
pressure the increase in exergy efficiency becomes more
dramatic. On the other hand, energy efficiency shows a
different trend as the pressure approaches the critical value.
Fig. 7 indicates a pressure of about 3430 kPa at which the
net power from the plant is minimized. This is also about
the same pressure at which the brine reinjection tempera-
ture is a maximum. This means that less heat is picked up
from the geothermal brine by the isobutane. For geother-
mal power plants where the brine leaving the heat
exchanger is used for no useful purpose and directly
reinjected to the ground, maximizing the power output (not
the energy or exergy efficiency) is a priority. This is the case
for this particular power plant. Note that the brine
temperature is high enough for use in district heating
systems. This may be explored if there is a residential,
commercial or industrial district in a close distance to the
power plant.
The exergy efficiency decreases and the energy efficiency
increases with increasing turbine inlet temperature as
shown in Fig. 8. The reason for decreasing trend of exergy
efficiency is this: as the temperature increases, the power
potential increases but the power output decreases (Fig. 9).
The reason for decreasing trend in the power output is the
decrease in mass flow rate of isobutane. It decreases from
457 kg/s at 130 1C to 266 kg/s at 155 1C. The reason for
increasing trend in energy efficiency is this: both the power
output and the heat input decrease with increasing turbine
inlet temperature while heat input decreases at a greater
rate than power output. The reason for decreasing heat
input is due to decreasing mass flow of isobutane.
Figs. 10 and 11 show that exergy and energy efficiencies
and the net power decrease as the condenser pressure
increases. The reinjection temperature remains almost
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
2374 M. Kanoglu, A. Bolatturk / Renewable Energy 33 (2008) 2366–2374
constant with varying condenser pressure. Note that the
mass flow rate of isobutane and the rate of heat input to the
Rankine cycle remains essentially constant when condenser
pressure is changed since changing condenser pressure only
affects part of heat exchange process described in Eq. (2)
whose effect is very small.
5. Conclusions
The aim of the exergy analysis for a power plant is
usually to identify and quantify the sites of exergy
destruction so that the directions for any attempt to
improve the performance can be identified. The exergy
analysis served this purpose well in this paper. The
investigation of some operating parameters in the cycle
on the cycle performance parameters yielded some
important insights to the plant operation and heat
exchange process, and this information can be used in the
design, analysis, and performance improvement of binary
geothermal power plants.
References
[1] DiDippo R. Geothermal energy electricity generation and environ-
mental impact. Energy Policy 1991;19(8):798–807.
[2] Phair KA. Getting the most out of geothermal power. ASME Mech
Eng 1994;116(9):76–80.
[3] Kanoglu M, Cengel YA. Retrofitting a geothermal power plant to
optimize performance: a case study. Trans ASME, J Energy Resour
Technol 1999;121(4):295–301.
[4] Kanoglu M, Cengel YA. Improving the performance of an existing
binary geothermal power plant: a case study. Trans ASME, J Energy
Resour Technol 1999;121(3):196–202.
[5] Kanoglu M, Cengel YA, Turner RH. Incorporating a district
heating/cooling system into an existing geothermal power plant.
Trans ASME, J Energy Resour Technol 1998;120(2):179–84.
[6] Gu Z, Sato H. Performance of supercritical cycles for geothermal
binary design. Energy Convers Manage 2002;43(7):961–71.
[7] Mohanty B, Paloso Jr G. Economic power generation from low-
temperature geothermal resources using organic Rankine cycle
combined with vapor absorption chiller. Heat Recovery Syst CHP
1992;12(2):143–58.
[8] Yuan Z, Michaelides EE. Binary-flashing geothermal power plants.
ASME J Energy Resour Technol 1993;115:232–6.
[9] Kunze JF. Utilizing geothermal resources below 150 1C. ASME J
Energy Resour Technol 1979;101:124–9.
[10] Kanoglu M, Cengel YA. Economic evaluation of geothermal power
generation, heating, and cooling. Energy—Int J 1999;24(6):501–9.
[11] Barbier E. Nature and technology of geothermal energy: a review.
Renewable Sustain Energy Rev—Int J 1997;1(1/2):1–69.
[12] Moran MJ. Availability analysis: a guide to efficient energy use.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall; 1998.
[13] Bejan A. Advanced engineering thermodynamics. New York: Wiley;
1988.
[14] Gaggioli RA. Available energy and exergy. Int J Appl Thermodyn
1998;1:1–8.
[15] Kestin J. Available work in geothermal energy. Washington, DC: US
Department of Energy, Division of Geothermal Energy; 1978.
[16] DiPippo R. Second law assessment of binary plants generating power
from low-temperature geothermal fluids. Geothermics 2004;33:
565–86.
[17] Lee KC. Classification of geothermal resources by exergy. Geother-
mics 2001;30:431–42.
[18] DiPippo R. Second law analysis of flash-binary and multilevel binary
geothermal power plants. Geothermal Resources Council Transac-
tions 1994;18:505–10.
[19] DiPippo R, Marcille DF. Exergy analysis of geothermal power
plants. Geothermal Resources Council Transactions 1984;8:47–52.
[20] Kanoglu M. Exergy analysis of a dual-level binary geothermal power
plant. Geothermics 2002;31:709–24.
[21] Ozturk HK, Atalay O, Yilan A, Hepbasli A. Energy and exergy
analysis of Kizildere geothermal power plants, Turkey. Energy
Sources A 2006;28(15):1415–24.
[22] Bodvarsson G, Eggers DE. The exergy of thermal power. Geother-
mics 1972;1:93–5.
[23] Ozgener L, Hepbasli A, Dincer I. Thermo-mechanical exergy analysis
of Balcova geothermal district heating system in Izmir, Turkey. Trans
ASME, J Energy Resour Technol 2004;126:293–301.
[24] Hepbasli A. A key review on exergetic analysis and assessment of
renewable energy resources for a sustainable future. Renewable
Sustain Energy Rev. Corrected proof; 2007.
[25] Karytsas C, Mendiros D. Efficient low temperature geothermal
binary power (Low-Bin) DG-TREN Funded Strep Programme.
European Geothermal Congress EGC 2007, May 30–June 1, 2007.
Unterhaching, Germany.
[26] Mendrinos D, Kontoleontos E, Karytsas C. Geothermal binary
plants: water or air cooled? In: Proceedings of the engine workshop 5
on electricity generation from enhanced geothermal systems. Stras-
bourg, France; 14–16 September 2006.
[27] Kontoleontos E, Mendrinos D, Karytsas C. Optimized geothermal
binary power cycles. In: Proceedings of the ENGINE mid-term
conference. Potsdam, Germany; 9–12 January 2007.
[28] Wark KJ. Advanced thermodynamics for engineers. New York:
McGraw-Hill; 1995.
[29] Klein SA. Engineering Equation Solver (EES), Academic Commer-
cial V7.714, F-Chart Software, /www.fChart.comS; 2006.
[30] Michaelides EE, Ryder JK. The influence of seasonal and daily
temperature fluctuations on the work produced by geothermal
power plants. International Journal of Energy Systems 1992;12(2):
68–72.