energies

Article
Thermodynamic Optimization of a Geothermal-
Based Organic Rankine Cycle System Using an
Artificial Bee Colony Algorithm
Osman Özkaraca 1, * ID
, Pınar Keçebaş 2 , Cihan Demircan 3 and Ali Keçebaş 4, * ID

1 Department of Information Systems Engineering, Technology Faculty, Muğla Sıtkı Koçman University,
48000 Muğla, Turkey
2 Department of Energy, Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences, Muğla Sıtkı Koçman University,
48000 Muğla, Turkey; pgkecebas@gmail.com
3 Department of Energy Systems Engineering, Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences, Süleyman
Demirel University, 32260 Isparta, Turkey; cihandemircan48@gmail.com
4 Department of Energy Systems Engineering, Technology Faculty, Muğla Sıtkı Koçman University,
48000 Muğla, Turkey
* Correspondence: osmanozkaraca@mu.edu.tr (O.Ö.); alikecebas@mu.edu.tr (A.K.);
Tel.: +90-252-211-5526 (O.Ö.); +90-252-211-5471 (A.K.)

Received: 5 September 2017; Accepted: 20 October 2017; Published: 25 October 2017

Abstract: Geothermal energy is a renewable form of energy, however due to misuse, processing and
management issues, it is necessary to use the resource more efficiently. To increase energy efficiency,
energy systems engineers carry out careful energy control studies and offer alternative solutions. With
this aim, this study was conducted to improve the performance of a real operating air-cooled organic
Rankine cycle binary geothermal power plant (GPP) and its components in the aspects of thermodynamic
modeling, exergy analysis and optimization processes. In-depth information is obtained about the
exergy (maximum work a system can make), exergy losses and destruction at the power plant and its
components. Thus the performance of the power plant may be predicted with reasonable accuracy and
better understanding is gained for the physical process to be used in improving the performance of
the power plant. The results of the exergy analysis show that total exergy production rate and exergy
efficiency of the GPP are 21 MW and 14.52%, respectively, after removing parasitic loads. The highest
amount of exergy destruction occurs, respectively, in condenser 2, vaporizer HH2, condenser 1, pumps
1 and 2 as components requiring priority performance improvement. To maximize the system exergy
efficiency, the artificial bee colony (ABC) is applied to the model that simulates the actual GPP. Under all
the optimization conditions, the maximum exergy efficiency for the GPP and its components is obtained.
Two of these conditions such as Case 4 related to the turbine and Case 12 related to the condenser have
the best performance. As a result, the ABC optimization method provides better quality information
than exergy analysis. Based on the guidance of this study, the performance of power plants based on
geothermal energy and other energy resources may be improved.

Keywords: geothermal power plant; Organic Rankine Cycle (ORC); thermodynamic modeling;
exergy analysis; Artificial Bee Colony (ABC); performance improvement

1. Introduction
Geothermal energy is hot water, steam, gas or thermal energy within hot dry rocks that has
accumulated under pressure at a variety of depths in the crust. In other words, geothermal energy
may be defined as thermal energy of the globe [1]. It is estimated that the crust has 5.4 billion EJ of
thermal energy. If just 0.1% of this energy could be used, world energy consumption needs for 10,000

Energies 2017, 10, 1691; doi:10.3390/en10111691 www.mdpi.com/journal/energies

Energies 2017, 10, 1691 2 of 27

years could be met. However, it is very difficult to use the Earth’s energy at this scale and it requires
advanced technology [2]. Geothermal energy is considered to be a clean, reliable and safe renewable
energy resource [3]. Linked to the reservoir fluid temperature, geothermal resources are classified as
low (<90 ◦ C), moderate (90 ◦ C–150 ◦ C) and high (>150 ◦ C) enthalpy resources [4]. Historically Conti
created the first device producing electricity from a geothermal steam well in the town of Lardello
in Italy in 1904 and in 1913 the first commercial geothermal energy system was linked to the grid
with a 250 kW alternator in the same place [5]. The success of these experiments led to small scale
electricity production from geothermal resources in the city of Beppu in Japan in 1919 and from geysers
in California in 1921. New Zealand’s Wairakei station began operations in 1958, which was a turning
point in the technological history of electricity production and it was the first facility to use wet steam
technology (flash steam). Previous power plants were limited to the use of geothermal reservoirs
containing dry steam [6]. In 1977 the first dual flash power plant began operating in Japan and in 1984
geothermal energy power plants using binary cycles started to operate [7]. Thus electricity production
from geothermal energy spread around the world and over one hundred years have passed since the
first day electricity was produced from geothermal resources to the present. In this respect, Turkey
has a long history of electricity production from this type of energy. In 1984 Turkey’s first geothermal
energy power plant with 20.4 MWe installed power was opened in Denizli (Kızıldere) [8]. However,
to date its share within the variety of energy resources used in Turkey has not reached desired levels.
Instead, the basic use of Turkey’s geothermal energy is direct usage [9].
Geothermal power plants use hydrothermal resources with hydro and thermal components. Hot
water or steam turns a turbine and is used to generate electricity. Geothermal power plants require
hydrothermal resources with high temperatures (nearly 150 ◦ C–370 ◦ C) coming from hot water wells
or dry steam wells [10]. In this situation, for electricity production from geothermal resources to be
possible, generally a minimum temperature of 150 ◦ C is required. The mean temperature gradient
within the earth’s crust is 25 ◦ C/km–30 ◦ C/km. As a result, for electricity production from geothermal,
either a deep temperature drilling is required or regions with high temperature gradient should be
chosen [11]. Nearly all geothermal power plants can be divided into four categories: dry steam, single
flash, dual flash and binary designs. Power plant design is generally a function of the temperature and
pressure of the available geothermal resource.
As mentioned above, it is known that for electricity production in power plants, fluid temperatures
above 150 ◦ C must be ensured. Additionally, electricity generation from binary geothermal power
plants may use very low temperatures. In situations where the temperature of geothermal fluid coming
from the production well is below 150 ◦ C (typically between 110 ◦ C and 180 ◦ C), it is not possible
to evaporate the fluid flow to form steam. Therefore, binary geothermal power plants are typically
used for these applications. A basic binary geothermal power plant operates a geothermal fluid (brine)
to ensure thermal input of a pressurized fluid (organic fluid) into an Organic Rankine Cycle (ORC).
Geothermal brine heats the organic working fluid (R134a, n-pentane, isopentane) in a preheater and
evaporator which later vaporizes. This steam produces electrical energy by passing through a turbine
driving the generator. The working fluid passing through the turbine is generally condensed in an
air-cooled condenser before being pumped to the preheater [12].
After the oil crisis of the 1970s, it was understood that energy efficiency alone could not determine
how properly energy was used. Thus exergy analyses began to gain great importance. However,
the basis of exergy extends to the 1870s. It was first proposed by Gibbs in 1878 [13]. The exergy
concept as a word was first used by Rant in the year 1953 [4]. Available energy [14], available
work [13] and availability or maximum beneficial work [15] concepts were proposed with equivalent
meaning to exergy. İleri and Gürer [16] brought energy use, in addition to exergy use, to the agenda in
Turkey in 1995. The results of their studies completed exergy analysis of apparently efficient systems,
and revealed just how inefficient these systems actually were.
The most appropriate design for geothermal power plants is a complicated work encompassing
multiple scientific and engineering disciplines. As a result, information should be synthesized about
Energies 2017, 10, 1691 3 of 27

a variety of topics to make appropriate decisions related to the approach to be used and research
methods [17–22]. Currently characterization of energy resources, power plant design and engineering
optimization topics require creation of a conceptual framework comprising the knowledge of the latest
available technology and current research. Consequently, energy inputs to the electricity power plant
requiring knowledge related to available geothermal resources in the world, in general, should be
accurately estimated. During the process of geothermal power plant design, design and modelling
research should be fully understood, requiring detailed investigation of operating and continuing
power plants. Also, conscious and correct decisions should be made relating to application of the most
appropriate optimization techniques. This requires detailed investigation of the literature emphasizing
techniques to bring energy power plants or thermal systems to the best state and optimization
methods for engineering applications. The majority of scientific studies have focused on design
optimization, selection of appropriate fluid, exergy/energy analyses and a variety of techno-economic
research. Additionally, a common characteristic of ORC-based systems is the multiple nature of
working conditions. The majority of application areas experience variations in thermal resource
(or cooling processes) over time and the system should adapt to the working regime to ensure optimum
performance. There are few studies related to control aspects and off-design performance of ORC
systems [23–35]. Thus, all the following studies are related to low temperature ORCs.
As the development of renewable energy resources has intensified, the researches into
ORC technologies producing electricity from low enthalpy geothermal resources have increased.
The majority of these studies revolve around geothermal binary power plants and their design.
At the beginning of the 1970s, Anderson [36] explained the design of the first binary geothermal
binary power plant in the USA, known as Magmamax (and second globally). A short while after,
Bliem et al. [37] developed a computer model to research the effect on levelized cost of electricity
(LCOE) with five different temperatures for a Rankine cycle power plant with simple propane-based
geothermal resource. Kanoğlu [38] studied the design of a Rankine cycle power plant with dual
pressure using isopentane as working fluid. This research showed that developing efficiency of turbine
and condenser provided the largest improvement to power plant efficiency. It also proved that in
air-cooled power plants seasonally changing condenser temperatures caused significant changes in
power plant output. Öztürk et al. [39] investigated the energy and exergy analysis for the Kızıldere
geothermal power plant. This plant was the first geothermal power plant built in Turkey in 1974. They
used real power plant data and researched the effect of a variety of dead situation characteristics on
Kızıldere geothermal power plant exergy efficiency to find the optimum performance and working
conditions. The calculations given are based on a mean pressure of 0.095 MPa and mean reference
temperature of 16 ◦ C. The energy and exergy efficiencies for the whole power plant were determined
as 4.9% and 20.5% respectively. Hettiarachchi et al. [40] applied a more sophisticated optimization
method (steepest descent) to design a simple water-cooled ORC binary energy power plant. This
study varied the speed of geothermal fluid and cooling water for a variety of working fluids in
addition to the evaporation and condensation temperature to minimize the net power output rate
of the heat exchanger area. The results of this optimization showed that choice of working fluid
may have a significant effect on power plant costs. Sohel et al. [41] presented optimization of an
ORC geothermal power plant performance by optimizing study point parameters based on real time
hourly weather data and geothermal fluid flow rates in the search for performance improvement.
They characterized the Rotokawa geothermal power plant using energy generation performance and
local weather conditions. On the hottest day, the maximum production increase was 6.8%. Due to the
operating binary unit production capacity of the Rotokawa power plant with 35 MW, investment in
a water-enriched air-cooled system would provide 2 MW productions on the hottest days. Franco
and Villani [42] used an iterative optimization approach and produced a comprehensive data set
related to design of geothermal binary power plants. In this study they developed a method to identify
optimum combinations of working fluid and cycle type for three different geothermal input and
re-injection temperature sets. The method explained by Franco and Villani [42] considered supercritical
Energies 2017, 10, 1691 4 of 27

cycles, dual pressure Rankine cycles and classic Rankine cycles, in addition to hydrocarbons, synthetic
cooling fluids and mixtures to discuss six different working fluids. The results of the study found
different combinations of cycle type and working fluid were appropriate for different geothermal
brine input and re-injection temperatures and the optimized solution produced significant improved
exergetic efficiency. Sohel et al. [43] presented an iterative method to model the effect of environmental
temperature on an air-cooled ORC. Environmental temperature affected the performance of condensers
on both routes and so the performance of the whole cycle. Firstly, changing the balance pressure within
the condenser changed the turbine output pressure and turbine pressure ratios. The turbine pressure
ratio is an important parameter to determine energy produced by the turbine because it directly
affects power plant output. Secondly changing the condenser output temperature and environmental
temperature changes the pump input and output conditions. Thus the balance temperature and
pressure in the vaporizer is affected. The developed method aimed to rebalance conditions for both
the condenser and vaporizer. To show the validity of the method, they studied two situations based on
performance of a real power plant. The developed method was stable and converged independently
from the initial conditions permitted by the physical properties of the working fluid. This method is
effective with appropriate initial conditions and limitations under static or dynamic variables for cycles
using saturated steam in addition to over-heated steam. Ghasemi et al. [44] developed a model for an
operating ORC using low temperature geothermal resources. Equipped with an air-cooled condenser
system, they used Aspen Plus to simulate the performance of the present ORC. The model included
real properties of all components and was confirmed by 5000 measurements over a broad interval
of environmental temperature. Thus the net output power of the system appeared to be maximized.
Different optimal operating strategies were recommended linked to environmental temperature. As the
environmental temperature increased in the study, optimum heating values increased and they stated
a 9% increase was ensured in total power produced each year. Their study used a representative
hourly environmental temperature profile to determine the most appropriate power station design for
a certain climate.
In the recent literature, there are not so many models based on physical understanding, broad
conceptual design and optimization modelling to estimate the performance of binary geothermal
ORC power plant. Generally, it has been focused on the power output and system performance
(thermodynamic, economic and environmental) of low temperature sourced power plants, especially
efficiency as objective functions, geothermal brine reservoir or crustal output properties, environmental
temperature, working fluid selection for ORC, evaluation of new analysis methods, new cycle designs,
adding/removing components to existing cycles or renovation studies. However, considering the
geothermal power plants and theirs performance analyses, it will be beneficial to rapidly produce a
simple thermodynamic model simulating the working cycle. Especially the use of the ABC optimization
method used for modelling thermal systems will determine improvement potentials of system
components, interactions between components and aspects and potentials for energy saving to provide
better performance of real system models. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this topic is examined
for the first time in the literature. This has formed the source of motivation for the authors.

2. Modelling, Analysis and Optimization of a System

From a geothermal perspective, the geothermal well is the heart of a geothermal power plant.
The enthalpy and mass flow of the produced geofluid determine how the system will be chosen.
The characteristics of the wellbore and therefore geofluid change from field to field and, in some
cases, from well to well. This leads to the examination of each system separately. Thus, this study
to characterize system performance is completed in three steps. The first step is to apply exergy
analysis to a real operating geothermal power plant. In the second step, a thermodynamic model
simulating the system and/or system components is developed. As a final step, the developed model
is optimized with the artificial bee colony (ABC) method for the objective function of maximizing the
system exergy efficiency.
Energies 2017, 10, 1691 5 of 27
Energies 2017, 10, 1691 5 of 28

2.1. Description
2.1. Description of
of the
the Sinem
Sinem GPP
GPP as
as aa Case
Case Study
Study
Turkey’s geothermal
Turkey’s fields have
geothermal fields have aa wide
wide regional
regional distribution
distribution linked
linked toto tectonic
tectonic and
and volcanic
volcanic
activity. In this situation, the majority of high enthalpy or high temperature
activity. In this situation, the majority of high enthalpy or high temperature geothermal fieldsgeothermal fields are
are
compressed in
compressed inthe
thecontinental
continental riftrift
zones of the
zones of Menderes
the MenderesMassif and are
Massif anddue
areto due
laterto
expanding tectonic
later expanding
activity. As a result, these high temperature geothermal fields are found within
tectonic activity. As a result, these high temperature geothermal fields are found within the the continental rift
belt of the Büyük Menderes basin. One of these fields is the Hıdırbeyli region of Germencik
continental rift belt of the Büyük Menderes basin. One of these fields is the Hıdırbeyli region of county in
Aydın
Germencikprovince/Turkey
county in Aydın withprovince/Turkey
five geothermal power plants
with five (GPP) operating
geothermal under(GPP)
power plants the names İrem
operating
GPP (20 MW), Sinem GPP (24 MW), Deniz GPP (24 MW), Kerem GPP
under the names İrem GPP (20 MW), Sinem GPP (24 MW), Deniz GPP (24 MW), Kerem GPP (24 MW) and Ken 1 GPP (24 MW)
belonging
(24 MW) and to the
KenMaren
1 GPP Maras
(24 MW)Electricity Generation
belonging Inc. with
to the Maren 116 MW
Maras capacity
Electricity [45]. In this
Generation Inc.study
with
it is chosen the Sinem GPP operating at 24 MW installed power within this geothermal
116 MW capacity [45]. In this study it is chosen the Sinem GPP operating at 24 MW installed power field. The
schematic flow diagram for Sinem GPP is given in Figure 1.
within this geothermal field. The schematic flow diagram for Sinem GPP is given in Figure 1.

Figure
Figure 1.
1. A
A schematic
schematic flow
flow diagram
diagram of
of the
the Sinem
Sinem GPP.
GPP.

This GPP works in accordance with an air-cooled geothermal binary organic Rankine cycle. It
This GPP works in accordance with an air-cooled geothermal binary organic Rankine cycle. It started
started operating in July 2012. From Figure 1, the Sinem GPP with the air-cooled binary organic
operating in July 2012. From Figure 1, the Sinem GPP with the air-cooled binary organic Rankine cycle
Rankine cycle comprises evaporators (VAP 1, VAP 2, PREHE 1, PREHE 2 and RECUP), turbines
comprises evaporators (VAP 1, VAP 2, PREHE 1, PREHE 2 and RECUP), turbines (TURB 1 and TURB 2),
(TURB 1 and TURB 2), generator (GEN), condensers (CON 1 and CON 2), fans (FAN 1 and FAN 2)
generator (GEN), condensers (CON 1 and CON 2), fans (FAN 1 and FAN 2) and pumps (PU 1 and PU 2)
and pumps (PU 1 and PU 2) components at level I and II. The heat input rate at the GPP system
components at level I and II. The heat input rate at the GPP system currently obtains mixed geothermal
currently obtains mixed geothermal fluids from 3 artesian production wells (GM3, GM5 and GM8),
fluids from 3 artesian production wells (GM3, GM5 and GM8), with each well-head installed with a vertical
with each well-head installed with a vertical separator to divide two phase fluid into geofluid (liquid
separator to divide two phase fluid into geofluid (liquid brine) and saturated steam. These production wells
brine) and saturated steam. These production wells have temperatures of 165 °C–170 °C, pressure of
have temperatures of 165 ◦ C–170 ◦ C, pressure of 10 bar–14 bar and flow rate of 1100 ton/h–1500 ton/h.
10 bar–14 bar and flow rate of 1100 ton/h–1500 ton/h. Initially high pressure steam with 165 °C
temperature, 8.33 kg/s flow and 1040 kPa is obtained from the separators. This steam comprises 30%
Energies 2017, 10, 1691 6 of 27

Initially high pressure steam with 165 ◦ C temperature, 8.33 kg/s flow and 1040 kPa is obtained from the
separators. This steam comprises 30% non-condensable gases (NCG). The remaining 70% is geothermal
fluid steam. Then geofluid with 165 ◦ C, 1040 kPa and 445 kg/s is obtained from separators. Only the power
plant of Sinem GPP is only examined as it can be seen from Figure 1. The production wells, separators,
automation/safety systems, re-injection wells, piping and fittings of the GPP are outside the scope of the
study. Steam and liquid geofluids are prepared with the properties mentioned above reach the power
plant. Thus, the binary organic Rankine cycle of the GPP begins the operation. The binary ORC comprises
two different classic Rankine cycles alongside and separates each other.
The Sinem GPP, like all these systems, is operated in accordance with the T-s flow diagrams as
illustrated in Figure 2. The temperatures, pressures, mass flow rates of the system are listed in Table 1,
based on the thermodynamic states indicated in Figure 1, for the chosen day. As can be seen in Figure 2
and Table 1, the cycles are called as level I with 160 kg/s flow rate (high pressure of 1261 kPa) and level
II with 196 kg/s flow rate (low pressure of 687 kPa). As follows from Figure 1 and Table 1, the geofluid
first compresses the vaporizer VAP 1 on level I heating n-pentane as working fluid of the ORC. Later
the geofluid passes to the vaporizer VAP 2 on level II and heats n-pentane. As the geofluid in VAP 2
on level II has low temperature and pressure, the stream of geofluid obtained from the separators is
inputted here. Both the geofluid and steam pass through VAP 2 without mixing. In the output from
VAP 2, the NCG and steam is released to the atmosphere, and the condensed geofluid is compressed
for re-injection. The geofluid emerges from VAP 2. Here it passes through the pre-heaters PREHE 1 and
PREHE 2 simultaneously. However, for safety reasons, the pre-heaters are taken offline when a certain
temperature is reached. The geofluid (85 ◦ C and 590 kPa) collected at the output of the preheaters is
pumped to the re-injection wells (GM4 and GM14) together with the condensed geofluid.

Table 1. Thermodynamic properties collected and exergy rate calculated for each line number in real
operating conditions of the Sinem GPP (on 14 April 2013).

Temperature Pressure Mass Flow Rate Exergy Rate

Line, j Fluid Type . .
Tj (◦ C) Pj (kPa) mj (kg/s) Exj (kW)
1 Geofluid 164 1040 445 52,693
1’ Geofluid–steam 165 1040 5.83 699
1’ NCG 165 1040 2.50 380
2 Geofluid 136 730 445 36,010
3 Geofluid 110 690 445 22,589
4 Geofluid 110 690 22,250 11,295
5 Geofluid 110 690 222.50 11,295
6 Geofluid 89 590 222.50 7021
7 Geofluid 81 570 222.50 5616
8 Geofluid 85 590 445 12,447
9 Geofluid 107 690 0.83 40
10’ Geofluid–steam 107 690 5.25 253
10’ NCG 107 690 2.25 257
11 n-pentane 105 1261 160 4776
12 n-pentane 137.4 1261 160 20,142
13 n-pentane 82 150 160 7237
14 n-pentane 60 150 160 6193
15 n-pentane 31 150 160 123
16 n-pentane 37 1261 160 520
17 n-pentane 55 1261 160 1141
18 n-pentane 106 687 169 5018
19 n-pentane 109 687 169 16,512
20 n-pentane 69 119 169 5713
21 n-pentane 33 119 169 157
22 n-pentane 39 687 169 431
a Air 18 101 2000 0
b Air 19 106 2000 8048
c Air 18 101 2000 0
d Air 19 106 2000 8048

As seen in Figure 2a and Table 1, the n-pentane heated in VAP 1 on level I is sent to turbine
TURB 1 with 137.4 ◦ C and 1261 kPa pressure as superheated steam (at point 12), to rotate the turbine.
Energies 2017, 10, 1691 7 of 27

Energies 2017, 10, 1691 7 of 28

The n-pentane with 82 ◦C and 150 kPa emerging from TURB 1 is then sent to the recuperator RECUP
The n-pentane with 82 °C and 150 kPa emerging from TURB 1 is then sent to the recuperator RECUP
(at point 13). If the n-pentane emerging from the turbine still carries high energy, this high energy is
(at point 13). If the n-pentane emerging from the turbine still carries high energy, this high energy is
stored in RECUP and later is used to transfer to n-pentane coming from the pump PU 1. The n-pentane
stored in RECUP and later is used to transfer to n-pentane coming from the pump PU 1. The
coming from RECUP enters the air-cooled condenser CON 1 at lower temperature of 60 ◦ C (at point
n-pentane coming from RECUP enters the air-cooled condenser CON 1 at lower temperature of
14). The air-cooled condenser CON 1 lowers the temperature of the n-pentane to 31 ◦ C and 150 kPa
60 °C (at point 14). The air-cooled condenser CON 1 lowers the temperature of the n-pentane to 31 °C
(at and
point15015)
kPato (at
produce
point 15)liquid, and this
to produce passes
liquid, andtothis
pump The n-pentane
PUto1.pump
passes PU 1. The is pumpedisatpumped
n-pentane 1261 kPa
pressure from PU 1 to the recuperator RECUP (at point 16) and regains
at 1261 kPa pressure from PU 1 to the recuperator RECUP (at point 16) and regains the previously the previously stored heat in
RECUP
storedtoheatincrease the temperature.
in RECUP to increase Thus the efficiencyThus
the temperature. of thetheheat exchangers
efficiency of thePREHE 1 and VAP 1
heat exchangers
acting evaporators is increased. The n-pentane
PREHE 1 and VAP 1 acting as evaporators is increased. The n-pentane heated by RECUP is PREHE
as heated by RECUP is sent to the pre-heater sent to 1
(at the
point 17) and from there to the vaporizer VAP 1 again (at point 11). Thus
pre-heater PREHE 1 (at point 17) and from there to the vaporizer VAP 1 again (at point 11). Thus the organic Rankine cycle
returns to the start
the organic and this
Rankine cyclecontinues
returns repeatedly.
to the start To andincrease the efficiency
this continues of the GPP,
repeatedly. this works
To increase the in
coordination
efficiency ofwith the another
GPP, thisORC works (level II). As shown
in coordination in another
with Figure 2b ORCand(level
TableII).
1, As n-pentane
theshown heated
in Figure 2b in
VAP and2 on level
Table 1, II
thehas 109 ◦ C and
n-pentane heated687 in
kPaVAPpressure (at point
2 on level II has19)
109and is sent
°C and 687tokPa
rotate the turbine
pressure TURB
(at point 19) 2
and is sent to
as superheated rotateLater,
steam. the turbine
differentTURBto level 2 I,
asthe
superheated
n-pentane is steam.
sent toLater, different to
the air-cooled level I, the
condenser CON
69 ◦ C temperature
2 atn-pentane is sent to the (at air-cooled
point 20). condenser CON 2 at 69
From the air-cooled °C temperature
condenser CON 2,(at thepoint 20). From
n-pentane the to
is sent
theair-cooled 2 at 33 ◦ CCON
pump PUcondenser and 2,119 thekPa
n-pentane
(at point is sent to liquid.
21) as the pump PU 2 atPU
In pump 33 °C andn-pentane
2, the 119 kPa (atpressure
point
21) as liquid. In pump PU 2, the n-pentane pressure has risen to 687
has risen to 687 kPa and is pumped to pre-heater PREHE 2 (at point 22). Passing through PREHE 2 kPa and is pumped to pre-heater
andPREHE
later VAP2 (at2point 22). Passing
(at point 18), thethrough
cycle onPREHE
level II2isand later VAPIn2 conclusion,
completed. (at point 18),thethepower
cycle on level II isby
generated
completed.
rotating In conclusion,
the turbines TURB 1 and the TURB
power2 generated by rotating
produces electricity the generator
in the turbines TURB
GEN (see 1 and
FigureTURB 2
1). This
produces electricity in the generator GEN (see Figure 1). This part consists of two turbines on the
part consists of two turbines on the same shaft with n-pentane flowing in opposite directions. Before
same shaft with n-pentane flowing in opposite directions. Before turbines, the pentane, supplied in
turbines, the pentane, supplied in sufficient pressure, is sent to the turbines by opening the injection
sufficient pressure, is sent to the turbines by opening the injection valves. It is preferred because of
valves. It is preferred because of its lower capital cost and the balance on the thrust loads. Injection
its lower capital cost and the balance on the thrust loads. Injection valves on turbines are used to
valves on turbines are used to rotate the shaft at 3000 rpm in electricity generation. Of the 21 MW
rotate the shaft at 3000 rpm in electricity generation. Of the 21 MW obtained from the turbines,
obtained from the turbines, nearly 6.79 MW is used by equipment installed in the power plant. The rest
nearly 6.79 MW is used by equipment installed in the power plant. The rest of generated energy is
of generated
transmittedenergy is transmitted
to Germencik switchyard to Germencik
and to the switchyard
interconnected andpower
to thelines.
interconnected power lines.

(a)

Figure 2. Cont.
Energies 2017, 10, 1691 8 of 27
Energies 2017, 10, 1691 8 of 28

(b)

Figure
Figure 2. T-s
2. T-s diagramsfor
diagrams forthe
the(a)
(a)level
levelIIand
and(b)
(b) level
level II
II in
in the
the running
runningofofthe
thereal
realgeothermal
geothermal binary
binary
ORC power plant (Sinem GPP) (n-pentane for ORC in red, geofluid in green and
ORC power plant (Sinem GPP) (n-pentane for ORC in red, geofluid in green and air in blue). air in blue).

2.2. Thermodynamic Analysis

2.2. Thermodynamic Analysis
It is well known that the three balance equations namely mass, energy and exergy balance
It is well known that the three balance equations namely mass, energy and exergy balance
equations are used to find the heat input, the rate of exergy decrease, the rate of irreversibility, and
equations
the energyare and
usedexergy
to findefficiencies
the heat input, the ratesteady-state,
for a general of exergy decrease, the rate
steady-flow of irreversibility, and the
process.
energy Inand exergythe
general, efficiencies for aequation
mass balance general can
steady-state, steady-flow
be expressed in the rateprocess.
form as:
In general, the mass balance equation can be expressed in the rate form as:
 .m in =  m. out (1)
∑ in ∑ out
m = m
where ṁ is the mass flow rate, and the subscript “in” stands for inlet and “out” for outlet.
(1)
The general energy balance can be expressed by all energy terms as follows as below where the
where ṁ is the mass flow rate, and the subscript “in” stands for inlet and “out” for outlet.
changes in kinetic and potential energy are neglected:
The general energy balance can be expressed by all energy terms as follows as below where the
 +
in h in = W +  m out h out
changes in kinetic and potential energy Q neglected:
arem   (2)
 = Q   . .
net,in = Q in − Q out Q + ∑ min hin = W + ∑ mout hout
where Q is the rate . of net heat input, . Ẇ = Ẇnet,out = Ẇout − Ẇin in is the rate of
(2)
net work
.
output,
.
and
.
h is the
.
specific enthalpy. . . . .
where Q Assuming
= Qnet,in no =Q in − Qout
changes in is
kinetic
the rate andofpotential energies
net heat input, Wwith no heat
= Wnet,out =W − Wtransfers,
oroutwork in in is thethe
rate
energy balance given in Equation (2)
of net work output, and h is the specific enthalpy. can be simplified to flow enthalpies only:
Assuming no changes in kinetic and potential
 m
balance given in Equation (2) can be simplified to flow enthalpies only:

 in h in =energies
m  out hwith
out
no heat or work transfers, the energy
(3)

Exergy analysis shows the locations and causes of inefficiency and losses in an energy
. .
conversion system. Exergy analysis of∑ am in hin =
system ∑ maoutgeneral
creates hout equation for the whole system and(3)
balance equations representing the balance component level of a system. Thus for a system the
Exergy
general analysis
exergy rateshows
balance thecan locations
be expressed and causesas [46]:of inefficiency and losses in an energy conversion
system. Exergy analysis of a system creates a general equation for the whole system and balance
equations representing the balanceEcomponent
 x = E x level
F,tot 
P,tot + of E
k
axsystem. 
D,k + ExThus L,tot for a system the general exergy(4)
rate balance can be expressed as [46]:
and more explicitly: . . . .
ExF,tot = ExP,tot + ∑ ExD,k + ExL,tot (4)
k
Energies 2017, 10, 1691 9 of 27

and more explicitly:

 
T0 . . . . .
∑ 1−
Tk
Qk − W + ∑ min ψin − ∑ mout ψout = ExD (5)

. . . .
where ExF , ExP , ExD and ExL are the exergy rates associated with the fuel, product, exergy destruction
.
and exergy loss of the overall system, respectively. In addition, Qk is the heat transfer rate crossing the
.
boundary at temperature Tk at location k, W is the work rate, ψ is the flow exergy, and the subscript
zero indicates properties at the restricted dead state of P0 and T0 . Their values are taken as 18 ◦ C and 1
bar in the dead state.
The unit exergy rate is expressed by:
. .
Exj = mj ψj (6)
.
where Exj is the unit exergy rate of the jth location in kW and ψj is the specific flow exergy in kJ/kg
as follows:
ψ = (h − h0 ) − T0 (s − s0 ) (7)

where h0 , T0 and s0 denote the enthalpy (in kJ/kg K), temperature (in ◦ C or K) and entropy (in kJ/kg K)
in the reference case, respectively.
.
For exergy destruction (or irreversibility), the entropy generation Sgen is calculated first and used
in the following equation:
. . .
Ik = ExD,k = T0 Sgen (8)

To assess exergy analysis, the exergy efficiency valid for the system and its components may be
defined as follows: .
Exoutput
εsystem = . (9)
Exinput
where “output” refers to “net output” or “product” or “desired value”, and “input” refers to “given”
or “used”.

2.3. Modelling of the System

For the real operational Sinem GPP, some control volumes are identified and thermodynamic
balance equations are applied to these control volumes. These control volumes are the vaporizers
(VAP 1 and VAP 2) and pre-heaters (PREHE 1 and PREHE 2) allowing heat exchange between the
geofluid and n-pentane as working fluid, condensers (CON 1 and CON 2) allowing heat exchange
between the air and n-pentane, and the recuperator (RECUP) using only n-pentane, turbines (TURB 1
and TURB 2), pumps (PU 1 and PU 2) and fans (FAN 1 and FAN 2), as seen in Figure 1. The basic
aim of the model is to research the interactions between the components mentioned above on
performance of the whole system, the potentials to improvement and energy saving aspects and
potentials. Additionally, some parametric studies are completed to investigate the effect of some
important parameters on the performance of the air-cooled binary geothermal ORC (see Figure 2).
The thermodynamic properties of the pure water for geofluid (brine), n-pentane as working fluid
and air as an ideal gas in each control volume is determined from the COOLPROP software [47,48].
The MATLAB software [49] is used for thermodynamic balance equations and numerical calculations.
In this way, the thermodynamic fluid properties in COOLPROP may be included in MATLAB software
(2015b, MathWorks, Natick, MA, USA). Shortly, an algorithm is used for thermodynamic analysis
and modelling of Sinem GPP in the MATLAB software. For simplicity, the balance equations for the
algorithm models are not given in the text; however they are given in Appendix A Tables A1 and A2.
The basic assumptions of the integrated model system in exergy analysis are as follows:
Energies 2017, 10, 1691 10 of 28
Energies 2017, 10, 1691 10 of 27

• System and its components work in stable state and stable volume conditions,
•• Kinetic and its
System potential losses work
components are ignored,
in stable state and stable volume conditions,
•• Heat losses from components are
Kinetic and potential losses are ignored, collected in a single location,
•• Heat losses from components are collected invalves
Pressure drops in evaporators, condensers, andlocation,
a single pipes are collected in a single location,
•• For geofluid
Pressure drops(brine), the thermodynamic
in evaporators, condensers, properties
valves and of water are collected
pipes are used. By doing so, any
in a single possible
location,
effects of salts and incondensable gases that might be present in the geofluid are neglected [50].
• For geofluid (brine), the thermodynamic properties of water are used. By doing so, any possible
• The pressure losses due to the liquid flow friction were considered negligible.
effects of salts and incondensable gases that might be present in the geofluid are neglected [50].
• In air-cooled condensers, air is accepted as an ideal gas with homogenous distribution,
• The pressure losses due to the liquid flow friction were considered negligible.
• Isentropic efficiencies of turbines, pumps and fans are only fixed for the optimization process.
• In air-cooled condensers, air is accepted as an ideal gas with homogenous distribution,
• In order toefficiencies
Isentropic build a model that willpumps
of turbines, simulateandthefans
Sinem
are GPP
only completely,
fixed for thean algorithm working
optimization process. in
accordance with the T-s flow diagram in Figure 2 using the real data in Table 1 is designed. The
In order
algorithm to build awith
is modelled model that will simulate
a construct the Sinem
created between GPP completely,
components an algorithm
using data collected working
from the
in accordance with the T-s flow diagram in Figure 2 using the real data in Table 1 is designed.
real system. This construct is presented in Figure 3. During modelling, for each piece of components
The algorithm is modelled with a construct created between components using data collected from
on the T-s flow diagrams (Figure 2), values of parameters, effectiveness coefficient ( εk ) and
~ the
real system. This construct is presented in Figure 3. During modelling, for each piece of components
isentropic efficiency (ηk), are changed and attempts are made to bring the model output parameters
on the T-s flow diagrams (Figure 2), values of parameters, effectiveness coefficient (e εk ) and isentropic
(temperature and pressure) closest to or to the same value as the operation parameters (temperature
efficiency (ηk ), are changed and attempts are made to bring the model output parameters (temperature
and pressures) (in Table 1) collected from the Sinem GPP. Thus, the developed model will imitate
and pressure) closest to or to the same value as the operation parameters (temperature ~and pressures)
the real GPP system. As can be seen in Figure 3 and Appendix A Table A2, ε and ηk are
(in Table 1) collected from the Sinem GPP. Thus, the developed model will imitate the realk GPP system.
effectiveness coefficient associated with ε-NTU method for heat exchangers (vaporizers, condensers,
As can be seen in Figure 3 and Appendix A Table A2, e εk and ηk are effectiveness coefficient associated
pre-heaters and recuperator) and isentropic efficiency for turbines and pumps, respectively. These
with ε-NTU method for heat exchangers (vaporizers, condensers, pre-heaters and recuperator) and
are clearlyefficiency
isentropic defined asforthe parameters
turbines used to
and pumps, try to makeThese
respectively. the model match
are clearly the operational
defined state of
as the parameters
the GPP. Their constants used to match the real system to the model are
used to try to make the model match the operational state of the GPP. Their constants used to matchwithin the boundaries
defined
the by the to
real system equipment
the modelmanufacturer.
are within theTheir valuesdefined
boundaries are 0.82byandthe0.88 for VAPs,
equipment 0.92 and 0.95
manufacturer. for
Their
PREHEs, 0.49 for RECUP, 0.68 and 0.75 for CONs, 0.92 and 0.81 for TURBs, 0.96
values are 0.82 and 0.88 for VAPs, 0.92 and 0.95 for PREHEs, 0.49 for RECUP, 0.68 and 0.75 for CONs, and 0.97 for PUs,
respectively.
0.92 and 0.81 for TURBs, 0.96 and 0.97 for PUs, respectively.
~ and ηk values of the real operating GPP are fixed and then
For the
For the optimization
optimization process,
process, the εεkk and
the e ηk values of the real operating GPP are fixed and then
Table 11 for
data given in Table for all
all line numbers
numbers in the system shown in Figure 1 are optimized to maximize
the system exergy efficiency.
efficiency. The
The Artificial
Artificial Bee
Bee Colony
Colony (ABC)
(ABC) algorithm
algorithm is used
used for
for optimization
optimization of
GPP. The
Sinem GPP. Theobjective
objectivefunction
functionisisaccepted
acceptedas asthe
thesystem
systemexergy
exergyefficiency.
efficiency.

̃ 1 ̃ 2 ̃ 1 ̃ 2 1

Input
VAP 1 VAP 2 PREHE 1 PREHE 2 TURB 1
Parameters T13
̃

T2,T11 T3,T18,T19 T6,T17 T7,T8,T22

RECUP
T21 T20 T15
Output T14, T16
PU 2 CON 2 TURB 2 PU 1 CON 1
Parameters, εsys

2 ̃ 2 2 1
̃ 1

Figure 3.
Figure Flow diagram
3. Flow diagram of
of the
the construct
construct used
used for
for the
the most
most appropriate
appropriate model
model of
of the
the Sinem
Sinem GPP.
GPP.

2.4. Optimization: Artificial Bee Colony

Investigation of processes involving intelligent behaviour present in nature has led researchers
to develop
develop new
new optimization
optimization methods. Karaboğa [51]
methods. Karaboğa [51] developed
developed the the Artificial Bee Colony (ABC)
algorithm by modelling the behaviour of bees bees searching
searching for for food.
food. The basis of thethe ABC
ABC algorithm
algorithm
includes
includes some
some assumptions
assumptionsforforsimplicity.
simplicity.The
Thefirst
firstofofthese
these is is
thethe
nectar from
nectar each
from source
each cancan
source only be
only
obtained by one worker bee. In other words, the number of duty bees is equal to the
be obtained by one worker bee. In other words, the number of duty bees is equal to the number of number of food
sources. The number
food sources. of worker
The number bees isbees
of worker accepted as equal
is accepted astoequal
the number of observer
to the number bees. The
of observer worker
bees. The
Energies 2017, 10, 1691 11 of 27

bee assigned to a source with nectar fully consumed transforms into an explorer bee. Possible solutions
of optimization problems for locations of food sources and nectar amounts of the sources are equivalent
to the quality (fit) of the solutions related to those sources. Consequently, the ABC algorithm attempts
to locate the source with most nectar and attempts to find a problem’s minimum or maximum point
within solution space. The process steps belonging to this model are given below [52–55]:

• At the start of the food search process, explorer bees randomly search the environment and begin
to search for food.
• After food sources have been found, explorer bees become worker bees and begin to carry the
nectar found at the source into the hive. Each worker bee empties the nectar on return to the hive
and at this point either returns to the food source or communicates information related to the
food source with the observer bees waiting in the hive though dance displayed in the dance area.
If the food source is consumed, the duty bee transforms into an explorer bee and begins to search
for new food sources.
• Observer bees waiting in the hive watch dances indicating rich food sources and choose a food
source linked to the dance frequency which is proportional to the food quality.

For initial production of food source areas, if we think of the food sources surrounding the hive
as search space, the algorithm is based on randomly producing food sources equivalent to solutions
in search space. The random location production process is completed by producing random values
between the upper and lower limits for each parameter as seen in [54,55]:
(
  i = 1, . . . , SN
xij = xmin
j + rad(0, 1) xmaks
j − xmin
j (10)
j = 1, . . . , D

where SN is the number of food sources and D represents the number of parameters to be optimized.
After the initial stage, the worker bee, observer bee and explorer bee process for food sources
begin, with an attempt made to find better sources. For stopping criteria of the ABC algorithm,
the maximum cycle number (MCN), acceptable error value or other stopping criteria can be used.
During this optimization process, the number of worker bees is equal to the number of food sources.
Worker bees attempt to determine new food sources near food sources and assess their quality. If the
new food source is better, it is remembered. To determine neighbouring food sources to the new source,
the simulation is given in:  
vij = xij + ϕij xij − xkj (11)

where, as the difference between the random values xij and xkj reduces, in other words as the solutions
equivalents, the variation amount in the xij parameter reduces. Thus, as the regional optimal solution
is approached, the variation amount adaptively decreases. The vi parameter produced within the
limits represents a new source and its quality is assigned by calculating the fit value as given below:
(
1
1 + fi , fi ≥ 0
fitnessi (12)
1 + | fi | , fi < 0

where fi is the cost values of the solution of the vi source. Depending on the nectar amounts between
xi and vi , in other words the fit, a greedy selection process is applied. If the newly found vi solution is
better, the location of the old food source is wiped from the duty bee’s memory and the location of vi
source is noted. Otherwise, the worker bee continues going to xi source and as the xi solution was not
developed the failure counter (failurei ) for this source increases by one; if it succeeds the counter resets
to zero.
After all worker bees have completed one cycle of research, they return to the hive and transmit
information about nectar amounts of sources to observer bees. An observer bee uses the information
transmitted by the dance to choose a region (source) in accordance with the nectar amount of the food
Energies 2017, 10, 1691 12 of 27

source. This is an example of the ABC algorithm displaying multiple interactions. The probabilistic
selection process is made by using the fit values equivalent to the nectar amounts in the algorithm.
The basis of the selection process linked to fit value in the ABC algorithm is completed using a roulette
wheel. The angle of each section of the wheel is proportional to the fit value. That is, the fit value
of a food source as a proportion to the total fit value of all sources expresses the relative selection
probability for that source compared to other sources:

fitnessi
pi = SN
(13)
∑j=1 fitnessj

According to the probability calculation process, as the amount of nectar in a source increases
(as the degree of fit increases), the number of observer bees selecting this region will increase. This
characteristic shows that the ABC displays similar behaviour to the positive feedback characteristics
revealed by natural bee behaviour. After the probability values of the algorithm are calculated, these
values are used to produce a random number in the [0, 1] interval for each source in the selection
process according to roulette wheel. If the pi value is larger than this produced number, worker bees
use Equation (11) like observer bees and produce a new solution for this source region. The new
solution is assessed and the quality is calculated. Later the fit of the new solution is compared with the
old solution and the better one is chosen by using the greedy selection process. If the new solution is
better, this solution is replaced by the old solution and the failure counter is set to zero. Conversely,
if the fit of the old solution is better, this solution is retained and the failure counter increases by one.
This process continues until all observer bees are assigned to a food source region.
At the end of a cycle, all worker bees and observer bees have completed search processes and
the solution failure counters are checked. Whether a bee benefitted from a source or not, in other
words whether the nectar at that point has been consumed or not, is known from the solution failure
counter. If the solution failure counter of a source is above a certain threshold value, the duty bee for
that source should have left that consumed solution and started to search for another one. This means
that the worker bee for a consumed source should become an explorer bee. The threshold value used
to determine whether a source is consumed is an important control parameter for the ABC algorithm
and is called the “limit”. For each cycle of a basic ABC algorithm, only one explorer bee is allowed out.

3. Results
In this study, an air-cooled binary geothermal organic Rankine cycle (ORC) power plant is
thermodynamically modelled to observe, test and check its thermodynamic performance more
accurately and rapidly. Additionally, to increase the modelled system performance, the artificial
bee colony (ABC) method is used to maximize system exergy efficiency. With this aim, real operating
data (flow rate, pressure and temperature values from input and output lines of system components)
from an existing power plant were collected by the system’s Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition
(SCADA) program on 14 April 2013. This date is a transitional period between winter and summer
seasons for data from the Sinem GPP. The environmental temperature and pressure on that date were
recorded as 18 ◦ C and 1 bar, respectively. Later the operational data according to state numbers of
Figure 1 are presented in Table 1 and the equations given in the Thermodynamic Analysis section
are used to complete exergy analysis. The results of the exergy analysis for the real GPP are shown
as the Grossman flow diagram in Figure 4. The exergy efficiency of the power plant is calculated as
39.1% based on the exergy input of geofluid (brine) and its steam entering the system. However, the
power consumed in the operation of turbines, pumps, fans, auxiliary equipment of the GPP is met by
the gross power generated by the plant. When this was deduced, the system exergy efficiency was
found to be 14.52%. Turning to Figure 4, the result is that 60.9% of the exergy input rate entering the
system is lost as waste heat (exergy loss and destruction). Of the exergy input rate of the geofluid
entering the system, 23.7% and 0.5% is lost in the re-injection phase and in the phase of releasing NCG
Energies 2017, 10, 1691 13 of 28
Energies 2017, 10, 1691 13 of 27

and in the phase of releasing NCG into the atmosphere as exergy loss (heat loss-waste heat),
respectively.
into Of theasremaining
the atmosphere exergy lossexergy input rate,
(heat loss-waste 20.6%
heat), and 15.6%
respectively. areremaining
Of the consumed as exergy
exergy input
destruction on levels I and II, respectively. The highest exergy destruction percentages
rate, 20.6% and 15.6% are consumed as exergy destruction on levels I and II, respectively. The highest for
components
exergy are 4.6%
destruction from condenser
percentages CON 2 and
for components arevaporizer
4.6% fromVAP 2, 3.7%CON
condenser from 2condenser CONVAP
and vaporizer 1 and2,
then 3.6% from pumps and separators on level I and II.
3.7% from condenser CON 1 and then 3.6% from pumps and separators on level I and II.

Separators
CON 1

PU 1 and

PRE-HE 1
FANS 1
VAP 1

TURB 1

RECUP
%3.7
1977kW %3.6 %2.4
1923kW 1317kW %2.3 %1.6 %1.2 %0.8
1250kW 859kW 639kW 423kW
%22.4
12046kW
Exergy input
53772 kW

%16.7
%2 %0.5
%3.4 %3 8982kW
%3.6 1092kW 257kW
%4.6 1818kW 1590kW
%4.6 1911kW Exergy Output
2456kW

PRE-HE 2
%39.1

NCG
%23.7 2492kW
(21028kW)
FANS 2
12740kW
Separators

TURB 2
PU 2 and
VAP 2
Re-injection

CON 2

Figure
Figure 4.
4. Grossman
Grossman flow
flow diagram
diagram for
for the
the exergy
exergy analysis
analysis results
results of
of the
the Sinem GPP.
Sinem GPP.

As observed in Figure 4, there is approximately 53,772 kW exergy input rate into the system
As observed in Figure 4, there is approximately 53,772 kW exergy input rate into the system from
from the geofluid and its steam. Of this total exergy input rate, 12,740 kW is calculated as the exergy
the geofluid and its steam. Of this total exergy input rate, 12,740 kW is calculated as the exergy rate
rate spent on re-injection, 11,102 kW is exergy destruction rate occurring in system components on
spent on re-injection, 11,102 kW is exergy destruction rate occurring in system components on level I,
level I, 8388 kW is exergy destruction rate of those in level II and 275 kW is the exergy loss rate from
8388 kW is exergy destruction rate of those in level II and 275 kW is the exergy loss rate from NCG.
NCG. The highest exergy destruction rate in the GPP occurs in the condenser CON 2 in level II of the
The highest exergy destruction rate in the GPP occurs in the condenser CON 2 in level II of the binary
binary cycle. This is followed by VAP 2 on level II and then CON 1 on level I. In this situation the
cycle. This is followed by VAP 2 on level II and then CON 1 on level I. In this situation the priority
priority components requiring improvement are CON 2, VAP 2 and CON 1.
components requiring improvement are CON 2, VAP 2 and CON 1.
As described in the Modelling of the System section, modelling is based on the exergy analysis
As described in the Modelling of the System section, modelling is based on the exergy analysis of
of a real GPP. The data (mass flow rate, temperature and pressure on steam lines in Figure 1)
a real GPP. The data (mass flow rate, temperature and pressure on steam lines in Figure 1) entering
entering and exiting the system and its components are recorded momentarily. Thus, all the data are
and exiting the system and its components are recorded momentarily. Thus, all the data are dynamic
dynamic over time.
over time.
Two parameters
parameters (e
~ and ηk) with these data are established a relationship between the system
(εεkk and
Two ηk ) with these data are established a relationship between the system
components, so
components, soan
anintegrated
integrated system
system model
model has has
beenbeen created.
created. As a result,
As a result, the behaviour
the behaviour of the
of the model is
model
very is very
close close
to that of to
thethat
realofsystem
the real system
and and simulates
simulates it accurately.
it accurately. Therefore,Therefore, the convergence
the convergence behaviour
behaviour
of the model of for
the modelling
model for modelling
the real systemthe real system to
according according
the exergyto the exergyisefficiency
efficiency presentedisin presented
Figure 5.
in Figure 5. Note that the exergy efficiency of the real system is 14.52%. It can be
Note that the exergy efficiency of the real system is 14.52%. It can be seen that the exergy efficiency seen that the exergyof
efficiency
the model of the model
fluctuates withfluctuates
an increase with an increase
in iteration in iteration
number number
and varies betweenand14.42%
varies and
between 14.42%
14.55%. This
and 14.55%.occurs
fluctuation This fluctuation
during the occursmatching during the matching
process between the process between
real system andthe real
the system
model. and the
Regarding
model. Regarding Figure 5, the maximum and minimum efficiencies equal
Figure 5, the maximum and minimum efficiencies equal respectively the 40th and 21th iterations respectively the 40th and
21th iterations
number occurring number
at exergyoccurring
efficiencyat of
exergy efficiency
the model and theof efficiency
the modelofand the system
the real efficiency of the
is very real
close to
system
that is very
of the model.close to that of the model.
Energies 2017, 10, 1691 14 of 27
Energies 2017, 10, 1691 14 of 28

Energies 2017, 10, 1691 14 of 28

Figure 5. The comparison of the modeling system with the real system for system exergy efficiency.
Figure 5. The comparison of the modeling system with the real system for system exergy efficiency.
Figure 5. The comparison of the modeling system with the real system for system exergy efficiency.
To display dynamic behaviour of the model, the variation in system exergy efficiency with
To display dynamic
environmental (ambient)behaviour
temperature of isthe model,
shown the variation
in Figure in system
6. As it can be seenexergy efficiency
from Figure 6, whilewith
To display dynamic behaviour of the model, the variation in system exergy efficiency with
environmental
environmental (ambient) temperature
temperature increases, is
theshown
exergyinefficiency
Figure 6.ofAs
theitsystem
can befalls.
seenInfrom Figure 6,
conclusion, in while
the
environmental (ambient) temperature is shown in Figure 6. As it can be seen from Figure 6, while
environmental temperature
general literature, increases,
all studies and alltheengineers,
exergy efficiency
operatorsof and
the system
workersfalls. In conclusion,
researching in the
air-cooled
environmental temperature increases, the exergy efficiency of the system falls. In conclusion, in the
general literature,
organic Rankineallcycles
studies and all engineers,
acknowledge operators
that the andexergy
beneficial workers ofresearching
the systemair-cooled
is affected organic
by
general literature, all studies and all engineers, operators and workers researching air-cooled
environmental
Rankine cycles temperature and
acknowledge thatisthe
known that system
beneficial exergy exergy
of efficiency
the system decreases
is affected [56–59].
by environmental
organic Rankine cycles acknowledge that the beneficial exergy of the system is affected by
temperature and temperature
environmental is known that system
and exergy
is known thatefficiency decreases
system exergy [56–59].
efficiency decreases [56–59].

Figure 6. The change of exergy efficiency of the modelled system with ambient temperature.

Figure 6. The change of exergy efficiency of the modelled system with ambient temperature.
After the6. modelling
Figure The changeof
of the system
exergy mentioned
efficiency above, the
of the modelled thermodynamic
system with ambientperformance
temperature. of the
model for the Sinem GPP with real air-cooled geothermal binary organic Rankine cycle has been
After the modelling of the system mentioned above, the thermodynamic performance of the
maximized
After with
thethe the ABC
modelling ofoptimization
the system method. To above,
mentioned apply the ABC method to theperformance
developed model
model for Sinem GPP with real air-cooled geothermal the thermodynamic
binary of the
organic Rankine cycle has been
and thus find the best performance of the Sinem GPP, the main parameters presented in Table 2 are
model for thewith
maximized Sinem theGPP
ABC with real air-cooled
optimization method.geothermal
To apply thebinary organictoRankine
ABC method cycle has
the developed modelbeen
used.
and thus with
maximized find the
the best
ABCperformance
optimizationofmethod.
the SinemToGPP,
applythe
themain
ABCparameters
method to presented in Table
the developed 2 are
model and
used.
thus find the best performance of the Sinem GPP, the main parameters presented in Table 2 are used.
Table 2. Main parameters and their values used in the ABC optimization.

Table
Table 2. 2.Main
Mainparameters
parameters andtheir
Parameters
and their values
values used
used in the≤5
in the
1≤ ABC ≤10
ABCoptimization.
6≤
optimization.
NumberParameters
of colony size (NP) 1≤ 10 ≤5 6≤ 20≤10
Number of food sources
Parameters 1≤ n 10
≤5 6≤ n ≤10
20
Number of colony size (NP) 10 20
Number
NumberNumber of cycles (stopping
of colonyofsize (NP) criteria) 50
1010 100 20
food sources 20
Number of food Limit
sources 10100 100
Number of cycles (stopping criteria) 50 100 20
Number of cycles
Number (stopping criteria)
of optimization parameter (D) 50 1 1 100
Limit
Limit 100
100 100 100
Number
Number of optimization
of optimization parameter
parameter (D) (D) 1 1 1 1
Energies 2017, 10, 1691 15 of 28

By2017,
Energies optimizing
10, 1691 the model as maximum exergy efficiency, the optimum values of the pressure, 15 of 27
temperature and flow rate data given in Table 2 for the line numbers of Figure 1 are found. During
the ABC optimization process, the variable parameters and constraints given in Table 3 are used.
By optimizing
The constraints the model
are variable as maximum
parameters exergy efficiency,
simultaneously. As thethe realoptimum
system was values of theaccording
modelled pressure,
temperature
to temperature data at the line numbers in Figure 1, the exergy efficiency of the developedDuring
and flow rate data given in Table 2 for the line numbers of Figure 1 are found. model
the
wasABC optimizationaffected
not significantly process,bythe thevariable
changesparameters
of temperature and data.
constraints given in Table
Each temperature 3 areon
change used.
the
The constraints are variable parameters simultaneously. As the real system
system line numbers, especially changes in the source/well temperature and pressure data in the was modelled according
to temperature
cycle, completely data at the the
change line model
numbers andin sometimes
Figure 1, the exergy
result in efficiency
insolvability.of the
So developed
temperature modeland
was not significantly
pressure data of the affected
real system by the changes
were of temperature
accepted data. Each or
as being dependent temperature
kept fixedchange on the
some places.
system
Becauseline of numbers,
this reason, especially changes
all the data in the
except source/well
temperature aretemperature and pressureThus,
used for optimization. data in the cycle,
some cases
completely
are createdchange the model
by grouping the and sometimes result
variable/constraint in insolvability.
parameters So temperature
(see Table and pressure
3). To maximize data
the exergy
of the real system were accepted as being dependent or kept fixed some
efficiency of the model of the Sinem GPP, the cases accepted for optimizing the model in the best places. Because of this reason,
all
way theisdata except
listed in thetemperature
last columnare of used
Tablefor
3. optimization.
Here, the integers Thus,specify
some cases are created
12 cases (variable byparameter
grouping
the variable/constraint
groups). Each of theseparameters
groups is called(see Table 3). To maximize
as “case”. For example, the exergy
seeingefficiency
on the firstof the
linemodel of the3
of Table
Sinem GPP, the cases accepted for optimizing the model in the best way is listed
indicates that the variable parameter P1 is included in case 1, case 3 and case 6. To reveal these cases, in the last column of
Table 3. Here, the integers specify 12 cases (variable parameter groups).
numerous calculations have been repeated. In conclusion, to evaluate the effects of variable Each of these groups is called
as “case”. For
parameters example,
given in Tableseeing 3 onon the first line
exergy of Table of
efficiencies 3 indicates that thecomponents
the modelling variable parameter
of the PGPP 1 is
included in case 1, case 3 and case 6. To reveal
components, 12 cases were determined as optimization conditions. these cases, numerous calculations have been repeated.
In conclusion, to evaluate the effects of variable parameters given in Table 3 on exergy efficiencies of the
modelling components ofTable the GPP
3. Thecomponents,
conditions used12 cases
for thewere
systemdetermined
optimization.as optimization conditions.
Cases Arising from the Grouping
Variable Parameters Table 3. TheValues
Real conditions used for the
Constraint system optimization.
Range
of Variable Parameters
P1 kPa 1040 950–1150 1, 3, 6
Cases Arising from the Grouping of
Variable
P1,steam Parameters
kPa Real Values
1040 Constraint
950–1150 Range 1, 3, 7,Parameters
11
Variable
P1P 13 kPa
kPa 150 1040 115–185
950–1150 2, 4
1, 3, 6
P20
P1,steam kPa
kPa 1191040 90–150
950–1150 2,1,5,3,11
7, 11
∆P
P13VAP 1 kPa
kPa 310 150 0–440
115–185 1, 3, 2,6, 47
P20VAP 2
∆P kPa
kPa 40 119 90–150
0–230 2, 5,
1, 3, 6, 7, 11
11
∆PVAP 1 kPa 310 0–440 1, 3, 6, 7
∆PPREHE 1 kPa 100 0–200 1, 3, 6
∆PVAP 2 kPa 40 0–230 1, 3, 6, 7, 11
∆P∆P PREHE 2
PREHE 1
kPa
kPa 120 100 0–2000–200 1, 3, 76
1, 3,
ṁ
∆PPREHE 2 1 kg/s
kPa 445 120 442–446
0–200 1, 6, 11
1, 3, 7
ṁṁ1,steam
1 kg/s
kg/s 8.33 445 442–446
8–10 1, 6,
1, 7, 1111
ṁ1,steam kg/s
ṁ12 kg/s 160 8.33 8–10
159.6–161.6 1, 7, 11
2, 4, 12
ṁ12 kg/s 160 159.6–161.6 2, 4, 12
ṁṁ19
19 kg/s
kg/s 169 169 167–172
167–172 2, 5, 1212
2, 5,
NCG
NCG %% 30 30 20–4020–40 1, 7, 1111
1, 7,
ṁṁa a kg/s
kg/s 20002000 1600–2400
1600–2400 8, 11,
8, 9, 9, 11,1212
ṁṁc c kg/s
kg/s 2000 2000 1600–2400
1600–2400 8, 10, 1212
8, 10,
Number of Fan 1 unit 33 21–45 8, 9, 12
Number of Fan 1 unit 33 21–45 8, 9, 12
Number of Fan 2 unit 36 21–45 8, 10, 12
Number of Fan 2 unit 36 21–45 8, 10, 12

The
The behaviour
behaviour of
of the
the optimization
optimization process
process for
for maximizing
maximizing the
the exergy
exergy efficiency
efficiency of
of the
the model
model of
of
the Sinem GPP is illustrated in Figure 7, as a change of exergy efficiency versus cycle number.
the Sinem GPP is illustrated in Figure 7, as a change of exergy efficiency versus cycle number.

Figure 7.
Figure 7. The
The change of exergy
change of exergy efficiency
efficiency with
with cycle
cycle number
number during
during the
the optimization.
optimization.
Energies
Energies 2017, 10, 1691 16
16 of
of 28
27

Regarding Figure 7, the system exergy efficiency is taken as the objective function and the
Regarding
function has been Figure 7, the system
maximized. exergy efficiency
As observed from the is taken as the
figure, objective
although thefunction
ABC methodand themay function
not
select a suitable random solution (10.16%) at the initializing stage of finding the best suitable
has been maximized. As observed from the figure, although the ABC method may not select a exergy
random solution
efficiency, (10.16%)
it however at the initializing
can rapidly converge stage to theof finding the
optimum best exergy
(19.76% efficiency,
as maximum) it however
exergy can
efficiency
rapidly converge to the optimum (19.76% as maximum) exergy efficiency
in 4th cycle. It remains at this value until 10th cycle. There are declines in exergy efficiency between in 4th cycle. It remains at
this value until 10th cycle. There are declines in exergy efficiency between
10th and 48th cycles due to random change in the constraint range of variable parameters. Still they 10th and 48th cycles due
to random
are above thechange
real invalue
the constraint
(14.52%). range
After of variable
48th cycle,parameters.
the exergy Still they are
efficiency hasabove
againthereached
real value
its
(14.52%). After 48th cycle, the exergy efficiency has again reached
maximum value. As a result, the ABC optimization process is completed on the model of the its maximum value. As a result,
GPP.the
ABCThe optimization
variation process
in system is completed on the model
exergy efficiency for 12ofcasesthe GPP.
as optimization conditions of the ABC
optimization process is shown in Figure 8. Here Case 0 is theasexergy
The variation in system exergy efficiency for 12 cases optimization
efficiency conditions
of the realofoperating
the ABC
optimization process is shown in Figure 8. Here Case 0 is the exergy efficiency
system. Its value is 14.52%. As observed on the figure, for all optimization conditions, their exergy of the real operating
system. Its are
efficiencies value is 14.52%.
higher than thatAs observed
of Case 0.on Thetheexergy
figure,efficiency
for all optimization conditions,
(14.59%) obtained their5exergy
in Case is the
efficiencies are higher than that of Case 0. The exergy efficiency (14.59%)
closest to that of the real system. This is followed by Cases 7 and 9. Cases 5 and 7 are related obtained in Case 5 is the closest
to
to that of the real
optimization of thesystem.
pressure Thisofisthe
followed
geofluid by along
Cases the
7 and 9. Cases
lines shown 5 and 7 are related
in Figure 1 whiletoCaseoptimization
9 is relatedof
thethat
to pressure
of TURB of the geofluidparameters.
1-related along the lines shown in
Especially in Figure 1 whileCase
the system, Case129 ishasrelated to that of
the highest TURB
value at
1-related parameters. Especially in the system, Case 12 has the highest
exergy efficiency as 23.92%. Case 8 as 22.82%, Case 10 as 20.52% and Case 9 as 20.51% come later. In value at exergy efficiency as
23.92%.
Cases 8, Case
9, 10 8and
as 22.82%,
12, it isCase 10 as 20.52%
optimized for theand Case 9 as 20.51% come
condensers-related later. IninCases
parameters 8, 9, 10
the GPP. and 12, itto
According is
optimized for the condensers-related parameters in the GPP. According
exergy analysis, the highest exergy destruction rate occured in condenser CON 2. This was followed to exergy analysis, the highest
exergy
by VAPdestruction
2, CON 1 rate and occured
the fans.inItcondenser
is observed CON 2. This
that, thesewas followed byresults
optimization VAP 2,showCONsimilar
1 and the fans.
results
It is observed
with that,exergy
those of the these optimization
analysis. results show similar results with those of the exergy analysis.

Figure 8. The change of system exergy efficiency according to optimization conditions.

Figure 8. The change of system exergy efficiency according to optimization conditions.

Figure 9 shows the variation in net power generated from the model according to optimization
FigureIn
conditions. 9 shows the variation
the figure, in net
Case 0 states thepower generated
net power of thefrom the model
real system andaccording
its value isto14.21
optimization
MW. As
conditions. In the figure, Case 0 states the net power of the real system and
seen in the figure, at the end of the optimization process, Cases 3, 8, 9 and 10 have a net power its value is 14.21 MW.
below
As seen
the valueinofthe
thefigure, at the end
real system. of the
When optimization
optimized it for process,
n-pentane Cases 3, 8, 9 and
line-related 10 have aof
parameters net power
TURB 1
below the value of the real system. When optimized it for n-pentane line-related
(Case 3) and condensers-related parameters (Cases 8–10), they have no much effect on maximum parameters of TURB
1 (Case 3)
system and condensers-related
exergy efficiency. Contrary parameters (Cases 8–10),
to the previous they have
conditions, no much
Case 4 with effect on maximum
TURB 2-related
system exergy efficiency. Contrary to the previous conditions, Case 4 with
parameters and Cases 11 and 12 with condensers-related parameters have the highest net power TURB 2-related parameters
and Cases
values. The11netandpower
12 with condensers-related
rate of Case 4 is 16%parameters
larger than have
thatthe
ofhighest
Case 0.net Thepower
valuevalues. The net
is equivalent
power rate
roughly to of
3 Case
MW 4more is 16% larger than
electricity that of Case
generation. For 0.Cases
The value
11 and is equivalent roughly to 3 MW
12 with condensers-related
more electricity generation. For Cases 11 and 12 with condensers-related
parameters, this is 15.8% and 14%, respectively. Here it may be concluded that the most parameters, this is 15.8%
important
and 14%, respectively. Here it may be concluded that the most important
components requiring care during design and operation processes of the Sinem GPP are turbines components requiring care
during
and design andWith
condensers. operation
the aim processes of the Sinem
of maximizing GPPefficiency
exergy are turbinesof and
the condensers.
GPP system,With the the aim
exergy
of maximizing exergy efficiency of the GPP system, the exergy destruction
destruction rates occuring from the components for optimization conditions (Cases 1–12) are rates occuring from the
components
illustrated infor optimization
Figure 10. Lookingconditions (Cases
at Figure 10, 1–12)
underare allillustrated in Figure
optimization 10. Looking
conditions at Figure 10,
large fluctuations
occur in the amounts of exergy destruction in the condensers. It can be reached that optimization
Energies 2017, 10, 1691 17 of 27

under all optimization conditions large fluctuations occur in the amounts of exergy destruction in the
Energies 2017, 10, 1691 17 of 28
condensers.
Energies 2017,It10,can
1691be reached that optimization conditions mainly affect condensers. Thus, in17the real
of 28
system the condensers
conditions mainly affecthave condensers.
primary importance
Thus, in and
the require emergency
real system improvement.
the condensers haveAdditionally,
primary
conditions
theimportance mainly affectprocesses
result of optimization condensers.
is Thus, that
showed in the real destruction
exergy system the incondensers
condensers have
can primary
be reduced
and require emergency improvement. Additionally, the result of optimization processes
dueimportance
to their and require
fluctuations. emergency improvement. Additionally, the result of optimization processes
is showed that exergy destruction in condensers can be reduced due to their fluctuations.
is showed that exergy destruction in condensers can be reduced due to their fluctuations.

Figure9.9.The
The changeof
of system net
net power production
productionaccording
accordingto optimization conditions.
Figure 9. Thechange
Figure change ofsystem
system net power
power production according totooptimization
optimization conditions.
conditions.

Figure 10. According to the optimization conditions (Cases 1–12), the amount of exergy destruction
Figure 10. According to the optimization conditions (Cases 1–12), the amount of exergy destruction
that can
Figure occur in thetocomponents
10. According of the conditions
the optimization Sinem GPP(Cases
to ensure maximum
1–12), exergy
the amount efficiency
of exergy in the
destruction
that can occur in the components of the Sinem GPP to ensure maximum exergy efficiency in the
system.
that can occur in the components of the Sinem GPP to ensure maximum exergy efficiency in the system.
system.
Figure 11 shows the exergy destruction rates of the system components for Case 0 (the real
Figure
Figure11 11
shows
shows thetheexergy destruction
exergy destruction rates of the
rates of system components
the system components for Case 0 (the0 real
for Case (thesystem)
real
system) and Case 4 with TURB 2-related parameters as optimization conditions. It can be observed
and Case 4and
system) with
CaseTURB
4 with 2-related parameters
TURB 2-related as optimization
parameters conditions.
as optimization It can
conditions. be observed
It can be observed from
from Figure 11 that the exergy destruction rates for CON 1 and CON 2 in the real system are 3.65
from11
Figure Figure 11 that
that the exergythe destruction
exergy destruction
rates for rates
CON for1 CON
and CON1 and2CONin the2real
in the real system
system are 3.65areMW3.65and
MW and 4.34 MW while in the ABC optimization process, their values fall to 1.77 MW and 3.16 MW,
MW
4.34 MW and 4.34 in
while MWthe while
ABC in the ABC optimization
optimization process, process,
their values their
fall values
to 1.77 fall
MW toand
1.773.16
MWMW, and 3.16 MW,
respectively.
respectively. In this way contrary to increased exergy destruction rate from pumps, recuperator and
respectively.
Inpre-heaters,
this way contrary In this to
way contrary to increased exergy rate
destruction rate from pumps, recuperator and
there is aincreased
44% andexergy destruction
41% improvement in from pumps,
the condensers recuperator
(CON 1 and and pre-heaters,
CON 2),
pre-heaters,
there is a 44% Of there
and is a 44% and 41% improvement in the condensers (CON 1 and CON 2),the
respectively. the41% improvement
evaporators, VAP 2incauses
the condensers
more exergy (CON 1 and compared
destruction CON 2), respectively.
to VAP 1 on levelOf
respectively.
evaporators, Of the
VAP 2 causes evaporators, VAP 2 causes more exergy destruction compared to VAP 1 on level
I. It can be considered thatmore exergy
the steep falldestruction
in temperaturecompared to VAP 1emerging
of the geofluid on level I.fromIt can
VAPbe considered
1 causes
I.
that It can be considered that the steep fall in temperature of the geofluid emerging from VAP 1 causes
thisthe steep fall
situation. in temperature
Again, in the GPP, theof the
mass geofluid emerging
flow rate from VAP
of the geofluid steam 1 causes
added to thisVAPsituation.
2 on levelAgain,
II
this
in isthe situation.
GPP, Again, in the GPP, the mass flow rate of the geofluid steam added
the mass flow rate of the geofluid steam added to VAP 2 on level II is not sufficient. to VAP 2 on level II
not sufficient.
is not sufficient.
AA comparison
comparisonofofexergyexergydestruction rates of
destruction rates of the
thesystem
systemcomponents
components forfor Case
Case 0 and
0 and Case
Case 12 12
as as
A comparison of exergy destruction rates of the system components for Case 0 and Case 12 as
optimizationconditions
optimization conditionsisispresented
presented in Figure
Figure 12.
12. The
Theresults
resultsofofthis
thisgraphic
graphic are inin
are accordance
accordance with
with
optimization conditions is presented in Figure 12. The results of this graphic are in accordance with
thethe resultsofofFigure
results Figure11.11.In InCase
Case 1212 there
there is a reduction
reductionof of51.5%
51.5%and and27%27%ininexergy
exergy destruction
destruction rates
rates
the results of Figure 11. In Case 12 there is a reduction of 51.5% and 27% in exergy destruction rates
of condensers CON 1 and CON 2. Due to the pump and recuperator on level I, the percentage fall in
of condensers CON 1 and CON 2. Due to the pump and recuperator on level I, the percentage fall in
Energies 2017, 10, 1691 18 of 27

Energies 2017, 10, 1691 18 of 28

of Energies
condensers CON
2017, 10, 1691 1 and CON 2. Due to the pump and recuperator on level I, the percentage fall
18 of 28 in
level I is greater than that in level II. In this case, PU 1 and PU 2 may be more affected by pressure
level I is greater than that in level II. In this case, PU 1 and PU 2 may be more affected by pressure falls
duelevel
to due
falls I is greater
pollution than that
and blunting
to pollution in level
of CON
and blunting II. In this case,
1 and1CON
of CON PU 1
2. 2.
and CON and PU 2 may be more affected by pressure
falls due to pollution and blunting of CON 1 and CON 2.

Figure 11. Comparison of the exergy destruction rates of the system components at Case 0 for real
Figure Comparison
11.11.
Figure Comparisonofofthe
theexergy
exergy destruction rates of
destruction rates of the
thesystem
systemcomponents
componentsatat Case
Case 0 for
0 for real
real
system and Case 4 of optimization conditions.
system and
system Case
and 4 of
Case 4 ofoptimization
optimizationconditions.
conditions.

Figure 12. Comparison of the exergy destruction rates of the system components at Case 0 for real
Figure 12. Comparison of the exergy destruction rates of the system components at Case 0 for real
system
Figure 12.and Case 12 of optimization
Comparison of the exergyconditions.
destruction rates of the system components at Case 0 for real
system and Case 12 of optimization conditions.
system and Case 12 of optimization conditions.
The exergy efficiencies of components in the Sinem GPP for all the optimization conditions
(CasesThe exergy efficiencies of components in the Sinem
underGPP for all the optimization conditions
The 1–12)
(Cases exergy
1–12)
is efficiencies
is
given
given
in Figure
in Figure
13. From Figure
of components
13. From in the
Figure
13,Sinem
13, under
all optimization
GPP
all optimization
conditions, the
for all the optimization
conditions, the
exergy
conditions
exergy
efficiencies
(Cases especially
1–12) isespecially
given in for for the
Figure turbines
13. TURB
FromTURB 1
Figure1 13,and TURB
under 2 are similar
all2 optimization because the
conditions, isentropic
the exergy
efficiencies the turbines and TURB are similar
efficiencies of the turbines were fixed. Thus the power generated from the plant remains constant. In because the isentropic
efficiencies
efficienciesespecially
of the for the turbines TURB 1the
andpower
TURBgenerated
2 are similar because theremains
isentropic efficiencies
this study the net turbines
power ofwere fixed.
the system Thus
has been taken into account from
as athe plant
useful exergy of constant.
the system. In
of this
the turbines
study the were
net fixed. of
power Thus
the the power
system has generated
been taken from
into the plant
account as remains
a useful constant.
exergy of In this
the study
system.
So this is assessed by subtracting the amount of electricity used to run fans and pumps in the
theSonet power
this of the system
is assessed has beenthe taken into ofaccount as a useful
used13,toexergy of the
andsystem. So
in this
the is
condensers from theby subtracting
generated amount
electricity. As can electricity
seen in Figure theruncomponents
fans pumps
with highest
assessed by subtracting
condensers from aretheTURBthe amount
generated of electricity
electricity. used to in
run fans and pumps in the condensers from
exergy efficiency 1 as 93%, VAP 1 As can
as 92% seen
and CON Figure 13, the
1 as change incomponents with highest
74–94%. In addition, the
theexergy
generated
exergy electricity.
efficiency are TURBAs can
1 as seen
93%, in
VAPFigure
1 as 13,
92% the
and components
CON 1 as with
change highest
in
efficiency of TURB 2 is 83%. The exergy efficiencies obtained for the turbines are the same as 74–94%. exergy
In efficiency
addition, theare
exergy
TURB efficiency of TURB 2 is 83%. The exergy efficiencies obtained for
those obtained in the real system. The component with lowest exergy efficiency is the recuperator of
1 as 93%, VAP 1 as 92% and CON 1 as change in 74–94%. In the
addition, turbines
the are
exergy the same
efficiency as
those2 obtained
TURB
RECUP is with
83%.52%, in the
The and real
exergy system.
36–54% for The
efficiencies component
obtained
the pump PU 1. forwith
Inthe lowest
TURBturbines exergy
1 and are
TURB efficiency
the same
2, is those
as
the exergythe recuperator
obtained in
destruction
RECUP
therate
realmay with
system. 52%,
The and 36–54%
component for
with the pump
lowest PU
exergy1. In TURB
efficiency 1 and
is TURB
the 2,
recuperator
reach the values in this level due to temperature differences, leaks and pressure falls. the exergy
RECUP destruction
with 52%,
andrate may reach
36–54% for thethepump
valuesPU in this
1. Inlevel
TURB due 1toand
temperature
TURB 2, differences, leaks and pressure
the exergy destruction rate may falls.reach the
values in this level due to temperature differences, leaks and pressure falls.
Energies 2017, 10, 1691 19 of 27
Energies 2017, 10, 1691 19 of 28
Energies 2017, 10, 1691 19 of 28

Figure 13. According to the optimization conditions (Cases 1–12), the exergy efficiencies that can
Figure 13. According to the optimization conditions (Cases 1–12), the exergy efficiencies that can occur
Figurein13.
occur theAccording to of
components the
theoptimization
Sinem GPP toconditions (Cases 1–12),
ensure maximum exergytheefficiency
exergy efficiencies that can
in the system.
in the components of the Sinem GPP to ensure maximum exergy efficiency in the system.
occur in the components of the Sinem GPP to ensure maximum exergy efficiency in the system.
Under Case 4 and Case 12 as optimization conditions, the exergy efficiencies of system
Under
Under
components Case Case
are4 and4 and
Case Case
compared 12 12
theasexergy
optimization
as optimization
with conditions,
efficiency conditions,
the real
of the exergythe exergy
efficiencies
system efficiencies
of system
components, whichof system
components
can be
components
areillustrated
compared in Figures 14 and 15, respectively. In both figures, the exergy efficiencies of TURBcan
are
with compared
the exergy with the
efficiencyexergyof efficiency
the real of
system the real system
components, components,
which can which
be illustrated
1 andbe in
illustrated
Figures
TURB14 2 and in
appear Figures
15, to 14 and
respectively.
be the same 15, respectively.
In under
both figures,
real and In both figures,
theoptimization the
exergy efficiencies exergy efficiencies
of TURB
conditions. of TURB
1 and Figure
Regarding TURB 214, 1 and
appear
in
TURB
be the42same
to Case appear
with under
TURBto be realtheand
2-relatedsame under realthe
optimization
parameters andexergy
optimization
conditions. Regarding conditions.
efficiencies the Regarding
Figure
of 14, in Case
pumps Figure
4 with
reduces, 14,TURB
whilein
Case 4 parameters
increasing
2-related withthoseTURBof the 2-related
the exergyparameters
condensers. Here it can
efficiencies the exergy
ofbethe
saidpumps
thatefficiencies
exergyof
thereduces, the pumps
destructions
while of reduces,
increasing thosewhile
the pumps hasthe
of
increasing those
increased inHere
condensers. of the
Caseit4.can condensers.
As abe result,
said the Here it
thatn-pentane can
the exergy be said
output that the exergy
from the turbines
destructions destructions
of the pumpsat highhas of the
pressure pumps inhas
affects
increased the
Case
increased in Case 4. As a result, the n-pentane output from the turbines at high pressure affects
4. pumps. In real
As a result, thesituations,
n-pentane the desirefrom
output is thattheturbine
turbines output
at highpressure
pressureis very low.the
affects In pumps.
conclusion, Inthe
areal
pumps. In
increase in realexergy
the situations, the desire
destruction rates isfrom
that TURB
turbine 2 output
and PU pressure
2 (thus theis fall
veryin low.
exergyIn efficiencies
conclusion,ofa
situations, the desire is that turbine output pressure is very low. In conclusion, a increase in the
increase
the pumps)in theensures
exergy destruction rates from TURB 2the
andcondensers.
PU 2 (thus the fall intheexergy efficiencies of
exergy destruction rateslarge
fromexergy
TURB efficiencies
2 and PU 2in(thus the fall in exergy Hence, generator
efficiencies of theworks
pumps)
the pumps)
efficiently. ensures 15,large
Caseexergy efficiencies in the condensers. Hence, to theincrease
generator works
ensures largeIn Figure
exergy efficiencies 12
inwith condensers-related
the condensers. Hence, parameters
the generator appears
works efficiently. the exergy
In Figure 15,
efficiently.
efficiencies In
forFigure
all GPP 15, Case 12
components. with condensers-related
The exergy efficiencies parameters
of the appears
condensers to increase
CON 1 the
and exergy
CON 2
Case 12 with condensers-related parameters appears to increase the exergy efficiencies for all GPP
efficiencies
increase more forthan
all GPP
those components. The exergy Apart
for other components. efficiencies
from the of the condensers
turbines, exergyCON 1 and CON
efficiencies for all2
components.
increase moreThethan
exergy thoseefficiencies
for other of the condensers
components. Apart CONfrom 1 the
andturbines,
CON 2 increase
exergy more than those
efficiencies fortheallfor
the components increases. As a result, this figure shows how effective the condensers are on
other components. Apart
the components performance from the
increases. AsofaGPPs. turbines, exergy efficiencies for all the components
result, this figure shows how effective the condensers are on the increases. As a
thermodynamic
result, this figure shows
thermodynamic how effective
performance of GPPs. the condensers are on the thermodynamic performance of GPPs.

Figure 14. Comparison of the exergy efficiencies of the system components at Case 0 for real system
Figure
and
Figure 14.14.
Case 4 Comparison ofofthe
of optimization
Comparison the exergyefficiencies
efficiencies of
conditions.
exergy of the
the system
systemcomponents
componentsatatCase
Case0 for real
0 for system
real system
and Case 4 of optimization conditions.
and Case 4 of optimization conditions.
Energies 2017, 10, 1691 20 of 27
Energies 2017, 10, 1691 20 of 28
Energies 2017, 10, 1691 20 of 28

Figure 15. Comparison of the exergy efficiencies of the system components at Case 0 for real system
Figure Comparison
15.15.
Figure ofofthe exergy
exergyefficiencies
efficiencies of
of the
the system componentsatatCase
Case0 0for
forreal
real system
and Case 12Comparison
of optimization the
conditions. system components system
andand
Case 12 12
Case of of
optimization
optimizationconditions.
conditions.
With the ABC optimization process, the best thermodynamic performance for Sinem GPP was
With
With
obtained the theABC
for ABCoptimization
optimization
optimization process,in the
process,
conditions thebest
Case 4 thermodynamic
best andthermodynamic
Case 12. Taking performance
note offorthe
performance Sinem
for GPP
Sinem
total was
exergy GPP
was obtained
obtained for for optimization
optimization conditions
conditions in Case
in Case4 and
4 andCaseCase 12. Taking
12.
destruction rate for the system under both optimization conditions, the improvement potentials of Taking note
noteof the
of thetotal
totalexergy
exergy
destruction
destruction
the systemrate rate forfor
components the thesystem
system
are underboth
under
presented both
in optimization
optimization
Figure 16. On the conditions,
figure the the
conditions, theimprovement
improvement
improvement potentials
potentials
potential of the of of
the
theGPP system
system components
components
appears to be high are presented
are presented
at 84%. When in Figure
in Figurethe 16.16.
studyOn
On isthe figure
theexamined the
figure thefromimprovement
improvement
a differentpotential
potential of
angle, of the
thethe
GPP appears priority
improvement to be highcomponents
at 84%. When the study is examined from the aangle,
different angle, the
GPP appears to be high atof84%. When themay studybeis determined
examined from based on
a different exergy development
the improvement
improvement
potential on thepriority
general of componentsFrom
performance. maythis befigure,
determined based on
the following the exergymay
interpretation development
priority of components may be determined based on the exergy development potential onbe themade;
general
potential on
the greatest From the general
improvement performance.
patential From
for system this figure, the
components may following
may be be made;interpretation
obtained may 2,beVAP
made;
performance. this figure, the following interpretation thefrom CONimprovement
greatest 2,
the greatest
CON 1 and improvement
TURB 2. It can patential
be for system
understood from components
Figure 16 that may
, beisobtained
there 21.2% from CON 2,
improvement VAP 2,
potential
patential for system components may be obtained from CON 2, VAP 2, CON 1 and TURB 2. It can be
CON
for CON1 and if TURB
2from a GPP 2.isItoperated
can be understoodto from Figure 16 condensers-related
that , there is 21.2% parameters.
improvement potential
understood Figure 16 that ,according
there is 21.2% Case 12 with
improvement potential for CON 2 if a GPP According
is operated
for CON 2
to Case 4,tothe if a GPP is
improvement operated according to Case
potentials for CONparameters. 12 with condensers-related
2 and VAP 2 According
are close to each parameters.
other According
according
to Case 4, Case
the 12 with condensers-related
improvement potentials for CON 2 and VAP 2 are close to to Case
each 4, and
other the
and
nearly
nearly
15%.
improvement
15%.
The components
potentials for CON with
2 and least
VAP improvement
2 are close to potential
each other are
and the pumps
nearly 15%. (PU The1 components
and PU 2) and with the
least
The components
recuperator (RECUP). with least improvement potential are the pumps (PU 1 and PU 2) and the
improvement potential
recuperator (RECUP). are the pumps (PU 1 and PU 2) and the recuperator (RECUP).

Figure 16. Improvement potentials of components according to the total amount of exergy
Figure 16. ofImprovement
destruction potentials
all the components of components according to the total amount of exergy
Figure 16. Improvement potentials of
ofthe actual
componentsGPP.
according to the total amount of exergy destruction
destruction of all the components of the actual GPP.
of all the components of the actual GPP.
In Figure 17, the input exergy rate of the real system is noted and the improvement potentials of
In Figure
the system 17, the input
components exergy rate
is compared of the realtosystem
according is notedconditions.
optimization and the improvement potentials
It can be observed of
that
Insystem
the Figurecomponents
17, the inputisexergy rate according
compared of the realto system is notedconditions.
optimization and the improvement
It can be potentials
observed that of
the improvement potentials of the components appear to be similar to Figure 16. Wherein the
thethe
system components
improvement is compared
potentials of theaccording
componentsto optimization
appear to beconditions.
similar to ItFigure
can be16.
observed that
Wherein thethe
Energies 2017, 10, 1691 21 of 27
Energies 2017, 10, 1691 21 of 28

improvement
differences arepotentials of the
only in the componentspotential
improvement appear topercentages
be similar toandFigure 16. Wherein the
the improvement differences
potential for
are only in the improvement potential percentages and the improvement potential for
the exergy input of the whole GPP. On Figure 16, there is a slight difference in the improvement the exergy input
of the whole
potential GPP.4 On
in Case andFigure 16,while
Case 12, there on
is aFigure
slight 17
difference
they areinthethe improvement
same. Accordingpotential in Case
to the exergy rate4
and Case 12, while on Figure 17 they are the same. According to the exergy rate
entering the system, the improvement potentials for the system components as CON 2, VAP 2, entering the system,
the improvement
CON 1 and TURBpotentials for the
2 are 1.36%, system
0.93%, components
0.78% and 0.67%, as respectively.
CON 2, VAP However,
2, CON 1 and TURBin2 the
as stated are
1.36%,
exergy 0.93%, 0.78%
analysis, and 0.67%,priority
improvement respectively. However,
for pumps as stated
and fans does innotthe exergy
appear inanalysis, improvement
the results of the ABC
priority for pumps
optimization process. and fans does not appear in the results of the ABC optimization process.

Figure
Figure 17.
17. Improvement
Improvement potentials
potentials of
of the
the components
components according
according to
to exergy
exergy input of the
input of the actual
actual system.
system.

4. Discussion and Conclusions

4. Discussion and Conclusions
In this study, information is obtained about modelling and performance improvement of the
In this study, information is obtained about modelling and performance improvement of the
geothermal binary geothermal power plant (GPP) with air-cooled organic Rankine cycle (ORC). As a
geothermal binary geothermal power plant (GPP) with air-cooled organic Rankine cycle (ORC).
case study, the exergy analysis according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics is applied to the
As a case study, the exergy analysis according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics is applied to
Sinem GPP, operating currently and belonging to Maren Maraş Electricity Generation Inc. with data
the Sinem GPP, operating currently and belonging to Maren Maraş Electricity Generation Inc. with
collected from the system under operating conditions. Meanwhile, a model is developed to simulate
data collected from the system under operating conditions. Meanwhile, a model is developed to
fully and accurately the GPP in terms of thermodynamics. Using the artificial bee colony (ABC)
simulate fully and accurately the GPP in terms of thermodynamics. Using the artificial bee colony
method, the developed model is optimized for thermodynamic performance. With the ABC method,
(ABC) method, the developed model is optimized for thermodynamic performance. With the ABC
12 cases are chosen for optimization conditions. Thus, the performance of the power plant can be
method, 12 cases are chosen for optimization conditions. Thus, the performance of the power plant
predicted with reasonable accuracy and at the same time, the physical process to be used to improve
can be predicted with reasonable accuracy and at the same time, the physical process to be used to
the performance of the power plant can be better understood.
improve the performance of the power plant can be better understood.
Firstly, exergy analysis is performed for the GPP. The largest exergy losses from the power
Firstly, exergy analysis is performed for the GPP. The largest exergy losses from the power plant
plant occur during re-injection of the geofluid, and then from the condenser, evaporator and pumps.
occur during re-injection of the geofluid, and then from the condenser, evaporator and pumps. Of the
Of the total 53.8 MW exergy input rate into the system, 23.7% is spent for re-injection, 0.5% for
total 53.8 MW exergy input rate into the system, 23.7% is spent for re-injection, 0.5% for release of NCG
release of NCG into nature and 75.8% is exergy rate destroyed by the components of the GPP.
into nature and 75.8% is exergy rate destroyed by the components of the GPP. According to exergy
According to exergy analysis, the total exergy production of the GPP is 21 MW and the exergy
analysis, the total exergy production of the GPP is 21 MW and the exergy efficiency is 54.52%, after
efficiency is 54.52%, after removing parasitic loads. The results of exergy analysis shown that the
removing parasitic loads. The results of exergy analysis shown that the highest exergy destruction
highest exergy destruction rate occurs in the condensers. The components with the highest exergy
rate occurs in the condensers. The components with the highest exergy destruction rate are ranked as
destruction rate are ranked as CON 2, VAP 2, CON 1, PU 1, PU 2 and separators. Their percentages
CON 2, VAP 2, CON 1, PU 1, PU 2 and separators. Their percentages are 4.6%, 4.6%, 3.7%, 3.6% and
are 4.6%, 4.6%, 3.7%, 3.6% and 3.6%, of the total exergy input rate, respectively. This order also
3.6%, of the total exergy input rate, respectively. This order also determines the components requiring
determines the components requiring priority improvement.
priority improvement.
In this study, a mathematical model fully simulating Sinem GPP accurately and
In this study, a mathematical model fully simulating Sinem GPP accurately and
thermodynamically is developed. This model is completed with the MATLAB program, which can
thermodynamically is developed. This model is completed with the MATLAB program, which
rapidly incorporate thermodynamic flow properties from the COOLPROP program. The model uses
can rapidly incorporate thermodynamic flow properties from the COOLPROP program. The model
an iterative method while attempting to estimate the outputs corresponding to component inputs in
uses an iterative method while attempting to estimate the outputs corresponding to component inputs
the system. This model is used to estimate the true potential of improvement or interactions between
components. Fixed values in the model are changed in an attempt to make the model adapt to new
Energies 2017, 10, 1691 22 of 27

in the system. This model is used to estimate the true potential of improvement or interactions
between components. Fixed values in the model are changed in an attempt to make the model
adapt to new conditions. Thus, the model gains dynamism. This model can adapt to environmental
temperature and variations in temperature, pressure and flow parameters in all line numbers in the
system. However, variations in temperature parameters strongly affect the ORC cycle, it may lead to
insolvability. Variable selection and optimization intervals (upper and lower limits) are determined to
maximize exergy efficiency of the Sinem GPP with the ABC optimization method. Thus, 12 cases are
created with the optimization conditions (Cases 1–12). These cases all maximized exergy efficiency at
the GPP. However, the best performance is obtained from Case 4 relating to the 2 turbines and Case 12
relating to the condensers. Case 7 simulates the real system exactly.
As the real Sinem GPP is designed in accordance with parameters relating to geofluid, exergy
efficiency of the geothermal brine line did not cause much effect. As the output pressure of the turbines
used to produce electricity increased, the condensers began to experience problems (and as a result the
fans) and changes in the number of fans ensuring ORC affected the net electrical power generated.
The net power generated in Case 4 is 16% larger than that of the real system. This increase is equivalent
to electricity production of more than 3 MW. In Case 12 relating to condensers, this value is 14%. Thus,
the most important components requiring care in the design and operation of Sinem GPP are turbines
and condensers.
The ABC optimization process shows how exergy destruction in all components including
condensers can be reduced. For example, the exergy destruction of CON 1 and CON 2 in the real
system are 3.65 MW and 4.34 MW, while in the ABC optimization process, these values reduce to
1.77 MW and 3.16 MW, respectively. PU 1 and PU 2 are most affected by pollution and blunting
problems in CON 1 and CON 2. Under all optimization conditions, the exergy efficiencies of the
turbines TURB 1 and TURB 2 are the same. As a result, for beneficial exergy of the GPP, net power
generation is noted. The components with highest exergy efficiency are CON 1 with 94%, TURB 1 with
93% and VAP 1 with 92%. The exergy destruction rates reach this level in TURB 1 and TURB 2 due to
temperature differences, leaks and pressure falls.
The improvement potential for Sinem GPP is found to be 84%. Thus greatest improvement among
system components are present for CON 2, VAP 2, CON 1 and TURB 2. Components with the least
improvement potential are pumps (PU 1 and PU 2) and the recuperator RECUP. According to the
exergy rate entering the system, the exergy improvement potentials of system components are in the
order CON 2, VAP 2, CON 1 and TURB 2; however this order is not the same in the exergy analysis.
It appears that with developing technology, the efficiency of geothermal power plants continue
to increase. At Sinem GPP there are problems such as inability to set the flow rate, temperature and
pressure of the geofluid (brine) and/or keeping it low, the high temperature of geofluid, the high
working temperature, the use of a recuperator on level I but not on level II, the binary turbines linked
to the generator with the same shaft, the insufficient flow of geofluid steam and the high NCG content,
the turbine leaks and losses, and the design/operating problems with the air-cooled condenser. Thus,
though the exergy inputs are high, the electricity generation amount and efficiency of the power plant
are low, so it appears not to work efficiently.
Finally, the ABC optimization method in this study can provide higher quality information than
exergy analysis. If geothermal power plants can be studied with similar methods in this study, serious
energy and cost savings may be ensured. The ABC optimization method can be completed for all
power plants operating in accordance with the organic Rankine cycle.

Acknowledgments: The authors gratefully acknowledge the support provided for the present work by the Maren
Geothermal Inc. and the personal support of the managing director, Ertan Türk. The authors are very grateful to
the reviewers due their appropriate and constructive suggestions as well as their proposed corrections, which
have been utilized in improving the quality of the paper.
Author Contributions: All authors contributed to writing the article on equal terms. All authors read and
approved the final manuscript.
Energies 2017, 10, 1691 23 of 27

Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Nomenclature
cp specific heat (kJ·kg−1 ·K−1 )
C heat capacity rate (kW·K−1 )
.
Ex exergy rate (kJ·s−1 or kW)
h specific enthalpy (kJ·kg−1 )
.
I irreversibility (exergy destruction) rate (kW)
.
m mass flow rate (kg·s−1 )
P pressure (kPa)
q unit heat transfer rate (kW·kg−1 )
.
Qk heat transfer rate (kW)
s specific entropy (kJ·kg−1 ·K−1 )
.
S entropy rate (kJ·K−1 )
T temperature (◦ C or K)
.
W work rate, power (kW)

Greek Symbols
∆ difference (-)
ε exergy or second law efficiency (%)
εk
e effectiveness (-)
η energy or first law efficiency (%)
Φ random number (-)
ψ flow exergy (kJ·kg−1 )

Subscripts
D destruction
F fuel
gen generation
in input
is isentropic
j successive number of elements
k location
L loss
out output
P product
sys system
0 reference state

Appendix A

Table A1. The exergy balance equations used for the thermodynamic analysis of the
system components.

Component Exergy Balance Exergy Efficiency

. .
Vaporizer 1 . . .  . .  Ex12 − Ex11
ExD,VAP 1 = Ex1 − Ex2 − Ex12 − Ex11 εVAP 1 = . .
(VAP 1) Ex1 − Ex2
. .
Vaporizer 2 . . .  . .  Ex19 − Ex18
ExD,PREHE 1 = Ex4 − Ex6 − Ex11 − Ex17 εVAP 2 = . . . . .
(VAP 2) Ex2 − Ex3 + Ex10 − Ex10 + Ex9
. .
Preheater 1 . . .  . .  Ex11 − Ex17
ExD,PREHE 1 = Ex4 − Ex6 − Ex11 − Ex17 εPREHE 1 = . .
(PREHE 1) Ex4 − Ex6
Energies 2017, 10, 1691 24 of 27

Table A1. Cont.

Component Exergy Balance Exergy Efficiency

. .
Preheater 2 . . .  . .  Ex18 − Ex22
ExD,PREHE 2 = Ex5 − Ex7 − Ex18 − Ex22 εPREHE 2 = . .
(PREHE 2) Ex5 − Ex7
. .
Recuperator . . .  . .  Ex13 − Ex14
ExD,RECUP = Ex17 − Ex16 − Ex13 − Ex14 εRECUP = . .
(RECUP) Ex17 − Ex16
.
Turbine 1 . . .  . WTURB 1
ExD,TURB 1 = Ex12 − Ex13 − WTURB 1 εTURB 1 = . .
(TURB 1) Ex12 − Ex13
.
Turbine 2 . . .  . WTURB 2
ExD,TURB 2 = Ex19 − Ex20 − WTURB 2 εTURB 2 = . .
(TURB 2) Ex19 − Ex20
. .
Condenser 1 . . .  . .  Ex14 − Ex15
ExD,CON 1 = Ex14 − Ex15 − Exb − Exa εCON 1 = . .
(CON 1) Exb − Exa
. .
For fans . . . .  Exb − Exa
ExD,FAN 1 = WFAN 1 − Exb − Exa εFAN 1 = .
(FAN 1) WFAN 1
. .
Condenser 2 . . .  . .  Ex20 − Ex21
ExD,CON 2 = Ex20 − Ex21 − Exd − Exc εCON 2 = . .
(CON 2) Exd − Exc
. .
For fans . . . .  Exd − Exc
ExD,FAN 2 = WFAN 2 − Exd − Exc εFAN 2 = .
(FAN 2) WFAN 2
. .
Pump 1 . .
. .  Ex16 − Ex15
ExD,PU 1 = WPU 1 − Ex16 − Ex15 εPU 1 = .
(PU 1) WPU 1
. .
Pump 2 . .
. .  Ex22 − Ex2115
ExD,PU 2 = WPU 2 − Ex22 − Ex21 εPU 2 = .
(PU 2) WPU 2

Table A2. The balance equations and their restrictions used for the dynamic modelling of the
system components.

Component Modelling Balance Restrictions

.
C1 = m1 cP,1
.
C11 = m1 cP,11
Cmin,VAP 1 = min(C1 , C11 )
.
QVAP 1,heating =
 
εVAP 1 Cmin,VAP 1 TVAP 1,pinch − T11
e
.
Vaporizer 1 T2 = TVAP 1,pinch −
QVAP 1,heating P2 = P1 − ∆pVAP 1
C1
(VAP 1) . P11 = P12 = P16 = P17
Q
T12 = T11 + VAPC1,heating
11
∆Tpinch = TVAP 1,pinch − T12
εk = qreal,k /qmax, k
e
. .
 
QVAP 1,boiling = m1 h12g − h12f
 
= C1 T1 − TVAP 1,pinch
.
C10 = m10 cP,10
.
C18 = m18 cP,18
Cmin,VAP 2 = min(C10 , C18 )
.
εVAP 2 Cmin,VAP 2 (T10 − T18 )
QVAP 2,heating = e
.
Vaporizer 2 T10 = T10 −
QVAP 2,heating P3 = P2 − ∆pVAP 2
C10
(VAP 2) . P18 = P19 = P22
Q
T19 = T18 + VAPC2,heating
18
. .
 
QVAP 2,boiling = m19 h19g − h19f
= C2 (T2 − T3 )
∆Tpinch = T3 − T19
Energies 2017, 10, 1691 25 of 27

Table A2. Cont.

Component Modelling Balance Restrictions

.
C4 = m4 cP,4
.
C17 = m17 cP,17
Preheater 1 Cmin,PREHE 1 = min(C4 , C17 ) P4 = P6 − ∆pPREHE 1
(PREHE 1) QPREHE 1 = eεPREHE 1 Cmin,PREHE 1 (T4 − T17 ) P11 = P12 = P16 = P17
T6 = T4 − QPREHE
C4
1

QPREHE 1
T11 = T17 + C17
.
C5 = m5 cP,5
.
C22 = m22 cP,22
Preheater 2 Cmin,PREHE 2 = min(C5 , C22 ) P5 = P7 − ∆pPREHE 2
(PREHE 2) QPREHE 2 = eεPREHE 2 Cmin,PREHE 2 (T5 − T22 ) P18 = P19 = P22
T7 = T5 − QPREHE
C5
2

QPREHE 2
T18 = T22 + C22
.
C13 = m13 cP,13
.
C16 = m16 cP,16
Cmin,RECUP = min(C13 , C16 )
Recuperator . P13 = P14 = P15
εRECUP Cmin,RECUP (T13 − T16 )
QRECUP = e
(RECUP) . P11 = P16 = P17
QRECUP
T14 = T13 − C13
.
QRECUP
T17 = T16 + C16
.
Ca = ma cP,a
.
C14 = m14 cP,14
Cmin,CON 1 = min(Ca , C14 )
εCON 1 Cmin,CON 1 (T14 − Ta )
QCON 1,cooling = e
Condenser 1 QCON 1,cooling
T15 = T14 − P13 = P14 = P15
(CON 1) C14
Q
Tb = Ta + CONC1,cooling
a
. .
 
QCON 1,,cooling = m15 h15g − h15f


= Ca Tb,2 − Ta
.
Cc = mc cP,c
.
C20 = m20 cP,20
Cmin,CON 2 = min(Cc , C20 )
.
εCON 2 Cmin,CON 2 (T20 − Tc )
QCON 2,cooling = e
.
Condenser 2 QCON 2,cooling
T21 = T20 − P20 = P21
(CON 2) .
C20
QCON 2,cooling
Td = Tc + Cc
. .
 
QCON 2,cooling = m21 h21g − h21f


= Cc Td,2 − Tc

References
1. Malafeh, S.; Sharp, B. Role of royalties in sustainable geothermal energy development. Energy Pol. 2015, 85,
235–242. [CrossRef]
2. Flovenz, O.G. General aspects of geothermal energy. In Geo-Survey for the World Bank at Renewable Energy
Training Program; University of Iceland: Reykjavík, Iceland, 2012.
3. Schiel, K.; Baume, O.; Caruso, G.; Leopold, U. GIS-based modelling of shallow geothermal energy potential
for CO2 emission mitigation in urban areas. Renew. Energy 2016, 86, 1023–1036. [CrossRef]
4. Lee, K.C. Classification of geothermal resources by exergy. Geothermics 2001, 30, 431–442. [CrossRef]
5. Chamorro, C.R.; Mondejar, M.E.; Ramos, R.; Segovia, J.J.; Martin, M.C.; Villamanan, M.A. World geothermal
power production status: Energy, environmental and economic study of high enthalpy technologies. Energy
2012, 42, 10–18. [CrossRef]
Energies 2017, 10, 1691 26 of 27

6. Dickson, M.; Fanelli, M. What is geothermal energy? In Instituto di Geoscienze e Georisorse; CNR: Pisa,
Italy, 2004.
7. Bertani, R. Geothermal power generation in the World 2005–2010 update report. In Proceedings of the World
Geothermal Congress, Bali, Indonesia, 25–29 April 2010.
8. General Directorate of Renewable Energy, History of Geothermal Energy. Available online: http://www.eie.
gov.tr (accessed on 11 January 2017).
9. Erdogmus, B.; Toksoy, M.; Ozerdem, B.; Aksoy, N. Economic assessment of geothermal district heating
systems: A case study of Balcova-Narlidere, Turkey. Energy Build. 2006, 38, 1053–1059. [CrossRef]
10. Energy Information Administration, Geothermal Power Plants. Available online: http://www.eia.gov
(accessed on 12 February 2017).
11. Trinnaman, J.; Clarke, A. 2010 Survey of Energy Resources; World Energy Council: London, UK, 2010.
12. Saleh, B.; Koglbauer, G.; Wendland, M.; Fischer, J. Working fluids for low-temperature organic Rankine
cycles. Energy 2007, 32, 1210–1221. [CrossRef]
13. Kestin, J.; DiPippo, R.; Khalifa, H.E.; Ryley, D.J. Source Book on the Production of Electricity from Geothermal
Energy; US Government Printing Office: Washington, DC, USA, 1980.
14. Bruges, E.A. Available Energy and Second Law Analysis; Butterworth Scientific Pub.: London, UK, 1959.
15. Rogers, G.; Mayhew, Y. Engineering Thermodynamics Work and Heat Transfer; Longman Scientific and Technical:
Harlow, Essex, UK, 1993.
16. Ileri, A.; Gurer, T. Energy and exergy utilization in Turkey during 1995. Energy 1998, 23, 1099–1106. [CrossRef]
17. Pierobon, L.; Benato, A.; Scolari, E.; Haglind, F.; Stoppato, A. Waste heat recovery technologies for offshore
platforms. Appl. Energy 2014, 136, 228–241. [CrossRef]
18. Stoppato, A.; Cavazzini, G.; Ardizzon, G.; Rossetti, A. A PSO (particle swarm optimization)-based model for
the optimal management of a small PV(Photovoltaic)-pump hydro energy storage in a rural dry area. Energy
2014, 76, 168–174. [CrossRef]
19. Cavazzini, G.; Dal Toso, P. Techno-economic feasibility study of the integration of a commercial small-scale
ORC in a real case study. Energy Convers. Manag. 2015, 99, 161–175. [CrossRef]
20. Benato, A.; Kærn, M.R.; Pierobon, L.; Stoppato, A.; Haglind, F. Analysis of hot spots in boilers of organic
Rankine cycle units during transient operation. Appl. Energy 2015, 151, 119–131. [CrossRef]
21. Pezzuolo, A.; Benato, A.; Stoppato, A.; Mirandola, A. The ORC-PD: A versatile tool for fluid selection and
Organic Rankine Cycle unit design. Energy 2016, 102, 605–620. [CrossRef]
22. Benato, A.; Macor, A. Biogas engine waste heat recovery using organic Rankine cycle. Energies 2017, 10, 327.
[CrossRef]
23. Gurgenci, H. Performance of power plants with organic Rankine cycles under part-load and off-design
conditions. Sol. Wind Technol. 1986, 36, 45–51. [CrossRef]
24. Sun, J.; Li, W. Operation optimization of an organic Rankine cycle (ORC) heat recovery power plant.
Appl. Therm. Eng. 2011, 31, 2032–2041. [CrossRef]
25. Calise, F.; Capuozzo, C.; Carotenuto, A.; Vanoli, L. Thermoeconomic analysis and off-design performance
of an organic Rankine cycle powered by medium temperature heat sources. Sol. Energy 2013, 103, 595–609.
[CrossRef]
26. Bamgbopa, M.O.; Uzgoren, E. Numerical analysis of an organic Rankine cycle under steady and variable
heat input. Appl. Energy 2013, 107, 219–228. [CrossRef]
27. Bamgbopa, M.O.; Uzgoren, E. Quasi-dynamic model for an organic Rankine cycle. Energy Convers. Manag.
2013, 72, 117–124. [CrossRef]
28. Manente, G.; Toffolo, A.; Lazzaretto, A.; Paci, M. An organic Rankine cycle off design model for the search of
the optimal control strategy. Energy 2013, 58, 97–106. [CrossRef]
29. Wang, J.; Yan, Z.; Zhao, P.; Dai, Y. Off-design performance analysis of a solar powered organic Rankine cycle.
Energy Convers. Manag. 2014, 80, 150–157. [CrossRef]
30. Fu, B.R.; Hsu, S.W.; Lee, Y.R.; Hsieh, J.C.; Chang, C.M.; Liu, C.H. Performance of a 250 kW organic rankine
cycle system for off-design heat source conditions. Energies 2014, 7, 3684–3694. [CrossRef]
31. Hu, D.; Zheng, Y.; Wu, Y.; Li, S.; Dai, Y. Off-design performance comparison of an organic Rankine cycle
under different control strategies. Appl. Energy 2015, 156, 268–279. [CrossRef]
32. Yousefzadeha, M.; Uzgoren, E. Mass-conserving dynamic organic Rankine cycle model to investigate the
link between mass distribution and system state. Energy 2015, 93, 1128–1139. [CrossRef]
Energies 2017, 10, 1691 27 of 27

33. Ziviani, D.; Woodland, B.J.; Georges, E.; Groll, A.E.; Braun, J.E.; Horton, W.T.; Broek, M.V.D.; Paepe, M.D.
Development and a validation of a charge sensitive organic Rankine cycle (ORC) simulation tool. Energies
2016, 9, 389. [CrossRef]
34. Manente, G.; Lazzaretto, A.; Bonamico, E. Design guidelines for the choice between single and dual pressure
layouts in organic Rankine cycle (ORC) systems. Energy 2017, 123, 413–431. [CrossRef]
35. Dickes, R.; Dumont, O.; Daccord, R.; Quoilin, S.; Lemort, V. Modelling of organic Rankine cycle power
systems in off-design conditions: An experimentally-validated comparative study. Energy 2017, 123, 710–727.
[CrossRef]
36. Anderson, J. A vapor turbine geothermal power plant. Geothermics 1970, 2, 1530–1532. [CrossRef]
37. Bliem, C.; Zangrando, F.; Hassani, V. Value analysis of advanced heat rejection systems for geothermal power
plants. In Proceedings of the 31st Intersociety Energy Conversion Engineering Conference, Washington, DC,
USA, 11–16 August 1996; pp. 1250–1253.
38. Kanoglu, M. Exergy analysis of a dual-level binary geothermal power plant. Geothermics 2002, 31, 709–724.
[CrossRef]
39. Ozturk, H.K.; Atalay, O.; Yilanci, A.; Hepbasli, A. Energy and exergy analysis of Kizildere geothermal power
plant, Turkey. Energy Sources 2006, 28, 1415–1424. [CrossRef]
40. Hettiarachchi, H.D.M.; Golubovic, M.; Worek, W.M.; Ikegami, Y. Optimum design criteria for an organic
Rankine cycle using low-temperature geothermal heat sources. Energy 2007, 32, 1698–1706. [CrossRef]
41. Sohel, M.I.; Sellier, M.; Brackney, L.J.; Krumdieck, S. Efficiency improvement for geothermal power generation
to meet summer peak demand. Energy Policy 2009, 37, 3370–3376. [CrossRef]
42. Franco, A.; Villani, M. Optimal design of binary cycle power plants for water-dominated,
medium-temperature geothermal fields. Geothermics 2009, 38, 379–391. [CrossRef]
43. Sohel, M.I.; Sellier, M.; Brackney, L.J.; Krumdieck, S. An iterative method for modelling the air-cooled organic
Rankine cycle geothermal power plant. Int. J. Energy Res. 2011, 35, 436–448. [CrossRef]
44. Ghasemi, H.; Paci, M.; Tizzanini, A.; Mitsos, A. Modeling and optimization of a binary geothermal power
plant. Energy 2013, 50, 412–428. [CrossRef]
45. Kipaş Holding, Geothermal Energy. Available online: http://kipas.com.tr/en-US/portfolio/geothermal-
energy (accessed on 11 January 2017).
46. Tsatsaronis, G. Design optimization using exergoeconomics. In Thermodynamic Optimization of Complex
Energy Systems; Kluwer Academic Publishers: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1999.
47. Bell, I.H.; Quoilin, S.; Wronski, J.; Lemort, V. CoolProp: An open-source reference quality thermophysical
property library. In Proceedings of the ASME ORC 2nd International Seminar on ORC Power Systems,
Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 7–8 October 2013.
48. Bell, I.H.; Wronski, J.; Quoilin, S.; Lemort, V. Pure and pseudo-pure fluid thermophysical property evaluation
and the open-source thermophysical property library coolprop. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2014, 53, 2498–2508.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
49. MathWorks, Matlab. Available online: http://www.mathworks.com/products/matlab (accessed on
15 April 2017).
50. Ozgener, L.; Hepbasli, A.; Dincer, I. A key review on performance improvement aspects of geothermal
district heating systems and applications. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2007, 11, 1675–1697. [CrossRef]
51. Karaboga, D. An Ideal Based on Honey Bee Swarm for Numerical Optimization; Technical Report—TR06; Erciyes
University: Kayseri, Turkey, 2005.
52. Karaboga, D.; Akay, B. A comparative study of artificial bee colony algorithm. Appl. Math. Comput. 2009,
214, 108–132. [CrossRef]
53. Karaboga, D.; Ozturk, C. A novel clustering approach: Artificial Bee Colony (ABC) algorithm. Appl. Soft
Comput. 2011, 11, 652–657. [CrossRef]
54. Karaboga, D.; Basturk, B. A powerful and efficient algorithm for numerical function optimization: Artificial
Bee Colony (ABC) algorithm. J. Glob. Optim. 2007, 39, 459–471. [CrossRef]
55. Karaboga, D.; Basturk, B. Artificial Bee Colony (ABC) optimization algorithm for solving constrained
optimization problems. Found. Fuzzy Log. Soft Comput. 2007, 4529, 789–798.
56. DiPippo, R. The effect of ambient temperature on geothermal binary-plant performance. Geotherm. Hot Line
1989, 19, 68–70.
Energies 2017, 10, 1691 28 of 27

57. DiPippo, R. Second Law assessment of binary plants generating power from low-temperature geothermal
fluids. Geothermics 2004, 33, 565–586. [CrossRef]
58. DiPippo, R. Geothermal Power Plants: Principles, Applications and Case Studies; Elsevier Ltd.: Oxford, UK, 2005.
59. Dipippo, R. Geothermal power plants: Principles, Applications, Case Studies, and Environmental Impact; Elsevier
Ltd.: Oxford, UK, 2008.

© 2017 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).