i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 7 ( 2 0 2 2 ) 1 6 4 2 4 e1 6 4 3 9

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect

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

Thermoeconomic analysis and artificial neural

network based genetic algorithm optimization of
geothermal and solar energy assisted hydrogen
and power generation

Ceyhun Yilmaz*, Ozan Sen

Department of Mechanical Engineering, Afyon Kocatepe University, 03200, Afyonkarahisar, Turkey

highlights

An integrated system consists of geothermal and solar energy, an electrolyzer, and a fuel cell unit.

Thermoeconomic analysis and the ANN-based GA optimization are evaluated.

The overall system energy and exergy efficiencies are calculated at 4.97% and 16.0%.

The optimum cost of produced hydrogen and electricity are calculated as 1.576 $/kg H2 and 0.091 $/kWh, respectively.

article info abstract

Article history: The study aims to optimize the geothermal and solar-assisted sustainable energy and
Received 13 September 2021 hydrogen production system by considering the genetic algorithm. The study will be useful
Received in revised form by integrating hydrogen as an energy storage unit to bring sustainability to smart grid
4 January 2022 systems. Using the Artificial Neural Network (ANN) based Genetic Algorithm (GA) optimi-
Accepted 14 March 2022 zation technique in the study will ensure that the system is constantly studied in the most
Available online 6 April 2022 suitable under different climatic and operating conditions, including unit product cost and
the plant's power output. The water temperature of the Afyon Geothermal Power Plant
Keywords: varies between 70 and 130  C, and its mass flow rate varies between 70 and 150 kg/s. In
Geothermal energy addition, the solar radiation varies between 300 and 1000 W/m2 for different periods. The
Solar energy net power generated from the region's geothermal and solar energy-supported system is
Hydrogen production calculated as 2900 kW. If all of this produced power is used for hydrogen production in the
Genetic optimization electrolysis unit, 0.0185 kg/s hydrogen can be produced. The results indicated that the
overall energy and exergy efficiencies of the integrated system are 4.97% and 16.0%,
respectively. The cost of electricity generated in the combined geothermal and solar power
plant is 0.027 $/kWh if the electricity is directly supplied to the grid and used. The opti-
mized cost of hydrogen produced using the electricity produced in geothermal and solar
power plants in the electrolysis unit is calculated as 1.576 $/kg H2. The optimized unit cost
of electricity produced due to hydrogen in the fuel cell is calculated as 0.091 $/kWh.
© 2022 Hydrogen Energy Publications LLC. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: ceyhunyilmaz@aku.edu.tr (C. Yilmaz).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2022.03.140
0360-3199/© 2022 Hydrogen Energy Publications LLC. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 7 ( 2 0 2 2 ) 1 6 4 2 4 e1 6 4 3 9
Introduction
Reducing the dependence on fossil fuels, which is the biggest
problem of today's energy sector, and the harmful emissions
of these fuels to the environment can only be achieved by
using clean and sustainable energy sources. Renewable en-
ergy sources such as solar, wind, geothermal, and hydro-
electricity are seen as alternatives to fossil fuels in low
emissions and sustainability. However, besides these re-
sources' inconsistent and discontinuous character, they also
bring storage problems. The most popular form of storage of
renewable energies is electrical energy. Electrical energy is
used frequently in daily life. The increasing interest in
hydrogen has had more positive properties as an energy car-
rier in recent years. In order to continue the sustainability of
renewable energy and solve environmental and economic
problems, electricity and hydrogen must be produced from
these sources [1,2].
There is a great need for the implementation of rules and
regulations in order to make global cooperation stronger
than ever and reduce climate change. The energy market is
struggling on the energy side, which is very closely related to
these. It will continue to struggle more to move away from
fossil fuels and transition to a carbon-neutral era. Since the
industrial revolution, a significant increase in the concen-
tration of anthropogenic carbon dioxide in the atmosphere
has been observed. This increase has affected human health
and well-being despite all politically based denials and the
sanctions of traditional fossil fuel lobbies. Accordingly,
carbon-free fuels in the energy market are considered safer
and more sustainable future. One of the critical solutions for
sustainable fuel is hydrogen, which can be used as fuel and
raw material. Hydrogen production with renewable energy
sources will pave the way for replacing carbon-based fuels
with renewable ones. Hydrogen is widely found in many
places in the universe, including water, biomass, and fossil
fuels, but cannot be found free. The real question is how to
produce hydrogen more efficiently, effectively, and envi-
ronmentally friendly [3,4].
Regarding the cost of hydrogen production, some fossil
fuel-based methods such as steam methane reforming (SMR)
appear to be less expensive than electrolysis methods. This
causes SMR to be used much more widely than other renew-
able energy generation methods. It should not be forgotten
that; About 95% of total hydrogen production is from fossil
fuels, including natural gas, oil, and coal, and the remaining
5% is from electrolysis and other methods. To minimize
harmful environmental effects; Hydrogen production from
renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, hydroelectric,
biomass, geothermal, and ocean should be preferred over
traditional hydrocarbon-based hydrogen production, espe-
cially natural gas, coal, and oil. Working with renewable re-
sources, especially solar and wind options, brings the problem
of storing the intermittently produced from these sources. In
connection with this, the power-to-gas approach has gained
attention in recent years, where excessive power is used to
produce hydrogen. Storage and distribution of hydrogen via
existing natural gas pipelines are promising solutions for
hydrogen. In the first step, different aspects should be
16425
considered, including the number of renewable resources
available, production methods, infrastructure, storage and
distribution systems, and a regional hydrogen farm should be
established. Establishing such a hydrogen farm, especially in
developing countries with high potential for renewable re-
sources such as solar, wind, and geothermal, can provide
employment and economic opportunities and prevent
dependence on fossil fuels. Turkey's geopolitical position, the
sunniest country in Europe and the country with abundant
geothermal resources, the scarcity of fossil fuel resources, and
the high motivation to invest in green energy technologies
show the importance of studies in this field [5,6].
A hybrid system incorporating renewable resources is
becoming popular as a complementary power source to
augment the unreliable grid in developing regions. Neverthe-
less, the intermittent nature of renewable power sources
makes it impossible to supply continuous power. Hence, the
power output is usually harmonized with an energy storage
device to improve the power system stability. Technological
methods developed on energy storage are of great importance,
especially for the sustainability of renewable energy. The
electricity produced should be stored when the demand is
low.
On top of that, there are batteries and storage technologies
on the existing electrical energy, which is a minimal capacity.
In this study, the excess electricity produced from renewable
sources is stored in high capacity and efficiency by producing
hydrogen. Then, fuel cells convert the chemical energy of
hydrogen into electricity when needed in the grid [7]. Many
different theoretical and experimental studies have been
performed on solar and geothermal energy production sys-
tems and combined systems in the literature. In this context,
some relevant studies with different integrated systems and
multiple outputs are presented as a summary.
First of all, Sen et al. [8], which is the basis of this study, has
been considered. In this study, a thermodynamically designed
system was studied considering the high solar and
geothermal energy potentials of Afyon province. In the
designed system, a model has been developed to supply the
electrical energy needs of the university, taking into account
the average geothermal and solar data of Afyon province. The
model's basic design and thermodynamic performance anal-
ysis were performed in detail. This paper optimizes the model
by thermoeconomic analysis and the ANN-based GA method.
In other words, this study is a next step and future work of
Ref. [8]. Khalid et al. [9] designed a multi-generation energy
system supported by geothermal and solar energy to meet the
buildings' electricity, cooling, heating, and hot water needs
and performed the thermo-economic, energy, and exergy
analysis of this system. They planned to produce hydrogen
and convert hydrogen to electricity in the fuel cell. They
investigated the energy and exergy changes of the system at
different ambient temperatures. They observed that the sys-
tem's exergy efficiency increased from 16.2% to 17.0% as the
ambient temperature increased from 15 to 35  C. As a result of
the thermo-economic analysis, they calculated the leveled
unit electricity cost (LEC) as 0.089 $/kWh. Cardemil et al. [10]
designed a solar and geothermal energy-assisted hybrid sys-
tem for the northern Chile region, with a high potential for
geothermal and solar energy. They evaluated the hybrid
16426 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 7 ( 2 0 2 2 ) 1 6 4 2 4 e1 6 4 3 9
system's annual performance in terms of net power genera-
tion, exergy efficiency, and thermo-economics. The annual
power generation found that the hybrid system yielded a 32%
better result than the geothermal energy-assisted system. As
a result of the thermo-economic analysis, the minimum
hourly average exergy cost was 2179 $/kWh in November, and
the maximum hourly average exergy cost was 2.258 $/kWh.
They observed that it was in July. They stated that the hybrid
system that allows to increase electricity generation and
reduce production costs. Yuksel and Ozturk [11] developed a
multi-generation system that works with geothermal energy-
supported organic Rankine cycle (ORC) to produce electricity,
cooling, heating, hot water hydrogen. They performed the
energy and exergy analysis of the system and the thermo-
economic analysis for hydrogen production. They used some
of the electricity produced in the organic Rankine cycle for
hydrogen production in the electrolysis unit. As a result of
their studies, they calculated the overall system's energy and
exergy efficiency as 47.04% and 32.15%, respectively. As a
result of the thermo-economic analysis, they determined that
hydrogen production's cost decreased from 4.8 $/kg H2 to 1.1
$/kg H2. Koyuncu et al. [12] designed a model for the economic
analysis of geothermal-assisted hydrogen production and
liquefaction system using Artificial Neural Networks and
implemented it on a Field Programmable Gate Array (FPGA).
Yilmaz and Koyuncu [13] developed a model for the ANN-
based optimization of a geothermal power plant in Afyon,
Turkey. The model results were presented to the company
officials with the results that were verified to be used to
improve the existing power plant. In the study, the payback
period of the plant and the unit cost of the electricity produced
was optimized as 3 years and 0.0176 $/kWh, taking into ac-
count the 110  C temperature of the power plant and the water
flow rate of 150 kg/s.
Thermodynamic analysis and performance evaluation of
the system has been performed previously study, according to
the geothermal and solar climate conditions of Afyonkar-
ahisar. In this region, geothermal sources are available at
temperatures between 70 and 130  C and mass flow rates be-
tween 70 and 150 kg/s. The province's daily and seasonal
average solar incidence vary between 300 and 1000 W/m2 [14].
This study is adapted from Ref. [8], and also, it is an optimi-
zation study prepared as a future of the referenced study. In
the reference study, only thermodynamic modeling and
analysis of the system were performed, but in this paper,
thermoeconomic analysis and optimization of the system
were performed. The optimization technique has been made
to optimize the geothermal and solar-assisted sustainable
energy and hydrogen production system by considering the
genetic algorithm. This study will be a helpful application
example by adding hydrogen as an energy storage unit to
bring sustainability to smart grid systems. In addition, using
the ANN-based GA optimization technique in the study will
ensure that the system is constantly studied in the most
suitable conditions under different climatic and operating
conditions. With the application of the ANN-based GA opti-
mization technique in renewable energy systems, the prob-
lems of power interruption, low efficiency, and energy losses
will be eliminated. Thus, a good example will be presented for
renewable and sustainable energy applications as novelties.
Definitions and working principal of system
A model has been developed for electricity and hydrogen
production using geothermal and solar energy to be examined
in the study. In this context, the system to be examined
should be modeled in a computer environment, and process
simulations should be performed. For this, the EES (Engi-
neering Equation Solver) program, which includes thermo-
physical property functions of geothermal water, hydrogen,
and other fluids, was used. The cost estimates of the elec-
tricity and hydrogen produced by the system using Artificial
Neural Networks (ANNs) on the Matlab program were per-
formed in real-time. Then, the systems were optimized using
the Genetic Algorithm technique. With the help of these
programs, it was possible to model the different operating
conditions of the system, perform parametric studies, and
obtain the necessary results according to the optimization
parameters [15].
Fig. 1 is given to understand and examine the detailed
working principle of the system that produces electricity and
hydrogen using geothermal and solar energy. For the
geothermal resource used, the Afyon Geothermal Power Plant
(AFJES) data and the solar radiation values of Afyonkarahisar
city for solar energy were taken into account, and these values
are given in Table 1 and Table 2. According to these assump-
tions, thermodynamic and thermoeconomic analyzes of the
system were performed. The reference study found the
amount of electricity and hydrogen produced and exergetic
costs by making a detailed thermodynamic analysis of the
system. In this study, thermoeconomic analysis and optimi-
zation processes were carried out on the results of the given
study.
According to the need, the system supplies electricity
produced from geothermal and solar power plants to the grid.
In cases where the need in the network is low level, excess
electricity is sent to the electrolysis unit, and hydrogen is
produced and stored. When additional electricity is needed in
the grid, the stored hydrogen is converted into electricity in
the fuel cell and given to the grid. In Fig. 1, the system's
operating principle is given with the state numbers and details
of the system components. In the design stage, the
geothermal water temperature is 130  C, and the mass flow
rate is 85 kg/s. Considering the annual measured solar radia-
tion intensity for Afyon province, the average monthly solar
radiation intensity coming to the parabolic collector is
assumed as 600 W/m2. The temperature of the heat transfer
fluid entering the collector to the receiver is 60  C, and its mass
flow rate is 0.2 kg/s. The system is assumed to be in 25  C and
100 kPa environmental conditions. The thermodynamic
analysis of the system is performed by considering the binary
geothermal power plant, the parabolic concentrating solar
power plant, and the hydrogen conversion system separately
in the reference study. R134a, which has a higher unit energy
amount based on temperature, is chosen as the working fluid
in the binary geothermal cycle. The inlet and outlet pressures
of the turbine are chosen as the optimum values of 2000 kPa
and 500 kPa, respectively. Therminol VP-1 is used as the heat
transfer fluid in parabolic collectors in the solar power plant,
and Toluene is used as the working fluid in the organic
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 7 ( 2 0 2 2 ) 1 6 4 2 4 e1 6 4 3 9 16427

Fig. 1 e Operating diagram of combined power and hydrogen production plant [8].

Table 1 e Operating parameters of AFJES [15]. Table 2 e Solar radiation values of Afyonkarahisar [16].

Source temperature of 130 Month Monthly Instantaneous Daily

geothermal fluid ( C) average highest highest
(W/m2) (W/m2) (W/m2)
Temperature of discharge of geothermal 57
fluid underground ( C) January 202.31 650 343.15
Mass flow rate of geothermal fluid (kg/s) 85 February 269.55 722 412.71
Cycle pressure range (kPa) 500e2800 March 327.36 823 509.11
Working fluid R134a April 394.3 955 592.38
Working cycle ORC May 507.96 1040 662.69
Cooling method Water cooled June 545.73 1020 626.54
condenser July 522.25 1040 634.64
Pump and turbine isentropic efficiency (%) 0.85 August 526.8 969 607.81
September 466.32 895 533.64
October 348.78 766 477.8
Rankine cycle (ORC). The inlet and outlet pressures of the November 240.54 570 355.4
turbine are chosen as the optimum values of 2000 kPa and December 181.77 489 285.36
Monthly average 377.81
10 kPa, respectively [8].

Fundamental thermodynamic analysis of system m_ 1 h1 þ Q_ in ¼ m_ 2 h2 þ W_ out (2)

The environmental temperature and pressure are T0 ¼ 25  C

Q_ in
and P0 ¼ 100 kPa. The equation of energy conservation þ m_ 1 s1 þ S_gen ¼ m_ 2 s2 (3)
Ts
respecting the quantity of energy based on the first and sec-
ond law of thermodynamics for the control volume can be

T0
presented as below [17]: Q_ in 1  _ 2 þW
þ m_ 1 ex1 ¼ mex _ out þ Ex
_ dest (4)
Ts

m_ 1 ¼ m_ 2 (1) where Q_ is the rate of heat transfer, W_ is power, m_ is mass flow

16428 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 7 ( 2 0 2 2 ) 1 6 4 2 4 e1 6 4 3 9

rate, h is specific enthalpy, S_gen is the rate of entropy genera- kJ/elec V ¼ 96,485 kJ/kmol V). Electrical potential of the fuel
tion, and Ex_ dest is the rate of exergy destruction. cell:
Hydrogen production and fuel cell unit are preferred for DG
energy storage and conversion. Fuel cells are thermoelectric V0 ¼ (11)
96485ne
devices that convert the chemical energy of fuels to electricity
Generally, when fuel cells are examined, the fuel cell
without any combustion process. One of the essential ad-
changes efficiency depending on the temperature. Also, there
vantages of fuel cells is that they are environmentally friendly,
are losses in this theoretically obtained potential value. When
contributing to very low to zero emissions. Environmental
the types of fuel cells are examined, polymer electrode fuel
concerns have focused on developing and utilizing clean and
cells and phosphoric acid fuel cells stand out at low temper-
sustainable energy resources. Therefore, it is essential to
atures. PEM fuel cell operates at temperatures close to 80  C,
develop environmentally benign energy utilization and con-
and phosphoric acid fuel cell operates around 200  C. Melted
version processes to replace conventional fossil fuel-based
carbonate and solid oxide fuel cells can reach temperatures up
power generation systems. Fuel cells are considered one of
to 600e1000  C. In low-temperature Polymer Electrode and
the most promising clean and efficient energy conversion
phosphoric acid fuel cells, sensitivity to gases such as carbon
technologies.
monoxide increases, and losses may occur. According to the
Along with their pure nature, fuel cells hold many other
operating temperature of the systems, it is seen in this study
advantages such as efficient, immobile, quiet, and reliable
that the PEM fuel cell is the most efficient system [19].
operation. PEM fuel cell has been adapted for this study due to
Although the PEM fuel cell is an optimum system, the
suitable temperature ranges and operating conditions. The
system's theoretical potential can never be achieved. There
energy released from the system is the difference between the
are various irreversibilities in the system. These can be
enthalpy of the products reacting and the enthalpy of the
grouped under three main headings: activation losses, ohmic
products released.
losses, and concentration losses [20].
X X  o  X  o 
DH ¼ Hr  Hp ¼ Nr hf þ h  ho  Np hf þ h  ho
r p Vloss ¼ Vact:loss þ Vohm:loss þ Vcon:loss (12)
(5)
Activation losses are seen on both the anode and the
o
hf is the standard enthalpy of formation, and the expres- cathode electrode. This loss is seen as both voltage and cur-
sion h  ho is the difference between incoming and outgoing rent loss. Ohmic losses result from the membrane's electrical
products (25  C 100 kPa). Since the products entering and resistance and other conduction materials. On the other hand,
concentration losses can reach high levels with an excessive
leaving an ideal fuel cell are in standard conditions, h ho
increase in the concentration of chemical products at high
expression is zero.
current values. The actual voltage value can be found by
X  o X  o
DH ¼ Nr hf  Np hf (6) subtracting all these losses from the theoretical voltage value
r p
obtained. V voltage is the net output voltage of the fuel cell.
If it is written instead of inputs and outputs in PEM Fuel
V ¼ V0  Vloss (13)
cell:
X  o X  o X  o


DH ¼ NH2 hf  NO2 hf  NH2 O hf (7) i þ ileak iL
V ¼ V0  b ln  i:Rohm  c ln (14)
H2 O2 H2 O i0 iL  ði þ ileak Þ
The maximum work output that can be obtained here: where b and c cell constants, i0 reference current value and iL is
X  o
 X  o  limit current value. The basic assumptions of the PEM model
Wmax ¼ Nr hf þ h  ho  T0 s  Np hf þ h  ho  T0 s
r p considered are given in Table 3.
(8) The thermal efficiency of the overall system is defined as
the ratio of the total electrical power output and the total heat
The maximum potential of the electrochemical reaction is
input of geothermal and solar power plants [8].
1.229 V at standard conditions (25  C, 100 kPa), and it corre-
sponds to the Gibbs free energy. Consider a reversible reaction
occurring at a constant temperature equal to that of its envi-
ronment. The work output of the fuel cell is [18]:
Table 3 e PEM fuel cell model assumptions [20].
X X 
welec ¼  ne ge  ni gi ¼  DG (9) Fuel Cell Value Unit
Operating temperature 350 K
where DG is the change in Gibbs function for the overall
i0 0.013 A/cm2
chemical reaction. Besides, the term work can also be 0.01 A/cm2
Ileak
expressed in terms of electrical potential. iL 2 A/cm2
b 0,08 V
w ¼ Vne N0e (10) c 0.1 V
R 0,01 U
V is an indicator of electrical potential. ne is the number of
V0 1.22 V
electrons in kmol. (N0e ¼ 6.022136  1026 elec/kmol x 1.602177
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 7 ( 2 0 2 2 ) 1 6 4 2 4 e1 6 4 3 9 16429

_ elec _ elec during the production of the product. These costs consist of
W W
h¼ ¼   (15)
fuel cost C_ F , initial investment cost Z_ and operation and
CI
_ _
Q sol þ Q geo Colr Cols Aap G þ m_ geo hgeo  h0
maintenance Z_ . The expression of the cost ratio related to
OM

The exergy efficiency for the overall system can be written

the initial investment, operation and maintenance costs for
as follows:
any component of a thermal system is as follows [24]:
W _ elec W_
ε¼ ¼   elec   (16) Z_ ¼ Z_ þ Z_
CI OM
(19)
_ _ þ Ex
Ex _ _ Q_ sol 1  T0
þ Q_ geo 1  TTgeo
0
Q sol Q geo Tsol
where, Z_ term refers to the cost ratio ($/h) of system compo-
nents, the first term on the right side of the equation is the
Thermoeconomic analysis of system
initial investment cost (Z_ ), and the second term refers to the
CI

operating and maintenance costs (Z_ ).

OM
One of the most significant factors affecting a design feature is
the cost of the system's product output for thermal systems. In Thermoeconomic is a discipline that combines exergy
this case, we can define the final cost as the price paid to analysis and economic principles. Thus, it is advantageous
produce, transport, and market a specific product. The market to obtain a rational cost structure that cannot be achieved
price of a product is generally affected by the product's desired with traditional energy and economic analysis. Thermoe-
profit and production costs and other economic factors such conomic cost balance and auxiliary equations for each
as subsidy, regulation, competition, and demand. The total subcomponent of the system are obtained. The relevant
cost of a product consists of fixed and variable costs. Fixed equations are tabulated and given in the results section. In
costs generally do not have a substantial effect on the pro- thermoeconomic, the concepts of depreciation, exergy,
duction rate. Rent, maintenance, repair, insurance, tax, and quality, cost, price, resource, consumption, and purpose are
depreciation costs fall into this category. Variable costs vary interrelated. Analytical research is required for the physical
directly with the amount of production, more or less. Variable and local mechanisms that regulate a specific production
costs; It consists of costs such as material, fuel, research and flow in the cost formation process. The main problem
development, and electricity [21]. solved using exergy in economic analysis is determining
The CRF (Capital Recovery Factor) value depends on the how to calculate and homogenize the attributes [23,24].
system's economic interest rate and estimated economic life Thermoeconomic is an efficient evaluation method that
and equipment. The CRF can be calculated as follows occurs by assigning the cost to these thermal system in-
depending on the interest rate (i) and the economic life of the teractions that inevitably interact with the environment.
equipment (n): This practice is called costing exergy. In costing exergy, each
n exergy flow is associated with a typical cost. Thus, the cost
ið1 þ iÞ
CRF ¼ n (17) associated with exergy entering and leaving the system,
ð1 þ iÞ  1
power, and heat flow associated with exergy can be
One of the most critical hydrogen production parameters is expressed by the following equations [24]:
the energy consumed for unit mass hydrogen production
(kWh/kg H2). Suppose the energy used for hydrogen produc- C_ i ¼ ci Ex
_ i ¼ ci ðm_ i exi Þ (20)
tion is electricity, and electricity is generated in a geothermal
or solar power plant. In that case, the cost of electricity per C_ e ¼ ce Ex
_ e ¼ ce ðm_ e exe Þ (21)
unit kilowatt-hour (kWh) of electricity is calculated with the
help of engineering economics parameters, the cost of elec- C_ w ¼ cw W_ (22)
tricity in $/kWh, and the cost of obtaining hydrogen per unit
mass is $/kg H2 [22,23]. C_ q ¼ cq Ex
_ q (23)
When calculating costs in a system, the initial consider-
ation should be given to. In the above equations, ci, ce, cw, and cq represent the
average cost of exergy per unit flow of material depending on
1. Defining the actual costs of products and services, work and heat, respectively. The cost rates are shown in C_ i , C_ e ,
2. Providing a valuable resource for pricing goods and C_ w and C_ q . Ex
_ i and Ex
_ e represent exergy ratios. W_ shows
services, power, and Ex _ q represents the exergy ratio associated with
3. Providing financing for control and similar expenses, heat transfer.
4. Providing information on which business decisions can be The exergetic cost balance for a system component
evaluated and based on. depending on the heat received and the generated power can
be written as follows.
In conventional economic analysis, when writing price
X X
balance, generally all system costs can be formulated as _ e Þ þ cw;k W
ðce Ex _ k ¼ cq;k Ex
_ q;k þ _ i Þ þ Z_k
ðci Ex (24)
k k
e
expressed in the following relation [24]: i

The term Z_k is obtained by calculating the initial invest-

C_ P;TOT ¼ C_ F;TOT þ Z_ TOT þ Z_TOT
CI OM
(18)
ment and operating and maintenance costs associated with
In the above equation, the cost value C_ P associated with the the system component, then calculating the leveled values of
product of the system is equal to the sum of the costs incurred system operation per unit time. Based on these costs, the ratio
16430 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 7 ( 2 0 2 2 ) 1 6 4 2 4 e1 6 4 3 9
of costs associated with initial investment and maintenance
costs for component k can be calculated as follows:
CRF  PEC  4
Z_ k ¼
3600  N
In the above equation, CRF represents the annual capital
recovery factor, PEC the purchase cost ($) of the k equipment, 4
the operation and maintenance factor, and N the operating
time of the system in unit year.
The total purchasing equipment costs of the overall system
are calculated using the Aspen Plus program. In this study, for
the thermodynamic and thermoeconomic analysis of the
system, calculations are performed by coding the required
data into EES and Aspen Plus software programs. To be used in
economic analysis, the annual interest rate (i) we use within
the program's scope is assumed as 10%. The system's ther-
moeconomic analysis is calculated in the EES program by
writing the necessary thermoeconomic connections, and
thermoeconomic relationship tables are created [25,26].
The thermoeconomic analysis of the system is performed
under three main headings. The thermoeconomic analyses of
solar and geothermal power plants are evaluated separately,
and the thermoeconomic analyses of the electrolysis unit and
fuel cells are evaluated separately. The purpose of performing
this is that the two separate power plants' annual working
hours and economic lives differ. In the thermoeconomic
analysis of the electrolysis unit and fuel cell, the annual
operating hours and economic life of equipment are consid-
ered the same as the geothermal power plant. Because the
geothermal power plant provides most of the electrical energy
obtained in this model and the geothermal power plant's
annual working hours are longer.
System application of ANN based GA
optimization
Artificial Neural Networks (ANN) can be defined as the
mathematical modeling of the human brain's learning and
decision-making skills. ANN is a technique inspired by the
way the human brain processes information. The way the
simple biological nervous system works with ANN is modeled
mathematically. ANN can artificially solve problems requiring
people's natural ability to think and observe in a mathematical
environment. Learning is carried out by training the created
mathematical artificial neural network using examples. An
ANN, whose training process has been completed, can
mathematically perform operations that are difficult to do
with pure arithmetic methods such as data classification,
recognition, optimization, data association, and predictions
for the advanced operating processes system [27].
In the equations in Table 4, the data set's size is the output
values of the EES program and the output values of the ANN-
based Matlab program. Power and cost estimates are per-
formed due to the network trained on the Matlab program
using the ANN method. To measure the prediction success of
the network trained in ANN, mean absolute error, mean
square error, root mean square error and mean absolute
percentage error values are calculated. The actual analysis
results and the estimation results of the ANN are compared
Table 4 e System error analysis [28].
Error Analysis Equation
(25) Mean Absolute Error (MAE)
MAE ¼
1 Xn 
y y bi 

n i¼1 i
Mean Square Error (MSE) 1 Xn
MSE ¼ ðy  y bi Þ2
n i¼1 i
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) 1 Xn
RMSE ¼ ðy  y bi Þ2
n i¼1 i
 
Mean Absolute Percent Error (MAPE) 100 Xn yi  y bi 

MAPE ¼ i¼1 
n y  i
and evaluated, and the actual analysis and prediction results
are shown in the figure. In the design of thermal systems,
parameters such as which process or equipment will be
selected, how they will be placed, the system's dimensions,
the optimum temperature, pressure, flow rate, and chemical
composition of the system's fluids are essential. The answer
these questions, it is necessary to choose the most suitable
optimization method for your system at the system design
stage. The first step in defining an optimization problem is
defining the system's boundaries to be optimized. All sub-
systems that will affect the system's operating performance
should be expressed in the optimization problem. The criteria
by which the system will be fundamentally examined and
optimized are the critical elements of the optimization prob-
lem [28].
Initially, individuals are usually randomly generated in the
genetic algorithm, but this is not a requirement. Especially in
very constrained optimization problems, better candidates
can be created by paying attention to some of the defined
constraints to create the starting individuals. As a result of
subjecting the individuals to the fitness function process, the
fitness value is determined, evaluating how close the solution
is to the optimal solution. Genetic algorithm with initial
population generated works with three evolution operators.
These are selection, crossover, and mutation operators.
Generally, each of these operators is applied to every popu-
lation formed in the next generation. The selection process
involves selecting individuals based on their fitness values to
create new individuals. The crossover operator is applied after
the selection process and refers to the reciprocal displace-
ment of certain parts of the chromosomes belonging to the
parent individuals, thus creating new characteristics. The
mutation process is changing a gene in any of the newly
formed individual chromosomes, depending on the possibility
of mutation. There are various methods to terminate the ge-
netic algorithm process. These methods; when the desired
solution is found during the operation of the algorithm when
the total number of iterations defined at the beginning of the
genetic algorithm is reached, or the fitness value remains
constant, the solution represented by the best individual
found is presented as the most suitable solution found for the
problem [29].
In this study, net power generation, electricity generation,
cost of electricity, and hydrogen are considered the objective
functions. The environmental temperature, geothermal
source temperature, the mass flow of the geothermal fluid,
and solar radiation are selected as decision parameters to
maximize the system's net power and electricity generation
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 7 ( 2 0 2 2 ) 1 6 4 2 4 e1 6 4 3 9 16431

and minimize the cost of electricity and hydrogen. The

Table 7 e Equipment costs and cost ratios of the
boundaries of the decision parameters are given in Table 5.
geothermal power plant [30].
The tuning parameters used for each model of the multi-
objective optimization process with the genetic algorithm
System equipments PEC ($) Z_ ($/h)
method are given in Table 6. Pump 200,000 3.155
Heat exchanger 750,000 11.829
Turbine 1,000,000 15.775
Water cooled condenser 300,000 47.34
Results and discussion
Total purchased equipment cost (PEC) 2,250,000 e

Geothermal power plant

According to the thermodynamic analysis, 25,542 kW of en- Table 8 e Cost equations of equipments of the
geothermal power plant depending on exergy.
ergy and 6800 kW of exergy are provided to the system from
the geothermal plant with a temperature of 130  C and a mass Equipments Cost balance Auxiliary
flow rate of 85 kg/s The net power obtained from the equations equations
geothermal power plant is calculated as 2693 kW. The energy Pump C_ 1 þ Z_ P þ C_ WP ¼ C_ 2 c1 (is known)
efficiency of the geothermal power plant was 10.5%. The exit c2 (variable)

temperature of the hot geothermal water from the system is

Heat exchanger C_ 2 þ C_ 5 þ Z_ HE ¼ C_ 3 þ C_ 6 c 5 ¼ c6

57  C. As a result, 1161 kW of the power that came to the

Turbine C_ 3 þ Z_ T ¼ C_ WT þ C_ 4 c 3 ¼ c4
celec (variable)
6800 kW system is re-discharged underground as unused
Water cooled condenser C_ 4 þ C_ 7 þ Z_ WCC ¼ C_ 1 þ C_ 8 c7 ¼ celec
energy. The exergy efficiency of the geothermal power plant
was calculated as 39.6%. According to the thermodynamic
properties of the power plant, the operating pressure range is
selected between 500 and 2000 kPa. Table 9 e Exergy and cost flow rates of the geothermal
In the thermoeconomic analysis of the geothermal power power plant.
plant, the power plant's annual operating time is assumed as State _ (kW)
Ex c ($/GJ) C_ ($/h) Cost
7446 h and its economic life as 20 years. The annual interest
1 3156 5.40 61.37
rate (i) we use in economic analysis is assumed 10%. Within 2 3269 5.98 70.36
the scope of the economic assumptions, the capital recovery 3 7333 4.56 120.5
factor (CRF) value is calculated as 0.1175. The purchased 4 3751 4.56 61.62
equipment costs (PEC) and cost ratios (Z)_ of the plant equip- 5 6800 1.37 33.58
6 1161 1.37 5.73
ment are calculated in Table 7 below for the geothermal power
7 0 6.37 0
plant. The total purchased equipment cost (PEC) of the sys-
8 399 6.37 9.15
tem's equipment is calculated as 2,250,000 $. _ Pump 133.4 6.37 3.06
W
An auxiliary equation is developed for the geothermal _ Turb 3125 6.37 71.74
W
power plant's equipment, and the cost balance equation Electricity 2693 6.37 61.81 0.022 $/kWh
related to exergy is given in Table 8 for the geothermal power
plant. The auxiliary equations are written and analyzed
accordingly by encoding in the EES software [31]. energy source, is calculated as 0.022 $/kWh (6.37 $/GJ). The
Table 9 is obtained by writing the exergy cost equations in most important contribution of this exergy-dependent costing
the EES software and solving them. The Levelized cost of the method is to calculate the cost loss due to the irreversibility of
electricity (LCOE) generated in the geothermal power plant the system equipment.
operated at 130  C and 85 kg/s, which assumes the geothermal
Solar power plant

The parabolic trough solar power plant is modeled in the

Table 5 e The maximum and minimum boundaries of the
decision parameters. computer environment based on the analysis performed ac-
cording to the system's design parameters. Total solar radia-
Environmental temperature T0 ( C) 12 ⩽ T0 ⩽ 30
tion heat energy input to the parabolic trough collector is

Geothermal source temperature Tgeo ( C) 90 ⩽ Tgeo ⩽ 150 calculated as 1830 kW. The useful heat obtained from the
Mass flow of the geothermal fluid m_ geo (kg/s) 70 ⩽ m_ geo ⩽ 100
collector is calculated as 1372 kW, so the collector efficiency is
Solar radiation G (W/m2) 300 ⩽ G ⩽ 1000
74.9%. The exergy input provided to the organic Rankine cycle
with Therminol VP-1, used as a heat transfer fluid from the
solar collector with a temperature of 191  C and a mass flow of
Table 6 e The tuning parameters of the multi-objective
0.2 kg/s, is 315.8 kW. The mass flow rate of Toluene, which is
optimization process.
used as the working fluid in the organic Rankine cycle, is
Population size 120 calculated as 4.681 kg/s, according to which the net power
Number of generation 1000 obtained in the solar plant is 207 kW. The energy efficiency
Selection process Tournament and exergy efficiency of the organic Rankine cycle are calcu-
Pareto fraction 0.8
lated as 15.13% and 61.31%. The exergy efficiency of the
16432 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 7 ( 2 0 2 2 ) 1 6 4 2 4 e1 6 4 3 9

parabolic collector is calculated as 19.81%. The solar power

Table 11 e Cost equations of equipments of the solar
plant's overall energy and exergy efficiencies are calculated as
power plant depending on exergy.
15.02% and 12.15%, respectively.
Equipments Cost balance Auxiliary
In the thermoeconomic analysis of the solar power plant,
equations equations
the annual operating time is assumed as 6800 h and its eco-
nomic life as 25 years. The annual interest rate (i, interest rate) Pump C_ 9 þ Z_ P þ C_ WP ¼ C_ 10 c9 (is known)
c10 (variable)
we use in economic analysis is assumed 10%. Within the
Heat exchanger C_ 15 þ C_ 10 þ Z_ HE ¼ C_ 11 þ C_ 16 e
scope of the economic acceptances, the capital recovery factor
Turbine C_ 11 þ Z_ T ¼ C_ WT þ C_ 12 c11 ¼ c12
(CRF) value is calculated as 0.1102. The purchased equipment celec (variable)
_ of the model equipment are
costs (PEC) and cost rates (Z) Water cooled C_ 12 þ C_ 13 þ Z_ WCC ¼ C_ 9 þ C_ 14 c13 ¼ celec
calculated in Table 10 below for the solar power plant. The condenser
total purchased equipment cost (PEC) of the system's equip- Parabolic collector C_ 16 þ Z_ PTC ¼ C_ 15 c16 (is known)
ment is calculated as 3,012,344 $.
The auxiliary equation is developed for the solar power
plant's equipment, and the cost balance equation related to
exergy is given in Table 11 for the geothermal power plant. Table 12 e Exergy and cost flow rates of the solar power
The auxiliary equations are written and analyzed by encoding plant.
in the EES software [31]. State _ (kW)
Ex c ($/GJ) C_ ($/h) Cost
Table 12 is obtained by writing the exergy cost equations in
9 4.93 15.8 0.28
the EES software and solving them. The Levelized cost of the 10 15.27 38.2 21.02
electricity (LCOE) generated in the solar power plant operated 11 335.10 41.07 4.95
at 190  C and 0.2 kg/s, which is the solar energy source's 12 78.75 41.07 1.16
assumption, is calculated as 0.095 $/kWh (26.53 $/GJ). 13 0 26.47 0
14 18.91 88.68 6.03
15 315.8 26.53 30.17
Energy conversion of hydrogen production
16 765 6.2 17.08
W_ Pump 13 26.47 1.24
The system's total net power output is 2900 kW, the sum of the
W_ Turb 220 26.47 20.96
power outputs obtained from geothermal and solar power
Electricity 207 26.53 19.77 0.095 $/kWh
plants. This power output is used as a power input in the
electrolysis unit. Electrolyzer efficiency is the minimum work
consumption divided by the actual work consumption to produced when 0.0185 kg/s of hydrogen is consumed in the
produce 1 kg of hydrogen. This is the exact definition of exergy fuel cell.
efficiency. The actual work consumption is determined as In the thermoeconomic analysis, the electrolysis unit's
156,844 kJ/kg H2 using the electrolysis's 63.07% energy con- annual working time and the fuel cell are assumed as 7446 h
version efficiency. Hydrogen production corresponding to this and its economic life as 20 years. The annual interest rate (i)
work consumption is calculated as 0.0185 kg/s. we use in economic analysis is assumed 10%. Within the
Energy obtained from geothermal and solar power plants scope of the economic assumes, the capital recovery factor
of 2900 kW is consumed in the electrolysis unit. The elec- (CRF) value is calculated as 0.1175. The electrolysis unit and
trolysis unit's net exergy output is calculated as 2175 kW, and fuel cell's initial capital costs (ICC) are referenced as 1500 $/kW
the exergy loss is 725 kW. The maximum work produced in the [31]. Table 13 determined for the electrolysis unit and fuel cell
fuel cell is 116,672 kJ per kg of hydrogen. The actual net work _
below, the purchased equipment costs (PEC) and cost ratios (Z)
produced per unit hydrogen from the PEM fuel cell is calcu-
of the equipment are given. The total purchased equipment
lated to be 63,500 kJ. The fuel cell's energy conversion effi-
cost (PEC) of the equipment used is calculated as 7,675,918 $.
ciency is calculated as 63.07%, and 1361 kW of power is
An auxiliary equation is developed for the components,
and the cost balance equation related to exergy is given in
Table 14 for the electrolysis unit and fuel cell. The auxiliary
Table 10 e Equipment costs and cost ratios of the solar
equations are written and analyzed by encoding in the EES
power plant [30].
software [30].
System equipments PEC ($) Z_ ($/h) Table 15 is obtained by writing the exergy cost equations in
Pump 200,000 3.434 the EES program and solving them in a computer environ-
Heat exchanger 750,000 12.880 ment. The exergetic unit cost of hydrogen produced using the
Turbine 1,000,000 17.172
Water cooled condenser 300,000 5.151
Parabolic trough a 762,350 13.093
Total purchased equipment cost (PEC) 3,012,344 e
Table 13 e Equipment costs and cost ratios of the
electrolysis unit and fuel cell [30,31].
a
The initial capital cost (ICC) of the parabolic solar collector is
taken as $ 250/m2 considering the thermoeconomic analysis of
System equipments PEC ($) Z_ ($/h)
concentrating solar power plants (CSP) [30,31]. The purchased Electrolysis unit 4,345,500 72.72
equipment cost (PEC) of the total 3050 m2 collector area is Fuel cell 3,330,418 55.72
762,350 $. Total purchased equipment cost (PEC) 7,675,918 e
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 7 ( 2 0 2 2 ) 1 6 4 2 4 e1 6 4 3 9
Table 14 e Cost equations of electrolysis unit and fuel cell
depending on exergy and auxiliary equations.
Equipments Cost balance
Electrolysis unit C_ 17 þ C_ Wsol þ C_ Wgeo þ Z_ elect ¼
C_ 18 þ C_ 19
Fuel cell C_ 18 þ Z_ PEM ¼ C_ WPEM
Table 15 e Exergy and cost flow rates of the electrolysis
unit and fuel cell.
State _ (kW)
Ex c ($/GJ) C_ ($/h)
17 0 2.08 0
18 2175 19.44 151.5
19 0 2.08 0
Hydrogen 2175 19.44 151.5
Electricity 1361 42.31 207.2
electrical energy generated in geothermal and solar power
plants in the electrolysis unit is calculated as 2332 $/kg
hydrogen (19.44 $/GJ). In this process, the electrolysis water
enters the electrolysis unit at 25  C and 100 kPa. The Levelized
cost of electricity (LCOE) generated in the fuel cell, where
hydrogen is converted back into electricity, is calculated as
0.152 $/kWh (42.31 $/GJ). Since there is no work potential for
water and oxygen, exergy and cost values are assumed as
zero.
Artificial neural network modeling of system
In this section, the system presented in the study is modeled
using ANN. The system has four inputs and four outputs. In-
puts are environment temperature, geothermal fluid tem-
perature, geothermal fluid flow, and solar radiation. Outputs
are power generation of the system, the fuel cell's power
generation, the cost of the electricity, and hydrogen produced.
In the modeling progress, 100  8 data sets from the system
are divided into 80  8 training data and 20  8 test data. After
this process, the feed-forward multi-layer ANN structure is
created on Matlab with four inputs and four outputs. The feed-
forward multi-layer ANN block diagram of the 4-8-4 structure
is conducted and given in Fig. 2 for the system.
There are eight neurons in one hidden layer in the ANN
structure, and the Tangent Sigmoid transfer function is used
as a transfer function in each neuron. The neurons in the
output layer have a Purelin transfer function. The parameters
related to the ANN-based system are given in Table 16.
In Artificial Neural Networks, a back propagation algorithm
is preferred to model the input-output matching with the
appropriate data set. This algorithm, which requires first-
order derivative information, has disadvantages such as low
training efficiency and poor convergence speed. Therefore,
this algorithm is not suitable for practical applications. The
Levenberg-Marquardt (LM) algorithm significantly increases
the learning speed for operations that require quadratic de-
rivatives. The LM algorithm, which combines the speed of
16433
Auxiliary
equations
c17 (is known)
c17 ¼ c19
c18 (variable)
c18 (is known)
Cost
2.332 $/kg
0.152 $/kWh
Fig. 2 e ANN-based system block diagram.
Table 16 e The ANN parameters of the system.
ANN Parameters Properties
Number of layers 3
Number of neurons in layers Input: 4 - Hidden: 8 - Output: 4
Initial weights and bias values Random
Transfer function Hidden: TanSig - Output: Purelin
Learning rule Levenberg-Margquard Back
Propoagation
Newton's algorithm and the stability of the steepest descent
method, is used effectively in network training today [32].
In Artificial Neural Networks, information and algorithms
are not precise; experiences are used to achieve the desired
success. Various learning algorithms are used to provide the
necessary experience. In this study, Artificial Neural Network
is trained with the Levenberg-Marquardt method, aiming to
predict system outputs. The Levenberg-Marquardt training
algorithm is used during the training phase. Performance re-
sults for the ANN-based system are presented in Fig. 3. As a
result of 2000 epochs in the training phase, the mean square
error value of 7.20  10E-1 MSE is reached.
After the training phase, the test process is carried out with
the 20  8 dataset. MAE, MSE, RMSE, and MAPE values are
calculated and given in Table 17 due to the performance
evaluation performed by using the test data set containing the
EES program's accurate analysis results and the ANN results.
The error analysis calculated for the power generation of
the system, the fuel cell's power generation, the generated
electricity, and hydrogen costs is given in Table 15. As un-
derstood from the error analysis results, ANN's estimation
results are close to the actual results. These results show that
the level of confidence in the study is relatively high. The
comparison of actual power generation and ANN-based esti-
mation results is shown in Fig. 4. The accuracy level of the
ANN-based estimation result for power generation has been
16434 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 7 ( 2 0 2 2 ) 1 6 4 2 4 e1 6 4 3 9

Fig. 3 e The performance results of ANN- based system.

Table 17 e The error analysis of the ANN-based system.

Error Analysis W_ net (kW) W_ FC (kW) C_ elec ($/kWh) C_ H2 ($/kg H2)
MAE 1.18  10E-1 7.63  10E-1 2.35  10E-3 3.53  10E-2
MSE 2.79  10E-1 1.09  10E-1 7.44  10E-6 2.08  10E-3
RMSE 1.67  10E-1 1.05  10E-1 2.73  10E-3 4.56  10E-2
MAPE 6.03  10E-4 5.33  10E-4 2.07  10E-2 1.33  10E-2

measured as 99.9%. ANN-based estimation results almost
corresponded to actual values. This result shows that the ANN
estimates the power generation with high sensitivity.
The accuracy level of the ANN estimation result for the fuel
cell power generation is 99.9%. This means that the reliability
of the estimation results is very high. So that can be used for
the smart grid's actual power system energy transformation.
Fig. 5 shows the actual power generation of the fuel cell and
the ANN estimation data.
Fuel cell electricity cost is another important parameter of
the system. Fig. 6 shows the actual electricity cost and ANN-
based electricity cost estimation results. The accuracy level
of electricity cost estimates ANN-based is 97.9%. This result
shows that the accuracy of ANN estimates for electricity cost
is quite realistic. Actual system ANN integration has a good
potential for renewable system cases.
In this system, energy storage material is via hydrogen
production. So the unit cost of hydrogen production from
renewable surplus electricity is the most critical parameter.
The comparison of the actual hydrogen cost with ANN-based
estimation results is shown in Fig. 7. The accuracy level of
hydrogen cost estimates ANN-based is measured as 98.6%.
This result means that the reliability of ANN estimation re-
sults is relatively high. The comparison of the actual hydrogen

Fig. 4 e Variation of actual and ANN-based estimated power generation with test data set.
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 7 ( 2 0 2 2 ) 1 6 4 2 4 e1 6 4 3 9 16435

Fig. 5 e Variation of actual and ANN-based estimated power generation of fuel cell with test data set.

Fig. 6 e Variation of actual and ANN-based estimated electricity cost with test data set.

Fig. 7 e Variation of actual and ANN-based estimated hydrogen cost with test data set.
16436 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 7 ( 2 0 2 2 ) 1 6 4 2 4 e1 6 4 3 9

cost with ANN-based estimation results is shown in Fig. 7. The

accuracy level of hydrogen cost estimates ANN-based is
measured as 98.6%. This result means that the reliability of
ANN estimation results is relatively high.

Genetic algorithm optimization of system

In this section, figures showing the Pareto frontier using the

genetic algorithm method are given according to the best net
power output and cost. The optimization process aims to
reach the best solution by determining the minimum or
maximum values of the objective functions. The minimum
and maximum values and the best solution obtained from the
multi-objective optimization process are pointed in the Pareto
frontier.
Fig. 8 shows the multi-objective function solutions to the
Fig. 10 e Pareto frontier for optimum solution of best
best net power output and electricity cost system. As shown in
electricity generation and best electricity cost.
Fig. 8, there is an inverse proportion between the system's
thermodynamic and economic performance. The best power
output and the best electricity cost are 4092 kW and 0.043
$/kWh, respectively.

Fig. 11 e Pareto frontier for optimum solution of best

electricity generation and best hydrogen cost.

Fig. 8 e Pareto frontier for optimum solution of best power

output and best electricity cost.

Table 18 e Design and optimum values of the decision

parameters.
Decision parameters Design case Optimum case
T0 ( C) 25 19.92
Tgeo ( C) 130 149.96
m_ geo (kg/s) 85 97.12
G (W/m2) 600 969.63

Table 19 e Genetic algorithm optimization results of the

system.
Properties Design Optimum Deviation (%)
condition solution
W_ net (kW) 2900 3858 þ33.03
_
WFC (kW) 1361 1706 þ25.35
C_ elec ($/kWh) 0.152 0.091 40.13
Fig. 9 e Pareto frontier for optimum solution of best power C_ H ($/kg) 2.332 1.576 32.41
2

output and best hydrogen cost.

 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 7 ( 2 0 2 2 ) 1 6 4 2 4 e1 6 4 3 9
Fig. 12 e Exergy and exergy based cost flow diagram of combined power and hydrogen system.
Fig. 9 shows the best solution of the system to net power
output and hydrogen cost. As a result of the multi-objective
optimization, the best power output and the best hydrogen
cost are 4092 kW and 1.343 $/kg, respectively.
The best solution according to the electricity generated in
the fuel cell and the electricity cost is shown in Fig. 10. The
best electricity generation and the electricity cost are 1842 kW
and 0.043 $/kWh, respectively.
Fig. 11 shows the system's best solution to the electricity
generated in the fuel cell and the hydrogen cost. As a result of
the multi-objective optimization, the best electricity genera-
tion and the best hydrogen cost are 1842 kW and 1.343 $/kg,
respectively.
The design and optimum values of the decision parameters
of the system are given in Table 18. The net power output, the
electricity generation, the electricity cost and hydrogen cost of
the design stage, the system's optimum solution, and the de-
viation between the developed and optimum solutions are
given in Table 19.
Listing component exergy loss may help in assessing the
performance of the hydrogen and power production plant.
The proper representation of exergy and exergy cost flows and
destructions is the flow diagram that may adapt the plant's
energy and economic analyses used for exergy and exergy
cost transfer. The flow diagram in the combined power sys-
tem can be particularly valuable since it shows exergy de-
structions, the splitting of exergy cost streams, and
recirculation of exergy. It also shows graphically how a part of
the original exergy input is dissipated in the successive stages
of energy transformation. Fig. 2 can be presented either in a
dimensional form of exergy and exergy cost flows of the
combined hydrogen and power production plant. As will be
seen from Fig. 12, the exergy efficiency of the plant takes into
account three types of losses: The intrinsic irreversibility of
the geothermal and solar energies injection and reinjection
process. It causes irreversibility due to heat transfer from
finite temperature differences. Irreversibility is due to the
dissipation of the exergy of the products of the overall plant.
The success of the optimization in improving the efficiency
and product costs is due to the strong interaction between the
plant components. A reduction in the mean temperature
16437
differences between the streams exchanging heat usually re-
duces the specific irreversibility of the process. As a result of
these optimization improvements, the net electrical work
produced from the fuel cell was increased from 1360 kW to
1706 kW, an increase of 25%. In addition, the unit cost of the
electricity ultimately produced from the system was reduced
from 0.152 $/kWh to 0.091 $/kWh, thus reducing the cost by
approximately 40%. Finally, the unit cost of hydrogen pro-
duced to store excess electricity was decreased from 2.332
$/kg to 1.576 $/kg, thus reducing its cost by about 32%. More
details of the exergy and exergy cost analysis optimum values
of the combined hydrogen and power generation plant can be
shown in Fig. 12.
Conclusion
The renewable energy-driven hydrogen and electric power
generation system is considered, and thermoeconomic and
optimization are performed. The system considered is a novel
configuration consisting of a binary geothermal power plant
and a parabolic trough concentrating solar plant for electricity
production and water electrolysis and fuel cell unit for
hydrogen storage and utilization. The optimization studies
are performed to investigate the effects of geothermal source
temperature and solar radiation. As a result of the optimiza-
tion using the genetic algorithm method, a significant
improvement has been observed in the system's thermody-
namic performance. Some conclusions that can be drawn
from this study can be summarized as follows:

The system's net power output has been increased from
2900 kW to 3858 kW, and the electricity generation from
1361 kW to 1706 kW.

As a result of the optimization using the genetic algorithm
method, it has also improved the system's economic per-
formance. The cost of electricity generated and hydrogen
generated have been optimized 40.13% and 32.41%. The
cost of electricity generated in the combined geothermal
and solar power plant is 0.027 $/kWh if the electricity is
directly supplied to the grid and used.
16438 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 7 ( 2 0 2 2 ) 1 6 4 2 4 e1 6 4 3 9

The optimized cost of hydrogen produced using the elec- Subscripts

tricity produced in geothermal and solar power plants in 0 dead state
the electrolysis unit is calculated as 1.576 $/kg hydrogen. act actual
The optimized cost of electricity produced in the fuel cell, dest destrcution
where hydrogen is converted into electricity, is calculated elec electricty
as 0.091 $/kWh. ex exergy

A significant improvement in the system is observed due to g gas
the genetic algorithm method's multi-objective optimiza- gen generation
tion. The net power output and the electricity generation geo geothermal
can be improved from 2900 kW to 3858 kW and in inlet state
1361 kWe1706 kW. out exit state

An economical enhancement is also conducted through sol solar
the utilized optimization. According to the multi-objective
optimization results, the electricity and hydrogen cost can
be optimized by reducing them by 40.13% and 32.41%,
references
respectively.

[1] Aydin MI, Dincer I, ve Ha H. Development of Oshawa

Declaration of competing interest hydrogen hub in Canada: a case study. c Int J Hydrogen
Energy 2021;46:23997e4010. sy 47, ss.
[2] Acar C, Dincer I. Comparative assessment of hydrogen
The authors declare that they have no known competing
production methods from renewable and non-renewable
financial interests or personal relationships that could have sources. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2014;39(1):1e12.
appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. [3] Yilmaz C. Optimum energy evaluation and life cycle cost
assessment of a hydrogen liquefaction system assisted by
geothermal energy. Int J Hydrogen Energy
Acknowledgment 2020;45(5):3558e68.
[4] Yilmaz C. Life cycle cost assessment of a geothermal power
assisted hydrogen energy system. Geothermics
This study is sponsored by The Scientific and Technological
2020;83:101737.
Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK) under the project [5] Acar C, ve Dincer I. Comprehensive energy systems içinde
218M739. “1.13 hydrogen energy”. Elsevier; 2018. p. 568e605. ss.
[6] Kanoglu M, Bolatturk A, Yilmaz C. Thermodynamic analysis
of models used in hydrogen production by geothermal
Nomenclatures energy. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2010;35(16):8783e91.
[7] Yilmaz C, Kanoglu M. Investigation of hydrogen production
c specific exergy cost ($/GJ) cost by geothermal energy. International Advanced
C purchase equipment cost ($) Researches and Engineering Journal 2017;1(1):5e10.
C_ exergetic cost rate ($/h) [8] Sen O, Guler OF, Yilmaz C, Kanoglu M. Thermodynamic
CRF capital recovery factor modeling and analysis of a solar and geothermal assisted
multi-generation energy system. Energy Convers Manag
ex specific exergy (kJ/kg)
2021;239:114186.
E_ energy (kW) [9] Khalid F, Dincer I, Rosen MA. Techno-economic assessment
_
Ex exergy (kW) of a solar-geothermal multigeneration system for buildings.
G solar irradiation (W/m2) Int J Hydrogen Energy 2017;42(33):21454e62.
h specific enthalpy (kJ/kg) [10] Cardemil J, Gangas M, Sarmiento C, Escobar R.
m_ mass flow rate (kg/s) Thermoeconomic assessment of solar-geothermal hybrid
plants. In: AIP conference proceedings, 2033. AIP Publishing
P pressure (kPa)
LLC; 2018. p. 180003.
Q_ heat (kW)
[11] Yuksel YE, Ozturk M. Thermodynamic and thermoeconomic
s specific entropy (kJ/kg K) analyses of a geothermal energy based integrated system for
S_ entropy (kj/kg) hydrogen production. Int J Hydrogen Energy
W _ power (kW) 2017;42(4):2530e46.
DG gibbs free energy (kJ/kmol) [12] Koyuncu I, Yilmaz C, Alcin M, Tuna M. Design and
M molecular weight (kg/kmol) implementation of hydrogen economy using artificial neural
network on field programmable gate array. Int J Hydrogen
LHV Lover Heating Value (kJ/kg)
Energy 2020;45(41):20709e20.
US$ USA dollar ($)
[13] Yilmaz C, Koyuncu I. Thermoeconomic modeling and
Z_ total cost rate ($/h) artificial neural network optimization of Afyon geothermal
Z_
CI
capital investment cost rate ($/h) power plant. Renew Energy 2021;163:1166e81.
Z_
OMC
opretaing and maintanance cost rate ($/h) [14] Akarslan E, Hocaoglu FO. A novel adaptive approach for hourly
solar radiation forecasting. Renew Energy 2016;87:628e33.
Greek symbols [15] Yilmaz C. Improving performance and thermoeconomic
h energy efficieny optimization of an existing binary geothermal power plant: a
ε exergy efficiency case study. Isı Bilimi ve Teknig i Dergisi 2020;40(1):37e51.
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 7 ( 2 0 2 2 ) 1 6 4 2 4 e1 6 4 3 9
[16] Hocaog  lu FO. Stochastic approach for daily solar radiation
modeling. Sol Energy 2011;85(2):278e87.
[17] Cengel YA, Boles MA, Kanoglu M. Thermodynamics: an
engineering approach. 9th ed. New York, A.B.D.: McGraw-
Hill; 2019.
[18] Arsalis A. Modeling and simulation of a 100 kWe HT-PEMFC
subsystem integrated with an absorption chiller subsystem.
Int J Hydrogen Energy 2012;37(18):13484e90.
[19] Yilmaz C, Kanoglu M. Thermodynamic evaluation of
geothermal energy powered hydrogen production by PEM
water electrolysis. Energy 2014;69:592e602.
€
[20] Ozgür T, Yakaryılmaz AC. A review: exergy analysis of PEM
and PEM fuel cell based CHP systems. Int J Hydrogen Energy
2018;43(38):17993e8000.
[21] Dhillon BS. Life cycle costing for engineers. CRC Press; 2009.
[22] Bejan A, Tsatsaronis G, Moran M. Thermal design
and optimization. New York, A.B.D.: John Wiley
and Sons; 1996.
[23] Frangopoulos CA, Nakos LG. Development of a model for
thermoeconomic design and operation optimization of a
PEM fuel cell system. Energy 2006;31(10e11):1501e19.
[24] Yilmaz C. Thermoeconomic modeling and optimization of a
hydrogen production system using geothermal energy.
Geothermics 2017;65:32e43.
16439
[25] Yilmaz C, Kanoglu M, Abusoglu A. Thermoeconomic cost
evaluation of hydrogen production driven by binary
geothermal power plant. Geothermics 2015;57:18e25.
[26] Balta MT, Dincer I, Hepbasli A. Exergoeconomic analysis of a
hybrid copperechlorine cycle driven by geothermal energy
for hydrogen production. Int J Hydrogen Energy
2011;36(17):11300e8.
[27] Beasley D, Bull DR, Martin RR. An overview of genetic
algorithms: Part 1, fundamentals. Univ Comput
1993;15(2):56e69.
[28] Starke AR, Cardemil JM, Escobar R, Colle S. Multi-objective
optimization of hybrid CSPþ PV system using genetic
algorithm. Energy 2018;147:490e503.
[29] Ehyaei MA, Ahmadi A, Rosen MA, Davarpanah A.
Thermodynamic optimization of a geothermal power plant
with a genetic algorithm in two stages. Processes
2020;8(10):1277.
[30] F-Chart Software. EES, engineering equation solver. In: F-
chart software. Inter-net Website; 2021. www.fchart.com/
ees/ees.shtml.
[31] Aspen PlusV8.4. Engineering Economic Analysis Library; 2015.
[32] Wilamowski BM, Yu H. Improved computation for
levenbergemarquardt training. IEEE Trans Neural Network
2010;21(6):930e7.