Thermodynamic Analysis and

Optimization of Geothermal Power

Plants Can Ozgur Colpan
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/thermodynamic-analysis-and-optimization-of-geother
mal-power-plants-can-ozgur-colpan/
Thermodynamic Analysis and Optimization
of Geothermal Power Plants
Thermodynamic Analysis
and Optimization of
Geothermal Power Plants

Edited by
Can Ozgur Colpan
Mehmet Akif Ezan
Onder Kizilkan
Elsevier
Radarweg 29, PO Box 211, 1000 AE Amsterdam, Netherlands
The Boulevard, Langford Lane, Kidlington, Oxford OX5 1GB, United Kingdom
50 Hampshire Street, 5th Floor, Cambridge, MA 02139, United States

Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or
mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without
permission in writing from the publisher. Details on how to seek permission, further information about the
Publisher’s permissions policies and our arrangements with organizations such as the Copyright Clearance
Center and the Copyright Licensing Agency, can be found at our website: www.elsevier.com/permissions.
This book and the individual contributions contained in it are protected under copyright by the Publisher (other
than as may be noted herein).

Notices
Knowledge and best practice in this field are constantly changing. As new research and experience broaden our
understanding, changes in research methods, professional practices, or medical treatment may become
necessary.
Practitioners and researchers must always rely on their own experience and knowledge in evaluating and using
any information, methods, compounds, or experiments described herein. In using such information or methods
they should be mindful of their own safety and the safety of others, including parties for whom they have a
professional responsibility.

To the fullest extent of the law, neither the Publisher nor the authors, contributors, or editors, assume any liability
for any injury and/or damage to persons or property as a matter of products liability, negligence or otherwise, or
from any use or operation of any methods, products, instructions, or ideas contained in the material herein.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
ISBN: 978-0-12-821037-6

For information on all Elsevier publications

visit our website at https://www.elsevier.com/books-and-journals

Publisher: Brian Romer

Acquisitions Editor: Graham Nisbet
Editorial Project Manager: Leticia M. Lima
Production Project Manager: Poulouse Joseph
Cover Designer: Miles Hitchen

Typeset by SPi Global, India

Contributors
Numbers in parenthesis indicate the pages on which the authors’
contributions begin.
Sertaҫ Akar (17) National Renewable Energy Laboratory
(NREL), Golden, CO, United States
Olusola Charles Akinsipe (3) School of Engineering & Built
Environment, Griffith University, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
Panagiotis Alexopoulos (131) Laboratory of Soft Energy
Applications and Environmental Protection, Mechanical
Engineering Department, University of West Attica,
Athens, Greece
Sharjeel Ashraf Ansari (249) Department of Engineering
Sciences, National University of Sciences and Tech-
nology, Islamabad, Pakistan
Chad Augustine (17) National Renewable Energy Labo-
ratory (NREL), Golden, CO, United States
Muhammad Aziz (97) Institute of Industrial Science, The
University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan
Young-Jin Baik (315) Thermal Energy Systems Labo-
ratory, Korea Institute of Energy Research, Daejeon,
Republic of Korea
gul (113) Department of Mechanical Engi-
Yusuf Başo

neering, Engineering Faculty, Adıyaman University,
Adıyaman, Turkey
Riccardo Basosi (53) Center for Colloid and Surface
Science, University of Firenze, Sesto Fiorentino; R2ES
Lab, Department of Biotechnology, Chemistry and
Pharmacy, University of Siena, Siena; National Research
Council—Institute for the Chemistry of OrganoMetallic
Compounds, Sesto Fiorentino, Italy
Joseph Bonafin (43) Turboden S.p.A., Brescia, Italy
Arianna Bonzanini (43) Turboden S.p.A., Brescia, Italy
urcan Çetin (263) Department of Information Systems
G€
Engineering, Technology Faculty, Mu

gla Sıtkı Koçman
University, Mu

gla, Turkey
George Charis (131) Laboratory of Soft Energy Applications
and Environmental Protection, Mechanical Engineering
Department, University of West Attica, Athens, Greece
C. Ozgur Colpan (153) The Graduate School of Natural
and Applied Sciences; Faculty of Engineering,
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Dokuz Eylul
University, Buca, Izmir, Turkey
Ibrahim Dincer (207, 225) Clean Energy Research
Laboratory, Faculty of Engineering and Applied
Science, University of Ontario Institute of Technology,
Oshawa, ON, Canada
Anil Erdogan (153) The Graduate School of Natural and
Applied Sciences, Dokuz Eylul University, Buca, Izmir,
Turkey
Mehmet Akif Ezan (153) The Graduate School of Natural
and Applied Sciences; Faculty of Engineering,
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Dokuz Eylul
University, Buca, Izmir, Turkey
Muhammad Farooq (315) Department of Mechanical
Engineering, University of Engineering and Tech-
nology, KSK Campus, Lahore, Pakistan
Milad Feili (167) Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Faculty of Engineering, University of Mohaghegh Ard-
abili, Ardabil, Iran
Hikari Fujii (83) Graduate School of Engineering and
Resource Science, Akita University, Akita, Japan
Hadi Ghaebi (167) Department of Mechanical Engi-
neering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Moha-
ghegh Ardabili, Ardabil, Iran
Onur Vahip G€ uler (113) Department of Energy Systems
Engineering, Technology Faculty, Mu
gla Sıtkı Koçman
University, Mu
gla, Turkey
Muhammad Imran (315) School of Engineering and
Applied Science, Aston University, Birmingham, West
Midlands, United Kingdom
Mohammad Ashar Jamal (185) Department of Engi-
neering Sciences, National University of Sciences and
Technology, Islamabad, Pakistan
Rao Hamza Jamil (185) Department of Engineering Sci-
ences, National University of Sciences and Technology,
Islamabad, Pakistan
xi
xii Contributors
Firman Bagja Juangsa (97) Faculty of Mechanical and
Aerospace Engineering, Institut Teknologi Bandung,
Bandung, Indonesia
Khurram Kamal (249) Department of Engineering Sci-
ences, National University of Sciences and Technology,
Islamabad, Pakistan
Prasad Kaparaju (3) Institute for Applied Sustainability
Research (iiasur), Quito, Ecuador; School of Engi-
neering & Built Environment, Griffith University,
Brisbane, QLD, Australia
Spyridon Karytsas (65) Geothermal Energy Department,
Division of Renewable Energy Sources, Centre for
Renewable Energy Sources and Saving (CRES),
Pikermi; Department of Home Economics and Ecology,
School of Environment, Geography and Applied Eco-
nomics, Harokopio University (HUA), Kallithea,
Greece
Kosmas A. Kavadias (131) Laboratory of Soft Energy
Applications and Environmental Protection, Mechanical
Engineering Department, University of West Attica,
Athens, Greece
Ali Keçebaş (113, 263) Department of Energy Systems
Engineering, Technology Faculty, Mu

gla Sıtkı Koçman
University, Mu
gla, Turkey
Shoaib Khanmohammadi (279) Department of
Mechanical Engineering, Kermanshah University of
Technology, Kermanshah, Iran
Onder Kizilkan (153, 279) Department of Mechanical
Engineering, Faculty of Technology, Isparta University
of Applied Sciences, Isparta, Turkey
Parthiv Kurup (17) National Renewable Energy Labo-
ratory (NREL), Golden, CO, United States
Saeid Mohammadzadeh Bina (83) Graduate School of
Engineering and Resource Science, Akita University,
Akita, Japan
Diego Moya (3) Department of Chemical Engineering
& Grantham Institute—Climate Change and the
Environment, Science and Solutions for a Changing
Planet DTP, Imperial College London, London,
United Kingdom; Institute for Applied Sustainability
Research (iiasur), Quito; Carrera de Ingenierı́a
Mecánica, Facultad de Ingenierı́a Civil y Mecánica,
Universidad Tecnica de Ambato, Ambato;
Coordinación de Investigación e Innovación, ABREC,
Quito, Ecuador
Hafiz Ali Muhammad (315) Thermal Energy Systems
Laboratory, Korea Institute of Energy Research,
Daejeon, Republic of Korea
Farayi Musharavati (279) Department of Mechanical
and Industrial Engineering, Qatar University, Doha,
Qatar
Greg F. Naterer (225) Clean Energy Research Laboratory,
Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science, Uni-
versity of Ontario Institute of Technology, Oshawa,
ON; Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science,
Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John’s,
NL, Canada
€
Osman Ozkaraca (263) Department of Information
Systems Engineering, Technology Faculty, Mu
gla Sıtkı
Koçman University, Mu
gla, Turkey
Murat Ozturk (207) Faculty of Technology, Department of
Mechatronics Engineering, Isparta University of
Applied Science, Isparta, Turkey
Mohammad Mustafa Pardesi (185) Department of Engi-
neering Sciences, National University of Sciences and
Technology, Islamabad, Pakistan
Maria Laura Parisi (53) Center for Colloid and Surface
Science, University of Firenze, Sesto Fiorentino; R2ES
Lab, Department of Biotechnology, Chemistry and
Pharmacy, University of Siena, Siena; National
Research Council—Institute for the Chemistry of
OrganoMetallic Compounds, Sesto Fiorentino, Italy
Olympia Polyzou (65) Geothermal Energy Department,
Division of Renewable Energy Sources, Centre for
Renewable Energy Sources and Saving (CRES),
Pikermi, Greece
Tahir Abdul Hussain Ratlamwala (185, 249) Department
of Engineering Sciences, National University of Sci-
ences and Technology, Islamabad, Pakistan
Zabdur Rehman (315) Department of Mechanical Engi-
neering, Air University Islamabad, Aerospace and Avi-
ation Campus, Kamra, Pakistan
Ron R. Roberts (225) Clean Energy Research Laboratory,
Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science, University
of Ontario Institute of Technology, Oshawa, ON,
Canada
Hadi Rostamzadeh (167) Energy and Environment
Research Center, Niroo Research Institute (NRI),
Tehran, Iran
Lalit Chandra Saikia (293) Department of Electrical Engi-
neering, National Institute of Technology, Silchar,
Assam, India
Muhammad Nouman Saleem (249) Department of Engi-
neering Sciences, National University of Sciences and
Technology, Islamabad, Pakistan

Muhammad Afzal Sheikh (249) Department of Engi-
neering Sciences, National University of Sciences and
Technology, Islamabad, Pakistan
Farooq Sher (315) School of Mechanical, Aerospace and
Automotive Engineering, Coventry University, Cov-
entry, United Kingdom
Uzair Aziz Suria (185) Department of Engineering Sci-
ences, National University of Sciences and Technology,
Islamabad, Pakistan
Contributors xiii
Washima Tasnin (293) School of Electrical Engineering,
Vellore Institute of Technology, Vellore, Tamil Nadu,
India
Lorenzo Tosti (53) Center for Colloid and Surface Science,
University of Firenze, Sesto Fiorentino; R2ES Lab,
Department of Biotechnology, Chemistry and
Pharmacy, University of Siena, Siena, Italy
Shunsuke Tsuya (83) Graduate School of Engineering and
Resource Science, Akita University, Akita, Japan
Chapter 1

Various cycle configurations for

geothermal power plants
Diego Moyaa,b,c,d, Olusola Charles Akinsipee, and Prasad Kaparajub,e
a
Department of Chemical Engineering & Grantham Institute—Climate Change and the Environment, Science and Solutions for a Changing Planet DTP,
Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom, b Institute for Applied Sustainability Research (iiasur), Quito, Ecuador, c Carrera de Ingenierı´a
ecnica de Ambato, Ambato, Ecuador, d Coordinación de Investigación e Innovación,
Mecánica, Facultad de Ingenierı´a Civil y Mecánica, Universidad T

ABREC, Quito, Ecuador, e School of Engineering & Built Environment, Griffith University, Brisbane, QLD, Australia

1.1 Introduction reservoir [8]. Depending upon the location, temperature,

Globally, the transition from the present petroleum-
dependent energy technology to green energy is fundamen-
tally contingent on making a decision on result-driven
renewable systems [1]. Mitigating climate issues as well
as promoting sustainable development are unattainable
without innovative systems and technology transfer. Fea-
tures such as low greenhouse gas emissions, minimized
environmental disruption, and the viability of technology
extraction have demonstrated geothermal energy as a sus-
tainable energy resource [2] that could be harnessed and
exploited regardless of climatic factors [3]. The Earth’s
crust houses the renewable geothermal energy source [4],
usually associated with tectonic activity and volcanic activ-
ities [5]. Typically, geothermal energy is located as a heat
source in hot rocks [6] as well as hydrothermal reservoirs
in the Earth’s crust.
Geothermal energy is considered a sustainable clean
renewable energy resource. The global installed geothermal
capacity is estimated to be 12.729 MW and that is projected
to grow by 68.46% in 2020. Among the geothermal power
plant configurations, single flash (41%) is the predominant
configuration followed by dry steam (23%), double flash
(19%), and binary (14%). The triple flash (2%) and back
pressure (1%) plant configurations are less popular [7].
Factors such as the heat reinjection mechanism, geothermal
applications, and geologic time scale are backstopping the
accelerated geothermal reservoir heat extraction in com-
parison with the replacement of heat in the reservoirs.
However, methods for heat reinjection have been developed
to ensure geothermal energy as a renewable energy
resource.
Geothermal fluids are generally used to capture heat
energy from the Earth’s crust and transport it to the surface
through production wells drilled into the geothermal
and depth of the geothermal reservoir, geothermal fluids
consisting of mineral-coated hot water known as brine
and steam (vapor-dominated fluids) are generally used
[9]. The heat energy that is transported to the ground surface
is further processed for electricity generation and/or direct
uses [8]. Depending on the geothermal site features, thermal
energy can be harvested from depths of 300 to 3000 m and
beyond. At greater depths, thermofluids are naturally
occurring as the porous hot rock of the hydrothermal and
geopressured geothermal reservoirs [10]. Harvesting the
hot fluids is a contingent feature of these reservoirs, and
various control measures are factored to maximize the uti-
lization of this heat energy [11]. Finally, the electrical power
generation is dependent upon the application of various geo-
thermal heat [12]. In this chapter, current geothermal power
plant systems and their significance in applying cutting-
edge geothermal configurations as well as undertaking
research on hybrid configurations are presented.
1.2 Geothermal power plant system
The abundance of hydrothermal resources has influenced
the development of geothermal power plant arrangements
and systems [13]. Geothermal power plants can be classified
as single-flash steam power plants, double-flash steam
power plants, dry steam power plants, binary (Organic
Rankine-Kalina Cycle) power plants, and advanced geo-
thermal energy systems. The advanced geothermal energy
systems are further classified as hybrid single-double-flash
systems, hybrid flash-binary systems, hybrid fossil-
geothermal technologies, and hybrid other renewable heat
source-geothermal systems [12]. Geothermal power plants
are best grouped into steam and binary cycles for cycles
for higher well enthalpies and lower enthalpies, respectively

Thermodynamic Analysis and Optimization of Geothermal Power Plants. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-821037-6.00005-6

Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. 3
4 PART I Basics of geothermal power plants

[14]. This chapter will assess the thermodynamic aspects of
the five geothermal power plant configurations.
1.2.1 Single-flash steam power plants
The single-flash steam power plant is the simplest geo-
thermal power transformation arrangement. This configu-
ration facilitates liquid-vapor production from the
geothermal production wells. Based on their large density
disparity, these are separated into two dissimilar phases:
steam and liquid with the support of a cylindrical cyclone
pressure vessel [14]. The term “single” depicts a single
flashing mechanism of the geofluid obtained by depres-
suring the geothermal fluid pressure [15]. This can be
achieved in a production well, a reservoir, or a cyclone inlet
to support the transition of pressurized liquid to liquid-steam
mixture production. A 30 MW single-flash geothermal
power plant demands between 5 and 6 production wells
and 2–3 reinjection wells appropriated along with the geo-
fluid resource [15]. Further, pipes are deployed for mixture
accumulation and transportation from the various geo-
thermal production wells. The identified constraint is the
drop in vapor pressure due to the pipe frictional force asso-
ciated with harvesting mechanisms [16]. Empirical correla-
tions are investigated, considering their complication and
reliability, by deploying factors such as the vapor mass flow
rate, the density, the pipe diameter, the length, and the com-
ponents of the pipe to forecast pressure loss. The variables
are significant compared to the investment cost of the power
plant and the energy conversion technology [16]. A turbine
generator produces electrical energy from vapor (around
99.95% dry) after separation of the vapor and liquid [15].
The choice of a single-flash process is applicable when
the geothermal fluid temperature exceeds 260°C with the
attainment of a capacity factor between 95% and 100% [10].
Fig. 1.1 shows the single-flash process of energy con-
version technology. Station 1 is where the single-flash
steam power process commences while the geothermal fluid
accesses the production well through the source inlet tem-
perature. Between stations 1 and 2 (producing pipes), a
pressure drop occurs, and this facilitates the boiling of the
fluid (a vapor-liquid mixture) before it is transported to

SV
CV
MR
EG
T G
5

BCV c2
3
SE/C 6

ST C CT

CS

CP c1
WV WV ST
S CWP
WH 7
2

IW 4

PW 1

PW Production well BCV Ball check valve SV Stop valve

S Silencer MR Moisture remover SE Steam jet ejectors
WV Well valves ST Steam tramp C Condenser
CS Cyclone separator CV Control valve CP Condensate pump
IW Injection well EG Electric grid CWP Condensed water pump
G Generator T Turbine WH Wellhead
FIG. 1.1 Single-flash geothermal power cycle [17].
 Various cycle configurations for geothermal power plants Chapter 1
station 2. At station 5, it collects steam from the mixture
fluid after separation while the brine (mineral-laden hot
water) is collected at station 3 before reinjecting at station 4.
At station 5, the induced motion of the turbine generator
supports the electrical energy at the entrance of the steam,
followed by the production of steam expansion along with
the turbine to station 6 at condenser pressure. An air cooler
condenser may be used at station c1 to allow the cooling of
air and exit at station c2 [15]. The significance of certain
plant equipment in the operation of a single-flash steam geo-
thermal power plant is greatly acknowledged. In this config-
uration, large amounts of freshwater are not needed for
cooling [18]. Nevertheless, cooling the tower, particularly
the dry regions without fresh water, is achieved by
deploying cooling water obtained from condensed
steam [16].
Fig. 1.2 is a thermodynamic state (T-s) diagram ana-
lyzing the single-flash steam conversion process. It should
be noted that mass conversion and the energy conversion
FIG. 1.2 Temperature-entropy (T-s) diagram of a single-flash cycle [4].
TABLE 1.1 Equations used for thermodynamic state analysis [15].
State Main characteristics
Flashing process Constant enthalpy
Separation process Constant pressure
Liquid plus vapor mixture
Turbine expansion process Constant entropy
Condensing process
5
principle, the two fundamental thermodynamic principles,
are considered in the investigation of the process with the
aid of the diagram. In a single-flash power plant, flashing
occurs when the geothermal fluid under pressure initiates
the process close to the saturation curve at state 1
(Fig. 1.2). The change in the potential or kinetic energy is
not considered, and the enthalpy (h) is designed as constant,
h1 ¼ h2, as can be seen in Eq. (1.1) in Table 1.1. After the
flashing process, the separation process occurs at state 2,
and is simulated at constant pressure. Further, the vapor
and liquid mixture is shown, ascertaining the mixture
quality in this state. The dryness fraction (x2) drives this
quality, as shown by Eq. (1.2) in Table 1.1. The quantity
of vapor entering the turbine is represented by the steam
mass fraction. Eq. (1.3) in Table 1.1 shows the work per unit
mass (w1) generated by the turbine expansion process
between states 4 and 5. The potential and kinetic energy
are not generally considered, and heat losses are neglected
when the thermal fluid enters and leaves the turbine.
Eq. (1.4) in Table 1.1 is the isentropic turbine efficiency,
which is denoted by
t. This is considered the ratio of the
actual work to that of the isentropic work, which is the ideal
process from states 4 to 5. Eq. (1.5) indicates the turbine
gross mechanical power (W_ t ). The electrical power output
of the generator (Eq. 1.6) is given as the turbine’s
mechanical power times the efficiency of the generator
(
g). Lastly, at states 5 and 6, the condensation and cooling
processes occur, and Eq. (1.7) gives the cooling water flow
rate [4].
For the purpose of analyzing the whole plant efficiency,
the second law of thermodynamics is investigated [16]. This
allows its examination in contrast to the actual power output
toward the finish of the single-flash process and to the
utmost theoretical power that is generated by the geothermal
fluid [15]. Exergy is the energy feasible to be used and the
capacity to produce work from energy [16]. Eq. (1.8) pre-
sented in Table 1.2 defines the specific exergy (ex) of the
Equation Equation number
h1 ¼ h2 (1.1)
x2 ¼ hh24 h3
h3
(1.2)
w1 ¼ h4  h5 (1.3)

t ¼ hh44h
h5
5s
(1.4)
W_ t ¼ m_ s wt (1.5)
W_ e ¼
g W_ t (1.6)
m_ cw ¼ x2 m_ total hcDT
5 h6 (1.7)
6 PART I Basics of geothermal power plants
TABLE 1.2 Exergy and power plant efficiency [19].
Thermodynamic Equation
dimension Equation number
Specific exergy ex ¼ h(T, P)  h(TO, (1.8)
PO)  TO[s(T, P) 
s(TO, PO)]
Exergetic power _ ¼ m_ total ex
Ex (1.9)
_ _
Entire power plant
u ¼ WE_net ¼ WE_e (1.10)
efficiency
geothermal fluid for a given pressure (P), temperature (T),
ambient pressure (PO). and ambient temperature (TO).
Eq. (1.9) shows the exergetic power, also known as the
maximum theoretical thermodynamic power, which is the
total geothermal mass flow rate times the exergy. Finally,
the exergy efficiency of the entire power plant is given by
Eq. (1.10) [19].
There are several environmental impacts of single-flash
geothermal power plants [15]. Locations such as the cooling
tower, the ejector vents, the pipeline drains, the steam
tramps, the silencers, the mufflers, and the wellhead, which
offers a structural interface between the wells and the pro-
duction system, are the prime areas of pollution [18]. The
blending of noncondensable gases such as methane
(CH4), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), and carbon dioxide (CO2)
from the steam of geothermal reservoirs is considered a
main environmental concern. These gases are, however,
subjected to treatment and isolation before being discharged
into the atmosphere [20]. Further, in spite of its CO2 emis-
sions, the GHG emissions from a single-flash geothermal
power plant (0.06 kg CO2/kWh) are significantly lower than
the traditional coal-fired (1.13 kg CO2/kWh) or natural-gas-
fired power plants (0.59 kg CO2/kWh) [13]. With respect to
footprint, the land requirements of a coal-fired power plant
(40,000 m2/MW) and a solar photovoltaic power plant
(66,000 m2/MW) are much higher than the 1200 m2/MW
required for a single-flash plant [15]. In general, the loss
of characteristic beauty, ozone-depleting substances, land
and water utilization, visual and noise pollution, and water
contamination are some of the other environmental
concerns associated with geothermal power plants [10].
Strategies to mitigate the environmental impacts of
single-flash geothermal power plant as proposed in [20]
include mufflers and silencers to abate noise pollution,
air-cooled condensers, reinjection for surface water, and
preventing expansion of geothermal projects into national
parks. By and large, the emissions from geothermal power
plants are inconsequential compared to fossil-fuel conven-
tional power plants.
1.2.2 Double-flash steam power plants
The development of the double-flash steam geothermal
power plant was to support power generation by the use
of a mixture of vapor and liquid water generated in the geo-
thermal production wells [21]. A double-flash power plant
is considered more advantageous than a single-flash power
plant, as the former can generate 25% more output power
than the latter under the same geothermal fluid conditions
[13]. However, double-flash steam power plant technology
is more complex and its operation and maintenance are
more expensive than single-flash power plants. Never-
theless, the efficient use of the geothermal resource is a
pointer that a secondary flash process is valuable. The use
of a second pressure drop in a secondary flash process
(second separator), after the first pressure drop, supports
the production of extra vapor from the separated liquid
exiting the first separator. Further, the coupled turbine gen-
erator is able to produce additional power due to the supply
of lower-pressure steam [22] or to a turbine depending on
the configuration [23]. The double-flash power plant’s com-
plete exergy performance is optimally boosted due to the
separator of the geothermal steam-water, which is the prin-
cipal technological development of this power plant
technology.
Upon comparison to a single-flash system (Fig. 1.1), a
double-flash configuration (Fig. 1.3) uses a dual-admission
turbine and a low-pressure separator. For the purpose of
smooth combination with the expanded high-pressure
steam, the low-pressure steam is supplied to the turbine at
the right stage [15]. Fig. 1.3 presents the energy conversion
process in a double-flash steam geothermal power plant.
The double-flash steam power process commences at
station 2; the source of the inlet temperature is the corridor
of the geofluid. The first flashed-steam process occurs
between stations 1 and 2, when the pressure drops and the
fluids begin to boil (mixture steam-liquid) before reaching
the separator at station 2. The fluid mixture is then separated
into the brine and high-pressure steam. The mineral-laden
brine hot water (station 3) is then downwardly controlled
to low-pressure (station 8) and high-pressure steam (station
5) with the support of a separator. This prompts the second
flashed-steam process. The second pressure drop at station 9
will lead to the production of a steam-brine mixture and the
brine is collected by the low-pressure separator. The second
steam is injected into the system at station 9 and the turbine
collects the second fresh low-pressure steam. At station 5,
the first high-pressure steam gains access to the turbine after
the initial steam injection. The induced motion of the dual-
injection turbine, connected to a generator, generates elec-
trical energy. The condenser pressure at station 6, connected
to the turbine, is the location where the steam expansion
happens [15]. With respect to the process design, the first
stage admission or injection of the turbine should have
 Various cycle configurations for geothermal power plants Chapter 1 7

PW Production well SV Stop valve MR Moisture remover

S Silencer SE Steam jet ejectors ST Steam tramp
WV Well valves C Condenser CV Control valve
BCV Ball check valve CP Condensate pump TV Throttle valve
IW Injection well HPT High-pressure turbine G Generator
CWP Condensed water pump LPT Low-pressure turbine EG Electric grid
HPCS High-pressure cyclone LPFS Low-pressure flash WH Wellhead
separator separator
FIG. 1.3 Double-flash geothermal power plant with a dual admission turbine [15, 17].

the same pressure difference between the high and low sep- (1.18) are used to calculate the mass flow rate of brine pro-
arators [24]. The high-pressure stage mass flow is expected duced at high pressure (m_ hpb , at state 3) and low pressure
to be lower than the low-pressure stage mass flow. The (m_ lpb , at state 7). The low-pressure turbine stage (at state
residual hot fluids at station 6 are condensed by using an 9) accommodates the high-pressure and low-pressure
air-cooled condenser. Cool air is supplied at station c1 steams together. With the aid of Eqs. (1.15)–(1.18), four
and exited at station c2. Finally, the residual brine from values are appraised: the disposed waste liquid, the
the second flashed process at station 10 and the condensed
fluid from station 7 is reinjected into the system at station 4
(Fig. 1.3).
The temperature-entropy (T-s) of a double-flash power
plant is presented in Fig. 1.4. The two flash processes that
exist in states 1–2 and 3–6 are significant, and they are
studied separately as a single process [15]. To ascertain
the quantity of steam generated in the separators at each
flashed process (x2 in states 1–2 and x6 in states 3–6, the sep-
aration process), Eqs. (1.11)–(1.14) in Table 1.3 are applied.
Further, the evaluation of the steam at state 2 and the
brine at state 6, obtained from different separators at the
high- and low-pressure stages, was achieved by using four
equations, as shown in Eqs. (1.15)–(1.18). Again,
Eqs. (1.15), (1.17) give the mass flow rate of steam gen-
erated at high pressure (m_ hps , at state 5) as well as at low FIG. 1.4 Temperature-entropy process diagram for a double-flash power
pressure (m_ lps , at state 8), respectively. Also, Eqs. (1.16), plant with a dual admission or injection turbine [15].
8 PART I Basics of geothermal power plants

TABLE 1.3 Thermodynamic equations for double-flash geothermal power plants [14, 15].

State Main characteristics Equation Equation number

Flash process 1 Constant enthalpy h1 ¼ h2 (1.11)
Separation process 1 Constant pressure x2 ¼ hh24 h3
h3
(1.12)
Mixture of liquid plus vapor
Flash process 2 Constant enthalpy h3 ¼ h6 (1.13)
Separation process 2 Constant pressure x6 ¼ hh38 h7
h7
(1.14)
Mixture of liquid plus vapor
Mass flow rate of steam High pressure m_ hps ¼ x2 m_ total ¼ m_ 4 ¼ m_ 5 (1.15)
generated
Mass flow rate of brine High pressure m_ hpb ¼ ð1  x2 Þm_ total ¼ m_ 3 ¼ m_ 6 (1.16)
produced
Mass flow rate of steam Low pressure m_ lps ¼ ð1  x2 Þx6 m_ total ¼ m_ 8 (1.17)
generated

Mass flow rate of brine Low pressure m_ lpb ¼ ð1  x2 Þð1  x6 Þm_ total ¼ m_ 7 (1.18)
produced
Turbine expansion High-pressure stage (Eqs. 1.22–1.23 are the whpt ¼ h4  h5 (1.19)
process Baumann rule)

hpt ¼ hh44h
h5
5s
(1.20)

W_ hpt ¼ m_ hps whpt ¼ x2 m_ total whpt (1.21)

 
h7 (1.22)
h4 A 1
h8  h7
h5 ¼ A
1+
h8  h7
A ¼ 0.425(h4  h5s) (1.23)
Turbine expansion Low-pressure stage m_ 5 h5 + m_ 8 h8 ¼ ðm_ 5 + m_ 8 Þ h9 (1.24)
process
h9 ¼ x2 hx52 ++ ðð1x2 Þx6 h8
1x2 Þx6
(1.25)

wlpt ¼ h9  h10 (1.26)

W_ lpt ¼ m_ 9 ðh9  h10 Þ (1.27)

 
h11 (1.28)
h9 A x9 
h12  h11
h10 ¼ A
1+
h12  h11
A ¼ 0.425(h9  h10s) (1.29)

lpt ¼ hh99h
h10
10s
(1.30)

W_ total ¼ W_ hpt + W_ lpt (1.31)

W_ e , gross ¼
g W_ total (1.32)

condenser heat dissipated, the cooling water heat losses, and
the turbine power production.
This system is applied for the illustration of the two
turbine expansion processes. Eq. (1.19) is the representation
of the first turbine expansion process producing work (whpt)
that occurs between states 4 and 5. Eq. (1.26) describes the
second turbine expansion process producing work (wlpt).
Thus, for a typical double-flash power plant with the
high-pressure (
hpt) and low-pressure (
lpt) processes, two
isentropic turbine efficiencies are derived by using
Eq. (1.20), and a low-pressure process (
lpt) by using
Eq. (1.30). The first turbine stage power produced at high
pressure (W_ hpt ) and the second stage power produced at
low pressure (W_ lpt ) are defined by using Eq. (1.21) and
 Various cycle configurations for geothermal power plants Chapter 1
Eq. (1.27), respectively. Eq. (1.31) provides the aggregate
turbine power produced (W_ total ), which is an addition of
individual turbine stage power generated. Lastly, as
explained in Eq. (1.32), the efficiency of the generator
(
g) impacts the electrical power (W_ e, gross ). The efficiency
of the overall power plant, the incoming geothermal fluid
exergy, the environmental impacts, and the deployed
equipment are similar to that of the single-flash process
[24, 25].
1.2.3 Dry-steam power plants
Studies have shown that several locations around the globe
are endowed with geothermal dry-steam, particularly in
places such as the geysers in the United States and Lar-
derello, Italy. Both places have the two largest dry-steam
reservoirs. However, places such as Cove Fort, Utah, United
States; Wairakei, New Zealand; Matsukawa, Japan; and
Kamojang, Indonesia are characterized by limited dry steam
[16, 20]. In the event that a geothermal reservoir dries,
Zarrouk and Moon [16] discussed the possibility of
FIG. 1.5 Dry-steam geothermal power plant [9, 17].
9
converting the flashed generation systems into a dry-steam
system. Considering high enthalpy system configurations,
dry-steam geothermal power plants are the most efficient
because the hydrothermal reservoirs support these configu-
rations with vapor-dominant geothermal fluid at high tem-
peratures [25, 26]. The coupled turbine generator is able
to generate electrical energy using the steam supplied
directly from the production well [10].
In dry-steam power generation, between 50% and 70%
of the geothermal fluid available work (exergy) is converted
into electrical power [25]. Upon comparison with the steam-
flashed process, the dry steam has a simpler concept and
requires centrifugal cyclones to separate particulate matters
such as rock chippings and dust [25]. Similarly, the con-
densate is eliminated by using drain pots, and the last
moisture is eliminated to achieve high-grade steam in the
turbine. A Venturi meter is also needed for the accurate cal-
ibration of the turbine steam flow rate [13].
The mechanism of conversion of energy in the dry-steam
power plant process is described in Fig. 1.5. Both single-
flash and dry-steam (geothermal fluid) processes share
10 PART I Basics of geothermal power plants
similar features of the whole power generation cycle, from
the production wells to the production turbine [15]. For both
smaller or larger units of single flow or double flow, a single
pressure is performed by the blading turbine of impulse-
reaction. Based on the graphs, Fig. 1.1 (single flash) shares
the same similarity with Fig. 1.5 with a particulate remover
rather than a cyclone separator.
Fig. 1.6 is the T-s thermodynamic state of the dry-steam
system. At state 1, saturated steam or lightly superheated
steam is generated in the production wells. The expansion
of the turbine occurs between states 1 and 2 while the
cooling process is attained between states 2 and 3, where
an emission of heat via the condenser occurs. The single-
flash geothermal power plant system is equivalent to the
thermodynamic study [18]. Table 1.4 shows the equations
in analyzing the dry-steam power plants. In terms of impacts
on the environment, the single-flash geothermal power plant
process has a lower environmental impact than flashed
power plants, as the system does not use mineral-laden
brine [15].
FIG. 1.6 Temperature-entropy (T-s) process diagram for a dry-steam
power plant with saturated steam at the turbine inlet [15, 18].
TABLE 1.4 Thermodynamic equations in the dry-steam
process for turbine expansion process [15].
Equation Equation number
wt ¼ h1  h2 (1.33)

t ¼ hh11h
h2
2s
(1.34)
W_ t ¼ m_ s wt ¼ m_ s ðh1  h2 Þ (1.35)
W_ e ¼
g W_ t (1.36)
1.2.4 Binary-organic Rankine cycle and
Kalina cycle power plants
The binary geothermal power plant (B-GPP) generates elec-
trical energy from a secondary separated process. Pre-
heating of the working fluid is involved and heat is lost
upon contacting the geothermal fluid [10]. Geothermal
resources with a temperature range of 20–150°C [25] or
85–170°C [27] are well suited for binary configurations
[25]. A higher temperature range provide thermal stability
of the working fluid while the lower temperatures are more
feasible in terms of technoeconomic and financial factors.
Further, the impacts of corrosion and scaling are not
apparent at high temperature, as there is no contact between
the power generation equipment and the geofluid. Under a
conventional Rankine cycle, there is the functionality of the
secondary fluid (working fluid) in the binary system [28],
and the binary cycle is identified as the Organic Rankine
Cycle (ORC) due to the organic nature of the working fluid.
Binary power plants are versatile and the functionality of
the power plant is decided by the secondary cycle. Different
types of configurations of binary power plants are in oper-
ation, including B-GPP using an ORC with an internal heat
exchanger (IHE), B-GPP with a regenerative ORC, and
B-GPP with a regenerative ORC using IHE [29]. In 1982,
Kalina patented a variation in B-GPP [30]. The working
fluid used in the Kalina cycle consists of water and ammonia
and can be used in different compositions to suit various
configurations [31]. A thermal efficiency of 30%–40% is
achievable and is considered more efficient than that of
an ordinary B-GPP [28].
A closed loop of a thermodynamic Rankine Cycle used
for the energy conversion system of a basic binary geo-
thermal power plant is shown in Fig. 1.7. Harvesting the
geothermal fluid via the production wells (PW) and then
transporting it through various primary cycle components
necessitates that pumping systems are deployed. The
scouring and erosion of pipes and tubes can be prevented
by extracting sand from the geofluid by employing sand
removers (SR). Finally, an evaporator (E) and a preheater
(pH) are used for continuous fluid flow while the geo-
thermal fluid is reinjected into the reservoir near the
injection well (IW) by using an injection pump (IP).
Regarding the working cycle, two heating-boiling pro-
cedures are included in the working fluid. The PH is the
location of the boiling point of the working fluid. Upon
contact of PH with E, the working fluid becomes a saturated
vapor. This results in the expansion and condensation of the
working fluid in the turbine. The working fluid is then
returned to the evaporator, thereby concluding the loop
process and beginning the process again [31]. To prevent
steam eruption and calcite scaling within the pipes, moni-
toring the geothermal fluid above the flash pressure point
is necessary [13]. Thus, the low-temperature geothermal
 Various cycle configurations for geothermal power plants Chapter 1 11

FIG. 1.7 Basic binary geothermal power plant [17, 18].

resources are enabled by this binary-type energy conversion emergence of the working fluid as saturated vapor initiates
setup and by relying upon specialized highlights to attain the process repeatedly [14, 15].
amazingly high plant performances [32]. Regarding the condenser, the turbine, and the feed
Fig. 1.8 presents the pressure-enthalpy of a binary geo- pump, the flash and dry-steam plants share similar
thermal power plant. At state 1, the working fluid at the sat-
urated vapor point accesses the turbine and facilitated the
expansion and production of work, and this marks the
beginning of the thermodynamic process. Based on the
work produced, electrical energy is generated by the gen-
erator. At state 2, after the expansion process of the turbine,
the temperature and pressure of the saturated vapor reduce.
At state 3, a temperature reduction occurs as the working
steam-fluid enters the condenser, and this eventually culmi-
nates into fluid condensation. The application of cooled
water from the air-cooled tower initiates the cooling process
of the working fluid between states 3 and 4. The transfor-
mation of the working fluid state into a saturated liquid is
achieved by this cooling phase. At states 5 and 6, the
working saturated liquid-fluid is pumped back to the pre- FIG. 1.8 Pressure-enthalpy diagram of a binary geothermal power plant
heater and evaporator, respectively. At state 1, the [15].
12 PART I Basics of geothermal power plants

The analysis of geothermal fluid and the working fluid

TABLE 1.5 Thermodynamic equations for binary evaporation heat transfer rate is shown in Eq. (1.46). The
geothermal power plants [15]. known brine inlet temperature is represented as Ta; Tb is
Equation obtained from the pinch-point temperature (minimum tem-
State Equation number perature difference between two fluids supplied by the man-
ufacturer) and the known T5. Lastly, Eqs. (1.48)–(1.50) give
Turbine w1 ¼ h1  h2 (1.37)
the performance assessment parameters of the cycle. Based
expansion
process
t ¼ hh11h
h2 (1.38) on the input of thermal power (Q_ PH=E ) and the thermal
power rejected (Q_ c ), Eq. (1.48) is the presentation of the
2s

W_ t ¼ m_ wf wt ¼ m_ wf
t ðh1  h2s Þ (1.39)

thermal efficiency of the entire cycle (
th) [15, 19].
W_ e ¼
g W_ t (1.40) During the design process of a B-GPP, choosing the
working fluid is critical and entails considering the geofluid
Condensing Q_ c ¼ m_ wf ðh2  h3 Þ (1.41)
process
and working fluid thermodynamics characteristics as well as
safety, health, and the effect on the environment [15]. The
Feed pump W_ p ¼ m_ wf ðh4  h3 Þ (1.42) economy and the efficiency of B-GPP are described by the
Heat m_ b ðha  hc Þ ¼ m_ wf ðh1  h4 Þ (1.43) working fluid adoption [33]. Table 1.6 shows different
exchange working fluids and explicitly explains how working fluid
PH: m_ b c b ðTa  Tc Þ ¼ m_ wf ðh5  h4 Þ (1.44)
process at E critical temperatures (CT) and critical pressures (CP) are
and PH E: m_ b c b ðTa  Tc Þ ¼ m_ wf ðh1  h5 Þ (1.45) extremely lower in contrast to water. Different contem-
Q_ E ¼ m_ b c b ðTa  Tb Þ ¼ (1.46) porary binary technologies have emerged, promoting
m_ wf ðh1  h5 Þ advancement at higher performances via the flexible
adoption of a secondary cycle in B-GPP [24]. Studies by
DiPippo [15] and Valdimarsson [34] describe various other
Q_ PH ¼ m_ b c b ðTb  Tc Þ ¼ (1.47) binary configurations, including the dual-pressure binary
m_ wf ðh5  h4 Þ cycle, the dual-fluid binary cycle, the Kalina binary cycles,
and regenerative ORC.
To adopt ORC-GPP, different methods have been inves-
_ tigated regarding working fluid. A work by Quoilin [35] put

th ≡ QW
_
net (1.48)
PH=E
forward an approach for the selection of the working fluid
W_ net ¼ Q_ PH=E  Q_ c ; (1.49) and an expansion process in the same system. For any
Q_ PH=E ¼ Q_ E + Q_ PH ORC process, the working fluid and expansion mechanism
are adopted by the application of this method. Mikielewicz

th ¼ 1  hh21 h3
h4
(1.50)
and Mikielewicz [25] studied 20 working fluids for an ORC
and concluded that R123 and R141b possess the most suit-
ability for small-scale operations. Regarding the adoption of
the best applicable working fluid for an ORC, extensive
thermodynamic analyses. The equation for the analysis of a
binary geothermal power plant is captured in Table 1.5. The
turbine expansion process work generated is computed in
TABLE 1.6 Working fluids commonly used in binary
Eq. (1.37) while the isentropic turbine efficiency (
t) is
geothermal plants [15].
described in Eq. (1.38). Similarly, in Eqs. (1.39), (1.40),
the power of the turbine (W_ t ) as well as the power of the gen- CT (° PC PS @
erator (W_ e ) are evaluated as m_ wf connotes the mass flow rate Fluid Formula C) (MPa) 300 k MPa
of the working fluid and
g is the efficiency of the generator. Propane C3H8 96.9 4.24 0.9935
Q_ c is the description of the working fluid heat discarded due
to cooling during the condensation process. Eq. (1.42) pre- i-Butane i-C4H10 135.9 3.69 0.3727
sents the power transferred to the working fluid from the n-Butane C4H10 150.8 3.72 0.2559
feed pump (W_ p ). A steady flow, well-insulated PH and E i-Pentane i-C5H12 187.8 3.41 0.0975
as well as insignificant potential and kinetic energy are
the three propositions useful in analyzing the heat exchange n-Pentane C5H12 193.9 3.24 0.0738
process [15]. Eq. (1.43) is administered to the thermody- Ammonia NH3 133.6 11.63 1.061
namic system where a symbolizes the geothermal fluid inlet Water H2O 374.1 22.09 0.003536
while b represents the geothermal fluid after E and c
after PH.
 Various cycle configurations for geothermal power plants Chapter 1
indicators are provided in [35], namely thermodynamic per-
formance, isentropic saturation vapor curve, high vapor
density, low viscosity, high conductivity, evaporating
pressure, condensing gauge pressure, high-temperature sta-
bility, melting point, low ozone-depleting potential, low
greenhouse warming potential, availability, and low cost.
Astolfi [36] conducted a comprehensive study of binary
ORC power plants focusing on harvesting low-medium
temperature geothermal sources [37]. The above authors
examined 54 working fluids in six dissimilar cycle config-
urations and concluded that the optimal fluid is decafluoro-
butane at a low temperature of 120°C while at a higher
temperature of 180°C, R236ea has been the optimum fluid.
1.2.5 Advanced geothermal energy
conversion systems—Hybrid configurations
Concerning configurations of geothermal energy con-
version processes, three innovative technologies were sug-
gested: hybrid single-flash and double-flash systems, hybrid
flash-binary systems, and hybrid fossil-geothermal systems
[15]. Also, the amalgamation of geothermal technologies
with biomass, waste-to-energy systems, fuel cells, and solar
thermal systems is attracting significant attention [12, 38].
Thain and DiPippo [12] also stated the principal signifi-
cance of hybrid geothermal as other clean energy technol-
ogies under the following factors: impacts on the
environment, electrical energy cost, exergy, plant perfor-
mances, the performance of turbo-machinery, the viability
of the technoeconomic aspects, and the investment risk.
With respect to the binary power plant’s environmental
impact, the geothermal fluid is evacuated and returned to
the reservoir. There is no chemical or physical interaction
of the working fluid with the environment. The environ-
mental impact is the only thermal pollution that occurs as
a result of heat rejection along the cycle, and this is appli-
cable for direct heating purposes [20].
The attention of many studies focuses on the hybrid con-
figuration of various thermal and nonthermal clean energies
with geothermal resources [12]; nevertheless, hybrid
geothermal-fossil fuel systems have been in existence
[39]. The current interest of the research community is
the study of hybrid solar and geothermal energy configura-
tions for power plants [26, 29]. Jiang [26] conducted ther-
modynamic research for a hybrid solar-enhanced
geothermal system power plant, where the working fluid
used was CO2 in a supercritical CO2 Brayton cycle. Based
on their conclusion, the hybrid system has higher efficiency
compared to the aggregate of the two independent off-grid
systems. Supplementary electricity was produced during
peak demand hours due to the increased capacity driven
by the solar system, even as the geothermal cycle supports
based-load electricity. Cardemil [29] analyzed the solar-
13
concentrating parabolic collector hybridized to a single-
and double-flash geothermal power plant for various
geothermal reservoir situations. Based on their findings,
the hybrid single-flash configuration generates an increment
of 20% extra power output, and the quantity of the geo-
thermal fluid deployed from reservoirs in the hybrid
double-flash configuration dropped by 19%. Ayub and
Mitsos [38] integrated two existing simulations, an ORC
geothermal model and a low-temperature solar technology,
and the results showed how the hybrid system’s levelized
energy cost was lowered by 2% while the ORC geothermal
configuration’s levelized energy cost was reduced by 8%.
Zhou [39] investigated hybrid geothermal energy
systems. The result of the solar-geothermal viability inves-
tigation indicates an increment in the efficiency of the net
electrical output of the power plant by 12.7% as well as
an increment in the performance of the thermal plant by
7.5%. A related study in [40] showed the possibility of min-
imizing the cost of electrical energy generation by 20% via
the deployment of a solar-geothermal power plant compared
to using a standalone enhanced geothermal system. For a
subcritical and supercritical ORC solar-geothermal plant,
the yearly electricity production increases by 15% and
19% with the exergy of the solar fraction above 66%
[39]. Recently, a novel solar-geothermal hybrid power plant
was proposed based on the hybridization of an existing geo-
thermal binary cycle with a solar-powered steam-Rankine
topping cycle [41]. This hybridization can produce approx-
imately 60% more electricity per day in hot seasons,
decreasing the use of geothermal resources by 17% per year.
Hybrid geothermal-fossil fuel power plant configura-
tions provide substitutes to minimize the use of fossil fuels
and greenhouse gas emissions for low-enthalpy geothermal
resources. Zhou [39] examined a 500 MW hybrid
geothermal-coal configuration with a 210°C reservoir tem-
perature and a 400 kg/s brine flow rate, and he showed that
0.3 million tonnes of coal per year could be saved and
approximately 0.72 million tonnes of GHE per year could
be reduced [27]. In addition, in comparison with the stan-
dalone geothermal power plant, electrical energy can be
reduced by between 33% and 87%; also, in comparison with
a sole coal-fired power plant, electricity production can be
increased by approximately 19% [39].
Power generation also depends on the potential of oil
and gas fields. In a study, 349 abandoned onshore oil and
gas wells were investigated by Reyes [42], and it was con-
cluded that 1.7  109 kWh could be integrated into the elec-
tricity network of New Zealand. Likewise, a recent work in
[30] investigated three gas reserves in Croatia, and the
results showed the possibility of the economic viability of
the unexploited gas fields. A study by Davis and Michae-
lides [43] showed that South Texas untapped oil wells have
the potential to drive about 3 MW of electrical energy.
Similar studies can be found in the literature [44].
14 PART I Basics of geothermal power plants
Few studies have focused on the geothermal and biomass
power plant hybrid systems. In order to achieve a higher
power output, Thain and DiPippo [12] examined the hybrid
system of a geothermal-biomass power plant. The authors’
findings showed an increase in net power by 32% in contrast
with the standalone power plants. Similarly, Moret [45] pre-
sented the findings of a study on geothermal biomass.
Overall, the deployment of geothermal heat to advance the
biomass conversion system performances is proven by inno-
vative hybrid geothermal-biomass systems that indicate pos-
itive synergies. A recent study also proposed a novel
configuration of a hybrid binary geothermal-biomass power
plant [46]. This proposed configuration increased the temper-
ature of the geothermal fluid by 28%, minimizing the oper-
ational cost associated with the biomass.
1.3 Closing remarks
This study reveals other measures of minimizing global
fossil fuel consumption and its environmental effects by
using a geothermal energy system in a range of power plant
configurations. An assessment study by Stefansson [47]
shows that a geothermal potential lower limit is expected
to generate 1.5 TW of electricity from the global geo-
thermal resource. Further, the author discovered that
around 68% of the aggregate geothermal resources have
temperatures below 130°C (mainly for direct heat uses),
and the extra resources are temperatures above 130°C
(appropriate for power generation). The application of
low-temperature geothermal resources might be achieved
by using Binary Organic Rankine Cycle power plants. In
addition, studying a hybrid geothermal-biomass configu-
ration is expedient despite the in depth research on hybrid
geothermal-solar thermal configurations. The increase of
energy output, the thermal performance, and the increase
of the geothermal reservoir lifespan are features of both
solar and biomass. In contrast, favorable opportunities
for increasing geothermal project income are attained by
the direct applications of geothermal heat. The application
of numerous direct uses is achievable subject to the geo-
graphic zone. The applications of the geoheat contribute
to increasing the living conditions of the regions situated
at the geothermal resource due to the contribution of the
cascade configurations (for example) to maximize the
use of geoheat. Cascade applications allow the use of dif-
ferent temperatures of the same geothermal fluid in staging
and successive applications in a sequence that require
lower temperatures downstream. Geothermal hybrid con-
figurations along with direct uses (heat, air conditioning,
refrigeration, drying, evaporation, and district heating,
among others)—cascade applications—are some of the
poly-generation hybrid configurations identifiable for
future research opportunities.
Acknowledgments
Diego Moya has been funded by the Ecuadorian Secretariat for Higher
Education, Science, Technology, and Innovation (SENESCYT),
Award No. CZ03-35-2017; The Technical University of Ambato
(UTA), Award No. 1895-CU-P-2017 (Resolución HCU); and sup-
ported by The Science and Solutions for a Changing Planet Doctoral
Training Partnership, Grantham Institute, at Imperial College London.
The Institute for Applied Sustainability Research (IIASUR) supports
international research on global sustainability applied to the Global
South. We acknowledge the important comments and suggestions
made by anonymous reviewers to improve the quality, clarity, and
strictness of this article. Andrea Morales and Rafaela Moya are highly
appreciated for their support during the development of the
manuscript.
REFERENCES
[1] Christensen JL, Hain DS. Knowing where to go: the knowledge foun-
dation for investments in renewable energy. Energy Res Soc Sci
2017;25:124–33.
[2] Shortall R, Davidsdottir B, Axelsson G. Geothermal energy for sus-
tainable development: a review of sustainability impacts and
assessment frameworks. Renew Sust Energ Rev 2015;44:391–406.
[3] Budisulistyo D, Krumdieck S. Thermodynamic and economic
analysis for the pre-feasibility study of a binary geothermal power
plant. Energy Convers Manag 2015;103:639–49.
[4] DiPippo R. Geothermal power plants: evolution and performance
assessments. Geothermics 2015;53:291–307.
[5] Axelsson G, Stefánsson V, Xu Y. Sustainable management of geo-
thermal resources. In: Proceedings of the international geothermal
conference; 2003.
[6] Chen J, Jiang F. Designing multi-well layout for enhanced geothermal
system to better exploit hot dry rock geothermal energy. Renew
Energy 2015;74:37–48.
[7] Bertani R. Geothermal power generation in the world 2010–2014
update report. Geothermics 2016;60:31–43.
[8] Eslami-Nejad P, Ouzzane M, Aidoun Z. Modeling of a two-phase
CO2-filled vertical borehole for geothermal heat pump applications.
Appl Energy 2014;114:611–20.
[9] Zarrouk SJ, Purnanto MH. Geothermal steam-water separators:
design overview. Geothermics 2015;53:236–54.
[10] Braun GW, McCluer PH. Geothermal power generation in United
States. Proc IEEE 1993;81(3):434–48.
[11] Kipsang C. Cost model for geothermal wells. vol. 11. Reykjavik,
Icelan: United Nations University; 2014. Geothermal training pro-
gramme reports 2013.
[12] Thain I, DiPippo R. Hybrid geothermal-biomass power plants: appli-
cations, designs and performance analysis. In: Proceedings of the
world geothermal congress 2015; 2015. [cited 2017 February 2];
Available from: http://events.bioenergy.org.nz/documents/events/
Thain-DiPippo-WGC2015-Geothermal-Biomass-Hybrid-Power-
Plant-FINAL-VERSION.pdf.
[13] Bertani R. Geothermal power Generation in the world 2010–2014,
update report. In: Proceedings of the world geothermal congress
2015. International Geothermal Association; 2015.
[14] Valdimarsson P. Geothermal power plant cycles and main compo-
nents. In: Presented at “short course on geothermal drilling, resource
 Various cycle configurations for geothermal power plants Chapter 1
development and power plants” organized by UNU-GTP and LaGeo,
in Santa Tecla, El Salvador; 2011.
[15] DiPippo R. Geothermal power plants: Principles, applications, case
studies and environmental impact. 3rd ed. Butterworth-Heinemann;
2012.
[16] Zarrouk SJ, Moon H. Efficiency of geothermal power plants: a
worldwide review. Geothermics 2014;51:142–53.
[17] SmartDraw. Engineering library. San Diego, CA: Smart Draw
Software LLC; 2015.
[18] Chamorro C, et al. World geothermal power production status:
energy, environmental and economic study of high enthalpy technol-
ogies. Energy 2012;42(1):10–8.
[19] Çengel YA, Boles MA. Thermodynamics: An engineering approach.
New York: McGraw-Hill; 2015.
[20] Bayer P, et al. Review on life cycle environmental effects of geo-
thermal power generation. Renew Sust Energ Rev 2013;26:446–63.
[21] Aikawa K, Soda M. Advanced design in Hatchobaru geothermal
power station. In: Proceedings second UN symposium development
and use of geothermal resources. Washington, DC: US Government
Printing Office; 1976.
[22] DiPippo R. Geothermal energy electricity generation and environ-
mental impact. Energy Policy 1991;19(8):798–807.
[23] Yildirim N. Modelling, simulation and optimization of flashed-steam
geothermal power plants from the point of view of non-condensable
gas removal systems. In: Graduate School of Engineering and Sci-
_
ences of. Turkey: Izmir Institute of Technology; 2010. p. 178.
[24] Valdimarsson P. New development in the ORC technology; 2014.
p. 1–10. [cited 2015 14 May]; Available from: http://www.os.is/
gogn/unu-gtp-sc/UNU-GTP-SC-18-18.pdf.
[25] Mikielewicz D, Mikielewicz J. A thermodynamic criterion for
selection of working fluid for subcritical and supercritical domestic
micro CHP. Appl Therm Eng 2010;30(16):2357–62.
[26] Jiang P-X. Thermodynamic analysis of a solar–enhanced geothermal
hybrid power plant using CO2 as working fluid. Appl Therm Eng
2017;116:463–72.
[27] Zhou C, Doroodchi E, Moghtaderi B. Assessment of geothermal
assisted coal-fired power generation using an Australian case study.
Energy Convers Manag 2014;82:283–300.
[28] Kopunicová M. Feasibility study of binary geothermal power plants in
Eastern Slovakia, analysis of ORC and kalina power plants. In: The
School for Renewable Energy Science. University of Iceland & the
University of Akureyri; 2008.
[29] Cardemil JM. Thermodynamic evaluation of solar-geothermal hybrid
power plants in northern Chile. Energy Convers Manag
2016;123:348–61.
[30] Kurevija T, Vulin D. High enthalpy geothermal potential of the deep
gas fields in Central Drava Basin, Croatia. Water Resour Manag
2011;25(12):3041–52.
15
[31] Zhang X, He M, Zhang Y. A review of research on the Kalina cycle.
Renew Sust Energ Rev 2012;16(7):5309–18.
[32] DiPippo R. Second law assessment of binary plants generating power
from low-temperature geothermal fluids. Geothermics 2004;33
(5):565–86.
[33] Bao J, Zhao L. A review of working fluid and expander selections for
organic Rankine cycle. Renew Sust Energ Rev 2013;24:325–42.
[34] Valdimarsson P. Short course: electricity generation from low tem-
perature geothermal resources. In: Presented at ’WGC2015’ World
geothermal congress 2015, Melbourne, Australia; 2015.
[35] Quoilin S. Working fluid selection and operating maps for organic
Rankine cycle expansion machines. In: Proceedings of the 21st inter-
national compressor conference at Purdue; 2012.
[36] Astolfi M. Binary ORC (organic Rankine cycles) power plants for the
exploitation of medium–low temperature geothermal sources—part
A: thermodynamic optimization. Energy 2014;66:423–34.
[37] Astolfi M, et al. Binary ORC (organic Rankine cycles) power plants
for the exploitation of medium–low temperature geothermal
sources—part B: techno-economic optimization. Energy
2014;66:435–46.
[38] Ayub M, Mitsos A, Ghasemi H. Thermo-economic analysis of a
hybrid solar-binary geothermal power plant. Energy
2015;87:326–35.
[39] Zhou C. A fundamental study on hybrid geothermal energy systemsj
NOVA. The University of Newcastle’s Digital Repository, in School
of Engineering, Chemical Engineering. Australia: The University of
Newcastle; 2014.
[40] Zhou C, Doroodchi E, Moghtaderi B. An in-depth assessment of
hybrid solar–geothermal power generation. Energy Convers Manag
2013;74:88–101.
[41] Bonyadi N, Johnson E, Baker D. Technoeconomic and exergy
analysis of a solar geothermal hybrid electric power plant using a
novel combined cycle. Energy Convers Manag 2018;156:542–54.
[42] Reyes AG. Abandoned oil and gas wells: A reconnaissance study of
an unconventional geothermal resource. GNS Science; 2007.
[43] Davis AP, Michaelides EE. Geothermal power production from aban-
doned oil wells. Energy 2009;34(7):866–72.
[44] Liu J, et al. Feasibility of combination of CO2 geological storage with
geothermal-type water-soluble gas recovery in Yinggehai Basin,
China. Int J Greenhouse Gas Control 2016;45:139–49.
[45] Moret S. Integration of deep geothermal energy and woody biomass
conversion pathways in urban systems. Energy Convers Manag
2016;129:305–18.
[46] Briola S, Gabbrielli R, Bischi A. Off-design performance analysis of a
novel hybrid binary geothermal-biomass power plant in extreme envi-
ronmental conditions. Energy Convers Manag 2019;195:210–25.
[47] Stefansson V. World geothermal assessment. In: Proceedings of the
world geothermal congress; 2005.
Chapter 2
Global value chain and manufacturing
analysis on geothermal power plant
turbines
Sertaҫ Akar, Chad Augustine, and Parthiv Kurup
National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), Golden, CO, United States
2.1 Global geothermal energy market
The global geothermal power market grew by 13% between
2015 and 2019, which increased the total installed geo-
thermal power capacity from 13.65 GWe in 2015 [1] to
15.41 GWe in 2019 [2]. The countries with the highest
geothermal installed capacity by the end of 2019 were the
United States, Indonesia, the Philippines, Turkey, New
Zealand, Mexico, Italy, Kenya, Iceland, and Japan
(Fig. 2.1). Between 2005 and 2015, 190 new geothermal
power plants were installed around the world, where 62%
were binary-cycle plants, 31% were flash-cycle plants,
and 7% were dry-steam plants [3].
The number of installed geothermal power plants is
expected to grow and reach about 18.4 GWe by 2021, based
on forecasts [1] and pipeline projects [4] (Fig. 2.2). This
could create a market demand for a diverse mix of geo-
thermal turbine types. Recently, it is unclear whether the
expected additional capacity increases and the demands
are enough to increase the manufacturing volume of both
binary-cycle and flash-cycle power plant turbines.
However, based on the information about proposed projects
and resource assessments, a significant annual power
capacity addition between 0.75 and 1 GWe can be expected
in the global market. It is very promising that this growth in
the geothermal market will allow standardization in turbine
design, rather than the customized turbines that are being
manufactured today. This increase will create a modularity
in the geothermal market, which will be adapted to the geo-
graphic diversity of projects to offer an economy of scale.
2.1.1 Global value chain and trade flow
Geothermal project developers customize the size of the
power plant to fit the resource being developed. Geothermal
power plant turbines are designed to optimize efficiency.
The best utilization of geothermal resources such as HX,
Thermodynamic Analysis and Optimization of Geothermal Power Plants. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-821037-6.00007-X
Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
WCCT, or ACC is then chosen to complement the turbine
size and design. As an example, the Salton Sea Unit 5 geo-
thermal steam turbine in Imperial Valley, Southern Cali-
fornia, is designed and optimized for 58.32 MWe [5].
Custom design turbines have relatively higher manufacturing
set-up costs, longer lead times, and higher capital costs than
the standard design turbines manufactured in larger volumes.
However, turbines produced in standard increments and in
larger manufacturing volumes could result in lower costs
per turbine.
The current manufacturing process for geothermal tur-
bines is made to order. In other words, every order is a
custom design based on geothermal fluid properties. The
challenges of geothermal fluid chemistry force designs to
use special corrosion-resistant metals that are more
expensive than standard metals used in fossil fuel-powered
turbines. Additionally, the high fixed capital costs of
resource development and low power purchase agreement
(PPA) prices lead developers to maximize resource utili-
zation by customizing their turbines. The customization
design factors result in greater manufacturing set-up costs,
extensive engineering, and a higher lead time (up to
18 months) from initial design to installation. In turn, these
factors may impact developers’ returns and decrease the
attractiveness of deploying geothermal energy.
There are two major geothermal turbine technologies:
flash cycle steam turbines and binary cycle turboexpanders.
The global steam turbine market is expected to increase
from $14.5 billion in 2013 to $17.4 billion by 2020, with
an annual growth rate of 2.6% over this period [6].
However, the market share of geothermal power plants
constitutes a small portion of the global steam turbine
market. Annual global orders for steam turbines are broadly
stable at around 100 GW, and geothermal steam turbines
constitute only 1%–2% of the total annual demand [6].
Usually, large coal-fired, natural gas-fired, and nuclear
power plants drive the market. Major manufacturing
17
18 PART I Basics of geothermal power plants

FIG. 2.1 Global geothermal installed capacity for the top 10 countries by the end of 2019. (Data Source: Think GeoEnergy. The Top 10 Geothermal
Countries 2019—based on installed generation capacity (MWe). Think GeoEnergy - Geothermal Energy News, Jan. 27, 2020. http://www.thinkgeoenergy.
com/the-top-10-geothermal-countries-2019-based-on-installed-generation-capacity-mwe/ (Accessed 28 January 2020).)

20,000

Turboexpander (Binary) MW
Steam Turbine (Flash + Dry Steam) MW
Total installed Capacity (MWe)

15,000

10,000

5,000

0
2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021P
FIG. 2.2 Historical, current, and projected global installations of geothermal power plant turbines. P, projection. (Data displayed to represent the median
figures that have been compiled from GEA. Annual U.S. & global geothermal power production report. Geothermal Energy Agency; 2016, Bertani R.
Geothermal power generation in the world 2010–2014 update report. Geothermics 2016; 60:31–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geothermics.2015.
11.003, BNEF. Geothermal market outlook report. Bloomberg New Energy Finance; 2016.)

locations for geothermal steam turbines are Japan, Italy, the
United States, France, Mexico, Russia, India, and China,
where Japan accounted for 82% of the global manufacturing
market between 2005 and 2015 [1, 4, 7–10].
The second type of turbine technology is turboex-
panders, which are mostly utilized in organic Rankine
cycle (ORC) binary cycle geothermal plants. Apart from
geothermal energy applications, the ORC technology
has also been used for other commercial applications, such
as waste heat recovery (WHR), bioenergy production
(from biogas and landfill gas), and concentrating solar
power (CSP), over the last decade. While bioenergy has
the greatest number of ORCs installed (for WHR with
smaller installed sizes), geothermal power plants con-
tributed 71% of all ORC installed capacity in the world
between 2005 and 2016 (Fig. 2.3), as bioenergy and
WHR followed with 15% and 13.7%, respectively [11].
The main manufacturing locations for binary cycle tur-
boexpanders are Israel, the United States, Italy, and
Germany; Israel accounts for 74% of the geothermal
 Global value chain and manufacturing analysis Chapter 2
FIG. 2.3 Overview of global ORC turboexpander market 2005 and 2016 (lab-scale prototypes and installed capacity lower than 50-kilowatt electric
(kWe) have not been included). (Data modified from Tartiere T. World overview of the organic Rankine cycle technology. 2016. https://orc-world-
map.org/index.html (Accessed 22 January 2020).)
binary cycle turboexpander manufacturing market. Italian
turboexpander manufacturers have increased their market
share significantly in the last couple of years [1, 4, 7–10].
The global trade flow of both geothermal steam turbines
and ORC turboexpanders between 2005 and 2015 can be
seen in Fig. 2.4.
The United States has the highest proven geothermal
resource capacity, and it is one of the major players in the
geothermal power plant turbines and technologies market.
The current installed geothermal capacity of the United
States is 3.68 GWe, with an additional 23 MW just added
before the end of 2019. The geothermal installed capacity
has been growing at a rate of about 2% per year and is pro-
jected to exceed 3.9 GWe by 2022 [12]. A comprehensive
study of the US geothermal market by the National
Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) suggests that
additional power plants may come online in the next 5 years
if existing barriers can be removed to expedite project
development [13].
Indonesia has the second-highest installed geothermal
capacity, and it also has a fast-growing demand for elec-
tricity. Indonesia’s current installed geothermal power
capacity is 2.13 GWe, and the government has ambitious
plans for 6.50 MWe of geothermal development by 2025
[14]. Indonesia also has a high feed-in-tariff (FIT) policy,
which ranges from 12.6 to 26.2 ¢/kWh [14].
19
Turkey has been the fastest-growing market since the
last decade. The total installed geothermal power capacity
is 1.53 GWe as of 2019 and it has a capacity target of
2.0 GWe, including projects in the pipeline [15]. Turkey
implemented a renewable energy law in 2010 to reach its
target for increasing the share of renewables up to 30% of
the energy mix by 2023 [16]. The Turkish FIT for geo-
thermal power plants is 10.5 ¢/kWh. The FIT applies for
10 years of power generation, and producers also benefit
from an 85% discount on transmission costs for the 10 years
[16]. The 2010 Renewable Energy Law also includes bonus
payments for hardware components made in Turkey to
support and boost the national manufacturing sector. Com-
panies that rely on locally produced equipment or compo-
nents receive a bonus FIT, which is fixed at 1.3 ¢/kWh
for turbines, 0.7 ¢/kWh for generators, and 0.7 ¢/kWh for
pumps and compressors [16] The FIT has increased the
interest of developers and manufacturers in domestic
manufacturing. The total FIT for geothermal could reach
13.2 ¢/kWh with 10 years of a purchasing guarantee. The
FIT is applied to all geothermal power plants that come
online through the end of 2020.
Another important market is Kenya, which reached
0.86 GWe of installed geothermal power capacity in 2019
by adding 193 MWe of extra capacity [2]. Kenya is currently
in a very ambitious phase of development with an aggressive
FIG. 2.4 Global trade flow map of geothermal turbines between 2005 and 2015. (Data Source: NREL industry outreach, GEA. Annual U.S. & global geothermal power production report. Geothermal
Energy Agency; 2016, Bertani R. Geothermal power generation in the world 2010–2014 update report. Geothermics 2016; 60:31–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geothermics.2015.11.003, BNEF. Geo-
thermal market outlook report. Bloomberg New Energy Finance; 2016, BNEF. Q2 2013 geothermal market outlook report. Bloomberg New Energy Finance; 2013, BNEF. H2 2014 geothermal market
outlook report. Bloomberg New Energy Finance; 2014, BNEF. H1 2015 geothermal market outlook report. Bloomberg New Energy Finance; 2015, GEA. Annual U.S. & global geothermal power pro-
duction report. Geothermal Energy Agency; 2015, Graphic Credit: Billy Roberts (NREL).)
 Global value chain and manufacturing analysis Chapter 2
construction pipeline of new projects in several geothermal
resource areas. The total estimated resource potential of the
country is around 10GWe [1].
2.2 Manufacturing analysis
A bottom-up cost model includes a mapping of all compo-
nents that make up a system (i.e., labor, material, pro-
cesses, machining, and the balance of the system). The
bottom-up manufacturing cost model developed (and
highlighted next) for geothermal turbines considers the
materials, manufacturing steps, equipment, and assembly
of turbine subcomponents. The process flow diagram in
Fig. 2.5 highlights the raw materials, the required
manufacturing processes and equipment, and the utility
requirements that are inputs to the cost model. The raw
metals required for preprocessing are iron ore, carbon,
chromium, molybdenum, nickel, titanium, and aluminum
while the processed metals are stainless steel, Inconel
(nickel) alloys, and titanium alloys [17, 18]. In addition
to metals, epoxy-based refined plastics are used for insu-
lation and sealing purposes.
FIG. 2.5 Manufacturing process flow diagram for geothermal power plant turbines.
21
2.2.1 Methodology for manufacturing
analysis
2.2.1.1 Manufacturing process flow
The manufacturing cost model includes three main steps: (1)
Materials (used as raw and processed), (2) manufacturing (in-
house machining and outsourced parts), and (3) final
assembly. The final product could be either an ORC turboex-
pander or a geothermal steam turbine.
2.2.1.2 Materials
The most common corrosion-resistant materials used for
machining the impellers are titanium or stainless steel; the
shaft is produced from a stronger material such as a forged
nickel alloy or Inconel. Geothermal fluids contain dissolved
carbon dioxide (CO2), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), ammonia
(NH3), and chloride (Cl) ions that can cause corrosion of
metallic materials. The main corrosion problems are pit cor-
rosion, cracking corrosion, breaking with stressed cor-
rosion, breaking with sulfur stressed corrosion, corrosion
between the particles, and wearing corrosion [18].
22 PART I Basics of geothermal power plants
FIG. 2.6 World steel production, units are a million metric tons per year. (Data Source: World Steel information system Steel Dynamics. 2015
Annual report. Steel Dynamics Inc.; 2015. Available
AWSAccessKeyId¼1Y51NDPSZK99KT3F8VG2&Expires¼1580257699&Signature¼9zZjMvMMB3ob07MYrZq%2FbCQdvl4%3D
January 2020).)
Stainless steel material decreases the probability of
uniform corrosion formation in a geothermal fluid envi-
ronment. AISI 400 series stainless steels contain 12%–18%
chrome, which is more suitable for turbine blades. AISI
430 (Ferrite) and AISI 431 (Martensitic) stainless steels are
often used for valve and pump components in geothermal
systems. Stainless steel production is widespread throughout
the world (Fig. 2.6). Based on the World Steel Dynamics
2015 data, China, Japan, and the United States are the top
three countries in stainless steel production [19].
Titanium (Ti) and titanium alloys are more resistant to
corrosion. In addition, titanium is resistant to cavitation
and impact damage. Ti alloys are much more resistant to local
corrosion than pure titanium. Ti-code-7 (Ti-0.15 Pd), Ti
code-12 (Ti-0.3 Mo-0.8 Ni), and Ti-code-29 (Ti-6 Al-4 V-
0.1 Ru) show good corrosion resistance [20] when they are
compared based on cost and performance. The critical places
for using titanium alloys can be impellers, wellhead valves,
pressure gauges, pipes, and blow-out preventers.
The world’s titanium production is limited to certain
areas (Fig. 2.7). Based on data from the US Geological
Survey (USGS) Minerals Yearbook 2015, Canada, Australia,
from: https://s3.amazonaws.com/b2icontent.irpass.cc/2197/165986.pdf?
(Accessed 28
China, South Africa, Vietnam, the United States, Brazil,
India, Mozambique, Madagascar, Norway, Ukraine, Kenya,
Kazakhstan, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Sri Lanka are the main
countries for titanium production [21].
Inconel, a nickel (Ni) alloy, is another important
material for turbine manufacturing. There are various types
of Inconel available on the market, and the mineral content
defines the strength and corrosion resistance (Table 2.1).
For high-temperature geothermal systems, it is suitable to
use nickel, chromium, and molybdenum (Ni-Cr-Mo) alloys
as a material (Kaya and Hoşhan, 2005). Inconel-625 and
Hastelloy C-256 are especially strong in combatting cor-
rosion. Other nickel alloys that have iron elements can
also be used in some applications [20]. These alloys are
much stronger than stainless steel. Forged Inconel is mostly
used for turbine shafts because of its strength against
rotational force.
2.2.1.3 Machine inventory and factory model
The factory model includes the minimum workspace
required for the machines in addition to machine-related
 Global value chain and manufacturing analysis Chapter 2 23

FIG. 2.7 World titanium ore production, units are thousand metric tons per year. (Data Source: USGS. Minerals yearbook—Metals and minerals.
United States Geological Survey; 2015. Available from: https://www.usgs.gov/centers/nmic/minerals-yearbook-metals-and-minerals (Accessed 22
January 2020).)

TABLE 2.1 Inconel alloy element compositions by weight.

Elements by mass (%)

Inconel Nickel Chromium Iron Molybdenum Niobium Cobalt Magnesium Copper Aluminum Titanium
alloys (Ni) (Cr) (Fe) (Mo) (Nb) (Co) (Mn) (Cu) (Al) (Ti) Others
600 72.00 16.00 10.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.50

617 44.00 24.00 3.00 10.00 0.00 15.00 0.50 0.50 1.00 0.50 0.50

625 58.00 20.00 5.00 10.00 4.00 1.00 0.50 0.00 0.40 0.40 0.70

690 60.00 30.00 9.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.35 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.62

718 55.00 21.00 12.00 3.00 5.00 1.00 0.30 1.00 1.00 0.20 0.50

X-750 70.00 14.00 9.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.50 2.50 0.50

labor requirements. The machine inventory includes heavy
machining and precise computer numerical control (CNC)
machining processes [22] (Table 2.2). Heavy machining
includes electric arc furnace casting and forging operations.
CNC machining includes a five-axis CNC machine, a three-
axis CNC machine, a CNC horizontal lathe, and a CNC
grinding machine. The quality control (QC) pieces are a
coordinate measuring machine (CMM) and overspeed
testing and dynamic balancing (OSTB). The proposed
manufacturing model has not only been tested for geo-
thermal turbines, but has also been validated against other
industries such as solar PV [23, 24].
One other important parameter in a factory model is the
annual maximum allowable working hours (MAWH).
MAWH can be defined by the annual total labor hours
and number of shifts as well as production-up times. As
an example, 250 annual labor days and 8 working hours with
2 shifts per day with 85% production-up time, make a total
of 3400 MAWH. The machining rate for each machine is
based on the MAWH and operation hours with and without
set-up time for the factory model. In a dedicated factory
model, machines are utilized as much as possible across
several different projects to fulfill the MAWH because
the capital cost associated with the facilities and equipment
is applied over the total time of MAWH. However, in a
shared factory model, the capital cost associated with
buildings, facilities, space, and the depreciation of machines
is proportionally distributed over the time when the machine
is utilized for manufacturing the specific turbine parts. The
amount of required machinery is selected based on total
operational hours for different volumes of manufacturing
and MAWH. With up to 100 units per year of manufacturing
volume, one of each machine would be enough to fulfill
the target manufacturing volume. For more than 100 units
per year, additional machines would be required
(Table 2.3). The manufacturing volume of 50 units per year
24 PART I Basics of geothermal power plants

calculated based on the average power consumption of each

TABLE 2.2 Machine inventory for the custom machine, operating for a given number of operational hours.
factory model. The storage and shipping costs of the turbine parts/compo-
Energy nents are not included in the factory model.
Footprint consumption
Machine type Price ($) (m2) (kW)
2.2.1.4 Machining cost analysis
Five axis CNC $150–$300 k 10–15 20–30
The machining costs of the key components of turboex-
machine
panders, including impellers and shafts, are calculated by
Three axis $100–$200 k 10–15 20–30 using design for manufacture and assembly (DFMA)
CNC machine
software. DFMA allows the user to produce a detailed pro-
CNC $60–$150 k 12–18 30–40 jected cost of the component based on the volume of
horizontal material needed, the machines and process steps, the
lathe
machine setup time, and tooling if needed [25]. Fig. 2.9
CNC grinding $80–$150 k 35–40 10–20 shows the representative material and machining cost esti-
machine mates of a typical impeller for both a custom design and
Casting $500 k–$1 M 1000 500 a standard design (at a volume of 10 units per year)
Forging $400–$500 k 1000 500
5 MWe turboexpander. Tooling investment considers tool
wear and lifetime, and it is calculated as an additional cost
Over speed $10–$20 k 10 5–7 element for processes that require part-specific dies and
testing and
balancing
tools. A custom design 5 MWe impeller could be
machine $4000/unit, compared to $1000/unit with the standard
(OSTB) design (Fig. 2.8). Assuming the same yield rate, the standard
CMM $8–$10 k 10 1–3
design impellers can lead to a cost savings of between 25%
dimensioning and 30% compared to a custom design (single unit) because
of the set-up times for machining the impeller. A similar
Assembly line $50–$300 k 50–60 5–10
approach is applied to other subcomponents of a turboex-
Data Source: NREL Industry outreach. pander such as shafts, nozzles, inlet guide lanes, disks,
and casings to calculate machining costs.

can be set as a threshold based on manufacturers’ annual

manufacturing capacities and project portfolio. Annual
straight-line depreciation is selected for capital costs asso-
ciated with machinery, as is handled in accounting proce-
dures. Facility cost is defined based on the minimum
required working area for each machine. Energy cost is
2.3 Definition of minimum sustainable price
The minimum sustainable price (MSP) is the minimum
price that a company would have to charge for a good or
service to cover all variable and fixed costs and make
enough profit to repay investors at their minimum required

TABLE 2.3 Number of required machines for different volumes of manufacturing at MAWH.

CNC
Five axis CNC Three axis CNC horizontal CNC grinding Assembly
#Units machine machine lathe machine CMM OSTB line
10 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
25 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
50 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
100 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
150 1 2 1 1 1 1 1
200 1 2 1 2 1 1 1

500 2 5 3 4 1 1 2
1000 3 9 5 7 1 2 3
 Global value chain and manufacturing analysis Chapter 2 25

Raw Material Purchased MaterialEstimated Volume Material Estimated Material Cost

Part Material Procurement Unit Price ($/kg)Unit Price ($/kg) (m3) Density (kg/m3) Weight (kg) ($)

Impeller Titanium Plate 22.82 39.04 0.037 4,500 167 6,500

Process Machine Manufacturing

Setup Machining Center Hole Drilling
Subtotal Cost/Unit
Part Machining Process Time/Unit Time/Unit Rate/Unit
Cost/Unit ($) ($)
(hours) (hours) ($/hour)
1 Unit (Custom Design)
Drilling 0.8 0.2 35 35 Blade Roughing
Highly flexible simultaneous
5-Axis CNC Roughing 25.0 5.0 35 1,055 5-axis roughing

5-Axis CNC Rest Milling 42.0 8.0 35 1,760

Impeller 4,000
5-Axis CNC Finishing 10.0 2.0 35 422
Hub Finishing
QC 2.5 0.5 27 80 Optimized tool paths for
finishing hubs
Balancing 20.0 4.0 25 648

10 Units (Standard Design)

Drilling 0.3 0.2 35 9 Rest Milling

Automate removal of
5-Axis CNC Roughing 2.5 5.0 35 264 remaining material

5-Axis CNC Rest Milling 4.2 8.0 35 440

Impeller 1,000
5-Axis CNC Finishing 1.0 2.0 35 105
Blade / Splitter Finishing
QC 0.3 0.5 27 20 Automate finishing of
blades and splitters
Balancing 2.0 4.0 25 162
FIG. 2.8 Representative material and machining cost estimates of a typical impeller for both a custom design and a standard design (at a volume of 10 units per
year) 5 MWe turboexpander.

rates of return [24]. The MSP is computed by setting the net
present value (NPV) of an investment equal to zero with the
internal rate of return (IRR) equal to the weighted average
cost of capital (WACC). The US capital assets pricing
model is used to derive these debt and equity ratios, and
to weight them by their relative contribution to the overall
capital structure of the firm to estimate WACC values [26].
The purpose of the discounted cash flow (DCF) is to
create a detailed financial model to provide the necessary
framework for deriving the MSP for each product in a
manufacturing facility. Within the DCF, there can be
several considerations for manufacturing, such as capital
costs, fixed operating costs (labor, depreciation, inflation,
taxes, insurance, and rent), typical sales, general and admin-
istrative (SG&A) expenses, typical design and engineering
(D&E) costs, and warranty coverage [24]. DCF model uses
a simple straight-line depreciation for expenditures such as
equipment and facilities, and the discount rate is calculated
from the required rate of return (ROR). A summary of the
financial input parameters required for DCF analysis can
be found in Table 2.4. The MSP is derived by an iterative
algorithm that runs until the NPV of the cash flow equals
the total initial capital expenditure.
2.4 Manufacturing analysis case studies
The manufacturing cost and MSP for three different scenarios
are calculated for three case studies, where each scenario had
five volumes of manufacturing (1, 5, 10, 25, and 50):
(1) 1 MWe ORC turboexpander.
(2) 5 MWe ORC turboexpander.
(3) 20 MWe steam turbine.
All three scenarios assume US production facilities and
costs. The generator is a separate piece and is not included
in the manufacturing cost analysis. Increasing volumes of
manufacturing effectively decreased the manufactured cost
per unit, as we spread the capital expenditures (CAPEX)
over more units. Machine set-up times and D&E costs are
the cost components that are most impacted by volume
manufacturing, as these are essentially one-time charges
that are not volume-dependent.
In Case 1, the results show that MSP decreases signifi-
cantly when the volume of manufacturing is increased from
1 unit (custom design) to 5 units (standard design). The MSP
of a single custom design 1 MWe turboexpander is found to
be 893 $/kW, whereas a standard design 1 MWe
26 PART I Basics of geothermal power plants
TABLE 2.4 Summary of input parameters for DCF analysis.
Inputs for DCF calculations
Inflation on cost of goods sold
(COGS)
Corporate interest rate
Initial loan (or bond) maturity
Corporate tax rate
Dividend payout rate
Cost of equity
Cash flow analysis period
Working capital collection
period
Calculated WACC
Working capital inventory
turnover
Working capital payable period
CAPEX Initial target capital
structure (% of debt)
Replacement equip. target
capital structure
Depreciable life for plant
Capital replacement loan
maturity
Equipment depreciation type
Tooling depreciation type
Building depreciation type
FIG. 2.9 Calculated MSP and manufacturing cost breakdown for a 1 MWe ORC turboexpander in different volumes of manufacturing in the
United States.
turboexpander has an MSP of 226 $/kW at a manufacturing
volume of five (Fig. 2.9). Effectively, a standard turboex-
Values Units pander design, even at low manufactured volumes, could
save approximately 75% of the turboexpander $/kW.
3 %
In Case 2, the results show that MSP decreases signifi-
cantly when the volume of manufacturing is increased from
3.3 % 1 unit (custom design) to 5 units (standard design). The MSP
10 Years of a single custom design 5 MWe turboexpander was found
to be 216 $/kW, whereas a standard design 1 MWe turboex-
30 %
pander has an MSP of 66 $/kW at a manufacturing volume
0 % of five (Fig. 2.10).
10.6 % In Case 3, a manufacturing volume of up to 5 units per
year is selected based on the annual demand for geothermal
20 Years
steam turbines and the manufacturing capacities. The MSP
10 Years of a single custom design 20 MWe geothermal steam turbine
is found to be 361 $/kW, whereas the MSP of a standard
5.3 % design 20 MWe steam turbine is calculated as 135 $/kW
4 Years at an annual production rate of 5 units per year
(Fig. 2.11). Effectively, a standard steam turbine design,
even at low manufactured volumes, could save approxi-
10 Years
mately 63% of the steam turbine $/kW.
64 % A comparison of the MSP analysis for all three cases can
be found in Table 2.5. The manufacturing cost of a custom
50 % design 5 MW ORC turboexpander is only $187,000 more
than that of a custom design 1 MW ORC turboexpander.
25 Years This shows that the size of the turbine does not have a sig-
nificant effect on the total cost of the turbine/turboexpander.
10 Years
However, if the unit costs per MW for both custom and
standard design cases are considered, the manufacturing
7 years N/A
cost savings are significant (667 $/kW for a 1 MW turboex-
straight-line
pander and 150 $/kW for a 5 MW turboexpander).
3 years N/A
straight-line
15 years N/A
2.4.1 Sensitivity analysis
straight-line Sensitivity analysis determines how the target manufacturing
cost model is affected based on changes in cost factor
 Global value chain and manufacturing analysis Chapter 2 27

FIG. 2.10 Calculated MSP and manufacturing cost breakdown for a 5 MWe ORC turboexpander in different volumes of manufacturing in the
United States.

FIG. 2.11 Calculated MSP and manufacturing cost breakdown for a 20 MWe geothermal steam turbine in different volumes of manufacturing in the
United States.

TABLE 2.5 Comparison of MSPs for standard and custom design turbines.
Custom design Standard design Standard design
MSP Single unit Volume of 5 units Volume of 50 units
1 MW turboexpander $893,000 893 $/kW 226,000 $ 226 $/kW $74,000 74 $/kW
5 MW turboexpander $1,080,000 216 $/kW 332,000 $ 66 $/kW $152,000 30 $/kW
20 MW steam turbine $6,350,000 361 $/kW 2,790,000 $ 135 $/kW N/A N/A

variables (input variables). The impact of each input on the
calculated MSP can be calculated by varying one input var-
iable while keeping the others constant. Each cost factor in
the overall cost model has a different weight based on the rel-
ative importance, and a change in one input variable would
thus have proportional effects relative to the weight on the
manufactured cost. For the sensitivity analysis, a custom
design single unit 5-MWe ORC turboexpander and a custom
design single unit 20-MWe steam turbine were evaluated
with respect to their standard design higher manufacturing
28 PART I Basics of geothermal power plants

volume alternatives. The manufacturing volume is set at
10 units per year for the ORC turboexpander and 5 units
per year for the steam turbine.
The D&E time for a custom design 5 MWe ORC tur-
boexpander is assumed to take 9 months of labor from
two full-time employees (FTEs). Thus, D&E is the most
important cost factor for a custom design unit due to the time
spent on a tailor-made design for each custom unit
(Fig. 2.12). Custom design turbine manufacturing has a
longer set-up time with respect to high volume standard
design turbines. The machining set-up time constitutes
51% of the total machining cost for a custom design unit.
This makes the manufacturing labor the second most
important cost factor in a custom design unit. Other
important cost factors are sales and general administration
(SG&A), equipment cost, energy cost, and material cost.
Their effect is less important on manufacturing costs for a
custom design unit. However, when the manufacturing
model has changed to a standard design at a volume of
10 units year, the material and the labor costs become the
dominant cost factors with shares of 46% and 31%, respec-
tively. On the other hand, D&E and SG&A costs become
less important. The cost drops by the cost factor are also
presented on cost waterfall charts (Fig. 2.13).

Design & Engineering

Labor

Selling, General & Administration

Materials

Capital

Energy

Outsourced Parts

Maintenance

–50000 –40000 –30000 –20000 –10000 0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000

Selling, General & Design &

Maintenance Outsourced Parts Energy Capital Materials Labor
Administration Engineering
25.00% $221 $1,288 $3,545 $11,602 $11,743 $16,646 $29,394 $39,658
–25.00% –$221 –$1,288 –$3,545 –$11,602 –$11,743 –$16,646 –$9,394 –$39,658

Design & Engineering

Labor

Selling, General & Administration

Materials

Capital

Energy

Outsourced Parts

Maintenance

–50000 –40000 –30000 –20000 –10000 0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000

Selling, General & Design &

Maintenance Outsourced Parts Energy Capital Materials Labor
Administration Engineering
25.00% $55 $1,213 $1,358 $2,900 $11,061 $1,665 $7,348 $3,966
–25.00% –$55 –$1,213 –$1,358 –$2,900 –$11,061 –$1,665 –$7,348 –$3,966

FIG. 2.12 Sensitivity analysis for 5 MWe turboexpander based on (A) Manufacturing volume of 1 unit per year (custom design) and (B) Manufacturing
volume of 10 units per year (standard design) in the United States.
 Global value chain and manufacturing analysis Chapter 2
FIG. 2.13 Manufacturing cost drop by cost factor for a standard design (10 units) 5 MWe ORC turboexpander.
The custom design 20 MWe steam turbine manufacturing
has high labor requirements during assembly. This makes
labor cost the most important cost factor for a custom design
unit (Fig. 2.14). Labor includes set-up time, which is 49% of
the total machining cost for a custom design single unit.
Capital cost, including the equipment and facilities cost, is
the second most important cost factor. D&E time for a
custom design 20MWe steam turbine is assumed to take
12months and four FTEs due to time spent on tailor-made
parts for each unit. The design of steam turbines is more
detailed than ORC turboexpanders because they are in direct
contact with saturated steam as well as noncondensable gases
(NCG) such as H2S and CO2, and they have multiple pressure
stages. SG&A, capital (equipment and facilities), and mate-
rials are the other important factors that have a moderate
effect on the manufacturing cost for a custom design unit.
For one-off design turbines at a volume of 5 units, while
the impact factor of labor and material stays almost the same,
the D&E and SG&A costs becomes less important. The cost
drops by the cost factor are also presented on cost waterfall
charts (Fig. 2.15).
2.5 Power plant design and performance
analysis
The purpose of the turbine performance analysis is to
determine the commercially favorable operating range of
a standard ORC compared to custom designed ORC
equipment. A typical example of the process flow model
for an ORC geothermal power plant at a given design point
of a standard size (5 MWe) turbine can be seen in Fig. 2.16.
29
The balance of plant (BOP) is optimized to maximize power
generation. In other words, the BOP, including the heat
exchanger, the air-cooled condenser, pumps, and piping,
can be designed to optimize turbine output. The design
assumptions for the optimized system include the pinch
point temperature.
The design point is set at 175°C for the inlet brine tem-
perature and 80 kg/s for the brine mass flow rate for the
standard turbine. An optimization algorithm is developed
to optimize BOP and operating conditions by adjusting
the pressure before and after the turbine for maximum
turbine output at given geothermal inputs. The performance
of the standard turbine is compared to a custom design
turbine by running off-design models for varying geothermal
resource temperatures (between 160°C and 190°C) and brine
flow rates (between 40 and 120 kg/s). A turbine off-design
efficiency curve provided by a reliable manufacturer as a
function of the mass flow rate of the working fluid is used
to evaluate the impact on power generation of the standard
versus custom design (Fig. 2.17). The design point isentropic
efficiency is selected as 80%. The turbine efficiency curve
shows relative efficiency as a function of relative working
fluid mass flow rate at a constant isentropic enthalpy drop
across the turbine. The curve does not account for changes
in isentropic enthalpy drop. In IPSEpro modeling, both the
working fluid mass flow rate and the isentropic enthalpy drop
across the turbine vary. However, the turbine model only con-
siders the working fluid mass flow rate when adjusting the
turbine isentropic efficiency. The resulting efficiency curve
is likely not representative of actual turbine performance
and is used only for illustrative purposes in this report.
Turbine manufacturers and project developers have access
FIG. 2.14 Sensitivity analysis for 20 MWe turboexpander based on (A) manufacturing volume of 1 unit per year (custom design) and (B) manufacturing
volume of 5 units per year (standard design) in the United States.

FIG. 2.15 Manufacturing cost drop by cost factor for a standard design (5 units) 20 MWe steam turbine.
 Global value chain and manufacturing analysis Chapter 2 31

GTO CEMAC ORC

Basic Organic Rankine Cycle

Cycle Characteristics
Turbine Enthalpy Drop 4706.83 [kW]
70.35 478.51 Cycle El. Power Output 4520.44 [kW]
5 70.35 478.51
7.721 112.18 1 Net El. Power Output 3750.55 [kW]
7.521 111.79
Total heat Input 34655.48 [kW]
80 741.73 Gross Cycle Efficiency 13.04 %
20 175
Net Cycle Efficiency 12.70 %
Condenser Duty 30051.18 [kW]
70.35 198.74
Turbine Pressure Ratio 9.21 [-]
7.821 112.8 70.35 411.6
2 Turbine Mass Flow 70.35 [kg/s]
0.817 65.306
70.35 198.74 Turbine Inlet Volumetric Flow 3411.57 [I/s]
80 495.71
7.821 112.8 Turbine Outlet Volumetric Flow 32726.19 [I/s]
19.9 117.8

12
80 308.54 3066 25.157
19.8 73.326 1.013 24.899

4
11 70.35 -15.559
3
70.35 -14.101 0.807 29.455
7.921 29.827
-625.5 3066 15.152
1.013 15
# p t h x fluid
[bar abs] [°C] [kJ/kg] [-]
1 7.52 111.79 478.51 1.00 n-Pentane
2 0.82 65.31 411.60 1.01 n-Pentane ORC Fluid Geothermal Brine Air
3 0.81 29.45 -15.56 0 n-Pentane
mass[kg/s] h[kJ/kg] mass[kg/s] h[kJ/kg] mass[kg/s] z[kg/kg]
4 7.92 29.83 -14.10 0 n-Pentane
p[bar] t[°C] p[bar] t[°C] p[bar] t[°C]
5 7.72 112.18 478.51 1.18 n-Pentane
11 1.01 15.00 15.15 0 Cooling Water
12 1.01 24.90 25.16 0 Cooling Water

FIG. 2.16 Process flow diagram of standard-size ORC power plant [27].

FIG. 2.17 Off-design turbine efficiency curve.

32 PART I Basics of geothermal power plants
FIG. 2.18 Actual plant brine effectiveness.
to actual turbine performance curves and can use the method-
ology in this report to assess the potential benefits of standard
turbine design.
One other important parameter in the plant performance
analysis is the brine effectiveness (BE). Simply, BE is the
amount of energy that you can extract per pound of geo-
thermal brine or steam, which is defined as net plant output
divided by the brine flow rate (w-h/lb). The use of BE to
describe plant performance comes from the Geothermal
Technology Evaluation Model (GETEM, 2016) on which
the System Advisor Model (SAM) geothermal module
is based.
In SAM, BE is set by adjusting the plant efficiency input.
According to IPSEpro modeling results, the BE of binary
plants studied varies between 3.3 and 7.5 w-h/lb
(Fig. 2.18). This value is 5.9 w-h/lb for the standard turbine
at its design point in IPSEpro. The BE value determines the
more conventional thermal to electric conversion efficiency
(TE) of the plant. TE varies as a function of inlet geothermal
brine temperature and mass flow rate (Fig. 2.19). TE is cal-
culated as 10.83% at the design point for the base case
IPSEpro model.
2.6 Economic analysis
Monetizing the processes developed in power plant perfor-
mance modeling helps project developers to convert perfor-
mance calculations into a representative technoeconomic
model of a total geothermal power plant. NREL’s SAM is
used to perform a DCF analysis of standard and custom
design turbines using results from IPSEpro over the range
of geothermal resource temperatures and flow rates of
interest. The base case inputs for the geothermal resource
are applied to SAM inputs and a base case model is estab-
lished (Table 2.6).
To compare the projects and results on a common basis,
the “exact number of wells” option is chosen in SAM, and
the number of production wells is set at one. For the base
case, this results in a gross turbine output power capacity
(nameplate capacity) of 5 MW, so that the power plant
cost values from the MSP analysis can be used.
SAM allows the user to set plant efficiency (%), which
sets the plant BE as a percentage of the maximum brine
effectiveness [28]. Setting the plant efficiency to 100%
gives a plant with BE equal to the maximum brine effec-
tiveness. Setting the plant efficiency to 50% provides a plant
with brine effectiveness equal to 50% of the maximum BE.
Using these data, a reverse calculation of the plant effi-
ciency is needed to match BE values from IPSEpro runs.
The binary plant efficiency is set to 65.1% to match the
IPSEpro BE results in w-h/lb for the base case.
The system cost scenarios are developed for custom
design and standard design turbines. The SAM version of
GETEM does not currently include the ability to automati-
cally estimate plant costs, but the Excel version of GETEM
does. Therefore, GETEM is used to estimate the plant costs
and those values are imported in SAM. For the custom
design scenarios, the plant size and efficiency results from
the IPSEpro model are used as inputs to GETEM to estimate
the plant costs. Plant costs in GETEM are determined by
 Global value chain and manufacturing analysis Chapter 2 33

FIG. 2.19 Thermal to electric conversion efficiency for 5 MWe ORC turbine.

TABLE 2.6 Base case geothermal resource TABLE 2.7 Financial parameters for SAM model.
characterization for SAM financial model.
Parameter Unit Value
Parameter Unit Value PPA price /kWh 10.00
Resource temperature °C 175
Annual escalation rate % 1.00
Reservoir pressure change per 1000 lb psi-h 0.35
IRR target Years 20.00
Reservoir depth m 2000 Project debt ratio % 60.00
Temperature decline rate %/year 0.3 Real discount rate %/ 5.5
Number of production wells – 1 year

Production well flow rate kg/s 80 Inflation rate % 2.5

Number of injection wells – 1 Nominal discount rate %/ 8.15

estimating the individual costs for the major plant compo-
nents (turbine, heat exchangers, condenser, and working
fluid pump) and using a direct-cost multiplier to account
for the piping, instrumentation, construction costs, etc. This
value is then used as the input for the specified plant cost in
SAM. For the standard design scenarios, the same indi-
vidual component costs and direct cost multiplier are used,
but the turbine cost is decreased by $150/kW to reflect the
cost savings from using a standard turbine design (see
Table 2.5). Results from IPSEpro are used as the BE (plant
efficiency) inputs in SAM for the custom and standard sce-
narios to account for the reduced efficiency of the standard
turbine (compared to the custom turbine) when it operates at
off-design conditions.
year
Annual interest rate % 7.00
Incentives (PTC/ITC) $ 0.00
Depreciation structure (5 years % 100.00
MACRS)
For the DCF analysis, a business model is developed
with standard financial assumptions for all scenarios
(Table 2.7). Changes in financial parameters would affect
the NPV of costs. The simplest business model is a 100%
equity model in which the developer pays cash for the
project at the start of operations. In this case, the standard
turbine is not as competitive as a custom turbine. Realisti-
cally, the more you defer costs to the future (debt) or offset
costs in the future (depreciation, tax advantages), the more
the custom turbine design is favored.
34 PART I Basics of geothermal power plants
2.6.1 Decision criteria used in SAM
financial model
The decision criteria of the SAM financial model are func-
tions of:
l Electricity generated.
l Power purchase agreement (PPA) price.
l Analysis period/project life.
l Project equity investment amount.
l Annual project costs.
l Discount rate.
The power purchase agreement (PPA) price is the bid price
that the project receives for each unit of electricity that the
system generates. Levelized PPA uses the discount rate to
determine the present value of the project’s PPA revenue
over its lifetime. For PPA models, SAM assumes the project
sells all the electricity generated by the system at a price
negotiated through a PPA. A financially viable project is
likely to have a levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) that
is less than the levelized PPA price to cover project costs
and meet IRR requirements. If there is no profit margin
between the price of supply (PPA price) and the cost of pro-
duction (LCOE), a project will be financially unviable.
The IRR is a measure of the project’s profitability and is
defined as the nominal discount rate that corresponds to an
NPV of zero [29, 30]. SAM uses a search algorithm to find
the PPA price required to meet the target IRR and reports
NPVs for the project.
The NPV is the net present value of the after-tax cash
flow discounted to year one using the nominal discount
rate. The PPA price determines annual revenue. The net
capitalized cost is the sum of the total installed cost and
debt, other financing fees, and reserve funding from the
financial parameters, less investment-based and capacity-
based incentives. SAM also allows users to specify param-
eters such as up to five construction loans to approximate
interest during construction (IDC) that SAM considers a
cost to the project. The project term debt input variables
determine the size of the debt or the amount borrowed
TABLE 2.8 Summary of financial parameters used to calculate financial outputs.
PPA Discount Project
(revenue) rate costs
IRR X X
NPV X X X X
LCOE X X X X
Levelized X X
PPA
and debt-related costs. Real discount rate is a measure of
the time value of money expressed as an annual percentage.
SAM’s financial model results are very sensitive to the real
discount rate input [29, 30]. The NPV is calculated as:
X n Fn
NPV ð$Þ ¼ 1 ð1 + d Þn
where
l Net cash flow in year n, $ (Fn).
l Annual discount rate (d).
The simplified LCOE calculation uses the user-defined
installation cost, operating costs, and a fixed charge rate
as input, and the model calculates the LCOE based on the
annual energy generated by the system. The calculator
can also calculate the fixed charge rate when users provide
basic financial parameters. The list of financial parameters
required to calculate financial outputs can be found in
Table 2.8. The LCOE is calculated as:
Ccap + FOC
  Xn ðAEP  er Þ + VOC
$
LCOE ¼
kWh 1 ð1 + r Þn
where
l Project lifetime, years (n).
l Capital cost, $ (Ccap).
l Fixed annual operating cost, $ (FOC).
l Variable operating cost, $/kWh (VOC).
l Nominal discount rate (r).
l Annual electricity production, kWh (AEP).
2.6.2 SAM results and discussion
To start with, SAM scenarios are created for custom design
and standard design turbines for the base case (175°C tem-
perature and 80 kg/s mass flow rate), where it is assumed
that the standard and custom turbine designs have identical
performance. The net electricity generation capacity is used
to calculate annual revenue from electricity sales. The
Electricity IRR target Analysis
Expenditures generation year period
X X
X
X X
X X
 Global value chain and manufacturing analysis Chapter 2 35

l Standard turbines are more cost-effective than custom

TABLE 2.9 Comparison of SAM financial model results turbines near the design point and less cost-effective
for custom and standard design scenarios. away from it. This is because the standard turbine cannot
Custom Standard perform at a higher isentropic efficiency than the custom
design design turbine; it can only be equal or less.
Metric Unit (base case) (base case) l The NPV differences between standard and custom
design scenarios show 45 of 63 test cases that resulted
Levelized COE ¢/kWh 10.49 9.82
(nominal)
in positive values where standard design turbines are
favorable (Fig. 2.22).
Levelized COE ¢/kWh 8.13 7.61
(real) Using a standard turbine design results in an NPV that is
Net present $ $1,346,430 $2.786.840
higher than when using a custom turbine design over a large
value (NPV) range of geothermal brine temperatures and flow rates, as
shown in Fig. 2.22. The highest NPV results tend to be at
Internal rate of % 7.20% 11.99%
return (IRR)
elevated geothermal brine temperatures and flow rates.
The figure does not consider practical limitations on the
Year IRR is Year 20 20 power output from the standard turbine. The actual output
achieved
from the model can be much larger than the design output
IRR at the end % 10.03% 13.66% of 5000 kW, as shown in Fig. 2.23. In practice, a turbine
of the project would be unable to operate at this high an output above
Net capital $ $24,456,800 $22,144,500 its design point. The cut-off output for the standard design
cost (NCC) would change based on the technical specifications of dif-
Equity $ $9,782,720 $8,857,800 ferent turbine designs, but a large portion of the upper right
part of Fig. 2.22 is not in the practical operating range of the
Size of debt $ $14,674,080 $13,286,700
standard turbine design. Turbine manufacturers and project
NCC $ +$2,312,300 developers should keep these limitations in mind when eval-
difference uating this chart.
NPV difference $ +$1,440,410
2.6.2.1 Sensitivity analysis
As described in Section 2.5, a full turbine performance
curve is needed for detailed analysis. Therefore, the results
above are only illustrative of the relative costs and perfor-
results show that the standard design turbines provide
mance of standard and custom turbine designs. Although
savings at the net capital cost and result in a higher NPV
the data are inadequate to accurately model off-design
and IRR for the project at the given base case conditions
turbine performance, they give the information needed to
(Table 2.9). While the net capital cost saving may reach
determine the relative efficiency at which a standard turbine
+$2,312,300, the difference between the NPV of standard
design is cost-competitive with a custom turbine design.
design and custom design turbines could reach +$1,440,410.
The sensitivity analysis is conducted based on the impact
Then, the financial analysis is conducted over 63 off-
of turbine performance on the NPV of the power plant by
design cases by changing the inlet geothermal brine temper-
iteratively varying geothermal brine temperature and flow
ature (between 160°C and 190°C) and the inlet mass flow
rate to calculate the isentropic turbine efficiency at the
rate (between 40 and 120 kg/s). The standard turbine power
break-even NPV point (Fig. 2.23). In other words, the
generation capacity is taken as 5 MW with off-design power
relative isentropic efficiency of the turbine is set to
outputs ranging between 1.4 and 6.9 MW gross. The results
achieve the NPV of the custom plant equal to the NPV
for standard turbines operating at off-design conditions
of the plant with a standard turbine. This is the economic
show that:
boundary between the standard design and custom design
l Net capital cost in $/kW significantly decreases with turbines.
respect to increasing geothermal brine temperature For the sensitivity analysis, 63 test case scenarios are
and mass flow rate (Fig. 2.20). taken, and 1008 observation points are generated for dif-
l The standard turbines are competitive over a wide range ferent relative isentropic efficiencies with respect to the
of temperatures and flow rates, and they give positive design point ranging between 85% and 100%. The results
NPV for cases near the design point (Fig. 2.21). (Areas for select cases (minimum, design, and maximum geo-
at the right side of the economic boundary curve rep- thermal brine temperature and flow rates) are shown in
resent positive NPV.) Fig. 2.24 and for all cases in Fig. 2.25. In these figures,
36 PART I Basics of geothermal power plants

FIG. 2.20 Net capital cost per kilowatts for different off-design cases of the standard turbine.

FIG. 2.21 NPV after tax for different off-design cases of the standard turbine.
 Global value chain and manufacturing analysis Chapter 2 37

FIG. 2.22 NPV difference between custom and standard design scenarios for given resource conditions. The black solid line represents the economic
boundary of standard turbines where the NPV difference is zero.Areas at the right side of the economic boundary curve represent positive NPV cases where
standard design turbines are favorable.

FIG. 2.23 Standard turbine design gross turbine output in kilowatts as a function of geothermal brine temperature and flow rate. Standard turbine design
output (nameplate capacity) is 5000 kW.
38 PART I Basics of geothermal power plants

FIG. 2.24 Sensitivity analysis for NPV difference with respect to relative isentropic efficiencies for select cases.

FIG. 2.25 Sensitivity analysis for NPV difference with respect to relative isentropic efficiencies for all cases. Gray dashed line, gray dotted line, and
black solid line represent the lower limit, median, and upper limit, respectively.
 Global value chain and manufacturing analysis Chapter 2
FIG. 2.26 The required isentropic efficiency of the standard turbine relative to a custom turbine to get a break-even NPV.
the standard turbine design is cost-competitive at a given
relative isentropic efficiency if the NPV difference
(standard design NPV minus custom design NPV) is
positive. There is a large range of relative isentropic
efficiencies over which the standard turbine design is
cost-competitive for the maximum and design geothermal
brine temperatures and flow rates (Fig. 2.24). For the lowest
geothermal brine flow rate and temperature, the standard
design is not competitive, even at 100% relative efficiency.
The correlation between the NPV difference versus rel-
ative efficiency is linear (Fig. 2.26). By fitting a linear curve
to each case and calculating the relative efficiency where the
NPV is zero, the break-even isentropic efficiency is deter-
mined for each case, or the relative isentropic efficiency
of the standard turbine necessary to make the project
cost-competitive with a custom turbine design.
The results of this analysis are shown in Fig. 2.26. The
results show that the NPV of the project is sensitive to
turbine isentropic efficiency. The results also imply that a
detailed turbine efficiency analysis is needed for more
precise economic analysis, and this is done at the
project level.
Fig. 2.26 shows that for lower temperature and flow
rates, a standard turbine requires an isentropic efficiency
greater than zero to be cost-competitive. The reason for this
is illustrated in Fig. 2.27, which shows the total plant cost
savings from using a standard turbine design versus a
39
custom turbine design for each case. The standard turbine
cost is fixed for each case while the custom turbine cost
depends on its size and efficiency. At low geothermal brine
temperatures and flow rates, where the plant power output is
lower, the plant cost for the custom turbine is lower than for
the standard turbine because of the small turbine size. To
compensate, the standard turbine would have to operate at
higher efficiency and generate more electricity than the
custom turbine to be cost-competitive. This illustrates that
at some point, building a smaller custom turbine at a higher
cost ($/kW) offsets the cost savings from a standard (but
oversized) turbine. This is the type of information a manu-
facturer would need to consider when deciding which sizes
or design power generation capacities to choose for a series
of standard turbine designs.
2.7 Closing remarks
The current global geothermal turbine market is driven by
custom turbines that are designed specifically to fit a devel-
oper’s demand for plant efficiency and varying geologic
conditions encountered at different geographies and geo-
thermal systems. The global manufacturing and value chain
of geothermal turbines is dominated by a small number of
players in the market and in certain geographic locations,
which are selected by the manufacturer’s country of origin
and their strategic decisions. Most of the time, the
40 PART I Basics of geothermal power plants
FIG. 2.27 Plant cost savings (standard minus custom) as a function of geothermal brine temperature and flow rate.
manufacturing locations are not the same as the location of
geothermal areas, which creates a high volume of trade flow
between the country of the manufacturer and the country of
installation.
The results of MSP analysis show that standard design
turbines can have significant cost savings with respect to
the custom design single unit. The MSP calculations and
sensitivity analysis also show that MSP could highly vary
based on turbine size, standardization, and the volume of
manufacturing, and the economy of scale applies both to
the size of the turbine and the number of units manufactured
in a single run. Even though the standardization of turbines
makes a significant change in the upfront capital, some
degree of custom design components may still be required.
As an example, geothermal steam turbines often require
custom metals because the geothermal fluid is highly cor-
rosive and the level of corrosion changes by the nature of
geothermal reservoir conditions and fluid chemistry at dif-
ferent geothermal sites.
Sensitivity analysis for manufacturing shows that the
labor and D&E costs are the main cost factors for a
custom-designed unit. Manufacturing costs decrease signif-
icantly with increasing manufacturing volume due to
shorter set-up times and spreading the D&E cost among
the total number of units manufactured per year. This
creates an opportunity for turbine manufacturers to realize
manufacturing cost savings due to labor and D&E by
switching from custom to standard design at larger volumes.
If manufacturers at all steps of the supply chain could
successfully operate their facilities like the presented
manufacturing model, it could result in up to 60% in
manufacturing cost savings.
In practice, a standard turbine design would likely
operate at off-design conditions, resulting in lower effi-
ciencies, less electricity generation, and less revenue than
a custom turbine design. It is important to know whether
and under what conditions the upfront capital cost savings
from a standard turbine design could offset future revenue
losses. The trends show that standard turbine designs could
be competitive over a wide range of temperatures and flow
rates. A calculation of the standard turbine efficiencies at
off-design conditions that give the same NPV as a project
using a custom turbine show that the range of off-design
efficiencies supports this conclusion. Developing and
using standard turbine designs may be an effective strategy
for lowering geothermal power project costs if a pipeline
of turbines can be set. Ideally, these turbines would be
designed to be flexible and operate over a wide range of
conditions with minimal efficiency decreases. The strategy
requires that multiple turbines be built at once and then
warehoused until sold. A significant barrier to imple-
menting this strategy is the demand for these technologies
at high volumes. However, as the global geothermal
market continues to grow, opportunities in new markets
will continue to increase. The emerging geothermal
markets discussed in this chapter show that there may be
an opportunity for using standardized turbines to reduce
plant capital costs.
 Global value chain and manufacturing analysis Chapter 2
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by the US Department of Energy (DOE), the
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), Geo-
thermal Technologies Office (GTO) under Contract No. DE-AC36-
08-GO28308 with the National Renewable Energy Laboratory
(NREL). The authors wish to thank reviewers for their comments
and suggestions, including Doug Arent, Jill Engel-Cox, Margaret
Mann, Emily Newes, and Samantha Reese of NREL. The authors also
thank Billy Roberts of NREL for his help on mapping. All errors and
omissions are the responsibility of the authors.
References
[1] GEA. Annual U.S. & global geothermal power production report.
Geothermal Energy Agency; 2016.
[2] Think GeoEnergy. The Top 10 Geothermal Countries 2019—based
on installed generation capacity (MWe). Think GeoEnergy - Geo-
thermal Energy News 2020;(Jan. 27). http://www.thinkgeoenergy.
com/the-top-10-geothermal-countries-2019-based-on-installed-gener
ation-capacity-mwe/. [Accessed 28 January 2020].
[3] Bertani R. Geothermal power generation in the world 2010–2014
update report. Geothermics 2016;60:31–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.geothermics.2015.11.003.
[4] BNEF. Geothermal market outlook report. Bloomberg New Energy
Finance; 2016.
[5] DiPippo R. Geothermal power plants: Principles, applications, case
studies and environmental impact. Butterworth-Heinemann; 2008.
[6] Frost & Sullivan. Global gas and steam turbine markets: Conventional
thermal power expansion driven by emerging markets and rising
natural gas availability. Frost & Sullivan; 2014. M96C-14.
[7] BNEF. Q2 2013 geothermal market outlook report. Bloomberg
New Energy Finance; 2013.
[8] BNEF. H2 2014 geothermal market outlook report. Bloomberg
New Energy Finance; 2014.
[9] BNEF. H1 2015 geothermal market outlook report. Bloomberg New
Energy Finance; 2015.
[10] GEA. Annual U.S. & global geothermal power production report.
Geothermal Energy Agency; 2015.
[11] Tartiere T. World overview of the organic Rankine cycle technology,
https://orc-world-map.org/index.html; 2016. [Accessed 22 January
2020].
[12] DOE. GeoVision: Harnessing the heat beneath our feet. Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of Energy; 2019. DOE/EE-1306.
[13] Wall A, Young K. Doubling geothermal generation capacity by 2020:
A strategic analysis. Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Lab
(NREL); September 2018. NREL/TP-6A20-64925. Available from:
https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy16osti/64925.pdf.
[14] Poernomo A, Satar S, Effendi P, Kusuma A, Azimudin T, Sudarwo S.
An overview of Indonesia geothermal development—Current status
and its challenges; 2015. p. 11.
[15] Enerji Atlasi. Country update for geothermal power plants in Turkey.
Enerji Atlası; 2019. https://www.enerjiatlasi.com/jeotermal/.
[Accessed 22 January 2020].
41
[16] MENR. Turkish Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources
Renewable Energy Law 2010; 2010.
[17] Ellis PFI, Conover MF. Materials selection guidelines for geothermal
energy utilization systems. Austin, TX: Radian Corp.; January 1981.
https://doi.org/10.2172/6664808. DOE/RA/27026-1.
[18] Kaya T, Hoshan P. Corrosion and material selection for geothermal
systems. In: Proceedings world geothermal congress 2005; 2005. p. 5.
[19] Steel Dynamics. 2015 Annual report. Steel Dynamics Inc.; 2015.
Available from: https://s3.amazonaws.com/b2icontent.irpass.cc/
2197/165986.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId¼1Y51NDPSZK99KT3F8VG2&
Expires¼1580257699&Signature¼9zZjMvMMB3ob07MYrZq%2Fb
CQdvl4%3D. [Accessed 28 January 2020].
[20] Yadav M, Misra A, Malhotra A, Kumar N. Design and analysis of a
high-pressure turbine blade in a jet engine using advanced materials.
Mater Today Proc 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2019.07.530.
[21] USGS. Minerals yearbook—Metals and minerals. United States Geo-
logical Survey; 2015. Available from: https://www.usgs.gov/centers/
nmic/minerals-yearbook-metals-and-minerals. [Accessed 22 January
2020].
[22] Klocke F, et al. Turbomachinery component manufacture by
application of electrochemical, electro-physical and photonic
processes. CIRP Ann 2014;63(2):703–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.cirp.2014.05.004.
[23] Horowitz KAW, Woodhouse M, Lee H, Smestad GP. A bottom-up
cost analysis of a high concentration PV module. AIP Conf Proc
2015;1679(1):100001. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4931548.
[24] Goodrich A, et al. A wafer-based monocrystalline silicon photovol-
taics road map: utilizing known technology improvement opportu-
nities for further reductions in manufacturing costs. Sol Energy
Mater Sol Cells 2013;114:110–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
solmat.2013.01.030.
[25] Dewhurst B. Inc. DFA: Product simplification and DFM: Concurrent
costing, http://www.dfma.com/software/index.html; 2016. [Accessed
17 May 2017].
[26] Ross SA, Westerfield R, Jordan BD. Fundamentals of corporate
finance. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, Irwin; 2009.
[27] SimTech. IPSEpro process simulation environment. In: IPSEpro User
Guide; 2014.
[28] GETEM. Geothermal electricity technology evaluation model.
Energy.gov; 2016. https://www.energy.gov/eere/geothermal/
geothermal-electricity-technology-evaluation-model. [Accessed 22
January 2020].
[29] Mendelsohn M, Kreycik C, Bird L, Schwabe P, Cory K. Impact of
financial structure on the cost of solar energy. Golden, CO: National
Renewable Energy Lab (NREL); March 2012. NREL/TP-6A20-
53086. Available from: https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy12osti/53086.pdf.
[30] Short W, Packey DJ, Holt T. A manual for the economic evaluation of
energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies. Golden, CO:
National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL); March 1995. NREL/TP-
462-5173. Available from: https://www.nrel.gov/docs/legosti/old/
5173.pdf.
Chapter 3
CO2 emissions from geothermal power
plants and state-of-the-art technical
solutions for CO2 reinjection
Joseph Bonafin and Arianna Bonzanini
Turboden S.p.A., Brescia, Italy
3.1 Introduction
Among several chemical components, geothermal fluids
commonly contain different gases that may be found in
the liquid phase dissolved in the geothermal brine or in
the gaseous phase mixed with geothermal steam. The
natural presence of these gases affects the physical and ther-
modynamic properties of the geothermal fluids, mainly of
the geothermal steam. The knowledge of the gas concen-
tration is a crucial parameter in the design of geothermal
power plants because it affects the energy conversion effi-
ciency of the power plant. The contained gases are usually
carbon dioxide (CO2), hydrogen (H2), methane (CH4),
hydrogen sulfide (H2S), and ammonia (NH3), but also small
fractions of other gases can be found at particular sites.
These gases are referred to as noncondensable gases
(NCG) because they do not condensate at the same con-
dition as water vapor, but remain in the gaseous phase.
CO2 is the most abundant gas, typically more than 95%,
so the exploitation of geothermal resources may lead to
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. This is because NCGs
are often released in the atmosphere after passing through
the power plant together with the geothermal fluid. Even
if methane is generally present in smaller concentrations,
usually a few percentage points compared to CO2, it is a
strong climate-changing gas and may give a nonnegligible
contribution to the GHG emissions of a power plant.
However, because the most common gas is CO2, the focus
will be mainly on this component.
The chemical composition of the geothermal fluid is dic-
tated mainly by the composition of the host rocks of the geo-
thermal reservoir. These are the rocks in contact with the
water infiltrating the Earth’s crust, which dissolves the car-
bonates composing the rocks. One of the parameters that
influences the CO2 concentration of the geothermal fluid
is the type of host rock. If it contains a large fraction of car-
bonate, as in the case of carbonate rocks, the CO2
Thermodynamic Analysis and Optimization of Geothermal Power Plants. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-821037-6.00012-3
Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
concentration will be higher. In igneous rocks, the carbonate
fraction is small, and so is the CO2 concentration in the geo-
thermal fluid. Sedimentary rocks may contain different per-
centages of carbonates, and thus the CO2 concentration may
vary strongly. In some cases, CO2 and other gases are
derived from magma bodies, which may be located under
the geothermal reservoir; these magmatic intrusions can
release gases during the natural degassing process.
The CO2 dissolved in the brine can precipitate in car-
bonate or silicate minerals, and the CO2 mixed in the steam
can be vented through fumaroles. These two processes
reduce the CO2 concentration in the geothermal fluids
and can be defined as CO2 sinks. The balance of the sources
and sinks of CO2 determines the chemical composition of
the geothermal fluids, which may vary in time due to the dif-
ferent contributions of sources and sinks in the chemical
reactions.
The GHG emission is generally smaller if compared to
traditional power plants, such as oil, gas, or coal-fired
plants. However, the geothermal sector has expanded in
recent years, and geothermal reservoirs with high NCG
content have been brought into use. The attention paid to
GHG emissions has also put geothermal power plants in
the discussion to evaluate the environmental footprint of
the kWh produced by means of geothermal sources. Espe-
cially, banks and financial institutions such as the World
Bank are interested in the assessment of geothermal power
plant CO2 emissions to evaluate whether the investment
can be considered environmentally friendly and if the
investment can benefit from government incentives for
green energy. To demonstrate the interest on the topic,
the World Bank encouraged, in the ESMAP Technical
Report [1], estimating ex ante the CO2 emissions of geo-
thermal projects under development as well as geothermal
power plants that already exist.
Meanwhile, an ongoing debate has been opened to
clarify whether geothermal energy can be classified as
43
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
Saatuaan ne sileiksi hän taittoi ne kokoon, pisti taskuunsa ja lähti
Katerina Ivanovnan luo tekemään selkoa siitä, miten hänen oli
onnistunut suorittaa tämän antama tehtävä.

Viides kirja

Pro ja contra

1.

Kihlaus

Rouva Hohlakov oli taas ensimmäisenä Aljošaa

vastaanottamassa. Hänellä oli kiire. Oli sattunut tärkeä tapaus:
Katerina Ivanovnan hysteriakohtaus oli päättynyt pyörtymisellä,
sitten oli seurannut »kauhea, hirveä heikkous, hänen silmänsä
menivät vähän nurin ja hän alkoi hourailla. Nyt on kuumetta, on
lähetetty hakemaan Herzenstubea, on lähetetty hakemaan tätejä.
Tädit ovat jo täällä, mutta Herzenstube ei ole vielä tullut. Kaikki
istuvat hänen huoneessaan ja odottavat. Jotakin on tulossa, hän on
tajuton. Mitäs, jos tulee kuumetauti!»

Näin huudahtaessaan oli rouva Hohlakov vakavan ja pelästyneen

näköinen: »Tämä on jo vakavaa, tämä on vakavaa», lisäsi hän joka
sanan jälkeen, aivan kuin se, mitä Katerina Ivanovnalle aikaisemmin
oli tapahtunut, ei olisi ollut vakavaa. Aljoša kuunteli häntä
murheellisena: hän alkoi kertoa rouva Hohlakoville omia
seikkailujaan, mutta tämä keskeytti hänet heti alussa: hänellä ei ollut
aikaa, hän pyysi Aljošaa istumaan Lisen luona ja siellä odottamaan
häntä.

— Lise, rakas Aleksei Fjodorovitš, — kuiskasi hän Alešalle

melkein korvaan, — Lise hämmästytti minua ihmeellisesti äsken,
mutta sai myös liikutetuksi, ja sentähden sydämeni antaa hänelle
kaiken anteeksi. Ajatelkaahan, heti kun te olitte mennyt, hän alkoi
äkkiä vilpittömästi katua, että oli pitänyt muka teitä pilkkanaan eilen
ja tänään. Mutta eihän hän pilkannut, hän vain laski leikkiä. Nyt hän
katui niin vakavasti, melkein itkien, että minä hämmästyin. Hän ei ole
koskaan ennen vakavasti katunut, kun on pitänyt minua pilkkanaan,
vaan on aina lyönyt asian leikiksi. Ja tehän tiedätte, että hän pilkkaa
minua myötäänsä. Mutta nyt hän teki tuon vakavasti, nyt tapahtui
kaikki vakavasti. Hän pitää erittäin suuressa arvossa teidän
mielipidettänne, Aleksei Fjodorovitš, ja jos vain voitte, niin älkää
loukkaantuko häneen älkääkä olko vaativainen. Minä itse en muuta
teekään kuin hellin häntä, sillä hän on niin älykäs, — uskotteko sen?
Hän sanoi äsken, että te olette ollut hänen lapsuutensa ystävä,
»lapsuuteni totisin ystävä», — ajatelkaahan tätä, kaikkein totisin,
entä minä sitten? Hänellä on tässä suhteessa tavattoman vakavat
tunteet ja myös muistot ja, ennen kaikkea, nuo lausetavat ja sanat,
mitä yllättävimmät sanat, niin että ei osaa odottaakaan, kun ne jo
äkkiä tulevat suusta. Niinpä äsken hongasta esimerkiksi: meidän
puutarhassamme oli hänen varhaisimman lapsuutensa aikana
honka, saattaapa olla siellä vieläkin, niin ettei ole syytä puhua
menneessä ajassa. Hongat eivät ole ihmisiä, ne pysyvät pitkät ajat
muuttumattomina, Aleksei Fjodorovitš. »Äiti», sanoo hän, »minä
muistan tuon hongan kuin unessa», — tuo »hongan kuin unessa» —
hän sanoi sen jotenkuten toisin, minä sotken, honka on tyhmä sana,
mutta hän puhui minulle tämän johdosta jotakin niin omaperäistä,
että minä en mitenkään uskalla ryhtyä sitä selostamaan. Olen
sitäpaitsi unohtanut kaiken. No, näkemiin, minä olen hyvin järkytetty
ja tulen luultavasti hulluksi. Ah, Aleksei Fjodorovitš, kaksi kertaa
elämäni aikana olen ollut tulemaisillani hulluksi ja minua on hoideltu.
Menkää Lisen luo. Rohkaiskaa häntä, niinkuin te aina niin ihanasti
osaatte sen tehdä. — Lise, — huudahti hän astuen oven luo, — nyt
olen tuonut luoksesi Aleksei Fjodorovitšin, jota sinä olet niin suuresti
loukannut, eikä hän ole ensinkään vihainen, vakuutan sen sinulle,
päinvastoin hän ihmettelee, kuinka olet voinut sitä luulla!

— Merci, maman, tulkaa sisälle, Aleksei Fjodorovitš.

Aljoša astui sisään. Lise katseli häntä hieman hämillään ja sävähti

äkkiä punaiseksi. Hän nähtävästi häpesi jotakin ja, kuten tällöin on
tavallista, alkoi nopeasti puhua aivan muusta, aivan niinkuin tuo
kokonaan toinen asia sillä hetkellä olisikin kiinnittänyt hänen
mieltään.

— Äiti äsken yht'äkkiä kertoi minulle, Aleksei Fjodorovitš, koko

jutun noista kahdestasadasta ruplasta ja tuosta teille annetusta
tehtävästä… tuon köyhän upseerin luona… ja kertoi minulle koko
tuon kauhean tapauksen, miten häntä loukattiin, ja, tiedättekö,
vaikka äiti kertoo hyvin sotkuisesti… hän hyppää aina asiasta
toiseen… niin minä itkin kuunnellessani. No, kuinka kävi, annoitteko
te nuo rahat ja miten on nyt tuon onnettoman laita?…

— Siinäpä se onkin, että en antanut, ja tässä on pitkä historia, —

vastasi Aljoša näyttäen puolestaan olevan enimmän huolestunut
siitä, että ei ollut saanut annetuksi rahoja, vaikka Lise varsin hyvin
huomasi hänenkin katselevan sivulle ja niinikään nähtävästi
koettavan puhua muusta, kuin mitä oli mielessä. Aljoša istuutui
pöydän luo ja alkoi kertoa, mutta jo ensimmäisistä sanoista alkaen
hän lakkasi olemasta hämillään ja tempasi puolestaan Lisen
mukaansa. Hän puhui voimakkaan tunteen vaikutuksen ja äskeisen
tavallisuudesta poikkeavan vaikutelman alaisena ja hänen onnistui
kertoa hyvin ja seikkaperäisesti. Hänellä oli ennenkin ollut tapana, jo
Moskovassa Lisen ollessa lapsena, tulla hänen luokseen ja kertoa
semmoista, mitä hänelle juuri oli tapahtunut tai mitä hän oli lukenut,
tai muistella lapsuusaikansa kokemuksia. Toisinaan he molemmat
haaveilivat yhdessä ja sepittelivät kahden kesken kokonaisia
tarinoita, enimmäkseen iloisia ja naurattavia. Nyt he molemmat
ikäänkuin siirtyivät äkkiä entisiin Moskovan aikoihin, kaksi vuotta
taaksepäin. Liseä järkytti tavattomasti Aljošan kertomus. Aljoša osasi
lämpimästi kuvata hänelle »Iljušetškan» koko olemuksen. Kun hän
oli yksityiskohtaisesti kuvannut, mitenkä onneton mies polki rahat
jalkojensa alle, niin Lise löi kätensä yhteen ja huusi voimatta hillitä
tunteitaan:

— Te ette siis antanut rahoja, te annoitte hänen juosta pois tuolla

tavoin! Herra Jumala, olisitte edes itse juossut hänen jälkeensä ja
tavoittanut hänet…

— Ei, Lise, näin on parempi, että minä en juossut, — sanoi Aljoša,

nousi tuolilta ja käveli huolestuneena huoneessa.

— Miksi parempi, missä suhteessa parempi? Nyt he ovat ilman

leipää ja ovat hukassa!

— Eivät ole hukassa, sillä nämä kaksisataa ruplaa joutuvat

kuitenkin heille. Hän ottaa ne kuitenkin huomenna. Huomenna hän
aivan varmasti ottaa ne, — lausui Aljoša astellen mietteissään. —
Näettekö, Lise, — jatkoi hän pysähtyen äkkiä hänen eteensä, —
minä itse tein tässä virheen, mutta virhekin koitui hyväksi.
 — Mikä virhe se oli ja minkä tähden se koitui hyväksi?

— Asia on tämmöinen: hän on pelkurimainen ja heikkoluonteinen

mies. Hän on läpikiusattu ja perin hyväsydäminen. Nyt ajattelen näin:
mistä hän yht'äkkiä noin loukkaantui ja miksi polki rahat jalkoihinsa,
sillä, vakuutan sen teille, hän ei viimeiseen hetkeen saakka tietänyt,
että polkisi ne jalkoihinsa. Ja minusta näyttää, että hän loukkaantui
tässä monestakin syystä… eikä muuten voinut ollakaan hänen
asemassaan… Ensiksikin hän suuttui jo siitä, että oli minun nähteni
liiaksi ilostunut rahoista eikä ollut salannut sitä minulta. Jos hän olisi
ilostunut, mutta ei kovin paljon eikä olisi sitä näyttänyt, vaan
kursaillut kuten toiset rahoja ottaessaan sekä teeskennellyt, no,
silloin kaikki olisi vielä ollut siedettävää ja hän olisi voinut ottaa
vastaan, mutta nyt hän ilostui liian vilpittömästi, ja se juuri on
alentavaa. Ah, Lise, hän on vilpitön ja hyväsydäminen mies, sepä
juuri onkin onnetonta tämmöisissä tapauksissa! Kaiken aikaa, kun
hän silloin puhui, oli hänen äänensä niin heikko, heikontunut, ja hän
puhui hyvin kiireesti ja ikäänkuin nauraa hihitti tai itki… toden totta,
hän itki, niin ihastuksissaan hän oli… ja hän puhui tyttäristään… ja
paikasta, jonka hän saa toisessa kaupungissa… Mutta heti kun hän
oli purkanut sydämensä, niin häntä alkoi yht'äkkiä hävettää, että hän
tuolla tavoin oli paljastanut minulle koko sydämensä. Ja niinpä hän
samassa alkoi vihata minua. Hän on noita hirveän häveliäitä köyhiä.
Mutta etupäässä hän suuttui siitä, että oli liian pian ottanut minut
ystäväkseen ja niin pian minulle antautunut. Hän oli hyökkäillyt
kimppuuni, peloitellut, mutta heti rahat nähtyään alkanut minua
syleillä. Hän näet syleili minua, nyki minua kaiken aikaa käsillään.
Juuri näin hänen täytyi tuntea koko tuo alennuksensa, ja tässä juuri
minä tein tuon virheeni, sangen pahan virheen: minä sanoa tokaisin
hänelle, että jos hänen rahansa eivät riitä toiseen kaupunkiin
muuttamiseen, niin hän saa vielä lisää ja minä itsekin annan hänelle
omista rahoistani niin paljon kuin hän haluaa. Tämäpä juuri häntä
yht'äkkiä hämmästytti: miksi minäkin olin tuppautunut häntä
auttamaan? Tiedättekö, Lise, on suorastaan hirveätä, miten raskasta
loukatulle ihmiselle on, kun kaikki alkavat suhtautua häneen hänen
hyväntekijöinään… minä olen kuullut siitä, luostarinvanhin on minulle
siitä puhunut. Minä en tiedä, miten sen sanoisin, mutta olen sen
usein itsekin nähnyt. Ja aivan sama tunnehan minulla on itsellänikin.
Mutta pääasia on, että vaikka hän ei tietänytkään viimeiseen
silmänräpäykseen asti, että hän polkee setelit jalkojensa alle, niin
hän kuitenkin aavisti sen, se on aivan varmaa. Juuri siksi hänen
riemastuksensakin oli niin voimakas, kun hän aavisti… Ja vaikka
tämä kaikki kävi niin huonosti, niin se kuitenkin koitui hyväksi.
Luulenpa todella, että kerrassaan parhaaksi, sen paremmin ei olisi
voinut käydäkään…

— Miksi, miksi ei sen paremmin olisi voinut käydäkään? —

huudahti Lise katsellen hyvin ihmeissään Aljošaa.

— Siksi, Lise, että jos hän ei olisi näitä rahoja polkenut jalkoihinsa,
vaan ottanut ne, niin hän kotiin tultuaan ehkä jo tunnin kuluttua olisi
alkanut itkeä omaa alennustaan, — niin olisi ehdottomasti käynyt.
Hän olisi itkenyt ja kenties huomenna heti päivän koittaessa tullut
luokseni ja kenties paiskannut minulle setelit ja polkenut ne
jalkojensa alle kuten äsken. Mutta nyt hän poistui hirveän ylpeänä ja
voitonriemuisena, vaikka tietääkin, että »syöksi itsensä turmioon».
Nyt siis ei mikään ole helpompaa kuin saada hänet ottamaan
vastaan nämä kaksisataa ruplaa jo huomenna, sillä hän on jo
osoittanut olevansa kunnian mies, hän on paiskannut rahat
menemään, polkenut niitä jaloillaan… Eihän hän voinut niitä
polkiessaan tietää, että minä tuon ne hänelle taas huomenna.
Toiselta puolen taas nämä rahat ovat hänelle hirveän tarpeelliset.
Vaikka hän nyt onkin ylpeä, niin kuitenkin hän tänäänkin ajattelee,
millaisen avun hän on menettänyt. Yöllä hän ajattelee sitä vielä
enemmän, näkee sen unissaan, ja huomisaamuna hän kenties on jo
valmis juoksemaan luokseni ja pyytämään anteeksi. Mutta silloinpa
juuri minä saavunkin: »Niin, te olette ylpeä mies, te olette sen
osoittanut, no niin, ottakaa nyt vastaan, antakaa meille anteeksi.»
Silloin hän ottaa!

Aljoša lausui jonkinmoisen hurmion vallassa: »silloin hän ottaa!»

Lise taputti käsiään.

— Ah, se on totta, ah, ymmärsin sen nyt yht'äkkiä hirveän hyvin!

Ah, Aljoša, kuinka te kaiken tuon tiedätte? Niin nuori ja tietää jo, mitä
on sydämessä… Minä en olisi koskaan keksinyt tuota…

— Pääasia on nyt saada hänet vakuutetuksi siitä, että hän on

meidän kaikkien vertainen, siitä huolimatta, että hän ottaa meiltä
vastaan rahaa, — jatkoi Aljoša edelleen hurmaantuneena, — eikä
vain meidän vertaisemme, vaan meidän yläpuolellamme…

— »Meidän yläpuolellammekin» — oivallista, Aleksei Fjodorovitš,

mutta puhukaa, puhukaa!

— No niin, minä käytin väärää sanaa… tuosta yläpuolella

olemisesta… mutta ei se tee mitään, sillä…

— Ah, ei mitään, ei mitään, ei tietystikään mitään! Antakaa

anteeksi, Aljoša rakas… Tiedättekö, minä en tähän saakka ole teitä
juuri ollenkaan kunnioittanut… toisin sanoen, olen kunnioittanut,
mutta vain vertaisenani, mutta nyt kunnioitan etevämpänä…
Rakkaani, älkää olko vihainen, että minä »veistelen», — jatkoi hän
heti taas hyvin tunteikkaasti. — Minä olen naurettava ja
vähäpätöinen, mutta te, te, kuulkaa, Aleksei Fjodorovitš, eikö tässä
kaikessa meidän ajattelussamme, nimittäin teidän… ei, parempi on
sanoa meidän… eikö tässä ole halveksimista häntä kohtaan, tuota
onnetonta kohtaan… siinä, että me nyt analysoimme näin hänen
sieluaan aivan kuin ylempää, vai mitä? Siinä nimittäin, että päätimme
nyt niin varmasti hänen ottavan vastaan rahat, mitä?

— Ei, Lise, ei se ole halveksimista, — vastasi Aljoša lujasti, aivan

kuin olisi jo valmistautunut tähän kysymykseen vastaamaan, —
ajattelin tätä jo itse tänne tullessani. Ajatelkaahan, mitä
halveksimista siinä olisi, kun me itse olemme samanlaisia kuin hän,
kun kaikki ovat samanlaisia kuin hän. Sillä samanlaisiahan me
olemme emmekä parempia. Ja jos olisimmekin parempia, niin
olisimme kuitenkin samanlaisia hänen sijassaan… Minä en tiedä,
miten te, Lise, mutta itse olen itsestäni sitä mieltä, että minulla on
monessa suhteessa pieni sielu. Mutta hänellä se ei ole pieni, vaan
päinvastoin sangen miellyttävä… Ei, Lise, ei tässä ole mitään
halveksimista häntä kohtaan! Tiedättekö, Lise, minun
luostarinvanhimpani sanoi kerran: ihmisiä täytyy alati hoitaa kuin
lapsia ja toisia heistä kuin sairaita sairashuoneessa…

— Ah, Aleksei Fjodorovitš, ah, ystäväni, hoidelkaamme ihmisiä

niinkuin sairaita!

— Hoidelkaamme, Lise, olen valmis siihen, minä vain en itse ole

täysin valmis, olen toisinaan hyvin kärsimätön ja toisinaan en
ymmärrä mitään. Toisin on teidän laitanne.

— Ah, en usko! Aleksei Fjodorovitš, miten onnellinen olenkaan!

— Kuinka hauskaa, että puhutte noin, Lise.

 — Aleksei Fjodorovitš, te olette ihmeteltävän hyvä, mutta toisinaan
te tunnutte pedantilta… mutta lähemmin katsoen ette ole ollenkaan
pedantti. Menkää, katsokaa ovelta, avatkaa ovi hiljaa ja katsokaa,
eikö äiti ole kuuntelemassa, — kuiskasi Lise äkkiä hermostuneesti ja
kiireesti.

Aljoša meni, avasi oven ja ilmoitti, ettei kukaan ollut salaa

kuuntelemassa.

— Tulkaa tänne lähemmäksi, Aleksei Fjodorovitš, — jatkoi Lise

yhä enemmän punastuen, — antakaa kätenne, kas noin. Kuulkaa,
minun täytyy tehdä teille suuri tunnustus: eilistä kirjettä minä en
kirjoittanut teille piloillani, vaan tosissani…

Ja hän peitti kädellään silmänsä. Näkyi, että häntä suuresti hävetti

tämä tunnustus. Äkkiä hän tarttui Aljošan käteen ja suuteli sitä
nopeasti kolme kertaa.

— Ah, Lise, tämä on hyvin, — huudahti Aljoša iloisesti. —

Minähän olin täysin vakuutettu siitä, että te kirjoititte tosissanne.

— Vakuutettu, ajatelkaahan! — hän vei äkkiä edemmäksi Aljošan

käden päästämättä sitä kuitenkaan kädestään, punastui hirveästi ja
nauroi pientä, onnellista naurua. — Minä suutelin hänen kättään, ja
hän sanoo: »Se on hyvin.»

Mutta hän soimasi syyttä Aljošaa: tämä oli myös pahasti

hämmentynyt.

— Minä tahtoisin aina miellyttää teitä, Lise, mutta en tiedä, kuinka

sen tekisin, — sai hän jotenkuten mutisseeksi ja punastui niinikään.
 — Aljoša rakas, te olette kylmä ja julkea. Näettekö. Hän on
suvainnut valita minut puolisokseen ja nyt hän on varsin tyyni! Hän
oli jo vakuutettu siitä, että minä kirjoitin tosissani, mitäs siitä on
arveltava! Sehän on julkeata — sitä se on!

— Oliko se sitten paha, että minä olin vakuutettu? — alkoi Aljoša

äkkiä nauraa.

— Ah, Aljoša, päinvastoin hirveän hyvä, — sanoi Lise katsoen

häneen hellästi ja onnellisena. Aljoša seisoi yhä pitäen kättään
hänen kädessään. Äkkiä hän kumartui ja suuteli hänen huuliaan.

— Mitä tämä vielä oli? Mikä teidän on? — huudahti Lise. Aljoša
joutui aivan ymmälle.

— No, antakaa anteeksi, jos se ei ollut paikallaan… Minä kenties

tein hirveän typerästi… Te sanoitte minua kylmäksi, minä otin ja
suutelin… Mutta näen tehneeni tyhmästi…

Lise alkoi nauraa ja peitti kasvonsa käsiinsä.

— Ja tuossa puvussa! — pääsi hänen suustaan kesken naurun,

mutta äkkiä hän lakkasi nauramasta ja tuli aivan vakavan, melkeinpä
ankaran näköiseksi.

— No, Aljoša, me jätämme vielä suutelemiset sikseen, sillä emme

osaa sitä vielä kumpikaan ja meidän on vielä odotettava hyvin
kauan, — päätti hän äkkiä. — Sanokaa mieluummin, miksi te otatte
minut, tämmöisen hupsun, sairaan hupsuttelijan, te, joka olette niin
viisas, niin ajatteleva, niin huomaava? Ah, Aljoša, minä olen hirveän
onnellinen, sillä en ole ollenkaan teidän arvoisenne!
 — Olette hyvinkin, Lise. Minä lähden näinä päivinä luostarista
kokonaan pois. Kun tulen maailmaan, niin minun pitää mennä
naimisiin, sen tiedän. Näin on hän minua käskenyt. Kenet teitä
paremman ottaisin… ja kuka muu kuin te ottaisi minut? Olen sitä jo
harkinnut. Ensiksikin te tunnette minut lapsesta asti, ja toiseksi teillä
on sangen paljon hyviä ominaisuuksia, joita minulla ei ollenkaan ole.
Teillä on iloisempi mieli kuin minulla. Tärkeintä on, että te olette
viattomampi kuin minä, joka olen jo saanut nähdä monenlaista,
monenlaista… Ah, te ette tiedä, olenhan minäkin Karamazov! Mitä
siihen tulee, että te nauratte ja teette pilaa myöskin minusta, niin
päinvastoin naurakaa vain. Minä olen siitä hyvin iloinen. Te nauratte
kuin pieni tyttö, mutta teidän ajatuksenne ovat kuin marttyyrin…

— Kuin marttyyrin? Kuinka niin?

— Niin, Lise, tuo äskeinen kysymyksenne, eikö meissä ole

halveksimista tuota onnetonta kohtaan, kun me noin anatomin tavoin
repostelemme hänen sieluaan, — tuo kysymys on marttyyrin
kysymys… nähkääs, minä en mitenkään osaa sitä sanoa sanoilla,
mutta se, jonka mieleen nousee tuollaisia kysymyksiä, se kykenee
itse kärsimään. Lepotuolissa istuessanne te nytkin jo varmasti olette
paljon ajatellut…

— Aljoša, antakaa minulle kätenne, miksi te otatte sen pois, —

lausui Lise onnesta heikontuneella, ikäänkuin sortuneella äänellä. —
Kuulkaa, Aljoša, mihin te pukeudutte, kun lähdette pois luostarista,
millaiseen pukuun? Älkää naurako, älkää suuttuko, se on minusta
hyvin, hyvin tärkeätä.

— Pukua, Lise, en ole vielä ajatellut, mutta minä pukeudun

sellaiseen kuin te tahdotte.
 — Minä tahdon, että teillä olisi tummansininen samettitakki,
valkoinen pikeeliivi ja harmaa, pehmoinen majavaishattu… Sanokaa,
uskoitteko tosiaan äsken, että minä en rakasta teitä, kun kielsin
eilisen kirjeeni?

— Ei, en uskonut.

— Oi, sietämätön mies, parantumaton!

— Näettekö, minä tiesin, että te minua… luultavasti rakastatte,

mutta minä olin uskovinani teitä, jotta teille olisi… mukavampi…

— Vielä sitäkin pahempi! Pahinta ja parasta kaikesta. Aljoša, minä

rakastan teitä hirveästi. Äsken, kun teidän oli määrä tulla, minä
päätin povata tällä tavoin: pyydän häneltä eilistä kirjettä, ja jos hän
rauhallisesti ottaa sen esille ja antaa minulle (kuten häneltä aina
kyllä voi odottaa), niin silloin on selvää, että hän ei ollenkaan rakasta
minua, hänellä ei ole mitään tunteita minua kohtaan, hän on vain
tyhmä ja arvoton poika ja minun elämäni on mennyttä. Mutta te jätitte
kirjeen luostarikammioon ja se rohkaisi minua: eikö totta, te jätitte
sen kammioon siksi, että aavistitte minun vaativan kirjettäni takaisin
ettekä te halunnut sitä antaa? Eikö niin? Niinhän?

— Oh, Lise, ei se ole ollenkaan niin, kirjehän on mukanani nytkin

ja oli äskenkin, täällä taskussa, kas tuossa se on.

Aljoša otti nauraen taskustaan kirjeen ja näytti sitä hänelle kaukaa.

— Mutta minä en anna sitä teille, katsokaa, minun käsistäni.

— Kuinka? Te siis äsken valehtelitte, olette munkki ja valehtelitte?

 — Taisinpa valehdella, — nauroi Aleša, — valehtelin, ettei tarvitsisi
antaa teille kirjettä. Se on minulle hyvin kallis, — lisäsi hän äkkiä
hyvin tunteikkaasti ja punastui taas. — Niin on elämäni loppuun asti,
enkä minä anna sitä koskaan kenellekään!

Lise katsoi häneen ihastuneena.

— Aljoša, — lepersi hän taas, — katsokaa ovelta, eikö äiti ole

salaa kuuntelemassa.

— Hyvä on, Lise, minä katson, mutta eikö olisi parempi olla
katsomatta, vai mitä? Miksi epäilisimme äitiänne semmoisesta
alhaisesta menettelystä?

— Alhaisesta menettelystä? Kuinka niin? Se, että hän salaa

kuuntelee tyttärensä puheita, on hänen oikeutensa eikä mikään
alhainen teko, — kivahti Lise. — Olkaa varma siitä, Aleksei
Fjodorovitš, että kun minusta itsestäni tulee äiti ja minulla on
samanlainen tytär kuin minä, niin minä ehdottomasti kuuntelen salaa
hänen puheitaan.

— Niinkö tosiaankin, Lise Se ei ole hyvä.

— Ah, Herra Jumala, mikä siinä olisi alhaista? Jos olisi jokin
tavallinen keskustelu seuraelämässä ja minä asettuisin sitä salaa
kuuntelemaan, niin se olisi alhainen teko, mutta tässähän on oma
tytär kahden kesken eri huoneessa nuoren miehen kanssa…
Kuulkaa, Aljoša, tietäkää, että minä rupean pitämään silmällä myös
teitä heti, kun meidät on vihitty, ja tietäkää sekin, että minä avaan ja
luen kaikki teidän kirjeenne… Tämän te siis tiedätte nyt etukäteen…
 — Niin, tietysti, jos kerran… — mutisi Aljoša, mutta se ei ole
hyvä…

— Ah, millaista halveksumista! Aljoša rakas, älkäämme riidelkö jo

ensimmäisestä kerrasta lähtien, — sanon teille mieluummin koko
totuuden: on tietysti hyvin paha kuunnella salaa, minä olen väärässä
ja te olette oikeassa, mutta kyllä minä kuuntelen joka tapauksessa.

— Tehkää niin. Ette te saa minua mistään kiinni, — nauroi Aljoša.

— Aljoša, mutta alistutteko te minun tahtooni? Se pitää myös

etukäteen ratkaista.

— Suurella halulla, Lise, ja ehdottomasti, mutta en kaikkein

tärkeimmissä. Jos te kaikkein tärkeimmässä asiassa olette toista
mieltä kuin minä, niin minä kuitenkin teen, niinkuin velvollisuuteni
vaatii.

— Niin pitääkin. Tietäkää siis, että minäkin olen valmis alistumaan

en vain kaikkein tärkeimmässä, vaan päinvastoin kaikessa annan
perään teille ja vannon sen teille nyt, — kaikessa ja koko elämäni
ajan, — huudahti Lise innostuksesta liekehtien, — ja se on onneksi,
onneksi! Vielä enemmänkin, vannon teille, että minä en milloinkaan
kuuntele salaa teitä, en kertaakaan enkä koskaan, en lue
ainoatakaan kirjettänne, sentähden että te olette oikeassa, mutta
minä en ole. Ja vaikka mieleni hirmuisesti tekee kuunnella salaa,
minä tiedän sen, niin en kuitenkaan sitä tee, sentähden että se
teidän mielestänne ei ole oikein. Te olette nyt niinkuin minun
Kaitselmukseni… Kuulkaa, Aleksei Fjodorovitš, miksi te kaikkina
näinä päivinä olette ollut niin surullinen, sekä eilen että tänään. Minä
tiedän, että teillä on huolia, ikäviä asioita, mutta minä näen, että teillä
sitäpaitsi on jokin erityinen suru, — kenties se on salaisuus, vai
mitä?
 — Niin, Lise, on salainenkin suru, — lausui Aljoša surullisesti. —
Näen, että te rakastatte minua, koska arvasitte sen.

— Mikä suru se on? Mitä se koskee? Voiko sen sanoa? — lausui

Lise aran rukoilevasti.

— Minä sanon sen myöhemmin, Lise… myöhemmin… — sanoi

Aljoša hämillään. — Nyt sitä kenties olisi mahdoton ymmärtääkin.
Ehkäpä en itsekään osaisi sitä sanoa.

— Minä tiedän sitäpaitsi, että teitä kiusaavat veljenne, ja isä

myös?

— Niin, veljetkin, — lausui Aljoša ikäänkuin mietteissään.

— Minä en pidä teidän veljestänne Ivan Fjodorovitšista, Aljoša, —

huomautti äkkiä Lise.

Aljoša pani merkille tämän huomautuksen hieman ihmetellen,

mutta ei ymmärtänyt sitä.

— Veljeni syöksyvät turmioon, — jatkoi hän, — ja isäni myös. Ja

toisia he saattavat turmioon samalla kertaa kuin itsensä. Siinä toimii
»Karamazovien maallinen voima», niinkuin isä Paísi äskettäin lausui,
— maallinen ja vimmattu, viimeistelemätön… Liikkuuko ollenkaan
Jumalan Henki tämän voiman yläpuolella — sitäkään minä en tiedä.
Tiedän vain, että minä itsekin olen Karamazov… Olen munkki,
munkki? Olenko minä munkki, Lise? Tulitte äsken juuri jotenkin
sanoneeksi, että minä olen munkki?

— Niin sanoin.
 — Mutta minäpä kenties en usko Jumalaankaan.

— Ette usko, mikä teidän on? — lausui Lise hiljaa ja varovasti.

Mutta Aljoša ei vastannut tähän. Noissa hänen liian äkkiä
lausumissaan sanoissa oli jotakin liian salaperäistä ja liian
subjektiivista, kenties hänelle itselleenkin epäselvää, mutta
semmoista, mikä ehdottomasti kiusasi häntä.

— Ja kaiken lisäksi tekee nyt lähtöä minun ystäväni, maailman

paras mies, jättää maallisen vaelluksen. Jospa te tietäisitte, jospa te
tietäisitte, Lise, millä siteillä minä olen kiintynyt, miten minä olen
henkisesti kiintynyt tähän mieheen! Ja nyt minä jään yksin… Minä
tulen teidän luoksenne, Lise… Vastedes olemme yhdessä…

— Niin, yhdessä, yhdessä! Tästä lähin aina yhdessä koko elämän

ajan.
Kuulkaa, suudelkaa minua, minä sallin sen.

Aljoša suuteli häntä.

— No, menkää nyt Kristuksen nimeen! (ja hän siunasi Aljošaa

ristinmerkillä). Menkää pian hänen luokseen, kun hän vielä on
elossa. Minä huomaan julmalla tavalla viivyttäneeni teitä. Minä
rukoilen tänään hänen puolestaan ja teidän puolestanne.
Tulemmehan onnellisiksi, tulemmehan?

— Luullakseni tulemme, Lise.

Lähtiessään Lisen luota Aljoša katsoi parhaaksi olla menemättä

rouva Hohlakovin luo ja lähti menemään pois talosta sanomatta
hänelle jäähyväisiä. Mutta juuri kun hän oli avannut oven ja tullut
ulos portaille, niin jostakin ilmestyi hänen eteensä itse rouva
Hohlakov. Ensimmäisistä sanoista Aljoša arvasi, että hän oli
odottanut häntä siinä tahallaan.

— Aleksei Fjodorovitš, se on kauheata. Se on lapsellista,

jonninjoutavaa ja pelkkää hölynpölyä. Toivon, että te ette rupea
haaveilemaan… Tyhmyyksiä, tyhmyyksiä, pelkkiä tyhmyyksiä! —
syöksähti hän puhumaan.

— Älkää vain puhuko tätä hänelle, — sanoi Aljoša, — muuten hän

kiihtyy, ja se on hänelle nyt vahingollista.

— Kuulen järkevän sanan järkevän nuorukaisen suusta. Onko

minun ymmärrettävä asia niin, että te itse vain sen tähden taivuitte
hänen tuumiinsa, että huomioonottaen hänen sairaalloisen tilansa
ette tahtonut suututtaa häntä vastaanpanemisella?

— Oi, ei, ei ensinkään, minä puhuin hänen kanssaan aivan

vakavasti, — ilmoitti Aljoša lujasti.

— Vakavuus ei tässä ole mahdollinen eikä ajateltavissa, ja

ensiksikään minä en tämän jälkeen ota teitä ollenkaan vastaan
ainoatakaan kertaa, toiseksi minä matkustan pois ja vien hänet
mennessäni, tietäkää se.

— Miksi niin, — sanoi Aljoša, — sehän on vielä niin kaukana

tulevaisuudessa, pitää odottaa kenties puolitoista vuotta.

— Ah, Aleksei Fjodorovitš, se on kylläkin totta, ja puolessatoista

vuodessa te riitaannutte hänen kanssaan tuhat kertaa ja eroatte.
Mutta minä olen niin onneton! Olkoonpa tämä vain kaikki
jonninjoutavaa, minut se on kuitenkin masentanut. Minä olen nyt
niinkuin Famusov viimeisessä näytöksessä, te olette Tšatskij, hän on
Sofia, ja, ajatelkaahan, minä juoksin vartavasten ulos tänne portaille
kohdatakseni teidät, ja siellähän kaikki kovan kohtalon sallima
tapahtui niinikään portailla. Minä kuulin kaikki, töin tuskin jaksoin
seisoa paikallani. Tässä on siis selitys kaikkiin viime yön kauhuihin ja
kaikkiin äskeisiin hysteriakohtauksiin! Tyttärelle lempi, mutta äidille
kuolema. Mene hautaan. Nyt toinen ja tärkein asia: mikä kirje se on,
jonka hän teille on kirjoittanut, näyttäkää minulle se heti, heti!

— Ei, ei ole tarpeen. Sanokaa, miten Katerina Ivanovna voi, minun

on hyvin tärkeätä saada tietää se.

— Makaa edelleen houraillen, ei ole tullut tajuihinsa. Hänen tätinsä

täällä vain voihkivat ja rehentelevät minulle, ja Herzenstube tuli ja
pelästyi niin, että minä en tietänyt, mitä hänelle olisi tehtävä ja miten
hänet saisi rauhoittumaan, aioin jo toimittaa hänelle lääkärin.
Herzenstube vietiin pois minun vaunuissani. Ja äkkiä kaiken lisäksi
olette te täällä tuon kirjeen kanssa. Totta on, että kaikki tämä on vielä
puolentoista vuoden takana. Kaiken suuren ja pyhän nimessä,
kuolevan luostarinvanhimpanne nimessä, näyttäkää minulle se kirje,
Aleksei Fjodorovitš, minulle, äidille! Jos tahdotte, niin pitäkää sitä
kiinni sormillanne, minä luen sen teidän käsistänne.

— Ei, en minä näytä, Katerina Osipovna, vaikka hän sallisikin, niin

minä en näytä. Minä tulen huomenna, ja jos tahdotte, puhun
kanssanne monesta asiasta, mutta nyt — hyvästi!

Ja Aljoša juoksi portailta kadulle.

2.
 Smerdjakov kitaran kera

Eikä hänellä ollut aikaakaan. Hänen päässään oli välähtänyt eräs

ajatus jo silloin, kun hän sanoi jäähyväiset Liselle. Tämä ajatus:
kuinka voisi kaikkein ovelimmin saada nyt kiinni veli Dmitrin, joka
ilmeisesti piileksi häntä? Ei ollut enää aikaista, oli kolmas tunti
iltapäivää. Koko olemuksellaan Aljoša halusi luostariin »suuren»
kuolevan luo, mutta välttämättömämpää kuin mikään muu oli tavata
veli Dmitri: Aljošan mielessä vahvistui joka hetki yhä enemmän se
varmuus, että välttämätön ja kauhea katastrofi oli tulossa. Mikä tuo
katastrofi oli ja mitä hän tällä hetkellä tahtoi sanoa veljelleen, sitä
hän kenties ei itsekään olisi osannut määritellä. »Kuolkoon
hyväntekijäni poissaollessani, ainakaan minä en sitten soimaa
itseäni alati koko elämäni ajan siitä, että kenties olisin voinut
pelastaa enkä pelastanut, vaan kuljin ohi, kiiruhdin kotiini. Jos nyt
teen näin, niin menettelen hänen suuren sanansa mukaisesti.»

Hänen suunnitelmanaan oli saada veli Dmitri käsiinsä sattuman

kaupalla, nimittäin kiivetä kuten eilenkin tuon säleaidan yli, mennä
puutarhaan ja istuutua tuohon huvimajaan. »Jos taas hän ei ole
siellä», ajatteli Aleša, »niin sanomatta mitään Tuomaalle ja
emännälle oli piilouduttava huvimajaan ja odotettava siellä vaikkapa
iltaan asti. Jos hän kuten ennenkin vahtii Grušenjkan tuloa, niin on
hyvin mahdollista, että hän tulee huvimajaan»… Aljoša muuten ei
ruvennut kovin paljon miettimään suunnitelman yksityiskohtia, mutta
hän päätti panna sen toimeen, vaikka sitten ei ennättäisikään
luostariin tänään…

Kaikki sujui vastuksitta: hän kiipesi säleaidan yli melkein samasta

kohdasta kuin eilen ja pääsi kenenkään näkemättä hiipimään
huvimajaan. Hän ei tahtonut, että hänet huomattaisiin: sekä emäntä