See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/318968489

Exergy analysis for a proposed binary geothermal power plant in Nisyros

Island, Greece

Article  in  Geothermics · November 2017

DOI: 10.1016/j.geothermics.2017.06.004

CITATION READS

1 527

5 authors, including:

Christopher J. Koroneos A. L. Polyzakis

National Technical University of Athens Technological Educational Institute of Western Macedonia
153 PUBLICATIONS   2,515 CITATIONS    25 PUBLICATIONS   193 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

George Xydis Nikolaos Stylos

Aarhus University University of Bristol
61 PUBLICATIONS   630 CITATIONS    33 PUBLICATIONS   238 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Exergetic life cycle assessment of a grid-connected, polycrystalline silicon photovoltaic system View project

Wind Power Integration, Forecasting and Resource Assessment View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Christopher J. Koroneos on 11 January 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Geothermics 70 (2017) 38–46

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Geothermics
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/geothermics

Exergy analysis for a proposed binary geothermal power plant in Nisyros MARK
Island, Greece
⁎
Christopher Koroneosa, Apostolos Polyzakisb, George Xydisd, Nikolaos Stylose, Evanthia Nanakic,
a
Unit of Environmental Science and Technology, Department of Chemical Engineering, National Technical University of Athens, 9 Heroon Polytechneiou Street, Zografou
Campus, 15773 Athens, Greece
b
University of Applied Sciences of Western Greece, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Laboratory of Thermodynamics, Heat transfer and Steam-Gas Turbines
c
University of Western Macedonia, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Bakola & Sialvera, Kozani 50100, Greece
d
Department of Business Development and Technology, Aarhus University, Birk Centerpark 15, 7400 Herning, Denmark
e
Department of Management, School of Economics, Finance and Management, University of Bristol, Priory Road Complex, Priory Road, Bristol, BS8 1TU, United Kingdom

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The exergy analysis method constitutes an alternative but very important technique for the evaluation of the
Exergy analysis utilization level of thermal plants as well for the comparison of different conversion processes. The loss of exergy
Exergetic efficiency provides a figure of merit for the inefficiencies of a process and a measure of the quality of the different forms of
Geothermal power plant energy in relation to given environmental conditions. In this paper, data from an experimental geothermal drill
Geothermal potential
in the Greek Island of Nisyros, located in the south of the Aegean Sea, have been used in order to estimate the
maximum available work and the efficiency of a potential power plant. Different methods for estimating the
exergy term are used and several types of conversion efficiencies have been calculated in order to obtain a more
complemented view of the analysis. Overall, a system exergetic efficiency of 41% and a thermal one of 12.8%
have been resulted supporting technical feasibility of the proposed geothermal plant.

1. Introduction Akpinar, 2009; Al-Dabbas, 2009).

Geothermics, or energetic exploitation of hydrothermal resources,
The increased concern about the world’s limited energy resources utilizes hot water or steam which can be found in porous or fissured
has alerted many authorities involved to reconsider their energy po- rocks in the Earth’s crust. Commercial geothermal electricity generation
licies and take drastic measures in minimizing energy consumption and started in Lardarello, Tuscany, Italy in 1913 with an installed electric
wasted energy and in utilizing alternative energy sources, such as re- capacity of 250 kW (Barbier, 1997). This is one of the rare locations
newable energy sources (RES) (Lior, 2008; Bataineh and Dalalah, 2013; where superheated steam is available from geothermal wells. The first
Izutsu et al., 2012). The goal that has been set focuses on the optimi- power plant based on geothermal hot water has been in operation in
zation of energy conversion devices/processes and on the development Wairakei, New Zealand since 1958 (Barbier, 1997). Today, the installed
of new techniques to better utilize the existing limited energy resources electric capacity amounts to some 11 GW worldwide (Holm et al.,
(Ali et al., 2012; Raslavičius and Bazaras, 2010; Li et al., 2013). RES 2010). The leading producers are the USA, Philippines, Indonesia, Italy
offer a great potential when partial or complete (if and where this is and Mexico (Holm et al., 2010). Due to proper geological conditions,
possible) replacement of conventional fossil fuel is concerned; however, Greece has many important geothermal resources (of all three cate-
most forms of RES present problems with high investment costs and low gories – low, medium and high temperature) in relatively economic
energy density (Hadjipaschalis et al., 2009). Geothermal energy, is not depths (100–1500 m). The research for geothermal exploration in
at all dependent on weather conditions, therefore it allows a constant Greece started in 1971 by the Institute of Geology and Mineral Ex-
energy flux (Köse, 2005). The use of geothermal energy as a possible ploration (I.G.M.E.) and up to 1979 the research program covered only
source for electricity generation, however, is limited to countries with areas considered to contain high enthalpy resources. The most im-
high enthalpy geothermal sources (Goldstein et al., 2017). The ex- portant geothermal fields have been discovered in Milos and Nisyros
ploitation of geothermal sources may also cause a range of environ- islands (Institute of Geology and Mineral Exploration (I.G.M.E.), 1981;
mental problems depending on the location, on the technology used Public Power Corporation of Greece, Merz − Dal Geothermal
and on the legal framework for the proper exploitation (Kömürcü and Consultants, 1993; Greek Institute of Geology and Mineral Exploration

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected] (E. Nanaki).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geothermics.2017.06.004
Received 31 August 2016; Received in revised form 23 March 2017; Accepted 6 June 2017
0375-6505/ © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
C. Koroneos et al. Geothermics 70 (2017) 38–46

Nomenclature changes (kJ/kgK)

Ė Exergy flow (kJ/s or kW)
Subscripts E Total exergy (kJ)
e Specific exergy (kJ/kg)
0 Atmospheric (ambient) conditions h Enthalpy (kJ/kg)
fg Geothermal fluid m Mass (kg)
i Initial conditions ṁ Mass flow rate (kg/s)
l Liquid p Pressure (bar)
out Intermediate state s Entropy (kJ/kgK)
st Turbine T Temperature (°C or K)
sv Pump W Power, work (kJ)
u Utilization P, Ẇ Power, work rate (kJ/hr)
v Vapor (steam) x Mass fraction
0 Atmospheric (ambient) conditions
Greek Symbols fg Geothermal fluid
i Initial conditions
η Thermal efficiency l Liquid
ζ Exergy efficiency out Intermediate state
cp Specific heat capacity (constant pressure) (kJ/kgK) st Turbine
h
Cp Mean molar isobaric specific heat for evaluating enthalpy sv Pump
changes (kJ/kgK) u Utilization
s
C Mean molar isobaric specific heat for evaluating enthalpy v Vapor (steam)
p
changes (kJ/kgK) η Thermal efficiency
E
C Mean molar isobaric specific heat for evaluating exergy ζ Exergy efficiency
p

(I.G.M.E.), 1999, 1985; Mendrinos et al., 2010). Brombach et al., 2003), published research dealing with geothermal
Exergy analysis is a valuable tool for this performance evaluation power plants in that area is scarce.
(Madhawa Hettiarachchi et al., 2007; Heberle and Brüggemann, 2010; The objective of this work to is to investigate the technical feasi-
Guzović et al., 2010; Akpinar and Hepbasli, 2007; Daǧdaş et al., 2005; bility of constructing a 2 MW commercial geothermal power plant in
Keçebaş, 2011). Due to the relatively low temperatures of geothermal Nisyros island, thus exploiting one of the most powerful geothermal
fluids and thus, the low energy efficiencies and the small difference fields of the Mediterranean sea. Given that the island of Nisyros has
between energy efficiencies of a well and a poorly performing geo- significant geothermal energy fields the operation of a geothermal plant
thermal power plant, it is necessary that the comparisons made to be is of great significance. Due to legal inefficiencies, the exploitation of
based on the quality of the geothermal resources (Kanoglu, 2002; Yuan this renewable energy source remains at very low levels. Thus the re-
and Michaelides, 1993). Exergy analysis is a useful methodological tool search on the development of a low enthalpy geothermal field is in-
that accounts for the system’s inefficiency in terms of exergy destruc- vestigated as a very essential investment. The building of small geo-
tion, i.e., the degradation of the system’s ability to perform work with thermal power plants to supply mini-grid power in remote locations
respect to its surroundings (Dincer and Rosen, 2006). The concept of with geothermal resources, has proved to be very important. Data from
exergy was first used to analyze a geothermal power plant by Bad- an experimental geothermal drill in Nisyros (Institute of Geology and
varsson and Eggers (Bodvarsson and Eggers, 1972), who compared the Mineral Exploration (I.G.M.E.), 1981; Public Power Corporation of
performances of single and double flash cycles based on a reservoir Greece, Merz − Dal Geothermal Consultants, 1993; Greek Institute of
water temperature of 250 °C and a sink condition of 40 °C; gave ex- Geology and Mineral Exploration (I.G.M.E.), 1999, 1985) are used in
ergetic efficiencies of 38.7% and 49%, respectively, assuming 65% this work in order to estimate the maximum available work and the
mechanical efficiency (Lee, 2001). DiDippo (DiPippo, 1994) in- efficiency of a potential power plant. In order to obtain a more com-
vestigated the second law assessment of binary plants generating power plemented view of the analysis, different methods for estimating the
from low-temperature geothermal fluids. The results show that binary exergy term are used and several types of conversion efficiencies are
plants can operate with very high second law or exergetic efficiencies calculated.
even when the motive fluids are low-temperature and low-exergy. Ex-
ergetic efficiencies of 40% or greater have been achieved in certain
2. Characteristics of geothermal well Nis-2 on Nisyros Island
plants with geofluids having specific exergies of 200 kJ/kg or lower.
During the past decades numerous studies (Kanoglu and Cengel, 1999a;
Flow tests were carried out in 1981, 1983 and 1985 at a geothermal
Kanoglu and Cengel, 1999b; Barbier, 2002; Golove and Schipper, 1997;
field in Nisyros (Institute of Geology and Mineral Exploration
Gunerhan et al., 2001; Hepbasli, 2003; Esen et al., 2007; Koroneos and
(I.G.M.E.), 1981; Public Power Corporation of Greece, Merz − Dal
Nanaki, 2017; Ozgener et al., 2005a; Ozgener et al., 2005b; Ozgener
Geothermal Consultants, 1993; Greek Institute of Geology and Mineral
and Ozgener, 2009; Yari, 2010) have been undertaken for geothermal
Exploration (I.G.M.E.), 1999, 1985). Carriers of these tests were Public
systems to perform a large range of investigations from system basics to
Power Corporation of Greece and I.G.M.E. The tests were an attempt to
system energy and exergy analyses. Nonetheless it is noted, that there
evaluate the production characteristics and the composition of fluids
are few studies regarding performance evaluations and optimization
from the Nis-2 well. The well was drilled slightly in 1985 and was
techniques for geothermal power plants and reservoirs on a worldwide
subjected to flow tests for three months. From the collected data
scale (Yuan and Michaelides, 1993; Kanoglu and Cengel, 1999b;
(Institute of Geology and Mineral Exploration (I.G.M.E.), 1981; Public
Kanoglu et al., 1998; Cerci, 2003; Paloso and Mohanty, 1993; Subbiah
Power Corporation of Greece, Merz − Dal Geothermal Consultants,
and Natarejen, 1988). Notwithstanding there are many studies con-
1993; Greek Institute of Geology and Mineral Exploration (I.G.M.E.),
cerning geothermal fields located in southern Aegean Sea (Mendrinos
1999, 1985), presented below, Public Power Corporation and I.G.M.E.
et al., 2010; Marini et al., 1993; Lagios and Apostolopoulos, 1995;
estimated that the field under study could supply a 2 MWe geothermal

39
C. Koroneos et al. Geothermics 70 (2017) 38–46

power plant. enthalpy and specific entropy at any given point of a system dis-
regarding kinetic and potential energy terms is given in Eq. (1).
• Steam flow: The calculated flow of steam (average value) at a se- e = hi − h 0 − T0 (si − s0) (1)
paration pressure of 15 bar-g is about 5.2 kg/s.
• Brine flow: The calculated flow of brine (average value) at atmo- For a given process the change in specific exergy from point 1–2 is
spheric conditions was 12.5 kg/s. given by Eq. (2).
• Aquifer temperature: It was not possible to make downhole logs of δe = h2 − h1 − T0 (s2 − s1) (2)
temperature and pressure due to bent airlift tubing in the well. From
chemical analysis of the discharged fluids, the aquifer temperature In terms of a specific case, Eq. (1) describes a process in which an
was estimated at 290 °C. ideal heat engine extracts an amount of heat (hi – h0) from a medium.
Part of this enthalpy difference is reversibly converted to work and the
3. Methodology: exergy analysis and the second law of rest T0(si – s0) is rejected to the sink as waste heat at ambient tem-
thermodynamics perature. The term T0(si – s0) is called irreversibility or exergy loss or
exergy destruction.
The first law of thermodynamics deals with the quantity of energy The exergy of the steam and liquid (water) fraction is calculated
and states that energy cannot be created or destroyed (Clausius, 1865). separately and the total exergy amount of the stream is derived by
This law merely serves as a necessary tool for quantifying energy con- multiplying the exergy of each component by the corresponding mass
version during a process. The second law, however, is related to the fraction.
quality of energy. More specifically, it is concerned with the degrada- The exergy terms of a specific media can be calculated in several
tion of energy during an energy conversion process, the entropy gen- ways. The methods used for estimation of exergy and of the different
eration and the irreversibilities (Cengel and Boles, 2017). The second types of efficiencies are analysed below.
law of thermodynamics has proved to be a very powerful tool in the
optimization of complex thermodynamic systems and through exergy
3.1. Exergy calculation methods
analysis, assists in finding ways and solutions to problems such as high
energy use, high wasted energy, environmental pollution and resource
The following exergy calculations methods were used in this paper
depletion.
as a first approach to evaluate the geothermal reservoir.
The exergy value of energy represents its quality value. An exergy
balance can be performed for a whole plant or for different unit op-
erations. Exergy (also called available energy) (Rosen, 1995) is defined 3.1.1. Exergy calculation using temperature charts and steam tables
as “the maximum useful work that could be obtained from the system at Exergy can by calculated using temperatures charts. Exergy values
a given state in a specified environment (Cengel and Boles, 2017)”, or for saturated steam and saturated water can be found in thermo-
as “the maximum amount of work that can be obtained from a stream of dynamic properties tables (Edwards et al., 1982). Giving values on the
matter, heat or work as it comes to equilibrium with a reference en- variables on Eq. (3), we can calculate the specific exergy, and given the
vironment; it is a measure of the potential of a stream to cause change, mass flow rate, the total exergy can be calculated. Thermodynamic
as a consequence of not being completely stable relative to the re- properties of saturated steam and saturated water at the conditions of
ference environment (Baehr, 1973)”. The work potential of the energy the separator and at the dead state (ambient) can be found in ther-
contained in a system at a specified state is simply the maximum useful modynamic properties tables (Clausius, 1865; Babcock and Wilcox,
work that can be obtained from the system. The work output is max- 1978; Sotiropoulos, 1982).
imized when the process between two specified states is executed in a ∼ ∼
reversible manner and all the irreversibilities are disregarded in de- 3.1.2. Constant cph , cps assumption
termining the work potential. A system at the dead state has zero Assuming a constant specific isobaric heat capacity for the liquid
availability (exergy), and thus no work can be produced from a system fraction of the geothermal fluid, the exergy of saturated steam and
that is initially at the dead state (Cengel and Boles, 2017). It is im- saturated water can be calculated by Eqs. (3) and (4) respectively.
portant to realize that exergy represents the upper limit on the amount
∼ ∼
of work a device can deliver without violating any thermodynamic laws T T
e v = hfg ⎛1 − 0 ⎞ + cplh (Tin − T0) − T0 ⎜⎛cpls ln ⎛ in ⎞ ⎞⎟
⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟

(Cengel and Boles, 2017). ⎝ T in ⎠ ⎝ ⎝ T0 ⎠ ⎠ (3)

The conversion of all energy forms, allowed by the second law of
∼ ∼
thermodynamics, is included under the general term of exergy. While, T
el = cplh (Tin − T0) − T0 ⎛⎜cpls ln ⎛ in ⎞ ⎞⎟
according to the first law of thermodynamics, only an amount (a por-
⎜ ⎟

⎝ ⎝ T0 ⎠ ⎠ (4)
tion) of the total energy can be converted into another form and, the ∼ ∼
remaining amount (portion) of that total energy, which cannot be cph and cps are given by Eqs. (5) and (6) respectively.
converted to work, is called unavailable energy. Exergy analysis when
∼ ∼ T
compared to an energy analysis (Rosen, 1995): ∼
⎡ h − h0 ⎤ 1 ∼
cph = ⎢
T − T0
⎥=
T − T0
∫ cpdT
• provides a better view on the efficiency of a process; ⎣ ⎦ T0 (5)

• it is very useful in finding the unit operation where efficiency im- ⎡ s∼ − s∼ ⎤ T ∼

provements are the most useful or suitable. ∼
1 cp
cps = ⎢ 0⎥
= ∫ dT
In order to make all exergy losses visible in a process under study an
⎢ ln T ⎥
⎣ ( )
T0 ⎦
ln
T
T0 ( ) T0
T
(6)
exergy analysis is required. The method is very powerful when com-
paring two or more solutions in an objective and quantitative manner. Eq. (3) represents two consecutive reversible processes. The first
The exergy analysis does not give direct answers on how to improve the process accepts an amount of heat hfg equal to the evaporation enthalpy
process but it shows the path, where to start, i.e. at the point where the from the condensing vapor at constant temperature Tin, produces useful
largest exergy losses occur (Rosen, 1995). Exergy analysis is especially work hfg 1 − ( T0
Tin ) and rejects an amount of heat to the atmosphere. The
useful in the design phase and during optimization of new processes. second process extracts the remainder of heat from the liquid con-
Specific exergy (available work) of a given stream based on specific densate.

40
C. Koroneos et al. Geothermics 70 (2017) 38–46

3.1.3. Thermal efficiency condenser cost. As a result, and in order this study to be realistic, there
Thermal efficiency represents the fraction of the thermal energy that is a critical temperature below which the production of electricity from
can be converted to mechanical or electrical energy subjected to the a geothermal reservoir ceases to be economical. This value as reported
Second Law. The shaded area in Fig. 1 represents the differential of in the literature (Babcock and Wilcox, 1978), is 120 °C. The ideal
ideal work δWk. The energy bounded by the same interval of the curve fraction of energy that can be recovered is given by Eq. (14).
down to 0 K is δE. The Carnot efficiency (Clausius, 1865) is given by Eq.
Tin − 120
(7). ηrecovered =
Tin − T0 (14)
δWk T
ηcarnot = =1− 0 The two other efficiency factors account for the losses of energy
δh Tin (7)
associated with the fluid transfer through the pipeline as well as for the
where, δh is the difference in the heat content of the media between losses during the conversion of heat to power. The power plant fraction
initial and discharge conditions and δWk the available work. Fv considers the pressure and temperature losses from the wells to the
Integration of δWk between the limits Tin and T0 results in Eq. (8) power plant, the mode of generation and heat exchanger losses in the
where the thermal efficiency is calculated. case of binary cycle turbines. The busbar fraction Fb images the effi-
ciency of conversion of the net available energy delivered to the turbine
ηthermal =
δWk
=1−
( )
T
T0 ln Tin
0 to electric power at the busbar. Typical values of Fv and Fb fractions
h T0 − Tin (8) based on experience are presented in Table 1.
Since the exergy term of the geothermal fluid has been estimated on
The enthalpy of the steam is given by Eq. (9) and the total specific
the stage of the separator and not at the wellhead, a slightly increased
exergy is estimated by Eq. (10).
value for Fv (0.75) will be considered. Therefore the desired net output
h = x v h v + xl hl (9) P will be determined by Eq. (15).
etotal = ηthermal δh (10) P = ηthermal ⋅Fv⋅Fb⋅E (15)

3.2. First and second law efficiencies

3.3. Proposed geothermal power plant exergy analysis
Although the availability of a geothermal source can be very large,
A proposed geothermal power plant diagram was designed (Fig. 2)
only a fraction of it is actually converted to electric power. Energy
for an exergy evaluation analysis of the different components. Due to
conversion and inefficiencies, following the First and Second Law de-
further work needed in order to determine the exact final conditions of
termine the overall conversion efficiency. Several types of efficiencies,
operation (mass flow rate, pressure, composition, etc.) many assump-
concerning different types of geothermal fields and plants, are reported
tions have been taken into account, as shown in Table 2. Saturated
in literature (Kanoglu, 2002; Cerci, 2003; Cengel and Boles, 2017;
steam (geothermal fluid – 16 bar, 5.2 kg/s) will be utilized considering
Edwards et al., 1982; Milora and Tester, 1977; Economides and
the thermodynamic properties of steam for calculations, and that no
Ungemach, 1987; Cadenas, 1999; Bettagli and Bidini, 1996) in order to
other gases (H2S, CO2, etc.) are present. Ammonia (NH3) will be used as
assist the evaluation and comparison of different power conversion
the working fluid, circulating in a closed cycle based on the Rankine
processes.
cycle. Ammonia is the most preferred choice among several working
Utilization factor ηu is a Second Law efficiency and constitutes an
fluids, such as HCFC 123, n-Pentane and PF5050; this is due to the fact
estimation of the effectiveness of resource utilization. It is defined (Eq.
that ammonia exhibits the highest ratio of Rankine cycle efficiency to
(11)) as the ratio of the net power output of a power plant and the
objective function compared to the respective ratios of the other
maximum possible work (Edwards et al., 1982; Milora and Tester,
working fluids (Madhawa Hettiarachchi et al., 2007).
1977).
The proposed power plant is designed for electricity generation of
P P approximately 2.1 MWe net. The plant operates in a closed loop with no
ηu = = .
E m(hi − h 0 − T0 (si − s0)) (11) environmental discharge and 100% reinjection of the geothermal fluid.
The geothermal fluid (saturated steam) is entering the plant at Level 1
For a fixed initial temperature of the geothermal fluid Ti, higher
and is fed to vaporizer 1 where it condenses. As saturated liquid leaves
values of ηu correspond to lower well flow rates for a given power
output.
Cycle efficiency ηcycle is a First Law efficiency and is used as a direct
measure of how efficiently the transferred geothermal heat is converted
to work. If the fluid is cooled to some intermediate temperature Tout,
the ηcycle is given by Eq. (12).
P
ηcycle =
hin − hout (12)
A correlation for ηu and ηcycle derives:
T (s − s0) ⎞
ηcycle = ηu ⎛1 − 0 in
⎜ ⎟

⎝ hin − hout ⎠ (13)

When a small amount of heat is extracted from the geothermal fluid (Tin
is close to Tout) ηcycle will become proportionally greater than ηu be-
cause the resource is utilized poorly.
In order to obtain a value for the desired net power that can be
extracted from a power plant, three efficiency factors need to be defined
(Edwards et al., 1982). The first factor is an energy recovery factor that
must be applied to account for the fact that there is a limitation in the
lower rejection temperature mainly because of the rapidly increasing Fig. 1. Geothermal reservoir thermodynamics.

41
C. Koroneos et al. Geothermics 70 (2017) 38–46

Table 1 Table 2
Typical values of Fv and Fb fractions for different reservoir types. Assumptions made concerning the proposed power plant.

Reservoir type Power plant fraction Fv Busbar fraction Fb Properties Geothermal fluid
(saturated steam)
Vapor dominated 0.95 0.72
Liquid dominated 0.6 0.72 5.2
Hot dry rock 0.6 0.65 (kJ/s)
ṁ
Geopressured 0.6 0.75 Tin (°C) 201.41
Tout (°C) 70
pin (bar) 16
Level 1 and enters the Level 2 vaporizer where is cooled and reinjected pout (bar) 1
at a temperature of 40 °C. At both Levels, the working fluid (Ammonia,
NH3) circulates through the two cycles. The working fluid enters the
Table 3
vaporizers as saturated liquid where it is evaporated and superheated.
Exergy calculated values.
Then, it is directed to the turbines, exhausts to the water-cooled con-
densers where it condenses, and pumped to the preheater pressure. At Method Exergy [kW]
the preheater, the effluent brine, coming from the separator, is used to
T-E charts 2381.6
raise the ammonia temperature. Finally, the working fluid reaches the
Steam tables 2293.2
vaporizer as saturated liquid as the Rankine cycle is completed. Further ∼ ∼ 2288
detailed description on the operation geothermal power plants of this Constant cph , cps assumption
∼ 2288
type as well as on exergy analysis, can be found in literature (Kanoglu, Constant cpE assumption
2002; Babcock and Wilcox, 1978; Bettagli and Bidini, 1996; Franco and Thermal efficiency 1820
Villani, 2009).
Exergy calculations are based on Eqs. (1) and (2). Exergy rate is

Fig. 2. Schematic layout of the proposed geothermal

power plant.

42
C. Koroneos et al. Geothermics 70 (2017) 38–46

Table 4
Exergy rates and other properties at the power plant locations; state numbers refer to Fig. 2.

State No. Fluid Phase T T p h s e

ṁ Ė

[°C] [K] [bar] [kJ/kg] [kJ/kgK] [kg/s] [kJ/kg] [kW]

1 gf Sat. Vapor 201.41 474.56 16 2793.9 6.423 5.2 913.998 4752.789

2 gf Sat. Liquid 201.41 474.56 16 858.33 2.343 5.2 174.484 907.316
3 NH3 Sat. Liquid 78.3 351.45 40 752.69 6.93 8.796 328.020 2885.399
4 NH3 Sup. Vapor 150 423.15 40 1895.5 10.114 8.796 537.528 4728.323
5 NH3 Sat. Vapor 40 313.15 11.67 1678.22 10.067 8.796 333.875 2936.91
6 NH3 Liquid 30 303.15 11.67 503.6 6.184 8.796 297.561 2617.472
7 NH3 Liquid 30 303.15 40 504.6 6.176 8.796 300.906 2646.897
8 Water Liquid 20 293.15 1 83.86 0.2963 165 0 0
9 Water Liquid 35 308.15 1 146.48 0.5047 165 1.517 250.228
10 gf Liquid 70 343.15 16 168.86 0.5715 5.2 4.337 22.552
11 NH3 Sat. Liquid 78.3 351.45 40 752.69 6.93 3.076 328.02 1009.009
12 NH3 Sup. Vapor 150 423.15 40 1895.5 10.114 3.076 537.528 1653.47
13 NH3 Sat. Vapor 40 313.15 11.67 1678.22 10.067 3.076 333.875 1027.022
14 NH3 Liquid 30 303.15 11.67 503.6 6.184 3.076 297.561 915.316
15 NH3 Liquid 30 303.15 40 504.6 6.176 3.076 300.906 925.606
16 Water Liquid 20 293.15 1 83.86 0.2963 55 0 0
17 Water Liquid 35.7 308.85 1 149.55 0.5146 55 1.7 93.488
18 brine Liquid 99.63 372.78 1 417.51 1.3027 9 38.624 347.615
19 brine Liquid 41.8 314.95 1 175.022 0.5961 9 3.276 29.48
20 brine Liquid 99.63 372.78 1 417.51 1.3027 3.5 38.624 135.183
21 brine Liquid 47.7 320.85 1 199.461 0.6729 3.5 5.201 18.203
Dead NH3 Dead state 20 293.15 1 1719 11.34 – 0 –
Dead Water Dead state 20 293.15 1 83.86 0.2963 – 0 –

.
Table 5 WST
Exergy destruction and exergetic efficiencies. ζ= . .
E4 − E5 (19)
Component Exergy destruction Exergetic Heat transfer/ . .
[kW] efficiency [%] Power [kW] E7 − E6
ζ= .
WSV (20)
Vaporizer I 2002.549 47.9 10052.64
. .
Preheater I 79.544 75 2182.393
E4 − E3
Condenser I 69.210 78.3 10332.419 ζ= . .
Turbine I 166.790 89 1624.624 E1 − E2 (21)
Pump I 26.040 53.1 55.466 . .
Level I cycle 2344.133 37.7 1569.158 E5 − E6
Vaporizer II 240.304 72.8 3515.356 ζ= . .
Preheater II 33.547 71.3 763.171
E9 − E8 (22)
Condenser II 19.318 82.7 3613.193 . .
Turbine II 58.326 89 568.122 E18 − E19
ζ= . .
Pump II 9.106 53.1 19.396 E3 − E7 (23)
Level II cycle 360.601 54.8 548.726
Level I–II cycle 2704.734 41 2117.884 Wnet , plant
ζ= . . . . . . . .
(E1 − E2) + (E18 − E19) + (E2 − E10) + (E20 − E21) (24)
calculated by Eq. (16). The power that can be obtained by the turbine Wnet , plant
and the work given to the pump in order to operate and increase the ηplant = . . .
m1 (h1 − h 0) + m18 (h18 − h 0) + m20 (h20 − h 0) (25)
pressure of ammonia are given by Eqs. (17) and (18) respectively. Eqs.
(19) to (22) give the exergy efficiencies for the turbine (Eq. (19)), pump where,
.
(Eq. (20)), vaporizer (Eq. (21)), condenser (Eq. (22)) and preheater (Eq. m = mass flow rate (kg/s)
(23)). The exergetic efficiency of the plant based on total geothermal e. = specific flow exergy (kJ/kg)
fluid exergy . drop in the cycle can be calculated by Eq. (24). Exergy E = exergy rate (kW)
destruction I can be calculated in each case by the difference between h0 = restricted dead state enthalpy (kJ/kg)
the numerator and denominator. Finally, the first law efficiency can be hi = enthalpy at the specified state i, see Fig. 2 (kJ/kg)
calculated by Eq. (25) based on energy input to the plant (Kanoglu, s0 = entropy at the restricted dead state (kJ/kg°C)
2002). Equations (16)–(22) refer to Level 1 and are applied also to Level si. = entropy at the specified state i, see Fig. 2 (kJ/kg°C)
2 by performing the corresponding changes. W = power (kW)
. ζ = exergetic efficiency
.
E = m ⋅e (16) η = first law (thermal) efficiency

.
4. Results and discussion
Wst = ηst ⋅m˙ Am⋅(hin − hout ) (17)
4.1. Exergy calculation and efficiencies based on the geothermal fluid
. m˙ Am ⎛ pout p collected data
Wsv = ⋅⎜ − in ⎞⎟
ηsv ⋅1000 ⎝ ρout ρin ⎠ (18)
Because of the fact that the composition of the geothermal fluid in

43
C. Koroneos et al. Geothermics 70 (2017) 38–46

Fig. 3. Exergy flow diagram of the proposed geo-

thermal power plant.

Table 6 (Table 3). Exergy estimation from the T – E charts method appears
Exergy efficiencies comparison. higher than the other values; this is due to the deviation caused by the
assessment of values in the charts. The use of steam tables for calcu-
Power plant Exergetic
efficiency [%] lating the various terms of exergy is considered to be the most accurate
approach because no assumptions or deviations are introduced, and
Nisyros NIS-2 41 thus, this value can be used for the estimation of the desired net output
Kavala, Greece (Al-Dabbas, 2009) 33.3
P. However, the constant cp assumption does not produce a significant
Denizli Turkey (Mendrinos et al., 2010) 20.8
Nothern Nevada, USA (Institute of Geology and Mineral
deviation in the exergy calculation compared to the value of exergy
Exploration (I.G.M.E.), 1981) resulted in the steam tables method. The net power output that could be
•Based on the exergy input to isopentane cycles 34.2 achieved from a potential power plant can be estimated at 2.1 MWe.
•Based on the exergy input to the plant
Case study (Greek Institute of Geology and Mineral
29.1 This value converges at a great extent to the value of the capacity of the
power plant estimated in the report given by the Public Power Cor-
Exploration (I.G.M.E.), 1999; Institute of Geology and
Mineral Exploration (I.G.M.E.), 1981) poration of Greece (Institute of Geology and Mineral Exploration
•Based on the exergy input to the plant 22.6 (I.G.M.E.), 1981; Public Power Corporation of Greece, Merz − Dal
•Based on the Rankine Cycle
Case study (Cerci, 2003; Institute of Geology and Mineral
34.8 Geothermal Consultants, 1993; Greek Institute of Geology and Mineral
Exploration (I.G.M.E.), 1999, 1985). For the calculation of the cycle
Exploration (I.G.M.E.), 1981)
•Based on the exergy input to the plant 20
efficiency the critical lowest temperature of 120 °C was considered. As
•Based on the Rankine Cycle
Case study (Bodvarsson and Eggers, 1972)
33.5 can be seen, the utilization efficiency value is relatively satisfactory
comparing to other corresponding values given in literature.
•Single flash cycles 38.7
•Double flash cycles 49

4.2. Proposed geothermal power plant exergy analysis

the reservoir of the Nis-2 well is not determined, the exergy is calcu-
Results concerning exergy values as well as all other properties
lated using the five methods discussed above, in the separator level. The
(mass flow rates, temperatures, pressures, etc.) at all points of the
separator is assumed to be working under 16 bar pressure, and thus the
power plant are given in Table 4. Calculations were conducted as-
saturation temperature is 201.41 °C. The stream is constituted of satu-
suming saturated steam was used initially as the geothermal fluid at a
rated water and saturated steam, the latter having a percentage 40% by
pressure of 16 bar. Table 5 presents the exergy destruction and the
weight. The ambient conditions (dead state) are 25 °C and 1 bar. The
exergetic efficiencies of the power plant and of the different compo-
results of exergy calculations based on the geothermal fluid at the se-
nents (ηst = 0.85, ηsv = 0.75). The estimated thermal efficiency of the
parator level are presented in Table 2.
plant is 12.8% and the actual power output for the total level I–II cycle
For an inlet temperature of 201.41 °C and assuming the ambient
resulted is 2117.884 kW (or 2.1 MW approx.). Fig. 3 illustrates the
temperature at 25 °C, the calculated value for energy recovery factor is
exergy flow diagram of the proposed geothermal power plant, where
ηrecovered = 0.43 (Eq. (14)). Cycle and utilization efficiencies are cal-
exergy losses are given as percentages of the total exergy input to the
culated by Eqs. (11)–(13) for a net power 2 MWe (Institute of Geology
plant. It is noted that the causes of exergy destruction in the plant in-
and Mineral Exploration (I.G.M.E.), 1981; Public Power Corporation of
clude vaporizer-preheater losses, turbine-pump losses, the exergy of the
Greece, Merz − Dal Geothermal Consultants, 1993; Greek Institute of
brine reinjected, and the exergy lost in the condenser. The exergetic
Geology and Mineral Exploration (I.G.M.E.), 1999, 1985), and their
efficiencies of Level I vaporizer–preheater and Level II vapor-
values are 0.42 and 0.216 respectively.
izer–preheater are 60.2% and 94.6%, respectively. These percentages
The calculated exergy values are in a relatively good accordance,
indicate the high performance of the heat exchange system. In binary
except for the value estimated by the thermal efficiency method
geothermal power plants, heat exchangers are important components

44
C. Koroneos et al. Geothermics 70 (2017) 38–46

and their individual performances have a significant effect on the Babcock, G.H., Wilcox, S., 1978. Steam, Its Generation and Use. Babcock and Wilcox
Company edition, New York, USA.
overall performance of the plant. The exergetic efficiency of the va- Baehr, H.D., 1973. Thermodynamics. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
porizer is significantly greater than that of the preheater, because the Barbier, E., 1997. Nature and technology of geothermal energy: a review. Renew. Sustain.
average temperature difference between the brine and the working Energy Rev. 1 (1/2), 1–69.
Barbier, E., 2002. Geothermal energy technology and current status: an overview. Renew.
fluid is smaller in the vaporizer than in the preheater. Sustain. Energy Rev. 6 (1-3), 3–65.
The goal of an exergy analysis, in the case of a geothermal power Bataineh, K.M., Dalalah, D., 2013. Assessment of wind energy potential for selected areas
plant, is to identify the points where the highest exergy losses occur. As in Jordan. Renew. Energ. 59, 75–81.
Bettagli, N., Bidini, G., 1996. Larderello-Farinello-Valle Secolo geothermal area: exergy
presented in Fig. 3, the highest exergy losses correspond to vaporizers I analysis of the transportation network and of the electric power plants. Geothermics
and II, while the other components have relatively very low exergy 25 (1), 3–16.
losses. In specific, the largest exergy losses take place at Vaporizer I Bodvarsson, G., Eggers, D.E., 1972. The exergy of thermal power. Geothermics 1, 93–95.
Brombach, T., Caliro, S., Chiodini, G., Fiebig, J., Hunziker, J.C., Raco, B., 2003.
(38.2%) and Vaporizer II (4.7%), while the smallest ones are observed
Geochemical evidence for mixing of magmatic fluids with seawater, Nisyros hydro-
at the pumps I & II (0.5% & 0.2%, respectively). The exergy losses at thermal system, Greece. Bull. Volcanol. 65 (7), 505–516.
Turbines I & II are at particularly low levels (3.3% & 1.2%, respec- Cadenas, R., 1999. Residual steam to energy: a project for Los Azufres geothermal field,
tively). These relatively low efficiencies, together with the significant Mexico. Geothermics 28, 395–423.
Cengel, Y.A., Boles, M.A., 2017. Thermodynamics: An Engineering Approach, 3rd edition.
exergy loss associated with its operation, indicate that performance of McGraw Hill, 1998.
the turbines can be improved. The comparison with similar studies Cerci, Y., 2003. Performance evaluation of a single-flash geothermal power plant in
involving binary geothermal power plants using Rankine cycle shows Denizli, Turkey. Energy 28, 27–35.
Clausius, R., 1865. Annalen der Physik (Leipzig) 125–313.
that the proposed unit exhibits substantially smaller losses at turbines Daǧdaş, A., Öztürk, R., Bekdemir, Ş., 2005. Thermodynamic evaluation of Denizli
and pumps, but considerably larger ones at vaporizers (Kanoglu, 2002; Kızıldere geothermal power plant and its performance improvement. Energy Convers.
Franco and Villani, 2009). The parasitic power loss is 5.45% in total, Manage. 46 (2), 245–256.
DiPippo, R., 1994. Second law analysis of flash-binary and multilevel binary geothermal
which is considered as relatively low (Franco and Villani, 2009). power plants. Geotherm. Resour. Counc. Trans. 18, 505–510.
The exergetic efficiencies of the geothermal plant components were Dincer, I., Rosen, M., 2006. Exergy. Elsevier Science, London.
determined, as well as the corresponding one for the whole system. The Economides, M., Ungemach, P., 1987. Applied Geothermics. John Wiley & Sons,
Chichester, New York, Brisbane, Toronto, and Singapore.
proposed power plant has a very high exergetic efficiency value of 41%
Edwards, L.M., Chilingar, G.V., Rieke III, H.H., Fertl, W.H., 1982. Handbook of geo-
which is comparable to the best efficiencies reported for other existing thermal energy. Energy Conversion and Economic Issues. Gulf Publishing Company,
plants in previously published research (Table 6). The vast majority of Book Division, Huston, London, Paris, Tokyo.
Esen, H., Inalli, M., Esen, M., Pihtili, K., 2007. Energy and exergy analysis of a ground-
geothermal plants have achieved exergy efficiencies that vary between
coupled heat pump system with two horizontal ground heat exchangers. Build.
20% and 35%. In any case, exergetic efficiencies of more than 40% have Environ. 42 (10), 3606–3615.
been achieved in just a few plants with geothermal fluids having spe- Franco, A., Villani, M., 2009. Optimal design of binary cycle power plants for water-
cific exergies of 200 kJ/kg or lower (Yari, 2010). Thus, the construction dominated, medium-temperature geothermal fields. Geothermics 38 (4), 379–391
The Netherlands.
of a plant for the exploitation of Nisyros geothermal field is supported Goldstein, B., Hiriart, G., Bertani, R., Bromley, C., Gutiérrez-Negrín, L., Huenges, E.,
by the technical data. Muraoka, H., Ragnarsson, A., Tester, J., Zui, V., . Geothermal Energy. In
IPCC Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation
[Edenhofer, O., Pichs-Madruga, R., Sokona, Y., Seyboth, K., Matschoss, P., Kadner, S.,
5. Conclusion Zwickel, T., Eickemeier, P., Hansen, G.,Schlömer, S., von Stechow, C. (eds)],
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
The current study has revealed that a binary geothermal plant based Golove, W.H., Schipper, L.J., 1997. Restraining carbon emissions: measuring energy use
and efficiency in the USA. Energy Policy 25 (7/9), 803–812.
on a Rankine cycle is a feasible project from a technical point of view. Greek Institute of Geology and Mineral Exploration (I.G.M.E.), 1985. Geoelectric
All exergy indicators and efficiencies emerging from a series of calcu- Research in Nisyros Island. Public Power Corporation, Greece.
lations provide strong support to the implementation of the proposed Greek Institute of Geology and Mineral Exploration (I.G.M.E.), 1999. Evaluation of the
Geothermal Deposit in the Area of Nestos, Based on the Results of Two Drillings of
2.1 MW binary geothermal plant in Nisyros that could reach up to Research and Production in Eratino, Chrysoupolis, Prefecture of Kavala. Department
10 MW of total installed power in the future (Theodosiou et al., 2014). of Thessaloniki – Ksanthi, Thessaloniki, Greece.
This particular power generation plant would supply the Dodecanese Gunerhan, G., Kocar, A., Hepbasli, A., 2001. Geothermal energy utilization in Turkey. Int.
J. Energy Res. 25 (9), 769–784 Sustainable Energy Reviews 2002;6:3–65.
interconnected power system with a very substantial amount of elec-
Guzović, Z., Lončar, D., Ferdelji, N., 2010. Possibilities of electricity generation in the
tricity, thus reducing the dependence of the system to the diesel power Republic of Croatia by means of geothermal energy. Energy 35 (8), 3429–3440.
unit installed in Rhodes, Greece. Hence, the gain from an environ- Hadjipaschalis, I., Poullikkas, A., Efthimiou, V., 2009. Overview of current and future
mental point of view would be great. energy storage technologies for electric power applications. Renew. Sustain. Energy
Rev. 13 (6), 1513–1522.
As it has been already stated, this is a proposed power plant and the Heberle, F., Brüggemann, D., 2010. Exergy based fluid selection for a geothermal Organic
exact properties of the geothermal fluid in order to be utilized must be Rankine Cycle for combined heat and power generation. Appl. Therm. Eng. 30 (11),
determined, thus further design and analysis (considering the financial 1326–1332.
Hepbasli, A., 2003. Current status of geothermal energy applications in Turkey. Energy
parameter as well) is required; however, it provides a very clear picture Sources 25 (9), 667–777 Sustainable Energy Reviews 2002;6:3–65.
of the satisfying utilization level that can be achieved. Furthermore, Holm, Alison, Blodgett, Leslie, Jennejohn, Dan, Gawell, Karl, 2010. Geothermal Energy:
future research should nonetheless attempt to replicate this study using International Market Update. Geothermal Energy Association. May Available online:
http://www.geo-energy.org/pdf/reports/GEA_International_Market_Report_Final_
alternative working fluids, so as to improve the confidence in the May_2010.pdf.
findings about feasibility geothermal unit. We hope that our findings Institute of Geology and Mineral Exploration (I.G.M.E.), 1981. Division of chemistry –
will motivate authorities of Greece and those of European Union to take division of mineralogy and petrography. Report on Nisyros Gases Samples and Drill
Data. Report No.2962. (Greece).
advantage of this special renewable energy field, located in the Izutsu, K., Takano, M., Furuya, S., Iida, T., 2012. Driving actors to promote sustainable
Southeastern part of Mediterranean, to the benefit of the environment. energy policies and businesses in local communities: a case study in Bizen city, Japan.
Renew. Energ. 39 (1), 107–113.
Kömürcü, M.I., Akpinar, A., 2009. Importance of geothermal energy and its environ-
References
mental effects in Turkey. Renew. Energ. 34 (6), 1611–1615.
Köse, R., 2005. Research on the generation of electricity from the geothermal resources in
Akpinar, E.K., Hepbasli, A., 2007. A comparative study on exergetic assessment of two Simav region, Turkey. Renew. Energ. 30, 67–79.
ground-source (geothermal) heat pump systems for residential applications. Build. Kanoglu, M., Cengel, Y.A., 1999a. Retrofitting a geothermal power plant to optimize
Environ. 42 (5), 2004–2013. performance: a case study. Transactions of the ASME. J. Energy Resour. Technol. 121
Al-Dabbas, M.A.A., 2009. The economical, environmental and technological evaluation of (4), 295–301.
using geothermal energy. Eur. J. Sci. Res. 38 (4), 626–642. Kanoglu, M., Cengel, Y.A., 1999b. Improving the performance of an existing binary
Ali, R., Daut, I., Taib, S., 2012. A review on existing and future energy sources for elec- geothermal power plant: a case study. Transactions of the ASME. J. Energy Resour.
trical power generation in Malaysia. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 16 (6), 4047–4055. Technol. 121 (3), 196–202.

45
C. Koroneos et al. Geothermics 70 (2017) 38–46

Kanoglu, M., Cengel, Y.A., Turner, R.H., 1998. Incorporating a district heating/cooling exergoeconomic parameters of geothermal district heating systems (GDHSs). Appl.
system into an existing geothermal power plant. Transactions of the ASME. J. Energy Energy 86 (9), 1704–1711.
Res. Technol. 120 (2), 179–184. Ozgener, L., Hepbasli, A., Dincer, I., 2005a. Energy and exergy analysis of geothermal
Kanoglu, M., 2002. Exergy analysis of a dual-level binary geothermal power plant. district heating systems: an application. Build. Environ. 40 (10), 1309–1322.
Geothermics 31, 709–724. Ozgener, L., Hepbasli, A., Dincer, I., 2005b. Energy and exergy analysis of Salihli geo-
Keçebaş, A., 2011. Performance and thermo-economic assessments of geothermal district thermal district heating system in Manisa, Turkey. Int. J. Energy Res. 29 (5),
heating system: a case study in Afyon, Turkey. Renew. Energy 36 (1), 77–83. 393–408.
Koroneos, C.J., Nanaki, E.A., 2017. Environmental impact assessment of a ground source Paloso jr, G., Mohanty, B., 1993. A flashing binary combined cycle for geothermal power
heat pump system in Greec. J. Geothermics 65 (January), 1–9. generation. Energy 18 (8), 803–814.
Lagios, E., Apostolopoulos, G., 1995. Integrated geophysical study of the geothermal Public Power Corporation of Greece, Merz – Dal Geothermal Consultants, 1993. Milos and
system in the southern part of Nisyros Island, Greece. J. Appl. Geophys. 34 (1), Nisyros Geo-thermoelectric Projects (Provision of Scientific and Engineering Services
55–61. for Milos and Nisyros Geothermal Projects). Contract No DEME 28/BIS/1680014.
Lee, K.C., 2001. Classification of geothermal resources by exergy. Geothermics 30, Athens, Greece.
431–442. Raslavičius, L., Bazaras, Ž., 2010. Ecological assessment and economic feasibility to uti-
Li, D.H., Yang, L., Lam, J.C., 2013. Zero energy buildings and sustainable development lize first generation biofuels in cogeneration output cycle – the case of Lithuania.
implications–a review. Energy 54, 1–10. Energy 35 (9), 3666–3673.
Lior, N., 2008. Energy resources and use: the present situation and possible paths to the Rosen, M.A., 1995. Energy and exergy analyses of electrolytic hydrogen production. Int.
future. Energy 33 (6), 842–857. J. Hydrogen Energy 20 (7), 547–553.
Madhawa Hettiarachchi, H.D., Golubovic, M., Worek, W.M., Ikegami, Y., 2007. Optimum Sotiropoulos, A.V., 1982. Thermodynamics of Compounds. Giahoudi-Giapouli edition,
design criteria for an organic Rankine cycle using low-temperature geothermal heat Thessaloniki, Greece.
sources. Energy 32 (9), 1698–1706. Subbiah, S., Natarejen, R., 1988. Thermodynamic analysis of binary-fluid Rankine cycles
Marini, L., Principe, C., Chiodini, G., Cioni, R., Fytikas, M., Marinelli, G., 1993. for geothermal power plants. Energy Convers. Manage. 28 (1), 47–52.
Hydrothermal eruptions of Nisyros (Dodecanese: Greece): past events and present Theodosiou, G., Stylos, N., Koroneos, C., 2014. Integration of the environmental man-
hazard. J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res. 56 (1), 71–94. agement aspect in the optimization of the design and planning of energy systems. J.
Mendrinos, D., Choropanitis, I., Polyzou, O., Karytsas, C., 2010. Exploring for geothermal Clean. Prod. 106, 576–596. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.05.096.
resources in Greece. Geothermics 39 (1), 124–137. Yari, M., 2010. Exergetic analysis of various types of geothermal power plants. Renew.
Milora, S.L., Tester, J.W., 1977. Geothermal Energy as a Source of Electric Power, Energy 35 (1), 112–121.
Thermodynamic and Economic Design Criteria. The MIT Press, Cambridge, Yuan, Z., Michaelides, E., 1993. Binary-flashing geothermal power plants: transactions of
Massachusetts, and London, England. the ASME. J. Energy Res. Technol. 115 (3), 232–236.
Ozgener, L., Ozgener, O., 2009. Monitoring of energy exergy efficiencies and

46

View publication stats