Working Fluid Selection and Performance Analysis for the Afyon Geothermal Energy Plant

Year 2025, Volume: 4 Issue: 1, 1 - 8, 31.03.2025

Ömer Faruk Güler

Abstract

Renewable energy production has been steadily increasing in recent years. Generating energy from renewable sources and making them operational for use is essential. Alongside production, efficiently utilizing these resources is equally important. For efficient use, exploring various alternatives and conducting optimization processes are crucial. Organic Rankine Cycles (ORCs) allow energy production from low enthalpy temperature sources. By using working fluids with low boiling points, it is possible to create a Rankine cycle at low temperatures. Each system operates under unique regional and environmental conditions, so careful selection of working fluids is necessary. Factors such as heat source temperature and pressure, ambient pressure and temperature, location, and purpose of use cause different fluids to exhibit varying behaviors. In this study, the effects of different working fluids were examined for the Afyon geothermal power plant. The active plant utilizes geothermal water at 110°C and a flow rate of 150 kg/s. The plant's capacity is approximately 2.7 MW. R-134a, a widely used working fluid, serves as the intermediary fluid. Additionally, fluids such as isopentane, n-pentane, isobutane, R-12, and R-32 were tested. Thermodynamic and thermoeconomic analyses of the system were conducted using these fluids. With R-134a, 2.75 MW of power was generated at a unit energy cost of $0.025/kWh. Among the alternative fluids, isobutane produced 2.95 MW of power with a unit energy cost of $0.016/kWh. The energy efficiencies of the system for R-134a and isobutane were 10.9% and 11.6%, respectively. Similarly, the exergy efficiencies for these fluids were 31.1% and 33.1%, respectively. Although better results can be achieved with certain alternative fluids, the data are insufficient to directly replace the current working fluid in the system. Performing a separate optimization study with these promising fluids will be a critical step in determining the final working fluid.

Keywords

Geothermal Energy, ORC, Thermo-Economic Analysis, Working Fluid Selection

References

• 1. Lund, J. W., Huttrer, G. W., & Toth, A. N. (2022). Characteristics and trends in geothermal development and use, 1995 to 2020. Geothermics, 105, 102522. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geothermics.2022.102522
• 2. Wang, E. H., Zhang, H. G., Fan, B. Y., Ouyang, M. G., Zhao, Y., & Mu, Q. H. (2011). Study of working fluid selection of organic Rankine cycle (ORC) for engine waste heat recovery. Energy, 36(5), 3406-3418. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2011.03.041
• 3. Liu, Y., Sun, W., & Liu, X. (2024). Greening the organic Rankine cycles: low-global warming potential working fluids for low-temperature waste heat recovery. International Journal of Exergy, 45(1-2), 126-143. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJEX.2024.141686
• 4. Li, B., Xie, H., Sun, L., Gao, T., Xia, E., Liu, B., ... & Long, X. (2024). Advanced exergy analysis and multi-objective optimization of dual-loop ORC driven by LNG cold energy and geothermal energy. Renewable Energy, 122164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2024.122164
• 5. Daniarta, S., Imre, A. R., & Kolasiński, P. (2024). A novel approach to district heating: using a two-phase expander in reversible heat pump-Organic Rankine Cycle system. In Proceedings of the 7th International Seminar on ORC Power System:(ORC2023) (pp. 169-175). Editorial Universidad de Sevilla. https://dx.doi.org/10.12795/9788447227457
• 6. Xia, X., Zhang, H., Wang, Z., Yang, C., Sun, T., & Peng, B. (2024). Performance comparison of two ORC-VCR system configurations using pure/mixture working fluids based on multi-objective optimization. Applied Thermal Engineering, 255, 124027. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2024.124027
• 7. Feng, J., Yan, Y., Zhao, L., & Dong, H. (2024). Energy, Exergy, and Economic Performance Comparison and Parametric Optimization of Organic Rankine Cycles Using Isobutane, Isopentane, and Their Mixtures for Waste Heat Recovery. Energies (19961073), 17(23). https://doi.org/10.3390/en17235893
• 8. Liang, Z., Zheng, G., Wu, G., Pan, Z., Hu, Z., Xu, M., & Chen, H. (2024). Thermodynamic performance of organic Rankine cycle based pumped thermal energy storage system with different working fluids. Heliyon. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e41052
• 9. Rachmat, A., Pansawati, I. S., Agustin, Y., Surachman, A., Sutardi, T., & Suyanto, S. (2024, November). Multi-Objective optimization of a combined double flash–Binary cycle for Wayang Windu geothermal power plant based on exergy and economics. In AIP Conference Proceedings (Vol. 3215, No. 1). AIP Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0235648
• 10. Hou, Z., Imechoui, I., Chong, P. L., Guo, P., Deng, Y., & Gao, Y. (2024). Enhancing exergy and economical performance of a waste heat power generation system: Multi-objective optimization and comparative analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production, 482, 144235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.144235
• 11. Özcan, Z., & Ekici, Ö. (2021). A novel working fluid selection and waste heat recovery by an exergoeconomic approach for a geothermally sourced ORC system. Geothermics, 95, 102151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geothermics.2021.102151
• 12. Şahin, C. (2016). Düşük sıcaklıklı jeotermal sahalarda organik rankin çevrimi (ORC) ile elektrik enerjisi üretiminde Afyon Jeotermal Elektrik Üretim AŞ modellemesi (Master's thesis, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü).
• 13. Yılmaz, C. (2020). Performance Evaluation of Afyon Geothermal Power Plant with Low Grade Energy Sources. Konya Journal of Engineering Sciences, 8(3), 448-465. https://doi.org/10.36306/konjes.627174
• 14. Yılmaz, C. (2020). Improving performance and thermoeconomic optimization of an existing binary geothermal power plant: A case study. Isı Bilimi ve Tekniği Dergisi, 40(1), 37-51.
• 15. Sen, O., Guler, O. F., Yilmaz, C., & Kanoglu, M. (2021). TherModynamic Modeling and Analysis of a Solar and Geothermal Assisted Multi-Generation Energy System. Energy Conversion and Management, 239, 114186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2021.114186
• 16. Cengel, Y. A., Boles, M. A., & Kanoğlu, M. (2011). Thermodynamics: an engineering approach (Vol. 5, p. 445). New York: McGraw-hill.
• 17. Bejan, A., Tsatsaronis, G., & Moran, M. J. (1995). Thermal design and optimization. John Wiley & Sons.
• 18. Guler, O. F., Sen, O., Yilmaz, C., & Kanoglu, M. (2022). Performance evaluation of a geothermal and solar-based multigeneration system and comparison with alternative case studies: Energy, exergy, and exergoeconomic aspects. Renewable Energy, 200, 1517-1532. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2022.10.064
• 19. Özahi, E., & Tozlu, A. (2020). Optimization of an adapted Kalina cycle to an actual municipal solid waste power plant by using NSGA-II method. Renewable Energy, 149, 1146-1156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2019.10.102
• 20. Mahmoudi, S. M. S., Pourreza, A., Akbari, A. D., & Yari, M. (2016). Exergoeconomic evaluation and optimization of a novel combined augmented Kalina cycle/gas turbine-modular helium reactor. Applied Thermal Engineering, 109, 109-120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2016.08.011
• 21. Mosaffa, A. H., Mokarram, N. H., & Farshi, L. G. (2017). Thermoeconomic analysis of a new combination of ammonia/water power generation cycle with GT-MHR cycle and LNG cryogenic exergy. Applied Thermal Engineering, 124, 1343-1353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2017.06.126