Applied Thermal Engineering 31 (2011) 1229e1237

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Thermal Engineering

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

Performance investigation of the Afyon geothermal district heating system for

building applications: Exergy analysis
Ali Keçebaş a, *, Muhammet Kayfeci b, Engin Gedik c
a
Faculty of Technical Education, Afyon Kocatepe University, Afyon, Turkey
b
Karabuk Vocational High School, Karabuk University, Karabuk, Turkey
c
Faculty of Technical Education, Karabuk University, Karabuk, Turkey

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This paper deals with an energy and exergy evaluation and modeling of geothermal district heating
Received 13 September 2010 systems for their system analysis, performance evaluation and optimization. As a comprehensive case
Accepted 15 December 2010 study, the Afyon geothermal district heating system (AFJET) in Afyon, Turkey is considered and actual
Available online 30 December 2010
thermal data are collected and employed for analysis. Using actual system data, an evaluation of the
district heating system performance, energy and exergy efficiencies, and exergy destructions in the
Keywords:
system are conducted in this regard. This study is also conducted to show how energy and exergy
Geothermal energy
efficiencies of the GDHSs will change with the reference temperature and how exergy losses will affect
District heating system
Energy analysis
by the temperature difference between the geothermal resource and the supply temperature of the
Exergy analysis district heating distribution network. In addition, the negative effects of discharge waters of the AFJET are
Efficiency presented. The energy and exergy efficiencies of the entire AFJET are found to be 37.59% and 47.54%,
respectively. The results are expected to be helpful to researchers and engineers in the area.
Crown Copyright Ó 2010 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction (32.0%), in balneology (30.4%), for space heating (20.2%), for

The worldwide demand for energy has been growing rapidly as
a result of increasing fossil fuel consumption, climate change,
population and industrialization. Therefore, there is an urgent need
to deploy sustainable and environmentally friendly energy sources
such as geothermal, solar, wind etc. One of them is geothermal
energy. It has high availability because the source does not depend
on weather conditions, so it is among the most stable renewable
energy sources.
Geothermal energy utilization applications have been recently
subject to growing attention because of their minimum negative
environmental impact, low operating cost, decentralized produc-
tion advantages, and simplicity of their technologies. Utilization of
geothermal energy can be categorized in two groups with regard to
the temperature of geothermal resources; i) electricity generation
and ii) direct use [1]. Direct application can use both high- and low-
temperature geothermal resources and therefore it is much more
widespread in the world than electricity production [2]. In 2005,
the installed capacity for direct use of geothermal energy applica-
tions worldwide was 28,269 MW; the total energy produced was
75,943 GWh. This energy was used for geothermal heat pumps
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ90 272 2281311; fax: þ90 272 2281319.
E-mail address: alikecebas@aku.edu.tr (A. Keçebaş).
greenhouse heating (7.6%), Aquaculture (4.0%), in industrial uses
(4.0%), in agriculture (0.7%), for cooling/snow melting (0.6%), others
(0.4%). Turkey is among the first five leader countries after US,
Sweden, China, Iceland in its geothermal direct use applications.
The installed capacity for direct use of geothermal energy appli-
cations in Turkey was 1495 MW and the produced total energy was
6900 GWh [3]. It is estimated that 5 million residences can be
heated and thus 48 million ton/year of a CO2 emissions into the
atmosphere can be prevented if the geothermal heating potential in
Turkey is used [4].
As far as geothermal systems are concerned, various studies can
be categorized into five groups as: (i) energy and exergy analysis of
geothermal power plants [5e10], (ii) evaluation of geothermal fields
using exergy analysis [11], (iii) classification of geothermal resources
by exergy [12], (iv) energy and exergy analysis geothermal district
heating systems (GDHSs) [13e23], and (vi) exergoeconomic anal-
ysis of GDHSs [16,24e26].
In Turkey, the performance evaluation of geothermal district
heating systems has been studied since they were first installed in
the Gonen field of Balıkesir. Today, Turkey has installed 20
geothermal district heating system [1,27]. Until now, many studies
[5e26] have been carried out for energy and exergy analyses of
some Turkish GDHSs (i.e. the Gonen, Balcova, Salihli, Simav and
Edremit GDHSs) and some for their various technical and opera-
tional aspects.

1359-4311/$ e see front matter Crown Copyright Ó 2010 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2010.12.024
1230 A. Keçebaş et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 31 (2011) 1229e1237

In this study, a comprehensive energy and exergy analysis is collector (from four production wells) with a total mass flow rate of
investigated on the Afyon geothermal district heating system about 175 kg/s. This fluid at an average temperature of about 95  C
located in the city of Afyon, Turkey, using actual data obtained in is then pumped through the main pipeline to the AFJET in centre of
January 8, 2009. The aim of this study is to assess the entire system Afyon City. The main pipeline from the geothermal field to the
and its essential components for performance evaluation and AFJET which is isolated and epoxy-coated is 450 mm in diameter,
comparison and some useful results are given at the end of this and there is a return pipeline of 14,650 m length which is not iso-
study. lated. A cathodic production system was installed to avoid corro-
sion of the pipeline. Moreover, Pump 1 and Pump 9 are used because
2. System description of the long and elevated distance between the geothermal field and
the geo-heat mechanical room of the AFJET. In-between these two
Afyon geothermal district heating system (AFJET) was founded points, geothermal fluid temperature decreases by about 3e4  C,
in 1994 to provide residential heating for buildings by using respectively.
geothermal water and to provide hot water for commercial In the energy distribution cycle, geothermal fluid is sent to the
greenhouses by using re-circulated geothermal fluid. The AFJET was six heat plate exchangers at a 16 million kcal/h total capacity in the
initially designed for 10,000 residences equally but today, 4,129 of geo-heat mechanical room and is cooled to about 45e50  C (in
these residences are heated. The outdoor and indoor design 8 January 2009). Reinjection of these fluids back into the
temperatures for the system are 12 and 22  C, respectively. The geothermal field prevents the geothermal fluids, which contain
AFJET where three hospitals, three schools, three mosques, seven high dissolved minerals, from contaminating the surface environ-
official buildings, five student dormitories, a military post, and ment and also preserves the reservoir pressure [28]. Because the
dwellings are heated by geothermal energy is also included. maximum discharge rate for residential heating, 630 m3/h, is
Potential of the AFJET is 48.333 MWt and it has a total area of beyond the total reinjection capacity, 450 m3/h, the excess fluid is
513,683 m2. released to the Akarcay Stream. In time, the released geothermal
The geothermal fluid of the AFJET is fed from the Omer-Gecek fluids degrade the water quality of Akarcay Stream down to the
geothermal field. This geothermal field was located near the Afyon- closed catchment of Lake Eber [29].
Kutahya highway at 15th km to the northwest of Afyon City which In final cycle, clean hot water is pumped to the six exchangers
is on the west of Turkey. It covers a total area of about 16 km2. In and then outgoing water is sent to the heat exchangers which are
this field, 26 geothermal production and reinjection wells have constructed under all buildings on the zones. The mean
been drilled until now. However, 14 of them have been monitored temperatures of clean hot water obtained during the operation of
by technical staff. Table 1 gives some information about the wells. the AFJET are 60/45  C for the building cycle. The temperature,
Currently, there are 14 wells ranging from 112 to 905 m in depth. pressure and flow rate data of the system were recorded in
Seven of them are used by the AFJET. Four wells (AF11, AF16, AF18, January 8, 2009. By using the control valves for flow rate and
and AF21) are production artesian wells. Three wells (AF4, AF13, temperature at the building main station, the needed amount of
and AF22) in the system are reinjection wells. An average reservoir water is sent to each housing unit and the heat balance of the
temperature of these wells is 105  C. As of January 2009, the system is achieved.
wellhead temperatures of the production wells vary from 93 to
99  C, while the flow rates of the wells range from 150 to 220 m3/h.
The AFJET consists mainly of three cycles: (a) energy production 3. Analysis
cycle (EPC) or geothermal well loop, (b) energy distribution cycle
(EDC) or district heating distribution network, and (c) energy 3.1. Balance equations
consumption cycle (ECC). A schematic of AFJET is shown in Fig. 1. In
the energy production cycle; geothermal fluid collected from the It is well known that the three balance equations, namely mass,
production wells, is sent to the inlet of the mixing pool, a main energy and exergy balance equations, are used to find the heat
input, the rate of exergy decrease, the rate of irreversibility, and the
energy and exergy efficiencies for a general steady-state, steady-
Table 1 flow process.
Data on wells of the Omer-Gecek (Afyon) geothermal field [26].
In general, the mass balance equation can be expressed in the
Well Year Depth Temperature Mass flow Status rate form as
(m) ( C) rate (m3/h) X X
R17 1996 363.6 e 100 Monitoring for static _ in ¼
m _ out
m (1)
thermal water level
R20 1997 230.3 e 130 Monitoring for static where m_ is the mass flow rate, and the subscript “in” stands for inlet
thermal water level and “out” for outlet.
R260 1971 165 e 75 Monitoring for static The general energy balance can be expressed by all energy terms
thermal water level
as below where the changes in kinetic and potential energy are
AF1 1974 905 e e Monitoring for static
thermal water level neglected,
AF8 1984 250 e e Monitoring for static X X
thermal water level Q_ þ m _ þ
_ in hin ¼ W _ out hout
m (2)
AF19 1997 305.3 e e Monitoring for static
thermal water level where Q_ ¼ Q_ net;in ¼ Q_ in  Q_ out is the rate of net heat input, W
_ ¼
AF15 1996 170.7 e e Not operation _ _ _
W net;out ¼ W out  W in is the rate of net work output, and h is the
AF4 1982 125.7 45e50 250e450 Reinjection specific enthalpy.
AF11 1995 184.3 104 170 Production
Assuming no changes in kinetic and potential energies with no
AF13 1996 560 45e50 15 Reinjection
AF16 1996 218 102 150 Production heat or work transfers, the energy balance given in Eq. (2) can be
AF18 1996 363.6 106 200 Production simplified to flow enthalpies only:
AF21 1997 112 101 220 Production
X X
AF22 1997 227 45e50 200 Reinjection _ in hin ¼
m _ out hout
m (3)
 A. Keçebaş et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 31 (2011) 1229e1237 1231

Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of the AFJET.

The general exergy rate balance can be expressed as; where s is entropy. For exergy destruction (or irreversibility), the
$ $ $ $ $ entropy generation S_ gen is calculated first and used in the following
E xheat  E xwork þ E xmass;in  E xmass;out ¼ E xdest (4)
equation;
and more explicitly; $
I_ ¼ E xdest ¼ T0 S_ gen (7)
X T0 _
 X X $
1 _ þ
Qk  W _ in jin 
m _ out jout ¼ E xdest
m (5)
Tk
3.2. Energy and exergy efficiencies
where Q_ k is the heat transfer rate crossing the boundary at
temperature Tk at location k, W _ is the work rate, j is the flow
Basically, the energy efficiency of the system can be defined as
exergy, and the subscript zero indicates properties at the restricted the ratio of total energy output to total energy input.
dead state of P0 and T0.
The specific exergy and exergy rate equations for the geothermal E_
hsystem ¼ _output (8)
fluid flow system can be defined as Einput

j ¼ ðh  h0 Þ  T0 ðs  s0 Þ where in most cases “output” refers to “useful” one.

$ (6) Numerous ways of formulating exergetic (or exergy or second
_
E x ¼ m½ðh  h0 Þ  T0 ðs  s0 Þ law) efficiency (effectiveness, or rational efficiency) for various
1232 A. Keçebaş et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 31 (2011) 1229e1237

energy systems are given in detail elsewhere [30]. In a similar way calculated as 0.15, this means that 15% of the total exergy input is
we define exergy efficiency as the ratio of total exergy output to delivered to that particular device.
total exergy input
F_ i
$ fi ¼ (13)
E xoutput _F Tot
3 ¼ $ (9)
E xinput Fuel depletion ratio gives the ratio of exergy destruction of each
system element to the total exergy content of the entire system as
where “output” refers to “net output” or “product” or “desired follows
value”, and “input” refers to “given” or “used”.
I_
di ¼ _ i (14)
3.3. Specific exergy index (SExI), exergetic improvement potential F Tot
(IP) and some other thermodynamic parameters
Productivity lack is defined as the ratio of exergy destruction of
each system element to the total useful exergy obtained from the
Geothermal resources are generally classified according to their
entire system.
reservoir temperatures as low-temperature (>90  C), interme-
diate-temperature (90e150  C) and high-temperature (>150  C) I_
resources, while some may have slightly different ranges of the xi ¼ _ i (15)
P Tot
temperatures [12]. Since temperature itself is not sufficient for
proper classification, some (e.g., [12]) suggest that two indepen-
3.4. Energy, exergy and efficiency relations for the AFJET
dent properties are required to define the thermodynamic state of
a fluid clearly. Geothermal energy is already in the form of heat, and
The balance equations are written for the AFJET and their
from the thermodynamic point of view, work is more useful than
components under steady-state steady-flow control volume
heat because not all the heat can be converted to work. Therefore,
conditions. Pressure drops due to the liquid flow friction and
geothermal resources can be classified to reflect their ability to do
geothermal fluid of intermingling molecules of different species
thermodynamic work. In this regard, Lee [12] proposed a new
through molecular diffusion are neglected in this study.
parameter, namely specific exergy index (SExI) for better classifi-
For the overall geothermal system, the mass balance equation is
cation and evaluation as follows
written as follows
hbrine  273:16sbrine X
n
SExI ¼ (10)
1192 _ w;Tot  m
m _ rm
_d ¼ 0 (16)
i¼1
which is a straight line on an hes plot of the Mollier diagram.
Straight lines of SExI ¼ 0.5 and SExI ¼ 0.05 can therefore be drawn where m _ w;Tot is the total mass flow rate at wellhead, m _ r is the flow
in this diagram and used as a map for classifying geothermal rate of the reinjected geothermal fluid and m _ d is the mass flow rate
resources by taking into account the following criteria: of the natural direct discharge.
The geothermal fluid (brine) energy and exergy inputs from the
 SExI < 0.05 for low-quality geothermal resources; production field of the AFJET are calculated from the following
 0.05  SExI < 0.5 for medium-quality geothermal resources; equations;
and
 SExI  0.5 for high-quality geothermal resources. E_ brine ¼ m
_ w ðhbrine  h0 Þ
$ (17)
_ w ½ðhbrine  h0 Þ  T0 ðsbrine  s0 Þ
E xbrine ¼ m
Here, the demarcation limits for these indices are exergies of
saturated water and dry saturated steam at 1 bar absolute. The exergy destructions in the pump, heat exchange and system
Van Gool [31] has also noted that maximum improvement in the itself are calculated as follows
exergy efficiency for a process or system is $obviously achieved $ $ $
$ _ pump  ðE xout  E x Þ
E xdest;pump ¼ W (18)
when the exergy loss or irreversibility ðE xin  E xout Þ is minimized. in
Consequently, he suggested that it is useful to employ the concept
$ $ $
of an exergetic “improvement potential (IP)” when analyzing E xdest;he ¼ E xin  E xout (19)
different processes. Van Gool [31] proposed the exergetic
improvement potential rate (IP) by the relation; $ X$ X$
$ $ E xdest;system ¼ E xdest;he þ E xdest;pump (20)
IP ¼ ð1  3ÞðE xin  E xout Þ (11)
Thermodynamic analysis of thermal and geothermal energy Based upon Eq. (8), the energy efficiency of the AFJET is calcu-
systems may also be performed using the following parameters lated from
[32]
Relative irreversibility describes the ratio of exergy destruction
E_ useful;he
hsystem ¼ (21)
(irreversibility) rate to total exergy destruction for each system E_ brine
element as given in Eq. (12). For example, if the relative irrevers-
Using Eq. (9), the exergy efficiency of the AFJET is calculated
ibility of a device is found to be 0.15, this means that 15% of the total
from one of the following equation
exergy destruction takes place in that particular device.
$
I_i 3system ¼
E xuseful;he
(22)
ci ¼ _ (12) $
ITot E xbrine
Exergetic factor is described as exergetic distribution for each The energetic and exergetic efficiencies and exergy destruc-
system element as given in Eq. (13). For example, if the value is tions for the entire system and its major system components are
 A. Keçebaş et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 31 (2011) 1229e1237 1233

Table 2
Energy, exergy rates and other thermodynamics properties at various system locations for the AFJET (based on the measurements taken in 8 January 2009).

State noa Fluid typec Temperature, Pressure, Specific enthalpy, Specific entropy, Mass flow rate, Specific exergy, Exergy
$
rate, Energy rate,
T ( C) P (kPa) h (kJ/kg) s (kJ/kg K) _ (kg/s)
m j (kJ/kg) E x (kW) E_ (kW)
0b TW 9.2 101.32 38.645 0.1390 e e e e
1 TW 99 180 414.824 1.2955 100 49.815 4981.470 37,617.90
2 TW 96 120 402.176 1.2613 40 46.818 1872.718 14,541.24
3 TW 98 200 410.608 1.2841 40 48.816 1952.631 14,878.52
4 TW 93 80 389.544 1.2270 45 43.865 1973.943 15,790.46
5 TW 95 95 397.96 1.2500 175 45.791 8013.390 62,880.13
6 TW 95.7 800 400.91 1.2579 175 46.511 8139.499 63,396.38
7 TW 93 70 389.544 1.2270 175 43.865 7676.445 61,407.33
8 TW 93 70 389.544 1.2270 37.5 43.865 1644.953 13,158.71
9 TW 51 70 213.510 0.7166 37.5 11.866 444.986 6557.44
10 TW 93 70 389.544 1.2270 38.8 43.865 1701.978 13,614.88
11 TW 49 70 205.154 0.6907 38.8 10.819 419.787 6460.55
12 TW 93 70 389.544 1.2270 41.7 43.865 1829.187 14,632.49
13 TW 52 70 217.690 0.7294 41.7 12.434 518.503 7466.18
14 TW 93 70 389.544 1.2270 27.8 43.865 1219.485 9754.99
15 TW 49 70 205.154 0.6907 27.8 10.819 300.775 4628.95
16 TW 93 70 389.544 1.2270 16.7 43.865 732.552 5860.01
17 TW 48 70 200.978 0.6777 16.7 10.312 172.208 2710.96
18 TW 93 70 389.544 1.2277 12.5 43.865 548.318 4386.24
19 TW 56 70 234.410 0.7805 12.5 14.734 184.171 2447.06
20 W 47.7 645 199.730 0.6738 125 10.159 1269.930 20,135.00
21 W 47 330 196.802 0.6646 122.5 9.832 1229.085 19,769.63
22 W 61 660 255.320 0.8436 125 17.833 2229.110 27,083.88
23 W 47.7 635 199.730 0.6738 138.9 10.164 1411.841 22,374.71
24 W 47 350 196.802 0.6646 136.1 9.832 1365.759 21,968.01
25 W 60 650 251.130 0.8312 138.9 17.621 2381.602 29,514.17
26 W 49.7 625 208.080 0.6698 138.9 11.174 1552.102 23,534.10
27 W 49 370 205.154 0.6907 136.1 10.819 1502.795 23,128.10
28 W 61 660 255.320 0.8436 138.9 17.833 2476.987 30,095.60
29 W 49.7 580 208.080 0.6998 97.2 11.174 1086.136 16,468.79
30 W 49 400 205.154 0.6907 95.3 10.819 1051.632 16,184.67
31 W 60 610 251.130 0.8312 97.2 17.146 1666.607 20,653.54
32 W 52.7 590 220.620 0.7384 55.6 12.820 712.810 10,117.59
33 W 52 500 217.690 0.7294 55.6 12.434 691.337 9954.90
34 W 60 600 251.130 0.8312 55.6 17.146 953.326 11,814.17
35 W 52.7 555 220.320 0.7384 41.7 12.520 522.097 7575.68
36 W 52 510 217.690 0.7294 41.7 12.434 518.503 7466.18
37 W 60 560 251.130 0.8312 41.7 17.146 714.995 8860.62
38 W 12.4 220 52.080 0.1862 10 0.115 1.152 134.35
39 e e e e e e e e e
40 e e e e e e e e e
41 W 12.4 410 52.08 0.1862 1.9 0.115 0.219 25.53
42 W 12.4 410 52.08 0.1862 2.8 0.115 0.322 37.62
43 W 12.4 410 52.08 0.1862 2.8 0.115 0.322 37.62
44 W 12.4 410 52.08 0.1862 2.5 0.115 0.288 33.59
45 TWR 50 70 209.33 0.7038 175 11.298 1977.227 29,869.88
46 TWNDD 50 70 209.33 0.7038 52.8 11.298 596.558 9012.17
47 TWR 50 70 209.33 0.7038 122.2 11.298 1380.669 20,857.71
48 TWR 50.7 800 217.69 0.7294 122.2 12.434 1519.449 21,879.30
a
State numbers refer to Fig. 1 for the AFJET.
b
The phase of the reference state is liquid. The reference state temperature and atmospheric pressure are 9.2  C and 101.32 kPa, respectively.
c
Abbreviations: 0, reference state; W, Water; TW, thermal water; TWR, thermal water reinjection; TWNDD, thermal water natural direct discharge.

calculated using the above equations and are listed in Tables 2
and 3.
4. Results and discussion
In this study, the AFJET is described and its balance equations are
written for mass, energy and exergy flows in the system, which are
treated as the steady-state steady-flow system and the respective
energy and exergy efficiency equations are also written for the
system and its components.
The actual temperature, pressure, and mass flow rate data for
both geothermal fluid and hot clean water are given in accor-
dance with their state numbers as specified in Fig. 1. The energy
and exergy rates are calculated using the above equations for
each state as listed in Table 2 for January 8, 2009. Note that
state 0 indicates the reference state for both geothermal fluid
and clean hot water. In this study, this reference state was
considered as 9.2  C based on the ambient temperature and the
atmospheric pressure of 101.32 kPa, which were the values
measured in January 8, 2009. For geothermal fluid, the ther-
modynamic properties of water are used. By doing so, any
possible effects of salts and incondensable gases that might be
present in the geothermal fluid are neglected [33]. Besides
the pressure losses due to the liquid flow friction were consid-
ered negligible. The thermodynamic properties of water are
calculated using Engineering Equation Solver (EES) software
package.
It is important to note that the number of the wells in operation
in the Omer-Gecek geothermal field may vary depending on the
heating days and operating strategy. According to the four
production wells, the specific exergy index (SExI) is found to be
0.049 using Eq. (10). This represents that the Omer-Gecek
1234 A. Keçebaş et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 31 (2011) 1229e1237

Table 3
Some exergetic, energetic and thermodynamics analysis data for the AFJET.

Component Exergy Utilized Heat transfer P_ (kW) F_ (kW) Exergy Relative Fuel Productivity Exergetic Energy
no. destruction power rate or (second law) irreversibility depletion lack, x (%) factor, f (first law)
rate (kW) (kW) installed efficiency (%) (%) rate, c (%) (%) efficiency
power (kW) (%)
Heat exchanger
I 199.94 6601.28 25,817 1000.03 1199.97 83.34 7.11 3.14 4.56 18.86 e
II 266.35 7154.33 24,733 1015.84 1282.19 79.23 9.47 4.19 6.07 20.16 e
III 336.49 7166.31 23,057 974.19 1310.68 74.33 11.97 5.29 7.67 20.60 e
IV 303.71 5126.04 17,129 614.97 918.68 66.94 10.80 4.77 6.93 14.44 e
V 298.35 3149.05 11,494 261.99 560.34 46.76 10.61 4.69 6.80 8.81 e
VI 167.65 1939.18 8584 196.49 364.15 53.96 5.96 2.64 3.82 5.72 e

Booster pump
Pump 1 188.89 315 410 126.11 315 40.03 6.72 2.97 4.31 4.95 65e80

Circulation pumps
Pump 2 49.15 90 274 40.85 90 45.38 1.75 0.77 1.12 1.41 65e80
Pump 3 43.92 90 274 46.08 90 51.20 1.56 0.69 1.00 1.41 65e80
Pump 4 40.69 90 274 49.08 90 54.79 1.45 0.64 0.93 1.41 65e80
Pump 5 15.50 50 182 34.50 50 69.01 0.55 0.24 0.35 0.79 65e80
Pump 6 28.53 50 182 21.47 50 42.95 1.01 0.45 0.65 0.79 65e80
Pump 7 36.41 40 166 3.59 40 8.99 1.30 0.57 0.83 0.63 65e80

Pump of pressurized water tank

Pump 8 40 40 40 0.00 40 0.00 1.42 0.63 0.91 0.63 65e80

Reinjection pump
Pump 9 176 315 410 138.78 315 44.06 6.27 2.77 4.02 4.95 65e80

Heat exchangers (I 1572.49 31,136.19 110,814 4063.51 5636.01 e e e e e e

eVI)
Pumps (Pump 1e9) 619.09 1080 2212 460.69 1080 e e e e e e
Overall systema 3539.22 4524.20 113,026 4524.20 6716.01 47.54 e e e 100 37.59
a
Based on the exergy (or energy) input to thermal water and clean hot water.

geothermal field falls into the low-quality geothermal resource
according to the Lee’s classification [12].
The energy and exergy efficiencies, thermodynamic perfor-
mance parameters, and exergy destruction rates for the entire
system and its major system components are given in Table 3,
where exergy is evaluated with respect to the reference state. As
seen in Table 3, the energy and exergy efficiencies calculated for the
AFJET are respectively 37.59% (i.e. about 31,136.19 kW) and 47.54%
(i.e. about 5125.54 kW) using the values given in Table 2 and
Eqs. (21) and (22). It is clear that 62.41% of the total energy input is
not used at all. Therefore, the energy flow diagram for the AFJET is
illustrated in Fig. 2. The thermal reinjection and the natural direct
discharge account for respectively 26.42% and 10.88% of the total
energy input, while the pipeline losses of the system cover its
25.11%, and the heat exchangers gain 37.59%. From here, there are
two problems such as large amount of energy loss and thermal
pollution in the river due to discharge water at w45e50  C, which
will eventually affect the aquatic life and ecology.
In practice we know that all processes are irreversible, and
energy analysis is insufficient to deal with the problem accordingly.
Consequently, it is apparent that exergy is needed as a potential tool
to determine how much exergy destructions and losses take place
in each component of the system and to require engineers to work
on better system efficiency. In here, the exergy flow diagram for the
system is given in Fig. 3, showing that 47.54% of the total exergy
entering the system is utilized (i.e. 53.06% is lost). The highest
exergy loss is from the heat exchangers (14.59%); followed by the
losses associated with the reinjected fluid (14.09%) and those
related to the pipelines, pumps and natural direct discharge
(12.50%, 5.74% and 5.53%, respectively). The highest exergy lost of
14.59% occurs from the heat exchangers of the system due to the
district heating supply temperature and a significant amount of
water leaks in the piping system in both EPC and EDC. The district
heating supply temperature should be selected as high as possible
to increase the exergy efficiency of the heat exchangers and hence
the whole system in consistent with the operating strategies.

Fig. 2. Energy flow diagram of the AFJET. Fig. 3. Exergy flow diagram of the AFJET.
 A. Keçebaş et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 31 (2011) 1229e1237
Fig. 4. Exergetic improvement potential (IP) of heat exchangers in the AFJET.
Using Eq. (11), the exergetic improvement potential (IP) is
calculated for the six plate-type heat exchangers installed in the
AFJET. As can be seen in Fig. 4, the fifth heat exchanger has the
largest IP rate of 158.84 kW, followed by the fourth, third, sixth,
second and first heat exchangers with rates of 100.41, 86.38, 77.19,
55.32 and 33.31 kW, respectively. In order to improve the system
efficiency, water leakages in the energy consumption circuit (EDC)
and the energy consumption cycle (ECC) should be avoided.
Many GDHSs such as the AFJET do not have automatic temper-
ature control system for outdoor temperature. As the mass flow
rates of the systems are changed manually without controlling of
outdoor temperatures, the technical managements of system face
some problems in many residences. Besides, from Table 3 and using
Eq. (16), the reinjection fluid mass flow rate is 122.5 kg/s, the
mixing pool (from four production wells) mass flow rate is 175 kg/s
and the production well total mass flow rate is 225 kg/s, and the
natural direct discharge of the system is then found to be 52.8 kg/s
based on the data for January 8, 2009. Measurements indicated that
pipeline water losses in the energy production circuit (EPC) were
not noticeable. But the calculations, which based on 8 January 2009
data, showed that the fluid loss in the pipelines of the energy
consumption circuit (EDC) and the energy consumption cycle (ECC)
was about 10 kg/s. This clearly indicates that in the AFJET there is
a significant amount of water loss through leaks and drippings in
these two cycles, which was made of carbon steel pipe and wrap-
ped with polyurethane foam insulating material (e.g., glass wool) to
provide a sealing and insulation. This was a result of poor operation,
maintenance and control of these two cycles. In this regard,
replacement of some pipelines and proper control of the flow are
required for possible improvements.
It is important that the exergy should always be evaluated based
on the reference environment (i.e., dead state). When a system is in
equilibrium with the environment, the state of the system is called
the reference (dead) state due to the fact that the exergy is zero. At
the dead state, the conditions of thermal, mechanical, and chemical
Table 4
Comparison of various GDHSs by exergy destructions and energy and exergy efficiencies.
GDHSs Location/country Dead state Date of data used Total Exergy destructions (% of the total exergy input)
temperature exergy
 Pumps
( C) input (kW)
Balcova Izmir/Turkey 11.4 January 2, 2004 14,390
Gonen Balikesir/Turkey 10 February 1, 2004 2333.33
Bigadic Balikesir/Turkey 11 December 2006 2889
Edremit Balikesir/Turkey 13.4 January 20, 2007 1927
AFJET Afyon/Turkey 9.2 January 8, 2009 10,780.77
1235
equilibrium between the system and the environment are satisfied:
the pressure, temperature, and chemical potentials of the system
equal those of the environment, respectively. In addition, the
system has no motion or elevation relative to coordinates in the
environment. Under these conditions, there is neither possibility
of a spontaneous change within the system or the environment nor
an interaction between them. The value of exergy is zero. Another
type of equilibrium between the system and environment can
be identified. This is a restricted form of equilibrium where only
the condition of mechanical and thermal equilibrium (thermo-
mechanical equilibrium) must be satisfied. Such state is called the
restricted dead state. At the restricted dead state, the fixed quantity
of matter under consideration is imagined to be sealed in an
envelope impervious to mass flow, at zero velocity and elevation
relative to coordinates in the environment, and at the temperature
T0 and pressure P0 taken often as 25  C and 1 atm [13,14]. In this
study, Table 4 shows GDHSs in Turkey, which have been energeti-
cally and exergetically evaluated, according to studies made at the
dead state temperatures close to each other. It can be seen that from
values given in Table 4, the energy and exergy efficiencies of GDHSs
have ranged, respectively, from 33.89% to 49.14% and from 46.55%
to 66.13% at the changing dead state temperatures between 9 and
13  C. When the GDHSs in this table are compared among them-
selves, while the Gonen GDHS has highest energy and exergy
efficiencies among these systems, the AFJET has a higher pipeline
losses than the others. In addition, it can be seen that the lower
dead state temperature, the larger the exergy destructions in the
heat exchangers and pipeline of system (i.e., the AFJET).
In the GDHSs, the temperature difference between the geothermal
resource and the supply temperature of the district heating distri-
bution network plays an important role in terms of exergy losses. In
fact, district heating supply temperature is determined after the
optimization calculation. In this calculation, it should be taken into
account that while increasing supply temperature causes a increase
in heat loses at distribution network, it results in decreasing the
investment cost at distribution system and the electricity energy
needs at pumping station. Unless a specific reason exists, the district
heating supply temperature should be higher due to increasing the
exergy efficiency of heat exchangers and therefore the whole of
system. In the improving design and performance, there are also
some important points to consider, such as the return temperature
of the district heating network affected by the external conditions,
users connection type and characteristics of the heating devices. On
the other hand, by dropping the district heating supply temperature
increases the amount of building heating equipment to be over-
sized. Oversizing does not mean not only cost but also more exergy
production due to unnecessarily inflated pumping, pipe appara-
tuses, etc.
Nowadays, there are many studies showing that the flow rates
(w190 m3/h), temperature (w45e50  C) and chemical concentra-
tion of the natural direct discharge (geothermal waste water) of the
AFJET cause the thermal and chemical pollutions on Akarcay Stream
Exergy Energy Reference
efficiency efficiency
Heat Thermal Natural direct
(%) (%)
exchangers reinjection discharge
1.74 8.83 14.18 28.70 46.55 42.36 [17]
17.45 8.19 7.37 0.86 66.13 49.14 [19]
1.70 26.30 e 34.00 49.00 40.00 [21]
1.66 6.07 29.94 8.04 54.26 33.89 [34]
5.74 14.59 14.09 5.53 47.54 37.59
1236 A. Keçebaş et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 31 (2011) 1229e1237
[35,36]. In natural conditions, the water composition which has
CaeHCO3 characteristic is converted into water dominated by
NaeHCO3 due to geothermal waste water discharge into the river.
On the other hand, the heavy metal and trace element concentra-
tions which are very low in natural conditions have been increased
by adding geothermal water. To eliminate the negative effects of
discharge waters of the AFJET on the river composition, the various
measures should be taken. Firstly, for the geothermal waste water,
it need to be considered for a successful reinjection process.
Furthermore, this process has applied in the AFJET for a long time.
The other is that the geothermal waste waters stored during the
winter months may be stripped ions by means of evaporation in
the summer months. It is possible that the geothermal waste
waters are purified from the pollutant components by means of
chemical purification systems.
The results briefly presented here show that exergy analysis is a
potential tool in determining locations, types and true magnitudes
of wastes and losses and a more efficient and optimized use of
energy can be accomplished by revealing the possible improve-
ments that can be done on the geothermal district heating systems
by reducing the inefficiencies in the systems and their components.
In addition exergy analysis can help optimize systems.
5. Conclusions
In this study, we present an energy and exergy analysis of
geothermal district heating systems in general and apply it to the
AFJET in Turkey. The GDHSs in Turkey were energetically and
exergetically evaluated according to studies made at the dead state
temperatures close to each other. Also, the environmental effects of
waste water in AFJET are investigated. This study can be reached the
following conclusions:
 For the specific exergy index (SExI), the Omer-Gecek geothermal
field falls into the category of low-quality geothermal resources.
 Exergy analysis is more meaningful and effective tool than
energy analysis for system performance assessment and eval-
uation in order to allow true values of the losses to be deter-
mined; therefore, exergy is one of the best ways to optimize
these systems.
 The energy and exergy efficiencies of the AFJET are found to be
37.59% and 47.54%, respectively. Energy can be lost to environ-
ment through losses, for example through poorly designed,
constructed and maintained piping networks, inefficient heat
exchangers, poor pump selection, etc. as well as heat utilization at
end use equipment. In the AFJET, the energy recovery should be
implemented and can be improved with more effective reinjec-
tion wells, and will result in less energy losses in the AFJET.
 It is also observed that automatic control of components
and process of the AFJET in general will reduce the losses and
human involvement and make the system more effective and
efficient.
 The exergy destructions in the system occur mainly due to the
heat exchanger losses, the reinjected fluid, the pipeline losses
(in energy consumption cycle (ECC)), the pump losses and
natural direct discharge, accounting for 14.59%, 14.09%, 12.50%,
5.74% and 5.53%, respectively, of the total exergy input to the
AFJET. The district heating supply temperature should be
selected as high as possible to increase the exergy efficiency of
the heat exchangers.
 While the Gonen GDHS has higher energy and exergy effi-
ciencies than the Afyon, Balcova, Bigadic and Edremit GDHSs,
the AFJET has highest pipeline exergy destruction among these
systems.
 To eliminate the negative effects of discharge waters of the
AFJET on the river composition, the various measures should be
taken.
 The data, energy and exergy analysis and their results are
expected to be beneficial to the technicians, engineers, decision
makers, researchers and readers in the field of geothermal
district heating systems.
Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge the support provided for
the present work by the AFJET Geothermal Inc. and the personal
support of the managing director, Mr. Erhan Ozsakaci. They are also
very grateful to the reviewers and the editor for their valuable and
constructive comments, which have been utilized in improving the
quality of the paper.
References
[1] B. Erdogmus, M. Toksoy, B. Ozerdem, N. Aksoy, Economic assessment of
geothermal district heating systems: a case study of Bolcova-Narlidere,
Turkey, Energy and Buildings 38 (2006) 1053e1059.
[2] I.B. Fridleifsson, Geothermal energy for the benefit of the people, Renewable
and Sustainable Energy Reviews 5 (2001) 299e312.
[3] W.J. Lund, D.H. Freeston, T.L. Boyd, Direct application of geothermal energy:
2005 worldwide review, Geothermics 34 (2005) 691e727.
[4] I.M. Komurcu, A. Akpinar, Importance of geothermal energy and its environ-
mental effects in Turkey, Renewable Energy 34 (2009) 1611e1615.
[5] M. Kanoglu, Y.A. Cengel, Retrofitting a geothermal power plant to optimize
performance: a case study, Transactions of the ASME, Journal of Energy
Resources Technology 121 (1999) 295e301.
[6] M. Kanoglu, Exergy analysis of a dual-level binary geothermal power plant,
Geothermics 31 (2002) 709e724.
[7] Y. Cerci, Performance evaluation of a single-flash geothermal power plant in
Denizli, Turkey, Energy 28 (2003) 27e35.
[8] R. DiPippo, Second law assessment of binary generating power from low-
temperature geothermal fluids, Geothermics 33 (2004) 565e586.
[9] C. Koroneos, C. Bobolias, T. Spachos, Evaluation of utilisation opportunities of
geothermal energy in the Kavala region, Greece, using exergy analysis,
International Journal of Exergy 1 (2004) 111e127.
[10] R. Kose, Geothermal energy potential for power generation in Turkey:
a case study in Simav, Kutahya, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews
11 (2007) 497e511.
[11] J. Quijano, Exergy analysis for the Ahuachapan and Berlin geothermal fields, El
Salvador, in: Proceedings World Geothermal Congress, May 28eJune 10,
Kyushu-Tohoku, Japan, 2000.
[12] K.C. Lee, Classification of geothermal resources by exergy, Geothermics
30 (2001) 431e442.
[13] L. Ozgener, A. Hepbasli, I. Dincer, Thermo-mechanical exergy analysis of
Balcova geothermal district heating system in Izmir, Turkey, Transactions
of the ASME, Journal of Energy Resources Technology 126 (2004)
293e301.
[14] L. Ozgener, A. Hepbasli, I. Dincer, Energy and exergy analysis of geothermal
district heating systems: an application, Building and Environment 40 (2005)
1309e1322.
[15] L. Ozgener, A. Hepbasli, I. Dincer, Energy and exergy analysis of Salihli
geothermal district heating system in Manisa, Turkey, International Journal of
Energy Research 29 (2005) 393e408.
[16] L. Ozgener, A. Hepbasli, I. Dincer, Performance investigation of two
geothermal district heating systems for building applications: energy analysis,
Energy and Building 38 (2005) 286e292.
[17] L. Ozgener, A. Hepbasli, I. Dincer, Effect of reference state on the performance
of energy and exergy evaluation of geothermal district heating systems:
Balcova example, Building and Environment 41 (2006) 699e709.
[18] L. Ozgener, A. Hepbasli, I. Dincer, Energy and exergy analysis of the Gonen
geothermal district heating system, Turkey, Geothermics 34 (2005)
632e645.
[19] L. Ozgener, A. Hepbasli, I. Dincer, Investigation of the energetic and exergetic
performance of the Gonen geothermal district heating system, Proceedings of
the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part A-Journal of Power and Energy
220 (2006) 671e679.
[20] L. Ozgener, A. Hepbasli, I. Dincer, Exergy analysis of two geothermal district
heating systems for building applications, Energy Conversion and Manage-
ment 48 (2007) 1185e1192.
[21] Z. Oktay, C. Coskun, I. Dincer, Energetic and exergetic performance investi-
gation of the Bigadic geothermal district heating system in Turkey, Energy and
Buildings 40 (2008) 702e709.
 A. Keçebaş et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 31 (2011) 1229e1237 1237

[22] O. Arslan, M.A. Ozgur, R. Kose, A. Tugcu, Exergoeconomic evaluation on the Nomenclature
optimum heating circuit system of Simav geothermal district heating system,
Energy and Buildings 41 (2009) 1325e1333. E: energy (kJ)
[23] C. Coskun, Z. Oktay, I. Dincer, New energy and exergy parameters for Ex: exergy (kJ)
geothermal district heating systems, Applied Thermal Engineering 29 (2009) _
E:
$ energy rate (kW)
2235e2242. E x: exergy rate (kW)
[24] A. Kecebas, Performance and thermo-economic assessments of geothermal _ exergy rate of the fuel (kW)
F:
district heating system: a case study in Afyon, Turkey, Renewable Energy f: exergetic factor (%)
36 (2010) 77e83. h: specific enthalpy (kJ/kg)
[25] L. Ozgener, O. Ozgener, Thermomechanical exergy and thermoeconomic _ irreversibility (exergy destruction) rate (kW)
I:
analysis of geothermal district heating systems, Proceedings of the Institution IP: improvement potential rate (kW)
of Mechanical Engineers Part A-Journal of Power and Energy 222 (2008) m:_ mass flow rate (kg/s)
167e177. _ exergy rate of the product (kW)
P:
[26] L. Ozgener, O. Ozgener, Monitoring of energy exergy efficiencies and exer- P: pressure (kPa)
goeconomic parameters of geothermal district heating systems (GDHSs), Q_ : rate of heat (kW)
Applied Energy 86 (2009) 1704e1711. s: specific entropy (kJ/kg K)
[27] U. Serpen, N. Aksoy, T. Öngür, E.D. Korkmaz, Geothermal energy in Turkey: _ entropy rate (kW/K)
S:
2008 update, Geothermics 38 (2009) 227e237. W:_ work rate, power (kW)
[28] O. Yetemen, T. Yalcin, Climatic parameters and evaluation of energy T: temperature ( C or K)
consumption of the Afyon geothermal district heating system, Afyon, Turkey, SExI: specific exergy index (dimensionless)
Renewable Energy 34 (2009) 706e710.
[29] M.S. Dogdu, C.S. Bayari, Environmental impact of geothermal fluids on surface Greek symbols
water, groundwater and streambed sediments in the Akarcay Basin, Turkey, h: energy or first law efficiency (%)
Environment Geology 47 (2005) 325e340. 3: exergy or exergetic or second law efficiency
[30] T.J. Kotas, The Exergy Method of Thermal Plant Analysis. Anchor Brendon Ltd, j: flow exergy (kJ/kg)
Tiptree, Essex, UK, 1985. d: fuel depletion rate (%)
[31] W. Van Gool, Energy policy: fairy tales and factualities. in: O.D.D. Soares, x: productivity lack (%)
A. Martins da Cruz, G. Costa Pereira, I.M.R.T. Soares, A.J.P.S. Reis (Eds.), c: relative irreversibility (%)
Innovation and Technology e Strategies and Policies. Kluwer, Dordrecht,
1997, pp. 93e105. Subscripts
[32] J.Y. Xiang, M. Cali, M. Santarelli, Calculation for physical and chemical exergy d: natural direct discharge
of flows in systems elaborating mixed-phase flows and a case study in an r: reinjected geothermal fluid
IRSOFC plant, International Journal of Energy Research 28 (2004) 101e115. w: wellhead
[33] L. Ozgener, A. Hepbasli, I. Dincer, A key review on performance improvement dest: destroyed
aspects of geothermal district heating systems and applications, Renewable gen: generation
and Sustainable Energy Reviews 11 (2007) 1675e1697. he: heat exchanger
[34] Z. Oktay, I. Dincer, Energetic, exergetic and environmental assessments of the i: successive number of elements
Edremit geothermal district heating system, ASHRAE Transactions 114 (2008) in: inlet
116e127. out: outlet
[35] M.S. Dogdu, C.S. Bayari, Pollution of geothermal origin in the Akarcay Basin 0: reference state
(Afyon, Turkey): 1. Water and sediment pollution in the Akarcay Stream, k: location
Yerbilimleri 25 (2002) 21e33 (in Turkish). Tot: total
[36] M.A. Ozdemir, H. Ucar, Water pollution in urban ecosystem of Afyonkarahisar,
Afyon Kocatepe University e Journal of Social Sciences 8 (2006) 123e158
(in Turkish).