Energy Conversion and Management 108 (2016) 190–201

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Conversion and Management

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

Advanced exergy analysis of the Kalina cycle applied for low

temperature enhanced geothermal system
M. Fallah, S. Mohammad S. Mahmoudi ⇑, M. Yari, R. Akbarpour Ghiasi
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Tabriz, P.O. Box: 51666-14766, Tabriz, Iran

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

Article history: In recent years, the possibility of using low temperature heat sources has been followed as a hot topic in
Received 1 August 2015 different research and academic centers. In this regard, the Kalina cycle has been paid a lot of attention
Accepted 7 November 2015 because of its promising features. Using the engineering equation solver (EES) software, conventional
Available online 18 November 2015
exergy analysis is carried out in this study for the Kalina cycle driven by a low temperature enhanced
geothermal source. After validating the developed model for conventional exergy analysis, the advanced
Keywords: exergy analysis, i.e., splitting exergy destruction rate into endogenous, exogenous, avoidable and
Geothermal system
unavoidable parts, is performed to provide detailed information about improvement potential of the sys-
Kalina cycle
Ammonia–water mixture
tem components. The results of advanced exergy analysis show that the cycle has high potential for effi-
Advanced exergy analysis ciency improvement. It is also revealed that the advanced exergy analysis gives the improvement priority
first for the condenser, then for the turbine and the evaporator. From the conventional exergy analysis
however, the exergy destruction calculated for the evaporator is higher than that for the turbine.
Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Generating electricity from geothermal sources has a history of
more than 100 years [1]. The worldwide installed capacity of elec-
trical power generation from these sources in 2015 is around
12,635 MW and it is expected that this capacity will reach
21,443 MW in 2020 [2]. Nearly 11–12% of this power is generated
from geothermal plants with binary working fluids [1]. As defined
in literature, the binary cycle is the main technology for generating
power from low to medium temperature (<180 °C) geothermal
energy sources [3]. The organic Rankine cycle (ORC) and Kalina
cycle (KC) are two major groups of these binary geothermal cycles
[4]. Using the KC with a mixture of ammonia–water as working
fluid brings about a performance enhancement of nearly 20% com-
pared to some other power cycles [5].
The Kalina cycle was designed and developed by Alexander
Kalina to be used as a bottoming cycle instead of the Rankine cycle
in combined cycle power plants. Kalina showed that the efficiency
of this new cycle is about 30–60% higher than that of the Rankine
cycle [6]. A lot of research works have been carried out on the
Kalina cycle all over the world. In this section, some of these works
are reviewed. Hettiarachchi et al. [7] examined and compared the
⇑ Corresponding author at: Building No. 8, Department of Mechanical Engineer-
ing, University of Tabriz, 29 Bahman Avenue, P.O. Box: 51666-14766, Tabriz, Iran.
Tel.: +98 41 33392487; fax: +98 41 33354153.
E-mail address: s_mahmoudi@tabrizu.ac.ir (S. Mohammad S. Mahmoudi).
performances of an ORC and a KC (known as KCS 11) used for low
temperature geothermal heat sources. They concluded that, under
specified conditions and at moderate turbine inlet pressures, the
KCS 11 performs better than the ORC. Using binary working fluids,
the performances of a KC (KCS 34) and an ORC for producing elec-
tricity from geothermal sources in the Republic of Croatia was
investigated by Guzović et al. [8]. In the proposed binary plants
with ORC and Kalina cycles for this study, geothermal fluid has
transferred heat to the working fluid by cooling. Their results
showed that the ORC efficiency increases when the geothermal
fluid is cooled from 175 °C to 69 °C. At the same time, the results
emphasized that the cycle produces higher output power when
the temperature of geothermal fluid increases. Guzović et al. con-
cluded that for geothermal sources with lower temperatures, the
KCS 34 demonstrates better performance. Using a variety of work-
ing fluids and working fluid compositions, Rodríguez et al. [9] car-
ried out comparative exergoeconomic analyses for the KC and ORC
employed for an advanced geothermal system in Brazil. They sug-
gested R-290 and a mixture of 84% ammonia–16% water (in mass
fraction) as working fluids for the ORC and KC, respectively and
reported the superiority of the KC to the ORC from the viewpoints
of thermodynamics and economics. Singh et al. [10] performed a
parametric study on the combined KCS 11 – Rankine cycle and
reported that the best cycle performance is achieved with an
ammonia concentration of between 78% and 82% for the working
fluid of KCS 11 and a moderate pressure of 4000 kPa for the ammo-

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2015.11.017
0196-8904/Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 M. Fallah et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 108 (2016) 190–201
nia turbine inlet. Li et al. [11] compared the performances of KC
and CO2 transcritical power cycle (CTPC) utilizing low temperature
geothermal sources in China. Results of this study showed that the
KC has higher thermal efficiency and net output power and better
economic performance than the CTPC. A detailed review about the
results of the references [7–11] are shown in Table 1. Yari et al. [12]
compared thermodynamic and economic performances of the KCS
11, ORC and trilateral power cycle (TLC) and showed that for both
the KCS 11 and the ORC, the optimum operating conditions for
maximum net output power is different from those for minimum
product cost.
In most of the above mentioned research works, conventional
exergy analysis plays an important role, especially in determining
the exergy destruction in different components. The analysis how-
ever, doesn’t specify the internal or external sources of irre-
versibilities for system components (concepts which can be very
useful for thermodynamic system designers). The concept of the
Table 1
Detailed review of Refs. [7–11].
Refs. Cycle, input parameters and their ranges
Hettiarachchi Kalina Cycle
et al. [7] Turbine inlet temperature = 90 °C
Turbine inlet pressure = 15 to 40 bar
Ammonia fraction (X) = 0.7 to 0.95
Organic Rankine Cycle
Turbine inlet temperature = 90 °C
Working fluid: Ammonia
Turbine inlet pressure = 15 to 40 bar
Working fluid: Isobutane
Turbine inlet pressure = 5 to 15 bar
Guzović et. al. Kalina Cycle
[8] Geofluid temperature = 176 °C
Turbine inlet temperature = 108.8 °C
Turbine inlet pressure = 28 bar
Ammonia fractions (X) = 0.885
Organic Rankine Cycle
Turbine inlet temperature = 110 °C
Turbine inlet pressure = 9 bar
Working fluid: Isopentane
Rodríguez et. Kalina Cycle
al.[9] Geo-fluid Temperature = 90 to 140 °C
Turbine inlet temperature = 80 to 130 °C
Turbine inlet pressure = 15 to 50 bar
Ammonia fractions (X) = 0.65, 0.75 and 0.84
Organic Rankine Cycle
Geo-fluid Temperature = 90 to 140 °C
Turbine inlet temperature = 80 to 130 °C
Working fluid: i-butane, n-butane, i-Pentane, n-
Pentane, R13aa, R141b, R142b, R290, R40,
R152a, R-11, R-12, R-113, R-114, R-21, NH3
Singh et. al. Kalina Cycle
[10] Source: exhaust gas
Turbine inlet temperature = 132.6 °C
Turbine inlet pressure = 15 to 40 bar
Ammonia fraction (X) = 0.5 to 0.9
Li et. al. [11] Kalina Cycle
Geofluid temperature = 120 °C
Turbine inlet temperature = 91, 98 and 108 °C
Turbine inlet pressure = 10 to 40 bar
Ammonia fraction = 0.6, 0.7 and 0.8
CO2 transcritical power cycle (CTPC)
Geofluid temperature = 120 °C
Turbine inlet temperature = 91, 98 and 108 °C
Turbine inlet pressure = 10 to 40 bar
a
The input data are approximately the same as the ones in the present work.
191
advanced exergy analysis, which has been proposed in recent
years, however, provides this information for the designers. In
the advanced exergy analysis, the exergy destruction in each sys-
tem component is split into avoidable and unavoidable parts and
also into endogenous and exogenous components. The advanced
exergy analysis offers a great opportunity for improving a system
performance and identifies system components which play a major
role in this improvement. The idea of advanced exergy analysis was
proposed by Tsatsaronis et al. [13]. In recent years, Tsatsaronis and
his research group (in technical university of Berlin) have
presented several research works using advanced exergy, exergoe-
conomic and exergoenvironmental analyses for various thermody-
namic systems. They applied advanced exergy method to analyze
vapor-compression and absorption refrigeration machines and also
to the gas turbine power systems [14,15]. Petrakopoulou et al. [16]
used advanced exergoeconomic method to analyze the perfor-
mance of a gas turbine-low pressure steam turbine combined cycle
Main results Values of the parameters
for Kalina cyclea

For given conditions, an optimum range of operating pressure Input parameters
and ammonia fraction that result in the best overall cycle per- TIT = 90 °C
formance can be identified. P = 25 bar

Generally, for moderate turbine inlet pressures, the KCS 11 X = 0.8
performs better than the ORC. Output parameters
gth = 8.7%

The ORC is more convenient to be utilized at medium geother- Input parameters
mal heat sources while the Kalina cycle performs better at TIT = 108.8 °C
lower geothermal source temperature. The difference in per- P = 28 bar
formances however, is not significant. X = 0.885

Considering the problems associated with new technologies Output parameters
experience in the starting phase, for geothermal sources with gth = 10.6%
lower temperatures in Croatia, the application of ORC with gex = 44%
binary working fluid is proposed.

For the Kalina cycle, the best performance was obtained with Input parameters
84% ammonia + 16% water in ammonia–water solution as Geothermal source
working fluid. With this working fluid, compared to the ORC, Temperature = 100 °C
the Kalina cycle offers 18% more output power, requires 37% TIT = 90 °C
less mass flow rate and achieves 17.8% lower levelized elec- P = 25 bar
tricity cost. X = 0.84

For Organic Rankine cycle, the best performance was obtained Output parameters
with R-290 as working fluid. gth = 6%
gex = 36.5%

For a given turbine inlet pressure, there is an optimum value of Input parameters
ammonia fraction that yields in the maximum cycle efficiency. T = 132.6 °C

Specification of different ammonia mass fraction for higher P = 25 bar
performance in literature may be due to the difference in the X = 0.8
correlations used for ammonia–water mixture properties Output parameters
and/or due to the difference in the algorithms used in the sim- gth = 9%
ulation procedure.

An Increase in the turbine inlet pressure is more effective that
an increases in the ammonia mass fraction for having efficient
cycle.

The output power and thermal efficiency of the Kalina cycle Input parameters
are higher than those of the CTPC, while a reverse result is TIT = 91 °C
achieved for exergy efficiency. P = 25 bar

The adoption of the Kalina cycle may be reasonable in the low- X = 0.8
temperature geothermal sources due to the better thermo- Output parameters
economic performance in contrast to the CTPC. gth = 7 %
gex = 39%
192 M. Fallah et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 108 (2016) 190–201

power plant. This analysis showed that plant performance - The system works under steady state condition.
improvement can be obtained by modification of each component. - Energy losses and changes in kinetic and potential energies are
Their results also indicated that component interactions play neglected [9–11].
insignificant role in this improvement. In another works, advanced - Polytropic efficiencies of 85%, 95% and 80% are considered for
exergy analyses were carried out by Morosuk et al. [17,18] on the the turbine, the generator and the pump, respectively [9,29,30].
liquefied natural gas-based cogeneration system to identify the
interactions among components and the potential for performance 3. Thermodynamic analysis
improvement. Tesatrasonis et al. [19] estimated the combustion
process exergy destruction resulting from different sources of irre- 3.1. Conventional exergy analyses
versibility (heat transfer, chemical reaction, friction and mixing).
Tsatsaronis and Morosuk [20] identified the value, location and By considering the mentioned assumptions, the mass, energy
causes of the irreversibilities as well as the costs and environmen- and exergy balances for the system components as control vol-
tal impacts of gas turbine based cogeneration system using the umes can be written as:
advanced exergy, exergoeconomic and exergoenvironmental X X
methods. They reported that the combustion chamber and heat
_i¼
m _e
m ð1Þ
recovery steam generator are important for improving the system X X
efficiency. Using the advanced exergy method, Hepbasli et al. ana- Q_  W
_ ¼ _ e he 
m _ i hi
m ð2Þ
lyzed the Afyon geothermal district heating system [21,22], and a
X X
gas engine heat pump for food drying processes [23,24]. Açıkkalp _ ¼
E_ Q  W _ e ee 
m _ i ei þ E_ D
m ð3Þ
et al. applied the advanced exergy method for a cogeneration and
a trigeneration systems and identified the potential of economic In these equations, Q_ is the rate of heat transfer to control vol-
improvement for each component and also the effects of compo- ume, W _ is the rate of work leaving control volume, P m _ e he is the
nents on one another in terms of exergy destruction and its associ- P
rate of enthalpy leaving control volume, m_ i hi is the rate of
ated cost [25,26]. Soltani et al. [27] carried out an advanced exergy P
enthalpy entering control volume, m_ e ee is the rate of exergy
analysis on an externally fired combined cycle power plant using P
leaving control volume, m_ i ei is the rate of exergy entering con-
biofuel and reported that the exergy destructions in most of the
trol volume, E_ D is the rate of exergy destruction and E_ Q is the rate
components are endogenous and unavoidable. Tan et al. [28] eval-
of exergy associated with heat transfer.
uated a geothermal district heating system in terms of thermody-
namic and economic aspects by using the advanced exergy analysis For a given temperature of T, The E_ Q can be calculated from:
method and identified potentials of the system improvement and X 
T0 _
energy saving. E_ Q ¼ 1 Q ð4Þ
T
From the above mentioned review, it is clear that the Kalina
cycle has been paid a lot of attention because of its promising fea- In this formula, T 0 is the environment temperature.
tures (especially in generating power from low temperature According to the scientific articles, specific exergy can be split
geothermal sources). Also, it can be seen that the advanced exergy into the physical and chemical parts as:
analysis provides useful information not attainable from the con- e ¼ eph þ ech ð5Þ
ventional exergy analysis. To our knowledge, the Kalina cycle has
not been analyzed using the advanced exergy method so far. This The specific physical exergy is expressed as:
is important considering that the interaction between system com- eph ¼ ðh  T 0 sÞ  ðh0  T 0 s0 Þ ð6Þ
ponents in the Kalina cycle can play a major role in identifying the
weak points of the system from the viewpoints of second law of where h0 and s0 are the specific enthalpy and specific entropy at the
thermodynamics. The present work is an attempt to fulfill this lack environmental condition.
of information and to reveal the real sources of irreversibilities and As in the Kalina cycle the ammonia concentration changes from
real potential of improvement in the Kalina cycle used for low tem- one point to another, the variation in the specific chemical exergy,
perature enhanced geothermal system. It is hoped that the results, as expressed below, should be considered [10]:
which cannot be attained from the conventional exergy analysis, " # " #
e0ch;NH e0ch;H O
will be useful for engineers and thermal designers. ech ¼ 3
yþ 2
ð1  yÞ ð7Þ
MNH3 M H2 O

2. Description of the geothermal power plant where e0ch;NH3 , e0ch;H2 O , MNH3 and MH2 O are standard molar specific
chemical exergy of ammonia, standard molar specific chemical
The process flow diagram of Kalina cycle (KCS 11) that is used in exergy of water, molecular weight of ammonia and molecular
the enhanced geothermal power plant is shown in Fig. 1. As shown weight of water, respectively. Also, y in Eq. (7) represents the mass
in the figure, the system consists of an evaporator, a separator, a fraction of ammonia.
turbine-generator, high and low temperature recuperators In order to assess the system performance in the present work,
(HTR and LTR), a recirculation pump, a throttling valve, a con- the first and second law efficiencies are used as follows:
denser and a mixer. In the first stage, the ammonia–water mixture _
W
is heated in the HTR and also in the evaporator. Then the rich gI ¼ _ net ð8Þ
ammonia vapor is separated in the separator and sent to the tur- Q in
bine for producing power. The liquid ammonia–water mixture
_
W
leaving the separator passes to the HTR before getting mixed with gII ¼ _ net ð9Þ
the liquid leaving the turbine. The mixture then passes to the LTR Ein
where it rejects heat before flowing to the condenser. The con-
_ net is the net produced power, Q_ in is the
In these equations, W
densed liquid is pumped to the evaporator via the low and high
temperature recuperators, and thus the cycle is completed. rate of thermal energy provided by the geothermal fluid and E_ in
The main assumptions in analyzing the Kalina cycle are as follows: is the exergy rate associated with Q_ in .
 M. Fallah et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 108 (2016) 190–201 193

Fig. 1. Schematic of the Kalina cycle (KCS 11) [9].

In this table, g is isentropic efficiency, w is specific work and h is

Table 2 specific enthalpy.
Energy and exergy balance equations for Kalina cycle components.

Cycle Energy balance equation Exergy balance equation

3.2. Advanced exergy analyses
component
In the advanced exergy analysis, the rate of exergy destruction
Turbine gT ¼ wwas , W_ T ¼ m_ 1 ðh1  h2 Þ E_ 1 ¼ E_ 2 þ W _ T þ E_ D;T
in kth component of the system is split into two parts, named as
Mixture m _ 12 h12 ¼ m
_ 2 h2 þ m _ 3 h3 E_ 2 þ E_ 12 ¼ E_ 3 þ E_ D;mix
endogenous and exogenous exergy destructions:
LTR h3  h4 ¼ h7  h6 E_ 3  E_ 4 ¼ E_ 7  E_ 6 þ E_ D;LTR or
E_ 3 þ E_ 6 ¼ E_ 4 þ E_ 7 þ E_ D;LTR E_ D;k ¼ E_ EN _ EX
D;k þ ED;k ð14Þ
HTR _ 7 ðh8  h7 Þ ¼ m
m _ 10 ðh10  h11 Þ E_ 7 þ E_ 10 ¼ E_ 8 þ E_ 11 þ E_ D;HTR
Pump g ¼ ws , W_ p ¼ m_ 5 ðh6  h5 Þ E_ 5 þ W _ p ¼ E_ 6 þ E_ D;p The endogenous part is associated with the irreversibility
p wa
Condenser _ 4 ðh4  h5 Þ ¼ m
m _ 15 ðh16  h15 Þ E_ 16 þ E_ 5 ¼ E_ 15 þ E_ 4 þ E_
occurring inside the kth component and the exogenous part is
D;cond
Evaporator m _ 13 ðh13  h14 Þ
_ 8 ðh9  h8 Þ ¼ m E_ 13 þ E_ 8 ¼ E_ 9 þ E_ 14 þ E_ D;ev ap
related to the irreversibilities taking place in the other compo-
Separator m _ 1 h1 þ m
_ 9 h9 ¼ m _ 10 h10 E_ 9 ¼ E_ 1 þ E_ 10 þ E_ D;sep
nents. Splitting the exergy destruction into the endogenous and
m _ 10 X 10 þ m
_ 9 X9 ¼ m _ 1 X1 exogenous parts provides the opportunity of realizing real loca-
Throttling h11 ¼ h12 E_ 11 ¼ E_ 12 þ E_ D;tv tions of irreversibilities in the system, so that, one can decide
valve where to focus in improving the system performance.
The rate of the exergy destruction in each system component
The basic equations used in the conventional exergy analysis for can also be split into avoidable and unavoidable parts as:
kth component of the system are as follows:
E_ D;k ¼ E_ AV _ UN
D;k þ ED;k ð15Þ
E_ D;k ¼ E_ F;k  E_ P;k ð10Þ
The unavoidable part cannot be reduced because of technical
limitations while the remaining part representing the avoidable
E_ E_
ek ¼ _ P;k ¼ 1  _ D;k ð11Þ exergy destruction can be reduced [31]. This splitting highlights
EF;k EF;k the potential for improving thermodynamic efficiency of each sys-
tem component.
E_ D;k The endogenous and exogenous exergy destruction rates can
yk ¼ ð12Þ also be split into avoidable and unavoidable parts as:
E_ F;k
E_ EN _ EN;AV þ E_ EN;UN
D;k ¼ ED;k D;k ð16Þ
E_ D;k
yk ¼ ð13Þ
E_ D;tot E_ EX _ EX;AV þ E_ EX;UN
D;k ¼ ED;k D;k ð17Þ

In these equations, E_ D;k ; E_ F;k ; E_ P;k are the exergy destruction In addition, the unavoidable and avoidable exergy destruction
rate, exergy rate of fuel and exergy rate of product in the kth com- rates can be divided to endogenous and exogenous parts as:
ponent, respectively. Also, ek and yk (and also yk ) are the exergy E_ UN _ EX;UN þ E_ EN;UN
D;k ¼ ED;k D;k ð18Þ
efficiency and exergy destruction ratio, respectively.
The energy and exergy balance equations for different compo-
E_ AV _ EX;AV þ E_ EN;AV
D;k ¼ ED;k D;k ð19Þ
nents of the Kalina cycle (Fig. 1) are presented in Table 2.
194 M. Fallah et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 108 (2016) 190–201

Fig. 2. Flow chart for calculating the different parts of the exergy destruction for kth component.

Table 3
Detailed model validation using the data reported by Ogriseck [32].

Stream Temperature (°C) Mass flow rate (kg/s) x = Ammonia concentration (kg
NH3/kg solution)
Ref. Pres. Study Ref. Pres. Study Ref. Pres. Study
1 116 116 11.4 11.48 0.97 0.9718
2 43 42.7 11.4 11.48 0.97 0.9718
3 46 42.6 16.8 16.95 0.82 0.82
4 30 27.1 16.8 16.95 0.82 0.82
5 8 7.9 16.8 16.95 0.82 0.82
6 8 8.4 16.8 16.95 0.82 0.82
7 41 37.6 16.8 16.95 0.82 0.82
8 63 60.6 16.8 16.95 0.82 0.82
9 116 116 16.8 16.95 0.82 0.82
10 116 116 5.4 5.466 0.5 0.5012
11 46 42.6 5.4 5.466 0.5 0.5012
12 – 42.6 – 5.466 – 0.5012
Net electrical output power (kW)
Present study Ref.
2176.4 2196.8

T9 = 116 °C, P9 = 32.3 bar, X9 = 0.82, T13 (Geofluid input temperature) = 122 °C, Geofluid mass flow = 89.0 kg/s, DPHE = 1 bar (For all heat exchangers).

The combination of the endogenous, exogenous, avoidable and
unavoidable exergy destruction concepts is important for system
designing. For example, E_ EN;UN in Eq. (16) is a part of the exergy
D;k
destruction rate occurring within kth component and cannot be
reduced while E_ EN;AV in this Equation can be reduced by improving
D;k
the efficiency of kth component. Also, E_ EX;AV
D;k can be reduced by
improving the overall system structure, by improving the kth
component efficiency and by improving efficiency of the remaining
components. The E_ EX;UN however, cannot be reduced because of tech-
D;k
nical limitations associated with the other system components [15].
Different approaches have been reported in literature for the
advanced exergy analyses. These approaches are the thermody-
namic cycle method, the engineering method, the exergy balance
method, the equivalent components method and the structural
theory method. The thermodynamic cycle method is the most con-
 M. Fallah et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 108 (2016) 190–201 195

Table 4 the real cycle. In a hybrid cycle however, the process taking place
Input data for enhanced geothermal power plant calculations [9]. in kth component is considered as irreversible and the processes
Working fluid 0.84 NH3–.16 H2O occurring in the other components are considered as reversible.
gT 85% In this way, the value of endogenous exergy destruction for kth
gp 80% component can be calculated. It is obvious that the number of
P eV 2.5 bar hybrid cycles for a system is equal to the number of components
P cond 1.2 bar in the system [15].
DT pp 3 °C
The main points considered in analyzing the ideal Kalina cycle
TTD 10
T CW;in 25 °C
are as follows:
T CW;out 35 °C
m_ wg 200 kg/s - The pinch point temperature difference in all the heat exchang-
T in;wg 100 °C ers is considered as zero ðDT pp ¼ 0Þ.
- Isentropic efficiencies for the turbine and recirculation pump
and also the efficiency for the generator are considered as 100%.
Table 5 - Terminal temperature differences in all the heat exchangers are
Comparison of the components exergy destruction rates (for 1 kg/s geo-fluid), considered as zero (or in their minimum possible values).
obtained from present work with those reported in Ref. [9]. - Values of the minimum temperature differences in HTR and LTR
Component E_ D (Present study) (kW) E_ D (Ref. [9]) (kW)
are considered as equal to each other.
- An isentropic expander is considered instead of the throttling
Turbine 1.46 1.5
LTR 0.64 0.6
valve because the process in the throttling valve is irreversible
Condenser 5.34 5.4 and cannot be reversible.
Pump 0.093 0.09 - In analyzing the ideal or hybrid cycle the value of W _ net;ideal are
HTR 0.54 0.5
_ net;real .
kept constant and considered as equal to the value of W
Evaporator 3.21 3.4
Throttling valve 0.088 –
A flow chart of the simulation model is shown in Fig. 2.

Table 6
The main assumptions for the Kalina cycle under real, ideal and unavoidable 4. Results and discussion
conditions.

Component Real Ideal Unavoidable The input data used in the present work are those considered by
Turbine gs ¼ 0:85a,b,c
gs ¼ 1 gs ¼ 0:95 k Rodríguez et al. [9] who analyzed the Kalina cycle proposed for an
LTR DT min ¼ 10a DT min ¼ 0 DT min ¼3d enhanced geothermal system in Brazil. These input data are con-
DP ¼ 2%e DP ¼ 0 DP ¼ 1%d sidered for both the conventional and advanced exergy analyses
Condenser DT min ¼ 12a DT min ¼ 0 DT min ¼ 3d in the present work. In the analysis, the ammonia percentage of
DP ¼ 1%f DP ¼ 0 DP ¼ 0:5%
the working fluid and the evaporation pressure are chosen as the
Pump gs ¼ 0:8a gs ¼ 1 gs ¼ 0:95d,k
HTR DT min ¼ 10a DT min ¼ 0 DT min ¼3d optimal values reported by Rodríguez et al. [9]. A detailed model
DP ¼ 3%e,g DP ¼ 0 DP ¼ 1%d validation is performed using the data reported in Ref. [32]. The
Evaporator DT min ¼ 10a DT min ¼ 0 DT min ¼3d comparison is shown in Table 3 indicating a good agreement
DP ¼ 2%e DP ¼ 0 DT pp ¼3d
between the two results. The developed model is also validated
DP ¼ 1%d
Throttling – Expander with Expander with
by using the data of Ref. [9] as indicated in Table 4. Comparison
valve gs ¼ 1 gs ¼ 0:96 of the results is shown in Table 5. Referring to Table 5, there is a
Generator gg ¼ 0:97h gg ¼ 1 gg ¼ 0:99k good agreement between the exergy destruction per 1 kg of geo-
a
fluid for each component calculated from the present model and
Ref. [9].
b
Ref. [29].
the corresponding value reported by Ref. [9].
c
Ref. [30]. For the advanced exergy analysis some additional assumptions
d
Ref. [33]. are made when dealing with the real, ideal and unavoidable condi-
e
Ref. [34]. tions. These assumptions and associated references are shown in
f
Ref. [27].
g Table 6.
Ref. [32].
h
Ref. [35]. Tables 7–9 indicate the thermodynamic properties and mass
k
Ref. [36]. flow rates at different state points of the Kalina cycle under real,
ideal and unavoidable conditions, respectively. In addition, the val-
ues of net output power, turbine output power, pump input power,
venient and provides the best results for systems in which a ther- first law efficiency and second law efficiency are presented in these
modynamic cycle can be defined. If this is not possible, the engi- tables. It should be noted that in analyzing the ideal cycle, the net
neering method provides acceptable results. On the other hand, output power has been assumed to be equal to that in the real
the exergy balance method is used for more complex systems cycle and consequently, the mass flow rate in the ideal cycle is
and the structural theory method is not appropriate to be used lower than that in the real cycle. Therefore, despite of the bigger
for calculating values of endogenous exergy destructions. The difference between specific enthalpies entering and exiting the tur-
details of different approaches can be found in Ref. [14]. For the bine in ideal cycle, the ideal cycle output power is less than that for
present work, the thermodynamic cycle method is selected, the real cycle. Energy and exergy efficiencies of 12.7% and 77.2%,
because this method has higher prediction accuracy than the respectively are achieved for the ideal cycle as indicated in Table 8.
others. Concepts such as ideal cycle, hybrid cycle and real cycle In these tables, P is the pressure, DT pp is the pinch point tempera-
are considered to identify different parts of exergy destruction in ture difference, TTD is the terminal temperature difference, TCW is
current study. Furthermore, it is valuable to note that all processes the cooling water temperature, m _ wg is the geofluid mass flow rate,
are considered as reversible in the ideal cycle and as irreversible in T in;wg is the temperature of geofluid, Q is the quality, s is the specific
196 M. Fallah et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 108 (2016) 190–201

Table 7
Thermodynamic properties and mass flow rates at different state points of the Kalina cycle under real conditions.

Fluid T (°C) P (bar) h (kJ/kg) _ (kg/s)

m Q s (kJ/kg K) u (kJ/kg) x E_ ch (kW) E_ ph (kW) E_ (kW)

1 NH3H2O 90 25 1411 21.39 1 4.326 1259 0.99 419,369 9462 428,832

2 NH3H2O 52.6 12.4 1326 21.39 0.978 4.372 1186 0.99 419,369 7350 426,719
3 NH3H2O 57.8 12.4 847.4 33.98 0.6076 3.012 757.8 0.84 355,883 8120 364,003
4 NH3H2O 53.7 12.16 797.4 33.98 0.5784 2.866 713.4 0.84 355,883 7900 363,783
5 NH3H2O 37 12.16 59.7 33.98 0 0.5382 57.87 0.84 355,883 6420 362,303
6 NH3H2O 37.4 26.79 62.46 33.98 0.001 0.54 58.42 0.84 355,883 6496 362,378
7 NH3H2O 47.8 26.27 112.4 33.98 0.001 0.6983 108.3 0.84 355,883 6588 362,470
8 NH3H2O 59.3 25.5 169.2 33.98 0.001 0.8728 165.2 0.84 355,883 6753 362,635
9 NH3H2O 90 25 957.8 33.98 0.6296 3.145 860.4 0.84 355,883 10,527 366,409
10 NH3H2O 90 25 187 12.58 0 1.137 183.6 0.5852 247,965 1030 248,995
11 NH3H2O 57.8 24.25 33.51 12.58 0.001 0.6952 30.32 0.5852 247,965 756.9 248,722
12 NH3H2O 57.9 12.4 33.51 12.58 0.001 0.7 31.87 0.5852 247,965 739.2 248,704
13 Water 100 2.5 419.2 200 1.307 6824
14 Water 68 2.5 285.2 200 0.9315 2409
15 Water 25 1.2 104.9 599.2 0.3669 12.02
16 Water 35 1.2 146.7 599.2 0.5049 423.2

gexergy ¼ 0:3787 gth ¼ 0:06241 W_ g ¼ 1766 (kW) W

_ net ¼ 1672 (kW) W
_ P ¼ 93:72 (kW) W
_ T ¼ 1820 (kW).

Table 8
Thermodynamic properties and mass flow rates at different state points of the Kalina cycle under ideal conditions.

Fluid T (°C) P (bar) h (kJ/kg) _ (kg/s)

m Q s (kJ/kg K) u (kJ/kg) x E_ ch (kW) E_ ph (kW) E_ (kW)

1 NH3H2O 100 26.79 1441 10.42 1 4.38 1284 0.9835 203,022 4756 207,778
2 NH3H2O 38 8.551 1277 10.42 0.9562 4.38 1143 0.9835 203,022 3042 206,064
3 NH3H2O 47.3 8.551 851.6 10.42 0.6297 3.127 759.9 0.84 173,395 3235 176,630
4 NH3H2O 40.1 8.551 747.1 10.42 0.568 2.799 666.7 0.84 173,395 3132 176,527
5 NH3H2O 25 8.551 2.555 10.42 0 0.352 1.297 0.84 173,395 2900 176,295
6 NH3H2O 25.4 26.79 5.238 10.42 0.001 0.3521 1.298 0.84 173,395 2941 176,336
7 NH3H2O 47.3 26.79 109.7 10.42 0.001 0.6897 105.6 0.84 173,395 2999 176,394
8 NH3H2O 63.8 26.79 190.9 10.42 0.001 0.9369 186.6 0.84 173,395 3116 176,511
9 NH3H2O 100 26.76 1044 15.48 0.6733 3.359 937.1 0.84 173,395 5145 178,540
10 NH3H2O 100 26.79 226 5.056 0 1.256 222.3 0.5441 112,325 386.4 112,711
11 NH3H2O 47.3 26.79 22.65 5.056 0.001 0.5384 26.03 0.5441 112,325 211 112,536
12 NH3H2O 47.1 8.551 24.95 5.056 0.001 0.5384 26.03 0.5441 112,325 199.3 112,524
13 Water 100 2.5 419.2 96.57 1.307 3295
14 Water 67.5 2.5 282.2 96.57 0.9333 1129
15 Water 25 1.2 104.9 275.5 0.3669 5.527
16 Water 35.1 1.2 146.7 275.5 0.5049 194.6

gexergy ¼ 0:7719 gth ¼ 0:1266 W_ g ¼ 1672 (kW) W_ net ¼ 1672 (kW) W_ P ¼ 41:53 (kW) W
_ T ¼ 1714 (kW).

entropy and u is the specific internal energy. Also, E_ ch and E_ ph are
the chemical and physical exergy destructions.
Referring to Tables 8 and 9, the ideal exergy efficiency of the
system is 77.2% and technical limitations give a value of about
63.6% for this parameter. The exergy efficiency under real condi-
tions is 37.87% as indicated in Table 7. Considering Table 1, it can
be seen that there is a good agreement between this value and
the values of exergy efficiencies obtained in Refs. [9,11].
In the analyses, the exergy rate entering the Kalina cycle is con-
sidered as the total fuel exergy rate which is the difference
between exergy rates of geothermal fluid entering and exiting
in the other components and it can be determined only by the
advanced exergy analysis. In fact, as mentioned before, the
advanced exergy analysis reveals the effects of component interac-
tion and technical limitations on the potential of the system
improvement.
In the advanced exergy analysis, the endogenous exergy
destruction rate for component k, E_ EN , is calculated first. Also, the
D;k
value of E_ EN;UN
D;k is determined by considering unavoidable condi-
tions instead of the real conditions for the system components.
Then, the value of E_ EX is obtained by introducing the defined value
D;k

the evaporator ðE_ F;tot ¼ E_ F;eV Þ. Also, the net output power is contem- of E_ EN _ AV
D;k in Eq. (14). Furthermore, the value of ED;k is calculated by

plated as the rate of total products exergy ðE_ p;tot ¼ W

_ net Þ.The results applying the value of E_ UN D;k to Eq. (15). Also, by using the values of
of exergy analysis for Kalina cycles under real, ideal and unavoid- E_ EN;UN and E_ EN in Eq. (16), the value of E_ EN;AV is achieved. Finally,
D;k D;k D;k
able conditions are presented in Tables 10–12, respectively.
by calculating the value of E_ EX;UN
D;k from Eq. (18) and using this value
Referring to Table 10, the highest exergy destruction rate occurs
_
in Eq. (17), the value of E EX;AV
is determined.
in the condenser, followed by evaporator, turbine, LTR and HTR. As D;k

known, reducing the mentioned destruction rates is imperative for The results of the above mentioned calculations are presented
improving the performance of the cycle. The conventional exergy in Table 13.
analysis suggests focusing on the components which have higher Referring to Table 13, it can be seen that the value of E_ EN is D
exergy destruction rate. Some part of the exergy destruction in a greater than the value of E_ EX
D in all the system components except
system component however, is due to irreversibilities occurring the evaporator. This means that the major part of exergy destruc-
 M. Fallah et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 108 (2016) 190–201 197

Table 9
Thermodynamic properties and mass flow rates at different state points of the Kalina cycle under unavoidable conditions.

Fluid T (°C) P (bar) h (kJ/kg) _ (kg/s)

m Q s (kJ/kg K) u (kJ/kg) x E_ ch (kW) E_ ph (kW) E_ (kW)

1 NH3H2O 97 25.99 1433 12.59 1 4.371 1277 0.9854 245,794 5681 251,476
2 NH3H2O 42.7 9.459 1295 12.59 0.9638 4.394 1159 0.9854 245,794 3855 249,649
3 NH3H2O 50.8 9.459 860.9 12.59 0.6299 3.127 768.6 0.84 209,522 4141 213,662
4 NH3H2O 43.9 9.365 767.9 12.59 0.5757 2.841 685.7 0.84 209,522 3993 213,515
5 NH3H2O 28 9.365 16.76 12.59 0 0.399 15.38 0.84 209,522 3558 213,080
6 NH3H2O 28.3 26.79 19.48 12.59 0.001 0.3995 15.51 0.84 209,522 3607 213,129
7 NH3H2O 47.8 26.52 112.5 12.59 0.001 0.6985 108.4 0.84 209,522 3680 213,202
8 NH3H2O 62 26.26 182.8 12.59 0.001 0.913 178.6 0.84 209,522 3801 213,323
9 NH3H2O 97 25.99 1023 18.98 0.6637 3.311 918.1 0.84 209,522 6177 215,699
10 NH3H2O 97 25.99 213.1 6.381 0 1.219 209.5 0.5529 137,933 487.7 138,420
11 NH3H2O 52.8 25.73 4.035 6.381 0.001 0.6184 0.7393 0.5529 137,933 296.8 138,230
12 NH3H2O 53 9.459 4.015 6.381 0.001 0.6247 2.802 0.5529 137,933 284.6 138,217
13 Water 100 2.5 419.2 118.8 1.307 4055
14 Water 68 285 118.8 0.931 1428
15 Water 25 1.2 104.9 340.7 0.3669 6.835
16 Water 35 146.7 340.7 0.5049 240.6

gexergy ¼ 0:6366 gth ¼ 0:1049 W_ g ¼ 1724 (kW) W_ net ¼ 1672 (kW) W_ P ¼ 41:53 (kW) W_ T ¼ 1714 (kW).

Table 10 Table 12
Results of exergy analysis for Kalina cycle under real conditions. The results of exergy analysis for Kalina cycle under unavoidable conditions.

Component E_ F E_ P (kW) E_ D (kW) e (%) _

y ¼ E_ ED
_
y ¼ E_ ED Component E_ F E_ P E_ D e (%) _
y ¼ E_ ED
_
y ¼ E_ ED
F;tot D;tot F;tot D;tot
(kW) (kW) (kW) (kW)
(%) (%) (%) (%)
Turbine 2113 1820 292.4 86.16 6.62 12.56 Turbine 1827 1741 85.8 95.30 3.27 12.02
LTR 220.1 92 128.1 50.91 2.90 5.50 LTR 147.1 73.25 73.89 86.64 2.81 10.35
Condenser 1480 411.2 1069 27.79 24.20 45.88 Condenser 435.3 233.8 201.5 53.71 7.67 28.23
Pump 93.72 75.13 18.59 80.16 0.42 0.80 Pump 51.51 48.59 2.915 94.34 0.11 0.41
HTR 272.9 165.3 107.6 60.57 2.44 4.62 HTR 190.9 121 69.84 63.41 2.66 9.79
Evaporator 4415 3774 641.5 85.47 14.53 27.54 Evaporator 2627 2376 250.3 90.47 9.53 35.07
Throttling 17.67 0 17.67 0.00 0.40 0.76 Throttling 12.18 0.0198 12.05 0.16 0.46 1.69
valve valve
Generator 1820 1766 54.61 97.00 1.24 2.35 Generator 1741 1724 17.41 99.00 0.66 2.44
Overall 4415 1690.87 2329.47 38.3 52.75 100 Overall 2627 1672 713.7 27.17 100
system system

Table 11
The results of exergy analysis for Kalina cycle under ideal conditions.
means that the efficiencies of these components can be improved
Component E_ F E_ P E_ D e (%) y¼ E_ D 
y ¼ E_ E_ D and this improvement is possible by using technical modifications
E_ F;tot D;tot
(kW) (kW) (kW)
(%) (%)
(such as using improved lubrication system) and modern technolo-
gies or by replacing these components with more efficient ones.
Turbine 1714 1714 0 100.00 0.0 0.0
LTR 102.9 58.68 44.21 57.03 2.04 15.54
Table 13 also indicates that the total avoidable exergy destruction
Condenser 232.4 189.1 43.3 81.37 2.00 15.23 rate in the system components is remarkably greater than the total
Pump 41.53 41.22 0.3089 99.26 0.01 0.11 unavoidable exergy destruction rate ðE_ AV  E_ UN Þ. Therefore, the
D;tot D;tot
HTR 175.4 116.5 58.84 66.45 2.72 20.69
Evaporator 2166 2029 137.5 93.65 6.35 48.35
cycle has high potential for efficiency improvement. However,
Throttling 9.8 9.8 0 100.00 0.00 0.00 the maximum reduction in the exergy destruction rate of cycle
valvea components is 1615.765 kW or 69.3% of the E_ real . D;tot
Generator 1714 1714 0 100.00 0.00 0.00
Overall 2166 1672 284.39 13.13 100.00
The endogenous avoidable and the exogenous avoidable exergy
system destruction rates provide important information for cycle opti-
a
mization. The main focus however, should be primarily on the
In ideal cycle, it is assumed that the throttling valve is replaced by an expander.
endogenous avoidable part and a reduction in the exogenous
avoidable part should be in the next stage. Thus, a modification
tion rate in each of these components originated from irreversibil- in the components with higher endogenous avoidable exergy
ity of the component itself. Therefore, the designer should focus destruction rate should have priority in cycle improvement inves-
only on the internal irreversibilities of the component to improve tigations. The endogenous avoidable exergy destruction rate for
the system performance. Another important point observed from kth component can be reduced by improving the efficiency and
Table 13 is that the evaporator and condenser have the highest working condition of the component. Furthermore, the exogenous
exogenous exergy destruction rates. Therefore, a modification in avoidable part of exergy destruction rate can be reduced by cycle
the other component efficiencies can lead to a reduction in these structure improvement or by improving efficiencies of all system
exergy destruction rates and brings about an improvement in cycle components including the kth component [15]. Referring to
efficiency. Table 13, it can be seen that the endogenous avoidable exergy
It should be mentioned that in practice, only the avoidable part destruction rates in turbine, condenser, pump and generator are
of exergy destruction rate can be reduced. Table 13 indicates that higher than the endogenous unavoidable rates (E_ EN;AV > E_ EN;UN ). D D
this part of exergy destruction is higher than the unavoidable part This indicates that technical modifications of these components
for the turbine, condenser, pump, evaporator and generator. This can improve their efficiency and consequently the efficiency of
198 M. Fallah et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 108 (2016) 190–201

Table 13
Results of advanced exergy analysis for the Kalina cycle.

Component E_ D (kW) E_ EN
D;k (kW) E_ EX
D;k (kW) E_ AV
D;k (kW) E_ UN
D;k (kW) E_ EN;AV
D;k
(kW) E_ EN;UN
D;k
(kW) E_ EX;AV
D;k
(kW) E_ EX;UN
D;k
(kW)

Turbine 292.4 287 5.4 206.6 85.8 201.2 85.8 5.4 0

LT recuperator 128.1 70.36 57.74 54.21 73.89 9.18 61.18 45.03 12.71
Condenser 1069 671.4 397.6 867.5 201.5 502.4 169 365.1 32.5
Pump 18.59 10.74 7.85 15.675 2.915 8.245 2.495 7.43 0.42
HT recuperator 107.6 59.57 48.03 37.76 69.84 0.01 59.56 37.75 10.28
Evaporator 641.5 320 321.5 391.2 250.3 114.7 205.3 276.5 45
Throttling valve 17.67 10.85 6.82 5.62 12.05 0.117 10.733 5.503 1.317
Generator 54.61 53.04 1.57 37.2 17.41 35.73 17.31 1.47 0.1
Overall system 2329.47 1482.96 846.51 1615.765 713.705 871.582 611.378 744.183 102.327

Fig. 3. Splitting exergy destruction rates of the system components into endogenous, exogenous, avoidable, unavoidable, endogenous-avoidable, endogenous-unavoidable,
exogenous-avoidable and exogenous-unavoidable parts.
 M. Fallah et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 108 (2016) 190–201
Fig. 3 (continued)
the system. Priority in improvement process should be given to the
condenser, turbine and evaporator, as these components have
higher values of the E_ EN;AV than the others. It is also observed from
D
Table 13 that in all the system components, the exogenous avoid-
able exergy destruction rate is higher than the exogenous unavoid-
able exergy destruction rate. Therefore, an improvement in
component efficiency leads to a reduction in the exogenous avoid-
able exergy destruction rates of the other system components. It
should also be noted that the condenser and evaporator have the
highest exogenous avoidable exergy destruction rates. Therefore,
an improvement in the efficiency of the other components plays
prominent role in enhancing the efficiency of the condenser and
the evaporator. For the turbine, the E_ EX;AV is much smaller than
D
the E_ EN;AV
D . Therefore, an improvement in the efficiency of this
component plays an important role in optimizing the cycle
199
performance. Referring again to Table 13, the total endogenous
avoidable exergy destruction rate is obviously higher than the total
endogenous unavoidable exergy destruction rate. Therefore, there
is a high potential for improving the components performance.
Under the working conditions for the present work, the reduction
in cycle exergy destruction rate is up to 206.203 kW.
Splitting exergy destruction rates of the main system compo-
nents into endogenous, exogenous, avoidable, unavoidable,
endogenous-avoidable, endogenous-unavoidable, exogenous-
avoidable and exogenous-unavoidable parts are shown in Fig. 3.
Also, contributions of the components in total endogenous, exoge-
nous, avoidable, unavoidable, endogenous-avoidable, endogenous-
unavoidable, exogenous-avoidable and exogenous-unavoidable
exergy destruction rates of the system are indicated in Fig. 4. In
addition, contribution of each component on the overall exergy
destruction rate, based on the conventional and advanced exergy
200 M. Fallah et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 108 (2016) 190–201
Fig. 4. Contributions of the system components in the total endogenous, exogenous, avoidable, unavoidable, endogenous-avoidable, endogenous-unavoidable, exogenous-
avoidable and exogenous-unavoidable exergy destruction rates of the system.
Fig. 5. Contribution of each component on cycle overall exergy destruction rate
obtained from convention and advanced exergy analyses (the contributions of the
LT recuperator, HT recuperator, generator, pump and throttling valve are zoomed
for clarification).
analyses, are shown in Fig. 5. It can be observed from these figures
and also from Table 13 that in spite of the stated priority order for
system components, obtained from the results of conventional
exergy analysis, the designer should focus first on the condenser
and turbine and then on the evaporator in optimizing the cycle
performance. This can be explained if we consider that from the
641.5 kW total exergy destruction rate in the evaporator, 320 kW
(49.9% of E_ D;ev ap ) is related to the component itself and at most
17.9% of E_ D;ev ap (E_ EN;AV
D;ev p ¼ 114:7 kW) can be reduced by technological
improvement or technical modifications. But, the E_ EN;AV for con-
D
denser and turbine are 502.4 kW (47% of E_ D;cond ) and 201.2 kW
(68.81% of E_ D;T ), respectively. In addition, the results of advanced
exergy analysis don’t suggest any improvement for the HTR and
the LTR, while the conventional exergy analysis indicates consider-
able values of exergy destruction rates for these components. In
fact, approximately 35% of the sum of exergy destruction rates in
these two components can be reduced by improving the other sys-
tem components, when the remaining parts are unavoidable or
have negligible values.
5. Conclusion
In the present work, conventional and advanced exergy analy-
ses are carried out for a Kalina cycle using a low temperature
enhanced geothermal source. The main results can be listed as
follows:
 M. Fallah et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 108 (2016) 190–201

Conventional exergy analysis shows that the highest exergy
destruction occurs in the condenser, followed by the evapora-
tor, the turbine, the LTR and the HTR. However, the advanced
exergy analysis suggests that the first, second and third priority
of improvement should be given to the condenser, the turbine
and the evaporator, respectively. Also, the results emphasized
that the LTR and the HTR do not require any improvement.

It is observed that the total endogenous avoidable exergy
destruction rate of the cycle is higher than the total endogenous
unavoidable exergy destruction rate. Therefore, improvement of
the components results in a reduction in the cycle exergy
destruction rate, but this reduction won’t be more than
26.25% of the E_ D;tot .

A comparison between the total avoidable and unavoidable
exergy destruction rates of the cycle suggests that there is con-
siderable potential for cycle performance enhancement. The
total exergy destruction rate of the cycle however, cannot be
reduced to less than 30.63% of the E_ D;tot .

The results of advanced exergy analysis indicate that in all the
system components, except the evaporator, the endogenous
part of exergy destruction rate is higher than the exogenous
part. Therefore, the interactions among other components play
an important role in the evaporator performance.

As the condenser and evaporator have considerable quantities
of exogenous avoidable exergy destruction rates, an improve-
ment in the other component efficiencies leads to a better
working condition for these components.
References
[1] Chamorro CR, Mondéjar ME, Ramos R, Segovia JJ, Martín MC, Villamañán MA.
World geothermal power production status: energy, environmental and
economic study of high enthalpy technologies. Energy 2012;42(1):10–8.
[2] Bertani R. Geothermal power generation in the World 2010–2014 Update
Report. World Geothermal Congress. Melbourne, Australia; 2015.
[3] Gazo F, Lind L. Low enthalpy geothermal energy: technology review: GNS
science, 2010.
[4] Lund JW. Characteristics, development and utilization of geothermal
resources. Oregon Inst Technol 2007;28(2).
[5] Fu W, Zhu J, Zhang W, Lu Z. Performance evaluation of Kalina cycle subsystem
on geothermal power generation in the oilfield. Appl Therm Eng 2013;54
(2):497–506.
[6] Ibrahim O, Klein S. Absorption power cycles. Energy 1996;21(1):21–7.
[7] Hettiarachchi HM, Golubovic M, Worek WM, Ikegami Y. The performance of
the Kalina cycle system 11 (KCS-11) with low-temperature heat sources. J
Energy Res Technol 2007;129(3):243–7.
[8] Guzović Z, Lončar D, Ferdelji N. Possibilities of electricity generation in the
Republic of Croatia by means of geothermal energy. Energy 2010;35
(8):3429–40.
[9] Rodríguez CEC, Palacio JCE, Venturini OJ, Lora EES, Cobas VM, dos Santos DM,
et al. Exergetic and economic comparison of ORC and Kalina cycle for low
temperature enhanced geothermal system in Brazil. Appl Therm Eng 2013;52
(1):109–19.
[10] Singh OK, Kaushik S. Energy and exergy analysis and optimization of Kalina
cycle coupled with a coal fired steam power plant. Appl Therm Eng 2013;51
(1):787–800.
[11] Li S, Dai Y. Thermo-economic comparison of Kalina and CO2 transcritical
power cycle for low temperature geothermal sources in China. Appl Therm Eng
2014;70(1):139–52.
201
[12] Yari M, Mehr A, Zare V, Mahmoudi S, Rosen M. Exergoeconomic comparison of
TLC (trilateral Rankine cycle), ORC (organic Rankine cycle) and Kalina cycle
using a low grade heat source. Energy 2015;83:712–22.
[13] Tsatsaronis G. Strengths and limitations of exergy analysis. Thermodynamic
Optimization of Complex Energy systems. Springer; 1999. p. 93–100.
[14] Kelly S, Tsatsaronis G, Morosuk T. Advanced exergetic analysis: approaches for
splitting the exergy destruction into endogenous and exogenous parts. Energy
2009;34(3):384–91.
[15] Morosuk T, Tsatsaronis G. A new approach to the exergy analysis of absorption
refrigeration machines. Energy 2008;33(6):890–907.
[16] Petrakopoulou F, Tsatsaronis G, Morosuk T, Carassai A. Advanced
exergoeconomic analysis applied to a complex energy conversion system. J
Eng Gas Turbines Power 2012;134(3):031801.
[17] Morosuk T, Tsatsaronis G. Comparative evaluation of LNG-based cogeneration
systems using advanced exergetic analysis. Energy 2011;36(6):3771–8.
[18] Morosuk T, Tsatsaronis G, Boyano A, Gantiva C. Advanced exergy-based
analyses applied to a system including LNG regasification and electricity
generation. Int J Energy Environ Eng 2012;3(1):1–9.
[19] Tsatsaronis G, Morosuk T, Koch D, Sorgenfrei M. Understanding the
thermodynamic inefficiencies in combustion processes. Energy 2013;62:3–11.
[20] Tsatsaronis G, Morosuk T. Understanding the formation of costs and
environmental impacts using exergy-based methods. Energy Security and
Development. Springer; 2015. p. 271–91.
[21] Hepbasli A, Keçebasß A. A comparative study on conventional and advanced
exergetic analyses of geothermal district heating systems based on actual
operational data. Energy Buildings 2013;61:193–201.
[22] Keçebasß A, Hepbasli A. Conventional and advanced exergoeconomic analyses
of geothermal district heating systems. Energy Buildings 2014;69:434–41.
[23] Gungor A, Erbay Z, Hepbasli A, Gunerhan H. Splitting the exergy destruction
into avoidable and unavoidable parts of a gas engine heat pump (GEHP) for
food drying processes based on experimental values. Energy Convers Manage
2013;73:309–16.
[24] Gungor A, Tsatsaronis G, Gunerhan H, Hepbasli A. Advanced exergoeconomic
analysis of a gas engine heat pump (GEHP) for food drying processes. Energy
Convers Manage 2015;91:132–9.
[25] Açıkkalp E, Aras H, Hepbasli A. Advanced exergoeconomic analysis of an
electricity-generating facility that operates with natural gas. Energy Convers
Manage 2014;78:452–60.
[26] Açıkkalp E, Aras H, Hepbasli A. Advanced exergoeconomic analysis of a
trigeneration system using a diesel-gas engine. Appl Therm Eng 2014;67
(1):388–95.
[27] Soltani S, Yari M, Mahmoudi S, Morosuk T, Rosen M. Advanced exergy analysis
applied to an externally-fired combined-cycle power plant integrated with a
biomass gasification unit. Energy 2013;59:775–80.
[28] Tan M, Keçebasß A. Thermodynamic and economic evaluations of a geothermal
district heating system using advanced exergy-based methods. Energy
Convers Manage 2014;77:504–13.
[29] Walraven D, Laenen B, D’haeseleer W. Comparison of thermodynamic cycles
for power production from low-temperature geothermal heat sources. Energy
Convers Manage 2013;66:220–33.
[30] Coskun A, Bolatturk A, Kanoglu M. Thermodynamic and economic analysis and
optimization of power cycles for a medium temperature geothermal resource.
Energy Convers Manage 2014;78:39–49.
[31] Morosuk T, Tsatsaronis G. Advanced exergetic evaluation of refrigeration
machines using different working fluids. Energy 2009;34(12):2248–58.
[32] Ogriseck S. Integration of Kalina cycle in a combined heat and power plant, a
case study. Appl Therm Eng 2009;29(14):2843–8.
[33] Boyaghchi FA, Molaie H. Investigating the effect of duct burner fuel mass flow
rate on exergy destruction of a real combined cycle power plant components
based on advanced exergy analysis. Energy Convers Manage
2015;103:827–35.
[34] Zare V, Mahmoudi S. A thermodynamic comparison between organic Rankine
and Kalina cycles for waste heat recovery from the gas turbine-modular
helium reactor. Energy 2015;79:398–406.
[35] Modi A, Andreasen JG, Kærn MR, Haglind F. Part-load performance of a high
temperature Kalina cycle. Energy Convers Manage 2015;105:453–61.
[36] Petrakopoulou F. Comparative evaluation of power plants with CO2 capture:
thermodynamic, economic and environmental performance. Berlin Technical
University, Institut für Energietechnik; 2010.