Energy, Exergy, Exergoeconomic and Exergoenvironmental Impact Analyses and Optimization of Various Geothermal Power Cycle Configurations
Energy, exergy, and exergoeconomic evaluations of various geothermal configurations are reported. The main operational and economic parameters of the cycles are evaluated and compared. Multi-objective optimization of the cycles is conducted using the artificial bee colony algorithm. A sensitivity as...
Guardado en:
| Autores principales: | , , |
|---|---|
| Formato: | article |
| Lenguaje: | EN |
| Publicado: |
MDPI AG
2021
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | https://doaj.org/article/0020354cb21542e1bb26efc998a6d2fe |
| Etiquetas: |
Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
|
| Sumario: | Energy, exergy, and exergoeconomic evaluations of various geothermal configurations are reported. The main operational and economic parameters of the cycles are evaluated and compared. Multi-objective optimization of the cycles is conducted using the artificial bee colony algorithm. A sensitivity assessment is carried out on the effect of production well temperature variation on system performance from energy and economic perspectives. The results show that the flash-binary cycle has the highest thermal and exergy efficiencies, at 15.6% and 64.3%, respectively. The highest generated power cost and pay-back period are attributable to the simple organic Rankine cycle (ORC). Raising the well-temperature can increase the exergy destruction rate in all configurations. However, the electricity cost and pay-back period decrease. Based on the results, in all cases, the exergoenvironmental impact improvement factor decreases, and the temperature rises. The exergy destruction ratio and efficiency of all components for each configuration are calculated and compared. It is found that, at the optimum state, the exergy efficiencies of the simple organic Rankine cycle, single flash, double flash, and flash-binary cycles respectively are 14.7%, 14.4%, 12.6%, and 14.1% higher than their relevant base cases, while the pay-back periods are 10.6%, 1.5% 1.4%, and 0.6% lower than the base cases. |
|---|