Deliverable n°3.

Title:

A Software to evaluate financial viability of

geothermal projects
Date: December 2012

Status: working paper

Input to the financial model > Costs estimation

 Grensásvegur 1
108 Reykjavík
Iceland
Tel: +354 422 3000
Fax: +354 422 3001
Mail: mannvit@mannvit.is
Mannvit hf Web: www.mannvit.com
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Theoretical cases are presented of electricity generation for geothermal fluid in the range of 120-
170°C. The working cycles suggested are binary cycles of ORC and Kalina Cycle technology.
Two model cases were prepared, one with ORC technology and one with Kalina technology. Each
model case has then the option of using wet or dry cooling and the option of being an Enhanced
Geothermal System (EGS) or a conventional hydrothermal geothermal system.
The model shows that the parasitic load is higher when wet cooling is used than with dry cooling.
The power plants for EGS systems are more expensive than for conventional hydrothermal systems.
This is mainly due to higher well cost.
Table of contents
Electricity production descriptions ............................................................................................... 1
Proposed Geothermal Resources ..................................................................................................... 1
Hydrothermal resource ................................................................................................................. 1
Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS) ........................................................................................... 1
Proposed Work Cycles ...................................................................................................................... 1
Organic Rankine Cycle (ORC) ........................................................................................................ 2
Kalina Cycle ................................................................................................................................... 3
Electricity production calculations ................................................................................................ 4
Input data and assumptions ............................................................................................................. 4
Investment cost analysis .............................................................................................................. 7
CAPEX ................................................................................................................................................ 7
OPEX................................................................................................................................................ 10
References................................................................................................................................. 11

i
Mannvit – GEOELEC WP3.1 Input into financial model
Electricity production descriptions
Electricity production from geothermal energy resources can be done in various ways. In this
analysis there are two types of resource studied; Enhanced Geothermal System (EGS) and
hydrothermal resource. There are further various ways of generating electricity from the resources.
The focus here is on low temperature resources and so binary cycles are presented as the solution of
choice. Two binary cycles are described namely Organic Rankine Cycle (ORC) and Kalina Cycle.

Proposed Geothermal Resources

Hydrothermal resource
In hydrothermal resources, natural permeability and water are sufficient to convey the heat to
surface where it can be used to produce electricity. This can normally be found in fractured volcanic
rocks where temperatures are relatively high near the surface. This can also be found in non-volcanic
areas where the crustal heat flow is sufficient to produce high temperatures and the rocks are
permeable to allow the production of large volumes of fluid.

Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS)

EGS are located in regions of elevated temperatures (caused by radiogenic heat production, elevated
tectonic heat flow, or vertical heat advection through deep fault zones). EGS is typically situated in
basement rock marked by relatively low natural permeability. The specific characteristics of the EGS
are mainly connected to conveying the heat to surface, usually by water injection and fracturing.

EGS may be feasible anywhere in the world, depending on the economic limits of the drilling depth.
Currently there are EGS systems being developed in a few countries. Six wells have been drilled in
South Australia’s Cooper Basin where a 25 MW EGS project is planned.
Many features associated with the technical feasibility of EGS technology have been demonstrated
at more than one site in the past 30 years. However, the major shortcoming of the field testing so far
is that circulation rates through the stimulated regions have been below commercially viable rates.
Recent progress at Soultz-sous-Foret in France and Cooper Basin in Australia suggests that the ability
to reach commercial levels is reasonably close. In 2011, 20 EGS projects were under development or
under discussion in several EU countries.

Proposed Work Cycles

This project deals with electrical power generation using geothermal fluid at low temperatures areas
(≤ 170 °C). For this, a binary cycle power plant is presented. In binary power plants, a working fluid
having lower boiling point than water, is confined in a circulating system or closed loop. Heat from
the geothermal fluid is used in heat exchangers to vaporize a working fluid which impels a turbine
and electricity is generated in a generator which is coupled to the turbine. Geothermal fluid of down
to 100 °C or even lower temperature values can theoretically be used for electrical generation in
binary cycle power plants. Whether it is feasible or not depends on other factors like for example the
cooling need and method available and cost of extracting the geothermal fluid. For this project two
different processes are considered i.e., Organic Rankine Cycle (ORC) and Kalina cycle.

Mannvit – GEOELEC WP3.1 Input into financial model 1

Organic Rankine Cycle (ORC)
A schematic diagram of an ORC is shown in Figure 1. Stream 1 shows the path of the reservoir fluid
which is pumped up through production wells. Generally a well pump is needed as low-temperature
geothermal resources are usually not self-flowing. The binary working fluid (normally isobutane or
isopentane) is heated and evaporated in the evaporator and is piped to the turbine (Stream 2). The
gas impels the turbine and electricity is generated in the generator (G) coupled to the turbine. The
slightly superheated binary fluid exits the turbine at lower pressure as Stream 3 and enters the
condenser where it condenses back into liquid form (Stream 4). A feed pump circulates the liquid at
a higher pressure (Stream 5) before entering the heat exchanger again repeating the process. The
geothermal fluid is injected back into the reservoir (Stream 6) through injection wells. A recuperator
can be added in an ORC cycle to increase the power cycle’s efficiency. The binary fluid is cooled in
the recuperator before entering the condenser and preheated before entering the heat exchanger.
The condenser requires cooling which may be provided by either water (wet cooling) or air (dry
cooling). Even though air cooled condensers are more effective, wet cooling is often preferred, since
the cost and foot print is smaller and the output not as dependent on ambient condition. Dry cooling
may be necessary in areas of limited water resources.

Figure 1 Process flow diagram of an ORC cycle.

The working fluid of an ORC is selected according to several criteria but of fundamental importance
is the temperature of the resource. A very important design parameter of the cycle is the boiling
pressure. More advanced power plants based on the ORC technology use two cycles with two
pressures to increase the efficiency of the cycle. Two different working fluids have also been used in
a two cycle scheme.
Sizes of binary power plants vary but the average capacity is approximately 5 MW/unit. Notice that
binary plant turbines are in most cases much smaller than geothermal steam turbines. While there
are examples of geothermal steam turbines larger than 100 MW, the largest binary cycle turbines
are around 15 MW. 20 MW generator units have been reported where two turbines turn a single
generator. 45 MW generator units have been reported in Aydin in Turkey, where two turbo
expander generator trains are going to deliver these 45 MW of clean energy. Binary cycle turbines
are though typically manufactured in smaller units, ranging between 1 MW and 10 MW in size.

2
Kalina Cycle
The working fluid in a Kalina cycle is a mixture of water and ammonia. The process is shown in Figure
2. Starting at the evaporator, the working fluid is heated and evaporated in the evaporator. It exits
the evaporator as Stream 1 in the figure and enters a separator that separates the ammonia rich
vapour from the ammonia lean liquid. The vapour exits the separator as Stream 2 and impels the
turbine and the generator (G), which is coupled to the turbine, generates electricity. The vapour
flows from the turbine as Stream 3 and is mixed with the lean fluid of Stream 5. The liquid exiting the
separator as Stream 4 enters the High Temperature Recuperator (HTR). The liquid exits the HTR as
Stream 5 at a lower temperature before it is mixed with Stream 3. The mixed fluid (vapour and
liquid) at Stream 6 enters the Low Temperature Recuperator (LTR), which serves a similar purpose as
the HTR. The liquid exits the LTR as Stream 7 before entering the condenser, which condensates the
fluid to liquid form as Stream 8. A pump circulates the liquid from Stream 8 at a higher pressure as
Stream 9, before entering the LTR. Stream 10 and 11 are two steps in which the liquid is heated in
the recuperators, before entering the evaporator again. The heat source for the evaporator is in this
case the geothermal fluid provided by the wells.
The main characteristic of the Kalina Cycle is that the working fluid, which is utilized in the closed
cycle, is a mixture of water and ammonia. The evaporation temperature of the mixture changes with
concentration of ammonia. Therefore, while passing through the evaporator, the temperature
profile of the working fluid can be better adapted to the temperature profile of the geothermal fluid.
This reduces second law losses and results in higher second law efficiency of the working cycle.
Another characteristic of the cycle is that with separation and mixing, the ratio of the ammonia and
water mixture can be changed and then at the same time condensation temperature and
evaporation temperature as well as other properties of the fluid changes. This can be used to
improve the efficiency of the cycle.
A schematic diagram of a Kalina Cycle is shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2 Process flow diagram of a Kalina cycle.

Kalina technology has a short history of commercial operation in the geothermal sector. Kalina
plants can be found in Iceland, Japan and Germany, three of these plants are geothermal plants.
Further Kalina plants are planned or under construction.

Mannvit – GEOELEC WP3.1 Input into financial model 3

Electricity production calculations
The process simulations are performed with in-house calculation models prepared by Mannvit.
Separate models were prepared for the ORC and the Kalina cycle for evaluation of the two
processes. These calculations will allow for an evaluation and comparison of the estimated
production and cost of the systems.

Input data and assumptions

Both models are based on general thermodynamics but some prerequisites are based on Mannvit‘s
experience through similar work. The processes will use either wet or dry cooling for cooling the
working fluid. The cold end design will be based on the assumption that the wet bulb temperature is
8,7°C, as this report focuses on utilization in Europe.
The models are adjusted in that way that the geothermal liquid is cooled down as much as possible
before re-injection.
The working fluid in the ORC process is isobutane and mixture of ammonia and water in the Kalina
process.
The models are used to calculate the net power and gross power for definite range of inlet
temperature of the geothermal liquid (120°C-170°C). General functions for net power and gross
power are then derived from these calculations where inlet temperature is the input data. The
results from the functions for wet cooling are presented in Table 1 and for dry cooling in Table 2.

Table 1 General functions of gross and net power for both Kalina and ORC process with wet cooling.

Kalina Kalina
T ORC gross ORC net
gross net
[°C] [kJ/kg] [kJ/kg] [kJ/kg] [kJ/kg]
120 18,1 22,6 21,5 25,5
125 21,0 26,2 24,0 28,2
130 24,3 30,2 26,6 31,1
135 27,9 34,7 29,3 34,0
140 31,9 39,7 32,0 37,1
145 36,2 45,1 34,9 40,2
150 40,8 50,9 37,8 43,5
155 45,8 57,3 40,9 46,8
160 51,2 64,0 44,0 50,2
165 56,9 71,2 47,2 53,7
170 62,9 78,9 50,5 57,3

4
Table 2 General functions of gross and net power for both Kalina and ORC process with dry cooling.

ORC Kalina
T ORC net Kalina net
gross gross
[°C] [kJ/kg] [kJ/kg] [kJ/kg] [kJ/kg]
120 18,4 22,3 23,2 25,5
125 21,4 25,9 25,9 28,3
130 24,7 29,9 28,6 31,3
135 28,3 34,3 31,5 34,3
140 32,3 39,2 34,6 37,5
145 36,6 44,5 37,7 40,8
150 41,2 50,2 40,9 44,2
155 46,2 56,3 44,2 47,6
160 51,5 62,9 47,7 51,2
165 57,1 69,9 51,2 55,0
170 63,1 77,4 54,9 58,8

Gross power is how much electricity is generated in total. Net power accounts for the parasitic loads
within each cycle. The parasitic load is the power needed to run the cycle, e.g. the production well
pumps, the feed pump and pumps and fans for cooling the condenser.
The availability of the power plant is assumed to be 95%, which is in line with what can be expected
from proven technology today for new binary plants. This means that the power plant will be
working and delivering power of full capacity 95% of the time, but during 5% it will be stopped
mostly because of maintenance but some unscheduled stops must also be expected. The plant will
therefore operate for estimated 8322 hours each year.
New wells are included in the cost estimate. The mass flow from each well depends on the
permeability of the reservoir, which is not possible to take into account here. It is likely that the
mass flow from each well will be in the range of 20-60 kg/s and therefore it is assumed that each
production well can give up to 40 kg/s of geothermal liquid in the model. For every two production
wells, one injection well will be drilled, but in the case of EGS there will be one injection well for
each production well.

Inputs into the model:

 Temperature of geothermal liquid.
 Total mass flow rate of geothermal liquid from all the production wells.
 Choose between wet or dry cooling for the cold end. Wet or dry cooling means that the
working fluid in the condenser is cooled with either water or air.
 The vertical distance from the surface to the water level in the ground.
 EGS or not.
The model will provide the following outputs as well as the capital- and operational costs of the
plant.

Mannvit – GEOELEC WP3.1 Input into financial model 5

 Outputs from the model:
 Gross power from the power plant in MWe.
 Net power from the power plant in MWe.
 Power production in GWh.
 Number of production wells.
 Number of injection wells.

6
Investment cost analysis
The cost of a geothermal project is related to the location of a resource since the geology at the site
and characteristics of the geothermal fluid (temperature, pressure, chemistry, mass flow) all affect
the CAPEX and OPEX of the project. The greatest cost factor is generally the drilling of the wells. If
the geology of the site requires deep wells, for example more than 3 km, this has the greatest
impact upon project capital cost.
The multiple factor method (Guthrie & Grace, 1969), (Helfrich & Schubert, 1973), (Perry, Green, &
Maloney, 1997) is used for the capital cost estimate, based on estimated equipment costs.
Equipment costs are based on experience gained from similar projects Mannvit has previously
worked on. The costs are based on actual prices and/or quotations and corrected in accordance with
the equation:

( )

where the number 1 indicates a past or known value and 2 a current or wanted value. C stands for
cost, i for index, q for quantity, capacity or size as applicable and n is the capacity-ratio exponent.
The indexes are based on Mannvit’s experience and the chemical Engineering Plant Cost Index
(CEPCI) at the applicable date. The cost estimate covers only the costs as defined within the
Boundary Limits.
At this level, the cost estimate is according to AACE Class 5.

CAPEX
The cost of drilling depends on several items such as location, infrastructure, type of reservoir, type
of formations and well design. EGS wells are often more expensive than other wells because they
have to be drilled deeper. The total cost for EGS power plants is higher than for power plants in
conventional hydrothermal resources. There is also less experience in EGS and therefore the risk is
higher. The price of the production well pumps also depends on the temperature of the reservoir.

The cost for the pipelines depends on the mass flow from the wells and the number of wells as well
as the overall layout of the wells and power plant. Therefor some average distances are used in
these cost estimations. It is assumed that there can be three wells on each well pad, production
wells or injection wells. In the case of EGS there are two wells on each well pad. The distance
between the wells on each well pad is 600m and the distance between well pads is 1500m.

The cost for the substation is roughly estimated as 4,6% of the total cost. This estimation is based on
cost numbers from similar projects in Europe.

The cost for the power plant is based on the multiple factor method that has previously been
described in this chapter. There are four different power plant cases where the power plants cost
depends on if ORC or Kalina technology is used and if the cooling is wet or dry. It also depends on
the temperature of the reservoir and the mass flow of the geothermal liquid.

Since there are many factors that affect the power plants cost, it’s not possible to use just one
equation for all the cases. The following tables show how the cost changes according to the
functions for the main equipment for the ORC and Kalina plants with wet and dry cooling.

Mannvit – GEOELEC WP3.1 Input into financial model 7

Table 3 Cost parameters for ORC wet cooling as a function of geothermal temperature.

T Turbine Evaporator Condenser Circ. pump Cool. tow. Cool. Pump

[°C] [kW/kg/s] [m^2/kg/s] [m^2/kg/s] [kW/kg/s] [kW/kg/s] [kW/kg/s]
120 23,3 14,9 21,6 1,2 2,6 0,9
125 26,2 14,0 22,7 1,5 2,7 0,9
130 29,6 13,9 24,1 1,9 2,9 1,0
135 33,5 14,6 25,8 2,3 3,1 1,0
140 37,9 16,3 27,8 2,7 3,3 1,1
145 42,8 18,8 30,1 3,3 3,6 1,2
150 48,2 22,2 32,8 3,9 3,9 1,3
155 54,1 26,5 35,7 4,5 4,2 1,4
160 60,5 31,7 39,0 5,3 4,6 1,6
165 67,4 37,7 42,5 6,1 4,9 1,7
170 74,8 44,6 46,4 6,9 5,4 1,9

Table 4 Cost parameters for ORC dry cooling as a function of geothermal temperature.

T Turbine Evaporator Condenser Circ. pump

[°C] [kW/kg/s] [m^2/kg/s] [m^2/kg/s] [kW/kg/s]
120 22,9 14,4 24,6 1,2
125 25,8 13,4 26,0 1,5
130 29,2 13,2 27,8 1,9
135 33,1 13,9 29,9 2,3
140 37,4 15,5 32,4 2,7
145 42,3 18,0 35,2 3,3
150 47,7 21,3 38,4 3,9
155 53,6 25,5 41,9 4,5
160 60,0 30,6 45,8 5,3
165 66,8 36,6 49,9 6,0
170 74,2 43,4 54,5 6,9

8
Table 5 Cost parameters for Kalina wet cooling as a function of geothermal temperature.

Cool.
T
Turbine Evaporator Condenser Circ. pump Cool. tow. Pump LT recup. HT recup.
[°C] [kW/kg/s] [m^2/kg/s] [m^2/kg/s] [kW/kg/s] [kW/kg/s] [kW/kg/s] [m^2/kg/s] [m^2/kg/s]
120 24,5 16,4 25,1 0,9 1,6 0,7 3,9 0,15
125 27,6 16,3 26,9 1,0 1,7 0,7 4,3 0,13
130 30,6 16,6 28,3 1,1 1,8 0,8 4,7 0,11
135 33,7 17,2 29,2 1,2 1,9 0,8 5,0 0,10
140 36,8 18,2 29,8 1,4 2,0 0,8 5,2 0,08
145 39,9 19,6 29,9 1,5 2,1 0,9 5,3 0,07
150 43,0 21,4 29,6 1,6 2,1 0,9 5,4 0,06
155 46,1 23,5 28,8 1,7 2,2 0,9 5,4 0,06
160 49,2 26,0 27,6 1,8 2,2 0,9 5,2 0,05
165 52,4 28,9 26,0 1,9 2,3 1,0 5,0 0,04
170 55,5 32,2 24,0 2,1 2,3 1,0 4,8 0,04

Table 6 Cost parameters for Kalina dry cooling as a function of geothermal temperature.

T Turbine Evaporator Condenser Circ. pump LT recup. HT recup.

[°C] [kW/kg/s] [m^2/kg/s] [m^2/kg/s] [kW/kg/s] [m^2/kg/s] [m^2/kg/s]
120 24,6 16,5 30,0 0,8 4,0 0,15
125 27,7 16,4 32,3 0,9 4,5 0,13
130 30,8 16,6 34,1 1,0 4,9 0,11
135 33,9 17,3 35,3 1,1 5,2 0,10
140 37,0 18,3 36,0 1,2 5,4 0,08
145 40,1 19,7 36,1 1,3 5,5 0,07
150 43,2 21,5 35,7 1,4 5,6 0,06
155 46,3 23,6 34,7 1,5 5,6 0,06
160 49,5 26,2 33,1 1,6 5,5 0,05
165 52,6 29,1 31,0 1,7 5,3 0,04
170 55,8 32,3 28,4 1,8 5,0 0,04

Mannvit – GEOELEC WP3.1 Input into financial model 9

OPEX
Maintenance cost contains all the expenses that are related to the maintenance of the equipment of
the power plant, like turbine, generator, heat exchangers, buildings, pipes and well heads. This also
includes machinery overhaul, painting, road repair etc. Some of the activities can be subcontracted
to specialized companies. Usually a clear distinction is made between the power plant maintenance
expenses and the expenses related to the field maintenance and the make-up well drilling. The
maintenance of the field can include the maintenance of the production and injection wells, well
pumps, pipelines, etc.
During the first years of operation, the O&M cost is expected to be relatively low. The O&M cost will
increase with time, as the power plant gets older and more maintenance or replacement is needed.

The production rate of the power plant is an average over a period of technical service lifetime of 30
years. The production will start out at a higher level and then fall below the average at some point.
Mitigating measures should be taken to counteract the fall in the plant’s output to some degree.

The annual O&M cost is taken as 1% of the investment cost for the wells, 5% of the investment cost
for the submersible well pumps, 1% for the piping material and system and 3% of the investment
cost for the power plant and its utilities, the fluid transfer, the power generation and the site
infrastructure.

10
References
Guthrie, K. M., & Grace, W. R. (1969, March 24). Capital Cost Estimating. Chemical Engineering , pp.
115-142.
Helfrich, F., & Schubert, W. (1973). Ermittlung von Investitionskosten, Einfluss auf die
Wirtschaftlichkeitsrechnung. Chemie-Ing.-Techn. 45. Jahrg. , 891-897.
Perry, R. H., Green, D. W., & Maloney, J. O. (Eds.). (1997). Perry's Chemical Engineer's Handbook
(Seventh ed.). New York: Mc Graw Hill.

Mannvit – GEOELEC WP3.1 Input into financial model 11