# Thermo-Economic Evaluation of Organic Rankine Cycles for Geothermal Power Generation Using Zeotropic Mixtures

^{*}

## Abstract

**:**

## 1. Introduction

## 2. Methodology

#### 2.1. Reliability of Fluid Properties

#### 2.2. Process Simulation and Second Law Analysis

**Figure 1.**(

**a**) Scheme of the geothermal ORC power plant; (

**b**) Corresponding T,s-diagram for the ORC using the working fluid isopentane.

_{PP}in the heat exchangers is assumed to be constant. In this context, the process pressures of the ORC are adapted by user subroutines. The reinjection temperature of the geothermal fluid is chosen as an independent design variable to obtain the maximum power output of the system. Therefore, the Cycle Tempo internal optimization routine is used. A relative accuracy for convergence of 1.0·10

^{−4}is considered. The plant performance is evaluated neglecting pressure and heat losses in the pipes and components. Fluid properties of water are considered for the geothermal fluid. For the sensitivity analysis, the mixture composition is varied in discrete steps of 10 mol%. Additional boundary conditions are listed in Table 1. The mass flow rate of the brine of 65.5 kg/s is selected according to typical conditions for the Upper Rhine Rift Valley, one of the most suitable regions for geothermal power generation in Germany.

_{II}is calculated according to:

_{G}corresponds to the generated power of the system and P

_{P}represents the power applied by the pump. The maximum power output of geothermal source, the exergy flow Ė

_{GF}, is obtained by multiplying the specific exergy e of the geothermal fluid with its mass flow ṁ

_{GF}. The specific exergy e is calculated according to:

_{0}is set to 15 °C and p

_{0}= 1.5 MPa.

_{log}:

_{in}and ΔT

_{out}correspond to the temperature difference between ORC working fluid and heat source or sink at the inlet and outlet of the heat exchanger. The UA parameter is only suitable for qualitative comparisons and serves as a rough impression of the required heat exchanger dimensions. For a comprehensive thermo-economic evaluation the heat exchange surfaces have to be determined. This includes the application of suitable heat transfer correlations and geometries. In the following, the selected design criteria are described.

Parameter | Value |
---|---|

Mass flow rate of geothermal fluid ṁ_{gf} (kg/s) | 65.5 |

Inlet temperature of geothermal fluid T_{GF,in} (°C) | 80–180 |

Pressure of geothermal fluid p_{gf} (bar) | 15 |

Minimal reinjection temperature T_{GF,rein} (°C) | 25 |

Minimal temperature difference internal heat exchanger ΔT_{PP,IHE} (K) | 5 |

Minimal temperature difference preheater ΔT_{PP,PHE} (K) | 5 |

Minimal temperature difference condenser ΔT_{PP,COND} (K) | 5 |

Temperature difference of the cooling medium ΔT_{CM} (K) | 5 |

Inlet temperature of cooling medium T_{CM,in} (°C) | 15 |

Maximal ORC process pressure p_{2} (bar) | 0.8∙p_{crit} |

Isentropic efficiency of feed pump η_{i,P} (%) | 75 |

Isentropic efficiency of turbine η
_{i,T} (%) | 80 |

Efficiency of generator η_{i,G} (%) | 98 |

#### 2.3. Heat Exchanger Design

_{S}, density ρ, viscosity ν and thermal diffusivity a.

_{id}, which represents the linear interpolation between the values for pure components. Heberle et al. [50] show that for potential binary mixtures used as ORC working fluids the model of Schlünder [51] is applicable:

_{0}represent experimental fitted constants. The following assumptions are made: β = 2 × 10

^{−4}m/s and B

_{0}= 1. The mole fraction of liquid and gaseous phase of the component i correspond to x

_{i}and y

_{i}. The temperatures T

_{si}describe the saturation temperature of the mixture component.

_{ORC}/p

_{crit}). In analogy to the evaporation process, a reduction of heat transfer due to additional mass transfer has to be considered for zeotropic mixtures. Therefore, we apply the method of Sliver, Bell and Ghaly [53,54]. In Equation (10) α

_{eff}represents the heat transfer coefficient for the zeotropic mixture, while α(x) is calculated according to Equation (9) using fluid properties of the fluid mixture. For heat transfer coefficient in the gaseous phase α

_{g}Equation (11) is applied:

_{g}is the ratio between the sensible part of the condensation of the zeotropic mixture and the latent part. Here c

_{p,g}represents the heat capacity of the gaseous phase, T

_{G,Cond}the temperature glide at condensation and Δh the corresponding enthalpy difference.

_{tot}of each heat exchanger is calculated by:

_{o}represents the heat transfer coefficient at the outside of the tube, respectively, shell side and α

_{i}corresponds to the heat transfer coefficient at the inside of the tube. The inner and outer radius of the tube are represented by r

_{i}and r

_{o}. The thermal conductivity of the tube corresponds to λ

_{t}. Finally, the required heat transfer surface is determined according to Equation (3), including a safety factor of 1.2.

#### 2.4. Cost Estimations

_{0}at ambient operating conditions and using carbon steel construction:

_{10}C

_{0}= K

_{1}+ K

_{2}∙log

_{10}(Y) + K

_{3}(log

_{10}(Y))

^{2}

_{1}, K

_{2}and K

_{3}are listed for the considered main components in Table 2. In addition, minimal and maximal values for Y are included. If a component exceeds the maximal value several parallel arranged components are considered. The listed cost data are from the year 2001. By setting the corresponding Chemical Engineering Cost Plant Index (CEPCI) of 397 into relation to the value of May 2014 with 574, inflation and the development of raw material prices are taken into account. To convert the PEC in Euro a conversion ratio of 0.8 (as at 10 December 2014) is considered. The total investment costs of the ORC power plant C

_{tot,ORC}are calculated by multiplying the sum of the PEC by the factor 6.32. According to Bejan et al. [56] this parameter represents additional costs like installation, piping, controls, basic engineering and others in relation to the purchased equipment costs of the major components.

Component | Y; unit | K_{1} | K_{2} | K_{3} | Y_{min} | Y_{max} |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

Pump (centrifugal) | kW | 3.3892 | 0.0536 | 0.1538 | 1 | 300 |

Heat exchanger (floating head) | m^{2} | 4.8306 | −0.8509 | 0.3187 | 10 | 1000 |

Turbine (axial) | kW | 2.7051 | 1.4398 | −0.1776 | 100 | 4000 |

#### 2.5. Economic Parameters

_{F}have to be calculated. Therefore, exploration costs with 16.5 million € and costs for land and an insurance with 2 million € are assumed [38]. Other costs are set as 3% of the total investment costs. Costs for operation and maintenance C

_{O&M}, including personnel costs, are set to 2% of the total investment costs. The credit period is 20 years and the interest rate is 6.5%. Annual operation hours of 8,000 h/a are assumed to calculate the annual amount of generated electricity E

_{annual}:

## 3. Results and Discussion

#### 3.1. Selection of Zeotropic Fluid Mixtures

_{1}= 25 °C) is a major selection criteria for potential mixtures. In this context a ratio between temperature difference of the cooling medium and temperature glide of the zeotropic mixture at condensation equal 1 is favourable. Therefore, zeotropic mixtures showing a maximum temperature glide T

_{G,max}below 3 K at condensation are excluded in this study. Mixture components of different class of substances are not taken into account for this study with respect to reliability of fluid properties. Components with high differences of saturation temperature, like water and ammonia, are disregarded. These mixtures are more suitable for separation processes like the Kalina Cycle. In addition, uncertainties for heat transfer correlations and significant concentration shifts have to be expected. Predefined ternary or multi-component mixtures, like R404a or R417a, well-known from air-conditioning or refrigeration, are not considered because of chlorinated components, azeotropic characteristics or low temperature glides. The investigated fluid mixtures are listed in Table 3. Furthermore, the maximum temperature glide at condensation and evaporation conditions, wet (–) or dry (+) characteristics and considered references to predict the fluid properties are presented. For some mixtures, a change of the characteristics occur depending on mixture composition (–/+).

**Table 3.**Maximum temperature glides at condensation and evaporation conditions, slope of the dew line and references for fluid property prediction of the investigated fluid mixtures

Fluid Mixture | T_{G,max} (°C)@ T_{1} = 25 °C | T_{G,max} (°C)@ T_{4} = 80 °C | dT/ds | Reference |
---|---|---|---|---|

R134a/R236fa | 6.05 | 4.00 | –/+ | [58] |

R134a/R245fa | 15.14 | 11.13 | –/+ | [58] |

R134a/RC318 | 5.17 | 3.52 | + | [58] |

R152a/R245fa | 12.70 | 8.99 | –/+ | [58] |

R227ea/R245fa | 9.51 | 6.33 | + | [58] |

R236fa/R365mfc | 15.63 | 12.22 | + | [58] |

R245fa/R365mfc | 6.50 | 5.92 | + | [58] |

propane/isobutane | 7.21 | 5.14 | –/+ | [59] |

n-butane/n-pentane | 10.45 | 8.60 | + | [59] |

isobutane/isopentane | 12.21 | 9.90 | + | [59] |

n-pentane/n-hexane | 8.55 | 7.27 | + | [59] |

isohexane/n-pentane | 4.32 | 3.67 | + | [58] |

#### 3.2. Reliability of Fluid Properties

**Figure 2.**Vapour pressure calculated by REFPROP compared to experimental data for selected ORC working fluids.

_{crit}= 196.6 °C). Vapour pressure measurements of R245fa by Feng et al. [67] show a mean relative deviation of 0.4% compared to REFPROP. The maximum relative deviation of −2.1% is related to low temperatures.

**Figure 3.**VLE data calculated by REFPROP compared to experimental data for fluid mixtures considering natural hydrocarbons as mixture components.

**Figure 4.**VLE data calculated by REFPROP compared to experimental data for fluid mixtures regarding fluorinated hydrocarbons as mixture components.

**Figure 5.**(

**a**) Predicted liquid and gaseous density depending on temperature compared to experimental data for n-pentane; (

**b**) liquid density as a function of mixture composition and pressure calculated by REFPROP compared to experimental data for propane/isobutane.

#### 3.3. Second Law Analysis

**Figure 6.**Second law efficiency as a function of heat source temperature for ORC systems using pure working fluids (

**a**) natural hydrocarbons (

**b**) fluorinated hydrocarbons.

_{4}of 15.8 bar is below the maximum value of 0.8·p

_{crit}. In case of an inlet temperature of the geothermal fluid of 130 °C (Figure 7b), the maximum pressure of 23.4 bar is reached. The pinch-point is still at state point 4. For a temperature of 140 °C, the pinch point shifts to the inlet of the preheater, while p

_{4}and T

_{4}stay constant. This allows a reduction of the reinjection temperature to 37.9 °C and an efficiency maximum can be observed (see Figure 6b). For R245fa, at same conditions, a reinjection temperature of 65.2 °C is determined. Thus, 7.4 MW more thermal power is transferred to the ORC using R227ea as a working fluid. The gross power output is 0.9 MW higher compared to R245fa.

**Figure 7.**Temperature-enthalpy flow-diagram for the ORC with R227 at different inlet temperature of the geothermal fluid of (

**a**) 110 °C; (

**b**) 130 °C; and (

**c**) 150 °C.

**Figure 8.**Second law efficiency as a function of heat source temperature for ORC systems using zeotropic mixtures as working fluids (

**a**) natural hydrocarbons (

**b**) fluorinated hydrocarbons.

**Table 4.**Most efficient mixture compositions (mole fractions) corresponding to Figure 8a.

T_{GF,in} (°C) | Isobutane/Isopentane | n-Butane/n-Pentane | n-Pentane/n-Hexane | n-Pentane/Isohexane | Propane/Isobutane |
---|---|---|---|---|---|

80 | 90/10 | 80/20 | 80/20 | 50/50 | 80/20 |

90 | 90/10 | 90/10 | 80/20 | 50/50 | 80/20 |

100 | 90/10 | 90/10 | 80/20 | 50/50 | 80/20 |

110 | 90/10 | 90/10 | 80/20 | 50/50 | 80/20 |

120 | 90/10 | 90/10 | 80/20 | 50/50 | 80/20 |

130 | 90/10 | 90/10 | 80/20 | 50/50 | 90/10 |

140 | 90/10 | 90/10 | 80/20 | 50/50 | 80/20 |

150 | 90/10 | 90/10 | 80/20 | 50/50 | 80/20 |

160 | 90/10 | 90/10 | 80/20 | 50/50 | 50/50 |

170 | 90/10 | 90/10 | 80/20 | 50/50 | 20/80 |

180 | 90/10 | 90/10 | 80/20 | 50/50 | 10/90 |

**Table 5.**Most efficient mixture compositions (mole fractions) corresponding to Figure 8b.

T_{GF,in} (°C) | R134a/R236fa | R134a/R245fa | R152a/R245fa | R227ea/R236fa | R227ea/R245fa | R236fa/R245fa | R236fa/R365mfc | R245fa/R365mfc |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

80 | 60/40 | 80/20 | 80/20 | 30/70 | 70/30 | 40/60 | 90/10 | 60/40 |

90 | 60/40 | 90/10 | 80/20 | 30/70 | 70/30 | 40/60 | 90/10 | 60/40 |

100 | 60/40 | 90/10 | 80/20 | 40/60 | 70/30 | 40/60 | 90/10 | 60/40 |

110 | 60/40 | 90/10 | 80/20 | 50/50 | 70/30 | 40/60 | 90/10 | 60/40 |

120 | 60/40 | 90/10 | 80/20 | 90/10 | 80/20 | 40/60 | 90/10 | 60/40 |

130 | 60/40 | 90/10 | 80/20 | 90/10 | 90/10 | 90/10 | 90/10 | 60/40 |

140 | 60/40 | 90/10 | 80/20 | 60/40 | 80/20 | 90/10 | 90/10 | 60/40 |

150 | 20/80 | 90/10 | 90/10 | 20/80 | 70/30 | 90/10 | 90/10 | 60/40 |

160 | 20/80 | 70/30 | 90/10 | 10/90 | 50/50 | 90/10 | 90/10 | 60/40 |

170 | 10/90 | 60/40 | 80/20 | 10/90 | 40/60 | 70/30 | 90/10 | 60/40 |

180 | 10/90 | 30/70 | 50/50 | 10/90 | 20/80 | 40/60 | 80/20 | 60/40 |

**Figure 9.**Second law efficiency and UA parameter depending on mixture composition for the most efficient zeotropic mixtures and a geothermal fluid temperature of 120 °C.

_{G,Cond}/ΔT

_{CM}equal 1.

**Figure 10.**UA parameter for the considered heat exchanger depending on mixture composition of isobutane/isopentane at a geothermal fluid temperature of 120 °C.

**Figure 11.**Second law efficiency and UA parameter depending on mixture composition for selected zeotropic mixtures and a geothermal fluid temperature of 160 °C.

#### 3.4. Heat Exchanger Design

_{id}is shown for the selected zeotropic mixtures isobutane/isopentane, propane/isobutane and R227ea/R245fa at a heat source temperature of 120 °C. In general, the results show a slight reduction of the heat transfer characteristics in case of condensation. For isobutane/isopentane the most distinctive reduction with up to 18% is obtained. This is due to a low mass flux density and high enthalpy difference at condensation. In case of high mass flux densities, like for propane/isobutane and R227ea/R245fa, the reduction is less pronounced with maximal 8%. The general behavior agrees with literature for experimental investigations of flow condensation of zeotropic mixtures [76,77]. In contrast, the reduction of pool boiling heat transfer coefficient is more significant. For isobutane/isopentane and propane/isobutane a minimum for α/α

_{id}is obtained in case of an equimolar fraction. The reduction is 45% and 48%. In case of R227ea /R245fa, the reduction is 37% at 40 mol% R245fa. In principle, high heat transfer coefficients are obtained for more volatile working fluids with higher process pressures and thus higher gaseous density.

^{2}is relatively high. In case of an equimolar concentration, a logarithmic mean temperature difference of 8.1 K and a total heat transfer surface of 3,021.4 m

^{2}are determined. The most efficient pure component isobutane leads to a logarithmic mean temperature difference of 7.2 K and a total heat transfer surface of 2,996.0 m

^{2}.

**Figure 12.**(

**a**) Reduction of the heat transfer coefficient at condensation and evaporation (pool boiling) for zeotropic mixture depending on mixture composition (

**b**) total heat transfer surface of the ORC power plant for a geothermal fluid temperature of 120 °C.

**Table 6.**Heat exchange surface, mean logarithmic temperature difference and transferred amount of thermal energy for each heat exchanger depending on mixture composition (isobutane/isopentane).

Parameter | 0/100 | 10/90 | 20/80 | 30/70 | 40/60 | 50/50 | 60/40 | 70/30 | 80/20 | 90/10 | 100/0 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

A_{PHE} (m^{2}) | 280.6 | 272.2 | 301.4 | 294.5 | 302.1 | 312.4 | 329.4 | 342.4 | 366.1 | 390.4 | 411.3 |

ΔT_{log,PHE} (K) | 13.5 | 13.9 | 13.4 | 13.2 | 13.3 | 13.4 | 13.2 | 13.5 | 13.4 | 13.6 | 13.9 |

Q̇_{PHE} (MW) | 3.44 | 3.42 | 3.38 | 3.48 | 3.56 | 3.68 | 3.81 | 4.01 | 4.22 | 4.53 | 4.85 |

A_{EVP} (m^{2}) | 495.8 | 518.3 | 600.2 | 622.5 | 614.8 | 587.7 | 537.0 | 473.1 | 404.5 | 330.4 | 274.3 |

ΔT_{log,EVP} (K) | 19.2 | 17.6 | 18.7 | 17.2 | 16.9 | 16.8 | 17.2 | 17.2 | 17.8 | 18.3 | 18.5 |

Q̇_{EVP} (MW) | 12.02 | 11.55 | 13.53 | 12.56 | 12.54 | 12.50 | 12.72 | 12.39 | 12.48 | 12.14 | 11.39 |

A_{COND} (m^{2}) | 2638.5 | 3541.1 | 3160.9 | 2455.2 | 2234.6 | 2121.8 | 2128.3 | 2156.8 | 2396.0 | 2915.9 | 1911.0 |

ΔT_{log,COND} (K) | 7.2 | 5.1 | 6.4 | 7.5 | 8.0 | 8.1 | 8.0 | 7.4 | 6.5 | 5.1 | 7.2 |

Q̇_{COND} (MW) | 13.94 | 13.34 | 15.32 | 14.46 | 14.53 | 14.60 | 14.92 | 14.76 | 15.02 | 14.96 | 14.66 |

A_{IR} (m^{2}) | 719.5 | 917.8 | 568.3 | 448.5 | 388.0 | 359.7 | 353.2 | 374.7 | 442.4 | 581.4 | 349.43 |

ΔT_{log,IR} (K) | 6.5 | 7.2 | 10.3 | 12.6 | 13.7 | 13.9 | 13.3 | 11.9 | 9.5 | 6.6 | 5.9 |

Q̇_{IR} (MW) | 0.94 | 1.36 | 1.29 | 1.29 | 1.25 | 1.22 | 1.17 | 1.14 | 1.11 | 1040.3 | 0.60 |

A_{total} (m^{2}) | 4134.3 | 4331.6 | 4062.5 | 3372.2 | 3151.5 | 3021.9 | 2994.7 | 2972.3 | 3166.7 | 4218.1 | 2946.0 |

P_{T} (kW) | 1520.7 | 1623.0 | 1587.7 | 1581.3 | 1583.5 | 1598.3 | 1623.1 | 1659.0 | 1704.0 | 1755.3 | 1631.5 |

P_{P} (kW) | 27.8 | 34.2 | 35.6 | 42.3 | 47.6 | 53.4 | 59.1 | 66.9 | 74.5 | 84.7 | 94.6 |

_{g}, differ only slightly. This is due to the assumption of a constant flow velocity in the pipes. In addition, Pr

_{l}or Pr

_{g}show only a low dependence on the increased process pressure. As a result, the reduction of condensation heat transfer coefficients is almost identical compared to the geothermal inlet temperature of 120 °C. Regarding the evaporation heat transfer, a more pronounced reduction for fluid mixtures can be observed. In case of an equimolar concentration for propane/isobutane, a reduction of 54% is calculated. Considering the mixture R227ea/R245fa the maximal reduction is 43%. Again, not mole fractions with the most evident reduction of heat transfer characteristics lead to the highest heat transfer surface (see Figure 13b). High total heat transfer surfaces for propane/isobutane and R227ea/R245fa occur for the most efficient mixture compositions. For these concentrations the ORC leads to a minimal reinjection temperature for the geothermal fluid and, therefore, a maximum for heat input to the ORC is obtained. Exemplarily, for the equimolar mixture R227ea/R245fa a higher amount of 29.0% thermal energy is transferred to the ORC compared to pure R245fa. As a consequence and taken into account the reduction of heat transfer characteristics, a 66.5% higher total heat transfer surface results. Local maxima for the total heat transfer surface can be observed for mole fractions, which lead to a good match of the temperature profiles in the condenser. In this context, 90 mol% R227ea could be mentioned exemplarily.

**Figure 13.**(

**a**) Reduction of the heat transfer coefficient at condensation and evaporation (pool boiling) for zeotropic mixtures depending on composition; (

**b**) total heat transfer surface of the ORC power plant for a geothermal fluid temperature of 160 °C.

#### 3.5. Economic Parameters

**Figure 14.**(

**a**) Specific investment costs for the ORC power plant depending on mixture composition for a geothermal fluid temperature of 120 °C; (

**b**) electricity generation costs.

**Table 7.**PEC for the major components depending on mixture composition (isobutane/isopentane) at a geothermal fluid temperature of 120 °C.

Parameter | 0/100 | 10/90 | 20/80 | 30/70 | 40/60 | 50/50 | 60/40 | 70/30 | 80/20 | 90/10 | 100/0 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

C_{IR} (k€) | 115.9 | 148.0 | 92.9 | 75.6 | 67.1 | 63.2 | 62.3 | 65.3 | 74.7 | 94.9 | 61.8 |

C_{PHE} (k€) | 52.6 | 51.5 | 55.3 | 54.4 | 55.4 | 56.8 | 59.1 | 60.9 | 64.1 | 67.5 | 70.4 |

C_{EVP} (k€) | 82.3 | 85.6 | 97.7 | 101.0 | 99.9 | 95.8 | 88.3 | 79.1 | 69.4 | 59.3 | 51.7 |

C_{K} (k€) | 427.3 | 573.5 | 511.9 | 397.7 | 361.9 | 343.6 | 344.7 | 349.3 | 388.1 | 472.3 | 309.5 |

C_{T} (k€) | 354.0 | 360.9 | 358.3 | 357.4 | 357.2 | 357.8 | 359.2 | 361.1 | 363.6 | 366.3 | 357.2 |

C_{Pump} (k€) | 7.1 | 7.9 | 8.0 | 8.8 | 9.4 | 10.1 | 10.7 | 11.6 | 12.4 | 13.4 | 14.4 |

C_{total,ORC} (k€) | 6568.4 | 7756.9 | 7105.4 | 6288.0 | 6010.2 | 5861.3 | 5841.9 | 5860.3 | 6145.1 | 6785.2 | 5467.5 |

**Figure 15.**(

**a**) Specific investment costs for the ORC power plant depending on mixture composition (

**b**) electricity generation costs for a geothermal fluid temperature of 160 °C.

## 4. Conclusions

## Acknowledgments

## Author Contributions

## Conflicts of Interest

## References

- DiPippo, R. Geothermal Power Plants; Elsevier Science: Oxford, UK, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Zarrouk, S.J.; Moon, H. Efficiency of geothermal power plants: A worldwide review. Geothermics
**2014**, 51, 142–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Invernizzi, C.; Bombarda, P. Thermodynamic performance of selected HCFS for geothermal applications. Energy
**1997**, 22, 887–895. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Madhawa Hettiarachchi, H.D.; Golubovic, M.; Worek, W.M.; Ikegami, Y. Optimum design criteria for an Organic Rankine Cycle using low-temperature geothermal heat sources. Energy
**2007**, 32, 1698–1706. [Google Scholar] - Saleh, B.; Koglbauer, G.; Wendland, M.; Fischer, J. Working fluids for low-temperature organic Rankine cycles. Energy
**2007**, 32, 1210–1221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Hung, T.C.; Wang, S.K.; Kuo, C.H.; Pei, B.S.; Tsai, K.F. A study of organic working fluids on system efficiency of an ORC using low-grade energy sources. Energy
**2010**, 35, 1403–1411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Heberle, F.; Brüggemann, D. Exergy based fluid selection for a geothermal Organic Rankine Cycle for combined heat and power generation. Appl. Therm. Eng.
**2010**, 30, 1326–1332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Guo, T.; Wang, H.X.; Zhang, S.J. Selection of working fluids for a novel low-temperature geothermally-powered ORC based cogeneration system. Energy Convers. Mang.
**2011**, 52, 2384–2391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Angelino, G.; Colonna di Paliano, P. Multicomponent working fluids for Organic Rankine Cycles (ORCs). Energy
**1998**, 23, 449–463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Angelino, G.; Colonna di Paliano, P. Air cooled siloxane bottoming cycle for molten carbonate fuel cells. In Proceedings of 2000 Fuel Cell Seminar, Portland, OR, USA, 30 October–2 November 2000; pp. 667–670.
- Iqbal, K.Z.; Fish, L.W.; Starling, K.E. Advantages of using mixtures as working fluids in geothermal binary cycles. Proc. Okla. Acad. Sci.
**1976**, 56, 110–113. [Google Scholar] - Demuth, O.J. Analyses of mixed hydrocarbon binary thermodynamic cycles for moderate temperature geothermal resources. In Proceedings of the IECEC Conference, Atlanta, GA, USA, 9 August 1981.
- Bliem, C.J. Preliminary Performance Estimates of Binary Geothermal Using Mixed-Halocarbon Working Fluids; U.S. Department of Energy: Idaho Falls, NJ, USA, 1986; Contract No. DE-AC07-76IDO1570.
- Borsukiewicz-Gozdur, A.; Nowak, W. Comparative analysis of natural and synthetic refrigerants in application to low temperature Clausius-Rankine cycle. Energy
**2007**, 32, 344–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Wang, X.D.; Zhao, L. Analysis of zeotropic mixtures used in low-temperature solar Rankine cycles for power generation. Sol. Energy
**2009**, 83, 605–613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Wang, J.L.; Zhao, L.; Wang, X.D. A comparative study of pure and zeotropic mixtures in low-temperature solar Rankine cycle. Appl. Energy
**2010**, 87, 3366–3373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Chen, H.; Goswami, D.Y.; Rahman, M.M.; Stefanakos, E.K. A supercritical Rankine cycle using zeotropic mixture working fluids for the conversion of low-grade heat into power. Energy
**2011**, 36, 549–555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Heberle, F.; Preißinger, M.; Brüggemann, D. Zeotropic mixtures as working fluids in Organic Rankine Cycles for low-enthalpy geothermal resources. Renew. Energy
**2012**, 37, 364–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Chys, M.; van den Broek, M.; Vanslambrouck, B.; de Paepe, M. Potential of zeotropic mixtures as working fluids in organic Rankine cycles. Energy
**2012**, 44, 623–632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Baik, Y.J.; Kim, M.; Chang, K.C.; Lee, Y.S.; Yoon, H.K. Power enhancement potential of a mixture transcritical cycle for a low-temperature geothermal power generation. Energy
**2012**, 47, 70–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Preißinger, M.; Heberle, F.; Brüggemann, D. Advanced Organic Rankine Cycle for geothermal application. Int. J. Low-Carbon Technol.
**2012**, 8, 62–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Garg, P.; Kumar, P.; Srinivasan, K.; Dutta, P. Evaluation of isopentane, R-245fa and their mixtures as working fluids for organic Rankine cycles. Appl. Therm. Eng.
**2013**, 51, 292–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Yang, K.; Zhang, H.; Wang, Z.; Zhang, J.; Yang, F.; Wang, E.; Yao, B. Study of zeotropic mixtures of ORC (organic Rankine cycle) under engine various operating conditions. Energy
**2013**, 58, 494–510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Aghahosseini, S.; Dincer, I. Comparative performance analysis of low-temperature Organic Rankine Cycle (ORC) using pure and zeotropic working fluids. Appl. Therm. Eng.
**2013**, 54, 35–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Zhao, L.; Bao, J. Thermodynamic analysis of organic Rankine cycle using zeotropic mixtures. Appl. Energy
**2014**, 130, 748–756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Shu, G.; Gao, Y.; Tian, H.; Wei, H.; Liang, X. Study of mixtures based on hydrocarbons used in ORC (Organic Rankine Cycle) for engine waste heat recovery. Energy
**2014**, 74, 428–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Radulovic, J.; Beleno Castaneda, N.I. On the potential of zeotropic mixtures in supercritical ORC powered by geothermal energy source. Energy Convers. Manag.
**2014**, 88, 365–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Andreasen, J.G.; Larsen, U.; Knudsen, T.; Pierobon, L.; Haglind, F. Selection and optimization of pure and mixed working fluids for low grade heat utilization using organic rankine cycles. Energy
**2014**, 73, 204–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Lecompte, S.; Ameel, B.; Ziviani, D.; van Den Broek, M.; de Paepe, M. Exergy analysis of zeotropic mixtures as working fluids in Organic Rankine Cycles. Energy Convers. Manag.
**2014**, 85, 727–739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Dong, B.; Xu, G.; Cai, Y.; Li, H. Analysis of zeotropic mixtures used in high-temperature Organic Rankine cycle. Energy Convers. Manag.
**2014**, 84, 253–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Weith, T.; Heberle, F.; Brüggemann, D. Performance of siloxane mixtures in a high-temperature Organic Rankine Cycle considering the heat transfer characteristics during evaporation. Energies
**2014**, 7, 5548–5565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Heberle, F.; Preißinger, M.; Brüggemann, D. Thermoeconomic evaluation of combined heat and power generation for geothermal applications. In Proceedings of the World Renewable Energy Congress, Linköping, Sweden, 8–13 May 2011; pp. 1305–1313.
- Heberle, F.; Bassermann, P.; Preissinger, M.; Brüggemann, D. Exergoeconomic optimization of an Organic Rankine Cycle for low-temperature geothermal heat sources. Int. J. Thermodyn.
**2012**, 15, 119–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Al-Sulaiman, F.A.; Dincer, I.; Hamdullahpur, F. Thermoeconomic optimization of three trigeneration systems using organic Rankine cycles: Part I—Formulations. Energy Convers. Manag.
**2013**, 69, 199–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Algieri, A.; Morrone, P. Techno-economic analysis of biomass-fired ORC systems for single-family Combined Heat and Power (CHP) applications. Energy Proced.
**2014**, 45, 1285–1294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Calise, F.; Capuozzo, C.; Carotenuto, A.; Vanoli, L. Thermoeconomic analysis and off-design performance of an Organic Rankine Cycle powered by medium-temperature heat sources. Sol. Energy
**2014**, 103, 595–609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Ahmadi, P.; Dincer, I.; Rosen, M.A. Thermoeconomic multi-objective optimization of a novel biomass-based integrated energy system. Energy
**2014**, 68, 958–970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Heberle, F.; Brüggemann, D. Thermoeconomic analysis of hybrid power plant concepts for geothermal combined heat and power generation. Energies
**2014**, 7, 4482–4497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Quoilin, S.; Declaye, S.; Tchanche, B.F.; Lemort, V. Thermo-economic optimization of waste heat recovery Organic Rankine Cycles. Appl. Therm. Eng.
**2011**, 31, 2885–2893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Imran, M.; Park, B.S.; Kim, H.J.; Lee, D.H.; Usman, M.; Heo, M. Thermo-economic optimization of Regenerative Organic Rankine Cycle for waste heat recovery applications. Energy Convers. Manag.
**2014**, 87, 107–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Quoilin, S.; Broek, M.V.D.; Declaye, S.; Dewallef, P.; Lemort, V. Techno-economic survey of Organic Rankine Cycle (ORC) systems. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
**2013**, 22, 168–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Astolfi, M.; Romano, M.C.; Bombarda, P.; Macchi, E. Binary ORC (Organic Rankine Cycles) power plants for the exploitation of medium–low temperature geothermal sources—Part B: Techno-economic optimization. Energy
**2014**, 66, 435–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Tempesti, D.; Fiaschi, D. Thermo-economic assessment of a micro CHP system fuelled by geothermal and solar energy. Energy
**2013**, 58, 45–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - VDI Heat Atlas; Springer-Verlag: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2010.
- Lemmon, E.W.; Huber, M.L.; McLinden, M.O. NIST Standard Reference Database 23—Version 8.0. Physical and Chemical Properties Division; National Institute of Standards and Technology: Boulder, CO, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Woudstra, N.; van der Stelt, T.P. Cycle-Tempo: A Program for the Thermodynamic Analysis and Optimization of Systems for the Production of Electricity, Heat and Refrigeration; Energy Technology Section, Delft University of Technology: Delft, The Netherlands, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Sieder, E.N.; Tate, G.E. Heat transfer and pressure drop of liquids in tubes. Ind. Eng. Chem.
**1936**, 28, 1429–1435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Kern, D.Q. Process Heat Transfer; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1950. [Google Scholar]
- Stephan, K.; Abdelsalam, M. Heat-transfer correlations for natural convection boiling. Int. J. Heat Mass Transf.
**1980**, 23, 73–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Heberle, F.; Brüggemann, D. Pool boiling heat transfer coefficients of R245fa, R365mfc and their mixtures. In Proceedings of the 8th World Conference on Experimental Heat Transfer, Fluid Mechanics, and Thermodynamics, Lisbon, Portugal, 16–20 June 2013.
- Schlünder, E.U. Heat transfer in nucleate boiling of mixtures. Int. Chem. Eng.
**1983**, 23, 589–599. [Google Scholar] - Shah, M.M. A general correlation for heat transfer during film condensation inside pipes. Int. J. Heat Mass Transf.
**1979**, 22, 547–556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Silver, R.S. An approach to a general theory of surface condensers. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng.
**1963**, 178, 339–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Bell, J.; Ghaly, A. An approximate generalized design method for multicomponent/partial condensers. AIChE Symp. Ser. Heat Transf.
**1973**, 69, 72–79. [Google Scholar] - Turton, R.; Bailie, R.C.; Whiting, W.B. Analysis, Synthesis and Design of Chemical Processes, 2nd ed.; Prentice Hall: Old Tappan, NJ, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Bejan, A.; Tsatsaronis, G.; Moran, M. Thermal Design & Optimization; John Wiley & Sons: New York, NY, USA, 1996. [Google Scholar]
- Frick, S.; Kaltschmitt, M.; Schröder, G. Life cycle assessment of geothermal binary power plants using enhanced low-temperature reservoirs. Energy
**2010**, 25, 2281–2294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Lemmon, E.W.; Jacobsen, R.T. Equations of state for mixtures of R-32, R-125, R-134a, R-143a, and R-152a. J. Phys. Chem. Ref. Data
**2004**, 33, 593–620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Kunz, O.; Klimeck, R.; Wagner, W.; Jaeschke, M. The GERG-2004 Wide-Range Equation of State for Natural Gases and Other Mixtures—GERG Technical Monograph; VDI-Fortschritts-Bericht: Düsseldorf, Germany, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Tillner-Roth, R.; Baehr, H.D. An international standard formulation of the thermodynamic properties of 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane (HFC-134a) for temperatures from 170 K to 455 K at pressures up to 70 MPa. J. Phys. Chem. Ref. Data
**1994**, 23, 657–729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Buecker, D.; Wagner, W. Reference equations of state for the thermodynamic properties of fluid phase n-butane and isobutane. J. Phys. Chem. Ref. Data
**2006**, 35, 929–1019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Lemmon, E.W.; Span, R. Short fundamental equations of state for 20 industrial fluids. J. Chem. Eng. Data
**2006**, 51, 785–850. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Span, R.; Wagner, W. Equations of state for technical applications. II. Results for nonpolar fluids. Int. J. Thermophys.
**2003**, 24, 41–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Valtz, A.; Gicquel, L.; Coquelet, C.; Richon, D. Vapor-liquid equilibrium data for the 1,1,1,2 tetrafluoroethane (R134a) + dimethyl ether (DME) system at temperatures from 293.18 to 358.15 K and pressures up to about 3 MPa. Fluid Phase Equilib.
**2005**, 230, 184–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Warowny, W. Phase behavior of the acetonitrile + butane system at temperatures from 311.40 K to 436.82 K. J. Chem. Eng. Data
**1996**, 41, 689–697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Abdulagatov, I.M.; Rasulov, S.M. Viscosity of n-pentane, n-heptane and their mixtures within the temperature range from 298 K up to critical points at the saturation vapor pressure. Ber. Bunsenges. Phys. Chem.
**1996**, 100, 148–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Feng, X.; Xu, X.; Lin, H.; Duan, Y. Vapor pressures of 1,1,1,2,3,3,3-heptafluoropropane, 1,1,1,3,3,3-hexafluoropropane and 1,1,1,3,3-pentafluoropropane. Fluid Phase Equilib.
**2010**, 290, 127–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Calingaert, G.; Hitchcock, L.B. The application of the phase rule to the calculation of liquid and vapor compositions in binary systems. Deviations from Raoult’s Law for hydrocarbon mixtures. J. Am. Chem. Soc.
**1927**, 49, 750–765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Lim, J.S.; Park, J.Y.; Kang, J.W.; Lee, B.G. Measurement of vapor-liquid equilibria for the binary systems of propane + 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane and 1,1,1-trifluoroethane + propane at various temperatures. Fluid Phase Equilib.
**2006**, 243, 57–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Bobbo, S.; Fedele, L.; Scattolini, M.; Camporese, R. Isothermal VLE measurements for the binary mixtures HFC-134a + HFC-245fa and HC-600a + HFC-245fa. Fluid Phase Equilib.
**2001**, 185, 255–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Bobbo, S.; Stryjek, R.; Elvassore, N.; Bertucco, A. A recirculation apparatus for vapor-liquid equilibrium measurements of refrigerants. Binary mixtures of R600a, R134a and R236fa. Fluid Phase Equilib.
**1998**, 150–151, 343–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Kleiber, M. Vapor-liquid equilibria of binary refrigerant mixtures containing propylene or R134a. Fluid Phase Equilib.
**1994**, 92, 149–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Kayukawa, Y.; Watanabe, K. PTx-measurements for gas-phase Pentafluoroethane + Propane mixtures by the Burnett method. J. Chem. Eng. Data
**2001**, 46, 1025–1030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Angelino, G.; Gaia, M.; Macchi, E. A review of Italian activity in the field of Organic Rnkine Cycles. VDI-Berichte
**1984**, 539, 465–482. [Google Scholar] - Lazzaretto, A.; Manente, G. A new criterion to optimize ORC design performance using efficiency correlations for axial and radial turbines. Int. J. Thermodyn.
**2014**, 17, 173–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Smit, F.J.; Meyer, J.P. Condensation heat transfer coefficients of the zeotropic refrigerant mixture R-22/R-142b in smooth horizonal tubes. Int. J. Therm. Sci.
**2002**, 41, 625–630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Shao, D.W.; Granryd, E. Experimental and theoretical study on flow condensation with non-azeotropic refrigerant mixtures of R32/R134a. Int. J. Refrig.
**1998**, 21, 230–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

© 2015 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

## Share and Cite

**MDPI and ACS Style**

Heberle, F.; Brüggemann, D. Thermo-Economic Evaluation of Organic Rankine Cycles for Geothermal Power Generation Using Zeotropic Mixtures. *Energies* **2015**, *8*, 2097-2124.
https://doi.org/10.3390/en8032097

**AMA Style**

Heberle F, Brüggemann D. Thermo-Economic Evaluation of Organic Rankine Cycles for Geothermal Power Generation Using Zeotropic Mixtures. *Energies*. 2015; 8(3):2097-2124.
https://doi.org/10.3390/en8032097

**Chicago/Turabian Style**

Heberle, Florian, and Dieter Brüggemann. 2015. "Thermo-Economic Evaluation of Organic Rankine Cycles for Geothermal Power Generation Using Zeotropic Mixtures" *Energies* 8, no. 3: 2097-2124.
https://doi.org/10.3390/en8032097