Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

4E feasibility analysis of a low-emissions multi-generation system operating at different hierarchical levels in geothermal cascade

  • Technical Paper
  • Published:
Journal of the Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This work aims to carry out a 4E (Energy, Exergy, Exergoeconomic, and Economic) feasibility analysis of a low-emissions geothermal multi-generation system. Under the concept of geothermal cascade, a multi-generation system is built using binary loops in a geothermal power plant classified as low emissions. Different modes of operation of the multi-generation system operating at different hierarchical levels of the geothermal cascade were considered, and their performance was compared with traditional configurations. In the analysis, real data on geothermal resources and geothermal power plants in Michoacan, Mexico, were used. The methodology implemented to achieve the 4E feasibility analysis is described below. At first, based on the first and second laws of thermodynamics, the energy and exergy models were formulated. Then, to establish economic and exergoeconomic models, the energy and exergy models were combined with economic concepts. Finally, the models were solved using the EES (Engineering Equation Solver) software to obtain the 4E feasibility results. These results indicate a better energy and exergetic performance of the multi-generation system when compared to traditional configurations. The multi-generation system activated with a geothermal resource of 295 °C and 104.3 kg/s achieves higher energy generation, 9.29% above the traditional geothermal systems. Furthermore, the exergetic indicators such as exergetic efficiency, fuel exergy destruction rate, and the exergy destruction rate of the multi-generation system are 0.9%, 9.99%, and 5.1% higher than the obtained exergetic indicators in traditional configurations. According to the exergoeconomic parameters, the preheater of the binary loop 1 is the component with the major opportunities to improve the exergoeconomic performance. The exergoeconomic analysis also indicates that the investment cost of the cooling system significantly influences the cost rates of the binary loops; a difference up to 22.49% was found. Finally, economic indicators show a good performance of economic feasibility.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

\(A\) :

Heat transfer area (m2)

\(c\) :

Cost per exergy unit ($ kJ−1)

\(\dot{C}\) :

Cost rate ($ s−1)

\({\text{CF}}\) :

Cash flow ($)

\({C}_{\text{O}}\& \text{M}\) :

Operation and maintenance unit cost ($ kWh−1)

\({\text{CRF}}\) :

Capital recovery factor (-)

\({C}_{U/{\text{EL}}}\) :

Unit cost of electricity ($ kWh−1)

\({\text{LMTD}}\) :

Logarithmic mean temperatures difference (°C)

\({e}_{x}\) :

Specific exergy (kJ kg−1)

\(\dot{E}x\) :

Exegy rate (kW)

\({\dot{E}x}_{D}\) :

Exergy destruction rate (kW)

\({\dot{E}x}^{{\text{CH}}}\) :

Chemical exergy rate (kW)

\({\dot{E}x}^{\rm KN}\) :

Kinetic exergy rate (kW)

\({\dot{E}x}^{{\text{PH}}}\) :

Physical exergy rate (kW)

\({\dot{E}x}^{{\text{PT}}}\) :

Potential exergy rate (kW)

\({f}_{k}\) :

Exergoeconomic factor (%)

\(g\) :

Acceleration of gravity (m s−2)

\(h\) :

Specific enthalpy (kJ kg−1)

\(i\) :

Interest rate (%)

\({{\text{IN}}}_{{\text{EL}}}\) :

Electricity sales revenue ($)

\(\dot{m}\) :

Mass flow (kg s−1)

\(n\) :

Components life (years)

\({\text{NPV}}\) :

Net present value ($)

\(P\) :

Pressure (kPa)

\({\dot{Q}}_{k}\) :

Heat power (kW)

\({r}_{k}\) :

Relative cost difference (%)

\(s\) :

Specific entropy (kJ kg−1 K−1)

\({\text{SRP}}\) :

Payback period (years)

\({t}_{{\text{op}}}\) :

Operation time (h)

\(T\) :

Temperature (°C, K)

\(U\) :

Overall heat transfer coefficient (kW m−2 K−1)

\(v\) :

Velocity (m s−1)

\({\dot{W}}_{k}\) :

Power (kW)

\(x\) :

Quality (-)

\(y\) :

Fuel exergy destruction ratio (%)

\({y}^{*}\) :

Exergy destruction ratio (%)

\(Z\) :

Investment cost ($)

\(\dot{Z}\) :

Investment cost rate ($ s−1)

\({Z}_{{\text{anual}}}\) :

Annualized investment cost ($)

\({Z}_{\text{O}}\& \text{M}\) :

Operation and maintenance costs ($)

\({Z}_{U}\) :

Unit investment cost ($ kW−1)

\(\varepsilon \) :

Exergy efficiency (%)

\(\Delta \) :

Difference

\(\mathrm{\rm Z}\) :

Height (m)

\(\phi \) :

Maintenance factor (-)

\(0\) :

Reference state

\(1\dots 45\) :

Thermodynamic states

\({\text{CT}}\) :

Cooling tower

\(D\) :

Exergy destruction

\(F\) :

Fuel

\({\text{FC}}\) :

Flash chamber

\({\text{GW}}\) :

Geothermal well

\({\text{I}}\dots {\text{XXII}}\) :

Components of the cycle

\(j\) :

Referring to thermodynamic states

\(k\) :

Component

\(L\) :

Loss

\(M\) :

Mixer

\(P\) :

Product

\(q\) :

Heat

\(S\) :

Separator

\({\text{tot}}\) :

Total

\(T\) :

Turbine

\(V\) :

Valves

\(V.C\) :

Control volume

\(w\) :

Power

References

  1. Maiorino A, Valentini M (2017) On the technical and economic feasibility of a solar thermodynamic power plant in an area of medium–high direct sunlight intensity: an actual case study. J Braz Soc Mech Sci Eng 39:245–257. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40430-016-0620-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Karthick M, Logesh K, Baskar S, Sharma A (2022) Performance and emission characteristics of single-cylinder diesel engine fueled with biodiesel derived from cashew nut shell. In: Verma P, Samuel OD, Verma TN, Dwivedi G (eds) Advancement in Materials, Manufacturing and Energy Engineering, vol II. Lecture Notes in Mechanical Engineering. Springer, Singapore

    Google Scholar 

  3. Roy D, Samanta S, Ghosh S (2019) Energetic, exergetic and economic (3E) investigation of biomass gasification-based power generation system employing molten carbonate fuel cell (MCFC), indirectly heated air turbine and an organic Rankine cycle. J Braz Soc Mech Sci Eng 41:112. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40430-019-1614-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Baskar S, Karikalan L, Vijayan V, Arunkumar D, Sukenraj K (2021) Performance, emission characteristics of compressed ignition engine with alternative fuel. Mater Today: Proc 37:995–998. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2020.06.191

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Uliasz-Misiak B, Lewandowska-Śmierzchalska J, Matuła R (2021) Criteria for selecting sites for integrated CO2 storage and geothermal energy recovery. J Clean Prod 285:124822. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124822

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Ramasubramanian S, Kumar SS, Karikalan L, Baskar S (2021) Performances emissions behaviors of Compression ignition engine by mahua oil. Mater Today: Proc 37:982–985. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2020.06.187

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Lebbihiat N, Atia A, Arıcı M, Meneceur N (2021) Geothermal energy use in Algeria: a review on the current status compared to the worldwide, utilization opportunities and countermeasures. J Clean Prod 302:126950. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126950

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Paulillo A, Cotton L, Law R, Striolo A, Lettieri P (2020) Geothermal energy in the UK: the life-cycle environmental impacts of electricity production from the United downs deep geothermal power project. J Clean Prod 249:119410. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119410

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Kanoglu M, Bolatturk A, Yilmaz C (2010) Thermodynamic analysis of models used in hydrogen production by geothermal energy. Int J Hydrogen Energy 35(16):8783–8791. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2010.05.128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Coskun C, Oktay Z, Dincer I (2011) Performance evaluations of a geothermal power plant. Appl Therm Eng 31:4074–4082. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2011.08.013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Özcan NY, Gökçen G (2010) Performance analysis of single-flash geothermal power plants: gas removal systems point of view. In: Proceedings of World Geothermal Congress, Bali, Indonesia

  12. Manente G, Bardi A, Lazzaretto A, Paci M (2019) Low emission flash-binary and two-phase binary geothermal power plants with water absorption and reinjection of non-condensable gases. Geothermics 80:155–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geothermics.2019.03.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Parikhani T, Gholizadeh T, Ghaebi H, Sattari Sadat SM, Sarabi M (2019) Exergoeconomic optimization of a novel multigeneration system driven by geothermal heat source and liquefied natural gas cold energy recovery. J Clean Prod 209:550–571. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.09.181

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Zhang C, Fu J, Kang J, Fu W (2018) Performance optimization of low-temperature geothermal organic Rankine cycles using axial turbine isentropic efficiency correlation. J Braz Soc Mech Sci Eng 40:61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40430-018-0996-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. DiPippo R (2016) Geothermal Power Generation. Woodhead Publishing, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  16. Ajwalia K (2021) Comprehensive review of ORC’s application: waste heat recovery system in IC engine. In: Proceedings of 46th Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, Stanford, California

  17. Mokarram NH, Mosaffa AH (2018) A comparative study and optimization of enhanced integrated geothermal flash and Kalina cycles: a thermoeconomic assessment. Energy 162:111–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2018.08.041

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. DiPippo R (2013) Geothermal Power Plants: Principles, Applications, Case Studies and Environmental Impact. Butterworth-Heinemann, Waltham

    Google Scholar 

  19. Yousefi H, Roumi S, Ármannsson H, Noorollahi Y (2019) Cascading uses of geothermal energy for a sustainable energy supply for Meshkinshahr city, Northwest. Iran Geothermics 79:152–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geothermics.2019.01.012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Waseem S, Ratlamwala TAH, Salman Y, Bham AA (2020) Geothermal and solar based mutligenerational system: a comparative analysis. Int J Hydrogen Energy 45(9):5636–5652. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2019.06.135

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Pan SY, Gao M, Shah KJ, Zheng J, Pei SL, Chiang PC (2019) Establishment of enhanced geothermal energy utilization plans: Barriers and strategies. Renew Energy 132:19–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2018.07.126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Mohammadkhani F, Shokati N, Mahmoudi SMS, Yari M, Rosen MA (2014) Exergoeconomic assessment and parametric study of a gas turbine-modular helium reactor combined with two organic rankine cycles. Energy 65:533–543. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2013.11.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Kaushik SC, Reddy VS, Tyagi SK (2011) Energy and exergy analyses of thermal power plants: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 15(4):1857–1872. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2010.12.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Tahir MF, Haoyong C, Guangze H (2021) A comprehensive review of 4E analysis of thermal power plants, intermittent renewable energy and integrated energy systems. Energy Rep 7:3517–3534. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2021.06.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Zare V (2016) A comparative thermodynamic analysis of two tri-generation systems utilizing low-grade geothermal energy. Energy Convers Manag 118:264–274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2016.04.011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Boyaghchi FA, Safari H (2017) Parametric study and multi-criteria optimization of total exergetic and cost rates improvement potentials of a new geothermal based quadruple energy system. Energy Convers Manag 137:130–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2017.01.047

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Aali A, Pourmahmoud N, Zare V (2017) Exergoeconomic analysis and multi-objective optimization of a novel combined flash-binary cycle for Sabalan geothermal power plant in Iran. Energy Convers Manag 143:377–390. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2017.04.025

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Akrami E, Chitsaz A, Nami H, Mahmoudi SMS (2017) Energetic and exergoeconomic assessment of a multi-generation energy system based on indirect use of geothermal energy. Energy 124:625–639. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2017.02.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Sadaghiani MS, Ahmadi MH, Mehrpooya M, Pourfayaz F, Feidt M (2018) Process development and thermodynamic analysis of a novel power generation plant driven by geothermal energy with liquefied natural gas as its heat sink. Appl Therm Eng 133:645–658. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2018.01.077

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Li T, Xu Y, Wang J, Kong X, Zhu J (2018) Poly-generation energy system driven by associated geothermal water for oilfield in high water cut stage: a theoretical study. Geothermics 76:242–252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geothermics.2018.07.013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Salehi S, Mahmoudi SMS, Yari M, Rosen MA (2018) Multi-objective optimization of two double-flash geothermal power plants integrated with absorption heat transformation and water desalination. J Clean Prod 195:796–809. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.05.234

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Ansari SA, Kazim M, Khaliq MA, Ratlamwala TAH (2021) Thermal analysis of multigeneration system using geothermal energy as its main power source. Int J Hydrogen Energy 46(6):4724–4738. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2020.04.171

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Ceglia F, Macaluso A, Marrasso E, Roselli C, Vanoli L (2020) Energy, environmental, and economic analyses of geothermal polygeneration system using dynamic simulations. Energies 13(18):4603. https://doi.org/10.3390/en13184603

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Wang N, Zhang S, Fei Z, Zhang W, Shao L, Sardari F (2020) Thermodynamic performance analysis a power and cooling generation system based on geothermal flash, organic Rankine cycles, and ejector refrigeration cycle; application of zeotropic mixtures. Sustain Energy Technol Assess 40:100749. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2020.100749

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Nami H, Anvari-Moghaddam A (2020) Geothermal driven micro-CCHP for domestic application—Exergy, economic and sustainability analysis. Energy 207:118195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2020.118195

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Abdolalipouradl M, Mohammadkhani F, Khalilarya S, Yari M (2020) Thermodynamic and exergoeconomic analysis of two novel tri-generation cycles for power, hydrogen and freshwater production from geothermal energy. Energy Convers Manag 226:113544. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2020.113544

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Yu Z, Su R, Feng C (2020) Thermodynamic analysis and multi-objective optimization of a novel power generation system driven by geothermal energy. Energy 199:117381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2020.117381

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Gnaifaid H, Ozcan H (2021) Development and multiobjective optimization of an integrated flash-binary geothermal power plant with reverse osmosis desalination and absorption refrigeration for multi-generation. Geothermics 89:101949. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geothermics.2020.101949

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Fan G, Yang B, Guo P, Lin S, Farkoush SG, Afshar N (2021) Comprehensive analysis and multi-objective optimization of a power and hydrogen production system based on a combination of flash-binary geothermal and PEM electrolyzer. Int J Hydrogen Energy 46(68):33718–33737. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2021.07.206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Li T, Liu Q, Xu Y, Dong Z, Meng N, Jia Y, Qin H (2021) Techno-economic performance of multi-generation energy system driven by associated mixture of oil and geothermal water for oilfield in high water cut. Geothermics 89:101991. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geothermics.2020.101991

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Yilmaz F (2021) Performance and environmental impact assessment of a geothermal-assisted combined plant for multi-generation products. Sustain Energy Technol Assess 46:101291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2021.101291

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Musharavati F, Khanmohammadi S, Pakseresht A (2021) A novel multi-generation energy system based on geothermal energy source: thermo-economic evaluation and optimization. Energy Convers Manag 230:113829. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2021.113829

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Khanmohammadi S, Musharavati F (2021) Multi-generation energy system based on geothermal source to produce power, cooling, heating, and fresh water: exergoeconomic analysis and optimum selection by LINMAP method. Appl Therm Eng 195:117127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2021.117127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Cao Y, Dhahad HA, Togun H, Hussen HM, Anqi AE, Farouk N, Issakhov A, Feili M (2021) Thermodynamic and economic assessments and multi-criteria optimization of a novel poly-generation plant using geothermal energy and multi heat recovery technique. Int J Hydrogen Energy 46(55):27851–27873. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2021.06.063

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Musharavati F, Ahmadi P, Khanmohammadi S (2021) Exergoeconomic assessment and multiobjective optimization of a geothermal-based trigeneration system for electricity, cooling, and clean hydrogen production. J Therm Anal Calorim 145:1673–1689. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10973-021-10793-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Haider SMA, Ratlamwala TAH, Kamal K, Alqahtani F, Alkahtani M, Mohammad E, Alatefi M (2023) Energy and exergy analysis of a geothermal sourced multigeneration system for sustainable city. Energies 16(4):1616. https://doi.org/10.3390/en16041616

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Lee I, Tester JW, You F (2019) Systems analysis, design, and optimization of geothermal energy systems for power production and polygeneration: state-of-the-art and future challenges. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 109:551–577. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.04.058

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Temiz M, Dincer I (2020) Techno-economic assessment of bifacial photovoltaic and geothermal based multigeneration system for cleaner communities. J Clean Prod 275:122879. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122879

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Ehyaei MA, Ahmadi A, El Haj AM, Rosen MA (2020) Investigation of an integrated system combining an organic rankine cycle and absorption chiller driven by geothermal energy: energy, exergy, and economic analyses and optimization. J Clean Prod 258:120780. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120780

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Assad MEH, Aryanfar Y, Radman S, Yousef B, Pakatchian M (2021) Energy and exergy analyses of single flash geothermal power plant at optimum separator temperature. Int J Low-Carbon Technol 16(3):873–881. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijlct/ctab014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Tontu M (2021) Performance assessment and economic evaluation of trigeneration energy system driven by the waste heat of coal-fired power plant for electricity, hydrogen and freshwater production. J Braz Soc Mech Sci Eng 43:406. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40430-021-03126-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Sadi M, Deymi-Dashtebayaz M (2019) Hydrogen refueling process from the buffer and the cascade storage banks to HV cylinder. Int J Hydrogen Energy 44:18496–18504. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2019.05.023

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Cavalcanti EJC, Azevedo JLB (2021) Energy, exergy and exergoenvironmental (3E) analyses of power plant integrated with heliostats solar field. J Braz Soc Mech Sci Eng 43:184. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40430-021-02893-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Sarkar J (2017) Property-based selection criteria of low GWP working fluids for organic Rankine cycle. J Braz Soc Mech Sci Eng 39:1419–1428. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40430-016-0605-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Kim DY, Kim KC (2017) Thermal performance of brazed metalfoam-plate heat exchanger as an evaporator for organic Rankine cycle. Energy Procedia 129:451–458. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2017.09.225

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Capata R, Zangrillo E (2014) Preliminary design of compact condenser in an organic rankine cycle system for the low grade waste heat recovery. Energies 7(12):8008–8035. https://doi.org/10.3390/en7128008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Wakana F (2013) Preliminary study of binary power plant feasibility comparing orc and kalina for low-temperature resources in Rusizi Valley, Burundi. Geothermal Training Programme, Number 36, Iceland

  58. Lai KY, Lee YT, Chen MR, Liu YH (2019) Comparison of the trilateral flash cycle and Rankine cycle with organic fluid using the pinch point temperature. Entropy 21(12):1197. https://doi.org/10.3390/e21121197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Jafary S, Khalilarya S, Shawabkeh A, Wae-hayee M, Hashemian M (2021) A complete energetic and exergetic analysis of a solar powered trigeneration system with two novel organic Rankine cycle (ORC) configurations. J Clean Prod 281:124552. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124552

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Wang Y, Chen Z, Shen Y, Ma Z, Li H, Liu X, Zhu Z, Qi J, Cui P, Wang L, Ma Y, Xu D (2021) Advanced exergy and exergoeconomic analysis of an integrated system combining CO2 capture-storage and waste heat utilization processes. Energy 219:119600. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2020.119600

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Akhoundi M, Deymi-Dashtebayaz M, Tayyeban E, Khabbazi H (2023) Parametric study and optimization of the precooled Linde-Hampson (PCLH) cycle for six different gases based on energy and exergy analysis. Chem Pap 77:5343–5356. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11696-023-02866-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Alami A, Makhlouf M, Lousdad A, Khalfi A, Benzaama MH (2016) Energetic and exergetic analyses of adsorption heat transformer ameliorated by ejector. J Braz Soc Mech Sci Eng 38:2077–2084. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40430-016-0593-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Ghorbani S, Khoshgoftar-Manesh MH, Nourpour M, Blanco-Marigorta AM (2020) Exergoeconomic and exergoenvironmental analyses of an integrated SOFC-GT-ORC hybrid system. Energy 206:118151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2020.118151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Wang Y, Qin G, Zhang Y, Yang S, Liu C, Jia C, Cui Q (2021) Conventional and advanced exergy analyses of an organic Rankine cycle by using the thermodynamic cycle approach. Energy Sci Eng 9(12):2474–2492. https://doi.org/10.1002/ese3.980

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Galindo J, Ruiz S, Dolz V, Royo-Pascual L (2016) Advanced exergy analysis for a bottoming organic rankine cycle coupled to an internal combustion engine. Energy Convers Manag 126:217–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2016.07.080

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Zhao Y, Wang J (2016) Exergoeconomic analysis and optimization of a flash-binary geothermal power system. Appl Energy 179:159–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.06.108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Lemmens S (2016) Cost engineering techniques & their applicability for cost estimation of organic rankine cycle systems. Energies 9(7):485. https://doi.org/10.3390/en9070485

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Li Z, Khanmohammadi S, Khanmohammadi S, Al-Rashed AAAA, Ahmadi P, Afrand M (2020) 3-E analysis and optimization of an organic rankine flash cycle integrated with a PEM fuel cell and geothermal energy. Int J Hydrogen Energy 45(3):2168–2185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2019.09.233

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Shamoushaki M, Aliehyaei M, Taghizadeh-Hesary F (2021) Energy, exergy, exergoeconomic, and exergoenvironmental assessment of flash-binary geothermal combined cooling, heating and power cycle. Energies 14(15):4464. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14154464

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Lukawski MZ, Anderson BJ, Augustine C, Capuano LE Jr, Beckers KF, Livesay B, Tester JW (2014) Cost analysis of oil, gas, and geothermal well drilling. J Pet Sci Eng 118:1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2014.03.012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Allaleh KA (2012) Cooling system design for a binary power plant in North-Goubhet field, Djibouti. Geothermal Training Programme 2012, Number 18, Iceland

  72. Bo Z, Mihardjo LWW, Dahari M, Abo-Khalil AG, Al-Qawasmi AR, Mohamed AM, Parikhani T (2021) Thermodynamic and exergoeconomic analyses and optimization of an auxiliary tri-generation system for a ship utilizing exhaust gases from its engine. J Clean Prod 287:125012. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Biezma MV, San Cristóbal JR (2006) Investment criteria for the selection of cogeneration plants—a state of the art review. Appl Therm Eng 26:583–588. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2005.07.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Rubio-Maya C, Pastor-Martínez E, Romero CE, Ambriz-Díaz VM, Pacheco-Ibarra JJ (2016) Techno-economic assessment for the integration into a multi-product plant based on cascade utilization of geothermal energy. Appl Therm Eng 108:84–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2016.07.108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Boyaghchi FA, Chavoshi M (2017) Multi-criteria optimization of a micro solar-geothermal CCHP system applying water/CuO nanofluid based on exergy, exergoeconomic and exergoenvironmental concepts. Appl Therm Eng 112:660–675. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2016.10.139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Deymi-Dashtebayaz M, Sulin A, Ryabova T, Sankina I, Farahnak M, Nazeri R (2021) Energy, exergoeconomic and environmental optimization of a cascade refrigeration system using different low GWP refrigerants. J Environ Chem Eng 9(6):106473. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2021.106473

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Montazerinejad H, Ahmadi P, Montazerinejad Z (2019) Advanced exergy, exergo-economic and exrgo-environmental analyses of a solar based trigeneration energy system. Appl Therm Eng 152:666–685. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2019.01.040

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Bejan A, Tsatsaronis G, Moran M (1995) Thermal Design and Optimization. John Wiley & Sons, New York

    Google Scholar 

  79. Tozlu A, Gençaslan B, Özcan H (2021) Thermoeconomic analysis of a hybrid cogeneration plant with use of near-surface geothermal sources in Turkey. Renew Energy 176:237–250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2021.05.064

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Sun L, Wang D, Xie Y (2021) Thermodynamic and exergoeconomic analysis of combined supercritical CO2 cycle and organic Rankine cycle using CO2-based binary mixtures for gas turbine waste heat recovery. Energy Convers Manag 243:114400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2021.114400

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work has been developed within the framework of the projects of the technological innovation and scientific research projects of the National Technological Institute of Mexico (TecNM). The authors appreciate the support for carrying out this research.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Tecnológico Nacional de México/I. T. Chihuahua, Av. Tecnológico 2909, C.P. 31310, Chihuahua, Chihuahua, México

    Víctor M. Ambriz-Díaz, Oscar Chavéz & Israel Y. Rosas

  2. Instituto de Ingeniería, Unidad de Investigación y Tecnología Aplicadas, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Apodaca, Nuevo León, México

    F. A. Godínez

Authors
  1. Víctor M. Ambriz-Díaz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Oscar Chavéz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Israel Y. Rosas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. F. A. Godínez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Víctor M. Ambriz-Díaz.

Additional information

Technical Editor: Monica Carvalho.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ambriz-Díaz, V.M., Chavéz, O., Rosas, I.Y. et al. 4E feasibility analysis of a low-emissions multi-generation system operating at different hierarchical levels in geothermal cascade. J Braz. Soc. Mech. Sci. Eng. 46, 351 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40430-024-04938-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40430-024-04938-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation