DEPARTMENT OF ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING

SESSION – 2023-24
SEMESTER – V

MINOR PROJECT & INTERNSHIP TRAINING (KEE554)

GEO-THERMAL POWER PLANT

SUBMITTED TO: SUBMITTED BY:

PROF.ADESH KUAMR MISHRA ADITYA NARAYAN SINGH
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR[EE] 2200540209002
BBDITM, LUCKNOW EE3
Acknowledgement
I deeply wish to express our heartfelt gratefulness and gratitude to the following people who guided
and supported us in every step of my work.
It is our pleasure to offer my sincerest gratitude to Mr Adesh Kumar Mishra, Officiating Head &
Program Coordinator of Electrical Engineering Department, Babu Banarasi Das Institute of
Technology, Lucknow, who has guided and supported us throughout the Mini Project/ Internship
Training with his patience and knowledge. His guidance, serenity, commitment, strictness and support
helped us to complete this work.
I am thankful to the faculty members who have been the part of my training and presentations, for
their valuable observations and guidance. I take this opportunity to extend my regards to the instructors
who helped me with their skill and hard work during my training.
I am also grateful to respected Dr. Shailendra Singh Chauhan, Director, Babu Banarasi Das Institute
of Technology, Lucknow, for providing us a great academic environment where we can transform our
self as asset of the nation. Finally, I would like to thank my parents for their blessing and care.

Aditya Narayan Singh

2200540209002
Introduction
Geothermal energy is a type of renewable energy which is generated within the earth and can be used
directly for heating or transformed into electricity. An advantage of geothermal energy over some other
renewable energy sources is that it is available year-long (whereas solar and wind energy present
higher variability and intermittence) and can be found around the globe. However, for electricity
generation, medium- to high-temperature resources, which are usually close to volcanically active
regions, are needed.
Geothermal power has considerable potential for growth. The amount of heat within 10 000 metres of
the earth's surface is estimated to contain 50 000 times more energy than all oil and gas resources
worldwide (Shere, 2013). Moreover, there is a strong economic case for the deployment of geothermal
energy. The costs for electricity generation from geothermal technologies are becoming increasingly
competitive, and they are expected to continue to drop through 2050 (Sigfusson and Uihlein, 2015).
Deploying geothermal energy has additional benefits, as it also contributes to reduced global warming
effects and public health risks resulting from the use of conventional energy sources. Furthermore, the
deployment of geothermal energy helps reduce a country’s dependence on fossil fuels.
As a resource which is naturally replenished on a human time-scale, geothermal energy is not impacted
by global depletion of resources or by rising fossil fuel prices. Hence, if the full potential of geothermal
resources can be realised, this would deliver considerable advantages both at the national and
international levels. In addition, compared to fossil energy resources, geothermal power generation
brings a number of benefits, such as: lower life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions (Figure 1); lower
running costs; capability to supply baseload electricity, flexibility and ancillary services to a system;
and higher capacity factors.

Global Geo-Thermal Alliance

Launched in December 2015 at the 21st Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change (COP21), the Global Geothermal Alliance offers an inclusive and
neutral multi-stakeholder platform for enhanced dialogue, co-operation and co-ordinated action among
public, private, intergovernmental and non-governmental actors that share a common vision of
accelerating the deployment of geothermal energy for power generation and direct use. The Alliance
has an aspirational goal to achieve a five-fold growth in the installed capacity for geothermal power
generation and more than two-fold growth in geothermal heating by 2030*.
More specifically, the Alliance aims to:
 Foster an enabling environment to attract investments in geothermal energy.
 Provide customised support to regions and countries with geothermal market potential.
 Facilitate the exchange of insights and experience among key stakeholders along the
geothermal value chain.
 Identify and promote models for sharing and mitigating risks to attract private investment and
integrate geothermal facilities into energy markets.
 Promote the visibility of geothermal energy in the global energy and climate debates.
At present, the Alliance gathers over 70 Member countries and Partner institutions from geothermal
industry.
 Figure 1: Estimates of lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions by power generation source.

Highlights
Process and Technology Status - Global geothermal power capacity by the end of 2016 totalled
12.7 gigawatts (GW), with annual electricity generation reaching 80.9 terawatt-hours (TWh) in 2015
(most recent data), amounting to approximately 0.3% of global electricity generation (IRENA,
2017a). Geothermal electricity generation relies mainly on technologies that exploit conventional
geothermal resources, such as: dry steam plants, flash plants (single, double and triple), binary
plants, and combined-cycle or hybrid plants. However, as high-quality conventional resources
become harder to access, deeper resources may become accessible in the future through the
development of enhanced geothermal systems.
Costs - Geothermal project costs are highly site-sensitive. Typical costs for geothermal power plants
range from USD 1 870 to USD 5 050 per kilowatt (kW), noting that binary plants are normally more
expensive than direct dry steam and flash plants. The levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) of a
geothermal power plant ranges from USD 0.04 to USD 0.14 per kilowatt-hour (kWh), assuming
maintenance costs of USD 110 per kW per year and a 25-year economic life (IRENA, 2017b). Costs
for geothermal technologies are expected to continue to drop through 2050, further improving their
business case and fostering their growth (Sigfusson and Uihlein, 2015).
Potential and barriers - Conservative estimates set the technical potential for geothermal power
production at 200 GW (IPCC, 2011). This potential will only be realised if emerging technologies such
as enhanced geothermal systems continue to mature and enable access to resources that previously
were inaccessible. Other promising opportunities for geothermal power production come from taking
advantage of what otherwise would be wasted heat. These include: retrofitting flash plants with low-
temperature bottoming cycles; coupling plants with heating applications that rely on waste heat; and
exploiting co-produced resources (i.e., fluids that are a by-product of other industrial processes). The
main barrier to further geothermal development lies in the difficult task of securing funding for surface
exploration and drilling operations. This can be addressed through public financing and the creation
of public companies to exploit geothermal resources. Other barriers include environmental, social and
administrative constraints. For instance, a project might be delayed due to lengthy administrative
procedures for the issuance of licences and permits, or due to delayed discussions and negotiations
(often of complex character) with local groups. Another difficulty is that different countries might have
different regulations for performing environmental and social impact assessments, which are
mandatory in most cases. Transparent government regulations which avoid causing unnecessary
project delays are needed.

Process and Technology Status

Geothermal energy is heat derived within the sub-surface of the earth. Water and/ or steam carry the
geothermal energy to the earth’s surface. Depending on its characteristics, the geothermal energy can
be used for heating and cooling purposes or can be harnessed to generate clean electricity. Geothermal
power generation has higher capacity factors compared with some other renewable energy resources
and is capable of supplying baseload electricity, as well as providing ancillary services for short- and
long-term flexibility in some cases.

Figure 2: Tectonic plates and global geological activity

Furthermore, geothermal power generation has lower life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions than fossil
fuel-based generation (IPCC, 2011).
Geothermal energy can be sourced from virtually everywhere. However, the vast majority of medium-
and high temperature geothermal systems, which are suitable for power generation, are located close
to areas of volcanic activity – for example, situated along plate boundaries (subduction zones, such as
the majority of the Pacific “Ring of Fire”), mid-oceanic ridges (such as Iceland and the Azores) and
rift valleys (such as the East African Rift) or near hot spots (such as in Hawaii) (Figure 2).
In 2016, the global geothermal installed capacity was 12.7 GW (Figure 3). In 2015, geothermal power
plants generated approximately 80.9 TWh, or approximately 0.3% of global electricity generation
(IRENA, 2017a). As shown in Table 1, the United States (2.5 GW), the Philippines (1.9 GW) and
Indonesia (1.5 GW) lead in installed geothermal power capacity. Global installed capacity additions
in 2016 amounted to 901 megawatts (MW), the highest number in 10 years, which were installed in
Kenya (518 MW), Turkey (197 MW) and Indonesia (95 MW) (IRENA, 2017a). With the growing
momentum for utilising these geothermal resources, an increasing number of countries are showing
interest in developing geothermal projects.

Figure 3: Global installed geothermal capacity

Geothermal Power Generation
The heat content of a geothermal field will define the power generation technology to be used. Power
generation from geothermal resources requires resources with high to medium heat content.
Geothermal power generation currently is based on the following four technology options (Long et al.,
2003):
Direct dry steam plants - In this case, the conversion device is a steam turbine designed to directly
use the low-pressure, high-volume fluid produced in the steam field. Dry steam plants commonly use
condensing turbines. The condensate is re-injected (closed cycle) or evaporated in wet cooling towers
(IEA-ETSAP, 2010) (Figure 4). This type of geothermal power plant uses steam of 150 degrees Celsius
(°C) or higher, and, generally, the steam entering the turbine needs to be at least 99.995% dry (DiPippo,
2015) to avoid scaling and/or erosion of the turbine or piping components. Direct dry steam plants
range in size from 8 MW to 140 MW (S&P Global Platts, 2016).
Flash plants - These are the most common type of geothermal electricity plants in operation today.
They are similar to dry steam plants; however, the steam is obtained from a separation process called
flashing. The steam is then directed to the turbines, and the resulting condensate is sent for re-injection
or further flashing at lower pressure (IEA-ETSAP, 2010) (Figure 5). The temperature of the fluid drops
if the pressure is lowered, so flash power plants work best with well temperatures greater than 180°C.
The fluid fraction exiting the separators, as well as the steam condensate (except for condensate
evaporated in a wet cooling system), are usually re-injected. Flash plants vary in size depending on
whether they are single- (0.2-80 MW), double - (2-110 MW) or triple-flash (60- 150 MW) plants (S&P
Global Platts, 2016).
Binary plants - These plants are usually applied to low- or medium-enthalpy geothermal fields where
the resource fluid is used, via heat exchangers, to heat a process fluid in a closed loop (IEA ETSAP,
2010) (Figure 6). The process fluid (e.g., ammonia/water mixtures used in Kalina cycles or
hydrocarbons in organic Rankine cycles (ORC)) have boiling and condensation points that better
match the geothermal resource temperature (Köhler and Saadat, 2003). Typically, binary plants are
used for resource temperatures between 100°C and 170°C. Although it is possible to work with
temperatures lower than 100°C, the efficiency of the electricity output decreases. Binary plants range
in size from less than 1 MW to 50 MW (S&P Global Platts, 2016).
Combined-cycle or hybrid plants - Some geothermal plants use a combined cycle which adds a
traditional Rankine cycle to produce electricity from what otherwise would become waste heat from a
binary cycle (IEA-ETSAP, 2010) (Figure 7). Using two cycles provides relatively high electric
efficiency (DiPippo, 1999; Thain, 2009). The typical size of combined-cycle plants ranges from a few
MW to 10 MWe (Lund, 1999; DiPippo, 1999). Hybrid geothermal power plants use the same basics
as a stand-alone geothermal power plant but combine a different heat source into the process; for
example, heat from a concentrating solar power (CSP) plant. This heat is added to the geothermal
brine, increasing the temperature and power output. The Stillwater project in the US, operated by
ENEL Global Renewable Energies, has launched such a hybrid system; combining CSP and solar
photovoltaics with a binary system (DiMarzo et al., 2015). Two other hybrid systems being studied by
ENEL include: a hybrid plant with biomass in Italy, which increases the brine temperature, similar to
CSP systems (ENEL, 2016a); and a hybrid plant with hydropower in Cove Fort, Utah, which uses the
re-injection water flow to generate electricity, providing the additional benefit of increased control of
the re-injection, thereby reducing potential damage and thus maintenance costs (ENEL, 2016b).
Figure 4: Direct steam plant

Figure 5: Double flash plant

 Figure 6: Binary plant

Figure 7: Geothermal combined-cycle plant

Costs
Geothermal power projects are capital intensive; however, they have very low and predictable
operating costs. The total installed costs of a geothermal power plant cover the exploration and
resource assessment, including: exploration drilling; drilling of production and injection wells; field
infrastructure, geothermal fluid collection and disposal systems, and other surface installations; the
power plant and its associated costs; project development costs; and grid connection costs.
Furthermore, the cost ranges of geothermal power plants will depend largely on power plant type (flash
or binary), well productivity (the number of wells) and other geothermal field characteristics. The
global total installed costs for geothermal power plants are typically between USD 1 870 per kW and
USD 5 050 per kW (Figure 8); however, costs are highly site-sensitive. For example, installing
additional capacity at existing fields can be somewhat less expensive, while costs for projects with
more challenging site conditions will be on the higher end of the range (IRENA, 2017b). Generally,
costs for binary plants tend to be higher than those for direct steam and flash plants.

The European Commission (EC) forecasts the installed costs for both flash and binary plants to
decrease through 2050 (Figure 9)
Figure 10 presents the estimated cost breakdown for the development of two 110 MW flash geothermal
power plants in Indonesia, with total installed costs of around USD 3 830 per kW. The power plant
and infrastructure costs amount to 49% of the total installed costs; drilling exploration, production and
injection wells account for around 24%; while the steam field development accounts for 14% (IRENA,
2014). The EC performed a similar assessment for flash and binary plants and found that roughly 55%
of total installed costs corresponds to the power plant and other infrastructure, while exploration,
drilling and field development costs amount to 20% for flash plants and 35% for binary plants. The
LCOE from a geothermal power plant is generally calculated by using the installed costs, operations
and maintenance (O&M) costs, economic lifetime, and weighted average cost of capital. Figure 11
presents the LCOE for geothermal projects assuming a 25-year economic life, O&M costs of USD 110
per kW per year, capacity factors based on project plans (or national averages if data are not available),
two sets of make-up and injection wells over the 25-year life and the capital costs outlined in Figure
8. The observed LCOE of geothermal plants ranged from USD 0.04 per kWh for second-stage
development of a field to USD 0.14 per kWh for a first-of-a-kind greenfield development (Figure 11).
The economics of geothermal power plants may be improved by exploiting by-products such as heat,
silica or carbon dioxide.

Figure 10: Total installed cost breakdown for two proposed 110 MW geothermal plants in
Indonesia
The LCOE from a geothermal power plant is generally calculated by using the installed costs,
operations and maintenance (O&M) costs, economic lifetime, and weighted average cost of capital.
Figure 11 presents the LCOE for geothermal projects assuming a 25-year economic life, O&M costs
of USD 110 per kW per year, capacity factors based on project plans (or national averages if data are
not available), two sets of make-up and injection wells over the 25-year life and the capital costs
outlined in Figure 8. The observed LCOE of geothermal plants ranged from USD 0.04 per kWh for
second-stage development of a field to USD 0.14 per kWh for a first-of-a-kind greenfield development
(Figure 11). The economics of geothermal power plants may be improved by exploiting by products
such as heat, silica or carbon dioxide.
Potential and Barriers
The global technical potential for electricity generation from hydrothermal resources is estimated to
be 240 GW (Stefansson, 2005), with a lower limit of 50 GW and an upper limit between 1 000 GW
and 2 000 GW, under the assumption that unidentified resources are likely five to ten times larger
than currently identified resources. According to the Geothermal Energy Association, the global
geothermal industry is expected to reach about 18.4 GW by 2021 (GEA, 2016). Table 2 and Figure
12 show planned capacity additions in the medium term.
Enhanced geothermal systems: A large part of the geothermal potential is heat stored at depths greater
than commonly drilled. Standard hydrothermal technologies depend on permeable aquifers, which
allow the flow of water through them, to produce hot water. However, at greater depths the ground
becomes less porous and water flow is restricted. Research and demonstration projects are being
developed to overcome this limitation. Instead, artificial fractures are created to connect production
and injection wells by hydraulic or chemical stimulation. Stimulation is accomplished by injecting
water and a small amount of chemicals at high pressure to create or re open fractures in the deep rock
(Figure 13). To prevent these fractures from closing again when the injection pressure is reduced,
special materials called proppants are added. This approach, known as enhanced geothermal (EGS),
uses binary plants to produce power from the hot brine. As there is no natural flow of water, all the
brine has to be re-injected into the reservoir to keep the pressure and production stable. This helps
prevent air emissions during the service life. Several pilot projects were performed in France, at Soultz-
sous-Forêts and in Strasbourg (Hébert et al., 2010; Renewable Energy World, 2016), as well as in the
US (DOE, n.d.a).
Exploiting untapped resources is not the only way to increase the geothermal installed capacity.
Additions also can be made through efficiency improvements, such as:
Low-temperature bottoming cycles: When dealing with high-enthalpy resources, it is common to use
a flash plant configuration to exploit them. In a traditional flash plant, the steam exiting the turbine is
re-injected into the ground, leaving it as waste heat. This steam, however, frequently exits the turbine
at temperatures that are suitable for power generation through a binary cycle turbine. This would
increase the overall efficiency of the plant by increasing the power output.
Co-generation: Geothermal energy has many potential uses besides power generation. The water
collected after separating the steam for generation is normally re-injected into the ground because the
temperature is too low for power generation. However, because it is frequently higher than 100ºC, by
exchanging the heat with a different water source before injection, this newly heated water can be used
for various direct-use applications such as domestic hot water supply and space heating.
Co-produced resources: The use of geothermal fluids that are a by product of other industrial
processes also provides a great opportunity to produce electricity at low cost and with virtually no
emissions. Hot geothermal fluids which are a by-product of oil and gas operations usually are
considered a nuisance, given that they need to be disposed of at a cost. Power actually can be produced
from these co produced resources, and this already has been successfully tested in the US (NREL,
2016).
 Figure 13: Enhanced geothermal system

Supercritical geothermal systems: These are high-temperature systems located at depths where the
reservoir fluid is in supercritical state, e.g., 374ºC and 221 bar for water. These systems are the subject
of ongoing research and are not yet commercial; however, they are capable of attaining higher well
productivities than conventional systems given their high temperatures (Dobson et al., 2017). In 2009,
the IDDP 1 well in Iceland found magma and was capable of producing superheated steam at 450ºC,
effectively creating the first magma-EGS system. The well, however, had to be shut down in 2012 due
to a valve failure. While such a system could prove to be more economical by exploiting the steam
directly from the well, the possibility of applying a reverse procedure also has been explored. This
would mean using these types of wells for injection with the objective of enhancing the performance
of existing conventional systems (Fridleifsson et al., 2015). The main barriers to geothermal
development can be grouped into three broad categories: financial, environmental and administrative.
Financial barriers: Geothermal power plant development involves substantial capital requirements due
to exploration drilling costs, for which it can be difficult to obtain bank loans. Since geothermal
exploration is considered high risk, developers generally need to obtain some type of public financing.
This risk is derived from the fact that capital is required before confirmation of resource presence or
exploitability, and therefore before project profitability can be determined (Figure 14).
Governments can reduce this risk and the cost of capital for private developers in a number of ways.
For instance, they can create public companies that exploit geothermal resources and provide private
companies (that install power plants and supply electricity to their customers) with the steam. Other
risk mitigation instruments include cost-sharing for drilling and public-private risk insurance schemes.
With sufficient resource information, including seismic events/fractures and deep drilling data (which
national or local governments can make available to developers), and reliable conceptual models of
the underlying geothermal system and groundwater resources, risks could be reduced and financial
barriers could be further eased, thereby accelerating geothermal development (Gehringer and Loksha,
2012).
Environmental and social barriers: National regulations differ among countries; however, an
environmental and social impact assessment of some type is almost always mandatory. Furthermore,
apart from the assessment process, sufficient discussion with local groups may be needed before
development can commence. These issues can delay or lead to the cancellation of the geothermal
power project; however, if managed in a timely and efficient manner, they do not present an obstacle.
Administrative barriers: Administrative issues such as licensing, permitting and environmental
assessments are technically not barriers. However, they need to be tackled carefully by project
developers, as they might impact a geothermal project by causing unnecessary delays. On the other
hand, governments should ensure that their regulations establish a transparent and straightforward
process that will foster the deployment of new projects.

References
DiMarzo, G. et al. (2015). “The Stillwater Triple Hybrid Power Plant: Integrating Geothermal, Solar
Photovoltaic and Solar Thermal Power Generation”, Proceedings World Geothermal Congress,
Melbourne, Australia, 19-25 April 2015, https://www.geothermal-
energy.org/pdf/IGAstandard/WGC/2015/38001.pdf.
DiPippo, R. (1999). “Small Geothermal Power Plants: Design, Performance and Economics”, GHC
Bulletin, June 1999, pp. 1-8, http://geothermalcommunities.eu/assets/elearning/7.10.art1.pdf
DiPippo, R. (2015). “Geothermal Power Plants: Principles, Applications, Case Studies and
Environmental Impact”, Elsevier, Amsterdam, www.sciencedirect.com/science/book/9780081008799
(accessed 30 May 2017).
D obson, P. et al. (2017). “Supercritical Geothermal Systems – A Review of Past Studies and Ongoing
Research Activities”, Proceedings 41st Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, Stanford
University, 13-15 February,
https://pangea.stanford.edu/ERE/db/GeoConf/papers/SGW/2017/Dobson.pdf.
TRI (Energy Technology Reference Indicator) (2014). “Energy Technology Reference Indicator
projections for 2010-2050”, European Commission,
http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC92496.
GTP (Geothermal Technology Programme) (2008). “Geothermal Tomorrow 2008”, GTP,
http://www.nrel. gov/docs/fy08osti/43504.pdf.