RenewableEnergy Vol. 3. No. 6/7. pp. 669--681, 1993 0960-1481/93 $6.00+.

00
Printed in Great Britain. ( 1993 Pergamon Press Ltd

CASCADING VAPOUR ABSORPTION CYCLE WITH

ORGANIC R A N K I N E CYCLE FOR E N H A N C I N G
GEOTHERMAL POWER GENERATION

G. PALOSO, JR a n d B. MOHANTY
Division of Energy Technology, Asian Institute of Technology, G.P.O. Box 2754, Bangkok, Thailand

(Receit,ed 6 Ju(v 1992 ; accepted 31 July 1992)

Abstract--Novel concepts of coupling the absorption cycle to the organic Rankine cycle (ORC) driven by
a tow temperature geothermal heat source have been evaluated. One option involves the use of an absorption
heat transformer (AHT) to upgrade the temperature of the fluid fed to the ORC vaporizer. A second
alternative proposes the introduction of a vapour absorption chiller (VAC) to lower the temperature of
the fluid fed to the ORC condenser. Computer simulations have been done to predict the performances of
the combined cycles (AHT-ORC and ORC-VAC) as well as the conventional ORC.
The results indicate that the ORC VAC presents a promising stance for generating greater power output
than the ORC. Although it requires a bigger heat transfer area per unit power output and a relatively
larger prime mover, the economic gain in producing large power output can overcome the drawback of
higher initial investment. It also has a lower Rankine fluid flow rate than the ORC in the order of 40 70%.
Moreover, this option leads to a better exergetic efficiency proving that it can utilize the geothermal heat
source to its best potential. On the other hand, the advantages that the AHT ORC could offer are its
smaller turbine size and low Rankine fluid flow rate.

I. I N T R O D U C T I O N and feed pump which will lead to larger investment.

To overcome this problem, novel concepts of com-
The vast number of low temperature geothermal
bining vapour absorption cycles to the O R C were
resources poses a great challenge to develop and
introduced in earlier papers [3, 4]. One option sug-
exploit their potential for power generation. The
gested the use of an absorption heat transformer
advent of Rankine cycles that employ organic work-
(AHT) to upgrade the temperature of the fluid fed to
ing fluids has widened the scope for practical power
the O R C vaporizer. A second alternative proposed
generation from these resources, which were con-
the introduction of a vapour absorption chiller (VAC)
sidered suitable only for direct heat applications.
to lower the temperature of the fluid fed to the O R C
However, the suitability of the organic Rankine cycles
condenser. This study presents a comparison of per-
(ORC) is limited to a certain temperature threshold
formances of the two options as well as that of the
below which the occurrence of the resource is still
conventional O R C . The practical benefits of employ-
abundant. O R C s have demonstrated economic elec-
ing the proposed alternatives over the O R C are elab-
tricity generation only with resources at temperatures
orated and the salient advantages between the two are
above I l O C [l]. Since the frequency of hydrothermal
identified.
convective sources in the temperature range 80-130'C
The impetus for developing the two alternatives
is more prevalent, there is a pressing need to inves-
derives from the analysis of a simple Carnot cycle.
tigate further the possible means of exploiting these
Let us take, for example, a reversible thermodynamic
low quality but abundant resources.
cycle. The efficiency, r/c, of such a cycle is given as
Generally, the utilization of thermal energy sources
for power generation is constrained by the prevailing
conditions of the heat source and sink, particularly work output T~,,~
the temperature [2]. With a lower heat source tem- th = heat input = 1 - T,,,ur~"
perature, a power cycle has less potential to provide
work for a given unit fluid flow of the heat source. In For a base case with 100 and 3 0 C as source and sink
order to obtain a target output, it will therefore temperatures, respectively, q~ is found to be 18.8%
require large flow rates of the working fluid, geo- only. Increasing the heat source temperature by 20"C
thermal fluid and cooling water. This, in turn, will produces an r/~ of 22.9%, equivalent to an increase of
require bigger sizes of vaporizer, condenser, turbine 22% from the base case. Lowering the sink tern-

669
670
perature by the same degree of 20 C results in an even
higher ~/,.of 24.1% or an increase of 28.6% from the
base case. This is illustrated in Fig. 1.
An actual cycle, however, is irreversible and does
not follow the Carnot cycle process path. In the first
place, the heat transfers from the heat source and to
the heat sink do not occur isothermally, leading to
temperature gradients in the vaporizer and the con-
denser. Moreover, contrary to what occurs in a Car-
not cycle, there has to be a certain temperature differ-
ence between the two fluids in the exchangers in order
to allow the heat to flow from a high temperature to
the lower one, In addition, the turbine and pump are
also not ideal, i.e. the vapour expansion in the turbine
and the liquid compression in the pump arc not isen-
tropic. Therefore, detailed analyses of the proposed
combined cycles are necessary to determine their tech-
nical performances and economic viability.
2. T H E C O M B I N E D
The configuration of the proposed combined AHT-
ORC is shown schematically in Fig. 2. The system
basically consists of heat exchangers, pumps and the
work-producing device a turbine or a positive dis-
placement machine. A salient feature of the system is
the integration of the ORC vaporizer and the AHT
absorber. The working fluid chosen for the AHT is a
water and lithium bromide (H 20 LiBr) solution while
trichlorotrifluoroethane (R-113) is selected for the
ORC.
The operation of the combined cycle commences
with the extraction of heat from the geothermal brine
in the generator and evaporator of the AHT. Refer-
ring to the state points in Fig. 2, the refrigerant (water)
vaporized from the generator is condensed by reject-
ing its sensible (desuperhcat) and latent heat to the
Temperature ('C)
140
r -~'~ee
=-I
120 . . . . . . . . . . I I . . . . . . . . .
I I
80 ; "
40
20
0 - - 0
Fig. 1. A simple Carnot cycle analysis.
G. PALOS(), JR and B. MOHANTY
cooling water. The condensed refrigerant is then
pressurized by a feed pump and enters the evaporator
where it vaporizes at constant pressure. This vapour is
absorbed by the solution with high LiBr concentration
coming from the generator producing heat which is
transferred to the working fluid of the ORC. The
resulting dilute solution is passed through a re-
cuperator before its expansion and subsequent heat-
ing in the generator. Vapour is separated from the
solution and directed to the condenser while the
residual strong solution heads back to the recuperator
and finally to the absorber. The organic fluid (R-113)
of the ORC is vaporized at high temperature in the
integrated absorber/vaporizer. This vapour is passed
through the turbine and produces the desired work.
The exhaust fluid from the turbine is condensed at
constant pressure and pumped back to the integrated
component.
AHT-ORC 3. T H E C O M B I N E D ORC-VAC
The basic components and the working fluids of the
ORC VAC are similar to those of the AHT ORC.
Here the ORC condenser is integrated with the VAC
ewiporator into a single component. A schematic
diagram of the combined cycle is shown in Fig. 3. in
the system, the geothermal brine passes through thc
ORC vaporizer, evaporating the organic fluid, and
then proceeds to the VAC generator, separating the
refrigerant from the solution, before being rejected to
the surrounding or reinjected back to the geothermal
well. The refrigerant vaporized from the heated solu-
tion in the VAC generator is delivered to the con-
denser where it is condensed by rejecting its latent
heat to the cooling water. It is then expanded before
it enters the integrated evaporator~ondenser where
it provides a cooling effect. In this integrated com-
ponent, the VAC refrigerant vaporizes as it absorbs
the heat rejected by the ORC working fluid which in
consequence condenses and exits the component as
140
a saturated liquid. The condensed organic fluid is
pumped to the vaporizer where it leaves as saturated
120
i vapour and proceeds to the turbine to do motive work.
10ft
!
4. MODELLING AND SIMULATION
, ": 80
:..............> Component models were developed to predict the
60
performances of the two combined cycles. The models
are based on the works of Badr [5], Grossman [6]
40
and Eisa [7] which dealt with the quasi-steady-state
• 20 operations of the ORC, AHT and VAC, respectively.
The details of the simulation program were elaborated
in earlier papers [3, 4]. Some assumptions made in the
previous models are modified for simplicity and at the
 Cascading vapour absorption cycle 671

heo =, i hei
I
; I

evaporator
J vaporizer/ I
r3
t4 absorber

r2

i
t3
Absorption
Organic
Heat recuperator
Transformer ~Rankine

Cycle Cycle
2

rl

/ tI
condenser L J generator condenser
I I ;"
= 4.
I l
4, | | •

hci hco hgo hgi rci rco

Fig. 2. Schematic diagram of AHT-ORC.

geothermal fluid
I I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ! I-- "1~
rgi l
T T
I rgo hci i hco
f : , t
f :
co.~;nser ci
"~e.orato;]
r3 r z c2

Vapour
Organic
recuperator
Absorption
'bin, Rankine
Cooling
Cycle
r4 r| c3 Cycle

cA
VAC-evapora~r J absorber
rm ~
J
I
I I
hai = • hao
Fig. 3. Schematic diagram of ORC VAC.
672 G. PALOSO, JR and B. MOHANTY
same time improve simulation accuracy. A uniform
heat exchanger temperature pinch, Tp, of 3 C is taken
for all heat exchange components. Appropriate values
of the overall heat transfer coefficients, U, are con-
sidered which take into account the various modes of
heat transfer and the types of heat exchanges taking
place [8 10].
5. C O M P A R I S O N OF P E R F O R M A N C E FOR ORC,
AHT-ORC AND ORC-VAC
With the use of the developed models, the per-
formances of the ORC, A H T - O R C and ORC VAC
are analysed and compared. A geothermal heat source
at 100C and cooling water at 3 0 C are initially con-
sidered for comparing the three cycles. For the A H T -
ORC, the absorption heat pumping process upgrades
the Rankine heat source temperature by 20~C, while
for the ORC-VAC the absorption refrigeration pro-
cess lowers the Rankine cycle heat sink temperature
by a similar degree of 20C.
The performances of the three cycles, as detailed by
the thermodynamic properties and mass flow rates of
the working fluids at various state points, are shown
in Tables 1-3. The enthalpy and entropy values are
determined from equations available in the literature
[5, 11-13]. The exergy values are calculated from a
reference temperature of 3OC. All calculations arc
made on the basis of a 1 kW turbine work output.
To give a more vivid presentation of the per-
formance of the cycles, Sankey flow diagrams of
energy and exergy flows are illustrated in Figs ~ 9 .
The diagrams show the energy and exergy content of
the fluids (in kW) at the different state points for a
given work output of I kW. The values are determined
by multiplying the mass flow rate and the specific
enthalpy or exergy of the working fluid at those state
points. The energy and exergy flow diagrams are
shown here to stress the importance of the exergy
method in analysing energy systems. For example, the
ORC energy analysis shown in Fig. 4 indicates that
Table 1. Thermodynamic performance of ORC
Cycle T //
point (C) (kJ/kg)
rl 37.00 66.74
r2 37.20 66,86
r3 67.10 235.42
r4 49.60 225.13
rgi !00.00 418.68
rgo 63.80 267.51
rci 30.00 125.60
rco 34.20 143.27
for a 1 kW turbine work output, 45.5 kW is supplied
in the vaporizer, which means that only 2% of the
heat available from the geothermal brine is converted
to work. Moreover, a sizeable amount of energy is
also lost in the condenser. Such an energy analysis
does not present a rational evaluation of the thermo-
dynamic cycle performance. The exergy analysis of
the ORC (Fig. 5) shows that to produce I kW of
turbine work, the geothermal fluid that is required at
the given temperature has a maximum power genera-
tion potential of 3.26 kW, which suggests that the
cycle efficiency is 31%--a more realistic assessment
of the cycle performance. Aside from that, this method
stipulates where and how much the losses are and it
takes into account not only the quantity of the energy
flow but also its quality [14]. Similar comparisons on
the A H T - O R C and ORC-VAC performances can be
drawn from Figs 6-9.
As mentioned earlier, the actual cycles differ from
the Carnot cycle since the latter does not consider the
losses incurred in the operation of the actual system.
The system losses which are caused by the heat trans-
fers between the interacting media, machine ineffici-
ences and heat rejections are shown in Figs 5, 7 and
9 for the three different cycles. In the absorption side
of the combined cycles, exergy losses caused by heat
transfers in the different components are lumped toge-
ther in order to simplify the presentation (see Figs 7
and 9). These losses, however, are elaborated in Tables
4--6. Referring to Tables 5 and 6, it is noticed that in
the absorber of both the ORC-VAC and AHT ORC,
the exergy balance results in an exergy gain (indicated
by the negative sign) rather than a loss. This is attri-
buted to the exothermic reaction in the absorption
process. The mixing of H 2 0 vapour and the LiBr-rich
solution produces a large amount of chemical exergy
which offsets the exergy loss due to the heat transfer
between the reacting fluids. On the other hand, a large
amount of energy is required in the generator for the
separation of the same H 20 vapour from the solution.
This endothermic process consequently incurs a con-
s Ex m
(kJ/kg' C) (kJ/kg) (kg/s)
0.247 0.083 0.098
0.247 0.159 0.098
0.747 17.359 0.098
0.757 3.750 0.098
1.306 29.997 O.109
0.879 8.018 O.109
0.438 0.000 0.874
0.495 0.298 0.874
 Cascading vapour absorption cycle 673

Table 2. Thermodynamic performance of AHT ORC

Cycle T h s Ex m
point CC) (kJ/kg) (kJ/kg. C) (kJ/kg) (kg/s)

rI 38.00 67.66 0.250 0.116 0.041

r2 38.90 68.33 0.251 0.549 0.04 l
r3 I 17.00 265.15 0.778 37.542 0.041
r4 72.70 240.71 0.802 5.827 0.041
tl 84.50 2659.21 8.562 70.743 0.003
t2 37.87 158.72 0.545 0.606 0.003
t3 37.92 158.77 0.545 0.640 0.003
t4 72.70 2631.38 7.716 299.378 0.003
t5 120.00 266.36 0.616 27,408 0.093
t6 90.40 207.94 0.467 14,097 0.093
t7 84.70 205.65 0.412 11.567 0.090
t8 116.50 266.20 0.569 24.643 0.090
hgi I00.00 418.68 1.305 30.172 0.158
hgo/hei 87.70 367.19 I. 169 19.907 0.158
heo 75.00 314.01 1.015 13.416 0.158
hci 30.00 125.60 0.438 0.000 0.407
hco 35.00 146.54 0.506 0.368 0.407
rci 30.00 125.60 0.438 0.000 0.292
rco 35.70 149.79 0.517 0.315 0.292

x~,h~= 58.65% : xg~, = 60.88%.

siderable a m o u n t o f exergy loss in addition to the
loss due to heat transfer. The large exergy loss in the
generator, as shown in Tables 5 and 6, is therefore a
s u m m a t i o n o f the exergy loss due to the separation
process and heat transfer.
It is seen from the Sankey flow diagrams that the
O R C V A C requires the least a m o u n t o f exergy from
the heat source to produce 1 kW o f work output.
Referring to Tables I-3, the O R C - V A C extracts the
maximum a m o u n t o f energy from the geothermal heat
source since the geothermal fluid leaves the system at
the lowest temperature.
For a wider range o f comparison, the geothermal
fluid temperature is varied from 80 to 130 C while
maintaining a 20 C increase in the heat source tem-
perature for the A H T - O R C and a similar 2 0 C
decrease in the heat sink temperature for the O R C
VAC. Figure 10 shows that the O R C - V A C produces

Table 3. Thermodynamic performance of ORC-VAC

Cycle T h s Ex m
point (C) (kJ/kg) (kJ/kg" C) (kJ/kg) (kg/s)

rI 13.00 45.08 0.175 0.421 0.039

r2 13.39 45.38 0.175 0.602 0.039
r3 84.70 246.21 0.757 24.874 0.039
r4 41.70 220.65 0.786 9.509 0.039
cl 78.70 2648.25 8.534 68.27[ 0.003
c2 37.80 158.45 0.544 0.729 0.003
c3 10.00 158.45 0.569 6.940 0.003
c4 10.00 2520.57 8.911 -- 173.697 0.003
c5 33.00 68.06 0.226 0.170 0.023
c6 58.60 123.76 0.397 3.978 0.023
c7 78.70 183.36 0.411 10.102 0.020
c8 46.50 1[9.60 0.227 2.001 0.020
rgi 100.00 418.67 1.306 30.011 0.102
rgo/hgi 81.6(I 342.06 1.095 17.244 0.102
hgo 61.70 258.73 0.853 7.153 0.102
hal 30.00 125.60 0.438 0.000 0.390
hao 35.00 146.54 0.506 0.399 0.390
hci 30.00 125.60 0.438 0.000 0.345
hco 35.00 146.54 0.506 0.399 0.345

.'C,,b~= 50.85%; -Vg~n= 58.21%.

674 G. PALOSO,JR and B. MOHANTY

29.073
45.506

vaporizer

~
6.520 22.952

turbine
feed pump All values in kW

0.012
I1~ 1.0

109.778
124.!

Fig. 4. ORC energy flow diagram.

3.260 0.712

0.876

vaporizer

).016 1.688
All values in kW
0.004
~ii heat rejection
turbine
feed pump [] heat transfer loss/
machine inefficiency
0.012 I1~ 1.0
[] work output
condenser 0.323
0.008 0.365

" 0.260
Fig. 5. ORC exergy flow diagram.
 Cascading vapour absorption cycle 675

66.151 49.614

absorption
heat
d

2.802 transformer 10.871

~ e d pump 51.121 59.589 turbine

0.028 ,,m
All values in kW 1.0

2.774 9.871
condenser

36.676
43.773

Fig. 6. AHT ORC energy flow diagram.

the largest work output per kg of geothermal fluid at
temperatures > 9 0 C . It is also seen that the A H T
ORC has the least work output. This is mainly due to
the fitct thai the A H T - O R C can extract a limited
amount of energy from the geothermal fluid because
of the temperature pinch constraints in the generator
and absorber. Hence in the AHT-ORC, the geo-
thermal fluid is rejected at a relatively high tempera-
ture. The overall geothermal utilization efficiency in
such a situation can be greatly improved if this rejected
fluid can find some other thermal applications like
drying and water heating.
The ORC VAC also produces the largest work out-
put per kg of Rankine fluid, closely followed by the
AHT ORC, but the ORC generates a considerably
smallcr work output (see Fig. 11). This is attributed
to the large difference between the inlet and outlet
temperatures in the turbine of the combined cycles as
compared with that of the ORC. These temperature
differences directly affect the enthalpy changes and
consequently the work output. Figure 12 shows the
variation of the vaporizing temperature, Tr3 , with the
change in the geothermal fluid temperature. It is seen
that the AHT~ORC has the highest Tr3, but since the
ORC VAC has a lower condensing temperature, it
compensates to produce greater work output.
Another important aspect which deserves attention
is the mass flow rate of the Rankine fluid. This would
be a factor in determining the sizes of components.
Figure 13 shows the mass flow rates of the Rankine
fluid per MW of work output. The figure indicates
that the ORC VAC requires the least Rankine fluid
flow rate--around 40-70% less than that of the ORC.
Therefore, the power cycle components, notably the
pump and heat exchangers, of the ORC-VAC would
be smaller than those of the ORC and AHT ORC.
However, this may not be true for the turbine. The
size of turbine is determined not only by the mass flow
rate but also by the specific volume of the expanding
fluid. Figure 14 presents a schematic illustration of
the possible sizes of turbines that would be necessary
for the three cycles. In the figure, the turbine's inlet
and outlet volumetric flow rates, which are calculated
by multiplying the specific volume of the fluid by the
mass flow rate, are plotted against its corresponding
specific volume. These values are computed for a geo-
thermal fluid temperature of 100 C. The absolute
values of the volumetric flow rates are divided into
two, one of which is plotted in the negative Y-scale.
This is done to demonstrate the increase in the fluid
volume as it traverses the turbine and expands. It is
seen here that the turbine of the ORC-VAC would be
676 G. PALOSO, JR and B. MOHANTY

4.941 i~N~g 2.298

1.536
0.023

All v a l u e s in kW
0.150
0.010 ~g heat rejection
turbine
feed pump heat transfer loss/
machine inefficiency
0.028 10
[] work output
j _.... ~ 0.298
condenser
0.005 0.239
-- ¢ .......... ~. . . . . . . . . I ,-'-~:~. . . . . :---

t
0.142
0.092
Fig. 7. AHT ORC exergy flow diagram.

42.704

vaporizer

34.874
1.770 9.602
92.319
turbine

1.0
feed pump
8.602

0.012
absorption
All values in kW. chiller

1.758 107.706

26.331

Fig. 8. O R e VAC energy fiow diagram.

 Cascading vapour absorption cycle 677

3.061 0.356
1.758
vaporizer

0.023 0.970

0.004 All values in kW ~turbine

4"""
heat rejection ~ 1.0
feed pump [] heat transfer loss/
machine i n e f f i c i e n c y 0.344

0.012 [] work output

-0.374
absorption
0.016 chiller

0.294

0.726 0.348

Fig. 9. ORC-VAC exergy flow diagram.

Table 4. Exergy losses in ORC

Heat
transfer Machine Heat Total
loss inefficiency rejection loss
Component (kW) (kW) (kW) (kW)

Feed pump 0.004 0.004

Vaporizer 0.712 0.712
Turbine 0.323 0.323
Condenser 0.097 0.260 0.358
Total exergy loss 1.395

Table 5. Exergy losses in AHT ORC

Heat
transfer Machine Heat Total
loss inefficiency rejection loss
Component (kW) (kW) (kW) (kW)

Feed pump 0.010 0.010

Vapor Absorber --0.950 -0.950
Turbine 0.298 0.298
R-Condenser 0.142 0.092 0.234
A-Condenser 0.060 0.150 0.210
Feed pump 0.000 0.000
Evaporator 0.129 0.129
Recuperator 0.06 l 0.06 l
Generator 1.680 1.680
Total exergy loss 1.672
678 G. PALOSO, JR and B. MOHANTY

Table 6. Exergy losses in ORC VAC

Heat
transfer Machine Heat Total
loss inefficiency rejection loss
Component (kW) (kW) (kW) (kW)

Feed pump 0.005 0.005

Vaporizer 0.356 0.356
Turbine 0.344 0.344
Con Evaporator 0.096 0.096
A-Condenser 0.058 0,138 0.196
Expan, valve 0.022 0.022
Absorber - 0.623 0.156 - 0.468
Recuperator 0.075 0.075
Generator 0,720 0.720
Total excrgy loss 1.346

25 160
/
140
~2o L~ 120
/ J
~100 / / o,~Cv ~ c ~ ~ ~ ~
~80 oRC

~=10 °v'c =~ 60
m,

40

20

0 0 ~ i I q q
80 9; 76o ,io 1~o 1;0 80 90 100 110 12(1 130
Geothermal Huid Temperature (*C) Geothermal Fluid Temperature(*C)

Fig, 10. Comparison of net work output per kg of geothermal Fig. 12. Variation of vaporizing temperature with the geo-
fluid. thermal fluid temperature.

35 160

140
~3o
o ~ - ~ ~--~120
25

20
'~100
,,e
8o
~oR e
/

ORC
"5 60

ORC~VAC
o i 4°
0
80 9'0 100 1'10 120 1;0 80 90 100 110 120 130
GeothermalFluid Temperature('C) Geothermal Fluid Temperature ('C)

Fig. 11. Work output per kg of Rankine fluid varying with Fig. 13. Mass flow rate of Rankine fluid per MW of power
geothermal fluid temperature. output.
 Cascading vapour absorption cycle 679

It is then worthwhile to assess the possible sizes of

the heat exchange components. The area of a heat
1(3 exchanger is determined by dividing the heat flow by
the overall heat transfer coefficient and the log-
arithmic mean temperature difference which can be
expressed as
~o c
Q
A-
UA T"
More conservative estimates of U-values are con-
-l(
sidered here as compared with those used in earlier
~C-VAC
papers [3, 4]. A comparison of the sum of the areas
0.1 0.2 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 of the heat exchange components for the three cycles
Specific Volume (m'/kg) is shown in Fig. 16. As expected, the combined cycles
Fig. 14. Schematic diagram of possible sizes of turbines. have larger area requirements (above 25%). This is
due to the addition of heat exchange components
required for the absorption cycle. However, a look at
the sizes of the Rankine side heat exchange corn-
larger than those of the ORC and A H T - O R C . This
is attributed to the reduction in its turbine exhaust
temperature. The specific volume of the working fluid
increases exponentially as its temperature decreases. ~-,12- L~ORC ~lqORC-VAC~AHT-ORC
Hence, the O R C - V A C turbine would require a large ~'~
diameter at its exhaust to accommodate the low tem- ~0-
perature and large volume organic vapour stream. A
look at the operating pressures also shows that the ~ s
O R C - V A C has the highest turbine inlet to outlet pres- E.
sure ratio among the three cycles (Fig. 15). This sug- ~ 6-
gests that O R C - V A C turbines will be multi-staged.
An actual observation on an ORC machine in the ~ 4-
Fang Geothermal Pilot Plant operated by the Elec-
tricity Generating Authority of Thailand (EGAT), ,~ 2-
however, reveals that the turbine is a relatively smaller ~ o
component as compared with the condenser and 80 90 100 110 120 130
vaporizer. Geothermal Fluid Temperature ('C)
Fig. 16. Comparison of the total heat exchanger area per kW
output.
25
~I0 - ~RORC-VAC r~AHT-ORC ~]ORC
g
20
~8-

,,," o~C ,~t,c

.

5
OR__~_C
"~ 2- Illl
iiii
01 Illi
I i i i /
fill ~IIIIIlIHIIIIlllIl~IIIHllll~HIIll~HIIIll|H|IIII~IIl~IIIIIl~
80 90 100 110 I20 130 ~0 .... i i i ~ i
Geothermal Fluid Temperature ('C) 80 90 100 110 120 130
Geothermal Fluid Temperature ('C)
Fig. 15. Change in pressure ratio with the geothermal fluid
temperature. Fig. 17. Heat exchanger area of Rankine cycle components.
680 G. PALOSO, JR and B. MOHANTY

p o n e n t s (i.e. vaporizer a n d condenser) reveals that between the Asian Institute of Technology and the Electricity
those of the c o m b i n e d cycles are significantly smaller Generating Authority of Thailand.
than the O R C : 5 6 - 6 3 % smaller in the case of O R C
VAC, while in the case of the A H T - O R C it is smaller
NOMENCLATURE
in the order of 7 - 2 6 % (Fig. 17).
A = heat exchanger area, m 2
cl ...c8 = state points in the VAC (see Fig. 3)
E x = Exergy, kJ/kg
6. CONCLUSIONS h = specific enthalpy, kJ/kg
hat = VAC absorber inlet
F r o m the various c o m p a r a t i v e analyses presented,
hao = VAC absorber outlet
the a d v a n t a g e s of employing the c o m b i n e d cycles are hci = AHT and VAC condenser inlet
d e m o n s t r a t e d . Based on a t h e r m o d y n a m i c view point, hco = AHT and VAC condenser outlet
the O R C - V A C provides the best utilization efficiency. hei = AHT evaporator inlet
F r o m an available geothermal heat source, it can gen- heo = AHT evaporator outlet
hgi = AHT and VAC generator inlet
erate the m a x i m u m work output, thereby exploiting hgo = AHT and VAC generator outlet
the heat source to its full potential. Aside from that, n l = mass flow rate, kg/s

this cycle also requires the least mass flow rate of the
R a n k i n e fluid which results in smaller heat exchange
c o m p o n e n t s . However, due to the addition o f more
heat exchangers in the a b s o r p t i o n cycle, it requires a
slightly larger total heat exchanger area per unit of
power output. Its low c o n d e n s i n g t e m p e r a t u r e would
also necessitate the use o f a relatively large turbine.
These m a y result in a higher initial investment. Never-
theless, the economic incentive o f its greater power
o u t p u t may, in the long run, overcome the higher
initial costs. These aspects merit a detailed e c o n o m i c
analysis which is b e y o n d the scope o f this work.
On the other h a n d , the A H T - O R C offers the
a d v a n t a g e of using a c o m p a c t a n d smaller turbine.
However, its heat exchange area requirement is even
larger t h a n t h a t for the O R C - V A C . Also, this option
would require more geothermal fluid to generate a
targeted power output. T h e unutilized heat c o n t e n t of
the g e o t h e r m a l fluid leaving the system will be wasted
unless a suitable application is found.
G e o t h e r m a l resources at low t e m p e r a t u r e are
indeed a b u n d a n t . T h e p r o p o s e d systems present alter-
natives towards the rational utilization of these
resources for power generation. The solutions pro-
posed are, by no means, futuristic as the technologies
are m a t u r e a n d readily available in the market. The
a u t h o r s are presently involved in a d e m o n s t r a t i o n
project in c o l l a b o r a t i o n with E G A T , in which the
geothermal fluid, after providing heat to the vaporizer
of a n O R C , is cascaded t h r o u g h the generator of
a commercial V A C at a t e m p e r a t u r e of 77°C.
The chilled water p r o d u c e d in the V A C at 7°C is effec-
tively utilized for cold storage a n d air c o n d i t i o n i n g
applications.
Acknowledgement--The authors would like to acknowledge
the financial support of the French Environmental and
Energy Management Agency (ADEME) which permitted
this work to be carried out as a part of a joint project
Q = heat flow in a heat exchanger, kW
r l . . . r4 = state points in the ORC (see Figs 2 and 3)
rci = ORC condenser inlet
r c o = ORC condenser outlet
rgi = ORC vaporizer inlet
rgo = ORC vaporizer outlet
s = specific entropy, kJ/kg" C
tl ... t8 = state points in the AHT (see Fig. 2)
rp = pinch point temperature difference, C
= ORC vaporizing temperature, 'C
Tsink = heat sink temperature, 'C
T,,,orce - heat source temperature, ;C
U = overall heat transfer coefficient, kW. m -'/'C
x,,b~ = concentration of LiBr-H20 solution leaving
the absorber
Xg~n= concentration of LiB~H20 solution leaving
the generator
AT = logarithmic mean temperature difference, C
q, - Carnot cycle efficiency.
REFERENCES
1. ASHRAE Handbook (HVAC Applications), American
Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning
Engineers (1991).
2. S. Subbiah and R. Natarajan, Thermodynamic analysis
of binary-fluid Rankine cycles for geothermal power
plants. Energy Conversion and Mamtgement 28, 47 52
(1988).
3. B. Mohanty and G. Paloso, Jr, Boosting low temperature
geothermal heat source by absorption heat transformer
for power production--13.1. Proc. Absorption Heat
Pump Con[Prence, Tokyo, Japan, 351-356 ( 1991 ).
4. B. Mohanty and G. Paloso, Jr, Economic power genera-
tion from low temperature geothermal resources using
organic Rankine cycle combined with vapour absorption
chiller. Heat Recover), Systems and CHP 12, 143-158
(1992).
5. O. Badr, P. W. O'Callaghan and S. D. Probert, Rankine-
cycle systems for harnessing power from low grade
energy sources. Applied Energy 36, 263 292 (1990).
6. G. Grossman and H. Perez-Blanco, Conceptual design
and performance analysis of absorption heat pumps for
waste heat utilization. ASHRAE Trans. 88, 451~466
(1982).
7. R. Eisa, P. J. Diggory and F. A. Holland, Experimental
studies to determine the effect of temperature differences
 Cascading vapour absorption cycle
on the performance of a water-lithium bromide absorp-
tion cooler. Energy Conversion and Management 27,
253 259 (1987).
8. R. H. Perry and D. Green, Chemical Engineers' Hand-
book, 6tb edn. McGraw-Hill, New York (1984).
9. J. P. Holman, Heat Tran~sfer, 5th edn. McGraw-Hill,
New York (1981).
10. P. Riesch, J. Scharfe, F. Ziegler, J. Volkl and G. Alefeld,
Part-load behavior of an absorption heat transformer.
Proc. 3rd International Symposium on Large Scale
Applications of Heat Pumps, Oxford (1987).
I1. O. Badr, S. D. Probert and P. O'Callaghan, Rankine
681
cycle for steam power plants. Applied Energy 36, 191
231 (1990).
12. ASHRAE Handbook (Fundamentals). American Society
of Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engin-
eers (1985).
13. M. Izquierdo, Section 3.4--Entropia, La Maquina
Frigorifica de Bromuro de Litio Como Sistema para
Diversificaci6n y Ahorro Energ6tico. Tesis Doctoral,
Universidad Polit6cnica de Madrid, ETSII, Madrid,
pp. 82 88 (1988).
14. J. E. Ahern, The Exergy Method ~1~Energy Systems
Analysis. Wiley, New York (1980).