In Chapter 6, Figure 44 illustrated that double-flash development had a profitable <strong>in</strong>dicator for <strong>plant</strong>capacity above 25 MW. The analysis of the data from Figure 52 suggests that the probability ofsuccess is roughly 50% for an 18 MW <strong>power</strong> <strong>plant</strong> capacity. For example, 40% of the probability ofsuccess of the MARR for equity would require a <strong>power</strong> <strong>plant</strong> size greater than 60 MW.7.3.2 Organic Rank<strong>in</strong>e cycleFigure 53 shows the contour map of the probability of success (%) for IRR of Equity greater or equalto 20%, and the <strong>power</strong> <strong>plant</strong> size (MW) for an ORC <strong>power</strong> <strong>plant</strong> development. The color of thecontour l<strong>in</strong>es is used to illustrate: black for the probability of success, and red for the <strong>power</strong> <strong>plant</strong> size.The <strong>geothermal</strong> resource temperature exam<strong>in</strong>ed is between 100 and 180°C, and the mass flow rateexam<strong>in</strong>ed is between 100 and 1000 kg/s.In Chapter 6, Figure 45 illustrated that organic Rank<strong>in</strong>e cycle development had a profitable <strong>in</strong>dicatorfor <strong>plant</strong> capacity above 25 MW. The analysis of the data from Figure 52 suggests that the probabilityof success is roughly 50% for a 25 MW <strong>power</strong> <strong>plant</strong> capacity. For example, 70% of the probability ofsuccess of the MARR for equity will require a <strong>power</strong> <strong>plant</strong> size greater than 35 MW.FIGURE 53: Contour map of probability of IRR of Equity ≥ 20%; ORC <strong>power</strong> <strong>plant</strong>61
8. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONSThe present study <strong>in</strong>dicates that <strong>geothermal</strong> <strong>power</strong> <strong>plant</strong> size, profitability <strong>in</strong>dicators and probability ofsuccess of <strong>geothermal</strong> <strong>power</strong> development arise from an <strong>in</strong>crease <strong>in</strong> the temperature of a <strong>geothermal</strong>resource and the mass flow rate. As a result, <strong>geothermal</strong> <strong>power</strong> development <strong>projects</strong> <strong>in</strong> CentralAmerica for small sized <strong>power</strong> <strong>plant</strong> are not attractive for private <strong>in</strong>vestors when the project considersthe cost of exploration and confirmation, drill<strong>in</strong>g an unknown field, <strong>power</strong> <strong>plant</strong> and transmissionl<strong>in</strong>es.The analysis suggests that <strong>geothermal</strong> development <strong>projects</strong> <strong>in</strong> Central America have profitable<strong>in</strong>dicators start<strong>in</strong>g from a specific <strong>power</strong> <strong>plant</strong> capacity, dependent upon the <strong>power</strong> <strong>plant</strong> technologyselected. Three thermodynamic cycles were evaluated from mass flow rates rang<strong>in</strong>g from 100 to 1,000kg/s. The two steam cycles were evaluated for reservoir temperatures rang<strong>in</strong>g from 160 to 340°C, andthe organic Rank<strong>in</strong>e cycle was evaluated for reservoir temperatures rang<strong>in</strong>g from 100 to 180°C. In thecase of the flash systems, the <strong>projects</strong> had profitable <strong>in</strong>dicators for similar <strong>power</strong> <strong>plant</strong> sizes. Theresults suggested <strong>projects</strong> with profitable <strong>in</strong>dicators for a <strong>power</strong> <strong>plant</strong> size greater than 24 MW forresource temperatures greater than or equal to 200°C. For flash <strong>power</strong> <strong>plant</strong> developments, us<strong>in</strong>gresource temperatures lower than 200°C demanded a mass flow rate higher than 400 kg/s, and them<strong>in</strong>imum <strong>power</strong> <strong>plant</strong> size required could extend to 30 MW. The difference between s<strong>in</strong>gle flash anddouble flash is the amount of mass flow required to achieve the capacity needed. For a s<strong>in</strong>gle-flashsystem, between 10% and 20% more mass flow is needed. In the case of an organic Rank<strong>in</strong>e cycle, theresults suggested <strong>projects</strong> with profitable <strong>in</strong>dicators for <strong>power</strong> <strong>plant</strong> sizes greater than 18 MW forresource temperatures greater than or equal to 130°C. For organic Rank<strong>in</strong>e Cycle <strong>power</strong> <strong>plant</strong>development, us<strong>in</strong>g a resource temperature lower than 130°C demanded a mass flow rate higher than900 kg/s.The study identified high technical and f<strong>in</strong>ancial risks associated with small <strong>geothermal</strong> <strong>projects</strong> whichwere suggested with profitability <strong>in</strong>dicators <strong>in</strong> the economic analysis. For flash <strong>projects</strong> less than 24MW and ORC <strong>projects</strong> less than 18MW, the probability of success is around 50% for achiev<strong>in</strong>g them<strong>in</strong>imum attractive rate of return required by <strong>in</strong>vestors. Risk analysis suggests that the most importantf<strong>in</strong>ancial factor that affects project profitability is the energy price and the <strong>plant</strong> availability factormore than drill<strong>in</strong>g and <strong>power</strong> <strong>plant</strong> costs.Investment costs for typical <strong>geothermal</strong> development suggest extreme variability <strong>in</strong> the cost ofcomponents when all project costs (exploration and confirmation, drill<strong>in</strong>g an unknown field, <strong>power</strong><strong>plant</strong> and transmission l<strong>in</strong>e) are considered. The variability of the specific capital cost is <strong>in</strong>verselyaffected by the resource temperature and the mass flow rate. Based on the <strong>geothermal</strong> resource qualityconsidered for each technology, the estimated cost for s<strong>in</strong>gle flash ranges from 2,912 to 5,910USD 2010 /kW, for double flash from 2,500 to 6,000 USD 2010 /kW, and for the organic Rank<strong>in</strong>e cycle thecost ranges from 2,302 to 11,469 USD 2010 /kW. The range of results matches the costs presented <strong>in</strong>literature where the temperature range is concentrated, for example <strong>in</strong> the case of the flash systems,when temperature range is reduced to 200-300°C from 160-340°C, and <strong>in</strong> the b<strong>in</strong>ary system whentemperature range is reduced to 140-180°C from 100-180°C. Larger size development of <strong>geothermal</strong><strong>power</strong> <strong>plant</strong>s gives more cost effective values than smaller <strong>power</strong> <strong>plant</strong> sizes due to economies ofscale. The cost of development for small <strong>geothermal</strong> <strong>power</strong> <strong>projects</strong> depends significantly on drill<strong>in</strong>gcost, transmission cost and resource quality. A critical case is small ORC development: the specificcapital cost rises quickly, as resource temperature and mass flow rate decrease (as a result of small<strong>power</strong> output).Size of <strong>power</strong> <strong>plant</strong>s is determ<strong>in</strong>ed pr<strong>in</strong>cipally by <strong>geothermal</strong> resource characteristics. The <strong>power</strong>output per unit mass flow produced by a double-flash <strong>power</strong> <strong>plant</strong> is higher with respect to the s<strong>in</strong>gleflash<strong>power</strong> <strong>plant</strong>. Double flash is more effective than s<strong>in</strong>gle flash because a larger portion of theresource is utilized for electrical generation. However, for temperatures below 180°C, the regeneratedORC which was operated with a secondary work<strong>in</strong>g fluid resulted <strong>in</strong> a much higher <strong>power</strong> output thaneither of the flash systems.62
- Page 1 and 2:
GEOTHERMAL TRAINING PROGRAMMEHot sp
- Page 3 and 4:
This MSc thesis has also been publi
- Page 5 and 6:
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSMy gratitude to the
- Page 7 and 8:
TABLE OF CONTENTSPage1. INTRODUCTIO
- Page 9 and 10:
PageAPPENDIX A: FINANCIAL MODEL ...
- Page 12 and 13:
1. INTRODUCTIONRecent research on r
- Page 14 and 15:
2. CENTRAL AMERICAN DATA2.1 Power p
- Page 16 and 17:
2.2.3 HondurasThe Honduran electric
- Page 18 and 19:
NET INJECTION BY SOURCE (2010)INSTA
- Page 20 and 21:
income taxes for a period of 10 yea
- Page 22 and 23: annual temperature ranges from 17 t
- Page 24 and 25: egional reconnaissance in 1981ident
- Page 26 and 27: 4. GEOTHERMAL ELECTRICAL POWER ASSE
- Page 28 and 29: The net contribution of that power
- Page 30 and 31: Introducing , = , and , = ,
- Page 32 and 33: 9ProductionWellBoiler5Turbine~1046P
- Page 34 and 35: TABLE 3: Parameters and boundary co
- Page 36 and 37: eaches the maximum limit, and for h
- Page 38 and 39: 160180140160tc vap[i], th vap[i]120
- Page 40 and 41: average results, and combining them
- Page 42 and 43: The base cost ( ) can be calculate
- Page 44 and 45: calculation for another separator c
- Page 46 and 47: mass flow rate (kg/s) on the plant
- Page 48 and 49: Table 11 shows a summary of costs f
- Page 50 and 51: 5.6.4 Comparison of capital costs b
- Page 52 and 53: 6. FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT
- Page 54 and 55: 6.2 Model structureThe financial fe
- Page 56 and 57: CCF = EBITDA − ∆Working Capital
- Page 58 and 59: Interest on loansFleischmann (2007)
- Page 60 and 61: IRR30%25%IRR CapitalIRR Equity20%Si
- Page 62 and 63: FIGURE 42: Allocation of funds for:
- Page 64 and 65: 340IRR Free Cash Flow to Equity [ %
- Page 66 and 67: flash technology is between 0.3 and
- Page 68 and 69: Energy Price Availability Factor O&
- Page 70 and 71: FIGURE 50: Density and cumulative p
- Page 74 and 75: The internal rate of return is offs
- Page 76 and 77: Cengel, Y. and Tuner, R., 2005: Fun
- Page 78 and 79: IEAb, 2011: Technology roadmap: Geo
- Page 80 and 81: Salmon, J., Meurice, J., Wobus, N.,
- Page 82 and 83: APPENDIX A: SUMMARY OF FINANCIAL MO
- Page 84 and 85: APPENDIX C: INVESTMENT AND FINANCIN
- Page 86 and 87: APPENDIX E: BALANCE SHEETBALANCE SH