📋 Case Study

Geothermal Power Plant Working Fluid Selection

Low net power output (<12% thermal efficiency) using isobutane due to poor match with 140°C geofluid

🏗️ Project Overview

Ormat Mammoth Pacific Unit 3 binary cycle upgrade, California

🎯 Challenge

Low net power output (<12% thermal efficiency) using isobutane due to poor match with 140°C geofluid

🔧 Design Approach

Screened 21 organic fluids via PR-EOS thermodynamic screening (η_th, ΔT_pinch, T_crit, GWP); selected R245fa–R134a azeotrope

📐 Design Diagram

Geofluid Input140°C, 10 kg/sPower CycleR245fa–R134aHEXChallengeη_th = 11.8% (Isobutane)ΔT_pinch = 1.8°CSolutionη_th = 14.8%ΔT_pinch = 4.2°CPR-EOS Screening21 FluidsDesign Diagram: Geothermal Working Fluid Selection | Case Study

AI-generated project design illustration

📐 Key Calculations

Thermal Efficiency (η_th)

(W_turb − W_pump)/Q_evap
Result: 14.8%
Primary economic driver

Pinch Point Temperature

min(ΔT_hot − ΔT_cold)
Result: 4.2°C
Limits heat exchanger size & cost

📊 Results

Efficiency increased to 14.8%, 2.1 MW additional net output, LCOE reduced by 13%

💡 Lessons Learned

  • Azeotropic blends improve temperature glide matching but require rigorous EOS mixture rules
  • GWP-weighted fluid ranking must be integrated into early-stage design

Key Takeaways

  • 1Azeotropic blends improve temperature glide matching but require rigorous EOS mixture rules
  • 2GWP-weighted fluid ranking must be integrated into early-stage design