Export to Refworks Export to EndNote Email
Report an Issue

Comparative analysis of alternative means for removing noncondensable gases from flashed-steam geothermal power plants [electronic resource].

Published:
Washington, D.C. : United States. Dept. of Energy, 2000.
Oak Ridge, Tenn. : Distributed by the Office of Scientific and Technical Information, U.S. Dept. of Energy.
Physical Description:
vp : digital, PDF file
Additional Creators:
United States. Department of Energy and United States. Department of Energy. Office of Scientific and Technical Information
Access Online

Availability

I Want It

Finding items...

Restrictions on Access:
Free-to-read Unrestricted online access
Summary:
This is a final report on a screening study to compare six methods of removing noncondensable gases from direct-use geothermal steam power plants. This report defines the study methodologies and compares the performance and economics of selected gas-removal systems. Recommendations are presented for follow-up investigations and implementation of some of the technologies discussed. The specific gas-removal methods include five vacuum system configurations using the conventional approach of evacuating gas/vapor mixtures from the power plant condenser system and a system for physical separation of steam and gases upstream of the power turbine. The study focused on flashed-steam applications, but the results apply equally well to flashed-steam and dry-steam geothermal power plant configurations. Two gas-removal options appear to offer profitable economic potential. The hybrid vacuum system configurations and the reboiler process yield positive net present value results over wide-ranging gas concentrations. The hybrid options look favorable for both low-temperature and high-temperature resource applications. The reboiler looks profitable for low-temperature resource applications for gas levels above about 20,000 parts per million by volume. A vacuum system configuration using a three-stage turbocompressor battery may be profitable for low-temperature resources, but results show that the hybrid system is more profitable. The biphase eductor alternative cannot be recommended for commercialization at this time.
Report Numbers:
E 1.99:nrel/sr-550-28329
nrel/sr-550-28329
Subject(s):
Other Subject(s):
Note:
Published through SciTech Connect.
06/20/2000.
"nrel/sr-550-28329"
Vorum, M.; Fitzler, E.
National Renewable Energy Lab., Golden, CO (US)
Type of Report and Period Covered Note:
Topical; 04/01/1999 - 03/31/2000
Funding Information:
AC36-99GO10337
View MARC record | catkey: 14382983