Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
SMALL GEOTHERMAL
POWER PROJECTS
GEO-HEAT CENTER QUARTERLY BULLETIN
ISSN 0276-1084
A Quarterly Progress and Development Report
on the Direct Utilization of Geothermal Resources
PUBLISHED BY
CONTENTS Page
GEO-HEAT CENTER
Small Geothermal Power Plants: 1 Oregon Institute of Technology
Design, Performance and Economics 3201 Campus Drive
Ronald DiPippo Klamath Falls, OR 97601
Phone: 541-8851750
Small Geothermal Power Project 9 Email: Geoheat@oit.edu
Examples
John W. Lund and Tonya Toni Boyd All articles for the Bulletin are solicited. If you wish to
contribute a paper, please contact the editor at the above
27 address.
Opportunities for Small Geothermal
Power Projects
EDITOR
Laura Vimmerstedt
John W. Lund
Geothermal Small Power Generation 30 Typesetting/Layout - Donna Gibson
Opportunites in the Leeward Islands Graphics - Tonya Toni Boyd
of the Caribbean Sea
Gerald W. Huttrer WEBSITE http://www.oit.edu/~geoheat
Name _____________________________________
Address ___________________________________
Country ___________________________________
SMALL GEOTHERMAL POWER PLANTS:
DESIGN, PERFORMANCE AND ECONOMICS
Ronald DiPippo, Ph.D.
Mechanical Engineering Department
University of Massachusetts Dartmouth
North Dartmouth, Massachusetts 02747
A BRIEF HISTORY OF GEOTHERMAL POWER Small power plants have played an important role in the
GENERATION development of geothermal energy. Since it is not practical
Ninety-five years ago, in the Tuscany village of to transmit high-temperature steam over long distances by
Larderello, electricity first flowed from geothermal energy pipeline owing to heat losses, most geothermal plants are built
when Prince Piero Ginori Conti powered a 3/4-horsepower close to the resource. Given the required minimum spacing
reciprocating engine to drive a small generator. The Prince of wells to avoid interference (typically 200-300 m) and the
was thereby able to light a few bulbs in his boric acid factory usual capacity of a single geothermal well of 4-10 MW (with
situated amid the boron-rich geothermal steam field. He up- some rare, spectacular exceptions), geothermal powerplants
graded the power system to 20 kW in 1905 [1]. tend to be in the 20-60 MW range, even those associated with
Commercial delivery of geothermally-generated elec- large reservoirs. Much smaller plants, in the range of 500-
tric power occurred in 1914 when a 250 kW unit at Larderello 3000 kW, are common with binary-type plants.
provided electricity to the nearby cities of Volterra and
Pomarance. Prior to being destroyed in 1944 during World Table 1
War II, Larderello had a total power capacity of 136,800 kW, Summary of Worldwide Installed Geothermal Power
an annual generation greater than 900 GWh, and an average Capacity (as of 1998)
annual capacity factor of more than 75 percent. The plants Country MW No. Units MW/Unit Plant Types1
were rebuilt after the war and extensive development of the United States 2850 203 14.0 DS,1F,2F,B,H
steam field began. Today, there are over 740 MW installed at Philippines 1848 64 28.9 1F,2F,H
Mexico 743 26 28.6 1F,2F,H
Larderello and the other nearby geothermal fields in the Italy 742 na DS,2F,H
Tuscany region of Italy. Many of the power plants are in the Indonesia 589.5 15 39.3 DS,1F
15-25 MW range, qualifying them as small power plants. Japan 530 18 29.4 DS,1F,2F
New Zealand was the first country to operate a com- New Zealand 364 na 1F,2F,H
Costa Rica 120 4 30 1F
mercial geothermal power plant using a liquid-dominated, hot- El Salvador 105 5 21 1F,2F
water type reservoir (as contrasted with the steam-type at Nicaragua 70 2 35 1F
Larderello). This took place at Wairakei in 1958. The United Iceland 50.6 13 3.9 1F,2F,H
States became the third country to use geothermal energy to Kenya 45 3 15 1F
China 28.78 13 2.2 1F,2F,B
generate electricity in 1960 when the Pacific Gas & Electric Turkey 21 1 21 1F
Company (PG&E) inaugurated an 11 MW Geysers Unit 1. Portugal (Azores) 16 5 3.2 1F,H
This small plant later earned the designation as a Mechanical Russia 11 1 11 1F
Engineering Historical Landmark. The U.S. has become the Ethiopia 8.5 2 4.2 H
France (Guadeloupe) 4 1 4 2F
largest generator of geothermal electricity with an installed Argentina 0.7 1 0.7 B
capacity of 2850 MW [2,3]. A summary of the state of world- Australia 0.4 1 0.4 B
wide installed geothermal electric generating capacity is given Thailand 0.3 1 0.3 B
in Table 1 [4]. Total 8147.78
1
DS=Dry Steam, 1F=Single Flash, 2F=Double Flash, B=Binary, H=Hybrid
Note: A unit is defined as a turbine-driven generator. Data from Ref. [4] and various other sources.
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
The rest of this article will cover the basic geothermal DIRECT-STEAM PLANTS
energy conversion systems with regard to their design, ther- Direct-Steam plants are used at vapor-dominated (or dry
modynamic performance, and economics. It draws heavily steam) reservoirs. Dry, saturated or slightly superheated steam
on a recent encyclopedic contribution by the author to the is produced from wells. The steam carries noncondensable
Second Edition of the McGraw-Hill Standard Handbook of gases of variable concentration and composition. Steam from
Powerplant Engineering [5]; the interested reader is referred several wells is transmitted by pipeline to the powerhouse
to this source for more details than can fit in this introductory where it is used directly in turbines of the impulse/reaction
article. Although much of the contents of this article are gen- type. Between each wellhead and the plant one finds in-line
erally applicable to geothermal powerplants of any size, the centrifugal cyclone separators situated near the wellhead to
specific characteristics of small plants will be of particular remove particulates such as dust and rock bits, drain pots (traps)
interest. along the pipelines to remove condensation which forms dur-
SINGLE-FLASH PLANTS
A simplified flow diagram of a Single-Flash plant is
shown in Figure 2 [5].
BINARY PLANTS
Figure 2. Simplified flow diagram for a single-flash geo- In a Binary plant, the thermal energy of the geofluid is
thermal power plant (5). transferred via a heat exchanger to a secondary working fluid
for use in a fairly conventional Rankine cycle. The geofluid
The two-phase flow from the well(s) is directed hori- itself does not contact the moving parts of the power plant,
zontally and tangentially into a vertical cylindrical pressure thus minimizing, if not eliminating, the adverse effects of ero-
vessel, the cyclone separator. The liquid tends to flow sion. Binary plants may be advantageous under certain condi-
circumferentially along the inner wall surface while the vapor tions such as low geofluid temperatures, say, less than about
moves to the top where it is removed by means of a vertical 150 C (300 F), or geofluids with high dissolved gases or high
standpipe. The design shown is called a bottom-outlet separa- corrosion or scaling potential. The latter problems are usually
tor and is extremely simple, having no moving parts. Baffles exacerbated when the geothermal liquid flashes to vapor as
and guide vanes are sometimes used to improve the segrega- typically occurs in a self-flowing production well. Downwell
tion of the two phases. A ball check valve provides insurance pumps located below the flash level can prevent flashing by
against a slug of liquid entering the steam line during an upset. raising the pressure above the saturation pressure for the fluid
The steam transmission lines are essentially the same as in the temperature [14]. Most binary plants operate on pumped wells
case of dry steam plants and are usually fitted with traps. and the geofluid remains in the liquid phase throughout the
Table 3
Design Conditions for Selected Geothermal Steam Plants (after [5])
Plant Valle Secolo, Unit 2 Miravalles, Unit I Beowawe
Location Larderello, Italy Guanacaste, Costa Rica Beowawe, Nevada
Start-up year 1992 1994 1985
Type Direct steam Single flash Double flash
Rating, MW 57 55 16.7
Output power, MW-net 52.2 52 16.0
Geofluid flow rate, kg/s 111.1 759.5 157.5
Resource temperature, C 204 230 215
Turbine:
inlet pressure, kPa: primary 550.3 600.0 421.4
secondary 93.1
inlet temperature, C: primary 200-210 159 146
secondary 99
mass flow/turbine, kg/s: primary 111.1 114.0 22.3
secondary 12.2
exhaust pressure, mm Hg 59.94 93.73 33.02
last stage blade height, mm na 584 635
speed, rpm 3,000 3,600 3,600
Condenser:
type DC DC DC
heat duty, MWt 245 243 71.8
CW flow, kg/s 2,785 4,234 1,474
NCG system:
steam-jet ejector no yes yes
stages 2 1
steam flow, kg/s 4.06 na
compressor yes yes no
stages 2 4
power, MW 1.4 0.4
vacuum pump no no yes
Plant performance:
SGC-net, kg/MWh 7,666 52,572 35,437
hu , %: gross 62.9 31.2 48.7
Net 57.6 29.5 46.7
ECONOMICS OF GEOTHERMAL POWER rect Steam plants (all at The Geyers) do not include field de-
The costs associated with building and operating a geo- velopment costs but cover only the powerplant. The other fig-
thermal powerplant vary widely and depend on such factors ures (all estimated) include both field and plant costs.
WHAT ARE SMALL GEOTHERMAL POWER Well spacing must take reservoir character-
PROJECTS? istics into consideration, and so can not be
According to Vimmerstedt (1998 - and this Bulletin), optimized for power plant size alone.
small geothermal power projects are less than 5 MWe. Oth-
ers (Entingh, et al., 1994a and b, and Pritchett 1998a) refer to Small units are also found at larger sites
a range of 100 to 1000 kWe as small. In this article, we where they were used during early phases
will use the 5 MWe definition as small. of site development. Placing a small plant
Small power projects, often called village power and at the site of a larger anticipated develop-
sometimes as off-grid power, can serve rural people in de- ment supplies electricity during develop-
veloping countries; since, this market may be best served by ment of the field [and can provide a return
many small generating units, rather than fewer larger ones. on investment sooner. Also, if the initial
For examples, at 50 watts per household for lighting, 1 MWe electricity demand at the site is low, then
could serve 20,000 households (Cabraal, et al., 1996). Entingh, the small-scale plant can be fully utilized
et al., (1994a) estimates that the demand for electric capacity until a larger one is justified. When there
per person at off-gird sites will range from 0.2 kW in less- is a problem in resource development, a
developed areas to 1.0 kW or higher in developed areas. Thus, smaller plant can utilize resource confir-
a 100-kWe plant could serve 100 to 500 people, and a 1,000- mation holes, or shallow, less expensive
kWe plant would serve 1,000 to 5,000 people. However, one wells]. Small systems at large sites have
of the main problems with small geothermal power projects is advantages over remote ones in that the
that they are unlikely to obtain financing due to high cost per financing is often secured for the entire
installed kW and low rate of return; thus, these remote projects project. The resource is confirmed for
often must be subsidized by the government to encourage lo- that project, operation and maintenance
cal economic development. infrastructures are readily available, a grid
Alternative power at remote locations, which is usually either exists or is constructed for the large
provided by diesel generations, can be much more expensive project, and sufficient base load is avail-
per kWh than geothermal, as the fuel transportation costs are able.
high. For example at Fang, Thailand, a 300-kWe geothermal
binary plant supplies power from 6.3 to 8.6 cents/kWh, com- A critical distinction between the applica-
pared to the alternative of diesel generators at 22 to 25 cents/ tion of small geothermal plants within a lar-
kWh (Schochet, 1998). ger site and application in a remote area
Small geothermal power units are already common, is the load-following ability of small geo-
though not always in remote applications. They are some- thermal systems. Although geothermal
times used within larger geothermal developments, either be- plants can follow loads, this ability is limit-
cause they are cost effective, because they fit with incremen- ed and cost of a reduced-load factor is
tal development plans, or because they were installed early in high because much of the cost of the geo-
a sites development. thermal power plant is capital cost. Re-
mote areas and small grids generally have
According to Vimmerstedt (1998): low base loads, so the contrast between
achievable capacity factors (low cost per
Small geothermal units are used in larger kWh) for large versus small grid applica-
developments for several reasons. First, a tions is major.
modular approach can be less expensive
overall because of shipping and handling costs. TECHNOLOGY FOR SMALL GEOTHERMAL
Second, small modules increase reliability and POWER SYSTESM
improve flexibility when adapting to changing
well and system performance. Third, a small, Vimmerstedt (1998) reports:
remote well is sometimes located so far from
other wells that a power plant sized to the re- The most likely technology choices for
mote well costs less than transmission pipes small geothermal power plants are flash
for the fluid [to a larger centralized plant]. steam and binary cycle. Dry steam systems
1. The plants are very transportable. For 100 to 300 11. Critical backup need is estimated to range from one
kWe plants, the entire plant, including the cooling to five percent of the installed geothermal capacity.
system, can be built on a single skid that fits in a The very high availability factors for geothermal
standard trans-ocean container. systems, on the order of 98 percent, substantially
Figure 3. Amedee Geothermal Venture 2-MWe binary 3. TADs Enterprises binary plants units No. 1 and
plant. No. 2, located at Wabuska, Nevada, were placed in
operation in 1984 and 1987 respectively (Fig. 6). They
2. Wineagle Developers binary plant (Fig. 4), also lo- are rated at 750 kWe and 800 kWe, and are supplied
cated in northern California near Susanville was heat from two geothermal wells at 220oF (104oC),
placed in operation in 1985. The plant consists of pumped at 850 and 950 gpm (54 and 60 l/s) respec-
two binary units of total gross capacity of 750 kWe tively. They use water cooled condensers fed from a
and a net output of 600 kWe. A 1,300-ft (400-m) cooling pond. The operation is automatic and un-
deep well is pumped to produce 1000 gpm (63 l/s) of manned, with maintenance only as required. The units
230oF (110oC) water. The spent fluid at 1,000 ppm were manufactured and supplied by ORMAT Inter-
total dissolved solids, is disposed on the surface. It national, Inc. of Sparks, Nevada.
has an availability of 98%, a gross efficiency of 8.5%
and a capacity factor of 109%. The units were de-
signed by Barber Nichols Engineering Company of
Arvada, Colorado and the installed cost was about
$2,100/kWe (Nichols, 1986).
The resource was acquired by Empire L.P. in 1996. 6. Soda Lake Geothermal Power Plant No. 1, Fallon,
The cooler production wells were then shut-in and Nevada, commenced generating power in 1988. This
additional geothermal fluid supplied at 306oF (152oC) is a 3.6-MWe binary power plant comprising three
from a new well. A three-cell cooling tower was also ORMAT OECs modular units (Fig. 9). The power
added which resulted in the net output increasing to plant operates on a liquid dominated resource at 370oF
3.85 MWe in 1998. The power plant is, thus, operat- (188oC). The power plant was designed and built on
ing above design capacity, and produced almost 18 a turnkey basis by ORMAT, is owned by Constella-
GWh in 1997. The onion/garlic dehydration plant is tion Developments, Inc. (CDI) and ORMAT Energy
still operating at full capacity using the same re- Systems, Inc. (OESI), and is operated by OESI, with
source. power sold to Sierra Pacific Power Company SPPC.
The geothermal field was developed by Chevron Re-
5. Cove Fort Geothermal No. 1, Sulphurdale, Utah, was sources. The units are water cooled and produce a
commissioned in 1985 with a steam turbine added in net generated power of 2.75 MWe (Krieger, 1989).
1988. This 4.8-MWe power plant is comprised of Two hundred tons of geothermal fluid per hour are
four ORMAT Energy Converter (OEC) modular units delivered to the plant. The plant output voltage is
and one back-pressure steam turbine. The OEC units 43.8 kV.
operate on condensing steam from the exhaust of the
back pressure steam turbine. The four modular bi-
nary units, with a capacity of 0.8 MWe each or 3.2
MWe total, are housed in a single building which also
contains the computer unit controls (Fig. 8) (GRC,
1985). The binary units operate on dry steam from
two production wells producing from 1,200 feet (365
m). The combined production from both wells is in
excess of 100 tons per hour. The geothermal steam is
at 280oF ( 138oC) and the units are water cooled. The
field and plant were developed by Mother Earth In-
dustries and the city of Provo Municipal Utility is the
power purchaser. Real-time system and operating data
are received by the city of Provos main control cen-
ter, facilitating remote performance monitoring and
service diagnosing.
7. Fang Geothermal binary power plant, located near (Cuellar, et al., 1991). In addition, the long overland
Egat, Thailand, was commissioned in 1989. This is a transportation of the equipment from the port of ar-
single-module 300-kWe plant that has a water cooled rival in China also called for special design of the
condenser with once-through flow (Fig. 10 - after equipment packaging for over land transport. Elec-
Ramingwong and Lertsrimongkol, 1995). The net trical and control equipment had to be especially de-
power output varies with the season from 150 to 250 signed to withstand the rigorous environmental con-
kWe (175 kWe average). This is a multipurpose ditions at the site. The plant was provided by ORMAT
project which in addition to electricity production, the International, Inc (Fig. 11).
geothermal fluid also provides hot water for refrig-
eration (cold storage), crop drying and a spa. The
artesian well provides approximately 130 gpm (8.3 l/
s) of 241oF (116o) water. The well requires chemical
cleaning to remove scale about every two weeks. Plant
availability of 94% and the estimated power cost is
from 6.3 to 8.6 cents/kWh. This is very competitive
with diesel generated electricity which runs 22 to 25
cents/kWh. Plant was supplied by ORMAT
International, Inc. of Sparks, Nevada.
18. CGRG (phase A), binary plant, island of San Figure 17. Pico Vermelho 3-MWe flash steam plant,
Miguel, Azores, Portugal, was installed in 1994. The Azores.
units consist of two dual ORMAT turbo-generators
of 2.5 MWe each, with auxiliaries, transformers, net power output was maintained near 4.8 MWe
switch gear, emergency diesel generators, fire fight- (Ponte, 1998). However, well production rates and
ing system and a connection line to the grid. The plant output began to decline, indicating that wellbore
organic Rankine cycle uses normal pentane as the scaling was restricting flow in both wells. Therefore,
working fluid. Two wells, CL-1 and CL-2, for the the wells were cleaned out in early 1995, using a drill-
project are about 400oF (200 oC) at 5,000 feet (1,500 ing rig. With both wells back in production, the plant
m). The larger well, CL-2, delivers 152 tons/hour at was operated at a net output near 4.4 MWe. Well
a wellhead pressure of 116 psi (8 bar) with a steam production decline in mid-1995 required a new clean
flow of 39 tons/hour. Until the middle of 1994, the out; thus, after this operation, a scale inhibitor system
tary base. The heating plant was built by the National used in the binary units and finally rejected at 77oF
Energy Authority in 1974 and in 1976-77, a prelimi- (25 oC) to the heat exchange column (Figure 20).
nary power plant of 3 MWe was commissioned. In
1978, the first 1-MWe turbogenerator was commis- 22. Integrated geothermal power plant, Aluto Langano,
sioned. Both of these units no longer are in opera- Ethiopia, was synchronized to the Ethiopian national
tion. In the period of 1989 to 1993, seven binary power grid in 1998. This is the first geothermal power
power units totaling 8.4 MWe were commissioned. plant using integrated stream and binary power tech-
Three 1.2-MWe binary ORMAT water cooled tur- nology in Africa. The plant consists of one 3.9-MWe
bines were installed in 1989, utilizing steam which ORMAT combined cycle unit operating on geother-
had previously flowed unharnessed from the chim- mal steam and one 4.6-MWe ORMAT air-cooled OEC
neys of the power station. These units produced an operating on both geothermal brine and low-pressure
additional 90 GWh per year, including about 15 GWh steam (Fig. 21). The high pressure steam is at 174 psi
for the station. In 1993, four additional 1.2-MWe (12 bar) with a temperature of 370oF (188oC) for the
air-cooled binary turbines were put into operation. two-phase geothermal fluid at 43.7 tons/hour (30.6
This raised the installed power at the station to 16.4 tons/hour steam), and the low pressure fluid is at 72.5
MWe with production at 110 GWh per year, includ- psi (5 bar) with a temperature of 305oF (152oC) at
ing 17 GWh for the plants own use. Thus, 8.4 MWe 120.5 tons/hour brine (28 tons/hr steam). The 8.5-
power is produced from binary units and 8 MWe from MWe geothermal power plant was constructed by
a single-flash steam turbine. The heat rejected from ORMAT under a turn-key EPC contract, and is owned
the water-cooled condenser of the ORMAT units is and operated by the Ethiopian Electric Light and
used to preheat the district heating water and then dis- Power Authority (ORMAT literature).
29. Flash power plant, La Primavera, Jalisco, Mexico, 31. Binary geothermal power plant, Copahue, Neuguen,
was commissioned 1997. This unit, a single flash back Argentina, came on line in 1988. This was a 670-kW
pressure plant, is built and supplied by Ansaldo- ORMAT OEC demonstration plant that uses
Makrotek and uses well U-1 (GRC database and isopentane as the working fluid (Fig. 25). This was
Gerado Hiriart, CFE). The resource temperature is the first geothermal plant located in South American
672oF (356oC) and the inlet temperature is 346oF and was at 6,560 feet (2,000 m) on the slopes of the
(174oC) at a pressure of 125 psi (8.6 bar). The well Andes in western Argentina. It was a water-cooled
depth is 9,794 feet (2,985 m). The approximate total unit using low pressure steam at 331 to 340oF (166 to
project cost was US$ 6 million. There is also a report 171oC). A well supples 6.7 tons/hour of saturated
of a second 5-MWe plant installed; but, no data are steam with 8% non-condensable gases from a well
available (Quijano-Leon and Guterrex Negrin, 1995). depth of 3,280 feet (1,000 m). The annual energy
production was 3.5 GWh/year (Pesce, 1995). The
Two 5.0-MWe plants are also being installed at the plant went off-line in 1996 as it could not compete
Las Tres Virgenes geothermal field on Baja with natural gas which is an abundant and cheap re-
California (Cadenas and De la Torres, 1998). source in the region (Pesce, 1998).
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Special thanks to Dan Schochet, Ormat International,
Inc.; Ken Nichols, Barber-Nichols, Inc.; Gary Shulman, Geo-
thermal Power Company, Inc.; and Yuri Esaki, Fuji Electric
Corp., Ltd., for allowing us to use technical data, drawings
and photographs for this article.
REFERENCES
Burns, K. L.; Creelman, R. A.; Buckingham, N. W. and H. J.
Harrington, 1995. Geothermal Development in
Australia, Proceedings of the World Geothermal
Figure 26. ORMAT 300-kWe unit at Lakeview, OR. Congress, 1995, International Geothermal Associa-
tion, pp. 45 - 50.
Cuellar, G.; Wu Fangzhi and D. Rosing, 1991. The Nagqu, Hiriart Lebert, G.; CFE, Mexico. Input into GRC databook.
Tibet, Binary Geothermal Power Plant, at 4,500
Meters Above Sea Level, Proceedings of the 13th Jaud, P. and D. Lamethe, 1985. The Bouillante Geothermal
New Zealand Geothermal Workshop, Geothermal Power-Plant, Guadeloupe, Geothermics, Vol. 14,
Institute, Auckland, pp. 57 - 61. No. 2/3, Pergamon Press Ltd. Oxford, pp. 197-205.
Culver, G. G., 1987. Performance and Evaluation of Ormat Koutinas, G. A., 1990. Status of High Enthalpy Geother-
Unit at Wabuska, Nevada, Electric Power Research mal Resources in Greece, Geothermal Resources
Institute Proceedings, Vol. 10, (EPRI AP-5059-SR) Council Transactions, Vol. 14, Part 1, Davis, CA,
Palo Alto, CA, pp. (4) 3-11. pp. 87 - 95.
Entingh, D. J., 1991. Geothermal Cost of Power Model, Krieger, H. R., 1989. Innovative Geothermal Power Plants
IM-GEO Version 3.05, Meridian Corporation, - The Solution to Geothermal Resource Constraints
Alexandria, VA. the Ormat Way, Proceedings of the Geothermal
Resources Council, Vol. 13, Davis, CA, pp. 639-
Entingh, D. J.; Easwaran, E. and L. McLarty, 1994a. Small 644.
Geothermal Electric Systems for Remove Power,
Geothermal Resources Council Bulletin, Vol. 23, Lienau, P. J. (editor), 1996. Sudurnes Regional Heating
No. 10 (November), Davis, CA, pp. 331-338. Corp., Geo-Heat Center Quarterly Bulletin ,
Vol. 17, No. 4 (Nov.), Klamath Falls, OR,
Entingh, D. J.; Easwaran, E. and L. McLarty, 1994b. Small pp. 14-16.
Geothermal Electric Systems for Remote Powering,
Geothermal Resources Council Transactions, Vol. 18, Lund, J. W. and P. J. Lienau, 1994. Onion and Garlic
Davis, CA, pp. 39-45. Dehydration in the San Emidio Desert, Nevada,
Geo-Heat Center Bulletin, Vol 15, No. 4,
Esaki, Y., 1998. Small-Scale Geothermal Power Genera- Klamath Falls, OR, pp. 19-21.
tion - Flash Cycles, notes presented at the Geother-
mal Off-Grid Workshop in Reno, Geothermal Moskvicheva, V. N. and A. E. Popov, 1970. Geothermal
Resources Council, Davis, 12 p. Power Plant on the Paratunka River, Geothermics,
Special Issue 2, Pisa, pp. 1567-1571.
Forsha, M. D. and K. E. Nichols, 1997. Power Plants for
Rural Electrification, World Renewable Energy Nichols, K. E., 1986. Wellhead Power Plants and Operat-
Congress IV: Renewable Energy, Energy ing Experience at Wendel Hot Springs, Geothermal
Efficiency and the Environment, Renewable Resources Council Transactions, Vol. 10, Davis,
Energy, Vol. 10, No. 2/3, p. 409. CA, pp. 341-346.
Forsha, M., 1994. Low Temperature Geothermal Flash Ohkubo, S and Y. Esaki, 1995. Multiple Use of Geother-
Steam Plant, Geothermal Resources Council mal Energy at Kirishima International Hotel,
Transactions, Vol. 18, Davis, CA, pp. 515-522. Proceeding of the World Geothermal Congress,
1995, International Geothermal Association, pp.
Freeston, D. H., 1991. Small Geothermal Power Plant 2257 - 2261.
Developments, Proceedings of the 13 t h New
Zealand Geothermal Workshop, Geothermal Pesce, A., 1995. Argentina Country Update, Proceedings
Institute, Auckland, pp. 285 - 296. of the World Geothermal Congress, 1995, Interna-
tional Geothermal Association, pp. 35 - 43.
Fytikas, M.; Dalambakis, P.; Karkoulias, V. and D.
Mendrinos, 1995. Geothermal Exploration and Pesce, A., 1998. Direct Uses of Geothermal Energy in
Development Activities in Greece During 1990- Argentina, Geothermal Resources Council
1994, Proceedings of the World Geothermal Transactions, Vol. 22, Davis, CA, pp. 269 - 273.
Congress, 1995, International Geothermal
Association, pp. 119 - 127.
Ramingwong, T. and S. Lertsrimongkol, 1995. Update on Wang Ji-Yang, 1998. Current and Future Develop-
Geothermal Development in Thailand Proceedings ment of Geothermal Energy in China, Geotermia,
of the World Geothermal Congress, 1995, Interna- Vol. 14, No. 3, Revista Mexicana de Geoenergia,
tional Geothermal Association, pp. 337-340. Morelia, Mich., Mexico, pp. 143-145.
Ryan , G. P., 1982. Binary Generators - Youll Wonder Wang Ji-Yang, Chen Mo-Xiang, Xiong Liang-Ping and
Where the Power Went, Geo-Heat Center Quart- Pang Zhong-He, 1995. Geothermal Resources
erly Bulletin, Vol. 7, No. 2, Klamath Falls, OR, and Development in China, Proceedings of the
pp. 21-23.. World Geothermal Congress, 1995, International
Geothermal Association, pp. 75 - 80.
Ryan, G. P., 1983. Binary Generators - Tweaking More
Bangs Per BTU, Geothermal Resources Council
Transactions, Vol. 7, Davis, CA., pp. 41-46.
needed for small geothermal projects because they face spe- * HRWKHUPDO /RZ& RVW
small size. One such challenge is the relatively high transac- 'L HVHO/ RZ &RVW
tional or economic feasibility for remote applications.
&DSDFLW \ N:
TECHNOLOGIES FOR SMALL GEOTHERMAL Figure 1. Cost of diesel generation and geothermal
PROJECTS generation vs. capacity.
Small geothermal power plants, either binary or flash
steam, can be manufactured and can be operated in remote FINDING GEOTHERMAL RESOURCES FOR
areas; but, each type of technology enjoys different advan- SMALL PROJECTS
tages and faces different challenges in this application. For An effective, economical exploration program is essen-
example, binary plants can typically operate with lower tem- tial for successful small geothermal projects. When charac-
perature resources that are more common, and this could help terizing resources for small geothermal projects, the develop-
a small project hold down drilling costs; however, greater sys- ers must inexpensively identify resources of sufficient qual-
tem complexity can complicate operation and maintenance. ity, in terms of temperature with depth and chemistry, to per-
The flash steam plants simpler and less expensive design is mit a group of economically viable projects. An exploration
especially welcome in a small system. However, the flash plan for small geothermal plant sites should pool exploration
steam plants are typically used with higher temperature re- risks across many small projects and identify a group of
sources that could be more expensive to obtain than lower projects that will be logistically viable when bundled. Small
temperature ones. Using a flash steam plant with a lower tem- projects cannot afford high drilling costs, such as the $1-3
perature resource might not be cost effiective because of re- million per well spent during exploration for large projects.
duced efficiency. Finally, the complexity of managing scale Drilling slim holes for exploration and production or using
desposition is likely to impose greater costs in flash steam smaller, more portable drill rigs are promising methods to re-
plants than in binary plants. duce costs. One can use existing data to help small geother-
The credibility of small geothermal projects must be mal projects achieve low exploration costs; but, it should be
strengthened with lenders. Both private- and public-sector understood that exploration goals for large projects are differ-
investors require extensive documentation of technology per- ent from goals for small projects. In some cases, existing wells
formance, operation and maintenance requirements, and other could be considered.
project justification materials. This information could be de-
veloped into model documents that would help project devel- MARKETS FOR SMALL GEOTHERMAL
opers obtain capitol investment. Developing such model docu- PROJECTS
ments could help identify technology or data issues that need Access to better energy technology could improve rural
to be addressed. peoples lives, and small geothermal plants could be one of
Figure 2.
30 GHC BULLETIN, JUNE 1999
megawatts, the largest loads are on St. Vincent, St. Lucia and The pressing needs for freshwater on all the islands
Dominica, where 10-20 MW is or will soon be needed. Next except Dominica and St. Lucia. If more economical
in size is Grenada where 8-12 MW could be used, and finally electricity were to become available on the dry is-
come all the rest of the islands whose current needs range from lands, large reverse osmosis installations could be built
2 to 5 MW. and operated to alleviate periodic water shortages,
In virtually all of the islands, generation, transmission rationing and the need to depend on rainfall collec-
and distribution costs (including all soft costs) range between tion in cisterns.
$0.12 and $0.15 per kWh. It is important to note that while
none of the utility companies have an accurate accounting of Some negative aspects or obstacles regarding initiation
their real costs, it seems very likely that geothermally-gener- of Caribbean small geothermal power projects are:
ated power could be provided for a lower cost than the utilities
now pay in-house. In many countries, O&M-caused brown- The difficulty in financing small (<$50 million)
outs or power outages are all too common and are reportedly projects,
on the increase.
Careful, realistic calculations of planned geothermal
project economics and of current true power costs must be
The relatively low rate of return likely on small Car-
ibbean geothermal power projects, and the associated
made. Assuming that they confirm the economic viability of a
need to minimize exploration expenditures which
planned project, they will be critically important in convinc-
unavoidably will increase the risk level perceived by
ing governments and utility officials that geothermal power
potential investors,
will be less expensive and more reliable than their traditional
generating systems.
The speckled history of fiscal responsibility on the
CARIBBEAN GEOTHERMAL POWER PROJECT part of governments of several of these islands and
PROS AND CONS their consequent low-international credit rating,
The conditions favoring small geothermal power devel-
opments in the Lesser Antilles include: The marginal solvency of many of the national utility
companies, and the inability or unwillingness of the
Good to excellent chances for discovery of economi- national governments to guarantee payments by their
cally-viable geothermal resources, utilities for power purchased, and
A generally positive attitude by all of the national The common occurrence of destructive hurricanes in
governments toward the exploitation of their indig- the region, and the recent experiences with damage
enous resources, due to the volcanic eruptions on Monstserrat.
A growing realization that power generation by enti- GEOTHERMAL RESOURCE INDICIA SUMMARIES
ties other than the government can be simultaneously Presented below, in descending order of development
beneficial to the host nation and to independent power potential, are brief descriptions of geothermal indicia on each
producers, of the 11 volcanic islands: