"Womp Womp! Your browser does not support canvas :'("

Comparative Analysis of Alternative Means for Removing Noncondensable Gases from Flashed-Steam Geothermal Power Plants:April 1999 - March 2000

In curation License 

This dataset corresponds to the final report on a screening study to compare six methods of removing noncondensable gases from direct-use geo-thermal 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.
The report is available from NREL's publication database.

Citation Formats

National Renewable Energy Laboratory. (2014). Comparative Analysis of Alternative Means for Removing Noncondensable Gases from Flashed-Steam Geothermal Power Plants:April 1999 - March 2000 [data set]. Retrieved from https://data.openei.org/submissions/173.
Export Citation to RIS
Hallett, KC, Laboratory, National Renewable Energy. Comparative Analysis of Alternative Means for Removing Noncondensable Gases from Flashed-Steam Geothermal Power Plants:April 1999 - March 2000. United States: N.p., 25 Nov, 2014. Web. https://data.openei.org/submissions/173.
Hallett, KC, Laboratory, National Renewable Energy. Comparative Analysis of Alternative Means for Removing Noncondensable Gases from Flashed-Steam Geothermal Power Plants:April 1999 - March 2000. United States. https://data.openei.org/submissions/173
Hallett, KC, Laboratory, National Renewable Energy. 2014. "Comparative Analysis of Alternative Means for Removing Noncondensable Gases from Flashed-Steam Geothermal Power Plants:April 1999 - March 2000". United States. https://data.openei.org/submissions/173.
@div{oedi_173, title = {Comparative Analysis of Alternative Means for Removing Noncondensable Gases from Flashed-Steam Geothermal Power Plants:April 1999 - March 2000}, author = {Hallett, KC, Laboratory, National Renewable Energy.}, abstractNote = {This dataset corresponds to the final report on a screening study to compare six methods of removing noncondensable gases from direct-use geo-thermal 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.
The report is available from NREL's publication database.}, doi = {}, url = {https://data.openei.org/submissions/173}, journal = {}, number = , volume = , place = {United States}, year = {2014}, month = {11}}

Details

Data from Nov 25, 2014

Last updated Nov 25, 2014

Submitted Nov 25, 2014

Organization

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

Contact

KC Hallett

Authors

KC Hallett

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

Research Areas

Share

Submission Downloads