Comparative Analysis of Alternative Means for Removing Noncondensable Gases from Flashed-Steam Geothermal Power Plants:April 1999 - March 2000
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
TY - DATA
AB - 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.
AU - Hallett, KC
A2 - Laboratory, National Renewable Energy
DB - Open Energy Data Initiative (OEDI)
DP - Open EI | National Renewable Energy Laboratory
DO -
KW - Geothermal data
KW - NREL
KW - geothermal
KW - solar
LA - English
DA - 2014/11/25
PY - 2014
PB - National Renewable Energy Laboratory
T1 - Comparative Analysis of Alternative Means for Removing Noncondensable Gases from Flashed-Steam Geothermal Power Plants:April 1999 - March 2000
UR - https://data.openei.org/submissions/173
ER -
Hallett, KC, and National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Comparative Analysis of Alternative Means for Removing Noncondensable Gases from Flashed-Steam Geothermal Power Plants:April 1999 - March 2000. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 25 November, 2014, Open Energy Data Initiative (OEDI). https://data.openei.org/submissions/173.
Hallett, K., & Laboratory, N. (2014). Comparative Analysis of Alternative Means for Removing Noncondensable Gases from Flashed-Steam Geothermal Power Plants:April 1999 - March 2000. [Data set]. Open Energy Data Initiative (OEDI). National Renewable Energy Laboratory. https://data.openei.org/submissions/173
Hallett, KC and National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Comparative Analysis of Alternative Means for Removing Noncondensable Gases from Flashed-Steam Geothermal Power Plants:April 1999 - March 2000. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, November, 25, 2014. Distributed by Open Energy Data Initiative (OEDI). https://data.openei.org/submissions/173
@misc{OEDI_Dataset_173,
title = {Comparative Analysis of Alternative Means for Removing Noncondensable Gases from Flashed-Steam Geothermal Power Plants:April 1999 - March 2000},
author = {Hallett, KC and 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.},
url = {https://data.openei.org/submissions/173},
year = {2014},
howpublished = {Open Energy Data Initiative (OEDI), National Renewable Energy Laboratory, https://data.openei.org/submissions/173},
note = {Accessed: 2025-04-24}
}
Details
Data from Nov 25, 2014
Last updated Nov 25, 2014
Submitted Nov 25, 2014
Organization
National Renewable Energy Laboratory
Contact
KC Hallett
