Proceedings of the 3rd Applied Science for Technology Innovation, ASTECHNOVA 2014

International Energy Conference

Yogyakarta, Indonesia, 13-14 August 2014

A Computation Module for Optimizing Electricity Production in a

Single Flash-Typed Geothermal Power Plant

Katherin Indriawati, Gunawan Nugroho, Bambang L. Widjiantoro, Totok R. Biyanto

Engineering Physics Department, ITS
Kampus ITS Keputih Sukolilo, Surabaya, Indonesia
katherin@ep.its.ac.id; gunawan@ep.its.ac.id

ABSTRACT
The method for the determination of optimum operating condition of geothermal powerplant is
developed in this paper. The purpose of the method is to develop a computation module in order to find
maximum electricity production. The optimum process conditions are then defined according to the
change of fluid properties in the wellhead. This will increase the powerplant efficiency or maintain the
existing condition.
The research is conducted in the Kamojang Geothermal Powerplant in West Java, Indonesia. The
results show that the building model has the deviation level at 0.85% for thermodynamics model and
0.68% for load calculation. The optimization of net power increases the net output at 1.6 MW (2.6%) and
lift up the load power at 300 kW (0.5%) compare to the measured net output and net load power.

KEYWORDS: Geothermal power plant, single flash, optimization, computation module

1 INTRODUCTION

Geothermal power plant (GPP) which has been built and operated in Indonesia is a single-flash
type which is the most widely used technology today. According DiPippo (2008), in July 2004 there have
been 135 single flash steam plant units operating in 18 countries. This is due to the ease and reliability of
this type of plant. In Indonesia, the entire GPPs are built by using this technology.
The operating parameters of a single flash system determine the efficiency of the production
electric power. Thus, the efficiency can be maintained at its optimum condition if the operating conditions
in the system are in optimal values. Therefore, to obtain the capacity of electricity with the optimum
power, optimization technique is required in the determination of the production process parameters.
There are previous researches had been conducted on the optimization of GPP. Siregar (2004)
have done a power optimization study of the GPP for PLTP Sibayak, North Sumatra. Optimization on the
research carried out for 3 new wells to be built at the plant, by determining the optimum pressure for the
technical operation of the system. He analyze that the output from the turbine increases with lower
condensing pressure as does the power consumption of the plant. Consequently, low condensing pressure
will reduce the output from the power plant.
In addition, Swandaru (2006) consider the design of thermodynamic analysis in Patuha, West Java.
The results conclude that with the current supply from the existing nine wells, the turbine can produce a
power output of 56,262 kW which is generated by a 6 bar separator pressure and a 0.08 bar-a condenser
pressure. To obtain optimum output power and reduce equipment size, it is suggested thatthe power plant
be designed using 6.5 bar separator pressure and a 0.1 bar-a condenser pressure.
However, the determination of the optimum conditions have not been performed for various cases
of wellhead enthalpy values (production wells). This problem has been discussed by Indriawati et al.
331
(2013) who concluded that selecting the variable conditions of the process depends on the dry level of
geofluid. However, determination of optimum conditions in their paper is only done based on the graph
analysis, instead of computational optimization techniques. Therefore, the computation module for
electricity production optimization in a single flash is developed in this research to fill the gap.
The calculation module described in this paper aims to facilitate the single operator flash power
plant in determining optimum process conditions due to change of the geothermal fluid production wells.
This is to maintain the efficiency of the electricity production process or even to improve the results. The
research activities contain three stages, modeling and validation, optimization, and the optimization
module programming.

2 METHODOLOGY
2.1 Process Production Modelling
The process production of GPP is modelled based on thermodynamic laws and thus resulted in
static models (steady). This step includes determination of any variables that affect the electrical power
value.
The processes undergone by the geofluid are best viewed in a thermodynamic state diagram. A
temperature-entropy diagram for the single-flash plant is shown in Figure1. Geofluid under pressure at
state 1 is flashed. The flashing process is modelled as one at constant enthalpy or isenthalpic process (h1 =
h2).
The total geofluid mass flow rate inside the plant is described in the following equation:
2
 P
m total = m max 1    (1)
 Pci 
where :
m total = wellhead mass flow rate(kg/s)
m max = wellhead maximum mass flow rate (kg/s)
P = wellheadpressure (bar)
Pci = no input flow rate pressure (bar)

Figure 1: Temperature-entropy state diagram for the studied GPP

332
 After the flashing process, state 2, the steam is separated from the brine in the separator. The
separation process is modeled as one at a constant pressure or an isobaric process. Steam from the
separator (state 3) will then pass through a demister for further moisture and solid removal. The mass
fraction of the mixture at state 2, x2 , can be calculated from:
h2  h8
x2 = (2)
h3  h8
where h3 and h8 are the saturated liquid enthalpy and the saturated steam enthalpy at separator pressure.
The saturated steam in the demister outlet (state 4) is sent to a steam turbine-generator group to
produce electricity. The saturated mixture, state 5, is cooled and condensed in a direct contact condenser
which is maintained at a vacuum pressure.
The electrical power developed by the turbine is given by
̇ (3)
where ̇ and are the total wellhead outlet mass flow rate and the turbine efficiency;h4 and h5 are
turbine inlet enthalpy and turbine outlet enthalpy. The enthalpy at turbine outlet, h5, is calculated by
solving:
h4  h5
t = (4)
h4  h5 s
where is the isentropic efficiency of a turbine. Adopting the Baumann rule, the isentropic efficiency for
a turbine operating with wet steam is given by:
x4  x5
t = td (5)
2
with the dry turbine efficiency, may be conservatively assumed to be constant at 85%.
The net power output is calculated by subtracting the power output of the turbine with auxiliary
power consumption. The auxiliary power consumption considered in this paper are from a cooling-water
pump, a vacuum pump for NCG removal and a cooling tower fan.
The power of the vacuum pump is calculated by the following equation:
̇ ( )
( ) [( ) ] (6)

where wg is the weight (%) of the NCG, Ru is the universal gas constant (8.314 kJ/(kmol.K)), Tcond is the
temperature of the condensate in K, is the efficiency of the pump, Mg is the molar mass of the gas,
patm and pcond are the atmospheric and the condenser pressures (bar-a) respectively.
The cold water entering the condenser is at about 24C while the hot water leaving the condenser is
at about 0.7C higher than the condenser temperature. The cooling water mass flow rate is:
̇ (7)

where cp is the specific heat of the cooling water and T1 and T2 are the inlet and outlet temperature of the
cooling water in the condenser respectively.
The dry air mass flow rate is:
̇
̇ (8)

where is the mass of the hot water entering the cooling tower.
333
 To calculate the power of the cooling water pump as well as the cooling tower fan, uses the
equation:
̇
(9)

where ∆p is the drop pressure of the pump/fan (Pa),  is the density of the fluid (cooling water or dry air),
pump and motor are the efficiency of the pump/fan and the motor of the pump/fan.

2.2 Optimization Module

Once the system model is formulated in the modeling phase, the next is to use the mathematical
model in the optimization. Optimization of electrical power production of GPP is done by determining the
optimum value of the production process (called the process variable). The variation of simulated process
variables is conducted to obtain the optimum model output of GPP. In addition, constraints are applied
when calculating the output of the production process for a GPP considering the physical limitations and
assumptions.
At this stage, the initial step is to lower the objective function because the target of this
optimization is to get maximum power from production process, then the net power output is chosen as
one of the terms in the objective function. The other terms of the objective function is for minimizing the
power consumption load (auxiliary power). For this purpose, the objective function in this research is:
 = Wnet – kWaux (10)
where k is a constant which can be 0, 1 or 2 depends on the power load cost calculation. The value of k =
0 indicates that the applied objective function is the net power. The value of k 0 is intended to
accommodate cases where the selected net power decreased slightly but more power down the load thus
saving production costs associated with the load.
The next step is to determine the candidates of a parameter optimization which can be used as
variables in order to maximize the objective function of Eq. (10). The influence of the parameters will
need to be proven by simulation on the production process. Furthermore, the candidate parameters which
affect the value of the objective function will be defined as the process variable. They have to be
determined in order to optimize the power production under the changes in fluid geothermal resources
and environmental conditions. For this purpose, the output simulation is conducted for several candidate
parameter values, which makes the candidate as input parameters for the model of production systems.
After the optimization variables are established, the next step is to create a software program that
implements optimization techniques numerically. The software is built under Matlab. The first code is the
calculation of the electric power plant based on a model that has been validated. For this purpose, there
are two Simulink programs, the plant output calculation program (for calculation only on the operating
conditions) and the program for optimization calculations (calculations on many operating conditions
using looping algorithm "for").
In this study, the optimization method is applied is due to direct search. This because the objective
function is not in the analytical form. The objective function also involves thermodynamic tables in
searching the net energy value of powerplant. Thus it would be difficult to determine the derivative of the
objective function. This problem is handled by direct search optimization method.
The method of direct search optimization does not require any information about the gradient of the
objective function. Unlike traditional optimization methods which use information about the gradient or
higher-order derivatives to find the optimal points, direct search algorithms search for the set of points
around the current point, looking for a point where the objective function value is smaller or the
maximum compare to the current points.

334
 One technique on direct search optimization method used in this study is the grid search. The steps
are in the following:
a) Determination of the appropriate grid in the design space; in this case the grid is structured as a
combination of optimization variable values that have been set on the previous stage. The range of
values is around the value of the parameter initial design. In this study the number of grid used is 300.
b) Evaluate the objective function at all points of the grid; i.e. at each defined grid point, the objective
function of Eq. (10) is calculated. Thus, this step produces a set of objective functions with various
combinations of process parameters (grid).
c) Applying constraints on the set of objective functions; in this case the inappropriate grid with
predetermined constraints must be removed from the set of solutions to form a new set of objective
functions that meet the constraints.
d) Finding the associated grid points with the maximum value of the objective function; in this case the
search for the maximum value of the objective function on the set generated in step c using MATLAB
functions max. This value is the optimal value of the objective function (in this case is the net power)
and grid which is associated with that value is the recommended process parameters in order to
generate maximum net power.
To facilitate the operator in using optimization methods, the optimization module is made user
friendly by GUI format. GUI is a graphical user interface that facilitates interaction between users in this
case the operator to program the application in this case the optimization module of GPP.

3 RESULTS AND ANALYSIS

3.1 Model Validations
Kamojang geothermal field produces nearly superheated dry steam. Value of the average reservoir
temperature is about 245C and the average reservoir pressure is approximately 35 barg. In this study, it is
assumed that the geothermal fluid is accumulated in the SRS on the verge of saturation or vapor
dominated. For the purposes of simulation models, we apply the enthalpy of the geothermal fluid at 2778
kJ/kg in order to obtain the quality of steam at 0.999. For the case of PLTP Kamojang unit 4, in order to
produce mass flow rate flowing into the unit geofluid, the production is 119.5 kg/s (430 tons/hr) or equal
to the average value of the measurement of the mass flow rate of geothermal fluid from the SRS, then the
selected value mmax = 126 kg/s with Pci = 36 bara. Assuming that there is no pressure drop in the lines of
SRS - separator, then the value of P can be considered equal to the value of the separator pressure.
Based on the measurement data and modeling processes using electricity production with reference
to the state of the temperature-entropy diagram, the calculation results is shown in Table 1. In the
calculation column, separator and condenser temperature is an input variable while the temperature of
cooling water is considered constant at 22C (a constant equal to the value of dry bulb temperature of the
environment). For validation purposes, the same input data with measurement results is used as shown in
measurement column. The result of output (gross) turbine-generator is 63.01 MW. Thus, the deviation of
the thermodynamic models to measured data is only 0.85%. While the results of the calculation of the
electric power load (lossless transformer) is 1.87 MW to power (net) GPPof 61.13 MW. This again shows
that the deviation of calculation load is only 0.68%.
Table 1: Summary of data measurement and calculations
Description Measurement Calculation
Separator temperature (C) 184 184 (input)
Condenser temperature (C) 52 52 (input)
Turbine mass flow rate (kg/s) 119,09 119,60

335
 Turbine input pressure (barg) 10,1 10,9
Output (gross) turbine-generator (MWe) 63,55 63,01 (output)
Cooling water input temperature (C) 24,7 22 (konstanta)
Cooling water mass flow rate (kg/s) 2078 2148
Hot water temperature enter the cooling tower (C) 49,5 49

Based on the validation of Table 1, it can be concluded that the building model is good to represent
the energy conversion process on PLTP Kamojang unit 4. Accordingly, the model can be used in the
calculation of optimization of electrical power production.
Based on the model, there are two parameter candidates which have the opportunity to become the
optimization variable in order to produce maximum power at the PLTP Kamojang unit 4. Both candidates
parameters are: separator pressure and condenser pressure.

3.2 Simulation of Plant Optimization

The calculation of objective function is done based on Eq. (10) by using a value of k = 2, and the
optimization variables such as the pressure in the separator and condenser. The results of the objective
function for the geofluid enthalpy of 2778 kJ/kg is described in Figure 2. It is shown that the maximum
value of the objective function is 57.44 based on 11-bar pressure separator and a condenser pressure of
0.1 bar-a. By using these conditions, the net electrical power output of 63.32 MW or increase 2.19 MW
from electric power calculations using the measurement conditions. If the obtained optimum operating
conditions compare to measured operating conditions (Table 1), i.e. 11.04 bar-pressure separator and 0.14
bar-a condenser pressure, it can be concluded that the measured operating conditions in the PLTP
Kamojang unit 4 is close to the optimum condition.

Figure 2: Objective functions for geofluids entalphy of 2778 kJ/kg

336
3.3 Results of Optimization Module
Three-dimensional image of the objective function with constraints of turbine exhaust steam
quality above 0.85 are shown in Figure 3. It is shown that for any constant condenser pressure, the value
of the objective function with respect to pressure separator is a convex function that has the optimum
value. This is similar to the results of the analysis of gross plant output to variable pressure separator. And
for every constant pressure separator, the value of the objective function with respect to pressure is also a
convex function that has the optimum value. This is in contrast with the results of the analysis of gross
plant output to variable condenser pressure. It can be concluded that the objective function is a convex
function that has a maximum value at the optimum point.
Furthermore, three-dimensional contour in Figure 3 is a feasible set for this optimization problem.
The maximum value is related to the feasible set. And the search results of the maximum objective
function is 58.36 which is at 12.5 bar-a separator pressure and 0.12 bar-a condenser pressure. The
optimum operating conditions produce a net power output of 62.7 MW and an auxiliary power of 2.2
MW.
Comparison of the optimum operating conditions are obtained by the program with the operating
conditions when the measurements are taken. Results show that small differences in pressure separator
(which is about 1.5 bar-a or 13.7% of the measurement) and the condenser pressure (at 0.02 bar-a or
14.3% of the measurement). Thus, it can be concluded that the operating conditions in PLTP Kamojang
unit 4 are close to the optimum condition.

60

55
Objective Function

50

45

40

35
15
0.3
0.25
10 0.2
Condenser Pressure (bar-a) 0.15
0.1 Separator Pressure (bar-a)
5 0.05

Figure 3: Graphic of objective function with constraints of turbine exhaust quality

337
 Figure 4: Main menu display of the optimization module
The optimization module of single flash power production systems is made by utilizing the features
provided by the Matlab GUI. The display of the main menu is shown in Figure 4. There are pictures plant
consisting of several components on the main menu: production wells, separator unit (separator and/or
demister), power house (turbine and generator), cooling unit end (condenser and cooling tower), and
injection wells. If the area of each component is selected, it will display a window that contains the values
of the parameters and process operating conditions running in the component after program execution (by
pressing the "run").
On the main menu, besides the Exit button to quit the calculation module, there are also four
buttons that leads to a new window, namely:
 Process diagram, that leads to a new window on the process diagram of single flash plant.
 Simulink, which deliver to the Simulink program window where the plant output calculation is
executed.
 The process parameters, which delivers a new window containing the values of the process
parameters which are required in order to calculate the output
 Optimization, which deliver to the optimization program window for the calculation of the optimum
operating conditions and output of the plant at optimum conditions.

4 CONCLUSION
Based on the obtained results, it can be concluded that the objective function is (Eqs. (10)) proved
able to accommodate two purposes, namely to maximize the production of electric power and to minimize
the power load. The value of k = 3 in the objective function is proved to be capable of producing a
maximum net power with minimum power auxiliary. The separator and condenser pressure are the
established optimization variables and affecting the objective function in the convex-shaped function with
a maximum value at the optimum operating conditions.

5 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to thank the Directorate General of Higher Education, Ministry of
Education and Culture, which supports research in this paper.

338
REFERENCES
Katherin, I., Bambang, L.W. and Suyanto (2013). “Determination of the Optimum Operating Condition
for Electricity Production Optimization in Geothermal Power Plant Based on Thermodynamic
Analysis”. 1st International Conference on Mechanical Engineering – ICOME 2013, Sept 12-14th,
Mataram, Indonesia.
Parlindungan, H.H.S. (2004). “Optimization of electrical power production process for the Sibayak
Geothermal Field, Indonesia”. Geothermal Training Programme report number 16, United Nations
University, Reykjavík, Iceland
Ronald, D. (2008). Geothermal power plants : Principle, applications, case studies and environmental
impact, 2nd ed. Elsevier, Oxford.
Roy, B.S. (2006). “Thermodynamic analysis of preliminary design of power plant unit I Patuha, West
Java, Indonesia”. Geothermal Training Programme reports number 7, United Nations University,
Reykjavík, Iceland.
Roy, B.S. (2009). “Modelling and optimization of possible bottoming units for general single flash
geothermal power plants”. MSc. Thesis. United Nations University, Geothermal Training
Programme, Reykjavík, Iceland.

339