VOL. 20, NO.

2 JUNE 1999 ISSN 0276-1084

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
CONTENTS Page
Small Geothermal Power Plants:
Design, Performance and Economics
Ronald DiPippo
Small Geothermal Power Project
Examples
John W. Lund and Tonya “Toni” Boyd
Opportunities for Small Geothermal
Power Projects
Laura Vimmerstedt
Geothermal Small Power Generation
Opportunites in the Leeward Islands
of the Caribbean Sea
Gerald W. Huttrer
Geothermal Pipeline
Progress and Development Update
Geothermal progress Monitor
Cover Photos: Top Photograph - Fang, Thailand,
300 kWe ORMAT Energy Converter modular
unit, Electric Generation Authority of Thailand
(EGAT) (photograph by ORMAT Inc., Sparks,
NV--used with permission); and Bottom Photo-
graph - Blue Lagoon at Svartsengi, Iceland com-
bined thermal and electric power plant (16.4 MWe
total), The Sudurnes Regional Heating Corpora-
tion (photograph by Haukur Snorrason, Reykjavik,
Iceland--used with permission).
PUBLISHED BY
GEO-HEAT CENTER
1 Oregon Institute of Technology
3201 Campus Drive
Klamath Falls, OR 97601
Phone: 541-8851750
9 Email: Geoheat@oit.edu
All articles for the Bulletin are solicited. If you wish to
contribute a paper, please contact the editor at the above
27 address.
EDITOR
John W. Lund
30 Typesetting/Layout - Donna Gibson
Graphics - Tonya “Toni” Boyd
WEBSITE http://www.oit.edu/~geoheat
34 FUNDING
The Bulletin is provided compliments of the Geo-Heat
Center. This material was prepared with the support of
the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE Grant No. FG01-
99-EE35098). However, any opinions, findings,
conclusions, or recommendations expressed herein are
those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the
view of USDOE.
SUBSCRIPTIONS
The Bulletin is mailed free of charge. Please send your
name and address to the Geo-Heat Center for addition
to the mailing list.
If you wish to change your Bulletin Subscription, please
complete the form below and return it to the Center.
Name _____________________________________
Address ___________________________________
____________________________ Zip __________
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-

GHC BULLETIN, JUNE 1999 1

ing transmission, and a final moisture remover at the entrance A surface-type condenser is shown but direct-contact
to the powerhouse. condensers are often used. The former is preferred whenever
Figure 1 is a simplified flow diagram for a Direct-Steam the NCG stream must be treated or processed before release to
plant. A Nomenclature List at the end of the article identifies the atmosphere, e.g., whenever emissions limits for hydrogen
the items in this and the ensuing flow diagrams [5]. A con- sulfide would be exceeded. In such cases, an elaborate chemi-
densing plant is shown as typical of an installation in the United cal plant must be installed to remove the hydrogen sulfide.
States. In some countries, back-pressure, exhausting-to-atmo- Most units at The Geysers in northern California use Stretford
sphere operation is possible in accordance with local environ- (or similar) systems for this purpose, yielding elemental sulfur
mental standards. Because of noncondensable gases (NCG) as a by-product. Such an elaborate system would not be eco-
found in geothermal steam (typically 2-10% by wt. of steam, nomically justified at a very small plant.
but sometimes higher), the gas extraction system is a critical A water-cooled condenser is shown. Since the steam
plant component. Usually, 2-stage steam ejectors with inter- condensate is not recirculated to a boiler as in a conventional
and after-condensers are used, but in some cases vacuum pumps powerplant, it is available for cooling tower makeup. In fact,
or turbocompressors are required. an excess of condensate (typically, 10-20% by wt. of the steam)
is available and is usually injected back into the reservoir.
Long-term production can deplete the reservoir and novel ways
are being developed to increase the amount of fluid being re-
turned to the reservoir [6,7]. The use of air-cooled condensers
would allow for 100% return but so far have been uneconomic.
Mechanical induced-draft cooling towers, either counterflow
or crossflow, are mostly used for wet cooling systems, but natu-
ral-draft towers are used at some plants.
Recent practice, particularly in Italy, has seen nominal
powerplant ratings of 20 or 60 MW per unit, the smaller units
being of modular design for rapid installation. Flexible design
allows the basic unit to be adapted to a fairly wide range of
actual steam conditions.
Table 2 lists major the equipment typically used in the
Figure 1. Simplified flow diagram for a direct-steam geo- four basic types of geothermal powerplants [5,8].
thermal power plant (5).
Table 2
Major Equipment Items for Geothermal Powre Plants
Type of Energy Conversion System
Dry Single Double Basic
Equipment Steam Flash Flash Binary
Steam and/or Brine Supply:
Downhole pumps No No (Poss.) No (Poss.) Yes
Wellhead valves & controls Yes Yes Yes Yes
Silencers Yes Yes Yes No
Sand/particulate remover Yes No No Yes
Steam piping Yes Yes Yes No
Steam cyclone separators No Yes Yes No
Flash vessels No No Yes No
Brine piping No Yes Yes Yes
Brine booster pumps No Poss. Poss. Poss.
Final moisture separator Yes Yes Yes No
Heat Exchangers:
Evaporators No No No Yes
Condensers Yes (No) Yes (No) Yes Yes
Turbine-Generator & Controls:
Steam turbine Yes Yes Yes No
Organic vaopr turbine No No No Yes
Dual-admission turbine No No Yes No
Control system Yes Yes Yes Yes
Plant Pumps:
Condensate Yes (No) Yes (No) Yes Yes
Cooling water circulation Yes (No) Yes (No) Yes Yes
Brine injection No No (Poss) Yes (No) Yes
Noncondensable Gas Removal System:
Steam-jet ejectors Yes Yes Yes No
Compressors Poss. Poss. Poss. No
Vacuum pumps Poss. Poss. Poss. No
Cooling Towers:
Wet type Yes (No) Yes (No) Yes Poss.
Dry type No No No Poss.
Notes: Yes=generally used, No=generally not used, Poss.=possibly used under certain circumstances.
2 GHC BULLETIN, JUNE 1999
FLASH-STEAM PLANTS
Dry steam reservoirs are rare, the only known major fields
being Larderello and The Geysers. The most common type of
geothermal reservoir is liquid-dominated. For artesian-flow-
ing wells, the produced fluid is a two-phase mixture of liquid
and vapor [9]. The quality of the mixture (i.e., the weight per-
centage of steam) is a function of the reservoir fluid condi-
tions, the well dimensions, and the wellhead pressure which is
controlled by a wellhead valve or orifice plate. Typical well-
head qualities may range from 10 to over 50 %.
Although some experimental machines have been tested
which can receive the total two-phase flow and generate power
[10-12], the conventional approach is to separate the phases
and use only the vapor to drive a steam turbine. Since the
wellhead pressure is fairly low, typically 0.5-1.0 MPa (75-150
lbf/in2, abs), the liquid and vapor phases differ significantly in
density (rf /rg =175-350), allowing effective separation by cen-
trifugal action. Highly efficient cyclone separators yield steam
qualities ranging as high as 99.99 % [13].
The liquid from the separator may be injected, used for
its thermal energy via heat exchangers for a variety of direct-
heat applications, or flashed to a lower pressure by means of
control valve or orifice plate, thereby generating additional
steam for use in a low-pressure turbine. Plants in which only
primary high-pressure steam is used are called Single-Flash
plants; plants using both high- and low-pressure flash steam
are called Double-Flash plants.
SINGLE-FLASH PLANTS
A simplified flow diagram of a Single-Flash plant is
shown in Figure 2 [5].
Figure 2. Simplified flow diagram for a single-flash geo-
thermal power plant (5).
The two-phase flow from the well(s) is directed hori-
zontally and tangentially into a vertical cylindrical pressure
vessel, the cyclone separator. The liquid tends to flow
circumferentially along the inner wall surface while the vapor
moves to the top where it is removed by means of a vertical
standpipe. The design shown is called a bottom-outlet separa-
tor and is extremely simple, having no moving parts. Baffles
and guide vanes are sometimes used to improve the segrega-
tion of the two phases. A ball check valve provides insurance
against a slug of liquid entering the steam line during an upset.
The steam transmission lines are essentially the same as in the
case of dry steam plants and are usually fitted with traps.
GHC BULLETIN, JUNE 1999
The balance of the plant is also nearly identical to the
dry steam plant, the main difference being the much greater
amount of liquid that must be handled. Comparing 55 MW
plants, a typical Single-Flash plant produces about 630 kg/s
(5x106 lbm/h) of waste liquid, whereas a Direct-Steam plant
produces only 20 kg/s (0.16x106 lbm/h), a ratio of over 30 to
1. If all of the waste liquid is injected, a Single-Flash plant
would return to the reservoir about 85 % of the produced mass;
this should be compared with only 15% for a Direct-Steam
plant. The major equipment items for a typical Single-Flash
plant are given in Table 2.
DOUBLE-FLASH PLANTS
About 20-25% more power can be generated from the
same geofluid mass flow rate by using Double-Flash technol-
ogy. The secondary, low-pressure steam produced by throt-
tling the separated liquid to a lower pressure is sent either to a
separate low-pressure turbine or to an appropriate stage of the
main turbine (i.e., a dual-pressure, dual-admission turbine). The
principles of operation of the Double-Flash plant are similar to
those for the Single-Flash plant. The Double-Flash plant is,
however, more expensive owing to the extra equipment asso-
ciated with the flash vessel(s), the piping system for the low-
pressure steam, additional control valves, and the more elabo-
rate or extra turbine. Figure 3 is a simplified flow diagram for
a Double-Flash plant [5]. An equipment list is given in Table
2.
Figure 3. Simplified flow diagram for a double-flash geo-
thermal powerplant [5].
BINARY PLANTS
In a Binary plant, the thermal energy of the geofluid is
transferred via a heat exchanger to a secondary working fluid
for use in a fairly conventional Rankine cycle. The geofluid
itself does not contact the moving parts of the power plant,
thus minimizing, if not eliminating, the adverse effects of ero-
sion. Binary plants may be advantageous under certain condi-
tions such as low geofluid temperatures, say, less than about
150 C (300 F), or geofluids with high dissolved gases or high
corrosion or scaling potential. The latter problems are usually
exacerbated when the geothermal liquid flashes to vapor as
typically occurs in a self-flowing production well. Downwell
pumps located below the flash level can prevent flashing by
raising the pressure above the saturation pressure for the fluid
temperature [14]. Most binary plants operate on pumped wells
and the geofluid remains in the liquid phase throughout the
3
plant, from production wells through the heat exchangers to
the injection wells.
It is an interesting historical note that the first commer-
cial geothermal powerplants at Larderello were, in fact, binary-
type plants [15]. The geothermal steam was used to evaporate
clean water to run steam turbines because the materials avail-
able at that time did not allow the corrosive steam to be used
directly in the turbines.
A flow diagram for a typical Basic Binary plant is given
in Figure 4 [5]. The power cycle consists of a preheater, an
evaporator, a set of control valves, a turbine-generator set, a
condenser and a feedpump. Either water or air may be used
for cooling depending on site conditions. If wet cooling is
used, an independent source of make-up water must be found
since geosteam condensate is not available as it was in the case
of Direct- or Flash-Steam plants. Owing to chemical impuri-
ties the waste brine is not generally suitable for cooling tower
make-up. There is a wide range of candidate working fluids
for the closed power cycle. In making the selection, the de-
signer tries to achieve a good thermodynamic match to the
particular characteristics of the geofluid, especially the geofluid
temperature. Hydrocarbons such as isobutane, isopentane and
propane are good candidate working fluids as are certain re-
frigerants. The optimal fluid will give a high utilization effi-
ciency together with safe and economical operation.
Figure 4. Simplified flow diagram for a basic binary geo-
thermal powerplant [5].
Binary plants are particularly well suited to modular
power packages in the range 1-3 MW per unit. Standardized,
skid-mounted units can be factory-built, tested, assembled and
shipped to a site for rapid field installation. A number of units
can then be connected at the site to match the power potential
of the resource. Table 2 contains the major equipment items
for a Basic Binary plant.
If a mixture is selected as the working fluid, (e.g.,
isobutane and isopentane, or water and ammonia), then the
evaporation and condensation processes will occur at variable
temperature. This characteristic allows a closer match between
the brine and the working fluid (evaporation), and the cooling
water and the working fluid (condensation), giving higher heat
exchanger efficiencies and better overall system efficiencies
[16,17]. Furthermore, if the turbine exhaust carries significant
superheat, a heat recuperator may be utilized to preheat the
working fluid [18]. Both of these features are the basis for the
Kalina version of the geothermal binary plant [19], shown sche-
4 GHC BULLETIN, JUNE 1999
matically in Figure 5 [5]. A 12 MW pilot plant of this type
has been designed and is planned for installation at Steamboat
Springs in Nevada.
Figure 5. Simplified flow diagram for a Kalina binary geo-
thermal powerplant [5].
COMBINED OR HYBRID PLANTS
Since geothermal fluids are found with a wide range of
physical and chemical properties (e.g., temperature, pressure,
noncondensable gases, dissolved solids, pH, scaling and cor-
rosion potential), a variety of energy conversion systems have
been developed to suit any particular set of conditions. The
basic systems described in the earlier sections can be com-
bined to achieve more effective systems for particular applica-
tions. Thus, the following hybrid or combined plants can be
designed:
Direct-Steam/Binary Plants [5]
Single-Flash/Binary Plants [5]
Integrated Single- and Double-Flash Plants [20,21]
Hybrid Fossil-Geothermal Systems [22-24].
Properly designed combined or hybrid systems achieve
a synergistic advantage by having a higher overall efficiency
compared with using the two systems or “fuels” (in the case of
the fossil-geothermal plants) in separate state-of-the-art plants.
The intricacies of the design of these systems are beyond the
scope of this introductory paper and the reader is referred to
the references cited above.
POWERPLANT PERFORMANCE
The modern approach to measuring the performance of
energy systems is to use the Second Law of thermodynamics
as the basis for assessment. The concept of available work or
energy has been widely used for this purpose [25]. Geother-
mal powerplants are an excellent illustration of the application
of the Second Law (or utilization) efficiency, hu . Since geo-
thermal plants do not operate on a cycle but instead as a series
of processes, the cycle thermal efficiency, hth, for conventional
plants does not apply [9, 26].
The one instance where the cycle thermal efficiency, hth,
can be meaningfully applied to geothermal powerplants is the
case of Binary plants. Even in this case, however, the thermal
efficiency must be used solely to assess the closed cycle in-
volving the secondary working fluid and not the overall op-
eration involving the flow of the geofluid from the production
wells, through the plant, and ultimately to the fluid disposal
system.
The utilization efficiency, hu, measures how well a plant
converts the exergy (or available work) of the resource into
useful output. For a geothermal plant, it is a found as follows:
h X = : &  PH
&
where :& is the net electric power delivered to the grid, is the
required total geofluid mass flow rate, and e is the specific
energy of the geofluid under reservoir conditions. The latter
is given by:
e = h(P1 - T1) - h(P0 - T0) - T 0[s(P 1 - T1) - s(P0 - T0)].
The specific enthalpy, h, and entropy, s, are evaluated
at reservoir conditions, P 1 and T1, and at the so-called “dead
state,” P 0 and T0. The latter correspond to the local ambient
conditions at the plant site. In practice, the design wet-bulb
temperature may be used for T0 (in absolute degrees) when a
wet cooling system is used; the design dry-bulb temperature
may be used when an air-cooled condenser is used.
The major design specifications and actual performance
values for selected powerplants of the Direct-Steam, Single-
and Double-Flash types are given in Table 3; similar data are
given in Table 4 for selected small Binary powerplants. The
specific geofluid consumption, SGC, is given as one measure
of performance. One will observe a dramatic increase in this
parameter (i.e., a decrease in performance) when comparing
Binary plants with geothermal steam plants, particularly Di-
rect-Steam plants. It can be seen that Direct-Steam plants op-
erate at quite impressive efficiencies based on exergy, typically
between 50-70 %. Each utilization efficiency given in Tables
3 and 4 was computed using the appropriate site-specific dead-
state temperature.
The contemporary use of small modular binary units is
exemplified by the SIGC plant [27,28]. Several small units,
2.7 MWn, are clustered together receiving geofluid from sev-
eral wells through a manifold and generate a total of 33 MWn.
The small sacrifice in efficiency of the modular-sized units,
istics of the wells are known.
The influence of resource temperature and power rating
on plant costs for small-size Binary units are summarized in
Table 6 [30]. Capital costs (per kW) vary inversely with tem-
perature and rating; annual O&M costs increase with rating but
are independent of fluid temperature (over the range studied).
These costs are favorable when compared to other renewable
energy sources, and are absolutely favorable for remote loca-
tions where electricity is usually generated by diesel engines.

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

GHC BULLETIN, JUNE 1999 5

 Table 4
Design Conditions for Selected Geothermal Binary Plants (after [5])
Plant Second Imperial Geothermal Co. Mammoth-Pacific, Unit I Amedee
Location Heber, CA Mammoth, CA Wendel, CA
Start-up year 1993 1985 1988
Type dual-pressure basic basic
No. of units 12 2 2
Rating, MW 40 10 2
Output power, MW-net 32 7 1.6
Net power/unit, MW 2.7 3.5 0.8
Geofluid flow rate, kg/s 999.0 220.5 205.1
Resource temperature, C 168 169 103
Downwell pumps yes yes yes
Working fluid isopentane, C5H 12 isobutane, C4H10 R-114, C2Cl2F4
Evaporator(s):
No. per unit 2 6 1
type shell & tube shell & tube shell & tube
heat duty,MWt 413.2 (e) 86.75 28.72
geofluid temperature, C:
inlet 168 169 104
outlet 71 (e) 66-88 71
Turbine:
type axial flow radial inflow axial flow
inlet temperature, C na 138 83
pressure, kPa: inlet na 3,379 993
outlet na variable 276
mass flow/turbine, kg/s na 92.0 100.8
speed, rpm 1,800 11,050 3,600
Condenser(s):
No. per unit 2 11 1
type shell & tube finned tube evaporative
heat duty, MWt 269.2 79.72 na
coolant water air water
coolant temperature, C: inlet 20.0 variable 21.1
outlet 28.1 variable na
Plant performance:
SGC-net, kg/MWh 85,049 113,399 462,669
hu, %: gross 44.5 32.4 17.4
net 35.6 22.7 13.9
hth, %: gross 14.0 11.5 7.0
net 13.2 8.1 5.6

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.

- Resource type (steam or hot water) Table 5

- Resource temperature Capital Cost for U.S. Geothermal Plants (after [5])
- Reservoir productivity Type/Plant Name Year Power, MWn Cost, $/kW
- Powerplant size (rating) Direct Steam
PG&E Geysers:
- Powerplant type (single-flash, binary, etc.) Unit 1 1960 11 174
- Environmental regulations Unit 8 1972 53 109
- Cost of capital Unit 13 1980 133 414
- Cost of labor. NCPA-1 1983 110 780
Single Flash
Blundell 1984 20 3000 (e)
The first three factors influence the number of wells that Steamboat Hills 1988 12 2500 (e)
must be drilled for a given plant capacity. Using typical costs Double Flash
and power potential for production wells, a single well can Desert Peak 1985 9 2000 (e)
Beowawe 1985 16 1900 (e)
cost $100-400/kW. The next three items determine the capital Heber 1985 47 2340 (e)
cost of the energy conversion system; whereas, the last two Dixie Valley 1988 66 2100 (e)
affect the cost of running the plant (i.e., debt service, and op- Brady Hot Springs 1992 24 2700 (e)
erations and maintenance [O & M]). Binary
Empire 1987 3 4000 (e)
Table 5 gives capital costs for a variety of plants in the Stillwater 1989 12 3085 (e)
United States (29). Note that all values are in “as spent dol- SIGC 1993 33 3030 (e)
lars” for the year quoted. Furthermore, the figures for the Di-

6 GHC BULLETIN, JUNE 1999

 Table 6
Capital and O&M Costs for Small Binary Geothermal
Plants (1993 $) [5]
Net Power, kW Resource Temperature, C Total O&M Cost
100 120 140 $/year
Capital Cost, $/kW
100 2,535 2,210 2,015 19,100
200 2,340 2,040 1,860 24,650
500 2,145 1,870 1,705 30,405
1,000 1,950 1,700 1,550 44,000
SUMMARY AND OUTLOOK
Extensive research and development over the last two
decades has resulted in an impressive array of commercially
available technologies to harness a wide range of geothermal
resources. “Off-the-shelf” power systems of the Direct-Steam,
Flash-Steam or Binary types can be ordered for use with low-
to-high temperature resources of the vapor- or liquid-domi-
nated variety, with any level of noncondensable gas or dis-
solved solids. If new plants are to be built, however, they must
demonstrate an economic advantage over alternative systems.
The economics are governed by site-specific and time-specific
factors. For example, in the United States in the late 1990’s, it
has been difficult for any energy source to compete with natu-
ral-gas-fired plants, particularly combined steam-and-gas-tur-
bine cycles.
The effects of deregulation on the electric industry have
also had a negative impact on geothermal plants. No longer
endowed with favorable power purchase agreements, geother-
mal plant must now compete openly with other energy sys-
tems. Interestingly, privatization in many other countries, par-
ticularly those lacking in indigenous fossil fuels, has actually
enhanced the attractiveness of geothermal plants which often
turn out to be the lowest cost option among new electric power
plants.
Since geothermal projects are heavily loaded with up-
front costs for exploration, reservoir characterization, and drill-
ing, all of which carry a measure of risk for investors, research
directed at improving the technology in these areas is appro-
priate. Also, better methods of monitoring and predicting res-
ervoir behavior, both prior to and during exploitation would
allow more systematic and reliable development strategies to
maximize energy extraction over the long term.
In countries with long histories of operating geothermal
plants (such as Italy, the U. S. and New Zealand), geothermal
re-powering projects are replacing older, less efficient units or
units that no longer match the resources (due to long-term res-
ervoir changes) with modern, high-efficiency, flexible systems.
In many countries, both large and small, which are endowed
with abundant geothermal resources, there is good potential
for strong growth in geothermal power capacity. Of particular
interest are Indonesia, the Philippines, Mexico, Japan, Italy,
Kenya, and countries in Central America including Costa Rica,
El Salvador, Guatemala and Nicaragua. In the United States,
further development of its abundant geothermal resources will
depend strongly on the prices of competing conventional fu-
els.
GHC BULLETIN, JUNE 1999
Geothermal is now a proven alternative energy source
for electric power generation. Because of its economic com-
petitiveness in many situations, the operational reliability of
the plants, and its environmentally friendly nature, geothermal
energy will continue to serve those countries endowed with
this natural energy resource.
REFERENCES
[1] ENEL, 1993. The History of Larderello, Public Rela-
tions and Comm. Dept., Rome.
[2] DiPippo, R., 1980. Geothermal Energy as a Source of
Electricity: A Worldwide Survey of the Design and
Operation of Geothermal Power Plants, USDOE/
RA/28320-1, US Gov. Printing Office, Washington.
[3] DiPippo, R., 1995. “Geothermal Power Plants in the
United States: A Survey and Update for 1990-
1994,” Geothermal Resources Council BULLETIN,
24: pp. 141-152.
[4] Wright, P. M., 1998. “A Look Around the World,”
Geothermal Resources Council BULLETIN, 27: pp.
154-155.
[5] “Geothermal Power Systems,” R. DiPippo. Sect. 8.2 in
Standard Handbook of Powerplant Engineering,
2nd ed., T. C. Elliott, K. Chen and R C.
Swanekamp, eds., pp. 8.27 - 8.60, McGraw-Hill,
Inc., New York, 1998.
[6] Voge, E.; Koenig, B.; Smith, J. L. B.; Enedy, S.; Beall,
J. J.; Adams, M. C. and J. Haizlip, 1994. “Initial
Findings of the Geysers Unit 18 Cooperative Injec-
tion Project,” Geothermal Resources Council
TRANSACTIONS, 18: pp. 353-357.
[7] Cappetti, G. and G. Stefani, 1994. “Strategies for Sus-
taining Production at Larderello,” Geothermal
Resources Council TRANSACTIONS, 18: pp. 625-
629.
[8] DiPippo, R. and P. Ellis, 1990. Geothermal Power
Cycle Selection Guidelines, EPRI Geothermal In-
formation Series, Part 2, Palo Alto, CA.
[9] DiPippo, R., 1987. “Geothermal Power Generation from
Liquid-Dominated Resources,” Geothermal Science
and Technology, 1: pp. 63-124.
[10] Cerini, D. J. and J. Record, 1983. “Rotary Separator
Turbine Performance and Endurance Test Results,”
Proc. Seventh Annual Geoth. Conf. and Workshop,
EPRI Rep. AP-3271, pp. 5-75 - 5-86, Palo Alto,
CA.
[11] Gonzales Rubio, J. L. and F. Illescas, 1981. “Test of
Total Flow Helical Screw Expander at Cerro Prieto,
Mexico,” Geothermal Resources Council TRANS-
ACTIONS, 5: pp. 425-427, 1981.
7
[12] Austin, A. L. and A. W. Lundberg, 1978. The LLL [23] Khalifa, H.E.; DiPippo, R. and J. Kestin, 1978. “Geo-
Geothermal Energy Program: A Status Report on thermal Preheating in Fossil-Fired Steam Power
the Development of the Total Flow Concept, Plants,” Proc. 13th Intersociety Energy Conversion
Lawrence Livermore Laboratory Rep . UCRL- Engineering Conf., 2: pp. 1068-1073.
50046-77, Livermore, CA.
[24] Habel, R., 1991. “Honey Lake Power Facility, Lassen
[13] Lazalde-Crabtree, H., 1984. “Design Approach of County,” Geothermal Hot Line, 20: No. 1, p. 19.
Steam-Water Separators and Steam Dryers for Geo-
thermal Applications,” Geothermal Resources [25] Moran, M.J., 1989. Availability Analysis: A Guide to
Council BULLETIN, 13: No. 8, pp. 11-20. Efficient Energy Use, Corrected edition, ASME
Press, New York.
[14] Frost, J., Introduction to Geothermal Lineshaft Produc-
tion Pumps, Johnston Pump Co., Pomona, CA. [26] DiPippo, R. and D. F. Marcille, 1984. “Exergy Analy-
sis of Geothermal Power Plants,” Geothermal Re-
[15] Anon, 1981. “Electrical Energy from the Volterra sources Council TRANSACTIONS, 8: pp. 47-52.
‘Soffioni’,” Power, 47: No. 15, p. 531.
[27] Ram, H. and Y. Yahalom, 1988. “Commercially Suc-
[16] Demuth, O. J., 1981. “Analyses of Mixed Hydro- cessful Large Binary Applications,” Geothermal
carbon Binary Thermodynamic Cycles for Mod- Resources Council BULLETIN, 17: No. 3, pp. 3-7.
erate Temperature Geothermal Resources,” INEL
Rep. EGG-GTH-5753, Idaho Falls, ID. [28] Anon., 1993. “New Geothermal Facility Exceeds Pro-
duction Expectations,” Geothermal Resources
[17] Bliem, C. J., 1983. “Preliminary Performance Esti- Council BULLETIN, 22: pp. 281-282.
mates and Value Analyses for Binary Geothermal
Power Plants Using Ammonia-Water Mixtures as [29] Schochet, D. N. and J. E. Mock, 1994. “How the De-
Working Fluids,” INEL Rep. EGG-GTH-6477, partment of Energy Loan Guarantee Program Paved
Idaho Falls, ID. the Way for the Growth of the Geothermal Indust-
ries,” Geothermal Resources Council TRANSAC-
[18] Demuth, O. J. and R. J. Kochan, 1981. “Analyses of TIONS, 18: pp. 61-65.
Mixed Hydrocarbon Binary Thermodynamic
Cycles for Moderate Temperature Geothermal Res- [30] Entingh, D. J.; Easwaran, E. and L. McLarty, 1994.
sources Using Regeneration Techniques”, INEL “Small Geothermal Electric Systems for Remote
Rep. EGG-GTH-5710, Idaho Falls, ID. Powering,” Geothermal Resources Council TRANS-
ACTIONS, 18: pp. 39-46.
[19] Leibowitz, H. M. and D. W. Markus, 1990. “Economic
Performance of Geothermal Power Plants Using the NOMENCLATURE FOR PLANT FLOW DIAGRAMS
Kalina Cycle Technique,” Geothermal Resources (Figs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5)
Council TRANSACTIONS, 14 (Part II): pp. 1037-
BCV - ball check valve C - condenser
042.
CP - condensate pump CS - cyclone separator
CSV - control and stop valves CT - cooling tower
[20] DiPippo, R., 1987. “Ahuachapan Geothermal Power CW - cooling water CWP - cooling water pump
Plant, El Salvador,” Proc. Fourth Annual Geoth. E - evaporator F - flasher
FF - final filter IP - injection pump
Conf. and Workshop, EPRI Rep. TC-80-907, pp.
IW - injection wells M - make-up water
7-7 - 7-12, Palo Alto, CA, 1980. MR - mositure remover P - well pump
PH - preheater PW - production wells
[21] Jimenez Gibson, J., 1987. “Operation of the Five R - recuperator S - silencer
SE/C - steam ejector/condenser SH - superheater
Units of Cerro Prieto I Geothermal Power Plant,”
SP - steam piping SR - sand remover
Proc. Ninth Annual Geoth. and Secon IIE-EPRI T/G - turbine/generator TV - throttle valve
Geoth. Conf. and Workshop, Vol. 2, English Vers., WP - water piping WV - wellhead valves
EPRI Rep. AP-4259SR, pp. 7-1 - 7-9, Palo Alto,
CA.

[22] DiPippo, R.; Khalifa, H. E.; Correia, R. J. and J. Kestin,

1979. “Fossil Superheating in Geothermal Steam
Power Plants, ”Geothermal Energy Magazine, 7:
No. 1, pp. 17-23.

8 GHC BULLETIN, JUNE 1999

 SMALL GEOTHERMAL POWER
PROJECT EXAMPLES
John W. Lund
Tonya “Toni” Boyd
Geo-Heat Center
WHAT ARE SMALL GEOTHERMAL POWER
PROJECTS?
According to Vimmerstedt (1998 - and this Bulletin),
small geothermal power projects are less than 5 MWe. Oth-
ers (Entingh, et al., 1994a and b, and Pritchett 1998a) refer to
a range of 100 to 1000 kWe as “small.” In this article, we
will use the 5 MWe definition as small.
Small power projects, often called “village power” and
sometimes as “off-grid power,” can serve rural people in de-
veloping countries; since, this market may be best served by
many small generating units, rather than fewer larger ones.
For examples, at 50 watts per household for lighting, 1 MWe
could serve 20,000 households (Cabraal, et al., 1996). Entingh,
et al., (1994a) estimates that the demand for electric capacity
per person at off-gird sites will range from 0.2 kW in less-
developed areas to 1.0 kW or higher in developed areas. Thus,
a 100-kWe plant could serve 100 to 500 people, and a 1,000-
kWe plant would serve 1,000 to 5,000 people. However, one
of the main problems with small geothermal power projects is
that they are unlikely to obtain financing due to high cost per
installed kW and low rate of return; thus, these remote projects
often must be subsidized by the government to encourage lo-
cal economic development.
Alternative power at remote locations, which is usually
provided by diesel generations, can be much more expensive
per kWh than geothermal, as the fuel transportation costs are
high. For example at Fang, Thailand, a 300-kWe geothermal
binary plant supplies power from 6.3 to 8.6 cents/kWh, com-
pared to the alternative of diesel generators at 22 to 25 cents/
kWh (Schochet, 1998).
Small geothermal power units are already common,
though not always in remote applications. They are some-
times used within larger geothermal developments, either be-
cause they are cost effective, because they fit with incremen-
tal development plans, or because they were installed early in
a site’s development.
According to Vimmerstedt (1998):
“Small geothermal units are used in larger
developments for several reasons. First, a
modular approach can be less expensive
overall because of shipping and handling costs.
Second, small modules increase reliability and
improve flexibility when adapting to changing
well and system performance. Third, a small,
remote well is sometimes located so far from
other wells that a power plant sized to the re-
mote well costs less than transmission pipes
for the fluid [to a larger centralized plant].
GHC BULLETIN, JUNE 1999
Well spacing must take reservoir character-
istics into consideration, and so can not be
optimized for power plant size alone.”
“Small units are also found at larger sites
where they were used during early phases
of site development. Placing a small plant
at the site of a larger anticipated develop-
ment supplies electricity during develop-
ment of the field [and can provide a return
on investment sooner. Also, if the initial
electricity demand at the site is low, then
the small-scale plant can be fully utilized
until a larger one is justified. When there
is a problem in resource development, a
smaller plant can utilize resource confir-
mation holes, or shallow, less expensive
wells]. Small systems at large sites have
advantages over remote ones in that the
financing is often secured for the entire
project. The resource is confirmed for
that project, operation and maintenance
infrastructures are readily available, a grid
either exists or is constructed for the large
project, and sufficient base load is avail-
able.”
“A critical distinction between the applica-
tion of small geothermal plants within a lar-
ger site and application in a remote area
is the load-following ability of small geo-
thermal systems. Although geothermal
plants can follow loads, this ability is limit-
ed and cost of a reduced-load factor is
high because much of the cost of the geo-
thermal power plant is capital cost. Re-
mote areas and small grids generally have
low base loads, so the contrast between
achievable capacity factors (low cost per
kWh) for large versus small grid applica-
tions is major.”
TECHNOLOGY FOR SMALL GEOTHERMAL
POWER SYSTESM
Vimmerstedt (1998) reports:
“The most likely technology choices for
small geothermal power plants are flash
steam and binary cycle. Dry steam systems
9
 are unlikely to be used in small geothermal
plants because dry steam resources are
thought to be rare.”
“The advantages of flash steam systems in
small applications include the relative
simplicity and low cost of the plant. In
contrast to binary plants, they require no
secondary working fluid. However, when
the geothermal fluid is flashed to steam,
the solids that precipitate can foul
equipment, and pose health, safety and
disposal problems. If steam contains
hydrogen sulfide or other contaminants, it
poses an air quality problem when released
directly to the atmosphere. Treating non-
condensable gases in the condensing
design adds complexity, maintenance, and
disposal requirements (Forsha and Nichols,
1997). Flash systems are most often used
where higher temperatures (above 300oF -
150oC) are available; although, a low-
pressure turbine design for lower-tempera-
ture flash plants (230oF - 110oC) has been
proposed (Forsha, 1994) and feasibility of
lower-temperature flash plants have been
studied (Pritchett, 1998b).”
The advantage of binary technology is that, in small-
size ranges, modular binary units are readily available, and
they can operate at lower temperatures (below 300oF - 150oC
and down to around 180oF - 82oC). One of the early experi-
mental binary plants, Paratunka on the Kamchatka Peninsula
of Siberia, operated at 178oF (81oC). Because the geothermal
fluid can be contained in a separate loop, precipitation and
environmental effects of the geothermal fluid can be controlled.
Conversely, secondary working fluids may be hazardous and
difficult to supply. Other disadvantages of binary designs are
the higher capital cost and greater complexity of plants (Forsha
and Nichols, 1997).
The choice between flash steam and binary designs for
small geothermal plants will be site specific, and will depend
on resource temperature, chemical composition of the geother-
mal fluid and maintenance preferences.
ADVANTAGES OF SMALL GEOTHERMAL BINARY
POWER PLANTS
Entingh, et al., (1994a) gives some of the reasons why
small geothermal binary plants can be successful in “off-grid”
or “village power” situations.
1. The plants are very transportable. For 100 to 300
kWe plants, the entire plant, including the cooling
system, can be built on a single skid that fits in a
standard trans-ocean container.
10
2. Binary power plants can accommodate a wide range
of geothermal reservoir temperatures, 212 to 300oF
(100 to 150oC). Above 300oF (150oC) flashed- steam
plants usually prove less expensive than
binary plants.
3. The demand for electric capacity per person at off-
grid sites will range from 0.2 kWe to 1.0 kWe.
4. The design of the power plants and their interac-
tions with the wells includes provisions for hand-
ling fluctuating loads, including low-instantaneous
loads ranging from 0 to 25 percent of the installed
capacity.
5. Power plant designs emphasize a high degree of
computer-based automation, including self starting.
Only semi-skilled labor is needed to monitor plant
operation, on a part-time basis. Complete unatten-
ded operation might also be possible, with plant
performance monitored and controlled remotely
through a satellite link.
6. The system releases no greenhouse gases to the
atmosphere. There may be very small leakages of
the binary-cycle working fluids, but these do not
contain chlorine or fluorine and are non-greenhouse
gases.
7. All wells could be drilled by truck-mounted rigs,
either heavy-duty water-well rigs or light-duty oil/
gas-well rigs. At very remote sites, both drilling rig
and power system equipment can be transported by
helicopter.
8. Injection well costs can be relatively low. For small
systems, because the geothermal flow rates are
relatively small, rarely will there be a need to inject
the fluid back into the production reservoir. Any
shallow aquifer not used for drinking water could
be used for reinjection. If the fluids are clean
enough to be disposed of on the surface, then the
disposal costs can be quite low.
9. Field piping costs are low. All wellheads are
located near the power plant module. Inexpensive
plastic or carbon steel pipe is used to connect wells.
10. Geothermal direct-heat applications can be attached
to these electric systems inexpensively. Applica-
tions needing temperatures not higher than 150oF
(65oC) might be attached (cascaded) in series to the
power-plant fluid outlet line.
11. Critical backup need is estimated to range from one
to five percent of the installed geothermal capacity.
The very high availability factors for geothermal
systems, on the order of 98 percent, substantially
GHC BULLETIN, JUNE 1999
 reduce the cost of special features needed to ensure
that power is always available. Small critical loads
such as medical refrigeration or pumps for drinking
water could be supported against brief unscheduled
outages by a diesel engine or by small amounts of
battery storage.
COSTS OF SMALL GEOTHERMAL POWER PLANTS
Ultimately, the costs of small geothermal power plants
will determine their potential market. Reported costs for small
plants are rare. Those that do are located at large fields and are
in the $0.05 to $0.07/kWh range, for units in the 1 to 5 MWe
range (GRC, 1998).
Entingh, Easwaran, and McLarty (1994a and 1994b)
developed a model called GT-SMALL for small, binary geo-
thermal systems in the 100 to 1000-kWe size range. They
evaluated reservoir temperatures of 212 - 284oF (100 - 140oC),
production well depth of 656 - 3,281 ft (200 - 1,000 m), and
injection well depth of 656 - 1,640 ft (200 - 500 m). Technical
costs at the busbar for this evaluation ranged from $0.047 to
$0.346/kWh. An example is shown below for a system cost of
$0.105/kWh.
EXAMPLES OF SMALL GEOTHERMAL POWER
PLANTS
The generating potential of a geothermal resource can
be estimated from the temperature and flow rate as shown in
Figure 1 (Nichols, 1986). This figure gives the net power out-
put which accounts for the parasitic loads such as due to the
condenser and feed pump power requirements. Single modu-
lar units can handle flow rates up to 1000 gpm (63 l/s), with
multiple units required to accommodate greater flow rates and
produce proportionately larger output power. The output power
from two-phase water-steam or steam alone is much greater
than the curves shown for liquid in Figure 1. Temperatures
above 350oF (175 oC) can also be accommodated with high ef-
ficiencies by making minor modifications to the modular units.
However, it should be pointed out that the conversion effi-
ciency is quite low at the lower temperature and therefore, the
cost of power becomes higher. Reservoir temperature is the
physical factor to which overall project costs are most sensi-
tive. A schematic of the binary cycle (Rankine cycle) is shown
in Figure 2 (Nichols, 1986).

Technical Resource Temperature 248oF (120oC)

System Net Capacity 300 kWe
Number of Wells 2
Capacity Factor 0.8
Plant Life 30 years
Rate of Return
on Investment 12%/yr
kWh/yr produced 2.10 million

Capital Costs Exploration $200,000

Wells 325,000
Field 94,000
Power Plant 659,000 Figure 1. Potential power generation of a geothermal re-
TOTAL $1,278,000 source (Nichols, 1986).

Plant cost/installed kW $2,200

Annual capital recovery cost $158,650

O&M Costs Field $32,000

Plant 26,000
Backup System 5,000
TOTAL/yr $63,000

For the range of project sizes investigated, the capital

costs represented about 55 to 80% of the cost of electricity
generation, and operation and maintenance costs represented
about 30 to 45% (Entingh, 1991). The accuracy of GT-SMALL
is difficult to evaluate given the scarcity of remote applica-
tions of small systems. The $0.05 to $0.07/kWh prices re-
ported in the GRC database are comparable to the modeled
cost estimates at the 1 MWe size.
Figure 2. Schematic of the binary cycle (Rankine cycle)
(Nichols, 1986).
Additional details of binary plant efficiency and operat-
ing characteristics can be found in Ryan (1982, 1983 and 1984).
There are approximately 50 geothermal power plants in
the world at or below 5 MWe, including some bottoming cycle
plants associated with large plants. Some of these are described
in more detail in the following section.

GHC BULLETIN, JUNE 1999 11

1. Amedee Geothermal Venture binary plant (Fig. 3),
located in northern California near Susanville was
placed in operation in 1988. The plant consists of
two units of one MWe each with a total net output of
1.5 MWe. The resource temperature is 219oF (104oC),
and well depth of 850 ft (260 m) with a maximum
flow rate of 3,200 gpm (205 l/s). The plant uses R-
114 working fluid and cooling ponds for makeup
water. The units were designed by Barber-Nichols
Engineering Company of Arvada, Colorado. They
have an availability is 90% and the system is remotely
monitored by telephone line.

Geothermal fluids from two wells are used to operate

the plant, and surface discharge is used to dispose of
the spent fluid. This is possible because the geother-
mal fluids have a very low salinity and a composition
the same as area hot spring water.
Figure 4. Wineagel Developers 750-kWe binary plant.

The plant is completely automated. The entire plant,

including the well pump, is controlled by either mod-
ule. By pushing one button on the module control
panel, the plant will start, synchronize to the power
line and continue operation. If the power line goes
down, the module and the downhole pump immedi-
ately shut down, since no power is available for its
operation. When the power line is re-energized, the
modules restart the downhole pump, then bring them-
selves on line. The two, identical power plant mod-
ules are mounted on 10-ft by 40-ft (3-m x 12-m) con-
crete slabs. Each unit is self-contained and includes
the heat exchanger, a turbine generator and controls
(Fig. 5). The fans on top of the units are evaporative
condensers.

Figure 3. Amedee Geothermal Venture 2-MWe binary
plant.
2. Wineagle Developers binary plant (Fig. 4), also lo-
cated in northern California near Susanville was
placed in operation in 1985. The plant consists of
two binary units of total gross capacity of 750 kWe
and a net output of 600 kWe. A 1,300-ft (400-m)
deep well is pumped to produce 1000 gpm (63 l/s) of
230oF (110oC) water. The spent fluid at 1,000 ppm
total dissolved solids, is disposed on the surface. It
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).
3. TAD’s Enterprises binary plants units No. 1 and
No. 2, located at Wabuska, Nevada, were placed in
operation in 1984 and 1987 respectively (Fig. 6). They
are rated at 750 kWe and 800 kWe, and are supplied
heat from two geothermal wells at 220oF (104oC),
pumped at 850 and 950 gpm (54 and 60 l/s) respec-
tively. They use water cooled condensers fed from a
cooling pond. The operation is automatic and un-
manned, with maintenance only as required. The units
were manufactured and supplied by ORMAT Inter-
national, Inc. of Sparks, Nevada.

12 GHC BULLETIN, JUNE 1999

 Figure 5. Schematic of one of the Wineagle modular units (Nichols, 1986).
4.
Figure 6. TAD’s unit No. 1 - 750-kWe modular binary
power plant unit.
The units originally used Freon 114 as the working
fluid. From 1985 to 1990, there were minor mainte-
nance outages, and very cold weather in 1990, during
a power trip caused freezing in the condenser and
pumps. The plant was repaired and operated until
1996, when the unavailability of Freon 114 caused a
shutdown from 1996 to 98. It was then converted to
Iso-Pentane and reconditioned in 1998. Commercial
operation was re-established in 1998. As it turns out,
GHC BULLETIN, JUNE 1999
the Iso-Pentane working fluid does not mix with
water; thus, water leakage is not a problem as it was
with Freon 114. Gene Culver (1987) of the Geo-
Heat Center conducted an evaluation of unit No. 1
while it was still using Freon 114. He found that the
parasitic load (well pump, feed pump circulation wa-
ter pump and other loads) amounted to 241.6 kWe
and the net thermal efficiency ranged from 6.5% to
9.4%, depending on the cooling water temperature
(which varied from 65 to 55 oF - 18 to 13 oC).
Empire Geothermal Project binary plant, San
Emidio desert near Empire, Nevada, was placed in
operation by OESI in 1987 (later called OESI/
AMOR). The plant consists of four one-MWe mod-
ules, supplied by ORMAT International, Inc. of
Sparks, Nevada (Fig. 7). The units use water-cooled
condensers with a spray pond. The rated net output
is 3.6 MWe, and the units produced from 15 to 7.5
GWh annually through 1996. Two production wells
at 278oF (137oC) were initially used. By 1989, injec-
tion into the reservoir started to cool the wells and by
1996, the wells were only producing 237 and 253oF
(114 and 123oC) respectively, with energy output sig-
nificantly reduced. In 1994, Integrated Ingredients
dedicated their new onion and garlic processing plant
and used a well at 266oF (130oC) pumping up to 900
gpm (57 l/s) from the same reservoir. They founded
the local community of “Grunion” due to the large
number of employees on site (Lund and Lienau, 1994).
13
Figure 7. OESI/AMOR II binary plant near Empire, Figure 8. Cove Fort Geothermal No. 1 - 4.8-MWe com-
Nevada. bined power plant.

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 Provo’s main control cen-
ter, facilitating remote performance monitoring and
service diagnosing.

Figure 9. Soda Lake 3.6-MWe binary power plant No. 1.

14 GHC BULLETIN, JUNE 1999

 Figure 10. Pictorial diagram of Fang, Thailand 300-kW binary power plant.

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.

8. Nagqu Geothermal binary plant, Tibet, Peoples

Republic of China, was installed and commissioned
in 1993. This plant is an air-cooled module rated at
1.3 MWe, with a gross output of 1.0 MWe, which
was funded by UNDP. Geothermal fluid is supplied
from two wells at 230oF (110oC) with a fluid flow of
1,100 gpm (69 l/s). The plant is located at 14,850
feet (4,526 m) elevation, and thus the air-cooled con-
denser had to be sized and especially adapted for the
thin air at the site which doubled the size of the con- Figure 11. Nagqu 1.0-MWe power plant in Tibet at 14,850
denser compared to a similar plant at sea level ft. (4,526 m) elevation.

GHC BULLETIN, JUNE 1999 15

 The power plant initially operated for 6,400 hours, 10. Tu Chang binary power plant, Taiwan, connected
and then was shutdown due to failure of the down- to the grid in 1987. This is a 300 kWe, water cooled
hole pumps. The cable failed after 15 days of opera- ORMAT OEC that uses a liquid dominated resource
tion and the seals after seven months of operation. at 266oF (130oC) (Fig. 12). The project is owned and
The wells were then operated without pumps and ex- operated by the Industrial Technology Research In-
perienced severe scaling. The downhole pumps were stitute and the power is sold to the Taiwan Power
replaced and the plant recommissioned in August of Company. It has a CO2 recovery system, as the non-
1998. It is currently operating satisfactorily. condensable gases are two percent by weight. The
project, including the 1,640-foot (500-m) deep well,
This is the only completely stand-alone, off-grid geo- cost $2 million and the power is sold at four cents/
thermal power project in operation. The town of kWh.
Nagque, which is a political, cultural, economic and
traffic center of the North Tibet Plateau, has a popu-
lation of about 20,000. Prior to 1993, there were 10
diesel generators with a total nominal capacity of 1.68
MWe supply electricity to the area. This capacity
could only satisfy the lighting needs of the local or-
ganizations and some inhabitants, lasting only 4 to 5
hours every night due to high production cost. The
others had to light their houses with candles or but-
tered lamps. This shortage seriously restricted the
further development of the local economy. The geo-
thermal plant, estimated to provide a net power of
840 kWe, will assist the local economic development
(Cuellar, et al., 1991).

A two MWe power plant is report at Langiu (Yangyi

?) is reported installed in Tibet near the Yangbaijain
geothermal field in Tibet (Wang, 1998).

9. Eastern China experimental binary plants. Rec-

ognizing the importance of geothermal energy as an
alternative new and renewable energy source, experi-
mental geothermal power stations were set up in east-
ern China from 1970 to 1982 (Cai, 1982 and Wang,
et al., 1995). These plants are summarized in the
table below. It became clear that the capacity of all
the experimental geothermal power stations was too
small and the efficiency too low due to the low tem-
perature of the thermal water for power generation.
At present, only Dengwu and Huitang are still in op-
eration (part time), and the remaining were shut down
in the early 1990s.
Figure 12. Tu Chang 300-kWe binary power plant,
Taiwan.
11. Tarawera binary plants, Kawerau, New Zealand,
were commissioned in late 1989 and officially opened
in early 1990 after a record short construction time of
15 months (Tilson, et al., 1990). The two ORMAT
energy convertors (OEC) (Fig. 13) receive waste wa-
ter from Kawerau 21 flash plant at about 342 oF
(172oC) and 116 psi (8 bar) (Freeston, 1991). Heat
rejection from the plant is by a forced draft air con-
denser situated above the OEC units. Each unit has a
gross output of 1.3 MWe; a total of 2.6 MWe, of which
about 13% is used by auxiliaries, pumps, fans, etc.,

Plant Name Province Date Commissioned Type Capacity Water Temp.

Dengwu No. 1 Guangdong 1970 FS 86 kW 196oF (91oC)

No. 2 Guangdong 1977 B 200 kW 196oF (91oC)
No. 3 Guangdong 1982 FS ? 196oF (91oC)
Huailai Hebei 1971 B 200 kW 185oF (85oC)
Wentang Jiangxi 1971 B 50 kW 153oF (67oC)
Huitang Hunan 1975 FS 300 kW 198oF (92oC)
Yingkou Liaoning 1977 B 100 kW 167oF (75oC)
Zhaoyuan Shandong 1981 FS 200 kW 196oF (91oC)
B = binary (isobutane, ethyl chloride, normal butane or freon-11), FS = flash steam

16 GHC BULLETIN, JUNE 1999

 giving approximately 2.2 MWe available for the Bay
of Plenty Power Board (BOP) grid. The monitoring
system allows unattended operation that ensures that
unscheduled outages can be quickly reported. The
plant performance is also monitored by the manufac-
turers in Israel, who provide weekly reports directly
to the BOP offices in Whakatane. Tilson, et al., (1990)
reported no deposition in the heat exchangers and,
with little maintenance required, load factors for the
first six months of operation were over 90%, with
96.6% availability. The unit average output was about
1,800 MWh per month for the initial operation. The
OECs utilize separated geothermal water which pre-
viously ran into the Tarawera River. The installation
of the OECs, thereby, contributes to environmental
conservation by reducing pollution.

Figure 14. Diagram of TG2 3.5-MWe binary unit at

Kawerau, New Zealand.

from two wells, runs through a separator, providing

an inlet temperature of 260oF (127oC) at 36 psi (2.45
bar) at 6 tons/hour. Hot water from the separator is
used for outdoor bathing, space heating and cooling,
hot water supply, heating of a sauna bath and for two
indoor baths.

Figure 13. Tarawera 1.25-MWe binary unit at Kawerau,

New Zealand.

12. TG2 binary power plant, Kawerau, New Zealand,

was installed and linked to the grid in 1993. This 3.5-
MWe gross output ORMAT OEC module uses 342oF
(172oC) geothermal brine at 325 tons/hr (Fig. 14). The
air-cooled unit also utilizes separated geothermal fluid
which previously ran into the Tarawera River. The
power plant is owned and operated by Bay of Plenty
Electric Power Board.
Figure 15. Kirishima International Hotel 100-kWe back
13. Kirishima International Hotel back pressure unit, pressure unit and separator.
Beppu, Kyushu, Japan, was installed in 1983. The
unit is 100-kWe non-condensing flash unit (Fig. 15). The electricity from the unit is used for the base load
A condensing- type turbine was considered, and even in the hotel such as sewage water treatment, lighting
though the gross output would be about 240 kWe with in the hallway and lounge, kitchen refrigerators, and
the same steam flow, and the increase in the net out- provides 30 to 60% of the hotel load according to the
put would be only 50 kWe because of the increase in season and time of day. Whenever the hotel load ex-
the parasitic loads (Ohkubo and Esaki, 1995). In ad- ceeds the capacity of the unit, the hotel receives power
dition, the simplicity of maintenance was also a rea- from the grid. The unit was furnished by Fuji
son to selected the non-condensing unit. Steam Electric Co., Ltd. of Japan.

GHC BULLETIN, JUNE 1999 17

14. Kokonoe Kanko Hotel condensing flash unit,
Kokonoe, Kyushu, Japan, was installed in 1998. This
is the most recent installation of a small-scale geo-
thermal power plant in Japan (Esaki, 1998). The con-
densing unit with a geared turbine (about 8,000 rpm)
is installed on the premises of this resort hotel, and
when the hotel load is below the unit capacity, which
it is most of the time, they sell power to Kyushu Elec-
tric Power Company. The installed capacity is 2,000
kWe, with major parastic loads of 356 kWe (hot well
pump, vacuum pump for gas extraction, cooling tower
fan and auxiliary cooling water pump) or about 17%
of the gross output giving a net output of 1,644 kWe.
The reason for the high parasitic load is that a vacuum
pump (164 kWe), not a set of steam jet ejectors, is
employed for gas extraction to reduce noise during
the operation because the plant is located adjacent to
a campsite of the hotel.
The steam temperature and pressure at the turbine inlet
is 271oF (133oC) at 44 psi (3.0 bar). The turbine
exhaust pressure is 3.1 psi (0.21 bar). The steam flow
supplied from two small production wells is 23 tons/
h with 2.0% by weight of non-condensable gas. The
unit was supplied by Fuji Electric Co. Ltd. of Japan.
15. Hachijojima Island condensing flash unit, 400 km
south of Tokyo, was complete in early 1999.
Hachijojima is a remote island with power supplied
from several diesel power plants. The unit has a gross
output of 3,300 kWe and parasitic load of 9% of the
gross output with the non-condensable gas abatement
system in operation, and 7% with the abatement sys-
tem shut down (Esaki, 1998). It is expected that the
fuel transportation cost will be drastically reduced
once the plant has been in operation. The plant, sup-
plied by Fuji Electric Co. Ltd., cost about $10 million
or $3,000 per installed kWe, and electricity will be
supplied for about 20 cents/kWh.
The steam temperature and pressure at the turbine inlet
is 338oF (170oC) at 118 psi (8.2 bar). The flow rate is
30 tons/h with 1.56% by weight of non-condensable
gas. The plant is equipped with a hydrogen sulfide
abatement system to comply with the regulation of
the Tokyo Metropolitan Government which prescribes
the concentration of 0.1 ppm, in this case at the cool-
ing tower cell.
16. The Bouillante geothermal flash condensing power
plant, Guadeloupe, was placed in operation in 1986.
The plant site is at Cocagne on the western coast of
18
the isle of Basse Terre, some 1,600 feet (500 m) south
of the center of Bouillante and some 9 miles (15 km)
from the Soufriere volcano. The operation of the
power-plant is mainly automatic and the electric out-
put will meet 6% of the Guadeloupe electric power
demand at a cost lower than that obtained with diesel
generators. Numerous modernization and improve-
ments were undertaken in 1995 and 1996 (Correia, et
al., 1998). Three automated controllers monitor plant
activity and manage all operation. The plant, located
within a residential district, was designed so as not to
produce noise greater than the ambient noise of the
city.
Geothermal wells on the island produced tempera-
tures of 446 to 482oF ( 230 to 250oC) at depths of
2,000 to 8,200 ft. (600 to 2,500 m) with a steam to
water mixture of 20 to 80% (Jaud and Lamethe, 1985).
A study was made of the various means to produce
electric power, and binary cycles were rejected due
to silica deposits on the heat exchange surface, thus a
condensing turbine was selected. The plant was then
supplied with a water-vapor mixture which is near
400oF (200oC) at the surface with an output of ap-
proximately 150 tons/hour. Two saturated steam
flows were used at 87 and 14.5 psi (6 and 1 bar). The
high pressure steam from the separator is conveyed
to the turbine and the separated geothermal water at
about 320oF (160oC) is sent to a flash vessel to pro-
duce low-pressure steam. The exhaust steam is then
condensed by cooling seawater in a direct-contact
condenser with a barometric pipe. The residual geo-
thermal water at 212o (100oC) is mixed with the wa-
ter coming from the condenser and is discharged to
the sea (Fig. 16). Approximately 30 tons per hour of
steam are produced by the high-pressure separator and
12 tons per hour of steam is produced by the low-
pressure separator.
During operation, the turbine is mainly supplied with
two high- and low-pressure steam flows. However,
it can operate with only the high pressure steam flow;
thus, enabling repair and maintenance operations to
be carried out on the flash vessel without having to
stop power production completely. The gross output
is 5.0 MWe and the net output of the unit is 4.2 MWe,
which is enough power for the cities on the west coast
of the island of Basse-Terre. Plant availability dur-
ing late 1997 and early 1998 averaged 95% (Correia,
et al.,1998).
GHC BULLETIN, JUNE 1999
 Figure 16. Diagram of the Bouillante geothermal power plant.

17. CGPV flash steam plant, Pico Vermelho, island of

San Miguel, Azores, Portugal, was installed in 1980
(Fig. 17). The reservoir temperature was as high as
400oF (200oC) at a depth around 1,600 feet (500 m).
The Mitsubishi back-pressure steam turbine, using a
single-flash system with a rated capacity of 3 MWe,
never produced more than 0.8 MWe, due to the in-
sufficient supply of steam from the small diameter
PVI well (depth 2,660 feet - 811 m) (Ponte, 1998). In
the first years after plant start-up, the production of
CGPV was variable; however, stable production fig-
ures have been achieve only since about 1993. The
main operation difficulty has been calcium carbonate
scaling, which requires that well PV1 be cleaned out
every month. Annual production varied from 4 to 5
GWh during 1994 to 1997. Availability average is
about 95% and the load factor average about 70%.

18. CGRG (phase A), binary plant, island of San
Miguel, Azores, Portugal, was installed in 1994. The
units consist of two dual ORMAT turbo-generators
of 2.5 MWe each, with auxiliaries, transformers,
switch gear, emergency diesel generators, fire fight-
ing system and a connection line to the grid. The
organic Rankine cycle uses normal pentane as the
working fluid. Two wells, CL-1 and CL-2, for the
project are about 400oF (200 oC) at 5,000 feet (1,500
m). The larger well, CL-2, delivers 152 tons/hour at
a wellhead pressure of 116 psi (8 bar) with a steam
flow of 39 tons/hour. Until the middle of 1994, the
Figure 17. Pico Vermelho 3-MWe flash steam plant,
Azores.
net power output was maintained near 4.8 MWe
(Ponte, 1998). However, well production rates and
plant output began to decline, indicating that wellbore
scaling was restricting flow in both wells. Therefore,
the wells were cleaned out in early 1995, using a drill-
ing rig. With both wells back in production, the plant
was operated at a net output near 4.4 MWe. Well
production decline in mid-1995 required a new clean
out; thus, after this operation, a scale inhibitor system

GHC BULLETIN, JUNE 1999 19

 was installed and put in continuous operation in both
wells. In 1997, the output was 42.3 GWh, the avail-
ability factor was 99.5% and the load
factor 96.5%.
The actual installed geothermal power production
meets 20% of San Miguel Island’s electricity demand,
which represents 50% of the Azorean total demand.
The CGRG plant is presently being expanded (Phase
B) with the installation of additional capacity of two-
4 MWe ORMAT binary plants (Fig. 18). With the
addition of Phase B, it is expected that nearly 45% of
the electricity demand of San Miguel will
be met.
Figure 18. CGRG binary plant, Phase B (2x4 MWe), San
Miguel, Azores.
19. Mulka Station and Birdsville power plants, Aus-
tralia. The first successful geothermal power plant in
Australia, a Mulka cattle station, was put into opera-
tion in 1986. This unit is a 20-kWe binary cycle and
flash steam, 415 V, II phase unit located in South
Australia. A 150-kWe, binary plant has been con-
structed at Birdsville, Queensland. This power plant
uses 210oF (99oC) water from the town’s well. This
well, flowing for 75 years, produces about 6,800 gpm
(30 l/s) at a shut-in pressure of 176 psi (1,213 kPa)
from a depth of about 3,900 feet (1,200 m). The cycle
efficiency is only 5% and parasitic losses reduce this
to 4%. The energy demand for the town varies from
60 to 150 kWe. The geothermal power alone suffices
when demand is low, but peaking with diesel power
is needed when the demand increases. The system
has been operating since 1992 and has achieved a ser-
vice factor of about 50% (Burns, et al., 1995).
20
20. Back pressure turbine, Bjarnarflag, Namafjall, Ice-
land, was installed in 1969. Based on exploration in
northern Iceland, a field temperature of 482 to 500oF
(250 to 260oC) was utilized to provide power to the
area through the Laxa Power Works, to gain experi-
ence in geothermal power generation, and to reduce
the use of imported and expensive fuel in their diesel
plants (Fig. 19). In order to minimize the construc-
tion time, a second-hand 2.5-MWe BTU back-pres-
sure industrial turbine-alternator set was purchased
in England (Ragnars, 1970). The design and erec-
tion of the power plant were carried out in seven
months.
The turbine itself was of simple design, with one Curtis
wheel and only two rows of blades on the rotor. It
runs on geothermal steam at 130 psi (9 bar) at the
inlet valve, a steam rate of 35 to 37 lbs/kWh (16 to 17
kg/kWh), with a back pressure of 0.7 psi (0.05 bar).
The rating is 3.4 MWe. The installed cost at the time
(1970) was $50/kW and the power generated at 0.45
to 0.55 cents/kWh delivered to the network. The
field also supplies steam to the Kisilidjan diatomite
plant, located adjacent to the site. The total electrical
production of the Bjarnarflag power plant in 1993 was
8.9 GWh.
Figure 19. The Bjarnaflag back-pressure 2.5-MWe power
plant, Iceland.
21. Svartsengi binary- geothermal power plant,
Reykjanes Peninsula, Iceland, was commissioned in
1989 as the first stage of a 12-MWe power plant. The
Sudurnes Regional Heating Corporation operates a
combined thermal and electric power plant that sup-
plies district heating and electricity to 10 communi-
ties on the Reykjanes Peninsula west of the capital,
GHC BULLETIN, JUNE 1999
 Reykjavik (Lienau, 1996). The thermal output is 125
MWt and the electric output is 16.4 MWe, with part
of the load going the Keflavik airport and a U.S. mili-
tary base. The heating plant was built by the National
Energy Authority in 1974 and in 1976-77, a prelimi-
nary power plant of 3 MWe was commissioned. In
1978, the first 1-MWe turbogenerator was commis-
sioned. Both of these units no longer are in opera-
tion. In the period of 1989 to 1993, seven binary
power units totaling 8.4 MWe were commissioned.
Three 1.2-MWe binary ORMAT water cooled tur-
bines were installed in 1989, utilizing steam which
had previously flowed unharnessed from the chim-
neys of the power station. These units produced an
additional 90 GWh per year, including about 15 GWh
for the station. In 1993, four additional 1.2-MWe
air-cooled binary turbines were put into operation.
This raised the installed power at the station to 16.4
MWe with production at 110 GWh per year, includ-
ing 17 GWh for the plant’s own use. Thus, 8.4 MWe
power is produced from binary units and 8 MWe from
a single-flash steam turbine. The heat rejected from
the water-cooled condenser of the ORMAT units is
used to preheat the district heating water and then dis-
Figure 20. Flow diagram of the Svartsengi, Iceland power plant.
GHC BULLETIN, JUNE 1999
posed into the Blue Lagoon a popular outdoor bath-
ing facility. The flash steam turbine uses 320oF
(160 C) fluid, and the reject fluid at 217oF (103oC) is
o
used in the binary units and finally rejected at 77oF
(25 oC) to the heat exchange column (Figure 20).
22. Integrated geothermal power plant, Aluto Langano,
Ethiopia, was synchronized to the Ethiopian national
power grid in 1998. This is the first geothermal power
plant using integrated stream and binary power tech-
nology in Africa. The plant consists of one 3.9-MWe
ORMAT combined cycle unit operating on geother-
mal steam and one 4.6-MWe ORMAT air-cooled OEC
operating on both geothermal brine and low-pressure
steam (Fig. 21). The high pressure steam is at 174 psi
(12 bar) with a temperature of 370oF (188oC) for the
two-phase geothermal fluid at 43.7 tons/hour (30.6
tons/hour steam), and the low pressure fluid is at 72.5
psi (5 bar) with a temperature of 305oF (152oC) at
120.5 tons/hour brine (28 tons/hr steam). The 8.5-
MWe geothermal power plant was constructed by
ORMAT under a turn-key EPC contract, and is owned
and operated by the Ethiopian Electric Light and
Power Authority (ORMAT literature).
21

Figure 21. Integrated 8.5-MWe geothermal power plant,
Ethiopia.
23. Travale 21 binary power plant, Comune di
Radicondoli, Italy, was installed and commissioned
in 1991. This 700- kW ORMAT OEC modular unit
(Fig. 22) utilizes a water dominated geothermal source
of 230oF (115oC), and the spent hot water is then used
to heat greenhouses. The plant is owned and oper-
ated by Ente Nazionale per l’Energia Elettrica
(ENEL), the Italian utility company (ORMAT litera-
ture).
Figure 22. Travale 21 geothermal binary power plant,
Italy.
24. Bagnore dry steam power plants, Mt. Amaita, Italy,
were commissioned in 1959. Bagnore 1 and 2 are 3.5
gross MWe dry steam geothermal plants using ap-
proximately 266oF (130o C) geothermal resource.
They are owned and operated by ENEL (GRC data-
base).
22
25. Latera power plants, Latera, Italy, are reported as
under construction. They consist of a 3.5-MWe flash
plant and a 2-MWe binary plant (GRC database).
26. Binary geothermal power plants, Los Azufres,
Michoacan, Mexico, were commissioned in 1993.
Two 1.5-MW ORMAT OEC unit are installed in two
separate locations in the Los Azufres geothermal field
(Fig. 23). They are air-cooled units using 347oF
(175oC) geothermal separated brined at a flow rate of
141 tons per hour using wells U-11 and U-12. The
plants are owned by Comision Federal de Electricidad
(CFE) (ORMAT literature).
Figure 23. 1.4-MWe binary power plant, Los Azufres,
Mexico.
27. Flash power plants, Los Azufres, Michoacan,
Mexico, were commissioned between 1982 and 1992.
There are ten 5.0-MWe (gross) flash steam back pres-
sure geothermal power plants operating in this field.
Five Mitsubishi units using wells U-1 through U-5,
one Toshiba unit using well U-6, one General Elec-
tric unit using well U-7 and three Ansaldo-Makrotek
units using wells U-8 through U-10 (GRC database
and Gerardo Hiriart, CFE). Their net output ranges
from 4.2 to 5.0 MWe and they produce around 43
GWh/year (Quijano-Leon and Gutierrez Negrin,
1995). The resource temperatures vary from 509 to
662oF (265 to 350oC) with inlet temperature of 338oF
(170oC) and pressure of 116 psi (8 bar). Well depths
range from 2,740 feet (835 m) to 6,873 feet (2,095
m). The estimated cost of each project was $4
million.
28. Flash power plants, Los Humeros, Chignautla,
Mexico, were commissioned between 1990 and 1993.
There are seven 5.0-MWe (gross) flash steam back
pressure geothermal power plants operating in this
GHC BULLETIN, JUNE 1999
 field. All are Ansaldo-Makrotek units using wells U-
1 through U-7 (GRC data base and Gerardo Hiriart,
CFE). Their net output ranges from 3.7 to 4.8 MWe
and they produce between 33 and 42 GWh/year
(Quijano-Leon and Guterrez Negrin, 1995). The re-
source temperatures vary from 608 to 644oF ( 320 to
340oC) with inlet temperature of 338oF (170oC) and
pressure of 116 psi (8 bar). Well depths range from
5,250 to 7,300 feet (1,600 to 2,225 m). The estimated
cost of each project was $4 million.
29. Flash power plant, La Primavera, Jalisco, Mexico,
was commissioned 1997. This unit, a single flash back
pressure plant, is built and supplied by Ansaldo-
Makrotek and uses well U-1 (GRC database and
Gerado Hiriart, CFE). The resource temperature is
672oF (356oC) and the inlet temperature is 346oF
(174oC) at a pressure of 125 psi (8.6 bar). The well
depth is 9,794 feet (2,985 m). The approximate total
project cost was US$ 6 million. There is also a report
of a second 5-MWe plant installed; but, no data are
available (Quijano-Leon and Guterrex Negrin, 1995).
Two 5.0-MWe plants are also being installed at the
Las Tres Virgenes geothermal field on Baja
California (Cadenas and De la Torres, 1998).
30. Geothermal Power Monobloks, Indonesia, installed
in 1978 and 1981. Two skid-mounted General Elec-
tric turbine generator modules have been utilized in
Indonesia supplied by Geothermal Power Company
of Elmira, New York. The first, a 250-kWe unit, was
installed at Kamojang in West Java. The second, a
2.0-MWe unit, was installed at Dieng, Central Java
and in 1981 (Fig. 24). This monoblok
Figure 24. 2.0-MWe geothermal power monoblok with
diffuser exhaust and pad-mounted transfor-
mer, Dieng, Indonesia.
GHC BULLETIN, JUNE 1999
weighting 30 tons, was then moved by Pertamina of
Indonesia to the Sibayak geothermal site in North
Sumatra, where it was installed as the first geother-
mal power plant on that island. These units were non-
condensing, skid mounted steam turbine and genera-
tor with switch gear and control system all mounted
in one package. The skid mounted package has a stain-
less steel outer covering for protection from corro-
sion due to the H2S gas in the steam (Geothermal
Power Co.literature)(Shulman, 1982).
31. Binary geothermal power plant, Copahue, Neuguen,
Argentina, came on line in 1988. This was a 670-kW
ORMAT OEC demonstration plant that uses
isopentane as the working fluid (Fig. 25). This was
the first geothermal plant located in South American
and was at 6,560 feet (2,000 m) on the slopes of the
Andes in western Argentina. It was a water-cooled
unit using low pressure steam at 331 to 340oF (166 to
171oC). A well supples 6.7 tons/hour of saturated
steam with 8% non-condensable gases from a well
depth of 3,280 feet (1,000 m). The annual energy
production was 3.5 GWh/year (Pesce, 1995). The
plant went off-line in 1996 as it could not compete
with natural gas which is an abundant and cheap re-
source in the region (Pesce, 1998).
Figure 25. 670-kWe binary power plant, Copahue,
Argentina.
32. Single-flash pilot plant, Milos, Greece, installed in
1985. A 2.0-MWe plant was installed in a effort to
focus on the island’s geothermal-electric potential.
The plant was a single-flash, condensing type with a
turbine initially designed to operate with steam at 116
psi (8 bar). It operated for several months with a fluc-
tuating output load, due to the substantial variations
in load demand of the island, rarely exceeding the 2.0
MWe. Between December 1986 and December 1988,
the plant operated about 7,600 hours and produced a
total energy of 7.33 GWh (Koutinas, 1990). Operat-
23
 ing troubles were experienced with scaling from heavy
metal sulphides, silica and silicon compounds, and
thus the plant was modified with the addition of a
high pressure cyclone separator (362 psi - 25 bar), a
steam scrubbing system and various other auxiliary
equipment. The plant was finally shut down in 1988,
as strong opposition against its operation was encoun-
tered among the inhabitants and local organizations
of the island (Fytikas, et al, 1995).
34. Experimental binary power plant, Paratunka,
Kamchatka, Russia, commissioned in 1967
(Moskvickeva and Popov, 1970). This was one of
the first geothermal binary power units installed in
the world, rated at 680 kWe and used 178oF (81oC)
water (Fig. 28). It was dismantled by 1985.

33. Binary power units, Lakeview, Oregon, installed in

1984 and 1985 by Jack Woods. Three SPS binary
power units rated at 370 kWe each and three ORMAT
binary units rated at 300 kWe (Fig. 26) were installed
in Hammersly Canyon. The temperature of the re-
source was 204oF (96oC). Another binary unit at 40
kW was installed south of Lakeview near Goose Lake
by Rockford (Fig. 27). None of the units are now
operating, and the three SPS units have been moved
to Animas, New Mexico where they are
being using for a greenhouse operation.

Figure 28. Paratunka, Russia 680-kWe binary power

plant.

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.

Cabraal, A.; Cosgrove-Davies, M. and L. Schaeffer, 1996.

“Best Practices for Photovoltaic Household Elect-
rification Programs: Lessons form Experience in
Selected Countries,” World Bank Technical Paper
No. 324, The World Bank, Washington, DC.

Cadenas, C. and G. De la Torre, 1998. “Main Features of

the Las Tres Virgenes I Geothermal Projects,”
Geothermal Resources Council Transactions, Vol.
22, Davis, CA, pp. 293 - 295.

Cai Yihan, 1982. “Present Status of the Utilization of Geo-

thermal Energy in the People’s Republic of China,”
Geo-Heat Center Quarterly Bulletin, Vol. 7, No. 1,
Klamath Falls, OR, pp. 12 - 18.
Figure 27. 40-kWe unit south of Lakeview, OR.

24 GHC BULLETIN, JUNE 1999

Correia, H.; Le Nir, M. and L-M Rochat, 1998. “Automatiza-
tion and Environmental Integration of 5-MW Power
Plant in Guadelupe. Conditions of Extension of
Power Generation,” Proceedings of the Interna-
tional Summer School in the Azores, Skopje,
Macedonia, Chapter 10.
Cuellar, G.; Wu Fangzhi and D. Rosing, 1991. “The Nagqu,
Tibet, Binary Geothermal Power Plant, at 4,500
Meters Above Sea Level,” Proceedings of the 13th
New Zealand Geothermal Workshop, Geothermal
Institute, Auckland, pp. 57 - 61.
Culver, G. G., 1987. “Performance and Evaluation of Ormat
Unit at Wabuska, Nevada,” Electric Power Research
Institute Proceedings, Vol. 10, (EPRI AP-5059-SR)
Palo Alto, CA, pp. (4) 3-11.
Entingh, D. J., 1991. “Geothermal Cost of Power Model,
IM-GEO Version 3.05,” Meridian Corporation,
Alexandria, VA.
Entingh, D. J.; Easwaran, E. and L. McLarty, 1994a. “Small
Geothermal Electric Systems for Remove Power,”
Geothermal Resources Council Bulletin, Vol. 23,
No. 10 (November), Davis, CA, pp. 331-338.
Entingh, D. J.; Easwaran, E. and L. McLarty, 1994b. “Small
Geothermal Electric Systems for Remote Powering,”
Geothermal Resources Council Transactions, Vol. 18,
Davis, CA, pp. 39-45.
Esaki, Y., 1998. “Small-Scale Geothermal Power Genera-
tion - Flash Cycles,” notes presented at the Geother-
mal Off-Grid Workshop in Reno, Geothermal
Resources Council, Davis, 12 p.
Forsha, M. D. and K. E. Nichols, 1997. “Power Plants for
Rural Electrification,” World Renewable Energy
Congress IV: Renewable Energy, Energy
Efficiency and the Environment, Renewable
Energy, Vol. 10, No. 2/3, p. 409.
Forsha, M., 1994. “Low Temperature Geothermal Flash
Steam Plant,” Geothermal Resources Council
Transactions, Vol. 18, Davis, CA, pp. 515-522.
Freeston, D. H., 1991. “Small Geothermal Power Plant
Developments,” Proceedings of the 13 t h New
Zealand Geothermal Workshop, Geothermal
Institute, Auckland, pp. 285 - 296.
Fytikas, M.; Dalambakis, P.; Karkoulias, V. and D.
Mendrinos, 1995. “Geothermal Exploration and
Development Activities in Greece During 1990-
1994,” Proceedings of the World Geothermal
Congress, 1995, International Geothermal
Association, pp. 119 - 127.
GHC BULLETIN, JUNE 1999
GRC, 1985. “First Power Plant Dedicated at Cove Fort,
Utah,” Geothermal Resources Council Bulletin,
(Nov.), Vol. 14, No. 10, Davis, CA, pp. 5-6.
GRC, 1998. “Database of Geothermal Projects,”
Geothermal Resources Council, Davis, CA.
Hiriart Lebert, G.; CFE, Mexico. Input into GRC databook.
Jaud, P. and D. Lamethe, 1985. “The Bouillante Geothermal
Power-Plant, Guadeloupe,” Geothermics, Vol. 14,
No. 2/3, Pergamon Press Ltd. Oxford, pp. 197-205.
Koutinas, G. A., 1990. “Status of High Enthalpy Geother-
mal Resources in Greece,” Geothermal Resources
Council Transactions, Vol. 14, Part 1, Davis, CA,
pp. 87 - 95.
Krieger, H. R., 1989. “Innovative Geothermal Power Plants
- The Solution to Geothermal Resource Constraints
the Ormat Way,” Proceedings of the Geothermal
Resources Council, Vol. 13, Davis, CA, pp. 639-
644.
Lienau, P. J. (editor), 1996. “Sudurnes Regional Heating
Corp.,” Geo-Heat Center Quarterly Bulletin ,
Vol. 17, No. 4 (Nov.), Klamath Falls, OR,
pp. 14-16.
Lund, J. W. and P. J. Lienau, 1994. “Onion and Garlic
Dehydration in the San Emidio Desert, Nevada,”
Geo-Heat Center Bulletin, Vol 15, No. 4,
Klamath Falls, OR, pp. 19-21.
Moskvicheva, V. N. and A. E. Popov, 1970. “Geothermal
Power Plant on the Paratunka River,” Geothermics,
Special Issue 2, Pisa, pp. 1567-1571.
Nichols, K. E., 1986. “Wellhead Power Plants and Operat-
ing Experience at Wendel Hot Springs,” Geothermal
Resources Council Transactions, Vol. 10, Davis,
CA, pp. 341-346.
Ohkubo, S and Y. Esaki, 1995. “Multiple Use of Geother-
mal Energy at Kirishima International Hotel,”
Proceeding of the World Geothermal Congress,
1995, International Geothermal Association, pp.
2257 - 2261.
Pesce, A., 1995. “Argentina Country Update,” Proceedings
of the World Geothermal Congress, 1995, Interna-
tional Geothermal Association, pp. 35 - 43.
Pesce, A., 1998. “Direct Uses of Geothermal Energy in
Argentina,” Geothermal Resources Council
Transactions, Vol. 22, Davis, CA, pp. 269 - 273.
25
Ponte, C. B., 1998. “Geothermal Electricity Production at
Azores,” Proceedings of the International Summer
School at the Azores, Skopje, Macedonia, Chapter
12.
Pritchett, J. W., 1998a. “Electrical Generating Capacities
of Geothermal Slim Holes,” Federal Geothermal
Research Program Update, Fiscal Year 1997, pre-
pared for the U.S. Department of Energy, Office
of Geothermal Technologies, DOE/CE/35060-1,
Princeton Economic Research, Inc., Rockville, MD,
pp. 4-81 to 4-87.
Pritchett, J. W., 1998b. Maxwell Technologies, Inc., per-
sonal communication.
Quijano-Leon, J. L. and L. C. A. Gutierrez Negrin, 1995.
“Present Situation of Geothermics in Mexico,”
Proceedings of the World Geothermal Congress,
1995, International Geothermal Association, pp.
245 - 250
Ragnars, K.; Saemundsson, K.; Benediktsson, S. and S. S.
Einarsson, 1970. “Development of the Namafjall
Area - Northern Iceland,” Geothermics, Special
Issue 2, CNR, Pisa, pp. 925-935.
Ramingwong, T. and S. Lertsrimongkol, 1995. “Update on
Geothermal Development in Thailand” Proceedings
of the World Geothermal Congress, 1995, Interna-
tional Geothermal Association, pp. 337-340.
Ryan , G. P., 1982. “Binary Generators - You’ll Wonder
Where the Power Went,” Geo-Heat Center Quart-
erly Bulletin, Vol. 7, No. 2, Klamath Falls, OR,
pp. 21-23..
Ryan, G. P., 1983. “Binary Generators - Tweaking More
Bangs Per BTU,” Geothermal Resources Council
Transactions, Vol. 7, Davis, CA., pp. 41-46.
26
Ryan, G. P., 1984. “Binary Generator Refrigerants - Picking
the Right Stuff,” Geothermal Resources Council
Transaction, Vol. 8, Davis, CA, pp. 99-104.
Schochet, D., 1998. ORMAT International, Inc., per-
sonal communication.
Shulman, G., 1982. “Dieng, Indonesia: 2 MWe Wellhead
Power System,” Electric Power Research Institute
Proceedings, Vol. 6 (Dec), Palo Alto, CA, pp. 6-19.
Tilson G.; Levin, U. and H. Legmann, 1990. “Tarawera
Ormat Installation, Unattended Modular Geother-
mal Power Plant Performance Report,” Pro-
ceedings of the 12 t h New Zealand Geothermal
Workshop, Geothermal Institute, Auckland, pp.
213 - 217.
Vimmerstedt, L., 1998. “Opportunities for Small Geother-
mal Projects: Rural Power for Latin America, the
Caribbean, and the Philippines,” National Renew-
able Energy Laboratory report NREL/TP-520-
22792, Golden, CO, 65 p. (Available from the
National Technical Information Service, U.S.
Dept. of Commerce, 5285 Port Royal Rd.,
Springfield, VA 22161 - phone: 7003-487-4650).
Wang Ji-Yang, 1998. “Current and Future Develop-
ment of Geothermal Energy in China,” Geotermia,
Vol. 14, No. 3, Revista Mexicana de Geoenergia,
Morelia, Mich., Mexico, pp. 143-145.
Wang Ji-Yang, Chen Mo-Xiang, Xiong Liang-Ping and
Pang Zhong-He, 1995. “Geothermal Resources
and Development in China,” Proceedings of the
World Geothermal Congress, 1995, International
Geothermal Association, pp. 75 - 80.
GHC BULLETIN, JUNE 1999
 OPPORTUNITIES FOR SMALL GEOTHERMAL
POWER PROJECTS
Laura Vimmerstedt
National Renewable Energy Laboratory
Golden, CO

INTRODUCTION The costs of small geothermal projects depend signifi-

Opportunites for small geothermal projects exist in many
areas of the developing world, including Latin America, the
Caribbean, and the Philippines. We define small geothermal
power projects as those with less than 5 megawatts (MW) of
capacity. Geothermal power plants with less than 5 MW of
capacity could supply electricity in remote areas. However,
such plants would serve these markets almost exclusively in
countries where strong government or regional policies pro-
mote this application. Such government interventions is
cantly on power plant costs, drilling costs, resource quality,
and costs of financing. Costs of small geothermal generation
are in the same range as competitor technologies for rural elec-
tricity markets. Figure 1 shows one estimate, in which the
cost of small-scale geothermal generation substantially over-
laps that of diesel.


* HRWKHUPDO +L JK& RVW

needed for small geothermal projects because they face spe- * HRWKHUPDO /RZ& RVW

cial financial and operational challenges associated with their 

'L HVHO+ LJK  &RVW

small size. One such challenge is the relatively high transac- 'L HVHO/ RZ &RVW

tion costs of obtaining project finance, and the difficulty in 

establishing and supporting an operation and maintenance

infrastructure for small plants in remote areas. These diffi- 

culties may be mitigated by bundling small projects together,

as could occur within a national program. The widespread 

use of small geothermal units demonstrates the technological

feasibility of small systems, but does not demonstrate opera- 

tional or economic feasibility for remote applications.      

TECHNOLOGIES FOR SMALL GEOTHERMAL
PROJECTS
Small geothermal power plants, either binary or flash
steam, can be manufactured and can be operated in remote
areas; but, each type of technology enjoys different advan-
tages and faces different challenges in this application. For
example, binary plants can typically operate with lower tem-
perature resources that are more common, and this could help
a small project hold down drilling costs; however, greater sys-
tem complexity can complicate operation and maintenance.
The flash steam plant’s simpler and less expensive design is
especially welcome in a small system. However, the flash
steam plants are typically used with higher temperature re-
sources that could be more expensive to obtain than lower
temperature ones. Using a flash steam plant with a lower tem-
perature resource might not be cost effiective because of re-
duced efficiency. Finally, the complexity of managing scale
desposition is likely to impose greater costs in flash steam
plants than in binary plants.
The credibility of small geothermal projects must be
strengthened with lenders. Both private- and public-sector
investors require extensive documentation of technology per-
formance, operation and maintenance requirements, and other
project justification materials. This information could be de-
veloped into model documents that would help project devel-
opers obtain capitol investment. Developing such model docu-
ments could help identify technology or data issues that need
to be addressed.
GHC BULLETIN, JUNE 1999
&DSDFLW \ N:
Figure 1. Cost of diesel generation and geothermal
generation vs. capacity.
FINDING GEOTHERMAL RESOURCES FOR
SMALL PROJECTS
An effective, economical exploration program is essen-
tial for successful small geothermal projects. When charac-
terizing resources for small geothermal projects, the develop-
ers must inexpensively identify resources of sufficient qual-
ity, in terms of temperature with depth and chemistry, to per-
mit a group of economically viable projects. An exploration
plan for small geothermal plant sites should pool exploration
risks across many small projects and identify a group of
projects that will be logistically viable when bundled. Small
projects cannot afford high drilling costs, such as the $1-3
million per well spent during exploration for large projects.
Drilling slim holes for exploration and production or using
smaller, more portable drill rigs are promising methods to re-
duce costs. One can use existing data to help small geother-
mal projects achieve low exploration costs; but, it should be
understood that exploration goals for large projects are differ-
ent from goals for small projects. In some cases, existing wells
could be considered.
MARKETS FOR SMALL GEOTHERMAL
PROJECTS
Access to better energy technology could improve rural
people’s lives, and small geothermal plants could be one of
27
those technologies. Rural electricity services can be improved
by installing individual systems, national grids, and mini-grids.
Individual systems are generally too small to be cost-effective
applications of geothermal technology. However, a region
where individual systems would be appropriate could be even
better served with small geothermal plants, if extensive eco-
nomic development changed the market conditions. For small
geothermal projects to be used under these circumstances, a
region would need to be far from any existing grid and un-
dergo long-term, intensive, economic development that would
greatly increase the region’s load density and the demand for
and ability to pay for electricity.
Service in remote parts of national grids could be im-
proved, in some cases, with distributed power generation from
small geothermal plants. Even so, connection of a prospective
site to an existing grid would need to be inexpensive. If the
part of the national grid receiving the distributed generation
needs improvements in power quality, reliability or capacity,
then installing a small geothermal plant would be one solu-
tion, but should be compared to other potential solutions.
Perhaps most promising, existing mini-grids present op-
portunities for small geothermal power plants to supplement
base load to support a small geothermal plant, or must receive
additional base load in conjunction with the small geothermal
project. For example, regional development could add a pro-
ductive load.
Electric sector reform is transforming the potential own-
ers and operators of small geothermal projects from public utili-
ties to private power producers. Reform is intended to im-
prove the overall economic efficiency of the electric sector
and may open new opportunities for small geothermal projects
in this more competitive market. On the other hand, reform
may change the roles of public utilities and governments such
that they do not provide as much vital support to geothermal
projects as they have in the past. Private power producers are
likely to make electric capacity investment decisions that fa-
vor technologies with a lower share of capital cost as a fraction
of total cost, and lower financing costs than what small geo-
thermal power plants require.
Small geothermal projects can benefit from lessons
learned from other renewable energy technologies that have
already begun to supply rural markets internationally. For small
geothermal projects, as for other renewables, appropriate fi-
nancial arrangements are critical to success. Attributes of suc-
cessful financial arrangements include consideration of the
ability and willingness of rural customers to pay for services, a
suitable financing mechanism, and appropriate use of subsi-
dies. Experience from other renewable energy technologies
has shown that market infrastructure can be difficult to de-
velop in remote areas because its services (marketing, distri-
bution, installation, maintenance and revenue collection) re-
quire a sufficiently large base to support the needed personnel.
Performance safeguards are essential in rural areas, where re-
liability, ease of use, and maintenance must be ensured under
harsh conditions. Small geothermal plants need standards and
testing for rural applications to determine what, if any, im-
provements are needed. The role of governments and donors
in facilitating other renewable energy technologies highlights
28
their potential analogous role for small geothermal projects,
especially in such areas as resource assessment and the estab-
lishment of a legal and regulatory structure for cost recovery
for rural electricity supply.
GEOTHERMAL INDUSTRY PLAYERS IN A POS-
SIBLE SMALL-SCALE GEOTHERMAL MARKET
Companies from the United States, Europe, Japan, Ice-
land, New Zealand, and developing countries will compete for
profitable small geothermal projects in remote areas. If this
market develops, the geothermal industry can provide the rel-
evant technologies and experience for successful small projects.
However, the industry could improve its products and equip-
ment to enhance its service to the small-scale geothermal mar-
ket. Serving this market would also require the industry to
develop market infrastructure and innovative financing meth-
ods. National governments influence the relative competitive
advantage of their own geothermal companies in international
competition for geothermal projects by funding international
geothermal exploration and development, supporting trade
missions, and providing aid in exchange for contracts and equip-
ment purchases.
CONCLUSIONS
Small geothermal projects, less than 5 MW in size, could
improve rural electricity supplies for the growing markets of
Latin America, the Caribbean, and the Philippines. Small geo-
thermal units could use either flash steam or binary technolo-
gies; these are technically proven and widely used in larger
U.S. geothermal developments. However, their operational
and economic feasibility in remote areas of developing coun-
tries is less well demonstrated. Investors in small geothermal
projects will require documentation of performance in remote
settings, including feasibility of plant designs, and operation
and maintenance plans. The choice between binary and flash
will depend on site-specific characteristics. Small geothermal
plants are potential competitors with diesel generators for ru-
ral electricity markets.
Exploration for small geothermal projects must be inex-
pensive so that the electricity from the project will be cost com-
petitive. Understanding the effectiveness of small-scale ex-
ploration programs, and controlling drilling costs, present a
significant challenge for small projects. Methods to reducing
drilling costs include using slim holes for exploration and pro-
duction, and advanced drilling systems. Geothermal resources
have been characterized, to varying degrees, at many sites in
Latin America, the Caribbean, and the Philippines. Using and
adding to this knowledge base systematically could help small
geothermal projects achieve low exploration costs. Existing
wells may help geothermal exploration for small projects.
Rural people have pressing energy needs, and electricity
from small geothermal plants could meet some of these needs.
Individual systems, national grids, and mini-grids are used to
provide rural electricity, and each type of system presents small
geothermal projects with different competitors. Economic
development could combine individual systems into a grid that
small geothermal plants could serve. Small geothermal plants
could provide distributed generation to remote parts of national
GHC BULLETIN, JUNE 1999
grids. In mini-grids, a promising market for small geothermal
plants, they would supplement or displace diesel generation.
As electric sectors reform, private power producers become
more likely customers from small geothermal power plants than
public utilities. However, a continued public role may be im-
portant to catalyze small geothermal projects. Faced with com-
petitive markets, small geothermal projects can benefit from
lessons learned from other renewable technologies that supply
rural markets: lessons about institutions to provide operation,
maintenance and other services; about innovative financing
and technology performance; and about effects on market de-
velopment of support from governments and financial institu-
tions.
International firms from the United States, Europe, Ja-
pan, Iceland, New Zealand, and developing countries could
develop small geothermal projects. These companies have the
appropriate technologies for small projects, and have experi-
ence in international geothermal project development. The
industry might respond to a growing small-scale geothermal
market by tailoring power plants, drilling rigs, pumps, and other
equipment to small applications. Better market infrastructure
and innovative financing could improve industry success in
these markets. National governments enhance the competi-
tive position of their geothermal industries by funding interna-
tional geothermal activities, supporting international trade, and
requiring purchases in exchange for international aid.
GHC BULLETIN, JUNE 1999
Editor’s Note: This article is a summary of a report issued by
the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, “Opportunities for
Small Geothermal Projects: Rural Power in Latin America,
the Caribbean, and the Philippines,” by L. Vimmerstedt, No-
vember 1998 (NREL/TP-210-25107). The complete report can
be downloaded from NREL’s website: <www.nrel.gov/geo-
thermal>, or a hard copy can be obtained from the National
Technical Information Service, U.S. Department of Commerce,
5285 Port Royal Road, Springs, VA 22161, telephone: 703-
487-4650.
References on slim hole drilling can be found in the
following articles:
Garg, S. K. and J. Combs, 1997. “Use of Slim Holes
with Liquid Feedzones for Geothermal Reservoir Assessment,”
Geothermics, Vol. 26, No. 2, Elsevier Science Ltd., London,
pp. 153-178.
Finger, John T., (undated). “Slimhole Drilling for
Geothermal Exploration” and “Update on Slimhole Drilling,”
Geothermal Research Department, Sandia National Laborato-
ries, telephone: 505-844-8080.
29
 GEOTHERMAL SMALL POWER GENERATION
OPPORTUNITIES IN THE LEEWARD ISLANDS
OF THE CARIBBEAN SEA
Gerald W. Huttrer
Geothermal Management Company, Inc.
Frisco, Colorado

INTRODUCTION The islands, comprise two eastward convex arcs. South

The northern islands of the Lesser Antilles are all po-
tential sites of geothermal resources because virtually all of
the islands are underlain by active or dormant (but not ex-
tinct) volcanoes. The 11 islands falling into this category are:
(Figure 1 - from north to south) Saba, St. Eustatius (Statia),
St. Christopher (St. Kitts), Nevis, Montserrat, Guadeloupe,
Dominica, Martinique, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and Grenada.
of Montserrat, these arcs merge to form a single curvilinear
island chain that intersects the South American continent at
the Peninsula de Paria of Venezuela. The western island arc
and its southern extension are of relatively recent volcanic
origin. The northern and eastern islands, though once loci of
volcanism, are now mantled by thick sedimentary deposits.
The reason for the active volcanism is that the Carib-
bean islands occupy a crustal plate that is moving eastward
along the North and South American Plates, and subducting
eastward beneath the Atlantic Plate (Figure 2). Accordingly,
volcanic arcs typical of plate boundaries have formed over
time and, in the Caribbean, each volcano or group of volca-
noes forms the foundation of a discrete island.

SMALL GEOTHERMAL POWER GENERATION

OPPORTUNITIES
The potential for construction of small geothermal power
generation facilities, though not off-grid or “villiage power,”
is excellent in many Caribbean islands. The countries are still
developing, their transmission and distribution grids are ubiq-
uitous and their power requirements are growing. Excluding
the French islands, which have power demands in the tens of
Figure 1.

Figure 2.
30 GHC BULLETIN, JUNE 1999
megawatts, the largest loads are on St. Vincent, St. Lucia and
Dominica, where 10-20 MW is or will soon be needed. Next
in size is Grenada where 8-12 MW could be used, and finally
come all the rest of the islands whose current needs range from
2 to 5 MW.
In virtually all of the islands, generation, transmission
and distribution costs (including all soft costs) range between
$0.12 and $0.15 per kWh. It is important to note that while
none of the utility companies have an accurate accounting of
their real costs, it seems very likely that geothermally-gener-
ated power could be provided for a lower cost than the utilities
now pay in-house. In many countries, O&M-caused brown-
outs or power outages are all too common and are reportedly
on the increase.
Careful, realistic calculations of planned geothermal
project economics and of current true power costs must be
made. Assuming that they confirm the economic viability of a
planned project, they will be critically important in convinc-
ing governments and utility officials that geothermal power
will be less expensive and more reliable than their traditional
generating systems.
CARIBBEAN GEOTHERMAL POWER PROJECT
PROS AND CONS
The conditions favoring small geothermal power devel-
opments in the Lesser Antilles include:
• Good to excellent chances for discovery of economi-
cally-viable geothermal resources,
• A generally positive attitude by all of the national
governments toward the exploitation of their indig-
enous resources,
• A growing realization that power generation by enti-
ties other than the government can be simultaneously
beneficial to the host nation and to independent power
producers,
• Increasing impatience on the part of citizens and gov-
ernment officials, on all the islands, towards long
standing, excessive O&M problems with diesel gen-
erator sets,
• Power demand growth of 7-10% per year in most
countries. This may actually accelerate because all
of the nations are seeking to increase their revenues
by attracting tourists. More tourists will require more
hotels and more air-conditioned hotels will require
more power,
• The high cost of power generation on most islands
that almost certainly could be decreased with the ad-
dition of geothermally-generated electricity, and
GHC BULLETIN, JUNE 1999
• The pressing needs for freshwater on all the islands
except Dominica and St. Lucia. If more economical
electricity were to become available on the dry is-
lands, large reverse osmosis installations could be built
and operated to alleviate periodic water shortages,
rationing and the need to depend on rainfall collec-
tion in cisterns.
Some negative aspects or obstacles regarding initiation
of Caribbean small geothermal power projects are:
• The difficulty in financing small (<$50 million)
projects,
• The relatively low rate of return likely on small Car-
ibbean geothermal power projects, and the associated
need to minimize exploration expenditures which
unavoidably will increase the risk level perceived by
potential investors,
• The speckled history of fiscal responsibility on the
part of governments of several of these islands and
their consequent low-international credit rating,
• The marginal solvency of many of the national utility
companies, and the inability or unwillingness of the
national governments to guarantee payments by their
utilities for power purchased, and
• The common occurrence of destructive hurricanes in
the region, and the recent experiences with damage
due to the volcanic eruptions on Monstserrat.
GEOTHERMAL RESOURCE INDICIA SUMMARIES
Presented below, in descending order of development
potential, are brief descriptions of geothermal indicia on each
of the 11 volcanic islands:
Guadeloupe - The volcano La Soufrière on Basseterre has large
fumerolic areas and there are thermal springs on the mountain
flanks.
St. Lucia - Geothermal indicia on St. Lucia comprise a very
large solfatara near the village of Sulfrière, thermal springs
nearby and very recent volcanic activity including both phreatic
and pyroclastic eruptions.
Dominica - The likely presence of geothermal resources be-
neath Dominica is suggested by a boiling lake, numerous boil-
ing hot springs, several large solfataras and very recent (<500
YBP) volcanic activity. There are at least three geothermal
centers.
31
St. Vincent- La Soufrière volcano has erupted three times since
1902, there is a steaming resurgent dome in the crater, and
there are numerous hot springs in river valleys on the western
side of the volcano.
Nevis - On Nevis’ western and southern sides, there are two
solfataras, numerous thermal wells and a large area of hydro-
thermal alteration. Also, strong earthquakes with hypocenters
very near Nevis occurred in 1951 and 1961. There are encour-
aging geothermal indicia at five places on the island.
Saba - Saba is a small island comprising a central volcano
with at least 15 andesitic domes on its flanks. There is a record
of volcanic eruption(s) less than 1,000 years ago, and there are
numerous hot springs along the shoreline and just off shore.
The island is highly fractured, and some hot springs’ tempera-
tures have risen in the last 40 years.
St. Kitts - Though there are moderately large areas of steam-
ing ground in the crater of Mt. Liamuiga and some small ther-
mal springs along the western shoreline, the geothermal indi-
cia are less well defined than on the previously described is-
lands.
Grenada - Prefeasibility studies have revealed one small sol-
fatara on Mt. St. Katherine, several small thermal springs in
ravines radial to the central volcano and numerous relatively
young phreatic explosion creaters. Additionally, the sub-sea
volcano Kick-em-Jenny lies only five miles off Grenada’s north
coast suggesting that the zone between it and central north-
eastern Grenada may be geothermally prospective.
Martinique - The very active Mt. Pele comprises an obvious
locus for geothermal resources. There are solfataras, hot
springs, earthquake epicenters nearby and well developed frac-
ture systems.
Montserrat - Even before the 1995 eruptions, the southwest-
ern flank of the Soufrière Hills volcano was the site of solfataric
activity and of numerous thermal springs. There was also sig-
nificant seismic activity and several well developed fracture
systems transecting the volcano.
Statia - While some heat probably remains beneath The Quill
as evidenced by reported occurrences of thermal waters in two
wells drilled for drinking water, there are no known hot springs
or paleo-thermal areas on the island.
EXPLORATION/DEVELOPMENT STATUS SUMMA-
RIES
Prefeasibility and reconnaissance exploration, explor-
atory drilling and the construction of one power plant have
been accomplished in the Caribbean islands under discussion.
The scope of these activities is summarized below.
32
Prefeasibility Studies - The author, with assistance from Re-
public Geothermal Inc. staff, U.S. Geothermal Industries Cor-
poration representatives, Dr. D. E. Michels and J. Renner, has
conducted prefeasibility studies on St. Lucia, Dominica,
Grenada, St. Vincent, Saba, Statia, St. Kitts and Nevis since
1982. In all cases, the work included reviews of geothermally-
relevant literature, acquisition and stereoscopic analysis of
airphotos, reconnaissance (confirmatory) geologic mapping,
petrographic studies of fresh and altered rock samples,
geochemistry of thermal and non-thermal waters, and collec-
tion of large amounts of non-resource related information. The
latter included data regarding electric power, environmental
topics, permitting, government philosophies about use of in-
digenous resources, locally available labor, facilities, supplies
and costs, and logistical/construction matters.
Reconnaissance - This second stage work is herein defined to
include some or all of: detailed geologic mapping, compre-
hensive water and/or gas geochemistry, electrical surveys (re-
sistivity, S-P, CSAMT, MT, etc.), gravity or magnetic surveys,
soil mercury, radioactivity or CO2 and shallow (thermal gra-
dient or slim-hole) drilling. It has been done on Dominica,
Guadeloupe and Martinique by the French; on St. Lucia by the
English, Los Alamos National Laboratories and an Italian
group; on St. Vincent by a U.S. company; and on Montserrat
by British, Italian and U.S. entities. These studies have re-
sulted in advanced characterization of the chemistry, tempera-
ture and depth of resources.
Deep Exploratory Drilling - Following reconnaissance stud-
ies, this expensive work has been undertaken to date only on
Guadeloupe by CFG and BRGM, and on St. Lucia where two
wells were drilled by a multilaterally-funded team led by Ital-
ian geothermists. The first St. Lucia well found heat but low
permeability; however, the second well discovered what ap-
peared to be an economically exploitable resource. Unfortu-
nately, this well suffered mechanical failures and the produced
steam was never harnessed to generate power.
Development - The drilling of successful deep wells on
Guadeloupe in the early-1980s led to the building of a 4.2-
MW double flash power plant in 1984. This plant has had
intermittent problems caused by relatively high amounts of non-
condensable gasses and associated H2SO4; but, there seem to
have been mitigated by CFG and the plant is now in operation.
There is excellent potential for expansion of this development;
but, for some reason, neither CFG nor Electricite de France
(EDF), the Guadeloupe utility, seem anxious to move forward.
WORK NEEDED TO SITE DEEP WELLS
On the islands where strong geothermal indicia have been
mapped, reconnaissance work as defined above should be con-
ducted. The extent and precise type of the geophysical work
will be dictated by logistical considerations and the nature of
GHC BULLETIN, JUNE 1999
the preliminary geothermal system model. Thermal gradient
drilling should comprise no less than five 300-meter holes sited
in accordance with the results of preceding surveys.
Once thermal gradient drilling results are available, de-
cisions will have to be made whether to drill one or more slim
holes or to drill a full-scale exploratory well. A discussion of
the factors to be considered when making these decisions is
beyond the scope of this paper; but, it is estimated that pre-
production well drilling costs will approximate $1.5 million.
SUMMARY
There are 11 volcanic islands in the Lesser Antilles of
the Caribbean Sea having modest-to-very significant geother-
mal resource potential. Prefeasibility and reconnaissance phase
exploration and power generation have been accomplished to
varying degrees on these islands with generally encouraging
results.
GHC BULLETIN, JUNE 1999
Power demands range from 2 to 20 MW, and the aver-
age annual power demand growth rate of 7-10% is anticipated
to increase. Access to grids is not a problem on any island.
Geothermal power could almost surely be sold to the utilities
for less than the $0.12 to $0.15 per kWh cost of generation
now estimated by the various utility companies, and the pros-
pect of initiating significant savings is appealing to govern-
ment officials as well as the citizens-on-the-streets.
Though financing of small projects may be difficult to
obtain and greater returns on investment may be possible via
other types of projects, these obstacles should be surmount-
able. The environmental and social benefits of geothermal
resource use are very impressive, and they virtually mandate
that the developed nations make strong efforts towards its de-
velopment in the Caribbean island nations.
33
 GEOTHERMAL PIPELINE
Progress and Development Update
Geothermal Progress Monitor
OREGON
Klamath Falls, OR
A new power plant being built in Klamath Falls has thrust
Oregon into the vanguard of national efforts to reduce global
warming. A 1997 state law requires new power plants to mini-
mize carbon dioxide emissions, which are thought to contrib-
ute to global warming. To meet those stricter standards, power
plant operators must offset some emissions by financing re-
forestation, alternative energy and other projects that reduce
carbon dioxide. PacifiCorp and the city of Klamath Falls are
building the $300-million, 484-megawatt, natural-gas-fired
plant, with the first electricity expected to be generated in 2001.
The city will own the plant, which will produce enough en-
ergy to serve about 400,000 homes. Public and private utili-
ties will buy the plant’s electricity. Because natural gas is a
fossil fuel, the plant will emit carbon dioxide; however, the
plant will use state-of-the-art technology to minimize those
emissions, operating at 62 percent overall efficiency.
The plant will cogenerate steam as part of the power
production process. The nearby Collins Products wood panel
plant will use that steam to replace steam it now generates
from wood- and oil-fired boilers, which emit more carbon di-
oxide. PacifiCorp and the city will also invest $1.5 million to
help reforest more than 6,000 acres of brush- and weed-cov-
ered land, which will take in carbon dioxide through photo-
synthesis. They will also invest $1.3 million in the Oregon
Climate Trust, which will in turn invest in projects such as
alternative energy development.
The project will invest $100,000 to help develop geo-
thermal energy in Klamath Falls, and will invest $500,000
internationally to develop solar energy and $1 million nation-
ally to try to capture and reuse methane. In addition, the power
plant will help the city reduce the amount of municipal waste-
water effluent dumped into the Klamath River. PacifiCorp
officials said the plant’s design and the investment package
are unique in the United States (Hall Bernton, The Orego-
nian, Portland, OR, June 11, 1999).