IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/rensus/v92y2018icp628-637.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Technical, financial, economic and environmental pre-feasibility study of geothermal power plants by RETScreen – Ecuador's case study

Author

Listed:
  • Moya, Diego
  • Paredes, Juan
  • Kaparaju, Prasad

Abstract

A technical, financial, economic and environmental analysis of geothermal power plant developments in the Ecuadorian context was analysed by RETScreen-International Geothermal Project Model. Three different scenarios were considered. Scenario I and II considered incentives of 132.1 USD/MWh for electricity generation and grants of 3 million USD. Scenario III considered the geothermal project with an electricity export price of 49.3 USD/MWh. Scenario III was further divided into IIIA and IIIB case studies. Scenario IIIA considered a 3 million USD grant while Scenario IIIB considered an income of 8.9 USD/MWh for selling heat in direct applications. Modelling results showed that binary power cycle was the most suitable geothermal technology to produce electricity along with aquaculture and greenhouse heating for direct use applications in all scenarios. Financial analyses showed that the debt payment would be 5.36 million USD/year under in Scenario I and III. The corresponding values for Scenario II was 7.06 million USD/year. Net Present Value was positive for all studied scenarios except for Scenario IIIA. The equity paybacks were 3.2, 3.7, 16 and 5.6 years for Scenario I, Scenario II, Scenario IIIA and Scenario IIIB, respectively. Overall, Scenario II was identified as the most feasible project due to positive NPV with short payback period. Interestingly, Scenario IIIB could become financially attractive by selling heat for direct applications. Direct applications, public incentives and clean funding mechanisms are essential for the success of geothermal energy projects in the Ecuadorian context. The total initial investment for a 22 MW geothermal power plant was 114.3 million USD (at 2017 costs). Economic analysis showed an annual savings of 24.3 million USD by avoiding fossil fuel electricity generation. More than 184,000 tCO2 eq. could be avoided annually. Thus, greenhouse emissions avoided by using geothermal energy would bring out environmental benefits and improve the socio-economic benefits in communities.

Suggested Citation

  • Moya, Diego & Paredes, Juan & Kaparaju, Prasad, 2018. "Technical, financial, economic and environmental pre-feasibility study of geothermal power plants by RETScreen – Ecuador's case study," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 628-637.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:rensus:v:92:y:2018:i:c:p:628-637
    DOI: 10.1016/j.rser.2018.04.027
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032118302478
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.rser.2018.04.027?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Soltani, M. & Moradi Kashkooli, Farshad & Souri, Mohammad & Rafiei, Behnam & Jabarifar, Mohammad & Gharali, Kobra & Nathwani, Jatin S., 2021. "Environmental, economic, and social impacts of geothermal energy systems," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 140(C).
    2. Wang, Yongzhen & Li, Chengjun & Zhao, Jun & Wu, Boyuan & Du, Yanping & Zhang, Jing & Zhu, Yilin, 2021. "The above-ground strategies to approach the goal of geothermal power generation in China: State of art and future researches," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    3. Moya, Diego & Aldás, Clay & Kaparaju, Prasad, 2018. "Geothermal energy: Power plant technology and direct heat applications," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 889-901.
    4. Seung Hyo Baek & Byung Hee Lee, 2019. "Optimal Decision-Making of Renewable Energy Systems in Buildings in the Early Design Stage," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-19, March.
    5. Mott, A. & Baba, A. & Hadi Mosleh, M. & Ökten, H.E. & Babaei, M. & Gören, A.Y. & Feng, C. & Recepoğlu, Y.K. & Uzelli, T. & Uytun, H. & Morata, D. & Yüksel, A. & Sedighi, M., 2022. "Boron in geothermal energy: Sources, environmental impacts, and management in geothermal fluid," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    6. Olabi, Abdul Ghani & Mahmoud, Montaser & Soudan, Bassel & Wilberforce, Tabbi & Ramadan, Mohamad, 2020. "Geothermal based hybrid energy systems, toward eco-friendly energy approaches," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 147(P1), pages 2003-2012.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:rensus:v:92:y:2018:i:c:p:628-637. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/600126/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.