Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 93 (2018) 499–506

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/rser

Classification of geothermal resources in Indonesia by applying exergy T

concept
⁎
Saeid Mohammadzadeh Binaa, , Saeid Jalilinasrabadyb, Hikari Fujiic, Nugroho Agung Pambudid
a
Graduate School of Engineering and Resource Science, Akita University, Akita, Japan
b
Energy Resources Engineering Laboratory, Faculty of Engineering, Kyushu University, 744 Motooka, Nishi-ku, Fukuoka 819-0395, Japan
c
Graduate School of International Resource Sciences, Akita University, Akita, Japan
d
Mechanical Engineering Education, Universitas Negeri Sebelas Maret, Jl. Ir. Sutami 36A, Surakarta 57126, Indonesia

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Indonesia is well-known for its reputation for possessing the world's largest geothermal potential, which has
Indonesia been characterized by high temperature geothermal resources' concentration. The geothermal energy potential
Classification of Indonesia has been estimated to be 28,617 MW, which is about 40% of the world's geothermal potential.
Geothermal However, only about 4.5% is being utilized as electrical energy supply in this country. This paper comprises the
Exergy
Indonesian geothermal resources, based on their capability of doing work and efficiency. In this study, currently
operating geothermal power plants in Indonesia have been classified, based on the exergy concept and the
Specific Exergy Index (SExI). The results of SExI values show that nine geothermal fields are classified as high
exergy resource with their SExI values exceeding 0.5, and two remaining power plants with SExI values between
0.05 and 0.5 are classified as medium geothermal resources.

1. Introduction America, with 5089 MW (40%) of total geothermal power production

Energy plays a vital role in countries’ economies. The global, spe-
cially developing countries energy supply is mainly dependent on fossil
fuels while their reservoirs are limited and their use creates environ-
mental problems [1]. On the other hand, the energy consumption along
with population of the world is increasing rapidly [2]. According to the
World Energy Outlook (WEO) 2007, it is expected that the fossil fuels
will remain as major energy source till 2030, which will cover 84% of
world's energy demand [3]. Therefore, if this rate of energy consump-
tion is continued, the existing energy resources are estimated to meet
the energy demand to 2030 [4]. Thus, it is essential to assess renewable
energy as an alternative resource which will minimize the environ-
mental impacts as well as dependency on fossil fuels.
Among all the renewable resources, geothermal is the most reliable
and stable energy that is constantly available regardless of weather and
climate changes [5]. The total worldwide installed capacity and the
produced energy from geothermal power plants up to the end of 2015
were 12,635 MWe and 73,549 GW h respectively. It was estimated that
the potential shall reach 21,443 MWe in 2020 [6]. Fig. 1. presents the
share of the total installed capacity for different continents up to the
end of 2015. As it can be seen in Fig. 1, Asia, with 3756 MW (30%)
installed geothermal power plant, has been ranked in second place after
worldwide.
Over the last several years, Indonesia was in the top five countries
for installed capacity of geothermal plants, and in 2015 moved up by
two steps, compared to 2010, among the Asian countries. In 2015,
Indonesia could pass New Zealand, Turkey and Kenya and place
themselves in third position, following USA and Philippines [7]. Utili-
zation of geothermal to produce electricity in Indonesia started from
mid-80s and early 90s, when the demand of electricity was rapidly
increasing. The first geothermal power plant was successfully devel-
oped at Kamojang geothermal power plant and it has been fully op-
erational since 1983.
Nevertheless, the exergetic classification of the geothermal re-
sources have not been studied in Indonesia. This study aims at ana-
lyzing and focusing on each geothermal field across the country and
classify them based on their specific exergy index values. This unique
non-dimensional parameter, which is defined as SExI = e/emax can be
used to compare various geothermal fields with different specifications.
This approach evaluates the geothermal fields more consistently. It is
also more technically meaningful than temperature and enthalpy basis
classification methods. The results of this study can be helpful in
comparing the Indonesian geothermal and their priority based on their
work ability by comparing other geothermal resources in the country as

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: s.mohammadzadeh66@gmail.com (S. Mohammadzadeh Bina).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.05.018
Received 21 April 2017; Received in revised form 17 April 2018; Accepted 13 May 2018
Available online 05 June 2018
1364-0321/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
S. Mohammadzadeh Bina et al.
Nomenclature
h enthalpy, kJ/kg
m mass flow rate, kg/s
T temperature, K
s entropy, kJ/kg K
x steam quality
e exergy, kJ/kg
Ex exergy rate, kW
Subscript
i initial state
0 environment state
well as worldwide. Also, the achievements of this research can assist the
energy decision-makers and geothermal energy developers for their
future plans. Moreover, high-potential resources can be selected in-
dependent of ambient conditions by calculating the exergy index.
Hence, the main privilege of this paper involves classifying the
geothermal resources, based on their location at each island, which is
presented in Section 4.1. After calculating the exergy classification
parameter for each field, the share of each island for different exergy
classes (low, medium and high exergy) has been listed in Table 4. This
method provides information and an overall view to researchers about
the concentration of geothermal resources across the country.
In addition, the geothermal resources have been shown in a new
combined pressure-enthalpy (p-h) diagram. This diagram has been
combined with a map of the country, and shows the amount of power
generation, thermodynamic specifications and geofluids’ phase as well
as the location of each field along country at the same time.
2. Classification of geothermal resources
Geothermal resources have been classified based on different geo-
logical or thermodynamic properties of their geofluid, such as tem-
perature or enthalpy. The main disadvantage of these classifications
appears since two geofluids at the same temperature and placed in same
classification have completely different ability to do work.
Geothermal energy utilization based on different parameters such as
thermodynamic specification of resources, geographical situation, or
local demand for heat or electricity can be divided into the following
two main categorizes: electric production and direct applications.
Basically, utilization of geothermal resources depends on thermo-
dynamic and chemistry specification of their geofluid. Geothermal
fluids have been classified based on various parameters such as tem-
perature or enthalpy of reservoirs. Classification of these resources with
respect to temperature, which known as Lindal diagram (Fig. 2), is an
important key to feasibility of exploration [8]. The Lindal diagram
shows the required temperature boundaries for different types of
Fig. 1. Total installed capacity up to the end of 2015 for continents.
500
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 93 (2018) 499–506
Measurement units
MW megawatts
MWe megawatt electric
GWe gigawatt electric
GW h gigawatt hour
t/h tonnes per hour
bar (a) absolute pressures
barg gauge pressure
Abbreviations
SExI specific exergy index
utilizations. As can be seen in the Fig. 2, geofluid temperature more
than 150 °C is appropriate for conventional electric power production.
The lower temperature boundary (100–150 °C) can also be used for
electricity generation by using binary systems [9]. For district heating
applications, geofluid with temperature of higher than 80 °C can be
used. Geofluid with a few degrees above ambient temperature can be
used as an axillary resource in a combination of boilers or other re-
newable energies to reduce the fuel consumption [10].
As it was already explained, the nature of available resources and
their specifications are important. Once geothermal resource explora-
tion has begun, classification of this resource with respect to tempera-
ture is a key element in future development scenarios. Therefore, over
the last several years, many efforts have been made to classify geo-
thermal resources based on their temperature. Fig. 3 briefly shows
temperature classification as presented by several authors. Resources
are divided into low, medium and high enthalpy. It can be seen that
neither is there consensus among scholars with regard to temperature
boundaries, nor is there agreement between temperature ranges for
classifying resources. The main reason for popularity of this classifica-
tion method is the easier estimation of resources temperature, judging
from the available data in the early stages of development.
In addition, the main disadvantage of this method appears when
saturated water and saturated steam are placed in the same group due
to fluids’ isotherm process during phase change.
Exergy classification has been used by a few researchers as a pow-
erful tool to classify the geothermal resources worldwide.
Jalilinasrabady and Itoi [17] applied the exergetic classification to 18
under operation power plants in Japan until the end of 2012. Their
Fig. 2. Lindal diagram indicating possible uses of geothermal fluids at different
temperatures. Diagram emphasizes cascade and combined uses of application of
geothermal sources.
S. Mohammadzadeh Bina et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 93 (2018) 499–506

Fig. 3. Classification of geothermal resources by temperature (°C) [11–16].

classification results showed that six fields have high exergy resources
based on their SExI values and the remaining fields are classified as
medium resources.
In the study conducted by Barbacki [18], Polish geothermal fields
were classified with reference to their specific Exergy Index (SEI).
Geothermal resources in Poland are mostly low exergy resources with
the range of SEI factor around 0.01–0.04. Only resources in Konin area
could be counted among the medium resources with SEI equal to 0.08.
Classification of Turkish geothermal resources was conducted by
Etemoglu and Can [19], based on Specific Exergy Rate (SER). Their
classification based on calculated SER showed that except Cekirge and
Karamustafa, which have SER < 0.05 and were placed in low exergy
zone, the remaining resources were plotted at the high exergy zone
(SER > 0.5).
Indonesia, despite considerable geothermal resources and also more
than 10 active under operation power plants, has not been classified
based on its geothermal fields using the exergy concept. That was the
main motivation for this study. This paper classifies geothermal re-
sources with the help of the exergy concept, which is based on their
SExI value. In this research, the classification method was applied to all
11 operating geothermal power plants in Indonesia.
3. Installed geothermal power plants in Indonesia
Geothermal resources in Indonesia, with more than 200 volcanoes,
are located along Sumatra, Java, Bali, and the eastern islands of the
country [20]. Indonesia is considered to have the largest geothermal
potential with an expected potential of about 28 GWe consisting of 312
geothermal potential locations.
Pambudi [21] reviewed 11 currently operating power plants with
an electricity generation of 1533.5 MW as of 2017.
In another paper by Nasruddin et al. [22] in 2016, only seven op-
erating geothermal power plants were introduced across the country
with an installed capacity of 1343.5 MW. In this report, Indonesia's
geothermal energy potential was estimated to be about 28,617 MW,
which is about 40% of the world's geothermal energy potential.
Hochstein and Sudarman [23] published a history of geothermal
energy in Indonesia. They reported that since the 1960s, more than 200
geothermal prospects were identified by undertaken reconnaissance
surveys. Around 70 of these were identified by the mid-1980s as po-
tential high-temperature systems, and about 40 of these were explored
using geological mapping, geochemical and detailed geophysical sur-
veys. The installed capacity had reached 800 MWe across six fields of
foreign investors by 2000, but this rate of geothermal development
growth was stalled because of the 1997–1998 financial crisis.
The following geothermal plants are currently operating across 11
locations nationwide (the installed capacities are shown in par-
entheses): Darajat (270 MWe), Dieng (60 MWe), Kamojang (235 MWe),
Gunung Salak (377 MWe), Sibayak (12 MWe), Lahendong (120 MWe),
Fig. 4. Geothermal power plants in Indonesia plotted on the pressure – en-
thalpy diagram.
Wayang Windu (227 MWe), Ulu Belu–South Sumatra (165 MWe),
Ulumbu – Flores (10 MWe), Patuha (55 MW), and Mataloko (2.5 MWe)
[21,22]. The majority of them are located in the Java district. Fig. 4
shows locations and details of geothermal power plants in Indonesia.
The total net power output up to the end of 2016 from all the above-
mentioned locations reached 1533.5 MWe. It is expected that geo-
thermal power will account for 5%, or 9500 MW, of the national elec-
tricity demand by 2025 [20]. Table 1 shows details of the currently
operating Indonesian geothermal power plants.
3.1. Java—Darajat
The Darajat geothermal power plants operate three units; Unit I
(55 MW), Unit II (95 MW) and Unit III (121 MW). The average total
steam required to run these three units is 476 kg/s. Unit I started to
operate commercially in 1994, while Unit II and Unit III did so in 2000
and 2007 respectively.
The Darajat geothermal resource produces high purity dry steam at
temperatures around 240 °C and pressures of up to approximately
28 bar (a) (≈ 2 barg) in average [27].
3.2. Java—Dieng
The Dieng geothermal power plant has adopted a single-flash
system with an installed capacity of 60 MW and is supplied by steam
from eight production wells at four locations [28].
3.3. Java—Gunung Salak
The Awibengkok geothermal field (known as Salak) in West Java,
60 km south of Jakarta, is the largest developed geothermal resource in
Indonesia. It is water dominated and currently sustains 377 MW of
electrical generation. It was originally discovered in the early 1980s to
supply 110 MWe of generating capacity in 1994 [44]. Production was
increased two times to a nominal capacity of 330 MWe in late 1997
[45] and 377 MWe since late 2002.
The amount of brine produced in Awibengkok has declined from
3000 kg/s during the start of the 330 MWe development to about
2000 kg/s with time, even though generation has increased to
377 MWe.
3.4. Java—Kamojang
The Kamojang geothermal field is located 40 km southeast of
Bandung and about 24 km northwest of Garut. Since 1987, 1100 t/h of

501
S. Mohammadzadeh Bina et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 93 (2018) 499–506

Table 1
Geothermal power plants in Indonesia.
Field Plant Unit in COD Install capacity Wells Temperature [°C] Mass flowrate Pressure
operation [MW] [bar]

Java-darajat Darajat Unit I 1994 [24] 55 56 240 [25] 476 kg/s 28 bar [27]
Unit II 2000 94 (17 prod.)* 1563 t/h (steam for 260
Unit III 2007 121 MWe) [26]
Java-Dieng Dieng 1 1998 [24] 60 [17] 52 187 227.1 t/h [28] 10.5 bar
(25 prod.)*
Java- Gunung Salak Guning salak 3 * 60 MW [29] 1994 377 75 [30] 240–310 [20] 2000 kg/s [30]
3 * 65.6 MW 1997 (47 prod.)*
Java- kamojang Kamojang 3 [31] 1978 140 [31] 82 245 1100 t/h [32] 12 bar [33]
(28 prod.)
1 2008 60 11 423 t/h [33] 17–20 [33]
Java- Wayang Wayange Unit 1 2000 227 39 250–260 450 kg/s of steam [34] 10.2
Windu windu Unit 2 2009 (18 prod.)
Sulawesi- Lahendong Unit 1 2001 120 23 280–350 [35] 1100 kg/s [36] 150 [37]
lahendong Unit 2 2007
Unit 3 2008 (15 prod.)
Unit4 2012
Unit 5&6 –
Sumatra- Siabak Siabak 3 1996 12 10 [38] 240–275 [39] 51.4 kg/s 9 bar [40]
Ulu Belu South Sumatra 3 2012 165 9 210–230 [25] 3000 t/h [41] 11–14 [41]
Ulumba Flores 4 2011 10 3 250 [25] 24 t/h 27.6 bar [42]
2012
Mataloko Flores 1 2002 2.5 6 150–160 40 t/h [43] 4–5 bar [43]
Patuha Patuha 1 2015 55 9 215–230 2 kg/s per MW 30 bar
Total installed capacity 1344.5 MW

dry steam, at an average wellhead pressure of 12 bar from three units,
was fed to generate 140 MW of electrical power continuously.
To increase the capacity of the Kamojang geothermal field from
140 MW to 200 MW, 423 t/h of steam is extracted from 8 of 11 pro-
duction wells at wellhead pressures of about 17–20 bar from unit 4
[33].
3.5. Java—Wayang Windu
The Wayang Windu geothermal power plant is in Pangalengan,
which is located approximately 40 km south of Bandung, west Java in
Indonesia [46]. The commercial production of Unit-1 started in June
2000 with a 110 MW single condensing turbine. A second condensing
turbine was fully commissioned in March 2009, thus increasing the
total installed capacity of field to 227 MW. The two units require
450 kg/s of steam [34].
3.6. Sulawesi—Lahendong
Lahendong is a geothermal system in North Sulawesi, Indonesia,
which has been generating electricity since 2001. Lahendong has four
units of 20 MW power plants installed. The rate of fluid production
from the 10 production wells at the Lahendong field is 1100 t/h, con-
sisting of 600 t/h of steam and 500 t/h of brine [36].
supplying steam to two PLN (Perusahaan Listrik Negara) company
turbines of 55 MW capacities each.
3.9. Ulumbu
The Ulumbu Geothermal field is located in the Manggarai District
Flores Island of Indonesia. Two production wells ULB-01 and ULB-02
and one reinjection well were drilled within the Ulumbu geothermal
system [42].
3.10. Mataloko
The Mataloko Geothermal Field (MGF) is located in the central part
of Flores Island. This is the first Eastern Indonesia geothermal field
drilled by the Indonesia-Japan Cooperation Research Program [43].
3.11. Patuha
The Patuha Rancabali geothermal field at West Java Province is
located about 50 km southwest of the city of Bandung. The Patuha
geothermal system has a vapor-dominated reservoir where enthalpy of
production wells ranges between 2400–2700 kJ/kg. The first unit
(55 MW) at Patuha was completed in 2014, and since 2015 it has been
producing at full capacity [47].

3.7. Sumatra—Siabak 4. Exergetic classification

Sibayak is located within a Quaternary caldera about 50 km
southwest of Medan, North Sumatra. The reservoir is liquid dominated
with temperatures ranging between 240 and 275 °C. Its temperature
ranges between 240 and 300 °C and steam flow from the production
well achieves 51.4 kg/s at 9 bar pressure [39].
3.8. Ulu Belu
The Ulubelu Geothermal Field is located about 100 km west of
Bandar Lampung, Lampung, Indonesia. Production at the Ulubelu
geothermal field in Lampung, Indonesia, was commenced by Pertamina
Geothermal Energy since mid-2012. Eleven production wells were
In order to classify geothermal resources, they must be compared
based on their quantity and quality. Quality of resources is a more
complicated issue and has a direct effect on their utilization method,
which can be examined by their ability to do work and defined by the
concept of exergy.
Energy efficiency ignores energy quality of the working fluid, and
thus cannot measure ideal performance [48]. Exergy efficiencies pro-
vide a comprehensive and useful efficiency measure for practical geo-
thermal systems and facilitate rational comparison of different systems
and operating conditions [49].
Exergy analysis, as a tool, classifies the streams into exergy con-
tained part, which is valuable as it can be converted to work

502
S. Mohammadzadeh Bina et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 93 (2018) 499–506

(electricity), and “anergy” part has no value [50]. By using exergy SExI = (h–273.15s )/1194 (2)
analysis, efficiencies that measure an approach in comparison to the
Fig. 6(a) and (b) illustrate the variation of specific exergy and SexI
ideal case can be evaluated and the components causing the greatest
values with temperatures for different reference conditions, including
losses can be identified [51,52]. Exergy is defined as equal to the
triple point, 10 °C and 20 °C, which prove the advantage of using SExI
maximum work when a stream goes from its initial condition to the
method as an independent parameter over reference condition.
environmental condition, which is defined by P0 and T0. By neglecting
chemical and potential exergy and assuming only thermal interaction
with the environment, the exergy can be expressed as follows [53–55]: 4.1. Results and discussion

Ex = mi [(hi – h 0 )–T0 (si –s0 ))]
where m is mass flow rate (kg/s), and h, s and T are enthalpy (kJ/kg),
entropy (kJ/kg k) and temperature (K) respectively.
As explained above, this process is from initial state to environment
state. Therefore, “i” and “0” subscripts stand for initial and environ-
mental states respectively.
It is clear from Eq. (1), that a system in equilibrium with the en-
vironment has zero exergy [56].
The specific exergy of saturated water and steam at three different
ambient temperatures (triple point, 10 °C, and 20 °C) are listed in
Table 2. As can be seen, exergy values vary based on environmental
state according to Eq. (1) [52]. This variation proves that exergy cannot
be an appropriate tool to classify geothermal resources.
To achieve a reliable and stable parameter, Lee [57] introduced a
parameter that clearly indicates the thermodynamic state of geothermal
fluids as the maximum work available. This method, which is known as
the Specific Exergy Index (SExI), normalizes exergy values with the
help of the following steps:
• Normalizing exergy values by maximum exergy of the corre-
sponding environment condition;
• The specific exergy index varies between 0 and 1.0 for saturated
steam and water;
• SExI can theoretically exceed 1.0 for high superheated steam.
The variation of exergy and SExI values with temperature under
different environment condition is presented in Fig. 5. Even though the
sink condition is not an effective parameter in the SExI method, due to
better agreement of exergy and SExI curves and also zero amount of
enthalpy and entropy of saturated liquid at triple point, it is preferable
to use this point as a reference condition. Assuming 1194 kJ/kg as
maximum value of exergy at triple point, SExI can be formulated from
Eq. (1) as:
(1) The enthalpy values alone cannot be a suitable parameter for clas-
sification of geothermal reservoir. Exergy as function of enthalpy and
entropy is the best way to classify fluid of geothermal.
To eliminate the effect of sink condition on exergy values and make
a comparison between different resources, classification of the geofluid
based on normalized exergy values, with the name Specific Exergy
Index (SExI), was developed. Despite exergy that is sensitive to ambient
condition, SExI was used as reliable parameter, which is independent of
different dead states.
Even though SExI value is not sensitive to sink condition, but be-
cause of zero values of enthalpy and entropy of water at triple point (it
is easy to formulate the SExI equation), it was assumed as desired sink
condition. The resources were divided into the following three cate-
gories based on their SExI values: low exergy resources that have SExI
values less than 0.05 (100 °C saturated steam at 1 bar), medium exergy
resources values between 0.05 and 0.5 (100 °C saturated water at
1 bar), and high exergy resources more than 0.5.
Geothermal resources in Indonesia are calcified by using available
data from the annual country reports and scientific articles that are
published in international journals or conferences. Table 3 shows de-
tails of Indonesian geothermal power plants currently under operation.
During data collecting, the following assumptions were taken into ac-
count:
• Turbine inlet temperature was used for resources when the wellhead
data were not available.
• Average wellhead pressure (WHP) was used for those resources
which had maximum and minimum WHP. It should be noted that
the results of SExI for minimum and maximum were not sig-
nificantly different from using average.
It can be seen in Table 3 that SExI factor for Mataloko, Ulumba,
Darajat, Kamojang, Lahendong, Wayang Windu, Dieng, Patuha and
Gunung Salak is higher than 0.5.

Table 2
Specific exergy and specific exergy index values under different sink conditions.
Temp. (°C) Pressure (bar) Enthalpy (kJ/kg) Entropy (kJ/kg K) Triple point 10 °C 20 °C

Exergy (kJ/kg K) SExI Exergy (kJ/kg K) SExI Exergy (kJ/kg K) SExI

0.01 0.006 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.76 0.00 3.00 0.00

99.60 1.00 417.40 1.302 61.62 0.05 49.37 0.04 38.59 0.04
179.90 10.00 462.80 2.139 178.60 0.15 158.00 0.14 138.80 0.13
212.40 20.00 908.80 2.447 240.20 0.20 216.50 0.19 194.30 0.18
374.15 221.20 2027.00 4.319 850.20 0.71 805.20 0.71 764.30 0.71
263.90 50.00 1154.00 2.919 356.40 0.30 327.90 0.29 301.00 0.28
311.00 100.00 1407.00 3.359 489.60 0.41 456.80 0.40 425.50 0.39
336.60 140.00 1570.00 3.621 580.60 0.49 545.20 0.41 511.20 0.47
365.70 200.00 1825.00 4.011 728.90 0.61 689.50 0.61 651.70 0.60
365.70 200.00 2415.00 9.935 1069.00 0.90 1018.00 0.90 971.10 0.90
336.60 140.00 2638.00 5.372 1173.00 0.98 1117.00 0.98 1066.00 0.99
311.00 100.00 2725.00 5.614 1193.00 1.00 1136.00 1.00 1082.00 1.00
303.30 90.00 2742.00 5.678 1194.00 1.00 1135.00 1.00 1081.00 1.00
263.90 50.00 2749.00 5.973 1165.00 0.98 1103.00 0.97 1046.00 0.97
212.40 20.00 2799.00 6.34 1069.00 0.90 1004.00 0.88 943.00 0.87
179.90 10.00 2778.00 6.586 981.10 0.82 913.50 0.80 849.90 0.79
151.80 5.00 2749.00 6.822 887.50 0.74 817.60 0.72 751.60 0.69
99.60 1.00 2675.00 7.359 667.30 0.56 592.00 0.52 520.60 0.48
0.01 0.006 2501.00 9.154 0.00 0.00 −90.79 −0.08 −180.10 −0.17

503
S. Mohammadzadeh Bina et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 93 (2018) 499–506

Fig. 5. Variation of exergy (kJ/kg) and specific exergy index (SExI) with temperature (°C) under sink conditions of triple point, 10 °C and 20 °C.

Fig. 6. Influence of sink conditions on specific exergy and specific exergy index values.

The analysis results are plotted in Fig. 7. It can be seen that Darajat
and Ulumba, with the SExI factor of 0.93 and 0.94, have the highest
exergy resources; they are plotted in the high exergy zone of diagram.
Ulubelu and Siabak with the SExI factor less than 0.5 and more than
0.05 respectively are placed in the medium exergy. There are no re-
sources to be placed in the low exergy resources zone. Furthermore,
Table 4 presents the distribution of installed power plant with their
exergy classification across different islands in Indonesia.

5. Conclusion

The exergy concept was developed as a geothermal resource clas-

sification tool to classify the Indonesian geothermal power plants, based
on their ability to generate power. Exergy values cannot classify the
geothermal resources due to their sensitivity to sink conditions.
Therefore, SExI parameter was defined in order to eliminate the dis-
advantage of exergy. In this method, the resources are classified based
on their SExI values, which are divided into low (SExI < 0.05),
medium (0.05 < SExI < 0.5) and high (SExI > 0.5).
Exergetic classification of geothermal resources was applied to 11
under operation geothermal power plants in Indonesia. Ulumba,
Darajat, Kamojang, Lahendong, Wayang Windu, Patuha, Dieng and
Fig. 7. Distribution of Indonesian geothermal resources on SExI map, according
to their specific entropy and enthalpy.
Gunung Salak geothermal fields have high exergy resources according
to their SExI values, which are in excess of 0.5. The remaining geo-
thermal fields in Indonesia are classified in the medium resources zone.
According to calculation and available data, only 177 MW (11%) of
total installed geothermal power plants (1533.5 MW) in Indonesia are
classified as medium exergy. The rest of them with a total power

Table 3
Calculated SEI values for geothermal power plants in Indonesia.
Field Enthalpy [kJ/kg] Pressure [bar]a Entropy [kJ/kg-K] Temperature [°C] x SExI

Java-darajat 2783 [58] 18–22 6.103 240–245 0.99 0.94

Java-Dieng 2560 [59] 10.5 6.044 187 0.89 0.75
Java – Gunung Salak 1842 [25] 55 4.17 235–310 0.4 0.59
Java – kamojang 2792 12–17 6.087 245 0.99 0.95
Java – Wayang Windu 2700 37–46 5.9 250–270 0.94 0.91
Sulawesi-lahendong 2670 10–15 5.57 300 0.94 0.9
Sumatra – Siabak 1100 [59] 21 2.94 240–300 0.12 0.29
Ulu Belu 1160 [25] 6.5 3.056 210–230 0.23 0.27
Ulumba 2803 27.6 6.2 230–250 1 0.93
Mataloko 2727 [60] 4–5 6.8 160–170 0.98 0.74
Patuha 2700 30 6.0 215–230 0.94 0.89

a
Average well head pressure was used in the calculations.

504
S. Mohammadzadeh Bina et al.
Table 4
Distribution of exergy classification of Indonesia's geothermal installed power
plants in different islands.
Island Installed Medium exergy High exergy
capacity MW 0.05 < SExI < 0.5 SExI > 0.5
(% of total)
Sumatra 177 (11%) 177 (11%) 0
Java 1224 (80%) 0 1224 (80%)
Bali-Nusa 12.5 (1%) 0 12.5 (1%)
Tenggara
Sulawesi 120 (8%) 0 120 (8%)
Total 1343.5 177 (11%) 1356.5 (89%)
(100%)
production of 1356.5 MW, amounting to 89% of total production, are
placed in the high exergy zone. According to the location of the power
plants in different islands of Indonesia, it can be concluded that the
power plants with medium exergy are only located in Sumatra island.
The rest of the plants with high exergy are placed in Java, Bali-Nusa
Tenggara and Sulawesi. Java island was ranked first as it had the
highest exergy resources concentration, with 1224 MW high exergy
geothermal resource. Following Java, Sulawesi and Bali-Nusa Tenggara
islands with 80 MW and 7.5 MW production are in the second and third
places respectively. These islands comprise 8% and 1% of total geo-
thermal resources in the country. Furthermore, Darajat, which has the
highest SExI value, belongs to Java island.
References
[1] Mohammadzadeh Bina S, Jalilinasrabady S, Fujii H. Thermo-economic evaluation of
various bottoming ORSs for geothermal power plant, determination of optimum
cycle for Sabalan power plant exhaust. Geothermics 2017;70:181–91. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.geothermics.2017.06.007.
[2] Mohammadzadeh Bina S, Jalilinasrabady S, Fujii H. Energy, economic and en-
vironmental (3E) aspects of internal heat exchanger for ORC geothermal power
plants. Energy 2017;140(Part 1):1096–106. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.
2017.09.045.
[3] Shafiee S, Topal E. When will fossil fuel reserves be diminished? Energy Policy
2009;37(1):181–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2008.08.016.
[4] International Energy Agency (IEA). World energy outlook 2007. Available from:
〈http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/media/weowebsite/2008-1994/weo_2007.
pdf〉; 2007.
[5] Mohammadzadeh Bina S, Jalilinasrabady S, Fujii H. Exergetic sensitivity analysis of
orc geothermal power plant considering ambient temperature. In: Proceedings of
the transactions – geothermal resources council. Available from: 〈https://www.
scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85018561344&partnerID=40&md5=
44c8b1034efa1589a0e719072d4fb356〉; 2016.
[6] Bertani R. Geothermal power generation in the world 2010–2014 update report. In:
Proceedings of the world geothermal congress. Melbourne, Australia. Available
from: 〈https://pangea.stanford.edu/ERE/db/WGC/papers/WGC/2015/01001.
pdf〉; 2015.
[7] Bertani R. Geothermal power generation in the world 2010–2014 update report.
Geothermics 2016;60:31–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geothermics.2015.11.
003.
[8] Lindal B. Industrial and other applications of geothermal energy. In: Christopher H,
Armstead H, editors. Goethermal energy. Paris: Unesco, Earth sciences; 1973. p.
135–48.
[9] Jalilinasrabady S, Itoi R, Gotoh H, Yamashiro R. Exergetic optimization of proposed
Takigami binary geothermal power plant, Oita, Japan. In: Proceedings of the geo-
thermal resources council annual meeting. San Diego, CA; United States; 2011.
[10] Jalilinasrabady S, Itoi R, Gotoh H, Yamashiro R. Exergetic optimization of proposed
Takigami binary geothermal power plant, Oita, Japan. In: Proceedings of the
transactions – geothermal resources council. Available from: 〈https://www.scopus.
com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-84860845324&partnerID=40&md5=
a94a0dd1c94dcaba6077e9cb4b36dac8〉; 2011.
[11] Muffler P, Cataldi R. Methods for regional assessment of geothermal resources.
Geothermics 1978;7(2–4):53–89. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0375-6505(78)
90002-0.
[12] Hochstein MP. Classification and assessment of geothermal resources. In: Dickson
MH, Fanelli M, editors. Small geothermal resources. Rome, Italy: UNITAR/UNDP
Center for Small Energy Resources; 1990. p. 31–59.
[13] Benderitter Y, Cormy G. Possible approach to geothermal research and relative cost.
In: Dickson M, Fanelli M, editors. Small geothermal resources: a guide to devel-
opment and utilization. New York: UNITAR; 1990. p. 59–69.
[14] Haenel R, Rybach L, Stegena L. Handbook of terrestrial heat-flow density de-
termination. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic; 1988.
[15] Nicholson K. Geothermal fluids, chemistry and exploration techniques Vol. XVIII.
505
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 93 (2018) 499–506
Berlin: Springer Verlag; 1993.
[16] Axelsson G, Gunnlaugsson E. Background: geothermal utilization, management and
monitoring. In: Proceedings of the long-term monitoring of high- and low-enthalpy
fields under exploitation, WGC Short courses. Japan; 2000.
[17] Jalilinasrabady S, Itoi R. Classification of geothermal energy resources in Japan
applying exergy concept. Int J Energy Res 2013;37(14):1842–50. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1002/er.3002.
[18] Barbacki A. Classification of geothermal resources in Poland by exergy analy-
sis—comparative study. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2012;16(1):123–8. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2011.07.141.
[19] Etemoglu AB, Can M. Classification of geothermal resources in Turkey by exergy
analysis. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2007;11(7):1596–606. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.rser.2006.01.001.
[20] Darma S, et al. Geothermal energy update: geothermal energy development and
utilization in Indonesia. In: Proceedings of the world geothermal congress. Bali,
Indonesia. Available from: 〈https://www.geothermal-energy.org/pdf/
IGAstandard/WGC/2010/0128.pdf〉; 2010.
[21] Pambudi NA. Geothermal power generation in Indonesia, a country within the ring
of fire: current status, future development and policy. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2017. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.06.096.
[22] Nasruddin, et al. Potential of geothermal energy for electricity generation in
Indonesia: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2016;53:733–40. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.rser.2015.09.032.
[23] Hochstein MP, Sudarman S. History of geothermal exploration in Indonesia from
1970 to 2000. Geothermics 2008;37(3):220–66. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
geothermics.2008.01.001.
[24] DiPippo R. Appendix A. In: DiPippo R, editor. World wide state of geothermal
power plant development as of August 2011. Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann;
2012. p. 509–29.
[25] Rivera Diaz A, Kaya E, Zarrouk SJ. Reinjection in geothermal fields − a worldwide
review update. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2016;53:105–62. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.rser.2015.07.151.
[26] Rejeki S, Rohrs D, Pasaribu F. Make-up well selection for the Darajat geothermal
field, West Java, Indonesia. In: Proceedings of the geothermal resources council
transactions. Davis, California; 2008.
[27] Yamin W, Choiri M, Goesmano A, Nurfahmiawati T. Darajat Unit II/III interface
debottlenecking project. In: Proceedings of the world geothermal congress,
Melbourne, Australia. Available from: 〈https://pangea.stanford.edu/ERE/db/
WGC/papers/WGC/2015/25035.pdf〉; 2015.
[28] Pambudi NA, Itoi R, Jalilinasrabady S, Jaelani K. Performance improvement of a
single-flash geothermal power plant in Dieng, Indonesia, upon conversion to a
double-flash system using thermodynamic analysis. Renew Energy
2015;80:424–31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2015.02.025.
[29] Ibrahim RF, Fauzi A, Suryadarma. The progress of geothermal energy resources
activities in Indonesia. In: Proceedings of the world geothermal congress. Antalya,
Turkey Available from: 〈https://www.geothermal-energy.org/pdf/IGAstandard/
WGC/2005/0142.pdf〉; 2005.
[30] Acuña JA, Stimac J, Sirad-Azwar L, Pasikki RG. Reservoir management at
Awibengkok geothermal field, West Java, Indonesia. Geothermics
2008;37(3):332–46. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geothermics.2008.02.005.
[31] Reza Adiprana DSP, Lubis Irwan E. Kamojang geothermal power plant unit 1-2-3
evaluation and optimization based on exergy analysis. In: Proceedings of the world
geothermal congress. Melbourne, Australia. Available from: 〈https://pangea.
stanford.edu/ERE/db/WGC/papers/WGC/2015/26047.pdf〉; 2015.
[32] Suryadarma, Azimuddin T, Dwikorianto T, Fauzi A. The Kamojang geothermal
field: 25 years operation. In: Proceedings of the world geothermal congress.
Antalya, Turkey. Available from: 〈https://www.geothermal-energy.org/pdf/
IGAstandard/WGC/2005/2414.pdf〉; 2005.
[33] Mawardi Agani KR, Bachrun Zainal I. Construction and operation of Kamojang Unit
4, the first commercial geothermal power plant built, owned and operated by PT
Pertamina geothermal energy. In: Proceedings of the world geothermal congress.
Bali, Indonesia. Available from: 〈https://www.geothermal-energy.org/pdf/
IGAstandard/WGC/2010/0623.pdf〉; 2010.
[34] Mulyadi Ashat A. Reservoir modeling of the northern vapor dominated two-phase
zone of the Wayang Windu geothermal field, Java, Indonesia, In: Proceedings of the
thirty-sixth workshop on geothermal reservoir engineering Stanford University.
Stanford, California Available from: 〈https://pangea.stanford.edu/ERE/pdf/
IGAstandard/SGW/2011/mulyadi.pdf〉.
[35] Hary Koestono EES, Silaban Marihot. Hjalti Franzson2, geothermal model of the
lahendong geothermal field, Indonesia. In: Proceedings of the world geothermal
congress. Bali, Indonesia Available from: 〈https://www.geothermal-energy.org/
pdf/IGAstandard/WGC/2010/1259.pdf〉; 2010.
[36] Sumantoro ZZ, Yeh A, O’Sullivan JP, O’Sullivan MJ. Reservoir modeling of
Lahendong geothermal field, Sulawesi – Indonesia. In: Proceedings of the 37th New
Zealand geothermal workshop. Taupo, New Zealand. Available from: 〈https://
www.geothermal-energy.org/pdf/IGAstandard/NZGW/2015/121_OSullivan.pdf〉;
2015.
[37] Yani A. Numerical modeling of Lahendong geothermal system, Indonesia. The
United Nations University, Orkustofnun, Grensásvegur 9, IS-108 Reykjavík, Iceland.
Available from: 〈https://orkustofnun.is/gogn/unu-gtp-report/UNU-GTP-2006-24.
pdf〉; 2006.
[38] Surya Darma AP, Pramono Adi, Brahmantio Eko Agung, Kamah Yustin, Suhermanto
Gatot. The role of pertamina geothermal energy (PGE) in completing geothermal
power plants achieving 10,000 MW in Indonesia. In: Proceedings of the world
geothermal congress. Bali, Indonesia. Available from: 〈https://www.geothermal-
energy.org/pdf/IGAstandard/WGC/2010/0402.pdf〉; 2010.
S. Mohammadzadeh Bina et al.
[39] Fauzi A, Bahri S, Akuanbatin H. Geothermal development in Indonesia: an overview
of industry status and future growth. In: Proceedings of the world geothermal
congress. Kyushu – Tohoku, Japan. Available from: 〈https://www.geothermal-
energy.org/pdf/IGAstandard/WGC/2000/R0284.PDF〉; 2000.
[40] Parlindungan Hendrick Hasoloan Siregar. Optimization of electrical power pro-
duction for the Siabak geothermal field, Indonesia. The United Nations University,
Geothermal training programme. Orkustofnun, Grensásvegur 9, IS-108 Reykjavík,
Iceland. Available from: 〈http://www.os.is/gogn/unu-gtp-report/UNU-GTP-2004-
16.pdf〉; 2004.
[41] Dhanie M, Yuniar PH, Marihot Silaban. Ulubelu, first year reservoir monitoring. In:
Proceedings of the world geothermal congress. Melbourne, Australia. Available
from: 〈https://pangea.stanford.edu/ERE/db/WGC/papers/WGC/2015/22047.
pdf〉; 2015.
[42] Sulasdi D. Exploration of Ulumbu geothermal field, Flores, East Nusa Tenggara
Indonesia. In: Proceedings of the twenty-first workshop on geothermal reservoir
engineenng Stanford University. Stanford, California. Available from: 〈https://
www.geothermal-energy.org/pdf/IGAstandard/SGW/1996/Sulasdi.pdf〉; 1993.
[43] Kasabani R, Wahyuningih, Sitrus K. Subsequent state of development in the
Mataloko geothermal field, Flores, Indonesia. In: Proceedings of the 6th Asian
geothermal symposium. Available from: 〈https://www.geothermal-energy.org/
pdf/IGAstandard/Asian/2004/Kasbani.pdf〉; 2004.
[44] Unverdi M, Cerci Y. Performance analysis of Germencik geothermal power plant.
Energy 2013;52:192–200. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2012.12.052.
[45] Soeparjadi R, Horton GD, Wendt BE. A review of the Gunung Salak geothermal
expansion project. In: Proceedings of the 20th New Zealand geothermal workshop.
University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand; 1998.
[46] Murakami H, Kato Y, Akutsu N. Construction of the largest geothermal power plant
for Wayang Windu project, Indonesia. In: Proceedings of the World Geothermal
Congress; 2000.
[47] Swandaru Roy Bandoro. Thermodynamic analysis of preliminary design of power
plant unit I Patuha, west Java, Indonesia. The United Nation University
Orkustofnun, Grensásvegur 9, IS-108 Reykjavík, Iceland. Available from: 〈https://
orkustofnun.is/gogn/unu-gtp-report/UNU-GTP-2006-07.pdf〉; 2006.
[48] Jalilinasrabady S, Itoi R, Gotoh H, Kamenosono H. Energy and exergy analysis of
Takigami geothermal power plant, Oita, Japan. In: Proceedings of the transactions –
geothermal resources council. Available from: 〈https://www.scopus.com/inward/
record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-79955431153&partnerID=40&md5=
506
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 93 (2018) 499–506
cc1fce699bb5eb93bcfcd60b65d7f3aa〉; 2010.
[49] Mohammadzadeh Bina S, Jalilinasrabady S, Fujii H. Exergoeconomic analysis and
optimization of single and double flash cycles for Sabalan geothermal power plant.
Geothermics 2018;72(Suppl C):S74–82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geothermics.
2017.10.013.
[50] Jalilinasrabady S, Itoi R, Valdimarsson P, Saevarsdottir G, Fujii H. Flash cycle op-
timization of Sabalan geothermal power plant employing exergy concept.
Geothermics 2012;43:75–82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geothermics.2012.02.
003.
[51] Rosen MA, Dincer I. Effect of varying dead-state properties on energy and exergy
analyses of thermal systems. Int J Therm Sci 2004;43(2):121–33. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijthermalsci.2003.05.004.
[52] Dincer I, Rosen MA. Exergy, environment and sustainable development. Elsevier;
2007.
[53] Ezzat MF, Dincer I. Energy and exergy analyses of a new geothermal–solar energy
based system. Sol Energy 2016;134:95–106. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.
2016.04.029.
[54] Dincer I, Rosen MA. Exergy as a driver for achieving sustainability. Int J Green
Energy 2004;1(1):1–19.
[55] Jalilinasrabady S, Itoi R. Flash cycle and binary geothermal power plant optimi-
zation. In: Proceedings of the transactions – geothermal resources council. Available
from: 〈https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-84876230936&
partnerID=40&md5=0397059fa69b6607622c6ef1c8ff1d98〉; 2012.
[56] Rosen MA, Dincer I. Exergy analysis of waste emissions. Int J Energy Res
1999;23(13):1153–63. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-114X(19991025)
23:13<1153::AID-ER545>3.0.CO;2-Y.
[57] Lee KC. Classification of geothermal resources by exergy. Geothermics
2001;30(4):431–42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0375-6505(00)00056-0.
[58] Zarrouk SJ, Moon H. Efficiency of geothermal power plants: a worldwide review.
Geothermics 2014;51:142–53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geothermics.2013.11.
001.
[59] Kaya E, Zarrouk SJ, O'Sullivan MJ. Reinjection in geothermal fields: a review of
worldwide experience. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2011;15(1):47–68. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.rser.2010.07.032.
[60] Sitorus K, Sulistyohadi F, Simanjuntak J. Long term flow test of the MT-2 well, the
Mataloko geothermal field, N gada, Flores Island, Indonesia. Bull Geol Survery Jpn
2002;53:389–97. http://dx.doi.org/10.9795/bullgsj.53.389.