Hydrogen Production From Low-Temperature Geothermal Energy - A Review of Opportunities, Challenges, and Mitigating Solutions

International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 77 (2024) 742–768
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
International Journal of Hydrogen Energy

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/he
Hydrogen production from low-temperature geothermal energy – A review

of opportunities, challenges, and mitigating solutions
Maryam Hamlehdar a , Graeme Beardsmore b , Guillermo A. Narsilio a, *
a
Department of Infrastructure Engineering, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia
b
Geography, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia
A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T
Handling Editor: Dr Mehran Rezaei This study aims to provide a comprehensive review of the potential of geothermal energy for producing
hydrogen, with a focus on the Australian context where low-temperature geothermal reservoirs, particularly hot
Keywords: sedimentary aquifers (HSAs), are prevalent. The work includes an overview of various geothermal technologies
Hydrogen production and hydrogen production routes, and evaluates potential alternatives for hydrogen production in terms of energy
Geothermal energy
and exergy efficiency, economic performance, and hydrogen production rate. Values for energy efficiency are
ORC power plant
reported in the literature to range from 3.51 to 47.04%, 7.4–67.5% for exergy efficiency, a cost ranging from 0.59
Energy conversion efficiency
Hydrogen production cost to 5.97 USD/kg of hydrogen produced, and a hydrogen production rate ranging from 0.11 to 5857 kg/h. In
addition, the article suggests and evaluates multiple metrics to appraise the feasibility of HSAs geothermal
reservoirs, with results tailored to Australia but that can be extended to jurisdictions with similar conditions
worldwide. Furthermore, the performance of various hydrogen production systems is investigated by considering
important operating conditions. Lastly, the key factors and possible solutions associated with the hydro-
geological and financial conditions that must be considered in developing hydrogen production using low-
temperature geothermal energy are summarised. This study shows that low-temperature HSAs (~100 ◦ C) can
still be used for hydrogen generation via supplying power to conventional electrolysis processes by implementing
several improvements in heat source temperature and energy conversion efficiency of Organic Rankine Cycle
(ORC) power plants. Geothermal production from depleted or even active oilfields can reduce the capital cost of a
hydrogen production system by up to 50% due to the use of pre-existing wellbores, under the right operating
conditions. Thus, the results of this study bring novel insights in terms of both the opportunities and the chal
lenges in producing clean hydrogen from geothermal energy, applicable not only to the hydro-geological and
socio-economic conditions in Australia but also worldwide, exploring the applicability of geothermal energy for
clean hydrogen production with similar geothermal potential.
produce hydrogen and be stored rather than wasted.

Hydrogen, as an energy carrier is capable of energy storage at the
1. Introduction large-scale, mainly as hydrogen-integrated power systems, and at the
small scale as a fuel in transportation [3,4]. Hence, adopting hydrogen
Renewable energy sources and associated technologies have become production strategies to store large amounts of energy is considered to
increasingly important to the energy sector over the past decade due to be a viable option to manage the imbalance between demand and sup
global warming, fossil fuel exhaustion, and increased energy consump ply. Hydrogen can be employed in a wide range of applications, which
tion. However, many renewable energy sources such as solar and wind can be categorized based on the final user as illustrated in Fig. 1 [5,6].
are intermittent, which can lead to fluctuations in energy production Hydrogen-based energy systems can provide high-quality energy ser
and efficiency, which also has implications on the balance between vices with high efficiency and a low carbon footprint in various appli
demand and supply [1,2]. Despite the critical need for renewable en cations [7,8]. Consequently, taking advantage of renewable and
ergy, storage remains both a financial and logistical challenge. Excess hydrogen-based energy systems will help to meet the global energy
intermittent energy has the potential to be transformed and utilized to
* Corresponding author. Block B 205, Department of Infrastructure Engineering, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, 3010, Australia.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (M. Hamlehdar), [email protected] (G. Beardsmore), [email protected]
(G.A. Narsilio).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2024.06.104
Received 18 April 2024; Received in revised form 27 May 2024; Accepted 8 June 2024
Available online 20 June 2024
0360-3199/© 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of Hydrogen Energy Publications LLC. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND
license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
M. Hamlehdar et al. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 77 (2024) 742–768
Nomenclature HTS High-temperature steam

IHE Internal heat exchange
en Energy efficiency (%) LCOE Levelized cost of electricity
ex Exergy efficiency (%) LCOH2 Levelized cost of hydrogen
T Temperature (◦ C) ORC Organic Rankine cycle
PEM Proton exchange membrane
Abbreviations PTSC Parabolic trough solar collector
CCS Carbon capture storage RC Rankine cycle
Cond Conduction REs Renewable energies
Conv Convection RO Reverse osmosis
DOE Department of Energy SMR Steam methane reforming
EGS Engineered/Engineering geothermal system SOE Solid oxide electrolyser
ETSC Evacuated tube solar collector TEG Thermoelectric generator
FPSC Flat plate solar collector
Geo Geothermal Subscripts
HDR Hot dry rock Temp Temperature (◦ C)
HSAs Hot sedimentary aquifers Flow flow rate (kg/s)
demand, improve energy security, and benefit the environment and be an economically favourable option for clean hydrogen strategy
economy. production.
Hydrogen produced by renewables is referred as ‘clean hydrogen’. Although several studies compare mature geothermal-assisted
Clean hydrogen has the potential to replace or displace greenhouse gas hydrogen production systems against other available energy resources
emission-intensive energy sources. In this context, some countries have [21,22], there are still significant challenges to overcome in the devel
evolved towards a hydrogen economy, where hydrogen will be pro opment of hydrogen production using geothermal energy, particularly
duced, stored, and even exported as a primary energy carrier [9–12]. from low-temperature reservoirs. In a review conducted by Abdelkar
Australia also has placed emphasis on the development of clean eem and others in 2022 [23], it was highlighted that there is limited
hydrogen production technology due to its critical role in both meeting research on the use and optimization of renewable energy sources for
climate objectives and energy security [13,14]. Therefore, there is hydrogen production, and in particular of geothermal energy, which
considerable incentive to research and develop technologies for clean could potentially boost the economic attractiveness of hydrogen pro
hydrogen production. duction. Moreover, the environmental, economic, and technical aspects
Geothermal energy is a sustainable, reliable, and potentially of hydrogen production driven by mature geothermal energy are now
affordable source that has recently received renewed attention from being reviewed [6,24]. Countries such as the USA, Iceland, and Turkey,
governments and researchers for its potential to produce hydrogen which possess relatively mature geothermal energy technology systems,
[15–17]. In a review conducted by Dincer et al. [18] on new hydrogen have conducted a variety of studies to investigate the potential of this
production technologies, geothermal-based systems were seen to have source of energy in producing hydrogen [25–29]. These show that to
higher levels of sustainability. Balta et al. [19] reviewed date, most of the research and studies of geothermal energy-assisted
geothermal-based routes for generating hydrogen. Their focus was hydrogen production systems have been concentrated in zones with
mostly on the low-temperature thermochemical and hybrid cycles for mature geothermal power generation industries. However, there is a
hydrogen production using geothermal energy. Mahmoud et al. [6] lack of similar studies in regions with the potential for unconventional
provided a comprehensive economic and energy efficiency review of geothermal exploitation, such as from hot sedimentary aquifers (HSAs)
hydrogen production using geothermal energy and considered different in Australia, characterized by lower production temperatures. To date,
factors such as various geothermal power plants, working fluid condi there is no study on hydrogen production using the potential of
tions, and geothermal temperature in the analysis. A review by Ozturk low-temperature geothermal energy, such as those in the Australian
and Dincer [20] studied various renewable energy-based systems for context. The limited number of studies primarily consist of review pa
producing hydrogen economically and concluded that pers on hydrogen production routes using fossil fuel and (other)
geothermal-driven systems have the lowest cost in the hydrogen pro renewable energy [30,31].
duction process. Using geothermal energy with lower operating costs, to The study demonstrates Australia’s HSAs as representatives of low-
provide electricity for initiating the water electrolysis process, which temperature geothermal reservoirs to explore potential solutions for
represents the most established method of hydrogen production, might hydrogen production. By combining insights from global research
Fig. 1. The application and use of hydrogen based on the end-user.
743
Fig. 2. Hydrogen production routes.
efforts, tailored solutions for regions with HSAs reservoirs similar to • Discuss the research gaps and future challenges for hydrogen pro
those found in Australia have been proposed. Indeed, our study not only duction incorporating geothermal energy.
fills a crucial gap but also contributes novel insights into the challenges
and opportunities of producing clean hydrogen from low-temperature 2. Hydrogen production routes
geothermal reservoirs, which is applicable beyond Australia and thus
worldwide. Consequently, this work aims to summarise the existing Hydrogen can be extracted from fossil fuels (hydrocarbons such as
knowledge of geothermal-based hydrogen production systems to iden coal, natural gas, and oil) and renewable feedstocks (water and biomass)
tify corresponding knowledge gaps in the regions with a similar poten using various technologies. Overall, fossil fuel-based technologies for
tial of geothermal reservoirs to that of the Australian context, which hydrogen production include hydrocarbon gasification [32], hydrocar
must be filled to support the precondition for the infrastructures un bon reforming methods such as steam reforming, partial oxidation, and
derpinning renewable hydrogen adoption. To comprehensively review autothermal reforming [33,34], and pyrolysis [35]. In contrast,
the potential for geothermal energy to contribute to clean hydrogen renewable-based methods consist of thermolysis [36], electrolysis [37],
production, this work encompassed several avenues of investigation as photolysis [38], and various biological techniques, including
follows: bio-photolysis, dark fermentation, and photo fermentation [39]. The
most frequently used hydrogen production method is the water-splitting
• Identify geothermal reservoirs suitable for heat and power genera approach which consists of either the photolysis, thermolysis, or elec
tion, exemplified in Australia. trolysis techniques. Photolysis is still in the early development stage
• Review a wide array of possible international geothermal-based with the remaining two widely used. Water splitting via electrolysis
routes for hydrogen production to identify the cost, rate, and effi produces hydrogen with high purity, yet requires a great deal of input
ciency of hydrogen production. electricity. Electricity passes through two electrodes and then activates
• Summarise international efforts to improve the performance of water splitting into its components. Fig. 2 illustrates these hydrogen
geothermal-based production systems with a focus on a) advancing production routes.
the efficiency of the Organic Rankine Cycle (ORC), b) integration Alkaline, proton exchange membrane (PEM), and solid oxide elec
with other renewable energies, and c) reducing the waste heat by trolyser (SOE) are the three main categories of electrolysis processes that
using multigenerational systems. convert electricity into hydrogen. Alkaline and PEM are conventional
• Review studies on geothermal energy extraction from oilfields and electrolysis technologies that require a low operating temperature and
examine different types of oil and gas wells to identify factors that higher electricity input for water composition. SOE is an unconventional
enhance and hinder performance. process that operates at high-temperature and results in a higher energy
• Investigate hydrogen production systems in terms of the most efficiency due to the increased amounts of heat energy and lower elec
important parameters affecting efficiency and economic perfor trical requirements than the conventional methods. Alkaline technolo
mance, including the operational conditions of geothermal reservoirs gies have lower capital costs than PEM, while a key advantage of PEM is
and power plants. its faster response - a critical element in integrating renewable energy.
Table 1 summarises the characteristics of different electrolysis
Table 1
Different electrolysis technologies [21].
Alkaline Proton Exchange Membrane (PEM) Solid Oxide Electrolyser (SOE)
Liquid electrolyte Solid electrolyte Solid electrolyte

Temperature ~ 60–90 ◦ C Temperature ~ 50–90 ◦ C Temperature ~ 500–1000 ◦ C
Low efficiency ~ 62–82% Low efficiency ~ 67–84% High efficiency~90%
Low capital cost Rapid response Low response
High electricity input High electricity input Low electricity input
744
processes. Table 2
A number of feasibility assessments in various countries have LCOE for different energy sources [21].
investigated the potential of using renewable energy to power hydrogen Source Type LCOE (USD/kWh)
production from electrolysis by comparing the metrological data of
Hydroelectric – 0.066
different renewables [40–48]. The potential feasibility of different lo Wind Onshore/Offshore 0.637/0.157
cations using multi-criteria decision-making methods was assessed for Solar PV/Thermal 0.085/0.242
hydrogen production via geothermal integrated water electrolysis. Biomass – 0.102
These assessments included the following important decision-making Geothermal – 0.047
Nuclear Advanced Reactors 0.099
variables: such as “the number of geothermal springs and geothermal Natural Gas Combined Cycle/Combined Cycle (CCS) 0.057/0.082
fields, the closest distance of geothermal areas from the main roads to
the provincial capitals, the total producible geothermal power, the
number of provincial water resources, the number of 2.0 and 7.0 USD/kg H2 for geothermal energy [56]. El-Emam et al. [21]
hydrogen-consuming industries in each province and their distance from reviewed the cost of hydrogen production based on the different tech
provincial capitals, availability of skilled labour, the population of the nologies and energy sources and concluded that geothermal-based
province, levels of air pollution and precipitation, and total area of the hydrogen production routes were the most cost-effective. Mohammadi
province” [46,49,50]. and Mehrpooya [22] and Mohamed Awad et al. [17] compared
In a successful clean hydrogen economy, hydrogen production costs renewable-based hydrogen production systems from an energy effi
must be competitive with conventional fuel resources. For example, ciency and economic perspective. The results highlighted that
back in 2021, the Australian’s technology investment road map noted geothermal-assisted hydrogen production has a higher energy efficiency
that hydrogen will be competitive within the market when the cost of than solar-based technologies and is more economically feasible than
production is 2 AUD/kg or less [51]. solar and wind energy. In a review by Ghazvini at el. [24],
As shown in Fig. 3, the cost of electricity and electrolyser technolo geothermal-driven hydrogen production systems were compared to
gies significantly contributes to the cost of hydrogen production through other energy resources from an environmental and economical
renewable electrolysis. Currently, the cost of hydrogen production from perspective. This study also concluded that geothermal-based hydrogen
renewable electrolysis is estimated to be around 4.60 AUD/kg and is production systems were the most economically efficient. Fig. 4 presents
expected to decrease to approximately 1.10 AUD/kg by 2050 following a summary of the economic cost of hydrogen production using different
further technological advancements [51]. The cost of electricity in the renewables globally. It highlights that geothermal energy appears to be
electrolysis process is almost 60% of the total cost of hydrogen pro a promising source of energy for hydrogen production, with a cost
duction and is anticipated to rise by around 80% [52]. Consequently, the ranging from 0.97 to 8.24 USD/kg H2, compared to solar and wind with
development of lower cost and higher-efficiency electrolyser technolo an average cost of 2.88–20.5 USD/kg H2.
gies, and applying cost-effective renewable electricity to power elec The international studies detailed above have underscored the
trolysis will be critical to ensure cost-competitive hydrogen production importance of exploring and harnessing the potential of geothermal
from renewable electrolysis, and has the potential to achieve the eco energy for clean hydrogen production as we move towards a successful
nomic stretch goal of clean hydrogen. hydrogen economy. Therefore, the initial step is to assess the geothermal
Corresponding to the reduced cost of renewable electricity genera potential of each location.
tion, the levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) in USD for a wide range of
energy sources is provided in Table 2 and illustrates that geothermal 3. Different types of geothermal reservoirs
energy sources can be more price-competitive to drive hydrogen pro
duction through electrolysis than other renewables. Indeed, geothermal Geothermal energy as a clean and renewable source has become a
energy has a higher capacity factor, supplies energy for more extended promising alternative to fossil fuels. Unlike other renewables that are
periods, and leads to lower operating costs than solar and wind. seasonal and dependent on specific times and conditions, geothermal
A variety of studies over the past decades have compared the eco energy is a sustainable non-intermittent energy resource [57]. The
nomic costs, technical requirements and environmental factors of source of geothermal energy is the natural heat of the earth, which
hydrogen production routes based on fossil fuels and renewable energy comes from released energy through radioactive decay or planet for
[18,53–55]. In one study, the cost of hydrogen production through mation, and the geothermal gradient (the rate of increase in temperature
electrolysis ranged from 7 to 11 USD/kg H2 for wind, 10 to 30 USD/kg with depth) averages 30 ◦ C/km of depth [58]. A geothermal system is
H2 for solar energy, 2 to 4 USD/kg H2 for nuclear systems, and between primarily categorized based on its temperature, geological, and heat
transfer properties [59], as shown in Fig. 5. In terms of temperature
classification, geothermal systems have been divided into three types:
low (70–100 ◦ C), moderate (100–150 ◦ C), and high temperature
(>150 ◦ C); however, there is no consensus for the temperature bound
aries for this classification [59].
Conventional hydrothermal reservoirs are traditionally charac
terised as either water-dominant/hot water or steam-dominant/dry
steam reservoirs. These reservoirs are found in regions with tectonic
and volcanic activities, and are characterized by high temperatures (up
to 200 ◦ C) at a depth of less than 3 km due to convective heat flow
induced by magma chambers, and are currently the most exploited
geothermal reserves [60]. By contrast, unconventional geothermal res
ervoirs occur in areas far from tectonic spreading regions and are
dominated by conductive heat flow with higher temperatures reached at
a deeper depth (more than 3 km) [60]. The main heat source of un
conventional reservoirs is igneous rocks that can drive both conductive
and convective-dominated systems developable as either a Hot Dry Rock
Fig. 3. Hydrogen production cost from renewable electrolysis under develop (HDR) (termed as an Engineered Geothermal System (EGS)) or Hot
ment [51]. Sedimentary Aquifer (HSA) project, respectively. HDR reservoirs have
745
Fig. 4. The cost of hydrogen production from renewable energy reported in the international literature (data from Refs. [17,21,22,24,56]). Box plots show the range
(minimum and maximum values found in the literature), the median (vertical line), and lower Q1 and upper Q3 quartiles.
Fig. 5. Classification of geothermal reservoirs. This work focus on low temperature sources (low T).
relatively high temperatures, but low porosity and permeability. of sedimentary rocks with naturally high porosity, permeability, and
Pumping high-pressure water into natural thin fractures in HDR reser potential for natural water circulation.
voirs results in artificial water circulation and increases permeability. The applications of geothermal reservoirs depend on the temperature
HSA are an unconventional type of hydrothermal reservoirs that consist of the reservoirs with use generally classified as either 1) high-
temperature (>150 ◦ C), typically used for electricity generation [61]
and 2) low-moderate-temperature (70–150 ◦ C), typically used for direct
applications, such as therapeutic use, space heating, aquaculture, in
dustrial processes, and with heat pumps [62]. Fig. 6 illustrates further
applications of geothermal energy based on the reservoir temperature.
There are four main methods to generate electricity from geothermal
energy, including the dry steam cycle [63], flash cycle (single, double)
[64], combined flash-binary cycle [65], and binary cycle [66].
Low-moderate-temperature geothermal reservoirs are generally not
economically justifiable for electricity generation, with these types of
reservoirs being more suitable for direct-use applications [62]. In gen
eral, geothermal fluids with a high temperature can be used for both
electricity and direct applications using conventional power plants (such
as the flash, combined flash-binary, and dry steam). A more recent
development has been the use of geothermal energy to generate clean
hydrogen. By contrast, the low to moderate temperature fluids can be
used in binary cycle systems for power generation, however the effi
ciency of electricity production decreases with lower temperatures [67].
3.1. Geothermal reservoirs in Australia
Geothermal resources in Australia are of the unconventional type

Fig. 6. Applications of geothermal energy based on the reservoir temperature. (HDR-EGS or HSA). Power was generated from one geothermal reservoir
746
Table 3 projects, the average temperature is 186 ◦ C with an average depth of

Type and characteristics of Geothermal reservoirs in Australia [68]. 3750 m.
Engineered Geothermal Hot sedimentary aquifers (HSA) Until now, power generation from HDRs has not been economically
System (EGS) viable, but HSAs have shown the potential for power generation. Fig. 8
Deep Shallow
shows the location of three successful small-scale power generation
Depth ~ 5 km Depth >1.5 km 0.5 km < Depth <1.5 projects from sedimentary basins. The first and second demonstration
km
Temperature >200 ◦ C Temperature ∼ Temperature <100 ◦ C
projects, Mulka and Birdsville power plants in northern SA and
100–180 ◦ C Queensland operated successfully for several years with capacities of 20
Unfractured rock basement Sedimentary/Fractured Sedimentary aquifers and 80 kW, respectively. The Winton power plant in Queensland, which
Low porosity and aquifers High porosity and commenced commissioning in 2019, produces 310 kW of power from a
permeability High porosity and permeability
water temperature of 86 ◦ C. In these cases, the plant utilized existing
permeability
Artificial water circulation Natural water Natural water wells that were previously used for the towns’ water supply, reaching a
circulation circulation depth of 1,5 km and producing water with a temperature of 86 ◦ C.
Direct use/electricity Direct use/electricity Direct use Australia has several aquifers within sedimentary basins that may be
generation generation appropriate to produce high temperatures for electricity generation. The
Flash/binary power cycle Binary power cycle –
most productive aquifers occur within sedimentary basins with high
geothermal gradients, such as the Otway Basin (South Australia, Vic
of the HDR type with temperatures above 200 ◦ C at a depth of about 5 toria), Gippsland Basin (Victoria), Perth Basin (Western Australia),
km in the 2010s, but did not become commercial. Australia also has an Carnarvon Basin (Western Australia), and the Great Artesian Basin
abundance of groundwater resources including sedimentary aquifers (Queensland, New South Wales, South Australia and Northern Territory)
that can be potentially suitable for electricity generation and direct use [70].
depending on the temperature and depth. Further details on reservoir The results arising from the corresponding literature confirm that the
characteristics and use are summarised in Table 3. most prominent known geothermal reservoirs in the Australian context
Based on the Australia-wide census by the Australian Geothermal are HSAs with temperatures around 100 ◦ C, which are suitable for
Association (AGA) [69], geothermal energy contributes to the Austra electricity generation. The subsequent step involves evaluating
lian energy mix with direct-use and ground source heat pump (GSHP) geothermal-based hydrogen production routes to determine the most
systems viewed as growing industries. However, there is the potential appropriate one for low-temperature potential.
for geothermal power to play a larger role in Australia’s energy transi
tion if supported by the government. 4. Geothermal-assisted hydrogen production routes
Exploration of geothermal power generation peaked between 2009
and 2015 and focused on unconventional EGS and HSA projects. Sub This section reviews different routes for hydrogen production using
sequent exploration and deep drilling (albeit on a limited scale) have geothermal energy sources and corresponding studies. Potential tech
occurred in South Australia, such as in the Cooper Basin, Adelaide Fold nologies for geothermal-assisted hydrogen production include the direct
Belt, and Mount Painter Inlier–Frome Embayment. These sites contain use of geothermal steam when this is available in tectonic or volcanic
granitic basements of varying depths that range from fairly shallow regions, the use of conventional and/or high-temperature steam elec
areas with sedimentary rocks located in the margins of the Mount trolysis, and the use of thermochemical processes [72]. Fig. 9 summa
Painter Inlier to depths greater than 5 km in Cooper Basin [70]. Fig. 7 rises these potential pathways below.
provides locations of these geothermal activities for both direct-use
applications and unconventional power generation projects, consid
4.1. Direct use of geothermal steam
ering the temperature and depth of the geothermal reservoirs. For
direct-use applications, the average temperature is 48 ◦ C with an
In some geothermal fields that correspond to plate tectonic zones and
average depth of 707 m, while for unconventional power generation
volcanic regions, massive emissions of hydrogen with other components
Fig. 7. Direct use and unconventional geothermal power projects in Australia concentrated in the states of Victoria (VIC), South Australia (SA), and Western
Australia (WA).
747
Fig. 8. Conventional geothermal power projects in Australia (modified from Ref. [71]).
Ouali et al. [74] studied different aspects of producing hydrogen from

hydrogen sulphide in geothermal regions, including the feasibility of
this process in Algeria’s geothermal reservoirs. They concluded that
hydrogen production via hydrogen sulphide procedure could be an
economic and environmental route. Karapkmez and Dincer [75,76]
proposed a thermodynamic model to investigate the performance of
hydrogen production from hydrogen sulphide in geothermal power
plants using the electrolysis process. In this model, hydrogen sulphide at
a temperature of 150 ◦ C was fed into the electrolyser, resulting in the
separation of pure hydrogen and gaseous sulfur dimer through the
electrochemical method. Matthíasdóttir [73] studied a variety of tech
niques for producing hydrogen from hydrogen sulphide from the Nes
javellir geothermal field in Iceland. The results suggested that the ferric
chloride (Fe–Cl) hybrid method could be the most economical process.
4.2. Conventional electrolysis driven by geothermal power
Fig. 9. Production pathways of geothermal-based hydrogen generation. Geothermal power can be used to produce hydrogen from water
splitting through conventional electrolysis. The type and condition of
such as hydrogen sulphide, carbon dioxide, and methane are released the geothermal power plant and electrolyser technology can be variable
into the atmosphere. Hydrogen production from geothermal steam re on a case-by-case basis, depending on the geothermal reservoir char
quires gas cleaning technologies, which are important for the different acteristics and electrolysis operating condition. In geothermal-assisted
uses in hydrogen systems, especially in fuel cells [26]. It is worth noting hydrogen production systems, the conversion efficiency of the energy
that removing hydrogen from the hydrogen sulphide can also increase source to separate and extract hydrogen from water is a major factor. For
the amount of produced hydrogen from geothermal steam [73]. this reason, investigation of the hydrogen production systems in terms of
Considering the large amounts of hydrogen sulphide in geothermal the second law of thermodynamic/exergy energy accounts for a vital
steam and its associated environmental problems, producing hydrogen indicator of conversion efficiency in addition to the system’s energy
from hydrogen sulphide has been a topic of increasing research interest. efficiency [77]. Indeed, some geothermal-based H2 production systems
might not be viable enough due to a lack of high exergy required for
748
some conversion pathways. capacity of 7856 kW and a liquid hydrogen rate of 180 kg/h. The unit
The integration of flash cycles powered by geothermal resources for costs of the hydrogen and system payback period were calculated as
producing hydrogen is designed to exploit steam from hot water reser 2.154 USD/kg H2 and 6.17 years.
voirs through flash separators [78,79]. In multiple flash power plants, Some studies have investigated the potential of hydrogen production
several separators are used to make maximum use of the geothermal based on binary power plants. The binary power cycle can be beneficial
fluid energy. Geothermal power plants with more flash stages would be in the case of low-temperature geothermal reservoirs by activating the
more efficient in producing hydrogen [78]. Multi-objective optimization ORC or the Kalina cycle. Fig. 11 depicts the overall design of hydrogen
(MOO) of a modified double flash steam power cycle, fuelled by a production based on the ORC power plant driven by geothermal energy.
high-temperature geothermal brine at 230 ◦ C, yielded an exergy effi This type of power generation system consists of two independent cir
ciency of 12.63% with a total cost rate of 10.42 USD/h [80]. Integrating cuits, one to produce and transfer geothermal fluid to the heat exchanger
flash power plants with binary cycles has become one of the most (state 1) to heat a working fluid with a low boiling point (state 6) and the
common power cycles for electricity generation from high-temperature second system to generate electricity through the working fluid. In other
geothermal reservoirs since this combined configuration can yield more words, geothermal fluid in the binary cycle is not used directly for
effectively than individual flash cycles [81]. Fig. 10 shows hydrogen running turbines to generate power. Yilmaz et al. [87] proposed a
production using a combined flash binary cycle. Geothermal water thermodynamic and thermo-economic analysis for hydrogen production
leaving from the separator (state 5) is used as a heat source in the binary systems driven by an ORC binary geothermal cycle. A system with an
cycle to vaporize the working fluid (state 10). This heat exchange pro initial geothermal temperature of 160 ◦ C and a geothermal flow rate of
cess takes place in the heat exchanger. Some published works have 100 kg/s can produce 91.08 kg/h hydrogen via the electrolysis process.
modelled geothermal-assisted hydrogen production using a combined The hydrogen production and power costs of 2.366 USD/kg H2 and
flash-binary geothermal power cycle. 0.0234 USD/kWh were calculated.
The performance and the outputs of a combined flash-binary cycle Yilmaz et al. [88] showed that integration of the binary power cycle
integrated with Alkaline electrolysis were analysed from a thermody with an Alkaline electrolyser produced 460.8 kg/h of hydrogen with a
namic and economic perspective [82,83]. These works reported the hydrogen production cost of 0.979 USD/kg H2. Karakilcik et al. [89]
system’s exergy, energy efficiency, and hydrogen production rate as demonstrated an ORC geothermal power plant with a 155 ◦ C tempera
38.37%, 8.489%, and 187.2 kg/h. The cost of hydrogen and the simple ture source that was integrated with a chlor-alkali cell could produce
payback period were found to be 1.088 USD/kg H2 and 4.074 years, by-products such as chlorine and sodium hydroxide in addition to the
respectively. Kanoglu and Yilmaz [84] thermodynamically analysed a hydrogen, which resulted in an improvement in the system perfor
model of hydrogen production based on a combined flash-binary cycle mance. A thermodynamic and thermo-economic model was applied to
driven by the geothermal source. In the system presented by Kanoglu an ORC-based geothermal power plant in Turkey operating at 110 ◦ C
and Yilmaz [85], applying a geothermal fluid at a temperature of 230 ◦ C with a mass flow rate of 150 kg/s. The plant was found to generate 4132
and a rate of 230 kg/s through Alkaline electrolysis produced 405 kg/h kW of power and 98.64 kg/h of hydrogen at a production cost of 1.684
H2. The economical and thermodynamical assessment of a water elec USD/kg H2. The energy and exergy efficiencies were calculated as
trolysis process driven by a combined flash-binary cycle resulted in a 14.89% and 63.9%, respectively [29]. Han et al. [90] explored hydrogen
4.16 USD/kg H2 unit exegetic cost of hydrogen, 12.1%, and 57.4% en production through a geothermal system employing PEM driven by ORC
ergy and exergy efficiency. Some studies investigated the possibility of with a zeotropic mixture. Their optimized findings revealed that the
geothermal energy for both producing and liquifying hydrogen at the Pentane (0.31)/Butene (0.69) mixture achieved the highest exergy and
same site to improve the flexibility and productivity of geothermal energy efficiencies, reaching 18.96% and 57.24%, respectively. Akdað
reservoirs, particularly for those located in remote areas. In other studies [28] developed a Monte Carlo model for hydrogen production from an
conducted by Yilmaz and co-workers [56,86], the life cycle cost ORC geothermal power plant in Turkey’s Van province. Their pro
assessment of a combined geothermal power-based hydrogen produc jections indicated a hydrogen production rate of 18.6 kg/h, expected to
tion and liquefaction system was investigated. The system provided a increase to 28 kg/h by 2050. Additionally, the study estimated a
Fig. 10. Hydrogen production using power generated from the flash-binary cycle (modified from Ref. [82]).
749
Fig. 11. Hydrogen production using a geothermal-based ORC power plant (modified from Ref. [87]).
Table 4
Summary of hydrogen production via electrolysis using geothermal power.
Ref Geo condition Power cycle Electrolyser Products Findings
Power/H2
Kanoglu and Yilmaz 2016 [84] 200 ◦ cTemp Flash-Binary Alkaline 7572 kWe Thermodynamic model
100 kg/sflow 173.5 kg/hH2 7.76% en
Ratlamwala and Dincer 2012 [78] 157–257 ◦ cTemp Multi-Flash – – Thermodynamic model
0.5–1.5 kg/sflow 6.52% en and 47.29% ex
Yilmaz et al., 2015 [77] 200 ◦ cTemp Flash -Kalina – 179.28 kg/h H2 Thermodynamic and exergo-economic
100 kg/sflow 8.489% en, 38.44% ex, and 3.14 USD/kg H2
Yilmaz et al., 2015 [87] 160 ◦ cTemp ORC PEM 910.8 kg/h H2 Thermodynamic and exergo-economic
100 kg/sflow 6.7% en, 23.8% ex, and 2.366 USD/kg H2
Karakilcik et al., 2019 [89] 155 ◦ cTemp ORC Chlor/alkali cell 3.9 MWe Exergy analysis
21.1 kg/h H2 6.2% en and 22.4% ex
Yilmaz 2017 [83] 200 ctemp
◦
Flash-ORC Alkaline 7993 kWe Thermo-economic and optimization
100 kg/sflow 187.2 kg/h H2 8.489% en, 38.44% ex, and 1.08 USD/kg H2
Kanoglu and Yilmaz 2013 [85] 230 ◦ cTemp Flash Binary Alkaline 21545 kWe Thermo-economic
230 kg/sflow 405 kg/h H2 12.1% en, 57.4% ex, and 4.16USD/kg H2
Yilmaz 2020 [56] 200 ◦ cTemp Flash Binary Alkaline 7856 kWe Life cycle cost assessment
100 kg/sflow 180 kg/h H2 6.5% en, 32.4% ex, and 2.154
USD/kg H2
Yilmaz et al., 2019 [82] 200 ◦ cTemp Flash Binary Alkaline 7978 kWe ANN optimization
Yilmaz et al., 2012 [88] 200 ◦ cTemp Binary Alkaline 460.8 kg/h H2 Economic analysis
0.979 USD/kg H2
Arslan and Yilmaz 2024 [29] 110 ◦ cTemp ORC Alkaline 4132 kWe Thermodynamic and thermo-economic
Han et al., 2020 [90] 1 kg/sflow ORC PEM 125.712 kWe Thermodynamic, thermo-economic, and optimization
0.3683 kg/h H2 18.96% en and 57.24% ex
Akdað 2023 [28] ORC 125.712 kWe Techno-economic assessment 5.29 USD/kg H2
0.3683 kg/h H2
Zuo et al., 2024 [80] 230 ◦ cTemp Double-Flash Alkaline Thermodynamic, thermo-economic, and optimization
1 kg/sflow 12.63% ex and 10.42 $/h
production cost of 5.29 USD/kg H2 in 2022, with an anticipated 850–900 ◦ C, whereas the copper–chlorine (Cu–Cl) cycle’s operating
decrease to 1.3 USD/kg H2 by 2050. temperature is around 350–550 ◦ C, making it easily compatible with
Assessments of electrolysis integrated with geothermal energy have geothermal energy [72]. To date, most of the research has been under
identified key factors that have significant effects on the system’s per taken on a wide array of thermochemical processes via solar and nuclear
formance and outputs. These include the temperature and flow rate of energy [91,92]. As a result, it is critical to thermodynamically examine
the geothermal fluid, electrolysis, and type of power plant. Table 4 the potential of geothermal energy in the thermochemical process using
shows hydrogen production rates, energy, and efficiency of the whole these cycles for hydrogen production through exergy and energy
system based on these key parameters. efficiency.
In general, the production of hydrogen using geothermal heat in the
4.3. Hydrogen production through the thermochemical process process of thermally water decomposition is associated with geothermal
temperature restriction. It is worth noting that the maximum tempera
There have been various attempts to use thermochemical cycles to ture of the majority of the world’s existing geothermal fields ranges from
extract hydrogen from water using a thermochemical process. Many of 200 to 250 ◦ C [93–95]. In the process of thermally hydrogen production,
the studied cycles demand an operating temperature of more than geothermal temperature can be increased to a higher level by methods
750
such as heat pumps [96] or by using electrolysis as a hybrid process for geothermal heat can lessen the required work in the electrolysis by
hydrogen production [97] to potentially assist the Cu–Cl cycle. 22.96 kWh/kg H2 compared to 30.95 kWh/kg H2 in low-temperature
In a hybrid process, a combination of thermolysis and electrolysis electrolysis [88]. A HTS electrolyser could produce more hydrogen at
processes leads to hydrogen extraction through water division. Indeed, a rate of around 1.91 × 10− 3 kg H2/kg water, while a conventional
the hybrid process by taking advantage of electricity, improves the electrolyser produced 1.42 × 10− 3 kg H2/kg water [101]. In hydrogen
possibility of thermochemical cycles with low operating temperatures production via water-splitting electrolysis, electricity serves as a great
for hydrogen generation. Balta et al. [19] analysed low-temperature contributor to energy consumption for thermochemical reactions, fol
thermochemical and hybrid cycles for producing hydrogen driven by lowed by thermal energy [102]. Therefore, in unconventional electrol
geothermal energy. They thermodynamically analysed the efficiency of ysis operating at a high temperature, less electrical energy is required
these cycles for producing hydrogen and concluded that the five steps due to more thermal energy consumed to increase the temperature of the
Cu–Cl cycle is the most efficient low-temperature cycle for hydrogen water entering into the electrolysis than conventional methods. Conse
production using geothermal energy, with energy and exergy effi quently, increasing the operating temperature of the process decreases
ciencies of 26–51% and 33–65%, respectively. In another study [98], a electricity and the associated cost of hydrogen production [103]. Fig. 13
four steps Cu–Cl cycle could reach energy and exergy efficiencies of compares the required electricity in the process of water splitting for
21.67% and 19.35% to produce hydrogen thermally by geothermal conventional and HTS electrolysers, showing an average electricity
energy. A thermodynamic and economic analysis of producing hydrogen consumption of approximately 41 kWh/kg H2 for produced hydrogen
from water thermochemically with a four steps Cu–Cl cycle using conventionally, and an average reduction of 24.5 % in electricity usage
geothermal energy was undertaken in Ref. [99]. In this study, the for HTS electrolysers.
hydrogen cost was reported as USD2.05/kg for a 10 tonne/day pro In the published literature, there have been limited studies on the
duction rate with energy and exergy efficiencies of 49% and 54%, integration of HTS with geothermal sources of hydrogen production [27,
respectively. The study also found that the plant capacity of hydrogen 101,104,105], with most of the focus given to HTS coupled with other
production and exergy efficiency had important effects on the hydrogen thermal resources such as solar [106], waste heat [107] and nuclear
production cost. The investigations on the Cu–Cl thermochemical cycle [108]. Inevitably, the contribution of the thermal energy cost to the cost
for hydrogen production using various heat resources aim to improve of hydrogen production is much lower than electricity [108]. However,
the overall efficiency in different ways, such as changing the reaction it is worth noting that expensive thermal resources lead to an increase in
steps and their effects on the efficiency and heat requirements of each hydrogen production costs. A study concluded that the cost of thermal
step [99]. The results of these studies that investigated the various energy for vaporizing water entering the electrolyser is much lower for
routes of geothermal-based hydrogen production showed that thermo geothermal energy in Iceland in comparison to nuclear energy (HTR) in
chemical cycles could be more efficient than electrolysis processes as France for producing hydrogen [27]. The influence of both the tem
they use heat directly, and the efficiency of using heat is higher than the perature and costs of the thermal resource can be seen in the optimal
efficiency of converting it to electricity [19]. design of the heat exchangers coupled with HTS. This result confirmed
that the contribution heat exchangers’ cost increased in the case of
4.4. Hydrogen production through high-temperature steam (HTS) thermal energy with lower temperatures [109]. The results of a
electrolysis techno-economic optimization for the heat exchangers and an electro
lyser indicated that hydrogen production through HTS electrolysis
Both geothermal heat and power can be applied as inputs of High- driven by a geothermal heat of 230 ◦ C could be competitive economi
Temperature Steam (HTS) electrolysis to produce hydrogen. As sche cally in comparison to conventional low-temperature electrolysers using
matically depicted in Fig. 12, in the geothermal coupled HTS process to
produce hydrogen, some of the required energy of electrolysis is sup
plied by geothermal heat directly to vaporize water up to the maximum
temperature of geothermal energy. The resulting steam is then over
heated in the heat exchangers recapturing the heat from oxygen and a
mixture of water and hydrogen at the outlet of the electrolyser. Finally
steam transforms into hydrogen and oxygen by employing geothermal
electricity.
Integrating geothermal energy with HTS leads to effective hydrogen
production since the efficiency of converting the heat to electricity is
lower than exploiting heat directly. A thermodynamic assessment of
HTS driven by a geothermal source for possible hydrogen production
showed energy and exergy efficiencies of 87% and 86%, respectively
[72]. This manner is much more advantageous than conventional water
electrolysis in terms of both the performance and electricity demands of
electrolysis, which in turn leads to lower costs [100]. The study revealed
that hydrogen production cost via a HTS electrolysis decreased by 1.377
Fig. 13. Required electricity use per kilogram of Hydrogen produced in con
USD/kg H2 using the HTS electrolyser, whereas the corresponding value
ventional and high temperature steam (HTS) electrolysis systems.
for the conventional electrolyser was 1.857 USD/kg H2. In addition,
Fig. 12. Hydrogen production via High-Temperature Steam (HTS) electrolysis.
751
the same primary source. The cost of producing hydrogen was estimated lower-temperature water [68,69].
to be 1.78 USD/kg, with costs dominated by electrolyser capital cost and
electricity consumption of 67%, and 31%, respectively [104]. 5.1.1. Advanced ORC models
The cost of electricity is higher than thermal energy due to the The efficiency of the geothermal-based ORC power plant systems can
thermal-to-power conversion process within the power plant. Therefore, be improved by modifying the performance of the state-of-the-art
adopting thermal energy as an energy input during HTS water splitting technologies as well as decreasing energy losses. Considering the
leads to a reduction in the contribution of electricity to the energy input importance of the configuration of geothermal-based ORC on the per
and also reduces the total cost of producing hydrogen when compared to formance and consequent output of the power generation system, some
conventional electrolysis. The cost breakdown of hydrogen production researchers have studied various configurations of the ORC cycle from
using HTS electrolysis, as shown in Fig. 14, clearly confirms a reduction thermodynamic and economic points of view [113,114].
in the contribution of electricity costs, decreasing from 60% Figs. 3 to The effect of adding an internal heat exchange (IHE) on ORC per
47%. formance was investigated from the thermodynamic and economic
Although HTS for producing hydrogen with geothermal energy can perspective (Fig. 15 (a)). The results demonstrated that ORC systems
be economically viable, especially in countries with great potential for with an internal heat exchanger have higher thermodynamic perfor
geothermal energy, there are some obstacles to its extensive application. mance [115], while a simple ORC is preferred in terms of the considered
One issue is related to the technology of HTS, especially in terms of economic criteria [116].
degradation it needs more research and development to create a stable Some published research found that two-stage ORC cycles, in which
environment [21], the grade of geothermal energy in terms of the working fluid undergoes two heating processes and runs two tur
high-temperature thermal energy availability is another one. Research bines for power generation, can be more efficient and produce higher
into the potential of low-temperature HSAs and geothermal routes has power than the basic ORC, although higher initial costs appeared to be
indicated that the conventional electrolysis process appears to be the inevitable [117,118]. A dual-pressure had a better performance in terms
most viable option for hydrogen production in the Australian context, of exergy efficiency and net power compared with the simple ORC [119]
despite encountering various challenges. The next section will explore (Fig. 15 (b)). By contrast, a simple ORC had the lowest cost of power
solutions to address these challenges. production due to fewer required components than dual fluid and
dual-pressure [120]. The result of an optimization study showed that the
5. Improving the geothermal-based hydrogen production in regenerative ORC with R123 had better thermal efficiency, while the
Australia superheated cycle with R123 had a lower capital cost [121]. These
advanced configurations of ORC have been adopted by some scholars
Although geothermal energy is more sustainable than other renew and integrated with hydrogen production systems including integration
able energies and has a higher capacity factor to drive electrolysis, of a dual-fluid ORC [122], regenerative ORC [123], and two-stage ORC
expanded extraction of this resource can be limited due to high capital with dual fluid [124] with PEM electrolyser. Hassani et al. [125] utilized
costs and low energy conversion efficiency in terms of power generation Gray Wolf Optimizer (GWO) and showed that the geothermal-based
from a low-temperature reservoir such as Australia’s HSAs. Therefore, ORC incorporating IHX-PEM outperformed other hybrid ORC-PEM
identifying solutions to overcome these barriers to the widespread use of configurations, such as open regenerative (ORG)-PEM, close regenera
geothermal energy, especially in the Australian context, is critical for tive (CRG)-PEM, and IHX-CRG-PEM (Fig. 15) schematically shows these
green hydrogen production. advanced ORC power plants coupled with electrolysis.
Another advanced ORC configuration is the integration of a ther
moelectric generator (TEG) with the binary cycle to use the waste heat
5.1. Development in ORC efficiency power plant and produce more power when it is replaced with the
condenser. Fig. 15(e and f) demonstrates the integration of TEGs with a
Generally, ORC power plants can be still sufficient when the source Kalina and the ORC binary power plant for power and hydrogen pro
temperature is about 100 ◦ C [111]. However, the efficiency the duction. In the model designed by Ref. [126], TEGs generated power by
geothermal-based binary plants remains low, especially at temperatures recovering the waste heat of the Kalina cycle. Their results revealed that
below 150 ◦ C [112]. Therefore, Australia’s HSAs can be used for elec the output power, energy, and exergy efficiencies were boosted by about
tricity generation with advancements in binary power generation tech 7% in the proposed system over the conventional Kalina cycle. In the
nology to enable successful electricity generation from proposed system by Ref. [127], TEG used the heat recovery of the ORC
to generate the electricity requirements of the PEM electrolyser. The
results showed that the exergy efficiency system was 12.7% higher than
the simple ORC. The specific product cost was also lower than the simple
ORC.
TEG can also be used to transform geothermal energy directly into
electrical energy. Thermoelectric technology has been extensively
studied for power generation from low-temperature geothermal reser
voirs theoretically [128,129] and experimentally [130]. The experi
mental tests were performed using various temperature differences and
flow rates across the TEG [131], different materials for the TEG modules
[132], and different heat exchangers on both sides of the TEG [133]. The
literature shows that when comparing the various configurations for
geothermal-based ORCs, advanced ORC cycles such as the IHE and
dual-pressure appear to operate effectively in terms of exergy and en
ergy efficiency. Geothermal sources with low to moderate temperatures
may not be appropriate for steam turbines, but power can still be pro
duced from TEG methods. A summary of different ORC configurations
for power generation and hydrogen production is in Table 5.
Fig. 14. Hydrogen production cost of HTS, including operation and mainte
nance (O&M) [110].
752
Fig. 15. Different advanced Organic Rankine Cycle (ORC) configurations for hydrogen production: a) with internal heat exchange (IHE) (inspired on [115]), b) with
dual-pressure ORC (inspired on [119]), c) Regenerative (modified from Ref. [123]), and d) Dual fluid (modified from Ref. [122]), and Thermoelectric generator (TEG)
integrated binary power plant configurations with e) Kalina (modified from Ref. [126]), and f) ORC (modified from Ref. [127]).
5.1.2. Integration with other renewable energy play a main role in raising the efficiency and decreasing the costs of
Although solar and wind resources are considered the most feasible producing renewable energy therefore reducing the cost of hydrogen
options for producing renewable hydrogen, lower capacity factors of production [87,135]. In Australia, solar and wind have received most of
approximately 10–45% for these resources highlight the potential of the research and industry focus in efforts to develop hydrogen produc
geothermal [134]. Geothermal energy with a high capacity factor can tion through electrolysis [136]. The high costs of extracting geothermal
753
Table 5
Summary of various configuration of ORC-based geothermal systems.
Ref Geo System Outputs Findings
Condition Power/H2
Algieri and Šebo 2017 [115] 130 ◦

CTemp ORC with IHX – Thermodynamic study
14.6 % en
Zare 2015 [116] – Simple ORC, regenerative, and ORC with IHE – Thermodynamic and thermo-economic
IHE had higher efficiencies
Simple ORC had lower cost
Shokati et al., 2015 [120] – Simple ORC, ORC with IHE, dual-fluid, and dual – Exergo-economic and single optimisations
pressure Dual-pressure ORC had higher power
Liu et al., 2017 [121] – Simple ORC, superheated, recuperated, and – Thermo-economic and MOO
regenerative Regenerative ORC with R123 had higher
efficiency
Mohammadzadeh Bina et al., 2017 – Simple ORC, dual fluid, regenerative, and IHE – Thermodynamic and thermo-economic study
[114] IHE had higher efficiencies
Regenerative ORC had lower cost
Guzović et al., 2014 [119] 175 ◦
CTemp Simple ORC and dual pressure – Thermodynamic study
Dual-pressure had higher efficiency and power
Kianfard et al., 2018 [122] Dual fluid ORC and PEM Exergo-economic
4.257 USD/kg H2
Ghaebi et al., 2018 [123] 96 ◦ CTemp Regeneration ORC and EPM 4309.2 kg/h Thermodynamic and thermo-economic
75 kg/sFlow H2 3.511% en, 67.58% ex, and 4.921 USD/GJ H2
Cao et al., 2020 [124] 200 ◦ CTemp Two- stage ORC and PEM 2050 kWe Thermodynamic, thermo-economic, and GA
41 kg/h H2 optimization
14.8% en and 37.2 USD/GJ
Zare and palide 2017 [126] 90 ◦
CTemp Kalina-TEG 9.2 kWe Thermodynamic and economic study
52.99% ex
Gholamian et al., 2018 [127] 180 ◦
CTemp ORC-TEG-PEM 12.63 kg/h Thermodynamic and thermo-economic
H2 55% ex
Hassani et al., 2023 [125] 180 ◦ CTemp Simple ORC-PEM, IHX-PEM, CRG-PEM, ORG-PEM, and 4.202 kg/h Thermodynamic, thermo-economic, and GWO
10 kg/sFlow IHX-CRG-PEM H2 optimization
IHX-PEM had better performance
40.66% ex and 26.32 USD/h
resources from low-temperature HSAs in Australia have a number of 78.37% and 58.40%, respectively when solar energy improved the
economic and energetic feasibility implications. However, using hybrid geothermal temperature. Thermal energy storage also filled with phase
renewable power energy has the potential to overcome these challenges change materials was added to improve the productivity of solar func
and improve the rate of hydrogen production that results from the tion to improve the geothermal temperature [75]. The temperature of
increased power required for electrolysers [137]. Therefore, integrating the geothermal, ambient temperature, and solar input can play an
solar/wind with geothermal energy can economically and energetically important role in the output power of the hybrid system. The oversizing
benefit both solar/wind-based and geothermal-based hydrogen pro solar field with a solar multiple of 1.6 could improve power generation
duction systems. This section explores the hybridization of geothermal by about 5.3% compared to the standalone geothermal system [144]. In
with solar energy due to the high potential of solar energy throughout the model by Ref. [145], the temperature of geothermal fluids was
Australia. increased using solar three collectors (parabolic trough solar collector
The cost benefits of using geothermal energy in combination with (PTSC), evacuated tube solar collector (ETSC), and flat plate solar col
solar energy result in the reduction of the cost to produce hydrogen lector (FPSC). The highest energetic and exergetic production rate cor
[138]. Another important benefit of the hybrid solar-geothermal method responded with PTSC at 5.67% 7.49%, and 0.11 kg/h, respectively.
is the ability of the system to provide multiple outputs due to the high Buonomano et al. [146] presented the integration of a 25 m2 FPSC with a
capacity of the energy sources [139]. A combined solar-geothermal low-grade geothermal fluid of 96 ◦ C at a depth of 94 m led to an increase
system produced cooling, heating, power, and hydrogen with a high in the geothermal temperature of 130 ◦ C. For the three different
energy efficiency of 46.3% due to the more produced output power geothermal cases of 63, 74, and 86 ◦ C, the inlet temperature of the ORC
[140]. The total unit cost of a solar-geothermal combined system could be maximized by 96.24, 105.90, and 116.40 ◦ C using an EVTSC of
decreased by 0.058 USD/kWh when it produced electricity, district 100 m2. The overall energy and exergy efficiencies of the system and
heating, desalination, and hydrogen [141]. The system provided by power generation of the ORC were achieved by 6.92%, 21.06%, and
Ref. [142], contained hybrid solar-geothermal energy to produce 19.46 kW for enhancing geothermal temperature of 86–116 ◦ C by solar
hydrogen, power, and freshwater. Hydrogen was produced through a [147]. Atiz et al. [148] employed a 545 m2 PTSC to elevate the tem
PEM powered by solar-based ORC and feeding by geothermal-based perature of medium-grade geofluid, facilitating the operation of an ORC
desalination. In another multigenerational system based on solar and for power generation and a PEM for hydrogen production. The system
geothermal [143], geothermal fluids of 190 ◦ C firstly powered the demonstrated an electricity generation of 66.02 kW and a hydrogen
cooling cycle (state 2) and then were superheated by a solar collector production of 0.4 kg/h. The energy and exergy efficiencies were
(state 4) to assist the Rankine cycle (RC) for power generation and computed at 5.85% and 8.27%, respectively.
hydrogen production (state 12) (Fig. 16). When the solar irradiance In addition to preheating geothermal fluids in low-grade geothermal
changed from 400 to 1000 W/m2, there was an observed increase to cases, solar energy can be adopted to superheat the working fluid of the
10.44 kg/h from 7.2 kg/s in the hydrogen production rate. ORC cycle after the first heating with a geothermal source, thereby
Some papers provided a combined system in which the solar function enhancing power generation [149,150]. Fig. 17(a and b) illustrates the
is used to increase the temperature of geothermal fluids. The increase in function of solar energy in preheating geothermal fluid and super
temperature results in a greater steam output to power the turbine and heating the working fluid of ORC to produce power. The hybridization of
increases the electricity output. solar and geothermal for superheating steam further and better has
The overall energy and exergy efficiency of the system increased by shown promising results in terms of both energy efficiency and power
754
Fig. 16. Multigenerational system based on solar-geothermal energy (redrawn from Ref. [143]).
Fig. 17. Solar energy function: a) for preheating, b) for superheating.
costs over standalone geothermal and solar [151]. Further research has and 0.43 USD/kWh when using a solar-field with a cost of 175,268
shown that the sizing of the solar field and thermal storage have the USD/m2.
potential to significantly impact electricity generation and efficiency. These findings suggest that upgrading the temperature of the
Oversizing the solar field and using storage improve flexibility and geothermal resources with solar energy plays an important role in the
reduce LCOE. In this regard, it was concluded that LCOE could be overall efficiencies of power generation by a geothermal-based ORC
reduced by 40% based on the considered cost scenarios for the solar field power plant. Hence, a solar-assisted geothermal hybrid system has the
and thermal storage [152]. It was concluded that a hybrid system which potential to produce low-cost electricity and hydrogen with higher ef
included a geothermal fluid of 120 ◦ C coupled with a solar system had a ficiency, thereby increasing the attractiveness of many low-medium
better performance over standalone solar and geothermal systems if temperature geothermal sources for hydrogen production. Table 6 pro
approximately 68% of the input energy of the system was supplied by vides a summary of solar-assisted geothermal energy.
solar [153]. At a geothermal temperature of 150 ◦ C, solar energy
increased the quality of the steam leaving the geothermal heat 5.1.3. Geothermal-based multigenerational systems
exchanger by increasing its temperature by 200 ◦ C, resulting in Another way to improve the efficiency of power generation systems
cost-competitive power generation and more attractive geothermal driven by geothermal energy is to reduce losses by using waste heat in a
sources. The LCOE of the hybrid system was reported as between 0.22 multigenerational system to produce multiple commodities such as
755
Table 6
Summary of hybrid geothermal-solar systems.
Ref Hybrid TGeo Solar Power Products Findings
system (◦ C) Function cycle
Buonomano 2015 Geo- FPSC 96 Preheating ORC Power, cooling Thermo-economic optimization and dynamic
[146] simulation
Atiz et al., 2019 [147] Geo- ETSC 86 Preheating ORC Power Thermodynmaic study
6.92%- en, 8.27% ex, and 19.46 kWe
Atiz et al., 2021 [148] Geo- PTSC 150 Preheating ORC Power, H2 Thermodynmaic study
5.85%% en, 21.06% ex, 66.02 kWe, and 0.4 kg/h H2
Bassetti et al., 2018 Geo- CSP 145 Preheating ORC Power Simulation study Oversizing the solar field and adding
[144] thermal storage
Mctigue 2020 [152] Geo- CSP 133 Superheating ORC Power Thermodynamic and economic
Oversizing the solar field and using storage
Astolfi et al., 2011 Geo- PTSC 150 Superheating ORC Power Techno-economic study
[154] LCOE was competitive
Zhou et al., 2013 [153] Geo- CSP 120 Superheating ORC Power Thermodynamic, economic, and dynamic simulation
Calise et al. Geo- PTSC 160 Superheating ORC Power, water, heating, and Thermo-economic and dynamic simulation
2016 [150] cooling
Bicer & Dincer 2014 Geo-PV/T 210 Separated ORC Heat, heating, cooling, hot Thermodynmaic study
[140] water, H2 10.8% en and 46.3% ex
Atiz et al., 2020 [145] Geo – 93 Preheating ORC Hot water, H2 Thermodynmaic study
PTSC 5.67% en, 7.49% ex, and 0.11 kg/h H2
Kurşun 2020 [139] Geo-CPV 180 Superheating ORC Heating, cooling, power, and Energy and exergy study
H2
Waseem et al., 2020 Geo-PTSC 190 Superheating ORC Cooling, power, and H2 Thermodynamic analysis
[143] The effect of geothermal temperature and solar
irradiance
Karapekmez & Dincer Geo-PTSC 242 Preheating ORC Heating, cooling, power, Thermodynmaic study
[75] drying, and H2 78.37% en and 58.40% ex
Balali et al., 2023 [142] Geo- PTSC 100 Preheating – Power, water, H2 Thermodynmaic, thermo-economic, and MOO
Temiz & Dincer 2020 Geo- PV 147 Separated Double- Power, district heating Thermodynmaic and thermoeconomic
[141] flash 16.3% en, 14.9% ex, and 0.058 USD/kwhen
Yilmiz & Sen. 2022 Geo-PCS 70–130 Separated ORC Power, H2 Thermodynmaic, thermo-economic, and optimization
[138] 4.97% en, 16.0% ex, and 1.576 USD/kg H2
heating, cooling, power, and hydrogen [155]. A number of works in the system, geothermal fluid at the temperature of 200 ◦ C and flow rate of
published literature investigate the simulation of multigenerational 100 kg/s was able to produce 2.308 kg/h H2. Another trigeneration
systems that include geothermal-based power plants as part of the system was designed to produce hydrogen, power, and fresh water and
design. was based on the flash coupled with the Kalina cycle. This model took
Abdolalipouradl et al. [156] designed a geothermal-based trigener advantage of the multiple recovery steps of the exhausted geothermal
ation system that produced power with a double flash-ORC cycle, fresh liquid from the flash cycle for running other different cycles, more
water (state 18) with reverse osmosis (RO) desalination, and hydrogen importantly, the binary cycle. The hydrogen production rate was
(state 16) by PEM (Fig. 18). The overall energy and efficiency of the calculated to be 5.3 kg/h with a whole exergy efficiency of 51.3% [157].
system were calculated at 12.96% and 53.79%, respectively. In their In addition to the thermodynamic analyses, optimization studies
Fig. 18. Multigenerational system including desalination, double flash-ORC, and electrolyser (redrawn from Ref. [156]).
756
were conducted to find the optimal performance of the multigeneration USD/kg H2, respectively. In this system, geothermal water was used to
systems [158,159]. Using a non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm heat the water used in the electrolysis process (state 2) and then rein
(NSGA-II) based MOO, the optimal exergetic efficiency and cost rate of a jected into the injection well (state 3). From a brine geothermal tem
multigeneration system were calculated as 37.85% and 15.09 USD/h for perature of 200 ◦ C and mass flow rate of 15 kg/s, the hydrogen
power, hydrogen, and cooling [159]. Cao et al. [160] developed a production rate and power reached 0.18 kg/h and 1896 kW.
combined system including a geothermal power plant and a cooling Sangesaraki et al. [166] studied a multigenerational system for
system for hydrogen and ice production. They achieved an optimum producing power, liquid hydrogen considering exergetic, economic
efficiency of 26.25% using the Jaya algorithm and Genetic algorithm viewpoints. The geothermal energy first ran the flash cycle for power
(GA). In this system, a combined flash-Kalina binary cycle based on a generation and hydrogen, then entered a cooling cycle to supply heat for
geothermal reservoir, operating at a temperature of 170 ◦ C and flow rate hydrogen liquefaction before returning to the injection well. The opti
and 30 kg/s, was integrated into an Alkaline electrolyser. Xiao et al. mum values for exergy efficiency, liquid hydrogen rate, and power
[161] conducted a multi-aspect analysis including thermodynamic, generation for the proposed system were computed as 27.25 %, 0.016
thermo-economic, multi-objective particle swarm optimization, and kg/h H2, and 4030 kW, respectively. In another thermodynamic study
exergoenvironmental, for a geothermal-based multigeneration system to [167], hydrogen production was driven by a geothermal-based system
produce power, fresh water, and liquified hydrogen. The optimum that included ORC for power, ejector refrigeration cycle (ERC for cool
values of the performance indicators of the systems were calculated as ing, liquefied natural gas (LNG) as a heat sink, and a PEM electrolyser for
4557.28 kW for net output power, 5.59 kg/h liquid hydrogen, 48.55% hydrogen production and heat exchanger for heating through waste
for exergy efficiency, 2.83 years for the payback period, and 2834.57 heat. In this case, the efficiency, exergy, and cost of the hydrogen were
mPts/h for Exergoenvironmental impact rate. Yuksel and Ozturk [135] reported as 38.33%, 28.91%, and 409.4 USD/GJ, respectively.
proposed a geothermal-based multi-generational system to provide Producing multiple products from a geothermal-based energy system
cooling in addition to hydrogen production. The system was based on can improve greatly the efficiency of the systems by using recoverable
utilizing the excess heat of geothermal fluid in absorption cooling energy and decreasing heat losses. Renewables-based multigenerational
Quadruple Effect Absorption Cooling System (QEACS) before reinjection systems with a wide range of commodities such as cooling, heating, and
to the ground. In this system, a hydrogen production system driven by a hydrogen have potential in rural and regional communities with some
flash-ORC produced 270 kg/h of hydrogen with an energy and exergy challenges related to the energy supply. Table 7 provides a summary of
efficiency of 47.04% and 32.15%, respectively. Another work by Yuksel multigenerational systems driven by geothermal energy.
et al. [162] presented a system that included a Kalian cycle for power
generation, an absorption refrigeration cycle (ARC) for cooling, and 5.2. Potential of abandoned oil and gas wells for power and hydrogen
PEM for hydrogen production. In this integrated system, the waste heat generation
from the power cycle was used in the cooling cycle, and the remaining
heat of the geothermal fluid leaving the cooling cycle was used to pre In addition to the low efficiency of geothermal-based ORC power
heat the water in the electrolyser. The same authors also analysed an plants for producing hydrogen, the high initial costs required to capture
integrated system driven by an ORC geothermal cycle to produce power, geothermal energy are another obstacle that may prevent extensive use
hydrogen, cooling, heating, and hot water. The energy and exergy effi of this sustainable energy source. However, capturing geothermal en
ciencies of 39.46% and 44.27% were obtained based on an energetic and ergy from oilfield areas can cause a reduction in capital costs by up to 50
exegetic analysis of the system. Results showed a 198 kg/h of hydrogen % due to pre-existing wellbores, with negligible to minimal amounts of
production rate from a PEM electrolyser driven by an ORC geothermal drilling activity required [168].
cycle with flow rate 100 kg/s and temperature of 160 ◦ C [163]. Akrami Currently, geothermal energy is largely extracted from oil wells by
et al. [164,165] provided a combined cooling, power, and hydrogen producing water from an active production well or by injecting a
production system driven by geothermal energy. This system consisted working fluid into the target depth of the abandoned wells (Fig. 20). In
of an ORC cycle, domestic water heater (DWH), ARC, and PEM elec abandoned wells, a working fluid is injected and circulated inside the
trolyser, as seen in Fig. 19. Overall, the energy and exergy efficiency and closed-loop of the u-tube or double-pipe heat exchanger to extract the
unit cost of hydrogen was calculated at 34.98% and 49.17%, and 5.967 geothermal heat from the reservoir and flow back to the surface.
Fig. 19. Multigenerational system including ORC, Electrolyser, and Refrigeration (redrawn from Ref. [164]).
757
Table 7
Summary of geothermal-based multigenerational systems.
Ref Geo Condition Power cycle Electrolyser Products Findings
Alirahmi et al., 2022 [159] 170 CTemp

◦
ORC PEM – Thermodynamic and economic, and ptimization
10 kg/sFlow 37.85% ex and 15.09 USD/h
Hekmatshoar et al., 2022 20–100 kg/sFlow ORC PEM 3.24–16.2 kg/h Thermodynamic, economic, and optimization
[158] H2 175-587 USD/h
Ebadollahi et al., 2019 [167] 170 ◦ CTemp 100 kg/ ORC PEM 1060 kWe Thermodynamic and thermo-economic 38.33% en, 28.91% ex, and
sFlow 5.43 kg/h H2 409.4 USD/GJ H2
Akrami et al., 2017,2018 200 ◦ CTemp ORC EPM 1896 kWe Energetic and exergo-economic
[164,165] 15 kg/sFlow 0.18 kg/h H2 34.98% en, 49.17% ex, and 5.967 USD/kg H2
Sangesaraki et al., 2023 [166] 175 ◦ CTemp Double flash EPM 4030 kWe Thermodynamic, economic, environmental, and optimization
100 kg/sFlow 0.2 kg/h H2 25.27% ex and 181.71USD/h
Abdolalipouradl et al., 2020 200 ◦ CTemp Double flash EPM 8613 kWe Thermodynamic and exergo-economic, and MOO
[156] 100 kg/sFlow binary 2.308 kg/h H2 12.96% en and 53.79% ex
Cao et al., 2021 [157] 200 ◦ CTemp Flash-Kalina EPM 4795 kWe Thermodynamic and MOO
45 kg/sFlow 5.3 kg/h H2 51.3% ex
Cao et al., 2018 [160] 170 ◦ CTemp Flash Kalina Akaline 414.10 kWe Exergy and optimization
30 kg/sFlow 24.82 L/s H2 20.24% ex and 1.33 USD/GJ
Yuksel et al., 2018 [163] 160 ◦ CTemp ORC PEM 198 kg/h H2 Thermodynamic
100 kg/sFlow 39.4% en and 44.2% ex
Yuksel and Ozturk 2017 [135] 200 ◦ CTemp Flash-ORC PEM 8.5 Mwe Thermodynamic and thermo-economic 47.04% en, 32.15% ex, and
200 kg/sFlow 270 kg/h H2 1.1 USD/kg H2
Yuksel et al., 2018 [162] 150-230 ◦ CTemp Kalina EPM 216 kg/h H2 Thermodynamic
75–225 kg/sFlow 42.59% en and 48.24% ex
Li et al., 2022 [155] 170-220 ◦ CTemp Flash-ORC-TEG EPM 757.1 kWe MOO study
30 kg/sFlow 5857.2 kg/h H2 30.89% ex
Xiao et al., 2024 [161] 50 kg/sFlow Flash-ORC EPM 4557.28 kWe Thermodynamic, thermo-economic, exergoenvironmental, and
5.59 kg/h H2 optimization
48.55% ex, 2.83 years, and 2834.57 mPts/h
Fig. 20. Geothermal extraction from oilfields in: a) abandoned and b) active wells.
A wide variety of research has evaluated the potential of geothermal gradient of 0.0311 ◦ C/m and wellbore depth of 4200 m, a fluid tem
production from abandoned wells using both u-tube and double-pipe perature of 130 ◦ C was gained by the mass flow rate of 2.5 kg/s, which
heat exchanger techniques. Different models of heat transfer have provided a power generation of 109 kW. Increasing the mass flow rate
been developed to investigate the potential of using geothermal energy increased the depth of the wellbore to reach sufficient fluid tempera
from abandoned wells including transient 1D cylindrical [169,170], tures, while also increasing power generation [58]. It was revealed that
transient 2D cylindrical [171] numerical modelling [172], and water had a higher efficiency and power generation capacity than
semi-analytical model [58]. diathermic oil as a heat carrier in the wellbore [173]. A comparison of
Different works illustrated that an increase in the inlet fluid rate and two different power cycles including the ORC and Stirling motorcycle
geothermal gradient has a significant role in the extracted geothermal showed that the Stirling motor produced more electrical power and ef
energy from the abandoned well [169]. The results showed that the ficiency than the ORC [174]. In summary, the influential factors that
outlet temperature of the fluid gradually decreased with the system affect the power generated from abandoned wells include the ORC
operating time and eventually plateaued. The increasing formation working fluid [174,175], insulation thickness [174,176], power plant
thermal conductivity or the decreasing inlet velocity of the fluid injected [170,173,174], and the velocity of the injected water into the well
into the well had an effect on outlet temperature stability [170]. The [170].
temperature and thermal conductivity of the ground and the insulating Several significant efforts have been made to harness geothermal
casing were key parameters of the system’s performance [171]. The energy for power generation from oil and gas wells using produced
effect of well casing geometry and pipe size on the output heat extrac water. They included pilot projects supported by the US Department of
tion were considered in the feasibility of the geothermal extraction from Energy (DOE) [177–179], experimental tests from oilfields in China
the abandoned wells by numerical modelling [172]. For a geothermal [180,181], and another project in Colombia’s Llanos Orientales basin
758
[182]. The temperature of hydrocarbon wells ranges from 65 to 150 ◦ C, production system decreased due to the decay of the cooling water
and the upward movement of the produced fluid results in a large temperature in the condenser of the power plant [189]. When the pinch
amount of heat loss which constrains the viability and suitability of some point temperature of the geothermal heater increased, the net energy
wells to produce power effectively through a binary ORC cycle [183, efficiency decreased, while overall exergy efficiency increased [190].
184]. Therefore, downhole power generation through thermoelectric The effects of different working fluids on the rate and cost of
technology in both vertical [185] and horizontal [186] oil wells can be hydrogen were analysed during the thermodynamic and exergo-
one solution to overcome the constraints and extend geothermal utili economic evaluation. The thermodynamic and thermos-economic ana
zation in oilfield areas. Research on the hybridization of geothermal and lyses showed that R245fa was the most efficient and cost-effective
hydrocarbon fields reveals that active wells, producing water at higher working fluid [123]. The R114 was considered to be the best choice
temperatures and rates (averaging 100 ◦ C and 50.2 kg/s), generate more economically because of the lowest hydrogen production cost [127].
power (247 kW) compared to abandoned wells, which generate 117 kW Isobutane was identified to be the best working fluid of an ORC, as it
with lower injected temperatures and rates (averaging 32 ◦ C and 2.9 decreased the exergy destructions and increased the turbine work output
kg/s), as illustrated Fig. 21. [140]. It was concluded that R123 with a hydrogen production rate of
11.42 g/s, and isopentane with a minimum cost per unit exergy of 36.9
6. Performance analysis of H2 production systems USD/GJ were the best choices [124].
In a techno-economic optimization study by coupling GA with Arti
The feasibility of geothermal-based hydrogen production systems is ficial Neural Network (ANN), the authors found that increasing the
investigated from an energy, exergy, and exergo-economic point of turbine inlet pressure and evaporator pinch point temperature differ
view. During these processes, influential factors have contributed to the ence of the ORC had negative effects on the LCOE and LCOH [187]. The
efficiencies, rates, and cost of products. This section aims to clarify the application of an NSGA-II optimization technique could reduce the cost
influences of the significant parameters on the system performance both of the product, and improve energy and exergy efficiency, and product
energetically and economically. rates when compared to the nominal point [191]. The effect of applying
GA optimization manner to minimize hydrogen cost and maximize
exergy efficiency on the thermo-economic performance of a hydrogen
6.1. The power plant components and working condition production system was demonstrated. It was found that the optimum
cost of hydrogen production was 1.088 USD/kg with a corresponding
Thermodynamic analysis of geothermal-based power cycles has value for the base case of 1.149 USD/kg [83]. It was concluded that the
shown that the low exergy efficiency of these systems is due to the improvement of both the thermodynamic and thermo-economic
possible heat waste from the cycle component. If this heat is recovered, behaviour of the system was achieved when an ANN-based GA optimi
the system’s efficiency will increase. For example, increasing the flash zation technique was applied to the solar-geothermal-based hydrogen
steps during the hydrogen production process improved the exergy ef production system concerning the geothermal and solar inputs. The
ficiency [78,156]. In addition to the detrimental effects of heat loss on optimum cost of power and hydrogen generation was approximately
the system efficiency, heat loss also resulted in unfavourable economic 40% and 32.41% lower than for the base case [138].
conditions [122]. The thermo-economic model performed by Refs. [77,
87] based on the investment costs per exergy unit concluded that the
electrolysis unit, heat exchangers of ORC, and appeared to be respon 6.2. Geothermal condition
sible for most of the exegetic costs. The reason for that was these power
plant components displayed the highest irreversibility and exergy loss. As geothermal heat energy is the input of the hydrogen production
Based on the thermodynamic and thermo-economic studies, the system, the geothermal source temperature plays a crucial role in
working condition of the power plant has important effects on the sys improving power, hydrogen production rates, and cost [187].
tem performance [164,165,187,188]. It was concluded that the effi Geothermal sources with higher temperatures display higher enthalpy
ciency, power, and hydrogen production rate decreased with the and the rise in geothermal fluid temperature has a positive effect on the
increase in the turbine inlet pressure and temperature, condenser tem system output rates [165,189]. In addition, the rise in geothermal
perature, and reference temperature [135,162,163]. An increase in temperature leads to an increase in the steam temperature entering the
hydrogen production was caused by increasing evaporator pressure and turbine and produces more power [163]. To ensure the usability of the
reducing the mean pressure of the turbine, while the hydrogen pro hydrogen production assisted geothermal energy, the effects of the
duction cost decreased because of the increasing evaporator pressure geofluid temperature should be analysed to determine the impact on the
[123]. They concluded that the exegetic efficiency of the hydrogen system performance. A number of published studies have considered the
Fig. 21. Geothermal power output from oilfields considering temperature and flow rate [169–174,177–186].
759
effects of geothermal temperature and flow rate on the efficiency and rates and temperatures to an average of 165 kg/s and 215 ◦ C results in a
production rate of hydrogen production systems [79,164,165,188,189, cost of 3.65 USD/kg H2, while lower flow rates and temperatures,
192]. The energy and exergy efficiency improved by increasing the averaging 100 kg/s and 197 ◦ C, achieve a lower cost of 1.5 USD/kg H2.
geothermal temperature [160,192]. An increase in the geofluid tem Despite the potential of mentioned higher flow rates and temperatures to
perature led to improved thermodynamic and economic results [82, increase hydrogen production, reaching an average of 300 kg/h, this
156]. does not necessarily translate to improved economic performance. As
When the geothermal fluid temperature ranged between 130 and illustrated in Fig. 23 (b), while the mentioned higher flow rates and
200 ◦ C, the exergy efficiency improved from 32% to 58%, the hydrogen temperatures can increase hydrogen production to an average of 300
production rate ranged from 0.005 to 0.055 kg/s, and the power rate kg/h, this does not always translate to improved economic performance.
increased from 1000 kW to 8000 kW [163]. An increase in the
geothermal temperature of 140–155 ◦ C, resulted in hydrogen produc
6.3. Electrolysis process
tion of 10.5–21.1 kg/h [89]. Ratlamwala et al. [79] concluded that the
daily hydrogen production amount changed in the range of 1.85–11.67
The water temperature that enters the electrolyser accounts for one
kg by rising the temperature of the geothermal fluid from 167 to 227 ◦ C.
of the key factors affecting the hydrogen production rate, power
The overall energetic and exegetic efficiencies varied from 3.3 to 7.4%
requirement, and operating cost. In the literature, there have been in
and 1.9–3.9%, respectively by improving geothermal temperature.
vestigations on the effect of water temperature on power consumption.
Gholamian et al. [127] observed that by increasing the heat source
The results showed that an increase in the inlet water temperature to the
temperature from 180 ◦ C to 230 ◦ C, the hydrogen production rate
electrolyser could reduce power consumption. The most common
increased significantly from about 215.1 kg/day to 343.1 kg/day.
method to increase the temperature of the water entering the electro
Increasing the water temperature by 220 ◦ C improved the overall system
lyser is to preheat the water with geothermal fluid. Typically, the
efficiency by up to 60% [140]. Fig. 22 shows the effect of the geothermal
geothermal fluid leaving the power plant still carries the amount of heat
water temperature and flow rate on the hydrogen production rate. These
that can be used to preheat the water before entering the electrolyser.
results underscored that upgrading the geothermal fluid temperature
Boyaghchi and Nazer [191] considered the PEM electrolyser current
and flow rate leads to improving the hydrogen rates. Specifically, a
density and temperature effect on the annual efficiency and product cost
production rate of 2.67 kg/h for an average flow rate of 21 kg/s and a
of the system. The results indicated that increasing the temperature of
temperature of 190 ◦ C increases to 235.6 kg/h when the flow rate and
the electrolyser boosted the annual exergy of the system by 49.6%.
temperature are raised to an average of 140 kg/s and 200 ◦ C,
Yilmaz et al. [82] studied the impact of the inlet water on electrolysis in
respectively.
geothermal-assisted hydrogen production using a neural network. Their
Economic assessments indicated that the cost of hydrogen produc
results showed that geothermal power consumption was reduced by
tion highly depends on the geothermal water temperature. As the tem
almost 3% when the inlet water temperature increased from 25 to 70 ◦ C.
perature of the geothermal resource increases, the cost of hydrogen
Some multigenerational systems recovered the geothermal heat after
decreases [88]. The total unit cost reduced from 23.18 to 22.73 USD/GJ
power generation for preheating water entering the electrolyser [156,
when the geothermal temperature increased from 185 to 215 ◦ C [165].
157]. The model developed by Cao et al. [157] used the recoverable heat
Yuksel et al. [135] revealed that for water temperatures of 130–200 ◦ C,
of geothermal liquid exiting the flash cycle for running the binary cycle
the cost of hydrogen production reduced from 4.8 USD/kg H2 to 1.1
and preheating the input water of the electrolyser. Yilmaz [83] utilized
USD/kg H2. The life cycle cost of a system including both hydrogen
the waste heat of a combined binary-flash cycle with a geothermal
production and liquefaction process using geothermal energy showed
temperature source of 76 ◦ C to preheat water from 25 to 73 ◦ C for the
the positive effect of the geothermal temperature on the unit cost of
electrolysis process in an Alkaline electrolyser. In the studies by Yilmaz
hydrogen production and other economic indicators such as the lev
[87], the waste heat of the geothermal fluid was used to preheat the
elized annual cost and payback [56,86]. However, the higher
water entering the PEM electrolyser since the geothermal fluid left the
geothermal temperature did not always lead to better economic per
power cycle with a relatively high temperature of 90 ◦ C, which is used to
formance. The findings indicated that higher geothermal fluid temper
heat water by 80 ◦ C. In this study, the temperature of the geothermal
atures increased hydrogen production but also increased the operating
fluid entering the power plant was 160 ◦ C. By preheating water from 25
costs of electrolysis, heat exchangers and turbines, and finally, hydrogen
to 85 ◦ C, it was possible to produce hydrogen at the cost of 1.961–1.857
production costs, as shown in Fig. 23 [83,87]. Fig. 23 compares
USD/kg H2, demonstrating that using recoverable geothermal heat to
hydrogen production costs for different geothermal conditions and
preheat water during the electrolysis process can lower the cost of
hydrogen production rates. Accordingly, increasing the geothermal flow
hydrogen production [88]. Kanoglu and Yilmaz [101] demonstrated
Fig. 22. Hydrogen production rate (kg/h) considering geothermal temperature and flow rate.
760
Fig. 23. Hydrogen production cost (USD/kg): a) considering the geothermal conditions of geothermal reservoir temperature and flow rate, and b) hydrogen pro
duction rates.
that using the excess heat found in the geothermal fluid to preheat the 7.1. Geothermal energy resources: HSAs in the Australian context
water in the electrolyser could produce up to 1.42 × 10− 3 kg H2/kg
water, while the corresponding value for the case of without recovering The key factors to be considered in Australian geothermal energy
geothermal heat for preheating water for the same geothermal reservoir reservoirs are summarised in Fig. 24, these are explained more in detail
of 200 ◦ C was 1.34 × 10− 3 kg H2/kg water. An increase in hydrogen next:
production resulted from increasing the electrolyser temperature, while Data collection: Data pertaining to Australian hot sedimentary
hydrogen production cost decreased because of increasing electrolyser aquifers will have to be examined to identify the suitability of hydrogen-
temperatures [123]. driven geothermal systems considering lithological properties of reser
voirs such as porosity, permeability, temperature within a suitable depth
7. Research gaps and questions range, and salinity [193]. Therefore, the most feasible aquifers will be
identified by considering all of these factors since suitability varies
This work aimed to summarise the existing knowledge of depending on the resource conditions. Geothermal wells: Since the
geothermal-based hydrogen production systems to identify corre geothermal gradient varies with location, the drilling depth is a signif
sponding knowledge gaps in the Australian context, which must be filled icant factor in geothermal-based hydrogen production projects and
to support the precondition of the infrastructures’ renewable hydrogen contributes about 50% of the cost for low-temperature resources [168].
adoption. In response to the main question of ‘What are the knowledge A trade-off between the cost and geothermal quality in geothermal
gaps that need to be addressed to facilitate producing hydrogen in the reservoirs is inevitable. Even though the higher temperature at deeper
Australian geothermal context?’, there are five key elements, namely a geothermal depth can be achieved and result in larger amounts of heat
limited understanding of: energy and higher outputs (power and hydrogen), deeper drilling with
greater costs can make the hydrogen system unfavourable economically.
1. Geothermal energy resources: HSAs in the Australian context Thus, it is important to determine an optimum drilling depth and to
2. Power plant and components of the hydrogen production system consider the temperature gradient and cost in the development of
3. Hybrid geothermal-solar systems for hydrogen production geothermal-assisted hydrogen production in Australia and other regions
4. Electrolysis technology around the world with similar conditions. Availability and accessi
5. Ecosystem considerations bility of water: Another critical factor in the hydrogen production
process that must be considered is the availability and accessibility of
Figs. 24–27 summarise the key factors and possible solutions asso water. It is worth noting that the cost and the purity of the water are vital
ciated with these elements that must be considered in developing factors in producing hydrogen. Using high-purity water such as fresh
hydrogen production using geothermal energy in Australia. water can avoid side reactions in the electrolyser. Hence, suitability
assessments of geothermal HSAs in the hydrogen production process
should also include access to water resources. Along similar lines, using
Fig. 24. Identified key factors for geothermal energy resource: HSAs in the Australian context.
761
Fig. 25. Key factors identified for: a) Power plant and components, b) Integration with other renewables.
Fig. 26. Identified critical factors for electrolysis technology.
Fig. 27. Environmental impacts: key factors to be considered.
freshwater resources can be more affordable than purifying and desali the operation of the oil and gas well, temperature, and water production
nating water. Although Australia has limited available freshwater, it has rate, which influence the geothermal reliability and productivity. Based
some resources for producing freshwater. There is also the possibility of on these estimations, successful geothermal power production using
integrating geothermal power plants with desalination cycles to provide current technologies can be accomplished when the produced water has
fresh water in addition to power and hydrogen as a multigenerational a minimum flow rate and temperature of at least 15,000 barrels/day
system. These multigenerational systems can improve efficiency due to (27.6 litres per second) and 101.7 ◦ C, respectively [168]. Producing
decreasing heat losses. In this context, coastal areas in Australia may be power from abandoned wells can be more manageable than producing
the most suitable sites for hydrogen production from electrolysis wells due to the increased controls on the temperature and rate [172],
because of an unlimited supply of desalinated water and available type of the injected fluid [173], insulation of pipes [174,176], and
infrastructure (e.g., electricity, ports). bottom hole temperature [169], and it relies on the operation of a heat
Potential of oilfields for geothermal extraction: Extracting exchanger in the well.
geothermal energy from high-water production wells is highly reliant on
762
7.2. Power plant and components of the hydrogen production system storage can significantly improve the efficiency and power production
rate and develop opportunities for improving hydrogen production in
In addition to the key factors directly affecting the geothermal res hybrid geothermal and renewable systems [144,152].
ervoirs, other related ground components for H2 production that Fig. 25 summarises the key factors detailed above for power plant
required further advancements are summarised in Fig. 25 and detailed components and higher efficiencies obtained by integrating geothermal,
next: Hydrogen, and other renewable sources and technologies.
Power plant: Although ORCs can be a possible option for power
generation from low-temperature HSAs in Australia, they may not be 7.4. Electrolysis technology
efficient enough to be economically viable for power generation and
hydrogen production. Accordingly, by reviewing international activities Fig. 26 summarises the three main electrolysis technology types and
for improving the efficiency of ORC power plants driven by low- the key factors that need to be considered for implementation.
temperature geothermal reservoirs, possible ways for enhancing ORC- Thermoelectrical water splitting via conventional electrolysis:
based systems’ performance have been studied. Results highlight that This process using conventional technologies such as PEM and Alkaline,
using advanced ORCs [114] and decreasing the heat loss of the cycle by is the most frequently used technique to render high-purity hydrogen.
applying a thermoelectric generator (TEG) [126,127] can improve the There is still room for improvement in the efficiency of the electrolysis
efficiency of the power plant cycle. In other words, the conversion ef and consequent reduction in the cost of hydrogen production due to
ficiency can be improved by hiring advanced technologies, particularly electricity consumption, a major cost component in this technology. The
by equipping the ORC power plant with extra equipment. However, the temperature of water at which the conventional electrolysis occurs is a
additional equipment demands further capital and operating costs key factor influencing efficiency and, in turn, the required power, cost,
[120]. As a result, another important consideration in deploying and rate of hydrogen generation [82,88,191]. Geothermal heat can be
hydrogen production systems in the Australian context is the trade-off an appropriate source for preheating the inlet water to the electrolysis to
between the efficiency and cost of different equipment configurations. decrease heat loss and its deficiency during the process of hydrogen
The efficiency conversion assessments: The economic assessments production [87]. Thermoelectrical water splitting via HTS electrol
concluded that by reducing the equipment cost of the system producing ysis: As mentioned above, the operating temperatures in the electrolysis
hydrogen and geothermal extraction, the cost of hydrogen production process significantly contribute to the power consumption and hydrogen
could be reduced significantly. The electrolysis unit and power plant production cost. Consequently, adopting HTS electrolysis, where
heat exchangers have the most responsibility for exegetic costs (ther geothermal heat is used for vaporizing water entering the electrolyser,
mo-economic analysis) due to heat losses [77,87]. Therefore, irrevers can significantly reduce hydrogen production costs due to the lower
ibility and heat losses caused by the temperature difference between the electricity consumption [88,100]. Although the cost and temperature of
fluids in the heat exchangers can be offset by using larger heat ex thermal energy sources are essential factors in hydrogen production
changers lowering the temperature difference, which in turn increases costs, the impact of the heat source on the cost of hydrogen production is
the investment cost. On the other hand, undertaking an electrolysis much lower than the electricity cost contribution. Thermochemical
process at approximately isothermal conditions would also decrease water spiriting by geothermal heat: For thermochemical water
irreversibility and exegetic costs. Moreover, the selection of the opti splitting, geothermal energy may be feasible in low-temperature ther
mum working condition governing geothermal assisted hydrogen pro mochemical cycles and hybrid cycles that need both heat and electricity
duction systems, such as temperature and flow rates of geothermal fluid such as Cl-Cu [19,98]. However, these routes for hydrogen extraction by
and operating conditions of ORC components (heat exchanger and tur geothermal heat are in the research and development stage and need to
bine), strongly contribute to the performance and, more importantly, to be analysed in terms of their thermodynamic and economic feasibility.
the hydrogen production rate and cost [83,191]. To improve the per
formance of geothermal-based hydrogen production and its economic 7.5. Ecosystem considerations
attractiveness, there are some considerations including the efficiency
improvements of both components and the whole system through In addition to the water in geothermal production wells, it is worth
reducing heat losses and finding optimal operating parameters. noting that geothermal wastewater, which may be reinjected or dis
carded, can bring some risks and benefits. There are logistical and
7.3. Hybrid geothermal-solar system for hydrogen production financial considerations in the reinjection process as additional wells are
required, which increase the capital and maintenance costs of the
Hybrid geothermal solar: Given the benefits of using a hybrid geothermal plant. The location of injection wells is also very important
system, combining HSA geothermal energy with other renewable tech since the water must be reinjected back into the aquifer it came out of to
nologies such as wind and solar to increase efficiency and reduce the keep satisfying the reservoir pressure as a reduction in the pressure can
cost of renewable hydrogen production can result in economically viable affect plant productivity [194]. Despite these financial considerations,
options in the Australian context. Integrating geothermal HSAs with water reinjected back into the reservoir can also bring several benefits
solar energy can improve the temperature of geothermal fluid [152] or including prolonging the life of the geothermal resource when the
ORC working fluids, increasing the efficiency of the power plant and reinjected cooled water reheats to match the reservoir temperature.
output and, more importantly, reducing the cost of hydrogen production Therefore, it is recommended that the temperature of the water
[140,152]. Therefore, investigating the capacity factor maps of wind returning to the well is not less than 60 ◦ C. Additionally, reinjection
and solar in Australia will be crucial to identifying the most suitable might reduce environmental hazards because wastewater from a
locations for integrating these renewable energies with geothermal geothermal plant is frequently hot, extremely salty, and may contain
sources. Thermal storage system: The energy storage systems in the chemicals [194]. In addition to the geothermal well condition (tem
hybrid solar-geothermal-based hydrogen production systems can play a perature gradient, drilling depth, and cost), environmental influences
key role in response to the intermittency of input resources. Solar must be considered in advancing geothermal-assisted hydrogen pro
thermal energy can be stored and used as an energy source when duction in Australia. The environmental impacts during all life stages of
additional energy is required to increase the utilization rate of solar such a system including drilling, constructing, operating, maintaining,
energy. The comprehensive analysis to investigate different energy and decommissioning, must be considered through a detailed assess
storage systems for the hybrid solar-geothermal systems is an open ment. Furthermore, the effects of the hydrogen production system
challenge for attaining green and viable hydrogen production from driven by geothermal energy on the human community and ecosystems
geothermal in Australia. The appropriate sizing of the solar and thermal must be appropriately studied. Therefore, life cycle evaluation and MOO
763
approaches can be employed to find the best answers for the environ losses and identifying optimal operating parameters. The selection of
ment and the human community (Fig. 27). optimal operating conditions for geothermal-assisted hydrogen
production systems, encompassing parameters like temperature and
8. Conclusions flow rates of geothermal fluid, as well as the operating conditions of
ORC components and electrolyser operating temperature, signifi
This paper has comprehensively studied hydrogen production using cantly impacts system performance.
geothermal energy in Australia, focusing on low-temperature HSAs • Research gaps and future challenges in hydrogen production have
reservoirs, with some lessons transferrable to other parts of the world. been pinpointed. To facilitate hydrogen production using
The potential of geothermal energy and associated routes for hydrogen geothermal energy, five critical key elements, along with their
production, aiming to ascertain Australia’s opportunities and that of associated factors and possible solutions, were examined. These el
regions sharing similar hydro-geological characteristics. Subsequently, ements encompass geothermal energy resources: HSAs (in the
endeavours to enhance the performance of geothermal-based hydrogen Australian context), power plants and components of the hydrogen
production systems have been examined, seeking to improve the feasi production system, hybrid geothermal-solar systems for hydrogen
bility of using HSAs. The most important parameters influencing the production, electrolysis technology, and ecosystem considerations.
performance of the hydrogen production systems have been considered The consideration of these elements is imperative in addressing the
to identify how well the systems work. Lastly, research gaps and future primary question of identifying knowledge gaps that need to be
challenges for producing hydrogen in Australia have been identified. tackled to facilitate hydrogen production within the Australian (and
From the analyses conducted in this study, some key remarks and con other jurisdictions’) geothermal context.
clusions are noted below:
This review considered the potential of geothermal energy by
• The performance of geothermal-assisted hydrogen production sys focusing on low-temperature hot sedimentary aquifers (HSAs) to sup
tems has been investigated using thermodynamic and thermo- port efforts towards renewable hydrogen production worldwide,
economic analyses. Key indicators such as energy and exergy effi exemplified in the Australian context. The study suggested solutions and
ciency, hydrogen production rates, and costs have been investigated, opportunities to appraise the feasibility of using HSA geothermal res
yielding values ranging from 51 to 47.04%, 7.4–67.5%, 0.11 to ervoirs for hydrogen production. This evaluation involved the thermo
5857.2 kg/h H2, and 0.59 to 5.97 USD/kg H2, respectively. dynamic and thermo-economic modelling of hydrogen production
• Australia’s primary geothermal reservoirs predominantly consist of systems using the constant thermal capacity of the reservoir. However,
HSAs with low temperatures of around 100 ◦ C, capable of driving since the temperature of the geothermal brine fluctuates during the
ORC power plants. However, their economic feasibility requires lifetime of the reservoir, this variation can affect the cost and hydrogen
enhancement. production rates of the system in the long run. Therefore, detailed nu
• Utilizing low-temperature HSAs for hydrogen generation by sup merical modelling of geothermal reservoirs, based on the lithological
plying power to the conventional electrolysis process, necessitates properties of HSAs, should be developed to assess their potential and
improvements in heat source temperature and/or the energy con thermal capacity over time.
version efficiency of ORC power plants.
• Implementing more advanced ORC-based power plant technologies, CRediT authorship contribution statement
such as IHX, regenerative cycles, and TEG, could enhance conversion
efficiency and increase HSAs production by up to 15%. However, the Maryam Hamlehdar: Writing – original draft, Visualization, Meth
economic viability of these systems remained uncertain when odology, Investigation, Formal analysis, Conceptualization. Graeme
compared to simple ORC. Beardsmore: Writing – review & editing, Supervision, Resources,
• A hybrid system that combines solar-assisted HSAs, utilizing solar Investigation, Conceptualization. Guillermo A. Narsilio: Writing – re
preheating to elevate brine temperatures, holds promise for pro view & editing, Supervision, Resources, Investigation,
ducing low-cost hydrogen with increased efficiency and production Conceptualization.
rates. This approach could make low-temperature geothermal res
ervoirs more attractive for hydrogen production. However, opti
Declaration of competing interest
mizing the solar field and thermal storage is essential for ensuring the
economic viability of the system.
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
• Geothermal-based energy systems can greatly improve efficiency by
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
diversifying product outputs and minimizing heat losses, potentially
the work reported in this paper.
achieving up to 52%. Multi-generational systems, offering com
modities like cooling, heating, power, and hydrogen, show promise
Acknowledgements
for rural and regional communities with some challenges related to
energy supply.
The authors acknowledge the Research Training Program Scholar
• Extracting geothermal energy from depleted or active oilfields for
ship provided by the University of Melbourne and APR.Intern Internship
hydrogen production offers a potential cost reduction of up to 50% in
grant provided by the Geoscience of Australia. English proofing and
capital expenditure, leveraging existing well infrastructure with
editing by Gabrielle Abelskamp; as well as valuable, critical comments
minimal additional drilling required. However, the viability of this
and suggestions provided by Andrew Feitz, are duly acknowledged by
approach depends on factors such as adequate water flow rates and
the authors.
temperatures in active wells (with a minimum flow rate of 15,000
barrels/day (27.6 litres per second) and a temperature of 101.7 ◦ C).
Additionally, assessing the operational conditions of both formation References
and wellbores in abandoned wells, including temperature, flow rate,
[1] Zakaria A, Ismail FB, Lipu MH, Hannan MA. Uncertainty models for stochastic
type of injected fluid, and the insulation of pipes, is crucial to ensure optimization in renewable energy applications. Renew Energy 2020;145:
economic and technical feasibility. 1543–71.
• To enhance the efficiency and economic appeal of geothermal-based [2] Notton G, Nivet M-L, Voyant C, Paoli C, Darras C, Motte F, et al. Intermittent and
stochastic character of renewable energy sources: Consequences, cost of
hydrogen production, efforts include improving the efficiency of intermittence and benefit of forecasting. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2018;87:
individual components and the overall system by reducing heat 96–105.
764
[3] Acar C, Dincer I. The potential role of hydrogen as a sustainable transportation [34] Choi DH, Chun SM, Ma SH, Hong YC. Production of hydrogen-rich syngas from
fuel to combat global warming. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2020;45(5):3396–406. methane reforming by steam microwave plasma. J Ind Eng Chem 2016;34:
[4] Yue M, Lambert H, Pahon E, Roche R, Jemei S, Hissel D. Hydrogen energy 286–91.
systems: a critical review of technologies, applications, trends and challenges. [35] Barbarias I, Lopez G, Artetxe M, Arregi A, Bilbao J, Olazar M. Valorisation of
Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2021;146:111180. different waste plastics by pyrolysis and in-line catalytic steam reforming for
[5] Acar C, Dincer I. Review and evaluation of hydrogen production options for hydrogen production. Energy Convers Manag 2018;156:575–84.
better environment. J Clean Prod 2019;218:835–49. [36] Fajrina N, Tahir M. A critical review in strategies to improve photocatalytic water
[6] Mahmoud M, Ramadan M, Naher S, Pullen K, Abdelkareem MA, Olabi A-G. splitting towards hydrogen production. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2019;44(2):
A review of geothermal energy-driven hydrogen production systems. Therm Sci 540–77.
Eng Prog 2021:100854. [37] Vincent I, Bessarabov D. Low cost hydrogen production by anion exchange
[7] Uyar TS, Beşikci D. Integration of hydrogen energy systems into renewable membrane electrolysis: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2018;81:1690–704.
energy systems for better design of 100% renewable energy communities. Int J [38] Nagy V, Podmaniczki A, Vidal-Meireles A, Tengölics R, Kovács L, Rákhely G, et al.
Hydrogen Energy 2017;42(4):2453–6. Water-splitting-based, sustainable and efficient H 2 production in green algae as
[8] Nakamura A, Ota Y, Koike K, Hidaka Y, Nishioka K, Sugiyama M, et al. A 24.4% achieved by substrate limitation of the Calvin–Benson–Bassham cycle. Biotechnol
solar to hydrogen energy conversion efficiency by combining concentrator Biofuels 2018;11(1):1–16.
photovoltaic modules and electrochemical cells. APEX 2015;8(10):107101. [39] Balat H, Kirtay E. Hydrogen from biomass–present scenario and future prospects.
[9] Sigfusson TI. Hydrogen island: the story and motivations behind the Icelandic Int J Hydrogen Energy 2010;35(14):7416–26.
hydrogen society experiment. Mitig Adapt Strategies Glob Change 2007;12(3): [40] Posso F, Sánchez J, Espinoza J, Siguencia J. Preliminary estimation of electrolytic
407–18. hydrogen production potential from renewable energies in Ecuador. Int J
[10] Sumiyoshi Y. Utilizing hydrogen energy produced from geothermal energy: a Hydrogen Energy 2016;41(4):2326–44.
proposal. Japan advanced institute of science and technology. 2005. [41] Posso F, Zambrano J. Estimation of electrolytic hydrogen production potential in
[11] Alves M. Hydrogen energy: terceira island demonstration facility. Chem Ind Chem Venezuela from renewable energies. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2014;39(23):
Eng Q 2008;14(2):77–95. 11846–53.
[12] Yuzugullu E, Genung K, Hoesly R. Analysis of geothermally produced hydrogen [42] Rahmouni S, Negrou B, Settou N, Dominguez J, Gouareh A. Prospects of hydrogen
on the big island of Hawaii: a roadmap for the way forward. 2008. production potential from renewable resources in Algeria. Int J Hydrogen Energy
[13] ACIL Allen Consulting. Opportunities for Australia from hydrogen exports. 2017;42(2):1383–95.
Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA); 2018 [cited 5/12/2023]. [43] Rodríguez C, Riso M, Yob GJ, Ottogalli R, Santa Cruz R, Aisa S, et al. Analysis of
Available from: https://arena.gov.au/assets/2018/08/opportunities-for-austra the potential for hydrogen production in the province of Córdoba, Argentina,
lia-from-hydrogen-exports.pdf. from wind resources. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2010;35(11):5952–6.
[14] Path to hydrogen competitiveness, a cost perspective. Hydrogen Council; 2020 [44] Mostafaeipour A, Khayyami M, Sedaghat A, Mohammadi K, Shamshirband S,
[cited 5/12/2023]. Available from: https://hydrogencouncil.com/wp-content/ Sehati M-A, et al. Evaluating the wind energy potential for hydrogen production:
uploads/2020/01/Path-to-Hydrogen-Competitiveness_Full-Study-1.pdf. a case study. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2016;41(15):6200–10.
[15] Karayel GK, Javani N, Dincer I. Effective use of geothermal energy for hydrogen [45] Gondal IA, Masood SA, Khan R. Green hydrogen production potential for
production: a comprehensive application. Energy 2022;249:123597. developing a hydrogen economy in Pakistan. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2018;43(12):
[16] Arslan O, Arslan AE. Multi-criteria optimization of a new geothermal driven 6011–39.
integrated power and hydrogen production system via a new Index: economic [46] Ramazankhani M-E, Mostafaeipour A, Hosseininasab H, Fakhrzad M-B. Feasibility
sustainability (EcoSI). Fuel 2024;358:130160. of geothermal power assisted hydrogen production in Iran. Int J Hydrogen Energy
[17] Awad M, Said A, Saad MH, Farouk A, Mahmoud MM, Alshammari MS, et al. 2016;41(41):18351–69.
A review of water electrolysis for green hydrogen generation considering PV/ [47] Ghribi D, Khelifa A, Diaf S, Belhamel M. Study of hydrogen production system by
wind/hybrid/hydropower/geothermal/tidal and wave/biogas energy systems, using PV solar energy and PEM electrolyser in Algeria. Int J Hydrogen Energy
economic analysis, and its application. Alex Eng J 2024;87:213–39. 2013;38(20):8480–90.
[18] Dincer I, Acar C. Innovation in hydrogen production. Int J Hydrogen Energy [48] Douak M, Settou N. Estimation of hydrogen production using wind energy in
2017;42(22):14843–64. Algeria. Energy Proc 2015;74:981–90.
[19] Balta MT, Dincer I, Hepbasli A. Potential methods for geothermal-based hydrogen [49] Mostafaeipour A, Dehshiri SJH, Dehshiri SSH. Ranking locations for producing
production. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2010;35(10):4949–61. hydrogen using geothermal energy in Afghanistan. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2020;
[20] Ozturk M, Dincer I. A comprehensive review on power-to-gas with hydrogen 45(32):15924–40.
options for cleaner applications. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2021;46(62):31511–22. [50] Mostafaeipour A, Saidi Mehrabad M, Qolipour M, Basirati M, Rezaei M,
[21] El-Emam RS, Özcan H. Comprehensive review on the techno-economics of Golmohammadi AM. Ranking locations based on hydrogen production from
sustainable large-scale clean hydrogen production. J Clean Prod 2019;220: geothermal in Iran using the Fuzzy Moora hybrid approach and expanded entropy
593–609. weighting method. Journal of Renewable Energy and Environment 2017;4(4):
[22] Mohammadi A, Mehrpooya M. A comprehensive review on coupling different 9–21.
types of electrolyzer to renewable energy sources. Energy 2018;158:632–55. [51] Australia’s long-term emissions reduction plan: modelling and analysis.
[23] Abdelkareem MA, Soudan B, Mahmoud MS, Sayed ET, AlMallahi MN, Inayat A, Commonwealth of Australia (Department of Industry, Science, Energy and
et al. Progress of artificial neural networks applications in hydrogen production. Resources) 2021 [cited 5/12/2023]. Available from: https://apo.org.au/sites
Chem Eng Res Des 2022;182:66–86. /default/files/resource-files/2021-11/apo-nid315091.pdf.
[24] Ghazvini M, Sadeghzadeh M, Ahmadi MH, Moosavi S, Pourfayaz F. Geothermal [52] Global hydrogen review 2023. International Energy Agency (IEA); 2023 [cited 5/
energy use in hydrogen production: a review. Int J Energy Res 2019;43(14): 12/2023]. Available from: https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/ecdfc3bb-d
7823–51. 212-4a4c-9ff7-6ce5b1e19cef/GlobalHydrogenReview2023.pdf.
[25] Liu S, Quinlan P, Goggin M, Burns S, Yuzugullu E, Lee K. Economic assessment of [53] Hosseini SE, Wahid MA. Hydrogen production from renewable and sustainable
hydrogen generation for transportation applications using geothermal energy on energy resources: promising green energy carrier for clean development. Renew
the Island of Hawaii. In: The US department of energy office of energy efficiency Sustain Energy Rev 2016;57:850–66.
and renewable energy. Sentech Inc.; 2006. p. 50624. 011. [54] Nikolaidis P, Poullikkas A. A comparative overview of hydrogen production
[26] Arnason B, Sigfusson TI, editors. Application of geothermal energy to hydrogen processes. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2017;67:597–611.
production and storage; 2003. Presentation at the 2nd German Hydrogen [55] Acar C, Beskese A, Temur GT. Sustainability analysis of different hydrogen
Congress, Essen. production options using hesitant fuzzy AHP. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2018;43
[27] Sigurvinsson J, Mansilla C, Arnason B, Bontemps A, Maréchal A, Sigfusson T, (39):18059–76.
et al. Heat transfer problems for the production of hydrogen from geothermal [56] Yilmaz C. Life cycle cost assessment of a geothermal power assisted hydrogen
energy. Energy Convers Manag 2006;47(20):3543–51. energy system. Geothermics 2020;83:101737.
[28] Akdağ O. A compact production plant model for green hydrogen production from [57] Younas U, Khan B, Ali S, Arshad C, Farid U, Zeb K, et al. Pakistan geothermal
medium temperature geothermal resources: a case study of the Van Lake-Zilan renewable energy potential for electric power generation: a survey. Renew
location. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2024;50:199–210. Sustain Energy Rev 2016;63:398–413.
[29] Arslan M, Yilmaz C. Development of models for green hydrogen production of [58] Barbier E. Geothermal energy technology and current status: an overview. Renew
Turkey geothermal Resources: a case study demonstration of thermodynamics Sustain Energy Rev 2002;6(1–2):3–65.
and thermoeconomics analyses. Fuel 2024;359:130430. [59] Moeck IS. Catalog of geothermal play types based on geologic controls. Renew
[30] McLellan B, Shoko E, Dicks A, Da Costa JD. Hydrogen production and utilisation Sustain Energy Rev 2014;37:867–82.
opportunities for Australia. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2005;30(6):669–79. [60] Huddlestone-Holmes C. Geothermal energy in Australia. CSIRO; 2014.
[31] Milani D, Kiani A, McNaughton R. Renewable-powered hydrogen economy from [61] Pambudi NA. Geothermal power generation in Indonesia, a country within the
Australia’s perspective. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2020. ring of fire: current status, future development and policy. Renew Sustain Energy
[32] Tosti S, Spazzafumo G, Capobianco D, Buceti G, Pozio A, Bartucca S. EU scenarios Rev 2018;81:2893–901.
of renewable coal hydro-gasification for SNG production. Sustain Energy Technol [62] Lund JW. Direct heat utilization of geothermal resources. Renew Energy 1997;10
Assessments 2016;16:43–52. (2–3):403–8.
[33] Soltani R, Rosen M, Dincer I. Assessment of CO2 capture options from various [63] Prananto LA, Juangsa FB, Iqbal RM, Aziz M, Soelaiman TAF. Dry steam cycle
points in steam methane reforming for hydrogen production. Int J Hydrogen application for excess steam utilization: kamojang geothermal power plant case
Energy 2014;39(35):20266–75. study. Renew Energy 2018;117:157–65.
765
[64] Martínez EH, Carlos MPA, Solís JIC, Avalos MMdCP. Thermodynamic simulation [92] El-Emam RS, Ozcan H, Zamfirescu C. Updates on promising thermochemical
and mathematical model for single and double flash cycles of Cerro Prieto cycles for clean hydrogen production using nuclear energy. J Clean Prod 2020;
geothermal power plants. Geothermics 2020;83:101713. 262:121424.
[65] Mokarram NH, Mosaffa A. Investigation of the thermoeconomic improvement of [93] Coskun C, Oktay Z, Dincer I. Thermodynamic analyses and case studies of
integrating enhanced geothermal single flash with transcritical organic Rankine geothermal based multi-generation systems. J Clean Prod 2012;32:71–80.
cycle. Energy Convers Manag 2020;213:112831. [94] Chamorro CR, Mondéjar ME, Ramos R, Segovia JJ, Martín MC, Villamañán MA.
[66] Nasruddin N, Saputra ID, Mentari T, Bardow A, Marcelina O, Berlin S. Exergy, World geothermal power production status: energy, environmental and economic
exergoeconomic, and exergoenvironmental optimization of the geothermal study of high enthalpy technologies. Energy 2012;42(1):10–8.
binary cycle power plant at Ampallas, West Sulawesi, Indonesia. Therm Sci Eng [95] Bertani R. Geothermal power generation in the world 2005–2010 update report.
Prog 2020;19:100625. Geothermics 2012;41:1–29.
[67] Fridleifsson IB, Freeston DH. Geothermal energy research and development. [96] Gevez Y, Dincer I. Investigation of a new integrated energy system with
Geothermics 1994;23(2):175–214. thermochemical hydrogen production cycle and desalination. Appl Therm Eng
[68] Looking forward: barriers, risks and rewards of the Australian geothermal sector 2022;203:117842.
to 2020 and 2030. Commonwealth of Australia (Australian Renewable Energy [97] Farsi A, Dincer I, Naterer GF. Exergo-economic assessment by a specific exergy
Agency (ARENA); 2014 [cited 5/12/2023]. Available from: https://arena.gov. costing method for an experimental thermochemical hydrogen production
au/assets/2017/02/ARENA-IGEG-main-report.pdf. system. Int J Energy Res 2021;45(12):17358–77.
[69] Ballesteros M, Pujol M, Walsh F, Teubner J. Geothermal energy electricity [98] Balta MT, Dincer I, Hepbasli A. Energy and exergy analyses of a new four-step
generation in Australia: recent developments and future potential. Australian copper–chlorine cycle for geothermal-based hydrogen production. Energy 2010;
Geothermal Energy Association 2019. 35(8):3263–72.
[70] Bahadori A, Zendehboudi S, Zahedi G. A review of geothermal energy resources [99] Balta MT, Dincer I, Hepbasli A. Exergoeconomic analysis of a hybrid
in Australia: current status and prospects. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2013;21(0): copper–chlorine cycle driven by geothermal energy for hydrogen production. Int
29–34. J Hydrogen Energy 2011;36(17):11300–8.
[71] Bendall B, Goldstein BA. Australia country report. IEA Geothermal; 2020. 2021 [100] Jónsson VK, Gunnarsson RL, Árnason B, Sigfússon TI. The feasibility of using
[cited 5/12/2023]. Available from: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1fE2QlAV3 geothermal energy in hydrogen production. Geothermics 1992;21(5–6):673–81.
HPH4fSQkeLWz0HLtn4pcEXJk/view. [101] Kanoglu M, Bolatturk A, Yilmaz C. Thermodynamic analysis of models used in
[72] Balta MT, Dincer I, Hepbasli A. Thermodynamic assessment of geothermal energy hydrogen production by geothermal energy. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2010;35(16):
use in hydrogen production. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2009;34(7):2925–39. 8783–91.
[73] Matthíasdóttir KV. Removal of hydrogen sulfide from non-condensable [102] Rivera-Tinoco R, Mansilla C, Bouallou C. Competitiveness of hydrogen production
geothermal gas at Nesjavellir power plant. Citeseer 2006. by High Temperature Electrolysis: impact of the heat source and identification of
[74] Ouali S, Chader S, Belhamel M, Benziada M. The exploitation of hydrogen sulfide key parameters to achieve low production costs. Energy Convers Manag 2010;51
for hydrogen production in geothermal areas. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2011;36(6): (12):2623–34.
4103–9. [103] Buttler A, Spliethoff H. Current status of water electrolysis for energy storage, grid
[75] Karapekmez A, Dincer I. Thermodynamic analysis of a novel solar and geothermal balancing and sector coupling via power-to-gas and power-to-liquids: a review.
based combined energy system for hydrogen production. Int J Hydrogen Energy Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2018;82:2440–54.
2020;45(9):5608–28. [104] Sigurvinsson J, Mansilla C, Lovera P, Werkoff F. Can high temperature steam
[76] Karapekmez A, Dincer I. Modelling of hydrogen production from hydrogen electrolysis function with geothermal heat? Int J Hydrogen Energy 2007;32(9):
sulfide in geothermal power plants. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2018;43(23): 1174–82.
10569–79. [105] Demin A, Gorbova E, Tsiakaras P. High temperature electrolyzer based on solid
[77] Yilmaz C, Kanoglu M, Abusoglu A. Exergetic cost evaluation of hydrogen oxide co-ionic electrolyte: a theoretical model. J Power Sources 2007;171(1):
production powered by combined flash-binary geothermal power plant. Int J 205–11.
Hydrogen Energy 2015;40(40):14021–30. [106] Schiller G, Lang M, Szabo P, Monnerie N, von Storch H, Reinhold J, et al. Solar
[78] Ratlamwala T, Dincer I. Comparative efficiency assessment of novel multi-flash heat integrated solid oxide steam electrolysis for highly efficient hydrogen
integrated geothermal systems for power and hydrogen production. Appl Therm production. J Power Sources 2019;416:72–8.
Eng 2012;48:359–66. [107] Wang F, Wang L, Zhang H, Xia L, Miao H, Yuan J. Design and optimization of
[79] Ratlamwala T, Dincer I, Gadalla M. Performance analysis of a novel integrated hydrogen production by solid oxide electrolyzer with marine engine waste heat
geothermal-based system for multi-generation applications. Appl Therm Eng recovery and ORC cycle. Energy Convers Manag 2021;229:113775.
2012;40:71–9. [108] Sanz-Bermejo J, Muñoz-Antón J, Gonzalez-Aguilar J, Romero M. Optimal
[80] Zuo Z, Saraswat M, Mahariq I, Nutakki TUK, Albani A, Seikh AH. Multi-criteria integration of a solid-oxide electrolyser cell into a direct steam generation solar
thermoeconomic optimization of a geothermal energy-driven green hydrogen tower plant for zero-emission hydrogen production. Appl Energy 2014;131:
production plant coupled to an alkaline electrolyzer. Process Saf Environ Protect 238–47.
2024;182:154–65. [109] Mansilla C, Sigurvinsson J, Bontemps A, Maréchal A, Werkoff F. Heat
[81] Zeyghami M. Performance analysis and binary working fluid selection of management for hydrogen production by high temperature steam electrolysis.
combined flash-binary geothermal cycle. Energy 2015;88:765–74. Energy 2007;32(4):423–30.
[82] Yilmaz C, Koyuncu I, Alcin M, Tuna M. Artificial neural networks based [110] Stetson N. Examples of cost drivers and focus areas for hydrogen technologies. U.
thermodynamic and economic analysis of a hydrogen production system assisted S. Departmnet of Energy. Office Of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy,
by geothermal energy on field programmable gate array. Int J Hydrogen Energy Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technologies Office 2021 [cited 5/12/2023]. Available
2019;44(33):17443–59. from: https://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/review21/plenary7_stetson_202
[83] Yilmaz C. Thermoeconomic modeling and optimization of a hydrogen production 1_o.pdf.
system using geothermal energy. Geothermics 2017;65:32–43. [111] Haghighi A, Pakatchian MR, Assad MEH, Duy VN, Alhuyi Nazari M. A review on
[84] Kanoglu M, Yilmaz C, Abusoglu A. Geothermal energy use in hydrogen geothermal Organic Rankine cycles: modeling and optimization. J Therm Anal
production. J Therm Eng 2016;2(2):699–708. Calorim 2021;144(5):1799–814.
[85] Thermal design of alkaline water electrolysis assisted by combined flash binary [112] Basaran A, Ozgener L. Investigation of the effect of different refrigerants on
geothermal power plant. In: Kanoglu M, Yilmaz C, editors. ASME international performances of binary geothermal power plants. Energy Convers Manag 2013;
mechanical engineering congress and exposition. American Society of Mechanical 76:483–98.
Engineers; 2013. [113] Braimakis K, Karellas S. Energetic optimization of regenerative organic rankine
[86] Koyuncu I, Yilmaz C, Alcin M, Tuna M. Design and implementation of hydrogen cycle (ORC) configurations. Energy Convers Manag 2018;159:353–70.
economy using artificial neural network on field programmable gate array. Int J [114] Bina SM, Jalilinasrabady S, Fujii H. Thermo-economic evaluation of various
Hydrogen Energy 2020;45(41):20709–20. bottoming ORCs for geothermal power plant, determination of optimum cycle for
[87] Yilmaz C, Kanoglu M, Abusoglu A. Thermoeconomic cost evaluation of hydrogen Sabalan power plant exhaust. Geothermics 2017;70:181–91.
production driven by binary geothermal power plant. Geothermics 2015;57: [115] Algieri A, Šebo J. Energetic investigation of organic rankine cycles (ORCs) for the
18–25. exploitation of low-temperature geothermal sources–a possible application in
[88] Yilmaz C, Kanoglu M, Bolatturk A, Gadalla M. Economics of hydrogen production Slovakia. Proc Comput Sci 2017;109:833–40.
and liquefaction by geothermal energy. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2012;37(2): [116] Zare V. A comparative exergoeconomic analysis of different ORC configurations
2058–69. for binary geothermal power plants. Energy Convers Manag 2015;105:127–38.
[89] Karakilcik H, Erden M, Karakilcik M. Investigation of hydrogen production [117] Li J, Ge Z, Duan Y, Yang Z, Liu Q. Parametric optimization and thermodynamic
performance of chlor-alkali cell integrated into a power generation system based performance comparison of single-pressure and dual-pressure evaporation
on geothermal resources. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2019;44(27):14145–50. organic Rankine cycles. Appl Energy 2018;217:409–21.
[90] Han J, Wang X, Xu J, Yi N, Talesh SSA. Thermodynamic analysis and optimization [118] Surendran A, Seshadri S. Performance investigation of two stage Organic Rankine
of an innovative geothermal-based organic Rankine cycle using zeotropic Cycle (ORC) architectures using induction turbine layouts in dual source waste
mixtures for power and hydrogen production. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2020;45 heat recovery. Energy Convers Manag X 2020;6:100029.
(15):8282–99. [119] Guzović Z, Rašković P, Blatarić Z. The comparision of a basic and a dual-pressure
[91] Balta MT. Thermodynamic performance assessment of boron based ORC (organic rankine cycle): geothermal power plant velika ciglena case study.
thermochemical water splitting cycle for renewable hydrogen production. Int J Energy 2014;76:175–86.
Hydrogen Energy 2020;45(60):34579–86. [120] Shokati N, Ranjbar F, Yari M. Exergoeconomic analysis and optimization of basic,
dual-pressure and dual-fluid ORCs and Kalina geothermal power plants: a
comparative study. Renew Energy 2015;83:527–42.
766
[121] Liu X, Wei M, Yang L, Wang X. Thermo-economic analysis and optimization [148] Atiz A, Karakilcik H, Erden M, Karakilcik M. Assessment of power and hydrogen
selection of ORC system configurations for low temperature binary-cycle production performance of an integrated system based on middle-grade
geothermal plant. Appl Therm Eng 2017;125:153–64. geothermal source and solar energy. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2021;46(1):272–88.
[122] Kianfard H, Khalilarya S, Jafarmadar S. Exergy and exergoeconomic evaluation of [149] Calise F, Macaluso A, Piacentino A, Vanoli L. A novel hybrid polygeneration
hydrogen and distilled water production via combination of PEM electrolyzer, RO system supplying energy and desalinated water by renewable sources in
desalination unit and geothermal driven dual fluid ORC. Energy Convers Manag Pantelleria Island. Energy 2017;137:1086–106.
2018;177:339–49. [150] Calise F, d’Accadia MD, Macaluso A, Piacentino A, Vanoli L. Exergetic and
[123] Ghaebi H, Farhang B, Parikhani T, Rostamzadeh H. Energy, exergy and exergoeconomic analysis of a novel hybrid solar–geothermal polygeneration
exergoeconomic analysis of a cogeneration system for power and hydrogen system producing energy and water. Energy Convers Manag 2016;115:200–20.
production purpose based on TRR method and using low grade geothermal [151] Zhou C. Hybridisation of solar and geothermal energy in both subcritical and
source. Geothermics 2018;71:132–45. supercritical Organic Rankine Cycles. Energy Convers Manag 2014;81:72–82.
[124] Cao Y, Haghghi MA, Shamsaiee M, Athari H, Ghaemi M, Rosen MA. Evaluation [152] McTigue JD, Wendt D, Kitz K, Gunderson J, Kincaid N, Zhu G. Assessing
and optimization of a novel geothermal-driven hydrogen production system using geothermal/solar hybridization–integrating a solar thermal topping cycle into a
an electrolyser fed by a two-stage organic Rankine cycle with different working geothermal bottoming cycle with energy storage. Appl Therm Eng 2020;171:
fluids. J Energy Storage 2020;32:101766. 115121.
[125] Hasani MR, Nedaei N, Assareh E, Alirahmi SM. Thermo-economic appraisal and [153] Zhou C, Doroodchi E, Moghtaderi B. An in-depth assessment of hybrid
operating fluid selection of geothermal-driven ORC configurations integrated solar–geothermal power generation. Energy Convers Manag 2013;74:88–101.
with PEM electrolyzer. Energy 2023;262:125550. [154] Astolfi M, Xodo L, Romano MC, Macchi E. Technical and economical analysis of a
[126] Zare V, Palideh V. Employing thermoelectric generator for power generation solar–geothermal hybrid plant based on an Organic Rankine Cycle. Geothermics
enhancement in a Kalina cycle driven by low-grade geothermal energy. Appl 2011;40(1):58–68.
Therm Eng 2018;130:418–28. [155] Li K, Ding Y-Z, Ai C, Sun H, Xu Y-P, Nedaei N. Multi-objective optimization and
[127] Gholamian E, Habibollahzade A, Zare V. Development and multi-objective multi-aspect analysis of an innovative geothermal-based multi-generation energy
optimization of geothermal-based organic Rankine cycle integrated with system for power, cooling, hydrogen, and freshwater production. Energy 2022:
thermoelectric generator and proton exchange membrane electrolyzer for power 123198.
and hydrogen production. Energy Convers Manag 2018;174:112–25. [156] Abdolalipouradl M, Mohammadkhani F, Khalilarya S, Yari M. Thermodynamic
[128] Suter C, Jovanovic Z, Steinfeld A. A 1 kWe thermoelectric stack for geothermal and exergoeconomic analysis of two novel tri-generation cycles for power,
power generation–Modeling and geometrical optimization. Appl Energy 2012;99: hydrogen and freshwater production from geothermal energy. Energy Convers
379–85. Manag 2020;226:113544.
[129] Prospects of power generation from geothermal energy using thermoelectric [157] Cao Y, Xu D, Togun H, Dhahad HA, Azariyan H, Farouk N. Feasibility analysis and
modules. In: Ding LC, Singh BSB, Remeli MF, Date AS, Singh R, Akbarzadeh A, capability characterization of a novel hybrid flash-binary geothermal power plant
editors. Proceedings world geothermal congress 2015. RMIT University; 2015. and trigeneration system through a case study. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2021.
[130] Ahiska R, Mamur H. Development and application of a new power analysis system [158] Hekmatshoar M, Deymi-Dashtebayaz M, Gholizadeh M, Dadpour D, Delpisheh M.
for testing of geothermal thermoelectric generators. Int J Green Energy 2016;13 Thermoeconomic analysis and optimization of a geothermal-driven multi-
(7):672–81. generation system producing power, freshwater, and hydrogen. Energy 2022;247:
[131] Ahiska R, Mamur H. Design and implementation of a new portable thermoelectric 123434.
generator for low geothermal temperatures. IET Renew Power Gener 2013;7(6): [159] Alirahmi SM, Assareh E, Pourghassab NN, Delpisheh M, Barelli L, Baldinelli A.
700–6. Green hydrogen & electricity production via geothermal-driven multi-generation
[132] Liu C, Chen P, Li K. A 500 W low-temperature thermoelectric generator: design system: thermodynamic modeling and optimization. Fuel 2022;308:122049.
and experimental study. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2014;39(28):15497–505. [160] Cao L, Lou J, Wang J, Dai Y. Exergy analysis and optimization of a combined
[133] Catalan L, Aranguren P, Araiz M, Perez G, Astrain D. New opportunities for cooling and power system driven by geothermal energy for ice-making and
electricity generation in shallow hot dry rock fields: a study of thermoelectric hydrogen production. Energy Convers Manag 2018;174:886–96.
generators with different heat exchangers. Energy Convers Manag 2019;200: [161] Xiao Q, Zhang L, Zhao L. Multi-aspect analysis and optimization of a novel
112061. geothermal-based power, liquefied hydrogen, and freshwater production system.
[134] Li K, Liu C, Jiang S, Chen Y. Review on hybrid geothermal and solar power Int J Hydrogen Energy 2024;66:521–39.
systems. J Clean Prod 2020;250:119481. [162] Yuksel YE, Ozturk M, Dincer I. Thermodynamic analysis and assessment of a
[135] Yuksel YE, Ozturk M. Thermodynamic and thermoeconomic analyses of a novel integrated geothermal energy-based system for hydrogen production and
geothermal energy based integrated system for hydrogen production. Int J storage. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2018;43(9):4233–43.
Hydrogen Energy 2017;42(4):2530–46. [163] Yuksel YE, Ozturk M, Dincer I. Energetic and exergetic performance evaluations
[136] Walsh SD, Easton L, Weng Z, Wang C, Moloney J, Feitz A. Evaluating the of a geothermal power plant based integrated system for hydrogen production. Int
economic fairways for hydrogen production in Australia. Int J Hydrogen Energy J Hydrogen Energy 2018;43(1):78–90.
2021;46(73):35985–96. [164] Akrami E, Khazaee I, Gholami A. Comprehensive analysis of a multi-generation
[137] Boukelia T, Arslan O, Djimli S, Kabar Y. ORC fluids selection for a bottoming energy system by using an energy-exergy methodology for hot water, cooling,
binary geothermal power plant integrated with a CSP plant. Energy 2023;265: power and hydrogen production. Appl Therm Eng 2018;129:995–1001.
126186. [165] Akrami E, Chitsaz A, Nami H, Mahmoudi S. Energetic and exergoeconomic
[138] Yilmaz C, Sen O. Thermoeconomic analysis and artificial neural network based assessment of a multi-generation energy system based on indirect use of
genetic algorithm optimization of geothermal and solar energy assisted hydrogen geothermal energy. Energy 2017;124:625–39.
and power generation. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2022;47(37):16424–39. [166] Sangesaraki AG, Gharehghani A, Mehrenjani JR. 4E analysis and machine
[139] Kurşun B. Energy and exergy analysis of a concentrated photovoltaic recuperator learning optimization of a geothermal-based system integrated with ejector
design for a geothermal based multi-generation system. Appl Therm Eng 2020; refrigeration cycle for efficient hydrogen production and liquefaction. Int J
181:115932. Hydrogen Energy 2023.
[140] Bicer Y, Dincer I. Development of a new solar and geothermal based combined [167] Ebadollahi M, Rostamzadeh H, Pedram MZ, Ghaebi H, Amidpour M. Proposal and
system for hydrogen production. Sol Energy 2016;127:269–84. assessment of a new geothermal-based multigeneration system for cooling,
[141] Temiz M, Dincer I. Techno-economic assessment of bifacial photovoltaic and heating, power, and hydrogen production, using LNG cold energy recovery.
geothermal based multigeneration system for cleaner communities. J Clean Prod Renew Energy 2019;135:66–87.
2020;275:122879. [168] Wang K, Yuan B, Ji G, Wu X. A comprehensive review of geothermal energy
[142] Balali A, Asadabadi MJR, Mehrenjani JR, Gharehghani A, Moghimi M. extraction and utilization in oilfields. J Petrol Sci Eng 2018;168:465–77.
Development and neural network optimization of a renewable-based system for [169] Bu X, Ma W, Li H. Geothermal energy production utilizing abandoned oil and gas
hydrogen production and desalination. Renew Energy 2023;218:119356. wells. Renew Energy 2012;41:80–5.
[143] Waseem S, Ratlamwala TAH, Salman Y, Bham AA. Geothermal and solar based [170] Cheng W-L, Li T-T, Nian Y-L, Wang C-L. Studies on geothermal power generation
mutligenerational system: a comparative analysis. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2020;45 using abandoned oil wells. Energy 2013;59:248–54.
(9):5636–52. [171] Templeton J, Ghoreishi-Madiseh S, Hassani F, Al-Khawaja M. Abandoned
[144] Bassetti MC, Consoli D, Manente G, Lazzaretto A. Design and off-design models of petroleum wells as sustainable sources of geothermal energy. Energy 2014;70:
a hybrid geothermal-solar power plant enhanced by a thermal storage. Renew 366–73.
Energy 2018;128:460–72. [172] Noorollahi Y, Pourarshad M, Jalilinasrabady S, Yousefi H. Numerical simulation
[145] Atiz A. Comparison of three different solar collectors integrated with geothermal of power production from abandoned oil wells in Ahwaz oil field in southern Iran.
source for electricity and hydrogen production. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2020;45 Geothermics 2015;55:16–23.
(56):31651–66. [173] Alimonti C, Soldo E. Study of geothermal power generation from a very deep oil
[146] Buonomano A, Calise F, Palombo A, Vicidomini M. Energy and economic analysis well with a wellbore heat exchanger. Renew Energy 2016;86:292–301.
of geothermal–solar trigeneration systems: a case study for a hotel building in [174] Alimonti C, Berardi D, Bocchetti D, Soldo E. Coupling of energy conversion
Ischia. Appl Energy 2015;138:224–41. systems and wellbore heat exchanger in a depleted oil well. Geoth Energy 2016;4
[147] Atiz A, Karakilcik H, Erden M, Karakilcik M. Investigation energy, exergy and (1):1–17.
electricity production performance of an integrated system based on a low- [175] Mokhtari H, Hadiannasab H, Mostafavi M, Ahmadibeni A, Shahriari B.
temperature geothermal resource and solar energy. Energy Convers Manag 2019; Determination of optimum geothermal Rankine cycle parameters utilizing coaxial
195:798–809. heat exchanger. Energy 2016;102:260–75.
[176] Cheng W-L, Li T-T, Nian Y-L, Xie K. An analysis of insulation of abandoned oil
wells reused for geothermal power generation. Energy Proc 2014;61:607–10.
767
[177] Reinhardt T, Johnson LA, Popovich N, Poplar N, editors. Systems for electrical [186] Wang K, Wu X. Downhole thermoelectric generation in unconventional horizontal
power from coproduced and low temperature geothermal resources. Proceedings wells. Fuel 2019;254:115530.
of 36th Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering; 2011. [187] Emadi MA, Mahmoudimehr J. Modeling and thermo-economic optimization of a
[178] Nordquist J, Johnson L, editors. Production of power from the co-produced water new multi-generation system with geothermal heat source and LNG heat sink.
of oil wells, 3.5 years of operation. Geothermal Resources Council Transactions, Energy Convers Manag 2019;189:153–66.
Geothermal Resources Council 2012 Annual Meeting; 2012. [188] Akrami E, Chitsaz A, Ghamari P, Mahmoudi S. Energy and exergy evaluation of a
[179] Gosnold W. Electric power generation from low to intermediate temperature tri-generation system driven by the geothermal energy. J Mech Sci Technol 2017;
resources executive. Technical Report 2017. 31(1):401–8.
[180] Xin S, Liang H, Hu B, Li K. A 400 kW geothermal power generator using co- [189] AlZaharani AA, Dincer I, Naterer G. Performance evaluation of a geothermal
produced fluids from Huabei oilfield. Trans Geoth Resour Counc 2012;36:219–23. based integrated system for power, hydrogen and heat generation. Int J Hydrogen
[181] Hu K, Zhu J, Zhang W, Lu X. A case study of an ORC geothermal power Energy 2013;38(34):14505–11.
demonstration system under partial load conditions in Huabei Oilfield, China. [190] Wang W, Sun Y, Majdi HS, Deifalla A, Alsenani TR, Zhao Z, et al. Multi-aspect
Energy Proc 2017;142:1327–32. investigation and multi-criteria optimization of a novel solar-geothermal-based
[182] Oilfield application of Co-produced fluid geothermal power in Colombia’s Llanos polygeneration system using flat plate and concentrated photovoltaic thermal
Orientales basin. In: Franco C, Martinez D, Gutierrez M, Pataquiva J, Rojas J, solar collectors. Process Saf Environ Protect 2023;174:485–509.
Jaramillo D, et al., editors. First EAGE workshop on geothermal energy in Latin [191] Boyaghchi FA, Nazer S. Assessment and optimization of a new sextuple energy
America. European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers; 2021. system incorporated with concentrated photovoltaic thermal-geothermal using
[183] Liu X, Falcone G, Alimonti C. A systematic study of harnessing low-temperature exergy, economic and environmental concepts. J Clean Prod 2017;164:70–84.
geothermal energy from oil and gas reservoirs. Energy 2018;142:346–55. [192] Al-Ali M, Dincer I. Energetic and exergetic studies of a multigenerational
[184] Liu X, Gluesenkamp K, Momen A. Overview of available low-temperature. solar–geothermal system. Appl Therm Eng 2014;71(1):16–23.
Coproduced geothermal resources in the United States and the state of the art in [193] Limberger J, Boxem T, Pluymaekers M, Bruhn D, Manzella A, Calcagno P, et al.
utilizing geothermal resources for space conditioning in commercial buildings. Geothermal energy in deep aquifers: a global assessment of the resource base for
2015. direct heat utilization. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2018;82:961–75.
[185] Wang K, Liu J, Wu X. Downhole geothermal power generation in oil and gas [194] Geothermal reinjection technology and its application in geothermal power plant.
wells. Geothermics 2018;76:141–8. In: Lv T, Zhu Q-c, Lu H-b, Li X-g, editors. 2009 international conference on energy
and environment technology. IEEE; 2009.
768

Hydrogen Production From Low-Temperature Geothermal Energy - A Review of Opportunities, Challenges, and Mitigating Solutions

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hydrogen Production From Low-Temperature Geothermal Energy - A Review of Opportunities, Challenges, and Mitigating Solutions

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hydrogen Production From Low-Temperature Geothermal Energy - A Review of Opportunities, Challenges, and Mitigating Solutions

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 77 (2024) 742–768

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Hydrogen Energy

Hydrogen production from low-temperature geothermal energy – A review

produce hydrogen and be stored rather than wasted.

Nomenclature HTS High-temperature steam

Fig. 1. The application and use of hydrogen based on the end-user.

Fig. 2. Hydrogen production routes.

Liquid electrolyte Solid electrolyte Solid electrolyte

3.1. Geothermal reservoirs in Australia

Geothermal resources in Australia are of the unconventional type

Table 3 projects, the average temperature is 186 ◦ C with an average depth of

Ouali et al. [74] studied different aspects of producing hydrogen from

4.2. Conventional electrolysis driven by geothermal power

Fig. 12. Hydrogen production via High-Temperature Steam (HTS) electrolysis.

Algieri and Šebo 2017 [115] 130 ◦

Fig. 17. Solar energy function: a) for preheating, b) for superheating.

Alirahmi et al., 2022 [159] 170 CTemp

Fig. 26. Identified critical factors for electrolysis technology.

Fig. 27. Environmental impacts: key factors to be considered.

You might also like