## 4 Discussion
Figure 4: Change in exergoeconomic factor for the components for both analyses. For the condensers (CONs 2 and 1) with the highest total operating costs in Figure 2, the \(X_{w}\) values of the TradExEcon analysis in Figure 7 are equivalent to 0.009 USD/kWh. With the AdvExEcon analysis, these values are reduced to 0.007 USD/kWh. Again, the biggest difference in \(X_{w}\) for both analyses is in CONs 2 and 1. From here, it is clear that condensers are the most important contributor to the PF of the system. The change in cost (\(X_{brine}\)) per energy of the geothermal fluid entering the PP is given in Figure 8. As seen in Figure 8, the \(X_{brine}\) value of the system is 6.3 USD/GI for the TradExEcon analysis. With the use of the AdvExEcon analysis, its value becomes 5.3 USD/GI with a 15% decrease. It can be noted that a graphic similar to Figure 7 is created in Figures 8 and 9. This is because the total operating cost is at a fixed value in all three ways. Figure 9 shows the change in cost per CO\({}_{2}\) emission of the plant and components for the TradExEcon and AdvExEcon analyses. As seen in Figure 9, according to the TradExEcon analysis, the CO\({}_{2}\) emission cost of the system is 0.15 USD/kg. This value can be reduced to about 0.13 USD/kg according to the AdvExEcon analysis. Considering that the cost rate per release of CO\({}_{2}\) is a direct function of the output mass flow rate of the CO\({}_{2}\), as the exergy destruction of the VAP 2 decreases, the cost rate per release of CO\({}_{2}\) decreases. If the plant can be operated under operating conditions decided for the AdvEx-based analysis,  
Figure 5: Change in cost performance trend for the components for both analyses. Figure 6: Change in exergy destruction cost ratio for the components for both analyses. the CO\({}_{2}\) emission cost can be reduced by 15%. In particular, the condensers' contribution to the CO\({}_{2}\) emission cost of the plant is very high. From the economic and environmental point of view, it is concluded that condensers have priority for improvement. The savings potential (\(p_{k}\)) for the system and components with the AdvEx-based analysis is presented in Figure 10. While the p\({}_{k}\) value of the system is 31% for exergy analysis, its value is determined as 15% for exergy analysis. The proportion of the preventable endogenous part in the total exergy breakdown of the components is higher than the ratio of the preventable endogenous part to the total operating cost. Therefore, it would be more advantageous to reduce the exergy destruction amounts of the components rather than their capital investment costs. In other words, it focuses on methods to enhance the performance of the components. As an example, the savings potential of CON 1 for exergy and exergy economics can be understood from the fact that they are 72% and 27%, respectively. As seen in Figure 10, performance improvement for CON 1, CON 2, VAP 1, PRE-HE 1, and PRE-HE 2 components indicates that they are priority components. In another aspect, it is important to reduce the total operating costs of the CON 1, CON 2, VAP 2, VAP 1, and PRE-HE 2 components. Figure 8: Change in cost per geothermal energy input for the components for both analyses. Figure 7: Change in cost per produced electricity for the components for both analyses.