## 5 Conclusions  
This article particularly focuses on the interaction between the components and potential for improvement of a real dual binary GPP system. In general, the design and operation of dual binary GPPs presents quite a challenge. Namely, using a single recuperator, sending steam to a single vaporizer, and connecting turbines (with different pressures) and a generator on the same shaft are some of these challenges depending on the characteristics of the geothermal resource. Thus, the performance and feasibility of such a GPP are affected. During the work, two perspectives, namely thermodynamic and economic, were discussed in detail for a real, operational GPP (the Sinem GPP located in Turkey) through further analyses. The economic analysis was carried out with the specific exergy cost (SPECO) method. Firstly, the advanced exergy (AdvEx) analysis was used for the system, and then the AdvExEcon analysis associated with it was used. The averages of the data collected throughout 2020 were used in the analyses. The important conclusions obtained in the study can be summarized as follows:  
Figure 10: Change in saving potential for the system and its components with the AdvEx-based analysis.  
Figure 9: Change in cost per release of CO\({}_{2}\) for the components for both analyses.  
* While the exergy efficiency of the system for the TradEx analysis is 39.1%, as a result of the improvements with the AdvEx analysis, the exergy efficiency of the system reaches 50%.
* Exergy destruction in the GPP can be improved to 7.6 MW with some technological improvements, and the components with the highest exergy destructions in the GPP equipment are CON 2, CON 1, VAP 1, and VAP 2.
* While the total operating cost is 1218 USD/h for the TradExEcon analysis, with a decrease of 85% as a result of improvements with the AdvExEcon analysis, it becomes 186 USD/h.
* As a result of the application of the cost performance trend (\(e\)), which is the ratio of the fuel exergy cost to the production exergy cost in the AdvExEcon analysis, the fuel exergy cost was reduced, and this value was reduced from 0.45 to 0.37 times.
* The exergy destruction cost ratio (\(y_{k}\)) was reduced from 407% with the TradExEcon analysis to 125% with the AdvExEcon analysis. Specifically, the value of PU 2 has been reduced from 37% to 3%.
* It has been observed that there is a 15% decrease in total operating cost per total electricity generation (\(X_{w}\)), cost per energy of the geothermal fluid entering the GPP (\(X_{brine}\)), and CO\({}_{2}\) emission cost values of the plant and its components with the application of the AdvExEcon analysis to the plant, compared to the TradExEcon analysis.  
Conceptualization, O.V.G.; methodology, A.G.G. and A.K.; validation, O.V.G. and E.Y.G.; formal analysis, A.K.; investigation, O.V.G.; writing--original draft preparation, O.V.G. and E.Y.G.; writing--review and editing, O.V.G., E.Y.G., A.G.G. and A.K.; visualization, A.K.; supervision, A.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.  
This research received no external funding.  
The authors would like to thank the Sinem Geothermal Energy Production Inc., Turkey, for the support they provided for the present work.  
The authors declare no conflict of interest.