## 3 Results
### Results of the TradEx-Based Analyses  
The findings of the TradEx-based analyses made for the GPP are listed in Table 4. The results of the exergy analysis are shown in the first four columns of Table 4. As seen in the table, the exergy efficiency of the whole system is determined as 39.1%. Exergy input of 53.8 MW is 29.5% strength exergy loss, and 31.3% strength is the amount of exergy destruction. Therefore, there is an exergy production of 21 MW against 39.1% exergy efficiency. The highest exergy destruction amount is in CON 2 for approximately 2.49 MW. It is followed by VAP 2 with 2.26 MW and CON 1 with 1.98 MW, respectively. Exergy efficiencies are also low, as can be seen from Table 2. The mentioned equipment is considered as improvement-prior equipment. Especially in Level I, the equipment with the highest exergy destruction is CON 1, while in Level II it is CON 2. The exergy efficiencies of TURBs 1 and 2 in Levels I and II are calculated as 93.5% and 83.3%, respectively. When compared to Level I, the total exergy destruction amount of the Level II equipment is more than 2.6 MW. The reason for this is the low temperature of the geothermal fluid in Level II. However, adding geothermal fluid steam to Level II is not effective. The TradEx method is insufficient in terms of the interaction between the components and the technology levels of the equipment as the cause of the exergy destruction. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline
**Evaluators** & **TradExEcon Analysis** & **AdvExEcon Analysis** \\ \hline Total operating cost (USD/h) & \(\hat{C}_{tot,k}=\dot{YZ}_{k}+\hat{C}_{D,k}\) & \(\hat{C}_{tot,k}^{AV,EN}=\dot{Z}_{k}^{AV,EN}+\hat{C}_{D,k}^{AV,EN}\) \\ \hline Relative cost difference (\%) & \(r_{k}=\frac{c_{D,k}-c_{D,k}}{c_{D,k}}\) & \(\dot{r}_{k}=\frac{\dot{Z}_{k}^{AV,EN}+\dot{C}_{D,k}^{AV,EN}}{c_{D,k}^{AV,EN}}\) \\ \hline Exergoeconomic factor (\%) & \(f_{k}=\frac{\dot{Z}_{k}}{Z_{k}+C_{D,k}}=\frac{\dot{Z}_{k}}{C_{tot,k}}\) & \(\dot{f}_{k}=\frac{\dot{Z}_{k}^{AV,EN}}{Z_{k}^{AV,EN}+\dot{C}_{D,k}^{AV,EN}}= \frac{\dot{Z}_{k}^{AV,EN}}{\dot{C}_{tot,k}^{AV,EN}}\) \\ \hline Cost performance trend (fold) & \(e_{k}=\frac{\hat{C}_{D,k}}{C_{D,k}}\) & \(\dot{e}_{k}=\frac{\hat{C}_{D,k}}{\hat{C}_{D,k}-C_{tot,k}^{AV,EN}-C_{tot,k}^{AV,EN}}\) \\ \hline Exergy destruction cost ratio (\%) & \(y_{k}=\frac{\hat{C}_{D,k}}{\hat{C}_{F,tot}}\) & \(\dot{y}_{k}=\frac{\hat{C}_{D,k}^{AV,EN}}{\hat{C}_{F,tot}}\) \\ \hline Total cost-savings potential (\%) & - & \(\dot{p}_{k}=\frac{\hat{C}_{tot,k}^{AV,EN}}{C_{tot,k}}\) \\ \hline Cost per produced electricity (USD/kWh) & \(x_{\dot{W}}=\frac{\hat{C}_{tot,k}}{W_{tot}}\) & \(\dot{x}_{\dot{W}}=\frac{\hat{C}_{tot,k}^{AV,EN}-C_{tot,k}^{AV,EX}}{W_{tot}}\) \\ \hline Cost per geothermal energy input (USD/G) & \(x_{brine}=\frac{\hat{C}_{tot,k}}{\hat{Q}_{tot,k}}\) & \(\dot{x}_{brine}=\frac{\hat{C}_{tot,k}^{AV}+\hat{C}_{tot,k}^{AV,EX}}{\hat{Q}_{ tot,k}}\) \\ \hline Cost per release of CO\({}_{2}\) (USD/kg) & \(x_{CO_{2}}=\frac{\hat{C}_{tot,k}}{\hat{m}_{tot,CO_{2}}}\) & \(\dot{x}_{CO_{2}}=\frac{\hat{C}_{tot,k}^{AV,EX}+\hat{C}_{tot,k}^{AV,EX}}{\hat{m}_{ tot,CO_{2}}}\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: The performance markers of the system for the TradExEcon and AdvExEcon analyses. In the last five columns of Table 4, the results of the TradExEcon analysis are given. The findings here are determined by the specific exergy costing (SPECO) method presented by [PERSON] and [PERSON] (2019). As can be seen from the table, the whole system has an exeroeconomic factor of 58.1%. In other words, 58.1% of the total operating cost of 1218.38 USD/h is the capital investment cost. The remaining percentage of the cost is related to component exergy destruction. Both costs are considered to be effective in system performance. Furthermore, the unit fuel exergy cost of 8.4 USD/GJ turns into a unit product exergy cost with a difference of 1.32 USD/GJ.