## 3 Results
Furthermore, the share of unavoidable exogenous exergy-economic destruction rate was 13.63%, the share of avoidable exogenous exergy-economic destruction rate was 19.73% and the share of avoidable exogenous exergy-economic destruction rate was 5.20%, [PERSON] et al. [20]. Additionally, Figure 10 demonstrates the unavoidable endogenous exergy-environmental destruction rate of the SGPP cycle. The shares of unavoidable exogenous exergy-environmental destruction rate, avoidable endogenous exergy-environmental destruction rate and avoidable exogenous exergy-environmental destruction rate of the cycle were 13.11%, 22.17% and 5.7%, respectively, [PERSON] et al. [20]. Figure 10: Advanced exergy destruction rate of the solar– geothermal cycle (SGPP). Figure 3.0 Advanced analysis of exergy destruction rate in the GPP cycle. Figure 11 compares the results of the conventional and advanced endogenous avoidable exergy destruction for the SGPP and GPP cycles. In the standalone geothermal cycle, the highest exergy destruction rate belonged to the ORC condenser which can be reduced by 9.27% through modification. In addition, the comparison chart of the hybrid cycle represented in Figure 11 implies that the highest exergy destruction with a value of 16.33% is related to the solar panel which can be compensated by up to 15.22% using modification, [PERSON] et al. [53]. Figure 12 presents the comparison of the conventional and advanced endogenous avoidable exergy-economic destruction analysis for the hybrid geothermal-solar and standalone geothermal cycles. The ORC turbine had the highest exergy-economic destruction rate of 41.97% in the standalone geothermal cycle, which can be reduced by 4%. In addition, the comparison chart of the hybrid cycle represented in Figure 12 implies that the highest exergy  
Figure 3.1 Comparisons of exergy analysis results including conventional and advanced (in the GPP and SGPP). Figure 3.2 Comparisons of the conventional and advanced analysis from an exergy-economic perspective (in the GPP and SGPP). environmental destruction rate of 33.39% belonged to the steam evaporator which can be compensated by up to 8.57% using modification, [PERSON] et al. [53]. After the conventional exergy analysis, by determining the efficiency in the exergy, exergy-economic and exergy-environmental analyses, the prioritization of equipment for optimization could be determined i.e., any equipment with a lower efficiency had priority optimization (Table 19). Similarly, after the advanced exergy analysis, according to the percentage of avoid ability of the exergy, exergy-economic and exergy-environmental analyses of equipment, prioritization could be determined for optimization, i.e., any equipment that had a higher percentage of avoid ability had priority for optimization, according to the data (Table 20). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Component** & **Exergy** & **Exerge-Oeconomic** & **Exergo-Environment** \\ \hline
**ORC Turbine** & **9** & **11** & **9** \\
**Recuperator** & **3** & **1** & **7** \\
**ORC Condenser** & — & — & — \\
**ORC Evaporator** & **8** & **5** & **11** \\
**ORC Pump** & **6** & **10** & **1** \\
**Steam Turbine** & **12** & **8** & **8** \\
**Condenser** & — & — & — \\
**Pump** & **11** & **6** & **4** \\
**Economizer** & **4** & **3** & **3** \\
**Evaporator** & **5** & **2** & **6** \\
**Superheater** & **7** & **4** & **10** \\
**Solar Field** & **1** & **12** & **11** \\
**Coupling Pump** & **10** & **7** & **5** \\
**HTF Pump** & **2** & **9** & **2** \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 19: Prioritized equipment for optimization in conventional exergy analysis. Figure 13: Comparisons of exergy-environmental analysis results including conventional and advanced (in the GPP and SGPP).