## 4 Discussion
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Advance**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Cost of Advance**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Environmental Impact of**} \\  & **Component** & **Exergy** & **Exergy** & **Advance Energy** \\  & & **Destruction** & **Destruction** & **Destruction** \\ \hline
1 & **ORC Turbine** & **7** & **6** & **6** \\
2 & **Recuperator** & **5** & **5** & **5** \\
3 & **ORC Condenser** & **9** & — & — \\
4 & **ORC Evaporator** & **11** & **10** & **10** \\
5 & **ORC Pump** & **8** & **8** & **8** \\
6 & **Steam Turbine** & **12** & **7** & **7** \\
7 & **Condenser** & **6** & — & — \\
8 & **Pump** & **10** & **9** & **9** \\
9 & **Economizer** & **2** & **1** & **1** \\
10 & **Evaporator** & **3** & **3** & **3** \\
11 & **Superheater** & **4** & **4** & **4** \\
12 & **Solar Field** & **1** & **2** & **2** \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 20: Prioritize equipment for optimization in advanced exergy analysis. and wind power plants, such as in many developed economies. Further details for the SGHPP are provided in Section 2.1. Note that while eliminating the use of geothermal brine as an intermediate HTF and having heat transfer directly from the condensing steam in the topping cycle condenser to the binary working fluid in the binary cycle would improve energetic and exergetic performance, this would require physical modifications to the existing binary cycle and therefore is not considered herein. Additionally, estimating the years of extended well life and the associated economic benefit requires sophisticated knowledge and modeling of the unique geothermal reservoir characteristics for a specific location, and such analyses are outside the scope of this study, [PERSON] et al. [26]. In the present paper, for the Rankin cycle, the working fluid of R134a and several low-GWP fluids (R113, R114, R132, R236a) were investigated. Among them, R114 fluid was thermodynamically appropriate, thus, it was selected as the working fluid. Moreover, the true improvement potential of each unit in the system was determined by splitting exergy destructions into avoidable and unavoidable parts via advanced exergy analysis. The advanced and conventional exergy analysis of two cycles, namely the hybrid geothermal-solar cycle and standalone geothermal cycle were evaluated. The exergy destruction of the standalone geothermal cycle in the conventional analysis presented that the ORC turbine had the highest exergy destruction rate. In the hybrid solar-geothermal cycle, the solar collector had a share of about 56% of the total exergy destruction because of the higher difference in temperature between cold and hot streams. Additionally, if the inlet temperature of the hot fluid in shell and tube heat exchangers can be reduced, exergy destruction rate will be decreased. The results of the exergo-economic analysis of the conventional standalone geothermal cycle demonstrated that the maximum investment cost belonged to the ORC turbine. Additionally, the maximum cost of exergy destruction is related to the ORC turbine. The economic exergy analysis of the hybrid power plant showed that the solar collector had the maximum investment cost and the lowest cost of exergy destruction. The results of the exergo-environmental analysis of the conventional standalone geothermal cycle demonstrated that the ORC turbine has the highest exergo-environmental destruction. In the hybrid geothermal-solar cycle, the exergo-environmental destruction of the solar panel is zero because of its fuel flow. The steam evaporator had the highest impact on environmental exergy destruction. The results of the advanced analysis of exergy in the standalone geothermal cycle showed that the avoidable exergy destruction of the condenser was the highest. In the hybrid geothermal-solar cycle, the solar collector was ranked first from the avoidable exergy destruction perspective. The steam economizer and the steam evaporator were ranked second and third.