You are on page 1of 32

F E D E R A L E N E R G Y M A N A G E M E N T P R O G R A M

Design Variations can be pumped. Encapsulated ice sys- Electricity energy charges vary sig-
There are many different types of cool tems consist of water contained in plas- nificantly during the course of a day.
storage systems representing different tic containers surrounded by coolant, all Electricity demand charges are high
combinations of storage media, charging contained within a tank or other storage or ratcheted.
mechanisms, and discharging mecha- vessel. Eutectic salt systems are similar
to encapsulated ice systems, but the The average cooling load is signifi-
nisms. The basic media options are water, cantly less than the peak cooling load.
ice, and eutectic salts. Ice systems can be plastic enclosures contain a eutectic salt
instead of water. The electric utility offers other incen-
further broken down into ice harvesting,
tives (besides the rate structure) for
ice-on-coil, ice slurry, and encapsulated Full storage systems are designed to installing cool storage.
ice options. Ice-on-coil systems may be meet all on-peak cooling loads from
internal-melt or external-melt and may storage. Partial storage systems meet An existing cooling system is expanded.
be charged and discharged with refrig- part of the cooling load from storage and There is new construction.
erant or a single-phase coolant (typically part directly from the chiller during the Older cooling equipment needs
a water/glycol mixture). Independent on-peak period. Load-leveling partial replacing.
of the technology choice, cool storage storage is designed for the chiller to Cold air distribution benefits can be
systems can be designed to provide operate at full capacity for 24 hours on captured.
full storage or partial storage, with load- the peak demand day. Demand limit-
leveling and demand-limiting options for ing partial storage represents a middle
partial storage. Finally, storage systems ground between full storage and load-
What to Avoid
can be operated on a chiller-priority or leveling partial storage where chiller In general, applications lacking the
storage-priority basis whenever the cool- operation is reduced but not eliminated conditions identified above should be
ing load is less than the design conditions. during the on-peak period. Storage pri- avoided. In addition, the following
ority and chiller priority are two alterna- conditions should also be avoided.
Chilled water storage systems rely solely
on the sensible (i.e., no phase change or tive operating strategies for cool storage Lack of operation and maintenance
latent energy) heat capacity of water systems with partial storage designs. As experience or training with system
and the temperature difference between the names imply, cooling is preferentially equipment, especially where built-up
supply and return water streams going provided from storage with storage pri- refrigeration systems are used rather
to and from the cooling load. Ice-on-coil ority operation and directly from the than packaged chillers.
systems come in several variations, as chiller with chiller priority operation.
Lack of operator training on operat-
noted above. In all variations, ice is ing and control strategies for mini-
formed on a heat transfer surface (generi- Where to Apply mizing cooling system life-cycle costs.
cally referred to as a coil, whatever the Cool storage will reduce the average
Sites where the space available for
actual configuration or material) with- cost of energy consumed and can poten-
cool storage equipment is limited
out being released during the charging tially reduce the energy consumption
or has other, more valuable uses.
mode and melted away during the dis- and initial capital cost of a cooling system
charge mode. Ice-harvesting systems compared to a conventional cooling sys- Limited resources for engineering
form ice on coils or other refrigerant tem without cool storage. While most feasibility studies and system design.
evaporating surfaces and periodically building space cooling applications are Cool storage systems are inherently
release the ice into a storage tank that potentially attractive candidates, the more complicated than non-storage
contains a mixture of ice and water. Ice prospects will be especially attractive systems and extra time will be
slurry systems produce small particles if one or more of the following condi- required to determine the optimum
of ice within a solution of glycol and tions exists. system for a given application.
water, resulting in a slushy mixture that

Disclaimer
This report was sponsored by the United States Department of Energy, Office of Federal Energy Management
Programs. Neither the United States Government nor any agency or contractor thereof, nor any of their employees,
makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, complete-
ness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not
infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade
name, mark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommenda-
tion, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency or contractor thereof. The views and opinions of
authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency or
contractor thereof.
F E D E R A L E N E R G Y M A N A G E M E N T P R O G R A M

Thermal Energy Storage for Space Cooling


Technology for reducing on-peak electricity demand and cost

Photo courtesy of Pitt-DesMoines, Inc.


There are many different
types of cool storage sys-
tems representing different
combinations of storage
media, charging mecha-
nisms, and discharging
mechanisms. The basic Federal
media options are water,
ice, and eutectic salts. Ice Technology
systems can be further
broken down into ice har-
Alert
vesting, ice-on-coil, ice
slurry, and encapsulated
ice options. Ice-on-coil sys-
A stratified chilled water storage tank with cooling towers on the left tems may be internal melt
or external melt and may
be charged and discharged
Abstract with refrigerant or a single-phase coolant (typi-
Cool storage technology can be used to signifi- cally a water/glycol mixture). Independent of
cantly reduce energy costs by allowing energy- the technology choice, cool storage systems can
intensive, electrically driven cooling equipment be designed to provide full storage or partial
to be predominantly operated during off-peak storage, with load-leveling and demand-limiting
hours when electricity rates are lower. In addi- options for partial storage. Finally, storage systems
tion, some system configurations may result in can be operated on a chiller-priority or storage-
lower first costs and/or lower operating costs. priority basis whenever the cooling load is less
Cool storage systems of one type or another than the design conditions.
could potentially be cost-effectively applied in The first section describes the basic types of cool
most buildings with a space cooling system. A storage technologies and cooling system integra-
survey of approximately 25 manufacturers pro- tion options. The next three sections define the
viding cool storage systems or components iden- savings potential in the Federal sector, present
tified several thousand current installations, but application advice, and describe the performance
less than 1% of these were at Federal facilities. experience of specific Federal users. A step-by-step
With the Federal sector representing nearly 4% of methodology illustrating how to evaluate cool
commercial building floor space and 5% of com- storage options is presented next, followed by a
mercial building energy use, Federal utilization case study of a GSA building using cool storage.
would appear to be lagging. Although current Latter sections list manufacturers, selected Federal
applications are relatively few, the estimated users, and reference materials. Finally, the appen-
potential annual savings from using cool storage dixes give Federal life-cycle costing procedures
in the Federal sector is $50 million. and results for a case study.

1
F E D E R A L E N E R G Y M A N A G E M E N T P R O G R A M

Contents
Abstract ........................................................................................................................... 1
About the Technology .................................................................................................... 5
Application Domain
Energy-Saving Mechanism
Cold Air Distribution
Other Benefits
Variations: Storage Media and Mechanisms
Variations: Design and Operating Strategies
Installation
Federal Sector Potential .................................................................................................. 12
Estimated Savings and Market Potential
Laboratory Perspective
Application ..................................................................................................................... 13
Application Screening
Where to Apply
What to Avoid
Equipment Integration
Maintenance Impact
Equipment Warranties
Costs
Utility Incentives and Support
Technology Performance ................................................................................................ 16
Evaluating Cool Storage Systems .................................................................................. 17
Cooling Requirements
Identifying Alternatives
Screening Alternatives
Refining the Evaluation
Case Study ...................................................................................................................... 22
Facility Description
Existing Technology Description
New Technology Equipment Selection
Savings Potential
Life-Cycle Cost
Implementation and Post-Implementation Experience
The Technology in Perspective ....................................................................................... 23
The Technologys Development
Technology Outlook
Manufacturers ................................................................................................................ 24
Who is Using the Technology ......................................................................................... 25
For Further Information ................................................................................................. 26
Associations
Design and Installation Guides
References ....................................................................................................................... 26
Appendix A: Federal Life-Cycle Costing Procedures and the BLCC
Software ................................................................................................ 31
Appendix B: QuickBLCC Results for Case Study .................................................... 32

3
F E D E R A L E N E R G Y M A N A G E M E N T P R O G R A M

About the Technology including smaller versions of the equip- to take advantage of natural differences
ment designed for the roof-mounted DX in water density and buoyancy at differ-
Thermal energy storage for space cool-
application, have also been developed, ent temperatures. Still, some mixing and
ing, also known as cool storage, chill
but cost economies-of-scale have been loss of cooling capability are inevitable.
storage, or cool thermal storage, is a rela-
difficult to overcome in the residential
tively mature technology that continues Historically, the driving force for devel-
market.
to improve through evolutionary design oping cool storage has been reduction of
advances. Cool storage technology can Although originally developed to shift on-peak electric demand and the corre-
be used to significantly reduce energy electrical demand to off-peak periods sponding reduction of electricity costs.
costs by allowing energy-intensive, (from an electric utilitys perspective) While this is still important, and may
electrically driven cooling equipment and to take advantage of low-cost off- be the most important factor affecting
to be predominantly operated during peak electric rates (from an end-users application cost-effectiveness, energy
off-peak hours when electricity rates perspective), many applications can savings are possible, and can be a sig-
are lower. In addition, some system also result in lower first costs and/or nificant benefit when the entire cooling
configurations result in lower first costs higher system efficiency compared to system, and not just the storage media
and/or lower operating costs. Unfortu- non-storage systems. Therefore, while and vessel are considered.
nately, cool storage technologies have a large differential between on-peak
Besides heat gain by the storage media,
been underutilized in the Federal sector and off-peak kWh charges or a high
chillers in cool storage systems operate
compared to the private sector. Thus, demand charge definitely improves
at lower evaporator temperatures, which
this Federal Technology Alert has been cool storage economics, cost-effective
increases energy consumption if other
written to reintroduce the concept and applications also exist without these
conditions remain the same. This is
make Federal energy managers aware benefits. Still, not every cooling system
particularly true for ice storage systems,
of the latest technologies and energy- presents a cost-effective application, so
which require the lowest evaporator
and cost-saving opportunities. careful consideration of site-specific
temperatures. The impact of lower
conditions is warranted to determine
Cool storage technologies come in many evaporator temperatures is partially or
whether cool storage makes sense or
different forms, each with their pros and totally offset, however, by the lower con-
not, which cool storage technology is
cons. The storage media is most com- densing temperatures generally experi-
best, and the optimum configuration
monly water (with cold stored in the enced when operating a chiller at night
for a specific technology.
form of ice, chilled water, or an ice/water rather than during the day. In most parts
slurry), but other media (most notably A survey of approximately 25 manufac- of the country, dry-bulb temperatures
eutectic salts) have also been used. Stor- turers providing cool storage systems or are about 20F lower and wet-bulb tem-
age media can be cooled (charged) by components identified several thousand peratures 5F lower at night than during
evaporating refrigerant or a secondary current installations, but less than 1% of the day (MacCracken 1993). Thus, night-
coolant (typically a water/glycol mix- these were at Federal facilities. With time operation improves the efficiency
ture). Discharge is usually accomplished the Federal sector representing nearly of all chillers, but especially improves
directly via circulating water or indirectly 4% of commercial building floor space the efficiency of air-cooled chillers, where
via secondary coolant. At least one sys- and 5% of commercial building energy the condensing temperature is controlled
tem has been developed that discharges use, Federal utilization would appear by ambient dry-bulb temperature. Chiller
storage via circulating refrigerant. to be lagging. efficiency is also improved with storage
by allowing more continuous operation
Application Domain Energy-Saving Mechanism at outputs closer to full capacity, thus
Cool storage systems of one type or an- Cool storage systems are not commonly minimizing part-load losses. In retrofit
other could potentially be cost-effectively thought of as energy-saving technolo- situations, adding storage to meet peak
applied in most buildings with a space gies. No matter how well insulated, cooling demands allows the least effi-
cooling system. Originally, cool storage thermal storage systems inevitably suf- cient chillers to be left off or run much
technology was developed for integra- fer some losses as energy flows from less, further increasing savings.
tion with chilled water cooling systems warmer bodies to cooler bodies. In addi- Cool storage systems, with separate
that typically serve larger buildings. tion, both cool and warm water is com- charge and discharge cycles, will gener-
More recent cool storage developments monly stored in the same storage tank ally require more pumping. This poten-
have included technologies designed for in chilled water systems to save on tank tial disadvantage can be minimized,
integration with roof-mounted, direct- costs. Mixing is minimized by injecting however, by increasing the difference
expansion (DX) cooling systems. Resi- and removing water from different halves between water supply and return tem-
dential-sized cool storage technologies, of the tank via specially designed piping perature by a few degrees, thus reducing

5
F E D E R A L E N E R G Y M A N A G E M E N T P R O G R A M

the volume of water that must be circu- required per floor for HVAC systems. system. Included here are costs associ-
lated. Pumping energy may also be The cumulative height savings allowed ated with refrigerant replacement and
minimized with variable-speed drives. the installation of an extra floor within cooling tower cleaning and water treat-
the same total building height at a ment (ASHRAE 1993).
The energy savings possible with cool
high-rise office building in Bellevue,
storage will vary significantly from site
Washington (Hasnain 1998). Variations: Storage Media
to site, depending on the load profile
and the specific cooling system equip- Early problems with cold air distribution
and Mechanisms
ment employed. For example, Caldwell included fan-powered mixing boxes There are many different types of cool
and Bahnbleth (1997) reported energy that negated much of the energy savings, storage systems representing different
savings ranging from 127% for cooling poor air diffusers that created comfort combinations of storage media, charg-
systems with chilled water storage, problems, and condensation problems ing mechanism, and discharging mecha-
depending on the load profile. Addi- on some surfaces. Improved designs nism. The basic media options are water,
tional discussion of the energy impacts have essentially eliminated the former ice, and eutectic salts. Ice systems can be
of cool storage can be found in Bahnbleth two problems and condensation prob- further broken down into ice harvesting,
and Joyce (1995), Strutz (1995), and lems can be minimized by locating ducts ice-on-coil, ice slurry, and encapsulated
Duffy (1992). in air-conditioned space. A bibliography ice options. Ice-on-coil systems may be
of references describing cold air distri- internal melt or external melt and may
Cold Air Distribution bution is presented in the Design Guide be charged and discharged with refrig-
for Cool Thermal Storage (ASHRAE 1993). erant or a single-phase coolant (typically
Ice storage systems also present an
a water/glycol mixture). Independent of
opportunity for energy savings via
Other Benefits the technology choice, cool storage sys-
cold air distribution. The supply of
tems can be designed to provide full stor-
near-freezing water to air-handling In addition to reducing the average cost
age or partial storage, with load-leveling
units allows return air to be cooled to of electricity consumed and possibly
and demand-limiting options for partial
a lower temperature. Primary air is reducing energy consumption, cool
storage. Finally, storage systems can be
distributed at 45F in a cold air system storage can reduce overall cooling sys-
operated on a chiller-priority or storage-
compared to 55F in a conventional tem capital and maintenance costs. For
priority basis whenever the cooling load
system, which allows air flow to be new construction, partial storage designs
is less than the design conditions.
reduced by about 40% (ASHRAE 1993). (where the chiller and storage combine
The colder primary air is fully mixed to meet peak cooling loads) reduce chiller Chilled water storage systems rely solely
with a portion of the return air to achieve (and cooling tower and cooling water on the sensible (i.e., no phase change or
the desired room delivery temperature. piping for water-cooled chillers) capac- latent energy) heat capacity of water
Thus, smaller, less costly air handlers ity and cost. Savings in chiller and related and the temperature difference between
and ducting may be installed, with pro- costs are often greater than the incre- supply and return water streams going
portional reductions in fan power con- mental costs of the partial storage unit. to and from the cooling load. As a result,
sumption. Where growing cooling loads Similarly, adding storage is a way to the storage volume required is greater
have exceeded the capacity of existing increase a cooling systems peak capac- than for any of the ice or eutectic salt
air distribution systems, cold air distri- ity without adding new chillers in situa- options. However, using water elimi-
bution could be implemented to increase tions where cooling load is growing. nates the need for secondary coolants
capacity without significant renovation Retrofit of old rooftop air-conditioning and heat exchangers and standard water
to the ducting and air-handling system. systems with cool storage systems can chillers can be used without signifi-
also be less expensive than replacement cantly degraded performance or capac-
Cooling the primary air to 45F will
with new rooftop units. Placement of ity. Water is typically cooled to between
also lower conditioned space relative
the cool storage system on the ground 39 and 44F, or slightly lower than for a
humidity from 60% to 35%, which gen-
avoids expensive crane or helicopter standard chilled water system without
erally improves the perceived comfort
charges associated with replacing the storage. The return water temperature
of occupants. This effect may allow a
old rooftop unit, which is left in place may be increased slightly as well, but
3F increase in the dry-bulb temperature
and modified slightly to work with the must remain low enough to ensure
set point with the same perceived com-
storage system. Rooftop replacements adequate indoor humidity control.
fort (MacCracken 1994).
may also require structural modifica- Maximizing the difference between cool-
Reducing the size of air-handling equip- tions which can be expensive. Finally, ing water supply and return tempera-
ment lowers construction costs for multi- maintenance costs will be less for the tures maximizes the sensible energy
story buildings by reducing the height down-sized components of the storage storage capacity per unit of water and

6
F E D E R A L E N E R G Y M A N A G E M E N T P R O G R A M

minimizes the size of the storage tank.


A single tank is usually used to store
both the chilled water and the warm
water returning from the cooling load.
Separation of the two water bodies is
maximized by placing the cooler, denser
water at the bottom of the tank and the
warmer water at the top of the tank.
Specially designed piping networks
called diffusers allow water to enter and
leave the tank without causing signifi-
cant mixing. The result is a layer of cold
water separated from a layer of warm
water by a thermocline, as shown in
Figure 1. Chilled water systems tend to
work best in retrofit situations (no chiller
modifications required) and/or higher
capacity systems where size economies- Figure 1. Chilled water stratification.(a)
of-scale lower the unit cost of the tank.
A typical chilled water storage system
configuration is shown in Figure 2.
Chilled water storage tanks may also
be used as a reservoir for fire-protection
water, reducing total facility costs and/
or fire insurance premiums.
Ice-harvesting systems form ice on coils
or other refrigerant evaporating surfaces
and periodically release the ice into a
storage tank that contains a mixture of
ice and water. A typical ice harvesting
storage system configuration is shown
in Figure 3. Water is pumped from the
bottom of the tank and passed over the
refrigerant evaporating surface during
the charging cycle. During discharge,
water is pumped from the tank to the
load. Warm water returns from the load
and is sprayed onto the top of the ice
water mixture to facilitate mixing and
heat transfer between ice and water.
Compared to ice-on-coil systems, ice
harvesters have much less ice-making
surface, but the surface is a specialized
design to facilitate ice release, so the Figure 2. Typical chilled water configuration.(a)
potential cost savings is not as great as
a comparison based on area would sug-
gest. The average thickness of ice on the On the other hand, ice harvesters must results in a significant performance
heat transfer surface is generally less, go through a defrost cycle to release ice penalty. Ice harvesting refrigeration
however, which improves performance. from the heat transfer surface, which equipment tends to be more expensive

(a) Copyright 1994, American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc. www.ashrae.org. Reprinted by permis-
sion from Design Guide for Cool Thermal Storage.

7
F E D E R A L E N E R G Y M A N A G E M E N T P R O G R A M

to the general use of a secondary coolant.


Some external-melt systems bubble air
though the water to facilitate uniform
freezing and melting of ice. This is not
required on internal-melt systems that
are frozen solid. Freezing all of the water
also results in slightly higher chill stor-
age density for the internal-melt design.
External-melt systems are able to avoid
using a secondary coolant and coolant/
water heat exchangers and also benefit
from direct-contact heat exchange. How-
ever, if not fully discharged, remaining
ice on the coil will result in an efficiency
penalty during the subsequent charging
Figure 3. Typical ice-harvesting configuration.(b) cycle. Care must also be taken to avoid

than other cool storage options while


the storage capacity itself is generally
the least expensive. Thus, ice-harvesting
systems are most attractive for applica-
tions requiring high storage capacity
and relatively low refrigeration capacity.
Ice-on-coil systems come in several
variations, as noted above. In all varia-
tions, ice is formed on a heat transfer
surface (generically referred to as a
coil, whatever the actual configura-
tion or material) without being released
during the charging mode and melted Figure 4. External-melt ice-on-coil.(b)
away during the discharge mode. Coils
are packed in various arrangements
within a tank and surrounded by water.
Ice is formed by transferring energy
from the water to an evaporating refrig-
erant or secondary coolant (generally a
glycol/water mixture) passing through
the coils. Discharge is accomplished by
circulating warm water past the out-
side of the ice on external-melt systems
while secondary coolant is usually past
through the coils on internal-melt sys-
tems. Charging and discharging of
external-melt and internal-melt systems
are illustrated in Figures 4 and 5. At least
one internal-melt system designed for
retrofit of direct-expansion rooftop cool- Figure 5. Internal-melt ice-on-coil.(b)
ing equipment is discharged by condens-
ing a refrigerant, but this is an exception

(b) Copyright 1994, American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc. www.ashrae.org. Reprinted by permis-
sion from Design Guide for Cool Thermal Storage.

8
F E D E R A L E N E R G Y M A N A G E M E N T P R O G R A M

overcharging the external-melt storage


unit solid as it will become increasingly
difficult to discharge without adequate
water flow passages. Charging with
refrigerant is more efficient than with a
secondary coolant because one less heat
transfer step is involved. On the other
hand, charging with a secondary cool-
ant uses much less refrigerant and the
refrigeration system is generally less
complicated. Typical ice-on-coil system
configurations are shown in Figures 6,
7, and 8.
Ice slurry systems produce small par-
ticles of ice within a solution of glycol
and water, resulting in a slushy mixture
that can be pumped. Like ice harvesters,
ice slurry generators are dynamic ice-
making machines, in contrast to the
static ice-on-coil systems. Thus, ice
slurry generators do not suffer from the
efficiency degradation that occurs as
ice builds up on an evaporator surface.
However, unlike ice harvesters, no
defrost cycle is required for ice slurry
generators, which avoids another effi-
ciency loss. In ice slurry systems, ice par- Figure 6. Direct refrigerant external-melt ice-on-coil configuration.(c)
ticles are generated by passing a weak
glycol/water solution (~ 5-10% glycol)
through tubing that is surrounded by
an evaporating refrigerant contained
within a shell (i.e., the evaporator unit
is a shell-and-tube heat exchanger). As
the glycol/water solution is cooled by
the evaporating refrigerant, ice particles
form. Depending on the system configu-
ration, the resulting slush can either
drop directly into a storage tank or be
pumped into a storage tank. The latter
configuration is illustrated in Figure 9.
Ice-free glycol/water solution is pumped
from the storage tank. Discharge is
accomplished by pumping the cool
solution from the tank either directly
through the cooling load or through
an intermediate heat exchanger that iso-
lates the cooling load from the ice slurry
system. Warm solution is returned to the
top of the tank and distributed over the Figure 7. Secondary coolant external-melt ice-on-coil configuration.(c)
ice slurry via multiple spray nozzles.

(c) Copyright 1994, American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc. www.ashrae.org. Reprinted by permis-
sion from Design Guide for Cool Thermal Storage.

9
F E D E R A L E N E R G Y M A N A G E M E N T P R O G R A M

Figure 8. Typical internal-melt ice-on-coil Figure 9. Typical ice slurry configuration.(d)


configuration.(d)

The small size of the particles results in


better heat transfer between the solution
and the ice than is possible for either ice
harvesting or ice-on-coil systems. Like an
ice harvester, ice slurry systems have rela-
tively high fixed costs associated with
the evaporator or ice generator compo-
nent, but relatively low incremental costs
as storage capacity is added. Thus, ice
slurry systems will look their best in rela-
tively high storage capacity applications.
Encapsulated ice systems consist of Figure 10. Encapsulated ice balls.(d)
water contained in plastic containers
surrounded by coolant, all contained
Either atmospheric or pressurized stor-
within a tank or other storage vessel.
age tanks can be used, but a screen must
During the charging cycle subfreezing
be used near the top of an atmospheric
coolant from a chiller is circulated
tank to keep the balls below the coolant
through the storage tank and past the
level. Installation is relatively simple;
plastic containers, freezing the ice. Dis-
the balls are simply poured into a tank
charge is accomplished by circulating
and naturally conform to whatever
warm coolant through the tank and past
shape the storage vessel may be. A typi-
the containers, melting the ice. These two
cal encapsulated ice system configura-
processes are shown in Figure 10. The
tion is shown in Figure 11.
coolant may be routed directly to the
load or be isolated from the load via Eutectic salt systems are similar to
a heat exchanger. The most common encapsulated ice systems, but the plastic
form of plastic container is a dimpled enclosures contain a eutectic salt instead
ball about 4 inches in diameter. The of water. One type of stacked eutectic
spherical shape creates a relatively salt containers is shown in Figure 12. Figure 11. Typical encapsulated ice
high heat transfer area per unit of water Eutectic salts made for cool storage configuration.(d)
being frozen, while the dimples allow applications are typically a combina-
for expansion and contraction while tion of inorganic salts, water, and nucle-
cycling between liquid and solid states. ating and stabilizing agents that freeze

(d) Copyright 1994, American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc. www.ashrae.org. Reprinted by permis-
sion from Design Guide for Cool Thermal Storage.

10
F E D E R A L E N E R G Y M A N A G E M E N T P R O G R A M

further cool the water, unless humidity larger and, therefore, more expensive
control is not a concern in the application. chiller and storage units compared to
partial storage systems. However, full
Variations: Design and Operating storage also captures the greatest sav-
Strategies ings possible by shifting electricity
demand from on-peak to off-peak. Full
Full storage systems, also known as
storage systems are relatively attractive
load shifting systems, are illustrated
when demand charges are high, the dif-
in Figure 14. Full storage systems are
ferential between on-peak and off-peak
designed to meet all on-peak cooling
energy charges is high and/or when the
loads from storage. On the peak demand
peak demand period is short.
day, the chiller in a full storage system
Figure 12. Eutectic salt containers.(e) operates at its capacity during off-peak Load leveling and demand limiting
hours to charge storage and meet cool- versions of partial storage systems are
ing loads occurring during off-peak also illustrated in Figure 14. In general,
at 47F and have a latent heat of 41 Btu hours. This type of system results in partial storage systems meet part of
per pound (E Source 1998). This com- the cooling load from storage and part
pares to a latent heat of 144 Btu per directly from the chiller during the
pound for water. Eutectic salt systems on-peak period. Load leveling versions
offer higher energy density than chilled are designed for the chiller to operate
water systems and like chilled water at full capacity for 24 hours on the peak
systems can be charged with standard demand day. Storage is charged when
chillers without the efficiency penalty the load is less than the output of the
of a lower evaporator temperature. The chiller and discharged when the load is
eutectic salts are more expensive than greater than the output of the chiller.
water, of course. In addition, the water Load leveling designs minimize the size
temperature leaving a eutectic salt sys- and cost of chiller and storage compo-
tem during discharge will be warmer nents, but achieve less electricity cost
than normally supplied to a cooling load. savings than full storage systems. Load
This will generally require downstream leveling systems are relatively attractive
operation of a chiller (see Figure 13) to when electric rate incentives for load
shifting are moderate, the ratio of peak
to average load is high, and/or the
on-peak period is long. Demand limit-
ing partial storage represents a middle
ground between full storage and load
leveling partial storage where chiller
operation is reduced, but not eliminated
during the on-peak period. Thus, system
size and cost, and electricity cost savings
tend to fall between that for the other
two design options. Chiller operation in
demand-limiting systems may also be
controlled to minimize site peak demand,
resulting in variable chiller output dur-
ing the peak demand period.
Storage priority and chiller priority are
two alternative operating strategies for
Figure 13. Typical eutectic salt Figure 14. Cool storage design options.(e) cool storage systems with partial storage
configuration.(e)

(e) Copyright 1994, American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc. www.ashrae.org. Reprinted by permis-
sion from Design Guide for Cool Thermal Storage.

11
F E D E R A L E N E R G Y M A N A G E M E N T P R O G R A M

designs. As the names imply, cooling is compared to chilling water to about needs to consider each site on an
preferentially provided from storage 40F (ASHRAE 1993). Thus, minimal individual basis. Nevertheless, the
with storage priority operation and chiller modifications are required for market potential for cool storage has
directly from the chiller with chiller pri- cool storage systems designed to be been estimated for the U.S. Army by
ority operation. The preference is mostly charged by 18+F coolant, which the Construction Engineering Research
driven by the relative cost of providing includes many ice-on-coil systems Laboratory (Sohn and Cler 1990).
cooling via either mode. The cost com- plus encapsulated ice systems. Many
The work by Sohn and Cler focused
parison must consider average chiller vendors offer integrated chiller and
on the potential savings in electricity
efficiency and electricity costs per kWh storage systems that are particularly
demand and energy charges from shift-
for both modes plus storage efficiency attractive when replacing conventional
ing chiller use to off-peak hours. The
if cooling from storage. Storage priority cooling systems that are worn out.
overall efficiency of the cooling system
generally requires a more complex con-
was presumed to be unaffected by the
trol scheme to ensure that adequate Federal Sector Potential cool storage system, i.e. there was no
cooling capacity will be available late in Cool storage technologies have been net increase or decrease in energy con-
the day as storage is being preferentially successfully applied in thousands of sumption. Incremental capital costs
depleted. Predictions of remaining cool- non-Federal facilities, but only a few were estimated for two scenarios: new
ing load must be combined with mea- dozen Federal facilities. The potential construction or equipment replacement
surement of remaining cooling capacity for successful Federal application would and retrofit. The first scenario allows
and knowledge of chiller capacity to appear to be much greater, however, credit for chiller downsizing, but not
determine the appropriate mix of stor- because Federal facilities tend to have the second. Simple rules of thumb were
age and chiller cooling. Additional dis- several characteristics that should make used to establish the size of the cool stor-
cussion of storage priority operating cool storage generally more attractive age system required to reduce peak
strategies can be found in ASHRAE than in other sectors. These characteris- electricity demand by either 5% or 10%.
(1993). Chiller priority control is much tics include: Incremental system costs were assumed
simpler. When the cooling load exceeds
Relatively large cooling systems that to be $80/ton-hour for the new construc-
the capacity of the chiller, storage is dis-
can take advantage of storage system tion or equipment replacement scenario
charged to meet the residual demand.
economies-of-scale. and $150/ton-hour for the retrofit sce-
No predictions of remaining cooling
nario. Thus, the only site-specific inputs
load for the day are necessary. A preponderance of chilled water to the estimate were the electric rates.
cooling systems that are generally
Installation easier to integrate with cool storage The results of the study indicated that
Installation requirements vary signifi- than cooling systems served by cost-effective application (payback
cantly among the alternative cool stor- direct-expansion equipment. period of 10 years or less for govern-
age systems and depending on whether ment investment) of cool storage sys-
Rate structures characterized by tems designed to reduce peak electrical
a new construction or retrofit scenario
high-demand charges and/or large demand by 10% would result in annual
is being considered. Chilled water or
variation in hourly energy charges. savings of about $12 million for the new
eutectic salt storage systems are the easi-
est to retrofit because a standard water Older equipment that needs construction/equipment replacement
chiller can be used and secondary cool- replacement. scenario. This figure was reduced to
ant loops coupled with additional heat about $4 million per year for the retrofit
exchangers are not usually employed. Estimated Savings and Market scenario. The Army represents about
Modification or replacement of current Potential 25% of the total Federal floor space, so
chillers is generally required for any of a rough estimate of the total Federal
Despite the qualitative advantages
the ice storage systems. This is particu- potential for cool storage systems would
noted above, it is difficult to quantify
larly true for ice harvesting and ice slurry be annual savings of about $50 million.
the Federal potential (or the non-Federal
systems because they require special- potential, for that matter) of cool storage
ized evaporators. Ice-on-coil systems Laboratory Perspective
systems because of the significant impact
charged via evaporating refrigerant or that site-specific factors (such as electric- Thermal energy storage for space cooling
secondary coolant below 18F will also ity demand profile, electric rate structure, is a relatively mature technology experi-
require new equipment; standard water cooling demand profile, existing cooling encing evolutionary improvements to
chillers are usually adequate for chill- system equipment, etc.) have on the cost- older concepts, innovation with newer
ing a secondary coolant as low as 18F, effectiveness. A truly accurate assessment concepts, and extension of applicability
albeit at reduced capacity and efficiency

12
F E D E R A L E N E R G Y M A N A G E M E N T P R O G R A M

from chilled water systems to packaged Application Screening An existing cooling system is
rooftop systems. The impetus for con- Historically, cool storage has been more expanded.
sidering cool storage systems (from the commonly applied in buildings with There is new construction.
end-users perspective rather than the relatively high cooling loads, usually
electric utilitys perspective) was origi- served by central chillers coupled with Older cooling equipment needs
nally driven by high-demand charges chilled water distribution systems. The replacing.
and/or on-peak energy charges and majority of applications served peak Cold air distribution benefits can
the opportunity to save on energy costs. cooling demands of 100 tons or more and be captured.
While electric rates are still a significant required storage capacities of 500 ton-
motivation for implementing cool stor- hours or more (Potter 1994; E-Source What to Avoid
age, many systems are being installed 1998). Several manufacturers now offer
today on the basis of lower first cost and/ In general, applications lacking the
packaged ice storage systems as small conditions identified above should be
or lower energy consumption as well. as 100 ton-hours at unit costs that are avoided. In addition, the following con-
Cool storage systems have become rela- essentially the same as larger sizes. These
ditions should also be avoided.
tively common in the commercial sector, smaller storage systems are also being
particularly in applications such as coupled with chillers to retrofit direct- Lack of operation and maintenance
schools that have high ratios of peak to expansion (DX) rooftop cooling sys- experience or training with system
average cooling loads. Federal applica- tems. One manufacturer has developed equipment, especially where built-up
tions have lagged, however, represent- a 42 ton-hour storage unit specifically refrigeration systems are used rather
ing only about 1% of the total designed for integration with DX cool- than packaged chillers.
population of installed systems. With ing systems. Thus, cool storage equip- Lack of operator training on operat-
many Federal facilities having similar ment is available for practically all types ing and control strategies for mini-
characteristics to commercial facilities of buildings. Cost-effectiveness must mizing cooling system life-cycle costs.
where cool storage has been success- be considered on a case-by-case, site-
fully installed, broader consideration of specific basis, however. Sites where the space available for
cool storage at Federal facilities seems cool storage equipment is limited
warranted. The rough estimate of Fed- Where to Apply or has other, more valuable uses.
eral sector potential described above Cool storage will reduce the average cost Limited resources for engineering
also suggests that significantly greater of energy consumed and may potentially feasibility studies and system design.
utilization would be beneficial. Still, reduce the energy consumption and Cool storage systems are inherently
there are no simple rules-of-thumb that initial capital cost of a cooling system more complicated than non-storage
will always identify where cool storage compared to a conventional cooling systems and extra time will be
can be cost-effectively applied. The use system without cool storage. While most required to determine the optimum
of cool storage or not and selection of the building space cooling applications are system for a given application.
best cool storage system must be care- potentially attractive candidates, the
fully considered via screening studies prospects will be especially attractive Equipment Integration
on a site-specific basis. if one or more of the following condi- The specific integration requirements
tions exists. vary for the different types of cool stor-
Application Electricity energy charges vary sig- age systems. In some cases, multiple
This section addresses the technical nificantly during the course of a day. integration options exist for a single
aspects of applying cool storage type of cool storage system. Fundamen-
technology. The conditions in which Electricity demand charges are high tally, the storage device separates the
cool storage can be best applied are or ratcheted. generation of chilled coolant from its
addressed. The advantages, limita- The average cooling load is signifi- delivery to air handling units. Thus, an
tions, and benefits of each application cantly less than the peak cooling load. extra piping loop (one for charging and
are enumerated. Design and integration one for discharging storage) with pumps,
considerations for the technology are The electric utility offers other incen-
valves, and controls is required com-
discussed, including equipment and tives (besides the rate structure) for
pared to a conventional system. Typical
installations costs, installation require- installing cool storage.
system configurations were shown in
ments, maintenance impacts, and utility
incentives and support.

13
F E D E R A L E N E R G Y M A N A G E M E N T P R O G R A M

Figures 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, and 13. In addi- and cooling tower are usually smaller ice slurry systems requires different skills
tion, a common variation to consider is with cool storage, which should gener- than for standard packaged chillers.
whether to install the chiller upstream ally reduce the cost of replacement
or downstream of the storage unit as parts and specifically reduce refrigerant Equipment Warranties
shown in Figure 15 for an ice-on-coil replacement and cooling tower clean- A one-year warranty is commonly
system. Installing the chiller in the ing and water treatment costs. Chiller offered by cool storage system manu-
upstream position increases chiller effi- and cooling tower maintenance can facturers on all equipment, parts, and
ciency because the coolant temperature also be conducted while cooling is pro- materials. Labor is not usually covered.
is higher, but reduces the usable storage vided from storage, which benefits Specific system components (e.g., the
capacity because storage is discharged maintenance scheduling. coil in ice-on-coil systems) are war-
with a lower temperature coolant. The ranted for a longer period by some
The addition of a cool storage tank is the
opposite effects occur when the chiller manufacturers. Other manufacturers
most obvious difference from a conven-
is installed in the downstream posi- will guarantee performance in terms of
tional cooling system, but incremental
tion. The two choices present a trade- available storage and discharge capaci-
maintenance requirements tend to be
off between storage capital costs and ties or the maximum rate of heat gain
minimal. Water treatment requirements
chiller operating costs that should be through the walls of the tank.
are the same as for non-storage systems,
considered in a detailed evaluation of
but the volume of water to be treated,
system options. Costs
hence cost, is greater. Water levels should
be checked at least once a year, or more Costs will vary significantly for cool
Maintenance Impact
often for open tanks. Special attention storage systems because of the many
Chiller and cooling tower maintenance needs to be given to the water chemistry different technology options and signifi-
activities with cool storage are essen- in ice harvesting systems where warm cant size economies-of-scale for some
tially the same as for a conventional return water is highly aerated as its components, in addition to variation in
cooling system. However, the chiller sprayed on the ice/water mixture within site-specific conditions and individual
the tank. Detailed discussion of water vendor offerings. In general, all systems
treatment requirements can be found in have a chill-generating device and a chill
Ahlgren (1987). storage device, even if the two devices
are closely integrated (e.g., external-melt,
Systems using glycol must use a version
ice-on-coil systems). The following cost
intended for HVAC applications that
equations can be used to prepare rough
include corrosion inhibitors and other
estimates of system costs, suitable for
additives that allow contact with air.
initial screening of alternatives. A more
Glycol chemistry should be checked
rigorous approach based on site-specific
annually to ensure that proper concentra-
system integration requirements and
tion of the inhibitors and other additives
vendor quotes for major components
exist, as well as to ensure maintenance
should be used when refining the initial
of the intended water/glycol mixture.
screening evaluation (see Refining the
Cool storage systems usually have more Evaluation below) and preparing the
pumps, control valves, and possibly heat final estimate.
exchangers than conventional cooling
Equations 1 and 2 can be used for
systems, with periodic maintenance
estimating the costs of conventional air-
required for each. Tank inventory sensors
cooled reciprocating chillers and water-
will also require periodic calibration.
cooled centrifugal chillers, respectively
Finally, maintenance of refrigeration
(Means 1999). As indicated, Equation 1
equipment such as that used in ice har-
is generally applicable at capacities
Figure 15. Upstream and downstream vesting, external melt ice-on-coil, and
chiller configurations.(f)

(f) Copyright 1994, American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc. www.ashrae.org. Reprinted by permis-
sion from Design Guide for Cool Thermal Storage.

14
F E D E R A L E N E R G Y M A N A G E M E N T P R O G R A M

less than 200 tons, while Equation 2 is (3) Cooling Tower Installed Cost = (6) 15F T Chilled Water Storage Installed
generally applicable at sizes greater $982*Thr0.64 Cost = 616*(TH)0.686
than 200 tons.1 Both equations are based Where Thr = heat rejection capacity Where TH = storage capacity in ton-
on the equipment capacity for produc- in tons, from 60-1000 tons2 hours, ton-hours from 900-9000
ing chilled water at standard ARI rating Dynamic ice-generators are generally (7) 20F T Chilled Water Storage Installed
conditions. Equations 1 and 2 can be more expensive than the chillers used Cost = 498*(TH)0.686
used directly to estimate the costs of with static ice-on-coil systems. Ice slurry Where TH = storage capacity in ton-
water chillers used in conventional cool- generators are currently offered in hours, ton-hours from 1200-12,000
ing systems and for systems using chilled modular units resulting in an installed (8) Dynamic Ice Storage Installed Cost =
water or eutectic salt storage. cost of about $1000/ton of ice at capaci- 211*(TH)0.686
(1) Air-Cooled Reciprocating Chiller ties of 100 tons or more. Ice-harvesting Where TH = storage capacity in ton-
Installed Cost = $11,900 + 591*Twc generators are typically slightly more hours, ton-hours from 4,000-40,000
Where Twc = nominal water chiller expensive as indicated by Equation 4
Ice-on-coil and encapsulated ice storage
capacity in tons, from 20-200 tons. (ASHRAE 1993).
system costs are dominated by the heat
(2) Water-Cooled Centrifugal Chiller (4) Ice-Harvesting Generator Installed transfer surface, which is the piping or
Installed Cost = $57,700 + 307*Twc Cost = $195,000 + 990*Tig coils for the former and the flexible
Where Twc = nominal water chiller Where Tig = ice generating capacity encapsulating material for the latter.
capacity in tons, from 200-1500 tons. in tons, from 200-1000 tons Storage capacity, hence cost, is directly
Equations 1 and 2 can also be used for Chilled-water storage costs depend on proportional to the heat transfer area
estimating the cost of chillers used to the difference between water supply and and the amount of ice that can be gener-
make ice in ice-on-coil storage systems return temperature in addition to the size ated and stored at full charge per unit of
by applying an adjustment factor. of the storage unit. For example, the same heat transfer area. The installed cost for
Operation at ice-making evaporating equipment would have twice the stor- ice-on-coil and encapsulated ice storage
temperatures reduces capacity by about age capacity if operated through a 20F is about $70/ton-hour.3 Although there
1/3 compared to water chilling; the differential compared to a 10F differen- could be economies-of-scale associated
actual ratio depends on the evaporat- tial. Alternatively, the same capacity with the tank or containment vessel,
ing temperature required (varies by as could be achieved with a tank that is most ice-on-coil systems come in pre-
much as 10F depending on the type 50% smaller. Equations 5 through 7 can assembled tank and coil packages of
and specific model of ice-on-coil stor- be used for estimating chilled water stor- moderate individual capacity with larger
age). Alternatively, the equivalent water age costs for three alternative supply capacity needs met via multiple tanks.
chilling capacity is about 50% higher and return water temperature design Thus, the cost per ton-hour for these
than the ice generating capacity. There- assumptions (EPRI 1992). Similarly, types of systems is usually independent
fore, the cost of chillers for ice-on-coil Equation 8 can be used for estimating of the number of ton-hours required.
storage systems can be estimated using storage-related costs for dynamic ice sys- Similar to ice-on-coil and encapsulated
equations 1 or 2 by first multiplying the tems using ice-harvesting or ice slurry ice systems, eutectic salt system costs are
required ice-generating capacity by 1.5. generators. Again, the vessel is essen- dominated by components (the salt and
tially the same as for chilled water stor- its enclosure) that vary directly in size
Water-cooled systems require cooling
age, but costs per ton-hour are lower and cost with the required system capac-
towers to cool condenser water. Cool-
because of the higher cooling density ity. Again, the tank or vessel represents
ing tower costs can be estimated using
of ice compared to water. a relatively small portion of the total stor-
Equation 3 (Means 1999). The same
equation applies whether the cooling (5) 10F (T Chilled Water Storage Installed age system cost, so its economies-of-scale
tower is applied to a water-cooling or Cost = 802*(TH)0.686 are overshadowed by the cost of the salt
ice-generating chiller. Where TH = storage capacity in ton- and its enclosure. The installed cost of
hours, ton-hours from 600-6000

1
In this section and throughout this FTA, a ton means 12,000 Btu per hour. This rating is derived from the average hourly cooling rate
achieved from melting one ton (2000 pounds) of ice over a 24 hour period (2000 pounds * 144 Btu/pound / 24 hours = 12,000 Btu/hour). Thus,
a 100-ton ice generator has a cooling capacity of 1.2 million Btu per hour and would be able to produce roughly 100 tons (200,000 pounds) of
ice in 24 hours.
2
Note that cooling tower capacity is greater than chiller capacity because the energy input to the chiller must be rejected along with the cooling
load being served by the chiller.
3
Based on information collected from Baltimore Air Coil, Calmac, Chester-Jensen, Cryogel, Dunham-Bush, Fafco, and Girton Manufacturing.

15
F E D E R A L E N E R G Y M A N A G E M E N T P R O G R A M

eutectic salt storage is about $125/ton- Gainesville Regional Utilities: Rebate A $1 million rebate offered by the serv-
hour (ASHRAE 1993). based on tonnage; no specific informa- ing electric utility provided a huge
tion available incentive and served to ensure project
In addition to the chiller and storage
cost-effectiveness. Initial problems were
components, installation of a cool stor- GPU Energy: No specific information
experienced with the chiller, but not the
age system will require miscellaneous available
storage system itself. Chiller problems
pipes, valves, pumps, instrumentation,
Houston Power and Lighting: $300/kW were probably caused by disassembly
controls, and possibly heat exchangers.
shifted of the chiller during installation, which
The requirements for this miscellaneous
was required to fit the chiller into the
hardware, hence costs, vary significantly Lansing Board of Water and Light:
mechanical room. These problems have
depending on site-specific conditions. $100/kW of installed equipment
since been ironed out. Other minor per-
The costs for these components can be
Northern States Power Company: No formance problems developed initially
ignored when conducting initial screen-
specific information available because no operating guidelines were
ing studies, but should be estimated
Pasadena Water and Power Company: in place. Standard operating procedures
from an assessment of specific require-
have now been established for each
ments when preparing the final design $5000 for feasibility studies
month and performance has been con-
evaluation.
Riverside Utility District: $5000 for feasi- sistently good. Electricity cost savings
bility studies; $200/kW shifted off peak are typically around $5000 per month
Utility Incentives and Support
South Carolina Public Service Authority: during the cooling season at this 500,000
Utilities offer various forms of financial square foot facility.
and technical support for cool storage $200/kW shifted off-peak; co-funding of
systems. Examples include rebates spe- feasibility study A 10,000 ton-hour stratified chilled water
cific to cool storage, rebates for peak United Illuminating Company: $400/kW tank was tied into an existing district
load reduction, and cost-sharing of fea- shifted or $400/ton shifted; feasibility cooling system serving 10 buildings at
sibility studies. The following utilities study grants the Sandia National Laboratories in
provided incentives and/or support Albuquerque, New Mexico. Installation
specific to cool storage systems as of Technology Performance of the storage system allowed extension
spring 1999, according to a survey con- of the district cooling system to a new
Several thousand cool storage systems
ducted by Energy User News (Cahners 150,000 square foot building without
have been installed in the United States, adding additional chiller capacity. In
Business Information 1999a and 1999b). but only about 1% of these have been at
Other programs, such as those targeting addition, annual energy savings are
Federal facilities. The majority of sys-
chillers, HVAC, load management, etc., expected to be $200,000 per year. The
tems have used ice-on-coil technology,
may also apply. Incentive and support system was installed and has operated
but stratified chilled water systems have
programs are subject to change, par- without any unexpected problems. The
also been moderately popular. Both ice-
ticularly as the electric utility industry system was designed to allow several
on-coil and stratified chilled water are different operating strategies, but did
deregulates. Therefore, prospective mature technologies, but evolutionary
users of cool storage systems should not require the installation of any new
improvements are continuously imple-
contact their electric utility to see what pumps. The biggest problem experienced
mented by manufacturers. The experi-
incentives are available and applicable. was overcoming internal resistance to
ences with cool storage at three Federal
changes of any kind. Therefore, site
Alabama Power Company: $100/kW facilities are summarized below; see sec-
personnel advise working hard to get
deferred; $5000 for feasibility studies tion on Who is Using the Technology buy-in from management and main-
for contact information. tenance personnel. Also suggested is
Baltimore Gas and Electric Company:
$200/kW shifted; $15,000 for feasibility An ice-on-coil system installed at the thorough consideration of alternative
studies Ralph H. Johnson VA Medical Center in design options before committing to a
Charleston, South Carolina, was origi- single approach.
Columbia Water and Light: Rate inven- nally designed to provide the entire
tive; no specific information available A full-storage, ice-on-coil system was
on-peak cooling load from storage, but installed at the U.S. Army Reserve
Delmarva Power and Light: $140/kW subsequent building expansions now Center in Monclova, Ohio, when this
shifted with $100,000 maximum require partial chiller operation on
54,000-square-foot facility was built
peak cooling days. The facility was
Florida Power and Light: No specific in 1996. The facility received a 1998
driven to consider cool storage as a
information available Engineered Systems Engineering Team
means of reducing its energy costs.
Award for the cool storage system and

16
F E D E R A L E N E R G Y M A N A G E M E N T P R O G R A M

other energy management features. Esti- Cooling Requirements design cooling conditions is the best
mated energy savings for the cool stor- Cool storage system evaluation and form of design insurance.
age system are about $1000 per month design requires knowledge of hourly Cooling load profiles developed for
during the cooling season. In general, cooling loads for the peak design day generic buildings similar to the applica-
the system works well, but they have (for daily storage cycles or for the peak tion being considered are adequate for
experienced a few minor problems. design week for weekly storage cycles) the initial screening evaluation, but
Occasionally, the building is occupied in addition to the peak design hour. more accurate load estimation proce-
at night, which increases the cooling Note that the peak design hour may dures are required for the revised evalu-
load and doesnt allow the storage sys- not necessarily occur during the peak ation and preparation of system design
tem to be fully charged. Basically, the design day, but the cool storage system specifications. Cooling load calculations
system wasnt designed to handle this must be sized to meet both require- are discussed in detail in ASHRAEs
type of occupancy pattern. As a result, ments. In addition to requiring more Handbook on Fundamentals (ASHRAE
the chillers had to be operated during cooling load data than for a non-storage 1997). Note that the cooling load must
the day and it takes a few days to fully design, there is a greater need for that account for heat gains from fans, duct-
recharge and return to normal opera- data to be accurate. For example, if the ing, piping, and pumps, as well as the
tion. As site personnel point out, If chiller in a non-storage system is under- load delivered to the conditioned
your cooling load is nearly constant, sized, the building it is serving is likely space. In addition, heat gain through
24 hours a day, it wont work. to be too warm for a few hours a day for the wall of the storage vessel and avail-
a few days a year. However, as ambient ability losses within the vessel must be
Evaluating Cool Storage conditions cool during the evening and accounted for when sizing storage and
Systems early morning hours, the non-storage the chiller4. In retrofit situations, mea-
The process of identifying and evaluat- system will be able to catch up. Most surement of cooling loads at design
ing alternatives is more complicated cool storage systems have smaller conditions is preferred. If measurements
for cooling systems using cool storage chillers, however, and rely on storage at design conditions are not available,
than for those without. The increased to provide part or all of the cooling load measurements at other conditions could
complexity is driven by the plethora during the peak afternoon hours. If a be used to calibrate building load simu-
of alternative storage types and system storage system is undersized, it will not lation models and the simulation mod-
configurations plus the need to consider be able to catch up at night and have els used to predict cooling loads at
cooling loads and cooling system opera- storage adequately charged for the design conditions.
tion for a complete charge and discharge following day. If the storage system is
cycle rather than just a single design undersized and there are several con- Identifying Alternatives
point. The evaluation process consists secutive days of weather near peak
With a plethora of storage unit and
of the following steps: design conditions, overheating prob-
system configuration possibilities, the
lems will likely accumulate. In short,
determine cooling requirements number of alternatives to be evaluated
the smaller chiller sizes associated with
quantitatively should be minimized by
identify alternative storage types and storage systems provide less reserve
judicious, qualitative, pre-screening.
system configurations to be evaluated capacity compared to non-storage sys-
With this objective in mind, the follow-
tems, which puts a premium on correctly
conduct screening evaluation of ing rules-of-thumb are offered for pre-
specifying the design conditions. Practi-
alternatives screening purposes.
cal approaches for dealing with this
refine screening evaluation results for concern include selecting more conser- Chilled water storage is more compat-
preferred alternative(s). vative design weather conditions (e.g., ible with standard chilled water cooling
design for 99% conditions rather than systems than the various ice storage
Each of these steps is briefly discussed
97.5% conditions) or applying a more systems. In general, this makes chilled
on the following pages.
conservative safety factor when sizing water storage relatively attractive for
For a more detailed discussion the reader the chiller and storage components of a retrofits, and particularly in cooling
is referred to the list of design and instal- cool storage system. However, spending capacity expansion situations. Chilled
lation guides provided on page 26. additional effort to accurately define the water systems will look their best where

4
Mixing and/or conduction across the thermocline within a chilled water storage tank significantly increases the chilled water discharge tem-
perature near the end of each storage cycle. Similarly, the coolant discharge temperature rises at an increasing rate in ice storage systems near
the end of each discharge cycle due to ineffective heat transfer between the discharge coolant and the dwindling amount of stored ice.

17
F E D E R A L E N E R G Y M A N A G E M E N T P R O G R A M

relatively large storage requirements complexities compared to packaged select preferred system(s) for detailed
can take advantage of tank economies- chillers with secondary coolants. analysis.
of-scale and where the availability of
The three basic configuration options For non-storage systems, the chiller is
space is not a significant concern.
are full storage and partial storage in sized to meet the peak hourly load. With
The applicability of eutectic salt storage load-leveling or demand-limiting ver- storage, the chiller is sized to meet the
is similar to chilled water. However, its sions. Full storage results in the greatest cooling load over the storage cycle, typi-
higher energy density makes it more at- savings in on-peak electricity charges, cally a 24-hour period. Thus, for partial-
tractive than water where limited space but requires larger, more expensive, storage systems, the chiller will always
is a greater concern than storage cost or chillers and storage units. Thus, full be smaller than for a non-storage sys-
a slightly higher discharge temperature. storage should be considered where tem, while for full-storage systems, the
there are high demand charges, annu- chiller may be smaller or larger than for
Ice storage systems are required to take
ally ratcheted demand charges, and/or a non-storage system, depending on the
advantage of cold air distribution ben-
a large differential between peak and design load profile and the length of the
efits and where limited space is avail-
off-peak electricity energy charges. on-peak period.
able. Ice storage systems minimize tank
Short discharge periods are also par-
size and cost, so are generally more eco- At the simplest level, chiller capacity
ticularly beneficial to the economics of
nomical at smaller capacities where tank equals the design-day cooling load
full storage system designs.
costs are a substantial portion of the total divided by the number of chiller operat-
system cost. Equipment sizes and capital are mini- ing hours. For a partial-storage system,
mized with partial storage, load-leveling the number of chiller operating hours is
Ice-harvesting and ice slurry systems
designs, but on-peak electricity charges 24, i.e., the chiller operates at full capac-
separate ice generation from ice storage,
are reduced the least of the three basic ity for 24 hours on the design day. For
resulting in lower storage-related costs
configurations. Thus, situations with a a full-storage system, the number of
than other systems. However, the ice-
high ratio of peak to average cooling chiller operating hours is 24 minus the
generators for both of these types of
loads are attractive for partial storage length of the peak-demand period.
systems are more expensive than other
configurations as are situations with
systems. Thus, ice harvesting and ice For greater accuracy the calculation of
minimal incentive from the electric
slurry systems look their best in applica- nominal chiller capacity should con-
rate structure. Partial storage, demand-
tions with a large ratio of storage capac- sider the relative chiller capacity when
limiting designs are a hybrid of the two
ity to storage charging capacity. This charging storage, direct cooling during
other configurations and are probably
would suggest considering a weekly the on-peak period, and direct cooling
best considered as a possible variant of
storage cycle as well as a daily storage during the off-peak period. Capacity
one of the other two principal options.
cycle for these two options. Ice harvesting may be different than the nominal rating
and ice slurry systems are also capable due to differences in evaporating or con-
Screening Alternatives
of providing high discharge rates. densing conditions and/or because of
The initial screening of alternatives fol- different assumptions regarding selec-
Most ice-on-coil and encapsulated ice lows the steps bulleted below, starting tion of full storage or partial storage
storage systems use standard packaged with the design load profile and appli- (with load-leveling or demand-limiting
chillers and secondary coolants for charg- cable utility rate schedule. Note that dif- options) designs. Thus, the nominal
ing, which minimizes ice-generating ferences in annual energy consumption chiller capacity equals the design-day
costs and ice storage system costs for generally have a smaller economic cooling load divided by the sum of the
most applications. Internal-melt, ice- impact than differences in equipment number of chiller operating hours in
on-coil storage and encapsulated ice costs and electricity demand when com- each mode, with the number of hours
storage allow partial storage without paring alternatives, so is usually ignored in each mode multiplied by the aver-
incurring an efficiency penalty during in the screening process. age capacity in that mode relative to
the subsequent ice-building period as
The initial screening steps are: the nominal capacity (see Equations 9
happens with external-melt, ice-on-coil
and 10).
systems that are partially discharged. size chiller and storage
External-melt systems, like ice harvest- (9) Nominal Chiller Capacity = Total Cool-
ing and ice slurry systems, offer the estimate chiller and storage capital ing Load/Adjusted Chiller Operating
highest discharge rates. External-melt cost Hours
systems may also be directly charged (10) Adjusted Chiller Operating Hours =
estimate annual demand savings
with refrigerant, which offers efficiency H1CR1 + H2CR2 + H3CR3
advantages, but refrigeration equipment calculate system life-cycle cost

18
F E D E R A L E N E R G Y M A N A G E M E N T P R O G R A M

Where H1 = hours charging storage cooling from the chiller and/or storage the average net capacity while direct
CR1 = capacity relative to nominal on an hourly basis. Also note that equa- cooling (where the relative capacity is
conditions while charging tions 11 and 12 calculate the nominal 0.9) will be more than 2021. These ap-
H2 = hours direct cooling during storage capacity, suitable for a screen- proximations of net capacity allow for
on-peak period ing analysis. The actual required storage reasonable assumptions regarding the
CR2 = capacity relative to nominal capacity must be determined via an chiller and storage operating modes
conditions while cooling during hour-by-hour simulation of performance during each hour of the day that will be
on-peak period that captures the interactions of the chiller, verified or refuted after determining the
H3 = hours direct cooling during storage, and the load. In particular, all nominal chiller capacity. For example,
off-peak period storage systems suffer from an increas- with a direct cooling capacity of at least
CR3 = capacity relative to nominal ing rise in discharge temperature near 2021 tons, the chillers are assumed to be
conditions while cooling during the end of a discharge cycle that effec- charging storage during hours 1-9 and
off-peak period tively reduces the useful capacity from 21-24 and directly cooling for hours
Note that if the nominal chiller capacity its theoretical maximum. 10-20. The cooling load is met by dis-
calculated via Equations 9 and 10 is charging storage alone during hours 1-9
greater than the load for any hour dur- Sample Calculations and 21-24, while storage discharge and
ing the direct cooling mode, then the Chiller and storage sizing for a screen- direct cooling are required to meet the
chiller capacity must be recalculated via ing evaluation is illustrated through load for hours 10-20.
an iterative procedure illustrated in the the following example. The example is The nominal chiller capacity is calcu-
Design Guide for Cool Thermal Storage based on a partial storage, load-leveling lated by plugging the assumptions pre-
(ASHRAE 1993). system design with ice storage. Com- sented above into Equations 9 and 10.
pared to its rated capacity at standard
The required storage capacity is equal ARI conditions, the relative chiller capac- Nominal Chiller Capacity = 48,500/
to the total cooling load minus any ity is presumed to be 0.8 in the storage ((13*0.8)+(6*0.9)+(5*0.9) = 2389.2 tons5
load provided directly by the chiller
charging mode and 0.9 in the direct cool- The actual chiller capacity is 1911.3 tons
or from storage while storage is being
ing mode. Design cooling day cooling (2389.2 * 0.8) in the storage charging
charged. Similar to the calculation of
loads, chiller operation, and storage mode and 2150.2 tons (2389.2 * 0.9) in
nominal chiller capacity, cooling pro-
operation are presented in Table 1 and the direct cooling mode. 2150.2 is less
vided directly by the chiller or from Figure 16. The cooling load builds in the than the cooling load for all hours pre-
storage while storage is being charged late morning, peaks in mid-afternoon sumed to be in the direct cooling mode
must consider the variation in chiller
and decays to its minimum daily value and 1911.3 is greater than the cooling
capacity while operating in these dif-
in the early morning. The utility on-peak load for all hours where storage is being
ferent modes, as shown in Equations 11
period is shown as running from noon charged and discharged. Thus, no fur-
and 12.
until 6:00 p.m., but this has no impact on ther adjustments of the initial assump-
(11) Nominal Storage Capacity = Total Cool- a partial storage, load-leveling design. tions are necessary.
ing Load - Directly Served Load
The total daily load is 48,500 ton-hours. The nominal storage capacity is calcu-
(12) Directly Served Load = NCC*(H2CR2 +
H3CR3) + CAPCH
Thus, if the chillers were able to provide lated by plugging the assumptions pre-
their nominal capacity while charging sented above into Equations 11 and 12.
Where CAPCH = capacity provided from storage and direct cooling, the required
storage while simultaneously charging capacity would be 2021 tons (48,500 ton- Nominal Storage Capacity = 48,500 -
storage and NCC = the nominal chiller hours/24 hours = 2021 tons). This is the {2389.2*[(6*0.9)+(5*0.9)]+17,200} = 7,647
capacity. average actual capacity the chillers will ton-hours

Note that in some cases the actual load need to provide to meet the daily cool- The chiller and storage capacity calcu-
met from direct cooling will be less ing demand. The required nominal ca- lations are confirmed by the figures
than NCC*H2CR2 or NCC*H3CR3 if the pacity will be higher because the chiller shown in Table 1, which illustrate the
demand for direct cooling is less than the operates at less than nominal capacity. charging and discharging of storage
chillers capacity. In this case, the actual In order to achieve an average net capac- from no stored energy in hour 20 to a
capacity provided must be used. In short, ity of 2021 tons the average net capacity maximum of 7,647 ton-hours in hour 9.
care must be taken to keep track of the while charging (where the relative capac-
cooling loads and expected provision of ity is 0.8) will be less than 2021 while

5
The capacity and cost figures used in this section have not been rounded off so that the reader can more easily duplicate the calculations.

19
F E D E R A L E N E R G Y M A N A G E M E N T P R O G R A M

Table 1. Chiller and Storage Sizing Example

Load From Load From Charge to Storage


Utility Load, Chiller Storage Chiller, Storage, Storage, Balance,
Hour Period Ton-Hours Mode Mode Ton-Hours Ton-Hours Ton-Hours Ton-Hours
1 off-peak 1200 CH CH/DCH 0 1200 1911 1,957
2 off-peak 1100 CH CH/DCH 0 1100 1911 2,768
3 off-peak 1000 CH CH/DCH 0 1000 1911 3,679
4 off-peak 900 CH CH/DCH 0 900 1911 4,691
5 off-peak 800 CH CH/D CH 0 800 1911 5,802
6 off-peak 1000 CH CH/DCH 0 1000 1911 6,713
7 off-peak 1300 CH CH/DCH 0 1300 1911 7,325
8 off-peak 1600 CH CH/DCH 0 1600 1911 7,636
9 off-peak 1900 CH CH/DCH 0 1900 1911 7,647
10 off-peak 2200 DC DCH 2150 50 0 7,598
11 off-peak 2500 DC DCH 2150 350 0 7,248
12 off-peak 2800 DC DCH 2150 650 0 6,598
13 on-peak 3100 DC DCH 2150 950 0 5,648
14 on-peak 3300 DC DCH 2150 1150 0 4,499
15 on-peak 3500 DC DCH 2150 1350 0 3,149
16 on-peak 3300 DC DCH 2150 1150 0 1,999
17 on-peak 3100 DC DCH 2150 950 0 1,049
18 on-peak 2800 DC DCH 2150 650 0 400
19 off-peak 2500 DC DCH 2150 350 0 50
20 off-peak 2200 DC DCH 2150 50 0 0
21 off-peak 1900 CH CH/DCH 0 1900 1911 11
22 off-peak 1700 CH CH/DCH 0 1700 1911 223
23 off-peak 1500 CH CH/DCH 0 1500 1911 634
24 off-peak 1300 CH CH/DCH 0 1300 1911 1,245
Totals 48,500 23,653 24,847

CH = Charging
DCH = Discharging
DC = Direct Cooling

The nominal chiller capacity (2389 tons)


required for the storage system would
8000
probably be served by two 1195-ton
7000 units, with each unit costing $424,565
Ton-Hours of Cooling

6000 based on Equation 2. Assuming ice-on-


coil storage (at $70/ton-hour; see prior
5000
Cooling Load section on costs), the cost of the storage
4000 Chiller Output unit would be $535,290. Thus, the total
Storage Balance
3000 storage system cost would be $1,384,420.
A water chiller for a conventional system
2000
on-peak
would need to have an actual capacity
1000 of 3500 tons or a nominal capacity of
0 3888.9 tons (3500/0.9) to provide 3500
0 6 12 18 24 tons during the on-peak period. A total
Hour of the Day capacity of 3888.9 tons would probably

Figure 16. Chiller and storage sizing example.

20
F E D E R A L E N E R G Y M A N A G E M E N T P R O G R A M

require three 1296.3-ton units, with each For a typical monthly demand charge similar options or finalizing component
unit costing $455,663 according to Equa- of $10/kW, the 1186 kW demand reduc- sizing and system design specifications,
tion 2 for a total conventional chiller cost tion translates into savings of $11,860 for an evaluation based on hourly cooling
of $1,366,989. Thus, the initial capital the peak month. Calculation of demand loads for the full length of the cooling
cost of the storage system would be savings in other months requires addi- season is a requisite.
$17,431 more expensive than the con- tional assumptions or knowledge of
The results of the screening evaluation
ventional system. Differences in cooling the variation in peak cooling loads from
should determine which, if any, of the
tower costs should also be considered month to month, the type of demand
cool storage system alternatives is wor-
when refining the initial screening results. charge, and whether the partial storage
thy of further investigation. Unless the
system is operated in chiller priority or
The screening evaluation must also esti- least costly system also incurs the low-
storage priority mode. By definition, the
mate the reduction in electricity costs est electricity costs, the life-cycle cost of
peak cooling loads will be less during
associated with the cool storage system. each alternative should be calculated to
the other 11 months of the year. In addi-
Electricity costs can be reduced from a develop a ranking. Although the abso-
tion, the on-peak period often changes
reduction in demand charges and/or lute accuracy of the screening results is
and demand charges are often lower in
energy charges. The importance of relatively poor, the relative accuracy
the winter than in the summer. In short,
evaluating one or the other or both de- for comparative purposes is generally
the annual demand charge savings will
pends on the site-specific electric rate adequate thanks to the use of common
usually be considerably less than 12 times
structure. ground rules and assumptions. Still,
the peak monthly savings. Lacking
judgment must be applied regarding
The evaluation of demand charge sav- any better information, assuming that
what constitutes a significant difference
ings starts by estimating the reduction annual demand savings are equiva-
and how many alternatives should be
in on-peak demand when comparing lent to 8 months like the peak demand
carried forward.
conventional and storage cooling sys- month for partial storage systems and
tems. In the example, the peak cooling 6.5 months for full storage systems is
Refining the Evaluation
demand of 3500 tons would create a reasonable (ASHRAE 1993). Thus,
peak cooling system electric demand annual demand charge savings would A more detailed evaluation is required
of 3076 kW for a water chilling system be estimated at $94,880 ($11, 860 * 8) for to select the best system from those
[including the electrical demand of the the example cooling system. retained from the screening evaluation
chiller compressor, cooling water pumps and to prepare the final system design.
Clearly, these rules-of-thumb for esti- The most important refinement may be
and cooling tower fan (if water-cooled)
mating the annual demand charge sav- to develop better estimates of cooling
or condenser fan (if air-cooled)] with a
ings should only be applied for initial loads and ambient air conditions while
COP of 4.0. The cool storage system
screening purposes and not for the more operating the prospective cooling sys-
chillers need only provide 2150 tons of
refined analyses that follow. Even for the tems. The quality of the evaluation and
cooling during the on-peak period, so
initial screening, additional analysis of resulting design can be no better than
the electrical demand of its water chilling
cooling loads is required where the dif- the quality of the underlying cooling
system components would be 1890 kW
ferential between on-peak and off-peak load and weather data.
at a COP of 4.0 or a reduction of 1186 kW.6
energy charges is thought to be signifi-
Note that the peak electrical demand for Typical building load profiles, while
cant. At a minimum, the annual cooling
the chilled water pumps will be approxi- adequate for the screening evaluation,
load must be segregated into that occur-
mately the same for the two systems are not adequate for selecting the best
ring during peak and off-peak periods
and any difference can be ignored for system and preparing its design. Hourly
for each alternative cooling system. Sys-
the screening study. Differences in cooling load data allow much greater
tem COPs should be estimated for both
supply and return water tempera- accuracy, but may be difficult to obtain.
periods to determine kWh consumption
tures, flow rates, and pumping energy Metered chilled water production or
and the applicable energy charge applied
should be considered when refining chiller power input may be available
to estimate energy costs and the savings
the analysis for alternatives passing the in some cases. Alternatively, building
relative to the reference non-storage sys-
initial screening. energy simulation models could be
tem. For selecting the best system con-
figuration and operating strategy from used to estimate hourly cooling loads.

6
The peak electric demand for the cooling system usually coincides with the peak electric demand for the entire facility, but this is not neces-
sarily true. More generally, the peak electric demand for the alternative cooling systems should be compared for the hour creating the peak
billing demand.

21
F E D E R A L E N E R G Y M A N A G E M E N T P R O G R A M

Another option would be to repeat evaluation. The costs of all ancillary with a non-CFC refrigerant and install-
calculations used to determine hourly equipment (e.g., pumps, piping, valves, ing variable speed drives (VSDs). While
loads for the peak annual demand day heat exchangers) need to be estimated it was possible to simply change the
for the peak demand days in each of the and included in the economic evalua- refrigerant and installing the VSDs would
other 11 months. This will allow a more tion. Maintenance cost differences improve efficiency, replacement with
accurate assessment of demand charge should also be evaluated and incorpo- new, high-efficiency non-CFC chillers
reduction (remember that its not neces- rated into the analysis. was more cost-effective. At this point
sarily the peak cooling system demand in the project development process,
thats important, but the cooling system Case Study Duquesne Light Company, the serving
demand coincident with peak demand An internal-melt ice-on-coil thermal utility, encouraged the GSA to consider
at the utility metering point). Barring energy storage system was installed a cool storage system. By using cool stor-
the availability of metered or simulated at a GSA office building in Pittsburgh, age, the cooling capacity of the replace-
hourly load data, reasonable assumptions Pennsylvania, as part of a project ment chillers was reduced by nearly
will need to be made to estimate monthly upgrading the entire chilled water 40%, to two 600-ton units. The new
cooling loads and the portions occurring cooling system. Originally driven by chillers have a full load efficiency of
during on-peak and off-peak periods. the need to replace CFC refrigerants, 0.60 kW/ton at standard rating condi-
Accurate knowledge of hourly loads is the project eventually evolved to include tions and 0.75 kW/ton when operating
required where the difference between replacement of the chillers and cooling in the ice-making mode. Constraints on
on-peak and off-peak electricity energy tower and installation of the cool storage physical space dictated an ice storage
charges is important to the economic system and variable speed drives on system rather than chilled water; the ice
justification of the cool storage system. the chilled water and condenser water storage units were installed in a base-
pumps. The system was installed dur- ment space previously used for storage
The refined analysis needs to specifically
ing the winter of 1995-1996 and has and shops. Thirty-nine modular ice
consider how the cool storage system
been operating successfully since. storage units were installed with a total
will be integrated and operated with
capacity of 7410 ton-hours.
the rest of the cooling system and the
impact of integration details on perfor- Facility Description
Savings Potential
mance. Operation and control schemes The William S. Moorhead Federal
(e.g., chiller priority or storage priority) Building is a 23-story, 788,000 square Installation of the cool storage system
must be selected. Flow diagrams identi- foot structure constructed in 1963. reduced the size and cost of the new
fying the requisite piping, pumps, valves, Various Federal agencies occupy the chillers and also resulted in reduced
and heat exchangers must developed. building that is managed by the GSA. demand charges by minimizing chiller
System performance should be simu- Occupancy is concentrated on week- operation during the peak demand
lated for the design day at a minimum days from 8:00 a.m. till 5:00 p.m. with period. During a typical summer week-
or for entire year if possible. The simula- occasional usage during other hours. day, the ice storage system is charged
tion should evaluate supply and return from 6:00 p.m. until 6:00 a.m. the follow-
fluid temperatures while charging and Existing Technology Description ing morning. Storage is discharged from
discharging, supply air temperature noon until 4:00 p.m., the utilitys peak
The existing cooling system consisted of
to the conditioned space, and energy demand period, to minimize on-peak
two 990-ton centrifugal chillers with an
inputs to the cooling system. Special chiller operation in this partial storage
efficiency of about 0.90 kW/ton. Both
attention should be paid to the rise in type system. The chillers are operated
chillers used CFC-12 refrigerant and
storage discharge and supply air tem- as needed during the other hours of the
had a history of leaking. Two constant-
peratures as storage is discharged to day to directly meet the building cooling
speed 125 hp chilled water pumps
ensure the cooling load can be comfort- load. On relatively mild summer days
provided 2866 gpm at 125 feet of head.
ably met. The actual storage capacity and when cooling during late spring
The 75 hp condenser pumps provided
required will be greater than the theo- and early fall months, the chillers dont
2487 gpm at 80 feet of head. Heat rejec-
retical storage capacity by a margin that need to be run during the peak demand
tion was served by a single 1980 ton
varies depending on the storage technol- period at all. The lower chilled water
roof-mounted cooling tower.
ogy and discharge rate required when delivery temperature possible with an
the storage system is nearly discharged. ice storage system also makes it possible
New Technology Equipment
to consider the benefits of cold-air distri-
Vendor quotes should be obtained for Selection
bution in an anticipated future replace-
major equipment components if not Initial investigations examined the feasi- ment of the buildings airside systems.
already done for the initial screening bility of retrofitting the existing chillers

22
F E D E R A L E N E R G Y M A N A G E M E N T P R O G R A M

Life-Cycle Cost things should have been done up front, Recognition of these constraints sug-
The project cost $1.6 million, which but we didnt have enough money, gests that Federal energy managers
included removal and replacement of said Jerry. Jerry would also like to have may need to lean toward selection of
existing chillers and cooling towers, the more storage capacity, but they were relatively simple cool storage systems
cool storage system, plus pumps, heat short on space as well as money. In that are easier to design and operate, but
exchangers, and other miscellaneous summary, Jerry notes, We were all should ensure that facility staff are prop-
minor equipment. Monthly savings skeptical at first, but its been proven erly trained on the operation and main-
were estimated to range from $60,000 and is working fine. tenance of cool storage systems.
to $80,000 in the feasibility study, which
was based on a simulation of building The Technology in Perspective The Technologys Development
loads and equipment performance. Cool storage technologies of one type or Cool storage is not a new concept; in
Actual total energy use has been higher another have been successfully applied fact, its first use came in the 1940s
than expected, but building use and in several thousand locations to reduce shortly after the development of vapor
cooling loads have also increased from energy costs, reduce chiller capacity and compression cooling systems (Knebel
that assumed in the feasibility study, so cost, and save energy. Relatively few of 1995; Hasnain 1998). Early usage was
the savings estimate may still be valid. these applications have been in the Fed- focused on applications with excep-
Life-cycle cost savings were calculated eral sector, however. This is unfortunate, tionally high ratios of peak to average
to be $10,447,177 using QuickBLCC. The because Federal facilities tend to have cooling demand, such as in theaters,
results of the QuickBLCC calculation are several characteristics that should make churches, arenas, and dairies. Ice-on-coil
presented in detail in Appendix B. BLCC, cool storage generally more attractive storage systems were often used with
the Building Life-Cycle Cost Software than in other sectors. These characteris- the principal motivation being to reduce
developed by NIST, is described in tics include: chiller size. As cooling systems spread to
Appendix A. other building space cooling applications
Relatively large cooling systems that
in the 60s and 70s, cool storage was not
can take advantage of storage system
Implementation and Post- economies-of-scale.
often used, resulting in significant elec-
Implementation Experience tric load growth concentrated during
The major components of the new cool- A preponderance of chilled water the daytime hours of summer. The sub-
ing plant (chillers, cooling tower, and cooling systems that are generally sequent low utilization of power gener-
ice storage units) were installed first, easier to integrate with cool storage ating and delivery assets caused utilities
followed by piping, pump, and control than cooling systems served by to offer various incentives promoting
revisions. A new electronic control sys- direct-expansion equipment. cool storage as well as other demand
tem replaced the old pneumatic system management technologies. The result
Rate structures characterized by high
to enhance energy savings and improve was a second wave of cool storage
demand charges and/or large varia-
zone comfort. After installation, the new development and use. The develop-
tion in hourly energy charges.
system was subject to a commissioning ment of effective water stratification
Older equipment that needs technologies made chilled water stor-
procedure by the GSA. According to
replacement. age more popular. Ice-on-coil technol-
Jerry Bower, Maintenance and Opera-
tions Foreman, the system has generally On the other hand, Federal facilities often ogy improved through the development
worked well. They have been able to of non-metal coils and packaged sys-
suffer from the following conditions that
keep the building just as cool as the old tems. Eutectic salt and encapsulated ice
tend to make cool storage less attractive:
system, despite having downsized the storage systems were developed to pro-
Lack of operation and maintenance vide latent heat storage alternatives to
chillers by 40%. During peak cooling
experience with refrigeration ice-on-coil and ice-harvesting technolo-
periods, the two chillers operate while
equipment used in some cool stor- gies. More recent developments include
the storage system discharges. The sys-
age systems. ice slurry generators and chilled water
tem acts like three 600-ton units, says
Jerry. They have experienced a few Lack of training on operating and systems employing additives to decrease
minor problems. The first control sys- control strategies for minimizing the minimum storage temperature in
tem was not Y2K compliant, so had to cooling system life-cycle costs. chilled water storage systems.
be upgraded. Other component up-
Limited resources for engineering Technology Outlook
grades (e.g., valves, pumps) have also
feasibility studies and system design.
been implemented over time. These Cool storage technology is approxi-
mately 50 years old, but innovations

23
F E D E R A L E N E R G Y M A N A G E M E N T P R O G R A M

continue as indicated by the recent Applied Thermal Technologies Chester-Jensen Company, Inc.
developments described above. Prod- Hydro-Miser Division P.O. Box 908
uct innovation is driven by a competi- 906-B Boardwalk Chester, PA 19016
tive market (see manufacturers list) and San Marcos, CA 92069 Contact: Steve Miller
changing economic conditions. Deregu- Phone: 760-744-5031 Phone: 610-876-6276
lation of the electric utility industry has Fax: 760-744-5031 Fax: 610-876-0485
reduced or eliminated many demand Principal TES Product: chiller integrated Principal TES Product: external-melt,
side management programs. As a result, with external-melt, ice-on-coil storage ice-on-coil storage
utility incentives for cool storage are not
Baltimore Aircoil Company Chicago Bridge and Iron Company
as common or generous as they were in
7595 Montivides Road 601 W. 143rd Street, P.O. Box 9
the past. On the other hand, deregula-
Jessup, MD 20794 Plainfield, IL 60544-0009
tion seems likely to spur electricity pric-
Phone: 410-799-6200 Contact: Rich Horn
ing structures (e.g., real-time pricing)
Fax: 410-799-6416 Phone: 815439-3100
that will enhance the need for load-
Principal TES Products: chiller integrated Fax: 815-439-3130
control technologies such as cool stor-
with internal-melt, ice-on-coil storage www.chicago-bridge.com
age. On net, the financial benefits of
for rooftop HVAC retrofit; external-melt, Principal TES Product: chilled water
shifting load to off-peak hours are still
ice-on-coil storage; ice-on-coil tube bundles storage tank
very important, but greater emphasis
is being placed on system designs that Berg Chilling Systems, Inc. Cristopia Energy Systems
reduce chiller size and cost and/or 51 Nantucket Blvd. 165 Via Catarina
improve building system efficiency. Toronto, ON, Canada M1P 2N5 San Dimas,CA 91773
Contact: Walter Langille Contact: Moudood A. Aslam
Manufacturers Phone: 416-755-2221 Phone: 909-305-0463
Cool storage system manufacturers were Fax: 416-755-3874 Fax: 909-305-0463
identified by combining lists from prod- www.berg-group.com Principal TES Product: eutectic salt latent
uct directories published by Thomas Principal TES Product: chiller integrated heat storage systems
Register, Energy Products, Heating/ with ice harvester
Cryogel
Piping/Air-Conditioning, Energy User Caldwell Energy and Environmental, Inc. P.O. Box 910525
News, Consulting-Specifying Engineer, 4000 Tower Road San Diego, CA 92191
International Thermal Storage Advisory Louisville, KY 40219 Contact: Bruce McDavid
Council, E-Source, and the International Contact: Drew Wozniak Phone: 619-792-9003
District Energy Association. We also con- Phone: 502-964-6450 Fax: 619-792-2743
ducted searches of Internet web sites Fax: 502-966-8732 Principal TES Product: encapsulated
and library databases. Each manufac- Principal TES Products: chiller integrated water/ice storage balls
turer was contacted to determine the with ice harvester; chilled water or ice/
type of cool storage equipment offered Dunham-Bush
water storage tanks; external-melt, ice-
and its characteristics. 101 Burgess Road
on-coil storage
Harrisonburg, VA 22801
Despite our efforts, it is practically impos- Calmac Manufacturing Corporation Contact: Nathan Hathaway
sible to ensure that all manufacturers of 101 West Sheffield Ave. Phone: 540-434-0711
cool storage equipment have been iden- P.O. Box 710 Fax: 540-434-4595
tified. To those, we extend our apologies. Englewood, NJ 07631-0710 www.dunham-bush.com
This list is provided as a service for Contact: Roy Nathan Principal TES Product: chiller integrated
those interested in obtaining informa- Phone: 201-569-0420 with internal-melt, ice-on-coil storage
tion on specific cool storage products. Fax: 201-569-7593
No endorsement or other judgment Evapco, Inc.
www.calmac.com
regarding qualification of any manufac- P.O. Box 1300
Principal TES Products: internal-melt,
turer listed is given or implied. Westminster, MD 21158-0399
ice-on-coil storage; internal-melt, ice-on-
Contact: Craig Goralski
coil storage for rooftop HVAC retrofit
Phone: 410-756-2600
Fax: 410-756-6450
Principal TES Product: external-melt
ice-on-coil storage

24
F E D E R A L E N E R G Y M A N A G E M E N T P R O G R A M

FAFCO, Inc. Natgun Corporation Tampa Tank, Inc.


2690 Middlefield Road Contact: Chris Hodgson 5205 Adamo Drive
Redwood City, CA 94063-3455 Phone: 800-662-8486 Tampa, FL 33619
Contact: Tyler Bradshaw Principal TES Product: chilled water Contact: Jim Daniels
Phone: 650-363-2752 storage tank Phone: 813-623-2675
Fax: 650-363-8423 Fax: 813-626-1641
North Star Ice Equipment Corporation
www.fafco.com www.tampatank.com
P.O. Box 80227
Principal TES Product: internal-melt, Principal TES Product: chilled water
Seattle, WA 98108-0227
ice-on-coil storage storage tank
Phone: 800-959-0875
Girton Manufacturing Company, Inc. Fax: 206-763-7323 Thermal Technologies, Inc.
P.O Box 900 TR Principal TES Product: chiller integrated 1827 Wehrli Road, Suite 105
Millville, PA 17846-0900 with ice harvester Naperville, IL 60565
Contact: Rich Puterbaugh Contact: John Andrepont
Pitt-DesMoines, Inc.
Phone: 570-458-5521 Phone: 630-357-2666
3400 Grand Ave.
Fax: 570-458-5589 Fax: 630-527-2349
Pittsburgh, PA 15225
Principal TES Product: chiller integrated Principal TES Product: chilled water
Contact: Gary Wildman
with external-melt, ice-on-coil storage; storage tank with chemical additives to
Phone: 412-331-3000
external-melt, ice-on-coil storage allow lower temperature storage
Fax: 412-331-3188
Integrated Ice Systems Inc. Principal TES Product: chilled water Trane Company
Woodinville, WA storage tank 3600 Pammel Creek Road
Contact: R.A. Roland La Crosse, WI 54601
Preload, Inc.
Phone: 425-488-1877 Phone: 608-787-2000
5710 LBJ Freeway, Suite 140
Principal TES Product: chiller integrated www.trane.com
Dallas, TX 75240
with internal-melt, ice-on-coil storage Principal TES Product: internal-melt,
Contact: Bill Devitt
ice-on-coil storage
Matrix Service, Inc. Phone: 972-385-0550
San Luis Tank Division Fax: 972-385-0557 Waffle-Crete International, Inc.
825 26th Street, P.O. Box 245 www.preload.com 2500 East 9th Street Road, P.O. Box 1008
Paso Robles, CA 93447-0245 Principal TES Product: chilled water Hays, KS 67601
Contact: Lorin Todd storage tank Contact: Linda McLain
Phone: 805-238-0888 Phone: 785-625-3486
Powell Energy Products, Inc.
Fax: 805-238-2724 Fax: 785-625-8542
3041 Home Road, P.O Box 203
Principal TES Product: chilled water www.waffle-crete.com
Powell, OH 43065-0203
storage tank Principal TES Product: chilled water
Contact: Michael McRell
storage tank
Morris and Associates Phone: 614-881-5596
P.O. Box 1046 Fax: 614-881-5989
Raleigh, NC 27602 Principal TES Product: internal-melt, ice-
Who is Using the Technology
Contact: Dan Caswell on-coil storage for rooftop HVAC retrofit Thousands of cool storage systems have
Phone: 919-779-1250 been installed in the United States. A
Sunwell Technologies, Inc. survey conducted for ASHRAE resulted
Fax: 919-779-3466
180 Caster Ave. in an estimated population of 15002000
Principal TES Product: chiller integrated
Woodbridge, ON, Canada L4L 5Y7 systems in the early 1990s (Potter 1994).
with ice harvester
Contact: Jamie-Lee Wilson The vast majority of these systems have
Paul Mueller Company Phone: 905-856-0400 been installed in non-Federal facilities.
1600 W. Phelps, P.O. Box 828 Fax: 905-856-1935 Applications cover a wide range of
Springfield, MO 65801-0828 www.sunwell.com facility types, but most commonly are
Contact: Duke Gault Principal TES Product: ice slurry generator offices, schools, retail stores, places of
Phone: 417-831-3000 worship, refrigerated food storage facili-
Fax: 417-862-9008 ties, and hospitals.
www.muel.com
Principal TES Product: ice slurry generator

25
F E D E R A L E N E R G Y M A N A G E M E N T P R O G R A M

Between 80% and 85% of the systems For Further Information Study of Operational Experience with
installed use one of the several kinds of Thermal Storage Systems
ice storage. Another 1015% use chilled Associations American Society of Heating, Refrigera-
water storage, with eutectic salt systems Air Conditioning and Refrigeration tion, and Air Conditioning Engineers
representing about 5% of the systems in Institute 1791 Tullie Circle
the survey conducted by Potter (1994). 4301 North Fairfax Drive, Suite 425 Atlanta, Georgia 30329
Based on data collected from cool stor- Arlington, VA 22203
age equipment manufacturers for this Successful Cool Storage Projects: From
Phone: 703-524-8800
FTA, only about 1% of the systems Planning to Operation
Fax: 703-528-3816
have been installed at Federal facilities. American Society of Heating, Refrigera-
www.ari.org
Selected Federal sites using cool storage tion, and Air Conditioning Engineers
systems are identified below. American Society of Heating, 1791 Tullie Circle
Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Atlanta, Georgia 30329
Moorhead Federal Building Engineers
1000 Liberty Avenue Source Energy and Environmental Impacts
1791 Tullie Circle
Pittsburgh, PA 15222 of Thermal Energy Storage
Atlanta, GA 30329
Jerry Bower, Maintenance and California Energy Commission
Phone: 404-636-8400
Operations Foreman 1516 Ninth Street
Fax: 404-321-5478
412-395-5436 Sacramento, CA 95814-5504
www.ashrae.org
Ralph H. Johnson VA Medical Center Commercial Space Cooling and Air
Electric Power Research Institute
Charleston, SC Handling Technology Atlas Cool Thermal
3412 Hillview Avenue, P.O. Box 10412
Jim Brennen, Energy Manager Storage Chapter
Palo Alto, CA 94303
843-577-5011 ext. 7229 E SOURCE, Inc.
Phone: (650) 855-2000
4755 Walnut Street
Dallas VA Medical Center Fax: (650) 855-2263
Boulder, Colorado 80301-2537
4500 S. Lancaster Road www.epri.com
Dallas, TX 75216 HVAC&R Center References
Larry Stevenson, Energy Manager 150 East Gilman Street, Suite 2200 Ahlgren, R.M. 1987. Water Treatment
214-372-7020 Madison, WI 53703 Technologies for Thermal Storage
Brookhaven National Laboratory Phone: 800-858-3774 Systems. EPRI EM-5545. Electric Power
Building 134 C Fax: 608-262-6209 Research Institute. Palo Alto, California.
Upton, NY 11973 www.engr.wisc.edu/centers/tsarc/
tsarc.html ASHRAE. 1997. ASHRAE Handbook
Mark Toscana, Energy Manager Fundamentals . American Society of
516-344-2599 International District Energy Association Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Condi-
Sandia National Laboratories 1200 19th Street, N.W. Suite 300 tioning Engineers. Atlanta, Georgia.
Albuquerque, NM Washington, D.C. 20036-2412
Phone 202-429-5111 ASHRAE. 1993. Design Guide for Cool
Gerald Savage, Construction
Fax: 202-429-5113 Thermal Storage. American Society of
Management Engineer
www.energy.rochester.edu/idea/ Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Condi-
505-844-9403 tioning Engineers. Atlanta, Georgia.
U.S. Army Reserve Center Design and Installation Guides Bahnfleth, W.P. and W.S. Joyce. 1995.
9825 Garden Road
Design Guide for Cool Thermal Storage Stratified Storage Economically
Monclova, OH 43542
American Society of Heating, Refrigera- Increases Capacity and Efficiency
Gary Smith, Facility Manager
tion, and Air Conditioning Engineers of Campus Chilled Water System.
419-868-3921 ext. 109
1791 Tullie Circle ASHRAE Journal (March, 1995).
Atlanta, Georgia 30329 Caldwell, J.S. and W.P. Bahnbleth. 1997.
Chilled Water Thermal Energy Storage
without Electric Rate Incentives or
Rebates. Journal of Architectural
Engineering (September, 1997).

26
F E D E R A L E N E R G Y M A N A G E M E N T P R O G R A M

Cahners Business Information. 1999. Hasnain, S.M. 1998. Review on Sustain- Potter, R.A. 1994. Study of the Operational
Energy User News. Vol. 24, No. 5. able Thermal Energy Storage Technolo- Experience with Thermal Storage Systems.
gies, Part II: Cool Thermal Storage. Energy ASHRAE Research Project 766. American
Cahners Business Information. 1999b.
Conversion Management. Vol. 39, No. 11. Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air
Energy User News. Vol. 24, No. 8.
Conditioning Engineers. Atlanta, Georgia.
Knebel, D.E. 1995. Current Trends in
Duffy, G. 1992. Thermal Storage
Thermal Storage. Engineered Systems Sohn, C.W. and G.L. Cler. 1990. Assess-
Emphasis Shifts to Saving Energy.
(January, 1995). ment of Market Potential in Storage
Engineered Systems (July/August, 1992).
Cooling Systems for Army Facilities.
MacCracken, C.D. 1993. Off-peak air
Electric Power Research Institute. 1992. ASHRAE Transactions, Vol. 96, Part 1.
conditioning: A major energy saver.
Water-Thermal Energy Storage Fact Sheet.
ASHRAE Journal (May 1993). Strutz, M.J. 1995. Chilled water storage:
Palo Alto, California.
Its more than just shedding peaks.
MacCracken, C.D. 1994. Cold Air
E Source, Inc. 1998. Commercial Space Proceedings, 86th Annual Conference
Systems: Sleeping Giant. Heating/
Cooling and Air Handling Technology of the International District Energy
Piping/Air Conditioning (April 1994).
Atlas; Cool Thermal Storage Chapter. Association. Washington, D.C.
Boulder, Colorado. Means, R.S. Company. 1999. Mechanical
Cost Data 1999. Kingston, Massachusetts.

27
F E D E R A L E N E R G Y M A N A G E M E N T P R O G R A M

Appendixes
Appendix A: Federal Life-Cycle Costing Procedures and the BLCC Software

Appendix B: QuickBLCC Results for Case Study

29
F E D E R A L E N E R G Y M A N A G E M E N T P R O G R A M

Appendix A
Federal Life-Cycle Costing Procedures and the BLCC Software
Federal agencies are required to evaluate energy-related investments on the basis of minimum life-cycle costs (10 CFR Part 436).
A life-cycle cost evaluation computes the total long-run costs of a number of potential actions, and selects the action that mini-
mizes the long-run costs. When considering retrofits, sticking with the existing equipment is one potential action, often called the
baseline condition. The life-cycle cost (LCC) of a potential investment is the present value of all of the costs associated with the
investment over time.
The first step in calculating the LCC is the identification of the costs. Installed Cost includes cost of materials purchased and the
labor required to install them (for example, the price of an energy-efficient lighting fixture, plus cost of labor to install it).
Energy Cost includes annual expenditures on energy to operate equipment. (For example, a lighting fixture that draws 100 watts
and operates 2,000 hours annually requires 200,000 watt-hours (200 kWh) annually. At an electricity price of $0.10 per kWh,
this fixture has an annual energy cost of $20.) Nonfuel Operations and Maintenance includes annual expenditures on parts and
activities required to operate equipment (for example, replacing burned out light bulbs). Replacement Costs include expenditures
to replace equipment upon failure (for example, replacing an oil furnace when it is no longer usable).
Because LCC includes the cost of money, periodic and aperiodic maintenance (O&M) and equipment replacement costs,
energy escalation rates, and salvage value, it is usually expressed as a present value, which is evaluated by

LCC = PV(IC) + PV(EC) + PV(OM) + PV(REP)


where PV(x) denotes present value of cost stream x,
IC is the installed cost,
EC is the annual energy cost,
OM is the annual nonenergy O&M cost, and
REP is the future replacement cost.
Net present value (NPV) is the difference between the LCCs of two investment alternatives, e.g., the LCC of an energy-saving
or energy-cost-reducing alternative and the LCC of the existing, or baseline, equipment. If the alternatives LCC is less than the
baselines LCC, the alternative is said to have a positive NPV, i.e., it is cost-effective. NPV is thus given by

NPV = PV(EC0) PV(EC1)) + PV(OM0) PV(OM1)) + PV(REP0) PV(REP1)) PV(IC)

or
NPV = PV(ECS) + PV(OMS) + PV(REPS) PV(IC)
where subscript 0 denotes the existing or baseline condition,
subscript 1 denotes the energy cost saving measure,
IC is the installation cost of the alternative (note that the IC of the baseline is assumed zero),
ECS is the annual energy cost savings,
OMS is the annual nonenergy O&M savings, and
REPS is the future replacement savings.

Levelized energy cost (LEC) is the break-even energy price (blended) at which a conservation, efficiency, renewable, or fuel-
switching measure becomes cost-effective (NPV >= 0). Thus, a projects LEC is given by

PV(LEC*EUS) = PV(OMS) + PV(REPS) PV(IC)

where EUS is the annual energy use savings (energy units/yr). Savings-to-investment ratio (SIR) is the total (PV) savings of a mea-
sure divided by its installation cost:

SIR = (PV(ECS) + PV(OMS) + PV(REPS))/PV(IC).

Some of the tedious effort of life-cycle cost calculations can be avoided by using the Building Life-Cycle Cost software, BLCC,
developed by NIST. For copies of BLCC, call the FEMP Help Desk at (800) 363-3732.

31
F E D E R A L E N E R G Y M A N A G E M E N T P R O G R A M

Appendix B
QuickBLCC Results for Case Study

QuickBLCC (QBLCC 2.7-00) 06-30-2000/11:38:42


QBLCC filename = COOLSTOR.QI
Analysis type = Federal AnalysisEnergy Conservation Projects
Project name = Cool Storage Case Study
Base date of study = 2000
Service date = 2000
Study period = 20 years
Discount rate = 3.4%
Annually recurring costs and energy costs discounted from end of year.

Number of alternatives in file = 2


Number of groups in file = 1

Note: Project alternatives displayed in increasing order of investment cost

Group code: Present-Value Costs


Alternative Investment OM&R Energy Total Life-
Name Costs* Costs Costs Cycle Costs
Conventional $0 $12047177 $0 $12047177
Cool Storage $1600000 $0 $0 $1600000<MIN LCC

Comparative measures are only calculated for the alternative with lowest
LCC relative to alternative with the lowest present-value investment cost.

Comparative economic measures for Cool Storage relative to Conventional:


NET SAVINGS = $10447177; SIR = 7.53; AIRR = 14.38%
Ratio of present-value energy savings to total savings = 0.00

* Investment costs include capital replacements (if any).


Residual values are not calculated.

32
F E D E R A L E N E R G Y M A N A G E M E N T P R O G R A M

About FEMPs New Technology Demonstration Program


The Energy Policy Act of 1992, and sub- Technology Installation Reviews tests; a description of its performance,
sequent Executive Orders, mandate that concise reports describing a new tech- applications and field experience to date;
energy consumption in Federal build- nology and providing case study results, a list of manufacturers; and important
ings be reduced by 35% from 1985 levels typically from another demonstration contact information. Attached appen-
by the year 2010. To achieve this goal, program or pilot project. dixes provide supplemental informa-
the U.S. Department of Energys Federal tion and example worksheets on the
Technology Focusesbrief information
Energy Management Program (FEMP) technology.
on new, energy-efficient, environmen-
is sponsoring a series of programs to
tally friendly technologies of potential FEMP sponsors publication of the FTAs
reduce energy consumption at Federal
interest to the Federal sector. to facilitate information-sharing between
installations nationwide. One of these
manufacturers and government staff.
programs, the New Technology Demon-
stration Program (NTDP), is tasked to
More on FTAs While the technology featured promises
Federal Technology Alerts, our signature significant Federal-sector savings, the
accelerate the introduction of energy-
reports, provide summary information FTAs do not constitute FEMPs endorse-
efficient and renewable technologies
on candidate energy-saving technolo- ment of a particular product, as FEMP
into the Federal sector and to improve
gies developed and manufactured in the has not independently verified perfor-
the rate of technology transfer.
United States. The technologies featured mance data provided by manufacturers.
As part of this effort FEMP is sponsor- in the FTAs have already entered the Nor do the FTAs attempt to chart market
ing a series of publications that are market and have some experience but are activity vis-a-vis the technology featured.
designed to disemminate information not in general use in the Federal sector. Readers should note the publication date
on new and emerging technologies. on the back cover, and consider the FTAs
New Technology Demonstration The goal of the FTAs is to improve the as an accurate picture of the technology
Program publications comprise three rate of technology transfer of new and its performance at the time of publi-
separate series: energy-saving technologies within the cation. Product innovations and the
Federal sector and to provide the right entrance of new manufacturers or sup-
Federal Technology Alertslonger people in the field with accurate, up-to- pliers should be anticipated since the
summary reports that provide details date information on the new technolo- date of publication. FEMP encourages
on energy-efficient, water-conserving, gies so that they can make educated interested Federal energy and facility
and renewable-energy technologies judgments on whether the technologies managers to contact the manufacturers
that have been selected for further are suitable for their Federal sites. and other Federal sites directly, and to
study for possible implementation in
The information in the FTAs typically use the worksheets in the FTAs to aid
the Federal sector. Additional informa-
includes a description of the candidate in their purchasing decisions.
tion on Federal Technology Alerts (FTAs)
is provided in the next column. technology; the results of its screening

Federal Energy Management Program


The Federal Government is the largest energy consumer in the nation. Annually, in its 500,000 buildings and 8,000 loca-
tions worldwide, it uses nearly two quadrillion Btu (quads) of energy, costing over $8 billion. This represents 2.5% of all
primary energy consumption in the United States. The Federal Energy Management Program was established in 1974 to
provide direction, guidance, and assistance to Federal agencies in planning and implementing energy management pro-
grams that will improve the energy efficiency and fuel flexibility of the Federal infrastructure.
Over the years several Federal laws and Executive Orders have shaped FEMP's mission. These include the Energy Policy
and Conservation Act of 1975; the National Energy Conservation and Policy Act of 1978; the Federal Energy Management
Improvement Act of 1988; and, most recently, Executive Order 12759 in 1991, the National Energy Policy Act of 1992
(EPACT), Executive Order 12902 in 1994, and Executive Order 13123 in 1999.
FEMP is currently involved in a wide range of energy-assessment activities, including conducting New Technology
Demonstrations, to hasten the penetration of energy-efficient technologies into the Federal marketplace.