I am interested if anyone could lead me to an analysis of capital and operating cost comparison of air cooled

vs. water cooled chillers. Further to that point, screw vs. helical, or other types of compressors.

water has big advantage from the thermodynamic point of view.When cooling water is available at low cost,I
would prefer water cooled chillers.Of course it depends on the climatic conditions your plant is situated to give
qualified advice concerning the most economical way.
For compressors it depends on the size of the chillers. But screw compressors have only two moving parts and
handle large mass flows of refrigerant.Maintenancewise they have advantages compared to piston type
compressors.
Hope this helps

Thanks for the input. For more details, if we are in a moderate climate, with design temp about 75F and
chiller size about 400T (each with multiple chillers needed for capacity), can you give me some more
comment?.

Thanks again.
Installation cost of air cooled condenser includes a condenser (generally bigger size than water cooled, so
more cost) and a fan. Incase of water cooled condenser, you have to have condenser, cooling tower, pump
and piping system. Insvestment on water cooled condenser is higher.But chillers have better efficiency at lower
temperatures of cooling water. So overall advantage, though water cooled system seems to consume more
power, is for water cooled systems.

For compressors you have to check specific power consumption (i.e kW/TR). Centrifugal chillers have stepless
control for load variations. Screws come next and reciprocating chillers are worst in this case. Centrifugal
chillers have better efficiency at part load conditions when compared to others.

What is this system used for? Airconditioning?

The chillers are primarily used for air conditioning, but there is also some process cooling that is
used. Environmental temperature and humidity are necessary for process control. Our 'typical' installation
would be about 1200t of refrigeration required and we have exclusively used air cooled units.

As you said, the water cooled systems have higher initial capital but is attractive from an energy point of
view. Some of our more 'experienced engineers' i.e., the boss, says the advantages of water cooling drop off
dramatically due to maintenance costs, water costs, chemical treatment, and a general drop off of efficiency.

Your boss does have a point. It depends upon the water quality. There is also an increase in labour cost to
operate extra equipment. But from a process stand point of view water cooled condenser would give you less
headache. Generally wet bulb temperatures do not vary as high as dry bulb temperatures. In summer
condition the efficiency of entire system drops down and it all depends upon how stringent your room
condition requirement is.
Consider that an air cooled condenser is also not maintenance free. Of course you need water treatment if
recirculated water and cooling tower is used.Thats why I mentioned low cost cooling water like river water or
well water in once through condensors.

What are the advantages of Water cooled chillers over air cooled chillers ?
KW/ton is the chief advantage. But I have become acutely aware in recent years of how expensive
maintaining cooling towers is. There is no such thing as "free cooling".
The primary advantage of water is that the film coefficient is 10-100 times better with water than air.

Film coefficient controls heat transfer given constant area and delta t.
As a general rule, water-cooled units make less noise, offer more cooling per square foot, and depending upon
environment, usually require a little less routine maintenance....which is always good
The NESLAB specialists in the UK

http://www.weekstechnic.com/index.htm

Size is also a consideration, smaller units are usually air cooled, larger are water cooled.
Do you have good quality water available ? Does it cost money to get water ? In many parts of the world,
water is a scarce commodity.

When you compare air and water cooled chilles, an overall system cost (both running and installed) has to be
worked out. Also, the type of application, the ambient conditions (wet bulb and dry bulb), number of hours of
operation, part load pattern, cost of maintenance, etc., play a role in this decision.

There is no single answer to this question - Water-cooled is better or air-cooled is better. It depends.
Water-cooled chillers will normally condense at an average lower pressure than air-cooled chillers. This is
because the water temperature will usually be less than the air temperature. Unless a condenser is a one pass
through water source, which is rare these days with the cost of water, the water temperature will be at or
close to the wet-bulb temperature which is always at or below the dry-bulb temperature. Lower condensing
pressures translate into lower operating costs (or kW/TR as mentioned by RossABQ. willard3 is correct that
the film coefficient is greater for water-cooled units however the ultimate advantage is the lower condensing
temperature which is not a function of the film coefficient but of the temperature of the heat sink. The
difference between the wet-bulb temperature and the dry-bulb temperature gives the available difference
between the condensing temperatures of water-cooled and air-cooled condensers respectively.

I would disagree with NESLABman that water-cooled units require less maintenance. Maintenance and water
treatment costs are the main disadvantage of the cooling towers and/or evaporative condensers.

There are a few locations (usually coastal climates) where the difference between the wet-bulb temperature
and the dry-bulb temperature does not offset the required pumping costs for cooling towers.

krb's statement is true in my experience. Small systems are almost always air-cooled since the extra
requirements of water treatment and maintenance are capital intensive and will not be offset quickly by the
lower operating costs. Larger systems are almost always water-cooled at least in my industrial experience.
You'd be astounded how large of an air-cooled system some of our clients will install to avoid the additional
maintenance costs of an evaporative cooling tower.

The night time dry bulb temperature are generally much lower than the day time dry bulb temperature, as
compared to the difference in wet bulb temperature between day and night. This advantge is best capitalised
by an air-cooled system.

Other instances could be where the wet bulb temperatures are very high, especially coastal areas.

Water scarcity and hence cost of water is another issue which is a point to be considered while deciding on the
system. This happens in many countries - not necessarily in the US or the European countries.

If you have the potential for dirty water, then why are you considering a chilled water system? If that is such
a problem, DX will work.
And the chilled water lines are sealed anyway, you always treat the water on installation, so again, why is the
cost /quality of water a problem in less than ideal situation?

Common sense should be the deciding factor on the chiller selection. Air cooled are smaller and noisy,
neighbors don't like then on ice make mode. water cooled are quiter and more costly to install maintain.

The cost/quality of the water is an issue due to the water that is lost in an evaporative cooling tower. The
chilled water lines are sealed and treated, condenser water is lost to evaporation and exposed to the outdoors.
What is criteria for sizing pipes for chilled water?
What speed (m/s) and unit pressure drop (Pa/m) are recommended?

ChrisConley - regarding the Evapco "Pulse-Pure" - I could be wrong, but it sure looks & sounds like all of the
other water treatment chemical-eliminating snake oil gadgets that hit the market every couple of years for the
last 20 or so. There was another big HVAC equipment maker that had a similar device on the market a few
years ago. I haven't heard or seen anything on it for a while. I suspect it was quietly dropped from their
product line.

I dunno, maybe this one works. I'd let somebody else try it for couple of years first, though.
Believe it or not! We have a home with a 7.5 ton 1954 Carrier water chilled tower and a Raypak boiler. At the
age of 53 years, should I consider a DX system? Carrier still makes this type of unit and I can simply replace it
and the water tower. The operating costs seem to be more favorable than a DX system. It admittedly takes
more maintenance than a DX system. I also have 3-phase electric service, another preceived advantage. Any
suggestions?

Where do you live (affects WB temperature distribution)? What is the minimum condensing temperature for
the water cooled unit? What is the minimum condensing temperature for the DX system? There are BIN
analyzers for refrigeration (and A/C) equipment that can tell you what the difference in energy usage will
be. Don't forget that you need to take into account water pumping costs and water treatment costs. If it
lasted 53 years then I guess the water can't be that bad. There are some fiberglass cooling towers available
now that may be better. Yours is the first residence that I have heard of with a cooling tower.

Not sure of how to figure the minimum condensing temperature. Typically, here Dallas, Texas experiences a
great many summer days in the 90-100 degree range, and we keep the thermostat at 78 during the day while
we are away, and lower it to 75 in the evenings, and 74 at night. It can get uncomforably cool if we go much
lower. The duct outlet temperature when in cooling mode can give be 40 degrees cooler than the outside air.

The cooling tower is located in a shady spot on the North side of the house. It uses a 1/2 hp single phase
recirculating pump, and a 1 1/2 hp 3 phase for the squirrel cage blower. I plan to replace it with one of the
newer fiberglass cooling toweres you mentioned, so the water and energy costs are reasonable for cooling a
3900 SF residence.

My dilemma is whether or not to replace the water cooled equipment or junk it and put in DX equipmnet taking
into consideration operating costs and comfort. Eithr system will be in the $14-16,000 price range, which is
why I am so concerned about making the right decision.

See my post in "residential water-cooled air conditioning", part of which I have copied below.

If you want to actually calculate how much water (evaporative) cooled air conditioners will save you compared
to air-cooled systems you can download the Carlyle (a division of Carrier) compressor rating software
at http://www.carlylecompressor.com/corp/details/0,,CLI1_DIV24_ETI1240,00.html
In this software there is a BIN analyzer which allows you to specify the degree of approach of the condensing
temperature to the heat sink temperature. The heat sink is selectable as either dry-bulb (air) temperature or
the wet-bulb temperature. You also put in the minimum condensing temperature (to take care of the problem
of the TEV minimum condensing temperature). Select the location (or the location with a similar climate) and
the system will go through the weather data hour by hour and calculate the energy used. The compressors
that they have are more small commercial compressors but the COP's or EER's are basically the same as
residential. After you do this then you need to add the additional water pumping energy, water treatment
energy, and water usage energy to the energy used by a water-cooled air conditioner.