Thermal Energy Storage (TES) at the

Univ of Illinois Urbana-Champaign:

providing capacity and reliability,
while creating millions in NPV
John S. Andrepont, President
The Cool Solutions Company
Kent V. Reifsteck, Dir of Engineering - Facilities & Services
The University of Illinois
IDEA Campus Energy Conference - Arlington, VA - Feb 2012

Outline
The UIUC campus situation & growth
District Cooling (DC) options considered
The chosen solution: CHW TES
Siting, configuration, and specifications
Interface with the balance of the DC system
Capital costs, projected operating savings, NPV
Performance results and operating insights

Summary and Conclusions

Also acknowledging:
Henneman Engineering Inc. / GLHN Architects & Engineers

Terminology

CHW
- Chilled Water
CHWS/R - Chilled Water Supply / Return
DC
- District Cooling
DP
- Delta P (Pressure Differential)
DT
- Delta T (Temperature Differential)
LTF
- Low Temperature Fluid
NPV
- Net Present Value
PSV
- Pressure Sustaining Valve
TES
- Thermal Energy Storage

UIUC Campus Situation / Growth

2008: 30,000 ton existing campus DC network
Typical operating CHWS/R temps of 40/53 F
New Peta-scale Computing Facility planned, to
add 5,400 ton of critical load by 2012
~2,000 tons of other campus cooling load growth
Need to meet these future peak loads
Desire to maintain at least N+1 redundancy

Univ of Illinois Urbana-Champaign

District Cooling Options Considered

Add chiller plant capacity (with no TES):
Expand an existing plant or plants, or
Add a new satellite plant.
Add Latent Heat TES:
Add Ice TES.
Add Sensible Heat TES:
Add Chilled Water (CHW) TES, or
Add Low Temp Fluid (LTF) TES.

Inherent Characteristics of TES

(typical generalizations only)
Volume
Footprint
Modularity
Economy-of-Scale
Energy Efficiency
Low Temp Capability
Ease of Retrofit
Rapid Charge/Dischrg Capability
Simplicity and Reliability
Can Site Remotely from Chillers
Dual-use as Fire Protection

Ice
good
good
excell
poor
fair
good
fair
fair
fair
poor
poor

CHW
poor
fair
poor
excell
excell
poor
excell
good
excell
excell
excell

LTF
fair
good
good
good
good
excell
good
good
good
excell
poor

The Chosen Solution:

No new chiller plant capacity additions
Add 50,000 ton-hrs of CHW TES (up to
8,540 ton discharge rate for ~6 hrs/day)
Now lets review:
Siting, Configuration, and Specifications of TES
Interface of TES with the Balance of the System
Capital Costs, Projected Operating Costs & NPV
TES Performance Results
Owners Insights from the First Year of Operation

Siting / Configuration / Specs

Satellite location, SW corner of campus, near to
new computing facility, aesthetically acceptable.
A partial load shift TES, able to load level on a
24-hr design-day with only firm chillers on-line,
also able to maximize load shift during peak utility
periods when spare chillers are also on-line.
6.5 million gal (118.5 ft D x 78.3 ft H) aboveground welded-steel tank with paint, insulation,
vapor barrier, and painted aluminum jacket.
40/53 F CHWS/R temps (conservatively low DT).
Potential future conversion to LTF (at 32/54 F).

Jan 2010: TES Tank (pre-paint/insul.)

Interface with Balance of DC System

TES uses a vented atmospheric pressure tank,
with local static pressure = head of water in tank.
1 set of TES pumps moves water from TES to DC
system, during both charging and discharging.
PSVs allow return flow from DC system to the
lower pressure tank, while maintaining necessary
minimum positive pressure throughout the DC
network.

TES Capital Costs,

Projected Operating Savings & NPV
Economics of new 50,000 ton-hr CHW TES versus a
conventional 7,000 ton chiller plant expansion*:
Capital Costs - Estimated premium of ~$1.9M*
Projected Operating Savings - Reduces peak
demand by up to 8,540 tons (~6.6 MW electric);
reduces total O&M costs by ~$0.9M per year
Simple Payback Period - ~2 years*
25-yr NPV Over $10M* versus No TES.
* Results even better if base case is new chiller plant.

New Computing Facility & CHW TES

CWCCW
Buildings
2010

89 Buildings
40,000 Tons
connected load
30,000 Tons
Calculated
Diversified Load
26,000 T Peak
Actual for 2010
34,000 Tons
Production
(29,000 @ N-1)
18 Chillers
4 Plants
No CHW Pumps
or Compressors
in Buildings

Campus Wide Central Chilled Water

14

Chillers #1 & #2

Chillers in
Oak Street
Chiller Plant
Chillers #3 & #4

Chiller # 5

15

Oak Street Chiller Plant

First Floor Equipment Scope

5,000 Ton
Chiller (Future)

#2

2,700 Ton
Chiller (Future)

#5

#1

16

TES Pumphouse & Tank Construction

17

TES Performance Test Results

TES Tank testing conducted in June 2011:
TES Charging - >50,000 ton-hrs, at 13 F Delta T
TES Discharging - >50,000 ton-hrs, at 13 F Delta T
TES Pressure Drop - <3.0 psi, at max design flow
TES Heat Gain - <1.2% of TES in 24 hrs, at 94 F
All results met or exceeded specified values.

Owners Insights from Operation

Size Equipment for Future Conditions
Load Factor Improvement
Increase Thermal Capacity with Higher Delta T
Convert Existing Loads / Production to Central System

Energy Cost Savings - Excellent w/ Hourly Pricing

Redundancy Count as Production (Keep N+1)
Operator Acceptance
Reliable / Low Maintenance (Cl O2, Monitor Tank)
Important to Integrate Controls for System
Evaluate Control of System Pressure Variances

Campus Wide Chilled Water with TES:

Shifting Electrical Use to Off-Peak
For 2010 Load w/ PCF Need 6,800 Tons New Chillers if No TES
Model = -6 MW Peak Demand

Model = -9 MW Peak Demand

40,000
35,000
30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0

Peak Day Comparison of TES Options

Current Load Profile w/o Library

4.9 M gal* TES + 3,800 T Chiller
* 13 F CHWS-to-R Delta Temp (DT)

No TES
TES Load Level w/ 'N'
TES Max Shift w/ 'N+1'

22

19

16

13

10

Hour of the Day

1

22

19

16

13

10

Hour of the Day

20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0

No TES
TES Load Level w/ 'N'
TES Max Shift w/ 'N+1'

35,000
30,000
25,000

Chiller Load (Tons)

40,000

Chiller Load (Tons)

Peak Day Comparison of TES Options

Improved Load Profile w/ Library

6 M gal* TES and No Chiller
20

*8 M gal at 13 F DT or 6 M gal at 18 F DT

Campus Electric & CCWS Load

July 23

21

Campus Chilled Water 7/23/10

10500 ton--Hrs
Load Level
1
9
0
0

To
Tank

2
0
0
0

2
1
0
0

To
Load
10500 ton--Hrs

22

Central System Advantages

Combined Heat & Power (CHP)
Diversity Advantages of Aggregated Loads
Building Energy Conservation Allows Sharing
Production Assets
Increased Reliability (N+1) at Central Plant
Fuel / Energy Purchase Flexibility
Large Central Production Equipment and Limited
Equipment in Buildings
Ability to Add Incremental Building Capacity
Opportunity for Thermal Energy Storage (TES)
23

Summary and Conclusions

TES was evaluated against a No TES chiller plant
addition, at a time of planned capacity investment.
Selected 50,000 ton-hrs of CHW TES to peakshave growing campus cooling load, using existing
excess nighttime chiller capacity to recharge TES.
CHW TES provided:

Necessary peak load capacity

Desired redundancy (N+1 spare capacity)
Operational flexibility and reliability
6 to 7 MW of demand reduction; reduced O&M costs
Over $10 million in Net Present Value for the University.

Questions / Discussion ?
Or for a copy of this presentation, contact:
John S. Andrepont
The Cool Solutions Company
CoolSolutionsCo@aol.com
tel: 630-353-9690

Kent V. Reifsteck
The University of Illinois
KReifste@illinois.edu
tel: 217-244-2865