Comparison of Water-Cooled and Air-Cooled Chillers: Impacts of Thermal Energy Storage

Final Report
1085-3-2-02

EPRI Retail Technology Application Centers

Comparison of Water-Cooled and Air-Cooled Chillers

Impacts of Thermal Energy Storage
Product ID # 1085-3-2-02

Final Report

April 2003

Global Project Manager K. Parmenter

Global Energy Partners, LLC 3569 Mt. Diablo Blvd., Suite 200, Lafayette, CA 94549 Tel. 925-284-3780 Fax 925-284-3147 www.gepllc.com

DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITIES

THIS DOCUMENT WAS PREPARED BY GLOBAL ENERGY PARTNERS, LLC (GLOBAL), A SUBSIDIARY OF EPRISOLUTIONS, INC., AND ONE OF THE FAMILY OF COMPANIES OF THE ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE, INC. (EPRI). NEITHER GLOBAL NOR ANY PERSON ACTING ON ITS BEHALF: (A) MAKES ANY WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATION WHATSOEVER, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, (I) WITH RESPECT TO THE USE OF ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD, PROCESS, OR SIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSED IN THIS DOCUMENT, INCLUDING MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, OR (II) THAT SUCH USE DOES NOT INFRINGE ON OR INTERFERE WITH PRIVATELY OWNED RIGHTS, INCLUDING ANY PARTY'S INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, OR (III) THAT THIS DOCUMENT IS SUITABLE TO ANY PARTICULAR USER'S CIRCUMSTANCE; OR (B) ASSUMES RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY WHATSOEVER (INCLUDING ANY CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, EVEN IF GLOBAL OR ANY GLOBAL REPRESENTATIVE HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES) RESULTING FROM YOUR SELECTION OR USE OF THIS DOCUMENT OR ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD, PROCESS, OR SIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSED IN THIS DOCUMENT.

ORDERING INFORMATION
Requests for copies of this report should be directed to Global Energy Partners, 3569 Mt. Diablo Blvd., Suite 200, Lafayette, CA 94549-3868. Voice: 925-284-3780; fax: 925-284-3147; Email: gephq@gepllc.com.

Copyright 2002 Global Energy Partners, LLC. All rights reserved.

CITATIONS
This report was prepared by Global Energy Partners, LLC 3569 Mt. Diablo Blvd., Suite 200 Lafayette, CA 94549 Principal Investigators C. Arzbaecher K. Parmenter J. Prijyanonda Consultants R. Johnson M. Khattar W. Krill This report describes research sponsored by EPRI. The report is a corporate document that should be cited in the literature in the following manner: Comparison of Water-Cooled and Air-Cooled Chillers: Impacts of Thermal Energy Storage, Global Energy Partners, LLC, Lafayette, CA: 2003. Product ID # 1085-3-2-02.

iii

REPORT SUMMARY
Background Water-cooled chillers consume water in their cooling towers during operation. Due to constrained water supply or high costs, in some regions, many commercial customers are interested in evaluating air-cooled chillers as an alternative to conventional water-cooled chillers. Though air-cooled chillers use more power and may increase the utilitys on-peak demand, these chillers can also be used effectively with thermal energy storage to shift some (partial storage) or all (full storage) cooling load to off-peak hours. By reducing on-peak demand, customers can leverage utility rate structures to offset the costs of increased energy use associated with aircooled chillers. Objectives The objectives of this study are to: Compare demand and energy use of water-cooled and air-cooled chillers Evaluate demand and energy use shift from on-peak to off-peak hours by using thermal energy storage with air-cooled chillers Compare the costs of air-cooled chillers with and without thermal energy storage to watercooled chillers in commercial buildings Provide general guidelines for utility representatives to follow when helping commercial customers choose the most economical cooling system for a given application.

Approach The project team: Solicited information from chiller manufacturers, distributors, trade allies, utilities, contractors, selected commercial customers, and/or other third parties on chiller costs, specifications, and performance data. Reviewed recent literature and market data and evaluated examples of successful air-cooled chiller installations with/without thermal energy storage. Identified two building types (hospitals and office buildings), four climate zones (Albany, NY, Miami, FL, Phoenix, AZ, and San Antonio, TX), and several cooling system characteristics to be modeled in detail. Performed energy calculations using the GEP-BEST model (a DOE2 based simulation tool) to generate comparative estimates of energy consumption and demand for the cooling system alternatives. v

Conducted life cycle cost analysis to compare the economic feasibility of each alternative. Developed general guidelines and recommendations for how utilities can best use the information in this report as a reference tool when advising their commercial customers on central cooling plant decisions.

Results Table RS-1 summarizes the results from energy simulations and life cycle cost analyses. The results show that air-cooled chillers require more energy to operate than do water-cooled chillers, as is expected. The most energy intensive cooling alternative consists of air-cooled chillers combined with full thermal energy storage, though much of the energy is used at low-cost offpeak hours. Partial storage scenarios have the potential to consume either slightly more or slightly less energy than air-cooled chillers alone. This characteristic depends on the operation of the building. For hospitals, which generally require cooling 24-hours per day, partial storage systems did not save any energy compared with air-cooled chillers by themselves; however, for office buildings, which typically require negligible cooling during the evenings, the addition of partial storage reduces the overall energy requirement as compared with air-cooled chillers alone. The life cycle cost results show that the cost-effectiveness of a given alternative is a strong function of various parameters, including building type, climate zone, cooling system, thermal energy storage control strategy, water and energy use, and water and energy rates. For two of the eight scenarios investigated (the San Antonio hospital and office building), water-cooled chillers prove to be the most cost-effective. The life cycle costs are roughly 7% larger for the air-cooled chiller systems, and between 4 and 17% larger for the partial storage alternatives. Similarly, aircooled chillers with partial storage constitute the best alternative for two other scenarios, namely the Albany and Miami office buildings. The partial storage cost is 5% less than that of the aircooled chiller, and 14% less than that of the water-cooled chiller for the Albany office. For Miami, the partial storage cost is between 4 and 6% less than that of the water- and air-cooled chiller alternatives. There are three scenarios for which the life cycle costs of the water- and air-cooled chiller systems are within 1% of each other: the Miami and Phoenix hospitals, and the Phoenix office building. Moreover, for the Phoenix office building, the partial storage cost is also comparable to that of the water- and air-cooled chiller systems. For the remaining scenario, the Albany hospital, the life cycle costs of the air-cooled chiller alone and with partial storage are essentially the same (within 1% of each other). Keywords (apply EPRI RS Subtitle Style) Chillers Water-cooled Air-cooled Thermal energy storage Hospitals Office buildings Commercial buildings

vi