Application of A Small-Scale

American Public Power Association
Demonstration of Energy-Efficient Developments (DEED)

Appl i c at i on of a Smal l -Sc al e
Ther mal Ener gy St or age Syst em

Final Report

Prepared by:

City of Anaheim
Public Utilities Department
201 S. Anaheim Blvd., Suite 801
Anaheim, CA 92805

July 2005
ABSTRACT

The City of Anaheim Public Utilities Department conducted a research and
demonstration test of a small-scale Thermal Energy Storage (TES) system at a
City fire station in 2004-05. TES systems have previously targeted installations in
larger commercial buildings that have a significant cooling load. Small-scale TES
represents a breakthrough in technology, manufacturing and packaging that
targets the smaller 5 to 10-ton air conditioning systems that are prevalent in small
commercial facilities in Anaheim.

The demonstration was successfully deployed and ran for nine months. Data was
collected to evaluate the impacts to the facility and to the utility. Anaheim has
recommended that other member agencies in the Southern California Public
Power Authority (SCPPA) conduct trials to gather more field experience in
different applications, and to jointly develop customer offerings such as time-of-
use (TOU) rates and incentives to help offset initial costs of the system.

ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT......................................................................................... I
TABLE OF CONTENTS..................................................................... II
LIST OF FIGURES............................................................................ IV
LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................. V
1.0 INTRODUCTION....................................................................... 1
1.1 Background ............................................................................. 1
1.2 Project Objectives ................................................................... 1
1.3 TES Theory of Operation ........................................................ 2
1.4 Utility Perspective................................................................... 3
2.0 PROJECT METHODOLOGY.................................................... 4
2.1 TES System Description......................................................... 4
2.2 Site Description....................................................................... 8
2.2.1 Site Characteristics...........................................................................8
2.2.2 Facility Energy Profile ....................................................................10
2.2.3 Site Requirements...........................................................................12
2.2.4 System Design ................................................................................13
2.3 Project Implementation ........................................................ 15
2.3.1 Approval Process............................................................................15
2.3.2 Construction....................................................................................17
3.0 RESULTS ............................................................................... 23
3.1 Unit Data Analysis................................................................. 23
iii
3.2 Facility Data Analysis ........................................................... 25
3.3 Comfort and Availability ....................................................... 27
4.0 FUTURE PLANS AND APPLICABILITY................................ 27
5.0 SCHEDULE ............................................................................ 29
6.0 BUDGET................................................................................. 30
7.0 CONCLUSIONS...................................................................... 31
APPENDIX A. ICE BEAR PRODUCT BRIEF.................................... 1

iv
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Demand Profile of a Facility Before (top) and After (bottom)
Implementation of TES ..................................................................................2
Figure 2. Ice Bear 50 TES System (courtesy of Ice Energy, LLC).....................4
Figure 3. Ice Bear Unit (right) and Standard Condensing Unit (left)......................5
Figure 4. Anaheim Fire Station.............................................................................8
Figure 5. Fire Station Site Layout..........................................................................9
Figure 6. Mechanical Equipment Well with Existing Air Conditioning Units ........10
Figure 7. Fire Station Daily Usage and Load Factor (by billing period)...............11
Figure 8. Facility Energy Profile for Peak Day (Sept. 5, 2004)............................11
Figure 9. Fire Station Walkway Area (front view from street)..............................12
Figure 10. Fire Station Walkway Area (rear view)...............................................13
Figure 11. TES System Block Diagram...............................................................14
Figure 12. TES Installation Diagram...................................................................15
Figure 13. Anaheim Approval Process Flow Chart.............................................16
Figure 14. Site Clearing......................................................................................18
Figure 15. Placement of TES and Condensing Unit onto Concrete Pad.............18
Figure 16. Installation of New Evaporator Coil....................................................19
Figure 17. Refrigerant Lines on Facility Rooftop.................................................19
Figure 18. Refrigerant Lines Along Wall, and Condenser Electric Disconnect....20
Figure 19. Aluminum Tape Wrapped Around Refrigerant Line Insulation...........21
Figure 20. Ice Forming on Coils Inside Ice Bear Unit..........................................21
Figure 21. Two-Stage Thermostat......................................................................22
Figure 22. Completed Installation.......................................................................22
Figure 23. Demand Profile Prior to Ice Bear Installation (Roof Top Unit)............23
Figure 24. Demand Profile After Ice Bear Installation.........................................24
Figure 25. Combined Demand Profile (Ice Bear and Existing Air Conditioner)...25
Figure 26. Energy Shifted versus Ambient Temperature.....Error! Bookmark not
defined.
Figure 27. Facility Billing Meter Before and After TES Installation...................26
v
LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Ice Bear 50 Product Data....................................................................5
Table 2. Daily Energy Totals...............................................................................25
Table 3. Facility Billing Summary Comparison....................................................26
Table 4. Project Schedule...................................................................................29

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

The City of Anaheim is located in Orange County, in Southern California.
Anaheim Public Utilities (Anaheim) is responsible for providing electric and water
services for the local community. Anaheim began to serve its municipal
customers in 1895, serving a customer base of 145 incandescent bulbs and 22
arc lamps. Anaheim has grown to a population of over 335,000 and a service
territory of 48.2 square miles. Anaheim presently serves over 109,000 electric
meters (85% residential, 14% commercial and industrial, 1% other) and over
61,000 water meters (87% residential, 10% commercial and industrial, 3% other).

Anaheim sells in excess of three million megawatt-hours (MWh) per year with a
historic system peak demand of 578 megawatts (MW). Anaheims resource
portfolio has ownership in generating resources throughout the Western United
States that include coal, natural gas, nuclear, hydro and wind power. Anaheim
owns and operates its own 48 MW combustion turbine plant within the City
boundaries for peaking capacity. Anaheim has adopted a Renewable Portfolio
Standard, and will subsequently take power from geothermal and landfill gas in
addition to wind resources. Local solar generating resources are also promoted,
including photovoltaic systems on top of roofs of residential and commercial
customer facilities, as well as at municipal facilities.

1.2 Project Objectives

When evaluating small-scale thermal energy storage (TES) as a potential
customer application, Anaheim considered the following project objectives:

1. To reduce the utilitys overall system peak demand Anaheim prides
itself in offering high quality services to its customers at low costs. In order
to continue to serve the customer base without increasing rates, Anaheim
must plan a power resource strategy that mitigates higher cost power.
TES represents one way to encourage small commercial customers to
contribute towards peak demand reduction that ultimately helps the utility
gain efficiencies in power purchases by pushing peak demand into off-
peak hours.
2. To develop TES as a product offering for small commercial customer
class In recent years, Anaheim has made a concerted effort to tailor
programs and offerings for small commercial customers that includes an
energy efficiency program that offers turnkey energy audit and efficiency
measures installation. TES installed on refrigerant-based, package
heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems along with a
Application of a Small-Scale Thermal Energy Storage System Anaheim Public Utilities

2
time-dependent rate option is a potential program offering that helps the
utility, and helps customers lower their energy bills.
3. To gain first-hand experience with the design, permitting,
installation, and operation of a small-scale TES system. In preparation
for future installations of such system, this demonstration project serves to
familiarize City staff with the requirements for small-scale TES. The TES
system and the existing HVAC system were instrumented to collect data
and compare performance metrics. Also, the system is installed at a City
facility, and an assessment from a users perspective will help in
evaluating comfort.

1.3 TES Theory of Operation

In general, TES is not a new technology or concept. The operating principle for
air conditioning application is to store a cooling medium during off-peak hours, for
utilization in space conditioning during on-peak hours. The cooling medium may
be chilled water, ice, or eutectic salts. This is a regenerative cycle, and several
different technologies have been developed. Traditionally, TES has been applied
to larger HVAC system due, in part, to the capital-intensive nature of an
installation. Target applications have been those that had a substantial enough
air conditioning load and corresponding electric bills to offer a reasonable
payback.

By operating the system to create and store the cooling medium during off-peak
hours, the majority of the energy consumption is removed from the facilitys peak
demand. For the facility to take advantage of this technology, a time-dependent
electric rate is required to provide economic benefit to the customer. Such a rate
would incentive lowering on-peak demand to off-peak hours. Figure 1 shows the
general impact to a small commercial facilitys load profile.

Midnight Noon Midnight
6 kW Peak
Baseline
Ice System
4.5 kW Peak
D
e
m
a
n
d

Figure 1. Demand Profile of a Facility Before (top) and After (bottom)
Implementation of TES

3
The customer receives several benefits for pushing demand to off-peak hours:

1. The customers comfort level is not compromised, since the same amount
of cooling is delivered when needed during the warmest periods of the
day.
2. The HVAC system operates during off-peak hours, when temperatures are
generally lower and the system operates more efficiently
3. The HVAC system does not have to be sized for the super-peak periods
when demand is at its highest due to operation of TES, and may therefore
allow for downsizing of the HVAC system.
4. The customer may take advantage of lower off-peak rates.

1.4 Utility Perspective

Many utilities offer time-of-use (TOU) rates that encourage customers to shift
peak demand. Typically, TOU rates are structured with an on-peak rate that is
substantially higher than the standard rate, and an off-peak rate that is lower than
the standard rate, which works to provide financial incentives to customers who
are able to transfer load to off-peak hours.

For utilities that have substantial air conditioning loads that contribute to system
peak demand, TOU rates helps to flatten the system load profile. This can be
utilized to shape forecasts for power purchases that reduce the higher cost of on-
peak resources, and helps increase off-peak demand. Thus, TES effectively
assists utilities in managing their power resource without significantly impacting
overall revenue. This is an important consideration when customers consider
cogeneration or other energy efficiency alternatives. In instances where addition
of transmission or distribution capacity may be difficult, TES offers a possible
solution that helps to delay required upgrades or additions.

The effective result also has an environmental benefit, as dependency on
peaking plants, which may have higher air emissions, is reduced. In a study
sponsored by the California Energy Commission, which evaluated TES impacts
towards air emissions, the study concluded that TES could result in saving 1.6
tons of NOx per day in the [South Coast Air Quality Management District]
SCAQMD. These NOx savings are equivalent to the savings from substituting
almost 100,000 electric vehicles for gasoline vehicles.
1

1
Source Energy and Environmental Impacts of Thermal Energy Storage, California Energy
Commission, Report P500-95-005, February 1996.

4
2.0 PROJECT METHODOLOGY

2.1 TES System Description

The project methodology was to gain first-hand experience with small-scale TES
by designing and installing a system in a retrofit application. The TES system
selected for use in Anaheims demonstration is the Ice Bear 50 unit
manufactured by Ice Energy, LLC. The Ice Bear is a refrigerant-based, internal
melt, ice-on-coil, TES device that provides approximately 45 ton-hours of cooling
capacity. It is capable of reducing as much as 10 kW (typical) of peak demand
and shifting approximately 50 kilowatt-hours (kWh) to off peak hours.

By making ice during the evening, the unit uses only 300 watts for recirculating
pumps, along with the existing circulation fans to deliver cooling to the facility.
This regenerative cycle repeats daily, and no additional water needs to be added
in the fully contained package of approximately 6 x 5 x 5 (see Figures 2 and 3).

Figure 2. Ice Bear 50 TES System (courtesy of Ice Energy, LLC)

A condensing unit is included as part of the package to provide the cooling
necessary to freeze the water stored inside the Ice Bear. It is a standard, off-the-
shelf unit. In certain applications, the existing HVAC may be able to supply the
required cooling for the TES system. In Anaheims application, a separate
condenser was required for comparative data collection, and also because
cooling was required throughout the day and evening.


5

Figure 3. Ice Bear Unit (right) and Standard Condensing Unit (left)

Ice Energys Ice Bear 50 product complements the refrigerant-based market.
The Ice Bear is an internal melt, ice-on-coil, thermal energy storage system that
specifically targets package air conditioning that is ubiquitous throughout
commercial and residential facilities in the United States. The components are
low-cost, off-the-shelf commodities in a form factor that is easy to install, operate
and maintain.
2

The product brief is included as Appendix A. The following table summarizes the
units specifications.

Table 1. Ice Bear 50 Product Data
Cooling Performance
Nominal Tonnage 5 tons 17.5 kW
Total Cooling Capacity 45 ton Hrs 540 kBtu / day
Latent Heat Capacity
42 ton Hrs 504 kBtu / day
Maximum Cooling Load 10 tons 120 kBtu / hr
Peak Power 0.5 kW
Energy Performance
Energy to build ice(1) 48 kWh / day

2
Ice Energy website, www.ice-energy.com.

6
Energy to discharge ice 4 kWh / day
EER (Btuh / Watts )
10.4
Physical Properties
Refrigerant Charge (HCFC-22) 31 lbs.
Dimensions (W x L x H)
Energy Storage Module 73x73x63 inches 185x185x160 cm
Total Assembly 129x80x63 inches 320x203x160 cm
Shipping Weight

Energy Storage Module 800 lbs 363 kg
Condensing Unit & Piping 300 lbs 136 kg
Frame 420lbs 191 kg
Total 1520 lbs 689 kg
Weight Filled
Energy Storage Module 6125 lbs 2778 kg
Condensing Unit & Piping 300 lbs 136 kg
Frame 420lbs 191 kg
Total 6845 lbs 3105 kg
Water Volume 85.3 cu ft 638 gal.
Electrical Requirements
20 amp single phase circuit
Condensing Unit
Nominal Tonnage
5 tons
Approved Models
Trane 2TTB0060A

7
American Standard 2A7B0060A

8

Evaporator Coil Recommendations
Tonnage
As required at 50
o
F evaporator
temperature
Tube Diameter (in) 3/8 in. (or smaller)

2.2 Site Description

An initial set of site surveys were conducted at several locations in the City of
Anaheim and the most suitable location was found to be an Anaheim Fire
Station. Site surveys evaluated compatibility of the existing package air
conditioning system, energy and thermal profile, available space, proximity to
electric service and existing ducts, accessibility, and security/vandalism risk.
Figure 4 shows the fire station facility selected for the demonstration.

Figure 4. Anaheim Fire Station

2.2.1 Site Characteristics

The fire station facility features two large bays for parking of fire engines. The
space conditioned areas include a dormitory, dispatch center, offices,
kitchen/dining area, and lounge. See Figure 5 for the layout of the site.


9
Parking
Gate
Mechanical
Equipment Well
Truck Bays
Truck Apron
Outdoor
Patio
Electrical
Room
Generator
C
Refrigerant Lines
(rooftop)
Condensing Unit
ICE
Ice Bear Unit
Existing 5-Ton
Package Units
A
C

1
A
C

2
Driveway
T2
T1
Lounge/ Kitchen
Areas
Area 2: Dormitory,
Offices, Dispatch
Center
Storage
Bushes
Planted
Area
FLOW
FLOW
FLOW
F
L
O
W

Figure 5. Fire Station Site Layout

The space conditioning is served by two 5-ton package unit. One unit serves the
kitchen and lounge areas, and the second unit serves the dormitory, offices and
dispatch areas. The latter air conditioning system was the test case for the TES
installation. The two systems are independent of each other, as they are
controlled by separate thermostats. The air conditioning units (see Figure 6) are
located on the rooftop, in a mechanical equipment well. The ducting is directly
below the units.

10

Figure 6. Mechanical Equipment Well with Existing Air Conditioning Units

2.2.2 Facility Energy Profile

The Fire Station is occupied 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, unless the crew is
dispatched. In the past 12 months, the facility used 93,327 kilowatt-hours (kWh),
or an average of 259 kWh per day (based on 362 billing days). The peak demand
for the facility during this period was 25.9 kilowatts (kW). The facilitys load factor
is a good indicator of the level of usage spread over the number of available
hours at peak demand. The average load factor was 52.5%, with a maximum
load factor in a given billing period of 64.9%. The facilitys usage profile in terms
of daily energy usage and load factor is shown in Figure 7.


11
Fire Station Energy Profile
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
J
u
n
-
0
4
J
u
l
-
0
4
A
u
g
-
0
4
S
e
p
-
0
4
O
c
t
-
0
4
N
o
v
-
0
4
D
e
c
-
0
4
J
a
n
-
0
5
F
e
b
-
0
5
M
a
r
-
0
5
A
p
r
-
0
5
M
a
y
-
0
5
D
a
i
l
y

E
n
e
r
g
y

(
k
W
h
/
d
a
y
)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
L
o
a
d

F
a
c
t
o
r
Daily Energy Load Factor

Figure 7. Fire Station Daily Usage and Load Factor (by billing period)

The facility uses more energy during the summer months due to high air
conditioning usage, and less during the winter months. Other loads in the facility
include lighting, an air compressor, computers and communications equipment,
kitchen appliances, and various plug loads. The peak demand of 25.9 kW
occurred on September 5, 2004. As Figure 8 shows, the peak was reached
during the late afternoon.

Fire Station Peak Day Profile
(Sept. 5, 2004)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0
:
0
0
2
:
0
0
4
:
0
0
6
:
0
0
8
:
0
0
1
0
:
0
0
1
2
:
0
0
1
4
:
0
0
1
6
:
0
0
1
8
:
0
0
2
0
:
0
0
2
2
:
0
0
D
e
m
a
n
d

(
k
W
)

Figure 8. Facility Energy Profile for Peak Day (Sept. 5, 2004)

12
2.2.3 Site Requirements

The site required some preparation to install a housekeeping concrete pad
extension, clearing of some bushes, and repositioning of a small iron gate. The
Ice Bear was located on a walkway along the side of the facility. The unit was
located to allow appropriate walkway and equipment clearances as required by
the building code. The gate allows personnel access from the street. Should
equipment replacement be required, the walkway leads to the open truck apron
area in the back of the facility. Figures 9 and 10 show the walkway area prior to
construction.

Figure 9. Fire Station Walkway Area (front view from street)


13

Figure 10. Fire Station Walkway Area (rear view)
Because the facility is utilized throughout the day and cooling is required at night,
the existing rooftop air conditioning was to stay in place and operational during
nighttime hours. Sequencing of the cooling schedule was to use the Ice Bear
during the day (between 11AM and 8PM), and then to switch over to the existing
air conditioner at night, when the Ice Bear was recharging and making ice.

Another reason for the location of the Ice Bear was due to a request by the Citys
Public Works Facilities Maintenance group who maintains all buildings. For
purposes of easy access and to minimize potential for roof leaks, the unit was
installed on the ground.

During evaluation, both the Ice Bear and the existing air conditioning unit were
equipped with datalogging equipment to monitor performance. The facility has a
load profile meter in place of a conventional utility meter to allow energy usage to
be captured in 15-minute intervals. The meter uses a paging module to report
data back to the utility on a nightly basis, allowing next days data to be viewed
and analyzed. The data gathered by the monitoring equipment was used to
evaluate the Ice Bear operation and energy performance.

2.2.4 System Design

The Ice Bear system design inserts a new evaporator coil inside the existing
ductwork. As Figure 11 shows in block diagram form, the Ice Bear utilizes a
separate condensing unit to form ice. Refrigerant lines loop to the new
evaporator coil. This allowed the existing ducts and fan to operate as normal,
with no alterations made to the existing system, except where the new

14
evaporator coil was installed. The green colored blocks represent the additional
equipment installed for this project.

This design allowed the existing unit to continue to operate during the evening
hours when the Ice Bear was making ice. Also, since the Ice Bear was a beta
system, it allowed for maximum flexibility in the event that extended maintenance
was potentially required. To prevent possible air conditioning interruptions to the
facility, the design allowed for switching back to the existing system without
inconveniencing the occupants. To ensure proper control of both units the
thermostat was scheduled for two time periods: on-peak, in which the Ice Bear
would operate, and off-peak, in which the existing system would operate. Figure
12 shows the configuration of the installation.
Existing Packaged
Air Conditioning
Unit
Air Distribution
(Ducts)
Existing Packaged
Air Conditioning
Unit
Evaporator Coil
(New)
Air Distribution
(Ducts)
Ice Bear Thermal
Energy Storage
Condenser Unit
Existing HVAC System
HVAC System Including TES

Figure 11. TES System Block Diagram

15

Figure 12. TES Installation Diagram

2.3 Project Implementation

2.3.1 Approval Process

Due to the Ice Bear unit being a new technology, other departments involved with
the approval process had to be educated on the system, its effects on the
building and existing equipment, whether or not there were any hazardous
materials used, and aesthetics. In order to familiarize Anaheims Building and
Planning Divisions with the technology, Ice Energys architect helped to explain
the system and provide appropriate documentation. Figure 13 shows a flowchart
of the approval process for this project.

Ice Bear Unit
Condensing
Unit
Evaporator
Coil
Existing Roof Top Unit
Refrigerant
Lines

16
START
City Council approval of
agreement with Ice Energy
Submit plans and
specification for Building
Division approval
Submit plans to Planning
Division
Plans
Accepted?
Provide additional equipment
information
Prepare Site and Install
TES System
Commission TES System
and Receive Inspection
Approval
COLLECT DATA

Figure 13. Anaheim Approval Process Flow Chart

For the Building Division, a set of plans included the site layout, product brief,
specifications, and photos from the site. In the discussion, the matter of whether
or not the Ice Bear impinges on the existing air conditioning system was brought

17
up. The response was that the Ice Bear system does not cut into any existing
refrigerant lines or alter the existing air conditioning system except to add an
evaporator coil. The evaporator coil causes a marginal drop in static pressure, as
has been thoroughly tested in laboratory and other field trials. However, since
most of the pressure drop on an evaporator coil occurs from a wet coil condition
and the Ice Bear is the only wet coil, the effects are minimal. As an analogy, Ice
Energy equated the pressure drop as similar to before and after conditions of
filter cleaning. In addition, the air flow is a parameter that is tested as part of the
installation procedure.
3

One additional question came up regarding the impact on the existing warranty
for the air conditioning system as a result of the Ice Bear installation. In the case
of the unit at the fire station, the units had exceeded the standard industry
warranty of one year, as the unit was approximately ten years in age. In future
installations, Ice Energys intention is to honor any warranty term that may be
existing on a system.

As a result of the information exchange, and because there were no significant
construction requirements, formal plan check with engineering design and
calculations were not required for the project; plans were approved over-the-
counter.

2.3.2 Construction

Construction began on September 9, 2004. A contractor extended the
housekeeping concrete pad and relocated a gate to make room for the Ice Bear
and the condensing unit. Upon completion of the pad, Ice Energy delivered both
units on September 13. Electricity was supplied to both units, and Ice Energy ran
the refrigerant line sets up to and across the buildings rooftop. Installation of the
Ice Bear involved brazing four copper lines, filling the tank with 500 gallons of tap
water, and setting the timer for the controller.

Installation was completed in one week from the time of delivery of the units,
after which the building inspectors were called to approve the installation. The
inspector required several modifications such as upgraded insulation on the
refrigerant line sets, sealing wall penetrations, protecting thermostat wiring in
conduit, and re-positioning the condensing unit to provide the necessary
clearance to the electrical disconnect switch. These corrections were made, and
the unit was approved on September 22. Figures 14 through 22 show the
construction progress.

3
Correspondence from Ice Energy, LLC, dated J uly 16, 2004

18

Figure 14. Site Clearing

Figure 15. Placement of TES and Condensing Unit onto Concrete Pad


19

Figure 16. Installation of New Evaporator Coil

Figure 17. Refrigerant Lines on Facility Rooftop


20

Figure 18. Refrigerant Lines Along Wall, and Condenser Electric Disconnect


21

Figure 19. Aluminum Tape Wrapped Around Refrigerant Line Insulation

Figure 20. Ice Forming on Coils Inside Ice Bear Unit


22

Figure 21. Two-Stage Thermostat

Figure 22. Completed Installation


23

3.0 Results

3.1 Unit Data Analysis

Results indicate that the Ice Bear TES system was effective in reducing peak
demand. Figures 23 and 24 show the demand reduction by measuring demand
before and after the TES installation. Figure 23 shows that the peak demand
reached 7 kW in the late afternoon, which is consistent with the characteristics of
the facility energy profile shown in Figure 8. In addition, the duty cycle of the
compressor is apparent from the graph. During the warmest parts of the day, the
compressor is cycling consistently and frequently in order to meet the cooling
load.

Before Ice Bear, Hot Day (110 Roof Top)
0.000
1.000
2.000
3.000
4.000
5.000
6.000
7.000
12:00:00 AM 4:48:00 AM 9:36:00 AM 2:24:00 PM 7:12:00 PM 12:00:00 AM
RTU

Figure 23. Demand Profile Prior to Ice Bear Installation (Roof Top Unit)

In comparison, Figure 24 shows the demand profile after the installation of the
Ice Bear. Note that the demand during the peak hours has dropped significantly
from 7 kW to 0.3 kW. This equates to about 95% demand reduction for a similar
weather day. The Ice Bear condensing unit (green line) creates ice during off-

24
peak hours. Note that the demand required for the condensing unit is lower
(approximately 3.5 kW), and the unit does not continuously cycle on and off.

Figure 24. Demand Profile After Ice Bear Installation

In order to determine the difference in energy between the Ice Bear and existing
air conditioning system, calculations were performed to estimate the energy
usage and duty cycles as if the existing air conditioning system were still running.
The estimated energy consumption profile was developed by using run time data
from the Ice Bear and correlating projected energy to temperature data. Figure
25 shows dotted lines that represent the estimated air conditioning profile over a
24-hour period (from 9AM to 9AM) for October 14, 2004 on a day in which the
maximum ambient temperature was 87
o
F.

In terms of energy savings, data in Table 2 shows that the energy is not reduced
by a significant amount. The energy savings over a 2 week span was 22 kWh (or
4.2%) against a 528 kWh baseline. The energy efficiency is a result of the
compressor operating more efficiently at night in a more uniform manner than the
constant starting and stopping during the day that the traditional system. From a
utility standpoint, the energy neutral aspect is a positive feature of the
technology, since it builds up off-peak load, and helps to level out the utilitys
system peak profile.

25
Combined Demand Profile (October 14, 2004)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
9
:
0
0
1
1
:
0
0
1
3
:
0
0
1
5
:
0
0
1
7
:
0
0
1
9
:
0
0
2
1
:
0
0
2
3
:
0
0
1
:
0
0
3
:
0
0
5
:
0
0
7
:
0
0
D
e
m
a
n
d

(
k
W
)
AC - Actual
AC - Projected
Ice Bear

Figure 25. Combined Demand Profile (Ice Bear and Existing Air Conditioner)

Table 2. Daily Energy Totals
Day
Maximum
Ambient
Temperature
(F)
Minimum
Ambient
Temperature
(F)
Energy
Before Ice
Bear (kWh)
Energy
After Ice
Bear (kWh)
Difference
(kWh)
10/7/2004 84 56 62.2 56.7 5.5
10/8/2004 87 57 58.5 57.6 0.9
10/9/2004 78 59 47.2 43.3 3.9
10/10/2004 72 53 31.2 34.4 -3.2
10/11/2004 77 59 50.1 45.8 4.3
10/12/2004 83 63 50.0 47.8 2.3
10/13/2004 79 58 38.9 41.4 -2.4
10/14/2004 87 61 52.8 52.1 0.7
10/15/2004 77 61 35.7 38.8 -3.1
10/16/2004 66 58 22.0 20.7 1.4
10/17/2004 69 63 31.7 28.3 3.4
10/18/2004 70 62 25.1 24.3 0.8
10/19/2004 66 62 22.5 14.5 8.0

3.2 Facility Data Analysis

At the facility level, the results of the TES system can also be seen graphically.
Figure 26 shows two sample days of billing meter data. Facility data is shown for
September 5, 2004 before the Ice Bear was installed, and September 23, after

26
the Ice Bear was installed. The differential in demand is generally 7 kW, from 20
kW down to 13 kW, which corresponds to the TES equipment differential.

Comparison of Facility Energy Consumption
(Before and After TES)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0
:
0
0
2
:
0
0
4
:
0
0
6
:
0
0
8
:
0
0
1
0
:
0
0
1
2
:
0
0
1
4
:
0
0
1
6
:
0
0
1
8
:
0
0
2
0
:
0
0
2
2
:
0
0
D
e
m
a
n
d

(
k
W
)
9/5/2004 9/23/2004
7 kW
differential

Figure 26. Facility Billing Meter Before and After TES Installation

In reviewing data over the course of several months, the facility meter shows in
Table 3 that the there was a slight energy efficiency improvement. There was
also a slight decrease in the peak demand for the given months. This data
reinforces the unit data analysis in Section 3.1, which showed significant demand
reduction during on-peak hours and the slight energy efficiency improvement.
Because the facility is equipped with two separate air conditioning units, the
overall demand reduction would have been greater if both units were retrofitted
with TES systems. As Table 3 shows, over the 4 month period, there was a total
bill savings of $97.88, or $24.47 per month.

Table 3. Facility Billing Summary Comparison
Feb-May Days
Energy
(kWh)
Daily
Energy
(kWh/day)
Peak
Demand
(kW) Actual Bill
2004 (Before) 119 28,920 243.0 23.6 $2,795.64
2005 (After) 119 27,905 234.5 20.8 $2,697.76
Savings 1,015 2.8 $97.88

27
3.3 Comfort and Availability

The Ice Bear has operated since September 2004 with no major issues in terms
of operation and maintenance. The only significant change that occurred during
the course of the project was the fact that two thermostats were requested by
Anaheims Facility Maintenance group. The reason was to keep the existing
system and the Ice Bear separately controlled in the event that the TES system
would be decommissioned in the future. The thermostats were each programmed
with schedules to allow the Ice Bear to operate during the day and the existing
system to operate at night. Since Fire Department staff occupies the facility at
night, there is still a cooling load during off-peak hours. Operation of the
thermostats caused some confusion and in some cases both units were
operating at the same time. To alleviate this, one thermostat was removed
completely, and the programming was scheduled to take advantage of the two-
stage configuration.

Throughout the demonstration period, Ice Energys staff periodically checked on
the system to ensure that the unit was operating properly. Other than the
thermostat issue, the TES system performed very reliably. During the
consolidation of the two thermostats, there were several complaints from the Fire
Department staff concerning building temperatures. This was alleviated by tuning
the system and removal of the second thermostat. As a result of these actions,
the comfort level improved significantly. Ice Energy currently has a technician
located in Southern California to address any future issues.

4.0 Future Plans and Applicability

The TES system continues to operate at the fire station. Anaheim will continue to
monitor the system and evaluate operation and maintenance for a full summer.
Several site visits have been conducted for interested parties including other
utilities. As a result of Anaheims project, the Southern California Public Power
Authority (SCPPA), of which Anaheim is a member, has initiated a demonstration
program with other area municipal utilities. Up to 10 Ice Bear units will be
installed at various locations to further evaluate the technology.

Of interest will be the results which may vary due to the different facilities, cooling
loads, and regional weather patterns. For example, units installed in the dry
desert climate with higher temperature differentials are expected to have higher
efficiency gains than moderate, coastal climates. These anticipated operation
levels will be quantified for member agencies through data collection and
evaluation. An additional outcome of the SCPPA program will be to further
investigate funding sources, rates and incentives that may help accelerate the
adoption of small-scale TES in Southern California.


28
The applicability of small-scale TES technology suits utilities with high on-peak
demand that is comprised of high air conditioning usage. Utilities have typically
met load growth with some method of generation and transmission planning.
Additionally, most utilities have a level of energy efficiency programs to help
customers lower their bills and lower overall consumption. Other methods of
mitigating peak demand include demand response programs, time-dependent
rates, and distributed generation incentives (e.g. photovoltaics and in some
cases, co-generation) are promoted to varying levels by utilities. TES is a small
part of this mix at present; however, with the inclusion of time dependent
valuation in the 2005 revision of Californias Title 24 Building Code, shifting peak
load is encouraged. The California Energy Commission (CEC) adopted the 2005
changes to the Building Energy Efficiency Standards, for a number of reasons,
including the objective:

To emphasize energy efficiency measures that save energy at peak
periods and seasons, improve the quality of installation of energy
efficiency measures, incorporate recent publicly funded building science
research, and collaborate with California utilities to incorporate results of
appropriate market incentives programs for specific technologies.
4

The CEC recognized that energy use during peak demand is valued differently
than energy during off-peak hours. As a result, the CEC has developed Time
Dependent Valuation (TDV).

Beginning with the 2005 Standards, the currency for assessing building
performance is time dependent valued (TDV) energy. TDV energy
replaces source energy, which has been the currency since the CEC first
adopted standards in 1978. TDV, as the name implies, values energy
differently depending on the time it is used. This means that electricity
saved on a hot summer afternoon will be worth more in the compliance
process than the same amount of electricity saved on a winter morning.
The value assigned to energy savings through TDV more closely reflects
the market for electricity, gas, propane and other energy sources and
provides incentives for measures, such as thermal storage or daylighting
that are more effective during peak periods.
5

Anaheim is also evaluating the possibility of including residential-scale TES from
Ice Energy to be included as a portion of a new housing development.
Discussions are ongoing with the home builder to determine the level of interest.
Part of a demonstration project will focus on the Title 24 calculations for homes
with and without TES.

4
http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2005standards/index.html, California Energy Commission
website.
5
2005 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, Nonresidential Compliance Manual, California
Energy Commission, CEC-400-2005-006-CMF, p.7.2-3.

29
5.0 Schedule

The project was completed on schedule. All construction was completed in the
month of September 2004. Anaheim will continue to monitor the system to
capture additional summer data in 2005.

Table 4. Project Schedule
Task Status Completion Dates
1. City Council approval of
agreement with Ice Energy
for delivery of TES unit
Completed J un-04
2. Prepare site installation
drawings
Completed Aug-04
3. Obtain approval and
construction permits from
Building Division
Completed Sep-04
4. Prepare site, including
demolition, pour concrete
pad, and install electrical
conduits
Completed Sep-04
5. Deliver TES unit Completed Sep-04
6. Complete installation,
including installing
refrigerant lines,
evaporative coil, and
thermostats
Completed Sep-04
7. Conduct system
commissioning
Completed Oct-04
8. Perform preliminary
evaluation of unit
performance
Completed Oct-04
9. Operate and maintain
system
Completed J un-05
10. Final report Completed J ul-05


30
6.0 Budget

The project was completed within the allotted project budget. Of note, because
the pre-production unit operated exceptionally well, it was decided that an
upgrade to the production unit was not necessary, as all the major components
are the same. Rather, an extended warranty was provided to cover the pre-
production as if it were a new installation.

Item Description Budget Expended
to Date
DEED
Grant
1 Ice Energy (Monetary)
1.1 Pre-Production Unit $10,000 $10,000
1.2 Production Unit $10,000
1.3 Datalogging equipment $3,000 $3,000
2 Ice Energy (In Kind)
2.1 Project Management [80
hours @ $100/hr]
$8,000 $8,000
2.2 Construction Management
[20 hours @ $100/hr]
$2,000 $2,000
2.3 Design and Engineering
[20 hours @ $150/hr]
$3,000 $3,000
2.4 Data Analysis and
Reporting [60 hours @
$150/hr]
$9,000 $9,000
3 Anaheim (Monetary)
3.1 Installation &
commissioning
$10,000 $10,000 ($10,000)
3.2 Building permit fees $500 $166
3.3 Load profile meter and
installation
$1,000 $1,000
4 Anaheim (In Kind)
4.1 Project Management [120
hours @ $50/hr]
$6,000 $6,000
4.2 Contract Administration
[40 hours @ $50/hr]
$2,000 $2,000
4.3 Misc Staff Labor (setting
up meter profile for
Internet accessibility,
other Department labor)
[40 hours @ $50/hr]
$2,000 $2,000
TOTALS $66,500 $56,166 ($10,000)


31
7.0 Conclusions

The Ice Bear TES system was successful in shifting on-peak demand to off-peak
hours. It was retrofitted into an existing building and provided the cooling load
without sacrificing comfort for the occupants. The fact that the technology is now
available in a small form factor and is recognized in Californias new building
code demonstrates that TES can be widely deployed to package air conditioner
throughout the United States. Utilities may benefit from this technology by using
TES to shape system load profile. Anaheim will continue to investigate the
technology through its demonstration at the fire station and by monitoring the
additional deployments by other municipalities. Based on those results, Anaheim
may provide up-front incentives to help reduce the capital costs in addition to
promoting time-of-use rates which helps provide a return on investment to
customers.

Appendix A. Ice Bear Product Brief

2

Application of A Small-Scale

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Application of A Small-Scale

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

American Public Power Association

Demonstration of Energy-Efficient Developments (DEED)

You might also like