1
Michael Deru
Miles Hayes
Guest Speakers:
Mark MacCracken (Trane)
Karl Heine (NREL & Colorado School of Mines)
Space Conditioning Tech Team Webinar:Thermal Energy Storage, the lowest cost storage
2
Space Conditioning Tech Team Updates
• Recent Publications• SMC Technical Report• DWT Technical Report• Cooling Tower Water Treatment Technologies
• Advanced Rooftop Campaign Ramping Down• Feedback
• HVAC Resource Map Updates
3
Thermal Battery Systems
Mark M. MacCrackenVP, CALMAC PortfolioTrane Commercial HVAC NA
© 2018 Trane. All Rights Reserved.
4
Stored Energy
Energy
Where is the storage?
5
Energy flows mostly one way
Old Grid:
6
Wind Turbines
Thermal Batteries
Thermal Batteries
Photovoltaic Panels
Photovoltaic Panels
Electron Battery
Electron Battery
Modern Grid
7
zero
Solar PanelWind Turbine
Designers tend to remove building sited renewable back up equipment
Batteries Fossil Fuels
Thermal Storage
(Net) Zero Energy Building:
8
Many types of Energy Storage will be neededon both sides of the electric meter
for Renewable Energy, Net Zero Buildings and the Grid to Function Reliably
Grid SidePumped HydroCompressed AirFly WheelsSuper Capacitors
Building SideChemical BatteriesThermal Mass (passive)Thermal Batteries (active)
Electric Meter
9
FlywheelCompressed Air
Pumped Hydro Battery
Grid Side (of meter)Energy Storage Technologies
10
Battery Thermal Energy Storage (TES) Hot, Cold or Ice, Active or Passive
Building side (of meter)Energy Storage Technologies
11
Buildings becoming part of the storage and distribution system
BNEF projections of storage deployment over the next decade
12
13
How many lbs. of ice do you need for each person for their drinks at a party?
Thermal Storage
How many lbs. of ice do you need for each person each day at the office to cool them?
Engineer 300 ft2/ton 400 ft2/ton 500 ft2/ton
Architect 100 ft2/per person 200 ft2/per person
100 ft2/pp / 400 x 8hr = 2 ton-hrs. = 160 lbs. of Ice/Person/Day200 ft2/pp / 400 x 10hr. = 5 ton-hrs. = 400 lbs. of Ice/Person/Day
~1 lbs.
14
Utility Load Factors* in the USA
45
50
55
60
65
70
1955 1965 1975 1985 1995 2005 2015
%
Year *Load Factor = Avg. Load Peak Load
Chart1
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
Year
%
62.5
67.5
66
63
62
57
56
55
54
52
51
50
48
Sheet1
1955196019651970197519801985199019952000200520102015
62.567.56663625756555452515048
15
AC
40% of $
16
17When Would you Fill-up?
Daytime
$ 2.49/gallon
Nighttime
$ 0.99/gallon
18
Tucson Energy LSG -13 RateEnergy (usage):
Day: $0.054/kWhNight: $0.054/kWh
Demand: $15.25/kW/Month
The Demand Charge Effect Simplified
How big an effect is the Demand Charge??
Energy is 63% less expensive at nightFor a daytime peaking building
$0.054/kWh$0.146/kWh
19
Avg. Load
800 kW
Peak Load1500 kW
Total kWh = 19,200/day (Load Factor = 53%)
ASHRAE 90.1 Building Electrical Profile
Chart1
10025000
10025000
10025000
10025000
15025000
6:00 AM6:00 AM6:00 AM6:00 AM6:00 AM
400150100175300
400200125175250
400200150175300
400200200175375
400200200175450
NoonNoonNoonNoonNoon
400200200175550
400200200175550
400200200175525
400200200175500
400200200150400
6:00 PM6:00 PM6:00 PM6:00 PM6:00 PM
400150175100250
40010015075200
400257550150
25025000
20025000
10025000
Base Load
Lighting
Fans
Pumps
Cooling
k W
400
50
0
0
0
400
200
200
175
500
400
200
200
125
300
Sheet1
6:00 AMNoon6:00 PM
Base Load100100100100150400400400400400400400400400400400400400400400400250200100
Lighting25252525255015020020020020020020020020020020020015010025252525
Fans00000010012515020020020020020020020020020017515075000
Pumps0000001751751751751751751751751751751501251007550000
Cooling000000300250300375450500550550525500400300250200150000
20
Base Load
LightingFans
Pumps
0200400600800
100012001400160018002000
k
W
Total kWh = 19,200/day (Load Factor = 88%)
Charging Storage
600 kW Shed
Avg. Load
800kW
40% Peak Load Reduction
Peak Load 900kW
ASHRAE 90.1 Building Electric Profilewith Thermal Energy Storage
Chart1
10025080500
10025080500
10025080500
10025080500
15025080500
6:00 AM6:00 AM6:00 AM6:00 AM6:00 AM
4001501001200
4002001251200
4002001501200
4002002001200
4002002001200
NoonNoonNoonNoonNoon
4002002001200
4002002001200
4002002001200
4002002001200
4002002001200
6:00 PM6:00 PM6:00 PM6:00 PM6:00 PM
4001501751000
400100150750
4002575500
25025080500
20025080500
10025080500
Base Load
Lighting
Fans
Pumps
Cooling
k W
400
50
0
0
0
400
200
200
120
0
400
200
200
120
0
Sheet1
6:00 AMNoon6:00 PM
Base Load100100100100150400400400400400400400400400400400400400400400400250200100
Lighting25252525255015020020020020020020020020020020020015010025252525
Fans00000010012515020020020020020020020020020017515075000
Pumps808080808001201201201201201201201201201201201201007550808080
Cooling5005005005005000000000000000000500500500
21
3D Electric Profile, Full Year
22
Ice Storage Systems
Control Logic
TemperatureControl Valves
Chiller Based System
Closed System
Storage Tank
Heat Transfer FluidSo What is Different? Load
23
Thermal Storage Tank Ice-on-Coil Internal Melt
Tank
Insulation
Expansion Chamber
Heat Exchanger
24
Ice MakingCoil & Glycol
TemperatureControl Valves
500 ton chiller
1000 tonLoad25
25 31
31
Ice
25
Direct Cooling
Ice
TemperatureControl Valves
Coil & Glycol 500 ton chiller
500 tonLoad
44 54
26
Ice Melting and Chilling
MeltedIce
TemperatureControl Valves
Coil & Glycol 500 ton chiller
52 60
34-44 44
52
1000 tonLoad
Ice
CentrifugalScrew Scroll
Reciprocating
27
Jefferson Community College-Watertown, NY
28
CALMAC US Projects Histogram 3DCALMAC has installed 530 MW / 3,422 MWH of TES storage systems in the US. At the end of 2017, the battery industry had 25% more peak demand than Trane/CALMAC but only 1/4 of the capacity *
*Energy Information Administration https://www.eia.gov/analysis/studies/electricity/batterystorage/
Installed base concentrated where Grid ISO’s are active!
PresenterPresentation NotesTotals…
https://www.eia.gov/analysis/studies/electricity/batterystorage/
29
NYC Thermal Battery (Ice) Installations~ 120 Megawatt-hrs. of Energy Storage
30
TES is 1/3 the cost of battery systems for C&I
• Cost advantages No inverter expense Lower component
costs, including balance of system; lower O&M
No need for capacity addition due to degradation
• Lower capital costs mean lower financing costs
Levelized Technology Cost for BTM Applications1,2
1. Costs represent average of range pulled from LCOS 3.0 for battery technologies. 2. Conservative case that includes full cost of chiller.Source: Ingersoll Rand
PresenterPresentation Notes1. LCOS, the levelized cost of storage, compares the lifetime cost of batteries vs. the lifetime cost of thermal energy storage.
2. At six to eight hours, thermal energy storage also has a duration that is three to four times longer than batteries.
3. This finding has several key implications. A. The technology may already be cost-effective on its own, or require minimal subsidy. It also has lower soft costs, since it has already been commercially proven, and requires no interconnection expense. B. The technology is durable, with a useful life in excess of 20 to 30 years with minimal degradation and O&M expenseC. The technology is safe: since the main chemical is frozen waterD. Components can be recycled at end of life
4. TES is perfectly situated to time-shift off peak renewable energy such as wind and reduce peak demand for extended periods of time in hot summer months
Chart1
Lithium-Ion
Lead Acid
Advanced Lead
500 kW Thermal
1,000 kW Thermal
Series 1
$ / MWH
938
1106
1059
342
315
Sheet1
Series 1
Lithium-Ion938
Lead Acid1106
Advanced Lead1059
500 kW Thermal342
1,000 kW Thermal315
31
Thermal Energy Storage (TES) has low initial cost, high efficiency, and longer useful life
Energy Storage Options Costs*
*Data gathered by ASHRAE TC 6.9 members from published industry articles in past 3 years
32
Chemical Battery vs withThermal Storage (Battery)
18 kW shift over 3-6 hours 18 kW shift over 6 hoursCool 7,500 sq. ft. 6-8 hours
89 inches
70 in
ches
33
Comparison Costs*
Equip Hours of discharge
Impact
Output
kWhper day
Installed cost Cost / kW Cost / kWh
Ice Storage Qty-1Ice Tank
1 Ice Tank dischargingover 6 hrs.
18 kW
Cooling108 $22,000 $1,222 / kW $ 203 / kWh
Battery
Qty. 6
18 kWh Batteries
6 Batteries discharging over 6 hrs.
18 kW
Electron108 $100,000 $5,600 / kW $925 / kWh
Battery
Qty-3
18 kWh Batteries
3 Batteries discharging over 3 hrs.
18 kW
Electron54 $50,000 $2,800 / kW $925/ kWh
$7,000 $ 388/ kW $ 64 / kWh
* COSTS ARE APPROXIMATE AND VARY BY LOCATION AND PROJECT
34
Commercial Building Example
Equip kW kWhper dayInstalled
cost Cost / kW Cost / kWh
Ice Storage
(20) Ice Tanks 360 2160 $440,000 $1,222 $ 203
Battery (60) 18 kW Batteries 360 1080 $1,000,000 $2,800 $925
Ice with Battery
14-1098Ice tanks
with 20 -18kW Batteries
360 1872 $641,000 $1,780 $342
$140,000 $ 388 $ 64
$441,000 $ 1,226 $236
* COSTS ARE APPROXIMATE AND VARY BY LOCATION AND PROJECT
35
• 1. New York City (ConEdison)• • $50+ per kW demand charge – #1 in nation• • As of 4/24/2019 new Incentive structure ($1,400/kW
for 4-hr duration)• 2. Boston, MA (Eversource)• • $40/kW demand charge – #3 in nation• • Incentive money may soon be made available
through the Mass Dept. of Energy Resources• 3. Long Island, NY (PSEG LI)• • $30/kW demand charge• • $1000 per kW rebate from the utility; additional
rebates very likely coming from NYSERDA• 4. Florida (FP&L)• • $12/kW demand charge, 3 cent day/night delta• • $600 per kW incentive from FP&L• 5. North Carolina (Duke Energy, Duke Progress,
various municipal utilities)• • $12-14/kW demand charges across both Duke-
owned utilities, and available thermal storage rates• • $150 per kW incentive from Duke
• 6. Minnesota (Xcel, various municipal utilities)• • Xcel has $16/kW demand charges, large delta between on-peak
and off-peak kWh, and available incentives• 7. Texas (Austin Energy, Oncor, El Paso Electric, CenterPoint)• • Incentives across most of the larger utilities• • Austin Energy and El Paso Electric have excellent rates for TES• 8. Connecticut (United Illuminating Co., Eversource CT)• • $18-25/kW demand charge; ability to negotiate better rate with
better load profile• • Opportunity to negotiate better rates with higher load factor• 9. Colorado (Xcel territory)• • Xcel has $20+/kW demand charges, low energy (kWh) charges.• • New custom thermal storage incentive, $500/kW shifted from
2pm to 6pm, summer months
• *10. Michigan (Consumers Energy, DTE)• • Consumers Energy, which covers much of the
state, has $25/kW demand charge
Incentive Programs*
*Programs change often-Check websites for current details
Trane, the Circle Logo, TRACE, CALMAC and ICEBANK are trademarks of Trane in the United States and other countries. ASHRAE is a trademark of theAmerican Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc. All trademarks referenced are the trademarks of their respective owners.
Trane is a brand of Ingersoll Rand, a world leader in creating comfortable, sustainable and efficient environments. Ingersoll Rand’s family of brands includes Club Car®, Ingersoll Rand®, Thermo King® and Trane®.
© 2018 Trane. All Rights Reserved.
Mark MacCrackenVP, CALMAC PortfolioTrane Commercial HVAC [email protected]
Modeling Thermal Energy Storage
Karl HeineColorado School of Mines
NREL | 38
1234
5
Agenda
Motivation: Modeling Challenges
Improving the Models
Identifying Potential Benefits
Example Results
Distributed Ice Storage Systems
NREL | 39
Modeling Challenges
• Models are Tedious to Build– TES is ignored as a design option
• Implementing Control Strategies Not Obvious– “Optimal” operating points unidentifiable– Imposing power limits on hardware not easy
• Limited Performance Data Available– Generic curves used
NREL | 40
Improving Models
• Goal: Make ASHRAE Design Guide for Cool Thermal Storage recommendations available to energy modelers using EnergyPlus– Design Configuration Options– Storage Objective Options– High-level Operating Strategy Options– Provide Load Limiting Options on Chiller
• Method: OpenStudio Measure ScriptingASHRAE Design Guide for CTES
https://www.techstreet.com/ashrae/standards/ashrae-design-guide-for-cool-thermal-storage-2nd-ed?product_id=2046532
NREL | 41
Potential Benefits of Ice Thermal Storage
• Chiller Downsizing– Reduced Capital Costs– Higher Average Part-Load Operation
• Improved Average Efficiency• Reduction in Annual Electricity Use!• Effective Load-Shifting Out of On-Peak Hours• Controllable Energy Storage
NREL | 42
Example ResultsCentral Ice
• School with Air-Cooled Chiller in Houston (TMY3)• DOE Prototype 90.1-2010 Model
https://www.energycodes.gov/development/commercial/prototype_models
NREL | 43
Example ResultsCentral Ice
Model Articulations:• Hardware:
• Chiller Downsized by 30%• 2000 Ton-Hours of Ice• Chiller Upstream
• High-Level Control Strategy: • Ice Priority up to 30% of Design Load• 0800-2000 on Weekdays
• Chiller Limit: 65% of Nominal Capacity During Ice Discharge
NREL | 44
Average Daily Profile for Facility Electric Load
Baseline With Ice Storage
kWe
NREL | 45
Maximum Monthly Facility Electric Demand
Baseline With Ice Storage
kWe 23%
12%12% 15%
17% 17%
22% 21%
19%
20%14% 12%
NREL | 46
Results Summary
ModelEUI
[kWh/m2]
Average Peak Demand
[kW]
Chiller Annual Electricity
[MWh]
Chiller Average
COP
Chiller Runtime
Hours
School Baseline 157.7 799 973 2.55 5947
School With Ice* 150.5 (-4%) 662 (-17%) 845 (-23%) 3.07 (+20%) 5768 (-3%)
* Includes downsized chiller yet produced no change in unmet-hours compared to baseline model.
NREL | 47
Distributed Ice Storage
• Unitary Thermal Storage Systems (UTSS) provide smaller-scale, distributed ice storage solutions
• 40 ton-hours of storage• Compatible with 3-20 ton AC units• 4-6 hours of shifted cooling load• Adds cooling coil to air stream
www.ice-energy.com
NREL | 48
Example ResultsDistributed Ice
• Stand-Alone Retail with 4 RTU’s• DOE Prototype Models in 15 Climate Zones (TMY3)• Ice Batteries Added to Each RTU• Sized to Meet Climate Zone-Specific Loads• Utility Rates with 5-6 Hour Daily On-Peak Price Periods
NREL | 49
Economic Impact of Distributed Ice Storage
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Var
iabl
e Dem
and
Cha
rges
[$/k
W]
Time-of-Day
PG&E E19 SRP E32
00.020.040.060.080.1
0.120.140.160.18
Elec
trici
ty C
harg
es [$
/kW
h]
Time of Day
PG&E E19 SRP E32
NREL | 50
Electricity Bill Savings with Distributed Ice
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
1A 2A 2B 3A 3B 3C 4A 4B 4C 5A 5B 6A 6B 7A 8B
Rel
ativ
e Ann
ual S
avin
gs [-
]
Climate Zone
Retail - PG&E Retail - SRP
NREL | 51
1234
5
Summary
Modeling Challenges
Improving the Models
Identifying Potential Benefits
Example Results
Distributed Ice Storage Systems
Questions?
Karl [email protected]
Looking ahead
We are mapping out our upcoming year and looking for feedback
• Thermal Energy Storage Landscaping Study
• GEB RFI Field Study Participants• Joint RFI between the GSA proving grounds program and the DOE High Impact Technology Catalyst program and we are looking
for active BB members who might want to participate in a field study focused on continuous demand management and building load flexibility
• NEED by SEPT 6th - Please contact [email protected]
mailto:[email protected]
Slide Number 1Slide Number 2Thermal Battery SystemsSlide Number 4Old Grid:Modern Grid(Net) Zero Energy Building:Slide Number 8Slide Number 9Slide Number 10Buildings becoming part of the storage and distribution systemSlide Number 12Thermal StorageUtility Load Factors* in the USASlide Number 15Slide Number 16Slide Number 17The Demand Charge Effect SimplifiedASHRAE 90.1 Building Electrical ProfileSlide Number 203D Electric Profile, Full YearIce Storage SystemsThermal Storage Tank Ice-on-Coil Internal MeltIce MakingDirect CoolingIce Melting and ChillingJefferson Community College- Watertown, NYSlide Number 28Slide Number 29TES is 1/3 the cost of battery systems for C&ISlide Number 31Chemical Battery vs with�Thermal Storage (Battery)Comparison Costs*Commercial Building ExampleIncentive Programs*Slide Number 36Slide Number 37AgendaModeling ChallengesImproving ModelsPotential Benefits of Ice Thermal StorageExample Results�Central IceExample Results�Central IceAverage Daily Profile for Facility Electric LoadMaximum Monthly Facility Electric Demand Results SummaryDistributed Ice StorageExample Results�Distributed IceEconomic Impact of Distributed Ice StorageElectricity Bill Savings with Distributed IceSummarySlide Number 52Slide Number 53
