Air conditioner that stores cold in ice for later

[Sunking]

You keep spreading your tripe and I'll continue to call it tripe. Fair enough ?

Sounds like a plan to me.

[DanKegel]

Looks to me they pay off mostly for the manufacturers if I read the text of that drivel correctly and believe any of it.

Why not call up the Sarasota School District and ask if it's saving them money? They say it's saving them $2 million/year.
See e.g. http://www.wtsp.com/story/news/local...ning/16160965/
As I mentioned, I've seen them at a local community college. I don't think they'd be selling so many of these if it weren't saving people money.

[SunEagle]

Why not call up the Sarasota School District and ask if it's saving them money? They say it's saving them $2 million/year.
See e.g. http://www.wtsp.com/story/news/local...ning/16160965/
As I mentioned, I've seen them at a local community college. I don't think they'd be selling so many of these if it weren't saving people money.

Dan. Like any News story about someone installing an Energy Storage device they always talk about what they have been told they will save in $. Which could be less after a few years of actual usage.

What those stories also seem to leave out are the up front costs to install the system. I am sure most of those costs are picked up by State & Fed rebates but even then the payback might be over a decade.

I agree they should broadcast their savings but not stating how long it takes to recoup the up front costs is misleading.

[DanKegel]

The article I linked ( http://www.utilitydive.com/news/ice-...torage/408356/ ) gave payback time for one project as 4.5 years, helped along by a generous utility rebate. ( Their case study for that project is at http://www.calmac.com/stuff/contentm..._study_ema.pdf and shows an upfront cost of $3.1 million after rebate, and annual savings of $620k to $980k.)

[SunEagle]

The article I linked ( http://www.utilitydive.com/news/ice-...torage/408356/ ) gave payback time for one project as 4.5 years, helped along by a generous utility rebate. ( Their case study for that project is at http://www.calmac.com/stuff/contentm..._study_ema.pdf and shows an upfront cost of $3.1 million after rebate, and annual savings of $620k to $980k.)

Ok. I missed where they showed what they would normally pay for power that they offset with the ice systems.

I was also talking about the link for the Sarasota system. Claiming $2 million/year savings seems kind of high considering their POCO is not really charging them a lot even for off peak and has recently reduced their tariffs.

I missed any estimated cost to maintain that system which could be high considering the use of glycol. Those systems leak not matter how good you build them. That cost needs to be added to the up front cost for any type of ROI.

[sensij]

I'm not sure what the resistance is here. Load shifting is a very real way to reduce the cost of energy, and equipment that facilitates shifting will exist if it can succeed at doing so in a cost-effective manner. There will certainly be cases in which the savings will be oversold, but the concept is sound, and as rate structures become more demand based and technology improves (and rebates continue to exist), the question is shifting away from "will this ever pay for itself?" and more to "how long will it take to pay for itself?" I think the biggest hurdle to adoption is more likely to be general ignorance about rates and how demand can be optimized than it is to be whether the equipment is capable of delivering an acceptable return, as long as expectations are based on lifecycle calculations made by a competent engineer.

[DanKegel]

Maybe he hasn't seen one in operation, and is simply being skeptical of what seems like a niche technology.

[SunEagle]

I'm not sure what the resistance is here. Load shifting is a very real way to reduce the cost of energy, and equipment that facilitates shifting will exist if it can succeed at doing so in a cost-effective manner. There will certainly be cases in which the savings will be oversold, but the concept is sound, and as rate structures become more demand based and technology improves (and rebates continue to exist), the question is shifting away from "will this ever pay for itself?" and more to "how long will it take to pay for itself?" I think the biggest hurdle to adoption is more likely to be general ignorance about rates and how demand can be optimized than it is to be whether the equipment is capable of delivering an acceptable return, as long as expectations are based on lifecycle calculations made by a competent engineer.

If the technology works and ends up saving you money then I support it.

All I was saying is that some of the news I have read seems to highlight the "savings estimate" but totally ignores what it cost to purchase and install the equipment.

Even if it takes 20 years to pay for itself then that would be a financial success for most people. But I would rather see the whole story, not just part of it.

Why would anyone feel that installing something would be a success if it ends up costing much more then what you get out of it. Wouldn't you look into doing something else that is at least a break even prospect?

[Sunking]

I'm not sure what the resistance is here. .

You are joking right?

[DanKegel]

Why would anyone feel that installing something would be a success if it ends up costing much more then what you get out of it. Wouldn't you look into doing something else that is at least a break even prospect?

Except that wasn't being proposed... the calmac system seems to actually save money in practice.

So the answer to sensij's question may be SunEagle was using Sturgeon's Law as a guide to the quality of the info posted on this thread https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon%27s_law

[SunEagle]

Except that wasn't being proposed... the calmac system seems to actually save money in practice.

So the answer to sensij's question may be SunEagle was using Sturgeon's Law as a guide to the quality of the info posted on this thread https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon%27s_law

While I have read a few of Sturgeon's books I actually prefer Asimov or Heinlein.

But I disagree with you. I do not believe that 90% of what is posted here is crap.

Although there are some people here that fall into the 99% BS category.

Present company excluded.

[DanKegel]

[peakbagger]

I have looked at ice storage a couple of times for gas turbine inlet cooling. Unless someone is writing big incentives for the upfront capital cost and installation they rarely make sense financially.

[J.P.M.]

If the technology works and ends up saving you money then I support it.

+1 with the addition that it do so on its own without subsidies or any form of support from outside sources. It's called capitalism.

[DanKegel]

Bit more on the Ice Bear 20 here:

http://energystoragereport.info/ice-energy-ice-bear-thermal-energy-storage/

Evidently it's being marketed to utilities first.