The utilities are probably the greatest winners economically, as this practice shaves peak hour demand. What are we waiting for ?

One clarification on this line though:

“At $5,000 each, these will be within the means of commercial property-owners, and would bring up to 90% reduction in individual building’s fuel use.”

Thermal storage does not reduce energy use but actually slightly increases a buildings energy consumption due to heat loss from the ice storage system (a well designed and insulated system would be just a small increase).

The intent of these systems is what was mentioned earlier in the article, to offset the peak demand by transferring that energy use to the off-peak hours. As Susan says this has significant benefits both in transferring more demand to cleaner power sources and financially to those that are on a time-of-use schedule.

I am frankly very tired of the common comment that someone feeds authors of these articles that large chilled water energy storage systems using ice like “the Bank of America Building in Manhattan is a LEED-Certified example – these tend to be expensive custom-built designs”.

The designs are custom but they are not expensive. In most areas of the country new designs with ice storage based chilled water designs cost no more than conventional chilled water. Chilled water retrofit projects tend to have paybacks of four years or less.

Modular ice storage for chilled water systems has been in use for over 25 years and these systems have a proven track record. Best practices and product improvements have made these systems the product of choice because of its reliable and efficient operation as well as its affordablility.

The inherent synergies of a total system design can lower connected load and offer incredible efficienies. Most of the larger custom ice storage projects are installed without a utility subsidiy. That fact alone says ice storage systems for chilled water systems are affordable.

[SK: That is great to know: It would be great if it was implemented more often. Somebody from that industry needs to publicize it more! When I referred to my other BofA wind storage story as expensive; and custom, I was thinking that many people just don’t consider doing serious energy retrofit or design to save energy. BofA was LEED so it had access to good advice of LEED AP professionals. That advice is more expensive than your average plumbing warehouse in Glendale say is going to seek, that if there’s something modular and ready to just pop in, like these units, that this would therefor be more likely to actually get implemented at a wide scale.]

Jim SESCo (Shillady Engineered Systems Co.)San Diego Ca.

SCPPA put Ice Bears through field trials for an extended period before committing to 53 MWs worth. This isn’t a test or a trial, but a true strategy for SCPPA member utilities to shave peak demand and reduce emissions. Let me know if you’re interested in speaking with someone from SCPPA.

You’re mistaken on all accounts.

Ice Bears are not evolving. They’ve been in use for many years and are proven.

The Glendale project is a full-fledged installation, not a “trial.” SCPPA will install thousands of Ice Bear storage systems throughout it’s member utilities without any government subsidies.

And Ice Bears can be installed safely on roofs, usually without modification to the building. They do receive ground installs if that location is deemed to be a better alternative.

Part of the reason we won WW2 is the “kiss” principle. Keep it simple, stupid. Solar panels belong on the roof, where it’s harder to graffiti them, and ice storage belongs under the parking lot, where they won’t crash through the roof. Solar panels generate their power when it’s needed for A/C. They weigh a lot less. This idea of loading ice on the roof could work pretty well in Colorado, where snow loads and tornado winds have forced the builders to ante up on the cost of making the roofs stronger. But California has earthquakes, and I wouldn’t want to work underneath a ton or two of ice, retrofitted on a building not made to carry it. The first accident that leads to a lawsuit in this sue-happy state will probably set back any financial savings 5 years. The people deciding this thing are in it for the money, not for a sustainable, low carbon future.