For many years, I have read EnergyBiz articles with interest. Very talented people have shared their ideas for solving the energy problems, and they have championed a variety of possible solutions. I believe the real answer will be a combination of many of these ideas. Emerging technologies such as wind, solar and fuel cells will play an important role. As will as established technologies such as thermal energy storage. TES is a proven method to manage on-peak energy growth while the other developing technologies are being perfected.


In the 1990's, State Public Service Organizations often required regulated electric utilities to take steps to balance their loads. Applications for new power plants and rate increases were tied to these steps. Since deregulation, the unchecked growth of on-peak demand has been staggering. Rather than investing in efforts to reduce peak growth, electric firms offer Demand Response Programs that will get them through demand crunch periods until new plants are on line.


The peak demand is only a 4 to 6 hour a day period that might be required for 10 to 15 working days a year. These few hours a year dictate all aspects of the power industry.


I have specialized in the application of thermal ice storage for 25 years. Both chilled water and ice storage TES systems can be major contributors to the energy solution. The technology has been in use for over 50 years with proven results. TES systems actually shift the peak energy use for air-conditioning and process cooling loads to non-peak hours. This reduces the on-peak demand at the user's site, on the transmission and distribution networks and at the generation facilities. The TES system costs less than the cost of installing new power generation and upgrading the network. The incremental cost to add ice storage to a conventional chiller water cooling system and shift one megawatt of power for 8 hours to a non-peak period is approximately $1,000,000. The approximate cost for new power generation, whether it is coal, oil or nuclear, is $1,800,000 per MW. In a regulated utility market, it was recognized to be less expensive to reduce peak energy than to add new plants.


In 1995, a Baltimore utility was offering rebates to reduce peak demand. They provided formulas to calculate the effect that the demand reduction would have on the utility's cost all the way back to the generating source. . In those days, the normal rebate was $200/kW avoided, while the actual cost for new plants was closer to $1,000/kW. On one particular project, an engineering firm projected a rebate of over $1,000.00 for a TES peak load reduction of less than one MW. In today's market, with energy costs and generation costs much higher, I think it is safe to predict a one MW peak reduction might be closer to $2,000,000 utility cost savings.


Prior to deregulation, the benefits of reducing demand were easier to evaluate. The utility owned the generation plants as well as the transmission and distribution networks. All of the costs and savings were under the same umbrella. With deregulation, the financial path gets very convoluted.


End users want to be environmentally responsible as long as their energy costs are reasonable. Environmentalists want to slow the growth of global warming and reduce power plant greenhouse gas emissions. However, the economy of the various firms that actually own the power plants and maintain the networks might be better served by adding more plants and overhauling the transmission networks. The moral and ethical pedestal where utility firms were placed in corporate America has been severely shaken over the past decade. Without some type of behavior guidelines, there will not be a solution to the energy situation.


True energy independence may happen when all of our energy options are operating at full potential. However, it might be another 10 years before wind, solar and fuel cells can make a substantial positive impact. In the mean time, TES can respond immediately. Within the next 10 years, the peak demand in every major city in America could be reduced by 300 MW or more. Imagine the positive effect this would have on emissions, reliability and the economy. The technology is ready, proven and there are several thousand operating installations to back that up. No other existing technology could respond as quickly and be as cost effective.


Since energy conservation, reduction in power plant emissions, a diminished need for new plants and reliable transmission network are desirable, electric demand management is absolutely essential.


C. Louis Clark, Jr. C.E.M

from article originally published at:  http://www.energycentral.com/site/newsletters/ebi.cfm?id=392
 

Copyright © 1996-2006 by CyberTech, Inc. All rights reserved.