SUMMER PEAKiNG CAPACITY VIA CHILLED WATER STORAGE COOLING OF
`COMBUSTION TURBINE INLET AIR
`
`JOHN S. ANDREPONT
`Product Manager - Thermal Systems
`Chicago Bridge & Iron Company
`
`SANDRA L. STEINMANN
`Design Engineer
`CBI Technical Services Company
`Plainfield, fiIinoi.
`
`ABSTRACT
`
`The relationship of Combustion Turbine (CT) capacity to
`inlet air temperature is briefly presenterl, illustrating the
`value of inlet air cooling. Various inlet air cooling
`tC(:hnologies are described including the use of several
`oommercially available cool storage technologies. The pros
`and cons of each cooling option are summarized to illustrate
`tile types of design conditions likely to jnstify the economic
`application of each technology.
`
`The use of chilled water storage for CT inlet air cooling is
`described in detail. Potential applications for utility and
`non-utility CTs, for new and existing CTs. and for
`oombined cycle as well as simple cycle CTs are all
`illustrated. The results of a detailed technical and economic
`analysis of a specific utility application are reviewed. The
`findings include a net summer peaking capacity increase in
`CT plant output of 20%, a heat rate reduction of 5%, and a
`unit capital cost for the incremental capacity of roughly
`50% that of new simple cycle CT capacity.
`
`CTPERFORMANCE VERSUS TEMPERATURE
`
`It is. a common occurrence for summer-peaking or dual(cid:173)
`i"cl<lllg electric utilities, that peak demand for electric load
`"',"Cldes closely with periods of peak ambient air
`Itlllperatures. Therefore it is generally at such times that
`%illlple cycle combustion turbines (CTs) are dispatched to
`~Vldc peaking power. However, it is a characteristic of
`l>it~ that their rated power output decreases significantly
`" Increasing ambient air temperature. This is due to the
`1llllbthat the lower density air entering the CT at high
`lent temperatures results in a reduction in turbine mass
`""illlbu as well as in the flow of oxygen available Jot
`Iil<Jst stlon. The result is that when peaking capacity is
`1Il demand'
`.
`IS preclsely when CT capacity is most
`~erel '
`) derated. See Figure 1.
`
`FIGURE 1 - TYPICAL CT PERFORMANCE
`
`110
`
`100
`
`90
`
`80
`
`70
`
`60
`40
`
`%
`
`HEAT RATE
`
`CAPACITY
`
`60
`
`80
`
`100
`
`INLET AIR TEMP (OF)
`
`Various approaches can be employed for the cooling of CT
`inlet air.
`They
`include:
`evaporative, absorption,
`mechanical compression, and cool storage cooling. Each
`technology has its pros and cons, its concerns or limitations.
`Evaporative cooling can provide capacity at a low unit
`capital cost; however, it is limited by the ambient wet bnlb
`air
`temperature
`(thus offering only modest capacity
`the availability of large
`enhancement) and
`requires
`quantities of water (often mlavailable in dry climates where
`the technology would be most advantageous). Absorption
`cooling can utilize available waste heat from CT or CTCC
`(CT Combined Cycle) exhaust gases, as its input energy;
`however, both exhaust gas heat exchangers and absorption
`cooling equipment itself are capital intensive. Mechanical
`compression
`refrigeration
`systems
`are
`commercially
`available and can be specifically selected to snit any desired
`inlet air temperature; however, they too have high capital
`cost (associated with the high cooling capacities required)
`and typically will consume 30 percent or more of the
`incremental CT output in their own parasitic energy
`requirements.
`
`The addition of thermal energy storage to a non-storage CT
`cooling system provides the owner with several benefits. It
`allows downsizing of
`the
`refrigeration
`equipment,
`significantly decreasing capital costs; and it gives the added
`benefit of de-coupling the parasitic use of large refrigeration
`equipment from the real-time, on-peak need for CT inlet air
`cooling.
`
`FOR CT INLET AIR COOLING
`
`of CT inlet air is desirable during periods of
`peak d'
`th
`lSpatch, typically 4 to 6 hours per day.
`IIIO~Fse penods, ambient inlet air, at temperatures of
`orrno
`'d '
`i
`re, IS eSirably cooled to the 40 to 50°F
`, .c. cool en h '
`.
`.
`but
`oug
`to achIeve substantial CT capacIty
`Within ~t so cool as to initiate potentially damaging
`CT Inlet from the resultant condensation.
`
`Cool storage, also known as thermal energy storage (TES)
`involves the cyclical heating and cooling of a thermal mass
`or heat storage medium. Typically during periods of peak
`cooling demand, heat is rejected to a storage medium such
`as water or ice (thus heating the water or melting the ice);
`during subsequent off-peak periods, refrigeration is utilized
`to regenerate storage (i.e. recooling the water or refreezing
`the ice).
`
`1345
`
`Page 1 of 6
`
`GE Exhibit 1006
`
`

`

`II""
`
`(i '
`
`Such cool storage systems have been widely applied in air(cid:173)
`conditioning or process cooling applications in the 1980's
`and 1990's. Systems can be designed such that storage is
`used for 100% of the peak cooling load ("full storage") or
`for less than the full load ("partial storage"). Systems can
`also be designed to operate as daily cycles (which are fully
`charged and discharged in 24 hours) or as weekly cycles
`(which are fully charged during off-peak weekend periods
`and partially discharged and recharged cyclically during
`Monday through Friday).
`
`During the on-peak operation of the CTs cold
`wate .
`'
`pumped from the bottom of the thermally stratw' 1 d
`r Ii
`e cilill~
`.
`water storage tank to the au coolers. The cold w t
`'"
`a
`the hot, hmnid air approaching the CT' wann
`er COOls
`.
`'
`water <
`returoed to the top of the tank while cool air enters til
`IS
`increasing CT output and performance. During ofI~ CT,
`periods, warm water is removed from the top of the ~
`.Ilk.
`pumped to and chilled by the refrigeration system
`returned to the bottom of the tank for use during th' dnd
`e nex1
`on-peak period.
`
`Either chilled water or ice is an appropriate storage medium
`to consider for CT cooling. Ice storage temperature is 32°F
`(with typical melt water temperatures varyiog during
`discharge in the range of 33 to 44°F, depending on the type
`of ice storage equipment used, the rate of ice melting, and
`the amount of ice remaining urunelted); chilled water
`storage temperatures are practical down to 39°F (with a
`typical and constant discharge water temperature of 40°F
`being sustainably achieved throughout the discharge cycle).
`Another consideration is the space requirement for the
`storage medium.
`
`Although not usually the case for conventional air(cid:173)
`conditioning applications, full storage designs are both
`practical and appropriate for CT cooling due to the
`relatively short periods of peak CT dispatch. Either daily or
`weekly cycles can be appropriate choices for CT cooling,
`unless the utility expects to dispatch the CT on weekends as
`well as Monday through Friday; if so, a daily cycle would be
`the preferred design option.
`
`For each distinct utility application, various combinations of
`storage media (chilled water and ice) and cycle design
`In addition,
`(daily and weekly) should be considered.
`consideration should be given to the use of existing fuel oil
`tanks (available at some sites) as well as to the use of new
`cool storage tanks (necessary at most sites). All cases must
`consider the required number of hours per day of CT
`dispatch, Monday
`through Friday, and Saturday and
`Sunday. At the original prototype application of cool
`storage CT cooling, the design basis was four hours per day;
`but this value may be more or less at other sites.
`
`TIlE CHILLED WATER STORAGE SYSTEM
`
`Commercially available components can be integrated to
`The basic
`provide storage cooling of CT iulet air.
`configuration, illustrated in Figure 2, utilizes a patented
`chilled water thermal energy storage system with a
`conventional HFC or NH3 mechanical refrigeration, 'system
`and a cooling tower for heat rejection. (Note however, that
`an inherent flexibility of chilled water storage is that any
`water chilling technology, including absorption chilling,
`could be used to accomplish the recharge.)
`
`Figure 2 represents a design for a new cool stora
`installation applied to existing utility simple cycle c;C
`The technology is of course readily applied to cogeneratio~
`or independent power producer (IPP) CTs, as well as 1
`electric power utility CTs. Furthermore, cool storage ~
`inlet air cooling can be applied concurrently with lhe
`installation of new CTs, as well as in retrofits with eXisting
`CTs.
`Interestmgly, the technology IS also well sui led to
`CTCCs, even to those which are base loaded. Wherever
`there is a value to electricity which varies with the time of
`day (i.e. in virtually all situations), cool storage inlet air
`cooling can be dispatched as a peaking technology on top of
`the base load capacity of the CT or CTCC. For CTCe
`applications, although the inlet air cooling of the CT
`reduces the temperature of the CT exhaust, this is a lesser
`impact than the increase in exhaust gas mass flow. The
`result is an increased output potential in the steam turbine
`as well as in the CT itself.
`
`ANALYSIS AND RESULTS OF A SPECIFIC
`APPLICATION
`
`The design basis and assumptions were chosen by a host
`utility for evaluation of both chilled water storage and ice
`storage CT iulet air cooling. A specific site and ils six
`existing CTs (each roughiy 50 MW nominal outpul at
`summer design conditions) were the basis of a relrofit
`analysis. Two of three existing fuel oil storage tanks were
`considered for possible conversion to cool storage service;
`new storage tanks were also considered. Ice-an-coil (stalic
`ice) storage, ice harvester (dyoamic ice) storage, and chilled
`water storage were all considered. An initial analySIS
`narrowed the selection to the four confignrations wilh the
`best potential for low capital cost. The economies of scale
`(significant for relatively large applications) and
`the
`possible use of the existing fuel oil tanks led the utility and
`the independent evaluator to eliminate the static ice oplion'
`.
`.
`A single
`from the short hst of final confignratlOns.
`.
`confignration was chosen as a base case for detailed des~
`and cost estimating; budgetary costs were then develo
`for the three remaining configurations. The subsequent
`analyses contrasted storage media, weekly vs. daily cycles.
`and new vs. retrofit tanks.
`
`. D r lhe baS<
`The system design and equipment selectIOn 0
`1I
`case were developed in detail by analysis of the overa
`
`1346
`
`Page 2 of 6
`
`GE Exhibit 1006
`
`

`

`Gi)£IIATC5I
`
`el·S
`
`AIR COOLER
`
`~,
`
`AIR COOLER
`
`(El£MT<Jl
`
`en
`
`IDERAI~
`
`CH
`
`AIR COOLER
`
`~.
`
`AIR COOLER
`
`AIR COOLER
`
`IlOEPATC5I
`
`CT -2
`
`~-,
`
`AIR COOLER
`
`IlJ(AAT~
`
`CH
`
`~-,
`
`______________________ CJ
`,
`
`:£_------
`
`I ~ I COOLING
`
`E-l
`TOWER
`
`CHILLER PACKAGE
`
`I"F-
`
`-F;
`
`F
`
`PUMPS
`
`CHILLED '&lATER
`
`STORAGE TANK
`CHILLED \lATER
`
`STRATIFIED
`THERMAllY
`
`T -1
`
`FIGURE 2 -FLOW SCHEMATIC -CT INLET AIR COOLING SYSTEM -DAILY CYCLE WITH NEW TANK
`
`"
`-(cid:173)
`............ ~ ~_ "" U) P. ""
`;:~-(!)()""l:5::::::"""
`
`'" >-l ---
`
`l< 1'1-
`
`"
`
`gf."~
`;::t.~~
`
`~
`
`c.:I~(1)SJgn-'lo
`t:;. --, .....
`$I! "''''-5''"'_
`
`-
`
`...,>--3(")9.,
`'" ~ n (=5>5
`
`S'::j
`
`" - o
`
`0
`
`~,......;.:n;!l
`e> ~. n' 0
`o
`a~ ~:::­
`
`_ _. ('1> -. n
`.....
`
`_
`tTl-
`
`::In".,o..n",,,,,,,o..n~·'"
`-.
`;:::;. J:;:.~' < ::;:!
`
`_
`
`_ ~ __
`
`-~ "'i -. g $2 e c:. g c:. ~ = g 0-~
`v. ~ IJ'e
`'6,;0 6'-g ...... a -..
`
`.-
`
`, .
`
`'-I
`.j:>.
`IN
`
`~
`
`~ ~ = ~
`a cr
`
`Page 3 of 6
`
`GE Exhibit 1006
`
`

`

`process as several major subsystems, plus controls and
`instrumentation, and auxiliary systems. Each system is
`designed to provide inlet air cooling 6 hours per day,
`Monday through Friday. Key design differences between
`the base case and the three alternative configurations were
`flow
`the development of process
`evaluated
`through
`schematics, equipment layouts, plot plans, and turnkey cost
`estimates. Surprisingly, whether ice or water storage is
`employed, similar site layouts apply, including the storage
`volume and footprint; water storage volume was minimized
`through the use of a daily (rather than weekly) cycle and a
`large
`chilled water
`supply-to-return
`temperature
`differential. The required storage volumes for the chilled
`water storage options were actually slightly less than the
`volume for the ice storage option.
`
`Operation and Maintenance issues and requirements were
`considered; and contrasts between the configurations were
`identified. Although the ice storage systems were somewhat
`more complex, no unusual O&M issues were identified for
`any ofthe cases studied.
`
`A detailed analysis of system performance was performed
`for each of the four configurations under study; results (see
`Table 1) were quantified for the following:
`
`•
`•
`•
`•
`
`off-peak power and energy for recharging storage,
`on-peak increases in CT power and efficiency,
`on-peak parasitic power and energy consumed, and
`net power increases for the entire CT facility.
`
`Key points of contrast include the fact that the 40°F inlet air
`temperature achieved with ice storage provides a net facility
`power increase of 66.46 MW (21.5%) after discounting for
`inlet pressure drop and parasitics, while the 46°F achieved
`with water storage pro,ides 58.95 MW (19.1%). However,
`the ratio of off-peak electric consumption (kWh in per
`week) to on-peak incremental electric production (kWh out
`per week) is 0.53 for ice storage versus only 0.31 for water
`storage (see Table 2).
`
`The scope of supply which has been analyzed and cost(cid:173)
`estimated is based on firm fixed-price supply of a total
`turnkey design-build installation. The turnkey schedule is
`competitive with CT procurement;
`and permitting
`requirements are likely to be less than those for other
`peaking capacity additions.
`
`A detailed total price was developed for the base case, as
`were budgetary
`total prices
`for
`the other
`three
`configurations. Other factors which impact price were
`identified and evaluated, not the least of which is the
`number of hours per day for CT operation. Realistically
`achievable target price ranges were developed (see Table 3).
`For the specific site under analysis, the median unit costs
`are as follows:
`
`Hours of CT Cooling per Day
`W1dy Ice Storage with Retro Tank
`Daily Water Storage with Retro Tank
`Daily Water Storage with New Tank
`
`6
`$30iikw
`239
`269
`
`4
`$2721kW
`209
`239
`
`Major conclusions of the evaluation are significant E'
`ice or water storage provides capacity at unit C~st Ithcr
`. '
`sWell
`below
`those assOCiated WIth new CT
`installat'
`However, the incremental cost of ice versus water st;ons"
`(for the increment of increased output) is $750 to 800~~
`as shown in Table 3. The findings are in agreement
`.
`an independent study which recently analyzed sir~~th
`applications.
`I ar
`
`CONCLUSIONS
`
`The findings of this evaluation, although specific to the
`particnlar application analyzed here, are in agreement With
`the results of another, independent study listed in the
`bibliography.
`All
`the
`technologies considered are
`technically feasible for application as CT Inlet Air Cooling
`Systems. No technology developments are necessary, as the
`systems will employ hardware of a type and size already in
`use in commercial, industrial, or utility applications.
`
`Static ice storage technology (such as ice-an-coil or
`encapsulated ice storage systems) was not found to be
`capital cost competitive with either dynamic ice storage
`technology
`(ice harvester) or chilled water storage
`technology for
`this particnlar CT Inlet Air Cooling
`application, due to the economies of scale associated with
`relatively large storage applications (and due to the possible
`use of the existing fuel oil tanks). For ice harvester
`applications, weekly design cycles will be more cost
`effective than will daily design cycles. For chilled water
`storage applications, the converse is true: daily cycles will
`be preferred. One net resnlt is that when comparing the
`optimum choice for
`ice storage systems (weekly
`ice
`harvesters) with the optimum choice for water storage
`systems (daily chilled water storage), the required storage
`volumes are virtually identical, with water storage actually
`reqniring slightly less volume.
`
`Either water or ice storage systems will provide ve~'
`substantial CT output
`increases for summer peaking
`operation (roughly 20% as analyzed for the 6 existing CTs
`at the installation studied here). If a particular ice storage
`system design can provide a supply of low temperature
`water (e.g. 34°F, versus 40°F for chilled water storage) and
`if the CT manufacturer allows operation with inlet arr
`conditions of 100% R.H. at temperatures below 45'F, thell
`ice storage systems can offer modestly larger outp~t
`increases than can water storage systems. Hmvever, tlu~
`additional incremental output comes only with adde
`system complexity and at a substantial cost increase.
`
`1348
`
`,
`
`.Q!I
`Sto
`eyl
`Tali
`.Qg!
`bas
`inc
`dec'
`net
`net
`on(cid:173)
`net
`~
`
`£m
`Sto
`Cyr
`Tar
`
`Off
`•
`•
`•
`•
`Opr
`Off
`
`On·
`Opr
`On·
`
`Off.
`
`~ eyel
`
`Tani
`
`&t
`Med
`Pow
`Unit
`!Jnit
`
`Ill£!
`Capi
`Pow
`Unit
`!Jnit
`
`Page 4 of 6
`
`GE Exhibit 1006
`
`

`

`"er
`'ell
`ns.
`1ge
`,w
`itll
`lar
`
`the
`ith
`the
`are
`ing
`the
`in
`
`or
`be
`1ge
`Ige
`,ng
`itb
`ble
`ter
`osl
`tee
`lill
`ne
`ice
`Igc
`19o
`Ily
`
`Configuration
`storage Type
`Cycle Type
`Tank Type
`On-Peak Callarity rMWl
`base per CT (@95°F)
`increase (due to L\ T)
`decrease (due to L\P)
`nct increase per CT
`net increase for 6 CTs
`on-peak parasitics
`net increase for facility
`% increase for facility
`
`TABLE 1 - NET FACILITY POWER INCREASES
`
`A
`Chilled Water
`Weekly
`Retrofit
`
`B
`Chilled Water
`Daily
`Retrofit
`
`C
`Chilled Water
`Daily
`New
`
`D
`Ice Harvester
`Weekly
`Retrofit
`
`51.4
`+10.0
`- 0.14
`+9.86
`+59.16
`- 0.21
`+58.95
`+19.1
`
`51.4
`+10.0
`- 0.14
`+9.86
`+59.16
`- 0.25
`+58.91
`+19.1
`
`51.4
`+10.0
`- 0.14
`+9.86
`+59.16
`- 0.21
`+58.95
`+19.1
`
`51.4
`+11.3
`- 0.14
`+11.16
`+66.96
`- 0.50
`+66.46
`+21.5
`
`TABLE 2 - OFF-PEAK CONSUMPTION VERSUS ON-PEAK NET PRODUCTION
`
`Configuration
`Storage Type
`Cycle Type
`Tanle Type
`
`A
`Chilled Water
`Weekly
`Retrofit
`
`B
`Chilled Water
`Daily
`Retrofit
`
`C
`Chilled Water
`Daily
`New
`
`D
`Ice Harvester
`Weekly
`Retrofit
`
`Off-Peak Capacity (kW)
`• Chillers
`• Wann Water Pumps
`• Cooling Tower Pumps
`• Cooling Tower Fans
`• Total
`Operating Time (hrs/wk)
`Off-Peak Energy (kWh/wk)
`
`3,741
`44
`127
`---ID
`4,079
`x 138
`562,902
`
`On-Peak Net Power (kW)
`Operating Time (hrsiwk)
`OO-Peak Net Energy (kWh/wk)
`
`58,950
`x30
`1,768,500
`
`Off-PeakiOn-Peak Ratio
`
`0.318
`
`5,663
`127
`127
`---ID
`6,084
`x90
`547,560
`
`58,910
`x 30
`1,767,300
`
`0.310
`
`5,663
`52
`207
`207
`6,129
`x90
`551,610
`
`58,950
`x30
`l, 768,500
`
`0.312
`
`6,921
`207
`246
`---.11i
`7,649
`x 138
`1,055,562
`
`66,460
`x 30
`1,993,800
`
`0.529
`
`TABLE 3 - NET INCREMENTAL COST OF POWER
`
`~uration
`CT Operation (ms/day)
`Storage Type
`CYcle Type
`Tank TyPe
`
`&u:ncreases
`~edian Target Price ($ x 10')
`\ olVer Output (MW)
`Unit Cost ($/jeW)
`Unit Cost ($/kWhiday)
`~entvs.B
`p Plta\ Cost ($ x 10')
`U":" Output (MW)
`Unit Cost ($/kW)
`~Cost ($/kWhiday)
`
`A
`6
`CHW
`Wkly
`Retro
`
`15.0
`58.95
`255
`42.5
`
`-
`-
`-
`-
`
`B
`6
`CHW
`Daily
`Retra
`
`14.1
`58.91
`239
`39.8
`
`-
`-
`-
`-
`
`D
`6
`I. H.
`Wkly
`Retro
`
`20.1
`66.46
`302
`50.3
`
`6.0
`7.55
`795
`133
`
`C
`6
`CHW
`Daily
`New
`
`15.9
`58.95
`269
`44.8
`
`-
`-
`-
`-
`
`1349
`
`A
`4
`CHW
`Wkly
`Retro
`
`13.3
`58.95
`225
`56.3
`
`-
`-
`-
`-
`
`B
`4
`CHW
`Daily
`Retro
`
`12.3
`58.91
`209
`52.3
`
`-
`-
`-
`-
`
`C
`4
`CHW
`Daily
`New
`
`14.1
`58.95
`239
`59.8
`
`-
`-
`-
`-
`
`D
`4
`I. H.
`Wkly
`Retro
`
`18.1
`66.46
`272
`68.0
`
`5.8
`7.55
`768
`192
`
`Page 5 of 6
`
`GE Exhibit 1006
`
`

`

`Either water or ice storage systems can provide summer
`peak capacity increases at unit capital costs well below
`those of conventional new CT installations. However, for
`the present application, the incremental cost of ice storage
`(associated with the incremental output increase due to the
`slightly lower inlet air temperature of ice versus water
`cooling) is in the range of $750 to 800/kW. This is
`typically an unjustifiable amount compared to the cost of
`either conventional new CT capacity or a combination of
`new CTs with chilled water storage cooling.
`
`Additional inherent differences between the subject chilled
`water storage and ice harvester systems were evident:
`
`systems
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`reqnire
`
`smaller
`
`the water storage systems do not reqnire chiller
`eqnipment specifically snited for low temperature
`operation;
`storage
`the water
`refrigerant charges;
`the water storage systems are less complex, with
`fewer refrigeration system components and less
`refrigerant piping;
`the water storage systems consume approximately
`40% less off-peak energy (per unit of net on-peak
`energy produced); and
`the water storage systems will likely incur lower
`O&Mcosts.
`
`Cool storage capacity enhancement can be us d
`dispatchable peaking technology either with sim el as a
`CTs or with CT Combined Cycles (CTCCs). T~ e CYcle
`Cool Storage CT lulet Air Cooling is an econo~ ute of
`technically proven option for CT capacity enhance~a and
`should not be overlooked by utilities when procurent. It
`lUg or
`planning for summer peaking capacity additions.
`
`BmLIOGRAl'HY
`
`Chicago Bridge &
`Iron Company, Enginee .
`Specification for a Cool Storage System, CB! ST -o~~
`Oak Brook, IL, Augnst 1992.
`'
`
`Chicago Bridge & Iron Company, Technical and EconOmic
`for NSF
`Evaluation of Cool Storage Options
`Combustion Turbine Inlet Air Precooling. Oak Brook,
`IL, September 1992.
`
`Ebeling, Jerry A., Combustion Turbine lulet Air Cooling
`With Thennal Energy Storage, Burns & McDonnell
`Engineering Company, Power-Gen '91, Tampa, FL,
`December 1991.
`
`Stovall, Therese K., Baltimore Aircoil Company (!lAC) Ice
`Storage Test Report, Oak Ridge National Laboratory
`(ORNLfTM-I1342), Oak Ridge, TN, March 1991.
`
`Either water or ice storage systems can be procured as total
`The
`lumpsum
`turnkey design-bnild
`installations.
`construction schedule is competitive with the procurement
`of new CT capacity. Permitting reqnirements should be less
`(possibly a lot less) than for alternative new capacity
`additions. Optimization of system design and capital cost
`for each specific site will reqnire the perfonnance of
`detailed and knowledgeable
`trade-off analyses.
`The
`optimum technology (or air temperature) for one application
`may be qnite different from the optimum choice for another
`application.
`
`Cool storage technology is equally applicable as a retrofit
`for existing CTs or as an
`capacity enhancement
`enhancement procured concurrently with new CT capacity.
`
`Stovall, Therese K., Calmac Ice Storage Test Report, Oak
`Ridge National Laboratory (ORNLfTM-IlS82), Oak
`Ridge, TN, Augnst 1991.
`
`Stovall, Therese K., Turbo Refrigerating Comoanv Ice
`Storage Test Report, Oak Ridge National Laboratory
`(ORNLfTM-1l6S7), Oak Ridge, TN, June 1991.
`
`Zwillenberg, M.L., et al, Assessment of Refrigeration-Typ<l
`Cooling of Iulet Air for Essex Unit No.9, Public
`Service Electric and Gas Company, Electric Power
`Research
`Institute,
`and
`Joseph
`Technology
`Corporation, Inc., ASME Paper No. 91-JPGC-GT-4,
`International Power Generation Conference, San
`Diego, CA, October 1991.
`
`Al!stract
`A review (
`j)lJtor resea
`~ications
`""totype I11
`~shave b
`}¥J1Chronoil!
`Ji;monstrate
`IIl'S field v
`!!o<luced a
`Measured H
`lood
`is p
`1ijllJonstrat\
`
`Inlrodueli'
`The 1987 I
`(IlTS) mate
`1IljlCrcondu
`wpcrcondu
`vl'liquid r
`IjlOrating t
`previous s
`@ling at
`fIlIintain t
`wpcrcondt
`(\)~s prm
`reonornica:
`lilIlgawatts
`ilIousands
`
`iIltliancc E
`!!egan a
`mibility
`ttl~lerials
`!he synd
`winding
`~nmcrci1
`Will have
`I!llhe sta
`lilIor, n
`1(;00 hpj
`1Ij)craled ~
`~!ergy sa
`lJllllicatio
`
`llIe expc
`~ciency
`IIF a dire
`ll1.l\{jing I
`
`Page 6 of 6
`
`GE Exhibit 1006
`
`