Using the Hudson to Cool the Trade Center

A critical lifeline to the new World Trade Center from the very old Hudson River — four water pipes large enough for workers to crawl through — is nearing completion along West Street.

The pipes now extend from the Battery Park City bulkhead to the foundation wall on the west side of the trade center site. They will deliver cool river water — up to 30,000 gallons a minute at the peak — to the center’s chiller plant and then discharge it back into the river.

The $200 million chiller plant will cool and dehumidify air in the exhibition halls of the National September 11 Memorial and Museum, in the Transportation Hub and its tentacled passageways, in the shopping concourses, at the vehicle security checkpoints and in the performing arts center, should one be built.

The construction of the pipeline is therefore a key element in the overall redevelopment of the site, since it will help make those public spaces habitable.

“We built it for a hundred years,” said Paul W. Johnke, senior program manager in the World Trade Center construction division of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, who is overseeing the chiller plant and river water project. He said this was a reasonable life expectancy, given the design of the new piping and the fact that much of the original pipeline survived 9/11.

The chiller plant should begin operating in late 2011 and expand in phases with the tenants. “As they come on line, we’ll be ready to handle it,” Mr. Johnke said.

Looking out river water pipe to World Trade Center.David W. Dunlap/The New York Times Looking out from a water pipe into ground zero.

As first envisioned, the chiller plant would have cooled the entire new trade center complex — office towers and all — as the earlier system did. Environmentalists objected because so many small fish and fish eggs would have been sucked into the system and so many larger fish would have been trapped against the intake screens.

The Port Authority ultimately chose to use more traditional rooftop cooling plants for the office towers. Consequently, the river water system will use a peak of 30,000 gallons a minute at most; 24 percent of the maximum flow of the original system.

“We are satisfied with the result,” said Reed W. Super, a lawyer for the Riverkeeper environmental group. “Ideally, no Hudson River water would be used for cooling purposes. But we got the drastic reduction we asked for.” He said that over the course of a year, the number of fish sucked into the system would drop more than 80 percent and the number trapped on the screens by more than 90 percent.

Water entering the pipeline may range in temperature from the low 40s to the high 70s. After passing through a heat exchanger that separates the river water from the chilled water used to absorb heat from the air, the river water is discharged into the North Cove of Battery Park City. By state permit, it cannot exceed 91 degrees.

There will be times in fall, winter and spring when the natural coolness of the river water will eliminate the need for further mechanical chilling, Mr. Johnke said, thereby conserving energy.

As the environmental controversy subsided, a logistical challenge emerged, since the most crucial length of pipeline that needed replacement was in the path of the state Department of Transportation’s reconstruction of West Street, which also serves as Route 9A.

Rather than bureaucratically obstruct the pipeline work under the highway, the transportation agency took over as the construction manager for the Port Authority. “That’s our bread and butter: utilities and roadways,” said Joseph T. Brown, the Route 9A project director, “and that would allow us to progress the work years ahead of schedule.”

A joint venture of the Tully Construction Company and E. E. Cruz & Company performed the work in six months. As recently as late January, the four 42-inch pipes were still visible at the edge of the trade center site. Now, the only way to see them is to crawl inside, as Mr. Johnke did the other day with Peter J. Mazza, the engineering counsel to the Tully/E. E. Cruz venture.

“It’s all encased in concrete, and there’s a fiberglass protective wrap around it,” Mr. Mazza said as he surveyed the claustrophobic steel cylinder. The fiberglass was tested to ensure it was uninterrupted, he said, adding: “Then we were allowed to pour the concrete, which goes over epoxy-coated rebar. So — this baby will be here a long time.”

Their visit to the pipeline is recorded in this video:

Comments are no longer being accepted.

So the choice was not to divert a negligible amount of river water to cool all of that square footage and instead rely on fossil fuel generated electricity for the AC systems to cool them… too bad.

It’s this same thinking that created the terrible west side highway. The feds in the 70s agree to pay to sink the whole thing under ground and have the entire area be parkland, but the environmentalists at the time were up in arms. While I completely agree with the intent of protecting the environment, sometimes there needs to be a give and take in cases like this or at least the ability to think about the bigger picture.

Adriane David Paniagua, J.D. April 6, 2009 · 12:54 pm

Great. Now if only the NYC powers that be can somehow use & apply this same level of ingenuity to build affordable, low & middle-income housing for deserving and needy New Yorkers, then I would get excited about what being done to NYC office towers!

Saving fish and eggs is a noble purpose though I still find it difficult to to understand why an “environment group” would be so opposed to a system that would have a meaningful impact on the carbon footprint of the infrastructure requirements of the WTC developments.

The district energy system in Toronto uses the cold waters of Lake Ontario bringing a 90% savings in electricity usage for connected buildings, and with a net savings of almost 80,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide.

The green economics present here would seem to beg for more effort to find a more fish-friendly way to divert the waters of the Hudson.

Putting out of my mind all the delays and false starts, it’s great to see the words “Trade Center” retaking their rightful place in the headlines.

It’s been far too long.

If only the FT (WTC1?) had a traditional basement…..

This is obvious if you’ve been to the hoover dam. Sink the intake ports to the river bottom to reduce fish intake, no? How deep are they now and how deep is the Hudson? Maybe they couldn’t get deep enough?

Smedley Underfoot April 27, 2009 · 1:49 pm

Why not put the heat exchanges on the river side of the pipeline???

First, there are a lot of good comments and sound thinking here, but a building such as 1 WTC plus the subterranean retail and transportation center creates a unique engineering challenge. Using water to provide the foundation for the environmental system (HVAC) is both practical and logical. The water is right there and the benefits are huge from an engineering point of view. This system will clearly use convection as a major component in moving both water and chilled or heated air. The old system relied on three mechanical levels all powered by electricity. Using heat exchangers, which both heat and cool as the primary component of the environmental system makes sense when compared to evaporation chillers, which can only cool and boilers of yesteryear.

While this discussion revolves around the heat exchangers and their environmental impact, the sad reality is that this complex needs generate its own power for all activities, including heating and cooling if it is to make the statement intended. Although the name has been changed from the Freedom Tower to One World Trade Center, the concept of freedom and moreover freedom from carbon based fuel, e.g. oil, could not be express more succinctly than by tying the entire complex to its own off grid energy system including wind technology. This system could be offshore and possibly near Perth Amboy. There should be no limit to the innovations applied in achieving this goal.

As it is Seven World Trade Center is arguably the first LEED Gold building (shell and core) in New York. One World Trade Center, as it will be know, is also looking for the Gold rating, but the developer and design team has been cautious to not make sustainability the central feature of this project. As this challenge is sure to remain, history will look at 1 WTC as something less than what it could have been. While other buildings obtain the coveted Platinum rating such One Bryant Park due in part to its onsite cogeneration plant and grey water system, 1 WTC will languish on the sidelines of excellence.

Designers will state size is the challenge yet One Bryant Park, which is 84% the size of One World Trade Center, has achieved the impossible. It is sad that such a symbolic structure as One World Trade Center and the surrounding complex does not and will not represent the very best America has to offer.

Some tidal generators out there in the Hudson could go a long way to making it energy indepedent, 24 hours a day, calm or stormy.

It’s nice that many of you are taking the building’s ‘carbon footprint’ and the prospects of global warming into account, and that the public in general is starting to do the same. Still, it is important to remember that habitat destruction and direct impacts on the environments are far more pressing, and thus far more important than global warming.

A large construction project simply cannot ignore it’s direct impacts on the human and wildlife habitats that surround it, focusing solely on global warming and energy concerns. That kind of thinking will leave us with nothing left to save when the temperatures do rise.

Protecting the Hudson now, and switching to renewable energy when it becomes available would be the smart choice.

it boggles the mind how people are so transfixed on “green”. india and china are building coal-fired plants every week. who in their right mind thinks that saving a few tons of carbon here or there will make any difference? and you think china and india, desperately trying to brings hundreds of millions of their citizens out of poverty, are going to be so impressed with our efforts, that they will slow down the building of those desperately needed plants? is anyone aware that even if every american drove an electric car, global warming would only be reduced by 0.2 degrees?
these same dopey environmentalists killed the westway project that would have placed the highway underground and make the entire westside below 57 street a beautiful waterfront park. why? some fish was endangered.
i am sick to death of these fools.

Ari,

Thanks. Your technical knowledge, combined with the balanced approach you take to the debate, really help clarify the issues. I think it’s important that more people like you, with both your nuanced rhetorical style and your respect of English orthography, contribute to important matters of concern. Of course, having a fact basis for your arguments would make them stronger.

The difference between the 100% solution that would have entrained millions of fish, and the solution finally reached, strikes a balance between habitat protection and carbon emissions. And, in any case, current lighting, HVAC, and other technologies can be employed which require less cooling water than would have been required years ago.

I am looking forward to Ari’s reasoned analysis of conservation ecology and biology to help us explain the worthlessness of the fish species in the Hudson.

There are a surprising number of intelligent comments here: #12 & 8 in particular. The Hudson is a tidal estuary. Heat exchange systems are superior to systems designed to chill only. But, the basic question is why build this huge idiotic building to replace two huge idiotic buildings? Because they were tragically destroyed by a terrorist act? That is just belligerent and reactive.

The WTC was perhaps the ugliest and stupidest piece of architectural cupidity visited on the largest scale of vapidity possible on the City of New York. It’s concentration of tenants sucked the life out of downtown and distorted the transportation grid in the name of the Port Authority and Robert Moses. It destroyed much of the poetry of lower Manhattan, along with the monstrosity of 2 Broadway (currently tenanted by the MTA to the exclusive benefit of a private owner whose relationships with MTA brass should probably be scrutinized a little more carefully by the watchdog reporters of the Times), which also managed to cut off the views of Battery Park from most of the real estate East of Broadway.

I suggest that they scale back the building to run with 100% efficiency on the systems being built and allow the rest of the 80% vacant downtown commercial real estate to re-fill and emerge from near bankruptcy.

In Denmark the coporate HQ of a hearing aid company is buidling 0-energy building. By recyceling the water into big under grounds tanks, the water that is used to cool the building in the summer, will be saved in the isolated tanks and used to heat the building in the winter. The energy to drive the pumps will come from a windmill.

Of couse it’s a more costly solutions – short term, but in the long run it the way to go.

“these same dopey environmentalists killed the westway project that would have placed the highway underground and make the entire westside below 57 street a beautiful waterfront park.”

I lived in the VIllage in the 60s and 70s when Westway was being proposed. Beautiful Waterfront Park? Take a good look at the west side between 65th and 72nd streets. That would have been your “Beautiful Waterfront Park”, condo hi-rise after condo hi-rise.

i would like to say that this is an interesting idea and im looking foward to see it thank u nd god bless american