冰蓄冷空調系統以夜間廉價電力製冰日間融冰降低尖峰負荷為主概念，系統常被定義成非節能系統，還因系統繁雜度、建築整合困難、機房佔比大、投資管理成本高等理由較不易被接受。本研究以常見VRV區控空調系統為對比，從建築設計整合、機房面積比、系統效益、投資成本等說明優缺點，希望提供設計者計畫階段的參考。投資效益比來看冰蓄冷建置容量建議控制在20%左右，回收週期約2.4年。再以蓄冰20%系統對比VRV系統，地下機房面積大約是VRV系統的7倍，換算停車空間減少14%。地上層專用面積占比，VRV系統較冰蓄冷多占6%左右機房，屋頂則是兩系統差距不大僅2%左右。設備功效比來看蓄冰20%比起VRV系統可降低14.4%，運行面冰蓄冷優於VRV，但若以地上專用面積卻是冰蓄冷系統較具優勢。

The ice storage air-conditioning system primarily operates by producing ice at night using cheaper off-peak electricity and melting it during the day to reduce peak loads. It is often defined as a non-energy-saving system and is not easily accepted due to reasons such as system complexity, difficulties in building integration, large mechanical room requirements, and high investment costs.

In this study, the commonly used VRV air-conditioning system is used as a comparison benchmark to explain the advantages and disadvantages of the ice storage system in terms of architectural design integration, mechanical room area ratio, and investment cost. From an investment cost-benefit ratio perspective, the recommended ice storage capacity is around 20%, with a payback period of approximately 2.4 years. When comparing an ice storage system with 20% capacity to a VRV system, the basement mechanical room area is about seven times larger than that of the VRV system, which translates into a 14% reduction in parking spaces. For above-ground dedicated mechanical area, the VRV system requires about 6% more space than the ice thermal storage system, while the difference on the rooftop is minimal only around 2%. In terms of equipment efficiency ratio, the ice thermal storage system can reduce it by about 14.4% compared to the VRV system. In operation, ice storage performs better than VRV, but in terms of above-ground dedicated area, the ice storage system holds the advantage.