Because that's 22 million which could've bought rather a lot of solar panels and batteries, which would be more then adequate to run the system and much more transferrable in application.
Or you could invest it, make way more then 22 million over that timeframe and do even more.
Cost is a proxy for resource consumption, and in this case it seems like this was incredibly inefficient.
Edit: at current prices you build a 22 MW solar plant instead, for example.
> By creating ice when electrical rates are low and then “burning” it during the hottest part of the day, the Ice Plant saves Stanford roughly $500,000 per year and decreases Stanford’s peak electrical demand by 8 megawatts.
That's 8 MW ... you say 22 MW today, but in 1999 that 8 MW offset looks more like Solar Two ( https://www.nrel.gov/docs/legosti/fy97/22835.pdf ) which produced 10 MW and cost 58 million on 126 acres of space.
> In 2015, as part of the Stanford Energy Systems Innovations (SESI) program, a new Central Energy Facility (CEF) was built, and the cogeneration plant and ice plant were retired. SESI transformed the university energy supply from a 100% fossil-fuel-based combined heat and power plant to grid-sourced electricity and a more efficient electric heat recovery system, helping Stanford achieve 100% renewable electricity.
Or you could invest it, make way more then 22 million over that timeframe and do even more.
Cost is a proxy for resource consumption, and in this case it seems like this was incredibly inefficient.
Edit: at current prices you build a 22 MW solar plant instead, for example.