Low energy air filters facilities show 2010
•Transferir como PPT, PDF•
1 gostou•578 visualizações
Camfil Farr presentation from the Facilities Show at the NEC 11th-13th May. Low Energy Air Filters, Air filter and energy conservation
![[object Object],Low Energy Air Filters](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/lowenergyairfiltersfacilitiesshow2010-100517062043-phpapp02/85/Low-energy-air-filters-facilities-show-2010-1-320.jpg)
Recomendados
Recomendados
Mais conteúdo relacionado
Mais de Simply Marcomms
Mais de Simply Marcomms (20)
Último
Último (20)
Low energy air filters facilities show 2010
- 2. “ How ISO contributes to a sustainable world – 2008” © CAMFIL FARR Recent studies performed in Denmark by G. Bekö(1) The study showed that the overall economic and social benefits of using particle air filtration are several times larger than the associated running costs. 1. Gabriel Bekö, Geo Clausen, Charles J. Weschler, “Is use of particle air filtration justified? Cost and benefits of filtration with regard to health effects, building cleaning and occupant productivity”, published in Building Environment 43 (2008) 1647-1657.
- 3. Filters and energy conservation © CAMFIL FARR 10-05-17 2009 global sales £400 million 22 Production Plants, 4 R&D Centres 3300 employees Production Facility ● Sales Office ● Agent ● Head Office ●
- 4. The energy cost of ventilation (simplified) © CAMFIL FARR 10-05-17 Air Handling Unit Pre-filter Secondary-filter Air intake Inlet duct Distribution duct Room distribution grille Damper Cooling coil Heating coil FAN MOTOR Air supply Molecular-filter Noise attenuation OUTSIDE INSIDE
- 7. Budget Holder © CAMFIL FARR 10 20 30 40 Major Budgets Decision Structure
- 8. © CAMFIL FARR 10-05-17 Summary of savings from a typical to Low Energy Air Filters 5 YEARS – 10 m 3 /s Element Typical Low Energy Air Filters Saving Per Year Filters 3240 3140 100 20 Labour 6000 2800 3200 640 Energy 25450 17960 7490 1500 Waste 1500 700 800 160 TOTAL 36190 24600 11590 2320 M L E 16.8% 58.2% F5 F7
- 9. © CAMFIL FARR 10-05-17 Summary of savings from a typical to Low Energy Air Filters 1 YEAR – 10 m 3 /s Element Typical Low Energy Air Filters Saving Filters 648 628 20 Labour 1200 560 640 Energy 5090 3590 1500 Waste 300 140 160 TOTAL 7238 4918 2320 M L E 16.8% 58.2% F5 F7
- 10. © CAMFIL FARR 10-05-17 Typical HVAC Return on Investment (ROI) Table is prioritised by ROI payback period Data source – EECO 2 Energy Efficiency Consultants (Low Carbon Consultants) Annual Savings – for a 10 m 3 /s system Element % Kw/hr £ Revenue or capital Payback Upgrade filters 22% 6000 600 Revenue < 3 months Clean coils 10% 2500 250 Revenue < 6 months Upgrade fans 35% 60000 6000 Capital > 24 months Upgrade chillers 40% 136000 13600 Capital > 36 months
Notas do Editor
- The Correct specification of filters is a Pre- requisite For the correct functioning of energy-efficient ventilation systems , To protect humans and the environment and to improve air quality Gabriel Beko Geo Clausen Charles Weschler “ Is use of particle air filtration justified ? Cost and benefits of filtration with regard to health effects , Building cleaning and occupant productivity “ Published by Buidling Environment 43 (2008) 1647 -1657
- Camfil Ltd – Blend air filtration core competence with related validation and energy consultancy services to owners and managers of Air conditioned and ventilated buildings. Industries served include Pharmaceutical, Gas Turbine, Nuclear, Automotive, Food & Beverage, Hospitals, Public Utilities, Airports, Museums and Commercial Office Buildings. Our consultancy services encompass Opportunities Assessment Surveys Air Handling Plant Assessment Surveys Legislation compliance and best practice advice Optimum air filtration selection Condition monitoring of Air Handling Plant Filtration Fractional Efficiency testing Clean Room Validation to EN1822 standard Life Cycle Cost analysis (with guarantees) Energy Validation and solution quantification Risk assessments, method statements and condition surveys to ISO9001 and ISO14001 These focused range of consultancy services compliment our air filtration manufacturing capability and total filter management (supply fit dispose and monitor) services. Thus ensuring that the client has an ongoing verification and accountability over the life of a contract. Blue Chip Clients include: - Astra Zeneca, Pfizer, GE Health, GSK Honda, Toyota, Nissan, IBC Luton Heinz, Mars, Master Foods EON, RWE Power, GDF, International Power, Siemens Universities, Museums and Hospitals
- Here is a simplistic view of a ventilation system, so we can better understand the rest of the presentation. We need to take external air and make it suitable for internal use (stable temp, humidity, remove pollutants etc) All the components of the ventilation system work to prevent air movement (flow resistance) which we measure as pressure loss. Water will not flow up hill against gravity, you need a pump and the input of energy. The fan is the same, it requires the input of energy to drive the air through the ventilation system. This is where the energy cost arises from The flow resistance of most components is fairly stable through life, However the flow resistance of filters depends on their construction and varies through life, this is where the opportunity for energy and cost optimisation arises.
- Filters can account for up to 30% of the total flow resistance of a typical ventilation system – therefore up to 30% of the total energy cost. Yet – filters are readily available that minimise energy cost and can be easily upgraded. Filters dramatically affect the energy consumption
- Choosing the right filter saves energy Camfil Farr has been a pioneer in designing low average pressure drop filters in all filter classes for the last 40 years. Many people assume that the filter efficiency is the largest contributor to initial pressure drop, however, it is the actual design of the filter that has the main impact! A rival filter with the same number of pockets will not necessarily have the same average pressure during its lifetime. In case of Bag filters our unique tapered stitch allows full utilization of the media resulting in extended life and low energy cost. Having established that Camfil Farr has the lowest average pressure drop, you should then select a filter to achieve the desired IAQ level for your application. Always check for the minimum efficiency as reported in the European standard EN779:2002
- Decision Structure – Typical Property companies manage the FM building manager/director This depends on size some will run a few buildings See Decision Tree
- This shows a typical system containing 10 apertures of 2 filter stages (Main & Pre Filters) operating continuously (8760 hours) As you can see that although the savings on filter costs are modest the labour and energy savings are substantial This illustration is cast over a five year period
- This shows the same system over a 1 year period – NB Savings are each year, every year 32% overall Please also note the substantial increase in actual installed filter efficiency
- This is truly a quick win If you compare to other elements within the AHU the decision is a simple one It can be done straight away without capital cost
- Portfolio of 2,000 Air Handling Units (subject to data gathered ) for energy saving only Assumptions are that average sized at 10m3/s (10 standard filter apertures) 2 Stage filtration system would save 6000 Kw/hr per year per 10m3/s system 12 million Kw / hours EVERY YEAR @10p per KW/hr equate to a saving of £6 million Across a large property portfolio. Calculations exclude labour and waste removal savings
- The full Life Cycle Cost analysis will provide detail values for labour, waste and CO2 etc. Our mobilisation process includes software that allows for a rough cut of the predicted savings available from making these changes Generally ppm changes are reduced to one half of previous regimes