Energy saving in The air filtration field

Transcription

1 Energy saving in The air filtration field

2 Life cycle cost : 1. Cost of filter 2. Energy cost during its life 3. Costs of installation and replacement 4. Disposal Costs Generally speaking, the energy costs of a synthetic pleated prefilter may be seven times higher than the purchase cost. While a HEPA filter may be "only" one or two times the purchase price.

3 Energy consumption of filters Watt = P = Q Δp \ η The energy (Watt) consumed (E) is the definite integral of power in the time interval corresponding to the operational life of the filter: E = P(t) x dt = Q(t) Δp(t)\η(t) x dt A fan with inverters or with electronic adjustments, maintains a constant flow rate at different pressure drop, with a consumption of energy proportional, therefore, with the use of these devices will have the possibility of significant energy savings

4 A reacheable energy saving with: 1. Pre-filters 2. Rigid Pokets filters 3. Absolute filters

5 1. Pre-filters Comparative analisys with or without pre-filters show that a rigid pockets filter doesn t increase significantly its life when combined to pre-filters. The use of the prefilter is almost unnecessary and involves a greater consumption of energy. In any case we suggest to put one metallic prefilter G2 to protect Blower and battery of exchange.

6 1. Pre-filters Pressure drop at 3400 m3/h, new (1) after 1 month, 2 month, 3 month for: Prefilter G4 CFW 40 And Prefilter G2 metallic

7 1. Pre-filters SIMULATION OF ENERGY SAVING AND EMISSIONS OF CO2 IN THE ATMOSPHERE Comparing filters Flow rate cm/h Flow rate cm/sec 0,9 Efficiency fan % 0,5 Type of filter CFW Average Dp 212 Working hour per day h/d 24 Operating days days 90 Annual consumption in Kwh Kwh/year 865 Flow rate cm/h Flow rate cm/sec 0,9 Efficiency fan % 0,5 Type of filter -CFM Average Dp 85 working hour per day h/g 24 Operating days days 90 Annual consumption in Kw Kwh/year 346,80 Kw/year Power Saving Kwh/year 518,16 Cost Kwh /Kwh 0,08 Saving in the period 41,45 No Co2 immision per year Kg 275,14

8 1. Pre-filters A prefilter of 592 x 592 x 48 mm at a flow rate of 3400 m³/h has an initial pressure drop of 115 Pa and a final, after 3 months of operation, of about 310 Pa. In this case if we change the filter with e metallic filter we could save 518 kwh a cost savings of 41. ( cost kwh = 0,135 )

9 COST OF ENERGY IN AHU Efficiency of filters F7 DUCTS HEATEXCHARGED HEATER CONNECTIONS 3% 2% 2% 0% FILTERS COOLING COILS SILENCER 22% 39% 32%

10 2. Rigid Poket filter F9 Using rigid pockets filters type NT.-ES Energy Saving (Efficiency class F7 - F9) with high dust holding capacity, instead of std rigid pockets, or economic pockets, is possible to save a lot of energy and money in the same time period.

11 2. Pressure drop of different rigid pockets filters

12 2. Pressure drop of different rigid pockets filters GENERAL FILTER TEST REPORT R.P. MOTHS NTR 9 HD Pa NTR9 Pa NTE9 Pa Please take note that according to the norm EN regarding the filters with efficiency F8 and F9 must be replaced at the achievement of 300 Pa.

13

14

15 2. Rigid pokets Filters Energy cost after 8 months at 3400 m3/h Months 10 Real energy consumption GF test after 8 months Energy cost after 8 months KWh=0,135 Fan ᶯ = 0,5% Filter cost Total Amount NTR9-ES 1538 Kwh NTR9 - std (18 mq) 2140 Kwh NTE- Economic version (14 mq)** 2611 Kwh 352 ** **The pressure drop after 10 months is not compatible so should be replaced much sooner.

16 3. Absolute filters Today exist absolute filters of very high performance : LAM 68- LAM 90 LAM 115 For laminar flow or clean rooms final filters. Class of efficiency H14

17 3. Absolute filters type H14 and H13 Choosing to use in new plants, or revamping clean rooms if is possible to use LAM filters of 115mm thikness (the filtrant surface is almost twice than the one of LAM 68 std) in case they would be replaced according to std frequency, is possible to save a lot of energy. The savings are about the twice of the greater cost,and almost equal to the purchasing cost!!

18 2. Absolute filters LAM H14 Energy cost after 3 years of a model of 600 m3/h 3 Years Energy consumption after 3 years Energy cost after 3 years KWh=0,135 Filter cost Total amount LAM68 std -H14 610x610 LAM 115 H14-610X610 ** 2122 Kwh Kwh ** The pressure drop after 3 years is lower than the max. suggested pressure drop.

19 3. Absolute filters H13 HMB 2424 (2000 m 3 /h) Vs NGP 2424 (4000 m 3 /h) The energy saving obteined from a filter type NGP (2000 m3/h) instead of HMB is higher than the cost of the filter.

20 2. HMB vs NGP Energy cost after 2 years 2000 m3/h 2 Years Comsumption after 2 years Energy cost after 2 years KWh=0,135 Filter cost Total amount HBM -H13 610x610X292 NGP H13-610X610X Kwh Kwh

21 Conclusions 1. Is always better to analyse costs of energy case by case. 2. Is possible to change G4 pleated filters with G2 metallic filters without compromising the life of the F8 or F9 filters. 3. Rigid pockets heavy duty are always to prefer to std rigid pockets and to the economic ones. 4. As norm EN13053, final pressure drops for the filters F8/F9 must be maximum 300Pa. For filters M6/F7 the final pressure drop must be 200 Pa.

22 Conclusions 5. Absolute filters LAM and LAM 115 allow interesting saving costs. The use of LAM 115 instead of traditional filters allow a considerable energy saving. 6. Is always better to prefer absolute filters of high flow rate instead std absolute filters.

23 General Filter Group Thanks you for your attention, and remains at disposal for any further information.