No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Executive SummaryThe Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, operated by Battelle for the U.S. Department of Energy, worked with Intertek to develop a procedure for stress testing medium screw-base light sources. This procedure, composed of alternating stress cycles and performance evaluation, was used to qualitatively compare and contrast the durability and reliability of the Philips 60W replacement lamp L Prize entry with market-proven compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) with comparable light output and functionality. The stress cycles applied simultaneous combinations of electrical, thermal, vibration, and humidity stresses of increasing magnitude. Performance evaluations measured relative illuminance, x-chromaticity and y-chromaticity shifts after each stress cycle.The Philips L Prize entry lamps appear to be appreciably more durable than the incumbent energyefficient technology, as represented by the evaluated CFLs, and with respect to the applied stresses. Through the course of testing, all 15 CFL samples permanently ceased to function as a result of the applied stresses, while only 1 Philips L Prize entry lamp exhibited a failure, the nature of which was minor, non-destructive, and a consequence of a known (and resolved) subcontractor issue.Given that current CFL technology appears to be moderately mature and no Philips L Prize entry failures could be produced within the stress envelope causing 100 percent failure of the benchmark CFLs, it seems that, in this particular implementation, light-emitting diode (LED) technology would be much more durable in the field than current CFL technology. However, the Philips L Prize entry lamps used for testing were carefully designed and built for the competition, while the benchmark CFLs were mass produced for retail sale-a distinction that should be taken into consideration. Further reliability testing on final production samples would be necessary to judge the extent to which the results of this analysis apply to production versions of the Philips L Prize entry.iii Acronyms and Abbreviations ACalternating current CFL compact fluorescent lamp DOE

This report discusses water, energy, and cost savings that can be achieved in a commercial laundry through the use of a wastewater recycling and heat recovery system. Cost savings are achieved through reductions in water use, reduction in sewage charges (typically based on water use), reductions in water heating energy, and potential reductions in water treatment chemicals (because the recycled water has already been treated with soaps and conditioners. A recovery system saves water by recycling wash water that would normally be dumped into the city sewage system. Recycling the wash water produces considerable energy savings because the recycled water has a higher temperature than fresh water. As a result, a hot water heater consumes less energy to heat the recycled water. The demonstration project discussed in this report was based in a large commercial laundry in Portland, Oregon. The laundry serves a large hotel/motel chain and processes an average of 25,000 pounds of laundry per day. A wastewater recovery system using a membrane micro-filtration unit (MFU) was installed in the laundry in September 1995. Time series data of the water and energy consumption of the laundry were taken before and after installation of the MEU. Energy savings were measured by performing a thermal energy balance around the washing machines. Water savings were calculated by metering volumetric flow rates. After a period of approximately five months, the MFU has achieved results of 52 percent savings in water consumption and 44 percent savings in energy to heat water. This five-month period represents a learning curve during which several small technical improvements were made to the MFU and laundry staff adjusted laundry operations to maximize the benefits of the MFU. This report provides an economic analysis of the impact of capital investment, daily consumption, and local utility rates on the payback period. In this case study, performance measurements indicate monthly savings of approximately $3,400 on water, sewage, and natural gas. This would result in a simple payback of 4.1 years. However, it was also found that the MFU was oversized by 65 percent, making the capital investment much larger than was needed. Had the unit been more conservatively sized, the payback for the project would be 2.7 years. The payback for similar installations in other parts of the country would range from 1.2 to 2.7 years, depending on local utility rates. project hosts as helpful as Red Lion's staff. We would also like to thank Randy Jones and Gerry Miller of Wastewater Resources, Inc., who provided valuable expertise and experience on membrane filtration techniques. The cooperation of Brad Ashmore and his associates from ECO Labs was also key to the success of this study. The efforts of Portland General Electric and the City of Portland Water Bureau are also very much appreciated.