Download presentation
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
Published byCalvin Simpson Modified over 9 years ago
1
Heat Pump Research Project Sponsored by the Heat Pump Working Group June 7, 2005
2
Project Goals 1.Assess energy use and savings from heat pumps installed under C&RD/ConAug and EWEB. 2.Assess base case installation practices. 3.Assess heat pump performance under laboratory conditions to identify optimal settings. 4.Assess the general approach of installers to control, sizing and performance issues, and of manufacturers to new technologies, etc.
3
Billing Results
4
EWEB Billing Analysis Results
5
C&RD / ConAug Billing Analysis Results Revised ResultsPrevious Results
6
Billing Analysis Results by System Type
7
Billing Analysis Results by Building Type C&RD MH Cases NAC Saved by System Type with 90% C.L., n= 124 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000 Heat Pump FAF w/CAC FAF w/oCAC Zonal All SysTypes All C&RD MF kWh/year C&RD SF Cases NAC Saved by System Type with 90% C.L., n= 549 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 Heat Pump FAF w/CAC FAF w/oCAC Zonal All SysTypes All C&RD SF kWh/year
8
Billing Analysis Results by Vintage MH NAC Saved with 90% C.L. by Vintage Bin, n= 114 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 12 3 All C&RD kWh/year Legend: 1 Pre 1981 2 1981 – 1994 3 Post 94
9
Realization Rates by Program Year Base Prog Year AreanGross NAC kWh/yr Net NAC kWh/yr 90% CI Antici- pated kWh/yr RR 2002- 2003 Zone 15184,6984,5844907,28863% Zone 33183,7953,6815906,81554% All C&RD 8364,3544,2403827,10860%
10
Realization Rates for C&RD Calculator, Initial
11
Realization Rates, Revised
12
kWh Savings estimates
13
Laboratory Results
14
HSPF: Fixed Orifice & TXV
15
Summary of Lab Results Impacts of refrigerant charge minimal except at very reduced levels (70% of specification) Impacts of air flow also limited to cases with very low air handler flow (less than 300 CFM/ton). Low air flow appears to occur in about 25% of “base case” installation practice TXV improves overall performance but has minimal impacts on the effects of low charge and low air flow C d higher than modeling assumptions for fixed orifice, lower than assumption for TXV Defrost degradation factors largely stable at values near the modeled and manufacturer’s assumptions.
16
Field Data Summary
17
Field Study Overview 160 field sites in 4 regions (Central Oregon, Kitsap Peninsula, Clark Co., Yakima/Walla Walla) started September 2004 “Base case” sites, chosen at random to represent non- PTCS installations –Combine field findings with billing data to recalibrate performance assumptions used in RTF calculations On-site review consists of two visits –Duct/house review (complete) –Heat pump review by service tech. (110 sites now in, additional 15 sites expected)
18
Site Selection Sites selected via random telephone dial to have air- source heat pump and be within appropriate utility territory Sites might have basements/interior ducts Clark County chosen vs. Portland because of paucity of HPs in PDX Pacific Power svc territory –Clark actually has HP inspection program so non-typical vs other areas
19
Key Audit Outputs (house/duct) House heat loss rate (UA) –Integral part of modeling house performance vs bills –Includes infiltration component (blower door test) System airflow (CFM) –System capacity & efficiency Duct system insulation and leakage –System operating pressures also measured Duct leakage fraction (%) –Effect on overall delivery efficiency/energy use Homeowner interaction with system (via survey)
20
Key Audit Outputs (heat pump review) HP control strategy –Indoor thermostat type, setting and staging –Outdoor thermostat presence, setting and operation –Compressor low ambient cut out Refrigerant charge level
21
Building Characteristics – Heat Loss Rate
22
Blower Door Results –Median ACH 50 is 7.6 for 149 clean cases; mean is 8.3 –This converts to median ACH nat of 0.38 –Highest ACH 50 19.0 –Lowest ACH 50 1.6
23
Blower Door Results by Vintage Bin
24
Duct Leakage Fraction (all sites)
25
Duct Leakage by Vintage Bin Supply SideReturn Side
26
Supply vs. Return Leakage
27
System Fan Flow Median flow is 340 CFM/ton (n=126) Lower quartile is <=292 CFM/ton ECM cases (n=21*), median flow is 338 CFM/ton *final # will be larger
28
Airflow Distribution
29
System airflow by size of outdoor unit Tons
30
Refrigerant Charge Evaluation Review predominantly done in swing seasons –Heating season evaluation combined tech’s review of operating pressures and sensible split in context of ambient temp., system airflow, coil match About 1/3 of systems evaluated in cooling only mode or in addition to heating mode –Superheat/subcooling evaluation
31
Charge Results 60% of cases evaluated as having correct charge 28% of cases evaluated as being overcharged 10% of cases evaluated as being undercharged –2 had serious leaks (no refrigerant)
32
Refrigerant Charge Digest Over/undercharge amounts likely under-reported vs weigh-in approach However, cases of severe undercharge were very limited ½ of overcharged cases had an accumulator 2/3 of remaining overcharged cases were units with Trane compressors or scroll compressors
33
Heat Pump Efficiency HSPF by RegionHSPF by Equipment Size
34
HVAC Usage (from median low bill analysis of 124 bills) Heating - Annual kWhCooling - Annual kWh
35
Normalized Heating Load by Vintage and Region Heating - Annual kWh/sfTotal Usage - Annual kWh/sf
36
Normalized Heating Usage RegionNo Wood WoodTotal Bend64.8635.14100 Clark59.3840.63100 Kitsap36.8463.16100 Yakima66.6733.33100 Total56.8543.15100 Impact of wood – Annual kWh/sfPercentage of Sample Using Wood
37
Modeled Duct Efficiency (efficiency of 1 is perfect ducts) By RegionBy Vintage
38
Duct Insulation Supply vs. Return UAR-Value of Supply Ducts
39
TXV Summary (Outdoor Unit)
40
TXV Summary (Indoor Unit)
41
Thermostat/Homeowner Interaction ~80% of systems have programmable stats… ~1/3 of occupants say they understand their thermostat and/or like how it keeps their house comfortable ~1/3 say they tolerate their thermostat (but wish they understood it better) ~1/3 have thrown up their hands and use the HOLD feature
42
Controls: Indoor Thermostat 78% programmable Median heating setpoint: 70 F Median setback: 65 F 55% of systems with setback > 5 F –Estimated 75% of programmable stats have adaptive recovery
43
Controls: Outdoor Thermostat About 35% of sites visited had an operating ODT (75% of Clark sites have ODT) Average setting 40° F About 2/3 of sites without ODTs had the extra wires needed to install one without fishing new wire Only 15% of systems had elements on in Stage 1 heating –Median on-time 5 minutes
44
Market Actor Interviews
45
HVAC Installer Interviews (detailed results) 32 shops throughout region in urban, suburban, rural areas (29 full interviews) Shops range from 2 trucks to 30, median of 6 Median 50% new construction Participants install all major (and some secondary) brands of equipment Almost all participants report use of non-intuitive heat pump and duct sizing tools (Manual J, Manual D, etc.) Wide range of experience with utility, state, national incentive/marketing campaigns and installation procedures
46
Technician Certification
47
Installer System Sizing Criteria
48
Characteristics of Efficient Line
49
Installation Characteristics - TXVs
50
Availability/cost of Outdoor Unit TXV
51
Acceptance of TXV Technology
52
Outdoor Thermostat/Low Ambient Cutout All “often” cases in TriCities/Yakima All “seldom” cases as above or Mid-Columbia
53
Installation Characteristics – Aux Heat Percentage of Respondents 01020304050607080 Never Often Seldom Element wired in first stage heating? Out of 7 cases answering “seldom” or “often”, 5 In Zone 2 (E Wash or Boise )
54
Installer Target System Airflow
55
R410a
56
PTCS
57
Familiarity With Third Party Charge Checking
58
Acceptance of Third Party Mechanisms
59
Energy Star
60
Penetration of Incentives & Tax Credits
61
Marketing Impacts
62
Challenges in Explaining Tax Credits/Incentives to Customers
63
Client Priorities
64
Comments on Thermostats
65
Perceived Trends
Similar presentations
© 2025 SlidePlayer.com. Inc.
All rights reserved.