Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutKetchikan Heat Pump Program Final Report 1984KET 005 KETCHIKAN HEAT PUMP PROGRAM ESS sete SPONSORS: USDOE Alaska Power Administration Ketchikan Public Utilities February 1984 APA KETCHIKAN HEAT PUMP PROGRAM (FINAL REPORT) This is the final progress report of a two-year field evaluation of 11 air-source heat pump installations in Ketchikan, Alaska. A report by Ketchikan Public Utilities is included in the Appendix. Introduction and Background The Ketchikan Heat Pump Program began in 1981 and was jointly sponsored and funded by Ketchikan Public Utilities (KPU) and U.S. Department of Energy, Alaska Power Administration (APA). At that time, a number of heat pumps had been operating successfully for over a year in Juneau as part of another heat pump program sponsored jointly by APA and the local utilities. A study completed for APA titled THE ROLE OF ELECTRIC POWER IN THE SOUTHEAST ALASKA ENERGY ECONOMY, dated March 1979, indicated that heat pumps should be economically viable because over 70 percent of the yearly hours are in the 35 degree to 65 degree Fahrenheit range and require moderate heating. Based on 1978 fuel oil prices of 56 cents per gallon, estimated life-cycle costs of heat pumps about equaled costs of fuel-oil systems -- $1,644 per year versus $1,544 per year and were about two-thirds the costs of electric-resistance systems -- $1,644 per year versus $2,717 per year. The price of home heating oil had increased significantly, and many new homes were being built in the Ketchikan area with electrical resistance heating to avoid the consequences of further price increases as well as reduce con- struction costs. This would cause an increase in electrical consumption and in the generating requirements of KPU. Prior to the start-up of Swan Lake in 1984, it was necessary to conserve on electricity to reduce the oil con- sumption of the diesel generators and also to avoid adding another diesel unit to cover increased demands. A possible method of reducing load growth would have been an ordinance banning electric heating. There were a number of problems associated with this method, therefore, the effort was directed at encouraging a more efficient type of electrical heating system -- the heat pump. Proposals for installation of units to be evaluated were solicited publicly from individual owners and builders interested in applications for new houses, and as retrofits of existing heating systems. Each individual was responsible for all sizing, purchases, and installation agreements with a supplier. Objectives The objectives of the demonstration program were to determine whether heat pump residential heating systems would operate in an acceptable manner in the Ketchikan area, to determine the total annual cost of a system, and to en- courage better than minimum energy efficiency measures in construction. The analysis of energy use and cost monitoring were not intended to be elaborately detailed as the basic objectives were system reliability, acceptance by the owner, and a general idea of annual system costs. Heat Pump Technology A thermodynamic law of nature is for heat to flow from higher to lower tempera- ture. A heat pump mechanically causes heat to flow in reverse, from a low-temp- perature to a high-temperature region, by a compressor and compressible fluid. External energy is provided to the pump/compressor. A heat pump, which typically runs on electricity, works as a refrigerator. It transfers the heat in air at a relatively lower temperature to another place (such as a house interior) at a higher temperature. In this heating cycle, cool air outside the building is blown over an even colder evaporator coil. Heat from the outdoor air warms and evaporates a fluid refrigerant in the coil. The fluid refrigerant is then mechanically compressed and raised to a higher temperature. This high-temperature gas then circulates through con- densing coils, over which air passes and warms as the refrigerant gas "gives up" heat and condenses. Then a fan blows warm air through ducts to the rooms to be heated. The ratio of thermal energy delivered inside the building as heat, to the external electricity supplied to the heat pump, is the coefficient of perform- ance (COP). The COP is greater on mild days than cold days because more heat is available in the outdoor air. The average COP for a year is the seasonal performance factor (SPF). In other words, SPF is a measure of the heating equipment efficiency over the total heating season; the higher the SPF, the more efficient the unit. An annual SPF of 2.0 or greater was expected in Ketchikan, with daily COPs being 3.0 or more. Commercially available heat pumps are both heating and cooling units. This is accomplished by reversing the direction of flow of the refrigerant and reversing the heating and cooling sequence of the cycle. This reversing cycle makes the heat pumps especially attractive in areas with both heating and cooling requirements and raises the annual SPF. Heat pumps work effectively in areas such as Ketchikan which theoretically require only heat. If there is no cooling requirement, there simply will be no operation in the cooling-cycle mode. From a practical standpoint, on occasional warm days some of the heat pumps in thermally efficient houses are used for cooling. Sizing a heating system depends on the thermal load characteristics of the building structure. A component heat-loss/heat-gain calculation (design heat loads) is used to determine the extent of a building's loss of heat by transmission through its thermal envelope. As the outside (ambient) temperature drops and the heating requirement for the building increases, a point is reached where more heat is needed than the heat pump can provide to maintain the comfort level. This "balance point" is an outdoor temperature usually between 20 degrees and 45 degrees Fahrenheit. Supplemental heat is added by electric resistance elements or "strips" in the air makeup plenum of the heat pump. The strips are staged to activate in increments of heat requirement, usually 5 KW at a time (17,060 Btu per hour). They operate at a COP of 1.00, the same as resistance baseboard heaters and forced-air electric furnaces. The heat pump will continue to operate at a COP in excess of 1.00 to tempera- tures of O degree Fahrenheit or below (usually to -5 or -10 degrees Fahren- heit). However, as the COP decreases with outdoor temperature, the resistance strip are needed to make up the balance of the design heat-load. Theoretically the COP of the total system will be slightly greater than 1.00 at the design heat-load temperature because of the added mechanical advantage of the heat- pump refrigeration cycle. As a contingency, sufficient electric resistance strips are provided with most systems and sized to provide the total heating requirement exclusive of the heat pump itself. In this mode the unit would operate as a forced air furnace. Again, this-is a standard commercial practice not unique to Ketchikan. Some areas of the nation, such as the upper midwest, with colder temperatures than Ketchikan employ heat pump systems. Heat pump systems are available as both split and single-package systems. The main difference is for ductwork design and installation convenience. A split-system heat pump picks up heat from the outside air and transfers this heat to a refrigerant circulating through an exchanger, which in turn runs through insulated lines to an indoor condensor. The condensor is about the size of a conventional furnace. With a single-package system the entire unit (evaporator and condensor) is usually installed outside the foundation wall, with the heat-output side of the condensing coil connected with the plenum and air distribution ducts which pass through the wall. In these instal- lations extra care is needed to seal off and insulate against outside-air infiltration. Operation Performance Electric Energy The first of each month, the utility electric service meter used for billing was read at the same time as a meter connected to the heat pump only. These readings do not coincide with the utility billing cycle as they are timed to agree with the monthly weather data for use in the computation of the heat pump output and performance. Monthly energy use data for the individual heat pump systems and home use is tabulated in Table 1 and 2. COP Data obtained from monitoring were used primarily to determine the COP of each unit. This was done by comparing the amount of energy required to operate the heat pump with the amount of energy output (heat). Energy output was determined by evaluating the heat-load characteristics of each structure, and heat input source gains other than the heat pumps (such as Passive solar, wood stove, electric lights and appliances, etc.) 1982 Jan Feb Mer Apr May Jun Jvul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total Ave. 1983 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total Ave. Table 1. SO - Service Only HP - Heat Pump KETCHIKAN HEAT PUMP PROGRAM ELECTRICAL CONSUMPTION (KWH) ketpmp1 CUSTOMER 7 GRAINGER ELLISON LEWIS NICKLES BAMBAUER PON, NENA NAN ERIN RNA PONENT PRIN RNNRN so HP so HP so HP so HP so HP NNN NNN NNN MONON NN NN NNN NNN NNN Pee 600 1180 7170 1140 1030 800 1830 860 9040 730 5030 500 1270 980 1450 1140 5960 1370 5630 640 1250 1220 1540 ‘530 1510 1000 5220 570 1030 830 610 530 1510 1320 2940 550 540 950 570 500 310 1150 §6470 500 130 900 40 500 640 1190 §=540 500 130 1810 390 570 470 1240 970 510 190 1460 440 480 600 900 1410 1260 1540 430 220 1500 940 710 1700 1060 740 1420 4400 540 -770 1450 1770 670 3060 690 830 1430 7010 250 1520 320 2260 790 3350 1480 = 880 1560 7100 590 1740 610 2510 cer cers secs soos seers cecre= Ss = S==> cscs scecrcrcs coc 7880 28150 4130 3860 14850 48020 6720 9820 12830 14350 657 2559 1033. 965 1238 4002 560 818 1069 1196 680 3320 810 600 1310 5030 450 1150 1560 #880 660 2470 720 1290 1350 3890 420 970 710 380 650 2080 670 690 1090 3690 450 980 490 1300 630 1380 650 450 1470 =. 370 480 730 430 740 590 1060 710 340 1180 440 540 290 880 460 600 830 420 1150 440 300 190 730 600 410 770 50 1220 380 80 1450 §=370 680 500 710 80 1100 490 = =230 1400 590 630 990 760 240 1200 380 260 100 = 850 680 1550 630 370 1220 30 440 710 800 910 2540 700 1070 1170 510 1040 10 2720 sSssS sec sess Sse sess SSS sss SSS secececS OSS SS 7170 16900 7960 5600 13460 13010 4880 6990 6630 10240 652 1536 724 509 1224 2602 444 635 663-931 APA 12/83 Table 2. KETCHIKAN HEAT PUMP PROGRAM ELECTRICAL CONSUMPTION (KWH) CUSTOMER, PALMER NEWELL Ss. COAST - BOLES KET. AIR PRIN PERRIN NNN PERE R PRIN IN NANRNRRNANRNNN so HP so HP so HP so HP so HP NNN NNN PON NN NNN Ree NN MeN Meee NNN 1982 Jan 5470 3170 970 1030 520 1910 Feb 5477 5060 1930 750 650 1430 Mar 1430 4450 1470 650 630 1350 Apr 1900 3720 1520 470 350 1750 May 1660 3402 1680 190 276 8 Jun 390 150 1360 650 1190 70 207 451 Jul 570 280 893 1450 640 1130 160 853 184 Aug 650 310 840 1780 540 1260 120 824 272 Sep 620 460 1400 1570 560 1170 150 708 520 Oct 700 1020 1740 600 1520 1450 1650 160 1394 1141 Nov 720 1240 1810 1270 2010 4050 1360 350 1013 1672 Dec 910 430 1950 100 1870 3390 1790 300 1014 1931 Total 4560 3890 8633 1970 27497 31082 17120 4400 8439 12619 Ave. 651 556 1439 657 2291 2590 1427 367 703 #1052 1983 Jan 840 500 1900 2060 4010 1370 540 1271 1624 Feb 1260 1400 1840 1200 2000 3830 1240 510 1142 1443 Mar 690 930 1660 1590 2540 860 520 1695 751 Apr 690 910 1590 50 1360 2620 1430 100 1168 916 May 670 610 1460 170 1560 1100 1090 100 858 1674 Jun 590 320 1150 380 1540 320 880 90 756 1732 Jul 610 190 1310 150 1290 150 910 120 2206 387 Aug 670 290 1520 230 1450 430 1090 140 1146 1726 Sep 420 410 1580 800 290 1010 720 300 1441 1579 Oct 580 840 1450 910 830 2060 940 280 1868 1086 Nov 790 780 1940 1150 1910 3160 1110 380 2420 329 Dec Total 7810 7180 17400 5040 15880 21230 11640 3080 15971 13247 Ave. 710 653 1582 560 1444 1930 1058 280 1452 1204 SO - Service Only HP - Heat Pump APA 12/83 ketpmp1i Due to the availability and low cost of firewood in the Ketchikan area, most residences use wood for a large part of their heating requirements. This is also true of the participants in the heat pump program which increases the difficulty in calculating the heat pump COP accurately. Rather than attempt to do a complete analysis of each program participant, three parti- cipants were selected which were felt to be representative of typical heat pump applications in the Ketchikan area. These three were selected as they consisted of three different types of buildings in the program -- a new residence, an older residence, and a new office building -- and all were felt to be thermally efficient in that they were well insulated. In addition, these participants appeared to have the best data available on operation of the heat pumps over the period of study. The office building used the heat pump for its full heating requirements while the two residences each had a supplemental heat source. The new residence used wood heating in addition to the heat pump and no accurate records were kept of the amount of wood used. Ketchikan Public Utilities. requested that the heat pump participants refrain from using supplemental heat during February 1983 in order to accurately measure the performance of the heat pumps during a cold period. The effect this had was clearly shown in the monthly calculations of heat pump performance for this resi- dence. The older residence had a fuel-oil furnace to supplement the heat pump, however, a timer was installed on the furnace to determine the cumulative period of operation of this unit each month. This allowed a fairly accurate calculation of fuel used and heat input to the residence each month by the supplemental source. Tables 3 through 5 present the monthly data for heat input, heating load, heat pump output, and the resulting COP for the three participants analyzed. The seasonal performance factor (SPF) is also computed for two of the locations. Examination of the calculations for the older residence (Palmer) reveals COPs ranging from 1.47 in February 1983 to 3.33 in June 1983. The overall SPF for the residence was 2.19. Certain months were not used in calculating the SPF, as noted, with the first four months being excluded due to undocu- mented supplemental oil heating. July 1983 was also excluded due to probable solar heating which resulted in an unrealistic COP of 5.87: The calculations for the commercial office building (South Coast, Inc.) show COPs ranging from 1.46 in May 1982 to 3.72 in August 1982. The overall SPF for this building was 2.05. The SPF calculations did not include those months having COPs above 4.0 which most likely occured due to solar gain. The calculations for the new residence (Ellison) contain only one month, Feb- ruary 1983, which can be considered valid due to undocumented use of wood heating to supplement the heat pump. The COP during this month was 1.94 which is the highest during February of the three participants analyzed. This may be due to better insulation and tighter construction than the older home and new office building. Figure 1 graphically compares the monthly COPs of the older residence and new office building against the monthly heating degree days for Ketchikan. It shows that the efficiency of heat pumps generally increases as the outdoor Table 3. KETCHIKAN HEAT PUMP ANALYSIS ~ Heat Load: 540 Btu/Hr/Degree OLDER RESIDENCE OWNER: PALMER - c103 » £92 Heat e112 cij tai t32 4) * 52 té6) Céa) t72 te) Heating Pump Heat Total Home Heat Pump Non-neating Suppl. Temperature - Load Output Pump Month (kwh) (MMBtu) (kwh) (MMBtu) (kwh) (MMBtu) (MMBtu) Inside Outside (MMBtu) (MMBtu) C.O.P. POR OR RR RR NR meee MMR eee Ry eRe Ry Rumen Re Behe Sateen 1982 Jun 540 1.84 150 0.51 390 1.33 68 58 3. 89 3. 22 6.29 Jul 850 2.90 260 0. 96 570 1.95 68 5B 4.02 3.04 3.19 Aug 960 3.28 310 1.06 650 2.22 68 56 4.82 3.71 3.51 Sep 1,080 3.69 460 1.57 620 2.12 68 54 5. 44 4.39 2.79 Oct 1,720 5.87 1,020 3. 48 700 2.39 0.24 68 46 8. 84 7.40 2.13 Nov 1,960 6.69 1,240 4.23 720 2.46 3.08 68 35 12. 83 8. 52 2.01 Dec 1,340 4.57 430 1.47 910 3.11 8. 07 68 36 12. 86 3.23 2.20 1983 Jan 1,340 4.57 500 1.71 840 2. 87 7.79 68 38 12.05 2.83 1.66 Feb 2,660 9.08 1,400 4.78 1,260 4.30 0. 60 68 41 9.80 7.04 1.47 Mar 1,620 5.53 930 3.17 690 2.35 2.53 68 41 10.85 7.14 2.25 Apr 1,600 5.46 910 3.11 690 2.35 0. 59 68 4s 8.94 7.18 2.31 May 1,260 4.37 610 2.08 670 2.29 0.49 68 50 7.23 5. 60 2.69 Jun 910 3.11 320 1.09 590 2.01 0. 42 68 ss 5. 05 3.63 3.33 Jul 800 2.73 190 0. 65 610 2. 08 0. 38 68 55 5S. 22 3. 80 S. 87 Aug 960 3.28 290 0.99 670 2.29 0. 46 68 57 4.42 2.81 2. 84 Sep 830 2.83 410 1.40 420 1.43 0.23 68 56 4.67 3.72 2.66 Oct 1,420 4.85 840 2. 87 580 1.98 0. 38 68 46 8. 84 7.47 2.60 30. 38 29. 83 24.89 106. 38 66. 58 2.19 €13=€33+C5) C23=C£1] x 3.413 Btu/kwh €43=(3] x 3,413 Btu/kwh C6J=(5] x 3,413 Btu/kwh CéaJ=Supplemental oil heat (65% efficiency; .85 gal/hr.) CEl=Average monthly temperature (93=(C€73-([8]) x 540 Btu/hr/degree x 24 hours x days in month . £103=£93-(€6] «x .5)-f6a) C113=€101/C4] # Excluded from SPF calculations. @PA 2/84 ketpmpé KETCHIKAN HEAT PUMP ANALYSIS COMMERCIAL OFFICE BUILDING OWNER: SOUTH COAST INC. = cil t2) t33 t4) Total Home _ Heat Pump Month (kwh) (MMBtu) (kwh) (MMBtu) OR Rit ty 1982 Mar 5.880 20. 07 4,450 15.19 Apr 5.620 19.18 3,720 12.70 May 5.062 17. 28 3,402 11.61 Jun 2,010 6. 86 650 2.22 Jul 2,090 7.13 640 2.18 Aug 2.320 7.92 540 1.84 Sep 2,130 7.27 560 1.91 Oct 2,970 10.14 1,450 4.95 Nov 6,060 20. 68 4,050 13. 62 Dec 5,260 17.95 3,390 11.57 1963 Jan 6,070 20. 72 4,010 13. 69 Feb 5.830 19.90 3,630 13. 07 Mar 4.130 14.10 2.540 8. 67 Apr 3.980 13. 58 2.620 8.94 May 2,660 9.08 1,100 3.75 Jun 1,860 6.35 320 1.09 Jul 1,440 4.91 150 0. Si Aug 1,880 6. 42 430 1.47 Sep 1,300 4.44 1,010 3.45 Oct 2.890 9. 86 2,060 7.03 134. 68 Ci3J=(33+C5) C2I=C€1) x 3,413 Btu/kwh C43=(3] x 3,413 Btu/kwh (63=(5] x 3,413 Btu/kwh Cel=Average monthly temperature Table 4. Heat Load: 1,330 Btu/Hr/Degree C103 t93 Heat e1id ts3 t6) t73 te) Heating Pump Heat Non-neating Temperature Load Output Pump (kwh) (MMBtu) Inside Outside (MMBtu) (MMBtu) €.0.P. enn NR NNR RR RR MR rMnty CGR are (93=(C£71-[81]) x 1.330 Btu/hr/degree «x 24 hours x days in month C103=£93-(C6] «x £113=C101/£4)3 * Excluded from SPF calculations. -5) 1,430 4.88 66 37 28.70 26.26 41.73 1,900 6. 48 66 40 24.90 21. 66 1.71 1,660 5. 67 66 46 19.79 16. 96 1.46 1,360 4. 64 66 se 7.66 5.34 2.41 1,450 4.95 66 se 7.92 5. 44 2.49 1.780 6. 08 66 56 9.90 6. 86 3.72 1,570 5.36 66 54 11.49 8.61 4.61 * 1,520 5.19 66 46 19.79 17.20 3.47 2,010 6. 86 66 35 29. 69 26. 26 1.90 1,870 6. 38 66 36 29. 69 26.49 2.29 2,060 7.03 66 38 27.71 24.19 1.77 2,000 6. 63 66 41 22.34 18.93 1.45 1,590 5.43 66 41 24.74 22. 02 2. 54 1,360 4. 64 66 45 20.11 17.79 1.99 1,560 5. 32 66 sO 15.83 13.17 3. 31 1,540 5. 26 66 ss 10.53 7.91 7.24 * 1,290 4.40 66 ss 10. 88 8. 68 16.96 * 1,450 4.95 66 57 8.91 6.43 4.38 * 290 0.99 66 5é 9.58 9.08 2.63 830 2.83 66 46 19.79 18. 37 2.61 94. 20 318.11 276.02 2.05 § APA 2/84 ketpaps Table 5. KETCHIKAN HEAT PUMP ANALYSIS Heat Load: S82 Btu/Hr/Degree NEW RESIDENCE OWNER: ELLISON - £10] t9) Heat £112 cid t2) {33 c4) cS) 6) 73 i¢-B} Heating Pump Heat Total Home Heat Pump Non-Heating Temperature Load Output Pump Month Ckwh) (MMBtu) (kwh) (MMBtu) (kwh) (MMBtu) Inside Outside (MMBtu) (MMBtu) C.0.P. RNR ORO UY ORR Ry RRR AMOR ORR RR NR RR eRe | mean 1962 Sep 2,310 7.88 1,410 4.81 900 3. 07 66 54 5.03 3.49 0.73 Oct 1,800 6.14 740 2.53 1,060 3. 62 66 46 8. 66 6.85 2.71 Nov 1,520 5.19 830 2.83 690 2.35 6&6 35 12.99 11.81 4.17 Dec 2,360 8.05 880 3. 00 1,480 5.05 66 36 12.99 10.46 3. 48 1983 . . : Jan 1,410 4.81 600 2.05 810 2.76 66 38 12.12 10. 74 5.25 Feb 2,010 6. 86 1,290 4.40 720 2. 46 66 41 9.78 6.55 1.94 # Mar 1,360 4. 64 690 2.35 670 2.29 66 41 10. 83 9. 68 4.11 - Apr 1.100 3.75 450 1.54 650 2. 22 66 4s 8.80 7.69 5.01 May 1.050 3. 58 340 1.16 710 2. 42 66 50 6.93 5.72 &. 93 Jun 950 3. 24 120 0. 41 830 2.83 66 ss 4.61 3.19 7. 80 vul 820 2. 80 so 0.17 770 2.63 66 55 4.76 3.45 20.21 Aug 790 2.70 80 0. 27 710 2.42 66 57 3.90 2.69 9. B4 Sep 1,000 3. 41 240 0. 82 760 2.59 66 56 4.19 2.89 3.53 Oct 1.000 3.41 370 1.26 630 2.15 66 46 8. 66 7.59 6.01 CijJ=(31+£5) C23=C1] x 3,413 Btu/kwh C43=(3] x 3,413 Btu/kwh C6J=C€5] x 3,413 Btu/kwh C6J=“Average monthly temperature C€93=(C73-(8)) x S82 Btu/hr/degree x 24 hours x days in month €103=(9)-(f6] x .5) C113=€103/64) APA 2/84 * Only month not using supplemental wood heat. ketpap2 KETCHIKAN HEAT PUMP STLILY C.O.P. VERSUS HEATING DEGREE DAYS “ee Ta Pr eT) i i) Tn) ST St ts) ho) dt) SCO lO +100 | | | i | oe i b \ | | re. a a | Cc | | aq | / ™N, | E 300+ | F | / | F | +, | é ; le! C He —\— I | / ' +500 E | *— —* | N | / | T | | | oy oe a Z00+ | F | / | F ’ *-—* E | / ! R | oe \/ | FE | * | a | | R | I A 100: +900 + N | | C | | E 1 | | ! | | | | | ! | | | | O+ | fp a pe pe pp pa pe ep pe ep eh he pee eben teeth te eee tenn tt Mar Apr May Jun Tuk Qua Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb eat May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct B22 Fas LEGEND -- (o) Heating Degree Days _ (*) Commercial Office Bldg. C.O.P. (+) Older Residence (.O.P. APA - DEC 33 NZ2reAPms mMmMDaOQmo nAx~DpDoeo *T eanbtg temperature increases. Deviations from this general pattern could be attributed to wind. The thermal blanket provided by calm air about a structure is disrupted during windy periods, causing a slightly lower external temperature. More significantly, wind causes increased infiltration by overpressures on upwind surfaces and openings and by increased exhausting on downwind surfaces and openings. Therefore, windy days have higher heat loads and-COPs than calculations show. During high winds, infiltration could double the heat load of calm periods. Annual Operation Cost The records for the commercial office building (South Coast) and the older residence (Palmer) were analyzed to determine the annual heating costs for the heat pumps as well as alternative electric resistance heating and fuel oil heating systems. The results are summarized in Table 6. The annual cost of operation for the heat pumps appears to be about half of what the cost would be for electric resistence heating for both buildings. The heat pump costs are about the same as fuel oil system costs when fuel oil is priced at $1.00 per gallon and about 25 percent lower when fuel oil costs $1.25 per gallon. Operation Problems, Homeowner's Comments, and Other Observations A survey of the heat pump owners showed that most were pleased with the operation and performance of their units. A couple of owners mentioned poor maintenance from their installer while others rated their installers high. A summary of mechanical problems would include: © One homeowner had a compressor failure. © Two owners had trouble with the defrost circuit and fuses and experi- enced some icing problems. © One owner had a minor problem with room cooling down by cold air from floor ducts. Manufacturer called service man to synchronize heat pump operation. © One owner had freon escape through loose connections. Additional general observations by homeowners include: o Very quiet operation. o Evenness of heat throughout home. o Better moisture levels in house. o Floor registers work much more efficiently than old system of hot (oil furnace) air from attic. © Maximum insulation is needed in house. Table 6 ENERGY COST COMPARISON South Coast RRNA Seasonal Heat Loss (Million Btu) 207. 02 c OP 2.05 Heat Pump Energy Used (Kwh) 29,596 Equivalent Electric Heat Energy (Kwh) 60,672 Equivalent Fuel Oil (gallons) /1 2,308 Heat Pump Energy Cost ($%) 2,308 /2 Electric Heat Energy Cost (%) 4,732 /2 Fuel Oil Cost @ $1.00/gallon (%) 2,308 @ $1.25/gallon ($) 2,885 4/1 - Based on 72 - Based on 73 - Based on 65% efficiency; 138,000 Btu/gallon. 7.8 cents/Kwh. 8.1 cents/Kwh. Palmer PRN 66. 58 2.19 8,900 19,491 742 721i 1,579 742 927 APA 1/84 73 73 Conclusions Heat pumps have proved to be a technically and economically viable heating mechanism for use in Southeast Alaska. The seasonal performance factor of slightly over 2.0 for the units in Ketchikan is about the same as the SPF for units operating in Juneau. The units in Ketchikan should generally experience higher efficiencies over the long run due to the warmer temperatures in the area. The SPF of over 2.0 indicates that the units would be twice as ef- ficient as electric resistance type heating and thus would help to conserve energy. The annual operation costs for the heat pump are about half the cost of a system using electric resistance heating. A fuel oil system would have annual costs about the same as a heat pump if fuel.oil cost $1.00 per gallon and 25 percent higher if fuel oil cost $1.25 per gallon. The future cost of power following the start up of the Swan Lake Project is unknown at this time, therefore, it is difficult to predict how the heat pump will compare in operating costs with fuel oil. The two are presently about comparable in annual costs, but hydro energy is generally less sus- ceptible to future price increases. If the costs of both electricity and fuel oil increases, there may be a greater utilization of wood for heating in the area. The most important point is that the heat pump is much more efficient than an electric resistance type system. If an individual chooses to utilize any electric heat system, the utilities should realize that a heat pump will actually help to conserve energy supplies. Proper design and installation, along with adequate insulation in the struct- ure, appear to be the main factors in ensuring satisfactory performance of a heat pump system. An energy audit should be completed -- as a minimum -- for any building utilizing a heat pump to ensure that the building is as energy efficient as possible. This will result in the optimum operation and efficiency of the heat pump system. APPENDIX MATERIAL KETCHIKAN PUBLIC UTILITIES PROGRESS REPORT KETCHIKAN PUBLIC UTILITIES TELEPHONE 907-226-3111 “AUNICIPALLY OWNED LECTRIC WATER PHONE December 9, 1983 U.S. Department of Energy Alaska Power Administration P.O. Box 50 . Juneau, Alaska 99802 Attention: John Denniger Subject: Ketchikan Heat Pump Program Progress Report No. 3 Contract No. 85-81AP10026 Dear John: Attached for your information and use are the following documents produced as part of the Ketchikan Heat Pump Program: TABLE 1. Heat Pump Installations. TABLE 2. Electrical Consumption Data TABLE 3. Status Report TABLE 4. Heat Pump Program Purchase Order Data Questionaire sent to all Heat Pump participants. There are a total of eleven Heat Pump participants. Of these eleven participants, ten have been operating since October of 1982. The one exception experienced electrical problems with the service entrance or building wiring and has never resolved the problem. At this point in the program the following observations can be made: 1. The one exception noted above, E. George Hutton of South- eastern Electric, went out of business in June of 1983. Since this time the building has been unoccupied. 2. During: February 1983, no supplemental heat source was used. 3. The Lewis residence at 1126 Park has been undergoing a reno- vation project. This project was started at the end of April. This heat pump has only been turned on once since then. 4. As indicated in table 4, $29,250.00 has been paid. It is not known at this time what will happen to the $750.00 that is left in the program. John Denniger December 9, 1983 Page Two 5. In January of 1983, Mr. Newell experienced problems with his heat pump meter so it was turned off. He didn't get it fixed in January but turned it back on in February to comply with KPU's request. and had it installed in time He then obtained a new meter to start up again in March All other heat pumps not mentioned previously have been running as expected with no problems. WAU:b11 Attachments Very truly yours, KETCHIKAN PUBLIC UTILITIES Wade. Ulnd Wade A. Unruh, Utilities Designer/Drafter cc: Richard D. Newland, Utilities Manager Mayor and City Council KPU Advisory Board Heat Pump Program Participants aL L Heat Pum Installations Ketchikan Heat Purp Program Building Heat_Punp . “Desi Heating ae Total installed Now Osner Character Floor Area (fr? ) Lead bad_(Btuh) Make Model Capacity Cost 1 Hutten 1 story, wood 1432 38,350 Ruud, 4.5 ton, UHQA-16 61,000 Bruh @47°F $8,216.00 frame office @10°F Split & UPCA-0SCA 33,400 Btuh 217°F space; Retrofit 3 Lewis/Harwell 2 story, wood 1766 -- Sundial, 3 ton, HS 3.0 35,000 Btuh ¢47°F 6,159.00 frame residence Split 20,000 Btuh 017°F with flat roof & 1 basement; Retrofit 4 Bambauer/Bone 2 story, wood 1300 -- Coleman, 3 ton, 3236-901 38,000 Btuh ¢47°F 5,836.90 frame residence Split, 1S kW 3240-832 23,500 Btuh @17°F with unheated backup . crawl space; Retrofit 5 Nickles 2 story, wood 1332 32,000 Coleman, 2.75 ton, 3230-901 35,000 Btuh 47°F 5,651.00 a: frame residence, New @8°F Ambient Split, 10 KW 20,500 Btuh 217°F backup : 6 Newell 1 story, wood 3400 -- Whirlpool, 5 ton "'A'"'Coil NESCOS8AO 64,000 Btuh 247°F 5,905.00 frame over partially Split in serics Cond. NCHAOS8AK 38,000 Btuh 217°F heated wood and w/existing oil concrete basement; furnace Retrofit 7 Grainger 1 story, wood 1571 -- Whirlpool, 4 ton NESAO47A0 49,000 Btuh ¢47°F frame above unheated Split NCHAO4 7AK 29,000 Btuh @17°F §,510.00 partial basement; i Turn. HOCO : Retrofit BME 070 A47 & South Coast, Inc. 2 story, wood 4800 44,500 Two (2) G.E. 2ca.048A300B0 oe 12,500.00 frame office @10°F Weathertron, 4 ton Heat Pump - building w/insulated Split, 3-phase 2ca.060C400D0 crawl space; New ‘ Air Ilandler 2ea.14.4 KW ; Electric Furnace 10 Ketchikan Air 2 story, wood 2400 57,338 Ruud, 5 ton, ULIQA-20 61,000 Btuh @47°F 8,185.00 Service frame metal upstairs @10°F Split, 20 kW UPCA 057A 35,400 Btuh ¢17°F building, offices upstairs, unheated warchouse downstairs, New li Boles 2 story, wood 1900 40,900 Sundial, 3.5 ton, ‘ B21-03-15 42,000 Btuh 47°F 5,525.08 frame w/cathedral €10°F Split, 15 KW HVC 3.5 24,000 2tuh 217°F ceilings, New HS 3.5 14 Palmer 1 story, wood 2240 45,000 Carricr, 4.0 ton, 38RQ040 44,000 Btuh ¢47°F 3,332.60 frame over partially @10°F in series w/ 2811Q042021 23,090 Bruh e17°F heated wood § concrete existing basement; Retrofit 15 Ellisor L story, split level 1930 32,000 Coleman, 4 ton, 3243-901 47,000 Btuh 247°F 7,409.00 wood frame residential (10°F Split, 11.5 NY 3112-B 28,509 Btuh ¢17°F above partial unheated backup garage; New Ty TAMER < NO. METER NO. TABLE 2 KETCHIKAN HEAT PUMP PROGRAM ELECTRICAL, CONSUMPT:.ON (KWH) es Tene ann oti pax fe fan [re may | JUN ] Jub a en 670 11460 5060 |8960 | 207C = 80 3640 |c150 Jeo | 726 |1270 | 1009 [129 | 7170 [5030 | 5630 | 4229 |2su 1140 | 500 | 640 [570 [5 i030 |1276 }1750 130 190 75°90 990 _|1810 | 1460 11500 | 1450 wane 5553 3901 440 1770 ean | eo 6745 (39) 953) 96c2 1190 1140 | 6403 A442 1910 11430 KETOMIKATS PUBLIC UTILITIES KETCHIKAN, AL ASIA re €39 599 SE OCT | NOV.|DEC 630 | 9:0 T 10 23540 TABLE 2 KETCHIKAN HEAT PUMP PROGRAM ELECTRICAL. CONSUMPTION (KWH) . ce JAN | FEB |MAR 345529 223797 9965 306 477 665 (35) ceo? | S951 ws np 9602 CEG a0 rans di ARQ 365 | 83 FESR SU AG 1076 | 1055 Ao 1579 | 1036 | 329 TABLE 3 o “STATUS REPORT a ae -. KETCHIKAN HEAT PUMP PROGRAM : . : AS OF DECEMBER 8, 1983 IPESER PROWOS AL_NUVBER - a Applications Received > : : Copies Sent to APA x|xX1Xx “ys x|X xix x Review and Site Inspection Completed |x {x{x]} xix] x] x]x! xix “x jy: | Recommend to KPU Board XIX IXEX| XTX] X xixly x! | x - Board Approved" oye XIXIX|XPX| XTX x ox Ix x 1 lx Ix » Purchase Order Issued © = Ax lM IXi xix] xy x | x I | Fe ix - Heat Puxp Installed and Operating : x | < X}|X]X 1 x is @ Ix 9 First Peyment to Homeowner. Authorized X x \ xX | X} Gi X * \* [x : | IX | Bote Collection Remm IQ YEXIX [ct ix iX tym - First Quarterly Report (10/21/81) | x | x} x r ix | l. x Z ~ Second Quarterly Report (7/2/82) x X}. Is bs | 1 dx ix ' “Third Quarterly Report . X X | | x dx - Fourth Quarterly Report | | | { ‘Fifth Quarterly Repert — } . Sixth Quarterly Report Seventh Quarterly Report | - Eighth Quarterly Report | | : KOTES . (1) Application Withdrawn (2) Heat pump wos in and noning but was later discovered to be placing a severe overload en an electrical feeder; customer is planning to upgrade wiring in the near farture (3) Authorization for payrent awaiting completion of electrical service entrance upgrade . _ (4) Residence wnler constriction; completion scheduled for October, 19S2 (5) Customer never has upgraded electrical system, no data has been obtained yet. Za ony nw = Ww = IO 10 11 14 1S Name E. George Hutton Linda L. Lewis Stan Bambauer A.R. Nickles Robert E. Newell John H. Grainger South Coast, Inc. Ketchikan Air Service Gary G. Boles William J. Palmer Nora J. Ellison P.O. No. 71-069 71-071 71-072 71-073 71-074 71-075 71-076 71-084 71-157 71-292 71-467 TABLE _4 KETCHIKAN HEAT PUMP PROGRAM PURCHASE ORDER DATA Date 5-19-81 5-19-81 5-19-81 6-24-81 6-23-81 7-13-81 7-13-81 7-14-81 9-10-81 1-26-82 6-04-82 TOTALS Amount. First Payment Date Paid $ 3,000.00 $ 2,250.00 11-10-81 3,000.00 2,250.00 1-05-82 2,917.00 2,188.41 11-02-81 2,845.50 2,134.13 11-09-81 2,500.00 1,875.00 1-26-83 3,000.00 2,250.00 11-10-81 3,000.00 2,250.00 11-26-81 3,000.00 2,250.00 11-10-81 2,650.00 1,987.50 10-21-81 1,941.30 1,455.98 5-28-82 2,146.20 1,609.65 11-08-82 $30,000.00 $22,500.67 Total amount paid to date: $29,250.00 Second (Final) Payment $ 750.00 728.59 711.37 625.00 750.00 750.00 750.00 662.50 485.32 __ 836.55 $6,749.33 Date Paid 1-26-83 1-26-83 1-26-83 12-09-83 1-26-83 1-26-83 1-26-83 1-26-83 1-26-83 12-09-83