Resturant Equipment ENERGY STAR Commercial Kitchen Package

                     

Choose an ENERGY STAR Commercial Kitchen Package

According to Pacific Gas and Electric Company's Food Service Technology Center, as much as 80 percent of the $10 billion annual energy bill for the commercial food service (CFS) sector does no useful work. These lost energy dollars are often wasted in the form of excess heat and noise generated by inefficient appliances, heating ventilation and air conditioning systems, lighting and refrigeration.

                           Manage Costs

To help counter these costs, ENERGY STAR helps restaurant owners and operators improve the performance of their facilities and equipment while reducing energy costs. Restaurants that invest strategically can cut utility costs 10 to 30 percent without sacrificing service, quality, style or comfort - while making significant contributions to a cleaner environment.

Restaurants, or facilities with commercial kitchens, feature the majority of this equipment and consume significantly more energy than other types of buildings - using approximately 250,000 Btu/sq.ft.

ENERGY STAR qualified equipment can be an answer to mounting energy bills. Purchasing ENERGY STAR qualified CFS equipment as a package for new kitchen construction or as a replacement for aging equipment, can save significant amounts of money and energy on foodservice operators' electric, gas, water and sewer bills.

Save Energy, Save Money

Outfitting an entire kitchen with a suite of ENERGY STAR qualified CFS equipment could save operators about 350 Mbtu/year annually, or the equivalent of approximately $3,600.

Besides saving energy, ENERGY STAR qualified steam cookers and commercial dishwashers save water. Steam cookers that have earned the ENERGY STAR are 90 percent more water efficient than non-qualified steam cookers; an ENERGY STAR qualified commercial dishwasher is 25 percent more water efficient than standard models.

Related Information

Guidebooks
ENERGY STAR Guide for Restaurants (820KB)

Equipment Savings Fact Sheet (1.06M)
CFS Program Administrator Guide for Utilities (418KB)
Importing Regulated CFS Products into Canada (48KB)

Case Studies
Austin Public Schools Case Study (884KB)
Saratoga Restaurant Equipment Sales Case Study (203KB)
Kessenich’s Ltd. Case Study (192KB)

Newsletters

ENERGY STAR CFS January 2010 Newsletter
ENERGY STAR CFS October 2009 Newsletter
Helpful Web Sites

Food Service Technology Center

Consortium for Energy Efficiency's (CEE) Commercial Kitchens Initiative
National Restaurant Association's Conserve Initiative

Contact Scott's Contracting, St Louis Renewable Energy for additional information < WEB or email>scotty@stlouisrenewableenergy.comscotty@stlouisrenewableenergy.com

Electric cars Proper Set Up

Info by: Scotty, Scott's Contracting, St Louis Renewable Energy

Park and Plug


Electric cars are around the corner. Will your green buyers have a place to plug in?

By:Katy Tomasulo

The Chevrolet Volt extended range electric vehicle with a 230 miles-per-gallon rating, is shown in front of the GreenHouse, a custom-built 4,000 sq-ft "carbon neutral" house in MacLean, Virginia Tuesday, September 22, 2009. The Volt will travel 40 miles on a single charge, meaning it could drive to Washington, DC and back twice from this location, without using a drop of gas. GreenHouse was designed and constructed using the latest environmental technologies, including solar hot water and electricity, a green roof system, rain water capture, geothermal heating/cooling and much more. The house will be open to the public for tours October 10-30. (Photo by Mark Finkenstaedt for General Motors)

Credit: GM
GM’s recent announcement that its all-electric Chevy Volt will hit the showroom floor by the end of 2010 signaled a major shift in the evolution of plug-in vehicles. With other major manufacturers working on similar initiatives, it looks like electric cars may be hitting the mainstream.

Fully charged, the Volt will run for 40 miles on battery power, which means a typical commuter can travel all week to and from work without using any gas. A gas-powered extended-range mode provides an additional 300 miles. GM places the Volt’s miles per gallon at 230 and estimates it will consume 25 kWh—about $2.75—for every 100 miles.

Ford is not far behind, with plans to have its all-electric Focus available in 2011. Nissan, Toyota, and Honda also have announced upcoming rollouts.

In preparation, builders should be planning ahead to ensure the houses they sell are ready if and when occupants go the plug-in route. “If we’re not ready to get buildings outfitted today, there’s going to be a lot of incurred costs later on,” says Britta Gross, GM’s director of global energy systems and infrastructure commercialization.

Luckily, builders and drivers won’t face unfamiliar technology: The Volt simply plugs into a three-pronged outlet via an extension cord; Gross says the Volt charges in eight hours on a 120-volt/15-amp outlet or in about three hours on a 240-volt/30-amp outlet. Though most detached houses already contain a 120-volt outlet in the garage, forward-thinking builders should consider installing a 240-volt outlet no more than 25 feet from parking spots and providing a dedicated circuit.

Ford also recommends a dedicated 240-volt line to the garage, with 80 to 100 amps to accommodate two cars at 40 amps each. Ford will require a “charge point,” a hard-wired box that contains the cord and ensures it isn’t charged unless it’s plugged into the car.
For multifamily buildings with underground garages, Gross suggests installing a 240-volt outlet at each stall, along with appropriate upgraded transformers, or at least having a percentage of dedicated spaces.

Determining how many parking spaces is still up in the air. In Vancouver, a new building standard will require new multifamily projects to include wiring for vehicle charging in a minimum of 20% of parking stalls. Each building’s electrical capacity must be able to accommodate a load created if each of those stalls were in use simultaneously.

“Consumers … expect a plug for the dryer and stove, and in very short order, they’re going to expect an outlet in their garage,” says John Stonier, spokesperson for the Vancouver Electric Vehicle Association. “It’s not a big stretch to do this, and it doesn’t cost very much.”
—Katy Tomasulohttp ://www.ecohomemagazine.com/home-technology/park-and-plug.aspx

Scott's Contracting will custom build or renovate your garage for the needed Electric Hook-Ups for your Electric Car

HVAC Best Fit- Renewable Energy Blog Page Reopened

Alternative Energy Blog Page Reopened!!!

Doing It Right: Finding the HVAC Best Fit

EFFICIENCY LEVELS: HVAC... air conditioning equipment must meet both the SEER and EER to qualify. “If it meets 13 EER, it will automatically meet 16 SEER. But not the other way around,” he says.

FURNACE CHOICE: ...the 95% efficiency level for a gas furnace is easiest to reach, but it’s not always the best choice, based on climate. “In the northern states, [clients] get their money back sooner, but for southern states, A/C or heat pumps are better.”
SYSTEM COMBINATIONS: Contractors need to install the right combination of HVAC equipment to meet the efficiency levels. For example, matching the A/C condenser outside with the right furnace or air handler inside.

SPACE CONSIDERATIONS: John Hurst, vice president of product management with Richardson, Texas–based Lennox, says that many product installations have space constraints, particularly for the furnace and air handler. Local codes governing chimney size for venting and make-up air will also affect installation parameters. Frederick Air sales manager John Poyle offers an example: “If my house has a 3-ton air conditioner, and I want a 20 SEER unit, a manufacturer will say, this unit comes up to 20 SEER. But I may need a 5-ton coil to get that 20 SEER efficiency from the unit. But that coil is massive and won’t fit in my basement because of the low ceiling.”
To choose the best solution for the customer, make sure that the HVAC contractor reviews existing conditions, including the orientation of the house, shading, and existing insulation, as well as lifestyle considerations such as how the customer uses the system and what changes they plan for the future.

Info Provided by: Scotty, Scott's Contracting, http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.com/ Leave comments below or email: scotty@stlouisrenewableenergy.com for additional info or pricing

Blog Posting on BlogSpot Re-Opened

Blog Posting Re-opened.

Buy American Made Products, Just Another Reason

End Fossil the Pollution from Fossil Fuels

t

Sign the letter to protect the environment.
 

President Obama and Congress are working to address the global climate crisis and improve our environment. But now big corporations that moved to China where environmental regulations are weak are pressuring Congress and the Administration to drop the "Buy American" provision in the Recovery Act.
This would allow tax-payer dollars to support non-American workers in
countries with inferior pollution standards. 

Click here to send a letter to Congress

Let's make a difference in the
world we leave our children.
 

The typical Chinese foundries producing the same parts produce 20 times
more particulates and nearly 35 times more carbon monoxide than
foundries in the US. In fact, China is now the largest source
of both sulfur dioxide (SO2) and carbon dioxide (CO2) in the world.

You can help the environment and save American jobs by clicking here.

Thank you,
OurJobsOurEnvironment Coalition

End Pollution from Burning Fossil Fuels by Switching to Renewable Energy Producing Systems.  True Renewable Energy has no Exhaust or Harmful Waste

Home Owner Grant Info

US Dept of Treasury,Payments for Specified Renewable Energy Property in Lieu of Tax Credits

Dear US Treasury Dept,

I applaud the your Department on "Renewable Energy Resources"! Together we can make a difference in Reducing Energy Needs to Reduce Climate Change!!

I request the steps needed to obtain the above Payments for a Passive Solar Hot Water Heating System for Laundry Matts/Apartment Buildings.

Thank you for any time and consideration in assisting me with this effort.

Sincerely,
Scotty

1603Questions@do.treas.gov  to me

Scotty--  Thank you for your email message.  You can find full information about the Section 1603 program at www.treas.gov/recovery/1603.shtml.

Scott's Contracting  to 1603Questions

USDep of Treasury,
Is the process for applying/receiving federal aid for Home Owners the same as the links you provided in my prior email?

Thank you for any and all assistance and clarifications.

Scotty

1603Questions@do.treas.gov  to me

Scotty--  No, the Section 1603 program is not for homeowners.  For information on other programs that support renewable energy initiatives, please see www.dsireusa.org.


**** The response contained in this email is for informational purposes only.  It does not necessarily represent the final views of the US Department of Treasury or the Section 1603 program and is therefore not binding. ****

PV durability and reliability issues

PV durability and reliability issues

ALLEN ZIELNIK, Atlas Material Testing Technology LLC, Chicago, IL USA

While no abbreviated test program can predict with 100% certainty that a module will properly perform in an environment for 25+ years, an improved methodology that more closely simulates the real environment, while still maintaining reasonable acceleration, can certainly be a valuable tool to assess the question of survivability.

The photovoltaic industry needs PV modules that will perform for ~25 years or longer in the field, as well as a reliable means to determine that viability. These are necessary not only for product development and warranty considerations, but also in terms of risk to financial stakeholders and overall economic viability—not to mention key safety concerns.
 
While there are initial PV qualification tests, such as the IEC and UL requirements, among others, they are neither intended to, nor capable of, predicting long-term performance. As a result, there has been an evolution in the application of accelerated life testing (ALT) and accelerated environmental testing (AET) to the service life prediction (SLP) of PV modules and systems.

25 years and beyond

To understand reliability, we must first define what we mean. For simplicity, we will say a PV module fails to provide service if its power output decreases by more than 20% after 30 years in its use environment. Also, “a high probability” means that 95% of the modules in the field will achieve this success [1],” or the like.

For most PV products, there are many additional concerns regarding what constitutes failure or unacceptable performance. Notably, safety after aging is a critical concern to protect life and property. There may also be critical aesthetic concerns, such as with BIPV products, which affect the viability (but not necessarily the power generation) of the product. If a module discolors in the Mojave Desert, no one may care, but if it discolors on a building façade, everyone may care (at least one BIPV producer is out of business due to cosmetic failure).
 
At the Department of Energy “Accelerated Aging Testing and Reliability in Photovoltaics Workshop II” held in 2008, Akira Terao [2] (Sunpower Corp.) pointed out that, even in the mature c-Si module arena, there are still many remaining reliability challenges, including:

• 25-year warranty. This is still a barrier; how does a company prove 25-year life?
• Ill-defined field conditions. The same warranty must apply for all conditions for the same modules.
• Harsh and varied outdoor conditions.
• Materials used near their limits; how to accelerate the effects on material already being used near its limit.
• Limited acceleration factors. There are few available; industry must rely on long tests instead. Long test time can be a hindrance to market introduction.
• Cumulative effects, positive feedback loops. Challenging to determine and test for all interactions in the field.

The best approaches to reliability engineering include using the standard Weibull bathtub curve to determine the physics of failure for each mode.
According to John Wohlgemuth (BP Solar), “Today, BP Solar offers a 25-year warranty on most of its crystalline silicon PV modules…while the modules have to last for 25 years of outdoor exposure, we cannot wait 25 years to see how they perform… no BP/Solarex module has been in the field longer than ten years. Even the oldest 20-year warranty modules have only been in the field 15 years.”

Wohlgemuth adds, “Examples of accelerated stress tests of use for PV include:

• Thermal cycling;
• Humidity-freeze;
• Damp heat;
• Mechanical load both static and dynamic, and
• Ultraviolet exposure [3].”

Failure Rate vs Lifetime

Reliability concerns associated with PV technologies

Quoting directly from a monograph [4] by Dr. Sarah Kurtz of NREL:
“General reliability issues across all PV technologies are:

1. Corrosion leading to a loss of grounding
2. Quick connector reliability
3. Improper insulation leading to loss of grounding
4. Delamination
5. Glass fracture
6. Bypass diode failure
7. Inverter reliability
8. Moisture ingress

Continuing, Dr. Kurtz said: “In addition, there are issues specific to the individual technologies, to name a few:

i. Wafer silicon: Light-induced cell degradation, front surface soiling, effect of glass on encapsulation performance, reduced adhesion leading to corrosion and/or delamination, busbar adhesion degradation, junction box failure;

ii. Thin film silicon: electrochemical corrosion of SnO2, initial light degradation;

iii. CdTe: interlayer adhesion and delamination, electrochemical corrosion of SnO2:F, shunt hot spots at scribe lines before and after stress;
iv. CIS: interlayer adhesion, busbar mechanical adhesion and electrical, notable sensitivity of TCO to moisture, moisture ingress failure of package; and v. OPV: photolytic instability, moisture induced degradation, moisture ingress failure of package.”
 
We often hear that people interpret passing the IEC 61215 or 61646 qualification tests is proof that a product has been tested and shown to be durable and reliable. This is simply not true; like many ALT tests, the IEC environmental stress test protocols are designed primarily to test the infant mortality period of the above-referenced bathtub curve (Fig. 1) and do not adequately or realistically stress a module in the way that nature does.
During life, a product loses performance attributes according to the accumulated damage model. Continued damage (thermal, photolytic, mechanical, hydrolytic, etc.) inflicted over a long time—and influenced by the daily and seasonal diurnal cycles—takes a toll.

According to Wohlgemuth, “While qualification tests are important, they have limitations because the stress levels are, by design, limited… so, passing the qualification test means that the product has met a specific set of requirements, but doesn’t say anything about which product is better for long-term performance, nor does it provide a prediction of product lifetime [3].”

Reliability vs. durability

Classic reliability testing is primarily concerned with measuring outright failure, such as time to failure, mean time between failures, number of failures per “n” units or operations, etc. A variety of accelerated life test methodologies (ALT, highly accelerated life testing [HALT], highly accelerated stress screening [HASS], etc.) are used in this pursuit.
 
The general methodology is to apply higher (sometimes considerably so) levels of stress than actual use conditions—but over a shorter period of time—to try to predict longer term performance. This methodology carries the caveat that it may induce failures that would not naturally occur, but can be very useful for studying failure modes and product robustness.
 
Another ALT approach is to use near-normal stresses but applied over a much shorter time period (such as cycling of a door hinge). The IEC tests predominantly use the first approach; for example, the 85°C/85%RH damp heat test condition is not very realistic in terms of actual service. These ALT approaches work best for mechanically-related single-stress failures, and response is often non-linear for chemically induced changes or where degradation is dependent on sequential or overlapping mechanisms.
 
Durability testing, however, is primarily concerned with realistically stressing products to predict long-term performance and is concerned with routes to failure (mechanisms), rates of performance, or property loss, etc. A loss of material or product durability may lead to catastrophic failure (i.e, loss of reliability). Another critical aspect of “durability to the environment” testing is that weather and climate have multiple inter-related stressors varying continuously in both short- and long-term patterns—something extremely difficult to reproduce in basic test equipment.
What is usually referred to in photovoltaics as “reliability,” such as no more than 1% power loss per year to a maximum of 20%, is actually a durability issue.

A sequenced approach

Many other industries, such as automotive and building products, have long learned and developed a general testing approach to weather durability testing. While lifetime expectations or product complexity may be less than that for PV, the needs are the same.
The progession is:

• Material-level tests to select suitable products;
• Component-level tests to include processing variables and some material-material interactions; and
• Product-level tests to test final design and manufacturing, including transportation and installation.

To assess PV module durability, we usually start with the design failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA; or FMECA—failure modes, effects, and criticality analysis), and add a materials-level analysis. This helps to understand unique potential failure modes as well as potential test bias, both for optimizing the test methodology and for interpreting test results.
Next, materials-level tests are undertaken, especially for any polymeric materials (such as connectors, encapsulants, or topsheets) to determine their durabilities. We progress to component-level or pre-production unit testing, if warranted. Such testing can be helpful in determining processing variables, such as laminating conditions, or detecting basic problems, such as edge sealing or adhesion issues. The next step is full-module (or product, such as BIPV) testing.

An improved testing regimen

The primary module durability testing to date has simply relied on extending the existing IEC qualification tests to longer duration (e.g., more hours or more cycles). From our perspective, involving extensive work with PV materials and module manufacturers (as well as other industries) over the past years, and with millions of various products and materials on exposure in labs and test sites around the world, this approach has several flaws.

Although to study or force failure modes can have value for ALT testing, it isn’t a realistic approach for estimating long-term weather durability. It limits the number of simultaneous stresses (such as temperature cycling without humidity or solar radiation), uses stress levels not representative of specific end-use climates, and fails to deliver the stresses in the complex short- and long-term cycles of the natural environment. In weathering testing, the rule is: do a different test (than nature), get a different result.

To improve weather test modules to predict the likelihood of 25+ years durability, Atlas has been developing an improved test methodology. The fundamental characteristics are:

• Parameters are selected based on three major PV use climatic zones: arid desert, tropical/subtropical, and northern/temperate, plus one additional global composite of all three sets of boundary conditions.
• Additional test modifiers of urban/industrial (e.g., hydrocarbons, soot); windblown dust/dirt; acid rain; mechanical loading; and coastal/marine.
• Combining multiple stresses into single test cycle modules, such as combined temperature and humidity cycling and humidity freeze with solar radiation to better simulate the natural environment.
• A series of test sequences, combining corrosion, condensing humidity, thermal/humidity/freeze/solar, outdoor solar tracking, UV preconditioning, etc.—all performed on the same module.
• Periodic visual inspections, I-V curve measurements, and thermal imaging.

Utilizing a variety of accelerated environmental testing (AET) devices and techniques, at realistic climate-specific stress levels and delivered in cycles that mimic the natural environment, this methodology can be run prior to, concurrent with, or following the IEC qualification tests, and is available now.

Conclusion

Service life prediction of complex products is an evolving discipline that often requires data and techniques that are not available. But while this methodology does not purport to address true SLP, it does have a 95-year foundation in empiricism shown to provide practical results. While no test program can predict with 100% certainty that a module will properly perform in an environment for 25+ years (except for real-time 25 year testing, of course), an improved methodology that more closely simulates the real environment while still maintaining reasonable acceleration can certainly be a valuable tool to answer the question, “Will my module last 25+ years?”

References

1. T. McMahon, G. Jorgensen, R. Hulstrom, “Module 30 Year Life: What Does it Mean and Is It Predictable/Achievable?,” National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Reliability Physics Symposium, 2008 (IRPS 2008); IEEE Inter., April 27, 2008-May 1, 2008 pp.: 172–177.
2. U.S. Department of Energy, Accelerated Aging Testing and Reliability in Photovoltaics Workshop II, Summary Report, April 1 & 2, 2008.
3. J. Wohlgemuth, “Reliability of PV Systems, Reliability of Photovoltaic Cells, Modules, Components and Systems,” edited by Neelkanth G. Dhere, Proc. of SPIE ,Vol. 7048, 704802-1, (2008).
4. S.Kurtz, “Reliability concerns associated with PV technologies,” www.nrel.gov/pv/performance_reliability/pdfs/failure_references.pdf
Allen Zielnik received his associates degree in electronics engineering from DeVry U. and BS in chemistry from Michigan State U., and is a senior consultant within the Solar Energy Competence Center of Atlas Material Testing Technology, 4114 North Ravenswood Ave., Chicago, IL 60613 USA; 773-327-4520; info@atlas-mts.com