Active Desiccant-Based Preconditioning Market Analysis and Product Development

The Phase 1 report (ORNL/Sub/94-SVO44/1), completed earlier in this program, involved a comprehensive field survey and market analysis comparing various specialized outdoor air handling units. This initial investigation included conventional cooling and reheat, conventional cooling with sensible recovery, total energy recovery systems (passive desiccant technology) and various active desiccant systems. The report concluded that several markets do promise a significant sales opportunity for a Climate Changer-based active desiccant system offering. (Climate Changer is a registered trademark of Trane Company.) This initial market analysis defined the wants and needs of the end customers (design engineers and building owners), which, along with subsequent information included in this report, have been used to guide the determination of the most promising active desiccant system configurations. This Phase 2 report begins with a summary of a more thorough investigation of those specific markets identified as most promising for active desiccant systems. Table 1 estimates the annual sales potential for a cost-effective product line of active desiccant systems, such as that built from Climate Changer modules. The Product Development Strategy section describes the active desiccant system configurations chosen to best fit the needs of the marketplace while minimizing system options. Key design objectives based on market research are listed in this report for these active desiccant systems. Corresponding performance goals for the dehumidification wheel required to meet the overall system design objectives are also defined. The Performance Modeling section describes the strategy used by SEMCO to design the dehumidification wheels integrated into the prototype systems currently being tested as part of the U.S. Department of Energy's Advanced Desiccant Technology Program. Actual performance data from wheel testing was used to revise the system performance and energy analysis modeling initially presented in the Phase 1 report. This section also provides a revised payback analysis comparing the active desiccant systems selected with the other, more conventional approaches to specialized outdoor air handling units listed in the Phase 1 report. This report concludes with a look at the importance of analyzing active desiccant systems on the basis of ''latent air conditioning'' and not the more traditional ''total cooling capacity''. Since handling latent load will always be the primary reason for using an active desiccant system, it is concluded that the technology must be positioned as a ''latent air conditioner'' in the marketplace. In past analyses, active desiccant systems have been too often compared with conventional cooling systems based on total cooling output. The resulting $/ton ratios that have resulted almost always made the active approach appear as if a very significant first-cost premium were required