5

- i CHAPTER 5. ENGINEERING ANALYSIS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

5.1 INTRODUCTION

................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 5

- 1
5.2 METHODOLOGY OVERVIEW

................................ ................................ .................... 5

- 1
5.2.1 Cost

- Efficiency Analysis of Carbon Dioxide Refrigerant

................................ ... 5

- 2
5.3 COST MODEL

................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 5

- 2
5.3.1 Development of Core Case Costs

................................ ................................ ........ 5

- 3
5.3.1.1 Selection of Units for Teardown Analysis

................................ ................. 5

- 4 5.3. 1.2 Manufacturer Production Cost Estimates and Assumptions

...................... 5

- 5 5.3.1.3 Structure of the Cost Model

................................ ................................ ....... 5

- 5 5.3.1.4 Material Prices

................................ ................................ ............................ 5

- 6
5.3.1.5 Results

................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 5

- 7 5.3.2 Design Option Costs

................................ ................................ ............................ 5

- 8
5.3.2.1 Light

- Emitting Diode Price Forecasting

................................ .................... 5

- 8
5.3.3 Representative Unit Manufacturer Production Cost Values

................................ 5

- 9
5.4 MANUFACTURER SELLING PRICE

................................ ................................ .......... 5

- 9
5.4.1 Manufacturer Markup

................................ ................................ .......................... 5

- 9
5.4.2 Shipping Costs

................................ ................................ ................................ ... 5

- 10
5.5 ENERGY CONSUMPTION M ODEL

................................ ................................ .......... 5

- 10
5.5.1 Screened

- In Technol ogies

................................ ................................ .................. 5

- 11
5.5.2 Screened

- In Technologies Not Considered in the Engineering Analysis

.......... 5

- 11
5.5.2.1 Higher Efficiency Evaporator and Condenser Fan Blades

....................... 5

- 12
5.5.2.2 Low

- Pressure Differential Evaporators

................................ .................... 5

- 12
5.5.2. 3 Improvements to Anti

- Sweat Heaters

................................ ...................... 5

- 12
5.5.2.4 Variable

- Speed Compressors

................................ ................................ ... 5

- 12
5.5.2.5 Microchannel Heat Exchangers

................................ ............................... 5

- 13
5.5.3 Design Options

................................ ................................ ................................ ... 5

- 13
5.5.3.1 Higher Efficiency Lightin g

................................ ................................ ...... 5

- 13
5.5.3.2 Higher Efficiency Evaporator Fan Motors

................................ ............... 5

- 15
5.5.3.3 Improved Evaporator Design

................................ ................................ ... 5

- 16
5.5.3.4 Insulation Increases or Improvements

................................ ...................... 5

- 18
5.5.3.5 I mproved Glass Pack

................................ ................................ ................ 5

- 19
5.5.3.6 Higher Efficiency Condenser Fan Motors

................................ ............... 5

- 19
5.5.3.7 Improved Condenser Design

................................ ................................ .... 5

- 20
5.5.3.8 Higher Efficiency Compressors

................................ ............................... 5

- 21
5.5.3.9 Lightin g Controls

................................ ................................ ..................... 5

- 22
5.5.3.10 Refrigeration Low Power States

................................ .............................. 5

- 22
5.5.4 Baseline Specifications

................................ ................................ ...................... 5

- 23
5.5.5 Non

- Numerical Assumptions

................................ ................................ ............. 5

- 26
5.5.6 Numerical Const ants and Assumptions

................................ ............................. 5

- 26
5.5.7 Model Components

................................ ................................ ............................ 5

- 28
5.5.7.1 Component Energy Consumption

................................ ............................ 5

- 29
5.5.7.2 Compressor Energy Consumption

................................ ........................... 5

- 295

- ii 5.5.7.3 Component Load Model

................................ ................................ ........... 5

- 30
5.5.7.4 Radiation Load Model

................................ ................................ .............. 5

- 30
5.5.7.5 Conduction Load Model

................................ ................................ ........... 5

- 30
5.5.7.6 Infiltration Load Model

................................ ................................ ............ 5

- 31
5.6 COST

- EFFICIENCY CURVES

................................ ................................ .................... 5

- 32

LIST OF TABLES

Table 5.3.1 Major manufactu ring costs

................................ ................................ ............ 5

- 4 Table 5.3.2 Major manufacturing processes

................................ ................................ ..... 5

- 6 Table 5.3.3 Calculated Core Case Costs

................................ ................................ ........... 5

- 8 Table 5.5.1 Per formance Details for “Class A Lighting” Design Option

....................... 5

- 15 Table 5.5.2 Performance Details for “Class B Lighting” Design Option

....................... 5

- 15 Table 5.5.3 Performance Details for “Evaporator Fan Motor” Design Option

.............. 5

- 16 Table 5.5.4 Performance Details for “Improved Class A Evaporator Coil” Design Option

................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 5

- 16 Table 5.5.5 Performance Details for “Improved Class B Evaporator Coil” Design Option

................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 5

- 17 Table 5.5.6 Properties of Standard and Enhanced Class A Evaporator Coil

.................. 5

- 17 Table 5.5.7 Properties of Standard and Enhanced Class B Evaporator Coil

.................. 5

- 18 Table 5.5.8 Performance Details for “Improved Glass Pack” Design Option

................ 5

- 19 Table 5.5.9 Performance Details for “Improved Glass Pack” Design Option

................ 5

- 19 Table 5.5.10 Performance Details for “Improved Class A Condenser Coil” Design Option

................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 5

- 20 Table 5.5.11 Performance Details for “Improved Class B Condenser Coil” Design Option

................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 5

- 20 Table 5.5.12 Properties of Standard and Enhanced Class A Condenser Coil

................... 5

- 21 Table 5.5.13 Properties of Standard and Enhanced Class B Condenser Coil

................... 5

- 21 Table 5.5.14 Baseline Specifications

................................ ................................ ................ 5

- 23 Table 5.5.15 Clas s A Equipment Class Baseline Specifications

................................ ...... 5

- 24 Table 5.5.16 Class B Equipment Class Baseline Specifications

................................ ....... 5

- 25 Table 5.5.17 Combination Vending Machine Equipment Class Baseline Specifications

................................ ................................ ............................... 5

- 25 Table 5.5.18 Energy Consumption Model Numerical Constants and Assumptions

......... 5

- 27 Table 5.5.19 Engineering Constants

................................ ................................ ................. 5

- 28 Table 5.6.1 Cost Efficiency Data for the R

- 134a Class A

– Small Analysi s Point

........ 5

- 34 Table 5.6.2 Cost Efficiency Data for the R

- 134a Class A

– Medium Analysis Point

.... 5

- 35 Table 5.6.3 Cost Efficiency Data for the R

- 134a Class A

– Large Analysis Point

........ 5

- 36 Table 5.6.4 Cost Efficiency Data for the R

- 134a Class B

– Small Analysis Point

......... 5

- 38 Table 5.6.5 Cost Efficiency Data for the R

- 134a Class B

– Medium Analysis Point

.... 5

- 39 Table 5.6.6 Cost Effi ciency Data for the R

- 134a Class B

– Large Analysis Point

......... 5

- 40 Table 5.6.7 Cost Efficiency Data for the R

- 134a Combo A

- Medium Analysis Point

................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 5

- 42 Table 5.6.8 Cost Efficiency Data for the R

- 134a Combo A

– L arge Analysis Point

..... 5

- 445

- iii Table 5.6.9 Cost Efficiency Data for the R

- 134a Combo B

- Medium Analysis Point

................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 5

- 46 Table 5.6.10 Cost Efficiency Data for the R

- 134a Combo B

– Large Analysis Point

..... 5

- 48 Table 5.6.11 Cost Efficiency Data for the R

- 744 Class A

– Small Analysis Point

.......... 5

- 49 Table 5.6.12 Cost Efficiency Data for the R

- 744 Class A

– Medium Analysis Point

...... 5

- 50 Table 5.6.13 Cost Efficiency Data for the R

- 744 Class A

– Large Analysis Point

.......... 5

- 51 Table 5.6.14 Cost Efficiency Data for the R

- 744 Class B

– Small Analysis Point

.......... 5

- 53 Table 5.6.15 Cost Effic iency Data for the R

- 744 Class B

– Medium Analysis Point

...... 5

- 54 Table 5.6.16 Cost Efficiency Data for the R

- 744 Class B

– Large Analysis Point

.......... 5

- 55 Table 5.6.17 Cost Efficiency Data for the R

- 744 Combo A

– Med ium Analysis Point

................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 5

- 57 Table 5.6.18 Cost Efficiency Data for the R

- 744 Combo A

– Large Analysis Point

....... 5

- 59 Table 5.6.19 Cost Efficiency Data for the R

- 744 Combo B

- Medium Analysis Point

.... 5

- 61 Table 5.6.20 Cost Efficiency Data for the R

- 744 Class A

– Small Analysis Point

.......... 5

- 63

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 5.3.1 Metal Price Trends

................................ ................................ ................................ .. 5

- 7 Figure 5.5.1 Components of the Energy Consumption Model

................................ ......... 5

- 29 Figure 5.6.1 Cost

- Efficiency Curve for the R

- 134a Class A

– Small Analysis Point

...... 5

- 34 Figure 5.6.2 Cost

- Efficiency Curve for the R

- 134a Class A

– Medium Analysis Point

................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 5

- 35 Figure 5.6.3 Cost

- Efficiency Curve for the R

- 134a Class A

– Large Analysis Point

...... 5

- 36 Figure 5.6.4 Cost

- Efficiency Curve for the R

- 134a Class B

– Small Analysis Point

...... 5

- 37 Figure 5.6.5 Cost

- Efficiency Curve for the R

- 134a Class B

– Medium Analysis Point

................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 5

- 39 Figure 5.6.6 Cost

- Efficiency Curve for the R

- 134a Class B

– Large Analysis Point

...... 5

- 40 Figure 5.6 .7 Cost

- Efficiency Curve for the R

- 134a Combo A

– Medium Analysis Point

................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 5

- 41 Figure 5.6.8 Cost

- Efficiency Curve for the R

- 134a Combo A

– Large Analysis Point

................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 5

- 43 Figure 5.6.9 Cost

- Efficiency Curve for the R

- 134a Combo B

- Medium Analysis Point

................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 5

- 45 Figure 5.6.10 Cost

- Efficiency Curve for the R

- 134a Combo B

– Large Analysis Point

................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 5

- 47 Figure 5.6.11 Cost

- Efficiency Curve for the R

- 744 Class A

– Small Analysis Point

........ 5

- 49 Figure 5.6.12 Cost

- Efficiency Curve for the R

- 744 Class A

– Medium Analysis Point

................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 5

- 50 Figure 5.6.13 Cost

- Efficiency Curve for the R

- 744 Class A

– Large Analysis Point

........ 5

- 51 Figure 5.6.14 Cost

- Efficiency Curve for the R

- 744 Class B

– Small Analysis Point

........ 5

- 52 Figure 5.6.15 Cost

- Efficiency Curve for the R

- 744 Class B

– Medium Analysis Point

.... 5

- 54 Figure 5.6.16 Cost

- Efficiency Curve for the R

- 744 Class B

– Large Analysis Point

........ 5

- 55 Figure 5.6.17 Cost

- Efficiency Curve for the R

- 744 Combo A

– Medium Analysis Point

................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 5

- 56 Figure 5.6.18 Cost

- Efficiency Curve for the R

- 744 Combo A

– Large Analysis Point

.... 5

- 585

- iv Figure 5.6.19 Cost

- Efficiency Curve for the R

- 744 Combo B

- Medium Analysis Point

................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 5

- 60 Figure 5.6.20 Cost

- Efficiency Curve for the R

- 744 Class A

– Small Analysis Point

........ 5

- 625

- 1 C HAPTER 5. ENGINEERING ANALYSIS

5.1 INTRODUCTION

The engineering analysis establishes the relationship between manufacturer selling price (MSP) and daily energy consumption (DEC), measured in kilowatt hours per day (kWh/day), for the refrigerated beverage vending machines (BVMs) covered in this rulemaking. This cost

efficiency relationship serves as the basis for cost/benefit calculations for individual customers, manufactu rers, and the nation.

The primary inputs to the engineering analysis are baseline information and data for each equipment class addressed in the market and technology assessment (chapter 3 in this technical support document (TSD)) and technology options from the screening analysis (chapter 4 in the TSD). Additional inputs include cost and energy consumption data that the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) developed using a cost model and an energy

- consumption model, respectively. The primary outputs of the engineering analysis are a set of cost

- efficiency curves and a manufacturer markup multiplier used to convert manufacturer production cost (MPC) to MSP. In the subsequent markups analysis (chapter 6 in the TSD), DOE determines customer prices by applying distribution markups, sales tax, and contractor markups. After applying these markups, the data serve as inputs to the energy use characterization (chapter 7 in the TSD) and the life

cycle cost and payback period analyses (chapter 8 in the TSD).

In thi s chapter, DOE discusses representative baseline units, the methodology used to develop MPC, markups applied to convert MPC to MSP, and the methodology used to estimate energy consumption. DOE also presents the resulting cost

- efficiency curves.

5.2 METHODOLOGY OVERVIEW

This section describes the analytical methodology used in the engineering analysis. In this rulemaking, DOE is adopting a design

- option approach, which calculates the incremental costs of adding specific design options to a baseline model. DOE used six different analysis points each for Class A and Class B equipment, and eight total analysis points for combination vending machines. Representative small

- , medium

- , and large

- sized machines were analyzed for Class A and Class B machines. These siz es were based on a survey of equipment conducted during the 2009 rulemaking and corroborated with stakeholder input after the framework stage of the current rulemaking. Two representative sizes each were analyzed for combination vending machines with a ful ly

- cooled refrigerated compartment (Combo A) and combination vending machines with a refrigerated compartment that is not fully

- cooled (Combo B equipment). All combinations of class and representative size were analyzed both for equipment using HFC

- 134a

re frigerant and for equipment using carbon dioxide (R

- 744) refrigerant, resulting in a total of 20 analysis points. See chapter 3 of the TSD for a detailed description of the equipment classes and section 5.5.4 for additional det ail on the different sizes of machines analyzed.

For each analysis point, DOE developed a core case cost using a manufacturing cost model. The core case cost is the MPC of the structure, walls, doors, shelving and fascia of the case, but does not include the cost of any energy

- using components. DOE then developed5

- 2 pricing independently for each design option and added the design option pricing to the core case costs to arrive at total MPC values for each combination of equipment class, size, refrigerant, a nd design option configuration. DOE also calculated the impact of each design option on DEC using an energy consumption model. DOE then conducted a markups analysis to translate MPC
to MSP.

The primary results of the engineering analysis are a set of co st

- efficiency curves, in the form of MSP versus DEC, for each of the 20 analysis points.

5.2.1 Cost

- Efficiency Analysis of Carbon Dioxide Refrigerant

As mentioned above, cost

- efficiency curves were developed both for units that use R

134a refrigerant and those that use carbon dioxide refrigerant for each of the ten equipment type and size combinations analyzed

. The result is a total of twenty analysis points and corresponding

cost

- efficiency curves. The modeling for e ach carbon dioxide refrigerant analysis poin t differed from that for the analogous R

- 134a analysis point in the MPC associated with each of three components : baseline and improved evaporator design, baseline and improved condenser design, and baseline and higher efficiency compressors , as well as th e daily energy use associated with baseline and higher efficiency compressors . Additionally, different design options were modeled in the representative baseline units for those equipment classes that are currently subject to DOE standards for equipment us ing carbon dioxide refrigerant. Please see the respective design option subsections for details regarding the energy consumption and MPC calculations

, and the introduction to Section 5.5 as well as Appendix 5A for further information regarding the modeling of baseline units.

5.3 COST MODEL

One major output of the engineering analysis is the development of costs for the representative units analyzed at the baseline and at each higher design option level. These values were developed using a cost model that was divided into two parts for this rulemaking. The first of these was a stand

- alone cost model, based on physical teardowns of refrigerated beverage vending machines, that was used for developing the core case costs. These core case costs consisted of the cos ts to manufacture the refrigerated case itself, consisting of structural members, shelving, wiring, vending systems, and so on, without the components that could directly affect energy consumption. The second part of the cost model was a component of the

e ngineering analytical model and operated in unison with the energy consumption model. This model received inputs in the form of the core case costs and the prices for design options implemented at and above the baseline, such as baseline and improved glass doors, higher efficiency compressors, and higher efficiency lighting. These two sets of data (core case costs and design option costs) were used to build up total system costs for each analysis point at each design option level modeled.5

- 3 5.3.1 Development of Co re Case Costs

The development of the case costs was based on physical teardowns of Class A and Class B units available on the market at the time of the analysis. The first step in the assessment was the creation of a complete and structured bill of materia ls (BOM) from the disassembly of refrigerated beverage vending machines. DOE dismantled each unit and characterized each part according to weight, manufacturing processes, dimensions, material, and quantity. The result was a set of BOMs that included the c osts for materials, components, and fasteners, and contained estimates for the cost of raw materials and purchased parts and other costs such as la bor, depreciation, and overhead . DOE based assumptions about the sourcing of parts and in

- house fabrication o n industry experience and information from trade publications. The BOMs from the teardowns were fed into a factory model to produce estimates of MPCs for each of the units analyzed. Those estimates were then expanded to produce case costs for the analysis points not directly examined via teardown. The cost model was based on production activities and divided factory costs into the categories shown in Table 5.3.1.5

- 4 Table 5.3

. 1 Major manufacturing costs Major Cat egory Sub

- Category Description

Material Costs Direct Raw materials ( e.g., coils of sheet metal) and purchased parts ( e.g., fasteners, wiring)

Indirect Supplies (e.g., welding rods, die oil, release media)

Labor Assembly Parts/unit assembly on manufactu ring line

Fabrication Conversion of raw material into parts ready for assembly

Indirect Fraction of overall labor not associated directly with equipment fabrication or assembly ( e.g., forklift drivers, quality control, purchasing of raw material and to ols)

Supervisory Fraction of assembly, fabrication, and indirect labor that is paid a higher wage

Depreciation Equipment, Conveyor, Building Straight

- line depreciation over expected life

Tooling Cost is allocated on a per

- use basis or obsolescence, wh ichever is shorter

Other Overhead Utilities A fixed fraction of all material costs meant to cover electricity and other utility costs
Facility and Equipment Maintenance Based on installed equipment and tooling investment

Property Tax and
Insurance A f ixed fraction based on total unit costs

The cost model analysis created cost estimates for each of the BVM analysis points. The cost model used certain assumptions to provide cost estimates; the following sections describe those assumptions.

5.3.1.1 Selection o f Units for Teardown Analysis

The selection of units for physical teardown analysis was performed in a manner so as to allow for the greatest coverage of the range of equipment modeled in this analysis across a variety of manufacturers, sizes, and efficie ncy levels . Th e equipment selected came from both Class A and Class B in a variety of configurations . The equipment was chosen from the product lines of a variety of m anufacturers and at sizes similar to what DOE had determined would be an appropriate repr esentative unit size for the given equipment class. DOE did not conduct any physical teardowns of combination equipment, but rather extended its modeling of Class A and5

- 5 Class B equipment to develop models of combination equipment based on the transferrable physical similarities between the analogous classes.

5.3.1.2 Manufacturer Production Cost Estimates and Assumptions

MPC includes the sum of direct labor, direct materials, and overhead, including in vestment depreciation. The cost of specific models―or costs to individual manufacturers―will vary, depending on the equipment’s precise characteristics, the actual manufacturing processes, the equipment mix in the factory, and other elements. There may als o exist differences in the levels of vertical integration that affect cost structure and thus the cost of equipment; companies with a large market share and/or revenue base tend to be more vertically integrated than their smaller competitors. Yet, DOE assu med that all manufacturers buy at least some of their parts and/or subsystems from outside vendors.

DOE built a parametric model that allowed the scaling of input factors. The assumptions behind the model are based on published data by manufacturers, gene ral industry practice, and previously published DOE reports. DOE compared the model results to published unit data and market prices. For example, DOE compared listed shipping weights with the calculated weights for cabinets of representative units as a me thod of checking its results.

The lack of specific information on manufacturing practices and facilities within the industry made calculating representative investment requirements difficult. Market shares, scales of operation, and levels of vertical integ ration may vary across manufacturers and equipment classes, and higher volume manufacturers may derive a cost advantage based on their purchasing volume for common raw materials and purchased parts alike. Lacking detailed data, DOE did not try to account f or low

- versus high

- volume purchasing power in the development of the cost model, instead using industry

- averaged aggregate data to represent all equipment offerings modeled.

5.3.1.3 Structure of the Cost Model

DOE used a detailed, component

- focused manufacturing cost assessment methodology to estimate the BVM MPCs through use of the cost model, taking into account, for example, direct materials, direct labor, and factory overhead costs.

Following the development of detailed BOMs for each piece of equipment physica lly examined, DOE identified the major manufacturing processes and developed the spreadsheet model. Table 5.3

. 2 lists these examples of these processes.5

- 6 Table 5.3

. 2 Major manufacturin g processes
Fabrication Finishing Assembly/Joining
Fixturing Washing Adhesive bonding
Stamping/pressing Powder coating Spot welding
Brake forming De

- burring Seam welding
Cutting and shearing Polishing Inspecting and testing
Insulating

- -

DOE estimat ed fabrication process cycle times and entered them into the BOM. For this analysis, DOE estimated an average fully burdened hourly cost of labor based on the typical annual wages and benefits of industry employees. In the final step of the cost assessment , DOE estimated assembly times and associated direct labor costs.

Once the cost estimate for each unit was finalized, DOE prepared a detailed summary of relevant components, subassemblies, and processes. In order to yield costs for the refrigerated

case st ructures and not the design option components, assemblies accounted for by the design options ( e.g., glass doors, heat exchangers) were stripped away from the BOMs for each unit. The result was a set of costs corresponding to the MPCs for the core cases of each of the units analyzed.

The final step in the cost modeling process was to expand the results to apply to the remainder of the analysis points, including those corresponding to combination vending machines, for which teardowns were not performed. To a chieve this, DOE added parametric scaling features to the model, which allowed the teardown units to be virtually scaled by size within the model. The end result was a full set of 10 core case costs, which served as the starting point for the development o f whole

- system costs at the baseline and improved design option levels in the engineering model.

5.3.1.4 Material Prices

The cost model uses multiple proprietary databases to determine raw material costs and purchased part prices. Prices for most inputs are based on the most up

- to

- date data that the DOE has been able to obtain, and past quotes are inflated as needed using appropriate Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Producer Price Index (PPI) inflators as necessary. For example, the BLS carries a PPI for fractional electric motors that DOE uses to inflate past quotes on fractional motors to the present day. DOE recognizes that the BLS does not furnish a PPI for every purchased part that may be used by a manufacturer; in these instances, DOE substitutes appropriate P PI series whose trends should be similar or uses inflators from commercial data suppliers. For example, DOE uses the HARPEX indicator to determine shipment costs for container loads. (The HARPEX shipping i ndex tracks weekly container shipping rate changes in the time charter market for eight classes of all

- container ships. ) When possible, purchased part prices and raw material costs are reviewed with manufacturers at the appropriate purchasing volumes for

accuracy.5

- 7 DOE research suggests that metal prices are very volatile and that the raw materials used by manufacturers can vary significantly in price as a function of when the data were collected. In order to reduce the potential impact that temporarily high or temporarily low metal prices can have on the analysis, DOE uses a 5

- year moving average price for all metal raw material prices. A moving average helps address significant price swings in commodities such as copper, whose free market price ranged from $2.2 to $4.5 a pound within the last 5 years. The current 5

- year average for copper is about $3.5/lb. Other commodities like aluminum had smaller absolute price changes, ranging from about $0.9 to $1.3 per pound.

Figure 5.3

. 1 shows the prices associated with 304

- grade stainless steel (SS304) , free market c opper (Cu) , and a luminum (Al), normalized back to January 2003.

Figure 5.3

. 1 Metal Price Trends

5.3.1.5 Results

Core costs, defined as MPC minus the cost of design options, were calculated for multiple sizes of each equipment class. Table 5.3

. 3 displays these results.5

- 8 Table 5.3

. 3 Calculated Core Case Costs

Equipment Class Refrigerated Vo lume (ft 3 ) Size Designation Calculated Core Cost $

Class A 17 Small 1,346

Class A 22 Medium 1,373

Class A 34 Large 1,425

Class B 17 Small 1,243

Class B 22 Medium 1,288

Class B 26 Large 1,330

Combo A 9 Medium 1,371

Combo A 12 Large 1,401

Combo B 4 Medium 1,150

Combo B 5 Large 1,210

5.3.2 Design Option Costs
Design option costs were developed independently of costs for the core cases and were procured through a combination of manufacturer estimates, wholesalers’ prices, list prices, and other sources. Th ese data included the pricing information for components, including glass doors, compressors, lighting, heat exchangers, fans, and other componentry considered as design options. For a listing of all components considered as design options, please see sect ion 5.6.5. For further details regarding the specific design options, please see section 5.6.5.

5.3.2.1 Light

- Emitting Diode Price Forecasting

In the 2014 commercial refrigeration equipment final rule, DOE received comments from stakeholders stating that forecasts of the light

- emitting diode (LED) lighting industry, including those performed by the Department, suggest that LED lighting is an evolving technology that will continue to experience significant price decreases in coming years. For this reason, in an effo rt to capture the anticipated cost reduction in LED fixtures, DOE incorporated price projections from its Solid State Lighting program into its MPC values for that rulemaking and has taken an identical approach in this BVM rulemaking due to the similar nat ure of the products and industries. The price projections for LED case lighting were developed from projections developed for the DOE’s Solid State Lighting program’s 2012 report, Energy Savings Potential of Solid

- State Lighting in General Illumination App lications 2010 to 2030 (“the energy savings report”). In the appendix of this report, price projections from 2010 to 2030 were provided in $/ kilolumen ( klm ) for LED lamps and LED luminaires. DOE analyzed the models used in the Solid State Lighting program work and determined that the LED luminaire projection would serve as an appropriate proxy for a cost projection to apply to refrigerated case LEDs.

The price projections presented in the Solid State Lighting program’s energy savings report are based on the DOE’s 2011 Solid State Lighting R&D Multi

- Year Program Plan (MYPP). The MYPP is developed based on input from manufacturers, researchers, and other industry experts. This input is collected by the DOE at annual roundtable meetings and5

- 9 conferences. The pro jections are based on expectations that depend on the continued investment into solid

- state lighting by the DOE.

DOE incorporated the price projection trends from the energy savings report into its engineering analysis by using the data to develop a curve of decreasing LED prices normalized to a base year. That base year corresponded to the year when LED price data were collected from catalogs, manufacturer interviews, and other sources. DOE started with this LED cost data specific to commercial refrigerati on equipment and then applied the anticipated trend from the energy savings report to forecast the projected cost of LED fixtures for this equipment at the time of required compliance with the proposed rule (2019). These 2019 cost figures for LED fixtures, including the emitters, drivers, wiring, and housing, were incorporated into the engineering analysis as comprising the LED cost portions of the MPCs for the primary equipment classes.
DOE may continue to refine this methodology in later stages of the rul emaking analysis.

5.3.3 Representative Unit Manufacturer Production Cost Values

For each analysis point in the engineering analysis, the analytical model calculated a cost at the baseline, as well as a cost at each design option level above the baseline up to th e max

- tech level. This was achieved by starting with the core case cost, developed as discussed in section 5.4.1, and adding to it the costs of the design options needed to represent all the components in a complete unit of the given equipment class. For e xample, a Class B refrigerated beverage vending machine of the medium representative size and using R

- 134a refrigerant would require the core case cost plus the cost of its evaporator and condenser coils and fans, compressor, and lighting to yield a baseli ne MPC. For units above the baseline, costs for improved design option levels were substituted by the analytical model in the order in which those design options were implemented.

5.4 MANUFACTURER SELLING PRICE

The MSP is the price of the equipment when it is sold by the manufacturer to the first party in the distribution chain. It includes all direct and indirect production costs, manufacturer markup, and the cost of shipping the units from the manufacturer to the first party in the distribution chain.

The MS P is expressed as the product of the MPC and the manufacturer markup, added to the outbound shipping cost to the first destination in the distribution chain:

MSP = MPC x markup + shipping.

The markup and shipping costs are described in the following sub sections.

5.4.1 Manufacturer Markup

At each stage of the distribution chain, manufacturers, wholesalers, and distributors apply a markup to cover their operating costs and profit margins. In the engineering analysis, DOE determines a manufacturer markup and ap plies this markup to the MPC to arrive at the MSP for5

- 10 each equipment class. Wholesaler, distributor, and other markups are determined in the markups analysis (see chapter 6 of the TSD).

The manufacturer markup is a market

- share

- weighted average value for the industry. DOE developed this markup by examining several BVM manufacturers’ gross margin information from annual reports and Securities and Exchange Commission 10

- K reports. The manufacturers analyzed by DOE account for approximately 70 percent of th e BVM market, and each of these companies is a subsidiary of a more diversified parent company that manufactures equipment other than beverage vending machines. Because the 10

- K reports do not provide gross margin information at the subsidiary level, the estimated markups represent the average markups that the parent company applies over its entire range of equipment offerings.

In the absence of updated feedback from manufacturers for the current rulemaking, DOE is using an industry

- wide manufacturer mar kup of 1.26, the markup calculated for the 2009
BVM final rule. DOE evaluated markups for 2002 through 2007, calculating the manufacturer markup as 100 / (100

– average gross margin), where average gross margin is calculated as revenues minus cost of goods sold. To validate the information, DOE reviewed its assumptions with BVM manufacturers (during the 2009 BVM final rule). Although DOE did not interview any individual manufacturers for the preliminary analysis of the current rule, DOE will continue

to se ek interviews with manufacturers during the notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) phase of analysis and will adjust the manufacturer markup based on updated company financial information and feedback from manufacturers.

5.4.2 Shipping Costs

The third constituent component of the MSP, in addition to the MPC and the manufacturer markup, is the cost to ship the unit from the manufacturing facility to the first point on the distribution chain. T he specific party (manufacturer or buyer) that incurs that cost for a give n shipment may vary based on the terms of the sale, the type of account, the manufacturer’s own business practices, and other factors. However, for consistency, DOE includes shipping costs as a component of MSP. In calculating the shipping costs, DOE first gathered estimates of the costs to ship a full trailer of manufactured equipment an average distance in the United States. DOE then used the representative unit sizes to calculate a volume for each unit. Along with the dimensions of a shipping trailer and a loading factor to account for inefficiencies in packing, DOE used this cost and volume information to develop an average shipping cost for each equipment class directly analyzed.

5.5 ENERGY CONSU MPTION MODEL

The energy consumption model is the second of tw o key analytical models used in constructing cost

- efficiency curves and is implemented in the engineering analysis spreadsheet. This model estimates the DEC of refrigerated beverage vending machines in kWh/day at various performance levels using a design

- options approach. DOE developed the energy consumption model, coupled with the system cost model, as a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet and is making the model available to the public on DOE’s website at http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standard s/rulemaking.aspx/ruleid/73

. For a5

- 11 given equipment class, the model estimates the DEC for the baseline and the DEC of levels of performance above the baseline. The model calculates energy consumption at each performance level separately. For Class A and C lass B refrigerated beverage vending machines, DOE selected baseline design options that were representative of those observed in the baseline

- level equipment selected for teardowns and that resulted in DECs at, or very close to, the standard level establi shed in the 2009 BVM final rule. Because of the discretized nature of many of the design options, modeling the standard level exactly was not always possible. Different baseline design options were selected for units of the same size using carbon dioxide r efrigerant rather than R

- 134a refrigerant due to the different daily energy consumptions associated with some of the design options for equipment using the different refrigerant. For combination vending machines, which currently do not have applicable stan dards, DOE based its modeled configuration of baseline equipment configurations on the designs that it had seen in other unregulated refrigerated beverage vending machine markets, namely the designs of Class A and Class B equipment prior to compliance with the 2009 BVM final rule. For each baseline level, DOE calculated a corresponding MPC using the cost model (described in section 5.3 ). For each level above the baseline, DOE used the cost increases of the various design optio ns to recalculate the MPC.

5.5.1 Screened

- In Technologies

In the market and technology assessment (chapter 3 of the TSD), DOE defined an initial list of technologies that could potentially be used to reduce the energy consumption of refrigerated beverage vending machines. DOE then analyzed the following technology options:

• higher efficiency lighting,

• higher efficiency evaporator fan motors,

• higher efficiency evaporator fan blades,

• improved evaporator design,

• low

- pressure differential evaporators,

• improvements to anti

- sweat heaters,

• improved or thicker insulation,

• higher efficiency compressors,

• variable speed compressors,

• microchannel heat exchangers,

• improved condenser design,

• higher efficiency condenser fan motors,

• higher efficiency condenser fan blades,

• impro ved glass pack design (for Class A machines),

• lighting controls, and

• low

- power refrigeration controls, timers, and/or sensors.

5.5.2 Screened

- In Technologies Not Considered in the Engineering Analysis

In the screening analysis (chapter 4 of the TSD), DOE narrow ed this list by eliminating those technologies that can reduce annual energy consumption of refrigerated beverage vending5

- 12 machines but do not reduce DEC. DOE then screened out those technologies that were not feasible, were not practical to manufacture, r educed equipment utility, or were considered unsafe.

The remaining list of screened

- in technologies became an input to the engineering analysis. However, for reasons noted subsequently, DOE did not incorporate all of these technologies in the energy consu mption model. These excluded technologies include higher efficiency evaporator and condenser fan blades, low

- pressure differential evaporators, improvements to anti

- sweat heaters, and variable speed compressors.

5.5.2.1 Higher Efficiency Evaporator and Condenser Fan Blades

Higher efficiency evaporator and condenser fan blades reduce motor shaft power requirements by moving air more efficiently. Current BVM designs use stamped sheet metal or plastic axial fan blades. These fan blades are lightweight and inexpensi ve. DOE was not able to identify any fan blade technology that is significantly more efficient than what is currently being used.

5.5.2.2 Low

- Pressure Differential Evaporators

Low

- pressure differential evaporators reduce energy consumption by reducing the power

r equired by evaporator fan motors. However, in space

- constrained equipment, such as refrigerated beverage vending machines, this reduction usually comes from a decrease in evaporator coil surface area, which generally requires a lower saturated evaporator temperature (SET) to achieve the same discharge air temperature and cooling potential, which reduces compressor efficiency. Because of these competing effects, DOE did not consider low

- pressure differential evaporators as a design option.

5.5.2.3 Improvements to Anti

- Sweat Heaters

Some refrigerated beverage vending machines with glass fronts are equipped with anti

sweat heaters whose field energy consumption can be decreased by use of technology options such as anti

- sweat heater controls, which match the run time of anti

- sweat heaters to the anti

sweat heating requirements imposed by the ambient humidity. However, DOE conducted an examination of manufacturer literature and BVM performance information and found that BVM anti

- sweat heaters are not typically designed to run at the DOE test procedure test conditions of

75 ° F and 45% relative humidity. Therefore, DOE modeled all analysis points as using no anti

sweat heater power when tested to the DOE test procedure, and no design options for reducing the anti

- sweat heat er energy consumption were considered in the engineering analysis.

5.5.2.4 Variable

- Speed Compressors

Variable

- speed compressors reduce energy consumption under field conditions by matching their capacity to the refrigeration load, which can change due to variati ons in ambient conditions and product loading. This technology eliminates the inefficiencies that occur due to mismatched capacity and load in a single

- speed compressor during part

- load operation. Under5

- 13 steady

- state conditions such as those in the DOE test procedure, a variable

- speed compressor running continuously eliminates the need for compressor cycling and the associated inefficiencies and therefore may decrease the energy consumption of the unit. DOE has seen some anecdotal reports that variable

- speed compressors operating in temperature and capacity ranges appropriate for BVM applications may be available on the market. However, DOE was unable to procure any data on the performance of refrigeration equipment using these compressors and therefore did n ot consider variable

- speed compressors in the engineering analysis at this time. DOE is seeking further information, including detailed performance specifications, which would enable accurate modeling of the performance and cost impacts of variable

- speed c ompressors at later stages of this rulemaking.

5.5.2.5 Microchannel Heat Exchangers

Microchannel heat exchangers have increased refrigerant

- side heat transfer and require lower fan power for the same capacity as compared to tube

- and

- fin heat exchangers. However, DOE was unable to procure any data on the performance of refrigeration equipment using microchannel heat exchangers and therefore did not consider them in the engineering analysis at this time. DOE is seeking further information, including detailed perform ance specifications, which would enable accurate modeling of the performance and cost impacts of microchannel heat exchangers at later stages of this rulemaking.

5.5.3 Design Options

After conducting the screening analysis and removing from consideration those

t echnologies described previously, the following technologies were implemented as design options in the energy consumption model:

• higher efficiency lighting,

• higher efficiency evaporator fan motors,

• improved evaporator design,

• improved or thicker insulation

,

• higher efficiency compressors,

• improved condenser design,

• higher efficiency condenser fan motors,

• improved glass pack design (for Class A machines),

• lighting controls, and

• low

- power refrigeration controls, timers, and/or sensors.

Each design option h as two to four technology levels, ranging from baseline performance to the most energy

- efficient technology. The design options and the technology levels for each design option are described here.

5.5.3.1 Higher Efficiency Lighting

Lighting is an important charac teristic of refrigerated beverage vending machines: it makes the product visible to the consumer in Class A machines and provides product advertising5

- 14 for Class B machines (and the analogous types of combination machines). Lighting systems typically opera te continuously and provide an opportunity for significant energy savings. As lighting system efficiency increases, total energy consumption can be decreased by reducing the lighting system’s electricity consumption and the heat inside the refrigerated vo lume of Class A machines, which reduces the work of the compressor. For Class B machines, increasing lighting system efficiency only reduces direct energy consumption, because lamps and ballasts are placed outside the refrigerated space.

It is important that machine (in the case of Class B machines) or vended product (in the case of Class A machines) illumination not degrade with higher design option levels, because this would decrease equipment utility. Therefore, DOE maintained constant levels of effec tive illumination across the lighting design options. This approach meant that DOE had to consider lighting as a system, rather than distinguishing lamps and ballasts as separate design options. This approach becomes more important when considering LED l ighting systems, which do not use ballasts as fluorescent lighting systems do.

Although LED systems generally have lower efficacy than fluorescent systems, the fixtures used with LEDs direct light more efficiently. Although the total lumen output of LED

s ystems is lower than that of comparable fluorescent systems, the amount of light incident on a surface (illuminance) is roughly equivalent. In the rulemaking that culminated in the 2009 BVM final rule, BVM manufacturers, lighting manufacturers, and other technical experts indicated that current LED technology provides adequate product lighting for Class A machines, and in most cases is comparable to fluorescent lighting. At that time, for Class B machines, BVM manufacturers indicated that they were still exploring LED technology, despite the lower lumen outputs. LED use for Class A machine lighting was found to be prevalent in teardowns conducted for the current rulemaking.

To account for variations in design between equipment classes, DOE used two lightin g design options in the energy

- consumption model. The first was for Class A and Combo A machines, and the second was for Class B and Combo B machines.

Class A and Combo A machines illuminate the beverage containers being vended. Lamps must be sized to fi t within the refrigerated space. For fluorescent design options, DOE used 4

- foot fluorescent lamps, based on the size of machines currently on the market. Some analysis points had a baseline of T8 fluorescent lamps with electronic ballasts, based on teard owns and market data. The remaining analysis points had a baseline lighting design option of LEDs, in which case no lighting improvement was considered as part of the engineering analysis.5

- 15 Table 5.5

. 1 Perform ance Details for “Class A Lighting” Design Option

Level Description Lamp Type Lamp
Rated
Power [watts (W)] Lamp Rated Light Output [Lumens] System Efficacy [Lumens/ W] System Light Output [Lumens]

T8 4

- ft T8, Electric F32T8 (2) 32.0 2,850 85.0 2,679

LED 4

- ft LED 4

- ft LED 11.6 625.6 53.9 625.6

Class B and Combo B machines typically use T8 fluorescent lamps to attract attention to the machine and to signal that the machine is functioning. As in the 2009 BVM final rule, DOE used a 4

- foot and a 2

- foot T8 lamp as the baseline lighting design option in Class B machines, and used the same lighting design option in Combo B analysis. LED lighting was considered as a design option.

Table 5.5

. 2 Performance Details for “Class B Lighting” Design Option

Level Description Lamp Type Lamp
Rated
Power

[W] Lamp
Rated Light Output [Lumens] System Efficacy [Lumens/W] System Light Output [Lumens]

T8 2

- ft. T8 & 4

– ft. T8 Electric F17T8 &
F32T8 49.0 4,250 90.4 3,910

LED 6

- ft. LED

- 34.0 2001 59.2 2001

5.5.3.2 Higher Efficiency Evaporator Fan Motors

In conjunction with fan blades, fan motors are necessary to transfer heat from the refrigerated space to the refrigerant. As motor efficiency increases, energy consumption decreases due to a direct reduction in electricity consumption and waste heat inside the refrigerated space.

Table 5.5

. 3 shows details for the evaporator fan motor design option. Currently, DOE considers shaded

- pole motors (SPM) as the minimu m technology seen in the BVM market, permanent split capacitor (PSC) motors as the mid

- level technology, and brushless direct current (DC) or electronically commutated motors (ECMs) as the maximum technology. The baseline evaporator fan technology used by DOE varied at different analysis points based on observations during equipment teardowns, information in manufacturer literature, and differing standard level energy consumption requirements. Class A and Class B equipment was modeled as using evaporator f ans with a rated power of 9W, while combination vending machines were modeled as using evaporator fans with a rated power of 6W. The motor efficiencies listed in Table 5.5

. 3 are the same that were used in the analysis for the rule making leading to the 2009 BVM final rule, as DOE is not aware of any significant change in the performance of these types of motors since that time.5

- 16 Table 5.5

. 3 Performance Details for “Evaporator Fan Motor” Design Option

Rated Power [W] Shaded

- Pole Motor (SPM) Permanent Split Capacitor (PSC) Motor Brushless DC Motor (ECM)

Actual
Power

[W] Efficiency Actual
Power

[W] Efficiency Actual
Power

[W] Efficiency

9.0 53.0 17.0% 21 42.9% 12.5 72.0%

6.0 40.0 15.0% 15 40.0% 8.5 70.6%

In the energy consumption model, evaporator fans were assumed to run whenever the compressor is running, plus an additional 90 minutes per day in order to accomplish off

- cycle defrost. This is based on incorporation of off

- cycle evapor ator fan controls in the analysis resulting in the 2009 final rule standard levels for Class A and Class B machines.

5.5.3.3 Improved Evaporator Design
Evaporator coils are another component necessary to transfer heat from the refrigerated space to the refrigeran t. Table 5.5

. 4 and Tab le 5.5

. 5 show details for the evaporator coil design option. Based on available information, DOE considered a baseline and a maximum technology level for this design option. DOE a nalyzed different evaporator coils given the differences in design load between Class A/Combo A and Class B/Combo B machines. For each level, DOE specified an overall UA

- value a and a coil cost. The UA

- value is normalized to the standard coil, and the coi l cost is normalized to the heat removal capacity of the coil, with a 5% cost premium assumed for carbon dioxide coils over R

- 134a coils at the analogous analysis point, based on equipment teardowns and subsequent cost modeling . This allowed DOE to apply these details of coil design across all equipment sizes and refrigerants analyzed. DOE determined that the same coil improvements applied to different

- sized coils would result in similar performance improvements.

Table 5.5

. 4 Performance Details for “Improved Class A Evaporator Coil” Design Option

Level Description Normalized UA [

- ] Normalized Coil Cost [$/Btu/h] (for R

- 134a coils)

AEV1 Standard Coil 1 $0.0116

AEV2 High

- Performance Coil 1.399 $0.0146

a The overall UA

- value is the product of the overall heat tra nsfer coefficient (British thermal units per hour (Btu/h)

- ft 2

- °F) and the total surface area (ft 2 ) of the coil. This value can be derived from the total heat transfer rate of the coil (Btu/h) divided by the log mean temperature difference of the air and refrigerant flows (ΔT LM ).5

- 17 Tab le 5.5

. 5 Performance Details for “Improved Class B Evaporator Coil” Design Option

Level Description Normalized UA [

- ] Normalized Coil Cost [$/Btu/h] (for R

- 134a coils)

BEV1 Standard Coil 1 $0.0125

BEV2 High

- Performance Coil 2.43 $0.0131

The details of coil construction (shown in Table 5.5

. 6 and Table 5.5

. 7 ) were based on a baseline and prototype high

- performance coil evaluated by analytical modeling perfo rmed by an outside subject matter expert. The baseline coil features were based on specific designs currently found on the market and documented through equipment teardowns. The high

- performance coil uses a combination of enhancements to the heat transfer surfaces that increased its overall UA

value. These enhancements include tube rifling, wavy instead of flat fins, a slightly higher fin pitch, and higher tube pitch in both directions. In summary, these changes result in an increased
UA

- value and increas ed coil cost. The increase in UA

- value leads to an increase in the coil SET. Because compressor performance is directly related to SET, reductions in total case energy consumption are realized through an improved energy efficiency ratio (EER) at the cond ensing unit. DOE determined that the same coil improvements applied to differently sized coils at different temperatures would result in similar UA

- value improvements.

Table 5.5

. 6 Properties of Standard and Enhanced Class A Evaporator Coil
Property Standard Coil High

- Performance Coil
Overall Width (in) 9 9

Overall Height (in) 9 9

Overall Depth (in) 3.125 3.125

Coil Rows Vertical 9 12

Coil Rows Deep 5 6

Number of Parallel Circuits 1 1

Tubing Material Co pper Copper

Tubing Outer Diameter (in) 0.375 0.375

Tubing Wall Thickness (in) 0.02 0.02

Tubing Inner Surface Rifled Rifled

Fin Material Aluminum Aluminum

Fin Surface Wavy Wavy

Fin thickness (in) 0.01 0.01

Fin Pitch (fins per inch) 6 85

- 18 Table 5.5

. 7 Properties of Standard and Enhanced Class B Evaporator Coil
Property Standard Coil High

- Performance Coil
Overall Width (in) 19.5 19.5

Overall Height (in) 6 6

Overall Depth (in) 2.625 2.625

Coil Rows Vertic al 6 8

Coil Rows Deep 3 3

Number of Parallel Circuits 1 1

Tubing Material Copper Copper

Tubing Outer Diameter (in) 3/8 3/8

Tubing Wall Thickness (in) 0.025 0.025

Tubing Inner Surface Smooth Rifled

Fin Material Aluminum Aluminum

Fin Surface Flat Wav y
Fin Thickness (in) 0.015 0.015

Fin Pitch (fins per inch) 6 8

5.5.3.4 Insulation Increases or Improvements
Increasing or improving insulation decreases the conduction load, which reduces compressor energy consumption. DOE looked at two different methods of re ducing the conduction load. The first method was a 1/8

- inch change in insulation thickness in all insulated panels. DOE accounted for the change in core case costs attributed to insulation thickness increases, as well as design time, and fixture retoolin g.

The second method DOE explored was changing the insulation material. Currently, refrigerated beverage vending machines use foamed

- in

- place polyurethane as the primary insulation material. After discussions with industry experts and BVM manufacturers , DOE concluded that there are no significant variations among different polyurethane foams and blowing agents. Thus, DOE did not consider improvements in polyurethane foams or blowing agents. However, DOE did consider vacuum insulated panels (VIPs) as a n option for improving the insulation performance of the insulated walls of beverage vending machine cases. Data regarding VIP performance was gathered from discussions with VIP manufacturers in conjunction with past rulemakings on residential refrigerator s and walk

- in coolers and freezers. These discussions yielded a representative material cost for VIPs with an R

- value of 30 per inch of thickness. This cost was then multiplied in the engineering cost model by the insulated wall area and thickness to produ ce a differential cost of upgrading from traditional foam insulation to VIPs. This model simulated the entire modeled case as being insulated with VIP material, and assumed that the VIP material would be the dominant component of the thermal performance of the case. Additionally, as with the increased foam thickness design option, a sunk cost per unit of upgrading to VIPs was calculated and applied to the unit cost. This consist ed of an estimate for the additional costs of product engineering and redesign, new production equipment, and new5

- 19 tooling, amortized over the typical equipment production lifetime and divided by the number of units per year. The result was a levelized cost per unit produced.

5.5.3.5 Improved Glass Pack

An improved glass pack design option on ly applies to Class A and Combo A equipment. Improvements to the glass pack (a prefabricated assembly of glass sheets, coatings, framing, and fill gas) result in less heat transfer to the refrigerated volume by radiation and conduction. This reduces the heat load on the refrigerant and hence the compressor load, thus reducing compressor energy consumption. The glass pack can be improved several ways, including adding panes of glass, adding low

- emissivity (low

- E) coating, changing from air fill to argon f ill, and changing from an aluminum frame to a vinyl frame. Rather than examine each variation as an individual design option, DOE looked at two different option packages, shown in Table 5.5

. 8 . The baseline design option is identi cal in properties and performance to the “Enhanced” glass pack design option modeled in the 2009 BVM final rule, while the Enhanced design option was modeled in
WINDOW 6.3 1 to yield U

- values b that account for heat transfer due to radiation and conduction

a t the test conditions of the DOE test procedure. Table 5.5

. 9 catalogs these resulting U

- values.

Table 5.5

. 8 Performance Details for “Improved Glass Pack” Design Option

Variable Base line Enhanced

Frame Material Aluminum Vinyl

Number of Panes 2 3
Glass Type: Panel 1 Clear Clear
Glass Type: Panel 2 Low

- E Low

- E
Glass Type: Panel 3

- Clear

Gas Fill Argon Argon

Table 5.5

. 9 Performance Details for “Improved Glass Pack” Design Option

Level Description Overall U

- Factor at the
ASHRAE 32.1 75 ° F Test Condition [Btu/h

- ft

- °F]

DOOR 1 Baseline 0.447

DOOR 2 Enhanced 0.259

5.5.3.6 Higher Efficiency Condenser Fan Motors

Performance details for the conde nser fan motor design option are identical to those shown in Table 5.5

. 3 . As with evaporator fan motors, the SPM is the minimum technology level, the PSC motor is the mid

- level technology, and the DC motor or ECM is the maximum

b U

- value is a measure of air

- to

- air heat transmission (loss or gain) due to thermal conductance and the difference in indoor and outdoor temperatures.5

- 20 t echnology level in the BVM equipment space. The baseline c ondenser fan technology used by DOE varied at different analysis points based on observations during equipment teardowns, information in manufacturer literature, and differing standard level energy consumption requirements. Because condenser fan motors are outside the refrigerated space, efficiency improvements only impact the direct electrical consumption of the motors and not the total case heat load.

5.5.3.7 Improved Condenser Design

Condenser coils rejec t heat from the refrigerant to the ambient air. Based on available information, DOE considered both baseline and high

- performance technology levels for this design option. For each level, DOE specified an overall UA

- value and a coil cost, shown in Table 5.5

. 10 and Table 5.5

. 11 . The UA

- value is normalized to the standard coil, and the coil cost is normalized to the heat removal capacity of the coil, with a 17% cost premium assumed for carbon dioxide coil s over R

- 134a coils at the analogous analysis point, based on equipment teardowns and subsequent cost modeling. This allowed DOE to apply these details of coil design across all equipment sizes and refrigerants analyzed. DOE determined that the same coil improvements applied to differently sized coils would result in similar performance improvements.

Table 5.5

. 10 Performance Details for “Improved Class A Condenser Coil” Design Option

Level Description Normal ized UA [

- ] Normalized Coil Cost [$/Btu/h] (for R

- 134a coils)

ACO1 Standard Coil 1 0.009

ACO2 High

- Performance Coil 1.34 0.012

Table 5.5

. 11 Performance Details for “Improved Class B Condenser Coil” Design Option

Level Description Normalized UA [

- ] Normalized Coil Cost [$/Btu/h] (for R

- 134a coils)

BCO1 Standard Coil 1 0.007

BCO2 High

- Performance Coil 6.38 0.010

As previously mentioned, details of coil construction (shown in Table 5.5

. 12 and Table
5.5

. 13 ) were based on a baseline and prototype high

- performance coil evaluated analytically by an outside subject matter expert. The baseline coil features were based on specific designs currently found on the m arket and documented through equipment teardowns. The high

performance coil uses a combination of enhancements to the heat transfer surfaces that increased its overall UA

- value. These enhancements include higher fin pitch, different fin shape, and increas ed tube passes without changing the external dimensions of the coils. In sum, these improvements give the prototype coil a higher UA

- value, allowing the coil to run at a saturated condenser temperature (SCT) cooler than the baseline coil, while maintainin g the same heat5

- 21 rejection rate. Because compressor performance is directly related to SCT, reductions in total case energy consumption are realized through an improved EER at the condensing unit.

Table 5.5

. 12 Properties of Standard and Enhanced Class A Condenser Coil
Property Standard Coil High

- Performance Coil
Overall Width (in) 8 8

Overall Height (in) 11 11

Overall Depth (in) 2.5 2.5

Rows Vertical 11 14

Rows Deep 4 5

Number of Parallel Circuits 1 1

T ubing Material Copper Copper

Tubing Outer Diameter (in) 0.32 0.32

Tubing Wall Thickness (in) 0.02 in 0.02 in

Tubing Inner Surface rifled rifled

Fin Material Aluminum Aluminum

Fin Surface wavy wavy
Fin Pitch (fins per inch) 6 8

Table 5.5

. 13 Properties of Standard and Enhanced Class B Condenser Coil
Property Standard Coil High

- Performance Coil
Overall Width (in) 22 22
Overall Height (in) 12 12
Overall Depth (in) 0.75 0.75

Rows Vertical 12 15

Rows Dee p 1 1

Number of Parallel Circuits 1 1
Tubing Material Copper Copper
Tubing Outer Diameter (in) 0.332 0.332
Tubing Wall Thickness (in) 0.02 in 0.02 in
Tubing Inner Surface Smooth Smooth

Fin Material Aluminum Aluminum

Fin Surface Flat Wavy

Fin Pitch (fins per inch) 8 10

5.5.3.8 Higher Efficiency Compressors

In conducting teardowns for Class A and Class B equipment, DOE found that a single compressor, the Embraco FFU130HAX, is widely used in those units of all sizes subject to standards under the 2009 BVM fin al rule. Accordingly, DOE incorporated the performance5

- 22 profile of this single

- speed hermetic compressor into the energy consumption model as the baseline performance for its analyses of Class A and Class B equipment using R

- 134a refrigerant. Combination ve nding machines, which are not currently subject to standards and therefore may exhibit different levels of energy performance than that seen in regulated designs, were modeled as having baseline compressor performance equivalent to what was typical in the unregulated market at the time of the 2009 BVM final rule analysis. Data from a range of compressors was included in the performance model in the form of a lookup table, and appropriately sized compressors were referenced when developing each combination v ending machine design

- option curve (see section 5.5.7.2 for information on the calculation of compressor energy consumption).

Above the baseline level, reductions in total energy consumption can be realized by a reduction in co mpressor power consumption through the use of a higher efficiency single

- speed hermetic compressor. Although several compressor manufacturers produce high

- efficiency compressors, few data are currently available on their performance. Therefore, DOE

approx imated a set of high

- efficiency compressors by adjusting the power consumption of the standard compressors using a constant multiplier. For combination vending machine analysis points, this multiplier was the equivalent of moving to the baseline compresso r used in the Class A and Class B analysis. For Class A and Class B analyses points, these multipliers were 1.02 on energy consumption and 1.05 on cost, which DOE developed research and consultation with experts.

Because of the limited availability of comp ressor performance data for carbon dioxide refrigerant compressors, DOE applied multipliers on both the energy consumption and cost of the baseline and higher

- efficiency compressors used for the R

- 134a analysis points to represent the performance of carbon dioxide compressors for the corresponding analysis points. The multipliers were 1.06 on energy consumption and 1.5 on cost. The compressor energy consumption multiplier was developed from rulemaking testing conducted by DOE.

5.5.3.9 Lighting Controls

Lighting co ntrols reduce energy consumption by dimming or turning off lighting during periods of low vending activity. This reduces direct component energy use as well as, in equipment that has lighting inside the refrigerated volume, reduces compressor energy use by reducing the cabinet heat load. In its analyses, DOE considered lighting controls that turn off all signage or product lighting as a design option, and assumed that the controls would be set to power down the lighting for the full six hours proposed to be allowed within the DOE test procedure.

5.5.3.10 Refrigeration Low Power States

The amended DOE test procedure for refrigerated beverage vending machines grants a 3% energy consumption credit for those units that are equipped with refrigeration low power
states. A ccordingly, in its analysis, DOE included a refrigeration low power state design option in the form of a multiplier on the energy consumption output of the energy consumption5

- 23 spreadsheet model. For a full discussion of the methodology used to derive the mu ltiplier, please

see the 2014 BVM test procedure (TP) NOPR.

5.5.4 Baseline Specifications

DOE defined baseline specifications for each equipment class. These specifications include dimensions, numbers of components, temperatures, nominal power ratings, and oth er case features that are necessary to calculate the energy consumption of each equipment class. In conjunction with the lowest technological level of each design option (see section 5.5.3 ), the baseline specif ications define the energy consumption and cost of the typical lowest

- efficiency equipment on the market. Table 5.5

. 14 shows the specifications and units that are defined for each equipment class.

Table 5.5

. 14 Baseline Specifications
Specification Units
Refrigerated Volume ft 3

Number of Lamps in Refrigerated Volume

- Number of Lamps not in Refrigerated Volume

- Number of Ballasts in Refrigerated Volume

-
Number of Ballasts not in Refrigerated Volume

- Evaporator Fan Nominal Rated Wattage W (Watts)
Number of Evaporator Fans

- Condenser Fan Nominal Rated Wattage W

Number of Condenser Fans

- Average Refrigerated Volume Temperature F (Fahrenheit)

Nominal SET F

No minal SCT F
Nominal Discharge Air Temperature (DAT) F
Nominal Compressor Sizing Btu/h
Solid Wall Area (including the door for Class B Machines) ft 2

Glass Area ft 2

Baseline Air Infiltration lb/hour
Load from Electronic Components (bill changers, LED d isplays, etc.) kWh

For Class A and Class B equipment, DOE used the same baseline specifications that were used in the 2009 BVM final rule, reaffirmed through stakeholder comments at the framework stage. Baseline specifications for c ombination vending machines were developed by reviewing available manufacturer data, selecting several representative units from available manufacturer data, and then aggregating the physical characteristics of the selected units. The results of this infor mation were used in conjunction with information received in comments on the 2013 BVM framework to establish the baseline specifications for combination vending machines.5

- 24 The baseline specifications were chosen so that Class A and Class B baseline machine s met the standard levels prescribed in the 2009 BVM final rule, and combination vending machines exhibited generally analogous performance to what was typical in the BVM market before that rulemaking. This process created a representative unit for each e quipment class with average characteristics for physical parameters ( e.g., volume, wall area), and typical performance for energy

- consuming components ( e.g., fans, lighting). Table 5. 5

. 15 and Table 5.5

. 16 show the results for each equipment class and size. Table 5. 5

. 15 and Table 5.5

. 16 also include the 12

- oz. can capacity of each size machine, for reference.

Table 5. 5

. 15 Class A Equipment Class Baseline Specifications
Specification Small Medium Large
Refrigerated Volume [ft 3 ] 17 22 34
12 oz. Can Capacity [#] 300 400 500
Number of Lamps in Refrigerated Volume [#] 2 2 2
Number of Lamps no t in Refrigerated Volume [#] 0 0 0
Number of Ballasts in Refrigerated Volume [#] 0 0 0
Number of Ballasts not in Refrigerated Volume [#] 1 1 1
Evaporator Fan Nominal Rated Wattage [W] 9 9 9
Number of Evaporator Fans [#] 1 1 1

Condenser Fan Nominal Rat ed Wattage [W] 9 9 9
Number of Condenser Fans [#] 1 1 1
Average Refrigerated Volume Temperature [F] 36 36 36
Nominal SET [F] 8 8 8
Nominal SCT [F] 95 95 95
Nominal Discharge Air Temperature (DAT) [F] 19 19 19
Nominal Compressor Sizing [Btu/h] 1573 17 22 2109
Solid Wall Area (including the door for Class B Machines) [ft 2 ] 68 76 89
Glass Area [ft 2 ] 11 12 16
Baseline Air Infiltration [lb/hour] 7 8 11
Load from Electronic components (bill changers, LED displays, etc.) [kWh] 0.45 0.45 0.455

- 25 Table 5.5

. 16 Class B Equipment Class Baseline Specifications Specification Small Medium Large Refrigerated Volume [ft 3 ] 17 22 26 12 oz. Can Capacity [#] 450 650 800 Number of Lamps in Refrigerated Volume [#] 0 0 0
Nu mber of Lamps not in Refrigerated Volume [#] 2 2 2 Number of Ballasts in Refrigerated Volume [#] 0 0 0 Number of Ballasts not in Refrigerated Volume [#] 1 1 1 Evaporator Fan Nominal Rated Wattage [W] 9 9 9 Number of Evaporator Fans [#] 1 1 1
Condenser Fan Nominal Rated Wattage [W] 9 9 9 Number of Condenser Fans [#] 1 1 1 Average Refrigerated Volume Temperature [F] 39 39 39 Nominal SET [F] 12 12 12 Nominal SCT [F] 98 98 98 Nominal Discharge Air Temperature (DAT) [F] 27 27 27 Nominal Compressor Siz ing [Btu/h] 1287 1496 1702 Solid Wall Area (including the door for Class B Machines) [ft 2 ] 78 90 102 Glass Area [ft 2 ] 0 0 0 Baseline Air Infiltration [lb/hour] 9 14 17 Load from Electronic components (bill changers, LED displays, etc.) [kWh] 0.2 0.2 0. 2

Table 5.5

. 17 Combination Vending Machine Equipment Class Baseline Specifications

Specification Combo A
Medium Combo A Large Combo B
Medium Combo B Large Refrigerated Volume [ft 3 ] 9 12 4 5 12 oz. Can Cap acity [#] 96 120 115 200 Number of Lamps in Refrigerated Volume [#] 1 1 0 0 Number of Lamps not in Refrigerated Volume [#] 1 1 2 2 Number of Ballasts in Refrigerated Volume [#] 0 0 0 0 Number of Ballasts not in Refrigerated Volume [#] 1 1 1 1 Evaporat or Fan Nominal Rated Wattage [W] 6 6 6 6 Number of Evaporator Fans [#] 1 1 1 1 Condenser Fan Nominal Rated Wattage [W] 6 6 6 6 Number of Condenser Fans [#] 1 1 1 1 Average Refrigerated Volume Temperature [F] 36 36 39 39 Nominal SET [F] 8 8 12 12
Nomi nal SCT [F] 95 95 98 98 Nominal Discharge Air Temperature (DAT) [F] 19 19 27 27 Nominal Compressor Sizing [Btu/h] 1484 1589 1522 1656 Solid Wall Area (including the door for Class B Machines) [ft 2 ] 75 83 51 67 Glass Area [ft 2 ] 12 13 0 0
Baseline Air I nfiltration [lb/hour] 5 6 9 10 Load from Electronic components (bill changers, LED displays, etc.) [kWh] 0.45 0.45 0.2 0.25

- 26 5.5.5 Non

- Numerical Assumptions

In developing the energy consumption model, DOE made certain non

- numerical assumptions concerning the an alysis. These include general assumptions about the analysis as well as specific assumptions about load components and design options.

DOE assumed that all conditions are based on new equipment tested in a controlled

environment chamber and subjected to t he methods of testing and rating in the 2014 DOE TP NOPR. Manufacturers that certify their equipment to comply with Federal standards are required to test new units using this method, which specifies ambient temperature , humidity, light level, and other r equirements.

5.5.6 Numerical Constants and Assumptions

In developing the energy consumption model, DOE identified constants and made assumptions concerning numerical values used in the analysis. These include ambient conditions, financial assumptions, and param eters necessary to calculate the component and non

electric loads. Details of these assumptions are shown in Table 5.5

. 18 and Table 5.5

. 19 below.5

- 27 Table 5.5

. 18 Energy Consumption Model Numerical Constants and Assumptions
Numerical Constants and Assumptions Value Source
Test Chamber Temperature [°F] 75 DOE Test Procedure (10 CFR 431.294)
Test Chamber Relative Humidity [%] 45 DOE Test Procedure (10 CFR 431.294)
Test Chamber Pressure [pounds per square in (psi), absolute] 14.7 Assumed

Manufacturer Markup [$/$] 1.26 Publicly available corporate financial data; discussions with manufacturers.
List Price Markup [$/$] 2.00 Assume d

Evaporator Fan(s) Run Time Per Day [hr] 24 or less, Less than 24 hours if the evaporator fan motor control option is selected, based on discussions with manufacturers

Off

- cycle defrost time per day if Evaporator Fan Control is Enabled [hr] 1.5 Assumed

R Value of Foam Insulation [ft2F·h/Btu·in] 8 Discussions with foam manufacturers; manufacturer data sheets

Effective R Value of Vacuum Insulated Panels [ft2·°F·h/Btu·in] 10 Discussions with manufacturers

Convective Film Coefficient Inside Case Walls Wi th Evap Fan On [Btu/h

- ft 2

- F] 4.00 Communication with RTTC

Convective Film Coefficient Inside Case Walls With Evap Fan Off[Btu/h

- ft 2

- F] 1.00 ASHRAE Handbook

– Fundamentals 2005

Convective Film Coefficient Outside Case Walls [Btu/h

- ft 2

- F] 1.46 Communication with RTTC

Evaporator Coil Overall Bypass Factor [%] 17 DOE estimate

Density of Air @ Test Temperature [lb/ft 3 ] 0.073 ASHRAE Handbook

– Fundamentals 2005
High

- Efficiency Compressor Cost Premium Interviews with compressor manufacturers

High

- Efficiency Com pressor Power Reduction Public comment during 2014 CRE rulemaking

Electricity Cost [$/kWh] 0.08 Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS), Energy Information Administration (EIA), average commercial price in
2004

Portion of combination vendi ng machine vending volume that is refrigerated 40 Manufacturer comment on 2013 BVM framework5

- 28 Table 5.5

. 19 Engineering Constants

Numerical Constants and Assumptions Number Source

Specific Heat of Air @ Tes t Conditions [Btu/lb

- R] 0.24 Thermodynamics by Cengel and Boles, 4th edition, 2002
Latent Heat of Vaporization of Water/Water Vapor @ Test Temp [Btu/lb] 1050 Thermodynamics by Cengel and Boles, 4th edition, 2002

Latent Heat of Fusion of Water/Ice [Btu/lb ] 143.5 ASHRAE Handbook

– Fundamentals 2005

Conversion from Watts to Btu/h [Btu/h

- W] 3.415179 ASHRAE Handbook

– Fundamentals 2005

5.5.7 Model Components

Figure 5.5

. 1 shows the components of the energy consumption model. T he model calculates DEC in two major subsections: component energy consumption and compressor energy consumption. Component energy consumption is the sum of electrical energy directly consumed by each fan motor and lamp. Compressor energy consumption is calculated from the total heat load (expressed as Btu/h).

The total heat load is the sum of the component load and the non

- electric load. The component load is a sum of the heat emitted by evaporator fan motors and lighting inside the refrigerated spac e. (Condenser fan motors are outside the refrigerated space and do not contribute to the component heat load.) The non

- electric load is the sum of the heat contributed by radiation through glass (for Class A machines), heat conducted through walls and do ors, and warm air infiltration.5

- 29 Figure 5.5

. 1 Components of the Energy Consumption Model

5.5.7.1 Component Energy Consumption

Component energy consumption is the sum of electrical energy directly consumed by each fan motor and light fixture.

Fan motor energy consumption is calculated by summing the power draw of each evaporator and condenser fan motor, and multiplying the total motor power by the total running time over 24 hours. This analysis assumed condenser fans only run when the compressor is on. The evaporator fan is assumed to run 24 hours a day, unless the evaporator fan motor control option is selected. In this case, the evaporator fan motor is off during compressor off

- cycle times except for defrost periods.

Lighting energy consumption is calculated by summing the power draw of each lamp and ballast, and multiplying the total by the total operating time of the lighting system over a 24

- hour period.

5.5.7.2 Compressor Energy Consum ption

DOE calculated compressor energy consumption (CEC) using the compressor model described in section 6.4 of Air

- Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute (ARI) Standard 540

- Total Heat

Load [Btu/h]

Component

Load [Btu/h] Non-Electric
Load [Btu/h]

Fan Motor
Heat Load

[Btu/h] Lighting Heat
Load [Btu/h] Radiation
Load [Btu/h] Conduction

Load [Btu/h] Infiltration

Load [Btu/h] Daily Energy Consumption [kWh/day]

Compressor

Energy Consumption

[kWh/day]

Compressor Model (ARI 540)

Electric Energy Consumption

[kWh/day]

Heat Load

[Btu/h] Legend: Component

Energy Consumption

[kWh/day]

Fan Motor

Energy Consumption

[kWh/day] Lighting Energy Consumption

[kWh/day]5

- 30 2004, Performance Rating of Positive Displacement Refrigerant Compressors and Co mpressor Units . This model is based on a 10

- coefficient polynomial derived from empirical compressor performance data for power, mass flow, current, and efficiency. The coefficients are derived for each of these parameters as a function of SET and SCT. Compressor coefficients, or tabulated empirical data (from which coefficients can be derived), are available from compressor manufacturers. Similar to the method used for remote condensing equipment, the EER of any compressor can be determined given the S ET and SCT.

5.5.7.3 Component Load Model

The component load is the sum of the heat emitted by the evaporator fan motor and lamps inside the refrigerated volume. This waste heat must be removed by the compressor.

DOE assumed that all electrical energy consumed b y the evaporator fan motors ends up as heat inside the refrigerated space. In any electric motor, irreversibilities in the motor windings, bearings, and other mechanical components convert much of the input electrical energy into heat. The rest of the en ergy is converted to moving air inside the case. This moving air is slowed by friction and eventually converted to heat as well.

DOE assumed that all electrical energy consumed by lamps and ballasts inside the refrigerated space ends up as heat inside tha t space. For lighting components outside the refrigerated space, DOE attributed a fraction of the electrical energy consumed to added heat inside that space. DOE believes that, even though the lighting components are not inside the refrigerated volume, th ey are contained within the machine envelope and contribute some heat through conduction to the refrigerated space.

5.5.7.4 Radiation Load Model

The radiation heat load model accounts for the gray

- body radiation between the warm surfaces of the surrounding envir onment (the test chamber) and the cold inner surfaces of the refrigerated space through the glass doors of Class A machines. The net radiation is incorporated into the overall U

- value of the door calculated by WINDOW (see Table 5.5

. 9 for the U

- values calculated). Within the WINDOW program, the environmental conditions in the refrigerated volume and the test chamber were specified to match the test conditions specified in the DOE test procedure. See section 5.5.7.5 for a discussion of the calculation of the combined radiation and conduction loads for glass doors and other glass.

5.5.7.5 Conduction Load Model

The conduction load model accounts for the heat conducted through walls and doors. For solid walls and doors, the conduction load is given by:5

- 31 Q A T T

h d

k h cond walls room case

o ins

ins i = −

+ + 1 1 Eq. 5.1

Where:

A walls = the area of the exterior of the refrigerated volume (ft 2 ), h
o = the convective film coefficient on the outside of refrigerated volume walls (Btu/h

ft 2

- °F), h i = the convective film coefficient on the inside of refrigerated walls (Btu/h

- ft 2

- °F), d

ins = the insulation thickness (in), and k

ins = the insulation thermal conductivity (Btu

- in/h

- ft 2

- °F).

Because of its high thermal conductivity, the sheet metal that encloses the insulation does not have any significant effect on the conduction load, and therefore was not included in the calculation of conduction load. See Table 5.5

. 18 for numerical constants pertai ning to the conduction model.

For glass doors, the conduction load is incorporated into the overall U

- factor of the door assembly or glass calculated by WINDOW. (See Table 5.5

. 9 for the U

- values calculated.) The combined radiati on and conduction load for glass doors and other glass is calculated as: 

# ( ) Q U A T T

glass overall glass room case =
− Eq. 5.2

Where:

U

overall = the overall U

- factor, including convection and radiation (Btu/h

- ft 2

- °F), and
A glass = the area of the glass (ft 2 ).

5.5.7.6 Infiltr ation Load Model

The infiltration load model accounts for the heat that is added to a refrigerated beverage vending machine when warm, moist air enters the case (primarily through leaks and vending doors). The infiltration load is difficult to simulate an alytically because of the inherent complexity of the fluid phenomena of infiltration. Therefore, DOE used empirical data on defrost melt water generation to back

- calculate the infiltration loads. This approach was developed during the 2009 BVM rulemaking proceeding using empirical data for infiltration loads provided by Southern California Edison’s Refrigeration and Thermal Test Center (RTTC) from beverage vending machine testing. The values developed at that time were retained in the current analysis due to the absence of data or comments to the contrary.

Ambient room air infiltrated into the refrigerated space contributes to the load in two ways: a sensible load in the form of the heat contained in the dry air, and a latent load in the form of water v apor in the air that condenses on cold surfaces. Assuming the amount of condensation on the coil

— and thus the amount of defrost melt water

— is correlated to the amount of water that enters the case through infiltration, the defrost melt water mass flow can be5

- 32 used to estimate the mass flow of water that enters the case as water vapor in the air. Given the values both for the humidity level in the case and the ambient room air (known due to the fixed conditions of the DOE test procedure), the mass flow of a ir that enters the refrigerated case can be calculated as:



# ( ) ( ) m m

HR HR CBF air defrostmel t

room case =

− − 1 Eq. 5.3

Where:

m air = the mass flow of dry air into the case (lbs/hr),

m defrostmelt = the mass flow of defrost melt water (lbs/hr),
HR room = the humidity ratio of th e ambient air in the room (dimensionless),
HR case = the humidity ratio of the air inside the case (dimensionless), and
CBF = the coil bypass factor (dimensionless).

The coil bypass factor is a measure of the fraction of air in the case that is never i nfluenced by the evaporator coil (or a measure of the fraction of air that does not deposit its moisture onto the evaporator coil). This factor allows the infiltration calculation to be correlated to empirical data. Communication with Southern California Edison’s RTTC during the 2009 BVM rulemaking was used to estimate the evaporator coil bypass factor, and this figure was retained in the current analysis. As shown in Table 5.5

. 18 , the coil bypass factor was estimated to be 17 p ercent.

Once the air flow rates were calculated, they were entered into DOE’s model. The mass flow of water vapor into the case is the mass flow of air multiplied by the difference of humidity ratios inside and outside the case. Using the mass flows of a ir and water vapor, the infiltration load can be approximated using: 

# ( ) Q m C T T m H air dryair room case vapor v H O inf

, =
− + 2 Eq. 5.4

Where:

Q inf = the infiltration load (Btu/h),
C

air = the specific heat of dry air (Btu/lb

- °F),

m vapor = the mass flow of water vapor into the case (l bs/hr), and
Hv ,H2O = the heat of vaporization of water.

5.6 COST

- EFFICIENCY CURVES

The result of the engineering analysis is a set of cost

- efficiency curves. DOE developed a total of 20 curves representing the three equipment classes, including the differen t refrigerants and machines sizes in each equipment class using the baseline specifications and design options described previously. The method for developing curves started with determining the baseline energy consumption and manufacturer production cost . Above the baseline, design options were5

- 33 implemented in order of lowest to highest payback, and only one design option was implemented at each design option level. Design options were implemented until all technologies were at a maximum level.

The 20 c ost

- efficiency curves are shown in Figure 5.6

. 1 through Figure 5.6

. 20 and in tabular form in Table 5.6

. 1 through Table 5.6

. 20 in the form of DEC versus MSP. More detailed results, including the design options used at each design option level, are provided in appendix
B.

As stated previously, DOE used the cost

- efficiency curves from the engineering analysis as an input to the life

- cycle cost (LCC) analy sis to determine the price of beverage vending machines to the customer (see chapter 8 of the TSD).5

- 34 Figure 5.6

. 1 Cost

- Efficiency Curve for the R

- 134a Class A

– Small Analysis Point

Table 5.6

. 1 Cost Efficiency Data for the R

- 134a Class A

– Small Analysis Point Design Option
Level Daily Energy Consumption [kWh/day] Manufacturer Selling Price [$] Design Option Change Above the Baseline

0 3.53 $2,090.03

-
1 3.32 $2,095.04 0 + Automatic Lighting Controls

2 3.12 $2,100.82 1 + Enhanced Evaporator Coil

3 3.026 $2,105.84 2 + Refrigeration Low Power State

4 2.988 $2,111.62 3 + Higher Efficiency Compressor

5 2.9 $2,126.49 4 + 1.125" Thick Insulation

6 2. 871 $2,132.06 5 + Enhanced Condenser Coil

7 2.629 $2,194.40 6 + Enhanced Glass Pack

8 2.58 $2,210.84 7 + Electronically

- Commutated Condenser
Fan Motor

9 2.076 $2,830.28 8 + Vacuum Insulated Panels5

- 35 Figure 5.6

. 2 Cost

- Efficiency Curve for the R

- 134a Class A

– Medium Analysis Point

Table 5.6

. 2 Cost Efficiency Data for the R

- 134a Class A

– Medium Analysis Point Design Option
Level Daily Energy Consumption [kWh/day] Manufacturer Selling Price [$] Design Option Change Above the Baseline

0 3.77 $2,138.75

-
1 3.56 $2,143.76 0 + Automatic Lighting Controls

2 3.34 $2,150.09 1 + Enhanced Evaporator Coil

3 3.24 $2,155.11 2 + Refrigeration Low Power State

4 3.191 $2,160.89 3 + Higher Efficiency Compressor

5 3.153 $2,166.98 4 + Enhanced Condenser Coil

6 3.065 $2,182.16 5 + 1.125" Thick Insulation

7 2.794 $2,250.26 6 + Enhanced Glass Pack

8 2.745 $2,266.70 7 + Electronically

- Commutated Condenser
Fan Motor

9 2.183 $2,955.05 8 + Vacuum Insulated Panels5

- 36 Figure 5.6

. 3 Cost

- Efficiency Curve for the R

- 134a Class A

– Large Analysis Point

Table 5.6

. 3 Cost Effi ciency Data for the R

- 134a Class A

– Large Analysis Point Design Option
Level Daily Energy Consumption [kWh/day] Manufacturer Selling Price [$] Design Option Change Above the Baseline

0 4.38 $2,257.10

-
1 4.17 $2,262.11 0 + Automatic Lighting Control s

2 3.9 $2,269.86 1 + Enhanced Evaporator Coil

3 3.783 $2,274.88 2 + Refrigeration Low Power State

4 3.725 $2,280.66 3 + Higher Efficiency Compressor

5 3.618 $2,296.36 4 + 1.125" Thick Insulation

6 3.57 $2,303.83 5 + Enhanced Condenser Coil

7 3. 22 $2,393.98 6 + Enhanced Glass Pack

8 3.162 $2,410.42 7 + Electronically

- Commutated Condenser
Fan Motor

9 2.493 $3,215.70 8 + Vacuum Insulated Panels5

- 37 Figure 5.6

. 4 Cost

- Efficiency Curve for the R

- 134 a Class B

– Small Analysis Point5

- 38 Table 5.6

. 4 Cost Efficiency Data for the R

- 134a Class B

– Small Analysis Point Design Option
Level Daily Energy Consumption [kWh/day] Manufacturer Selling Price [$] Design O ption Change Above the Baseline

0 4.45 $1,767.13

-
1 4.06 $1,768.07 0 + Enhanced Evaporator Coil

2 3.48 $1,773.09 1 + Automatic Lighting Controls

3 3.376 $1,778.10 2 + Refrigeration Low Power State

4 3.269 $1,783.65 3 + Enhanced Condenser Coil

5 3.143 $1,800.09 4 + Electronically

- Commutated Evaporator
Fan Motor

6 3.026 $1,821.76 5 + Permanent Split Capacitor Condenser Fan
Motor

7 2.959 $1,837.03 6 + 1.125" Thick Insulation

8 2.6 $1,949.89 7 + 4 foot, LED, 3500 K

9 2.58 $1,955.67 8 + High er Efficiency Compressor

10 2.55 $1,972.11 9 + Electronically

- Commutated Condenser
Fan Motor

11 2.13 $2,680.62 10 + Vacuum Insulated Panels5

- 39 Figure 5.6

. 5 Cost

- Efficiency Curve for the R

- 134a Class B

– Medium Analysis Point

Table 5.6

. 5 Cost Efficiency Data for the R

- 134a Class B

– Medium Analysis Point Design Option
Level Daily Energy Consumption [kWh/day] Manufacturer Selling Price [$] Design Option Cha nge Above the Baseline

0 4.73 $1,844.17

-
1 4.29 $1,845.26 0 + Enhanced Evaporator Coil

2 3.72 $1,850.28 1 + Automatic Lighting Controls

3 3.608 $1,855.29 2 + Refrigeration Low Power State

4 3.473 $1,861.74 3 + Enhanced Condenser Coil

5 3.327 $1 ,883.41 4 + Permanent Split Capacitor Condenser Fan
Motor

6 3.298 $1,889.19 5 + Higher Efficiency Compressor

7 3.22 $1,904.92 6 + 1.125" Thick Insulation

8 2.862 $2,017.78 7 + 4 foot, LED, 3500 K

9 2.823 $2,034.22 8 + Electronically

- Commutated Con denser
Fan Motor

10 2.35 $2,846.61 9 + Vacuum Insulated Panels5

- 40 Figure 5.6

. 6 Cost

- Efficiency Curve for the R

- 134a Class B

– Large Analysis Point

Table 5.6

. 6 Cost Efficiency Data for the R

- 134a Class B

– Large Analysis Point Design Option
Level Daily Energy Consumption [kWh/day] Manufacturer Selling Price [$] Design Option Change Above the Baseline

0 5.07 $1,902.53

-
1 4.56 $1,903.78 0 + Enhanced Evapo rator Coil

2 3.99 $1,908.79 1 + Automatic Lighting Controls

3 3.87 $1,913.81 2 + Refrigeration Low Power State

4 3.715 $1,921.14 3 + Enhanced Condenser Coil

5 3.55 $1,942.82 4 + Permanent Split Capacitor Condenser Fan
Motor

6 3.463 $1,959.01 5 + 1.125" Thick Insulation

7 3.434 $1,964.79 6 + Higher Efficiency Compressor

8 3.075 $2,077.65 7 + 4 foot, LED, 3500 K

9 3.036 $2,094.09 8 + Electronically

- Commutated Condenser
Fan Motor

10 2.48 $3,010.11 9 + Vacuum Insulated Panels5

- 41 Figure 5.6

. 7 Cost

- Efficiency Curve for the R

- 134a Combo A

– Medium Analysis Point5

- 42 Table 5.6

. 7 Cost Efficiency Data for the R

- 134a Combo A

- Medium Analysis Point Design Opt ion
Level Daily Energy Consumption [kWh/day] Manufacturer Selling Price [$] Design Option Change Above the Baseline

0 5.9 $2,026.71

-
1 5.29 $2,031.72 0 + Automatic Lighting Controls

2 4.8 $2,037.18 1 + Enhanced Evaporator Coil

3 4.31 $2,049.34 2 + Higher Efficiency Compressor

4 3.7 $2,071.01 3 + Permanent Split Capacitor Evaporator Fan
Motor

5 2.69 $2,107.78 4 + 4 foot, LED, 3500 K

6 2.58 $2,113.04 5 + Enhanced Condenser Coil

7 2.503 $2,118.05 6 + Refrigeration Low Power State

8 2.367 $2 ,134.49 7 + Electronically

- Commutated Evaporator
Fan Motor

9 2.231 $2,156.17 8 + Permanent Split Capacitor Condenser Fan
Motor

10 2.17 $2,171.32 9 + 1.125" Thick Insulation

11 2.13 $2,187.76 10 + Electronically

- Commutated Condenser
Fan Motor

12 2.0 3 $2,254.87 11 + Enhanced Glass Pack

13 1.67 $2,938.14 12 + Vacuum Insulated Panels5

- 43 Figure 5.6

. 8 Cost

- Efficiency Curve for the R

- 134a Combo A

– Large Analysis Point5

- 44 Table 5.6

. 8 Cost Efficiency Data for the R

- 134a Combo A

– Large Analysis Point Design Option
Level Daily Energy Consumption [kWh/day] Manufacturer Selling Price [$] Design Option Change Above the Baseline

0 6.27 $2,081.77

-
1 5.65 $2,086.7 9 0 + Automatic Lighting Controls

2 5.11 $2,092.63 1 + Enhanced Evaporator Coil

3 4.58 $2,104.79 2 + Permanent Split Capacitor Evaporator Fan
Motor

4 3.94 $2,126.46 3 + 4 foot, LED, 3500 K

5 2.93 $2,163.23 4 + Enhanced Condenser Coil

6 2.81 $2,16 8.86 5 + Refrigeration Low Power State

7 2.726 $2,173.87 6 + Electronically

- Commutated Evaporator
Fan Motor

8 2.59 $2,190.32 7 + Permanent Split Capacitor Condenser Fan
Motor

9 2.425 $2,211.99 8 + Higher Efficiency Compressor

10 2.36 $2,227.45 9 + 1.125" Thick Insulation

11 2.32 $2,243.89 10 + Electronically

- Commutated Condenser
Fan Motor

12 2.19 $2,318.67 11 + Enhanced Glass Pack

13 1.79 $3,069.80 12 + Vacuum Insulated Panels5

- 45 Figure 5.6

. 9 Cost

- Efficiency Curve for the R

- 134a Combo B

- Medium Analysis Point5

- 46 Table 5.6

. 9 Cost Efficiency Data for the R

- 134a Combo B

- Medium Analysis Point Design Option
Level Daily Energy Consumption [kWh/day] Man ufacturer Selling Price [$] Design Option Change Above the Baseline

0 4.8 $1,629.75

-
1 4.24 $1,630.86 0 + Enhanced Evaporator Coil

2 3.64 $1,635.87 1 + Automatic Lighting Controls

3 3.25 $1,642.43 2 + Enhanced Condenser Coil

4 2.84 $1,664.10 3 + Permanent Split Capacitor Evaporator Fan
Motor

5 2.755 $1,669.12 4 + Refrigeration Low Power State

6 2.59 $1,681.27 5 + Higher Efficiency Compressor

7 2.503 $1,697.72 6 + Electronically

- Commutated Evaporator
Fan Motor

8 2.425 $1,719.39 7 + Perman ent Split Capacitor Condenser Fan
Motor

9 2.076 $1,832.25 8 + 4 foot, LED, 3500 K

10 2.05 $1,846.45 9 + 1.125" Thick Insulation

11 2.04 $1,862.89 10 + Electronically

- Commutated Condenser
Fan Motor

12 1.9 $2,332.76 11 + Vacuum Insulated Panels5

- 47 F igure 5.6

. 10 Cost

- Efficiency Curve for the R

- 134a Combo B

– Large Analysis Point5

- 48 Table 5.6

. 10 Cost Efficiency Data for the R

- 134a Combo B

– Large Analysis Point Design Option
Level Daily Energy Consumption [kWh/day] Manufacturer Selling Price [$] Design Option Change Above the Baseline

0 4.93 $1,710.60

-
1 4.36 $1,711.81 0 + Enhanced Evaporator Coil

2 3.77 $1,716.82 1 + Automatic Lighting Controls

3 3.54 $1,723.96 2 + Enhanced Condenser Coil

4 3.434 $1,728.97 3 + Refrigeration Low Power State

5 3.026 $1,750.64 4 + Permanent Split Capacitor Evaporator Fan
Motor

6 2.794 $1,763.09 5 + Higher Efficiency Compressor

7 2.706 $1,779.53 6 + Electronically

- Commutated Evaporator Fan
Motor

8 2.347 $1,892.39 7 + 4 foot, LED, 3500 K

9 2.289 $1,914.06 8 + Permanent Split Capacitor Condenser Fan
Motor

10 2.25 $1,928.87 9 + 1.125" Thick Insulation

11 2.24 $1,945.31 10 + Electronically

- Commutated Condenser Fan
Motor

12 2.05 $2,551.53 11 + Vacuum Insulated Panels5

- 49 Figure 5.6

. 11 Cost

- Efficiency Curve for the R

- 744 Class A

– Small Analysis Point

Table 5.6

. 11 Co st Efficiency Data for the R

- 744 Class A

– Small Analysis Point Design Option
Level Daily Energy Consumption [kWh/day] Manufacturer Selling Price [$] Design Option Change Above the
Baseline

0 3.51 $2,183.22

-
1 3.29 $2,188.24 0 + Automatic Lighting C ontrols

2 3.1 $2,194.31 1 + Enhanced Evaporator Coil

3 3.007 $2,199.32 2 + Refrigeration Low Power State

4 2.968 $2,205.85 3 + Enhanced Condenser Coil

5 2.929 $2,214.52 4 + Higher Efficiency Compressor

6 2.677 $2,276.86 5 + Enhanced Glass Pack

7 2.144 $2,896.31 6 + Vacuum Insulated Panels5

- 50 Figure 5.6

. 12 Cost

- Efficiency Curve for the R

- 744 Class A

– Medium Analysis Point

Table 5.6

. 12 Cost Efficienc y Data for the R

- 744 Class A

– Medium Analysis Point Design Option
Level Daily Energy Consumption [kWh/day] Manufacturer Selling Price [$] Design Option Change Above the Baseline

0 3.8 $2,216.20

-
1 3.59 $2,221.22 0 + Automatic Lighting Controls

2 3 .37 $2,227.88 1 + Enhanced Evaporator Coil

3 3.269 $2,232.90 2 + Refrigeration Low Power State

4 3.22 $2,241.57 3 + Higher Efficiency Compressor

5 3.182 $2,248.71 4 + Enhanced Condenser Coil

6 2.9 $2,316.80 5 + Enhanced Glass Pack

7 2.852 $2,333. 25 6 + Electronically

- Commutated Condenser
Fan Motor

8 2.26 $3,021.60 7 + Vacuum Insulated Panels5

- 51 Figure 5.6

. 13 Cost

- Efficiency Curve for the R

- 744 Class A

– Large Analysis Point

Table 5.6

. 13 Cost Efficiency Data for the R

- 744 Class A

– Large Analysis Point Design Option
Level Daily Energy Consumption [kWh/day] Manufacturer Selling Price [$] Design Option Change Above the
Baseline

0 4.43 $2,336.09

-
1 4.21 $2,341.11 0 + Automatic Lighting Controls

2 3.94 $2,349.25 1 + Enhanced Evaporator Coil

3 3.822 $2,354.26 2 + Refrigeration Low Power State

4 3.764 $2,362.93 3 + Higher Efficiency Compressor

5 3.715 $2,371.68 4 + Enhanced Condenser Coil

6 3.347 $2,461.83 5 + Enhanced Glass Pack

7 3.288 $2,478.27 6 + Electronically

- Commutated Condenser
Fan Motor

8 2.59 $3,283.55 7 + Vacuum Insulated Panels5

- 52 Figure 5.6

. 14 Cost

- Efficiency Curve for the R

- 744 Class B

– Small Analysis Point5

- 53 Table 5.6

. 14 Cost Efficiency Data for the R

- 744 Class B

– Small Analysis Point Design Option
Level Daily Energy Consumption [kWh/day] Manufacturer Selling Price [$] Desig n Option Change Above the Baseline

0 4.44 $1,843.22

-
1 4.05 $1,844.19 0 + Enhanced Evaporator Coil

2 3.48 $1,849.20 1 + Automatic Lighting Controls

3 3.376 $1,854.22 2 + Refrigeration Low Power State

4 3.259 $1,860.72 3 + Enhanced Condenser Coil

5 3.133 $1,877.16 4 + Electronically

- Commutated Evaporator
Fan Motor

6 3.026 $1,898.83 5 + Permanent Split Capacitor Condenser Fan
Motor

7 2.997 $1,907.50 6 + Higher Efficiency Compressor

8 2.638 $2,020.36 7 + 4 foot, LED, 3500 K

9 2.609 $2,036.8 0 8 + Electronically

- Commutated Condenser
Fan Motor

10 2.17 $2,745.31 9 + Vacuum Insulated Panels5

- 54 Figure 5.6

. 15 Cost

- Efficiency Curve for the R

- 744 Class B

– Medium Analysis Point

Table 5.6

. 15 Cost Efficiency Data for the R

- 744 Class B

– Medium Analysis Point Design Option
Level Daily Energy Consumption [kWh/day] Manufacturer Selling Price [$] Design Option Change Above the Baseline

0 4.73 $1,921.20

-
1 4.29 $1,922.33 0 + Enhanced Evaporator Coil

2 3.71 $1,927.35 1 + Automatic Lighting Controls

3 3.599 $1,932.36 2 + Refrigeration Low Power State

4 3.463 $1,939.91 3 + Enhanced Condenser Coil

5 3.327 $1,961.58 4 + Permanent Split Capacitor Cond enser Fan
Motor

6 3.298 $1,970.25 5 + Higher Efficiency Compressor

7 2.939 $2,083.11 6 + 4 foot, LED, 3500 K

8 2.91 $2,099.55 7 + Electronically

- Commutated Condenser
Fan Motor

9 2.396 $2,911.93 8 + Vacuum Insulated Panels5

- 55 Figure 5.6

. 16 Cost

- Efficiency Curve for the R

- 744 Class B

– Large Analysis Point

Table 5.6

. 16 Cost Efficiency Data for the R

- 744 Class B

– Large Analysis Point Design Option
Level D aily Energy Consumption [kWh/day] Manufacturer Selling Price [$] Design Option Change Above the Baseline

0 5.06 $1,980.49

-
1 4.56 $1,981.80 0 + Enhanced Evaporator Coil

2 3.99 $1,986.82 1 + Automatic Lighting Controls

3 3.87 $1,991.83 2 + Refrig eration Low Power State

4 3.715 $2,000.43 3 + Enhanced Condenser Coil

5 3.55 $2,022.10 4 + Permanent Split Capacitor Condenser Fan
Motor

6 3.521 $2,030.77 5 + Higher Efficiency Compressor

7 3.162 $2,143.63 6 + 4 foot, LED, 3500 K

8 3.123 $2,160.07 7 + Electronically

- Commutated Condenser
Fan Motor

9 2.541 $3,076.09 8 + Vacuum Insulated Panels5

- 56 Figure 5.6

. 17 Cost

- Efficiency Curve for the R

- 744 Combo A

– Medium Analysis Point5

- 57 Table 5. 6

. 17 Cost Efficiency Data for the R

- 744 Combo A

– Medium Analysis Point Design Option
Level Daily Energy Consumption [kWh/day] Manufacturer Selling Price [$] Design Option Change Above the Baseline

0 6.08 $2,085.82

-
1 5.46 $2,090.83 0 + Automatic Lighting Controls

2 4.95 $2,096.57 1 + Enhanced Evaporator Coil

3 4.24 $2,118.24 2 + Permanent Split Capacitor Evaporator Fan
Motor

4 3.16 $2,155.02 3 + 4 foot, LED, 3500 K

5 2.78 $2,173.25 4 + Higher Efficiency Com pressor

6 2.66 $2,179.41 5 + Enhanced Condenser Coil

7 2.58 $2,184.42 6 + Refrigeration Low Power State

8 2.444 $2,200.87 7 + Electronically

- Commutated Evaporator Fan
Motor

9 2.299 $2,222.54 8 + Permanent Split Capacitor Condenser Fan
Motor

10 2.2 4 $2,237.69 9 + 1.125" Thick Insulation

11 2.2 $2,254.14 10 + Electronically

- Commutated Condenser Fan
Motor

12 2.09 $2,321.24 11 + Enhanced Glass Pack

13 1.71 $3,004.51 12 + Vacuum Insulated Panels5

- 58 Figure 5.6

. 18 Cost

- Efficiency Curve for the R

- 744 Combo A

– Large Analysis Point5

- 59 Table 5.6

. 18 Cost Efficiency Data for the R

- 744 Combo A

– Large Analysis Point Design Option
Level Daily Energy Consumption [kWh/day] Manufacturer Selling Price [$] Design Option Change Above the Baseline

0 6.46 $2,141.16

-
1 5.84 $2,146.17 0 + Automatic Lighting Controls

2 5.27 $2,152.32 1 + Enhanced Evaporator Coil

3 4.7 $2,170.55 2 + Higher Efficiency Compressor

4 4.05 $2,192.22 3 + Permanent Split Capacitor Evaporator Fan
Motor

5 3.03 $2,228.99 4 + 4 foot, LED, 3500 K

6 2.9 $2,235.59 5 + Enhanced Condenser Coil

7 2.813 $2,240.60 6 + Refrigeration Low Power State

8 2.668 $2,257.04 7 + Electronically

- Commut ated Evaporator Fan
Motor

9 2.503 $2,278.72 8 + Permanent Split Capacitor Condenser Fan
Motor

10 2.43 $2,294.17 9 + 1.125" Thick Insulation

11 2.4 $2,310.62 10 + Electronically

- Commutated Condenser Fan
Motor

12 2.27 $2,385.39 11 + Enhanced Glass Pa ck

13 1.84 $3,136.52 12 + Vacuum Insulated Panels5

- 60 Figure 5.6

. 19 Cost

- Efficiency Curve for the R

- 744 Combo B

- Medium Analysis Point5

- 61 Table 5.6

. 19 Cost Eff iciency Data for the R

- 744 Combo B

- Medium Analysis Point Design Option
Level Daily Energy Consumption [kWh/day] Manufacturer Selling Price [$] Design Option Change Above the Baseline

0 4.91 $1,687.32

-
1 4.33 $1,688.43 0 + Enhanced Evaporator Coil

2 3.73 $1,693.45 1 + Automatic Lighting Controls

3 3.32 $1,701.13 2 + Enhanced Condenser Coil

4 2.89 $1,722.80 3 + Permanent Split Capacitor Evaporator Fan
Motor

5 2.803 $1,727.82 4 + Refrigeration Low Power State

6 2.629 $1,746.05 5 + Higher Eff iciency Compressor

7 2.541 $1,762.50 6 + Electronically

- Commutated Evaporator Fan
Motor

8 2.464 $1,784.17 7 + Permanent Split Capacitor Condenser Fan
Motor

9 2.105 $1,897.03 8 + 4 foot, LED, 3500 K

10 2.09 $1,911.23 9 + 1.125" Thick Insulation

11 2.07 $1,927.67 10 + Electronically

- Commutated Condenser Fan
Motor

12 1.93 $2,397.54 11 + Vacuum Insulated Panels5

- 62 Figure 5.6

. 20 Cost

- Efficiency Curve for the R

- 744 Class A

– Small Analysis Point5

- 63 Table 5.6

. 2 0 Cost Efficiency Data for the R

- 744 Class A

– Small Analysis Point Design Option
Level Daily Energy Consumption [kWh/day] Manufacturer Selling Price [$] Design Option Change Above the Baseline

0 5.06 $1,769.67

-
1 4.47 $1,770.88 0 + Enhanced Evaporator Coil

2 3.87 $1,775.90 1 + Automatic Lighting Controls

3 3.63 $1,784.26 2 + Enhanced Condenser Coil

4 3.521 $1,789.27 3 + Refrigeration Low Power State

5 3.094 $1,810.95 4 + Permanent Split Ca pacitor Evaporator Fan
Motor

6 2.852 $1,829.61 5 + Higher Efficiency Compressor

7 2.755 $1,846.05 6 + Electronically

- Commutated Evaporator Fan
Motor

8 2.396 $1,958.91 7 + 4 foot, LED, 3500 K

9 2.338 $1,980.58 8 + Permanent Split Capacitor Condenser Fan
Motor

10 2.3 $1,995.39 9 + 1.125" Thick Insulation

11 2.29 $2,011.84 10 + Electronically

- Commutated Condenser
Fan Motor

12 2.09 $2,618.05 11 + Vacuum Insulated Panels5

- 64 REFERENCES

1 Lawrence Be rkley National Laboratory. Window . 2013.

< http://windows.lbl.gov/software/window/6/ >