|
An estimated
one million automatic commercial ice makers in service in
the United States consume about 8 billion kWh annually and
cost American businesses more than $600 million in electricity
[U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/Department of Energy.
2000. "ENERGY STAR.".
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/Department
of Energy]. Ice makers consist of two major energy-using subsystems:
the refrigeration system and the water supply system. The
greatest energy savings exist in the refrigeration system.
Energy use for commercial ice makers can vary considerably
from product to product depending on the machine's capacity,
the type of ice produced (e.g., cubes, flakes, chips, nuggets,
etc.), and the coolant used.
A DOE study estimated that
energy savings of 18 percent can be realized
through the use of high-efficiency compressors and fan motors,
thicker insulation, and other measures, at an added cost that
is expected to pay back in a little over two years [Arthur
D. Little. 1996. Energy Savings Potential for Commercial
Refrigeration Equipment. Cambridge, Mass.: Arthur D. Little].
Measuring Energy Use
Ice machines
that make cubes comprise more than 80 percent of ice maker
sales. The Air
Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute (ARI) developed
a voluntary energy usage test standard for these machines.
This standard measures ice harvest rate, energy use, and water
use for several different types of ice-cube makers:
- Ice-making
head units -- standard ice makers with the ice-making
mechanism and the condensing unit in a single package, but
with separate ice storage;
- Self-contained
units -- models in which the ice-making mechanism and
storage compartment are in an integral cabinet; and
- Remote
condensing units -- split-system models in which the
ice-making mechanism, the condensing unit, and the ice storage
bins are in separate sections.
These
types of ice-cube makers are further subdivided into models
that use air or water as their cooling medium. Approximately
80 percent of ice makers sold have integrated air-cooled condensers;
the remaining have remote air-cooled or integral water-cooled
configurations.
All ice-cube
machines that meet ARI standards are published in its Directory
of Certified Automatic Commercial Ice-Cube Machines and Ice
Storage Bins.
Choosing Energy-Efficient Products
Based
on 1996 ARI data, FEMP developed an ice maker efficiency recommendation
for federal purchasers. FEMP's levels represent products in
roughly the top 25 percent of the market by energy performance.
Their online buyer recommendation also includes an energy
cost calculator to enable interested parties to compare the
lifetime energy costs of different ice machines. Based largely
on FEMP's recommendation, CEE developed a two-tiered energy
efficiency criteria for ice makers. The CEE specification
established efficiency levels as a straight-line function
of the ice harvest rate, in contrast to FEMP's levels that
are capacity specific, to minimize "gaming" by manufacturers.
- Tier
1 is set at levels similar to FEMP's
recommendation.
- Tier
2 is 20 percent more efficient than FEMP's recommendation,
providing a target for manufacturer design efforts.
CEE
also updates a list of qualifying
products every six months.
Energy Use and Cost Comparison
Based
on ARI data and manufacturer list prices (the latter from
1999), the table below shows that the most efficient ice maker
models available use 18 to 34 percent less energy than the
least efficient models, often at no additional cost.
|
Comparison of Energy Use and Cost for Currently Available
Ice Makers
|
Ice Harvest Rate
(lbs/24 hrs)
|
Least Efficient Model |
Most Efficient Model (a) |
Energy
Savings
(%) |
Payback (years)
|
Energy Use
(kWh/100 lbs-ice)
|
Price (b)
($) |
Energy Use
(kWh/100 lbs-ice) |
Price (b)
($) |
|
Ice-Making Head Unit, Water-Cooled
|
|
500
|
7.0 |
$2,585 |
4.6 |
$1,940
|
34% |
0
|
|
1,000
|
7.1 |
$3,020 |
3.8
|
$2,820
|
46% |
0
|
|
Ice-Making Head Unit, Air-Cooled
|
|
200
|
11.1
|
$1,410
|
7.9
|
$1,463
|
29
|
0
|
|
500
|
8.3 |
$1,940 |
5.8 |
$1,940
|
30% |
0
|
|
1,000
|
7.0 |
$3,020 |
5.1
|
$3,285
|
35% |
1.1
|
| Remote Condensing
Unit, Air-Cooled |
|
500
|
8.4 |
$1,895 |
6.1 |
$1,895
|
27% |
0
|
|
1,000
|
7.6
|
$2,970
|
4.9
|
$3,235
|
36%
|
1.1
|
|
Self-Contained Unit, Water-Cooled
|
|
250
|
9.0 |
$1,830 |
7.2 |
$1,775 |
20% |
0
|
| Self-Contained
Unit, Air-Cooled |
|
150
|
13.0 |
$1,565 |
10.7 |
$1,485 |
18% |
0
|
Notes:
(a) The
most efficient models on the market now may be more efficient
than those identified here as the "best available," since
more efficient models may have been introduced since the FEMP
analysis.
(b) Assumes 50 percent discount from list price (based on
communication with local distributors), 3,000 operating hours
per year, and an electricity rate of $0.07/kWh.
Sources:
ACEEE analysis based on data from ARI 1999. Directory
of Certified Automatic Commercial Ice-Cube Machines and Ice
Storage Bins. Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute,
Arlington, VA.; manufacturer catalogs.
New Products Coming to Market
Furthermore,
more efficient designs are also possible. Manitowoc, for example,
has announced the new series of models with energy savings
up to 30 percent. It estimates the simple payback to the consumer
at less than one year. It will introduce these models to the
market in 2004. Another major manufacturer has told
us that it is now designing a new set of efficient models,
targeting 20 percent energy savings relative to its current
models.
|