Heat Pipe for Manufacturing Facilities
Lens Manufacturer, Florida
When designing HVAC systems for an optical lens manufacturer in Florida, several factors need to be taken into account. Two of the most important factors have to do with the air being free of contaminants, as well as excess moisture. Typically, the costly over-cool/reheat approach is employed to achieve lower moisture content and lower relative humidity necessary for the manufacturing process. HPT’s dehumidification heat pipes provided a solution to lower moisture content of the air without the high cost of overcooling and reheat. This in turn saves energy and money by reducing cooling load and trimming or displacing reheat. Download this case study to learn more about how this solution produced an estimated savings of $28,000 annually!
GlaxoSmithKline – Memphis, TN
In order to maintain its pristine quality of products, proper care must be taken to ensure the quality of the air inside their production facilities. In order to meet strict manufacturing requirements, the indoor air must have a relative humidity of 50% at all times, while maintaining an indoor temperature no greater than 72°F. HPT offered the wrap-around heat pipe solution which utilizes a phase change to precool the air before entering the cooling coil, in addition to providing free reheat downstream. This, in turn, reduced the load on the cooling coil, as well as limited the amount of terminal reheat required. Download this case study to learn more about how this solution produced an estimated savings of $26,000 annually!
Pharmaceutical Manufacturers in Puerto Rico
Pharmaceutical production is popular in tropical locations because of regulatory, tax and labor cost benefits. Yet many of the benefits can be negated if a production facility does not mitigate the effects of high humidity. This case study highlights two case summaries at two different manufacturers in Puerto Rico, each used a two row dehumidifier wrap-around heat pipe system. Although there were precool savings, the bulk of the savings came from saving reheat. Both showed great paybacks. Case 1 is 11.5 months and case 2 is 10.3 months.