Efficient Cooling

Presenters:

Gregory Beamer, Kathryn Herman, Alex Polvi, Dan Skotte

Inventors:

Tom Herron, Richard Peterson

Mentors:

Dan Whitaker, Todd Miller

Expander/Compressor Cycle for Heat Activated Heat Pumps

Agenda

Overview Technology

Background EC Overviews

Customer Profiles Military Food Processing

Commercialization Strategy Spin off Financials Timeline

Other Considerations Market Potential Tax Credits Potential Issues

Interesting Quotes

The Problem

High Energy Costs Wasted energy (via heat)

EC’s Solution

Harness waste heat streams Produce efficient cooling

Current Technology

PowerGeneratoror Boiler

PowerElectrical/Radio

Equipment

Power Air Conditioner

Heat Exhaust Atmosphere

EC’s Solution

PowerGeneratoror Boiler

PowerElectrical/Radio

Equipment

Heat ExhaustEC

Air Conditioner

The Heat Activated Heat Pump Application

Technology

“Current modeling resultsindicate that [the] expander/compressor cycle can be more efficient than theabsorption cycle system.”-- Tom Herron, Co-Inventor, Corvallis, OR

Background

Heat pumps move heat Used in refrigerators, freezers, A/C, etc “Heat activated” = powered by heat COP = (heat out) / (heat in)

Example COP savings

Total savings: $363.09Data from Polvi’s NwNatural bill

The EC Cycle

Patented novel cycle

Addition of a recuperator

Micro channel component

Stand-alone power

Why this is important

Waste heat utilization Green benefit

30% more efficient

Product Description

Customer Profiles

“50% of site electricity goes towards refrigeration.” -- Bruce Packing Co, Woodburn, OR

Customer Profile

Has an un-used or under-utilized stream of waste heat Boiler with adjacent chiller On-site power generation

Expensive energy consumption Fuel cost Mass usage

Companies looking to be green

Military Application

US Army currently funding Mobile command centers

2000 vehicles Current solution

5.1kW, 18,000BTU Gas powered

$30-$50/gallon EC Solution

32”x28”x20” Utilized exhaust Cut gasoline usage

Other Military Applications

Army’s other cooling unit classes Transportation

Tanks Personnel Carriers

Frontline bases Mobile hospitals Tent command

centers Total military demand

is estimated at 1,800 MW ~12,000 units 150kW avg

Industrial Applications

Local food processing plants Oregon Freeze Dryer Meduri Farms Bruce Packing* Rainsweet Inc. Truitt Brothers Norpac Foods*

* Have data on current energy usage

Case Study: Norpac Foods

Food processor 5 processing plants in NW Largest chiller load: Stayton, OR

600hp Carrier Chiller 2000hrs/year at full capacity 2000hrs/year at part capacity 4 boilers totaling 2300hp

Analysis Chillers = $74,600/yr Boilers = $209,000/yr Boiler @ 80% efficiency = $41,800/yr of wasted heat COP of 1.0, offset chiller to $18,300/yr Saves $58,000/yr!

Other Potential Customers

High-end residential Datacenters Pool heating and

dehumidification Hospitals Full-service

restaurants Unitary absorption

replacement Ice rinks

Consumer transportation

Commercial refrigeration

PCs

Commercialization Strategy

“I can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen a boiler and chiller in the same room.” – Ernie Pech, NW Natural Gas, Salem, OR

Spin Off: Efficient Cooling

Company Name: Efficient Cooling “EC” Strategy

Produce novel component “in-house” Outsource the assembly of product

Objectives Military Command Vehicle

Performance sensitive Industrial Food Processing

Low volume high margins Scare up competition to buy us!

Financials

Break even @ year 2 EBIT $204,750 Assuming 100 units sold @ $15,000 sale price Requested funding for Year 1 is $1,000,000 Potential receipt of SBIR phase 1 & 2 grant ($540,000) Total investment (w/SBIR) needed $460,000

Timeline

4 Years

4 more years of OSU R&D Army funded @ $120,000 per year

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

Fiel

d Te

st P

roto

type

Achi

eve

CO

P of

.85

Achi

eve

CO

P of

1.0

Fiel

d Te

st M

ilita

ry

Prot

otyp

eSp

in O

ut E

C C

0mpa

ny

2012

2013

2014

Del

iver

Firs

t

Mili

tary

Ord

erD

eliv

er 1

Indu

stria

l

Syst

emFi

nanc

ial B

reak

-Eve

n

Poin

t

Timeline

6 mos

Spin-out EC Company 6 months of Marketing Research/R&D

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

Fiel

d Te

st P

roto

type

Achi

eve

CO

P of

.85

Achi

eve

CO

P of

1.0

Fiel

d Te

st M

ilita

ry

Prot

otyp

eSp

in O

ut E

C C

0mpa

ny

2012

2013

2014

Del

iver

Firs

t

Mili

tary

Ord

erD

eliv

er 1

Indu

stria

l

Syst

emFi

nanc

ial B

reak

-Eve

n

Poin

t

Timeline

6 months of field trials/final testing military product Begin development of industrial platform

6 mos

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

Fiel

d Te

st P

roto

type

Achi

eve

CO

P of

.85

Achi

eve

CO

P of

1.0

Fiel

d Te

st M

ilita

ry

Prot

otyp

eSp

in O

ut E

C C

0mpa

ny

2012

2013

2014

Del

iver

Firs

t

Mili

tary

Ord

erD

eliv

er 1

Indu

stria

l

Syst

emFi

nanc

ial B

reak

-Eve

n

Poin

t

Timeline

Deliver first military order (100 units) Deliver first industrial system

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

Fiel

d Te

st P

roto

type

Achi

eve

CO

P of

.85

Achi

eve

CO

P of

1.0

Fiel

d Te

st M

ilita

ry

Prot

otyp

e1 Year

Spin

Out

EC C

0mpa

ny

2012

2013

2014

Del

iver

Firs

t

Mili

tary

Ord

erD

eliv

er 1

Indu

stria

l

Syst

emFi

nanc

ial B

reak

-Eve

n

Poin

t

Timeline

Financial break-even point

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

Fiel

d Te

st P

roto

type

Achi

eve

CO

P of

.85

Achi

eve

CO

P of

1.0

Fiel

d Te

st M

ilita

ry

Prot

otyp

eSp

in O

ut E

C C

0mpa

ny

1 Year2012

2013

2014

Del

iver

Firs

t

Mili

tary

Ord

erD

eliv

er 1

Indu

stria

l

Syst

emFi

nanc

ial B

reak

-Eve

n

Poin

t

Other considerations

“There are 46,000 registered boilers in Oregon”-- Mike Gramp, State Building Codes Division

Market Potential

Business Energy Tax Credit

35% credit for eligible project cost helps with payback

Requirements Existing projects need 10% efficiency

improvement New projects need 10% better then energy

code or standard energy practice Pacificorp and PGE customers are also

eligible for additional Energy Trust credit

Case Study Part 2: Norpac + Credit

Project: Swap out current system Est. cost: $500,000 Efficiency improvement: 30% Tax credit: $70,000 savings

assuming 40% tax Yearly ROI: $58,000 Payback after 7.5 years

Potential Issues

High cost of final product (250%) Length of remaining research Iraq/Afghanistan

Next Steps…

Continue R&D of EC Finish implementation Acquire research grants

Demonstrate working technology Prove expected efficiency Field testing

Apply for SBIR gap funding

Thank you for taking our cold calls!

Oregon Dept of Energy Bruce Alfrod

State Building Codes Division Mike Gramp

NW Natural Gas Ernie Pech Linda Chang

Pacific Power Jim Johnson Al Leake Becky Burg Nancy Doe

Bruce Packing Paul Duchanteay

Norpac Foods Mark Steele

Google Josh Betts

CJ Hansen Doug Doe

"I wish you every success on this project, because it will be super successful!" – Doug Doe, CJ Hansen

Final Recap

All R&D military funded Product on the way Cut costs Using “green” technology