濕度在工業製程環境中對廠內原料,生產及成品庫存等非常重要,是影響品質之成敗關鍵因素之一。尤其技術密集的高科技產業,濕度將嚴重影響其生產能量及產品良率之競爭力。本研究以目前空調廣泛使用的兩類除濕系統(一)冷卻除濕(二)化學(劑)除濕之能源運用做最佳化研究。 在空調系統中除濕方式種類甚多,目前市場上較常被採用如冷卻除濕法及化學除濕法。除濕應用範圍以露點區分: 一般10℃DP以上屬於高濕,而0℃DP以下屬於低濕。一般高濕均採用冷卻除濕法,低濕均採用化學除濕法。而在介於0℃DP-10℃DP之間屬於中濕一般因應系統之整體及方便性,並沒有特定探討選用冷卻除濕或化學除濕方式,故此段除濕的耗能並沒有相關資料可供參考,為了要瞭解確實耗能實情以獲得達到節約能源之最佳化系統。本研究則以露點由0-10℃DP,風量5000~15000CMH常見之工業製程環境為基礎,設備分為三項:預冷段,除濕段以及後置段。出風溫度15-20℃DB分別對兩系統耗能探討出耗能分析與比較。 本研究在冷卻與化學除濕系統架構中,分別比較各段設備與總耗能關係,結果獲得兩系統耗能差異比最大部分在後置段的再冷與再熱。化學除濕系統在相同除濕露點條件下,出風乾球溫度由15℃~20℃DB上升,但能源消耗是下降的;而冷卻除濕系統則相反隨出風乾球溫度15℃~20℃DB上升而耗能加大。冷卻除濕在0℃DP時,出風17℃DB以上耗能比化學除濕耗能高,出風17℃DB以下時冷卻除濕耗能較低。因此在採用除濕系統時,此段耗能評估必須作為優先考慮因素。
Humidity Control is considered as an important factor for the environments of industrial and manufacturing plant. It affects on raw materials, production process and stocks. Therefore, it plays a significant role that influenced the product success/failure rate, especially in hi-tech industries. It also reflects on the quantity and quality of its products and company’s image. This study will focus on the most common type of dehumidification methods and it can be classified into the following categories: (1) Refrigerant Condensate Dehumidification (2) Sorbents Dehumidification. There are varieties of dehumidification methods in air conditioning system. Refrigerant Condensate and Sorbents Dehumidification are the most widely used methods on the market today. The applications range of dehumidification is often differentiating by dewpoint temperature. As the dew point above 10℃DP indicates high humidity, the Refrigerant Condensate Dehumidification is more likely to be adopted. Relatively speaking, when the dew point below 0℃DP indicate as low humidity, then Sorbents Dehumidification is more commonly used. However, there is no distribution or alternatives for system application which indicates the dew points between 0℃DP-10℃DP. Application usage of both dehumidification methods are often adopted in the range of dew points between 0℃DP-10℃DP, even though the references are not enough referring to the energy consumption at this range. Therefore, the main purpose is to analyzing and determines a system application for alternative energy conservation. In the study, it demonstrates and compares the energy consumption analysis on both methods. The testing can be divided into three stages: per-cooling, dehumidifying and after heating/cooling based on dew points from 0-10℃DP and air volume of 5000~15000CMH with the supply-air temperature at 15-20℃DB. A theoretical framework of this study is to compare both total energy consumption at different stages. As the result, the major diversity in total energy consumption has been discovered between both systems at the final stage as the after heating/cooling. Based on the test; as dew points from 0-10℃DP and air volume of 5000~15000CMH with the supply-air temperature at 15-20℃DB, total energy consumption for Sorbents Dehumidification has reduced and Refrigerant Condensate Dehumidification has increased. Furthermore, the study clearly shows both dehumidification on the same condition at 0℃DP with supply-air temperature at 17℃DB or above, energy consumption for Refrigerant Condensate Dehumidification is greater then Sorbents Dehumidification, with supply-air temperature at 17℃DB or below, Refrigerant Condensate Dehumidification has lower energy consumption. Therefore, the analysis of this final stage on energy consumption must be given a priority consideration for preliminary design and selecting a system.