by David Beckinghausen, LYNX Product Group, LLC

Each time we fill our car’s fuel tank, pay our electricity, gas, or water bill, we are constantly reminded of the continued rising costs of energy and natural resources, with no end in sight. At our home, we may consider reducing energy costs by converting to a high efficiency HVAC unit; utilizing state-of-the-art, low-energy burners, pumps and operational modes. The effort may be furthered applied by reducing hot water temperatures, raising air conditioning or lowering home heat temperatures. We may even try out hybrid or alternate fuel burning cars and trucks.

What about energy conservation at the work-place? Traditionally, laboratories in general are large consumers of utilities. This is in part due to the nature of the industry. The requirement of high level cleaning, disinfection, and sterilization requires the use of specialized equipment and standard operating procedures. These large pieces of equipment (Rack Washers, Tunnel Washers, Autoclaves, and others) consume large amounts of water and other utilities to perform their tasks.

Many University officials have been given the directive to investigate and implement energy efficiency improvement programs to reduce the demand on ALL utilities wherever possible. Considerations from recycled vs. raw materials, energy reclamation, and energy efficient systems are all strategies being considered during the renovation or design of their new facilities. Research facilities in the States of California, Oregon, Nevada, and several others are especially sensitive to the need of assessing the multiple benefits of integrated water-energy efficiency measures.

Life Science Cage and Rack Washing systems have traditionally been a large consumer of both water and heat energy resources. Much like a household dishwasher, the traditional Life Science Cage and Rack Washer would be programmed with a cleaning cycle consisting of a pre-rinse, alkaline wash, rinse, and a final disinfection rinse phase. For each of these phases, the unit would fill the sump (40-60 gallons), heat and recirculate the water through a spray system, and discard the water to drain at the end of the phase. Additionally, many washers are provided with an optional cold water discharge cool-down system. With this option, cold water is injected into the hot effluent as the unit drains, cooling the wastewater to an acceptable drain temperature. The cold water consumption for this process could be as much as 40-60 gallons per phase, thus doubling the total consumption of domestic water. A cycle could consume as much as 320-480 gallons of water per cycle, or upwards of 8,600 gallons per day, half of which required energy to heat it to hot water.

Today, there are several alternatives to the “traditional” Life Sciences Washer and cycle parameters. Several equipment manufactures have recently introduced new washer models with improved features and options to better utilize both utility and water efficiency throughout the cleaning and disinfection cycle process. These highly efficient washers now can provide the same cleaning and disinfection with water consumptions of less than 50 gallons per cycle, and with additional options, could be as low as 12 gallons per cycle. Other areas of energy and water savings could be offered as:

• Higher-efficient motors and transformers
• Redefinition of cycle parameters
• Reduction of sump sizes
• Re-utilization of wash waters
• Reuse of waters
• Reduced heating temperatures of non-temperature sensitive phases of the cycle
• Drain-water heat recovery systems to preheat in-coming to the water heater
• HVAC heat recovery

Manufacturers may combine a series of design changes with a redefinition of the cycle structure and the redeployment of used waters to significantly reduce water and energy consumption. This all has to be done without jeopardizing the efficacy of the cleaning and disinfection process. The energy savings options and equipment designs differ from manufacturer to manufacturer. Each have a price tag attached to the savings, some more than others. For those interested in energy conservation for their facility, these improved equipment designs and options can provide more than one economical benefit. An improved allocation of capital (smaller boilers and or hot-water systems), a reduction of ongoing utility costs, and environmental benefits in both energy and water-related concerns could all be worth consideration when evaluating the payback equation.

Ask your equipment manufacturer what they have available for energy conservation options. As stated above, there are several different designs and philosophical differences from manufacturer to manufacturer. Be sure to investigate the details and payback for each of your options. Evaluate the costs and feasibility of any special requirements needed to operate these systems. For instance, a heat recovery system may require the installation of a wastewater retention pit for the hot wastewater and the installation of heat recovery coils. For some washers, clean steam may be required to achieve disinfection. Decision-makers should be aware of any special requirements needed to operate these new system features. The cost or logistics to add such systems may turn out to be prohibitive and not support the benefits of adding these features to a unit.

With today’s energy costs on the rise, it warrants us all to take a closer look at our overall business. Have we evaluated the efficiencies of our process and the support equipment required to meet our goals? Is there a better, more economical solution to provide a residual savings year after year? There are plenty of reasons to consider the impact of water and utility reductions at the Washer source. The real energy cost savings, government acknowledgment through grants and tax incentives, and public recognition are just a few reasons to consider these high-efficient systems.