Better Heat with Less Power
Among their independent test findings, Kansas State University concluded that:
• Power*e™ Glass windows substantially reduce the need for other heating systems.
• Power*e™ Glass produces more consistent and comfortable room conditions than typical natural gas heating systems.
• Power*e™ Glass heated zones complement natural gas and other conventional heating systems by reducing a building's heat load by up to 40%.
• Approximately 85% of the power to the Power*e™ Glass heats the interior space - regardless of the outside temperature.
• Power*e™ Glass stops virtually all conventional building heat loss through the heated glass.
The two results pictured show KSU's findings that a typical natural gas forced air system (below) rendered much of the room uncomfortable (red) and required 2.4 kWh during the test. The Power*e™ Glass system (above) maintained a more even comfortable temperature and used only 1.4 kWh.
KSU Studies
The National Gas Machinery Laboratory of Kansas State University is a leading independent organization regarding the advancement and testing of heating technologies.
KSU tested the Power*e™ Glass windows in 2007 and 2008 to quantify their performance and capability to maintain a constant room temperature of 70°F when the surrounding outside temperature was maintained at 10ºF, 20ºF, 30ºF and 40ºF.
The 2007 study was conducted in KSU's climate controlled chambers to measure the heating capability and power required of a typical electric heating systems and a Power*e Glass system.
ASHRAE 90.1 Working Group
• Multistory commercial office building
• Located in Chicago
• Weather zone - 5A'
• Winter
• Night
• Inside T = 70ºF
• Outside T = 10ºF
Using the 2007 information and other data, KSU's 2008 study used an ABOVE computer simulation of a multistory Chicago office building to compare a natural gas heating system and a Power*e™ Glass system. The ABOVE program is the most advanced building simulation system available based upon significant ASHRAE research and performs fundamental energy calculations for radiative, conductive and convective heat transfers. Using this simulation, KSU was able to reliably calculate for the occupied space the thermal comfort profile, energy consumption and temperature distribution.
Based on these studies, KSU found that:
• A typical natural gas forced air system rendered much of the room uncomfortable and required 2.4 kWh to overcome the heat loss through the window during the test. The Power*e™ Glass system maintained a more even comfortable temperature and used only 1.4 kWh.
• In comparison testing, natural gas forced air systems are not able to match the consistent comfort produced by Power*e™ Glass windows.
• Additionally, studies have found that upgrading to 90% or 95% efficient furnaces is not cost effective in many climates and that it may be more cost effective to upgrade to 80% efficient furnaces. In reaching this conclusion, consideration was given to average efficiencies of installed systems, duct losses, infiltration losses, new furnace standards and the impact of costs on upgrading systems to more efficient furnaces. (Electricity and Natural Gas Efficiency Improvements for Residential Gas Furnaces in the U.S, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California; http://ees.ead.lbl.gov/bibliography/electricity_and_natural_g)
