1. Page header
1.1 Branding
1.6 Breadcrumb
1.4 Search
1.2 Main navigation
1.3 First level
1.4 Further levels
3. Energy Costs and Humidification
Energy consumption
Besides investment and maintenance costs, energy costs must also be taken into account when comparing different humidification systems.
In an overall comparison, steam air humidification systems score least favourably in terms of energy and cost. Electrically heated steam humidifiers use around ten times more energy than cold atomiser systems, which has a significant impact on the cost-benefit ratio. Steam humidifiers also have the undesired effect of additional room heating due to "vaporisation".
Benefits of nozzle air humidification
Compressed air and high-pressure nozzle systems are far superior in terms of energy consumption. Nozzle systems that use compressed air to atomise water are extremely common. Despite the sophisticated technology, however, even these systems are not without their drawbacks when it comes to energy. In particular, the high compressed air consumption and the associated costs for energy, compressor maintenance and repairs make operating costs expensive. Nonetheless, the use of compressed air technology can be extremely cost effective, especially for smaller production halls (up to approx. 4000 m3). Compared with systems operated with compressed air, high-pressure air humidifiers incur only a fraction of the electricity costs and achieve a much greater atomiser humidification performance (max. 32 kg/h).
Adiabatic cooling effect
Another positive side effect of direct-room air humidification is the adiabatic evaporation cooling. A humidification output of 100 kg/h delivers approx. 63 kW of cooling power. This enables the room temperature to be reduced in the region of 2°C to 5°C, hence easing the load on the air conditioning systems in use.
Benefits of high-pressure air humidification:
|
|
|
