Home
Case Studies
Overview
Customer Solutions
< Warehouse/
Distribution
< Manufacturing Plant
< Retrofit
< Wastewater Plant
< Sports Facility
< Auto Service
< Aircraft Hangar
< Carwash
< Restaurant
< LEED/Green
Testimonials
< Energy Savings
< Lowest Total Costs
< 30 Year Customer
Comparison Studies
< Boilers
< Unit Heaters
< Air Turnover
< Infrared (Radiant)
< Direct-Fired
(100% MUA)
< Direct-Fired
(80/20 MUA)
Case Studies
Overview
Customer Solutions
< Warehouse/
Distribution
< Manufacturing Plant
< Retrofit
< Wastewater Plant
< Sports Facility
< Auto Service
< Aircraft Hangar
< Carwash
< Restaurant
< LEED/Green
Testimonials
< Energy Savings
< Lowest Total Costs
< 30 Year Customer
Building Study
Program
< U.S. Facility
< Canadian Facility
< Comparative Studies
< Retrofits
Comparison Studies
< Boilers
< Unit Heaters
< Air Turnover
< Infrared (Radiant)
< Direct-Fired
(100% MUA)
< Direct-Fired
(80/20 MUA)
Cambridge vs. Draw-Thru Make Up Air
(100% Outdoor Air - No Recirculation)
Distribution Center #1 |
 |
Distribution Center #2 |
||
 |
 |
|||
1.3 million ft2 x 36' high, R-19 Roof/R-10 Walls |
1.3 million ft2 x 36' high, R-19 Roof /R-10 Walls |
|||
|
Make-Up Air Heating System |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
Gas Cost |
Electric Cost |
 |
$ .75/therm |
$ .08/kwh |
$90,000 |
$1.00/therm |
$ .10/kwh |
$116,000 |
$1.25/therm |
$.12/kwh |
$155,000 |
Results:
The Cambridge Heating System used 36%less total energy.
If Distribution Center #2 had installed a high efficiency Cambridge System they could have saved