English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

A field test involving 104 houses was performed in Tulsa, Oklahoma, to measure the air-conditioning electricity consumption of low-income houses equipped with window air conditioners, the reduction in this electricity consumption attributed to the installation of energy conservation measures (ECMs) as typically installed under the Oklahoma Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP), and the reduction achieved by the replacement of low-efficiency window air conditioners with high-efficiency units and the installation of attic radiant barriers. Air-conditioning electricity consumption and indoor temperature were monitored weekly during the pre-weatherization period (June to September 1988) and post-weatherization period (May to September 1989). House energy consumption models and regression analyses were used to normalize the air-conditioning electricity savings to average outdoor temperature conditions and the pre-weatherization indoor temperature of each house. The average measured pre-weatherization air-conditioning electricity consumption was 1664 kWh/year ($119/year). Ten percent of the houses used less than 250 kWh/year, while another 10% used more than 3000 kWh/year. An average reduction in air-conditioning electricity consumption of 535 kWh/year ($38/year and 28% of pre-weatherization consumption) was obtained from replacement of one low-efficiency window air conditioner (EER less than 7.0) per house with a high-efficiency unit (EER greater than 9.0). For approximately the same cost, savings tripled to 1503 kWh/year ($107/year and 41% of pre-weatherization consumption) in those houses with initial air-conditioning electricity consumption greater than 2750 kWh/year. For these houses, replacement of a low-efficiency air conditioner with a high-efficiency unit was cost effective using the incremental cost of installing a new unit now rather than later; the average installation cost for these houses under a weatherization program was estimated to be $786. The general replacement of low-efficiency air conditioners (replacing units in all houses without considering pre-weatherization air-conditioning electricity consumption) was not cost effective in the test houses. ECMs installed under the Oklahoma WAP and installed in combination with an attic radiant barrier did not produce air-conditioning electricity savings that could be measured in the field test. The following conclusions were drawn from the study: (1) programs directed at reducing air-conditioning electricity consumption should be targeted at clients with high consumption to improve cost effectiveness; (2) replacing low-efficiency air conditioners with high-efficiency units should be considered an option in a weatherization program directed at reducing air-conditioning electricity consumption; (3) ECMs currently being installed under the Oklahoma WAP (chosen based on effectiveness at reducing space-heating energy consumption) should continue to be justified based on their space-heating energy savings potential only; and (4) attic radiant barriers should not be included in the Oklahoma WAP if alternatives with verified savings are available or until further testing demonstrates energy savings or other benefits in this type of housing

The Oklahoma Field Test: Air-Conditioning Electricity Savings from Standard Energy Conservation Measures, Radiant Barriers, and High-Efficiency Window Air Conditioners