1

Analytical Product Design, Fall 2010

FINAL REPORT

Team 1, Section 001

Ankit Dhingra: dhingra Asha D’Cunha: adcunha

Mai Truong: maithitr

2

Table of Contents Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... 3 1.1 Definition of Need .............................................................................................................. 4 1.2 Proposed Market ................................................................................................................. 5 1.3 Environmental Efforts ........................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined. 1.4 Previous Designs ................................................................................................................. 5 1.4.1 Machine/Tumble Dryers ..................................................................................................... 5 1.4.2 Outdoor Hang-Dryers ......................................................................................................... 6 1.4.3 Indoor Hang-Dryers ............................................................................................................ 7 1.4.4 Drying Cabinets .................................................................................................................. 7 1.4.5 Other Relevant Patents ........................................................................................................ 8 1.4.6 Solar Drying Cabinet .......................................................................................................... 8 1.5 Design Objectives ............................................................................................................... 9 1.5.1 Performance Specifications ................................................................................................ 9 1.5.2 Design Process .................................................................................................................... 9 2.1 Alternative Concepts ......................................................................................................... 10 2.1.1 Design One ....................................................................................................................... 10 2.1.2 Design Two ....................................................................................................................... 10 2.1.3 Design Three ..................................................................................................................... 11 2.1.4 Design Four ....................................................................................................................... 11 2.1.5 Design Five ....................................................................................................................... 11 2.2 Concept Selection Process ................................................................................................ 11 2.3 Alpha Prototypes ............................................................................................................... 11 2.4 Beta Prototype ................................................................................................................... 12 3.1 Design Optimization ......................................................................................................... 14 3.2 Engineering Analysis ........................................................................................................ 14 3.2.1 Structural Analysis ............................................................................................................ 15 3.2.2 Thermal Analysis ............................................................................................................. 16 3.2.3 Fluid Flow analysis ........................................................................................................... 17 3.3 Design Optimization Model .............................................................................................. 18 3.4 Ergonomics ....................................................................................................................... 20 3.5 Sustainable Design ............................................................................................................ 21 3.6 Craftsmanship ................................................................................................................... 23 3.7 Emotional design .............................................................................................................. 23 4.1 Microeconomic Modeling: The producer’s Viewpoint .................................................... 24 5 Next Steps ...................................................................................................................... 32 Appendix A: Citations .................................................................................................................. 33 Appendix B: tables ........................................................................................................................ 36 Appendix C: cad and engineering drawings ................................................................................. 39 Appendix D: Previous Designs ..................................................................................................... 40 Appendix E: Engineering Analysis ............................................................................................... 44 Appendix F: Microeconomic analysis ........................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. Appendix G: other Documents ..................................................................................................... 60

3

Abstract The Solar Clothes Dryer is a simple device based on the air circulation mechanisms utilized in drying cabinets and the heating mechanisms used in solar cookers where methods of heat transfer such as conduction, convection and radiation would effectively dry the clothes. The unit consists of two parts, an inclined flow chamber and the drying box. In concept, heat is transferring through the black aluminum sheets (on the top of the unit’s drying box and incline flow chambers seen on the cover) heating the unit up to a desirable drying temperature of approximately 250-300◦F. A low energy consuming electrical blower is used as a means of forced convection, which would lead to higher air velocity. This hot air in turn effectively dries the clothes on a standard drying rack within two hours. The current state of the laundry industry has created an opportunity to capture a significant market segment that has rejected mechanical dryers as expensive, inefficient and damaging to clothing, and that primarily relies on natural hang drying for their clothing. Clothes lines and other hang drying methods subject those users to a lack of privacy, extremely long drying times and great dependency on weather. The solar clothes dryer proposed will offer a compromise solution, with faster dry times, low cost and superior energy efficiency. Five designs have been considered and one selected based on a set of 8 criteria. Two alpha and beta prototypes have been built in order to refine the selected design.

4

1. INTRODUCTION

The purpose of the final report is to conclude the analytical product design process behind the creation of the Solar Clothes Dryer building on our previously proposed concept and detailed design reviews and presenting a comprehensive Beta-Plus prototype. This reports details the final stages of in the development of the current design concept and the Beta-Plus prototype, the engineering and functionality analysis, the micro and macro economic analysis, the business plan and projected in the product development (if the product is chosen for funding). Our proposed solution will address the specified needs we selected and address the expectations that were set for the design and manufacturing stages in the product’s development while fitting in a budget of $300.

1.1 Definition of Need It’s a sunny, spring morning in Italy, and Maria has just finished washing her clothing. Now it’s time for her to set it out on the line to dry. You, see Maria, along with nearly 97 percent of Italy does not own a tumble dryer. Instead she dries her clothing the old fashion way, using a line and clips. After spending almost half an hour bending over straining her back to put her clothing on the line, she now has to wait the four plus hours it takes for everything to dry. Morning has now passed, and the afternoon has arrived, she goes out with her basket to collect her clothing only to see that the morning winds have blew some of clean clothing onto the ground and into the shrubs of the neighbors’ garden. Taking a closer look at her clothing, she sees that pollen and other small particles of debris has accumulated on them. If only there was a more efficient way for Maria to dry her clothing without having to spending hundreds of dollars on a high energy consuming machine.

Figure 1: Selected Solar Dryer Concept

For this reason we propose the generation of the “Solar Clothes Dryer.” This product will be able to satisfy the needs of the consumer. The solar clothes dryer will be able to eliminate the problems associated with the use of a traditional drying line, while still providing the same

5

results (clean, solar dried clothing). In addition, the dry time will be decreased and clothing with be secured in a private unit.

1.2 Proposed Market The proposed market for the solar clothes dryer will be residents of Western European Union, specifically Italy, France, Austria, and Spain. In these countries, the percentage of households owning tumble dryers is below 33 percent. In Italy, only three percent of residents own tumble dryers (see figure 2). In addition, these countries were chosen because they are considered to be “high-income developed countries.”

Figure 2: Owners of Tumble Dryers in the European Union

Our proposed markets are the 217.8 million households (averaging 2.3 people per household) in the combined countries of Italy, Austria, Spain and France. This is based on the 2010 population estimates [34]. Italy has the biggest market with a possible 56,347,960 households. Austria has a target of 6,407,045 households; Spain is 36,739,712 and France with 43,394,821 households. Selling each unit at $175, a predicted profit of $6.78 million should be achieved at the end of five years.

1.3 Previous Designs The most commonly used devices for personal clothes drying currently in the market fall into one of three categories. Machine dryers are most popular in the United States, while outside hang-drying options like clothes lines and indoor hang-drying options like drying racks are more prevalent in Europe and in developing countries (cite market statistics). A fourth category of device has only recently been introduced into the personal dryer market – drying cabinets. It is this solution that our product is most closely related to. Hence it will receive extra attention below.

1.4.1 Machine/Tumble Dryers Machine dryers, also called tumble dryers, consist of a mechanism to heat air using convection, a component to circulate air and a rotating drum that mixes and shifts the wet clothing. As the

6

heated hair is pushed through the drum, it evaporates the moisture from the clothing. The movement of the drum ensures that the hot hair touches all articles of clothing evenly. Tumble dyers have two characteristics that separate them into four categories. First, air is heated using one of two methods. Electric dryers pass the air through hot coils, while gas dryers utilize a gas burner (California Energy Commission, 2010). Second, one of two techniques mentioned below is used to remove evaporated moisture. Traditional dryers suck in cool, dry air from the outside and exhaust hot, moist air. “Ventless” dryers recycle the same circulated air but pass the air through a condenser to remove moisture ("Clothes Dryer”, 2010).

The major advantage of machine dryers is dry time. Typically, these dryers will dry a full load of laundry in less than one hour. Machine dryers can also save the user preparation time, as each piece of laundry need not be hung individually when the full load is dumped into the dryer together.

Advantages

The constant motion that the tumbler imposes on clothing increases wear, while the heated air can over-dry clothes, resulting in shrinkage or other damage. For these reasons, many believe that mechanical dryers reduce the average lifespan of clothing. Further, mechanical dryers are an expensive solution. In the United States, the units themselves can range from $300 to over $2,000, with many popular machines falling near the $600 price point ("Dryer buying guide," 2010). In addition, the cost of the energy required to run electric dryers tends to average near $85 per year, with gas dryers costing about half that much (California Energy Commission, 2010). The environmental impact of these dryers is also significant, as they produce 2 kilograms of carbon dioxide emissions per load (Ball, 2009).

Drawbacks

1.4.2 Outdoor Hang-Dryers Outdoor hang-drying appliances can take many forms, from umbrella shaped units to simple clothes lines. However, they all include hanging space comprised of horizontal poles, wires or ropes, secured to a standing frame or other stationary objects. To evaporate moisture from wet clothing, these dryers depend on heat generated by radiation from the sun along with wind.

In many ways these drying solutions offer the opposite advantages of a machine dryer. Outdoor hang-dryers require no energy. Their initial purchase price ranges from extremely inexpensive to free, and there are no expenses associated with their operation. Outdoor hang-dryers produce no carbon emissions. Further, because line dried clothes are not exposed to high heat or to constant motion, it is reasonable to expect that they will last longer and experience less wear on average.

Advantages

The performance of outdoor hang-dryers is extremely dependant on the weather. Depending on temperature and humidity, dry times can range from under an hour to over six. In some climates, outdoor hang dryers are simply not viable during parts of the year, and any precipitation will make drying impossible for that day. Further, outdoor hang drying exposes clothing to pollutants that would not be an issue indoors. Dirt, foreign smells and, if you’re particularly unlucky, bird feces all pose potential issues. Privacy and appearance pose another challenge. Many believe

Drawbacks

7

that the presence of clothes lines and other drying equipment reduces the aesthetic appeal of a property or neighborhood. For this reason, many communities in the United States have banned clothes lines.

1.4.3 Indoor Hang-Dryers Indoor hang-drying appliances function very similarly to outdoor hang-dryers. They typically take the form of a rack, with hanging space comprised of poles or wires, supported by a metal or wooden frame. Indoor drying racks are typically designed to be foldable and easy to move. Of course, clothes lines also make for a viable indoor dryer.

Unlike outdoor drying, indoor drying is not dependant on the weather and clothing is protected from pollutants. At the same time, it retains most of the advantages of outdoor drying. No energy is required, the unit purchases price is typically low, and no carbon emissions are produced. Further, the clothing is protected from the wear and tear associated with machine dryers.

Advantages

With no direct sunlight or other means to heat clothing above room temperature, and no wind or other air flow mechanism to aid in evaporation, indoor drying is usually the slowest of all methods. Even worse, depending on the effectiveness of the ventilation where the dryer is located, the moisture introduced by wet laundry creates the possibility of mold and mildew growth.

Drawbacks

1.4.4 Drying Cabinets Like traditional machine dryers, drying cabinets include electric powered coils that use convection to heat the air and a mechanism that circulates the air through the appliance. Hot, dry air is pumped into the drying chamber, and moist air is exhausted. Unlike traditional machine dryers however, the air is not blown through a rotating drum. Instead, it is circulated within a rectangular cabinet equipped with shelves and hooks, on which wet laundry is hang dried. Until recently, drying cabinets could only be found in European Laundromats and apartment laundry rooms ("Drying Cabinet," 2010). Their size made them impractical for laundry rooms in most private homes, both in Europe and in the United States. However, a personal drying cabinet was introduced in the US in 2004 by Maytag, dubbed the Neptune Drying Center (Beatty, 2003). It combined a traditional tumble dryer with a small attached cabinet for delicate clothing (US Patent Number 6928752). Since then, the increased size of American homes created a small market for stand-alone personal drying cabinets. Home appliance manufactures Asko and Staber Industries each introduced such a luxury product, with both being about the size of a small refrigerator ("Stabler drying cabinet," 2007).

With no tumbling and typically lower drying temperatures than tumble dryers, drying cabinets preserve clothing and prevent wear. They also minimize wrinkles, by drying clothing in a pre-hung position, at a high enough temperature to create steam. Further, dry times are fast, and can be more closely compared to those of tumble dryers than indoor drying racks. In some ways, drying cabinets are a compromise between tumble dryers and indoor hang-dryers.

Advantages

8

Drying cabinets have many of the same drawbacks as tumble dryers. The units themselves are extremely expensive, with prices averaging over $1,000 ("Stabler drying cabinet," 2007). Electric costs, while substantially lower than tumble dryers, are still significant, as are carbon emissions. In addition, the size of the drying cabinets, along with the installation requirements imposed by the intake and exhaust pipes, make it a difficult appliance for most people to own. Finally, because the clothing in the cabinet remains stationary while the heated air originates from a single source, there is great potential for uneven drying unless appropriate accommodations are made. Note: We do not have precise figures for the electricity usage, operating temperatures or carbon emissions for drying closets. Additional research will be required.

Drawbacks

Whirlpool and Maytag have been granted patents for technologies that more evenly distribute hot air within the drying cabinet (US Patent Number 6973740 & 6910292). Both feature a distribution plenum with nozzles that increase in size the further they get from the air source. We will consider these concepts closely for our design, as uneven distribution of air is a problem we expect to face.

Innovations & Enhancements

Grimm Brothers Plastics Corp. has also been granted a patent for their BreezeDry product (US Patent Number 6868621). The BreezeDry enables users to chose whether they want to dry with air from outside or inside of the building. It is also more energy efficient as it relies on air at an ambient temperature to handle the drying. While our product design includes a mechanism for increasing air temperature and it is intended for outdoor rather than indoor use, it is this design that represents our closest competitor.

1.4.5 Other Relevant Patents Over the past thirty years, numerous patents have been filed that relate to the use of solar energy to dry clothing. Most recently, patent number 5809663 described a portable clothes dryer with a dark colored hamper that would collect heat generated by radiation from the sun. An earlier patent, number 4514914, described a solar energy “heat collector”, exposed to the sun’s radiation (US Patent Number 5809663 & 4514914). That heat collector would warm fluids within a heat transferring coil, and those coils would in turn heat the air within the drying chamber. While both of these concepts will be investigated, the first more closely resembles the method of heat transfer that we intend to utilize for our product.

1.4.6 Solar Drying Cabinet As detailed above, there remains a clear need for innovation in the laundry drying space. No solution yet exists that balances speed of drying, protection of clothing, energy efficiency and cost. Tumble dryers are fast, yet they are expensive, energy consumer and damaging to clothing. Outdoor hang-dryers are energy efficient and inexpensive, but overly dependent on good weather and unattractive. Indoor hang-dryers are exceptionally slow drying. Even drying cabinets, which better balance these competing priorities, are so expensive and bulky that they are not an option for most people.

9

Our solution will build upon the strengths of drying cabinets, and will introduce two innovations. The product will be designed to be placed outdoors, eliminating the installation barrier to use. It will also feature a solar heating mechanism, keeping energy consumption low while shortening dry times. With these innovations included, we intend to target a price point below $200, one tenth that of an indoor drying cabinet.

1.4 Design Objectives

1.5.1 Performance Specifications In order to develop a comprehensive design concept, we first created functional boundaries. These boundaries have specific criteria to which the design must adhere enabling us to gage the success of the product after it has been manufactured. Below is an itemized summary for our design objectives:

• Size

•

: The tentative size of the box is comparable to the currently available mechanical dryers (LG - DLE2301W LG 7.3 Cu. Ft. XL Capacity Electric Dryer – 38-11/16 x 27 x 30 inches). In addition to the box, we intend to incorporate an inclined flow chamber, for increased surface area which is exposed to the sun. The dimensions of the flow chamber are 34 x 34 x 43 inches, where 66 inches is the length of the inclined portion [19]. Storage capacity

•

: With respect to the outer size of the box and the inner air flow chambers in the box, the storage capacity comes around 18 cubic feet, which is relatively large as compared to the mechanical dryers (4-8 cubic feet). A drying rack would be placed inside the box [19]. Dry time

•

: Taking into consideration the surface area exposed to the sun and presence of reflectors, the dry time should be in the range of 3-5 hours per load. Temperature

•

: A maximum temperature of 300-392°F (150-200°C) can be achieved inside the box, assuming that in a solar cooker, the temperature reached is in the same range. Noise levels

•

: Two 3 x 3 inch fan [18] would be used, whose noise level are in the range of 60-70 decibels. Power consumption

• Cost:

: An 18V Black and Decker cordless blower would consume approximately 3 W of power (3.04W/hr) and a rechargeable battery will power the blower. In comparison, an electric dryer consumes 4000W of electricity and a gas clothes dryer consumes 300-400W electricity.

o Target unit cost: $200 o Blower: $30 o Body and tubes:

Plastic:12 x 12 Square inch sheet per foot= $3.01 Balsa wood: 4-1/2 inch rectangular strip= $7.86 Aluminum: sheet thickness 0.16 inches, length 48 inches, width 36 inches

=$24.35

1.5.2 Design Process To ensure success in product development the following design process has been implemented in the given order leading to the subsequent activity:

1. Suitable materials has be selected for the construction of the prototype.

10

2. A detailed computer aided design model listing out the dimensions and then showing the 3-d contours was created in SolidWorks 2010 software.

3. Structural or force analysis was completed on the exterior surfaces and joints to determine the strength of the unit.

4. Heat transfer analysis was used to study the transfer of heat energy via radiation, conduction and convection throughout the unit and also used in the optimization model for the thickness of the insulation and aluminum sheets

5. Fluid flow analysis was completed on the air circulation through the tubes into the main chamber.

6. The optimized design will next be fabricated into a working prototype. 7. Inputs will then be taken from the prototype to improve the model taking into mind the

user of the product. 8. A final “Beta-Plus” prototype will then be manufactured to showcase in the design expo.

2. CONCEPT GENERATION

2.1 Alternative Concepts

2.1.1 Design One The first concept was generated with just the basic functionality of a solar cooker in mind. The design was very simple utilizing the idea of radiation and convection to dry the clothes. The concept contained the following components: two main compartments that fit on top of each other, two tubes on either side of the box, and four reflectors on top of the unit (See Appendix D, Figure 1). The top box would be a plain black, enclosed box with four reflectors attached to the top to focus the sun’s rays on the top of the box. On the side of the top box would be a single hole containing a fan that would be driving the hot air collected in the top compartment (through radiation) down to the bottom through plastic tubes. The box on the bottom contained the drying rack with clothes that would be organized with the heaviest clothes (requiring the most drying time or heat) on top. Through convection the hot air circulating through the bottom box would effectively dry the clothes within a few hours in a very economically and environmentally friendly way.

An addition to the concept was the idea of security for the unit. Considering that the unit would be sitting outside in the open, the unit itself would be bolted or attached to the ground in some way with the drying rack on an additional removal unit on wheels. This rack could be wheel out to the unit after the user removed and organized the clothes on the rack straight out of the washing machine.

We shifted our focus to a new concept when the ventilation system for design one was recognized to be non-existent.

2.1.2 Design Two The second design was generated simultaneously with the first with the same basis. Structural the two designs are practically the same with the exception of the air transfer. In the second design the tubing would be replaced a permeable film (thin plastic sheet with nano-holes evenly distributed across the surface) that separated the top box from the bottom. The hot air would circulate once again by convection through the film and dry the clothes. This design was

11

desirable because it was aesthetically pleasing considering the more compact appearance and cheaper to manufacture because it would be using less material. The concept was abandoned however due to the lack of ventilation and the impracticality of the film’s life expectancy and the overall product maintenance by the consumer.

2.1.3 Design Three The third design was generated based on a common food dehydrator. The design utilized a row of black tubes that would heat the air as it drew it into the system (see figure 2a). The air would dry the clothes and the exhaust on the top of the unit would ensure no condensation on the top surface (see figure 2.b). The design was very appealing, but aesthetically not very pleasing. In addition, after determining the required size for the mechanism to operate as intended to be too large, the unit was deemed impractical to fit the set target of consumers.

2.1.4 Design Four The fourth design stemmed from the third is effectively a more organized version keeping in mind, air flow and packaging. Air tubes were incorporated into the box, so that the hot air would be released at the bottom of the box. To enhance packaging, a foldable version of the inclined heating apparatus was thought off (See Appendix D Figures 2a,2b).

2.1.5 Design Five The most efficient model was created from the compellation of the third and fourth. Solar reflectors were placed on the box as well as on the inclined heating apparatus, concentrating the sunlight on the top panels (which were painted black) and utilizing radiation to maintain a high level of heat transfer to dry the clothes. To improve the air flow, a mini casing fan was placed at the entrance of the heating apparatus and on the top part of the box. The air flow chamber were designed in such a way that the air would pass over the maximum surface area possible (high heat transfer rate). In addition, exhaust vents were also provided to minimize the moisture content inside the box (See Appendix D Figures 4a, 4b).

2.2 Concept Selection Process Several conceptual solutions were evaluated and developed relative to the stated objectives. Many of these schematics were created before one concept was selected that best fit the design objectives. After design criteria analysis (Pugh chart), one of the concepts was chosen as the most promising, with explicit justification for this choice.

2.3 Alpha Prototypes Before determining the most promising product, two prototypes were constructed. The first prototype (see Appendix D, figure 5) was constructed based of the first design concept (see figure 6) using cheap rapid prototyping tools and materials (modeling clay, sample vinyl strips, foam board and Popsicle sticks) to merely simulate the basic structure of the unit. The alpha prototype was created from cardboard representing a more sophisticated structure and appearance of the rapid-prototype model. This model was then scaled up further based on the fifth design with more precise measurements from the CAD engineering drawing (see Appendix C, C.1).

12

Out of all the designs developed the fifth deign was selected as the most viable and efficient system based on the user preferences, design criteria and cost analysis (see figure 1 and Appendix D, figure 6). The fifth design is most appealing because it theoretically has the fastest dry time (3-5 hours), uniform heat distribution coming from 8 vents (not visible in the prototype because it was the most recent addition), is more compact relative to the other designs and utilizes surface area exposed to the sun’s radiation most efficiently and therefore is the most cost effective. Below are re-iterated design objectives specialized to the fifth design:

• Size

•

: The entire unit is approximately 23 x 28 x 48 inches. The dimensions of the flow chamber are 28 x 5 x 50 inches, where 50 inches is the length of the inclined portion. The reflectors on the top are of various dimensions (see Appendix C, figure C.1). Storage capacity

• : approximately 18 cubic feet

Dry time•

: 3-5 hours per load. Temperature

• : 300-392°F (150-200°C)

Noise levels•

: 60-70 decibels with a 3 x 3 inch fan Power consumption

• : 2.04W/hr

Target unit cost

2.4 Beta Prototype

: $100

In constructing the beta prototype, a scaled down unit was necessary due of issues that arose to unforeseen circumstances. The plywood originally picked for the prototype cracked and deformed so the prototype needed reconstruction. In addition, the new scaled down version would support a conservation of material for the Beta Plus prototype. Hence, the new scaled down version was created with medium density fiber wood boards for the body, aluminum sheets were used for heat transfer, plexi-glass on the top surface for heat retention, and reflective insulation as reflector panels with nails, nuts, and bolts supporting various joints of the body (see figure 2).

Figure 3: Beta Prototype

13

Simple assembly is required for the use of the unit when securing the incline flow chamber to the drying box. Once the unit is together, clothing can easily be placed on the rack, and the racks should be placed inside the unit. Once in, the unit’s door can be secured with the lock provided. Dry time ranges between 3 hours and 45 minutes depending on the articles of interest.

2.5 Beta-Plus Prototype The Beta-Plus prototype was created with the intention of building it at a one-to one-scale, however, in order to fit the standard drying rack, the model was created approximately one and a half times the intended size of the product (only in the vertical direction). Plywood was utilized for the body (for cost savings), black aluminum sheets were used for inserts inside the box and on the incline flow chamber for the heat transfer throughout the unit, and plexi-glass was used on the top surface for heat retention, and reflective insulation as reflector panels with nails, nuts, and bolts supporting various joints of the body (see figure 3).

Figure 4: Beta-Plus Prototype

As with the Beta prototype, simple assembly is required for the use of the unit when securing the incline flow chamber to the drying box. The incline (for just this prototype) hangs on hooks securing it to the drying box. Once the unit is together, clothing can easily be placed on the rack, and inserted into the unit where the door can be secured with the lock provided. Utilizing the sun, the clothing should be dry within one hour and 45 minutes (drying a standard rack’s worth of clothing). 3. ENGINEERING AND FUNCTIONALITY ANALYSIS

14

3.1 Design Optimization The following engineering design objectives of the Solar Clothes Dryer will be the focus in the optimization model:

1. Temperature: The temperature inside the box depends on the velocity of the air flowing inside the box (convection currents), the heat flux from the sun, amount of heat flux reflected on the top surface of the inclined flow surface and the drying box (via reflectors).

2. Dry Time: The dry time for the clothes on the drying rack depends on the temperature inside the drying box, the air velocity and the position of the air vents with respect to the clothes hung on the drying rack

3. Strength: The strength of the structure depends on the material selected, loads, fixtures, and dimensions of the structure

4. Weight: The mass of the structure varies with the density of the material and dimensions of various components of the product.

In order to optimize these design objectives, several components needed to be identified. Parameters were set which were dimensions of the drying rack and the specifications of the flow rate of the blower (air source). In addition, variables were determined for the design problem to be the dimensions (length, width, height and thickness)of the inclined flow chamber and the drying box as well as the thickness of the aluminum box.

3.2 Engineering Analysis Several different computer aided analysis tools and hand calculations were utilized in order to quantify the various constraints and objectives involved in the design problem. The analysis was then divided into three sections: Structural, Thermal and Fluid Flow Analyses.

All the engineering analysis was based upon the materials that were selected for the product; while considering the materials, CES material selection software was used to get to a final conclusion. Initially, low alloy steel, polyester (thermosetting plastic) and plywood had been selected for the structure. The final decision was only made after extensive research into materials properties like density, price, Yield Strength, Tensile Strength, maximum operating temperature, recyclability and environmental impact was completed.

The completed research yielded predicted results. Out of the three materials, low alloy steel had the highest density while plywood had the least. However, plywood was the cheapest while the price of polyester was tenfold that of plywood. Furthermore, in terms of material life, the plywood degraded faster over time. In comparing the strength of all the three materials, low alloy steel had the highest yield strength at 460 MPa . In addition, low alloy steel allowed for the highest operating temperature due to its material properties (grain structure) while also allowing for recyclability. In conclusion, due to the material properties and price, low alloy steel was chosen. All the engineering analysis explained below are based on low alloy steel, grade 4130. The material selected for the inner box was aluminum (1060-H12) due to its high thermal conductivity and high absorptivity for heat transfer throughout the unit. (Appendix E, Table 1)

15

3.2.1 Structural Analysis The static force analysis was done on SolidWorks 2010 computer aided design (CAD) analysis and simulation software package, which was a convenient tool for finite element analysis. In order to successfully complete this analysis, however, the following assumptions were made to simplify the design problem:

1. The unit was treated as one whole part rather than an assembly

2. The drying box and inclined flow chamber were isolated and were considered as one system.

3. Other parts such as aluminum box, reflectors, plexi-glass were not included in the CAD model which was used to perform static force analysis, these were replaced by input forces being applied on the system (defined below)

The base of the system was constrained using fixtures, and in addition to that a load of 100N was applied on the top surface (to take into account the mass of the plexi-glass and the reflectors), another load of 100N was applied on the bottom surface of the box to take into account the mass of the drying rack and the inner aluminum box.

Figure 5: Static Force Analysis determining the yield stress

Similarly a force of 100N was applied on the top and bottom faces of the inclined part of the box. The dimensions of the drying box were taken as 34 inches x 34 inches x 43 inches x 0.04 inches (length x width x height x thickness) and the inclined flow chamber dimensions were 58 inches x 34 inches x 2 inches x 0.04 inches (length x width x height x thickness). After performing the static force analysis, the inference from the results suggested that the structure was safe and did not fail in yield. The value of the maximum stress was 13.15 MPa , which was well below the yield stress 460 MPa (see figure 2). The value of the displacement was determined to be insignificant in comparison to the dimensions of the box. (Appendix E)

16

3.2.2 Thermal Analysis In order to study the heat flow through the unit, analysis was attempted on SolidWorks 2010, Abaques CAE, and ANSYS computer software packages using the completed CAD model. Unfortunately, due to time constraints, and restrictions on the learning curve, thermal analysis via software was unsuccessful. Considering the importance of the analysis, however, hand calculations were done to better understand the motion of the heat flow across the unit during operation and assurance and justification were given to the basic functionality of the system. With the need for remedial analysis tools, simplification was also necessary thus, many assumptions were made with proper justification. The heat analysis was also necessary for the engineering optimization from a materials standpoint. For example, a function was determined to ensure the proper thickness of insulation used inside the unit to properly minimize the heat lost through the walls of the unit. More importantly, functions were created to determine the necessary aluminum sheet’s thickness needed to raise and possibly maximize the operating temperature inside the unit to dry the clothes (see justification and equations determined in Appendix E, Section E.1, E.2).

Figure 6: Drying Box Thermal Analysis breakdown

From a very basic standpoint, the flow of heat ideally occurs in the following manner; the aluminum panels on the top surfaces of the unit are first heated via radiation heat transfer from the sun’s heat flux. The heated sheet metal then transfers the energy through conduction and convection through the metal and into the air circulating in the incline chamber. Through forced convection from the fan source, the heat is pushed through the chamber into the drying box where the air circulates around the outer case of the box and enters the inner chamber through the vents in the aluminum siding. In addition, heat transfer through conduction and convection once again takes place through the top and side surfaces inside the drying box adding to the heat in the circulating air heating and drying the clothes. The operating temperature inside the interior chamber of the box should ideally be close to the temperature of the top surface of the aluminum

17

covers of the unit. Unfortunately but realistically, heat loss does occur at several points throughout the system. Heat is first lost to the air on the outside surface of the unit, at the ventilation points in the inner chamber and minimally through the walls of the unit itself (see figure 4). Cellulose insulation covering the inner surfaces of the unit minimizes such heat lost (which is justified in Appendix E, Section E.2). First, the unit was broken up into two components, the incline chamber and the drying box. But for both units, steady state, one dimensional flow with adiabatic insulated bottom surfaces was assumed in order to simplify the energy balance need to be placed on each control volume. In addition, both units assumed to be affected by heat flux from the Sun at 350 W/m2. Once energy balances were placed on each piece the temperature on the side of each unit was determined to ensure proper heat transfer had occurred and the temperature of the inside was raised from its initial ambient temperature (see appendix E.2, figure 2). The function that was used to determine the temperature was then extracted and used in the optimization model to determine the best thickness of the aluminum.

3.2.3 Fluid Flow analysis The fluid flow analysis was performed to study the air flow patterns inside the drying box. The analysis was done on Gambit/Fluent Flow Analysis software package. To simply the model, a small box, signifying the velocity inlet, was placed instead of the inclined flow chamber. Another rectangular box was placed diagonally opposite to the velocity inlet box, indicating the pressure outlet.

A 2-dimensional computer aided model was first created in Gambit. The model had three parts to it. First part was the outer structure (including the velocity inlet and pressure outlet), second part was an inner box, which had nine air vents, four vents placed on each side of the inner box and a vent placed on the top. The third part of the model was an empty space inside the drying box, signifying the area where drying rack had to be placed. Air-flow patterns were studied in this area to determine the optimum number of vents, keeping in mind even heating around the drying rack. A face mesh was created on the outer box. The interval count of the mesh was high inside the box compared to the outer box (since our aim was to study the air distribution patter inside the box). Each and every edge of the model, (except the velocity inlet and pressure outlet) was assigned the boundary condition “wall” (see figure 4).

18

Figure 7: Air flow pattern study through meshing the surfaces of the drying box

This mesh was exported to Fluent 6.1 software where an air flow rate at the velocity inlet was assumed to be 1 cubic feet per minute (as indicated by the manufacturer of the blower). Since, only the air flow patter had to be studied, convection (temperature) wasn’t taken into account. The pressure at the pressure outlet was taken as atmospheric pressure (1atm). The flow was assumed to be turbulent since the Reynolds number was greater than 4000. Leaving rest of the conditions as default, the model was calculated (Appendix E.3). The velocity vectors signified that the number of vents was determined to be appropriate.

3.3 Design Optimization Model The primary objective for the design was to minimize the dry time and the mass of the solar clothes dryer. The dry time depends on the temperature inside the drying box and the air flow pattern. The goal was also to maximize the surface area exposed to sun, since the temperature inside the box depends on the solar flux (assumed to be constant), the thickness of the aluminum sheets and the surface area exposed to sun (to make the problem simpler, dry time wasn’t included in the optimization model, since it is directly proportional to the surface area exposed to sun). On the other hand, the remaining surface area of the product has to be minimized since it is directly proportional to heat loss (high amount of heat loss leads to less temperature inside the drying box, hence high dry time, which is undesirable). In summary, the design objectives of the design problem to be manipulated in the design optimization model are as follows:

19

1. Mass of the solar clothes dryer: The total mass of our product was the sum of masses of the sheet metal outer drying box, sheet metal outer inclined flow chamber, inner aluminum drying box and inner aluminum inclined flow chamber box.

2. Surface area exposed to Sun: the top surface area of both the drying box and the inclined flow chamber would add up to give the total surface area exposed to sun

3. Remaining surface area: The remaining surface area was calculated by subtracting the surface area exposed to the sun from the total surface area.

Additionally, with the model, the (as mentioned above) are also set for the design problem to be the dimensions of the drying box, inclined flow chamber and the aluminum box (length x width x height x thickness) where the width of the incline flow chamber was dependent on the length of the drying box and the thickness of both components were the same.

The mass of the aluminum box was calculated assuming that it was made out of aluminum sheets. The length and width of these sheets were dependent on the dimensions of the drying box/ inclined flow chamber, though thickness was a variable (see table 1 for all variables).

Table 1: Variables to be considering in optimization

Taking into account the results of engineering analysis, various parameters, space limitations, availability, constraints were put on the dimensions of the product. In addition to that, constraints were also put on objective functions to find a optimum solution. The lower constraints on the dimensions were set according to the parameters and the engineering analysis, for example the thickness of aluminum had a lower constraint of 0.01 inch, because below that value the heat loss will exceed the heat input. The upper constraints on the dimensions were put keeping in mind the space restraints of the product.

20

Table 2: Engineering Optimization Objective Summary

The design problem with its two objects was optimized utilizing the solver function in Microsoft Excel. Four design scenarios were formulated, two for each objective function. In the first and third iteration addressed the minimization of the mass of the product, keeping constraints on the surface area exposed to sun. In the second and fourth iteration, the surface area exposed to sun was maximized, giving an upper bound to the value of mass. Each scenario generated a different set of value for the objective function. The results of scenario III were taken as final value, since it was the best trade-off between the surface area and weight and had the least number of binding constraints. In conclusion, the mass of the product was reduced by 5% and the surface area exposed to the sun was maximized by 13% while the mass of the unit was optimized at 150 lb with a remaining surface area of 3535 inch2 (Appendix E)

3.4 Ergonomics Ergonomics or human factors play a very crucial role in designing a product, especially consumer products like solar clothes dryer, which will be used daily. An average homeowner would use this product couple of times a week, hence the dryer was designed taking into mind the interaction of the user with the product.

Firstly, the functionality of the product was analyzed. To facilitate the use of this product, the front door has an instructional page with step by step points to use the solar clothes dryer. The blower uses rechargeable batteries, thereby saving time and effort of the user, who otherwise had to plug in mechanical dryers to the electricity outlet. The on/off switch was placed on the junction where the inclined flow chamber goes into the drying box. The handle of the front door of the box was placed on the top left corner of the drying box. These decisions were made considering that the height of average human (of any percentile) would be more than (4’11” ~ 59 inches) [33] and that the maximum height of the drying box is 43 inches (see figure 5).

In terms of describing the sensory interaction of the user with the product, thermal analysis suggested that the temperature inside the drying box would be around 150◦C (300◦F). Thus, cellulose insulation was provided between the aluminum interior box and the sheet metal exterior box, so that the user accidently doesn’t burn their hand. In addition to the above design

21

modifications, a small ramp was provided at the entrance of the drying box to facilitate the installation of the drying rack inside the drying box.

Figure 8: maximum height of the dryer in comparison to an average human's height

In addition to user interaction with the unit, user reaction to the unit was also taken into consideration. With initial testing with a standard blower at 70 decibels, the sound level was found to be undesirable for the user. Hence, high noise levels of the blowers will be reduced by incorporating a glass wool layer inside the blower casing. Glass wool is one of the best insulators of noise and is preferred over other sound insulators because of its low cost and fine appearance.

3.5 Sustainable Design With the growing concerns of global warming, o-zone depletion and other harmful phenomenon-taking place due to anthropogenic emissions, the designers are putting more effort to make their design sustainable, reducing the environmental impact. One of the unique selling points of the solar clothes dryer is that it consumes relatively less electricity in comparison to electric or gas dryers and it uses renewable solar energy to dry clothes enabling users to save a lot of money on electricity cost and reduce their carbon footprint. The structure of the product was made out of sheet metal (low alloyed steel), which in comparison to glass fiber reinforced plastic has a less environmental impact. All potential materials were compared on SimaPro LCA software, using a metric indicator EDIP 2003 (Appendix E). The single score of the EDIP metric showed that Low alloyed steel had a score of 8.5, whereas glass fiber reinforced plastic had a score of above 41 (see figure 6). The EDIP 2003 metric based its score on various factors like ozone depletion potential, global warming potential, waste, eutrophication and toxicity. Similar results were produced, when Eco-indicator metric was used in place of EDIP. The damage assessment results of Eco-indicator showed that plastic was more carcinogenic and had more climate change potential than sheet metal (Appendix E)

22

Figure 9: The EDIP metric scores the various materials for sustainable design

The product was designed in such a way that the drying box had two parts to it, outer sheet metal box and an inner aluminum box. The aluminum box was bolted on to the base of the sheet metal box. This would ease assembly/disassembly of the box, and reduce production and recycling costs.. At End of life (EOL) of the product, aluminum can be recycled and the rest of the box can be reused for other purposes like storage. To save material, design optimization was used to minimize the weight of the product, keeping in mind the strength of the material, hence preventing over dimensioning.

The inclined flow chamber can be disassembled from the drying box, this would greatly reduce the packaging and transportation costs because less space would be required to transport the final product. This would also decrease the production cost, as the users themselves would be able to assemble the inclined flow chamber to the drying box.

To cut down on machining and production steps, the design was kept fairly simple and rectangular.. In addition to that, while manufacturing the outer box of the dryer, bending rather than welding would be used to shape the sheet metal, this would greatly reduce the air emissions in joining.

The blower is powered by rechargeable batteries rather than throw-away batteries. Ordinary batteries would increase the amount of waste in the landfills and ultimately would contribute to

23

hazardous waste. Moreover, rechargeable batteries would save time, which would have spent in replacing the throw-away batteries.

3.6 Craftsmanship Throughout the design modeling phase, craftsmanship of the product was taken into consideration. It has been divided into three different categories below:

1. Aesthetics: User’s first interaction with the product is dependent on its look, shape and size. The outside structure of the inclined flow chamber was designed in way as to maintain continuity between the blower and the chamber. All the edges of the product were rounded as to give a smooth finish. The user’s would be able to choose between, several color combinations available to them.

2. Safety: The inner aluminum box wouldn’t be visible to the user, when the drying box door is opened to keep the clothes on the drying rack. Safety of the user should be a priority, when designing a product. The solar clothes dryer was designed in a way to minimize the wiring, the blower was powered by rechargeable batteries. Cellulose insulation was provided between the aluminum inner box and the sheet metal outer box to prevent high temperature on the outer surface of the product (which could burn/injure hands of the user).

3. Functionality: A small red LED light was provided besides the on/off switch, which would signify if the product is in operation or not. In addition to that, the noise of the fan would indicate that the product is working (though the noise wouldn’t cross the decibel limits, thus causing inconvenience to the user). As already mentioned, an instructional page would be present on the door of the drying box, to help users operate the solar clothes dryer.

3.7 Emotional design Considering the Solar Clothes Dryer is used so frequently, it is important to consider the various uses for the unit. For example, the product may be operated by users of different age, culture and profession and since clothes are an essential part of anyone’s life, and washing, drying them is of utmost importance to many people, the user will value the product as a part of their wardrobe. The Solar Clothes Dryer will be more of a utilitarian product rather than a social or a hedonistic one.

Since the shape of our product resembles a solar panel and uses renewable energy, a user will inevitable associate the product with it’s the connotation behind the name, providing them with normative pleasure. The unit will bring them satisfaction in knowing that they are saving the environment by using this product. A scented filter of various flavors will also be incorporated in the product, ensure a pleasant aroma in the clothes after they dry. This option enables users to feel empowered by the control or involvement they have with the product.

Inevitably, the unit may cause some displeasure, since the drying time would be relatively longer than that of a mechanical dryer. However, the large structure of the solar clothes dryer will also be a symbol of dominance. Some of the characteristics associated with emotional design are listed in the table below:

24

Table 3: Emotional Design Characteristics

4. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS AND BUSINESS PLAN

4.1 Microeconomic Modeling: The producer’s Viewpoint In order to develop a good business plan it is crucial that proper focus be given to the economic realities associated with producing and selling a product by modeling how the design decisions will affect sales, price and costs.

The primary objective for the design from san engineering standpoint was to minimize the dry time and the mass of the solar clothes dryer. The dry time that depended on the temperature inside the drying box and the air flow pattern. In addition, maximize the surface area exposed to sun, since the temperature inside the box depends on the solar flux (assumed to be constant), the thickness of the aluminum sheets and the surface area exposed to sun (to make the problem simpler, dry time wasn’t included in the optimization model, since it is directly proportional to the surface area exposed to sun). Finally, the remaining surface area of the product has to be minimized since it is directly proportional to heat loss (high amount of heat loss leads to less temperature inside the drying box, hence high dry time, which is undesirable).

The surface area and mass were the two main design characteristics chosen due to the fact that ideally, the surface area must be maximized in order to provide the unit with the highest operating temperature possible while the mass must be minimized to reduce the possibility of wastefully spending due to over dimensioning and for increased handling during transportation and distribution as well as increased usability with the consumer.

Taking into account the engineering design objectives, the objective function was reformulated to maximize profits with the assumption that the model would be calculated over a five year period. In general, profit (π) is the amount of money the product generates from the market after all costs are accounted for. In the case of the Solar Clothes Dryer, the profit function was comprised from various minor functions that were manipulated in order to optimize profit. For example, revenue was modeled to explore its functionality when subjected to some design variables. In order to do this, a product demand function was created that demonstrated a linear relationship between quantity demanded by the market, price and product design characteristics which in turn depend on the design variables. Design sensitivity was also taking into

25

consideration before optimization. Specifically, one scenario for example was considered where demand shifts (increases) with every 15 minute reduction in dry time.

Finally, the new design problem was optimized and profit was maximized using Solver in Excel once again while various constraints were set to the new design problem. Profit maximization essentially became a function of price per unit, quantity sold (after adjusted taking into account design sensitivity) and costs. Each of these design variables were comprised of smaller variables that affected the profit maximization function. Cost was expressed as a function of an initial investment, fixed and operating variable cost (in turn also a function of the quantities sold). Many of these costs were determined based on educated guesses considering the Solar Clothes Dryer is such a new product to the market. These design variables will be continually adjusted throughout the design process as more knowledge is accumulated to ensure accuracy of optimization.

In the early stages of product development, when the design attributes were optimized, a simultaneous microeconomic model was constructed and analyzed for the product. This model was created under the assumption that the market was the European Union with a population of 501 million people specifically targets approximately 217.8 million households with a averaged of 2.3 people per household (extrapolated from the graphical data). Out of these households, it was assumed that 95% owned a dryer leaving 207 million dryer units on the market.

COSTING Investment 1500000 AnnualFixed Cost 1000000 $ Base cost 125 $ unit cost per total cost Dry time/Mass 6 hour/pounds 34.52761606

CONSTRAINTS Min Max Dry time 1.75 3 hours Mass 150 200 pounds Price 100 175 $ Optimized Price 175 $

Table 4: Optimization of design attributes, price per unit, dry time and mass of the unit with its constraints

Extrapolated data from 2005 data showed that from a sampling of 195 households, 147 owed dryers with 4.9 million dryers being sold that year. With this information it was assumed that 6.28 million will be sold by the end of 2010 considering 21 companies in the market allowing for the Solar Dryers to hold a market share of 2% with an approximated demand of 120,000 units a year (an approximation formed from extrapolated data from surveys). In addition, with the demand, a function, was determined accounting for design sensitivity (0.005/20lbs and 0.005/min of dry time) to enable profit maximization.

Profit = Revenue –(Variable costs)(Quantity) –Fixed costs π(p,Δα)= p(θ–λp p+ λdTΔα) –(Cv0+ Cv1+ Cv2)(θ–λp p+ λdTΔα) –Cf

Q =0.535 -1.2*10-3p

26

Next, investment cost (R&D for example) were estimated to be $1.5 million annual fixed costs (see Table 4) were approximately $1 million and the base cost of the product per unit was $125 a unit (accounting for the material, processing, manufacturing, packaging and operation cost). A survey was taken to better understand the consumer’s desires for the product. In analyzing the data, it was determined that the consumer prefers the lowest costing unit at approximately the same size as a current tumble dryer on the market drying at the shortest possible time.

FIXED COSTS Research and development 1,400,000 $ Equipment 50,000 $ Patent 30,000 $ Office 20,000 $ Salaries 800,000 $ Insurance 50,000 $ Taxes 20,000 $ Maintenance 30,000 $ Marketing 100,000 $ COST/UNIT Material 85 $ Labor 20 $ Manufacturing & Assembly 10 $ Distribution & Packaging 10 $

Investment Annual Fixed cost Cost/unit Constraints Attributes Variable cost

Competitor's Attributes

27

Table 5: Resource and Costing for Profit Optimization

Considering the product’s cost varied with change in weight and dry time (cost increased if weight increase and decrease if dry time increase), an exponential function was formulated to calculate variable cost.

Variable Cost = [6* {exp(mass -150)/150}{1/exp(dry time)}]

After optimizing the profit equation it was found out that the maximum profit of 1.87million would be achieved at a dry time of 1.5 hours, mass of 196 pounds and a price of $175. Refer to Appendix F.

4.2 Marketing Model

Next, a marketing model was created enabling better understanding of how the consumer’s desires can change the concept of how the product must be optimized for more efficient consumption. From the survey data collected from a Choice-Based Conjoint Survey, various “part worth” were analyzed to better meet the consumer’s needs (a none option was included in this analysis, signifying a situation when a consumer preferred a clothesline over the product). The same assumptions (fixed and variable costs) made in micro-economic model were also used in the marketing model. Since, price was an independent variable in the marketing optimization model, it was binding in nature. Therefore, after comparing the micro economic and marketing models, it was concluded that the retail price for a single unit would be $175, with dry time of 1 hour and 45 minutes per load and a weight of 150 pounds per unit.

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

0 100 200 300Part

wor

th

Price ($)

Price v/s Part worth

Price v/s Part worth

28

Figure 100: From the CBC Analysis of the Part Worths, it is evident that consumers prefer to buy the unit at a price between $100 and $200. With optimization a value of $175 per

unit was determined

Utility choice probability

Our Product 0.99760975 0.562304

Competitor Product 0.394397813 0.307609 Table 6: Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis of Utility

-0.8-0.6-0.4-0.2

00.20.40.6

0 100 200 300 400Pa

rt w

orth

Mass (lbs)

Mass v/s part worths

mass v/s part worths

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

0 1 2 3 4Part

wor

th

Dry time (hours)

Dry time v/s Part-worth

Dry time v/s Part-worth

29

Table 7: CBC Survey Raw Date

The individual part worth for the design attributes were interpolated using the spline function in Excel. It was assumed that besides our product only one other product exists in the market. Considering “utility equals the sum of all the part worth related to design attributes and price,” the equation for choice probability was determined, which was then utilized to determine the market share of the product. The total numbers of units were assumed to be 250,000 (from previous surveys and data collected from variously supporting European Union government sites) allowing for the total demand to be calculated by multiplying the total units with choice probability of the product. From the above data, it was assumed that during a five-year period, the total number of units demanded would increase by 10% every year. The cumulative profit for five years was then maximized with the variables being dry time, mass and price.

Pr(i) = U(i)/{U(i) + U(j) +U(n)} Pr = choice probability i = product j= competitor’s product n = no choice (clothesline) To conclude, the Solar Clothes Dryer’s final design specifications were compared to that of its competitors (see table 8) and was determined that despite the weight, it was a cheaper and more energy efficient method of drying clothes.

CONJOINT SURVEY

Price (p) Mass (z1) 100 0.68437 50 0.15395 150 0.32953 100 0.51638 200 -0.25881 200 0.06219 250 -0.75509 300 -0.73251

Dry Time (z2) None Choice (z3) 1.5 0.77703 NONE -0.46623

2 0.27409 2.5 -0.20175

3 -0.84937

30

Final product Specification

Part-worth spline

Dry time 1.75 hours 0.5185555 Mass 150 pounds 0.43308625 Competitors product Price 250 -0.75509 Dry Time 1.5 0.77703 Mass 75 0.372457813

Table 6: Final Product vs Competitors

Our proposed markets are the 217.8 million households (averaging 2.3 people per household) in the combined countries of Italy, Austria, Spain and France. This is based on the 2010 population estimates [34]. Italy has the biggest market with a possible 56,347,960 households. Austria has a target of 6,407,045 households; Spain is 36,739,712 and France with 43,394,821 households. Selling each unit at $175, a predicted profit of $6.78 million should be achieved at the end of five years.

4.3 Investment Analysis

A break even analysis and net present value analysis were performed in order to fully understand the economic feasibility of solar clothes dryer.

The breakeven point occurs when the company, we would be selling the product is no longer accruing losses, and is on the verge of making profit. This analysis was based off the fixed and variable cost and can be seen in a summary in Table 7. The Breakeven Point was determined using the spline function (in excel), the exact time period was found when the profit was zero. In this case, that point would occur, when 143,896 units would be sold in a production time of 15 months.

Break Even Point Calculation Break Even Point = Fixed Costs / (selling price - variable costs) Break Even Point(number of units) = 143,896

The Break Even Point occurs at 15 months 143,896 15

Assuming the Company just broke even, then its Profit and Loss Statement would look like the following: Table 7: Break Even Analysis

The Net Profit Value (NPV) was also determined comparing the company’s current profit to that of the future, taking inflation and returns into account. If the NPV of a prospective project is positive, the investment is acceptable and should be pursued. However, if NPV is negative, the project should probably be rejected because cash flows would be negative. In this case, the NPV was determined to be positive at $6,674,700.38 after a 0.407% monthly discount rate or cost of capital at the end of 5 years. This value was calculated using Excel’s function for NPV and the profit values in table 10.

In order to satisfy the investors with the knowledge of the product’s Pro-forma income statements, a sample profit-loss statement was created in Table 8. For simplicity due to time

31

constraints and capacity, the focus was removed from pro forma profit-before-taxes, pro forma-taxes and pro forma-after-taxes. The concept behind the profit loss statements was to set a bench-mark or budget in terms for the mass production and distribution of the Solar Clothes Dryer. It was assumed that due to the high initial investment cost, the investor should expect expenses to run higher in the first quarter of the year if not for the first few years until the demand for the product increases. In addition, the statements are created with future utilization in mind. The statements will later be used to determine the volume of marketing or advertising campaigns needed for the product. For the current situation, however, a very simplified model is created just around the breakeven point rendering the net profit value to be around zero, which is expected at the breakeven point, beyond which the investor can expect increase in profit.

Initial Profit and Loss Statement Sales

Gross Sales ($175 per unit times 144000 units) $28,276,150 Less Cost of Goods Sold (variable cost per unit times units sold) $25,776,153 Net Sales $2,499,997

Expenses (Costs) Investment $1,500,000 Annual Fixed $1,000,000 Total Expense $2,500,000 Net Profit ($3)

Table 8: Profit/Loss Example Pro Forma income statements alone cannot give an investor a clear understanding as to the resulting value of their investment. In order to do this, a five-year analysis was done on the marketing of the product to understand the economic feasibility of the Solar Clothes Dryer.

Table 11: From a five year analysis, a breakeven point can be seen between the 1st and 2nd years. In addition, a profit of $6.78 million is determined at the end of the 5th year.

From the table above, it is evident that profits begin between the first and second years that the product is on the market with the assumption (based on data extrapolated above) that over the

-50000000

500000010000000150000002000000025000000300000003500000040000000

1 2 3 4 5

$

Time

Five year plan

Revenue

Cost

Profit

32

five year period, the total number of units demanded would increase by 10% every year. The cumulative profit for this period was then maximized with the variables being dry time, mass and price and determined to be $6.78 million dollars.

MARKET SIZE Year 1 2 3 4 5

Total Units 250000 275000 302500 332750 366025 Our Units 140575.9 154633.6 170096.9 187106.6 205817.3 Revenue 24600792.8 27060872 29766959 32743655 36018021

Cost 24925747.6 25668322 28135155 30848670 33833537 Profit -324954.8 1392550 1631805 1894985 2184484

Cumulative profits -324954.8 1067595 2699400 4594385 6778869

Table 10: From a five year analysis, a breakeven point can be seen between the 1st and 2nd years. In addition, a profit of $6.78 million is determined at the end of the 5th year.

5. NEXT STEPS

In today’s consumer driven economy, it is vital to address consumer’s needs on a very real level. If customer’s day to day activities are simplified and they find a product that in a simplest way satisfies them, the product will be extremely successful. In the case of the Solar Clothes Dryer, the product addressed customer’s need for a cleaner, “greener,” more energy efficient and private cleaning method at a low cost. To help increase overall quality of each unit, product development will continue. Technological improvements such as temperature sensors, door locking mechanisms and multifunctional compartments will be added, the efficiency will be improved, the body will become more compact and new venues of functionality will be introduced. For example, the unit can either simultaneously be used as a food dehydrator or solely for the purpose of preserving food.

33

APPENDIX A: CITATIONS [1] California Energy Commission. (2010). Clothes Dryers. Retrieved from

http://www.consumerenergycenter.org/home/appliances [2] Clothes Dryer. (2010). Wikipedia. Retrieved October 2, 2010, from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clothes_dryer [3] Dryer buying guide. (2010, April 19). Retrieved from

http://reviews.cnet.com/2719-17905_7-405-1.html?tag=page;page [4] Ball, J. (2009, March 1). Six Products, Six Carbon Footprints. Wall Street Journal. Retrieved

from http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122304950601802565.html [5] Drying Cabinet. (2010). Wikipedia. Retrieved October 4, 2010, from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drying_cabinet#History_in_the_United_States [6] Beatty, G. (2003, September 29). Maytag Unveils Unique Neptune Drying Center. HFN.

Retreived from http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-108485701.html [7] Stabler drying cabinet. (2007). Retrieved from http://www.staber.com/dryingcabinet [8] Johnson, T. Combination tumble and cabinet dryer. U.S. Patent No. 6928752. April 2003. [9] Meyer, R. Stationary clothes drying apparatus. U.S. Patent No. 6973740. January 2003. [10] Prows, D. Clothes drying cabinet with improved air distribution. U.S. Patent No. 6910292.

February 2003. [11] Grimm, Curt. Clothes drying apparatus and method of drying clothes. U.S. Patent No.

6868621. August 2003. [12] Perque, Allen. Portable, solar powered clothes dryer. U.S. Patent No. 5809663. July 1997. [13] Kitzmiller, G. Solar clothes dryer. U.S. Patent No. 4514914. February 1984. [14] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, (1970). Summary of the clean air act (42 U.S.C.

§7401 et seq.). Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/lawsregs/laws/caa.html [15] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, (2007). Summary of the Energy Independence and

Security Act (Public Law 110-140). Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/lawsregs/laws/eisa.html

[16] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, (2005). Summary of the Energy Policy Act (42 USC

§13201 et seq.). Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/lawsregs/laws/epa.html [17] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, (1997). Summary of Executive Order 13045 -

Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19883). Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/lawsregs/laws/eo13045.html

34

[18] Amazon.com. 3" x 3" (80mm) case fan w/3-pin connector. (2010). Retrieved from

http://www.amazon.com/80mm-Case-3-pin-Connector-Black/dp/B001EXV2MC [19] US Appliance. DLE2301W LG 7.3 Cu. Ft. XL Capacity Electric Dryer. (2010). Retrieved

from http://www.us-appliance.com/dle2301w.html?gdftrk=gdfV21216_a_7c444b _a_7c1600_a_7cdle2301w

[20] SB1338 CD1.DOC." HI Legislature. Web. (2010).

http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2009/bills/SB1338_CD1_.htm.

[21] The Florida Statutes. Welcome : Flsenate.gov. Web. (2010). http://www.flsenate.gov/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0163/SEC04.HTM&Title=-2002-Ch0163-Section 04.

[22] BBC New Magazine. Property Value Reduction (2010). Retrieved November 07, 2010 from The fight against clothes line bans: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-11417677.

[23] ColoradoENERGY.org - Existing Colorado Energy-Related Laws. ColoradoENERGY.org -

Your One-stop Shop for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Information in Colorado. (2010): http://www.coloradoenergy.org/laws/laws.htm.

[24] Utah Legislature HB0116. Utah State Legislature Home Page. Web. (2010)

http://le.utah.gov/~2010/bills/hbillint/hb0116.htm.

[25] An Act Regarding Maine's Energy Future Maine. Web. (2010). http://mainelegislature.org/legis/bills/bills_124th/chapters/PUBLIC372.asp

[26] The Vermont Legislative Bill Tracking System. The Vermont Legislature. Web (2010) http://www.leg.state.vt.us/database/status/summary.cfm?Session=2006&Bill=S.0052.

[27] AN ACT CONCERNING ELECTRICITY AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY. Connecticut General Assembly. Web. (2010) http://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/act/pa/2007pa-00242-r00hb-07432-pa.htm.

[28] Oregon Energy Efficiency and Sustainable Technology Act. HB 2626. Legislative Assembly Oregon (2009) http://apolloalliance.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/hb2626-summary-or-energy-efficiency-loan-program.pdf

[29] GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA. SESSION 2007.SESSION LAW 2007-397. SENATE BILL 3 North Carolina. (2010) http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/sessions/2007 /bills/ senate/pdf/s3v6.pdf

[30] BILL INFO-2010 Regular Session-SB 224. Maryland General Assembly Home Page. (2010). http://mlis.state.md.us/2010rs/billfile/sb0224.htm.

35

[31] Speaker, By Mr. Hb103 ENR. West Virginia Legislature. Web. (2010). http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Status/bills_text.cfm?billdoc=hb103 ENR.htm&yr=2009&sesstype=1X&i=103.

[32] Current Primary and Scrap Metal Prices - LME (London Metal Exchange), COMEX, NYMEX, Copper, Aluminum, Nickel, Tin, Lead, Zinc, Iron, Steel, Specialty Steel, Stainless Steel, Nickel Alloy, Chrome, Titanium, Ferrochrome, Cobalt, Molybdenum, Antimony, Plastics. Web. (2010). http://www.metalprices.com/#.

[33] Growth Charts - Weight for Stature." Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Web. (2010). http://www.cdc.gov/growthcharts/html_charts/wtstat.htm.

[34] Welcome to the CIA Web Site — Central Intelligence Agency. Web. 27 Nov. 2010. https://www.cia.gov/.

36

APPENDIX B: TABLES B.1.a Gantt chart

37

B.1.b Gantt chart (continued)

38

B.1.c Gantt chart (continued)

39

APPENDIX C: CAD AND ENGINEERING DRAWINGS

C.1 Engineering Drawings

Figure 1: Engineering Drawing of Proposed Concept

Figure 2: Engineering Drawing of Selected Concept

40

APPENDIX D: PREVIOUS DESIGNS

Figure 1: Design One-The Dual Compartment Unit

Figure 2a: Design Three- Pyramid Air Flow Model

41

Figure 2b: Functional Side View

Figure 3: Design Four –Collapsible Heating Tubes

42

Figure 4a: Design 5 –Modified Design 4 with reflectors and fans

Figure 4b: Functional Side View

43

Figure 5: Alpha Prototype #1 created to generate the first design concept

Figure 6: Alpha Prototype #2 - selected design to be analyzed and manufactured

44

APPENDIX E: ENGINEERING ANALYSIS

Low Alloy steel Polyester Softwood

Density (lb/ft^3) 487 -493 64.9 - 87.4 27.5 -37.5

Price (USD/lb) 0.348 -0.383 1.84 - 2.03 0.327 - .655

Yeild strenght(ksi) 58 - 218 4.79 - 5.8 0.247 -0.377

tensile strength (ksi) 79.8 - 255 6.0 - 13.0 0.464 -0.566

Max service temperature (F) 932 - 1020 266 -302 248 - 284

Recyclability Y N N

Table 1: Material Summary

Figure 1: Static Displacement

45

Figure 2: Solid Mesh

Figure 2: Fluent Flow

46

Table 2: Engineering Optimization

47

Table 3: First Iteration for Optimization

48

Table 4: Second Iteration for Optimization

49

Table 5: Third Iteration for Optimization

50

Table 6: Fourth Iteration for Optimization

51

Table 7: Fifth Iteration for Optimization

52

Figure 3: EDIP comparison of the environmental impacts

53

Figure 4: Continued EDIP Comparison of Environmental Impacts

54

Figure 5: Continued EDIP Comparison of Environmental Impacts

55

Figure 6: Incline Flow Chamber Thermal Analysis breakdown

E. 1 Calculations: Incline

q’solar = solar heat flux = αsGs q’conv = convective heat transfer = h (T2-T∞) q’rad = radiation heat transfer = εσ(T4

2-T4∞)

ε = emissivity = 0.05 αs =absorptivity = 0.15 σ = Stefan-Boltzmann Constant = 5.67 x 10-8 h = heat transfer coefficient = 10 W/m2k T2 = temperature of the top heated surface of the aluminum sheet (assumed and given) T1 = temperature of the inner surface of the aluminum sheet T∞ = ambient temperature outside the box or incline (assumed 30 ◦C) �̇� = heat generated by the aluminum sheet L1 = thickness of the open space inside the incline under the aluminum sheet L2 = thickness of the aluminum sheet Kal = conductivity of aluminum = 235 W/mk Energy Balance:

𝐸𝑐𝑣̇ = q’solar -q’conv -q’rad =0 Assuming T2 = 65 ◦C

�̇� =1𝐿1

[h (T2 − T∞) + εσ(T24 − T∞4) − αsGs] = 89.6 𝑊/𝑚3

𝑞′ = �̇�𝐿1 = T2−T1𝐿1Kal

, solve for T1

T1 = 65 + 0.45L1 , Equation used in optimization model for idea L1

56

Figure 7: inner temperature calculations, insulations confirmation

E. 2 Calculations: Chamber 1

h0As = natural convection from the outside into the drying box

δkAs

= thermal conduction due to insulation 1

hiAs = forced convection through the space between the outer chamber into the smaller chamber

As = duct area T2 = temperature of the top heated surface of the aluminum sheet (assumed and given) T1 = temperature of the inner surface of the aluminum sheet T∞ = ambient temperature outside the box or incline (assumed 30 ◦C) Tair����=temperature gradient through the air duct ε = emissivity = 0.05 αs =absorptivity = 0.15 σ = Stefan-Boltzmann Constant = 5.67 x 10-8 h0 = heat transfer coefficient (outside) = 1 W/m2k hi = heat transfer coefficient (inside)= 1 W/m2k �̇� = heat generated by the aluminum sheet L1 = thickness of the open space inside the incline under the aluminum sheet L2 = thickness of the aluminum sheet Kal = conductivity of aluminum = 235 W/mk

57

𝐸𝚤𝑛̇ = q2 + q1

𝑞1 =Tair����� − T∞1

h0As+ δ

kAs

q2 =Tair����� − Ti

1hiAs

Unknowns are Ti, q2

Assuming T∞ = 30 ◦C, and ensure 𝑞2 ≫ 𝑞1 because of the need to minimize heat loss through walls

Tair���� =∫ Tair(x)dxL

0L

𝐸𝚤𝑛̇ = �̇�ℎ𝑖𝑛 = �̇�𝐶𝑇(𝑥) 𝐸𝑜𝑢𝑡̇ = �̇�ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑡 = �̇�𝐶𝑇(𝑥 + 𝑑𝑥)

R” = 1h0

+ δk

dq2 = 1R"

dxW (T(x) − T∞)

q2 = 78.4 𝑊/𝑚3

q1 = 0.34 𝑊/𝑚3

𝑞2 ≫ 𝑞1 checks out! So the insulation is sufficient and the function q1 can be used in the optimization

model to determine the best thickness for the insulation

q2 = Tair�����−Ti1

hiAs

, solve for Ti

Ti = 65 + 0.67Lal

Once again, the function for the inner temperature will be used for optimization

58

E. 3 Calculations: Iterations

59

60

APPENDIX F : MICROECONOMIC MODEL

COSTING Investment 1500000 AnnualFixed Cost 1000000 $ Base cost 125 $ unit cost per total cost Dry time/Mass 6 hour/pounds 34.52761606

CONSTRAINTS Min Max Dry time 1.75 3 hours Mass 150 200 pounds Price 100 175 $ FIXED COSTS Research and development 1,400,000 $ Equipment 50,000 $ Patent 30,000 $ Office 20,000 $ Salaries 800,000 $ Insurance 50,000 $ Taxes 20,000 $ Maintenance 30,000 $ Marketing 100,000 $ COST/UNIT Material 85 $ Labor 20 $ Manufacturing & Assembly 10 $ Distribution & Packaging 10 $

Investment Annual Fixed cost Cost/unit Constraints Attributes Variable cost

Competitor's Attributes

61

Microsoft Excel 12.0 Answer Report

Worksheet: [Investment 11-27.xlsx]Optimized values

Report Created: 11/30/2010 8:28:28 PM

Target Cell (Max)

Cell Name Original Value Final Value

$D$23 Profit Min -0.373348821 1.874280155

Adjustable Cells

Cell Name Original Value Final Value

$D$20 price Min 175 175

$I$7 Surface Area 3500 4666.66842

PROFIT = REVENUE -COST

Price 175 $

Revenue 56.9 Million $

Cost 55.0 Million $

Profit 1.9 Million $

FINAL PRODUCT

Dry time 1.5 hours

Mass 196.0 pounds

Surface Area 4666.7 inch^2

62

Constraints

Cell Name Cell Value Formula Status Slack

$I$5 Dry time 1.499999436 $I$5<=$E$14 Not Binding 1.500000564

$I$5 Dry time 1.499999436 $I$5>=$D$14 Binding 0

$I$6 Mass 196.0000737 $I$6<=$E$15 Not Binding 3.99992634

$I$6 Mass 196.0000737 $I$6>=$D$15 Not Binding 46.00007366

$D$20 price Min 175 $D$20<=$E$16 Binding 0

$D$20 price Min 175 $D$20>=$D$16 Not Binding 75

Table 8: Microeconomic optimization

63

APPENDIX G : OTHER DOCUMENTS

G.1 Product Description

Team 1 (“Bun in the Oven” ) Ankit Dhingra, Ari Parnes, Asha D’Cunha, Mai Troung ME 455 Professor Panos Y. Papalambros Assignment 2- Group Project Title: Solar Dryer

Product Description We propose the design and development of a “solar clothes dryer.” This design will be based

upon the technology used for solar cookers, i.e. the use of electricity will be limited because we are capturing solar energy and transforming it into heat. We anticipate the target audience to be within developed countries; people experiencing privacy issues, clothes shrinkage, undesirable odors (in polluted areas), electricity and space using their current method of clothes drying.

G.2 Design Structure Matrix

G.3 Design Criteria

64

Design Criteria Importance Target Value Units Price (sale) high >= $100 $ Life Expectancy (Durability) high <= 10 yrs years Size medium 29x29x44 inches inches Capacity high cubic feet User Friendly high Dry Time high minutes Noise low decibles Aesthetics high Power Consumption (Environmental Impact) high KW Installation Requirements high Temperature Regulation high F Regulations (Rebate for Eco-incentives) low $ Safety high Packaging (self assembly) low/medium Simplicity medium Weight low/medium lbs Output Quality (Dried Clothes) high Laundry Transport medium Choice Based Constraints Price $25 - $50 $51 - $75 $76 - $100 Dry Time 1 hour 2 hours 3 hours

Aesthetics Simple and clean

square and functional Custom

Wrinkles Heavily wrinkled Lightly wrinkled Wrinkle free

Life of Clothes

shortened lifetime of cloths

Typical lifetime of machine dried cloths

Extended lifetime of cloths

G.4 Interview Template

BACKGROUND 1) Where are you from? 2) How old are you? 3) Do you have a family (dependants)? 4) Are you employed? 5) Do you own or rent your home?

65

6) Is it a house, apartment, townhouse? 7) Do you do your own laundry? 8) Do you own a washer/dryer? 9) If not, do you have access to a washer/dryer? 10) If yes, where? 11) How long does it take to dry your clothes? THE IMPORTANT STUFF 12) Do you ever hang dry (either with a clothes line or a clothes rack) any of your clothing? If yes: a) Why do you hang dry your clothing? b) Can you walk me through your laundry process? Depending on their answer, some follow-up questions to consider: · Where do you store your dirty laundry? · Where is your washer? (upstairs, downstairs, how far, etc.) · How do you transport the dirty clothing? Do you sort your clothes before washing? Why? How? · How long before you transfer wet cloths to dryer, line, etc? · Where is your dryer/drying rack/line? · How do you sort your clothing for drying? Why? How? · How do you transport the wet clothing (if necessary) to the drying rack/line? · How long before you return to collect the dry clothing? · How do you transport the clean, dry clothing? c) Do you ever experience problems with smells/privacy when you hang dry your clothing? If no (to hang drying): a) Do you ever experience any problems with your dryer? (clothing damage, shrinkage, etc.) If yes: i) Have you ever considered hang drying your clothing? If no: Why? If yes: Why not? If no: End question b) Can you walk me through your laundry process? Depending on their answer, some follow-up questions to consider: · Where do you store your dirty laundry? · Where is your washer? (upstairs, downstairs, how far, etc.) · How do you transport the dirty clothing? Do you sort your clothes before washing? Why? How? · How long before you transfer wet cloths to dryer, line, etc? · Where is your dryer/drying rack/line? · How do you sort your clothing for drying? Why? How? · How do you transport the wet clothing (if necessary) to the drying rack/line? · How long before you return to collect the dry clothing? · How do you transport the clean, dry clothing? c) Would you hang dry your clothing if you had a cleaner, faster option?

66

G.5 Washing and Drying Process

G.6 Design Block Diagram

67

G.7 Comparing Methods of Drying

G.8 Environmental Laws and Regulations References

68

1. Summary of the Clean Air Act: The Clean Air Act is the law that defines EPA's responsibilities for protecting and improving the nation's air quality and the stratospheric ozone layer. The last major change in the law, the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, was enacted by Congress in 1990. Legislation passed since then has made several minor changes.The Clean Air Act, like other laws enacted by Congress, was incorporated into the United States Code as Title 42, Chapter 85. The House of Representatives maintains a current version of the U.S. Code, which includes Clean Air Act changes enacted since 1990.( http://www.epa.gov/air/caa/)

2. Summary of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (Superfund): The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act -- otherwise known as CERCLA or Superfund -- provides a Federal "Superfund" to clean up uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous-waste sites as well as accidents, spills, and other emergency releases of pollutants and contaminants into the environment. Through CERCLA, EPA was given power to seek out those parties responsible for any release and assure their cooperation in the cleanup.EPA cleans up orphan sites when potentially responsible parties cannot be identified or located, or when they fail to act. Through various enforcement tools, EPA obtains private party cleanup through orders, consent decrees, and other small party settlements. EPA also recovers costs from financially viable individuals and companies once a response action has been completed. EPA is authorized to implement the Act in all 50 states and U.S. territories. Superfund site identification, monitoring, and response activities in states are coordinated through the state environmental protection or waste management agencies.

3. The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986 reauthorized CERCLA to continue cleanup activities around the country. Several site-specific amendments, definitions clarifications, and technical requirements were added to the legislation, including additional enforcement authorities. Also, Title III of SARA authorized the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA). (http://www.epa.gov/lawsregs/laws/cercla.html)

4. Summary of The Energy Independence and Security Act: The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007) established energy management goals and requirements while also amending portions of the National Energy Conservation Policy Act (NECPA). It was signed into law on December 19, 2007.

EISA 2007 sets Federal energy management requirements in several areas, including:

Energy Reduction Goals for Federal Buildings Facility Management/Benchmarking Performance and Standards for New Building and Major Renovations High-Performance Buildings Energy Savings Performance Contracts Metering Energy-Efficient Product Procurement Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Reporting

Reducing Petroleum/Increasing Alternative Fuel Use (http://www1.eere.energy.gov/femp/regulations/eisa.html)

69

5. Summary of the Energy Policy Act: The Energy Policy Act (EPA) addresses energy production in the United States, including: (1) energy efficiency; (2) renewable energy; (3) oil and gas; (4) coal; (5) Tribal energy; (6) nuclear matters and security; (7) vehicles and motor fuels, including ethanol; (8) hydrogen; (9) electricity; (10) energy tax incentives; (11) hydropower and geothermal energy; and (12) climate change technology. For example, the Act provides loan guarantees for entities that develop or use innovative technologies that avoid the by-production of greenhouse gases. Another provision of the Act increases the amount of biofuel that must be mixed with gasoline sold in the United States.( http://www.epa.gov/lawsregs/laws/epa.html)

6. Summary of Executive Order 13045 -Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks Executive Order (E.O.) 13045 - Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks - was issued by President William J. Clinton in 1997. The order applies to economically significant rules under E.O. 12866 that concern an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children. Environmental health risks or safety risks refer to risks to health or to safety that are attributable to products or substances that the child is likely to come in contact with or ingest (such as the air we breathe, the food we eat, the water we drink or use for recreation, the soil we live on, and the products we use or are exposed to). When promulgating a rule of this description, EPA must evaluate the effects of the planned regulation on children and explain why the regulation is preferable to potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives.