1. Where Refrigerants are Heading in NZ? Don J. Cleland and Richard J Love Centre for Postharvest and Refrigeration Research Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand NZ Coldstorage Association Conference Wellington, 17 August 2014

2. Context The Perfect Refrigerant Alternative Refrigerants Alternative Technologies Future Options Lessons from the Past ETS Impacts & Challenges Conclusions & Recommendations Overview 2

3. Enhanced work Health & Safety compliance after Pike River disaster and Christchurch earthquake Environmental pressures –growing population –urban migration –resource depletion –standard of living expectations Ozone depletion –caused by man-made chemicals including refrigerants –response exemplary –Montreal Protocol (MP) –on track to solve –phaseout of CFCs & HCFCs –effectively no new HCFC imports from 2015 Introduction 3

4. Evidence not certain –is there GW? –anthropogenic or natural effect? –magnitude & timeline of impacts Scientific proof growing Potential impact huge Precautionary principle adopted –minimise and mitigate Global Warming 4

5. Proof that the World is getting warmer 5

6. After a new research project with substantially increased budget the result was essentially the same:

7. Basket of 6 gases –CO 2 : fuel use –CH 4 : decomposition –N 2 O: agriculture –SF 4 : electrical switchgear –Perfluorocarbons:fire extinguishers & foams –HFCs: refrigerants & foams Does not cover MP gases Stablise emissions for 2008-2012 to 108% of 1990 levels GWP quantifies impact relative to CO 2 Kyoto Protocol 7

8. Direct emissions (≈ 1%) –many refrigerants have high GWP –e.g. HFC-134a has GWP of 1300 Indirect due to energy use ( ≈ 6%) –refrigeration about 15% of electricity demand –electricity generation about 40% of emissions –≈0.6 kg CO 2 /kWh ETS –2 tonnes per unit in transition –ETS of initially $25/tonne CO 2 equivalent –actual 2014 CO 2 unit price of about $2-5/tonne CO 2 Refrigeration & GW 8

9. Refrigerants 9 Source: Danfoss

10. The Perfect Refrigerant 10 Planet (Environment) - zero ODP - low GWP - energy efficient - low toxicity - unstable (short atmospheric life) Prosperity (Economic) - low cost - high performance - energy efficient - safe - stable - wide material compatibility - low cost equipment - low GWP People (Society) - safe o non-flammable o low pressure o distinctive colour or smell - low toxicity - energy efficient - low cost equipment

11. CriteriaHCFCsHFCsHFOsNRs Refrigerant Cost (no levy) low/mediummediumhighlow System Costmedium high Capacitygood very good Energy Efficiencygood very good ODPyesno GWP (ETS)high lowvery low Safety (e.g. flammability, toxicity, high pressure) good generally good good except flammability often significant risks Oil Compatibilitytraditionalsynthetic wide Refrigerant Families 11

12. 12 RefrigerantFormulaODPGWPOil CompatibilityLevy ($/kg) Other Weaknesses CFCs R11CCl 3 F1.04000M-MP phaseout R12CCl 2 F 2 1.08500M-MP phaseout R502115 (51%), 22 (49%)0.235590M-MP phaseout HCFCs R22CH Cl F 2 0.0551700M,AB-MP phaseout R123C 2 H Cl 2 F 3 0.0293M,AB,POE-MP phaseout HFCs R32CH 2 F 2 0.0650POE15A2L R125C 2 HF 5 0.02800 64 R134aC2H2F4C2H2F4 0.01300POE,PAG30 R143aC2H3F3C2H3F3 0.03800 87A2L R152aC2H4F2C2H4F2 0.0140 3A2L R245caC3H3F5C3H3F5 0.0560 13 R404A 125 (44%), 134a (4%), 143a (52%) 0.03260POE75 R407C 32 (23%), 125 (25%), 134a (52%) 0.01530POE35High glide R410A32 (50%), 125 (50%)0.01730POE40High P R417A 125 (46.6%), 134a (50%), 600 (3.4%) 0.01960M,AB,POE45Medium glide R422D 125 (65.1%), 134a (31.5%), 600a (3.4%) 0.02620M,POE60Medium glide R507125 (50%), 143a (50%)0.03300POE76 HFOs R1234yf C3H2F4C3H2F4 0.04 POE0.1A2L, high cost R1234ze C3H2F4C3H2F4 0.06POE0.1High cost Perfluorocarbons (PFs) R218 C3F8C3F8 0.07000 161Long EAL Natural Refrigerants (NRs) R170 - ethaneC2H6C2H6 0.0~5M,AB,POE-A3 R290 - propaneC3H8C3H8 0.0~5M,AB,POE-A3 R600a - isobutaneC 4 H 10 0.0~5M,AB,POE-A3 R717 - ammoniaNH 3 0.0<1M-B2L, low P, no copper R718 - waterH2OH2O0.0<1 0 o C limit, very low P R744 – CO 2 CO 2 0.01M-Low critical temp., high P R1270 - propylene C3H6C3H6 0.0 -A3

13. ASHRAE Classification 13 Source: Reindl, 2011

14. Oils 14

15. Possibilities –acoustic –magnetic –thermo-electric (Peltier) –vortex tube –Brayton (air) cycle –Stirling cycle –absorption/adsorption Issues –low efficiency –low capacity –high cost Niche applications e.g. Peltier for low noise Absorption if low cost heat Alternative Technologies 15

16. expanders multi-staging heat transfer enhancement variable speed technology transcritical if gas cooling matches process need cascades & secondary refrigerants Improvements to Reverse Rankin Cycle 16

17. ETS cost for most HFCs incentivizes –reduction in leakage –reduction in charge –replacement with low GWP refrigerants Likely replacements have concerns –performance (e.g. CO 2 ) –cost (e.g. HFOs) –safety (e.g. HCs or HFOs) Flammability harder to avoid Future Options 17

18. TEWI (kg CO 2 ) = direct refrigerant + indirect energy use = GWP M [x n + (1 - α)] + E n β LCCP (kg CO 2 ) = TEWI + emissions due to manufacture whereM = refrigerant charge (kg) x = leakage rate (% per year) n = equipment life (years) E = energy consumption (kWh/year) α = recovery factor (%) β = electricity emissions factor (kg CO 2 /kWh) Leakage & energy use seldom known accurately when refrigerant chosen & investing 5-20% leakage pa (Cowan et al., 2011) ETS converts environmental consideration into an economic one Net loss if lower GWP refrigerant has very poor energy efficiency Total Impact 18

19. Leakage 19

20. Alternative Performance RefrigerantHFC-404AAlternative GWP3260150 Charge (kg)55 Leakage (% pa)55 Energy Use (kWh pa)25,000+5% TEWI (kg CO 2 )388,855394,388 (+1.4%) ETS + Energy Cost ($)656+37,500 = 38,15630+39375 = 39,405(+3.3%) 20 o 15 year equipment life o 90% refrigerant recovery o Electricity emission factor of 1 kg CO 2 /kWh o Electricity cost of $0.1/kWh If charge & leakage low, then GWP less important than efficiency

21. Ammonia, HCs, CO 2 (low temp.) often more efficient than HFCs (up to 10%) e.g. –theoretically R290 1-2% poorer than R22 –drop-in field trial gave 5-10% improvement for farm milk cooling (Cleland et al., 2009) HFO1234yf close match to R134a R32 & HFOs similar to R22 and R410A (high temp. applications) R404A (low temp.) –R410A promising but moderate GWP & equipment constraints Relative Performance 21

22. 22 Cascades & Secondaries Use refrigerants in optimal temp. range Minimise & isolate charges of high GWP, flammable or toxic refrigerants “Safe” refrigerants or secondaries in populated areas e.g. glycol Energy penalty due to extra temp. difference and pumps CO 2 likely low stage & secondary – safe & low cost – efficient – low pumping power/pressure drop – low mass & volumetric flows – equipment availability & cost improving High stage refrigerants situation specific

23. Frozen Warehouse Complex;19,000 m 2 (Edwards, 2006, 2008) Relative Performance 23 SystemCapital Cost Energy Factor Annual Energy Life Cycle Costs (20 yr) DX R404A$2,500,0001.2$1,00,000$25,250,000 DX Ammonia$3,063,0001$813,000$22,063,000 Pumped Ammonia$3,125,0000.8$650,000$17,625,000 Secondary CO 2 $3,625,0000.87$706,000$19,875,000 Secondary T40$3,750,000+$50,000$756,000$20,875,000 Cascade CO 2 $3,375,0000.84$688,000$19,250,000 Edwards (2006)

24. Lessons from the Past 24 Concern that CFC alternatives less efficient & lower capacity Reality was little difference if wise choices – better heat transfer properties – better oils Initially many drop-ins but stabilized to manageable number of replacements Retrofits became routine Initially little thermodynamic & equipment performance data but rapidly rectified High glide refrigerants more challenging Material incompatibilities seldom acute High pressure R410A a concern! Extra costs passed onto customers Familiarity bred contempt after initial fear of the unknown Similar experience likely now but driven by cost rather than legislation Scandinavia since 2007 – low GWP refrigerants for large systems – proliferation of low charge systems

25. Past Future Predictions 25 ApplicationOriginal Replacements foreseen in 1990 Replacements foreseen in 1994 Automotive Air Cond.R12HFC-134a, blendsHFC-134a Domestic appliancesR12HFC-134a, blendsHFC-134a, R290 Retail food ‑ low temp R502HCFC-22, HFC-125HFC-507, HFC-404A ‑ med. temp R12, R22, R502 HCFC-22,HFC-134a HFC- 125, blends HFC-134a, HFC-507 HFC-404A Chillers ‑ centrifugal R11 R12 HCFC-123 HFC-134a, blends Blends HFC-134a ‑ reciprocating R12HFC-134a, HCFC-22, blends HFC-134a Insulating foamsR11, R12HCFC-123,HCFC-22various Industrial refrigerationR22, R502, NH 3 HCFC-22, NH 3 HFC-507, HFC-404A, NH 3 SectorCompressor TypeRefrigerant Domestic RefrigeratorSealed UnitR134a, R401A, R409a, R413a Commercial Equipment Medium Temperature Sealed UnitR134a, R22, R401A 1, R404A, R407A, R409A, R413A, R507 Accessible HermeticR134a, R22, R401A 2, R404A, R407C, R413A, R507 Reciprocating Open DriveR134a, R22, R401A 2, R404A, R407C, R409A 2, R413A, R507 Commercial Equipment Low Temperature Sealed UnitR22, R402A, R402B, R403A, R404A, R407B, R408A, R410A, R507 Accessible HermeticR22, R402B, R403A, R404A, R407B, R408A, R410A, R507 Reciprocating Open DriveR22, R402A, R402B, R403A, R404A, R407B, R408A, R410A, R507 Large Commercial & Industrial Reciprocating Open DriveR22, R134a, R401A, R401B, R402A, R403A,R404A, R407B 4, R407C 4, R408A, R409A,R410A, R413A, R507, R717 Centrifugal/ScrewR134a, R123, possibly R124 3, R22, R407A 4, R401A 4, R717 Mobile Air Conditioning or Refrigeration Reciprocating Open DriveR22, R134a, R401C, R402A, R403A,R404A, R407C, R408A, R409A, R409B,R416A, R507, possibly R22 Air ConditioningReciprocating Open DriveR22, R134a, R401A, R409A, R410A,R413A Centrifugal/ScrewR134a, R123, R22, R410A Accessible semi-Hermetic R22, R123, R134a, R401B, R404A, R407C, R409B, R410A, R507 Source: Lommers, 2003

26. Pathways – Past & Future 26

27. ETS Impacts & Challenges 27 Cost will be passed onto customers Potential for increased margins Incentives for – good practice (reducing charge & leakage) – life cycle costing & impacts assessment – innovative design & service practice – early replacement of older less efficient plant – development of skills to work with flammable refrigerants Disadvantages – higher refrigerant inventory costs – higher risk of refrigerant theft – higher business risk if ignorant about issues & alternative refrigerants – incentives to delay R22 replacement – uncertainty about availability and cost of HFOs in the short term – poorer customer relations due to poor understanding of ETS – greater number of refrigerants in short term

28. Barriers 28 Surveys by Burhenne & Chasserot (2011) and Colbourne (2011) – knowledge levels – technology availability – safety concerns and related psychological factors – too restrictive regulations and standards

29. Conclusions 29 The ETS on refrigerants will – increase costs – provide incentives for best practice – enhance commercial opportunities for well-informed and proactive customers & service providers – increase consideration of NR options – provide the chemical industry motivation to develop efficient & safe synthetic alternatives – provide an opportunity for the refrigeration industry to lift its performance – not be a significant threat

30. Recommendations 30 Reduce refrigerant charges in new systems Increase tightness of existing systems Expect flammable refrigerants so understand the risks Keep informed about environmental issues & refrigerant options & performance Use a life cycle costing approach so long term focus Shift to lower GWP refrigerants when significant system changes are needed Carefully plan and schedule replacement of existing large R22 systems (short term delay may be astute) Try to use NRs if safety issues can be addressed cost- effectively

31. Back to the Future? 31 ©2008 Risto Ciconkov

32. Questions d.cleland@massey.ac.nz

33. References 33 1.Burhenne, N., Chasserot, M. (2011) Natural refrigerants in the HVAC&R industry – a study of global market and policy trends. Proceedings International Congress of Refrigeration, Prague, Czech Republic, August 2011, paper 147. 2.Calm, J.M., Hourahan, G.C. (2011) Physical, safety and environmental data for current and alternative refrigerants. Proceedings International Congress of Refrigeration, Prague, Czech Republic, August 2011, paper 915. 3.Cleland, D.J., Keedwell, R.W., Adams, S.R. (2009) Use of hydrocarbons as drop-in replacements for HCFC-22 in on-farm milk cooling equipment, International Journal of Refrigeration 32: 1403-1411. 4.Colbourne, D. (2011) Barriers to the uptake of low GWP alternatives to HCFC refrigerants in developing countries. Proceedings International Congress of Refrigeration, Prague, Czech Republic, August 2011, paper 628. 5.Cowan, D., Lundqvist, P., Maidment, G., Chaer, I. (2011) Refrigerant leakage and constainment – overview of the activities of the IIR working party on mitigation of direct emissions of greenhouse gases in refrigeration. Proceedings International Congress of Refrigeration, Prague, Czech Republic, August 2011, paper 856. 6.DCCEE (2012), Australian National Greenhouse Accounts: National Inventory Report 2010, Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, Canberra, http://www.climatech ange.gov.au/emissionshttp://www.climatech ange.gov.au/emissions 7.Edwards, B.F. (2006) CO 2 refrigeration. Presented at IIR-IRHACE 2006 Conference, Auckland, NZ, 16-18 February, 2006. 8.Edwards, B.F. (2008) Personal communication; Realcold Ltd, New Zealand 9.Lommers, C.A. (2003). Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration Refrigerant Selection Guide - 2003, AIRAH, Melbourne.