2012 GEC PPT RAJENDRAN Final 3 14 12€¢ Letter To Producers To Reduce By 47% Until Final Decision...

2012 GEC Rajendran Workshop 3/23/2012

1

Important!This session is approved for 0.2 IACET or 1.5 PDH. Many states accept this for Professional Continuing Education.

To qualify for credit you must: Be sure your badge was scanned when you entered the workshop

Stay for the entire session

Participate in Question and Answer sessions

Fill out the Evaluation Form and hand it to the proctor as you leaveout t e a uat o o a d a d t to t e p octo as you ea e

If you are registered in Florida, New York, or North Carolina, you must alsosign the sheets in the back at the end of the session. Please print your name,include your registration number, and sign the sheet.

0

TITLE GOES HERETITLE GOES HERETITLE GOES HERETITLE GOES HERETITLE GOES HERE


2

An Update onRefrigerants of the Future

Rajan Rajendran

VP of Engineering Services & Sustainability

2

VP of Engineering Services & Sustainability

Emerson Climate Technologies, Inc.

Sidney, Ohio

2

Learning Objectives

1. Understand refrigerants available for today’s designers

2. Discern the pro’s and con’s of new refrigerants with respect to direct emissions and energy consumption

3. Understand Testing process to evaluate new f i trefrigerants

3


3

Ozone Depletion Effect• Protective ozone layer damaged by chlorine and bromine gases

Environmental Drivers Affecting Industry

• Protective ozone layer damaged by chlorine and bromine gases• Montreal protocol in September 16, 1987

– Bans CFCs– HCFC R22 elimination

Climate Change Effect• “Greenhouse Gases” contribute to global warming is theory• Kyoto protocol (1997) aims to curb all greenhouse gases• Most refrigerants in use today are classified as greenhouse gases

4

Montreal Protocol Agreement For Reducing ODP Refrigerants: R-22 Phase-Out Timeline

100100% Today

Ozone Depletion and Montreal Protocol

1999

100

50

0

%1996CAP

65%

25%

10%

32.5% - 20252.5% - 20300% - 2040

2004No New

Equipment EU

2010No New

Equipment US 2013“F ”

20202015

90%

65%

* All Reference Material Sourced From:

US

EU

A5 Nations

“Freeze”A5 Nations

• In January 2012, EPA Announced Reduction Of Allocation For 2012 – 2014, From 11 – 47%• Actual Reduction To Be Finalized, Summer 2012• Letter To Producers To Reduce By 47% Until Final Decision

5


4

• Air‐Conditioning

– R407C With POE Oil

• Industrial (High Temperature)

ECT Approved R‐22 retrofit Refrigerants


– R407A With POE Oil Also Available In Some Sizes

• Food Service (Low, Medium & High Temperature)


– R407A With POE Oil Also Available In Some Sizes

• Supermarket (Low, Medium & High Temperature)

– Discus Compressors: R422A/D, R438A With MO & Oil Separator And

Reservoir

– R407A, R407C, R407F With POE Oil With Some Compressors

ECT does not recommend retrofitting out of R22; If you do, then, here are approved refrigerants for ECT products

6

Approved List Of Refrigerants – Doc 93‐11Document 93‐11 On www. EmersonClimate.com(Product Approvals Are Refrigerant Specific; Check Online Information For Specific Product Availability)

Emerson Climate Technologies

All compressor manufacturers will have an “approved refrigerants” list like this one

www.emersonclimate.com Does Not Include Vilter Brand Products

7


5

• Air‐Conditioning– R410A

• Industrial (High Temperature)– High Charge, Large Systems: R134a, R407C, NH3

L Ch Cl C l d L L k S t R410A

New Equipment Refrigerant Choices *

– Lower Charge, Close‐Coupled Low Leak Systems: R410A– Fractional HP Systems: R134a

• Food Service (Low, Medium & High Temperature)– Close‐Coupled Low Leak Systems: R404A– Alternate Choice: R134a

• Supermarket (Low, Medium & High Temperature)– Large, DX (Traditional Rack) Systems: R404A, R407C/A– Distributed Systems: R404A, R407C/A

/– Secondary Coolant Systems: R404A, R407C/A– Alternate Medium Temp Choice: R134a– Low Temperature Subcritical Systems: CO2

Check Emerson website for white papers on refrigerants etc. ‐ www.emersonclimate.com

*Check To See Compressor/Component Availability & Approvals

8

What Is The Effect Of HFCs On Global Warming?What Is The Effect Of HFCs On Global Warming?

Global Warming and Impacts of HFCs

CO2 Equivalent

CO2

Methane

N2O

HFCs

PFCS, & SF6

Less Than 2% Of Greenhouse Gas Emissions From HFCs

Lan

dfi

lls

Electricity Generation

Other

Transportation Emissions

HFCs Direct Effect (Emission) Is Small

Indirect Effect Is Large Due To Impact On Energy Efficiency

CO2 Equivalent

CO2

Methane

N2O

HFCs

PFCS, & SF6

Less Than 2% Of Greenhouse Gas Emissions From HFCs

Lan

dfi

lls

Electricity Generation

Other

Transportation Emissions

HFCs Direct Effect (Emission) Is Small

Indirect Effect Is Large Due To Impact On Energy Efficiency

Source: Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions & Sinks: 1990-2002

(Adjusting These Gases To CO2

Equivalent Warming Impact)

10% Of Global Carbon Emissions (And Energy Use) Due To Refrigeration, A/C And Heat Pumps

Source: Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions & Sinks: 1990-2002

(Adjusting These Gases To CO2

Equivalent Warming Impact)

10% Of Global Carbon Emissions (And Energy Use) Due To Refrigeration, A/C And Heat Pumps

Concerns about global warming have drawn attention to HVAC&R applications

9


6

• Measure of estimated contribution to global warming

• Relative scale, compares gas tosame mass of carbon dioxide

Global Warming Potential (GWP)

same mass of carbon dioxide(whose GWP by convention is 1)

• GWP is calculated over a specifictime interval, typically 100 years

• Intergovernmental panel on climatechange (IPCC), a UN body, issuesreports that, among other things,update the GWP values forvarious global warming gases

Reference: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter2.pdf

various global warming gases

– Latest report is assessment report 4 (AR4), 2007

GWP – Is important but not the only measure of environmental impact!

10

LCCP DirectGlobal

IndirectGlobal

Refrigerants Should be Evaluated on LifeCycle Climate Performance

= +

10%

Global Warming

ImpactRefrigerant Leakage

EnergyConsumption

GlobalWarming

GlobalWarming

(Life Cycle Climate Performance)

Leakage Consumption

• Leak during life• End of life recovery leak• Leak during production

• Energy used during life• Source of energy• Embodied energy of all material

used for manufacturing of fluid

11


7

2 ‐ 5% Direct Warming Impact (Refrigerant Leakage)

Life Cycle Performance: Typical LowCharge/Leak Systems

95 ‐ 98%Indirect Warming Impact

(Energy Consumption)

* Simple US Based Analysis To Show Relative Impact Only; Not Field Data

For Hermetic systems, global warming is an efficiency issue*(Therefore, future refrigerants must be equal or higher efficiency)

12

60% Direct Warming Impact (Refrigerant

Leakage)

40%Indirect Warming Impact(Energy Consumption)


Leakage)

40%Indirect Warming Impact(Energy Consumption)

Life Cycle Performance: Typical LargeAnd/or High Leak Systems

(Energy Consumption)

Example Analysis For A 3000 lb, R404A System With 20% Annual Leak, Medium & Low Temperature* 1. Reduce Refrigerant Leak To 10% Per Year*

Eliminate 30% Of Global Warming

Impact

15% Direct Warming

40% Indirect Warming Impact(Energy Consumption)

Eliminate 55% Of

40% Indirect Warming Impact(Energy Consumption)

Impact (Refrigerant Leakage)

Eliminate 45% Of Global Warming Impact

2. Reduce Refrigerant Leak To 10% Per Year & Reduce Refrigerant GWP By 50%*


Leakage)

Global Warming Impact

Reduce Direct Impact By 92%

3. Reduce Refrigerant Leak To 10% Per Year, Refrigerant GWP By 50%, And Reduce Charge By 65%*

For large systems, global warming becomes an efficiency issue if charge/leaks are reduced(Therefore, future refrigerants must be equal or higher efficiency)

* Simple US Based Analysis To Show Relative Impact Only; Not Field Data 13


8

Supermarket eg. – Significant Reductionin CO2,eqv Emissions is Possible

• Comparison Contains Multiple Assumptions & Should Be Used For General Comparisons. Emerson Recommends Completing Similar Analysis On Specific Store Cases Before Making Decisions As Results May Change Based On Store Specifics.

•Fixed Load; US Average 0.65 kg CO2/kWh; Parameters Held Constant Expect For Architecture.14

European F‐Gas Regulation (2006)

Refrigerant Carbon Price Eqv Aus $/kg

Australian Carbon Eqv. Tax On HFC (July 2012)

Global HFC Regulations in Place Today

Eqv. Aus $/kg

R134a 29.90

R125 64.40

R143a 87.40

R32 14.95

R404A 74.98

R507 75 90

• General Support Exists In Europe For• Full And Complete Implementation Of F‐Gas Regulation• Cap And Phase‐Down Of HFCs

R507 75.90

R407C 35.09

R410A 39.68

15


9

High GWP HFCs Under Pressure to be“Phased‐Down” or “Eliminated”

(Developing Nations)

North American Proposal to amend Montreal Protocol for phase‐down of “Consumption Of HFCs’ GWP”

16

New “ReplacementRefs”

New LGWP Refs“For OEM Use”

R 410A Lik

Capacity

400 675

Today’s Refs

PressureOr

DP: DR5

CurrentApplications

Unitary A/C

CO2

Emerging Low GWP Candidates

R-410A-Like

R404A-LikeR407-LikeR22-Like

400-675

4-6

< 1500150 -300

R32

DP: DR7HWL: L40, L20

HFO 1234 f

R410A

R407CR22DP: DR33

HWL: N20, N40

DP: DR5HWL: L41

R290

R407A

Unitary A/CSmall Chillers(OEM/Service?)

Refrigeration(OEM/Service?)AC Service?

Large Chillers

R404ANH3

R134a-Like

GWP Level

~600HFO 1234yfHFO 1234ze

Source : Papers by DuPont, Honeywell, Daikin, Panasonic, Mitsubishi ElectricNEDO Symposium 2/17/2010 JapanPurdue Refrigeration Conf July 2010ASHRAE Jan 2011

0 500 1000 1500 2000

Feb 24, 2011: US EPA Approves HFO 1234yf For Use In Automobile AC Applications – New Systems

DP: XP10HWL: N13 R134a

a ge C e sRefrigerationMobile(OEM/Service?)

More than 40 low GWP candidates have been proposed

DP: DR2; HWL: N12

A1 – Non Flammable

A2L – Mildly Flammable

A3 – Flammable

B2L – Toxic, Mildly Flam.


10

Toxicity Flammability

Safety

E i t

Holistic Approach to Refrigerant Selection

PhysicalProperties

StratosphericOzone GWP

Environment

Performance

(Montreal Protocol)

CapacityEfficiency& LCCP

TechnologyChanges

Total Cost

Economics

Integrated analysisLeading to the selection of the best refrigerant

18

Reference: UL White Paper “Revisiting Flammable Refrigerants”, 2011

Refrigerant Safety Groups

New Classification – Applies To Most Low GWP Candidates

19


11

Difficult To Ignite

Minimum Ignition Energy (MIE) andLower Flame Limit (LFL)

To Ignite

Reference: Low GWP Refrigerant Options For Unitary AC & Heat Pumps – Mark Spatz, ASHRAE Jan 2011

Easy To Ignite

Small Leak Can

Ignite

Large Leak To Ignite

20

High

Burning Velocity –Basis for 2 and 2L Classification

gEnergy Release

Reference: Low GWP Refrigerant Options For Unitary AC & Heat Pumps – Mark Spatz, ASHRAE Jan 2011

Low Energy Release

Unstable Flame, Low

Pressure Rise

Stable Flame, High Pressure

Rise

21


12

Standards Working Group

Focus Of Standards Activity For A2L Refrigerants

ISO (Intl.) ISO 5149 Safety & Use; General equipment requirements

IEC 60335‐2‐40 AC & Heat Pump application equipment & use requirements

A2L Rules Development Activity

IEC 60335‐2‐89 Commercial refrigeration application equipment & use requirements

CEN (EU) EN 378 Safety & Use; General equipment requirements

EN‐IEC 60335‐2‐40 AC & Heat Pump application equipment & use requirements

EN‐IEC 60335‐2‐89 Commercial refrigeration application equipment & use requirements

ASHRAE (US/Intl)

Standard 15 Safety & Use; General equipment requirements

UL (US) Working Group #1 AC & Heat Pump application equipment & use requirements (UL 1995)

Working Group #2 Commercial refrigeration application equipment & use requirements (UL 250, UL 471)

Working Group #3 Refrigerant chemistry & requirements

China R32 A2L Committee Develop R32 specific application requirements – AC, Heat Pump, Ref

A2L refrigerant‐use rules only now being developed worldwide

22

• Globally, IEC 60335‐40 And ISO 5149 Lead In Development Of A2L Rules– Max Charge Is 1.5X A2 Levels And Max Surface Temperature Allowed Is 100K

Below AIT; Based On Duct‐Free Systems

A2L Rules Development: Key Points

– Proposal On Table To Increase Factor To 2.0X

• UL’s WG#1 Working On Updating UL 1995 And Actively Engaged With WG9 To Harmonize Standards

– Accept Increasing Max Charge Levels To 2.0X A2 Levels; Suggest A Value Of 3.0X For Discussion; Increase Max Surface Temperature To 700°C; Modify Standard To Include Ducted Systems

– US Delegation To Present Above Changes In March Meeting Of WG9 In Brussels

– Closet Install Of AC Systems (Near Water Heater) Will Need Additional Venting & Mitigation Steps; All Other Applications OK

– Passed Deadlines For 2015 IMC And UMC Adoption; Next Cycle Is 2018

23


13

Flammability

Safety

Environment

Toxicity

Holistic Approach to Refrigerant Selection

CapacityEfficiency& LCCP

GWP

Environment

Performance

(Montreal Protocol)

E i

PhysicalProperties

StratosphericOzone

Total Cost

Economics

Integrated analysisLeading to the selection of the best refrigerant

TechnologyChanges

24

Five Basic Steps In Performance Evaluation:

1 Compare Saturation Pressure Temperature (P T) Data

Performance Evaluation Steps

Search for Low GWP Refrigerants

1. Compare Saturation Pressure – Temperature (P‐T) Data

2. Perform Simple Thermodynamic Analysis

3. Perform Analysis (Performance/LCCP) Including System Effects

1. Pressure Drop

2. Heat Transfer

3. Discharge Temperature Effects (Additional Cooling)

4. High Condensing, Low Condensing Temperaturesg g, g p

5. Annual & Peak Power Consumption

4. Perform “Drop‐In” System Tests/LCCP Analysis

5. Perform “Optimized” System Tests/LCCP Analysis

Step 3, system evaluation, is key to proper refrigerant selection

25


14

alys

is

Difference Between Thermodynamicand System Analysis

Sys

tem

An

a

Th

erm

oA

nal

ysis

Baseline R-22, AC System

Pressure drop and heat transfer

properties affect refrigerant side

System effects can have significant impact on performance of refrigerants

refrigerant side performance

in system

26

• Cavallini et al Propose A “Penalty Factor” (PF) For Analytical Consideration Of System Effects

• PF = Pressure Drop Impact + Heat Transfer Impact

Pressure Drop and Heat Transfer EffectsOn Refrigerant Performance in a System

• Lower PF Is Better For System Performance

• PF Leads To “Two Temperature Penalty” (TTP) Term For Refrigerant Side

• TTP = Pr Drop Temperature Effect + Heat Transfer Temperature Effect

Condenser Example, TTP For:R32 = 1.37K; R410A = 1.83K; R134a = 3.19K

In-tube condensation performance of refrigerants considering penalization terms (energy losses) for heat transfer and pressure drop

Alberto Cavallini, J. Steven Brown, David Del Col, Claudio Zilio

International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 53 (2010) 2885-2896

In-tube condensation performance of refrigerants considering penalization terms (energy losses) for heat transfer and pressure drop

Alberto Cavallini, J. Steven Brown, David Del Col, Claudio Zilio

International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 53 (2010) 2885-2896

27


15

R22 (1.14kg)

•SEER Comparison (cooling mode)HPs （Reversible）- 3.5kW-Room AC in Europe

•Peak power comparison(R410 ratio) under cooling condition

Outside 35 , room 27 DB, 19.5 WB

Annual and Peak Power Comparisonfor Performance (AC System Example)

R410A (1.2kg)

CO2 (0.84Kg) *4

Propane (0.37kg) *3

R32 (0.84kg) *1

HFO1234yf (1.32 kg) *2

Power ratio Efficiency ratio 0.0 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 0.0 1.0 1.3

If IEC is disregardedthe charge volume is 0.58kg, and SEER could be same as R22

Consideration: Consideration:

Copyright Daikin _ OEWG 31 Montreal 11

(Precondition for Calculation) Note: HX= Heat Exchanger*1 Taking low pressure loss into consideration, narrower heat exchanger was used to reduce charge volume.*2 To improve efficiency, HX size was increased : Indoor HX x 1,1 + Path x 2, Outdoor HX x 1.2, and connecting pipe increased

from 3/8=> 5/8*3 To meet IEC requirements, charge volume was reduced: Indoor HX x 0.8, Outdoor HX x 0.5, narrower piping was used.*4 To Improve efficiency: Outdoor unit HX was increased x 1.1

A big difference exists in the peak power under cooling condition. HFO and CO2 will cause peak power supply problems in large cities.

In terms of SEER, CO2 is the worst, and the rest of candidates are equivalent to R410A.

RR Note: • Refrigerants Falling Inside Dotted Box Are OK• HFO Blends Would Fall Inside Both Boxes

28

CO2

R410AIndirect

Direct

Lower GWP Options and Life CyclePerformance – AC Example

R32

HFO 400 GWP

HFO 300 GWP

HFO 150 GWP

HFO-1234yf

R290+SL

Hyp

oth

etic

al B

len

ds

R32, And HFO Blends With R32 Result In

Minimum Impact On Environment

15 25 35 45

R32

(M Ton CO2)*

* 3-ton A/C, 2% Leak, 15-yr Life, 0.65 kg CO2/kwh

Energy consumption becomes the largest driver of emissions –Lowest GWP does not equal best life cycle performance

Environment

29


16

0%

5%

0 % 2 0 % 4 0 % 6 0 % 8 0 % 1 0 0 % % R32

Public R‐32/1234yf Blend AC System Data‐ Trade off Between GWP and Efficiency

-15%

-10%

-5%

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

Unit-2

A/C

Eff

icie

ncy

vs.

R-4

10A

GWP

Unit-1

Range Of Low GWPWithout Loss Of Efficiency:

Good Life Cycle Performance

-25%

-20%

A

Source : Panasonic, Mitsubishi , Daikin, DuPont, Honeywell Papers from Univ. Tokyo, NEDO

Symposium 2/17/2010 Japan & Purdue Refrigeration Conf July 2010

Significant Efficiency Penalty With Pure HFO-1234yf

30



R-410A-Like

Capacity

400-675 R32

Today’s Refs

PressureOr

DP: DR5HWL L41

CurrentApplications

Unitary A/CSmall Chillers

CO2


R 410A Like


R134a Like4-6

< 1500150 -300

R32


HFO 1234yf

R410A

R407CR22DP: DR33

HWL: N20, N40

HWL: L41

R407A

Small Chillers(OEM/Service?)


Large ChillersRefrigeration

R404A

R290

NH3

R134a-Like

GWP Level

~600y

HFO 1234ze


0 500 1000 1500 2000

Feb 24, 2011: US EPA Approves HFO 1234yf For Use In Automobile AC Applications – New Systems


RefrigerationMobile(OEM/Service?)


DP: DR2; HWL: N12



A3 – Flammable



17

Current Product

Reduced GWP Option( A1)

Lowest GWP Option (A2L)

HFO Blend GWP 1300 (retrofit) N 40 (H)

Reduced/Low GWP RefrigerantOptions from DuPont and Honeywell

R-404A GWP=3922

HFO Blend – GWP~1300 (retrofit) N-40 (H)HFO Blend – GWP~1000 (new) N-20(H)HFO Blend – DR33(D)

HFO Blend GWP <300 L-40 (H)HFO Blend GWP <300 DR7 (D)

HCFC-22GWP=1810 HFO Blend – GWP ~1000 N-20 (H) HFO Blend GWP <150 L-20 (H)

R-410A GWP=2088

HFO-Blend GWP <500 L-41HFO-Blend GWP <500 DR5

HFC-134aGWP=1430

HFO Blend – GWP ~600 N-13 (H)HFO Blend – GWP ~600 XP10 (D)

HFO-1234yf (D) GWP = 4 L-YF (H)HFO-1234ze GWP = 6 L-ZE (H)

Various DuPont & Honeywell Public Presentations & Email Communications

GWP 1430 HFO Blend GWP 600 XP10 (D) HFO 1234ze GWP 6 L-ZE (H)

R-123GWP= 77

HFO–GWP =7 N-12 (H)HFO – GWP < 10 DR2 (D)

32

Stationary Air Conditioning: L-20 & N-20 as Replacements in Equipment Designed for R-22Stationary Air Conditioning: L-20 & N-20 as Replacements in Equipment Designed for R-22

R32/HFO Blends Perform Well inStationary Air Conditioning Applications

L-20 offers a significant GWP reduction with respect to R-22 (over 80%) Non-flammable N-20 offers close to 50% reduction

L-20 offers a significant GWP reduction with respect to R-22 (over 80%) Non-flammable N-20 offers close to 50% reduction

“Low Global Warming Replacements for HCFCsin Stationary Air Conditioning / Refrigeration Equipment.” Mark Spatz, Honeywell Presentation, Montreal, Canada. August 3, 2011 33


18

Stationary Air Conditioning: L-41 as Replacement for R-410AStationary Air Conditioning: L-41 as Replacement for R-410A


“Low Global Warming Replacements for HCFCsin Stationary Air Conditioning / Refrigeration Equipment.” Mark Spatz, Honeywell Presentation, Montreal, Canada. August 3, 2011

Energy Efficiency similar to R410A

Additional Improvements are possible with minor design changes

L-41 offers a significant GWP reduction with respect to R-410A (over 75%)

Energy Efficiency similar to R410A

Additional Improvements are possible with minor design changes

L-41 offers a significant GWP reduction with respect to R-410A (over 75%)

34

13

Cooling Comparison II: DR-5 vs R410A

110%


100%96%

100%103%

98%100%

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

105%

110%

410A DR-5 DR-5 CapMatch

Capacity

COP

19

DR-5 Summary – Performance vs. R410A

“Drop In” “Match” Capacity

with compressor speed

Cooling COP +3 % - 2 %

Cooling Capacity -4 % even

Reduced GWP Refrigerant Evaluations For AC And Heat Pump Applications By Thomas Leck, et al At The ICACR, Korea, 7 July 2011

Capacity Match was obtained by increasing the compressor speed. Heating COP + 5 % +4 %

Heating Capacity - 8 % + 1 %

CONCLUSION: In this equipment, DR-5 good for cooling, Great for Heating!

35


19

Medium Pressure Chiller Applications

LGWP Candidates and Blends PerformWell in Chiller Applications

Parameter Units R-12 R-134a 1234ze(E) 1234yf N-13

Delta hevap kJ/kg 120.92 152.49 140.01 118.26 138.95Delta hs,comp kJ/kg 15.1 19.31 19.13 18.73 17.80

Head m 1540 1969 1743 1910 1815mdot kg/s 14.56 11.54 12.57 14.88 12.67

density kg/m3 20.84 17.13 13.64 20.74 17.34Vdot m3/s 0.70 0.67 0.92 0.73 0.73

N (Impeller Speed) rpm 11828 14485 11296 13600 13090D (Impeller Dia.) m 0.256 0.237 0.286 0.248 0.251u2 (tip speed) m/s 159 180 169 177 172

Pr (Pressure Ratio) - 2.34 2.54 2.60 2.40 2.52COP - 8 01 7 90 7 87 7 58 7 80

Refrigerant

An evaluation of potential refrigerants for centrifugal compressors was conducted using a specific speed/diameter approach for both medium and low pressure applications.

Excerpted from public presentations by Mark Spatz, Honeywell And email communication, January 2012

14

COP 8.01 7.90 7.87 7.58 7.80COP Rel to 134a 101.4% 100.0% 99.6% 95.9% 98.7%

Assumptions5 C Evaporator Temperature35 C Condensing Temperature500 Tons (1760 kW) Refrigeration Capacity

1234ze / N-13 show promise, further development is required

36


Low Pressure Chiller Applications

Parameter Units R-11 R-123 R-245fa* HDR-14

Delta hevap kJ/kg 161.71 149.04 162.32 165.44Delta hs,comp kJ/kg 19.02 18.09 20.19 19.85

Head m 1939 1844 2058 2023mdot kg/s 10.88 11.81 10.84 10.64

density kg/m3 3.01 2.76 3.96 3.44Vdot m3/s 3.61 4.28 2.74 3.09

N (Impeller Speed) rpm 6186 5475 7423 6902D (Impeller Dia.) cm 55.0 60.6 47.2 50.4u2 (tip speed) m/s 178 174 184 182

Pr (Pressure Ratio) - 3.00 3.20 3.20 3.06COP - 8.50 8.24 8.04 8.34

COP Rel to R123 103.2% 97.6% 101.2%

Refrigerant


37

15

* requires 2.5oK superheat due to vapor dome shape

Assumptions5 C Evaporator Temperature35 C Condensing Temperature500 Tons (1760 kW) Refrigeration Capacity

HDR-14 can match the efficiency of R-123 while increasing the capacity range of this type of equipment.


20


Medium and Low Pressure Centrifugal Chillers

Efficiency of LGWP Alternative Relative to Base Refrigerant

101% 100% 99%

75%

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

105%

110%

Efficiency of LGWP Alternative Relative to Base Refrigerant


38

16

60%

65%

70%

75%

N-12 Relative to R-123 1234ze Relative to R-134a N-13 Relative to R-134a

Field Evaluations of LGWP Candidatesin Chiller Applications

SolsticeTM 1234ze Chiller Installed in UK Supermarket

Waitrose installed a package chiller using HFO 1234ze in a South London Store.Chiller manufactured by Geoclima using Frascold compressors.

Initial comparisons to a same-size store in Canterbury running identical systems but running with R-290 (propane) as the refrigerant show a 20% reduction in energy consumption for the HFO machine.

http://www.racplus.com/news/waitrose-first-to-put-hfo-chiller-in-store/8622678 article


39

17

store/8622678.article

http://www.frascold.it/News/Waitrose_HFO_release.pdf


21

DR2 – an LGWP Candidate for Chiller Applications from DuPont

Low GWP Working Fluids For Cooling, Heating and Power: Weighing The TradeoffsBy Kostas Kontomaris, DuPont Fluorochemicals R&D23rd IIR International Congress of Refrigeration, Prague, Czech Republic, August 22nd, 2011

40

DuPont’s DR2 – Comparison of Thermodynamic properties


41


22

DuPont’s DR2 – Performance Summary


42

R-22 Replacements in Refrigeration: Optionswith Lower GWP than R-404AR-22 Replacements in Refrigeration: Optionswith Lower GWP than R-404A

Lower GWP Blends Perform WellCompared to HFCs in Refrigeration

Supermarket/Deli Cases (MT)Supermarket/Deli Cases (MT)

R407-Series Of HFCs

Supermarket Freezer Cases (LT)

> 50% GWP Reduction From R-404A >65% >90%

All options offer significantly improved efficiency & GWP reductioncompared to R-404A

Supermarket Freezer Cases (LT)

> 50% GWP Reduction From R-404A >65% >90%

All options offer significantly improved efficiency & GWP reductioncompared to R-404A

HFCsWould Be

Similar (RR Note)

“Low Global Warming Replacements for HCFCsin Stationary Air Conditioning / Refrigeration Equipment.” Mark Spatz, Honeywell Presentation, Montreal, Canada. August 3, 2011 43


23

R-134a XP10

Chemical Formula CF3CH2F Azeotrope

100 yr GWP (AR4) 1430 near 600

Toxicity/Flammability A1 A1 expected

Boiling Point °C (°F) -26 (-15) -29 (-20)

System Operating Temperatures

DuPont’s XP10 Compared to R134a

Boiling Point C ( F) -26 (-15) -29 (-20)

Critical Point °C (°F) 101 (214) 98 (208)

Temperature Glide °C (F) 0 Negligible(Azeotrope)

Calorimeter Testing in a Recip Compressor- EER 2% higher, Capacity 5% higher on average

XP 10 Versus R-134a Calorimeter Test65F Return Gas Temperature

104%

106%

108%

110%

112%

13

4a

Disch T

Cond T

Suct T

Evap T

Operating temperatures are similar

92%

94%

96%

98%

100%

102%

104%

0F/8

0F

14F/8

0F

20F/8

0F

30F/8

0F

0F/1

05F

14F/1

05F

20F/1

05F

30F/1

05F

0F/1

20F

14F/1

20F

20F/1

20F

30F/1

20F

Evaporator/Condenser Condition

XP

10

Re

l to

R-

Rel EER

Rel Cap

Experimental Study Of R134a Alternative In A Supermarket Refrigeration System by Barbara Minor, Dr. Frank Rinne, Dr. Katan Salem.Ashrae Annual Meeting, Montreal, Canada, June 26-29, 2011

Data becoming available from chemical manufacturers on lower GWP options

44

• Low GWP AREP Objectives– Identify potential replacements fortoday’s high GWP HFCs

– Test & present performance in ai & d d

AHRI’s Low GWP AlternativeRefrigerant Evaluation Program (AREP)

consistent & standard manner– A/C, heat pumps, dehumidifiers,chillers, water heaters, ice makers,refrigeration

• Testing approach for evaluation– Compressor calorimeter– System drop‐In– Soft‐optimized system– Heat transfer

• Global In Scope; started July 2011 HFCs AREP Results In The 90’s Led To Ad i Of R134 R404A R407C & R410A• Global In Scope; started July 2011,

complete December 2012 –Over 40 Candidates submitted & Evolving

Emerson Actively Participating In Low GWP AREP

Adoption Of R134a, R404A, R407C & R410A In Various Applications Globally

Emerson Confidential

45


24



R 410A Lik

Capacity

400 675

Today’s Refs

PressureOr

DP: DR5

CurrentApplications

Unitary A/C

CO2


R-410A-Like


400-675

4-6

< 1500150 -300

R32


HFO 1234 f

R410A

R407CR22DP: DR33

HWL: N20, N40

DP: DR5HWL: L41

R407A

Unitary A/CSmall Chillers(OEM/Service?)


Large Chillers

R404A

R290

NH3

R134a-Like

GWP Level

~600HFO 1234yfHFO 1234ze


0 500 1000 1500 2000Feb 24, 2011: US EPA Approves HFO 1234yf For Use In Automobile AC Applications – New Systems


a ge C e sRefrigerationMobile(OEM/Service?)


DP: DR2; HWL: N12



A3 – Flammable


Global Warming

CurrentHFCs

CarbonDioxide

HFOBlends

R32(HFC)

675 4 650 1~2 000 To 4 000

Hydrocarbons

<10

Refrigerant Options to Replace HFCs ‐High Level Summary (AC and Ref)

Potential (GWP)

Compressor Design & Cost

Energy Efficiency

Safety

Refrigerant

675 4-650 1~2,000 To 4,000

Mildly Flammable

<10

Highly Flammable

Refrigerant Cost

System Cost

Future refrigerants may differ by application and region, more than today’s

47


25

• Many new lower GWP refrigerant candidates becoming available for air conditioning,heat pump and refrigeration applications

• Minimizing system’s life cycle impact on environment should be the goal innarrowing choice

Summary

– Reducing leaks & charge is of benefit today and in the future as refrigerant costs increase

– End of life refrigerant management is very important

– In selecting future refrigerants, system efficiency impacts energy and cost of operation; environment impact should be kept flat at a minimum

• Important for industry to stay engaged in:

– “Low GWP AREP”, the AHRI sponsored study that will help guide the selection process

– International & national working groups’ (eg., UL) development of A2L refrigerant use rules impacting new & existing equipment

– Government regulations that will affect systems architecture, refrigerant choice and life cycle cost

– Awareness of developments in china and rest of the world

48

REMEMBER TO FILL OUT AND TURN IN THE EVALUATION FORM

Reminder: If you are registered in Florida, New York, or North Carolina, you must also sign the sheets in the back at the end of the session. Please print your name, include your registration number, and sign the sheet.

49

Date post:	15-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	phamtuong
View:	212 times
Download:	0 times

2012 GEC PPT RAJENDRAN Final 3 14 12€¢ Letter To Producers To Reduce By 47% Until Final Decision...

Documents