Task 7: Policy and impact analysis - EuP Network · Task 7: Policy and impact analysis Final report...

Contact BIO Intelligence Service S.A.S.

Shailendra Mudgal – Jonathan Bain

℡ +33 (0)1 53 90 11 80

[email protected]

[email protected]

European Commission DG ENTR

Preparatory Study for Eco-design Requirements

of EuPs [Contract N° S12.515749]

Lot 1

Refrigerating and freezing equipment: Service cabinets, blast cabinets, walk-in cold rooms, industrial process

chillers, water dispensers, ice-makers, dessert and beverage machines,

minibars, wine storage appliances and packaged condensing units

Task 7: Policy and impact

analysis

Final report

May 2011

2

European Commission, DG ENTR

Preparatory Study for Eco-design Requirements of EuPs

ENTR Lot 1: Refrigerating and freezing equipment – Task 7

May 2011

Project Team

BIO Intelligence Service

Mr. Shailendra Mudgal

Mr. Benoît Tinetti

Mr. Jonathan Bain

Mr. Raul Cervantes

Mr. Alvaro de Prado Trigo

Disclaimer:

The project team does not accept any liability for any direct or indirect damage resulting from the

use of this report or its content.

This report contains the results of research by the authors and is not to be perceived as the opinion

of the European Commission. The European Commission is not responsible for any use that may be

made of the information contained therein.

May 2011


Proposal for Preparatory Study for Eco-design Requirements of EuPs


3

Contents

7. Policy and impact analysis ................................................................................................ 5

7.1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 5

7.2. Policy Options .................................................................................................................. 6

7.2.1. Proposed exact product definitions and scope for policy measures ......................................... 6

7.2.1.1 Service cabinets ..................................................................................................................... 6

7.2.1.2 Blast cabinets ......................................................................................................................... 8

7.2.1.3 Walk-in cold rooms .............................................................................................................. 10

7.2.1.4 Process chillers .................................................................................................................... 11

7.2.1.5 Remote condensing units .................................................................................................... 11

7.2.2. Needs and requirements for harmonised standards to be developed .................................... 12

7.2.2.1 Service cabinets ................................................................................................................... 12

7.2.2.2 Blast cabinets ....................................................................................................................... 14




7.2.3. Proposed policy approaches for product types ....................................................................... 22

7.2.3.1 Summary MEPS .................................................................................................................... 24


7.2.3.3 Blast cabinets ....................................................................................................................... 30




7.2.3.7 Refrigerants ......................................................................................................................... 53

7.2.4. Policy recommendations for labelling, incentives and green public procurement ................. 54

7.2.5. Proposed policy actions related to installation and user behaviour ........................................ 56


7.2.5.2 Blast cabinets ....................................................................................................................... 56




7.2.6. Proposed policy actions related to refrigerants and Best Not Yet Available Technology........ 57


7.2.6.2 Blast cabinets ....................................................................................................................... 58

4




May 2011




7.2.6.6 Summary .............................................................................................................................. 59

7.3. Policy analysis ................................................................................................................ 60

7.3.1. Freeze scenario ........................................................................................................................ 60

7.3.2. Stage 1 of the policy scenario .................................................................................................. 60

7.3.3. Stage 2 of the policy scenario .................................................................................................. 62

7.3.4. Comparison of the scenarios .................................................................................................... 62

7.3.4.1 Comparison in terms of electricity consumption ................................................................ 62

7.3.4.2 Comparison in terms of consumer expenditure .................................................................. 67

7.3.4.3 Comparison in terms of global warming potential .............................................................. 72

7.4. Impact Analysis .............................................................................................................. 77

7.5. Conclusions .................................................................................................................... 79

ANNEXES ................................................................................................................................ 80

ANNEX 7-1: MEPS analysis for walk-in cold rooms ....................................................................... 82

ANNEX 7-2: Remote condensing units AEC and COP .................................................................... 85

May 2011




5

7. Policy and impact analysis

7.1. INTRODUCTION

This task summarises and totals the outcomes of all previous tasks. It looks at suitable

policy means to achieve the potential e.g. implementing Least Life Cycle Cost (LLCC) as

a minimum and Best Available Technology (BAT) as a promotional target, using

legislative or voluntary agreements, labelling and promotion. It draws up scenarios for

the period 2010–2025 quantifying the improvements that can be achieved with respect

to a freeze scenario, compares the outcomes with EU environmental targets, and

estimates the societal costs if the environmental impact reduction would have to be

achieved in another way, etc.

In addition, an analysis of which significant impacts may have to be measured under

possible implementing measures, and what measurement methods would need to be

developed or adapted is provided.

6




May 2011

7.2. POLICY OPTIONS

The policy analysis identifies policy option(s), considering the outcomes of all previous

Tasks, and should:

• be based on the exact definition of the products, according to Task 1 and

modified/confirmed by the other Tasks;

• take into account the market distribution of the different products’

configurations and performances, as shown in Task 2;

• be consistent with the technical analysis and environmental impact

assessment carried out in Task 4 and improvement technologies assessed in

Task 6;

• where appropriate, apply existing standards or propose needs/generic

requirements for harmonised standards to be developed;

• indicate relevant measurement requirements, including test standards and/or

methods, in support of policy options;

• provide ecodesign requirements, such as minimum energy efficiency

requirements, considering the scenarios identified in Task 6 for each product

category, and the corresponding sensitivity analysis;

• be complemented, where appropriate, with (dynamic) labelling and

benchmark categories linked to possible incentives, relating to public

procurement or direct and indirect fiscal instruments;

• consider possible self-regulation, such as voluntary agreement or sectoral

benchmarks initiatives;

• provide requirements on installation of the product or on user information;

and

• consider subsidies, tax incentives, and procurement requirements for public

buildings.

This Task also provides a simple modelling software tool, which allows calculation of

estimates of the impacts on different scenarios.

7.2.1. PROPOSED EXACT PRODUCT DEFINITIONS AND SCOPE FOR POLICY MEASURES

Proposed “best” definitions for the product categories to be covered by these policy

measures are described below for all product groups.

7.2.1.1 Service cabinets

The scope of the proposed policy measures will cover all professional service cabinets,

including:

• plug-in and remote condensing models;

May 2011




7

• vertical, horizontal and chest models of all sizes and door or drawer numbers;

and

• models providing refrigeration or freezing storage, or containing both

refrigeration and freezing storage within the same model.

“Commercial” refrigerators and freezers are related to the supermarket sector and sale

of products to consumers, whereas “professional” refrigerators and freezers are

related to a different market: restaurants hospitals, canteens, supermarket (locations

not in direct contact with the public). The main difference is not related to installation

environment, but to the user: a “commercial” refrigerator is used by a customer, while

a “professional” refrigerator is used by trained staff. Hence the terminology

“professional service cabinet” is used. This definition for performance will also then be

better harmonised with current safety regulation definitions, such as the machinery

and low voltage Directives, which require a declaration of intended use, defining

between household and professional.

Some stakeholders have stated that the scope of the product group covered should

exclude equipment with transparent doors, drawers or lids, and that almost all

“professional” service cabinets have only solid doors (transparent doors for

“commercial” service cabinets are covered in TREN Lot 12, but not those in

“professional” service cabinets). With the recent distinction in terminology in ENTR Lot

1 between “professional” and “commercial” service cabinets, the exclusion from ENTR

Lot 1 of “professional” service cabinets with transparent doors, drawers or lids could

create a loophole in regulation. Therefore it is recommended that they are kept within

the scope of any regulation, and either their performance will need to meet any

standards set, or an adjustment factor could be incorporated into a revised test

standard to allow for their higher U value (such as decribed in §7.2.3.2).

The following products are proposed to be excluded from the MEPS for service

cabinets, as explained in Task 1:

• Open-top preparation counters (for example ‘saladettes’).

Open-top preparation tables are considered out of scope, as they are usually

distinguished as a different product in standards definitions, and stakeholders

commented that their functionality (they have openings in the product shell to cool

storage trays, provide short-term storage and have frequent door openings – they are

also often not based on Gastronorm sizes) varies from service cabinets (which is sealed

equipment, providing longer-term storage and with fewer door openings). In addition,

they often include features that can impair refrigeration efficiency, e.g. they can offer a

base for the end-user to add a char-grill, griddle or grilling top1.

The following products are proposed to be included:

Professional refrigerating service cabinets

Refrigerated enclosure designed for the storage, but not the sale, of chilled foodstuffs,

accessible via one or more doors and/or drawers, and which is able to store the

foodstuff at temperatures down to a minimum of 0°C.

Professional freezing service cabinets

1 Source: Foster Refrigeration

8




May 2011

Refrigerated enclosure designed for the storage, but not the sale, of frozen foodstuffs,

accessible via one or more doors and/or drawers, that includes a compressor,

condenser and evaporator, and which is able to store the foodstuff at a temperature at

or below 0°C.

Professional refrigerator/freezer service cabinets

Refrigerated enclosure designed for the storage, but not the sale, of chilled and frozen

foodstuffs, accessible via one or more doors and/or drawers, that includes a

compressor, condenser and evaporator, and which has one compartment that is able

to store chilled foodstuffs at a temperature down to a minimum of 0°C, and a second

that is able to store frozen foodstuffs at a temperature below 0°C.

Plug-in

Includes a compressor, condenser and evaporator.

Remote

Includes a compressor and evaporator, condensation is remote.

Vertical

In an upright orientation, with one or more doors or drawers.

Horizontal

Horizontal in orientation, with one or more doors or drawers.

Chest

Horizontal orientation, door(s)/lid(s) at the top of the product.

7.2.1.2 Blast cabinets

The scope of the proposed policy measures will cover all blast cabinets, including:

• plug-in and remote condensing models;

• chilling, freezing and chilling/freezing equipment; and

• reach-in, pass-through and roll-in equipment.

The following equipment is proposed to be excluded, as explained in Task 1.. These

machines do not present the same configuration, size and use pattern as the typical

blast cabinets.

• continuous non foodstuff related equipment,

• walk-in blast rooms.


Plug-in blast chilling cabinet

Equipment that includes a compressor, condenser, evaporator and at least one fan

able to cool down the temperature of the foodstuff from +70°C to +3°C in a short

period of time, i.e. 90 minutes. The foodstuff is arranged in trays within the equipment

or trolleys that are taken into the equipment.

May 2011




9

Plug-in blast freezing cabinet


able to freeze the temperature of the foodstuff from 70°C to -18°C in a short period of

time, i.e. 240 minutes. The foodstuff is arranged in trays within the equipment or

trolleys that are taken into the equipment.

Plug-in blast chilling/freezing cabinet


able to chill or freeze the foodstuff from 70°C to +3°C and -18°C respectively in 90 or

240 minutes. The foodstuff is arranged in trays within the equipment or trolleys that

are taken into the equipment.

Remote blast chilling cabinet

Equipment that includes a compressor, evaporator and at least one fan. It is connected

to a remote condensing unit. This equipment is able to cool down the temperature of

the foodstuff from +70°C to +3°C in a short period of time, i.e. 90 minutes. The

foodstuff is arranged in trays within the equipment or trolleys that are taken into the

equipment.

Remote blast freezing cabinet

Equipment that includes a compressor, evaporator and at least one fan. It is connected

to a remote condensing unit. This equipment is able to freeze the temperature of the

foodstuff from 70°C to -18°C in a short period of time, 240 minutes. The foodstuff is

arranged in trays within the equipment or trolleys that are taken into the equipment.

Remote blast chilling/freezing cabinet

Equipment that includes compressor, evaporator and at least one fan. It is connected

to a remote condensing unit. This equipment is able to chill or freeze the foodstuff

from 70°C to +3°C and -18°C respectively in 90 or 240 minutes. The foodstuff is

arranged in trays within the equipment or trolleys that are taken into the equipment.

The size of equipment trays is normally determined according to Gastronorm standard

sizes (see Task 1).

The classification of size for trolley using equipment (roll-in and pass-through) is given

in Table 7-1 below.

Table 7-1: Size description of trolley (T) equipment (roll-in and pass-through) and reach-in (R) equipment

Size Number of trays

(GN 1/1) Trolleys

Average food stuff

capacity (kg)

Small T 10 – 30 1 – 3 30 – 90

Medium T 90 – 50 4 – 5 91 – 150

Large T 60 – 80 6 – 8 151 – 240

Small R 1-3 - 3-9

Medium R 5-10 - 15-30

10




May 2011

Large R 12-15 - 36-45

Extra-large R > 16 - > 48

7.2.1.3 Walk-in cold rooms

The scope of the proposed policy measures will cover all commercial and industrial

walk-in cold rooms, including:

• factory-built and customised models;

• models attached to both packaged and remote refrigeration systems;

• models of all sizes up to 400m3 internal volume; and

• models providing refrigeration or freezing storage, or containing both

refrigeration and freezing storage within the same model.

The following product types are proposed to be excluded from the requirements for

walk-in cold rooms, as explained in Task 1:

• products designed and marketed exclusively for medical, scientific, or research

purposes;

• above 400m3 in volume;

• incorporating loading bays designed to provide access to vehicles; and

• forming part of a building or having load-bearing walls.

Medical, scientific or research products may require a different functionality, due to

tighter temperature control requirement, which will have an impact on testing and

energy consumption, and are hence excluded. Large systems over 400m2 are also

excluded; there would be smaller cold air spill from the product when its door is

opened and there are likely to be other heat loads such as vehicle loading bays. Those

products incorporated into a building are excluded as they are already covered by

building regulations and are a not similar type of product (i.e. have load-bearing walls).


Refrigerating walk-in cold rooms

Refrigerated enclosure designed for the storage of chilled products, accessible via one

door. The product can be stored at temperatures down to a minimum of 0°C.

Freezing walk-in cold rooms

Refrigerated enclosure designed for the storage of frozen products, accessible via one

door. The product can be stored at a temperature below 0°C.

Dual compartment walk-in cold rooms

Refrigerated enclosure with dual compartments, designed for the storage of chilled

and/or frozen products, accessible via one or more door(s), the two volumes being able

to store produce at different temperatures.

Factory-built insulated enclosure

May 2011




11

Insulated enclosure constructed in a factory, sold as a kit.

Customised insulated enclosure

Insulated enclosure designed and constructed by specialist installers.

Packaged refrigeration

Insulated enclosure that includes condenser unit, piping and evaporator unit.

Remote refrigeration

Insulated enclosure that includes evaporator unit, while condensation unit is remote.

7.2.1.4 Process chillers

The scope of the proposed policy measures will cover all process chillers, including:

• packaged models;

• water- and air-cooled equipment; and,

• equipment providing low temperature and medium temperature.

The following products are proposed to be excluded from the MEPS for industrial

process chillers, as discussed in Task 1.. These machines are covered in ENTR Lot 6, and

their use is different from low and medium temperature chillers.

• High temperature chillers: commonly used in comfort appliances for air

conditioning. Equipment working in this temperature range will not be

included in the scope of these proposed policy measures.


Air-, water-cooled refrigeration process chillers – low temperature

Systems including at least a compressor, condenser, expansion valve and evaporator,

among other parts, designed to provide cooling capacity for a process or chambers.

They are designed to provide outlet evaporator temperatures from -25°C to -8°C.

Air-, water-cooled refrigeration process chillers – medium temperature

Systems including at least a compressor, condenser, expansion valve and evaporator,

among other parts, designed to provide cooling capacity for a process or chambers.

They are designed to provide outlet evaporator temperatures from -12°C to +3°C.

7.2.1.5 Remote condensing units

The scope of the proposed policy measures will cover all refrigeration remote

condensing units as defined in Task 1, including:

• packaged condensing units with one or parallel compressors;

• packaged condensing units for all cooling capacity ranges;

• packaged condensing units for low (-35°C) and medium (-10°) evaporating

temperatures; and

• packaged condensing units with air-cooled or water-cooled condensers.

The scope of the proposed MEPS, as discussed in Task 1, will not include:

12




May 2011

• condensing units for high temperatures (Air conditioning);

• compressor packs or racks (as defined in Task 1: groups of compressors

without condenser);

• split systems (remote condensing units for air conditioning sold together with a

remote evaporator);

• condensing units including evaporator; and

• condensing units not including condenser within the package.


Remote chilling condensing units

Combination of one or more compressors, condensers or liquid receivers (when

applicable) and the regularly furnished accessories, specifically designed to provide

cooling to other equipment at -10°C evaporating temperature.

Remote freezing condensing units

Combination of one or more compressors, condensers or liquid receivers (when

applicable) and regularly furnished accessories, specifically designed to provide cooling

to other equipment at -35°C evaporating temperature.

7.2.2. NEEDS AND REQUIREMENTS FOR HARMONISED STANDARDS TO BE DEVELOPED

Before discussing the development of potential options for MEPS, it is necessary to

evaluate the status of testing standards, which are essential in providing comparable

performance data for products. They can then be used as a harmonised test to

evaluate whether products meet requirements or not.

According to the outcomes of Task 1 and feedback from stakeholders, there is a need

to develop energy performance testing standards (or adapt existing test standards) for

blast cabinets, walk-in cold rooms, process chillers, and remote condensing units.

Some standards exist or are currently under development (such as the adaptation of

EN 23953:2005 by CECED Italia, and the US DOE walk-in cold room test standard).

These initiatives could be considered as a starting point for developing harmonised

standards across the EU.

Consideration of food safety requirements is highly important to service cabinets, blast

cabinets and walk-in cold rooms. It is recommended that the need for products to

meet their respective safety requirements (hence provide their essential function) be

considered when developing harmonised test standards and regulation.


Task 1 has highlighted the importance of a harmonised test methodology to ensure fair

comparison of products, which sets out the climate classes2, M-package positioning,

internal volume calculation and door openings protocol3.

2 It has been proposed that the current M1 and L1 climate classes are suitable. Source: Foster

3 Significant variability in measured performance can result from different testing protocols.

May 2011




13

It is proposed that EN 441 be used as the basis for evaluating the performance of

products in context of MEPS and energy labelling, until a revised standard has been

agreed by the industry. The development of a harmonised test standard for

professional service cabinets in the EU is being driven by EFCEM4. This development

has been confused due to the different technical committees within standardisation

bodies that are responsible for safety and performance of these products. IEC

TC59/61/E-C is relevant to safety, whereas CENELEC TC59X is relevant to performance.

The standard EN 23953, developed for display cabinets, may be a subsequent suitable

methodology, which has been used to test service cabinets and could be formally

adapted for service cabinets, as proposed by EFCEM/CECED Italia. As discussed in Task

1, one issue to note concerns the terminology used in EN 23953. ENTR Lot 1 uses the

term “horizontal” to define the orientation of the product. However, within the current

EN 23953 for commercial service cabinets, “horizontal” is a term used to describe the

display area orientation (Part 1, Annex A). This potentially confusing terminology

should be revised or clarified.

The main focus of the CECED Italia development is a more accurate reflection of use

through an amended pattern for door openings and equipment M-package loading

during testing (see Task 1). Stakeholders have stated that the future volume calculation

methodology for EN 23953 should follow the EFCEM/CECED Italia proposal5, where n is

the number of shelves:

Shelf or drawer base area x (loading height – n x thickness of shelf).

Care should be taken when selecting a method considering the trade-off between

convenience and accuracy. Some of the issues associated with trying to develop a

harmonised and accurate measurement method which reflects the amount of food

that the product can store during use6:

• In some cabinets the shelves are recessed7 and therefore would not actually

have food on them.

• Many cabinets are quite poor in terms of load lines and dimensions and so any

rule can be interpreted in a variety of ways (hence it would be useful to insist

that load lines are marked).

• The number of test packs might be a good method, though loading is only

approximately half shelf height.

Another stakeholder commented that the volume of the test packs used in determining

the energy consumption should also be that also used in the energy/volume index

calculation (there is an inherent inaccuracy when testing energy with one volume of

product and then introducing another volume of product when calculating the energy

efficiency index)8.

Lastly, there are the issues of drawers and glass incorporated into doors, drawers or

lids of “professional” equipment. In discussion with stakeholders, it was suggested that

4 Source: EFCEM, ENTR Lot 1 3

rd stakeholder meeting

5 Source: Electrolux

6 Source: London South Bank University

7 Shelf set back into wall/surface it is attached to, hence not as much surface area available compared to

the "base area". 8 Source: Adande Refrigeration

14




May 2011

products with doors be used as a proxy for similar products incorporating drawers.

However, some benefits resulting from drawer design may not be realised without

amendment of the test method to allow assessment of these products.

It is recommended that during revision of the EN ISO 29353 test standard, that

consideration be taken for this sub-category of products, in order that they are covered

by both the test methodology and any future regulation (and hence any loophole is

avoided). This might take the form of a standard adjustment factor (fixed or related to

glass surface area), or other harmonised calculation method.


Stakeholders have commented that due to the importance of food safety for blast

cabinets, the operation specification from the French norm (AC D40-003:2006) should

be considered as a base when developing an energy performance standard. This

standard or similar industrial version is currently in use by the several manufacturers

across the EU. Its application and methodology is well known by the industry, while its

main objective is to evaluate the equipment considering foodstuff preservation, and

not energy consumption.

According to stakeholders, there are limitations regarding the testing materials for

blast equipment, used to imitate foodstuff during the test. Typical materials used for

other applications, e.g. M-packages for service cabinets, cannot be applied for blast

cabinets due to the degradation of the material under high temperatures. Therefore, it

is recommended that the testing procedure includes reference to the material used in

the French norm as a standard requirement.

The testing standard should also consider the different types of cycle, i.e. chilling and

freezing. However, for combined models, the performance evaluation is not defined.

The following proposals for its evaluation can be considered:

• Testing of the combined product can follow the Californian method. This would

mean testing the equipment in chilling mode, and applying a factor for

determining the theoretical freezing consumption. The aggregate would

represent the energy consumption for the equipment. The factor should

consider time of functioning in each mode.

• Testing the product in each cycle, and making an aggregate of the total energy

consumption considering a standard time of operation in each mode, or a

proportion of functioning as expressed in Task 3 (3 chilling cycles per 1 freezing

cycle in a day). Possible drawbacks of this procedure include preparing the

measurement load material (mashed potatoes) for 4 different cycles, whilst the

benefit would be more accurate measurement of true performance of

individual models.

As mentioned in Tasks 1 and 4, this equipment can be used in storage mode. However,

this is not a predictable practice. It is recommended that the energy consumption of

the equipment during storage mode follows the same requirements and evaluation

procedures to be established for service cabinets. In this case the M-packages or other

type of load would be applicable.

May 2011




15


There is no harmonised test standard for direct measure of energy consumption of

walk-in cold rooms as a whole product in the EU. Implementing a single (whole

product) energy consumption test standard to factory-made walk-in cold rooms,

adapting EN 29353, as previously proposed in the ENTR Lot 1 analysis, and

implementation of MEPS (as set out in Annex 7-1) was described as impossible by

stakeholders, due to the large size of walk-in cold rooms and the limitation of space

within testing laboratories in the EU (product testing under EN 23953 requires

provision of a controlled environment including standardisation of factors such as dry

bulb temperature, relative humidity, dew point, water vapour mass in dry air, and

thermal and air flow characteristics, in the test room). Neither could the test be

performed accurately at the user’s location. The only possible testing locations suited

might be those used for assessment of mobile refrigeration, such as the ATP

agreement which ensures performance in terms of temperature maintenance and

measures refrigeration system cooling capacity (please see ATP agreement description

in Task 1).

However, this product-level direct measurement approach may prove burdensome and

has been abandoned by the US DOE.

There are however existing approaches for evaluating the performance of walk-in cold

room components that can form the basis of developing a harmonised test procedure.

ETAG 021 sets out a framework of standards for the evaluation of walk-in cold room

(and building) insulating enclosure kit components, including the thermal performance

of the components. However, it does not cover the refrigeration system and other

electronic components, it permits a variety of test procedures for many of the

characteristics measured, and does not differentiate performance by operation

temperature. The US DOE final rule for test procedures for walk-in coolers and freezers

specifies standards to assess components of the enclosure and the refrigeration system

separately, and depending on the operation temperature. However, it is currently

adapted to the US, and would need adaptation to the EU context.

The current proposals set out four stages for developing performance requirements for

walk-in cold rooms (see §7.2.3.4 for details). These are applied as follows:

• Specifying harmonised test procedures and conditions for walk-in refrigerator

and walk-in freezer components

• Formalising component characteristic and performance data provision,

including those evaluated via the harmonised test procedures

• Mandating minimum requirements at the component level

The harmonised test procedures are set out in the following table, which lists the

priority components and characteristics for measurement. These harmonised tests

would also be used to evaluate performance of components for certification to the

minimum component standards set out in §7.2.3.4.

16




May 2011

Table 7-2: Harmonised standards and parameters for evaluation of walk-in cold room components

Level of

importance

Component Parameters

measured

Proposed harmonised

standard

Notes or values

Essential Insulating core R-value, m2.K/W

EN 12664:2001 EN

12667:2001 EN

12939:2001

Not required if U-

factor calculated

under EN 14509:

2006

Essential Insulating core Aged R-value,

m2.K/W

EN 13164:2009-02 or

13165:2009-02

Not required if U-

factor calculated

under EN 14509:

2006

Essential

Non-display (wall,

floor and ceiling)

panels

U-value, W/m2.K EN ISO 12567-1:2010

Not required if U-

factor calculated

under EN 14509:

2006.

Essential

Non-display (wall,

floor and ceiling)

panels

U-value, W/m2.K EN 14509: 2006

Only self-supporting

double skin metal

faced insulating

panels (non-display

factory-made

products with pre-

fabricated joints)

Essential

Display and non-

display doors,

and display

panels

U-value, W/m2.K EN ISO 12567-1:2010 Adapted to AHRI

procedure.

Essential

Display and non-

display doors,

and display

panels

Energy consumption

of electrical

components,

kWh/day

Use US DOE percentage

time on (PTO)

assumptions

-

Essential All panels and

doors

Nominal coefficient

of performance of

refrigeration system

Use AHRI 1251

equivalent for

recommended

temperatures

COP of 3.34 for

-10°C (refrigerator)

and COP of 1.73 for

-35°C (freezer)

Essential

Refrigeration

system, Remote

condensing unit,

Evaporation unit

Cooling capacity, kW,

Input power, kW, and

coefficient of

performance

PAS 57:2003 for

packaged system, EN

13215:2000 for RCUs,

EN 328:1999 for

evaporation unit

-

Essential Refrigeration

system

Enclosure load, W,

annual walk-in

energy factor, AWEF,

and energy

consumption,

kWh/day

AHRI 1251 (SI)–2009 -

Non-

essential

Non-display

panels

Air permeability, air

loss in

m³/m².h at 50 Pa

EN 12114:2000

Adapted as

described in EN

14509

Non-

essential

Doors and display

panels

Air permeability, air

loss in

m³/m².h at 50 Pa

BS EN 1026:2000

Adapted as

described in EN

14509

It is proposed that clear operation and ambient temperature classifications be

established and used for assessment of components and refrigeration systems. In Task

1, the following temperature ranges for product application categories were proposed.

• Cellar rooms: +10 to +12

May 2011




17

• General purposes: +1 to +4

• Meat rooms: -2 to +2

• Deep freeze: -22 to -18

The ATP temperature classes have much broader ranges, the most relevant being (Ti is

the internal storage temperature):

• Class A: Ti may be chosen between + 12 °C and 0 °C inclusive;

• Class F: Ti is equal to or less than - 20 °C.

It is recommended that two operation temperatures be adopted for testing of walk-in

cold rooms, for refrigerator and freezing products. As the product group overlaps with

the scope of remote condensing units, it is proposed to match temperatures used for

testing of remote condensing units. The two evaporating temperatures are hence set

at -10°C for refrigerators and -35°C for freezers (equivalent to storage temperatures of

approximately 0°C and -25°C), and for the purposes of evaluating the performance of

products with indoor or outdoor condensing units, an assumed ambient temperature

of +32°C is proposed (until development of more accurate regional temperatures are

developed as described in §7.2.2.5). These also broadly match those proposed by the

US DOE, and those set out in AHRI 1251.

Hence, the following temperatures are proposed for the storage and ambient

temperatures for use in calculations for the purposes of harmonised testing:

• Internal cooled space for cooler: 0°C

• Internal cooled space for freezer: -25°C

• External space for cooler and freezer: +32°C

• Subfloor temperature for cooler and freezer: +15 °C

During the EN ISO 12567 procedure (or EN 14509: 2006 calculation if panels are non-

display factory-made with prefabricated joints), the “hot side” for non-floor panel

would therefore be +32°C and for floor panel +15°C, and on the “cold side”, 0°C for the

refrigerator and -25°C for the freezer. EN ISO 12567 has been proposed by

stakeholders as most suitable, and is recommended as the best approach, to test all

thermal performance effects of panels. The procedure can allow testing of the panels

constructed with joining and any frames as they would be in use, and is a process

equivalent to the ASTM C1363-05 (hot box method).

During the EN 12664, EN 12667, or EN 12939, the “hot side” for non-floor panel would

also be +32°C and for floor panel +15°C, and on the “cold side”, 0°C for the refrigerator

and -25°C for the freezer. These processes are equivalent to the US ASTM C518-04

(thermal transmission evaluated under heat flow meter apparatus).

For EN 13164:2009–02 and EN 13165:2009–02, the mean temperatures for testing

conditions would be changed to +15°C and -10°C respectively for the refrigerator and

freezer.

Where AHRI 1250–2009 is proposed to be used, temperatures used in for nominal

evaporation temperature would be changes to -10°C and -35°C respectively for coolers

and freezers, and condensing air temperatures are assumed to be +32°C for both

indoors and outdoors.

18




May 2011

Regarding the refrigeration system, both AHRI 1251 and PAS 57 propose an applicable

methods for evaluation of refrigeration equipment, using two separate rooms for

testing the condenser and evaporator sections of the system in combination to

calculate COP under standard conditions (please see Task 1), the calorimeter approach.

It is proposed that PAS 57 be adapted for use to measure the characteristics of the

refrigeration system. Existing standards EN 13215:2000 would be used for RCUs, and

EN 328:1999 for evaporation unit. For all tests, evaporating temperatures -10°C for

refrigerators and -35°C for freezers would be used, and ambient (condensing)

temperature +32°C. The developments on seasonal performance would be developed

alongside that for RCUs, as described in §7.2.2.5.

The energy consumption of the components would then be calculated according to the

procedure outlines in AHRI 1251, and summed to provide an estimate of the total

product energy consumption in kWh/day:

• PAS 57, adapted as described above, is used to evaluation refrigeration system

COP. COP is alternatively measured under EN 13215:2000 for RCUs or EN

328:1999 for evaporation unit only (when product is connected to a shared

central refrigeration plant).

• AHRI 1251 is used to calculate the refrigeration system daily energy

consumption and an overall efficiency factor, the annual walk-in efficiency

factor (AWEF), test condition adapted for the relevant operation temperature

(refrigerator or freezer).

• Daily energy consumption of the walk-in cold room surfaces (panels and doors)

are calculated separately. Firstly U-factors for panels and doors are evaluated

through test procedures EN ISO 12567 (or EN 14509: 2006 calculation if panels

are non-display factory-made with prefabricated joints), with test condition

adapted for the relevant operation temperature (refrigerator or freezer). The

U-factor takes into account composite panel or door characteristics, such as

insulation type, structural members, and transparent material (e.g. glass) and

panel thickness.

• When using EN ISO 12567 to calculate non-display panel or door components,

the un-aged λ (hence un-aged R-value) must be calculated using EN 12664, EN

12667, or EN 12939, and the aged λ (hence aged R-value) using EN

13164:2009–02 and EN 13165:2009–02. The temperature conditions to be

used for these are described above.

• The U-factors are then multiplied with nominal refrigeration system

performance characteristics for the relevant operation temperature

(refrigerator or freezer), to calculate energy consumption.

• The nominal efficiency is based on COP of 3.34 for evaporation temperature

-10°C (refrigerator) and COP of 1.73 for evaporation temperature -35°C

(freezer).

• Finally, daily energy consumption of any integrated electronic devices, and the

effect of their heat load on the nominal refrigeration system, are also added to

the total energy consumption for the component within which they are

integrated, using percentage time on assumptions, as described in the US DOE

final rule.

May 2011




19

In regards to air permeability, it is thought that this is not an essential characteristic to

measure, considering the high infiltration due to door openings. However, as doors and

technologies improve to reduce infiltration through that pathway, steady-state

infiltration may become more critical.


No specific testing standard for low and medium temperature chillers has been found.

This contrasts with the situation found for air-conditioning chillers. In the case of

process chillers, the standards to be developed or applied should consider the

requirement of low and medium temperature equipment. Seasonal influence and part-

load conditions should be considered for medium and low temperature chillers. The

suggested units for evaluation mentioned by stakeholders are SCOP (seasonal COP)

and/or SEER (seasonal EER). Part-load standards, e.g. prEN 14825, are able to be

applied to these process chillers. However, these are still in development and have not

been approved.

As water-cooled is a common equipment for low and medium temperature chillers, the

reference water temperature should be fixed at 30°C. This should be different for air-

cooled fixed at 35°C at full-load conditions. Additionally, stakeholders have expressed

that the power requirement for pumps and secondary equipment needed for the

functioning of the machines should be included in the testing method.

Based on the standard prEN 14825:2009, a proposal for medium and low temperature

part-load condition chillers has been developed. The conditions of evaluation should

allow the determination of seasonal values such as: Seasonal Energy efficiency Ratio

(SEER). The part load ratios and conditions shall be as expressed in Table 7-3 for water-

and air-cooled machines.

Table 7-3: Possible part load conditions for testing standards for MT and LT chillers

Part load ratio

Outdoor conditions Indoor heat

exchanger

Cooling tower

(inlet/outlet water

temperature) (°C)

Air dry bulb

temperature (°C)

Air dry bulb (wet bulb

temperature) (°C)

A 100% 30/35 35 27 (19)

B 74% 26/* 30 27 (19)

C 47% 22/* 25 27 (19)

D 21% 18/* 20 27 (19)

*with the water flow rate as determined during the “A” test

The water- and air-on temperature is an issue for chillers. Stakeholders from northern

Europe have mentioned that the testing temperature should be established according

to local conditions, e.g. +22°C instead of 35°C or 30°C (air and water respectively).

Currently, the energy consumed by the cooling system in water-cooled equipment is

not considered within the overall energy consumption. It has been expressed by

20




May 2011

stakeholders that in order to make appropriate comparisons, this extra amount of

energy should be measured and included.

It has been commented by stakeholders that low temperature chillers are normally

customized, with the participation of engineering and technical teams. This means that

the testing of the equipment is normally made using internal standards, not publicly

available. Nevertheless, an example of these standards has not been found.

Furthermore, the customization of the machines leads also to lack of public

information about the performance. Due to their use (e.g. cooling of blood for medical

use), the energy becomes frequently less relevant than reaching the appropriate

functioning9.

Until a new standard including part load and seasonal performance in line with prEN

14825 is developed, the MEPS proposed in this study will follow available test results at

full load, as per EN 14511.


For condensing units, EN 13215:2000 provides rating conditions, tolerances and

requisites for presentation of the manufacturer’s performance data (see Task 1). The

ambient temperature considered as reference in this standard is +32°C and proposes

alternative ambient temperatures of +27°C, +38°C, +43°C and +49°C. Some

manufacturers present performance data also tested at +30°C and +35°C. However,

stakeholders proposed a division of ambient temperatures for testing conditions

depending on two climate zones in Europe: northern Europe with an average ambient

temperature of +11°C and southern Europe with an average ambient temperature of

+15°C. On the other hand, the existing VEPS for condensing unit (UK ECA scheme)

considers an ambient temperature for testing air-cooled remote condensing units of

+20°C.

Publishing performance data in brochures for ambient temperatures between +11°C

and +15°C or at +20°C is not a common practice, and only some product selection

software tools can provide such information. However, performance test for these

working conditions are not standardised.

Moreover, manufacturers claim that the efficiency of machines tested at specific

conditions are not always same as the efficiency in real conditions, and units can be

designed for the specific conditions in which they are supposed to work (related to

climate averages, etc). Indeed, one of the limitations of the efficiency of a refrigerating

machine is the Carnot COP of the refrigeration cycle, given by the temperature

difference between the evaporator and the condenser.

In Figure 7-1 we can see that the Carnot COP decreases when the temperature

difference is lower. Therefore, designs for specific temperature requirements can

increase the efficiency of the machines, and would have potential energy savings in the

EU-27 stock.

9 Source: Trane

May 2011




21

Figure 7-1: Carnot COP

Thus, the existing standard for remote condensing units can be used as basis for

establishing the COP of the condensing unit even though it might be adapted and

updated in order to provide a useful basis for MEPS development. However, this

standard only allows testing the performance of the condensing unit at one point, in

specific conditions and assuming full load operation. Most of the improvement

potential regarding energy consumption of remote condensing units is related to

seasonal performance and part load control. The variation of the evaporating and

condensing temperatures depending on the ambient conditions and the control of the

compressor operation speed depending on the workload can reduce considerably the

annual energy consumption of the remote condensing units.

No standard has been found taking into account these variable conditions and

workloads for remote condensing units, but a similar work is being carried out in recent

years for air conditioning chillers developing the prEN 14825 standard to test them in

variable seasonal conditions. Nevertheless, the workloads and the temperature

conditions stated in that standard are not applicable to commercial refrigeration

condensing units and should be adapted.

Based on part load tests used by one manufacturer10, a possible approach for the part

load conditions to be used is shown in Table 7-4.

Table 7-4: Possible part load conditions for testing standards

Percentage of operating time Load profile

20% 33% cooling capacity



10

Bitzer, 2008

22




May 2011

In a similar manner, variable seasonal conditions should also be taken into account

when developing this new standard, using some temperature distributions over the

year as shown in Task 2. This could allow setting more accurate MEPS levels in the

future and thus achieving greater efficiencies and energy savings. Until a similar

standard to prEN 14825 is to be elaborated for remote condensing units, the proposed

policy measures will follow the performance data available and the industry practices.

The EN 13215 standard establishes tolerance levels on the performance data

presented in this standard. These tolerance levels for power consumption and

refrigeration capacity, in any case can influence the COP by more than 10%. The UK

ECA scheme requirements take into acount the uncertainty in test results, but do not

set any specific limit:

• test data has to be presented to 1 decimal place,

• the level of uncertainty at 95% confidence has to be determined using

standard statistical methods, and

• the product’s COP must exceed the thresold by at least the calculated level of

uncertainty

This approach could be adopted in the development of new test standards.

Water cooled and evaporative condensers are not widely used within remote

condensing units for commercial refrigeration, as shown in Task 2. However, the

improvement potential of these possible options is still questionable since the energy

consumed by the water pumps system is not considered within the test standards. It

has been expressed by stakeholders that in order to make appropriate comparisons,

this extra amount of energy should be measured and included.

7.2.3. PROPOSED POLICY APPROACHES FOR PRODUCT TYPES

In this section the main recommended policy approaches, including the definition of

MEPS levels, are made for all product groups. These MEPS are based on the analysis in

previous Tasks of the present preparatory study. The development of the proposed

requirements takes into account:

• requirements developed on a mandatory or voluntary basis in various

countries inside and outside the EU (see Table 7-5), identified and compared in

Task 1;

• the market structure and distribution of the different technologies presented

in Task 2;

• the environmental and energy performance of existing products (based on the

outcomes of Task 4); and

• improvement options, LLCC scenario and BNAT model (based on outcomes of

Tasks 5 & 6).

May 2011




23

Table 7-5: Summary of existing mandatory and voluntary initiatives

Equipment EU US Canada Australia / New

Zealand

Service cabinets VEPS

11: UK ECA

12 and DK

ETL13

MEPS: DOE, CEC14

MEPS15

(MEPS16

for

refrigerated display

cabinets only) VEPS: Energy Star, AHRI17

Blast cabinets FR AC D 40-003 N/A N/A N/A

Walk-in cold rooms ETAG 021

MEPS: US minimum

component requirements

DOE test procedures

N/A N/A

Process chillers VEPS: UK ECA

12

EU EUROVENT (A/C only) N/A

MEPS15

(A/C

only) MEPS

18 (A/C only)

Remote

condensing units

VEPS: UK ECA

(air cooled only) N/A N/A N/A

N/A: No standards found

This approach will be adopted for all product categories to allow the Commission to set

ambitious but realistic MEPS.

It is proposed that both short-term and long-term MEPS are established. The short-

term MEPS are set at the saving potential of LLCC point, calculated in Task 6, and would

come into force in 2014. The long-term MEPS are indicative, being based on the

estimated BNAT saving potential. The BNAT option was chosen for the long-term level

because the BAT option corresponds to LLCC in most of the products analysed. These

levels should be re-assessed in 2016 in advance of their enforcement in 202019.

In all cases where MEPS are defined, it is recommended that:

• Harmonised test standards are mandated (as discussed in §7.2.2. ); and

• that provision of the resulting product performance information (AEC, COP

and/or EEI20) through the use of a simple label (either a physical label or via

provision of this information where products are sold; in-store or online) is

required to enable consumers to make purchasing decisions based on product

efficiency; and, in addition

• that consideration of provision of LCC and TEWI also be made to enable

consumer consideration of lifetime costs and refrigerant GWP (and/or

standardised TEWI assessment) during purchase.

11

Voluntary energy performance standards 12

UK Enhanced Capital Allowance Scheme 13

Danish Energy Technology List 14

California Appliance Efficiency Regulation 15

Canadian Energy Efficiency Regulation 16

AU/NZ Minimum Energy Performance Standards 17

Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute Certification Program 18

AU/NZ Minimum Energy Performance Standards 19

In particular, the costs of BNAT should be reconsidered using updated cost figures. 20

kWh/48hrs/m3

24




May 2011

7.2.3.1 Summary MEPS

In the following table indicates the location of the MEPS for the different product

categories.

Product Table

Service cabinets Table 7-8

Blast cabinets Table 7-10

Walk-in cold rooms §7.2.3.4

Process chillers Table 7-14, Table 7-16

Remote condensing units Table 7-19


As described in Task 1, and Table 7-5 above, there are several mandatory and voluntary

energy performance initiatives for professional service cabinets.

Energy consumption conversion factors have been applied to real product performance

data (measured under test standard EN 441), to extrapolate to the market (as

described in Task 2), in order to estimate a weighted product AEC that represents the

whole market. This is assumed to be identical to the sub-Base Case model. The relation

between the average model and BAT model is also shown in Task 4 and Task 5.

Possible MEPS levels could be established following the LLCC and BNAT options as

presented in Task 5 and Task 6. Thus, the proposed MEPS are based on two different

levels of energy consumption as described below:

• Short-term: LLCC scenario, leading to a reduction of 46% of the energy

consumption for high-temperature and 47% for low-temperature, which is

assumed to be applicable and achievable in the same measure for all products.

This is represented by the combination of different improvement options.

• Long-term: Weighted BNAT scenario, leading to a reduction of 76% of energy

consumption for high-temperature and 73% for low-temperature, which is

assumed to be applicable and achievable in the measure for all products. This

option integrates additional characteristics to those presented in the LLCC

scenario.

The main indicators for each service cabinet model developed throughout this study,

real equipment, weighted equipment and theoretical models, are shown in Table 7-6.

May 2011




25

Table 7-6: Summary of main indicators for service cabinet models

Operation

temperature Model

Net

volume

(litres)*

AEC

(kWh/year)

Performance

(EEI) LCC (€)

HT

Sub-Base Case 450 2,000 24.35 2,784

Weighted Base Case 450 2,000 24.35 2,784

Real BAT 450 500 6.09 2,809

Weighted real BAT 450 500 6.09 2,809

Theoretical BNAT 450 480 5.84 -

Weighted BNAT 450 480 5.84 -

Scenario A 450 1,136 13.83 2,216

Scenario B 450 1,079 13.14 2,205

LLCC Scenario B

BAT Weighted real BAT

LT

Sub-Base Case 450 5,000 60.88 5,436


Real BAT 450 2,200 26.79 4,504

Weighted real BAT 450 2,200 26.79 4,504

Theoretical BNAT 450 1,350 16.44 -

Weighted BNAT 450 1,350 16.44 -

Scenario A 450 2,768 33.70 3,715

Scenario B 450 2,630 32.02 3,670

LLCC Scenario B

BAT Weighted real BAT

*Calculated according to EN 441 method

In the table below the energy consumption and performance across the product

categories are shown for the weighted Base Case, LLCC and BNAT.

Table 7-7: Estimated energy levels according to LLCC, BAT and BNAT scenarios

Configuration Operation

temperature

Door

numbers

Average

net

internal

volume

(litres)

Average

Base

Case AEC

(kWh

/year)

Average

LLCC AEC

(kWh

/year)

Average

BNAT

AEC

(kWh

/year)

Base

Case

EEI

LLCC

EEI

(MEPS

short-

term)

BNAT

EEI

(MEPS

long-

term)

Vertical

Refrigerator 1 450 2,000 1,140 480 24.35 13.88 5.84

2+ 900 3,200 1,824 768 19.48 11.11 4.68

Freezer 1 450 5,000 2,750 1,350 60.88 33.49 16.44

2+ 900 9,500 5,225 2,565 57.84 31.81 15.62

Horizontal Refrigerator 1 150 900 513 216 32.88 18.74 7.89

Freezer 1 100 1,167 642 315 63.93 35.16 17.26

Chest Freezer 1 400 3,556 1,956 960 48.71 26.79 13.15

*Calculated according to EN 441 method

Possible MEPS for service cabinets, defined using an energy efficiency index (EEI21)

performance threshold, are described below.

21

kWh/48hrs/m3

26




May 2011

Table 7-8: Summary of proposed MEPS for service cabinets


temperature

Net internal

volume, V

(litres)

Short-term

MEPS based on

LLCC (max. EEI)

Long-term MEPS

based on BNAT

(max. EEI)

Vertical

Refrigerator 0 < V < 600 13.88 5.84

> 600 11.11 4.68

Freezer 0 < V < 600 33.49 16.44

> 600 31.81 15.62

Horizontal Refrigerator Any size 18.74 7.89

Freezer Any size 35.16 17.26

Chest Freezer Any size 26.79 13.15

Both plug-in and remote types would be covered under these MEPS levels.

A conversion factor of 1.2 for EEI is proposed for products with transparent doors,

drawers or lids, due to their higher energy consumption.

The MEPS would be measured under the following:

• Total Electrical Energy Consumption as defined in EN 441:1995 (until revision

of EN 23953:2005 is completed);

• Net internal volume calculation according to EN 441 (until revision of EN

23953:2005 is completed). Hence the equipment shall have all movable parts

installed. The load limits shall be identified, considering areas where the air

channels that should not be blocked at any moment. Volume inferior to

100x100x100mm (cubic testing package) should not be included for the

calculation. The measurement should fit primitive geometrical shapes. The

volume of the bottom shelf shall not be included in the total volume.

• Adjustment factor for refrigerator-freezers: to calculate the adjusted volume of

these models, add the volume of the refrigeration compartment in litres to the

product of 1.63 and the volume of freezing compartment in litres [AV = volume

of refrigeration compartment in litres + (1.63 x volume of freezing

compartment in litres)]. If it is assumed that the energy consumption of

freezing per unit volume is 2.5 times that of refrigeration, this adjustment

allows for just over 65% of the product’s internal volume to be freezing

storage.

These MEPS would ban approximately 80% of the current market.

It is proposed that there be mandatory declaration of energy consumption at standard

conditions, (as described in 7.2.3. ) be enforced to provide consumers with a basis for

product comparison.

There are several MEPS and VEPS standards currently in place. These are described in

Task 1. Below are compared the proposed MEPS and the existing UK ECA VEPS.

May 2011




27

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

TE

C (

kW

h/d

ay

)

Net volume (litres)

HT; Plug-in; Vertical; 1-door (UK ECA)

HT Base Case; Plug-in; Vertical

HT BAT; Plug-in; Vertical

Single door (600 litres gross) refrigerator

HT; Plug-in; Vertical; 1-door (proposed short-

term MEPS)

HT; Plug-in; Vertical; 1-door (proposed long-

term MEPS)

LLCC point: vertial 1-door HT

Figure 7-2: Proposed HT 1-door vertical product MEPS compared against the weighted Base Case, the BAT and ETL product energy consumption data

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

9.00

10.00

100 300 500 700 900 1100 1300 1500

TE

C (

kW

h/d

ay

)

Net volume (litres)

HT; Plug-in; Vertical; 2-door (UK

ECA)

Double door (1300 litres gross)

refrigerators

HT; Plug-in; Vertical; 2-door

(proposed short-term MEPS)


(proposed long-term MEPS)

LLCC point: vertical 2-door HT

Figure 7-3: Proposed HT 2-door vertical product MEPS compared against ETL product energy consumption data

28




May 2011

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

TE

C (

kW

h/d

ay

)

Net volume (litres)

HT; Plug-in; Counter and under-

counter (UK ECA)

HT; Plug-in; Horizontal (proposed

short-term MEPS)

HT; Plug-in; Horizontal (proposed

long-term MEPS)

LLCC point: horizontal HT

Figure 7-4: Proposed HT horizontal product MEPS

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

16.00

100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

TE

C (

kW

h/d

ay

)

Net volume (litres)

LT; Plug-in; Vertical; 1-door (UK ECA)

LT Base Case; Plug-in; Vertical

LT BAT; Plug-in; Vertical

Single door (600 litres gross) freezers

LT; Plug-in; Vertical; 1-door (proposed

short-term MEPS)

LT; Plug-in; Vertical; 1-door (proposed

long-term MEPS)

LLCC point: vertial 1-door LT

Figure 7-5: Proposed LT 1-door vertical product MEPS compared against the weighted Base Case, the BAT and ETL product energy consumption data

May 2011




29

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

100 300 500 700 900 1100 1300 1500

TE

C (

kW

h/d

ay

)

Net volume (litres)

LT; Plug-in; Vertical; 2-door (UK ECA)

Double door (1300 litres gross)

freezers

LT; Plug-in; Vertical; 2-door


LT; Plug-in; Vertical; 2-door


LLCC point: vertical 2-door LT

Figure 7-6: Proposed LT 2-door vertical product MEPS compared against ETL product energy consumption data

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

16.00

18.00

20.00

100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

TE

C (

kW

h/d

ay

)

Net volume (litres)

LT; Plug-in; Horizontal (proposed

short-term MEPS)

LT; Plug-in; Horizontal (proposed

long-term MEPS)

LT; Plug-in; Counter and under-

counter (UK ECA)

LLCC point: horizontal LT

Figure 7-7: Proposed LT horizontal product MEPS

30




May 2011

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

TE

C (

kW

h/d

ay

)

Net volume (litres)

LT; Plug-in; Chest (proposed

short-term MEPS)

LT; Plug-in; Chest (proposed

long-term MEPS)

LLCC point: chest

Figure 7-8: Proposed LT chest product MEPS


No current MEPS for blast cabinets have been identified. One of the issues that must

be overcome to properly formulate MEPS is the lack of standards for energy

consumption testing as it was specified in Task 1. These standards can take as

guidelines the French norm for food safety.

Based on the information from Task 2 and Task 4, it is possible to determine the energy

consumption of each category in the market by using conversion factors. Besides, the

relation between the average model and BAT model is also shown in Task 4 and Task 5.

Possible MEPS levels could be established following the LLCC and BNAT options as

presented in Task 5 and Task 6. Thus, the proposed MEPS are based on two different

levels of energy consumption as described below:


consumption, which is assumed to be applicable and achievable in the same

measure for all products. This is represented by the combination of different

improvement options.

• Long-term: Weighted BNAT scenario, leading to a reduction of 50% of energy

consumption, which is assumed to be applicable and achievable in the measure

for all products. This option integrates additional characteristics to those

presented in the LLCC scenario.

The main indicators for each blast cabinet model developed throughout this study, real

equipment, weighted equipment and theoretical models, are shown in Table 7-9.

May 2011




31

Figures are related to annual capacity of foodstuff processing since that is the

consideration of the functional unit.

Table 7-9: Summary of main indicators (annual capacity, AEC, performance and LCC) for blast cabinets equipment proposed

Annual capacity* (kg of

foodstuff/year)

AEC

(kWh/year)

Performance (kWh/kg of

foodstuff processed)

LCC

(€)

Sub-Base Case 8,800 880 0.100 4,432

Weighted Base Case 16,197 3,031 0.187 9,512

BAT model 9,240 572 0.062 4,603

Weighted BAT 16,197 1,970 0.122 9,425

Theoretical BNAT 8,800 440 0.050 -

Weighted theoretical

BNAT 8,800 1,516 0.172 -

Scenario A 16,197 2,097 0.129 9,161

Scenario B 16,197 1,950 0.120 9,106

Scenario C 16,197 1,853 0.114 9,240

LLCC Scenario B

BAT Scenario C

*Annual capacity considering use patterns as stated in Task 3

In Table 7-10 the energy levels for the current equipment and those proposed for

short- and long-term are shown, and energy levels for BAT options are also provided

for comparison. However, according to experts’ opinion, the typical values for energy

consumption are 60-90Wh/kg during chilling cycles and 180-270Wh/kg for freezing

cycles. These values do not seem to include the energy related to fans or other

electrical components within the unit, but only the theoretical value of heat flow as

expressed in the following formula:

Q = m*Cp*∆T, where,

Q: heat flow,

Cp: specific heat capacity of the testing material. In the case of smashed potatoes

correspond to the mix of potato, water and salt (as indicated in the French Norm AC

D40-003)

∆T: temperature decrease of the foodstuff

32




May 2011

Table 7-10: Proposed energy levels according to LLCC, BAT and BNAT scenarios


temperature Size

Average

consumption

per year

(kWh/year)

Average

consumption

LLCC per

year

(kWh/year)

Average

consumption

BAT per year

(kWh/year)

Average

consumption

BNAT per

year

(kWh/year)

Total kg

processed

in a year

Average

performance

(kWh/kg of

foodstuff)

Average

performance

LLCC

(kWh/kg of

foodstuff)

Average

performance

BAT

(kWh/kg of

foodstuff)

Average

performance

BNAT

(kWh/kg of

foodstuff)

MEPS

short

term

(kWh/kg

of

foodstuff)

MEPS

long term

(kWh/kg

of

foodstuff)

Reach-in

Chilling

Small R 528 348 343 264 4,400 0.120 0.079 0.078 0.060

0.066 0.053 Medium R 880 581 572 440 8,800 0.100 0.066 0.065 0.050

Large R 2,112 1,394 1,373 1,056 22,000 0.096 0.063 0.062 0.048

Extra-large R 3,344 2,207 2,174 1,672 31,680 0.106 0.070 0.069 0.053

Freezing

Small 660 436 429 330 2,200 0.300 0.198 0.195 0.150

0.166 0.132 Medium 1,100 726 715 550 4,400 0.250 0.165 0.163 0.125

Large 2,640 1,742 1,716 1,320 11,000 0.240 0.158 0.156 0.120

Extra-large 4,180 2,759 2,717 2,090 15,840 0.264 0.174 0.172 0.132

Chilling / Freezing*

Small 924 610 601 462 4,400 0.210 0.139 0.137 0.105

0.116 0.092 Medium 1,540 1,016 1,001 770 8,800 0.175 0.116 0.114 0.088

Large 3,696 2,439 2,402 1,848 22,000 0.168 0.111 0.109 0.084

Extra-large 5,852 3,862 3,804 2,926 31,680 0.185 0.122 0.120 0.092

Roll-in (trolley)

Chilling

Small 4,148 2,738 2,696 2,074 35,200 0.118 0.078 0.077 0.059

0.074 0.059 Medium 6,219 4,105 4,042 3,110 52,800 0.118 0.078 0.077 0.059

Large 10,102 6,668 6,567 5,051 85,800 0.118 0.078 0.077 0.059

Freezing

Small 5,185 3,422 3,370 2,593 17,600 0.295 0.194 0.191 0.147

0.186 0.147 Medium 7,774 5,131 5,053 3,887 26,400 0.294 0.194 0.191 0.147

Large 12,628 8,334 8,208 6,314 42,900 0.294 0.194 0.191 0.147

Chilling/ Freezing*

Small 7,259 4,791 4,718 3,630 35,200 0.206 0.136 0.134 0.103

0.130 0.103 Medium 10,883 7,183 7,074 5,442 52,800 0.206 0.136 0.134 0.103

Large 17,679 11,668 11,491 8,840 85,800 0.206 0.136 0.134 0.103

Pass-through

Chilling

Small 4,148 2,738 2,696 2,074 35,200 0.118 0.078 0.077 0.059

0.074 0.059 Medium 6,219 4,105 4,042 3,110 52,800 0.118 0.078 0.077 0.059

Large 10,102 6,668 6,567 5,051 85,800 0.118 0.078 0.077 0.059

Freezing

Small 5,185 3,422 3,370 2,593 17,600 0.295 0.194 0.191 0.147

0.186 0.147 Medium 7,774 5,131 5,053 3,887 26,400 0.294 0.194 0.191 0.147

Large 12,628 8,334 8,208 6,314 42,900 0.294 0.194 0.191 0.147

Chilling/ Freezing*

Small 7,259 4,791 4,718 3,630 35,200 0.206 0.136 0.134 0.103

0.130 0.103 Medium 10,883 7,183 7,074 5,442 52,800 0.206 0.136 0.134 0.103

Large 17,679 11,668 11,491 8,840 85,800 0.206 0.136 0.134 0.103

MayMay 2011


Proposal for Preparatory Study for Eco-design Requirements of

EuPs


33

It is proposed that there be mandatory declaration of energy consumption at standard

conditions, (as described in 7.2.3. ) be enforced to provide consumers with a basis for

product comparison.

The following chart shows the energy performance for models found in the market and

provided by stakeholders, compared to the levels of performance proposed above.

According to stakeholders, the data was collected using the testing conditions

expressed in the AC D40-003 or at least very similar ones. One of the changes is

decreasing the testing time from 120 min to 110min. The different levels are the

average energy consumption per category, being classified by operation temperature

(chilling, freezing) and configuration (reach-in, remote).

0.000

0.100

0.200

0.300

0.400

0.500

0.600

0 50 100 150 200 250

Pe

rfo

rma

nce

pe

r cy

cle

(k

Wh

/kg

of

foo

dst

uff

/cy

cle

)

Capacity (kg of foodstuff)

Reach-in plug-in chilling Trolley remote chilling Reach-in plug-in freezing

Trolley remote freezing Real Base Case reach-in chilling Real BAT reach-in chilling

Figure 7-9: Blast cabinets: real products performance information

The following charts show the comparison between the real products and the

proposed MEPS in more detail. Data has not been found for all product categories (e.g.

unusual equipment like small-sized remote reach-in).

34




MayMay 2011

0.000

0.020

0.040

0.060

0.080

0.100

0.120

0.140

0.160

0.180

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Pe

rfo

rma

nce

pe

r cy

cle

(k

Wh

/kg

of

foo

dst

uff

/cy

cle

)


Reach-in plug-in chilling Chilling reach-in (Base Case average)

Chilling reach-in (short-term) Chilling reach-in (long-term)

Figure 7-10: Small to extra-large chilling cycle reach-in equipment. MEPS vs. Real market product performance

0.000

0.100

0.200

0.300

0.400

0.500

0.600

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Pe

rfo

rma

nce

pe

r cy

cle

(k

Wh

/kg

of

foo

dst

uff

/cy

cle

)


Reach-in plug-in freezing Freezing reach-in (Base Case average)

Freezing reach-in (long-term) Freezing reach-in (short-term)

Figure 7-11: Small to extra-large freezing cycle reach-in equipment. MEPS vs. Real market product performance

MayMay 2011



EuPs


35

0.000

0.020

0.040

0.060

0.080

0.100

0.120

0.140

80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220

Pe

rfo

rma

nce

pe

r cy

cle

(k

Wh

/kg

of

foo

dst

uff

/cyc

le)


Trolley remote chilling Chilling roll-in (Base Case average) Chilling roll-in (long-term) Chilling roll-in (short-term)

Figure 7-12: Small to large chilling cycle trolley equipment. MEPS vs. Real market product performance

0.000

0.050

0.100

0.150

0.200

0.250

0.300

0.350

30 50 70 90 110 130 150 170 190 210 230

Pe

rfo

rma

nce

pe

r cy

cle

(k

Wh

/kg

of

foo

dst

uff

/cyc

le)


Trolley remote freezing Freezing roll-in (Base Case average)

Freezing roll-in (long-term) Freezing roll-in (short-term)

Figure 7-13: Small to large freezing cycle trolley equipment. MEPS vs. Real market product performance

36




MayMay 2011

The performance data of real market products does not contain sales information,

therefore, it is not representative of the EU sales or installed stock. However, in Figure

7-9 the performance of the real Base Case and the real BAT products are shown. The

Base Case (reach-in medium-sized) is estimated to represent around 40% of the EU

market.

For reach-in chilling products, the Base Case would not comply with the proposed

MEPS, but the product identified as current real BAT would perform better than the

proposed short-term threshold. For reach-in freezing, no real Base Case was identified,

but according to the data found in brochures, most of the models in the market

consume less energy per cycle than the proposed MEPS (Figure 7-11).

For trolley chilling products no real Base Case has been defined, and the performance

data available in brochures is limited. However, some of the products identified would

consume less energy per cycle than the proposed MEPS (Figure 7-12).

For trolley freezing equipment, all the performance data of real models in the market

complies with the proposed MEPS. Nevertheless, this data is limited and the

representativeness of the installed stock in the EU might not be accurate.

For pass-through machines no data of real products in the market has been found.

Blast cabinets are not currently tested in terms of energy efficiency, being food safety

the principal driver in the design and purchase decisions. Therefore, the natural

improvement of the market without mandatory or voluntary policy instruments is not

expected to be high in the next three years.

Some improvement options have been analysed in Tasks 5 and 6, and data on real

products has been found that proves the improvement potential in these kind of

commercial refrigeration machines.


Introduction

As described in Task 1, and Table 7-5, there are no current mandatory and voluntary

energy performance thresholds for walk-in cold rooms. There are minimum

component requirements in the US, and the US DOE has developed a harmonised test

standard under which product performance needs to be tested (and it is now gathering

comparable information on which to develop MEPS), and although.

However, there are opportunities to build on existing frameworks (such as ETAG 021

and US DOE) and incorporate performance testing of components when developing

potential approaches to regulation of walk-in cold rooms.

Main issues

The different approaches need to be assessed in light of issues regarding the market

for walk-in cold rooms. The main issues associated with regulating the walk-in cold

room market in the EU are:

• The complex nature of the market: Whereas small and medium products may

often be factory-built and constructed onsite by non-professionals, larger

products are frequently custom-made from components produced by diverse

MayMay 2011



EuPs


37

manufacturers and constructed by refrigeration professionals. Often the

manufacturer of the insulation panels or insulation enclosure kit will be

different from that of the refrigeration system manufacturer, and they will

place their products onto the market separately.

• The impact of installation on product performance: The quality of construction

of walk-in cold rooms has a great impact on their performance. Even with the

use of high-performing components, such as low U-value insulation and high

efficiency motors, if the refrigeration system is badly matched to the

requirements of the insulated enclosure, or the insulated enclosure is poorly

constructed (leading to air infiltration, etc.), the energy consumption of the

product will be increased. This might for example occur if an installer tries to

cut costs in order to compete with low market prices (particularly pertinent

considering that capital cost has been quoted by stakeholders as being the

current main purchase driver in the market). Options for regulation should take

this into account, and provide a means of both incentivising a high level of

construction quality, and effectively policing the less responsible installers.

• Methods for testing performance: The products are difficult to test. Firstly,

they are large and therefore not easily placed within a testing laboratory that

can provide the constantly-maintained standard conditions (ambient

temperature, humidity and air-flow) required to provide a fair comparison

when testing products. In addition, there are many influences acting on the

performance of the model, and due to high variation in specification and use,

modelling the heat load on the refrigeration system, and hence consumption

of the product, is complex. Devising a standard categorisation (to enable

development of standard conditions for testing to allow comparison) for the

many uses patterns and ambient conditions, under which walk-in cold rooms

function, may be challenging (as for service cabinets, a walk-in cold room test

method should take into account ambient temperature, humidity, internal

volume measurement, M-package loading and door opening protocol). These

issues potentially make any testing regime complex and costly.

• Refrigeration system and enclosure matching: Efficiency is very dependent on

the matching of the refrigeration system capacity to the walk-in cold room

load. Even if the refrigeration system is efficient independently and the

insulated enclosure is of high quality, if the system is used with an insulated

enclosure that it is oversized for, the improvements and independent testing of

the system and enclosure components will not lead to high performance.

• Enforcement: Due to the complexity of the market structure, it is not

straightforward to decide on which actor should fall the burden of

responsibility for testing. In addition, the potential high cost of a testing regime

may require for this burden to be shared by the various market actors (for

example through a voluntary industry-funded and regulated system), adding to

its complexity.

38




MayMay 2011

Options for regulation

When considering approaches for regulation to take into account of the issues

discussed above, it is valuable to consider the range of regulatory options available to

support the approach.

These options are:

• Requirements for harmonised standards to be developed;

• product measurement requirements, including test standards and methods;

• minimum requirements;

• labelling/ benchmark categories;

• self-regulation;

• requirements on installation of the product; and/or

• requirements for the provision of information to the customer/user.

Analysis of approaches

Minimum component requirements: minimum component requirements could be

enforced and would cover all product types. Investigation into components has

provided some levels on which to base these. In addition, the US minimum standards

provide evidence that this approach can work. Component requirements would not

capture all system benefits or the effects of the installation, and test standards to

measure the performance would be required (see Task 1). However, the minimum

levels would ensure a basic minimum of efficiency, and improve product energy

efficiency. For example, minimum COP levels could additionally be defined per

temperature class, and the performance of all refrigeration systems enforced (whether

remote condensing unit or packaged).

Evaluation of energy consumption: Estimating the total energy consumption of the

whole product, from the estimated consumption of each component, could provide a

means to evaluate and develop MEPS, as has been the approach of the US DOE.

Design standards: These could cover all product types, and ETAG 021 provides a

framework to build on, given that they already cover cold rooms kits placed on the

market. The standards could be adopted by the rest of the industry as best practice in

product design. Design standards would not capture system benefits or the effects of

the installation, but would increase awareness of aspects of design affecting energy

consumption.

Recommendations:

Harmonised standards

The first recommendation would be the harmonisation of standards to test the

performance of the walk-in cold room components, and subsequently for evaluation of

their energy performance, as described in Table 7-2.

Certification

The certification framework for this component approach would have combined

component and installer responsibility is set out in the US DOE final rule. In summary,

the responsibility for compliance extends to both component manufacturer and

MayMay 2011



EuPs


39

assembler. Component manufacturers are responsible for certifying compliance of the

components to be used for walk-in cold rooms, while assemblers of the complete walk-

in cold room are required to use only certified components (the component

manufacturer is not responsible for the end-users implementation of the component –

only of the components compliance as designed). Characteristics and performance

measured would need to be documented, along with description of test conditions

and/or calculations. Ensuring that the final product is CE marked would be the

responsibility of the actor placing the product on the market (whether sold directly to

end-user or through a third party such as a wholesaler), although the testing of the

component(s) or the refrigeration system could be carried out by a separate

manufacturer in the supply chain.

Provision of standard documentation to consumers by manufacture (or designer)

placing the product on the market should be enforced, covering component types and

performance levels in respect to the minimum requirements set out.

In addition, it is proposed that a basic model at the component is permitted, as is the

case for both ETAG 021 and US DOE. In essence this allows products to be grouped,

under the understanding that the documented performance is that of the “worst”

possible performance (or most onerous component tested) and hence that any

product under the basic model should meet the certified performance when tested.

Hence changes to parameters such as the thickness of the insulating material would

need to be taken into account.

Short-term requirements

The short-term performance standards set out for RCUs in §7.2.3.6 would apply to

those used for walk-in cold rooms.

In addition, minimum requirements for components, providing a basic level of

performance that covers all products sold on the market, should be enforced; the

following requirements are proposed:

• strip-door curtains (or other device or structure designed to reduce ingress of

ambient air into the refrigerated space);

• wall, ceiling, and door insulation of a maximum U value (U ≤ 0.25 W/m2.K for

storage spaces above 0°C and U ≤ 0.2 W/m2.K for products with storage at or

below 0°C);

• floor insulation of a maximum U value for freezers (U ≤ 0.2 W/m2.K);

• solid doors of maximum U value (U ≤ 1.0 W/m2.K);

• fully transparent doors and display panels of maximum U value (U ≤ 1.4

W/m2.K); and

• banning of shaded pole motors, hence use of PSC or ECM motors only, for fans

in condensing and evaporating units (or, when a harmonised test procedure be

developed, motors with an equivalent efficiency).

It is estimated that application of these will enable a reduction in consumption of an

average of approximately 24% using the improvement option saving levels, as the

minimum requirements set out above being equivalent to options 1, 3 and 7 analysed

40




MayMay 2011

in Task 6, hence this figure and the equivalent costs for these options are used for

evaluation of this policy recommendation.

Long-term requirements

The long-term performance standards set out for RCUs in §7.2.3.6 would apply to

those used for walk-in cold rooms.

In addition, the following are suggested minimum requirements to be considered for

enforcement in the long-term. It is recommended that these be reassessed at the time

of implementation of the short-term targets, in order that they take into account the

performance data that will have been gathered, as well as the technological state of

the art.

The following requirements are tentatively proposed:

• slam-type doors to reduce ingress of ambient air into the refrigerated space;

• automatic door closers to fully close doors left ajar;

• wall, ceiling, and door insulation of a maximum U value (U ≤ 0.2 W/m2.K for

storage spaces above 0°C and U ≤ 0.15 W/m2.K for products with storage at or

below 0°C);

• floor insulation of a maximum U value for freezers (U ≤ 0.15 W/m2.K);

• floor insulation of a maximum U value for refrigerators (U ≤ 0.2 W/m2.K);

• solid doors of maximum U value (U ≤ 0.75 W/m2.K); and

• fully transparent doors and display panels of maximum U value (U ≤ 1.1

W/m2.K).

It is estimated that these and minimum requirements will enable a reduction in

consumption of an average of approximately 50%, the equivalent to the sum of all

improvement options analysed in Task 6 (apart from Option 3 due to overlap with ECM

evaporator motor), hence this figure is used for evaluation of this policy

recommendation.

Setting minimum COP levels for the refrigeration systems at respective operation

conditions will also be important, once harmonised test procedures provide

comparable performance data. MEPS may also be set in future, calculated via the

estimation of component energy consumptions.

Design/voluntary standards

The use of hot box testing of the panels and doors will account for thermal

performance of the components. In addition, there are aspects of design that could be

considered best practice.

In terms of matching refrigeration cooling capacity to walk-in cold room loads, the

AHRI 1251 box load calculation provides an indication of best practice. For example,

the high loading point is a function of the cooling capacity of the refrigeration system

at specific temperatures, being 0.7 times the cooling capacity for a cooler at +32°C

ambient, and 0.8 cooling capacity for a freezer at +32°C ambient. Hence, the U-factors

for panels, doors and electronic components at the respective temperatures can be

summed for the relevant size of the walk-in cold room, and the relevant refrigeration

capacity calculated. Therefore required cooling capacity for a refrigerator is the heat

MayMay 2011



EuPs


41

load from the box, multiplied by the inverse of 0.7, and for a freezer the heat load of its

box multiplied by the inverse of 0.8.

In addition, it is proposed that air permeability be measured as best practice, and a

voluntary agreement for this characteristic be established by industry to set a

maximum air permeability of doors, and display and non-display panels.


Only MEPS related to high temperature chillers have been identified. The efficiency of

high temperature chillers is normally higher than efficiencies of medium and low

temperature chillers. Stakeholders have expressed that it is possible to adapt high

temperature chillers to medium temperature operation ranges. However, the cooling

capacity decreases and so does the COP. Chillers experts have mentioned that

presenting MEPS for temperature ranges would encourage progress and from the

industry to develop particular technologies instead of adapting other machines. For

screw compressor chillers, the cooling capacity is expressed to decrease by almost

45%, with a correction factor for COP corresponding to around 0.67.

MEPS are currently tested at full load, not including part load efficiency. Until a new

standard including part load and seasonal performance in line with prEN 14825 is

developed, the MEPS proposed in this study will follow available test results in the

industry at full load, using EN 14511.

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

5.5

6

6.5

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000

CO

P (n

et

coo

ling

cap

acit

y (

kW)

/ e

ffe

ctiv

e p

ow

er

inp

ut

(kW

) in

co

olin

g m

od

e)

Cooling capacity (kW)

MEPS and VEPS for Chillers

ECA - Split air-cooled chiller (all compressors) ECA - Packaged air-cooled chiller (all compressors)

ECA - Water-cooled (all compressors) ASHRAE - Air-cooled w/o condenser

ASHRAE - Water-cooled reciprocating ASHRAE - Centrifugal

ASHRAE - Screw CAN - Air-cooled packaged

CAN - Air-cooled split CAN - Water-cooled reciprocating

CAN - Water-cooled rotary/screw/scroll CAN - Water-cooled centrifugal

AS/NZ - Air-cooled AS/NZ - Water-cooled

Base Case MT BAT MT

Figure 7-14: MEPS for high temperature chillers from 3rd

countries and UK

The sub-Base Case was chosen due to its market share related to the capacity. The

weighted Base Case was determined considering the energy consumption

contributions and the market shares. The BAT characteristics correspond to the Base

42




MayMay 2011

Case conditions. Therefore, in the figure there is some equipment with better

performance, but it is less common in the market.

According to the findings from brochures, the equipment with the best performance

uses reciprocating compressors, ammonia as refrigerant and a solution (ethylene

glycol, propylene glycol) as fluid. This is followed by screw compressors22. Finally,

according to information found in brochures the least performers are R410A machines

with reciprocating compressors. This order is considered to represent the average

products for each category and can vary according to the manufacturer and the class of

the equipment. There is a significant potential of energy savings for R410A

reciprocating machines23.

MEPS proposed for chillers might consider the framework of existing MEPS for high

temperature chillers, which considers that the energy efficiency increases as the size

and capacity of the equipment increase. The analysis done in previous tasks and the

proposed levels take into account this element. The seasonality and partial load

conditions currently being developped should be also be considered. However,

industry does not normally present information in this regard. More details on the

behaviour of equipment are required to acheive this. For instance, the data of the

evaluation of the machines at part-load for -8°C and -25°C are relevant. The evaluation

of the equipment must be done with a single standard, e.g. prEN14825, and taking into

account the operation conditions.

The analysis made in Task 5 and Task 6 regarding the possible improvement options

and the potential of improvement for chillers showed that the theoretical BAT

correspond to the LLCC escenario for both temperature ranges. Therefore, for process

chillers only two energy levels for MEPS will be proposed. The values for COP are given

for full load, as no current reference for partial load has been found.

• LLCC/BAT scenario: this short-term energy performance requirement is

determined by the LLCC, which provides energy savings equal to 27% for MT

and LT process chillers. Nevertheless, the option 1 included in this scenario

does not influence the COP value. The expected increase of the COP is 23%.

• Weighted BNAT scenario: Weighted BNAT this would apply in the long term.

The possible saving through this scenario are 49% for MT process chillers and

41% for LT process chillers. Nonetheless, similar to LLCC/BAT, the option 1

found in this scenario does not have an impact on the COP value. Hence, the

expected COP increase is 43% for MT and 31% for low temperature.

The main indicators for each process chiller model developed throughout this study,

real equipment, weighted equipment and theoretical models are shown in Table 7-11

and Table 7-12. The COP are calculated leaving the capacity fix and decreasing the

typical power input value according to the relevant savings as expressed in Task 6.

The COP values are calculated for water-cooled chillers, as this is the configuration for

the Base Case selected in Task 4. Therefore, the improvement options presented in

Task 5 and Task 6 that only apply to air-cooled chillers are not included in the

calculations. The values for COP takes into account the influence of improvement

option for the LLCC and BNAT options. As mentioned in Task 6, not every option that

22

J&E Hall 23

Source: EUROVENT

MayMay 2011



EuPs


43

reduces energy consumption is applicable for full-load conditions. Therefore, the COP

does not necessarily change in the same proportion as the AEC.

Table 7-11: Summary of main indicators for MT chillers models

AEC (kWh/year) COP LCC (€)

Sub-Base Case 346,206 2.80 526,487

Weighted Base Case 420,946 2.21 626,205

Real BAT 315,360 2.89 512,832

Weighted real BAT 383,061 2.43 670,265

Theoretical BNAT 197,337 4.91 -

Weighted BNAT 214,682 3.88 -

Scenario A 322,920 3.01 357,220

Scenario B 306,774 3.17 346,237

LLCC Scenario B

BAT Scenario B

*Evaporator leaving temperature -8°C. Condenser inlet temperature +30°C (water-

cooled)/+35°C (air-cooled)

Table 7-12: Summary of main indicators for LT chillers models

AEC (kWh/year) COP LCC (€)

Sub-Base Case 450,068 1.96 682,672

Weighted Base Case 587,659 1.58 866,246

Real BAT 409,968 2.10 669,843

Weighted real BAT 534,769 1.74 836,776

Theoretical BNAT 310,547 3.95 -

Weighted BNAT 405,485 2.29 -

Scenario A 450,811 2.16 487,602

Scenario B 428,270 2.27 471,931

LLCC Scenario B

BAT Scenario B

*Evaporator leaving temperature -15°C. Condenser inlet temperature +30°C (water-

cooled)/+35°C (air-cooled)

The values for COP related to the different weighted categories are expressed in Table

7-13. These values consider the improvement option influence for the LLCC and BNAT

options. As mentioned in Task 6, not every option that reduces energy consumption is

applicable is applicable for full-load conditions. Therefore, the COP does not

necessarily change in the same proportion as the AEC.

44




MayMay 2011

Table 7-13: Estimated COP levels according to LLCC, BAT and BNAT scenarios for medium and low temperature chillers

Operation

temperature Size

Typical

capacity

(kW)

Cooling system

COP (kWh/year)

(-8/-15°C outlet

temp./*)

COP LLCC

(kWh/year)

(-8/-15°C outlet

temp./*)

COP BAT

(kWh/year)

(-8/-15°C outlet

temp./*)

COP BNAT

(kWh/year)

(-8/-15°C outlet

temp./*)

Medium

temperature

Small 50 Air cooled 1.94 2.51 2.13 3.40

Water cooled 2.23 2.89 2.45 3.91

Medium 250 Air cooled 2.16 2.81 2.37 3.79

Water cooled 2.49 3.23 2.73 4.36

Large 500 Air cooled 2.25 2.92 2.47 3.95

Water cooled 2.59 3.36 2.84 4.54

Extra-large 1,000 Air cooled 2.43 3.16 2.67 4.26

Water cooled 2.79 3.63 3.07 4.90

Low

temperature

Small 50 Air cooled 1.38 1.80 1.52 2.00

Water cooled 1.59 2.07 1.75 2.30

Medium 250 Air cooled 1.54 2.00 1.70 2.24

Water cooled 1.78 2.31 1.95 2.57

Large 500 Air cooled 1.61 2.09 1.77 2.33

Water cooled 1.85 2.40 2.03 2.68

Extra-large 1,000 Air cooled 1.74 2.25 1.91 2.52

Water cooled 2.00 2.59 2.19 2.89

*Condenser inlet temperature +30°C (water-cooled)/+35°C (air-cooled)

In Table 7-14, proposed minimum values of COP for water-cooled low and medium

temperature process chillers are presented. These values follow the methodology

proposed within the study. They are based on the weighted base case COP.

Table 7-14: Proposed MEPS for water-cooled low and medium temperature chillers

Applicability COP*

Medium Temperature Low Temperature

Short-term 2.88 2.05

Long-term 3.88 2.29

*Net cooling capacity (kW)/efective power input (kW), condenser inlet temperature +30°C.

Evaportator leaving brine temperature -8°C/-25°C

It is proposed that there will be mandatory declaration of COP or SEER at standard

conditions (in line with EN 14511). The development of a harmonized test standard will

enable this (as described in 7.2.3. ). These values will provide consumers with a basis

for product comparison.

The impact of the improvement options in air-cooled chillers is assessed taking into

account the technologies only applicable for air-cooled on the basis of the MEPS for

water-cooled. The water to air energy consumption factors as seen in Task 5 (1.15),

and the possibility of using option 4 as seen in Task 5 and Task 6 are the key elements

that determine the MEPS. This will lead to an additional increase of 2% of the COP.

However, air-cooled chillers have extra energy requirments (1:1.15) that must be taken

into account for this. The values of COP are shown in the table below.

MayMay 2011



EuPs


45

Table 7-15: Proposed MEPS for air-cooled low and medium temperature chillers

Applicability COP*

Medium Temperature Low Temperature

Short-term 2.57 1.83

Long-term 3.50 2.05

*Net cooling capacity (kW)/efective power input (kW), condenser inlet temperature +35°C. Evaportator leaving

brine temperature -8°C/-25°C

The following table show the Carnot efficiency for the different machines and its ratio

with the proposed performance levels.

Table 7-16: Carnot efficiency (evaporation temperature/condensing temperature)

Cooling system Temperature range COP Carnot COP Carnot : COP

proposed (short-term)

Water MT (-8/+30) 6.97 1 : 0.41

LT (-25/+30) 4.51 1 : 0.45

Air MT (-8/+35) 6.16 1 : 0.42

LT (-25/+35) 4.13 1 : 0.44

.

Figure 7-15 shows the performance of equipment found in brochures corresponding to

different technologies for medium and low temperature. The figure also shows the

MEPS as proposed. Data in brochures correspond with full load test. Also, the

performance of the base case and BAT at medium and low temperature is shown.

46




MayMay 2011

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000

CO

P (

coo

ling

ca

pa

city

(k

W)/

po

we

r in

pu

t (k

W))


COP of medium temperature chillers with outlet temperature -8°C and

water condenser temperature +30°C

Real Model Base Case MT BAT MT MEPS Level1 MEPS Level2

Figure 7-15: Weighted performance levels for water-cooled chillers at MT, base case and BAT models (data taken from available brochures

24)

24

Source: www.sabroe.com/fileadmin/filer/Brochures/,

www.frigopol.com/de/referenzen/kaltwassersaetze/, docnav.grasso-global.com/

MayMay 2011



EuPs


47

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000

CO

P (

coo

ling

ca

pa

city

(k

W)/

po

we

r in

pu

t (k

W))


COP of low temperature chillers with outlet temperature -25°C and water

condenser temperature +30°C

Real Model Base Case LT BAT LT MEPS Level1 MEPS Level2

Figure 7-16: Weighted performance levels for water-cooled chillers at LT, base case and BAT models (data taken from available brochures

25)

The performance data of models from available brochures does not contain sales or

stock information, but the Base Case represents the biggest share of the market, as

shown in Task 2.

For low temperature water-cooled chillers, the performance of both Base Case and

BAT is lower than the proposed MEPS, and no performance data has been found in

available brochures that comply with the proposed MEPS.

For medium temperature water-cooled chillers, the performance of both Base Case

and BAT is lower than the proposed MEPS, but some models found in brochures

present a performance higher than the performance levels proposed bye MEPS.

This means that nearly all the current products in the market would perform worse

than the proposed levels, except for medium temperature, where some models claim

COP values higher than the MEPS. In three years time, the natural improvement of the

market is not likely to reach the proposed efficiency levels. Medium and low

temperature process chillers are usually tailor-made and the environmental

performance would not be a driver for design and purchase decisions.

Nevertheless, the analysis of design options in Tasks 5 and 6 showed that there is

improvement potential for this kind of machines and some models have been found in

the market with slightly better performance, which prove that improvements are

achievable.

25

Sources: www.sabroe.com/fileadmin/filer/Brochures/,


48




MayMay 2011

As stated above, stakeholders have expressed the possibility of adapting high

temperature chillers to medium temperature ranges. The cooling capacity will

decrease resulting in lower performance. As a rough calculation, the correction factor

for COP would be around 0.67. No correction factor has been quoted for low

temperature applications.

If we use this correction factor for the MEPS identified in third countries for high

temperature chillers, COP thresholds for MT water-cooled chillers would be between

2.75 (UK ECA Scheme) and 4.02 (Australia/New Zealand), and for MT air-cooled chillers

would be between 1.68 (UK ECA Scheme) and 2.08 (ASHRAE). The MEPS proposed for

MT in Table 7-14 and Table 7-15 are within these ranges. Weighted Base Case COP

seems to be lower than the sub-Base Case COP. For this reason, alternative MEPS are

presented in Figure 7-17 considering the levels per capacity as expressed in Table 7-14

for medium temperature water cooled chillers. These levels are only indicative of the

possible approach to take. They are not considered as the proposed ones because they

are approximative and additional information is required to to support them.

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

CO

P*

Capacity (kW)

COP of medium and low temperature chillers with outlet temperature -8°C

and -25°C water condenser temperature +30/+35°C

Standard models Non-standard models Base Case MT BAT MT LLCC BNAT Weighted

Figure 7-17: Performance levels per capacity for chillers at MT and LT, base case and BAT models (data taken from available brochures

26)


Only one voluntary scheme is currently in use for remote condensing units: the UK ECA

scheme. This voluntary initiative establishes performance requirements (measured as

COP) for air cooled condensing units. The conditions specified in the ECA scheme

criteria for testing the COP are the following (See Task 1):

• ambient temperature: +20°C

26

Source: www.sabroe.com/fileadmin/filer/Brochures/,


MayMay 2011



EuPs


49

• evaporating temperature: -35°C, -10°C and +5°C, respectively.

Available performance data of products tested working at evaporating temperature of

-10°C at +20°C ambient temperature, as required by the ECA Scheme, are shown in

Figure 7-18. These data are from the two only manufacturers found that present data

in those conditions and taken from their public brochures27. All products in the graph

are air-cooled packaged remote condensing units with a single scroll compressor. Each

item in the graph represents one model, and there is no information of the sales

amount.

No information was found for remote condensing units tested working at -35°C

evaporating temperature and +20°C ambient temperature.

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00

CO

P


COP and VEPS for condensing units at -10°C evaporating temperature

and +20°C ambient temperature

RCU MT

ECA MT

Figure 7-18: UK ECA Scheme performance requirements for RCUs at MT and performance of RCUs in the market (data taken from available brochures)

Feedback received from stakeholders

When inquired about performance data for condensing units at UK ECA scheme

conditions, some manufacturers already registered within this voluntary certification

scheme quoted a low sales volume and low benefit of this range of remote condensing

units as the main reason for not certifying it. However, in their opinion, the

performance requirements for low temperature condensing units established by the

ECA scheme are achievable.

Stakeholders stated as currently achievable COP values of 2.2628 and 2.429 tested at EN

13215 conditions for medium temperature. COP between 2.6 and 2.829 at the same

conditions were said to be a reasonable short term target. For low temperature, a COP

of 1.328 was proposed for short term target.

27

Hubbard, Daikin, United refrigeration 28

Bitzer, 2010 29

Daikin, 2010

50




MayMay 2011

An expert consulted by the EC proposed a fist level of MEPS established on 45% of the

COP Carnot and a second level of MEPS on 55% of the COP Carnot. Being the COP

Carnot 5.26 and 3.17 for medium temperature and low temperature respectively, the

short term MEPS proposed are 2.35 for medium temperature and 1.12 for low

temperature, and the long term MEPS 2.88 for medium temperature and 1.28 for low

temperature. The same expert proposed as well to establish a “malus” system to

increase the COP requirements for machines using refrigerants with GWP higher than

150. The complete proposed MEPS levels are shown in Table 7-26 in Annex 7-2. This

approach has not been finally used in this study since no scientific facts have been

found to establish the GWP limits for the refrigerants, neither the % increase in COP for

high GWP refrigerants. Anyway, the inherent COP of the different refrigerants should

be taken into account for establishing such a “malus” system and the overall effects on

the whole EU market should be compared in order to obtain a substantiated impact

assessment of the results. The inclusion of refrigerants within the proposed policy

options is further discussed in section 7.2.3.7.

Approach

In this study, MEPS requirements are proposed to be tested at EN 13215:2000

conditions, as these are the conditions most used for testing in the EU market.

In Table 7-29 in the Annex 7-2, energy levels and COP for the current equipment BAT,

BNAT and LLCC are shown for comparison.

The test conditions in EN 13215:2000 allow measuring the performance of remote

condensing units by calculating the COP at one point. The proposed MEPS are

calculated taking into account only improvement options that can achieve gains under

these conditions. Therefore, all the improvements given by part load or seasonal

performance controls were not included to calculate the MEPS levels. In order to do

this distinction, different improvement potentials were used for Annual energy savings

(including part load and seasonal performance) and COP increase (including only

improvements at full load).

Nevertheless, there is a need to develop and harmonise standards for testing

conditions for remote condensing units in variable conditions and part load, in order to

adapt them to the real working conditions in the EU.

For low and medium temperature remote condensing units, the Base Case represents

the largest part of the market and can be used as a reference of the actual state of the

industry knowledge. The BAT products presented in Task 5 for remote condensing units

have a better performance than the Base Case, and are also over the ECA scheme level.

The LLCC options for LT and MT presented in Task 6 are the improvement options that

can achieve lower consumer expenditure throughout the whole life cycle of the

product. The energy savings that these options can achieve are 23% of TEC and 14% of

power input reduction for the same cooling capacity for MT and 28% of TEC and 20% of

power input reduction for LT.

The BNAT analysed in Task 5 can achieve up to 31% of TEC savings and 24% reduction

in power input for the same cooling capacity, and could be in the market in the

following 5 to 10 years. Table 7-17 summarizes the existing information on products

performance and existing voluntary agreements.

MayMay 2011



EuPs


51

Table 7-17: Summary of main indicators for remote condensing units

COP at

+32°C

ambient

temperature

AEC (kWh) LCC (€)

MT

units

Sub-Base Case 1.9 19,068 23,406

Weighted Base Case 1.9 31,270 33,111

Real BAT 2.1 14,526 21,354

Weighted Real BAT 2.1 25,202 28,544

Theoretical BNAT 2.5 13,047 -

Weighted BNAT 2.5 22,167 -

Scenario A 2.4 22,631 29,541

Scenario B 2.2 24,087 29,296

LLCC Scenario B

BAT Scenario B

LT

units

Sub-Base Case 1.0 30,418 35,028

Weighted Base Case 1.0 50,106 49,875

Real BAT 1.1 23,057 31,178

Weighted Real BAT 1.1 40,180 47,334

Theoretical BNAT 1.3 20,586 -

Weighted BNAT 1.3 34,573 -

Scenario A 1.2 36,081 42,630

Scenario B 1.2 38,402 42,799

LLCC Scenario A

BAT Scenario A

Thus, following the approach using for all the products within the present study, the

performance values of the LLCC options identified for LT and MT are proposed as short-

term threshold for remote condensing units; and the performance values of Weighted

BNAT for LT and MT are proposed as long-term thresold.

Market comparison and COP Carnot

The COP thresold values proposed are shown in Table 7-19. Figure 7-19 and Figure 7-20

show the comparison between proposed MEPS and performance of actual models in

the market, the Sub-Base Case and the BAT products for low and medium

temperatures, respectively.

The sources of these data are public brochures from 8 European manufacturers30 and

product selection tools found that show performance data in the testing conditions

especified in EN 13215:2000. In both cases the models shown are only representative

of catalogues, not of the market distribution. As stated in §7.2.1.5, performance data

tested following EN 13215 can have up to 10% deviation. These margins are shown in

Figure 7-19 and Figure 7-20.

Table 7-18 show the Carnot efficiency for the different machines and the comparison

with the proposed MEPS.

30

Bitzer, Daikin, Danfoss, Embraco, Hubbard, ProFroid, Tecumseh, United Refrigeration

52




MayMay 2011

Table 7-18: Carnot efficiency (evaporation temperature/condensing temperature)

Temperature range COP carnot COP Carnot : COP proposed

short term

MT (-10/+32) 5.26 1 : 0.36

LT (-35/+32) 3.17 1 : 0.20

Table 7-19: Proposed MEPS for low and medium temperature remote condensing units

Evaporating

temperature

Short-term COP* threshold at

+32°C ambient temperature

Long-term COP* threshold at

+32°C ambient temperature

Medium

temperature

(-10°C)

2.2 2.5

Low temperature

(-35°C) 1.2 1.3

*Net cooling capacity (kW)/efective power input (kW)

Short-term threshold: as per LLCC option

Long-term threshold: as per BNAT

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00

CO

P


COP and MEPS for condensing units at -10°C evaporating temperature

and +32°C ambient temperature

reciprocating

scroll

Base Case MT

BAT MT

MEPS 1

MEPS 2

Figure 7-19: Performance of RCU at MT tested in EN 13215:2000 conditions (data taken from available brochures and software tools)

MayMay 2011



EuPs


53

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

1.60

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00

CO

P


COP and MEPS for remote condensing units at -35°C evaporating

temperature and +32°C ambient temperature

reciprocating

scroll

Base Case LT

BAT LT

MEPS 1

MEPS 2

Figure 7-20: Performance of RCU at LT tested in EN 13215:2000 conditions (data taken from available brochures and software tools)

It is proposed that there be mandatory declaration of COP at standard conditions, or

SEER when a harmonized test standard has been developed to enable this, (as

described in 7.2.3. ) be enforced to provide consumers with a basis for product

comparison.

The models shown in Figure 7-19 and Figure 7-20 do not contain sales or stock

information, however the Base Case represents the biggest share of the market (see

Task 2)

For low temperature models, the performance of both Base Case and BAT is lower than

the proposed MEPS, which means 80% of the current market.

For medium temperature models, the performance of both Base Case and BAT is lower

than the proposed MEPS, which means 64% of the current market.

As stated above in section 7.2.3.6, stakeholders quoted achievable COP levels in short

term between 2.27 and 2.8 for medium temperature and around 1.3 for low

temperature: This means that in a 3-years period the Base Case for low temperature

could comply with the proposed MEPS, which implies around 80% of the sales per year.

For medium temperature, the Base Case would not comply with the MEPS in three

years time but the BAT would do. Currently the BAT is estimated to be less than 1% of

the sales per year. This means that the performance of 64% of the market would be

lower than the proposed MEPS.

7.2.3.7 Refrigerants

For all the products, alternative refrigerants are analysed as improvement options in

Task 5, and those which were found relevant were selected for Task 6 analysis and

MEPS calculations in Task 7. However, according to the industry, the refrigerants with

significant GWP reduction are not always applicable (see Task 5): HFCs and ammonia

54




MayMay 2011

have safety issues; R744 is not efficient at high ambient temperatures and needs high

pressures at low ambient temperatures, and unsaturated HFCs are still under

development for commercial refrigeration machines.

However, these refrigerants have been analysed in Task 5 and the highest energy

savings at lower price have been prioritised, in response to the environmental impact

assessment carried out in Task 4. In that task, a TEWI analysis has also been carried

out. This is a clear indicator of global warming potential throughout the life cycle,

differentiated in direct and indirect emissions (due to electricity consumption and

refrigerant emissions) but does not account other environmental impact categories, as

the Ecoreport tool does. The results of the TEWI analysis show a significant

contribution of direct refrigerant emissions to the total GWP emissions throughout the

life cycle, and therefore a recommendation of low GWP refrigerant selection cannot be

forgotten. This is explained in §7.2.6.

7.2.4. POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR LABELLING, INCENTIVES AND GREEN PUBLIC

PROCUREMENT

This section considers how additional policy options could help to promote the

purchase of refrigeration and freezing equipment with reduced environmental impact

and low energy consumption. Two main options are currently considered: green public

procurement (GPP), labelling schemes and graded energy efficiency.

The aim of these policy approaches might be to promote a higher level of performance

of products, and “pull” forward innovation, as opposed to the MEPS approach which

aims to remove the worst performers from the market. In addition to physical labelling

on the product, labelling should include the provision of information to buyers through

other means (for example, websites, etc). Purchasing organisations or commercial

buyers may find other channels for information, such as websites, more accessible and

useful.

GPP can promote the purchase of efficient appliances in public buildings (e.g. schools,

hospitals) to incentivise the development of increasingly efficient products. The energy

efficiency level at which minimum requirements should be set for public procurements

are proposed. Some preliminary considerations for setting GPP standards for ENTR Lot

1 products:

• service cabinets, blast cabinets, walk-in cold rooms and remote condensing

units are likely to be used in public sector;

• these products may be suitable for GPP minimum standards, and GPP

standards could meet or supersede MEPS levels, depending on additional cost;

• process chillers at refrigeration temperatures are less likely to be used in the

public sector context, hence GPP may not be as relevant.

Labelling can help consumers to base their purchasing decisions on factors other than

initial capital cost, and potentially increase purchase of low environmental impact or

high energy efficient products. Labelling might either indicate whether a product meets

a pre-defined benchmark of performance (i.e. pass or fail), or could indicate relative

performance (i.e. graded scale of performance). Some requirements for labelling have

already been discussed above and in §7.2.3.

MayMay 2011



EuPs


55

However, graded labelling (i.e. A to G) could provide additional incentive for consumers

to purchase higher performing product, through comparison, rather than the consumer

needing to understand performance data relative to the whole-market context, which

many may not be familiar with (in other words, the consumer may not know whether a

certain level of performance is “good” or “bad”).

Figure 7-19 provides an example of the grading levels, established according to EEI,

that could be set. These grades are graduated by reductions of EEI by 10%, with G

equating to the Base Case EEI, F being Base Case EEI -10%, while finally Grade A limit is

set at Base Case EEI -70% (approaching long-term MEPS target). This approach would

be replicated for each category of service cabinet.

Is is recommended that this labelling approach be established as soon as the revision

to EN 23953 is complete, as product performance in EEI is currently provided during

testing31.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

300 400 500 600 700 800

TE

C (

kW

h/d

ay

)

Net volume (litres)

HT Base Case; Plug-in; Vertical

HT BAT; Plug-in; Vertical

Single door (600 litres gross)

refrigerator





A

B

C

D

E

F

G

Figure 7-21: Proposed HT 1-door vertical service cabinet labelling grades

EU-wide labelling could benefit both GPP initiatives and voluntary schemes by defining

benchmarks for product performance. Examples of information that might be included:

• Annual energy consumption (based on measurement under test standard)

• Performance factor (e.g. EEI32)

31

However, a harmonized approach across the EU is required in order that test results are comparable –

currently product EEIs evaluated under EN 441 and EN 23953 are not comparable. 32

KWh/48hrs/m3

56




MayMay 2011

• Lifecycle cost

• Annual energy bill

Voluntary schemes, aiming to stimulate innovation, could provide an opportunity to set

more ambitious performance benchmarks compared to MEPS, whose aim is to remove

the most environmentally damaging products from the market. Support for

development of national incentive programmes and hence supply of financial incentive

to consumers and help foster purchase drivers based on environmental performance

should be provided (such as the Danish and UK ECA schemes), with for example,

minimum COP levels for refrigeration systems, or U values for insulated enclosures.

These, as for all other products, would need to be supported by the provision of

standard documentation to consumers by installers.

7.2.5. PROPOSED POLICY ACTIONS RELATED TO INSTALLATION AND USER BEHAVIOUR

This section discusses installation and user behaviour and potential policy actions

related these.


The user should be instructed on proper placement (i.e. away from heat and dust

sources), and maintenance (i.e. cleaning of the condenser heat exchanger) of the unit.

In addition, timed alarms could be installed to reduce prolonged door openings.


The use pattern of these machines should be respected as possible, avoiding the hold-

in mode. These machines are very energy consuming and not efficient in this mode.

Their use should be only as blast equipment, and user should be encouraged to move

from this equipment to a service cabinet the foodstuff for further preservation. Setting

alarms of any type to clearly indicate the end of the cycle or setting turn-on/off of the

equipment when the blast cycles are completed are options to avoid their misuse.


The user should be instructed on proper use (i.e. reducing door openings) and

maintenance (i.e. cleaning of the condenser heat exchanger) of the unit. In addition,

timed alarms and automatic door closers could be installed to reduce door openings.

A voluntary initiative from the industry should be established, which would need to

cover approximately 75 to 80% of the market, involving the establishment of a

certification scheme for installers, such as is used for other trades33. This would help to

increase the level of build quality and reduce the risk of irresponsible traders. This may

incentivise component manufacturers to simplify their products to facilitate high-

quality construction. Due to the time taken to revise legislation, it is recommended

that installation requirements are not included in regulation, as best practice may

33

www.trustcorgi.com/Trade/cpsscheme/Pages/Home.aspx

MayMay 2011



EuPs


57

evolve rapidly and hence the any regulation on installation might become outdated. A

voluntary initiative would be more flexible and dynamic.


The installation of process chillers has a big impact on the final performance of the

equipment. Experts and stakeholders agree that a poor installation can reduce the

energy performance of very high performing machines. Nevertheless, it has been

mentioned that this procedure is rarely made the manufacturer, instead is an in-

company or outsourced process. Thus, manufacturers should be encouraged to provide

guidelines for proper installation and testing in order to warrant the performance of

their machines. Additionally, although it is not directly related to the installation, the

energy integration of process chillers to systems can increase the overall performance.


Installation and maintenance practices are key aspects with importance on the energy

consumption of remote condensing units. Most of the manufacturers should provide

with installation and maintenance recommendations for their products, to allow end

users and installers a correct practice during installation, useful life and end of life

phases. These guidelines should at least compile a list of good practices that can allow

a better performance of the product and a correct end of life management. For

example, a correct design of the piping system, the condenser cleaning during the

useful life or the refrigerant reclaim in the end of life are meant to be important

practices that can lower the global environmental impact of the condensing unit.

7.2.6. PROPOSED POLICY ACTIONS RELATED TO REFRIGERANTS AND BEST NOT YET AVAILABLE

TECHNOLOGY

This section discusses BNAT and potential policy actions related to R&D programmes.

Evidence points to most research being conducted by industry, academic research

institutes and large consumer goods whose products require refrigeration (such as

carbonated drinks and ice creams).

For all products, it is recommended that a maximum refrigerant GWP level be set, to

accelerate the implementation of low-GWP refrigerants. It is proposed that this be a

fixed level, for example GWP 6 and to be implemented in 2020 (BNAT level), and that

this would therefore create a target in the long-term for manufacturers.


Stakeholders have mentioned that many of the recent improvements in product

performance have come about through the better control of the product (as a system),

allowing the components to work together more efficiently.

Other BNAT developments may be achieved via alternative refrigeration technologies,

such as magnetic refrigeration.

58




MayMay 2011


According to the feedback from stakeholders and research, no real BNAT are being

developed in the present time for blast cabinets. Instead, specific technologies for the

different components of these machines are being developed and have been

considered as such in this report. The technologies that are considered as BNAT are

those whose price makes them inaccessible or that are only applicable to a type of

equipment and further development could widen the range of application Regarding

refrigerants, the R290 and R744 are the refrigerant that could be used in the future for

this type of equipment, especially if its applicability for plug-in configuration is

developed and safety issues are overcome. Under this view, actions to support the

development of this type of research can help in the future.


Research that may develop into BNAT applicable to walk-in cold rooms is likely to come

from improvements to components such as insulation and motors.

Stakeholders have also mentioned research into using HCs in medium walk-in cold

rooms, where a charge of up to 1.5kg might be used (as described under EN 378). The

use of two separate refrigerant circuits in one product, thereby avoiding the legislative

barrier to the size of HC charge, is an option for larger products. For the size range of

WICRs considered, the use of ammonia would require the development of special semi

hermetic or hermetic compressors in which copper or copper alloy was not used. Such

compressors may be under development34.


Not yet available technologies for chillers are identified as those technologies that are

already developed but are not accessible to customers, e.g. magnetic bearings and

vacuum process. In other cases, they represent an extra investment not only in

equipment, but in knowledge about the process and the integration of the heat

rejection with re-usable potential (e.g. economisers – as discussed in Task 5).

Promoting these integrative actions is feasible depending on the scope of the

methodologies used. Also, it is possible to encourage the development of certain

technologies by compensating their use with economic incentives, as is done under the

UK ECA programme.

Due to their nature, chillers commonly require of installation of piping, pumping, heat

rejection devices or, in some cases, water treating plants. The quality of these

installations can affect negatively a good performing chiller. Requirements in this

regard can be set to warranty maintaining the energy performance.


The BNAT model presented in Task 5 includes current technologies that providehigher

efficiencies than the market average but whose price is still too high for the market, or

which is still under development for all capacity ranges.

34

Source: Defra

MayMay 2011



EuPs


59

Other research is being carried out in order to develop systems capable of using

alternative refrigerants (ammonia, carbon dioxide, hydrocarbons) for all the

refrigeration products, and to minimise the safety issues related to ammonia and

hydrocarbons and the high pressure needed for CO2 systems. A reduction in leakages

from remote systems and a better control of them is also desirable in order to avoid

the safety and environmental problems, such as emissions, associated with them.

However, according to the EcoReport results presented in Task 4, the new refrigerants

being developed should improve energy performance in addition to having lower GWP

values. This is because the most significant environmental aspect throughout the life

cycle of the product is its energy consumption.

7.2.6.6 Summary

Research into improvements for specific product groups has traditionally enabled

product differentiation. Perhaps this dynamic should be retained to allow innovation

within the framework of increasingly demanding MEPS and VEPS.

Central funding to support R&D, if available, might therefore be best directed to

improvements of central refrigeration systems. These are not the focus of any one

actor, but in themselves can lead to significant environmental impacts.

60




MayMay 2011

7.3. POLICY ANALYSIS

The following sections present the Freeze Scenario, and stages 1 and 2 of the policy

scenario.

7.3.1. FREEZE SCENARIO

The freeze scenario assumes the current market data (sales and stocks) and the

forecasts until 2025 for each base case at EU level presented in Task 2, and a linear

extrapolation assuming a constant evolution of the sales and stock. In 2025, RCUs will

represent 53% of total sales and stock, followed by service cabinets (35% of sales and

29% of the stock) and walk-in cold rooms (8% of sales and 14% of the stock). In this

scenario, the current Base Case identified in Task 4 for each product group would be

the average product in the market and no improvement in terms of energy efficiency

would be implemented.

7.3.2. STAGE 1 OF THE POLICY SCENARIO

Table 7-20 presents the characteristics of Stage 1 of the policy scenario. It is assumed

that in 2015 each base case will be replaced by the LLCC product which consumes less

energy than the base case, apart from walk-in cold rooms (which is based on the

estimated improvement achieved through minimum requirements using options 1,3

and 7). Variation of the product price with the base case is also provided to assess

annual consumer expenditure at EU level.

Table 7-20: Characteristics of Stage 1 of the policy scenario

Base case

Improvement

potential

compared to the

base case (%)

Annual electricity

consumption (kWh)

Increase of the

product price

compared to the

base case (€)

Product price

(€)

HT Service

cabinet 43 1,079 203 1,203

LT Service

cabinet 45 2,630 233 1,333

Blast cabinet 36 1,970 450 7,153

Walk-in cold

room 24 9,232 230 9,030

MT process

chillers 27* 307,290 20,750 75,750

LT process

chillers 27* 405,485 25,500 95,500

MT Remote

condensing

unit

23* 24,087 1,988 8,615

LT Remote

condensing 28* 38,402 4,086 12,018

MayMay 2011



EuPs


61

unit

*Energy consumption improvement, not identical to COP improvement

62




MayMay 2011

7.3.3. STAGE 2 OF THE POLICY SCENARIO

Table 7-21 presents the characteristics of Stage 2 of the policy scenario. It is assumed

that in 2020 each Base Case will be replaced by the BNAT product, apart from walk-in

cold rooms (which is based on application of all improvement options identified in Task

6 and cost of BNAT model), all of which consume less energy than the Base Case.

Table 7-21: Characteristics of Stage 2 of the policy scenario

Base case

Improvement

potential

compared to

the base case

(%)

Annual

electricity

consumption

(kWh/yr)

Increase of the

product price

compared to the

base case (%)

Product price

(€)

HT Service

cabinet 76 480 260 3,600

LT Service cabinet 73 1,350 264 4,000

Blast cabinet 50 1,516 24 7,906

Walk-in cold

room 50 6,066 40 12,320

MT process

chillers 49* 214,682 100 110,000

LT process chillers 41* 405,485 100 140,000

MT Remote

condensing unit 31* 22,167 148 13,018

LT Remote

condensing unit 31* 34,573 148 18,375

*Energy consumption improvement, not identical to COP improvement

The price increase over the Base Case considered for the BNAT in 2020 corresponds to

double the current price increase for the BAT. For chillers and remote condensing

units, the price of the product is relatively low compared to the Life Cycle Cost,

whereas in the case of blast cabinets, service cabinets and walk-in cold rooms the price

of the real BAT product can be up to 82% of the calculated Life Cycle Cost.

7.3.4. COMPARISON OF THE SCENARIOS

7.3.4.1 Comparison in terms of electricity consumption

Figure 7-22 to Figure 7-29 present the electricity consumption of the EU stock

considering individual base cases until 2025, according to the scenario.

Therefore, considering the whole stock of ENTR Lot 1 appliances, when replacing all

base cases (i.e. current average products) with Stage 1 model from 2014 and their

Stage 2 model from 2020 onwards, 93 TWh could be saved per year in 2025,

approximately 28% of the freeze scenario. Furthermore, cumulative savings during the

MayMay 2011




63

period 2014-2025 are approximately 568 TWh. This represents a reduction of about

11% compared with the freeze scenario.

For individual product categories, remote condensing units allow the highest energy

savings (in absolute value), equal to 70 TWh per year in 2025 and 433 TWh

cumulatively over the period 2014-2025, i.e. 74% of the total cumulative decrease of all

the products. This is logical as RCUs represent the biggest share in terms of electricity

consumption at EU level compared to the other categories, either in the freeze or

Stage 1+2 scenario.

In relative terms, service cabinets lead to the highest decrease with a reduction of

annual electricity consumption in 2025 of approximately 63%, which represents

approximately 7 TWh.

The lines shown in the charts indicate:

• Freeze: there are no expected changes in the machine performance.

• Scenario 1 stage 1: this scenario considers the application of the LLCC option,

apart for walk-in cold rooms, in 2014.

• Scenario 1 stage 2: this scenario considers the application of the LLCC option in

2014 and option weighted BNAT in 2020, apart for walk-in cold rooms, which

have adjusted models implemented on the same schedule.

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

20

09

20

10

20

11

20

12

20

13

20

14

20

15

20

16

20

17

20

18

20

19

20

20

20

21

20

22

20

23

20

24

20

25

En

erg

y c

on

sum

pti

on

(T

Wh

)

Freeze Scenario 1 Stage 1 Scenario 1 Stage 2

Figure 7-22: Electricity consumption (TWh) – Comparison of scenarios for service cabinets HT

64




MayMay 2011

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

20

09

20

10

20

11

20

12

20

13

20

14

20

15

20

16

20

17

20

18

20

19

20

20

20

21

20

22

20

23

20

24

20

25

En

erg

y c

on

sum

pti

on

(T

Wh

)


Figure 7-23: Electricity consumption (TWh) – Comparison of scenarios for service cabinets LT

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

20

09

20

10

20

11

20

12

20

13

20

14

20

15

20

16

20

17

20

18

20

19

20

20

20

21

20

22

20

23

20

24

20

25

En

erg

y c

on

sum

pti

on

(T

Wh

)


Figure 7-24: Electricity consumption (TWh) – Comparison of scenarios for blast cabinets

MayMay 2011




65

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

20

09

20

10

20

11

20

12

20

13

20

14

20

15

20

16

20

17

20

18

20

19

20

20

20

21

20

22

20

23

20

24

20

25

En

erg

y c

on

sum

pti

on

(T

Wh

)


Figure 7-25: Electricity consumption (TWh) – Comparison of scenarios for WICR

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

20

09

20

10

20

11

20

12

20

13

20

14

20

15

20

16

20

17

20

18

20

19

20

20

20

21

20

22

20

23

20

24

20

25

En

erg

y c

on

sum

pti

on

(T

Wh

)


Figure 7-26: Electricity consumption (TWh) – Comparison of scenarios for chillers MT

66




MayMay 2011

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

20

09

20

10

20

11

20

12

20

13

20

14

20

15

20

16

20

17

20

18

20

19

20

20

20

21

20

22

20

23

20

24

20

25

En

erg

y c

on

sum

pti

on

(T

Wh

)


Figure 7-27: Electricity consumption (TWh) – Comparison of scenarios for chillers LT

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

120.00

140.00

160.00

180.00

200.00

20

09

20

10

20

11

20

12

20

13

20

14

20

15

20

16

20

17

20

18

20

19

20

20

20

21

20

22

20

23

20

24

20

25

En

erg

y c

on

sum

pti

on

(T

Wh

)


Figure 7-28: Electricity consumption (TWh) – Comparison of scenarios for RCUs MT

MayMay 2011




67

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

120.00

20

09

20

10

20

11

20

12

20

13

20

14

20

15

20

16

20

17

20

18

20

19

20

20

20

21

20

22

20

23

20

24

20

25

En

erg

y c

on

sum

pti

on

(T

Wh

)


Figure 7-29: Electricity consumption (TWh) – Comparison of scenarios for RCUs LT

7.3.4.2 Comparison in terms of consumer expenditure

Figure 7-38 to Figure 7-45 show the comparison between freeze scenarios, Stage 1 and

Stage 2 scenarios, in terms of annual consumer expenditure. The annual consumer

expenditure includes the cost of used energy related to the installed stock per year and

the cost of new equipment purchased per year. For service cabinets, blast cabinets,

remote condensing units working at medium temperature, increase in price of the

theoretical BNAT in 2020 is not compensated economically by the electricity savings by

2025.

68




MayMay 2011

0.00

200.00

400.00

600.00

800.00

1000.00

1200.00

1400.00

1600.00

20

09

20

10

20

11

20

12

20

13

20

14

20

15

20

16

20

17

20

18

20

19

20

20

20

21

20

22

20

23

20

24

20

25

Exp

en

dit

ure

(€

)


Figure 7-30: Annual consumer expenditure (m€) – Comparison of scenarios for service cabinets HT

0.00

100.00

200.00

300.00

400.00

500.00

600.00

700.00

800.00

900.00

1000.00

20

09

20

10

20

11

20

12

20

13

20

14

20

15

20

16

20

17

20

18

20

19

20

20

20

21

20

22

20

23

20

24

20

25

Ex

pe

nd

itu

re (

€)


Figure 7-31: Annual consumer expenditure (m€) – Comparison of scenarios for service cabinets LT

MayMay 2011




69

0.00

500.00

1000.00

1500.00

2000.00

2500.00

20

09

20

10

20

11

20

12

20

13

20

14

20

15

20

16

20

17

20

18

20

19

20

20

20

21

20

22

20

23

20

24

20

25

Ex

pe

nd

itu

re (

m€

)


Figure 7-32: Annual consumer expenditure (m€) – Comparison of scenarios for blast cabinets

2300.00

2400.00

2500.00

2600.00

2700.00

2800.00

2900.00

3000.00

3100.00

20

09

20

10

20

11

20

12

20

13

20

14

20

15

20

16

20

17

20

18

20

19

20

20

20

21

20

22

20

23

20

24

20

25

Exp

en

dit

ure

(€

)


Figure 7-33: Annual consumer expenditure (m€) – Comparison of scenarios for WICR

70




MayMay 2011

0.00

200.00

400.00

600.00

800.00

1000.00

1200.00

1400.00

1600.00

20

09

20

10

20

11

20

12

20

13

20

14

20

15

20

16

20

17

20

18

20

19

20

20

20

21

20

22

20

23

20

24

20

25

Exp

en

dit

ure

(€

)


Figure 7-34: Annual consumer expenditure (m€) – Comparison of scenarios for chillers MT

0.00

200.00

400.00

600.00

800.00

1000.00

1200.00

1400.00

20

09

20

10

20

11

20

12

20

13

20

14

20

15

20

16

20

17

20

18

20

19

20

20

20

21

20

22

20

23

20

24

20

25

Ex

pe

nd

itu

re (

€)


Figure 7-35: Annual consumer expenditure (m€) – Comparison of scenarios for chillers LT

MayMay 2011




71

14500.00

15000.00

15500.00

16000.00

16500.00

17000.00

17500.00

18000.00

18500.00

19000.00

19500.00

20000.00

20

09

20

10

20

11

20

12

20

13

20

14

20

15

20

16

20

17

20

18

20

19

20

20

20

21

20

22

20

23

20

24

20

25

Ex

pe

nd

itu

re (

m€

)


Figure 7-36: Annual consumer expenditure (m€) – Comparison of scenarios for RCUs MT

0.00

2000.00

4000.00

6000.00

8000.00

10000.00

12000.00

14000.00

16000.00

20

09

20

10

20

11

20

12

20

13

20

14

20

15

20

16

20

17

20

18

20

19

20

20

20

21

20

22

20

23

20

24

20

25

Ex

pe

nd

itu

re (

€)


Figure 7-37: Annual consumer expenditure (m€) – Comparison of scenarios for RCUs MT

72




MayMay 2011

7.3.4.3 Comparison in terms of global warming potential

CO2 emissions (during the use phase) are directly linked to electricity consumption35,

but also the type of refrigerant, the leakage rates and the dumped refrigerant during

the end of life phase are taken into account. Figure 7-30 to Figure 7-37 present the

trends until 2025 for each base case individually. Therefore, if all products are replaced

from 2014 onwards by their Stage 1 models and the Stage 2 models from 2020 onward,

approximately 109 Mt eq. CO2 would be saved annually in 2025, just over 47%, at EU

level, and cumulatively approximately 677 Mt eq. CO2 would have been saved up to

2025, which is just under 19% of the freeze scenario, the major part coming from RCUs

(89%).

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

20

09

20

10

20

11

20

12

20

13

20

14

20

15

20

16

20

17

20

18

20

19

20

20

20

21

20

22

20

23

20

24

20

25

GW

P (

Mt

eq

. C

O2

)


Figure 7-38: Global Warming Potential (Mt eq.CO2) – service cabinets HT

35 According to EcoReport 0.458 kg eq. CO2 is emitted to produce 1kWh.

MayMay 2011




73

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

20

09

20

10

20

11

20

12

20

13

20

14

20

15

20

16

20

17

20

18

20

19

20

20

20

21

20

22

20

23

20

24

20

25

GW

P (

Mt

eq

. C

O2

)


Figure 7-39: Global Warming Potential (Mt eq.CO2) – service cabinets LT

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

20

09

20

10

20

11

20

12

20

13

20

14

20

15

20

16

20

17

20

18

20

19

20

20

20

21

20

22

20

23

20

24

20

25

GW

P (

Mt

eq

. C

O2

)


Figure 7-40: Global Warming Potential (Mt eq.CO2) – blast cabinets

74




MayMay 2011

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

20

09

20

10

20

11

20

12

20

13

20

14

20

15

20

16

20

17

20

18

20

19

20

20

20

21

20

22

20

23

20

24

20

25

GW

P (

Mt

eq

. C

O2

)


Figure 7-41: Global Warming Potential (Mt eq.CO2) – WICR

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

20

09

20

10

20

11

20

12

20

13

20

14

20

15

20

16

20

17

20

18

20

19

20

20

20

21

20

22

20

23

20

24

20

25

GW

P (

Mt

eq

. C

O2

)


Figure 7-42: Global Warming Potential (Mt eq.CO2) – chillers MT

MayMay 2011




75

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

20

09

20

10

20

11

20

12

20

13

20

14

20

15

20

16

20

17

20

18

20

19

20

20

20

21

20

22

20

23

20

24

20

25

GW

P (

Mt

eq

. C

O2

)


Figure 7-43: Global Warming Potential (Mt eq.CO2) – chillers LT

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

120.00

140.00

20

09

20

10

20

11

20

12

20

13

20

14

20

15

20

16

20

17

20

18

20

19

20

20

20

21

20

22

20

23

20

24

20

25

GW

P (

Mt

eq

. C

O2

)


Figure 7-44: Global Warming Potential (Mt eq.CO2) – RCUs MT

76




MayMay 2011

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

20

09

20

10

20

11

20

12

20

13

20

14

20

15

20

16

20

17

20

18

20

19

20

20

20

21

20

22

20

23

20

24

20

25

GW

P (

Mt

eq

. C

O2

)


Figure 7-45: Global Warming Potential (Mt eq.CO2) – RCUs LT

MayMay 2011




77

7.4. IMPACT ANALYSIS

The ecodesign requirements should not entail excessive costs nor undermine the

competitiveness of European enterprises, and should not have a significant negative

impact on consumers or other users. The following impacts may have relevance to this

issue:

• monetary impacts for categories of users in particular regarding affordability

and the life cycle cost of the product;

• impacts on the functionality of the product, from the perspective of the user;

• monetary impacts on the manufacturer regarding redesign, testing, investment

and/or production costs;

• impacts on the competitive situation of the market; such as market share of

products already complying with the envisaged minimum requirement, market

shares of remaining models after the minimum requirement is introduced,

competitive advantage or negative impacts on the competitive situation of

some market players (e.g. SMEs, regional players) or reduction in consumer

choice.

As described in Table 7-22 below, the short-term Stage 1 MEPS will not pose a

significant burden on manufacturers in terms of cost to achieve required efficiencies,

and the payback for consumers is short.

However, for the long-term, the costs are higher and payback for consumers longer,

particularly for service cabinets and process chillers. The estimates may be overstated,

as technologies will fall in price before the proposed date of the long-term MEPS levels

in 2020.

Other issues to consider are the requirements for products that handle foodstuff to

meet food safety regulations – hence is a point arrives where a trade-off between

product performance and safety arise, then any performance requirements will need

to be limited to ensure these safety levels are met.

78




MayMay 2011

Table 7-22: Characteristics of the Stage 1 and Stage 2 scenario

Base case

Base Case

lifetime

(years)

Base Case

price

Base Case

consumpti

on

Stage 1

product

price (€)

Increase of the

product price

compared to

the base case

(€)

Improvement

potential

compared to

the base case

Annual

electricity

consumption

(kWh)

Payback

(years)

Stage 2

product

price (€)

Increase of

the product

price

compared to

the base case

(€)

Improvement

potential

compared to

the base case

Annual

electricity

consumption

(kWh/yr)

Payback

(years)

HT Service

cabinet 8.5 1,000 2,000 1,203 203 43 1,079 1.84 3,600 2,600 76 480 28.51

LT Service

cabinet 8.5 1,100 5,000 1,333 233 45 2,630 0.83 4,000 2,900 73 1,350 30.10

Blast cabinet 8.5 6,703 3,078 7,153 450 36 1,970 3.38 7,906 1,203 50 1,516 2.99

Walk-in cold

room 10 8,800 12,155 9,030 230 24 9,232 0.7 12,320 3,520 50 6,066 4.8

MT process

chillers 15 55,000 420,946 75,750 20,750 27 306,772 1.51 110,000 55,000 49 214,845 2.22

LT process

chillers 15 70,000 587,659 95,500 25,500 27 428,267 1.33 140,000 70,000 41 347,860 2.43

MT Remote

condensing

unit

8 5,249 32,330 7,957 2,707 28 23,401 2.5 5,919 7,669 31 22,167 6.4

LT Remote

condensing

unit

8 7,419 38,083 9,644 2,226 23 29,188 2.1 25,793 18,375 31 25,980 7.5

May 2011




79

7.5. CONCLUSIONS

Energy consumption during the use phase is the main environmental aspect for all the

environmental impact categories (see Task 4). Only for climate change the End of Life

phase (where refrigerant emissions due to leakages are accounted for) is relevant, in

the rest of environmental impacts this aspect is negligible.

Harmonisation of current test standards, and development of new test standards, is

required to provide a fair and replicable basis against which product performance can

be measured.

Using existing MEPS, VEPS, minimum requirements, and considering product model

performance data, first proposals for possible EU MEPS and minimum requirements

have been made. These MEPS and minimum requirements levels are based on the

analysis of the market, the existing knowledge and available technologies, and have

been consulted with experts and stakeholders. Proposals of test standards to measure

the performance and compliance with the MEPS and minimum requirements have also

been made.

The freeze and Stage 1+2 scenarios have been modelled, demonstrating significant

reductions in energy consumption and GWP, and leading to reduced consumer

expenditure. In 2025, the total cumulative energy consumption of the EU stock of

products within ENTR Lot 1 would be 568 TWh lower in the Stage 1+2 scenario than in

the freeze scenario, which means a reduction of 11% in energy demand and just under

19% in indirect GWP emissions. The total consumer expenditure would be 10893

million € lower in total for the period. With complementary policies, such as energy

labelling, installation and maintenance guidelines, or promotion of low-GWP

refrigerants, the energy savings an environmental impacts reduction of products in

ENTR Lot 1 could be even higher.

The impact analysis summarises the effects of the Stage 1 and Stage 2 MEPS and

minimum requirements on manufacturers and consumers, showing that the Stage 1

MEPS and minimum requirements will cause no significant cost impact, but indicating

that the longer-term MEPS and minimum requirements may have greater impact.

80




MayMay 2011

ANNEXES

May 2011




81

This page is left intentionally blank

82




MayMay 2011

ANNEX 7-1: MEPS analysis for walk-in cold rooms

Possible MEPS levels could be established for factory-built models, following the LLCC

and BNAT options as presented in Task 5 and Task 6. Thus, the proposed MEPS are

based on two levels of energy consumption as described below:


consumption, which is assumed to be applicable and achievable in the same

measure for all products. This is represented by the combination of different

improvement options.

• Long-term: BNAT scenario, leading to a reduction of 69% of energy

consumption, which is assumed to be applicable and achievable in the measure

for all products. This option integrates additional characteristics to those

presented in the LLCC scenario.

The main indicators for each walk-in cold room model developed throughout this

study, real equipment, weighted equipment and theoretical models are shown in Table

7-23.

Table 7-23: Summary of main indicators for walk-in cold room models

Model Net internal

volume (m3)

AEC

(kWh/year)

Performance

(EEI36

) LCC (€)

Sub-Base Case 25 10,570 2.32 22,914


Real BAT 25 6,870 1.51 20,600

Weighted real BAT 25 7,901 1.73 20,724

Theoretical BNAT 25 3,277 0.72 -

Weighted BNAT 25 3,768 0.83 -

Scenario A 25 7,658 1.68 19,257

Scenario B 25 6,321 1.39 18,767

LLCC Scenario B

BAT Scenario B

In the table below the energy consumption and performance across the product

categories are shown for the weighted Base Case, LLCC and BNAT are shown.

36

kWh/48hrs/m3

May 2011




83

Table 7-24: Estimated energy levels according to LLCC, BAT and BNAT scenarios

Size Operation

temperature

Average

net

internal

volume

(m3)

Average

Base Case

AEC

(kWh/year)

Average

LLCC AEC

(kWh/year)

Average

BNAT AEC

(kWh/year)

Base

Case

EEI

LLCC

EEI

(MEPS

short-

term)

BNAT

EEI

(MEPS

long-

term)

Small (up to

20m3)

Chiller 12 6,665 3,466 2,066 3.04 1.58 0.94

Freezer 12 8,627 4,486 2,674 3.94 2.05 1.22

Medium (20m3

to 100m3)

Chiller 40 16,357 8,506 5,071 2.24 1.17 0.69

Freezer 40 27,293 14,192 8,461 3.74 1.94 1.16

Large (100m3

to 400m3)

Chiller 300 59,278 30,825 18,376 1.08 0.56 0.34

Freezer 300 113,224 58,876 35,099 2.07 1.08 0.64

Possible MEPS for packaged, factory-built, small and medium walk-in cold rooms,

based on EEI37 performance thresholds are described below.

Table 7-25: Possible MEPS for factory-built walk-in cold rooms

Size Location of the

condensing unit

Short-term MEPS

based on LLCC

(max. EEI)

Long-term MEPS

based on BNAT

(max. EEI)

Small (up to 20m3) Refrigerator 1.58 0.94

Freezer 2.05 1.22

Medium (20m3 to

100m3)

Refrigerator 1.17 0.69

Freezer 1.94 1.16

The thresholds have been derived using the following:

• Small: internal volume 12m3, HT AEC 6,665 kWh/year, LT AEC 8,627 kWh/year.

• Medium: internal volume 40m3, HT AEC 16,357 kWh/year, LT AEC 27,293

kWh/year.

The MEPS would be measured under the following:

• It is proposed that Total Electrical Energy Consumption could be measured

under EN 23953:2005.

• EEI is calculated from the Total Energy Consumption over a 48-hour period,

divided by the net volume in m3.

• Net Volume: the product of the internal dimensions.

• Adjustment factor for refrigerator-freezers: to calculate the adjusted volume of

these models, add the volume of the refrigeration compartment in litres to the

product of 1.63 and the volume of the freezing compartment in litres [AV =

volume of refrigeration compartment in litres + (1.33 x volume of freezing

compartment in litres)]. If it is assumed that the energy consumption of

freezing per unit volume is 1.5 times that of refrigeration, this adjustment

allows for approximately 75% of the product’s internal volume to be freezing

storage.

37

kWh/48hrs/m3

84




MayMay 2011

The MEPS levels are presented in Figure 7-46 and Figure 7-47 below.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

TE

C p

er

24

hrs

(k

Wh

)

Net volume (m3)

Small refrigerating (short-

term)

Small refrigerating (long-

term)

Medium refrigerating

(short-term)

Medium refrigerating

(long-term)

Base Case

Figure 7-46: Proposed MEPS for refrigerator walk-in cold rooms, compared against the weighted Base Case energy consumption data

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

TE

C p

er

24

hrs

(k

Wh

))

Net volume (m3)

Small freezing (short-term)

Small freezing (long-term)

Medium freezing (short-

term)

Medium freezing (long-

term)

Base Case

Figure 7-47: Proposed MEPS for freezer walk-in cold rooms, compared against the weighted Base Case energy consumption data

May 2011




85

ANNEX 7-2: Remote condensing units AEC and COP

Table 7-26: MEPS levels proposed by external expert

Evaporating temperature -10°C -35°C

GWP (refrigerant fluid) >2000 150-2000 <150 >2000 150-2000 <150

COPc 5.26 5.26 5.26 3 .17 3.17 3.17

COP short term 2.94 2.65 2.35 1.40 1.26 1.12

COP short term/COPc 0.56 0.50 0.45 0.44 0.4 0.35

COP long term 3.36 3.02 2.88 1.6 1.44 1.28

COP long term/COPc 0.64 0.57 0.54 0.5 0.45 0.4

COPc: COP CARNOT

Table 7-27: Estimated Annual Energy Consumption and COP for remote condensing units, BAT, BNAT and LLCC

Evaporating

temp. (°C)

Cooling

capacity

(kW)

Compressor type Compressor

motor drive

Condense

r cooling

Average

energy

consumpti

on per

year

(kWh)

Average

COP

BAT

extrapola

ted

energy

consump

tion per

year

(kWh)

BAT

extrapola

ted COP

BNAT

extrapolate

d energy

consumptio

n per year

(kWh)

BNAT

extrapola

ted COP

LLCC

extrapola

ted

energy

consump

tion per

year

(kWh)

LLCC

extrapola

ted COP

Packaged

condensing

unit with

single

compressor

Low

temperatur

e

(-35°C)

0.2-20

kW

average

:

5-7 kW

Hermetic

reciprocating

On/off Air 30,418 1.00 23,173 1.18 20,856 1.31 23,431 1.17

Water 30,418 1.00 23,173 1.18 20,856 1.31 23,431 1.17

2 speeds Air 27,376 1.00 20,856 1.18 18,770 1.31 21,088 1.17

Water 27,376 1.00 20,856 1.18 18,770 1.31 21,088 1.17

VSD Air 27,376 1.00 20,856 1.18 18,770 1.31 21,088 1.17

Water 27,376 1.00 20,856 1.18 18,770 1.31 21,088 1.17

Scroll

On/off Air 27,376 1.11 20,856 1.31 18,770 1.46 21,088 1.30

Water 27,376 1.11 20,856 1.31 18,770 1.46 21,088 1.30

2 speeds Air 26,007 1.11 19,813 1.31 17,832 1.46 20,033 1.30

Water 26,007 1.11 19,813 1.31 17,832 1.46 20,033 1.30

VSD Air 23,057 1.11 17,565 1.31 15,809 1.45 17,760 1.29

Water 23,057 1.11 17,565 1.31 15,809 1.45 17,760 1.29

Screw

On/off Air 27,376 1.11 20,856 1.31 18,770 1.46 21,088 1.30

Water 27,376 1.11 20,856 1.31 18,770 1.46 21,088 1.30

2 speeds Air 26,007 1.11 19,813 1.31 17,832 1.46 20,033 1.30

Water 26,007 1.11 19,813 1.31 17,832 1.46 20,033 1.30

VSD Air 24,639 1.11 18,770 1.31 16,893 1.46 18,979 1.30

Water 24,639 1.11 18,770 1.31 16,893 1.46 18,979 1.30

Rotary vane

On/off Air 27,376 1.11 20,856 1.31 18,770 1.46 21,088 1.30

Water 27,376 1.11 20,856 1.31 18,770 1.46 21,088 1.30

2 speeds Air 26,007 1.11 19,813 1.31 17,832 1.46 20,033 1.30

Water 26,007 1.11 19,813 1.31 17,832 1.46 20,033 1.30

VSD Air 24,639 1.11 18,770 1.31 16,893 1.46 18,979 1.30

Water 24,639 1.11 18,770 1.31 16,893 1.46 18,979 1.30

20-50

kW

average

: 20 kW

Hermetic

reciprocating

On/off Air 91,936 1.14 70,039 1.35 63,035 1.50 70,817 1.33

Water 91,936 1.14 70,039 1.35 63,035 1.50 70,817 1.33

2 speeds Air 87,339 1.14 66,537 1.35 59,883 1.50 67,276 1.33

Water 87,339 1.14 66,537 1.35 59,883 1.50 67,276 1.33

VSD Air 82,742 1.14 63,035 1.35 56,732 1.50 63,735 1.33

Water 82,742 1.14 63,035 1.35 56,732 1.50 63,735 1.33

Scroll

On/off Air 82,742 1.27 63,035 1.50 56,732 1.66 63,735 1.48

Water 82,742 1.27 63,035 1.50 56,732 1.66 63,735 1.48

2 speeds Air 78,605 1.27 59,883 1.50 53,895 1.66 60,549 1.48

Water 78,605 1.27 59,883 1.50 53,895 1.66 60,549 1.48

VSD Air 74,468 1.27 56,732 1.50 51,058 1.66 57,362 1.48

Water 74,468 1.27 56,732 1.50 51,058 1.66 57,362 1.48

Screw

On/off Air 82,742 1.27 63,035 1.50 56,732 1.66 63,735 1.48

Water 82,742 1.27 63,035 1.50 56,732 1.66 63,735 1.48

2 speeds Air 78,605 1.27 59,883 1.50 53,895 1.66 60,549 1.48

Water 78,605 1.27 59,883 1.50 53,895 1.66 60,549 1.48

VSD Air 74,468 1.27 56,732 1.50 51,058 1.66 57,362 1.48

Water 74,468 1.27 56,732 1.50 51,058 1.66 57,362 1.48

Rotary vane

On/off Air 82,742 1.27 63,035 1.50 56,732 1.66 63,735 1.48

Water 82,742 1.27 63,035 1.50 56,732 1.66 63,735 1.48

2 speeds Air 78,605 1.27 59,883 1.50 53,895 1.66 60,549 1.48

Water 78,605 1.27 59,883 1.50 53,895 1.66 60,549 1.48

VSD Air 74,468 1.27 56,732 1.50 51,058 1.66 57,362 1.48

Water 74,468 1.27 56,732 1.50 51,058 1.66 57,362 1.48

>50 kW Hermetic On/off Air 241,246 1.09 183,787 1.28 165,408 1.43 185,829 1.27

86




MayMay 2011

Evaporating

temp. (°C)

Cooling

capacity

(kW)


motor drive

Condense

r cooling

Average

energy

consumpti

on per

year

(kWh)

Average

COP

BAT

extrapola

ted

energy

consump

tion per

year

(kWh)

BAT

extrapola

ted COP

BNAT

extrapolate

d energy

consumptio

n per year

(kWh)

BNAT

extrapola

ted COP

LLCC

extrapola

ted

energy

consump

tion per

year

(kWh)

LLCC

extrapola

ted COP

average

: 50kW

reciprocating Water 229,184 1.14 174,598 1.35 157,138 1.50 176,538 1.34

2 speeds Air 229,184 1.09 174,598 1.28 157,138 1.43 176,538 1.27

Water 217,725 1.14 165,868 1.35 149,281 1.50 167,711 1.34

VSD Air 217,122 1.09 165,408 1.28 148,868 1.43 167,246 1.27

Water 206,266 1.14 157,138 1.35 141,424 1.50 158,884 1.34

Scroll

On/off Air 217,122 1.21 165,408 1.43 148,868 1.59 167,246 1.41

Water 206,266 1.27 157,138 1.50 141,424 1.67 158,884 1.49

2 speeds Air 206,266 1.21 157,138 1.43 141,424 1.59 158,884 1.41

Water 195,952 1.27 149,281 1.50 134,353 1.67 150,940 1.49

VSD Air 195,409 1.21 148,868 1.43 133,981 1.59 150,522 1.41

Water 185,639 1.27 141,424 1.50 127,282 1.67 142,996 1.49

Screw

On/off Air 217,122 1.21 165,408 1.43 148,868 1.59 167,246 1.41

Water 206,266 1.27 157,138 1.50 141,424 1.67 158,884 1.49

2 speeds Air 206,266 1.21 157,138 1.43 141,424 1.59 158,884 1.41

Water 195,952 1.27 149,281 1.50 134,353 1.67 150,940 1.49

VSD Air 195,409 1.21 148,868 1.43 133,981 1.59 150,522 1.41

Water 185,639 1.27 141,424 1.50 127,282 1.67 142,996 1.49

Rotary vane

On/off Air 217,122 1.21 165,408 1.43 148,868 1.59 167,246 1.41

Water 206,266 1.27 157,138 1.50 141,424 1.67 158,884 1.49

2 speeds Air 206,266 1.21 157,138 1.43 141,424 1.59 158,884 1.41

Water 195,952 1.27 149,281 1.50 134,353 1.67 150,940 1.49

VSD Air 195,409 1.21 148,868 1.43 133,981 1.59 150,522 1.41

Water 185,639 1.27 141,424 1.50 127,282 1.67 142,996 1.49

Medium

temperatur

e

(-10°C)

0.2-20

kW

average

:

5-7 kW

Hermetic

reciprocating

On/off Air 19,068 1.89 14,526 2.12 13,074 2.49 14,688 2.21

Water 18,115 1.89 13,800 2.24 12,420 2.49 13,953 2.21

2 speeds Air 18,115 1.89 13,800 2.24 12,420 2.49 13,953 2.21

Water 17,209 1.89 13,110 2.24 11,799 2.49 13,256 2.21

VSD Air 17,161 1.89 13,074 2.24 11,766 2.49 13,219 2.21

Water 16,303 1.89 12,420 2.24 11,178 2.49 12,558 2.21

Scroll

On/off Air 17,161 2.11 13,074 2.49 11,766 2.76 13,219 2.46

Water 16,303 2.11 12,420 2.49 11,178 2.76 12,558 2.46

2 speeds Air 16,303 2.11 12,420 2.49 11,178 2.76 12,558 2.46

Water 15,488 2.11 11,799 2.49 10,619 2.76 11,930 2.46

VSD Air 14,526 2.12 11,067 2.50 9,960 2.78 11,190 2.48

Water 13,800 2.12 10,513 2.50 9,462 2.78 10,630 2.48

Screw

On/off Air 17,161 2.11 13,074 2.49 11,766 2.76 13,219 2.46

Water 16,303 2.11 12,420 2.49 11,178 2.76 12,558 2.46

2 speeds Air 16,303 2.11 12,420 2.49 11,178 2.76 12,558 2.46

Water 15,488 2.11 11,799 2.49 10,619 2.76 11,930 2.46

VSD Air 15,445 2.11 11,766 2.49 10,590 2.76 11,897 2.46

Water 14,673 2.11 11,178 2.49 10,060 2.76 11,302 2.46

Rotary vane

On/off Air 17,161 2.11 13,074 2.49 11,766 2.76 13,219 2.46

Water 16,303 2.11 12,420 2.49 11,178 2.76 12,558 2.46

2 speeds Air 16,303 2.11 12,420 2.49 11,178 2.76 12,558 2.46

Water 15,488 2.11 11,799 2.49 10,619 2.76 11,930 2.46

VSD Air 15,445 2.11 11,766 2.49 10,590 2.76 11,897 2.46

Water 14,673 2.11 11,178 2.49 10,060 2.76 11,302 2.46

20-50

kW

average

: 20 kW

Hermetic

reciprocating

On/off Air 60,215 1.67 45,873 1.97 41,286 2.19 46,383 1.95

Water 57,204 1.67 43,579 1.97 39,221 2.19 44,064 1.95

2 speeds Air 57,204 1.67 43,579 1.97 39,221 2.19 44,064 1.95

Water 54,344 1.67 41,400 1.97 37,260 2.19 41,860 1.95

VSD Air 54,193 1.67 41,286 1.97 37,157 2.19 41,744 1.95

Water 51,484 1.67 39,221 1.97 35,299 2.19 39,657 1.95

Scroll

On/off Air 54,193 1.85 41,286 2.19 37,157 2.43 41,744 2.16

Water 51,484 1.85 39,221 2.19 35,299 2.43 39,657 2.16

2 speeds Air 51,484 1.85 39,221 2.19 35,299 2.43 39,657 2.16

Water 48,909 1.85 37,260 2.19 33,534 2.43 37,674 2.16

VSD Air 48,774 1.85 37,157 2.19 33,441 2.43 37,570 2.16

Water 46,335 1.85 35,299 2.19 31,769 2.43 35,692 2.16

Screw

On/off Air 54,193 1.85 41,286 2.19 37,157 2.43 41,744 2.16

Water 51,484 1.85 39,221 2.19 35,299 2.43 39,657 2.16

2 speeds Air 51,484 1.85 39,221 2.19 35,299 2.43 39,657 2.16

Water 48,909 1.85 37,260 2.19 33,534 2.43 37,674 2.16

VSD Air 48,774 1.85 37,157 2.19 33,441 2.43 37,570 2.16

Water 46,335 1.85 35,299 2.19 31,769 2.43 35,692 2.16

Rotary vane

On/off Air 54,193 1.85 41,286 2.19 37,157 2.43 41,744 2.16

Water 51,484 1.85 39,221 2.19 35,299 2.43 39,657 2.16

2 speeds Air 51,484 1.85 39,221 2.19 35,299 2.43 39,657 2.16

Water 48,909 1.85 37,260 2.19 33,534 2.43 37,674 2.16

VSD Air 48,774 1.85 37,157 2.19 33,441 2.43 37,570 2.16

Water 46,335 1.85 35,299 2.19 31,769 2.43 35,692 2.16

>50 kW

average

: 50kW

Hermetic

reciprocating

On/off Air 136,587 1.84 104,055 2.17 93,650 2.41 105,212 2.15

Water 129,758 1.93 98,853 2.28 88,967 2.54 99,951 2.26

2 speeds Air 129,758 1.84 98,853 2.17 88,967 2.41 99,951 2.15

Water 123,270 1.93 93,910 2.28 84,519 2.54 94,953 2.26

VSD Air 122,928 1.84 93,650 2.17 84,285 2.41 94,690 2.15

Water 116,782 1.93 88,967 2.28 80,071 2.54 89,956 2.26

Scroll

On/off Air 122,928 2.04 93,650 2.41 84,285 2.68 94,690 2.38

Water 116,782 2.15 88,967 2.54 80,071 2.82 89,956 2.51

2 speeds Air 116,782 2.04 88,967 2.41 80,071 2.68 89,956 2.38

Water 110,943 2.15 84,519 2.54 76,067 2.82 85,458 2.51

VSD Air 110,636 2.04 84,285 2.41 75,856 2.68 85,221 2.38

Water 105,104 2.15 80,071 2.54 72,064 2.82 80,960 2.51

Screw On/off Air 122,928 2.04 93,650 2.41 84,285 2.68 94,690 2.38

May 2011




87

Evaporating

temp. (°C)

Cooling

capacity

(kW)


motor drive

Condense

r cooling

Average

energy

consumpti

on per

year

(kWh)

Average

COP

BAT

extrapola

ted

energy

consump

tion per

year

(kWh)

BAT

extrapola

ted COP

BNAT

extrapolate

d energy

consumptio

n per year

(kWh)

BNAT

extrapola

ted COP

LLCC

extrapola

ted

energy

consump

tion per

year

(kWh)

LLCC

extrapola

ted COP

Water 116,782 2.15 88,967 2.54 80,071 2.82 89,956 2.51

2 speeds Air 116,782 2.04 88,967 2.41 80,071 2.68 89,956 2.38

Water 110,943 2.15 84,519 2.54 76,067 2.82 85,458 2.51

VSD Air 110,636 2.04 84,285 2.41 75,856 2.68 85,221 2.38

Water 105,104 2.15 80,071 2.54 72,064 2.82 80,960 2.51

Rotary vane

On/off Air 122,928 2.04 93,650 2.41 84,285 2.68 94,690 2.38

Water 116,782 2.15 88,967 2.54 80,071 2.82 89,956 2.51

2 speeds Air 116,782 2.04 88,967 2.41 80,071 2.68 89,956 2.38

Water 110,943 2.15 84,519 2.54 76,067 2.82 85,458 2.51

VSD Air 110,636 2.04 84,285 2.41 75,856 2.68 85,221 2.38

Water 105,104 2.15 80,071 2.54 72,064 2.82 80,960 2.51

Packaged

condensing

unit with

twin

compressors

or more

Low

temperatur

e

(-35°C)

0.2-20

kW - -

20-50

kW

average

: 20 kW

scroll - Air 74,468 1.27 56,732 1.50 51,058 1.66 57,362 1.48

Water 70,745 1.27 53,895 1.50 48,505 1.66 54,494 1.48

screw - Air 74,468 1.27 56,732 1.50 51,058 1.66 57,362 1.48

Water 70,745 1.27 53,895 1.50 48,505 1.66 54,494 1.48

>50 kW

average

: 50kW

scroll - Air 195,409 1.21 148,868 1.43 133,981 1.59 150,522 1.41

Water 185,639 1.27 141,424 1.50 127,282 1.67 142,996 1.49

screw - Air 195,409 1.21 148,868 1.43 133,981 1.59 150,522 1.41

Water 185,639 1.27 141,424 1.50 127,282 1.67 142,996 1.49

Medium

temperatur

e

(-10°C)

0.2-20

kW - -

20-50

kW

average

: 20 kW

scroll - Air 48,774 1.85 37,157 2.19 33,441 2.43 37,570 2.16

Water 46,335 1.85 35,299 2.19 31,769 2.43 35,692 2.16

screw - Air 48,774 1.85 37,157 2.19 33,441 2.43 37,570 2.16

Water 46,335 1.85 35,299 2.19 31,769 2.43 35,692 2.16

>50 kW

average

: 50kW

scroll - Air 110,636 2.04 84,285 2.41 75,856 2.68 85,221 2.38

Water 105,104 2.15 80,071 2.54 72,064 2.82 80,960 2.51

screw - Air 110,636 2.04 84,285 2.41 75,856 2.68 85,221 2.38

Water 105,104 2.15 80,071 2.54 72,064 2.82 80,960 2.51

Date post:	01-Oct-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

Task 7: Policy and impact analysis - EuP Network · Task 7: Policy and impact analysis Final report...

Documents