Sponsored by
same happened when CFCs were phased out, so it could be argued that politicians have not learnt from experience.
While the use of fl ammable and toxic refrigerants, defi ned as having a safety classifi cation from ASHRAE which is not A1, is prevented from being used in existing refrigeration and air conditioning installations, there are no other suitable alternatives to HFC-based products. Carbon dioxide, of course, is properly gaining traction in some refrigeration applications, but cannot be retrofi tted into existing equipment because of the high pressures involved. HFOs can be used but only in combination with HFCs to ensure any HFO/HFC blend will be classifi ed as non-fl ammable under ASHRAE Standard 34. So, we come back to ensuring supplies of HFCs under F-Gas are available in the required volumes to enable existing equipment to continue in operation during the phase-down period. F-Gas is a classic example of ‘regulatory forcing’ by framing regulations to force new technologies into the market, which results in the development of products with lower GWPs. This is all well and good when technologies do exist to replace current refrigerants in each sector of the acr market, but there
are sectors where no such non- fl ammable products are available, as in the case of replacing R410A. Due to the blanket approach of F-Gas, this has resulted in product shortage and high prices, as mentioned. What will happen if the shortage of R410A becomes so acute that, for example, hospital operating theatres cannot function, with cancelled operations, or there is a lack of food in the supermarkets due to refrigeration systems not having suffi cient supplies of R404A, or other equally dire situations? In other words, where is Plan B?
To exemplify the point, R442A is by far the most energy effi cient replacement for R404A on the market (for which there are many examples in practice), but no account is taken of this crucial property in determining its allowable use, just simply its direct GWP. 98% of the global warming eff ect of a domestic HFC refrigerator emanates not from the refrigerant but from its energy consumption. Only 2% of global warming is due to the refrigerant itself.
To assess the global warming
eff ect of a refrigerant on the environment, the sum of the total global warming impact of the refrigerant and the operation of the plant needs to be considered; this is known as the Total Equivalent Warming Impact (TEWI). Again, F-Gas misses and does not provide for this critical factor – a fundamental mistake in the legislation.
When the refrigerant charge and emission are reduced to the
F-GAS
technically achievable minimum, the GWP of the refrigerant has practically no infl uence on the total global warming potential. Signifi cant improvements in design mean that historical refrigerant loss rates of about one third can realistically be reduced to a target 5% fi gure which will reduce the direct eff ect to virtually zero, so that the energy performance of the whole refrigeration system will dominate the TEWI. In this event, the overall properties of HFC compared to not- in-kind solutions will achieve a lower global warming eff ect. Hydrocarbons are highly fl ammable and, in the case of ammonia, fl ammable and highly toxic. Hydrocarbons are volatile organic compounds and cause smog formation in the lower atmosphere. CO2
can be a good solution
in refrigeration applications, but is ineffi cient at higher ambient temperatures (in Southern Europe, for example) due to its low critical temperature. CO2
also operates at
very high pressures which is an important safety constraint in areas exposed to the general public. HFC solutions are non-fl ammable, of low toxicity, have no ability to deplete ozone and are energy effi cient. Being ‘green’ is not just measured by direct GWP.
In short, F-Gas is structurally
fl awed and moving too quickly for industry to successfully cope with these changes.
A more pragmatic and realistic policy is required, which will have safety at its core but will also be continuously benefi cial to the environment and consistent with reduction in global warming.
9
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96
