SUPERMARKET SYSTEMS AND EQUIPMENT
Sustainable refrigeration
Eric Winandy, director of Integrated Solutions for Emerson Commercial and Residential Solutions Europe, takes a look at the latest context and recommendations for guiding supermarkets through the decision-making process.
W
e all know that the HFC phase-down has been a hot topic for our customers for some time now, and that food retailers – which rely on
refrigeration to preserve our food supply – are arguably one of the most impacted industries. When the Kigali Amendment mandating the global HFC phase-down officially came into force, developed countries started the phase-down with a reduction to 90% of the baseline, with further stepped reduction occurring until a 15% level is reached from 2036 onwards. In Europe, EU F-Gas Regulation will reduce the supply of HFCs on the market by almost 80% by 2030. As the phase-down continues, many supermarkets are
still navigating what route is best for them. Our job is to make sure they understand that there isn’t a one-size- fits-all solution, and that there are several considerations that need to be made in order to find the right refrigeration system that will be the most sustainable in the long-term.
Three refrigeration architectures
As alternatives to HFC refrigeration systems are considered, there are three primary solutions available – centralised systems which rely on CO2 systems which use CO2
, decentralised and HFO refrigerants, and integral
systems which use hydrocarbons such as propane. To date, most food processors and retailers have opted for centralised CO2
systems. These systems are set up so
that the refrigeration units are all housed in one machine room, and coolants are piped to cabinets in the store. It’s entirely understandable why most are opting for this choice because the central room architecture is similar to the HFC systems they replace, and CO2
has a global
warming potential (GWP) of only 1, nearly 4,000 times less than HFCs. As an alternative option, some are moving to
28 April 2019
decentralised systems, which can replace any existing centralised system. This has been a particularly popular option in France, where some end-users have been able to refurbish their existing stores with decentralised systems operating with HFO blends, which can allow for investment and operational cost savings. It is a more flexible option because, unlike the centralised system, the refrigeration equipment is divided into several refrigeration circuits, each supplied by one refrigeration unit connected to several display cabinets and cold rooms. This allows for a greater flexibility when extending the system capacity. It also increases the number of refrigerant options, due to the fact that refrigeration units below 40kW are subject to a higher GWP threshold under F-Gas Regulation. A third solution is hydrocarbon integral systems, which are more like domestic fridges. Unlike centralised and decentralised systems, these have a ‘plug and play’ set-up, where the refrigerant circuit is integrated into the display case, making it quick to install or move. Case studies have also shown these systems to be energy efficient and require less maintenance.
Total cost of ownership
There are benefits to each of these refrigeration architectures from a sustainability standpoint, but it is important to remember that the change is also an opportunity beyond simply complying with F-Gas Regulation. Decision-makers may not immediately recognise that refrigeration systems can impact everything from energy savings to maintenance costs and even flexibility of store layouts. This is why businesses updating their refrigeration systems need to take what I call a ‘Total Cost of Ownership approach’. To put it simply, it means broadening traditional assessment parameters for new technologies, such as compliance, installation, skills
www.acr-news.com
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
