FOOd & bEvERagE
COMpaRIng HFO- TO aMMOnIa-baSEd pROCESS COOLIng SySTEMS
By Dave Palmer, general manager for UK and ireland at iCs Cool Energy 2. First Cost
solutions is, of course, nothing new. Manufacturing companies need to balance the rising costs and energy emissions of the plant while at the same time maintaining product quality and process efficiency. This is particularly important in processes such as food and dairy manufactures, breweries, soft drinks production but also in chemical and pharmaceutical industries, where manufacturers must live up to a plethora of standards and regulations related to the quality of the end products. as with all stringent standards, they add to
F
costs, energy consumption and ultimately make life harder for operations leaders who are looking for ways to reduce the Total Life Cycle Cost of their investments. Reducing emissions and energy use of operations is also under the increased attention of policymakers, adding to the pressures of the manufacturing industries.
NEw ways For qUality ProCEss CooliNg This all serves to focus the attention of the process cooling industry to drive innovation and meet the call for new ways of providing quality, high-performing and sustainable process cooling. new technologies and techniques emerge to allow companies contain their costs without compromising on other critical factors. One of the trends is moving away from
ammonia-based cooling systems. ammonia has been traditionally common in food and beverage processing applications due to its cooling capabilities and low global warming potential (gWp) qualities. yet, repetitive incidents with leaks threatening workers’ health and causing potential end-product and environmental contamination, have triggered a discussion on the pros and cons of using ammonia as a refrigerant. With ammonia’s toxicity causing serious
health risks with even a low level leak, the process cooling industry has responded with substantial improvements in technology to offer manufacturers a viable alternative to the ammonia-based systems – removing the risks and adding better energy efficiency and lower cost of ownership.
or the manufacturing industry the importance of high performing, energy efficient and sustainable process cooling
Successful and economically sustainable businesses know that they need to make well thought investment decisions to protect their viability. When comparing the initial investment in a process cooling system, we will realise that ammonia solutions can be significantly more expensive. Higher costs of an ammonia system
HFo rEFrigEraNts: r1234zE systEms For low gwP, lowEr Cost, No toxiCity aND Easy maiNtENaNCE When considering ammonia-based systems’ risk factors, process cooling systems with hydrofluoro-olefin (HFO) refrigerants create a vital, safer, more energy efficient option with equally low environmental impact. but it is the plant and operations managers who need to make the choice and select a system that will be best for their application, future proofing their operations for years to come. Looking at the two alternatives, there are
six main criteria to compare a system with an HFO refrigerant, like the R1234ze, to an ammonia-based solution:
1. tHE gloBal warmiNg PotENtial
Responsibility plays a big part. Targets set by regional and pan-European initiatives emphasise a shift towards becoming carbon- neutral societies. To reach our overall sustainability targets we cannot neglect the global Warming potential (gWp) of the refrigerants used in the cooling systems. The R1234ze HFO is an ultra-low, near
zero gWp fluid of gWp of less than one, which means it has a lower impact on
global warming than CO2. ammonia has a gWp of zero, which makes the two fluids very comparable from this perspective. What stands out for the R1234ze is that it enables customers to reduce their carbon footprint without sacrificing performance. Moreover, the chillers with R1234ze refrigerant, can outperform ammonia even by 25 per cent according to the energy efficiency ratio (EER) analysis.
stems from hours spent to design it, expensive stainless-steel piping required to withstand ammonia’s corrosive properties, and finally special devices mounted and required to monitor the safety of the system. Standard design, production and components allow manufacturers to offer HFO-based systems at a much lower cost. We should also realise that the standardised HFO chillers are usually also smaller than the ammonia systems and thus plants, where space footprint might be an issue, can also save space thanks to the more compact design. When it is not the right time for capital
investments, manufactures can now also benefit from a new type of subscription offering that gives them access to the newest process cooling equipment with the flexibility of an operating expense. With subscription models like the FLEX Membership, manufacturers can now transform their process temperature control system from a fixed asset into a dynamic solution that will be up-to-date with their changing business and process needs – with no upfront cost and capital investment. The Membership package includes a complete process temperature control solution: equipment, preventive and 24/7 emergency maintenance, replacements, and upgrades – all as part of a monthly rate contract tailored to the process’ needs.
3. toxiCity
Toxicity and the safety of people and our environment should not be taken lightly. It is well known that ammonia is highly toxic and in case of leaking can pose serious risks to human health, as well as food and beverage or pharma operations. R1234ze on the other hand is a non-corrosive substance with a very low toxicity and mild flammability.
MakIng THE RIgHT CHOICE:
40 SEpTEMbER 2021 | FaCTORy&HandLIngSOLUTIOnS
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
