XV EUROPEAN CONFERENCE MILANO 7th-8th JUNE 2013 CSG

Latest Technology in Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Under the Auspices of the PRESIDENCY OF THE COUNCIL OF MINISTERS

An evaluation of low GWP refrigerants in A/C and in Refrigeration

An evaluation of low GWP refrigerants in A/C and in Refrigeration

15th EUROPEAN CONFERENCETECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATIONS

IN REFRIGERATION AND IN AIR CONDITIONINGMilano June 7th 2013

Bachir Bella

Contents

• Low GWP Refrigerants Candidates

• Drop-in tests w/ R32 & HFOs in Comfort

• Drop-in tests w/ HFOs in refrigeration

• Conclusion

Markets

RefrigerantsNH3

R134aR404A/507

R290

R134a R404A

R404A/507R407AR134a

CO2

R404A/507R407A/FR134aR290

R410AR407C

R410AR407C

ComfortResidential

ComfortComm.

Emerson – Global Player Offering Products Across Entire Landscape

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055

NAPDevel'd Countries

F-Gas Review (Draft)

NAPA5 Countries

HFC Phase-Down Proposals Also On Table: North American Proposal (NAP) And F-Gas Proposal

F-Gas Proposal Reserved Right To Amend Based On Any International Agreement – Allowance For NAP Adoption

• Baseline Updated 2008-2010

• Excluded HFOs From Basket For Phase-down

• Fewer Steps In Phase-Down, But End Year And Target Held Same

NAP Update 4/2013

NA ProposalNon A5 Countries

F-Gas Proposal

NA ProposalA5 Countries

Refrigerants Choice was a Trade offs between Capacity, WP & Performance

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500

Capacity Vs. R22

GWP

R143aR125

R134a

R32

R152a

R290

R600a

R407C

R410A

R404AR407A

R407F

1400 < GWP < 4000

Today HFCs

R32 R134a R125 R143aR410A 50 0 50 0R407A 20 40 40 0R407C 23 52 25 0R407F 30 40 30 0R404A 0 4 44 52

Base for HFCs Blends

ODP = 0Class A1 ( Non toxic, Non flammable)

Next Refrigerants will be a Trade offs between Performance, GWP and Safety

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500

Capacity Vs. R22

GWP

R143a

R125

R134a

R744

R32

R152a

R290

R600a

R1234..R407C

R410A

R404A

R407A

R407FR404A Like

R410A like

R404A like

R134a Like

Base for HFOs

R1234ze R1234yf R152a R32

L41a 12 15 0 73L41b 27 0 0 73DR5 0 27.5 0 72.5L40 30 20 10 40DR7 0 64 0 36L20 35 0 20 45

Source : Thomas E. Watson “AHRI low-GWP alternative refrigerant Evaluation program” Convegno Aicarr Vicenza, Nov. 2012

Flammable

Non Flammable

Flammability is evaluated by ‘Chance of Flame occurring’ and ‘Effect of Flame occurring’•Effect of Flame occurring -> Burning Velocity, Heat of Combustion

Burning Velocity – Basis For 2 & 2L Classification

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

Low Energy Release

High Energy Release

Unstable Flame, Low Pressure

Rise

Stable Flame, High Pressure

Rise

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Burning Velocity, cm/s

Hea

t of C

ombu

stio

n, M

J/kg

R152a

Ammonia

R32

HFO-1234yf

R134a

methane

propane

butane

ASHRAE Class 3

ASHRAE Class 2

Class 2L

gasoline

New A2L Class –

R32, R1234yf, R1234ze

- IEC 60335-40 and ISO 5149 Are Key

Standards Related To Flammability

- Modifications Required For Both Ducted

and Non Ducted Applications

- Equations For Maximum Charge Being

Developed Relating To Room Size, Unit

Location & Height, Ventilation, and

Refrigerant LFL

Timely A2L Standards Crucial For Commercialization / Meet Phase Down

A3

A2

A2L

A1

R152a

ASHRAE 34 Class A (Non-Toxic)

Propane R290

Isobutane R600a

R410A, R134a, R407C

Highly

Flammable

Flammable

Mildly

Flammable

Non-

Flammable

Need To Accelerate A2L Standards Development Globally

A Commercial Scroll designed for R410A tested R32

Compressor Results Possible System Effect

Higher capacity (Avg. +7%) Smaller displacement

~ 2/3% higher efficiency Higher system full load efficiency

Same to slightly lower efficiency at low Cond. Temp.

Expected similar ESEER

-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20

25 5 % 5 % 5 % 5 % 5 % 4 % 2 % 1 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 %

30 5 % 5 % 6 % 5 % 5 % 5 % 5 % 1 % 1 % 0 % 0 % -1 % -1 % -1 %

35 6 % 6 % 6 % 6 % 6 % 5 % 5 % 1 % 1 % 0 % 0 % 0 % -1 % -2 %

40 6 % 7 % 7 % 6 % 6 % 6 % 1 % 1 % 1 % 1 % 0 % -1 %

45 7 % 7 % 8 % 7 % 7 % 7 % 2 % 2 % 2 % 1 % 0 % -1 %

50 8 % 9 % 9 % 9 % 9 % 8 % 2 % 3 % 3 % 3 % 2 % 0 %

55 10 % 10 % 10 % 10 % 10 % 4 % 4 % 4 % 4 % 2 %

60 13 % 13 % 13 % 12 % 5 % 6 % 6 % 4 %

62 14 % 14 % 14 % 7 % 6 % 5 %

Evaporating Temperature (°C) Evaporating Temperature (°C)

Co

de

ns

ing

Te

mp

era

ture

(°C

)

Cooling Capacity Variation COP

25 m3/h Scroll compressor

7, 62

0, 65

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30

ESEER

HP MTwarmer

HP MTaverageHP MT

colder

Defrost

DHW

R410A

R32

warm climates

Discharge temperature and the operating envelops with R32 and R410A

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

5/50 � C -5/50 � C -10/45 � C

Dis

char

ge

tem

pe

ratu

re (�C

)

R32R410A

R32 Map limited for HP, reversible systems and Chillers in warm climates

R32 Discharge temp. rises up to 35 K limiting heavily the operating envelope

to extend the EnvelopeVapor or Liquid Injection could be used

Cooling Capacity increases up to 26% COP Improves up to 14% Discharge Temperature drops in the range 11 to 16 K

This temperature drop will extend the envelope by 5 / 8 K Reversible Chiller and HP needs VI or Liquid injection to widen the envelope

LI enlarges the application envelope with negative impact on the COP

20 m3/h Scroll compressor w/ vapor injection

Evap.Temp.

Cond.Temp.

Cooling Cap. COPDischarge

Temp.

(°C) (°C) (%) (%) (K)

-20 25 17% 10% -16

-15 35 20% 12% -11

-10 45 26% 14% -12

-5 50 24% 13% -11

Variation with Vapor Injection

100

110

120

130

140

150

40 45 50 55

Dis

char

ge

Tem

per

atu

re (�

C)

Condensing Temperature (� C)

R32 Discharge temperature w/ Vapor Injection

+ 5K Condensing

Reliabilit Limit

Tevap = -10°C

NO VIwith VI

Drop in Tests w/ LGWP Refrigerants on Residential Comfort Scroll

70%

80%

90%

100%

110%

Vari

ation

vs.

R41

0A

R32 DR5 L41b

Cooling Capacity COPc

SH = 11K, SC 8K5°C / 50°C

70%

80%

90%

100%

110%

-6.7/35 °C -6.7/50 °C -6.7/35 -6.7/50

Vari

ation

vs.

R41

0A

R32 DR5 L41b

Heating Capacity COPh

• R32 capacity increases less towards commercial scroll, and COP is lower vs. R410A• DR5 performances are close to R410A• L41b is 20% less capacity

(*) Blends Performance are referred to the Dew Point at standard conditions

HFOs should better perform when referred to the mid-point instead of dew point

5 m3/h Scroll compressor

A drop-in experiment has been carried out on a R404A compressor with DR7 and L40

12

• DR7 Capacity close to R404A • L40 Lower capacity in the range 79% to 95%.• Either L40 or DR7 offer better efficiency at high condensing

temperature

Med. Temp.Low Temp. Med. Temp.Low Temp.

0.92

1

0.94

0.975

0.95

1.04

0.79

0.85

0.82

0.86

0.83

0.95

0.7

0.75

0.8

0.85

0.9

0.95

1

1.05

1.1

-31.7/21.1 °C -31.7/40.6 °C -17.8/21.1 °C -17.8/37.8 °C -6.7/21.1 °C -6.7/48.9 °C

DR7, L40 Relative Capacity vs. R404A (Dew Point Based)Actual compressor Tests - 6Hp Scroll

11 K Superheat, 0 k SubcoolDR-7 L-40

1.04

1.11

1.01

1.07

1.00

1.1

1.03

1.1

1.02

1.07

1.00

1.13

0.7

0.75

0.8

0.85

0.9

0.95

1

1.05

1.1

1.15

1.2

-31.7/21.1 °C -31.7/40.6 °C -17.8/21.1 °C -17.8/37.8 °C -6.7/21.1 °C -6.7/48.9 °C

DR7, L40 Relative COP vs. R404A (Dew Point Based)Actual compressor Tests - 6Hp Scroll

11 K Superheat, 0 k SubcoolDR-7 L-40

17 m3/h Scroll compressor

Drop-in System tests Carried out on walk-in system with DR7 and L40

13

• Walk-In System• Box Temperature -23°C

– Standard AHRI 1250

DR7 and L40 Exhibit Relatively Better Performance vs. theoretical due to Mid-Point vs. Dew-Point

96%

98%

100%

102%

104%

106%

108%

110%

112%

85% 90% 95% 100% 105% 110%

% R

404

COP

% R404 Capacity

L-40

DR-7

• DR5 gives more cooling capacity and a COP from 2 to 6% higher vs. R404A. • L40 has only 3% less capacity and its COP is 3 to 4% higher compared to R404A.

Performance Summary

• Potential w/ these candidates with optimized scroll compressor• The blends should perform better in a real system as the reference

is the mid point temperature

Application Reference AlternativeCoolingCapacity

COPDischarge

Temp.

R32 +4 / 13 % -2 / +6% Up to +40 K

L41

DR5

R32 +2 / +6 % -7 / 0% Up to +40 K

L41 -20 / -18% -8 / -2%

DR5 -5 / -2% -5 / 0%

L40 -21 / -5% 0 / +13% Higher

DR7 -8 / +4% 0 /+11% Higher

R410A

Residential A/C & HP

Refrigeration R404A

Commercial A/C & HP

Conclusions

Important To Reduce GWP Without Sacrificing Efficiency Due To Increasing Efficiency Standards

R32 Shows Limitation due to Higher Discharge Temperature While R32 based Blends have Less Limitation

HFO Blends Overall Performance Potentially Comparable To today HFCs But Cost And Availability Still Unknown

Both Compressors and Systems Can Be further Optimized For R32 and HFO Blends

Acceleration Of A2L Standards Development For New Equipment Is Critical to Reach Phase Down Targets

16

GRAZIE !

Questions?