Montreal Protocol
On Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer

Report of the
UNEP Technology and Economic Assessment Panel

March 2016

DECISION XXVII/4 TASK FORCE REPORT:
FURTHER INFORMATION ON ALTERNATIVES TO OZONE DEPLETING SUBSTANCES

The text of this report is composed in Times New Roman.

Co-ordination: TEAP and its XXVII/4 Task Force

Composition and layout: Lambert Kuijpers

Final formatting: Ozone Secretariat and Lambert Kuijpers

Reproduction: UNON Nairobi

Date: March 2016

Under certain conditions, printed copies of this report are available from:

UNITED NATIONS ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMME
Ozone Secretariat, P.O. Box 30552, Nairobi, Kenya

This document is also available in electronic form from http:// ozone.unep.org/en/assessmentpanels/
technology-and-economic-assessment-panel

No copyright involved. This publication may be freely copied, abstracted and cited, with
acknowledgement of the source of the material.

ISBN: 978-9966-076-17-5

UNEP
MARCH 2016 REPORT OF THE
TECHNOLOGY AND ECONOMIC
ASSESSMENT PANEL

DECISION XXVII/4 TASK FORCE REPORT
FURTHER INFORMATION ON ALTERNATIVES
TO OZONE-DEPLETING SUBSTANCES

DISCLAIMER

The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP) co-chairs and members, the Technical Options Committee, chairs, co-chairs and members, the TEAP Task Forces co-chairs and members, and the companies and organisations that employ them do not endorse the performance, worker safety, or environmental acceptability of any of the technical options discussed. Every industrial operation requires consideration of worker safety and proper disposal of contaminants and waste products. Moreover, as work continues – including additional toxicity evaluation – more information on health, environmental and safety effects of alternatives and replacements will become available for use in selecting among the options discussed in this document.

UNEP, the TEAP co-chairs and members, the Technical Options Committee, chairs, co-chairs and members, and the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel Task Forces co-chairs and members, in furnishing or distributing the information that follows, do not make any warranty or representation, either express or implied, with respect to the accuracy, completeness, or utility; nor do they assume any liability of any kind whatsoever resulting from the use or reliance upon any information, material, or procedure contained herein.

Although all statements and information contained in this XXVII/4 report are believed to be accurate and reliable, they are presented without guarantee or warranty of any kind, expressed or implied. Information provided herein does not relieve the reader from the responsibility of carrying out its own tests and experiments, and the reader assumes all responsibility for use of the information and results obtained. Statements or suggestions concerning the use of materials and processes are made without representation or warranty that any such use is free of patent infringement and are not recommendations to infringe on any patents. The user should not assume that all toxicity data and safety measures are indicated herein or thatother measures may not be required.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The UNEP Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and the XXVII/4 Task Force co-chairs and members wish to express thanks to all who contributed from governments, both Article 5 and non-Article 5, furthermore in particular to the Ozone Secretariat and the Multilateral Fund Secretariat, as well as to a large number of individuals involved in Protocol issues, without whose involvement this Update Task Force report would not have been possible.

The opinions expressed are those of the Panel and its Task Force and do not necessarily reflect the reviews of any sponsoring or supporting organisation.

Preface

This report is a follow up to the September 2015 TEAP XXVI/9 Update Task Force Report, submitted to the 27th Meeting of the Parties in Dubai, November 2025.

This March 2016 TEAP XXVII/4 Task Force report is being submitted by the TEAP to the 37th Meeting of the Open-ended Working Group of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol, Geneva, 4-8 April 2016.

The UNEP Technology and Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP):

Bella Maranion, co-chair USA Keiichi Ohnishi J
Marta Pizano, co-chair COL Fabio Polonara I
Ashley Woodcock, co-chair UK Roberto Peixoto BRA
Mohamed Besri MOR Jose Pons-Pons VEN
Suely Carvalho BRA Ian Porter AUS
David Catchpole UK Helen Tope AUS
Marco Gonzalez CR Dan Verdonik USA
Sergey Kopylov RF Shiqiu Zhang PRC
Lambert Kuijpers NL Jianjun Zhang PRC

UNEP
MARCH 2016 REPORT OF THE
TECHNOLOGY AND ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT PANEL

DECISION XXVII/4 TASK FORCE REPORT
FURTHER INFORMATION ON ALTERNATIVES
TO OZONE-DEPLETING SUBSTANCES

Table of Contents Page
PREFACE VII
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
ES1. INTRODUCTION 1
ES2. UPDATE ON THE STATUS OF REFRIGERANTS 1
ES3. SUITABILITY OF ALTERNATIVES UNDER HIGH AMBIENT TEMPERATURE (HAT) CONDITIONS 2
ES4. BAU AND MITIGATION DEMAND SCENARIOS FOR R/AC 3
1 INTRODUCTION 7
1.1 TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR THE XXVII/4 TASK FORCE REPORT 7
1.2 SCOPE AND COVERAGE 7
1.3 COMPOSITION OF THE TASK FORCE AND APPROACH 8
2 UPDATE OF THE STATUS ON REFRIGERANTS 11
2.1 INTRODUCTION 11
2.2 REFRIGERANT DATA 11
2.3 REFRIGERANT CLASSIFICATION AND STANDARDS 18
2.4 LIKELIHOOD OF NEW MOLECULES AND NEW RADICALLY DIFFERENT BLENDS 18
2.5 ROAD TO AVAILABILITY OF ALTERNATIVE REFRIGERANTS 19
2.6 ENERGY EFFICIENCY IN RELATION TO REFRIGERANTS 20
2.7 CLIMATE IMPACT RELATED TO REFRIGERANTS 21
2.8 THE GWP CLASSIFICATION ISSUE 22
2.9 REFERENCES 23
3 SUITABILITY OF ALTERNATIVES UNDER HIGH AMBIENT TEMPERATURE (HAT)
CONDITIONS
27
3.1 HAT CONSIDERATIONS 27
3.2 TESTING AT HAT CONDITIONS 28
3.2.1 PRAHA and EGYPRA projects 28
3.2.2 ORNL project 29
3.2.3 AREP project 31
3.2.4 Common remarks on the three testing projects 32
3.3 FURTHER CONSIDERATIONS 34
3.4 REFERENCES 35
4 BAU AND MIT SCENARIOS FOR ARTICLE 5 AND NON-ARTICLE 5 PARTIES FOR 1990-2050:
REFRIGERATION AND AIR CONDITIONING
37
4.1 EXPANSION OF SCENARIOS 37
4.2 METHOD USED FOR CALCULATION 38
4.3 HFC CONSUMPTION AND PRODUCTION DATA 39
4.4 NON-ARTICLE 5 SCENARIOS UP TO 2050 41
4.4.1 BAU scenario 41
4.4.2 MIT-3 scenario 43
4.4.3 MIT-5 scenario 45
4.5 ARTICLE 5 SCENARIOS 47
4.5.1 BAU scenario 47
4.5.2 MIT-3 scenario 50
4.5.3 Impact of manufacturing conversion periods in the MIT-3 scenario 51
4.5.4 MIT-4 scenario 52
4.5.5 Impact of manufacturing conversion periods in the MIT-4 scenario 54
4.5.6 MIT-5 scenario 55
4.5.7 Impact of manufacturing conversion periods in the MIT-5 scenario 56
4.6 REFRIGERANT DEMAND AND MITIGATION BENEFIT NUMBERS 57
4.7 REFERENCES 65
5 LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 67
ANNEX 1 – UPDATED TABLES FOR TOTAL, NEW MANUFACTURING, AND SERVICING
DEMAND
69

Executive summary
ES1. Introduction

• In response to Decision XXVII/4, this report provides an update from TEAP of information on alternatives to ozone-depleting substances listed in the September 2015 Update XXVI/9 Task Force report and considering the specific parameters outlined in the current Decision.

• Given that Parties will hold two Open-ended Working Group (OEWG) meetings this year, the short timeframe until OEWG-37 in April (focusing on discussion of Decision XXVII/1 on matters related to ydrofluorocarbons (HFCs)), TEAP has taken the approach to provide two reports responding to Decision XXVII/4. This first March 2016 report submitted to the OEWG-37 focuses on the refrigeration and air conditioning (R/AC) sector, and includes updates on alternatives, testing on alternatives under high ambient temperature conditions, discussion of other parameters outlined in the decision, and an extension of the mitigation scenarios to 2050.

• This report also provides revised scenarios of avoiding high-GWP refrigerants and considers how the start date for conversion (2020 versus 2025) and the length of conversion over the extended period affect overall costs and climate impacts.

• A second report will be submitted for OEWG-38 providing updates as new information will become available as well as any updates based on feedback received on the first report at OEWG-37. It will also cover the other sectors (foams, fire protection, metered dose inhalers (MDIs), other medical and non-medical aerosols, and solvents) and other topics not covered in the first report (e.g., alternatives for refrigeration systems on fishing vessels).

The following sections ES2, ES3 and ES4 further elaborate on the highlights and provide the technical summaries of the report’s three main chapters.

ES2. Update on the status of refrigerants

• Chapter 2 mentions 80 fluids which have either been proposed or are being tested in industry programmes, or are pending publication, or have been published in ISO 817 and ASHRAE 34 refrigerant standards since the 2014 RTOC Assessment Report. The majority of these are new mixtures, but traditional fluids and two new molecules are also included. Chapter 2 includes discussions on how refrigerants are classified in refrigerant standards and why safety has become more important.

• There are alternative refrigerants available today with negligible ODP and lower GWP, however, for some applications it can be challenging to reach the same lifetime cost level of the conventional systems while keeping the same performance and size. The search for new alternative fluids may yield more economical solutions, but the prospects of discovering new, radically different fluids are minimal.

• Market dynamics are critical in the rate of adoption of new refrigerants. There is a limit to the number of different refrigerants that a market (customers, sales channels, service companies) can manage. Hence, companies will be selective about where they launch a product, avoiding areas which are saturated, and promoting sales where they see the greatest market potential.

• It is difficult to assign energy efficiency to a refrigerant, because energy efficiency of refrigeration systems is in addition to the refrigerant choice and further related to system configuration and component efficiencies. One approach when assessing the energy efficiency related to a refrigerant is to start with a specific refrigerant and use a system architecture suitable for this refrigerant, while comparing with a reference 2 March 2016 TEAP XXVII/4 Task Force Report system for the refrigerant to be replaced. Other approaches screen alternative refrigerants suitable for a given system architecture. The common methods can be divided into: theoretical and semi-theoretical cycle simulations, detailed equipment simulation models, and laboratory tests of the equipment. In practice the achievable energy efficiency is limited by the cost of the system, as the success in the market depends on a cost-performance trade-off.

• The difficulties in assessing the total warming impact related to refrigerants is discussed, including the difficulty of defining low global warming potential and assessing the energy efficiency related to the use of a refrigerant.

• Total climate impact related to refrigerants consists of direct and indirect contributions. The direct contribution is a function of a refrigerant’s GWP, charge amount, emissions due to leakage from the air-conditioning and refrigeration equipment and those associated with the service and disposal of the equipment. The definition of the qualifiers “high”, “medium” and “low” in relation to GWP is a qualitative, non-technical choice related to what is acceptable in specific applications. The indirect contribution accounts for the kg CO2-equivalent emissions generated during the production of the energy consumed by the refrigeration, air- conditioning, and heat pump (RAC&HP) equipment, its operating characteristics, which includes the emissions factor of the local electricity production. In addition, since the indirect contribution (the largest contributor in very low to no leakage or “tight systems”) is a function of energy consumption, it is affected by the operating conditions, operating profile, system capacity, system hardware, among others, which makes a comparison difficult in many instances.

ES3. Suitability of alternatives under high ambient temperature (HAT) conditions

• Chapter 3 updates information on research projects testing alternative refrigerants at HAT conditions and on the design of products using alternatives in new and retrofit applications.

• Results from the three projects, PRAHA, AREP-II, and ORNL, indicate a way forward in the search for efficient low-GWP alternatives for high ambient temperature conditions especially when coupled with a full system redesign. The scope of the research for AREP-II and ORNL mostly covered soft-optimized testing (i.e., adjusted expansion device or adjusted charge amount). While the PRAHA project included a change of compressors, suppliers did not custom-design those compressors for the particular applications.

• Further improvements are likely through optimizing heat exchangers circuitry for heat transfer properties and proper compressor sizing and selection.

• Full redesign of systems, including new components, will likely be needed to realise systems, using new alternative refrigerants, to match the performance of existing systems in both capacity as well as energy efficiency. When selecting new refrigerants it is important to consider further increases on the current energy efficiency requirements.

• While the commercialization process of refrigerants can take up to ten years, the commercialization of products using these alternatives will take further time.

• In HAT conditions, the cooling load of a conditioned space can be up to three times that for moderate climates. Therefore larger capacity refrigeration systems may be needed which implies a larger refrigerant charge. Due to the requirements for charge limitation according to certain safety standards, the possible product portfolio suitable March 2016 TEAP XXVII/4 Task Force Report 3 for HAT conditions is more limited than for average climate conditions when using the same safety standards.

• Although risk assessment work on flammable refrigerants is an on-going research in some countries, there is a need for a comprehensive risk assessment for A2L & A3 alternatives at installation, servicing and decommissioning at HAT conditions.

ES4. BAU and mitigation demand scenarios for R/AC

The revised scenarios in this report include an extension of the timescale used from the year 2030 to 2050 and a consideration of the BAU scenario for non-Article 5 countries that includes the EU F-gas regulation as well as the US HFC regulations for specific sectors and sub-sectors. The mitigation scenarios remain the same as in the September 2015 XXVI/9 report as follows:

  • MIT-3: conversion of new manufacturing by 2020 (completed in non-Article 5 Parties; starting in Article 5 Parties)
  • MIT-4: same as MIT-3 with delayed conversion of stationary AC to 2025
  • MIT-5: conversion of new manufacturing by 2025 (completed in non-Article 5 Parties; starting in Article 5 Parties)

These scenarios (in principle for the R/AC sector only) were cross-checked against current estimated HFC production data that became available in May 2015 (June and September XXVI/9 Task Force report) and shortly thereafter. Estimates made for the 2015 global production of the four main HFCs1 are presented in the table below (some revisions were made in this report); it shows an upper limit for the combined total of about 510 ktonnes.

Chemical Best estimate for global HFC
production in year 2015 (ktonnes)
HFC-32 94
HFC-125 130
HFC-134a 253
HFC-143a 28

Over the period 2015-2050, the revised BAU scenario shows

  • 250% growth in the demand in tonnes and in tonnes CO2-eq. in non-Article 5 Parties;
  • 700% growth in tonnes and a 800% growth in tonnes CO2-eq. in Article 5 Parties;
  • Growth in demand in the stationary AC and the commercial refrigeration sub-sectors is particularly significant where the stationary AC sub-sector is the one determining the total HFC demand in the sum of the four main HFCs used in R/AC. The total global R/AC demand is calculated to be about 510 ktonnes for the year 2015 for these four HFCs.

Conversion period: the longer the conversion period in mitigation scenarios, the greater the climate impacts (see MIT-3 or MIT-5 from 6 to 12 years) and the resultingoverall costs in particular because of continuing servicing needs.

Delaying the start of conversion: MIT-3 assumes that conversion in all sub-sectors starts in 2020, MIT-5 assumes that conversion starts in 2025. In terms of overall climate impact, the total integrated HFC demand for the R/AC sector in Article 5

1 These are the four main HFCs used in the R/AC (including MACs) sector; HFC-134a is also used in foams, MDIs, aerosols.

Parties over the period 2020-2030 was previously estimated in the different scenarios as follows:

  • BAU: 16,000 Mt CO2 eq.
  • MIT-3: 6,500 Mt CO2 eq.; a 60% reduction to BAU (2020-2030)
  • MIT-4: 9,800 Mt CO2 eq.; a 40% reduction to BAU (2020-2030)
  • MIT-5: 12,000 Mt CO2 eq.; a 30% reduction to BAU (2020-2030)

With the scenarios extended to 2050 in this report, the BAU demand for the extended period 2020-2050 increases almost five-fold. In this context, although the differences in reduction between the various mitigation scenarios MIT-3, -4 and -5 remain large, they become proportionately less compared to BAU. Consideration of the intermediate period 2020-2040 may provide a more realistic estimate of the savings that can be realised via the various MIT scenarios in Article 5 countries. The total integrated HFC demand for the R/AC sector in Article 5 Parties over 2020-2040 is as follows:

  • BAU: 42,300 Mt CO2-eq.
  • MIT-3: 10,600 Mt CO2-eq.; a 75% reduction to BAU (2020-2040)
  • MIT-4: 15,600 Mt CO2-eq.: a 63% reduction to BAU (2020-2040)
  • MIT-5: 18,800 Mt CO2-eq.; a 56% reduction to BAU (2020-2040)

The MIT-3 and MIT-5 scenarios are given for all Parties, but predominantly reflect demand in Article 5 Parties:

  • MIT-3 substantially reduces the high-GWP HFC demand compared to BAU since it addresses all manufacturing conversions in all R/AC sub-sectors as of 2020. As manufacturing with high-GWP refrigerants is phased down, the servicing demand becomes dominant. The stationary AC sub-sector is the principal source of the HFC demand.
  • MIT-5 delays manufacturing conversion of all sub-sectors, including the rapidly expanding stationary AC sector from 2020 until 2025, so that HFC demand initially rises, but then falls as of the year 2025. Servicing rises substantially as a consequence, and persists for much longer than in MIT-3. MIT-5 defers the conversion periods for R/AC sub-sectors and shows the impact of the persisting servicing needs as a result.

For demand in Article 5 Parties, the following is also of importance:

  • Peak values determined for the refrigerant demand increase with later start of conversion. The peak value for MIT-3 in 2020 is about 820 Mt CO2-eq. The peak value for MIT-4 in the year 2023, with conversion of stationary AC starting in 2025, is 25% higher (at 1025 Mt CO2-eq.), whereas the peak value for demand for MIT-5 in the year 2025 is 62% higher than the one for MIT-3 (at 1330 Mt CO2-eq.).
  • For MIT-3, the average decline over a period of 10 years after the peak year is 5.3% per year (from 820 down to 390 Mt CO2-eq. in 2030), for MIT-4 it is 4.5% per year (from 1025 down to 570 Mt CO2-eq. in 2033) and for MIT-5 it is 5.5% per year (from 1330 down to 605 Mt CO2-eq.). If the freeze year (which coincides with the peak year) is chosen as the starting point, an average annual reduction of 5% in total demand (manufacturing and servicing) seems feasible for all types of scenarios. These values all apply to a manufacturing conversion period of six years.

For each separate Article 5 country the peak (freeze) values will still be in the same years for the various MIT scenarios considered, however, annual reduction percentages achievable thereafter may be significantly different per country.

1 Introduction

1.1 Terms of Reference for the XXVII/4 Task Force report

Decision XXVII/4 of the Twenty-seventh Meeting of the Parties requested the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP) to prepare a draft report for consideration by the Open-ended Working Group (OEWG) at its thirty–seventh meeting, and thereafter an updated report to be submitted to the Twenty Eighth Meeting of the Parties in 2016. In their discussions prior to adoption of this decision, Parties considered a focus primarily on areas where updates to the September 2015 report of the task force of the TEAP addressing the issues of decision XXVI/9, including with regard to information on the availability of alternatives and to extending the mitigation scenarios from the previous report to 2050.

In Decision XXVII/1, paragraph 1, Parties agreed to “work within the Montreal Protocol to an HFC amendment in 2016 by first resolving challenges by generating solutions in the contact group on the feasibility and ways of managing HFCs during Montreal Protocol meetings.” Further, in paragraph 4 of that decision, Parties agreed to “hold in 2016 a series of Openended Working Group meetings and other meetings, including an extraordinary meeting of the parties.” Subsequently, in 2016, Parties will hold the thirty-seventh and thirty-eighth OEWG meetings on 4-8 April and 18-21 July, respectively, along with the third Extraordinary Meeting of the Parties 22-23 July. Given the two OEWG meetings and understanding that the focus of the first OEWG-37 will be on issues related to HFCs, TEAP is providing its response to Decision XXVII/4 in two parts: this first report submitted to OEWG-37 primarily focuses on the refrigeration and air conditioning sector; the second report to be submitted to OEWG-38 will address comments received at OEWG-37 plus focus on updates related to the other sectors including foams, fire protection, medical aerosols, nonmedical or technical aerosols, and solvents, where updated information is available to the TEAP. An update report, if appropriate, will be submitted to the Twenty-eighth Meeting of the Parties (MOP-28). The approach taken by TEAP is further discussed below.

1.2 Scope and coverage

The text of Decision XXVII/4 (“Response to the report by the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel on information on alternatives to ozone-depleting substances”), as it relates to this report is as follows:

Decision XXVII/4: Response to the report by the Technology and Economic
Assessment Panel on information on alternatives to ozone-depleting substances

Noting with appreciation the September 2015 report of the task force of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel addressing the issues listed in subparagraphs 1 (a)–(c) of decision XXVI/9,

1. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel, if necessary in consultation with external experts, to prepare a report for consideration by the Open-ended Working Group at its thirty–seventh meeting, and thereafter an updated report to be submitted to the Twenty-Eighth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer in 2016, that would:

(a) Update, where necessary, and provide new information on alternatives to ozone-depleting substances, including not-in-kind alternatives, based on the guidance and assessment criteria provided in subparagraph 1 (a) of decision XXVI/9, and taking into account the most recent findings on the suitability of alternatives under high-ambient temperatures, highlighting in particular:

(i) the availability and market penetration of these alternatives in different regions;

(ii) the availability of alternatives for replacement and retrofit of refrigeration systems in fishing vessels, including in small island countries;

(iii) new substances in development that could be used as alternatives to ODS and that could become available in the near-future;

(iv) the energy efficiency associated with the use of these alternatives;

(v) The total warming impact and total costs associated with these alternatives and the systems where they are used;

(b) Update and extend to 2050 all the scenarios in the Decision XXVI/9 report.

1.3 Composition of the Task Force and approach

The TEAP established a Task Force to prepare the reports responding to Decision XXVII/4.The composition of the Task Force is as follows:

Co-chairs

  • Lambert Kuijpers (The Netherlands, Senior Expert member TEAP, RTOC)
  • Bella Maranion (USA, co-chair TEAP)
  • Roberto Peixoto (Brazil, co-chair RTOC)

Members:

  • Denis Clodic (France, outside expert)
  • Daniel Colbourne (UK, member RTOC)
  • Martin Dieryckx (Belgium, member RTOC)
  • Piotr Domanski (USA, outside expert (NIST))
  • Dave Godwin (USA, member RTOC)
  • Bassam Elassaad (Lebanon, member RTOC)
  • Armin Hafner (Norway, outside expert)
  • Samir Hamed (Jordan, member RTOC)
  • D. Mohin Lal (India, member RTOC)
  • Richard Lawton (UK, member RTOC)
  • Simon Lee (UK, member FTOC)
  • Tingxun Li (PR China, member RTOC)
  • Richard Lord (USA, outside expert)
  • Carloandrea Malvicino (Italy, member RTOC)
  • Keiichi Ohnishi (Japan, co-chair MCTOC)
  • Alaa A. Olama (Egypt, member RTOC)
  • Xueqin Pan (France, outside expert)
  • Fabio Polonara (Italy, co-chair RTOC)
  • Rajan Rajendran (USA, member RTOC)
  • Helen Tope (Australia, co-chair MCTOC)
  • Dan Verdonik (USA, co-chair HTOC)
  • Samuel Yana-Motta (Peru, member RTOC)
  • Asbjørn Vonsild (Denmark, member RTOC)
  • Jianjun Zhang (PR China, c-chair MCTOC)
  • Shiqiu Zhang (PR China, Senior Expert member TEAP)

The structure of the TEAP XXVII/4 Task Force Report was considered by the Task Force and also by TEAP prior to the final formulation of this first report. The factors considered include:

  • The relatively short period between the delivery of the final XXVII/9 Report (September 2015) and the preparation of the first XXVII/4 Report to be submitted for OEWG-37.
  • The similarity of the criteria set out within Decision XXVII/4 and Decision XXVI/9.
  • The importance of avoiding too much repetition and bringing focus on updated information from the previous report.
  • Recognition that some sectors (specifically refrigeration, air conditioning and foam) have data which allow for the characterisation of a Business-As-Usual (BAU) case and related mitigation scenarios. Recognition that other sectors (specifically fire protection, solvents and medical uses) do not have reliable data from which relevant mitigation scenarios can be derived or for which mitigation scenarios were not derived.

Given the two OEWG meetings, the short timeline for OEWG-37, and understanding that the focus of the first OEWG-37 will be on issues related to HFCs, TEAP has taken an approach of providing a response to Decision XXVII/4 as follows:

  • For OEWG-37, TEAP is providing this first Task Force report focused on R/AC only addressing the relevant paragraphs under paragraph 1(a) of the decision including updates on alternatives, research studies on alternatives under high ambient temperature conditions, and extension of mitigation scenarios to 2050.
  • For OEWG-38, TEAP is providing a second Task Force report that may incorporate updates to the R/AC sector information based on discussions at OEWG-37, and responds to other parts of the decision, including information on alternatives to refrigeration systems on fishing vessels, and updating and extending scenarios for sectors other R/AC to the extent new information is available.
  • For MOP-28, TEAP will provide a Task Force update report, as appropriate, following discussions during OEWG-38).

The chapter layout of this first XXVII/4 Task Force report is as follows:

Executive Summary

Chapter 1 – Intro

Chapter 2 – Update on the status of refrigerants

Chapter 3 – Suitability of alternatives under high ambient temperature conditions

Chapter 4 – BAU and MIT scenarios for A5/non-A5 countries for 1990-2050: R/AC

2 Update of the status on refrigerants

2.1 Introduction

This chapter provides updated information on alternatives in the refrigeration and air conditioning sectors since the TEAP Task Force Decision XXVI/9 report, September 2015 (UNEP, 2015) and as requested in Decision XXVII/4. It includes:

  • A presentation of 80 fluids that have been proposed for testing or are being tested in industry programmes, are pending publication, or have been published in ISO 817 and ASHRAE 34 refrigerant standards since the 2014 RTOC Assessment Report. The majority of these are new mixtures, but traditional fluids and two new refrigerants based on a new molecule are also included.
  • A description of how refrigerants are classified in the refrigerant standards, while also noting that with the introduction and potential widespread adaptation of refrigerants which are flammable, have higher toxicity and/or operate at notably higher pressures than the conventional ODS refrigerants or alternative non-flammable HFC refrigerants, safety matters have become more important.
  • A discussion of the process of making refrigerants available to the market, including the market mechanisms that decides where a refrigerant will be available.
  • A discussion the methods of assessing the energy efficiency related to the use of a refrigerant.
  • A discussion on the discovery of new refrigerants is included. There are alternative refrigerants available today with negligible ODP and lower GWP, but for some applications it can be challenging to reach the same lifetime cost level of the systems while keeping the same performance or to keep the equipment within a reasonable size. The search for new alternative fluids may yield more economical system designs, but the prospects of discovering new, radically different fluids are minimal.
  • A discussion of the total warming impact related to refrigerants is discussed, including the difficulty of defining low global warming potential, which plays an essential role in the total warming impact calculation.

2.2 Refrigerant data

A total of 80 fluids, new and “old”, are under investigation as alternatives to ODS refrigerants or higher GWP refrigerants (see (UNEP, 2014) for comparison). The fluids have been proposed for testing, are being tested in industry programmes or are pending publication or have been published in ISO 817 (ISO 817:2014) or ASHRAE 34 (ASHRAE 34:2013) since the 2014 RTOC Assessment report (UNEP, 2014). Of the 80 fluids, 11 are pure substances, of which 10 have been published in ISO 817 or ASHRAE 34, while of the 69 mixtures, 55 have publicly known compositions, but only 17 have been published in the ISO 817 or ASHRAE 34 standards, and of these, 11 were included in the RTOC report (UNEP, 2014).

It is expected that after the first introduction of all 80 fluids, testing, development and commercialization will decrease the number of viable candidates. The subsequent increasing number of experiences from the market will likely further narrow down the number of viable lower GWP candidates in the future.

For ease of reference, the names of the five largest industry test programs are provided below:

  • AHRI Low-GWP Alternative Refrigerants Evaluation Program (AREP). This project is divided into two phases: Phase I (AREP-I), which is finished, and phase II (AREP-II), which is still ongoing.
  • “Promoting low-GWP Refrigerants for Air-Conditioning Sectors in High-Ambient Temperature Countries” (PRAHA)
  • “Egyptian Project for Refrigerant Alternatives” (EGYPRA) March 2016 TEAP XXVII/12 4 Task Force Report
  • the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) “High-Ambient-Temperature Evaluation Program for Low-Global Warming Potential (Low-GWP) Refrigerants”, Phase I (and a new Phase II)

In addition to the programs listed above, several independent or industry-led test campaigns for specific refrigerants are being performed for various applications and climate conditions, for which results will be published when available.

The fluids participating in the five programmes named above and the refrigerants proposed under ASHRAE (ASHRAE, 2015), are presented in Table 2-1 for pure fluids and in Table 2-2 for blends with publicly known compositions. For ease of reference, key properties for selected commonly used refrigerants are given in Table 2-3 and Table 2-4.

The fluids for which composition is not yet public are (with safety class in brackets):

  • ARC-1 (A1) and LPR1A (A2L) for replacing HCFC-123;
  • BRB36 (A1) for replacing HFC-134a;
  • ARM-32c (A1), D542HT (A1), DR-91 (A1), and N-20b (A1) for replacing HCFC-22, R-407C;
  • ARM-20b (A2L) for replacing HCFC-22, R-404A, R-407C;
  • ARM-32b (A1), D42Yb (A1), D42Yz (A1), and ARM-25a (A2) for replacing R-404A;
  • ARM-71a (A2L) and HPR2A (A2L) for replacing R-410A.

Table 2-1: Pure substances proposed under various test programs and in ASHRAE 34

Refrigerant Designation

Proposed to replace

(from AREP phase I)

Safety Class AREP programPhase 1 Participation inPhase 2 alternativesPRAHA for HCFC-22 and R-410AEGYPRA High ambient programmesUS DoE Chemical Formula Chemical Name Molecular Weight Boiling Point (°C) ATEL/ODL (kg/m3) LFL (kg/m3) GWP 100 Year (IPCC5) GWP 100 Year (RTOC)
HFC-32 R-404A,
R-410A×
A2L X X X X X CH2F2 Difluoromethane
(methylene
fluoride)
52,0 −52 0,30 0,307 677 704
HC-290 HCFC-
22,
R-404A,
R-407C
A3 X X X X CH3CH2CH3 propane 44,1 −42 0,09 0,038 5
HC-600a HFC-
134a
A3 X CH(CH3)2-
CH3
2-methylpropane
(isobutane)
58,1 −12 0,059 0,043 ~20
R-717 HCFC-
22,
R-407C
B2L X NH3 ammonia 17,0 −33 0,000 22 0,116
R-744 R-404A,
R-410A
A1 X CO2 carbon
dioxide
44,0 −78 0,072 NF 1 1
HCFC-
1233zd(E)
HCFC-
123
A1 X CF3CH=
CHCl
trans-1-
chloro-3,3,3-
trifluoro-1-
propene
130,5 18,1 0 NF 1 1
HFC-
1234yf
HFC-
134a
A2L X X CF3CF=CH2 2,3,3,3-
tetrafluoro-1-
propene
114,0 −29,4 0,47 0,289 <1 <1
HFC-
1234ze(E)
HFC-
134a
A2L X X CF3CH=
CHF
trans-1,3,3,3-
tetrafluoro-1-
propene
114,0 −19,0 0,28 0,303 <1 <1
HC-1270 HCFC-
22,
R-407C
A3 X CH3CH=
CH2
propene
(propylene)
42,1 −48 0,001 7 0,046 1,8
1336mzz
(Z)
HCFC-
123
A1 CF3CH=CHCF3 1,1,1,4,4,4-
hexafluoro-2-
butene
164,1 33,4 0 NF 2 2
HCC-
1130(E)
HCFC-
123
B2 CHCl=CHCl transdichloroethene 96,9 47,7 <1 <1

Notes:
Fluids given with a green background are fluids which were not previously mentioned in the XXVI/9 Task Force report.
HFC-32 was proposed to replace R-404A and R-410A in phase I of the AREP program, but is only proposed to replace R-410A in phase II of same and later projects.
For R-744 the sublimation temperature is given instead of boiling point. Triple point is  56,6 °C at 5,2 bar.
**HCC-1130(E) is pending official ASHRAE 34 approval, submitted January 2016.

 
 


 
 

အခြားစိတ်ဝင်စားစရာများ။