Challenges to Replace ODS in PU Appliance Foams in ... · PDF fileCompressor Efficiency Design ... Plant Modification to Hydrocarbons ... Challenges to Replace ODS in PU Appliance

Montreal, April 5-6, 2008

Paulo Altoe – Dow Brazil

April 2008

Challenges to Replace ODS in PU Appliance Foams in Developing Countries


Blowing Agent Status - Phase Out of CFC and Growth Predictions for Blowing Agents

Source – UNEP Report 2001

Source – TEAP Report 2006


HCFC – Major Volume for Replacement Developing Countries





Flexible PU 29%

Phenolic 1%

Polyethelene 1%

Polystyrene 16%

Rigid PU 53%

Blowing Agent Consumption - Breakdown per Foam TypeTotal ~ 360.000 tonnes

Source: TEAP Report, 2006

Blowing Agent PU Rigid Foam

~ 200 MT



Simulaton of HCFC Phase-Out In Developing CountriesOriginal and New Agreement of Montreal Protocol

0102030405060708090

100110120130

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040

Dec

reas

ing,

%

Montreal Protocol - Original Rules

Montreal Protocol - Agreement 2007

D ecrease 5% fro m 2015

48%

52%

2010 Base Line2013 Freeze Prod., consumption2015 Reduction 10%2020 Reduction 35%2025 Reduction 75%2040 Reduction 100%

2015 Base Line

2016 Freeze Prod., Consumption

2040 Reduction 100%

Blow. Agent in Appliance Foam

most importantvolume


Low K Bl. AgentsVacuum PanelsCompressor EfficiencyDesign Multi-injectionsWall ThicknessEnergy Labels

Montreal ProtocolIndustrial HygieneProduct LifetimeEco-designRenewable RMRecycling Energy labels

Low DensityLow Blow. Ag. LevelLow “voids”Flow abilityFast DemoldMech. PropertiesDim. Stability

Energy Efficiency

Cost &Productivity

Environment &Regulations

Driving Forces in PU Rigid Foams for Appliances Energy Environment Cost


CFC 11

CFC 11 50% red.

HCFC 141b

HFC 245fa

HFC 134a

c-pentano

Iso-/n-pentano c-pentano/LBHC

Blowing Agents History in PU Rigid Foams Technology for Appliances

HFC 365mfa/227fa


Class A has become market reference

Differentiation

A15% A >75%%

Energy Eficiency and Marketing Need: Refrigerator’s energy classes 1992 – 2005 (CECED)


Challenges of HCFC Replacement > Right Choice of Blowing Agents

Physical and Environmental Properties of Blowing Agents How to addressEnergy Efficiency

Environment & Regulationsand Costs ?


Closed cell : Thermal conductivity contribution factors

Challenges of HCFC Replacement > Advances in Rigid Foam Technology for Appliances

λFoam = λgas + λsolid + λradiative

λgas = Gases inside foam cellsλsolid = Bulk polymer {215-245 [mW/mK]/[g/cc]}λradiative= Radiative processes (10 - 16 [mW/mK]/[mm of cell diameter]}

~ 60%~20% ~20%

Developments are focused on Bl. Agent and Radiative factor with cell size reduction


Pos-Expansion, Jumbo Mold (mm) at 8 minutes1 2 3 4 5

Lam

bda,

mW

/mK

@ 10

°C

18.218.418.618.819.019.219.419.619.820.020.220.420.620.8

60.12620.12760.12900.13030.13170.13310.13450.13600.13730.13870.14010.14140.14280.1442

CP Gen4

CP Gen 3

CP Gen 1

CP Gen 2

HFC134a

CP Gen 1+CP Gen 2+

HCFC 141bCFC 11 50%

HCFC 22/142b

Iso-/N-Pentano Gen 1

Iso-/N-Pentano Gen 2

BTU.in/ft²hr°F

Molded Density Trend

CP/HFC245fa

HFC245fa


Low K Technology for HC & HFC 245fa


Rad

iativ

eTh

erm

al C

ondu

ctiv

ity m

W/(m

K)

Cell Size (μm)

Nuc

leat

ion

Site

per

cc

of fo

amin

g m

ixtu

re

Maximum possible radius of initial bubbles (μm)

0

5,000,000

10,000,000

15,000,000

20,000,000

25,000,000

30,000,000

100 150 200 250 300 3500.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.015.7 23.6 31.5 39.4 47.2 55.1

Estimation of radiative conductivity

Nucleation Sites

Maximum gain of radiativecontribution, ~3 mW/m.K

We are here todaywith multi-injections

Area left forimprovement

Initial CP Foams


Cell Size Reduction


0.080.09

0.10.110.120.130.140.150.160.170.18

k-FO

AM

_US

A A

ctua

l

.08 .09 .10 .11 .12 .13 .14 .15 .16 .17 .18k-FOAM_USA Predicted

P<.0001 RSq=0.99 RMSE=0.0014

Actual by Predicted Plot

RSquareRSquare AdjRoot Mean Square ErrorMean of ResponseObservations (or Sum Wgts)

0.9942150.9939530.0014330.125992

301

Summary of Fit

HorizVertTemperatureBulk: HFC-245faCellsizeCore Density 2

Factor24

0.91225

2

Current X

k-FOAM_USAResponse

0.13Contour

0.1301849Current Y

.Lo Limit

.Hi Limit

Contour ProfilerResponse k-FOAM_USA HFC 245fa

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Cel

lsiz

e

k-FOAM_USA

0.15

0.1450.14

0.1350.13 0.125 0.12

0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 1Bulk: HFC-245fa

• General rule is: 10 micron reduction in cell size yields 0.001 btu improvement in foam k-factor• Target needs to be approaching 100 microns hoping to get a k-factor near 0.120 btu• Maybe as large as 140 micron cells size if consider 100% HFC-245fa• Issues: Density, Cost, Processing !

Low K Technology for

HFC 245fa



Modeling Simulation

Challenges of HCFC Replacement - Advances in Rigid Foam Technology for Appliances


Challenges of HCFC Replacement

Choosing the preferred Blowing Agent - Diagram

Initial Foam CharacteristicsEnvironment, Energy, Cost

Work Concluded

Choosing Blowing Agent

FlammableYesNo

StorageProcessingOperationMachinery

Pre-MixFire Brigade

Training

Plant Processing

Review Foam Characteristic

Needs Cabinet, Doors

Redesign Cabinet MoldDoor Mold

Plastic Liners Add Cost: C7

Cabinet MoldDoor MoldFixturesAdd Cost : C6

YesNo

NewCooling System

EvaporatorCompressor

Cooling SystemAdd Cost : C8

EvaporatorAdd Cost : C9

CompressorAdd Cost: C10

No

Yes

Cabinet &Foam

Cabinet &Foam

StorageBulk

DrumsDetectors

Add Cost: C1

Pre-Mixing Piping

VentilationDetectors

Add Cost: C2

ProcessingPiping

VentilationDetectors

Add Cost: C3

MachineryVentilationDetectors

Add Cost: C4

TrainingFire Brigade

People Add Cost: C5

Foam Machinery &Processing

Cabinet


Challenges of HCFC Replacement - Energy Improvement - Options and Cost

0.0 4.5 0.0 10.0 20.0 35.0 0.0 3.0 8.0 5.0 2.5 18.0 3.0

0.38

0.2 0.4

1.4

0.04

0.90.8

0.6

1.9

1.7

0

10

20

30

40

Pote

ntia

l ene

rgy

savi

ng, %

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2

Cos

t per

% im

prov

emen

t, Eu

ro/%

Potential Energy consumpt. reduction in %Cost per % saving, Euro/%

Cooling gas134a

Cooling gasisobutane

CompressorStandard

CompressorHigh

Efficiency

CompressorVery HighEfficiency

CompressorVariable

Speed

Blowing Agentc-pentaneand blends

Optimized PU Systemc-pentane

BlowingAgent

HFC-245fa

Cabinet foamThickness

for each 10mm

increase

Door foamThickness

for each 10mm

increase

VIP Door Design


Challenges of HCFC Replacement-Simulation of Cabinet Costs


Challenges of HCFC Replacement-Simulation of Foam Cost vs Blowing Agent

Protocol:

Foam = HCFC141b, 35 kg/m3 and lambda 18.5-19.5 mW/mK @ 24C

Cabinet with 35 mm thickness

Simulation - HCFC 141b Replacement - Brazil, China, IndiaAnnual Gains(+) or Losses(-) = 500M Units/Y

-800000

-600000

-400000

-200000

0

200000

400000

600000

800000

HCFC141b

Water C-pentane CP/isob C-isop HFC134a HFC245faUS

HFC245faChina

MUS$

SuccessfullyImplemented:

EuropeIndia, China


Challenges of HCFC Replacement-Simulation of Cabinet Costs


Challenges of HCFC Replacement-Simulation of Foam Cost vs Blowing Agent

Protocol:

Foam = HCFC141b, 34 kg/m3 and lambda 18.0-19.0 mW/mK @ 24C

Cabinet with 35 mm thickness

Simulation - HCFC 141b Replacement - Andean Countires & Mexico Annual Gains (+) and Losses in Foam = 500M units/Y

-1000000

-800000

-600000

-400000

-200000

0

200000

400000

600000

HCFC 141b Water C-pentane CP/isob C-isop HFC134a HFC245faUS

HFC245faChina

MUS$


Challenges of HCFC Replacement- Simulation – Incremental Cost per Cabinet vs Options

Plant Modification to HydrocarbonsFrom 0.8 – 3.5 MM US depending

on the size

Simulations - Incremental Cost per Cabinet vs Options

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

HFC 245fa USA Price

Tooling Cabinet Redesign, 3years

Plant Modification HC, 3 years

Foam thickness, 10mm

Cooling System

Compressor, 10% + Efficient

Opt

ions

US$


Conclusion* HCFCs Elimination is a Very Difficult Task Apart From all Technology Advances

* HCFC Elimination by HFC 24fa – Favorable for Energy Efficiency, Non Flammable, High Cost, High GWPAdditional costs - Predominantly in Cabinets

- Less in Machinery & Processing Cost in cabinets - Remain until the cabinet model is produced, limited paybackInvestment - Low in Machinery, High in Raw Material (High cost of Blowing Agent)

* HCFC Elimination by Hydrocarbons – Favorable to the Environment, Medium for Energy, Very Low GWPAdditional costs - Predominantly in Machinery & Plant Processing

- Less in Cabinets -Cost in cabinets – Depending on the re-design

Investment - High in Machinery & Plant Processing with Payback, - Low in Raw Material (Low cost of Blowing Agent)

* Other Options – To be evaluated case by case Blends of HC/HCFC can be an option for China where HFC245fa has lower priceHigher water blown content with other blowing agents will depend on applied molded density and Energy Efficiency requirements

•Modeling, Simulations and Formulation Science are great help for Bl. Agent comparison before final decision is taken



April 2008

Back Up - Slides


Challenges of HCFC Replacement - Energy Improvement - Options and Cost

Freezer door 6%

Full foamed cabinet 24%

Compressor/condensor 20%

Accessories 18%

Packaging 4%

Fixed cost 10%

Refrigerator Door 10%

Manpower 8%

Metal 14.3%

Liner Material 9.6%

PU Foam 12.2%

Compressor 23.2%

Condensor/evaporator 11.4%

Plastic for accessories 4.3%

Seals & accessories and others 19.6%

Glass 5.4%

** excludes Manpower and fixed costs


Conversion Cost to Hydrocarbons US$

Storage 100000

Ventilation 80000

Safety Control - Cabinets 35000

White Book 22000

Safety Report 15000

Pre-Mix Polyol + Hydrocarbon 150000

PU Machine + Mixing Head 300000

Civil Construction

Engineering

Man Power

Total 702000

Conversion Cost to Hydrocarbon - Estimation



April 2008

Back Up - Slides



April 2008

Back Up - Slides



April 2008

Back Up - Slides



April 2008

Challenges to Replace ODS in PU Appliance Foams in Developing Countries

Documents

Challenges to Replace ODS in PU Appliance Foams in ... · PDF fileCompressor Efficiency Design ... Plant Modification to Hydrocarbons ... Challenges to Replace ODS in PU Appliance