-
Research Institutes of Sweden
EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES TO R404– THE MOST COMMON REFRIGERANT
IN SWEDISH GROCERY STORES
Markus Lindahl
May 2017
Built EnvironmentEnergy and Circular Economy
-
§ Background§ Scope§ Method§ Results§ Conclusions
2
Presentation outline
-
§ Today R404A is the most commonly used refrigerant in Swedish
grocery stores.
§ R404A is an HFC refrigerant with a high GWP and is covered by
EU’s F-Gas Regulation, § The F-Gas Regulation entered into force on
1 January 2015.
§ The aim of the new F-Gas Regulation is to reduce the climate
impact of refrigerants § Guide the market towards refrigerants and
system solutions with
lower Global Warming Potential (GWP).
§ There are refrigerants that are not covered by the F-Gas
Regulation and therefore suitable alternatives to R404A§ Some of
these are: HFO, carbon dioxide, ammonia and
hydrocarbons
3
Background
-
The scope of this study was to define:
§ The investment cost§ Assuming an existing R404A-system
today
§ The operating cost
of a few types of freezing systems with other refrigerants than
R404A.
§ Make an economic evaluation of the different alternatives
4
Scope of the study
-
§ Only freezing systems were analyzed.
§ Energy consumption was estimated using a theoretical model
based on other models and experiences of the project participants,
as well as expertise in the area.
§ The annual cost was only based on the energy consumption of
refrigeration systems and not on maintenance costs etc.
§ Optimized condensing and evaporating temperatures were assumed
which resulted in optimized operation of the freezer system.
5
Limitations
-
6
Investigated alternatives to R404A
HFC HFC HFC-HFO Hydro-carbonCarbon Dioxide
R404A R407F R448A Propane R290 R744
GWP 3922 1824 1273 3 1
Flammability Non flammableNon
flammableNon
flammable FlammableNon
flammableCan replace R404A in existing systems
- Yes (Yes) No No
-
Construction of theoretical model:§ Grocery store (Reference
store in Borås, Sweden)
§ Climate data (Meteonorm)§ Indoor climate is based on outdoor
temperature and humidity
§ Freezers (with and without lids), maximum cooling load:
23kW
§ Auxiliary systems in the freezers (fans, defrost function,
lighting and anti-fog function)
§ Refrigerant choice§ Compressor set up and dimensioning (Bitzer
software)§ Indirect/direct system (dependent on refrigerant)
7
Method- Annual energy use of the freezer system
-
Costs:
§ Assumed electricity cost: 1 SEK/kWh ≈ 0.1 Euro/kWh
§ Installation costs based on information from supplier of
relevant equipment
8
Method- Annual energy use of the freezer system
-
-
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
R404ADX(reference)
R407FDX R448ADX R290 CO2DX
(kWh/yr)
9
Result- Energy Use (kWh/yr)
-
-
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
R407FDX R448ADX R290 CO2DX
Euro
10
Result- Cost of installation (Euro)
-
11
§ Deprecation time 10 yr
§ Cost of capital 3%
Result- Present value - Deprecation time 10yr (Euro)
-
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
300000
R404ADX(reference)
R407FDX R448ADX R290 CO2DX
Euro
-
§ Energy use will be reduced with all alternative refrigerant
systems compared to R404A.
§ R407F and R448A are on short turn basis the best
alternatives.§ However they are likely to be phased out just as
with R404A, just
a few years later.
§ For newer facilities where you want to keep the existing
cooling system, drop-in refrigerants may be economic feasible
alternatives.
§ R290 (propane) and R774 (CO2) will thanks to their low GWP not
be affected by the F-Gas Regulation§ They are the most viable
long-term options.§ A larger investment is needed compared to the
other two options.
12
Conclusions
-
Research Institutes of Sweden
THANK YOU!Markus Lindahl
[email protected]
+46 (0)1o-516 5529
Ola Gustafsson
[email protected]
+46 (0)1o-516 5120
Built EnvironmentEnergy and Circular Economy
