Challenges for Refrigerants at High Ambient Temperatures

Transcription

1 Challenges for Refrigerants at High Ambient Temperatures Sustainable Technologies for Stationary Air Conditioning Workshop Wednesday Feb 1, 2017 Las Vegas Convention Center Bassam Elassaad, P.Eng - RTOC member

2 Agenda 2 Definition of HAT Considerations for HAT Highlights from research projects Key findings and remaining challenges Information and material for this presentation is derived from TEAP Task Force reports, HAT research projects and related symposia & conferences

3 What is a high ambient temperature? 3

4 Definition of HAT 4 Percentile method: incidence of dry bulb corresponding to 0.4%, 1%, 2%, and 5% per year for the last 10 consecutive years exceeding 35, 40, or 45 ºC; Climate Zone method: AS defined in ASHRAE with zones from A0 extremely hot and humid to zone 2B hot and dry; Bin Weather Method: offers microanalysis useful for system design requirements; Average Monthly method: incidence of hours or days at a certain temperature adopted by Parties of MP for temperatures above 35 ºC for at least two months per year over 10 consecutive years. CCAC Workshop - Feb 1, 2017 Las Vegas

5 Global Climate Zones (ASHRAE ) 5 CCAC Workshop - Feb 1, 2017 Las Vegas

6 Considerations for HAT 6 HAT countries governments and industry concerns

7 HAT Efficiency, Safety & Design 7 As ambient temperature increases, condensing temperature increases. COP Carnot = T ev /(T cd -T ev ) Two key thermodynamic parameters that affect performance at high ambient temperatures are the critical temperature and molar heat capacity (McLinden, Domanski, 1999) The system design (size of the condenser, refrigerant charge, expansion device) influences the level of performance degradation; At HAT conditions, the cooling load of a conditioned space can be up to three times that for moderate climates; larger capacity refrigeration systems may be needed which implies a larger refrigerant charge. (ISO 5149:2014) Part 1 describes limits to charge amount depending on system type, system location, and accessibility by people unaccustomed with the safety procedures relating to the system

8 HAT & Reliability 8 Cooling capacity decreases due to higher condensing Temperature; Vapor-liquid heat transfer becomes shorter due to higher condensing temperature; Higher pressure ratio results in higher current & shorter compressor life; Refrigerant and oil decompose into water and carbon; Viscosity of the oil decreases; Insulation of the motor gets worse; Reliability decreases CCAC Workshop - Feb 1, 2017 Las Vegas Source: Li Tingxun, HAT seminar 2014

9 HAT Critical Pressure & Safety 9 At higher ambient temperatures, refrigerants will be operating closer to their critical pressure and the prescribed high pressure for safe operation approaches the critical pressure for some refrigerants. Example: at 67 ºC corresponding to the high pressure safe limit prescribed by EN378: HCFC-22 corresponding pressure is 2,760 kpa equivalent to 55% of critical pressure; R-410A corresponding pressure is 4,347 kpa equivalent to 91% of critical pressure. Ref EN378-2:2008: Ambient Conditions < 32 C < 38 C < 43 C < 55 C High pressure side with air cooled condenser 55 C 59 C 63 C 67 C Low pressure side with heat exchanger exposed to ambient temperature 32 C 38 C 43 C 55 C

10 Research at HAT 10 Description and results

11 Background & Early Research 11 Most of the research has been at the standard ambient of 35 C dry bulb temperature with extrapolation to higher temperatures. Simulation and testing was also done for some of the available refrigerants: Earlier modelling by Chin and Spatz (1999) conducting simulations comparing R-410A to HCFC-22 at 52 C ambient; Domanski and Payne (2002) carried out measurements of a unitary air conditioner to compare HCFC-22 and R-410A; Biswas and Cremaschi (2012) measured the performance of some mixtures like DR-4 and DR-5 at 46 C. Faramarzi, R. et al. (2014): Testing of HCFC-22 based rooftop at HAT (up to 54.4 C) Schultz (2014): experimental; simulation R-410A and HCFC- 22 alternatives

12 New research efforts 12 Promoting low GWP Refrigerants for Air-Conditioning Sectors in High- Ambient Temperature Countries (PRAHA) Concluded; report published; Phase II approved and started in 2016 Egyptian Project for Refrigerant Alternatives (EGYPRA) Ongoing, results in 2017 The Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) High-Ambient-Temperature Evaluation Program for low global warming potential (Low-GWP) Refrigerants Phase I and II Phase I concluded October 2015 with a report published Phase II started in the course of 2016 The Alternative Refrigerant Evaluation Program (AREP) Phase I and II Phase I concluded in test reports Phase II concluded in test reports CCAC Workshop - Feb 1, 2017 Las Vegas

13 Four Research Projects at HAT Type of test Status Low-GWP AREP (AHRI) Soft-optimization and dropin tests of several A/C, Heat Pumps, and Ref applications started 2014 and completed ORNL - DOE Evaluation Program Soft-optimized tests, of Two (2) base Split A/C units Started 2015 and completed EGYPRA (UNEP, UNIDO, Egypt) Build and test 36 prototypes in 3 A/C split and one A/C package categories Started in 2015 and planned to complete by 2017 PRAHA (UNEP, UNIDO, HAT countries) Build and test 23 prototypes in Window, split and A/C package categories Started 2013 and completed Testing Units were manufactured or obtained by each party and tested at each party s facilities The 2 units were optimized and tested at ORNL Prototypes built at eight OEMs, witness tested at own labs Prototypes built at 6 OEMs, test at Independent Lab Refrigerants tested R-1234yf, R-32, D2Y60, L- 41a, D-52Y, ARM-71a, DR- 5A, HPR-2A, L-41-1 and L HFC-32, R-290, HFC/HFO blends 4 types vs. HCFC- 22 HFC/HFO blends (4 types) vs. R-410A HFC-32, R-290, HFC/HFO blends 3 types vs. HCFC-22 HFC/HFO blends (3 types) vs. R-410A HFC-32, R-290, HFC/HFO blends 2 types) vs. HCFC-22 HFC/HFO blends (1 type) vs. R-410A Other components N/A N/A N/A Several other assessment elements There are several other individual research projects on alternatives for HAT conditions, but above are the independent collective efforts supported by governments or the industry CCAC Workshop - Feb 1, 2017 Las Vegas Source: PRAHA report

14 Differences between projects 14 PRAHA & EGYPRA use custom built prototypes with special compressors and optimized charge and expansion device; ORNL optimized the charge and the expansion device to achieve same superheat and subcooling as the base units; AREP was either a drop-in or soft optimized. Some experiments matched the capacity, others used variable drives, while measured the same refrigerant with two types of oil. CCAC Workshop - Feb 1, 2017 Las Vegas

15 PRAHA Results - graphic summary 15 Source: PRAHA report

16 PRAHA: Degradation vs. temperature 16 Source: PRAHA report

17 ORNL HCFC-22 alternatives 17 Source: ORNL report

18 ORNL R-410A alternatives 18 Source: ORNL report

19 AREP-II 19 Source: AREP-II Perdue paper 2016

20 Conclusions and key findings 20 And how they relate to HAT country concerns

21 Results comparison: three HAT projects 21 Current HAT project testing results are difficult to compare due to different constraints and testing protocols. The normalized comparison only provide an initial quick understanding of improvement potential. Observed trends at HAT conditions: HC-290 showed better efficiency but lower capacity than the baseline HCFC-22 in the ORNL test while it had lower efficiency and higher capacity in the PRAHA test; Other HCFC-22 alternatives showed lower capacity and lower efficiency than the baseline in both ORNL and PRAHA; HFC-32 showed better efficiency and capacity than R-410A in the ORNL test and two of the AREP-II tests, but lower results when matching superheat and sub-cooling with R-410A in one AREP-II test; In ORNL tests, other R-410A alternatives showed same or better efficiency than the baseline, but no trend for the capacity; In the AREP tests, other R-410A alternatives showed lower capacity than the baseline but equal to 10% better efficiency when matching superheat and sub-cooling.

22 Conclusions 22 The test results should be carefully interpreted along with system modifications, test procedure variations etc. Some tested refrigerants show promise in meeting specific, current R/AC equipment requirements for operation under HAT conditions; There is a potential improvement through further soft optimization but full optimization of systems will likely improve the performance of these refrigerants; Losses in cooling capacity are typically easier to recover through engineering optimization than are losses in COP; The primary practical limit to improvements in capacity is the physical size of the unit; but that is not expected to be a significant concern; The COP losses and the increases in compressor discharge temperature are particularly important results, in that these variables will be the primary focus of future optimization efforts. Source: AREP-II and ORNL reports

23 Concerns of HAT Governments and Industry 23 MP targets Leapfrogging high-gwp options HCFC Phaseout Energy Efficiency National Priority Alternatives to meet MEPS Knowledge Safety Multiple Refrigerants Technical Issues Sustainability and Economics Components availability Cost impact Source: PRAHA

24 Thank you!