Onshore gas: UK prospects given $1bn boost

Transcription

1 the journal for hazardous area environments hazardexonthenet.net January 2015 Onshore gas: UK prospects given $1bn boost : New EU fire suppression rules Harmonics: Active and passive filtering techniques IEA 2014 report: World energy system under stress : Options for ageing offshore facilities

2 27 HFCs are potent greenhouse gases with long atmospheric lifetimes The impact of new legislation on fi re suppression choices in hazardous environments Fire suppression has long been of paramount importance in environments where managing risks is a high priority. After all, a small fire in an already dangerous environment can have catastrophic consequences such as interruptions in operation, damage to high-value equipment, not to mention worker health and safety repercussions. Now there s a new issue to consider: new environmental regulation. Recent changes have been made to the fluorinated gas (F-gas) regulation in Europe, which aims to reduce the use of greenhouse gases, including hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs). Bart Goeman, Business Development Manager at 3M, looks at some of the issues raised. Under the HFC cap and phase-down, HFC producers will be allocated a production and import quota for HFCs and will have difficult decisions to make On 12 March, 2014, the European Parliament voted to support a European Commission proposal to cut the use of hydrofl uorocarbons (HFCs) to 79% below average levels by 2030, as part of the on-going F-gas Regulation EC No. 842/2006. This has since become law and the provisions are effective from January This has direct impact on the use of HFCs in fi re suppression systems, since they have some of the highest global warming potentials (GWPs) relative to other sectors. While fi re suppression systems that use HFCs are widely used, there are also a number of alternatives that are well-established and installed in a variety of situations worldwide, including environmentally sustainable synthetic clean agents, water-based systems and inert gases. Before we look at those different options, let s take a closer look at the history of HFCs and the recent changes to the F-gas Regulation. The future for HFCs During the phase out of halon back in the early Nineties, many users began looking

3 28 into other fi re protection options that did not damage the ozone layer. HFCs proved to be a popular choice and have since become widespread. However, even without the new legislation, there have been some concerns: while the ozone depletion potential of HFCs is zero, they are potent greenhouse gases. For instance, the global warming potential (GWP) of HFC-227ea is 3,220. This means it is 3,220 times more potent than CO 2 in its climate impact. HFCs used in fi re suppression have a higher GWP than those HFCs used in other applications. It has been reported in the US Proceedings of the National Academy for Sciences that if nothing changes, HFC emissions are likely to be equivalent to between 9-19% of global greenhouse gas emissions by Of course, regions will differ, but it s interesting to note the claim that without signifi cant action, HFC emissions in the US are expected to double by 2020 and nearly triple by 2030, as reported on the Climate Action Plan website. Those purchasing HFCbased fire suppression systems need to be aware of future issues such as system recharge and end-of-life costs Focus on legislation Following the European Parliament s vote to support the European Commission s proposal to cut use of HFCs by 2030, the European Council approved the law in April HFC-227ea, HFC-125, and HFC-236fa are impacted in the overall scope of the Regulation under the HFC phase-down. HFC-23 will be prohibited from being placed on the market after 1 January Some people may claim that the F-gas Regulation can be dismissed in the fi re suppression market, on the basis that HFCs have low emissions in fi re suppression (in other words, they are non-emissive unless a system discharge occurs). In fact, the F-gas Regulation are about reducing emissions by controlling the use (and as a consequence, the production and importation of HFCs). Therefore, the effect on the fi re suppression industry is very real. Since HFCs sold into fi re suppression have some of the highest GWPs relative to other sectors, this market is likely to be more severely impacted. Under the HFC cap and phase-down, HFC producers will be allocated a production/import quota for HFCs and will have diffi cult decisions to make. Because the quota will be in CO 2 equivalent (related to the GWP) and HFCs sold into the fi re suppression

4 29 market have some of the highest GWPs, this framework does not favour HFCs sold into fi re suppression. For example, an HFC producer would consume the same percentage of a quota by making either one ton of HFC-227ea, three tons of HFC-245fa, or fi ve tons of HFC-32. Nor is it just new fi re suppression systems that are affected by this legislation. Given that fi re suppression systems can easily be in situ for 20 or more years, any HFC-based system already installed or purchased over the next few years will be affected by the F-gas Regulation. HFCs used for recharging existing systems, or in the installation of additional new HFCbased systems, will be increasingly impacted by the phase-down schedule. Associated costs are anticipated to be disproportionately impacted. Suddenly, those purchasing HFC-based fi re suppression systems will not only face immediate price consequences, they will also need to be aware of other future issues such as system recharge costs and potential end-of-life costs when a system is ultimately decommissioned. It s a worldwide issue Europe is not the only region putting HFCs under the spotlight right now. Alternatives to HFCs in fire suppression systems include environmentally sustainable synthetic clean agents, waterbased systems and inert gases On 10 July 2014, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued its proposal to change the status of hydrofl uorocarbons (HFCs) in certain applications that is estimated to reduce harmful greenhouse gas emissions by as much as 42 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent by According to the proposal, this is equal to the carbon dioxide emissions from more than fi ve million homes annual electricity use. Elsewhere, the US has made agreements with both China and India to phase down the use of HFCs. The Green Building Index (GBI) in Malaysia has initiated signifi cant measures to heighten the awareness of the environmental impacts of the options available for clean agent fi re suppression and, in particular, the climate impacts of HFC-227ea and HFC-125. The Spanish Council of Ministries has approved a tax on fl uorinated greenhouse gases (Law 16/2013 from October 2013). As part of Spain s efforts to improve public fi nancing during the Euro crisis, the tax, effective 1 January 2014, is designed to raise revenue and further protect the environment through tax policy. The tax is levied on the consumption of fl uorinated gases (F-gases) with global warming potential (GWP) above 150, including HFCs. Looking at the alternatives Changes in legislation - whether now or in the future - will put a substantial amount of uncertainty on the future supply and cost of HFCs sold into fi re suppression. However, because this market already has cost-effective substitutes available, the transition away from HFCs may be more seamless than

5 30 for other sectors. Alternatives include synthetic or clean agents that are not affected by the F-gas Regulation, as well as inert gases and water-based systems. Water-based systems Water-based systems naturally have no global warming potential and low toxicity. While they work well in many environments, they are less suitable for spaces that contain sensitive or delicate equipment, because they can cause electrical short-circuiting or cause permanent damage to components. In hazardous environments, considerations include human safety, space and weight, speed of extinguishing, installation and logistic flexibility Also, water-based systems cascade downwards (two-dimensional) so this may mean that not all equipment is covered. There is also a need to dispose of contaminated water. Inert gases Another option is inert gases. These are generally mixtures of argon and nitrogen and work by removing oxygen from the protected area. In order to do so, large quantities of gas are required to displace the air (and reduce oxygen). Storage of this large quantity of agent has a signifi cant cylinder footprint (and weight) even when stored at 300 bar. Inert gases are effi cient but have a signifi cantly longer discharge time (compared to synthetic agents) ranging to up to two minutes, then 30 seconds to put out the fi re. The

6 Transport 31 reduction or elimination of oxygen means they are not ideal for use in occupied spaces as they could be hypoxic at the concentration level required to extinguish a fi re. As inert gases need high pressure to operate, additional operational safety procedures are also required. Non-HFC-based synthetic extinguishing agents or clean agents This is where some confusion can arise. Synthetic extinguishing agents (or clean agents) include HFCs, but they also include others, such as perfl uoroketones (FK ), which are not subject to the new EU legislation. In fact, evidence shows that one of the most future proof synthetic solutions of all, FK , is not affected by the F-gas Regulation (nor any other current- or future international regulation or directive). By defi nition, clean agents do not leave a residue behind when they discharge, so they do not damage sensitive electronics. They are also electrically non-conductive. This means that fi res involving energised electrical equipment can be extinguished without powering down, avoiding expensive service interruptions and data loss. Synthetic extinguishing agents work by removing heat (rather than oxygen) and act fast (discharge within 10 seconds and the fi re extinguished within 30 seconds). In general, these systems operate at pressures signifi cantly lower than inert gases (25b, 34b, 42b or 50b) and use signifi cantly fewer cylinders. Plus, as they can be strapped to walls or pillars, they take up less space than inert gas systems and typically release less pressure into the atmosphere when activated. Benefits for hazardous environments Taking hazardous environments such as the oil and gas market, there are more aspects to consider beyond the type of extinguishing agent: human safety, space and weight of the selected system, speed of extinguishing, installation and logistic fl exibility. Some products (such as FK ) can be transported safely by air in bulk quantities, without restrictions. Depending on the brand, systems can be charged and refi lled locally, without having to move cylinders offsite. This can be an especially important consideration for servicing offshore facilities, saving time and ensuring uninterrupted protection of assets. Any downsides? Synthetic extinguishing agents may appear more expensive at face value, but it is more important to look at overall total cost-of-ownership (maintenance, power consumption, cost of cylinder space, etc.) over the lifetime of the system. Clean agent systems typically take up less space compared to water and inert gas based systems. With a history in fi re protection systems going back nearly a century, Kidde Fire Protection is well aware of the impact legislation changes will have on its customers and offers guidance in suitable products to fulfi l their needs while remaining within EU legislation. John Simpson, General Manager at Kidde Fire Protection commented, We ve already seen a trend that shows a shift in attitudes from HFC based systems towards clean agent systems within EU countries in the past few years. In essence, each type of fi re suppression More information about the F-gas Regulation (Regulation (EU) No 517/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on fl uorinated greenhouse gases and repealing Regulation (EC) No 842/2006.): legislation/index_en.htm Changes in legislation - whether now or in the future - will put a substantial amount of uncertainty on the future supply and cost of HFCs sold into fire suppression system has its own key benefi ts. Synthetic extinguishing agents reduce the footprint required and are deployed at a lower pressure than inert gas systems, whereas the latter can be used over much greater distances and lend themselves to multi-zone arrangements (higher pressure systems using synthetic agents can be designed to a multizone arrangement but the distance covered is shorter compared to inert gases). Ultimately this trend shows that organisations are making more informed choices about their fi re suppression needs, and have already made moves to lessen their environmental impact. With cost-effective substitutes readily available, the transition away from HFCs could be more seamless than many organisations may realise. What is clear is that in addition to all the usual factors that need to be considered effectiveness of fi re suppression, cost of ownership, health and safety environmental legislation has now come to the forefront as a priority when selecting the appropriate fi re suppression agent. About the author: Bart Goeman has been Business Development Manager for 3M s Novec 1230 Fire Protection Fluid for the EMEA region since Novec 1230 contains FK synthetic agent, which is not subject to the new EU legislation.