task 6 lot 6 air conditioning final report july 2012 · 3 introduction this is the draft report for...

1

Center of Energy and Processes Van Holsteijn and Kemna Building Research Establishment

Service Contract to DG Enterprise

Sustainable Industrial Policy – Building on the Ecodesign Directive –

Energy-Using Product Group Analysis/2

Lot 6: Air-conditioning and ventilation systems

Contract No. ENTR / 2009/ 035/ LOT6/ SI2.549494

Air conditioning systems Final report of Task 6

Prepared by Armines Version of July 2012

Main contractor: ARMINES, France Project leader: Philippe RIVIERE PARTICIPANTS Jérôme ADNOT, Olivier GRESLOU, Philippe RIVIERE, Joseph SPADARO AMINES, France Rob VAN HOLSTEIJN, Martijn VAN ELBURG, William LI, René KEMNA VHK, The Netherlands Roger HITCHIN, Christine POUT BRE, UK Legal disclaimer The sole responsibility for the content of this report lies with the authors. It does not necessarily represent the opinion of the European Community. The European Commission is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained therein.

2

Contents

6. TASK 6 – DESIGN OPTIONS ..................................................................................................................... 3

INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................................ 3 Continuity with previous tasks 1 to 5 .............................................................................................................. 4 The case of reversible products ....................................................................................................................... 5 Assumptions used for LCC calculations ........................................................................................................... 5 Report organisation ........................................................................................................................................ 7

DETERMINATION OF SUPPLEMENTARY SEER CONDITIONS ................................................................................................ 8 Main points ..................................................................................................................................................... 8 Cold climate (Helsinki climate) ........................................................................................................................ 8 Average climate : Modification of the draft prEN 14825 standard ............................................................... 11 Warm climate (derived from the Athens climate) ......................................................................................... 13

6.1. IDENTIFICATION OF DESIGN OPTIONS .............................................................................................................. 18 6.1.1. Air‐cooled and water‐cooled chillers ............................................................................................. 18 6.1.2. Air conditioners (VRF, Split and rooftop) ....................................................................................... 23 6.1.3. Fan coil unit ................................................................................................................................... 30 6.1.4. Heat rejection unit ......................................................................................................................... 30

6.2. EVALUATION OF DESIGN OPTIONS .................................................................................................................. 31 6.2.1. Modelling of the improved products ............................................................................................. 31 6.2.2. Evaluation of the costs of the improved products ......................................................................... 59 6.2.3. LCC results : air‐cooled and water‐cooled chillers ......................................................................... 64 6.2.4. LCC results : air conditioners (VRF, split, rooftop) ......................................................................... 79

6.3. ANALYSIS BNAT ...................................................................................................................................... 100 6.3.1. Air‐cooled and water‐cooled chillers ........................................................................................... 100 6.3.2. Air conditioners (VRF, Split, Rooftop) .......................................................................................... 102

6.4. SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS OF THE MAIN PARAMETERS ........................................................................................... 106 6.4.1. Air‐cooled and water‐cooled chillers ........................................................................................... 106 6.4.2. Air conditioners (VRF, split , rooftop) .......................................................................................... 121

6.5. SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT ............................................................................................................................. 132 6.5.1. Water cooled versus air cooled products .................................................................................... 132 6.5.2. Water temperature supply of cold emitters ................................................................................ 132 6.5.3. Free cooling ................................................................................................................................. 133

CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................................................... 134 ANNEX 1 : DETERMINATION OF THE NEW SETS OF REFERENCE HOURS FOR SEER CALCULATIONS ........................................ 141 ANNEX 2 : CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN SEERGROSS AND SEERNET VALUES ...................................................................... 154 TASK 6 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................. 159 LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................................................... 160 LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................................................... 160

3

INTRODUCTION This is the draft report for Task 6 on the Air Conditioning Systems, as part of the preparatory study on Air Conditioning and Ventilation Systems in the context of the Ecodesign Directive: ‘ENTR Lot 6 – Air Conditioning and Ventilation Systems’. This study is being carried out for the European Commission (DG ENTR). The consortium responsible for the study is Armines (lead contractor), BRE and VHK. The underlying report has been written by Armines. The task 6 description is given in the methodology and reported below. SCOPE: Identify design options, their monetary consequences in terms of Life Cycle Cost for the user, their economic and possible social impacts, and pinpointing the solution with the Least Life Cycle Costs (LLCC) and the Best Available Technology (BAT). The assessment of monetary Life Cycle Costs is relevant to indicate whether design solutions might impact the total user’s expenditure over the total product life (purchase, operating, end-of-life costs, etc.). The distance between the LLCC and the BAT indicates —in a case a LLCC solution is set as a minimum target — the remaining space for product-differentiation (competition). The BAT indicates a target in the shorter term that would probably be more subject to promotion measures than to restrictive action. The BNAT indicates possibilities in the longer term and helps to define the exact scope and definition of possible measures. The intermediate options between the LLCC and the BAT have to be described, and their impacts assessed. Subtask 6.1 – Identification of Design Options Available design options should be identified by investigating and assessing the environmental impact and LCC of each suggested design option against each Base-Case (using MEEuP EcoReport): - The design option should not have a significant variation in the functionality, the quality of the produced products and in the primary or secondary performance parameters compared to the Base-Case and in the product-specific inputs. - The design option should have a significant potential for improvement regarding at least one of the following ecodesign parameters without deteriorating others: the consumption of energy, water and other resources, use of hazardous substances, emissions to air, water or soil, weight and volume of the product, use of recycled material, quantity and nature of consumables needed for proper use and maintenance, ease for reuse and recycling, extension of lifetime or amounts of waste generated. - The design option should not entail excessive costs. Impacts on the manufacturer should be investigated regarding redesign, testing, investment and/or production costs, including economy of scale, sector-specific margins and market structure, and required time periods for market entrance of the design option and market decline of the current product. The assessment of the monetary impact for categories of users includes the estimation of the possible price increase due to implementation of the design option, either by looking at prices of the product on the market and/ or by applying a production cost model with sector-specific margins. It should be described for each of the identified design options: - if Member State, Community or Third Country legislation and/or standards are available regarding the design option; - how market forces may address the design option; - how large the disparity is in the environmental performance of the product available on the market with equivalent functionality compared to the design option. Subtask 6.2 – Analysis BAT and LLCC The design options identified in the technical, environmental and economic analysis in subtask 6.1 should be ranked regarding the Best Available Technology (BAT) defined in subtask 5.1 and the Least (minimum) Life Cycle Costs: - Ranking of the identified design options by LCC (e.g. option 1, option 2, option 3), considering possible trade-offs between different environmental impacts;

4

- Estimating the accumulative improvement and cost effect of implementing the ranked options simultaneously (e.g. option 1, option 1+2, option 1+2+3, etc.), also taking into account ‘rebound’ side effects of the individual design measures; - Ranking of the accumulative design options, drawing of a LCC-curve (Y-axis= LLCC, X-axis= ptions) and identifying the Least Life Cycle Cost (LLCC) point and the BAT point1. The improvement potential resulting from the ranking should be discussed, such as the appropriateness to set minimum requirements at the LLCC point, to use the environmental performance of the BAT point or benchmarks set in other countries, if manufacturers will make use of this ranking to evaluate alternative design solutions and the achieved environmental performance of the products. Subtask 6.3 – Analysis BNAT The design options should be discussed against long-term targets, including the appropriateness to use the environmental performance of BNAT as benchmark: - Discussion of long-term technical potential on the basis of outcomes of applied and fundamental research and development (BNAT= Best Not yet Available Technologies), but still in the context of the present product archetype. Subtask 6.4 – Sensitivity analysis of the main parameters A sensitivity analysis, covering the relevant factors (such as the price of energy or other resources, production costs, discount rates, Base-Case simplifications) and, where appropriate, external environmental costs, should be carried out and discussed for the identified design options. Subtask 6.5 – System improvement If appropriate, the improvement analysis should also take into account whether the product interacts with the installation/ system in which it operates, which may imply - that the possible effects of the product being part of a larger system and/ or installation are identified and evaluated regarding environmental impacts and potential for improvement; - that the system should be considered as a product, including some parts or incorporating some components and sub-assemblies as referred to in Article 2 of the Ecodesign Directive.

CONTINUITY WITH PREVIOUS TASKS 1 TO 5 Amongst the air conditioning systems, products with the higher environmental impact were targeted and reduced in task 4 to four main product categories:

- Air conditioners and air conditioning condensing units - Air conditioning chillers - Heat rejection units - Terminal units (fan coils)

In task 4, it has been shown that the main environmental impacts of these products are the energy consumption, and for air conditioners and chillers, the refrigerant fluid direct emissions when it leaks to the atmosphere. The respective share of these product categories in terms of total CO2eq emissions for the installed products in 2010 has been identified in task 4:

- Air conditioners (heating + cooling): between2 28 and 37 mtCO2eq - Chillers (cooling mode only): between 14 and 18 mtCO2eq + probably 6 mtCO2eq for the

heating mode. - Heat rejection units: about 0.5 mtCO2eq - Terminal units (fan coils): about 1 mtCO2eq

So in total, heat rejection units and terminal units represent together only 3 % of total CO2eq emissions and less regarding the energy consumption. 1 This is usually the last point of the curve showing the product design with the lowest environmental impact, irrespective of the price. 2 Depending on the hypothesis regarding the total refrigerant losses over the life cycle.

5

In task 4, base case products were defined for cooling generators to represent the market. This included:

- For air conditioning chillers: an air-cooled and a water-cooled chiller - For air conditioners: a split air conditioner, a VRF type air conditioner and a rooftop package

type. These average products aim at representing the real market. The extent to which the results of the life cycle cost analysis are valid for other products of the same category is discussed in here and will also be deepened in Task 7. Regarding air conditioning condensing units, this is a new type of equipment coming with the higher penetration of DX air conditioning systems. A standard is still missing to evaluate their performances on a common ground. Their improvement potential is thus not evaluated in this report.

THE CASE OF REVERSIBLE PRODUCTS Air conditioner base cases are majoritarily reversible; they ensure both the heating and cooling function. For reversible air conditioning products, two approaches may be adopted regarding the economic optimization of its performances. Either the product itself is optimized for both functions as is done in Japan for mini-split and minimum requirements may be very demanding and based on an annual performance factor. However, the underlying assumption is that it is the standard (even exclusive) heating/cooling means. In Europe, other heating means than air conditioners do exist, even amongst the ones using hot air. Imcreasing the costs of the reversible air conditioners may not be the best way to increase the market efficiency of heating products if they can replace less efficient (and less costly heating means). Adopting a functional approach is thus necessary to reach higher efficiency levels on a multi-product types market as Europe. In this task report, the study team focuses on increasing the cooling performance of air conditioners. The heating improvement potential is studied in more details in the ENER Lot 21 study. Reconciliation of both studies is required in Task 7 in order to propose improvement scenarios, ie with compatible requirements in heating and in cooling mode for these products. Nevertheless, in order to reach meaningful conclusions regarding direct emissions of refrigerant fluids, a sensitivity analysis including the heating mode is included here and conclusions are drawn for cooling only and reversible products separately on this specific topic.

ASSUMPTIONS USED FOR LCC CALCULATIONS Life Cycle Costs and Payback Period As in the Task 6 report on ventilation products, the analysis uses the definition of Life Cycle Costs (LCC) as given in MEErP 2011. With respect of the MEEuP 2005, the definition is extended, amongst others, with the notion of ‘escalation rate’ e. The escalation rate is the real (above inflation) growth rate of the price components, e.g. the energy costs. Whereas in the previous methodology it could be assumed that all price components show the growth rate of the inflation (escalation rate=0), the latest figures show that in particular energy prices show a nominal annual growth rate of around 6%, which results –at an inflation rate of around 2%-- in an escalation rate of 4% for the electricity and fossil fuel prices that are used in the underlying report. The basic LCC formula is: LCC = PP + PWF * OE + EoL, where

6

LCC is Life Cycle Costs to end-users in €, PP is the purchase price (including installation costs) in € (note that it is also called “investment costs” in the present report), OE is the annual operating expense in €, EoL is End-of-life costs (disposal cost, recycling charge) or benefit (resale) in €, PWF (Present Worth Factor) is

PWF = 1 ‐1+e1+d

· 1‐1+e1+d

N

(d≠e)

in which :

N is the product service life in years, d is the discount rate in % (by definition 4%3), e is the aggregated annual growth rate of the operating expense (a.k.a. ‘escalation rate’, in €) .

If d=e then PWF= N and the LCC formula can be simplified to : LCC= PP + N*OE + EoL The value of EoL for cooling generators is assumed to be negligible.4 The fact that the escalation rate of the running costs more or less equals the discount rate also means that the discounted payback period equals the simple payback period (SPP). This is the time period it takes for an investor to recuperate the extra investment in purchase price dPP through the reduction in annual operating expense dOE. The equation for comparing two alternatives ‘A’ and ‘B’ is then

SPPAB= dPPAB /dOEAB (in years) where :

SPPAB is the Simple Payback Period of a higher acquisition cost of a product B over product A (in years) dPPAB is the extra Purchase Price of product B over A (in €) dOEAB is the saving in annual Operating Expense of Product B over A (in €/year)

This formula can only be used to judge the payback period for products that roughly have the same product service life. This is assumed to be the case for cooling generators. Product Life For the air conditioners (VRF systems, split systems and rooftops), a product service life of 15 years is assumed. For 400 kW air-cooled chillers and 1000 kW water-cooled chillers, the product service life is reduced to 17 years, as in Task 4. Although these products are generally replaced or simply dismantled after more than 20 years, the 17 years period corresponds to the maximum time horizon for a building manager to calculate the returns on investment. For 100 kW air-cooled chillers and water-cooled chillers, the product service life is only of 15 years, so no change in time scale is needed.

3 In accordance with the European Commission Impact Assessment Guidelines 2009. 4 Meaning that, given the fact that the units consist largely of metals representing a value for recycling, there will be no net disposal costs.

7

According to the previous statement, the PWF of air conditioners is therefore 15 years in this study,the PWF of 400 kW air-cooled chillers and 1000 kW water-cooled chillers is 17 years, and the PWF of 100 kW air-cooled and water-cooled chillers is 15 years. Energy rates The energy rates assumed in Task 6 are derived from the new MEErP 2011 methodology. For the sake of clarity, the assumptions made are explained in the sensitivity analysis that can be found in chapter 6.4 and where several costs scenarios are defined for each product category.

REPORT ORGANISATION The report follows the task structure outlined in the methodology and reported above. Before the task 6.1, a short paragraph is added on the metrics used to compute the seasonal performances in this study. This is a key parameter for the interpretation of the efficiency indices that come later in the report.

8

DETERMINATION OF SUPPLEMENTARY SEER CONDITIONS

MAIN POINTS This paragraph explains the modified metrics used for Lot 6 products in order to estimate the energy consumption of their cooling function for the average climate, and additionally for a cold and a warm climate. The principle of adding two supplementary climates in addition to the average condition of DG ENER Lot 10 products has been agreed with stakeholders. For heating mode SCOP calculations, three simplified building load curves corresponding to a cold, an average and a warm typical climates are already proposed for boilers and reversible air conditioners. The same can be done in cooling mode. The same method based upon the bin method is kept for both climates. The purpose is therefore to allow manufacturers to rate their products under typical climatic conditions that differ significantly from the average equivalent climate already proposed in the standard. This is also used here for climate sensitivity analysis. The study team has used the climatic data at its disposal as well as its air-conditioning systems base-case simulations to make a proposal of normative conditions for a cold climate and a warm climate. In heating mode, cold climate conditions are based on the Helsinki climate and warm climate conditions are based on the Athens climate, and use ASHRAE IWEC data. For the sake of consistency, the same climates have been chosen for the cooling mode. The study team has also determined new equivalent active hours, standby hours and thermostat-off hours for the SEER calculation under average climatic conditions. Indeed, the reference hours in prEN 14825 have indeed been derived from the DG ENER Lot 10 preparatory study on small cooling capacity air conditioners. Because sales repartitions and patterns of use of DG ENER Lot 10 and DG ENTR Lot 6 products differ, the study team thinks that for Lot 6 products it is more accurate to calculate SEER values from adapted standard conditions that reflects better an acceptable average case for the EU. More details are given below.

COLD CLIMATE (HELSINKI CLIMATE) The following paragraphs explain the method used by the study team to determine reference climatic conditions, building cooling loads and hours to calculate a SEERon and a SEER value for a typical cold climate. Calculation equations are the same as for the average climate as described in the draft prEN 14825 standard. Length of the cooling season In heating mode, the length of the heating season has been taken equal to 9 months for the cold climate. This means that the calculation of the SCOP corresponds to a product operating from the beginning of January to the end of May and the beginning of September to the end of December. In cooling mode, the simplest is then to consider a 3 months long cooling season from the beginning of June to the end of August. Balance point temperature For the sake of simplicity, a “balance point temperature” (BPT) of 16°C has already been introduced in the standard to separate the cooling mode from the heating mode : if the temperature of the outdoor air is lower than the BPT, there is a heating load to be handled in the building but no cooling load. Conversely, if the temperature of the outdoor air is greater than the BPT, there is a cooling load to be

9

handled but no heating load. This is not true in reality, because of non-negligible indoor heat gains from electrical equipment, lighting and occupants as well as solar radiation through glazed surfaces, all of which can lead to cooling loads at outdoor temperatures even lower than 10 degrees Celsius. Nevertheless, for this climate, the study team sees the heating mode as a priority on the cooling mode, and to ensure consistency with the existing standard, it has decided to keep the same approach. For outdoor temperatures lower than 16°C, it is thus considered that there is no cooling load to be handled by the rated product. Design outdoor and indoor temperatures Looking at the ASHRAE IWEC data for the Helsinki climate, the study team suggests to define a design temperature of 28°C. This means that at an outdoor temperature of 28°C, the cooling load of the building is taken equal to the declared maximum cooling capacity the rated product provides. This approach is similar to the approach used for the average climate, for which the design outdoor temperature is 35°C. The indoor dry bulb temperature is kept at a constant value of 27°C, whatever the outdoor temperature is. Similary, the indoor wet bulb temperature is kept at a constant value of 19°C. These values are the same as for the average climate since there is no particular reason to change them. Building load curve and binned climate As for the average climate, the building load curve is taken as linearly proportional to the outdoor air temperature, ranging from a nil load at the 16°C BPT to a load equal to the cooling capacity of the product at the design point temperature. The number of hours per temperature bin are directly calculated from the ASHRAE IWEC data. The proposed building load curve used to calculated the SEERon is provided in the following table : Table 6 - 1 . Cold climate : Building load curve and BIN method for the SEERon calculation

Reference points BIN j

Outdoor temperature Tj

(°C)

Building Part Load Ratio (%)

Hours hj EER calculation

- - 16 0% Not taken into account -

- 1 17 8% 182 EERD

- 2 18 17% 148 EERD

D 3 19 25% 121 Measured value

- 4 20 33% 91 Linear interpolation - 5 21 42% 65 Linear interpolation

C 6 22 50% 60 Measured value


B 9 25 75% 27 Measured value


A 12 28 100% 8 Measured value

- 13 29 108% 1 EERA

10

The study team suggests that the performance of the rated product is measured under conditions A, B, C and D, as described in this table. Under conditions A, the product operates at declared maximum cooling capacity, which is taken equal to the building cooling load. Measurement points for water-cooled chillers Concerning water-cooled chillers, different temperatures of the water at the inlet of the condenser than for the average climate must be defined to calculate the efficiency of the unit for the performance points A, B, C and D. To ensure consistency with the average climate, it is considered that the associated heat rejection unit is a cooling tower, for which levels of water temperature are different than for a dry cooler. The current water temperatures indicated in prEN 14825 correspond indeed to a cooling tower. At full-load, the temperature difference between the water temperature at the inlet of the condenser and the wet bulb temperature of the outdoor air is taken equal to 6. This value decreases then proportionally with the part-load ratio. On the basis of the climatic data for the Helsinki climate that is at the study team’s disposal, the following values can be therefore defined : Table 6 - 2 . Cold climate : measurement points for the SEERon calculation of water-cooled chillers

EER measurement points : water temperature at the inlet of the condenser for water-cooled chillersCold climate

EER measurement point Outdoor air dry bulb temperature (°C) Building part load ratio Water temperature at the

condenser inlet (°C) A 28 100% 23 B 25 75% 21 C 22 50% 19 D 19 25% 17

Reference hours for active mode, thermostat off mode, standby mode, off mode and crankcase heater mode As required for the average climate in prEN 14825, reference hours have to be used to calculate the SEER once the SEERon is known. The study team has used its air-conditioning systems simulations from Task 4 and product sales market data from Task 2 to calculate equivalent active hours5 :

- Equivalent active hours have been outputted from the simulations of the different base-case systems installed in the typical buildings and operating under the climatic conditions of Helsinki.

- These results have been weighted by the sales in the different building sectors of the different systems, but only with the data from the EU countries that have an average climate, in terms of cooling degree days, close to the Helsinki climate. The countries that have been considered are Baltic Countries, Denmark, Finland, Ireland, Sweden and the United Kingdom.

The study team suggests therefore to base the calculations on 300 equivalent active hours for the cold climate. The other reference hours have been evaluated on the basis of the equivalent active hours, the simplified building load curve, the occupancy patterns of the modelled typical buildings and the cooling season definition :

5 Equivalent active hours is the wording used in the prEN14825 standard, and more generally known as equivalent full load hours.

11

Table 6 -3 . Cold climate : Reference hours for the SEER calculation

Hours definition

Proposed normative values

A Total hours per year 8760

B Off mode (HOFF) 0

cooling only and reversible products

C Hours for the reference cooling season, of which : 2209

D - Thermostat off (HTO) 436 E - Standby (HSB) 828 F Hours during which the building is occupied (C-E) 1381 G Difference (C-D-E) = Active mode hours 945 H Equivalent active hours (HCE) 300 I Crankcase heater (HCK) 1264

cooling only and reversible products It is worth noting that thermostat off hours are not only taken nil for reversible products (for which the periods of the year out of the cooling season correspond to the heating season) but also for cooling only products. This proposal is based upon the assumption that as Lot 6 cooling generators are part of central air conditioning systems in medium size to large size buildings, there are technical teams/ maintenance staffs in charge of the systems operation, that disconnect these products from the mains once the cooling season is finished, and only reconnect them as the next cooling season starts (see Task 3). Although this assumption might not apply to every existing situation, the study team thinks it can be seen as an average case in the EU. The off mode corresponding to the periods of the year out of the cooling season, this translates therefore in nil off mode hours. Note then, on the same basis, that crankcase heater hours occur only during thermostat off and standby periods, and not anymore during off mode hours for cooling only products. Crankcase heater hours are therefore simply the sum of thermostat off and standby hours, for both cooling only and reversible products. Note : In the final version of this report, an Annex with a more detailed description of the calculations done to define the different reference hours will be added for the sake of clarity. Additional remarks The results of the study team’s air-conditioning systems simulations show that by limiting the evaluation of the cooling function to the months of June, July and August, then to outdoor temperatures greater than 16 degrees during this period, around 40% of the annual cooling demand handled by simulated Lot 6 base-case cooling generators is neglected. Around half of the decrease in the cumulative total cooling load comes from the too short length of the cooling season, and half from the choice of a 16°C BPT. Nevertheless, the number of 300 equivalent active hours corresponds to results from the simulations, which calculate the electricity consumption of Lot 6 products over the whole year and with no arbitrary balance point temperature. The study team is conscious that lowering the BPT and increasing the length of the cooling season would lead to higher SEERon values and so a greater difference with the average climate SEERon.

AVERAGE CLIMATE : MODIFICATION OF THE DRAFT PREN 14825 STANDARD The study team has used the following methodology to get sure that using the current draft prEN 14825 standard to calculate the SEERon and SEER of the base-case products and their improvement design options would not lead to a significant discrepancy with the results of the air-conditioning systems simulations initially done for Task 4, which have been done to draw an acceptable picture of the patterns of use of Lot 6 base-case products in the EU.

12

The study team proposes only one main change by comparison with the current standard, by proposing new reference hours values to fit better with Task 4 simulations. Shape of the building load curve First of all, building cooling load curves have been binned as a function of the outdoor air temperature to display figures that could be compared with the simplified « straight-line » binned building cooling load curve of prEN 14825. For the same typical building and climate, this curve varies from a system to another : depending on the pre-cooling load handled by additional ventilation systems, the heat added by the fans of the cold emitters (fan-coils, indoor units of DX systems) and the latent load added by these same emitters, the shape of the binned cooling load curve varies. Depending on the building, the climate and the system, the maximum cooling load is although not always happening at an outdoor temperature of 35°C and the minimum bin temperature under which the cooling load is nil is often lower than 16°C. However, the weighting of the binned cooling load by sales of products from Task 2 does not lead to an average case that differs so significantly from the shape of the prEN 14825 building load curve that it justifies a change in the normative approach. Binned climate (hours per bin) The study team has calculated total cooling degree days (sensible cooling degree days + latent cooling degree days) in the 16°C outdoor temperature base (16°C being equal to the BPT used in the standard) for the current average EU climate that has been chosen for prEN 4825, which comes from the DG ENTR Lot 10 preparatory study, and for the base-case products modelled in this DG ENTR Lot 6 preparatory study. Both calculations are based on product sales by country. The results show that the number of total cooling degree days that corresponds to prEN 14825 is 25% higher than the average EU number of total cooling degree days for Lot 6 products. This is explained by the fact that the proportion of Lot 10 products installed in Mediterranean countries is greater than the proportion of Lot 6 countries installed in the same countries. However, this difference is not sufficiently important to propose changes in the average climate, all the more since the difference in the SEERon value would be only of a few hundredth. Length of the cooling season and balance point temperature By keeping a cooling season length of 5 months (May to September) and a 16°C BPT, between 20% and 25% of the annual cooling demand handled by the simulated Lot 6 base-case cooling generators is neglected. Around two thirds of this decrease in the cumulative total load comes from a too short cooling season, the remaining third being due to the choice of a too high BPT of 16°C. Nevertheless, the study team thinks that this difference does not justify to change these two normative values, all the more since otherwise, this choice would interfere with the methodology that has been chosen to measure the performance of these products in heating mode. Reference hours for active mode, thermostat off mode, standby mode, off mode and crankcase heater mode The same methodology as for the cold climate has been used to calculate these hours. The only difference is that because the average equivalent climate must be as representative as possible of the EU air-conditioning market, simulation results have been weighted by all the sales of products by building sector and by EU country (and not only for part of the countries). Consequently, the study team suggests to base the calculations on 600 equivalent active hours for the average climate. This value differs from the 350 equivalent active hours calculated from the DG

13

ENTR Lot 10 preparatory study : Lot 6 products are used in tertiary buildings, which are mostly occupied from 7-8 a.m. to 7-8 p.m., whereas a consequent part of Lot 10 products are used in residential buildings, which are most of the year inoccupied during working hours and so the warm hours of the day. The other reference hours are then as follows : Table 6 -4 . Average climate : Reference hours for the SEER calculation

Hours definition



B Off mode (HOFF) 0



D - Thermostat off (HTO) 659 E - Standby (HSB) 1377 F Hours during which the building is occupied (C-E) 2296

G Difference (C-D-E) = Active mode hours without setback correction 1637

H Equivalent active hours (HCE) 600 I Crankcase heater (HCK) 2036

cooling only and reversible products Concerning off mode and crankcase heater hours, the same rationale behind the proposed values as explained for the cold climate applies here. Note : As for the cold climate, in the final version of this report, an Annex with a more detailed description of the calculations done to define the different reference hours will be added for the sake of clarity. One can also note that thermostat off hours are greater than for Lot 10 products, whereas standby hours are lower. This is explained by the fact that part of tertiary buildings, represented in this study by the hotel, the hospital and the rest home, are occupied 100% of the time, day and night long. In this case, the cooling generator never comes in standby mode during the cooling season. When calculating equivalent values for the EU, this increases the number of thermostat off hours and decreases the number of standby hours, because according to the market data at the study team’s disposal, a significant part of Lot 6 products are installed in these types of buildings.

WARM CLIMATE (DERIVED FROM THE ATHENS CLIMATE) The same methodology as for the cold climate has been followed. Length of the cooling season and balance point temperature In heating mode, the length of the heating season has been taken equal to 6 months for the warm climate. More precisely, the calculation of the SCOP corresponds to a product operating from the beginning of January to the end of April and the beginning of November to the end of December. In cooling mode, the simplest is then to consider a 6 months long cooling season from the beginning of May to the end of October. Looking at the results of the air-conditioning systems simulations, this leads on average to neglect 15% of the annual cooling demand to be handled by the Lot 6 base-case cooling generators. Once the cooling season length has been fixed, keeping a BPT of 16°C introduces greatly less bias in Athens than in Helsinki, since the proportion of the cooling load that occurs for outdoor temperatures

14

lower than 16°C during the chosen 6 months cooling season is particularly small. The decrease in the cumulative cooling load is around 5%. All in all, around 20% of the annual cooling load is neglected, but as can be seen as follows, the Athens climate is close to the average climate proposed in prEN 14825. Design outdoor and indoor temperatures The indoor dry bulb temperature is kept at a constant value of 27°C, whatever the outdoor temperature is. Similary, the indoor wet bulb temperature is kept at a constant value of 19°C. These values are the same as for the average climate since there is no particular reason to change them. Looking at the ASHRAE IWEC data for the Athens climate, the study team suggests to define a design temperature of 35°C, as for the average climate. There are 16 hours corresponding to an outdoor air temperature of 36°C, as well as 2 hours at 37°C, but the study team does not see the point to use a design temperature of 36°C or 37°C instead of 35°C. This would force manufacturers to measure 4 EER values for the normative points A, B, C, D under different conditions than for the average climate, and require more work for a small difference with the average case. The ASHRAE suggests as well a design point of 34.1 °C outdoor air dry bulb temperature for Athens (ASHRAE, 2009). Over a year, outdoor air temperatures are higher than this value only 0.4% of the time. Note however that the ASHRAE IWEC data files used here are made as the combination of 12 typical months over a period of 10 years. Using binned data over 30 years would have led to more occurrences of outdoor temperatures above 35 °C. Building load curve and binned climate As for the average climate, the building load curve is taken as linearly proportional to the outdoor air temperature, ranging from a nil load at the 16°C BPT to a load equal to the cooling capacity of the product at the design point (outdoor air) temperature. An issue is that as explained before, conversely to the prEN 14825 average climate, there are no occurrences of outdoor air temperatures greater than 37°C. To solve this issue, the study team has made the choice to fit the data with a truncated Gaussian distribution that allows to have outdoor air temperatures occurrences above 37°C. The results are displayed in the following graph : Figure 6 -1 . Determination of bin hours for the warm climate from AHSRAE IWEC data

15

The proposed building load curve used to calculated the SEERon is then provided in the following table : Table 6 -5 . Warm climate : Building load curve and BIN method for the SEERon calculation

Reference points BIN j

Outdoor temperature Tj

(°C)

(Building) Part Load Ratio (%)

Hours hj EER calculation

- - 16 0% Not taken into account -

- 1 17 5% 130 EERD

- 2 18 11% 170 EERD

- 3 19 16% 214 EERD

D 4 20 21% 258 Measured value

- 5 21 26% 298 Linear interpolation




C 9 25 47% 352 Measured value





B 14 30 74% 170 Measured value




16

The study team suggests that the performance of the rated product is measured under the same normative conditions A, B, C and D as for the prEN 14825 average climate, as described in this table. Under conditions A, the product operates at full cooling capacity, which is taken equal to the building cooling load. Measurement points for water-cooled chillers As for the cold climate, different temperatures of the water at the inlet of the condenser than for the average climate must be defined to calculate the efficiency of water-cooled chillers for the performance points A, B, C and D. The same reasoning applies : water temperatures are calculated from a cooling tower approach. 6 K times the building part-load ratio are added to the average wet bulb temperature of the outdoor air, which has been binned from the Athens climatic data with regards to the dry bulb air temperature of performance points A, B, C and D. The results of these calculations lead to very similar results as for the average climate of prEN 14825. Consequently, the study team suggests to keep the same values for the warm climate SEERon calculation : Table 6 - 6 . Warm climate : measurement points for the SEERon calculation of water-cooled chillers

EER measurement points for water-cooled chillers : water temperature at the inlet of the condenserWarm climate : same performance points as for the average prEN 14825 climate

EER measurement point Outdoor air dry bulb temperature (°C) Building part-load ratio Water temperature at the

condenser inlet (°C) A 35 100% 30 B 30 74% 26 C 25 47% 22 D 20 21% 18

Reference hours for active mode, thermostat off mode, standby mode, off mode and crankcase heater mode As for the cold climate, the study team has used its air-conditioning systems simulations from Task 4 and product sales market data from Task 2 to calculate equivalent active hours :

- Equivalent active hours have been outputted from the simulations of the different base-case systems installed in the typical buildings and operating under the climatic conditions of Athens.

- These results have been weighted by the sales in the different building sectors of the different systems, but only with the data from the EU countries that have an average climate, in terms of cooling degree days, close to the Athens climate. The countries that have been considered are Greece, Italy and Spain.

The study team suggests therefore to base the calculations on 900 equivalent active hours for the warm climate.


A 19 35 100% 29 Measured value

- 20 36 105% 18 EERA

- 21 37 111% 11 EERA

- 22 38 116% 6 EERA

- 23 39 121% 3 EERA

- 24 40 126% 2 EERA

17

The other reference hours have been evaluated on the basis of the equivalent active hours, the simplified building load curve, the occupancy patterns of the modelled typical buildings and the cooling season definition : Table 6 -7 . Warm climate : Reference hours for the SEER calculation

Hours definition



B Off mode (HOFF) 0



D - Thermostat off (HTO) 767 E - Standby (HSB) 1647 F Hours during which the building is occupied (C-E) 2746

G Difference (C-D-E) = Active mode hours without setback correction 1979

H Equivalent active hours (HCE) 900 I Crankcase heater (HCK) 2414

cooling only and reversible products Concerning off mode and crankcase heater hours, the same rationale behind the proposed values as explained for the cold climate applies here. Note : As for the two preceding climates, in the final version of this report, an Annex with a more detailed description of the calculations done to define the different reference hours will be added for the sake of clarity. Remarks SEERon values calculated with the proposed method do not differ greatly from SEERon values calculated for the average prEN 14825 climate, the difference being less than 5%. This translates not so different temperature repartitions between the average climate and the Athens climate. However, the total consumption is much higher in Athens, with higher equivalent active hours accounted. It could be argued that an extreme hot weather as Seville is more suitable as a reference for a warm climate in the standard since it would lead manufacturers to supply more information on high outdoor temperatures. On the other hand, the Seville climate is somewhat extreme and does not represent well the average climatic conditions in Southern Europe. Note as well that the Athens climate is already being used as a warm climate for heating appliances. It is thus proposed to keep it in this study.

18

6.1. IDENTIFICATION OF DESIGN OPTIONS

6.1.1. AIR-COOLED AND WATER-COOLED CHILLERS Simplified technical description of the base-cases The base-case air-cooled and water-cooled chillers described in Task 4 can be detailed as follows in terms of design options (= main components). Table 6 -8 . Base-case 400 kW air-cooled chiller : technical description

Technical description of the base-case air-cooled chillerCooling capacity 400 kW

EER 2.72 ESEER 3.76

Refrigerant type R-134a Relative refrigerant charge 0.25 kg/kWcooling

Compressor type and controls Slide valve controlled screw compressor Number of circuits and compressors 2 circuits, 1 compressor per circuit

Evaporator heat exchanger Direct expansion shell and tube heat exchanger with integrated sub-cooling

Condenser heat exchanger Fin and coil heat exchanger Condenser fans type and controls Propeller (axial) fans, sequential control

Expansion valve type Electronic expansion valve Table 6 -9 . Base-case 100 kW air-cooled chiller : technical description

Technical description of the base-case air-cooled chillerCooling capacity 100 kW

EER 2.7 ESEER 3.7

Refrigerant type R-407C Relative refrigerant charge 0.27 kg/kWcooling

Compressor type and controls Tandem scroll compressorsNumber of circuits and compressors 1 circuit, 2 compressors per circuit

Evaporator heat exchanger Brazed (stainless steel) plate heat exchanger Condenser heat exchanger Fin and coil heat exchanger

Condenser fans type and controls Propeller (axial) fans, sequential control Expansion valve type Electronic expansion valve

Table 6 -10 . Base-case 900 kW water-cooled chiller : technical description

Technical description of the base-case water-cooled chiller Cooling capacity 900 kW

EER 4.77 ESEER 5.72

Refrigerant type R-134a Relative refrigerant charge 0.20 kg/kWcooling

Compressor type and controls Slide valve controlled screw compressor Number of circuits and compressors 2 circuits, 1 compressor per circuit

Evaporator heat exchanger Direct expansion shell and tube heat exchanger with integrated sub-cooling

Condenser heat exchanger Flooded shell and tube heat exchanger Expansion valve type Electronic expansion valve

Table 6 -11 . Base-case 100 kW water-cooled chiller : technical description

19

Technical description of the base-case air-cooled chiller

Cooling capacity 100 kW EER 4.4

ESEER 5.2 Refrigerant type R-407C

Relative refrigerant charge 0.15 kg/kWcooling Compressor type and controls Tandem scroll compressors

Number of circuits and compressors 1 circuit, 2 compressors per circuit Evaporator heat exchanger Brazed (stainless steel) plate heat exchanger Condenser heat exchanger Brazed (stainless steel) plate heat exchanger

Expansion valve type Electronic expansion valve Energy efficiency design options It has been shown in the Task 5 report that to improve the energy efficiency of a chiller, each of its components can be improved on its own. The summary list of the following options gives an overview of what a manufacturer can do to improve, to a more or less great extent, the efficiency of its product :

- Increase the heat exchange surface of the evaporator-side (water to refrigerant) and/or the condenser-side (refrigerant to air or to water) heat exchangers.

- Change the type of evaporator heat exchanger for a more efficient type of heat exchanger. For medium to large capacity products, one common choice is to opt for a flooded shell and tube heat exchanger type rather than a direct-expansion shell and tube heat exchanger type. For lower capacity products, flooded shell and plate heat exchangers are currently being developed. Note also that from a technological viewpoint, it would be possible to develop flooded shell and tube heat exchangers for these products (this is not yet the case because of economic issues).

- Change the type of condenser heat exchanger for a more efficient type of heat exchanger.

One possibility is to opt for a micro-channel heat exchanger type instead of a fin and tube heat exchanger type. There is a gain in the heat transfer rate, which may enable to extend the heat transfer surface at equal compacity, in addition to enable a consequent charge reduction and decreased air pressure drop.

- Change the compressor type for a more efficient compressor type. This results today, for a limited number of manufacturers, in the use of centrifugal chillers with magnetic bearings at intermediate cooling capacities (200 kW to 800-900 kW) instead of scroll or screw compressors and of centrifugal chillers with or without magnetic bearings at cooling capacities larger than around 900 kW, instead of screw compressors. Tri-rotor screw compressors are also currently being developed as more efficient than bi-rotor screw compressors.

- Optimize the design of the compressor to reach higher compressor efficiencies, by using more

efficient EC motors and improving the compression process (rotor design, pressure loss reduction, for instance).

- Choose a better design point of the compressor so that its performance curve (isentropic efficiency), as function of the compression ratio, is best adapted to the changes in climatic and part-load conditions under which the chiller is going to operate once installed.

- Improve the efficiency at part-load by staging several scroll compressors or using an inverter (variable speed drive) control method, whatever the compressor type (screw, scroll, centrifugal).

- For air-cooled chillers, reduce the electricity consumption of the condenser fans at full-load

and part-load by using EC motors and variable speed drives.

- Use compressor motors and condenser fans motors with higher rated efficiencies.

20

- Improve the controls (lower superheat, dynamically controlled subcooling, optimized air flow to balance fan electric consumption and compressor efficiency, best compromise between slide valve operation and circuit unloading of screw compressors, …).

Refrigerant charge mitigation design options To the study team’s knowledge, the only main technological choice that can allow to reduce the direct equivalent emissions related to refrigerant losses is the use of an alternative heat exchanger technology. The purpose here is to reduce the refrigerant charge of the chiller by using more compact heat exchangers, in which the heat exchange is optimized so that a limited mass flow rate of refrigerant is required to capture the heat from the cooling distribution water or to reject the heat to the outdoor air in the case of air-cooled condensers. A main option is to use a falling film evaporator instead of a standard flooded shell and tube evaporator : some manufacturers already opt for this technology, which is more compact and allows to reduce the refrigerant charge related to the heat exchanger itself by 30%. However, from stakeholders’ says, it does not allow to reach a higher level of efficiency. Similarly, it is possible to change a standard fin and tube condenser for a microchannel condenser. As for the falling film evaporator, it is assumed this reduces the refrigerant charge related to the heat exchanger by 30% to 40% (see Task 5). This option has also a limited impact in terms of efficiency increase, so the study team neglects possible small differences in energy efficiency related to this technology. These two technologies can equip air-cooled chillers. Concerning water-cooled chillers, the microchannel condenser does not apply, so the study team only retains the falling film evaporator. Summary of the single improvement design options As a conclusion, the following tables summarize the single improvement design options that can be implemented to reach higher levels of efficiency by comparison with the base-case air-cooled and water-cooled chillers. Refrigerant charge reduction technologies are also reported : Table 6 -12 . Air-cooled chillers : summary list of the single improvement design options

Air-cooled chillers : summary list of the single improvement design options Option name Main impacts

Fin and coil heat exchanger with a greater heat exchange surface

Higher energy efficiency

Improves the UA heat exchange coefficient by comparison with a smaller size heat exchanger

Applies to the condenser of the chiller

Brazed plate heat exchanger with a greater heat exchange surface



Applies to the evaporator of low cooling capacity air-cooled and water-

cooled chillers Applies to the condenser of low cooling capacity water-cooled chillers

Direct expansion shell and tube heat exchanger with a greater heat

exchange surface



Applies to the evaporator of the chiller

Flooded shell and tube heat exchanger Higher energy efficiency

Improves the UA heat exchange coefficient by comparison

21

with a direct expansion shell and tube heat exchanger


Flooded shell and tube heat exchanger with a greater heat exchange surface


Improves the UA heat exchange coefficient by comparison with a smaller size flooded shell and tube heat exchanger


Falling film heat exchanger

Reduced refrigerant charge & higher energy efficiency

Same level of energy efficiency as with a flooded shell and tube heat exchanger


Microchannel heat exchanger

Reduced refrigerant charge & Higher energy efficiency

Same level of energy efficiency as with a fin and coil heat exchanger with a high UA heat exchange coefficient


Slide valve controlled optimally designed/sized screw compressor


Medium improvement of the full-load and part-load efficiencies

Staged scroll compressors

Higher energy efficiency by comparison with slide valve controlled screw compressors

Increasing the number of staged scroll compressors leads as well to a

higher energy efficiency, by comparison with a smaller number of staged scroll compressors (4 instead of 2)

High improvement of the part-load efficiency

Inverter driven scroll compressor + fixed speed scroll compressor

Higher energy efficiency by comparison with 2 staged scroll compressors

Medium improvement of the part-load efficiency

Inverter driven standard screw compressor



Inverter driven optimally designed/sized screw compressor


Medium improvement of the full-load efficiency High improvement of the part-load efficiency

Centrifugal compressors combined with magnetic bearings


Very high improvement of the full-load and part-load efficiencies

Inverter-driven tri-rotor screw compressor



Chiller controls with a higher definition and precision


Slightly improved full-load efficiency Improved part-load efficiency to a greater extent

High efficiency compressor motors


Slightly improved full-load and part-load efficiency

Condenser fans with EC motors and Variable Speed Drive



Redesign of the chiller to operate with R-410A instead of R-407C


Improved part-load efficiency Table 6 -13 . Water-cooled chillers : summary list of the single improvement design options

22

Water-cooled chillers : summary list of the single improvement design options Option name Main impacts

Direct expansion shell and tube heat exchanger with a greater heat

exchange surface




Brazed plate heat exchanger with a greater heat exchange surface



Applies to the condenser of low cooling capacity chillers

Flooded shell and tube heat exchanger


Improves the UA heat exchange coefficient by comparison with a direct expansion shell and tube heat exchanger


Flooded shell and tube heat exchanger with a greater heat exchange surface


Improves the UA heat exchange coefficient by comparison with a smaller size flooded shell and tube heat exchanger

Applies to the evaporator and the condenser of the chiller

Falling film heat exchanger


Same level of energy efficiency as with a flooded shell and tube heat exchanger


Microchannel heat exchanger


Same level of energy efficiency as with a fin and coil heat exchanger with a high UA heat exchange coefficient


Slide valve controlled optimally designed/sized screw compressor


Medium improvement of the full-load and part-load efficiencies

Inverter driven scroll compressor + fixed speed scroll compressor

Higher energy efficiency by comparison with 2 staged scroll compressors

Medium improvement of the part-load efficiency

Inverter driven standard screw compressor



Inverter driven optimally designed/sized screw compressor


Medium improvement of the full-load efficiency High improvement of the part-load efficiency

Centrifugal compressors combined with standard roll bearings

and a gear drive


High improvement of the full-load and part-load efficiencies

Centrifugal compressors combined with magnetic bearings



Inverter-driven tri-rotor screw compressor



Chiller controls with a higher definition and precision



High efficiency Higher energy efficiency

23

compressor motors Slightly improved full-load and part-load efficiency

Redesign of the chiller to operate with R-410A instead of R-407C


Improved part-load efficiency Alternative low GWP refrigerant fluids The use of an alternative refrigerant fluid with a low GWP cannot be considered in itself as a single improvement design option. Indeed, it requires to redesign completely a chiller to adapt to the different thermodynamic properties of this fluid by comparison with the HFC used in the standard caseThis means that all the components must be modified to an important extent. Consequently, the assumptions made to take into account alternative refrigerant fluids are described in chapter 6.2.

6.1.2. AIR CONDITIONERS (VRF, SPLIT AND ROOFTOP) VRF systems Methodology used for the identification of improvement design options By analysing the outdoor unit ranges sold by the different manufacturers, it appears at first glance that there is little difference between the different products. For all manufacturers, a range of outdoor units can be split as follows :

- Units with cooling capacities lower than 20 kW are directly adapted from the outdoor units of split systems that have similar cooling capacities (horizontal mounting propeller fans).

- Units with cooling capacities comprised between 22.4 kW and 45 kW constitute the core of the technological development. They are composed of one fin and coil heat exchanger, one or two vertically-orientated propeller fans and, in most cases, one or two scroll compressors, depending on the cooling capacity. If there is a single compressor, it is inverter-driven, if there are two compressors, one (at least) is inverter-driven and the other operates at fixed speed. Some manufacturers opt for one or two rotary compressors, with the same logic of control. Another equivalent solution is to combine an inverter-driven rotary compressor with a fixed-speed scroll compressor. The last existing option is similar to the first one, but the inverter control method is changed for the competing technology of digital scroll.

In the end, the choice of compression stage does not seem to have a significant impact on the energy performances of these products, which are very similar from a manufacturer to another. Note that in some cases, this part of the range stops at higher cooling capacities than 45 kW, with compression stages composed of three compressors (one inverter-driven and two fixed-speed). However, this is rather uncommon.

The second main remark that can be made is that inside this part of the range, the efficiency is not optimized for each product with a different cooling capacity. Manufacturers make the choice to reduce their development and manufacturing costs : increasing the cooling capacity is not always done by increasing the heat exchange surface and sizing accordingly the number and air flow rate of fans, the size, design point and supply frequency of the compressors so that the EER is maximized. Sometimes, to increase the cooling capacity, the size and components of the unit do not change : it is only the supply frequency of the inverter-driven compressor that is increased, which can lead to a lower efficiency. The issue is that often, the components are sized to fit with a normalized casing size. More precisely, there are only two casing sizes for five or six products with different cooling capacities, whereas one casing size per cooling capacity would enable to size efficiently the heat exchanger and the other components.

24

- Units with cooling capacities comprised between 50 kW and 90 kW are generally composed of two outdoor units of the 22.4-45 kW part of the range that are just sealed together. According to the technological logic previously explained, the combination of two products cannot be optimized in terms of energy efficiency, since each of the combined products is not itself necessarily optimized.

- Units with cooling capacities comprised between 95 kW and 135 kW are generally composed

of three outdor units of the 22.4-45 kW part of the range that are just sealed together. Concerning the efficiency of these combined products, the same remark as before applies.

- Units with cooling capacities greater than 140 kW are generally composed of four outdoor

units of the 22.4-45 kW part of the range that are just sealed together. To model properly this range logic, the study team determines and plots a base-case range of outdoor units in addition to the definition of the 50 kW base-case product that has been used in Task 4 analyses. The study team relies on the same information source, which is the ETPL database of UK’s ECA. The EER for the 50 kW product of the range is the EER of the base-case. The two possible improvement strategies are also illustrated on the same graph, with arbitrary levels of EER improvement. Figure 6 - 2 . VRF systems : equivalent base-case range of outdoor units

To improve the design of the base-case outdoor units :

- One improvement strategy is to change first the “range logic” so that the EER variation with the cooling capacity disappears, or more realistically is minimized. Flattened levels are of course a simplified view : one would still observe differences in EER from a product to another, but only slight ones. The obtained EER levels are then increased to improve the efficiency of all the outdoor units of the range. From manufacturers’ viewpoint, this would consist in making the effort to optimize precisely each outdoor unit of the 22.4-45 kW part of the range so that it is

25

homogenized. This in turns would imply that the upper parts of the range with outdoor units that are a combination of several outdoor units are also homogenized. The issue with this improvement strategy is that it modifies manufacturers’ development and manufacturing strategies. The study team thinks it leads to important increases in cost as manufacturers cannot then make important economies of scale by reducing the variability in components and parts that compose each unit. The study team does not have sufficient cost data to extrapolate the additional costs of this process. A second reason is that the study team cannot model a case-by-case complete redesign/resizing of the outdoor unit, depending on its cooling capacity and the higher EER level it should reach.

- The second strategy is therefore to keep the range logic unchanged : the important variations in EER between a unit of 22.4 kW and a unit of 45 kW are not modified so that procurement and manufacturing costs remain optimized. The corresponding technological options are also easier to handle with in terms of energy modelling. They mostly consist in increasing the surface of the heat exchanger and/or improving the oil return mechanism, which slightly increases the EER (see chapter 6.2.1) and reduces refrigerant bypass losses at low part-load ratios. As explained before, other options advertised by some manufacturers such as different compression choices (rotary compressors instead of scroll compressors, more staged compressors, digital scroll system) are not retained because the study team does not observe higher performance levels for these products by comparison with standard units, or because it does not have performance data to check their interest. The fans, the motors and their drive make a non negligible part of the energy consumption of the product, especially as the compressor performance is improved with larger heat surfaces. In that case indeed, the air flow rate increases proportionally to the face area (keeping the pressure loss constant) in order to maintain the air speed over the tubes. As in DG ENER Lot 10, it is supposed that the service value of the fan (specific consumption in W/m3/min) can be improved with increasing fan diameters, lower fan speed, heat exchanger designs with lower pressure losses and best motor efficiencies). Eventually, the compressors themselves, the compressors motors and the VFD drive are supposed to be already well-optimized, and improving them further would be costly for only a small gain in energy performance.

An alternative option that is also considered is the choice of a microchannel heat exchanger for the outdoor unit rather than a fin and tube one. As for air-cooled chillers, the goal is to reduce the refrigerant charge. This heat exchanger can be oversized as well so that the outdoor unit reaches the same levels of efficiency as with a standard fin and tube heat exchanger. However, this mainly applies to cooling only products, which represent around 10% of the VRF EU market (see Task 2). In heating mode, the microchannel heat exchanger of the outdoor unit would be used as the evaporator : under frost formation conditions, there is the risk that the condensed water from the air freezes on the heat exchanger because it cannot be drained due to the geometry of the coil. Although it may be possible to tilt the heat exchanger so that the water elapses, this is seen as a BNAT option as not already proposed by VRF manufacturers (nor other manufacturers of air based heat pumps). The remaining part of the VRF system that can be improved are then the indoor units, for which there is no specific range logic, contrary to outdoor units. The only sound option that can be retained is an increase in the heat exchanger surface, associated to an improved fan service value to limit the fan power consumption : it leads to a higher refrigerant evaporation temperature, which impacts in fact the performance of the outdoor unit. Indeed, the latter’s compressors operate then with a lower compression ratio. This technological option is therefore similar to the oversizing of the outdoor unit heat exchanger. But it is also more profitable, as is shown later on in this report. As for chillers, because of limited precise performance data and information sources on these technologies, VRF systems that use alternative refrigerants are described separately in chapter 6.2. Retained improvement design options

26

As in the DG ENER Lot 10 preparatory study on small cooling capacity air-conditioners, different levels of increases in heat exchange surfaces are modelled, to estimate until which value it seems possible to oversize the outdoor unit and/or the indoor units. Heat exchange surfaces oversizing values and fan service values are chosen so that the EER of the outdoor unit increases by 0.3, 0.6 or more. The following table gives the list of the single improvement design options, then of the possible combinations of these options : Table 6 -14 . VRF systems : list of design options

VRF systems : retained improvement design optionsseparate single options and combinations

Description of the separate improvement optionsSingle option code Option description

OU1 +50% increase in the surface of the outdoor unit heat exchanger

OU2 +100% increase in the surface of the outdoor unit heat exchanger

MCHX use of a microchannel outdoor unit heat exchanger

instead of a fin and tube one, so as to reach the same efficiency level as with option OU1

IU1 +20% increase in the surface of the indoor unit heat exchanger



ORHP Oil return to high pressure mechanism

(oil circulation pump + compressors and controls adaptation)

Combined single improvement design optionsranked by increasing SEER

Improvement product code Combined options VRF I1 IU1 VRF I2 ORHP VRF I3 OU1 VRF I4 IU1 + ORHP VRF I5 IU2 VRF I6 OU2 VRF I7 OU1 + ORHP VRF I8 IU2 + ORHP VRF I9 OU2 + ORHP VRF I10 OU1 + IU2 VRF I11 OU2 + IU2 VRF I12 IU3

VRF I13a OU1 + IU2 + ORHP VRF I13b MCHX + IU2 + ORHP VRF I14 OU2 + IU2 + ORHP VRF I15 OU2 + IU3 VRF I16 OU2 + IU3 + ORHP

Note regarding Alternative low GWP refrigerant fluids The assumptions made to take into account alternative refrigerant fluids are described in chapter 6.2. Split systems A first main remark is that the 14 kW base case split system of DG ENTR Lot 6 corresponds in fact to the upper part of a range of split air conditioners that have already been fully covered in DG ENER Lot 10 preparatory study, concerning units with a cooling capacity lower than 12 kW. The 14 kW unit has the same casing for both the indoor and outdoor units and the same rotary compressor operated at

27

higher rotation frequency to reach higher capacity, typically 14 kW versus 10 kW. This leads to a relatively sharp decrease in terms of EER and of SEER, although to a less extent. Thus, looking at the list of options of DG ENER Lot 10 for split systems (reported in the table below), it can be seen that the Lot 6 base-case is already equipped with most of the options envisaged in the Lot 10 report, except that it uses a rotary compressor (more efficient twin rotary compressors not being always available in that capacity segment). It is already equipped with an EC motor and a variable speed drive for the compressor, EC motors and variable speed drives for the outdoor unit fans, as well as an electronic expansion valve. The study team considers that the standby and crankcase modes have been optimized : the base-case comes in fact from the same product range as for less than 12 kW products, for which the regulation enters into force in January 2013. The only main remaining options are thus to increase the size of the heat exchangers. Table 6 -15 . Design options for split air conditioners in DG ENER lot 10 study (Rivière & al, 2009)

Design options for split air conditioners, as considered in DG ENER Lot 10 preparatory study Component Options

Compressor

3.0 EER(*) compressor 3.2 EER(*) compressor (rotary compressor)

3.4 EER(*) compressor (rotary twin compressors) AC compressor variable speed drive, 25-80 Hz

DC compressor variable speed drive, 10-120 Hz Expansion valve Thermostatic, Electronic

Fan motor DC fans

Heat exchange area UA value of both heat exchanger increased by 20 % up to 100 %

Fan service value for both heat exchangers increased from 20% to 100%

Standby power 1 W standby with separation of reactivation and crankcase functions

Crankcase Improved crankcase heater

Improved control of the crankcase heater (*) at ANSI/AHRI 540-2004 standard conditions

The first option consists in resizing the compressor to 70 Hz versus about 90 Hz for the 14 kW product in order to operate closer to the peak efficiency rotation frequency of the compressor. A second option regarding the compressor is to adopt a more efficient twin rotary compressor. As it is not commonly available in this size for all manufacturers, it is supposed that in general, it would lead to put two twin-rotary compressors in parallel, as in DG ENER lot 10 study. For the following options, the design frequency is unchanged and consequently, the compressor needs to be downsized when the surface of the heat exchangers increases, in order to maintain the same cooling capacity. The following options simply consist in increasing the total heat transfer capacity of the heat exchangers by increasing both heat exchangers of +40 % in order to reach SEER levels comparable with the 10 kW model. Then, the same options as in Lot 10 study are used : the heat exchanger size is further increased by interval of +20 % both at the condenser and evaporator side and the service value of the indoor and/or outdoor fan is also increased to limit the power of the fans. The successive options implemented are presented in the table below. Note that it is likely that increasing the UA on the evaporator size above 100 % leads to almost zero latent capacity. This can be corrected by reducing the air flow or by adding a second expansion valve in order to reduce the evaporating temperature when required by the end user. As for VRF systems, the study team considers one technological variant for the outdoor unit with a microchannel heat exchanger instead of a standard fin and tube heat exchanger. The same levels of efficiency are taken for both versions of the option.

28

Table 6 -16 . Retained design options for split air conditioners

Split systems : summary of the design options Design option code Description

SP I0 Resized compressor

SP I1 +10% UA evaporator & condenser 'Improved fan indoor and outdoor


SP I3 +30% UA evap & cond 'Improved fan indoor and outdoor

SP I4a +40% UA evap & cond 'Improved fan indoor and outdoor

SP I4b

+40% UA evap & cond, but use of a microchannel outdoor unit heat exchanger instead of a fin and

tube one 'Improved fan indoor and outdoor


and 3.4 EER compressor


3.4 EER compressor


3.4 EER compressor


3.4 EER compressor


3.4 EER compressor


3.4 EER compressor


3.4 EER compressor

Note regarding Alternative low GWP refrigerant fluids The assumptions made to take into account alternative refrigerant fluids are described in chapter 6.2. Rooftop air conditioners Regarding rooftop air conditioners, they are package air conditioners enabling to introduce fresh air into the building: they also ensure the ventilation function. This ability to introduce fresh air into the building was the main reason for having a separate base case for them in order to compute their complete energy consumption in Task 4 adding cooling, ventilation and heating for reversible products. Nevertheless, these products main consumption posts are cooling and heating and they are tested as an air conditioner or a heat pump with 100 % re-circulated air in the present EN14511 and part load prEN14825 standard. In addition, their ratings are corrected for the available static pressure that

29

enables the ventilation function. Hence the performances and ratings are completely comparable to the ones of non ducted split air conditioners and to the ones of the other ducted split and ducted package air conditioners. The performances and the technical description of the base case are supplied in the two tables below: Table 6 -17 . Rooftop base case performances

Rooftop unit with scroll compressors

Performance characteristics

Nominal characteristics and other information Cooling mode Heating mode

Net cooling / Heating capacity in kW 80 kW 80 kW

Net electric power in kW 28,1 kW 26,3 kW

net EER / COP (EN14511) 2,84 3,17

Design air flow rate in m3/s 4 4

Available static pressure in Pa 125 125

Indoor blower power in kW 3 3

Estimated SEER/SCOP 3,9 3,2

Table 6 -18 . Rooftop base case main technical characteristics

Rooftop unit with scroll compressors

Technical characteristics

Components Description

Compressors 2 even size scroll compressors in parallel

Condenser Fin and tube

Condenser fan and drive Propeller, 3 phase AC induction motor

Evaporator Fin and tube

Expansion valve Thermostatic

Blower and drive Direct drive, mixed mode centrifugal

For these products, the design options are similar to the ones of split air conditioner: - the main improvement potential comes from increased heat exchanger surfaces in order to reduce

the compression ratio, - the thermostatic expansion valve could be replaced by an electronic expansion valve, this option

was estimated to deliver 3 % savings in the DG ENER Lot 10 study for split air conditioners, - at the condenser side, the 3 phase AC motors could be replaced with direct drive EC motor with

VFD in order to improve the SEER ratings by a better control of the fan power at low ambient, - there is not much alternative regarding the scroll compressors; the staging of the compressors

could be improved (to 33/66) instead of 50/50 ; above that, there is no much option except adapting a VSD on one of the compressors ; however, the gain as compared to parallel scroll compressors is low on a SEER basis,

- the blower fan already uses a direct drive and a highly efficient EC motor. The fan is a forward curved centrifugal fan, which can be improved to a backward centrifugal fan, which would induce more indoor noise however. The total fan system efficiency is estimated to be about 51 % and could be improved up to 65 % with the most efficient components, following the ventilation Task 6 results for smaller air handling units. As only a part of the fan power is accounted in the product efficiency, the gain in efficiency for cooling would however be very low, about 1 % impact on the EER.

30

Note regarding Alternative low GWP refrigerant fluids The assumptions made to take into account alternative refrigerant fluids are described in chapter 6.2.

6.1.3. FAN COIL UNIT Regarding terminal units, the largest gains in energy consumption at the level of the whole air conditioning system (at the heart of which the cooling generator is a chiller) come with the choice of the terminal unit type, which is a decision taken by the system designer. Having a more efficient fan coil system (with reduced fan consumption) is likely to be less efficient than to use other terminal unit types that allow to produce chilled water at higher temperature levels. In other terms, the temperature of the chilled water that flows through the evaporator of the chiller can be increased so that the chiller itself consumes less energy. The likely gains are consequently discussed in this report in chapter 6.5 regarding system improvements.

6.1.4. HEAT REJECTION UNIT Regarding heat rejection units, it has been explained in the Task 5 report that the greatest gain in the overall electricity consumption of water-cooled chiller based air conditioning systems is rather the choice of the type of heat rejection technology than the optimization of the efficiency of the heat rejection unit itself. Similarly as for fan-coil units, this is related to the consequences of the choice of a heat rejection technology on the average condensing temperature of the chiller or air conditioner. This means that to properly compare the gains in cooling efficiency of different heat rejection types/technologies, a whole cooling system calculation should be done. This is out of the scope of an Ecodesign preparatory study, which is aimed at improving the energy efficiency at product level, not at the level of a full system. The likely gains are consequently discussed in this report in chapter 6.5 regarding system improvements.

31

6.2. EVALUATION OF DESIGN OPTIONS Preliminary note : The term “improved product” is introduced in this chapter. For each product category, it corresponds to artificial but realistic units that have a higher seasonal energy efficiency and so energy performance than their corresponding base-case, and can be defined as the combination of single improvement design options defined in chapter 6.1. Indeed, it is explained in the following pages why the study team models complete improved products in their whole rather than estimate the impact of separate single improvement design options on the energy performance, TEWI and life cycle costs of Lot 6 products.

6.2.1. MODELLING OF THE IMPROVED PRODUCTS Chillers : definition of improved products as the combination of single improvement design options Explanation of the methodology The list of the different single improvement design options (which are components) a manufacturer can chose to improve a product that is initially similar to the modelled base-case has been provided in chapter 6.1. However, it is particularly difficult for the study team to estimate precisely the impact of changing only one component at a time on the SEER of a chiller. Discussions with stakeholders have confirmed this point. For the sake of clarity, the following discussions lists the corresponding issues :

- Whatever the single improvement design option, it is necessary to evaluate every other parameter that impacts the performance of the product, because changing one parameter requires to modify also the others to redesign efficiently the product. The issue is that there are numerous different combinations of parameters (meaning choices of components characteristics) a manufacturer can use to reach similar levels of efficiency.

- For the same reason, evaluating the impact on the efficiency at part-load of one single

improvement option is difficult, since changes in temperature conditions and part-load ratios introduce a supplementary level of uncertainty when modelling product performances.

- Some single improvement design options such as more efficient compressor motors can only

help to improve the seasonal efficiency by a few hundredth, while in some cases, it is difficult to know whether the product modelled use the most efficient motor available for its compressor or not. Modelling these options on their own is therefore relatively less certain than using product level data.

- There is little economic data available that allows the study team to define a cost structure with

precise costs for each component. As a conclusion, it is very hard to evaluate each single improvement design option on its own and trying to do so with the limited tools at the study team’s disposal would introduce a consequent bias in the estimations. Therefore, the study team has opted for a mixed approach, half-way between a top-down approach and an engineering approach. It consists in comparing complete products as a whole rather than model each of their components separately. This analysis can be done on the basis of existing competing manufacturer ranges, certified by Eurovent in terms of EER and ESEER. The idea is to compare ranges that include products with cooling capacities close to the one of the base-case. For instance, some air-cooled chiller ranges can be indeed composed of products with cooling capacities ranging from 350 kW to 800 kW and sometimes more than 1000 kW. The range is simply characterized by same types of components (heat exchangers, compressors, fans) and control methods, the number or sizing of components being made varied to develop products with more or less important cooling capacities.

32

The study team focuses on ranges for which manufacturers have made significantly different technological choices, which results in important differences in terms of EER and most of all ESEER. For instance, the average EER value of a chiller range sold by one manufacturer illustrates generally well the choice of heat exchangers type and size, then to a lower extent of the compressor design. If two ranges have similar levels of EER, important differences in ESEER are then representative of the different choices of compressor type, compressor drive type and of compressors control method at part-load (slide valves for screw, scroll compressors staging, inverter-driven compressors). VSD condenser fans can also allow to gain additional tenths in ESEER. The difficulty is that inside one range, there can be significant differences from a product to another one. This is due to manufacturers’ choice to reduce their manufacturing costs by not trying to optimize each model of the range on its own but the range as a whole. For instance, products might have different rated cooling capacities of 500, 550 and 600 kW but the same dimensions (same casing) and thus the same heat exchangers size and surface. In this case, increasing the cooling capacity is only done by increasing the rotation frequency of the compressor and adding more condenser fans to reject more heat. Because the efficiency is higher when the compression stage is properly sized with regards to the heat exchanger surfaces and condenser fan air flow rates, there is therefore a consequent discrepancy in efficiency levels within a range. To solve this issue, the study team first looks at each range as a whole. It focuses on products that have cooling capacities close to the base-case cooling capacities (generally between 80 kW and 120 kW for the 100 kW base-cases, 350 KW and 500 kW for the 400 kW base-case, and 800-1200 kW for the 900 kW base-case) and have at the same time the highest efficiency possible. For instance, ranges can be split between standard-noise, low-noise and extra low-noise products : they have similar cooling capacities but different efficiencies depending on the design of condenser fans, so the study team takes into account the product version that has the highest efficiency. On the basis of EER and ESEER ratings, the study team defines realistic EER and ESEER values rounded to the tenth (or the fifth). In other terms, the study team considers that with the technical choices that have been made by one manufacturer to develop a range with higher EER and ESEER values as the base-case, it is accurate to say that it is possible to reach these levels of EER and ESEER values rounded to the tenth (or the fifth). This kind of precision is meaningless anyway when accounting for tolerances. In the end, improved products, by comparison with the base-case product, are defined as the combination of some of the single improvement design options defined in chapter 6.1. For the sake of clarity, the other main components are also quoted, for stakeholders to be able to check the consistency of the study team’s improved products. The simplified modelling of the energy performance and the costs of these improved products are described in the next subchapters.

1) Air-cooled chillers Preliminary remark on alternative heat exchanger technologies As reported in the summary table at the end of this part, for some of the improved products, the study team considers several types of heat exchangers, so as to reduce the refrigerant charge. Looking at the codes that designate the improved products, the version “a” is equipped with a standard version of the heat exchangers, (most common case), while versions “b” and “c” correspond to the same chiller in terms of compressor type and control, but different types of evaporator and sometimes of condenser. The difference between version “a” and version “b” is the use of a falling film evaporator instead of a standard flooded shell and tube evaporator, or the use of a microchannel condenser instead of a standard fin and tube condenser if the evaporator type is unchanged (100 kW air-cooled scroll chiller). The falling film evaporator equips also version “c”, but with in addition a microchannel condenser.

33

To the study team’s knowledge, these alternative heat exchanger technologies do not allow to make substantial gains in energy efficiency, so the same reference EER and ESEER as for version “a” are associated with the versions “b” and “c” of the concerned improved products.

a. 400 kW air-cooled chillers Base-case summary It has been shown in Task 4 that the product group with the greatest environmental impact at the EU scale is the group of air-cooled chillers. The scope of this preparatory study encompasses all electricity-driven air-cooled chillers that ensure an air-conditioning function (comfort application to limit the temperature inside a building at a desired setpoint value), whatever their rated cooling capacity. The analysis of the sales of air-cooled chillers in the EU (Task 2) and of their distribution by EER and ESEER in the Eurovent database (Task 4) has led the study team to define two base-cases of 100 kW and 400 kW rated cooling capacity for the whole EU market. However, because of very small differences in median EER and ESEER ratings for these two product categories, calculations have been done in Task 4 only for the 400 kW base-case, which is also the median cooling capacity of the whole EU market. Although this 400 kW base-case is an “artificial product”, it corresponds closely to existing air-cooled chillers and can therefore be characterized in terms of its main components. As a reminder (see Task 4), note that the study team has modelled its base-case from the fit of a Climaveneta chiller whose cooling capacity, EER and ESEER are particularly close to the base-case values. Note : In the following paragraphs, the terms “combination” and “improved product/chiller/unit” designate the same thing. Combination 1 of design options : Slide valve controlled screw chiller with higher heat exchanger surfaces and a better full load design than the base-case This first combination corresponds to a product that uses the same technology of compressors, heat exchangers, condenser fans (also compressor motors, fan motors) as well as the same compression stage architecture (number of circuits and of compressors) as the base-case but is more accurately sized. This can be done by increasing the heat exchanger surfaces but also making the effort to size the compression stage properly with regards to the heat exchangers. The same principle applies to a good choice of the number and size (air flow rate) of condenser fans with regards to the type and size of condenser heat exchanger. Many manufacturers propose a standard efficiency version and a high efficiency version of their screw chiller ranges. From the standard range to the better one, the increase in ESEER is well-correlated with the increase in EER : it is a full-load optimization and not a part-load optimization, since the control method of the cooling capacity at part-load is unchanged. Inside one range, there can also be changes in EER and ESEER values that are of the same order of magnitude than differences between a standard efficiency range and a high efficiency range sold by another manufacturer. The study team has therefore derived EER and ESEER values from the analysis of the variations in the Climaveneta FOCS-B range and the comparison of the different versions of the Daikin EWAD-D range. Apart from efficiency ratings, the technical description of this improved product 1 is then the same as for the base-case. Combination 2 of design options : Slide valve controlled screw chiller with a flooded shell and tube evaporator and an optimal design of the different components The main technical choice that allows some slide valve controlled screw air-cooled chillers to reach significantly higher ESEER values than improved product 1 is the use of flooded shell and tube

34

evaporators. This change in heat exchanger type allows indeed to increase the heat transfer coefficient by comparison with a direct-expansion shell and tube heat exchanger since the refrigerant evaporates around the tubes from the bottom of the shell to its top, rather than inside the tubes. There seems to be a supplementary gain at part load, probably coming from the superheat which is close to zero. This results in a lower temperature difference between the water temperature and the evaporation refrigerant temperature, which increases and reduces therefore the compression ratio the compressors must cope with. The study team has also noted that for products that reach these levels of ESEER, manufacturers tend to use micro-channel heat exchangers at the condensation stage. However, it is not thought that this technical choice has a real impact on the ESEER gain by comparison with the product that corresponds to combination 1. As flooded shell and tube evaporators increase by a factor 3 the refrigerant charge by comparison with a direct-expansion shell and tube evaporator, micro-channel heat exchangers are chosen to limit this increase in refrigerant charge. Because of the performance data at its disposal, the study team has derived the technical description of improved product 2 from the Carrier 30XA range, although other competitors reach the same levels of ESEER with similar products. Note eventually that some manufacturers such as Climaveneta with its FOCS-CA range can reach similar efficiency levels without a flooded shell and tube evaporator. Combination 3 of design options : Multi scroll compressors chiller with VSD-controlled condenser fans driven by EC motors The other main technology that competes with screw chillers at intermediate cooling capacities greater than 300-350 kW and ESEER values greater than 4 is the chiller equipped with staged scroll compressors, which can reach even higher ESEER values. Note anyway that at these cooling capacities, they represent significantly smaller market shares than screw chillers. As for screw chillers, there is a large range of ESEER values for scroll chillers. Some products have been rated with ESEER values up to 4.8/4.9 : currently, only screw chillers controlled with the inverter technology rather than a slide valve can compete at this level of efficiency. However, only a few products from one single manufacturer achieve these performances at cooling capacities around 400 kW. They can thus not be taken as a reference combination. An ESEER value of 4.65 is kept here. The study team believes that from a technical viewpoint, it would not be an issue for other manufacturers to get similar performances. For instance, Trane develops scroll chillers with ESEER values up to 4.9, but the corresponding range stops at cooling capacities around 350 kW. The main reason that explains the limited interest of manufacturers on 4.7 to 5 ESEER scroll chillers is that at these cooling capacities this requires to increase the number of staged compressors and circuits. Although it is probably more costly to use the inverter technology in combination with screw compressors, clients may have less confidence, from manufacturers says, in the reliability of a product that has many scroll compressors and connections by comparison with a product equipped with only two screw compressors. Concerning the technical description of these products, the study team has noted that most of scroll chillers, whatever their seasonal efficiency, use brazed plate type heat exchangers, probably to limit the cost of the products. To reach high levels of ESEER, two main choices have been identified :

- The most frequent choice is to combine the compressors staging method with VSD-controlled condenser fans and EC fan motors.

- Another option, which is used to limit the noise level, also gives some gains on the ESEER. It consists in increasing the number of rows of the condenser heat exchanger, so that at part-load, the impact of the decrease in the air speed on the heat exchange coefficient is (more than) compensated by the number of rows.

35

Combining these two options could probably lead to higher ESEERs. Since the first option is more frequent, and because the study team has corresponding cost data, it is taken as reference for the technical description of the product. Eventually, it is important to say that there is a supplementary margin of improvement for scroll chillers. Currently sold products have generally relatively low EER values of 2.8-2.9. By increasing the heat exchange surfaces and improving the sizing of the different components, it is possible to reach EER values of 3.1-3.2, as is already done by some manufacturers for cooling capacities lower than 350 kW but. The combination of compressors staging, VSD-controlled condenser fans and condenser coil rows with this good sizing should allow to get ESEER values above 5. Combination 4 of design options : Inverter controlled screw chiller The next step in energy efficiency improvement consists in the use of the inverter control method (VFD for Variable Frequency Drive) to improve the efficiency at part-load of a screw chiller by comparison with a product with a slide valve control method. Note that at these cooling capacities, the study team thinks it is not economically viable to use a variable frequency drive in combination with scroll compressors, as too many compressors would have to be controlled with a dedicated VFD for only a slight increase (or even slight decrease depending on the design because of the energy consumption of the inverter drive) in the part-load performance of the chiller. Such products are not sold. The simple use of a VFD instead of a slide valve, without improving the type and design of heat exchangers neither the control of the condenser fans suffices to reach ESEER values of 4.8. This can be seen by the fact that products with an EER lower than 2.7 can reach ESEER values higher than 4.8. Another example shows a product with an EER of 2.75 and an ESEER of 5. The reference range used for the technical description is the McQuay XSE range. Combination 5 of design options : Inverter controlled screw chiller The difference between improved product 4 and improved product 5 is similar with the difference between a product that would be close to the base-case or combination 1 and a product that corresponds to combination 2. It consists in changing the direct expansion shell and tube heat exchanger used for the evaporation stage for a flooded shell and tube heat exchanger. The impact on refrigerant charge is then limited by the use of a microchannel heat exchanger rather than a standard fin and tube heat exchanger at the condensation side. The only existing chiller range that corresponds to this case and that has been found by the study team is the high efficiency version of the YVAA range developed by York (Johnson Controls group). Nevertheless, from a technical viewpoint, other manufacturers are able to develop similar products by using the same technologies. ESEER values have not been found for the YVAA range in the corresponding technical brochure. However, the highest EER and IPLV values of the range that are advertised are respectively 11.6 and 19.8 in Imperial units, which amounts to 3.4 and 5.8 in SI units. With the data and models at the study team disposal, it can be deduced that the corresponding ESEER of such a product would normally fall between 5.4 and 5.5. As these are the highest efficiency values of the range, the study team finds more reasonable to associate an EER of 3.2 and an ESEER value of 5.25 to improved product 5, which corresponds to an IPLV around 5.7, according to the study team’s calculations. Combination 6 of design options : Chiller equipped with centrifugal compressors and magnetic bearings, a flooded type evaporator heat exchanger and VSD-controlled condenser fans with EC motors

36

To the knowledge of the study team, the two main manufacturers in Europe that develop air-cooled chillers of intermediate cooling capacity, equipped with centrifugal compressors and magnetic bearings, are Daikin-McQuay and Climaveneta. The corresponding improved product 6 corresponds to the best products currently sold in the EU market, and can be seen as the Best Available Technology. Because of no friction between the rotor shaft and the bearings, the mechanical yield of centrifugal compressors with magnetic bearings is extremely high. Magnetic bearings allow also to miniaturize the size of the centrifugal wheel and adapt centrifugal compressors to intermediate cooling capacity chiller ranges, which was not possible with classical ball bearings. The next main advantage of this system is that it does not require lubrication oil, contrary to screw and scroll compressors, for which the oil return mechanism imposes, at low ambient, to limit the condensing temperature of the refrigerant to a higher value to ensure a sufficient compression ratio and oil speed in the refrigerant piping system, which deteriorates the energy performance of the unit. All in all, a screw chiller and a chiller equipped with centrifugal compressors with magnetic bearings, that use the same heat exchangers types and the same inverter compressors control method do not have an equivalent EER and ESEER, because of reduced mechanical and thermodynamic losses. ESEER values of 5.8 are already reached by currently sold products. Technical summary of the improved products The following table comprises the technical description of the different combinations of improvement design options = improved products Table 6 -19 . 400 kW air-cooled chillers : technical summary of the combinations of improvement design options = improved products

37

400

kW a

ir-co

oled

chi

llers

te

chni

cal s

umm

ary

of th

e co

mbi

natio

ns o

f im

prov

emen

t des

ign

optio

ns =

impr

oved

pro

duct

s

Bas

e-ca

se

Com

bina

tion

1 C

ombi

natio

n 2

Com

bina

tion

3 C

ombi

natio

n 4

Com

bina

tion

5 C

ombi

natio

n 6

Pro

duct

cod

e AC

C 4

00 B

C

AC

C 4

00 I1

a/I1

b A

CC

400

I2a/

I2b

AC

C 4

00 I3

a/I3

b A

CC

400

I4

AC

C 4

00 I5

a/I5

b/I5

c A

CC

400

I6a/

I6b/

I6c

Ref

eren

ce e

xist

ing

rang

e(s)

C

limav

enet

a FO

CS

-B

Clim

aven

eta

FOC

S-B

an

d D

aiki

n EW

AD

-D

Car

rier 3

0 X

A M

TA G

LT a

nd

Cliv

et W

SA

T-X

SC

M

cQua

y X

SE

York

YV

AA

(h

igh

effic

ienc

y ve

rsio

n)

Clim

aven

eta

TEC

S-2

Rat

ings

E

ER

2.

72

3.10

3.

10

2.80

2.

80

3.20

3.

45

ES

EE

R

3.76

4.

10

4.40

4.

65

4.90

5.

25

5.80

Te

chni

cal c

hara

cter

istic

s

Com

pres

sor t

ype

Sem

i-her

met

ic

scre

w c

ompr

esso

r

twin

-rot

or ty

pe

Sem

i-her

met

ic s

crew

co

mpr

esso

r

twin

-rot

or ty

pe

Sem

i-her

met

ic s

crew

co

mpr

esso

r

twin

-rot

or ty

pe

Her

met

ic s

crol

l co

mpr

esso

r

Sem

i-her

met

ic s

crew

co

mpr

esso

r

sing

le-ro

tor t

ype

Sem

i-her

met

ic s

crew

co

mpr

esso

r

twin

-rot

or ty

pe

Cen

trifu

gal

tw

o-st

ages

(tw

o ce

ntrif

ugal

whe

els

in

serie

s on

the

sam

e ro

tor

shaf

t)

Com

pres

sor c

ontro

l &

Par

t-loa

d co

ntro

l

Slid

e va

lve

co

ntin

uous

m

odul

atio

n fro

m

100%

to 5

0%

cool

ing

capa

city

(p

er c

ompr

esso

r)

Slid

e va

lve

co

ntin

uous

mod

ulat

ion

from

100

% to

50%

co

olin

g ca

paci

ty (p

er

com

pres

sor)

Slid

e va

lve

On-

off

S

eque

ntia

l co

mpr

esso

rs s

tagi

ng

Inve

rter

on

e in

verte

r per

co

mpr

esso

r

Inve

rter

on

e in

verte

r per

co

mpr

esso

r

Inve

rter

on

e in

verte

r per

co

mpr

esso

r

Num

ber o

f circ

uits

and

co

mpr

esso

rs

2 ci

rcui

ts

2

com

pres

sors

(1

per

circ

uit)

2 ci

rcui

ts

2

com

pres

sors

(1

per

circ

uit)

2 ci

rcui

ts

2

com

pres

sors

(1

per

circ

uit)

2 ci

rcui

ts

6 co

mpr

esso

rs

(3 p

er c

ircui

t)

som

e m

anuf

actu

rers

pr

efer

to u

se

3 ci

rcui

ts a

nd 2

or 3

co

mpr

esso

rs p

er c

ircui

t

2 ci

rcui

ts

2

com

pres

sors

(1

per

circ

uit)

2 ci

rcui

ts

2

com

pres

sors

(1

per

circ

uit)

1 ci

rcui

t

2 co

mpr

esso

rs

Eva

pora

tor (

wat

er to

re

frige

rant

) hea

t ex

chan

ger t

ype

Dire

ct e

xpan

sion

S

hell

and

Tube

D

irect

exp

ansi

on S

hell

and

Tube

I2a

Floo

ded

She

ll an

d Tu

be

I2b

Fallin

g fil

m

Bra

zed

Pla

te

w

ith a

sin

gle

or d

ual

refri

gera

nt c

ircui

t

Dire

ct e

xpan

sion

She

ll an

d Tu

be

I5a

Floo

ded

She

ll an

d Tu

be

I5b

I5c

Fallin

g fil

m

I6a

Floo

ded

She

ll an

d Tu

be

I6b

I6c

Fallin

g fil

m

Min

imum

cap

acity

ste

p 25

%

25%

(fo

r Clim

aven

eta)

for D

aiki

n-M

cQua

y th

e va

lue

is 1

2.5%

15%

17

%

13.5

%

10%

U

nkno

wn

Con

dens

er (r

efrig

eran

t to

air)

hea

t exc

hang

er

type

Fins

(alu

min

ium

) an

d tu

bes

(cop

per)

Fi

n an

d tu

be

Fin

and

tube

coul

d be

mic

roch

anne

l

I3a

Fin

and

tube

I3b

Mic

roch

anne

l Fi

n an

d tu

be

I5a

I5b

Fin

and

tube

I5c

Mic

roch

anne

l

I6a

I6b

Fin

and

tube

I6c

Mic

roch

anne

l

Con

dens

er fa

ns ty

pe

Pro

pelle

r (ax

ial)

fans

P

rope

ller (

axia

l) fa

ns

Pro

pelle

r (ax

ial)

fans

P

rope

ller (

axia

l) fa

ns

+

EC

mot

ors

Pro

pelle

r (ax

ial)

fans

P

rope

ller (

axia

l) fa

ns

+

EC

mot

ors

Pro

pelle

r (ax

ial)

fans

+ E

C m

otor

s

Con

dens

er fa

ns c

ontro

l

Seq

uent

ial

sw

itchi

ng b

etw

een

diffe

rent

num

bers

of

ope

ratin

g fa

ns

Seq

uent

ial

sw

itchi

ng b

etw

een

diffe

rent

num

bers

of

oper

atin

g fa

ns

Seq

uent

ial

sw

itchi

ng b

etw

een

diffe

rent

num

bers

of

oper

atin

g fa

ns

Var

iabl

e S

peed

Driv

e

can

be a

s w

ell

Seq

uent

ial

Seq

uent

ial

sw

itchi

ng b

etw

een

diffe

rent

num

bers

of

oper

atin

g fa

ns

Var

iabl

e S

peed

Driv

e V

aria

ble

Spe

ed D

rive

Ref

riger

ant t

ype

R-1

34a

R-1

34a

R-1

34a

R-4

10A

R

-134

aR

-134

a R

-134

a

38

b. 100 kW air-cooled chillers Preliminary remarks At 100 kW cooling capacity, nearly all air-cooled chillers that are currently sold in the EU are equipped with scroll compressors. Only a few manufacturers develop screw chillers, which are slide valve controlled. No 100 kW screw chiller is inverter driven. The corresponding single rotor screw compressors being less efficient than the bi-rotor screw compressors that are developed for larger cooling capacities (> 200 kW), the chillers they equip do not reach high ESEER levels (they have ESEERs lower than the one of the base-case). These products are therefore not very competitive from an energy efficiency viewpoint, but also from an economic viewpoint because of the high costs required to develop these low cooling capacity screw compressors. Variations in ESEER within scroll chiller ranges can be very significant and often greater than within screw chiller ranges. Scroll compressors are limited in cooling capacity (100 KW can be seen as the current maximum for one compressor) and consequently more standardized, whereas screw compressors cooling capacity ranges are larger. Scroll compressors are therefore made less specific for a certain product and so more mass produced : it can sometimes suffice to keep the same heat exchangers but increase the size or number of the compressors to design a product that has a higher cooling capacity, at nearly no additional costs. Similarly, adding more scroll compressors allows to reach higher cooling capacity levels, rather than designing a screw compressor specific to a capacity level. The fact that scroll chillers are more modular products than screw chillers leads therefore to more important efficiency variations inside a range. Looking at existing ranges, the study team focuses then on the products with the highest efficiency levels. Eventually, the common evaporator heat exchanger choice at 100 kW cooling capacity is the brazed plate type heat exchanger. It is a compact technology, by comparison with the shell and tube type heat exchanger used at larger cooling capacities : low cooling capacity air-cooled chillers have therefore lower relative refrigerant charges (kgrefrigerant/kWcooling) than their larger cooling capacity counterparts. Base-case summary The 100 kW base-case air-cooled chiller defined in Task 4 has been derived from an Airwell chiller whose cooling capacity, EER and ESEER are particularly close to the base-case values. Because energy efficiency is currently not the main driver of the competition between manufacturers at these low to intermediate cooling capacities, it remains economically interesting to sell scroll chillers charged with R-407C and average levels of efficiency. This explains why the median of the 0-400 kW chillers market corresponds to R-407C charged products rather than R-410A charged products, which is used in products that reach higher energy efficiency levels. The analysis of the Eurovent database and current chiller ranges shows indeed that the ESEER of the base-case corresponds to the limit between R-407C and R-410A charged products. Combination 1 of design options : R-410A scroll chiller that has the same architecture (component types) as the base-case This first improved product is very similar with the base-case, as it is equipped with the same heat exchanger types and still two scroll compressors (tandem mounted) installed in one single circuit. The part-load control strategy is therefore unchanged. By comparison with the base-case, the main technological change consists in redesigning the product so that it operates with R-410A instead of R-407C. Because of the better heat transfer characteristics of R-410A, higher energy efficiency levels can be reached with similar sizes of heat exchangers. In addition, because the pressure glide of R-410A when condensing is much lower than for R-407C, and because the flow variation induces a larger pressure reduction, the increase in performance at part-load is higher. Of course, a complete redesign of the chiller must be done to cope with this refrigerant fluid, especially due to higher condensation pressures. It is also important to note that because of its higher refrigeration capacity with regards to

39

R-407C, R-410A allows to reduce the size of the heat exchangers, which in turn leads to a lower refrigerant charge. The analysis of the Eurovent database shows that ESEER levels ranging from 3.9 to 4.2 can be achieved. As for larger cooling capacity chillers, there are significant variations in efficiency within one range : each unit of the range does not benefit from a specific sizing of the heat exchangers and the compressors to reach the highest possible performance with this product architecture, which allows manufacturer to make economies of scale. The study team opts for an ESEER of 4.1. The modelling of this improved product is based on the Climaveneta NECS-N-B range. EER levels are similar with EER levels of equivalent R-407C charged products. As explained before, although the full-load performance does not significantly change (same EER), the part-load performance is improved, which leads to a higher ESEER than for the base-case. Combination 2 of design options : R-410A scroll chiller designed with 4 compressors and 2 circuits (2 parallel identical circuits with 2 compressors in each circuit) To reach higher ESEER levels, it is then possible to improve both the full-load and the part-load efficiencies of the product. This is the case for the second improved product, for which the full-load performance is optimized thanks to higher heat exchanger surfaces and proper sizing of the compressors. The EER shifts therefore from 2.7 to 3.1. This gap looks wide, but because scroll compressors can be mass-produced at limited costs, manufacturers have more flexibility on the sizing of the heat exchangers, from an economic viewpoint, by comparison with larger cooling capacity screw chillers. Such EER levels correspond therefore to greatly oversized heat exchangers, and especially the condenser one. An additional gain in part-load efficiency is then achieved by installing 2 identical circuits instead of 1 single circuit : 4 identical smaller capacity scroll compressors are now used instead of 2 identical larger capacity scroll compressors, evenly split between the two circuits. Instead of cycling at part-load ratios lower than 50%, the product cycles now at part-load ratios lower than 25%. While a few corresponding existing products have ESEERs of 4.5, more common values are around 4.4. The MTA TA range is taken for reference to model the full-load and part-load performance of this improved product. Combination 3 of design options : Same as combination 2, but with condenser fans equipped with VSD and EC motors The difference between improved product 2 and improved product 3 comes from the controls of the condenser fans and their motors. Instead of switching on/off different numbers of fans, variable speed drives allow to reduce the air flow rate of each fan at part-load. Both at full-load and part-load, the higher efficiency of EC motors by comparison with standard DC motors (see Task 5) reduces the electricity consumption and increases the performance of the chiller, but more at low part-load ratios. This translates in ESEER levels that range between 4.5 and 4.8. The choice is made to set the ESEER of improved product 3 at 4.7. Its modelling is derived from the Airwell AQVL range. As it is possible to change the standard fin and tube condenser for a microchannel condenser (whether the product is not reversible) to reduce the refrigerant charge of the unit, an alternative version “b” of this improved product is consequently taken into account. Combination 4 of design options : Inverter driven screw chiller, single-rotor compressor This last improved product corresponds to a unit that is somewhat in between a BAT and a BNAT. It can be seen as a BAT as all components are already available, apart from the inverter which exists down to a cooling capacity of 200 kW, and needs therefore to be further downsized and fitted with a

40

100 kW cooling capacity level. It can also be seen as a BNAT as it is currently not available to any manufacturer. Because of the higher isentropic efficiency of a screw compressor by comparison with a scroll compressor, the full-load efficiency is slightly improved by comparison with the preceding improved product : the EER shifts from 3.2 to 3.3. The gain in efficiency at part-load is similar to the one of the previous product thanks to the inverter technology. All in all, from a technological viewpoint, this product could realistically reach an ESEER of 5. As for improved product 3, it is possible to change the standard fin and tube condenser for a microchannel condenser (whether the product is not reversible) to reduce the refrigerant charge of the unit. This is taken into account with the alternative version “b” of this improved product. Technical summary of the improved products The following table comprises the technical description of the different combinations of improvement design options = improved products Table 6 -20 . 100 kW air-cooled chillers : technical summary of the combinations of improvement design options = improved products

41

100

kW a

ir-co

oled

chi

llers

te

chni

cal s

umm

ary

of th

e co

mbi

natio

ns o

f im

prov

emen

t des

ign

optio

ns =

impr

oved

pro

duct

s

Bas

e-ca

se

Com

bina

tion

1 C

ombi

natio

n 2

Com

bina

tion

3 C

ombi

natio

n 4

Pro

duct

cod

e A

CC

100

BC

A

CC

100

I1

AC

C 1

00 I2

A

CC

100

I3

AC

C 1

00 I4

R

efer

ence

exi

stin

g ra

nge(

s)

Airw

ell A

QL

Clim

aven

eta

NE

CS

-N-B

M

TA T

A

Airw

ell A

QV

L-H

SE

-

E

ER

2.

7 2.

7 3.

1 3.

2 3.

3 E

SE

ER

3.

7 4.

1 4.

4 4.

7 5

Com

pres

sor t

ype

Her

met

ic s

crol

l com

pres

sor

Her

met

ic s

crol

l com

pres

sor

Her

met

ic s

crol

l com

pres

sor

Her

met

ic s

crol

l com

pres

sor

Sem

i-her

met

ic s

crew

co

mpr

esso

r

sing

le-r

otor

type

C

ompr

esso

r con

trol

&

Par

t-loa

d co

ntro

l

On-

off

S

eque

ntia

l co

mpr

esso

rs s

tagi

ng

On-

off

S

eque

ntia

l co

mpr

esso

rs s

tagi

ng

On-

off

S

eque

ntia

l co

mpr

esso

rs s

tagi

ng

On-

off

S

eque

ntia

l co

mpr

esso

rs s

tagi

ng

Inve

rter

Num

ber o

f circ

uits

and

co

mpr

esso

rs

1

circ

uit

2

com

pres

sors

(all

iden

tical

)

1

circ

uit

2

com

pres

sors

(all

iden

tical

)

2

circ

uits

4 co

mpr

esso

rs (a

ll id

entic

al)

(2 p

er c

ircui

t)

2

circ

uits

4 co

mpr

esso

rs (a

ll id

entic

al)

(2 p

er c

ircui

t)

1

circ

uit

1

com

pres

sor

Eva

pora

tor

(wat

er to

refri

gera

nt)

heat

exc

hang

er ty

pe

Bra

zed

plat

e B

raze

d pl

ate

Bra

zed

plat

e B

raze

d pl

ate

Bra

zed

plat

e

Min

imum

cap

acity

ste

p 50

%

50%

25

%

25%

30

%

Con

dens

er

(ref

riger

ant t

o ai

r)

heat

exc

hang

er ty

pe

Fi

ns (a

lum

iniu

m) a

nd tu

bes

(cop

per)

Fin

and

Tube

Fi

n an

d Tu

be

I3a

Fin

and

Tube

I3b

Mic

roch

anne

l

I4a

Fin

and

Tube

I4b

Mic

roch

anne

l

Con

dens

er fa

ns ty

pe

Pro

pelle

r (ax

ial)

fans

P

rope

ller (

axia

l) fa

ns

Pro

pelle

r (ax

ial)

fans

P

rope

ller (

axia

l) fa

ns

+ E

C m

otor

s P

rope

ller (

axia

l) fa

ns

+ E

C m

otor

s

Con

dens

er fa

ns c

ontro

l

S

eque

ntia

l

switc

hing

bet

wee

n di

ffere

nt

num

bers

of o

pera

ting

fans

Seq

uent

ial

sw

itchi

ng b

etw

een

diffe

rent

nu

mbe

rs o

f ope

ratin

g fa

ns

Seq

uent

ial

sw

itchi

ng b

etw

een

diffe

rent

nu

mbe

rs o

f ope

ratin

g fa

ns

Var

iabl

e S

peed

Driv

e

Seq

uent

ial

sw

itchi

ng b

etw

een

diffe

rent

nu

mbe

rs o

f ope

ratin

g fa

ns

Ref

riger

ant t

ype

R-4

07C

R

-410

A

R-4

10A

R

-410

A

R-1

34a

42

2) Water-cooled chillers

a. 1000 kW water-cooled chillers Preliminary remarks The analysis of the sales of water-cooled chillers in the EU (Task 2) and of their distribution by EER and ESEER in the Eurovent database (Task 4) has initially led the study team to model a base-case of 900 kW rated cooling capacity to represent intermediate to high cooling capacity water-cooled chillers, which account for most of the EU market. However, discussions with stakeholders and the analysis of competing chiller ranges have shown to the study team that the 900 kW base-case cooling capacity, which is the median (middle) of the sales, corresponds in fact to the limit between two different markets and so types of application and patterns of use. More precisely, products with a cooling capacity lower than 800-900 kW are mostly used for comfort applications, for which the study team has proposed to use 600 equivalent hours at design capacity. Conversely, products with a cooling capacity greater than 800-900 kW, in addition to comfort applications, are likely to ensure a process cooling function (for instance, the cooling of engine rooms, computer rooms, conference halls, in addition to office rooms). Water-cooled chillers manufacturers develop therefore often, on one side, ranges with cooling capacities from 200 kW to 800-900 kW, and other ranges that start at 800-900 kW cooling capacity and end at several MW. There are of course exceptions, with screw chiller ranges that start at 200-300 kW cooling capacity and end between 1500 and 2000 kW cooling capacity. Products with a 900 kW cooling capacity are therefore often at the end or the beginning of one range, especially for chillers equipped with centrifugal compressors. The issue is then that inside one range, relative costs per kW cooling decrease when the cooling capacity increases. This can be explained by the fact that assembly costs increase less than the cooling capacity. The study team cannot compare competing technologies at this cooling capacity : it is a very specific case, for which in most cases, products have exceptionally high or low relative costs by comparison with the rest of the range. At 1000 kW cooling capacity, a sounder comparison can be done, although relative costs of centrifugal chillers remain a little high by comparison with greater cooling capacity products. This is a compromise : the fairest solution would be to do two LCC analyses, one at 500 kW, and one at 1500 kW, but the study team has relevant cost data that corresponds to water-cooled chillers with cooling capacities greater than 800-900 kW. As can be read in the results of the LCC analysis, the same technology leads to the Least Life Cycle Costs, whatever the reference chosen, so one case suffices. Alternative heat exchanger technologies The only alternative heat exchanger technology that is available to reduce the refrigerant charge of intermediate to high cooling capacity water-cooled chillers is the falling film evaporator. Contrary to air-cooled chillers, there are therefore no versions “c” of improved products, but only versions “b” in some cases, which correspond to the replacement of a standard flooded shell and tube evaporator by this falling film evaporator. Once again, this has no impact on the EER and ESEER of the modelled improved product. Base-case summary The efficiency ratings of the base-case are not modified at 1000 kW. The analysis of several manufacturer ranges shows clearly that different products with similar ESEER ratings close to the one of the base-case are very similar in terms of technology choices. Combination 1 of design options : Slide valve controlled screw chiller with higher heat exchanger surfaces and optimized compressors

43

Improved product 1 is very similar to improved product 1 for air-cooled chillers. By comparison with the base-case, the ESEER is higher because of a better design of the main components of the unit. This is therefore mainly a “full-load optimization” : the control method at part-load is unchanged and so the increase in ESEER is well-correlated with the increase in EER. Combination 2 of design options : Slide valve controlled screw chiller with a flooded shell and tube evaporator and an optimal design of the different components As for improved product 1, improved product 2 is very similar to improved product 2 for air-cooled chillers. The main improvement design option is the use of a flooded shell and tube evaporator heat exchanger, which allows to decrease the compression ratio. The ESEER of improved product 2 can be seen as close to the maximum efficiency screw chillers that are not equipped with an inverter control method can reach. ESEER values of 7.6-7.7 might be achieved by oversizing the surface of the heat exchangers. Combination 3 of design options : Inverter-driven centrifugal chiller with a flooded shell and tube evaporator Once focusing on centrifugal chillers, the study team has decided not to consider standard centrifugal chillers with no inverter part-load control method. Although these products have represented large market shares at high cooling capacities for many years, manufacturers are now stopping their development. The manufacturing and development of standard centrifugal chillers is indeed expensive by comparison with the one of standard screw chillers. This implies then that the marginal cost of changing the inlet guide vane for the inverter technology of a centrifugal chiller is significantly lower than the marginal cost of changing screw compressors for centrifugal compressors and adapt accordingly the design of the other components of the chiller. The ESEER of inverter-driven centrifugal water-cooled chillers being around 30% higher than the ESEER of standard centrifugal WATER-COOLED CHILLERS, this technology is clearly more interesting. The technical description of improved product 3 is derived from the York YK range. As for all its water-cooled chillers with high ESEERs (meaning greater than 7.5), York uses a falling film evaporator, which allows to reach the same efficiency as a flooded shell and tube evaporator but with a lower refrigerant charge, which is a useful technology to reduce the TEWI. As other manufacturers develop the same type of product without a falling film evaporator, this option is not considered here, but only the flooded evaporator. Note that because mechanical losses due to gear train and leakage at the level of the labyrinth seal have a lower relative impact on the energy efficiency at higher cooling capacities, the ESEER of the same product type increases with the cooling capacity and is for instance higher than 8.5 at 1500 kW cooling. Combination 4 of design options : Inverter-driven screw chiller with a flooded shell and tube evaporator Because the high efficiency potential of inverter-driven centrifugal chillers with a standard power transfer is not fully exploitable at 1000 kW, improved product 4 allows to reach slightly higher levels of ESEER. Note that if the analysis had been done at 1500 kW, these two products would have been probably ranked in reverse order. This product corresponds to improved product 5 in the case of air-cooled chillers, since a flooded shell and tube evaporator is implemented on the unit. The technical description is derived from the York YVWA range.

44

Combination 5 of design options : Inverter-driven centrifugal chiller with a flooded shell and tube evaporator and increased heat exchanger surfaces Improved product 5 is the same as improved product 3 but with increased heat exchange surfaces to improve the full-load efficiency of the unit. It is somewhat similar to the differences between combination 1 for ACC and WATER-COOLED CHILLERS by comparison with their respective base-cases. The technical characteristics are therefore derived from the same range as improved product 3, but in its high efficiency version. Combination 6 of design options : Chiller equipped with centrifugal compressors and magnetic bearings and a flooded type evaporator heat exchanger As for air-cooled chillers, the best technological option for water-cooled chillers in terms of energy efficiency is the use of one or several oil free inverter-driven centrifugal compressors with magnetic bearings. By comparison with product 3 and 5, frictionless magnetic bearing centrifugal compressors allow to eliminate energy losses due to friction between the rotor shaft of the compressor and the mechanical bearings, the need of a gear drive and its associated mechanical losses, as well as the use of oil to lubricate the rotor shaft (also standard centrifugal compressors already need less oil than screw compressors). All in all, this increases the EER and the ESEER of the unit, which can reach values higher than 9. The comparison of competing ranges developed by different manufacturers (Daikin-McQuay, Climaveneta, York) shows that there is some variability in terms of EER and ESEER. Note that products that have the same levels of ESEER can have very different values of EER. It is difficult to explain this discrepancy as several designs can be imagined to explain these differences. In the end, the study team opts for an ESEER of 9.2 and 3 EER values are provided to illustrate these differences. Combination 7 of design options : Same as combination 6 but with increased heat exchanger surfaces Improved product 7 corresponds to the BAT for water-cooled chillers, as there are currently no products sold in the EU that reach higher efficiency levels. The technical characterization of this product can be derived from improved product 6 by increasing heat exchanger surfaces. The increase in ESEER is therefore well-correlated with the increase in EER. It should be noted that the number of competitors adopting the magnetic bearing VSD centrifugal compressors has been growing rapidly over the last years both in the USA and in Europe, with one OEM offering this technology. One other solution, is the tri-rotor screw compressor with VSD announced by Carrier, currently only for water-cooled chillers. It seems to be able to reach similar performance levels (EER 6.5 and ESEER 9.5), but detailed performance data is not available, so the study team does not define a design option 8 that corresponds to this product. Technical summary of the improvement design options As for air-cooled chillers, the following table comprises the technical description of the different combinations of improvement design options = improved products. Table 6 -21 . Water-cooled chillers : technical summary of the combinations of improvement design options = improved products

45

1000

kW

wat

er-c

oole

d ch

iller

s 10

00 k

W u

nit -

tech

nica

l sum

mar

y of

the

com

bina

tions

of i

mpr

ovem

ent d

esig

n op

tions

= im

prov

ed p

rodu

cts

B

ase-

case

C

ombi

natio

n 1

Com

bina

tion

2 C

ombi

natio

n 3

Com

bina

tion

4 C

ombi

natio

n 5

Com

bina

tion

6 C

ombi

natio

n 7

Pro

duct

cod

e W

CC

100

0 B

C

WC

C 1

000

I1

WC

C 1

000

I2a/

I2b

WC

C 1

000

I3

WC

C 1

000

I4a/

I4b

WC

C 1

000

I5

WC

C 1

000

I6a/

I6b

WC

C 1

000

I7a/

I7b

Ref

eren

ce e

xist

ing

rang

e(s)

Clim

aven

eta

RE

CS

-W a

nd

York

YLC

S-S

A

Clim

aven

eta

FO

CS

2-W

D

aiki

n E

WW

D-H

-XS

Yo

rk Y

K

York

YV

WA

Yo

rk Y

K

(hig

h ef

ficie

ncy

vers

ion)

York

YM

C2,

C

limav

enet

a TE

CS

-HF

and

McQ

uay

WM

C

York

YM

C2

and

McQ

uay

WM

C

Rat

ings

EE

R

4.77

5.

60

6.00

6.

00

5.50

6.

30

6.40

for Y

ork

5.80

for M

cQua

y 5.

20 fo

r Clim

aven

eta

6.70

for Y

ork

6.40

for M

cQua

y

ES

EE

R

5.72

6.

70

7.40

7.

85

8.00

8.

20

9.20

9.

60

Tech

nica

l cha

ract

eris

tics

Com

pres

sor t

ype

Sem

i-her

met

ic

scre

w

com

pres

sor

tw

in-r

otor

type

Sem

i-her

met

ic

scre

w c

ompr

esso

r

twin

-rot

or ty

pe

Sem

i-her

met

ic s

crew

co

mpr

esso

r

twin

-rot

or ty

pe

Cen

trifu

gal

si

ngle

-sta

ge ty

pe

Sem

i-her

met

ic

scre

w c

ompr

esso

r

twin

-rot

or ty

pe

Cen

trifu

gal

si

ngle

-sta

ge ty

pe

Cen

trifu

gal

si

ngle

-sta

ge ty

pe

Cen

trifu

gal

si

ngle

-sta

ge ty

pe

Com

pres

sor c

ontro

l &

Par

-load

con

trol

Slid

e va

lve

co

ntin

uous

m

odul

atio

n fro

m

100%

to 5

0%

cool

ing

capa

city

(p

er

com

pres

sor)

Slid

e va

lve

Slid

e va

lve

Inve

rter

Inve

rter

on

e in

verte

r per

co

mpr

esso

r

Inve

rter

Inve

rter

Inve

rter

(Mec

hani

cal)

pow

er

trans

fer

fo

r cen

trifu

gal

com

pres

sors

- -

- R

oll b

earin

gs a

nd

gear

driv

e -

Rol

l bea

rings

and

gea

r dr

ive

Mag

netic

bea

rings

M

agne

tic b

earin

gs

Num

ber o

f circ

uits

an

d co

mpr

esso

rs

2 ci

rcui

ts

2

com

pres

sors

(1

per

circ

uit)

2 ci

rcui

ts

2

com

pres

sors

(1

per

circ

uit)

2 ci

rcui

ts

2

com

pres

sors

(1

per

circ

uit)

1 ci

rcui

t

1 co

mpr

esso

r

2 ci

rcui

ts

2

com

pres

sors

(1

per

circ

uit)

1 ci

rcui

t

1 co

mpr

esso

r

1 ci

rcui

t

1 co

mpr

esso

r

1 ci

rcui

t

1 co

mpr

esso

r

Min

imum

cap

acity

st

ep

(s

crew

com

pres

sors

: be

fore

cyc

ling

/ ce

ntrif

ugal

com

pres

sors

: b

efor

e su

rge)

25%

25

%

12.5

%

30%

to 4

0%

Bel

ow 2

5%

30%

to 4

0%

Bel

ow 2

5%

Bel

ow 2

5%

Eva

pora

tor (

wat

er to

re

frige

rant

) hea

t ex

chan

ger t

ype

Dire

ct e

xpan

sion

S

hell

and

Tube

D

irect

exp

ansi

on

She

ll an

d Tu

be

I2a

Floo

ded

She

ll an

d Tu

be

I2b

Falli

ng

film

Floo

ded

She

ll an

d Tu

be

I4

a Fl

oode

d S

hell

and

Tube

I4b

Falli

ng

film

Floo

ded

She

ll an

d Tu

be

I6

a Fl

oode

d S

hell

and

Tube

I6b

Falli

ng fi

lm

I6

a Fl

oode

d S

hell

and

Tube

I6b

Fa

lling

fil

m

Con

dens

er

(refri

gera

nt to

wat

er)

heat

exc

hang

er ty

pe

Floo

ded

She

ll an

d Tu

be

Floo

ded

She

ll an

d Tu

be

Floo

ded

She

ll an

d Tu

be

Floo

ded

She

ll an

d Tu

be

Floo

ded

She

ll an

d Tu

be

Floo

ded

She

ll an

d Tu

be

Floo

ded

She

ll an

d Tu

be

Floo

ded

She

ll an

d Tu

be

Ref

riger

ant t

ype

R-1

34a

R-1

34a

R-1

34a

R-1

34a

R-1

34a

R-1

34a

R-1

34a

R-1

34a

47

b. 100 kW water-cooled chillers Preliminary remarks As for air-cooled chillers, at low cooling capacities, water-cooled chillers are essentially scroll chillers. According to Task 2 data, they do not represent more than 15% of the EU market of water-cooled chillers and so less than 5% of the whole EU market of air-conditioning chillers : because it is necessary to install a heat rejection unit, a heat rejection water network and a heat rejection water pump in combination with a water-cooled chiller, there are few customers of low cooling capacity water-cooled chillers (customers are less keen on the setting of a more complex installation, by comparison with air-cooled chillers, whereas the size of the building is limited, and so the needed cooling capacity). This in turn implies that there is currently no strong competition on energy efficiency between manufacturers concerning this product category. Manufacturing costs are minimized to compete on selling prices to the detriment of energy efficiency. Although R-410A allows to design more efficient units, a great part of the products that are put on the market are still charged with R-407C, meaning that their design has not been improved for several years (checking performance levels of R-407C charged products sold at the middle of the past decade confirms this point). This explains why as for the base-case 100 kW air-cooled chiller, the base-case 100 kW water-cooled chiller is R-407C charged. It seems that by comparison with low cooling capacity air-cooled chillers, there is more space for the improvement of low cooling capacity water-cooled chillers. Looking at the Eurovent database and existing product ranges, numerous competing products sold by different manufacturers reach very similar levels of EER and so full-load efficiency, around 4.2 to 4.4. Therefore, it is essentially the part-load performance that varies between average products and best products. Note eventually that thanks to water flowing throughout the condenser and the evaporator heat exchangers, it is possible to use a brazed plate heat exchanger in both cases. This technology being compact, the refrigerant charge is greatly limited. There is therefore no need for this product category to consider alternative heat exchanger technologies to reduce the refrigerant charge, as most currently sold products are equipped with braze plate heat exchangers and so have already very low charges by comparison with other chiller categories (this is even more the case when the products are designed to operate with R-410A instead of R-407C, because of the higher refrigeration capacity of this refrigerant fluid). Base-case summary The base-case 100 kW water-cooled chiller is very similar with the base-case 100 kW air-cooled chiller, as it is charged with R-407C, equipped with one circuit, a tandem of scroll compressors and a brazed plate evaporator. As a reminder, its ESEER is derived from the sales-weighted median of the 0-400 kW range of water-cooled chillers, which capacity range corresponds to most ranges of water-cooled chillers equipped with scroll compressors. Relatively to its product category and so the technological choices made for more efficient products, it appears to be less efficient than the base-case air-cooled chiller, which confirms the fact that there have not been significant technological changes in this product category for several years. Combination 1 of design options : R-410A scroll chiller that has the same architecture (component types) as the base-case As for 100 kW air-cooled chillers, by comparison with the base-case, the main technological change associated with improved product 1 consists in redesigning the chiller so that it operates with R-410A instead of R-407C. Due to the same reasons, the increase in ESEER is related to a higher performance at part-load because of the lower pressure glide of R-410A. Similarly, this refrigerant allows to reduce the size of the heat exchangers, which in turn leads to a lower refrigerant charge.

48

Whereas the EER remains unchanged, the ESEER greatly shifts from 5.2 to 5.8. The modelling of this improved product is based on the Climaveneta NECS-W range. Combination 2 of design options : Same as combination 1, but with higher heat exchanger surfaces and an adapted sizing of the compressors From ESEER levels around the ESSER of improved product 1 to higher values, the study team has not noticed any main technological difference between the existing products. In other terms, products that are more efficient are better sized. One possible corresponding strategy is for instance to size the heat exchangers and the compressors so that the full-load efficiency is maintained but the part-load efficiency is improved : this can done by shifting the design point of the compressors so that their isentropic efficiency is decreased at full-load but more favourable at part-load. The decrease at full-load is then compensated by greater heat exchanger surfaces : the EER is maintained, but the ESEER is increased. Consequently, between improved product 1 and improved product 2, the EER is maintained at 4.4, while the ESEER increases from 5.8 to 6.4. The existing range with several products at these levels of ESSER that is taken for reference is the Airwell WQL range. The study team is not aware of existing products with a higher ESEER. Combination 3 of design options : Same as combination 2, but one of the scroll compressors is inverter driven Improved product 3 does not correspond to an existing product, but is technologically already feasible. Further gains can be made at part-load, either by staging 3 or 4 compressors instead of 2, either by replacing one of the 2 staged scroll compressors by an inverter-driven scroll compressor, which is considered here. The slope of the part-load gain curve is similar with the one of improved product 2, the difference being that the chiller cycles only at part-load ratios lower than 30% instead of 50%. Therefore, the improvement in energy efficiency is only limited to part-load ratios lower than 50%. On the basis of the study team’s modelling, a slight gain in ESEER can be achieved, from 6.4 to 6.6. Combination 4 of design options : Inverter driven screw chiller, single-rotor compressor Eventually, an ESEER level corresponding to a product somewhat in between the BAT and BNAT can be defined, similarly to 100 kW air-cooled chillers. Once again, the use of a screw compressor instead of several scroll compressors can help achieving a higher full-load efficiency thanks to the higher isentropic efficiency of screw compressors, while gains in efficiency at part-load are maintained by the use of an inverter. Due to the development costs of the inverter technology fitted with a screw compressor at 100 kW (currently, it is only developed above 200 kW) and to the manufacturing costs of the compressor itself (the relative costs of low cooling capacity compressors is always greatly higher than the relative costs of higher cooling capacity similar compressors), the additional costs of such a product by comparison with the previous improved products is considered to be consequent. However, economies of scale could be made in a future market with an increased competition on energy efficiency due to MEPS requirements, which means that the development and manufacturing costs of low cooling capacity screw chillers should become acceptable to both manufacturers and customers after several years. Technical summary of the improvement design options The following table comprises the technical description of the different combinations of improvement design options = improved products.

49

Table 6 -22 . Water-cooled chillers : technical summary of the combinations of improvement design options = improved products

100 kW water-cooled chillerstechnical summary of the combinations of improvement design options = improved products

Base-case Combination 1 Combination 2 Combination 3 Combination 4 Product code WCC 100 BC WCC 100 I1 WCC 100 I2 WCC 100 I3 WCC 100 I4

Reference existing range(s) MTA OC Climaveneta

NECS-W Airwell WQL - -

EER 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.6

ESEER 5.2 5.8 6.4 6.6 6.9

Compressor type Hermetic scroll compressor

Hermetic scroll compressor



Semi-hermetic screw compressor

single-rotor type

Compressor control

&

Part-load control

On-off

Sequential compressors

staging

On-off


staging

On-off


staging

1 fixed speed compressor

+ 1 inverter-driven

compressor

Inverter

Number of circuits and compressors

1 circuit

2 compressors (both identical)

1 circuit


1 circuit


1 circuit

2 compressors

1 circuit

1 compressor

Evaporator (water to

refrigerant) heat exchanger

type

Brazed plate Brazed plate Brazed plate Brazed plate Brazed plate

Minimum capacity step 50% 50% 50% 30% 30%

Condenser (refrigerant to

water) heat exchanger

type

Brazed Plate

Brazed Plate Brazed Plate

Brazed Plate

Brazed Plate

Refrigerant type R-407C R-410A R-410A R-410A R-134a

50

Energy performance modelling : main points The same methodology is used for all product categories. Each incremental improvement level in energy efficiency is modelled as a full product, as detailed for chillers. What has been initially called a “design option” for air conditioners corresponds similarly to a full product. In each case, a SEERon then a SEER value are calculated in accordance with the calculation method defined in the prEN 14825 standard. The idea is thus to use a simplified energy model that allows to evaluate the four performance points A, B, C and D that are required to determine the SEERon of a product, then estimate additional electricity consumptions for the thermostat off mode and the standby mode and so deduce the SEER value from the SEERon value. Note : The off-mode period is not accounted here with the idea that they would most certainly be shut off by the managers, during winter periods for which no cooling is required. This also limits the number of crankcase hours. The difficulty is that because the SEER indicator is recent and currently introduced in the EU, there are often no available SEER values that allow the study team to check the results of its modelling. However, a majority of the design options correspond to existing product ranges for which European and American seasonal performance ratings have been reported :

- The study team has defined realistic ESEER values for all chiller design options. In numerous cases, IPLV values of the ranges that have been studied to determine ESEER levels are also available.

- Concerning split systems, SEER values have been reported in the DG ENER Lot 10 preparatory study for products with cooling capacities lower than 12 kW. As most split systems that fall within the scope of Lot 6 are very similar to these products, these values can be taken as reference.

- For VRF systems, the AHRI provides a directory within which the certified performance ratings of the products that respect the American MEPS and are put today on the market are reported. This directory has been updated in January 2012 (AHRI, 2012). Each product in the directory has been certified in terms of IEER, which is another American seasonal performance rating than the IPLV6.

The simplified models used by the study team to determine SEERon values of any design option are therefore calibrated so that they calculate ESEER, IPLV or IEER values that correspond to this design option. Chillers energy performance modelling For base-case chillers and most of the subsequent improved products, the simplified equations that are used to calculate the performance points of the seasonal performance indexes are those that have already been used to simulate the base-case products in Task 4. For each improved chiller and for the base-cases, the parameters of the energy model are initially adjusted so that the calculated ESEER corresponds to the value defined for the design option. An IPLV of the design option is also calculated with the same parameters and compared, when possible, with reported IPLV ratings of the corresponding existing products : this supplementary checking allows to be confident in the setting of the simplified model. As for the base-case, the full-load behaviour of the unit is in most cases fitted from the full-load performance data reported by manufacturers. This data has been taken by the study team from the technical documentation of the chiller ranges previously quoted in the technical description of improved chillers. Note that for some screw chiller options, the full-load data is not available. It is then derived from the one of the base-case or other design options for which a fit has been done. Whatever the case, the full-load modelling is then definitely adjusted with the EER value of the design option.

6 Please refer to Task 1 for more details

51

Part-load performance parameters, as described in Task 4, are then calibrated to calculate an ESEER value equal to the one defined for the design option. The IPLV calculation helps to define properly these parameters. For the improved water-cooled chillers equipped with centrifugal compressors, off-design full-load performance data is not available. Consequently, a different simplified performance model that does not separate the full-load behaviour and the part-load behaviour is designed from the fit of performance curves of water-cooled centrifugal compressors that are reported in a reference study (Yu & Chan, 2008). Eventually, to calculate the SEER of the improved products from their SEERon, it is necessary to evaluate the electricity consumptions of the thermostat-off and standby modes, the other modes being neglected. The same electrical power inputs are taken for both modes, as it is unlikely that the computer of the unit is switched-off during standby hours, and as the crankcase heater of the compressors must always be kept on. Table 6 -23 . Chillers : electrical power inputs for the thermostat off and the standby modes

Chillers base-cases and improved products : electrical power input of the additional modesfor the SEER calculation

Components Screw air-cooled chillers

Scroll air-cooled chillers

Centrifugal air-cooled chillers

Screw water-cooled chillers

Scroll water-cooled chillers

Centrifugal water-cooled chillers

Crankcase heater

0.3% * Pe (1 compressor)


None


0.7% * Pe (1

compressor) None

Computer and other electronics

400 W at 400 kW

cooling capacity

150 W

at 100 kW cooling capacity

400 W at 400 kW

cooling capacity

150 W


400 W

500 W at 1000 kW

cooling capacity

150 W


150 W at 100 kW

cooling capacity

500 W

VRF systems Part-load performance curves used for the energy modelling As explained in the revised version of Task 4, a part-load performance curve has been defined to model the performance of the outdoor unit of the base-case VRF system. According to stakeholders, this performance curve corresponds to what can be called “part-load control method 1”. When the part-load ratio decreases from 100% to 50%, it consists in disconnecting the indoor units by shutting off their electronic expansion valve. If the part-load ratio is less than 50%, no more indoor units are disconnected : it is then the refrigerant flow rate that is decreased throughout the indoor units that remain connected. Although this is never clearly stated, it seems that in the ARHI 1230 standard, VRFs with a cooling capacity greater than 19 kW (65000 Btu/h) are rated with a different part-load control method than control method 1. This “part-load control method 2” consists in keeping all the indoor units connected to the outdoor unit, whatever the part-load ratio, and making vary the refrigerant flow rate throughout the indoor units, depending on the part-load ratio. By comparison with control method 1 and for the same part-load ratio, this control method allows to increase the heat exchange efficiency at the level of each indoor unit. The total refrigerant flow rate that must be circulated within the whole VRF system is reduced, and so there is less work to be done by the compressors, which therefore consume less energy to handle the same cooling load.

52

Looking at the inputs from stakeholders, and as can be seen in the Task 5 report (see the corresponding figure), it seems that the shape of the part-load performance curve of control method 2 is the same as control method 1, but the slope is different. An easy simplified way to derive the curve of control method 2 from the one of control method 1 is to calibrate it so that the efficiency gain at a part-load ratio of 50% is 21% higher. As previously stated, the study team has taken into account the oil return mechanism to high pressure side improvement option (see Task 5 report), which improves the full-load and part-load performances of the unit. As for water-cooled centrifugal chillers, performance curves and figures from a reference study are fitted (Kim & al., 2010) and a simple mathematical relationship is defined to correct accordingly the initial part-load curves (control method 1 or 2). In the end, the 4 part-load performance curves that are used by the study team in Task 6 calculations are plotted on the same figure. Note that for the part-load curves that are corrected to take into account the improved oil-return mechanism, the ratio displayed on the figure is EERpl / EERfl (with standard

oil return mechanism), and not EERpl / EERfl (with improved oil return mechanism). This explains why the EER ratio at a part-load ratio of 100% is 1.06 rather than 1. This shows that for a part-load ratio between 100% and 50%, the gain in energy efficiency is only due to an increase in cooling capacity (because of a higher volumetric efficiency), whereas for part-load ratios below 50%, the additional efficiency gain comes from the absence of refrigerant bypass losses. Figure 6 -3 . VRF systems modelling : part-load performance curves

Note that there is no need to model the efficiency of the outdoor unit for part-load ratios lower than 15%, as none of the performance points A, B, C, D used to calculate seasonal performance indicators correspond to this operation range. Energy modelling of products charged with R-410A The following method is used for design options that correspond to products charged with R410A :

- The same model that has been used to simulate the base-case in Task 4 forms the basis of the calculation. As it is not possible to calculate other off-design full-load parameters for each design option, neither determine another simplified part-load performance curve, the same relative off design performances as for the base-case are kept, whatever the design option. The only change is the increase in EER, which affects the calculations.

53

- It is considered that the fans of the indoor units are operating full-time. For each performance point A, B, C or D of the calculated seasonal performance indicator, the nominal electrical power input of the indoor units is added to the electricity consumption of the outdoor unit.

- When calculating the IEER of the system, the part-load performance curve that corresponds to

control method 2 is used. Whether the oil return to high pressure improvement option is part of the modelled design option, this part-load performance curve is corrected as previously explained.

- When calculating the SEERon of the systems, it is now the part-load performance curve that

corresponds to control method 1 that is used and corrected, if necessary, to take into account the oil return to high pressure improvement option. The study team thinks that control method 1 corresponds better to what happens in a real case. By comparison with multi split systems, VRF systems deal better with various loads to be handled in different thermal zones at the same time. They are therefore often installed in buildings with important differences in thermal zones (for instance, a North-facing and a South-facing zones) : there is often a cooling load in one thermal zone, but none in another one. In this case, the expansion valve of the indoor unit(s) located in the thermal zone(s) with no cooling load is shut off, and so the indoor unit(s) is(are) “disconnected”, which corresponds rather to control method 1. Note as well that for part-load ratios lower than 50%, no more indoor units are disconnected, even for this control method : this is a very common case over a year, as the average part-load ratio of a cooling generator is generally around 30% to 40%.

IEER values in the AHRI 1230 certified products database The study team reports below efficiency ratings of the VRF systems from the database of the AHRI 1230 certification program. As a system can be rated with different types of indoor units (non-ducted, ducted, mix of non-ducted and ducted units), the systems that are of interest are systems with non-ducted indoor units. The study team displays only the IEER and EER values of these systems. The different colors correspond to different manufacturer product ranges. The study team reports on the same graph IEER and EER values of the improvement options it evaluates. As explained before, the IEER of these improvement design options are evaluated on the basis of control method 2, so that they can be compared with the values from the AHRI certification program. Figure 6 -4 . VRF systems : IEER vs EER

54

Impact of an increase in heat exchange surfaces on the refrigerant charge Increasing the surfaces of the heat exchanger of the outdoor unit and/or the indoor units affects the refrigerant charge of the system, for design options for which the EER increase is related to increases in heat exchanger surfaces. The study team uses a linear relationship that correlates the refrigerant charge with the EER. This is adapted from the Task 7 of DG ENER Lot 10 preparatory study (Rivière & al., 2008). Figure 6 -5 . VRF systems : correlation between the refrigerant charge and the EER, adapted from the analysis of split systems

Electrical power inputs for the thermostat off and the standby modes

55

On the basis of the data provided by stakeholders, the study team is able to distinguish the different electrical power inputs that lead to additional electricity consumptions during the hours corresponding to the thermostat off and the standby modes (new values for these hours being defined at the beginning of this report). It is considered that the fans of the indoor units do not stop working during the thermostat off hours : this mode correspond to a period during which the building is occupied but there is no cooling load to be handled by the VRF system. During these hours, the system must be able to measure the indoor air temperature. For doing so, temperature sensors are installed on each indoor unit : so that they can measure this temperature, the fans of the indoor units must keep on running so that the indoor air is circulated from the middle of the air-conditioned space throughout the indoor units.

56

Table 6 -24 . VRF systems : electrical power inputs for the thermostat off and the standby modes

VRF systems base-cases and improved products : electrical power inputs for the thermostat off and standby modes

SEER calculations Same values for all the improvement design options

Component Electrical power input Thermostat off Standby

Indoor unit fan power input 77 W per indoor unit

& 10 indoor units = 770 W

x -

Crankcase heater

60 W per compressor

Outdoor unit = combination of 2 lower capacity outdoor units

2 compressors per 1 low capacity

outdoor unit (~ 25 kW cooling)

60 x 2 combined outdoor units x 2 compressors per outdoor unit

= 240 W

x x

PCB (outdoor unit electronics)

11 W per 1 low capacity outdoor unit

11 x 2 combined outdoor units

= 22 W

x -

PCB (indoor unit electronics) 6 W per indoor unit & 10 indoor units

= 60 W x -

Communication between the indoor units and the outdoor unit

2.5 W (for 2 combined outdoor units) x -

Remote control / Display (computer screen of the controller) 4 W x x

Split systems Regarding split systems, an incremental method is used as for VRF. Each improved product is modelled in terms of EER. The EER evolves with increasing evaporating and decreasing condensing temperature and following typical compressor characteristic curves. Regarding seasonal calculations : - Part load are computed with simplified models as presented in Task 4, in which the part load

performance curve is supposed independent from the off design outdoor temperature performance curve. The minimum capacity stage gives the beginning of the cycling area.

- Off-design performances are the ones presented in Task 4. - The prEN14825 standard is used to compute the SEERon for the different climates and the hours

of the different modes are the ones presented in this task. Impact of an increase in heat exchange surfaces on the refrigerant charge As for VRF systems, increasing the surface of the heat exchanger of the outdoor unit and/or of the heat exchanger of the indoor units affects the refrigerant charge of the system. This increase in refrigerant charge must therefore be taken into account for design options for which the EER increase is related to increases in heat exchanger surfaces. The study team uses once again a linear relationship that correlates the refrigerant charge with the EER. It is similarly adapted from the Task 7 of DG ENER Lot 10 preparatory study (Rivière & al., 2008). Electrical power inputs for the thermostat off and the standby modes The electrical power inputs for the thermostat off and the standby modes are derived from the reference existing product that has been used to define the base-case in Task 4, from stakeholders’ inputs and from the DG ENTR Lot 10 preparatory study. As for VRF systems, it is considered that the

57

fan of the indoor unit keeps on working when the building is occupied, and so during the corresponding thermostat off hours. Table 6 -25 . Split systems : electrical power inputs for the thermostat off and the standby modes

Split systems improvement options : electrical power inputs for the thermostat off and standby modesSEER calculations

Same values for all the improvement design options Component Electrical power input Thermostat off Standby

Indoor unit fan power input 85 W x -

Crankcase heater 50 W for all the compression stage (1 or 2 compressors, depending on

the design option) x x

PCB (whole system electronics) 20 W x - Standby mode of the controller 1 W - x Energy modelling of products charged with alternative refrigerants Chillers The study team has looked for available data on existing alternative refrigerant chillers. Only one manufacturer publishes enough data in order the study team could use it to assess the energy consumption. It regards propane air-cooled chillers and ammonia water- cooled chillers. With the available data, it is only possible to make simplified assumptions to derive the energy performance of alternative refrigerants design options from the performance of the design options that are the most similar in terms of components and control method. These corresponding design options are ACC 400 I4, ACC 100 I4 and WCC 1000 I4. No data has been found on existing low cooling capacity water-cooled chillers charged with ammonia or other alternative refrigerants. Therefore, no improved product charged with an alternative refrigerant is considered in LCC calculations for 100 kW water-cooled chillers. Table 6 -26 . Chillers : alternative refrigerants design options – technical assumptions

Chillers : energy performance for alternative refrigerants design options Product EER evaluation ESEER SEER evaluationPropane

charged air-cooled chiller

(100 kW and

400 kW cooling capacity)

Not available

On average over the range :

4.4

ESEER (option ACC 400 I4) = 4.9

At 400 kW : 4.13 = 0.9 * SEER (option ACC 400 I4)

At 100 kW : 4.13

= SEER at 400 kW

Ammonia charged water-cooled chiller

(considered

only at 1000 kW)

On average over the ranges :

95% * EER (option WCC 1000 I4) = 5.23

Not available 7.47 = 0.95 * SEER (option WCC 1000 I4)

Air conditioners For air conditioners that are charged with natural refrigerants, the evaluation of their energy performance is done on the basis of data provided by stakeholders. The extent and precision of this data differs from a refrigerant to another. The VRF system charged with CO2 is the only air-to-air conditioner for which the study team has received detailed full-load and part-load performance data, which corresponds to an existing commercial model. The performance data is of the same nature as for R-410A charged outdoor units for which some manufacturers already provide performance data. While no IEER rating is available,

58

the study team is able to define a part-load performance curve that varies with the outdoor temperature. The following graph shows the results of the modelling, with the 4 performance points A, B, C, D evaluated for the SEERon determination. Figure 6 -6 . CO2 VRF system : Evaluation of the performance points A, B, C and D for the SEERon calculation

Note that the study team has been supplied by manufacturers with the results of a comparison made between 3.5 kW cooling capacity split systems, charged with different refrigerant types (R-410A and refrigerant alternatives). The products that are charged with alternative refrigerants are only slightly adapted from the initial product charged with R-410A, so these refrigerants are used as “drop-ins”. In this study, the CO2 charged product has an EER 30% lower than the EER of the R410A charged product, and a SEER that is 21% lower. By simulating with its model a CO2 charged VRF with an EER that is 30% lower than the base-case EER, the study team observes a very similar result. For all the other VRF systems and split systems that are taken into account, the study team relies only on generic efficiency figures. The two main information sources are :

- The previously quoted study that provides SEER and EER values for 3.5 kW cooling capacity split systems that have a similar size but are charged with different refrigerants.

- A comparison done by JRAIA from data provided by several manufacturers. This comparison is also an input of the revision of the preparatory study on the revision of the F-gas directive. Within this study, 14kW split systems and 20 kW VRF systems that use R-410A and a list of alternative refrigerants are compared, in particular in terms of product costs, refrigerant charge, refrigerant costs for identical or close levels of EER. No information is available on the seasonal performance of these products.

Taking the example of the design option that uses R-32, according to the first information source, a R-32 charged product that has an EER 10% greater than the EER of a product charged with R410A, has a SEER that is only 3% greater. It seems thus that the R32 charged product improves less its efficiency at part-load than the R410A charged product. As a first approximation, performance ratios of 10% and 3% are used to calculate the EER and SEER of the R-32VRF and the R-32split system from the EER and SEER of the base-case VRF and the base-case split system. The study team proceeds the same way for the other remaining alternative refrigerant options. The technical assumptions are made so that the study team is able to evaluate the corresponding

59

additional product costs with the data at its disposal (see next subchapter for the costs summary). The following table gives a summary of the assumptions made : Table 6 -27 . VRF and split systems : alternative refrigerants design options – technical assumptions

VRF systems and split systems : alternative refrigerants design options summary of the technical assumptions

Refrigerant EER SEER Relative charge (kg/kW) GWP

R-410A EERbase-case SEERbase-case 0.5 2088

CO2 (R-744) 0.8 * EERbase-case

VRF : calculated from the system

modelling

Split : 0.9 *

SEERbase-case 0.6 1

R-32 1.1 * EERbase-case 1.03 * SEERbase-case 0.44 675 R-1234yf EERbase-case SEERbase-case 0.61 4

6.2.2. EVALUATION OF THE COSTS OF THE IMPROVED PRODUCTS Chillers The only data that can allow to estimate directly the price of a full product are the price lists provided by some retailers. The issue is that each retailer applies its own overhead & profit margin that is always unknown. It is therefore very difficult to know the real manufacturer selling price of the product. What the study team chooses to do instead is then to evaluate the additional costs of an improved chiller with regards to the manufacturing costs of the base-case. This means that changes in costs are expressed as a percentage of the initial manufacturing costs of the base-cases, expressed as manufacturer selling prices. For instance, if the main technical changes on which an improved product relies is the increase in the surface of the heat exchangers that allows to reach a definite EER value (design options 1), it induces a X% increase in the costs of the base-case. However, the study team does not have a precise cost structure of component costs that could be used in parallel with the technical description of the improved chillers. As a matter of example, the study team does not know the precise cost of a flooded shell and tube heat exchanger and of a direct expansion heat exchanger that are installed in chillers with the same cooling capacity but a different EER. The remaining solution consists therefore in comparing relative prices (meaning euros per kW cooling) of several chiller ranges developed by the same manufacturer. The first information sources are price lists some retailers display on their websites. The assumption can be made that a retailer applies the same overhead & profit margin, in terms of % of the manufacturer selling price, to each chiller range of one manufacturer he sells. Then, dividing the relative prices of a range by the relative price of another range shows a disparity that is related to the differences in technological choices. The other information sources at the study team’s disposal are normalized relative cost data provided by stakeholders. In other terms, the study team can compare the relative costs of several chiller ranges that are normalized according to a scale that is unknown. For instance, a chiller of 400 kW has a normalized relative cost of 200, which does not correspond to 200 €/kW or any other known cost unit. But another chiller of 400 kW, for which the same manufacturer has opted for another type of heat exchanger or compressor, might have a normalized relative cost of 300. It is thus 50% more expensive, and this 50% additional cost can be related to a technological difference. This kind of analysis amounts in fact to do exactly the same kind of reasoning as with retailer price lists. In the end, the study team combines these two types of information sources to draw a plausible assessment of the changes in relative costs that can be attributed to an improved product.

60

VRF systems Concerning VRF systems, the study team does not have inputs from stakeholders on the prices of different products that could be compared in terms of design and so components sizing. The available price lists displayed by retailers can then only enable to see how relative costs evolve with the cooling capacity and the number of outdoor units that are combined to reach a higher cooling capacity, by comparison with the relative cost of the base-case. For a matter of illustration, the following figure reports normalized relative prices of several ranges of VRF system outdoor units sold by the same retailer : Figure 6 -7 . VRF systems : Comparison of normalized relative prices of several outdoor units ranges

Outdoor units of higher cooling capacity are always the combination of 2 or more lower capacity outdoor units sold by the same manufacturer. This implies that from a range to another, there is little variation in terms of relative costs, and consequently also in retailer prices. Each curve corresponds to a range. Curves that have exactly the same shape, one being “vertically translated” with regards to the other, are the same products sold with or without a heat recovery function. According to all the price lists at the team disposal, it can be said that adding a heat recovery function to a standard outdoor unit increases its cost by around 12%. A main conclusion is that from a product to another within a range or from a range to another, the differences in costs is of maximum 30%, but more generally lower than 20%. This is taken into consideration in the sensitivity analysis done in chapter 6.4, where the additional costs of the improved products by comparison with the base-case are increased by 50% in the worst case costs scenario, which seems to be coherent. Contrary to chillers, the study team defines for VRF systems a dedicated cost structure to assess the additional costs in system components that correspond to each single improvement design option listed in chapter 6.1. There is indeed less variability in system design, which simplifies the situation. Armines has done in the past costs analyses of separate air-to-water heat pump components in collaboration with manufacturers. Apart from a shorter refrigerant distribution piping network and a less sophisticated control system (for instance, more indoor unit valves, sensors and electronics are used for a VRF), these products are very similar in terms of components and manufacturing with the outdoor and indoor units of a VRF system.

61

The study team adapts therefore the cost structure of air-to-water heat pumps at its disposal to the outdoor and indoor units of VRF systems, by making several assumptions to take into account as soundly as possible the technological differences between these systems. Table 6 -28 . VRF systems : definition of the base-case cost structure

Base-case Outdoor unit50 kW cooling capacity

uncharged, the refrigerant cost is separate total costs = manufacturer selling price

Manufacturer selling price (€) from the corrected Task 4 report 9000

Component Material costs, as a percentage of total costs

Assembly costs, as a percentage of total costs

Compressors 10% 4.5% VFD of the variable-speed

compressor 10%

Refrigerant-to-air heat exchanger 13% 4.5% Condenser fans 5% 4.5% VSD of the condenser fans 6% 1% Casing 7% 2.5% Liquid receiver and crankcase heater 1.5% 1%

Electrical parts 5% 2.5% Electronics and controls 5% 1% Miscellaneous 7% 2.5%

Base-case Indoor unittotal costs = manufacturer selling price

Manufacturer selling price (1 unit) * number of indoor units (€)

from the corrected Task 4 report 6600

No component description because of less data

Material costs, as a percentage of total costs


Fixed costs (do not vary with the size of the unit)

10% encompass the electronic discharge valve, sensors, controls/electronics

50%

Variable costs (vary with the size of the unit)

40% encompass the heat exchanger, the

casing, the fan, the piping 0%

Other systems componentsfrom the corrected Task 4 report

Product Manufacturer selling price (€) Refrigerant distribution piping system 650

Accessories 1400 Remote control 550

Apart from alternative refrigerant options, the msp of the refrigerant distribution piping system does not vary with the improvement design options. The msp of accessories and the remote control are taken as constant, whatever the design option. For the outdoor unit and the indoor unit, the names in red correspond to the components whose absolute material costs and sometimes assembly costs (in €) change when a design option is evaluated with regards to the base-case. For instance, for the base-case, the material costs associated with the refrigerant-to-air heat exchanger of the outdoor unit represent 13% of the manufacturer selling price, and so 13% * 9000 = 1170 €. If the surface of this heat exchanger is increased by 50%, the new material costs of this component for the corresponding design option are then 150% * 1170 = 1755 €. The simple assumptions made about components costs increase are summarized in the next table : Table 6 -29 . VRF systems : main changes in costs, due to improvement design options

62

VRF system : changes in costs due to single improvement design options impact of EER increase on compressors costs is explained separately

Design option Modified components and cost types Cost increase

50% increase in the surface of the outdoor unit heat exchanger

Material costs of the refrigerant-to-air heat exchanger, the condenser fans, the casing, the liquid receiver

and the crankcase heater

+50%

100% increase in the surface of the outdoor unit heat exchanger Same as above +100%

20% increase in the surface of the indoor unit heat exchanger

Variable material costs of the indoor units +20%

40% increase in the surface of the indoor unit heat exchanger Same as above +40%

100% increase in the surface of the indoor unit heat exchanger Same as above +100%

Oil return mechanism to high pressure

Compressors material and assembly costs (assembly costs

are shared with the VFD) +50%

The study team has also estimated that compressor material costs decrease when the EER increases thanks to more important heat exchange surfaces. Higher EER means lower pressure ratio and higher volumetric cooling capacity for the same swept volume by the compressor. It is then considered that the material costs of compressors decrease linearly with an increase in EER. For an EER that is 50% higher than the EER of the base-case, the decrease in compressor material costs is 17.5%. For an EER that is 100% higher than the EER of the base-case, the decrease in compressor material costs is 35%. This is of course not taken into account for increases in EER that are due to the use of the oil return mechanism to high pressure (this case has already been dealt with in the previous table). For a design option that is composed of a greater outdoor unit heat exchange surface and an oil return mechanism to high pressure, the material costs of the compressors decrease because of the increase in heat exchange surface, but this is then offset by the costs associated with the necessary adaptation of the compressors to the mechanism, as well as the adding of a little oil recirculation pump. In the end, refrigerant charge costs are evaluated separately and added to the other costs of the system. The retailer overhead & profit margin of 20% that has been applied to the 5 product categories that constitute a VRF system is also applied to these costs. Table 6 -30 . VRF systems : refrigerant charge costs

VRF system : Refrigerant charge costsfrom (JRAIA, 2012)

Refrigerant type Refrigerant cost (€/kg)

costs of refrigerant refill during the life cycle of the system are neglected

R-410A 15 R-32 13

R-1234yf 60 CO2 (R-744) 4

Split systems For split systems, the cost structure is adapted from the cost structure of VRF systems. The separation between the outdoor unit, the indoor unit, the piping and the refrigerant charge is kept. The costs of accessories and the remote control are neglected. For the 50 kW cooling capacity base-case VRF, the cooling capacity of one indoor unit has been taken equal to 5 kW (see Task 4). The indoor unit of a 14 kW split system is then very similar to the indoor unit of a 50 kW VRF system, but is larger, because of the greater size of the heat exchanger that is required to ensure a higher cooling capacity. If one compares a production line of split system indoor

63

units to the production line of VRF system indoor units, the same time is roughly required to assemble one indoor unit. It can be thus considered that assembly costs weight less in the total costs of a split system indoor unit. This leads the study team to modify the simplified cost structure of the indoor unit for a split system : Table 6 -31 . Split systems : simplified cost structure of the indoor unit

Base-case split system : Simplified cost structure of the indoor unit total costs = manufacturer selling price

Manufacturer selling price 1500

No component description Material costs, as a percentage of total costs


Fixed costs (do not vary with the size of the unit)

13% encompass sensors, controls/electronics

33%

Variable costs (vary with the size of the unit)

54% encompass the heat exchanger, the

casing, the fan, the piping 0%

As for VRF systems, it is considered that increasing the surface of the heat exchanger of the outdoor unit or the indoor unit by X% leads to an additional cost of X% of the same components as quoted in the VRF cost structure. However, contrary to the VRF system, the study team models also technological changes related to the compression stage. Additional changes are thus made in the cost structure of the outdoor unit. For improved products I0 to I4, the compressor is resized by comparison with the base-case. From improved product I5 to I11, the resized scroll compressor is changed for 2 twin-rotary compressors. The additional costs of these incremental options are listed below : Table 6 -32 . Split systems : additional costs due to changes in the design of the compression stage

Base-case split system : additional costs due to changes in the design of the compression stage14 kW cooling capacity

Improvement option Increase in material costs Increase in assembly costs

Improved scroll compressor sizing

applied from base-case

+14% in base-case compressor cost -

2 twin-rotary compressors instead of 1 scroll compressor

applied from improved scroll

compressor sizing

+100% in compressor material costs

+13% in piping material costs +50% in liquid receiver + crankcase

heater material costs +20% in electrical material costs

+100% in compressors + VSD assembly costs

+13% in piping assembly costs +50% in liquid receiver + crankcase

heater assembly costs +20% in electrical assembly costs

Refrigerant costs are unchanged by comparison with the VRF system. For propane, which has not been envisaged for VRF systems, the considered cost is 5 €/kW. Alternative refrigerants Concerning chillers, there is only one information source at the study team’s disposal that contains an evaluation of additional costs of products charged with alternative refrigerant by comparison with products charged with HFCs. It is the Final Report of the preparatory study for the revision of the F-gas regulation (Öko-Recherche and partners, 2011). The issue is that the reported values are low by comparison with stakeholders’ says, and correspond probably to long-term trends that are difficult to verify. For the propane-charged air-cooled chiller and the ammonia-charged water-cooled chiller that are evaluated in terms of energy performance, the study team proposes a rough costs range of variation, for which the minimum costs value is adapted from (Öko-Recherche and partners, 2011). EER and SEER values come from the simplified energy modelling :

64

Table 6 -33 . Chillers : additional costs for the alternative refrigerant using products

Chillers : additional costs for alternative refrigerant using products Product EER SEER Additional costs

Propane-charged air-cooled chiller Not evaluated 4.13

+5 % to + 60% by comparison with

option ACC I4 Ammonia-charged water-

cooled chiller 5.23 7.47 +25% to +100%

by comparison with option WCC I4

Concerning air-to-air conditioners, because the most precise cost data at the study team’s disposal comes from JRAIA’s evaluation of alternative refrigerants, done within the frame of the revision of the F-gas regulation, the additional costs of alternative refrigerant using products are derived from this study. The same relative (%) additional costs are taken for VRF systems and split systems. Note that because of charge limitations related to safety issues, propane does not seem to be envisaged yet for VRF systems, apart from a model equipped with two circuits, in which case the outdoor unit operates as a chiller connected to a chilled water distribution circuit rather than a refrigerant distribution circuit. Table 6 -34 . VRF systems : changes in costs for alternative refrigerant design options

VRF systems and split systems : changes in costs for alternative refrigerant using products

from (JRAIA, 2012)

Design option Modified components and cost types Cost increase

CO2 (R-744) (EER = 80% EERbase-case)

Total costs of the oudoor unit, the indoor unit(s) and the piping +100%

R-32 (EER = 110% * EERbase-case)


R-1234yf (EER = EERbase-case)


Propane (R-290) (EER = EERbase-case)only split systems

Total costs of the oudoor unit, the indoor unit and the piping +60%

6.2.3. LCC RESULTS : AIR-COOLED AND WATER-COOLED CHILLERS Preliminary remarks Several costs scenarios and refrigerant scenarios (refrigerant charge + losses) are defined for the sensitivity analysis in chapter 6.4. Here, the LCC results that are displayed correspond to an average costs scenario and an average refrigerant scenario, which are called “costs scenario 1” and “refrigerant scenario 1” in the sensitivity analysis. The definition of the different scenarios is provided at the beginning of chapter 6.4. The calculations are based on the SEER of the improved products, calculated for the average prEN 14825 climate but with the new values of reference hours that have been defined at the beginning of this report. It is considered that the energy demand that must be handled by the products is their cooling capacity (400 kW for air-cooled chillers and 1000 kW for water-cooled chillers) times the reference equivalent hours at design capacity for the average climate, which amount to 600 hours. As in prEN 14825, the calculated energy demand is divided by the SEER of the improvement option to calculate the resulting annual electricity consumption of the product. The LCC cost structure is adapted from the one used in Task 4 (see chapter 4.4). It is therefore considered that the final total investment costs of one improved product correspond to the sum of bare product costs (manufacturer selling price) and bare labour costs, to which an overhead & profit margin of 20% made by the installer is added. Repair & maintenance costs, which do not have a significant impact on the analysis, are taken to 4% of the investment costs per year. The costs of the improved products are evaluated in terms of relative additional costs (+X%) with regards to the manufacturer selling price of the base-case.

65

Note : For the improvement options of water-cooled chillers, money savings related to the reduction of water consumption are neglected, as low when compared to the economic gains related to the reduction in electricity consumption. LCC results are displayed on one side on graphs, and on the other side in detailed tables that show all the calculation steps and the assumptions made to reach the results. The detailed tables are available at the end of each product category subchapter. This is also valid for LCC calculations of air conditioners. Within the tables, the main results are reported in bolded font or in blue colour (or both). The cell that contains the code of an improvement option and is displayed in blue corresponds to the LLCC (Least Life Cycle Costs). Concerning the graphs, LCC results are plotted by decreasing electricity consumption and by decreasing equivalent CO2 emissions. The green point always corresponds to the base-case. Red points correspond to products charged with alternative refrigerants. Similarly, brown points correspond to the versions “b” or “c” of improved products with alternative heat exchanger technologies that allow to reduce the refrigerant charge of the product. The blue points are the standard improvement options, which are ranked by increasing SEER in the electricity consumption graphs (the higher the SEER, the greater gain in electricity consumption). The ranking is of course not anymore the same for the CO2 emissions graphs. For all improvement options, the refrigerant charge of the chiller is indeed increased by oversizing the heat exchanger or opting for a flooded shell and tube evaporator instead of a direct expansion shell and tube evaporator. This second case has a very significant impact on the charge of the unit, and so its associated refrigerant losses. The alternative heat exchanger options lead to better results because of the decrease in refrigerant charge. The ranking of the options in terms of CO2 emissions can be found in the results table previously described. Air-cooled chillers Results of the energy performance calculations The results of the energy calculations done for all the options are displayed in the following tables. The ESEER values are the ones that have been defined for each option, then recalculated with the study team’s models for calibration purposes. IPLV values are not picked from catalogues. They are also calculation results. SEER values are also displayed for the other climates defined at the beginning of the report. They are used as inputs in chapter 6.4. Table 6 -35 . 400 kW air-cooled chillers improved products : results of the energy performance calculations

66

Table 6 -36 . 100 kW air-cooled chillers improved products : results of the energy performance calculations

Note : The more important decrease in performance between the SEERon and the SEER for ACC 100 I2 and ACC 100 I3 by comparison with ACC 100 I4 is due to the impact of the 4 crankcase heaters of the 4 scroll compressors in thermostat off and standy modes. Indeed, there is only one crankcase heater for ACC 100 I4 as the product is only equipped with one screw compressor. 400 kW air-cooled chillers : LCC analysis The improved product with the least life cycle costs is I5 (“a” or “b” = same LCC). It corresponds to an inverter-controlled screw chiller also equipped with a flooded evaporator, which has a SEER of 4.91. Although the investment costs of the BAT/Option I6 are particularly high, due to the use of centrifugal compressors and magnetic bearings, it also looks of interest to the client, because of a lower LCC over the 17 years period by comparison with the base-case. The propane (R-290) charged chiller has a LCC that is only 8% higher than the base-case, because of a relatively good SEER due to the use of inverter-driven screw compressors. When looking at CO2 emissions, the propane-charged chiller is the technology that leads to the highest savings, although at higher costs. Apart from this product, the best technological options are logically the versions “b” or “c” of the improved products I5 and I6, since they benefit from a high SEER and heat exchanger technologies that allow to reduce the refrigerant charge. Figure 6 -8 . 400 kW air-cooled chillers : results graphs of the LCC analysis – options ranked by decreasing electricity consumption or by decreasing TEWi

SEERon SEER SEERon SEER SEERon SEERACC 400 BC 2.72 3.68 3.58 4.13 4.00 3.56 3.50 3.76 4.09

ACC 400 I1 3.10 4.02 3.92 4.61 4.45 3.90 3.82 4.10 4.51ACC 400 I2 3.10 4.30 4.18 4.82 4.65 4.16 4.07 4.40 4.78ACC 400 I3 2.80 4.57 4.34 5.18 4.84 4.32 4.15 4.65 4.95

ACC 400 I4 2.80 4.76 4.58 5.29 5.04 4.51 4.38 4.90 5.26

ACC 400 I5 3.20 5.10 4.91 5.74 5.47 4.86 4.73 5.25 5.66

ACC 400 I6 3.45 5.70 5.56 6.39 6.18 5.37 5.27 5.80 6.43

ACC 400 R-290 - - 4.13 - - - - 4.40 4.90

400 kW air-cooled chillers : Results of the energy performance modellingaverage, cold and warm climates

Improvement option code EERAverage Climate Cold Climate Warm Climate

ESEER IPLV

SEERon SEER SEERon SEER SEERon SEERACC 100 BC 2.70 3.66 3.48 3.93 3.70 3.56 3.41 3.70 3.87

ACC 100 I1 2.70 3.96 3.76 4.45 4.15 3.83 3.66 4.10 4.33ACC 100 I2 3.10 4.30 4.07 4.85 4.51 4.06 3.86 4.40 4.86

ACC 100 I3 3.20 4.58 4.25 5.17 4.69 4.40 4.17 4.70 5.20ACC 100 I4 3.30 4.91 4.72 5.70 5.41 4.71 4.57 5.00 5.48

ACC 100 R-290 - - 4.13 - - - - 4.40 4.90

100 kW air-cooled chillers : Results of the energy performance modellingaverage, cold and warm climates


ESEER IPLV

67

BC

I1

R‐290

I2I3

I4I5 = LLCC

I6

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

105%

110%

115%

120%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%

LCC (improvem

ent o

ption) / LCC

(base‐case)

Gain in electricity consumption

400 kW air‐cooled chillers : LCC Analysis = f(Electricity consumption)average climate

BC

I2a I2b

I1

I3a

I5a = LLCC

I3b

I5b = LLCC

I6a

I5c

I4

I6b I6c

R‐290

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

105%

110%

115%

120%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%

LCC (improvem

ent o

ption) / LCC

(base‐case)

Gain in equivalent CO2 emissions

400 kW air‐cooled chillers : LCC Analysis = f(TEWI)average climate

68

Tabl

e 6

-37

. 400

kW

air-

cool

ed c

hille

rs: r

esul

ts o

f the

LC

C a

naly

sis

– op

tions

rank

ed b

y de

crea

sing

TEW

I

Characteristics

Unit

ACC

400

BCACC

400

I2a

ACC

400

I2b

ACC

400

I1ACC

400

I5a

ACC

400

I3a

ACC

400

I5b

ACC

400

I3b

ACC

400

I6a

ACC

400

I5c

ACC

400

I4ACC

400

I6b

ACC

400

I6c

ACC

400

R‐290

Pc (coo

ling capacity at d

esign po

int)

kW400

400

400

400

400

400

400

400

400

400

400

400

400

400

EER

‐2.72

3.1

3.1

3.1

3.2

2.8

3.2

2.8

3.45

3.2

2.8

3.45

3.45

‐Re

frigerant charge

kg100

160

145

110

165

80147

68176

132

100

158

143

80Re

lative

refrigerant charge

kg/kW

0.25

0.40

0.36

0.28

0.41

0.20

0.37

0.17

0.44

0.33

0.25

0.40

0.36

0.20

Pe (e

lectrical pow

er inpu

t at d

esign po

int)

kW147

129

129

129

125

143

125

143

116

125

143

116

116

‐SEER

‐3.58

4.18

4.18

3.92

4.91

4.34

4.91

4.34

5.56

4.91

4.58

5.56

5.56

4.13

EHU (Equ

ivalen

t Hou

rs of U

se at d

esign capacity)

h600

600

600

600

600

600

600

600

600

600

600

600

600

600

Electricity consum

ption

kWh/year

66 969

57 442

57 442

61 238

48 840

55 329

48 840

55 329

43 157

48 840

52 349

43 157

43 157

58 166

Electricity consum

ption over prod. life

MWh

1 138

977

977

1 041

830

941

830

941

734

830

890

734

734

989

Gain in electricity con

sumption

‐0%

14%

14%

9%27%

17%

27%

17%

36%

27%

22%

36%

36%

13%

PWF

years

17.0

17.0

17.0

17.0

17.0

17.0

17.0

17.0

17.0

17.0

17.0

17.0

17.0

17.0

Electricity rate

€ / kW

h0.12

0.12

0.12

0.12

0.12

0.12

0.12

0.12

0.12

0.12

0.12

0.12

0.12

0.12

Electricity costs over produ

ct life

k€136.6

117.2

117.2

124.9

99.6

112.9

99.6

112.9

88.0

99.6

106.8

88.0

88.0

118.7

Refrigerant leaks

kg/kg/year

3%3%

3%3%

3%3%

3%3%

3%3%

3%3%

3%3%

Refrigerant e

nd‐of‐life losses

kg/kg

20%

20%

20%

20%

20%

20%

20%

20%

20%

20%

20%

20%

20%

20%

Refrigerant losses over produ

ct life

kg71

114

103

78117

57104

48125

9471

112

102

57Re

frigerant type

‐R‐134a

R‐134a

R‐134a

R‐134a

R‐134a

R‐410A

R‐134a

R‐410A

R‐134a

R‐134a

R‐134a

R‐134a

R‐134a

R‐290

GWP

kg(CO2) equ

.1 430

1 430

1 430

1 430

1 430

2 088

1 430

2 088

1 430

1 430

1 430

1 430

1 430

3Direct e

mission

st(CO

2) equ

.102

162

147

112

168

119

149

101

179

134

102

160

145

0Co

nversion

factor kWh to GWP

kg(CO2) equ

./kW

h0.38

0.38

0.38

0.38

0.38

0.38

0.38

0.38

0.38

0.38

0.38

0.38

0.38

0.38

Indirect emission

st(CO

2) equ

.437

375

375

400

319

361

319

361

282

319

342

282

282

380

Total emission

st(CO

2) equ

.539

537

522

511

487

480

468

462

460

453

443

442

427

380

Direct e

mission

s / Total emission

s‐

19%

30%

28%

22%

34%

25%

32%

22%

39%

30%

23%

36%

34%

0%Gain in equ

ivalen

t CO2 em

ission

s‐

0%0%

3%5%

10%

11%

13%

14%

15%

16%

18%

18%

21%

29%

Relative

add

itional costs / base‐case costs

‐0%

11%

11%

8%19%

8%19%

10%

67%

21%

16%

67%

67%

74%

MSP

: chiller unit

€40 000

44 400

44 400

43 200

47 792

43 200

47 792

44 000

66 800

48 592

46 400

66 800

66 800

69 600

MSP

: control panel

€8 150

8 150

8 150

8 150

8 150

8 150

8 150

8 150

8 150

8 150

8 150

8 150

8 150

8 150

MSP

: sensors

€1 050

1 587

1 588

1 587

1 587

1 587

1 588

1 588

1 587

1 589

1 587

1 588

1 589

1 590

MSP

: total

€49 200

54 137

54 138

52 937

57 529

52 937

57 530

53 738

76 537

58 331

56 137

76 538

76 539

79 340

Prod

uct b

are costs

€49 200

54 137

54 138

52 937

57 529

52 937

57 530

53 738

76 537

58 331

56 137

76 538

76 539

79 340

Refrigerant costs

€1 000

1 600

1 450

1 100

1 652

1 200

1 472

1 020

1 760

1 322

1 000

1 580

1 430

320

Labo

ur bare costs

€6 900

6 900

6 900

6 900

6 900

6 900

6 900

6 900

6 900

6 900

6 900

6 900

6 900

6 900

Total bare costs

€57 100

62 637

62 488

60 937

66 080

61 037

65 901

61 658

85 197

66 552

64 037

85 018

84 869

86 560

Total + O & P

€68 520

75 164

74 985

73 124

79 296

73 244

79 082

73 989

102 236

79 863

76 844

102 021

101 842

103 872

Total + O & P, rou

nded

k€68.5

75.2

75.0

73.1

79.3

73.2

79.1

74.0

102.2

79.9

76.8

102.0

101.8

103.9

Increase in

investmen

t costs

‐0%

10%

9%7%

16%

7%15%

8%49%

17%

12%

49%

49%

52%

Repair & Mainten

ance costs

k€46.6

46.6

46.6

46.6

46.6

46.6

46.6

46.6

37.3

46.6

46.6

37.3

37.3

46.6

Total life cycle costs

k€251.7

239.0

238.8

244.6

225.5

232.7

225.3

233.5

227.5

226.1

230.2

227.3

227.1

269.1

Energy costs / to

tal life cycle costs

‐54%

49%

49%

51%

44%

49%

44%

48%

39%

44%

46%

39%

39%

44%

Simple payback time

years

‐5.9

5.7

6.7

5.0

3.4

4.9

3.9

8.5

5.2

4.7

8.5

8.4

33.5

LCC (design op

tion

) / LCC

(base‐case)

‐100%

95%

95%

97%

90%

92%

90%

93%

90%

90%

91%

90%

90%

107%

Investmen

t and

mainten

ance costs

TEWI analysis

Balance shee

t

Energy perform

ance and

electricity costs

69

100 kW air-cooled chillers : LCC analysis The improved product with the least life cycle costs is I4, which is an inverter-driven screw compressor. However, it corresponds to a BAT/BNAT level. On the basis of technical discussions with stakeholders, the study team thinks it would require several years before low cooling capacity inverter-driven screw compressors can be mass-produced and become economically interesting. There is also uncertainty on the additional costs of such a product by comparison with the base-case : increasing the additional costs of I4 by 50% makes I3 the product with the least life cycle costs. It would be therefore biased to take this improved product as reference for SEER MEPS considerations The study team suggests therefore to take the improved product I3 (“a” or “b” = same LCC, apart from a slight difference in refrigerant bare costs due to the lower charged of I3b) as reference. It corresponds to a R-410A charged chiller equipped with 4 identical scroll compressors evenly split between two identical parallel circuits, and VSD driven condenser fans equipped with EC motors. One can see that the payback period is of 8 years by comparison with the base-case, whereas it is of around 5 years at LLCC level for 400 kW air-cooled chillers : the room for energy efficiency improvement is narrower by comparison with larger cooling capacity air-cooled chillers, partly because there are no heat exchanger technologies such as flooded shell and tube heat exchangers to reach higher energy efficiency levels at limited additional costs. Once R-407C is changed for R-410A, the remaining improvement options are part-load efficiency enhancement technological choices, which are costlier. The propane (R-290) charged chiller has a LCC that is 16% higher than for the base-case, which is significant. Although the SEER is relatively good, this is due to the use of an inverter-driven screw compressor specifically developed to operate with propane, which is very costly and even more at 100 kW than at 400 kW. Note however that the additional costs of this product are particularly uncertain, due to a lack of available data. When looking at CO2 emissions, the propane-charged chiller is the technology that leads to the highest savings, although at higher costs. Apart from this product, the best technological options are logically the versions “b” of the improved products I3 and I4, since they benefit from a high SEER and heat exchanger technologies that allow to reduce the refrigerant charge. Figure 6 -9 . 100 kW air-cooled chillers : results graphs of the LCC analysis – options ranked by decreasing electricity consumption or by decreasing TEWi

70

BC

I1

R‐290

I2

I3 = retainedLCC reference

I4 = LLCC = BAT/BNAT

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

105%

110%

115%

120%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%

LCC (improvem

ent o

ption) / LCC

(base‐case)


100 kW air‐cooled chillers : LCC Analysis = f(Electricity consumption)average climate

BC

I1I2

I3a = retained LCC reference I3b = retained LCC

reference

I4a = LLCC = BAT/BNAT

I4b = LLCC = BAT/BNAT

R‐290

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

105%

110%

115%

120%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%

LCC (improvem

ent o

ption) / LCC

(base‐case)


100 kW air‐cooled chillers : LCC Analysis = f(TEWI)average climate

71

Tabl

e 6

-38

. 100

kW

air-

cool

ed c

hille

rs: r

esul

ts o

f the

LC

C a

naly

sis

– op

tions

rank

ed b

y de

crea

sing

TEW

I

Characteristics

Unit

ACC

100 BC

ACC

100 I1

ACC

100 I2

ACC

100 I3a

ACC

100 I3b

ACC

100 I4a

ACC

100 I4b

ACC

100 R‐290

Pc (coo

ling capacity at d

esign po

int)

kW100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

EER

‐2.7

2.7

3.1

3.2

3.2

3.3

3.3

‐Re

frigerant charge

kg27

1820

2118

3027

20Re

lative

refrigerant charge

kg/kW

0.27

0.18

0.20

0.21

0.18

0.30

0.27

0.20

Pe (e

lectrical pow

er inpu

t at d

esign po

int)

kW37

3732

3131

3030

‐SEER

‐3.48

3.76

4.07

4.25

4.25

4.72

4.72

4.13

EHU (Equ

ivalen

t Hou

rs of U

se at d

esign capacity)

h600

600

600

600

600

600

600

600

Electricity consum

ption

kWh/year

17 233

15 967

14 725

14 126

14 126

12 709

12 709

14 528

Electricity consum


MWh

258

240

221

212

212

191

191

218


sumption

‐0%

7%15%

18%

18%

26%

26%

16%

PWF

years

15.0

15.0

15.0

15.0

15.0

15.0

15.0

15.0

Electricity rate

€/ kW

h0.14

0.14

0.14

0.14

0.14

0.14

0.14

0.14


ct life

k€36.2

33.5

30.9

29.7

29.7

26.7

26.7

30.5

Refrigerant leaks

kg/kg/year

3%3%

3%3%

3%3%

3%3%

Refrigerant e


kg/kg

20%

20%

20%

20%

20%

20%

20%

20%


ct life

kg18

1213

1412

2018

13Re

frigerant type

‐R‐407C

R‐410A

R‐410A

R‐410A

R‐410A

R‐134a

R‐134a

R‐290

GWP

kg(CO2) equ

.1 774

2 088

2 088

2 088

2 088

1 430

1 431

3Direct e

mission

st(CO

2) equ

.31

2427

2924

2825

0Co

nversion

factor kWh to GWP

kg(CO2) equ

./kW

h0.38

0.38

0.38

0.38

0.38

0.38

0.38

0.38

Indirect emission

st(CO

2) equ

.99

9285

8181

7373

84Total emission

st(CO

2) equ

.130

116

112

110

106

101

9884

Direct e

mission

s / Total emission

s‐

24%

21%

24%

26%

23%

28%

26%

0%Gain in equ

ivalen

t CO2 em

ission

s‐

0%11%

14%

16%

19%

22%

25%

36%

Relative

add


‐0%

5%15%

20%

20%

35%

35%

103%

MSP

: chiller unit

€14 000

14 700

16 100

16 800

16 800

18 900

18 900

28 350

MSP

: control panel

€2 900

2 900

2 900

2 900

2 900

2 900

2 900

2 900

MSP

: sensors

€400

400

400

400

400

400

400

400

MSP

: total

€17 300

18 000

19 400

20 100

20 100

22 200

22 200

31 650

Prod

uct b

are costs

€17 300

18 000

19 400

20 100

20 100

22 200

22 200

31 650

Refrigerant costs

€405

270

300

315

270

300

270

100

Labo

ur bare costs

€3 200

3 200

3 200

3 200

3 200

3 200

3 200

3 200

Total bare costs

€20 905

21 470

22 900

23 615

23 570

25 700

25 670

34 950

Total + O & P

€25 086

25 764

27 480

28 338

28 284

30 840

30 804

41 940

Total + O & P, rou

nded

k€25.1

25.8

27.5

28.3

28.3

30.8

30.8

41.9

Increase in

investmen

t costs

‐0%

3%10%

13%

13%

23%

23%

67%

Repair & Mainten

ance costs

k€15.1

15.1

15.1

15.1

15.1

15.1

15.1

15.1


k€76.3

74.4

73.5

73.0

73.0

72.5

72.5

87.5

Energy costs / to


‐47%

45%

42%

41%

41%

37%

37%

35%

Simple payback time

years

‐4.0

6.8

7.4

7.4

9.0

9.0

44.4

LCC (design op

tion

) / LCC

(base‐case)

‐100%

97%

96%

96%

96%

95%

95%

115%

Energy perform

ance and

electricity costs

TEWI analysis

Investmen

t and

mainten

ance costs

Balance shee

t

72

Water-cooled chillers Results of the energy performance calculations The same remarks as for air-cooled chillers apply here. Table 6 -39 . Water-cooled chillers improved products : results of the energy performance calculations

1000 kW water-cooled chillers : LCC analysis The improvemed product with the least life cycle costs is I4 (“a” or “b” = same LCC). As for air-cooled chillers, it corresponds to an inverter-controlled screw chiller also equipped with a flooded evaporator, which has a SEER of 7.77. Interestingly, it seems that options 3 and 5, which are inverter-driven centrifugal chillers that use standard roll bearings and a gear drive are not of interest. They are particularly expensive, and do not allow to reach energy performance levels sufficiently high to justify the investment. However, it must be kept in mind that LCC calculations are based on only 600 equivalent hours at design capacity, which corresponds to a comfort application. Whether process cooling is required, the equivalent hours can reach values higher than 2000 hours (when combined with the comfort application), which can make these technologies more attractive. The BAT (option I7) has a lower LCC than the base-case, but the economic gain looks lower than for air-cooled chillers. This is because the relative costs of centrifugal compressors in the total costs of the product are higher for water-cooled chillers than for air-cooled chillers. In an air-cooled chiller, the condenser heat exchanger with its fans and controls is indeed more expensive than a shell and tube condenser. The ammonia (R-717) charged chiller has a LCC that is only 4% higher than the base-case. As for the propane charged air-cooled chiller, this is due to a good SEER because of an inverter control (here in combination with reciprocating compressors on the commercial product).

SEERon SEER SEERon SEER SEERon SEERWCC 1000 BC 4.77 5.63 5.51 6.37 6.21 5.52 5.38 5.72 6.11

WCC 1000 I1 5.60 6.58 6.45 7.45 7.26 6.46 6.31 6.70 7.15

WCC 1000 I2 6.00 7.34 7.18 8.21 7.98 7.16 6.98 7.40 7.88

WCC 1000 I3 6.00 7.59 7.41 9.38 9.12 7.46 7.27 7.85 9.20

WCC 1000 I4 5.50 7.97 7.77 9.01 8.72 7.62 7.48 8.00 8.39

WCC 1000 I5 6.30 7.92 7.82 9.81 9.61 7.80 7.68 8.20 9.62

WCC 1000 I6 6.40 8.90 8.77 10.92 10.67 8.66 8.51 9.20 10.57

WCC 1000 I7 6.70 9.30 9.16 11.41 11.14 9.05 8.89 9.61 11.04

WCC 1000 R-717 5.23 - 7.38 - - - - - -

1000 kW water-cooled chillers : Results of the energy performance modellingaverage, cold and warm climates


IPLVESEER

SEERon SEER SEERon SEER SEERon SEERWCC 100 BC 4.40 5.09 4.83 5.82 5.44 5.01 4.73 5.20 5.64WCC 100 I1 4.40 5.67 5.35 6.41 5.95 5.54 5.19 5.80 6.23

WCC 100 I2 4.40 6.18 5.80 7.19 6.64 6.00 5.41 6.40 6.95

WCC 100 I3 4.40 6.43 6.03 7.49 6.90 6.20 5.89 6.60 7.06WCC 100 I4 4.60 6.77 6.33 7.86 7.23 6.51 6.17 6.90 7.38

100 kW water-cooled chillers : Results of the energy performance modellingaverage, cold and warm climates


ESEER IPLV

73

When looking at CO2 emissions, the ammonia-charged chiller is then the technology that leads to the highest savings, still at higher costs. Apart from this product, the best technological options in terms of TEWI are once again the versions “b” or “c” of the improved products with the highest SEER, since they benefit from the falling film evaporator that allows to reduce the refrigerant charge. Without it, option I2 (I2a) looks unattractive, as it leads to a higher TEWI : the flooded shell and tube evaporator increases significantly the refrigerant charge, and the SEER is not sufficiently high to compensate this impact.

74

Figure 6 -10 . 1000 kW water-cooled chillers : results graphs of the LCC analysis – options ranked by decreasing electricity consumption or by decreasing TEWI

BC

I1

I2

R‐717

I3

I4 = LLCC

I5

I6

I7

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

105%

110%

115%

120%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%

LCC (im

provem

ent o

ption) / LCC

(base‐case)


1000 kW water‐cooled chillers : LCC Analysis = f(Electricity consumption)average climate

I2a

BC

I2b

I5

I1

I3

I4a = LLCC

I7a

I4b = LLCC

I7b

I6a I6b

R‐717

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

105%

110%

115%

120%

‐10% ‐5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%

LCC (improvem

ent o

ption) / LCC

(base‐case)


1000 kW water‐cooled chillers : LCC Analysis = f(TEWI)average climate

75

Tabl

e 6

-40

. 100

0 kW

wat

er-c

oole

d ch

iller

s : r

esul

ts ta

ble

of th

e LC

C a

naly

sis

– op

tions

rank

ed b

y de

crea

sing

TEW

I

Ch

aracteristics

Unit

Base‐Case

WCC

1000

I2a

WCC

1000

I2b

WCC

1000

BCWCC

1000

I5WCC

1000

I1WCC

1000

I3WCC

1000

I4a

WCC

1000

I7a

WCC

1000

I4b

WCC

1000

I7b

WCC

1000

I6a

WCC

1000

I6b

WCC

1000

R‐717

Pc (coo

ling capacity at d

esign po

int)

kW900

1000

1000

1000

1000

1000

1000

1000

1000

1000

1000

1000

1000

1000

EER

‐4.77

6.00

6.00

4.77

6.30

5.60

6.00

5.50

6.70

5.50

6.70

6.40

6.40

5.23

Refrigerant charge

kg180

416

369

200

390

260

320

320

390

284

354

320

284

50Re

lative

refrigerant charge

kg/kW

0.20

0.42

0.37

0.20

0.39

0.26

0.32

0.32

0.39

0.28

0.35

0.32

0.28

0.05

Pe (e

lectrical pow

er inpu

t at d

esign po

int)

kW189

167

167

210

159

179

167

182

149

182

149

156

156

191

SEER

‐5.51

7.18

7.18

5.51

7.82

6.45

7.41

7.77

9.16

7.77

9.16

8.77

8.77

7.38

EHU (Equ

ivalen

t Hou

rs of U

se at d

esign capacity)

h600

600

600

600

600

600

600

600

600

600

600

600

600

600

Electricity consum

ption, ann

ual

kWh/year

98 076

83 527

83 527

108 974

76 732

93 078

80 927

77 212

65 517

77 212

65 517

68 404

68 404

81 276

Electricity consum

ption, over p

rodu

ct life

MWh

1 667 295

1 420

1 420

1 853

1 304

1 582

1 376

1 313

1 114

1 313

1 114

1 163

1 163

1 382


sumption

‐0

23%

23%

0%30%

15%

26%

29%

40%

29%

40%

37%

37%

25%

PWF

years

17.0

17.0

17.0

17.0

17.0

17.0

17.0

17.0

17.0

17.0

17.0

17.0

17.0

17.0

Electricity rate

€ / kW

h0.100

0.10

0.10

0.10

0.10

0.10

0.10

0.10

0.10

0.10

0.10

0.10

0.10

0.10


ct life

k€166 729

142.0

142.0

185.3

130.4

158.2

137.6

131.3

111.4

131.3

111.4

116.3

116.3

138.2

Refrigerant leaks

kg/kg/year

3%3%

3%3%

3%3%

3%3%

3%3%

3%3%

3%3%

Refrigerant e


kg/kg

17.5%

20%

20%

20%

20%

20%

20%

20%

20%

20%

20%

20%

20%

20%


ct life

kg123

295

262

142

277

185

227

227

277

202

251

227

202

36Re

frigerant type

‐R‐134a

R‐134a

R‐134a

R‐134a

R‐134a

R‐134a

R‐134a

R‐134a

R‐134a

R‐134a

R‐134a

R‐134a

NH3

GWP

kg(CO2) equ

.1300

1420

1420

1420

1420

1420

1420

1420

1420

1420

1420

1420

1420

0Direct e

mission

st(CO

2) equ

.160 290

419

372

202

393

262

323

323

393

286

357

323

286

0Co

nversion

factor kWh to GWP

kg(CO2) equ

./kW

h0.38

0.38

0.38

0.38

0.38

0.38

0.38

0.38

0.38

0.38

0.38

0.38

0.38

0.38

Indirect emission

st(CO

2) equ

.640 241

545

545

711

501

608

528

504

428

504

428

447

447

531

Total emission

st(CO

2) equ

.801

965

917

913

894

870

851

827

821

790

785

769

733

531

Direct e

mission

s / Total emission

s‐

43%

41%

22%

44%

30%

38%

39%

48%

36%

45%

42%

39%

0%Gain in equ

ivalen

t CO2 em

ission

s‐

‐6%

0%0%

2%5%

7%9%

10%

13%

14%

16%

20%

42%

Relative

add


‐0%

13%

13%

0%92%

10%

73%

20%

103%

20%

103%

84%

84%

80%

MSP

: chiller unit

€63 000

75 333

75 333

66 667

127 867

73 333

115 333

80 000

135 467

80 000

135 467

122 933

122 933

120 000

MSP

: control panel

€12 833

12 833

12 833

12 833

12 833

12 833

12 833

12 833

12 833

12 833

12 833

12 833

12 833

12 833

MSP

: sensors

€1 587

1 587

1 588

1 587

1 587

1 587

1 587

1 587

1 587

1 588

1 588

1 587

1 588

1 589

MSP

: total

€77 420

89 753

89 754

81 087

142 287

87 753

129 753

94 420

149 887

94 421

149 888

137 353

137 354

134 422

Prod

uct b

are costs

€77 420

89 753

89 754

81 087

142 287

87 753

129 753

94 420

149 887

94 421

149 888

137 353

137 354

134 422

Refrigerant costs

€1 800

4 160

3 692

2 000

3 900

2 600

3 200

3 200

3 900

2 840

3 540

3 200

2 840

100

Labo

ur bare costs

€10 751

11 260

11 260

11 260

11 260

11 260

11 260

11 260

11 260

11 260

11 260

11 260

11 260

11 260

Total bare costs

€89 971

105 173

104 706

94 346

157 446

101 613

144 213

108 880

165 046

108 521

164 687

151 813

151 454

145 782

Total + Overhead & Profit

€107 965

126 208

125 647

113 216

188 936

121 936

173 056

130 656

198 056

130 225

197 625

182 176

181 745

174 938

Total + Overhead & Profit, ro

unde

dk€

108 000

126.2

125.6

113.2

188.9

121.9

173.1

130.7

198.1

130.2

197.6

182.2

181.7

174.9

Increase in

investmen

t costs

‐11%

11%

0%67%

8%53%

15%

75%

15%

75%

61%

61%

55%

Repair & Mainten

ance costs

k€73 440

73.4

73.4

73.4

73.4

73.4

73.4

73.4

58.8

73.4

58.8

58.8

58.8

73.4


k€348 169

341.6

341.0

371.9

392.8

353.6

384.1

335.4

368.2

334.9

367.7

357.2

356.7

386.5

Energy costs / to


‐47.9%

42%

42%

50%

33%

45%

36%

39%

30%

39%

30%

33%

33%

36%

Simple payback time

years

5.1

4.9

‐23.5

5.5

21.4

5.5

16.2

5.4

16.0

13.4

13.3

22.3

LCC (design op

tion

) / LCC

(base‐case)

‐92%

92%

100%

106%

95%

103%

90%

99%

90%

99%

96%

96%

104%

TEWI analysis

Investmen

t and

mainten

ance costs

Balance shee

t

Energy perform

ance and

electricity costs

76

100 kW water-cooled chillers : LCC analysis The improved product with the least life cycle costs is I2. However, one can see that the difference in LCC is small between I2 and I3. Products that correspond to I3 are not currently sold by manufacturers as there is no incentive for high energy efficiency levels in this product category. However, they can already be manufactured, as inverter-driven scroll compressors are available for lower cooling capacity chillers. The study team proposes therefore to take I3 as the reference for further SEER MEPS discussions in Task 7. As a reminder, its SEER is of 6.03, thanks to the combination of an inverter-driven scroll compressor and a fixed speed scroll compressor, as well as a proper sizing of the heat exchangers and the compressors. The payback period is of 8 years, which is the same as for the chosen LCC reference for 100 kW air-cooled chillers. There are few differences in the rankings by decreasing electricity consumption and by decreasing TEWI. This is due to the fact that the base-case and all the improved products are equipped with a brazed plate evaporator and a brazed plate condenser that allow to operate with low refrigerant charges. Although there are differences in refrigerant charges (depending it the product is charged with R-407C, R-410A or R-134a), they are not sufficiently important so that the rankings become affected once shifting from electricity consumption to TEWI. Figure 6 -11 . 100 kW water-cooled chillers : results graphs of the LCC analysis – options ranked by decreasing electricity consumption or by decreasing TEWI

BC

I1

I3 = retained LCCreference

I2= LLCC

I4

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

105%

110%

115%

120%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%

LCC (improvem

ent o

ption) / LCC

(base‐case)


100 kW water‐cooled chillers : LCC Analysis = f(Electricity consumption)average climate

77

BC

I1

I2 = LLCC I3 = retained LCC reference

I4

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

105%

110%

115%

120%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%

LCC (improvem

ent o

ption) / LCC

(base‐case)


100 kW water‐cooled chillers : LCC Analysis = f(TEWI)average climate

78

Tabl

e 6

-41

. 100

kW

wat

er-c

oole

d ch

iller

s : r

esul

ts ta

ble

of th

e LC

C a

naly

sis

– op

tions

rank

ed b

y de

crea

sing

TEW

I

Characteristics

Unit

WCC

100 BC

WCC

100 I1

WCC

100 I2

WCC

100 I3

WCC

100 I4

Pc (coo

ling capacity at d

esign po

int)

kW100

100

100

100

100

EER

‐4.4

4.4

4.4

4.4

4.6

Refrigerant charge

kg15

910

1014

Relative

refrigerant charge

kg/kW

0.15

0.09

0.10

0.10

0.14

Pe (e

lectrical pow

er inpu

t at d

esign po

int)

kW23

2323

2322

SEER

‐4.83

5.35

5.80

6.03

6.33

EHU (Equ

ivalen

t Hou

rs of U

se at d

esign capacity)

h600

600

600

600

600

Electricity consum

ption

kWh/year

12 420

11 219

10 342

9 955

9 478

Electricity consum


MWh

186

168

155

149

142


sumption

‐0%

10%

17%

20%

24%

PWF

years

15.0

15.0

15.0

15.0

15.0

Electricity rate

€/ kW

h0.14

0.14

0.14

0.14

0.14


ct life

k€26.1

23.6

21.7

20.9

19.9

Refrigerant leaks

kg/kg/year

3%3%

3%3%

3%Re

frigerant e


kg/kg

20%

20%

20%

20%

20%


ct life

kg10

67

79

Refrigerant type

‐R‐407C

R‐410A

R‐410A

R‐410A

R‐134a

GWP

kg(CO2) equ

.1 774

2 088

2 088

2 088

1 430

Direct e

mission

st(CO

2) equ

.17

1214

1413

Conversion

factor kWh to GWP

kg(CO2) equ

./kW

h0.38

0.38

0.38

0.38

0.38

Indirect emission

st(CO

2) equ

.72

6560

5755

Total emission

st(CO

2) equ

.89

7773

7168

Direct e

mission

s / Total emission

s‐

19%

16%

19%

19%

20%

Gain in equ

ivalen

t CO2 em

ission

s‐

0%14%

18%

20%

24%

Relative

add


‐0%

5%12%

23%

40%

MSP

: chiller unit

€10 000

10 500

11 200

12 320

14 000

MSP

: control panel

€2 000

2 000

2 000

2 000

2 000

MSP

: sensors

€300

300

300

300

300

MSP

: total

€12 300

12 800

13 500

14 620

16 300

Prod

uct b

are costs

€12 300

12 800

13 500

14 620

16 300

Refrigerant costs

€225

135

150

150

143

Labo

ur bare costs

€5 000

5 000

5 000

5 000

5 000

Total bare costs

€17 525

17 935

18 650

19 770

21 443

Total + O & P

€21 030

21 522

22 380

23 724

25 731

Total + O & P, rou

nded

k€21.0

21.5

22.4

23.7

25.7

Increase in

investmen

t costs

‐0%

2%7%

13%

22%

Repair & Mainten

ance costs

k€12.6

12.6

12.6

12.6

12.6


k€59.7

57.7

56.7

57.2

58.2

Energy costs / to


‐44%

41%

38%

37%

34%

Simple payback time

years

‐3.0

4.8

7.8

11.4

LCC (design op

tion

) / LCC

(base‐case)

‐100%

97%

95%

96%

98%

Energy perform

ance and

electricity costs

TEWI analysis

Investmen

t and

mainten

ance costs

Balance shee

t

79

6.2.4. LCC RESULTS : AIR CONDITIONERS (VRF, SPLIT, ROOFTOP) Preliminary remarks The results structure is the same for air conditioners than for chillers. Green points and values correspond to the base-case, red ones to alternative refrigerant options, blue ones to standard improvement options and brown ones to versions of the options with a microchannel heat exchanger. The main difference is that because most air conditioners are reversible, it is necessary to give a picture of their LCC by evaluating also the heating function. The rationale behind this point is also that the technological improvement options that lead to lower electricity consumptions in cooling mode may allow also to reduce the electricity consumptions in heating mode, and vice versa. The study team has not implemented any improvement option that would be specific to one mode or the other. The heating function of Lot 6 air conditioners is evaluated in more details in the preparatory of DG ENER Lot 21. For the purpose of the present report, the study team uses the results of the preparatory study of DG ENTR Lot 10 to define a function that enables to derive a SCOP from the knowledge of the SEER. This correlation is established for Lot 10 products, but the new normative hours defined at the beginning of the report for the update of prEN 14825 are taken into account to do proper estimations of the cooling mode efficiency ; they are unchanged in heating mode. The following graph displays the obtained relationship : Figure 6 -12 . Lot 6 air conditioners : Evaluation of the SCOP from the knowledge of the SEER

VRF systems Results of the energy performance calculations The EER and SEER data computed include a correction coefficient for increased piping length with the capacity of the unit. The EER used here is 0.95 times the measured EER of the base case and this correction applies also to the SEER values. The same correction value is used as in the AHRI 1230 standard.

80

A first main remark is that the impact of the additional thermostat off and standby modes on the seasonal efficiency of the VRF systems is clearly more critical than for chillers. This is mostly due to the indoor fans that keep on working during thermostat off hours, but also to the important consumptions related to electronics and controls. Because of different hours of thermostat off and standby modes for the different climates, as well as low differences between the average climate and the warm climate, SEER values are also higher for the warm climate than for the average climate. Note as well that the differences in SEER between the average climate and the cold climate are lower than for chillers, again because of the greater impact on the seasonal efficiency of the thermostat off and the standby modes of VRF systems. Therefore, the impact of the climate on the seasonal efficiency of the products is going to be of negligible importance in the sensitivity analysis by comparison with the changes in numbers of equivalent hours between the three climates. It can also be seen in the figure below the effect of the part load control used for measurement on the SEERon and SEER values ; under part load control 2 (all units connected) the SEER value increases by about 10 % for the average climate and the SEERon by about 13 %. Another remark is that there is a great uncertainty concerning SCOP values of products charged with alternative refrigerants. The same correlation between SCOP and SEER values as for R-410A charged products is kept here, which probably induces some bias. Table 6 - 42 . VRF systems improved products : results of the energy performance calculations

LCC analysis For a quick comparison of cooling only and reversible products as well as differences between energy and TEWI analyses, the four corresponding LCC results graphs and the results table are provided at the end of this subchapter. Cooling only case – Results graph : ranking by decreasing electricity consumption When only the cooling mode is taken into account for LCC calculations, the results graph appears to be very “flat” for conventional improvement options (other than alternative refrigerants), which means that the simple payback time of the different improvement options is always very close to the 15 years product life of the VRF system. Looking at the results, it is meaningless to define a LLCC, since all conventional options lead to the same LCC.

SEERon SEER SCOP SEERon SEER SEERon SEER SEERon SEERVRF BC 3.43 3.11 3.93 3.53 3.10 4.30 3.73 3.91 3.60 4.52 4.00 4.92

VRF I1 3.60 3.25 4.09 3.66 3.16 4.48 3.86 4.08 3.73 4.70 4.14 5.13

VRF I2 3.64 3.28 4.21 3.76 3.21 4.62 3.97 4.18 3.81 4.84 4.24 5.24

VRF I3 3.83 3.45 4.31 3.83 3.24 4.71 4.04 4.30 3.92 4.95 4.33 5.41

VRF I4 3.82 3.43 4.39 3.89 3.27 4.81 4.11 4.35 3.96 5.03 4.39 5.46VRF I5 4.01 3.60 4.47 3.96 3.31 4.90 4.17 4.47 4.06 5.13 4.47 5.62

VRF I6 4.15 3.72 4.60 4.06 3.36 5.03 4.27 4.59 4.15 5.27 4.58 5.79

VRF I7 4.06 3.64 4.62 4.07 3.36 5.05 4.29 4.60 4.17 5.29 4.58 5.76

VRF I8 4.25 3.80 4.79 4.21 3.43 5.24 4.42 4.77 4.30 5.48 4.73 5.98

VRF I9 4.40 3.92 4.93 4.31 3.48 5.39 4.53 4.90 4.41 5.63 4.84 6.16

VRF I10 4.55 4.06 4.96 4.34 3.50 5.42 4.55 4.97 4.47 5.67 4.87 6.25VRF I11 4.87 4.32 5.24 4.55 3.61 5.72 4.75 5.26 4.70 5.98 5.10 6.61

VRF I12 4.92 4.36 5.28 4.58 3.63 5.77 4.79 5.30 4.73 6.02 5.13 6.67

VRF I13 4.82 4.27 5.30 4.60 3.64 5.80 4.81 5.29 4.73 6.04 5.14 6.64

VRF I14 5.16 4.55 5.60 4.82 3.76 6.11 5.02 5.59 4.96 6.36 5.37 7.02

VRF I15 6.00 5.24 6.16 5.23 4.00 6.71 5.42 6.22 5.45 6.99 5.81 7.83

VRF I16 6.36 5.51 6.56 5.51 4.18 7.15 5.70 6.60 5.74 7.41 6.10 8.29

VRF CO2 - 2.49 3.41 3.11 2.92 - - - - - - -VRF R-32 - 3.42 - 3.64 3.15 - - - - - - -

VRF R-1234yf - 3.11 - 3.53 3.10 - - - - - - -

IEERpart-load control 2

VRF systems : Results of the energy performance modellingaverage, cold and warm climates

EER systemImprovement option codeCold Climate

part-load control 1Warm Climate

part-load control 1Average Climate

part-load control 1EER outdoor unit

Average Climatepart-load control 2

81

Interestingly, it is slightly more interesting to increase the heat exchanger surfaces of indoor units than of outdoor units : the required increase in surface to reach the same levels of EER is lower for indoor units. More precisely, increasing by 20% the heat exchange surface of the indoor units leads to the same efficiency levels than a 50% increase in the heat exchange surface of the outdoor unit. So the additional costs of indoor units options are a little lower. Options I14, I15 and I16, which are the three blue points with the greatest energy savings, correspond to very high increases in heat exchange surfaces (+100% at least for the outdoor unit or the indoor units, the remaining component being also oversized), and are therefore not seen as very realistic options for what could be the base-case in the coming years. The study team retains option I13 (fourth point from the right side of the graph), as it is technically realistic and leads to greater than 20% energy savings, with a SEER of 4.60, although, the LCC curve being relatively flat, the option I8, with a SEER of 4.2 would be equivalent. From a technological point, the option I13 consists in increasing by 50% the surface of the outdoor unit heat exchanger, by 40% the surface of the indoor unit heat exchanger, as well as in improving the part-load efficiency of the system for part-load ratios lower than 50% (here the oil return mechanism to high pressure). As a reminder, it is believed that an equivalent part-load efficiency improvement might be obtained by other means, such as staging several scroll compressors. For these products indeed, the study team estimates there is still some margin of improvement for part-load efficiency. Concerning alternative refrigerant options (from the left : CO2, R-1234yf and R-32), it appears clearly that the R-32 solution is of a greater interest than the other ones. This is because it requires significantly lower investment additional costs (as compared to R410A units, the design of the unit does not have to be greatly modified). Also, the additional costs of the other alternative refrigerant options are high here as they correspond to current costs, not to what could be the costs of these products after several years if they become mass-produced by VRF manufacturers. Reversible (cooling + heating) case – Results graph : ranking by decreasing electricity consumption As expected, considering now the heating function in addition to the cooling function leads to drastically different results. All standard improvement options are profitable over the product life, and the LLCC option becomes the BAT, as each incremental improvement option allows a supplementary gain in LCC. Of course, the case of cooling only products, which represent around 10% of the current EU market (see Task 2 report), cannot be neglected. However, as for the cooling mode, the study team thinks it is sounder to choose option I13 as the reference option for discussions on possible MEPS, because options I14, I15 and I16 require too important adaptations. Alternative refrigerant options are ranked the same way as in cooling mode, and the LCC of the R-32 option becomes very close to the one of the base-case, which means that the simple payback time of the R-32 modified base-case is roughly the 15 years product life. Cooling only case – Results graph : ranking by decreasing equivalent CO2 emissions Ranking the improved products by decreasing TEWI leads now to a very different problem. If not heat exchanger technology that enables to reduce the refrigerant charge is used, the improvement options seem to have an overall negative impact on the equivalent CO2 emissions of the VRF systems. This is because increasing the heat exchange surfaces leads to a higher refrigerant charge : as refrigerant leaks and end-of-life losses are taken proportional to the initial charge of the product, this consideration leads “mathematically” to higher direct emissions due to a higher initial charge and so higher refrigerant losses in absolute terms. The issue is that this last point is particularly sensitive : reference values of refrigerant leaks and end-of-life losses, expressed in % of the initial charge, are average values for the whole market. They are

82

also very uncertain because of a lack of mass measurements in the EU, as it has been shown in Task 4. Moreover, the study team believes that the leaks occur rather at faulting piping connections, not in the heat exchangers themselves : increasing the size of the heat exchangers should not forcedly have a direct link with the number of piping connections and their quality. So it would be also plausible to consider that in absolute terms, refrigerant leaks are not strictly proportional to charge but only slightly increase when the heat exchanger are oversized. This scenario is taken into consideration in the sensitivity analysis with the refrigerant scenario 3. Note that the brown point correspond to option I13b. This choice has been made because option I13 is considered as the reference options for energy efficiency : the use of a well-designed microchannel heat exchanger in the outdoor unit (and/or maybe another one in the indoor units) that enables to reach the same efficiency levels as the standard option I13a and at similar costs reduces the charge related to the heat exchanger by 40%, which completely modifies the gain in TEWI, and makes again this design option attractive in terms of environmental gain. Unsurprisingly, all alternative refrigerant options become of great interest in terms of TEWI reduction, with gains in equivalent CO2 emissions around 40%/50%. From the lowest gain to the highest gain : R-32, CO2 and R-1234yf. Reversible (cooling + heating) case – Results graph : ranking by decreasing equivalent CO2 emissions This last analysis gives also a new interesting sensitivity. Although the calculated direct emissions increase proportionally to the size of the unit, the gains in indirect emissions thanks to a reduced electricity consumption in cooling and mostly heating modes is sufficient to reach a positive gain in environmental impact. Once again, the brown point is option I13b, which allows to double the gain in TEWI by comparison with option I13a. Interestingly, the ranking of alternative refrigerant is also modified : CO2, R-32, R-1234yf. This is because of the better seasonal performance of R-32 and R-1234yf charged systems in cooling and heating mode by comparison with CO2 systems, which again adds to the reduction in refrigerant GWP by comparison with R-410A. This highlights once again the interest of R-32.

83

Figure 6 -13 . VRF systems improved products : results graphs of the LCC analysis

CO2

R‐1234yf

I1BC

R‐32

I2 I3

I4

I5 I7

I6

I8 I10

I9

I12

I11

I13 = retainedLCC reference

I14 I15 I16

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

105%

110%

115%

120%

125%

130%

135%

140%

‐20% ‐15% ‐10% ‐5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%

LCC (improvem

ent o

ption) / LCC

(base‐case)


VRF systems : LCC Analysis = f(Electricity consumption)average climate ‐ cooling only

Options with LLCC : I5/I8/I10/I12/I13

CO2

R‐1234yf

BC

R‐32

I1 I2 I3

I4

I5 I7

I6

I8 I10

I9

I12

I11I13 = retained LCC reference

I14I15

I16 = LCC

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

105%

110%

115%

120%

125%

130%

135%

140%

‐20% ‐15% ‐10% ‐5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%

LCC (improvem

ent o

ption) / LCC

(base‐case)

Gain in electricty consumption

VRF systems : LCC Analysis = f(Electricity consumption)average climate ‐ cooling + heating

84

Reversible (cooling + heating) case – Results table : ranking by decreasing equivalent CO2 emissions Since both functions are taken into account, the LLCC is the option with the highest SEER and SCOP. However, as explained before, the study team prefers to retain option I13, which is designated by a blue cell. Payback times are calculated by considering both functions. They are around 4 to 5 years for

I16

I15

I14

I13a = retained LCC reference

BC

I2

I13b = retained LCC reference

R‐32

CO2

R‐1234yf

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

105%

110%

115%

120%

125%

130%

135%

140%

‐30% ‐25% ‐20% ‐15% ‐10% ‐5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55% 60%

LCC (improvem

ent o

ption) / LCC

(base‐case)


VRF systems : LCC Analysis = f(TEWI)average climate ‐ cooling only

Options with LLCC : I5/I8/I10/I12/I13

BC

I16 = LLCC



CO2

R‐32

R‐1234yf

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

105%

110%

115%

120%

125%

130%

135%

140%

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18% 20% 22% 24% 26% 28% 30%

LCC (improvem

ent o

ption) / LCC

(base‐case)


VRF systems : LCC Analysis = f(TEWI)average climate ‐ cooling + heating

85

most options, which is a very acceptable time period for a customer. The payback time of the reference design option is 5 years.

8

6

Tabl

e 6

-43

. VR

F sy

stem

s, c

oolin

g on

ly :

resu

lts ta

ble

of th

e LC

C a

naly

sis

– op

tions

rank

ed b

y de

crea

sing

TEW

I

Characteristics

Unit

VRF

I16

VRF

I15

VRF

I14

VRF

I12

VRF

I11

VRF

I13a

VRF

I10

VRF

I9VRF

I6VRF

I8VRF

I5VRF

I7VRF

I3VRF

I4VRF

I1VRF

I2VRF

BC

VRF

I13b

VRF

R‐32

VRF

CO2

VRF

R‐1234yf

Pc (coo

ling capacity at d

esign po

int)

kW50

5050

5050

5050

5050

5050

5050

5050

5050

5050

5050

EER (outdo

or unit)

‐6.36

6.00

5.16

4.92

4.87

4.82

4.55

4.40

4.15

4.25

4.01

4.06

3.83

3.82

3.60

3.64

3.43

4.82

‐‐

‐EER (w

hole system)

‐5.51

5.24

4.55

4.36

4.32

4.27

4.06

3.92

3.72

3.80

3.60

3.64

3.45

3.43

3.25

3.28

3.11

4.27

3.42

2.49

3.11

Refrigerant charge

kg44.3

42.2

36.6

35.1

34.8

34.4

32.7

31.5

29.9

30.6

29.0

29.3

27.7

27.6

26.1

26.4

25.0

28.9

22.0

30.0

30.7

Relative

refrigerant charge

kg/kW(coo

ling)

0.89

0.84

0.73

0.70

0.70

0.69

0.65

0.63

0.60

0.61

0.58

0.59

0.55

0.55

0.52

0.53

0.50

0.58

0.44

0.60

0.61

Pe (e

lectrical pow

er inpu

t at d

esign po

int)

kW9.1

9.5

11.0

11.5

11.6

11.7

12.3

12.8

13.4

13.2

13.9

13.7

14.5

14.6

15.4

15.2

16.1

11.7

14.6

20.1

16.1

SEER

‐5.51

5.23

4.82

4.58

4.55

4.60

4.34

4.31

4.06

4.21

3.96

4.07

3.83

3.89

3.66

3.76

3.53

4.60

3.64

3.11

3.53

EHU (Equ

ivalen

t Hou

rs of U

se at d

esign capacity)

h600

600

600

600

600

600

600

600

600

600

600

600

600

600

600

600

600

600

600

600

600

Electricity consum

ption, ann

ual

kWh

5 445

5 736

6 224

6 550

6 593

6 522

6 912

6 961

7 389

7 126

7 576

7 371

7 833

7 712

8 197

7 979

8 499

6 522

8 251

9 646

8 499

Electricity consum

ption over produ

ct life

MWh

8286

9398

9998

104

104

111

107

114

111

117

116

123

120

127

98124

145

127

Gain in to

tal electricity con

sumption

‐36%

33%

27%

23%

22%

23%

19%

18%

13%

16%

11%

13%

8%9%

4%6%

0%23%

3%‐14%

0%PW

Fyears

15.0

15.0

15.0

15.0

15.0

15.0

15.0

15.0

15.0

15.0

15.0

15.0

15.0

15.0

15.0

15.0

15.0

15.0

15.0

15.0

15.0

Electricity rate

€ / kW

h0.14

0.14

0.14

0.14

0.14

0.14

0.14

0.14

0.14

0.14

0.14

0.14

0.14

0.14

0.14

0.14

0.14

0.14

0.14

0.14

0.14


ct life

k €11.4

12.0

13.1

13.8

13.8

13.7

14.5

14.6

15.5

15.0

15.9

15.5

16.4

16.2

17.2

16.8

17.8

13.7

17.3

20.3

17.8

Refrigerant leaks

kg/kg/year

6%6%

6%6%

6%6%

6%6%

6%6%

6%6%

6%6%

6%6%

6%6%

6%6%

6%Re

frigerant e


kg/kg

15%

15%

15%

15%

15%

15%

15%

15%

15%

15%

15%

15%

15%

15%

15%

15%

15%

15%

15%

15.0%

15.0%


ct life

kg46.6

44.3

38.4

36.8

36.5

36.1

34.3

33.1

31.4

32.1

30.4

30.7

29.1

29.0

27.4

27.7

26.3

30.3

23.1

31.5

32.3

Refrigerant type

‐R‐410A

R‐410A

R‐410A

R‐410A

R‐410A

R‐410A

R‐410A

R‐410A

R‐410A

R‐410A

R‐410A

R‐410A

R‐410A

R‐410A

R‐410A

R‐410A

R‐410A

R‐410A

R‐32

R‐744

R‐1234yf

GWP

kg(CO2) equ

.2088

2088

2088

2088

2088

2088

2088

2088

2088

2088

2088

2088

2088

2088

2088

2088

2088

2088

675

14

Direct e

mission

st(CO

2) equ

.97.2

92.5

80.3

76.9

76.2

75.3

71.6

69.1

65.6

67.0

63.5

64.2

60.8

60.5

57.3

57.8

54.8

63.3

15.6

0.0

0.1

Conversion

factor kWh to GWP

kg(CO2) equ

./kW

h0.38

0.38

0.38

0.38

0.38

0.38

0.38

0.38

0.38

0.38

0.38

0.38

0.38

0.38

0.38

0.38

0.38

0.38

0.38

0.38

0.38

Indirect emission

st(CO

2) equ

.31.4

33.0

35.9

37.7

38.0

37.6

39.8

40.1

42.6

41.0

43.6

42.5

45.1

44.4

47.2

46.0

49.0

37.6

47.5

55.6

49.0

Total emission

st(CO

2) equ

.128.6

125.5

116.1

114.6

114.2

112.9

111.4

109.2

108.2

108.1

107.1

106.6

105.9

104.9

104.5

103.8

103.8

100.8

63.1

55.6

49.1

Direct e

mission

s / Total emission

s‐

76%

74%

69%

67%

67%

67%

64%

63%

61%

62%

59%

60%

57%

58%

55%

56%

53%

63%

25%

0%0%

Gain in equ

ivalen

t CO2 em

ission

s‐

‐24%

‐21%

‐12%

‐10%

‐10%

‐9%

‐7%

‐5%

‐4%

‐4%

‐3%

‐3%

‐2%

‐1%

‐1%

0%0%

3%39%

46%

53%

Relative

add

itional costs / base‐case costs ‐ Outdo

or unit

‐30%

23%

30%

0%23%

19%

12%

30%

23%

7%0%

19%

12%

7%0%

7%0%

19%

16%

100%

80%

Relative

add

itional costs / base‐case costs ‐ Indo

or unit

‐40%

40%

16%

40%

16%

16%

16%

0%0%

16%

16%

0%0%

8%8%

0%0%

16%

16%

100%

80%

MSP

: ou

tdoo

r unit, not corrected

€11 725

11 100

11 725

9 000

11 100

10 675

10 050

11 725

11 100

9 625

9 000

10 675

10 050

9 625

9 000

9 625

9 000

10 675

10 395

18 000

16 200

MSP

: Δcom

pressor costs

€61

5436

3231

2924

2115

1712

139

84

40

290

00

MSP

: ou

tdoo

r unit, corrrected

€11 786

11 154

11 761

9 032

11 131

10 704

10 074

11 746

11 115

9 642

9 012

10 688

10 059

9 633

9 004

9 629

9 000

10 704

10 395

18 000

16 200

MSP

: indo

or units

€9 240

9 240

7 656

9 240

7 656

7 656

7 656

6 600

6 600

7 656

7 656

6 600

6 600

7 128

7 128

6 600

6 600

7 656

7 623

13 200

11 880

MSP

: piping

€650

650

650

650

650

650

650

650

650

650

650

650

650

650

650

650

650

650

751

1 300

1 170

MSP

: accessories

€1 400

1 400

1 400

1 400

1 400

1 400

1 400

1 400

1 400

1 400

1 400

1 400

1 400

1 400

1 400

1 400

1 400

1 400

1 400

1 400

1 400

MSP

: remote control

€550

550

550

550

550

550

550

550

550

550

550

550

550

550

550

550

550

550

550

550

550

MSP

: who

le system bare costs

€23 626

22 994

22 017

20 872

21 387

20 960

20 330

20 946

20 315

19 898

19 268

19 888

19 259

19 361

18 732

18 829

18 200

20 960

20 719

34 450

31 200

Refrigerant costs

€665

633

549

526

521

515

490

473

449

458

434

439

416

414

392

396

375

433

286

120

1 844

Labo

ur bare costs

€11 400

11 400

11 400

11 400

11 400

11 400

11 400

11 400

11 400

11 400

11 400

11 400

11 400

11 400

11 400

11 400

11 400

11 400

11 400

11 400

11 400

Total bare costs

€35 691

35 027

33 967

32 798

33 308

32 876

32 220

32 818

32 164

31 757

31 103

31 728

31 075

31 175

30 523

30 625

29 975

32 793

32 405

45 970

44 444


€42 829

42 032

40 760

39 357

39 970

39 451

38 664

39 382

38 597

38 108

37 323

38 073

37 290

37 410

36 628

36 750

35 970

39 352

38 886

55 164

53 333


unde

dk €

42.8

42.0

40.8

39.4

40.0

39.5

38.7

39.4

38.6

38.1

37.3

38.1

37.3

37.4

36.6

36.7

36.0

39.4

38.9

55.2

53.3

Increase in

investmen

t costs

‐19%

17%

13%

9%11%

10%

8%9%

7%6%

4%6%

4%4%

2%2%

0%9%

8%53%

48%

Repair & Mainten

ance costs

k€21.6

21.6

21.6

21.6

21.6

21.6

21.6

21.6

21.6

21.6

21.6

21.6

21.6

21.6

21.6

21.6

21.6

21.6

21.6

21.6

21.6


k€75.8

75.6

75.5

74.8

75.4

74.8

74.8

75.6

75.7

74.7

74.8

75.2

75.3

75.2

75.4

75.1

75.4

74.7

77.8

97.1

92.7

Energy costs / to


‐15%

16%

17%

18%

18%

18%

19%

19%

20%

20%

21%

21%

22%

22%

23%

22%

24%

18%

22%

21%

19%

Simple payback time

years

15.9

15.5

15.1

12.5

15.0

12.6

12.2

15.8

16.7

10.9

10.1

13.3

13.9

12.7

14.2

9.6

‐12.3

83.7

Non

eNon

eLCC (design op

tion

) / LCC

(base‐case)

‐101%

100%

100%

99%

100%

99%

99%

100%

100%

99%

99%

100%

100%

100%

100%

99%

100%

99%

103%

129%

123%

Energy perform

ance and

electricity costs

TEWI analysis

Investmen

t and

mainten

ance costs

Balance shee

t

8

7

Tabl

e 6

-44

. VR

F sy

stem

s, re

vers

ible

: re

sults

tabl

e of

the

LCC

ana

lysi

s –

optio

ns ra

nked

by

decr

easi

ng T

EWI

Characteristics

Unit

VRF

BC

VRF

I1VRF

I3VRF

I2VRF

I5VRF

I4VRF

I6VRF

I7VRF

I10

VRF

I8VRF

I11

VRF

I12

VRF

I9VRF

I15

VRF

I16

VRF

I13a

VRF

I14

VRF

I13b

VRF

CO2

VRF

R‐32

VRF

R‐1234yf

Pc (coo

ling capacity at d

esign po

int)

kW50

5050

5050

5050

5050

5050

5050

5050

5050

5050

5050

Ph (h

eating

capacity at design po

int)

kW55

5555

5555

5555

5555

5555

5555

5555

5555

5555

5555

EER (outdo

or unit)

‐3.43

3.60

3.83

3.64

4.01

3.82

4.15

4.06

4.55

4.25

4.87

4.92

4.40

6.00

6.36

4.82

5.16

4.82

‐‐

‐EER (w

hole system)

‐3.11

3.25

3.45

3.28

3.60

3.43

3.72

3.64

4.06

3.80

4.32

4.36

3.92

5.24

5.51

4.27

4.55

4.27

2.49

3.42

3.11

Refrigerant charge

kg25.0

26.1

27.7

26.4

29.0

27.6

29.9

29.3

32.7

30.6

34.8

35.1

31.5

42.2

44.3

34.4

36.6

28.9

30.0

22.0

30.7

Relative

refrigerant charge

kg/kW(coo

ling)

0.50

0.52

0.55

0.53

0.58

0.55

0.60

0.59

0.65

0.61

0.70

0.70

0.63

0.84

0.89

0.69

0.73

0.58

0.60

0.44

0.61

Pe (e

lectrical pow

er inpu

t at d

esign po

int) / coo

ling mod

ekW

16.1

15.4

14.5

15.2

13.9

14.6

13.4

13.7

12.3

13.2

11.6

11.5

12.8

9.5

9.1

11.7

11.0

11.7

20.1

14.6

16.1

SEER

‐3.53

3.66

3.83

3.76

3.96

3.89

4.06

4.07

4.34

4.21

4.55

4.58

4.31

5.23

5.51

4.60

4.82

4.60

3.11

3.64

3.53

SCOP

‐3.10

3.16

3.24

3.21

3.31

3.27

3.36

3.36

3.50

3.43

3.61

3.63

3.48

4.00

4.18

3.64

3.76

3.64

2.92

3.15

3.10

EHU (Equ

ivalen

t Hou

rs od Use at d

esign capacity) / coo

ling

h600

600

600

600

600

600

600

600

600

600

600

600

600

600

600

600

600

600

600

600

600

EHU (Equ

ivalen

t Hou

rs od Use at d

esign capacity) / heating

h1400

1400

1400

1400

1400

1400

1400

1400

1400

1400

1400

1400

1400

1400

1400

1400

1400

1400

1400

1400

1400

Electricity consum

ption, ann

ual / coo

ling

kWh

8 499

8 197

7 833

7 979

7 576

7 712

7 389

7 371

6 912

7 126

6 593

6 550

6 961

5 736

5 445

6 522

6 224

6 522

9 646

8 251

8 499

Electricity consum

ption, ann

ual / heating

kWh

24 820

24 350

23 745

23 993

23 289

23 534

22 944

22 909

21 999

22 433

21 312

21 216

22 098

19 227

18 429

21 152

20 459

21 152

26 379

24 437

24 820

Electricity consum

ption, over p

rodu

ct life / coo

ling

MWh

127.5

123.0

117.5

119.7

113.6

115.7

110.8

110.6

103.7

106.9

98.9

98.3

104.4

86.0

81.7

97.8

93.4

97.8

144.7

123.8

127.5

Gain in coo

ling electricity consum

ption

‐0%

4%8%

6%11%

9%13%

13%

19%

16%

22%

23%

18%

33%

36%

23%

27%

23%

‐14%

3%0%

Electricity consum

ption, over p

rodu

ct life / heating

MWh

372.3

365.3

356.2

359.9

349.3

353.0

344.2

343.6

330.0

336.5

319.7

318.2

331.5

288.4

276.4

317.3

306.9

317.3

395.7

366.6

372.3

Gain in heating

electricity con

sumption

‐0%

2%4%

3%6%

5%8%

8%11%

10%

14%

15%

11%

23%

26%

15%

18%

15%

‐6%

2%0%

Electricity consum

ption over produ

ct life / to

tal

MWh

500

488

474

480

463

469

455

454

434

443

419

416

436

374

358

415

400

415

540

490

500

� Gain in to

tal electricity con

sumption

‐0%

2%5%

4%7%

6%9%

9%13%

11%

16%

17%

13%

25%

28%

17%

20%

17%

‐8%

2%0%

PWF

years

15.0

15.0

15.0

15.0

15.0

15.0

15.0

15.0

15.0

15.0

15.0

15.0

15.0

15.0

15.0

15.0

15.0

15.0

15.0

15.0

15.0

Electricity rate

€ / kW

h0.14

0.14

0.14

0.14

0.14

0.14

0.14

0.14

0.14

0.14

0.14

0.14

0.14

0.14

0.14

0.14

0.14

0.14

0.14

0.14

0.14


ct life

k€70.0

68.3

66.3

67.1

64.8

65.6

63.7

63.6

60.7

62.1

58.6

58.3

61.0

52.4

50.1

58.1

56.0

58.1

75.7

68.6

70.0

Refrigerant leaks

kg/kg/year

6%6%

6%6%

6%6%

6%6%

6%6%

6%6%

6%6%

6%6%

6%6%

6%6%

6%Re

frigerant e


kg/kg

15%

15%

15%

15%

15%

15%

15%

15%

15%

15%

15%

15%

15%

15%

15%

15%

15%

15%

15%

15%

15%


ct life

kg26.3

27.4

29.1

27.7

30.4

29.0

31.4

30.7

34.3

32.1

36.5

36.8

33.1

44.3

46.6

36.1

38.4

30.3

31.5

23.1

32.3

Refrigerant type

‐R‐410A

R‐410A

R‐410A

R‐410A

R‐410A

R‐410A

R‐410A

R‐410A

R‐410A

R‐410A

R‐410A

R‐410A

R‐410A

R‐410A

R‐410A

R‐410A

R‐410A

R‐410A

R‐744

R‐32

R‐1234yf

GWP

kg(CO2) equ

.2088

2088

2088

2088

2088

2088

2088

2088

2088

2088

2088

2088

2088

2088

2088

2088

2088

2088

1675

4Direct e

mission

st(CO

2) equ

.54.8

57.3

60.8

57.8

63.5

60.5

65.6

64.2

71.6

67.0

76.2

76.9

69.1

92.5

97.2

75.3

80.3

63.3

0.0

15.6

0.1

Conversion

factor kWh to GWP

kg(CO2) equ

./kW

h0.38

0.38

0.38

0.38

0.38

0.38

0.38

0.38

0.38

0.38

0.38

0.38

0.38

0.38

0.38

0.38

0.38

0.38

0.38

0.38

0.38

Indirect emission

st(CO

2) equ

.191.9

187.5

181.9

184.2

177.8

180.0

174.7

174.4

166.5

170.3

160.7

159.9

167.4

143.8

137.5

159.4

153.7

159.4

207.5

188.3

191.9

Total emission

st(CO

2) equ

.246.7

244.8

242.7

242.0

241.3

240.4

240.3

238.6

238.1

237.3

236.9

236.8

236.5

236.2

234.7

234.7

234.0

222.7

207.5

203.9

192.0

Direct e

mission

s / Total emission

s‐

22%

23%

25%

24%

26%

25%

27%

27%

30%

28%

32%

32%

29%

39%

41%

32%

34%

28%

0%8%

0%Gain in equ

ivalen

t CO2 em

ission

s‐

0%1%

2%2%

2%3%

3%3%

3%4%

4%4%

4%4%

5%5%

5%10%

16%

17%

22%

Relative

add


or unit

‐0%

0%12%

7%0%

7%23%

19%

12%

7%23%

0%30%

23%

30%

19%

30%

19%

100%

16%

80%

Relative

add


or unit

‐0%

8%0%

0%16%

8%0%

0%16%

16%

16%

40%

0%40%

40%

16%

16%

16%

100%

16%

80%

MSP

: ou

tdoo


€9 000

9 000

10 050

9 625

9 000

9 625

11 100

10 675

10 050

9 625

11 100

9 000

11 725

11 100

11 725

10 675

11 725

10 675

18 000

10 395

16 200

MSP

: Δcom

pressor costs

€0

49

412

815

1324

1731

3221

5461

2936

290

00

MSP

: ou

tdoo

r unit, corrrected

€9 000

9 004

10 059

9 629

9 012

9 633

11 115

10 688

10 074

9 642

11 131

9 032

11 746

11 154

11 786

10 704

11 761

10 704

18 000

10 395

16 200

MSP

: indo

or units

€6 600

7 128

6 600

6 600

7 656

7 128

6 600

6 600

7 656

7 656

7 656

9 240

6 600

9 240

9 240

7 656

7 656

7 656

13 200

7 623

11 880

MSP

: piping

€650

650

650

650

650

650

650

650

650

650

650

650

650

650

650

650

650

650

1 300

751

1 170

MSP

: accessories

€1 400

1 400

1 400

1 400

1 400

1 400

1 400

1 400

1 400

1 400

1 400

1 400

1 400

1 400

1 400

1 400

1 400

1 400

1 400

1 400

1 400

MSP

: remote control

€550

550

550

550

550

550

550

550

550

550

550

550

550

550

550

550

550

550

550

550

550

MSP

: who


€18 200

18 732

19 259

18 829

19 268

19 361

20 315

19 888

20 330

19 898

21 387

20 872

20 946

22 994

23 626

20 960

22 017

20 960

34 450

20 719

31 200

system

bare costs

€18 200

18 732

19 259

18 829

19 268

19 361

20 315

19 888

20 330

19 898

21 387

20 872

20 946

22 994

23 626

20 960

22 017

20 960

34 450

20 719

31 200

Refrigerant costs

€375

392

416

396

434

414

449

439

490

458

521

526

473

633

665

515

549

433

120

286

1 844

Labo

ur bare costs

€11 400

11 400

11 400

11 400

11 400

11 400

11 400

11 400

11 400

11 400

11 400

11 400

11 400

11 400

11 400

11 400

11 400

11 400

11 400

11 400

11 400

Total bare costs

€29 975

30 523

31 075

30 625

31 103

31 175

32 164

31 728

32 220

31 757

33 308

32 798

32 818

35 027

35 691

32 876

33 967

32 793

45 970

32 405

44 444


€35 970

36 628

37 290

36 750

37 323

37 410

38 597

38 073

38 664

38 108

39 970

39 357

39 382

42 032

42 829

39 451

40 760

39 352

55 164

38 886

53 333


unde

dk€

36.0

36.6

37.3

36.7

37.3

37.4

38.6

38.1

38.7

38.1

40.0

39.4

39.4

42.0

42.8

39.5

40.8

39.4

55.2

38.9

53.3

Increase in

investmen

t costs

‐0%

2%4%

2%4%

4%7%

6%8%

6%11%

9%9%

17%

19%

10%

13%

9%53%

8%48%

Repair & Mainten

ance costs

k€21.6

21.6

21.6

21.6

21.6

21.6

21.6

21.6

21.6

21.6

21.6

21.6

21.6

21.6

21.6

21.6

21.6

21.6

21.6

21.6

21.6


k€128

127

125

125

124

125

124

123

121

122

120

119

122

116

115

119

118

119

152

129

145

Energy costs / to


‐55%

54%

53%

54%

52%

53%

51%

52%

50%

51%

49%

49%

50%

45%

44%

49%

47%

49%

50%

53%

48%

Simple payback time

years

‐5.6

5.3

3.7

3.8

4.8

6.2

4.9

4.4

4.0

5.3

4.4

5.7

5.1

5.1

4.4

5.2

4.3

Non

e32.8

Non

eLCC (design op

tion

) / LCC

(base‐case)

‐100%

99%

98%

98%

97%

98%

97%

97%

95%

95%

94%

94%

96%

91%

90%

93%

93%

93%

120%

101%

114%

Energy perform

ance and

electricity costs

TEWI analysis

Investmen

t and

mainten

ance costs

Balance shee

t

88

Split systems Results of the energy performance calculations As for VRF systems, the impact of the additional thermostat off and standby modes on the seasonal efficiency of the products is clearly more critical than for chillers. Again, this is mostly due to the indoor fans that keep on working during thermostat off hours, but also to the important consumptions related to electronics and controls. However, contrary to VRF systems, there are more differences between the SEER values calculated for the three climates. This is because at lower temperatures, to which correspond lower part-load ratios, the part-load gain in efficiency deteriorates more for VRF systems than for split systems. This is due to oil return issues and higher PCB consumption (electronics) related to the numerous indoor units. In other terms, VRF systems seem to benefit less than split systems from efficiency improvements when the outdoor air temperature decreases, as the gain in full-load performance is partly offset by the inefficiency at low part-load ratios. It should also be noticed that the SEERon increases to higher values than for the VRF. This difference reduces to about 8 % when considering the part load control method 2 for VRF. As for VRF systems, there is a great uncertainty concerning SCOP values of products charged with alternative refrigerants, due to the lack of performance data tables. Figure 6 -14 . Split systems improved products : results of the energy performance calculations

Split systems : Results of the energy performance modelling average, cold and warm climates

Improvement option code EER Average Climate Cold Climate Warm Climate

SEERon SEER SCOP SEERon SEER SEERon SEER

SP BC 2.81 4.32 3.97 3.31 4.86 4.35 4.14 3.88

SP I0 2.96 4.45 4.08 3.37 4.86 4.35 4.31 4.02

SP I1 3.21 4.84 4.40 3.53 5.28 4.68 4.64 4.32

SP I2 3.41 5.14 4.65 3.67 5.61 4.94 4.89 4.53

SP I3 3.67 5.53 4.97 3.85 6.03 5.27 5.13 4.73

SP I4 3.90 5.87 5.24 4.01 6.40 5.55 5.27 4.85

SP I5 4.14 6.24 5.53 4.19 6.80 5.85 5.39 4.95

SP I6 4.56 6.63 5.84 4.39 7.24 6.17 5.52 5.06

SP I7 4.91 6.98 6.11 4.57 7.63 6.45 5.63 5.15

SP I8 5.23 7.29 6.34 4.73 7.96 6.69 5.72 5.23

SP I9 5.53 7.55 6.54 4.87 8.26 6.90 5.76 5.26

SP I10 5.83 7.79 6.72 5.00 8.52 7.08 5.79 5.29

SP I11 6.12 8.00 6.87 5.12 8.74 7.23 5.81 5.30

SP CO2 2.25 - 3.57 3.12 - - - -

SP R-32 3.09 - 4.09 3.37 - - - -

SP R-1234yf 2.81 - 3.97 3.31 - - - -

SP R-290 2.81 - 3.37 3.03 - - - -

LCC analysis As for VRF systems, the results of the LCC analysis are reported in 4 separate graphs that complement each other.

89

Cooling only case – Results graph : ranking by decreasing electricity consumption Concerning conventional improvement options, the shape of the LCC curve is more “common” than for VRF systems. One first reason is that the efficiency of the base-case split system is lower (2.8 instead of 3.1 for the VRF system). A second reason is that from option I5 onwards, there is an important change in the compression stage that in itself is more costly than the additional costs related to increases in heat exchange surfaces. Such an option was not available for VRF systems which already used the best available compressors. The option with the LLCC is therefore option I4 (+40% of the UA value of both the outdoor unit and the indoor unit), for which the SEER of the product is estimated at 5.24. This corresponds to a better SEER than for the reference VRF design option, but to a lower EER. The difference is due both to better performances at low loads for split systems and the lower impact of thermostat off consumption. The analysis of alternative refrigerant options is the same as for VRF systems (from the left : R-290, CO2, R-1234yf and R-32), the R-32 product being the most interesting option with a simple payback time slightly higher than the 15 years product life. Reversible (cooling + heating) case – Results graph : ranking by decreasing electricity consumption Now that the heating mode of reversible products is also taken into account, the LLCC moves closer to the BAT. It is option I7, with 2 twin-rotary compressors well-optimized and UA coefficients increased by 96% for both the outdoor unit and the indoor unit. The gain in LCC in then higher than 10%, which corresponds to a simple payback time of 5 years and a half (see the results table). The other important result is that the LCC of the R-32 drop-in of the R-410A base-case is now equal to the one of this base product, which confirms the viability/profitability of this technology. Cooling only case – Results graph : ranking by decreasing equivalent CO2 emissions As for VRF systems, the number of equivalent hours of the average climate are too low so that gains in electricity consumption compensate the increased refrigerant losses, in absolute terms, related to the higher initial refrigerant charges of the improved products. The issue seems to be solvable by replacing the heat exchanger of the outdoor unit by a microchannel heat exchanger that is sized so that the gain in efficiency of the conventional version of the improvement option is kept. The study team again combines this technology with option I4, as it is the LLCC option if only the cooling function is assessed. Alternative refrigerant options are ranked as follows : R-32, R-290, CO2 and R-1234yf. This differs from the corresponding graph plotted for VRF systems as the alternative refrigerant units built upon the base case have a lover efficiency in the case of split systems. Reversible (cooling + heating) case – Results graph : ranking by decreasing equivalent CO2 emissions By comparing it to the one displayed for VRF systems, this last graph shows well how much the TEWI results are sensitive to the main parameters : energy efficiency of the products charged with alternative refrigerants, equivalent number of hours at design capacity, refrigerant leaks and end-of-life losses. In relative terms, the gains in equivalent CO2 emissions are higher than for VRF systems because of the lower efficiency of the base-case. This explains why the relative gain related to the use of a microchannel heat exchanger (still I4b) is of a lower extent. Note that for products that ensure a heating function, it is in fact a Non Yet Available Technology, as explained before in this report. However, this is not a great issue, as the reduction in

90

indirect emissions thanks to a lower electricity consumption is sufficiently high for conventional improvement options to be interesting in terms of TEWI. Figure 6 -15 . Split systems improved products : results graphs of the LCC analysis

R‐290

CO2

BC

R‐1234yf

I0

R‐32

I1 I2 I3 I4 = LLCC

I5I6

I7

I8I9

I10

I11

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

105%

110%

115%

120%

125%

130%

135%

140%

‐20% ‐15% ‐10% ‐5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%

LCC (improvem

ent o

ption) / LCC

(base‐case)


Split systems : LCC Analysis = f(Electricity consumption)average climate ‐ cooling only

R‐290

CO2

BC

R‐1234yf

I0

R‐32

I1I2

I3

I4 = retained LCCreference

I5I6

I7 = LLCC

I8 I9 I10

I11

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

105%

110%

115%

120%

125%

130%

135%

140%

‐20% ‐15% ‐10% ‐5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%

LCC (improvem

ent o

ption) / LCC

(base‐case)


Split systems : LCC Analysis = f(Electricity consumption)average climate ‐ cooling + heating

91

Reversible (cooling + heating) case – Results table : ranking by decreasing equivalent CO2 emissions The blue cells correspond to the option (version “a” and “b”) with the least life cycle costs when only the cooling function is taken into account. The red cell corresponds to the option with the least life cycle costs when both cooling and heating functions are assessed.

I11

I10I9

I8I7

I6

I4a = LLCC

I3

I5

I2

BC

I1I0

I4b = LLCC

R‐32

R‐290

CO2

R‐1234yf

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

105%

110%

115%

120%

125%

130%

135%

140%

‐30% ‐25% ‐20% ‐15% ‐10% ‐5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55% 60%

LCC (improvem

ent o

ption) / LCC

(base‐case)


Split systems : LCC Analysis = f(TEWI)average climate ‐ cooling only

BC

I0

I1 I2

I3


R‐290

I11

I10

I5

I7 = LLCC

I8

I9 I6

CO2


R‐32

R‐1234yf

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

105%

110%

115%

120%

125%

130%

135%

140%

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18% 20% 22% 24% 26% 28% 30%

LCC (improvem

ent o

ption) / LCC

(base‐case)


Split systems : LCC Analysis = f(TEWI)average climate ‐ cooling + heating

92

Tabl

e 6

- 45

. Spl

it sy

stem

s, c

oolin

g on

ly :

resu

lts ta

ble

of th

e LC

C a

naly

sis

– op

tions

rank

ed b

y de

crea

sing

TEW

I

Characteristics

Unit

SP I11

SP I10

SP I9

SP I8

SP I7

SP I6

SP I4a

SP I3

SP I5

SP I2

SP BC

SP I1

SP I0

SP I4b

SP R‐32

SP R‐290

SP CO2

SP R‐1234yf

Pc (coo

ling capacity at d

esign po

int)

kW14

1414

1414

1414

1414

1414

1414

1414

1414

14EER

‐6.12

5.83

5.53

5.23

4.91

4.56

3.90

3.67

4.14

3.41

2.81

3.21

2.96

4.14

3.09

2.81

2.25

2.81

Refrigerant charge

kg10.9

10.4

9.9

9.3

8.8

8.1

7.4

6.9

7.4

6.5

5.6

6.1

5.6

5.9

4.7

0.8

6.7

6.9

Relative

refrigerant charge

kg/kW(coo

ling)

0.78

0.74

0.70

0.67

0.63

0.58

0.53

0.50

0.53

0.46

0.40

0.43

0.40

0.42

0.33

0.06

0.48

0.49

Pe (e

lectrical pow

er inpu

t at d

esign po

int)

kW2.3

2.4

2.5

2.7

2.9

3.1

3.6

3.8

3.4

4.1

5.0

4.4

4.7

3.4

4.5

5.0

6.2

5.0

SEER

‐6.87

6.72

6.54

6.34

6.11

5.84

5.24

4.97

5.53

4.65

3.97

4.40

4.08

5.24

4.09

3.37

3.57

3.97

EHU (Equ

ivalen

t Hou

rs of U

se at d

esign capacity)

h600

600

600

600

600

600

600

600

600

600

600

600

600

600

600

600

600

600

Electricity consum

ption, ann

ual

kWh

1 223

1 251

1 285

1 325

1 375

1 439

1 604

1 691

1 519

1 806

2 118

1 909

2 058

1 604

2 056

2 491

2 353

2 118

Electricity consum

ption over produ

ct life

MWh

18.3

18.8

19.3

19.9

20.6

21.6

24.1

25.4

22.8

27.1

31.8

28.6

30.9

24.1

30.8

37.4

35.3

31.8

Gain in to

tal electricity con

sumption

‐42%

41%

39%

37%

35%

32%

24%

20%

28%

15%

0%10%

3%24%

3%‐18%

‐11%

0%PW

Fyears

15.0

15.0

15.0

15.0

15.0

15.0

15.0

15.0

15.0

15.0

15.0

15.0

15.0

15.0

15.0

15.0

15.0

15.0

Electricity rate

€ / kW

h0.14

0.14

0.14

0.14

0.14

0.14

0.14

0.14

0.14

0.14

0.14

0.14

0.14

0.14

0.14

0.14

0.14

0.14


ct life

k €2.6

2.6

2.7

2.8

2.9

3.0

3.4

3.6

3.2

3.8

4.4

4.0

4.3

3.4

4.3

5.2

4.9

4.4

Refrigerant leaks

kg/kg/year

6%6%

6%6%

6%6%

6%6%

6%6%

6%6%

6%6%

6%6%

6%6%

Refrigerant e


kg/kg

15%

15%

15%

15%

15%

15%

15%

15%

15%

15%

15%

15%

15%

15%

15%

15%

15%

15%


ct life

kg11.5

10.9

10.4

9.8

9.2

8.5

7.7

7.3

7.7

6.8

5.9

6.4

5.9

6.2

4.9

0.9

7.1

7.2

Refrigerant type

‐R‐410A

R‐410A

R‐410A

R‐410A

R‐410A

R‐410A

R‐410A

R‐410A

R‐410A

R‐410A

R‐410A

R‐410A

R‐410A

R‐410A

R‐32

R‐290

R‐744

R‐1234yf

GWP

kg(CO2) equ

.2088

2088

2088

2088

2088

2088

2088

2088

2088

2088

2088

2088

2088

2088

675

31

4Direct e

mission

st(CO

2) equ

.23.9

22.8

21.6

20.5

19.2

17.8

16.2

15.2

16.2

14.2

12.3

13.3

12.3

12.9

3.3

0.0

0.0

0.0

Conversion

factor kWh to GWP

kg(CO2) equ

./kW

h0.38

0.38

0.38

0.38

0.38

0.38

0.38

0.38

0.38

0.38

0.38

0.38

0.38

0.38

0.38

0.38

0.38

0.38

Indirect emission

st(CO

2) equ

.7.0

7.2

7.4

7.6

7.9

8.3

9.2

9.7

8.8

10.4

12.2

11.0

11.9

9.2

11.8

14.4

13.6

12.2

Total emission

st(CO

2) equ

.31.0

30.0

29.0

28.1

27.1

26.1

25.4

25.0

24.9

24.6

24.5

24.3

24.1

22.2

15.2

14.4

13.6

12.2

Direct e

mission

s / Total emission

s‐

77%

76%

75%

73%

71%

68%

64%

61%

65%

58%

50%

55%

51%

58%

22%

0%0%

0%Gain in equ

ivalen

t CO2 em

ission

s‐

‐26%

‐23%

‐19%

‐15%

‐11%

‐7%

‐4%

‐2%

‐2%

0%0%

1%1%

9%38%

41%

45%

50%

Relative

add


or unit

‐79%

72%

64%

57%

49%

41%

13%

11%

34%

8%0%

6%3%

13%

10%

60%

100%

80%

Relative

add


or unit

€111%

96%

81%

67%

51%

36%

21%

16%

34%

11%

0%5%

0%21%

10%

60%

100%

80%

MSP

: ou

tdoo


€3 589

3 436

3 284

3 137

2 979

2 826

2 269

2 216

2 673

2 163

2 000

2 110

2 057

2 269

2 200

3 200

4 000

3 600

MSP

: Δcom

pressor costs

€14

1210

86

36

50

30

20

80

00

0MSP

: ou

tdoo

r unit, corrrected

€3 575

3 424

3 274

3 129

2 973

2 823

2 263

2 211

2 673

2 160

2 000

2 108

2 057

2 261

2 200

3 200

4 000

3 600

MSP

: indo

or units

€3 164

2 940

2 716

2 500

2 268

2 044

1 820

1 740

2 005

1 660

1 500

1 580

1 500

1 820

1 650

2 400

3 000

2 700

MSP

: accessories

€200

200

200

200

200

200

200

200

200

200

200

200

200

200

200

200

200

200

MSP

: who


€6 939

6 564

6 190

5 829

5 441

5 067

4 283

4 151

4 878

4 020

3 700

3 888

3 757

4 281

4 050

5 800

7 200

6 500

Refrigerant costs

€164

156

148

140

131

122

111

104

111

9784

9184

8961

427

413

Labo

ur bare costs

€700

700

700

700

700

700

700

700

700

700

700

700

700

700

700

700

700

700

Total bare costs

€7 802

7 420

7 038

6 669

6 272

5 889

5 093

4 956

5 689

4 817

4 484

4 680

4 541

5 070

4 811

6 504

7 927

7 613


€9 363

8 904

8 445

8 002

7 527

7 067

6 112

5 947

6 827

5 780

5 381

5 615

5 449

6 084

5 773

7 805

9 512

9 136


unde

dk €

9.4

8.9

8.4

8.0

7.5

7.1

6.1

5.9

6.8

5.8

5.4

5.6

5.4

6.1

5.8

7.8

9.5

9.1

Increase in

investmen

t costs

‐74%

65%

56%

48%

39%

31%

13%

9%26%

7%0%

4%0%

13%

7%44%

76%

69%

Repair & Mainten

ance costs

k€3.2

3.2

3.2

3.2

3.2

3.2

3.2

3.2

3.2

3.2

3.2

3.2

3.2

3.2

3.2

3.2

3.2

3.2


k€15.2

14.8

14.3

14.0

13.6

13.4

12.7

12.7

13.2

12.8

13.1

12.8

13.0

12.7

13.4

16.3

17.7

16.8

Energy costs / to


-17%

18%

19%

20%

21%

23%

26%

28%

24%

30%

34%

31%

33%

26%

32%

32%

28%

26%

Simple payback pe

riod

year

s31.9

28.8

25.7

23.4

20.2

17.9

9.7

8.4

16.7

9.2

‐6.8

0.0

9.7

Non

eNon

eNon

eNon

eLCC (design op

tion

) / LCC

(base‐case)

‐116%

113%

110%

107%

104%

102%

97%

97%

101%

98%

100%

98%

99%

97%

102%

124%

135%

128%

Energy perform

ance and

electricity costs

TEWI analysis

Investmen

t and

mainten

ance costs

Balance shee

t

93

Tabl

e 6

- 46

. Spl

it sy

stem

s, re

vers

ible

: re

sults

tabl

e of

the

LCC

ana

lysi

s –

optio

ns ra

nked

by

decr

easi

ng T

EWI

Characteristics

Unit

SP BC

SP I0

SP I1

SP I2

SP I3

SP I4a

SP R‐290

SP I11

SP I10

SP I5

SP I9

SP I6

SP I8

SP I7

SP CO2

SP I4b

SP R‐32

SP R‐1234yf

Pc (coo

ling capacity at d

esign po

int)

kW14

1414

1414

1414

1414

1414

1414

1414

1414

14Ph

(heating

capacity at design po

int)

kW16

1616

1616

1616

1616

1616

1616

1616

1616

16EER

‐2.81

2.96

3.21

3.41

3.67

3.90

2.81

6.12

5.83

4.14

5.53

4.56

5.23

4.91

2.25

4.14

3.09

2.81

Refrigerant charge

kg5.6

5.6

6.1

6.5

6.9

7.4

0.8

10.9

10.4

7.4

9.9

8.1

9.3

8.8

6.7

5.9

4.7

6.9

Relative

refrigerant charge

kg/kW(coo

ling)

0.40

0.40

0.43

0.46

0.50

0.53

0.06

0.78

0.74

0.53

0.70

0.58

0.67

0.63

0.48

0.42

0.33

0.49

Pe (e

lectrical pow

er inpu

t at d

esign po

int) / coo

ling mod

ekW

5.0

4.7

4.4

4.1

3.8

3.6

5.0

2.3

2.4

3.4

2.5

3.1

2.7

2.9

6.2

3.4

4.5

5.0

SEER

‐3.97

4.08

4.40

4.65

4.97

5.24

3.37

6.87

6.72

5.53

6.54

5.84

6.34

6.11

3.57

5.24

4.09

3.97

SCOP

‐3.31

3.37

3.53

3.67

3.85

4.01

3.03

5.12

5.00

4.19

4.87

4.39

4.73

4.57

3.12

4.01

3.37

3.31

EHU (Equ

ivalen

t Hou

rs of U

se at d

esign capacity) / coo

ling

h600

600

600

600

600

600

600

600

600

600

600

600

600

600

600

600

600

600

EHU (Equ

ivalen

t Hou

rs of U

se at d

esign capacity) / heating

h1400

1400

1400

1400

1400

1400

1400

1400

1400

1400

1400

1400

1400

1400

1400

1400

1400

1400

Electricity consum

ption, ann

ual / coo

ling

kWh

2 118

2 058

1 909

1 806

1 691

1 604

2 491

1 223

1 251

1 519

1 285

1 439

1 325

1 375

2 353

1 604

2 056

2 118

Electricity consum

ption, ann

ual / heating

kWh

6 768

6 654

6 341

6 105

5 821

5 586

7 390

4 376

4 476

5 346

4 596

5 103

4 733

4 899

7 178

5 586

6 649

6 768

Electricity consum

ption, over p

rodu

ct life / coo

ling function

MWh

31.8

30.9

28.6

27.1

25.4

24.1

37.4

18.3

18.8

22.8

19.3

21.6

19.9

20.6

35.3

24.1

30.8

31.8

Gain in coo

ling electricity consum

ption

‐0%

3%10%

15%

20%

24%

‐18%

42%

41%

28%

39%

32%

37%

35%

‐11%

24%

3%0%

Electricity consum

ption, over p

rodu

ct life / heating

function

MWh

101.5

99.8

95.1

91.6

87.3

83.8

110.8

65.6

67.1

80.2

68.9

76.5

71.0

73.5

107.7

83.8

99.7

101.5

Gain in heating

electricity con

sumption

‐0%

2%6%

10%

14%

17%

‐9%

35%

34%

21%

32%

25%

30%

28%

‐6%

17%

2%0%

Electricity consum

ption over produ

ct life / to

tal

MWh

133.3

130.7

123.8

118.7

112.7

107.8

148.2

84.0

85.9

103.0

88.2

98.1

90.9

94.1

143.0

107.8

130.6

133.3

Gain in to

tal electricity con

sumption

‐0%

2%7%

11%

15%

19%

‐11%

37%

36%

23%

34%

26%

32%

29%

‐7%

19%

2%0%

PWF

years

15.0

15.0

15.0

15.0

15.0

15.0

15.0

15.0

15.0

15.0

15.0

15.0

15.0

15.0

15.0

15.0

15.0

15.0

Electricity rate

€/ kW

h0.14

0.14

0.14

0.14

0.14

0.14

0.14

0.14

0.14

0.14

0.14

0.14

0.14

0.14

0.14

0.14

0.14

0.14


ct life

k€18.7

18.3

17.3

16.6

15.8

15.1

20.8

11.8

12.0

14.4

12.4

13.7

12.7

13.2

20.0

15.1

18.3

18.7

Refrigerant leaks

kg/kg/year

6%6%

6%6%

6%6%

6%6%

6%6%

6%6%

6%6%

6%6%

6%6%

Refrigerant e


kg/kg

15%

15%

15%

15%

15%

15%

15%

15%

15%

15%

15%

15%

15%

15%

15%

15%

15%

15%


ct life

kg5.9

5.9

6.4

6.8

7.3

7.7

0.9

11.5

10.9

7.7

10.4

8.5

9.8

9.2

7.1

6.2

4.9

7.2

Refrigerant type

‐R‐410A

R‐410A

R‐410A

R‐410A

R‐410A

R‐410A

R‐290

R‐410A

R‐410A

R‐410A

R‐410A

R‐410A

R‐410A

R‐410A

R‐744

R‐410A

R‐32

R‐1234yf

GWP

kg(CO2) equ

.2088

2088

2088

2088

2088

2088

32088

2088

2088

2088

2088

2088

2088

12088

675

4Direct e

mission

st(CO

2) equ

.12.3

12.3

13.3

14.2

15.2

16.2

0.0

23.9

22.8

16.2

21.6

17.8

20.5

19.2

0.0

12.9

3.3

0.0

Conversion

factor kWh to GWP

kg(CO2) equ

./kW

h0.38

0.38

0.38

0.38

0.38

0.38

0.38

0.38

0.38

0.38

0.38

0.38

0.38

0.38

0.38

0.38

0.38

0.38

Indirect emission

st(CO

2) equ

.51.2

50.2

47.5

45.6

43.3

41.4

56.9

32.2

33.0

39.5

33.9

37.7

34.9

36.1

54.9

41.4

50.1

51.2

Total emission

st(CO

2) equ

.63.5

62.5

60.8

59.7

58.5

57.6

56.9

56.2

55.8

55.7

55.5

55.5

55.4

55.3

54.9

54.4

53.5

51.2

Direct e

mission

s / Total emission

s‐

19%

20%

22%

24%

26%

28%

0%43%

41%

29%

39%

32%

37%

35%

0%24%

6%0%

Gain in equ

ivalen

t CO2 em

ission

s‐

0%2%

4%6%

8%9%

10%

12%

12%

12%

13%

13%

13%

13%

13%

14%

16%

19%

Relative

add


or unit

‐0%

3%6%

8%11%

13%

60%

79%

72%

34%

64%

41%

57%

49%

100%

13%

10%

80%

Relative

add


or unit

€0%

0%5%

11%

16%

21%

60%

111%

96%

34%

81%

36%

67%

51%

100%

21%

10%

80%

MSP

: ou

tdoo


€2 000

2 057

2 110

2 163

2 216

2 269

3 200

3 589

3 436

2 673

3 284

2 826

3 137

2 979

4 000

2 269

2 200

3 600

MSP

: Δcom

pressor costs

€0

02

35

60

1412

010

38

60

80

0MSP

: ou

tdoo

r unit, corrrected

€2 000

2 057

2 108

2 160

2 211

2 263

3 200

3 575

3 424

2 673

3 274

2 823

3 129

2 973

4 000

2 261

2 200

3 600

MSP

: indo

or units

€1 500

1 500

1 580

1 660

1 740

1 820

2 400

3 164

2 940

2 005

2 716

2 044

2 500

2 268

3 000

1 820

1 650

2 700

MSP

: accessories

€200

200

200

200

200

200

200

200

200

200

200

200

200

200

200

200

200

200

MSP

: who


€3 700

3 757

3 888

4 020

4 151

4 283

5 800

6 939

6 564

4 878

6 190

5 067

5 829

5 441

7 200

4 281

4 050

6 500

Refrigerant costs

€84

8491

97104

111

4164

156

111

148

122

140

131

2789

61413

Labo

ur bare costs

€700

700

700

700

700

700

700

700

700

700

700

700

700

700

700

700

700

700

Total bare costs

€4 484

4 541

4 680

4 817

4 956

5 093

6 504

7 802

7 420

5 689

7 038

5 889

6 669

6 272

7 927

5 070

4 811

7 613


€5 381

5 449

5 615

5 780

5 947

6 112

7 805

9 363

8 904

6 827

8 445

7 067

8 002

7 527

9 512

6 084

5 773

9 136


unde

dk€

5.4

5.4

5.6

5.8

5.9

6.1

7.8

9.4

8.9

6.8

8.4

7.1

8.0

7.5

9.5

6.1

5.8

9.1

Increase in

investmen

t costs

‐0%

0%4%

7%9%

13%

44%

74%

65%

26%

56%

31%

48%

39%

76%

13%

7%69%

Repair & Mainten

ance costs

k€3.2

3.2

3.2

3.2

3.2

3.2

3.2

3.2

3.2

3.2

3.2

3.2

3.2

3.2

3.2

3.2

3.2

3.2


k€27.3

26.9

26.2

25.7

24.9

24.4

31.8

24.4

24.2

24.5

24.0

24.1

24.0

23.9

32.8

24.4

27.3

31.0

Energy costs / to


-68%

68%

66%

65%

63%

62%

65%

48%

50%

59%

51%

57%

53%

55%

61%

62%

67%

60%

Simple payback pe

riod

year

s‐

0.0

2.2

2.9

2.6

2.9

Non

e8.7

7.9

4.9

7.1

5.2

6.6

5.7

Non

e2.9

15.8

Non

eLCC (design op

tion

) / LCC

(base‐case)

‐100%

99%

96%

94%

91%

90%

116%

89%

89%

90%

88%

88%

88%

88%

120%

90%

100%

114%

TEWI analysis

Investmen

t and

mainten

ance costs

Balance shee

t

Energy perform

ance and

electricity costs

94

Rooftop air conditioner Given the limited information received regarding rooftop air conditioners, the study team has adopted the same approach as in the EECCAC study (EECCAC, 2003), which is to take the US market as a reference. Indeed, these products are much more popular in the USA than in Europe but the units sold on these two markets are similar. In the USA, the market has been constrained with minimum performance requirements, at full load for a long time and more recently also with the IEER (described in Task 1 of ENTR Lot 6 report) part load index. LCC analysis In 2002, a LCC analysis was led for the US DOE (TIAX, 2002) in order to set minimum performance requirements for these products in cooling and in heating mode. Two reference base cases were determined to represent the US market, a 7.5 ton rooftop package (about 26 kW cooling) and a 15 ton rooftop package (about 52 kW cooling). The EER in SI units of the reference rooftop was about 2.8. A detailed engineering analysis was performed which enabled to identify the manufacture overcost to reach an EER up to 3.52. Although the base case products were charged with the R22 refrigerant at that time, a sensitivity analysis was performed with HFC refrigerants, including R410A. The overcost on the manufacturer selling price are shown hereunder in dollars for a base case price of about 9200 $ of the time for the 52 kW unit. Figure 6 -16 . 15-ton R-22 Cost-Efficiency Curve with R-410a Design Option Points Overlaid, (from TIAX, 2002)

The relative price increase was applied to ENTR Lot 6 base case manufacturer selling price, which enabled to compute the total installed cost of the improved units. Regarding efficiency, it is to be noticed that the EER ratings in the USA are gross values, while these are normally net values in Europe (and ISO standards). As explained in task 1 of this report, net values require a correction for the fan power consumption and heat released (which decreases the cooling capacity) so that ducted units may be compared with non ducted units. Hence, the 2.84 net EER base case is in fact a 2.63 gross EER, which can be compared with a US EER in SI units. This gives about 9 in IP units. The EN14511 net EER and proposed SEER indexes in this report have been computed and reported in the table below. The hypothesis used to compute the SEER values are the ones presented in the Task 4 report regarding the off design performances and part load performances.

95

Table 6 -47 . SEER of package air conditioner base case and improvement

Energy efficiency indicator

Base-Case IP EER 9.0

IP EER 9.5

IP EER 10

IP EER 10.5

IP EER 11

IP EER 11.5

IP EER 12

EER net 2,84 3,02 3,19 3,36 3,54 3,71 3,88

SEER Lot 6 3,88 4,13 4,35 4,58 4,80 5,03 5,25

SEER Helsinki 4,12 4,37 4,60 4,83 5,06 5,29 5,52

SEER Athens 3,83 4,07 4,30 4,53 4,75 4,98 5,21 In the table below, the life cycle cost details are shown for the different levels of efficiency based upon the US overcosts and cost calculations of Task 4, and for the average EU climate. For the average EU climate and for the 0.14 c€/kWh, proposed improvements are clearly cost effective. Table 6 -48 . LCC of cooling only package air conditioners, average EU climate

Characteristics Base-Case

IP EER 9.0

IP EER 9.5

IP EER 10

IP EER 10.5

IP EER 11

IP EER 11.5

IP EER 12

Energy Pc net in kW 80 80 80 80 80 80 80

EER net 2,84 3,02 3,19 3,36 3,54 3,71 3,88

Pe net in kW 28 26 25 24 23 22 21

Correction EN14511 @ 125 Pa in kW 1,67 1,67 1,67 1,67 1,67 1,67 1,67

Pc gross in kW 78 78 78 78 78 78 78

EERgross 2,63 2,78 2,93 3,08 3,22 3,37 3,52

SEER 3,88 4,13 4,35 4,58 4,80 5,03 5,25

EHU (Equivalent active hours) 600 600 600 600 600 600 600

Electricity consumption in kWh 12 361 11 633 11 034 10 492 9 998 9 548 9 135 Electricity consumption over prod. Life In kWh 185 418 174 501 165 509 157 373 149 975 143 220 137 027

LCC

PWF 15,0 15,0 15,0 15,0 15,0 15,0 15,0

Electricity rate in c€/kWh 0,14 0,14 0,14 0,14 0,14 0,14 0,14

Electricity costs over product life in € 25 958 24 430 23 171 22 032 20 997 20 051 19 184

total + O & P, rounded in € 21 500 22 000 22 100 22 200 22 400 22 600 23 000

repair & maintenance in € 12 900 13 200 13 260 13 320 13 440 13 560 13 800

Total life cycle costs in € 60 358 59 630 58 531 57 552 56 837 56 211 55 984

Energy costs / total costs 43,0% 41,0% 39,6% 38,3% 36,9% 35,7% 34,3% The base case and improvement did use two even size scroll compressors in parallel and it might be possible to reach higher SEER levels (5.6 versus 5.2) with an uneven 33/66 compressor staging. For lower capacity sizes, package products generally use a single scroll compressor. In these conditions, the ratio SEER/EER is lower. In order to reach similar SEER levels for smaller units, VFD scroll compressors are now available but it is also possible to use 2 smaller compressors in parallel. Eventually, it appears that the potential for cost effective improvement of package air conditioners is similar to the one of split air conditioners in terms of SEER.

96

TEWI analysis As for split systems, alternative refrigerant options are added to complete the analysis. The same hypothesis are kept as for split systems except for propane, as for package products, there is no constraint on the refrigerant charge and thus the efficiency of the product is comparable with the one of the base case and the overcost is supposed similar to the one of R-32. It is also supposed that the refrigerant charge increases with the EER, with the same slope as for split systems. A micro-channel heat exchanger is added, either on the condenser for cooling only products, or for the indoor heat exchanger for reversible products. This option aims at identifying the potential to reduce the TEWI by charge reduction. This change is supposed to be made at no cost, the main intent here being to illustrate the potential for mitigating the TEWI when using this technology. The calculations are shown in the tables hereafter for both cooling only and reversible package air conditioners and are summarized in the two figures below, which represent the LCC variation versus the TEWI variation, both figures relative to the base case situation, for cooling only and reversible package. Figure 6 - 17 . LCC variation versus TEWI variation against the base case, cooling only package air conditioner, average EU climate

Figure 6 - 18 . LCC variation versus TEWI variation against the base case, reversible package air conditioner, average EU climate

The cooling only and reversible cases differ significantly.

IP12 + MCHX

CO2

R‐32

R‐1234yf

R‐290

‐35%

‐30%

‐25%

‐20%

‐15%

‐10%

‐5%

0%

5%

10%

15%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

Gain in TEWI over base case in %

LCC gain over base case in %

IP12 + MCHX

CO2

R32R290

R1234yf

‐25%

‐20%

‐15%

‐10%

‐5%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

‐5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20%

Gain in TEWI over base case in %

LCC gain over base case in %

97

Regarding cooling only air conditioners, the low electricity consumption gives a high weight to the direct emissions (26% for the bases case). Consequently, increasing the energy efficiency leads to lower relative gains in CO2eq emission (11% at BAT level, whereas the gain in electricity consumption if of 26%). In order to reach significant reductions in TEWI, it is necessary to add micro-channel heat exchangers (the gain in TEWI is then about 18 % when combined to the best efficiency option) at the condenser or to use alternative refrigerants (up to 26% cuts in CO2eq emissions). Regarding reversible air conditioners, the relatively low proportion of direct emissions in the TEWI for the base case (9 %) makes the energy efficiency a good driver to cut the CO2eq emissions up to 16 % and even 18 % with a micro channel heat exchanger (here rather on the indoor side). Most alternative refrigerants are still profitable, except CO2 which is penalized because of its lower efficiency. Eventually, the main difference with the VRF and split analysis is the refrigerant charge which is much lower for package products, 0.25 kg/kW versus 0.4 for split and 0.5 to 0.7 for VRF systems. It means that for package products, with the assumptions made on charge and leaks, energy efficiency improvement always drive TEWI reductions, even if small for cooling only products. The complete results are presented below.

98

Tabl

e 6

-49

. LC

C a

nd T

EWI a

naly

sis

of c

oolin

g on

ly p

acka

ge a

ir co

nditi

oner

s, a

vera

ge E

U c

limat

e

Characteristics

Units

Base‐Case

IP EER

9.0

IP EER

9.5

IP EER

10

IP EER

10.5

IP EER

11

IP EER

11.5

IP EER

12

IP EER

12 + MCH

XCO

2R‐32

R‐1234yf

R‐290

Pc net

kW80

8080

8080

8080

8080

8080

80EER ne

t‐

2.84

3.02

3.19

3.36

3.54

3.71

3.88

3.88

2.3

3.1

2.84

2.84

Pe net

kW28.2

26.5

25.1

23.8

22.6

21.6

20.6

20.6

35.2

25.6

28.2

28.2

Correction

EN14511 @ 125 Pa

kW1.67

1.67

1.67

1.67

1.67

1.67

1.67

1.67

1.67

1.67

1.67

1.67

Pc gross

kW78.3

78.3

78.3

78.3

78.3

78.3

78.3

78.3

78.3

78.3

78.3

78.3

EER gross

‐2.63

2.78

2.93

3.08

3.22

3.37

3.52

3.52

2.10

2.89

2.63

2.63

SEER

‐3.88

4.13

4.35

4.58

4.80

5.03

5.25

5.25

3.51

4.00

3.88

3.88

EHU (Equ

ivalen

t Hou

rs of U

se at d

esign capacity)

h600

600

600

600

600

600

600

600

600

600

600

600

Electricity consum

ption, ann

ual

kWh / year

12 361

11 633

11 034

10 492

9 998

9 548

9 135

9 135

13 691

12 001

12 361

12 361

Electricity consum

ption, over p

rodu

ct life

MWh

185

175

166

157

150

143

137

137

205

180

185

185

Gain in to

tal electricity con

sumption

‐0%

6%11%

15%

19%

23%

26%

26%

‐11%

3%0%

0%

Refrigerant charge

kg20

20.4

21.6

22.7

23.9

25.1

26.3

21.0

24.6

16.0

24.0

10.0

Refrigerant leaks

kg/kg/year

3%3%

3%3%

3%3%

3%3%

3%3%

3%3%

Refrigerant e


kg/kg

15%

15%

15%

15%

15%

15%

15%

15%

15%

15%

15%

15%


ct life

kg12

12.3

12.9

13.6

14.3

15.0

15.8

12.6

14.8

9.6

14.4

6.0

GWP

kg(CO2) equ

.2088

2088

2088

2088

2088

2088

2088

2088

1675

43

Direct e

mission

st(CO

2) equ

.25.1

25.6

27.0

28.5

29.9

31.4

32.9

26.3

0.0

6.5

0.1

0.0

Conversion

factor kWh to GWP

kg(CO2) equ

./kW

h0.38

0.38

0.38

0.38

0.38

0.38

0.38

0.38

0.38

0.38

0.38

0.38

Indirect emission

st(CO

2) equ

.71.2

67.0

63.6

60.4

57.6

55.0

52.6

52.6

78.9

69.1

71.2

71.2

Total emission

st(CO

2) equ

.96

9391

8988

8686

7979

7671

71

Direct e

mission

s / Total emission

s‐

26%

28%

30%

32%

34%

36%

38%

33%

0%9%

0%0%

Gain in equ

ivalen

t CO2 em

ission

s‐

0%4%

6%8%

9%10%

11%

18%

18%

21%

26%

26%

PWF

years

15.0

15.0

15.0

15.0

15.0

15.0

15.0

15.0

15.0

15.0

15.0

15.0

Electricity rate

€ / kW

h0.14

0.14

0.14

0.14

0.14

0.14

0.14

0.14

0.14

0.14

0.14

0.14


ct life

k€26.0

24.4

23.2

22.0

21.0

20.1

19.2

19.2

28.8

25.2

26.0

26.0

Total investm

ent costs, including

Overhead & Profit

k€21.5

22.0

22.1

22.2

22.4

22.6

23.0

23.0

37.8

23.1

36.2

23.1

Repair & mainten

ance costs

k€12.9

12.9

12.9

12.9

12.9

12.9

12.9

12.9

12.9

12.9

12.9

12.9


k €60.4

59.3

58.2

57.1

56.3

55.6

55.1

55.1

79.5

61.2

75.1

62.0

Energy costs / to


‐43.0%

41.2%

39.8%

38.6%

37.3%

36.1%

34.8%

34.8%

36.2%

41.2%

34.6%

41.9%

Simple payback pe

riod

years

‐4.9

3.2

2.7

2.7

2.8

3.3

3.3

Non

e31.6

Non

eNon

eGain in LCC

‐0.0%

1.7%

3.6%

5.3%

6.7%

8.0%

8.7%

8.7%

‐31.7%

‐1.4%

‐24.4%

‐2.6%

TEWI analysis

Life cycle costs and

balance she

et

Energy perform

ance

99

Tabl

e 6

-50

. LC

C a

nd T

EWI a

naly

sis

of re

vers

ible

pac

kage

air

cond

ition

ers,

ave

rage

EU

clim

ate

Characteristics

Units

CO2

Base‐Case

IP EER

9.0

IP EER

9.5

IP EER

10

IP EER

10.5

IP EER

11

IP EER

11.5

IP EER

12

IP EER

12 +

MCH

XR‐32

R‐290

R‐1234yf

Pc net

kW80

8080

8080

8080

8080

8080

80EER ne

t‐

2.3

2.84

3.02

3.19

3.36

3.54

3.71

3.88

3.88

3.1

2.84

2.84

Pene

tkW

35.2

2826

2524

2322

2121

25.6

28.2

28.2

Correction

EN14511 @ 125 Pa

kW1.67

1.67

1.67

1.67

1.67

1.67

1.67

1.67

1.67

1.67

1.67

1.67

Pc gross

kW78

7878

7878

7878

7878

7878

78EER gross

‐2.10

2.63

2.78

2.93

3.08

3.22

3.37

3.52

3.52

2.89

2.63

2.63

SEER

‐3.51

3.88

4.13

4.35

4.58

4.80

5.03

5.25

5.25

4.00

3.88

3.88

SCOP

‐2.95

3.27

3.39

3.51

3.63

3.75

3.88

4.02

4.02

3.37

3.27

3.27

EHUcooling

h600

600

600

600

600

600

600

600

600

600

600

600

EHUhe

ating

h1400

1400

1400

1400

1400

1400

1400

1400

1400

1400

1400

1400

Electricity consum

ption, ann

ual

kWh / y

51 644

46 627

44 677

42 983

41 374

39 844

38 387

37 024

37 024

45 269

46 627

46 627

Electricity consum

ption, over p

rodu

ct life

MWh

775

699

670

645

621

598

576

555

555

679

699

699

Gain in to

tal electricity con

sumption

‐‐11%

0%4%

8%11%

15%

18%

21%

21%

3%0%

0%

Refrigerant charge

kg24.6

2020.4

21.6

22.7

23.9

25.1

26.3

21.0

16.0

10.0

24.0

Refrigerant leaks

kg/kg/year

3%3%

3%3%

3%3%

3%3%

3%3%

3%3%

Refrigerant e


kg/kg

15%

15%

15%

15%

15%

15%

15%

15%

15%

15%

15%

15%


ct life

kg14.8

1212.3

12.9

13.6

14.3

15.0

15.8

12.6

9.6

6.0

14.4

GWP

kg(CO2) equ

.1

2088

2088

2088

2088

2088

2088

2088

2088

675

34

Direct e

mission

st(CO

2) equ

.0.0

25.1

25.6

27.0

28.5

29.9

31.4

32.9

26.3

6.5

0.0

0.1

Conversion

factor kWh to GWP

kg(CO2) equ

./kW

h0.38

0.38

0.38

0.38

0.38

0.38

0.38

0.38

0.38

0.38

0.38

0.38

Indirect emission

st(CO

2) equ

.297

269

257

248

238

230

221

213

213

261

269

269

Total emission

st(CO

2) equ

.297

294

283

275

267

259

253

246

240

267

269

269

Direct e

mission

s / Total emission

s‐

0%9%

9%10%

11%

12%

12%

13%

11%

2%0%

0%

Gain in equ

ivalen

t CO2 em

ission

s‐

‐1%

0%4%

6%9%

12%

14%

16%

18%

9%9%

9%

PWF

years

15.0

15.0

15.0

15.0

15.0

15.0

15.0

15.0

15.0

15.0

15.0

15.0

Electricity rate

€ / kW

h0.14

0.14

0.14

0.14

0.14

0.14

0.14

0.14

0.14

0.14

0.14

0.14


ct life

k€108.5

97.9

93.8

90.3

86.9

83.7

80.6

77.8

77.8

95.1

97.9

97.9

Total investm

ent costs, including

Overhead & Profit

k€37.8

21.5

22.0

22.1

22.2

22.4

22.6

23.0

23.0

23.1

23.1

36.2

Repair & mainten

ance costs

k€12.9

12.9

12.9

12.9

12.9

12.9

12.9

12.9

12.9

12.9

12.9

12.9


k€159

132

129

125

122

119

116

114

114

131

134

147

Energy costs / to


‐68.1%

74.0%

72.9%

72.1%

71.2%

70.3%

69.4%

68.4%

68.4%

72.5%

73.1%

66.6%

Simple payback pe

riod

years

Non

e‐

1.8

1.2

1.0

0.9

1.0

1.1

1.1

8.4

Non

eNon

eGain in LCC

‐‐20.3%

0.0%

2.7%

5.3%

7.8%

10.1%

12.2%

14.1%

14.1%

1.0%

‐1.2%

‐11.1%

TEWI

Life cycle costs and

balance she

et

Energy perform

ance

100

6.3. ANALYSIS BNAT

6.3.1. AIR-COOLED AND WATER-COOLED CHILLERS Potential to reach efficiency levels above the BAT level In Task 5, the following design options have been identified concerning the non available technologies: - magneto-caloric effect, - thermo-acoustic and - thermo-electric technologies For these technologies, there is no proof yet they will be able to offer viable and efficient alternatives to electric vapour compression air conditioners and chillers. These technologies are thus not considered further in this analysis. The previously described design options, which are listed below, are thus discussed against their long term potential:

- Increase the heat exchange surface of the evaporator-side (water to refrigerant) and/or the condenser-side (refrigerant to air or to water) heat exchangers.

- Change the type of evaporator heat exchanger for a more efficient type of heat exchanger. One common choice is to opt for a flooded shell and tube heat exchanger type rather than a direct-expansion shell and tube heat exchanger type.

- Change the type of condenser heat exchanger for a more efficient type of heat exchanger.

- Change the compressor type for a more efficient compressor type. This results today, for a

limited number of manufacturers, in the use of centrifugal chillers with magnetic bearings at intermediate cooling capacities (200 kW to 800-900 kW) instead of scroll or screw compressors and of centrifugal chillers with or without magnetic bearings at cooling capacities larger than around 900 kW, instead of screw compressors.

- Optimize the design of the compressor to reach higher compressor efficiencies, by using more

efficient EC motors and improving the compression process (rotor design, pressure loss reduction, for instance).

- Choose a better design point of the compressor so that its performance curve (isentropic efficiency), as function of the compression ratio, is best adapted to the changes in climatic and part-load conditions under which the chiller is going to operate once installed.

- Improve the efficiency at part-load by staging several scroll compressors or using an inverter (variable speed drive) control method, whatever the compressor type (screw, scroll, centrifugal).

- For air-cooled chillers, reduce the electricity consumption of the condenser fans at full-load

and part-load by using EC motors and variable speed drives.

- For air-cooled chillers, add water to the inlet air stream in order to decrease the condensing temperature.

- Use compressor motors and condenser fans motors with higher rated efficiencies.

- Improve the controls (lower superheat, dynamically controlled subcooling, optimized air flow to balance fan electric consumption and compressor efficiency, best compromise between slide valve operation and circuit unloading of screw compressors, …).

- Change the refrigerant fluid to lower the TEWI.

101

Regarding 400 kW air-cooled chillers, the BAT level is reached with the following options : centrifugal compressors and magnetic bearings, a flooded type evaporator heat exchanger and VSD-controlled condenser fans with EC motors. Concerning 100 kW air-cooled chillers, the BAT level is reached with oversized heat exchangers (evaporator and condenser) and an inverter-driven single-rotor screw compressor. Regarding 1000 kW water-cooled chillers, the BAT level is reached with the following options : centrifugal compressors and magnetic bearings, a flooded type evaporator and a shell and tube condenser. Looking now at 100 kW water-cooled chillers, as for air-cooled chillers, the BAT level is also reached with oversized heat exchangers and an inverter-driven single-rotor screw compressor. Regarding the improvement in compressor performance due to the use of a centrifugal wheel, this technology already surpasses all other compression technologies. The compressor isentropic efficiency is estimated in the range of 85 % to 90 % depending on its size, with no more than 1 % improvement potential on the long term. The motor being used is already at the IE4 level with almost no potential for improvement. There could still be some gains in the optimization of the compressor in order to reach higher part load performances, but this is very difficult to evaluate; the reason is that at very low pressure ratios, the ideal cycle efficiency increases exponentially while the compressor efficiency decreases rapidly. Hence, a small change in the part load efficiency could lead to a significant increase in the lower load point of the SEER calculation (for air cooled chillers, 20 °C outdoor temperature / 21 % load), which energy weighting is about 20 % over the cooling season. In addition, manufacturers of these high efficiency products already claim that their design is optimized for the part load performances. Regarding the evaporator, the BAT intermediate to high capacity products (represented by the studies done at 400 kW and 1000 kW) are already equipped with flooded evaporators enabling temperature differences between the refrigerant temperature inlet and the water temperature outlet below 1 °C. It is certainly possible to extend the surface of the heat exchangers but with the limitation of higher pressure drops, which could be counterproductive. The potential for improvement is supposed to be limited at full load and also at part load. Regarding the condensing side of air-cooled chillers, the propeller fan efficiency can still be improved by 3D foil design, which would enable to gain 10 or 20 % on the energy consumption of the fan motor or 1 to 2 % on the energy consumption of the air-cooled chiller. In addition, there is still some potential to reach 95 % EC motor efficiency. On total, this corresponds to only a small energy efficiency increase of 1 or 2 % maximum at full load, and probably twice that value on the SEER. For the condenser of water cooled chillers, there is not much room left to extend the surface of the heat exchanger. Present more efficient designs are close to a condensation temperature of 35 °C. For the condenser side of air cooled chillers, it is estimated that more efficient designs lead to a condensation temperature close to 45 °C at standard rating conditions. Here there is still more potential but limited by the sound power emission (mainly linked to the air flow rate). In addition, as reported in Task 5, the addition of water in the inlet air stream of air cooled chillers would help to save 10 to 15 % energy over a season in a standard climate. All in all, the future improvements, may well lead up to 5-10 % long term potential savings for water cooled chillers beyond BAT level. Regarding air cooled chillers, BNAT levels could be up to 15 – 25 % with the inclusion of the evaporatively-cooled option but would be only 10 – 15 % without. Regarding the refrigerant fluids, it is theoretically feasible to design chillers with BAT efficiency and low GWP, even if there is no product of this type yet on the market. The fluids planned to be used, instead of R134a, are ammonia, propane, R1234yf or R1234ze, while R32, propane and other refrigerant blends of HFC and HFO are candidate to replace the R410A. Already, the HFO1234ze entered the present R134a chiller market and appears compatible with centrifugal compressors using magnetic bearings which should enable to reach much lower TEWI values at BAT levels: - for air-cooled chillers, for a present maximum energy consumption gain of 36 % over the base case, the TEWI is only cut by 20 % (average refrigerant scenario) ; this figure would raise to 47 % (average

102

refrigerant scenario) if a propane chiller (or other very low GWP fluid) could use the most energy efficient design ; - for water-cooled chillers, for a present maximum energy consumption gain of 37 % over the base case, the TEWI is only cut by 26 % ; this figure would raise to 48 % if an ammonia (or other very low GWP fluid) chiller could use the most energy efficient design. These figures give a BNAT in terms of TEWI, which seems can be reached within the 5 coming years or before. Using BNAT as the benchmark The recent development (a few years already) of oil free magnetic bearings centrifugal chillers with very high efficiency EC motors created a clear BAT, with products already available on the market. Regarding BNAT efficiency levels, there are no cutting-edge technologies foreseen to modify drastically the efficiency of the products in the future. So it is estimated that the BNAT efficiency and GWP levels can be set as targets for the coming years. This ambition level taking 10 % higher BNAT than BAT leads to the corresponding SEER levels as described below for water cooled and air cooled chillers, and depend on the capacity range of the products. Regarding water cooled chillers, information supplied by manufacturers suggests it is already feasible to reach ESEER (Eurovent index) values higher than 10 with the present available technologies (centrifugal compressor with magnetic bearings, flooded shell and tube evaporator and condenser). A SEER value of 10 (about 10 % above BAT level) could then be used as a target for all the product ranges in which these technologies are available, ie above 200 kW cooling capacity regarding centrifugal compressors. Below 200 kW, the maximum full load EER of water cooled chillers drops from 6 to about 5. The drop in ESEER (Eurovent index) is sharper, from 9 to about 6, whereas for the dominant scroll compressor type with two asymmetric capacity stages and largely sized plate heat exchangers, it seems feasible to reach ESEER (Eurovent index) values of 8, which is more in line with the decrease in full load performance. For capacities below about 40 kW, inverter compressors should be used in order to reach these performance levels. Hence, a SEER value of 8 seems adapted below 200 kW. For air cooled chillers, the maximum observed ESEER value is 6 for magnetic bearing centrifugal machines with flooded evaporators, whatever the size of the machine and is largely above competing compressor technologies. So BNAT could be a SEER of 6 (about 10 % above BAT level) above 200 kW. Below 200 kW, R410A scroll compressor chillers may reach ESEER values slightly above 5.5 with 33/66 capacity steps, EC motors with VFD for condenser fans and efficient propeller fans. For capacities below about 40 kW, inverter compressors should be used in order to reach these performance levels. Hence, a SEER value of 5.5 (about 10 % above BAT level) seems an ambitious benchmark below 200 kW. These benchmarks should be completed with a low GWP target in order to foster the development of highly energy efficient chillers using low GWPs. For R134a chillers, this target can be set at lowest values as GWP with negligible GWP are planned as replacement fluid. For R410A chillers, there are several candidates for replacement, the one with the higher GWP being R32. So the target could be set at 675 to let all options opened and to trigger the development of middle to low GWP chillers.

6.3.2. AIR CONDITIONERS (VRF, SPLIT, ROOFTOP) The case of split air conditioners is taken as a reference here as a thorough analysis was already performed for split air conditioners of smaller size (DG ENER Lot 10), and that a benchmark level of 8.5 was already adopted for split air conditioners below 12 kW in the regulation 2012/206/EC. Potential differences with VRF and rooftop air conditioner are also discussed. Potential to reach efficiency levels above the BAT level

103

The options to improve the efficiency beyond the BAT levels for air conditioners are of the same type as for chillers, incremental improvements over present components. These options are analysed by main component type hereafter. Regarding the compressor, the more efficient compressors for air conditioners are rotary-twin compressors in the small capacity range and scroll compressors above. - The perspective of improvement at full load is limited. - There still may be some place to adjust the optimal efficiency of the product so as to get better

SEER ratings but this would probably lead to decreased performances in heating mode, while at the moment manufacturers make mostly reversible products.

- There may be large gains thank to small improvements at low loads, but this part of the performance curves of compressors is badly known and this is difficult to evaluate that potential. Most OEM would not recommend their customers to work in these zones because of the low pressure difference between the high and the low sides. To ensure a proper compressor lubrication is certainly an obstacle to work to very low pressure ratios and thus to improve the performance under these conditions. In this direction, the development of small size oil free centrifugal compressors could lead to significantly raise the SEER values of air conditioners.

- Regarding the flooded compression discussed in Task 5, this could bring up to 5 % efficiency increase over standard scroll compression. But the extension of centrifugal compressors below 200 kW would definitely be of higher value for larger air conditioners as it could lead to gains as high as 10 % on the total efficiency of the machine.

- Regarding the motor and drive, compressors already use most efficient motors (class IE4) and drive losses are estimated to be very low (in the range of 2 % at full load up to 5 % at part load).

Regarding the condenser: - propeller fan considerable gains in efficiency are already included at BAT level so that further gains would only be marginal or would require too large fan diameters. - In addition, there is still some potential to reach 95 % EC motor efficiency. On total, this corresponds to only a small energy efficiency increase of 1 or 2 % maximum at full load, and probably twice that value on the SEER. - As for air-cooled chillers, adding water to the inlet air stream in order to decrease the condensing temperature could lead to 10 - 15 % gains on the SEER. Regarding indoor fans, considerable gains in efficiency are already included in the product modelled so that further gains would only be marginal, taking into account that the share over the total energy consumption is low. Regarding the potential to extend the heat exchanger surfaces, the heat exchanger options already include very large UA values on both sides, which are comparable to the ones used for the best available products on the most efficient markets for very small splits. In conclusion, with the present design options identified, it seems difficult to increase the efficiency over the BAT product by more than a few percents except with evaporative-cooling at the condenser for which in that case it would reach 15 or 20. However, regarding the total warming impact (TEWI), it is feasible to reduce drastically the TEWI of air conditioners by changing the refrigerant fluid. For air conditioners, the preferred option to replace R410A have GWP lower than the one of R32, as low as 4 with the R1234yf which is already used in cars which would lead to the lower TEWI in total but at high costs. A BNAT target for these products would then be to reach the combination of a very high efficiency, close to BAT levels, while using a low GWP refrigerant. Using the BNAT as the benchmark Following the reasoning above, it is thus proposed to keep the BAT as a benchmark value. For split air conditioners above 12 kW, despite the fact that little potential over the BAT level may be identified (except by evaporative-cooling at the condenser), the SEERon level reached at BAT level is

104

only estimated to be about 8 (SEER about 6.9), while the maximum SEERon value measured on a real product (of very small capacity) was 8.567. The uncertainty on these values come from the variation of efficiency with the outdoor temperature at low outdoor air temperature and low loads. Indeed, in those conditions and for these efficiency levels, the product should work with very low pressure ratio. In these operating conditions, the efficiency that could be obtained with an isentropic (ideal) compression increases exponentially to very high figures. On the contrary, below a compression ratio of say 1.5, the isentropic efficiency curve drops sharply down to zero. Consequently, the uncertainty on the modelling of these values is very high. The compression efficiency being very low on the 21 % load point for the SEER calculation, even a small efficiency increment may enable to reach considerably higher efficiency at that point (EER up to 15 in SI units !), with a weight on the global SEER close to 20 %. It is estimated that the BAT 6.9 SEER could also be between 7.5 and 7.8 value with different efficiency slopes with outdoor air temperature at low load (closer to the ones observed for the unit with a 8.56 SEERon above). This uncertainty of about 10 % is important and will not decrease until more data and SEER values are made available by manufacturers. In the meanwhile, the benchmark in use in the regulation 2012/206/EC is 8.5 for split air conditioners below 12 kW. It could be reached by lower than 4 kW split air conditioners but is way above the reality of split air conditioners above 12 kW. So if such a benchmark was used for large air conditioners, it would probably not be effective to drive the efficiency of the market, as being beyond the reach of any competitor. For VRF air conditioners, the BAT product identified SEER in task 6.2 is about SEER 5.5 with part load control method 1 and 6.1 with part load control method 2. This includes an allowance for the longer piping (correction coefficient of 0.95). Without this correction, using part load control 2 (closer of the control of a split system), the BAT SEER would increase to 6.4, closer to the value of the split system. The remaining difference comes from higher electronics and fan power for the VRF, as well as decreased part load performances at low loads to ensure proper oil return with long pipes. Hence, BAT values for VRF are about 10 % lower than for split. As the BNAT options are the same as for split, a benchmark value without the piping correction would be about 10 % lower than for the split system. All in all, the SEER depends highly on the choices made regarding the measurement method of the SEER. With our hypothesis (piping proportional to capacity included, part load control method 1), it seems reasonable to reach a 6.5 SEER for VRF systems. Regarding the TEWI, as it is estimated that with the refrigerant fluid R1234yf, it is possible to reach similar SEER levels but with a GWP of only 4, this clearly appears as the BNAT. Regarding natural refrigerants, only the CO2 appears as viable candidate for split and VRF systems, but the efficiency loss is too high to compete at equal TEWI levels. Adopting the most energy efficient design and a very low GWP refrigerant fluid would lead to the following improvements at BNAT levels : - for cooling only split air conditioners : the energy consumption could be cut by 40 % and the TEWI could be reduced by 70 % ; - for reversible split air conditioners : the energy consumption could be cut by 37 % and the TEWI could be reduced by 49 % ; - for cooling only VRF air conditioners : the energy consumption could be cut by 36 % and the TEWI could be reduced by 69 % ; - for reversible VRF air conditioners : the energy consumption could be cut by 28 % and the TEWI could be reduced by 44 % ; It should be noted however that to reach so high efficiency levels, SEER of 7, would arm the dehumidification capability of the product and would require further adaptation as in smaller split units (a second expansion valve may be used to operate on demand in chilling mode with lower evaporating temperature and dehumidification capability). 7 Energy efficient room air conditioners – best available technology (BAT), Anette Michel, Eric Bush, Jürg Nipkow, Conrad U. Brunner, Hu Bo, Topten International Services. Available online : http://www.topten.info/uploads/File/023_Anette_Michel_final_paper_S.pdf

106

6.4. SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS OF THE MAIN PARAMETERS

6.4.1. AIR-COOLED AND WATER-COOLED CHILLERS Sensitivity scenarios : climates (energy demand and efficiency), costs and refrigerant Main points The study team defines 3 costs scenarios and 2 refrigerant scenarios for the sensitivity analysis of the LCC of the chillers. As previously stated, scenarios 1 are the average scenarios that have been considered for chapter 6.2.3. These different scenarios are then combined with a climatic sensitivity, by considering the three proposed normative climates for the purpose of SEER calculations: average, cold and warm climates, as defined at the beginning of this report. The greatest impact of these different climates is the number of equivalent hours at design capacity, which are respectively 600, 300 and 900 hours. This means that whatever the improved product, it is more profitable under the warm climate because of a higher energy demand and so a higher electricity consumption. Conversely, it is less profitable under the cold climate. A second but lower impact is the change in the SEER of the product, which is around 10 to 15% higher in the case of the cold climate, with regards to the average climate, and around 5% lower or less for the warm climate, still with regards to the average climate. Table 6 - 51 . Sensitivity analyses: costs and refrigerant scenarios for chillers

Sensitivity analyses : costs and refrigerant scenarios for the chillers

Scenarios 400 kW air-cooled chillers 1000 kW water-cooled chillers

100 kW air-cooled and water-cooled chillers

Costs scenario 1 Electricity price : 0.12 €/kWh Electricity price : 0.10 €/kWh Electricity price : 0.14 €/kWh Costs scenario 2 Electricity price : 0.10 €/kWh Electricity price : 0.12 €/kWh Electricity price : 0.12 €/kWh

Costs scenario 3

Electricity price : 0.10 €/kWh

+50% in the additional costs of the improved products

Electricity price : 0.10 €/kWh


Electricity price : 0.12€/kWh


Refrigerant scenario 1

Leaks during product life : 3%, per year, of the initial charge End-of-life recovery losses : 20% of the initial charge


Leaks during product life : 1%, per year, of the initial charge End-of-life recovery losses : 10% of the initial charge

Costs scenarios As the base-case air-cooled chiller has a cooling capacity of 400 kW, it can be installed in commercial buildings but also in industrial buildings. In the new MEErP methodology and the Task 6 report of Lot 6 ventilation products, the electricity tariff for industrial buildings is 0.1 €/kWh. In commercial buildings, it is considered for air conditioners (see next chapter) that the electricity tariff is 0.14 €/kWh, which is in between the electricity tariff of an industrial building and of a residential building (0.18 €/kWh in the new MEErp methodology). For air-cooled chillers, the rationale is thus to chose an average electricity tariff between the one of a commercial building and the one of an industrial building, which leads to 0.12 €/kWh. This explains costs scenario 1 of ACC. For costs scenario 2 of ACC, the electricity tariff is decreased to the one of an industrial building, as it is less favourable to economic gains due to the improvement of the energy performance. Costs scenario 3 is then a “worst case scenario”, for which this low tariff is kept, and for which higher additional costs are associated to the improvement options.

107

The same kind of reasoning applies to water-cooled chillers. Because the base-case has a 1000 kW cooling capacity, it corresponds to an industrial building case, for which the unit has generally to ensure a comfort air conditioning function and a process cooling function. This leads to an electricity tariff of 0.10 €/kWh. Costs scenario 2 is then more favourable, and corresponds to costs scenario 1 of air-cooled chillers. In the end, costs scenario 3 is once again a “worst case scenario”, to see whether the improved products can still lead to a lower LCC than the one of the base-case. 100 kW chillers (air-cooled and water-cooled chillers) are rather installed in commercial buildings, for which the electricity tariff should be taken equal to 0.14 €/kWh, as reported above. This explains costs scenario 1. The same reasoning as for 400 kW air-cooled chillers applies then. Costs scenario 2 is less favourable to economic gains related to higher energy efficiency levels, with an electricity tariff of 0.12 €/kWh (this could apply for instance to an industrial building in which the offices are specifically air-conditioner by a 100 kW chiller, rather than the whole building). Eventually, costs scenario 3 is once again the “worst case scenario”, with a low electricity tariff and higher additional costs estimated for the improved products by comparison with the manufacturing costs of the base-case. Refrigerant scenarios For all chiller categories, refrigerant scenario 1, which is the average one, is estimated from Task 4. It is adapted from the average of the low refrigerant losses and the high refrigerant losses scenarios that have been defined in this report. Although slight differences in end-of-life losses between air-cooled chillers and water-cooled chillers have been reported in Task 4, there is a consequent uncertainty on these values. For the sake of clarity, 20% end-of-life losses are chosen for all chiller categories (instead average values of 20% and 15%, which difference has a nearly nil impact on the results). As it is believed that the high refrigerant losses scenario of Task 4 is particularly high, the study team rather performs a sensitivity analysis on the basis of the low refrigerant losses scenario, which could be representative of chiller refrigerant losses in the next future, whether for instance the F-gas directive leads as expected to more stringent conditions on piping system design, refrigerant handling and end-of-life recovery. Air-cooled chillers The results of the sensitivity analyses are displayed in the form of 2 tables per product category, one dealing with the life cycle costs sensitivity, the other with the TEWI sensitivity (gains in CO2 emissions). In the costs sensitivity table, the LCC ratio value that is bolded is the LLCC. In the TEWI sensitivity table, the name of the improved product and its associated gain in TEWI that are bolded designate similarly the improved product with the LLCC or that has been taken as reference for Task 7 discussions on MEPS values. The propane charged chiller is only modelled for the average climate. There is indeed no sufficient performance data available for the study team to calculate the SEER of this product under the cold and the warm climates.

a. 400 kW air-cooled chillers LCC sensitivity It can be seen that combination I5, which is the LLCC case for the average scenario, remains the LLCC for all the other cases, except for the worst case costs scenarios under the cold climate. In this case, nearly all improvement options lead to a very similar LCC than the one of the base-case : only combination I6 leads to a little more significant increase in LCC. All in all, this confirms that combination I5, which is the inverter-driven screw air-cooled chiller further improved due to the use of a flooded evaporator, is the right option to consider for the LLCC.

108

It can also be said that there is a significant potential of improvement of air-cooled chillers in terms of LCC, as the hours of use considered in this study do not include any process cooling function that medium to large cooling capacity chillers might also ensure. TEWI sensitivity The TEWI sensitivity analysis shows that in terms of improved products ranking, the TEWI calculation is quite sensitive to the choice of reference values for the refrigerant leaks and end-of-life losses. It can be also seen that combination I4 competes often well, as it does not comprise a flooded shell and tube evaporator that increases to a large extent the refrigerant charge. This is interesting, as I4 is close to the LLCC I5, the only main difference between these two products being the evaporator and optimization of all the components. Combination I5a, with a standard flooded evaporator, leads to average gains in TEWI for the average climate and very low gains for a cold climate. However, it is not an issue for manufacturers to opt for a falling film evaporator (options “b”), neither a microchannel condenser (options “c”), the latter being easier to implement than for air conditioners, as the percentage of reversible chillers is lower than the percentage of reversible air conditioners sold in the EU (see Task 2). Once versions “b” or “c” are considered, the products ranking by decreasing TEWI corresponds well to the producrts ranking by decreasing electricity consumption. Note eventually that the gain in total CO2 emissions, in absolute terms, is also by far more dependent on the climate than the refrigerant losses, because the direct emissions associated with the use of chillers do not weight more than around 20% of the total equivalent CO2 emissions, for an average refrigerant losses scenario (see chapter 3 of Task 4).

10

9

Tabl

e 6

-52

. 400

kW

air-

cool

ed c

hille

rs :

life

cycl

e co

sts

sens

itivi

ty a

naly

sis

Ener

gy

scen

ario

Cos

tssc

enar

ioR

esul

t typ

eAC

C 4

00B

CAC

C 4

00I1

ACC

400

R-2

90AC

C 4

00I2

ACC

400

I3AC

C 4

00I4

ACC

400

I5AC

C 4

00I6

LCC

(des

ign

optio

n) /

LCC

(bas

e-ca

se)

100%

97%

107%

95%

92%

91%

90%

90%

ΔE

lect

ricity

cos

ts (k

€)0

1218

1924

3037

49To

tal l

ife c

ycle

cos

ts (k

€)2

517

2 44

62

691

2 39

02

327

2 30

22

255

2 27

5E

lect

ricity

cos

ts /

Tota

l life

cyc

le c

osts

54%

51%

44%

49%

49%

46%

44%

39%

LCC

(des

ign

optio

n) /

LCC

(bas

e-ca

se)

100%

98%

109%

96%

93%

93%

91%

93%

ΔE

lect

ricity

cos

ts (k

€)0

1015

1620

2531

40To

tal l

ife c

ycle

cos

ts (k

€)2

289

2 23

82

494

2 19

42

138

2 12

42

089

2 12

8E

lect

ricity

cos

ts /

Tota

l life

cyc

le c

osts

50%

47%

40%

45%

44%

42%

40%

34%

LCC

(des

ign

optio

n) /

LCC

(bas

e-ca

se)

100%

99%

117%

97%

94%

94%

93%

100%

ΔE

lect

ricity

cos

ts (k

€)0

1015

1620

2531

40To

tal l

ife c

ycle

cos

ts (k

€)2

289

2 25

72

671

2 22

02

158

2 16

32

136

2 28

9E

lect

ricity

cos

ts /

Tota

l life

cyc

le c

osts

50%

46%

37%

44%

44%

41%

39%

32%

LCC

(des

ign

optio

n) /

LCC

(bas

e-ca

se)

100%

99%

-99

%97

%98

%97

%10

2%Δ

Ele

ctric

ity c

osts

(k€)

06

-9

1113

1622

Tota

l life

cyc

le c

osts

(k€)

1 76

31

747

-1

745

1 70

41

719

1 70

71

791

Ele

ctric

ity c

osts

/ To

tal li

fe c

ycle

cos

ts35

%32

%-

30%

30%

28%

26%

22%

LCC

(des

ign

optio

n) /

LCC

(bas

e-ca

se)

100%

100%

-10

0%97

%99

%98

%10

4%Δ

Ele

ctric

ity c

osts

(k€)

05

-7

911

1418

Tota

l life

cyc

le c

osts

(k€)

1 66

11

656

-1

657

1 61

91

638

1 63

21

725

Ele

ctric

ity c

osts

/ To

tal li

fe c

ycle

cos

ts31

%28

%-

26%

26%

25%

23%

19%

LCC

(des

ign

optio

n) /

LCC

(bas

e-ca

se)

100%

101%

-10

1%99

%10

1%10

1%11

4%Δ

Ele

ctric

ity c

osts

(k€)

05

-7

911

1418

Tota

l life

cyc

le c

osts

(k€)

1 66

11

675

-1

683

1 63

91

677

1 67

91

886

Ele

ctric

ity c

osts

/ To

tal l

ife c

ycle

cos

ts31

%27

%-

26%

26%

24%

22%

17%

LCC

(des

ign

optio

n) /

LCC

(bas

e-ca

se)

100%

96%

-93

%91

%90

%87

%86

%Δ

Ele

ctric

ity c

osts

(k€)

018

-30

3342

5571

Tota

l life

cyc

le c

osts

(k€)

3 25

03

117

-3

020

2 96

62

909

2 81

22

787

Ele

ctric

ity c

osts

/ To

tal li

fe c

ycle

cos

ts65

%62

%-

60%

60%

58%

55%

50%

LCC

(des

ign

optio

n) /

LCC

(bas

e-ca

se)

100%

96%

-94

%92

%91

%88

%88

%Δ

Ele

ctric

ity c

osts

(k€)

015

-25

2835

4559

Tota

l life

cyc

le c

osts

(k€)

2 90

02

797

-2

720

2 67

12

630

2 55

32

555

Ele

ctric

ity c

osts

/ To

tal li

fe c

ycle

cos

ts60

%57

%-

55%

55%

53%

51%

45%

LCC

(des

ign

optio

n) /

LCC

(bas

e-ca

se)

100%

97%

-95

%93

%92

%90

%94

%Δ

Ele

ctric

ity c

osts

(k€)

015

-25

2835

4559

Tota

l life

cyc

le c

osts

(k€)

2 90

02

816

-2

746

2 69

12

669

2 60

02

716

Ele

ctric

ity c

osts

/ To

tal li

fe c

ycle

cos

ts60

%57

%-

55%

55%

52%

50%

43%

War

m C

limat

e

Cos

tssc

enar

io 1

Cos

tssc

enar

io 2

Cos

tssc

enar

io 3

Aver

age

Clim

ate

Cos

tssc

enar

io 1

Cos

tssc

enar

io 2

Cos

tssc

enar

io 3

Col

d C

limat

e

Cos

tssc

enar

io 1

Cos

tssc

enar

io 2

Cos

tssc

enar

io 3

11

0

Tabl

e 6

-53

. 400

kW

air-

cool

ed c

hille

rs :

TEW

I sen

sitiv

ity a

naly

sis

Energy

scen

ario

Refrigerant

scen

ario

Result type

12

34

56

78

910

1112

1314

Improvem

ent o

ption code

ACC

400 BC

ACC

400 I2a

ACC

400 I2b

ACC

400 I1

ACC

400 I3a

ACC

400 I5a

ACC

400 I3b

ACC

400 I5b

ACC

400 I6a

ACC

400 I5c

ACC

400 I4

ACC

400 I6b

ACC

400 I6c

ACC

400 R‐290

Gain in TEW

I0%

1%4%

5%10%

12%

14%

15%

16%

18%

18%

19%

22%

29%

Gain in t(CO

2) equ

.0

620

2754

6172

7781

9195

98111

149

Total Emission

s : t(CO

2) equ

.522

516

502

494

467

460

449

444

440

430

426

423

409

371

Direct Emission

s / Total Emission

s18%

29%

27%

21%

25%

33%

22%

31%

37%

28%

22%

34%

32%

0%Im

provem

ent o

ption code

ACC

400 BC

ACC

400 I1

ACC

400 I2a

ACC

400 I2b

ACC

400 I3a

ACC

400 I3b

ACC

400 I5a

ACC

400 I4

ACC

400 I5b

ACC

400 R‐290

ACC

400 I5c

ACC

400 I6a

ACC

400 I6b

ACC

400 I6c

Gain in TEW

I0%

7%8%

9%13%

15%

19%

20%

21%

21%

22%

26%

27%

29%

Gain in t(CO

2) equ

.0

3135

4060

6785

8992

9298

115

122

128

Total Emission

s479

446

442

435

415

407

388

383

380

380

374

355

347

341

Direct Emission

s / Total Emission

s9%

10%

15%

14%

13%

11%

18%

11%

16%

0%15%

21%

19%

17%

Improvem

ent o

ption code

ACC

400 I2a

ACC

400 I2b

ACC

400 I5a

ACC

400 I6a

ACC

400 BC

ACC

400 I3a

ACC

400 I5b

ACC

400 I1

ACC

400 I6b

ACC

400 I5c

ACC

400 I3b

ACC

400 I6c

ACC

400 I4

ACC

400 R‐290

Gain in TEW

I‐10%

‐5%

‐3%

0%0%

3%3%

4%5%

8%9%

10%

14%

‐Gain in t(CO

2) equ

.‐29

‐15

‐8‐1

08

1011

1624

2731

43‐

Total Emission

s316

302

296

289

288

280

279

278

273

265

263

259

248

‐Direct Emission

s / Total Emission

s47%

44%

52%

56%

32%

42%

49%

37%

54%

46%

38%

51%

37%

‐Im

provem

ent o

ption code

ACC

400 BC

ACC

400 I2a

ACC

400 I2b

ACC

400 I1

ACC

400 I3a

ACC

400 I5a

ACC

400 I3b

ACC

400 I5b

ACC

400 I6a

ACC

400 I5c

ACC

400 I4

ACC

400 I6b

ACC

400 I6c

ACC

400 R‐290

Gain in TEW

I0%

1%4%

7%9%

11%

13%

14%

16%

17%

17%

19%

22%

‐Gain in t(CO

2) equ

.0

29

1522

2530

3337

3940

4551

‐Total Emission

s238

235

229

222

215

212

207

205

200

198

197

192

186

‐Direct Emission

s / Total Emission

s18%

28%

26%

21%

25%

32%

22%

30%

37%

28%

21%

34%

32%

‐Im

provem

ent o

ption code

ACC

400 BC

ACC

400 I2a

ACC

400 I1

ACC

400 I2b

ACC

400 I3a

ACC

400 I3b

ACC

400 I5a

ACC

400 I5b

ACC

400 I4

ACC

400 I5c

ACC

400 I6a

ACC

400 I6b

ACC

400 I6c

ACC

400 R‐290

Gain in TEW

I0%

5%6%

7%10%

13%

15%

17%

18%

19%

20%

23%

24%

‐Gain in t(CO

2) equ

.0

3846

5175

92109

124

129

137

148

164

177

‐Total Emission

s764

724

716

711

684

667

650

633

628

619

608

591

578

‐Direct Emission

s / Total Emission

s12%

20%

14%

19%

17%

15%

23%

21%

15%

20%

27%

25%

23%

‐Im

provem

ent o

ption code

ACC

400 BC

ACC

400 I1

ACC

400 I2a

ACC

400 I2b

ACC

400 I3a

ACC

400 I3b

ACC

400 I4

ACC

400 I5a

ACC

400 I5b

ACC

400 I5c

ACC

400 I6a

ACC

400 I6b

ACC

400 I6c

ACC

400 R‐290

Gain in TEW

I0%

7%10%

11%

13%

14%

19%

21%

22%

23%

27%

28%

29%

‐Gain in t(CO

2) equ

.0

4965

7187

94126

137

143

149

180

187

193

‐Total Emission

s713

660

643

637

619

611

578

566

558

552

519

511

505

‐Direct Emission

s / Total Emission

s6%

7%10%

9%9%

7%7%

12%

11%

10%

14%

13%

12%

‐

Average

Clim

ate

Warm Clim

ate

Refrigerant

Scen

ario 1

Refrigerant

Scen

ario 2

Refrigerant

Scen

ario 1

Refrigerant

Scen

ario 2

Cold Clim

ate

Refrigerant

Scen

ario 1

Refrigerant

Scen

ario 2

111

b. 100 kW air-cooled chillers LCC sensitivity The LCC analysis is more sensitive to costs scenarios than for 400 kW air-cooled chillers. This is related to the lower space for improvement for this product category because of compressors limitations (few screw compressors are developed and using a single rotor leads to lower compressor efficiencies by comparison with larger bi-rotor screw compressors, scroll compressors are already optimized and no centrifugal compressors are available) and higher relative manufacturing costs per cooling capacity unit. The combination 4 of design options, which is at a BAT/BNAT level, is not the LLCC in all cases. For the average climate, the improved product 1 is the LLCC with costs scenario 3, which is the “worst case scenario”. However, in this case, apart from the R-290 charged product, there are very few differences in LCC values for all the improved products by comparison with the base-case. With scenarios 1 and 2, all the HFC charged improved products lead to lower LCC values. In the case of the cold climate, because of the limited number of equivalent active hours at design capacity (300), the annual electricity consumption of the products is limited and so the economic gains associated with improved energy efficiencies. The improved products 1 and 2 become then the LLCC, depending on the costs scenario. However, the LCC of improved product 3, which has been taken as reference, is only then 1% to 3% than the LCC of the base-case. For the warm climate (900 equivalent active hours), all the improved products lead to lower LCC than the base-case, the LLCC being the improved products 3 or 4, depending on the costs scenario. All in all, this confirms that improved product 3, which is a chiller equipped with 4 staged scroll compressors (split on two identical circuits) and VSD condenser fans combined with EC motors, can be taken for reference for SEER MEPS considerations in Task 7. TEWI sensitivity Contrary to 400 kW air-cooled chillers, the TEWI sensitivity analysis shows that in terms of improved products ranking, the TEWI calculation is not sensitive to the choice of reference values for the refrigerant leaks and end-of-life losses. This translates, in most cases, in identical rankings of products by decreasing TEWI, whatever the climate scenario and the refrigerant scenario. The ranking is only affected for the cold climate and the refrigerant scenario 1 (low cooling demand and electricity consumption, average leaks and end-of-life losses). This is due to the fact that all improved products, apart from the product operating with R-290, are charged with R-410A and equipped with brazed plate evaporators, which already allow to have low refrigerant charges (in absolute terms and by comparison with the R-407C charged base-case). There are no improved products that require significantly higher refrigerant charges, since they do not use a heat exchanger technology that increase the charge. The additional gains in TEWI with versions “b” of improved products 3 and 4 (use of microchannel condensers) are also consequently limited. It is interesting to note that even with low refrigerant leaks and end-of-life losses, the R-290 charged product, which has a SEER at the level of the SEER of improved product 2, has a lower TEWI than the BAT/BNAT improved product 4. This shows that for this low cooling capacity product category, possible substantial gains in direct emissions are on the side of the use of low GWP refrigerant fluids, whereas gains related to refrigerant charge reductions are limited. The TEWI sensitivity analysis does not affect at all the choice of improved product 3 as the reference for SEER MEPS considerations.

11

2

Tabl

e 6

-54

. 100

kW

air-

cool

ed c

hille

rs :

life

cycl

e co

sts

sens

itivi

ty a

naly

sis

Ener

gy

scen

ario

Cos

tssc

enar

ioR

esul

t typ

eAC

C 1

00B

CAC

C 1

00I1

ACC

100

I2AC

C 1

00I3

ACC

100

I4AC

C 1

00R

-290

LCC

(des

ign

optio

n) /

LCC

(bas

e-ca

se)

100%

97%

96%

96%

95%

115%

ΔEle

ctric

ity c

osts

(k€)

0.0

2.7

5.3

6.5

9.5

5.7

Tota

l life

cyc

le c

osts

(k€)

76.3

74.4

73.5

73.0

72.5

87.5

Elec

trici

ty c

osts

/ To

tal l

ife c

ycle

cos

ts47

%45

%42

%41

%37

%35

%LC

C (d

esig

n op

tion)

/ LC

C (b

ase-

case

)10

0%98

%97

%97

%97

%11

7%ΔE

lect

ricity

cos

ts (k

€)0.

02.

34.

55.

68.

14.

9To

tal l

ife c

ycle

cos

ts (k

€)71

.269

.669

.168

.868

.783

.1El

ectri

city

cos

ts /

Tota

l life

cyc

le c

osts

44%

41%

38%

37%

33%

31%

LCC

(des

ign

optio

n) /

LCC

(bas

e-ca

se)

100%

98%

99%

99%

101%

138%

ΔEle

ctric

ity c

osts

(k€)

0.0

2.3

4.5

5.6

8.1

4.9

Tota

l life

cyc

le c

osts

(k€)

71.2

70.0

70.3

70.5

71.7

98.4

Elec

trici

ty c

osts

/ To

tal l

ife c

ycle

cos

ts44

%41

%38

%36

%32

%27

%LC

C (d

esig

n op

tion)

/ LC

C (b

ase-

case

)10

0%98

%99

%10

0%10

1%-

ΔEle

ctric

ity c

osts

(k€)

0.0

1.7

2.7

3.1

4.9

-To

tal l

ife c

ycle

cos

ts (k

€)56

.755

.756

.356

.857

.5-

Elec

trici

ty c

osts

/ To

tal l

ife c

ycle

cos

ts29

%27

%24

%24

%20

%-

LCC

(des

ign

optio

n) /

LCC

(bas

e-ca

se)

100%

99%

100%

101%

103%

-ΔE

lect

ricity

cos

ts (k

€)0.

01.

42.

42.

64.

2-

Tota

l life

cyc

le c

osts

(k€)

54.3

53.6

54.4

54.9

55.8

-El

ectri

city

cos

ts /

Tota

l life

cyc

le c

osts

26%

24%

22%

21%

18%

-LC

C (d

esig

n op

tion)

/ LC

C (b

ase-

case

)10

0%99

%10

2%10

4%10

8%-

ΔEle

ctric

ity c

osts

(k€)

0.0

1.4

2.4

2.6

4.2

-To

tal l

ife c

ycle

cos

ts (k

€)54

.354

.055

.656

.658

.8-

Elec

trici

ty c

osts

/ To

tal l

ife c

ycle

cos

ts26

%24

%21

%20

%17

%-

LCC

(des

ign

optio

n) /

LCC

(bas

e-ca

se)

100%

97%

96%

93%

91%

-ΔE

lect

ricity

cos

ts (k

€)0.

03.

86.

610

.214

.1-

Tota

l life

cyc

le c

osts

(k€)

95.6

92.5

91.5

88.7

87.2

-El

ectri

city

cos

ts /

Tota

l life

cyc

le c

osts

58%

56%

53%

51%

47%

-LC

C (d

esig

n op

tion)

/ LC

C (b

ase-

case

)10

0%97

%96

%94

%93

%-

ΔEle

ctric

ity c

osts

(k€)

0.0

3.2

5.6

8.7

12.1

-To

tal l

ife c

ycle

cos

ts (k

€)87

.785

.284

.582

.281

.3-

Elec

trici

ty c

osts

/ To

tal l

ife c

ycle

cos

ts54

%52

%50

%47

%44

%-

LCC

(des

ign

optio

n) /

LCC

(bas

e-ca

se)

100%

98%

98%

96%

96%

-ΔE

lect

ricity

cos

ts (k

€)0.

03.

25.

68.

712

.1-

Tota

l life

cyc

le c

osts

(k€)

87.7

85.6

85.7

83.9

84.3

-El

ectri

city

cos

ts /

Tota

l life

cyc

le c

osts

54%

52%

49%

46%

42%

-

War

m C

limat

e

Cos

tssc

enar

io 1

Cos

tssc

enar

io 2

Cos

tssc

enar

io 3

Aver

age

Clim

ate

Cos

tssc

enar

io 1

Cos

tssc

enar

io 2

Cos

tssc

enar

io 3

Col

d C

limat

e

Cos

tssc

enar

io 1

Cos

tssc

enar

io 2

Cos

tssc

enar

io 3

11

3

Tabl

e 6

-55

. 100

kW

air-

cool

ed c

hille

rs :

TEW

I sen

sitiv

ity a

naly

sis

Energy

scen

ario

Refrigerant

scen

ario

Result type

12

34

56

78

Improvem

ent o

ption code

ACC

100 BC

ACC

100 I1

ACC

100 I2

ACC

100 I3a

ACC

100 I3b

ACC

100 I4a

ACC

100 I4b

ACC

100 R‐290

Gain in TEW

I0%

11%

14%

16%

19%

22%

25%

36%

Gain in t(CO

2) equ

.0

1418

2125

2932

47Total Emission

s : t(CO

2) equ

.130

116

112

110

106

101

9884

Direct Emission

s / Total Emission

s24%

21%

24%

26%

23%

28%

26%

0%Im

provem

ent o

ption code

ACC

100 BC

ACC

100 I1

ACC

100 I2

ACC

100 I3a

ACC

100 I3b

ACC

100 I4a

ACC

100 I4b

ACC

100 R‐290

Gain in TEW

I0%

9%14%

17%

18%

25%

26%

25%

Gain in t(CO

2) equ

.0

1016

1920

2728

28Total Emission

s111

101

9592

9184

8384

Direct Emission

s / Total Emission

s11%

9%11%

12%

10%

13%

12%

0%

Improvem

ent o

ption code

ACC

100 BC

ACC

100 I3a

ACC

100 I1

ACC

100 I2

ACC

100 I3b

ACC

100 I4a

ACC

100 I4b

ACC

100 R‐290

Gain in TEW

I0%

15%

15%

15%

20%

22%

25%

‐Gain in t(CO

2) equ

.0

1111

1215

1719

‐Total Emission

s76.5

65.4

65.1

64.9

61.3

59.8

57.1

‐Direct Emission

s / Total Emission

s41%

44%

38%

42%

40%

47%

44%

‐Im

provem

ent o

ption code

ACC

100 BC

ACC

100 I1

ACC

100 I2

ACC

100 I3a

ACC

100 I3b

ACC

100 I4a

ACC

100 I4b

ACC

100 R‐290

Gain in TEW

I0%

13%

16%

17%

19%

26%

27%

‐Gain in t(CO

2) equ

.0

79

911

1516

‐Total Emission

s57.3

50.1

48.2

47.8

46.3

42.7

41.6

‐Direct Emission

s / Total Emission

s21%

19%

22%

23%

20%

25%

23%

‐Im

provem

ent o

ption code

ACC

100 BC

ACC

100 I1

ACC

100 I2

ACC

100 I3a

ACC

100 I3b

ACC

100 I4a

ACC

100 I4b

ACC

100 R‐290

Gain in TEW

I0%

9%12%

17%

19%

23%

24%

‐Gain in t(CO

2) equ

.0

1722

3135

4245

‐Total Emission

s183

166

161

153

149

141

139

‐Direct Emission

s / Total Emission

s17%

15%

17%

19%

16%

20%

18%

‐Im

provem

ent o

ption code

ACC

100 BC

ACC

100 I1

ACC

100 I2

ACC

100 I3a

ACC

100 I3b

ACC

100 I4a

ACC

100 I4b

ACC

100 R‐290

Gain in TEW

I0%

8%12%

18%

19%

24%

25%

‐Gain in t(CO

2) equ

.0

1320

2930

4041

‐Total Emission

s164

151

145

135

134

124

123

‐Direct Emission

s / Total Emission

s7%

6%7%

8%7%

9%8%

‐

Warm Clim

ate

Refrigerant

Scen

ario 1

Refrigerant

Scen

ario 2

Average

Clim

ate

Refrigerant

Scen

ario 1

Refrigerant

Scen

ario 2

Cold Clim

ate

Refrigerant

Scen

ario 1

Refrigerant

Scen

ario 2

114

Noise sensitivity In view of Task 7 discussions on maximum noise threshold requirements for ENTR Lot 6 products, it is possible to compute changes in the LCC study of 100 kW air-cooled chillers related to low noise and extra low noise versions of the base-case and the improved products. In other terms, if a low noise design or an extra low noise design is considered, how does the profitability of the energy efficiency improvement designs evolve over the product life ? This can be done for this product category as the study team has found information on the additional costs of low noise and extra low noise versions of a 50-300 kW scroll chiller range by comparison with the costs of the standard versions of the chillers of this range. Note : The same analysis cannot be done for other chiller categories, as the study team has not found costs data for different versions of the same products. Concerning air conditioners, there are no alternative designs of standard products that are aimed at reducing their noise. Looking at sound power levels, the low noise versions of the chillers are on average 8-9 dB(A) quieter than the standard versions, while the extra low noise versions are on average 12 dB(A) quieter than the standard versions. Concerning low noise versions, the additional costs are of the order of 1% per dB(A) reduction in sound power by comparison with the standard versions. Concerning extra low noise versions, the additional costs are then of 3% per dB(A) reduction in sound power by comparison with the low noise versions. By considering a 9 dB(A) and a 12 dB(A) gains in sound power for the low noise and extra low noise versions of the base-case 100 kW air-cooled chiller and the associated improved products, this increases their MSP by 9% and by 19%. On the basis of these assumptions and costs scenario 1, the following LCC results are obtained : Table 6 -56 . 100 kW air-cooled chillers : noise sensitivity analysis

100 kW air-cooled chillers : noise sensitivity analysis costs scenario 1

Version ACC 100 BC ACC 100 I1 ACC 100 I2 ACC 100 I3 ACC 100 I4Total life cycle costs (k€)

Standard 76.3 74.4 73.5 73.0 72.5 Low noise 78.7 76.9 76.1 75.8 75.5

Extra low noise 81.3 79.6 78.9 78.7 78.7 Version LCCimproved product / LCCbase-caseStandard - 97.4% 96.2% 95.6% 95.0% Low noise - 97.6% 96.6% 96.3% 95.9%

Extra low noise - 97.1% 96.8% 96.8% 96.8% Version Manufacturer Selling Price (k€)Standard 14.0 14.7 16.1 16.8 18.9 Low noise 15.3 16.0 17.5 18.3 20.6

Extra low noise 16.6 17.5 19.1 20.0 22.5 Version Payback period for the improved product / base-case (years) Standard - 4.0 6.8 7.4 9.0 Low noise - 4.5 7.4 8.3 9.9

Extra low noise - 5.1 8.3 9.0 10.9

The improved product with the least life cycle costs remains the same, meaning I4, whatever the version of the product. LCC results are not greatly modified after the introduction of additional initial costs related to the low noise and extra low noise designs. For I3 and I4, the payback period increases by a little less than 1 year from the standard to the low noise design as well as from the low noise to the extra low noise design. As a conclusion, the impact on the LCC analysis of alternative designs that enhance sound characteristics of the products does not modify the initial conclusions. The discussion on noise requirements does not have to interfere with the discussion on MEPS in Task 7.

115

Water-cooled chillers

a. 1000 kW water-cooled chillers As for air-cooled chillers, the alternative refrigerant option, here an ammonia charged unit, is not modeled under the cold and warm climates, because of lacking performance data tables. LCC sensitivity The results of the LCC sensitivity analysis are very similar than for 400 kW air-cooled chillers. This is somewhat logical, as the same types of technological options have been chosen for both product categories. Combinations I3 and I5, which are inverter-driven centrifugal chillers, but without magnetic bearings, become profitable only for an important number of hours of use, as expected. This can be seen by lower LCC values than for the base-case under the warm climate, and confirms that these products are more interesting for mixed comfort + process applications. Combination I4 remains the LLCC in nearly all cases, apart from the worst case scenario “cold climate + costs scenario 3”. In this case, the increase in LCC is only of 1%, which can be considered as nearly negligible. This confirms that combination I4 can be clearly distinguished as the LLCC. A last but important remark is that combinations I6 and I7, which are centrifugal chillers equipped with magnetic bearings, lead to very significant gains in LCC under the warm climate conditions, and costs scenarios 1 and 2. This illustrates well the interest of this technology for an important number of equivalent hours of use. TEWI sensitivity The same remarks as for 400 kW air-cooled chillers apply here. Once versions “b” or “c” of an improved product are considered, so as to reduce the refrigerant charge of the product, the products ranking by decreasing TEWI corresponds well to the products ranking by decreasing electricity consumption. The worst case scenario, which is “cold climate + refrigerant scenario 1”, is the only case for which it can be said that from the angle of environmental performance, nearly no improved product is interesting, especially over a 17 years product life. This is due to a very low number of equivalent hours of use at design capacity (300 hours) and important refrigerant losses. But it is hard to imagine that a 1000 kW cooling capacity chiller might be installed for only 300 equivalent hours of use. At a such important cooling capacity value and for such a cold climate, a mixed process and cooling function is certainly required by the customer so that he opts for this type of chiller.

11

6

Ta

ble

6 -5

7 . 1

000

kW w

ater

-coo

led

chill

ers

: life

-cyc

le c

osts

sen

sitiv

ity a

naly

sis

Tabl

e 6

-58

. 100

0 kW

wat

er-c

oole

d ch

iller

s : T

EWI s

ensi

tivity

ana

lysi

s

Ener

gy

scen

ario

Cos

tssc

enar

ioR

esul

t typ

eW

CC

100

0 B

CW

CC

100

0 I1

WC

C 1

000

I2W

CC

100

0 R

-717

WC

C 1

000

I3W

CC

100

0 I4

WC

C 1

000

I5W

CC

100

0 I6

WC

C 1

000

I7

LCC

(des

ign

optio

n) /

LCC

(bas

e-ca

se)

100%

95%

92%

104%

103%

90%

106%

96%

99%

ΔE

lect

ricity

cos

ts (k

€)0

2743

4748

5455

6974

Tota

l life

cyc

le c

osts

(k€)

372

354

342

387

384

335

393

357

368

Ele

ctric

ity c

osts

/ To

tal li

fe c

ycle

cos

ts50

%45

%42

%36

%36

%39

%33

%33

%30

%LC

C (d

esig

n op

tion)

/ LC

C (b

ase-

case

)10

0%94

%90

%10

1%10

1%88

%10

2%93

%95

%Δ

Ele

ctric

ity c

osts

(k€)

032

5257

5765

6683

89To

tal l

ife c

ycle

cos

ts (k

€)40

938

537

041

441

236

241

938

039

1E

lect

ricity

cos

ts /

Tota

l life

cyc

le c

osts

54%

49%

46%

40%

40%

44%

37%

37%

34%

LCC

(des

ign

optio

n) /

LCC

(bas

e-ca

se)

100%

96%

93%

113%

111%

92%

116%

105%

110%

ΔE

lect

ricity

cos

ts (k

€)0

2743

4748

5455

6974

Tota

l life

cyc

le c

osts

(k€)

372

358

347

419

413

343

430

391

409

Ele

ctric

ity c

osts

/ To

tal l

ife c

ycle

cos

ts50

%44

%41

%33

%33

%38

%30

%30

%27

%LC

C (d

esig

n op

tion)

/ LC

C (b

ase-

case

)10

0%99

%98

%-

113%

98%

117%

107%

113%

ΔE

lect

ricity

cos

ts (k

€)0

1218

-26

2429

3436

Tota

l life

cyc

le c

osts

(k€)

269

266

264

-30

226

331

528

930

3E

lect

ricity

cos

ts /

Tota

l life

cyc

le c

osts

31%

26%

24%

-18

%22

%17

%17

%15

%LC

C (d

esig

n op

tion)

/ LC

C (b

ase-

case

)10

0%98

%97

%-

110%

96%

114%

105%

109%

ΔE

lect

ricity

cos

ts (k

€)0

1422

-31

2835

4144

Tota

l life

cyc

le c

osts

(k€)

285

280

276

-31

427

432

629

831

2E

lect

ricity

cos

ts /

Tota

l life

cyc

le c

osts

30%

26%

24%

-18

%22

%17

%16

%15

%LC

C (d

esig

n op

tion)

/ LC

C (b

ase-

case

)10

0%10

0%10

0%-

123%

101%

131%

120%

128%

ΔE

lect

ricity

cos

ts (k

€)0

1218

-26

2429

3436

Tota

l life

cyc

le c

osts

(k€)

269

270

269

-33

227

135

232

234

4E

lect

ricity

cos

ts /

Tota

l life

cyc

le c

osts

31%

26%

24%

-17

%22

%15

%15

%13

%LC

C (d

esig

n op

tion)

/ LC

C (b

ase-

case

)10

0%93

%89

%-

97%

87%

98%

89%

91%

ΔE

lect

ricity

cos

ts (k

€)0

4265

-74

8085

104

112

Tota

l life

cyc

le c

osts

(k€)

471

438

419

-45

740

946

242

142

9E

lect

ricity

cos

ts /

Tota

l life

cyc

le c

osts

60%

55%

52%

-46

%50

%43

%43

%40

%LC

C (d

esig

n op

tion)

/ LC

C (b

ase-

case

)10

0%92

%88

%-

95%

85%

96%

87%

88%

ΔE

lect

ricity

cos

ts (k

€)0

5078

-88

9510

212

513

4To

tal l

ife c

ycle

cos

ts (k

€)52

848

646

3-

499

450

501

457

463

Ele

ctric

ity c

osts

/ To

tal li

fe c

ycle

cos

ts65

%60

%57

%-

51%

55%

48%

47%

45%

LCC

(des

ign

optio

n) /

LCC

(bas

e-ca

se)

100%

94%

90%

-10

3%89

%10

6%97

%10

0%Δ

Ele

ctric

ity c

osts

(k€)

042

65-

7480

8510

411

2To

tal l

ife c

ycle

cos

ts (k

€)47

144

242

4-

486

417

498

454

470

Ele

ctric

ity c

osts

/ To

tal li

fe c

ycle

cos

ts60

%55

%52

%-

43%

49%

40%

40%

37%

Cos

tssc

enar

io 2

Cos

tssc

enar

io 3

Col

d C

limat

e

War

m C

limat

e

Cos

tssc

enar

io 2

Cos

tssc

enar

io 3

Cos

tssc

enar

io 1

Cos

tssc

enar

io 1

Cos

tssc

enar

io 2

Cos

tssc

enar

io 3

Aver

age

Clim

ate

Cos

tssc

enar

io 1

11

7

Energy

scen

ario

Refrigerant

scen

ario

Result type

12

34

56

78

910

1112

13

Improvem

ent o

ption code

WCC

1000 I2a

WCC

1000 BC

WCC

1000 I2b

WCC

1000 I5

WCC

1000 I1

WCC

1000 I3

WCC

1000 I4a

WCC

1000 I7a

WCC

1000 I4b

WCC

1000 I7b

WCC

1000 I6a

WCC

1000 I6b

WCC

1000 R‐717

Gain in TEW

I‐3%

0%2%

5%6%

9%11%

13%

15%

16%

18%

21%

40%

Gain in t(CO

2) equ

.‐26

015

4150

76100

114

133

147

158

190

359

Total Emission

s : t(CO

2) equ

.916

889

874

848

839

813

789

775

757

743

732

699

531

Direct Emission

s / Total Emission

s40%

20%

38%

41%

28%

35%

36%

45%

33%

42%

39%

36%

0%Im

provem

ent o

ption code

WCC

1000 BC

WCC

1000 I1

WCC

1000 I2a

WCC

1000 I2b

WCC

1000 I3

WCC

1000 I5

WCC

1000 I4a

WCC

1000 I4b

WCC

1000 I7a

WCC

1000 I6a

WCC

1000 I7b

WCC

1000 I6b

WCC

1000 R‐717

Gain in TEW

I0%

10%

10%

12%

17%

17%

20%

22%

26%

27%

28%

29%

33%

Gain in t(CO

2) equ

.0

7169

86120

118

142

155

184

194

198

207

238

Total Emission

s795

716

718

699

661

663

637

622

590

580

575

565

531

Direct Emission

s / Total Emission

s10%

15%

24%

22%

20%

24%

21%

19%

28%

23%

26%

21%

0%

Improvem

ent o

ption code

WCC

1000 I2a

WCC

1000 I2b

WCC

1000 I5

WCC

1000 I7a

WCC

1000 I4a

WCC

1000 I3

WCC

1000 I1

WCC

1000 BC

WCC

1000 I7b

WCC

1000 I4b

WCC

1000 I6a

WCC

1000 I6b

WCC

1000 R‐717

Gain in TEW

I‐25%

‐16%

‐12%

‐6%

‐3%

‐1%

‐2%

0%0%

3%5%

12%

‐Gain in t(CO

2) equ

.‐143

‐94

‐67

‐35

‐19

‐7‐9

03

1829

66‐

Total Emission

s : t(CO

2) equ

.616

574

551

523

510

500

501

493

491

478

468

436

‐Direct Emission

s / Total Emission

s60%

57%

63%

66%

56%

57%

46%

36%

64%

53%

61%

58%

‐Im

provem

ent o

ption code

WCC

1000 I2a

WCC

1000 I2b

WCC

1000 BC

WCC

1000 I1

WCC

1000 I5

WCC

1000 I4a

WCC

1000 I3

WCC

1000 I4b

WCC

1000 I7a

WCC

1000 I7b

WCC

1000 I6a

WCC

1000 I6b

WCC

1000 R‐717

Gain in TEW

I‐5%

0%0%

5%8%

10%

13%

14%

15%

19%

21%

24%

‐Gain in t(CO

2) equ

.‐20

‐10

2032

4151

5660

7582

97‐

Total Emission

s : t(CO

2) equ

.418

399

398

378

366

358

348

343

338

323

317

302

‐Direct Emission

s / Total Emission

s41%

38%

21%

29%

44%

37%

38%

34%

48%

46%

42%

39%

‐Im

provem

ent o

ption code

WCC

1000 BC

WCC

1000 I2a

WCC

1000 I2b

WCC

1000 I1

WCC

1000 I5

WCC

1000 I3

WCC

1000 I4a

WCC

1000 I4b

WCC

1000 I7a

WCC

1000 I7b

WCC

1000 I6a

WCC

1000 I6b

WCC

1000 R‐717

Gain in TEW

I0%

5%8%

8%12%

14%

16%

18%

21%

23%

23%

26%

‐Gain in t(CO

2) equ

.0

5594

101

150

168

190

220

249

280

281

311

‐Total Emission

s : t(CO

2) equ

.1269

1212

1170

1163

1112

1093

1071

1039

1008

976

975

943

‐Direct Emission

s / Total Emission

s14%

31%

28%

20%

31%

26%

27%

24%

34%

29%

32%

27%

‐Im

provem

ent o

ption code

WCC

1000 BC

WCC

1000 I1

WCC

1000 I2a

WCC

1000 I2b

WCC

1000 I3

WCC

1000 I5

WCC

1000 I4a

WCC

1000 I4b

WCC

1000 I7a

WCC

1000 I6a

WCC

1000 I7b

WCC

1000 I6b

WCC

1000 R‐717

Gain in TEW

I0%

11%

14%

15%

20%

21%

22%

23%

30%

30%

31%

31%

‐Gain in t(CO

2) equ

.0

119

141

159

206

219

226

239

311

311

324

324

‐Total Emission

s : t(CO

2) equ

.1174

1040

1015

995

942

927

919

904

823

823

808

808

‐Direct Emission

s / Total Emission

s7%

10%

17%

15%

14%

17%

14%

13%

20%

16%

18%

15%

‐

Warm Clim

ate

Refrigerant

Scen

ario 1

Refrigerant

Scen

ario 2

Average

Clim

ate

Refrigerant

Scen

ario 1

Refrigerant

Scen

ario 2

Cold Clim

ate

Refrigerant

Scen

ario 1

Refrigerant

Scen

ario 2

118

b. 100 kW water-cooled chillers LCC sensitivity For the average case (average climate, costs scenario 1), the combination of design options with the Least Life Cycle Costs is improved product 3, which is equipped with 2 scroll compressors in one circuit, one of the compressors being inverter-driven. The results of the LCC sensitivity analysis are then quite similar than for 100 kW air-cooled chillers, because of relatively similar technological choices for the improved products. Apart from the average case, improved product 3 is the LLCC for the warm climate, whatever the costs scenario. In most of the other cases (4 out of 5), improved product 2 is the LLCC, but differences in LCC with improved product 3 are slight. Note that all improved products lead to lower LCC by comparison with the base-case for the warm climate, whatever the costs scenario. Similarly, concerning the average climate, only improved product 4 has higher LCC than the base-case in one single case (“worst case” costs scenario 3). Under the cold climate, improved product 2 or 1 are the LLCC but the LCC of improved product 3 are only 1% to 3% higher than the LCC of the base-case. As a conclusion, it seems robust to take improved product 3 as the LCC reference. TEWI sensitivity Since all the products are equipped with a brazed plate evaporator and a brazed plate condenser, their refrigerant charge is low. All improved products have also a lower charge than the base-case, because they operate with R-410A instead of R-407C. Therefore, by comparison with the other product categories studied in this report, the share of direct emissions in the total equivalent CO2 emissions is low, whatever the refrigerant scenario that is taken into account. This means then that the ranking by decreasing TEWI follows the ranking by decreasing electricity consumption, whatever the climate and refrigerant scenario. As a consequence, the ranking of the LCC reference, which is improved product 3, is unaffected in this TEWI sensitivity analysis. For this product category, improving further the TEWI by decreasing the refrigerant charge seems irrelevant. The only technological option for doing so is to opt for a product charged with a low GWP refrigerant fluid. Unfortunately, the study team has not found enough information on existing products or products in development to model one or more products charged with such a fluid, although HFOs, mixtures of HFCs and HFOs or HCs can already be used to develop water-cooled chillers ranges around 100 kW cooling capacity.

11

9

Tabl

e 6

-59

. 100

kW

wat

er-c

oole

d ch

iller

s : l

ife-c

ycle

cos

ts s

ensi

tivity

ana

lysi

s

Ener

gy

scen

ario

Cos

tssc

enar

ioR

esul

t typ

eW

CC

100

BC

WC

C 1

00 I1

WC

C 1

00 I2

WC

C 1

00 I3

WC

C 1

00 I4

LCC

(des

ign

optio

n) /

LCC

(bas

e-ca

se)

100%

97%

95%

96%

98%

ΔEle

ctric

ity c

osts

(k€)

0.0

2.5

4.4

5.2

6.2

Tota

l life

cyc

le c

osts

(k€)

59.7

57.7

56.7

57.2

58.2

Elec

trici

ty c

osts

/ To

tal li

fe c

ycle

cos

ts44

%41

%38

%37

%34

%LC

C (d

esig

n op

tion)

/ LC

C (b

ase-

case

)10

0%97

%96

%97

%99

%ΔE

lect

ricity

cos

ts (k

€)0.

02.

23.

74.

45.

3To

tal li

fe c

ycle

cos

ts (k

€)56

.054

.353

.654

.255

.4El

ectri

city

cos

ts /

Tota

l life

cyc

le c

osts

40%

37%

35%

33%

31%

LCC

(des

ign

optio

n) /

LCC

(bas

e-ca

se)

100%

98%

97%

98%

103%

ΔEle

ctric

ity c

osts

(k€)

0.0

2.2

3.7

4.4

5.3

Tota

l life

cyc

le c

osts

(k€)

56.0

54.6

54.3

55.0

57.8

Elec

trici

ty c

osts

/ To

tal li

fe c

ycle

cos

ts40

%37

%34

%33

%30

%LC

C (d

esig

n op

tion)

/ LC

C (b

ase-

case

)10

0%99

%98

%10

1%10

4%ΔE

lect

ricity

cos

ts (k

€)0.

01.

02.

12.

52.

9To

tal li

fe c

ycle

cos

ts (k

€)45

.244

.744

.545

.447

.0El

ectri

city

cos

ts /

Tota

l life

cyc

le c

osts

26%

24%

21%

20%

19%

LCC

(des

ign

optio

n) /

LCC

(bas

e-ca

se)

100%

99%

99%

101%

105%

ΔEle

ctric

ity c

osts

(k€)

0.0

0.9

1.8

2.1

2.5

Tota

l life

cyc

le c

osts

(k€)

43.5

43.2

43.1

44.1

45.8

Elec

trici

ty c

osts

/ To

tal li

fe c

ycle

cos

ts23

%21

%19

%18

%16

%LC

C (d

esig

n op

tion)

/ LC

C (b

ase-

case

)10

0%10

0%10

1%10

3%11

1%ΔE

lect

ricity

cos

ts (k

€)0.

00.

91.

82.

12.

5To

tal li

fe c

ycle

cos

ts (k

€)43

.543

.543

.844

.948

.2El

ectri

city

cos

ts /

Tota

l life

cyc

le c

osts

23%

21%

19%

17%

16%

LCC

(des

ign

optio

n) /

LCC

(bas

e-ca

se)

100%

96%

95%

93%

94%

ΔEle

ctric

ity c

osts

(k€)

0.0

3.6

5.0

7.9

9.4

Tota

l life

cyc

le c

osts

(k€)

73.6

70.5

70.0

68.4

68.9

Elec

trici

ty c

osts

/ To

tal li

fe c

ycle

cos

ts54

%52

%50

%47

%44

%LC

C (d

esig

n op

tion)

/ LC

C (b

ase-

case

)10

0%96

%96

%94

%95

%ΔE

lect

ricity

cos

ts (k

€)0.

03.

14.

36.

88.

0To

tal li

fe c

ycle

cos

ts (k

€)67

.965

.365

.063

.864

.5El

ectri

city

cos

ts /

Tota

l life

cyc

le c

osts

50%

48%

46%

43%

41%

LCC

(des

ign

optio

n) /

LCC

(bas

e-ca

se)

100%

97%

97%

95%

99%

ΔEle

ctric

ity c

osts

(k€)

0.0

3.1

4.3

6.8

8.0

Tota

l life

cyc

le c

osts

(k€)

67.9

65.6

65.7

64.6

66.9

Elec

trici

ty c

osts

/ To

tal li

fe c

ycle

cos

ts50

%48

%46

%43

%39

%

War

m C

limat

e

Cos

tssc

enar

io 1

Cos

tssc

enar

io 2

Cos

tssc

enar

io 3

Aver

age

Clim

ate

Cos

tssc

enar

io 1

Cos

tssc

enar

io 2

Cos

tssc

enar

io 3

Col

d C

limat

e

Cos

tssc

enar

io 1

Cos

tssc

enar

io 2

Cos

tssc

enar

io 3

12

0

Tabl

e 6

-60

. 100

kW

wat

er-c

oole

d ch

iller

s : T

EWI s

ensi

tivity

ana

lysi

s

Energy

scen

ario

Refrigerant

scen

ario

Result type

12

34

5

Improvem

ent o

ption code

WCC

100 BC

WCC

100 I1

WCC

100 I2

WCC

100 I3

WCC

100 I4

Gain in TEW

I0%

14%

18%

20%

24%

Gain in t(CO

2) equ

.0

1216

1821

Total Emission

s : t(CO

2) equ

.89

7773

7168

Direct Emission

s / Total Emission

s19%

16%

19%

19%

20%

Improvem

ent o

ption code

WCC

100 BC

WCC

100 I1

WCC

100 I2

WCC

100 I3

WCC

100 I4

Gain in TEW

I0%

11%

17%

20%

24%

Gain in t(CO

2) equ

.0

913

1618

Total Emission

s78

6965

6360

Direct Emission

s / Total Emission

s9%

7%8%

8%9%

Improvem

ent o

ption code

WCC

100 BC

WCC

100 I1

WCC

100 I2

WCC

100 I3

WCC

100 I4

Gain in TEW

I0%

16%

19%

21%

24%

Gain in t(CO

2) equ

.0

89

1012

Total Emission

s : t(CO

2) equ

.49

4140

3937

Direct Emission

s / Total Emission

s35%

30%

34%

35%

36%

Improvem

ent o

ption code

WCC

100 BC

WCC

100 I1

WCC

100 I2

WCC

100 I3

WCC

100 I4

Gain in TEW

I0%

12%

19%

21%

25%

Gain in t(CO

2) equ

.0

57

89

Total Emission

s : t(CO

2) equ

.38

3431

3029

Direct Emission

s / Total Emission

s17%

14%

17%

17%

18%

Improvem

ent o

ption code

WCC

100 BC

WCC

100 I1

WCC

100 I2

WCC

100 I3

WCC

100 I4

Gain in TEW

I0%

12%

14%

20%

23%

Gain in t(CO

2) equ

.0

1518

2530

Total Emission

s : t(CO

2) equ

.127

112

109

102

97Direct Emission

s / Total Emission

s14%

11%

12%

13%

14%

Improvem

ent o

ption code

WCC

100 BC

WCC

100 I1

WCC

100 I2

WCC

100 I3

WCC

100 I4

Gain in TEW

I0%

10%

13%

20%

23%

Gain in t(CO

2) equ

.0

1215

2327

Total Emission

s : t(CO

2) equ

.116

104

101

9389

Direct Emission

s / Total Emission

s6%

4%5%

6%6%

Warm Clim

ate

Refrigerant

Scen

ario 1

Refrigerant

Scen

ario 2

Average

Clim

ate

Refrigerant

Scen

ario 1

Refrigerant

Scen

ario 2

Cold Clim

ate

Refrigerant

Scen

ario 1

Refrigerant

Scen

ario 2

121

6.4.2. AIR CONDITIONERS (VRF, SPLIT , ROOFTOP) Sensitivity scenarios : climates (energy demand and efficiency), costs and refrigerant Main points More scenarios are considered for the sensitivity analysis of air conditioners. As shown in chapter 6.2.4, the heating function of reversible products is evaluated by simple means for the average climate. It is not done for the cold and the warm climates because no correlation between SCOP and SEER values are available in such cases. The study team still defines 3 costs scenarios, with the same rationale behind : variations in electricity tariffs, and higher additional costs related to the improvement options. The main difference is that there are now 4 refrigerant scenarios instead of 2, as TEWI results are particularly more sensitive to the assumptions made to calculate direct emissions than for chillers. The same costs scenarios are used for VRF systems and split systems. For refrigerant scenarios, the only difference between both systems are the values chosen for the relative refrigerant charge (kg/kW cooling capacity). As for chillers, costs and refrigerant scenarios 1 are the average scenarios that have been considered for chapter 6.2.3. The climatic sensibility is kept for the cooling mode, by considering the three proposed climates for the purpose of SEER calculations : average, cold and warm climates, as defined at the beginning of this report. The costs and refrigerant scenarios are summarized hereunder : Table 6 -61 . Sensitivity analyses : costs and refrigerant scenarios for air conditioners

Sensitivity analyses : costs and refrigerant scenarios for the air conditioners Scenarios list Scenarios description

Costs scenario 1 Electricity price : 0.14 €/kWh Costs scenario 2 Electricity price : 0.12 €/kWh

Costs scenario 3 Electricity price : 0.12 €/kWh



Leaks during product life : 6%, per year, of the initial charge End-of-life recovery losses : 15% of the initial charge Split systems relative refrigerant charge : 0.4 kg/kW VRF systems relative refrigerant charge : 0.5 kg/kW


Leaks during product life : 3.5%, per year, of the initial charge End-of-life recovery losses : 10% of the initial charge Split systems relative refrigerant charge : 0.4 kg/kW VRF systems relative refrigerant charge : 0.5 kg/kW


Leaks during product life : 6%, per year, of the initial charge End-of-life recovery losses : 15% of the initial charge Split systems relative refrigerant charge : 0.5 kg/kW VRF systems relative refrigerant charge : 0.7 kg/kW


Leaks during product life : equal, in absolute terms (kg of refrigerant), to the refrigerant losses of the base-case that are related to leaks

End-of-life recovery losses : 15% of the initial charge Split systems relative refrigerant charge : 0.4 kg/kW VRF systems relative refrigerant charge : 0.5 kg/kW

Costs scenarios Since the base-case air conditioners have a cooling capacity of respectively 14 kW for the split system and 50 kW for the VRF system, these products are mainly installed into commercial buildings. As for chillers, electricity tariffs are based on the new MEErP methodology (2011), in which the electricity

122

tariff for industrial buildings is 0.1 €/kWh and 0.18 €/kWh for residential buildings. In commercial buildings, it is thus considered that the electricity tariff should be of 0.14 €/kWh as an EU average. This explains costs scenario 1. For costs scenario 2, the electricity tariff is decreased to 0.12 €/kWh : the study team has read reference studies in which it is related that some buildings can be equipped with more than 10 separate VRF systems that have cooling capacities close to the one of the base-case (Murayama & al., 2011). Such buildings are not industrial buildings but large office buildings with many different thermal zones. It can be supposed that the electricity tariff could be then comprised between the one for a medium-size commercial building and an industrial building, hence the chosen value. Costs scenario 3 is then a “worst case scenario”, for which this low tariff is kept, and for which higher additional costs are associated to the improvement options. Refrigerant scenarios Refrigerant scenario 1, which is the average one, is calculated from Task 4. It is taken as the average of the low refrigerant losses and the high refrigerant losses scenarios that have been defined in this report for VRF systems and split systems (note that in Task 4, the total refrigerant losses over product life, as a % of the initial charge, amount to 105% of the initial charge for both systems, but with different refrigerant leaks and end-of-life recovery losses rates. These differences are neglected in Task 6). As for chillers, it is believed that the high refrigerant losses scenario of Task 4 is particularly high for air conditioners, and hard to verify. So again, the study team performs a sensitivity analysis on the basis of the low refrigerant losses scenario, which could be representative of air conditioner refrigerant losses in the next future, as a result of a more stringent F-gas regulation and other mandatory requirements. This low “rates of refrigerant losses” scenario is scenario 2. Refrigerant scenario 3 is then the worst case scenario, with average rates of refrigerant losses and a higher initial charge of the systems. Indeed, the study team has found in some studies that the relative refrigerant charge of some split systems can be as high as 0.5 kg per kW cooling, and the refrigerant charge of VRF systems as high as 0.7 kg per kW cooling, which is a particularly high value, when compared for instance to a standard air-cooled chiller. In the end, refrigerant scenario 4 corresponds to what has been explained in 6.2.4 : whether refrigerant leaks mostly occur at faulting piping connections, there is no reason that oversizing the heat exchangers and so the refrigerant charge of air conditioners leads to higher refrigerant leaks, in absolute terms. On the contrary, end-of-life recovery losses should increase (in absolute terms) with the initial charge of the system. VRF systems LCC sensitivity For each case, the LCC ratio that corresponds to the option with the LLCC is bolded. Cooling only – Average climate - Costs scenario 1 has already been explained in 6.2.4. - In costs scenario 2, the LLCC corresponds to option I8, which has a lower SEER than option I13

but lower additional costs. However, this is not of great importance : as for costs scenario 1, all conventional improvement options have nearly the same LCC as the base-case. The simple payback time remains the 15 years product life of the system.

- In costs scenario 3, this is not valid anymore for the options with the highest SEER, for which the LCC becomes higher than the one of the base-case, although slightly higher.

- Concerning alternative refrigerant options, it must be noted that their additional costs are not increased in costs scenario 3 : base values are already extremely high, and do not justify any change.

123

Cooling + heating – Average climate This case is the most important to look at, because around 90% of VRF systems sold in the EU are reversible. What the sensitivity analysis shows clearly is that whatever the assumptions made, the option with the LLCC is always the BAT, which is option I16. The greater the SEER, the greater economic savings over the product life. The simple payback time remains around 5 years. This confirms the choice of option I13 as the reference option when both functions are taken into considerations. Cooling only – Cold climate Note that this is not a very realistic case. According to Task 2 and Task 4 analyses, the study team does not believe that there are many cooling only VRF systems sold in cold climates, as it is thought that the average EU climate that might correspond to sales of reversible products is colder than the average EU climate that might correspond to sales of cooling only products. For the cold climate, the study team thinks it suffices to do the sensitivity analysis with one additional costs scenario, which is the worst case scenario. In this very specific (uncommon) case and as expected, no improved product is profitable over the product life. It is then certain that adding the heating function would automatically lead to gains in LCC for nearly if not all options : in prEN 14825, the equivalent hours in heating mode are 2100 hours, which is 7 times more than the 300 equivalent hours in cooling mode defined in this report. Cooling only – Warm climate As for the cold climate, one additional costs scenario suffices. With costs scenario 1, it is the BAT (option I16) that is the option with the LLCC, because of a higher number of equivalent hours at design capacity than for the average climate. However, all conventional improvement options have nearly identical LCC. Shifting to costs scenario 3 does not change greatly the results : the LLCC might be option I12, but with a LCC that is less than 1% lower than the LCC of the base-case. TEWI sensitivity Blue font values correspond to the microchannel version of the reference option I13 in cooling mode. When the heating function is also considered, option I13b is displayed in a yellow cell, to show that it is seen as a non available technology that might be developed in the future but is thus not currently sold. Bolded values (black, or blue when they correspond to I13) are always the LLCC for costs scenario 1. Cooling only – Average, cold and warm climates When only the cooling function is taken into consideration, the same conclusions can be made for the different climates. It is from a refrigerant scenario to another one that the variability is the greatest. For each refrigerant scenario, the base-case is ranked differently : - Refrigerant scenario 1 has already been analyzed in 6.2.4. for the average climate. For the cold

climate, it leads to a very large increase in the TEWI that is even not compensated by the use of a microchannel condenser.

- Refrigerant scenario 2 is a little less constraining, as even without a microchannel heat exchanger, some improved products allow to improve the TEWI.

- Refrigerant scenario 3, which is the worst case scenario, disqualifies all conventional improved products.

- Refrigerant scenario 4 is on the contrary the best case scenario. With this scenario, all conventional improvement options allow to reduce the environmental impact with regards to the base-case product. As the refrigerant losses due to leaks during product life are taken equal to the one of the base-case, the microchannel condenser option is of nearly nil interest by comparison with the standard fin and tube condenser.

- Apart from refrigerant scenario 4, in nearly all climate cases, adding a microchannel heat exchanger allows positive gains in equivalent CO2 emissions.

124

For R-410A charged products, the different refrigerant scenarios lead therefore to very contradictory conclusions. This highlights the need to agree on reference rates of refrigerant leaks and end-of-life losses, in % of the initial refrigerant charge, or other means to calculate properly the direct emissions of VRF systems, whether refrigerant leaks occur mainly at connection level. Because of their low GWP, the issue is less sensitive for alternative refrigerant options, whose ranking is not significantly affected by the hypotheses made on refrigerant losses (the R-32 has a GWP of 675, whereas the 3 other refrigerants have a GWP lower than 5, but the R-32 has a higher energy efficiency that compensates its higher GWP). Cooling + heating – Average climate Very noticeably, taking now into consideration the heating function in addition to the cooling function decreases greatly the variability of the results due to the different refrigerant scenarios. In nearly all cases, the improved products lead to gains in the TEWI. Of course, these gains are of a more less large extent, depending on the hypotheses made. An important point is that for refrigerant scenario 2 with low loss rates, the CO2 charged product becomes less interesting in terms of TEWI because of its lower energy efficiency than the R-32 and the R-1234yf charged products. This is a good indication for the comparison of these alternative refrigerants. Eventually, option I13 always ranks well, whatever the condenser choice (I13a and I13b). This confirms the study team’s choice to take it as the reference option.

12

5

Ta

ble

6 -6

2 . V

RF

syst

ems

: life

cyc

le c

osts

sen

sitiv

ity a

naly

sis

Ener

gy

scen

ario

Cos

tssc

enar

ioR

esul

t typ

eVR

F B

CVR

F I1

VRF

I2VR

F I3

VRF

I4VR

F I5

VRF

I6VR

F I7

VRF

I8VR

F I9

VRF

I10

VRF

I11

VRF

I12

VRF

I13

VRF

I14

VRF

I15

VRF

I16

VRF

CO

2VR

F R

-32

VRF

R-1

234y

f

LCC

(des

ign

optio

n) /

LCC

(bas

e-ca

se)

100%

100%

99%

100%

100%

99%

100%

100%

99%

100%

99%

100%

99%

99%

100%

100%

101%

118%

104%

127%

ΔEl

ectri

city

cos

ts (k

€)0.

00.

61.

11.

41.

71.

92.

32.

42.

93.

23.

34.

04.

14.

24.

85.

86.

4-2

.40.

0-3

.1To

tal li

fe c

ycle

cos

ts (k

€)75

7575

7575

7576

7575

7675

7575

7575

7676

8978

96E

lect

ricity

cos

ts /

Tota

l life

cyc

le c

osts

24%

23%

22%

22%

22%

21%

20%

21%

20%

19%

19%

18%

18%

18%

17%

16%

15%

23%

23%

22%

LCC

(des

ign

optio

n) /

LCC

(bas

e-ca

se)

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

101%

100%

99%

101%

100%

101%

100%

100%

101%

101%

102%

118%

104%

127%

ΔEl

ectri

city

cos

ts (k

€)0.

00.

50.

91.

21.

41.

72.

02.

02.

52.

82.

93.

43.

53.

64.

15.

05.

5-2

.10.

0-2

.7To

tal li

fe c

ycle

cos

ts (k

€)73

7373

7373

7374

7373

7473

7373

7374

7474

8676

93E

lect

ricity

cos

ts /

Tota

l life

cyc

le c

osts

21%

20%

20%

19%

19%

19%

18%

18%

18%

17%

17%

16%

16%

16%

15%

14%

13%

20%

20%

19%

LCC

(des

ign

optio

n) /

LCC

(bas

e-ca

se)

100%

100%

100%

101%

101%

100%

103%

101%

101%

103%

101%

103%

102%

102%

104%

105%

106%

--

-Δ

Elec

trici

ty c

osts

(€)

0.0

0.5

0.9

1.2

1.4

1.7

2.0

2.0

2.5

2.8

2.9

3.4

3.5

3.6

4.1

5.0

5.5

--

-To

tal li

fe c

ycle

cos

ts (k

€)73

7373

7474

7375

7474

7574

7574

7476

7777

--

-E

lect

ricity

cos

ts /

Tota

l life

cyc

le c

osts

21%

20%

20%

19%

19%

19%

18%

18%

17%

17%

17%

16%

16%

16%

15%

13%

13%

--

-LC

C (d

esig

n op

tion)

/ LC

C (b

ase-

case

)10

0%99

%98

%98

%98

%97

%97

%97

%95

%96

%95

%94

%94

%93

%93

%91

%90

%11

3%10

2%11

9%Δ

Elec

trici

ty c

osts

(k€)

0.0

1.6

2.8

3.7

4.4

5.2

6.3

6.4

7.9

8.9

9.3

11.4

11.7

11.9

13.9

17.5

19.8

-5.7

0.0

-7.3

Tota

l life

cyc

le c

osts

(k€)

128

127

125

125

125

124

124

123

122

122

121

120

119

119

118

116

115

144

130

152

Ele

ctric

ity c

osts

/ To

tal l

ife c

ycle

cos

ts55

%54

%54

%53

%53

%52

%51

%52

%51

%50

%50

%49

%49

%49

%47

%45

%44

%52

%54

%51

%LC

C (d

esig

n op

tion)

/ LC

C (b

ase-

case

)10

0%99

%99

%98

%98

%97

%98

%97

%96

%96

%96

%95

%94

%94

%94

%92

%91

%11

4%10

2%12

0%Δ

Elec

trici

ty c

osts

(k€)

0.0

1.4

2.4

3.1

3.7

4.4

5.4

5.5

6.8

7.7

7.9

9.7

10.0

10.2

11.9

15.0

17.0

-4.9

0.0

-6.3

Tota

l life

cyc

le c

osts

(k€)

118

117

116

116

115

114

115

114

113

113

112

112

111

111

110

109

107

134

120

141

Ele

ctric

ity c

osts

/ To

tal l

ife c

ycle

cos

ts51

%50

%50

%49

%49

%49

%48

%48

%47

%46

%46

%45

%45

%45

%43

%41

%40

%49

%50

%47

%LC

C (d

esig

n op

tion)

/ LC

C (b

ase-

case

)10

0%10

0%99

%99

%99

%98

%99

%98

%97

%98

%97

%97

%96

%96

%96

%95

%94

%-

--

ΔEl

ectri

city

cos

ts (k

€)0.

01.

42.

43.

13.

74.

45.

45.

56.

87.

77.

99.

710

.010

.211

.915

.017

.0-

--

Tota

l life

cyc

le c

osts

(k€)

118

117

116

116

116

115

116

115

114

115

114

114

112

113

113

111

111

--

-E

lect

ricity

cos

ts /

Tota

l life

cyc

le c

osts

51%

50%

50%

49%

49%

48%

47%

47%

47%

46%

46%

44%

44%

44%

43%

40%

39%

--

-LC

C (d

esig

n op

tion)

/ LC

C (b

ase-

case

)10

0%10

0%10

0%10

1%10

1%10

1%10

2%10

2%10

1%10

3%10

2%10

3%10

2%10

2%10

4%10

5%10

6%-

--

ΔEl

ectri

city

cos

ts (k

€)0.

00.

30.

50.

60.

80.

91.

11.

11.

31.

51.

51.

81.

91.

92.

22.

62.

9-

--

Tota

l life

cyc

le c

osts

(k€)

6666

6667

6766

6867

6768

6768

6868

6969

70-

--

Ele

ctric

ity c

osts

/ To

tal l

ife c

ycle

cos

ts13

%12

%12

%12

%11

%11

%11

%11

%11

%10

%10

%10

%10

%10

%9%

8%8%

--

-LC

C (d

esig

n op

tion)

/ LC

C (b

ase-

case

)10

0%10

1%10

1%10

2%10

2%10

2%10

5%10

3%10

3%10

6%10

4%10

7%10

5%10

5%10

8%11

0%11

2%-

--

ΔEl

ectri

city

cos

ts (k

€)0.

00.

20.

40.

60.

70.

80.

90.

91.

11.

31.

31.

61.

61.

61.

92.

32.

5-

--

Tota

l life

cyc

le c

osts

(k€)

6565

6666

6666

6867

6769

6769

6868

7071

72-

--

Ele

ctric

ity c

osts

/ To

tal l

ife c

ycle

cos

ts11

%11

%10

%10

%10

%10

%9%

9%9%

9%9%

8%8%

8%8%

7%7%

--

-LC

C (d

esig

n op

tion)

/ LC

C (b

ase-

case

)10

0%10

0%99

%99

%99

%98

%99

%98

%97

%98

%97

%97

%97

%97

%97

%97

%96

%-

--

ΔEl

ectri

city

cos

ts (k

€)0.

00.

91.

42.

12.

43.

03.

53.

64.

34.

85.

16.

16.

36.

37.

28.

99.

8-

--

Tota

l life

cyc

le c

osts

(k€)

8484

8383

8382

8382

8282

8182

8181

8181

81-

--

Ele

ctric

ity c

osts

/ To

tal l

ife c

ycle

cos

ts31

%30

%30

%29

%29

%28

%27

%28

%27

%26

%26

%25

%25

%25

%23

%21

%20

%-

--

LCC

(des

ign

optio

n) /

LCC

(bas

e-ca

se)

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

99%

101%

100%

99%

101%

99%

101%

99%

100%

101%

102%

102%

--

-Δ

Elec

trici

ty c

osts

(k€)

0.0

0.8

1.2

1.8

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.1

3.7

4.1

4.4

5.3

5.4

5.4

6.2

7.6

8.4

--

-To

tal li

fe c

ycle

cos

ts (k

€)80

8080

8080

8081

8080

8180

8180

8081

8182

--

-E

lect

ricity

cos

ts /

Tota

l life

cyc

le c

osts

28%

27%

27%

26%

26%

25%

24%

24%

24%

23%

23%

21%

22%

21%

20%

18%

17%

--

-

Aver

age

Clim

ate

Coo

ling

only

Cos

tssc

enar

io 1

Cos

tssc

enar

io 2

Cos

tssc

enar

io 3

Aver

age

Clim

ate

Coo

ling

& H

eatin

g

Cos

tssc

enar

io 1

Cos

tssc

enar

io 2

Cos

tssc

enar

io 3

Col

d C

limat

e

Coo

ling

only

Cos

tssc

enar

io 1

Cos

tssc

enar

io 3

War

m C

limat

e

Coo

ling

Cos

tssc

enar

io 1

Cos

tssc

enar

io 3

12

6

Ta

ble

6 -6

3 . V

RF

syst

ems

: TEW

I sen

sitiv

ity a

naly

sis

Energy

scen

ario

Refrigerant

scen

ario

Result type

12

34

56

78

910

1112

1314

1516

1718

1920

21

Improvem

ent o

ption code

VRF

I16

VRF

I15

VRF

I14

VRF

I12

VRF

I11

VRF

I13a

VRF

I10

VRF

I9VRF

I6VRF

I8VRF

I5VRF

I7VRF

I3VRF

I4VRF

I1VRF

I2VRF

BC

VRF

I13b

VRF

R‐32

VRF

CO2

VRF

R‐1234yf

Gain in TEW

I‐24%

‐21%

‐12%

‐10%

‐10%

‐9%

‐7%

‐5%

‐4%

‐4%

‐3%

‐3%

‐2%

‐1%

‐1%

0%0%

3%39%

46%

53%

Gain in t(CO

2) equ

.‐24.8

‐21.7

‐12.4

‐10.9

‐10.4

‐9.1

‐7.7

‐5.5

‐4.4

‐4.3

‐3.3

‐2.9

‐2.2

‐1.1

‐0.7

0.0

0.0

2.9

0.0

0.0

0.1

Total Emission

s : t(CO

2) equ

.129

125

116

115

114

113

111

109

108

108

107

107

106

105

104

104

104

101

00

0Direct Emission

s / Indirect Emission

s76%

74%

69%

67%

67%

67%

64%

63%

61%

62%

59%

60%

57%

58%

55%

56%

53%

63%

25%

0%0%

Improvem

ent o

ption code

VRF

I16

VRF

I15

VRF

I14

VRF

I12

VRF

I11

VRF

I10

VRF

I13a

VRF

I6VRF

BC

VRF

I5VRF

I3VRF

I1VRF

I9VRF

I8VRF

I7VRF

I4VRF

I2VRF

I13b

VRF

R‐32

VRF

CO2

VRF

R‐1234yf

Gain in TEW

I‐9%

‐8%

‐3%

‐2%

‐2%

‐1%

‐1%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

1%1%

1%1%

8%30%

32%

40%

Gain in t(CO

2) equ

.‐7.7

‐6.5

‐2.0

‐1.9

‐1.8

‐0.9

‐0.8

0.0

0.0

0.2

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.6

0.9

1.2

1.2

6.4

0.0

0.0

0.0

Total Emission

s89

8884

8483

8282

8282

8181

8181

8181

8080

750

00

Direct Emission


s65%

62%

57%

55%

54%

52%

54%

48%

40%

46%

45%

42%

51%

49%

47%

45%

43%

50%

16%

0%0%

Improvem

ent o

ption code

VRF

I16

VRF

I15

VRF

I14

VRF

I12

VRF

I11

VRF

I13a

VRF

I10

VRF

I9VRF

I8VRF

I6VRF

I5VRF

I7VRF

I3VRF

I4VRF

I1VRF

I2VRF

I13b

VRF

BC

VRF

R‐32

VRF

CO2

VRF

R‐1234yf

Gain in TEW

I‐33%

‐29%

‐18%

‐16%

‐15%

‐14%

‐11%

‐9%

‐7%

‐7%

‐5%

‐5%

‐4%

‐3%

‐1%

‐1%

0%0%

45%

56%

61%

Gain in t(CO

2) equ

.‐41.8

‐36.8

‐22.5

‐19.7

‐19.0

‐17.3

‐14.4

‐11.2

‐9.2

‐8.7

‐6.8

‐6.6

‐4.6

‐3.4

‐1.7

‐1.2

‐0.4

0.0

0.1

0.1

0.1

Total Emission

s167

162

148

145

145

143

140

137

135

134

132

132

130

129

127

127

126

126

00

0Direct Emission


s81%

80%

76%

74%

74%

74%

72%

71%

70%

68%

67%

68%

65%

66%

63%

64%

70%

61%

31%

0%0%

Improvem

ent o

ption code

VRF

BC

VRF

I1VRF

I2VRF

I3VRF

I4VRF

I5VRF

I6VRF

I7VRF

I8VRF

I10

VRF

I9VRF

I11

VRF

I12

VRF

I13a

VRF

I14

VRF

I13b

VRF

I15

VRF

I16

VRF

R‐32

VRF

CO2

VRF

R‐1234yf

Gain in TEW

I0%

1%2%

3%4%

4%5%

5%6%

6%7%

8%8%

8%9%

10%

10%

11%

37%

46%

53%

Gain in t(CO

2) equ

.0.0

1.4

2.6

3.0

3.7

4.1

4.9

5.2

6.2

6.7

6.8

7.9

8.1

8.5

9.5

10.2

10.5

11.5

0.0

0.0

0.1

Total Emission

s104

102

101

101

100

100

9999

9897

9796

9695

9494

9392

00

0Direct Emission


s53%

54%

55%

55%

56%

56%

57%

57%

58%

59%

59%

60%

61%

61%

62%

60%

65%

66%

27%

0%0%

Improvem

ent o

ption code

VRF

BC

VRF

I1VRF

I3VRF

I2VRF

I5VRF

I4VRF

I6VRF

I7VRF

I10

VRF

I8VRF

I11

VRF

I12

VRF

I9VRF

I15

VRF

I13a

VRF

I16

VRF

I14

VRF

I13b

VRF

CO2

VRF

R‐32

VRF

R‐1234yf

Gain in TEW

I0%

1%2%

2%2%

3%3%

3%3%

4%4%

4%4%

4%5%

5%5%

10%

16%

17%

22%

Gain in t(CO

2) equ

.0.0

2.0

4.0

4.8

5.5

6.3

6.4

8.1

8.6

9.5

9.8

9.9

10.2

10.5

12.0

12.0

12.8

24.1

0.0

0.0

0.1

Total Emission

s247

245

243

242

241

240

240

239

238

237

237

237

237

236

235

235

234

223

00

0Direct Emission


s22%

23%

25%

24%

26%

25%

27%

27%

30%

28%

32%

32%

29%

39%

32%

41%

34%

28%

0%8%

0%Im

provem

ent o

ption code

VRF

BC

VRF

I1VRF

I2VRF

I3VRF

I4VRF

I5VRF

I6VRF

I7VRF

I8VRF

I10

VRF

I9VRF

CO2

VRF

I11

VRF

I12

VRF

I13a

VRF

I14

VRF

I15

VRF

R‐32

VRF

I13b

VRF

I16

VRF

R‐1234yf

Gain in TEW

I0%

1%3%

3%4%

4%5%

5%6%

7%7%

8%8%

8%9%

10%

11%

12%

12%

13%

14%

Gain in t(CO

2) equ

.0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Total Emission

s0

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

Direct Emission


s15%

15%

16%

17%

17%

18%

18%

18%

19%

20%

20%

0%22%

22%

22%

24%

28%

5%19%

30%

0%Im

provem

ent o

ption code

VRF

I16

VRF

I15

VRF

BC

VRF

I1VRF

I12

VRF

I11

VRF

I3VRF

I10

VRF

I5VRF

I6VRF

I14

VRF

I2VRF

I13a

VRF

I4VRF

I7VRF

I9VRF

I8VRF

I13b

VRF

R‐32

VRF

CO2

VRF

R‐1234yf

Gain in TEW

I‐2%

‐2%

0%0%

0%0%

1%1%

1%1%

1%1%

1%1%

2%2%

2%8%

22%

23%

28%

Gain in t(CO

2) equ

.‐5.0

‐4.6

0.0

1.0

1.1

1.2

1.6

1.9

2.0

2.1

2.6

3.6

3.8

4.0

4.4

4.5

4.6

20.7

0.1

0.1

0.1

Total Emission

s274

273

269

268

268

267

267

267

267

267

266

265

265

265

264

264

264

248

00

0Direct Emission


s50%

47%

29%

30%

40%

40%

32%

38%

33%

34%

42%

31%

40%

32%

34%

37%

36%

36%

10%

0%0%

Improvem

ent o

ption code

VRF

BC

VRF

I1VRF

I2VRF

I3VRF

I4VRF

I5VRF

I6VRF

I7VRF

I8VRF

I9VRF

I10

VRF

I11

VRF

I12

VRF

I13a

VRF

I13b

VRF

I14

VRF

CO2

VRF

R‐32

VRF

I15

VRF

I16

VRF

R‐1234yf

Gain in TEW

I0%

2%3%

4%5%

5%6%

7%8%

9%9%

11%

12%

12%

13%

14%

16%

17%

17%

20%

22%

Gain in t(CO

2) equ

.0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.1

Total Emission

s0

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

Direct Emission


s22%

23%

23%

23%

24%

24%

24%

24%

25%

25%

26%

26%

27%

27%

26%

28%

0%8%

30%

31%

0%Im

provem

ent o

ption code

VRF

I16

VRF

I15

VRF

I14

VRF

I12

VRF

I11

VRF

I13a

VRF

I10

VRF

I9VRF

I8VRF

I6VRF

I7VRF

I5VRF

I3VRF

I4VRF

I13b

VRF

I1VRF

I2VRF

BC

VRF

CO2

VRF

R‐32

VRF

R‐1234yf

Gain in TEW

I‐44%

‐39%

‐25%

‐22%

‐21%

‐20%

‐16%

‐13%

‐11%

‐10%

‐8%

‐8%

‐5%

‐5%

‐4%

‐2%

‐2%

0%‐

‐‐

Gain in t(CO

2) equ

.‐34.4

‐30.4

‐19.5

‐17.0

‐16.4

‐15.3

‐12.6

‐10.2

‐8.6

‐7.9

‐6.3

‐6.2

‐4.2

‐3.5

‐3.3

‐1.7

‐1.6

0.0

‐‐

‐Total Emission

s112

108

9795

9493

9188

8786

8484

8281

8180

8078

‐‐

‐Direct Emission


s87%

85%

82%

81%

81%

81%

79%

78%

77%

76%

76%

75%

74%

74%

78%

72%

73%

70%

‐‐

‐Im

provem

ent o

ption code

VRF

BC

VRF

I1VRF

I2VRF

I3VRF

I5VRF

I4VRF

I6VRF

I7VRF

I10

VRF

I15

VRF

I8VRF

I11

VRF

I16

VRF

I12

VRF

I9VRF

I13a

VRF

I14

VRF

I13b

VRF

CO2

VRF

R‐32

VRF

R‐1234yf

Gain in TEW

I0%

1%1%

1%2%

2%2%

2%2%

2%2%

2%2%

3%3%

3%3%

5%‐

‐‐

Gain in t(CO

2) equ

.0.0

0.4

1.0

0.9

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.7

1.8

1.8

1.9

1.9

1.9

2.0

2.0

2.3

2.3

4.0

‐‐

‐Total Emission

s78

7877

7777

7777

7676

7676

7676

7676

7676

74‐

‐‐

Direct Emission


s70%

71%

72%

72%

73%

73%

74%

74%

75%

79%

74%

76%

80%

76%

75%

76%

77%

76%

‐‐

‐

Improvem

ent o

ption code

VRF

I16

VRF

I15

VRF

I14

VRF

I12

VRF

I11

VRF

I13a

VRF

I10

VRF

I6VRF

I9VRF

I5VRF

I8VRF

I3VRF

BC

VRF

I1VRF

I7VRF

I4VRF

I2VRF

I13b

VRF

CO2

VRF

R‐32

VRF

R‐1234yf

Gain in TEW

I‐12%

‐10%

‐5%

‐4%

‐4%

‐3%

‐2%

‐1%

‐1%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

1%1%

7%‐

‐‐

Gain in t(CO

2) equ

.‐15.6

‐13.2

‐5.7

‐4.9

‐4.5

‐3.3

‐2.8

‐1.2

‐1.1

‐0.5

‐0.5

‐0.1

0.0

0.0

0.5

0.9

1.0

8.7

‐‐

‐Total Emission

s142

140

133

132

131

130

130

128

128

127

127

127

127

127

126

126

126

118

‐‐

‐Direct Emission


s68%

66%

61%

58%

58%

58%

55%

51%

54%

50%

53%

48%

43%

45%

51%

48%

46%

54%

‐‐

‐Im

provem

ent o

ption code

VRF

BC

VRF

I1VRF

I2VRF

I3VRF

I4VRF

I5VRF

I6VRF

I7VRF

I8VRF

I9VRF

I10

VRF

I11

VRF

I12

VRF

I13a

VRF

I13b

VRF

I14

VRF

I15

VRF

I16

VRF

CO2

VRF

R‐32

VRF

R‐1234yf

Gain in TEW

I0%

2%3%

4%5%

5%6%

7%8%

9%9%

11%

11%

11%

13%

13%

15%

16%

‐‐

‐Gain in t(CO

2) equ

.0.0

2.2

3.5

5.0

5.7

6.9

8.0

8.5

10.0

11.2

11.6

13.8

14.0

14.3

16.0

16.1

19.1

20.8

‐‐

‐Total Emission

s127

125

123

122

121

120

119

118

117

116

115

113

113

113

111

111

108

106

‐‐

‐Direct Emission


s43%

44%

45%

46%

46%

47%

47%

47%

48%

49%

50%

51%

51%

51%

51%

53%

56%

57%

‐‐

‐

Cooling on

ly

Cold Clim

ate

Refrigerant

Scen

ario 1

Refrigerant

Scen

ario 4

Cooling on

ly

Warm Clim

ate

Refrigerant

Scen

ario 1

Refrigerant

Scen

ario 4

Cooling on

ly

Average

Clim

ate

Refrigerant

Scen

ario 1

Refrigerant

Scen

ario 2

Refrigerant

Scen

ario 3

Refrigerant

Scen

ario 4

Cooling

&Heating

Average

Clim

ate

Refrigerant

Scen

ario 1

Refrigerant

Scen

ario 2

Refrigerant

Scen

ario 3

Refrigerant

Scen

ario 4

127

Split systems Bolded numerical values (no confusion with the codes of the options) are LLCC values. Although from a mathematical viewpoint, the LLCC in cooling + heating modes is option I7, option I9 has a very close LCC, and is thus kept as the reference LLCC option in the sensitivity tables. Most of the comments of the results done for VRF systems apply to split systems, as can be seen hereunder. LCC sensitivity Alternative refrigerant options are not evaluated for the worst case scenario, because their additional costs is already particularly high with regards to the investment costs of the base-case. Cooling only – Average climate It can be said that over the product life, it is coherent to keep option I4 as the reference option in terms of LCC. Its total life cycle costs only increase by 100 euros over 15 years for the worst case scenario (scenario 3), and it is the LLCC for scenarios 1 and 2. Interestingly, the gap between options I0 to I4 and options I5 to I11 is confirmed by scenarios 2 and 3, which show that the latter lead to too high investment costs to be profitable over the product life. This is particularly the case for the worst case scenario, with increases in LCC up to 35% for the BAT (option I11). Cooling + heating – Average climate Now that the heating function is also considered, all improvement options are profitable, whatever the costs scenario. In the worst case, the BAT (I11) has the same LCC than the base-case. Option I4 remains the LLCC for the worst case scenario, while options I7, I8 and I9 have the LLCC in costs scenarios 1 and 2. Cooling only – Cold climate As for VRF systems, the study team does not think that many cooling only split systems are installed to cope, under a cold climate, with cooling loads over only 300 annual equivalent hours at design capacity. This case remains specific, and corresponds probably to small market shares at the EU scale. The worst case scenario suffices for the sensitivity analysis, and shows that for these particular conditions, no improved product is profitable as it never leads to a lower LCC than the one of a base-case. Cooling only – Warm climate On the contrary, cooling only products represent large market shares in Southern Europe countries. Option I4 remains profitable over the product life for the worst case scenario, with a LCC equal to the one of the base-case. TEWI sensitivity As for VRF systems, blue font values correspond to the microchannel version of the reference option I4 in cooling mode. When the heating function is also considered, option I4b is displayed in a yellow cell, to show that it is seen as a non available technology that might be developed in the future but is thus not currently sold. Bolded values (black, or blue when they correspond to I4) are always the LLCC for costs scenario 1. Cooling only – Average, cold and warm climates

128

The same conclusions can be drawn from the different cooling only + refrigerant scenarios cases than for VRF systems. The base-case ranks in a very similar manner from a case to another one, as well as the reference improved product, which is here the LLCC in its microchannel condenser version. No significant difference between these two systems is observed, so the study team suggests to refer to the preceding explanations. Cooling + heating – Average climate The difference between these two systems is greater for reversible products. For both of them, alternative refrigerant using products are drop-ins of the R-410A base-case. But the latter has a lower efficiency in the case of the split system, which implies less attractive rankings of the alternative refrigerant drop-ins in TEWI calculation results : there is more room of improvement on the energy side, which favours conventional improvement options. Note that the ranking of the CO2 product is certainly unfair : it is harder to optimize CO2 charged products in cooling mode than in heating mode, but is not translated in the simplified simulations done by the study team. This can be sorted out in a revised version of this report. Eventually, it can be noted that option I4a always allows a gain in TEWI that is greater than 7%, whatever the refrigerant scenario. This gain is up to 15% in scenario 4.

12

9

Ta

ble

6 -6

4 . S

plit

syst

ems

: life

cyc

le c

osts

sen

sitiv

ity a

naly

sis

Ener

gy

scen

ario

Cos

tssc

enar

ioR

esul

t typ

eSP

BC

SP I0

SP I1

SP I2

SP I3

SP I4

SP I5

SP I6

SP I7

SP I8

SP I9

SP I1

0SP

I11

SP C

O2

SP R

-290

SP R

-32

SP R

-123

4yf

LCC

(des

ign

optio

n) /

LCC

(bas

e-ca

se)

100%

100%

98%

98%

98%

97%

102%

102%

105%

107%

110%

114%

116%

135%

124%

102%

130%

ΔE

lect

ricity

cos

ts (k

€)0.

00.

10.

40.

70.

91.

11.

31.

41.

61.

71.

71.

81.

9-0

.5-0

.80.

10.

0To

tal l

ife c

ycle

cos

ts (k

€)13

.113

.112

.812

.812

.812

.713

.313

.413

.714

.014

.414

.915

.217

.716

.313

.417

.0E

lect

ricity

cos

ts /

Tota

l life

cyc

le c

osts

34%

33%

31%

30%

28%

26%

24%

23%

21%

20%

19%

18%

17%

28%

32%

32%

26%

LCC

(des

ign

optio

n) /

LCC

(bas

e-ca

se)

100%

100%

99%

99%

99%

98%

103%

104%

107%

109%

113%

116%

119%

136%

125%

102%

131%

ΔE

lect

ricity

cos

ts (k

€)0.

00.

10.

40.

60.

80.

91.

11.

21.

31.

41.

51.

61.

6-0

.4-0

.70.

10.

0To

tal l

ife c

ycle

cos

ts (k

€)12

.512

.412

.312

.312

.312

.212

.912

.913

.313

.614

.114

.514

.817

.015

.512

.716

.4E

lect

ricity

cos

ts /

Tota

l life

cyc

le c

osts

31%

30%

28%

26%

25%

24%

21%

20%

19%

18%

16%

16%

15%

25%

29%

29%

23%

LCC

(des

ign

optio

n) /

LCC

(bas

e-ca

se)

100%

100%

100%

100%

101%

101%

109%

110%

115%

120%

125%

130%

135%

--

--

ΔE

lect

ricity

cos

ts (€

)0.

00.

10.

40.

60.

80.

91.

11.

21.

31.

41.

51.

61.

6-

--

-To

tal l

ife c

ycle

cos

ts (k

€)12

.512

.412

.512

.512

.612

.613

.613

.714

.314

.915

.616

.216

.8-

--

-E

lect

ricity

cos

ts /

Tota

l life

cyc

le c

osts

31%

30%

28%

26%

24%

23%

20%

19%

17%

16%

15%

14%

13%

--

--

LCC

(des

ign

optio

n) /

LCC

(bas

e-ca

se)

100%

99%

96%

94%

92%

90%

90%

88%

88%

88%

88%

89%

89%

120%

116%

100%

114%

ΔE

lect

ricity

cos

ts (k

€)0.

00.

41.

32.

02.

93.

64.

24.

95.

55.

96.

36.

66.

9-1

.4-2

.10.

40.

0To

tal l

ife c

ycle

cos

ts (k

€)27

.327

.026

.225

.725

.024

.424

.624

.124

.024

.024

.124

.324

.432

.831

.827

.331

.2E

lect

ricity

cos

ts /

Tota

l life

cyc

le c

osts

68%

68%

66%

65%

63%

62%

59%

57%

55%

53%

51%

50%

48%

61%

65%

67%

60%

LCC

(des

ign

optio

n) /

LCC

(bas

e-ca

se)

100%

99%

96%

94%

92%

90%

91%

90%

90%

90%

91%

92%

92%

121%

117%

100%

116%

ΔE

lect

ricity

cos

ts (k

€)0.

00.

31.

11.

82.

53.

13.

64.

24.

75.

15.

45.

75.

9-1

.2-1

.80.

30.

0To

tal l

ife c

ycle

cos

ts (k

€)24

.624

.423

.723

.322

.822

.322

.522

.122

.122

.122

.322

.522

.729

.928

.824

.728

.5E

lect

ricity

cos

ts /

Tota

l life

cyc

le c

osts

65%

64%

63%

61%

59%

58%

55%

53%

51%

49%

47%

46%

44%

57%

62%

63%

56%

LCC

(des

ign

optio

n) /

LCC

(bas

e-ca

se)

100%

99%

97%

95%

94%

92%

94%

93%

94%

95%

97%

98%

100%

--

--

ΔE

lect

ricity

cos

ts (k

€)0.

00.

31.

11.

82.

53.

13.

64.

24.

75.

15.

45.

75.

9-

--

-To

tal l

ife c

ycle

cos

ts (k

€)24

.624

.423

.923

.523

.122

.723

.222

.923

.123

.423

.824

.224

.7-

--

-E

lect

ricity

cos

ts /

Tota

l life

cyc

le c

osts

65%

64%

62%

61%

59%

57%

53%

51%

49%

47%

44%

43%

41%

--

--

LCC

(des

ign

optio

n) /

LCC

(bas

e-ca

se)

100%

101%

101%

101%

102%

102%

109%

110%

114%

118%

122%

126%

130%

--

--

ΔE

lect

ricity

cos

ts (k

€)0.

00.

00.

10.

20.

40.

40.

50.

60.

70.

70.

70.

80.

8-

--

-To

tal l

ife c

ycle

cos

ts (k

€)10

.710

.810

.710

.810

.910

.911

.611

.812

.212

.613

.013

.513

.9-

--

-E

lect

ricity

cos

ts /

Tota

l life

cyc

le c

osts

19%

19%

18%

16%

15%

15%

13%

12%

11%

10%

10%

9%9%

--

--

LCC

(des

ign

optio

n) /

LCC

(bas

e-ca

se)

100%

101%

103%

104%

106%

107%

117%

119%

125%

132%

138%

145%

151%

--

--

ΔE

lect

ricity

cos

ts (k

€)0.

00.

00.

10.

20.

30.

40.

40.

50.

60.

60.

60.

70.

7-

--

-To

tal l

ife c

ycle

cos

ts (k

€)10

.410

.510

.710

.811

.011

.112

.112

.413

.013

.714

.315

.015

.7-

--

-E

lect

ricity

cos

ts /

Tota

l life

cyc

le c

osts

17%

17%

15%

14%

13%

12%

11%

10%

9%8%

8%7%

7%-

--

-LC

C (d

esig

n op

tion)

/ LC

C (b

ase-

case

)10

0%99

%97

%96

%96

%96

%10

0%10

1%10

3%10

5%10

8%11

2%11

4%-

--

-Δ

Ele

ctric

ity c

osts

(k€)

0.0

0.2

0.7

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.5

1.6

1.7

1.8

1.8

1.8

1.8

--

--

Tota

l life

cyc

le c

osts

(k€)

15.5

15.3

15.0

14.9

14.8

14.8

15.5

15.6

16.0

16.3

16.8

17.2

17.6

--

--

Ele

ctric

ity c

osts

/ To

tal li

fe c

ycle

cos

ts44

%43

%41

%39

%38

%37

%35

%34

%32

%31

%30

%29

%28

%-

--

-LC

C (d

esig

n op

tion)

/ LC

C (b

ase-

case

)10

0%99

%99

%98

%99

%10

0%10

6%10

8%11

2%11

7%12

1%12

6%13

1%-

--

-Δ

Ele

ctric

ity c

osts

(k€)

0.0

0.2

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.4

1.5

1.5

1.6

1.6

--

--

Tota

l life

cyc

le c

osts

(k€)

14.5

14.4

14.3

14.2

14.3

14.4

15.4

15.6

16.2

16.9

17.5

18.2

18.9

--

--

Ele

ctric

ity c

osts

/ To

tal li

fe c

ycle

cos

ts40

%39

%37

%35

%33

%32

%30

%29

%27

%26

%25

%24

%23

%-

--

-

War

m C

limat

e

Coo

ling

Cos

tssc

enar

io 1

Cos

tssc

enar

io 3

Aver

age

Clim

ate

Coo

ling

& H

eatin

g

Cos

tssc

enar

io 1

Cos

tssc

enar

io 2

Cos

tssc

enar

io 3

Aver

age

Clim

ate

Coo

ling

only

Cos

tssc

enar

io 1

Cos

tssc

enar

io 2

Cos

tssc

enar

io 3

Col

d C

limat

e

Coo

ling

only

Cos

tssc

enar

io 1

Cos

tssc

enar

io 3

13

0

Ta

ble

6 -6

5 . S

plit

syst

ems

: TEW

I sen

sitiv

ity a

naly

sis

Energy

scen

ario

Refrigerant

scen

ario

Result type

12

34

56

78

910

1112

1314

1516

1718

Improvem

ent o

ption code

SP I11

SP I10

SP I9

SP I8

SP I7

SP I6

SP I4a

SP I3

SP I5

SP I2

SP BC

SP I1

SP I0

SP I4b

SP CO2

SP R‐32

SP R‐290

SP R‐1234yf

Gain in TEW

I‐26%

‐23%

‐19%

‐15%

‐11%

‐7%

‐4%

‐2%

‐2%

0%0%

1%1%

9%25%

38%

39%

50%

Gain in t(CO

2) equ

.‐6.5

‐5.5

‐4.6

‐3.6

‐ 2.6

‐1.6

‐0.9

‐0.5

‐0.4

‐0.1

0.0

0.2

0.3

2.3

6.2

9.3

9.5

12.2

Total Emission

s : t(CO

2) equ

.31.0

30.0

29.0

28.1

27.1

26.1

25.4

25.0

24.9

24.6

24.5

24.3

24.1

22.2

18.3

15.2

14.9

12.2

Direct Emission


s77%

76%

75%

73%

71%

68%

64%

61%

65%

58%

50%

55%

51%

58%

26%

22%

4%0%

Improvem

ent o

ption code

SP I11

SP I10

SP I9

SP I8

SP BC

SP I7

SP I0

SP I1

SP I6

SP I4a

SP I2

SP I3

SP I5

SP I4b

SP CO2

SP R‐290

SP R‐32

SP R‐1234yf

Gain in TEW

I‐9%

‐6%

‐4%

‐2%

0%1%

2%3%

3%3%

3%4%

6%13%

16%

25%

29%

37%

Gain in t(CO

2) equ

.‐1.8

‐1.3

‐0.8

‐0.3

0.0

0.2

0.3

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.7

0.7

1.1

2.6

3.1

4.8

5.7

7.3

Total Emission

s21.3

20.8

20.3

19.8

19.5

19.3

19.2

18.9

18.9

18.9

18.8

18.8

18.4

16.9

16.4

14.7

13.8

12.2

Direct Emission


s67%

65%

63%

61%

37%

59%

38%

42%

56%

51%

45%

48%

52%

45%

17%

2%14%

0%Im

provem

ent o

ption code

SP I11

SP I10

SP I9

SP I8

SP I7

SP I6

SP I4a

SP I5

SP I3

SP I2

SP I1

SP BC

SP I0

SP I4b

SP CO2

SP R‐32

SP R‐290

SP R‐1234yf

Gain in TEW

I‐34%

‐30%

‐25%

‐21%

‐16%

‐11%

‐7%

‐5%

‐5%

‐2%

0%0%

1%8%

29%

42%

45%

56%

Gain in t(CO

2) equ

.‐9.4

‐8.1

‐6.9

‐5.7

‐4.4

‐3.0

‐1.9

‐1.4

‐1.2

‐0.6

‐0.1

0.0

0.3

2.1

8.0

11.6

12.5

15.3

Total Emission

s36.9

35.7

34.4

33.2

31.9

30.6

29.5

29.0

28.8

28.1

27.7

27.5

27.2

25.4

19.5

16.0

15.1

12.2

Direct Emission


s81%

80%

79%

77%

75%

73%

69%

70%

66%

63%

60%

56%

56%

64%

31%

26%

5%0%

Improvem

ent o

ption code

SP BC

SP I0

SP I1

SP I2

SP I3

SP I4a

SP I5

SP I6

SP I7

SP I8

SP I9

SP I10

SP I11

SP I4b

SP R‐290

SP CO2

SP R‐32

SP R‐1234yf

Gain in TEW

I0%

1%4%

6%8%

10%

12%

13%

13%

14%

14%

14%

14%

20%

27%

28%

36%

50%

Gain in t(CO

2) equ

.0.0

0.3

1.1

1.5

2.0

2.4

2.9

3.1

3.3

3.4

3.5

3.5

3.5

5.0

6.6

6.8

8.8

12.3

Total Emission

s24.5

24.1

23.4

22.9

22.4

22.1

21.6

21.4

21.2

21.1

21.0

21.0

21.0

19.5

17.8

17.6

15.7

12.2

Direct Emission


s50%

51%

53%

55%

57%

58%

59%

61%

63%

64%

65%

66%

66%

53%

20%

23%

25%

0%

Improvem

ent o

ption code

SP BC

SP I0

SP I1

SP I2

SP CO2

SP I3

SP I4a

SP R‐290

SP I11

SP I10

SP I5

SP I9

SP I6

SP I8

SP I7

SP I4b

SP R‐32

SP R‐1234yf

Gain in TEW

I0%

2%4%

6%6%

8%9%

9%12%

12%

12%

13%

13%

13%

13%

14%

16%

19%

Gain in t(CO

2) equ

.0.0

1.0

2.6

3.7

3.8

5.0

5.9

6.0

7.3

7.7

7.7

8.0

8.0

8.1

8.1

9.1

10.0

12.2

Total Emission

s63.5

62.5

60.8

59.7

59.7

58.5

57.6

57.5

56.2

55.8

55.7

55.5

55.5

55.4

55.3

54.4

53.5

51.2

Direct Emission


s19%

20%

22%

24%

8%26%

28%

1%43%

41%

29%

39%

32%

37%

35%

24%

6%0%

Improvem

ent o

ption code

SP BC

SP CO2

SP I0

SP R‐290

SP I1

SP I2

SP I3

SP R‐32

SP R‐1234yf

SP I4a

SP I5

SP I4b

SP I6

SP I7

SP I8

SP I9

SP I10

SP I11

Gain in TEW

I0%

1%2%

2%5%

8%11%

11%

12%

13%

16%

16%

17%

19%

20%

20%

20%

21%

Gain in t(CO

2) equ

.0.0

0.8

1.0

1.2

3.0

4.5

6.1

6.4

7.3

7.5

9.3

9.4

10.2

10.9

11.4

11.7

11.9

12.0

Total Emission

s58.5

57.7

57.5

57.3

55.5

54.0

52.3

52.1

51.2

51.0

49.2

49.1

48.3

47.6

47.1

46.8

46.5

46.5

Direct Emission


s12%

5%13%

1%14%

16%

17%

4%0%

19%

20%

16%

22%

24%

26%

28%

29%

31%

Improvem

ent o

ption code

SP BC

SP I0

SP I1

SP I2

SP I3

SP I11

SP I4a

SP I10

SP I9

SP CO2

SP I8

SP I7

SP I6

SP I5

SP R‐290

SP I4b

SP R‐32

SP R‐1234yf

Gain in TEW

I0%

2%4%

5%6%

7%7%

8%8%

9%9%

10%

10%

10%

13%

13%

18%

23%

Gain in t(CO

2) equ

.0.0

1.0

2.4

3.3

4.2

4.4

4.9

5.1

5.6

5.7

6.1

6.4

6.6

6.8

8.9

8.9

12.3

15.3

Total Emission

s66.5

65.5

64.2

63.3

62.3

62.1

61.6

61.5

60.9

60.9

60.5

60.1

59.9

59.8

57.7

57.6

54.3

51.2

Direct Emission


s23%

23%

26%

28%

31%

48%

33%

46%

44%

10%

42%

40%

37%

34%

1%28%

8%0%

Improvem

ent o

ption code

SP BC

SP I0

SP R‐290

SP I1

SP CO2

SP I2

SP I3

SP I4a

SP R‐32

SP I5

SP I4b

SP R‐1234yf

SP I6

SP I7

SP I8

SP I9

SP I10

SP I11

Gain in TEW

I0%

2%5%

6%7%

8%12%

15%

15%

17%

19%

19%

20%

22%

24%

25%

26%

27%

Gain in t(CO

2) equ

.0.0

1.0

3.1

3.5

4.5

5.3

7.5

9.2

9.5

11.1

11.8

12.3

12.7

14.1

15.1

16.0

16.7

17.3

Total Emission

s63.5

62.5

60.4

59.9

59.0

58.1

56.0

54.2

54.0

52.4

51.7

51.2

50.7

49.4

48.3

47.5

46.8

46.2

Direct Emission


s19%

20%

6%21%

7%22%

23%

24%

7%25%

20%

0%26%

27%

28%

29%

29%

30%

Improvem

ent o

ption code

SP I11

SP I10

SP I9

SP I8

SP I7

SP I6

SP I4a

SP I5

SP I3

SP I2

SP I1

SP I0

SP BC

SP I4b

SP R‐290

SP CO2

SP R‐32

SP R‐1234yf

Gain in TEW

I‐53%

‐47%

‐41%

‐35%

‐29%

‐22%

‐15%

‐14%

‐11%

‐7%

‐4%

0%0%

3%‐

‐‐

‐Gain in t(CO

2) equ

.‐9.4

‐8.4

‐7.3

‐6.2

‐5.1

‐3.9

‐2.7

‐2.5

‐2.0

‐1.2

‐0.7

0.0

0.0

0.5

‐‐

‐‐

Total Emission

s27.3

26.2

25.1

24.1

22.9

21.7

20.5

20.3

19.8

19.1

18.5

17.8

17.8

17.3

‐‐

‐‐

Direct Emission


s88%

87%

86%

85%

84%

82%

79%

80%

77%

74%

72%

69%

69%

75%

‐‐

‐‐

Improvem

ent o

ption code

SP I0

SP BC

SP I1

SP I2

SP I11

SP I3

SP I4a

SP I10

SP I9

SP I8

SP I6

SP I7

SP I5

SP I4b

SP R‐290

SP CO2

SP R‐32

SP R‐1234yf

Gain in TEW

I0%

0%1%

2%3%

3%4%

4%4%

4%5%

5%5%

18%

‐‐

‐‐

Gain in t(CO

2) equ

.0.0

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.5

0.5

0.6

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.8

0.8

0.9

3.2

‐‐

‐‐

Total Emission

s17.8

17.8

17.6

17.4

17.3

17.3

17.2

17.2

17.1

17.1

17.0

17.0

17.0

14.6

‐‐

‐‐

Direct Emission


s69%

69%

71%

72%

81%

73%

75%

80%

80%

79%

77%

78%

76%

70%

‐‐

‐‐

Improvem

ent o

ption code

SP I11

SP I10

SP I9

SP I8

SP I7

SP I6

SP I4a

SP BC

SP I5

SP I3

SP I0

SP I1

SP I2

SP I4b

SP R‐290

SP CO2

SP R‐32

SP R‐1234yf

Gain in TEW

I‐21%

‐18%

‐14%

‐11%

‐7%

‐4%

‐1%

0%0%

1%2%

3%3%

10%

‐‐

‐‐

Gain in t(CO

2) equ

.‐6.6

‐5.5

‐4.4

‐3.4

‐2.3

‐1.2

‐0.2

0.0

0.1

0.4

0.7

0.8

0.8

3.1

‐‐

‐‐

Total Emission

s37.6

36.5

35.4

34.3

33.3

32.1

31.1

31.0

30.8

30.6

30.3

30.1

30.2

27.9

‐‐

‐‐

Direct Emission


s64%

62%

61%

60%

58%

55%

52%

40%

52%

50%

40%

44%

47%

46%

‐‐

‐‐

Improvem

ent o

ption code

SP BC

SP I0

SP I1

SP I2

SP I3

SP I4a

SP I11

SP I5

SP I10

SP I9

SP I6

SP I7

SP I8

SP I4b

SP R‐290

SP CO2

SP R‐32

SP R‐1234yf

Gain in TEW

I0%

2%6%

8%9%

10%

11%

11%

11%

12%

12%

12%

12%

19%

‐‐

‐‐

Gain in t(CO

2) equ

.0.0

0.7

1.7

2.4

2.9

3.2

3.4

3.5

3.5

3.6

3.6

3.6

3.7

5.7

‐‐

‐‐

Total Emission

s31.0

30.3

29.2

28.6

28.0

27.8

27.6

27.5

27.5

27.4

27.4

27.3

27.3

25.2

‐‐

‐‐

Direct Emission


s40%

40%

42%

44%

45%

46%

50%

47%

50%

50%

48%

49%

49%

41%

‐‐

‐‐

Cooling

&Heating

Average

Clim

ate

Refrigerant

Scen

ario 1

Refrigerant

Scen

ario 2

Refrigerant

Scen

ario 3

Refrigerant

Scen

ario 4

Cooling on

ly

Average

Clim

ate

Refrigerant

Scen

ario 1

Refrigerant

Scen

ario 2

Refrigerant

Scen

ario 3

Refrigerant

Scen

ario 4

Cooling on

ly

Cold Clim

ate

Refrigerant

Scen

ario 1

Refrigerant

Scen

ario 4

Cooling on

ly

Warm Clim

ate

Refrigerant

Scen

ario 1

Refrigerant

Scen

ario 4

131

Rooftop air conditioners Regarding rooftop air conditioners, a sensitivity analysis has also been performed in order to confirm the cost efficiency of the proposed improved products. The sensitivity analysis encompasses a variation in the price of electricity of 0.10 instead of 0.14 c€/kWh and the 3 different climates (and corresponding equivalent full load hours). The results are shown on the graph below. These different hypothesis do not affect significantly the life cycle cost results. Improved products remain cost effective for all these conditions. Only in the cold climate conditions and for a low electricity price, the LCC is not decreasing steadily. In that case however, the LCC of the higher improvement option has a LCC only less than 1 % higher than the one of the base case. Figure 6 - 19 . Sensitivity analysis of the LCC improvement of a package air conditioner in cooling mode

Eventually, in the 3 climates and for the average and low electricity costs, the improved products remain cost effective improvement options and the main conclusion of the LCC optimization remains correct: the potential for cost effective improvement is equal or higher than the one identified for split air conditioners.

40000

45000

50000

55000

60000

65000

70000

75000

80000

3,00 4,00 5,00 6,00

LCC in €

SEER

Electricity rate=0,14cE/kWh ; Climate : AverageElectricity rate=0,1cE/kWh ; Climate : AverageElectricity rate=0,14cE/kWh ; Climate : AthensElectricity rate=0,1cE/kWh ; Climate : AthensElectricity rate=0,14cE/kWh ; Climate : HelsinkiElectricity rate=0,1cE/kWh ; Climate : Helsinki

132

6.5. SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT As discussed with stakeholders during the first stakeholder meeting, it was decided to adopt a product approach for these cooling generators and not to compare different system architectures. Nevertheless, in real life, design engineers have to perform such comparisons. It is thus necessary to make sure all required information is available. As a consequence, this part revisits the Task 5 report system options and proposes concrete measures to enable their proper evaluation by the HVAC design engineers.

6.5.1. WATER COOLED VERSUS AIR COOLED PRODUCTS As shown before, water cooled chillers are more efficient than air cooled chillers, because of the lower inlet temperatures at the condenser, the more efficient cooling media used (ie water versus air) and of the energy consumption of the fan of the condenser required for air cooled chillers. The EN14511 and prEN14825 water temperature levels for water cooled units imply a 7 °C approach and an optimal control of the cooling tower to supply a temperature around 20 °C at the chiller inlet. However, present water temperature levels used to characterize water cooled chillers might not be the ones found on field. Stakeholders mentioned a part of the water cooled chillers were installed with dry coolers, what would lead to much higher inlet water temperature 50 °C inlet instead of 30 °C following the prEN14825 standard. This is important that manufacturers then show the water cooled performance variation with different inlet water temperature regimes at the condenser. This trend seems partly due to the implementation of drastic constraints on cooling towers because of the legionella disease, making the cost of operation of the cooling towers very high. Evaporatively-cooled dry coolers, which supply cold water to evaporate in the air stream, do not have the same problem as for cooling towers because the water is not recycled. As cooling towers, they enable to reach low water inlet temperatures, so are very favourable to energy efficiency. As European climates are not too humid, they may help to save up to 20 K temperature difference at the condenser (in nominal conditions), probably dividing by more than 2 the energy consumption of the water cooled products at peak time. It thus appears as a priority to foster the development of separate evaporatively-cooled forced convection liquid coolers. The same rationale applies to air cooled chillers which could benefit of much higher performances, closer to the ones of water cooled units if using an evaporatively-cooled condenser instead of a dry heat exchanger. Some manufacturers are already proposing such products. A standard to rate the evaporatively-cooled units at full load is available EN15218 however, the part load conditions are not included. To this extent, it seems necessary to add humidity to the inlet air conditions at part load in the prEN14825 standard or alternatively to modify the EN15218 standard, and also to adapt the EN 1048 standard on dry coolers or to produce an ad-hoc standard for evaporatively-cooled condensers. As field modification of existing air-cooled installations is also feasible, a standard would be useful to frame these additive products / installation modifications in order to maximize the potential gains and to minimize the water consumption and the fooling of the heat exchangers.

6.5.2. WATER TEMPERATURE SUPPLY OF COLD EMITTERS The trend observed to separate the ventilation and the cooling function in new buildings leads to treat the required dehumidification centrally in the air handling units while the terminal units only cope with the sensible load. For such a system, the load to be treated is the same but this enables to increase the water temperature level supplied to the emitters from 7 °C outlet up to 18 °C for radiative cooling surfaces. In such conditions, the chiller performance is improved of about 30 % at full load (taking 3 % / K of water outlet temperature increase) and probably as much in terms of SEER. The gain in consumption is double for radiative cooling: with higher water temperature, the chiller efficiency is improved, and the terminal unit power consumption (and sensible load added by the fans

133

of the fan coils) becomes zero. This of course leads to supplementary gains on the cooling machine and condensing heat exchanger size and associated consumptions. This is an already on-going trend for new buildings in the residential area with the development of heating and cooling floor. In the commercial sector, active beams, typically using intermediate temperature levels of 14 °C leaving water temperature are also developing fast. In that direction, it would be very useful to require manufacturers to supply enough information on the performances of their products regarding these higher temperature levels in order to estimate SEER values for different climates and higher temperature levels than 7 °C, as 14 °C and 18 °C leaving water temperature.

6.5.3. FREE COOLING For commercial buildings with relatively high internal loads and growing envelope insulation to comply with the EPBD requirements, the outdoor temperature above which cooling may be required is decreasing. This thus tends to increase the gains offered by free cooling. Package air conditioners introducing fresh air into the building Some package air conditioners as rooftop air conditioners have the ability to introduce more fresh air into the building than required for the minimum fresh air requirements of the building because their total air flow is sized to supply the evaporator cooling coil. This makes these products able to decrease the cooling load when the outdoor air temperature is lower than the indoor required set point. However, these systems also have non negligible pressure losses and fan power consumption. In order to enable a proper system design, the performances of the units under free cooling operation should be measured and published in the ratings of the units in a standardized way in order design engineers may compare the products operating in these conditions. Chillers With water based systems, it is possible to use a cooling tower or a forced convection dry cooler to cool the chilled water loop with cooler outdoor air to treat cooling load at low ambient. Some chillers offer the same ability, being more or less efficient in these conditions. In order to enable a proper system design, the performances of the units under free cooling operation should be measured and published in the ratings of the units in a standardized way in order design engineers may compare the products operating in these conditions. The operating conditions should include the variations in outdoor temperature and chilled water conditions.

134

CONCLUSION The method that has been used for the analysis of the improvement design options of Lot 6 cooling generators is a mix between an engineering approach based on simplified models for energy performance and costs calculations, and a techno-economic analysis of existing product ranges currently sold in the EU. Single improvement design options have been listed, then combined to define improved products that have been modelled in a simplified way and compared to their corresponding base-cases. The study team proposes a summary table of the characteristics of the LLCC and BAT for chillers and for air conditioners hereafter. The main results are summarized by product category. Regarding heat rejection units and terminal units, the gains from product optimization are very small as compared to the system gain (decrease of the energy consumption of the cooling generator) of using a better type of heat rejection unit or of terminal unit. Consequently, the product optimization has not been pursued in this task report. Chillers

a. Intermediate to high cooling capacity chillers These product categories are represented by comparisons of 400 kW air-cooled chillers and 1000 kW water-cooled chillers (results are valid for whole ranges of chillers that comprise products around these cooling capacities but others with higher or lower cooling capacities, with the same technological choices). For both 400 kW air-cooled chillers and 1000 kW water-cooled chillers case studies, the improved product with the least life cycle costs is equipped with inverter-driven screw compressors and a flooded shell and tube evaporator. These improved products are ACC 400 I5 and WCC 1000 I4, with respective SEERs of 4.91 and 7.77. On the basis of calculated SEER values, the gain in energy consumption is then 37% for ACC 400 I5 and 41% for WCC 1000 I4. Gains in LCC are of 10% for both product categories, with simple payback periods of around 5 years. In terms of TEWI, the relative gains are lower because of the increase in refrigerant charge and so in refrigerant losses, in absolute terms. However, this effect can be mitigated by opting for a falling film evaporator instead of a standard flooded shell and tube evaporator, which is shown by the versions “b” of the LLCC improved products. Note that it is also possible to change the condenser of the air-cooled chillers for a microchannel heat exchanger, but for which the study has considered an additional cost. BAT are products equipped with centrifugal chillers and magnetic bearings as well as a flooded evaporator. The gains in electricity consumption are then higher than 50% by comparison with the base-case, but again lower in terms of TEWI, for the same reasons. It is shown that these improved products become the LLCC as soon as the number of equivalent active hours increases above the average value of 600 hours (average climate, air-conditioning function only). This is probably the case for large installations for which it is likely that part of the cooling load corresponds to a process cooling function. Shifting from R-134a to propane or ammonia leads to the highest gains in TEWI but at higher LCC than the ones of the base-case. There is of course a great uncertainty on the additional costs of such chillers by comparison with R-134a charged chillers, as very few products are currently sold in the EU. The LCC sensitivity analysis shows that the results are robust and confirms ACC 400 I5 and WCC 1000 I4 as the relevant LCC reference improved products. Although the TEWI sensitivity analysis is sensitive to the choices of rates of refrigerant losses, it is more sensitive to differences in energy consumption related to the climates under which the products operate. In case low GWP refrigerants can make their way to the present chiller market or alternatively if efforts are put in the development of highly efficient natural refrigerant chillers, this would contribute to greatly decrease the total TEWI of chillers, and would enable in both cases to reach much lower TEWI values at BNAT levels:

135

- for air-cooled chillers, for a present maximum energy consumption gain of 36 % over the base case, the TEWI is only cut by 20 % (average refrigerant scenario) ; this figure would raise to 47 % (average refrigerant scenario); - for water-cooled chillers, for a present maximum energy consumption gain of 37 % over the base case, the TEWI is only cut by 26 % ; this figure would raise to 48 %.

b. Low to intermediate cooling capacity chillers These product categories are represented by comparisons of 100 kW air-cooled chillers and 100 kW water-cooled chillers (once again, results are valid for whole ranges of chillers that comprise products around these cooling capacities but others with higher or lower cooling capacities, with the same technological choices). For both 100 kW air-cooled chillers and 100 kW water-cooled chillers case studies, the reference improved products (reference LCC for air-cooled chillers, LLCC for water-cooled chillers) are R-410A charged scroll chillers with optimized part-load efficiencies. Concerning air-cooled chillers, the unit is equipped with 4 identical staged scroll compressors evenly split in 2 identical circuits as well as VSD condenser fans combined with EC motors. Concerning water-cooled chillers, the unit is equipped with 2 scroll compressors, one of which is inverter-driven. The corresponding improved products are ACC 100 I3 and WCC 100 I3. The version “b” of ACC 100 I3 is also equipped with a microchannel condenser to reduce further the refrigerant charge. ACC 100 I3 and WCC 100 I3 have respective SEERs of 4.25 and 6.03. On the basis of calculated SEER values, the gain in energy consumption is then 18% for ACC 100 I3 and 20% for WCC 100 I3. Gains in LCC are of 4% for both product categories, with simple payback periods around 8 years. Contrary to the preceding chiller categories, in terms of TEWI, the relative gains are similar with the relative gains in electricity consumption : 16% and 19% for versions “a” and “b” of ACC 100 I3, and 20% for WCC 100 I3. This is related to the fact that the improved products have lower refrigerant charges than the base-cases : they are charged with R-410A instead of R-407C, and equipped with brazed plate heat exchangers (evaporator of air-cooled chillers, evaporator and condenser of water-cooled chillers). For air-cooled chillers, limited additional gains in TEWI can be achieved with microchannel condensers. For water-cooled chillers, there is no room for improvement from charge reduction since the brazed plate heat exchangers, which are standard technological choices for this product category, already greatly limit the charge. BAT can also be seen as BNAT : the required components already exist but have not always been optimized for these cooling capacity levels, and the corresponding modelled products have not yet been developed by manufacturers. These products are equipped with inverter driven single rotor screw compressors, while heat exchanger choices remain standard for these product categories. By comparison with the base-cases, the gains in electricity consumption are around 25%. As for larger cooling capacity chillers, these improved products become the LLCC as soon as the number of equivalent active hours increases above the average value of 600 (average climate, air-conditioning function only). Concerning air-cooled chillers, shifting from R-407C or R-410A to propane (R-290) leads to the highest gains in TEWI but at higher LCC than the one of the base-case. There is of course a great uncertainty on the additional costs of such chillers by comparison with HFC charged chillers, as very few products are currently sold in the EU. The study team has not found sufficient information on 100 kW water-cooled chillers charged with low GWP refrigerant fluids to model corresponding realistic improved products. The LCC sensitivity analysis shows that the results are robust and confirms ACC 100 I3 and WCC 100 I3 as the relevant LCC reference improved products. With regards to larger cooling capacity products, the TEWI sensitivity analysis is less sensitive to the choices of rates of refrigerant losses, in the sense that the rankings of products by decreasing electricity consumption and decreasing TEWI are the same. There is no real space for improvement of the TEWI by further charge reductions. Once again, in case low GWP refrigerants can make their way to the present chiller market or alternatively if efforts are put in the development of highly efficient natural refrigerant chillers, this

136

would contribute to greatly decrease the total TEWI of chillers, and would enable in both cases to reach much lower TEWI values at high energy efficiency levels. For these low to intermediate cooling capacity chiller categories, this is the only relevant technological choice to decrease direct equivalent CO2 emissions. Air conditioners As a majority of the Lot 6 type air conditioners sold in the EU are reversible, the LCC analysis of improvement options for air conditioners requires more parameters than for chillers. LCC results are compared for cooling only and reversible products. As Lot 6 focuses on the cooling function of these products, the LLCC or reference options that are then used in Task 7 are defined on the basis of the analysis done for cooling only products. Taking into account the heating function in addition to the cooling function is done for sensitivity purpose. Split systems For split systems, the LLCC corresponds then to option SP I4, which consists in increasing by 40% the UA coefficient of both the outdoor unit and the indoor unit, as well as improving the efficiency of the compressor by resizing its rotation frequency. The SEER of this option is 5.24, which corresponds to an energy gain of 32% with regards to the base-case. The gain in LCC is only of 3%, as energy costs weight less in total costs than for chillers. The BAT leads to a SEER of 6.87 but significantly higher LCC than the base-case. Because the UA coefficients are increased by more than 200% for both the outdoor unit and indoor unit, it is very unlikely that a lot of products will correspond to this case in the future. In terms of TEWI, it is necessary to opt for a microchannel condenser instead of a standard fin and tube one, so as to reduce the refrigerant charge of the unit and so direct emissions. A main remark is that for cooling only split systems, improving only the efficiency of the products by oversizing the heat exchangers does not allow to make gains in TEWI : whatever the option, it must be combined with a technology that allows to compensate, at least partly, the increase in refrigerant charge. Looking now at reversible products, all improved products lead to gains in LCC : because the heating energy demand is more than 2 times greater than the cooling energy demand, gains in electricity costs are significantly greater. The greater the efficiency, the more gains in LCC until option I7 to I9. For options I10 and I11, there are still gains in LCC, but lower ones. Similarly, improving only the energy efficiency of the products suffices to reduce the TEWI of the reversible split systems. Gains in indirect emissions due to electricity consumption are sufficiently important to compensate the increase in direct emissions due to a higher refrigerant charge. Of course, opting as well for a technology that allows to reduce the refrigerant charge or the refrigerant leaks could lead to higher gains in TEWI. For cooling only products, alternative refrigerant options are BAT when looking at the TEWI. For reversible products, this seems to be only the case for R-1234yf charged units, because of a very low GWP and a good efficiency, and R-32 charged units, with a higher GWP than R-32 but a better efficiency (although it could be possible to have R-1234yf charged products with similar levels of efficiency as R-32 charged products in principle). The LCC sensitivity analysis shows that the choice of option I4 is robust for the average and the warm climate. For the cold climate, no improved product leads to a lower LCC, but it is believed that cooling only products operating under this type of climate represent a very small part of the EU market. The TEWI sensitivity analysis shows very different options ranking from a scenario to another one, which highlights the need to define relevant reference values for a proper consideration of direct emissions and comparisons between R-410A charged products and alternative refrigerant using products. Adopting the most energy efficient design and a very low GWP refrigerant fluid would lead to the following BNAT levels :

137

- for cooling only split air conditioners : the energy consumption could be cut by 40 % and the TEWI could be reduced by 70 % ; - for reversible split air conditioners : the energy consumption could be cut by 37 % and the TEWI could be reduced by 49 % ; VRF systems An important remark for VRF systems is that two main part-load control methods can be used. The one the study team calls “control method 1” looks closer to what appears in a real building. It is also the one for which performance data tables are available. Energy calculations are thus based on this method in this report. However, it must be noted that in the USA, the normative control method used to calculate the IEER seasonal performance ratio is probably “control method 2”. This method corresponds also to what physically happens at part-load in split/multi-split systems. When looking at cooling only products, the LCC curve for conventional improvement options is very flat : all options have the same LCC as the base-case, which means that their simple payback period is roughly equal to the product life of the system. Defining a LLCC is then meaningless : the study team prefers the principle of a “reference option” that leads to the highest energy gains as possible but remains realistic. This is option I13, which corresponds to a 50% increase in the UA coefficient of the outdoor unit, a 40% increase in the UA coefficient of the indoor units, and an improved performance at part-load by reducing efficiency losses due to oil return issues. The SEER is 4.60, which represents a 34% gain in electricity consumption by comparison with the base-case. As for split systems, for cooling only products, it is necessary to opt for a microchannel condenser to get gains in TEWI. This option has been modelled in combination with the reference option I13, but could be used with any other one. For reversible products, the greater the SEER, the more gains in LCC. The BAT becomes then the LLCC, with a 10% gain and a simple payback period of only 5 years. As for split systems, TEWI calculations and subsequent options rankings prove to be very sensitivity to the hypotheses made, which confirms that a reference case must be established. Eventually, the R-1234yf product remains the BAT in terms of TEWI, followed by the R-32 product. The CO2 charged product ranks differently than for split systems only because it is derived from a base-case that is a little more efficient. Adopting the most energy efficient design and a very low GWP refrigerant fluid would lead to the following BNAT levels : - for cooling only VRF air conditioners : the energy consumption could be cut by 36 % and the TEWI could be reduced by 69 % ; - for reversible VRF air conditioners : the energy consumption could be cut by 28 % and the TEWI could be reduced by 44 %. Package air conditioners Limited information was available regarding the improvement potential and costs of package air conditioners. The report refers to a US study made on a rooftop similar to our base case. The results show that there is at least the same cost-effective improvement potential as for split air conditioners, so that the same LLCC and BAT values can be used. However, when looking at the refrigerant side, these products have much lower refrigerant charge than split or VRF products. Consequently, improvements in terms of energy efficiency are not detrimental to the TEWI, as it is for VRF. The most efficient design would still be to use alternative refrigerants with lower GWPs and improved efficiency. Adopting the most energy efficient design and a very low GWP refrigerant fluid would lead to the following BNAT levels : - for cooling only package air conditioners : the energy consumption could be cut by 50 % and the TEWI could be reduced by 66 % ;

138

- for reversible package air conditioners : the energy consumption could be cut by 45 % and the TEWI could be reduced by 50 % ;

13

9

Ta

ble

6 - 6

6 . C

hille

rs, s

umm

ary

of th

e m

ain

findi

ngs

C

hille

rs :

Sum

mar

y of

the

mai

n re

sults

Prod

ucts

A

ir-co

oled

chi

llers

400

kW

Air-

cool

ed c

hille

rs10

0 kW

Wat

er-c

oole

d ch

iller

s10

00 k

W

Wat

er-c

oole

d ch

iller

s 10

0 kW

Bas

e-ca

se

EE

R :

2.72

S

EE

R :

3.58

R

efrig

eran

t : R

-134

a LC

C :

252

k€

E.C

osts

: 13

7 k€

IC

: 69

k€

EC

: 11

38 M

Wh

TEW

I : 5

29 t(

CO

2) e

q.

EE

R :

2.7

SE

ER

: 3.

48

Ref

riger

ant :

R-4

07C

LC

C :

76.3

k€

E.C

osts

: 36

.2 k

€ IC

: 25

.1 k

€ E

C :

258

MW

h TE

WI :

130

t(C

O2)

eq.

EE

R :

4.77

S

EE

R :

5.51

R

efrig

eran

t : R

-134

a LC

C :

372

k€

E.C

osts

: 18

5 k€

IC

: 11

3 k€

E

C :

1853

MW

h TE

WI :

889

t(C

O2)

eq.

EE

R :

4.4

SE

ER

: 4.

83

Ref

riger

ant :

R-4

07C

LC

C :

59.7

k€

E.C

osts

: 26

.1 k

€ IC

: 21

.0 k

€ E

C :

186

MW

h TE

WI :

89

t(CO

2) e

q.

LLC

C

R

efer

ence

LC

C

(100

kW

air-

cool

ed c

hille

rs)

AC

C 4

00 I5

E

ER

: 3.

2 S

EE

R :

4.91

R

efrig

eran

t : R

-134

a LC

C :

226

k€ /

-10%

S

PP

: 5

year

s E

.Cos

ts :

100

k€

IC :

79 k

€ / +

16%

E

.Con

s. :

830

MW

h TE

WIa

: 47

1 t(C

O2)

eq.

/ -1

1%

TEW

Ib :

455

t(CO

2) e

q. /

-14%

AC

C 1

00 I3

E

ER

: 3.

2 S

EE

R :

4.25

R

efrig

eran

t : R

-410

A

LCC

: 73

.0 k

€ / -

4%

SP

P :

7.5

year

s E

.Cos

ts :

29.7

k€

IC :

28.3

k€

/ +13

%

E.C

ons.

: 21

2 M

Wh

TEW

Ia :

110

t(CO

2) e

q. /

-16%

TE

WIb

: 10

6 t(C

O2)

eq.

/ -1

9%

WC

C 1

000

I5

EE

R :

5.5

SE

ER

: 7.

77

Ref

riger

ant :

R-1

34a

LCC

: 33

5 k€

/ -1

0%

SP

P :

5.5

year

s E

.Cos

ts :

131

k€

IC :

131

k€ /

+15%

E

.Con

s. :

1313

MW

h TE

WIa

: 78

9 t(C

O2)

eq.

/ -1

1%

TEW

Ib :

757

t(CO

2) e

q. /

-15%

WC

C 1

00 I3

E

ER

: 4.

4 S

EE

R :

6.03

R

efrig

eran

t : R

-410

A

LCC

: 57

.2 k

€ / -

4%

SP

P :

8 ye

ars

E.C

osts

: 20

.9 k

€ IC

: 23

.7 k

€ / +

13%

E

.Con

s. :

149

MW

h TE

WI :

71

t(CO

2) e

q. /

-20%

BA

T En

ergy

AC

C 4

00 I6

E

ER

: 3.

45

SE

ER

: 5.

56

Ref

riger

ant :

R-1

34a

LCC

: 22

7 k€

/ -1

0%

SP

P :

8.5

year

s E

.Cos

ts :

88 k

€ IC

: 10

2 k€

/ +4

9%

E.C

ons.

: 73

4 M

Wh

TEW

Ia :

444

t(CO

2) e

q. /

-16%

TE

WIb

: 42

8 t(C

O2)

eq.

/ -1

9%

TEW

Ic :

417

t(CO

2) e

q. /

-22%

AC

C 1

00 I4

E

ER

: 3.

3 S

EE

R :

4.72

R

efrig

eran

t : R

-134

a LC

C :

72.5

k€

/ -5%

S

PP

: 9

year

s E

.Cos

ts :

26.7

k€

IC :

30.8

k€

/ +23

%

E.C

ons.

: 19

1 M

Wh

TEW

Ia :

101

t(CO

2) e

q. /

-22%

TE

WIb

: 98

t(C

O2)

eq.

/ -2

5%

WC

C 1

000

I7

EE

R :

6.7

SE

ER

: 9.

16

Ref

riger

ant :

R-1

34a

LCC

: 36

8 k€

/ -1

%

SP

P :

16 y

ears

E

.Cos

ts :

111

k€

IC :

198

k€ /

+75%

E

.Con

s. :

1114

MW

h TE

WIa

: 77

5 t(C

O2)

eq.

/ -1

3%

TEW

Ib :

743

t(CO

2) e

q. /

-16%

WC

C 1

00 I4

E

ER

: 4.

6 S

EE

R :

6.33

R

efrig

eran

t : R

-134

a LC

C :

58.2

k€

/ -2%

S

PP

: 11

.5 y

ears

E

.Cos

ts :

19.9

k€

IC :

25.7

k€

/ +22

%

E.C

ons.

: 14

2 M

Wh

TEW

I : 6

8 t(C

O2)

eq.

/ -2

4%

Bes

t ava

ilabl

e pr

oduc

t usi

ng

alte

rnat

ive

refr

iger

ant

(per

form

ance

est

imat

e of

real

pr

oduc

ts)

AC

C 4

00 R

-290

E

ER

: N

ot e

stim

ated

S

EE

R :

4.13

R

efrig

eran

t : R

-290

LC

C :

269

k€ /

+7%

S

PP

: 33

yea

rs

E.C

osts

: 11

9 k€

IC

: 10

9 k€

/ +5

2%

E.C

ons.

: 98

9 M

Wh

TEW

I : 3

80 t(

CO

2) e

qu. /

-28%

AC

C 1

00 R

-290

E

ER

: N

ot e

stim

ated

S

EE

R :

4.13

R

efrig

eran

t : R

-290

LC

C :

87.5

k€

/ +15

%

SP

P :

44 y

ears

E

.Cos

ts :

30.5

k€

IC :

41.9

k€

/ +67

%

E.C

ons.

: 21

8 M

Wh

TEW

I : 8

4 t(C

O2)

equ

. / -3

6%

WC

C 1

000

R-7

17

EE

R :

5.23

S

EE

R :

7.38

R

efrig

eran

t : R

-717

LC

C :

387

k€ /

+4%

S

PP

: 22

yea

rs

E.C

osts

: 13

8 k€

IC

: 17

5 k€

/ +5

5%

E.C

ons.

: 13

82 M

Wh

TEW

I : 5

31 t(

CO

2) e

qu. /

-40%

Not

mod

elle

d (n

o su

ffici

ent a

vaila

ble

data

)

14

0

Tabl

e 6

- 67

. Air

cond

ition

ers,

sum

mar

y of

the

mai

n fin

ding

s Air

cond

ition

ers

: Sum

mar

y of

the

mai

n re

sults

Prod

ucts

Sp

lit s

yste

ms

cool

ing

only

– 1

4kW

Sp

lit s

yste

ms

reve

rsib

le –

14k

WVR

F sy

stem

s co

olin

g on

ly –

50k

WVR

F sy

stem

s re

vers

ible

– 5

0kW

Roo

ftops

co

olin

g on

ly –

80k

WR

oofto

ps

reve

rsib

le –

80k

W

Bas

e-ca

se

EE

R :

2.81

SE

ER

: 3.

97R

efrig

eran

t : R

-410

ALC

C :

13.1

k€

E.C

osts

: 4.

4 k€

IC :

5.4

k€E

C :

31.8

MW

hTE

WI :

24.

5 t(C

O2)

equ

.

EE

R :

2.81

SE

ER

: 3.

97S

CO

P :

3.31

Ref

riger

ant :

R-4

10A

LCC

: 27

.3 k

€E.

Cos

ts :

18.7

k€

IC :

5.4

k€E

C :

133

MW

hTE

WI :

63.

5 t(C

O2)

equ

.

EE

R (o

utdo

or u

nit)

: 3.4

3E

ER

(sys

tem

) : 3

.11

SE

ER

: 3.

53R

efrig

eran

t : R

-410

ALC

C :

75.4

k€

E.C

osts

: 17

.8 k

€IC

: 36

.0 k

€E

C :

127

MW

hTE

WI :

104

t(C

O2)

equ

.

EE

R (o

utdo

or u

nit)

: 3.4

3E

ER

(sys

tem

) : 3

.11

SE

ER

: 3.

53S

CO

P :

3.10

Ref

riger

ant :

R-4

10A

LCC

: 12

8 k€

E.C

osts

: 70

.0 k

€IC

: 36

.0 k

€E

C :

500

MW

hTE

WI :

247

t(C

O2)

equ

.

EE

R :

2.84

SE

ER

: 3.

88R

efrig

eran

t : R

-410

ALC

C :

60.4

k€

E.C

osts

: 26

.0 k

€IC

: 21

.5 k

€E

C :

185.

4 M

Wh

TEW

I : 1

08.8

t(C

O2)

eq.

EE

R :

2.84

SE

ER

: 3.

88S

CO

P :

3.27

Ref

riger

ant :

R-4

10A

LCC

: 13

2.3

k€E.

Cos

ts :

97.9

k€

IC :

21.5

k€

EC

: 69

9.4

MW

hTE

WI :

293

.6 t(

CO

2) e

q.

LLC

C

(Spl

its /

Roo

ftops

)

Ref

eren

ce L

CC

(V

RF

syst

ems)

SP I4

E

ER

: 3.

90

SE

ER

: 5.

24

Ref

riger

ant :

R-4

10A

LC

C :

12.7

k€

/ -3%

S

PP

: 9.

5 ye

ars

E.C

osts

: 3.

4 k€

IC

: 6.

1 k€

/ +1

3%

E.C

ons.

: 24

.1 M

Wh

TEW

Ia :

25.4

t(C

O2)

equ

. / +

4%

TEW

Ib :

22.2

t(C

O2)

equ

. / -9

%

SP I7

E

ER

: 4.

14

SE

ER

: 5.

24

SC

OP

: 4.

01

Ref

riger

ant :

R-4

10A

LC

C :

23.9

k€

/ -12

%

SP

P :

5.5

year

s E.

Cos

ts :

13.2

k€

IC :

7.5

k€ /

+39%

E

.Con

s. :

94.1

MW

h TE

WI :

55.

3 t(C

O2)

equ

. / -1

3%

VRF

I13

EE

R (o

utdo

or u

nit)

: 4.8

2 E

ER

(sys

tem

) : 4

.27

SE

ER

: 4.

60

Ref

riger

ant :

R-4

10A

LC

C :

74.7

k€

/ -1%

S

PP

: 12

.5 y

ears

E.

Cos

ts :

13.7

k€

IC :

39.4

k€

/ +9%

E.

Con

s. :

98 M

Wh

TEW

Ia :

113

t(CO

2) e

qu. /

+9%

TE

WIb

: 10

1 t(C

O2)

equ

. / -3

%

VRF

I13

EE

R (o

utdo

or u

nit)

: 4.8

2 E

ER

(sys

tem

) : 4

.27

SE

ER

: 4.

60

SC

OP

: 3.

64

Ref

riger

ant :

R-4

10A

LC

C :

119

k€ /

-7%

S

PP

: 4.

5 ye

ars

E.C

osts

: 58

.1 k

€ IC

: 39

.4 k

€ / +

9%

E.C

ons.

: 41

5 M

Wh

TEW

Ia :

235

t(CO

2) e

q. /

-5%

TE

WIb

: 23

5 t(C

O2)

eq.

/ -1

0%

IP E

ER 1

2 E

ER

: 3.

88

SE

ER

: 5.

24

Ref

riger

ant :

R-4

10A

LC

C :

55.1

k€

/ - 8

.7%

S

PP

: 3.

3 ye

ars

E.C

osts

: 19

.2 k

€ IC

: 23

.0 k

€ / +

7%

E.C

ons.

: 13

7.0

MW

h TE

WIa

: 10

1.9

t(C

O2)

eq.

/ -

6%

TEW

Ib :

92.1

t(C

O2)

eq.

/ -

15%

IP E

ER 1

2 E

ER

: 3.

88

SE

ER

: 5.

24

SC

OP

: 4.

02

Ref

riger

ant :

R-4

10A

LC

C :

113.

6 k€

/ -1

4%

SP

P :

1.1

year

s E.

Cos

ts :

77.7

k€

IC :

23.0

k€

/ +7%

E.

Con

s. :

554.

9 M

Wh

TEW

Ia :

246

t(CO

2) e

q. /

-13%

TE

WIb

: 23

9 t(C

O2)

eq.

/ -1

5%

BA

T En

ergy

SP I1

1 E

ER

: 6.

12

SE

ER

: 6.

87

Ref

riger

ant :

R-4

10A

LC

C :

15.2

k€

/ +16

%

SP

P :

32 y

ears

E.

Cos

ts :

2.6

k€

IC :

9.4

k€ /

+74%

E

.Con

s. :

18.3

MW

h TE

WI :

31.

0 t(C

O2)

equ

. / -2

6%

SP I1

1 E

ER

: 6.

12

SE

ER

: 6.

87

SC

OP

: 5.

12

Ref

riger

ant :

R-4

10A

LC

C :

24.4

k€

/ -11

%

SP

P :

8.5

year

s E.

Cos

ts :

11.8

k€

IC :

9.4

k€ /

+74%

E.

Con

s. :

84 M

Wh

TEW

I : 5

6.2

t(CO

2) e

qu. /

-12%

VRF

I16

EE

R (o

utdo

or u

nit)

: 6.3

6 E

ER

(sys

tem

) : 5

.51

SE

ER

: 5.

51

Ref

riger

ant :

R-4

10A

LC

C :

75.8

k€

/ +1%

S

PP

: 16

yea

rs

E.C

osts

: 11

.4 k

€ IC

: 42

.8 k

€ / +

19%

E.

Con

s. :

82 M

Wh

TEW

I : 1

29 t(

CO

2) e

qu. /

+24

%

VRF

I16

EE

R (o

utdo

or u

nit)

: 6.3

6 E

ER

(sys

tem

) : 5

.51

SE

ER

: 5.

51

SC

OP

: 4.

18

Ref

riger

ant :

R-4

10A

LC

C :

115

k€ /

-10%

S

PP

: 5

year

s E.

Cos

ts :

50.1

k€

IC :

42.8

k€

/ +19

%

E.C

ons.

: 35

8 M

Wh

TEW

I : 2

35 t(

CO

2) e

q. /

-5%

Estim

ate

EER

: 6

SE

ER

: 7

Ref

riger

ant :

R-4

10A

LC

C :

61.9

k€

/ +10

.4%

S

PP

:

E.C

osts

: 14

.4 k

€ IC

: 44

.4 k

€ / >

50 %

E.

Con

s. :

102

MW

h TE

WI :

88.

8 t(C

O2)

eq.

/ -5

0%

Estim

ate

EER

: 6

SE

ER

: 7

SC

OP

: 5.

2 R

efrig

eran

t : R

-410

A

LCC

: 13

3.9

k€ /

+14%

S

PP

:

E.C

osts

: 59

.5 k

€ IC

: 44

.4 k

€ / >

50 %

E.

Con

s. :

424

MW

h TE

WI :

196

t(C

O2)

eq.

/ -9

%

Alte

rnat

ive

refr

iger

ant

usin

g pr

oduc

t

Low

er a

vaila

ble

TEW

I ov

er th

e ba

se c

ase

SP R

-123

4yf

EE

R :

2.81

S

EE

R :

3.97

R

efrig

eran

t : R

-123

4yf

LCC

: 16

.8 k

€ / +

28%

S

PP

: N

one

E.C

osts

: 4.

4 k€

IC

: 9.

1 k€

/ +6

9%

E.C

ons.

: 31

.8 M

Wh

TEW

I : 1

2.2

t(CO

2) e

qu. /

-50%

SP R

-123

4yf

EE

R :

2.81

S

EE

R :

3.97

S

CO

P :

3.31

R

efrig

eran

t : R

-123

4yf

LCC

: 31

.0 k

€ / +

14%

S

PP

: N

one

E.C

osts

: 18

.7 k

€ IC

: 9.

1 k€

/ +6

9%

E.C

ons.

: 13

3 M

Wh

TEW

I : 5

1.2

t(CO

2) e

qu. /

-19%

VRF

R-1

234y

f E

ER

(out

door

uni

t) : N

ot e

stim

ated

E

ER

(sys

tem

) : 3

.11

SE

ER

: 3.

53

Ref

riger

ant :

R-1

234y

f LC

C :

92.7

k€

/ +23

%

SP

P :

16 y

ears

E.

Cos

ts :

17.8

k€

IC :

53.3

k€

/ +48

%

E.C

ons.

: 12

7 M

Wh

TEW

I : 4

9.1

t(CO

2) e

qu. /

-53%

VRF

R-1

234y

f E

ER

(out

door

uni

t) : N

ot e

stim

ated

E

ER

(sys

tem

) : 3

.11

SE

ER

: 3.

53

SC

OP

: 3.

10

Ref

riger

ant :

R-1

234y

f LC

C :

145

k€ /

+14%

S

PP

: 5

year

s E.

Cos

ts :

70.0

k€

IC :

53.3

k€

/ +48

%

E.C

ons.

: 50

0 M

Wh

TEW

I : 1

92 t(

CO

2) e

q. /

-22%

R-2

90

EE

R :

2.84

S

EE

R :

3.88

R

efrig

eran

t : R

-290

LC

C :

61.9

k€

/ +10

.4%

S

PP

: N

one

E.C

osts

: 25

.9 k

€ IC

: 23

.1 k

€ / +

7%

E.C

ons.

: 18

5 M

Wh

TEW

I : 7

1.2

t(CO

2) e

q. /

-35%

R-3

2 E

ER

: 2.

84

SE

ER

: 3.

88

SC

OP

: 3.

27

Ref

riger

ant :

R-3

2 LC

C :

133.

9 k€

/ +1

4%

SP

P :

7.9

y E.

Cos

ts :

95.1

k€

IC :

23.1

k€

/ +7%

E.

Con

s. :

679

MW

h TE

WI :

267

.2 t(

CO

2) e

q. /

-9%

141

ANNEX 1 : DETERMINATION OF THE NEW SETS OF REFERENCE HOURS FOR SEER CALCULATIONS

This annex complements the first chapter of this report on the determination of supplementary SEER conditions with regards to the initial set of reference hours defined in prEN 14825. Note that the calculation process that is used to determine the new reference equivalent active hours at design capacity is the same as the one used in Task 4 to compute the EU-27 average EUCC (Electricity Use per Cooling Capacity) values for each base-case product. The method used to determine the other reference hours is then described.

A. Average climate : EU-27 representative average Equivalent active Hours of Use (EHU) at design cooling capacity

The purpose here is to calculate EU-27 average representative EHU per typical cooling generator (meaning here “air conditioning chiller” or “air conditioner”, as detailed in Task 1), then weight-average the obtained results with the total EU sales of these typical cooling generators to define one single equivalent value to be taken as reference for all of them. System simulations The first step is to output EHU for each system simulated in 8 typical buildings * 3 typical climates. EHU can be expressed as follows :

EHU QS, , QL, , AH ,

N° PC,

with : EHUcooling generator [h] : Equivalent active Hours of Use at design capacity per cooling generator installed QS, building, annual [kWh] : annually cumulated sensible cooling load of the building, initially calculated with without taking into account the impact of the air conditioning systems installed in the building QL, cold emitters, annual [kWh] : annually cumulated latent load due to dehumidification, added by the cold emitters of the installed air-conditioning systems (fan-coil units, indoor units of VRF/split systems, cooling coil of air-conditioning AHUs or of rooftop air conditioners ...) AHcold emitter fans, annual [kWh] : annually cumulated heat added by the fans of the cold emitters (AH stands for “Added Heat”) N°cooling generators : equivalent number of cooling generators (all identical) installed in the building PC, 1 cooling generator [kW] : design cooling capacity of 1 cooling generator After Task 4 completion and for the needs of Task 6 calculations, because of the limited time at the study team’s disposal, the choice has been made to re-simulate only the most representative typical systems defined in Task 4 in terms of market trends for the coming years (the EHU indicator had not been outputted at the time of Task 4 calculations and required therefore to redo the system simulations). As a reminder, these typical systems are composed with the base-case products defined in Task 4. In chiller-based systems, air-cooled chillers have a 400 kW cooling capacity, and water-cooled chillers a 900 kW cooling capacity : calculations have not been made for 100 kW base-case air-cooled and water-cooled chillers, as explained in Task 4. The systems composed of chillers coupled with CAV or VAV Air Handling Units as well as rooftop air conditioners have not been considered, because of their limited market shares. Simulations have not been redone either for (non-ducted single) split systems. However, their outdoor and indoor units are very similar with the outdoor and indoor units of VRF systems, and the fans of the indoor units are operating at fixed speed in both cases. This means that if the total cooling load of the same building, under the same climate, is dealt with by the right amount of base-case VRF systems or base-case split systems, in both cases, the annually cumulated heat and latent load added by the indoor units is very similar. The EHU calculated for VRF systems can therefore also be considered for split systems without inducing a significant bias.

142

In prEN 14825, the length of the normative heating season determines the length of the normative cooling season. The heating season is 7 months long for the average climate, 9 months long for the cold climate and 6 months long for the warm climate. To comply with these normative assumptions, the study team considers that the cooling season is 3 months long for the Helsinki climate, 5 months long for the Strasbourg climate, and 6 months long for the Athens climate. For each of these 3 climates, the EHU that are taken for reference are therefore calculated over these periods, not over the whole year (respectively, June 1 to August 31, May 1 to September 30, and May 1 to October 31). As the simulations show that there are also cooling loads to be handled out of these limited seasons, the normative approach that strictly separates the cooling season from the heating season leads to slightly underestimate the EHU in cooling mode (and also in heating mode). Around 10% to 15% of the cooling load is neglected, and consequently the outputted EHU are roughly 10% to 15% lower when these limited cooling seasons are considered instead of the whole year. All in all, the simulation results are provided below. As a matter of comparison, EHU are reported for the limited cooling seasons and the whole year : Table 6 - 68 . Equivalent active Hours of Use at design cooling capacity computed for base-case cooling generators operating in typical systems, as defined in Task 4

System simulation results : Equivalent active hours of use at design cooling capacity (EHU)next calculation steps refer to the results for the limited cooling seasons

Buildings(*)

Air-cooled chillers with fan-coil units

Water-cooled chillers(**)

with fan-coil units VRF systems

can be taken for split systems Helsinki Strasbourg Athens Helsinki Strasbourg Athens Helsinki Strasbourg Athens

June 1 to August 31 May 1 to September 30 May 1 to October 31 Shopp. mall 371 604 970 330 542 901 260 670 635 Supermarket 393 619 938 349 557 842 385 667 1002 Small office 314 458 831 280 413 758 257 381 723 Med. office 399 591 834 356 533 746 382 576 865 Large office 362 453 836 323 409 763 305 381 730 Hotel 262 301 713 230 271 646 228 290 488 Hospital 488 637 971 437 580 869 655 815 1201 Rest home 338 551 1178 302 493 1055 305 523 1127 Buildings(*) Whole year Shopp. mall 444 646 1126 396 579 1046 317 725 770 Supermarket 490 675 1122 434 607 1008 484 736 1247 Small office 383 498 992 342 450 906 315 416 878 Med. office 511 661 1045 456 597 935 491 650 1122 Large office 481 516 1041 429 466 950 405 437 927 Hotel 289 310 772 253 279 700 257 303 556 Hospital 655 732 1143 587 667 1024 892 961 1543 Rest home 370 567 1314 330 508 1176 334 541 1283 (*) : Complete building names are “Shopping mall / Supermarket / Small office building / Medium office building / Large office building / Hotel / Hospital” (**) : Water-cooled chillers have been coupled with dry coolers for one simulation set (8 buildings * 3 climates) and with cooling towers for a second simulation set. For each building + climate case, the results that are reported in this table are the average of the values obtained for the two simulation sets. EU-27 extrapolation of the results Note : In the following steps, the same calculation process is applied similarly per cooling generator. The initial inputs are the EHU calculated over the limited cooling seasons, as reported above. The second step consists in evaluating, for each of these 3 typical cooling generators, EHU per building sector for which the study team has market data (which data has been used for Task 2 calculations). Relationships between the 8 modeled typical buildings and these 10 building sectors are chosen on the basis of the discussion proposed in Task 3, subchapter 3.2.5, and the description of the

143

EU stock of buildings reported in Task 3 of the ENTR Lot 6 ventilation preparatory study. EHU are extrapolated first for 8 of the 10 building sectors, per modeled climate (Helsinki / Strasbourg / Athens). The 2 sectors that are not considered here are the residential sector and the indefinite category “other” :

EHU , f EHU , The following relationships have been chosen : Table 6 - 69 . Relationships between typical buildings and building sectors used for EHU calculations

Relationships between typical buildings and building sectors Building sector

with Task 2 market data

EHU calculation by equivalence for each of the 3 modeled climates concerning all sectors except “residential” and “other”

Residential EHU = CFcountry(*) * EHUoffice building sector

Retail EHU = 77% EHUshopping mall + 23% EHUsupermarket

Office EHU = 15% EHUsmall office + 25% EHUmedium office + 50% EHUlarge office Leisure and hotel Same EHU as for the hotel building Public Same EHU as for the medium office building Health Same EHU Education Same EHU as for the small office building Pharmaceutical Same EHU as for the medium office building Industrial Same EHU as for the small office building Other EHU are estimated as the average of the EHU calculated for the other building sectors (*) : CFcountry stands for “Correlation Factor per country”. This correlation factor differs from a country to another. As the study team does not have data on residential buildings inside which ENTR Lot 6 products are installed, it is derived from the ENER Lot 10 preparatory study, in which the cooling load of typical office buildings and residential buildings has been computed per EU country : Table 6 - 70 . Correlation Factors used to calculate EHUresidential sector from EHUoffice sector

144

For the 8 building sectors already considered, EHU are then estimated per country, instead of modeled climate. For doing so, each country is represented by its yearly average amount of total cooling degree days (TCDD = sensible cooling degree days + latent cooling degree days), which have been calculated and reported in Task 3. In parallel, each of the 3 climates used for system calculations is also represented by TCDD : Table 6 - 71 . Total cooling degree days per typical climate and per country

Austria 0.53

Baltic Countries 0.85

Belgium 0.38

Bulgaria 0.53

Cyprus 1.17

Czech Republic 0.43

Denmark 0.29

Finland 0.74

France 0.66

Germany 0.44

Greece 1.01

Hungary 0.69

Ireland 0.27

Italy 0.87

Luxembourg 0.44

Malta 1.11

Netherlands 0.40

Poland 0.85

Portugal 0.90

Romania 0.77

Slovakia 0.79

Slovenia 0.70

Spain 1.06

Sweden 0.64

United Kingdom 0.29

Correlation Factors between the annual cooling load of typical office and residential buildingsderived from ENER Lot 10 building load simulation results

145

A curve fitting with a polynomial of degree 2 allows to derive a relationship between TCDD and EHU per building sector on the basis of the EHU and TCDD calculated for the 3 climates, so that :

EHU building sector, country a building sector * TCDD country ^ 2 b building sector * TCDD country c building sector

with a building sector, b building sector, c building sector the fitting coefficients calculated per building sector. EHU can now be calculated for the residential and the “other” building sectors with the previously reported relationships. The resulting matrix can then be combined with sales repartition matrixes, so that a final single EHU value can be calculated for each cooling generator category :

EU‐27 EHU cooling generator Σc 1 to 25 MSc * Σbs 1 to 10 MSbs,c * EHU cooling generator, bs, c with : bs : building sector, out of the 10 building sectors taken into account c : country, out of the 25 countries taken into account (Baltic Countries encompass Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania) MSc : Market Shares per country, for a cooling generator category MSbs,c : Market Shares per building sector, for a cooling generator category in a given country

Helsinki 131Strasbourg 554

Athens 1973

Austria 575

Baltic Countries 189Belgium 193

Bulgaria 595Cyprus 2949

Czech Republic 311

Denmark 135Finland 130

France 777

Germany 364Greece 1742

Hungary 704Ireland 76

Italy 1264

Luxembourg 86Malta 2130

Netherlands 283Poland 333

Portugal 1241

Romania 906Slovakia 665

Slovenia 458

Spain 1665Sweden 115

United Kingdom 102

Climates used for system calculations

Countries

Total Cooling Degree Daysfrom Task 3 calculations

146

The matrixes of EHU per country + building sector, of Market Shares per country and of Market Shares per country + building sector are displayed on the following page for each considered cooling generator category. Once EU-27 EHU values have been computed per cooling generator category, the final single EU-27 EHU value that is computed is the average of these values weighted by the EU-27 sales per cooling generator category, as follows : Table 6 - 72 . Final calculation of a single EU-27 EHU value for the average climate

Final calculation of a single EU-27 EHU value

Cooling generator categories EU-27 EHU 2010 Sales (MW)

Air-cooled chillers 603 7 356

Water-cooled chillers 545 2 197

VRF systems 493 2 611

Non-ducted single splits + multisplits 555 3 301

Final weighted average 566

Sales of ducted split systems and rooftop air conditioners have not been taken into account. However, because of the greater power input of their indoor fans, these systems add more heat to the cooling load of the building to be dealt with. This means that if calculations had also been done for these systems and the results had been integrated in the final weighted-average calculation, the obtained single EU-27 EHU value would have been higher. All in all, it is therefore reasonable to round up the calculated value of 566 hours to 600 hours. Note : If the study team had based the calculation on EHU calculated over the whole year in the system simulations, the final rounded value would have been 700 hours.

14

7

Ta

ble

6 - 7

3 . E

quiv

alen

t act

ive

Hou

rs o

f Use

at d

esig

n ca

paci

ty, e

xtra

pola

ted

per E

U c

ount

ry a

nd b

uild

ing

sect

or fr

om s

yste

m s

imul

atio

n re

sults

Aust

ria

Bal

tic C

ount

ries

Bel

gium

Bul

garia

C

ypru

sC

zech

Rep

ublic

Den

mar

kFi

nlan

dFr

ance

Ger

man

yG

reec

eH

unga

ryIre

land

Italy

Luxe

mbo

urg

Mal

taN

ethe

rland

sPo

land

Port

ugal

Rom

ania

Slov

akia

Slov

enia

Spai

n

Swed

enU

nite

d K

ingd

omR

esid

entia

l26

432

414

526

711

8017

810

427

136

619

379

036

493

585

154

963

165

360

602

451

410

321

816

229

105

Ret

ail

618

411

413

627

829

482

378

375

706

511

949

676

342

866

348

962

466

494

861

756

659

560

941

366

358

Offi

ce49

438

238

350

010

1041

836

636

455

043

478

653

034

767

535

186

641

042

566

958

451

946

176

935

935

5Le

isur

e an

d ho

tels

304

265

266

307

1247

274

263

262

338

279

617

325

260

453

260

785

272

276

447

363

318

289

587

262

261

Publ

ic59

942

843

060

664

348

740

139

867

051

183

664

537

078

937

582

347

449

778

570

863

255

283

339

138

4H

ealth

589

415

417

597

1372

471

390

388

674

496

1035

644

362

866

367

1157

459

481

858

727

627

538

1009

381

374

Educ

atio

n46

533

533

647

198

937

731

631

452

839

578

150

529

466

529

886

136

838

565

956

649

342

776

430

830

4Ph

arm

aceu

tical

599

428

430

606

643

487

401

398

670

511

836

645

370

789

375

823

474

497

785

708

632

552

833

391

384

Indu

stria

l48

836

935

149

598

939

532

634

355

941

482

353

830

470

631

490

038

442

270

360

353

245

881

333

331

4O

ther

496

371

366

501

993

407

345

349

531

427

783

537

342

718

329

885

398

421

683

599

528

460

792

342

351

Aust

ria

Bal

tic C

ount

ries

Bel

gium

Bul

garia

C

ypru

sC

zech

Rep

ublic

Den

mar

kFi

nlan

dFr

ance

Ger

man

yG

reec

eH

unga

ryIre

land

Italy

Luxe

mbo

urg

Mal

taN

ethe

rland

sPo

land

Port

ugal

Rom

ania

Slov

akia

Slov

enia

Spai

n

Swed

enU

nite

d K

ingd

omR

esid

entia

l23

828

913

024

110

6416

093

242

331

173

718

329

8353

213

787

414

832

454

740

937

128

974

220

493

Ret

ail

554

367

369

563

797

430

337

334

636

457

870

608

304

786

309

891

416

441

781

682

592

502

861

326

318

Offi

ce44

634

134

245

291

237

532

632

549

839

071

448

030

961

431

278

636

838

160

853

047

041

569

932

031

6Le

isur

e an

d ho

tels

274

233

234

277

1118

243

230

230

306

248

560

293

227

413

227

711

241

245

407

330

287

259

534

229

228

Publ

ic54

138

338

554

855

143

835

835

560

646

075

258

432

971

433

473

442

544

771

064

157

149

875

034

834

2H

ealth

531

372

373

539

1210

423

348

346

609

445

929

581

323

781

327

1034

412

433

773

656

566

484

906

340

334

Educ

atio

n42

029

930

142

690

333

928

128

047

835

571

345

726

260

626

578

633

034

660

051

444

638

469

727

527

0Ph

arm

aceu

tical

541

383

385

548

551

438

358

355

606

460

752

584

329

714

334

734

425

447

710

641

571

498

750

348

342

Indu

stria

l42

029

930

142

690

333

928

128

047

835

571

345

726

260

626

578

633

034

660

051

444

638

469

727

527

0O

ther

440

330

313

446

890

354

290

305

505

372

747

486

270

640

279

815

344

379

637

546

480

413

737

296

279

Aust

ria

Bal

tic C

ount

ries

Bel

gium

Bul

garia

C

ypru

sC

zech

Rep

ublic

Den

mar

kFi

nlan

dFr

ance

Ger

man

yG

reec

eH

unga

ryIre

land

Italy

Luxe

mbo

urg

Mal

taN

ethe

rland

sPo

land

Port

ugal

Rom

ania

Slov

akia

Slov

enia

Spai

n

Swed

enU

nite

d K

ingd

omR

esid

entia

l23

328

212

723

511

0915

691

236

324

169

717

322

8152

513

488

414

431

554

040

136

228

273

919

991

Ret

ail

684

351

355

698

1120

471

293

288

803

519

841

764

227

931

238

609

445

492

930

859

742

598

870

271

257

Offi

ce43

533

333

444

195

036

631

831

748

738

071

346

830

260

530

579

535

837

260

051

945

840

569

631

330

9Le

isur

e an

d ho

tels

293

237

237

296

616

255

229

228

322

262

456

311

220

390

222

509

251

258

387

340

306

276

446

226

224

Publ

ic58

441

241

459

274

247

138

438

265

849

585

663

335

379

035

986

345

848

178

570

061

953

685

037

436

7H

ealth

630

450

452

639

1395

509

424

421

718

534

1080

687

394

913

399

1198

495

519

904

772

670

577

1054

414

407

Educ

atio

n38

727

527

639

289

531

125

925

744

232

767

542

224

156

624

475

430

331

856

047

641

135

465

825

324

9Ph

arm

aceu

tical

584

412

414

592

742

471

384

382

658

495

856

633

353

790

359

863

458

481

785

700

619

536

850

374

367

Indu

stria

l38

727

527

639

289

531

125

925

744

232

767

542

224

156

624

475

430

331

856

047

641

135

465

825

324

9O

ther

469

336

321

475

778

369

293

307

539

390

763

518

268

675

278

803

357

395

672

582

511

435

758

297

280

Equi

vale

nt a

ctiv

e H

ours

of U

se a

t des

ign

capa

city

- Va

lues

ext

rapo

late

d pe

r EU

cou

ntry

and

bui

ldin

g se

ctor

from

the

syst

em s

imul

atio

n re

sults

Air-

cool

ed c

hille

rs (i

n sy

stem

s w

ith fa

n-co

il un

its)

Wat

er-c

oole

d ch

iller

s (in

sys

tem

s w

ith fa

n-co

il un

its)

VRF

syst

ems

(with

non

-duc

ted

indo

or u

nits

) - D

ata

bein

g co

nsid

ered

as

also

real

istic

for n

on-d

ucte

d si

ngle

spl

it an

d m

ultis

plit

syst

ems

Bui

ldin

g se

ctor

s

Bui

ldin

g se

ctor

s

Bui

ldin

g se

ctor

s

14

8

Tabl

e 6

- 74

. Sal

es re

part

ition

s of

the

cons

ider

ed c

oolin

g ge

nera

tor c

ateg

orie

s

Cooling gene

rators

Aust

ria

Bal

tic C

ount

ries

Bel

gium

Bul

garia

C

ypru

sC

zech

Rep

ublic

Den

mar

kFi

nlan

dFr

ance

Ger

man

yG

reec

eH

unga

ryIre

land

Italy

Luxe

mbo

urg

Mal

taN

ethe

rland

sPo

land

Port

ugal

Rom

ania

Slov

akia

Slov

enia

Spai

n

Swed

enU

nite

d K

ingd

omCh

illers

2.8%

0.6%

2.0%

0.4%

0.1%

0.9%

0.3%

0.8%

9.0%

7.0%

3.5%

1.2%

1.0%

27.4%

0.0%

0.0%

4.0%

1.1%

1.1%

1.0%

0.4%

0.3%

21.2%

2.8%

11.0%

VRF

systems

1.4%

0.4%

2.4%

1.4%

1.1%

1.0%

0.1%

0.1%

17.2%

9.9%

6.2%

0.6%

0.7%

18.8%

0.0%

0.3%

2.9%

1.3%

3.9%

0.9%

0.5%

0.0%

14.5%

0.2%

14.2%

Non

‐ducted single split systems

0.6%

0.6%

0.6%

0.6%

0.6%

1.0%

0.6%

0.6%

3.4%

4.9%

2.9%

0.6%

0.6%

12.3%

0.6%

0.6%

0.6%

1.8%

0.6%

0.6%

0.6%

0.6%

42.8%

0.6%

20.6%

Multisplit systems

0.3%

0.4%

0.4%

0.4%

0.4%

0.7%

0.4%

0.4%

33.5%

2.4%

1.7%

0.4%

0.4%

27.7%

0.4%

0.4%

0.4%

1.2%

0.4%

0.4%

0.4%

0.4%

24.0%

0.4%

2.0%

Sale

s re

part

ition

s pe

r typ

ical

coo

ling

gene

rato

r and

per

cou

ntry

Aust

ria

Bal

tic C

ount

ries

Bel

gium

Bul

garia

C

ypru

sC

zech

Rep

ublic

Den

mar

kFi

nlan

dFr

ance

Ger

man

yG

reec

eH

unga

ryIre

land

Italy

Luxe

mbo

urg

Mal

taN

ethe

rland

sPo

land

Port

ugal

Rom

ania

Slov

akia

Slov

enia

Spai

n

Swed

enU

nite

d K

ingd

omR

esid

entia

l0.

7%3.

8%3.

8%3.

8%3.

8%3.

8%3.

8%3.

8%12

.2%

0.7%

4.6%

3.8%

0.3%

1.2%

3.8%

3.8%

3.8%

3.8%

3.4%

3.8%

3.8%

3.8%

3.4%

3.8%

0.3%

Ret

ail

14.1

%15

.3%

15.3

%15

.3%

15.3

%15

.3%

15.3

%15

.3%

4.8%

14.1

%10

.4%

15.3

%8.

1%25

.2%

15.3

%15

.3%

15.3

%15

.3%

16.6

%15

.3%

15.3

%15

.3%

16.6

%15

.3%

8.1%

Offi

ce33

.7%

36.6

%36

.6%

36.6

%36

.6%

36.6

%36

.6%

36.6

%34

.2%

33.7

%30

.4%

36.6

%66

.9%

31.7

%36

.6%

36.6

%36

.6%

36.6

%34

.2%

36.6

%36

.6%

36.6

%34

.2%

36.6

%66

.9%

Leis

ure

and

hote

ls14

.3%

14.4

%14

.4%

14.4

%14

.4%

14.4

%14

.4%

14.4

%9.

9%14

.3%

23.2

%14

.4%

6.8%

15.2

%14

.4%

14.4

%14

.4%

14.4

%21

.0%

14.4

%14

.4%

14.4

%21

.0%

14.4

%6.

8%Pu

blic

7.4%

8.7%

8.7%

8.7%

8.7%

8.7%

8.7%

8.7%

0.0%

7.4%

11.9

%8.

7%4.

9%16

.2%

8.7%

8.7%

8.7%

8.7%

8.0%

8.7%

8.7%

8.7%

8.0%

8.7%

4.9%

Hea

lth5.

8%6.

3%6.

3%6.

3%6.

3%6.

3%6.

3%6.

3%10

.0%

5.8%

5.3%

6.3%

5.2%

2.6%

6.3%

6.3%

6.3%

6.3%

10.2

%6.

3%6.

3%6.

3%10

.2%

6.3%

5.2%

Educ

atio

n4.

8%2.

3%2.

3%2.

3%2.

3%2.

3%2.

3%2.

3%2.

0%4.

8%3.

1%2.

3%1.

1%1.

8%2.

3%2.

3%2.

3%2.

3%1.

6%2.

3%2.

3%2.

3%1.

6%2.

3%1.

1%Ph

arm

aceu

tical

4.3%

5.3%

5.3%

5.3%

5.3%

5.3%

5.3%

5.3%

8.9%

4.3%

3.3%

5.3%

4.3%

5.3%

5.3%

5.3%

5.3%

5.3%

2.8%

5.3%

5.3%

5.3%

2.8%

5.3%

4.3%

Indu

stria

l11

.8%

6.7%

6.7%

6.7%

6.7%

6.7%

6.7%

6.7%

18.1

%11

.8%

7.8%

6.7%

1.3%

0.8%

6.7%

6.7%

6.7%

6.7%

2.3%

6.7%

6.7%

6.7%

2.3%

6.7%

1.3%

Oth

er3.

2%0.

6%0.

6%0.

6%0.

6%0.

6%0.

6%0.

6%0.

0%3.

2%0.

0%0.

6%1.

1%0.

0%0.

6%0.

6%0.

6%0.

6%0.

0%0.

6%0.

6%0.

6%0.

0%0.

6%1.

1%

Aust

ria

Bal

tic C

ount

ries

Bel

gium

Bul

garia

C

ypru

sC

zech

Rep

ublic

Den

mar

kFi

nlan

dFr

ance

Ger

man

yG

reec

eH

unga

ryIre

land

Italy

Luxe

mbo

urg

Mal

taN

ethe

rland

sPo

land

Port

ugal

Rom

ania

Slov

akia

Slov

enia

Spai

n

Swed

enU

nite

d K

ingd

omR

esid

entia

l0.

0%2.

1%2.

1%2.

1%2.

1%2.

1%2.

1%2.

1%2.

0%0.

0%10

.0%

2.1%

2.0%

2.0%

2.1%

2.1%

2.1%

2.1%

0.0%

2.1%

2.1%

2.1%

0.0%

2.1%

2.0%

Ret

ail

20.0

%14

.8%

14.8

%14

.8%

14.8

%14

.8%

14.8

%14

.8%

23.0

%20

.0%

5.0%

14.8

%15

.0%

15.0

%14

.8%

14.8

%14

.8%

14.8

%20

.0%

14.8

%14

.8%

14.8

%10

.0%

14.8

%15

.0%

Offi

ce26

.3%

32.2

%32

.2%

32.2

%32

.2%

32.2

%32

.2%

32.2

%27

.2%

26.3

%34

.1%

32.2

%36

.3%

27.2

%32

.2%

32.2

%32

.2%

32.2

%18

.2%

32.2

%32

.2%

32.2

%36

.3%

32.2

%36

.3%

Leis

ure

and

hote

ls31

.7%

38.7

%38

.7%

38.7

%38

.7%

38.7

%38

.7%

38.7

%32

.8%

31.7

%41

.0%

38.7

%43

.7%

32.8

%38

.7%

38.7

%38

.7%

38.7

%21

.8%

38.7

%38

.7%

38.7

%43

.7%

38.7

%43

.7%

Publ

ic5.

0%4.

0%4.

0%4.

0%4.

0%4.

0%4.

0%4.

0%3.

5%5.

0%5.

0%4.

0%1.

5%5.

0%4.

0%4.

0%4.

0%4.

0%15

.1%

4.0%

4.0%

4.0%

5.0%

4.0%

1.5%

Hea

lth3.

7%2.

9%2.

9%2.

9%2.

9%2.

9%2.

9%2.

9%2.

6%3.

7%3.

7%2.

9%1.

1%3.

7%2.

9%2.

9%2.

9%2.

9%11

.0%

2.9%

2.9%

2.9%

3.7%

2.9%

1.1%

Educ

atio

n1.

3%1.

1%1.

1%1.

1%1.

1%1.

1%1.

1%1.

1%0.

9%1.

3%1.

3%1.

1%0.

4%1.

3%1.

1%1.

1%1.

1%1.

1%4.

0%1.

1%1.

1%1.

1%1.

3%1.

1%0.

4%Ph

arm

aceu

tical

0.0%

0.6%

0.6%

0.6%

0.6%

0.6%

0.6%

0.6%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.6%

0.0%

0.0%

0.6%

0.6%

0.6%

0.6%

0.0%

0.6%

0.6%

0.6%

0.0%

0.6%

0.0%

Indu

stria

l10

.0%

3.3%

3.3%

3.3%

3.3%

3.3%

3.3%

3.3%

5.0%

10.0

%0.

0%3.

3%0.

0%13

.0%

3.3%

3.3%

3.3%

3.3%

10.0

%3.

3%3.

3%3.

3%0.

0%3.

3%0.

0%O

ther

2.0%

0.2%

0.2%

0.2%

0.2%

0.2%

0.2%

0.2%

3.0%

2.0%

0.0%

0.2%

0.0%

0.2%

0.2%

0.2%

0.2%

0.2%

0.2%

0.2%

0.2%

0.2%

0.0%

0.2%

0.0%

Aust

ria

Bal

tic C

ount

ries

Bel

gium

Bul

garia

C

ypru

sC

zech

Rep

ublic

Den

mar

kFi

nlan

dFr

ance

Ger

man

yG

reec

eH

unga

ryIre

land

Italy

Luxe

mbo

urg

Mal

taN

ethe

rland

sPo

land

Port

ugal

Rom

ania

Slov

akia

Slov

enia

Spai

n

Swed

enU

nite

d K

ingd

omR

esid

entia

l2.

0%16

.0%

16.0

%16

.0%

16.0

%16

.0%

16.0

%16

.0%

7.0%

2.0%

45.0

%16

.0%

1.0%

5.0%

16.0

%16

.0%

16.0

%16

.0%

10.0

%16

.0%

16.0

%16

.0%

55.0

%16

.0%

1.0%

Ret

ail

24.0

%23

.5%

23.5

%23

.5%

23.5

%23

.5%

23.5

%23

.5%

35.0

%24

.0%

30.0

%23

.5%

33.0

%10

.0%

23.5

%23

.5%

23.5

%23

.5%

15.0

%23

.5%

23.5

%23

.5%

10.0

%23

.5%

33.0

%O

ffice

14.5

%18

.0%

18.0

%18

.0%

18.0

%18

.0%

18.0

%18

.0%

18.6

%14

.5%

6.8%

18.0

%16

.8%

29.5

%18

.0%

18.0

%18

.0%

18.0

%11

.4%

18.0

%18

.0%

18.0

%13

.6%

18.0

%16

.8%

Leis

ure

and

hote

ls17

.5%

21.6

%21

.6%

21.6

%21

.6%

21.6

%21

.6%

21.6

%22

.4%

17.5

%8.

2%21

.6%

20.2

%35

.5%

21.6

%21

.6%

21.6

%21

.6%

13.7

%21

.6%

21.6

%21

.6%

16.4

%21

.6%

20.2

%Pu

blic

9.1%

5.7%

5.7%

5.7%

5.7%

5.7%

5.7%

5.7%

2.5%

9.1%

5.0%

5.7%

7.5%

5.0%

5.7%

5.7%

5.7%

5.7%

20.1

%5.

7%5.

7%5.

7%2.

5%5.

7%7.

5%H

ealth

6.6%

4.1%

4.1%

4.1%

4.1%

4.1%

4.1%

4.1%

1.8%

6.6%

3.7%

4.1%

5.5%

3.7%

4.1%

4.1%

4.1%

4.1%

14.6

%4.

1%4.

1%4.

1%1.

8%4.

1%5.

5%Ed

ucat

ion

2.4%

1.5%

1.5%

1.5%

1.5%

1.5%

1.5%

1.5%

0.7%

2.4%

1.3%

1.5%

2.0%

1.3%

1.5%

1.5%

1.5%

1.5%

5.3%

1.5%

1.5%

1.5%

0.7%

1.5%

2.0%

Phar

mac

eutic

al4.

0%1.

1%1.

1%1.

1%1.

1%1.

1%1.

1%1.

1%7.

0%4.

0%0.

0%1.

1%0.

0%0.

0%1.

1%1.

1%1.

1%1.

1%0.

0%1.

1%1.

1%1.

1%0.

0%1.

1%0.

0%In

dust

rial

18.0

%6.

8%6.

8%6.

8%6.

8%6.

8%6.

8%6.

8%5.

0%18

.0%

0.0%

6.8%

10.0

%10

.0%

6.8%

6.8%

6.8%

6.8%

10.0

%6.

8%6.

8%6.

8%0.

0%6.

8%10

.0%

Oth

er2.

0%1.

6%1.

6%1.

6%1.

6%1.

6%1.

6%1.

6%0.

0%2.

0%0.

0%1.

6%4.

0%0.

0%1.

6%1.

6%1.

6%1.

6%0.

0%1.

6%1.

6%1.

6%0.

0%1.

6%4.

0%

Aust

ria

Bal

tic C

ount

ries

Bel

gium

Bul

garia

C

ypru

sC

zech

Rep

ublic

Den

mar

kFi

nlan

dFr

ance

Ger

man

yG

reec

eH

unga

ryIre

land

Italy

Luxe

mbo

urg

Mal

taN

ethe

rland

sPo

land

Port

ugal

Rom

ania

Slov

akia

Slov

enia

Spai

n

Swed

enU

nite

d K

ingd

omR

esid

entia

l2.

0%7.

1%7.

1%7.

1%7.

1%7.

1%7.

1%7.

1%5.

0%2.

0%80

.0%

7.1%

0.0%

2.0%

7.1%

7.1%

7.1%

7.1%

0.0%

7.1%

7.1%

7.1%

25.0

%7.

1%0.

0%R

etai

l30

.0%

23.8

%23

.8%

23.8

%23

.8%

23.8

%23

.8%

23.8

%32

.0%

30.0

%10

.0%

23.8

%25

.0%

18.0

%23

.8%

23.8

%23

.8%

23.8

%25

.0%

23.8

%23

.8%

23.8

%20

.0%

23.8

%25

.0%

Offi

ce15

.9%

19.6

%19

.6%

19.6

%19

.6%

19.6

%19

.6%

19.6

%20

.4%

15.9

%4.

5%19

.6%

18.2

%22

.7%

19.6

%19

.6%

19.6

%19

.6%

15.9

%19

.6%

19.6

%19

.6%

20.4

%19

.6%

18.2

%Le

isur

e an

d ho

tels

19.1

%23

.6%

23.6

%23

.6%

23.6

%23

.6%

23.6

%23

.6%

24.6

%19

.1%

5.5%

23.6

%21

.8%

27.3

%23

.6%

23.6

%23

.6%

23.6

%19

.1%

23.6

%23

.6%

23.6

%24

.6%

23.6

%21

.8%

Publ

ic6.

5%6.

5%6.

5%6.

5%6.

5%6.

5%6.

5%6.

5%5.

0%6.

5%0.

0%6.

5%8.

6%5.

0%6.

5%6.

5%6.

5%6.

5%15

.1%

6.5%

6.5%

6.5%

3.5%

6.5%

8.6%

Hea

lth4.

7%4.

7%4.

7%4.

7%4.

7%4.

7%4.

7%4.

7%3.

7%4.

7%0.

0%4.

7%6.

2%3.

7%4.

7%4.

7%4.

7%4.

7%11

.0%

4.7%

4.7%

4.7%

2.6%

4.7%

6.2%

Educ

atio

n1.

7%1.

7%1.

7%1.

7%1.

7%1.

7%1.

7%1.

7%1.

3%1.

7%0.

0%1.

7%2.

2%1.

3%1.

7%1.

7%1.

7%1.

7%4.

0%1.

7%1.

7%1.

7%0.

9%1.

7%2.

2%Ph

arm

aceu

tical

3.0%

0.8%

0.8%

0.8%

0.8%

0.8%

0.8%

0.8%

5.0%

3.0%

0.0%

0.8%

0.0%

0.0%

0.8%

0.8%

0.8%

0.8%

0.0%

0.8%

0.8%

0.8%

0.0%

0.8%

0.0%

Indu

stria

l15

.0%

9.9%

9.9%

9.9%

9.9%

9.9%

9.9%

9.9%

3.0%

15.0

%0.

0%9.

9%13

.0%

20.0

%9.

9%9.

9%9.

9%9.

9%10

.0%

9.9%

9.9%

9.9%

3.0%

9.9%

13.0

%O

ther

2.0%

2.2%

2.2%

2.2%

2.2%

2.2%

2.2%

2.2%

0.0%

2.0%

0.0%

2.2%

5.0%

0.0%

2.2%

2.2%

2.2%

2.2%

5.0%

2.2%

2.2%

2.2%

0.0%

2.2%

5.0%

Sale

s re

part

ition

s pe

r typ

ical

coo

ling

gene

rato

r, pe

r cou

ntry

and

per

bui

ldin

g se

ctor

Chi

llers

(no

dist

inct

ion

avai

labl

e be

twee

n ai

r-co

oled

and

wat

er-c

oole

d ch

iller

s)

VRF

syst

ems

Non

-duc

ted

sing

le s

plit

syst

ems

Mul

tispl

it sy

stem

s

Bui

ldin

g se

ctor

s

Bui

ldin

g se

ctor

s

Bui

ldin

g se

ctor

s

Bui

ldin

g se

ctor

s

149

B. Average climate : reference standby mode hours, thermostat off mode hours, crankcase mode hours and off mode hours (corresponding to the average climate)

To determine the other reference hours that allow to calculate the SEER from the knowledge of the SEERon, the following method is used :

- In accordance with the definition of the reference cooling season (average climate) in prEN 14825, its length is 5 months from May 1 to September 31, which corresponds to 3673 hours.

- To determine standby hours, the next relationship applies :

Cooling season length 3673 hours Occupancy hours Standby mode hours

Building simulations show that standby hours vary greatly from a typical building to another one. Some building types such as hotels or healthcare facilities are always occupied : in this case, standby hours are therefore nil. The ratio of standby hours on occupancy hours is computed for each modeled building. This ratio does not depend on the climate in the building simulations, since no sufficient information is available to differentiate occupancy patterns in with regards to this variable

Table 6 - 75 . Ratio of standby hours on occupancy hours for the modelled buildings

On the basis of the chosen correspondences between the modeled buildings and the reference building sectors, the ratio of standby hours on occupancy hours can then be derived per building sector :

Table 6 - 76 . Ratio of standby hours on occupancy hours for the reference building sectors

These values are combined with the added market shares of all cooling generator categories per building sector and per EU-27 country, as reported below :

Building Standby hours / Occupancy hoursShopping mall 0.33

Supermarket 0.50

Small office 0.58

Medium office 0.58

Large office 0.58

Hotel 0

Hospital 0

Rest home 0

Modeling of typical buildings : weight of standby hours

Building sectors Standby hours / Occupancy hoursResidential 0.42

Retail 0.37

Office 0.58

Leisure and hotels 0

Public 0.58

Health 0

Education 0.58

Pharmaceutical 0.58

Industrial 0.58

Reference building sectors : weight of standby hoursindifferently of the climate and thus of the country

150

Table 6 - 77 . Ratio of standby hours on occupancy hours for the reference building sectors

This allows to calculate an EU-27 weighted average of the ratio of standby hours on occupancy hours. The final value is 0.38. However, from a rational viewpoint, it is sounder to consider an integral number of standby hours divided by the number of 24 hours in one day. The closest fraction to 0.38 is 9/24, which is taken as reference : the average occupancy pattern associated with Lot 6 products means that it is considered that the buildings in which these products are installed are, on average, occupied 15 hours out of 24 hours. Eventually, multiplying the 3673 hours of the reference 5 months long cooling season by this reference 9/24 ratio leads to 1377 standby hours and 2296 occupancy hours.

- Thermostat off hours are then defined as :

Thermostat off mode hours Occupancy hours – Active mode hours

with

Active mode hoursEquivalent active Hours of Use at design cooling capacity EHU

Average part load ratio of the reference building cooling load curve

The reference EHU are 600, as previously explained. The average part load ratio of the reference building cooling load curve already defined in prEN 14825 is simply the average of the part load ratios defined per outdoor temperature bin weighted by the corresponding number of hours per bin (see next table below). This calculation leads to an average part load ratio of 36.7%. Therefore : thermostat off mode hours = 2296 – 600 / 36.7% = 659 hours.

- Because of the size of the buildings in which Lot 6 cooling generators are installed, it is considered that in general, a technical team is in charge of the air conditioning system and so disconnects cooling only products from the electrical mains once the cooling season is over. For cooling only and reversible products, off mode hours are thus taken as nil.

- Eventually, crankcase mode hours are the sum of standby mode hours, thermostat off mode hours and off mode hours : crankcase mode hours = 659 + 1377 + 0 = 2036 hours.

Residential Retail Office Leisure and hotels Public Health Education Pharmaceutical Industrial OtherAustria 1.8% 0.7% 15.4% 31.2% 16.6% 7.3% 5.6% 4.2% 3.8% 12.4% 2.9%Baltic Countries 0.5% 6.8% 18.1% 30.5% 19.5% 7.2% 5.2% 1.9% 3.4% 6.5% 0.9%Belgium 1.6% 4.4% 16.2% 33.8% 20.3% 7.4% 5.4% 1.9% 3.8% 6.1% 0.6%Bulgaria 0.6% 6.1% 17.9% 29.9% 24.8% 6.2% 4.5% 1.6% 2.5% 5.7% 0.8%Cyprus 0.4% 6.9% 20.8% 26.3% 26.6% 5.4% 3.9% 1.4% 1.6% 6.1% 0.9%Czech Republic 1.0% 5.5% 20.2% 28.8% 21.1% 6.7% 4.8% 1.7% 3.3% 6.6% 1.1%Denmark 0.3% 9.0% 19.7% 27.5% 18.7% 7.1% 5.1% 1.9% 3.1% 6.9% 1.1%Finland 0.6% 6.5% 17.6% 31.8% 16.8% 7.8% 5.7% 2.0% 4.1% 6.8% 0.9%France 9.6% 7.8% 17.6% 28.3% 18.2% 1.9% 6.5% 1.5% 5.9% 11.4% 0.8%Germany 6.4% 0.8% 17.3% 28.3% 19.0% 7.1% 5.3% 3.5% 3.3% 12.7% 2.7%Greece 5.1% 9.9% 24.2% 23.9% 23.6% 7.7% 4.3% 2.0% 1.3% 3.1% 0.0%Hungary 1.0% 4.7% 19.7% 30.9% 18.4% 7.3% 5.3% 1.9% 3.9% 7.0% 0.9%Ireland 0.7% 0.7% 14.2% 52.4% 14.4% 5.0% 4.7% 1.2% 2.9% 3.0% 1.6%Italy 21.0% 1.8% 21.7% 30.1% 20.4% 12.6% 2.9% 1.6% 3.6% 5.2% 0.0%Luxembourg 0.2% 14.0% 22.7% 20.1% 21.0% 6.1% 4.4% 1.6% 1.5% 7.0% 1.6%Malta 0.2% 10.0% 24.8% 21.1% 23.6% 5.3% 3.9% 1.4% 1.3% 7.3% 1.3%Netherlands 2.7% 4.1% 16.1% 34.7% 18.5% 7.8% 5.6% 2.0% 4.3% 6.3% 0.6%Poland 1.7% 5.4% 22.5% 26.6% 21.6% 6.3% 4.6% 1.6% 3.2% 7.0% 1.3%Portugal 1.4% 2.5% 17.3% 24.3% 20.2% 12.4% 10.9% 3.0% 3.1% 6.1% 0.1%Romania 0.9% 4.8% 21.7% 29.4% 18.6% 6.9% 5.0% 1.8% 3.4% 7.5% 0.9%Slovakia 0.4% 7.3% 18.1% 29.6% 20.9% 6.9% 5.0% 1.8% 3.1% 6.3% 0.9%Slovenia 0.3% 9.2% 20.3% 26.9% 17.9% 7.2% 5.2% 1.9% 3.1% 7.1% 1.2%Spain 27.1% 21.1% 17.3% 25.3% 21.9% 5.3% 5.7% 1.2% 1.2% 1.1% 0.0%Sweden 1.7% 4.7% 16.2% 34.8% 15.5% 8.3% 6.0% 2.2% 4.8% 6.7% 0.7%United Kingdom 12.7% 0.8% 19.0% 42.1% 18.7% 5.2% 4.5% 1.3% 1.9% 4.5% 2.2%

Market sharesper country

Market shares per building sector, in each EU-27 countryCountries

Added market shares of all considered cooling generator categories (air-coniditioning chillers and air conditioners)

151

Table 6 - 78 . Average part load ratio from the knowledge of the reference building cooling load curve (already defined in prEN 14825 as a simplified average case for the EU)

C. Set of reference hours for the cold and the warm climates (related to Helsinki and Athens)

Equivalent active Hours of Use at design capacity To derive average EHU for the cold and the warm climate defined at the beginning of this report, the inputs are the EHU calculated per modeled typical building for the air-cooled chiller, the water-cooled chiller and the VRF system base-cases under the Helsinki and the Athens climates, as reported in part A of this annex. For the same reasons as already explained, the EHU calculated for VRF systems can also be taken for non-ducted single split systems and multisplit systems without inducing a significant bias. The same correspondences between the modeled typical buildings and the reference building sectors with corresponding data on sales of cooling generators are applied, so that EHU are derived per building sector. To weight the obtained values by relevant sales of cooling generators, sales data is taken from countries for which the associated total cooling degree days calculated in Task 3 are close to the total cooling degree days of the Helsinki or the Athens climate. The cold climate is therefore linked with Baltic countries, Denmark, Finland, Ireland, Sweden and the United Kingdom, while the warm climate is linked with Greece, Italy and Spain. This leads to the following sales repartitions :

Outdoor Temperature Tj (°C) Hours hj Part Load Ratio17 205 5%

18 227 11%19 225 16%

20 225 21%

21 216 26%

22 215 32%23 218 37%

24 197 42%

25 178 47%

26 158 53%27 137 58%

28 109 63%

29 88 68%

30 63 74%31 39 79%

32 31 84%

33 24 89%

34 17 95%35 13 100%

36 9 105%

37 4 111%

38 3 116%39 1 121%

Total Weighted average2602 36.7%

Reference building cooling load curveaverage climate, from prEN 14825

152

Table 6 - 79 . Considered sales repartitions of typical cooling generators for the cold and the warm climate cases

The obtained weighted EHU values per cooling generator category are then combined with the total sales of each cooling generator category considered : Table 6 - 80 . Final calculation of a single EU-27 EHU value for the cold and the warm climates

This leads to 315 EHU for the cold climate and 786 EHU for the warm climate. As for the average climate, the calculation has not included some of the air conditioning systems, especially rooftop air conditioners and ducted single split systems. Their sales being low in countries with cold climates, this does not have a significant impact on the value calculated for the cold climate, which can be reasonably rounded down to 300 hours. On the contrary, their weight in countries with warm climates is greater, which should lead to a value greater than 800 hours. Note then that the heat island effect can have a dramatic impact on the cooling load of the buildings, especially in warm countries. As it is not possible to model it correctly, it is not reflected in the simulation results, and probably not properly taken into account by design engineers when they size air conditioning systems. In the real life, this should amount to a greater cooling load per kW of cooling capacity installed, and so to greater EHU. The study team has also remarked that the Athens climate is relatively close to the average climate of prEN 14825, as it had been previously estimated on the basis of sales repartitions of ENER Lot 10 products : according to sales date, these small air conditioners are on average more installed in warmer regions than ENTR Lot 6 larger cooling capacity products. The average climate representative of Lot 10 products can be indeed characterized with around 20% more cooling degree days than Lot 6 products. All in all, for the purpose of the Task 6 sensitivity analysis, the study team has therefore opted for 900 EHU for the warm climate, to increase on purpose the difference with the average climate. However, since the Athens climate remains too close to the average climate and with all the uncertainty behind the assumptions made by the study team, it is suggested to take a warmer climate as reference for the definition of a standardized SEER calculation under warm climatic conditions, such as the Seville

Cold climate Warm climate Cold climate Warm climate Cold climate Warm climateResidential 1.3% 2.3% 2.0% 2.5% 2.5% 39.4%Retail 10.2% 20.6% 15.0% 11.6% 31.8% 12.2%Office 58.3% 32.7% 36.1% 31.6% 17.0% 17.3%Leisure and hotels 8.9% 18.2% 43.4% 38.0% 20.4% 20.8%Public 6.0% 12.5% 1.6% 5.0% 7.4% 3.3%Health 5.5% 5.9% 1.2% 3.6% 5.3% 2.4%Education 1.4% 1.8% 0.4% 1.3% 1.9% 0.9%Pharmaceutical 4.6% 4.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0%Industrial 2.8% 1.9% 0.2% 6.2% 9.7% 3.6%Other 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 3.8% 0.0%

Cold and warm climates : sales repartitions of typical cooling generators per building sectorcold climate : sales in Baltic Countries, Denmark , Finland, Ireland, Sweden, United Kingdom

warm climate : sales in Greece, Italy, Spain

Chillers(air-cooled and water-cooled)

Non-ducted single split systems& multisplit systemsVRF systemsBuilding sectors

EHU 2010 sales (MW) EHU 2010 sales (MW)Air-cooled chillers 350 1156 856 3877Water-cooled chillers 312 345 778 1158VRF systems 267 408 662 1033Non-ducted single splits + multisplits 285 675 713 1887Final weighted average 315 786

Cold climate Warm climate

Final calculation of single EHU values for the cold and the warm climatescold climate : sales in Baltic Countries, Denmark , Finland, Ireland, Sweden, United Kingdom

warm climate : sales in Greece, Italy, Spain

Cooling generator categories

153

climate. This would lead to a greater differentiation with the average situation. The value of 900 EHU could also possibly correspond better with this case. Other reference hours For the other reference hours, the same calculation process as for the average climate is used. The ratio between standby mode hours and occupancy hours remains of 9/24, since there is no information that allows to correlate it with different climatic conditions and more soundly with country-specific habits. The average part-load ratio of the building cooling load curve is respectively of 31.7% and 36.7% for the cold and the warm climates. As explained at the beginning of this report, the same building cooling load curve has been used for the average and the warm climates, which leads to the same average part-load ratio.

154

ANNEX 2 : CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN SEERGROSS AND SEERNET VALUES In the whole preparatory study, energy efficiency calculations for chillers have been based on “gross values”, for which heat exchanger pressure drops on the water side are not taken into account (whereas they are in EN 14511 standard). These “gross performances” were the ones used by the industry until January 2012, date at which “net” performances have been introduced. Whether it is logical to base the LCC calculation on gross values (ie not considering energy that is to be supplied for pumping and not for chilling), the new published SEER values will be based on net values and so it is necessary to add this part to explicit the SEER values in net values. Since manufacturers comply now with this updated standard, SEER MEPS proposed in Task 7 should be based on it, so that they can serve as the relevant basis for the elaboration of the final regulatory MEPS. However, the whole Task 6 analysis has been based on SEERgross calculations in accordance with EN 14511:3-2007 : not to take into account the additional water pump consumption allows to focus on the sole electricity consumption of the chiller itself and so the technological choices that lead to its efficiency level. The analysis of the Eurovent database also shows that from a statistical angle, there is no correlation between the certified water pressure drops across the heat exchangers and the certified EERs and ESEERs of the chillers. Note : Of course, specific heat exchanger designs with long equivalent water piping lengths but small pipe diameters have allowed some manufacturers to certify chillers with high net EERs and net ESEERs but at the same time high water pressure drops and so correspondingly high water pump consumptions. Nevertheless, these biased design strategies cannot be taken as representative of the EU market and the revised EN 14511:3-2011 standard will foster sounder designs with limited water pressure drops. So as to be able to propose SEERnet MEPS in Task 7 for chillers, the study team chooses to calculate SEERnet values for the chiller base-cases and improved products modelled for the present Task 6 LCC studies. SEERgross values, which are used as inputs of the LCC calculations, form the basis of the analysis for MEPS determination in Task 7. Then, the correspondence between SEERgross values and SEERnet values allows to convert SEERgross MEPS into SEERnet MEPS. SEERnet calculations are done with the same calculation tools that are used to estimate the SEERgross values reported in chapter 6.2, adding the water pressure drops and taking into account the pump efficiency in EN 14511-3 standard. Reference water pressure drops As several chillers with the same efficiency levels and similar technological choices can have different water pressure drops, it is irrelevant to estimate a specific water pressure drop for each base-case and each improved product. The analysis of the Eurovent database by cooling capacity range (same ranges as in Task 2 and Task 4) allows noting that differences in median water pressure drops are limited. Water pressure drops seem to be on average slightly lower for reversible chillers by comparison with cooling only chillers. The same remark applies to the evaporator of low cooling capacity chillers by comparison with larger cooling capacity products, and to the condensers of water-cooled chillers by comparison with their evaporators.

Table 6 - 81 . Water pressure drops of Eurovent certified chillers (from Eurovent database, 2012)

155

Note : Concerning water-cooled chillers, the median value of 56 kPa for the 50-100 kW cooling capacity seems to be biased by comparison with the 17.5-50 and 100-200 kW cooling capacity ranges that correspond to similar heat exchanger technologies. There are probably inconsistencies in part of the values reported in the database. The goal of Eco-design policy measures is to foster the development of more efficient products by comparison with the current market, and lower pressure drops would help reduce the additional electricity consumption from the associated water circulation pumps. MEPS are defined above the efficiency level of base-case products, which characteristics have been estimated in this preparatory study on the basis of median values from the Eurovent 2010 database. Therefore, the study team opts for water pressure drops below median values but already achieved by a significant part of the certified products, so as to ensure that these chosen values do not constrain too much the SEER MEPS :

Table 6 - 82 . Reference water pressure drops for SEERnet calculations

Air-conditioning chiller base-cases and improved products : reference water pressure drops for SEERnet calculations

Heat exchanger Air-cooled 100 kW

Air-cooled400 kW

Water-cooled100 kW

Water-cooled1000 kW

Evaporator 35 kPa 40 kPa 35 kPa 45 kPa Condenser - - 35 kPa 35 kPa

As a matter of illustration, the following graphs allow to see in more details the distribution of certified chillers in the Eurovent database : Figure 6 - 20 . Chillers : certified water pressure drops (Eurovent 2012)

Pc [kW]Air-cooledCooling only (evaporator)

Air-cooledReversible(evaporator)

Water-cooledCooling only

evaporator

Water-cooledReversible evaporator

Water-cooledCooling only

condenser

Water-cooledReversible condenser

< 17.5 30 30 30 19 33 34

17.5-50 37 35 36 27 39 37

50-100 41 36 33 38 56 56

100-200 41 43 41 38 38 45

200-350 41 39 45 38 40 36

350-500 40 42 43 44 41 35

500-700 42 41 55 52 47 36

700-900 43 54 49 57 34 38

900-1200 42 - 52 40 44 35

1200-1500 45 - 63 55 35 37

> 1500 55 - 63 - 57 -

Certified air-conditioning chillers : median water pressure dropsEurovent database, 2012

156

Water pump efficiency The efficiency of the chilled water distribution pump (in relation with the evaporator) and the heat rejection water pump (in relation with the condenser of water-cooled chillers) are calculated in accordance with Annex H of the EN 14511:3-2011 standard :

at the evaporator :

P qV, ∆piqM,

ρ ∆piPC,

CP, ∆θ ρ ∆pi

at the condenser :

P qV, ∆piqM,

ρ ∆piPC,

EER 1EER

CP, ∆θ ρ ∆pi

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800

Δpw

ater,evapo

rator[kPa]

Pc [kW]

Air‐cooled chillers : water pressure drop at the evaporator Eurovent 2012 database

Cooling only chillers

Reversible chillers

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800

Δpw

ater,evapo

rator[kPa]

Pc [kW]

Water‐cooled chillers : water pressure drop at the evaporator and the condenser

Eurovent 2012 database

Cooling only, evaporator

Cooling only, condenser

Reversible, evaporator

Reversible, condenser

157

if Phydrau < 500 W :

η 0.0721P .

if Phydrau > 500 W :

η 0.092 ln P 0.0403 with : Phydrau [W] : hydraulic power of the evaporator/condenser water pump, the pump not being an integral part of the chiller -Δpi [Pa] : water side pressure drop across the evaporator/condenser (as previously estimated per chiller category) qV,water [m3/s] : water volume flow rate through the evaporator/condenser qM,water [m3/s] : water mass flow rate through the evaporator/condenser ρwater [kg/m3] : water density, taken equal to 1.19 PC,nominal [kW] : rated cooling capacity of the chiller EER : rated energy efficiency at rating conditions CP,water [J/K/kg] : water specific heat capacity Δθwater [K] : water side temperature difference across the evaporator/condenser = 5K at rating conditions η : water pump efficiency Calculation results The additional electrical power input of the water pump(s) related to the water pressure drops across the concerned heat exchangers is then calculated and added to the electrical power input of the chiller for each of the 4 measurement points A, B, C and D of the SEER calculation, from which the SEERnet can then be deduced. The results are as follows for the 4 product categories and the average climate :

100 kW air-cooled chillers : SEERnet calculation resultsProduct SEERnet SEERgross SEERonnet SEERongross ESEERgross

ACC 100 BC 3.35 3.48 3.51 3.66 3.70 ACC 100 I1 3.60 3.76 3.79 3.96 4.10 ACC 100 I2 3.89 4.07 4.09 4.30 4.40 ACC 100 I3 4.04 4.25 4.35 4.58 4.70 ACC 100 I4 4.47 4.72 4.64 4.91 5.00

400 kW air-cooled chillers : SEERnet calculation results

Product SEERnet SEERgross SEERonnet SEERongross ESEERgrossACC 400 BC 3.48 3.58 3.56 3.68 3.76 ACC 400 I1 3.79 3.92 3.89 4.02 4.10 ACC 400 I2 4.03 4.18 4.14 4.30 4.40 ACC 400 I3 4.18 4.34 4.39 4.57 4.65 ACC 400 I4 4.41 4.58 4.56 4.76 4.90 ACC 400 I5 4.71 4.91 4.88 5.10 5.25 ACC 400 I6 5.30 5.56 5.42 5.70 5.80

100 kW water-cooled chillers : SEERnet calculation results Product SEERnet SEERgross SEERonnet SEERongross ESEERgross

WCC 100 BC 4.31 4.83 4.52 5.09 5.20 WCC 100 I1 4.72 5.35 4.97 5.67 5.80 WCC 100 I2 5.07 5.80 5.35 6.18 6.40 WCC 100 I3 5.24 6.03 5.54 6.43 6.60

158

WCC 100 I4 5.46 6.33 5.79 6.77 6.90

1000 kW water-cooled chillers : SEERnet calculation results Product SEERnet SEERgross SEERonnet SEERongross ESEERgross

WCC 1000 BC 5.06 5.51 5.16 5.63 5.72 WCC 1000 I1 5.85 6.45 5.96 6.58 6.70 WCC 1000 I2 6.45 7.18 6.58 7.34 7.40 WCC 1000 I3 6.90 7.77 7.06 7.97 8.00 WCC 1000 I4 6.64 7.41 6.78 7.59 7.85 WCC 1000 I5 6.97 7.82 7.05 7.92 8.20 WCC 1000 I6 7.71 8.77 7.81 8.90 9.20 WCC 1000 I7 8.01 9.16 8.12 9.30 9.60

159

TASK 6 REFERENCES

AHRI, 2012, Certified product directory of Variable Refrigerant Flow Multi-Split Air-Conditioners and Heat Pumps, in WCCordance with AHRI 1230, available at :

ASHRAE, 2004 & 2008, ASHRAE Handbooks, HVAC systems and equipments (SI edition).

ASHRAE, 2007, ASHRAE Handbooks, HVAC Fundamentals (SI edition).

EECCAC, 2003, Adnot J. et al., 2003, Energy Efficiency and Certification of Central Air Conditioners (EECCAC) for the Directorate General Transportation-Energy of the Commission of the European Union, May 2003.

EN 14511:2007 - Air conditioners, liquid chilling packages and heat pumps with electrically driven compressors for space heating and cooling

EN 14825 (prEN):2010 - Air conditioners, liquid chilling packages and heat pumps with electrically driven compressors for space heating and cooling – Testing and Rating at part load conditions and calculations of seasonal performances

EN 15218:2006 - Air conditioners and liquid chilling packages with evaporatively cooled condenser and with electrically driven compressors for space cooling - Terms, definitions, test conditions, test methods and requirements http://www.ahrinet.org/App_Content/ahri/files/Certification/OM%20pdfs/2012/VRF%20OM-2012.pdf

JRAIA, January 2012, Evaluation results of alternatives, Results of tests done by several JRAIA companies for blends of R1234yf, R32, CO2 and R290 products

Kim & al., 2010, Development of high-side shell scroll compressor with novel oil return mechanism, International compressor engineering conference at Purdue University

MEErP, 2011, Kemna, R. et al., Methodology for Ecodesign of Energy-related Products, Methodology Report Part 1: Methods, VHK for European Commission DG ENTR, Nov. 2011. (www.meerp.eu)

MEEuP, 2005, Kemna, R. et al., Methodology for Ecodesign of Energy-using Products, Methodology Report, VHK for European Commission DG ENTR, Nov. 2005.

Öko-Recherche and partners, 2011, Preparatory study for a review of Regulation (EC) No 842/2006 on certain fluorinated greenhouse gases, Final Report, Prepared for the European Commission in the context of Service Contract No 070307/2009/548866/SER/C4. Authors: Dr. Winfried Schwarz, Barbara Gschrey, Dr. André Leisewitz (Öko-Recherche GmbH), Anke Herold, Sabine Gores (Öko-Institut e.V.), Irene Papst, Jürgen Usinger, Dietram Oppelt, Igor Croiset (HEAT International GmbH), Per Henrik Pedersen (Danish Technological Institute), Dr. Daniel Colbourne (Re-phridge), Prof. Dr. Michael Kauffeld (Karlsruhe University of Applied Sciences), Kristina Kaar (Estonian Environmental Research Centre), Anders Lindborg (Ammonia Partnership), September 2011.

Rivière & al., 2009, Task 7 report, March 2009, Service Contract to DGTREN, Preparatory study on the environmental performance of residential room conditioning appliances (airco and ventilation), Contract TREN/D1/40-2005/LOT10/S07.56606.

Tiax, 2002, ‘Engineering-analysis cost-efficiency curves. Commercial unitary air-cooled air-conditioners and air-source heat pumps’, TIAX LLC, Cambridge Massachusetts for the US Department of Energy, January 2002.

Yu & Chan, 2009, Environmental performance and economic analysis of all-variable speed chiller systems with load-based speed control, Journal of Applied Thermal Engineering

160

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 6 -1 . Determination of bin hours for the warm climate from AHSRAE IWEC data ................... 14 Figure 6 - 2 . VRF systems : equivalent base-case range of outdoor units .......................................... 24 Figure 6 -3 . VRF systems modelling : part-load performance curves .................................................. 52 Figure 6 -4 . VRF systems : IEER vs EER ............................................................................................ 53 Figure 6 -5 . VRF systems : correlation between the refrigerant charge and the EER, adapted from the

analysis of split systems ................................................................................................................. 54 Figure 6 -6 . CO2 VRF system : Evaluation of the performance points A, B, C and D for the SEERon

calculation ...................................................................................................................................... 58 Figure 6 -7 . VRF systems : Comparison of normalized relative prices of several outdoor units ranges

........................................................................................................................................................ 60 Figure 6 -8 . 400 kW air-cooled chillers : results graphs of the LCC analysis – options ranked by

decreasing electricity consumption or by decreasing TEWi ........................................................... 66 Figure 6 -9 . 100 kW air-cooled chillers : results graphs of the LCC analysis – options ranked by

decreasing electricity consumption or by decreasing TEWi ........................................................... 69 Figure 6 -10 . 1000 kW water-cooled chillers : results graphs of the LCC analysis – options ranked by

decreasing electricity consumption or by decreasing TEWI .......................................................... 74 Figure 6 -11 . 100 kW water-cooled chillers : results graphs of the LCC analysis – options ranked by

decreasing electricity consumption or by decreasing TEWI .......................................................... 76 Figure 6 -12 . Lot 6 air conditioners : Evaluation of the SCOP from the knowledge of the SEER ........ 79 Figure 6 -13 . VRF systems improved products : results graphs of the LCC analysis .......................... 83 Figure 6 -14 . Split systems improved products : results of the energy performance calculations ....... 88 Figure 6 -15 . Split systems improved products : results graphs of the LCC analysis .......................... 90 Figure 6 -16 . 15-ton R-22 Cost-Efficiency Curve with R-410a Design Option Points Overlaid, (from

TIAX, 2002) .................................................................................................................................... 94 Figure 6 - 17 . LCC variation versus TEWI variation against the base case, cooling only package air

conditioner, average EU climate .................................................................................................... 96 Figure 6 - 18 . LCC variation versus TEWI variation against the base case, reversible package air

conditioner, average EU climate .................................................................................................... 96 Figure 6 - 19 . Sensitivity analysis of the LCC improvement of a package air conditioner in cooling

mode ............................................................................................................................................. 131 Figure 6 - 20 . Chillers : certified water pressure drops (Eurovent 2012) ........................................... 155

LIST OF TABLES Table 6 - 1 . Cold climate : Building load curve and BIN method for the SEERon calculation ................. 9 Table 6 - 2 . Cold climate : measurement points for the SEERon calculation of water-cooled chillers .. 10 Table 6 -3 . Cold climate : Reference hours for the SEER calculation ................................................. 11 Table 6 -4 . Average climate : Reference hours for the SEER calculation ........................................... 13 Table 6 -5 . Warm climate : Building load curve and BIN method for the SEERon calculation .............. 15 Table 6 - 6 . Warm climate : measurement points for the SEERon calculation of water-cooled chillers 16 Table 6 -7 . Warm climate : Reference hours for the SEER calculation ............................................... 17 Table 6 -8 . Base-case 400 kW air-cooled chiller : technical description .............................................. 18 Table 6 -9 . Base-case 100 kW air-cooled chiller : technical description .............................................. 18 Table 6 -10 . Base-case 900 kW water-cooled chiller : technical description ....................................... 18 Table 6 -11 . Base-case 100 kW water-cooled chiller : technical description ....................................... 18 Table 6 -12 . Air-cooled chillers : summary list of the single improvement design options ................... 20 Table 6 -13 . Water-cooled chillers : summary list of the single improvement design options ............. 21 Table 6 -14 . VRF systems : list of design options ................................................................................ 26 Table 6 -15 . Design options for split air conditioners in DG ENER lot 10 study (Rivière & al, 2009) .. 27 Table 6 -16 . Retained design options for split air conditioners ............................................................ 28 Table 6 -17 . Rooftop base case performances .................................................................................... 29 Table 6 -18 . Rooftop base case main technical characteristics ........................................................... 29 Table 6 -19 . 400 kW air-cooled chillers : technical summary of the combinations of improvement

design options = improved products .............................................................................................. 36 Table 6 -20 . 100 kW air-cooled chillers : technical summary of the combinations of improvement

design options = improved products .............................................................................................. 40

161

Table 6 -21 . Water-cooled chillers : technical summary of the combinations of improvement design options = improved products .......................................................................................................... 44

Table 6 -22 . Water-cooled chillers : technical summary of the combinations of improvement design options = improved products .......................................................................................................... 49

Table 6 -23 . Chillers : electrical power inputs for the thermostat off and the standby modes ............. 51 Table 6 -24 . VRF systems : electrical power inputs for the thermostat off and the standby modes .... 56 Table 6 -25 . Split systems : electrical power inputs for the thermostat off and the standby modes .... 57 Table 6 -26 . Chillers : alternative refrigerants design options – technical assumptions ...................... 57 Table 6 -27 . VRF and split systems : alternative refrigerants design options – technical assumptions

........................................................................................................................................................ 59 Table 6 -28 . VRF systems : definition of the base-case cost structure ................................................ 61 Table 6 -29 . VRF systems : main changes in costs, due to improvement design options ................... 61 Table 6 -30 . VRF systems : refrigerant charge costs ........................................................................... 62 Table 6 -31 . Split systems : simplified cost structure of the indoor unit ............................................... 63 Table 6 -32 . Split systems : additional costs due to changes in the design of the compression stage 63 Table 6 -33 . Chillers : additional costs for the alternative refrigerant using products .......................... 64 Table 6 -34 . VRF systems : changes in costs for alternative refrigerant design options ..................... 64 Table 6 -35 . 400 kW air-cooled chillers improved products : results of the energy performance

calculations ..................................................................................................................................... 65 Table 6 -36 . 100 kW air-cooled chillers improved products : results of the energy performance

calculations ..................................................................................................................................... 66 Table 6 -37 . 400 kW air-cooled chillers: results of the LCC analysis – options ranked by decreasing

TEWI ............................................................................................................................................... 68 Table 6 -38 . 100 kW air-cooled chillers: results of the LCC analysis – options ranked by decreasing

TEWI ............................................................................................................................................... 71 Table 6 -39 . Water-cooled chillers improved products : results of the energy performance calculations

........................................................................................................................................................ 72 Table 6 -40 . 1000 kW water-cooled chillers : results table of the LCC analysis – options ranked by

decreasing TEWI ............................................................................................................................ 75 Table 6 -41 . 100 kW water-cooled chillers : results table of the LCC analysis – options ranked by

decreasing TEWI ............................................................................................................................ 78 Table 6 - 42 . VRF systems improved products : results of the energy performance calculations ....... 80 Table 6 -43 . VRF systems, cooling only : results table of the LCC analysis – options ranked by

decreasing TEWI ............................................................................................................................ 86 Table 6 -44 . VRF systems, reversible : results table of the LCC analysis – options ranked by

decreasing TEWI ............................................................................................................................ 87 Table 6 - 45 . Split systems, cooling only : results table of the LCC analysis – options ranked by

decreasing TEWI ............................................................................................................................ 92 Table 6 - 46 . Split systems, reversible : results table of the LCC analysis – options ranked by

decreasing TEWI ............................................................................................................................ 93 Table 6 -47 . SEER of package air conditioner base case and improvement ....................................... 95 Table 6 -48 . LCC of cooling only package air conditioners, average EU climate ................................ 95 Table 6 -49 . LCC and TEWI analysis of cooling only package air conditioners, average EU climate . 98 Table 6 -50 . LCC and TEWI analysis of reversible package air conditioners, average EU climate .... 99 Table 6 - 51 . Sensitivity analyses: costs and refrigerant scenarios for chillers .................................. 106 Table 6 -52 . 400 kW air-cooled chillers : life cycle costs sensitivity analysis ..................................... 109 Table 6 -53 . 400 kW air-cooled chillers : TEWI sensitivity analysis ................................................... 110 Table 6 -54 . 100 kW air-cooled chillers : life cycle costs sensitivity analysis ..................................... 112 Table 6 -55 . 100 kW air-cooled chillers : TEWI sensitivity analysis ................................................... 113 Table 6 -56 . 100 kW air-cooled chillers : noise sensitivity analysis .................................................... 114 Table 6 -57 . 1000 kW water-cooled chillers : life-cycle costs sensitivity analysis .............................. 116 Table 6 -58 . 1000 kW water-cooled chillers : TEWI sensitivity analysis ............................................ 116 Table 6 -59 . 100 kW water-cooled chillers : life-cycle costs sensitivity analysis ................................ 119 Table 6 -60 . 100 kW water-cooled chillers : TEWI sensitivity analysis .............................................. 120 Table 6 -61 . Sensitivity analyses : costs and refrigerant scenarios for air conditioners ..................... 121 Table 6 -62 . VRF systems : life cycle costs sensitivity analysis ......................................................... 125 Table 6 -63 . VRF systems : TEWI sensitivity analysis ....................................................................... 126 Table 6 -64 . Split systems : life cycle costs sensitivity analysis ......................................................... 129 Table 6 -65 . Split systems : TEWI sensitivity analysis ....................................................................... 130 Table 6 - 66 . Chillers, summary of the main findings ......................................................................... 139

162

Table 6 - 67 . Air conditioners, summary of the main findings ............................................................ 140 Table 6 - 68 . Equivalent active Hours of Use at design cooling capacity computed for base-case

cooling generators operating in typical systems, as defined in Task 4 ........................................ 142 Table 6 - 69 . Relationships between typical buildings and building sectors used for EHU calculations

...................................................................................................................................................... 143 Table 6 - 70 . Correlation Factors used to calculate EHUresidential sector from EHUoffice sector ................... 143 Table 6 - 71 . Total cooling degree days per typical climate and per country ..................................... 144 Table 6 - 72 . Final calculation of a single EU-27 EHU value for the average climate ....................... 146 Table 6 - 73 . Equivalent active Hours of Use at design capacity, extrapolated per EU country and

building sector from system simulation results............................................................................. 147 Table 6 - 74 . Sales repartitions of the considered cooling generator categories ............................... 148 Table 6 - 75 . Ratio of standby hours on occupancy hours for the modelled buildings....................... 149 Table 6 - 76 . Ratio of standby hours on occupancy hours for the reference building sectors ........... 149 Table 6 - 77 . Ratio of standby hours on occupancy hours for the reference building sectors ........... 150 Table 6 - 78 . Average part load ratio from the knowledge of the reference building cooling load curve

(already defined in prEN 14825 as a simplified average case for the EU) .................................. 151 Table 6 - 79 . Considered sales repartitions of typical cooling generators for the cold and the warm

climate cases ................................................................................................................................ 152 Table 6 - 80 . Final calculation of a single EU-27 EHU value for the cold and the warm climates ..... 152 Table 6 - 81 . Water pressure drops of Eurovent certified chillers (from Eurovent database, 2012) .. 154 Table 6 - 82 . Reference water pressure drops for SEERnet calculations ........................................... 155

task 6 lot 6 air conditioning final report july 2012 · 3 introduction this is the draft report for...

Documents