trends in supermarket refrigeration architecture€“-trends...trends in supermarket refrigeration...
TRANSCRIPT
Trends in Supermarket Refrigeration
Architecture
E360 Forum • Chicago, IL • October 5, 2017
Mike Saunders Ani JayanthSenior Lead Innovation Technologist Director, Product Marketing Emerson Emerson
This presentation is intended to highlight changing developments in the law and industry topics. The law is frequently evolving and information and publications in this presentation may not reflect the latest changes in the law or legal interpretations. The statements and information provided in this presentation should not be construed as legal advice or legal opinion regarding any specific facts or circumstances, but is intended for general informational purposes only. The views and statements expressed during this presentation are the personal opinions of the presenter and do not represent those of Emerson Climate Technologies, Inc. or its affiliated companies. You should consult an attorney about your situation and specific facts and you should not act on any of the information in this presentation as the information may not be applicable to your situation. Although all statements and information contained herein are believed to be accurate and reliable, they are presented without warranty of any kind. Information provided herein does not relieve the user from the responsibility of carrying out its own tests and experiments. Statements or suggestions concerning the use of materials and processes are made without representation or warranty that any such use is free of patent infringement and are not recommendations to infringe on any patents. This presentation may not be copied or redistributed without the express written consent of Emerson Climate Technologies, Inc.
Disclaimer
2
Supermarket Architecture Trends Begin Here:
the Kigali Amendment to Montreal Protocol
3
• October 15, 2016
• “38th Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol on Substances That Deplete the Ozone Layer”
• Global agreement on HFC phase-down reached by 197 countries of the world in Kigali, Rwanda
Supermarket Refrigeration Architectures for the Future Are Linked to Global Regulatory Changes in Selecting Refrigerants With Low Ozone Depletion and GWP.
Other Refrigerant Regulation Activity
Current Regulatory Proposals Target 150 GWP for Multiple Applications,
Creating Demand for Refrigerants With GWPs of Less Than 150. 4
Environmental Canada (EC)**:
proposal November 26, 2016
Commercial application GWP limit Date
Refrigeration – centralized
systems (MT/LT racks)1,500 2020
Refrigeration – condensing units 2200 2020
Refrigeration – LT stand-alone 1,500 2020
Refrigeration – MT stand-alone 700 2020
Foams 150 2021
Mobile refrigeration 2,200 2025
AC – chillers 700 2025
Domestic refrigeration 150 2025
F-Gas (EU): effective May 20, 2014
Commercial application GWP limit Date
Self-contained refrigeration 2,500 2020
Stationary refrigeration 2,500 2020
Self-contained refrigeration 150 2022
Centralized refrigeration 150 2022
– Except top side of cascade 1,500 2022
CARB: Short-lived climate pollutant reduction strategy
— proposal Nov. 28, 2016
Commercial application GWP limit Date
All refrigerant sales 2,500 ?
Non-residential refrigeration 150 ?
AC (non-residential and
residential)
750 ?
** http://www.gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p1/2016/2016-11-26/html/reg1-eng.php
• Phase-down (NAP) option also proposed
(2019 — 90%; 2024 — 65%; 2030 — 30%;
2036 — 15%; baseline 2011–2013)
55
Supermarket Refrigeration Today in the U.S. Has Moved to R-407A for New Rack Architectures;Considerable Amount of Existing Architectures Today for Service Still Use R-22/R-404A.
EPA’s Final Rule, July 20, 2015, and September 26, 2016,Changed Listing Status of Certain HFCs*
6
R-448A/
R-449A
F-Gas Regulations Cause a Comprehensive Review of Refrigerant and Architecture Selection
A1
–N
on
fla
mm
ab
le
A2
L –
Mil
dly
Fla
mm
ab
le
A3
–F
lam
ma
ble
B2L
–T
oxic
Similar
R-410A
Similar
R-404A
R-407A/F
Similar
R-134aGWP
< 1,500
~600
150–300
1234yf/ze
R-410A
R-407C
R-407A/F
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000
Vo
lum
etr
ic C
ap
ac
ity/P
res
su
re
R-32/HFO Blends(DR5, L41, ARM71)
R-134a
CO2
R-404A
R-290
NH3
(3,922)
HFO Blends(XL20/40, HDR110, L20)
R-450A,
R-513A
2,500
400–675
2020
Units below 40 kW
2022
Indirect expansion
systems
2022
Centralized packs
above 40 kW;
Hermetically sealed
2030 2024
2017
Rack Architecture
Systems
7
Propane systems with glycol loop
150g charge at case — “green”
Maintenance ease
Full CO2 natural refrigerant loop
Eliminate all HFC
Improved efficiency
Common Supermarket Refrigeration Architectures
Cen
traliz
ed
HF
C
Dis
tribu
ted
HF
C
Cas
ca
de H
FC
/CO
2
Se
co
nd
ary
HF
C/G
lyc
ol o
r CO
2
Bo
os
ter
Fu
ll CO
2
Adding heat exchangers and glycol
or CO2 pumps
Reducing refrigerant charge
Shorter line sets to cases
Lower leaks
Rejecting CO2 LT compression heat
with HX to MT compressors
Eliminates HFC on LT
Reduced refrigerant charge
Isolate MT with 134a or low-GWP
refrigerantHFO A1
R-407A/FR-744
HFO A2L <300
R-290
HFO A1
HFO A2L
CO2, HFO A1
HFO A1
HFO A2L
R-407A/F
A1 Non-Flammable
A2L Mildly Flammable
A3 Flammable
Mic
ro-D
istrib
ute
d
HF
C/P
rop
an
e
R-290
8
Refrigerant Charge
First Cost
Regulatory Compliance
Applied Cost
Refrigerant Cost
Energy
Ease of Installation
Maintenance Cost
Ease of Maintenance
Decomm. Cost
Supermarket Format
Knowledge and Training
Cen
traliz
ed
HF
C
Dis
tribu
ted
HF
C
Cascade HFC/CO2
Secondary
HFC/Glycol or CO2
Booster
Full CO2
U.S. 2017
50%
45%
2%
2%
1%
EU 2017
Cen
traliz
ed
HF
C
40%
Dis
tribu
ted
HF
C 35%
Cascade HFC/CO2 3%
Secondary
HFC/Glycol or CO23%
Booster
Full CO215%
Decision
InfluencersC
en
traliz
ed
HF
C
Dis
tribu
ted
HF
C
Cascade HFC/CO2
Secondary
HFC/Glycol or CO2
Booster
Full CO2
U.S. 2025?
35%?
30%?
5%?
10%?
15%?
Decision
Drivers
• F-Gas
• Local codes
• Charge limits
• Energy mandates
Regulatory Compliance
• Mechanical
• Electronics
• Refrigerant charge
Investment
• Annualized power intake
• Peak power intake
Energy Savings
• Operating costs
• Uptime
• Energy
Return on Investment
Supermarket Architectures Today and the FutureInstalled Base
Micro-Dist —
Propane<1%
Micro-Dist —
Propane4%
Notes: not to scale;
illustrative only
Micro-Dist —
Propane5%
9
Low-GWP Options Refrigerant Charge Leaks Complex Initial Cost Maintenance Cost Efficiency
Centralized
Distributed
Secondary
Cascade
CO2 Booster
System Features Comparison
“Perfect Architecture” Dependent on Multiple Characteristics
10
Low-GWP Refrigerant Options
• Lower-GWP refrigerants tend to be A2L (except for naturals)
• Large systems with large refrigerant charges are not conducive to A2L’s
• Secondary systems could be used with A2L’s with proper design
• CO2 option for booster-type and cascade systems
• Propane an option for small self-contained (<150g charge)
Refrigerant Options and Charge by System Architecture
11
Refrigerant Options and Charge by System Architecture (cont’d.)
Refrigerant Charge
Centr
aliz
ed
Dis
trib
ute
d
Secondary
Cascade
Cha
rge (
lbs)
Boo
ste
r
Self-
Conta
ined
⅔ cup
32,000+ cups
12
Sources of Supermarket Refrigerant Leaks
• Larger systems with more pipes, joints and components have the potential to leak more.
• The higher the pressure, the more potential for leaks.
• System efficiency can also be affected by leaks.
Leak Sources for a Regional Supermarket Chain*
Compressor Racks
Display Cases
Remote Air CooledCondensers
Field-Installed Piping
Walk-In Evaporators
AC Units
Condensing Units
Remote Headers
* Source: GreenChill Best Practices Guideline, May 2011
13
Leaks and System Impact
Causes of Leaks*• Poor brazing techniques
• Improperly tightened fittings
• Valve caps and seals missing
• Material incompatible with oil
or refrigerant
• Vibration
• Thermal expansion and
contraction
• Corrosion
• Metal-to-metal contact of tubing
• Improper support of tubing
Time frame shortens with smaller systems
14
Complexity, Initial Cost, Maintenance
• Established architectures, e.g., centralized/distributed
– Suppliers readily available for new and replacement parts
– Technician training programs well-established
– Initial costs are known
• Newer architectures, e.g., secondary/cascade/booster
– Newer to the industry
– Initial costs tend be higher
• Supply base not well-established
– Specialized training required to operate
• Complexity
– Require additional components, controls and dependencies
• Pumps, EXV’s, new controllers and algorithms, etc.
0
50
100
150
200
250
2010 2015
244
184
60K
Shortage
Th
ou
sa
nd
s o
f Te
ch
s
0
50
100
150
200
250
HFC CO₂
$K
Optional
Mechanical
Electronics
15
LCCP/Energy Analysis
• Compare different system architectures
– Centralized, distributed, secondary, cascade, booster
– Refrigerants
• R-404A – baseline centralized
• R-407A, R-448A – centralized and distributed
• R-407A, R-448A, R-444B (A2L) – secondary
• R-134a, R-513A and CO2 – cascade
• CO2 – booster
– LT: 300 MBH, MT: 900 MBH
– Assumed 15% leak rates for all but secondary system (2%)
– Two different climate zones
• Minneapolis, Minn. – Zone 6
• Phoenix, Ariz. – Zone 2
16
Annual Emissions and Peak Power ConsumptionMinneapolis, Minn.
Peak Power Consumption
Cen
trali
ze
dD
istr
ibu
ted
Se
co
nd
ary
Cas
ca
de
Bo
os
ter
Power \ CO2
Annual CO2 Emissions
Analysis tool: https://apps.emersonclimate.com/LCCP/PerformEnergyCalc.htm
17
Annual Emissions and Peak Power ConsumptionPhoenix, Ariz.
17
Peak Power Consumption
Cen
trali
ze
dD
istr
ibu
ted
Se
co
nd
ary
Cas
ca
de
Bo
os
ter
Power \ CO2
Annual CO2 Emissions
Analysis tool: https://apps.emersonclimate.com/LCCP/PerformEnergyCalc.htm
18
Annual and Peak Energy for U.S. (Centralized R-404A System)
Peak Power Consumption (kW)
Analysis compares centralized R-404A system. Trends will be similar for other architectures.
Annual Energy Consumption (kWh)
19
Refrigerant Charge
First Cost
Regulatory Compliance
Applied Cost
Refrigerant Cost
Energy
Ease of Installation
Maintenance Cost
Ease of Maintenance
Decomm. Cost
Supermarket Format
Knowledge and Training
Cen
traliz
ed
HF
C
Dis
tribu
ted
HF
C
Cascade HFC/CO2
Secondary
HFC/Glycol or CO2
Booster
Full CO2
U.S. 2017
50%
45%
2%
2%
1%
EU 2017
Cen
traliz
ed
HF
C
40%
Dis
tribu
ted
HF
C 35%
Cascade HFC/CO2 3%
Secondary
HFC/Glycol or CO23%
Booster
Full CO215%
Decision
InfluencersC
en
traliz
ed
HF
C
Dis
tribu
ted
HF
C
Cascade HFC/CO2
Secondary
HFC/Glycol or CO2
Booster
Full CO2
U.S. 2025?
35%?
30%?
5%?
10%?
15%?
Decision
Drivers
• F-Gas
• Local codes
• Charge limits
• Energy mandates
Regulatory Compliance
• Mechanical
• Electronics
• Refrigerant charge
Investment
• Annualized power intake
• Peak power intake
Energy Savings
• Operating costs
• Uptime
• Energy
Return on Investment
Supermarket Architectures Today and the FutureInstalled Base
Micro-Dist —
Propane<1%
Micro-Dist —
Propane4%
Notes: not to scale;
illustrative only
Micro-Dist —
Propane5%
Questions?
DISCLAIMER
Although all statements and information contained herein are believed to be accurate and reliable, they are presented without guarantee or warranty of any kind, expressed or
implied. Information provided herein does not relieve the user from the responsibility of carrying out its own tests and experiments, and the user assumes all risks and liability for
use of the information and results obtained. Statements or suggestions concerning the use of materials and processes are made without representation or warranty that any such
use is free of patent infringement and are not recommendations to infringe on any patents. The user should not assume that all toxicity data and safety measures are indicated
herein or that other measures may not be required.
Thank You!
20