TEAP XXVI/9 Updated Task Force Report Lambert Kuijpers Bella Maranion Roberto Peixoto TF co-chairs T...

TEAP XXVI/9 TEAP XXVI/9 Updated Task Force Updated Task Force

ReportReportLambert KuijpersLambert KuijpersBella MaranionBella MaranionRoberto PeixotoRoberto Peixoto

TF co-chairsTF co-chairs

T E A P MOP-27 Dubai, 2015

Decision XXVI/9

To prepare a report and make that report available for consideration by the 36th OEWG meeting and an updated report to be submitted to the 27th MOP that would:

a) Update information on alternatives to ozone-depleting substances in various sectors and sub-sectors assessing whether they are:

(i) Commercially available; (ii) Technically proven; (iii) Environmentally sound; (iv) Economically viable and cost effective; (v) Safe to use in areas with high urban densities considering flammability and toxicity issues, including, where possible, risk characterization; (vi) Easy to service and maintain;

b) Provide information on energy efficiency levels in the refrigeration and air-conditioning sector referring to high-ambient temperature zones in international standards;

c) Taking into account the uptake of various existing technologies, revise the scenarios for current and future demand elaborated in the October 2014 final report;


Decision XXVI/9 Task ForceCO-CHAIRSLambert Kuijpers (Netherlands, RTOC Co-chair)Bella Maranion (USA, TEAP Co-chair) Roberto Peixoto (Brazil, RTOC Co-chair)

MEMBERSDenis Clodic (France, outside expert)Daniel Colbourne (UK, RTOC)Martin Dieryckx (Belgium, RTOC)Rick Duncan (USA, FTOC)Bassam Elassaad (Lebanon, RTOC)Samir Hamed (Jordan, RTOC)Yilhan Karaagac (Turkey, FTOC)


Tingxun Li (China, RTOC)Richard Lord (USA, outside expert)Carloandrea Malvicino (Italy, RTOC)Keiichi Ohnishi (Japan, CTOC Co-chair)Alaa A. Olama (Egypt, RTOC) Fabio Polonara (Italy, co-chair RTOC) Rajan Rajendran (USA, RTOC)Helen Tope (Australia, MTOC Co-chair)Dan Verdonik (USA, HTOC Co-chair)Samuel Yana-Motta (Peru, RTOC)Asbjørn Vonsild (Denmark, RTOC)Shiqiu Zhang (PRC, TEAP Senior Expert) Special thanks to Xueqin Pan (with Clodic, France) on revising scenarios

Considerations for the response to Decision XXVI/9

The XXVI/9 report•builds on previous decisions/reports (XXIV/7, XXV/5 (finalized October 2014), and the XXVI/9 June 2015 TF report) to investigate the alternatives and implications of avoiding high-GWP alternatives to ODS•considers updated information obtained through comments from Parties and reviews information from several additional reports and publications including TOC assessment reports•recognizes that the limits in data availability for some sectors currently do not allow consideration of BAU and mitigation scenarios


Topics for the update from OEWG-36REPORTED in the update•Status of many refrigerant alternatives•Better explanation of R/AC bottom-up model and assumptions•Further info on both Non-A5 and A5 scenarios•Longer manufacturing conversion and later start: MIT-5•Updated cost estimates for different MIT-scenarios: MIT-3 and -5•One definition of High Ambient Temperature (HAT) (other existing ways to define HAT to be further investigated)

CONSIDERED for the update•Costs and benefits up to 2050: (inadequate time)•Market analysis and influences: (inadequate time) •HAT testing data ((Oak Ridge (ORNL) data now available, rest by end 2015/2016))


The XXVI/9 TF update vs the June reportRefrigeration and AC•Refrigerants and R/AC equipment – no change•R/AC mitigation scenarios (including non-A5 scenarios and Article 5 cost estimates) - major changes •Definition of HAT - considered, one way to define presented •Applications of refrigerants in various sub-sectors in HAT regions - no change•HAT Projects – (one report now published) results expected by end-2015/ early -2016

Other sectors•Medical/non-medical aerosols - few updates (cumulative emissions during the period 2015-2030 estimated at about 360 Mt CO2-eq.)

•Foams, fire protection and solvents sectors – no change


BAU and mitigation demand scenariosThe new, revised R/AC bottom-up scenarios include the following:•Specific GWPs for specific fluids and an average average GWP of 300 for low-GWP refrigerant blends•Different manufacturing conversion periods:

• 3 years in non-Article 5 Parties 3 years in non-Article 5 Parties • 6, 8, 10 or 12 years in Article 5 Parties 6, 8, 10 or 12 years in Article 5 Parties

•Manufacturing conversions to commence:• MIT-3: All R/AC subsectors in 2020MIT-3: All R/AC subsectors in 2020• MIT-4: All R/AC subsectors in 2020 MIT-4: All R/AC subsectors in 2020 except stationary except stationary

AC AC which is assumed to be delayed to 2025which is assumed to be delayed to 2025• MIT-5: All R/AC subsectors in 2025MIT-5: All R/AC subsectors in 2025

•2015 quantities in R/AC demand scenarios were cross-checked against current (new) best HFC global production data estimates


BAU and mitigation demand scenarios (2)In overall climate impact, the total total integrated high GWP HFC demand in Article 5 Parties for 2020-2030 is estimated at:

BAU: BAU: 16,000 Mt CO 16,000 Mt CO22 eq. eq.

MIT-3: MIT-3: 6,500 Mt CO 6,500 Mt CO2 2 eq.; a 60% reduction to eq.; a 60% reduction to BAUBAUMIT-4: MIT-4: 9,800 Mt CO 9,800 Mt CO22 eq.; a 40% reduction to eq.; a 40% reduction to BAUBAUMIT-5: MIT-5: 12,000 Mt CO12,000 Mt CO22 eq.; a 25% reduction to eq.; a 25% reduction to BAUBAU(note: 2020-2040 would show larger benefits but uncertainty would be larger)

•Delaying (and extending) the conversion period for the dominant stationary AC sector significantly increases the overall climate impact•Shifting the start of all R/AC subsector conversions to 2025 (MIT-5 scenario), results in a substantially increased climate impact extending far beyond 2030 (in particular for Article 5 Parties)


R/AC - BAU Non-A5 and A5


R/AC – BAU Non-A5 and A5

Comments to the previous slide (not presented)Non-A5 BAU scenario shows a 50-60% growth between 2015 and 2030A5 BAU scenario shows a 300% growth between 2015 and 2030Bottom-up estimated demand has been checked with best guess for production data for the year 2015Uncertainties due to production data, economic growth assumptions, equipment parameters etc. are significant if extrapolated to 2030 (and beyond)For demand, the stationary AC sub-sector is clearly the most important one over the entire period 2015-2030


MIT-3 and MIT-5 scenarios

Responding to the requests by Parties,the following slides present revised scenario results (for either non-Article 5 Parties or Article 5 Parties: (with particular emphasis on the length of the conversion period in Article 5 Parties for MIT-3 (w/2020 conversion start) and MIT-5 (w/2025 conversion start))-MIT-3 and MIT-5 total demand non-Article 5 Parties-MIT-3 and MIT-5 total demand Article 5 Parties-MIT-3 and MIT-5 manufacturing demand Article 5 Parties-MIT-3 and MIT-5 servicing demand Article 5 Parties-Impact of the conversion period for MIT-3 and -5, for Article 5 Parties (this all for a 6 year conversion period for Article 5)


MIT-3 and -5 total demand non-Article 5


MIT-3 and -5 total demand non-Article 5

Comments to the previous slide (not presented)MIT-5 delays conversion and results in higher demand by 2030Due to the early completion of conversion (2020, 2025) assumed for non-Article 5 Parties, the demand is significantly reduced by the year 2030 for both MIT-3 and MIT-5Due to the economic growth assumed after 2015 in non-Article 5 Parties, the difference between MIT-3 and MIT-5 (with their different starting dates) is not that large


MIT-3 and -5 total demand Article 5


MIT-3 and -5 total demand Article 5

Comments to the previous slide (not presented)The 5 year later start of manufacturing conversion in the MIT-5 scenario results in a peak demand that is 60% higher than in case of MIT-3The demand estimated for the MIT-5 scenario in 2030 is twice the one for MIT-3Stationary AC is the determining subsector, followed by commercial refrigeration


MIT-3 and -5 manufacturing demand Article 5


MIT-3 and -5 manufacturing demand Article 5

Comments to the previous slide (not presented)In the MIT-3 scenario, manufacturing is estimated to peak at 500 Mt CO2-eq, in the MIT-5 scenario at about 750 Mt CO2-eq., the latter about 5 years laterBy the year 2030, the manufacturing demand has decreased substantially in MIT-3, and is only related to the use of low GWP refrigerants (less than 10% of the “peak” demand)


MIT-3 and -5 servicing demand Article 5


MIT-3 and -5 servicing demand Article 5

Comments to the previous slide (not presented)•Amounts for servicing are more or less the same as for manufacturing•The stationary AC sub-sector is the most important one•The MIT-5 “peak” does not occur until 2029-30, and substantial demand remains after 2030MIT-5 servicing demand in 2030 is estimated 3 times larger than for MIT-3; the servicing tail for MIT-5 will decrease much more in the 2030-2040 period than before 2030


Demand for various conversion periods

Comments to the previous slide (not presented)Please note the later start on the right graph, SO IMPORTANTA 6 year conversion period results in a much faster decrease of the total demand in both MIT-3 and MIT-5A 12 year conversion period results in a very slow decrease of the total demand in the 5-10 years after that conversion has startedFor all conversion periods the total demand in the MIT-5 scenario is almost twice as much as in the MIT-3 scenarioThese graphs clearly show the importance of an early start and a rapid conversion


Manufacturing conversion cost table (MIT-3)


Sub-sector Manufacturing conversion demand

( tonnes)

Costs (US$ million)

Costs (in % of total)

(approximate)

Domestic 12,238 85.7-110.1 4%

Commercial 26,172 104.7-183.2 6%

Industrial-large size 2,132 8.5-14.9 0.5%

Transport 1,311 7.9-10.5 <0.5%

Stat. AC (R-410A) 113,983 1253.8-1481.8 59%

Stat. AC (R-407C) 36,495 401.4-474.4 19%

MAC 34,293 137.2-342.9 11%

Total 226,624 1999.2-2617.8 100%

Manufacturing conversion cost table (MIT-5)


Sub-sector Manufacturing conversion demand

( tonnes)

Costs (US$ million)

Costs (in % of total)

(approximate)

Domestic 14,533 101.7-130.8 4%

Commercial 44,426 177.7-311.0 6%

Industrial-large size 4,696 18.8-32.9 0.5%

Transport 1,402 8.4-11.2 <0.5%

Stat. AC (R-410A) 150,481 1655.3-1956.3 57%

Stat. AC (R-407C) 58,838 647.2-764.9 22%

MAC 43,830 175.3-438.3 10%

Total 318,206 2784.5-3645.3 100%

Conversion cost comparison table (MIT-3-4-5)

MIT-3 2020 startMIT-4 2020 start, with delay for stationary AC until 2025MIT-5 2025 start


Preliminary summary of scenario resultsBAU 16000 Mt CO2-eq (demand 2020-2030)

MIT-3 6500 Mt CO2-eq.; 60% reduction US$ 2300 ± 310 million



•On current cost, the most aggressive mitigation scenario is the least expensive•Above costs estimates are related to new manufacturing conversion only•TEAP can refine these cost estimates with improved production data, equipment parameters and economic growth assumptions


Servicing costs

• During 2020-30, a certain (minimum) reduction in the servicing amounts can be estimated for MIT-3, -4 and -5 for the period 2020-2030, this by improving practices, at the following costs:

MIT-3: US$ 200 millionMIT-4: US$ 290 millionMIT-5: US$ 320 million

• These estimates have to be added to the manufacturing conversion cost estimates

• A larger reduction in servicing costs might be possible but this would need additional measures


High Ambient Temperature (HAT) definition• There is no universal definition currently for what

constitutes HAT and consequently a HAT country (or region)

• If, during a certain number of hours per year, temperatures above a certain level would occur, this could be defined as HAT

• Industry defines temperature zones if a certain temperature is exceeded during a certain number of hours in a year (i.e., 35-438 hours per year)

• One definition with corresponding temperature zones is given by ASHRAE


High Ambient Temperature ZonesFor one definition (following ASHRAE 162-2013), the zones below have been defined


Zone reference

Description Zone reference

Description

0A Extremely Hot Humid 4B Mixed Dry

0B Extremely Hot Dry 4C Mixed Marine

1A Very Hot Humid 5A Cool Humid

1B Very Hot Dry 5B Cool Dry

2A Hot Humid 5C Cool Marine

2B Hot Dry 6A Cold Humid

3A Warm Humid 6B Cold Dry

3C Warm Marine 7 Very Cold

4A Mixed Humid 8 Sub-Arctic/Arctic

High Ambient Temperature zones (2)


Other HAT considerations

• Other examples of climate zone definitions are also available but are not included in this update report; further study is required

• Normally systems are designed for 35°C (T1 in ISO 5151:2010) with appropriate operation and performance up to 43°C,

• However, in some countries HAT conditions require a design at 46°C (T3 in ISO 5151:2010) with appropriate operation and performance up to 52°C


HAT refrigerant testing status

• Oak Ridge (ORNL) has a recently published report• Additional research and assessment of equipment

performance using different refrigerants at high ambient temperature conditions is being undertaken:

- AHRI initiative AREP-II - UNEP/UNIDO PRAHA and EGYPRA projects These data cannot be presented here, because they will not be available until late 2015 or early 2016


Concluding remarks

• By 2030, a BAU scenario shows a 50% growth in the demand for high GWP HFCs in non-Article 5 Parties, and an almost 300% growth in Article 5 Parties, particularly due to growth in the stationary AC and commercial refrigeration sub-sectors

• Options for alternatives to ODS, particularly those with low- to zero-GWP, continue to emerge into the market across all sectors

• Delaying and extending the manufacturing conversion period, especially for the dominant stationary AC sector, significantly increases both the climate impact and the conversion costs

• Continued, improved tracking of production and consumption of all alternatives across all sectors will improve future analysis

• Three technical reports on HAT refrigerant testing will provide additional data to inform future assessmentsT E A P MOP-27 Dubai,

2015

Thank you !


Alternatives in R/AC and HP applications

In R/AC applications, the main points are:•Refrigerants: Many fluids are undergoing testing, including HFO (blends); the number is still expanding•Domestic refrigeration: 75% of new production is predicted to use HC-600a by 2020•Commercial refrigeration: HCs are being used in condensing units for smaller capacities; supermarket refrigeration systems show strong growth in particular for CO2 (R-744) systems, focusing on energy efficiency improvements, while cost decreases are occurring•Air conditioners: HFC-32 based split systems are being commercialized in Japan and other countries; a wide range of blends containing unsaturated HFCs is proposed and is growing. Some HCFC-22 equipment lines are converted to HC-290 in China•MACs: Industry has reported more testing data on the R-445A blend


Medical uses

• Metered dose inhalers for asthma/COPD use HFC-134a and HFC-227ea (approx. 10,000 tonnes/year)

• Updated modelling predicts cumulative HFC emissions between 2015-2030 to be 360 Mt CO2-eq. under a business-as-usual scenario

• Both HFC MDI and DPI alternatives are available for all key classes of drugs used in the treatment of asthma/COPD

• Completely avoiding HFC MDIs not yet technically or economically feasible

• Non-MDI medical aerosols are estimated as 1-2% of total aerosol production. Most use hydrocarbons and dimethyl ether propellants, with less than 10% of these using HFC propellants (<1,000 tonnes). HFCs are used where a non-flammable or safe to inhale propellant is needed, or where emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are controlled

• Sterilants: there is almost no use of HFCs, a wide variety of alternatives is available and the impact of avoiding HFCs would be minimal T E A P MOP-27 Dubai,

2015

Non-medical aerosols

• In 2010, HFCs used in aerosol production were estimated as 5% of total GWP-weighted HFC consumption (it is the 3rd largest sector, and is totally emissive)

• Of this, consumer and technical aerosols together are estimated to account for about 3/4 of GWP-weighted HFC consumption, and medical aerosols (including MDIs) for 1/4

• Global production of HFC-containing aerosols is growing very slowly, if at all. While production is likely to increase in Article 5 Parties, it will likely flatten or decline in non-Article 5 Parties

• It is possible to avoid high-GWP propellants/solvents. Low-GWP propellants/solvents and “not-in-kind” options are widely available• There may be significant challenges in adopting low-

GWP options in some markets or for some products• Reformulation would incur costs


TEAP XXVI/9 Updated Task Force Report Lambert Kuijpers Bella Maranion Roberto Peixoto TF co-chairs T...

Documents

Transcript of TEAP XXVI/9 Updated Task Force Report Lambert Kuijpers Bella Maranion Roberto Peixoto TF co-chairs T...