Barriers and opportunities for use of low gwp alternatives

Barriers and opportunities for use ofBarriers and opportunities for use of

lowlow--GWP alternatives in new equipmentGWP alternatives in new equipment

RROUNDTABLE ON CLIMATE & OZONEOUNDTABLE ON CLIMATE & OZONE--FRIENDLY TECHNOLOGIES IN FRIENDLY TECHNOLOGIES IN RROUNDTABLE ON CLIMATE & OZONEOUNDTABLE ON CLIMATE & OZONE--FRIENDLY TECHNOLOGIES IN FRIENDLY TECHNOLOGIES IN

RAC, Belgrade, Serbia, 10RAC, Belgrade, Serbia, 10--11 May 201111 May 2011

Presented by Etienne GoninPresented by Etienne Gonin

ECA Consultant, UNEP ECA Consultant, UNEP

Survey Author and ContactSurvey Author and Contact: : Daniel ColbourneDaniel ColbourneRE RE –– PHRIDGEPHRIDGE

[email protected]@re--phridge.co.ukphridge.co.uk

Barriers to lowBarriers to low--GWP refrigerantsGWP refrigerants

IntroductionIntroduction

• Whilst low-GWP is attractive, current use is limited

• As part of the “JumpStart” project UNEP (in cooperation with

the EC) initiated a survey to look at barriers to the up-take of

certain refrigerants in Article 5 countries

― Specifically, low-GWP refrigerants as replacements to R22― Specifically, low-GWP refrigerants as replacements to R22

― Also intended to help accelerate HCFC phase-out

• Focus is on Article 5 countries (although same barriers may

also apply in non-Article 5)

• Primarily consider low-GWP refrigerants in new equipment


Refrigerants to considerRefrigerants to consider

• Those under consideration, and their main technical issues

R-717 (ammonia)

― Higher toxicity, low flammability, cannot use copper systems

HCs – R-290 (propane), R-1270 (propylene)

― High flammability

R-744 (carbon dioxide)

― Very high working pressures, low critical temperature / transcritical

cycle at higher ambient temperatures

Unsaturated HFCs – R1234yf, R1243zf, etc

― Very new, probably very costly, not commercialised yet


Study approachStudy approach

• Important to get broad views of individuals directly involved in

refrigeration and air conditioning field in Article 5 countries

― Therefore, used a survey / questionnaire approach

• Three main stages

― Basic analysis of the issue, desk study― Basic analysis of the issue, desk study

― Develop survey form, present at workshops, distribute at workshops,

via email and internet sites, hold discussions

― Collate responses, compile and produce assessment report

• Questionnaires fundamentally based on guiding questions:

―“If I wanted to have a low-GWP system tomorrow, what is

stopping me?”

―“If I am determined to use a low-GWP refrigerant, what would

need to be done?”


Desk studyDesk study

• Initially identified several types of barriers

― Technical (refrigeration engineering)

― Technical (safety engineering)

― Supply and availability (materials, equipment, components, fluids)

― Commercial (investment, profit, financial incentives)

― Market (customer, consumer, competing products)

― Information resources (know-how, guidance, technical data)

― Regulatory and quasi-regulatory (legislation, standards)

― Psychological and sociological aspects

• Useful to identify where these may occur

― Within the process enterprises may use to adopt as new refrigerant

― Amongst the stakeholders involved with application of refrigerants


Refrigerant adoption process in enterpriseRefrigerant adoption process in enterprise

• Essential to identify where barriers exist in the process


Stakeholders involved with refrigerant applicationStakeholders involved with refrigerant application

• Essential to obtain view from all stakeholders within the process


Survey form questionsSurvey form questions

Describe what the specific barrier is

What do you believe the causes/origins of this

barrier are?

Applicable to which refrigerant?

Which stakeholder(s) does it directly impact upon?

Can you do anything about it?Questions are

designed toCan you do anything about it?

If so, what action(s) would it be?

Would it be easy or difficult for you to do this?

(easy, viable, difficult, impossible, etc)

If you cannot do anything about it, which

stakeholder(s) could?

Is there a way of by-passing the barrier, an

alternative approach?

Any other remarks?

designed to

help weigh up

the “strength” of

the barrier


Response to surveyResponse to survey

• Distribution of statements by stakeholder

―Fairly broad, but would like more refrigerant suppliers,

end users, but especially equipment suppliers and

contractors


Response to survey Response to survey –– how hard a task?how hard a task?

• Identified barriers are neither “easy” or “impossible” to resolve


Statements about barriersStatements about barriers

• From the entire set of responses, 32 specific barriers were

identified

• Many anticipated points

― “no standards”, “no demand”, “fear of safety”, “no systems currently in ― “no standards”, “no demand”, “fear of safety”, “no systems currently in

use”, “peer group pressure”, “too much hassle”, etc

• The significance or relevance of each varies according to

considerations

― Country, region, size and type of equipment, type of refrigerant,

perception of person making the statement, etc


Statements about barriersStatements about barriers

• In overall analysis, for each barrier

― General statement formulated

― Explanation for why it is a barrier

― An overview discussion of the barrier

― Identified causes of the barrier

― Suggestions for how to resolve

― Additional remarks related to the issue

― Summary of other items, including “significance rating”

Refrigerant types All

System/application types All types of systems, especially those of larger capacity

Impacted stakeholders Manufacturers, installers, end users

Barrier impact Although making a change to an LGA refrigerant may pose risks, so would

any change to the business and therefore is not seen as a major problem.

Severity rating

Unachievability rating


Summary of main barriersSummary of main barriers

• The most significant barriers are considered to be

―There are no systems using LGA refrigerants available to buy

―There is nothing to incentivise enterprises to invest in LGA

technology

―No one is willing to invest in production of systems, parts, ―No one is willing to invest in production of systems, parts,

components and refrigerant

―Consultants developing HPMPs are not recommending LGA

refrigerants for projects

―The rules for using LGA refrigerants are too restrictive to allow

their use

―There is a general fear of the safety risks


General recommendationsGeneral recommendations

• Awareness-raising

― Highlight the importance of the (climate) problem and the possibilities

of (low-GWP) options available

• Training

― Critical to adopt dedicated training – specific to each individual low-

GWP alternative and specific to application/end use

• Guidance

― High quality guidance of what low-GWP alternative, when, where and

how; also targeted to specific stakeholder groups

• Technical development

― Improving efficiency of R744 AC systems for warm climates, reducing

refrigerant charge sizes for HC systems, safety control mechanisms

for system using flammables


General recommendationsGeneral recommendations

• Market development

― Stimulate industry involvement with low-GWP alternatives; encourage

local manufacturing, develop product directories, etc

• Financial incentives

― Subsidies for using low-GWP, tax incentives for low-GWP / tax

disincentives for high-GWPdisincentives for high-GWP

• Regulatory infrastructure

― Impose better control of industry to work safely, modify regulations that

inhibit low-GWP alternatives, ensure safety standards are constructive

• Montreal Protocol substantive issues

― Decision-making bodies to introduce more incentives, HPMP

consultants should be better assisted to embrace low-GWP alternatives

• ENGOs to more actively lobby on the high/low-GWP issue


Final remarksFinal remarks

• Many of the barriers are interlinked

― The present situation is how it is, because that’s the way it is…

― Therefore, strategic interventions are necessary to transform the

situation

• However, respondents who have already implemented low-

GWP alternatives found that many of the barriers were less

difficult than anticipated

― In many cases, requires a lot of determination and effort

• Will be many other barriers, views and experiences out there…

― Next study should target much broader response

• Lastly, THANK YOU to all those that did provide input!

HCFC PhaseHCFC Phase--out Acceleratioout Acceleration n

JumpStart ProjectJumpStart Project

• “Tool Box” launched to help developing

countries accelerating HCFC phase out:

―HCFC Policy and Legislative Options: A Guide for

Developing Countries Developing Countries

―Phase-out of HCFCs in the Flexible and Rigid Foam

Sector – Guidance on Choosing Technology

Options that Protect both Ozone and Climate

―Alternatives to HCFCs in the Refrigeration and Air

Conditioning sector - Practical Guidelines and Case

Studies for Equipment Retrofit and Replacement

HCFC PhaseHCFC Phase--out Acceleratioout Acceleration n

JumpStart Project (continued)JumpStart Project (continued)

• A new HCFC Help Centre revamped

―A new and updated case studies section been launched

―A new interactive forum where stakeholders and policy

makers communicate with experts

http://web2.unep.fr/hcfc/

• 1 foam workshop + 1 RAC workshop

• The survey presented earlier in this presentation

The new web siteThe new web site

The new web siteThe new web site

Thank you for your attention!Thank you for your attention!Thank you for your attention!Thank you for your attention!