Air Conditioning Choices: A Necessary Plan
- - -
Carl E. Salas, P.E.
Salas O'Brien Engineers, Inc.
San Jose, CA 95112

  1. BACKGROUND

Having traveled to or having been associated with colleagues who have traveled to most continents, I continue to hear the statement: Don’t tell us about air conditioning, no one here uses air conditioning. It’s too expensive. However, is important for all of us in the energy community to realize that there is very little air conditioning in 3rd world countries because THEY ARE 3rd WORLD COUNTRIES. But there are considerable structural changes occurring which are finding international sources of financing supporting projects in any country. Already there is becoming a gray area between 3rd world countries and "modern" countries and societies. At the same time, global warming trends are becoming more and more evident.

All of this points towards local professionals who know their countries but who also understand the choices for air conditioning. Local professionals need to be able to offer technical expertise to the new generation of business people and developers who will DEFINITELY require air conditioning in modern buildings in the 21st century. Otherwise, the local professional will be trapped in a 3rd world mentality while all of the young, aggressive businessmen and engineers will be moving towards modern (air conditioned) buildings and facilities. The simple reality is that no 21st century office with computers and hubs and routers can exist without air conditioning; no 21st century factory, with sophisticated robotics and highly trained and motivated people can exist without air conditioning!

In considering the above, it is important to note that the United States government was a "part time" government until the mid 1930’s. It was just too hot and humid in Washington D.C. to carry out the business of government except for 6 months out of the year. With reliable and reasonably priced air conditioning systems fully commercialized in the 1930’s the U.S. congress was able to convene on a full time basis. Of course, there are many people who may argue that this wasn’t necessarily beneficial. But air conditioning, especially in a modern society and certainly in the 221st century, is going to be a way of life.

WORLD ISSUES:
Agreements and ongoing changes to the Montreal Protocol and, in the United States, the Clean Air Act place the professional in a difficult situation as regards electric cooling. New restrictions and new equipment seem to appear every day; and some make obsolete or diminish the most educated plans of even the best managers or engineers.

What follows is a discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of Gas Cooling as it can be framed against electric cooling, current CFC rules, anticipated CFC limitations and the alternative options presented by electric cooling technologies.

2. HISTORY and PERSPECTIVE
Although absorption cooling has been used on a widespread commercial basis since the 1800's and early 1900's, there has been a general reluctance by commercial and industrial planners to apply gas cooling technologies. Until recently, a simple comparison of gas vs. electric cooling technologies looked like this:

 Absorption (Gas) Cooling vs. Electric Cooling:
• Larger "footprint" requirement (i.e. per ton physical size is larger than electric)
• Requires larger cooling tower and condenser pumps (i.e. per ton condenser and condenser water system are larger than electric).
• Significantly larger first cost than electric ($400US+ per ton vs. $250US to $300US per ton for electric)
Historically, because of these size and cost issues, it has been relatively easy to ignore the many subtle advantages of gas cooling. However, since 1987 when the Montreal Protocol first came into existence the issues surrounding electric cooling have become unstable, complicated and expensive. Coincident with the more complicated and unstable electric cooling issues, gas cooling issues and gas costs have remained stable while the technology itself has improved.

Before gas cooling advantages are discussed, the recent complications regarding electric cooling must be fully exposed. The best place to start is with the Montreal Protocol.

3. THE MONTREAL PROTOCOL
Most facility managers and facility planners know that the Montreal Protocol exists. In fact, the Montreal Protocol has forever changed the selection of refrigerants (both in the US, and throughout the world). However, most of us are not aware of the evolution of this historic agreement as evidenced by the following table:

Table 2

THE ON-GOING EVOLUTION OF THE MONTREAL PROTOCOL
Montreal Protocol signed by 43 nations in Sept. '87
• freeze CFC production by 1990; decrease 20% by 1994; 50% by 1999
• Hold follow-up negotiations

London Meeting, June 1990
• added to the list of controlled compounds: HCFC's Methyl Chloroform, and Carbon Tetrachloride
• Accelerated phase-out of CFC's to 100% by 2,000

Copenhagen Meeting, 11/92
• added to the list of controlled compounds methyl bromide
• accelerated phase-out of CFC's to 100% by 1996
• Accelerated phase-out of HCFC's

Vienna Convention and beyond 11/95
• Upheld 2020/2030 phase out dates for HCFC's
 

From the above table it becomes clear that there continues to be significant world pressure on any and all refrigerants associated with electric cooling. Following an early interest in only CFC's, even the relatively benign HCFC's have been bombarded by world environmental factions. This was never more in evidence than at the 1995 Vienna Convention where a dedicated and concentrated effort by the U.S. was required to off-set off a movement to GREATLY accelerate the phase out of HCFC's. Don't forget, that just a few years ago, HCFC's were touted as "the solution" to the CFC phase out issues. Yet, now, just a few years later, there remains significant pressure to phase out R-22 (HCFC-22) and even R-123 (HCFC-123). And yet these two refrigerants comprise two of the three major "alternate refrigerants" used in electric chillers with greater than 150 tons capacity.

Bear in mind that CFC's and HCFC's as "ozone depleting compounds" had left HFC's reasonably free of environmental controversy. However, this changed with the Rio De Janeiro Global Environmental Summit in 1990 and, more recently, with the Kyoto Summit in 1997. At these conferences, global warming issues took center stage.

Because HFC's such as R-134a are said to have significant "Global Warming Potential", and because world agreements for phase out of CFC's and HCFC's have now been formalized, HFC's continue to come under significant environmental analysis.

At the 1995 International Conference on CFC's and Halon Alternatives, for instance, a vocal European contingent pointed out that many European nations do not use HFC-134a as the refrigerant of choice even in their refrigerators because of their concern for global warming.

More recently, specific targets were agreed to by the U.S. and other countries (U.S. global warming targets follows):

Kyoto Protocol
Fall 1997

U.S. to reduce emission of 6 greenhouse gasses by 7% during the compliance period: 2008 to 2012

Overall, 34 developed nations must collectively reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 5.2% during the compliance period, including 8% for the European Union and 6% in Japan

6 Gases:

Carbon dioxide (CO2) - base year 1990
Methane (CH4) - base year 1990
Nitrous Oxide (N20) - base year 1990
Perfluorocarbons (PFC’s) - base year 1990 or 1995
Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6) - base year 1990 or 1995
Hydrofluorocarbons (HFC’s) - base year 1990 or 1995
As we conclude the discussion of the Montreal Protocol, and the Global Environmental Summits, let us not forget that CFC's will always be thought of as THE BEST refrigerants with regard to stability, cost to manufacture and efficiency. None of the "alternative refrigerants" have properties of stability, efficiency and cost to manufacture that are better than CFC-11 and CFC-12.

4. THE CLEAN AIR ACT
Title VI of the U.S. Clean Air Act is the part of the Clean Air Act that brings the U.S. in compliance with the World agreements made in the Montreal Protocol. Even these, requirements, however, are in continuous change. Likewise the paperwork associated with compliance is significant.

A thorough understanding of Title VI, Sections 608 and 609 of the Clean Air Act involves hundreds of pages of reading and thousands of pages of interpretations. Yet the simple decision to use gas absorption cooling in place of electric cooling results in the ability to completely ignore the Clean Air Act as it relates to refrigerants and ozone depletion.

Until November of 1995, HFC's were exempt from compliance to the Clean Air Act. For this reason, many planners and facility managers chose HFC-134a as the refrigerant of choice for their electric cooling needs (i.e. instead of HCFC-22 or HCFC-123). However, in November of 1995, HFC-134a was no longer exempted from the many rules and issues surrounding refrigerants and the Clean Air Act. Hence, of the only three refrigerants currently available for electric cooling over 150 tons, ALL are under the jurisdiction of Title VI of the Clean Air Act.

Just a few of the significant issues associated with electric cooling as impacted by Title VI of the Clean Air Act include:

a) Allowable Leakage: Current "allowable" annual leakage of any CFC, HCFC, HFC based refrigerants (essentially ALL refrigerants associated with electric cooling) is limited to 15% per year; 35% per year for industrial refrigeration).

This allowable leakage level may be further tightened in the near future. More important than this is the simple fact that ANY and ALL users of CFC, HCFC or HFC based refrigerants MUST keep documentation associated with the leakage rate (and subsequent refrigerant charging) of each and every piece of refrigeration or air conditioning equipment.

Of course, because absorption refrigeration is water based, there is no requirement surrounding leakage or related documentation.

b) Intentional Venting of Refrigerants: Venting of any CFC, HCFC or HFC based refrigerant, in any but a "de minimus" amount is illegal and is subject to prosecution of up to $25,000 per day per violation. In addition, anyone who reports a violation or even a suspected violation of venting will receive a $10,000 reward. This creates a potential adversarial relationship between various service companies and staff and management.

In order to fully appreciate the extent of the paperwork involved in the event of a suspicion of illegal venting, Exhibit A identifies the checklist items that the EPA uses in investigating a suspected venting violation.

c) Recycle Recovery Equipment (RRE):
During maintenance, of CFC, HCFC or HFC containing equipment (i.e. any electric cooling equipment, the Clean Air Act requires that approved and certified RRE equipment be used to recycle the refrigerant (i.e. to ensure that no venting occurs). For an example of the complex specifications surrounding Recycle Recovery Equipment the reader is directed toward a comparison of various models currently on the market.

In addition to considering the many technical details associated with RRE selection, and in addition to the expense of the equipment, the purchaser and user of recycle recovery equipment must also consider:

• It's significant size and weight
• Significant storage and handling requirements for RRE
• Potential cross contamination of refrigerants during RRE use
• Maintenance of RRE
• Speed of operation of RRE
• Complexity of operation of RRE
• Significant variations between RRE manufacturers
• Certification of RRE
 
d) New Refrigerants:
A list of refrigerants for electric cooling is available through or from various organizations manufacturers, and suppliers. Note that there are more than 25 new refrigerants on the market and that the list is growing. The "front runner" refrigerants, HCFC-123 and HFC-134a were developed in the last 20 years and the remaining 23 refrigerants have been developed in the past 10 years. Compare this to CFC's which have been tried and true since the 1920's (and, of course, gas absorption cooling which has been tried and true long before 1900).

All of the currently available refrigerants ARE new; and are "blends" or "zeotropes" or "azeotropes" which are comprised of various HFC's, HCFC's and hydrocarbon (or other) refrigerants or gases. As such, these refrigerants exhibit less stability than those used in the past for conventional electric cooling. Likewise, they require expensive and new synthetic oils called polyol esters. These oils often require additives and special treatment due to their sensitivity to moisture.

Because the new refrigerants are less stable than the phased out refrigerants there are also problems associated with such characteristics as separation and temperature "glide". As you can guess, there are also many management and maintenance issues surrounding any and all of the new refrigerants used for electric cooling.

5. INCREASING LIMITATIONS, STANDARDS AND RESTRICTIONS RELATING TO SAFETY
Because CFC's have been phased out and so many new refrigerants are being commercialized, there has been renewed interest (and research) relating to refrigerant safety. A review of the material safety data sheets for HCFC-123 or R-134a (excerpt provided below) causes refrigerant safety concerns: Human health effects of overexposure by eye contact may include eye irritation with discomfort, tearing, or blurring of vision. Skin contact with the liquid may cause drying of the skin with repeated contact resulting in mild skin irritation with discomfort or rash. Overexposure by inhalation may cause temporary nervous system depression with anesthetic effects such as dizziness, headache, confusion, in-coordination, and loss of consciousness: temporary alternation of the heart's electrical activity with irregular pulse, palpitations, or inadequate circulation, or the effects of exclusion of oxygen with grossly excessive exposure. Individuals with preexisting diseases of the central nervous or cardiovascular system may have increased susceptibility to the toxicity of excessive exposure. Note too that the new, alternate refrigerants have affected numerous changes to ASHRAE Standard 34 and ASHRAE Standard 15 (U.S. standards governing "safe" use of refrigerants). These standards have become significantly more complex since 1989. The complexity results in significantly stringent mechanical room requirements as defined by ASHRAE 15 and confusing and complex refrigerant classifications as defined by ASHRAE 34. For example, the old "Group 1" refrigerants have been replaced by Group 1A and Group 1B. Alternative refrigerants such as R-406A contain hydrocarbons and therefore have a DOUBLE classification (Group 1A/2A).

All mechanical rooms defined and described in ASHRAE 15, 1994 now require mechanical ventilation, refrigerant sensors, at least two Self Contained Breath Apparatus, differing types of multiple sensors, and a plethora of other issues or requirements. Just the analysis relating to ASHRAE 15 requires significant time and promulgates significant confusion relating to the question: "Exactly what IS required based on the type and quantity of CFC, HCFC or HFC refrigerants and the layout of the mechanical room?".

6. PERIPHERAL EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS
Because CFC, HCFC and HFC based refrigerants are complex, environmentally hazards and relatively expensive, there are now many types of peripherals typical offered by each of the major manufacturers of electric cooling. Of course, the types of peripherals can and do vary significantly between manufactures and change periodically.

The most important piece of peripheral equipment required for Low Pressure chillers is a purge unit. As with other peripheral equipment discussed above, purge units vary significantly from manufacturer to manufacture.

7. SOME ADVANTAGES OF ABSORPTION COOLING
In addition to the many issues surrounding electric cooling as cited above, the advantages of absorption cooling also include:

Cost and availability of gas: The natural gas industry was deregulated in the U.S. more than 10 years ago. As a result the infrastructure relating to purchase of deregulated natural gas is well established. In addition, when cooling is in greatest demand (i.e. in the summer) natural gas prices are at their lowest.

Significant efficiency improvements: Thanks to renewed interest in gas cooling technologies there have been significant increases in gas cooling efficiencies.

Gas deregulation stability vs. confusion and transition in the electric industry: Gas cooling makes up over 70% of total tonnage in Japan. Electric industry deregulation in the U.S. is only beginning and will not be completed until half way through the first decade of the 21st century. Until that time, the situation regarding availability, price and stability for electricity is in complete contrast to that of natural gas. This adds another degree of instability to the issue of electric cooling.

Peak Power Pricing: Even if electric uncertainly wasn't on the horizon, the simple fact that electric cooling requirements are at their peak when electric cost is at its peak cost results in a vulnerability that any user of electric cooling is exposed to. A way to circumvent the coincident high price of electricity with the high demand for electric cooling has been Thermal Energy Storage (TES). However, when compared to absorption cooling, TES is complex, controls and, at times, maintenance intensive and requires even a LARGER footprint.

Diversity: Coincident with the need for stability in this era of change is a need for diversity. Gas cooling, by itself or combined in a hybrid situation with electric cooling presents the facility manager with the diversity he or she needs to guarantee stability in a changing environment.

8. CONCLUSION
What appeared, at the beginning of this paper, to be a straightforward decision between electric cooling and gas cooling (i.e. based on size and first cost) becomes a much more difficult decision based on risk, instability and uncertainty.

Yes, absorption cooling has some disadvantages of size and first cost. However, when compared to this updated Table 2, these problems are relatively simple to resolve. Compare this with the unpredictability of laws, international environmental pressure, peripheral equipment requirements, unstable refrigerants, changing safety and mechanical room issues and the sheer number of emergent refrigerants.

As a result, we find the rather simple and predictable disadvantages of gas cooling compared to complex and unpredictable disadvantages of electric cooling may be summarized like this:

A COMPARISON OF DISADVANTAGES
- - -
Electric Cooling: Changing, complex and unpredictable disadvantages
vs.
Gas Cooling: Specific, predictable and easily solved disadvantages
Size and first cost are relatively simple problems. Problems with uncertainty and changing requirements are almost insurmountable.

It is a small wonder that Japan, with it's focus on long term solutions, total quality management and profitability has more than half of it's total installed tonnage in absorption cooling. Air conditioning is definitely in your future... no matter what country you work in. But as you are familiarizing yourself with issues of the more conventional electric cooling systems and refrigerants, it will be important to also familiarize yourself with gas cooling technologies.

 
Table 2
DISADVANTAGES OF COOLING TYPES
- - -
GAS VS. ELECTRIC
Electric Cooling
1) Larger "Footprint" Requirement (i.e. per ton size is larger than electric).
2) Requires Larger Cooling Tower and Condenser Pumps (i.e. per ton condenser and condenser water system is larger than electric)
3) Significantly Larger First Cost than electric ($400+ per ton vs. $250 to $300 per ton for electric)1) Changing Configurations and Performance

Electric Cooling
1) Changing Configurations and Performance
2) Changing Requirements of Clean Air Act
3) Maintenance More Complex when including Recycling Equipment and ASHRAE 15 requirements.
4) Increased and volatile cost of refrigerants
5) Unstable number and type of refrigerants
6) Changing Equipment and Peripherals
7) ASHRAE 34 and ASHRAE 15 Mechanical Room Requirements (and Fire/Safety Requirmenets Severe and changing
8) Recycle/recovery technologies expensive and difficult to compare over equipment life.
9) Utility deregulation in a volatile and unpredictable state
10) Global warming issues surrounding the new refrigerants are unpredictable. Significant environmental pressure against all current "front runner" alternative refrigerants.