Final TEAP XXV/5 Task Force report Presentation to MOP-26

Paris, 17 November 2014

Decision XXV/5To request the TEAP to prepare a report for consideration by the

Open-ended Working Group at its thirty-fourth meeting and an updated report to be submitted to the Twenty-Sixth Meeting of the Parties that would:

(a) Update information on alternatives to ozone-depleting substances in various sectors and subsectors and differentiating between Article 5 and non-Article 5 parties, considering regional differences, and assessing whether they are;

2

Comparison between XXIV/7 & XXV/5

3

Decision XXIV/7 Decision XXV/5

• Commercially available • Commercially available

• Technically proven • Technically proven

• Environmentally sound • Environmentally sound

• Efficacy • Easy to use

• Health, Safety & Environmental

• Safe use – flammability & toxicity

• Cost effectiveness • Economically viable & cost effective

• High ambient temperatures • High ambient temperatures

• High urban densities • High urban densities

Dec XXV/5 – Decision elements 1(b) & 1(c)

Taking into account such issues as: Increased demand (particularly in RAC)

Specific attention to growth in Article 5 Parties

 

4

‘Estimate current and future demand for ODS alternatives’  

‘Assess the economic costs, implications & environmental benefits of various scenarios of avoiding high GWP alternatives’  

Taking into account: The items listed under Clause 1(a)

Differentiation between Article 5 and non-Article 5 Parties

 

Decision XXV/5 Task ForceThe TEAP established a XXV/5 Task Force (RTF) to prepare this report

to respond to Decision XXV/5. The composition of the Task Force is as follows:

Co-chairs Paul Ashford (UK, co-chair FTOC) Lambert Kuijpers (The Netherlands, co-chair TEAP & RTOC); Roberto Peixoto (Brazil, co-chair RTOC)

Members Many members from FTOC and RTOC Individual TOC co-chairs from CTOC, HTOC and MTOC

5

Changes between Draft & Final Reports Inclusion of an unconstrained Business-as-Usual (BAU) baseline to

differentiate from scenarios incorporating actual and projected regulation

Refrigeration & Air Conditioning Summary Graphs updated to provide information by sector as well as by refrigerant in the BAU and Mitigation Scenarios

Improved explanation of the servicing and growth assumptions

Foam Data enhanced to provide tabulated numerical information as well as graphical presentations for comparison purposes

New Annex introduced to collate information on High Ambient Temperature operation of RAC equipment

Additional quantitative information, where possible, for sectors other than RAC and foams

6

Foam – alternatives to ODS and HFCs

7

HFO-1233zd(E) now likely to be offered by more than one supplier

Foam BA Consumption – BAU Scenario by Region

8

Foam Blowing Agents – BAU Scenario:A5 Parties

9

XPS particularly significant due to later transition & high GWP alternatives

Refrigeration/AC - alternativesAlternatives listed (with comments to technology, commercialisation,

energy efficiency, costs, barriers and restrictions)

6 low GWP pure fluids (R-717, R-744, HCs, HCFC (HCFOs), HFC(HFOs), (GWP<300)

14 low GWP HFC(HFO) based blends plus HFC-323 HFC based blends (GWP>1000)

Sub-sectors covered are:Domestic RefrigerationCommercial RefrigerationTransport RefrigerationLarge-scale Refrigeration

10

• Air Conditioning

• Heat Pumps

• Chillers

• Mobile Air Conditioning

11

RAC – alternatives to ODS and HFCs Sector CFCs HCFCs

HFCsPure &Blends

HCsCO2

Ammonia

UnsaturatedHFCs Pure

Blends with UnsaturatedHFCs

Domestic Refrigeration

CFC-12 

  HFC-134a HC-600a   HFC-1234yf R-450A, “XP-10”

Commercial Refrigeration

(SA, CU, CS)

CFC-12R-502

HCFC-22

HFC-134aR-404AR-407AR-407F

HC-600a HC-290

CO2HFC-1234yf

HFC-1234ze(E)

R-444B, R-448A, R-449A, R-450A, “L-40”, “L-41”, “DR-5”, “XP-10”Ammonia

Transport Refrigeration   HCFC-22

HFC-134aR-410A HC-290

HC-1270CO2

 HFC-1234yf

R-444B, R-448A, R-449A, R-450A, “L-40”, “L-41”, “DR-5”, “XP-10”

R-407C

Industrial refrigeration   HCFC-22

HCFC-22HCFC-123

HC-1270HC-290

AmmoniaCO2

 HFC-1234yf

R-444B, R-448A, R-449A, R-450A, “L-40”, “L-41”, “DR-5”, “XP-10”

Water heating heat pumps   HCFC-22

HCFO-1233zd(E)

HC-290 HC-600a

CO2Ammonia

HFC-1234yf HFC-

1234ze(E)

R-444B, R-448A, R-449A, R-450A, “L-40”, “L-41”, “DR-5”, “XP-10”

Air Conditioners   HCFC-22

HFC-134a HFC-32R-410AR-407C

HC-290CO2

 HFC-1234yf

 R-444B, R-448A, R-449A, R-450A,

“L-40”, “L-41”, “DR-5”, “XP-10”

ChillersCFC-12CFC-11

HCFC-22HCFC-123

HFC-134aR-404AR-410AR-407C

HC-290 HC-1270

AmmoniaCO2

HFC-1234yf HFC-

1234ze(E)

R-444B, R-448A, R-449A, R-450A, “L-40”, “L-41”, “DR-5”, “XP-10”HCFO-

1233zd(E)

Mobile Air Conditioner CFC-12  

HFC-134aR-410AR-407C

  CO2 HFC-1234yfR-450A, “XP-10”

 

Historical use Current use on a commercial-scale Potentially feasible or limited use such as for demonstration, trials, niche applications, etc

12

The "High Ambient Temperature” Challenge • HFC-134a (GWP 1300) is presently used as an HCFC alternative

• HC-290 (propane) and HC-1270 (propene) perform well at high temperature ambient conditions but are flammable

• HFC-32 (GWP 677) is probably suitable for application in small and medium systems

• In principle, the low-GWP mixtures R-444B, R-446A, R-447A, DR-5 and ARM-71 that include HFOs are suitable, but costs are unresolved

• R-717 chillers can and are used, although the very high discharge temperatures need to be accommodated for inter-stage and oil cooling

• HCFC-1233zd(E) is considered as an alternative in low pressure centrifugal chillers, both at moderate and high ambient temperatures

• CO2 is less suitable because of its low critical temperature and solutions will need to be engineered

RAC – BAU scenarioBased upon a bottom-up model for demand, banks and emissions

Timeframe chosen 2015-2030, because 2025 would not show enough changes in various scenarios

No measures or bans on HFCs are considered beyond 2010

Economic growth by using recent growth parameters and extrapolating them into the future

Looking at all RAC subsectors

Results of the demand for the period 2015-30 in tonnes of certain refrigerants or blends as well as in tonnes CO2-eq (including low GWP in the BAU approach)

13

Refrigeration/AC - BAU Non-A5

14

Refrigeration/AC - BAU A5

15

Refrigeration/AC demand largest

16

Foams

RAC – MIT- scenariosPurpose is to show the importance of MAC and commercial refrigeration

first

Introduction years (of the “ban”) in Non- Article 5 and Article 5 are different for these sectors

Secondly, in the MIT-2 scenario, the importance of the use of HFCs and the conversion to low GWP in stationary AC is the big issue

17

RAC – BAU-MIT- scenarios A5

18

RAC – Costs MIT-2 scenario A5

Costs for conversion of the Article 5 MIT-2 scenario

19

Sector Conversion to Amount(tonnes)

Manufacturingconversion (tonnes)

Costs(US$ million)

MAC Low GWP 75,000 45,000 270-810Refr.sectors Low GWP 90,000 54,000 324-972Stationary AC Low GWP 135,000 81,000 486-1458Total 1080-3240

RAC – BAU-MIT- scenarios NA5

20

RAC – Costs MIT-2 scenario n-A5

Costs for conversion of the Non-Article 5 MIT-2 scenario

21

Sector Conversion to Amount (tonnes)

Manufacturing conversion (tonnes)

Costs (US$ million)

MAC Low GWP 75,000 45,000 270-810 Refr.sectors Low GWP 55,000 33,000 198-594 Stationary AC Low GWP 175,000 105,000 630-1890 Total 1098-3294

Foams – MIT-1 scenarioNon Article 5 countries

Linear 5 year phase-out approach across all sectors

Re-cast EU regulation (all foam types by 2023)

Other Countries (all foam types by 2030)

Article 5 countries

All PU transitions out of HCFCs complete by 2020

All XPS transitions out of HCFCs complete by 2026

PU Spray and XPS adopt 25% high GWP solutions

Other foam sectors adopt 5% high GWP solutions

22

Foams – MIT-2 scenarioNon Article 5 countries

Linear 5 year phase-out approach across all sectors

Enhanced EU regulation (all foam types by 2020)

Other Countries (all foam types by 2025)

Article 5 countries

All PU transitions out of HCFCs complete by 2018

All XPS transitions out of HCFCs complete by 2024

All foam sectors adopt 0% high GWP solutions

23

Foams - BAU-MIT for NA5

24

Foams BAU-MIT for A5

25

Cost & Funding Factors in the Foam Sector

26

Foam transitions are generally more cost effective than RAC transitions

A challenge for the foam sector is the large number of Small Medium Enterprises in both non-Article 5 and Article 5 parties

Lack of economies of scale make it difficult to transition to flammable low-GWP solutions, but the cost of HFOs might limit options further

Under current parameters, any funding support for transitions under the MLF (A5 parties only) is unlikely to fully meet the costs, and the enterprise will often need to co-fund.

In other sectors (e.g. XPS), multi-national companies will often be making the funding decisions

Except for the EU, there are no finalised regulatory drivers in non-A5 parties which encourage early transition out of HFCs unless process upgrades and related investment offers a technology ‘break point’.

27

Cumulative climate impact : BAU-MIT-1

~ 3,800 Mtonnes CO2-eq saved by 2030

Cumulative climate impact : BAU-MIT-2

28~ 12,000 Mtonnes CO2-eq saved by 2030

Medical usesMetered dose inhalers use HFC-134a and HFC-227ea.

Cumulative HFC emissions between 2014-2025 are estimated to have a climate impact of 173,000 ktonnes CO2 equivalent under a business-as-usual scenario.

Completely avoiding HFC MDI alternatives in this sector is not yet technically or economically feasible because, currently:

There are economic impediments in switching from HFC MDIs to multi-dose DPIs, especially for salbutamol;

10-20% of patients cannot avoid using HFC MDIs with available options.

In the sterilants sector, where there is almost non-existent use of HFCs and a wide variety of alternatives available, the impact of avoiding HFCs would be minimal.

29

Status of halon alternatives for Civil Aviation AircraftLavatory trash receptacle extinguishing (lavex) systems

Vast majority of new production aircraft are installed with HFC-227ea or HFC-236fa

Some airlines are also replacing existing halon 1301 lavex systems during routine maintenance

Civil Aviation’s smallest use of halon

Civil aviation has not approved alternatives in any other applications, even though some agents have passed required Minimum Performance Standards testing

M o n t r e a l P r o t o c o l M O P - 2 6 m e e t i n g, 1 7 – 2 1 N o v e m b e r 2 0 1 4, P a r i s 30

Status of alternatives for Civil Aviation AircraftFor all other applications, HFCs and HCFC Blend B (handhelds) are

commercially available, but equipment has increased space and weight, and Civil aviation expresses environmental concerns. As a result, Civil aviation is not pursuing certification of these agents

For handhelds, a “low GWP” unsaturated HBFC known as 2‑BTP has less space and weight impact compared to other alternatives. If given regulatory approval, it could be used to meet the ICAO phase-out date of December 31, 2016 for in production aircraft

For engine APUs, HFC-125 has been used successfully in engine/APU fire protection on US military aircraft since the early 1990s, and is currently being developed for use on a military derivative of a large commercial aircraft (Boeing 767; military derivative KC-46)

M o n t r e a l P r o t o c o l M O P - 2 6 m e e t i n g, 1 7 – 2 1 N o v e m b e r 2 0 1 4, P a r i s 31

HFC-227ea and -236fa Estimated Installed BaseTwo different reports identified for HFC-227ea and one for -236fa Owing to other uses, there are a lot of uncertainties associated with the

various estimates, and ultimately the final estimate, of the size of the fire protection installed base of these HFCs. The final estimates should be considered order-of-magnitude estimates only

Assuming a 3% average emission rate from fixed fire protection applications, where HFC-227ea is used, its installed base from the period 2006-2010 is in the range 30,000-50,000 MT

Even more uncertainly exists for HFC-236fa. Assuming a 4 % emission rate for handheld extinguishers, the fire protection installed base in 2010 would be 300 – 500 MT if 10% of total emissions, to 3000-4000 MT if 90%. This is one to two orders of magnitude less than the order of magnitude estimate of the HFC-227ea fire protection installed base

M o n t r e a l P r o t o c o l M O P - 2 6 m e e t i n g, 1 7 – 2 1 N o v e m b e r 2 0 1 4, P a r i s

Solvents – Status in non-A5 and A5 Parties

33

HCFCs market is very small and will be phased out in 2015.

Unsaturated substances such as HFOs and HCFOs are also becoming available for solvent use to replace HCFCs, HFCs as well as HFEs.

It’s difficult to collect HCFC data for solvent use precisely as HCFC-141b is used mainly as a blowing agent.

Chlorinated solvents seem to be the main option to replace HCFCs in a variety of cleaning applications due to their strong solvency and cost effectiveness. Exposures should be strictly controlled owing to their toxicity

n-PB is an effective and useful solvent but widespread growth in its use would seem difficult to justify because of toxicity concerns.

non-Article 5 Parties

Article 5 Parties

Summary of Findings from XXV/5 Final Report

34

Information about the available alternatives continues to evolve and the capabilities and limits of technologies are being further characterised

BAU scenarios have been defined for both A5 and non-A5 parties to 2030

Refrigeration and Air Conditioning is the dominant sector in terms of BAU consumption

It has been possible to identify plausible measures that support two mitigation scenarios beyond the current BAU assumptions

MIT-1 could cumulatively deliver 3,800 Mtonnes CO2-eq saving by 2030 with MIT-2 delivering 12,000 Mtonnes CO2-eq in the same time period

This assessment been refined between meetings but technologies continue to mature and cost information is still emerging