Decision xxiv/7 Task Force Report



Download 1.87 Mb.
Page1/38
Date conversion17.01.2017
Size1.87 Mb.
TypeReport
  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   38



MONTREAL PROTOCOL

ON SUBSTANCES THAT DEPLETE

THE OZONE LAYER

UNEP


Report Of The

Technology And Economic Assessment Panel

September 2013

Volume 2

Decision XXIV/7 Task Force Report

Additional Information to Alternatives on ODS
UNEP

September 2013 Report of the

Technology and Economic

Assessment Panel

Volume 2
Decision XXIV/7 Task Force Report

Additional Information on Alternatives to ODS
Montreal Protocol

On Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer

Report of the

UNEP Technology and Economic Assessment Panel

Volume 2


September 2013

Decision XXIV/7 Task Force Report:

Additional Information on Alternatives to ODS

The text of this report is composed in Times New Roman.

Co-ordination: TEAP and its XXIV/7 Task Force

Composition: TEAP and its XXIV/7 Task Force

Layout: Lambert Kuijpers, Katerina Gargalasis, Paul Ashford and UNEP’s Ozone Secretariat

Reproduction: UNON Nairobi

Date: September 2013

Under certain conditions, printed copies of this report are available from:
UNITED NATIONS ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMME
Ozone Secretariat, P.O. Box 30552, Nairobi, Kenya

This document is also available in portable document format from

http://ozone.unep.org/new_site/en/assessment_panels_main.php
No copyright involved. This publication may be freely copied, abstracted and cited, with acknowledgement of the source of the material.

Printed in Nairobi, Kenya, 2013.



ISBN: 978-9966-20-017-4

UNEP

September 2013 Report of the

Technology and Economic

Assessment Panel

Volume 2

Decision XXIV/7 Task Force Draft Report

Additional Information on Alternatives to ODS

DISCLAIMER

The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP) co-chairs and members, the Technical and Economic Options Committee, chairs, co-chairs and members, the TEAP Task Forces co-chairs and members, and the companies and organisations that employ them do not endorse the performance, worker safety, or environmental acceptability of any of the technical options discussed. Every industrial operation requires consideration of worker safety and proper disposal of contaminants and waste products. Moreover, as work continues - including additional toxicity evaluation - more information on health, environmental and safety effects of alternatives and replacements will become available for use in selecting among the options discussed in this document.

UNEP, the TEAP co-chairs and members, the Technical and Economic Options Committee, chairs, co-chairs and members, and the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel Task Forces co-chairs and members, in furnishing or distributing the information that follows, do not make any warranty or representation, either express or implied, with respect to the accuracy, completeness, or utility; nor do they assume any liability of any kind whatsoever resulting from the use or reliance upon any information, material, or procedure contained herein.


ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The UNEP Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and the XXIV/7 Task Force co-chairs and members wish to express thanks to all who contributed from governments, both Article 5 and non-Article 5, furthermore in particular to the Ozone and the Multilateral Fund Secretariat, as well as to a large number of individuals and organisations involved in Protocol issues, without whose involvement this assessment would not have been possible.

The opinions expressed are those of the Panel and its Task Force and do not necessarily reflect the reviews of any sponsoring or supporting organisation.
The TEAP and its XXIV/7 Task Force thank the Academy for Fire Protection in Moscow, Russian Federation, for hosting the TEAP meeting, 9-12 April 2013 where inputs from Parties were reviewed, the outline for a draft report was discussed and proposals were made for a next round of drafting in April 2013, after which reviews took place by email circulation during the first week of May 2013. The draft report was then made available to the Parties, who commented during and after the 33rd OEWG meeting in Bangkok, June 2013. All comments were taken on board in finalising the report, which was done via email circulation. The final Task Force report was then again circulated to all Task Force members and to TEAP for a final review round in August 2013. Thanks are indebted to all reviewers. The report was subsequently submitted to Parties for consideration at the MOP-25 in Bangkok, October 2013.

Foreword

The May 2013 TEAP Report

The May 2013 TEAP Report consists of three volumes:


Volume 1: May 2013 TEAP Progress Report

Volume 2: September 2013 TEAP XXIV/7 Task Force Report

Volume 3: May 2013 TEAP XXIV/8 Task Force Report

Volume 1

Volume 1 contains the MTOC essential use report, progress reports, the MB CUN report etc.



Volume 2

Volume 2 is the Report of the TEAP XXIV/7 Task Force on additional information on alternatives to ozone-depleting substances. A draft report was made available May 2013, the final report was made available the beginning of September 2013.



Volume 3

The separate Volume 3 of the TEAP Progress Report contains the report of the Task Force responding to Decision XXIV/8.


The UNEP Technology and Economic Assessment Panel:


Lambert Kuijpers, co-chair

NL

Kei-ichi Ohnishi

J

Bella Maranion, co-chair

USA

Roberto Peixoto

BRA

Marta Pizano, co-chair

COL

Jose Pons-Pons


VEN

Stephen O. Andersen

USA

Ian Porter

AUS

Paul Ashford

UK

Miguel Quintero

COL

Mohamed Besri

MOR

Ian Rae

AUS

David Catchpole

UK

Helen Tope

AUS

Biao Jiang

PRC

Dan Verdonik

USA

Sergey Kopylov

RF

Ashley Woodcock

UK

Michelle Marcotte

CDN

Masaaki Yamabe

J







Shiqiu Zhang

PRC


UNEP

September 2013 Report of the

Technology and Economic Assessment Panel

Volume 2


Decision XXIV/7 Draft Task Force Report

Additional Information on Alternatives to ODS
Table of Contents Page


Foreword vi

Executive Summary 1

1 Introduction 11

1.1 Terms of Reference 11

1.2 Scope and coverage 11

1.3 Composition of the Task Force 11

1.4 The Structure of the XXIV/7 report 12

2Methodological approach in addressing the Decision 15

2.1Commercial availability 15

2.2Proof of technical feasibility 15

2.3Environmentally Sound Technologies 16

2.4Cost effectiveness 16

2.5Negative Environmental Impacts 17

2.6Quantifying avoided/avoidable impacts 17

2.7Low Global Warming Potential 19



3Dealing with ‘what could have been avoided’ 20

3.1‘What could have been avoided’ - Refrigeration and air conditioning 20

3.2‘What could have been avoided’ – Foams 22

4 Refrigeration and air conditioning 35

4.1 ODS alternatives 35

4.2 Over-arching issues 47

4.3 Potential penetration rates in the RAC sector 51

4.4 Domestic refrigeration 54

4.4.1 Introduction 54

4.4.2 HFC-134a 55

4.4.3 HC-600a 55

4.4.4 Other refrigerant alternatives 56

4.4.5 Not-In-Kind 56

4.5 Commercial refrigeration 57

4.5.1 Stand-alone equipment 57

4.5.2 Condensing units 58

4.5.3 Centralised systems 58

4.6 Transport refrigeration 60

4.7 Industrial refrigeration 62

4.8 Air conditioning and heat pumps 63

4.8.1 Small self-contained (window, portable, through-the-wall, packaged terminal) 63

4.8.2 Mini-split (non-ducted) 64

4.8.3 Multi-split 67

4.8.4 Split (ducted) 69

4.8.5 Ducted split commercial and non-split air conditioners 69

4.8.6 Hot water heating heat pumps 70

4.8.7 Space heating heat pumps 71

4.9 Chillers 73

4.9.1 Positive displacement chillers 73

4.9.2 Centrifugal chillers 75

4.10 Mobile air conditioning 76

4.10.1 Cars 77

4.10.2 Public transport 78



5 Foams 81

5.1 ODS alternatives 81

83

5.2 Polyurethane - appliances 83



5.2.1 Commercially available alternatives to Ozone Depleting Substances 83

5.2.2 Emerging Alternatives 85

5.2.3 Barriers and restrictions 86

5.3 Polyurethane - boardstock 87

5.3.1 Commercially available alternatives to Ozone Depleting Substances 87

5.3.2 Emerging alternatives 88

5.3.3 Barriers and restrictions 88

5.4 Polyurethane - panels 89

5.4.1 Commercially available alternatives to Ozone Depleting Substances 89

5.4.2 Emerging alternatives 91

5.4.3 Barriers and restrictions 93

5.5 Polyurethane - spray 93

5.5.1 Commercially available alternatives to Ozone Depleting Substances 93

5.5.2 Emerging alternatives 94

5.5.3 Barriers and restrictions 95

5.6 Polyurethane – in-situ/block 95

5.6.1 Commercially available alternatives to Ozone Depleting Substances 95

5.6.2 Emerging alternatives 96

5.6.3 Barriers and restrictions 97

5.7 Polyurethane – integral skin 97

5.7.1 Commercially available alternatives to Ozone Depleting Substances 97

5.7.2 Emerging alternatives 99

5.7.3 Barriers and restrictions 100

5.8 Extruded polystyrene - board 100

5.8.1 Commercially available alternatives to Ozone Depleting Substances 100

5.8.2 Emerging alternatives 101

5.8.3 Barriers and restrictions 102

5.9 Phenolic foams 102

5.9.1 Commercially available alternatives to Ozone Depleting Substances 102

5.9.2 Emerging alternatives 103

5.9.3 Barriers and restrictions 104

6 Fire protection alternatives to Ozone Depleting Substances 105

6.1 Introduction 105

6.2 Response to Question 1(a) 106

6.2.1 Commercially available, technically proven alternatives to ODS for total flooding fire protection using fixed systems 106

6.2.1.1 Halocarbon Agents (with ODP zero) 106

6.2.1.2 Inert Gas Agents 107

6.2.1.3 Carbon Dioxide 107

6.2.1.4 Water Mist Technology 108

6.2.1.5 Inert Gas Generators 108

6.2.1.6 Fine Solid Particles (Powders) 108

6.2.2 Commercially available, technically proven alternatives to ODS for local application fire protection using portable systems 108

6.2.2.1 Carbon Dioxide 109

6.2.2.2 Halogenated Agents 109

6.2.2.3 Dry Chemical 109

6.2.2.4 Water 110

6.2.2.5 Fine Water Spray 110

6.2.2.6 Aqueous Salt Solutions 110

6.2.2.7 Aqueous Film-forming Foam 111

6.3 Response to Question 1(b) 111

6.3.1 Alternative total flooding agents under development for use in fixed systems 111

6.3.2 Alternative local application agents under development for use in portable systems 111

6.4 Response to Question 1(c) 111

6.5 Response to Question 1(d) 112

6.6 Response to Question 1(e) 113


7Solvents 115

7.1 Introduction 115

7.2 Response to Question 1(a) 116

7.2.1 Commercially available, technically proven alternatives for solvent cleanings 116

7.3 Response to Question 1(b) 119

7.3.1 Alternatives Under Development 119

7.4 Response to Question 1(c) 120

7.4.1 Barrier and restrictions; the feasibility of options to HCFCs in solvents 120

7.5 Response to Question 1(d) 124

7.6 Response to Question 1(e) 124



8 Dealing with what can be avoided in the period to 2020 125

8.1 What can be avoided in future – Refrigeration and Air Conditioning 125

8.1.1 Introduction and methodology 125

8.1.2 Stationary air conditioning 126

8.1.3 Commercial refrigeration 128

8.1.4 Both subsectors together 131

8.2 What can be avoided in future – Foams 133

9 Conclusions 143

10 Material submitted by Parties 145

10.1 Submissions received before May 2013 145

10.2 Submissions received during MOP-25, June 2013 152

10.3 Submissions received around the middle of July 2013 155



11 List of acronyms and abbreviations 157

12 References 159




  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   38


The database is protected by copyright ©hestories.info 2017
send message

    Main page