Refrigeration and Air-Conditioning Technology Workshop

306 Pages·2010·5.69 MB·English

d
ORNL-6797
REFRIGERATION AND
AI R-COND ITIONI N G
TECHNOLOGY
WORKSHOP
Proceedings of the 1993
Non-Fluorocarbon Refrigeration
I and Air-Conlditioni n g
MARTIN MARIE-A
Technollogy Works hop
Breckenridge, Colorado
Junle 23-25,1993
Editor
OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY
P. J. Lewis
CENTRAL RESEARCH LIBRARY
CIRCULATION SECTION
4500N ROOM 175
LIBRARY LOAN COPY
DO NOT TRANSFER TO ANOTHER PERSON
If you wish someone else to see this
report, send in name with report and
the library will arrange a loan.
UCN.7969 (3 9-77)
Ava#able to DOE end DOE oontracOors frm tha Qfka of ScMifk and Tahi-
crvl Iiflmmwn, P.O. Box 62, Oak Ridge, l*w 37831; prices evcuilebie fran (615)
'
576-8401, FTS 826-8401.
DoEF133215 OWCMrmNo
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
(m-93) 1910-1400
-prenars RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE ANNOUNCEMENT AND DISTRIBUTION OM6 Burden
w r no l DOE OF DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (DOE) SCENWFIC AND TECHNICAL INFORMATION (STI) DIsclosum
F 133215and 16 statmenton
Molimratmmaarr, (See msfrucbons on reverse side. Wse plain bond paper if addhonal space is needed for explanations.) fw8masrde
obsolele
’ART I (DOE. DOE Contractors. Grantees, and Awardees complete)
A. Product/Report Data 0 c. Software-Additional forms are required. Follow
1. /Award) Contract No, DE-ACO5-84OR214OO - _ 1 instructions on the back of this form.
. -.. - ._ . - - .- 0 d. Other (Provide complete descnption) -____---- - - -
2. Title Proceedings of _the 1993 Nonf luorocarbon - -- .
Refrigeration, Air-conditioning Technology __ - - __ - - - -
.
Worksh op Breckenri dge,-Colorada .... June23Y
25, 1993
3. ProducUReport Descnption
9 a. Report (Complete all that apply) B. Patent Information
(1 ) &Print 0 Nonprint (specify) ___ - Yes No
(2)0 Quarterly 0 Semiannual 0 Annual 0 Final C3 Is any new equipment, process, or matenal disclosed?
QTopical 0 Phase I 0 Phase I1 If yes, identify page numbers - --- - --
0 Other (specify) ........ - __
e
_________ 0 Has an invention disclosure been submitted?
._____
Dates covered thru If yes, identify the disclosure number and to whom it was
0 b. Conference/Meeting/Presentation( Complete all that apply) submitted. Disclosure number __ -_ _____
(1) 0 Print 0 Nonprint (specify) Submitted to
0 Published proceedings 0 Q Are there patent-related objections to the release of this STI
0 Other (specify) - product? If so, state the objections. -
- -
(2) Conference Title (no abbreviations)
- __ __ __________-
- .
_I_
.. - - - - -_ __ ___ -- ___-_________ - __
Location (city/state/wuntty) c. Contact (Person knowledgeable of content)
-_ ______________ -_ ___ _ __ - __ Name .............................
Date(s) (m/dy) Lth ru ( m / d y ) I - Phone
Sponsor - - Position ~ ___- ....... -_.....
_ ..-________ I-_ ____ Organization ~--. ._ ..
PART 11 (DOEDOE Contractors completelor as instmcted by DOE contracting officer)
0 2. Classified (Standard Announcement only)
0 3. Special Handling (Legal basis must be noted below.)
0 a. Unclassified Controlled Nuclear Information (UCNI)
2. Fundina Off icek) (NOTE: Essential data) 0 b. Export ControVlTAWEAR
. ___ 0 c. Temporary hold pending patent review
B. Copies for Transmittal to AD-21 (OSTI) 0 d. Translations of copyrighted material
(STI must be of sufficient qualify for microtilminglcopying.) 0 e. Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR)
3 1. One for classified processing 0 f. Commercializable information
3 2. (number) for standard classified distribution 0 (1) Proprietary
13.T wo unclassified for processing 0 (2) Protected CRADA information
J 4. ...... (number) for program unclassified distribution Release date J-_
~5j.j UC/C Cateaory 350 __ 0 (3) Other (explain) _____-_______.
_ _ _ ~ _ _ _ _ _ ____ _
3 6. Additional instructions/explanations _______ 0 4. Program Directed Special Handling (copyattached)
....................... .............................. . - ......... -. ........ - ...
D. Releasing Official
. __ A. Patent Clearance (“ron e)
.......... - -. .. __ . ________ _____ 0 Has been submitted for DOE patent clearance
e
........................... .. .... . .- - ................ DOE patent clearance has been granted
(Do not identify Sigma categories for Nuclear Weapons Data reports, B. Released by
abnedlo dwo.) n ot provide additional instructions that are inconsistent with C (Name) ..r..E. RRt __i._-. 4--. ......... ......... - ......... .............
C. Recommendation (‘ratleast one) (Signature) . . .---_____-- -- ..........
jll 1. Progradstandard AnnouncemenUDistribution (Phone) (.6 1.5 ) 5.7.4-67.52 -. .........
(Available to US. and foreign public) (Date) March ... 1...1.-,-.1.-9. . .94 .... .......... ..................... .....................
ORNL-6797
355
75 4
REFRIGERATION AND AIR-CONDITIONING TECHNOLOGY WORKSHOP
Proceedings of the 1993 Non-Fluorocarbon
Refrigeration and Air-conditioning
Technology Workshop
Breckenridge, Colorado
June 23-25,1993
Editor
Pamela J. Lewis
Technical Editor
D. M. Counce
Prepared by the
OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY
Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831- 2008
managed by
MARTIN MARIETTA ENERGY SYSTEMS, INC.
for the
US. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
under Contract DE-AC05-840R21400
I
11M1b lRlTlllhl1 1lM11I1R11I1E1ln11A11 E11 kIE RICllY 1 1S1Y11S1T11E1M11S11 L11I1B1R1 IblRl IlElSl l
I

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................... 1
...................................................
WrittenSubmission 2
.....................................................
Oral Presentation 2
. ............................................................
2 SUMMARY 3
.............................................
Hydrocarbon Refrigeration 3
Free-Piston Oil-Free Compressor Developments ............................. 4
Stirling Cycle Refrigeration .............................................. 4
Compression/Absorption Hybrid Heat Pump Cycles ........................... 5
Ammonia Compression ................................................ 5
Absorption .......................................................... 5
Evaporative Cooling ................................................... 6
Desiccant Cooling .................................................... 6
.. ................................................
Adsorption Cooling 7
;
....................................................
Sonic Compression 7
................................................
Thermoacoustic Cooling 7
Magnetic Refrigeration ................................................ 8
Hydraulic Refrigeration ................................................ 8
Thermoelectric Cooling ................................................ 9
Metal Hydride Cooling ................................................. 9
Sorption ............................................................ 9
Advanced Fluorocarbon Compression Systems ............................... 9
.................................................
APPENDIX A. AGENDA A-1
APPENDIX B . LIST OF PARTICIPANTS .................................... B-1
APPENDIX C. PAPERS PRESENTED BY SPEAKERS ......................... C-1
APPENDIX D . QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ................................ D-1
APPENDIX E. DISTRIBUTION ............................................ E-1

INTRODUCIION
Production of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) for virtually all applications in refrigeration and air
conditioning will be phased out by 1996 in developed countries. This production ban is required under
the Montreal Protocol and its subsequent revisions. Some individual countries have agreed to an even
more rapid phaseout of CFCs and are also undertaking to regulate or prohibit the use of
hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) and hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs). Many fundamentally different
technologies could serve as alternatives to vapor compression systems using HCFCs or HFCs. These
include Stirling cycle refrigeration, gas-fired absorption chillers, thermoelectric cooling, magnetic
refrigeration, and acoustic compression, among others. Conventional compression equipment using
“natural” refrigerants such as ammonia or hydrocarbons is another viable alternative. It is extremely
important that policies regulating the uses of refrigerants be developed with an accurate
understanding of what technologies could be developed to replace conventional compression systems.
Questions need to be answered concerning when end-use equipment based on these technologies
could be available; what segments and fractions of the market would be affected; and perhaps most
important, how the equipment effiencies, energy use, and ultimately indirect CO, emissions compare
with equipment designed to use HCFCs or HFCs. Without knowledge of these issues, there may be
prolonged periods when essential products are not available because fluorocarbons were forced out
of use before viable alternative technologies could be developed. There could .also be substantial
increases in worldwide energy use and CO, emissions because decisions were made on incomplete
or theoretical predictions of system energy efficiencies.
The Alternative Fluorocarbon Environmental Acceptability Study (AFEAS), a consortium of
fluorocarbon manufacturers, and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) are collaborating on a
project to evaluate the energy use and global warming impacts of CFC alternatives. The goal of this
project is to identify technologies that could replace the use of CFCs in refrigeration, heating, and
air-conditioning equipment; to evaluate the direct impacts of chemical emissions on global warming;
and to compile accurate estimates of energy use and indirect CO, emissions of substitute
technologies. The first phase of this work focused on alternatives that could be commercialized before
the year 2000; the results and conclusions are presented in the 1991 report, Energy and Global
Warming Impacts of CFC Alternative Technologies. The time frame under consideration limited this
phase of the study primarily to HCFC and HFC replacements for CFCs.
.The second phase of the project is examining not-in-kind and next-generation technologies that
could be developed to replace CFCs, HCFCs, and HFCs over a longer period. As part of this effort,
Oak Ridge National Laboratory held a workshop in Breckenridge, Colorado, on June 23-25, 1993.
The preliminary agenda covered a broad range of alternative technologies and at least one speaker
was invited to make a brief presentation at the workshop on each technology. Some of the invited
speakers were unable to participate, and in a few cases other experts could not be identified. As a
result, those technologies were not represented at the workshop.
Each speaker was asked to prepare a five to seven page paper addressing six key issues
concerning the technology he/she is developing. These points are listed in the sidebar. Each expert
also spoke for 20 to 25 minutes at the workshop and answered questions from the other participants
concerning the presentation and area of expertise. The primary goal of the presentations and
discussions was to identify the developmental state of the technology and to obtain comparable data
on system efficiencies. The papers submitted by each speaker are reproduced in Appendix C, along
1
2
with the questions raised after each presentations and answers prepared by each speaker. Note that
the material in Appendix C has not been edited or reviewed, and its technical accuracy is not
endorsed by AFEAS, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, or DOE.
There is an inherent conflict of interest between AFEAS as sponsors of the workshop and the
proponents of technologies that could compete with products of the AFEAS companies. There is also
a possible bias within Oak Ridge National Laboratory because of its involvement in existing or prior
contracts between DOE and some but not all of the companies represented by the invited speakers.
To maintain objectivity throughout the meeting, a panel of independent experts from academia,
industry, government, and environmental interest groups was assembled to conduct the technical
sessions of the workshop. Members of this panel were as follows:
Dr. Horst Kruse of the University of Hannover in Germany,
Mr. William Kopko of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Dr. Shigehiro Uemura of Daikin Industries, and
Mr. Damian Durrant of Greenpeace.
Dr. Kruse served as chairman of this panel. He questioned the speakers at the end of their
presentations to ensure that they addressed the six key issues, permitted the other panel members
to comment on the presentations and ask questions, and opened the discussion to the other workshop
participants.
Copies of the papers submitted by the speakers, some of their visual aids, and questions and
answers for each technology are included in these proceedings.
SUMMARY
At the conclusion of the workshop, Dr. Kruse also led the panel members in compiling a
summary of each technology and its stage of development, potential for commercialization, and
relative effect on system energy use compared to HCFC and HFC systems. The panel was not asked
to reach a consensus or conclusions about the future viability of any technology. The panel’s
observations on the technologies are summarized in the following sections.
Hydrocarbon Refrigeration
’
Domestic refrigerators using hydrocarbon refrigerants have already been commercialized in
Europe, although they have not been introduced into the markets in Japan or the United States
because of product liability concerns. In fact, it is questionable whether a significant market potential
will develop in either of those countries because of the concerns raised about using a flammable
refrigerant. The market potential throughout Europe and in the developing countries is considered
to be high. The energy efficiency of refrigerators using hydrocarbons is more or less the same as that
of a refrigerator using HFC-134a; conflicting claims are made by the advocates and the opponents
of using hydrocarbons in a refrigerator, and no conclusive data from directly comparable tests appear
to be available.
3