1 / 44

Decision XXV/5

Decision XXV/5. Draft TEAP XXV/5 Task Force report Presentation to OEWG 34 Paris, 14 July 2014. Decision XXV/5.

tasanee-charoenkul
Télécharger la présentation

Decision XXV/5

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Decision XXV/5 Draft TEAP XXV/5 Task Force report Presentation to OEWG 34 Paris, 14 July 2014

  2. Decision XXV/5 • To 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

  3. Comparison between XXIV/7 & XXV/5 3

  4. Dec XXV/5 – Decision elements 1(b) & 1(c) ‘Estimate current and future demand for ODS alternatives’ • Taking into account such issues as: • Increased demand (particularly in RAC) • Specific attention to growth in Article 5 Parties ‘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

  5. Decision XXV/5 Task Force • The 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, co-chair RTOC); • Roberto Peixoto (Brazil, co-chair RTOC) Members • Rajaram Joshi (India, prospective FTOC member) • Dave Catchpole (UK, co-chair HTOC) • Denis Clodic (France, member RTOC) • Daniel Colbourne (UK, member RTOC) • Rick Duncan (USA, prospective member FTOC) • Michael Kauffeld(Germany, member RTOC) 5

  6. Decision XXV/5 Task Force (2) • Tingxun Li (China, RTOC member) • Bella Maranion (TEAP, co-chair) • Keiichi Ohnishi (Japan, co-chair CTOC) • Rajan Rajendran (USA, RTOC member) • Enshan Sheng (China, member FTOC); • Helen Tope (Australia, co-chair MTOC) • Helen Walter Terrinoni (USA, member FTOC) • Samuel Yana-Motta (Peru, outside expert) • Zhang Jianjun (China, co-chair CTOC) • Allen Zhang from the FTOC was also co-opted to consult on certain aspects of the report relating to XPS in China. 6

  7. Influencing factors when structuring report • The relatively short period between the delivery of the final XXIV/7 Report (September 2013) and the preparation of the XXV/5 Report (May 2014). • Recognition that Decision XXV/5 seeks to generate an analysis of the Article 5 and non- Article 5 implications of avoiding high GWP alternatives to Ozone Depleting Substances • Recognition that some sectors (specifically refrigeration, air conditioning and foam) have data which allow for the characterisation of a Business-As-Usual (BAU) case and related mitigation scenarios. • Recognition that other sectors (especially solvents and fire protection) do not have reliable data from which relevant mitigation scenarios can be derived 7

  8. Layout of the Report for Accessibility One of the key objectives was to avoid substantial repetition of the XXIV/7 findings on alternatives – particularly in the early Chapters of the Report – hence full update in an Annex Cross references are made to the Annex, where updated alternatives information is available in similar form to that presented in XXIV/7 Chapter 3 focuses on how current technology trends will influence BAU For refrigerants there is differentiation between commercial use (C), limited use (L) and feasibility (F) by sector Chapters containing qualitative information only have been updated and left in the body of the report The Medical Uses chapter is new and offers some quantitative analysis 8

  9. Foam – alternatives to ODS and HFCs HFO-1233zd(E) now likely to be offered by more than one supplier 9

  10. Foam Blowing Agents – BAU Scenario non-A5 • Based on existing blowing agent data projected to 2030 • Only incorporates finalised regulatory action (i.e. F-Gas Regulation) • Recognises, but does not quantify such actions as proposed changes to the US SNAP Program via the President’s Climate Action Plan EU F-Gas Regulation Phase-Down Schedule 10

  11. Foam Blowing Agents – BAU Scenario:A5 Parties • Driven by compliance with Decision XIX/6 (XPS substantial challenge) 11 Assumptions made on alternatives to project climate impact

  12. Foam Blowing Agents – BAU Scenario:A5 Parties • XPS particularly significant due to later transition & high GWP alternatives 12

  13. Foam BA Consumption – BAU Scenario by Region 13

  14. Refrigeration/AC - alternatives • Air Conditioning • Heat Pumps • Chillers • Mobile Air Conditioning • Alternatives 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(HFCOs), (GWP<300) • 14 low GWP HFC(HFO) based blends plus HFC-32 • 3 HFC based blends (GWP>1000) • Sub-sectors covered are: • Domestic Refrigeration • Commercial Refrigeration • Transport Refrigeration • Large-scale Refrigeration 14

  15. RAC – alternatives to ODS and HFCs

  16. RAC – "High Ambient Temperature” Alternatives (1) • HFC-134a is presently used • HFC-32 is probably suitable for application in small and medium systems • In principle, the mixtures R-446A, R-447A, R-444B, DR-5, ARM-71 and ARM are suitable • R-717 chillers can and are used, although the very high discharge temperatures need to be accommodated for through inter-stage and oil cooling

  17. RAC – "High Ambient Temperature” Alternatives (2) • HCFC-1233zd(E) is considered as an alternative in low pressure centrifugal chillers, both at moderate and high ambient temperatures. • CO2 is not suitable because of low critical temperature • HC-290 and HC-1270 perform well at high temperature ambient conditions

  18. RAC – BAU scenario • Based upon a bottom-up model for demand, banks and emissions • Timeframe chosen 2015-2030, because 2025 would not show enough changes in various scenarios • Incorporates current EU F-gas regulation • No measures or bans on HFCs in other countries • 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)

  19. Refrigeration/AC - BAU Non-A5 19

  20. Refrigeration/AC - BAU A5 20

  21. Refrigeration/AC demand largest Foams 21

  22. RAC – MIT-1 scenario Subsector and “ban” approach Non Article 5 countries EU regulation Ban on MAC new 134a equipment by 2017 in all countries Domestic refrigeration out of HFC-134a No R-404A in new equipment by 2020 in all countries (R-407C) Article 5 countries Same measures as above for non-A5, five years later No measures in stationary air conditioning, nowhere 22

  23. RAC – MIT-2 scenario Subsector and “ban” approach Non Article 5 countries EU regulation Ban on MAC new 134a equipment by 2017 in all countries Domestic refrigeration out of HFC-134a No R-404A in new equipment by 2020 in all countries (only low GWP) Stationary AC new manufacturing to low GWP (GWP<300) as of 2020 Article 5 countries Same measures as above for non-A5, with the same years 23

  24. RAC – MIT- scenarios Purpose 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 24

  25. RAC – MIT-1 for A5 25

  26. RAC – MIT-2 for A5 26

  27. RAC – A5 MIT-1 & 2 savings Current and future total demand of refrigerants for the period 2010-2030 in Article 5 countries for the BAU (Mt CO2 equivalent) and savings for the MIT-1 and MIT-2 scenarios (Mt CO2 equivalent) 27

  28. RAC – BAU-MIT- scenarios A5 28

  29. RAC – Costs MIT-2 scenario A5 Costs for conversion of the A5 MIT-2 scenario 29

  30. RAC – NA5 MIT-1 & 2 savings Current and future total demand of refrigerants for the period 2010-2030 in Non-Article 5 countries for the BAU (Mt CO2 equivalent) and savings for the MIT-1 and MIT-2 scenarios (Mt CO2 equivalent) 30

  31. RAC – BAU-MIT- scenarios NA5 31

  32. RAC – Costs MIT-2 scenario n-A5 Costs for conversion of the Non-A5 MIT-2 scenario 32

  33. Foams – MIT-1 scenario Non 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 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 33

  34. Foams – MIT-2 scenario Non 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 34

  35. Foams - BAU-MIT-1-2 for NA5 35

  36. Foams BAU-MIT-1-2 for A5 36

  37. Cost & Funding Factors in the Foam Sector • 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 low-GWP solutions that are flammable • 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 offered a technology ‘break point’. 37

  38. Cumulative climate impact : BAU-MIT-1 38 ~ 3,000 Mtonnes CO2-eq saved by 2030

  39. Cumulative climate impact : BAU-MIT-2 39 ~ 11,000 Mtonnes CO2-eq saved by 2030

  40. Medical uses • Metered 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. 40

  41. Fire protection 1 The principle chemical alternatives to ODS are HFCs and a fluoroketone, as fully described in the TEAP response to Decision XXIV/7. Although these alternatives are available in both Article 5 and non-Article 5 parties, their use pattern depends on the hazard threat to be protected against as well as local regulations and relative costs. High ambient temperatures do not affect the use patterns of these agents. However, extremely low ambient temperatures such as those found in arctic regions or the outside of aircraft at high altitude do. 41

  42. Fire protection 2 Where space and weight are not limiting factors, there is recent, but limited, information that in some parts of the world, inert gas systems can be cost competitive with halocarbon systems, an unanticipated situation. The production of clean agent ODS alternatives is performed by very few manufacturers who treat their information as proprietary. Thus, there is no basis on which to assess the economic costs and implications and environmental benefits of avoiding high GWP alternatives to ozone depleting substances. 42

  43. Solvents – Status in non-A5 and A5 Parties non-A5 Parties • 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. A5 Parties 43

  44. Summary of Findings from XXV/5 Draft Report • Information about the available alternatives continues to evolve and the capabilities and limits of technologies are being further characterised • Business-as-Usual scenarios have been defined through to 2030 for both A5 and non-A5 parties • Refrigeration and Air Conditioning is the dominant sector in terms of BAU consumption • It has been possible to identify plausible measures that support two further mitigation scenarios beyond the current BAU assumptions • MIT-1 could cumulatively deliver 3,000 Mtonnes CO2-eq saving by 2030 with MIT-2 delivering 11,000 MtonnesCO2-eq in the same time period • Opportunities exist to refine these assessments between meetings 44

More Related