Draft TEAP XXV/5 Task Force report Presentation to OEWG 34

Paris, 14 July 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 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

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

Influencing factors when structuring reportThe 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

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

Foam – alternatives to ODS and HFCs

9

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

Foam Blowing Agents – BAU Scenario non-A5

10

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

Foam Blowing Agents – BAU Scenario:A5 Parties

11

Driven by compliance with Decision XIX/6 (XPS substantial challenge)

Assumptions made on alternatives to project climate impact

Foam Blowing Agents – BAU Scenario:A5 Parties

12

XPS particularly significant due to later transition & high GWP alternatives

Foam BA Consumption – BAU Scenario by Region

13

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(HFCOs), (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

14

• Air Conditioning

• Heat Pumps

• Chillers

• Mobile Air Conditioning

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

• 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

RAC – "High Ambient Temperature” Alternatives (2)

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

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)

18

Refrigeration/AC - BAU Non-A5

19

Refrigeration/AC - BAU A5

20

Refrigeration/AC demand largest

21

Foams

RAC – MIT-1 scenarioSubsector 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, nowhere22

RAC – MIT-2 scenarioSubsector 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 years23

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

24

RAC – MIT-1 for A5

25

RAC – MIT-2 for A5

26

RAC – A5 MIT-1 & 2 savings

27

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)

Year 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 BAU 227.9 561.3 940.9 1564.1 2333.3 Reductions MIT-1 0 0 0 122.5 289.7 MIT-2 0 0 106.2 465.6 1388.2

RAC – BAU-MIT- scenarios A5

28

RAC – Costs MIT-2 scenario A5

Costs for conversion of the A5 MIT-2 scenario

29

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 – NA5 MIT-1 & 2 savings

30

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)

Year 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 BAU 409.3 601.4 637.6 732.8 829.6 Reductions MIT-1 0 0 54.8 103.7 146.6 MIT-2 0 5.1 114.1 330.4 503.6

RAC – BAU-MIT- scenarios NA5

31

RAC – Costs MIT-2 scenario n-A5

Costs for conversion of the Non-A5 MIT-2 scenario

32

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

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

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

34

Foams - BAU-MIT-1-2 for NA5

35

Foams BAU-MIT-1-2 for A5

36

Cost & Funding Factors in the Foam Sector

37

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’.

38

Cumulative climate impact : BAU-MIT-1

~ 3,000 Mtonnes CO2-eq saved by 2030

Cumulative climate impact : BAU-MIT-2

39~ 11,000 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.

40

Fire protection 1The 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

Fire protection 2Where 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

Solvents – Status in non-A5 and A5 Parties

43

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-A5 Parties

A5 Parties

Summary of Findings from XXV/5 Draft Report

44

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 Mtonnes CO2-eq in the same time period

Opportunities exist to refine these assessments between meetings