UNEP_Guideance on the Process for Selecting Alternatives to HCFCs in Foams

8/8/2019 UNEP_Guideance on the Process for Selecting Alternatives to HCFCs in Foams

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unepguideance-on-the-process-for-selecting-alternatives-to-hcfcs-in-foams 1/109

Guidance on the Process

for selectinG alternatives

to hcfcs in foams

Sourcebook on technology options for

safeguarding the ozone layer and the

global climate system

p h a s e - o u t

o f h c f s

i n

t h e

f l e x i b l e

a n d

r i g i d

f o a m s

e c t o r



2

Guidance on the Process for Selecting Alternatives

to HCFCs in FoamsSourcebook on technology options for Safeguarding the

Ozone Layer and the Global Climate System

Prepared by:

Caleb Management Services Ltd

The Old Dairy, Woodend Farm

Cromhall, Wotton-Under-Edge

Gloucestershire, GL12 8AA

United Kingdom

July 2010

Copyright © United Nations Environment Programme, 2010

This publication may be reproduced in whole or in part and in any form for educational or non-prot

purposes without special permission from the copyright holder, provided acknowledgement of the source

is made. UNEP would appreciate receiving a copy of any publication that uses this publication as a

source.

No use of this publication may be made for resale or for any other commercial purpose whatsoever

without prior permission in writing from the United Nations Environment Programme.

Disclaimer

The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the

expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the United Nations Environment Programme

concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning

delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Moreover, the views expressed do not necessarily represent

the decision or the stated policy of the United Nations Environment Programme, nor does citing of trade

names or commercial processes constitute endorsement.

UNEP Job number: DTI/1281/PA



UNEP DTIE Foam Sourcebook - 2010

3

I ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This publication was produced by the

UNEP Division of Technology, Industry and

Economics (DTIE) OzonAction Branch as

part of UNEP’s work programme as an

Implementing Agency of the Multilateral

Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal

Protocol.

The project was managed by the following

team in the OzonAction Branch, UNEP

DTIE, France:

Mr. Rajendra Shende, Head

Mr. James S. Curlin, Interim Network and

Policy Manager

Mr. Ruperto De Jesus, Programme Assistant

This publication was written by:

Mr. Paul Ashford, Managing Director, Caleb

Management Services Limited

Prof. Miguel Quintero, Consultant

with support from

Dr. Jason Yapp, Senior Consultant, Caleb


Ms Hookyung Kim, Project Ofcer, Caleb


The quality reviewers were:

Dr. Mike Jeffs, Consultant

Mr. Bert Veenendaal, Principal, RAPPA Inc.

Mr. Bob Russell, President, RJR Consulting

Other reviewers were:

Dr. Ezra Clark, Programme Ofcer, OzonAction

Branch, UNEP DTIE, France

Mr. Etienne Gonin Project Coordinating

Consultant, EC JumpStart Project, OzonAction

Branch, UNEP DTIE, France

Dr. Janusz Kozakiewicz, Associate Professor,

Head of Ozone Layer and Climate ProtectionUnit, ICRI, Poland

Design:

Mr. Andrew Laver, Creative Director, UK Design

II GLOSSARY

ABS – Acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene

CAR – Climate Action Reserve

CDM – Clean Development Mechanism

CEIT – Countries with Economies in Transition

CFC – Chlorouorcarbons

CHP – Combined Heat and PowerCOC – Polyether(C-O-C stretch)

COOC – Polyester(C-O-O-C stretch)

DME – Dimethyl Ether

Executive Committee – Executive Committeeof the Multilateral Fund of the MontrealProtocol

FTOC – The UNEP Foams Technical OptionsCommittee

FUA – The functional unit approach

GEF – The Global Environment Fund

GWP – Global Warming Potential

HC – HydrocarbonsHCFCs – Hydrochlorouorocarbons

HFC – Hydrouorocarbons

HFO – Hydrouoroolen – an alternative namefor unsaturated HFCs

HIPS – High Impact Polystyrene

HPMP – HCFC Phase-out Management Plan

IOC – Incremental Operating Costs

IPCC/TEAP – Intergovernmental Panelon Climate Change, the Technology andEconomic Assessment Panel

ISF – Integral skin foam

ISO – International Standards Organisation

ITH – the Integrated Time Horizon

LCA – Lifecycle Assessment

LCCP – Lifecycle Climate Performance

LVC – Low volume ODS consuming country

MCII – The Climate Indicator underdevelopment at the MLF secretariat

MDI – Methylene Di-phenyl Di-isocyanate

MF – Methyl Formate

MLF –United Nations Multilateral Fund for theImplementation of the Montreal Protocol

NCO – Polymers containing isocyanate groups

ODP – Ozone Depletion Potential

ODS – Ozone Depleting Substances

OEL – An occupational exposure level

OH – Hydroxyl

World Bank/OORG – The World Bank’s OzoneOperations Resource Group

ORNL – the US Department of Energy’s Oak

Ridge National Laboratory

PFC – Peruorocarbon

PIR – Polyisocyanurate

PU OCF – Polyurethane One ComponentFoam

PUR – Rigid Polyurethane

RAC – Refrigeration and Air Conditioning

s-HFCs – Saturated HFCs

SME – Small Medium Enterprises

SNAP – Signicant New Alternatives Program

SROC – Special Report on Ozone and Climate(IPCC/TEAP, 2005)

TDI – Toluene diisocyanate

TEWI – Total Equivalent Warming Impact

TLV – Threshold Limit Value

u-HFCs – Unsaturated HFCs

VCM – The Voluntary Carbon Market

VCS – The Voluntary Carbon Standard

VOC – Volatile Organic Compounds

XPS – Extruded polystyrene foams



4

III Why this sourcebook is important

At the Meeting of the Parties that ttingly took

place in Montreal in October 2007 to celebrate

the establishment of the Montreal Protocol

on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer20 years earlier, the Parties entered into an

agreement which has taken the Protocol

community into a new phase of activity.

Noting that the projected on-going use of

hydrochlorouorocarbons (HCFCs) was likely

to place additional and avoidable ozone

and climate burdens on the atmosphere,

the Parties, in Decision XIX/6 (see full text

in Annex 10-3), created a framework within

which the phase-out of use of HCFCs could be

accelerated over and above the 2016 freeze

and nal phase-out in 2040 originally foreseen

within the Beijing Amendment. The new stepsintroduced as a result of the Decision imposed

an earlier freeze, together with a step-wise

country-level reduction in the intervening years

leading to a phase-out of HCFC use in most

applications by 2030.

For many, the step was clearly necessary

in view of the rapid growth in consumption

of HCFCs in developing (Article 5) countries

as existing HCFC uses continued to grow

in importance (e.g. commercial refrigeration)

and chlorouorocarbon (CFC) phase-out

requirements necessitated the selection of

interim HCFC-based technologies, often oneconomic grounds.

In practice, the Decision has created a

number of precedents, perhaps the most

important of which is the fact that Decision

XIX/6 is the rst under the Montreal Protocol

to explicitly address climate concerns in its

framework. Although it does not mandatetechnology choices that are optimal from a

climate perspective, the Decision identies and

allocates the responsibilities for consideration

of the climate component of technology

selection. In doing so, it also requires the

development of appropriate methods for

assessing climate impacts, not only at product

level but also at enterprise level, since the

Montreal Protocol continues to provide its

technology transition support to the enterprise

itself or to the government agencies managing

national transitions.

With the ozone obligations from Decision XIX/6mandated, and the climate components (as

well as other environmental effects) requiring

assessment and prioritisation, there is now a

more complex set of criteria to be managed

than has ever been the case before. It is

not always the case that what is the best

for ozone is best for climate and therefore

value judgements need to be made, not

only at enterprise level, but also at national

compliance level. The introduction of HCFC

Phase-out Management Plans (HPMPs) by the

Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund

for the implementation of the Montreal Protocol

(Executive Committee) aims at ensuring that

the overall objectives of Decision XIX/6 are

achieved. However, to be fully effective, these

need to straddle the whole phase-out period

from 2010 to 2030. This is not possible, at

the enterprise level and much of the high-level

planning needs to be completed at sectoral

level, at the very least. A list of possiblelegislative and policy options that may facilitate

HCFC phase out is included in the booklet

published recently by UNEP that can be found

at

http://www.unep.fr/ozonaction/topics/hcfc.asp

The two main sectors using substantial

quantities of HCFCs currently are the

refrigeration and air conditioning (RAC) sector

on the one hand and the foam sector on the

other (see pie chart). The current HCFC usage

patterns themselves are only part of the story,

since these will change with time depending

on the availability of alternative technologies. Inaddition, factors such as the emission proles

through the lifecycle of the products and

equipment using HCFCs affect overall climate

impact and all vary considerably between

sectors. As a consequence, all of these factors

need to be considered in parallel in order to

build up the full climate picture (see Section

3). In practice, however, both consumption

and emissions from the RAC sector are likely

to dominate the consumption and emissions

patterns for the foreseeable future.

Even though the RAC sector will remain the

primary focus for major climate benets,the foam sector is still a critical part of




5

Estimated Consumption of HCFCs in Developing Countries in 2010(~445,000 tonnes)

Other 2%

Refrigeration and

AC 77%

Foams 21%

most HPMPs, since these are driven by

consumption criteria only. Accordingly, this

Sourcebook provides guidance to the foam

sector itself, and those operating both in it

and with it, regarding the factors to be

considered when choosing alternativetechnologies within the framework of Decision

XIX/6. The guidance also gives consideration

to methods of quantifying and potentially

nancing climate benets, although notes

that not all alternative technologies are, by

denition, favourable to climate.

This Sourcebook builds on earlier technology

and policy materials, developed by UNEP

OzonAction to assist the foam industry in

Article 5 countries to phase out CFCs, and

seeks to continue and further develop that

same capacity-building and information

sharing service.

Source: IPCC/UNEP data



6

Contents




7

I ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 3

II Glossary 3

III WHY THIS SOURCEBOOK IS IMPORTANT 4

1 INTRODUCTION 8

1.1 THE CHALLENGE OF ACCELERATED HCFC

PHASE-OUT 9

1.2 GUIDANCE ON THE USE OF THIS

SOURCEBOOK 10

2 THE INTERFACE BETWEEN OZONE

DEPLETION & CLIMATE CHANGE 12

2.1 MEASURING IMPACTS – ODP, GWP AND

CARBON INTENSITY 13

2.2 DECISION XIX/6 AND THE FRAMEWORK

FOR MITIGATION 15

2.3 POTENTIAL BENEFITS FOR BUSINESS

AND THE ENVIRONMENT 16

3 METHODS OF QUANTIFYING CLIMATE

IMPACT 18

3.1 LIFECYCLE APPROACHES BASED ON

DIRECT EMISSIONS ONLY 19

3.2 LIFE CYCLE APPROACHES ALSO

CONSIDERING ENERGY 20

3.3 HYBRID APPROACHES (e.g. Functional

Unit & Climate Indicators) 21

4 FOAM MANUFACTURE AND EXISTING

FLUOROCARBON TECHNOLOGIES 24

4.1 AN INTRODUCTION TO FOAM TYPES25 25

4.2 FOAM MANUFACTURE AND THE ROLE

OF BLOWING AGENTS 29

4.3 POINTS IN THE SUPPLY CHAIN WHERE

CONSUMPTION OCCURS

(fully formulated polyol issue) 31

4.4 REASONS FOR ORIGINAL SELECTION OF

CFCs & HCFCs 32

4.5 REASONS WHY HFCs ARE POTENTIAL

REPLACEMENTS FOR HCFCs 34

4.6 WHY HFCs CAN BE SUB-OPTIMAL

SOLUTIONS FOR CLIMATE 35

5 GENERAL REVIEW OF ALTERNATIVE

BLOWING AGENTS 40

5.1 HYDROCARBONS (both directly added

and pre-blended) 41

5.2 LIQUID CARBON DIOXIDE 42

5.3 IN-SITU CARBON DIOXIDE (water blown foams) 42

5.4 OXYGENATED HYDROCARBONS (Methyl Formate,

Methylal and Dimethyl Ether) 42

5.5 CHLORINATED HYDROCARBONS (Methylene

Chloride, Trans-1,2 di-chloroethylene and

2-chloropropane) 44

5.6 SATURATED HFCs 45

5.7 UNSATURATED HFCS (HFOS) 46

6 DECISION-MAKING PROCESS 48

6.1 ESTABLISHING TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY

& ECONOMIC VIABILITY 49

6.2 EVALUATING SAFETY ASPECTS &

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 50

6.3 ASSESSING COST EFFECTIVENESS

AND PRACTICALITY 516.4 SUMMARY DECISION TREE 51

7 REVIEW OF SPECIFIC FACTORS INFLUENCING THE

SELECTION OF ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGIES AT

APPLICATION LEVEL 54

7.1 PU RIGID 55

7.1.1 PU RIGID – Domestic Refrigerators

& Freezers 61

7.1.2 PU RIGID – Other Appliances 63

7.1.3 PU RIGID – Transport and Reefers 65

7.1.4 PU RIGID - Boardstock 677.1.5 PU RIGID – Continuous Panels 68

7.1.6 PU RIGID – Discontinuous Panels 69

7.1.7 PU RIGID – Spray 70

7.1.8 PU RIGID – Blocks 72

7.1.9 PU RIGID – Pipe-in-Pipe 73

7.1.10 PU RIGID – One Component Foam 74

7.2 PU FLEXIBLE FOAMS 75

7.2.1 PU FLEXIBLE – Integral Skin (Automotive) 79

7.2.2 PU FLEXIBLE – Integral Skin (Automotive) 80

7.3 PHENOLIC 80

7.3.1 PHENOLIC – Boardstock 83

7.3.2 PHENOLIC – Blocks 84

7.4 THERMOPLASTIC FOAMS 85

7.4.1 EXTRUDED POLYSTYRENE – Board 89

7.4.2 POLYOLEFIN FOAMS 90

8 FUNDING STRATEGIES 92

8.1 FUNDING THE OZONE COMPONENT 93

8.2 CLIMATE CO-FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES WITHIN

THE MONTREAL PROTOCOL FRAMEWORK 95

9 CONCLUSIONS 96

10 ANNEXES 100

10.1 SOURCES OF INFORMATION15 101

10.2 CONTACT DETAILS OF BLOWING AGENT

& OTHER PROVIDERS 103

10.3 FULL TEXT OF DECISION XIX/6 106



8

Section 1.Introduction

“Decision XIX/6 is the rst Montreal Protocol

decision to take active account of climate in

its language”



9


1.1 The Challenge of Accelerated

HCFC Phase-out The Beijing Amendment of the Montreal

Protocol, negotiated in 1999, set out the

commitment of countries operating under

Article 5 of the Protocol (developing countries)

to freeze their consumption of HCFCs at 2015

levels ahead of nal phase-out in 2040. This

commitment was made alongside a more

accelerated commitment of non-Article 5

countries (developed countries) to substantially

phase down their use of HCFCs by 2015 and

nally phase-out the small remaining ‘tail’ of

use by 2030.

It was envisaged that, by the time technology

transitions out of HCFCs in Article 5 countries

were required, the non-HCFC technology in

developed countries would already be well

established. However, what was not fully

foreseen was the fact that the backdrop

for transition in Article 5 countries would be

signicantly different than for non-Article 5

countries in at least two respects:

I. The preponderance of small, medium

enterprises (SMEs) in Article 5 countries would

make it impossible to take advantage of the

economies of scale available in non-Article 5

countries

II. By the time technology transition was being

contemplated in Article 5 countries, the impacton climate of a number of HCFC alternatives

would be fully understood and would need to

be taken into consideration

Indeed, the concern over the climate impact

of HCFCs themselves was to become

another critical factor in the policy debate.

Rapid growth in HCFC use, particularly in

the consumption of HCFC-22, became

increasingly evident through the early years

of the 21st century, leading to predictions

that much of the inadvertent climate benet

gained from the Montreal Protocol could be

lost through increased emissions of HCFCs.It was in this spirit that Parties met at the 19th

Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol

in Montreal in 2007 to address this issue.

Decision XIX/6 was the result of that

deliberation and was the rst Montreal Protocol

decision to take active account of climate

in its language, while avoiding any binding

commitments which might be considered

as global climate legislation based around

consumption rather than emission control.

The Parties concluded that, in addition to

efforts to reduce consumption by promoting

good servicing practices in the refrigerationsector, the most effective way of avoiding the

climate impact of rapid growth in HCFCs was

to accelerate their phase-out by advancingthe freeze in production/consumption to 2013,

based on the consumption in years 2009 and

2010, while introducing phase-down steps in

the subsequent years of 2015, 2020, 2025

and 2030. The ‘old’ and the ‘new’ regimes are

shown in the graphic below.

However, what became self-evident during

the nalisation of the decision was that

these additional climate benets would be

contingent on the use of HCFC substitutes

that displayed lower climate impacts. This had

not been considered as a signicant factor

when the bulk of HCFC phase-out had takenplace in non-Article 5 countries and had led

to technology transitions which were often no

better in their climate proles than the HCFCs

they replaced. Recognising this reality, Parties

were keen not to repeat this pattern in Article 5

countries but equally believed that they would

have some inuence on the outcome through

the funding mechanisms available under the

Montreal Protocol (primarily the Multilateral

Fund).

In order to highlight this opportunity, the

Parties included within the Decision language

that required the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund to ‘give priority’ to

cost-effective projects and technologies that

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

140%

2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 2028 2032 2036 2040

New

Base

Old

Base

Year

New A5 HCFC Measures

Old A5 HCFC Measures

Annual Growth Rate: 5%

Percentage of

2009-10 Baseline

Montreal Protocol HCFC phase-out schedule for Article 5 countries

Section 1.Introduction

Source: UNEP/Caleb



10

minimise other impacts on the environment,

including on the climate, taking into account

global warming potential, energy use and other

relevant factors’. One of the key aspects of this language is that it includes not only the

global warming potential of the substitute itself

but also the lifecycle implications resulting from

energy use. This will be explored further in

Section 3.

As a consequence, the Parties had set a very

challenging timeline for HCFC phase-out, with

all the legal compliance issues that this entails,

while making the selection of alternatives

more demanding than it had hitherto been in

non-Article 5 countries. As stakeholders began

to assess this, there was a growing realisation

that the priorities, both in terms of sectoralphase-out and technology choice might not be

aligned to achieve both ozone compliance and

maximum climate benet simultaneously.

In an effort to approach the subject holistically,

the Executive Committee of the Multilateral

Fund introduced the concept of an HCFC

Phase-out Management Plan (HPMP) which

would be established for each Article 5 Party

seeking to comply with Decision XIX/6. This

would focus primarily on the early steps to

accommodate the 2013 freeze and the 2015

reduction of 10% of HCFC consumption.

However, it would also need to consider theoverarching plan to meet the later phase-out

objectives, while minimising climate impact.

To plan at this level over such a long period

is proving to be a major challenge and this

Sourcebook is an attempt to assist foam

sector stakeholders in assessing the relevant

aspects.

In addition, further analysis of HCFC

consumption in Article 5 countries revealed

that the bulk of consumption was limited to

just a few countries which had signicant

manufacturing capacity for refrigeration

equipment and/or foams. For other countries,

HCFC consumption might be limited to

servicing activities in the refrigeration sector.

The challenges of meeting specic phase-down targets would be very different in

these countries and might lead to different

priorities, projects and programmes. This is

an issue that is largely beyond the scope of

this Sourcebook, since phase-out in the foam

sector will take place at the manufacturing

enterprises themselves or, where fully

formulated polyols are used, in combination

with their suppliers.. Nevertheless, care is

needed to see the foam sector strategy as part

of a larger HPMP and to realise that the pace

of that strategy may be heavily inuenced by

the on-going HCFC needs in other areas.

A further factor may be the ‘worst rst’

component of the Decision which states that:

11. To agree that the Executive Committee,

when developing and applying the funding

criteria for projects and programmes, and

taking into account paragraph 6, gives priority

to cost-effective projects and programmes

which focus on, inter alia:

(a) phasing-out rst those HCFCs with higher

ozone depleting potential, taking into account

national circumstances

….and may predicate against HCFC-141b(see Section 7).

1.2 Guidance on the use of this

Sourcebook This Sourcebook is primarily intended to

provide overarching guidance to National

Ozone Units, Implementing Agencies and

Project Proponents on the processes

and techniques used to select alternative

technologies. It does this by outlining the key

factors to be considered and the principles

that need to be applied to assess their

signicance. In Section 7 of the document,

the state of technology development in each

foam sector and the alternatives currently

available are outlined. However, this is not

done to provide denitive recommendations,

but to offer real-life examples of the decision

processes in action. These decision-processesare themselves outlined in Section 6.

The authors would stress that it would be

impossible to provide denitive guidance

on technology selection in a Sourcebook of

this type, since it would very rapidly become

outdated. Readers are therefore encouraged

to use this Sourcebook alongside other

sources of information such as the regular

reports of the UNEP Foams Technical

Options Committee (FTOC), publications by

the Implementing Agencies (e.g. those from

the Ozone Operations Resource Group of

the World Bank), National Ozone Units, theoutputs from Regional Workshops and Industry

Conferences/Publications.



11




12

Section 2. The interface betweenozone depletion andclimate change

“Knowledge of the key environmental benets

of technology selection has been shown to

provide a signicant competitive advantage in

the foam sector”



13


2.1 Measuring Impacts - ODP, GWP

and Carbon Intensity of Energy Use The scientic inter-relationship between ozone

depletion and climate change is complex -

partly because it occurs at a number of levels

simultaneously and partly because there are

feedback loops whereby changes on one

side lead to changes on the other. These

inter-linkages are extensively explained in

the IPCC/TEAP Special Report on Ozone

and Climate (SROC, 2005) and it is not the

purpose of this Sourcebook to repeat those

arguments here. Responsible technology

selection, while phasing out HCFC use, can

create a substantial overall climate benet even

when the offset of increased ozone levels (a

greenhouse gas in its own right) is taken into

account. The Montreal Protocol community

has underpinned this principle by making clear

that compliance with HCFC phase-out targets

will not be compromised for reasons of climate

protection as Decision XIX/6 is implemented.

In order to help policy-makers and otherstakeholders to assess the competing claims

of the alternatives in this complex scientic

environment, a series of metrics have been

introduced to provide guidance on the

comparative impacts of options on both the

ozone layer and on climate. These include,

ozone depletion potential (ODP), global

warming potential (GWP) and carbon intensity

of energy, each of which will be considered in

turn.

Ozone Depletion Potential (ODP) This measure of assessing the damage that a

given substance could do to the stratospheric

ozone layer was rst introduced by the UNEP

Scientic Assessment Panel in the years

running up to the instigation of the Montreal

Protocol in 1987. In simple terms, the impact

of all substances is compared to a baseline

centred on CFC-11 and CFC-12, which

are both considered to have an ODP of 1.

This process is usually called normalisation

and is a common technique for this type of

comparative analysis. Therefore HCFC-141b,

the HCFC most commonly used as a foam

blowing agent, has an ODP of 0.11 because

a molecule of HCFC-141b is likely to do

only 11% of the damage in its stratospheric

lifetime that would have been done by a

molecule of CFC-11. It can be noted that all

ozone depleting substances controlled by

the Montreal Protocol have either chlorine

or bromine atoms, or sometimes both, in

their molecules. This is often combined with

uorine. Therefore, if a molecule containsuorine but not bromine or chlorine atoms, it

can be recognised as not controlled by the

Montreal Protocol.

In practice, substances with lower ODPs often

have shorter atmospheric lifetimes than those

they replace. However, assessing precise

atmospheric lifetimes can be complex and it

may be necessary occasionally to revise ODPs

based on new scientic evidence. This can

create particular issues for policy-makers who

normally require certainty to implement policies

which need to be consistent over a number of

years. Hence, there is sometimes an ‘ofcial’value (as stated in the Annexes of the Montreal

Protocol) and a latest scientic value, which

might be marginally different. Enterprises are

encouraged to always use the ofcial value in

their assessments.

In some instances, the atmospheric lifetime of

a substance can be so short that, even though

it might contain chlorine or bromine, it is

unlikely to reach the stratosphere at all. These

substances therefore have no ozone depleting

potential in practice. However, this does not

mean that there are no circumstances under

which a stray molecule might get to the

stratosphere. Care should therefore be taken in

using terms such as “zero-ODP”, even though

they are widely used in marketing literature

and, unfortunately, as a requirement in a

number of product and building codes. Better

terminology would be negligible ODP, but this

seems to be rejected in practice because it is

less emphatic.

Stakeholders should also note that there are

a number of short life-time substances that

are not controlled under the Montreal Protocol

even though they have measurable ODPs. The

reason for this is that they are not considered

sufciently signicant by policy-makers to have

any bearing on the environmental outcome.

Enterprises could well be best served,

therefore, by using terms such as ‘controlled

under the Montreal Protocol’ or ‘not controlled

under the Montreal Protocol’, when referring to

their blowing agents. It should be further noted

that compliance with the Montreal Protocol ismeasured in terms of avoidance of controlled

substances, not avoidance of ozone depleting

substances (ODS).

Section 2. The interfacebetween ozone depletionand climate chnange



14

Global Warming Potential (GWP) The metric described as Global Warming

Potential (GWP) has a lot of similarities with

ODP in that it is a comparative assessmentof climate impact which is normalised against

carbon dioxide (CO2

= 1). Many other parallels

exist with ODP. For example, it is quite

common for substances to have an ofcial

GWP (often based on the Assessment Reports

of the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate

Change) and a latest scientic GWP. Therefore

care needs to be taken in deciding which one

to use.

Since the climate impact of a substance is

also dependent on its lifetime, decisions have

to be made about the period over which the

comparison is made. Carbon oxide itself

is a relatively long-lived molecule (50-200

years, depending on the circumstances) and

therefore a comparison over 100 years has

become accepted as something of a standard

for policy-making purposes. The selected

period is known technically as the Integrated

Time Horizon or ITH. The approach taken

under the Kyoto Protocol in adopting a ‘basket

of gases approach’ to target setting required

clear GWPs for each of the gases involved and

these were quoted in the Second Assessment

Report on the basis of a 100 year ITH. This has

also become the basis for most carbon trading

activities globally. However, the debate goeson about whether different time horizons would

be more appropriate.

The level of contribution to global warming

that can be attributed to a substance is

primarily based on the ‘space’ it occupies

in the radiative spectrum. This is referred to

technically as its degree of radiative forcing.

It so happens that chlorine and uorine

containing compounds (CFCs, HCFCs and

HFCs) occupy a particular part of the spectrum

that is otherwise uncluttered. This means that

their impact is considerably higher than would

normally be expected and leads to a highGWP. This subject is covered more specically

in Sections 4 and 5.

The main impact of the GWP of a gas is

experienced only when it is released. Therefore

efforts to reduce releases will either delay or,

at best, totally avoid the climate impact of

that gas within the lifecycle of the product

or equipment in which it is being used. For

foams, the main points of potential release are

during foam manufacture and at end-of-life.

In general, there is little emission during the

use phase – particularly from insulating foams,

where retention of blowing agent is critical

performance.

Carbon Intensity of Energy UseDecision XIX/6 requests the Executive

Committee of the Multilateral Fund to

include energy use in its consideration of technology options. This may arise from

primary consumption of fuel or from the use

of fuels to generate electricity. Where primary

consumption occurs (e.g. in the transport

sector or in the direct burning of gas, coal or

oil) the values of carbon intensity are relatively

consistent globally. The following graphic

illustrates the point for a number of fuels and

bio-fuels:

However, where fuels are used to generate

electricity, the mix of fuels will have a bearing

on the overall carbon intensity of the electricity

consumed. This can vary substantially

by country/region and will be inuenced

signicantly by the amount of renewable

energy (e.g. hydro) available. For large portions

of the refrigeration, air conditioning and

appliance sectors, electricity is the key source

of energy and hence knowledge of the carbon

intensity of local electricity is required.

In practice, the rst determination that needs

to be made is in respect to the contribution

of energy efciency impacts on overall energy

consumption. Once this value is available it can

be combined with information on the carbon

intensity of the supply to assess the overall

impact on carbon emissions. This means that

the adoption of the same technology may

have different impacts in different regions. It

may even mean that the relative ranking of a

range of technologies changes by region. An

example would be where a particularly energy

efcient technology is deployed in a region with

very high ‘renewables’ content in its electricity

supply. In such a region, the impact of its use

would be much less signicant than in a heavily

coal burning environment.

Tables exist (see below) giving average carbonintensities for electricity in specic countries

and regions, but care needs to be taken with

these to ensure that they are representative of

the particular supply being drawn on by the

project and its manufactured products.

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Cooking Oil and Tallow

Oilseed Rape (UK)

Oilseed Rape (Ukraine)

Oilseed Rape (Poland)

Oilseed Rape (Germany)

Oilseed Rape (France)

Oilseed Rape (Finland)

Oilseed Rape (Canada)

Oilseed Rape (Australia)

Soy (USA)

Soy (Brasil)

Soy (Argentina)

Palm Oil (Malaysia)

Palm Oil (Indonesia)

Natural Gas

Diesel

Gasoline

Coal

Biodiesels

Gram of Carbon Dioxide produced per Megajoule of energy (UK Government gures)

13

55

59

45

47

46

52

54

55

42

38

38

62

86

85

112

63

73

Data taken from http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/environment/rtfo/govrecrfa.pdf



15


2.2 Decision XIX/6 and the

Framework for Mitigation The metrics outlined in Section 2.1 are

essential tools in assessing the potential forcompliance with the ozone requirements of

Decision XIX/6 and quantifying the climate

impact of technology options throughout the

lifecycle. Methodologies for achieving this

quantication will be covered in more detail

within Section 3. However, it is important

to note in the interim a few key aspects of

the Decision XIX/6 framework for emissions

mitigation.

The assessment of climate impact requires a

number of key pieces of information to make it

possible. These include:

• The ODP (if any) of the alternative and

conrmation that it is not a controlled

substance under the Montreal Protocol

• The GWP of the alternative based on a100 ITH.

• The likely emissions prole of the

substance through the lifecycle of the

manufactured product/equipment

• Details of any mitigation actions that may

be taken to minimise emissions (e.g. special

treatment at end-of-life)

• The carbon intensity of any primary fuels

consumed

• The fuel mix used to generate electricity

in the country/region considered and the

resulting carbon emissions occurring during

generation.

The challenge is to use a method that is

sufciently robust to be reliable but not so data

intensive as to be impossible to use. This is the

subject matter of Section 3.

Country Grams of carbon per kilowatt hour Country Grams of carbon per kilowatt hour

1 Estonia 328.9 26 Czech Republic 206.8

2 Moldavo 314.2 27 Singapore 206.7

3 Kazkstan 309.0 28 Lebanon 200.3

4 Qatar 300.4 29 Romania 198.5

5 Poland 286.1 30 Bahrain 187.4

6 China 259.9 31 Trinidad and Tobago 185.3

7 Turkmenistan 245.8 32 Cote d’Ivorie 184.6

8 Indai 240.7 33 Algeria 183.4

9 Senegal 237.1 34 Kuwait 182.6

10 Malta 234.7 35 Morocco 180.3

11 Bosnia and Herzegovina 232.0 36 Jordan 179.0

12 Cyprus 231.5 37 Ireland 178.7

13 Belarus 229.9 38 Zimbabwe 175.8

14 South Africa 229.7 39 Libya 172.6

15 Serbia and Montenegro 227.6 40 Kenya 170.0

16 Oman 222.8 41 Indonesia 166.8

17 Togo 222.2 42 Hungary 166.3

18 United Arab Emirates 220.7 43 Nicaragua 166.1

19 Greece 220.1 44 Denmark 165.6

20 Israel 215.7 45 Latvia 162.0

21 Australia 215.6 46 Russian Federation 158.8

22 Cuba 214.9 47 Bulgaria 154.8

23 Azerbaijan 212.8 48 Bangladesh 152.2

24 Brunei 208.4 49 Iran 151.8

25 Uzbekistan 207.1 50 Iraq 148.8

Carbon intensity of electricity production for selected countries’

Source: UNIDO



16

2.3 Potential Benets for Business

and the EnvironmentMany enterprises reviewing these data

requirements will be beginning to wonder

whether the investment of time and effort is

proportionate to the outcomes that might be

obtained. However, in the case of the foam

sector, the experience from enterprises in

developed countries has been that knowledge

of the key environmental benets of technology

selection has provided a signicant competitive

advantage in the market place. This has been

particularly important for insulating foams

where it has been critical to understand

the upsides of improved thermal insulation

performance against the potential downsides

of direct greenhouse gas emissions.

The Fourth Assessment Report of the Inter-

Governmental Panel on Climate Change

(AR4) provided some important new analysison the critical role of buildings in the ght

against global warming. Buildings and the

appliances used in them account for over

40% of total CO2 emissions per year and the

use of appropriate insulation levels in both

new and existing buildings would contribute

substantially to reducing this footprint. Not only

would such measures be productive in terms

of the quantity of savings, but they would also

be more cost-effective than a large numberof competing policy options. The following

graphic illustrates these ndings:

With such market upsides potentially available,

there is a clear incentive to ensure that foam

products are positioned to take advantage. If

part of the argument used to justify the greater

use of thermal insulation in general, and foam

in particular, is based on the environmental

benet, it stands to reason that speciers will

want to understand the environmental proles

of the products they are buying from ‘cradle-

to-grave’.

There has been a substantial surge in thelevel of environmental assessment being

now applied to building products. In some

instances, this is also being extended to the

buildings themselves, as building energy

standards and sustainability requirements are

being imposed. It seems therefore inevitable

that these issues will become mainstream in all

global markets, to the extent that they have not

already done so. Enterprises could therefore

benet signicantly from the assessmentsrequired as part of the technology transition

process.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

<20 <50 <1000

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

<20 <50 <1000

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

<20 <50 <1000

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

<20 <50 <1000

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

<20 <50 <100

Energy Supply Transport Buildings Industry Agriculture

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

<20 <50 <1000

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

<20 <50 <100

Forestry Waste

GtC0 -eq / year2

potential at

<US$100/tC 0 -eq:

2.4-4.7 Gt C0 -eq/yr2

2

potential at

<US$100/tC 0 -eq:

1.6-2.5 Gt C0 -eq/yr2

2

potential at

<US$100/tC 0 -eq:

2.5-5.5 Gt C0 -eq/yr2

2

potential at

<US$100/tC 0 -eq:

2.3-6.4 Gt C0 -eq/yr2

2

potential at

<US$100/tC 0 -eq:

1.3-4.2 Gt C0 -eq/yr2

2

potential at

<US$100/tC 0 -eq:

0.4-1.0 Gt C0 -eq/yr2

2

potential at

<US$100/tC 0 -eq:

5.3-6.72

US$/tC 0 -eq

Non-OECD

EIT

OECD

World

2

Source: IPCC Fourth Assessment Report



17




18

Section 3.Methods for quantifyingclimate impact

“the impact of technology choice on energy

consumption will be an additional source of potential

climate contributions”



19


Section 2.2 has already made reference to the

fact that quantitative assessments of climate

impact need to take account of activities that

occur throughout the lifecycle of the products

and/or equipment manufactured as a result of

the implementation of a project.

However, when assessing technology

transition projects at enterprise level, this can

be a relatively complex and uncertain exercise,

since the quantity and scope of products and/

or equipment manufactured by an enterprisewill not be known in full at the point of

investment.

This challenge, however, is not insurmountable

if the primary purpose for quantifying the

climate impact of a measure is to compare

technology options. In such cases, it is

possible to take dened units of manufacture/

production, based on typical demand patterns,

and compare the relative climate impacts

arising from specic technology choices prior

to making a nal decision. It is in this context,

that this Sourcebook reviews the options

available for quantifying climate impact.

3.1 Life Cycle Approaches based on

Direct Emissions only (e.g. GWP)It is well known that the direct emissions of

chlorinated and uorinated substances over

the lifecycle of products and/or equipment can

lead to signicant climate impacts. The graph

below illustrates the signicance of the global

warming impacts of common CFCs, HCFCs

and HFCs, when compared with carbon

dioxide. If aspects such as initial charge sizes

and emission proles are well understood, it ispossible to make relatively precise estimates

of the climate impact of emissions including

their signicance with time. However, even

where the focus of attention is only on direct

emissions of refrigerants and/or blowing

agents, care must be taken to ensure that the

comparisons are appropriate. In the foams

sector, the following questions might be part

of a useful checklist to ensure that ‘like is

compared with like’:

I. Do the boiling points of the respective

alternative blowing agents inuence the

losses in production?

II. Does the technology choice involve

co-blowing with another blowing agent?

III. How do the blowing efciencies of

different technology options impact the

level of blowing agent required in the

respective formulations?

IV. Is the rate of permeation of blowing

agent through the cell walls the same for all

blowing agents?

V. If not, how are these diffusion differences

accounted for in the respective emissions

proles?

VI. Are there any constraints from the

technology choice that would prevent

recovery at end of life?

Section 4.6 of this Sourcebook provides tables

illustrating the current default emission proles

for various foam processes and applications

using liquid and gaseous blowing agents.

Annual emission rates are provided for each

basic lifecycle stage. These tables are typically

used as an initial basis of assessment for

direct emissions from foams. Where no further

adjustments are made for items II-VI above,

the choice of blowing agent from a climate

perspective is generally directly linked to its

GWP, which is why it is sometimes referred to

as the GWP method. Although this provides

a temptingly simple basis for evaluation,

care needs to be taken that all appropriately

adjustments are made before conclusions are

drawn.

Refrigerator TEWI Contributors(Typical for HFC product in USA)

RefrigerantDirect GWP

0.4%

Power Plant

Emissions

92.4%

Blowing AgentDirect GWP

7.2%

Section 3.Methods for quantifyingclimate impact

Source A.D. Little (2002)





21


3.3 Hybrid Approaches (e.g.Functional Unit and Climate

Indicators)Hybrid approaches of the type included in this

section are targeted at addressing the more

practical challenges of evaluating the climate

impact of technology choices at enterprise

or project level. This may also extend to the

overall evaluation of HPMPs themselves. This

higher level evaluation (which some have

called ‘climate proong’) is a critical part

of the objectives of National Ozone Units,

Implementing Agencies and other interested

parties. In practice, hybrid approaches are

expected to be more widely used in the

implementation of Decision XIX/6 than the

more formal methods of LCA, TEWI and LCCP.

However, as pointed out in the sections that

follow, care needs to be taken to maintain

sufcient rigour to give reliable predictions of

climate impact.

In addressing this concern for both practicality

and rigour, and following the negotiation

and nalisation of Decision XIX/6, there

were substantial discussions about how the

language concerning the evaluation of climate

impact might be interpreted in practice. Somefelt that a GWP-based approach would be

sufcient, arguing that LCCP was too complex,

particularly in applications where there were

uncertainties about the use conditions. Others

felt that LCCP was the only way in which the

full text of the Decision could be implemented.

As a potential means of bridging this difference

in view, two new approaches have emerged.

These are the functional unit approach (FUA)

and the Multilateral Fund Climate Indicator

(MCII). Both methods have sought to provide

guidance in technology selection specically in

the context of Decision XIX6.



Calculations HCFC-141b n-Pentane

Annual Foam Volume 7,143 m3 7,143 m3

Area of Insulation Created 128,571.17 m2 128,571.17 m2

Energy Transmitted in Lifetime 121722.17 MWh 189345.60 MWh

Carbon equivalent 23127.21 t-CO2-equiv 35975.66 t-CO

2-equiv

Energy difference 67623.43 MWh

Carbon equivalent difference 12848.5 t-CO2-equiv

Blowing Agent Losses 25.00 tonnes 16.15 tonnes

Carbon equivalent 17825 t-CO2-equiv 178 t-CO

2-equiv

Carbon equivalent difference -17647 t-CO2-equiv

Total Carbon Equivalents 17825 t-CO2-equiv 13026 t-CO

2-equiv

Example of Foam Comparisons using the Functional Unit Approach for Foams (Constant Thickness)

22

Functional Unit Approach (FUA) This approach was originated in the foam

sector and seeks to establish a basis for

comparison of insulation foams in typical

building or appliance applications. In doing

so, it has needed to take account of matters

such as building energy sources, local carbon

intensity values for electricity generation andlocal building insulation standards. Since

these vary between residential buildings

and commercial/industrial buildings, it can

be necessary to take into account the likely

split of foam sales to each sector. However,

by considering the fate of a typical unit of

foam (the functional unit), the scenario for a

particular manufacturing plant or enterprise can

be established. As with other techniques, the

fact that the tool is being used for comparative

purposes means that the sensitivity to the

assumptions used is somewhat diminished.

The table below provides an indication of thetype of output obtained using the functional

unit approach when comparisons are made

between the old HCFC-141b technology and a

replacement n-Pentane technology at constant

thickness (constant thermal performance being

the other typical basis of comparison). The

calculations are based on the lifecycle impact

of the annual production of an enterprise

currently using 25 tonnes of HCFC-141b per

year.

It can be seen that the better thermal

performance of HCFC-141b results in less

energy being transmitted through the foam

during its lifetime and hence less CO2

emitted

from power generation. However, the quantity

of n-Pentane used in the foam is reduced

because it has better blowing efciency and

its lower GWP also contributes to a net savingof around 4,800 tonnes CO2-equiv. when

compared with the HCFC-141b baseline.

If the comparison had been conducted on

the basis of constant thermal performance,

the n-Pentane option would have required

additional thickness of foam and hence the

embodied energy of the additional foam would

have also needed to have been included in the

comparison.

In a further enhancement of the Functional

Unit Approach an attempt was made to

assess likely differences in cost resulting

from technology choices. This permitted the

calculation of cost per unit of climate benet

for the rst time. However, to do this, the

model needed to assess the cost of a climate

neutral transition (i.e. one with the same

climate prole as the HCFC-141b technology

being replaced). One of the interesting aspects

to emerge from this assessment was that the

climate mitigation costs (measured in US$ per

tonne of CO2

saved) increased dramatically

for technologies requiring signicant capital

investment as the size of the plant diminished.

This observation was no more than a

demonstration of the basic principles relating

to economies of scale, rst mentioned inSection 1 and elaborated further in Section 4.5

and elsewhere. Nevertheless, it did highlight

the fact that climate mitigation costs in excess

of US$200/tonne of CO2-equiv. might be

incurred in the most extreme cases. Further

detail on the basis for these analyses is found

in the relevant MLF Executive Committee

publication on the treatment of Environmental

Issues in technology transition (Annex V of

UNEP/OzL.Pro/ExCom/55/47).

Climate Indicators (e.g. MCII) Although foam scenarios could be relatively

well modelled using the Functional Unit

Approach, a further level of simplication was

seen as necessary for the refrigeration sector.

The UN Multilateral Fund Secretariat took

direct responsibility for this further step and

developed, in conjunction with experts in theeld, a simplied model that essentially limited

the refrigeration and air conditioning sector

to ve primary cooling scenarios. This further

level of simplication has been seen to make

the absolute comparative values less reliable

but continues to provide sufcient certainty to

allow for technology-ranking to take place.

As with the FUA, comparison with the

technology being replaced is an important

element of the assessment, since this has

a strong bearing on whether it should be

prioritised in an overall HCFC Phase-out

Management Plan (HPMP) or not. In addition,the relative climate performance against such

a benchmark can be used to incentivise

or discourage certain technology selection

options. Stakeholders are certainly advised

to review periodically how quantied climate

impacts might be used to assess technology

appropriateness, funding eligibility and levels

of support in future. This Sourcebook will

return to this point in Section 8 where ‘Funding

Strategies’ are considered.



23




24

Section 4.Foam manufactureand existing uorocarbontechnologies

“The characteristics of CFC-11 and CFC-12

were so appropriate for polymeric foams that

they seemed ‘designed-for-purpose”



25


4.1 An introduction to

Foam Types.

Polyurethane Foams (including

Polyisocyanurate)Polyurethane Foam technologies were

developed as early as the 1930s in exible,

rigid and semi-rigid forms, and have played a

dominant role in the eld of foamed polymers

ever since. This is largely because of the

technology’s basic capacity to produce

materials with a wide range of critical end

properties such as low density, consistent

foam morphology, mechanical strength and

resilience. In most cases, these properties can

be achieved by relatively simple formulation

adjustments, indicating the versatility of

polyurethane chemistry.

Flexible foams, which demonstrate excellent

elastic and deformation characteristics, nd

their major applications in the area of furniture

cushioning (bedding, seating, carpet backing,

etc.) and packaging (electronic, computer,

china, equipments). Semi-rigid foams are used

in the automotive industry (dash panel, liner,

visors) and footwear (shoe soles) [Lee, 2006].

However, the largest single application for

polyurethane rigid foam is in thermal insulation,

although similar foams can also be used to

provide structural integrity and buoyancy.

For thermal insulation applications, old and

modern buildings, transport systems and

household appliances all take advantage of the

excellent energy performance offered through

the low thermal conductivity of the foam.

It is in the area of thermal insulation that the

contribution of the blowing agent is at its most

signicant, since the gas in the foam cell is

the major contributor to the overall thermal

performance of the insulation. This subject is

explored further in Section 4.2.

A variant of basic polyurethane chemistry is

polyisocyanurate, which has greater rigidity

and provides improved re performance.

However, it is less resilient and is therefore

not a replacement for polyurethane in all

applications.

Phenolic FoamsPhenolic foams take the characteristics of

polyisocyanurate a step further and are very

highly cross-linked. This makes them very

rigid (high modulus) and, historically, has led

to unacceptable friability where vibration or

thermal shock is a factor. Nonetheless, more

recent technologies have achieved very ne

cell structures which have both improved

the resilience of the foam and its thermal

performance. Indeed, phenolic foam now

typically delivers the best thermal performanceamong the insulating foam types available.

However, this is not the primary reason for its

use. Phenolic foam has made ground primarily

because of its overall re performance and,

most importantly, low smoke generation.

As with polyurethane and polyisocyanurate,

phenolic foams were historically blown with

CFCs and have progressed through a number

of alternatives which are documented in

Sections 5 and 7.

Extruded Polystyrene

A number of polystyrene foam product typesexist. Expanded polystyrene foams are blown

from beads of polystyrene which already

contain a hydrocarbon blowing agent (typically

pentane). These beads are then expanded

in hot moulds to create blocks and moulded

shapes. For this reason, the foams have been

used more for packaging than for demanding

thermal insulation applications. These foams,

sometimes referred to as bead foams, have

never used CFCs as blowing agents and are

not the subject of this [Sourcebook].

An alternative type of polystyrene foam is

extruded polystyrene foam which, as itsname suggests, is manufactured by an

extrusion process at elevated temperatures.

This product has historically used CFCs and

their substitutes. The nature of the extrusion

process is such that it creates more integral

foams than those generated from beads and

provides better thermal properties as a result.

Some extruded products are manufactured

specically for construction applications and

are typically referred to as ‘board’, while others

are manufactured for packaging purposes,

sometimes with a thermal component (e.g.

disposable food packaging) and are typically

known as ‘sheet’ products.

Section 4.Foam manufacture andexisting urocarbontecnologies





27


Polyolen (Polyethylene/

Polypropylene) FoamsPolyolen foams are processed similarly to

extruded polystyrene foams and have largely

similar characteristics and applications.

They have additional resilience in packaging

applications and are often selected as the

material of choice. Again polyolen foams

historically used CFCs and have progressed to

other alternatives over the last 20 years.

Non-Foam Insulation Products A variety of non-foam products are used for

thermal insulating purposes. Although this

Sourcebook is focused on polymeric foams, it

is important to understand that these co-exist

with other insulation types in a competitive

market, where changes in the cost-structure

of foams can have consequences for market

share. The most widespread product ismineral bre, which can be based on spun

rock (rock bre) or glass (glass bre). The low

density of these products makes them both

inexpensive and comparable in embodied

energy, despite the high energy intensity of the

manufacturing process. However, since they

rely on entrapped air for their thermal insulating

properties they are losing ground against the

more thermally efcient foamed productsin many markets, particularly in chilled

applications where moisture ingress can result

in degradation of properties.

There are a number of other insulation

materials available, often marketed on their

apparent environmental credentials. These

include naturally sourced materials such as

sheep’s wool and recycled materials such

as cellulose bre. However, none of these

products have broken through to the mass

market.

There are also specialist insulation products

such as calcium silicate, which is particularly

good for high temperatures applications.

The following tables add to the earlier diagram

in that, while they similarly relate the application

areas with the type of foam, they also provide

an indication of prevalence of use and a

comparison with non-foam alternatives. They

are based on an assessment generated for

the IPCC/TEAP Special Report on Ozoneand Climate . In this chapter, after a brief

introduction on rigid foam and the role of the

blowing agent, the different technology options

will be reviewed by application.



28

Slabstock 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

Seating Safety Bedding Furniture Food & Other Marine &

Leisure

Application Area

Moulded 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

Integral Skin 4 4 4 4 4

Injected/ P-I-P

4 4 4

Cont. Block 4

Spray 4

Sheet 4 4 4

Board 4 4 4

Board 4 4 4 4

Foam Type

Polyurethane

ExtrudedPolystyrene

Polyethylene

Transport Comfort Packaging Buoyancy

4 4 4 = Major use of insulation 4 4= Frequent use of insulation 4= Minor use of insulation

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

4 4 4 4 4 4 4

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

4 4 4 4 4 4

4 4 4 4

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

4 4 4 4 4 4

4 4 4 4 4 4

4 4 4 4 4

4

4 4 4

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

Domestic

Appliances

Other

Appliances

Reefers &

Transport

Wall

Insulation

Roof

Insulation

Floor

Insulation

Pipe

Insulation

Cold

Stores

Application AreaFoam Type

Polyurethane Injected P+P

Boardstock

Cont. Panel

Disc. Panel

Cont. Block

Disc. Block

Spray

One Component

Board

Boardstock

One Panel

Disk Block

Board

Pipe

Extruded

Polystyrene

Phenolic

Polyethylene

Mineral Fibre

Refrigeration & Tranport Buildings & Building Services

4 4 4 = Major use of insulation 4 4= Frequent use of insulation 4= Minor use of insulation



29


4.2 Foam Manufacture and the Role

of Blowing AgentsBoth tables shown in Section 4.1 give the rst

indication of the wide range of processes that

are available for the processing of polymeric

foams. The challenges relating to technology

selection for each of these processes are

covered in detail in Section 7. However,

this section focuses primarily on the basic

principles surrounding foam manufacture.

In general terms, a blowing agent is present

in a foam formulation to ensure that the

polymer matrix expands prior to solidifying.

This expansion can be created by raising

the temperature of the mix and causing the

blowing agent to volatilise, or by reducing the

pressure to which the mix is exposed (typical

in extrusion processes), or a combination of

both. The amount of blowing agent added

and the processing conditions applied dictates

the nal density of the foams generated. For

insulating foams, densities are typically in the

range of 25-40 kg/m3. For packaging foams

the densities will be lower and for comfort

foams they will be lower still – often well below

20kg/m3.

Some products and processes lend

themselves to the selection of blowing agents

which are gaseous at room temperature.

These are typically those products and

processes in which expansion is controlled

by pressure. In some cases, these types of

processes are known as ‘froth foaming’, sincethe formulations froth when the pressure is

released. Other processes rely on the blowing

agent being in liquid form for the early stages

of the process, with foam expansion and

curing usually achieved by the application

of heat. The following paragraphs use the

example of polyurethane foam to illustrate the

basic process involved.

Polyurethane rigid foams are prepared by

the reaction under controlled conditions

-reactants ratio, temperature and pressure- of

a “fully formulated polyol” with an isocyanate,

normally polymeric MDI. The term “fullyformulated polyol” describes a blend of polyols

with a variety of additives such as catalysts,

surfactants, water, ame retardants (not

typically in appliances), including the blowing

agent (FTOC, 2001).

A wide spectrum of polyols of different

chemical nature -polyether and polyester-

and molecular architecture -functionality and

equivalent weight- is used. Water is commonly

added to generate CO2

by the reaction with

the polymeric MDI; the polyurea groups which

are simultaneously formed contribute to thebuild-up of the polymer skeleton. Optimum

processing characteristics and end foam

properties cannot usually be achieved with a

single polyol and the same holds for catalysts

and the other additives. As a consequence,

in today´s industrial practice, a large number

of formulations has been and continue to be

developed to meet the different application

requirements. The formulation process of

polyurethane rigid foam can be graphically

described as follows:

Network Formation

+

Polyether Polyols

Polyether Polyols Catalysts

Surfactants

Water

Blowing Agents

Polymeric MDI

Kinetics Control

Stabilizers

CO2



30

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

No

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Urethane Specic chemical link formed by thereaction of a hydroxyl (OH) with anisocyanate (NCO) group

TERM EXPLANATION APPLICATION MAY CONTAIN

BOWING AGENT

Polyurethane Polymer consisting of a multiple of urethane linkages formed from thereaction between a polyol and anisocyanate

To produce foams, elastomers,adhesives, sealants, coatings, andmore

Isocyanate Family of chemicals with typicallytwo or more NCO groups. Mostcommon are MDI, P-MDI and TDI

As component in the manufacture of polyurethanes

Isocyanate prepolymer(also called polyurethane prepolymer)

Modied isocyanate by reactingexcess of this substance with apolyol. Provides technical effectsthat cannot be obtained byunmodied ones

Main use is in exible foam formoulding, MDI-based slabstock,elastomers, including shoe solesand integral skin foams and onecomponent (”canister”) foams

(Base) Polyol Short chain chemical with two ormore OH groups. Can be polyether(COC) or polyester (COOC) based

Used as a component by self-formulators, such as system houses,slabstock and rigid boardstockmanufacturers

(Base)Polyol blend Blend of two or more base polyols Same as base polyol users, plussome appliance manufacturers

Blowing agent ubstance used to achieve a cellular(“foam”) structure

To produce rigid and exible foamsas well as expanded (micro-cellular)elastomers

Polyol formulation(also called formulated polyol)

Polyol or polyol blend plus catalyst(s),surfactant(s) plus sometimes otheradditives such as re retardants

Larger polyurethane manufacturers,such as manufacturers of appliancesand sandwich panels, who addblowing agent according tofoaming conditions, including safetyconsiderations

Fully formulated polyol As above, plus blowing agent Smaller polyurethane manufacturers,such as sprayfoam contractors, withrelatively simple operating conditions

Polyurethane system Marketing term used to describe agenerally two component package,consisting of an isocyanate and afully formulated polyol

Same as fully formulated polyol

The following guide to polyurethane terminology prepared by the UNEP FTOC (2001) is illustrative:

Since a degree of pre-blending occurs within the supply-chain, these terms have become important in the implementation of the MontrealProtocol itself, since the denition of the ‘point of consumption’ is a critical aspect of Governmental reporting.





32

The goal of consistent future reporting will

depend on further considerations by the

Parties. The Parties are currently reviewing

how to resolve this in such a way as to avoid

double-counting at the same time as avoiding

the omission of actual consumption in Article

7 reporting. Readers of this Sourcebook areencouraged to check with their National Ozone

Unit on the reporting policy that is currently

being adopted within their own countries

in order to conrm that stated baselines in

HPMPs properly reect their uses and that the

legitimate funding requirements for projects in

the foam sector are met.

4.4 Reasons for Original Selection of

CFCs and HCFCsFor a large proportion of the foams in which

ODS have been used historically, and

particularly those in which HCFCs are currently

used, the blowing agent has two principal

functions:

1. The physical expansion of the foaming

mixture to produce the desired foam

density. In PU rigid foam the expansion is

normally achieved by the combination of two

mechanisms:

• the generation of CO2

as a consequence

of the water/isocyanate reaction

and

• the evaporation of the blowing agent by

the exothermically reaction mixture.

The boiling temperature of the blowing agent

inuences how these two mechanisms are

combined in time, which strongly affects the

foam ability to ow. Lower the boiling point,

better the ow (KHUN, 1993). Immediately

after the foam is produced there are usually

two gases simultaneously present in the cells:

carbon dioxide and the selected blowing agent

(HCFC-141b, HFC-245fa, cyclo pentane, etc.).

2. Contribution to the thermal insulating

performance of the foam. The blowing agent

should remain in the closed celled foam and

have a low gaseous thermal conductivity plus a

low rate of diffusion through the foam (polymer

matrix) so that the good insulating properties

are retained for many years.

A number of publications have highlighted the

preferable characteristics for a blowing agent.

However, these have changed over time. Prior

to the existing concerns over ozone depletion

and climate change, the list would have

appeared as follows:

• Physiologically non hazardous (low toxicity)

• Non ammable

• Chemically/physically stable

• Advantageous boiling point for ease of

handling

• Good solubility in polyols (for polyurethane

systems)

• Commercially available, and

• Economically viable.

As an additional set of characteristics for

thermally insulating foams, the following were

deemed as advantageous:

• Low gaseous thermal conductivity

• Boiling point to minimize condensation

of the blowing agent in the nal foam at

operational temperatures

• Low solubility in the foam polymer to avoid

matrix plasticisation which can cause

dimensional stability problems.

• Low diffusion rate through the polymer

matrix.

When the polymeric foam industry was

emerging in the early 1960s, CFCs had

already been in use as refrigerants within the

refrigeration sector for some years. They were,

therefore, relatively plentiful, inexpensive and

offered virtually all of the characteristics listed

above. In particular, the gaseous thermalconductivities of the substances were low,

reecting the thermodynamic properties that

had also made them suitable as refrigerants.

Coupled with low toxicity and chemical

stability, CFC-11 and CFC-12 were seen as

virtually designed-for-purpose and dominated

the industry for 25 years. Of course, it was the

chemical stability of CFCs which nally became

their downfall.





34

4.5 Reasons why HFCs are Potential

Replacements for HCFCsIn a list of appropriate criteria for replacement

blowing agents published in 1994, OERTEL

had included ‘zero ODP’ and ‘low GWP’as desirable parameters. This reected the

fact that climate factors associated with the

manufacture and use of foams were already

beginning to emerge as important aspects to

be considered.

The regulatory stance on HCFCs had already

been noted and some CFC-users had decided

to make the direct transition to hydrocarbons

(HCs) even though their thermal performance

was poorer than the uorocarbons and there

were issues surrounding the management

of their ammability. In Europe and Japan,

the most visible sign of this trend was inthe domestic refrigerator sector, where

manufacturers believed that other design

factors could be adjusted to compensate for

the poorer thermal performance of the foam. In

addition, the economies of scale were sufcient

to justify the investment in the management

of safety issues during manufacture. The

consequence of this, and other similar

technology choices, was that the replacement

of CFCs by HCFCs was not a 1:1 replacement.

Indeed, in the polyurethane sector, formulators

had already started to assess how they could

reduce reliance on ODS by increasing the

amount of co-blowing being contributed by the

isocyanate/water reaction and its generation of

in-situ CO2.

Since hydrocarbons were already less

expensive than any of the uorocarbon

alternatives, there was clearly a commercial

incentive to maximise their use. However,

for small and medium enterprises (SMEs)

in particular, the economies of scale were

insufcient to justify the capital investment.

Even where the incremental cost of the

transitions was funded by the Multilateral

Fund (i.e. for developing countries operating

under Article 5 of the Montreal Protocol) the

investment costs were often prohibitive and

understandable threshold limits prevented

investment in hydrocarbon technologies. The

default technology choice in this instance

became HCFC-141b. The Cost Paper

prepared by the Multilateral Fund Secretariat in

2008 (UNEP/OzL.Pro/ ExCom/55/47) provides

important background on this subject and

highlights the fact that more than 70 per cent

of all foam enterprises in Article 5 countries

had an annual CFC consumption below 40

ODP tonnes per year.

Most foam manufacturers in Article 5 countries

have therefore found themselves in something

of a cul-de-sac. They have transitioned to

a low-ODP solution in order to respond to

the original call of the Parties to the Montreal

Protocol for CFC phase-out, but have no cost-

effective way out of HCFCs when it comes

to the implementation of Decision XIX/6 on

accelerated HCFC phase-out. Although there

is more time to make this second transition

than in developed countries (non-Article 5), the

technology choices are not always obvious,

particularly where thermal performance is

an on-going requirement. HFCs remain one

option, but their potential cost and availability

have remained a cause for concern.

Although the thermal efciency of

hydrocarbon-based foams has improved in

recent years as a result of development focus,

foam manufacturers in developed countries

have still been challenged by three factors in

seeking to make the onward transition from

HCFCs to zero-ODP alternatives. These are:

• Insufcient economies of scale to

accommodate the safety requirements

associated with ammable blowing agents

(and, in the case of PU Spray Foam, an

overall technical constraint)

• Product ammability concerns in sensitive

markets

• Lack of guaranteed thermal performance

in areas where thermal performance is

critical

These issues were probably at their height

in the early years of the decade (i.e. 2002-

2006) when many technology decisions were

being made and led to an uptake in the use of

hydrouorocarbons (HFCs) as replacements for

HCFCs, even though it was known that they

had relatively high global warming potentials.

The main HFCs that emerged to meet the

foam blowing need were HFC-134a and HFC-

152a for gaseous/frothing applications such

as extruded polystyrene, polyolen and one

component PU foams, while HFC-245fa and

HFC-365mfc/227ea emerged for applications

reliant on liquid blowing agents, such as the

majority of polyurethane and phenolic foams.

Again, cost and concern about the possibility

of an eventual third transition led the industry

to minimise its uptake of HFC technologies

and this was a signicantly lower than 1:1replacement against HCFCs as is shown in the

following graph:

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 20142012

YEAR

Total HCs

Total HFCs

Total HCFCs

Total CFCs

C O N S U M P T I O N ( t o n n e s )

Global Trends in Blowing Agent Consumption by Type (1990-2014)



35


4.6 Why HFCs can be Sub-optimal

Solutions for Climate

Recent analysis has shown that HFCs arebeing used in a variety of foam technologies

globally, these include, but are not limited to:

• PU Steel-faced panels (both continuously

and discontinuously produced)

• PU Spray Foam

• Extruded polystyrene foams (XPS)

• PU Integral Skin foams and Shoe Soles

• PU Appliance Foam (particularly in North

America)

Section 3 of this Guidance has already

provided an overview of the factors to be

considered when evaluating the climate impact

of technologies and making comparisons

between them. One of the lessons to be drawn

from such analyses is that climate impact

is driven by emissions and not technology

choice per se. Therefore, it is important to

ensure that, when considering the use of

HFCs, due account is taken of any measures

that may be implemented across the lifecycle

of the product to limit emissions. For foams,

this could include capture of blowing agents

during the production process or end-of-life

management provisions.

The use of HFCs could therefore be justied

on an on-going basis if it could be guaranteed

that emissions were largely avoided from all

phases of the lifecycle. Equally, there would

be a case for the on-going use of HFCs if the

incremental energy efciency advantages could

be quantied and would result in the lower

level of overall greenhouse gas emissions,

when corrected for the appropriate global

warming potential of the HFCs used. To

make this judgement, it is necessary to have

access to the comparative impacts of different

blowing agent types. Although this is covered

further in the next Section, the following Table

extracted from the IPCC/TEAP Special Report

on Ozone and Climate is likely to be helpful at

this juncture:

Apart from the global warming potential of the

blowing agent itself, one of the other factors

that needs to be considered alongside the

energy efciency assessment is the carbon

intensity of the fuels used to heat and/or

cool. This can be particularly important where

electrical heating/cooling is applied routinely,

since it will be the fuel used to generate the

power that will count in this case.

Assessing the applications listed earlier in

which HFCs are being used currently, it can

be seen that the use in PU integral skin and

shoe soles might be the hardest to defend on

climate grounds, since they are totally emissive

and the use of HFCs does not contribute to

any thermal benet..

For the thermal insulation products, the case

might be greater, although the relative high

emissions associated the extruded polystyrene

foam manufacturing process (see the IPCC

table below) makes the case harder to justify,

particularly when HFC-134a is the blowing

agent of choice, since this has a GWP of 1410.



36

Gas GWP for direct radiative GWP for indirect radiative forcing Lifetime (years) UNFCCC

forcinga (Emission in 2005b) Reporting GWPc

CFCs

CFC-12 10,720 ± 3750 -1920 ± 1630 100 n.a.d

CFC-114 9880 ± 3460 Not available 300 n.a.d

CFC-115 7250 ± 2540 Not available 1700 n.a.d

CGC-113 6030 ± 2110 -2250 ± 1890 85 n.a.d

CFC-11 4680 ± 1640 -3420 ± 2710 45 n.a.d

HCFCs

HCFC-142b 2270 ±800 -337 ± 237 17.9 n.a.d

HCFC-22 1780 ± 620 -269 ± 183 12 n.a.d

HCFC-141b 713 ± 250 -631 ± 424 9.3 n.a.d

HCFC-124 599 ± 210 -114 ± 76 2.8 n.a.d

HCFC-225cb 586 ± 205 -148 ± 98 5.8 n.a.d

HCFC=225ca 120 ± 42 -91 ± 60 1.9 n.a.d

HCFC123 76 ± 27 -82 ± 55 1.3 n.a.d

HFCs

HFC-23 14,310 ± 5000 ~0 270 11,700

HFC-143a 4400 ± 1540 ~0 52 3800

HFC-125 3450 ± 1210 ~0 29 2800

HFC-227ea 3140 ± 1100 ~0 34.2 2900

HFC-43-10mee 1610 ± 560 ~0 15.9 1300

HFC-134a 1410 ± 490 ~0 14 1300

HFC-245fa 1020 ± 360 ~0 7.6 _c

HFC-365mfc 782 ± 270 ~0 8.6 _c

HFC-32 670 ± 240 ~0 4.9 650

HFC-152a 122 ± 43 ~0 1.4 140

PFCs

C2F

612,000 ± 4200 ~0 10,000 9200

C6F

149140 ± 3200 ~0 3200 7400

CF4

5820 ± 2040 ~0 50,000 6500

Halons

Halon-1301 7030 ± 2460 -32,900 ± 27,100 65 n.a.d

Halon-1211 1860 ± 650 -28,200 ± 19,600 16 n.a.d

Halon-2402 1620 ± 570 -43,100 ± 30,800 20 n.a.d

Other Halocarbons

Carbon tetrachloride (CCl4) 1380 ± 480 -3330 ± 2460 26 n.a.d

Methyl chloroform (CH3CCl

3) 144 ± 50 -610 ± 407 5.0 n.a.d

Methyl bromide(CH3Br) 5 ± 2 -1610 ± 1070 0.7 n.a.d

a Uncertainties in GWPs for direct positive radiative forcing are taken to be +35% (2 standard deviations) (IPCC, 2001).

b Uncertainties in GWPs for indirect negative radiative forcing consider estimated uncertainty in the time recovery of the ozone layer as well as uncertainty in the negative radiative forcing

due to ozone depletion.

c The UNFCCC reporting guidelines use GWP values from the IPCC Seconf Assessment Report (see FCCC/SBSTA/2004/8, http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2004/sbsta/08.pdf).d ODSs are not covered under the UNFCCC.

e The IPCC Second Assessment Report does not contain GWP values for HFC-245fa and HFC-36mfc. However, the UNFCCC reporting guidelines contain provisions relating to the

reporting of emissions from all greenhouse gases for which IPCC-assessed GWP values exist.

Environmental Characteristics of various Fluorocarbons



37




38

Even where the emission prole is relatively

controlled, product groups that do not need

to rely on HFCs for process or property

reasons are continuing to move away from

these blowing agents. A prime example is

the continuous panel industry in the United

Kingdom, where the re performancerequirements of the industry have now been

largely met by hydrocarbon technologies,

thereby facilitating a transition from HFCs to

HCs. This is despite the fact that such panels

have the potential for recovery and destruction

and end-of-life and are relatively non-emissive

during their other life cycle phases (see the

IPCC table above)

Sub-Application Product First Year Loss % Annual Loss % Maximum

Life in years Potential

End-of-Life Loss %

Polyurethane – Integral Skin 12 95 2.5 0

Polyurethane – Continuous Panel 50 10 0.5 65

Polyurethane – Discontinuous Panel 50 12.5 0.5 62.5

Polyurethane – Appliance 15 7 0.5 85.5

Polyurethane – Injected 15 12.5 0.5 80

One Component Foam (OCF) a 50 95 2.5 0

Extruded Polystyrene (XPS)b - HFC-134a 50 25 0.75 37.5

Extruded Polystyrene (XPS) - HFC-152a 50 50 25 0

Extruded Polyethylene (PE) a 50 40 3 0

a Source: [Ashford and Jeffs, ETF, 2004] assembled from UNEP FTOC Reports 1998, 2002.

b Vo and Paquet: An Evaluation of Thermal Conductivity over time for Extruded Polystyrene Foams blown with HFC-134a and HCFC-142b

* Emission factors predicted for the products and processes identied.

Source: IPCC 2006 Reporting Guidelines Table 7.6

DEFAULT EMISSION FACTORS FOR HFC-134A AND HFC-152A USES

(FOAM SUB-APPLICATIONS ) (IPCC, 2005)



39


In summary, therefore, it can be seen that,

while HFCs are still a current technology

selection option, they may be sub-optimal

for a signicant number of applications. Care

therefore needs to be taken in advocating their

selection. In making these comments, it should

be noted that they apply to the currentlyavailable ‘saturated’ HFCs. There are a further

generation of ‘unsaturated’ HFCs (sometimes

referred to as ‘HFOs’) which may still formally

classify as HFCs but will have much lower

GWPs. This highlights the importance of

treating each technology option on its merits

and avoiding generalisations about classes of

compounds. The next Section deals in more

detail with blowing agents currently available or

likely to be available in the near future.

Sub-Application Product First Year Loss % Annual Loss % Maximum

Life in years Potential

End-of-Life Loss %

Polyurethane – Continuous Panel 50 5 0.5 70

Polyurethane – Discontinuous Panel 50 12 0.5 63

Polyurethane – Appliance 15 4 0.25 92.25

Polyurethane – Injected 15 10 0.5 82.5

Polyurethane – Cont. Block 15 20 1 65

Polyurethane – Disc. Block for pipe sections 15 45 0.75 43.75

Polyurethane – Disc. Block for panels 50 15 0.5 60

Polyurethane – Cont. Laminate / Boardstock 25 6 1 69

Polyurethane – Spray 50 15 1.5 10

Polyurethane – Pipe-in-Pipe 50 6 0.25 81.5

Sources: [Ashford & Jeffs ETF, 2004] assembled from UNEP FTOC Reports 1998, 2002

* Emission factors predicted for the products and processes identied.

Source: IPCC 2006 Reporting Guidelines Table 7.7

DEFAULT EMISSION FACTORS FOR HFC-245FA/HFC-365MFC/HFC-227EA USES

(FOAM SUB-APPLICATION)



40

Section 5.General review of alternativeblowing agents

“Alternatives exist for all current HCFC

applications and the majority of these

have low global warming potentials”



41


The major blowing agents being commercially

used as substitutes for HCFCs in the foam

sector, or being considered for commercial

introduction in the short-term, are shown in

the sub-sections that follow – each of which

contains a table with basic properties and

supply information.

These tables are supplemented by descriptive

paragraphs which provide technical information

on the blowing agents themselves and some

information on usage patterns and commercial

availability. It should be noted that there are

no references to regulatory constraints in thisSection. While the impact of ODS regulations

is probably well known to the reading audience

and does not require further iteration here, it

might be useful to note, for example, that other

environmental factors, such as classication as

volatile organic compounds (VOCs) may have

a bearing on local acceptance. The reader is

therefore encouraged to make a full evaluation

of the national and local circumstances when

choosing blowing agent options.

5.1 Hydrocarbons (both directly

added and pre-blended with polyol) These ve major blowing agents (cyclo-

pentane, n-pentane, iso-pentane, iso-butane

and n-butane) continue to be the primary

hydrocarbon alternatives offered to the foam

sector. The boiling point range is sufciently

wide to allow for gaseous blowing agent

processes such as extruded polystyrene and

one-component polyurethane systems to

be served by the ‘butanes’, while the higher

boiling point, liquid applications can be served

by the ‘pentanes’.

A signicant further advantage of the

hydrocarbon family is that they can easily

be blended to provide a combination of

properties. For example, it has always

been known that cyclo-pentane offered

better thermal performance (lower gaseous

conductivity) than the other hydrocarbons,

but its boiling point is relatively high leading to

lower blowing efciency and, in some cases,

poorer processing. This led to the realisation

that blending cyclo-pentane with iso-pentane

could retain the overall thermal properties while

lowering the overall boiling point and improvingthe processing characteristics – the latter, in

turn, leading to lower densities. In addition,

the cost of iso-pentane is generally lower than

for cyclo-pentane and cost savings could be

achieved. This, therefore, led to the ‘birth’ of

what became known as the “cyclo-iso blends”.

The major potential drawback with the

hydrocarbon family is their ammability. This

can have impact on both the capital costs for

processing (to ensure that safety is properly

engineered) and on product properties.

For some product types, the impact of

hydrocarbon inclusion on re performance

is less than for others. These aspects are

covered in more depth in Section 7.

From a processing perspective, the

ammability of hydrocarbons is at its most

acute when the blowing agents are used in

concentrated form at the foam manufacturingpremises. This can be particularly problematic

for smaller enterprises. Efforts have been

made to establish whether the pre-blending

of hydrocarbons into polyols at systems

houses can limit this ammability and provide

a less hazardous material at the point of

foam manufacture. Since early experiences

(during the CFC phase-out) produced

mixed results, the matter has been taken

up by the Multilateral Fund together with the

Implementing Agencies and a pilot project has

been sponsored. In view of the large number

of Small Medium Enterprises (SMEs) involved,

the further penetration of hydrocarbon-basedblowing agents into the PU sector during

HCFC-phase-out will depend very much on

this outcome of this work.

Cyclo-Pentane n-Pentane Iso-Pentane Iso-Butane n-Butane

Chemical Formula (CH2)5

CH3(CH

2)3CH

3CH

3CH(CH

3)CHCH

3CH

3CH(CH

3)CH

3CH

3CH

2CH

2CH

3

Molecular Weight 70.1 72.1 72.1 58.1 58.1

Boiling Point ( 0C ) 49.3 36 28 -11.7 -0.5

Gas Conductivity (mW/mK @ 100C) 11.0 14.0 13.0 15.9 13.6^

Flammable Limits in Air (vol.%) 1.4-8.0 1.4-8.0 1.4-7.6 1.8-8.4 1.8-8.5

TLV or OEL (ppm) (USA) 600 610 1000 800 800

GWP (100 yr time horizon) <25* <25* <25* <25* <25*

Key Producers

^ Measured at 00C * Precise gure varies according to local atmospheric conditions

Chevron Phillips

ExxonMobil

Dow Haltermann

Maruzen

Haldia Petrochem

Yixing City Changjili

Productos Quimicos

Coin

Exxon Mobil

Dow Haltermann

Chevron Phillips

Shell

Maruzen

Beijing Yanshan

Productos Quimicos

Coin

Exxon Mobil

Dow Haltermann

Chevron Phillips

Shell

Jilin Jinlong

Productos Quimicos

Coin

Chevron

Bayer

Huntsman

Phillips

Quhua Yonghe

Chemical

Jinling

Petrochemical

Section 5.General review of alternative blowingagents



42

5.2 Liquid Carbon DioxideCarbon Dioxide (CO

2) is a gas at normal

temperature and pressure (triple point occurs

at 5.11 bar pressure and – 56.60C) and is only

viable as a blowing agent when it is supplied

under pressure (see the Phase Diagram

below).

Liquid CO2

has found widespread use,

particularly in Europe, in the extruded

polystyrene sector, but has also offered

opportunities in other product/process types.

The attraction of using CO2

is its relative

inertness and also its low global warming

potential (GWP=1).

Handling gases at pressure, however, requires

signicant engineering resources and one of

the challenges of rolling out such technologies

to a wider processing base has been the ability

to control the foaming reaction in a consistentway, when ambient conditions may vary

substantially.

The use of liquid CO2

is therefore limited to

those processes which lend themselves to

gaseous blowing agents and have a sufciently

high degree of in-built engineering to be robust

in the eld of operation.

5.3 In-situ Carbon Dioxide (water

blown foams) All of the attractive properties of CO

2

highlighted in Section 5.2 are, of course,

available to foam manufacturers no matter

what source of carbon dioxide is used. For PU

foam manufacturers, the opportunity exists to

take advantage of the presence of isocyanate

in the formulation to generate carbon dioxide

in-situ. This possibility is created by the

fact that excess isocyanate can be used to

generate CO2

through a reaction with water –

which can be added as required.

This process bypasses all of the processing

complications that arise from the use of liquid

CO2. However, it does bring with it a number of

complications of its own. These include:

• Isocyanate is typically a more expensive

component of the formulation and usingexcess of it as a means to generate CO

2is

often not an efcient use of the material

• Formulations that are high in isocyanate

tend to be highly cross-linked and this can lead

to less resilience and poorer cell structure

• The generation of CO2

in-situ means that

its availability is governed by the chemical

reaction itself. In some instances, this can lead

to less efcient blowing and densities can be

higher than intended.

• Since CO2

is a small molecule it tends to

migrate from the cells of the foam rapidly.Where no other blowing agent is present this

can result in loss of cell pressure and potential

shrinkage (or other forms of poor stability).

To compensate for this, higher densities may

need to be targeted intentionally.

Liquid CO2

normally the case that (CO2) water

blown foam formulations are reserved for some

of the less demanding roles.

5.4 Oxygenated Hydrocarbons

(Methyl Formate, Methylal and

Dimethyl Ether) As the industry has searched for cost-effective

solutions to HCFC substitution, the potential

for using oxygenated hydrocarbons hasemerged. These had broadly been ignored in

non-Article 5 countries because the economies

of scale were sufcient to allow the direct use

of hydrocarbons. However, substances such

as methylal had been commercially available

for a considerable time, based on its use in

other areas.

The emergence of methyl formate (typically

marketed as Ecomate®) has brought this

class of compounds to centre-stage, although

there is still considerable debate about how

wide a range of applications it can serve. In

parallel with pre-blended hydrocarbons, methylformate has therefore become the subject of

a Multilateral Fund supported pilot project to

explore the capabilities of this material. The

outcomes of this work will be important, since

methyl formate does, on paper at least, meet

the majority of criteria for an environmentally

sound alternative to HCFCs as is shown in the

following table.

+20+100-10-20-30-40-50-60

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

P (atmos)

C

PC

0

GAS

PT

LIQUID

S OL I D



43


The US Environmental Protection Agency

has evaluated methyl formate and related

substances in its Signicant New Alternatives

Program (SNAP) and, in the absence of data

to the contrary, has suggested that their global

warming potential is negligible. Di-methyl ether

is the only one for which a GWP is cited by theInter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change

(IPCC) and the Fourth Assessment Report

(AR4) provides a value of 1. However, as with

all short-lived compounds, there is a degree of

uncertainty dependent on local atmospheric

circumstances. For this reason, the authors

have grouped methylal and methyl formate

with other hydrocarbons at <25.

Methylal has been typically used as a co-

blowing agent rather than as a blowing agent

in its own right. It has been marketed primarily

within the thermoplastic foam sector (extruded

polystyrene and polyolen) as a co-blowing

agent with HFC-134a to date. However,

the literature suggests that polyol miscibility

in polyurethane systems may provide a

processing advantage, as well as better skin

forming properties (important for integral skin

foams).

Di-methyl ether is placed to serve the gaseous

blowing agent market in view of its boiling

point. It has an established market as an

aerosol propellant and capacity is growing

rapidly based on its potential as an alternative

to Liquid Petroleum Gas. The product is

already used as a propellant/blowing agentin one component foams and is also being

evaluated for extruded polystyrene

Methylal Methyl Formate Di-methyl Ether

Chemical Formula CH3

OCH2

OCH3

CH3

(HCOO) CH3

OCH3

Molecular Weight 76.1 60.0 46.07

Boiling Point ( 0C ) 42 31.5 -24.8

Gas Conductivity (mW/mK @ 150C) Not available 10.7 (@ 250C) 15.5

Flammable Limits in Air (vol.%) 2.2-19.9 5.0-23.0 3.0-18.6

TLV or OEL (ppm) (USA) 1000 100 1000

GWP (100 yr time horizon) <25* <25* 1

Key Producers

* These products are sometimes cited as ‘zero-GWP’ or ‘negligible GWP’ but see narrative below

Spectrum Chemicals

Alcan International

Kimbester (China)

Caldic

Lambiotte & Cie

BOC

Foam Supplies

Multiple Chinese producers

Air Liquide



44

5.5 Chlorinated Hydrocarbons

(Methylene Chloride, Trans-1,2

di-chloroethylene and

2-chloropropane)Methylene Chloride became a widely used

substitute for CFCs as an auxiliary blowing

agent in exible and moulded polyurethanefoams throughout the 1990s. However,

there remains some debate about the health

effects of methylene chloride exposure which

has led to signicant regional variations in

uptake. The primary area of contention has

been the potential of methylene chloride as

a carcinogen. This has led to slightly differing

treatments in North America and Europe with

the latter tending to be more conservative in

its approach. The need for care in managing

exposure is reected in the relatively low

threshold limit value (TLV) range of 35-100

ppm.

Although, methylene chloride is well

established as an auxiliary blowing agent,

its use, in general, is on the decline. The full

characteristics of methylene chloride, trans-

1,2-dichloroethylene and 2-chloropropane are

shown in the following table.

In similar fashion to methylal, trans-1,2-

dichloroethylene has not been usedsignicantly as a blowing agent in its own right,

but has tended to be used as a co-blowing

agent in order to modify the processing

characteristics of other blowing agents. It

has found a particular niche in modifying the

froth foaming behaviour of HFC-134a and

HFC-245fa, as well as enhancing the blowing

efciency of these materials.

2-chloropropane (also known as iso-propyl

chloride) has been used only to a limited extent

as a blowing agent. Most notably it has found

use in the manufacture of phenolic foams in

Europe for some years. It is understood that

preliminary evaluation has also occurred in

polyurethane foam systems, although the

outcome of tat work is not known.

Despite their chlorine content, all three of these

compounds, and many like them, escape from

consideration under the Montreal Protocol

because of their very short atmospheric

lifetimes which make it that the respective

molecules do not reach the stratosphere

and trigger ozone depletion. However, as

with all short-lived halogenated substances,

care needs to be taken to evaluate the

impact of breakdown products created in the

troposphere

Methylene Chloride Trans-1,2-dichloroethylene 2-chloropropane

Chemical Formula CH2Cl

2ClHC=CHCl CH

3CHClCH

3

Molecular Weight 84.9 97 78.5

Boiling Point ( 0C ) 40 48 35.7

Gas Conductivity (mW/mK @ 100C) Not available Not available Not available

Flammable Limits in Air (vol.%) None 6.7-18 2.8-10.7

TLV or OEL (ppm) (USA) 35-100 200 50

GWP (100 yr time horizon) Not available <25 Not available

Key Producers

* These products are sometimes cited as ‘zero-GWP’ or ‘negligible GWP’ but see narrative below

Multiple Sources Arkema Alfa Aesar





46

5.7 Unsaturated HFCs (HFOs)

This class of compounds represents an

emerging group of potential blowing agents

which spans the blowing agent range required

for foam manufacture. They exhibit a number

of the characteristics also displayed by

saturated HFCs, but have considerably lowerGWPs. The prime reason for these lower

values relates to the shorter lifetime of the

molecules in the atmosphere, which itself is

caused by the presence of a double bond

between adjacent carbon atoms (the so-called

unsaturation).

Since these compounds are still in the state

of development and early commercialisation,

there is often incomplete information available.

This is sometimes because testing is still in

progress, but, more often, because companies

are seeking to maintain condentiality

while establishing their respective patent

positions. The most advanced, in terms of

commercialisation and disclosure, is

HFO-1234ze which has already been

introduced into the European market as a

replacement option for HFC-134a in the PU

one-component foam (OCF) market. The

product has a GWP of 6 in this instance.

The following table also illustrates the various

other compounds that are believed to fall in

this class.

Further disclosures are expected on these and

other potential blowing agents over the next

months, but it is clear that, despite some very

promising characteristics, they are unlikely

to be available in sufcient time to meet the

early stages (pre-2015) of the HCFC phase-

out required under Decision XIX/6. This is

particularly frustrating, since compounds such

as FEA-1100, HBA-2 and AFA-L1 seem to

have the potential of replacing HCFC-141b,

which will be amongst the rst technologies

to be phased-out under ‘worst-rst’ principle

mandated by the Decision.

HFO-1234ze FEA-1100 HBA-2 AFA-L1

Chemical Formula Trans- CF3CH=CHF Cis- CF

3-CH=CH-CF

3Undisclosed Undisclosed

Molecular Weight 114 164 Undisclosed Undisclosed

Boiling Point ( 0C ) -19 32 15.3<T<32.1 10.0<T<30.0

Gas Conductivity (mW/mK @ 100C) 13.0 10.7 Not Reported 15.9

Flammable Limits in Air (vol.%) None to 280C^ None None None

TLV or OEL (ppm) (USA) Unpublished 9.7 Undisclosed Undisclosed

GWP (100 yr time horizon) 6 5 <15 <15

Key Producers

^ Flame limits of 7.0-9.5 at 300C are quoted

Honeywell DuPont Honeywell Arkema



47




48

Section 6.Decision-making process

“When developing country experience is

limited, a balanced assessment of available

information is critical”



49


6.1 Establishing Technical Feasibility

and Economic Viability The technical feasibility of a blowing agent

technology will depend on a number of factors

which will include:

• The chemistry of the foam formulation

being processed

• The existing (or future) foam processing

equipment being proposed

• The quantity of foam being manufactured

and sold each year

• The application of the foam and the local

standards pertaining

• Experience already gained by others both

internationally and locally in similar processes

and applications

Chemistry of the foam formulation

being processedFoam formulations are selected and optimised

for a variety of differing purposes. For r igid

foams, these can include such aspects as

reaction to re, mechanical strength and

resilience. For exible foams these might be

matters such as softness and elastic response.

Inevitably, the relationship between theseproperties and density of foam required to

deliver them, becomes a key aspect of the

assessment, making the inter-linkage between

technical and economic components of the

decision-making process almost unavoidable

from the outset. The formulation itself

could also require additional components to

accommodate certain blowing agent solutions

(e.g. ame retardants) and these can affect

the overall economic viability of a potential

solution.

Existing (or future) foam processing

equipment being proposedEvery project will have its constraints with

respect to equipment. These may be

imposed through the existing equipment at

hand, particularly if no capital is available to

support the proposed technology transition.

Alternatively, where capital is availa ble,

it is likely that the budget will be capped.

This may be on an absolute basis or on a

level of investment per unit quantity of foam

manufactured or blowing agent used. Either

way, there may be the potential necessity to

make compromises in order to accommodate

the equipment that can be made available.

Quantity of foam being manufactured

or sold each yearWhere capital investments need to be made,

the cost-effectiveness of the investment

will depend on the quantity of foam being

produced on the equipment currently and

will also need to take into account any future

trends that are expected. Although the most

cost-effective investment is not always the

best, it is likely that a threshold will exist (in

US$ per unit of production) above which,

the investment is viewed as non-viable.

Conversely, the same assessment might be

made by establishing the minimum amount

of foam that would need to be manufactured

annually to support the investment.

Application of the foam and the local

standards pertaining There is no value in producing foam in the

most cost-effective manner if it is not t-

for-purpose in its intended application. In

some instances, this may not be established

immediately but could emerge only with time.

In order to combat this risk, attempts are often

made to mimic the long-term requirements on

the foam in an accelerated fashion (e.g. ageing

at elevated temperatures). This approach

serves to provide a view of the likely future

performance of the foam. However, since

the predictive capabilities of such techniques

always have their limitations, the tendencyis naturally to be a little more conservative

in the deployment of new technologies. In

some instances, local standards will also

introduce a level of conservatism in order to

ensure tness-for-purpose. Enterprises need

to satisfy themselves that risk is mitigated to

the extent possible, but that the nal approach

is not so over-cautious as to rule out perfectly

acceptable alternatives. This is usually an issue

of expert judgement and will involve a number

of local factors as well as generic technology

issues.

Section 6.Decision-making process



50

Experience already gained by others

both internationally and locally in

similar processes and applicationsOne of the primary factors in providing

condence about technology selection

emerges is knowledge that a technologyhas been deployed successfully elsewhere –

particularly if the circumstances are similar to

those pertaining to the proposed technology

transition. Accordingly, an enterprise needs to

be alert to the information available to it from a

number of sources. This can include any of the

following:

• International Foam Conferences

• Assessments contained in the UNEP

Foams Technical Options Committee Reports

• Advice and information from National

Ozone Units• Local trade associations

• Periodic regional workshops convened by

one or more Implementing Agencies

• Supplier Literature (particularly where this

contains case studies)

• Supplier Literature (particularly where this

contains case studies)

These sources take on increased importance

when technology transitions are contemplated,

particularly if the pace of technology

development is rapid. In this context, there isno doubt that the implementation of Decision

XIX/6 has brought about challenges that were

previously unforeseen. As technology suppliers

respond to these challenges, the level of

offerings in the market place increases – often

specically tailored to the needs of developing

country enterprises and markets. In these

circumstances, good market intelligence is a

critical part of the decision-making process.

6.2 Evaluating Safety Aspects and

Environmental Impact There are a number of examples where the

some excellent technological options have

been ruled out or, at least demoted, because

of their safety aspects and/or environmental

impacts. For a long period, HCFC-123 was

seen as a very promising replacement for

CFC-11 as a foam blowing agent (low ODP

and GWP) but was eventually ruled out

because of its intrinsic toxicity to man.

Evaluating safety is a complex issue and

involves the assessment of risk, as dened

by the intrinsic hazard of a chemical and

the statistical likelihood of exposure. Even

hazardous chemicals can be handled safely

where the solution can be engineered to

avoid exposure. An example would be the

regular handling of petroleum on a fuel station

forecourt. However, for foam, the fact that

many blowing agents remain in the foam

after manufacture and slowly diffuse during

the use phase, means that having intrinsically

hazardous substances as blowing agents is

usually not tolerable. For this reason, it is only

in exceptional circumstances that such an

option would be contemplated. Toxicity testing,

in particular, is therefore a high priority for

potential blowing agents and enterprises would

be cautioned against choosing a technology

where the toxicity of the blowing agent has not

already been fully characterised.

Section 3 of this Sourcebook has already

addressed the evaluation of environmental

impact of technology transitions as it relates

to the climate criterion. As noted there, three

separate parameters can contribute to the

overall impact. These are:

• Embodied (or embedded) energy

• Direct emissions of greenhouse gases

(particularly of those used as blowing agents)

• Indirect emissions of CO2

related to the

energy consumption of buildings or products

(where the energy saved by a foam can

reduce those emissions)

However, apart from climate impacts, there

can be a number of other environmental

considerations. These include:

• Impact on low level ozone formation

(usually associated with VOCs)

• Environmental (or human) toxicity of atmospheric breakdown products

Decision XIX/6 is careful in its language to

ensure that the evaluation process includes

this wider perspective when it encourages

Parties to the Montreal Protocol to:

‘…….promote) the selection of alternatives to

HCFCs that minimise environmental impacts,

in particular impacts on the climate, as well

as meeting other health, safety and economic

considerations’.

However, seldom does one technology

minimise all health, safety and environmentalimpacts at the same time and there is therefore

a value judgement to be made between

them. For HCFC alternatives, some criteria

are absolute (e.g. zero ODP), while others are

graduated factors, such as embodied energy

and(GWP. When selecting a technology it

is therefore important to identify the non-

negotiable elements and use them for

screening purposes before evaluating these

graduated factors. This process is shown

schematically in Section 6.4.



51


6.3 Assessing Cost Effectiveness

and PracticalityCost effectiveness is another graduated factor

and can be assessed either in the context of:

I. Initial capital costs

II. On-going variable costs

III. A combination of the two

The appropriate choice for comparison often

depends on the size of the operation being

managed by the enterprise. Where the plant

throughputs are potentially high, a greater

degree of capital investment can be justied,

since the investment per unit of production

is still relatively low and may be recovered

by operational savings. However, where

plant throughputs are likely to be low, capital

investment might need to be minimised with

possible incremental cost being incurred atthe operational level. Of course, the best

option under any method of evaluation is one

that involves minimal capital cost and results

in operational savings. In practice, the basis

of comparison is a choice for the individual

investor. However, the key aspect to bear in

mind is that competing technologies need to

be assessed using the same approach.

Care needs to be taken to ensure that cost

comparisons take into account all factors.

For example, a blowing agent may be more

expensive per kilogram purchased, but may

result in a foam that can deliver the requiredproperties at lower density. Such a blowing

agent may therefore be more cost effective

than a less expensive alternative, which does

not have the same capability. The improved

cost-effectiveness arises through the fact

that less of the overall chemical formulation is

needed.

If cost effectiveness is a graduated factor, then

some aspects of practicality are absolute in

their nature. For example, a key parameter

in making technology selections is the local

availability of the alternative blowing agent.

Although it may generally be viewed that

an alternative blowing agent is available‘globally’, it is always worth checking the local

distribution network. Long shipment distances

can affect costs but, more importantly, can

jeopardise production continuity if supplies are

subsequently interrupted through lack of local

stocks.

Not only is availability an issue, but packaging

can also be a factor. This may be dictated

by the physical characteristics of the blowing

agent (e.g. boiling point) and also local

legislation. In some instances, local legislation

may limit the amount of the blowing agent that

can be stored in one place.

6.4 Summary Decision TreeIn summary, there are a number of absolute

and relative factors that combine to inuence

technology selection. In some instances,

the process of selection can be iterative.

However, the following Decision Tree is an

attempt to provide some guidance on the

logical prioritisation of issues to be considered

if the maximisation of climate benet is to be

achieved while seeking to be compliant with

the ozone objectives of Decision XIX/6.



52

NO

NO

NO

NO

YES

YES

YES

YES

NO

NO NO

NO

YES

YES

NO

TECHNICAL

YES

COST

YES

YES

Is proven technology

available today to phase-out

current ODS usage?

Does this technology

reect the best environmental

option, particularly

for climate?

Is there a cost penalty

associated with the choice

of this technology?

Conrm technology selection

and implement, together with

an assessment of climate

impact arising.

Is a co-funding source

available which can deliver

parallel to the

Multilateral Fund ?

Should it be done

irrespective of cost?

Revert to sub-

optimal climate technology

with prospect of further transition

later. Assess climate impact of

sub-optimal transitions.

Commission further

pilot/demonstration trials to

establish states of

candidate technologies.

Can the project be

delayedpending further

development and the country

still meet ozone obligation?

What would be the preferred

choice for climate and

why is it not being chosen?

Is the cost-eectiveness

of additional carbon savings

attractive when compared with

other climate options?

START



53




54

Section 7.Review of specic factorsinuencing the selection of alternative technologies atapplication level

“Demands on blowing agents

vary substantially by process and

application, so specic information

is essential”



55


As noted in the previous Section, there

are a number of key factors that inuence

technology decision choices.

These are:

• Technical Feasibi lity

• Economic Viability

• Safety Aspects

• Environmental Impact

• Cost Effectiveness

• Practicality

Each of these factors will have a component

which is relevant to the technology sector as a

whole (e.g. PU Rigid Foams) and a component

which is relevant to the specic application

area (PU Spray) into which the new blowing

agent technology is being applied. In order to

avoid repetition this Section is structured in

such a way as to distinguish between those

factors that are related to the technology

sector as a whole and those that are specic

to an application. This means that the reader

may need to look into both the sub-Section

and the sub-sub-Section in order to gain a full

picture of the alternative technologies available.

7.1 PU RIGID FOAMS The majority of rigid polyurethane foams are

required for insulating and semi-structural

purposes. The major characteristics required

for these applications are similar, but the

emphasis on each can vary. The following table

illustrates the primary required foam properties

and their relative importance in different

applications

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

4 44 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

4 4 4 4 4 4 44 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

Ease of

Processing

Curing

Time

Insulating

Capability

Mechanical

Strength

Density Ozone

Depletion

Global

Warming

Required Foam Property or Process Characteristic7.1 Application

Domestic Refrigerators/Freezers

Other Appliances

Transport and Reefers

Boardstock

Continuous Panels

Discontinuous Panels

Spray

Blocks

Pipe-in-Pipe

One Component Foams

Section 7.Review of specicfactors inuencing theselection of alternative

technologies atapplication level





57


4. Mechanical Strength. During the lifetime of

a product the foam must remain dimensionally

stable. There is an important correlation

between the dimensional stability of closed

cell foams and the compressive strength. This

is primarily related to the degree of cross-

linking achieved. As the ambient temperature

changes, there are changes in internalpressure within the foam caused by expansion

or contraction of the cell gas. In some

instances, the blowing agent’s condensation

or diffusion out of the cell leads to signicant

pressure differences relative to prevalent

atmospheric conditions. If the foam is to be

dimensionally stable, the compressive strength

must be greater than this pressure difference.

For example, when the foam is cooled, a

pressure difference as large as 1 bar can occur

when the blowing agent gases are completely

condensed (OERTEL, 1994). There is a direct

relationship between the compressive strength

(or, more correctly, the overall mechanical

properties of the foam) and the foam density.

Higher density typically results in greater

compressive strength, but at the same time

higher cost. The foam should also be able to

act as an adhesive to the facing materials with

which it comes in contact (plastic and metal) in

order to form a dimensionally stable composite

structure (adhesion).

5. Foam Density. As mentioned in the above

point, there is a direct relationship between

foam density and the strength foam properties,

particularly the compressive strength and

dimensional stability. The foam density is

usually not uniform throughout the foam

section, whether injected or laminated. It

generally increases from a minimum valuelocated at the centre of the foam to a

maximum gure at the skin. For this reason,

when referring to this property, the type of

density should be specied: Core and Skin

densities, as their names indicate, are the

values obtained at the centre and at the

skin of the section respectively. Meanwhile

Moulded or Average density reects the global

density of the foam (i.e. total weight divided

by volume). In domestic refrigeration,

the moulded density is typically greater by

4 kg/m3 than the core density. When using

HCFC-141b as blowing agent the foam core

density varies from 31 to 33 kg/m3, equivalent

to a moulded density range of 35 – 37 kg/m3. In

other product types, densities can be as high

as 60 kg/m3. However, this reects the role in

which the foam is placed. In general terms,

all manufacturers will seek for cost reasons

to minimise the density required to achieve a

desired performance objective and the blowing

agent choice will be a critical component in

achieving this objective.

Blowing Agent Selection and how

it contributes to Required Foam

Properties As a consequence of the required foam

properties and the items mentioned earlier in

this Section, the key criteria for blowing agent

choice in PU rigid foam applications are asfollows: (DEDECKER, 2002; OERTEL, 1994)

Flammability (the lower the better)

Boiling Point (significance depends on handling equipment)

Solubility in Formulation (the higher the better)

Gas Thermal Conductivity*

Permeability through Cell Wall (the lower the better)**



Solubility in Cured Matrix (the lower the better)

Boiling Point (the lower the better to improve cell pressure & avoid condensation)

Blowing Efficiency (molecular weight)

GWP

ODP

Relevant Blowing Agent PropertyRequired Property

1. Ease of Processing

2. De-mould time

3. Insulating Performance

4. Mechanical Strength

5. Foam Density

6. Environmental

* In the normal density range (30 – 40 kg/m3) the thermal conductivity of polyurethane rigid foam is primarily determined by the composition of the cell

gas. However, it should be noticed that the cell structure (morphology) also has a strong effect on the thermal conductivity (thermal radiation).

** Permeability is the combination of the gas diffusivity though the cell wall and its solubility in cured matrix



58

Using this analysis of desirable properties as a

guide for the selection of a blowing agent, the

following table provides an assessment of the

various blowing agent groups in the context of

these properties in order to assist technology

selection:

From this table it can be seen that each of the

blowing agent options provides some relevant

qualities in meeting the requirements, some of

them considerably better than the HFC-141b

being replaced. Performance can be further

optimised by blending blowing agents withinand between groups. However, this table

does not reect some of the economic and

investment challenges faced. This aspect is

address in the next section.

Economic Viability and Cost

Effectiveness Criteria As can be seen from the table above

hydrocarbons offer a number of technical

advantages and, with the on-going

optimisation of formulations, now offer few

signicant disadvantages. However, the key

factor inuencing the decision to choose

hydrocarbons is the management of the

ammability issue. Section 5.1 has already

addressed this issue and highlighted the

fact that pre-blended hydrocarbons (i.e.

hydrocarbons pre-blended with polyols

are being evaluated as a possible way of

overcoming the engineering costs associated

with the handling of hydrocarbons. However,

for the purposes of this Section, it is assumedthat the only commercial means available

is to handle neat hydrocarbons at the

manufacturing facility. The following table

illustrates the impact that this has on the

decision process.

It can be seen that the challenge when

using hydrocarbons is to overcome the

investment costs in order to benet from the

attractive operating costs. Whether the useof hydrocarbons is possible or not is critically

linked with the likely annual consumption

of blowing agent, both currently and in the

future. In many plants in developed countries,

the decision is easily made because of the

size and maturity of the markets served. In

essence, the market supports the investment.

For emerging markets in developing countries,

the situation is less certain and a high up-front

investment carries greater risk. In addition,

care needs to be taken to ensure that a tight

operating discipline is established in order to

minimise the risk of accidents. The following

table on costs (WORLD BANK- OORG, 2009)

gives an indication of the incremental capital

cost for a typical foam manufacturing facility

consuming 25-50 tonnes of blowing agent per

annum:

++ + +++ ++/+++ +/++ +++

++ ++/+++ ++/+++ ++/+++ ++ ++

+++ ++ +++ +++ ++ N/A

++ +/++ ++/+++ ++/+++ ++ +

+/++ ++ +++ +++ +/++ +

++ ++/+++ +++ +++ ++ ++

++ ++/+++ ++/+++ ++/+++ ++ +++

++ +++ ++ ++ +++ +++

+ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++

+/++ ++/+++ + ++/+++ +++ ++/+++

HCFC-141b Hydrocarbons SaturatedHFCs

UnsaturatedHFCs (HFOs)

Methyl Formate CO2 (water)

Rating of Blowing Agent Types by Criterion

Flammability

Blowing Agent Criterion

Boiling Point (Processing)

Solubility in Formulation

Gas Thermal Conductivity

Permeability through Cell

Insolubility in cured matrix

Boiling Point

Blowing Efciency

Ozone Depletion Potential

Global Warming Potential

+++= Good ++= Fair += Poor





60

The pentane storage tank is major element

(30 - 40%) of the costs and, in certain

circumstances, could be replaced by thepentane transport container. The second

largest elements are the pre-blending stations

and all the safety related components. So

far, formulations containing pre-blended

pentane have not been supplied but two

pilot projects have been proposed under the

Multilateral Fund (MLF) scheme to investigate

the feasibility/safety of such an operation.

The above costs assume that the enterprises

already have high pressure metering units.

If this is not the case, then high pressure-

metering units costing up to US$150,000 to

250,000 each would be required.

A point to consider is a potential increment in

the operation costs. Pentanes for the foaming

industry are not locally produced in many

developing countries and transportation costs

may be expensive. In additional to the local

cost difference of the blowing agents, the

following items deserve further consideration:

• The higher blowing efciency of pentanes

due to their lower molecular weight. In

economic terms the benet of this feature

depends on the relative local cost of the

other polyurethane raw materials compared

to HCFC-141b. If the PU raw materials aremore expensive, an incremental operating

cost will exist.

• The need to increase the foam density to

meet the dimensional stability requirements.

• More expensive polyols than those

normally used with HCFC-141b may be

required to match the foam insulating

performance. In some specic cases a 3%

increase in the local cost of the formulated

polyol has been anticipated.

There may be additional expenditure to cover

the provision of nitrogen for the blanketing of

storage tanks and other tanks and pipes. The

cost will depend on the level of facilities already

installed (WORLD BANK – OORG, 2009).

As indicated by the comparative table earlier in

this sub-Section, other blowing agent optionsdo not present the same investment cost

challenge even though they may be ammable

to a lower degree in some instances (as was

HCFC-141b). The uptake of each of these

therefore hinges on issues of the cost of the

blowing agent itself, the impact of this cost

on overall formulation cost and, nally, on

availability.

Apart from their high global warming

potentials, saturated HFCs are relatively costly

and would not typically be sustainable if it were

not for the fact that they can be successfully

co-blown with CO2 (water). For this reasonthey do represent a genuine option the rigid

polyurethane foam market, although care

must be taken about availability. This may

vary by region, but also by the specic HFC in

question. It may be that the liquid HFCs(HFC-245fa and HFC-365mfc) are harder to

obtain locally because they have no parallel

use in the refrigeration sector, unlike HFC-134a

and HFC-227ea and HFC-152a.

For reasons of commercialisation and

availability, it is unlikely that unsaturated

HFCs (HFOs) will play a signicant role in the

replacement of HCFCs in developing countries

in the rigid polyurethane foam sector. However,

other emerging technologies such as methyl

formate and methylal may have a signicant

role to play over the same time-scale. The

following table illustrates the sectors in whichthese technologies have been (or will be)

evaluated under the Pilot Project activities

targeted at this sector:

Local costs for these emerging alternatives

are still being established, although both

blowing agents are expected to be relatively

competitively priced once available.

Pilot Project Scope for Methyl Formate and Methylal

Application Area Methyl Formate Methylal

Domestic Refrigerators/Freezers

Other Appliances

Transport and Reefers

Boardstock

Continuous Panels

Discontinuous Panels

Spray

Blocks

Pipe-in-Pipe

One Component Foams

4 4

4 4

4 4

4 4

4 4

4 4

4 4



61


7.1.1 PU RIGID – Domestic

Refrigerators and Freezers

Refrigerators and refrigerators/freezers are

built by joining an outer case, normally painted

metal, and an inner plastic case which is

typically vacuum drawn from high impact

polystyrene (HIPS) or acrylonitrile-butadiene-

styrene (ABS). The void between the two

cases is then lled with rigid polyurethane

foam to create an integrated cabinet which

delivers the necessary insulation to maintain

the temperature differential at least energy

consumption (DESCHAGT, 2002). The

refrigerator door is built in the same way from

an inner thermoplastic sheet and a painted

metal outer sheet, with the space between

the two sheets also lled with rigid

polyurethane foam.

Historical trends in actual Blowing

Agent selection The diagram below illustrates the historic

transitional strategies that have been

undertaken in the domestic refrigeration

sector. It depicts the fact that the technology

transition has taken two separate and parallel

paths depending on the local/regional

attitude towards the use of hydrocarbons. As is evidenced from the table in Section

7.1, the ammability of hydrocarbons is

their key weakness. However, some major

appliance manufacturers identied relatively

early in their research of alternatives that

the ammability issue could be managed

with appropriate equipment selection and

engineering safeguards. For others, particularly

in North America, either the challenge of

investment or local safety regulations meant

that the hydrocarbon option was viewed as

unmanageable, leading to the transitions to

HCFC-141b and onwards into saturated HFCs(particularly HFC-245fa).

50% reduced

CFC11

HCFC 141b

HFC245fa

c-pentane

Cyclo/iso-

pentane

c-pentane/

Other

HFC134a

CFC11

Source: Huntsman

Carrousel type line for cabinets foam injection in domestic refrigeration







64

Commercial Rerigerators (including

Vending Machines & Display

Cabinets)

These are typically much larger than domestic

units and include open top display units. For

vending machines, included in this category,

there have been requirements for zero ODP

and low GWP blowing agents from large

manufacturers of soft drinks (Coca-Cola,

Pepsi, etc.).

Basic performance requirements are the same

than those for domestic refrigerators, but the

additional space availability often associated

with these units, means that there are more

degrees of freedom in meeting the thermal and

processing requirements. Notwithstanding this,

ow requirements can be more demanding

because of the increased size of the cabinets.

In any event, the delivery of the required

mechanical strength at lowest possible density

remains the challenge for most systems.

Since many of the manufacturers in this

sector are small/medium enterprises, the

foam components are often supplied as fully

formulated polyols ready for further reaction

with the isocyanate.


Agent selection As with water heaters, this sector favoured

HCFC-141b as its rst technology transitionout of CFCs in the absence of experience with

hydrocarbons. However, as the sector has

approached the second technology transition

in developed countries, hydrocarbons have

ranked higher amongst the options, having in

mind the demand for lower GWP substances.

Accordingly, cyclo-pentane alone or preferably

blended with iso-pentane is now the blowing

agent of choice for large enterprises. Especially

in this application, when capital investment isaffordable the cyclo/isopentane blend provides

a good balance between foam properties and

density.

When addressing the HCFC conversion,

one of the questions frequently asked is the

minimum size (HCFC consumption) that an

enterprise should have to develop a cost

effective hydrocarbon-based project.

The “rule of thumb” that was used during

the CFC-11 phase out to guide decisions in

project preparation was 50 tonnes per annum.

Current conversion cost for a small

manufacturer (consumption of 30 to 50tonnes of HCFC-141b), including one high

pressure dispenser with two mix heads, is in

the range of US $ 450,000 to 550,000. At

this consumption level a storage underground

tank for pentane is not necessary and the

operation can handle with 200 – 250 kg

drums. However, a pentane storage area

having a polyol/pentane premix station should

be conditioned in agreement with safety

standards. An enterprise should analyze the

balance between the relatively high capital

investment cost required for hydrocarbons

and the long term sustainability (low operating

costs, low GWP) of the option.

For small/ medium manufacturers the other

low GWP options are:

• CO2

(water): Although high foam densities

are required to meet the dimensional stability

requirements.

• Methyl Formate: There are some commercial

refrigerators manufacturers that are using or

have used this substance as blowing agent.

They report a 10 % increase in operating costs

arising from the need for higher densities to

combat foam instability.

Where high GWP compounds are a possibility,

HFC-245fa or HFC-365mfc/HFC-227ea can

be blended with high amounts of water for

co-blowing present as described for water

heaters. However, operating costs can be

higher under such circumstances and, as

noted earlier, some major outlets may object tothe supply of units containing saturated HFCs.







67


7.1.4 PU RIGID – BoardstockContinuous processes for rigid polyurethane

foams have been mostly limited to developed

countries, where the size and maturity of

the markets has supported the investment.

In North America, a high proportion of the

demand for PU Boardstock (often referred toin the United States as “polyiso”) comes from

the residential sheathing market, where the

product competes with extruded polystyrene

and mineral wool. In Europe, the use is

focused much more on the commercial and

industrial buildings sector, although recent

increases in energy standards in the residential

sector have improved its competitive position

with respect to mineral wool.

In developing countries, continuous laminators

are rare with only Turkey and Mexico known

to have signicant investments. However,

this situation is expected to change rapidlyas attention is focused globally on the need

for greater energy efciency in buildings in

order to combat climate change. The growth

in construction has already stimulated rapid

growth of the extruded polystyrene market in

China and the development of a signicant

polyurethane boardstock industry in China is

expected to follow close behind.


Agent selection As with most other sectors based on rigid

polyurethane foam, the blowing agent of choice for the period up to the early 1990s was

CFC-11. Under pressure to make the transition

from CFCs, most of the industry initially went

to HCFC-141b, with the exception of a few

manufacturers in the European Union. German

manufacturers, in particular, were encouraged

by pending regulatory pressures to move

directly to hydrocarbons and managed to

make the transition directly.

The cost-effectiveness of the hydrocarbon

solution spurred others to investigate it, and

where the product’s re classication was

not impaired, further transitions took place.

However, the primary shift to hydrocarbons

came in the 2003-2004 period when the

North American “polyiso” industry, facing a

ban on the further use of HCFC-141b in 2005,

decided to move to hydrocarbons rather

than to saturated HFCs, which were its other

choice.

Only very few developed country

manufacturers have made the transition to

saturated HFCs and this has been primarily

where product re requirements have

necessitated this transition and the cost

burden can be absorbed.

The few developing country activities are either

using HCFC-141b or HCFC-22 currently.

Retrot to hydrocarbons would require

signicant further investment and it may be

easier for new capacity to be installed based

on hydrocarbon from the outset in view of the

likely growth in demand for this product type in

coming years.

Concluding remarks

The PU Boardstock industry is heavily

focused in developed countries at present,

but substantial growth is expected to

occur in developing countries as the focus

increases on the insulation of buildings

globally. The growth of construction in

places such as China means that increased

levels of insulation are essential. In this

context, there will be few, if any, PU

laminators meeting the cut-off date fortransitional investment under Decision

XIX/6, but it will be important for new

investments to be guided to the most

environmentally sound technologies, in

view of their future signicance.









71


Generally polyurethane technology is used,

but for some specic re or temperature

requirements polyisocyanurate (PIR) is applied.

Good adhesion between the substrate and

the sprayed foam is extremely important so

all substrates should be clean, dry and free

of grease, oil, loose material or dust. Thefoam needs to be highly reactive, especially

for adhering to vertical surfaces. Typical core

densities are in the range of 35 to 40 kg/

m3 for roofs. Additional foam requirements

are: high resilience, low moisture absorption

and transmission; good thermal properties;

sufcient re performance to meet relevant

building codes; application capability in a

variety of climatic conditions; and ease of use

(FTOC, 2006).

The use of PU Spray Foam is at its most

prevalent in North America, Spain and Japan.

All three regions have therefore already facedthe challenge of HCFC-141b phase-out. Early

experiments with hydrocarbon technologies

in the United States resulted in incidents

which conrmed that the ammability of

hydrocarbons was unmanageable in this

application. Attempts to overcome this set-

back with changes in practice have failed to

deliver and interest in the use of hydrocarbons

has waned.

In Japan, super-critical CO2

technology has

been introduced and made some headway,

although levels of market penetration,

whilst signicant, suggest that there maybelimitations in some applications. Nonetheless,

the technology has now become the focus of a

possible UNDP pilot-project which might shed

more light on the potential.

As noted earlier, CO2

(water) provides an

option for less critical applications, but the

system must be well formulated to prevent

shrinkage and to promote good adhesion.

Apart from the saturated HFCs which are now

well established, there is initial evidence to

suggest that unsaturated-HFCs could have a

signicant role to play in the future of PU Spray

Foam worldwide. A recent study (BOGDAN,

2009) that covered the diversity of the polyol

blends found in the industry indicated that

spray foams blown with unsaturated HFCs

of low GWP were equivalent or better quality

compared to current HFC-245fa based foamsand that they can be processed in existing

commercial equipment.

There is also the possibility that methyl formate

could have a role to play, but it is not yet clear

whether the ammability of methyl formate

will be sufciently low to meet the safety

requirements of the application. Although PU

Spray was included in the recent UNDP pilot

project on methyl formate, results are still

awaited on the foams produced. In addition, it

is not yet clear how the processing boundaries

were evaluated.

For super-critical CO2, the technology relies on

direct CO2

injection to the polyol component.

With a minor modication to conventional

spray machines (Gusmer FF type with a

1:1 mixing ratio by volume) supercritical

CO2

assisted water blown foams with good

dimensional stability and a comparable

density to HCFC-141b blown systems are

produced. Liquid CO2

cooled to 0 °C with a

heat exchanger is supplied to the Gusmer

type auxiliary pump which is remodelled so

that brine can circulate internally and the CO2

injected to the polyol component. The unitary

cost to modify conventional Gusmer typeequipment is estimated to be US $ 14,000.

Foams with either normal rigid polyurethane

(PUR) or polyisocyanurate (PIR) for applications

requiring ame-retardant systems can be

provided. Despite its signicant penetration in

the Japan spray foam market it is still not clear

how widely applicable this technology may be

outside of the country.


Agent selectionOriginally, the technology used throughout

the world was based on CFC-11. At the point

where CFC-11 was phased-out, HCFC-141b

became the obvious replacement and few

others were evaluated. Only at the point of

HCFC-141b phase-out, were hydrocarbons

and saturated HFCs seriously evaluated.

In the United States, there was also some

intermediate evaluation of HCFC-22 in view of

the fact that the phase-out date for HCFC-22

was later and the most appropriate saturated

HFCs (notably HFC-245fa) were only just

becoming available.

A proportion of the PU Spray Foam market in

all three territories (North America, Spain and

Japan) moved to CO2(water) blown foam, but

this was not seen to be a universal solution.

The choice of saturated HFC depended to an

extent on availability, which itself was driven

by the patent cover in each region. This led to

only HFC-245fa being used in North America

while, in Europe, both HFC-245fa and HFC-

365mfc/227ea have been used successfully.

In Japan, where pressure to avoid saturated

HFCs has been greater, the balance of the

market has been shared between HFC-245fa

and super-critical CO2.

The rapid growth of the PU Spray market in

China over recent years based on HCFC-141b

has created an urgent need to evaluate the

best alternatives for this region – particularly

because of the ‘worst-rst’ presumption in

Decision XIX/6.

Concluding remarks

This is another sector where the prevailing

technology in use in developed countries

is unlikely to provide a full solution for

Article 5 country transitions. The emerging

technologies include super-critical CO2,

methyl formate and unsaturated HFCs, but

it is still unclear which of these will best

meet developing country needs.



72

7.1.8 PU RIGID – BlocksPU rigid foam blocks (called ‘buns’ in the

United States) can be produced by either

continuous or discontinuous processes. The

purpose of producing foams in this form is to

create the largest level of utility from a single

manufacturing source. This makes PU Blockmanufacture particularly popular in small

and emerging markets. Blocks can be cut

into slabs in order to allow the production of

composite panels with metal or plasterboard

surfaces. They can also be cut into foamed

pipe sections using computer-controlled

specialist cutting equipment. This type of

approach becomes even more powerful for the

fabrication of three dimensional shaped for the

insulation of tanks and vessels.

However, the penalty paid for the versatility

offered by block foam technologies is in

the utilisation of the foam itself. Even forwell designed computer-controlled cutting

equipment it is difcult to get above 55%

yields for foam utilisation. This leads to

considerable waste streams and a requirement

for appropriate waste management strategies

– particularly if the blowing agent selection

involves gases that are either ozone depleting

or contribute signicantly to climate change.

The situation is slightly less severe for

continuous processes than for discontinuous

processes, but the waste issue remains a

signicant one for all fabricated parts.


Agent selection The often small-scale nature of PU Block

Foam plants has meant that polyurethane

systems have needed to be both versatile

and tolerant. Most, if not all, PU Block Foam

facilities therefore used CFC-11 until, at least,

the early 1990s when HCFC-141b began to

emerge as a vi rtual drop-in replacement. For

the manufacture of blocks, the rise/cure prole

is critical and this relates directly back to the

boiling point of the blowing agent. If the cure

is too slow it leads to block collapse, but if

the curing on-set is too early it leads to highly

distorted cell structures.

Hydrocarbons (particularly n-pentane) also

meet these requirements but the concern has

always been the management of accumulation

of pockets of blowing agent within the

manufacturing facilities. Flame proong and

adequate ventilation are both required to

avoid these risks and the level of investment

is typically too great for this type of process

– particularly in the case of discontinuous

production.

Transitions from HCFCs in developed countries

have tended to follow the saturated HFC

option, with HFC-365mfc/227ea blends being

used in Europe (primarily because of their

boiling points) and HFC-245fa tending to be

used in North America, where experience with

froth foaming technology is more advanced

than elsewhere.

Concluding remarks

This type of process has particular use in

Low Volume Consuming (LVC) countries

because of its relatively low investment

cost and its versatility in meeting a number

of foam end-uses. The most likely solution

for the HCFC-141b phase-out could be pre-

blended hydrocarbons (avoiding the needto mix on site) or methyl formate. However,

in both cases, the ammability risks need

to be fully characterised in order to dene

the minimum investments required (if any)

for adequate risk management.



73


7.1.9 PU RIGID – Pipe-in-Pipe The deployment of this technology has

grown rapidly in the last 25 years based on

the increased trends towards district heating

systems. These systems were already well

established in former Eastern Bloc countries,

but have been promoted further by recognitionthat small-scale, localised combined heat

and power (CHP) facilities are an important

component of future decentralised energy

generation strategies to combat climate

change.

The technology involves the in-situ foaming

of polyurethane insulation foam between a

steel pipe and outer casing which may be

high density polyethylene pipe or other similar

product. There are a number of continuous

and discontinuous processing methods

including casting, injecting with a withdrawing

mixing head (see rst illustration) and formingthe external jacket in a continuous process

(see second illustration).

The drawbacks of this method include the

difculty in manufacturing long pipe sections

and ensuring that the quality of the foam is

consistent throughout. Similar issues exist for

a variant of this process called the paper draw-

through method.

For continuous processes the method is as

shown below:

In this instance the key to the success of the

process is in ensuring that the external pipecovering provides an integral seal. This is

important since many such pipes are installed

underground and need to be particularly

immune to water ingress.

Additional challenges for continuous processes

include the fact that changes in pipework and

insulation diameters can involve long set-up

times. There is also a need for sophisticated

process control.

Historical trends in actual Blowing Agent selection As with many other complex processes,

the technology was simplied by the original

adoption of the most versatile of blowing

agents, CFC-11. In transitioning from

CFC-11, a signicant part of the industry

went to HCFC-141b in order to optimise

thermal performance. However, a number of

European manufacturers also focused on the

further development of hydrocarbon systems

based on n-pentane and/or cyclo-pentane.

These have since been optimised and are

now perceived as broadly state-of-the-art.

Other users of HCFCs in developed countries

have transitioned to saturated HFCs, such as

HCFC-245fa and HFC-365mfc/227ea.

Concluding remarks

The future technology options for

pipe-in-pipe polyurethane foams in

developing countries seem to be based

on the capability to achieve appropriate

transfer of hydrocarbon technologies.

There are very few intrinsic drawbacks

with the hydrocarbon choice since the

manufacturing processes are relatively

sophisticated and engineering solutionscan be managed. For the products

themselves, they are largely underground

and represent little intrinsic hazard. In

addition, there is little penalty in insulation

thicknesses with the most recent,

optimised hydrocarbon technologies.





75


4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

Ease of

Processing

Skin

Formation

Resilience Mechanical

Strength

Hardness Ozone

Depletion

Global

Warming

Application

PU Integral Skin Foams

PU Shoe Soles

7.2 PU FLEXIBLE FOAMS At the time of the CFC phase-out in the late

1980s and early 1990s, this sector represented

a substantial element of the ODS consumption

in the foam sector, even though the chemicals

were only used as an auxiliary blowing agent.

Their prime purpose was to bring an extraboost to the CO

2(water) already present and

allow lighter and softer foams to be produced.

This was (and is) of particular importance in the

bedding and furniture sectors, which are the

largest segments of the exible polyurethane

foam market.

Being close to the consumer interface and

needing a relatively rapid phase-out strategy,

the bulk of the exible foam industry did

not wait for the development of a technical

replacement for CFCs (i.e. HCFCs) but elected

instead to invest in existing technologies, such

as the use of methylene chloride, despite thefact that health concerns had been expressed

in some quarters. The two major sectors that

decided not to take such a route were the

exible integral skin applications (e.g. car dash

boards) and the shoe sole sector, both of

which had (and still have) relatively challenging

specications. In both of these instances,

HCFC-141b and, to a lesser extent, HCFC-22

became the blowing agents of choice.

Critical Foam Processing and

Product PropertiesBoth applications require three primary

characteristics. These are hardness, resilience

and skin formation. Moulded polyurethane

foams with integral skins provide the precise

combination of characteristics to deliver these

properties and have therefore increasingly

dominated the market for both. Within car

interiors, the use of integral skin polyurethane

foam has extended as far as the steering

wheel, where the technical specications are at

their highest.

The following table illustrates the primary

technical requirements of PU integral skin foam

systems:

Required Foam Property or Process Characteristic



76

In general, the specications for automotive

applications are more stringent than for other

applications in view of the safety implications

associated with these uses. This is reected in

the requirements shown in the table.

1. Ease of processing. Virtually all of the

products manufactured in this sector are

moulded. The processing characteristics that

are most signicant therefore relate to the ow

of the polyurethane system through the mould,

and its consistency of rise and cure. A further

property of importance is mould-release.

All of these parameters are fundamentally

a combination of the polyurethane system,

the mould design and mould operation. It is

therefore difcult to point to a universal foam

formulation that delivers optimum properties in

all integral skin foam applications.

2. Skin Formation. This is an absolutely

critical characteristic both from the point of

view of aesthetics and longevity of service.

Imperfections in the surface nish can lead to

further accidental damage, since the integrity

of the surface can be breached more easily. As

is shown later in this sub-Section, the choice of

blowing agent can have a substantial inuence

on the quality of skin formation.

3. Resilience. In softer foams, the

characteristic would be known as visco-

elasticity. It is fundamentally, the ability to

regain its original shape following impact.

In most integral skin applications, where

densities are higher, the process is virtually

instantaneous and the foam is described

as resilient. This property is dependent on

a balance between polyurethane system

formulation and foam density. These can

be varied to a degree, but automotive

manufacturers understandably seek the

required resilience at minimum density in order

to save weight in their vehicles.

4. Mechanical Strength. Again, mechanical

strength in the foams is broadly a function of

density. It is important that the foams are able

to provide sufcient structural integrity to meet

their requirements. For automotive fascias, for

example, the foam can be used to encompass

glove compartments and other such features.

It is therefore important that factors such as

tear strength, elongation, tensile strength and

compression are all sufcient to meet the

application requirements.

5. Hardness. This is a characteristic that is

measured across many plastics and rubbers

and is effectively assessing the resistance to

indentation. There are a number of routine test

regimes, amongst which Shore and Rockwell

are the most well known. The avoidance of

skin penetration is critical for both automotive

and shoe sole applications in order that the

products concerned can have a level of

longevity.

Although signicantly inter-related, these

properties collectively represent an expression

of what needs to be achieved by a successful

polyurethane foam system. The impact that

blowing agent selection can have on these

characteristics is the subject of the next sub-

Section.



Properties The following table provides an overview of

the interaction of blowing agent selection with

desired foam properties:



77





Boiling Point (blowing agent to condense at surface under temp./pressure)


Broadly independent of blowing agent choice, if processing OK



GWP

ODP



2. Skin Formation

3. Resilience


5. Hardness

6. Environmental

It can be seen that the primary interaction

between blowing agent choice and foam

properties occurs on the issue of skin

formation and, indeed this has been the

experience in practice – particularly in the more

demanding applications of the automotive

sector. The following table illustrates the HCFC

alternatives available and their strengths and

weaknesses.

++ + +++ ++/+++ +/++ +++

++ ++/+++ ++/+++ ++/+++ ++ ++

+++ ++ +++ +++ ++ N/A

++ ++/++ ++/+++ ++/+++ ++ +

+++ ++ +++ +++ ++ +

+ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++

+/++ ++/+++ + ++/+++ +++ ++/+++

HCFC-141b Hydrocarbons Saturated

HFCs

Unsaturated

HFCs (HFOs)

Methyl Formate CO2

(water)

Flammability




Boiling Point (Skin Form)










79


7.2.1 PU FLEXIBLE – Integral Skin

(Automotive)Historical trends in actual Blowing Agent

selection

As with many other polyurethane foam

processes, this application was based almostexclusively on CFC-11 until the onset of

the ozone depletion. Perhaps more than

others, however, it is a set of applications

that has grown in stature and become part of

mainstream product design during a period

when it has been managing technology

transitions. This has been particularly the case

for the automotive sector, where the use of

PU foams in automotive interiors has grown

signicantly through the period.

In order to create minimum disturbance to

the achievement of challenging specications,

the industry initially moved to HCFC-141b.However, in view of the global nature of

the automotive industry and the advanced

schedule for HCFC phase-out in developed

countries, there was a need for a further

response by the industry as early as the

year 2000. This was coupled with consumer

pressure for ODS-free products.

The choices for the substitution of HCFCs

in this sector have already been described

and it is clear that solutions based on

HFCs (e.g. HFC-134a, HFC-245fa and

HFC-365mfc), which have been used in a

number of developed countries might now

be less favoured because of pressure fromregional climate policy. This may play into the

hands of alternatives such as methyl formate,

provided that any ammability characteristics

can be contained more cost-effectively than

traditional hydrocarbons. The Pilot Project in

Brazil/Mexico has already gained recognition in

the fact that products manufactured appear to

meet the specications set by Volkswagen.

Concluding remarks

With the exception of skin formation, the

impact of blowing agent selection on nal

foam properties is limited. However, there

is a minimum set of requirements that the

blowing agent needs to meet in order to

assist in the satisfactory processing of

integral skin foams. The processing and

product demands are at their highest in the

automotive sector, where the specications

are very exacting. Alternative blowing

agents are available for HCFCs and a

number of these could deliver appropriate

climate benets.







82

Against these criteria, the eligible blowing

agents for phenolic foams can be assessed as

follows

As can be seen, the blowing agent choices

for phenolic foam are similar, but not identical,

to those available for polyurethane foams.Notable absentees are CO

2(water), since

the isocyanate reaction is not an option, and

methyl formate – which remains untried with

this chemistry.

In the early stages of transition, it was

believed that the selection of hydrocarbons

as alternative blowing agents would be

substantially detrimental to the re properties

of phenolic foam. However, in practice, as is

described in the following sub-sections, the

phenolic matrix has been demonstrated to be

sufciently robust to counter any signicant

impact from the presence of hydrocarbons.

This has meant that hydrocarbons have

emerged as a major alternative for the sector inrecent years.

Economic Viability and Cost

Effectiveness CriteriaPicking up on this trend towards

hydrocarbons, the investment to manage the

ammability issue is similar to that for rigid

polyurethane foams. Accordingly, the following

table provides an assessment of the economic

viability and cost effectiveness of alternatives:

As with other foam types, the capital

investment for hydrocarbons is the main

barrier, while benets are gained in on-goingoperating costs. However, the reverse is the

case for saturated HFCs and this is likely to

extend to unsaturated HFCs as well.

++ ++ + +++ ++/+++

++ +++ ++/+++ ++/+++ ++/+++

++ ++ ++ +++ ++/+++

++ ++ +/++ ++/+++ ++/+++

+ ++ +++ +++ +++

+/++ ++ ++ +++ +++

+/++ ++/+++ ++/+++ + ++/+++

++ ++/+++ ++/+++ ++/+++ ++/+++

++ ++ +++ + ++/+++

HCFC-141b 2-chloropropane

Hydrocarbons

Hydrocarbons Saturated

HFCs

Unsaturated HFCs

(HFOs)

Flammability



Emulsion Formation

Gas Thermal Conductivity


Permeability through Cell


Boiling Point

Blowing Efciency


+ ++ +++ + +

++ ++ + ++/+++ +++

++ ++ ++ +/++ +

++ ++ ++/+++ +++ ++

HCFC-141b 2-chloropropane

Hydrocarbons

Hydrocarbons Saturated

HFCs

Unsaturated HFCs

(HFOs)

Investment Costs


Operating Costs

Widespread Availability

Potential to blend

+++= High ++= Medium += Low


Economic viability and cost effectiveness criteria



83


7.3.1 PHENOLIC – Boardstock As noted in the introductory paragraphs

of Section 7.3, the growth of the phenolic

boardstock sector has been thwarted to

an extent by technology issues in the North

American market. However, the European

market, and most notably the markets in theUnited Kingdom and Benelux have been able

to press ahead with the commercialisation

of technologies into this sector. The intrinsic

re, smoke and toxicity performance of the

products coupled with their high degree of

thermal performance has made them highly

competitive with other forms of boardstock

product in the marketplace. Market penetration

has been assisted by the uctuations in cost of

various polyurethane raw materials and, more

latterly, by the rapid growth in demand for

boardstock products in general, as the thermal

requirements in xed-dimension cavity wallshave increased.

This said, the geographic spread of phenolic

boardstock production and use remains

limited – partly because of the availability of

technology and partly because of the precise

processing parameters associated with these

technologies. There are some less onerous

technology options available, but these have

not tended to meet the product performance

required to make signicant market in-roads.


Agent selection The traditional blowing agent for phenolic

boardstock was CFC-11, although this was

rapidly superseded by HCFC-141b. The use of

HCFC-141b presented a particular challenge

for the phenolic emulsion chemistry because of

its solubility and the major technology holders

found it necessary to modify the blowing agent

with additives to make it less soluble in the

foam mix.

In the transition that took place from HCFC-

141b in Europe, it became self-evident that

the phenolic product itself was sufciently

robust in its re performance to accommodate

hydrocarbon blowing agents for the bulk of

end-uses. Therefore, the bulk of continuous

processes are now based on n-pentane,

either on its own or in blends with other

hydrocarbons. One technology in Europe

had moved directly from CFC-11 to 2-chloro-

propane and continues to use this blowing

agent as the basis for its product range.

There is limited use for saturated HFCs in

these continuous processes, since thermal

performance based on optimised hydrocarbon

formulations is seen as sufcient for most

end-uses.

Concluding remarks

Although it is not yet clear how the

emergence of unsaturated HFCs might

affect the blowing agent choices for

future phenolic boardstock formulations,

the overall performance of the various

hydrocarbon-based technologies make it

unlikely that there will be further technology

transitions in the short term.

There has been little, if any, implementation

of phenolic foam boardstock facilities in

developing countries to date, so any future

investment is likely to be based completely

on technology transfer from Europe or

elsewhere.





85


4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

Ease of

Processing

Moisture

Resistance

Insulating

Capability

Mechanical

Strength

Density Ozone

Depletion

Global

Warming

Required Foam Property or Process Characteristic Application

XPS – Board (Construction)

Polyolen - Board (Other)

XPS – Board (Other)

7.4 THERMOPLASTIC FOAMS As noted in Section 4.1, extruded

thermoplastic foams are the only ones

that have historically used ozone depleting

substances. In the case of extruded

polystyrene, products fall into two categories:

‘board’ and ‘sheet’, with ‘board’ beingused for a variety of insulation, buoyancy

and recreational activities, while ‘sheet’

has been focused on food and other

packaging. Polyolen (both polyethylene and

polypropylene) foams have also found uses

in these sectors, but the use of polyolen

foams in insulating applications has been more

limited.

Equipment for the manufacture of extruded

thermoplastic products varies substantially

by region and application. In North America,

where the primary requirement for extruded

polystyrene is insulating sheathing boardsfor the residential construction market,

the manufacturing lines tend to be long,

for optimum speed and also capable of

producing wide boards (typically 1.2 metres) at

thicknesses down to 25mm. This requirement

necessitates a substantial engineering solution

and makes the transfer from one blowing

agent to another very challenging.

In Europe, the requirements are more

modest, with many lines generating product

at a maximum of 0.6 metres in width and

at greater thicknesses – often driven by the

higher thermal insulation requirements of the

commercial building sector. In South East

Asia (most notably China), where the demandfor extruded polystyrene foam is growing

at its fastest, the technical and processing

requirements are still more limited. In many

cases, the polystyrene being used for extrusion

has a high recycled content, making it less

easy to process. Products generated in

this scenario tend to be lower grade than in

North America and Europe and are typically

processed on 0.6 metre lines.

Critical Foam Processing and

Product PropertiesExtruded thermoplastic foams provide some

signicant properties not available with rigid

polyurethane foams. These include an extra

measure of resilience and excellent moisture

resistance. This makes them particularly suited

for oor insulation in construction applications.

The table below highlights these foam

properties and reects also the demanding

nature of manufacture for the construction

industry in some regions.



86

1. Ease of processing. Since the industry is

working with thermoplastic raw materials,

processing characteristics such as polymer

melt temperature and melt viscosity becomecritically important. These characteristics

depend signicantly on the quality and

consistency of the raw materials, making the

use of post-consumer recycled materials, as

practiced in China, particularly challenging. The

blowing agent can have in impact of properties

such as melt viscosity, since they can often

plasticise the mix. The compatibility of the

blowing agent can also inuence its solubility

and, in particular the pressure at which the

matrix degasses and the foam expands.

2. Moisture Resistance. This is typically a

characteristic of the polymer itself and can bemaintained in foam products provided that the

cell structure is of a high quality. This usually

means that the density cannot be driven too

low or inferior sources of raw materials used.

The process needs to remain consistent

throughout.

3. Insulating Capability. Again, high quality

cell structure is a pre-requisite to deliver

closed cells which can retain the blowing

agents. However, thermoplastic materials are

also more susceptible to diffusion through

the cell walls. Considerable study has beenconducted on the relative diffusion rates of

popular blowing agents and these have been

reported in a number of publications (e.g. Vo

and Pacquet, 2004).

4. Mechanical Strength. Extruded

thermoplastic foams are generally renowned

for their strength-to-weight ratio and their

resilience, since the action of the extruder

is to provide a ‘skinned’ product which

provides a degree of extra protection. For

ooring applications in the construction sector,

particular care needs to be taken in ensuring

that foam quality is high enough to provide thedesired strength at minimum density.

5. Foam Density. Typical foam densities for

thermoplastic foams range from 25-35 kg/m3.

The previously listed properties tend to improve

with density within this range. Therefore,

the skill of the manufacturer is to tailor the

manufactured density to the minimum required

to meet the requirements of the application.

The more consistent the raw materials and

process conditions are, the more condent the

manufacturer can be and the less margin for

variability needs to be applied.



PropertiesMost thermoplastic foams still depending

on HCFCs have used a combination of

HCFC-142b and HCFC-22. The proportions

of each have varied considerably depending

on the application and, in some instances,

each blowing agent has been used in isolation.

This will be discussed further in Section 7.4.1.

The inter-relationship between foam property/

processing characteristic and blowing agent isshown in the following table:








Blowing Efficiency (molecular weight)

GWP

ODP



2. Moisture Resistance

3. Insulating Performance


5. Foam Density

6. Environmental

* In the normal density range (25 – 35 kg/m3) the thermal conductivity of thermoplastic foams is primarily determined by the composition of the cell

gas. However, it should be noticed that the cell structure (morphology) also has a strong effect on the thermal conductivity (thermal radiation).

** Permeability is the combination of the gas diffusivity though the cell wall and its solubility in cured matrix





88

It can be seen here that unsaturated HFCs

have the potential to provide the best all-

round solution from a purely technical and

environmental perspective. Hydrocarbons also

offer a signicant solution provided that the

ammability issues can be managed at both

product and process level. The extruded foamindustry has had signicant experience of

managing hydrocarbons in the ‘sheet’ sector

which tended to bypass HCFCs and move

straight to hydrocarbons when phasing out of

CFCs. However, the experience of res was

common-place and led some to conclude

that this was not really a sustainable solution.

Nevertheless, few ‘sheet’ manufacturers have

stepped back from their choice and have

presumably found coping strategies.

There is an additional challenge for ‘board’

products, however. ‘Sheet’ products tend

to be relatively thin and lose their blowing

agent rapidly, whereas board products can be

substantially thicker for both construction and

packaging applications. In developed countries

where hydrocarbons have been adopted(particularly in polyolen foams), this led to a

particular problem with boards in storage and

transport. In essence, the rate of diffusion

of hydrocarbon out of the products was not

sufciently fast after production to avoid the

build-up of ammable gases in the post-

production areas. This led to some incidents.

The matter was nally addressed by most

manufacturers through the use of perforating

equipment to release the hydrocarbon blowing

agent physically.

Economic Viability and Cost Effectiveness

Criteria

Some of the major challenges for the

thermoplastic foams sector lay in dealing

with investment costs and/or blowing agent

availability. The following table illustrates

the fact that penalties are likely to be faced

either in the context of investment cost (e.g.

hydrocarbons or CO2) or in operating costs

and availability (saturated and unsaturated

HFCs). However, it should be noted that

HFC-134a is relatively widespread because of

its use as a refrigerant.

+ ++/+++ + + +++ ++/+++

++ + ++/+++ +++ +/++ +/++

++ ++ +/++ + +/++ +/++

++ ++/+++ +++ ++ ++/+++ ++/+++

HCFC-142b/22 Hydrocarbons Saturated

HFCs

Unsaturated

HFCs (HFOs)

CO2 CO

2/ethanol

Investment Costs


Operating Costs

Widespread Availability

Potential to blend

+++= High ++= Medium += Low



89


7.4.1 EXTRUDED POLYSTYRENE

– Board

As noted in previous sections, the use of

extruded polystyrene is primarily in the

construction sector where it is used for a

variety of insulation purposes, both in walls and

roofs, but most notably in oors, where the

product has specic competitive advantages.

The product has competed successfully

against both rigid polyurethane foams and

mineral bre in all the major regions of the

world, although its mode of success has varied

depending on the regional demand patterns.

This point speaks to the versatility of extruded

polystyrene in its application.


Agent selection The whole extruded thermoplastic foam

sector was established on the ease of useof CFC-12 as a blowing agent. The blowing

agent provided the inert character and thermal

performance to deliver high quality products

at affordable prices. It was only when the

phase-out of CFCs was required that the

split between choices for ‘board’ and ‘sheet’

materials occurred. As noted in Section 7.4,

sheet products moved predominantly to

hydrocarbons, while board products chose

to use HCFC-142b/22 blends for the most

part, in order to retain the requisite thermal

performance.

When the blend was chosen, it was knownthat the cell wall permeability of HCFC-142b

was signicantly lower than that of HCFC-22.

Therefore, the long-term thermal performance

of products would largely be determined

by the proportion of HCFC-142b in the

blend and its subsequent retention. Since

HCFC-22 is a major refrigerant, its availability

has been greater, and its price lower,

throughout its period of use. This has been

particularly important in some developing

country regions where access to HCFC-

142b has been more difcult and the cost

signicantly higher. Since some product andbuilding codes will have been written around

the sole use of HCFC-22, it may make the

transitional hurdle a little easier when phase-

out of HCFCs is nally embraced.

Concluding remarks

The extruded polystyrene sector is

continuing to grow rapidly in China and

elsewhere in Asia and practical transitional

solutions will be essential. It seems unlikely

that either saturated or unsaturated HFCs

will make major in-roads in the markets for

reasons of cost and availability. Therefore,

the most likely solution will be based on

hydrocarbons, on their own or in blends.

The level of investment needed to support

this is unclear, but, since the plants are

relatively small, and there is parallel

experience with extruded polystyrene

sheet, it may be that the transition will be

less challenging than currently envisaged.

CO2

seems unlikely as a solution in

isolation. The extrusion process remains

highly emissive, and this puts a particular

burden on the avoidance of high GWP

solutions, such as saturated HFCs. The

only time when such an approach might be justied is in applications and jurisdictions

where thermal performance is absolutely

paramount. In these cases, it may be

possible to maker further transitions from

saturated to unsaturated HFCs in due

course.



90

7.4.2 POLYOLEFIN FOAMSPolyolen foams have made less penetration

into the construction markets that have been

the bedrock of the extruded polystyrene

industry. The one exception to this has

been in the pipe insulation sector, where

the added resilience offered by the producthas proved of substantial value. The primary

use for polyolen foams has been as a high

performance packaging material – particularly

when used for the packaging of delicate, high

value equipment.


Agent selection The choice of blowing in the polyolen foam

sector has followed a very similar pattern to

that of extruded polystyrene foam. However,

because of the lack of a large demand for

insulating properties, the industry switchedmore fully to hydrocarbons when transitioning

from CFCs. It therefore had to address some

of the issues discussed in sub-Section 7.4

regarding the storage and transport of these

products.

The remaining use of HCFCs in this product

sector is much more limited than in the

extruded polystyrene sector. Nevertheless,

where use does exist – possibly in goods

related to recreational applications – technical

assistance may be necessary to ensure that

appropriate precautions are taken in any nalswitch to hydrocarbons

Concluding remarks

The polyolen foam sector is only seen to

present a limited challenge in the efforts to

phase of HCFCs under Decision XIX/6. It

would appear that relevant climate-positive

solutions are available and that widespread

experience exists concerning their use.

There maybe some, as yet, unidentied

niche applications that could present more

of a challenge, but no evident has yet

emerged to this effect.



91




92

Section 8.Funding Strategies

“The provisions for the funding of HCFCphase-out investments are becoming

clearer, although some aspects related

to climate benets remain uncertain”



93


8.1 Funding the Ozone Component

The Multilateral Fund was established atthe London Meeting of the Parties to the

Montreal Protocol in 1990. The London

Amendment signalled the intent of the non-

Article 5 Countries to assist nancially the

Article 5 Countries in meeting their phase-

down (and ultimately phase-out) obligations

for CFCs. The principle was extended to

what were then known as Countries with

Economies in Transition (CEIT) through the

Global Environment Fund (GEF). Both the

Multilateral Fund and the GEF therefore had

early exposure to the challenges of technology

transition for ODS. As noted in Section 1, the Beijing Amendment

introduced a time-certain phase-out for HCFCs

for Article 5 Countries based on a production/

consumption freeze in 2016 followed by a nal

phase-out in 2040. No phased reductions

were scheduled at that time. These came

later in Decision XIX/6 when the phase-out

was effectively brought forward to 2030 by

restricting the tail of use between 2030 and

2040 to 2.5% of the initial capped level of

consumption in 2013. Additional steps were

inserted for 2015 (10%), 2020 (35%) and

2025 (65%) as already described in Section1. Within the same negotiation it was agreed

that a similar funding provision would be made

for HCFC phase-out under the Multilateral

Fund, even though there had been an earlier

rule preventing the funding of ‘second

conversions’.

Since the negotiation of Decision XIX/6,

the Parties in general, and the Executive

Committee of the MLF in particular, have

sought to dene the funding rules for

transitions away from HCFCs. These have

proved to be more challenging than originally

envisaged for a number of reasons:

• Threshold limits for investment had

previously been calculated in terms of costper ODP- tonne. However, the lower ozone

depletion potentials of HCFCs result in much

higher costs for each ODP-tonne phased out

and provide a signicant discontinuity with

previous practice.

• There has been an increase in multi-

national ownership of companies in

developing countries and this makes a higher

proportion of the installed capacity ineligible

for funding.

• Where overarching HPMPs provide a

phase-out schedule, often on a sector-

by-sector basis, there is no obligation for

individual enterprises to comply with the

schedule unless the HPMP is enforced

through national regulation

• There has been a need to re-establish cut-

off dates for funding and the inter-relationship

with rules for second conversions

• The ‘worst-rst’ principle may place focus

on sectors that are not the most cost-

effective to convert and take exibility from

the HCFC Phase-out Management Plans

themselves.

• As noted in Section 3, there is still

some uncertainty about how to factor the

climate component into decision-making

and prioritisation under the MLF. This is a

separate issue from climate co-funding itself,

but is closely inter-related.

These factors have made it extremely difcult

for the Montreal Protocol bodies to assess

the likely funding requirements for HCFC

phase-out. An initial assessment in 2008 by

the Technology and Economic Assessment

Panel (TEAP) through its Replenishment Task

Force estimated project costs (excluding

refrigeration servicing) of US$ 66.5-115 million

for the period 2009-2011, but growing to US$

238.3-357.5 million in the triennium 2012-2014as the project activities in advance of the 2013

freeze were undertaken.

These gures were believed to be a pragmatic

estimate of the likely technology transitions

foreseen at the time, but did not specically

exclude some implicit climate impacts. Other

scenarios that were considered were:

1. Lowest cost technology options only,

irrespective of climate benet or dis-benet

(the Baseline Scenario)

2. A cost estimate based on an available

threshold investment for climate (e.g. US$20 per additional tonne of CO2 saved) (the

Functional Unit Scenario)

3. The cost of achieving the total technically

feasible climate benets.

In most instances, it was viewed as

premature to make these assessments since

a high level of project analysis would be

required to produce meaningful estimates.

In addition, there was concern that, with

further developments in technology options

likely, the estimates would become rapidly

outdated. Nevertheless, these arguments did

not diminish interest in this type of analysis

and one of the most interesting conceptual

assessments was deemed to be the evaluation

of the cost of the ozone-related transition

element only – i.e. the investment that would

lead to climate neutrality. The value of such

an analysis arises from the possibility of

distinguishing between ozone-related nance

and climate-related nance. The following

graphic illustrates the principle:

Ozone Component (Usually MLF funded)

Climate Component

(various funding options)

Existing HCFC Use

HCFC replacement

technology

Section 8.Funding Strategies





95


8.2 Climate Co-Funding

Opportunities within the Montreal

Protocol Framework The Multilateral Fund of the Montreal Protocol

provides nancial assistance to Article 5

countries for the incremental costs of phasingout ozone depleting substances. The total

incremental costs can include both agreed

capital investment costs and incremental

operating costs (IOCs). IOCs will generally only

be met for a limited period after the technology

transition is made.

In cases where the enterprise proposing the

project would get additional benets from a

technology upgrade, the Multilateral Fund

does not pay for such costs as they are not

considered “incremental.” In such cases,

the enterprise has to bring its own funding to

cover the technology upgrade. However, thisprinciple does not apply to climate benets,

which are viewed as in line with the objectives

of the objectives of the accelerated HCFC

phase-out.

Decision XIX/6 of the Meeting of the Parties

encourages countries to select alternatives

to HCFCs that minimize the climate impact.

Decision XXI/9 taken at the 21st Meeting

directs the Executive Committee of the

Multilateral Fund “to consider providing

additional funding and/or incentives for

the additional climate benets where

appropriate….” This key decision, along withDecision XIX/6, gives quite clear guidance to

include additional funding for projects that

benet both ozone layer and global climate.

The provision of up to 25% additional funding

for the introduction of low-GWP alternatives

can be viewed as rst step to obtain climate

benet from ozone layer protection projects.

The Multilateral Fund is considering the

establishment of a Special Funding Facility

for HCFC phase out projects which produce

climate gains. The reader is advised to keep in

contact with his/her country’s National Ozone

Unit and the relevant Implementing Agency to

understand the additional funding mechanismthrough the Special Funding Facility, as and

when it is established.

Additional avenues for nancing

HCFC phase out projects that have

climate benets A number of parallel, grant-nanced and

market-nanced opportunities also exist for

co-funding of climate benets. These include:

• Voluntary Carbon Market (VCM)

-supported by frameworks such as those

provided through the Voluntary Carbon

Standard;

• Pre-compliance Market - supported by

frameworks such as those provided through

the Climate Action Reserve ;

• Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) - in

cases where the project results in improved

energy efciency;

• Global Environment Facility (GEF);

• Other donor-led funds - such as those that

may emerge via the Copenhagen Accord

Since the options are evolving quickly, it

is important that the reader discusses the

applicability of these nancing schemes with

the National Ozone Unit and the relevant

Implementing Agency. Some of these nancing

options are dependent on the existence of

international regulatory frameworks, and

attention must be paid to the rules and

regulations of the respective mechanism.

1 The Climate Action Reserve activities also extend to the voluntary

carbon market



96

Section 9.Conclusions

“The schedule established

for HCFC phase-out creates

pressure for the foam sector to

act urgently”





98

- Domestic Appliance

- PU Boardstock

- Other Appliance

- PU Pipe-In-Pipe

- PU Rigid Integral Skin

- PU Continuous panel

- PU Discontinuous panel

- PU Block Foam

- Transport & Reefers

- PU Spray Foam

The following tables summarise the

characteristics of some of the main alternative

technologies available:

Sector

HCs High Medium Low Low Low Variable High Low

Impacts Production Use Phase E-o-L Investment Operating

Option Maturity Energy GWP Emissions Cost

u-HFCs Low Medium Low Low Low Variable Low High

HCs High Medium Low Low/Med Low/Med MedHigh High Low

HCs Medium Medium Low Low Low Variable High Low

u-HFCs Low Low Low Low/Med Low/Med MedHigh Low High

u-HFCs Low Low Low Low/Med Low Variable Low High

u-HFCs Low Low Low Medium Low Variable Low High

MF Low Medium Low MedHigh Medium MedHigh Low/Med Low/Med

MF Low/Med Medium Low High Medium High Low/Med Low/Med

u-HFCs Low Low Low High Medium High Low High

HCs High Low/Med Low Low Low Low MedHigh Low

HCs Low Low Low MedHigh MedHigh High MedHigh Low

MF Low Low Low MedHigh MedHigh High Low/Med Low/Med

MF Medium Medium Low Low Low Variable Low/Med Low/Med

HCs High Low/Med Low Low/Med Low Variable High Low

MF Low/Med Medium Low Medium Low Variable Low/Med Low/Med

HCs Medium Medium Low MedHigh Medium MedHigh High Low

HCs Low Medium Low Medium Low MedHigh Medium Low

s-HFCs Medium Medium High Low Low Variable Low MedHigh

s-HFCs Medium Low High Medium Low MedHigh Low MedHigh

CO2/H2O High High Low Low Low Variable Low MedHigh

s-HFCs High Low High Low/Med Low Variable Low MedHigh

s-HFCs MedHigh Low High Medium Low Variable Low MedHigh

s-HFCs High Low High High Medium High Low MedHigh

s-HFCs MedHigh Low High MedHigh Medium MedHigh Low MedHigh



99


- PU One Component

- PU Flexible Integral Skin

- XPS – Board

- Phenolic – Block

- Phenolic – Boardstock

- Polyolen

Tables of this nature need to be approached

with caution, since it is impossible to cover

all of the possible technology and application

nuances that can inuence the validity of

choices in such a summarised format.

Nevertheless, the intention, as with the

Sourcebook overall, is to provide some initial

guidance in the strengths and weaknesses

of the relative technologies and to focus

on the areas that may need more in-depth

investigation and project and/or programme

level.

Sector

s-HFCs High Low High Low High N/A Low MedHigh

Impacts Production Use Phase E-o-L Investment Operating

Option Maturity Energy GWP Emissions Cost

DME Medium Low Low Low High N/A Low High

s-HFCs MedHigh Low High MedHigh Medium MedHigh Low MedHigh

MF Low/Med Low Low Low High N/A Low/Med Low/Med

u-HFCs Low Low Low MedHigh Medium MedHigh Low High

DME Low Low Low Low/Med Low/Med MedHigh Low High

s-HFCs Low Low Low Medium MedHigh MedHigh Low/Med MedHigh

u-HFCs Low Low Low MedHigh MedHigh MedHigh Low/Med High

CO2/H2O MedHigh Low Low MedHigh High N/A Low/Med MedHigh

CO2 Medium MedHigh Low High Low/Med MedHigh High Low

u-HFCs Low/Med Medium Low Medium Low/Med MedHigh Low/Med Low/Med

u-HFCs Low Low Low MedHigh Low/Med MedHigh Low High

u-HFCs Low/Med Low Low Low High N/A Low MedHigh

HCs Medium Medium Low MedHigh Medium MedHigh High Low

HCs MedHigh Medium Low Low/Med Low/Med MedHigh High Low

s-HFCs High Low High High Low/Med MedHigh Low/Med MedHigh

HCs MedHigh Low High Medium MedHigh MedHigh Low MedHigh

Fully Sustainable

Partially Sustainable

Largely Unsustainable

* Options listed are coded as follows: s-HFCs = Saturated HFCs

u-HFCs = Unsaturated HFCs

HCs = Hydrocarbons

MF = Methyl Formate

DME = Dimethyl Ether

Other abbreviations; N/A = Not applicable

E-o-L = End-of-life





101


10.1 Sources of Information This Annex provides a Section-by-Section Guide to relevant references cited in the text. Where a reference is repeated in more than one Section,

the reference itself is cited in full on its rst occurrence, and is cross-referenced thereafter.

Summary

UNEP 2009. Handbook for the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, Eighth edition, ISBN: 9966-7319-0-3,

United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi, Kenya, 2009

Introduction

UNEP 2009. Handbook for the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, Eighth edition, ISBN: 9966-7319-0-3,

United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi, Kenya, 2009

Interface between Ozone Depletion and Climate Change

IPCC/TEAP. 2005. Special Report: Safeguarding the Ozone Layer and the Global Climate System, SROC 2005.

Available at <http://www.autots.com/hcfc/technology%20option/Refrigeration/transport%20refrigeration.pdf>

IPCC, 2007. Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007 (AR4).

Available at <http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter2.pdf>.

Methods for Quantifying Climate Impact

TEAP, 1999. The Implications to the Montreal Protocol of the inclusion of HFCs and PFCs in the Kyoto Protocol. Mar 2000.

Annex V of UNEP/OzL.Pro/ExCom/55/47. Revised analysis of relevant cost considerations surrounding the nancing of HCFC phase-out

(Decision 53/37(I) and 54/40).

Foam Manufacture and Existing Fluorocarbon Technologies

Lee Shau Tarng, C.B. Park and N.S. Ramesh, 2006. Polymeric Foams, CRC Press, New York.

IPCC/TEAP. 2005. Special Report: Safeguarding the Ozone Layer and the Global Climate System.

Available at: <http://www.autots.com/hcfc/technology%20option/Refrigeration/transport%20refrigeration.pdf>

UNEP FTOC, 2002. Report of the Flexible and Rigid Foam Technical Options Committee, 2002 Assessment, ISBN 92-807-2285-9, UNEP/ Ozone

Secretariat, Nairobi, Kenya, March 2003.

Khun E. and Schindler, P, 1993. Advances in the Understanding of the Effects of Various Blowing Agents on Rigid Polyurethane Appliance Foam

Properties, SPI Polyurethanes World Congress 1993, Vancouver, BC, October 10-13.

Molina M.J. & Rowland F.S.,1974. Stratospheric sink for Chlorouoromethanes – Chlorine atomic catalyzed destruction of ozone,

Nature 249:810-812.

Oertel, Günter (editor), 1994. Polyurethane Handbook, 2nd. Edition, Carl Hanser Verlag, Munich.

UNEP/OzL.Pro/ExCom/55/47. Revised analysis of relevant cost considerations surrounding the nancing of HCFC phase-out (Decision 53/37(I)

and 54/40).

IPCC/TEAP. 2005. “Chapter 7: – Table 7.6” Special Report: Safeguarding the Ozone Layer and the Global Climate System, SROC 2005.

Available at <http://www.autots. com/hcfc/technology%20option/Refrigeration/transport%20refrigeration.pdf>

Vo and Paquet, 2004. An Evaluation of Thermal Conductivity over time for Extruded Polystyrene Foams blown with HFC-134a and HCFC-142b

General Review of Alternative Blowing Agents

IPCC, 2007. Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007 (AR4).

Available at <http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter2.pdf>.

Signicant New Alternatives Program (SNAP), US Environmental Protection Agency http://www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/

IPCC/TEAP. 2005. Special Report: Safeguarding the Ozone Layer and the Global Climate System, SROC 2005.

Available at <http://www.autots.com/hcfc/technology%20option/Refrigeration/transport%20refrigeration.pdf>

Section 10. Annexes









105


Solvay

Stepan

Supresta

Tosoh Corporation

Yantai Wanhua Polyurethanes

Co.

Zhejiang Lantian Enviromental

Protection

Chemical Co.,Ltd.

Zhejiang Sanhuan Chemicals

Co. Ltd.

Zhejiang Sanmei Chemical Ind.

Co. Ltd.

Solkane

Stepanpol

Fyrol

Toyocoat

Wannate, Wanol, Waneex

Frog

Rue du Prince Albert 33

B-1050

Brussels

22 West Frontage Rd.

Northeld, IL 60093

USA

420 Saw Mill River Road

Ardsley, New York 10502

USA

3-8-2, Shiba, Minato-ku

Tokyo 105-8623

Japan

No. 7 South Xingfu Road

Yantai,Shangdong Province

P.R.China

Hangzhou gulf ne chemical zone

shangyu, zhejiang

R.P.China

YongKang,

Zhejiang Province

P.R.China

Huchu Industry Area

Wuyi County

Zhejiang Province

P.R.China.

HCFCs, HFCs, 134a,

141b, 142b,

22, 365mfc, 227ea

Polyester polyols

Phosphorous based

ame retardants for rigid

and exible foams

Amine Catalysts

MDI based Isocyanates,

polyols,

Thermoplastic Urethanes

HCFC-141b, HCFC-142b,

HFC-245fa


HCFC-22, HFC-152a,

HFC-134a


HCFC-22, HFC-152a,

HFC227ea

www.solvayuor.com

www.stepan.com

www.supresta.com

www.tosoh.com

www.ytpu.com

www.tchem.com

www.sanhuanchemicals.com

www.sanmeichem.com



106

10.3 Full text of Decision XIX/6

F. Decision XIX/6: Adjustments to

the Montreal Protocol with regard

to Annex C, Group I, substances

(hydrochlorouorocarbons)

The Parties agree to accelerate the phase-

out of production and consumption of

hydrochlorouorocarbons (HCFCs), by way of

an adjustment in accordance with paragraph

9 of Article 2 of the Montreal Protocol and

as contained in the annex to the present

decision, on the basis of the following:

1. For Parties operating under paragraph 1

of Article 5 of the Protocol (Article 5 Parties),

to choose as the baseline the average of

the 2009 and 2010 levels of, respectively,consumption and production; and

2. To freeze, at that baseline level,

consumption and production in 2013;

3. For Parties operating under Article 2 of the

Protocol (Article 2 Parties) to have completed

the accelerated phase-out of production and

consumption in 2020, on the basis of the

following reduction steps:

(a) By 2010 of 75 per cent;

(b) By 2015 of 90 per cent;

(c) While allowing 0.5 per cent for servicing theperiod 2020–2030;

4. For Article 5 Parties to have completed

the accelerated phase-out of production and

consumption in 2030, on the basis of the

following reduction steps:

(a) By 2015 of 10 per cent;

(b) By 2020 of 35 per cent;

(c) By 2025 of 67.5 per cent;

(d) While allowing for servicing an annual

average of 2.5per cent during the period

2030–2040;

5. To agree that the funding available through

the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation

of the Montreal Protocol in the upcoming

replenishments shall be stable and sufcient

to meet all agreed incremental costs to

enable Article 5 Parties to comply with the

accelerated phase-out schedule both for

production and consumption sectors as set

out above, and based on that understanding,

to also direct the Executive Committee of

the Multilateral Fund to make the necessary

changes to the eligibility criteria related to the

post-1995 facilities and second conversions;

6. To direct the Executive Committee, in

providing technical and nancial assistance, to

pay particular attention to Article 5 Parties with

low volume and very low volume consumption

of HCFCs;

7. To direct the Executive Committee to

assist Parties in preparing their phase-out

management plans for an accelerated HCFC

phase-out;

8. To direct the Executive Committee, as a

matter of priority, to assist Article 5 Parties in

conducting surveys to improve reliability in

establishing their baseline data on HCFCs;

9. To encourage Parties to promote the

selection of alternatives to HCFCs that

minimize environmental impacts, in particular

impacts on climate, as well as meeting otherhealth, safety and economic considerations;

10. To request Parties to report regularly on

their implementation of paragraph 7 of Article

2F of the Protocol;

11. To agree that the Executive Committee,

when developing and applying funding criteria

for projects and programmes, and taking

into account paragraph 6, give priority to

cost-effective projects and programmes which

focus on, inter alia:

(a) Phasing-out rst those HCFCs with higher

ozone-depleting potential, taking into accountnational circumstances;

(b) Substitutes and alternatives that minimize

other impacts on the environment, including

on the climate, taking into account global-

warming potential, energy use and other

relevant factors;

(c) Small and medium-size enterprises;

12. To agree to address the possibilities or

need for essential use exemptions, no later

than 2015 where this relates to Article 2

Parties, and no later than 2020 where this

relates to Article 5 Parties;

13. To agree to review in 2015 the need for

the 0.5 per cent for servicing provided for in

paragraph 3, and to review in 2025 the need

for the annual average of 2.5 per cent for

servicing provided for in paragraph 4 (d);

14. In order to satisfy basic domestic needs,

to agree to allow for up to 10% of baseline

levels until 2020, and, for the period after

that, to consider no later than 2015 further

reductions of production for basic domestic

needs;

15. In accelerating the HCFC phase-out,

to agree that Parties are to take every

practicable step consistent with Multilateral

Fund programmes, to ensure that the best

available and environmentally-safe substitutesand related technologies are transferred from

Article 2 Parties to Article 5 Parties under fair

and most favourable conditions;

Annex to the decision on Adjustments

to the Montreal Protocol with regard

to Annex C, Group I, substances

(hydrochlorouorocarbons)

Adjustments agreed by the Nineteenth

Meeting of the Parties relating to the controlled

substances in group I of Annex C of the

Montreal Protocol

The Nineteenth Meeting of the Parties tothe Montreal Protocol on Substances that

Deplete the Ozone Layer decides to adopt,

in accordance with the procedure laid down

in paragraph 9 of Article 2 of the Montreal

Protocol, and on the basis of assessments

made pursuant to Article 6 of the Protocol, the

adjustments and reductions of production and

consumption of the controlled substances in

Group I of Annex C to the Protocol, as follows:

Article 2F: Hydrochlorouorocarbons

1. The current paragraph 8 of Article 2F of the

Protocol shall become paragraph 2, and thecurrent paragraph 2 shall become paragraph

3.

2. The current paragraphs 3 to 6 shall be

replaced by the following paragraphs, which

shall be numbered paragraphs 4 to 6:

“4. Each Party shall ensure that for the

twelve-month period commencing on 1

January 2010, and in each twelve-month

period thereafter, its calculated level of

consumption of the controlled substances in

Group I of Annex C does not exceed, annually,

twenty-ve per cent of the sum referred to

in paragraph 1 of this Article. Each Partyproducing one or more of these substances

shall, for the same periods, ensure that its

calculated level of production of the controlled

substances in Group I of Annex C does not

exceed, annually, twenty-ve per cent of the

calculated level referred to in paragraph 2 of

this Article. However, in order to satisfy the

basic domestic needs of the Parties operating

under paragraph 1 of Article 5, its calculated

level of production may exceed that limit by

up to ten per cent of its calculated level of

production of the controlled substances in

Group I of Annex C as referred to in paragraph2.





About the UNEP Division of Technology,

Industry and Economics

The UNEP Division of Technology, Industry and Economics (DTIE) helps

governments, local authorities and decision-makers in business and

industry to develop and implement policies and practices focusing on

sustainable development.

The Division works to promote:

> sustainable consumption and production,

> the efcient use of renewable energy,

> adequate management of chemicals,

> the integration of environmental costs in development policies.

The Ofce of the Director, located in Paris, coordinates activities

through:

> The International Environmental Technology Centre - IETC (Osaka, Shiga),

which implements integrated waste, water and disaster management programmes,focusing in particular on Asia.

> Sustainable Consumption and Production (Paris), which promotes sustainable

consumption and production patterns as a contribution to human development through

global markets.

> Chemicals (Geneva), which catalyzes global actions to bring about the sound

management of chemicals and the improvement of chemical safety worldwide.

> Energy (Paris), which fosters energy and transport policies for sustainable development

and encourages investment in renewable energy and energy efciency.

> OzonAction (Paris), which supports the phase-out of ozone depleting substances in developingcountries and countries with economies in transition to ensure implementation of the Montreal

Protocol.

> Economics and Trade (Geneva), which helps countries to integrate environmental

considerations into economic and trade policies, and works with the nance sector to incorporate

sustainable development policies.

UNEP DTIE activities focus on raising awareness, improving

the transfer of knowledge and information, fostering

technological cooperation and partnerships, and implementing

international conventions and agreements.

For more information,see www.unep.fr



Documents

UNEP_Guideance on the Process for Selecting Alternatives to HCFCs in Foams