Early Phase-out of HFCs. Since there is no current federal constraint on the continued manufacture of products containing HFCs, it would be expected that any decision to introduce a phase-down or phase-out in HFC use, even at State level, would need substantial consultation. It has therefore been assumed that any such measure could only commence in 2014 and would not be fully achieved before 2017. This is therefore the basis on which these scenarios have been assessed. The four sectors identified for analysis were: ▪ All appliances (domestic refrigerators, freezers and water heaters) ▪ Vending machines and commercial refrigeration equipment ▪ Extruded polystyrene foam (XPS) ▪ PU Spray Foam The following sections describe the various impacts of these mitigation scenarios by product type.
Early Phase-out of HFCs. The three main areas of HFC use identified in this study are those associated with the manufacture of PU foams in appliances, PU Spray Foam and extruded polystyrene (XPS). Again, taking a global perspective to the challenge of early HFC phase-out, it is self- evident that a large proportion of the world’s appliances are already being manufactured with hydrocarbons, both in their cooling circuits (where present) and their foams. Although the US appliance industry has reached a level of 25% hydrocarbon use (AHAM, 2010), it has staunchly defended its need for HFCs and, in particular, HFC-245fa on the basis of ever-tightening energy regulations and also on the basis of the particularity of US domestic refrigerator design. There is some evidence that manufacturers are awaiting the commercial introduction of unsaturated HFCs (also referred to as hydro fluoro-olefins or HFOs) which are showing particular promised in respect of thermal performance. The PU Spray Foam industry globally is in a much more difficult situation, with current hydrocarbons ruled out on safety grounds due to their flammability or combustibility. Efforts are being deployed to evaluate alternatives such as super-critical CO2 and methyl formate, to name but two. However, there is no obvious alternative at this stage. For the XPS sector, world production is split between the use of liquid CO2 (albeit with high capital cost and some product limitations), hydrocarbon (particularly in the Far East where flammability seems to be a less significant issue) and HFCs – particularly for the smaller producers. The role of HFCs in the field is universally recognized and there are no immediate alternatives. Some European manufacturers are experimenting with lower-GWP blends containing di-methyl ether, but these are not yet in commercial use. The North American XPS industry was able to mount a powerful argument in the early part of the decade, to make the case that the use of XPS for sheathing was unique and that the product requirements were totally different than for other parts of the globe. This led to the extension of the period for use of HCFC-142b/22 blends until 1st January 2010. Therefore, transition to HFC-134a and related blowing agents has been relatively recent. In all three sectors, it is clear that there are still gaps in the available alternatives. Much hope is therefore placed on a new generation of unsaturated HFCs. These typically have GWPs below 10. If the cost structure can be pitched c...
