United States 

Environmental 

Protection Agency 

Office of Air and 

Radiation (6205J) 

EPA 430-R-04-006 

June 2004

Analysis of Costs to Abate 

International Ozone-Depleting 

Substance Substitute Emissions 
Analysis of Costs to Abate International ODS Substitute Emissions 

 -iAcknowledgements 

This report was produced by the Alternatives and Emissions Reduction Branch of the U.S. EPA’s Office 

of Air and Radiation, Office of Atmospheric Programs. Key staff from the Office of Air and Radiation 

who worked on this report include Erin Birgfeld, Jeanne Briskin, Jeff Cohen, Dave Godwin, Anhar 

Karimjee, Colm Kenny, Suzanne Kocchi, Bella Maranion, Scott Monroe, Margaret Sheppard and Deanne 

Upson. 

The report would not have been complete without the efforts and contributions of many individuals and 

organizations. Much of the underlying assumptions and data used in the analysis were provided by 

numerous people and companies cited throughout the report. In addition, many individuals provided a 

peer review of the particular chapter matching his or her expertise. These individuals include: Paul 

Ashford, Ward Atkinson, Dave Bateman, Donald Bivens, Nick Campbell, Jim Crawford, Hugh Crowther, 

William Dietrich, Tony Digmanese, Maureen Hardwick, Kenneth Hickman, William Hill, John Owens, 

Eugene Smithart, William Walter, Kert Werner, and Robert Wickham. This review does not constitute 

endorsement by the person or his/her employer of the results or conclusions of this report. 

The staff of the Energy Policy and Programs Practice at ICF Consulting deserves special recognition for 

their expertise, efforts in preparing many of the individual analyses, and for synthesizing this report. 

These individuals include: Mollie Averyt, Philip Groth, Daniel Lieberman, Marian Martin Van Pelt, 

Pamela Mathis, Iliriana Mushkolaj, Lauren Pederson, and Katrin Peterson. 

Questions concerning this report should be directed to: 

David S. Godwin, P.E. 

Environmental Engineer 

Alternatives and Emissions Reduction Branch 

Global Programs Division 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Mail Code 6205J 

Washington, D.C. 20460 

1-202-343-9324 (phone) 

1-202-343-2363 (fax) 

Godwin.Dave@epa.gov
Analysis of Costs to Abate International ODS Substitute Emissions 

 -iiTable of Contents 

Acknowledgements .....................................................................................................................................i

Table of Contents........................................................................................................................................ii

List of Tables ..............................................................................................................................................iii

Executive Summary..............................................................................................................................ES-1

1 Analysis of Costs to Abate International HFC Emissions from Refrigeration and AirConditioning ................................................................................................................................................1

1.1 Introduction.....................................................................................................................................1

1.2 Baseline Emission Estimates .........................................................................................................5

1.2.1 Emission Estimating Methodology ..........................................................................................5

1.2.2 Baseline Emissions ...............................................................................................................10

1.3 Costs of HFC Emission Reduction from Refrigeration/AC ...........................................................11

1.3.1 Description and Cost Analysis of Abatement Options...........................................................11

1.3.2 Calculation of Indirect Emissions and Costs for Options Applicable to Stationary 

Equipment............................................................................................................................................34

1.3.3 Summary of Technical Applicability and Market Penetration of Abatement Options............36

1.4 Results..........................................................................................................................................41

1.5 Summary ......................................................................................................................................42

1.6 References ...................................................................................................................................43

2 Analysis of Costs to Abate International HFC Emissions from Aerosols ...................................49

2.1 Introduction...................................................................................................................................49

2.2 Baseline Emission Estimates .......................................................................................................50

2.2.1 Emission Estimating Methodology ........................................................................................50

2.2.2 Baseline Emissions ...............................................................................................................51

2.3 Costs of HFC Emission Reductions for Aerosols.........................................................................51

2.3.1 Description and Cost Analysis of Abatement Options...........................................................52

2.3.2 Summary of Technical Applicability and Market Penetration of Abatement Options............56

2.4 Results..........................................................................................................................................57

2.5 Summary ......................................................................................................................................58

2.6 References ...................................................................................................................................59

3 Analysis of Costs to Abate International HFC Emissions from Foams .......................................61

3.1 Introduction...................................................................................................................................61

3.2 Baseline Emission Estimates .......................................................................................................62

3.2.1 Emission Estimating Methodology ........................................................................................62

3.2.2 Baseline Emissions ...............................................................................................................64

3.3 Costs of HFC Emission Reductions from Foams.........................................................................64

3.3.1 Description of Abatement Options.........................................................................................64

3.3.2 Description of Abatement Options.........................................................................................67

3.3.3 Summary of Technical Applicability and Market Penetration of Abatement Options............85

3.4 Results..........................................................................................................................................90

3.5 Summary ......................................................................................................................................92

3.6 References ...................................................................................................................................93

4 Analysis of Costs to Abate International HFC and PFC Emissions from Fire Extinguishing....96

4.1 Introduction...................................................................................................................................96

4.2 Baseline Emission Estimates .......................................................................................................98

4.2.1 Emission Estimating Methodology ........................................................................................98

4.2.2 Baseline Emissions ...............................................................................................................99

4.3 Costs of HFC and PFC Emission Reductions from Fire Extinguishing......................................100

4.3.1 Description and Cost Analysis of Abatement Options.........................................................101

4.3.2 Summary of Technical Applicability and Market Penetration of Abatement Options..........110

4.4 Results........................................................................................................................................112

4.5 Summary ....................................................................................................................................112

4.6 References .................................................................................................................................113
Analysis of Costs to Abate International ODS Substitute Emissions 

 -iii5 Analysis of Costs to Abate International HFC and PFC Emissions from Solvents ..................116

5.1 Introduction.................................................................................................................................116

5.2 Baseline Emission Estimates .....................................................................................................117

5.2.1 Emission Estimating Methodology ......................................................................................117

5.2.2 Baseline Emissions .............................................................................................................118

5.3 Cost of HFC and PFC Emission Reductions for Solvents..........................................................119

5.3.1 Description and Cost Analysis of Abatement Options.........................................................119

5.3.2 Summary of Technical Applicability and Market Penetration of Abatement Options..........125

5.4 Results........................................................................................................................................126

5.5 Summary ....................................................................................................................................127

5.6 References .................................................................................................................................127

Appendices

List of Tables 

Table 1-1: Percent of On-Road Vehicle Fleet Assumed to Have Operational Air-Conditioning Units..........8

Table 1-2: Estimated Percent of Refrigeration/Air-Conditioning HFC Emissions Attributable to MVACs ....9

Table 1-3: Distribution of Refrigeration and Air-Conditioning Sector HFC Emissions by End-use, Region, 

and Year ................................................................................................................................................9

Table 1-4: Baseline HFC Emission Estimates from Refrigeration and Air-Conditioning (MMTCE)............10

Table 1-5: Assumptions on Duration and Applicability of Emission Reduction Options.............................13

Table 1-6: Summary of Assumptions for Leak Repair for Large Equipment ..............................................15

Table 1-7: Summary of Assumptions for Recovery/Recycling from Small Equipment...............................17

Table 1-8: Summary of Assumptions for Distributed Systems for New Stationary Equipment ..................21

Table 1-9: Summary of Assumptions for HFC Secondary Loop Systems for New Stationary Equipment.23

Table 1-10: Summary of Assumptions for Ammonia Secondary Loop Systems for New Stationary 

Equipment............................................................................................................................................25

Table 1-11: Summary of Assumptions for Enhanced HFC-134a Systems for New MVACs......................26

Table 1-12: Summary of Assumptions for HFC-152a DX Systems in New MVACs...................................28

Table 1-13: Summary of Assumptions for CO2 Systems in New MVACs...................................................31

Table 1-14: Net Annual Emissions and Energy Costs of Replacement Options in the United States in a 

600,000 Square Foot Supermarket .....................................................................................................35

Table 1-15: Summary of Technical Applicability of Abatement Options by Region, Percenta....................37

Table 1-16: Incremental Maximum Market Penetration of Technology Options into New Equipment by 

Region, Expressed as a Percent of Emissions from New Refrigeration/Air-Conditioning Equipmenta38

Table 1-17: Incremental Maximum Market Penetration of All Abatement Options by Region, Expressed as 

a Percent of Total Refrigeration/Air-Conditioning Emissions...............................................................39

Table 1-18: Percent Reduction off Baseline Emissions of All Abatement Options by Region ...................40

Table 1-19: United States Emission Reductions in 2020 and Break-Even Costs for Refrigeration and AirConditioning.........................................................................................................................................41

Table 1-20: Non-U.S. Annex I Emission Reductions in 2020 and Break-Even Costs for Refrigeration and 

Air-Conditioning ...................................................................................................................................42

Table 1-21: Non Annex I Emission Reductions in 2020 and Break-Even Costs for Refrigeration and AirConditioning.........................................................................................................................................42

Table 2-1: Baseline HFC Emission Estimates from MDI Aerosols (MMTCE) ............................................51

Table 2-2: Baseline HFC Emission Estimates from Non-MDI Aerosols (MMTCE).....................................51

Table 2-3: Technical Applicability and Incremental Maximum Market Penetration of Aerosol Options 

(Percent) ..............................................................................................................................................56

Table 2-4: Emission Reductions off the Total Applicable Aerosols Baseline (Percent)..............................57

Table 2-5: United States Emission Reductions in 2020 and Break-Even Costs for Aerosols....................57

Table 2-6: Non-U.S. Annex I Emission Reductions in 2020 and Break-Even Costs for Aerosols..............58

Table 2-7: Non Annex I Emission Reductions in 2020 and Break-Even Costs for Aerosols......................58

Table 3-1: U.S. EPA’s Vintaging Model Emissions Profile for the Foams Sector.......................................63

Table 3-2: Baseline Emissions in MMTCE..................................................................................................64

Table 3-3: Base Case Assumptions for a Contractor Using HFC-134a ....................................................67
Analysis of Costs to Abate International ODS Substitute Emissions 

 -ivTable 3-4: Assumptions and costs used in the cost analysis to substitute HFC-134a Hydrocarbons.......68

Table 3-5: Base Case Assumptions for a Contractor Using HFC-134a and HFC-152a............................69

Table 3-6: Assumptions and costs used in the cost analysis to substitute HFC-134a with Hydrocarbons 70

Table 3-7: Assumptions and costs used in the cost analysis to substitute HFC-152a with Hydrocarbons 71

Table 3-8: Base Case Assumptions for a Hypothetical Contractor Using HFC-134a/CO2 (LCD) .............72

Table 3-9: Assumptions and costs used in the cost analysis to substitute HFC-134a/CO2 with CO2.........73

Table 3-10: Assumptions and costs used in the cost analysis to substitute HFC-134a/CO2 with 

CO2/Alcohol..........................................................................................................................................74

Table 3-11: Base Case Assumptions for a Hypothetical Spray Foam Contractor Using HFC-245fa/CO2

(water)..................................................................................................................................................74

Table 3-12: Assumptions and costs used in the cost analysis to substitute HFC-245fa/CO2 (water) with 

CO2 (water)...........................................................................................................................................76

Table 3-13: Assumptions and costs used in the cost analysis to substitute HFC-245fa/CO2 (water) with 

Hydrocarbons.......................................................................................................................................77

Table 3-14 General Assumptions Applicable Both End-of-Life Options ....................................................81

Table 3-15 Assumptions Applicable to the Manual Process with Foam Incineration ................................81

Table 3-16 Assumptions Applicable to the Automated Process with Foam Landfilling.............................81

Table 3-17: Automated Process with Foam Landfilling .............................................................................84

Table 3-18: Manual Process with Foam Incineration.................................................................................85

Table 3-19: Reduction Efficiency of Foam Options (Percent).....................................................................85

Table 3-20: Technical Applicability of Foam Options for the US, Europe, and Japan (Percent)................86

Table 3-21: Technical Applicability of Foam Options for the CEITs, China, and the Rest of the Developed 

World (Percent)....................................................................................................................................87

Table 3-22: Incremental Maximum Market Penetration Expressed as Percent of New Emissions for which 

the Options are Technically Applicable................................................................................................88

Table 3-23: Incremental Maximum Market Penetration Expressed as Percent of All Emissions for which 

the Options are Technically Applicable................................................................................................89

Table 3-24: Emission Reductions off Total Foams Baseline for the US, Europe, and Japan (Percent) ....90

Table 3-25: Emission Reductions off Total Foams Baseline for the CEITs, China, and the Rest of the 

Developed World (Percent) .................................................................................................................90

Table 3-26: Emission Reductions in 2020 and Costs of Abatement for Foams in the US .........................91

Table 3-27: Emission Reductions in 2020 and Costs of Abatement for Foams in the non-US Annex I 

Countries..............................................................................................................................................91

Table 3-28: Emission Reductions in 2020 and Costs of Abatement for Foams in non-Annex I Countries 92

Table 4-1: Baseline HFC and PFC Emission Estimates from Fire Extinguishing (MMTCE) ...................100

Table 4-2: Assumed Breakout of Total GWP-Weighted Baseline Fire Extinguishing Emissions.............100

Table 4-3: Summary of Technical Applicability of Abatement Options.....................................................110

Table 4-4: Incremental Maximum Market Penetration, Expressed as Percent of Annual Installation of New 

Class A or Class B Systems ..............................................................................................................110

Table 4-5: Incremental Maximum Market Penetration Expressed as Percent of Entire Installed Base 

(Class A or Class B)...........................................................................................................................111

Table 4-6: Emission Reductions off Total Fire Extinguishing Baseline ....................................................111

Table 4-7: United States Emission Reductions in 2020 and Break-Even Costs for Fire Extinguishing ...112

Table 4-8: Non-U.S. Annex I Emission Reductions in 2020 and Break-Even Costs for Fire 

Extinguishing......................................................................................................................................112

Table 4-9: Non Annex I Emission Reductions in 2020 and Break-Even Costs for Fire Extinguishing .....112

Table 5-1: General Overview of Solvent Technologies Used Globally.....................................................117

Table 5-2: Baseline HFC and PFC Emission Estimates from Solvents (MMTCE)...................................119

Table 5-3: Retrofit Techniques for Batch Vapor Cleaning Machine (Less than 13 Square Feet) ............122

Table 5-4: Technical Applicability and Incremental Maximum Market Penetration of Solvent Options 

(Percent) ............................................................................................................................................125

Table 5-5: Emission Reductions off the Total Solvent Baseline (Percent) ...............................................126

Table 5-6: United States Emission Reductions in 2020 and Break-Even Costs for Solvents ..................126

Table 5-7: Non-U.S. Annex I Emission Reductions in 2020 and Break-Even Costs for Solvents............126

Table 5-8: Non Annex I Emission Reductions in 2020 and Break-Even Costs for Solvents ....................126
Analysis of Costs to Abate International ODS Substitute Emissions 

-ES-1-

Executive Summary 

Background 

Since the introduction of the Montreal Protocol on Substances That Deplete the Ozone Layer, over a 

decade ago, international use of ozone-depleting substances (ODSs) has declined significantly. The key 

component of the Montreal Protocol is the stipulation that the production and consumption of all 

identified compounds that deplete the ozone layer are to be phased out by 2030 in developed countries 

and 2040 in developing countries. The use of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), and to a much lesser extent 

perfluorocarbons (PFCs), has allowed the rapid phaseout of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), 

hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), and halons in the U.S. and other countries in applications for which 

other alternatives are not readily available. HFCs have generally been selected for applications where 

they provide superior technical (reliability) or safety (low toxicity and flammability) performance. In 

many cases, HFCs provide equal or better energy efficiency as compared to other available alternatives, 

thereby reducing long-term environmental impacts. HFCs are expected to replace a significant portion of 

past and current demand for ODSs in insulating foams, refrigeration and air-conditioning, propellants 

used in metered dose inhalers, specialized fire protection equipment, and in other applications. 

The end-use sectors in which transition away from ODS use and production is occurring include the 

refrigeration and air-conditioning, aerosols, foams, solvents, and fire-extinguishing industries. An 

increasing reliance on HFC use in these processes has in turn increased concern over emissions of these 

gases. Emissions that result from the ODS-substitute sectors contribute to a group of gases known as the 

high global warming potential (GWP) gases, which includes HFCs, PFCs, and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). 

These gases are many times more effective (on a per ton basis) than CO2 in trapping heat in the 

atmosphere. The global warming potentials of the high GWP gases range from 140 to over 23,900 times 

the global warming capability of CO2, and in some cases these gases remain in the atmosphere for 

hundreds or thousands of years. Currently, the most widely used high GWP gas is HFC-134a, which has 

a shorter lifetime of about 15 years and a GWP of 1300. 

Overview 

The major focus of most previous analyses regarding GHG emission reduction opportunities has been on 

energy-related CO2 emissions. Along with continued efforts on methane and nitrous oxide reductions, 

reduced emissions of the high GWP gases have the potential to make a significant contribution to costeffective GHG reductions. This report has been developed, in part, to better characterize the role of the 

high GWP gases as part of a comprehensive GHG mitigation approach internationally. To that end, this 

report assembles the costs of reducing quantities of high GWP gas emissions from each of the major 

ODS-substitute end-use sectors into an international marginal abatement cost (MAC) curve that shows the 

total emission reductions achievable—at increasing monetary values of carbon—in the year 2020. 

The three main objectives of this report—and of the analysis that supports the generation of the MAC 

curve—are to: (1) present the U.S. EPA’s current forecasts of global high GWP gas emissions from ODSsubstitute sectors through 2020 under a “business-as-usual” scenario that assumes no further actions, apart 

from normal and expected incremental technological improvements, are taken to reduce emissions; (2) 

use available cost and technical data to describe those technologies and practices that can reduce these 

emissions from the major emissions sources analyzed (some of which are expected to be voluntarily 

adopted by industry); and (3) estimate the costs of reducing high GWP gas emissions for each major 
Analysis of Costs to Abate International ODS Substitute Emissions 

-ES-2-

source included in this analysis. Forecasts of world emissions are estimated and summarized by region 

for 2005, 2010, 2015, and 2020. These emissions baselines, when combined with cost, efficiency, and 

technical data on the specific technologies and practices available to reduce high GWP gas emissions, 

provide the set of data used to calculate regional, sectoral, and total global MAC curves. Aggregate 

results of the analysis—conducted by country—are presented (for the purposes of this report) by region in 

each of the following chapters. The three regions presented include: (1) the United States, (2) non-U.S. 

Annex I countries (that is, all Annex I countries except for the U.S.), and (3) non-Annex I countries (that 

is, all countries in the world except for Annex I countries). 1

This report is divided into the following five chapters, each corresponding with one of the ODS-substitute 

source-categories. 

• Chapter 1. HFC Emissions from Refrigeration and Air-Conditioning 

• Chapter 2. HFC Emissions from Aerosols 

• Chapter 3. HFC Emissions from Foams 

• Chapter 4. HFC and PFC Emissions from Fire Extinguishing 

• Chapter 5. HFC and PFC/PFPE Emissions from Solvents 

For each emission source, this report presents the following information: 

• Baseline Emissions of High GWP Gases. A section in each chapter discusses the forecasted 

emissions from that source through 2020 in the three key regional groups (the U.S., Non-U.S. 

Annex I and Non-Annex I countries). Emissions baselines are estimated based on a “business-asusual” scenario that assumes no further actions, apart from normal and expected incremental 

technological improvements, are taken to reduce emissions. 

• High GWP Gas Emission Reduction Options and Associated Costs. Several available 

technologies or practices (“options”) have the potential to reduce high GWP gas emissions within 

each sector. The U.S. EPA uses discounted cash flow analysis to estimate the present and future 

cost of achieving the reductions associated with each option discussed. Costs are presented in 

terms of year 2000 United States dollars per metric ton of carbon equivalent ($/TCE). The costs 

associated with emissions reductions have been identified and categorized as one-time 

investments and/or annual operating and maintenance (O&M) costs. In most cases, data on these 

costs were available; where sufficient data were not available, EPA has presented the options 

qualitatively. 

The framework for this analysis is global in scope, consistent with the intent to develop inputs useful for 

macroeconomic studies. Given this broad view, this report does not present highly detailed analyses of the 

individual sources of high GWP gas emissions, nor can it comprehensively evaluate the comparative 

advantages or technical challenges of alternative technologies in specific industry sectors. It does, 

however, provide a valuable resource for policy makers internationally in characterizing the role of the 

high GWP gases as part of a comprehensive greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation approach. While these 

gases represent only a small portion of global GHG emissions, they include the most quickly growing 

sources of emissions. While the focus of most previous work on GHG emission reduction opportunities 

has been on energy-related CO2 emissions, reduced high GWP gases can also contribute to cost-effective 

GHG reductions. This analysis estimates the costs of innovative reduction efforts that can be undertaken 

by various industries, and is meant to supplement carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, and methane economic 

 

1

 The term “Annex I” refers to members of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 

(UNFCCC) listed under Annex I, which includes developed countries and countries with economies in transition. A 

comprehensive list of countries and the regions under which they are categorized for the purposes of this report is 

provided in Appendix B. 
Analysis of Costs to Abate International ODS Substitute Emissions 

-ES-3-

analyses in order to provide a broader understanding of the costs of a comprehensive GHG mitigation 

strategy that covers all of these gases; it will also help to identify opportunities to reduce the costs 

associated with such a strategy. 

Baseline Emission Estimates 

Until recently, few countries have made significant efforts to track and project the use and emissions of 

HFCs and PFCs used as ODS substitutes. However, to the extent that country-specific ODS substitute 

emission information is available—e.g. from National Communications submitted under the United 

Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)—each country’s data was used as the 

basis for projecting future emissions. 

In the absence of reported data, the following approach was used. First, a “Vintaging Model” of ODScontaining equipment and products was used to estimate the U.S. use and emissions of ODS substitutes. 

Next, emissions from non-U.S. countries were estimated for each ODS consuming end-use in each 

country. In developing these estimates, it was initially assumed that the international transitions from 

ODSs to HFCs and other substitutes follow the same substitution patterns as the United States. These 

U.S.-based substitution scenarios were then customized to each region or country using adjustment 

factors that take into consideration differences in historical and projected economic growth,2

 the timing of 

the phase-out, and the distribution of ODS and substitute use across end-uses in each region or country. 

In some sectors, specific adjustments or methodologies were used that were specific only to that sector. 

The methodology used to estimate and adjust emissions is described further in Appendix A. 

Exhibit ES-1 shows the emission estimates of high GWP gases from the ODS and ODS-substitute end use 

sources in the years 2005, 2010, 2015, and 2020. The exhibit shows a continuing rise in emissions from 

each of these sectors throughout the forecasted period. This growth in HFC and PFC emissions is 

expected as substitution in ODS markets reaches maximum market penetration.3

 

Exhibit ES-1: Baseline World ODS Substitute High GWP Gas Emissions (MMTCE) 

Source of High GWP Gases Used as ODS Substitutes 2005 2010 2015 2020 

Refrigeration and Air-Conditioning 59.92 94.50 128.73 158.80 

Partially and Fully Fluorinated Solvents 1.07 1.14 1.20 1.26 

Aerosols 12.26 14.44 15.92 17.60 

Foams 2.94 5.30 7.76 16.38 

Fire Extinguishing 2.26 2.26 2.65 3.19 

TOTAL 78.45 117.66 156.26 197.23 

Notes: 

Forecast assumes a “business-as-usual” scenario as described above. 

The emissions forecast includes only direct emissions. Indirect emissions—those that result from the production of energy 

required in the manufacturing and operation of the emitting sources—are not included. 

Sums might not add to total due to independent rounding. 

Each chapter of this report presents similar tables, each of which present data specific to one of the three 

key regional groups analyzed: the United States, Non-U.S. Annex I countries, and Non-Annex I countries. 

 

2

 Economic growth is used as a proxy for the growth in the use of and emissions from products containing ODSs and 

ODS substitutes. Further research is warranted to assess how closely these two variables have been related in the 

past and may be related in the future. 

3

 Although many developed countries are well into the phaseout of ODS production, continued substitution with 

high GWP gases, especially in developing countries, is expected much further than 2020, as long-lived ODScontaining products, such as air-conditioners and foams, are retired and replaced with ODS substitutes. 
Analysis of Costs to Abate International ODS Substitute Emissions 

-ES-4-

At the present time, industry decisions to pursue emission reductions depend greatly on the costeffectiveness of the available reduction options. A major purpose of this report is therefore to estimate 

the cost-effectiveness of various emission reduction options and to determine the quantity of future 

emission reductions that might be achievable across a range of possible market values of carbonequivalent emission reductions. 

Economic Analysis of Options for Reducing Emissions of High GWP 

Gases 

In addition to baseline emission estimates, each source-specific chapter of this report analyzes the 

technical and economic viability of several emission mitigation options. The cost of implementation and 

the resulting emission reductions associated with each option provide the bases for the analysis. The 

reduction options considered in this report were identified from various reports and literature on emission 

reductions, industry publications, and industry contacts. The most promising options to reduce high GWP 

gas emissions from ODS substitute sources broadly include: substituting other gases for high GWP gases 

in a variety of applications, where safety and performance requirements can be met; implementing new 

technologies that use and/or emit significantly lower amounts of the high GWP gas; and various process 

and handling options that reduce emissions during the manufacture, use, and disposal of products 

containing high GWP gases. 

Data regarding options that are assumed to have already reached full market penetration or that are 

assumed not to be feasible in particular countries or regions are not included in the MAC analysis for 

those countries. Where particular options are deemed applicable, several specific assumptions and data 

elements contribute to the calculation of the MAC. 

Discounting Costs and Benefits 

This report uses discounted cash flow analysis to estimate the cost of achieving reductions through 

instituting each potential mitigation option available to the several sources. All costs are presented in real 

year 2000 United States dollars. Consistent with the approach EPA has used in developing high GWP 

gas and methane MAC curves for the United States, the practice of using discounted cash flow analysis 

reflects the decision-making process that manufacturers use when considering investments in emission 

reduction practices (see EPA, 1999; EPA, 2001). This decision-making process is typically a cost-benefit 

analysis, comparing the positive cost (financial burden) to the negative cost (financial and/or emission 

reduction benefit) associated with each potential mitigation option. Data to support estimates of both 

costs and benefits of options are available in most cases; where sufficient data are not available, the 

options are summarized qualitatively, but are not included in the MAC curves presented. 

The positive costs are typically categorized as either one-time (capital) investment costs—such as may be 

incurred when installing new equipment or applying a retrofit option—or as O&M costs—such as are 

generally applied annually to maintain an option through manual labor, routine repairs, electricity or other 

fuel use, etc. Mitigation options may have one or both of these types of costs, and both ultimately affect 

the viability of the option. The costs used in this international analysis improve upon those used in the 

analysis that supported U.S. High GWP Gas Emissions 1990-2010: Inventories, Projections, and 

Opportunities for Reductions (EPA, 2001). International costs are extrapolated from these values using 

adjustment factors that vary by country and region according to the most pertinent variable (specific to 

each option or technology). Factors used to adjust these costs include relative labor rates (for laborintensive options) and relative electricity prices (for energy-intensive options). For some specific 
Analysis of Costs to Abate International ODS Substitute Emissions 

-ES-5-

options—specifically those that are considered in the context of an international market in which prices 

are not highly variable by country—costs are assumed to be the same internationally. 

Negative costs, or benefits, include savings that are achieved by reducing or mitigating emissions of a 

product, sale or recycling of recovered product, or by improving process energy efficiency. The value 

associated with a particular product may vary by country, and where possible, this variability is taken into 

account in estimating the benefit. 

Together, all of the cost data described here, expressed as costs or savings per metric ton of carbon 

equivalent emissions reduced, contribute to the calculation of a break-even price specific to each 

mitigation option. This figure represents the point at which an entity (individual, corporation, industry, 

etc.)—regardless of environmental, legal, or policy concerns—will be financially indifferent in deciding 

whether to institute an emissions mitigation option. The concept of the break-even price and its 

implications are discussed briefly in the Marginal Abatement Cost Curves section below, and—along 

with the general equation used to estimate its value—in greater detail in Appendix D. 

Marginal Abatement Cost Curves 

The world high GWP gas MAC curve is shown in Exhibits ES-2 and ES-3 at four and twenty percent 

discount rates, respectively. Exhibit ES-3 also incorporates a forty percent tax rate. Each of these two 

curves uses the appropriate schedule of emission reductions and costs for all of the high GWP gases as 

presented in Exhibits ES-4 and ES-5. The MAC curve illustrates emission reductions achievable as the 

value of carbon increases ($/TCE). 

The MAC curve is derived by rank ordering individual reduction opportunities by $/TCE and plotting the 

corresponding emission reductions cumulatively. Each point along the MAC curve shows the cost of 

abating an additional ton of carbon-equivalent gas at the margin. The break-even price (expressed in 

dollars per metric ton of carbon equivalent emissions and calculated as described in Appendix D) of each 

option determines its placement with respect to the y-axis. Moving away from the origin, each point on 

the curve represents a cumulative sum of emission reductions with respect to the x-axis. Points 

corresponding to a zero or negative $/TCE value along the y-axis demonstrate a market in which the 

benefits of reducing the high GWP gas—represented by avoided costs of HFCs, for example—pay for the 

emission reduction effort alone. As discussed above, these negative costs imply that it is cost-efficient to 

adopt the measure (i.e., the option will result in financial savings). Positive break-even values imply 

financial costs that only the introduction of some external value of emission reductions (determined by an 

emissions trading market, through taxes or incentives, or through some other externally imposed value) 

can outweigh, thereby making an investment viable. 

As seen in Exhibit ES-2—which is in effect an economic supply curve measuring the quantity of 

emission reductions supplied by industry to the market at increasing values of carbon—as one follows the 

curve away from the origin, its elasticity decreases drastically at or around a certain point. At values 

above this point (roughly $200/TCE), the curve is relatively inelastic; thus, subsequent or marginal 

increases in the value of carbon will have a decreased effect on emission reductions. Reductions past this 

point are unlikely to occur without some external benefit or incentive, neither of which is within the scope 

of this publication. It is, however, interesting to note the quantifiable emission reductions that are costeffective barring any type of external variable; these options for which break-even prices fall below zero 

contribute to a total potential emission reduction of about 18 MMTCE. A total of 65 MMTCE reduction 

in emissions is achievable at a carbon value less than about $200/TCE. 
Analysis of Costs to Abate International ODS Substitute Emissions 

-ES-6-

Exhibit ES-2: 2020 Marginal Abatement Cost Curve for All ODS Substitutes at Four Percent Discount Rate (No Tax Rate)

($200)

$0

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$1,200

$1,400

$1,600

$1,800

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Sum of Emissions Avoided (MMTCE)

Value of Carbon Equivalent (2000$/TCE)

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%

Exhibit ES-3: 2020 Marginal Abatement Cost Curve for All ODS Substitutes at Twenty Percent Discount Rate (40% Tax 

Rate)

($200)

$0

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$1,200

$1,400

$1,600

$1,800

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Sum of Emissions Avoided (MMTCE)

Value of Carbon Equivalent (2000$/TCE)

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
Analysis of Costs to Abate International ODS Substitute Emissions 

Exhibit ES-4: World Emission Reductions in 2020 and Break-Even Costs for ODS Substitutes (4% Discount Rate / 

SECTOR Option Name 

Break-Even Price 

($/TCE)a

Emission 

Reduction of 

Option (MMTCE) 

Reduction 

off Baseline 

of Option 

(Percent) 

C

R

 Low High 

Solvents Retrofit $ (134.18) $ (134.18) 0.013 0.0% Aerosols (Non-MDI) HFC to HC $ (22.76) $ (22.76) 1.078 0.5% Aerosols (Non-MDI) HFC to NIK $ (21.37) $ (21.37) 1.078 0.5% Foams Spray HFC-245fa/CO2 (HFC-227ea/365mfc) to HC $ (17.97) $ (15.13) 0.457 0.2% Refrigeration/AC Leak Repair $ (11.74) $ (11.74) 3.593 1.8% Foams PU One Component HFC-152a to HC $ (9.40) $ (9.40) - 0.0% Foams XPS: HFC-134a/CO2 to CO2/Alcohol $ (8.50) $ (8.50) - 0.0% Refrigeration/AC Replace DX with Distributed System $ (57.61) $ (4.78) 11.108 5.6% Foams PU One Component HFC-134a to HC $ (0.07) $ (0.07) 0.136 0.1% Solvents HFC to HFE $ - $ - 0.426 0.2% Refrigeration/AC Recovery $ 0.49 $ 0.49 8.510 4.3% Solvents NIK Semi-Aqueous $ 0.80 $ 0.80 0.098 0.0% Aerosols (Non-MDI) HFC-134a to 152a $ 1.91 $ 1.91 3.991 2.0% Solvents NIK Aqueous $ 6.67 $ 6.67 0.196 0.1% Refrigeration/AC Enhanced HFC-134a in MVACs $ (275.47) $ 7.02 5.029 2.5% Foams XPS: HFC-134a/CO2 to CO2 $ 11.48 $ 11.48 1.700 0.9% Foams Appliance HFC-134a to HC $ 17.35 $ 17.35 0.039 0.0% Foams Appliance End-of-Life: Automated Process $ 23.82 $ 23.82 1.336 0.7% Refrigeration/AC HFC-152a in MVACs $ (73.65) $ 30.81 4.921 2.5% Foams PU Continuous & Discontinuous Panel HFC to HC $ 43.83 $ 43.83 - 0.0% Fire Extinguishing FK-5-1-12 $ 83.66 $ 85.22 0.495 0.3% Foams Spray HFC-245fa/CO2 (HFC-227ea/365mfc) to CO2 $ 96.45 $ 96.45 0.343 0.2% Refrigeration/AC Ammonia Secondary Loop $ 11.47 $ 123.84 5.918 3.0% Refrigeration/AC HFC Secondary Loop $ 9.66 $ 125.39 8.993 4.6% Fire Extinguishing Inert Gases $ 71.10 $ 136.29 0.396 0.2% Foams Appliance End-of Life: Manual Process $ 175.09 $ 175.09 0.793 0.4% Refrigeration/AC CO2 for New MVACs $ (23.44) $ 180.72 4.237 2.1% Foams Appliance HFC-245fa (HFC-227ea/365mfc) to HC $ 201.80 $ 201.80 0.225 0.1% Fire Extinguishing Water Mist $ 111.76 $ 287.80 0.057 0.0% Aerosols (MDI) Dry Powder Inhalers $ 1,691.25 $ 1,691.25 3.409 1.7% 

a Costs vary by country/region based on one-time or annual adjustment factors (e.g., electricity price, fuel price, etc.); therefore, the lowest and highest co
Analysis of Costs to Abate International ODS Substitute Emissions 

Exhibit ES-5: World Emission Reductions in 2020 and Break-Even Costs for ODS Substitutes (20% Discount Rate 

SECTOR Option Name 

Break-Even Price 

($/TCE)a

Emission 

Reduction of 

Option 

(MMTCE) 

Reduction 

off Baseline 

of Option 

(Percent) 

C

Re

(

 Low High 

Solvents Retrofit $ (132.14) $ (132.14) 0.013 0.0% Aerosols (Non-MDI) HFC to HC $ (21.95) $ (21.95) 1.078 0.5% Aerosols (Non-MDI) HFC to NIK $ (20.75) $ (20.75) 1.078 0.5% Refrigeration/AC Leak Repair $ (3.78) $ (3.78) 3.593 1.8% Solvents HFC to HFE $ - $ - 0.426 0.2% Refrigeration/AC Recovery $ 0.49 $ 0.49 8.510 4.3% Foams Spray HFC-245fa/CO2 (HFC-227ea/365mfc) to HC $ (13.98) $ 1.53 0.457 0.2% Solvents NIK Semi-Aqueous $ 2.14 $ 2.14 0.098 0.0% Aerosols (Non-MDI) HFC-134a to 152a $ 2.49 $ 2.49 3.991 2.0% Foams PU One Component HFC-152a to HC $ 2.77 $ 2.77 - 0.0% Foams XPS: HFC-134a/CO2 to CO2/Alcohol $ 12.82 $ 12.82 - 0.0% Foams PU One Component HFC-134a to HC $ 14.08 $ 14.08 0.136 0.1% Solvents NIK Aqueous $ 17.89 $ 17.89 0.196 0.1% Foams Appliance End-of-Life: Automated Process $ 37.16 $ 37.16 1.336 0.7% Foams PU Continuous and Discontinuous Panel HFC to HC $ 56.26 $ 56.26 - 0.0% Refrigeration/AC Replace DX with Distributed System $ 15.99 $ 72.96 11.108 5.6% Foams XPS: HFC-134a/CO2 to CO2 $ 122.09 $ 122.09 1.700 0.9% Foams Spray HFC-245fa/CO2 (HFC-227ea/365mfc) to CO2 $ 122.55 $ 122.55 0.343 0.2% Refrigeration/AC HFC Secondary Loop $ 45.33 $ 173.22 8.993 4.6% Refrigeration/AC Ammonia Secondary Loop $ 55.34 $ 180.96 5.918 3.0% Foams Appliance End-of-Life: Manual Process $ 191.65 $ 191.65 0.793 0.4% Refrigeration/AC HFC-152a in MVACs $ 55.55 $ 205.42 4.921 2.5% Fire Extinguishing FK-5-1-12 $ 334.91 $ 336.75 0.495 0.3% Foams Appliance HFC-134a to HC $ 404.45 $ 404.45 0.039 0.0% Refrigeration/AC Enhanced HFC-134a in MVACs $ (35.34) $ 468.38 5.029 2.5% Fire Extinguishing Inert Gases $ 369.25 $ 505.32 0.396 0.2% Fire Extinguishing Water Mist $ 467.17 $ 781.28 0.057 0.0% Refrigeration/AC CO2 for New MVACs $ 422.48 $ 839.80 4.237 2.1% Foams Appliance HFC-245fa (HFC-227ea/365mfc) to HC $ 1,115.58 $ 1,115.58 0.225 0.1% Aerosols (MDI) Dry Powder Inhalers $ 1,691.25 $ 1,691.25 3.409 1.7% 

a Costs vary by country/region based on one-time or annual adjustment factors (e.g., electricity price, fuel price, etc.); therefore, the lowest and highest co
Analysis of Costs to Abate International ODS Substitute Emissions 

-ES-9-

References 

EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2001. U.S. High GWP Gas Emissions 1990-2010: Inventories, 

Projections, and Opportunities for Reductions. U.S.EPA #000-F-97-000. Office of Air and Radiation, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, DC, June 2001. 

EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 1999. U.S. Methane Emissions 1990-2020: Inventories, 

Projections, and Opportunities for Reductions. U.S. EPA #430-R-99-013. Office of Air and Radiation, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, September 1999. 
Analysis of Costs to Abate International ODS Substitute Emissions 

 -1- 

1 Analysis of Costs to Abate International HFC Emissions 

from Refrigeration and Air-Conditioning 

1.1 Introduction 

A number of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) are used in refrigeration and air-conditioning systems and are 

emitted to the atmosphere during equipment operation and repair. Specifically, emissions occur during 

product and equipment manufacturing, during equipment servicing, and from the disposal of equipment 

and used refrigerant containers. Emissions also occur during equipment operation, as a result of 

component failure, leaks, and purges. The use of refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment also 

generates “indirect” emissions of greenhouse gases (primarily carbon dioxide) from the generation of 

power required to operate the equipment. In many, but not all, refrigeration and air-conditioning 

applications, these indirect emissions outweigh the direct emissions and, hence, energy efficiency has a 

major impact on the total greenhouse gas emissions of an application. To the extent possible, both direct 

and indirect emissions are considered in the refrigeration/air-conditioning analysis; however, options 

aimed solely at improving energy efficiency rather than abating HFC emissions are not explored in detail. 

HFCs used in this sector have global warming potentials (GWPs) that range from 140 to 11,700; the 

majority of HFCs used today in the refrigeration and air-conditioning sector have GWPs from 1,300 (i.e., 

HFC-134a) to 3,300 (i.e., R-507A). 

The refrigeration and air-conditioning sector includes eight major end-uses: 

• Household refrigeration; 

• Motor vehicle air-conditioning; 

• Chillers; 

• Retail food refrigeration; 

• Cold storage warehouses; 

• Refrigerated transport; 

• Industrial process refrigeration; and 

• Residential and small commercial air-conditioning/heat pumps. 

Each end-use is composed of a variety of different equipment types that have historically used ozonedepleting substances (ODSs) such as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) or hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs). 

As the ODS phase-out is taking effect under the Montreal Protocol, equipment is being retrofitted or 

replaced to use HFC-based substitutes or intermediate substitutes—HCFCs—that will eventually need to 

be replaced by non-ozone depleting alternatives. In time, HCFCs are expected to be replaced with HFCs 

or other alternative refrigerants. These end-uses are explained in more detail below. 

Household Refrigeration 

The household refrigeration end-use consists of household refrigerators and freezers. HFC-134a is the 

primary substitute for CFC-12 in domestic refrigeration units in most developing countries, with 

hydrocarbon refrigerant, especially isobutane (HC-600a), dominating much of the European market and 

continuing to grow in market share. HC-600a is also gaining market share in Japan (Kuijpers, 2002). 
Analysis of Costs to Abate International ODS Substitute Emissions 

 -2- 

The charge size of a typical household refrigeration unit has decreased over the past 15 years to about 

0.17 kilograms for new HFC-134a units (with HC-600a systems being about 40 percent smaller), and the 

equipment has an expected lifetime of about 20 years. This end-use is one of the largest in terms of the 

number of units in use; however, because the charge sizes are small and the units are hermetically sealed 

(and, therefore, rarely require recharging), emissions are relatively low. Thus, the potential for reducing 

emissions through leak repair is small. In most Annex I countries, where regulations are in place that 

require the recovery of refrigerant from appliances prior to disposal, the retirement of old refrigerators is 

not expected to result in significant refrigerant emissions. Refrigerant emissions at disposal from 

developing countries, where refrigerant recovery is not generally required, are expected to be greater. 

Emissions from the insulating foam in household refrigerators/freezers are discussed in a separate chapter 

of this report. 

Motor Vehicle Air-Conditioning 

Motor vehicle air-conditioners (MVACs) refer to the air-conditioning systems contained in motor 

vehicles (e.g., cars, trucks, and buses). Currently, the quantity of refrigerant contained in a typical car airconditioner is approximately 1 kilogram (typically from 1 to 1.2 kilograms for vehicles containing CFC12 systems, and an average of 0.8 kilograms for vehicles containing HFC-134a systems) (Atkinson, 

2000). Due to concerns over the environmental impact of refrigerants, the average charge size of MVACs 

–as well as associated leak rates—have been reduced over time, and this trend is expected to continue. 

The expected lifetime of MVACs is about 12 years. Refrigerant use in this sector is significant because 

there are more than 700 million motor vehicles registered globally (Ward’s, 2001). In developed 

countries, CFC-12 was the refrigerant used in MVACs until it was phased out of new cars from 1992 to 

1994, after which all air-conditioners installed in new automobiles used HFC-134a. HFC-134a is also 

used as a retrofit chemical for existing CFC-12 systems (UNEP, 1998). CFC-12 is still used in MVACs 

in developing countries and its availability in some developed countries (e.g., the United States) has 

resulted in its use for servicing older MVACs that were originally manufactured as CFC-12 systems. A 

variety of HCFC/hydrocarbon refrigerant blends are approved for use in the United States by the U.S. 

EPA as replacements for CFC-12 in MVACs, although these blends have not been endorsed by vehicle or 

system manufacturers for such use. Globally, HCFC/hydrocarbon blends have captured only a small and 

declining share of the retrofit market. Climate change concerns associated with the use of HFC-134a 

resulted in the research and development into other MVAC alternatives. Possible alternatives to HFC134a systems include transcritical carbon dioxide systems, hydrocarbons, and HFC-152a systems, all of 

which are under study and development (SAE, 2000). 

Chillers 

Chillers are used to regulate the temperature and reduce humidity in offices, hotels, shopping centers, and 

other large buildings, as well as in specialty applications on ships, submarines, and nuclear power plants 

and other industrial applications. The four primary types of chillers are centrifugal, reciprocating, scroll, 

and screw—each of which is named for the type of compressor employed. Chillers are long-lasting 

relative to most air-conditioning and refrigeration equipment. Most operating chillers will remain in 

service for more than 20 years, and some will last 30 years or more. A wide variety of chillers are 

offered, with cooling capacities from 7 kW to over 30,000 kW (RTOC, 2003). The charge size of a 

chiller depends mostly on cooling capacity, and ranges from less than 25 kilograms (reciprocating) to 

over 2,000 kilograms (centrifugal). HCFC-123 has been the refrigerant of choice as a retrofit option for 

newer existing CFC-11 units and HFC-134a has been the refrigerant of choice as a retrofit option for 

newer existing CFC-12 units. The replacement market for CFC-12 high-pressure chillers and CFC-11 

low-pressure chillers is dominated by both HCFC-123 chillers and HFC-134a chillers in developed and 

developing countries. Following the phase-out of the production of HCFCs (in 2030 for developed 
Analysis of Costs to Abate International ODS Substitute Emissions 

 -3- 

countries and 2040 for developing countries),1 recycled, recovered, and reclaimed HCFCs will continue to 

be used in most countries. This trend is not the case, however, in the EU, where restrictions on the use of 

HCFCs in new equipment exist, where the production of HCFCs is not permitted beyond 2010, and where 

recycled HCFCs may not be reused beyond 2015. In the EU, HFC-134a will be an important option for 

chillers, but because of its global warming impact, it is being targeted for phase-out there. Ammonia 

chillers are, therefore, being used as an HFC alternative in some EU countries (Kuijpers, 2002). 

Additionally, HFC-245fa is a potential refrigerant for use in new design low-pressure chillers to replace 

the market currently dominated by HCFC-123 (in low-pressure chillers), and HFC-134a (in high-pressure 

chillers). However, due to a variety of reasons, the commercialization of this chiller technology is not 

likely to occur in the next ten years or so, if at all. High-pressure chillers that currently use HCFC-22 will 

ultimately be replaced by several HFC refrigerant blends and HFC-134a chillers. Likewise, most existing 

CFC-114 chillers will be replaced with HFC-236fa or HFC-134a chillers, for use primarily in specialty 

applications (e.g., on ships, submarines, and nuclear power plants). 

Retail Food Refrigeration 

Retail food refrigeration includes refrigerated equipment found in supermarkets, convenience stores, 

restaurants, and other food service establishments. This equipment includes small reach-in refrigerators 

and freezers, refrigerated display cases, walk-in coolers and freezers, and large parallel systems. Charge 

sizes range from 6 to 1,800 kilograms, with a lifetime of 15 to 20 years. Convenience stores and 

restaurants typically use stand-alone refrigerators, freezers, and walk-in coolers. In contrast, 

supermarkets usually employ large parallel systems that connect many display cases to a central 

condensing unit by means of extensive piping. Because the piping required for connection of all the cases 

can be miles long, these systems contain very large refrigerant charges and often experience high leak 

rates. 

During the earlier phases of the CFC phase-out in developed countries, the use of HCFC-22 in retail food 

refrigeration was expanded considerably. Retail food equipment is being retrofitted with HCFC-based 

blends, although HFC blends are also used as a retrofit refrigerant. The HFC blend R-404A is the 

preferred refrigerant being used in new retail food equipment in developed countries, while R-507A is 

also used extensively in the market (Kuijpers, 2002). In developing countries, distributed systems as well 

as centralized systems that use HFCs, hydrocarbons, ammonia, and carbon dioxide are being developed 

(both with and without secondary loops) (Kuijpers, 2002). 

Cold Storage Warehouses 

Cold storage warehouses are used to store meat, produce, dairy products, and other perishable goods. The 

expected lifetime of a cold storage warehouse is 20 to 25 years, and while charge sizes vary widely with 

system size and design, a rough average is about 4,000 kilograms. Warehouses in developed countries 

have historically used CFC-12 and R-502 refrigerants, and use HCFC-22 and HFC-134a as replacements 

in new equipment. Once HCFCs are phased out, R-404A and R-507A are expected to replace HCFC-22 

in new warehouses. Retrofits are also possible; for example, existing CFC-12 cold storage warehouses 

can be retrofitted with R-401A, and existing R-502 warehouses can be retrofitted with R-402A. Not all 

 

1

 Several scientific studies have found that HCFC-123 in chillers can bring environmental benefits compared to 

other refrigerants as a result of its low ODP, very low direct GWP, very short atmospheric lifetime, and the fact that 

its design allows for both extremely low emissions (documented at less than 0.5 percent annually [Calm et al., 1999; 

Smithart, 2003]) and the highest full-load efficiency (RTOC, 2003). Nonetheless, the emission projections 

developed for this analysis assume full compliance with the current HCFC phase-out schedule. 
Analysis of Costs to Abate International ODS Substitute Emissions 

 -4- 

cold storage warehouses currently use halocarbon refrigerants. Many facilities, for example, use 

ammonia in secondary loop brine systems.

Refrigerated Transport 

The refrigerated transport end-use includes refrigerated ship holds, truck trailers, railway freight cars, and 

other shipping containers. The average charge sizes are relatively small (7 to 8 kilograms). The expected 

lifetime of a refrigerated transport system is 12 years. Trailers, railway cars, and shipping containers 

using CFC substitute refrigerants are commonly charged with HFC-134a, R-404A, and HCFC-22 (UNEP, 

1999a). Ship holds, on the other hand, rely on HCFC-22 (UNEP, 1999a) and ammonia. In addition to 

HFC-134a, R-404A can also be used in new equipment. Existing equipment can be retrofitted with 

R-401A R-402A, R-404A, R-507A, and other refrigerants. In addition, refrigerated transport equipment 

includes systems that operate based on the evaporation and expansion of liquid carbon dioxide or 

nitrogen. 

Industrial Process Refrigeration 

Industrial process refrigeration includes complex, often custom-designed, refrigeration systems used 

within the chemical industry, petrochemical industry, pharmaceutical industry, oil and gas industry, 

metallurgical industry, sports and leisure facilities, and many other applications. Charge sizes typically 

range from 650 to 9,100 kilograms (although charge sizes for some applications can fall outside this 

range), and the average lifetime is approximately 25 years. Ammonia, hydrocarbons, HCFC-123, and 

HFC-134a are expected to be the most widely used substitute refrigerants for new equipment in the near 

future (UNEP, 1999a). Assuming no changes to the requirements of the Montreal Protocol and no 

additional restrictions on refrigerant choice, upon completion of the HCFC phase-out, HFC-134a, R-404A 

and R-507A are expected to be the primary refrigerants used in this end-use. 

Residential and Small Commercial Air-Conditioning/Heat Pumps 

Residential and small commercial air-conditioning (window units, unitary air-conditioners, packaged 

terminal air-conditioners) and heat pumps are another source of HFC emissions. Most of these units are 

window and through-the-wall units, ducted central air-conditioners, and non-ducted split systems. The 

charge sizes of the equipment in this sector range based on cooling capacity requirements, and are on the 

order of 0.5 to 10 kilograms for residential systems, and about 10 to 180 kilograms for commercial 

systems. The average lifetime of equipment is 15 years. Residential and commercial air-conditioning has 

been relying almost exclusively on HCFC-22 refrigerant. R-410A, R-407C, and HFC-134a are currently 

being used to replace HCFC-22 in some new equipment for most end-uses, and this trend is expected to 

continue as HCFC-22 is phased out. In particular, R-410A is expected to dominate the U.S. residential 

market in the future, while R-407C is expected to replace HCFC-22 mainly in retrofit applications and 

some new residential equipment. Other countries may experience different patterns of R-410A and R407C use. 
Analysis of Costs to Abate International ODS Substitute Emissions 

 -5- 

1.2 Baseline Emission Estimates 

1.2.1 Emission Estimating Methodology 

Description of Methodology 

A full description of the emission model used to calculate ODS substitute emissions from all sectors is 

provided in Appendix A. Specific information on how the model calculates refrigeration and airconditioning emissions is described below. 

The U.S. EPA’s Vintaging Model and data from industry are used to simulate the aggregate impacts of 

the ODS phase-out on the use and emissions of various fluorocarbons and their substitutes in the United 

States (see Appendix A). Emission estimates for non-U.S. countries incorporate estimates of the 

consumption of ODSs by country, as provided by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP, 

1999b). The estimates for the European Union (EU) were provided in aggregate and each country’s gross 

domestic product (GDP) was used as a proxy to divide the consumption of the individual member nations 

from the EU total. Estimates of country-specific ODS consumption as reported under the Montreal 

Protocol were then used in conjunction with Vintaging Model output for each ODS-consuming sector. In 

the absence of country level data, preliminary estimates of emissions were calculated by assuming that the 

transition from ODSs to HFCs and other substitutes follow the same general substitution patterns 

internationally as observed in the United States. From this preliminary assumption, emission estimates 

were then tailored to individual countries or regions by applying adjustment factors to U.S. substitution 

scenarios, based on relative differences in (1) economic growth; (2) rates of ODS phase-out; and (3) the 

distribution of ODS use across end-uses in each region or country, as explained below and in further 

detail in Appendix A. 

Emission Equations 

For refrigeration and air-conditioning products, emission calculations are split into two categories: 

emissions during equipment lifetime, which arise from annual leakage and service losses, and disposal 

emissions, which occur at the time of discard. The first equation calculates the emissions from leakage 

and service, and the second equation calculates the emissions resulting from disposal of the equipment. 

These service/leakage emissions and disposal emissions are summed to calculate the total emissions from 

refrigeration and air-conditioning. As new technologies replace older ones, improvements in their leak, 

service, and disposal emission rates are assumed to occur. 

Emissions from any piece of equipment include both the amount of chemical leaked during equipment 

operation and the amount emitted during service. Emissions from leakage and servicing can be expressed 

as follows: 

 Esj = (la + ls) × Σ Qcj-i+1 for i=1→k 

Where: 

Es = Emissions from Equipment Serviced. Emissions in year j from normal leakage and servicing of 

equipment. 

la = Annual Leak Rate. Average annual leak rate during normal equipment operation (expressed as a 

percentage of total chemical charge). 
Analysis of Costs to Abate International ODS Substitute Emissions 

 -6- 

ls = Service Leak Rate. Average annual leakage from equipment servicing (expressed as a percentage 

of total chemical charge). 

Qc = Quantity of Chemical in New Equipment. Total amount of a specific chemical used to charge 

new equipment in a given year by weight. 

j = Year of emissions. 

i = Counter. From 1 to lifetime (k). 

k = Lifetime. The average lifetime of the equipment. 

Note: It is recognized that leakage rates are not a function of the total system, but change with system pressure and 

temperature. For instance, when equipment charges are diminished due to refrigerant losses (leakage), system 

pressures are also reduced somewhat and the leakage rate changes. This becomes appreciable once the entire liquid 

refrigerant is gone. The average leak rates used in the equation above account for this effect. They also account for 

the range of equipment types (from those that do not leak at all to those with high leaks) and service practices (i.e., 

proper refrigerant recovery and refrigerant venting). 

Emissions also result at equipment disposal. The disposal emission equations assume that a certain 

percentage of the chemical charge will be emitted to the atmosphere when that vintage is discarded. 

Disposal emissions are thus a function of the quantity of chemical contained in the retiring equipment 

fleet and the proportion of chemical released at disposal: 

 Edj = Qcj-k+1 × [1 – (rm × rc)] 

Where: 

Ed = Emissions from Equipment Disposed. Emissions in year j from the disposal of equipment. 

Qc = Quantity of Chemical in New Equipment. Total amount of a specific chemical used to charge 

new equipment in year j-k+1, by weight. 

rm = Chemical Remaining. Amount of chemical remaining in equipment at the time of disposal 

(expressed as a percentage of total chemical charge). 

rc = Chemical Recovery Rate. Amount of chemical that is recovered just prior to disposal (expressed 

as a percentage of chemical remaining at disposal (rm)). 

j = Year of emissions. 

i = Counter. From 1 to lifetime (k). 

k = Lifetime. The average lifetime of the equipment. 

Finally, lifetime and disposal emissions are summed to provide an estimate of total emissions. 

Ej = Esj + Edj 

Where: 

E = Total Emissions. Emissions from refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment in year j. 

Es = Emissions from Equipment Serviced. Emissions in year j from normal leakage and servicing 

(recharging) of equipment. 

Ed = Emissions from Equipment Disposed. Emissions in year j from the disposal of equipment. 

j = Year of emissions. 

Regional Variations/Adjustments 

From the general methodology described in Appendix A, the following regional assumptions were 

applied: 

• Adjustment for EC-Regulation No. 2037/2000. Countries in the European Union are assumed 

to be in full compliance with EC-Regulation No. 2037/2000, which stipulates that no new 
Analysis of Costs to Abate International ODS Substitute Emissions 

 -7- 

refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment be manufactured with HCFCs as of January 1, 2002. 

The EC regulation also bans the use of HCFCs in all equipment after January 1, 2015. 

Compliance with these regulations will likely lead to increased use of HFCs to replace HCFCs, 

and is assumed to correspond to increased emissions of 20 percent in 2005, 15 percent in 2010, 

and 15 percent in 2020, relative to what the EU baseline otherwise would be (see Appendix A for 

an explanation of how these baseline refrigeration and air-conditioning emissions are calculated 

before applying this adjustment). These relative emission increases were determined by running 

a Vintaging Model scenario wherein the uses of HCFCs were assumed to comply with the 

regulation. 

• Recovery/recycling adjustments. The emissions from developing (or “non-Annex I”) countries, 

Countries with Economies in Transition (CEITs) and Turkey were increased by approximately 20 

percent over initial estimates to reflect the assumed low levels of recovery and recycling of 

refrigerants from small end-uses (i.e., MVACs, commercial/residential air-conditioning, 

refrigerated transport, and other appliances), relative to the United States. This assumed increase 

in emissions from lower levels of recovery/recycling was derived based on Vintaging Model test 

runs, wherein emissions were first projected assuming an 80-percent baseline recovery rate (to 

reflect the assumed status quo in developed countries) and then projected again assuming a 30-

percent baseline recovery rate (to reflect the assumed status quo in developing countries). The 

GWP-weighted emissions in the latter low-recovery scenario were determined to be 

approximately 20 percent higher than the former high-recovery scenario (ICF Consulting, 2002a). 

• Market adjustments. The baseline assumes that hydrocarbon and ammonia refrigerants and 

other non-HFC or low-emitting options will penetrate international markets more than in the 

United States, because of more relaxed safety standards, greater acceptance of non-HFC choices 

by industry, end-users, regulators, and insurance companies, and increased public and regulatory 

scrutiny to reduce HFC emissions. To reflect this, baseline emission estimates of non-U.S. 

countries were reduced by the following amounts: 

− European Union: 30% 

− Japan: 30% 

− Non-EU Europe: 25% 

− CEITs: 20% 

− Australia/New Zealand: 10% 

− All Other Countries: 20% 

These assumptions were based solely on qualitative information on current and future global 

market penetration of low-GWP refrigerants, as well as low-emission technologies and practices. 

For example, hydrocarbon technology is believed to now dominate the domestic refrigeration 

market in Western Europe, particularly in Germany and Scandinavia. Hydrocarbon domestic 

refrigerators are produced by major manufacturers in Germany, Denmark, Italy, Japan, UK, 

France, Spain, and Sweden. Some of the largest manufacturers in China, India, Indonesia, 

Australia, Korea, and Cuba are also producing domestic refrigerators that use hydrocarbons 

(Greenpeace, 2001; Japan Times, 2002). To reflect this and many other trends, baseline 

emissions from non-U.S. countries are adjusted downwards as shown above. 

• Redistribution of emissions by end-use, based on MVAC analysis. Based on a variety of 

available data on international motor vehicle sales, air-conditioning usage, and MVAC emissions, 

a separate analysis was conducted to estimate total MVAC emissions by region. These MVAC 

emission estimates by region were then used to determine the relative share of refrigeration/air-
Analysis of Costs to Abate International ODS Substitute Emissions 

 -8- 

conditioning emissions attributable to MVACs, and to reapportion emissions from all other enduses accordingly, relative to the end-use breakout calculated for the United States. The 

methodology used to perform this analysis is explained in detail below. 

MVAC Analysis

Because MVACs are expected to account for a much higher proportion of total refrigeration/AC 

emissions in the United States compared to most other developed and, especially, developing countries 

(due to the number of air-conditioned automobiles on the road), this end-use has been modeled separately 

to achieve a higher degree of accuracy in emission estimates. 

Specifically, for all countries for which data on historical vehicle sales were available in Ward’s World 

Motor Vehicle Data (2001), country-specific models were developed to estimate emissions from MVACs. 

To populate this model, the number of operational MVACs was estimated based on annual historical sales 

of passenger cars and light trucks (as provided in Ward’s (2001)) and on estimates of the percentage of 

the vehicle fleet equipped with air-conditioning units. Based on quantitative and qualitative data provided 

in EC (2003a), Hill and Atkinson (2003), OPROZ (2001) and Barbusse et al. (1998), Table 1-1 shows the 

percent of current and future vehicle fleets assumed to be equipped with operational air-conditioning 

units: 

Table 1-1: Percent of On-Road Vehicle Fleet Assumed to Have Operational Air-Conditioning Units 

Country/Region 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 

United States & Japan 95.0% 98.0% 99.0% 99.0% 99.0% 

All Other Annex I countries 58.0% 65.5% 70.0% 80.5% 95.0% 

Latin America & Caribbean 45.0% 50.0% 55.0% 60.0% 65.0% 

All Other Non-Annex I countries, Russia, CEITs 18.0% 23.0% 28.0% 33.0% 38.0% 

As shown above, MVACs in Japan are assumed to have reached the same degree of market penetration 

within the vehicle fleet as in the United States. In all other countries, MVACs are assumed to 

increasingly penetrate the vehicle fleet over time. In developing countries, this rate of increase is 

assumed to be one percent each year, while in all other Annex I countries, the rate of increase is assumed 

to be more rapid, reaching 95 percent of the vehicle fleet in 2020 (EC, 2003a; Hill and Atkinson, 2003). 

Based on historical estimates of vehicle fleet size and assumptions about the percent of vehicle fleets with 

operational air-conditioners (Baker, 2002), current and future MVAC fleets were calculated for each 

country. From these estimates, MVAC emissions were calculated by assuming that, as a result of low 

levels of refrigerant recovery and recycling, MVAC emissions in developing countries are approximately 

20 percent greater than emission rates in the United States (where annual average emissions for this 

analysis are assumed to be 10.9 percent2

 and emissions at disposal are assumed to be 42.5 percent of the 

total MVAC charge).3

 MVAC charge size and loss rates were decreased in later years, as it is assumed 

that MVAC systems become tighter and require less refrigerant over time. All systems are assumed to be 

HFC-134a in the baseline. 

Once MVAC emissions were estimated for those countries for which Ward’s data were available, the 

proportion of MVAC emissions as a percent of the total refrigeration/AC emissions (developed using the 

methodology described above) was calculated. These percentages were then averaged by region. The 

 

2

 This emission rate includes emissions released during routine equipment operation from leaks, as well as those 

released during the servicing of equipment by both professionals and do-it-yourselfers. 

3

 While these emission rates differ slightly from those reported in recent studies conducted for the European 

Commission (EC, 2003a; 2003b), overall MVAC emissions based on U.S. EPA and EC estimates are comparable. 
Analysis of Costs to Abate International ODS Substitute Emissions 

 -9- 

average estimated percentage of refrigeration/air-conditioning GWP-weighted emissions that are 

attributable to MVACs by regional grouping are presented in Table 1-2. 

Table 1-2: Estimated Percent of Refrigeration/Air-Conditioning HFC Emissions Attributable to MVACs 

Country/Region 2005 2010 2015 2020 

United States & Japan 37.0% 28.5% 22.7% 19.5% 

All Other Annex I Countries 48.7% 40.4% 20.5% 15.9% 

Latin America & Caribbean 18.7% 16.2% 10.7% 7.8% 

Russia, CEITs & All Other Non-Annex I Countries 9.5% 10.7% 10.9% 13.6% 

Based on the above percent of sector baseline emissions assumed to come from MVACs for each region, 

the U.S. baseline emissions breakout by end-use was used to proportionally redistribute the remaining 

emissions of a particular country/region. Thus, for example, because MVACs contribute only 4.0 percent 

of total sector emissions in Latin American countries in 2005, the balance of emissions in Latin America 

was distributed across all other end-uses, in proportion to the U.S. end-use breakout. Therefore, if the 

emissions in Latin America in 2005 were estimated to be 10 MMTCE, this analysis assumes that 0.4 

MMTCE are from MVACs and the remaining 9.6 MMTCE are from other sector end-uses. The resulting 

breakout of baseline GWP-weighted HFC emissions by end-use and region are summarized in Table 1-3. 

These emission breakouts by end-use help determine the maximum amount of emissions that can be 

avoided by any given abatement option (since each option is applicable only to specific end-uses). 

Table 1-3: Distribution of Refrigeration and Air-Conditioning Sector HFC Emissions by End-use, Region, and 

Year 

End-use United States & Japan All Other Annex I 

Latin America & 

Caribbean 

All Other Non-Annex I, 

Russia, CEITs 

 2005 

Chillers 3.2% 2.6% 4.1% 4.6% 

Retail Food 38.5% 31.3% 49.6% 55.3% 

Cold Storage 1.2% 1.0% 1.6% 1.7% 

Industrial Process 4.5% 3.7% 5.8% 6.5% 

Commercial A/C 0.7% 0.6% 0.9% 1.0% 

Residential A/C 0.6% 0.5% 0.8% 0.9% 

Refrigerated Transport 13.8% 11.3% 17.9% 19.9% 

Other Appliances 0.5% 0.4% 0.6% 0.7% 

MVACs 37.0% 48.7% 18.7% 9.5% 

 2010 

Chillers 2.3% 1.9% 2.7% 2.9% 

Retail Food 42.1% 35.1% 49.4% 52.6% 

Cold Storage 1.4% 1.2% 1.7% 1.8% 

Industrial Process 6.1% 5.1% 7.1% 7.6% 

Commercial A/C 3.7% 3.1% 4.4% 4.6% 

Residential A/C 5.6% 4.7% 6.5% 7.0% 

Refrigerated Transport 9.8% 8.2% 11.5% 12.2% 

Other Appliances 0.4% 0.4% 0.5% 0.5% 

MVACs 28.5% 40.4% 16.2% 10.7% 

 2015 

Chillers 1.8% 1.9% 2.1% 2.1% 

Retail Food 42.6% 43.9% 49.3% 49.2% 

Cold Storage 1.5% 1.5% 1.7% 1.7% 

Industrial Process 6.6% 6.8% 7.6% 7.6% 
Analysis of Costs to Abate International ODS Substitute Emissions 

 -10- 

End-use United States & Japan All Other Annex I 

Latin America & 

Caribbean 

All Other Non-Annex I, 

Russia, CEITs 

Commercial A/C 6.4% 6.5% 7.3% 7.3% 

Residential A/C 9.9% 10.2% 11.5% 11.4% 

Refrigerated Transport 7.4% 7.6% 8.6% 8.5% 

Other Appliances 1.0% 1.1% 1.2% 1.2% 

MVACs 22.7% 20.5% 10.7% 10.9% 

 2020 

Chillers 1.6% 1.6% 1.8% 1.7% 

Retail Food 41.6% 43.5% 47.7% 44.7% 

Cold Storage 1.5% 1.6% 1.8% 1.6% 

Industrial Process 7.0% 7.4% 8.1% 7.6% 

Commercial A/C 8.3% 8.7% 9.6% 8.9% 

Residential A/C 13.0% 13.6% 14.9% 14.0% 

Refrigerated Transport 6.5% 6.8% 7.5% 7.0% 

Other Appliances 0.8% 0.9% 1.0% 0.9% 

MVACs 19.5% 15.9% 7.8% 13.6% 

Note: Totals may not sum to 100% due to independent rounding. 

1.2.2 Baseline Emissions 

The amount of HFC emissions from MVAC units is expected to rise, since HFC-134a has been the 

primary refrigerant used in the growing automobile industry, and because it is the primary refrigerant 

used to replace older CFC-12 systems. The baseline for MVACs assumes a mix of professionally 

serviced systems and those serviced by unskilled people without recovery equipment (i.e., “do-ityourselfers”). Since commercial unitary and residential air-conditioning equipment has yet to transition 

fully into HFCs, the emissions of HFCs from these end-uses in 2005 are estimated to be relatively 

insignificant, but will increase substantially over time. Retail food systems are expected to transition at 

least in part to HFC-134a and HFC-containing blends, and because of certain equipment characteristics, 

such as their large number of fittings, often have higher refrigerant emission rates. Because of the 

relatively high cost of refrigerant and the large charges associated with retail food equipment, the baseline 

assumes that an inherently strong economic incentive exists to closely monitor refrigerant leakage in these 

types of equipment. Cold storage systems also have large charge sizes, but their emissions relative to 

other refrigeration and air-conditioning end-uses are not expected to increase significantly. HFC 

emissions from chillers are relatively low as a result of the continued use of HCFC-123 in this 

application,4

 as well as the low leak rates of new HFC-134a units. The baseline emission projections 

assume that the recovery and recycling of refrigerants during service and disposal in Annex I countries 

will curtail emissions across all of the end-uses. 

The resulting baseline estimates of HFC emissions are summarized in Table 1-4. 

Table 1-4: Baseline HFC Emission Estimates from Refrigeration and Air-Conditioning (MMTCE) 

Region 2005 2010 2015 2020 

United States 26.87 40.08 53.95 67.84 

 

4

 Note the emissions of all CFC and HCFC refrigerants, including HCFC-123, are not included in the baseline 

emission estimates. 
Analysis of Costs to Abate International ODS Substitute Emissions 

 -11- 

Region 2005 2010 2015 2020 

Non-U.S. Annex I 18.11 25.66 35.70 38.11 

Non-Annex I 14.94 28.77 39.08 52.86 

Total 59.92 94.50 128.73 158.80 

Note: Totals may not sum due to independent rounding. 

1.3 Costs of HFC Emission Reduction from Refrigeration/AC 

This section presents a cost analysis for achieving HFC emission reductions from the emission baselines 

presented above. Each abatement option is described below, but only those options not assumed to occur 

in the baseline and for which adequate cost data are available are included in the cost analysis. To the 

extent possible, this analysis considered total equivalent warming impacts (TEWI), to account for the 

climate and cost impacts associated with energy consumption (i.e., indirect emissions). Due to data 

limitations, a full life cycle analysis was not possible. For example, the cost and emission impacts 

associated with (a) the manufacture of refrigerant and all system components, (b) the energy required for 

reclamation, and (c) the recycling of all system components at the end of equipment life were not assessed 

in this analysis. 

The remainder of this section provides a description of the economic assumptions for these abatement 

options. 

1.3.1 Description and Cost Analysis of Abatement Options 

HFC emissions from refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment can be reduced through a variety of 

practice and technology options. Many of the options considered in this report would entail voluntary 

action by the private sector and/or further government regulation. For example, national governments can 

regulate maximum allowable leak rates for refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment, or require the 

recovery of refrigerant and the proper disposal of non-reclaimable refrigerant. Many Annex I countries 

have already implemented a variety of such regulatory actions to reduce ODS emissions. Some of the 

most widely recognized options to reduce refrigerant emissions include the following (UNEP, 1998; 

UNEP, 1999a; Crawford, 1999; U.S. EPA, 2001a): 

Practice Options: 

• Leak repair; 

• Refrigerant recovery and recycling; 

• Proper refrigerant disposal; and 

• Technician certification/HFC sales restriction 

Alternative Refrigerant Options: 

• Ammonia; 

• Hydrocarbons; 

• Low-GWP refrigerants; and 

• Carbon dioxide. 
Analysis of Costs to Abate International ODS Substitute Emissions 

 -12- 

Technology Options: 

• Distributed systems5 for stationary commercial refrigeration equipment; 

• Secondary loop systems for stationary equipment; 

— HFC secondary loop systems 

— Ammonia secondary loop systems 

• Enhanced HFC-134a systems in MVACs; 

• HFC-152a refrigerant in MVACs (direct expansion or secondary loop systems); 

• Carbon dioxide systems in MVACs; 

• Oil-free compressors; 

• Geothermal (in lieu of air-to-air) cooling systems; 

• Desiccant cooling systems; and 

• Absorption systems. 

Table 1-5 summarizes the duration and applicability of the process and technology emission reduction 

options across all end-use applications considered in this analysis. The applicability of the alternative 

refrigerant options depends on the technology used; hence, some are explored in more detail in the 

analysis of technology options. 

 

5

 The term “distributed system” as used in this report refers to commercial refrigeration equipment applicable to the 

retail food and cold storage end-uses, although the term could also be used to refer to technology applicable to other 

uses, such as residential and small commercial air-conditioning. 
Analysis of Costs to Abate International ODS Substitute Emissions 

Table 1-5: Assumptions on Duration and Applicability of Emission Reduction Options 

Option Description Duration of Emission Potential Applicability to End-use Equipment 

Reduction 

(years) 

Chillers Retail 

Food 

Cold 

Storage 

Warehouses 

Refrigerated 

Transport 

Industrial 

Process 

Refrigeration 

Commercial 

Unitary A/C 

MVA

Practice Options Leak Repair 5 + + +  +   

Refrigerant Recovery 1    +  + + 

Proper Refrigerant Disposal NA        

Technician Certification NA        

Alternative Refrigerants 

Ammonia Lifetime of equipment  + +     

Hydrocarbons Lifetime of equipment        

Low-GWP Refrigerants Lifetime of equipment       + 

Carbon Dioxide Lifetime of equipment       + 

Technology Options 

Distributed Systems for Stationary Commercial Refrigeration Equipment 

Lifetime of equipment + + 

Secondary Loop Systems for Stationary Equipment—HFC Primary Refrigerant 

Lifetime of equipment + + 

Secondary Loops Systems for Stationary Equipment—Ammonia Primary Refrigerant 

Lifetime of equipment + + 

Enhanced HFC-134a Systems in MVACs Lifetime of equipment + HFC-152a in MVACs (direct expansion or secondary loop) 

Lifetime of equipment + 

CO2 in MVACs Lifetime of equipment + 

Oil-Free Compressors Lifetime of equipment        

Geothermal (in lieu of air-to-air) Cooling Systems 

Lifetime of equipment  

Desiccant Cooling Systems Lifetime of equipment   

Absorption Systems Lifetime of equipment   

+ Option is technically feasible and is addressed in the cost analysis of this report.  Option is potentially feasible but is not addressed in the cost analysis of this report. 
Analysis of Costs to Abate International ODS Substitute Emissions 

 -14-

The following section describes all of these options in greater detail and presents a cost analysis for those 

options not assumed to occur in the baseline and for which adequate cost data are available. The resulting 

emission abatement potentials and costs of each option explored in the cost analysis are summarized in 

Section 1.4. The technology options explored in this chapter do not include retrofit costs and, therefore, 

are assumed to penetrate only the markets of new (not existing) equipment. “New” equipment is defined 

as air-conditioning/refrigeration equipment manufactured in 2005 or later. 

Practice Options 

Leak Repair for Large Equipment

Reducing leak rates can reduce HFC emissions to a significant degree, especially in large systems such as 

chillers, cold storage warehouses, and retail food systems that could leak large amounts of refrigerant. 

Although some of the options available for existing equipment may be impractical for in-place 

equipment, given the difficulty and expense of retrofitting, there are still many options available that are 

economically feasible. Some of the leak repair options used in current industry practice include (U.S. 

EPA, 1997; U.S. EPA, 1998; Calm, 1999): 

• Use of preventive maintenance, including scheduling inspection and repairs; 

• Monitoring of leaks using stationary leak monitors or other new technologies, such as early 

warning signals,6

 remote monitoring, and diagnostics; 

• Use of new, more durable gasket materials that provide tighter seals and absorb less refrigerant; 

• Augmentation of threaded joints with О-ring seals; 

• Augmentation or replacement of gaskets and О-rings with adhesive sealants; 

• Broader use and improvement of brazing techniques rather than threaded or snap fittings (e.g., 

use of sufficient silver content,7

 and use of dry nitrogen or other inert gas to avoid oxidation); 

• Focus on ensuring accessibility to field joints and use of isolation valves, which allow for greater 

ease of repair; 

• Focus on proper securing to reduce vibration fractures in the pipe and connections from the 

compressor and other moving parts of the system; 

• Repair or retrofit of high-emitting systems through targeted component upgrades;8 and 

• Performance of major modifications to the systems.9 

 

6

 Technologies in the final stages of development expect to be able to generate early warning signals at less than five 

percent charge loss in commercial refrigeration and air-conditioning systems (Gaslok, 2002). 

7

 For solder, a 15-percent silver content is recommended (U.S. EPA, 1997). 

8

 This option may include replacing the purge unit or other component upgrades that typically require the removal of 

refrigerant from the machine, two full days of two technicians’ time, and several thousand dollars worth of materials 

(U.S. EPA, 1998). 

9

 This option may include modifications that are not strictly leak repair, but would result in greatly reduced leak 

rates. For example, combining the installation of a new purge system, the replacement of flare joints, and other 

containment options, or combining the replacement of gaskets and seals, the replacement of the motor, and the 

installation of new refrigerant metering. 
Analysis of Costs to Abate International ODS Substitute Emissions 

 -15-

As suggested by the above list, leak reduction options range from simple repairs to major system 

upgrades. Even in countries where maximum allowable leak rates are regulated by law, further leak 

reduction improvements, such as the replacement or upgrade of a major system component, are still 

possible. For example, preliminary data gathered from U.S. industry indicate that leak rates for certain 

types of existing equipment in the United States range from 8 to 40 percent, whereas achievable leak rates 

for new or modified equipment can be between 4 to 15 percent. Furthermore, through additional design 

and practice changes, leakage could be reduced to as low as 0.25 to 5 percent in the future (Amrane, 

2001). Already, some retail food equipment has reached leak rates of less than 10 percent, and even 

lower for new chiller equipment (Crawford, 2002; Amrane, 2001). 

Since the lower cost leak reduction options represent significant cost savings, this analysis assumes that 

they occur under the baseline. The cost analysis therefore focuses only on the more extensive and costly 

options. This option is assumed to be technically applicable to all equipment with large charge sizes (i.e., 

chillers, retail food, cold storage, and industrial process refrigeration).10 This analysis assumes that 50 

percent of emissions occur as a result of equipment leakage during routine operation, while the other 50 

percent of emissions are released during equipment servicing and disposal. Thus, the maximum technical 

applicability of this option is assumed to be 50 percent of emissions from large equipment (see Table 

1-6). Furthermore, because equipment will still leak a marginal amount once repairs are made, it is 

assumed that the reduction efficiency of this option is 95 percent. The project lifetime is estimated to be 

five years. Regional technical applicability and reduction efficiency for 2010 and 2020 are presented in 

Table 1-6. Assumptions on maximum market penetration for each region and year are presented in Table 

1-16. 

Table 1-6: Summary of Assumptions for Leak Repair for Large Equipment 

Technical Applicability Country/Region Applicable End- b

Usesa

Reduction 

Efficiencya 2010 2020 

U.S. & Japan 26.0% 25.9% 

Other Annex I 21.7% 27.0% 

Latin America & Caribbean 30.5% 29.7% 

Other Non-Annex I, Russia, CEITs 

Chillers 

Retail food 

Cold storage 

Industrial process 

95% 

32.5% 27.8% a End-Uses and Reduction Efficiency apply to all regions. 

b Technical applicability is shown as a percent of total refrigeration/air-conditioning sector emissions, and equals 50 percent of total 

refrigeration/air-conditioning emissions from chillers, retail food, cold storage, and industrial process refrigeration. 

Cost and Emission Reduction Analysis 

The following bullets describe the cost and emission inputs used to derive the final $/TCE for the leak 

repair option, the results of which are presented in Section 1.4: 

• One-Time Costs. A one-time cost of $1,450 is assumed for performing more significant minor 

repairs on larger systems, such as maintenance of the purge system or replacement of a gasket or 

О-ring, etc. This cost is based on an estimate provided in U.S. EPA (1998), adjusted to 2000 

dollars, which assumes that $200 in parts and 16 hours of labor is required to perform the repair. 

• Annual Costs. No annual costs are associated with this option. 

 

10 In this report, the term technically applicable refers to the emissions to which an option can be applied. The Leak 

Repair option is assumed to be technically applicable to all emissions from leaks (but not servicing and disposal) 

from the four end-uses listed in Table 1-6. See Appendix I for a glossary of terminology. 
Analysis of Costs to Abate International ODS Substitute Emissions 

 -16-

• Cost Savings. An annual cost savings is associated with reduced refrigerant loss. The cost of 

refrigerant (assumed to be R-404A) is estimated to be $18.41/kg,11 and 43 kg of refrigerant per 

unit are assumed to be saved each year, resulting in an annual cost savings of approximately 

$791.63 per unit. 

• Emission Reductions. Under the leak repair option described above, approximately 43 kg of R404A refrigerant can be avoided each year for five years, resulting in an annual emission 

reduction of approximately 36 TCE per job (i.e., 43 kg or 0.043 metric tons of refrigerant, 

multiplied by the GWP of 3260, the reduction efficiency of 0.95, and the conversion factor of 

carbon to carbon dioxide equivalents of 12/44). 

Refrigerant Recovery and Recycling from Small Equipment

Recovery and recycling of HFCs help to decrease HFC emissions during equipment service and disposal. 

The approach involves the use of a refrigerant recovery device that transfers refrigerant into an external 

storage container prior to servicing of the equipment. Once the recovery process and source operations 

are complete, the refrigerant contained in the storage container may be recharged back into the 

equipment, cleaned through the use of recycling devices, sent to a reclamation facility to be purified,12 or 

disposed through the use of incineration technologies. Refrigerant recovery may also be an important 

way to reduce emissions from near-empty refrigerant containers (i.e., can heels). Refrigerant recovery is 

assumed to be widely practiced in Annex I countries in the baseline, as it is typically required by law.

This analysis assesses the recovery of refrigerant above that which is already practiced (e.g., due to 

regulations in many developed countries or for economic reasons) at service and disposal only for small 

equipment—i.e., MVACs, refrigerated transport, household and other small appliances, and unitary 

equipment—because it is assumed that recovery from large equipment is already widely practiced in the 

baseline.13 Recovery for large equipment is assumed to be practiced in the baseline because of the 

significant cost savings associated with recovery of large quantities of refrigerant from this equipment. 

Because emission reductions and costs vary by scenario and end-use, emission reductions and costs 

associated with four recovery scenarios were averaged to obtain one break-even cost. The four scenarios 

studied are recovery/recycling of (1) MVACs at service, (2) MVACs at disposal, (3) small appliances at 

service, and (4) small appliances at disposal. 

This analysis assumes that 50 percent of emissions are released during equipment servicing and disposal, 

while the remaining 50 percent occur as a result of leakage during normal operations. Thus, the technical 

applicability of this option is 50 percent of emissions from small equipment (see Table 1-7). 

Furthermore, because in the United States small appliances are considered completely recovered when 90 

percent of the refrigerant is removed from units with running compressors, or when 80 percent of the 

refrigerant is removed from units with non-operating compressors, this analysis assumes that the 

reduction efficiency of this option is 85 percent (Contracting Business Interactive, 2003; U.S. EPA, 

1993). The project lifetime is assumed to be one year. Regional technical applicability and reduction 

 

11 Cost of R-404A is based on the list price quoted by DuPont Customer Service (2004). 

12 Recycling cleans, and reclamation purifies, recovered refrigerant; reclamation is more thorough and involves 

repeated precision distillation, filtering, and contaminant removal. Recycling is used for onsite servicing of MVACs 

and other equipment and reclamation requires sending the refrigerant offsite to a reclaimer. 

13 While the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) has issued industry standards on equipment and technician 

procedures that apply to MVACs and provide for on-site recovery/recycling of HFC-134a from MVAC systems for 

reuse in the serviced system, recovery from these and other small systems is still not believed to be widely practiced 

in most developing countries, as a result of a lack of infrastructure (i.e., recovery/recycling equipment) (World 

Bank, 2002). 
Analysis of Costs to Abate International ODS Substitute Emissions 

 -17-

efficiency for 2010 and 2020 are presented in Table 1-7. Recovery of small appliances and MVACs is 

assumed to be practiced at 80 percent in the baseline in developed countries and at 30 percent in the 

baseline in developing countries. Assumptions on maximum market penetration for each region and year 

are presented in Table 1-16. 

Table 1-7: Summary of Assumptions for Recovery/Recycling from Small Equipment 

Technical 

Applicabilityb

Country/Region Applicable End-Usesa

Reduction 

Efficiencya 2010 2020 

U.S. & Japan 24.0% 24.1% 

Other Annex I 28.3% 23.0% 

Latin America & Caribbean 19.5% 20.3% 

Other Non-Annex I, Russia, CEITs 

MVACs 

Refrigerated transport 

Household/ other small appliances 

Commercial unitary AC 

Residential AC 

85% 

17.5% 22.2% 

a End-Uses and Reduction Efficiency apply to all regions. 

b Technical applicability is shown as a percent of total refrigeration/air-conditioning sector emissions, and equals 50 percent of total 

refrigeration/air-conditioning emissions from MVACs, refrigerated transport, household/other small appliances, and commercial unitary and 

residential air-conditioning. 

Cost and Emission Reduction Analysis 

The following bullets describe the cost and emission inputs used to derive the final $/TCE for the 

refrigerant recovery option, the results of which are presented in Section 1.4: 

• One-Time Costs. The one-time cost associated with this option is the cost of recovery and/or 

recovery/recycling equipment, which ranges based on the equipment type. While all costs were 

expressed in terms of cost per job (see below), the cost of a high-pressure recovery unit is 

assumed to be approximately $815, based on the average cost of four recovery scenarios: (1) 

recovery from MVACs at service; (2) recovery from MVACs at disposal; (3) recovery from 

stationary equipment at service; and (4) recovery from stationary equipment at disposal (U.S. 

EPA, 1998; 2001b). 

• Annual Costs. All costs associated with this option, including capital costs, were expressed in 

terms of cost per job. The cost per job was calculated by multiplying the average additional labor 

required by the technician to recover the refrigerant charge (from five to 10 minutes, depending 

on recovery scenario) by the average labor rate ($50/hr) and the average operating costs (which 

incorporates both the annualized costs of equipment and energy use). Based on this 

methodology, the average job is estimated to cost approximately $9.50 (U.S. EPA, 1998; 2001b). 

• Cost Savings. As a result of the average cost of recovered refrigerant (R-134a, R-404A, and R407C)—calculated to be $11.32/kg (the average for the four scenarios described above, 

considering the likely refrigerants involved)—and an average recoverable charge of 0.83 kg (the 

average of the four recovery scenarios described above, considering the 85-percent reduction 

efficiency), this option is associated with a cost savings of approximately $9.40 per job. 

• Emission Reductions. Under the refrigerant recovery option described above, the emission of 

0.83 kg of refrigerant can be avoided from small equipment, resulting in the reduction of 

approximately 0.38 TCE per recovery job (assuming an average GWP of 1,664).14

 

14 This GWP value is based on an average GWP for MVACs and stationary equipment, where the average GWP for 

MVACs is assumed to be 1,300 (R-134a), and the average GWP for stationary equipment is assumed to be 2,028.5 

(R-134a, R-404A, and R-407C). Therefore, the calculation is: [1300+ (1300 + 3260 + 1525.5)/3]/2 = 1664.25 
Analysis of Costs to Abate International ODS Substitute Emissions 

 -18-

Proper Refrigerant Disposal

One potential source of emissions from the refrigeration and air-conditioning sector is the accidental or 

deliberate venting of refrigerant. The venting of refrigerant can be reduced by increasing the reclamation 

of used refrigerant (discussed in more detail below) and properly disposing of refrigerant that cannot be 

reclaimed (such as highly contaminated refrigerant or mixed refrigerant). Disposal costs vary by country 

and region, as do transportation costs, storage costs, and access to refrigerant disposal facilities (e.g., high 

temperature incinerators that handle refrigerants). Global average ODS destruction costs are estimated to 

vary between $1.80 and $2.70 per pound (approximately $4 to $6 per kilogram) (ICF Consulting, 2002b). 

This option was not explored in the cost analysis as a result of the uncertainty associated with access to 

disposal facilities and cost disparities within regions. 

Technician Certification/HFC Sales Restriction

By ensuring that refrigeration/air-conditioning technicians receive training in proper refrigerant handling, 

including recovery/recycling practices, and/or by restricting the sale of HFC refrigerants to certified 

technicians only, refrigerant emissions can be reduced. In some countries, such as the United States, 

technicians must be certified in accordance with national regulations to purchase CFC and HCFC 

refrigerants and service refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment. Restricting the use of HFC 

refrigerants to certified technicians would similarly reduce emissions. The costs of promulgating 

regulations in individual countries are uncertain and highly variable, and hence, this option was not 

explored further. 

Alternative Refrigerant Options 

Ammonia 

Ammonia, primarily used in water-cooled chillers, has excellent thermodynamic properties and can be 

used in many types of systems. In addition, it has the advantage of having a strong odor, which makes 

refrigerant leaks easier to detect, and is lighter than air, facilitating dispersion in the event of a release 

(UNEP, 1999a). However, it must be used carefully, because it is toxic and slightly flammable. 

Ammonia is an explosion hazard at 16 to 25 percent in air, which creates a problem in confined spaces. 

Chillers that use ammonia as a refrigerant are commercially available in Europe and elsewhere, and they 

have efficiencies that are comparable to those of HFC-134a chillers in some instances. Building and fire 

codes, however, restrict the use of ammonia in the urban areas of the United States and many other 

countries. These safety concerns and institutional barriers effectively limit the potential for expanded use 

of ammonia chillers (Sand et al., 1997). 

While the use of ammonia within public spaces such as supermarkets is limited in some countries by 

building codes and ordinances, it is a potential alternative for supermarkets if safety concerns can be 

adequately addressed through engineering design such as secondary loops and isolation. Indeed, modern 

ammonia systems manufactured in the United States are fully contained closed-loop systems with fully 

integrated controls that regulate pressures throughout the system. Also, all systems are required to have 

an emergency diffusion system and a series of safety relief valves to protect the system and its pressure 

vessels from over-pressurization and possible failure (ASHRAE, 2002). Systems with ammonia are being 

built and used in Europe (Sand et al., 1997). However, the further use of ammonia as a supermarket 

primary refrigerant may be unlikely in the near future in the United Kingdom and other countries because 

of the capital costs and issues of compliance with standards and safety regulations (Cooper, 1997). 

Ammonia would also be an option in some industrial process refrigeration and cold storage applications, 

contingent upon addressing all of the relevant concerns regarding flammability and toxicity. For 
Analysis of Costs to Abate International ODS Substitute Emissions 

 -19-

example, ammonia is used in about 80 percent of current installations of large-size refrigeration plants, as 

well as many indirect commercial refrigeration systems (RTOC, 2003). 

The chemical properties of ammonia make it incompatible with current designs of residential light 

commercial unitary air-conditioning systems, which use copper for the refrigerant tubing, in the heat 

exchangers and in other components. Ammonia in the presence of water cannot be used with copper or 

zinc (UNEP, 1999a); however, ammonia can be used in aluminum and steel systems. Compatible 

components would have to be developed to use ammonia. As a result of these technical and cost barriers, 

as well as ammonia’s flammability and toxicity, ammonia is considered an unlikely candidate for use in 

commercial and residential unitary equipment (Sand et al., 1997). 

Many of the existing uses of ammonia are included in the baseline analysis. One additional option—

using ammonia secondary loop systems in retail food and cold storage end-uses—is analyzed in more 

detail below, in the section on Technology Options. 

Hydrocarbons 

Hydrocarbons have thermodynamic properties comparable to fluorocarbons that make them good 

refrigerants; however, their high flammability causes safety concerns. Considering technical 

requirements apart from safety, there is potential for use of hydrocarbons in retail food refrigeration, 

refrigerated transport, household refrigeration, residential air-conditioning, MVACs, and commercial 

unitary systems. Currently used refrigerants include HC-600a, HC-290, and HC-1270 (UNEP, 1999a). 

In addition to good thermodynamic properties, hydrocarbons also have other advantages such as energy 

efficiencies comparable to fluorocarbons, zero ODP, and very low direct GWP. 

The primary disadvantage of hydrocarbons is flammability, resulting in significant safety and liability 

issues. This causes increased costs for safety precautions in factories and can necessitate design changes 

in every application, such as relocation of electrical components to reduce the likelihood of accidents 

from potential leaks (Kruse, 1996; Paul, 1996). This also entails additional hardware costs for many 

applications (ADL, 1999; Crawford, 2000). Hydrocarbon refrigerant use is generally restricted by U.S. 

safety codes, and with the exception of industrial refrigeration, the U.S. EPA has not listed hydrocarbons 

as acceptable substitutes to ODS refrigerants (per Section 612 of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 

1990). Even if systems that are designed to use hydrocarbon refrigerants were listed, liability concerns 

would remain. Systems using flammable refrigerants will require additional engineering and testing, 

development of standards and service procedures, and training of manufacturing and service technicians 

before commercialization. 

Hydrocarbon domestic refrigerators have been available in Western Europe since the early 1990s, and 

have now fully penetrated some of the new domestic refrigeration markets, such as that in Germany. 

Hydrocarbon domestic refrigerators are also available in Argentina, Australia, Brazil, China, Cuba, India, 

Indonesia, Japan and elsewhere. Similarly, hydrocarbon refrigerants are available in other products, 

although little information is readily available regarding their market success to date (Hydro Cool Online, 

2002; Calor Gas Refrigeration website, 2004; CARE Web site, 2004). 

In addition, hydrocarbons have been used in MVACs for the last several years. Some have estimated that, 

in certain parts of Australia, 280,000 vehicles contain hydrocarbon refrigerants (Greenchill website, 

2000), although independent data have not been supplied to confirm that estimate. The use of 

hydrocarbon refrigerants in direct expansion systems not designed for a flammable refrigerant can pose 

safety concerns and is not considered acceptable by much of the global MVAC industry. The Society of 

Automotive Engineers’ (SAE) Alternate Refrigerant Cooperative Research Program has demonstrated a 
Analysis of Costs to Abate International ODS Substitute Emissions 

 -20-

secondary loop system using hydrocarbon refrigerant that minimizes the possible release of flammable 

refrigerant into the passenger compartment (Hill and Atkinson, 2003). 

Proponents of hydrocarbon systems claim that these systems bring numerous benefits, including increased 

energy efficiency, lower refrigerant cost, lower capital cost, and less noise (HyChill website, 2004; 

Greenchill website, 2000), although little independent research exists to confirm the veracity of these 

claims. In many parts of the world, however, safety issues, public perception, and manufacturer 

acceptance impedes further penetration of this option. 

This analysis does not consider the use of hydrocarbons in household refrigeration because it is assumed 

that this option is reaching maximum market penetration in the baseline. In those regions where 

hydrocarbons have not successfully penetrated markets (e.g., North America), it is assumed that the 

perceived risk and lack of acceptance of hydrocarbon refrigerants, which has prevented adoption to date, 

will continue to serve as a barrier in the foreseeable future. The use of hydrocarbons in other refrigeration 

end-uses was not considered further due to uncertainty concerning price and likely market penetration. 

Low-GWP Refrigerants

The use of low-GWP refrigerants (e.g., HFC-152a with a GWP of 140) in place of higher GWP 

refrigerants (e.g., HFC-134a with a GWP of 1,300) is another option for reducing greenhouse gas 

emissions to the atmosphere. The use of HFC-152a in MVACs is explored in this cost analysis, as 

described in detail on page 28. 

Several other low-GWP refrigerants exist. For example, carbon dioxide, discussed further below, has a 

GWP of 1. In addition, HCFC-123 and HCFC-124, which are not considered alternatives to HFCs, have 

low direct GWPs, complicated by factors including their contribution to stratospheric ozone depletion. 

While some studies (Calm et al., 1999; Wuebbles and Calm, 1997; U.S. EPA, 2002; RTOC, 2003) 

suggest the extended use of HCFC-123 in large tonnage chillers may offer a means to reduce direct GWPweighted refrigerant emissions, and in some instances may reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions, this 

option is not examined in this analysis, as full compliance with the current HCFC phase-out schedule is 

assumed. 

Carbon Dioxide 

Another option is to use carbon dioxide as a refrigerant. Prototype carbon dioxide systems have been 

developed for numerous types of systems, including MVACs, industrial processing, refrigerated 

transport, and retail food systems. Carbon dioxide has zero ODP and a GWP of 1, and is claimed by its 

proponents to be advantageous for use as a refrigerant. However, carbon dioxide is associated with 

potential safety risks and other technical/economic disadvantages. Above certain concentrations, 

exposure to carbon dioxide may result in adverse health consequences. At very high concentrations, even 

for short periods of time, carbon dioxide affects the central nervous system and is an asphyxiant. To 

protect against adverse health effects from workplace exposure, the Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration’s (OSHA) recommended 8-hour time-weighted average exposure limit is 5,000 ppm 

(ACGIH, 1999). Also, carbon dioxide systems operate at high pressure, which presents a potential hazard 

and may increase the cost of designing and purchasing equipment. In addition, potential loss of 

operational efficiency and associated increases in energy use and indirect emissions, refrigerant 

containment issues, long-term reliability, and compressor performance are other potential problems 

(Environment Canada, 1998). 
Analysis of Costs to Abate International ODS Substitute Emissions 

 -21-

For this analysis, carbon dioxide systems are only evaluated as options for MVACs. Carbon dioxide is 

being investigated for use in other end-uses but, due to the early stage of development and a lack of 

available information, those end-uses are not explored in this analysis. The MVAC option is described in 

detail in the section on Technology Options. 

Technology Options 

Distributed Systems for Stationary Commercial Refrigeration Equipment

A distributed system consists of multiple compressors that are distributed throughout the store near the 

display cases they serve and are connected by a water loop to a single cooling unit that is located on the 

roof or elsewhere outside of the store. Refrigerant charges for distributed systems can be smaller than the 

refrigerant charge used in a comparable traditional centralized direct expansion (DX) system. Significant 

reductions in total global warming impact from current levels may be possible with distributed systems 

that use HFC refrigerants (Sand et al., 1997). Reduced refrigerant charge sizes, in addition to increased 

energy efficiency associated with such systems, could effectively decrease global warming impacts, even 

with the use of fluorocarbon refrigerants. 

Using HFC distributed systems in lieu of HFC centralized DX systems in retail food settings offers the 

potential to reduce HFC emissions. Distributed systems have smaller refrigeration units distributed 

among the refrigerated and frozen food display cases, with each unit sending heat to a central water 

cooling system. A distributed system would significantly reduce the refrigerant inventory and minimize 

the length of refrigerant tubing and the number of fittings that are installed in direct expansion systems, 

thereby reducing leaks of HFCs (ADL, 2002). 

This technology option is assumed to be applicable to the retail food and cold storage end-uses. The 

project lifetime is assumed to be 20 years, and the emission reduction efficiency is calculated to be 

approximately 93 percent (i.e., the reduced leakage from use of a distributed system divided by the 

leakage of the baseline system, or (0.15 - 0.04 × 0.25)/0.15). This calculation is based on an assumed 

annual leak rate of 4 percent (compared to 15 percent for centralized direct expansion [DX] systems), and 

a charge size that is 75 percent less than centralized DX systems (ADL, 2002). Regional technical 

applicability and reduction efficiency for 2010 and 2020 are presented in Table 1-8. Assumptions on 

maximum market penetration for each region and year are presented in Table 1-16 and Table 1-17. 

Because the cost analysis for this option does not address the costs to retrofit existing DX systems, this 

option is assumed to penetrate only new (post-2004) retail food and cold storage installations (i.e., those 

installed in 2005 or beyond). 

Table 1-8: Summary of Assumptions for Distributed Systems for New Stationary Equipment 

Technical Applicabilityb

Country/Region 

Applicable End-Use 

Sector(s)a

Reduction 

Efficiencya 2010 2020 

U.S. & Japan 43.6% 43.1% 

Other Annex I 36.3% 45.1% 

Latin America & Caribbean 51.0% 49.4% 

Other Non-Annex I, Russia, CEITs 

Retail food 

Cold storage 93% 

54.4% 46.3% a End-Uses and Reduction Efficiency apply to all regions. 

b Technical applicability is shown as a percent of total refrigeration/air-conditioning sector emissions, and equals the percent of total 

refrigeration/air-conditioning emissions that are assumed to come from retail food and cold storage end-uses. 
Analysis of Costs to Abate International ODS Substitute Emissions 

 -22-

Cost and Emission Reduction Analysis 

The following bullets describe the cost and emission inputs used to derive the final $/TCE for distributed 

systems, the results of which are presented in Section 1.4. For more information on the calculation of 

costs and emission savings of this alternative refrigeration technology, see Section 1.3.2 on “Calculation 

of Indirect Emissions and Costs for Options Applicable to Stationary Equipment.” 

• One-Time Costs. HFC distributed systems are assumed to cost approximately $300 per ton of 

cooling capacity to install, or $100 more per ton of cooling capacity than conventional HFC 

centralized DX systems (U.S. EPA, 2001a). 

• Annual Costs. There are no annual costs associated with this option. 

• Cost Savings. Based on average electricity prices in the United States from 1994-1999 (EIA, 

2000), this option is associated with an annual cost savings of $5.72 per ton of cooling capacity in 

the United States, as a result of an approximately 8 percent increase in energy efficiency relative 

to centralized DX systems (ADL, 2002). In all other countries, this annual cost savings was 

adjusted by average electricity prices (average of 1994-1999) based on EIA (2000). In addition, 

this system will prevent the annual emission of nearly 0.32 kg of refrigerant per ton of cooling 

capacity, as a result of reduced leakage. Assuming an average cost of (R-404A) refrigerant of 

$18.41/kg (DuPont Customer Service, 2004), this translates into annual cost savings of 

approximately $5.85 per ton of cooling capacity. Combined, the annual cost savings associated 

with this option is $11.56 per ton of cooling capacity. 

• Emission Reductions. Because the distributed system described above use less energy than a 

typical DX system, less carbon dioxide is produced in generating electricity to run it. This 

indirect energy benefit is calculated to be approximately 0.02 TCE per ton of cooling capacity 

each year, using average power plant emission rates in the United States. In all other countries, 

the indirect emission benefit was calculated by multiplying the 0.02 TCE emission reduction 

calculated for the United States by a ratio of U.S. to regional or national average CO2 emission 

rates for electricity production, based on Sand et al. (1997). The reduction of direct emissions of 

approximately 0.32 kg of refrigerant equates to approximately 0.28 TCE per ton of cooling 

capacity per year. Therefore, in the United States, total annual emission reduction associated 

with this option is estimated to be 0.31 TCE per ton of cooling capacity. Furthermore, as a result 

of avoided losses at disposal (assumed to be 56 percent of original charge), a further 0.89 kg of 

refrigerant emissions could be avoided per ton of cooling capacity, equal to a one-time emission 

reduction of 0.79 TCE per ton of cooling capacity. 

Secondary Loop Systems for Stationary Equipment

Secondary loop systems pump cold fluid to remove heat from equipment (e.g., refrigerated food display 

cases) or areas to be cooled. The fluid, often a brine solution, passes through a heat exchanger to be 

cooled by a refrigerant isolated from the equipment or areas cooled. These systems require a significantly 

lower refrigerant charge, have lower leak rates, and can allow the use of flammable or toxic refrigerants. 

Secondary loops may be used in commercial and industrial refrigeration applications, for example, to cool 

supermarket display cases without circulating toxic or flammable refrigerants throughout the store or to 

reduce the needed charge of HFC refrigerants. The primary disadvantages of the secondary loop system 

can be a loss of energy efficiency and higher capital costs. Potential benefits of secondary cooling 

systems, however, include decreased charge sizes, decreased leak rates, faster defrost, lower maintenance 

needs, and longer shelf lives, which can result in significant cost-savings over time (Bennett, 2000; 

Baxter, 2003; Faramarzi and Walker, 2003). Indeed, the reduction in size and leak rate of the refrigerant 

charge could result in a reduced global warming impact, even with the use of fluorocarbon refrigerants. 
Analysis of Costs to Abate International ODS Substitute Emissions 

 -23-

The use of zero GWP refrigerants could result in even lower global warming impacts (Sand et al., 1997). 

Furthermore, secondary loop systems have improved temperature control compared to conventional direct 

expansion systems, which can represent an important advantage in countries like the United States, where 

recent regulations on temperature control for refrigerated products such as meat, poultry, and fish have 

become more stringent. Moreover, recent technological improvements to secondary cooling systems, 

such as high-efficiency evaporative condensers and display cases with high temperature brines, have 

increased system efficiency (Baxter, 2003; Faramarzi and Walker, 2003). Two types of secondary loop 

systems, for use in retail refrigeration and cold storage warehouses, are analyzed in more detail below. 

Secondary loops could mitigate some but not all of the risks of using flammable refrigerants in residential 

and commercial unitary end-uses. In addition, secondary loops also have potential applications in motor 

vehicle air-conditioning, discussed further under the option of “HFC-152a Refrigerant in MVACs.” Due 

to the lack of technical and cost information on secondary loop systems in these other applications, they 

are not included as options in this analysis. 

HFC Secondary Loop Systems for Stationary Commercial Refrigeration Equipment 

Designing new retail food and cold storage systems to operate using secondary loops with HFCs can also 

reduce HFC emissions. As discussed above, secondary loop systems circulate a secondary coolant or 

brine from the central refrigeration system to the display cases (UNEP, 1999a; ADL, 1999). These 

systems have lower leak rates and operate at reduced charges. Additionally, pipes used in these systems 

are now pre-manufactured and can be made of pre-insulated plastic instead of copper. This reduces 

material costs and, by eliminating the need for brazing, allows for faster installation. In the United States, 

installation costs have been reduced by more than 25 percent in recent years. With continued research 

and development, it is expected that this technology will soon be as cost-effective to purchase, install, and 

operate as centralized DX systems (Bennett, 2000). This technology option is assumed to be applicable to 

the retail food and cold storage end-use sectors. This option is assumed to reduce emissions from 

appropriate end-uses by up to 98.5 percent, based on an assumed charge of only 11 percent of the base 

case (centralized DX systems) and an annual leak rate of 2 percent compared to 15 percent for an 

“optimal installation” of a centralized DX system (ADL, 2002). The project lifetime is assumed to be 20 

years. The regional technical applicabilities and reduction efficiencies for 2010 and 2020 are presented in 

Table 1-9. Assumptions on maximum market penetration for each region and year are presented in Table 

1-16 and Table 1-17. Because the cost analysis for this option does not address the costs to retrofit 

existing DX systems, this option is assumed to penetrate only new (post-2004) retail food and cold 

storage installations (i.e., those installed in 2005 or beyond). 

Table 1-9: Summary of Assumptions for HFC Secondary Loop Systems for New Stationary Equipment 

Technical Applicabilityb

Country/Region 

Applicable End-Use 

Sector(s)a

Reduction 

Efficiencya 2010 2020 

U.S. & Japan 43.6% 43.1% 

Other Annex I 36.3% 45.1% 

Latin America & Caribbean 51.0% 49.4% 

Other Non-Annex I, Russia, CEITs 

Retail food, 

Cold storage 98.5% 

54.4% 46.3% a End-Uses and Reduction Efficiency apply to all regions. 

b Technical Applicability is shown as a percent of total refrigeration/air-conditioning sector emissions, and equals the percent of total 

refrigeration/air-conditioning emissions that are assumed to come from equipment t in the retail food and cold storage end-uses. 

Cost and Emission Reduction Analysis 

The following bullets describe the cost and emission inputs used to derive the final $/TCE for HFC 

secondary loop systems, the results of which are presented in Section 1.4. For more information on the 
Analysis of Costs to Abate International ODS Substitute Emissions 

 -24-

calculation of costs and emission savings of this alternative refrigeration technology, see Section 1.3.2 on 

“Calculation of Indirect Emissions and Costs for Options Applicable to Stationary Equipment.” 

• One-Time Costs. This option is assumed to cost approximately $240 per ton of cooling capacity 

to install, or $40 (20 percent) more than conventional centralized HFC direct expansion systems 

(Bennet, 2000; Smithart, 2000; ADL, 1999). Improved secondary loop systems now being 

manufactured may be associated with even lower cost premiums—ranging from 0 to 10 percent 

more expensive than conventional centralized DX systems (Kazachki, 2004). Such systems may 

be considered in future analyses. 

• Annual Costs. Based on average electricity prices in the United States from 1994-1999 (EIA, 

2000), this option is associated with an annual cost of $11.43 per-ton of cooling capacity, as a 

result of an approximately 15 percent increase in energy consumption relative to centralized DX 

systems (ADL, 2002). In all other countries, this annual cost was adjusted by average electricity 

prices (1994-1999) based on EIA (2000). Annual energy costs may actually be much lower if 

energy saving features are applied. Indeed, new secondary loop systems with improved design 

features (e.g., use of evaporative condensing) may result in annual energy requirements that are 

roughly the same as those for conventional DX systems, or even lower (Kazachki, 2003; Baxter, 

2003). Such systems may be considered in future analyses. 

• Cost Savings. On a per-ton of cooling capacity basis, this system will prevent nearly 0.34 kg of 

refrigerant emissions each year in the United States, as a result of reduced leakage. Assuming an 

average cost of (R-404A) refrigerant of $18.41/kg (DuPont Customer Service, 2004), this 

translates into an annual cost savings of $6.17 per ton of cooling capacity. 

• Emission Reductions. Under the HFC secondary loop system described above, the annual direct 

emission of nearly 0.34 kg (0.30 TCE) of refrigerant can be avoided annually per ton of cooling 

capacity. However, indirect emission (energy) penalties lower total emission benefits by more 

than 15 percent (approximately 0.05 TCE per ton of cooling capacity) in the United States. In all 

other countries, the indirect emission penalty was calculated by multiplying the 0.05 TCE 

emission penalty assumed for the United States by a ratio of U.S. to regional or national average 

CO2 emission rates for electricity production, based on Sand et al. (1997). Additional emission 

benefits are also associated with this option as a result of avoided (R-404A) refrigerant losses at 

equipment disposal. Assuming an emission rate of 56 percent at disposal, a further 1.11 kg of 

refrigerant emissions could be avoided per ton of cooling capacity, equal to a one-time emission 

reduction of 0.99 TCE per ton of cooling capacity. 

Ammonia Secondary Loop Systems for Stationary Commercial Refrigeration Equipment 

The use of ammonia is very common in certain countries while strongly restricted in others. For example, 

for many decades ammonia has been used in almost all dairies, breweries, slaughterhouses, and large 

freezing plants nearly all over Europe, while its use is heavily regulated in North America (ACHR News, 

2000). Ammonia refrigeration has historically been used in large, low-temperature industrial 

refrigeration, as well as medium and large chillers, generally in food processing (Crawford, 1999). 

However, the use of ammonia refrigerant is beginning to expand into retail food and smaller-sized chillers 

in some countries, particularly those in the European Union. 

Because of ammonia’s toxicity and flammability, major design modifications would be required for the 

majority of traditional HFC systems. Furthermore, since different countries have different sets of 

building codes, fire codes, and other safety standards relating to the use of ammonia in building 

equipment, some countries (e.g., the United States) would need to revise those codes to allow for the 

expanded use of ammonia in new equipment types. 
Analysis of Costs to Abate International ODS Substitute Emissions 

 -25-

Ammonia can be used as the primary refrigerant in secondary loop systems in place of HFCs. Because 

ammonia secondary loop systems avoid running the primary refrigerant through miles of piping to and 

from food storage cases, they have lower leak rates than conventional centralized DX systems, and 

operate at reduced charges. In these types of systems, ammonia is kept out of public contact (e.g., outside 

of buildings), and non-toxic fluids are used as secondary coolants. Incremental one-time costs for 

ammonia systems are assumed to include expenditures for equipment needed to ensure safety. The 

annual operating costs also include net energy requirements, but, because of a lack of information, do not 

cover costs associated with training of technicians and development and updating of safety protocols to 

handle more hazardous refrigerants such as ammonia. This technology option is assumed to be applicable 

to the retail food and cold storage end-uses. The project lifetime is assumed to be 20 years. The 

reduction efficiency of this option is 100 percent, as the ammonia completely replaces the HFC. Because 

the cost analysis for this option does not address the costs to retrofit existing DX systems, this option is 

assumed to be technically applicable in only new (post-2004) retail food and cold storage installations. 

Table 1-10 presents regional technical applicabilities and the reduction efficiency for 2010 and 2020. 

Table 1-10: Summary of Assumptions for Ammonia Secondary Loop Systems for New Stationary Equipment 

Technical Applicabilityb

Country/Region 

Applicable End-Use 

Sector(s)a

Reduction 

Efficiencya 2010 2020 

U.S. & Japan 43.6% 43.1% 

Other Annex I 36.3% 45.1% 

Latin America & Caribbean 51.0% 49.4% 

Other Non-Annex I, Russia, CEITs 

Retail food 

Cold storage 100% 

54.4% 46.3% a End-Uses and Reduction Efficiency apply to all regions. 

b Technical Applicability is shown as a percent of total refrigeration/air-conditioning sector emissions, and equals the percent of total 

refrigeration/air-conditioning emissions that are assumed to come from equipment in the retail food and cold storage end-uses. 

Ammonia systems are assumed to penetrate a greater percentage of non-U.S. markets, as a result of more 

relaxed safety standards and greater acceptance by industry, end-users, regulators, and insurance 

companies in those countries. Assumptions on maximum market penetration for each region and year are 

presented in Table 1-16 and Table 1-17. 

Cost and Emission Reduction Analysis 

The following bullets describe the cost and emission inputs used to derive the final $/TCE for ammonia 

secondary loop systems, the results of which are presented in Section 1.4. For more information on the 

calculation of costs and emission savings of this alternative refrigeration technology, see Section 1.3.2 on 

“Calculation of Indirect Emissions and Costs for Options Applicable to Stationary Equipment.” 

• One-Time Costs. Ammonia secondary loop systems are assumed to cost approximately $250 per 

ton of cooling capacity to install, or $50 (25 percent) more than conventional centralized HFC 

direct expansion systems (Anderson, 2001). 

• Annual Costs. Based on average electricity prices in the United States from 1994-1999 (EIA, 

2000), this option is associated with an annual cost of $11.43 per ton of cooling capacity, as a 

result of an approximately 15 percent increase in energy consumption relative to centralized DX 

systems (ADL, 2002). In all other countries, this annual cost was adjusted by average electricity 

prices (1994-1999) based on EIA (2000). Note that next generation ammonia secondary loop 

systems may adopt energy saving features that yield lower annual energy costs, as discussed 

above for HFC secondary loop systems. 
Analysis of Costs to Abate International ODS Substitute Emissions 

 -26-

• Cost Savings. On a per-ton of cooling capacity basis, this system will prevent 0.34 kg of 

refrigerant emissions each year in the United States, as a result of reduced leakage. Assuming an 

average cost of (R-404A) refrigerant of $18.41/kg (DuPont Customer Service, 2004), this 

translates into an annual cost savings of $6.26 per ton of cooling capacity. 

• Emission Reductions. Under the ammonia secondary loop system described above, the annual 

emission of 0.34 kg (0.30 TCE) of refrigerant can be avoided annually in the United States per 

ton of cooling capacity. However, indirect emission (energy) penalties lower total emission 

benefits by more than 15 percent (approximately 0.05 TCE per ton of cooling capacity) in the 

United States. In all other countries, the indirect emission penalty was calculated by multiplying 

the 0.05 TCE emission penalty assumed for the United States by a ratio of U.S. to regional or 

national average CO2 emission rates for electricity production, based on Sand et al. (1997). 

Additional emission benefits are also associated with this option as a result of avoided (R-404A) 

refrigerant losses at equipment disposal. Assuming an emission rate of 56 percent at disposal, a 

further 1.27 kg of refrigerant emissions could be avoided per ton of cooling capacity, equal to a 

one-time emission reduction of 1.13 TCE per ton of cooling capacity. 

Enhanced HFC-134a Systems in MVACs

Various options exist to reduce emissions of HFC-134a in MVACs by reducing charge size, leak rates, 

and/or system efficiency (i.e., reducing system power consumption). Specifically, reducing the volume of 

the system components, such as the condenser and refrigerant lines, can reduce charge size. Similarly, 

leak rates can be lowered and system efficiency improved by using better system components, such as 

improved system sealing, lower permeation hoses, improved fittings, and higher evaporator temperatures 

(Lundberg, 2002; Xu and Amin, 2000). Additional savings of indirect emissions can be obtained by 

improving system efficiency, for example through the use of oil separators and externally controlled 

swashplate compressors. 

Based on the latest science and industry estimates available at publication, enhanced HFC-134a systems 

can reduce baseline direct emissions by 50 percent (SAE, 2003a). This technology is expected to become 

commercial between 2004 and 2006 (SAE, 2003a). This analysis assumes a project lifetime (i.e., MVAC 

lifetime) of 12 years. Regional technical applicabilities and the reduction efficiency are presented in 

Table 1-11. 

Table 1-11: Summary of Assumptions for Enhanced HFC-134a Systems for New MVACs 

Technical Applicabilityb

Country/Region 

Applicable EndUse Sector(s) Reduction 

Efficiencya 2010 2020 

U.S. & Japan 28.5% 19.5% 

Other Annex I 40.4% 15.9% 

Latin America & Caribbean 16.2% 7.8% 

Other Non-Annex I, Russia, CEITs 

MVACs 50% 

10.7% 13.6% a Reduction Efficiency applies to all regions, and represents the reduction in direct emissions (compared to conventional HFC-134a systems) 

as a result of reduced leakage. 

b Technical Applicability is shown as a percent of total refrigeration/air-conditioning sector emissions, and equals the percent of total 

refrigeration/air-conditioning sector emissions that are assumed to come from MVACs. 

Acceptance of this substitute would likely vary by region, based on consumer and industry attitudes, 

economic variables, and availability of competing options. Enhanced HFC-134a systems are expected to 

become commercially available several years before other alternatives (e.g., carbon dioxide, HFC-152a). 

Therefore, this analysis assumes that initially enhanced HFC-134a systems will most deeply penetrate the 

markets of Europe, Australia and Japan, where regulations, policy, and/or voluntary initiatives are moving 
Analysis of Costs to Abate International ODS Substitute Emissions 

 -27-

fastest to reduce HFC use and emissions. Beyond 2010, however, Europe15 and Japan are expected to 

move away from HFC-134a use in MVACs, so this option is assumed to gain the greatest market 

penetration in other developed countries, such as the United States and Canada, where industry is resistant 

to switching from using HFC-134a. In developing countries, capital cost is expected to prevent this 

option from penetrating the market at all. The cost analysis for this option does not include any costs 

associated with retrofitting existing HFC-134a systems. Therefore, this option is assumed to penetrate 

only new MVACs produced after 2004. Assumptions on maximum market penetration for each region 

and year are presented in Table 1-16 and Table 1-17. 

Cost and Emission Reduction Analysis 

The following bullets describe the cost and emission inputs used to derive the final $/TCE for enhanced 

HFC-134a systems for MVACs, the results of which are presented in Section 1.4: 

• One-Time Costs. While enhanced HFC-134a MVACs are yet to be fully developed and 

commercialized, the additional capital cost of this option is assumed to be 40 Euros, or $45 

USD,16 per system, based on the latest available industry estimates (SAE, 2003a). 

• Annual Costs. No annual costs are associated with this option. 

• Cost Savings. Enhanced HFC-134a systems will potentially reduce energy consumption by as 

much as 25 to 30 percent (SAE, 2003a). For calculation purposes, 27.5 percent is assumed. In 

the United States, this gain in energy efficiency is estimated to translate into a savings of 10.2 

gallons of gasoline per vehicle per year (Rugh and Hovland, 2003). Assuming an average 

gasoline price of $1.51/gallon (EIA, 2001), this results in an annual cost savings of approximately 

$15.46 per year in the United States.17 For all other countries, this annual cost savings is adjusted 

by the estimated amount of gasoline saved per vehicle per year18 and by average regional costs of 

unleaded gasoline in 2000.19 Additional savings due to less maintenance are not analyzed or 

included here. 

In addition, small cost savings are also associated with saved HFC-134a refrigerant, assumed to 

cost $7.94/kg (DuPont Customer Service, 2004). On an annual basis, these savings are estimated 

 

15 The proposed EC Regulation on fluorinated gases, presented by the Commission on August 11, 2003, prohibits 

the use of fluorinated gases with a GWP higher than 150 in new MVACs placed on the market beginning in 2009, 

with the exception of manufacturers that successfully apply for a quota allocation (EC, 2003b). It is currently 

undergoing review and revision. 

16 This cost conversion is based on an exchange rate of $112.5/€100 (Universal Currency Converter Web site, 2003). 

17 Average gasoline price is based on the reported average retail price of regular unleaded gasoline in 2000 in the 

United States (EIA, 2001). 

18 The estimated quantity of gasoline saved per vehicle per year varies by the percent of fuel consumed by MVACs 

(as a percent of total fuel consumption), which in turn varies by MVAC usage. Based on available data, the 

estimated annual savings of gasoline per vehicle per year associated with a 27.5-percent increase in MVAC 

efficiency is 2.3 gallons in Europe and 2.0 gallons in Japan (Rugh and Hovland, 2003). For the purpose of this 

report, the MVAC efficiency value for Europe was used as a proxy for the remaining countries. 

19 EIA (2001) provides average 2000 prices of regular unleaded gasoline for select countries, which are used as 

proxies for adjusting the annual cost savings for non-U.S. countries by region. Specifically, the average price in 

Germany ($3.45/gallon) is used as a proxy for all European countries; the average price in Australia and Canada 

($1.90/gallon) is used as a proxy for all other developed countries except Japan; and the average price in Mexico and 

Taiwan ($2.09/gallon) is used as a proxy for all developing countries. The average gasoline price for Japan is 

$3.74/gallon. 
Analysis of Costs to Abate International ODS Substitute Emissions 

 -28-

to total approximately $0.35 per MVAC—assuming that conventional HFC-134a MVACs 

contain an average charge of 0.8 kg, that they emit 10.9 percent of this charge each year, and that 

50 percent of these emissions could be avoided through this option. 

• Emission Reductions. Under the enhanced HFC-134a system described above, the annual 

emission of approximately 0.04 kg (i.e., 0.8 kg charge multiplied by the emission rate of 

10.9%/year and the reduction efficiency of 50%) of HFC-134a refrigerant could be avoided from 

reduced leakage, resulting in the annual reduction of 0.015 TCE per MVAC. Furthermore, based 

on U.S. emission factors for motor gasoline (U.S. EPA, 2003), indirect emission benefits 

associated with a 27.5-percent system efficiency improvement could lead to the annual reduction 

of an additional 0.025 TCE per MVAC in the United States. Overall, this option could, therefore, 

reduce 0.040 TCE per MVAC each year in the United States. For all non-U.S. countries, the 

annual indirect emission benefit estimated for the United States (0.025 TCE) was adjusted by the 

estimated amount of gasoline saved per vehicle per year (Rugh and Hovland, 2003) and by the 

global average emission factor for motor gasoline (IPCC, 1996). 

HFC-152a Refrigerant in MVACs

Replacing HFC-134a refrigerant in MVACs with HFC-152a represents a significant opportunity to reduce 

HFC emissions, since the GWP of HFC-152a is 140, 89 percent less than that of HFC-134a, whose GWP 

is 1300. HFC-152a is a flammable refrigerant but is less flammable than hydrocarbons. HFC-152a can 

be used in both direct expansion (DX) and secondary loop MVAC systems. Because there is still great 

uncertainty associated with the future costs of HFC-152a secondary loop systems for MVACs, this cost 

analysis only considers the DX option. Likewise, because there is still great uncertainty associated with 

future costs of “improved” HFC-152a MVACs—which will use improved system components to further 

reduce refrigerant leak rates, as well as externally-controlled variable displacement compressors and 

refrigerant system controls to further increase system efficiency—only the conventional DX systems are 

considered in this costs analysis. 

In addition to direct emission reductions associated with a lower GWP, HFC-152a DX systems in 

MVACs also reduce indirect emissions by improving system efficiency by about 10 percent (SAE, 

2003a). This analysis assumes a project lifetime (i.e., MVAC lifetime) of 12 years. Regional technical 

applicabilities and the reduction efficiency are presented in Table 1-12. 

Table 1-12: Summary of Assumptions for HFC-152a DX Systems in New MVACs 

Technical Applicabilityb

Country/Region 

Applicable EndUse Sector(s) Reduction 

Efficiencya 2010 2020 

U.S. & Japan 28.5% 19.5% 

Other Annex I 40.4% 15.9% 

Latin America & Caribbean 16.2% 7.8% 

Other Non-Annex I, Russia, CEITs 

MVACs 89% 

10.7% 13.6% a Reduction Efficiency applies to all regions, and represents the reduction in direct emissions (compared to conventional HFC-134a systems) 

as a result of lower GWP. 

b Technical Applicability is shown as a percent of total refrigeration/air-conditioning sector emissions, and equals the percent of total 

refrigeration/air-conditioning sector emissions that are assumed to come from MVACs. 

The use of HFC-152a DX systems in MVACs would not require any significant changes to existing HFC134a system components apart from a safety mitigation system (e.g., a refrigerant detector and a valve to 

isolate the remaining charge from the passenger compartment), thereby rendering this option easy to 

introduce into the market. Furthermore, compared to baseline HFC-134a systems, HFC-152a systems are 
Analysis of Costs to Abate International ODS Substitute Emissions 

 -29-

expected to be more efficient and may operate at reduced refrigerant charges and leakage rates.20

However, because HFC-152a is a slightly flammable gas, safety systems are needed. Thus, personnel 

training would be needed to enable the safe and effective recovery and recycling of refrigerant at service 

and disposal, and additional safety systems to minimize the potential for large leaks into the passenger 

compartment may be required. New fire-safe service equipment for refrigerant recovery/charging and 

leak detection may also be required. 

While the MVAC industry has demonstrated the use of HFC-152a in prototype DX (and secondary loop) 

MVAC systems, the technology is still in the research and development phase. HFC-152a systems are 

expected to become commercially available between 2006 and 2008 (SAE, 2003a). Once available, it is 

assumed that initially HFC-152a systems will have the greatest market share in Europe, Australia and 

Japan, where policies and regulations are being developed that will aim aggressively at reducing HFC134a emissions from MVACs. Once the technical and economic barriers associated with carbon dioxide 

systems are resolved and such systems become more widely used, it is expected that HFC-152a 

popularity will then decline in the European market and later in other nations like Japan and Australia. In 

comparison, because other developed countries (e.g., the United States and Canada) are less open to using 

non-HFC alternatives, this option is expected to gain market share slowly in those regions. In addition, 

because HFC-152a has the lowest capital cost of all MVAC options considered in this analysis, it is 

expected to be the primary alternative for MVAC markets in developing countries in later years. 

Retrofitting HFC-134a systems to HFC-152a systems is not considered technically or economically 

feasible because it is assumed that additional safety systems to reduce potential passenger exposure must 

be incorporated into the system. Thus, costs associated with retrofit were not assessed, and this option is 

assumed to penetrate only new (post-2004) MVACs. Assumptions on maximum market penetration for 

each region and year are presented in Table 1-16 and Table 1-17. 

Cost and Emission Reduction Analysis 

The following bullets describe the cost and emission inputs used to derive the final $/TCE for HFC-152a 

systems for MVACs, the results of which are presented in Section 1.4: 

• One-Time Costs. While research and development is still ongoing on HFC-152a systems, based 

on the latest available industry estimates, the capital cost of this option is assumed to be 20 to 25 

Euros per system more than a standard HFC-134a system (SAE, 2003a). For calculation 

purposes, 22.50 Euros, or $25.31 USD,21 is used. 

• Annual Costs. No annual costs are associated with this option. 

• Cost Savings. Based on industry consensus, HFC-152a systems are estimated to reduce energy 

consumption by 10 percent (SAE, 2003a), although these gains may not be realized in all weather 

conditions (Hill and Atkinson, 2003). This gain in energy efficiency is estimated to result in a 

savings of approximately 3.9 gallons of gasoline per vehicle per year in the United States, which 

translates into an annual cost savings of $5.92, based on average U.S. prices of regular unleaded 

gasoline in 2000 (Rugh and Hovland, 2003; EIA, 2001). For all non-U.S. countries, this cost 

savings is adjusted by the estimated amount of gasoline saved per vehicle per year22 and by the 

average regional costs of unleaded gasoline in 2000.23

 

20 Because these systems are still under development, this cost analysis does not consider the possible reduction in 

charge and leakage rates, although efficiency improvement predictions based on SAE (2003a) are included. 

21 This cost conversion is based on an exchange rate of $112.5/€100 (Universal Currency Converter Web site, 

2003). 

22 It assumed that a 10 percent increase in MVAC efficiency results in the annual savings of 0.8 gallons of gasoline 
Analysis of Costs to Abate International ODS Substitute Emissions 

 -30-

Because this analysis assumes that HFC-152a would be the same price as HFC-134a, and because 

HFC-152a systems are assumed to leak at the same rate as conventional HFC-134a, (although the 

associated emissions are less damaging to the environment due to the lower GWP), no cost 

savings are associated with saved refrigerant. 

• Emission Reductions. Under the HFC-152a system described above, the annual emission of 

approximately 0.09 kg of HFC-134a refrigerant could be avoided in place of annual emissions of 

0.09 kg of HFC-152a—which results in the net annual reduction of 0.028 TCE per MVAC. In 

addition, based on U.S. emission factors for motor gasoline (U.S. EPA, 2003), indirect emission 

benefits associated with a 10-percent system efficiency improvement could lead to the reduction 

of an annual additional 0.009 TCE per MVAC in the United States. Overall, this option could, 

therefore, reduce approximately 0.037 TCE per MVAC each year in the United States. For all 

non-U.S. countries, the annual indirect emission benefit estimated for the United States (0.009 

TCE) was adjusted by the estimated amount of gasoline saved per vehicle per year (Rugh and 

Hovland, 2003) and by the global average emission factor for motor gasoline (IPCC, 1996). 

Emission benefits are also achieved by this option at MVAC disposal, as the emission of HFC134a could be substituted by emission of lower-GWP HFC-152a. Assuming that on average 42.5 

percent of the original MVAC charge is lost at disposal, the one-time loss of 0.34 kg of HFC134a refrigerant could be replaced by HFC-152a, resulting in the net reduction of approximately 

0.11 TCE per MVAC. 

Carbon Dioxide in MVACs

Systems using carbon dioxide as the refrigerant in MVACs represent a potential opportunity for emission 

reduction. This technology uses a transcritical vapor cycle which differs from conventional MVAC 

systems and requires innovative design and engineering. The arrangement of components in carbon 

dioxide systems is generally consistent with conventional systems; however, a suction line heat exchanger 

is added and a low side accumulator is used (in place of a high side receiver, as used in most conventional 

HFC-134a systems). In addition, the individual system components are designed to reflect the extremely 

high pressure levels of supercritical carbon dioxide (about 2,000 psig). 

Because carbon dioxide has a GWP of 1, it would virtually eliminate the climate impacts of direct 

refrigerant emissions from MVACs. Carbon dioxide systems perform most efficiently in areas, like 

northern Europe, that require air conditioners for cooling and other purposes, but generally have mild 

ambient temperatures.24 In addition, heat pump technology for vehicles is under development (VDA, 

2003), which may allow CO2 systems to be used for supplemental heating of the passenger compartment 

(SAE, 2003a). This may be an important function in cars with very efficient engines where minimal 

waste heat is available to warm the passenger compartment. 

While CO2 has the advantage of being non-flammable, its system operating pressure is five to 10 times 

that of HFC-134a; therefore, appropriate safety features and new system/component designs are required 

before this option can be brought to market. In addition, an internal heat exchanger, which would further 

cool the high-temperature CO2 from the gas cooler and heat the low-temperature CO2 from the 

accumulator, would be needed to increase cooling capacity and energy efficiency to acceptable levels. 

 

in Europe and 0.7 gallons of gasoline in Japan (Rugh and Hovland, 2003). For the purpose of this report, the MVAC 

efficiency value for Europe was used as a proxy for the remaining countries. 

23 Annual cost savings are adjusted by average gasoline prices as explained in footnote 19. 

24 Compared to other refrigerant technologies, prototype carbon dioxide MVAC systems are not as efficient in 

warmer climate conditions. The MVAC industry is actively pursuing research and development activities to 

improve system efficiency in warmer weather conditions (SAE, 2003b). 
Analysis of Costs to Abate International ODS Substitute Emissions 

 -31-

Also, in the event of a large leak, passengers could be exposed to potentially dangerous levels of CO2; 

therefore, it is assumed that safety systems designed to minimize passenger exposure would be 

incorporated into the system design. 

Several engineering constraints must still be overcome, including those associated with flexible lines, 

increased system weight, and system leakage/leak detection methods. In addition, because these systems 

will be designed and built differently than current MVACs, and because the high pressure presents 

additional risks, technicians will need to be trained on how to service and maintain these new systems 

safely and correctly. New service equipment for refrigerant charging and leak detection may also be 

required. Moreover, because of the high pressure of these systems, MVAC servicing and maintenance 

would need to be performed by skilled technicians, in order to prevent safety hazards and maintain system 

performance. 

The efficiency gains associated with CO2 systems (between 20 and 25 percent [SAE, 2003a]) are 

considered in this cost analysis, using 22.5 percent for calculation purposes. While efforts are ongoing to 

develop “improved” CO2 systems for MVACs—which experts predict would exceed this 20 to 25 percent 

energy efficiency gain—much uncertainty remains regarding the investment costs required to 

manufacture these systems. Therefore, these “improved” CO2 systems are not considered further in this 

analysis. This analysis assumes a project lifetime (i.e., MVAC lifetime) of 12 years. Regional technical 

applicabilities and the reduction efficiency for the CO2 option considered are presented in Table 1-13. 

Table 1-13: Summary of Assumptions for CO2 Systems in New MVACs 

Technical Applicabilityb

Country/Region 

Applicable EndUse Sector(s) Reduction 

Efficiencya 2010 2020 

U.S. & Japan 28.5% 19.5% 

Other Annex I 40.4% 15.9% 

Latin America & Caribbean 16.2% 7.8% 

Other Non-Annex I, Russia, CEITs 

MVACs 100% 

10.7% 13.6% a Reduction Efficiency applies to all regions, and represents the reduction in direct emissions (compared to conventional HFC-134a systems). 

b Technical Applicability is shown as a percent of total refrigeration/air-conditioning sector emissions and equals the percent of total 

refrigeration/air-conditioning sector emissions that are assumed to come from MVACs. 

Carbon dioxide systems may be available on the market in the next four to six years (SAE, 2003a). 

Because European and Japanese manufacturers are most aggressively pursuing CO2, this option is 

expected to eventually (by 2020) become the dominant market player in these world markets. In other 

developed countries such as the U.S. and Canada, industry is not aggressively developing this technology 

and it is assumed that this option will not be widely adopted in these markets in the near future. Finally, 

because of the high capital costs associated with this option (see details below), it is also not expected to 

be adopted in developing countries until later years, assuming a projected global market shift to non-GWP 

alternatives. The project lifetime is assumed to be 12 years, and assumptions on maximum market 

penetration for each region and year are presented in Table 1-16 and Table 1-17. Retrofitting HFC-134a 

systems to carbon dioxide is not considered technically or economically feasible because of the high 

operating pressures and because it is assumed that additional safety systems to reduce potential passenger 

exposure must be incorporated into the systems. Thus, costs to retrofit were not assessed, and this option 

is assumed to penetrate only new (post-2004) MVACs. 

Cost and Emission Reduction Analysis 

The following bullets describe the cost and emission inputs used to derive the final $/TCE for CO2

systems for MVACs, the results of which are presented in Section 1.4: 
Analysis of Costs to Abate International ODS Substitute Emissions 

 -32-

• One-Time Costs. Based on the latest available industry estimates, the capital cost of this option 

is assumed to be 80 to 120 Euros on a per system basis (SAE, 2003a). For calculation purposes, 

100 Euros, or $112.50 USD,25 was used. 

• Annual Costs. No annual costs are associated with this option. 

• Cost Savings. Based on industry consensus, it is estimated that enhanced CO2 systems may 

reduce energy consumption, compared to a baseline HFC-134a system, by 20 to 25 percent (an 

average of 22.5 percent is used for calculation purposes), although these gains may not be 

realized at all ambient temperatures (SAE, 2003a). This gain in energy efficiency results in the 

savings of approximately 8.4 gallons of gasoline per vehicle per year in the United States, which 

translates roughly into an annual cost savings of $12.67 (Rugh and Hovland, 2003; EIA, 2001). 

For all non-U.S. countries, this cost savings was adjusted by the estimated amount of gasoline 

saved per vehicle per year26 and by average cost of unleaded gasoline in 2000 (Rugh and 

Hovland, 2003; EIA, 2001).27

In addition, small cost savings are associated with saved (HFC-134a) refrigerant, assumed to cost 

$7.94/kg (DuPont Customer Service, 2004). On an annual basis, these savings are estimated to 

total $0.69 per MVAC—assuming that conventional HFC-134a MVACs contain an average 

charge of 0.8 kg, that they emit 10.9 percent of this charge each year, and that 100 percent of 

these emissions could be avoided through this option. The additional cost of CO2 refrigerant is 

assumed to be small and is not included in the analysis. 

• Emission Reductions. Under the CO2 system described above, the annual emission of 

approximately 0.09 kg of HFC-134a refrigerant could be avoided, resulting in the reduction of 

0.031 TCE per MVAC. In addition, based on U.S. emission factors for motor gasoline (U.S. 

EPA, 2003), indirect emission benefits associated with a 22.5-percent system efficiency 

improvement could lead to the reduction of an additional 0.020 TCE per MVAC in the United 

States. Overall, this option could, therefore, reduce approximately 0.051 TCE per MVAC each 

year in the United States. For all non-U.S. countries, the annual indirect emission benefit 

estimated for the United States (0.020 TCE) was adjusted by the estimated amount of gasoline 

saved per vehicle per year (Rugh and Hovland, 2003) and by the global average emission factor 

for motor gasoline (IPCC, 1996). Furthermore, a one-time disposal loss of 0.34 kg of HFC-134a 

refrigerant can also be avoided (assuming a disposal loss rate of 42.5 percent), which would result 

in a further one-time reduction of 0.12 TCE per MVAC. 

Oil-Free Compressors

Oil-free compressors are available for chillers, industrial process applications, and other applications 

where compressors are used. The elimination of oil in refrigeration/air-conditioning compressors has 

been achieved through various innovative designs, including the incorporation of magnetic or hybrid 

ceramic bearings (SKF, 2003; Smithart, 2003). In some systems, oil may decrease heat transfer and 

reduce operating efficiency; therefore, removing oil may increase the ability to sustain system efficiency 

over the life of the equipment—thereby lowering indirect emissions of CO2 associated with producing 

electricity. Eliminating the use of oil in compressors can reduce the number of equipment components 

(e.g., oil separators and sealing, fittings and connections), allowing equipment to be made tighter, and 

resulting in lower leak rates. In addition, oil-free compressors remove the need for oil changes and the 

 

25 This cost conversion is based on an exchange rate of $112.5/€100 (Universal Currency Converter Web site, 2003). 

26 A 22.5-percent increase in MVAC efficiency is assumed to result in the annual savings of 1.9 gallons of gasoline 

in Europe and 1.7 gallons of gasoline in Japan (Rugh and Hovland, 2003). For the purpose of this report, the 

MVAC efficiency value for Europe was used as a proxy for the remaining countries. 

27 Annual cost savings are adjusted by average gasoline prices as explained in footnote 19. 
Analysis of Costs to Abate International ODS Substitute Emissions 

 -33-

associated refrigerant emissions that may be experienced either through the service practices used or from 

refrigerant dissolved in the oil. This potential emission reduction may be offset however by an increased 

frequency of compressor/bearing inspection or replacement (Digmanese, 2004), although an increasing 

history of operation may prove that unnecessary. This option was not included in the cost analysis, 

however, as a result of limited data available on this new technology and its applicability in future 

markets. 

Geothermal Cooling Systems

In some locations, geothermal cooling systems for residential and commercial spaces are popular and 

economically sound as an alternative to conventional air-conditioning systems. Geothermal technology 

transfers heat between the system and the earth and can provide both space heating and cooling. Though 

installation costs are typically 30 to 50 percent higher than conventional systems, annual costs are reduced 

by 20 to 40 percent, due in large part to increased energy efficiency. Economic paybacks can accrue in as 

little as three to five years. Geothermal systems may save homeowners 20 to 50 percent in cooling costs 

(Geoexchange, 2000; Rawlings, 2000). This technology has also been used in ice skating rinks. Because 

of a lack of cost and market penetration data, this technology is not considered further in this analysis. 

Desiccant Cooling Systems 

Desiccant cooling is produced by removing moisture from an air stream using a desiccant, and then 

separately cooling the dry air. The desiccant is thermally regenerated, typically by burning natural gas or 

alternatively, by capturing excess heat. Desiccant cooling may replace the latent cooling done by some 

end-uses, such as unitary systems. Integrated desiccant cooling systems that combine a desiccant system 

with a vapor compression or other cooling system have been successfully installed in some commercial 

buildings (Fisher et al., 1994). 

However, current designs are used primarily in niche markets that require precisely-controlled and/or low 

humidity, such as hospital operating rooms and certain industrial processes. For desiccant-based systems 

to be considered widely feasible options in the commercial air-conditioning market, improvements in 

efficiency, cost, size, reliability, and life expectancy must be made (Sand et al., 1997). 

Desiccant systems have also been tried in MVAC systems, but found not to be technically or 

economically feasible. These systems require an intermittent source of heat; however, because new 

automobiles produce very little waste heat, not enough heat is produced for a desiccant system to 

function. Desiccant systems may therefore only be feasible where there is a large heat source, as in a 

large truck or bus (Environment Canada, 1998). Furthermore, in order for desiccant air-conditioners to 

become viable options for MVACs, the varying heat source must be controlled during normal driving 

conditions, when vehicle speed is continually changing. Current prototypes are large and heavy, and the 

systems have not been shown to be cost-effective or durable enough to justify the initial investment (U.S. 

EPA, 2001a). 

Because of the technical barriers and insufficient cost information associated with the feasibility of this 

option in potentially applicable end-uses, this option was not explored further in this analysis. 

Absorption Systems

Absorption systems refrigerate/cool through the use of two fluids and some quantity of heat input, rather 

than electrical input as in the more familiar vapor compression cycle. Specifically, absorption systems 

use a secondary fluid or absorbent to circulate the refrigerant (Rafferty, 2003). These systems can be 
Analysis of Costs to Abate International ODS Substitute Emissions 

 -34-

used in residential refrigeration and chiller applications and, potentially, heat pumps in residential and 

light commercial applications, as described below. 

Refrigeration Systems: In the late 1990s, more than one million of an estimated 62 million refrigerators 

sold annually were thermally-activated ammonia/water absorption systems (Sand et al., 1997). The 

refrigerants used for absorption refrigeration have negligible GWPs. Absorption refrigeration is 

commonly used in hotel rooms and for recreational vehicles because it operates quietly and has the ability 

to use bottled gas as an energy source. Absorption refrigerators are limited in size because of design 

constraints. The thermal coefficient of performance (COP) of these refrigerators can be increased by as 

much as 50 percent (from a COP of 0.2 to 0.3) through design improvements without degrading cooling 

capacity (Sand et al., 1997). However, the low efficiency of absorption equipment means that the indirect 

emissions must be carefully analyzed. Inherent design limitations make it unlikely that absorption 

refrigeration will become a significant replacement for vapor compression refrigerators. However, 

absorption refrigeration has great capacity and operating attributes that permit it to fill niche markets 

(Sand et al., 1997). 

Chillers: Gas-fired (as opposed to electrically-powered) absorption water chillers are sold in the United 

States and are common in Japan. These systems are used mostly where there is a relatively short cooling 

season, where electricity costs (especially demand charges) are high, and/or where fairly high-grade waste 

heat is available. Although absorption chillers are far less efficient than competitive systems if waste heat 

is not available, the technology is feasible and, under some economic circumstances, compares favorably 

with vapor compression chillers using fluorocarbon refrigerants. Market success will be determined by 

factors such as the relative costs of natural gas and electricity, peak load charges, and purchase costs. In 

addition, absorption chillers currently have higher capital costs than vapor compression equipment, such 

that significant operating cost savings would be necessary to make their purchase economically 

competitive. 

Heat Pumps: Research and development efforts are attempting to create absorption heat pumps that would 

be used for heating and cooling in residential and light commercial applications. Several years ago, in 

Europe and the United States, generator absorber heat exchange (GAX) ammonia-water absorption heat 

pumps were being developed, while field test units had been built in Japan. Absorption heat pumps could 

be used to reduce global warming impacts in areas where heating load dominates, although they would 

have the opposite effect in areas where cooling dominates (Sand et al., 1997). 

Because these options are either still under development or are currently optimal primarily in niche 

markets, sufficient information was not available to include their costs and reduction potential in this 

analysis. 

1.3.2 Calculation of Indirect Emissions and Costs for Options Applicable to 

Stationary Equipment 

For three of the technology options assessed for stationary equipment28—distributed systems, HFC 

secondary loop systems, and ammonia secondary loop systems—a TEWI analysis was conducted to 

account for “indirect” emissions and costs associated with changes in energy consumption relative to 

centralized direct expansion systems, the conventional HFC technology assumed to be replaced. 

 

28 Three other technology options analyzed quantitatively in this report apply only to MVACs. For those options, 

the net costs and emissions associated with changes in energy efficiency (i.e., reduced fuel consumption) are 

considered in the analysis, as explained under each of the option descriptions. 
Analysis of Costs to Abate International ODS Substitute Emissions 

 -35-

Calculations of indirect emissions and costs are based on data from ADL (2002) and EIA (2000), as 

presented in Table 1-14. 

Based on Table 1-14, net energy consumption and costs in the United States were factored into the annual 

costs/cost savings of each of the three technology options. For all non-U.S. countries, net indirect 

emissions were adjusted based on country-specific information on average CO2 emission rates (kg/kWh) 

associated with national electricity generation (Sand et al., 1997). Likewise, for all non-U.S. countries, 

annual costs or cost savings associated with changes in energy consumption were also adjusted based on 

country-specific electricity prices for industry (average 1994-1999) (EIA, 2000). 

Table 1-14: Net Annual Emissions and Energy Costs of Replacement Options in the United States in a 

600,000 Square Foot Supermarketa,b

Centralized 

Direct Expansion 

System (Base) 

Distributed 

System 

Ammonia 

Secondary Loop 

System 

HFC Secondary 

Loop System 

Charge Size (kg)c 1,633 408 180 180 

HFC Leak Rate (% of charge/yr)c 15% 4% 0% 2% 

Direct Emissions (kg/yr) 245 16 0 4 

Change in Direct Emissions (kg/yr) N/A (229) (245) (241) 

Change in Direct Emissions (kg/yr) 

per ton of cooling capacityd N/A (0.32) (0.34) (0.34) 

Change in Direct Emissions (TCE/yr)e N/A (204) (218) (214) 

Energy Consumption (kWh/yr)c 1,200,000 1,100,000 1,400,000f

 1,400,000f

Indirect Emissions (TCE/yr)g 198 182 231 231

Change in Indirect Emissions (TCE/yr) N/A (17) 33 33 

Change in Indirect Emissions (TCE/yr) 

per ton of cooling capacityd N/A (0.02) 0.05 0.05 

Change in Net Emissions (TCE/yr) N/A (221) (185) (181) 

Net Electricity Cost ($/yr)h N/A ($4,000) $8,000 $8,000 

Annual Change in Energy 

Consumption (kWh/yr) per ton of 

cooling capacityi

 N/A (139) 278 278 

Estimated Net Electricity Cost 

($/ton of cooling capacity)j N/A ($5.72) $11.43 $11.43 

Note: Totals may not sum due to independent rounding. 

N/A = not applicable. 

a 600,000-sq. ft. is the typical size of a supermarket in the United States (ADL, 2002). 

b To apply this U.S. analysis to the rest of the world, adjustments by relative energy emission factors (kg CO2/kWh) and electricity costs for 

individual countries, based on Sand et al. (1997) and EIA (2000), were made. 

c

 Based on ADL (2000).

d Assumes that conventional direct expansion systems require 5 pounds (or 2.27 kg) of refrigerant per ton of cooling capacity (Smithart, 2000). 

For a 600,000 sq. ft. store using 3,600 lb. refrigerant (ADL, 2002), this translates to 720 tons of cooling capacity. 

e Assumes the refrigerant is R-404A (ADL, 2002). 

f

 Recent technological advances on secondary loop refrigeration systems for supermarkets suggest that, with the use of improved technological 

features and design/manufacturing/contractor experience, these systems can lead to significant reductions in energy consumption (Walker, 

2000; Baxter, 2003; Kazachki, 2003); however, these reductions are not assumed in this analysis. 

g Assumes a national average emissions factor of 0.606 kg CO2/kWh (EIA, 2004). 

h Assumes average energy costs for U.S. between 1994-1999 (of approximately $0.04/kWh) based on EIA (2000). 

i

 Calculated by dividing the change in energy consumption (kWh/yr) by the charge size of direct expansion systems(kg) and multiplying by the 

quantity of refrigerant needed on a per ton of cooling capacity basis for conventional direct expansion systems (see footnote e). E.g., for 

secondary loop systems: (1,400,000 – 1,200,000) kWh/yr ÷ 1,633 kg charge × 2.27 kg/ton of cooling capacity = 278 kWh/ton of cooling 

capacity.
Analysis of Costs to Abate International ODS Substitute Emissions 

 -36-

j

 Calculated by multiplying annual change in energy consumption per ton of cooling capacity by average energy costs (assumed to be 

approximately $0.04/kWh, as explained in footnote h). 

Thus, for HFC and ammonia secondary loop systems, which are associated with decreased energy 

efficiency relative to centralized HFC direct expansion systems and, therefore, increased indirect 

emissions, the net increase in indirect emissions was subtracted from the estimated savings in direct 

emissions, and annual energy costs were accounted for in the analysis. Conversely, for distributed 

systems, which are associated with increased energy efficiency compared to centralized HFC direct 

expansion systems, the net savings in indirect emissions were added to the savings of direct emissions, 

and annual cost savings associated with lower electricity costs were accounted for in the analysis. 

Therefore, overall, the calculation of indirect emissions and costs resulted in slightly lower emission 

benefits and higher annual costs for HFC and ammonia secondary loop systems, and in a slightly greater 

emission benefit and lower annual costs for direct expansion systems. 

1.3.3 Summary of Technical Applicability and Market Penetration of Abatement 

Options 

Table 1-15 summarizes the percent of total refrigeration/air-conditioning sector emissions that may be 

technically abated by each of the options explored in this analysis, based on the percent of sector 

emissions from each end-use (which varies by region), as provided in Table 1-3. Market penetration 

values for each abatement option were developed for each region when possible, to best reflect qualitative 

information available on region-specific realities and possible future action. The commercial 

refrigeration and MVAC technology options explored in this chapter are assumed to penetrate only new 

(not existing) equipment, where “new” equipment is defined as equipment manufactured in 2005 or later. 

Table 1-16 presents the assumed maximum market penetration for the technology options into equipment 

manufactured in 2005, 2010, 2015 and 2020. Table 1-17 presents the final maximum penetration into the 

installed base of equipment, taking into account the percent of each market that is new (i.e., manufactured 

in 2005 or beyond) in all preceding years. Values from Table 1-17 are multiplied by technical 

applicabilities (Table 1-15) and the reduction efficiency to generate the percent reduction off baseline 

emissions for each option, as presented in Table 1-18. The text box provided in Section 1.4 provides 

further explanation on how the results (percent reduction off baseline emissions) are calculated. 
Analysis of Costs to Abate International ODS Substitute Emissions 

 Table 1-15: Summary of Technical Applicability of Abatement Options by Region, Percenta

U.S. & Japan Europe, Australia, New 

Zealand, & All Other 

Developed Countries 

Latin America & Caribbean Rus

D

Abatement Option 

2005 

2010 

2015 

2020 

2005 

2010 

2015 

2020 

2005 

2010 

2015 

2020 

2005 

Refrigerant Recovery 

from Small Equipment 26.3 24.0 23.7 24.1 30.7 28.3 23.0 23.0 19.4 19.5 19.6 20.3 16.0 

Leak Repair for Large 

Equipment 23.7 26.0 26.3 25.9 19.3 21.7 27.0 27.0 30.6 30.5 30.4 29.7 34.0 

Ammonia Secondary 

Loop 39.7 43.6 44.1 43.1 32.3 36.3 45.4 45.1 51.2 51.0 51.0 49.4 57.0 

Distributed System 39.7 43.6 44.1 43.1 32.3 36.3 45.4 45.1 51.2 51.0 51.0 49.4 57.0 HFC Secondary Loop 

System 39.7 43.6 44.1 43.1 32.3 36.3 45.4 45.1 51.2 51.0 51.0 49.4 57.0 

Enhanced HFC-134a in 

MVACs 37.0 28.5 22.7 19.5 48.7 40.4 20.5 15.9 18.7 16.2 10.7 7.8 9.5 

HFC-152a in MVACs 37.0 28.5 22.7 19.5 48.7 40.4 20.5 15.9 18.7 16.2 10.7 7.8 9.5 CO2 in MVACs 37.0 28.5 22.7 19.5 48.7 40.4 20.5 15.9 18.7 16.2 10.7 7.8 9.5 

a Expressed as a percent of total refrigeration and air-conditioning emissions. 
Analysis of Costs to Abate International ODS Substitute Emissions 

 Table 1-16: Incremental Maximum Market Penetration of Technology Options into New Equipment by Region, Expressed as a P

from New Refrigeration/Air-Conditioning Equipmenta

U.S. Europe Japan, Australia & New 

Zealand 

All Other Developed 

Countries 

Abatement Option 

2005 

2010 

2015 

2020 

2005 

2010 

2015 

2020 

2005 

2010 

2015 

2020 

2005 

2010 

2015 

2020 

2005 

Ammonia 

Secondary Loop 3 5 13 20 5 10 13 15 5 10 13 15 5 10 13 15 5 

Distributed System 8 15 23 30 10 20 30 40 10 20 30 40 10 20 30 40 8 HFC Secondary 

Loop System 8 15 23 30 5 10 18 25 5 10 18 25 5 10 18 25 8 

Enhanced HFC134a in MVACs 10 65 75 65 40 20 10 0 40 25 10 0 10 65 75 65 0 HFC-152a in 

MVACs 0 5 15 25 0 25 15 0 0 25 40 25 0 5 15 25 0 

CO2 in MVACs 0 5 10 10 0 30 75 100 0 25 50 75 0 5 10 10 0 

a Expressed as a percentage of new equipment for the given year. The baseline market penetration of all technology options is assumed to be zero so that only incre

analyzed. 
Analysis of Costs to Abate International ODS Substitute Emissions 

 Table 1-17: Incremental Maximum Market Penetration of All Abatement Options by Region, Expressed as a Percent of Total Re

Conditioning Emissionsa

U.S. Europe Japan, Australia & New 

Zealand 

All Other Developed 

Countries 

Abatement Option 

2005 

2010 

2015 

2020 

2005 

2010 

2015 

2020 

2005 

2010 

2015 

2020 

2005 

2010 

2015 

2020 

Refrigerant Recovery 

from Small Equipmentb 5.0 10.0 10.0 15.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 15.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 15.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 15.0 

Leak Repair for 

Large Equipment 3.0 3.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 3.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 3.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 3.0 5.0 5.0 

Ammonia Secondary 

Loop 0.2 1.4 4.3 9.4 0.3 2.6 6.1 8.8 0.3 2.6 6.1 8.8 0.3 2.6 6.1 8.8 

Distributed System 0.5 4.1 9.9 17.9 0.6 5.3 12.9 20.5 0.6 5.3 12.9 20.5 0.6 5.3 12.9 20.5 HFC Secondary 

Loop System 0.5 4.1 9.9 17.9 0.3 2.6 7.0 12.0 0.3 2.6 7.0 12.0 0.3 2.6 7.0 12.0 

Enhanced HFC-134a 

in MVACs 0.8 18.8 48.3 68.3 3.3 15.0 20.8 11.2 3.3 16.3 22.9 12.8 0.8 18.8 48.3 68.3 

HFC-152a in MVACs 0.0 1.3 5.8 14.1 0.0 6.3 14.2 14.2 0.0 6.3 20.4 30.8 0.0 1.3 5.8 14.1 CO2 in MVACs 0.0 1.3 4.6 8.3 0.0 7.5 31.3 65.8 0.0 6.3 22.9 47.5 0.0 1.3 4.6 8.3 

a Expressed as a percentage of entire installed base. The baseline market penetration is assumed to be zero, unless otherwise noted. b Shown percentage values are incremental relative to the baseline market penetration, which is assumed to be 80 percent in developed countries and 30 percent in d
Analysis of Costs to Abate International ODS Substitute Emissions 

 Table 1-18: Percent Reduction off Baseline Emissions of All Abatement Options by Region 

U.S. Europe Japan Australia & New 

Zealand 

All Other Developed 

Countries 

Lati

C

Abatement 

Option 

2005 

2010 

2015 

2020 

2005 

2010 

2015 

2020 

2005 

2010 

2015 

2020 

2005 

2010 

2015 

2020 

2005 

2010 

2015 

2020 

2005 

Refrigerant 

Recovery from Small Equipment 1.1 2.0 2.0 3.1 1.3 2.4 2.0 2.9 1.1 2.0 2.0 3.1 1.3 2.4 2.0 2.9 1.3 2.4 2.0 2.9 3.3 

Leak Repair for 

Large Equipment 0.7 0.7 1.2 1.2 0.5 0.6 1.3 1.3 0.7 0.7 1.2 1.2 0.5 0.6 1.3 1.3 0.5 0.6 1.3 1.3 1.5 

Ammonia 

Secondary Loop 0.1 0.6 1.9 4.0 0.1 1.0 2.8 4.0 0.1 1.2 2.7 3.8 0.1 1.0 2.8 4.0 0.1 1.0 2.8 4.0 0.2 

Distributed 

System 0.2 1.6 4.1 7.2 0.2 1.8 5.5 8.6 0.2 2.1 5.3 8.2 0.2 1.8 5.5 8.6 0.2 1.8 5.5 8.6 0.2 

HFC Secondary 

Loop System 0.2 1.7 4.3 7.6 0.1 0.9 3.1 5.3 0.1 1.1 3.0 5.1 0.1 0.9 3.1 5.3 0.1 0.9 3.1 5.3 0.2 

Enhanced HFC134a in 

MVACs 0.2 2.7 5.5 6.7 0.8 3.0 2.1 0.9 0.6 2.3 2.6 1.2 0.8 3.3 2.3 1.0 0.2 3.8 5.0 5.4 0.0 

HFC-152a in 

MVACs 0.0 0.3 1.2 2.4 0.0 2.2 2.6 2.0 0.0 1.6 4.1 5.3 0.0 2.2 3.7 4.4 0.0 0.4 1.1 2.0 0.0 

CO2 in MVACs 0.0 0.4 1.0 1.6 0.0 3.0 6.4 10.4 0.0 1.8 5.2 9.3 0.0 2.5 4.7 7.5 0.0 0.5 0.9 1.3 0.0 
Analysis of Costs to Abate International ODS Substitute Emissions 

 -41- 

 

1.4 Results 

Emission reduction potential for abatement options varies by region based on assumed end-use breakouts 

(provided in Table 1-3) and on qualitative information regarding current and future likelihood of market 

penetration by region. The percent reduction from the baseline associated with each abatement option is 

calculated by multiplying the technical applicability (from Table 1-15) by both the incremental maximum 

market penetration (from Table 1-16) and the reduction efficiency. For more information on how 

emission reductions are calculated for each option, please see the Text Box below, which presents an 

illustrative example of the emission reduction methodology. 

Table 1-19 through Table 1-21 provide a summary of the potential emission reduction opportunities and 

associated annualized costs for the United States, Non-U.S. Annex I and Non-Annex I countries in 2020. 

The annualized costs to reduce one ton of carbon equivalent (TCE) are presented for two different 

discount rate scenarios: 4 percent and 20 percent. The tax rate associated with each cost scenario is 0 

percent and 40 percent, respectively. The results are ordered by increasing costs per TCE, using the 

highest cost in the region under the 4 percent discount rate. The emissions reduced by the option and a 

cumulative total of emissions reduced, in MMTCE and percent of the regional refrigeration and airconditioning baseline, are presented. 

Table 1-19: United States Emission Reductions in 2020 and Break-Even Costs for Refrigeration and AirConditioning

Cost (2000$/TCE) 

Discount/Tax Rate 

Reduction Option 4%/0% 20%/40% 

Emission 

Reduction of 

Option 

(MMTCE) 

Percent 

Reduction from

2020 Baseline 

Cumulative 

Reductions 

(MMTCE) 

Cumulative % 

Reduction from

2020 Baseline 

Enhanced HFC-134a in MVACs ($275.47) ($35.34) 4.51 6.7% 4.51 6.7% 

HFC-152a in MVACs ($73.65) $55.55 1.66 2.4% 6.17 9.1% 

CO2 in MVACs ($23.44) $422.48 1.09 1.6% 7.26 10.7% 

Distributed Systems ($12.70) $62.60 4.87 7.2% 12.13 17.9% 

Leak Repair for Large Equipment ($11.74) ($3.78) 0.83 1.2% 12.96 19.1% 

Refrigerant Recovery from Small 

Equipment $0.49 $0.49 2.09 3.1% 15.05 22.2% 

HFC Secondary Loop $28.87 $68.66 5.16 7.6% 20.20 29.8% 

Ammonia Secondary Loop $30.19 $78.79 2.74 4.0% 22.94 33.8% 
Analysis of Costs to Abate International ODS Substitute Emissions 

 -42- 

 

Table 1-20: Non-U.S. Annex I Emission Reductions in 2020 and Break-Even Costs for Refrigeration and AirConditioning 

Break-Even Cost (2000$/TCE)a

Discount/Tax Rate 

4%/0% 20%/40% 

Reduction Option Low High Low High 

Emission 

Reduction 

of Option 

(MMTCE) 

Percent 

Reduction 

from 2020 

Baseline 

Cumulative 

Reductions 

(MMTCE) 

Cumulative

% 

Reduction 

from 2020 

Baseline 

Leak Repair for Large Equipment ($11.74) ($11.74) ($3.78) ($3.78) 0.64 1.7% 0.64 1.7% 

Distributed Systems ($57.61) ($8.08) $15.99 $69.97 3.07 8.0% 3.71 9.7% 

Refrigerant Recovery from Small 

Equipment $0.49 $0.49 $0.49 $0.49 1.52 4.0% 5.24 13.7% 

Enhanced HFC-134a in MVACs ($161.67) $7.02 $299.69 $468.38 0.51 1.3% 5.74 15.1% 

HFC-152a in MVACs ($4.59) $30.81 $164.88 $205.42 1.31 3.4% 7.05 18.5% 

Ammonia Secondary Loop $18.59 $123.84 $62.61 $180.96 1.44 3.8% 8.50 22.3% 

HFC Secondary Loop $16.97 $125.39 $53.67 $173.22 1.90 5.0% 10.40 27.3% 

CO2 in MVACs $113.91 $180.72 $763.86 $839.80 2.84 7.5% 13.24 34.7% a Costs vary by country/region based on one-time or annual adjustment factors (e.g., electricity price, fuel price, etc.); therefore, the lowest and 

highest costs for the region are shown. 

Table 1-21: Non Annex I Emission Reductions in 2020 and Break-Even Costs for Refrigeration and AirConditioning 

Break-Even Cost (2000$/TCE)a

Discount/Tax Rate 

4%/0% 20%/40% 

Reduction Option Low High Low High 

Emission 

Reduction 

of Option 

(MMTCE) 

Percent 

Reduction 

from 2020 

Baseline 

Cumulative 

Reductions 

(MMTCE) 

Cumulative

% 

Reduction 

from 2020 

Baseline 

Enhanced HFC-134a in MVACs ($13.12) ($13.12) $448.24 $448.24 - 0.0% - 0.0% 

Leak Repair for Large Equipment ($11.74) ($11.74) ($3.78) ($3.78) 2.12 4.0% 2.12 4.0% 

Distributed Systems ($25.88) ($4.60) $48.87 $70.09 3.17 6.0% 5.29 10.0% 

Refrigerant Recovery from Small 

Equipment $0.49 $0.49 $0.49 $0.49 4.91 9.3% 10.20 19.3% 

HFC-152a in MVACs $26.58 $26.58 $200.58 $200.58 1.96 3.7% 12.16 23.0% 

HFC Secondary Loop $10.53 $59.19 $49.87 $104.49 1.93 3.7% 14.09 26.7% 

Ammonia Secondary Loop $12.47 $59.61 $60.78 $114.41 1.74 3.3% 15.83 29.9% 

CO2 in MVACs $172.75 $172.75 $830.74 $830.74 0.30 0.6% 16.13 30.5% 

a Costs vary by country/region based on one-time or annual adjustment factors (e.g., electricity price, fuel price, etc.); therefore, the lowest and 

highest costs for the region are shown. 

1.5 Summary 

Baseline HFC emissions from refrigeration/AC are expected to grow significantly between the years 2005 

and 2020 as HFCs become increasingly used throughout the world to replace gases phased out under the 

Montreal Protocol. The highest percentage emissions growth is expected to occur in developing 

countries. 

This analysis considers the costs and emission reduction potential of eight practice and technology 

emissions mitigation options: (1) Leak Repair for Large Equipment; (2) Refrigerant Recovery/Recycling 

from Small Equipment; (3) Distributed System; (4) HFC Secondary Loop; (5) Ammonia Secondary 

Loop; (6) Enhanced HFC-134a Systems in MVACs; (7) HFC-152a Systems in MVACs; and (8) CO2

Systems in MVACs. The costs and emission reduction benefits of each option were compared in each 

region. Overall, enhanced HFC-134a systems in MVACs represent the most cost-effective option for 
Analysis of Costs to Abate International ODS Substitute Emissions 

 -43- 

 

reducing emissions in all regions at a 4 percent discount rate. Distributed systems represent the most 

promising option for reducing the greatest amount of emissions worldwide, at a negative or low cost. In 

developing countries, the low-cost option of refrigerant recovery is also promising for significantly 

reducing emissions. 

1.6 References 

ACGIH (American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, Inc.). 1999. Guide to 

Occupational Exposure Values. Cincinnati, OH, 1999. 

ACHR News. 2000. An Argument for NH3’s Superiority over Other Refrigerants. Air Conditioning 

Heating Refrigeration News. Business News Publishing Company. July 27, 2000. 

ADL. 2002. Global Comparative Analysis of HFC and Alternative Technologies for Refrigeration, Air 

Conditioning, Foam, Solvent, Aerosol Propellant, and Fire Protection Applications. Final Report to the 

Alliance for Responsible Atmospheric Policy. Reference Number 75966. Arthur D. Little, Inc. March 21, 

2002. 

ADL. 1999. Global Comparative Analysis of HFC and Alternative Technologies for Refrigeration, Air 

Conditioning, Foam, Solvent, Aerosol Propellant, and Fire Protection Applications. Final Report to the 

Alliance for Responsible Atmospheric Policy. Reference Number 49648. Arthur D. Little, Inc. August 23, 

1999. 

Amrane, Karim. 2001. Personal communication between Karin Amrane, the Director of Public Policy at 

the Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute (ARI), and ICF Consulting. September 2001. 

Anderson, M. Kent. 2001. Personal communication between Kent Anderson, the President of the 

International Institute of Ammonia Refrigeration (IIAR), and ICF Consulting. December 5, 2001. 

ASHRAE. 2002. Ammonia as a Refrigerant: Position Document. American Society of Heating, 

Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc. Approved by ASHRAE Board of Directors 17 

January 2002. Available online at 

<http://www.ashrae.org/content/ASHRAE/ASHRAE/ArticleAltFormat/200379132940_347.pdf>. 

Atkinson, W. 2000. Review comments on draft report, U.S. High GWP Gas Emissions 1990-2010: 

Inventories, Projections, and Opportunities for Reductions [Refrigeration and Air-Conditioning 

Chapter]. Sun Test Engineering. March 2000. 

Baker, J.A. 2002. Mobile Air Conditioning Sector Update. Presented at the 19th Meeting of the Ozone 

Operations Resource Group (OORG), The World Bank, in Washington, DC. March 28, 2002. 

Barbusse, S., D. Clodic, and J.P. Roumegoux. 1998. Mobile Air Conditioning; Measurement and 

Simulation of Energy and Fuel Consumptions. Presented at the Earth Technologies Forum. The Alliance 

for Responsible Atmospheric Policy. October 1998. 

Baxter, Van D. 2003. IEA Annex 26: Advanced Supermarket Refrigeration/Heat Recovery Systems. Final 

Report Volume 1—Executive Summary. Based on information developed in Canada, Denmark, Sweden, 

United Kingdom, United States (Operating Agent). Oak Ridge National Laboratory. April 2003. 
Analysis of Costs to Abate International ODS Substitute Emissions 

 -44- 

 

Bennett, C. 2000. Personal communication between C. Bennett, Senior Vice President of Althoff 

Industries, Inc., and ICF Consulting. December 14, 2000. 

Calm, J. 1999. Emissions and Environmental Impacts from Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration Systems. 

Joint IPCC/TEAP Expert Meeting on Options for the Limitation of Emissions of HFCs and PFCs. May 

1999. 

Calm, J.M., D.J. Wuebbles and A.K. Jain. 1999. Impacts on Global Ozone and Climate from Use and 

Emission of 2,2-Dichloro-1,1,1-trifluoroethane (HCFC-123). 42:439-474. Journal of Climate Change. 

June 1999. 

Calor Gas Refrigeration. 2004. Care Refrigerants Technical Information. Available online at 

<http://www.care-refrigerants.co.uk/pdf/6_5_1_Technical_Information.pdf>. Accessed on June 7, 2004. 

CARE Web site. 2004. CAREing for our world. Available online at <http://www.carerefrigerants.co.uk/hmpg/hmpgdisplaylev1.asp?catid=6&idofuser=>. Accessed on March 1, 2004. 

Contracting Business Interactive. 2003. Refrigerant Recovery in Residential Systems. Available online at 

<http://www.contractingbusiness.com/editorial/serviceclinic/reclaim.cfm>. Accessed on July 7, 2003. 

Cooper, P.J. 1997. Experience with Secondary Loop Refrigeration Systems in European Supermarkets. 

Proceedings of the International Conference on Ozone Protection Technologies. pg. 511. The Alliance for 

Responsible Atmospheric Policy. November 1997. 

Crawford, J. 2002. Refrigerant Options for Air Conditioning. Presented at the Earth Technologies Forum. 

The Alliance for Responsible Atmospheric Policy. March 26, 2002. 

Crawford, J. 2000. Review comments on the draft report, U.S. High GWP Gas Emissions 1990-2010: 

Inventories, Projections, and Opportunities for Reductions [Refrigeration and Air-Conditioning 

Chapter]. The Trane Company. March 2000. 

Crawford, J. 1999. Limiting the HFC emissions of Chillers. Joint IPCC/TEAP Expert Meeting on Options 

for the Limitation of Emissions of HFCs and PFCs held in the Netherlands. May 1999. 

Digmanese, T. 2004. Peer review comments on U.S. EPA Draft Report, DRAFT Analysis of International 

Costs of Abating HFC Emissions from Refrigeration and Air-Conditioning. York International 

Corporation. March 19, 2004. 

DuPont Customer Service. 2004. List Prices of Refrigerants (based on single 25-pound cylinders). 

Customer Service (Tel: 800-441-9409), June 9, 2004. 

EC (European Commission). 2003a. How to Considerably Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions Due to 

Mobile Air Conditioners Consultation paper from the European Commission Directorate-General 

Environment. February 4, 2003. 

EC (European Commission). 2003b. Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the 

Council on certain fluorinated greenhouse gases. European Commission, Commission of the European 

Parties. August 11, 2003. Available online at <http://europa.eu.int/eurlex/en/com/pdf/2003/com2003_0492en01.pdf>. 
Analysis of Costs to Abate International ODS Substitute Emissions 

 -45- 

 

EIA. 2004. Form EIA-1605, Long Form for Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gases, Instruction, Data 

through 2003 (Appendix C. Adjusted Electricity Emission Factors by State and Region). pp. 50. Energy 

Information Administration. 2004. Available online at 

<http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oiaf/1605/cdrom/pdf/FormEIA-1605_2003_Instructions.pdf>. Accessed on 

June 7, 2004. 

EIA. 2001. Retail Motor Gasoline Prices in Selected Countries, 1990-2000 (U.S. Dollars per Gallon). 

Energy Information Administration. 2001. Available online at 

<http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/txt/ptb1108.html>. Accessed in September/October 2003. 

EIA. 2000. Annual Energy Outlook 2000 (Electricity Prices for Industry). Energy Information 

Administration. 2000. Available online at <http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/elecprii.html>. 

Accessed on April 2, 2002. 

Environment Canada. 1998. Powering GHG Reductions Through Technology Advancement. pp.185-188. 

Environment Canada, Clean Technology Advancement Division. 1998 

Faramarzi, R. and D. Walker. 2003. Field Evaluation of Secondary Loop Refrigeration for Supermarkets. 

Presented at the 2003 ASHRAE Winter Meeting in Chicago, IL on 26 January 2003. The American 

Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc. 

Fisher, S.K., J.J. Tomlinson, and P.J. Hughes. 1994. Energy and Global Warming Impacts of Not-in-Kind 

and Next Generation CFC and HCFC Alternatives. Prepared for the Alternative Fluorocarbons 

Environmental Acceptability Study and U.S. Department of Energy. Oak Ridge National Laboratory. 

Gaslok. 2002. Gaslok Flyer. Submitted electronically to ICF Consulting by David Peall. Gaslok. May 13, 

2002. The Gaslok Web site is available at <http://www.gaslok.net/>. 

Geoexchange. 2000. Information on geothermal heat pumps. Geoexchange. 2000. Available online at 

<http://www.geoexchange.org>. 

Greenchill Web site. 2000. Fire and Ice. Sydney Morning Herald. March 18, 2000. Available online at 

<http://www.greenchill.org/sydneyhe.htm>. 

Greenpeace. 2001. Major Japanese Refrigerator Manufacturers to Produce Hydrocarbon Fridges for 

Japanese Market in 2002. A Greenpeace position paper prepared for the 35th Meeting of the Multilateral 

Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol in Montreal, Canada. December 5-7 2002. 

Hill, William and Ward Atkinson. 2003. Peer review comments on the U.S. EPA Draft Report, DRAFT 

Analysis of International Costs of Abating HFC Emissions from Refrigeration and Air-Conditioning. 

General Motors Corporation and Sun Test Engineering. October 28, 2003. 

HyChill Web site. 2004. The Case for Hydrocarbons. Available online at <http://www.hychill.com/>. 

Hydro Cool Online. 2002. Cool Technologies: Working Without HFC’s. Updated June 2002. Available 

online at <http://www.hydrocoolonline.com/news.php?n=LN009>. 

ICF Consulting. 2002a. Analysis on Combined Global Emission Estimates Scenarios. Deliverable 

submitted by ICF Consulting to the U.S. EPA that included a revised analysis of the estimated level of 
Analysis of Costs to Abate International ODS Substitute Emissions 

 -46- 

 

recycling in other countries. Delivered to Casey Delhotal, Dave Godwin, and Debbie Ottinger of the U.S. 

EPA Office of Atmospheric Programs. August 23, 2002. 

ICF Consulting. 2002b. ODS Destruction Report. Revised draft report submitted to Julius Banks of the 

U.S. EPA Global Programs Division. April 5, 2002. 

IPCC. 1996. IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Intergovernmental Panel on 

Climate Change, United Nations Environment Programme, Organization for Economic Co-Operation and 

Development, International Energy Agency. 1996. 

Japan Times. 2002. Hydrocarbon Fridges Hit Environment-Savvy Japan. Japan Times. March 19, 2002. 

Kazachki, Georgi. 2004. Personal communication from Georgi Kazachki, Director of Research and 

Development at the Hill Phoenix to ICF Consulting. February 13, 2004. 

Kazachki, Georgi. 2003. A Path Towards Perfection in Supermarket Refrigeration: a Manufacturer’s 

Perspective on Secondary Collant Systems. Presented by Dr. Georgi Kazachki, Director of Research and 

Development at the Hill Phoenix, at the 21st International Institute of Refrigeration (IIR) Congress of 

Refrigeration in Washington, DC. International Institute of Refrigeration. August 23, 2003. 

Kruse, H. 1996. The State of the Art of Hydrocarbon Technology in Household Refrigeration. 

Proceedings of the International Conference on Ozone Protection Technologies. pp. 179-188. The 

Alliance for Responsible Atmospheric Policy. October 1996. 

Kuijpers, L. 2002. Refrigeration Sector Update. Presented at the 19th Meeting of the Ozone Operations 

Resource Group (OORG), The World Bank. March 28, 2002. 

Lundberg, E. 2002. An Enhanced R-134a Climate System. Presented at the 2002 SAE Automotive 

Alternative Refrigerant Systems Symposium in Scottsdale, AZ. Society of Automotive Engineers. July 9-

11, 2002. 

OPROZ. 2001. Report on the Supply and Consumption of CFCs and Alternatives in Argentina. Oficina 

Programa Ozono. February 2001. 

Paul, J. 1996. A Fresh Look at Hydrocarbon Refrigeration: Experience and Outlook. Proceedings of the 

International Conference on Ozone Protection Technologies. pp. 252-259. The Alliance for Responsible 

Atmospheric Policy. October 1996. 

RTOC. 2003. 2002 Report of the Refrigeration, Air Conditioning and Heat Pumps Technical Options 

Committee: 2002 Assessment. Section 8.4.2.7. Refrigeration Technical Options Committee. January 2003. 

Rafferty, Kevin D. 2003. Absorption Refrigeration. Geo-Heat Center, Bulletin Vol. 19, No. 1. Available 

online. at <http://geoheat.oit.edu/bulletin/bull19-1/art62.htm>. 

Rawlings, P. 2000. Personal communication between P. Rawlings of the Geothermal Heat Pump 

Consortium and ICF Consulting. December 8, 2000. 

Rugh, John and Valerie Hovland. 2003. National and World Fuel Savings and CO2 Emission Reductions 

by Increasing Vehicle Air Conditioning COP. Presented by John Rugh and Valerie Hovland of the 
Analysis of Costs to Abate International ODS Substitute Emissions 

 -47- 

 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory at the SAE 2003 Automotive Alternate Refrigerant Systems 

Symposium in Phoenix, AZ. Society of Automotive Engineers. July 17, 2003. 

SAE. 2003a. Alternative Refrigerants Assessment Workshop. Presented at the 2003 Conference on 

Mobile Air Conditioning Technologies in Phoenix, AZ. Society of Automotive Engineers. July 14, 2003. 

SAE. 2003b. SAE Alternate Refrigerant Cooperative Research Project: Project Overview. Slide 

presentation given by Ward Atkinson at the 2003 Conference on Mobile Air Conditioning Technologies 

in Phoenix, AZ. Society of Automotive Engineers. July 15, 2003. 

SAE. 2000. 2000 Conference on Mobile Air Conditioning Technologies in Phoenix, AZ. Society of 

Automotive Engineers. July 2000. 

Sand, J.R., S.K. Fischer, and V.D. Baxter. 1997. Energy and Global Warming Impacts of HFC 

Refrigerants and Emerging Technologies. Prepared for the Alternative Fluorocarbons Environmental 

Acceptability Study and U.S. Department of Energy. Oak Ridge National Laboratory. 1997. 

SKF. 2003. Hybrid bearings in oil-free air conditioning and refrigeration compressors. Evolution. SKF’s 

business and technology magazine. Available online at 

<http://evolution.skf.com/gb/article.asp?articleID=410>. Accessed on October 17, 2003 

Smithart, G. 2003. Peer review comments on U.S. EPA Draft Report, DRAFT Analysis of International 

Costs of Abating HFC Emissions from Refrigeration and Air-Conditioning. Turbocor Inc. October 17, 

2003. 

Smithart, G. 2000. Personal communication between G. Smithart, Director of Environmental Affairs at 

The Trane Company, and ICF Consulting. July 1, 2000. 

UNEP. 1999a. Report of the TEAP HFC and PFC Task Force. United Nations Environment Programme. 

October 1999. 

UNEP. 1999b. Production and Consumption of Ozone Depleting Substances 1986-1998. United Nations 

Environment Programme. October 1999. 

UNEP. 1998. 1998 Report of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel (Pursuant to Article 6 of 

the Montreal Protocol). United Nations Environment Programme. 1998. 

Universal Currency Converter Web site. 2003. Available online at <http://www.xe.net/ucc/>. Accessed in 

July 2003 

U.S. EPA. 2003. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990- 2001. EPA #430-R-03-

004. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Atmospheric Programs. April 2003. 

U.S. EPA. 2002. Building Owners Save Money, Save the Earth: Replace Your CFC Air Conditioning 

Chiller. U.S. EPA #430-F-02-026. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Global Programs Division and 

Climate Protection Partnerships Division. December 2002. 
Analysis of Costs to Abate International ODS Substitute Emissions 

 -48- 

 

U.S. EPA. 2001a. U.S. High GWP Gas Emissions 1990-2010: Inventories, Projections, and Opportunities 

for Reductions. U.S.EPA #000-F-97-000. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and 

Radiation. June 2001. 

U.S. EPA. 2001b. Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis: The Substitutes Recycling Rule. Prepared by ICF 

Incorporated for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. September 2001. 

U.S. EPA. 1998. Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis: The Substitutes Recycling Rule. Prepared by ICF 

Incorporated for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. May 1998. 

U.S. EPA. 1997. Options for Reducing Refrigerant Emissions from Supermarket Systems. EPA-600/R-97-

039. Prepared by Eugene F. Troy of ICF Consulting for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. April 

1997. 

U.S. EPA. 1993. Protection of Stratospheric Ozone; Refrigerant Recycling, Final Rule. Federal Register 

citation 58 FR 28660. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. May 14, 1993. Available online at 

<http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/regulations/58fr28660.html>. 

VDA 2003. Various presentations at the Alternative Refrigerant Winter Meeting: Automotive Air 

Conditioning and Heat Pump Systems in Saalfelden, Austria. February 13-14, 2003. Verband der 

Automobilindustrie, Frankfurt, Germany. Available online at <http://www.vdawintermeeting.de/2003/abstracts.php>. Accessed on 24 December 2003. 

Walker, D. 2000. “Low-charge refrigeration for supermarkets.” IEA Heat Pump Centre Newsletter. Vol. 

18, No. 1/2000, pp. 13- 16. 

Ward’s. 2001. Ward’s World Motor Vehicle Data, ISBN Number 0-910589-79-8. Southfield, MI, 2001. 

World Bank. 2002. CFC Markets in Latin America. Latin America and Caribbean Region Sustainable 

Development Working Paper No. 14. Prepared by ICF Consulting for the World Bank. December 2002. 

Wuebbles, Donald J. and James M. Calm. 1997. An Environmental Rationale for Retention of 

Endangered Chemicals. Science. 278:1090-1091. November 1997.

Xu, J. and J. Amin. 2000. Development of Improved R134a Refrigerant System. Presented at the 2000 

SAE Automotive Alternative Refrigerant Systems Symposium in Scottsdale, AZ. Society of Automotive 

Engineers. July 11-13, 2000.