REFRIGERATION 2020 & BEYOND


by Chris Geatrakas O


UR DISCUSSION ON refrigeration began in the 2013 fall ISI EDGE, in an article entitled “Rethinking Refrigeration.” Tis article detailed the current (at the


time) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) refrigerant guidelines, in accordance with the Montreal Protocol, an international agreement establishing requirements for the phaseout of ozone-depleting refrigerants.


As our industry’s “go-to” refrigerant, R-22, considered a


Hydrochlorofluorocarbon (HCFC), was on the chopping block, with production slated to be gradually reduced annually until 2020, when R-22 production and importation to the United States would no longer be allowed.


Several refrigerants were discussed, options offered and the question “What’s next?” was presented.


MISCONCEPTIONS Since 2013, many ice rinks have forged ahead to replace the R-22 in their systems as the conventional wisdom at the time presented the following misconceptions:


• R-22 must be removed from chiller systems and replaced before Jan. 1, 2020.


• Te cost of R-22 would escalate to a point that the financial stability of the rink would be in jeopardy should the chiller system suffer a major refrigerant loss.


• R-22 would no longer be available as production of it lessened and then ceased.


• Replacing HCFC refrigerants will place the rink in compliance with new rules and regulations for many years moving forward.


• Te replacement refrigerants are a “drop-in” — a direct repla- cement, whereby one day you have R-22, the next day, R-XX.


Some rinks took the high road and replaced the R-22 in


their systems for ethical and environmental reasons, believing, as I do, in protecting our environment as much as possible. Unfortunately, much of the information we were given early on was not quite correct.


THE FACTS To clarify any misunderstandings to date, let’s look at the facts:


• If you have a system using R-22, you do not have to replace the refrigerant prior to or any time after Jan. 1, 2020. If the


16 SUMMER 2 019


WHAT to Do?


refrigerant R-22 remains in your hermetically-sealed system, it poses no threat to you or the environment.


• You are not a criminal for keeping R-22 safely in your system.


• Te cost of R-22 has been decreasing, with available new sources on the wholesale market at approximately $11 per pound (in the Northeast). Your supplier/contractor should be pricing R-22 in a responsible manner.


• R-22 will be available as new and reclaimed/recycled (cleaned and refined to new) for years to come. For example, one supplier advertises supplies of recovered/recycled R-22 for the next 30 years.


• Te new R-22 replacements do offer zero-ozone depletion factors, but none meet the Global Warming Potential (GWP) of natural refrigerants (Ammonia and CO2). GWP is a major consideration for new refrigerants and will become the next hill to climb.


Please note, I am not advocating that we sit back and


continue to use R-22 in all our systems; instead, as we move forward planning our next step to eliminate R-22 from our systems, it’s pertinent that the refrigerant we select will not become the “next R-22,” requiring replacement again.


OPTIONS MOVING FORWARD


What are the refrigeration options moving forward for ice rink operators?


Stay the Course


Keep the R-22 refrigerant until the system reaches the end of useful life. Most R-22 chiller systems are more than halfway through their designed life cycle, which is typically 25 to 30 years. Replacing R-22 is not “free,” and the projected cost of replacement refrigerants varies per system, per rink. At some point, you will have to replace the system anyway, so why spend the money now just to replace the system in 5 to 10 years?


Replace the R-22


Replace the R-22 with as close to a “drop-in” as possible: As noted earlier, some ice rinks with R-22 systems have moved forward, replacing R-22 with refrigerants presented as “easy” drop-in alternatives. I have been involved with a number of these “easy” drop-in projects, after being contacted by an arena owner to correct early issues, as the task proved to be more complicated than they were led to believe.


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42