Intent:
- Reduce ozone depletion potential (ODP) and global warming potential (GWP)
- Support early compliance with EPA Montreal Protocol
Implmentation:
- Quick Information:
- refrigerant comparison
- CFC (high)
- HCFC (medium)
- HFC (low)
- efficiency of HFC is less than HCFC
- refrigerant comparison
- OPTION 1: do not use ANY refrigerants
- OPTION 2: use refrigerants and HVAC that minimizes or eliminates emission of compounds that cause ozone depletion & global warming
- do not install fire suppression systems with ozone depleting substances
- use natural refrigerants: water, carbon dioxide, ammonia
- use refrigerants with low ODP & GWP
- minimize Lr (leakage rate)
- use equipment with efficient Rc (refrigerant charge)
- use equipment with “long service life“
Code:
- Clean Air Act 1990
- EPA Montreal Protocol 1987
Submittal Phase:
- design
Extra Credit:
- none
More Energy & Atmosphere Credits
- EA P1 – Fundamental Commissioning of the Building Energy Systems (prerequisite)
- EA P2 – Minimum Energy Performance (prerequisite)
- EA P3 – Fundamental Refrigerant Management (prerequisite)
- EA 1 – Optimize Energy Performance
- EA 2 – On-Site Renewable Energy
- EA 3 – Enhanced Commissioning
- EA 4 – Enhanced Refrigerant Management
- EA 5 – Measurement & Verification
- EA 6 – Green Power
20 Comments On This Post
This is one of those Credits that claims to have NO reference standard and goes into pretty specific detail in the implemenataion where you definitely need to comply with the Clean Air Act Title 6 for the leakage reporting
and the Montreal Protocol is mentioned also in the Implementation , sub heading Select with low ODP and GWP-they are trying to address the dilemma that a low ODP refrigerants are not the most energy efficient, and cause more global warming… technologies are hoped to be in place where they agreed to phase out CFC and HCFC by 2030 so Get Designing!
Will the use of natural refrigerants such as CO2, ammonia, water; work for Option #1. I see them cited in the ‘Do Not Use Refrigerants’ section on p219 v2.2 but it doesn’t really clearly specifiy.
can you use HCFCs or HFCs here in for Prereq 3?
Bill, im not quite sure exactly what you’re asking, but HCFCs and HFCs are refrigerants, so for Option 1, they should NOT be used.
Let me know if you need any further clarification. Thanks Bill.
Best of luck to you!
Thanks!
“OPTION 2: use refrigerants and HVAC that minimizes or eliminates emission of compounds that cause ozone depletion & global warming ”
Pat, or anybody, what does option 2 refer to, if not the HFC listed above? In particular, can you use R410 to comply with Option 2?
Lynn,
CFC are not allowed per EAp3: Fund. Refrig. Mgmt.
So I think that any non-CFC refrigerants can be used for Option 2 provided the refrigerant/HVAC systems LCGWP plus its (LCODP * 10^5) are less than or equal to 100.
Lynn,
In my experience, it’s tough to get Option 2 with R410 if you are using split systems, unless maybe the line length is really short. This is because one of the big variables is the pounds of refrigerant per ton of conditioning, which gets larger as you have longer refrigerant piping. If you can show justification for a significantly longer service life, like 20 years, then you might be able to make it work. Otherwise, rooftop units using R410 are the way to get this credit.
refering to the example provided for this credit in the V2.2 reference manual, why does the school classroom building not comply with EAc4? even though the average refrigerant atmospheric impact is <100
do we need to know calculations for this credit? I am covering last minute things; testing in 5 days.
Thanks.
Jon,
I had the same question so I came on here…but I just figured it out…in the Spring 2007 errata they posted that there was incorrect calculations for that example (and for example 2, but it still qualifies). The LCODPx10^5 is wrong for the 2-ton and 1-ton split units. Instead of 35.2 and 25.2 they should read 352 and 252 which changes the Refrigerant Atmospheric Impact for the units and then that just completely changes the totals. In the end, the average should be 108.3, not 94.7, so it actually is greater than 100.
Are HFC’s able to be used for Option 2? HFC’s have low to no ODP however have slightly above average GWP.
So I’m fuzzy on whether HFC’s will help achieve Option 2?
do i need to memorize the formula and equations in requirement for exam?
Hi,
i have doubt in Finding out the Rc – Refrigerant Charge of various refrigerants, guys Can you please explain me.
Hey Pat:
Do we have to memorize the formulas and equations given in this section??? Although LEED AP walkthrough indicates that it is not required.
Please confirm.
Thanks.
is the main difference between the prereq. 3 and this credit that for the pre-req. you cannot use cfc’s but does not specify not using other cfcs– but for this credit, it gives further details of specific refrigerants not to use. ?? Just need some clarification.
As I understand it, the point for enhanced refrigerant management is to fully comply with the montreal protocol.
In the prereq, you are really only focused on Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). According to the MP, these were to be phased out by 1996 so the prereq wants any renovation to comply.
The montreal protocol doesn’t stop there though, there are more halogenated hydrocarbons which it addresses. Halons for instance must be phased out by 2010 (a requirement for EAC4). HCFCs are to by phased out by 2030 (also addressed by using only NATURAL refrigerants or no refrigerants).
Finally, all refrigerants used should still have a low ODP and a low GWP, or it would be counter intuitive to use them as replacements.
Hope this helps
Tyler:
Projects that employ natural refrigerants including water, co2 and ammonia are eligible for Option 1, EA c.4
Can anyone explain why the Rc (refrigerant charge) default values listed in Table 2, are not being used in any of the example calculations and where the Rc values that are being used are coming from?
Thanks
like Arpita still do not get if you can use natural refrigerants for option 1
just need some clarification
thanks a lot for such a great web site