Study for the D.G.

Transportation-Energy (DGTREN) of the Commission of the

E.U.

Energy Efficiency and Certification of Central

Air Conditioners (EECCAC)
FINAL REPORT - APRIL 2003
VOLUME 2
CO-ORDINATOR: Jérôme ADNOT, ARMINES, France
Assisted by Paul WAIDE
PW Consulting, UK

PARTICIPANTS
Jérôme ADNOT, Philippe RIVIERE, Dominique MARCHIO,
Martin HOLMSTROM, Johan NAESLUND, Julie SABA
Centre d’Energétique, Ecole des Mines de Paris, France
Sule BECIRSPAHIC
Eurovent Certification
Carlos LOPES
ADENE-CCE, Portugal
Isabel BLANCO
IDAE, Spain
Luis PEREZ-LOMBARD, Jose ORTIZ
AICIA, Spain
Nantia PAPAKONSTANTINOU, Paris DOUKAS
University of Athens, Greece
Cesare M. JOPPOLO
Politecnico di Milano, Italy
Carmine CASALE
AICARR, Italy
Georg BENKE
EVA, Austria
Dominique GIRAUD
INESTENE, France
Nicolas HOUDANT
Energie Demain, France
Philippe RIVIERE, Frank COLOMINES
Electricité de France
Robert GAVRILIUC, Razvan POPESCU, Sorin BURCHIU
UTCB, Bucharest
Bruno GEORGES
ITF, France
Roger HITCHIN
BRE, UK
With the additional participation of experts from Eurovent Cecomaf
© 2003 ARMINES

ARMINES
60, bd St Michel
75272 Paris Cedex 06
France

Tel: (+33) 1 40 51 91 74 Fax: (+33) 1 46 34 24 91

E-mail: jerome.adnot@cenerg.ensmp.fr

All rights reserved, including that of translation into other languages. No part of this publication may be reproduced or
transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or any
information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from ARMINES.

Editorial content: Although great care has been taken in compiling and checking the information given in this
publication to ensure that it is accurate, ARMINES shall not be held responsible for the continued currency of the
information or for any errors, omissions or inaccuracies in this publication.
CONTENTS

3. MAIN FIGURES OF AIR-CONDITIONING IN EUROPE ................. 8

3.1. The demand for AC in Europe ............................................................................................ 8
A general growth ................................................................................................................................. 8
National differences in demand ........................................................................................................... 8

3.2. Technical response to the demand ..................................................................................... 10

Market share of each technology ....................................................................................................... 10
Evolution of market shares of techniques .......................................................................................... 10
Comparisons with US market ............................................................................................................ 12

3.3. A few technical trends on the market ............................................................................... 14

The share between distribution systems in chiller based CAC .......................................................... 14
Reversible use of Air Conditioning ................................................................................................... 15
The choice between chiller-based systems and packages .................................................................. 15
The value and nature of the European CAC market .......................................................................... 17
Other stakeholders ............................................................................................................................. 18

3.4. Statistics on present Energy Efficiency on the EU market ........................................ 19

EER as a function of capacity and cooling medium for a chiller under 750 kW .............................. 19
Potential for efficiency gains of the selection of higher efficiency equipment .................................. 21
EER for chillers over 750 kW............................................................................................................ 22

4. FACTORS GOVERNING THE DESIGN, SELECTION, INSTALLATION

AND OPERATION OF CAC SYSTEMS ....................................................... 24
4.1 Actors involved with CAC systems............................................................................................... 24
The main barriers to efficiency .......................................................................................................... 24

4.2 Practices and procedures adopted in CAC system design.......................................................... 24

Guidelines for the design of CAC systems ........................................................................................ 24

4.3Previous ........................................................................................................................................... 25

market-transformation efforts within the EU (equipment) ............................................................. 25

The Eurovent Certification programme ............................................................................................. 25
An example of a utility-led energy-efficient AC promotional campaign........................................... 26
The UK Market Transformation Program.......................................................................................... 27

4.4 Existing national regulations within the EU (which apply at the system level) ........................ 28
Portugal: An example of a national scheme to promote energy-efficient AC through building thermal
regulations.......................................................................................................................................... 28
Summary of UK building regulations for space cooling and ventilation ........................................... 29
The status of regulations in other EU Member States........................................................................ 33
The Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (to be transposed nationally)................................. 33
The draft Framework Directive for “Eco-design of End-Use Equipment” (to be adopted) ............... 34
The draft Directive on Energy Demand Management (to be defined) ............................................... 34
Practices and procedures adopted in CAC system operation ............................................................. 35

4.5 Regulatory structure and market transformation at the wider international level ................. 35
Minimum efficiency standards and energy labelling in the USA ...................................................... 35
ASHRAE 90.1: a comprehensive approach to raise CAC energy efficiency..................................... 35
Mandatory HVAC Provisions in ASHRAE 90.1 ........................................................................... 37
Additional prescriptive HVAC requirements..................................................................................... 38
 Continuous maintenance of the ASHRAE standard .......................................................................... 39
Links between an ASHRAE standard and the US Energy Codes ...................................................... 39
Australia, Japan, Korea and Taiwan .................................................................................................. 40

4.6 Choices and measures which could increase the efficiency of CAC systems ............................ 41
Measures which could increase globally the efficiency of CAC ....................................................... 41
Technical measures which could increase the efficiency of CAC systems........................................ 42
Synthesis of policy measures to raise the efficiency of CAC systems............................................... 45
First type: selection of more efficient components by whoever decides............................................ 45
Second type: choice of the best general structure of the system ........................................................ 45
Third type: improvement of the detailed structure of the system and control options ....................... 45
Fourth type: reversible use of the system........................................................................................... 45
Fifth type: maintenance and operation improved............................................................................... 45
Sixth type: energy and power control ................................................................................................ 46
Seventh type: envelope and ventilation, other measures.................................................................... 46

5. PROJECTIONS TO YEARS 2010 AND 2020 (BAU SCENARIO)............ 48

5.1 AC Stock and market in 1990, 1998, 2010 and 2020 ..................................................... 48
Evolution of the market ................................................................................................................ 48
Some global results ....................................................................................................................... 49
Some national results .................................................................................................................... 50
Sectoral market .............................................................................................................................. 51
The share between technical systems ........................................................................................ 52

5.2 Computation of energy consumption in European conditions .................................. 52

Real buildings for the simulation of CAC systems with DOE........................................................... 53
Coverage of situations with the DOE software.................................................................................. 53
Adjustment for chiller quality and options not covered in DOE software ......................................... 55
Preliminary results for the cooling consumption of the office building............................................. 55
Extension to all economic sectors, system types and EU climates .................................................... 56
Preliminary results for the cooling consumption of the office building............................................. 56

5.3 Energy consumption in 1990, 1998, 2010 and 2020 ...................................................... 60

Overall values ................................................................................................................................. 60
Energy by economic sector ......................................................................................................... 62

5.4 Global warming and other environmental impacts ..................................................... 63

Atmospheric pollution reduced to CO2 .................................................................................... 63
TEWI (Total Equivalent Warming Impact) and leak rates of CAC systems ..................................... 64
Numerical results about CO2 emissions for cooling in Europe ......................................................... 65
Use of water .................................................................................................................................... 66

5.5 Heating, reversible or not ..................................................................................................... 66

Results of simulation about Heating and Reversible Heating ............................................................ 66
Interpretation of results ...................................................................................................................... 68
3
See final report to contract no. XVII/4.1031/Z/ XXXX co-ordinated by Prof. Roriz, IST, Lisbon.
4
Tertiary is a European word indicating all human activities and related buildings other than industry
or households
3. MAIN FIGURES OF AIR-CONDITIONING IN EUROPE

3.1. The demand for AC in Europe

A general growth
The CAC market is expanding rapidly in Europe, as shown in Figure 3.1.

Figure 3.1. Apparent annual additional building floor area conditioned by CAC from 1980 to 2000, for the EU
(apparent means inclusive of additions and replacements)

EU-15 added (or repl.) m2

120,00

100,00

80,00
Mm2

60,00

40,00

20,00

0,00
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Source: EECCAC; Country reports

National differences in demand
The growth of AC is partly related to the differences in climatic conditions but also to the development of the
tertiary sector especially offices. Economic growth in the South is resulting in AC levels rising in regions
where tertiary sector is important. In fact a number of central European countries (Belgium, Germany, etc. )
have experienced larger rates of growth in AC than some more Southern countries such as Portugal or France
(Figure 3.2). The figures are given here for the total market, including RACs, which are also mostly used in
the workplace), and also by country

Figure 3.2. Apparent annual additional building floor area conditioned by CAC from 1980 to 2000, by EU
Member State (apparent means additions and replacements)

30,00

25,00 Italy
M
m
Spain
2
ad 20,00
de
d
or
re
pl
ac 15,00
ed Germany
France
10,00
Others
UK
5,00 Greece
Portugal
0,00
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Source: EECCAC from Eurovent Experts and country reports

8
As a result of different growth, the relative weight of some countries like France or Germany as a proportion
of total installed AC within the EU, which was large in the 1980s has become small in the 1990s. Today just
two countries, Spain and Italy, account for more than 50% of the entire EU market Figure 3.3.

Figure 3.3. Apparent additional building floor area conditioned by CAC in 1998, by country

Others Germany
13% 11%

Greece
5%

UK
8%

Spain
24%

Italy
25%

Portugal France
2% 12%

It is also pertinent to consider what type of buildings AC is being installed in. Figure 3.4 shows the share of
conditioned floor area by type of tertiary activity and country for CAC systems alone.

Figure 3.4. Share of CAC installed by tertiary sector for six European countries

100
90
80
70
60 Others
50 Trade
40 Offices & work places
30 Hotels / restaurant / bar
20
Hospitals
10
0
default
Portugal
France

UK
Austria

Italy

However CAC is also in competition with RAC so it is relevant to examine the type of building where each
type of system are installed, (Figure 3.5).

9
Figure 3.5. Share of conditioned floor space by building type for each AC system type across the EU

100,00%
90,00%
80,00%
70,00%
60,00% education
50,00% houses
40,00%
30,00% trade
20,00% offices
10,00%
0,00% hotels&bar
Rooftops
RAC

VRF
chillers

packages&splits

hospitals

This market is centred on offices and trade. It is shared between CAC and RAC technique for economical
reason (compared price) but also because various building sizes lead to the choice of distinct solutions. The
only exception are VRF type systems, maybe due to their flexibility of use and installation, corresponding to
hotels, bar and existing medium office buildings.

3.2. Technical response to the demand

Market share of each technology
The relative importance of each CAC technology in the European market is shown in Figure 3.6 (these
fugures exclude room air conditioners).

Figure 3.6. Share of installed conditioned space by CAC system in the EU in 1998

VRF
Rooftops 3% Splits >12kW
7% 11%

Packages
8%

chillers
71%

Evolution of market shares of techniques

Figure 3.7 indicates which systems and segments are experiencing the largest growth (from 1996 to 2000).

10
Figure 3.7. Average annual rate of growth in conditioned floor area by type of CAC for the period 1996-2000

0,16
0,14
0,12
0,1
0,08
0,06
0,04
0,02
0
Large Chillers Packages Rooftops VRV Small
Splits +8,5% +2,5% +9% +13% A/C
+14% +10,5%

The average growth rate for large splits of 14%, for VRF of 13% and small AC for 10.5% are very different
from the overall average growth rate of 9%. The competition is focused on the "new" segment of smaller
buildings (trade, small offices, etc), which have correspondingly smaller average loads. Figure 3.8 illustrates
for instance the importance of decentralised AC solutions in the trade sector while over the longer term the
increased share of RAC sales within the total AC market corresponds to the same phenomenon. It should be
remembered that "Splits" refers to large split systems of over 12 kW in cooling capacity and that smaller
ones are included in the term "RAC". We see a growing competition of RAC against chiller based solutions
and an adaptation of solutions for the treatment of smaller sites.

Figures 3.8. The percentage of AC supplied by each AC type by user sector for the EU in 1998

120,00%

100,00%

80,00%
VRF
60,00%
Rooftops
40,00% packages&splits
chillers
20,00%
RAC
0,00%
trade

education
offices
hotels&bar

houses
hospitals

Figure 3.9 shows the growth in conditioned floor area by each type of CAC&RAC system from 1980 to 2000
across the EU.

11
Figure 3.9. Total conditioned floor area provided by each type of AC in the EU tertiary and industrial sectors
from 1980 to 2000

Market shares on TOTAL A/C market

160

140

120

100
RAC<12 kW
VRF
M
m2 80 Rooftops
Packages
Splits >12kW
chillers
60

40

20

0
1980 1985 1990 1995 1998 2000

CAC systems based on chillers account for the majority of the CAC market, but among these there are
two dominant subsystems with market shares of the same order of magnitude: chiller systems using
AHU and those using FCU, Figure 3.10.
Figure 3.10.The share of chiller CAC systems (based on installed conditioned floor area) by sub-system type
across the EU for 1998

Subsystems with chillers

Two loops
2%
Two loops
Air (AHU)
Air (AHU)
Classic(FC 39%
U) Nat, Water
58% Nat, Water Classic(FCU)
1%

Comparisons with US market

Similar data supplied by the CBECS programme of the US DOE’s Energy Information Administration has
been gathered for the US market, which is the world’s largest. The US and EU figures cover the same years
(1999-2000) and the same building stock (non-residential buildings in use); however, the preferred technical
solutions are very different, with packages dominating in the US, and central chillers dominating in Europe,
as shown by comparison of the data in Figures 3.11 and 3.12.

12
Figures 3.11. The share of non-residential conditioned building floor area cooled by each primary AC type in
the USA in 1999-2000

US A (E IA )

chillers
packages
all RA C

Figure 3.12. The share of non-residential conditioned building floor area cooled by each primary AC type in
the EU in 2000

E UR (E E CCA C)

c hillers
pack ages
all RA C

However the US market is so large in absolute terms that for every segment there is more conditioned floor
area in the USA than in Europe, Figure 3.13.

13
Figure 3.13. Conditioned non-residential building floor area by AC type in the EU and in the USA in 2000

Mm2
9000
8000
7000
6000
all RAC
5000
packages
4000
chillers
3000
2000
1000
0
USA (EIA) EUR (EECCAC)

3.3. A few technical trends on the market

In order to use the data provided by European manufacturers to estimate total AC stock sizes by type of AC
system hence to project the associated energy consumption, it is necessary to be able to determine the
proportion of conditioned floor area which: is treated by reversible AC systems; uses water distribution
systems; uses air distribution systems, and to have data on the growth rates of each. It is necessary to have an
image of the global industry and the main stakeholders.

The share between distribution systems in chiller based CAC

Based on adjusted numbers of AHU and FCU sales and applying some other scaling ratios obtained in the
study, it has been possible to estimate the share of water distribution systems, i.e. the installed area of
installations with water distribution divided by the total area of installed AC. In fact this value is equivalent
to the installed area of installations with FCU divided by the total area of installed AC. Figure 3.14 shows the
large variation in the share of chillers using water distribution systems by EU country.

Figure 3.14. The share of chiller systems using water distribution systems (based on installed conditioned
area) in the EU

% Water distribution/ Total

120%
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
ly
y

n
l
ria

ce

m
ga
an

nd

ai
ec

Ita

do
...

an
st

rtu

Sp
m

re

rla
um
Au

ng
Fr

er

Po
G

he

ki
gi

U
et
l
Be

14
Reversible use of Air Conditioning
One important aspect of this study is the reversible use of the cooling equipment for heating, Figure 3.15. On
a packaged or split product, it's easy to see if it is reversible (the owner may use the reversibility feature or
not) but for chillers tighter definitions are required. The statistics on chiller reversibility are derived from
data on a number of system sub-types:

water cooled chillers including water-to-water heat pumps

air-cooled chillers including condenserless water-cooled systems

air-to-water heat pumps with reverse cycle

water-to-air heat pumps with reverse cycle on a water loop

centrifugal chillers either hermetic or open type according to connection between the motor and the
compressor.
It has been assumed here that reversibility is a feature of 10% of the water cooled chillers and all the air-to-
water heat pumps. It is further assumed that the pure air cooled and the centrifugal chillers are none
reversible.

Figure 3.15. The share of conditioned non-residential building area provided by reversible CAC (for chillers
only and for all CAC) and by water-based (using FCUs) distribution systems for four EU countries in 1998.

100%
90%
80%
70% Spain
60% France
50%
40% Italy
30% UK
20%
10%
0%
Reversibility of Total reversibility %age of water
chillers systems

The choice between chiller-based systems and packages

The share of different AC types in non-residential buildings (based on conditioned floor area) varies
appreciably from one EU country to another, Figure 3.16.

15
Figure 3.16. Market shares of AC technical solutions in four European countries (based on installed
conditioned floor area in non-residential buildings) in 1998.

RA C

V RV
UK
Rooftops Italy
P ac k ages F ranc e
S pain
c hillers

Large S plits

0% 20% 40% 60%

Chillers are predominant in France while RAC Italy is equally divided between RACs and chillers. Packages
have a comparatively large market share in Spain as do VRV systems in the UK. The average size (cooling
capacity) of chillers is smaller in Italy and the other Mediterranean countries, which corresponds to the
importance in the AC market of small trading enterprises and small offices compared with the larger tertiary
building complexes found in the UK, Figure 3.17.

Figure 3.17. Average cooling capacity of chillers in four EU countries, based on 1998 data

250
Cooling capacity (kW)

200

Size of large Splits

150
(kW )
Average size of
100
chillers (kW )

50

0
UK Spain France Italy

A number of "mini-chillers" with a small capacity are more popular solution in Italy than in other European
countries (Figure 3.18). As a result, the Italian market of chillers when expressed in terms of the number of
chillers sold is growing rapidly whereas some other national markets have risen smoothly or have even
stagnated. Competition between “local” systems, VRV and mini-chillers for the medium-size building
market is the dominant issue for the future.

16
Figure 3.18. Growth rates are high in countries with both small and large systems and smaller in countries
with only large hydronic systems (UK)

180,00
160,00
Index relative to 1996

140,00 France
120,00
100,00 UK
80,00
60,00 Italy
40,00
20,00
0,00
0

5
6

0
9

9
9

0
19

19

19

19

19

19
19

19

19

19

20
The value and nature of the European CAC market
According to the information gathered for this study, it appears that many manufacturers operate on an EU-
wide level. The largest are usually foreign owned companies, resulting from the fact that a number of the
countries where they originate have a large and mature internal market (e.g. Japan and the USA) which
results in a transfer of technology and experience to their European branches. This does not mean that these
local companies of foreign corporations have no technical autonomy, but it partly explains the operation of
the market.
The European CAC equipment industry is self-sufficient within Europe and is fairly concentrated although
less than the car industry. In terms of market share the manufacturers can be categorised into three broad
groups, Table 3.1.

Table 3.1. Market share of the "Top Ten" European chiller manufacturers

Name and main country grouped % of market average size

A (3) Trane (FR) 35 % 12 %
Carrier (FR-IT)
York (UK-DK-FR) +Daikin
B (7) Climaveneta (IT) 40 % 6%
Clivet (IT)
Mc Quay (IT)
RC (IT)
Lennox (FR)
CIAT (FR)
AERMEC (IT)
C (30) Others (Same countries) 25 % <1%
Source: EECCAC co-ordinator + Eurovent Experts

Even if the most significant European manufacturers belong to American groups, their centres of
development in Europe constitute a rather autonomous technical base of the European AC industry, which is

17
the third largest in the world after the USA and Asia. This base, joined to the existence of average-sized
manufacturers which are 100% European, ensures a great autonomy of supply for Europe. It results in the
independence and equality of the European manufacturers’ association, Eurovent, compared with its
American equivalent, ARI.
Table 3.2 shows the estimated value of the European CAC market without taking into account the imported
contents of the equipment (i.e. without considering the value of components imported from outside Europe
compared with those produced in Europe).

Table 3.2. Estimated value of the European CAC market by CAC equipment type (source: coordinator)

Segments % production % import for Balance net Capacity Value MEuros/ Estimated
EUR production MW/1998 Income (MEuros)
/MW
chillers 95% 5% 90% 6.8 0.25 1700
&CT
splits 90% 5% 85% 1.1 0.2 200
> 12kW
Packages 90% 10% 80% 0.9 0.2 200
rooftops 95% 5% 90% 0.7 0.15 100
VRF 50% 10% 40% 1.25 1 250
FCU/AHU 100% 0% 100% 6.8 0.1 650
RAC 75% 0% 75% 5.0 0.2 1000
Total 87.7% - 84.2% 21.6 - 4100
weighted
in income

These figures do not include the value of installation but do include the profit margin of the equipment
suppliers. The US and Japanese markets are worth about 10 000 MEuros per annum on the same basis.

Other stakeholders
Installers, designers and operators all have to adapt to the customer demands. They have to display a
competitive cost, or be able to guarantee a high reliability (better servicing, better contracts) in order to
compete. There is almost no freedom for installers and designers to be rewarded for the extra energy
efficiency of the systems they may promote although operators can be reimbursed through performance
contracting.
Utilities are important stakeholders. Summer peaking may be a problem for some Southern European utilities
but is often seen as a market opportunity for Northern European utilities.
Governmental agencies and ministries are responsible for the development of building codes. Thermal
insulation, which is often introduced into building codes to limit heating requirements, very often also helps
lower cooling needs; however, in some cases increased insulation can aggravate summer discomfort and
increase the need for AC.
Building thermal regulations usually aim to minimise AC energy demand but often "don't know how” it
should be done. There is a hesitation between a pure prescription on some elements (an obligation of means)
and a global limitation of demand, leaving the designer free to choose the elements and to assemble them to
reach the target (the obligation of results). The problem arises from the lack of energy consumption
calculation methods that are applicable to a wide range of systems. European countries cope with this
problem in different ways, but nobody appears to be happy with their current regulations.
Extension to EU accession states of the CAC market is already a reality. An indication of the problems and
opportunities of CAC in the EU Accession States has been gained through a detailed study of the situation in

18
Romania. This has given some insights into how the findings may be applicable in the rest of the CEEC. The
methodology applied regarding the creation of national CAC stock statistics from an analysis of export and
import figures can be applied in other CEEC countries in the same way as for the EU countries and be used
to project CAC energy consumption and identify nationally specific issues.

3.4. Statistics on present Energy Efficiency on the EU market

Eurovent – Certification runs a directory of products on the EU market which gives good information of
product performance. The Directory is meant as an instrument to direct the buyers by giving certified
performance information. In a first moment information was limited to electric power and cooling capacity.
Now EER and COP are highlighted to promote Energy Efficiency. The intention is to go even further by
making use of part load information for a more appropriate selection of products. Note that in terms of
chillers the directory is limited to 750 kW capacity which practically leaves uncovered the centrifugal
chillers only, however this type is sold always on specific request. To be perfectly representative the study
should be based on a proxy of the SEER (like the American IPLV) because this is the figure having an
influence on the electricity consumption, either for chillers or packaged air conditioners. However, our
recomendations on a European IPLV are not yet put in practice and we have based the study of present
efficiency on the existing information : nominal EER.
Using data drawn from the Eurovent directory as well as a few individual manufacturers product directories,
a complete data-set of CAC capacity and nominal energy performance (at full load) has been assembled and
analysed for chillers under 750 kW. Over this capacity the companies are very few and we have used directly
data provided by some of them.

EER as a function of capacity and cooling medium for a chiller under 750 kW
Figure 3.19 shows the EER as a function of capacity for chillers on the EU market according to their mode of
condensation.

Figure 3.19. Chiller EER as a function of cooling capacity for 1998. There are two groups of chillers, with
distinct testing conditions (water cooled and air cooled, that cannot be compared)

4.5

4.0
2
R = 0.0073

3.5

3.0

2.5
2
EER

R = 0.0003

2.0

1.5

1.0
air cooled
water cooled
0.5
Linéaire (air cooled)
Linéaire (water cooled)
0.0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Puissance frigorifique kW

Source: Eurovent directory

19
Tables 3.3 and 3.4 indicate the average and range of EER values for CAC systems found on the European
market.

Table 3.3. Average and extreme EER values for chillers on the EU market, split according to Eurovent
internal categories, for year 1998

Categories Cooling Capacity CC Number of EER EER EER

in kW models min ave max
Packaged, cooling only, air ≤50kW 174 1.9 2.55 3.3
cooled, conditioning 50kW<CC≤100kW 102 1.93 2.49 3.04
100kW<CC≤300kW 99 2.12 2.53 2.85
300kW<CC≤500kW 4 2.52 2.56 2.59
>500kW 6 2.41 2.57 2.66
Packaged, reverse cycle, air ≤50kW 105 1.9 2.48 2.96
cooled, conditioning 50kW<CC≤100kW 35 1.99 2.43 2.84
100kW<CC≤300kW 14 2.1 2.49 2.73
300kW<CC≤500kW 5 2.56 2.73 2.86
Packaged, reverse cycle, air ≤50kW 6 3.31 3.34 3.39
cooled, floor cooling/heating
Packaged, cooling only, ≤50kW 8 3.31 3.75 4.06
water cooled, conditioning 50kW<CC≤100kW 10 3.55 3.77 3.96
100kW<CC≤300kW 31 2.9 3.72 4.05
300kW<CC≤500kW 20 3.16 3.79 4.04
>500kW 15 2.9 3.62 4.09
Packaged, reverse cycle, ≤50kW 8 2.99 3.28 3.5
water cooled, conditioning 50kW<CC≤100kW 5 2.9 3.18 3.5
100kW<CC≤300kW 3 2.9 3.45 3.8
300kW<CC≤500kW 5 3.85 3.94 3.98
>500kW 7 3.84 3.98 4.09
Remote condenser, cooling ≤50kW 6 3.13 3.32 3.53
only, water cooled, 50kW<CC≤100kW 3 3.16 3.2 3.25
conditioning 100kW<CC≤300kW 14 2.96 3.27 3.7
300kW<CC≤500kW 6 2.87 3.18 3.46
>500kW 7 2.76 3.03 3.29
Source: Eurovent statistics

Table 3.4. Summary of average and extreme EER values by chiller category on the EU market

EER
Categories Type Condenser Application min ave max
Complete unit cooling air conditioning 1.9 2.53 3.29
reversible air conditioning 1.9 2.48 2.96
Floor 3.31 3.34 3.39
cooling water conditioning 2.9 3.73 4.09
reversible water conditioning 2.9 3.57 4.09
Condenserless cooling water conditioning 2.76 3.21 3.69

Statistically there is no relationship between chiller EER and its cooling capacity; however, on average there
is significantly higher EER for chillers which are cooled with water compared with those that use air. In fact
this improvement is not inherent to the chiller, but rather represents the temperature regime found in cooling
towers. The values used for testing the two types of system are somehow arbitrary and it may be that the
apparent benefit from water cooling is not fully realised in practice. Based on the standard test data the

20
average EER for water-cooled chillers is 3.57 W/W whereas for air-cooled chillers it is 2.52 W/W.
Nevertheless, water-cooled systems are relatively expensive (because of the additional cost of using either a
cooling tower or of accessing a natural water supply) and will therefore only tend to found for larger capacity
systems. Interestingly, the average EER of the reversible systems is almost the same as for the cooling-only
systems .

Potential for efficiency gains of the selection of higher efficiency equipment

It is clear that the apparent variations chiller EER seen in the product directories are partly explained by
differences in the standard testing conditions; however, when a piece of equipment is compared with its
direct peers (as expressed through the product categories described in Tables 3.3 and 3.4) there is still a wide
spread in product efficiency, as shown in Figure 3.5.

Figure 3.5. Distribution of EER/EERave (where the average EER is average for the same product category)
for chillers on the EU market in 1998

25

21.06
20.34
20

15
% 13.47
13.04
of models 11.6
11.17

10

5.3
5

2.44
1.58

0
75-80 81-85 86-90 91-95 96-100 101-105 106-110 111-120 121-130
EER/EER aver

It is interesting to consider to what extent this difference can be attributed to differences in the type of chiller
compressor used. From a total of 698 chillers in the Eurovent database the type of compressor was known for
304 of them. The following compressor types can be distinguished:
- "scroll" (orbital)
- "screw"
- "reciprocating" (i.e. with pistons)
Table 3.6 shows the proportion of chillers by compressor type within this subset of models as a function of
the condensing medium. Table 3.7 gives additional data that enable a comparison of chiller efficiency as a
function of compressor type and condensing medium.
The average performance of chillers with air-cooled condensers is almost independent of the compressor
type at ~2.5 W/W. The only significant performance difference on overall averages is seen for the chillers
with water-cooled condensers that use screw compressors who have an average EER of ~3.9 W/W compared
to ~3.5 W/W for those using scroll or reciprocating compressors. We note also that the best air cooled
chillers (the top runner, not the best on average) are the ones with scroll, then reciprocating, then screw.

21
Table 3.6. partial statistics (not from Eurovent) on compressor type

Type Number % Air Water

Scroll 202 66,45 58,48 7,97
Screw 50 16,45 4,61 11,84
Reciprocating 52 17,1 8,55 8,55

TOTAL 304 100 71,64 28,36

Table 3.7. Comparison of chiller full-load nominal performance values depending on the type of compressor
and type of condensing medium

Type Cond. number Min.kW ave.kW Max.kW Min EER ave EER Max EER
Scroll air 178 12.2 49.8 158 1.9 2.5 3.39
wat 24 13.7 64 163.6 3.11 3.51 4
Screw air 14 196.1 451.3 789.1 2.35 2.5 2.66
wat 36 132 478.6 920.7 3.65 3.91 4.09
Reciprocating air 26 24.2 163.5 350 2.16 2.52 2.74
wat 26 136 407.2 847 2.99 3.54 4.06

It is also interesting to consider to what extent chiller EER depends on the choice of refrigerant. The data
shown in Table 3.8 suggests there is a small variation but perhaps not as much as had been expected.

Table 3.8. Chiller energy efficiency at full-load as a function of the type of refrigerant used

capacity EER
Refrigerant Min. Ave. Max. Min. Ave. Max.
R22 12.1 143.03 921 1.9 2.79 4.09
R407C 12.5 106.125 782.28 2.1 2.68 4.06
R22/R407C 12.2 62.68 163.6 1.9 2.6 4
Reciprocating compressors were prevalent for small cooling capacity systems but tend to give way to orbital
(scroll) compressors at medium cooling capacities, (because of multiple advantages: lower noise, wear, etc.),
and to screw compressors for the larger capacities.

EER for chillers over 750 kW

We have analysed a few chillers over 750 kW. Over this capacity the manufacturers are very few and we
have used directly data provided by some of them. The EER are very high. It’s a niche market (large malls,
airports, some district cooling) which is completely separate from the rest.

22
23
4. FACTORS GOVERNING THE DESIGN, SELECTION, INSTALLATION AND
OPERATION OF CAC SYSTEMS
4.1 Actors involved with CAC systems
The main barriers to efficiency
As opposed to RAC, CAC are usually designed and specified by a chain of engineers or technicians, who
define the system assembly for a given building without the direct influence of the customer. Everybody
could gain something from the marketing of efficient CAC, but each actor has a limited vision of the chain:

the consideration of initial cost as the only decision criterion by most designers and installers,
because this is almost the only way the customer judges them ;

the separation between the plant owner and the renter, between the renter and the operator, etc. ,
nobody being ready to pay for the other’s benefit ;

the customer only judges the initial cost because he is not aware of the other aspects (no coded
information on other aspects) or not interested (owner and occupant having distinct interests);

the competition between manufacturers is only expressed in terms of Euro/kW, not Euro/EER or
Euro/kWh consumed later ;

the absence and/or intrinsic difficulty of developing building codes for this relatively new source of
energy consumption which is very complex to model and characterise;

the problem for consultants of completely specifying and certifying the quality of something so
complex, built on site and only once,

the lack of incentives for energy efficiency for most system operators, except in case of a good EPC
(Energy Performance Contract),
As a result of these complex factors the measures to be proposed in EECCAC cannot only address the
efficiency of the CAC equipment supplied to the market, which in many ways is the smallest problem, but
should also aim to reshape and activate the chain leading to the final service: the conditioned square meter.
Hence the necessity to develop a better description of the chain.

4.2 Practices and procedures adopted in CAC system design

Guidelines for the design of CAC systems
Standards and guidelines for the design of CAC systems are often developed nationally within EU Member
States. Typically they take the form of technical documents released by national associations as follows:
UK: CIBSE guides
France: AICVF guides
Italy: AICARR guides
There is also an unpublished REHVA guide (REHVA, 1997) based on the national guides of Italy
(AICARR), France (AICVF) and the UK (CIBSE), which makes a synthetic presentation of the following
issues:
• comfort conditions
• air quality, noise
• cooling loads
• system types description and naming
• sizing
• reference meteorological data.
CEN and other standardisation bodies have not yet addressed this subject, probably because system sizing
brings a responsibility that the solution "will work", which is not a responsibility normally taken by a

24
standardisation body. The technical options related with sizing have to be defined in such a way as to leave
degrees of freedom to the designer that will bear this responsibility.

4.3Previous market-transformation efforts within the EU (equipment)

In most EU countries air conditioning has been viewed for years as a very marginal electricity use
compared with the largest end uses and has therefore not received much attention. As a result the market
has developed spontaneously and has established its current terms of reference without having
embedded energy efficiency within the decision and design criteria, with the exception of a few local
voluntary efforts.
Utilities, national energy agencies, ministries, manufacturers’ associations, etc. have made a few
attempts in the past to advise the public or the professionals about energy efficiency. But in terms of the
impact on the market, little value has been given to energy efficiency. As shown in section 3.4, the
market doesn't pay for improved EER; it gives some value to the brand name, a little to reversibility, but
nothing to improved EER. If observed the other way round, this has resulted in the current
circumstances where purchasers can acquire more efficient equipment at no extra cost. Since the
operating costs for such equipment are lower, this results in a negative incremental cost for
purchaser/users of energy efficient AC. In fact this ‘free ride’ is partly illusory because manufacturers
with an interest in energy efficiency are not recouping the investments they make in producing more
efficient equipment and this naturally holds back the rate at which even higher efficiency equipment is
developed. Even if the implementation of new energy efficiency policy measures eventually causes the
average cost of AC equipment to rise, the changes will still be profitable for the customer.
In the EU, Energy Efficiency improvement is not presently a criterion playing any major role in the design
and installation process (see 3.5); scattered performance improvements happen spontaneously, even if some
actors give them some importance locally. As examples of such local or national efforts, we present
hereafter a few indications.

The Eurovent Certification programme

The Eurovent-Certification programme is a trans-national AC energy performance-certification programme.
The managing body, Eurovent Certification, is a business association created specifically for the purpose. By
participating in the scheme and allowing their products to be independently tested, manufacturers have the
right to include their products in the annual Eurovent product directory, which is circulated to around 20 000
consultants and installers. They are also allowed to use the Eurovent Certification label (Figure 4.1). For a
cost of less than 0.2 % of their total turnover manufacturers can, depending on the number of models, have
all their models listed in the directory.
The equipment to be tested is independently selected by Eurovent Certification (not by the manufacturer)
and then tested according to international standards and the specific requirements of Eurovent Certification.
In order to ensure true comparability and reproducibility of the test results all equipment are tested in a single
designated test centre. There is always a risk that some manufacturers certify only their best equipment.
Eurovent has moved, following a similar move by their American counterpart, ARI, to a "Certify All" policy
wherein a manufacturer can only report performance data of equipment BEING ALL certified if it wants to
claim the benefits of its participation to the Eurovent scheme.
About 10% of all models on the European market are tested by Eurovent Certification each year. The fear of
a test result that could contradict a manufacturer’s self-determined values has led a number of manufacturers
to readjust the declared EER values printed in their commercial literature.
A high percentage of the European AC market is already included in the Eurovent Certification scheme
(~80-90% of the total market) and all the most important manufacturers participate in the scheme. This is
very useful to ensure the reliability of the efficiency data quoted in the EECCAC study and should provide a
strong basis for the establishment of voluntary and transparent agreements between the EU and the
manufacturers.

25
Figure 4.1 Label stamped on Eurovent certified appliances.

Eurovent Certification is based on a few principles:

- all products in the defined scope must be certified (“certify-all principle”)
- regular testing by independent bodies must be carried out on randomly selected units.
- Test results must be very close to claimed performance characteristics – otherwise the catalogues data must
be re-rated.
Certify-all principle is not yet fully applied in all certification programmes but the goal will be achieved in a
few years. When all products presented by a manufacturer in the given scope are certified, the image of
certification is clear and there is no possibilities for misunderstanding. However for some equipment, a
progressive implementation of this principle has been necessary.
Air conditioning and refrigeration equipment are complex by their nature and it is not possible to determine
their performances with a sufficient accuracy without testing. In order to be able to compare products from
different manufacturers, testing must be performed according to precisely defined procedures. These
procedures are generally described in test standards which now exist on European or International level for
almost all products in the scope of Eurovent/Cecomaf.
Test standards contain specifications for test installation, incorporation of unit to be tested, test conditions
(temperatures, flow, humidity, etc.) and method of calculation of performance characteristics. Acceptable
deviations from test conditions and required accuracy of measuring devices are also specified.
Everything being well defined, any laboratory applying the same test method should in principle obtain the
same results when testing the same units. In practice, it is not possible to achieve such an ideal work. There
are always subtle differences between laboratories and human factor plays an important role.
Therefore in order to avoid possible discrepancies, the principle of single laboratory for a given product was
introduced in Eurovent Certification. This is applied at ARI which served as a model for Eurovent
procedures.
However, this principle could not be applied for all programmes for various reasons. Sometimes, historically
several laboratories had been used by participants and it was difficult to select a single test house. For other
programmes, the testing capacity (expressed in number of tests to be performed during a year) of available
laboratories was not sufficient.
Finally Eurovent Certification now uses nine independent laboratories from five countries for its thirteen
programmes.

An example of a utility-led energy-efficient AC promotional campaign

EdF aims to establish reversible air-conditioners as the principal heating source in new French households
and is directing its promotional efforts in that way.

26
Manufacturers who participate in the EdF scheme must supply Eurovent with more test-point data than the
minimum which is required to be quoted in the Eurovent directory (which is currently the T3 test results in
the heating mode and the T1 test results in the air-conditioning mode). EdF and Eurovent have an agreement
wherein Euroevent will do additional certification testing for the RACs that are in the EdF programme.
Supplying the data to Eurovent means that it can be independently verified, through their certification
process, before being used by EdF. EdF also obliges products promoted within the directory to attain a
minimum energy efficiency value under each test condition. An example of these requirements are given in
Table 4.1. but there are many sets of requirements for the various equipment types. All values used are
Eurovent certified values, subject to independent testing.

Table 4.1. Minimum energy performance requirements for reversible heat pumps (or chillers) of the air /water
type with a capacity higher than 30 kW (Application in fan coil or hybrid systems (FC or radiators + h&cfloor))
that are included in EdF’s promotion

Generator Outdoor Unit Water Coefficient of

performance
air / water
minimum
Dry Bulb Wet Bulb Inlet temperature Outlet temperature
temperature(°C) temperature(°C) (°C) (°C)

Cooling 35 ** 12 7 EER>2,2
mode
Heating 7 6 40 45 COP>2,5
mode
-7 -8 * 45 COP>1,5
* temperature function of the flow and identical to the one in heating mode at à +7°C outside
** non-controlled

The commercial importance of being included in EdF’s scheme has resulted in these efficiency requirements
having a substantial impact on the efficiency of the market in France.

The UK Market Transformation Program

The primary purpose of the UK Market Transformation Programme is to develop quantified policy options
for the government regarding measures to improve the energy and environmental performance of products. A
key feature of the programme is that the policy development is open to public comment, and the involvement
of key stakeholders is actively sought. For air-conditioning, the programme has thus far modelled the carbon
emissions consequences of three scenarios, and identified a range of market transformation options that can
be expected to constrain the expected increase. Some of the policy options are measures that have already
been agreed upon, for example, revisions to building regulations. Others are highly desirable but require
legislation, perhaps at European level –e.g. mandatory minimum efficiency standards for AC equipment. In
addition, the analysis and debate has identified measures that can be implemented without legislation. One
specific activity is to place the Eurovent performance data on an (existing) interactive product performance
database. In addition to providing system-specifiers with easier access to the data, this provides a means of
introducing indicative performance levels ("good practice", "best practice") that can form the basis of
voluntary procurement programmes. Information on this programme is accessible at www.mtprog.com

27
4.4 Existing national regulations within the EU (which apply at the system level)
In general building thermal regulations "want" to reduce the energy demand associated with air conditioning
but usually they "don't know how”. There is a hesitation between a pure prescription on some elements
(obligation of means) and a global limitation of demand, leaving the designer free to choose the elements and
to assemble them to reach the target (obligation of results). The problem arises from the lack of consumption
calculation methods applicable to a wide range of systems. Different countries cope with this problem in
different ways.
Among EU Member States only Portugal and the UK have significant measures in their building regulations
designed to limit the energy consumption of air conditioning systems. These are described in detail below.

Portugal: An example of a national scheme to promote energy-efficient AC through building

thermal regulations
National building thermal regulations in Europe usually only address the minimisation of winter energy
consumption and are not intended to influence energy consumed in air-conditioning. Portugal appears to be
the only country in the EU following an alternative approach and has imposed limiting values on both
summer and winter energy needs through the building code known as the RSECE (Decree-Law 118/98).
The RSECE defines regulations that need to be complied with when HVAC systems are sized and
installed, so as to ensure (i) a minimum energy efficiency level of systems and equipment used to meet
indoor thermal comfort and air quality requirements, (ii) quality and safety of the facilities, and (iii) the
respect for environment. It applies to all HVAC systems with an installed cooling power of more than
25 kW or when the aggregate heating and cooling thermal power is more than 40 kW. In these
circumstances it obliges the use of central AC systems rather than distributed RACs.
The reference thermal characteristics of the building envelope for buildings using HVAC under the
RSECE are more thermally efficient than those required by the general regulation on the thermal
characteristics of buildings, the RCCTE. The reason is that the RCCTE was been designed mainly for
application in the residential sector while the use of the larger HVAC systems addressed in the RSECE
justifies stronger requirements. However, the improved thermal characteristics and solar factors set out
in the RSECE are a design option and are not mandatory. Rather they are one of the aspects taken into
account in the calculation of the nominal power of the system to be installed. Thus, the designer is free
to choose other options (e.g. better lighting systems) to compensate for not attaining the 20%
improvement in envelope performance.
The RSECE sets out a number of limits to be applied to the equipment energy use:
 Limits on the Joule effect. The electric heating power provided by the Joule effect cannot exceed 5%
of the total heating power installed, nor 25kW by independent zone.
 Limits on terminal re-heating. Terminal re-heating is allowed for cooling-only systems but cannot
exceed 10% of the installed cooling power.
 Limits to individual AC appliances. Individual air conditioning appliances for heating or cooling are
only allowed in spaces with special internal conditions, i.e. conditions which are different from the
rest of the independent zone.
 Energy recovery is promoted. Energy recovery from the exhaust air is mandatory during the heating
season, when the rejection air has a thermal power greater than 80 kW. Free cooling is mandatory in
"all-air" systems with a ventilation air flow greater than 10000 m³/h.
 Power stages should allow adaptation to the demand. To minimise the heating and cooling
generators from working at partial load, these equipment are required to have a number of stages
depending on the power, according to the Table 4.2.

28
Table 4.2. minimum number of stages required in the RSECE

Heating Cooling
Power Nº Stages Power Nº Stages
<100 kW 1 <40 kW 1
100 to 1000 kW 2 40 to 200 kW 2
1001 to 4000 4 201 to 500 4
>4000 kW 6 >500 kW 6

 The attainment of minimum efficiency levels for AC equipment is compulsory. Compression

machines must have a COP (EER) greater than 2.0. Energy Management Systems (EMS) are
required for systems with a thermal power greater than 250 kW. For systems with a thermal power
greater than 500 kW, the EMS should allow the centralised optimisation of the parameters.
The regulation imposes the adoption of a maintenance plan and a monitoring system. The energy
consumption of all equipment with an electric power greater than 12.5 kW should be independently
metered. Commissioning tests are required for boilers, chillers (power and efficiency), cooling towers,
pumps, hydraulic tests, heat exchangers, controllers, noise levels and overall functionality.

Summary of UK building regulations for space cooling and ventilation

The legal requirement specifically refers to air conditioning and mechanical ventilation systems that serve
more than 200 m2 of floor area.

The UK employs three alternative methods for demonstration of compliance with the national building
thermal regulations for tertiary buildings, offering increasing design flexibility in return for greater demands
in terms of calculations. These are:

The Elemental Method, which considers the performance of each aspect of the building individually (e.g. by
imposing minimum u-values). Some flexibility is provided for trading off, for example, insulation levels and
heating system efficiency.

The Whole-Building Method. This mainly applies to offices, and requires that the heating, ventilation, air
conditioning and lighting systems be capable of being operated in such a way as to limit the carbon
emissions per square metre below a given benchmark. There are less detailed whole-building methods for
schools and hospitals.

The Carbon Emissions Calculation Method. This also considers the performance of the building as a whole,
but is applicable to any building type. It requires that the proposed building should cause carbon emissions
that are no worse than a notional building that satisfies the requirements of the Elemental Method.

Elemental Method: Avoiding solar overheating

The general guidance is that naturally ventilated spaces should not overheat and that cooled spaces
should not require excessive cooling plant capacity. This may be satisfied by limiting glazing area,
providing adequate shading, or designing for night cooling operation.
For spaces with glazing facing only one orientation, the requirement will be satisfied by limiting glazing
area to a percentage of the internal area:
North 50%
NE/NW/S 40%
E/SE/W/SW 32%

29
Horizontal 12%
Alternatively, it is acceptable to show either that:
- the solar heat load per unit floor area averaged between the hours of 7:30 and 17:30 would not be
greater than 25 W/m2 with the solar irradiances for the location that are not exceeded more than 2.5% of
occasions for July (between 1976 and 1995)
- showing by (acceptable) calculation that, in the absence of mechanical cooling or mechanical
ventilation, the space will not overheat when subjected to an internal heat gain of 10 W/m2
Elemental Method: Heating efficiencies
The carbon intensity of the heat generating equipment at maximum output and 30% (system) output
should be no higher than:
Maximum output 30% output
Natural gas 0.068 0.065
Other fuels 0.091 0.088
(all figures in kgC/kWh)
However, these figures may be exceeded if building insulation levels are increased beyond the minima.
Carbon emission factors for different fuels are tabulated: significant figures are
natural gas 0.053
oil 0.074
electricity 0.113
In effect, these figures taken together define the minimum CoP that is required for heating by reverse-
cycle operation of air-conditioning
Elemental Method: Air conditioning efficiency.
For offices, air conditioning systems should have a satisfactory "Carbon Performance Rating" (CPR).
Notionally, this is a limit on the carbon emissions per m2 of floor area from air conditioning or
mechanical ventilation systems under standard operating conditions. In practice, it operates as a limit on
the installed cooling power and fan power per m2 of floor area, since the calculation procedure
prescribes standard figures for equivalent hours of full load operation. Benefit can be claimed for a
number of control and other features.
The maximum allowable ratings (all in kgC/m2/year) for new installations are:
New building Existing building
Air conditioning 10.3 11.35
Mechanical ventilation 6.5 7.35
For substantial modifications to existing systems, the performance must be the least demanding of either
these values or a 10% improvement on the original value.
Key calculation parameters:
Equivalent hours of full load operation:

30
- mechanical ventilation or air conditioning fans 3700 hours per year
- cooling plant 1000 hours per year
The calculated CPR may be reduced by applying factors to the fan or cooling capacity to reflect energy-
saving design features. These factors depend on the level of plant monitoring provided. They are
multiplicative.
Column C figures apply if no plant monitoring is provided; column B when any of: energy metering,
run-hour metering, internal zone temperature monitoring are provided; column A when, in addition, the
monitoring system has the ability to draw attention to "out of range" values.
Air distribution systems:
A B C
Operation in mixed mode with natural ventilation 0.85 0.90 0.95
Controls which restrict the hours of operation of the system 0.90 0.93 0.95
Efficient means of controlling air flow rate 0.75 0.85 0.95
"Mixed mode" requires the provision of sufficient opening windows and an interlock to prevent air-
conditioning operating when windows are open. It is only permissible when the perimeter zone of the
space accounts for more than 80% of the floor area.
"Air flow rate control" requires variable speed drives or variable pitch fan blades: throttling or inlet
guide vanes do not qualify for the allowance.
Refrigeration plant:
A B C
Free cooling from cooling tower 0.90 0.93 0.95
Variation of fresh air using economy cycle or mixed mode 0.85 0.90 0.95
Controls which restrict the hours of operation of the system 0.85 0.90 0.95
Controls which prevent simultaneous heating and cooling in the same zone 0.90 0.93 0.95
Efficient control of plant capacity, including modular plant 0.90 0.93 0.95
Partial ice storage 1.80 1.86 1.90
Full ice thermal storage 0.90 0.93 0.95
"Efficient control of capacity" requires good part load efficiency (without defining this): hot gas bypass
does not qualify.
"Full ice storage" requires chillers to operate only at night: if day and night chiller operation is intended,
this is "partial ice storage".
For buildings other than offices, there are no explicit requirements for air conditioning system
efficiency. This causes some difficulties when applying the Carbon Emissions Calculation Method (see
later) and guidance on the calculation of SSEER is being prepared.
However, there is a general requirement that components such as fans, pumps and refrigeration
equipment are reasonably efficient and appropriately sized, so there is scope to introduce performance
requirements.

31
There are requirements for SPF, Specific Fan Power, the electricity demand (of motor rating) per
airflow unit (expressed as W/litre/second), and encouragement of variable flow control.
For ACMV systems in new buildings, the SPF should not exceed 2.0, and preferably 1.5, and for new
systems in existing buildings or substantial alterations to existing systems should not exceed 3.0. There
are exceptions for non-comfort applications
Whole-building method
For offices, as an alternative to the air-conditioning CPR, a similar calculation may be calculated for the
combined emissions from the heating, lighting and air-conditioning systems. This provides greater
building services design flexibility, but the building envelope requirements of the elemental method
must also be complied with.
The required values of whole-building CPR are:
Building type New office refurbished office
Naturally ventilated 7.1 7.8
Mechanically ventilated 10.0 11.0
Air-conditioned 18.5 20.4
Calculation procedures are explained in BRE Digest 457.
Carbon Emissions Calculation Method
This route permits the greatest design flexibility. It requires the designer to show that the carbon
emissions from the proposed building are not greater than those for a notional building of the same
shape and size, designed to comply with the Elemental Method. There are, however, still some
constraints on acceptable values for some parameters - for example, air leakage of the building.
There is no prescriptive list of acceptable calculation methods, but a completed copy of Appendix B of
CIBSE AM11 "Building Energy and Environmental Modelling" is an acceptable demonstration.
Although this route is expected to be used only for a few, probably high-profile, buildings, it has already
generated some criticism. These relate to its implementation, rather than the principle. The main
problems are:
- the designer is required to design two buildings and their systems in order to demonstrate compliance
- some design parameters (notably air-conditioning system efficiency) are not defined in the elemental
method but are required to enable the comparison to be carried out.
Guidance on both these points, in the form of a simplified calculation for the notional building, has been
prepared (CIBSE,2004). Of particular relevance to the EECCAC study is the need to make explicit
assumptions about - or calculations of - about the seasonal system energy efficiency ratio (and seasonal
system coefficient of performance).
Information Provision: metering and logbooks
The Regulations require that the owner and/or occupier of the building be provided with a logbook that
contains, amongst other things, the design assessment for CPR or other benchmarks, commissioning
details, operating instructions, and details of all meters provided. A recommended template for this has
been published by CIBSE.
There is also a requirement that sub-metering be provided. This includes separate metering for tenancies
of more than 500 m2 (though for tenancies below 2500 m2, proportioning of cooling may be

32
acceptable). Generally, any chiller installation (which may include more than one chiller) of greater than
20 kW input power should be separately metered, and any motor control centre providing power to fans
and pumps of more than 10 kW input power.

The status of regulations in other EU Member States

France
France is in the process of developing building thermal regulations, which will address the cooling mode and
more immediately a means of determining building energy performance although the results are not expected
for this year. The approach under consideration is based on the standardisation of algorithms used in a
simulation tool known as Consoclim. In the absence of a full calculation method, no regulation is applied,
not even the one on comfort without air conditioning. Some specific demands which are already certain to be
included in the new regulation are applied and have been integrated in the existing code: a bonus for more
efficient terminal units, reduction of lighting and ventilation loads, reduction of solar gains, separation of air
renewal of different buildings, a number of stopping devices, and a number of local control obligations.
Germany
Germany has recently initiated a process to develop national regulations to limit the energy consumption of
building active cooling systems. The new Energy Saving regulation of 2001 requires, that the cooling load
should be as low as possible according the state of the art, but does not specify how this is to be determined.
Accordingly, it is intended, to generate within the DIN 4601 a new part (Part 11), which should include
maximum limits for the energy consumption of air conditioning systems and which may ultimately be
integrated into the German energy saving regulation.
Italy
In Italy, thermal regulations affecting the building envelope and internal energy-using systems, including the
heating and cooling systems, fall within the framework of a general law, Law N. 10 of 1991. This all
encompassing law, has a general theme of the “rational use of energy in buildings” and is intended to limit
“energy consumption” as much as possible and encourage improvements in energy efficiency. Under Italian
legislation, laws are followed by Law-Decrees which establish ways and means to fulfil law dictates, and
finally official Standards (e.g. UNI standards and similar) which give the physical parameters of
applications.
A law decree (no. DPR 412/93) addressing the heating systems of buildings has been established but the
same has not yet been done for the cooling system. Studies, proposals and recommendations are still under
examination, yet none has been transformed into official documents so far.
The Italian Engineering Association AICARR and CTI, Italian Thermal Committee, are preparing guidelines
for the application of the European Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (see below) that shall
subsequently be transposed into Italian Law.
Spain
There are no requirements in the national building regulations regarding the energy performance of central
air conditioning systems although there are requirements for maximum U-values. Spain also has a voluntary
building energy labelling scheme which includes specifications for cooling system energy performance.

The Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (to be transposed nationally)

European Directive 2002/91/EC on the Energy Performance of Buildings was published in December 2002.
The objective of the Directive is to promote the improvement of the energy performance of buildings within
the European Community, taking into account outdoor climatic and local conditions, as well as indoor
climate requirements and cost effectiveness. Implementation of the Directive is subject to the principles of
subsidiarity and as such the Directive is not always precise and does not specify detailed implementation
mechanisms. Transposition of the Directive into national law is required by January 2006; however, member
states have some flexibility concerning the exact manner in which it is to be implemented. The full

33
application of requirements for boiler inspection, air conditioning system inspection and building
certification (see below) may not be delayed beyond January 2009.

The Directive aims at reducing the consumption of energy in new and renovated buildings, excluding
industrial buildings, through the following:
A) Establishment of a general framework and common methodology for calculating the integrated
energy performance of buildings.
B) The development and application of minimum energy performance standards to new buildings and to
certain existing buildings when they are renovated.
C) Certification schemes for new and existing buildings on the basis of the above standards and public
display of energy performance certificates and recommended indoor temperatures and other relevant
climatic factors in public buildings and buildings frequented by the public.
D) Specific inspection and assessment of boilers and heating/cooling installations.
All these measures are to be taken nationally, before January,4 2004. The field of application of (D) for
CAC i.e. > 12 kW is exactly that of this study. Buildings of more 1000 m2 in floor area are to
addressed in A, B and C. The method of calculation to be established in (A) is the responsibility of each
Member State and thus is not unified across Member States. It should include the energy consumption
of AC and ventilation. There could be obvious advantages in harmonising such national building codes,
namely in the very technical field of CAC. The measures (B) and (C) envisaged in Article (6) may
require the modification of the insulation, lighting and ventilation requirements existing in some
countries and thus have an indirect influence on air-conditioning. Indeed, heating remains the essential
concern of EU building codes, even after the harmonisation.
Article 8 requires central air-conditioning systems over 12 kW to be regularly inspected. Article 9
requires Member States to put in place a system that ensures that certification of buildings and
inspection of equipment are carried out by qualified and independent personnel. An Annex to the
proposal contains the main aspects to be taken into account when calculating the energy performance of
buildings and requirements for inspection of boilers and central air conditioning systems. It also creates
an EU-wide technical committee comprised of representatives from Member States that will be
responsible for the development and maintenance of the inspection rules.

The draft Framework Directive for “Eco-design of End-Use Equipment” (to be adopted)
The European Commission has developed a draft proposal for a new Directive, which amongst other
measures would give the Commission the right to establish mandatory minimum energy performance
standards (MEPS) for end-use equipment. The annex of the Directive stipulates that the level of energy
efficiency used in the standards will be set aiming at the least life cycle cost for the final users using a
real discount rate of 5% and realistic assumptions about product lifetime. The determination of this is to
be based on the results of a technical-economical analysis. As yet there is no clear time line regarding
when this draft will be submitted to the council of ministers and parliament for approval.

The draft Directive on Energy Demand Management (to be defined)

The objective of this proposed Directive is to complete the internal market for energy by developing and
encouraging energy efficiency on the demand side, especially as it is provided by utilities and service
companies in the form of energy services. It is envisaged that Member States will set targets to promote
and support energy efficiency services, (e.g., third party financing) and programmes, especially for
smaller energy consumers such as households and SMEs. This includes a supportive framework for
implementation and financing of energy services, adapted to each Member States’ liberalised market. A
minimum energy efficiency target to be reached through energy services each year is proposed for
Member States that corresponds to 1% of the total electricity and gas sales. This proposal is in lieu of
additional public service obligations in the Amended Internal Market Directives and the Commission’s

34
Amended Rational Planning Techniques Directive proposal from March 1997.

Practices and procedures adopted in CAC system operation

The operation and maintenance of CAC systems is usually contracted out to a specialist company. Two
broad types of contract are used:

Contracts of “means” Within the framework of a contract with obligation of means, the building owner
entrusts the execution of specific tasks to a company.

This type of contract in general defines only frequencies of visits and the nature of the services to be
carried out as well as labour and material means. It is a little bit out of fashion due to the existence of
other typical contracts.

Contracts of "results" The contracts with obligation of results strongly engage the responsibility for the
company which must fulfill successfully the mission which is defined by the contract. Their importance
derives from the importance of the public markets.

Thus, the company gives its estimate on operational budgets, its guarantee on the quality of air
conditioning and well-being in the buildings, on the maintenance of the materials which are entrusted to
them and the compliance with the code of practice. It implements the means that it judges necessary, as
it is needed, until obtaining the contracted result.

Whereas a contract of means can be of low duration, the contract of results can be only a contract of
long duration. Indeed the guarantee of the results implies a perfect knowledge of the installations but
also, very often, significant investments in time for the knowledge, commissioning and adjustment of
the installations. A contract of results is incontestably the form which it is advisable to give to a
technical management contract when there are, by nature, expensive and complex air conditioning
installations.

4.5 Regulatory structure and market transformation at the wider international level
Minimum efficiency standards and energy labelling in the USA
The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has implemented its ‘Energy Star’ voluntary award-style
energy label for central air-conditioners and heat pumps that satisfy minimum energy performance criteria.
Presently labelling is not the main means of action on the market of central systems because it has a low
impact and that Minimum performance Standards and building codes are more efficient in influencing CAC
efficiency in the US .
As described in Chapter 2, most AC equipment must attain a minimum EER and/or SEER level prescribed
by the USDOE to be allowed for sale on the US market. Minimum energy performance standards (MEPS)
are the main energy efficiency policy option presently being implemented in the US for AC systems.
However, as central air-conditioning systems are designed and installed on-site by professionals policy
measures which address the overall quality and energy efficiency of the system design are also required, as
described below.

ASHRAE 90.1: a comprehensive approach to raise CAC energy efficiency

The objective of the ASHRAE 90.1 standard (ANSI/ASHRAE/IESNA 90.1-1999) on the
‘Energy efficient design of new buildings except low-rise residential buildings’ is to “provide minimum
requirements for the energy-efficient design” of commercial buildings. It does not apply to low-rise
residential buildings, which are covered under the ASHRAE 90.2 standard. The 90.1 standard provides:

35
(a) minimum energy-efficiency requirements for the design and construction of; 1. New buildings and their
systems, 2. New portions of buildings and their systems, and 3. New systems and equipment in existing
buildings.
(b) criteria for determining compliance with these requirements.
The provisions of the standard apply to:
(a) the envelope of buildings provided that the enclosed spaces are: 1. heated by a heating system whose
output capacity is greater than or equal to 3.4 Btu//h*ft2 (10W/m2), or 2. cooled by a cooling system whose
sensible output capacity is greater than or equal to 5 Btu/h * ft-2 (15 W/m2);
(b) the following systems and equipment used in conjunction with buildings: 1. heating, ventilating, and air
conditioning, 2. service water heating, 3. electric power distribution and metering provisions, 4. electric
motors and belt drives, and 5. lighting.
Moreover, Standard 90.1 focuses on comfort conditioning rather than industrial, manufacturing, or
commercial processes. Note, too, that the stated purpose of the standard is to provide minimum
requirements; a designer or owner can always exceed these basic conditions for compliance.
The latest version of Standard 90.1 which was issued in 1999 has several differences from the previous 1989
version. It has been reorganised for ease of use, such that the new standard clarifies requirements and
provides a simplified compliance path for small commercial buildings. More importantly, the 1999 edition
expands the standard's scope to include both new and existing buildings and building systems. For alterations
and additions, the 90.1 User's Manual notes that, “In general, the Standard only applies to building systems
and equipment…that are being replaced.” A life-cycle-cost analysis was used to define the criteria in the
1999 edition and thereby balance energy efficiency with economic reality.
Standard 90.1—1999 addresses building components and systems that affect energy usage. The technical
sections of the standard, Sections 5 through 10, specifically address components of the building envelope,
HVAC systems and equipment, service water heating, power, lighting, and motors. Each technical section
contains general requirements and mandatory provisions; some sections also include prescriptive and
performance requirements.
To comply with Standard 90.1—1999, the prospective design must first satisfy the general requirements and
mandatory provisions of each technical section. But that's not all. The design must either (a) fulfil additional
prescriptive and performance requirements described in each technical section or (b) satisfy the energy cost
budget (ECB) method.
The ECB method permits tradeoffs between building systems (lighting and fenestration, for example) if the
annual energy cost estimated for the proposed design does not exceed the annual energy cost of a base design
that fulfils the prescriptive requirements. Using the ECB approach requires simulation software that can
analyse building energy consumption and model the energy features of the proposed design. Standard 90.1
sets minimum requirements for the simulation software. Suitable programs include BLAST, DOE-2, and
TRACE™.
Energy-conscious comfort in ASHRAE 90.1
The present HVAC section of Standard 90.1, Section 6, has been substantially reorganised compared with
the 1989 edition. HVAC-related requirements are presented in order of complexity, beginning with the
simplest and most common design obligations. Because the HVAC section is 21 pages only the key
requirements are summarised here. Section 6 of ASHRAE/IESNA 90.1—1999 describes mandatory and
prescriptive requirements for commercial heating, ventilating, and air-conditioning systems. It also defines
three methods for compliance:
1. A Prescriptive Path, which comprises mandatory provisions and prescriptive requirements
2. An Energy Cost Budget method, which combines mandatory provisions and a computerised methodology
that permits tradeoffs between various building systems and components

36
3. A Simplified Approach option, which consists of a subset of all mandatory provisions and prescriptive
requirements
For small buildings, the “simplified approach” consolidates the provisions on roughly two pages so that
design professionals can quickly locate all applicable requirements. The difference lies in ease of use and the
degree of flexibility allowed. Eligibility for this approach requires that the building occupy less than 25000
sq ft of gross floor area and not more than two stories. Another prerequisite (there are others) is that each air-
cooled or evaporatively-cooled HVAC system serves only one zone.

Mandatory HVAC Provisions in ASHRAE 90.1

Mandatory requirements for HVAC systems include mechanical equipment efficiencies, controls,
construction, insulation, and completion. These requirements are an integral part of every compliance path.
Mechanical equipment efficiency. The 1999 standard upgrades the minimum efficiency requirements for
many types of HVAC equipment and adds efficiency requirements for heat-rejection equipment, ground-
source heat pumps, and absorption chillers. Standard 90.1—1999 also provides tables for centrifugal chillers
selected at non-standard conditions (leaving chilled water temperatures, entering condenser water
temperatures, or condenser water flow rates). For equipment covered under the previous edition, the 1999
standard allowed the 1989 efficiencies to apply until October 29, 2001, Table 4.3.

Table 4.3. Summary of the revised of ASHRAE 90.1 energy performance requirements

Equipment Type Per90.1—1989 After29-Oct-2001 Test Procedure

Rooftop air conditioner, 8.5EER 9.7EER ARI340/360
15tons
Water-source heat pump, 9.3EER (85°FEWT) 12.0 EER (86°FEWT) ARI320d(ARI/ISO-13256-
4tons (cooling mode) 1after29-Oct-2001)
Water-cooled screw chiller, 3.80 COP 3.90 IPLV 4.45 COP 4.50 IPLV ARI590
125tons
Water-cooled centrifugal 5.20 COP 5.30 IPLV 6.10 COP 6.10 IPLV ARI550
chiller, 300tons
In the case of centrifugal chillers, both the full-load COP and IPLV must be 6.10 SI or better, that is 0.576
kW/ton or less [kW/ton figure of merit = 3.516/COP, with COP in W/W].
Controls. The 1999 standard also contains extensive HVAC control requirements regarding deadbands,
restrictions for set-point overlap, and off-hour controls. Stipulations for off-hour controls include all of the
following:
1. Shutoff damper controls that automatically close when the systems or spaces served are not in use (these
dampers must also satisfy a maximum allowable leakage rate.)
2. Zone isolation capabilities that permit areas of the building to continue operating while others are shut
down
3. Automatic shutdown
4. Setback controls
5. Optimum start controls after the system airflow exceeds 10000 cfm
Construction, insulation, and completion. Mandatory HVAC requirements also address construction (duct
sealing, leakage tests) and insulation of ducts and piping. Climate and placement dictate insulation
requirements for ducts. For piping, the requirements depend on pipe location and the operating temperature
range of the fluid.
Drawings, manuals, and a narrative of the system operation must be supplied to the building owner, which
makes a lot of sense. Even if an engineer designs a great system, it's unlikely that energy savings will accrue
if the operator doesn't know how the system should work.

37
The standard also addresses balancing for air systems larger than 1 hp and for hydronic systems larger than
10 hp. It further requires control elements to be calibrated, adjusted and in proper working condition for
buildings that exceed 50000 sq ft.

Additional prescriptive HVAC requirements

Under the Prescriptive Path, a prospective HVAC design must satisfy specific prescriptive requirements in
addition to the mandatory provisions reviewed above.
Economisers (automated free cooling). Climate and equipment size dictate the prescriptive requirements for
airside and waterside economisers. The economiser must also be integrated, that is, capable of operating in
conjunction with mechanical cooling. In addition, the pressure drop of the waterside economiser must be less
than 15 feet of water or a secondary loop must be created to avoid its pressure drop altogether when the
economiser is not in use.
An economiser can be omitted from unitary equipment if its performance is efficient enough. For example,
the requirement for a 20-ton rooftop air conditioner in Tucson, which has 6921 Cooling Design Days—base
50 (CDD50), is an EER of 9.7. If the EER of the selected rooftop air conditioner is 11.1 in US units, i.e. 2.8
SI or better, an economiser is unnecessary.
Simultaneous heating and cooling. Although the 1999 standard limits this practice, it does not ban
simultaneous heating and cooling. Exceptions provide sufficient flexibility to maintain either temperature or
humidity control. For example, unlimited reheat is permitted if at least 75 percent of the reheat energy
originates from a site-recovered or on-site solar energy source. Such provisions should increase the
popularity of heat-recovery designs that salvage heat from the condenser in an applied chilled-water system
or a desuperheater in a direct-expansion system.
Air system design and control. Fan power limitations, now expressed in terms of nameplate power, must be
met when the total fan power for the system exceeds 5 hp (about 3.6 kW). The 1999 standard increases the
power allowance to compensate for pressure increases imposed by specific filtration or heat-recovery devices
and when the supply-air temperature is less than 55°F.
Fans of 30 hp and larger must use less than 30 percent of design power at 50 percent of design air volume
and at one-third of the total design static pressure. This requirement will almost certainly prompt increased
use of variable-speed drives or vaneaxial fans in systems of this size.
Another notable addition to this set of prescriptive requirements is the following:
Set Point Reset. For systems with direct digital control of individual zoned boxes reporting to the central
control panel, static pressure set point shall be reset based on the zone requiring the most pressure; i.e. the set
point is reset lower until one zone damper is nearly wide open.
Also known as fan-pressure optimisation, the basic premise of set point reset is that the static-pressure set
point can be reduced dynamically, which lets energy savings accrue rapidly.
Hydronic system design and control. Like the fan on the air side of the system, the 1999 standard requires
that the pump in a variable-flow system draws substantially less power at part load. Unless there are three or
fewer control valves in the system, each pump with a head greater than 100 feet and a motor larger than 50
hp must include a means for reducing electrical demand to 30 percent of design power at 50 percent of
design water flow. This requirement will undoubtedly prompt greater use of variable-speed drives.
Supply-temperature reset is required, too—but not for variable-flow systems nor where it “…cannot be
implemented without causing improper operation of heating, cooling, humidifying, or dehumidifying
systems.”
Heat-rejection equipment. For heat-rejection equipment such as cooling towers, the fan must be able to
reduce its speed to two-thirds or less if its motor is 7.5 hp or larger. Beyond this power limit, a cooling tower
with less than two cells must be equipped to reduce fan speed on all cells — perhaps with pony motors, two-

38
speed motors, or variable-speed drives. If the cooling tower has three cells, at least two of them must be
equipped with speed control.
Energy recovery. Systems larger than 5000 cfm that bring in lots of outdoor air (at least 70 percent of design
airflow) must include energy recovery; the means of recovery must be at least 50-percent effective. This
proviso will probably lead to the increased use of energy recovery in air handlers dedicated to ventilation,
particularly in retrofit applications in which ventilation airflow is brought into compliance with
ANSI/ASHRAE 62.1.
Exceptions to this airside requirement include (but are not limited to) series-style energy recovery and
systems in which the largest exhaust air stream is less than 75 percent of design outdoor airflow.
Heat recovery for service water heating is required in facilities that operate 24 hours a day, where the heat
rejection capacity exceeds 6 million Btu/h, and where the service-water heating load exceeds 1 million Btu/h.

Continuous maintenance of the ASHRAE standard

As a continuous-maintenance standard, ASHRAE/IESNA 90.1 remains a dynamic document. Rather than
periodic updates (every five years, for example), committee members can request changes to the standard at
any time. Public proposals submitted by February 20 are considered at the ASHRAE annual meeting (usually
held in June). If the committee sees merit in a proposed change, it issues an addendum for public review and
comment. When consensus is reached, the addendum is incorporated in the standard.

Links between an ASHRAE standard and the US Energy Codes

The US Energy Policy Act or EPAct (P.L. 102-486) requires states to certify that their energy codes meet or
exceed the requirements of ASHRAE Standard 90.1—1989. EPAct also requires that the U.S. Department of
Energy (DOE) evaluate subsequent revisions of Standard 90.1 to determine whether they improve energy
efficiency in commercial buildings. The U.S. DOE posted the results of its quantitative analysis on its Web
site, www.eren.doe.gov, in a report entitled ‘Commercial Buildings Determinations — Explanation of the
Analysis and Spreadsheet’. The report observes that “Overall, considering those differences that can be
reasonably quantified, the 1999 edition [of ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1] will increase the energy
efficiency of commercial buildings.”
In fact, both the report and SSPC 90.1, the ASHRAE committee responsible for maintaining the standard,
acknowledge that application of the revised standard will not necessarily increase efficiency for all building
types or for all components and systems compared with the 1989 standard. In some instances, the 1989
standard was either unjustifiably stringent (in the case of metal roofs, for example) from a cost standpoint or
did not adequately reflect real-world conditions (in the case of warehouse lighting). Note that the simulation
is done for the entire change of standard from one version to another and that it is not possible to separate out
the impacts which are solely due to changes in the AC requirements.
Estimates of the aggregate impact of the new standard at the national level are derived from energy use
intensities (EUI) developed through simulations of the building stock under each edition of the standard.
Aggregation of the energy use intensities produced by the simulations was done as follows: 1) extract zone-
based energy use intensities from simulations; 2) aggregate results by required economiser usage in each
climate; 3) map simulation results by climate 4) scale simulation results to existing building stock floor area
by building type and region; 5) weight results for frame and mass wall construction ; 6) weight results for
heating fuel 7) convert energy use intensities by fuel type to site energy, source energy, and energy cost
intensities; 8) weight energy use intensity results by building construction floor area estimates. Table 4.4
shows the estimated energy savings from application of the revised standards ASHRAE/IESNA 90.1—1999

Table 4.4. Percentage Change in Whole-Building Energy Use Intensity (EUI) and Dollars Use Intensity ($UI) through application of
ASHRAE/IESNA 90.1—1999

Building Type Floor Area Electricity Gas Site EUI Source EUI $UI (USD)
Weighting
Assembly 0.068 9.5% -5.3% 4.4% 7.2% 7.5

39
Education 0.218 11.4% -6.3% 5.2% 8.6% 9.0
Food 0.027 -1.2% 1.7% -0.4% -0.8% -0.9
Lodging 0.079 0.2% -6.5% -1.7% -0.6% -0.5
Office 0.190 10.6% -12.7% 8.2% 9.7% 9.8
Retail 0.246 15.7% -30.7% 12.7% 14.7% 14.9
Warehouse 0.173 -71.6% -11.3% -45.1% -58.7% -59.7
National 1.000 7.3% -8.6% 3.9% 5.9% 6.2

Australia, Japan, Korea and Taiwan

All of these countries have adopted minimum energy efficiency requirements for central air conditioning
equipment as follows:
Australia
Australia has adopted a policy of applying the world’s most stringent MEPS as their national requirements.
They have introduced MEPS for packaged air conditioners with cooling capacity between 7.5 kW and 65
kW. At the same time the Australian government assessed the requirements. The most stringent MEPS being
applied internationally were found to be the US ASHRAE 90.1-1989 requirements and the current Australian
requirement are loosely based on these, see Table 4.5. Australia currently has no MEPS for chillers and has
no energy labelling requirements for packaged air conditioners. Australian test standards for packaged AC
units are compatible with ISO and European test standards.
Table 4.5. Minimum energy performance requirements for packaged air conditioners with a cooling capacity
between 7.5 and 65 kW in Australia

Cooling Capacity Minimum cooling

(kW) COP (W/W)
7.6-10.0 2.25
10.1-12.5 2.30
12.6-15.5 2.35
15.6-18.0 2.40
18.1-25.0 2.45
25.1-30.0 2.50
30.1-37.5 2.55
37.6-45.0 2.60
45.1-65.0 2.65

Japan
Japan has adopted the “Top Runner” policy under which quasi-mandatory minimum energy performance
requirements are set at a level corresponding to the most efficient equipment on the market at the time the
requirements are developed. Thus far Japan has developed the following requirements for central AC
systems:

Table 4.6. Minimum energy performance requirements for unitary air conditioners with a cooling capacity
between 7 and 28 kW in Japan

AC type Minimum EER or COP (W/W) Date of application

Unitary AC (cooling only) 2.88 2004
Unitary AC (heating and cooling) 3.06 = (EER+COP)/2 2004

40
These requirements apply to all unitary (i.e. packaged) AC equipment within the specified cooling capacity
range and hence applies to large room AC units, multi-splits, VRF units and classical packaged systems
(rooftops and cabinets). Japanese test conditions for packaged AC units are mostly compatible with ISO and
European test standards. As yet there are no measures for chillers and there are no labelling requirements for
this kind of AC equipment.
Korea
Korea only has MEPS in place for unitary split-packaged AC units of between 10 and 17.5 kW in cooling
capacity. These are required to attain a mandatory minimum EER of 2.25 W/W, but in addition the
government expects manufacturers to attain a minimum sales-weighted efficiency level of 2.93 W/W. As yet
there are no measures for larger packaged units or chillers and there are no labelling requirements for this
kind of AC equipment.
Taiwan
Taiwan has implemented the following MEPS for chillers since January 1st 2003 (Table 4.7). Taiwanese test
conditions for chiller units are compatible with ISO and European test standards.
Table 4.7. Minimum energy performance requirements for chillers in Taiwan

Type of chiller EER COP Cooling

capacity range
(kW)
Water-cooled chillers (volumetric compressors) 3.01 3.50 <528
Water-cooled chillers (volumetric compressors) 3.10 3.60 528 to <1760
Water-cooled chillers (volumetric compressors) 3.44 4.00 >1760
Water-cooled chillers (centrifugal type) 3.70 4.30 <528
Water-cooled chillers (centrifugal type) 4.10 4.73 528 to <1760
Water-cooled chillers (centrifugal type) 4.51 5.25 >1760
Water-cooled chillers (volumetric compressors) 2.06 2.40 all

4.6 Choices and measures which could increase the efficiency of CAC systems
Measures which could increase globally the efficiency of CAC
Among the dominant types of CAC, some are known for their better Energy Efficiency. One way of
improving EE is to promote some specific system types. We have discarded such an option, but we have
assembled the information about the performance difference among the dominant 18 types :
N° Type Observation Terminal Comfort System
equipment level

1 CAC Air cooled chillers FCU+1air TC Air Cooled with water distribution
2 CAC Air cooled chillers CAV/AHU TC Air Cooled with air distribution
3 CAC Air cooled chillers CAV/AHU TAC Air Cooled with air +humidity control
4 CAC Cooling towers FCU+1air TC Water Cooled + water dist.(cooling)
5 CAC Cooling towers CAV/AHU TC Water Cooled with air dist.(cooling)
6 CAC Cooling towers CAV/AHU TAC Water Cooled +air +hum.(cooling)
7 CAC Natural Water FCU+1air TC Outside water + water dist
8 CAC Natural Water CAV/AHU TC Outside water + air dist
9 CAC Natural Water CAV/AHU TAC Outside water +air +hum
10 CAC Natural Water FCU+1air TC TWO LOOPS + CHILLER
11 CAC Natural Water Package TC VRF

41
 12 CAC Natural Water Package TC PACK&SPlarge
13 CAC Natural Water Package TC Roof tops
14 CAC Water cooled RAC+1air TC RACs on one loop
RAC
15 RAC Air cooled RAC RAC+1air TC Multi Splits
16 RAC Air cooled RAC RAC+1air TC Splits
17 RAC Air cooled RAC RAC+1air TC Small packages
18 RAC Air cooled RAC RAC+1air TC Single Ducts

Primary air (1air) has been added here to each non air based system, for equality of comfort. In fact it is only
installed in some situations.

Technical measures which could increase the efficiency of CAC systems

There are a large range of technical measures which can lower the energy demand of CAC systems without
changing the systems themselves as listed by type below.
Chillers circuits and control

CH1 Optimisation of cost/efficiency at full load (some threshold on accepted EER)

CH2 Optimisation of cost/efficiency at part load (some threshold on accepted IPLV)
CH3 Stable cold source at good temperature (river, aquifer)
CH4 Multi-speed strategies & swept volume control
CH5 Variable speed strategies (inverters)
CH6 Improved effectiveness of the tower, selection of fillings flow rates
CH7 Optimal loading of stages
CH8 Sharing of load among chillers & loading of chillers (when various)
CH9 Optimal control of cooling tower for low auxiliaries and lowest cost effective condensing
temperature
CH10 Free cooling integrated into the chiller
CH11 Reduction of power of cooling tower under a simpler form than CH9

Motors and fans

V1 Motor Eff. 2
V2 Motor Eff. 1
V3 Selection of fans characteristic curves and the pressure control
V4 Improved local tangential ventilator
V5 Improved fans on condensers, AHU,
V6 Better filters Classic option in design
V7 Less pressure drop in all parts
V8 Variable speed In some way
V9 Feasibility of local stopping of each electrical motor
V10 Feasibility of central stopping of each electrical motor by BEMS

Design & Sizing

D&S1 Decentralised system banned over a certain limit
D&S2 Over-sizing banned, some under-sizing acceptable
D&S3 Quality of the service of "sizing" (for example search for alternatives, sizing of fans, Minimum LCC
design)
D&S4 Optimisation of multi-zone sizing & prohibition of cold & hot mixing
D&S5 Sizing by full plant simulation
D&S6 Regulation threshold is in primary energy, giving to electricity a weight close to its price
D&S7 Regulation is expressed in terms of carbon intensity, giving to electricity a weight close to its GW
impact

42
D&S8 Careful organisation of set points and control dead bands since design
D&S9 Automatic adjustment of pressures planned from design

Operation & Maintenance

O&M1 Recording energy consumption
O&M2 Monitoring energy consumption with a BEMS
O&M3 Obligation to install a device allowing to measure temperature in each zone
O&M4 Optimisation of the change of the filters
O&M5 Cleaning of condensing coils
O&M6 Cleaning of evaporating coils
O&M7 Optimal scheduling of M4-M6
O&M8 Fine tuning of controls, namely through BEMS
O&M9 Fault detection systematic thanks to BEMS
O&M10 Contract of controlled service (which criterion?)
O&M11 Performance Contracting
O&M12 Balancing planned in design
O&M13 Operation manual written by designer and transferred to operator

Decentralised system : Packages, rooftops, RAC, etc. used for homogeneous zones
PACK1 Local Free cooling
PACK2 Changing control set-points (T,RH)
PACK3 Reversibility (local heat pump)
PACK4 Optimisation of cost/efficiency at full load (some threshold on accepted EER)

System based on water distribution

WS1 Control on the returns at 7/12
WS2 Moving to 8/14 on departure
WS3 Moving to 8/16 on departure
WS4 Variable temperature on departures
WS5 Variable temperature on returns
WS6 Circuiting of chillers, "decoupling", variable speed in distribution
WS7 Improved pumps
WS8 Pipes insulation reinforced
WS9 Less head losses, use of surfactants
WS10 Better control of FCU
WS11 Cold ceilings/ Beams/ Slabs
WS12 Reversibility
WS13 Water side free cooling

System with circulation of refrigerant SCR

SCR 1 Optimisation of cost/efficiency at full load (some threshold on accepted EER)
SCR2 Local free cooling
SCR3 Reversible MS
SCR4 Moving to the VRF (compression benefits) in MS
SCR5 Optimal distribution of flows by electronic unit in VRF
SCR6 Reversible behaviour of the VRF 2 pipes
SCR7 Reversible behaviour of the VRF 3 pipes
SCR8 Changing control set-points (T,RH)

Equipment for air handling

AS1 Central Free cooling

43
AS2 Smaller % of outside air
AS3 VAV
AS4 Better fans in AHU
AS5 Application of Eurovent specifications for AHUs (less leakage, more insulation)
AS6 Cost effective AHU
AS7 Optimised blowing temperature (10-16 °C)
AS8 Quality of the moisture control system Seems critical for energy consumption
AS9 Correction of the poor multi-zone efficiency of Air Systems
AS10 Sensor of occupancy and other "demand controlled" ventilation
AS11 Central heat/cold Recovery within the HVAC system
AS12 "Displacement" strategy by use of stratification of the rooms (low inlet speeds) or by other
displacement strategies
AS13 The air flow follows the hygienic demand and has not a minimum value over the minimal hygienic
demand
AS14 Prohibition and successive cooling & reheating
AS15 Ducts insulation and leakage limitation
AS16 Existence of an A/C stopping & controlling possibility in each zone
AS17 Ventilation should be in cascade among rooms
AS18 Reversibility by use of the same chiller as a heat pump
AS19 Recovery of heat for DHW

Systems with water and air

AWS1 Improved control of classic system
AWS2 Ejector improved allowing blowing temp. at 18°C
AWS3 Cold ceilings/ Beams/ Slabs + additional system by air
AW4 "Displacement" equipment
AWS5 Reversibility

Systems with water loop

WL1 Optimisation of cost/efficiency at full load (some threshold on accepted EER)

Building envelope improvement

B1 Better insulation of building for winter purposes
B2 Threshold on maximum size of cooling zone in building codes
B3 Access doors France : automatic closing after passage
B4 Control of solar input through openings
B5 Shading of facades
B6 Lower electricity for lighting
B7 Lower electricity for office equipment
B8 Night time over-ventilation
B9 Ventilation requirements closer to minimum

Comfort conditions : changing the rules of the game

C1 Better adaptation to occupation of zones
C2 Adapted cooling, depending on outside temperature
C3 Occupation sensors, like CO2
C4 Ventilation sensors, like window opening
C5 Quality level

Alternative Equipment strategies

E1 District or block cooling

44
E2 Absorption or mixed strategies
E3 Cool storage
E4 Use of condenser to heat DHW
E5 "double dividend strategies" based on a higher efficiency of office equipment and lighting leading to
lower AC loads
E6 Evaporative cooling
E7 Dessicant cooling
E8 Natural cooling from cooling tower

Synthesis of policy measures to raise the efficiency of CAC systems

The study group experts, literature and country reports have highlighted a number of different "philosophies"
to approach CAC energy efficiency. In broad terms the measures to improve CAC energy efficiency are
classifiable into seven main types as follows:

First type: selection of more efficient components by whoever decides

An examination of CAC energy efficiency performance data from all directories and in all product classes
(not only RAC and chillers, but big cabinets, rooftops, etc.) reveals that the more efficient products on the
market are always +20-50% better than the average. A greater deployment of higher efficiency CAC
components can be achieved through measures addressing tradable goods like MEPS (or equivalent VA) or
information to the final customer if he/she has an influence on the chain of decisions. Presently the selection
of equipment is made by professionals based on the initial cost per kWc or, in a few cases, based on rated
EER although ideally it should be based on a SEER (or IPLV) rating.

Second type: choice of the best general structure of the system

Within RACs on one hand and CAC on the other, there are families or types that have different average
efficiency. For RAC the extremes in average equipment efficiency by equipment type are typically at -15%
and +15% of the average level (for instance splits are typically more efficient than packages); for CAC the
potential seems larger. The gains resulting from optimising the choice of the best system type can only be
obtained through requirements in building codes or through equivalent voluntary agreements. It is part of
EECCAC terms of reference to define what can be reasonably included in building codes. Such structural
changes are more difficult to realise than changes of the first category (individual equipment efficiency) or
changes from the third category (control and detailed design) because they may affect the rules of
competition.

Third type: improvement of the detailed structure of the system and control options
For air and water centralised systems there are other potential gains in the detailed layout of the system
which can be relatively high (e.g. making use of "free cooling"). These gains are not completely attainable
through building codes, but mostly through good engineering work. They are also partly related to the type
of equipment, the existence of dampers, controllers, etc. (see ASHRAE 90.1). There are also savings related
to efficiency of fans selected, variable speed options and the quality of control. The EECCAC study has to
review these options and present them in a structured way. Realisation of these savings could be either
obtained by prescriptive way (rules of good design) or through improved methodology (apply a check list
and a LCC criterion) or a mix (as in the ASHRAE standard).

Fourth type: reversible use of the system

For all centralised air and water systems there are other potential gains in winter which can be relatively high
since AC plants are nothing else than installed heat pumps. However such reversibility options are poorly
known, infrequently realised and not very well controlled. Condenser heat recovery is better known and
documented, although not prescribed.

Fifth type: maintenance and operation improved

45
The gains reported in the previous types will only be achieved over the long term therefore the maintenance
or improvement of performance, by technical measures or contractual means (such as Energy Performance
Contracting) or by periodic audit, is an interesting family of options.

Sixth type: energy and power control

Gains related to the reduction of peak power, as opposed to energy consumption, should not be overlooked
especially, as some data show, there is a significant pressure on utilities investment to cope with peak
demand up to 2010. The energy consumption allowing peak power management may be a little higher, but
shaped completely differently and thus can make the whole energy system more efficient. This could not be
investigated in the EECCAC study because it was outside the scope of the study.

Seventh type: envelope and ventilation, other measures

Energy efficiency measures concerning raising of the thermal efficiency of the building envelope and or of
the ventilation system are outside the scope of this study. However, building envelope and ventilation
choices made to minimise winter demand (insulation and air tightness) and, even more, the choices made to
minimise summer demand (solar control, night time ventilation) have a large influence on AC energy
demand. Measures taken to lower the specific electricity consumption in lighting or office equipment have a
very large "double dividend" in avoided air conditioning. The regulatory approach used in Switzerland is to
state that, generally speaking, efforts made to improve the energy performance of the building envelope and
ventilation system can avoid the need for most artificial air conditioning.

46
47
5. PROJECTIONS TO YEARS 2010 AND 2020 (BAU SCENARIO)

5.1 AC Stock and market in 1990, 1998, 2010 and 2020

A base case scenario (Business As Usual) has been defined in order to analyse the technical and
economical potential of single or combined policy measures in several alternative energy efficiency
scenarios. So the BAU scenario is based on an absence of any policy measure. The year 2010 has been
chosen as a reporting reference point due to the Kyoto deadline. Results are also reported up to the year
2020. Projections into the past have been mostly done for 1998 and 2000 but also back to 1990 for
consistency with the terms of the Kyoto convention.

Evolution of the market

As previously described, the extrapolations were based on 1998 figures and national evolution trends.
Validation of the results projected into the past were limited to the most reliable comparisons i.e. through
comparison with the national market data obtained from the country reports and through comparison with
national stock data when they are based on national surveys at the sectoral level. The model was primed
using: the market data from Eurovent for 1998, and the historical data on national market and stock sizes for
the years 1975 to 1990.
The air conditioned areas installed in each country, namely the AC stock, is not an easy figure to give by
country : one of the problem being the definition itself of an area effectively cooled, another one the
obtention of data. The present sectoral and general AC saturation levels were compared with the current
saturation levels found in the USA (from the CEBCS study from the US DOE), Table 5.1. It was then
assumed that the EU saturation levels would obtain current US levels by 2020 in the South and intermediate
values were generated through extrapolation for the Northern part of the EU.

2
Table 5.1. AC saturation coverage levels used in the EECCAC study (cooled floor area (m )/total building
2
floor area (m ))

Hospitals Hotels bars Offices Trade Residential Schools Average

North (Others) 30 % 50 % 50 % 50 % 10 % 10 % 17 %
USA=EU-South (I, E, EL,P) 81 % 75 % 83 % 70 % 20 % 62 % 32 %
France 55 % 62 % 66 % 60 % 15 % 35 % 24 %
Co-ordinator + USDOE

CAC extrapolation is performed with an empirical function giving the yearly market in terms of the ratio:
x = Stock at present time /stock at time(infinity)

This choice makes it possible to represent the takeoff and the saturation of the market by one single equation.
In fact the AC saturation levels are very different from one sector to another: for example, in Austria the
hospitals are air-conditioned but the houses are not, etc. However there is not enough data to model each
sector. The residential sector, which was already treated in the EERAC study, has not been remodelled here
and the other economic sectors (hospitals, hotels & bars, offices, trade, houses, education) are modelled as if
they followed the same "learning curve", even if the starting point and the final saturation level (at time
infinity) are different from one sector to another. The distribution of AC by sector is estimated by the
reconciliation of the projected data with the national data and then applying time invariant AC stock sharing
coefficients by sector and by AC type.
For the past the model extrapolates back to 1970 to generate stocks for the periods 1970-75, 1975-80, etc...
which will be renewed 15 years later when the AC equipment is removed. The overall growth in the size of
the stock is the difference between the apparent market and level of renewal.

48
The stocks are obtained by integration of the apparent markets extrapolated (into the past) and by simulation
and integration of the annual true markets (apparent market minus renewal of existing AC) into the future.

Some global results

The total cooled area is given in Figure 5.1 and will rise from the present 1000 Million m2 to around 2000
Million m2 in 2010.

Figure 5.1. Evolution of the total cooled floor area in Europe from 1985 to 2020

3000 Mm2 cooled

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0
1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025

The AC stock values can be expressed in many ways, for instance in terms of the cooled area (m2) per
inhabitant as in Figure 5.2.

Figure 5.2. Cooled area per European in 2000 by Member State and for the EU as a whole

m2/inhabitant
7

0
B DK D EL E F IRL I L NL A P FIN S UK EU-15

The RAC stock figures obtained by this method differ from those given in the EERAC study except for the
residential sector where the EERAC figures are used (in terms of kW not m2). The estimated cooled area per
European in the future is shown in Figure 5.3.

49
Figure 5.3. Cooled area per European in 2020 per Member State and for the EU as a whole

m2/inhabitant

18

16

14

12

10

0
B DK D EL E F IRL I L NL A P FIN S UK EU-15

The cooled area "per European" is projected to rise from 3 to 6 square meters over the next 20 years.

Some national results

We can follow national evolutions on figures like figure 5.4. Saturation as well as differentiation
between countries appear with their real importance.

Figure 5.4. Evolution of cooled-floor area from1985 to 2020 at the national level

Mm2 cooled
600

500

400

Spain
Italy
France
300
Germany
Greece
Portugal

200

100

0
1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025
Years

We propose to the reader Table 5.2 with the most important national values, because this may be a useful
tool in some national frameworks. However we have to comment accounting methods. The stock has been
estimated through national surveys and by integration over time (with due replacement rates) of a few
Eurovent market data available to us. All conditioned areas hereunder are « standardised » areas,
corresponding to the typical European sizing ratio (120 W/m2 for CAC, 240 W/m2 for RAC). No country
has exact statistics of conditioned areas, but some are close to it. The values hereunder cannot be compared
directly to such « national » statistics for two reasons:
1- the sizing ratios vary according to climate, national habits, sector, etc. (this has been partly corrected for)

50
2- which area is conditioned when a building is air conditioned is usually uncertain : the gross area of the
building? Certainly less! The strict area of activity rooms? Certainly more! (lobbies, adjacent rooms, etc.); so
both our “standardised” figures and the national figures have a margin of uncertainty and should be
compared with caution.

Table 5.2 Area conditioned in each country and year (such areas can be compared with national statistics)

Years
Country 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
2
AU Mm cooling 12,01 15,68 20,06 26,29 30,29 33,01 33,95
Mm² reverse 1,45 2,06 2,74 4,83 5,57 6,08 6,27
2
BE Mm cooling 4,03 8,98 20,36 32,41 42,77 52,09 54,29
Mm² reverse 0,84 1,84 4,03 6,46 8,43 10,24 10,73
2
DE Mm cooling 3,78 6,62 11,30 19,92 29,24 37,57 42,30
Mm² reverse 0,70 1,35 2,50 4,12 6,01 7,72 8,69
2
FI Mm cooling 15,88 24,06 36,43 43,28 47,28 50,19 50,99
Mm² reverse 1,35 2,28 3,71 7,49 8,21 8,74 8,89
2
FR Mm cooling 93,40 129,39 180,37 293,24 390,57 472,24 502,39
Mm² reverse 32,79 45,84 64,98 106,59 141,52 171,24 182,61
2
GE Mm cooling 34,07 66,29 127,64 216,74 298,51 365,63 400,13
Mm² reverse 4,88 9,54 18,81 30,61 41,65 51,09 56,23
2
GR Mm cooling 11,04 23,06 48,23 80,47 108,97 140,88 145,99
Mm² reverse 5,29 11,17 23,65 40,07 54,24 70,12 72,68
2
IR Mm cooling 5,03 6,81 9,37 13,84 17,07 19,39 20,37
Mm² reverse 0,75 1,08 1,78 2,30 2,83 3,22 3,41
2
IT Mm cooling 130,85 175,63 258,76 368,74 414,88 450,33 467,85
Mm² reverse 29,22 43,81 73,26 106,86 120,93 132,38 138,18
2
LU Mm cooling 0,25 0,43 0,87 1,34 1,76 2,07 2,20
Mm² reverse 0,07 0,10 0,17 0,26 0,35 0,40 0,43
2
NE Mm cooling 22,25 39,02 66,88 87,71 101,28 110,49 113,62
Mm² reverse 1,84 3,55 6,50 12,17 14,03 15,38 15,89
2
PO Mm cooling 8,46 12,51 18,73 34,84 52,08 68,41 78,27
Mm² reverse 4,67 7,27 11,25 18,47 27,53 36,11 41,31
2
SP Mm cooling 64,24 102,68 172,69 248,07 295,71 342,20 352,20
Mm² reverse 34,61 56,66 97,11 136,02 161,33 186,01 191,57
2
SW Mm cooling 38,41 53,26 69,38 78,17 83,23 87,28 88,21
Mm² reverse 4,08 6,14 8,74 14,90 15,88 16,68 16,92
2
UK Mm cooling 94,29 127,63 173,15 248,36 294,19 326,80 340,28
Mm² reverse 14,17 20,41 31,06 43,81 51,73 57,87 61,07
Total Mm² cooling 538,01 792,07 1214,23 1793,42 2207,83 2558,59 2693,04
Total Mm² reverse 136,71 213,10 350,28 534,96 660,23 773,29 814,88

The differences are very small on total between the two types of figures (standardised or not) but not for a
specific country. Only the “standardised” values are used in the rest of the present report.

Sectoral market
The evolution of the various economic sectors and their demand for comfort vary a lot (figure 5.5). Only
trade and offices really grow in relative terms and they may reach 70% of stock by 2020.

Figure 5.5. The evolution of cooled floor-area by EU economic sector from 1985 to 2020

51
 Mm2

2500

2000

1500 education
residences
trade
offices
hotelsbars
1000 hospitals

500

0
Stock 1990 Stock 1995 Stock 2000 Stock 2005 Stock 2010 Stock 2015 Stock 2020

The share between technical systems

In our BAU assumptions (figure 5.6) no factor will influence the evolution of the share of techniques on the
market and the effects of past trends disappear gradually. It may be that a factor of change comes from
individual decisions of millions of citizens and that their demand for comfort (TC vs TAC) varies a lot. This
is also neglected in our analysis because socio-economic research on the subject is scarce.
Figure 5.6. Evolution of cooled floor area provided by each AC type in the EU from 1985 to 2020

COOLED AREA IN Mm2

3000,

2500,

2000

RAC
Rooftops
1500 PACK & Large Split
VRF
Chillers

1000

500

0
Stock 1990 Stock 1995 Stock 2000 Stock 2005 Stock 2010 Stock 2015 Stock 2020

5.2 Computation of energy consumption in European conditions

The main problem in estimating AC energy consumption is that there is very little information available on
the actual in situ use of air-conditioners in the EU. We have to rely on simulations that are made reliable by
the years of experience gained in the US, the care in using them and some validation on a few field results.

52
We have chosen the American DOE model for generating consumption estimates and a summary
explanation of how it is used to conduct the EECCAC system simulations is given now.

Real buildings for the simulation of CAC systems with DOE

A Spanish office building has been analysed then simplified and simulated in details (Figure 5.7a) both for
envelope and equipment. It has an L floor shape and it is basically dedicated to office areas, but includes
other complement uses like cafeteria, medical room and toilets. The cooled area is 4800 m2.

Figure 5.7a The shape of the office building used as main reference.

Offices account for 50% of cooled surfaces in Europe. In order to cover the second most important sector,
Trade, we have simulated a second building. The shopping mall is a real building located in Seville in the old
railway station “Plaza de Armas”. It was rebuilt as a shopping mall after the 1992 Seville Universal
Exhibition. It is composed of shops, restaurants, cinemas, a supermarket, etc.. Figure 5.7b shows a 3D view
of this mall. The cooled area is 12 300 m2.
Figure 5.7b The building used as a secondary reference

Coverage of situations with the DOE software

Main tertiary sectors are covered by the two real buildings: the Office and the Shopping center.
EU climate has been represented by three climates: Seville, London and Milan.

53
Envelope has been adapted to each country construction habits. Insulation cannot be the same in the various
countries. The final decision regarding this matter has been taking the building’s envelope from the
“TRIBU” study of Building Codes (TRIBU, 1994). Basic differences between climates are the following: for
exterior walls insulation thickness varies from 4 cm in Seville to 8 cm in Milan; we have used double glazing
in every climate, but clear in London, low emissive in Milan and low emissive and reflective in Seville.
Thermal comfort and indoor air quality have been guaranteed for every system to allow comparisons.
The simulation covers seven different system types: Constant air volume (CAV), variable air volume (VAV),
Roof-top units (RT), fan-coil four pipes (FC4P) and two pipes (FC2P), package terminal air conditioners
(PTAC) and water to air heat pumps connected to a close condensation loop (WLHP). Every HVAC end use
is covered, namely, fans, pumps, cooling and heating.
Lighting and plug equipment, despite being non HVAC uses, have been also considered because they
generate a large share of the cooling load.
After an exhaustive filtering process, six WS EEO have been studied and ranked. They regard to chilled
water temperature control and water transport. Basic AS EEO have been valued, including air transport
efficiency, air side economiser and exhaust air heat recovery. The results of those simulations is given in the
next chapter.
Some basic remarks have to be kept in mind for central systems:

• They have been designed assuming the same zoning and air distribution. So there is the same number of
AHU's for CAV, VAV and RT. This implies that zone supply air flows are also the same for each
climate.

• Roof-top units are equipped with constant air volume fans.

• Same ventilation level (that is same zone outdoor air flow rate) has been considered. For VAV systems,
the minimum supply setting of each VAV box equals the design outdoor ventilation rate, and, at AHU
level, outdoor flow rate is always maintained constant. This supposes that each central system is always
handling the same amount of outdoor air, however VAV handle a variable supply air flow rate.

• Air transport efficiencies, expressed in terms of specific consumption (W/m3/h) is equal to 0.47 for
constant volume fans (SPF = 1.7 W/(l/s)) and 0.57 for variable volume ones (SPF = 2.05 W/(l/s)). A
variable speed motor is used to control supply flow for VAV.

• Air side economizer and exhaust air heat recovery are not installed when describing the stock CAC
market.
With regards to zonal systems, the following issues should be pointed out:

• One (or some of equal size) terminal unit is installed for each thermal zone.

• Ventilation is guaranteed using a primary air AHU that provides neutral (22 ºC) outdoor air directly to
every building zone. Heat recovery is not used for this AHU.

• Air transport efficiencies, expressed in terms of specific consumption (W/m3/h) equals to 0.15 for FC
and WLHP terminal units. PTAC fan consumption is considered as cooling consumption since
manufacturers' data include this consumption in EER.
For hydronic systems, main remarks follow:

• Chilled water loops provide water at 7 ºC to cooling coils while hot water is supplied at 60 ºC. Water
delta T for cooling and heating are 5 and 10 ºC respectively.

• An air-condensed screw chiller (EER = 2.6) is used to provide chilled water to cooling coils, and a gas
standard hot water boiler (Eff = 0.88) as heat source.

54
• Each primary and secondary water loop is equipped with a constant flow circulation pump. Efficiency
figures may be found in the technical detailed report of Task 5.

• Hydronic system except FC2P supplies chilled and hot water using independent circulation loops (four
pipes facility). The FC4P system has been kept to represent the typical fan coil system.

Adjustment for chiller quality and options not covered in DOE software
We post-processed the results given by DOE2 to make them flexible in terms of selection of a chiller. We
ran a specific program in which the load and climatic conditions remain the same but the quality of the
chiller can be adjusted according to the findings of the techno-economic analysis (next chapter). The post-
processing consists in keeping all the auxiliaries given by DOE, to cover the cooling load with any
alternative chiller, given the outside conditions extracted from the simulation. This also allowed us to
consider the case of wet cooling towers which represent a limited but non negligible share of the market.
Finally we could also consider less frequent solutions that are presented as very efficient as VRV, chiller on
natural water, etc. by extending the post processing.
The sizing of the system has been adapted to each simulated climate (Seville, London, Milano) and so the
three locations do not display the same installed capacity for the same building shape. The building
conditioned area is about 4800 m2 under the form which has been simulated. Note that depending on our
objective we have used the nominal square meter of the building (the one known in national statistics), and
sometimes the standardised m2 when it’s related with consumption (standardised sizing of 120 W/m2).
The two objectives don’t give the same results : nominal conditioned area is 4800 m2 while standardised
areas for cost calculation and stock modelling are respectively 6200, 3200 and 5200 m2 for this same
building in the three climates( SE: 160 W/m2, LO: 80 W/m2, MI : 130 W/m2 –more detailed figures have
been used by system types).

Preliminary results for the cooling consumption of the office building

Dealing with consumption, the main results of the simulation for the two extreme cases (CAV without
humidity control, the one consuming more, RAC with primary air, the one consuming less – with the same
comfort level TAC) are given in Table 5.3. We see the difference in system initial price and the climatic
conditions play a more important role than EER for the final cost of ownership. If the chiller behaves the
same as in Seville, its influence is covered by the role of auxiliaries in London in physical terms (SSEER)
but the cost of the system –and so the cost of the service- becomes very low in London.

Table 5.3 Consumption per physical square meter, cooling demand, efficiencies and total cost of cooling one
square meter of the office building.
Electricity Needs Electricity to Electrici Initial ALCC ALCC ALCC
SSEER
SEER

Per sq. meter SCL compressor ty total Cost In Euros In Euros In Euros
(kWh/m2) kWh/m2 SEC kWh/m2 SSEC kEuros (0,10 (0,06 (0,17
kWh/m2 E/kWh) E/kWh) E/kWh)
Seville-CAV 115,05 59,25 99,26 1,94 1,16 1008 34,86 31,73 40,34
London-CAV 20,82 10,87 32,77 1,92 0,64 528 16,77 15,73 18,60
Milan-CAV 73,53 36,73 70,49 2,00 1,04 848 28,31 26,09 32,20
Seville-RAC 104,02 54,40 58,52 1,91 1,78 382 14,86 13,02 18,09
London-RAC 15,59 7,97 8,39 1,96 1,86 202 6,08 5,82 6,55
Milan-RAC 54,63 26,39 28,53 2,07 1,92 322 11,60 10,42 13,67

The cooling loads are different from one place to another but, since the sizing is not the same, the equivalent
number of hours of operation (load in kWh divided by sizing in W, for one square meter) is less variant for
this same building in the three climates (SE: around 700 hours, LO: around 200 hours, MI : around 500
hours). More detailed figures could be defined by system types. The figures given here are still consistent
with the ones used for those places in EERAC, while the meteorological data and the software, as well as the
level of definition have been largely improved. The EERAC figure did include a penalty for degradation of

55
performance over time, but we assumed here that CAC were perfectly maintained at their initial performance
due to the larger building size.

Extension to all economic sectors, system types and EU climates

We covered the universe described by Table 5.4 as reliably as possible by extrapolating the results of the two
simulated buildings. For systems the description has been given previously. All systems have been brought
to the same AC quality since ventilation air is prepared centrally and then dealt to each zone. Some systems
that propose moreover the humidity control and represent a very small part of the market have been treated.

Table 5.4 Simulated universe after extension of DOE results

15 countries Equal comfort level 18 systems 6 sectors

Austria TAC Air Cooled with water distribution Hospitals
Belgium TAC Air Cooled with air distribution Hotels & bar & restaurant
Denmark TAC Air Cooled with air +humidity control Offices
Finland TAC Water Cooled + water dist.(cooling) Trade
France TAC Water Cooled with air dist.(cooling) Houses
Germany TAC Water Cooled +air +hum.(cooling) Education
Greece TAC Outside water + water dist
Ireland TAC Outside water + air dist
Italy TAC Outside water +air +hum
Luxembourg TAC TWO LOOPS + CHILLER
Netherlands TAC VRF
Portugal TAC Packages & Splits large
Spain TAC Rooftops
Sweden TAC RACs on one loop
UK TAC MS
TAC Splits
TAC Packages small
TAC Single Ducts

For all the extrapolations a few checks were made. The assumptions about the economic sectors (sizing and
demand) have been tuned thanks to the simulation of the Trade building. The specific features of the load
curves other than the ones simulated have been applied to the actual DOE load curves (offices). For instance
Education buildings have a load curve similar to offices but not in July and August. Hotels, bars and
restaurants do not differ much on total demand but the peak is delayed by about three hours compared with
office buildings and they open on Saturdays as well. Trade buildings display similar trends. Hospitals have
an office section but they work 7 days a week. Houses are very distinct (later use of AC in the day) but not
very different on total. A few key figures about the trade sector, tuned on the Mall simulated in details : the
sizing of chillers is not very different from the office buildings (SE: 133 W/m2, LO: 75 W/m2, MI : 119
W/m2 against SE: 160 W/m2, LO: 80 W/m2, MI : 130 W/m2). The energy demand is 18% higher due to
difference in occupation scenarios.

Preliminary results for the cooling consumption of the office building

The electricity consumption results from the load (demand, as formulated by the type of distribution and
control) and from the efficiency of the equipment. We shall display separately the two aspects. When the two
aspects are combined, the resulting scatter of electricity consumption is of the order of a factor 2, for the
same comfort level (figure 5.8a).

Fig 5.8a Total cooling consumption for CAC systems per square meter

56
 Reference office building unitary cooling consumptions

140,0

120,0

100,0
kWh/m2

80,0 London
Milan
60,0 Seville

40,0

20,0

0,0

S
e

l
R
st

ps

ts
op
um
t
n

g)

al
tr o

is
g

ng

lit
rg
VR
io

tio

M
LE
di

uc
in

in

m
rd

to

lo

Sp
ut

+h
n

la
i
u

ol

Ks

D
er

R
IL
co

oo

oo
rib

e
SP
ai
rib

co

on
at

H
ir

le
C
.(c

.(c

+
st

ity

+a

K&
w
is

ng
t.(

PA
di

on
st

um
rd

id

er
is

+
+

Si
C
di

er
m
er

rd

at

PS
ai

s
PA
+h

r
hu

at

AC
at

er

te

w
ai
th

O
w
w

wa
at

ir
r+

de
wi

R
ith

LO
+a
w

de
th

ai

si
de
w
d
wi

si
ut
d

O
le

ith

ed

si
le

ut
d

TW
d

oo

le

ut
oo
w

O
le

l
oo
oo
rC

O
oo

C
le

C
C
Ai
rC

er
oo

er
er

at
Ai

rC

at
at

W
W
W
Ai

CAC Systems

The main consumption factor is clearly the climatic area. The second important parameter comes from the
system type. Depending on each CAC system type, the load is treated either completely centrally or only
partially ; thus, the total cooling load will differ because of the weight of supplementary fan energy released
in the air to be treated and supplementary pumping energy released on the water loop when cooling. It is
shown on Figure 5.8b.

Figure 5.8b. Total cooling load for each system type for the 3 climates

LONDON MILAN SEVILLE

Total Cooling Load
140,0
120,0
100,0
kWh/m2

80,0
60,0
40,0
20,0
0,0
l
n

t
n

st

CH m

op
g)

g)

ps

lits
em

e
g)

lits

s
R
ro

is
tio

tio

ge
rg
VR
di

LE
u
lin

lin

in

rd
nt

lo

Sp

Sp
+h
st

la
bu

ft

ka
ol

r
co

oo

oo

IL
te
b

ai

e
Sy

SP

oo
o
tri

tri

on

ac
ti
ir
wa
.(c

.(c

.(c

+
ity

ul
+a
is

R
K&

lp
M
i

on
st

ist

m
id
rd
rd

er
+

al
di

C
hu
m

er
rd

at
te

ai

PS

Sm
er

PA
u

at
er

AC
w
+
wa

ai
+h
h

at

O
at

ir
t

e
i

th

R
+a
w

LO
sid
w
ith

e
r
ai

wi

sid
e
d

+
w

ut
d

sid
le

O
ith

le
d

ut
O
d

oo

le

TW
e

ut
w

oo
le

O
l

oo
oo
rC

O
oo

C
le

C
C
rC

Ai

er
oo

er
er

at
Ai

rC

at
at

W
W
W
Ai

The difference between consumption and load representation Fig 5.8a and 5.8b enables to separate the part of
the consumption differences between CAC coming from efficiency.
The first part of these difference comes from the repartition of energy between fan, pumps and cooling that is
presented hereafter Fig 5.9.

57
Figure 5.9. Contribution of each piece of equipment in % of total consumption (per standardised square
meter for cooling, fans, pumps) in Seville.

Repartition of total cooling consumptions in %

As % of total kWh/m2

100%
80%
Pump %
60%
40% Fan %
20%
0% Compressor
%

SP F

AC Ro ge

on ps
um

op

es

s
st

R
st

s
oo l
n

g)

g)
n

g)
ro

l p plit

ct
lit
K& VR
d i u tio

id u tio

LE
di

di
lin

o n f to
lin

Si kag
r
um olin

lo
nt

Sp

Du
+h

la

S
er

ir

IL
co

ut ter coo

e
r ib

o
at + a
sid r +h (co

ac
at

ti
PS air

le
tri

a i t .( c

ul
at oled ate ity
st

C
w

ng
.(
s

+
t.

M
di

TW e w er

+
is

is

al
C
LO er
m
er

ir

rd

sid wat
rd

Sm
PA
a
hu
at

er with ith

O
a
w

O ide
i

R
w
oo ith
+a
w

w
r C r Co ith

oo air

s
w
d

+
w

O
e

le

ut
ed
ol

O
ed

ut
l
l

O
oo

W le d

C
C
C
rC

Ai

er
oo

er
Ai

at
at

W
W
Ai

CAC systems

It is very impressive to see that the auxiliaries can reach the same order of magnitude than the real chiller
consumption for central systems, and even larger in the case of London. The improvement in Air based
systems should come from the improvement of secondary equipment and control.
The preceding analysis is based on the bare figures summarized in the 3 following tables respectively for
Seville, London and Milan. The very high figures for SEER in London are partly due to climate and partly to
the assumption that the square meter considered is a “standardised” square meter.

Table 5.5a Results for all systems, per physical square meter : SEER and SSEER, specific consumption in
kWh/m2 for cooling in Seville, ranked by order of merit

Comfort System Compressor Fan Pump T Cool SEER SSEER

11 TAC VRF 36,21 18,51 0,26 54,98 2,87 1,89
12 TAC PACK&SPlarge 54,4 3,85 0,26 58,52 1,91 1,78
15 TAC Multi Splits 54,4 3,85 0,26 58,52 1,91 1,78
16 TAC Splits 54,4 3,85 0,26 58,52 1,91 1,78
17 TAC Small packages 54,4 3,85 0,26 58,52 1,91 1,78
14 TAC RACs on one loop 46,01 8,06 6,24 60,31 2,26 1,72
18 TAC Single Ducts 63,33 3,85 0,26 67,44 1,64 1,54
7 TAC Outside water + water dist 36,65 18,51 18,74 73,9 3,14 1,56
10 TAC TWO LOOPS + CHILLER 36,69 18,51 18,74 73,94 3,14 1,56
1 TAC Air Cooled with water distribution 46,77 18,51 10,63 75,91 2,46 1,52
4 TAC Water Cooled + water dist.(cooling) 39,34 24,26 12,73 76,33 2,92 1,51
13 TAC Roof tops 49,89 44,44 0 94,33 2,09 2,09
2 TAC Air Cooled with air distribution 49,22 44,43 5,61 99,26 2,34 1,16
5 TAC Water Cooled with air dist.(cooling) 41,12 50,18 8,89 100,19 2,8 1,15
8 TAC Outside water + air dist 38,02 44,43 18,3 100,75 3,03 1,14
9 TAC Outside water +air +hum 49,43 48,88 18,3 116,6 2,33 0,99
6 TAC Water Cooled +air +hum.(cooling) 53,45 55,2 8,89 117,54 2,15 0,98
3 TAC Air Cooled with air +humidity control 63,99 48,88 5,61 118,47 1,8 0,97

Table 5.5b SEER and SSEER, specific consumption in kWh/m2 in London, ranked by order of merit

58
 Comfort System Compressor Fan Pump T Cool SEER SSEER
12 TAC PACK&SPlarge 7,97 0,42 0 8,39 1,96 1,86
15 TAC Multi Splits 7,97 0,42 0 8,39 1,96 1,86
16 TAC Splits 7,97 0,42 0 8,39 1,96 1,86
17 TAC Small packages 7,97 0,42 0 8,39 1,96 1,86
18 TAC Single Ducts 9,51 0,42 0 9,93 1,64 1,57
14 TAC RACs on one loop 7,48 2,56 0,06 10,1 2,08 1,54
11 TAC VRF 3,87 7,86 0 11,73 4,03 1,33
10 TAC TWO LOOPS + CHILLER 4,13 7,86 4,94 16,93 5,04 1,23
4 TAC Water Cooled + water dist.(cooling) 7,81 8,07 2,28 18,16 2,67 1,15
7 TAC Outside water + water dist 6,18 7,86 4,94 18,98 3,37 1,1
1 TAC Air Cooled with water distribution 10,02 7,86 1,35 19,23 2,08 1,08
13 TAC Roof tops 7,83 22,27 0 30,09 1,99 1,99
5 TAC Water Cooled with air dist.(cooling) 7,49 22,55 1,73 31,78 2,78 0,66
8 TAC Outside water + air dist 5,91 22,3 4,39 32,6 3,53 0,64
2 TAC Air Cooled with air distribution 9,67 22,3 0,8 32,77 2,15 0,64
6 TAC Water Cooled +air +hum.(cooling) 9,74 24,81 1,73 36,29 2,14 0,57
9 TAC Outside water +air +hum 7,68 24,53 4,39 36,6 2,71 0,57
3 TAC Air Cooled with air +humidity control 12,57 24,53 0,8 37,9 1,66 0,55

Table 5.5c SEER and SSEER, specific consumption in kWh/m2 in Milano, ranked by order of merit

Comfort System Compressor Fan Pump T Cool SEER SSEER

12 TAC PACK&SPlarge 26,39 2,09 0,04 28,53 2,07 1,92
15 TAC Multi Splits 26,39 2,09 0,04 28,53 2,07 1,92
16 TAC Splits 26,39 2,09 0,04 28,53 2,07 1,92
17 TAC Small packages 26,39 2,09 0,04 28,53 2,07 1,92
11 TAC VRF 15,85 14,35 0,04 30,25 3,45 1,81
14 TAC RACs on one loop 22,92 7,21 0,88 31,02 2,38 1,76
18 TAC Single Ducts 30,94 2,09 0,04 33,08 1,77 1,65
4 TAC Water Cooled + water dist.(cooling) 21,79 17,42 5,97 45,18 3,37 1,63
1 TAC Air Cooled with water distribution 27,12 14,35 3,87 45,35 2,71 1,62
7 TAC Outside water + water dist 19,36 14,35 11,98 45,69 3,8 1,61
10 TAC TWO LOOPS + CHILLER 20,39 14,35 11,98 46,73 3,61 1,57
13 TAC Roof tops 29,61 36,98 0 66,59 1,85 1,85
5 TAC Water Cooled with air dist.(cooling) 24,84 40,05 4,74 69,64 2,96 1,06
8 TAC Outside water + air dist 21,93 36,98 10,75 69,66 3,35 1,06
2 TAC Air Cooled with air distribution 30,86 36,98 2,65 70,49 2,38 1,04
9 TAC Outside water +air +hum 28,51 40,68 10,75 79,94 2,58 0,92
6 TAC Water Cooled +air +hum.(cooling) 32,29 44,06 4,74 81,09 2,28 0,91
3 TAC Air Cooled with air +humidity control 40,12 40,68 2,65 83,45 1,83 0,88

Interestingly, the results are similar from one location to another. The decentralised systems have a large
benefit, despite the fact that we have added to them a primary air system to bring them up to the same
comfort level than the other ones. Even Single Ducts are better than any collective system. VRF are a good
system, in the middle of decentralised systems, except for Seville where they show a benefit. Wet cooling
towers and systems with two water loops display the same performance as the best centralised system, but
not overpass them. SEER and SSEER do not follow the ranking based on consumption, but this is due to
problems in the definition of “load” in DOE2 software with distinct systems. A regulation should be simply
based on electricity consumption if we want to avoid such misunderstandings. Our feeling is that the
designers should keep the right to use whatever system they need to cope with the project specificities but
that they should be obliged to improve the system chosen to reach a certain level of consumption.

59
The simulations have then been extended to each of the 15 Member States by use of outside climatic
information from an extended data base. For instance, while the most extreme cooling loads are covered
through Seville, the winters and summers in London are milder than those in a large part of central and
northern continental Europe hence it is not possible to cover many climates using this station mixed with the
more southerly locations.
An analysis had to be done based on cooling and heating degree day data (CDD & HDD). Searching on
www.i-wex.com produced cooling and heating degree day data for a number of EU locations (CDD
threshold was 15.5 °C, HDD threshold temperature was 18.5 °C). Using the office simulation results a linear
relationship was established to predict energy consumption by cooling or heating equipment as a function of
HDD and CDD and used to generate results fitting exactly with the borders of each country Using these
combinations with the linear equations applied to the CDD and HDD data gives the following annual
average unit energy consumption for the same office building by EU country, Table 5.5.

Table 5.5d Annual average energy consumption per m2 by EU country (kWh/m2/year), weighted for systems
and sectors

Cooling mode Heating mode Total

Compress fans pumps Boiler fans pumps Cooling Heating Cooling & Heating
or
Aus 12,3 12,6 1,2 114,9 28,3 3,8 26,1 147,1 173,2
Bel 9,3 9,4 0,8 108,5 23,8 3,2 19,5 135,6 155,0
Den 6,0 7,6 0,6 140,2 26,6 3,5 14,1 170,4 184,5
Fin 5,2 8,9 0,9 152,3 35,0 4,7 15,0 192,1 207,1
Fra 19,4 11,9 1,4 93,9 17,9 2,8 32,6 114,6 147,3
Ger 12,6 9,3 0,9 126,2 23,0 3,4 22,8 152,6 175,3
Gre 35,6 10,9 1,7 84,4 10,7 2,1 48,3 97,2 145,4
Ire 9,3 9,6 0,7 94,5 22,1 2,9 19,5 119,4 139,0
Ita 35,0 12,8 2,3 80,7 11,6 2,2 50,1 94,5 144,7
Lux 9,3 9,1 0,8 109,4 23,3 3,2 19,1 135,9 155,1
Neth 7,0 9,9 0,8 105,1 27,3 3,5 17,7 136,0 153,7
Por 36,2 12,4 1,0 83,2 11,0 1,8 49,7 96,0 145,7
Spa 56,9 20,8 3,8 22,2 5,6 0,7 81,5 28,5 110,0
Swe 5,2 8,9 0,8 152,4 34,9 4,7 14,9 192,1 207,0
UK 9,4 9,6 0,7 94,4 22,1 2,9 19,7 119,5 139,2

This detailed national treatment is translated finally in a set of weighting coefficients giving for each type of
electricity consumption its expression as a weighed combination of the three simulations and allowing to
compute the country specific impact of any variation made in the three original simulations as a result of the
potential policy measures.

5.3 Energy consumption in 1990, 1998, 2010 and 2020

Overall values
The three main sections of our predictions relate to :

• The actual cooling demand

• The winter demand of the cooled areas if no reversible use took place

• The winter demand of the cooled areas with the reversible use presently estimated.
Figure 5.12 shows the first two values (cooling and associated heating consumption by technical type) for the
future.

60
Figure 5.12 Energy for cooling and conventional heating associated with the cooled area -consumption by
technical type for cooling

Total cooling consumption by subtype

300 000

250 000

200 000
RAC
PACK
GWh

150 000 FCU

CAV
total conventionnal heating
100 000

50 000

0
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

Figure 5.13 gives details, country by country.

Figure 5.13. Total energy consumption by AC type in Europe in 2000 and 2020 for the three main quantities :
cooling, heating (if no reversibility); heating (with present reversibility rate)

Total consumption by country - BAU

60 000

50 000

40 000
CO 2000
CO 2020
GWh

CH 2000
30 000
CH 2020
RH 2000
20 000 RH 2020

10 000

0
AU BE DE FI FR GE GR IR IT LU NE PO SP SW UK

61
Tables 5.6 and 5.7 give the main values (EUR15) for the three functions. Note that gas is accounted for as a
secondary energy. (CO : Cooling, CH : Conventional heating, RH : Reverse Heating)

Table 5.6 Total energy demand generated by AC

Electricity demand (TWh) 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Electricity and Gas
Cooling function 22,879 33,683 51,636 78,103 94,727 109,631 114,579
(Electricity only)
Heating function 111,084 164,517 203,330 236,765 250,844
Without REV. 48,726 71,912
Heating function 18,894 28,913 35,875 42,333 45,040
With present REV. (El.) 7,274 11,390

Table 5.7 Cooling only results by country and year (for comparison with national statistics)

Total Cooling Year

(GWh/ year)
Pays 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
AU 296 374 469 549 633 689 707
BE 50 117 274 422 559 681 708
DE 25 43 71 122 180 232 260
FI 93 139 206 210 229 242 246
FR 2606 3596 5 010 8 213 10 954 13 240 14 071
GE 613 1187 2 286 4 012 5 542 6 785 7 415
GR 674 1399 2 909 5 365 7 269 9 399 9 734
IR 77 99 127 180 222 252 264
IT 8539 11242 16 209 24 336 27 445 29 795 30 890
LU 3 5 11 18 23 27 29
NE 206 358 605 690 797 869 892
PO 436 669 1 020 2 049 3 072 4 039 4 621
SP 7370 11744 19 689 28 333 33 573 38 719 39 915
SW 227 309 391 378 403 421 425
UK 1443 1861 2 359 3 227 3 826 4 241 4 401
Total 22660 33141 51 636 78 103 94 727 109 631 114 579

Energy by economic sector

The contribution of each economic sector is described by Figure 5.14

Figure 5.14. Electricity consumption by economic sector in each country in 2020

62
 Total cooling by country / sector - 2020 BAU

45 000

40 000

35 000

30 000
TRA
OFF
G 25 000 HOU
W
h 20 000 HOS
EDU
15 000 CAH

10 000

5 000

0
AU BE DE FI FR GE GR IR IT LU NE PO SP SW UK

5.4 Global warming and other environmental impacts

Atmospheric pollution reduced to CO2
Most environmental impacts of A/C take place in the atmosphere: acid pollution, ozone depletion, green
house gases emission therefore we shall concentrate here on atmospheric emissions, mostly Refrigerants and
CO2. However we should first explain and justify this reduction of perspective by considering one by one
the effects not taken into account or simplified.

Let's consider first the issue of refrigerants. R22 is the most commonly used A/C refrigerant; however, as this
fluid has an ozone-depletion and a global warming potential its production is prohibited in developed
countries. A/Cs can use alternative refrigerants such as R290, R407C, R-134a and R-410A (these refrigerants
are more or less compatible with the operating parameters of a traditional R22 unit). R407C, R134a and
R410A are the only refrigerant largely used in CAC directories for substituting R22. TEWI (total equivalent
warming impact) is the integrated index used to measure the global-warming impact of all gaseous
emissions, including those from direct and indirect sources.

What are the interactions between refrigerant change and energy efficiency? For an optimist, a higher energy
efficiency and a more environmentally benign refrigerant will both result in a lower contribution to global
warming. For a pessimist, there is a trade-off between choosing a better fluid for direct emissions (leaks to
the atmosphere) and a better fluid for indirect emissions (lower electricity use). Fortunately, our study group
is not in charge of the issue of change of refrigerants. The direct contribution of A/C to global warming will
drop independently from our action, due to other policies on which we do not interfere.

Why aren't we considering other atmospheric emissions than global warming by CO2. Atmospheric pollution
from power plants is composed of dust, NOx and SO2, which all have a regional impact, and CO2 with a
world wide impact. We have assumed here that checking European regulation on acid pollution was not part
of our objectives. On this subject, the "ExternE" study gave recently values of the external costs of power
plant pollution that we could use in case of necessity. The consideration for CO2 is different; the Kyoto
protocol has been made recently, its full implementation in Europe is not yet achieved and the market has not
yet taken it into account; furthermore there is a European bubble and the trends or measures considered here
can gave directly positive or negative consequences on the achievement of the European objectives.

63
So we have decided to adapt our environmental considerations to our designated range of actions: energy
consumption changes resulting in a lower indirect CO2 release. Since there is a European bubble, one can
assume one average CO2 content of the European kWh, set here at 350 gCO2/kWh, the marginal rate with
Combined Cycles which are likely to be installed in Summer peaking countries to cope with the new
demand. In fact, the average for OECD (440) and the exact figure for CO2 content per kWh are available for
each country, this can be taken into account in details if needed. Here we forget about other environmental
effects : radio-elements, accidents in the case of nuclear plants, etc because we have a marginal approach and
nuclear is not the marginal energy. Note that the external cost of the CC plants are among the lowest, except
nuclear plants. Its order of magnitude being 10-20 % the external cost effects can be estimated by computing
the potential impact of electricity costs rising by 20%, a trend which may have other causes or never happen.

Water use is another environmental impact of Air Conditioning to be taken into account. It's mostly the case
for water cooled chillers using cooling towers. They are used in the about 12% of cooled area, and consume
about 3-4 kg of fresh water per kWh rejected (not only the part evaporated but also the poorly controlled
salts (de-concentration). We will not devote much time to the issue, simply estimate the total quantity and
take it into the cost (1-3 euros/m3) in the optimisation.

TEWI (Total Equivalent Warming Impact) and leak rates of CAC systems

The greenhouse effect contributions by the installation of refrigerant fluids should be evaluated on the total
of their life cycle. The principal contribution to the greenhouse effect of the air conditioners comes from their
energy consumption. Actually, each kWh of electricity consumed implies a CO2 emission depending on the
specific utility plant in that country. The TEWI index was introduced to compare the direct additional
contributions of refrigerant system emissions and the indirect contributions due to the energy consumption of
these systems.

The uncertainty in the evaluation of TEWI are the same as that for the GWP (+/-35%), for which we add the
uncertainty in the evaluation of the emissions and energy consumption. These evaluations strongly depend
on the quality of the data.

Two formulas can be used to evaluate the contributions. The most simple is written:

TEWI = [(GWP . m) + (E . b )] . n (1)

TEWI : kg of CO2 produced during the equipment lifetime.

GWP : Global Warming Potential (kg CO2/kg fluid)
m : annual mass of fluid emitted into the atmosphere (kg/year)
E : yearly electricity consumption (kWh)
b : CO2 emission per kWh of electric energy produced (kg CO2/kWh)
n : duration of installation life (year).

Some people make a difference between the annual emission rate and the fluid recuperation at the end of the
appliance's life cycle, taking into account the fact that the recuperation has become mandatory in numerous
countries. Practically, leaks during recovery are close to leaks during one year of operation, and the simplest
equation is enough.

We propose the following values of yearly leak rates :

- for RAC, Packages etc. 1% of 0.3 kg/kW (some don't leak, some leak before during or after repair)
- for VRF 10% of 2 kg/kW (good reasons to leak despite a careful maintenance)
- for other centralised systems 4% of 0.6 kg/kW

The order of magnitude of the effect of system type computed for one square meter cooled is :

64
- for RAC, Packages etc. 0.08 TEWI units (kg CO2) due to leaks to be compared with about 100 indirect
TEWI due to electricity consumption over 15 years
- for VRF 5 TEWI units due to leaks to be compared with 100 for indirect TEWI
- for other centralised systems 0.6 TEWI units due to leaks to be compared with 100 for indirect TEWI.

The proposed conclusion is that the TEWI penalty of VRF could be taken into account in the economic
analysis, but not any other aspect . So our figures of impact are based on indirect CO2 emissions only.

Numerical results about CO2 emissions for cooling in Europe

Table 5.6 and Figure 5.15 show the results on the full stock. 33 Mt CO2 in 2010 may seem a small figure
compared with the projected total around 3800 for EUR-15 in 2010, but those emissions are in some way
unexpected (related with an unexpected demand for comfort) and concentrated on a few countrie (typically
the five Mediterranean countries). So they should not be forgotten.

Table 5.6 : National cooling CO2 emissions of AC by country for 2000, 2005, 2010, 2015 and 2020.

Kt CO2 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

AU 164 192 221 241 248
BE 96 148 196 238 248
DE 25 43 63 81 91
FI 72 73 80 85 86
FR 1 754 2 874 3 834 4 634 4 925
GE 800 1 404 1 940 2 375 2 595
GR 1 018 1 878 2 544 3 289 3 407
IR 44 63 78 88 93
IT 5 673 8 518 9 606 10 428 10 812
LU 4 6 8 9 10
NE 212 242 279 304 312
PO 357 717 1 075 1 414 1 618
SP 6 891 9 916 11 751 13 552 13 970
SW 137 132 141 148 149
UK 826 1 129 1 339 1 484 1 540
Total 18 073 27 336 33 154 38 371 40 103

Figure 5.15 : National cooling CO2 emissions of AC by country for 2000, 2005, 2010, 2015 and 2020.

65
 CO2 emissions for cooling function in Europe

45 000

40 000 UK
SW
35 000 SP
PO
30 000 NE
LU
25 000 IT
kt CO2

IR
20 000 GR
GE
15 000 FR
FI
10 000 DE
BE
5 000 AU

0
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

Such impacts are not small, but limited if we compare them with other uses in buildings (heating, home
electronics, better lighting, etc.).

Use of water
A wet cooling tower (which displays better energy performance) is more at risk of cultivating the legionella
bacillus and consumes water (through evaporation, formation of droplets and desalination) at the rate of 3-4
kg per kWh of heat rejected, which is equivalent to requiring a few hundred of litres of water per year for
each cooled square metre in a typical southern European office building. Nonetheless the evaporation of this
water produces a small improvement in energy performance, of the order of a few kWh/year per square
metre cooled.
The water consumption should be taken into account to perform cycle cost analysis of CAC systems cooled
by water condensing chillers.

5.5 Heating, reversible or not

Here we are only interested in the heating of the cooled areas, not in heating in general. In the base
simulations, heating has been provided by a gas boiler. As an option, reversible use of the cooling equipment
has been considered. To heat reversibly or to heat with a boiler is not the most striking issue in the tables.
Tables 5.7a to 5.7c give the detailed results. What we discover is that the choice of a system for the cooling
season decides on the energy use in the heating season with a high impact, namely for air based systems. But
also that coming forth to full year totals, there is a compensation and the performance of the systems
becomes closer (the fan energy is fully recovered in winter for space heating). This is influenced by the fact
that we mix electricity and gas in the tables.

Results of simulation about Heating and Reversible Heating

Table 5.7a specific consumption in kWh/m2 for Heating (H) and reversible heating (RH) in Seville; final
(commercial) energies are added without conversion

Comfort System Gas Fans Pum HP Heat RH C+H

C+R
1 TAC Air Cooled with water distribution 25,37 5,99 1,97 H
10,15 33,33 18,11 98,53 83,31
2 TAC Air Cooled with air distribution 6,06 5,76 0,23 2,43 12,05 8,42 98,03 94,39
3 TAC Air Cooled with air +humidity control 7,28 6,34 0,23 2,91 13,84 9,48
115,0 110,6
4 TAC Water Cooled + water dist.(cooling) 25,37 5,99 1,97 4
10,15 33,33 18,11 96,19 7
80,97

66
5 TAC Water Cooled with air dist.(cooling) 6,06 5,76 0,23 2,43 12,05 8,42 96,87 93,23
6 TAC Water Cooled +air +hum.(cooling) 7,28 6,34 0,23 2,91 13,84 9,48
111,5 107,1
7 TAC Outside water + water dist 25,37 5,99 1,97 0
10,15 33,33 18,48 93,58 3
78,73
8 TAC Outside water + air dist 6,06 5,76 0,23 2,43 12,05 8,79 96,86 93,59
9 TAC Outside water +air +hum 7,28 6,34 0,23 2,91 13,84 9,85 110,3 106,3
10 TAC TWO LOOPS + CHILLER 5,82 5,99 0,23 1,16 12,04 9,50 1
71,24 1
68,70
11 TAC VRF 26,93 5,99 0,23 6,72 33,15 12,71 88,14 67,69
12 TAC PACK&SPlarge 26,93 4,50 0,23 11,29 31,66 15,79 90,17 74,30
13 TAC Roof tops 5,91 5,75 0,23 3,03 11,90 8,78 106,2 103,1
14 TAC RACs on one loop 26,86 4,64 6,85 2
10,87 38,35 22,36 98,66 1
82,67
15 TAC Multi Splits 26,93 4,50 0,23 11,29 31,66 15,79 90,17 74,30
16 TAC Splits 26,93 4,50 0,23 11,29 31,66 15,79 90,17 74,30
17 TAC Small packages 26,93 4,50 0,23 11,29 31,66 15,79 90,17 74,30
18 TAC Single Ducts 26,93 4,50 0,23 11,68 31,66 16,17 99,10 83,62

Table 5.7b specific consumption in kWh/m2 for Heating (H) and reversible heating (RH) in London; final
(commercial) energies are added without conversion

Comfort System Gas Fans Pump HP Heat RH C+H C+RH

1 TAC Air Cooled with water distribution 96,23 20,38 4,84 38,49 121,4 63,71 136,5 78,80
2 TAC Air Cooled with air distribution 54,53 39,57 1,71 21,81 95,81 63,09 124,4 91,76
3 TAC Air Cooled with air +humidity control 65,43 43,53 1,71 26,17 110,6 71,41 143,2 103,9
4 TAC Water Cooled + water dist.(cooling) 96,23 20,38 4,84 38,49 121,4 63,71 135,9 78,23
5 TAC Water Cooled with air dist.(cooling) 54,53 39,57 1,71 21,81 95,81 63,09 124,0 91,32
6 TAC Water Cooled +air +hum.(cooling) 65,43 43,53 1,71 26,17 110,6 71,41 142,3 103,0
7 TAC Outside water + water dist 96,23 20,38 4,84 38,49 121,4 69,16 137,1 84,84
8 TAC Outside water + air dist 54,53 39,57 1,71 21,81 95,81 68,54 125,1 97,91
9 TAC Outside water +air +hum 65,43 43,53 1,71 26,17 110,6 76,86 143,2 109,4
10 TAC TWO LOOPS + CHILLER 61,51 20,38 1,71 14,45 83,60 45,12 98,10 59,62
11 TAC VRF 108,3 20,38 1,71 39,35 130,4 59,73 142,1 71,46
12 TAC PACK&SPlarge 108,3 7,93 1,71 64,16 117,9 72,09 126,3 80,48
13 TAC Roof tops 54,93 39,60 1,71 38,78 96,24 78,38 126,3 108,4
14 TAC RACs on one loop 106,4 9,44 7,00 47,17 122,8 63,60 132,9 73,71
15 TAC Multi Splits 108,3 7,93 1,71 64,16 117,9 72,09 126,3 80,48
16 TAC Splits 108,3 7,93 1,71 64,16 117,9 72,09 126,3 80,48
17 TAC Small packages 108,3 7,93 1,71 64,16 117,9 72,09 126,3 80,48
18 TAC Single Ducts 108,3 7,93 1,71 71,49 117,9 79,42 127,9 89,35

Table 5.7c specific consumption in kWh/m2 for Heating (H) and reversible heating (RH) in Milano; final
(commercial) energies are added without conversion (HP : heat pump consumption)

Comfort System Gas Fans Pump HP Heat RH C+H C+RH

1 TAC Air Cooled with water distribution 88,83 14,94 4,48 35,53 108,2 54,95 144,4 91,17
2 TAC Air Cooled with air distribution 54,77 28,30 1,64 21,91 84,72 51,85 144,8 112,0
3 TAC Air Cooled with air +humidity control 65,73 31,13 1,64 26,29 98,50 59,07 168,5 129,0
4 TAC Water Cooled + water dist.(cooling) 88,83 14,94 4,48 35,53 108,2 54,95 144,6 91,31
5 TAC Water Cooled with air dist.(cooling) 54,77 28,30 1,64 21,91 84,72 51,85 144,3 111,5
6 TAC Water Cooled +air +hum.(cooling) 65,73 31,13 1,64 26,29 98,50 59,07 166,6 127,2
7 TAC Outside water + water dist 88,83 14,94 4,48 35,53 108,2 58,54 145,1 95,39
8 TAC Outside water + air dist 54,77 28,30 1,64 21,91 84,72 55,44 144,5 115,3
9 TAC Outside water +air +hum 65,73 31,13 1,64 26,29 98,50 62,65 166,1 130,2
10 TAC TWO LOOPS + CHILLER 62,11 14,94 1,64 14,67 78,69 37,68 116,2 75,22
11 TAC VRF 99,77 14,94 1,64 42,20 116,3 57,14 146,6 87,39
12 TAC PACK&SPlarge 99,77 6,26 1,64 66,79 107,6 73,05 136,1 101,5
13 TAC Roof tops 55,81 28,30 1,64 48,84 85,75 77,14 152,3 143,7
14 TAC RACs on one loop 117,97 7,84 8,16 42,93 133,9 58,92 164,9 89,94

67
15 TAC Multi Splits 99,77 6,26 1,64 66,79 107,6 73,05 136,1 101,5
16 TAC Splits 99,77 6,26 1,64 66,79 107,6 73,05 136,1 101,5
17 TAC Small packages 99,77 6,26 1,64 66,79 107,6 73,05 136,1 101,5
18 TAC Single Ducts 99,77 6,26 1,64 75,23 107,6 81,48 140,7 114,5

Interpretation of results
A policy interpretation of the figures is only possible if something is assumed about the competition between
gas and electricity, either their cost, or their CO2 content or their “primary” energy value. The coefficient 2.2
is sufficient to represent about all aspects and gives the exact CO2 value (the ratio 400:180). If we
summarise the comparison to SCOP and CO2 emissions, and if we consider only the most frequent systems
inherited from the past in the present stock, table 5.8 gives us interesting indications.

Table 5.8 SCOP and CO2 emissions of the heating function with comfort level TAC

Seville London Milan

SSCOP range CO2 emissions kgCO2/m2/year
Boiler with Primary Air
TAC

Independent heating
6.6 22.7 20.5
system
RAC with Primary Air
TAC
Split systems non rev. 6.6 22.7 20.5
Split systems reversible 1.2-1.5 6.3 28.8 29.2
CAC - Central Air Conditioners
TAC
Large packages (Roof
3.4 25.7 21.4
tops...) non rev
Large packages (Roof
1.3-2.7 3.5 28.8 30.8
tops...) reversible
Large splits with primary
6.6 22.7 20.4
air Non reversible
CAV reversible 1.6-1.7 3.8 25.2 20.7
CAV non rev 3.9 26.3 21.8
FCU reversible 1.3-1.6 7.2 25.5 22.0
FCU non rev. 7.8 27.4 23.7
WLHP (reversible) 1-1..5 8.9 25.4 23.6
VRF reversible 1.5-1.85 5.1 23.9 22.9

Very often more CO2 is emitted with a reversible system than with a non reversible one. The best heating
system is almost always a classic independent one. This is not a set of values against reversibility. Simply, a
system which is structured and sized to face the very demanding conditions of Summer will consume more
in Winter than the simplest systems used for heating only. It bears the weight of the auxiliaries, and becomes
a less efficient realisation of electric heating. It’s an invitation to research : how to make air conditioning
systems – a growing social demand- sober in Winter? Reversibility is not an easy task, it’s one of the
challenges of the next chapter.

68
69