skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: Techno-Economic Analysis of Indian Draft Standard Levels for RoomAir Conditioners

Abstract

The Indian Bureau of Energy Efficiency (BEE) finalized its first set of efficiency standards and labels for room air conditioners in July of 2006. These regulations followed soon after the publication of levels for frost-free refrigerators in the same year. As in the case of refrigerators, the air conditioner program introduces Minimum Efficiency Performance Standards (MEPS) and comparative labels simultaneously, with levels for one to five stars. Also like the refrigerator program, BEE defined several successive program phases of increasing stringency. In support of BEE's refrigerator program, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) produced an analysis of national impacts of standards in collaboration with the Collaborative Labeling and Standards Program (CLASP). That analysis drew on LBNL's experience with standards programs in the United States, as well as many other countries. Subsequently, as part of the process for setting optimal levels for air conditioner regulations, CLASP commissioned LBNL to provide support to BEE in the form of a techno-economic evaluation of air conditioner efficiency technologies. This report describes the methodology and results of this techno-economic evaluation. The analysis consists of three components: (1) Cost effectiveness to consumers of efficiency technologies relative to current baseline. (2) Impacts on the current market from efficiencymore » regulations. (3) National energy and financial impacts. The analysis relied on detailed and up-to-date technical data made available by BEE and industry representatives. Technical parameters were used in conjunction with knowledge about air conditioner use patterns in the residential and commercial sectors, and prevailing marginal electricity prices, in order to give an estimate of per-unit financial impacts. In addition, the overall impact of the program was evaluated by combining unit savings with market forecasts in order to yield national impacts. LBNL presented preliminary results of these analyses in May 2006, at a meeting of BEEs Technical Committee for Air Conditioners. This meeting was attended by a wide array of stakeholder, including industry representatives, engineers and consumer advocates. Comments made by stakeholders at this meeting are incorporated into the final analysis presented in this report. The current analysis begins with the Rating Plan drafted by BEE in 2006, along with an evaluation of the market baseline according to test data submitted by manufacturers. MEPS, label rating levels, and baseline efficiencies are presented in Section 2. First, we compare Indian MEPS with current standards in other countries, and assess their relative stringency. Baseline efficiencies are then used to estimate the fraction of models likely to remain on the market at each phase of the program, and the impact on market-weighted efficiency levels. Section 3 deals with cost-effectiveness of higher efficiency design options. The cost-benefit analysis is grounded in technical parameters provided by industry representatives in India. This data allows for an assessment of financial costs and benefits to consumers as a result of the standards and labeling program. A Life-Cycle Cost (LCC) calculation is used to evaluate the impacts of the program at the unit level, thus providing some insight into the appropriateness of the levels chosen, and additional opportunities for further ratcheting. In addition to LCC, we also calculate payback periods, cost of conserved energy (CCE), and return on investment (ROI). Finally, Section 4 covers national impacts. This is an extension of unit level estimates in the two previous sections. Extrapolation to the national level depends on a forecast of air conditioner purchases (shipments), which we describe here. Following the cost-benefit analysis, we construct several efficiency scenarios including the BEE plan, but also considering further potential for efficiency improvement. These are combined with shipments through a stock accounting model in order to forecast air conditioner energy consumption in each scenario, and associated electricity savings and carbon emission mitigation. Finally, financial costs and savings are scaled to the national level to evaluate net fiscal benefits.« less

Authors:
;
Publication Date:
Research Org.:
Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley NationalLaboratory, Berkeley, CA (US)
Sponsoring Org.:
USDOE
OSTI Identifier:
928790
Report Number(s):
LBNL-63204
R&D Project: E149EE; BnR: 400408000; TRN: US200812%%547
DOE Contract Number:
DE-AC02-05CH11231
Resource Type:
Technical Report
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
32; AIR CONDITIONERS; CARBON; COMMERCIAL SECTOR; EFFICIENCY; ELECTRICITY; ENERGY CONSUMPTION; ENERGY EFFICIENCY; ENGINEERS; EXTRAPOLATION; LIFE-CYCLE COST; MANUFACTURERS; MARKET; MITIGATION; PAYBACK PERIOD; PRICES; RATCHETING; REFRIGERATORS; REGULATIONS; India Air Conditioner Efficiency Standards

Citation Formats

McNeil, Michael A., and Iyer, Maithili. Techno-Economic Analysis of Indian Draft Standard Levels for RoomAir Conditioners. United States: N. p., 2007. Web. doi:10.2172/928790.
McNeil, Michael A., & Iyer, Maithili. Techno-Economic Analysis of Indian Draft Standard Levels for RoomAir Conditioners. United States. doi:10.2172/928790.
McNeil, Michael A., and Iyer, Maithili. Thu . "Techno-Economic Analysis of Indian Draft Standard Levels for RoomAir Conditioners". United States. doi:10.2172/928790. https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/928790.
@article{osti_928790,
title = {Techno-Economic Analysis of Indian Draft Standard Levels for RoomAir Conditioners},
author = {McNeil, Michael A. and Iyer, Maithili},
abstractNote = {The Indian Bureau of Energy Efficiency (BEE) finalized its first set of efficiency standards and labels for room air conditioners in July of 2006. These regulations followed soon after the publication of levels for frost-free refrigerators in the same year. As in the case of refrigerators, the air conditioner program introduces Minimum Efficiency Performance Standards (MEPS) and comparative labels simultaneously, with levels for one to five stars. Also like the refrigerator program, BEE defined several successive program phases of increasing stringency. In support of BEE's refrigerator program, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) produced an analysis of national impacts of standards in collaboration with the Collaborative Labeling and Standards Program (CLASP). That analysis drew on LBNL's experience with standards programs in the United States, as well as many other countries. Subsequently, as part of the process for setting optimal levels for air conditioner regulations, CLASP commissioned LBNL to provide support to BEE in the form of a techno-economic evaluation of air conditioner efficiency technologies. This report describes the methodology and results of this techno-economic evaluation. The analysis consists of three components: (1) Cost effectiveness to consumers of efficiency technologies relative to current baseline. (2) Impacts on the current market from efficiency regulations. (3) National energy and financial impacts. The analysis relied on detailed and up-to-date technical data made available by BEE and industry representatives. Technical parameters were used in conjunction with knowledge about air conditioner use patterns in the residential and commercial sectors, and prevailing marginal electricity prices, in order to give an estimate of per-unit financial impacts. In addition, the overall impact of the program was evaluated by combining unit savings with market forecasts in order to yield national impacts. LBNL presented preliminary results of these analyses in May 2006, at a meeting of BEEs Technical Committee for Air Conditioners. This meeting was attended by a wide array of stakeholder, including industry representatives, engineers and consumer advocates. Comments made by stakeholders at this meeting are incorporated into the final analysis presented in this report. The current analysis begins with the Rating Plan drafted by BEE in 2006, along with an evaluation of the market baseline according to test data submitted by manufacturers. MEPS, label rating levels, and baseline efficiencies are presented in Section 2. First, we compare Indian MEPS with current standards in other countries, and assess their relative stringency. Baseline efficiencies are then used to estimate the fraction of models likely to remain on the market at each phase of the program, and the impact on market-weighted efficiency levels. Section 3 deals with cost-effectiveness of higher efficiency design options. The cost-benefit analysis is grounded in technical parameters provided by industry representatives in India. This data allows for an assessment of financial costs and benefits to consumers as a result of the standards and labeling program. A Life-Cycle Cost (LCC) calculation is used to evaluate the impacts of the program at the unit level, thus providing some insight into the appropriateness of the levels chosen, and additional opportunities for further ratcheting. In addition to LCC, we also calculate payback periods, cost of conserved energy (CCE), and return on investment (ROI). Finally, Section 4 covers national impacts. This is an extension of unit level estimates in the two previous sections. Extrapolation to the national level depends on a forecast of air conditioner purchases (shipments), which we describe here. Following the cost-benefit analysis, we construct several efficiency scenarios including the BEE plan, but also considering further potential for efficiency improvement. These are combined with shipments through a stock accounting model in order to forecast air conditioner energy consumption in each scenario, and associated electricity savings and carbon emission mitigation. Finally, financial costs and savings are scaled to the national level to evaluate net fiscal benefits.},
doi = {10.2172/928790},
journal = {},
number = ,
volume = ,
place = {United States},
year = {Thu Mar 01 00:00:00 EST 2007},
month = {Thu Mar 01 00:00:00 EST 2007}
}

Technical Report:

Save / Share:
  • No abstract prepared.
  • This site-specific study describes the technical and economic feasibility of a biomass gasification combined cycle producing heat and power for a typical Finish pulp and paper mill. The aim is to replace an old bark boiler by an IGCC (Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle) to enhance the economy and environmental performance of the power plant. The IGCC feasibility study is conducted for a pulp and paper industrial plant because of its suitable infrastructure for IGCC and a large amount of wood waste available at the site. For comparison, the feasibility of an IGCC integrated to a pulp mill is also assessed.more » The operation and design of the IGCC concept is based on a 20 MW(e) gas turbine (MW151). The heat of gas turbine exhaust gas is utilized in a HRSG (Heat Recovery Steam Generator) of two pressure levels to generate steam for the pulp and paper mill and the steam turbine. The IGCC power plant operates in condensing mode. The techno-economic assessment of the biomass IGCC integrated to a pulp and paper mill or a pulp mill indicated that the IGCC will be competitive compared to the conventional bark boiler steam cycle. The IGCC integrated to a pulp and paper mill was slightly more economical than the IGCC pulp mill integration.« less
  • Biomass represents a large potential feedstock resource for environmentally clean processes that produce power or chemicals. It lends itself to both biological and thermal conversion processes and both options are currently being explored. Hydrogen can be produced in a variety of ways. The majority of the hydrogen produced in this country is produced through natural gas reforming and is used as chemical feedstock in refinery operations. In this report we will examine the production of hydrogen by gasification of biomass. Biomass is defined as organic matter that is available on a renewable basis through natural processes or as a by-productmore » of processes that use renewable resources. The majority of biomass is used in combustion processes, in mills that use the renewable resources, to produce electricity for end-use product generation. This report will explore the use of hydrogen as a fuel derived from gasification of three candidate biomass feedstocks: bagasse, switchgrass, and a nutshell mix that consists of 40% almond nutshell, 40% almond prunings, and 20% walnut shell. In this report, an assessment of the technical and economic potential of producing hydrogen from biomass gasification is analyzed. The resource base was assessed to determine a process scale from feedstock costs and availability. Solids handling systems were researched. A GTI proprietary gasifier model was used in combination with a Hysys(reg. sign) design and simulation program to determine the amount of hydrogen that can be produced from each candidate biomass feed. Cost estimations were developed and government programs and incentives were analyzed. Finally, the barriers to the production and commercialization of hydrogen from biomass were determined. The end-use of the hydrogen produced from this system is small PEM fuel cells for automobiles. Pyrolysis of biomass was also considered. Pyrolysis is a reaction in which biomass or coal is partially vaporized by heating. Gasification is a more general term, and includes heating as well as the injection of other ''ingredients'' such as oxygen and water. Pyrolysis alone is a useful first step in creating vapors from coal or biomass that can then be processed in subsequent steps to make liquid fuels. Such products are not the objective of this project. Therefore pyrolysis was not included in the process design or in the economic analysis. High-pressure, fluidized bed gasification is best known to GTI through 30 years of experience. Entrained flow, in contrast to fluidized bed, is a gasification technology applied at much larger unit sizes than employed here. Coal gasification and residual oil gasifiers in refineries are the places where such designs have found application, at sizes on the order of 5 to 10 times larger than what has been determined for this study. Atmospheric pressure gasification is also not discussed. Atmospheric gasification has been the choice of all power system pilot plants built for biomass to date, except for the Varnamo plant in Sweden, which used the Ahlstrom (now Foster Wheeler) pressurized gasifier. However, for fuel production, the disadvantage of the large volumetric flows at low pressure leads to the pressurized gasifier being more economical.« less
  • Biomass is a renewable energy resource that can be converted into liquid fuel suitable for transportation applications. As a widely available biomass form, lignocellulosic biomass can have a major impact on domestic transportation fuel supplies and thus help meet the Energy Independence and Security Act renewable energy goals (U.S. Congress 2007). With gasification technology, biomass can be converted to gasoline via methanol synthesis and methanol-to-gasoline (MTG) technologies. Producing a gasoline product that is infrastructure ready has much potential. Although the MTG technology has been commercially demonstrated with natural gas conversion, combining MTG with biomass gasification has not been shown. Therefore,more » a techno-economic evaluation for a biomass MTG process based on currently available technology was developed to provide information about benefits and risks of this technology. The economic assumptions used in this report are consistent with previous U.S. Department of Energy Office of Biomass Programs techno-economic assessments. The feedstock is assumed to be wood chips at 2000 metric ton/day (dry basis). Two kinds of gasification technologies were evaluated: an indirectly-heated gasifier and a directly-heated oxygen-blown gasifier. The gasoline selling prices (2008 USD) excluding taxes were estimated to be $3.20/gallon and $3.68/gallon for indirectly-heated gasified and directly-heated. This suggests that a process based on existing technology is economic only when crude prices are above $100/bbl. However, improvements in syngas cleanup combined with consolidated gasoline synthesis can potentially reduce the capital cost. In addition, improved synthesis catalysts and reactor design may allow increased yield.« less
  • Biomass is a renewable energy resource that can be converted into liquid fuel suitable for transportation applications. As a widely available biomass form, lignocellulosic biomass can have a major impact on domestic transportation fuel supplies and thus help meet the Energy Independence and Security Act renewable energy goals (U.S. Congress 2007). This study performs a techno-economic analysis of the thermo chemical conversion of biomass to ethanol, through methanol and acetic acid, followed by hydrogenation of acetic acid to ethanol. The conversion of syngas to methanol and methanol to acetic acid are well-proven technologies with high conversions and yields. This studymore » was undertaken to determine if this highly selective route to ethanol could provide an already established economically attractive route to ethanol. The feedstock was assumed to be wood chips at 2000 metric ton/day (dry basis). Two types of gasification technologies were evaluated: an indirectly-heated gasifier and a directly-heated oxygen-blown gasifier. Process models were developed and a cost analysis was performed. The carbon monoxide used for acetic acid synthesis from methanol and the hydrogen used for hydrogenation were assumed to be purchased and not derived from the gasifier. Analysis results show that ethanol selling prices are estimated to be $2.79/gallon and $2.81/gallon for the indirectly-heated gasifier and the directly-heated gasifier systems, respectively (1stQ 2008$, 10% ROI). These costs are above the ethanol market price for during the same time period ($1.50 - $2.50/gal). The co-production of acetic acid greatly improves the process economics as shown in the figure below. Here, 20% of the acetic acid is diverted from ethanol production and assumed to be sold as a co-product at the prevailing market prices ($0.40 - $0.60/lb acetic acid), resulting in competitive ethanol production costs.« less