Considering a CO2 Refrigeration System
Counting Costs and Comparing Options
EDITOR’S NOTE: This article is the first of a two-part series in response to the question: “Should I choose CO2 (R-744) for my refrigeration system?” It was prepared by engineers with M&M Refrigeration (www.mmrefrigeration.com) of Federalsburg, Maryland.
The application of cascade carbon dioxide and ammonia (cascade CO2/NH3) refrigerating systems has been gaining popularity in North America for the past number of years. But to correctly answer the question, “Should I choose CO2 for my refrigeration system?”, one must first identify the objectives for the refrigeration plant.
Some of the questions to ask are:
• What temperature do you need to maintain?
• Are there product freezing requirements?
• Is maintaining a reduced ammonia system charge critical (most systems under 10,000 lbs.)?
• Is having no contaminating refrigerants in the food storage, processing, and employee work areas desirable?
• Is providing a “green” refrigeration system important?
Looking for quick answers on air conditioning, heating and refrigeration topics? Try Ask ACHR NEWS, our new smart AI search tool. Ask ACHR NEWS
Counting Costs
Obviously cost is always an important factor in any project.
If your project does not require storage temperatures below 0° to -4°F and there is no blast freezing and very little room freezing requirement, the most cost effective and efficient refrigerating system would be a single stage economized ammonia refrigeration system.
However, if your storage temperature requirements are below -4° and there is considerable room and or blast freezing requirements, you should carefully consider the benefits of a cascade CO2/NH3 refrigerating system.
Additionally, depending upon the size of the refrigerated facility, the installed cost of a cascade CO2/NH3 refrigerating system is often less than an equivalent two-stage ammonia system. The primary factors contributing to the lower cost are smaller low stage compressors; smaller low temperature suction piping, valves, and liquid separating vessels; less piping and vessel insulation; and lower CO2 costs.
When lower temperatures than those just mentioned are required, the operating cost of a cascade CO2/NH3 refrigerating system becomes very attractive.
Testing
A third-party energy company conducted a comprehensive study of a cascade CO2/NH3 system modeled against an equivalent two-stage ammonia system. The project included field installed instrumentation and data acquisition equipment to monitor and evaluate the real-time performance of the refrigeration plant. The plant had refrigerated storage spaces, and ultra-low temperature blast freezers that have the ability to operate at temperatures lower than those commonly obtained with conventional ammonia systems.
The cascade CO2/NH3 system operates at the following nominal process temperatures (i.e., saturated temperatures): -58° blast freezing; -20° CO2 freezer storage; +20° CO2 coolers and docks; and +11° NH3 high stage. The conventional ammonia system was model for the following temperatures: -58° NH3 blast freezing; -20° NH3 freezer storage; and +20° NH3 high stage, coolers and docks. The efficiency of the cascade CO2/NH3 refrigerating system was measured in kilowatts per ton of refrigeration load (kW/TR).
After five months of monitored operation the comparison of the cascade CO2/NH3 refrigerating system efficiency to the efficiency calculated for the conventional two-stage ammonia system indicated that the cascade CO2/NH3 combined (-58° and -20° suction groups) efficiency showed a 28.7 percent improvement compared to the conventional ammonia system. However, the cascade CO2/NH3 overall system efficiency was reduced by the cascade heat exchangers between the CO2 compressors’ +20° saturated discharge temperature and the +11° ammonia high stage saturated suction temperature.
Moreover, the cascade CO2/NH3 system showed a 5.8 percent overall efficiency improvement over the conventional ammonia system (Table 1).
Many refrigeration engineers and service technicians have generally reached the opinion that there is very little difference between maintaining a CO2 system compared to an ammonia system.
Looking for a reprint of this article?
From high-res PDFs to custom plaques, order your copy today!





