TABLE OF CONTENTS - Everything R744

DECISION FACTORS, STRENGTHS & WEAKNESSES
PURCHASING CRITERIA FOR HVAC&R
TECHNOLOGY
Respondents were asked about the importance
of individual criteria in the purchasing process of
commercial or industrial end-users. A list of 12 criteria
in the areas of costs, technology, know-how, policy,
and markets was provided. Respondents could rank the
individual factors from “not at all important” to “very
important.”
With values of above 3.7 out of 4.0, the return on
investment, as well as initial investment costs remained
“very important” purchasing criteria for commercial endusers.
These were closely followed by safety (3.5), and
efficiency / performance aspects (3.4). With values below
3.0, sustainability commitments (2.8), available financial
support from official sources (3.0), and the technology’s
environmental impact (3.0) were less important and
could be found at the lower end of the priority ranking.
In the middle, available know-how and trained personnel
(3.3) were ranked as “important,” as well as reliable
supply and familiarity with the technology (3.3) and the
influence of standards in the area of safety, trade, and
building codes (3.2).
Expressed differently, an overwhelming 97.4% of
respondents, all those opting for “very important”
and “important,” believed that commercial / industrial
end-users of HVAC&R equipment would choose the
technology that promised the best ROI rate. Even more
(97.8%) said this about the initial investment.
If only displaying results for the group of end-users
(63 responses), the evaluation changed slightly: 97%
of end-users looked at the Return on Investment first
(“very important” and “important”), followed, this time,
by efficiency and performance of technology second
(97%), and then by initial investment (95%). The least
relevant decision-making factors for end-users were,
starting with the least important, available financial
support, achieving a competitive advantage, and CSR /
sustainability considerations.
STRENGHTS OF NATURAL REFRIGERANTS
Respondents were asked to directly compare natural
refrigerant technology to conventional (HFC, HCFC
etc.) refrigerant technology and rank NRs on a 5 point
scale from “++” (very strong = 4) to “--“ (very weak =
0). All values above 2.0 indicated strengths of NRs
when compared to conventional solutions. As was to
be expected, clear strengths of natural refrigerants
were the reduced environmental impact produced
by less direct and indirect emissions (average value
of 3.1 out of 4.0), followed by the refrigerant cost (3.0),
and efficiency benefits (2.8). Among the strengths
of NR-based technology compared to conventional
refrigerants were also an enhanced corporate image and
competitiveness (2.7), return on investment / lower life
cycle costs (2.6), compliance with current and upcoming
legislation (2.5), and reliable technology (2.4). Safety –
an area often mentioned as a challenge, especially in
regards to handling NR systems – seemed no longer
to be considered a major stumbling block for natural
refrigerants, with a value of 2.3, a similar or slightly better
rating than conventional systems.
NR group: When looking at only those who already
used NR technology (“NR group”), as could have been
expected, the evaluation of strengths and weaknesses
of natural working fluids as compared to conventional
refrigerants was more positive than for the average
respondent. For all values, with the exception of the lack
of skilled personnel, the “NR group” thought that natural
refrigerants were at least as competitive as conventional
fluids in all areas. 78% believed that both environmental
impacts from reduced direct and indirect emissions, and
low refrigerant costs, were either “very strong” or “strong”
benefits of natural refrigerants. 71% thought that a
competitive advantage could be gained as a result of
using natural refrigerants, and that the performance and
efficiency of NR technology was on average, superior.
Non-NR group: 69% of those not yet using natural
refrigerants confirm that the environmental aspect
is a clear benefit of natural refrigerants, followed by
64% for refrigerant costs, and 59% for efficiency and
performance.
WEAKNESSES OF NATURAL REFRIGERANTS
Looking at the lower ratings, one can note that only
in three fields were natural refrigerants considered to
be less competitive than conventional refrigerantsbased
systems today. The lack of trained personnel was
clearly the highest barrier for a faster market uptake
(1.8), coming before the factors general awareness
and misconceptions arising from a lack of reliable
information (1.9). The lack of uniform standards in safety,
trade, or building codes was the third area where NRbased
systems faced barriers (1.9). The availability of
technology (2.2) and initial investment costs (2.1) seem
to be declining in their importance as a concern, with
average values indicating that NRs perform equally as
well as conventional refrigerants in these areas.
NR group: Only in one field did respondents using
NR say that natural refrigerants were less competitive
than conventional fluids - the availability of trained
technicians. Also, in the field of initial investment costs,
more needs to be done, as in this category respondents
were rather divided in their opinion and the highest
share of “very weak” (17%) was recorded.
103