Sign in

Libre University uses your GitHub account. Signing in is only needed to sit a final test, so the score is kept on your profile.

Refrigeration and heat pumps

Heat will not flow from a cold larder into a warm kitchen on its own, and the whole of refrigeration is the business of paying it to.

Reversing the arrows

Every cycle so far has run in one direction: take heat in at high temperature, deliver work, reject heat at low temperature. Run the same loop backwards and the signs all flip. Work goes in, heat is absorbed at low temperature, and a larger quantity of heat is rejected at high temperature. Nothing in the Second Law forbids it, because the work supplied pays for the entropy bookkeeping. What is forbidden is doing it for free.

The same hardware serves two purposes depending on which end you care about. If the point is the heat absorbed at low temperature, the machine is a refrigerator and the cold space is a larder, a cold store or a cryostat. If the point is the heat delivered at high temperature, it is a heat pump and the warm space is a building. The thermodynamics is identical; only the invoice differs.

Coefficient of performance

Thermal efficiency is the wrong score here, and not because these machines are inefficient. Efficiency is defined as what you want over what you pay for, and here what you want is heat moved while what you pay for is work. The ratio is routinely greater than one, so calling it an efficiency invites the wrong instinct entirely. It is called a coefficient of performance instead:

COPR=qLwin,COPHP=qHwin

Since the cycle conserves energy, qH=qL+win, and dividing through gives a relation worth remembering:

COPHP=COPR+1

A heat pump is always better at heating than the same machine is at cooling, by exactly one, because the work itself ends up as heat in the warm space and is not wasted.

The Carnot bound applies here too, in reversed form. Between reservoirs at TL and TH, no machine beats COPR=TL/(TH-TL). The important feature of that expression is the denominator: performance collapses as the temperature lift grows. A domestic fridge lifting heat from -10 to 25 degrees Celsius has a bound of 263.15/35=7.5. A freezer lifting from -30 to 25 has a bound of 243.15/55=4.4. Cold is expensive, and very cold is very expensive.

Why the reversed Carnot cycle is not built either

The best conceivable cycle between two temperatures is the reversed Carnot cycle, and its practical objections mirror the ones that killed the forward version.

Two of its four processes are fine. Evaporating a refrigerant at constant low pressure absorbs heat at constant temperature, and condensing it at constant high pressure rejects heat at constant temperature, both automatically isothermal because they happen inside the dome. The trouble is the other two.

The compression would have to start inside the dome, taking a wet mixture and compressing it to saturated vapour. Liquid droplets entering a compressor erode blades and, in a reciprocating machine, can cause hydraulic lock that wrecks it in one stroke. Real machines are designed to compress dry vapour and nothing else.

The expansion would have to be an isentropic turbine handling a nearly-liquid mixture at a few kilowatts of output. Such machines exist and are used at large scale in industrial plant, but for anything domestic the machine costs more than the work it recovers.

So the practical cycle makes two changes: evaporate all the way to saturated vapour so the compressor sees dry gas, and replace the turbine with a valve. That is the ideal vapour-compression refrigeration cycle, and it is what is inside essentially every refrigerator, freezer, air conditioner and heat pump on earth.

The cycle, worked

Four states. At 1 the refrigerant leaves the evaporator as saturated vapour at the low pressure. The compressor raises it isentropically to the condenser pressure at 2, where it is superheated. The condenser rejects heat at constant pressure, leaving saturated liquid at 3. The expansion valve throttles it back to the low pressure at 4, isenthalpically, producing the wet mixture that goes to the evaporator.

qL=h1-h4,win=h2-h1,qH=h2-h3,h4=h3

Take R-134a between an evaporator at -20 degrees Celsius, where the saturation pressure is 132.8 kPa, hf=25.49, hg=238.40 kJ kg⁻¹ and sg=0.9361 kJ kg⁻¹ K⁻¹, and a condenser at 800 kPa, where the saturation temperature is 31.31 degrees Celsius, hf=95.47, hg=267.29 kJ kg⁻¹ and sg=0.9184 kJ kg⁻¹ K⁻¹. The superheated table at 800 kPa and 40 degrees Celsius reads h=273.66 kJ kg⁻¹ and s=0.9377 kJ kg⁻¹ K⁻¹.

Example. Find the isentropic compressor work, the refrigeration effect and the coefficient of performance.

The compressor leaves state 1 at s=0.9361, which at 800 kPa lies between saturated vapour (sg=0.9184) and the 40 degree entry (s=0.9377). The fraction across is (0.9361-0.9184)/(0.9377-0.9184)=0.914, so h2=267.29+0.914×6.37=273.11 kJ kg⁻¹ at about 39 degrees Celsius, and win=273.11-238.40=34.71 kJ kg⁻¹.

The valve gives h4=h3=95.47 kJ kg⁻¹, so the refrigeration effect is qL=238.40-95.47=142.9 kJ kg⁻¹ and

COPR=142.934.71=4.12

Every joule of electricity moves four of heat. The condenser rejects 273.11-95.47=177.6 kJ kg⁻¹, which is the sum of the other two as it must be.

Now you. The compressor has an isentropic efficiency of 0.80. Find the actual work, the actual discharge enthalpy and the coefficient of performance.

Answer

wa=34.71/0.80=43.39 kJ kg⁻¹, so h2=238.40+43.39=281.79 kJ kg⁻¹. The refrigeration effect is unchanged at 142.9 kJ kg⁻¹, so COPR=142.9/43.39=3.29.

Set that beside the two bounds. Between the cold space at -10 and the kitchen at 25 degrees Celsius, Carnot allows 7.5. Driving the heat transfers requires the refrigerant to run colder than the space and hotter than the room, at -20 and 31.31, and Carnot between those allows only 4.9. The real compressor takes it to 3.3. The three numbers separate the loss due to heat exchanger size from the loss due to machine quality, and they point at different fixes: bigger coils for the first, a better compressor for the second.

Example. A cold room needs 12 kW of cooling on the cycle above with the 0.80 compressor. Find the refrigerant flow, the compressor power and the condenser duty.

The flow is m˙=12/142.9=0.0840 kg s⁻¹, or 5.0 kg per minute. The compressor power is 0.0840×43.39=3.64 kW, and the condenser must reject 12+3.64=15.6 kW.

Now you. A domestic refrigerator on the same cycle needs 5.0 kW. What flow and compressor power does it need?

Answer

m˙=5.0/142.9=0.0350 kg s⁻¹ and the power is 0.0350×43.39=1.52 kW.

The valve, and what it costs

The throttling valve is the one deliberately irreversible component in the cycle, and it is worth costing rather than excusing.

Replace it with an isentropic turbine and follow the numbers. Saturated liquid at 800 kPa has sf=0.3540 kJ kg⁻¹ K⁻¹. Expanded isentropically to 132.8 kPa, where sf=0.0950 and sfg=0.8411 kJ kg⁻¹ K⁻¹, the quality would be (0.3540-0.0950)/0.8411=0.308, giving h=25.49+0.308×212.91=91.06 kJ kg⁻¹. The turbine would recover 95.47-91.06=4.41 kJ kg⁻¹.

That is 12.7 per cent of the compressor work, which is not nothing, and it appears twice over, because the lower exit enthalpy also increases the refrigeration effect. In a domestic machine, recovering it would require a two-phase turbine producing about half a watt, and the answer is obviously no. In a large ammonia plant or an industrial chiller, the answer is sometimes yes, and expanders are fitted.

The valve's irreversibility can be quantified directly. The state after throttling has quality (95.47-25.49)/212.91=0.329, hence entropy 0.0950+0.329×0.8411=0.3715 kJ kg⁻¹ K⁻¹, against 0.3540 going in. So sgen=0.0174 kJ kg⁻¹ K⁻¹ every time a kilogram passes through, and the next lesson will convert that into 5.2 kJ kg⁻¹ of destroyed work potential at ordinary surroundings, which is close to the 4.41 kJ kg⁻¹ the turbine would have recovered.

What real machines do differently

Three departures from the ideal cycle are universal, and two of them are deliberate.

The refrigerant leaving the evaporator is deliberately superheated by a few degrees, because a compressor that occasionally swallows liquid does not last. Superheating raises the compressor inlet enthalpy and its work, slightly, and buys reliability.

The liquid leaving the condenser is deliberately subcooled by a few degrees, so that the valve is fed liquid rather than a mixture of liquid and flash vapour. Subcooling is nearly free performance: cooling the liquid 5 K below saturation drops h3 by about 7.2 kJ kg⁻¹, since the liquid specific heat is around 1.44 kJ kg⁻¹ K⁻¹, and every one of those joules adds directly to the refrigeration effect. The effect is 150.1 instead of 142.9 kJ kg⁻¹, a gain of five per cent for no extra work.

Pressure drops through the evaporator and condenser tubes are not deliberate. They widen the pressure ratio the compressor must work against and cost a few per cent.

Heat pumps

Run the same machine for its condenser output and the economics change completely. The heat pump above delivers qH=281.79-95.47=186.3 kJ kg⁻¹ for 43.39 kJ kg⁻¹ of work, so COPHP=4.29, which is COPR+1 as promised.

Against direct electric heating, which delivers exactly one joule of heat per joule of electricity, that is a factor of four. A house needing 8 kW of heat draws 8/4.29=1.86 kW instead of 8 kW.

The catch is in the denominator of the Carnot expression. The colder it is outside, the larger the lift and the worse the coefficient, so a heat pump is least effective exactly when the house needs it most. Air-source machines in real service manage a seasonal average around 3 in a temperate climate and drop below 2 in a hard frost, when supplementary heating cuts in. Ground-source machines see a source that stays near 10 degrees Celsius all winter and hold a higher coefficient, at the cost of digging.

Example. The heat pump above, with COPHP=4.29, serves a house needing 12 kW. What electrical power does it draw, and what would resistance heating draw?

12/4.29=2.79 kW against 12 kW, a saving of 9.2 kW while the conditions hold.

Now you. In a cold snap the coefficient falls to 2.1 and the house needs 15 kW. What does the machine draw?

Answer

15/2.1=7.1 kW, more than two and a half times the mild-weather figure for only a quarter more heat.

Where this cycle stops working

Vapour compression has a range, and outside it other machines take over.

A single stage cannot span a large temperature lift, because the pressure ratio becomes impractical and the flash losses at the valve grow until most of the flow is doing nothing useful. The standard answer is a cascade: two or more separate loops with different refrigerants, the condenser of the colder one acting as the evaporator of the warmer. Liquefied natural gas plants use three cascaded loops, on propane, ethylene and methane, to reach 111 K.

Where cheap heat is available and electricity is not, an absorption system replaces the compressor with a pump, an absorber and a generator, exploiting the fact that pumping a liquid solution costs almost nothing while driving the refrigerant back out of solution can be done with waste heat at 100 degrees Celsius. The coefficient of performance is under 1, but it is being paid in a different currency.

Below about 100 K no refrigerant is a liquid, so the working fluid stays a gas throughout and the machine becomes a reversed Brayton cycle, with a turbine as the expansion device and no phase change anywhere. Aircraft cabin air conditioning uses this, because the compressed air is already available from the engine.

Finally, the refrigerant itself is a choice with consequences beyond thermodynamics. R-134a was adopted to replace R-12 after the Montreal Protocol of 1987, because chlorinated refrigerants destroy stratospheric ozone. R-134a contains no chlorine and is a potent greenhouse gas instead, with a global warming potential around 1430 times that of carbon dioxide, and it is being phased down in turn under the Kigali Amendment of 2016 in favour of R-1234yf, propane, ammonia and carbon dioxide itself. Each replacement trades some combination of efficiency, flammability, toxicity and operating pressure, and none is free.

One question is now unavoidable. This lesson scored machines with a coefficient of performance above 4, earlier lessons scored power plants with efficiencies around 0.4, and the cogeneration lesson produced a plant whose output was mostly hot water. None of those numbers can be compared with any other, and none of them says which component in a plant to fix. Fixing that is the last lesson.