There is no shortage of challenges for today’s refrigeration engineer, especially if he or she is operating in Australia and struggling to deal with the barriers of transitioning to natural refrigerants. In this article, Scantec managing director Stefan Jensen lists some of the shortfalls that need to be addressed by both industry and government.
Australia isn’t exactly a thriving and lively environment for the refrigeration engineer. There isn’t a lot of technical events, tertiary courses or even regulatory support to encourage this particular career path.
The apparent shortage of events specifically for refrigeration engineers is an Australian phenomenon and is a direct result of the very few refrigeration engineering practitioners operating in this country.
There are certainly plenty of major refrigeration events overseas.
When I came to this country in 1983 from Denmark, there were about 0.5 people per 10,000 directly involved in the refrigeration industry, compared to Denmark’s 10 people per 10,000.
At the time it was possible (and it still is) to obtain tertiary qualifications in Denmark majoring in refrigeration and energy technology. The only course I am aware of in Australia is an HVAC&R module offered by RMIT for mechanical engineering students.
So this is a chicken and egg problem. Tertiary courses are not offered in Australia because the need is insufficient. But what will generate that need?
This is a policy question that needs to be addressed by government. Even with so few numbers it hasn’t stopped the government from introducing the Clean Energy Future (CEF) Bill.
For many refrigeration practitioners, particularly those who specialise in natural refrigerants, it is a struggle to reconcile the requirements of the Workplace Health and Safety (WHS) Act with the intent of the CEF legislation.
The WHS Act requires engineers to mitigate risk by design. Increased use of toxic, flammable and high pressure refrigerants in all refrigeration systems would be seen by many of a legal background as a violation of the intent of the WHS Act.
So in real terms the refrigeration fraternity is being asked to accept all the legal and technical risks associated with increased proliferation of toxic, flammable and high pressure refrigerants.
When asked about this conflict of interest, the government said it is aware of the problem and is working on a solution. This situation is further exacerbated by local urban planning rules and state laws, which often go against the intent of the CEF legislation.
The regulations in relation to hydrocarbons in Queensland (The Petroleum and Gas Regulation 2004) is a prime example of this.
This regulation makes employment of energy efficient and environmentally benign hydrocarbon-based refrigeration systems with a charge exceeding 150g virtually impossible.
Planning rules within the Brisbane City Council jurisdiction dictate that an “impact assessable development application” is necessary for ammonia systems with a charge exceeding 100kg. This discrimination does not apply to chemical refrigerants.
With chemical refrigerants there is no charge limit, the application fee is significantly less and the waiting time for approval is a third of the time required for an ammonia system.
There are too many barriers to the broader uptake of these technologies.
What needs to happen is implementation of federal law that overrides some of the quite silly and completely superfluous local regulations that apply to natural refrigerant-based refrigeration systems.
These local rules often subject refrigeration plants to the same regulations as service stations and chemical storage facilities. Refrigeration plants employing natural refrigerants are already subjected to some of the most stringent regulations in this country.
Australia is very quickly becoming an example of how not to go about the reduction of emissions from HFCs and other synthetic refrigerants. ?
About the author: Stefan Jensen is the managing director of Scantec.