Accepted Manuscript

Title: Theoretical analysis of energy-saving performance and economics of

CO2 and NH3 heat pumps with simultaneous cooling and heating applications
in food processing

Author: Yefeng Liu, Eckhard A. Groll, Kazuaki Yazawa, Orkan Kurtulus

PII: S0140-7007(16)00026-8
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/doi: 10.1016/j.ijrefrig.2016.01.020
Reference: JIJR 3249

To appear in: International Journal of Refrigeration

Received date: 23-9-2015

Revised date: 4-1-2016
Accepted date: 25-1-2016

Please cite this article as: Yefeng Liu, Eckhard A. Groll, Kazuaki Yazawa, Orkan Kurtulus,
Theoretical analysis of energy-saving performance and economics of CO2 and NH3 heat pumps
with simultaneous cooling and heating applications in food processing, International Journal of
Refrigeration (2016), http://dx.doi.org/doi: 10.1016/j.ijrefrig.2016.01.020.

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service
to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will
undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its
final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could
affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
 Theoretical analysis of energy-saving performance and economics of CO2

and NH3 heat pumps with simultaneous cooling and heating applications in

food processing

Yefeng Liu1,2*, Eckhard A. Groll2, Kazuaki Yazawa3, Orkan Kurtulus2

1
University of Shanghai for Science &Technology, School of Energy and Power Engineering,
Shanghai, 200093，China

2
Purdue University, School of Mechanical Engineering,
West Lafayette, IN, 47907, USA

3
Purdue University, Bitck Nanotechnology Center,
West Lafayette, IN, 47907, USA.

Highlights:
· CO2 and NH3 heat pumps for combined cooling and heating applications are proposed.
· The performances of the proposed heat pumps are analyzed and simulated.
· Energy-saving performance and economics of the heat pumps are analyzed.

Abstract:
Food processing has significant simultaneous requirements of cooling, warm water and hot water.
In order to reduce energy consumption and greenhouse gases emission, one type of NH3 heat
pump and two types of transcritical CO2 heat pumps are proposed. These natural refrigerant heat
pumps can supply not only cooling, but also warm water and hot water simultaneously. The
characteristics and performance of the heat pumps are analyzed and simulated. Annual primary
energy saving and annual operation cost saving are predicted for California, Wisconsin, New
York, and Florida. Research results show that the maximum possible value of annual primary
energy-saving rates using the CO2 heat pumps range from 56% to 65%, and using the NH3 heat
pump is approximately 44%; the maximum possible value of annual operation cost saving rates
using the CO2 heat pumps range from 50% to 66%, and using the NH3 heat pump is from 20% to
47%.

Key words:
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +86 13918351573; fax: +86 2155271617.
E-mail address: yfliu209@163.com (Y. Liu), groll@purude.edu (E. A. Groll).
1

Page 1 of 31
 Natural refrigerant; CO2 heat pump; NH3 heat pump; Simultaneous cooling and
heating application; Energy saving; Food processing.

Nomenclature

COP(cooling) coefficient of performance to produce cooling capacity

COP(warm water) coefficient of performance to produce warm water capacity
COP(hot water) coefficient of performance to produce hot water capacity
COP(system) coefficient of performance to a whole heat pump, a sum of COP(cooling),
COP(warm water),and COP(hot water)
h enthalpy (kJ kg-1)
P pressure (MPa)
qph potential heating capacity from the heat pump (kJ kg-1)
qrh required heating capacity for a food processing (kJ kg-1)
quh actually used heating capacity from the heat pump for a food processing (kJ
kg-1)
RH relative humidity (%)
T temperature (℃)
Td-b dry-bulb temperature (℃)
Tw-b wet-bulb temperature (℃)
Tw water inlet temperature (℃)

Greek symbols
η1 ratio of actually used heating capacity from the heat pump relative to required
heating capacity for a food processing
η2 ratio of actually used heating capacity relative to potential heating capacity
from the heat pump
η3 ratio of required total heating capacity to cooling capacity in a food processing

Subscripts
S1 the system 1
S2 the system 2
S3 the system 3
S4 the system 4

Page 2 of 31
 1 Introduction

The food processing industry is one of the most energy-intensive industries. Energy efficiency,
environmental protection, and food processing waste management have attracted increasing
attention in the food industry. Typical utilities for operations in food processing plants consist of
thermal energy, electrical energy, and water. For current heating and cooling systems, the thermal
energy is supplied mainly by using fossil fuel boilers, which is the dominant source of energy in
food processing. 37% of fossil fuels burned in the United States is used to generate steam in
general. In the food industry, approximately 57% of the fossil fuel consumption is to generate
steam (Einstein et al., 2001). Fossil fuel boilers supply steam or hot water for washing, blanching,
concentration, pasteurization, CIP (Cleaning-in-Place), and other processes. Approximately 25%
of the electricity in the food industry is used for process cooling and refrigeration.

Washing and blanching can be found in nearly every type of fruit and vegetable processing
facility in the United States. Washing is often done using approximately 60 ℃ water. Water
blanching is performed using hot water at temperatures ranging typically from 70 ℃ to 100 ℃
(Hui 2004 and Hui 2006). Pasteurization is a mild thermal treatment process used for liquids,
such as fruit and vegetable juices, brewing, and dairy processing, in which the liquids are heated
up to 65 ℃ or 88 ℃ for a sufficient amount of time to destroy pathogenic micro-organisms
(USPHS/FDA, 2011; Esslinger, 2009; Smith and Hui, 2004). During the concentration process,
heat at approximately 82 ℃ is used to evaporate water contained in fruit and vegetable pulps,
and juices to produce a more concentrated product. Federal law requires that food processors
adhere to certain standards of cleanliness and sanitation for their processing equipment. This is
most commonly achieved by a CIP (Cleaning-in-Place) technique. The CIP process requires
significant amounts of warm water and hot water. For example, to remove milk organics and
general soil as part of milk production, hot alkaline detergent solution at 75 ℃ is circulated for
30 minutes through the equipment and then drained. CIP is also used for case washing and
general plant cleaning (Yee et al., 2013). CIP can account for a significant portion of the energy
use in a typical process. For example, Ramirez et al. (2006a) estimated that in the Dutch dairy
industry, CIP accounts for 9.5% of energy use in fluid milk processing, 26% of energy use in
butter processing and 19% of energy use in cheese production.

Major end use of electricity in food processing is refrigeration, which is used for process cooling,
raw materials and product cold storage, and freezing applications, as well as building heating,
ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems. After blanching or pasteurization, the foods
are quickly subjected to cooling in order to prevent overcooking. Cold storage involves the
storage of products in refrigerated rooms and can be used at several stages of food processing.
Cold storage is also used extensively for finished frozen products to keep them at the desired
temperature prior to shipping. Also, some facilities (e.g., yeast in brewing, soup canneries) can
use cold storage to keep purchased ingredients fresh until required for further processing.

Page 3 of 31
In food processing, there are significant simultaneous requirements of cooling and heating. For
example, in brewing, cooling with -2 ℃-12 ℃ is required for wort cooling, fermentation,
maturation and storage. heating with 35 ℃-85 ℃ is required for wort production and service
warm water which includes CIP, bottles and kegs cleaning, and others (Esslinger, 2009). In
poultry slaughtering, 50 ℃-60 ℃ warm water is demanded for scalding process, and 82 ℃
hot water is demanded for eviscertation process and CIP. Chilled water at 4 ℃ is required for
carcass washing. The average specific heating and cooling consumptions are 1800MJ ton -1 and
1600 MJ ton-1, respectively (Ramirez et al., 2006 b).

In general, in food processing, most of the required cooling temperature range is 0 ℃-15 ℃
while the required heating temperature range is 25 ℃-95 ℃. In most cases, the warm water is
used only once and then drained, and the required hot water and cooling are recycled. Therefore,
the inlet water from environment is heated to be warm water, and its temperature varies as
ambient temperature varies.

Because the costs of electricity and natural gas are rising rapidly, energy efficiency
improvements are becoming an increasingly important focus area in the food processing industry
for managing costs and maintaining competitiveness. The boiler energy efficiency measures
focus primarily on improved process control, reduced heat loss, and improved heat recovery. For
refrigeration system, these energy efficiency measures mainly focus on improved refrigeration
system management and components efficiency (Masanet et al., 2008). Schnitzer et al. (2007)
indicated that the use of solar thermal energy in dairy process and other industrial processes was
possible. Milk pasteurization with geothermal energy has been reported (Lund, 1997). Soylemez
(2013) presented a thermo economic optimization simulation for estimating the optimum
operating conditions of interconnected heat pump-refrigeration systems that are used in milk
pasteurizing applications, where only part of high temperature heat from condenser is used.

For subcritical cycle heat pumps using HFC refrigerants, it is difficult to produce more than 80 ℃
hot water due to the limitation of the refrigerants’ critical temperatures. However, for transcritical
CO2 cycle heat pumps, the heat rejection process in the supercritical region is a
temperature-changing process, which is particularly suitable for high temperature water
production. Therefore, the transcritical CO2 heat pump is more efficient and suitable than
subcritical heat pumps to meet the heating requirements of temperatures up to 100 ℃. Several of
the current theoretical and experimental investigations on transcritical CO2 heat pump
performance for simultaneous production of refrigeration and water heating have been presented.
Sarkar et al. (2004; 2006; 2010) presented energetic and exergetic analyses, and as well as
optimization studies. Adriansyah (2004) experimentally studied the effect of discharge pressure
for simultaneous air-conditioning and water heating where the evaporating temperature is 0 ℃
and water is heated to 60 ℃. Reported analyses have all been based only on the thermodynamic
cycle. Ammonia as one of the natural refrigerants also can be used in a heat pump for
simultaneous cooling and heating. Such analyses of the annual primary energy-savings and
4

Page 4 of 31
operation cost-savings of CO2 heat pumps or NH3 heat pumps for specific food processing
applications have not been reported yet.

In this paper, two types of transcritical CO2 heat pumps and one type of NH3 heat pump are
proposed which can supply simultaneous heating and cooling. The characteristics and operation
performance of these heat pumps are simulated and analyzed. Based on weather data of TMY3
(Typical Meteorological Year) in California, Wisconsin, New York, and Florida, which are the
main food processing regions in the Unites States, and energy prices, the maximum possible
values of annual primary energy-saving rate and operation cost-saving rate are predicted.

2. Design of NH3 and CO2 heat pumps for simultaneous refrigeration and water heating

2.1 Requirements of heating and cooling during food processing

Fig. 1 depicts representative process flows of beer brewing (Esslinger, 2009), fluid milk, cheese
(Hui, 2004), poultry slaughtering (Lijun, 2009) and CIP for milk (Yee et al., 2013). It is
important to note that for different kinds of food processing, the requirements of heating and
cooling are different. Even for the same kind of food, the treatment temperatures and processes
can be a little different, depending on standards and type of production.

2.2 Proposed NH3 and CO2 Heat Pumps for food Processing
Fig. 2 shows the current heating and cooling system (i.e., System 1) for food processing. Heating
is supplied with natural gas or coal-fired boilers, and cooling is supplied with electrically driven
NH3 refrigeration system. This system consumes significant amount of energy and emit large
amounts of greenhouse gases. According to the requirement of simultaneous heating and cooling,
one type of NH3 heat pump and two types of transcritical CO2 heat pumps are proposed. These
systems can meet the heating and cooling requirements at the same time. Fig. 3 shows the
proposed system schematic of the NH3 heat pump (i.e., System 2) and its cycle in a
pressure-enthalpy diagram. Fig. 4 shows the proposed system schematic of the CO2 heat pump I
(i.e., System 3) and its cycle in a pressure-enthalpy diagram and temperature-entropy diagram.
Fig. 5 shows the proposed system schematic of the CO2 heat pump II (i.e., System 4) and its
cycle in a pressure-enthalpy diagram and temperature-entropy diagram. In the further analysis,
the above systems are named as System 1, System 2, System 3 and System 4, successively as
noted in Fig.2 to 5. For food processing, heating requirement includes one-time heated water
process and cyclic heating process. For example, for washing and blanching process, the heated
water is used only once and then drained; for pasteurization process, the food is heated through
heat exchanger, and heating media is heated in a cycle. In addition, the pasteurization process is a
main cyclic heating process, and requirement of the heating temperature for most of food
pasteurization are about 72 ℃. Therefore, some basic parameter settings in the above heat pump
systems for simulation analysis are based on the above application.
For the System 2, in order to meet the heating demand of food pasteurization, its condensing
temperature is hold as high as 77 ℃, and it is two-stage NH3 heat pump system with closed
5

Page 5 of 31
intercooler. Warm water is heated by the subcooler, and hot water is heated by the condenser, and
some inlet water also can be added to warm water stream at the inlet of condenser when it is
necessary. In the System 3 (CO2 heat pump I), there are two gas coolers and one internal heat
exchanger. The internal heat exchanger is used to improve the COP(cooling) and the COP(hot water).
The gas cooler II is used to supply warm water. The CO2 temperature T3 at the outlet of the gas
cooler I is set as 75 ℃. Part or all of the warm water is further heated through the gas cooler I to
be hot water and some inlet water can be added to warm water stream at the inlet of gas cooler I
when it is necessary. The temperatures and amount of warm water and hot water are adjustable.

Compared to System 3, the main difference of System 4 (CO2 heat pump II) is the fact that the
suction temperature is higher than in common heat pumps’ in order to improve the COP(hot water).
Therefore, the COP(hot water) is higher than that of the System 3. The internal heat exchanger I is
used to improve COP(cooling) and increase suction temperature, and the internal heat exchanger II
is used to increase the suction temperature. Two gas coolers are involved to produce hot water
and warm water. Hot water is produced by the gas cooler I, and warm water is produced by gas
cooler II. Similarly to the System 3, part or all of warm water from gas cooler II can be further
heated through gas cooler I with or without some inlet water. The maximum value of suction
temperature T1 is limited by T3 at the inlet of internal heat exchanger II. Supposed T3 equals
75 ℃, and the heat transfer temperature difference between T3 and T1 is 5 K, so T1 equals 70 ℃.
Similarly, the minimum value of T5 is limited by inlet water temperature of the gas cooler II.
Inlet water is from ambient, so its temperature Tw varies in a year. Then, the maximum value of
T9 (CO2 outlet temperature of inter heat exchanger I) is limited by T5 at the inlet of internal heat
exchanger I. Supposed the heat transfer temperature difference between T5 and T9 is 5 K, so T9 is
less 5 K than T5. T8 is supposed to be saturated vapor point. Finally, the values of T4 and T6 can
be obtained by heat balance calculation. At the same time, T4 must be higher than T9, and T6
must be higher than T8 due to heat transfer temperature difference. Produced warm water
temperature from gas cooler II is limited by T4, and produced hot water temperature from gas
cooler I is limited by T2.

In general, for all the above heat pumps, according to the processes heating demands, the
temperatures and amount of warm water or hot water are adjustable by changing water mass
flow rate and parameter setting values in the heat pump cycles. So the proposed heat pumps have
wide adaptability to heating demands for different kinds of food processing.

Page 6 of 31
 3 Simulation of the systems’ performances

The following assumptions are common to the all four systems for the simulation of the
operational performance:
(1) Referring to the performance of commercially available CO2 and NH3 compressors, the
isentropic efficiency of all compressors is set to 0.7.
(2) The evaporating temperature of refrigeration cycle or heat pump cycles is set to 0 ℃.
(3) Based on TMY 3 weather data, when the outdoor wet bulb temperature Twb≥ 2 ℃, the
temperature of systems heated water inlet Tw = Tw-b; otherwise, Tw = 2 ℃.

The following assumptions contain the main operating parameters of the four systems to analyze
their technical characteristics:
(1) For the System 1, it is assumed that: (a) Heat transfer temperature difference between
condensing temperature and cooling water inlet Tw is 10 K, i.e., T3-Tw = 10 K; (b) Limitation
of the minimum condensing temperature is set as 20 ℃; (c) Degree of subcooling is 5 K, and
degree of superheat is 15 K.
(2) For the System 2, it is assumed that: (a) Condensing temperature T3 of high-pressure stage is
held as a constant: 77 ℃; (b) Heat transfer temperature difference between NH3 outlet of the
subcooler and cooling water inlet is 5 K, i.e., T4 - Tw = 5 K; (c) Degree of superheat is 15 K.
(3) For the System 3, it is assumed that: (a) Discharge pressure range: 5-14 MPa; (b) T3 = 75 ℃;
(c) Heat transfer temperature difference between cooling water inlet and CO2 outlet of the
gas cooler II is 5 K, i.e., T4 - Tw = 5 K; (d) h4 - h5 = h1 - h7; (c) The system operates at the
optimal COP(cooling).
(4) For the System 4, it is assumed that: (a) Discharge pressure range: 5-14 MPa; (b) Limitation
of the maximal discharge temperature is 160 ℃; (c) Suction temperature T3 is held as a
constant: 70 ℃, and T3=75 ℃; (d) h1 - h9 = h3 - h4, and h1 - h9 = h5 - h6; (e) The system
operates at the optimal COP(cooling).

The four systems are listed in Table 1, and the COPs of every system are also defined in the
Table. The COP(cooling) indicates the system performance for the cooling need. The COP(warm water)
indicates the system performance to produce warm water, and the COP(hot water) indicates the
system performance to produce hot water. The COP(system) indicates the combined system
performance based on COP(cooling), COP(warm water), and COP(hot water). All simulation data reported
in this paper were processed using the software EES (Engineering Equation Solver 2014).

Page 7 of 31
3.1 System 1 performance
Fig. 6 shows the variations in COP(cooling) and condensing temperature of NH3 refrigeration
system with water inlet temperature. Based on the limitation of current NH3 compressor working
range, the minimum condensing temperature is set as 20 ℃.In addition, the heat transfer
temperature difference between the condensing temperature and cooling water inlet temperature
Tw is 10K, so the condensing temperature holds as 20 ℃ and COP(cooling) remains constant when
Tw hen ℃. When Tw>10 ℃, the condensing temperature increases with the increase of Tw, so
the COP(cooling) decreases from 8.4 to 4.1.

3.2 System 2 performance

System 2 is a two-stage NH3 heat pump system with closed intercooler, and the condensing
temperature remains constant at 77 ℃. Fig. 7 shows the change of COPs of System 2 with water
inlet temperature. It can be found that the COP(hot water)-s2 remains constant 2.7 due to the
invariable condensing temperature. However, due to the increase of T8 with the increase of water
inlet temperature, the other COPs reduce slowly, and COP(system)-s2 reduces from 6.1 to 5.5 when
Tw increases from 2 ℃ to 28 ℃. However, the effect of the water inlet temperature on COPs is
not significant.

3.3 System 3 performance

Based on current CO2 compressor technology, the compressor discharge pressure range is 5-14
MPa, and the maximal discharge temperature is limited to 160 ℃. Therefore, the performances
of two type CO2 heat pumps are simulated under these limitations in the paper. For the
transcritical CO2 heat pump, when the cycle runs at optimal discharge pressure, the COP(cooling)
and COP(system) are maximal. Therefore, the two type CO2 heat pumps are supposed to run in
optimal discharge pressure in order to save energy as much as possible.

Fig. 8 shows the System 3 performance variations with water inlet temperature. It can be found
that the COPs decrease obviously with the increase of water inlet temperature except COP(hot
water)-s3. The reason is when the inlet water temperature increases, the CO 2 temperature T4 also

Page 8 of 31
increases, and the CO2 enthalpy h4 increase obviously, then the CO2 enthalpy difference (i.e.,
h3-h4) decreases, so the COP(cooling) and COP(warm water) decrease obviously. For COP(hot water)-s3,
when Tw is lower than 18 ℃, the discharge temperature T2 is lower than 75 ℃, so there is no
hot water can be produced. Even when Tw is higher than 18 ℃, the COP(hot water) only increases
slowly from 0 to 0.8. However, compared to the System 2, its COP(cooling) and COP(warm water) are
much higher.

3.4 System 4 performance

Fig. 9 shows the System 4 performance variations with water inlet temperature. It can be found
that the changing rules of performances are similar to those of the System 3. Compared with the
System 3, the optimal discharge pressure is the same as that of System 3 under the same Tw, and
discharge temperature is much higher than that of System 3 which is caused by 70 ℃ suction
temperature. Therefore, the COP(hot water) is higher than that of the System 3, and ranges from 1.2
to1.5 when Tw increases from 2 ℃ to 28 ℃.

In general, among the four systems, for the refrigeration cycle in System 1, its COP (cooling) is the
highest, but it can’t supply heating; for the System 2, its COP(hot water) is the highest and remains
constant in a year, but the other COPs are the lowest and decease slowly with the increase of
inlet water temperature; For the System 3, its COP(hot water) is the lowest. Especially, when the
inlet water temperature is lower than 18 ℃, there is no hot water can be produced. However, the
other COPs are obviously higher than those of the other heat pumps; For the System 4, its
COP(hot water) is higher than that of the System 3, and the other COPs are higher than those of the
System 2.

4 Simulation of the maximum possible values of annual primary energy-saving rate and
operation cost saving rate

In order to analyze the annual primary energy-saving and operation cost saving performance of
the proposed heat pumps in different practical applications, the maximum possible values of
annual primary energy-saving rate and annual operation cost saving rate are analyzed firstly.
When the cooling capacity and heating capacity supplied by the heat pumps can meet the thermal
demand well, the annual primary energy-saving rate and operation cost saving rate are the
maximum possibility values.

4.1 Simulation conditions

Considering main food processing locations and the effect of climate zones on primary
energy-saving, California, Wisconsin, New York, and Florida states are chosen as representative
regions for simulation, and the TMY3 data are from the cities in center of the states. In order to
get the temperature of water inlet, the dry-bulb temperature and relative humidity are taken from
TMY3 (Typical Meteorological Year), then the wet-bulb temperature can be calculated by the
9

Page 9 of 31
following equation (1) (Stull, 2011):

Tw-b =Td-b atan[0.151977(RH%+8.313 659)1/2] + atan(Td-b + RH%) - atan(RH%

-1.676331)+ +0.00391838(RH%)3/2 atan(0.023101RH%)-4.686035 (1)

Where,
Td-b ─ dry-bulb temperature, (℃);
RH% ─ relative humidity (where a humidity such as 65.8% is input as the number 65.8).

The wet-bulb temperature is almost equal to the surface water temperature which is used as the
temperature of inlet water for heat pumps (i.e., Tw). Considering the condition of actual
application, Tw equals 2 ℃ when wet-bulb temperature Tw-b is not higher than 2 ℃. Fig. 10
shows the statistical results of Tw in the above states. It can be found that the temperatures in
California are mainly distributed between 6 ℃ to 20 ℃; in Wisconsin state and New York state,
most of the temperature Tw equals 2 ℃, the reason is that most of the wet-bulb temperature is
lower than 2 ℃ in these states; and the temperatures in Florida are mainly distributed between
18 ℃to 26 ℃.
The local prices of natural gas and electricity vary over time in the USA. The annual average
industrial prices in 2012 (DOE, 2014) for four states are shown in Table 2. It can be seen that the
price of electricity in California is higher 23%-31% than those in the other states.

4.2 Simulation results

When the cooling capacity is supposed to be 100kW, the highest total heating capacity (warm
water capacity plus hot water capacity) in the proposed heat pumps in a year is about 145kW, as
shown in Fig. 11. So when the ratio of total heating capacity to cooling capacity is 1.45, the
primary energy-saving rate will be the maximum.

The following assumptions are made to predict the maximum possible values of annual primary
energy-saving rate and operation cost saving rate in the proposed heat pumps:
(1) The requirement of cooling capacity and total heating capacity is supposed to be 100 kW and
145 kW, respectively.
(2) The fuel-to-steam efficiency of the natural gas boiler is 0.75 (usual range: 0.60-0.85).
(3) The heating value of natural gas from combustion is 35.3 MJ m-3.
(4) Natural gas power generation efficiency is 0.32.
(5) For System 2, System 3, and System 4, a natural gas boiler is used as a supplementary heat
source when the potential total heating capacity from the heat pump is lower than the demand
of 145 kW.
10

Page 10 of 31
The potential heating capacities those the proposed heat pumps can supply vary with the inlet
water temperature, and the variations are shown in Fig.11. It can be found that on the whole, both
the potential heating capacity of hot water and the total heating capacity of System 2 are the
highest among these systems, but the potential heating capacity of warm water in the System 2 is
much lower than the CO2 heat pumps. Compared with the System 3, for the System 4, the
potential heating capacity of hot water is higher; the potential heating capacity of warm water is
lower; the potential total heating capacity is slightly higher.

When the total potential heating capacity is lower than the demand of 145 kW, the rest is
supplied by a natural gas boiler. The electric energy consumed by the compressor is transformed
to primary energy consumption in natural gas power plants according the heating value of natural
gas from combustion and natural gas power generation efficiency. The primary energy (i.e.,
natural gas) consumption variations in the systems with the inlet water temperature are shown in
Fig. 12. It can be found that the total primary energy consumption of System 1 is the highest,
followed by the System 2 and then the System 4. For the System 1, the heating capacity is all
from a boiler, and the boiler consumes most of primary energy. For the System 2, even though
the total potential heating capacity is the highest, but its COP(system) is much lower than the CO2
heat pumps’ (i.e., the System 3 and System 4), which can be seen in Fig. 8 to 9. The compressor
consumes most of primary energy, so its total primary energy consumption is higher than the
CO2 heat pumps.

For further analysis, three ratios, η1 ,η2 andη3, are defined in the paper as follows:

η1=quh/qrh (2)
where,
quh ─ actually used heating capacity from the heat pump in a food processing, (kJ kg-1 );
qrh ─ required heating capacity in a food processing, (kJ kg-1 ).

η2=quh/qph (3)
where,
qph ─ potential heating capacity from the heat pump, (kJ kg-1).

η3=q(heating capacity)/q(cooling capacity) (4)

where,
q(heating capacity) ─ heating capacity from the heat pump, (kJ kg-1);
q(cooling capacity) ─ required cooling capacity in a food processing, (kJ kg-1).

The ratio η1 indicates a proportion of actually used heating capacity from the heat pump relative
to required heating capacity for a food processing. The higher the η1 is, the less the boiler in the
system consumes natural gas. The ratio η2 indicates a proportion of actually used heating
11

Page 11 of 31
capacity relative to potential heating capacity from the heat pump. The higher the η2 is, the
higher the actual energy efficiency ratio of heat pump is. Supposed the potential heating capacity
of the proposed heat pumps is fully used for food processing (i.e., η2= 1), the result of η1 is
shown in Fig. 13. It can be found that more than 75% of the required heating capacity is supplied
by a heat pump, and the NH3 heat pump can meet more than 96% of the required heating
capacity. The ratio η3 indicates a proportion of required total heating capacity to cooling capacity
in a food processing, and it affects primary energy-saving rate and operation cost saving rate
apparently. When the η3 equals 1.45, the saving rates are the maximum values. So the optimal
value of η3 is 1.45.

Compared with System 1, the maximum possible values of annual primary energy-saving rate
and operation cost saving rate of the proposed heat pumps are shown in Fig. 14 and Fig. 15,
respectively. From Fig. 14 it can be seen that the maximum possible values of annual primary
energy-saving rate in System 3 is the highest and ranges from 61% to 65%, followed by the
System 4 which ranges from 56% to 61%. For the System 2, the value changes slightly between
44% and 45%. For all of the heat pumps, the annual primary energy-saving rates are remarkable,
especially for the CO2 heat pumps, and the affect of climate zone is not obviously. From Fig. 15
it can be found that the maximum possible value of annual operation cost saving rate in System 3
is still the highest and ranges from 58% to 66%, followed by the System 4 which ranges from 50%
to 62%, and the value is close to its value of the maximum possible value of annual primary
energy-saving rate. But for the System 2, the potential annual operation cost saving rate ranges
from 20% to 47%, and the value in California State is much lower than its maximum possible
value of annual primary energy-saving rate. The reason is that the electricity price in California
State (listed in Table 2) is much higher than those of the other states, and the compressor in the
System 2 consumes much more electricity than the other systems, as shown in Fig. 12.

In most cases of actual application, the saving rates are usually lower than the maximum possible
values because the ratioη3 is not 1.45.

5 Conclusions

In order to reduce the energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions in food processing, one
NH3 heat pump and two types of CO2 heat pumps are proposed and introduced. The proposed
natural refrigerant heat pumps can supply cooling and heating (warm water at 25-70 ℃, and hot
water at 71-100 ℃) simultaneously during a year. The variations of working performance and
characteristics with the inlet water temperature 2 ℃ to 28 ℃ are simulated and analyzed. Based
on the energy prices and weather data TMY3 (Typical Meteorological Year) in California,
Wisconsin, New York, and Florida states, the maximum possible values of annual primary
energy-saving rate and operation cost saving rate are predicted.

The main characteristics of these heat pumps includes: (1) the combined coefficient of
12

Page 12 of 31
performance of the whole heat pump is much higher than the one of the current system; (2) the
warm water temperature and hot water temperature can be controlled to specific values as
desired for a given application. Therefore, the proposed heat pumps can meet not only the
requirement of cooling, but also the requirements of different temperature water heating in
process for food processing.

For the current refrigeration cycle used in System 1, its COP(cooling) is the highest, but it cannot
supply the required heating; for the proposed NH3 heat pump, its COP(hot water) is the highest and
remains constant throughout the year, but the other COPs are the lowest; for the proposed CO2
heat pump I (i.e., System 3), the COP(hot water) is the lowest, especially when the inlet water
temperature is lower than 18 ℃. In this case, no hot water can be produced. However, the
other COPs are the highest, and obviously higher than those of the other heat pumps. For the
proposed CO2 heat pump II (i.e., System 4), the COP(hot water) is higher than that of the System 3,
and the other COPs are higher than those of System 2.

When the ratio of required heating capacity to cooling capacity equals the optimal value of 1.45,
all cooling capacity and heating capacity produced by these heat pumps can be fully utilized for
food processing. In this case, the annual primary energy-saving rate and operation cost saving
rate are the maximum possible values. Under this condition, for the annual primary energy, the
NH3 heat pump can save 61% to 65%; the CO2 heat pump I can save 56% to 61%; the CO2 heat
pump II can save 44% to 45% in the four states considered here. For the annual operation cost,
the NH3 heat pump can save 58% to 66%, the CO2 heat pump I can save 50% to 62%, and the
CO2 heat pump II can save 20% to 47% in the four states considered here.

The proposed NH3 and CO2 heat pumps can be used in food processing, such as brewing, dairy
processing, vegetable and fruit processing, and animal slaughtering and processing. It also can be
used in other industrial and commercial applications.

References

Adriansyah W. 2004. Combined air conditioning and tap water heating plant using CO2 as
refrigerant. Energy and Buildings. 36(7), 690-695.
Einstein D, Worrell E, and Khrushch M. 2001. Steam systems in industry: energy use and energy
efficiency improvement potentials. Lawerence Berkeley National Laboratory. Paper:
LBNL-49081.
Esslinger H. M. 2009. Handbook of brewing processes, technology, markets. Press: Weinheim:
Wiley-VCH.
Hui Y.H. 2004. Handbook of vegetable preservation and processing. Press: Marcel dekker, inc.
Hui Y.H. 2006. Hand book of fruits and fruit processing. Press: Blackwell publishing.
Lund J. W.1997. Milk pasteurization with geothermal energy. GHC Bulletin, August, 13-15.
Masanet E., Worrell E., Graus W., and et al. 2008. AN ENERGY STAR Guide for energy and
13

Page 13 of 31
 plant managers. Energy efficiency improvement and cost saving opportunities for the fruit and
vegetable processing industry. LBNL-59289-Revision.
Ramirez C.A., Patel M., and Blok K. 2006 a. From fluid milk to milk powder: energy use and
energy efficiency in the European dairy industry. Energy. 31(12), 1984-2004.
Ramirez C.A., Patel M., and Blok K. 2006 b. How much energy to process one pound of meat? A
comparison of energy use and specific energy consumption in the meat industry of four
European countries. Energy. 31(12), 2047–2063.
Schnitzer H., Brunner C., Gwehenberger G. 2007. Minimizing greenhouse gas emissions through
the application of solar thermal energy in industrial processes. Journal of cleaner production.
15, 1271-1286.
Smith J.S., Hui Y. H. 2004. Food processing: principles and applications. Press: Blackwell
Publishing.
Soylemez M.S. 2013. Thermo economically optimum heat pump for pasteurizing milk.
Middle-east journal of scientific research. 13(7), 919-925.
Stull R. 2011. Wet-Bulb Temperature from Relative Humidity and Air Temperature. Journal of
applied meteorology and climatology.50, 2267-2269.
United States Department of Energy (DOE) (2014). Energy Price Data, Annual, by U.S. and by
Individual, Industrial Price Data. Energy Information Administration, Washington, D.C.
http://www.eia.gov/.
United States Public Health Service/Food and Drug Administration (USPHS/FDA). 2011. Grade
“A” pasteurized milk ordinance.
Sarkar J., Souvik B., and Ramgopal M. 2010. Performance of a Transcritical CO2 Heat Pump for
Simultaneous Water Cooling and Heating. Int. J. of Applied Science, Engineering and
Technology. 6(1), 57-63.
Sarkar J., Bhattacharyya S., and Ramgopal M. 2006. “Simulation of a transcritical CO2 heat
pump cycle for simultaneous cooling and heating applications,” Int. J. of Refrigeration. 29(5),
735-743.
Sarkar J., Bhattacharyya S., and RamGopal M. 2004. “Optimization of a transcritical CO2 heat
pump cycle for simultaneous cooling and heating applications,” Int. J. of Refrigeration. 27(8),
830-838.
Yee W.C, Mcaloon A. J., and Tomasula P. M. 2013. Manual for the fluid milk process model and
simulator. USDA.

14

Page 14 of 31
 (a) (b) (c) (d)

Figure 1: Representative processes for (a) beer brewing, (b) fluid milk and cheese,
(c) poultry slaughtering and (d) CIP process for milk.

15

Page 15 of 31
 (a)

(b)

(c)

Figure 2: System 1 (current heating and cooling system for food processing):
(a) system schematic of the NH3 refrigeration system, (b) NH3 refrigeration cycle in a
pressure-enthalpy diagram, (c) system schematic of natural gas boiler.
16

Page 16 of 31
 (a)

(b)

Figure 3: System 2 (two-stage NH3 heat pump system with closed intercooler):
(a) system schematic, (b) cycle in a pressure-enthalpy diagram.

17

Page 17 of 31
 (a)

(b) (c)

Figure 4: System 3 ( proposed CO2 heat pump I): (a) system schematic, (b) cycle in a
pressure-enthalpy diagram, (c) cycle in a temperature-entropy diagram.

18

Page 18 of 31
 (a)

(b) (c)

Figure 5: System 4 (proposed CO2 heat pump II): (a) system schematic, (b) cycle in a
pressure-enthalpy diagram, (c) cycle in a temperature-entropy diagram.

19

Page 19 of 31
 (a) (b)
Figure 6: System 1 performance (NH3 refrigeration system) variations with water inlet
temperature:
(a) COP(cooling), (b) condensing temperature.

Figure 7: Variations in COPs of System 2 with water inlet temperature.

20

Page 20 of 31
 (a)

(b)

Figure 8: System 3 (proposed CO2 heat pump I) performance variations with inlet water
temperature: (a) optimal discharge pressure P and discharge temperature T2, (b) COPs.

21

Page 21 of 31
 (a)

(b)
Figure 9: System 4 performance variations with inlet water temperature:
(a) optimal discharge pressure P, T2 and T4, (b) COPs.

22

Page 22 of 31
(a)

(b)

23

Page 23 of 31
 (c)

(d)

Figure 10: Statistical distribution of hours with water inlet temperature in a year for the
four states: (a) California, (b) Wisconsin (c) New York, (d) Florida

24

Page 24 of 31
(a)

(b)

25

Page 25 of 31
 (c)
Figure 11: Potential heating capacity variations of the heat pumps as a function of water
inlet temperature assuming a cooling capacity of 100 kW: (a) System 2, (b) System 3, (c)
System 4.

26

Page 26 of 31
 (a)

(b)

27

Page 27 of 31
 (c)

(d)
Figure 12: Primary energy consumption of all the systems as a function of water inlet
temperature assuming a cooling capacity of 100 kW and a heating capacity of 145 kW:
(a) System 1, (b) System 2, (c) System 3, (d) System 4.

28

Page 28 of 31
 Figure13: variations of η1 with the inlet water temperature.

Figure 14: Maximum possible value of annual primary energy-saving rate.

29

Page 29 of 31
 Figure 15: Maximum possible value of annual operation cost saving rate.

Table 1: List of the cooling and heating systems for food processing application

Syste Cooling Heating resource COPs definition

m No. resource
1 Water-coole Boiler COP(cooling)-S1 = (h6-h5)/(h2-h1)
d NH3
chiller
2 NH3 heat NH3 heat pump (1)COP(cooling)-S2 =
pump mlp(h1-h9)/(mlp(h2-h1)+mhp(h4-h3))
(2)COP(hot water)- S2 =
mhp(h4-h5)/(mlp(h2-h1)+mhp(h4-h3))
(3)COP(warm water)- S2 = mhp(h4-h5)/
(mlp(h2-h1)+mhp(h4-h3))
(4)COP(system)-S2 = COP(cooling)-S2+ COP(hot water)- S2+
COP(warm water)- S2
3 Proposed Proposed CO2 (1)COP(cooling)- S3 = (h7-h6)/(h2-h1)
CO2 heat heat pump I (2)COP(hot water)- S3 = (h2-h3)/(h2-h1)
pump I (3)COP(warm water)-S3 = (h3-h4)/(h2-h1)
(4)COP(system)-S3 = COP(cooling)-S3+ COP(hot water)-S3+
COP(warm water)- S3
4 Proposed Proposed CO2 (1)COP(cooling)- S4 = (h8-h7)/(h2-h1)
CO2 heat heat pump II (2)COP(hot water)- S4 = (h2-h3)/(h2-h1)
pump II (3)COP(warm water)- S4 = (h4-h5)/(h2-h1)
30

Page 30 of 31
 (4)COP(system)- S4 = COP(cooling)-S4+ COP(hot water)- S4+
COP(warm water)- S4

Table 2: Annual average energy prices of three main dairy producing states in 2012

Region California Wisconsin New York Florida

Price of natural gas $ m-3 0.2039 0.2053 0.2445 0.2458

Price of electricity $ kWh-1 0.1049 0.0734 0.0723 0.0804

31

Page 31 of 31