Busting Four Myths

About Absorption Cooling

By Rajesh Dixit, Director of Global Product Management, Johnson Controls
Introduction Myth 1: Absorption chillers are
inefficient.
Absorption chillers have been around for more than 75 years, with
several thousand chillers operating successfully today all over the Fact: In the right applications, these
world. Yet myths about cost, operation and performance surround chillers can be more cost-effective.
this technology, particularly in North America. Look beyond the
myths and you’ll discover absorption cooling technology can be The COP for an electric chiller is typically 6 to 6.5; for an absorption
efficient, cost-effective, flexible and reliable. chiller, it can range from 0.7 to 1.4. Some people automatically rule
out absorption chillers because of this huge difference—but it’s an
apples-to-oranges comparison, because:

• COP is calculated differently for the two chiller types.

• An electric chiller is driven by electricity purchased from the
grid, while an absorption chiller is driven by available waste
heat or low-cost natural gas.
• The electric chiller’s COP does not account for losses of
60% to 70% in electricity generation, transmission and
distribution process.
In short, COP alone is not a sufficient basis for comparison.

1. Typical Chiller COPs Assumed

Electric Centrifugal Direct Natural Gas Fired Double Effect Steam Single Effect Steam
Chiller Absorption Chiller Absorption Chiller Absorption Chiller
6.5 1.2 1.4 0.7

2. Natural Gas $5/MMBTU, Electricity $0.15/kWh, Steam $4 per 1,000 lb (450 Kg)
3. Operational Costs (US Cents/ton-hour)

Electric Centrifugal Direct Natural Gas Fired Double Effect Steam Single Effect Steam
Chiller Absorption Chiller Absorption Chiller Absorption Chiller
8.12 5.00 3.43 6.86

Higher COP does not necessarily result in low operational cost

Busting Four Myths About Absorption Cooling

1
For example, let’s use the typical chiller COP values in the table Just a couple applications where an absorption chiller makes sense:
above to calculate operational costs, based on the stated values
for electricity, gas and steam. It turns out that the chiller with the • A commercial building in New YORK City where the
highest COP, the electric chiller, does not necessarily yield the absorption chiller runs from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m., Monday through
lowest operational cost. The direct gas fired absorption chiller Friday, April to September.
and the high pressure, or two stage, steam chiller are more • A hybrid application where the absorption chiller runs
appropriate choices. during the day and the electric centrifugal chiller runs during
the night.
Of course, utility costs vary, and in many cases, an electric
chiller makes more sense. The point is that it’s worth considering In the example shown here, the direct fired chiller saves $75,000
absorption chillers, especially if electricity costs are high or rising, in annual operating costs, while the double effect steam saves
demand charges are in effect, and natural gas or waste heat costs $100,000. Savings from the single effect chiller aren’t as high.
are low. While this example by no means represents every application, you
can see that the myth of absorption chiller inefficiency is busted.

Example: 1. Average US City, Process Cooling Application, 500 Cooling Tons

2. Electricity $0.15/kWh, Natural Gas $5/MMBTU, Steam $4 per 1,000 lb (450 Kg)

Direct Natural Double Single

Electric
Gas Fired Effect Steam Effect Steam
Centrifugal
Absorption Absorption Absorption
Chiller
Chiller Chiller Chiller
Chiller COP 6.5 1.2 1.4 0.7

Chiller Cost of Operation

$ 253,714 $ 169,451 $ 135,181 $ 235,513
(Input Energy)

Plant Cost of Operation

(Chiller + Pumps + $ 330,330 $ 256,071 $ 222,152 $ 316,044
Tower)

Busting Four Myths About Absorption Cooling

2
Myth 2: Absorption chillers are expensive.
Fact: In the right applications, t hey can deliver the highest payback.
Let’s use the numbers from Myth 1 to calculate simple payback for the different chiller types. As the chart below shows, considering utility
costs and the availability of waste heat may reveal that absorption chillers are ultimately the most cost-effective option. Look at these
factors as well as initial capital expense and COP—and see that the cost myth is busted.

Example: 1. Average US City, Process Cooling Application, 500 Cooling Tons

2. Electricity $0.15/kWh, Natural Gas $5/MMBTU, Steam $4 per 1,000 lb (450 Kg)

Direct Natural Double Single

Electric
Gas Fired Effect Steam Effect Steam
Centrifugal
Absorption Absorption Absorption
Chiller
Chiller Chiller Chiller
Chiller COP 6.5 1.2 1.4 0.7

Chiller Cost of Operation

$ 253,714 $ 169,451 $ 135,181 $ 235,513
(Input Energy)

Plant Cost of Operation

(Chiller + Pumps + $ 330,330 $ 256,071 $ 222,152 $ 316,044
Tower)

Busting Four Myths About Absorption Cooling

3
Myth 3: Absorption chillers have  Even so, operating flexibility for absorption chillers has dramatically
improved over the last several years. Lithium bromide water-based
rigid operating requirements. cycles can now achieve low leaving evaporative temperatures
from 34°F/1°C down to 23°F/-5°C—which is perfect for dairy and
Fact: Flexibility has increased brewery applications.
dramatically in recent years.
The use of absorption chillers on passenger vessels further
Chances are you’ve heard that absorption chillers must always illustrates the technology’s evolution. Absorption chillers
operate at the design point, closer to the full load. That you successfully overcome the vessel’s rolling, pitching and tilting,
shouldn’t mess with flow rates. That chilled water leaving demonstrating true operating flexibility. If it can be done on the
temperature must be above 44°F/7°C, and entering condenser ocean, it can be done on land!
water close to the design temperature, typically 85°F/29.4°C.

Things have improved a lot in the last 25 years. Here’s the reality:

• Water flow rate can be changed at 5% per minute.

• Units can be designed with varying flow rates, in
a wide range.
• There’s no issue with turndown from 100% to 10%
cooling load.
• Entering condenser water temperatures can be as low
as 68°F/20°C.
It’s true that absorption chillers have slower response times
due to the inertia of the lithium bromide solution. And the
temperature of entering condenser water must be 68°F/20°C
or higher, no matter who makes the absorption chiller,
while electric chillers can handle temperatures down to
55°F. Electric centrifugal chillers certainly respond better to
fluctuating loads and faster to issues such as power loss,
making them a sound choice for mission-critical applications
such as data centers.

Busting Four Myths About Absorption Cooling

4
The example below shows a 1000-ton unit with varied condenser water flow rates. As we move from 4 gpm to 2 gpm per ton, the unit
maintains a COP of 1.4 with no change in the model number. Check whether your manufacturer provides this capability.

4 gpm/ton 3 gpm/ton 2 gpm/ton

Condenser Flow (0.9 m3/hr/ton) (0.68 m3/hr/ton) (0.45 m3/hr/ton)

Capacity (tons) 1000 1000 1000

12.2/6.7°C 12.2/6.7°C 12.2/6.7°C

Chilled Water Inlet/Outlet
54/44°F 54/44°F 54/44°F

29.4°C 29.4°C 29.4°C

Condenser Water Inlet
85°F 85°F 85°F

35.1°C 37.1°C 41.1°C

Condenser Water Outlet
95.1°F 98.8°F 106°F

58 kPa 42 kPa 20 kPa

Pressure Drop
19.4 ft wc 14 ft wc 6.7 ft wc

COP* 1.42 1.40 1.36

Busting Four Myths About Absorption Cooling

5
Myth 4: Absorption chillers are not If the solution temperature drops below the values shown, the
solution crystallizes. Just a three percent difference in salt content
reliable. has a huge impact on the temperature at which crystallization
occurs. Even a change of .5% to 1% makes a big difference.
Fact: Properly designed units prevent
crystallization. The risk of crystallization is always high at full or near-full load, and
significantly reduced at part load. The lower the salt percentage,
People considering absorption chillers are especially concerned the better—because that means the crystallization temperature
about the crystallization of lithium bromide, a salt similar to is lower.
table salt. When lithium bromide is fully dissolved in water,
overheating or overcooling can cause it to crystallize. While chiller Again, lower-temperature entering condenser water is what causes
controls can prevent overheating/overcooling, crystallization a lower solution temperature—and that principle directly affects
is most commonly caused by low-temperature entering chiller design. For example, a 57% solution has a crystallization
condenser water. temperature of 26.6°F/-3°C. That’s not possible in real life, because
water entering from the cooling tower cannot drop to such low
Suppose a chiller is working at full load and has non-condensable temperatures. However, if the same unit is designed with a high
gases, perhaps due to low inhibitor levels. The cooling tower absorber entering concentration, such as 63.5%, the table shows
temperature control is lost, and the unit moves toward the a crystallization temperature of 78.8°F/26°C. This temperature
crystallization zone. is entirely possible in day-to-day operation, particularly if the
temperature of condenser water entering from the cooling
The table below shows how salt solution concentration values tower into the absorber section is poorly controlled.
relate to crystallization temperature. (A 57% solution has 57% salt
and 43% water. A 60% solution has 60% salt and 40% water.)

Salt % in 54% 57% 58% 60% 61.5% 63.5%

Solution
Crystallization -16.1°C -3°C 0.9°C 10.5°C 18°C 26°C
Temperature (3.02°F) (26.6°F) (33.6°F) (50.9°F) (64.4°F) (78.8°F)

Busting Four Myths About Absorption Cooling

6
In the PTX diagram below—the Duhring Diagram, named after the German scientist who invented it—the X and Y axes and slanting lines
represent a combination of pressure, temperature and concentration.

The lithium bromide solution entering the absorber is the line most So, low pressure, low temperature and low concentration
prone to crystallization. This is referred to as the absorber spray provide excellent protection against crystallization and corrosion.
line. To the right is the crystallization zone. The farther the distance Don’t count on sophisticated controls to keep you out of the
from the crystallization zone, the better. danger zone. The unit should be intrinsically designed so that
even if the controls aren’t working, the solution won’t crystallize.
To achieve maximum distance from the crystallization zone, the
unit should be designed to minimize the solution concentration.
Less salt, more water. That makes the solution easier to boil;
we don’t need to heat it to a very high temperature. Lower
temperature also means lower corrosion, increasing reliability
and extending equipment life.

Busting Four Myths About Absorption Cooling

7
Example: Single Effect Absorption Chiller
The modern unit on the left is designed with a lower-concentration salt solution entering and leaving the absorber (note: values are drawn
from actual use). The conventional unit on the right is designed with relatively high lithium bromide concentrations. The crystallization
temperatures make it clear that the unit on the left is far less likely to crystallize than the unit on the right. Less salt, more water!

Example: Double Effect Absorption Chiller

A double effect chiller typically operates with higher pressure, temperature and concentrations than a single effect, or single state, chiller.
As in the previous example, the unit on the left is designed with lower-concentration salt solutions, providing the best protection against
crystallization. The “small” half percent or 1% difference in salt solution makes a big difference for the conventionally designed unit on the
right. Controls are important—but design makes the difference.

Busting Four Myths About Absorption Cooling

8
Benefits of Absorption Technology
Absorption cooling technology offers significant advantages:

• It’s truly sustainable, driven by waste heat or low-cost heat,

with eco-friendly water as a refrigerant.
• Maintenance is relatively minimal, primarily requiring
qualified service representatives to analyze vacuum
water quality on the condenser water side and the lithium
bromide solution once or twice a year, depending on hours
in operation.
• This technology is proven across a full range of applications:
small, medium and very large; commercial, industrial and
district cooling.
It’s true that absorption chillers tend to have a larger footprint and
higher heat rejection to the cooling tower. The latter is especially
important if an electric chiller is being replaced by absorption, or
an absorption chiller is being added to the plant room. Equally
important, ensure any service personnel working on the unit are
qualified in absorption chillers. Troubleshooting differs from that
for an electric chiller or boiler. Knowledgeable staff can speed
the process.

Absorption chillers are common in Europe and the Asia Pacific and
being seriously considered in the Middle East and Latin America.
As the U.S. and Canada see lower natural gas costs and a greater
focus on sustainability, absorption chiller use is likely to grow.

Busting Four Myths About Absorption Cooling

9
Conclusion
It’s time to dispel the myths surrounding absorption chiller
technology and reveal the facts. These chillers are reliable, flexible
and sustainable. They offer a quick economic payback where
electric costs are high. The key is to look beyond academic COP
and initial costs. Weigh all the factors discussed above, and you
may well discover that the most efficient, cost-effective choice
is indeed an absorption chiller.

Visit www.YORK.com/absorption-chillers to learn more about

our absorption chillers, features and benefits.

Busting Four Myths About Absorption Cooling

10