NIK类物质作为HFCs替代物的可行性分析

Not-In-Kind HFCs Substitute and a Simple Cost-effective Analysis

本文对IK和NIK两类替代物的特性及商业化应用进行对比分析,综合考虑两类物质所需工业技术、使用效率、对成本和环境的要求等。分析结果表明,NIK虽然具有较高单位使用量的成本优势,但是使用效率较低,且部分存在安全隐患,按照使用效率计算的成本较高,进而导致综合成本较高;IK的单位使用量成本较高,但是由于使用安全、高效,更具有综合成本优势,缺陷是NIK专利和技术大多数受到美国、欧洲、日本等发达国家控制。因此,本文得出结论认为,用NIK类物质替代HFCs的潜力不如预期大,会产生效率和成本的损失。目前来看,HFCs的替代物质还应以IK类物质为主,并需要在未来的谈判中,加强发展中国家对相关领域技术转让和资金支持的要求。

This paper looks into the comparative figures of In-Kind and Not-In-Kind HFCs substitutes, in terms of their technical maturity, cooling efficiency, environmental and human safety requirement, etc. Conclusion shows, NIK materials have lower per unit cost, while the cooling efficiency of which is relatively low. Meanwhile, they have some safety risks in production. The overall NIK cost could be a little bit high. In-Kind materials have higher per unit cost, while the cooling efficiency is high. The overall eost could be low. While the shortcoming of IK materials is that most of their IP and patents are belonged to other country companies. The paper suggests NIK as HFCs substitute, may not have enough potentials than some study suggested. IK materials is the key area, where in future negotiation, more attention on financial and technological should be paid for.