 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|||||||
 |
|
||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
||||
 |
|
|
|||||||||
|
Comparison between Ammonia Absorption Refrigeration Plant & Compression Cycle Refrigeration Plant |
|||||||||||
|
Ammonia Absorption Refrigeration Plant |
Compression Cycle Refrigeration Plant |
|
Low Running cost on cheap fuels like
|
High Running Cost due to Electricity as Energy Input. |
|
Very low maintenance cost due to no reciprocating parts having high wear and tear. |
High maintenance cost. |
|
High plant availability due to no reciprocating parts ( only one Centrifugal pump is moving part which has standby) |
Frequent outage on plant needs standby compressor |
|
No loss of efficiency at part load. Efficiency improves at part load |
Loss of efficiency at part load due to fixed mechanical losses and motor electrical losses. |
|
No fouling of Evaporator surfaces due to lubricating oil |
Possibility of fouling due to lube oil on evaporator surfaces |
|
Small size standby D.G. Set is sufficient |
Large D.G. Set needed on standby. |
|
Outdoor installation, hence low civil and structural costs |
Indoor installation is needed due to Electrical systems |
|
Low foundation costs due to no reciprocating parts |
High foundation costs due to reciprocating compressors. |
|
Long life of plant of at least 25 years |
Low life of compressor |
|
No loss of efficiency with usage |
Loss of efficiency with usage due to compressor parts wear and tear |
|
|
|
Ammonia Absorption Refrigeration Plant
