Following a specific request of a customer in the convenience store/supermarket segment, and leveraging on the Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) approach, this theorethical study compares two refrigeration systems: a full plug‑in store using R290 integral and plug‑in cabinets, and a full remote store using CO₂ remote cabinets.
The main goal has been identifying the store surface threshold above which the full remote solution is economically better compared to a full plug-ins proposal, keeping similar TDA across the different technological proposals.
Two different refrigeration solutions:
- Full plugins store – based on R290 integral and plugins cabinets
- Full remote store – based on CO2 remote cabinets
Two different store configuration:
- Convenience store – total net area 450 m2
- Supermarket – total net area 650 m2
The study has been conducted in close collaboration with the customer, who provided specific parameters for the CAPEX and OPEX calculation, including energy cost, labour cost for installation, maintenance costs over 10 years, HVAC settings for the stores. The key benefit is, thus, the higher reliability of the results, closer to the real customer experience.
OPEX calculation has been done with the Energy Forecast tool.
Other aspects have been included in the study, such as equipment footprint and impact on HVAC system of plugins units.
For small convenience store (450 m2), the result is clear: even if the energy consumption is significantly higher for plugins solution (+43%), its low cost installation lower the total cost over the considered period by 10% compared to a remote solution.
For supermarkets (650 m2), the results between the two technological proposals are similar: the energy consumption is still significantly higher for plugins solution (+32%), but higher equipment and installation costs for a remote system even the economical figures over the considered period, with a small difference of 1.6% compared to a plugins solution.