A question of double standards?

Cold Thoughts

by Neil Everitt

The editor of ACR News posts his own cold thoughts about the ACR industry and anything else he cares to air.

19/02/2010 11:34:45
Many will be aware of the struggle going on between environmental groups and the fluorocarbon industry to win the "hearts and minds" of the car makers over the imminent need to replace R134a in car air conditioning systems.

The environmental groups have been pushing CO2 but the fluorocarbon industry now appears to have trumped them with a new "fourth generation" refrigerant, the hydrofluoro-olefin HFO1234yf.

It is a struggle which is likely to be fought out in the stationary equipment market in the future as HFOs are being seen as having potential to replace HFCs in this market as well.

On the face of it, HFO1234yf ticks all the boxes of acceptability from an environmental standpoint. The car manufacturers love it because it will not increase their costs which, in today's cost-obsessed society is a major consideration. The fluorochemical producers love it because the last thing they want is a cheap, patent-free natural substitute for 134a. The development of HFOs will potentially provide good profits for them in the long term but that is what being in business is all about. They would also argue that it is what the industry wants.

HFO1234yf does, however, have one major drawback: it is flammable, althoughly only "mildly" as the chemical companies are quick to point out.

CO2 also ticks all the environmental boxes with the added benefit that it is non-flammable. As a high pressure refrigerant, though, CO2 will require more expensive equipment, increasing production costs, and the ac system will be heavier meaning greater car fuel usage and as a result making CO2 a less energy-efficient alternative.

The environmental groups appear to be against HFO1234yf purely on the grounds of its flammability. Their tests appear to show that there is a potential problem here. The chemical industry points to the fact that HFO1234yf has passed all the tests including ASTM and claims that tests by environmental groups are "not representative of real-world conditions".

I would applaud their persistence with this safety aspect of HFO1234yf. It is something that clearly needs airing before these refrigerants become universally accepted.

Now call me a confused, cynical, old journalist if you like but I am still confused by the enviromentalists' stance on HFO1234yf. Perhaps they could answer me the following questions?:

1. Environmentally, HFO1234yf ticks all the boxes, right? Concerns about safety are admirable but that is not an environmental issue. Therefore, why is it not being welcomed with open arms by environmental groups?

2. Why is so much being made of the safety of a refrigerant which is less flammable than any of the hydrocarbons so enthusiastically promoted by environmentalists and the natural refrigerant lobbyists?

3. When this magazine carried news of a propensity for hydrocarbon domestic refrigerators to "explode", many supposed "experts" claimed that this couldn't happen, others, irresponsibly, suggested that these news stories should be ignored. Are these same environmental groups now working with the domestic refrigerator manufacturers to overcome this safety issue?

4. Some rightly maintained that the cases of hydrocarbon domestic refrigerators exploding were very rare, particularly compared to the number which catch fire every year. The inference here being that as it was so rare it wasn't a problem. By the same token, if the chances of HFO1234yf catching fire in a car air conditioning system are equally as rare, should we be concerned?

5. The environmental groups are currently very busy promoting hydrocarbons as a suitable alternative to HFCs in all manner of refrigeration and air conditioning systems. Will these same environmental groups be carrying out similar tests to ensure that there are no safety risks with these far more flammable refrigerants in stationary applications?