Hydrocarbon Refrigerants - the continuing saga

Fox's Tales
by Graeme Fox
Graeme Fox is an RAC contractor based in Dundee. He is a director at AREA (Air Conditioning & Refrigeration European Contractors' Association) and a member of the Institute of Refrigeration.

06/10/2009 09:25:01
What an interesting month its been. A number of people posted comments after my last blog - many of which followed the usual line these days: if you can't argue the case, just smear the name!

Some interesting technical points were made, but there are two things I'd like to say on the issue of the exploding fridges before I move on.

Firstly, despite the comments left by those who claim the small charge cannot possibly result in this damage - the fact remains that a very small leak has resulted in ignition in the past. This fact has been accepted by the manufacturers, hence the imminent tightening of the EN378 regulation. Interesting that those who argue against the facts refuse to leave their names or organisation names on the site. If you are so sure of the facts why hide behind a pseudonym? It only makes me suspicious that those who are arguing don't know the facts, only the spin.

Secondly, for anyone who attended the recent Cooling Industry awards it was obvious to all present how the industry feels about hydrocarbon refrigerants becoming the norm. When reference was made by some to the exploding fridge story highlighted here, there was a considerable swell of approval for raising the issue and getting the real arguments discussed for a change.

While wholesale changeover to hydrocarbons would conveniently tick a box and meet one target for our political classes, they would be left with a severe energy shortage crisis due to the lower efficiencies with split system air conditioners running on hydrocarbons compared with HFCs.

All of this is, of course, entirely avoidable if industry is given the power by government to properly and effectively police the F Gas Regulation. The argument is simple.

HFCs account for around 1.5% of greenhouse gas emissions worldwide.
Of that, car ac account for around 70%. Therefore, static ACR accounts for around 0.5%.

A properly implemented F Gas Regulation would result in a drop in emissions to around 10% that of present levels (based on the results of similar legislation abroad). Therefore, once the car ac industry has dealt with their phase out which is already agreed, the static acr industry will account for approximately 0.05% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions.

The message is clear: we're not the ones who are damaging the planet.
Concentrate on energy efficiency and we'll see real results in the carbon emissions reduction programme.

Finally, a message to John Wallis who seemed to enjoy referring to my blog as a fairy tale. There is no definitive answer to your question. Different manufacturers and different models of domestic fridge would hold varying amounts of hydrocarbon refrigerants. However, it is safe to say between 25 and 150 grammes. I know some readers find it incredulous that such a small amount of gas can cause this damage, but clearly it is possible.

Some industry figures have come out pointing out the small number of incidents compared to the vast numbers of fridges sold. This is true. But one incident is too many isn't it? Particularly when there is the real possibility of fatality.

And all we've seen in answer to the recent spate of bad publicity has been technical speak, which helps to confuse the political classes, insinuating this sort of thing cannot happen.

Clearly it can and has!

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?

Réfrigération verte

(Agence Science-Presse) - Le réfrigérateur qui fonctionne par ondes sonores: l’idée peut paraître loufoque, mais elle plane depuis longtemps parmi les scientifiques. C’est finalement le Laboratoire de recherche appliquée de Penn State qui vient de gagner la course. Son congélateur thermoacoustique à l’hélium vient d’être mis en fonction dans un magasin Ben & Jerry's de New York. Le fabricant américain de crème glacée a d’ailleurs financé la recherche.

La thermoacoustique consiste à utiliser une onde sonore pour provoquer une succession rapide de compression et d’expansion du gaz. Ainsi, expliquent ses concepteurs, il suffit de faire en sorte que le refroidissement –un gaz se refroidit lorsqu'il est en expansion– se fasse à une extrémité du système, tandis que la chaleur – un gaz se réchauffe lorsqu'il est comprimé – est évacuée à l’autre bout.

Compacte, la nouvelle technologie est tout désignée pour de petits appareils comme le distributeur à jus ou le comptoir de crème glacée, mais son avantage premier est ailleurs : elle permet de remplacer les hydrofluorocarbures (HFC) par un gaz inerte, donc inoffensif pour l’environnement.

En effet, bien que les HFC de nos frigos ne soient pas supposés détruire la couche d’ozone comme les anciens CFC, ils ont tout de même un grand impact sur l’effet de serre. S’ils devaient être à leur tour bannis, les inventeurs du congélateur à hélium croient que leur technologie pourrait se retrouver dans les frigos et climatiseurs domestiques.

Quant à l’onde sonore, elle provient d’un haut-parleur très puissant. Mais l’appareil ne laisserait filtrer qu’un faible bruit, assure-t-on. Espérons-le ! Ce serait en effet un non-sens que le frigo vert remplace la pollution de l'air par la pollution sonore...

La peau de l'ours polaire pourrait ne plus être vendue

11 février 2010

L'ours polaire pourrait être ajouté à la liste des espèces menacées au point où leur commerce international serait interdit.
Les États-Unis ont déposé un projet de résolution en ce sens, afin de faire passer les ours blancs de l'annexe II (espèces en danger, dont le commerce international est strictement réglementé) à l'annexe I de la Convention sur le commerce international des espèces sauvages menacées d'extinction (Cites), au mois de mars.
La survie de l'espèce est menacée par quoi, par qui? La consommation et le commerce d'ours blanc concernent surtout les populations autochtones du Grand Nord, comme les Inuits, qui en mangent la viande, en font des vêtements, de l'artisanat et des descentes de lit.
C'est sous la forme de trophées que l'ours polaire s'exporte le mieux, notamment vers les États-Unis. Le Fonds international pour la protection des animaux soutient la démarche américaine. Les chasseurs sont prêts à payer 30 000 dollars le permis de chasse à l'ours blanc au Canada.
Selon les dernières estimations sur la population mondiale d'ours blanc, il y en aurait entre 20 et 25 000 répartis en 19 colonies, dont les deux tiers habitent le Grand Nord canadien ou l'Alaska et le Groenland voisins. Les autres se répartissent entre la Russie et la Norvège.
Quinze de ces colonies sont considérées stables ou en déclin. L'ours blanc est classé en espèce «vulnérable» en raison principalement de la dégradation et de la réduction de son habitat.
Ce sont ces informations «et les projections futures dues à différents facteurs dont le changement climatique» qui justifient, selon les États-Unis, la demande de classement en annexe 1.
Le Canada, qui devrait s'opposer à la résolution américaine, est le seul pays qui autorise l'exportation contrôlée de produits issus de l'ours blanc. La première menace contre l'ours polaire c'est la réduction de son habitat et le réchauffement. Le commerce, ou même la contrebande, ne présente pas une menace significative, fait remarquer l’organisation de lutte contre le trafic d'espèces, Traffic.
Un point de vue partagé les organisations Inuits qui dénoncent «une attaque directe contre les droits, la culture, les coutumes de chasse et contre les économies locales» des peuples de l'Arctique».
Édité par Jean-Philippe Peretti, Ultimatum Media, Québec

Source : Agence France-Presse