Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 22:39:26 -0400
Reply-To: David Beierl <dbeierl@ATTGLOBAL.NET>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: David Beierl <dbeierl@ATTGLOBAL.NET>
Subject: Re: Refrigerant Regulatory Crap!! (long)
In-Reply-To: <3EF0C74E.8060405@charter.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
At 04:10 PM 6/18/2003, John Rodgers wrote:
>Strange that R-12 should suddenly become a "dangerous ozone depleteing
>agent" and disappear from the market aobut the time it's patent ran out.
>
>Strange that the Flamability of 134a is well above that of R-12, yet
>comparable refrigerants are referred to as dangerous.
Um...anyone trying to burn R134a would have a tough time I think, like
fluorine compounds in general it's wicked stable. MSDS lists flammability
as zero, what I'd expect. It doesn't contain chlorine which makes it a lot
less active in breaking down ozone, but it's still a fluorocarbon.
>Strange that the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and
>Consumer Protection is warning consumers and businesses about Duracool,
>Enviro-Safe, HC 12a, OZ-12, and Maxi-Frig 12a, Red-Tek 12a, and others
>as illegal refrigerants,
I don't think it's the best-worded article, but it's focused on automotive
use. OZ-12, HC-12a and Duracool 12a are illegal for all uses *except*
industrial process refrigeration.
> when the EPA website lists them and tells you
>exactly which fittings are needed for each one to be safe for use, and
>what tags and marking to use to be legal.
>
>Check this from the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and
>consumer Protection website.
>
>Quote: "People are being told Red-TeK 12a and other illegal
>hydrocarbon-based refrigerants are environmentally safe replacements for
>R-12 and R-134a", Cardin says. "Nothing could be further from the truth."
I think that's a serious misstatement. These blends are forbidden because
of possible fire hazard, not for environmental issues.
>R-12, commonly referred to as Freon, is an ozone-depleting substance no
>longer manufactured in the U.S., and R-134a is the industry accepted
>refrigerant replacement for use in vehicle air conditioning systems.
>***********
>Why is the R-134a being considered the industry standard? I suspect it
>is because the others are not allowed to compete.
It's the industry standard because the industry -- the service industry
that is -- looked at the horrifying array of equipment they'd have to buy
in order to comply with EPA while working on multiple refrigerants and ran
very hard toward supporting a single type. Whether R134a was the best
choice or even the best choice at the time, and what if any industry
pressure was put on them I don't know. R134a does have the very distinct
advantage from the handling standpoint that it's a single compound rather
than a physical mixture of different compounds which may separate in
interesting ways.
>My suspicion is that this is all a crock of BS, and that it is a market
>control manuver to eliminate the competition.
>
>Why shouldn't there be alternate refrigerants available. How is it that
>in a market place as big as America, in all the vehicles being
>manufactured today, that ONLY one refrigerant is considered acceptable?
>
>I find something majorly wrong with this.
Beta is better than VHS -- ask anybody. Quite a lot better actually. But
it lost in the market. I think the blends came in too little, too late --
they will find uses in other places with bigger installations no doubt, but
I think they've lost the automotive market except for fringe-types like
us. I foresee a niche market for a few quite expensive shops that have the
necessary equipment (one per blend...) to remove the blended refrigerants
when service is needed on those systems, since it's illegal to discharge
any of these refrigerants into the atmosphere. It's also incidentally
illegal to sell small cans of any of them to non-certified AC techs. No
doubt many people will evade both those restrictions, but some will be
caught and made an example of.
Maybe the backlash to the Patriot Busybody Acts will result in dismantling
the EPA...
>Lets see!! Hmmm, here's my Cervel refrigerator/freezer manual -yep,
>kerosene burner provides the energy, ammonia is the gas ---- yep,
>calculations show it will drop the temp to "zero" derees then a small
>fan to circulate cold air over the coils, thru the ducts into the cab,
>hmmm, yep I think this is going to wok really well on that desert trip
>this summer........yep. And it doesn't use 5 horsepower off the engine
>to keep it running, just a few btu's off the kerosene burner.....Yep!
Two things about that Servel fridge -- if it's one of the old ones like I
grew up with, the CPSC has deemed them hazardous after they caused 20
deaths from CO poisoning in the 1980-90 decade; and Gould, the company that
inherited the Servel liabilities is trying to buy them back for $100 each
plus reasonable disposal costs. The more recent Servel-brand machines made
by Dometic are not included. Some people prefer to keep them.
The other thing is that those few BTUs from the kerosene would amount to a
lot more than the energy costs for a compressor system of the same
capacity. I ran across an estimate from a study in Mauretania that showed
a 16:1 energy advantage for the compressor system (although the absorption
system still turned out cheaper overall -- in rural sections of
Mauretania). Of course if you could power it from exhaust heat that might
be attractive -- and people are actively researching ways to make
more-efficient absorption systems using cascaded cycles and super-insulated
boxes and various other stuff.
cheers,
david
--
David Beierl - Providence RI USA -- http://pws.prserv.net/synergy/Vanagon/
'84 Westy "Dutiful Passage"
'85 GL "Poor Relation"
