02-02-2007, 11:11 PM
|
|
|
Doin fine
Industry Role:
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 24,983
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by psili
1. Well, obviously money. I'll say that's hands down to anything else. I'll ever concede this whole debate is over money and not lives.
2. 134a replacement - what was the chemical and was how was it cost comparative to 134a as a "friendly" refrigerant?
3. Yes, from the wikipedia article, it seems R12 is back in the market, albeit at a higher price from your findings. Is that a good thing?
|
r12 was never "out of" the market. It was simply made unavailable for public use. You had to have a certification in order to buy it. I had my certification for r12 and for r22 for home refrigerants. This is something I have a pretty good insight to. R12 was not allowed on any of the cars from I believe 95 and up. While 134 was less of a "threat" than r12 it still is damaging according to what they say.
Here is an article
http://archive.greenpeace.org/ozone/greenfreeze/
Quote:
|
The Global Warming Potential (GWP) of HFC-134a, the preferred alternative to CFC-12 for refrigerant in the U.S., is estimated to be 3,200 times that of carbon dioxide (over a time span of 20 years). The global warming impact of the worldwide annual production of at least 200,000 tones of R134a equals roughly the CO2 emissions of an industrialized nation the size of France or the UK. In the longer term, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has estimated that HFC emissions, if unregulated, could reach over thirteen times this level or 2,764,000 tones per year in the next century. Consequently, HFC-134a is coming under increased international scrutiny, with pressures beginning to build up for their controls under the Climate Convention.
|
|
|
|