So why are companies waiting? The cost per product to the consumer must be tiny.
6
This article illustrates the root cause of our ongoing global environmental disaster: overpopulation and the inability to address or even discuss it. And sadly, it is relatively easy to fix, without any magical new technology.
12
Why doesn't this article even bother to tell you which refrigerants it is that one ought to avoid? What an utterly non-informative, lazily researched article.
6
Why don't we all go back to living in caves. No refrigerators, no dishwashers, no plastic, nothing to help food grow etc. etc. etc. It'll be great and the Global Whining crowd will be ecstatic and that's the most important thing.
6
I find it a little surprising that someone who lives in a city that will be among the first to go underwater can say "global whining" with a straight face.
12
Whining? I conclude you must not have grandkids.
9
What an ignorant comment. The article clearly says that propane and ammonia are cleaner alternatives. No one needs to "live in caves."
7
Yes, we absolutely need to work in every facet of our lives to curb green house gas emissions. Every action we take to slow the affect of climate change--clean energy, green building, less consumption, meat-less diets will be necessary if we are to blunt the force of climate change. My only small quibble with Mr. Harris is that he minimizes tipping points as we march toward a world of 8-10 + degrees F hotter by 2100: we will see millions of climate refugees, primarily in the southern hemisphere--but they will need to migrate somewhere, and new research by Deconto and Pollard published in the science journal Nature (March 2016) cites the potential of multi-meter sea level rise by 2100 and 15 meters by 2500 if we don't act now to decrease green house gasses.
5
Geothermal.....it will not work everywhere but it is the better solution most often.
4
The Montreal Protocol had the high profile support of both U.S. and Britain's conservative champions, Reagan and Thatcher. What a different time!
Margaret Thatcher graduated from Oxford with a degree in Chemistry. She immediately grasped the danger and the need for swift action. This helped bring Reagan on board.
Meanwhile, the CFC industry argued that the public could simply don sunglasses and wear more sunscreen. Unfortunately, the fossil fuel industry steered clear of such clearly laughable excuses and instead embarked on it's deadly multi-decade campaign of misinformation and lies--this time enabled by conservative politicians.
Margaret Thatcher graduated from Oxford with a degree in Chemistry. She immediately grasped the danger and the need for swift action. This helped bring Reagan on board.
Meanwhile, the CFC industry argued that the public could simply don sunglasses and wear more sunscreen. Unfortunately, the fossil fuel industry steered clear of such clearly laughable excuses and instead embarked on it's deadly multi-decade campaign of misinformation and lies--this time enabled by conservative politicians.
16
I see this as an opportunity for he USA to lead in the design and manufacture of 'green' refrigeration , setting up manufacturing facilities in West Virginia etc .
This opportunity along with better more efficient solar panels , inverters and wind power to ensure the USA is the leader in renewable energy is the way forward for the USA .
The replacement of HFCs fossil fuels will improve our environment and at the same time create jobs in America if our Administration and Congress wakes up to this opportunity and frames policies to help make it happen
It will increase our dependency on foreign oil and inhibit the ability of Saudi Arabia as one example to fund terrorism
Of course Trump wants to take us back to the 19th century fuel ,Coal.
He claims America first and end Globalisation.
Globalisation is a fact of life , we share one planet and the best way is for America to move forward embrace technology and innovation and to Lead
This opportunity along with better more efficient solar panels , inverters and wind power to ensure the USA is the leader in renewable energy is the way forward for the USA .
The replacement of HFCs fossil fuels will improve our environment and at the same time create jobs in America if our Administration and Congress wakes up to this opportunity and frames policies to help make it happen
It will increase our dependency on foreign oil and inhibit the ability of Saudi Arabia as one example to fund terrorism
Of course Trump wants to take us back to the 19th century fuel ,Coal.
He claims America first and end Globalisation.
Globalisation is a fact of life , we share one planet and the best way is for America to move forward embrace technology and innovation and to Lead
5
These articles miss the bigger problem. Is it better for our planet (a closed ecosystem) if 8 billion people have refrigerators (which were manufactured, used, disposed of in landfills), as opposed to 2 billion? 2 billion is the maximum number of people on the planet in order for other species, like marine mammals, chimps, jaguars, elephants, etc to survive. It's always about population. Women in sub-Saharan Africa (the location of most of the population growth) don't want 10 children, but tribal religions force them to. Give them access to family planning. It is shown that when women have 2 children, they can supplement their income with a job. Their children are healthier, and they don't buy as many refrigerators.
22
Totally agree that when we talk about "climate change" we are really talking about overpopulation and environmental carrying capacity. But few people want to look at the problem at such a high level, and fewer are willing to ignore their genetic mandate.
What I don't agree with is the idea that curbing population in areas like sub-Saharan Africa will make a difference. On the surface, yes, it seems like 80% fewer offspring would be a good thing (and it is). But the lifetime CO2 footprint of just one suburban child in the United States is probably greater than those 8 would-be African children. A cross-country airplane flight packs more CO2 emissions than an entire year of suburban living, but god forbid your parents and grandparents would let you off the hook at Xmas in the name of climate change.
In short, when you consider overpopulation as the driver of population change, it's important to consider that the level of harm for each person varies depending on the level of technological advancement that their culture has reached. So you can't blame unchecked reproduction in the third world, and tribal religions that demand offspring. We in the West are responsible for the vast majority of the damage. Just by typing our comments, we're responsible. It's a hard fact for people to swallow and we won't really change until it's too late (maybe it's already to late).
What I don't agree with is the idea that curbing population in areas like sub-Saharan Africa will make a difference. On the surface, yes, it seems like 80% fewer offspring would be a good thing (and it is). But the lifetime CO2 footprint of just one suburban child in the United States is probably greater than those 8 would-be African children. A cross-country airplane flight packs more CO2 emissions than an entire year of suburban living, but god forbid your parents and grandparents would let you off the hook at Xmas in the name of climate change.
In short, when you consider overpopulation as the driver of population change, it's important to consider that the level of harm for each person varies depending on the level of technological advancement that their culture has reached. So you can't blame unchecked reproduction in the third world, and tribal religions that demand offspring. We in the West are responsible for the vast majority of the damage. Just by typing our comments, we're responsible. It's a hard fact for people to swallow and we won't really change until it's too late (maybe it's already to late).
8
A very thoughtful post. However, 1/7th of the population eat fish to survive, yet 50% of the total marine life has been consumed or killed in the past 40 years. (through sonar and gill nets). by 2050, it is estimated the oceans of the world will be barren. Poor people may not buy Ford trucks, but they eat fish, so I would argue numbers do matter.
Your argument is just, and is why China says, "So we can't consume like you consumed over the past 40 years?" I understand that it is a human desire to have convenience and technology, but it is sheer numbers. The US has 325 million people---1.5 billion in China and 1.5 billion in India, with the population growth in sub-Saharan Africa soaring because of tribal religions. The reality is, if you ask women there if they want 10 children, they do not, because as a mother, they don't want their children to suffer. I see it more as a women's reproductive rights issue than anything.
Your argument is just, and is why China says, "So we can't consume like you consumed over the past 40 years?" I understand that it is a human desire to have convenience and technology, but it is sheer numbers. The US has 325 million people---1.5 billion in China and 1.5 billion in India, with the population growth in sub-Saharan Africa soaring because of tribal religions. The reality is, if you ask women there if they want 10 children, they do not, because as a mother, they don't want their children to suffer. I see it more as a women's reproductive rights issue than anything.
5
The problem is far more serious! According to Arctic News data, human extermination due to Global Warming could begin in 7-15 years. Survival may require an 80% replacement of fossil fuels within 5 years which means a 24/7/365 emergency effort similar to the way bombers were built during WWII.
Propane is mentioned as a replacement for HFC's. Surprisingly, propane can be sealed into modified existing engines as a refrigerant - allowing the engines to run without fuel!
Inventor Chris Hunter has proven that makes it possible to run engines on atmospheric heat, a huge untapped reservoir of solar energy, larger than all of earth's fossil fuel potential. He modified Ford and Kia 4 cylinder engines to run without fuel.
AESOP is completing conversion of a Briggs & Stratton and a Mitsubishi V6 engine to demonstrate that manufacturers can quickly modify designs and mass produce 24/7 fuel-free engines worldwide. See aesopinstitute.org
Such engines could provide unlimited range to hybrid and electric cars. Vehicles could become power plants when suitably parked, selling power to utilities (V2G) or powering buildings.
Heat pumps based on the same, seemingly impossible, new science can provide self-powered heating and air-conditioning.
This opens a fast path to 24/7 cheap green energy.
Since the science bends the Second Law of Thermodynamics, AESOP is slandered by Trolls who are certain it must be fraud. The Wright Brothers were though to be frauds for 5 years after Kitty Hawk.
Propane is mentioned as a replacement for HFC's. Surprisingly, propane can be sealed into modified existing engines as a refrigerant - allowing the engines to run without fuel!
Inventor Chris Hunter has proven that makes it possible to run engines on atmospheric heat, a huge untapped reservoir of solar energy, larger than all of earth's fossil fuel potential. He modified Ford and Kia 4 cylinder engines to run without fuel.
AESOP is completing conversion of a Briggs & Stratton and a Mitsubishi V6 engine to demonstrate that manufacturers can quickly modify designs and mass produce 24/7 fuel-free engines worldwide. See aesopinstitute.org
Such engines could provide unlimited range to hybrid and electric cars. Vehicles could become power plants when suitably parked, selling power to utilities (V2G) or powering buildings.
Heat pumps based on the same, seemingly impossible, new science can provide self-powered heating and air-conditioning.
This opens a fast path to 24/7 cheap green energy.
Since the science bends the Second Law of Thermodynamics, AESOP is slandered by Trolls who are certain it must be fraud. The Wright Brothers were though to be frauds for 5 years after Kitty Hawk.
4
Propane? Ammonia?
In air conditioning systmes?
Tragic accidents just waiting to happen.
Unless of course, Harris' article is a just a cruel satire...
In air conditioning systmes?
Tragic accidents just waiting to happen.
Unless of course, Harris' article is a just a cruel satire...
10
Sounds like satire to me too. Could he be a denier posing as a hysteric? A wolf in green clothing?
1
Several commenters here state, as gospel "of course we can't do away with refrigeration..."
Actually. I've lived without a household refrigerator for 40 years now- (just like your great grandparents did). It's not burdensome. It does require some forethought. No, I don't advocate eradicating refrigerators- have used a freezer often, and no grocery store should be without one. But. We definitely don't need the endless thoughtless energy expenditure - so you can have ice cubes and ice cream on demand.
Basics here in a blog post from 2007 - and interestingly, this is my all-time most viewed blog post, year after year.
http://littlebloginthebigwoods.blogspot.com/2007/03/no-refrigerator-for-...
Actually. I've lived without a household refrigerator for 40 years now- (just like your great grandparents did). It's not burdensome. It does require some forethought. No, I don't advocate eradicating refrigerators- have used a freezer often, and no grocery store should be without one. But. We definitely don't need the endless thoughtless energy expenditure - so you can have ice cubes and ice cream on demand.
Basics here in a blog post from 2007 - and interestingly, this is my all-time most viewed blog post, year after year.
http://littlebloginthebigwoods.blogspot.com/2007/03/no-refrigerator-for-...
3
I'm wondering if HFR and HFA are the same as HFC? Those are used in my asthma inhalers.
1
Yes they are. Using propane or ammonia as a propellant in your inhaler will certainly help your breathing. The effectiveness of inhalers declined with the switch from CFCs to HFCs and they also caused the inexpensive generic inhalers that used CFCs to become obsolete and be replaced with newly patented inhalers that were much more expensive. So don't expect there to be an exception for your inhalers.
3
I am owner and President of an aerosol manufacturing company. We have worked through numerous government driven phase outs of both propellants and solvents starting in 1970's with other phase outs in the 80's, 90's, 2000's and currently. We've spent heavily to source alternates, reformulate the products - sometimes numbering in the hundreds, then intensively test the revised formulations to ensure function and stability of the new product once in the market. To date, successful phase out transitions are the norm for our my company as well as the aerosol industry although many may be less able to make a successful transition due to ever growing regulatory load that is now the norm. I am no skeptic of climate change and fully agree with the science behind the enormous problem caused by human generated climate change. I am fortunate today that HFC's propellants comprise less than 0.004 percent of our propellant use so this particular phase out will have no appreciable impact on my business. However, due to the non flammable nature of HFC 134a, it is widely used in many products where flammability is a primary concern. The other HFC propellant, 152a, carries a VOC exempt status so tens of thousands of consumer products now use HFC 152a propellant in order to comply with ever more restrictive VOC "smog" regulations. My final point is the troubling image of a smoking aerosol can "smoke stack imagery?" to represent the environmental problem that HFC's pose across many industries.
4
If you haven't already, consider the resources needed to produce that fat juicy steak from flatulent corn fed heifers cooking on the grill and try eating lower in the food chain. Why wait for a global agreement on climate change?
5
The chance of most Americans reconsidering their diets in the name of climate change is even lower than the chance of them reconsidering their large televisions, their long commutes to work in single-passenger cars, their willingness to wash a few soiled towels in an otherwise empty washing machine, and their ability to run high-BTU air conditioners for 4-6 months out of the year. Our technological bounty, the insidious cleverness of our inventions, has made it far too easy to destroy the environment with the flip of a switch. Only when you make it harder (or more expensive, i.e. carbon tax) to flip that switch will anybody give up their luxuries.
5
The building industry has been adjusting to rules on CFCs and requirements for HFC reductions in LEED green certifications for years. ASHRAE, the American Society of Heating Refrigerating and Air-conditioning Engineers has had sessions on new refrigerants and the relation of refrigerants to greenhouse gas emissions at every annual meeting for over 20 years. Moving to new refrigerant requirements is not a problem in the US or Europe. The main issue is getting appropriate agreements on reductions from India and China in the amendment. The dangers of particular refrigerants (poisonous ammonia and explosive propane) are real shouldn't be ignored. There are other options.
4
I haven't seen anybody talk about the cost. What will a new Refrigerator cost? Someone should think about cost to consumers.
4
Why is it so difficult for people to grasp the arc of their consumption? From resource exploitation to planetary pollution, every step of the way is filled with profit. We like our ease. The energy density of our existence is enormous. The only chance of being able to meaningfully correlate the data set being generated is with a scientific method based on physical law. Whenever these conclusions gore someones profit center the easy way out is to sell an ignorant population on the idea that the naysayers are just cranks who drink warm lemon soda.
15
The 'chicken little' hyperbole of people trying to decrease our contribution to greenhouse gases is not helpful.
"...there is little doubt the effects would be devastating, although the science of climate change cannot yet pinpoint the precise damage that would occur."
Yes, we are exacerbating global warming. It's a good idea to reduce these pollutants. I'm all for it.
But global warming has been going on for the last 14,000 years, ending the most recent ice age. Sea levels have risen 80 feet in the last 8,500 years (NY Time Science section, several years ago). Global warming will continue for at least the next 1,500 years to the Maliakovsky (?) point, as it always does between ice ages during this (Earth's fifth) period of glaciation.
56 million years ago there was NO ice on earth. It did not produce catastrophe.
It will be inconvenient for people and some other species, a boon to others. Like every other species we will need to adapt to the ever changing environment. It is stupid to try to make it stay still - it never does.
The 'little ice age' a few hundred years ago retarded the on-going global warming and sea level rise that had been taking place, and we are nearly as warm as we were in 1250, when England was a wine producing region and Newfoundland was Vinland (because of all the grape vines there), and it was possible to have colonies on the east coast of Greenland. (Try that now.)
1,500 years from now the ice will begin to return, so look out!
"...there is little doubt the effects would be devastating, although the science of climate change cannot yet pinpoint the precise damage that would occur."
Yes, we are exacerbating global warming. It's a good idea to reduce these pollutants. I'm all for it.
But global warming has been going on for the last 14,000 years, ending the most recent ice age. Sea levels have risen 80 feet in the last 8,500 years (NY Time Science section, several years ago). Global warming will continue for at least the next 1,500 years to the Maliakovsky (?) point, as it always does between ice ages during this (Earth's fifth) period of glaciation.
56 million years ago there was NO ice on earth. It did not produce catastrophe.
It will be inconvenient for people and some other species, a boon to others. Like every other species we will need to adapt to the ever changing environment. It is stupid to try to make it stay still - it never does.
The 'little ice age' a few hundred years ago retarded the on-going global warming and sea level rise that had been taking place, and we are nearly as warm as we were in 1250, when England was a wine producing region and Newfoundland was Vinland (because of all the grape vines there), and it was possible to have colonies on the east coast of Greenland. (Try that now.)
1,500 years from now the ice will begin to return, so look out!
3
"It will be inconvenient for people and some other species, a boon to others. Like every other species we will need to adapt to the ever changing environment. It is stupid to try to make it stay still - it never does."
Look, we all die, too. Does that mean it's stupid to quit smoking or make cars safer? It's reasonably certain that human activities are causing a spike in global warming. In response to that, I'd rather change my refrigerant than move New York City.
Look, we all die, too. Does that mean it's stupid to quit smoking or make cars safer? It's reasonably certain that human activities are causing a spike in global warming. In response to that, I'd rather change my refrigerant than move New York City.
1. "Global warming has been going on for the last 14,000 years, ending the most recent ice age." The Earth's climate had been slowly cooling since about 9,000 BC, until the last few hundred years. The last glacial maximum was about 20,000 years ago. That's when the warming started.
2. "56 million years ago there was no ice on Earth." There were also no human beings on Earth 56 million years ago.
3. It's "Milankovich."
4. Sea levels have been steady for at least the last 3,000 years -- until the last few centuries.
2. "56 million years ago there was no ice on Earth." There were also no human beings on Earth 56 million years ago.
3. It's "Milankovich."
4. Sea levels have been steady for at least the last 3,000 years -- until the last few centuries.
Man does, Mr. Ryan, particularly the man of the so-called "liberal" elite,
seem to have an arrogance in thinking that he is immune for such thins as the Darwinian thesis and Mother Nature.
seem to have an arrogance in thinking that he is immune for such thins as the Darwinian thesis and Mother Nature.
I agree with you, but as always, it's hard to look the Third World in the eye and say 'now that we have realised the dangers of this lifestyle, after we have enjoyed it, you should not have it, for the sake of the greater good'. It's always easier to ask someone else to make the sacrifices you didn't. Ironically, it's the nations that are going to suffer most from rising temperatures, such as India, that will be most resistant to going to the trouble to seek alternatives to easily available, established technology.
It's even harder to get people to think in the long term. I'm reminded of the African native who, told that he should not hunt elephants because elephants are on the verge of extinction, shook his head and said 'that cannot be. There are still elephants. I saw one just this week'. Or Wile E. Coyote, so determined in pursuit of his short-term road-runner hunt he doesn't realise he's run over the edge of the cliff until he's treading mid-air, at which point he holds up a little sign, 'help'.
In the long run, said Keynes, we are all dead. His quip was truer than he knew, perhaps.
It's even harder to get people to think in the long term. I'm reminded of the African native who, told that he should not hunt elephants because elephants are on the verge of extinction, shook his head and said 'that cannot be. There are still elephants. I saw one just this week'. Or Wile E. Coyote, so determined in pursuit of his short-term road-runner hunt he doesn't realise he's run over the edge of the cliff until he's treading mid-air, at which point he holds up a little sign, 'help'.
In the long run, said Keynes, we are all dead. His quip was truer than he knew, perhaps.
"Ironically, it's the nations that are going to suffer most from rising temperatures, such as India, that will be most resistant to going to the trouble to seek alternatives to easily available, established technology."
Then I don't have a lot of sympathy for them.
Then I don't have a lot of sympathy for them.
2
To some extent, I share your lack of sympathy. But bear in mind that they also have burgeoning populations that are poor, as well as fewer resources and less technology. India's and China's technology is primarily picking up whatever the West invented; not a whole lot of innovation going on there. So it is unrealistic to expect them to lead the way in inventing these technologies; even if it were politically feasible, they just don't have the infrastructure.
(And before we say 'then they should do something about population control', recall the outcry in the West and especially on the left over India's sterilisation programme and China's one-child policy. You cannnot define childbearing as a 'right' without acknowledging that humans, like most animals, will propagate till starvation, disease, and/or natural disaster culls their numbers. Voluntary regulation hasn't worked; some degree of intervention by authority, whether by bribery, coercion, or a combination, is needed.)
(And before we say 'then they should do something about population control', recall the outcry in the West and especially on the left over India's sterilisation programme and China's one-child policy. You cannnot define childbearing as a 'right' without acknowledging that humans, like most animals, will propagate till starvation, disease, and/or natural disaster culls their numbers. Voluntary regulation hasn't worked; some degree of intervention by authority, whether by bribery, coercion, or a combination, is needed.)
The Montreal Protocol, which "Saint" Reagan termed a "monumental achievement" stands as a living rebuke to Republican denialists such as those serving on the House Committee of Science, Space, and Technology who balk at any sort of agreement that involves agreeing with foreign governments about regulations on the free market economy. "Heresy!" they'd all scream. Nor did Reagan dispute or raise doubts about the science behind banning CFCs. Such an agreement would be impossible today, given the extreme politicization of science. But it remains a shining precedent nonetheless.
6
Additionally, conservative Margaret Thatcher graduated from Oxford with a degree in Chemistry. She immediately grasped the danger and the need for swift action. This helped bring Reagan on board. Meanwhile, the CFC industry argued that the public could simply don sunglasses and wear more sunscreen. Unfortunately, the fossil fuel industry steered clear of such clearly laughable excuses and instead embarked on it's multi-decade campaign of misinformation and lies--this time enabled by conservative politicians.
4
" The total price tag for an HFC phase down is estimated at $8 billion to $10 billion over the next three decades ... "
This is a number pulled out of someone's nose, or other orifice. 8-10 Billion may be cost of the refrigerant, but there are -no- "drop-in" replacements. The author seems to shrug off the cost to retrofit (or replace) existing refrigeration units with units compatible with ammonia (poisonous!), propane (flammable!), or carbon dioxide (high pressure!).
Does the author (or anyone else) recall the sturm und drang to replace CFCs with HCFCs? Once HFC 134a was identified as an environmentally acceptable replacement (under the Montreal Protocol), it has taken years for the (ongoing!) switch to take place. There is a reason why HVAC, refrigerators, etc., are classified as "durable goods."
Automobiles, with a somewhat shorter lifetime, are an obvious target. And there is controversy here. AFAIK, only Mercedes has committed to a CO2-filled mobile AC unit ... for there E-class units. I can see the US consumer running out to buy these in quantity.
Meanwhile, reports over the last year or two have indicated that the Antarctic ozone hole is shrinking. The purpose of the Montreal Protocol is being met. This demonstrates that man's actions can alleviate global environmental problems, as well as cause them. Let's not let the perfect to become the enemy of the good.
This is a number pulled out of someone's nose, or other orifice. 8-10 Billion may be cost of the refrigerant, but there are -no- "drop-in" replacements. The author seems to shrug off the cost to retrofit (or replace) existing refrigeration units with units compatible with ammonia (poisonous!), propane (flammable!), or carbon dioxide (high pressure!).
Does the author (or anyone else) recall the sturm und drang to replace CFCs with HCFCs? Once HFC 134a was identified as an environmentally acceptable replacement (under the Montreal Protocol), it has taken years for the (ongoing!) switch to take place. There is a reason why HVAC, refrigerators, etc., are classified as "durable goods."
Automobiles, with a somewhat shorter lifetime, are an obvious target. And there is controversy here. AFAIK, only Mercedes has committed to a CO2-filled mobile AC unit ... for there E-class units. I can see the US consumer running out to buy these in quantity.
Meanwhile, reports over the last year or two have indicated that the Antarctic ozone hole is shrinking. The purpose of the Montreal Protocol is being met. This demonstrates that man's actions can alleviate global environmental problems, as well as cause them. Let's not let the perfect to become the enemy of the good.
3
What the article fails to mention is that, regardless of refrigerant, compressors need a lot of energy. While we're fretting over which light bulbs to use, we ignore one of the biggest energy hogs in the house: the fridge. And of course, that means more fossil fuels, whether in the car or house. The old refrigerants were extremely efficient, which is why they were used in the first place. But when the switch was made, I noticed my cars were never the same: the unit on my 85' VW got very cold--none of the ac units in my following cars ever got that cold. So while a different refrigerant may be better for the environment, it also needs to be more efficient, or the motor will need more power for extra compression of the gas, or it will have to cycle on more frequently (or both). Which means more fossil fuel...
Can we get rid of refrigeration? Not without totally destroying our food distribution networks. What about the massive cooling required by our computer servers?
It's certainly possible to live in a warmer home and car environment, as we did just a couple of decades ago. But it seems that refrigeration is as intertwined with modern society as electricity itself. Unless we figure out how to drive compressors with much less energy, arguing about the coolant inside them seems like rearranging the deck chairs...
Can we get rid of refrigeration? Not without totally destroying our food distribution networks. What about the massive cooling required by our computer servers?
It's certainly possible to live in a warmer home and car environment, as we did just a couple of decades ago. But it seems that refrigeration is as intertwined with modern society as electricity itself. Unless we figure out how to drive compressors with much less energy, arguing about the coolant inside them seems like rearranging the deck chairs...
3
Refrigeration does not need fossil fuels. It needs electricity -- and electricity can indeed be produced without fossil fuels, if we take the trouble to do it.
2
The cheapest alternatives are petroleum based, and serious fire hazards. Propane is a common one.
There are safe alternatives. They are also more expensive, much more.
The expense is not inherent in the chemicals or process. It is a matter of scale of production. That means it can be fixed.
If we want to reduce dangerous refrigerant gases, we need to make safe alternatives available cheaply. That can be done. Our defense industry has long-developed expertise in developing sources for key items, including reasonable pricing.
I know that gold-plating has been a problem in our military industrial complex, but that is corruption, not inherent. The ideas worked on for industrial mobilization in the 1920's and '30's put a strong emphasis on economy, as an essential to successful mass production.
That was a huge subject of intense study post WW1 in the US. It was mastered, and we saw that in WW2. We do know how, even if we let Halliburton and Lockheed abuse us now in return for campaign contributions and spreading work among key Congressional districts.
We need to apply that to cheap, safe refrigerants. Right now, this is the subject of abuse, gold plating by small producers of rather simple products.
There are safe alternatives. They are also more expensive, much more.
The expense is not inherent in the chemicals or process. It is a matter of scale of production. That means it can be fixed.
If we want to reduce dangerous refrigerant gases, we need to make safe alternatives available cheaply. That can be done. Our defense industry has long-developed expertise in developing sources for key items, including reasonable pricing.
I know that gold-plating has been a problem in our military industrial complex, but that is corruption, not inherent. The ideas worked on for industrial mobilization in the 1920's and '30's put a strong emphasis on economy, as an essential to successful mass production.
That was a huge subject of intense study post WW1 in the US. It was mastered, and we saw that in WW2. We do know how, even if we let Halliburton and Lockheed abuse us now in return for campaign contributions and spreading work among key Congressional districts.
We need to apply that to cheap, safe refrigerants. Right now, this is the subject of abuse, gold plating by small producers of rather simple products.
6
While the author of this article makes a point, about HFC's as a greenhouse gas, his solutions are idiotic. First of all, there are newer generations of refrigerants that are not greenhouse gases. Worse, though is the suggestion of using propane and ammonia. Propane while it leaks less than CFC's and HFC's, since it has large molecules, is flammable and if you get a concentration of it it can explode. For fixed A/C systems in the home, refrigerant often is circulating into spaces like attics and basements where it can accumulate and blow up.
Ammonia is a toxic, caustic gas (it was used during WWI, folks, in the trench warfare), that permanently scars the lungs of those who breath it in. Ammonia is used even today in refrigeration systems that are designed for cooling down to near absolute zero (like with superconducting magnets in something like the accelerator at CERN), but is too poisonous to use.
Besides new generations of coolants, there is another alternative, so called adiabatic systems that don't use compressors to achieve cooling, they use the principles of adsorption to work. Not only don't they use the refrigerants used commonly, they also use about 30% of the power a compressor uses.
Ammonia is a toxic, caustic gas (it was used during WWI, folks, in the trench warfare), that permanently scars the lungs of those who breath it in. Ammonia is used even today in refrigeration systems that are designed for cooling down to near absolute zero (like with superconducting magnets in something like the accelerator at CERN), but is too poisonous to use.
Besides new generations of coolants, there is another alternative, so called adiabatic systems that don't use compressors to achieve cooling, they use the principles of adsorption to work. Not only don't they use the refrigerants used commonly, they also use about 30% of the power a compressor uses.
31
I have to second Irichins' comments here - propane is a component of natural gas - it's flammability makes it utterly unsuitable for use as a refrigerant. And ammonia is indeed a toxic gas. If you don't believe this, VERY CAREFULLY sniff the dilute solution used for cleaning. Pure ammonia gas is many times more potent than that.
Why didn't the NYT editor even do a 30 second search to acertain the facts about the preposterous ideas advanced here?
Why didn't the NYT editor even do a 30 second search to acertain the facts about the preposterous ideas advanced here?
4
The aerosol can is one of Don the Con's most necessary accoutrements. Neither he, nor his inglorious party, believe in climate change, and will not curb their own habits in favor of a healthier planet, much less the corporations who raise their standard of living.
Sorry--I forgot to mention that there are several companies currently producing magnetic refrigerators, and these machines use considerably less energy
than the gas cycle ones we are familiar with. They are also much quieter, since there is no compressor. Now the need is to scale up
to mass production to bring the cost down. This will probably be fought by the existing refrigerator companies.
than the gas cycle ones we are familiar with. They are also much quieter, since there is no compressor. Now the need is to scale up
to mass production to bring the cost down. This will probably be fought by the existing refrigerator companies.
9
Interesting article but not one word of the potential cost in various, perhaps unforeseen ways. Any treaty must seek to insure that costs are controlled. When CFCSs l were banned the cost of albuterol inhalers that asthma suffers use sky rocketed as manufacturers shielded new delivery systems round a thicket of patents to deliver a generic drug that cost pennies and contributed to overall pharmaceutical costs. This big pharmacy opportunity and others like it should not be allowed.
13
When Albert Einstein heard of a family killed by ammonia leaking from their refrigerator, he invented and patented a system using magnetic fields and
magnetic materials for refrigeration. There's no gas used at all (other than the air flowing through the system to distribute the heat or cold air). At the time, (1930s) the materials available did not allow for high efficiency for the magnetic refrigeration scheme, however we have much better materials now.
magnetic materials for refrigeration. There's no gas used at all (other than the air flowing through the system to distribute the heat or cold air). At the time, (1930s) the materials available did not allow for high efficiency for the magnetic refrigeration scheme, however we have much better materials now.
9
While I thank Mr. Harris (and the other commentators) for this helpful information, I don't agree with the conclusion that the critical problem is a lack of public awareness of this issue. Most of the public cannot handle any more negative news about climate change.
I just attended a workshop in London of NGOs, allied corporations, government agencies, and investors who cooperated, through an umbrella group called "We Mean Business" (www.wemeanbusinesscoalition.org), to develop a unified agenda to protect the climate. One of their conclusions is that past climate change strategies have failed to gain sufficient popular traction because they paint too negative a view. The lay public, as well as activists, are better motivated by a positive vision of the future than by the scare tactics that scientists (like me) are inclined to provide. Thus it would probably be preferable if the NGOs and other groups who achieved the Paris accord would put this needed refrigerant change on their list of climate-saving priorities, without requiring the public to have one more item to lose sleep over.
I just attended a workshop in London of NGOs, allied corporations, government agencies, and investors who cooperated, through an umbrella group called "We Mean Business" (www.wemeanbusinesscoalition.org), to develop a unified agenda to protect the climate. One of their conclusions is that past climate change strategies have failed to gain sufficient popular traction because they paint too negative a view. The lay public, as well as activists, are better motivated by a positive vision of the future than by the scare tactics that scientists (like me) are inclined to provide. Thus it would probably be preferable if the NGOs and other groups who achieved the Paris accord would put this needed refrigerant change on their list of climate-saving priorities, without requiring the public to have one more item to lose sleep over.
2
Full disclosure -- I am a skeptic. I've researched the NOAA temp record in detail and find it unconvincing -- which I think anyone with an open mind would also find unconvincing IF they took the time to review the data.
But -- if changing refrigerants would reduce the threat (regardless of how remote) of climate change and is cheap to do -- why not? It's not like bankrupting coal companies or changing our way of life.
And because I'm a skeptic (not a denier) I'd also suggest that alarmists, instead of screaming the sky is falling and everyone's hair will soon be on fire -- advocate nuclear power. And instead of pushing for global trade, why don't we push for people living locally? I have no idea how much all the shipping of goods, raw materials, etc. all around the globe takes in terms of CO2 emissions, but I suspect it''s huge. If you travel cross country -- what do you see? TRUCKS! Zillions. I'd estimate that on a weekday at least 1/3 of the traffic is truck. And most of them aren't making local hauls. And shipping raw materials/parts overseas for manufacture, then shipping back, then trucking cross country -- how much CO2 vs if most things you bought were made locally -- or at least as locally as possible? I mean, what's the carbon foot print of an e-book vs one bought from a Amazon or a book store?
Regardless of the reality of CC, fossil fuels are finite and we need to conserve and find alternatives for the long run.
But -- if changing refrigerants would reduce the threat (regardless of how remote) of climate change and is cheap to do -- why not? It's not like bankrupting coal companies or changing our way of life.
And because I'm a skeptic (not a denier) I'd also suggest that alarmists, instead of screaming the sky is falling and everyone's hair will soon be on fire -- advocate nuclear power. And instead of pushing for global trade, why don't we push for people living locally? I have no idea how much all the shipping of goods, raw materials, etc. all around the globe takes in terms of CO2 emissions, but I suspect it''s huge. If you travel cross country -- what do you see? TRUCKS! Zillions. I'd estimate that on a weekday at least 1/3 of the traffic is truck. And most of them aren't making local hauls. And shipping raw materials/parts overseas for manufacture, then shipping back, then trucking cross country -- how much CO2 vs if most things you bought were made locally -- or at least as locally as possible? I mean, what's the carbon foot print of an e-book vs one bought from a Amazon or a book store?
Regardless of the reality of CC, fossil fuels are finite and we need to conserve and find alternatives for the long run.
7
at any given time, about 10, 000 commercial jets are flying in th stratosphere,
delivering people and cargo, like tulips from holland, peaches from chile, and iphones from china
thats a lot of burnt jet fuel right at th worst place
delivering people and cargo, like tulips from holland, peaches from chile, and iphones from china
thats a lot of burnt jet fuel right at th worst place
5
i agree about nuclear power
th ONLY major power source that produces no co2 ( sorry folks, wind/solar can not produce more than 20 % of an industrial nations requirement, unless you all agree to shut your computers off and do wo air conditioning )
unfortunately th 3 accidents in 40 years has spooked th ignorant public from nukes for good
and now bc of fukushima, some nations are abandoning nukes for coal/oil
whats that going to do for th co2 output ?
th ONLY major power source that produces no co2 ( sorry folks, wind/solar can not produce more than 20 % of an industrial nations requirement, unless you all agree to shut your computers off and do wo air conditioning )
unfortunately th 3 accidents in 40 years has spooked th ignorant public from nukes for good
and now bc of fukushima, some nations are abandoning nukes for coal/oil
whats that going to do for th co2 output ?
2
Actually, if you look at lifecycle costs and the number of books many people have on their e-reader,. True, few (any?) people use their kindle to capacity, but the idea of being able to switch out many books quickly without carrying them around still holds. Life cycle analysis is a valuable tool that I wish would be taught in schools--it can be used to learn various math and science skills and will encourage critical thinking.
4
This issue highlights how important it is to have science-based policy and be persistent and collaborative in addressing problems with global consequences. Reading the GOP's Platform, which among other things advocates more use of "clean" coal, building Keystone XL and other pipelines, and "reigning in" the EPA, it's hard to picture a Trump administration being anything other than a disaster for the environment.
44
Buildings, subway cars, and buses are often over cooled. This is a significant source of energy waste and bad for the environment. Humans can endure a 75 degree environment. Yeah, guys prefer 72, but think of your grandchildren and planet earth.
19
Or, like the answer to so many of the Earth's problems, we could reduce our numbers (by incentives).
19
Sort of like Romney: self-deportation (to another world).
No doubt we could and should, but all too often, limiting population seems to be offered as an excuse not to do anything else. Here, the "Or" gives that away.
"The answer to so many of the Earth's problems" is not going to be either/or; it is going to be both/and.
"The answer to so many of the Earth's problems" is not going to be either/or; it is going to be both/and.
2
We should be using the 1987 Montreal Protocol as an example of a successful international agreement to fight pollution as we debate things like carbon taxes and other techniques to fight global warming. Repairing the ozone layer wasn't on people's minds when scientists discovered the problem. The risk of increased cancer seemed remote to any given individual. It would have been easy to deny the science. Yet we came to this agreement and the ozone layer is healing.
The risk to our existence from global warming is much greater, and we can already see the effects. Why is it that our political leaders can't see the way forward?
The risk to our existence from global warming is much greater, and we can already see the effects. Why is it that our political leaders can't see the way forward?
6
The principal method of producing ammonia today is to start with hydrocarbons -- methane, propane or butane. You can get the nitrogen out of the atmosphere (Haber process, Chem 101) but you also need hydrogen and that is got from hydrocarbons.
Any interesting paper by Alden, et al. in Global Change Biology (pay-walled) reports that when the Amazon was stressed by heat and drought in 2010, it gave off more CO2 and it absorbed. It seems equally likely that the Amazon will be cut down long before it dies of thirst.
For those who enjoy data see, https://www.co2.earth/daily-co2
Any interesting paper by Alden, et al. in Global Change Biology (pay-walled) reports that when the Amazon was stressed by heat and drought in 2010, it gave off more CO2 and it absorbed. It seems equally likely that the Amazon will be cut down long before it dies of thirst.
For those who enjoy data see, https://www.co2.earth/daily-co2
1
China and India have ginormous populations. If these 2 governments cared about their people, they would be leading this effort, not foot-dragging.
6
Ann O. Dyne (great 'nym, BTW): China and India have ginormous populations, but the USA has a pretty large population too, who are by far the largest per-capita emitters of greenhouse gases. Why aren't we leading the effort to cut all GHG emissions?
1
Insist that retailers (Home Depot, Lowes, PC Richard, etc) stock window air conditioners that use R-32. Unfortunately, those manufacturers who still employ A410 can undercut their more responsible competitors who have already made the investment to convert from A410 to R-32.
Here is a brief overview explaining why the best chemical refrigerant is the one that balances efficiency, greenhouse gas mitigation, flammability and toxicity.
http://eneref.org/report-details/examination-of-the-use-of-r32-refrigera...
Here is a brief overview explaining why the best chemical refrigerant is the one that balances efficiency, greenhouse gas mitigation, flammability and toxicity.
http://eneref.org/report-details/examination-of-the-use-of-r32-refrigera...
6
Not to worry! Innovation always steps in when need arises. May be a little late. So what. We have been changing refrigerants for over hundred years with new and old chemistry making it possible.
Now with solar power and good old chemistry, wait a minute...
Now with solar power and good old chemistry, wait a minute...
2
Re: "Often, it is a virtue in foreign policy for negotiations to fly under the radar."
One of those virtues is that it is easier to amend an old agreement rather than starting a public debate over the scientific, financial, and political merits of a whole new agreement. Given that the Montreal Protocol was adopted to address not a global warming, but an immediate health hazard, the act of disguising a whole new agreement as a mere modification seems risky.
And, as international agreements are not enjoying maximal popularity in this campaign season, flying under the radar looks increasingly like common sense.
One of those virtues is that it is easier to amend an old agreement rather than starting a public debate over the scientific, financial, and political merits of a whole new agreement. Given that the Montreal Protocol was adopted to address not a global warming, but an immediate health hazard, the act of disguising a whole new agreement as a mere modification seems risky.
And, as international agreements are not enjoying maximal popularity in this campaign season, flying under the radar looks increasingly like common sense.
Propane is heavier than air, highly flammable, and prone to accumulation when it leaks. All it takes is an ignition source to set it off. Propane grills are banned in many places for this reason. How is this a solution to replace HFC's?
6
Whatever the refrigerant, no leaks is an imperative.
4
Agree. In some 3rd world counties propane has ended up in R-22 systems when the cost of R-22 spiked after the Montreal accords. Shortly thereafter there were fires in systems after the refrigerant system developed propane leaks. There are ignition sources (contactors and open motors) in this equipment that will readily ignite the leaking propane. Propane is NOT the answer.
2
People are working on metamaterials to surpass the performance of existing thermoelectric materials. One hope for new insight.
Every technology, every medical procedure, carries risk. All technological decisions trade risks against each other. It isn't easy to minimize the harm manifold in Hilbert space.
Every technology, every medical procedure, carries risk. All technological decisions trade risks against each other. It isn't easy to minimize the harm manifold in Hilbert space.
HFC's is just another of many classes of chemicals to be concerned about.
It is pretty much game over. Maybe we have another century, who knows.
The population explosion drives all the rest: pollution, resource depletion, climate change, etc.. Humans seem incapable of managing their numbers.
At least half of America's electorate is math and science illiterate. The sidewalks in Miami are being raised as Rubio was running for office. The climate was not mentioned at the republican convention.
Maybe we will do something about HFC's at some point?
I'm old and without children, so what humans are doing to this planet has little impact on me personally. I will only support those who do not deny what is before their very eyes.
It is pretty much game over. Maybe we have another century, who knows.
The population explosion drives all the rest: pollution, resource depletion, climate change, etc.. Humans seem incapable of managing their numbers.
At least half of America's electorate is math and science illiterate. The sidewalks in Miami are being raised as Rubio was running for office. The climate was not mentioned at the republican convention.
Maybe we will do something about HFC's at some point?
I'm old and without children, so what humans are doing to this planet has little impact on me personally. I will only support those who do not deny what is before their very eyes.
9
My husband has been in the HVAC industry for 30 plus years. According to his experience the problem with propane as a refrigerant is that if there is a leak in the system a combustible explosive is released. In the event of a leak in a central air system the combustible explosive is then circulated throughout the duct system. Ammonia works very well as a refrigerant but again if there is a leak in the system, far from uncommon, toxic gases are released into the building or duct work. Reducing the usage of HFC's is a worthy goal and will have a tremendous impact on reducing global warming but what is the impact of extracting yet more fossil fuels to replace the HFC's. Drilling for oil and natural gas releases methane which has been stated to be the greatest contributor to global warming. Have any studies been conducted on what the trade-off would be? Are we substituting one refrigerant for another that may contribute even more to the rise in global temperatures? While carbon dioxide would be the most benign of the refrigerants it is less efficient since it takes more energy to compress it to a liquid state. Is it the lesser of evils? Either carbon neutral or carbon negative? Further studies should be conducted before we replace one global warming contributor with another that may be far more detrimental to the environment.
9
Wow. An "ambitious phase down" MIGHT reduce global warming by a whopping 0.9°F 80+ years from now.
Doesn't that sound wonderful? Even though Al Gore Inc., has made so many predictions that were utterly bogus, we should definitely believe this one. Especially since the 0.9°F over 80years is well within the natural variation of temperature over the past 100 years. So we and other high-GDP economies should suck another $10B out of our pockets. Because - even a broken clock is right twice a day.
Doesn't that sound wonderful? Even though Al Gore Inc., has made so many predictions that were utterly bogus, we should definitely believe this one. Especially since the 0.9°F over 80years is well within the natural variation of temperature over the past 100 years. So we and other high-GDP economies should suck another $10B out of our pockets. Because - even a broken clock is right twice a day.
2
Where are you getting your figures?
that " 0.9°F over 80years is well within the natural variation of temperature over the past 100 years" is not a variation - it's a centuries-long baseline.
And why do you clip yourself to a glib, utterly bogus stance (truly Inc. money interests) in the face of tens of thousands of people who did the academic rigor and are now doing massive, vetted research on what is happening to our atmosphere?
Must be easier for you than putting a little effort for the common good. Cheaper too.
that " 0.9°F over 80years is well within the natural variation of temperature over the past 100 years" is not a variation - it's a centuries-long baseline.
And why do you clip yourself to a glib, utterly bogus stance (truly Inc. money interests) in the face of tens of thousands of people who did the academic rigor and are now doing massive, vetted research on what is happening to our atmosphere?
Must be easier for you than putting a little effort for the common good. Cheaper too.
4
>>>>>>
"We can try sustainable development and renewable energy, and we can try geoengineering to help the Earth self-regulate. We can do these things with the same certainty that our eighteenth-century ancestors had about the power of mercury, arsenic or blood-letting to cure their diseases. Just as they failed utterly, so I think we also are not yet clever enough to handle the planet-sized problem and stop the Earth from over-heating."
“Humans on the Earth behave in some ways like a pathogenic micro-organism, or like the cells of a tumor or neoplasm. We have grown in numbers and disturbance to Gaia, to the point where our presence is perceptively disturbing…the human species is now so numerous as to constitute a serious planetary malady. Gaia is suffering from Disseminated Primatemaia, a plague of people.”
James Lovelock
As E.O. Wilson points out, “Darwins dice have rolled badly for Earth.”
"We can try sustainable development and renewable energy, and we can try geoengineering to help the Earth self-regulate. We can do these things with the same certainty that our eighteenth-century ancestors had about the power of mercury, arsenic or blood-letting to cure their diseases. Just as they failed utterly, so I think we also are not yet clever enough to handle the planet-sized problem and stop the Earth from over-heating."
“Humans on the Earth behave in some ways like a pathogenic micro-organism, or like the cells of a tumor or neoplasm. We have grown in numbers and disturbance to Gaia, to the point where our presence is perceptively disturbing…the human species is now so numerous as to constitute a serious planetary malady. Gaia is suffering from Disseminated Primatemaia, a plague of people.”
James Lovelock
As E.O. Wilson points out, “Darwins dice have rolled badly for Earth.”
16
The author’s proposed solutions reflect a basic ignorance of the safety and cost effectiveness of CFC’s and HFC’s. Propane & ammonia are not acceptable for residential air conditioners or refrigerators from a safety or durability viewpoint.
1) Propane is a flammable gas when released into the atmosphere. If there were a leak into a house, a spark caused by a light switch would destroy that house in an explosion. Think of the number of homes and buildings destroyed over the years by a natural gas explosion. CFC’s and HFC’s are nonflammable. It is not a trivial expense to engineer flame proof systems in the event of a propane leak into a house.
2) Ammonia is also not a suitable gas for household air conditioning or refrigeration use. Ammonia in air causes immediate burning of the nose, throat and respiratory tract. It can burn the skin, cause permanent eye damage and even lead to death. It is extremely corrosive to current copper based air conditioners or refrigerators. Ammonia systems are mainly used in large commercial facilities with a maintenance staff. They are not practical for home use.
On the other hand CFC’s and HFC’s are cost effective and safe to copper & humans. These are the reasons CFC’s and now HFC’s are the refrigerants of choice in the USA.
Unfortunately CFC’s damage the Ozone Layer and HFC’s are accelerating Climate Change. While we need alternative gases or processes for refrigeration, propane or ammonia are not viable options for home use.
1) Propane is a flammable gas when released into the atmosphere. If there were a leak into a house, a spark caused by a light switch would destroy that house in an explosion. Think of the number of homes and buildings destroyed over the years by a natural gas explosion. CFC’s and HFC’s are nonflammable. It is not a trivial expense to engineer flame proof systems in the event of a propane leak into a house.
2) Ammonia is also not a suitable gas for household air conditioning or refrigeration use. Ammonia in air causes immediate burning of the nose, throat and respiratory tract. It can burn the skin, cause permanent eye damage and even lead to death. It is extremely corrosive to current copper based air conditioners or refrigerators. Ammonia systems are mainly used in large commercial facilities with a maintenance staff. They are not practical for home use.
On the other hand CFC’s and HFC’s are cost effective and safe to copper & humans. These are the reasons CFC’s and now HFC’s are the refrigerants of choice in the USA.
Unfortunately CFC’s damage the Ozone Layer and HFC’s are accelerating Climate Change. While we need alternative gases or processes for refrigeration, propane or ammonia are not viable options for home use.
30
This author is reflecting a total ignorance in the problem finding safe and cost effective substitutes for HFC's in refrigeration and air conditioning.
1) Propane is not an acceptable substitute for HFC's. It is extremely flammable in a refrigeration system that has a leak. If it were to leak into a house and a light switch were turned on, the house could explode as if a bomb were placed in it. Think of all the explosions over the years caused by a natural gas leak in homes, apartments and office buildings. That is one of the main reasons CFCs were initially used. They are safe and inert in the refrigeration systems and do not have any possibility of causing explosions if they leak out. Likewise, HFC's are also very safe.
2) Ammonia refrigeration systems are extremely dangerous to humans when a leak occurs. Ammonia vapors cause immediate burning of the nose, throat and respiratory tract. It can even cause death in a great enough concentration. This type of refrigeration is mainly used in large industrial complexes or office buildings where there are individuals dedicated to the continuous maintenance and service of such systems. This is not reasonable for the average home owner.
While HFCs are indeed a concern for Climate Change, there are no immediate safe and cost effective solutions. Propane and Ammonia are not reasonable alternatives for refrigeration in the homes and small buildings.
1) Propane is not an acceptable substitute for HFC's. It is extremely flammable in a refrigeration system that has a leak. If it were to leak into a house and a light switch were turned on, the house could explode as if a bomb were placed in it. Think of all the explosions over the years caused by a natural gas leak in homes, apartments and office buildings. That is one of the main reasons CFCs were initially used. They are safe and inert in the refrigeration systems and do not have any possibility of causing explosions if they leak out. Likewise, HFC's are also very safe.
2) Ammonia refrigeration systems are extremely dangerous to humans when a leak occurs. Ammonia vapors cause immediate burning of the nose, throat and respiratory tract. It can even cause death in a great enough concentration. This type of refrigeration is mainly used in large industrial complexes or office buildings where there are individuals dedicated to the continuous maintenance and service of such systems. This is not reasonable for the average home owner.
While HFCs are indeed a concern for Climate Change, there are no immediate safe and cost effective solutions. Propane and Ammonia are not reasonable alternatives for refrigeration in the homes and small buildings.
4
It is all so insane to think we can control the climate. All we have to do is stop using this or that and magically the global temperature will drop 0.9°F by the end of the century. We should not take any chances, we should also paint our selves blue and beat on drums to scare away the sun god.
2
While we may not be able to control the climate, we can certainly refrain from tampering with it to the point of making our planet uninhabitable for our species.
36
Obviously you know no physics or chemistry. It is clear that we are warming the globe. Proof comes from the validation of what scientists told congress in 1980. People like you ridiculed them by saying that the earth was cooling. No one buys that lie anymore so you've switched to saying that we can't stop it. Return to CO2 levels of 1950 and the problem will be solved. Solar power provides all the energy we could ever need. Oil and coal are stored solar energy. We need to invest in research in power transmission and storage. Solar generation is already competitive with coal generation. It's ignorant people like you who are holding us back.
10
Universal Skeptic: "It is all so insane to think we can control the climate."
Another "skeptic" who is ignorant of basic science. Any high school graduate should be able to understand that on a time scale of millennia, the average temperature of the Earth is controlled by "greenhouse" gases in the atmosphere. The principle GHG is carbon dioxide, and since the end of the last ice age, a stable atmospheric CO2 level has kept average temperatures stable within about 1 degree C. Human civilization developed while global temperatures were stable.
In the last couple of centuries, though, we've burned enough fossil fuels to increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by about 50%. Other gases also trap heat, including the HFCs we use for refrigeration. HFCs are very efficient GHGs, and tiny amounts of it in the atmosphere make a big difference in global temperature. The total GHGs we've released by now have raised global temperatures at least 1 degree C.
For thousands of years, stable global temperatures have allowed a (relatively) stable global society to develop. Now we've left stable temperatures behind. There are sound scientific reasons to believe that if temperatures keep rising, then within the next few decades millions of people will lose their homes, livelihoods and lives. We know temperatures will rise as long as we keep adding GHGs to the atmosphere. Why wouldn't we want to stop doing that?
Another "skeptic" who is ignorant of basic science. Any high school graduate should be able to understand that on a time scale of millennia, the average temperature of the Earth is controlled by "greenhouse" gases in the atmosphere. The principle GHG is carbon dioxide, and since the end of the last ice age, a stable atmospheric CO2 level has kept average temperatures stable within about 1 degree C. Human civilization developed while global temperatures were stable.
In the last couple of centuries, though, we've burned enough fossil fuels to increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by about 50%. Other gases also trap heat, including the HFCs we use for refrigeration. HFCs are very efficient GHGs, and tiny amounts of it in the atmosphere make a big difference in global temperature. The total GHGs we've released by now have raised global temperatures at least 1 degree C.
For thousands of years, stable global temperatures have allowed a (relatively) stable global society to develop. Now we've left stable temperatures behind. There are sound scientific reasons to believe that if temperatures keep rising, then within the next few decades millions of people will lose their homes, livelihoods and lives. We know temperatures will rise as long as we keep adding GHGs to the atmosphere. Why wouldn't we want to stop doing that?
15
This article as I read it does not offer an alternative to CFC's and HFC's. I am aware as an asthma patient and father of an asthma patient that there is a substitue. It is a refriferant that is also used as a propellant known as HFA-134a. I learned about this when I went to get an asthma control inhaler and found the price of a 13 gram prescription had risen from less that $10 to over $30 at my pharmacy. The explanation was that there was a treaty between the U.S. and other nations to stop using the other propellants due their effect on the ozone layer and HFA-134a was patented and produced under a license agreement. I understand why manufacturers who use HFC's would avoid the kind of increase I faced. This could have been anticipated and by the Montreal Protocol and some kind of relief given to people like me. I pay a stiff penalty for using less than 13 grams of my medicine over a period of several months. I am usually not as sympathetic toward manufacturers of products harmful to the environment but including mine and my child''s inhalers at such a cost is a thoughtless penalty on asthma patients and any others dependant on propellants in their medications.
6
HFA-134a (tetrafluroethane) is exactly what this article is about. It causes less harm that CFC’s, but still causes ozone depletion.
I use inhalers too--and was equally alarmed at the increase in price, and I wonder if an exception shouldn’t be made for such small medical devices?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1,1,1,2-Tetrafluoroethane
I use inhalers too--and was equally alarmed at the increase in price, and I wonder if an exception shouldn’t be made for such small medical devices?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1,1,1,2-Tetrafluoroethane
4
HFA-134a is tetrafluoroethane, and HFC. It is the most common refrigerant in use, and has a greenhouse gas warming potential of 4300 times that of CO2. Here is a link to some basic information about HFA-134a.
http://www.chm.bris.ac.uk/motm/hfc134/hfch.htm
http://www.chm.bris.ac.uk/motm/hfc134/hfch.htm
5
Sadly, HFA-134a ... the chemical name is 1,1,1,2-Tetrafluoroethane, has a substantial (though less than the CFC-12 it replaced) "greenhouse gas" potential.
One proposed replacement is 2,3,3,3-Tetrafluoropropene ... there are others.
One proposed replacement is 2,3,3,3-Tetrafluoropropene ... there are others.
2
That the author would offer up propane and ammonia shows his lack of knowledge. Propane is flammable and ammonia is toxic.
13
It depends on the dose and how it is used/contained. Gasoline is also flammable, but, mostly, cars don’t blow up.
19
Right - With all chemicals, it's about the concentrations / dosage. Oxygen is highly flammable, yet with it's presence at or about 21%, we cannot live. And water can be toxic if over-used.
3
Thanks a lot NY Times. It's a hot, muggy night here in Michigan and i was just thinking thank God, i now have central air and i will sleep soundly. Another guilt trip laid on me for even existing. So thank you NY Times. i need more ice cubes in my final drink before retiring. Guilt about that too? Actually i do thank you. I have grown grand kids and i want the world to be as nice for them as it was for me.
10
I am glad that attention is being called to the way use of HFCs add to greenhouse gases and so to the problem of climate change. The article says that they are adding the equivalent of 1.5 billion tons of CO2 per year, similar to the emissions from all of the vehicles on US roads. The article says that the primary objection to reducing / eliminating the use of HFCs is cost, but then says the total cost would be $8-10 billion over 30 years? It seems to me that phasing out HFCs would be much cheaper than trying to replace all the vehicles on the roads. What am I missing? Surely the author in calling attention to refrigerants, and noting that there are non-polluting replacements, is doing a service. But saying that cost is the obstacle seems misplaced. Rather, the engineering, sale and installation of replacement air conditioners, refrigerators and other applications would be a greater obstacle, as this equipment often has a long lifespan of use. More explication is needed.
1
Make this effort to reduce coolant pollution a part of the Democratic campaign. That will get everyone's attention. As climate change is really the biggest issue i the campaign (survival) and one party continure to deny it in apite of all the evidence, here is a way for the Democratic Party to tender a life-saving issue to voters.
And industry will gain incentives to push for the change, knowing customers are informed.
If pledges of funds for the project can be elicited from our government very soon, chances of a general accord will also be improved. That means electing as many pro-accord Democrats as possible.
Good luck to us all.
And industry will gain incentives to push for the change, knowing customers are informed.
If pledges of funds for the project can be elicited from our government very soon, chances of a general accord will also be improved. That means electing as many pro-accord Democrats as possible.
Good luck to us all.
16
While I agree with the general idea of decreasing the impact of coolants on the environment, ammonia may not be the best choice. According to OSHA information:
"Ammonia is considered a high health hazard because it is corrosive to the skin, eyes, and lungs. Exposure to 300 parts per million (ppm) is immediately dangerous to life and health. Ammonia is also flammable at concentrations of approximately 15% to 28% by volume in air."
"Ammonia is considered a high health hazard because it is corrosive to the skin, eyes, and lungs. Exposure to 300 parts per million (ppm) is immediately dangerous to life and health. Ammonia is also flammable at concentrations of approximately 15% to 28% by volume in air."
13
We are not talking direct exposure, but I think the author should have given more detail about how ammonia is used industrially. It used to be used in refrigerators (very early ones) and was dropped because of fire hazards, but those were primitive systems which have likely been greatly improved.
7
Ammonia is not the best choice, nor is it necessary, and trust me ... you aren't going to see re-adoption of ammonia refrigeration on any wide scale.
Left unmentioned in this article, because it's complicated and beyond most reader's understanding, is that most refrigeration systems use a "refrigeration cycle" that depends on a thermodynamic property of gases called Joule-Thompson expansion. Without going into the complexities of it, this allows a very simple system, but is not very efficient, and requires the refrigerant to be chosen to have the best J-T performance in application.
High-performance refrigeration cycles don't use J-T expansion; instead they expand the gas deriving work from it (that is fed back to the compressor) and are much closer to reversible cycles. These cycles can use a much wider range of gases; indeed they can work with air. Nitrogen, Argon (cheapest of the inerts), CO2 are easy choices. Helium (more expensive) is used in really high-performance systems because of its very good heat-transfer performance in heat-exchangers.
Left unmentioned in this article, because it's complicated and beyond most reader's understanding, is that most refrigeration systems use a "refrigeration cycle" that depends on a thermodynamic property of gases called Joule-Thompson expansion. Without going into the complexities of it, this allows a very simple system, but is not very efficient, and requires the refrigerant to be chosen to have the best J-T performance in application.
High-performance refrigeration cycles don't use J-T expansion; instead they expand the gas deriving work from it (that is fed back to the compressor) and are much closer to reversible cycles. These cycles can use a much wider range of gases; indeed they can work with air. Nitrogen, Argon (cheapest of the inerts), CO2 are easy choices. Helium (more expensive) is used in really high-performance systems because of its very good heat-transfer performance in heat-exchangers.
9
Since the New York Times writers from the top down find it impossible to give readers any information about renewable energy alternatives other than solar and wind I offer this assignment to an Editor.
1) Learn this phrase - heat pump.
2) Visit Cornell Science Center on Roosevelt Island and ask someone to explain how the ground-source geothermal heat-pump system (GSG) to be installed can both heat and COOL the buildings.
3) Ask how much HFCs are used in such a cooling system.
4) Give us the very first article ever on heat-pumps - air-air, air-water, GSG.
5) Visit Champlain College, Saint Michaels College, and Vietnam Memorial in Vermont to see their invisible GSG systems already operating out of sight out of mind.
6) Give us 2d article telling us why you never mentioned that Bernie Sanders has long championed the use of GSG, with Vermont as example.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Dual citizen - US SE
1) Learn this phrase - heat pump.
2) Visit Cornell Science Center on Roosevelt Island and ask someone to explain how the ground-source geothermal heat-pump system (GSG) to be installed can both heat and COOL the buildings.
3) Ask how much HFCs are used in such a cooling system.
4) Give us the very first article ever on heat-pumps - air-air, air-water, GSG.
5) Visit Champlain College, Saint Michaels College, and Vietnam Memorial in Vermont to see their invisible GSG systems already operating out of sight out of mind.
6) Give us 2d article telling us why you never mentioned that Bernie Sanders has long championed the use of GSG, with Vermont as example.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Dual citizen - US SE
98
Ground-source heat pumps use refrigerants -- less, but not none. There's still a gas cycle. The difference is that ground water is the thermal reservoir rather than ambient air, which results in the GSHP operating more efficiently under some conditions.
1
Wow, Larry, I have to say I love your insightful comments. If you're ever in MA or even VT my husband and I would love to meet you and discuss geo-thermal systems. It seems that what is offered in Sweden is far superior to what is offered as standard fare in the USA which relies on high electricity usage in the winter months. I am always astounded by the advanced infrastructure in Sweden as posted on your blog and embarrassed by America's total lack of sophistication regarding these alternative energy systems. It is truly evident that our government is manipulated by the fossil fuel industry otherwise we would be promoting and researching these various energy systems that have little to no impact on our environment. I have often wondered why we don't "heat capture" the heat from our septic system and use this as a pre-heater for our homes? I'm not an engineer so I don't know if this is even feasible but it would seem that the heat could be extracted to a point as long as the temperature of the system was kept high enough to support decomposition. Any thoughts on this?
2
In the late 80's I worked on the construction of the EMC corp. campus in Hopkinton MA. I recall a revolutionary system being implemented with huge tanks of water deep underground to capture heat and or help with cooling, as well as devices and strategies for reclaiming heat from wiring and other innovations. I remember the plumbing being a nightmarishly complex spider's web of pipes and valves and pumps, and I never found out if it worked, My connection to those efforts was indirect but I know every trade on site took pride in being involved in what had to be the beginning of green engineering and construction. Larry's advice is understated, and I get how folks react to stridency, but it is very important and should be heeded. It's going to be 108° here today, who knows what it might be 50 years from now.
3
On the narrow issue Brent Harris writes about, one gets the clear sense that he is correct, and the space constraints of an op-ed column make it impossible for him to address the broader issue of a cohesive, international policy on coping with global warming.
We have broad international agreements and proposals on a wide variety of subjects connected with global warming and air pollution. But, do we have consensus on the subject of air-conditioning and refrigeration beyond just switching from the latest discredited coolant to the next, soon-to-be discredited coolant?
It would be good to learn what, if anything, is being done about developing better closed systems of refrigeration in which less of the coolant – whatever it is – is allowed to escape into the atmosphere.
It would be helpful to know how much of the escaped HFCs get into the atmosphere during the manufacturing process and if that amount can be dramatically reduced, while we gear up for the next coolant.
There are other questions, such as what is the status of efforts to reduce demand on air-conditioning by improving buildings’ ventilation and fan systems for better air movement?
We are in the dilemma of having to use more air-conditioning because the weather is warmer, due partly to our using more air-conditioning.
We have broad international agreements and proposals on a wide variety of subjects connected with global warming and air pollution. But, do we have consensus on the subject of air-conditioning and refrigeration beyond just switching from the latest discredited coolant to the next, soon-to-be discredited coolant?
It would be good to learn what, if anything, is being done about developing better closed systems of refrigeration in which less of the coolant – whatever it is – is allowed to escape into the atmosphere.
It would be helpful to know how much of the escaped HFCs get into the atmosphere during the manufacturing process and if that amount can be dramatically reduced, while we gear up for the next coolant.
There are other questions, such as what is the status of efforts to reduce demand on air-conditioning by improving buildings’ ventilation and fan systems for better air movement?
We are in the dilemma of having to use more air-conditioning because the weather is warmer, due partly to our using more air-conditioning.
16
The solution as presented in the article is to return to older coolants, not search for new ones. That’s not to say it would work out that way; nor is it to say that there is not a newer and safer coolant out there. The problem has arisen from the loophole in the original agreement that allowed industry to take the easy way out--which they will invariably do (and then they wonder why we need regulation!).
19
Any gas that is stable, non combustible, will be persistent in the environment. Any gas that is easily liquified under pressure will be a green house gas. A better solution may be to figure out how to contain the gas so that it cannot escape.
8
Want to hear a very short answer? Cars. The air conditioning systems in cars leak a lot. The primary reason is that for simplicity they have a shaft-driven compressor (off the serpentine belt), and the shaft-seals inevitably leak. The vibration and shock environment of cars means that over time fittings and heat-exchangers often fail too.
Every time you need your car air-conditioning "serviced" -- you're replacing what has leaked out.
Home refrigerators are powered by a sealed electric-motor/compressor, and that doesn't leak.
Every time you need your car air-conditioning "serviced" -- you're replacing what has leaked out.
Home refrigerators are powered by a sealed electric-motor/compressor, and that doesn't leak.
15
CFCs were ne er a threat, and neither afre HFCs. Nor is "c,imate change." This is entirely about a grab for power and tax revenue.
4
And you know this how......?
48
Very funny! I love you guys!
The world is flat too!
12
To most Americans life without air conditioning is now unthinkable. And cities like Houston and New Orleans would be uninhabitable without the incessant background throb of compressors to render the interiors an ambient 60 degrees, so that a typical Texan complains of needing to wear a sweater in July. And gloves if he or she works on a keyboard for any length of time within the frigid confines of a typical office in Harris County or Orleans Parish...These are the same people who will hear about this issue and dismiss it out of hand as more liberal propaganda. And these same folks will proceed in their self-righteousness to vote for--Trump.
66
I'm not sure how you managed to pretzel logic your comment around to a screed against southerners and Trump.
3
Maybe the real problem is 7.4 billion humans, liberals and conservatives, living largely in inhospitable or disaster-prone ecosystems.
6
As a native Houstonian, I grew up without air conditioning and our first home cooling unit was an ammonia one - which worked very well indeed. But, I could get along without air conditioning, so long I could go back to shirt tails out, loose pants, and lots of iced tea. My wife, who grew up in New Orleans, notes that she didn't have air conditioning either, yet she remembers a happy childhood, in the heat, just as I do. We've gotten used to living in our "cool boxes" - at home and office - but we miss hearing the sounds of the neighborhood, the crickets, and so forth. But, we can't open leave the windows open at night - the neighbors' air conditioners make so much noise! As for freezing at work in front of the keyboard... Yep, we're all freezing for nothing, really. Just making it hotter outside - all over the planet. Duh.
2
The original CFC refrigerants were developed to be noncombustible, to replace propane. The new refrigerants proved to be hazardous in fires as well, transformed by heat to phosgene, a poisonous gas.
One wonders why they stopped using propane in the first place.
One wonders why they stopped using propane in the first place.
7
Because propane is more than just slightly combustible. The formation of phosgene under extreme heat requires the presence of chlorine.
4
A lot of fires.
Small systems like home refrigerators and auto-AC units don't have enough CFC to generate significant amounts of phosgene in a fire -- that was/is mostly a problem of large industrial systems.
Small systems like home refrigerators and auto-AC units don't have enough CFC to generate significant amounts of phosgene in a fire -- that was/is mostly a problem of large industrial systems.
Whatever the refrigerant is, the system has to be leak tight.
DuPont made $billions on Freon, and almost cooked the whole planet.
DuPont made $billions on Freon, and almost cooked the whole planet.
3
In the long run, this issue will be far more significant than the fleeting topics which tend to dominate the twenty-four hour news cycle.
28
One would hope that if the propellant is changed yet again, big-pharma would be proscribed from extending the proprietary life of this medication yet again.