Subject: Re: Re: Any one know anything about A/C?

[chris.miller at infofoundry.com (Miller, Chris)]

Don't need to start a war on this but wow, dude, that second link is
pretty far out there.  The Junkscience web page is, too.

More mainstream:
http://www.popsci.com/popsci/science/article/0,20967,197325,00.html
http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/1999/nsf98106/98106htm/nsf98106m7.html
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/06/020606075647.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/01/020116072538.htm
http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind96/ch7_undv.htm


They didn't ban "r12", they banned production of chlorofluorocarbons for
commercial use.  Besides the R12, there are lots more products,
including a lot of the aerosol propellants and certain insulating foam
products.

BTW, I've got an undergraduate degree in Environmental Science, and a
masters in Chemical Engineering, specializing in Hazardous Waste
Management.  You'd be amazed at the amount of science dedicated to
studying this subject; and the amount of political pandering in
misrepresenting it.

For us VW guys, the cars through the early '90s used R12.  It is legal,
but expensive, to refill them with R12.  Some places make it illegal to
fill a leaking system.  If you want to retrofit to R134a, there are
specific guidelines by VW on what to replace, and what oil to use.  I
can find the TSB if you'd like.
Chris
 

-----Original Message-----
From: David Utley [mailto:fahrvegnugen@cox.net] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2005 11:48 PM
To: Miller, Chris; scirocco-l@scirocco.org
Subject: RE: Subject: Re: Re: Any one know anything about A/C?

>From junkscience.com, formerly from the Washington Times, 5/99

There's nothing like scorching hot vinyl seats and rolled down windows
to remind one of the dangers of junk science.

Back in 1995, Congress outlawed future U.S. production of the CFC-based
refrigerant R-12 (also know by the trade name Freon), on the theory that
reactive chlorine molecules escaping from leaking automobile air
conditioners were attacking and degrading the Earth's protective ozone
layer, creating holes that allowed dangerous ultraviolet (UV) radiation
to reach the planet's surface unfiltered.

The problem with this theory is that the chlorine molecules in Freon are
heavier than air; they settle to the ground upon release - many tens of
thousands of feet below the ozone layer.

And even if they didn't, natural processes release exponentially more
chlorine into the surrounding air than anything done by the hand of man.
For example, the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines generated
more chlorine in a few short hours than if all the man-made CFCs in the
world were vented en masse.

But junk science prevailed; Freon was banned. The automakers quickly
switched over to a replacement refrigerant (R-134a) beginning with their
1995 and newer models. This new refrigerant is not nearly as efficient
as Freon, however, and does not cool as well, particularly on extremely
hot days.

In the meanwhile, federal taxes on the remaining stocks of Freon,
combined with the effects of scarcity, have driven per-pound costs of
the stuff from around $2 to more than $40. A routine top-off that once
cost less than $50 now can cost $200 or more. What's more, Freon is no
longer legally available to private individuals; one must be a certified
air-conditioning mechanic with all the necessary EPA say-sos before one
may lawfully buy R-12.

But in a few short years, even certified technicians may not be able to
get their hands on any Freon; supplies are rapidly dwindling and import
prohibitions prevent repair shops from bringing Freon into the U.S. from
countries where it is still legal to produce it.

Sometime soon, those who own older cars will face having to do without
air conditioning - or pony up for an expensive retrofit kit to convert
their car to the new refrigerant, R-143a. The cost for the changeover is
typically $500-$1,000 or more.

All because of junk science purveyed by reportorial know-nothings in the
media who prefer a good scare story to checking out their facts.
Remember that next time you burn your behind on those hot vinyl seats.
Some interesting details here at the beginning of this thread...

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:YbDEtqZ4dYAJ:www.allpar.com/eek/ac.
html
+freon+myth&hl=en

More here...

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:ujfUgLSgYq4J:acuf.org/issues/issue2
7/05
0105gov.asp+freon+myths&hl=en

The above one is long, but illustrates some of the reasons why there is
misinformation on R12 and R134...

Granted, posting a link from a gov. site would hold more water than the
links I have listed, but what IF we say is true?  That the gubmint is in
on the scam to help DuPont make more money?  Would it be the first time?
No.
Is it plausible?

David



-----Original Message-----
From: scirocco-l-bounces+fahrvegnugen=cox.net@scirocco.org
[mailto:scirocco-l-bounces+fahrvegnugen=cox.net@scirocco.org]On Behalf
Of Miller, Chris
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2005 8:32 PM
To: scirocco-l@scirocco.org
Subject: Subject: Re: Re: Any one know anything about A/C?

Lots of details on R12 (which is bad for the ozone layer) and R134a (not
bad for ozone) here:
http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/609/index.html

R134a and R12 both are greenhouse gases (but 134a is 1/6th as bad as
R12); but that's separate from ozone depletion.  R134a is used
worldwide, including Canada and Europe.  Especially Canada, home of the
Montreal Protocol that led to much of this.  Science isn't that
difficult to understand.

R134a doesn't work quite as well as R12, so R12 systems retrofitted to
R134a must cycle more often.  Systems designed for R134a work fine.

Other links include: http://www.macsw.org/pdf/manualE.pdf and
<http://www-wds.worldbank.org/servlet/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2001/10/0
5/000094946_0109270407020/Rendered/PDF/multi0page.pdf>

among dozens of others.

Chris

On 6/20/05, David Utley <fahrvegnugen@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >
> > From: John Gates <gatesj@mailblocks.com>
> > Date: 2005/06/20 Mon PM 02:54:31 EDT
>
> >
> > As far as Canada/US, etc, I don't know the reasoning, if you're
asking
> > a rhetorical question, what IS the answer?  I am curious!  Would the

> > Canadian government mandate that use of a certain chemical be
avoided
> > because it causes damage to components?  Is that under their
purview?
> > I could understand if they mandated against its use because of 
> > environmental impacts...
>
> IIRC, it is because R134 IS actually bad for the ozone, while R12 is
not.  Some more details I have just found...  R134 molecules are 20
times smaller than R12, and R12 molecules are 20 smaller than air...  If
indeed R134 is smaller, then you could argue that R134 is more likely to
leak, and when the system sees a vaccum after cooling, that it would be
more likely to suck in air (and with air here, it would have moisture in
it).  Perhaps that is the reason why failure is common, but not in VWs
alone...
>

_______________________________________________
Scirocco-l mailing list
Scirocco-l@scirocco.org
http://neubayern.net/mailman/listinfo/scirocco-l