Re: DuraCool & Exploding BMW A/C Systems

[Henri Baccouche <henrib@xxxxxxxxx>]

I don't expect to change any opinions..........but I put it to you that
the whole HFC-134a replacement situation was a money making scheme on a
global scale hatched by Dupont and others ( Elf Aquitane.....?)

HFC-134a is not harmless in it's production or when it's released in the
atmosphere.
It is far more toxic to human beings than "propane mixed with methane".
A refrigerant based
on propane apparently works very well in Australia. I would like to
point out that the equivalent amount of 2 lbs of R12 or HFC-134a is only
about 11oz of propane mixed with methane refrigerant.
11 oz of propane if it all leaked out a once could be a fire risk.....in
an enclosed space,
but easily managed by recharging outside.

The  real reason we can't legally  use this effective low toxic "drop in
for R12" refrigerant is because it challenges the marketing of a
Duponts HFC-134a  patent. It has nothing to do with hard science or
the enviroment.

"But both HCFCs and HFCs are environmentally harmful. HCFCs continue to
destroy the ozone layer, albeit somewhat less than CFCs, and both HCFCs
and HFCs are potent global warming gases. Because HCFCs destroy ozone,
they can only be considered as "transitional substances", meaning that
they will have to be replaced by environmentally more acceptable
substances in the near future.........."

I think the future is " propane based refrigerants......."

Henri

Quoting from a source which has no financial interest in HFC-134a :

http://www.greenpeace.org/~ozone/excuse/2excuse.html

 In the early 1970's scientists discovered that a class of chlorine
containing industrial chemicals called halocarbons were harmful to the
ozone layer. The most commonly used halocarbons are chlorofluorocarbons
(CFCs). CFCs are stable, non-toxic and inflammable compounds. These
qualities have made them very attractive for industrial use. They have
numerous industrial applications as refrigerants, foam blowing agents,
electrical circuit-board solvents and aerosol propellants.

 Unfortunately, they are also the major contributors to the depletion of
the ozone layer, and consequently need to be eliminated.

 The two main points of contention surrounding ODS phase-outs are: (a)
which alternative substances and technologies are the best substitutes,
on the short and long term, for CFCs and the goods and services they
provide; and (b) what is the most feasible phase-out schedule for all
ozone depleting substances.

 Chemical corporations, that created the ozone crisis in the first
place, promote the false-perception that at the present time only their
products, hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) and hydrofluorocarbons
(HFCs), are available as viable alternatives to CFCs. Led by such giants
as Du Pont, ICI and Elf Atochem, they are striving to maintain a
multi-billion dollar global monopoly they have enjoyed with CFCs during
the past six decades.
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------

"When you have $3 billion of CFCs sold worldwide
and 70 per cent of that is about to be regulated out of
existence, there is a tremendous market potential."
- --Joseph Glas, DuPont Freon Division Director
(M. Gladwell, "Du Pont Plans to Make CFC Alternative",
Washington Post, September 23, 1988.
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------

 The chemical industry conducts an extensive international lobby, and
expends vast resources, promoting its products. For example, on December
1, 1992 the London Financial Times reported that Du Pont had invested
$450 million in HCFC and HFC production, and expects to hit the $1
billion mark in 1995, with an expected recovery period for the
investment of no less than ten years. The company claims to require
another ten to twenty years of HCFC and HFC production to profit above
and beyond recouping their investment.

 But both HCFCs and HFCs are environmentally harmful. HCFCs continue to
destroy the ozone layer, albeit somewhat less than CFCs, and both HCFCs
and HFCs are potent global warming gases. Because HCFCs destroy ozone,
they can only be considered as "transitional substances", meaning that
they will have to be replaced by environmentally more acceptable
substances in the near future. This takes two steps to accomplish what
could be done in one with environmentally safer alternatives. It also
doubles the costs. Double costs are incurred in retrofitting equipment,
changing production lines, and training of personnel.

 It is estimated that global HCFC and HFC production will be 219,000
tonnes and 365, 000 tonnes respectively by the year 2005. We already
face an alarming rate of global warming due to human activity. The world
must not now take the risk of allowing the wide-scale use of new
generations of global warming gases.

 For example, over a twenty year time-span, the global warming potential
(GWP) of HFC-134a is estimated to be 3,200 times that of carbon dioxide
(CO2). Presented more graphically, the global warming impact of a
worldwide annual production of at least 200,000 tonnes of HFC-134a
equals roughly the CO2 emissions of an industrialized nation the size of
France or the UK.

 Furthermore, the manufacture of HFCs is directly linked to the
production of organochlorines, a class of chemicals that are persistent
and toxic, and have been targeted for phase out. Throughout the
manufacturing process, toxic intermediary and by-products are released
into the environment . Approximately 10per cent of the total HFC-134a
production weight is toxic waste, which pollutes our air, soil and
water.

 Professor Gustav Lorentzen (Norway), in a paper entitled "The Use of
Natural Refrigerants, A Complete Solution to the CFC/HCFC Predicament"
writes: "It has already been suggested that HFC-134a may be decomposed
by sunlight in the troposphere and form acid and poisonous substances.
If this should turn out to be true, we may have to face yet another
catastrophe, even worse than the CFC experience." *

Fortunately, better alternatives already exist.

------------------------------