Which is frustrating to those of us who had to stop using it. All we've accomplished so far is to free up more for the third world.
Not a real good way to get us to accept their next round of cutbacks and taxes and price hikes.
-->--
Yeah, the 130 matter. NOAA's measurements show that CFC12 in the atmosphere stopped its rise beginning in 1994, and actually started to reverse in 2005.
Assuming that volume is tied to usage, then your "supposition" appears to have come out wrong.
-- Ed Huntress
I would say it proves that the "ban" served to cost the 1st world while being ignored in the 3rd, since wide R12 usage obviously continued if rising levels only recently abated, given that R134a has long been displacing R12 for economic rather than political reasons. As does the "ozone hole" malarkey, which even if admitted doesn't correlate as the government diktat asserted.
The R12 ban was very effective at stopping R12 use in the 1st world. It had no effect on the 3rd, except derivately and in delay, due to the disappearance of R12-using machines imported by the 3rd from the 1st.
Same deal with tobacco: uncool and declining in the 1st world, gaining in the 3rd.
My God, Richard, you really are over the top.
Enjoy your fantasies.
-- Ed Huntress
I do.
Your liberal religion amounts to faith in the goodness of human nature and in the government as a forceful actor of that humanity. When the opposite reality results, a true believer counts it as "fantasy".
Until the Montreal Convention came into effect most of the aerosols in the world were powered by Freon 12 or a Freon 12/22 mixture. I was the engineering manager of one small plant that used about 10 tonnes of the stuff every week. When a spray pack was empty it was thrown away. Eventually it would be crushed or corrode and the propellant would enter the atmosphere. The small amount that ordinary domestic refrigeration units use must be insignificant by comarison. Another company that I worked for in the 1970 had a large refrigeration plant. One Monday morning we had a complaint that the target temperature wasn't being reached. Investigation showed that we had lost 15 tonnes of Freon 22. At that time it cost about $3.50 a kilo! At the same time ammonia refrigerant cost about $.50 a kilo. After that, I became a devout believer in installing only ammonia based refrigeration plant for anything but small packaged refigeration.
Most of he third world inhabitants can't afford anything that uses CFC's and it's illegal to use in the rest of the world so it does matter.
Substitiuting other things for a CFC propellant is a lot easier than retrofitting refrigeration equipment. And most propellants are intented to be a total atmospheric loss, so they add up fast in the 'tons released to atmosphere' column.
All well and good, but you REALLY don't want to be around an Ammonia refrigeration system in a big leak. I like my lungs, and they are kinda important to my continued everyday living...
Los Angeles has several industrial plants with Ammonia refrigeration, notably the Baskin Robbins ice cream plant and several ice skationg rinks. And they occasionally have to evacuate for a block or more perimeter when a leak happens. It's not something that should be encouraged if you have a better alternative.
Converting CFC refrigeration over to HFC based systems are fine IF they take proper precautions - you have to have permnanent leak detection and a comprehensive plant maintenance program to catch it at the small leaks stage.
And you don't build up 100 - 250 - 500 tons capacity in a single machine if at all possible, because that makes the potential for a huge dump if a pipe cracks...
-->--
Not in our case. As the CFC propellants were non-flamable, there was not flame proof equipment in either the storage or packaging area. To comply with local regulations would have cost about a million or so. The plant was shut down and production was shifted to Indonesia, where it was done in a building with only a roof and no walls. Veltilation was not a problem and niether were any regulations.
If an ammonia plant is properly maintained, majour leaks are unlikely. Minor leaks are not a problem as the ammonia is so irritating that any minor leak is immedialty detected. You simply can not stay in an area where the concentration of ammonia is high enough to cause you physical harm, The irritation to you nose and eyes is you annoying and painful that you will be driven out very quickly. In addition ammonia vapour is lighter than air and will diperse quickly. Freons, on the other hand, are heavy and will pool in basements and underfloor pipe tunnels. You may not even be aware of the fact that you are being deprived of oxygen until you collapse.
Of course, if someone drives a fork lift into a 4" ammonia liquid line............................
Ammonia & propane forever!
I personally prefer sulfur dioxide!
Don Young
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.