SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
197 nations including the United States, India, and China have signed an agreement to reduce and eliminate the use of HFCs in the coming decades. The deal includes three tiers with a freeze in production and use beginning in 2019 (developed countries), 2024 (China, Brazil, and others), or 2028 (India, Pakistan, and others):
Nearly 200 nations hammered out a legally binding deal to cut back on greenhouse gases used in refrigerators and air conditioners, a Rwandan minister announced to loud cheers on Saturday, in a major step against climate change.
The deal, which includes the world's two biggest economies, the United States and China, divides countries into three groups with different deadlines to reduce the use of factory-made hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) gases, which can be 10,000 times more powerful than carbon dioxide as greenhouse gases. [...] Under the pact, developed nations, including much of Europe and the United States, commit to reducing their use of the gases incrementally, starting with a 10 percent cut by 2019 and reaching 85 percent by 2036.
[...] The HFC talks build on the 1987 Montreal Protocol, which succeeded in phasing out the use of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), widely used at that time in refrigeration and aerosols. The aim was to stop the depletion of the ozone layer, which shields the planet from ultraviolet rays linked to skin cancer and other conditions.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday October 16 2016, @11:59AM
So, when CFCs and HCFCs were phased out we went to HFCs. These were notably less efficient as phase change media and lead to increased power usage, which lead to more pollutants being dumped in the atmosphere from power plants/cars/etc... because people will not settle for using the same amount of energy, they want the same temperature. I'm wondering if we're going to do exactly the same thing again this time.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 16 2016, @04:53PM
The lunacy is we are replacing them with ever-more-expensive but less-efficient refrigerants.
And now they are saying the newest refrigerants are toxic and flammable! That is just nuts. Stupid.
If we went back to one of the oldest refrigerants we could dramatically increase efficiency, have zero toxicity, and only mild flammability: Propane. It is an excellent refrigerant and operates at R22-like low head pressures. All the new refrigerants require double or triple the pressure of R22.
Before screeching "But it burns!!!1!", do a little research on the volumes and conditions refrigerants are used in, and their failure modes. Your house or car is not going to explode or even catch on fire if a propane A/C gets a leak. Catastrophic ruptures could be a problem, but then your car is filled with gasoline and oil, and a lot more of each!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 16 2016, @10:21PM
> The lunacy is we are replacing them with ever-more-expensive but less-efficient refrigerants.
The truth is that these new hydrocarbon refrigerants are generally more efficient, especially per unit volume. There is lots of research and commercially available products demonstrating this fact. [cooltechnologies.org] The actual downside is that hydrocarbon refrigerants are more expensive chlorofluorocarbons. They are just more expensive to manufacture. Which is why a major focus of these talks was subsidies for 3rd world nations implementing the rules.
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Monday October 17 2016, @03:57AM
They are just more expensive to manufacture.
That's counterintuitive because large deposits of hydrocarbons exist naturally, which isn't true of halocarbons. Fuel-grade hydrocarbons are cheap commodities; must refrigerants be far purer?