[Gmcnet] Duracool compatibility

[Emery Stora]

On Aug 10, 2008, at 9:42 PM, Paul Hoynacki wrote:

> Please check out
> http://www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/refrigerants/lists/chiller.html
> EPA sez Not Approved.
> I though it was a dream come true, til I checked the EPA website.
> ~paul  Hesperia CA, '77 Eleganza


Paul - you have already had a response from Gene Fisher that the way  
the EPA rules are written is not illegal to replace R134a with HC12a  
but the way the EPA rules were written in order to get on their  
"approved list" for a substitute for R12, a company has to pay a lot  
of money for testing.  I had once heard that it would take perhaps  
close to $400,000 to get approved.  There just isn't a lot of money in  
the propane / isobutane product as there is in the R134a product.  You  
can buy a can of HC12a for about $8 and it only takes about 3 six  
ounce cans for a GMC conversion.  Not a big enough market for a small  
company to pay for the approval testing.

HC12a is factory fill for some European automobile manufacturers but  
not in the USA.

You might be interested in something that I posted way back in Jan.  
2005.  Not much has changed in the last 3-1/2 years.

<<<<<<For a number of years now there have been many messages posted  
on the GMCnet about the use of hydrocarbon refrigerants to replace  
R-12 or R-134a.  Products such as Duracool and HC-12a, which are both  
mixtures of Propane and Iso-butane, are currently being used my many  
GMCers.

Recently there have been warnings on the GMCnet against their use,  
primarily because of their flammability

I felt it might be good to examine the reported track record of  
hydrocarbon refrigerants.

Major conversion of car air conditioners from fluorocarbon to  
hydrocarbon refrigerant commenced  in the USA in Idaho during 1992.  I  
have been looking on the Internet for statistics and find that today  
over 10 million car air conditioners worldwide have been  converted,  
about half of these in North America, and over 30 million user years  
have accumulated.   Almost all of these have been drop-in conversions  
usually costing less than US$50.  Indonesia,  Korea, Philippines,  
China, Canada, Australia, Japan and other countries also have many  
systems with drop-in HC charges.    In spite of this, there have been  
no reported fires, explosions or injuries to occupants caused by the  
flammability  of hydrocarbon refrigerant in car air conditioners.   
Many cars with hydrocarbon refrigerant have  had frontal collisions  
which punctured the condenser.  Arthur D. Little, the well known  
consulting firm, estimated the frequency of  the refrigerant catching  
fire from this common accident as once in ten thousand user years, so  
over  3,000 such fires should have occurred worldwide;  if this had  
happened it would have been big news and widely reported. But even  
so,  no such fires have been reported.  There are reports of such  
accidents with the refrigerant NOT  catching fire.    HC refrigerants  
have a condenser pressure 10% lower than HFC-134a, making catastrophic  
leaks  many times less frequent.  HC REFRIGERANT IS ONLY FLAMMABLE  
BETWEEN 2 AND 10% VOLUME CONCENTRATION IN AIR.  It is non-flammable  
inside the refrigerant circuit where the concentration is  always  
above 10%.  HC refrigerants have a high leak and low flame velocity so  
an ignited leak tends to blow itself out.  HC refrigerants have a  
lower density so the charged mass is only one fourth  of  HFC 134a.   
When this small charge leaks from the evaporator into the passenger  
cabin, air leaks  keep it non-flammable by preventing the  
concentration from exceeding 2%.  HC refrigerants also have an   
odorant added to help prevent accidents.

Have any of the GMCnetters actually seen or even heard of an actual  
fire?

I feel it is a matter of personal choice as to one's aversion to  
risk.  1 in 50 million might be acceptable odds to some but might be  
unacceptable to others.  I personally feel that 0.00000002 is  
sufficiently close to zero.  So, the benefits of using HC  
refrigeration in my GMC far outweigh any fire risk in my mind.  You  
have to make up your own mind on this, though.  If you are worried  
about flammability what about the 50 gallons of gasoline you are  
riding on top of?

Europe is currently undergoing a transition away from the use of  
R-134a due to its potential of adding to global warming.  Many  
European countries signed the Kyoto Protocol (the USA did not).   
Replacements under consideration are hydrocarbon products for existing  
systems and a newly designed system using CO2 as the refrigerant.   
However, existing systems cannot use CO2.  It will require a different  
heat exchanger and re-engineering of every component.  The CO2 systems  
will have pressures in the range of 1500 psi to 2000 psi or more.   
This is about 10 times the pressure found in a conventional AC  
system.  Mercedes has indicated that they will soon have a CO2  
system.  [NOTE:  the EU standards will outlaw R134a in 2011 -- BMW and  
Mercedes have now both indicated recently (2008) that they will be  
going to a CO2 system]

The advantage of using hydrocarbons instead of HFC-134a is that the  
greenhouse effect of  refrigerant leaks could be eliminated completely.
The only argument against HC blend refrigerants, the flammability  
issue, has proven to be a non-argument. Plus, the international  
community, as well as Greenpeace and the UN, are advocating the use of  
HC blend refrigerants in all applications. This in response to the  
Kyoto agreement which scheduled the phase-out of greenhouse gases as  
the Montreal Protocol scheduled the phase-out of ozone-depleting  
chemicals. The U.S. is not a signatory of the Kyoto agreement,  
probably because of HFC-134a.

One interesting site I found indicates:
> U.S. policy with regard to refrigerants and refrigeration is lagging  
> behind the rest of the world. This is largely due to political  
> pressure from a variety of pro-HFC groups that are closely linked to  
> the company that held the original patent for Freon and currently  
> holds the patent for HFC-134a -- Dupont. However, Japanese products  
> are readily available to U.S. consumers and it is only a matter of  
> time before Hitachi HC blend refrigerators are marketed in the states.
>
> Domestically produced HFC-134a cooling and refrigeration systems  
> will be forced to compete with their more efficient, organic and non- 
> toxic HC blend import counterparts. At that time American compressor  
> and appliance manufacturers will have little choice but to follow  
> the environmentally responsible lead that has been taken by the  
> international refrigeration industry.

I am usually not a "conspiracy advocate" and I worked for Dow Chemical  
for 20 years, but it is interesting to note that duPont did indeed  
hold the patents for Freon R-12 and it contributed perhaps billions of  
dollars to their company's profits over the years.  And, isn't it  
interesting, that just when the patents they held on R-12 were running  
out that there was a major push to outlaw its manufacturer  and to  
make R-134a the only "official" substitute.  And, isn't it interesting  
to also note that the patents to R-134a are also held by duPont?   
Automotive air conditioning refrigerants are a multi-billion dollar  
industry in the United States and the company that can control most of  
the manufacturing has a tremendous incentive to lobby and do  
everything it can to keep its position in the industry intact.>>>>>>>

By the way I am not intending to make any political statements in this  
message. I am merely stating facts.   I agree with the US policy on  
not signing the Kyoto agreement so please don't send me any emails  
about being political or subversive on this issue.

Emery Stora
77 Kingsley
Santa Fe, NM