134a Refrigerant
#341
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 134a Refrigerant
"Matt Macchiarolo" <matt@nospamplease.com> wrote in message
news:EaCdnYeq9eRZyTjfRVn-tg@comcast.com...
> You're the kind of liberal that gives the rest of us a bad name. Rush is a
> pompous ***, so I didn't even know he had agreed with it.
??
> http://www.fortfreedom.org/s50.htm
<>
[Excerpt from article on volcanoes in Douglas M. Considine,
editor, Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia, 7th Edition (New
York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1989), p. 2973:1]
</>
How about that date? Pretty current stuff!
Notice:
" 12th May 1998: Fort Freedom has won the Enter Stage Right
Conservative Site of the Day Award! "
No agenda there!
> The theory is the cfc's break down spontaneously (some of the most
> chemically stable compounds known) and release free clorine that "eat
away"
> ozone.
You don't understand... or are actively ignorant. UV
light breaks down the CFCs... the CFC's don't break
down until they get to the UV light. The ozone layer
keeps the UV light out... so until the CFC's get to
the stratosphere, they are not broken down. This
means that CFC's hang around for hundreds of
years, until they hit the upper atmosphere.
__
Steve
..
#342
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 134a Refrigerant
"JohnM" <eaotis@cbpu.com> wrote in message
news:42a55327$0$14971$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.co m...
> Jeff Strickland wrote:
>> "JohnM" <eaotis@cbpu.com> wrote in message
>> news:42a4c019$0$14970$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.co m...
>>
>>>Jeff Strickland wrote:
>>>
>>>>"JohnM" <eaotis@cbpu.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:42a29c52$0$14983$9a6e19ea@news.newshostin g.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Jeff Strickland wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>I hadn't heard that there was any problem with making R134, and I am
>>>>>>surprised that anybody is reporting trouble finding it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>And, I agree, going back to R12 isn't gonna happen. It's very
>>>>>>expensive, and there are seriouis compatibility issues that add to
>>>>>>the cost. I think one is going to spend the summer with the windows
>>>>>>rolled down before one goes back to R12.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>R12 is cheaper to produce than 134. It's pretty non-toxic too, which
>>>>>can't be said for 134. Political creatures have made 12 expensive.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>It doesn't matter that it is cheaper to make, it is essentially illegal
>>>>to use in the USA. R12 eats the ozone layer, or whatever, and is a
>>>>banned substance. It also does not play well with others in the
>>>>neighborhood, R134 for example. If your system is designed to run on
>>>>R134, it won't work right on R12 anyway, and if you want to convert your
>>>>factory R12 system back to R12 after retrofitting it to R134, then it
>>>>will be costly. You can't buy R12 on the open market, so you'll have to
>>>>find a crook that will sell it to you, or pay to evacuate your system
>>>>and refill it. You are not going to top off a low R134 system with R12,
>>>>if for no other reason than the fittings are different sizes.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>Top off a 134 system with 12 and it's life will be measured in weeks, at
>>>best.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Top off a 134 system with 12 and measure the life in hours - which is
>> pretty
>> much what I said earlier.
>>
>
> Not to be disputatious, but that's not at all what you said earlier. I'm
> not going to quote you, just go back and look.
It is what I said. Well, I said that R12 and R134 do not paly well together.
I did not give a time span for the failure to occur. The point is that R12
and R134 can not be mixed.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>It does matter if it's cheaper to make, and it also matters if it's more
>>>efficient (which it is). Laws being passed in the name of doing
>>>something, anything, just to be seen to be doing something do not remove
>>>the "mattering" of a subject which they address. The fact that
>>>refrigeration now costs more, from every angle, for everyone, does
>>>matter.
>>>
>>>As another poster pointed out, it's not at all illegal to use.
>>>
>>
>>
>> It isn't illegal to use, but you can't simply open the valve and let it
>> out,
>> like was once the practice. It has to be captured now, and they make sure
>> it
>> is captured by raising the price. If they raise the price of the new
>> refrigerant, then buy back the captured refrigerant, then the new
>> refrigerant becomes reasonably priced.
>
> I'm not sure I agree with that. Market pressure does not always affect
> price- when the circle of producers is small enough market pressure can
> simply affect production; if the supply is high, sometimes it's more
> profitable to decrease production and allow the price to remain high.
> Eventually it'll sell. I'm not saying that you are absolutely wrong, I'm
> saying that there are exceptions to the supply/demand law and it's never
> safe to assume otherwise.
>
The topic here is R12, a declining market in the USA. If the captured R12 is
collected, then it has value that offsets the cost of new R12. This is the
same as lowering the operating costs for the AC shops. If R12 was sold at a
high price, and there was no credit given for the captured product, then the
operating costs would be high. But if the captured product is credited
against purchases of new product, then the actual cost of the new product is
lowered. If somebody goes in and buys a 30 pound tank of R12, it will cost
upwards of $900, but I have no idea what the captured product is worht in
terms of a credit. What I will say is that the odds are good that the OP
hasn't got a tank of used R12 to turn in, and he isn't going to use 30
pounds of R12 in a single car in his entire life, and the life of his
decendants. This means that he isn't going to get his hands on R12 anytime
soon in a quantity that is actually useful to a guy working on his car in
the driveway.
>>When we were kids, we could buy a set
>> of guages and a can or two of R12 and go home and service the A/C system
>> in
>> the driveway. We can't do that anymore because the R12 has gone up in
>> price.
>> If we could capture the R12 that we used to release, then the cost of
>> self-service would come way down. We can't capture the R12, so the cost
>> of
>> self-service is very high. The equipment needed to capture and recycle
>> the
>> R12 is expensive, and the only way to justify the cost is to ammortize it
>> over many operations.
>
> The reason why the recovery equipment is expensive is due to government
> regulation. The cheapest recovery device I've heard of was a R12 tank,
> with a line to the system, in a bucket; fill the bucket with liquid
> nitrogen and give it a few minutes.. the refrigerant will not only
> condense in the tank, it'll freeze. You won't get any more out with any
> pump, no matter what. Pretty cheap, but not approved.
>
I don't give a rat's *** why the equipment is expensive. It is expensive,
and most guys that work on the car in the driveway are not going to have the
equipment that is needed. And nobody is going to have a bucket of liquid
nitrogen that they can use to suck the R12 out of the family sedan with.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>As far as the ozone layer story.. I'm not convinced we affect it that
>>>much. If we did, wouldn't it be in the Northern Hemisphere? I won't get
>>>into politics here, I'll just say that there's some subjects which get a
>>>lot of attention that I put little stock in. Global warming is another.
>>>I don't want to argue about it, if someone wants to argue I suggest they
>>>do some open-minded googling.
>>>
>>>John
>>
>>
>>
>> It doesn't really matter what you think of the ozone depletion issue.
>> There
>> are rules that have been developed, and they arise out of the ozone
>> depletion issue, and we have to live by the rules whether we agree with
>> them
>> or not. Personally, I think I suould be able to go into the vault and
>> haul
>> off a wheel barrel full of money, but there are bank robbing laws that I
>> have to live by whether I agree with them or not.
>
> Of course it matters what I think about the issue. You would surrender
> your opinions for a rulemaker who would tell you what to do, and how? Not
> me.
>
> I disagree that the "rules that have been developed" have much at all to
> do with the ozone issue. Perhaps that's just my natural skeptcism, but
> that's my opinion.
>
> Now, don't go telling me that what I think doesn't matter, and then go on
> to tell me what you think, which, based on your reasoning, doesn't matter?
> Leave the bank's money alone..
>
What I think doesn't matter either. NOBODY is going to walk into an auto
parts store inthe USA and buy a can of R12 and take it home and squirt it
into his car.
R12 and R134 do not mix. You can not revert back to R12 in a system that has
been made to take R134, but you can still change an R12 system to take R134.
R134 is readily available at any auto parts store, and if they don't have
any it's only due to being out of stock at the moment.
>>
>> So, we are back to Square One. Somebody is looking for R134 that he is
>> having trouble sourcing. He didn't say, but I gathered from post that he
>> has a system that once took R12, but has been retrofitted to R134, and he
>> wanted to know about switching back to R12. I do not think he CAN switch
>> back, 1.) because the laws will not allow a conversion in that direction,
>> and 2.) because there are serious chemical reaction issues that arise if
>> a
>> full evacuation is not accomplished.
>>
>> None of the pollitical issues make a bit of difference. We have a reality
>> that says R134 is required.
>
> Yes.. but that reality is not my fault- I'm willing to have opinions that
> aren't exactly politically correct. Join me, enough of us might be able to
> restore some sanity to the world..
>
Nobody is blaming you for the situation. Have all of the opinions you want,
and maybe something will change as a result. In the mean time, you have to
play by the rules that are in effect. I may or may not share your opinion,
but I still have to play by the same rules.
The rules say we have to use R134 if we want to charge our own A/C system,
and not spend a small fortune buying recovery equipment that will never be
fully utilized working on our own car at home in the driveway.
#343
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 134a Refrigerant
"JohnM" <eaotis@cbpu.com> wrote in message
news:42a55327$0$14971$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.co m...
> Jeff Strickland wrote:
>> "JohnM" <eaotis@cbpu.com> wrote in message
>> news:42a4c019$0$14970$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.co m...
>>
>>>Jeff Strickland wrote:
>>>
>>>>"JohnM" <eaotis@cbpu.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:42a29c52$0$14983$9a6e19ea@news.newshostin g.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Jeff Strickland wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>I hadn't heard that there was any problem with making R134, and I am
>>>>>>surprised that anybody is reporting trouble finding it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>And, I agree, going back to R12 isn't gonna happen. It's very
>>>>>>expensive, and there are seriouis compatibility issues that add to
>>>>>>the cost. I think one is going to spend the summer with the windows
>>>>>>rolled down before one goes back to R12.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>R12 is cheaper to produce than 134. It's pretty non-toxic too, which
>>>>>can't be said for 134. Political creatures have made 12 expensive.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>It doesn't matter that it is cheaper to make, it is essentially illegal
>>>>to use in the USA. R12 eats the ozone layer, or whatever, and is a
>>>>banned substance. It also does not play well with others in the
>>>>neighborhood, R134 for example. If your system is designed to run on
>>>>R134, it won't work right on R12 anyway, and if you want to convert your
>>>>factory R12 system back to R12 after retrofitting it to R134, then it
>>>>will be costly. You can't buy R12 on the open market, so you'll have to
>>>>find a crook that will sell it to you, or pay to evacuate your system
>>>>and refill it. You are not going to top off a low R134 system with R12,
>>>>if for no other reason than the fittings are different sizes.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>Top off a 134 system with 12 and it's life will be measured in weeks, at
>>>best.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Top off a 134 system with 12 and measure the life in hours - which is
>> pretty
>> much what I said earlier.
>>
>
> Not to be disputatious, but that's not at all what you said earlier. I'm
> not going to quote you, just go back and look.
It is what I said. Well, I said that R12 and R134 do not paly well together.
I did not give a time span for the failure to occur. The point is that R12
and R134 can not be mixed.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>It does matter if it's cheaper to make, and it also matters if it's more
>>>efficient (which it is). Laws being passed in the name of doing
>>>something, anything, just to be seen to be doing something do not remove
>>>the "mattering" of a subject which they address. The fact that
>>>refrigeration now costs more, from every angle, for everyone, does
>>>matter.
>>>
>>>As another poster pointed out, it's not at all illegal to use.
>>>
>>
>>
>> It isn't illegal to use, but you can't simply open the valve and let it
>> out,
>> like was once the practice. It has to be captured now, and they make sure
>> it
>> is captured by raising the price. If they raise the price of the new
>> refrigerant, then buy back the captured refrigerant, then the new
>> refrigerant becomes reasonably priced.
>
> I'm not sure I agree with that. Market pressure does not always affect
> price- when the circle of producers is small enough market pressure can
> simply affect production; if the supply is high, sometimes it's more
> profitable to decrease production and allow the price to remain high.
> Eventually it'll sell. I'm not saying that you are absolutely wrong, I'm
> saying that there are exceptions to the supply/demand law and it's never
> safe to assume otherwise.
>
The topic here is R12, a declining market in the USA. If the captured R12 is
collected, then it has value that offsets the cost of new R12. This is the
same as lowering the operating costs for the AC shops. If R12 was sold at a
high price, and there was no credit given for the captured product, then the
operating costs would be high. But if the captured product is credited
against purchases of new product, then the actual cost of the new product is
lowered. If somebody goes in and buys a 30 pound tank of R12, it will cost
upwards of $900, but I have no idea what the captured product is worht in
terms of a credit. What I will say is that the odds are good that the OP
hasn't got a tank of used R12 to turn in, and he isn't going to use 30
pounds of R12 in a single car in his entire life, and the life of his
decendants. This means that he isn't going to get his hands on R12 anytime
soon in a quantity that is actually useful to a guy working on his car in
the driveway.
>>When we were kids, we could buy a set
>> of guages and a can or two of R12 and go home and service the A/C system
>> in
>> the driveway. We can't do that anymore because the R12 has gone up in
>> price.
>> If we could capture the R12 that we used to release, then the cost of
>> self-service would come way down. We can't capture the R12, so the cost
>> of
>> self-service is very high. The equipment needed to capture and recycle
>> the
>> R12 is expensive, and the only way to justify the cost is to ammortize it
>> over many operations.
>
> The reason why the recovery equipment is expensive is due to government
> regulation. The cheapest recovery device I've heard of was a R12 tank,
> with a line to the system, in a bucket; fill the bucket with liquid
> nitrogen and give it a few minutes.. the refrigerant will not only
> condense in the tank, it'll freeze. You won't get any more out with any
> pump, no matter what. Pretty cheap, but not approved.
>
I don't give a rat's *** why the equipment is expensive. It is expensive,
and most guys that work on the car in the driveway are not going to have the
equipment that is needed. And nobody is going to have a bucket of liquid
nitrogen that they can use to suck the R12 out of the family sedan with.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>As far as the ozone layer story.. I'm not convinced we affect it that
>>>much. If we did, wouldn't it be in the Northern Hemisphere? I won't get
>>>into politics here, I'll just say that there's some subjects which get a
>>>lot of attention that I put little stock in. Global warming is another.
>>>I don't want to argue about it, if someone wants to argue I suggest they
>>>do some open-minded googling.
>>>
>>>John
>>
>>
>>
>> It doesn't really matter what you think of the ozone depletion issue.
>> There
>> are rules that have been developed, and they arise out of the ozone
>> depletion issue, and we have to live by the rules whether we agree with
>> them
>> or not. Personally, I think I suould be able to go into the vault and
>> haul
>> off a wheel barrel full of money, but there are bank robbing laws that I
>> have to live by whether I agree with them or not.
>
> Of course it matters what I think about the issue. You would surrender
> your opinions for a rulemaker who would tell you what to do, and how? Not
> me.
>
> I disagree that the "rules that have been developed" have much at all to
> do with the ozone issue. Perhaps that's just my natural skeptcism, but
> that's my opinion.
>
> Now, don't go telling me that what I think doesn't matter, and then go on
> to tell me what you think, which, based on your reasoning, doesn't matter?
> Leave the bank's money alone..
>
What I think doesn't matter either. NOBODY is going to walk into an auto
parts store inthe USA and buy a can of R12 and take it home and squirt it
into his car.
R12 and R134 do not mix. You can not revert back to R12 in a system that has
been made to take R134, but you can still change an R12 system to take R134.
R134 is readily available at any auto parts store, and if they don't have
any it's only due to being out of stock at the moment.
>>
>> So, we are back to Square One. Somebody is looking for R134 that he is
>> having trouble sourcing. He didn't say, but I gathered from post that he
>> has a system that once took R12, but has been retrofitted to R134, and he
>> wanted to know about switching back to R12. I do not think he CAN switch
>> back, 1.) because the laws will not allow a conversion in that direction,
>> and 2.) because there are serious chemical reaction issues that arise if
>> a
>> full evacuation is not accomplished.
>>
>> None of the pollitical issues make a bit of difference. We have a reality
>> that says R134 is required.
>
> Yes.. but that reality is not my fault- I'm willing to have opinions that
> aren't exactly politically correct. Join me, enough of us might be able to
> restore some sanity to the world..
>
Nobody is blaming you for the situation. Have all of the opinions you want,
and maybe something will change as a result. In the mean time, you have to
play by the rules that are in effect. I may or may not share your opinion,
but I still have to play by the same rules.
The rules say we have to use R134 if we want to charge our own A/C system,
and not spend a small fortune buying recovery equipment that will never be
fully utilized working on our own car at home in the driveway.
#344
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 134a Refrigerant
"JohnM" <eaotis@cbpu.com> wrote in message
news:42a55327$0$14971$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.co m...
> Jeff Strickland wrote:
>> "JohnM" <eaotis@cbpu.com> wrote in message
>> news:42a4c019$0$14970$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.co m...
>>
>>>Jeff Strickland wrote:
>>>
>>>>"JohnM" <eaotis@cbpu.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:42a29c52$0$14983$9a6e19ea@news.newshostin g.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Jeff Strickland wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>I hadn't heard that there was any problem with making R134, and I am
>>>>>>surprised that anybody is reporting trouble finding it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>And, I agree, going back to R12 isn't gonna happen. It's very
>>>>>>expensive, and there are seriouis compatibility issues that add to
>>>>>>the cost. I think one is going to spend the summer with the windows
>>>>>>rolled down before one goes back to R12.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>R12 is cheaper to produce than 134. It's pretty non-toxic too, which
>>>>>can't be said for 134. Political creatures have made 12 expensive.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>It doesn't matter that it is cheaper to make, it is essentially illegal
>>>>to use in the USA. R12 eats the ozone layer, or whatever, and is a
>>>>banned substance. It also does not play well with others in the
>>>>neighborhood, R134 for example. If your system is designed to run on
>>>>R134, it won't work right on R12 anyway, and if you want to convert your
>>>>factory R12 system back to R12 after retrofitting it to R134, then it
>>>>will be costly. You can't buy R12 on the open market, so you'll have to
>>>>find a crook that will sell it to you, or pay to evacuate your system
>>>>and refill it. You are not going to top off a low R134 system with R12,
>>>>if for no other reason than the fittings are different sizes.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>Top off a 134 system with 12 and it's life will be measured in weeks, at
>>>best.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Top off a 134 system with 12 and measure the life in hours - which is
>> pretty
>> much what I said earlier.
>>
>
> Not to be disputatious, but that's not at all what you said earlier. I'm
> not going to quote you, just go back and look.
It is what I said. Well, I said that R12 and R134 do not paly well together.
I did not give a time span for the failure to occur. The point is that R12
and R134 can not be mixed.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>It does matter if it's cheaper to make, and it also matters if it's more
>>>efficient (which it is). Laws being passed in the name of doing
>>>something, anything, just to be seen to be doing something do not remove
>>>the "mattering" of a subject which they address. The fact that
>>>refrigeration now costs more, from every angle, for everyone, does
>>>matter.
>>>
>>>As another poster pointed out, it's not at all illegal to use.
>>>
>>
>>
>> It isn't illegal to use, but you can't simply open the valve and let it
>> out,
>> like was once the practice. It has to be captured now, and they make sure
>> it
>> is captured by raising the price. If they raise the price of the new
>> refrigerant, then buy back the captured refrigerant, then the new
>> refrigerant becomes reasonably priced.
>
> I'm not sure I agree with that. Market pressure does not always affect
> price- when the circle of producers is small enough market pressure can
> simply affect production; if the supply is high, sometimes it's more
> profitable to decrease production and allow the price to remain high.
> Eventually it'll sell. I'm not saying that you are absolutely wrong, I'm
> saying that there are exceptions to the supply/demand law and it's never
> safe to assume otherwise.
>
The topic here is R12, a declining market in the USA. If the captured R12 is
collected, then it has value that offsets the cost of new R12. This is the
same as lowering the operating costs for the AC shops. If R12 was sold at a
high price, and there was no credit given for the captured product, then the
operating costs would be high. But if the captured product is credited
against purchases of new product, then the actual cost of the new product is
lowered. If somebody goes in and buys a 30 pound tank of R12, it will cost
upwards of $900, but I have no idea what the captured product is worht in
terms of a credit. What I will say is that the odds are good that the OP
hasn't got a tank of used R12 to turn in, and he isn't going to use 30
pounds of R12 in a single car in his entire life, and the life of his
decendants. This means that he isn't going to get his hands on R12 anytime
soon in a quantity that is actually useful to a guy working on his car in
the driveway.
>>When we were kids, we could buy a set
>> of guages and a can or two of R12 and go home and service the A/C system
>> in
>> the driveway. We can't do that anymore because the R12 has gone up in
>> price.
>> If we could capture the R12 that we used to release, then the cost of
>> self-service would come way down. We can't capture the R12, so the cost
>> of
>> self-service is very high. The equipment needed to capture and recycle
>> the
>> R12 is expensive, and the only way to justify the cost is to ammortize it
>> over many operations.
>
> The reason why the recovery equipment is expensive is due to government
> regulation. The cheapest recovery device I've heard of was a R12 tank,
> with a line to the system, in a bucket; fill the bucket with liquid
> nitrogen and give it a few minutes.. the refrigerant will not only
> condense in the tank, it'll freeze. You won't get any more out with any
> pump, no matter what. Pretty cheap, but not approved.
>
I don't give a rat's *** why the equipment is expensive. It is expensive,
and most guys that work on the car in the driveway are not going to have the
equipment that is needed. And nobody is going to have a bucket of liquid
nitrogen that they can use to suck the R12 out of the family sedan with.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>As far as the ozone layer story.. I'm not convinced we affect it that
>>>much. If we did, wouldn't it be in the Northern Hemisphere? I won't get
>>>into politics here, I'll just say that there's some subjects which get a
>>>lot of attention that I put little stock in. Global warming is another.
>>>I don't want to argue about it, if someone wants to argue I suggest they
>>>do some open-minded googling.
>>>
>>>John
>>
>>
>>
>> It doesn't really matter what you think of the ozone depletion issue.
>> There
>> are rules that have been developed, and they arise out of the ozone
>> depletion issue, and we have to live by the rules whether we agree with
>> them
>> or not. Personally, I think I suould be able to go into the vault and
>> haul
>> off a wheel barrel full of money, but there are bank robbing laws that I
>> have to live by whether I agree with them or not.
>
> Of course it matters what I think about the issue. You would surrender
> your opinions for a rulemaker who would tell you what to do, and how? Not
> me.
>
> I disagree that the "rules that have been developed" have much at all to
> do with the ozone issue. Perhaps that's just my natural skeptcism, but
> that's my opinion.
>
> Now, don't go telling me that what I think doesn't matter, and then go on
> to tell me what you think, which, based on your reasoning, doesn't matter?
> Leave the bank's money alone..
>
What I think doesn't matter either. NOBODY is going to walk into an auto
parts store inthe USA and buy a can of R12 and take it home and squirt it
into his car.
R12 and R134 do not mix. You can not revert back to R12 in a system that has
been made to take R134, but you can still change an R12 system to take R134.
R134 is readily available at any auto parts store, and if they don't have
any it's only due to being out of stock at the moment.
>>
>> So, we are back to Square One. Somebody is looking for R134 that he is
>> having trouble sourcing. He didn't say, but I gathered from post that he
>> has a system that once took R12, but has been retrofitted to R134, and he
>> wanted to know about switching back to R12. I do not think he CAN switch
>> back, 1.) because the laws will not allow a conversion in that direction,
>> and 2.) because there are serious chemical reaction issues that arise if
>> a
>> full evacuation is not accomplished.
>>
>> None of the pollitical issues make a bit of difference. We have a reality
>> that says R134 is required.
>
> Yes.. but that reality is not my fault- I'm willing to have opinions that
> aren't exactly politically correct. Join me, enough of us might be able to
> restore some sanity to the world..
>
Nobody is blaming you for the situation. Have all of the opinions you want,
and maybe something will change as a result. In the mean time, you have to
play by the rules that are in effect. I may or may not share your opinion,
but I still have to play by the same rules.
The rules say we have to use R134 if we want to charge our own A/C system,
and not spend a small fortune buying recovery equipment that will never be
fully utilized working on our own car at home in the driveway.
#345
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 134a Refrigerant
"JohnM" <eaotis@cbpu.com> wrote in message
news:42a55327$0$14971$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.co m...
> Jeff Strickland wrote:
>> "JohnM" <eaotis@cbpu.com> wrote in message
>> news:42a4c019$0$14970$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.co m...
>>
>>>Jeff Strickland wrote:
>>>
>>>>"JohnM" <eaotis@cbpu.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:42a29c52$0$14983$9a6e19ea@news.newshostin g.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Jeff Strickland wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>I hadn't heard that there was any problem with making R134, and I am
>>>>>>surprised that anybody is reporting trouble finding it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>And, I agree, going back to R12 isn't gonna happen. It's very
>>>>>>expensive, and there are seriouis compatibility issues that add to
>>>>>>the cost. I think one is going to spend the summer with the windows
>>>>>>rolled down before one goes back to R12.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>R12 is cheaper to produce than 134. It's pretty non-toxic too, which
>>>>>can't be said for 134. Political creatures have made 12 expensive.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>It doesn't matter that it is cheaper to make, it is essentially illegal
>>>>to use in the USA. R12 eats the ozone layer, or whatever, and is a
>>>>banned substance. It also does not play well with others in the
>>>>neighborhood, R134 for example. If your system is designed to run on
>>>>R134, it won't work right on R12 anyway, and if you want to convert your
>>>>factory R12 system back to R12 after retrofitting it to R134, then it
>>>>will be costly. You can't buy R12 on the open market, so you'll have to
>>>>find a crook that will sell it to you, or pay to evacuate your system
>>>>and refill it. You are not going to top off a low R134 system with R12,
>>>>if for no other reason than the fittings are different sizes.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>Top off a 134 system with 12 and it's life will be measured in weeks, at
>>>best.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Top off a 134 system with 12 and measure the life in hours - which is
>> pretty
>> much what I said earlier.
>>
>
> Not to be disputatious, but that's not at all what you said earlier. I'm
> not going to quote you, just go back and look.
It is what I said. Well, I said that R12 and R134 do not paly well together.
I did not give a time span for the failure to occur. The point is that R12
and R134 can not be mixed.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>It does matter if it's cheaper to make, and it also matters if it's more
>>>efficient (which it is). Laws being passed in the name of doing
>>>something, anything, just to be seen to be doing something do not remove
>>>the "mattering" of a subject which they address. The fact that
>>>refrigeration now costs more, from every angle, for everyone, does
>>>matter.
>>>
>>>As another poster pointed out, it's not at all illegal to use.
>>>
>>
>>
>> It isn't illegal to use, but you can't simply open the valve and let it
>> out,
>> like was once the practice. It has to be captured now, and they make sure
>> it
>> is captured by raising the price. If they raise the price of the new
>> refrigerant, then buy back the captured refrigerant, then the new
>> refrigerant becomes reasonably priced.
>
> I'm not sure I agree with that. Market pressure does not always affect
> price- when the circle of producers is small enough market pressure can
> simply affect production; if the supply is high, sometimes it's more
> profitable to decrease production and allow the price to remain high.
> Eventually it'll sell. I'm not saying that you are absolutely wrong, I'm
> saying that there are exceptions to the supply/demand law and it's never
> safe to assume otherwise.
>
The topic here is R12, a declining market in the USA. If the captured R12 is
collected, then it has value that offsets the cost of new R12. This is the
same as lowering the operating costs for the AC shops. If R12 was sold at a
high price, and there was no credit given for the captured product, then the
operating costs would be high. But if the captured product is credited
against purchases of new product, then the actual cost of the new product is
lowered. If somebody goes in and buys a 30 pound tank of R12, it will cost
upwards of $900, but I have no idea what the captured product is worht in
terms of a credit. What I will say is that the odds are good that the OP
hasn't got a tank of used R12 to turn in, and he isn't going to use 30
pounds of R12 in a single car in his entire life, and the life of his
decendants. This means that he isn't going to get his hands on R12 anytime
soon in a quantity that is actually useful to a guy working on his car in
the driveway.
>>When we were kids, we could buy a set
>> of guages and a can or two of R12 and go home and service the A/C system
>> in
>> the driveway. We can't do that anymore because the R12 has gone up in
>> price.
>> If we could capture the R12 that we used to release, then the cost of
>> self-service would come way down. We can't capture the R12, so the cost
>> of
>> self-service is very high. The equipment needed to capture and recycle
>> the
>> R12 is expensive, and the only way to justify the cost is to ammortize it
>> over many operations.
>
> The reason why the recovery equipment is expensive is due to government
> regulation. The cheapest recovery device I've heard of was a R12 tank,
> with a line to the system, in a bucket; fill the bucket with liquid
> nitrogen and give it a few minutes.. the refrigerant will not only
> condense in the tank, it'll freeze. You won't get any more out with any
> pump, no matter what. Pretty cheap, but not approved.
>
I don't give a rat's *** why the equipment is expensive. It is expensive,
and most guys that work on the car in the driveway are not going to have the
equipment that is needed. And nobody is going to have a bucket of liquid
nitrogen that they can use to suck the R12 out of the family sedan with.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>As far as the ozone layer story.. I'm not convinced we affect it that
>>>much. If we did, wouldn't it be in the Northern Hemisphere? I won't get
>>>into politics here, I'll just say that there's some subjects which get a
>>>lot of attention that I put little stock in. Global warming is another.
>>>I don't want to argue about it, if someone wants to argue I suggest they
>>>do some open-minded googling.
>>>
>>>John
>>
>>
>>
>> It doesn't really matter what you think of the ozone depletion issue.
>> There
>> are rules that have been developed, and they arise out of the ozone
>> depletion issue, and we have to live by the rules whether we agree with
>> them
>> or not. Personally, I think I suould be able to go into the vault and
>> haul
>> off a wheel barrel full of money, but there are bank robbing laws that I
>> have to live by whether I agree with them or not.
>
> Of course it matters what I think about the issue. You would surrender
> your opinions for a rulemaker who would tell you what to do, and how? Not
> me.
>
> I disagree that the "rules that have been developed" have much at all to
> do with the ozone issue. Perhaps that's just my natural skeptcism, but
> that's my opinion.
>
> Now, don't go telling me that what I think doesn't matter, and then go on
> to tell me what you think, which, based on your reasoning, doesn't matter?
> Leave the bank's money alone..
>
What I think doesn't matter either. NOBODY is going to walk into an auto
parts store inthe USA and buy a can of R12 and take it home and squirt it
into his car.
R12 and R134 do not mix. You can not revert back to R12 in a system that has
been made to take R134, but you can still change an R12 system to take R134.
R134 is readily available at any auto parts store, and if they don't have
any it's only due to being out of stock at the moment.
>>
>> So, we are back to Square One. Somebody is looking for R134 that he is
>> having trouble sourcing. He didn't say, but I gathered from post that he
>> has a system that once took R12, but has been retrofitted to R134, and he
>> wanted to know about switching back to R12. I do not think he CAN switch
>> back, 1.) because the laws will not allow a conversion in that direction,
>> and 2.) because there are serious chemical reaction issues that arise if
>> a
>> full evacuation is not accomplished.
>>
>> None of the pollitical issues make a bit of difference. We have a reality
>> that says R134 is required.
>
> Yes.. but that reality is not my fault- I'm willing to have opinions that
> aren't exactly politically correct. Join me, enough of us might be able to
> restore some sanity to the world..
>
Nobody is blaming you for the situation. Have all of the opinions you want,
and maybe something will change as a result. In the mean time, you have to
play by the rules that are in effect. I may or may not share your opinion,
but I still have to play by the same rules.
The rules say we have to use R134 if we want to charge our own A/C system,
and not spend a small fortune buying recovery equipment that will never be
fully utilized working on our own car at home in the driveway.
#346
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 134a Refrigerant
Stephen Cowell wrote:
> "JohnM" <eaotis@cbpu.com> wrote in message
> news:42a54dd2$0$14965$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.co m...
>
>>Stephen Cowell wrote:
>>
>>>"JohnM" <eaotis@cbpu.com> wrote in message
>>>news:42a4c019$0$14970$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting .com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Jeff Strickland wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>As far as the ozone layer story.. I'm not convinced we affect it that
>>>>much. If we did, wouldn't it be in the Northern Hemisphere?
>>>
>>>
>>>I've posted a link about the Polar Vortex... it was from
>>>NASA, IIRC. You are ignorant of the issues here.
>>>__
>>>Steve
>>>believes in Science
>>>.
>>
>>That pdf file? I'll look at it later, the reader binds up my computer
>>every time I start it.
>>
>>Regardless, I feel we have more pressing issues than ozone layer holes
>>at the south pole.
>
>
> Dude! If you can't open a PDF file, then you
> *certainly* have bigger issues...
Did I say I can't open a pdf? You display a "bigger issue" here..
>
>
>>If we are to give up everything that works well but
>>may have an impact on some aspect of our world in exchange for something
>>that works less well and simply has a different, unknown, impact we'll
>>never get anywhere.
>
>
> Complete hogwash.... 'everything'? What you are
> saying is that you are willing to give up *nothing*
> that works *at all*. Whenever we see words like
> 'everything' and 'never', we're witnessing nothink.
Yes, 'everything'. What does not have an impact on the world around us?
Can you think of many things? And the people who are compelled to jump
on these bandwagons- the ozone hole, global warming, etc. seem to take
the view that I've accused them of; do something, anything, do make it
look like something is being done. It makes 'em feel warm/fuzzy, and
they don't give a hoot for the consequences. I never said I would give
up "nothing" that works "at all", I want what works best, what is most
efficient. You've got that habit of putting words into other people's
statements and then arguing with them, you should knock it off..
What about the fact that 134, due to its lower efficiency, will
contribute more to the global warming "problem" than 12? This doesn't
keep you awake at night?
>
>
>>As I and another poster have pointed out, 134 is
>>more poisonous than was realized (or at least admitted) when the whole
>>hogwash was perpetrated.
>
>
> "Hogwash" cite please? Show me a link debunking
> HCFC ozone antagonism.... please try
> to make it one with scientific evidence.
Go look up a few on 134 toxicity, see what you find out.
>
>
>>And in the end, what's the gain? None. The
>>developing economies will continue to produce, use and lose more R12
>>than we ever have.
>>And they'll save money using it too, compared to our
>>efforts with other refrigerants. Good for them, bad for us.
>
>
> As long as Bush does what he does best...
> the head in the sand thing, I mean...
If you suppose I'm a Bushie, you suppose wrong.
>
> Here's an interesting link:
>
> http://www.sustainer.org/dhm_archive...e=vn332ozoneed
>
> and quote:
> <>
> It's not an attitude that should be rewarded; but the price is cheap, and
> the Third World honestly needs the money. Substitute chemicals will be more
> expensive. Current production plants will have to be retooled, equipment
> replaced, workers retrained. Investment is needed to reduce the Third
> World's particularly wasteful CFC use (from bad manufacturing, poor
> maintenance, harsh environmental conditions, and inadequate insulation).
> The international fund for these purposes, which the Bush administration
> opposes, has been set at $100 million a year (much of which will be paid
> promptly to Du Pont for CFC substitutes). The U.S. share would be $15-$20
> million -- the amount our government spends in 10 minutes; one
> ten-thousandth of the deficit; about 10 cents per American; or alternatively
> two cents out of every dollar of the excise tax our government has imposed
> on the CFC industry.
> </>
There's some truth in that quote, and some tripe too. If you suppose
you're going to wade into China and convince them to change things,
you're wrong. Mexico too. You can throw all the money you want at an
issue, but if economics give an advantage in the other direction then
it's likely to be futile. You consider international social programs to
be the answer? Why not go the other route, why not seek a better
refrigerant? That would solve the problem, that's the solution. Bribing
third-world countries is not what will bring them to not use R12, just
as it has not brought them to do any of the other things for which they
have been bribed.
>
>
>>When China comes into the market with automobiles which use R12, who in
>>a hot environment will want an American automobile with R134?
>>Repairing/recharging these systems will be expensive, R12 will be cheap
>>('cause it's cheaper to produce), American cars will be at a
>>disadvantage in yet another aspect. Even if this only affects the value
>>of used cars which may need AC work, the value of used cars affects the
>>value of new cars- so the effect is still there.
>
>
> The R12 cars cannot be sold in major countries.. this
> *alone* will drive R12 away.
--------. What about the developing countries? Lots of sales available
there, and we'll be at a disadvantage.
What about the fact that all it takes is a small change to the law to
allow countries where the production of 12 is legal to sell cars here
with it? Wouldn't be fair to make them play by the same rules, now would
it.. That's the sort of law the liberals would pass..
>
>
>>Anyway, it's bigger than ozone holes, there's much more to it than
>>that.. if you can't see past the ozone hole then it'll seem simple, but
>>it's not.
>
>
> Why do you think the entire civilized, developed
> world has gotten on the bandwagon? Why do
> you continue to choose to remain ignorant of
> the danger? Go ahead, move to a place where
> you can get R12 readily... see if you like it more.
Yeah, that "why don't you go somewhere else" argument really shows some
intelligence.
Here, an interesting page;
http://www.atmosphere.mpg.de/enid/0,...___CFC_n5.html
Gives a breakdown of the uses to which R12 was put (ac&refrigeration,
under half). Perhaps if it had been banned only for those uses where it
would be definitely releases (foam blowing, solvent in open air) the
situation might be different- but those who you would follow insist
*everything* that uses it is bad and it must *never* be used.
Now what was it you said about those two words..
John
> "JohnM" <eaotis@cbpu.com> wrote in message
> news:42a54dd2$0$14965$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.co m...
>
>>Stephen Cowell wrote:
>>
>>>"JohnM" <eaotis@cbpu.com> wrote in message
>>>news:42a4c019$0$14970$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting .com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Jeff Strickland wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>As far as the ozone layer story.. I'm not convinced we affect it that
>>>>much. If we did, wouldn't it be in the Northern Hemisphere?
>>>
>>>
>>>I've posted a link about the Polar Vortex... it was from
>>>NASA, IIRC. You are ignorant of the issues here.
>>>__
>>>Steve
>>>believes in Science
>>>.
>>
>>That pdf file? I'll look at it later, the reader binds up my computer
>>every time I start it.
>>
>>Regardless, I feel we have more pressing issues than ozone layer holes
>>at the south pole.
>
>
> Dude! If you can't open a PDF file, then you
> *certainly* have bigger issues...
Did I say I can't open a pdf? You display a "bigger issue" here..
>
>
>>If we are to give up everything that works well but
>>may have an impact on some aspect of our world in exchange for something
>>that works less well and simply has a different, unknown, impact we'll
>>never get anywhere.
>
>
> Complete hogwash.... 'everything'? What you are
> saying is that you are willing to give up *nothing*
> that works *at all*. Whenever we see words like
> 'everything' and 'never', we're witnessing nothink.
Yes, 'everything'. What does not have an impact on the world around us?
Can you think of many things? And the people who are compelled to jump
on these bandwagons- the ozone hole, global warming, etc. seem to take
the view that I've accused them of; do something, anything, do make it
look like something is being done. It makes 'em feel warm/fuzzy, and
they don't give a hoot for the consequences. I never said I would give
up "nothing" that works "at all", I want what works best, what is most
efficient. You've got that habit of putting words into other people's
statements and then arguing with them, you should knock it off..
What about the fact that 134, due to its lower efficiency, will
contribute more to the global warming "problem" than 12? This doesn't
keep you awake at night?
>
>
>>As I and another poster have pointed out, 134 is
>>more poisonous than was realized (or at least admitted) when the whole
>>hogwash was perpetrated.
>
>
> "Hogwash" cite please? Show me a link debunking
> HCFC ozone antagonism.... please try
> to make it one with scientific evidence.
Go look up a few on 134 toxicity, see what you find out.
>
>
>>And in the end, what's the gain? None. The
>>developing economies will continue to produce, use and lose more R12
>>than we ever have.
>>And they'll save money using it too, compared to our
>>efforts with other refrigerants. Good for them, bad for us.
>
>
> As long as Bush does what he does best...
> the head in the sand thing, I mean...
If you suppose I'm a Bushie, you suppose wrong.
>
> Here's an interesting link:
>
> http://www.sustainer.org/dhm_archive...e=vn332ozoneed
>
> and quote:
> <>
> It's not an attitude that should be rewarded; but the price is cheap, and
> the Third World honestly needs the money. Substitute chemicals will be more
> expensive. Current production plants will have to be retooled, equipment
> replaced, workers retrained. Investment is needed to reduce the Third
> World's particularly wasteful CFC use (from bad manufacturing, poor
> maintenance, harsh environmental conditions, and inadequate insulation).
> The international fund for these purposes, which the Bush administration
> opposes, has been set at $100 million a year (much of which will be paid
> promptly to Du Pont for CFC substitutes). The U.S. share would be $15-$20
> million -- the amount our government spends in 10 minutes; one
> ten-thousandth of the deficit; about 10 cents per American; or alternatively
> two cents out of every dollar of the excise tax our government has imposed
> on the CFC industry.
> </>
There's some truth in that quote, and some tripe too. If you suppose
you're going to wade into China and convince them to change things,
you're wrong. Mexico too. You can throw all the money you want at an
issue, but if economics give an advantage in the other direction then
it's likely to be futile. You consider international social programs to
be the answer? Why not go the other route, why not seek a better
refrigerant? That would solve the problem, that's the solution. Bribing
third-world countries is not what will bring them to not use R12, just
as it has not brought them to do any of the other things for which they
have been bribed.
>
>
>>When China comes into the market with automobiles which use R12, who in
>>a hot environment will want an American automobile with R134?
>>Repairing/recharging these systems will be expensive, R12 will be cheap
>>('cause it's cheaper to produce), American cars will be at a
>>disadvantage in yet another aspect. Even if this only affects the value
>>of used cars which may need AC work, the value of used cars affects the
>>value of new cars- so the effect is still there.
>
>
> The R12 cars cannot be sold in major countries.. this
> *alone* will drive R12 away.
--------. What about the developing countries? Lots of sales available
there, and we'll be at a disadvantage.
What about the fact that all it takes is a small change to the law to
allow countries where the production of 12 is legal to sell cars here
with it? Wouldn't be fair to make them play by the same rules, now would
it.. That's the sort of law the liberals would pass..
>
>
>>Anyway, it's bigger than ozone holes, there's much more to it than
>>that.. if you can't see past the ozone hole then it'll seem simple, but
>>it's not.
>
>
> Why do you think the entire civilized, developed
> world has gotten on the bandwagon? Why do
> you continue to choose to remain ignorant of
> the danger? Go ahead, move to a place where
> you can get R12 readily... see if you like it more.
Yeah, that "why don't you go somewhere else" argument really shows some
intelligence.
Here, an interesting page;
http://www.atmosphere.mpg.de/enid/0,...___CFC_n5.html
Gives a breakdown of the uses to which R12 was put (ac&refrigeration,
under half). Perhaps if it had been banned only for those uses where it
would be definitely releases (foam blowing, solvent in open air) the
situation might be different- but those who you would follow insist
*everything* that uses it is bad and it must *never* be used.
Now what was it you said about those two words..
John
#347
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 134a Refrigerant
Stephen Cowell wrote:
> "JohnM" <eaotis@cbpu.com> wrote in message
> news:42a54dd2$0$14965$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.co m...
>
>>Stephen Cowell wrote:
>>
>>>"JohnM" <eaotis@cbpu.com> wrote in message
>>>news:42a4c019$0$14970$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting .com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Jeff Strickland wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>As far as the ozone layer story.. I'm not convinced we affect it that
>>>>much. If we did, wouldn't it be in the Northern Hemisphere?
>>>
>>>
>>>I've posted a link about the Polar Vortex... it was from
>>>NASA, IIRC. You are ignorant of the issues here.
>>>__
>>>Steve
>>>believes in Science
>>>.
>>
>>That pdf file? I'll look at it later, the reader binds up my computer
>>every time I start it.
>>
>>Regardless, I feel we have more pressing issues than ozone layer holes
>>at the south pole.
>
>
> Dude! If you can't open a PDF file, then you
> *certainly* have bigger issues...
Did I say I can't open a pdf? You display a "bigger issue" here..
>
>
>>If we are to give up everything that works well but
>>may have an impact on some aspect of our world in exchange for something
>>that works less well and simply has a different, unknown, impact we'll
>>never get anywhere.
>
>
> Complete hogwash.... 'everything'? What you are
> saying is that you are willing to give up *nothing*
> that works *at all*. Whenever we see words like
> 'everything' and 'never', we're witnessing nothink.
Yes, 'everything'. What does not have an impact on the world around us?
Can you think of many things? And the people who are compelled to jump
on these bandwagons- the ozone hole, global warming, etc. seem to take
the view that I've accused them of; do something, anything, do make it
look like something is being done. It makes 'em feel warm/fuzzy, and
they don't give a hoot for the consequences. I never said I would give
up "nothing" that works "at all", I want what works best, what is most
efficient. You've got that habit of putting words into other people's
statements and then arguing with them, you should knock it off..
What about the fact that 134, due to its lower efficiency, will
contribute more to the global warming "problem" than 12? This doesn't
keep you awake at night?
>
>
>>As I and another poster have pointed out, 134 is
>>more poisonous than was realized (or at least admitted) when the whole
>>hogwash was perpetrated.
>
>
> "Hogwash" cite please? Show me a link debunking
> HCFC ozone antagonism.... please try
> to make it one with scientific evidence.
Go look up a few on 134 toxicity, see what you find out.
>
>
>>And in the end, what's the gain? None. The
>>developing economies will continue to produce, use and lose more R12
>>than we ever have.
>>And they'll save money using it too, compared to our
>>efforts with other refrigerants. Good for them, bad for us.
>
>
> As long as Bush does what he does best...
> the head in the sand thing, I mean...
If you suppose I'm a Bushie, you suppose wrong.
>
> Here's an interesting link:
>
> http://www.sustainer.org/dhm_archive...e=vn332ozoneed
>
> and quote:
> <>
> It's not an attitude that should be rewarded; but the price is cheap, and
> the Third World honestly needs the money. Substitute chemicals will be more
> expensive. Current production plants will have to be retooled, equipment
> replaced, workers retrained. Investment is needed to reduce the Third
> World's particularly wasteful CFC use (from bad manufacturing, poor
> maintenance, harsh environmental conditions, and inadequate insulation).
> The international fund for these purposes, which the Bush administration
> opposes, has been set at $100 million a year (much of which will be paid
> promptly to Du Pont for CFC substitutes). The U.S. share would be $15-$20
> million -- the amount our government spends in 10 minutes; one
> ten-thousandth of the deficit; about 10 cents per American; or alternatively
> two cents out of every dollar of the excise tax our government has imposed
> on the CFC industry.
> </>
There's some truth in that quote, and some tripe too. If you suppose
you're going to wade into China and convince them to change things,
you're wrong. Mexico too. You can throw all the money you want at an
issue, but if economics give an advantage in the other direction then
it's likely to be futile. You consider international social programs to
be the answer? Why not go the other route, why not seek a better
refrigerant? That would solve the problem, that's the solution. Bribing
third-world countries is not what will bring them to not use R12, just
as it has not brought them to do any of the other things for which they
have been bribed.
>
>
>>When China comes into the market with automobiles which use R12, who in
>>a hot environment will want an American automobile with R134?
>>Repairing/recharging these systems will be expensive, R12 will be cheap
>>('cause it's cheaper to produce), American cars will be at a
>>disadvantage in yet another aspect. Even if this only affects the value
>>of used cars which may need AC work, the value of used cars affects the
>>value of new cars- so the effect is still there.
>
>
> The R12 cars cannot be sold in major countries.. this
> *alone* will drive R12 away.
--------. What about the developing countries? Lots of sales available
there, and we'll be at a disadvantage.
What about the fact that all it takes is a small change to the law to
allow countries where the production of 12 is legal to sell cars here
with it? Wouldn't be fair to make them play by the same rules, now would
it.. That's the sort of law the liberals would pass..
>
>
>>Anyway, it's bigger than ozone holes, there's much more to it than
>>that.. if you can't see past the ozone hole then it'll seem simple, but
>>it's not.
>
>
> Why do you think the entire civilized, developed
> world has gotten on the bandwagon? Why do
> you continue to choose to remain ignorant of
> the danger? Go ahead, move to a place where
> you can get R12 readily... see if you like it more.
Yeah, that "why don't you go somewhere else" argument really shows some
intelligence.
Here, an interesting page;
http://www.atmosphere.mpg.de/enid/0,...___CFC_n5.html
Gives a breakdown of the uses to which R12 was put (ac&refrigeration,
under half). Perhaps if it had been banned only for those uses where it
would be definitely releases (foam blowing, solvent in open air) the
situation might be different- but those who you would follow insist
*everything* that uses it is bad and it must *never* be used.
Now what was it you said about those two words..
John
> "JohnM" <eaotis@cbpu.com> wrote in message
> news:42a54dd2$0$14965$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.co m...
>
>>Stephen Cowell wrote:
>>
>>>"JohnM" <eaotis@cbpu.com> wrote in message
>>>news:42a4c019$0$14970$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting .com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Jeff Strickland wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>As far as the ozone layer story.. I'm not convinced we affect it that
>>>>much. If we did, wouldn't it be in the Northern Hemisphere?
>>>
>>>
>>>I've posted a link about the Polar Vortex... it was from
>>>NASA, IIRC. You are ignorant of the issues here.
>>>__
>>>Steve
>>>believes in Science
>>>.
>>
>>That pdf file? I'll look at it later, the reader binds up my computer
>>every time I start it.
>>
>>Regardless, I feel we have more pressing issues than ozone layer holes
>>at the south pole.
>
>
> Dude! If you can't open a PDF file, then you
> *certainly* have bigger issues...
Did I say I can't open a pdf? You display a "bigger issue" here..
>
>
>>If we are to give up everything that works well but
>>may have an impact on some aspect of our world in exchange for something
>>that works less well and simply has a different, unknown, impact we'll
>>never get anywhere.
>
>
> Complete hogwash.... 'everything'? What you are
> saying is that you are willing to give up *nothing*
> that works *at all*. Whenever we see words like
> 'everything' and 'never', we're witnessing nothink.
Yes, 'everything'. What does not have an impact on the world around us?
Can you think of many things? And the people who are compelled to jump
on these bandwagons- the ozone hole, global warming, etc. seem to take
the view that I've accused them of; do something, anything, do make it
look like something is being done. It makes 'em feel warm/fuzzy, and
they don't give a hoot for the consequences. I never said I would give
up "nothing" that works "at all", I want what works best, what is most
efficient. You've got that habit of putting words into other people's
statements and then arguing with them, you should knock it off..
What about the fact that 134, due to its lower efficiency, will
contribute more to the global warming "problem" than 12? This doesn't
keep you awake at night?
>
>
>>As I and another poster have pointed out, 134 is
>>more poisonous than was realized (or at least admitted) when the whole
>>hogwash was perpetrated.
>
>
> "Hogwash" cite please? Show me a link debunking
> HCFC ozone antagonism.... please try
> to make it one with scientific evidence.
Go look up a few on 134 toxicity, see what you find out.
>
>
>>And in the end, what's the gain? None. The
>>developing economies will continue to produce, use and lose more R12
>>than we ever have.
>>And they'll save money using it too, compared to our
>>efforts with other refrigerants. Good for them, bad for us.
>
>
> As long as Bush does what he does best...
> the head in the sand thing, I mean...
If you suppose I'm a Bushie, you suppose wrong.
>
> Here's an interesting link:
>
> http://www.sustainer.org/dhm_archive...e=vn332ozoneed
>
> and quote:
> <>
> It's not an attitude that should be rewarded; but the price is cheap, and
> the Third World honestly needs the money. Substitute chemicals will be more
> expensive. Current production plants will have to be retooled, equipment
> replaced, workers retrained. Investment is needed to reduce the Third
> World's particularly wasteful CFC use (from bad manufacturing, poor
> maintenance, harsh environmental conditions, and inadequate insulation).
> The international fund for these purposes, which the Bush administration
> opposes, has been set at $100 million a year (much of which will be paid
> promptly to Du Pont for CFC substitutes). The U.S. share would be $15-$20
> million -- the amount our government spends in 10 minutes; one
> ten-thousandth of the deficit; about 10 cents per American; or alternatively
> two cents out of every dollar of the excise tax our government has imposed
> on the CFC industry.
> </>
There's some truth in that quote, and some tripe too. If you suppose
you're going to wade into China and convince them to change things,
you're wrong. Mexico too. You can throw all the money you want at an
issue, but if economics give an advantage in the other direction then
it's likely to be futile. You consider international social programs to
be the answer? Why not go the other route, why not seek a better
refrigerant? That would solve the problem, that's the solution. Bribing
third-world countries is not what will bring them to not use R12, just
as it has not brought them to do any of the other things for which they
have been bribed.
>
>
>>When China comes into the market with automobiles which use R12, who in
>>a hot environment will want an American automobile with R134?
>>Repairing/recharging these systems will be expensive, R12 will be cheap
>>('cause it's cheaper to produce), American cars will be at a
>>disadvantage in yet another aspect. Even if this only affects the value
>>of used cars which may need AC work, the value of used cars affects the
>>value of new cars- so the effect is still there.
>
>
> The R12 cars cannot be sold in major countries.. this
> *alone* will drive R12 away.
--------. What about the developing countries? Lots of sales available
there, and we'll be at a disadvantage.
What about the fact that all it takes is a small change to the law to
allow countries where the production of 12 is legal to sell cars here
with it? Wouldn't be fair to make them play by the same rules, now would
it.. That's the sort of law the liberals would pass..
>
>
>>Anyway, it's bigger than ozone holes, there's much more to it than
>>that.. if you can't see past the ozone hole then it'll seem simple, but
>>it's not.
>
>
> Why do you think the entire civilized, developed
> world has gotten on the bandwagon? Why do
> you continue to choose to remain ignorant of
> the danger? Go ahead, move to a place where
> you can get R12 readily... see if you like it more.
Yeah, that "why don't you go somewhere else" argument really shows some
intelligence.
Here, an interesting page;
http://www.atmosphere.mpg.de/enid/0,...___CFC_n5.html
Gives a breakdown of the uses to which R12 was put (ac&refrigeration,
under half). Perhaps if it had been banned only for those uses where it
would be definitely releases (foam blowing, solvent in open air) the
situation might be different- but those who you would follow insist
*everything* that uses it is bad and it must *never* be used.
Now what was it you said about those two words..
John
#348
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 134a Refrigerant
Stephen Cowell wrote:
> "JohnM" <eaotis@cbpu.com> wrote in message
> news:42a54dd2$0$14965$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.co m...
>
>>Stephen Cowell wrote:
>>
>>>"JohnM" <eaotis@cbpu.com> wrote in message
>>>news:42a4c019$0$14970$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting .com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Jeff Strickland wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>As far as the ozone layer story.. I'm not convinced we affect it that
>>>>much. If we did, wouldn't it be in the Northern Hemisphere?
>>>
>>>
>>>I've posted a link about the Polar Vortex... it was from
>>>NASA, IIRC. You are ignorant of the issues here.
>>>__
>>>Steve
>>>believes in Science
>>>.
>>
>>That pdf file? I'll look at it later, the reader binds up my computer
>>every time I start it.
>>
>>Regardless, I feel we have more pressing issues than ozone layer holes
>>at the south pole.
>
>
> Dude! If you can't open a PDF file, then you
> *certainly* have bigger issues...
Did I say I can't open a pdf? You display a "bigger issue" here..
>
>
>>If we are to give up everything that works well but
>>may have an impact on some aspect of our world in exchange for something
>>that works less well and simply has a different, unknown, impact we'll
>>never get anywhere.
>
>
> Complete hogwash.... 'everything'? What you are
> saying is that you are willing to give up *nothing*
> that works *at all*. Whenever we see words like
> 'everything' and 'never', we're witnessing nothink.
Yes, 'everything'. What does not have an impact on the world around us?
Can you think of many things? And the people who are compelled to jump
on these bandwagons- the ozone hole, global warming, etc. seem to take
the view that I've accused them of; do something, anything, do make it
look like something is being done. It makes 'em feel warm/fuzzy, and
they don't give a hoot for the consequences. I never said I would give
up "nothing" that works "at all", I want what works best, what is most
efficient. You've got that habit of putting words into other people's
statements and then arguing with them, you should knock it off..
What about the fact that 134, due to its lower efficiency, will
contribute more to the global warming "problem" than 12? This doesn't
keep you awake at night?
>
>
>>As I and another poster have pointed out, 134 is
>>more poisonous than was realized (or at least admitted) when the whole
>>hogwash was perpetrated.
>
>
> "Hogwash" cite please? Show me a link debunking
> HCFC ozone antagonism.... please try
> to make it one with scientific evidence.
Go look up a few on 134 toxicity, see what you find out.
>
>
>>And in the end, what's the gain? None. The
>>developing economies will continue to produce, use and lose more R12
>>than we ever have.
>>And they'll save money using it too, compared to our
>>efforts with other refrigerants. Good for them, bad for us.
>
>
> As long as Bush does what he does best...
> the head in the sand thing, I mean...
If you suppose I'm a Bushie, you suppose wrong.
>
> Here's an interesting link:
>
> http://www.sustainer.org/dhm_archive...e=vn332ozoneed
>
> and quote:
> <>
> It's not an attitude that should be rewarded; but the price is cheap, and
> the Third World honestly needs the money. Substitute chemicals will be more
> expensive. Current production plants will have to be retooled, equipment
> replaced, workers retrained. Investment is needed to reduce the Third
> World's particularly wasteful CFC use (from bad manufacturing, poor
> maintenance, harsh environmental conditions, and inadequate insulation).
> The international fund for these purposes, which the Bush administration
> opposes, has been set at $100 million a year (much of which will be paid
> promptly to Du Pont for CFC substitutes). The U.S. share would be $15-$20
> million -- the amount our government spends in 10 minutes; one
> ten-thousandth of the deficit; about 10 cents per American; or alternatively
> two cents out of every dollar of the excise tax our government has imposed
> on the CFC industry.
> </>
There's some truth in that quote, and some tripe too. If you suppose
you're going to wade into China and convince them to change things,
you're wrong. Mexico too. You can throw all the money you want at an
issue, but if economics give an advantage in the other direction then
it's likely to be futile. You consider international social programs to
be the answer? Why not go the other route, why not seek a better
refrigerant? That would solve the problem, that's the solution. Bribing
third-world countries is not what will bring them to not use R12, just
as it has not brought them to do any of the other things for which they
have been bribed.
>
>
>>When China comes into the market with automobiles which use R12, who in
>>a hot environment will want an American automobile with R134?
>>Repairing/recharging these systems will be expensive, R12 will be cheap
>>('cause it's cheaper to produce), American cars will be at a
>>disadvantage in yet another aspect. Even if this only affects the value
>>of used cars which may need AC work, the value of used cars affects the
>>value of new cars- so the effect is still there.
>
>
> The R12 cars cannot be sold in major countries.. this
> *alone* will drive R12 away.
--------. What about the developing countries? Lots of sales available
there, and we'll be at a disadvantage.
What about the fact that all it takes is a small change to the law to
allow countries where the production of 12 is legal to sell cars here
with it? Wouldn't be fair to make them play by the same rules, now would
it.. That's the sort of law the liberals would pass..
>
>
>>Anyway, it's bigger than ozone holes, there's much more to it than
>>that.. if you can't see past the ozone hole then it'll seem simple, but
>>it's not.
>
>
> Why do you think the entire civilized, developed
> world has gotten on the bandwagon? Why do
> you continue to choose to remain ignorant of
> the danger? Go ahead, move to a place where
> you can get R12 readily... see if you like it more.
Yeah, that "why don't you go somewhere else" argument really shows some
intelligence.
Here, an interesting page;
http://www.atmosphere.mpg.de/enid/0,...___CFC_n5.html
Gives a breakdown of the uses to which R12 was put (ac&refrigeration,
under half). Perhaps if it had been banned only for those uses where it
would be definitely releases (foam blowing, solvent in open air) the
situation might be different- but those who you would follow insist
*everything* that uses it is bad and it must *never* be used.
Now what was it you said about those two words..
John
> "JohnM" <eaotis@cbpu.com> wrote in message
> news:42a54dd2$0$14965$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.co m...
>
>>Stephen Cowell wrote:
>>
>>>"JohnM" <eaotis@cbpu.com> wrote in message
>>>news:42a4c019$0$14970$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting .com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Jeff Strickland wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>As far as the ozone layer story.. I'm not convinced we affect it that
>>>>much. If we did, wouldn't it be in the Northern Hemisphere?
>>>
>>>
>>>I've posted a link about the Polar Vortex... it was from
>>>NASA, IIRC. You are ignorant of the issues here.
>>>__
>>>Steve
>>>believes in Science
>>>.
>>
>>That pdf file? I'll look at it later, the reader binds up my computer
>>every time I start it.
>>
>>Regardless, I feel we have more pressing issues than ozone layer holes
>>at the south pole.
>
>
> Dude! If you can't open a PDF file, then you
> *certainly* have bigger issues...
Did I say I can't open a pdf? You display a "bigger issue" here..
>
>
>>If we are to give up everything that works well but
>>may have an impact on some aspect of our world in exchange for something
>>that works less well and simply has a different, unknown, impact we'll
>>never get anywhere.
>
>
> Complete hogwash.... 'everything'? What you are
> saying is that you are willing to give up *nothing*
> that works *at all*. Whenever we see words like
> 'everything' and 'never', we're witnessing nothink.
Yes, 'everything'. What does not have an impact on the world around us?
Can you think of many things? And the people who are compelled to jump
on these bandwagons- the ozone hole, global warming, etc. seem to take
the view that I've accused them of; do something, anything, do make it
look like something is being done. It makes 'em feel warm/fuzzy, and
they don't give a hoot for the consequences. I never said I would give
up "nothing" that works "at all", I want what works best, what is most
efficient. You've got that habit of putting words into other people's
statements and then arguing with them, you should knock it off..
What about the fact that 134, due to its lower efficiency, will
contribute more to the global warming "problem" than 12? This doesn't
keep you awake at night?
>
>
>>As I and another poster have pointed out, 134 is
>>more poisonous than was realized (or at least admitted) when the whole
>>hogwash was perpetrated.
>
>
> "Hogwash" cite please? Show me a link debunking
> HCFC ozone antagonism.... please try
> to make it one with scientific evidence.
Go look up a few on 134 toxicity, see what you find out.
>
>
>>And in the end, what's the gain? None. The
>>developing economies will continue to produce, use and lose more R12
>>than we ever have.
>>And they'll save money using it too, compared to our
>>efforts with other refrigerants. Good for them, bad for us.
>
>
> As long as Bush does what he does best...
> the head in the sand thing, I mean...
If you suppose I'm a Bushie, you suppose wrong.
>
> Here's an interesting link:
>
> http://www.sustainer.org/dhm_archive...e=vn332ozoneed
>
> and quote:
> <>
> It's not an attitude that should be rewarded; but the price is cheap, and
> the Third World honestly needs the money. Substitute chemicals will be more
> expensive. Current production plants will have to be retooled, equipment
> replaced, workers retrained. Investment is needed to reduce the Third
> World's particularly wasteful CFC use (from bad manufacturing, poor
> maintenance, harsh environmental conditions, and inadequate insulation).
> The international fund for these purposes, which the Bush administration
> opposes, has been set at $100 million a year (much of which will be paid
> promptly to Du Pont for CFC substitutes). The U.S. share would be $15-$20
> million -- the amount our government spends in 10 minutes; one
> ten-thousandth of the deficit; about 10 cents per American; or alternatively
> two cents out of every dollar of the excise tax our government has imposed
> on the CFC industry.
> </>
There's some truth in that quote, and some tripe too. If you suppose
you're going to wade into China and convince them to change things,
you're wrong. Mexico too. You can throw all the money you want at an
issue, but if economics give an advantage in the other direction then
it's likely to be futile. You consider international social programs to
be the answer? Why not go the other route, why not seek a better
refrigerant? That would solve the problem, that's the solution. Bribing
third-world countries is not what will bring them to not use R12, just
as it has not brought them to do any of the other things for which they
have been bribed.
>
>
>>When China comes into the market with automobiles which use R12, who in
>>a hot environment will want an American automobile with R134?
>>Repairing/recharging these systems will be expensive, R12 will be cheap
>>('cause it's cheaper to produce), American cars will be at a
>>disadvantage in yet another aspect. Even if this only affects the value
>>of used cars which may need AC work, the value of used cars affects the
>>value of new cars- so the effect is still there.
>
>
> The R12 cars cannot be sold in major countries.. this
> *alone* will drive R12 away.
--------. What about the developing countries? Lots of sales available
there, and we'll be at a disadvantage.
What about the fact that all it takes is a small change to the law to
allow countries where the production of 12 is legal to sell cars here
with it? Wouldn't be fair to make them play by the same rules, now would
it.. That's the sort of law the liberals would pass..
>
>
>>Anyway, it's bigger than ozone holes, there's much more to it than
>>that.. if you can't see past the ozone hole then it'll seem simple, but
>>it's not.
>
>
> Why do you think the entire civilized, developed
> world has gotten on the bandwagon? Why do
> you continue to choose to remain ignorant of
> the danger? Go ahead, move to a place where
> you can get R12 readily... see if you like it more.
Yeah, that "why don't you go somewhere else" argument really shows some
intelligence.
Here, an interesting page;
http://www.atmosphere.mpg.de/enid/0,...___CFC_n5.html
Gives a breakdown of the uses to which R12 was put (ac&refrigeration,
under half). Perhaps if it had been banned only for those uses where it
would be definitely releases (foam blowing, solvent in open air) the
situation might be different- but those who you would follow insist
*everything* that uses it is bad and it must *never* be used.
Now what was it you said about those two words..
John
#349
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 134a Refrigerant
Stephen Cowell wrote:
> "JohnM" <eaotis@cbpu.com> wrote in message
> news:42a54dd2$0$14965$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.co m...
>
>>Stephen Cowell wrote:
>>
>>>"JohnM" <eaotis@cbpu.com> wrote in message
>>>news:42a4c019$0$14970$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting .com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Jeff Strickland wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>As far as the ozone layer story.. I'm not convinced we affect it that
>>>>much. If we did, wouldn't it be in the Northern Hemisphere?
>>>
>>>
>>>I've posted a link about the Polar Vortex... it was from
>>>NASA, IIRC. You are ignorant of the issues here.
>>>__
>>>Steve
>>>believes in Science
>>>.
>>
>>That pdf file? I'll look at it later, the reader binds up my computer
>>every time I start it.
>>
>>Regardless, I feel we have more pressing issues than ozone layer holes
>>at the south pole.
>
>
> Dude! If you can't open a PDF file, then you
> *certainly* have bigger issues...
Did I say I can't open a pdf? You display a "bigger issue" here..
>
>
>>If we are to give up everything that works well but
>>may have an impact on some aspect of our world in exchange for something
>>that works less well and simply has a different, unknown, impact we'll
>>never get anywhere.
>
>
> Complete hogwash.... 'everything'? What you are
> saying is that you are willing to give up *nothing*
> that works *at all*. Whenever we see words like
> 'everything' and 'never', we're witnessing nothink.
Yes, 'everything'. What does not have an impact on the world around us?
Can you think of many things? And the people who are compelled to jump
on these bandwagons- the ozone hole, global warming, etc. seem to take
the view that I've accused them of; do something, anything, do make it
look like something is being done. It makes 'em feel warm/fuzzy, and
they don't give a hoot for the consequences. I never said I would give
up "nothing" that works "at all", I want what works best, what is most
efficient. You've got that habit of putting words into other people's
statements and then arguing with them, you should knock it off..
What about the fact that 134, due to its lower efficiency, will
contribute more to the global warming "problem" than 12? This doesn't
keep you awake at night?
>
>
>>As I and another poster have pointed out, 134 is
>>more poisonous than was realized (or at least admitted) when the whole
>>hogwash was perpetrated.
>
>
> "Hogwash" cite please? Show me a link debunking
> HCFC ozone antagonism.... please try
> to make it one with scientific evidence.
Go look up a few on 134 toxicity, see what you find out.
>
>
>>And in the end, what's the gain? None. The
>>developing economies will continue to produce, use and lose more R12
>>than we ever have.
>>And they'll save money using it too, compared to our
>>efforts with other refrigerants. Good for them, bad for us.
>
>
> As long as Bush does what he does best...
> the head in the sand thing, I mean...
If you suppose I'm a Bushie, you suppose wrong.
>
> Here's an interesting link:
>
> http://www.sustainer.org/dhm_archive...e=vn332ozoneed
>
> and quote:
> <>
> It's not an attitude that should be rewarded; but the price is cheap, and
> the Third World honestly needs the money. Substitute chemicals will be more
> expensive. Current production plants will have to be retooled, equipment
> replaced, workers retrained. Investment is needed to reduce the Third
> World's particularly wasteful CFC use (from bad manufacturing, poor
> maintenance, harsh environmental conditions, and inadequate insulation).
> The international fund for these purposes, which the Bush administration
> opposes, has been set at $100 million a year (much of which will be paid
> promptly to Du Pont for CFC substitutes). The U.S. share would be $15-$20
> million -- the amount our government spends in 10 minutes; one
> ten-thousandth of the deficit; about 10 cents per American; or alternatively
> two cents out of every dollar of the excise tax our government has imposed
> on the CFC industry.
> </>
There's some truth in that quote, and some tripe too. If you suppose
you're going to wade into China and convince them to change things,
you're wrong. Mexico too. You can throw all the money you want at an
issue, but if economics give an advantage in the other direction then
it's likely to be futile. You consider international social programs to
be the answer? Why not go the other route, why not seek a better
refrigerant? That would solve the problem, that's the solution. Bribing
third-world countries is not what will bring them to not use R12, just
as it has not brought them to do any of the other things for which they
have been bribed.
>
>
>>When China comes into the market with automobiles which use R12, who in
>>a hot environment will want an American automobile with R134?
>>Repairing/recharging these systems will be expensive, R12 will be cheap
>>('cause it's cheaper to produce), American cars will be at a
>>disadvantage in yet another aspect. Even if this only affects the value
>>of used cars which may need AC work, the value of used cars affects the
>>value of new cars- so the effect is still there.
>
>
> The R12 cars cannot be sold in major countries.. this
> *alone* will drive R12 away.
--------. What about the developing countries? Lots of sales available
there, and we'll be at a disadvantage.
What about the fact that all it takes is a small change to the law to
allow countries where the production of 12 is legal to sell cars here
with it? Wouldn't be fair to make them play by the same rules, now would
it.. That's the sort of law the liberals would pass..
>
>
>>Anyway, it's bigger than ozone holes, there's much more to it than
>>that.. if you can't see past the ozone hole then it'll seem simple, but
>>it's not.
>
>
> Why do you think the entire civilized, developed
> world has gotten on the bandwagon? Why do
> you continue to choose to remain ignorant of
> the danger? Go ahead, move to a place where
> you can get R12 readily... see if you like it more.
Yeah, that "why don't you go somewhere else" argument really shows some
intelligence.
Here, an interesting page;
http://www.atmosphere.mpg.de/enid/0,...___CFC_n5.html
Gives a breakdown of the uses to which R12 was put (ac&refrigeration,
under half). Perhaps if it had been banned only for those uses where it
would be definitely releases (foam blowing, solvent in open air) the
situation might be different- but those who you would follow insist
*everything* that uses it is bad and it must *never* be used.
Now what was it you said about those two words..
John
> "JohnM" <eaotis@cbpu.com> wrote in message
> news:42a54dd2$0$14965$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.co m...
>
>>Stephen Cowell wrote:
>>
>>>"JohnM" <eaotis@cbpu.com> wrote in message
>>>news:42a4c019$0$14970$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting .com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Jeff Strickland wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>As far as the ozone layer story.. I'm not convinced we affect it that
>>>>much. If we did, wouldn't it be in the Northern Hemisphere?
>>>
>>>
>>>I've posted a link about the Polar Vortex... it was from
>>>NASA, IIRC. You are ignorant of the issues here.
>>>__
>>>Steve
>>>believes in Science
>>>.
>>
>>That pdf file? I'll look at it later, the reader binds up my computer
>>every time I start it.
>>
>>Regardless, I feel we have more pressing issues than ozone layer holes
>>at the south pole.
>
>
> Dude! If you can't open a PDF file, then you
> *certainly* have bigger issues...
Did I say I can't open a pdf? You display a "bigger issue" here..
>
>
>>If we are to give up everything that works well but
>>may have an impact on some aspect of our world in exchange for something
>>that works less well and simply has a different, unknown, impact we'll
>>never get anywhere.
>
>
> Complete hogwash.... 'everything'? What you are
> saying is that you are willing to give up *nothing*
> that works *at all*. Whenever we see words like
> 'everything' and 'never', we're witnessing nothink.
Yes, 'everything'. What does not have an impact on the world around us?
Can you think of many things? And the people who are compelled to jump
on these bandwagons- the ozone hole, global warming, etc. seem to take
the view that I've accused them of; do something, anything, do make it
look like something is being done. It makes 'em feel warm/fuzzy, and
they don't give a hoot for the consequences. I never said I would give
up "nothing" that works "at all", I want what works best, what is most
efficient. You've got that habit of putting words into other people's
statements and then arguing with them, you should knock it off..
What about the fact that 134, due to its lower efficiency, will
contribute more to the global warming "problem" than 12? This doesn't
keep you awake at night?
>
>
>>As I and another poster have pointed out, 134 is
>>more poisonous than was realized (or at least admitted) when the whole
>>hogwash was perpetrated.
>
>
> "Hogwash" cite please? Show me a link debunking
> HCFC ozone antagonism.... please try
> to make it one with scientific evidence.
Go look up a few on 134 toxicity, see what you find out.
>
>
>>And in the end, what's the gain? None. The
>>developing economies will continue to produce, use and lose more R12
>>than we ever have.
>>And they'll save money using it too, compared to our
>>efforts with other refrigerants. Good for them, bad for us.
>
>
> As long as Bush does what he does best...
> the head in the sand thing, I mean...
If you suppose I'm a Bushie, you suppose wrong.
>
> Here's an interesting link:
>
> http://www.sustainer.org/dhm_archive...e=vn332ozoneed
>
> and quote:
> <>
> It's not an attitude that should be rewarded; but the price is cheap, and
> the Third World honestly needs the money. Substitute chemicals will be more
> expensive. Current production plants will have to be retooled, equipment
> replaced, workers retrained. Investment is needed to reduce the Third
> World's particularly wasteful CFC use (from bad manufacturing, poor
> maintenance, harsh environmental conditions, and inadequate insulation).
> The international fund for these purposes, which the Bush administration
> opposes, has been set at $100 million a year (much of which will be paid
> promptly to Du Pont for CFC substitutes). The U.S. share would be $15-$20
> million -- the amount our government spends in 10 minutes; one
> ten-thousandth of the deficit; about 10 cents per American; or alternatively
> two cents out of every dollar of the excise tax our government has imposed
> on the CFC industry.
> </>
There's some truth in that quote, and some tripe too. If you suppose
you're going to wade into China and convince them to change things,
you're wrong. Mexico too. You can throw all the money you want at an
issue, but if economics give an advantage in the other direction then
it's likely to be futile. You consider international social programs to
be the answer? Why not go the other route, why not seek a better
refrigerant? That would solve the problem, that's the solution. Bribing
third-world countries is not what will bring them to not use R12, just
as it has not brought them to do any of the other things for which they
have been bribed.
>
>
>>When China comes into the market with automobiles which use R12, who in
>>a hot environment will want an American automobile with R134?
>>Repairing/recharging these systems will be expensive, R12 will be cheap
>>('cause it's cheaper to produce), American cars will be at a
>>disadvantage in yet another aspect. Even if this only affects the value
>>of used cars which may need AC work, the value of used cars affects the
>>value of new cars- so the effect is still there.
>
>
> The R12 cars cannot be sold in major countries.. this
> *alone* will drive R12 away.
--------. What about the developing countries? Lots of sales available
there, and we'll be at a disadvantage.
What about the fact that all it takes is a small change to the law to
allow countries where the production of 12 is legal to sell cars here
with it? Wouldn't be fair to make them play by the same rules, now would
it.. That's the sort of law the liberals would pass..
>
>
>>Anyway, it's bigger than ozone holes, there's much more to it than
>>that.. if you can't see past the ozone hole then it'll seem simple, but
>>it's not.
>
>
> Why do you think the entire civilized, developed
> world has gotten on the bandwagon? Why do
> you continue to choose to remain ignorant of
> the danger? Go ahead, move to a place where
> you can get R12 readily... see if you like it more.
Yeah, that "why don't you go somewhere else" argument really shows some
intelligence.
Here, an interesting page;
http://www.atmosphere.mpg.de/enid/0,...___CFC_n5.html
Gives a breakdown of the uses to which R12 was put (ac&refrigeration,
under half). Perhaps if it had been banned only for those uses where it
would be definitely releases (foam blowing, solvent in open air) the
situation might be different- but those who you would follow insist
*everything* that uses it is bad and it must *never* be used.
Now what was it you said about those two words..
John
#350
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 134a Refrigerant
"Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:Snhpe.629$%j7.235@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com. ..
> As long as Bush does what he does best...
> the head in the sand thing, I mean...
you got something specific to justify such a statement or are you just
feeling your liberal oats today?
--
Nathan W. Collier
http://7SlotGrille.com
http://UtilityOffRoad.com
news:Snhpe.629$%j7.235@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com. ..
> As long as Bush does what he does best...
> the head in the sand thing, I mean...
you got something specific to justify such a statement or are you just
feeling your liberal oats today?
--
Nathan W. Collier
http://7SlotGrille.com
http://UtilityOffRoad.com