Guest Essay by Kip Hansen
Contrary to the common mantra that we must turn the thermostat up on our air conditioners to cut down on electrical energy usage — in order to save the planet from sure destruction — a recent article in the New York Times offered a different perspective.
“If You Fix This, You Fix a Big Piece of the Climate Puzzle” by Lisa Friedman (July 13, 2017) offered us a little one-question quiz:
“There’s no single solution for climate change, but there is one that would be more effective than others. What do you think it is?”
The multiple choice answers were:
Build more wind farms
Eat less meat worldwide
Improve air conditioners
Switch to mass transit
If you picked “Improve air-conditioners” you were rewarded with a cheery message (and the rest of the article, hidden until this point):
“You’re right! Curbing 87 percent of the climate change pollutants found in air-conditioners by 2050 could eliminate 89.7 gigatons of emissions.”
“New research from the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California indicates that adding improved efficiency in refrigeration and phasing out fluorinated gases used for cooling, as mandated by international agreement, could eliminate a full degree Celsius of warming by 2100.”
The new research is this paper: “Opportunities for Simultaneous Efficiency Improvement and Refrigerant Transition in Air Conditioning” by N.K. Shah and others. [The 108-page paper is available for viewing online or as a free downloadable .pdf].
The thrust of the paper is that if we do two things, we will save a lot of energy and emit fewer GHGs. And if we do, these actions alone could eliminate a full degree Celsius of warming in 2100. That is of course great news, since it is believed by many now that the temperature rise from a doubling of CO2 would be somewhere around 1 to 1.5 degrees total, a figure which, if we start our counting in 1880, we have already reached, we could totally forestall all global warming by fixing the air conditioner problem!
Despite my somewhat lighthearted description, there is actually something important here — one of those rare opportunities for policy action that is Win-Win, No-Regrets, and helpful to both the developed world and the developing nations — sensible pragmatic choice that doesn’t cost much — maybe nothing if actual savings cover increased cost.
The solution is to accomplish two things:
1. Transitioning to low-global warming potential (GWP) refrigerants
According to the Wiki , the refrigerants currently in use are: “chlorofluorocarbon (CFC), hydrochlorofluorocarbon (HCFC), or hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) refrigerant. The refrigerant names include a number indicating the molecular composition (e.g., R-11, R-12, R-22, R-134A). The blend most used in direct-expansion home and building comfort cooling is an HCFC known as chlorodifluoromethane (R-22).
Dichlorodifluoromethane (R-12) was the most common blend used in automobiles in the US until 1994, when most designs changed to R-134A due to the ozone-depleting potential of R-12. R-11 and R-12 are no longer manufactured in the US for this type of application, so the only source for air-conditioning repair purposes is the cleaned and purified gas recovered from other air conditioner systems. Several non-ozone-depleting refrigerants have been developed as alternatives, including R-410A. “
The problem with most of these is two-fold: CFCs and HCFCs are believed to “deplete the ozone layer” of the atmosphere and are thus being phased out for that reason. The second is that the newer refrigerants are said to have high Global Warming Potentials — their action as Greenhouse Gases when they eventually end up in the atmosphere.
There are newer alternatives until consideration, each with lower GWPs but individual problems. For instance, the “Greenfreeze” refrigerant developed by Greenpeace is a mixture of propane and butane. Highly flammable, potentially explosive, and only approved in the USA is very small charge loads — ruling it out for air conditioners of 5kW or less. Similar is R-290 (straight propane).
The paper contains a detailed discussion of current and future refrigerants.
However, the outlook is good that suitable materials will be developed that are not harmful to the environment, not flammable nor explosive, not toxic (like ammonia) and which will have substantially lower GWPs.
These alternatives, if they come without too much of a cost penalty, will replace existing refrigerants, probably through a combination of social pressure for consumers and corporations to produce and buy “greener” air conditioners, and through international environmental agreements.
2. Efficiency Improvements for Air Conditioners
The major change will be to inverter air conditioners. The benefits of inverter units are claimed to be:
“At least 30% – 50% cheaper to run as it consumes less power
Far quicker to achieve desired temperature
The start up time is reduced by 30%
Much quieter
No temperature fluctuations, maximising comfort level
No voltage peaks from compressor”
Inverter air conditioners run at variable speeds, depending on the degree of cooling necessary to reach the desired room temperature. In addition to being variable speed, many inverter air conditions are in effect heat pumps (as are all air conditioners, strictly speaking) but in this case, they can be run “backwards”, pumping heat from the outside air into the room, thus act as heaters as well as coolers. The heating ability of these inverter/heat-[pump ACs is limited to outside temperatures with a lower limit of 40 degrees F — below that, they don’t function efficiently. However, this is a great benefit in many applications where HVAC (heating, ventilation, air conditioning) systems need to maintain a narrow room temperature in temperate climates, such as Los Angeles, California, where air conditioning can be needed nearly every day, and heating only occasionally when temperatures drop below 50 degrees.
We Could All Use a Break
We could all use a little break from our energy bills. But where this really matters is everywhere else — what we call The Rest of the World, ROW.
To quote the New York Times — “That’s because from India to the Philippines to South Africa, air-conditioners are increasingly a must-have item. Less than 10 percent of homes in India have units, but air-conditioning makes up 40 percent to 60 percent of the country’s electricity demand in major cities like New Delhi. Businesses and homeowners in Asia and Africa are expected to buy an estimated 700 million air-conditioners by 2030, and 1.6 billion by midcentury.”
As energy access increasing in the developing world, the world in which most humans live, the demand for air conditioning will increase — and efficiency will matter a very great deal as their developing electrical grids ramp up to meet the needs and desired of the people.
This is One Useful Thing
Switching refrigerants to less-harmful options and improving the efficiency of air conditioners is a sensible pragmatic action that can be supported and taken now, without having to wait for climate science to get its head straight and policy makers to find the right PC correct political yoga-pose that will get them re-elected.
What’s not to like?
# # # # #
Author’s Comment Policy:
I am always anxious to read your ideas, opinions, and to answer your questions about the subject of the essay, which in this case is how improvements in air conditioning equipment and refrigerants can be a win-win action that has a perceived positive effect on potential global warming.
As regular visitors know, I do not respond to Climate Warrior comments from either side of the Great Climate Divide — feel free to leave your mandatory talking points but do not expect a response from me.
If we have HVAC professional, building engineers or architects reading here, I’d love to read your take on the suggestions made in the LBNL paper.
# # # # #
err Effective
Pretty much the same article could have been written substituting “refrigerator” for “air-conditioner”. I recall a number of home-economics articles on reducing costs that said you can replace all the regular light buldb with LED bulbs, and put in more insulation and upgrade your windows to triple-panes, but the best and fasted way to save energy expenses was to replace the 10 year-old fridge with a current model – you will save as much, or more, energy than all the other things combined.
Peter ==> Efficiency regulations have greatly reduced the costs of operating home appliances in the US and EU. In the Rest of the World, initial cost of homer-owner appliances is often more important — thus millions of inefficient but cheap a/c units (you can buy a one-room a/c at WalMart for less than a hundred bucks).
New Refrigerators in EU are all running R290a (propane) refrigerants in units with strict (possibly insane) efficiency requirements. Efficiency requirements are not so strict in the US, but vastly improved over even 20 years ago. I recently attempted to buy a little chest freezer which was very efficient — but it turn out to be so efficient that it had to be run in a temperature controlled environment, like your pantry — it would not work in your garage where the temperature range would be too great — use in a garage voided the warranty.
Working with regulators to require variable speed units (inverter a/cs) and expanding manufacturing will bring down initial costs, which are currently a little higher — no WalMart cheapies yet.
Thanks for a nice illustration. Build a freezer that can’t run anywhere – and you have achieved a 100% efficiency 🙂 Unfortunately, that’s where the world is going.
Notice the article at the link is from Great Britain. Here in RI, where I live, the energy costs are not “spiraling”. I would have to have some very real financial incentive to replace my current central AC with a new, more expensive one.
Proud ==> Is your existing unit a heat pump? That is, can it heat and cool? Maine has a pretty low cooling demand compared to Arizona, South Texas, Florida, etc.
When you current unit comes up for replacement (which it eventually will) you would be wise to consider the newer inverter/variable speed units. Probably not a heat pump capable unit though as your heating needs are greater, although the heat pump unit would keep the house evenly comfortable on those warm days with chilly nights (40-50°F).
““New research from the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California indicates that adding improved efficiency in refrigeration and phasing out fluorinated gases used for cooling, as mandated by international agreement, could eliminate a full degree Celsius of warming by 2100.”
This is an interesting claim.
I have not been able to find the claim of a 1 degree C temperature reduction by 2100 in the full paper.
See Figure 1 from the paper.
The paper states that current radiative forcing from HFC’s is 0.012 W/m^2. Basically zero.
The paper states that under Business As Usual (BAU), direct radiative forcing from refrigeration could increase to 0.25 W/m^2 by 2050. Basically still zero.
The paper states that current CO2e emissions (direct leaks and indirect fossil fuel power generation to run units) for stationary refrigeration units is 700 Mtons/year, compared with 36,000 Mtons/year total anthropogenic.
The paper states in Table ES-4 that a 30% efficiency improvement results in almost 6 times bigger CO2e reductions than phasing out HFC for a lower CO2e (one-fourth the Global Warming Potential) refrigerant. If you replace a high efficiency HFC unit with a lower efficiency non-HFC unit, the overall effect may be an *increase* in CO2e emissions.
And don’t forget, the fact that it isn’t warming anymore pretty much dispels the notion that CO2 has any effect anyway! Here we are, twisting and turning and throwing things out to fight a ghost!
Greenpeace did not invent R290 (aka R22a. propane). It has been around for years. The last I heard, the insurance industry has no problem with it.You use 2.5 times less than R22. The head pressure is lower ( less energy used), and the air is colder. Another EPA block. I have been using it for a few years now.
Ric Have you not read the news? The Greenfell tower fire is reportedly started by a refrigerator coolant leak.
Dave ==> To be fair, while they have identified the original source of the fire to be a particular model of Hotpoint fridge-freezer, they have not made the claim that a coolant leak was to blame. The coolant in that model was called “pentane” in the press (but was probably R290), which is flammable. A modern frig uses only a few ounces of refrigerant. It is possible that it was a leak which was then sparked off by something — but more probably that there was an electrical fault in the wiring inside or to the frig that started the blaze.
The guy in whos flat the fire started stated that the fridge “exploded”. An electrical fire won’t do that. Though very likely an official whitewash will ultimately find that R290 was not to blame (and nobody and nothing else either).
tty ==> Let us have a link to that story……
Greenpeace also pushed for the insulation to be ‘blown’ with flammable gasses instead of HCFCs, so the whole box is a pile of fuel, not just the refrigerant.
http://www.ecomall.com/greenshopping/greenfreeze.htm
The idea that my fridge could burn, at all, is repugnant and a bit alien to the history here in the USA.
Having one made with flammable gas in a sealed system is OK, if necessary. Having it coated in plastic blown with gasoline equivalent is, er, a bit daft….
“tty July 20, 2017 at 9:43 am
The guy in whos flat the fire started stated that the fridge “exploded”.”
I have seen many electrical appliances burn and go bang. To an untrained inexperienced lay person when one sees an appliance go bang with smoke and sparks and fire, that’s seen as an “explosion”.
Ric == R22 and 22a are HCFCs more exactly “Chlorodifluoromethane“.
You are right, of course, propane was one of the original refrigerants many years ago along with ammonia.
Greenpeace did fund research that developed a blend of propane and isobutane — “Greenfreeze” — for use in refrigerators. The product currently in use is R290 — straight propane. Nearly all new refrigerators in Eu use R290.
Please don’t propagate the propaganda that Greenpeace invented the propane / butane mix. I’ve used it since about 1984 or so. George Gobel was my source for the information, and he sold a branded version of something similar to it in the late ’80s / early ’90s (I bought some cans of it while in Texas).
http://yarchive.net/ac/hydrocarbon_recipes.html
Has a posting by him from the ’90s listing mixes that work well.
I converted my 1980 Honda Civic myself, using camping stove fuel iso-Butane and propane torch gas. IIRC, I used about 50 % propane to have the peak pressure be a bit lower than George’s 60/40 mix. I still have the kit I used (including the camp fuel vampire tap and R-12 gauge set) in the garage, though I sold the car in about 1994. Later, I converted my first Mercedes 240-D to the same mix. That was about 1996.
All Greenpeace has done is taken a well established technology and try to claim they had something to do with it. It’s bogus PR stunts at best.
George deserves the credit for making this mix known and was very active during the ’80s and ’90s on the old newsgroups. Searching news groups archives (particular sci.energy IIRC) will turn up lots of discussion.
Tell Greenpeace to stop lying.
E.M. ==> Propane was used as a refrigerant back in the days of ammonia. It is not new in any case.
However, Greenpeace did fund research and development of propane/isobutane mixtures , and the campaign to transition to propane-based refrigerants in Europe, where it is now used in nearly all new household refrigerators.
They definitely didn’t invent propane.
Kip,
I’m talking specifically about the propane iso-butane mix, not pure propane. Pure propane was one of the first refrigerants and is clearly ‘historical’. The use of propane iso-butane mix is what Greenpeace is claiming to have created, yet it was in use well before their first promotion date (about 1992).
I had a Honda running on it about 1984 / 1985 and did so for many years. The use was discussed by George Gobel on the sce.energy news group IIRC.
Any “research” Geenpeace may have done can only consist of trying it, testing it, and saying “Gee, it as good as everyone is saying”, not any invention.
That they are responsible for promotion of it, I have no doubt. They are very good at self promotion.
More details here:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/07/20/we-need-to-say-yes-to-air-conditioning/comment-page-1/#comment-2556720
E.M. ==> The latest R290 is just “HC — R-290 — Propane — C3H8 or CH3CH2CH3” — R290 is what is generally in use in EU refrigerators — not the mix of propane and iso-butane developed and promoted by Greenpeace.
Kip,
AGAIN you address a point I did not raise and do not care about. I said nothing about R-290.
Raising that as some kind of counter point to my only topic, that George Gobel published the iso-butane propane mix, and I was personally using it, long before Greenpeace found out about it, is at best a red herring.
Greenpeace is presenting ISO-BUTANE PROPANE MIX as their creation. It is not.
They quite likely did trial, test, and promote it, but they got the idea from netnews in the late 1980s.
I was using it when I worked for Apple computers. I left there in 1992, so there is a hard date marker on when I was talking with George and first trialed the mix. Several years before I left. IIRC, it was about 1985 but could be as late as 1987. ALL of those well before the 1992 date that Greenpeace lists in their own article for when they stated promoting it.
I’m saying zero about propane alone use. I’m saying zero about R-290.
E.M. ==> You are not the only reader here. I am not arguing with you about the Greenpeace/Greenfreeze issue. I have supplied links for those who want to know about that particular refrigerant.
I answer questions in my own way and make comments containing additional information for the broader readership as well.
It is interesting that you had an earlier experience with propane/butane mixes as an auto a/c refrigerant and have told all of us the story. I appreciate it, really, I do.
I do want to the other readers to know that neither EU nor the US generally actually use the Greenpeace propane/butane mix, although there are some mixes on the very long list.
R290, propane, is the Hydrocarbon (HC) refrigerant that has captured market share.
Ric, what appliance are you using that in? I was not aware that R-290 was being used in A/C. Home refrigerators use a much smaller charge and I know R-290 has been used in cars but I wouldn’t want it in my home or commercial A/C!
The economic benefits of airconditioning are huge. link Prosperity is good for the environment. link The environmentalists should love airconditioning.
About 1970 we bought an old chest freezer (~14 cu. feet) at a household goods auction. The only other bidder wanted it to hold fishing bait. We paid $15 and hoped it would work for several years until we could afford a new one. The old one still works.
A 1982 model frig/freezer quit last month, so 35 years. 2 is not a large sample size, but makes me wonder about lifespan of such things.
We have a 12 year old air-sourced heat pump with resistor heaters for very cold days.
House is all electric. I bought and installed (saved $$$) a Pella sliding glass door with latest technology. The insulating character of the new one is very noticeable compared to the 1980s model I took out. New windows all around would be nice. When our check from “Big Oil” arrives new windows won’t be far behind.
One of the ways companies reduce the manufacturing costs of refrigeration and A/C compressors is to make them smaller and run them faster. This means smaller bearings, hotter running, smaller oil reserve and faster failure if anything goes wrong. the old refrigerators had big, clunky compressors with robust operating limit parameters. Nobody makes anything like that anymore. And nobody counts how much energy goes into manufacturing the newer, more sophisticated stuff. Usually, the price tells the story.
In the northern midwest, I was frequently in fear of imminent death from freezing in winter and usually gloried in the few really hot days in summer (though the rare 1 or 2 hot nights per year were times of insomnia). In the SW, I found myself shivvering on 90+ degree F days from the dry cool breezes. “Swamp boxes” seem to work well there.
In the deep south, have frequently advocated installation of those beach-side (and chem-lab) showers with the big rings you can find by feel when the salt is blinding — every other street corner should suffice, so you could dash from one to the next. Either that or “space suits” with portable A/C packs.
A/C is necessary for life as we know it. Even prince Murat (Napoleon’s nephew), when he immigrated to St. Augustine, found it necessary to invent an arrengement of a net-shielded beach chair, mostly submerged, but within which he could read books, and write, spending hours each day thus protected from the hostile climate and ravening mosquitoes & no-see-ums.
Obviously improved efficiency of any kind should be welcomed. Question is why has these efficient fridges an AC’s penetrated the market already. A cost analysis would make the article much more valuable.
Nothing “Green” can withstand looking under the cover.
Eric ==> Variable speed inverter a/cs are available, and you can buy them. They are not, however, the cheapie WalMart window units so ubiquitous. Google something like “buy split variable speed inverter air conditioner heat pump” and you will be inundated with offers.
More efficient frigs are all the rage — for them it is the question of refrigerant used. UL is still worried about flammable refrigerants.
Split units are not as cheap on a BTU-for-BTU basis as central units and you need a minimum of one per floor. They are better than window units but that’s about all you can say for them. A Mitsubishi 31K cooling unit is $2,233 less installation. A coworker is having his central air unit replaced, with installation, for about $3,600.
The desirable refrigerant for cooling systems is not toxic, not flammable, has no impact on ozone and has global warming potential of 1 or less. There are very few good candidates available to do that. As a result the industry has been moving to butane and propane which are flammable but otherwise is comparable with existing hardware making it a easy change for manufactures. However it appears the recent Grendfell tower fire was caused by refrigerator fire that involved butane. So use of flammable gases should be re thought.
A better alternative is to use what the industry calls R-744. This gas is not flammable, not toxic, has no effect on the ozone layer, and has a global warming potential of 1. Its also cheep and there are no maintenance restrictions regarding releasing it into the air. R-744 systems are generally as efficient or more efficient as other commonly used refrigerants. The only down side is that it needs to be kept at a pressure 5 to 10 times higher than existing systems. So it is not a drop in replacement the industry wants.
However many car manufactures have decided to use due to the flammability issues of other refrigerants. Also Coka-Cola recently made a new vending machine that uses it and boosted the efficiency 20% percent at the same time.
Note R-744 is CO2.
It is being used in grocery store systems. Fairly substantial capacity. Hardware is expensive due to the pressure ratings.
Yeah, no kidding. It’s used in fire suppression systems, and you have class 600 fittings and schedule 80 pipe throughout.
I am an auto dealer, car manufacturers are phasing out the R134A refrigerant and replacing it with 1234YF due to the enhanced greenhouse gas effect of R134A, which remains longer in the atmosphere. But this is not without challenges, the new refrigerant costs $85 per pound, the R134A is about $2 a pound. We must purchase a $9,000 machine to service vehicle air conditioners and it also requires substantially more time to evacuate and recharge a system. The new refrigerant is also under higher pressure and is combustible.
Will this save the Earth, I doubt it, but it will raise the cost of new vehicles and the cost to service them.
EPA did not mandate the use of this new material but they did coerce the manufacturers into using it, by reducing CAFE (fuel mileage) requirements when they use it in the vehicles they manufacture.
hell I paid the price (permanently injured at age 20 in Army) to allow myself to be comfortable in my own house. I pay my bills. I’ll keep the temp set at what works best for me and others can shut up if they don’t like it.
This is false attribution, at best:
“There are newer alternatives until consideration, each with lower GWPs but individual problems. For instance, the “Greenfreeze” refrigerant developed by Greenpeace is a mixture of propane and butane. ”
http://www.ecomall.com/greenshopping/greenfreeze.htm
This is roughly a decade after George Gobel made a posting on usenet news that caused me to trial a propane iso-butane mix in my 1980 Honda Civic (that was gone by 1994 after running about 1/2 a decade on this mix).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_H._Goble
He also published on usenet news a formula for using just propane / isobutane mixes. That was the mix I used for about a decade in the mid-80s to mid-90s before converting my newer cars to 134-A (change the mineral oil to ester based oil after a flush, put a screw on adapter on the Schroeder valves to match the funny R-134A hose fittings)
Here’s a link to a later posting by him:
http://yarchive.net/ac/hydrocarbon_recipes.html
That Greenpeace has come along later, taken what was public knowledge, and try to paint it as some kind of great leap forward they did is just propaganda of the worst kind.
Credit where credit is due says to credit George Gobel.
https://engineering.purdue.edu/Engr/People/ptProfile?resource_id=5830
FWIW, I was very happy with the propane iso-butane mix. It worked better than R-12 by a tiny bit and significantly better than R-134a. I had zero issues with it. Since it is commercial flammable gas mixture, it contains odor chemicals, so in the very unlikely case of a cabin leak, you will smell it. Only real “issue” I had was to tell the mechanic it was in there and not to mess with the A/C.
“Whenever” R-134a “goes away”, I’m just going to take the adapters off the valves and refill with that mix. George advocated 60% propane 40% iso-butane. I just dumped in the whole can of iso-butane then added propane to the full mark. IIRC it was about 50% propane and slightly lower pressure when the sight glass showed liquid.
FWIW #2: I drive very old Mercedes and will likely keep driving them the rest of my life. No problem with air-bag recalls, no “fly by wire” and maybe you suddenly can’t steer problems, nice big and roomy, and the Diesel is old enough it doesn’t need a smog test ever. So keeping it until either it, or I, can’t be repaired anymore… I’ve got a ’79 and ’80, and an ’84 at the moment. Still works a champ.
I’m doing my share… I had steak seven times in ten days 🙂 My vegan friend wasn’t very happy, hahaha
This may be of interest -it Scott Adams’ (the Dilbert guy) design for the house he built.
It has a lot of features to minimise aircon use while keeping cool…
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/102544451066/building-a-house
Termites in Zimbabwe build gigantic mounds inside of which they farm a fungus that is their primary food source. The fungus must be kept at exactly 87 degrees F, while the temperatures outside range from 35 degrees F at night to 104 degrees F during the day. The termites achieve this remarkable feat by constantly opening and closing a series of heating and cooling vents throughout the mound over the course of the day. With a system of carefully adjusted convection currents, air is sucked in at the lower part of the mound, down into enclosures with muddy walls, and up through a channel to the peak of the termite mound. The industrious termites constantly dig new vents and plug up old ones in order to regulate the temperature.
I wholeheartedly endorse house design that recognizes solar orientation and leverages passive heating/cooling. There are fairly simple design aspects that can greatly reduce energy demand.
We put the AC on 26 ºC at night in its ‘DRY’ position. Humidity is the biggest enemy when you want to sleep when it is hot.. So every time it reaches a certain humidity the AC stops. When the outside air is dry we just put a ventilator.
Health is what matters. We live in central Arkansas, quite hot & quite humid in summer. I maintain relative humidity at or just under 40% all year long. Maintaining this low humidity costs money but we spend on health care only for annual checkup.
Besides saving lots of money there, it’s rather pleasant to feel good. I don’t even have flu shots, maybe have a cold once every 8 years. My HVAC is an in-ground geothermal, 3 speed heat pump, uses R-22, makes low cost or free hot water, has a dehumidification cycle, and I also have a sizable dehumidifier as well. Lastly, we also have some air change so the home air isn’t stale.
Yes, we spend a little more on electricity, but I think we save lots & lots on health care.
Science has just recently shown that refrigerants had little or nothing to do with the ozone hole, so those changes of refrigerants were a waste of money. I think that perhaps a subsidy for high quality dehumidification would save a lot of money spent on health costs.
My skeptical nature blossoms on this refrigerant nonsense. First, it has the smell of a scam, like DDT, CO2, Ozone Hole, etc, etc, etc. I have natural gas piped directly to my water heater and furnace. What is the big deal over flammable refrigerants???
pochas94 ==> All boat owners know about propane which is basically the refrigerant under discussion. It is heavier than air — sinks to the floor and pools in low spots. on boats, that means that your propane cook stove in the is the biggest threat in your diesel engined sail boat. (If you have a gasoline powered motor boat, the gasoline is your biggest threat).
I knew one couple that were enjoying a candlelight dinner in their cockpit when the leaking propane from the cook stove filled the boat to the level of the lowest candle. They survived but found themselves blown out of the boat into the mangroves — the boat was a total loss.
Refrigerators normally have the compressor and their electrical connections in a compartment at the bottom of the frig in the back. If that little space fills with flammable refrigerant, leaking out, an electrical spark can ignite it and create a handy (though not huge) explosion. No one wants that.
Frigs with R290 in home fires tend to firecracker when the flames get hot enough to release the propane refrigerant — like a small green can of propane gas that one uses in a camp stove or portable BBQ.
So, I guess sailboats no longer carry propane for cooking? And I guess people with propane refrigerators can survive the fire but not the refrigerator explosion? This whole thing smacks of wild exaggeration for fun and profit.
pochas94 ==> No, actually, many/most pleasure boats use propane but there are very stringent standards for installation and use. All propane tubing copper, the propane tanks are located in an outside propane locker that vents to the atmosphere and has no space to collect leaked propane (my propane locker has a three inch hole that goes directly outside, to the under-the-boat air space between the pontoons — it is a catamaran). The specialized propane cook stove has safety features that turn off the gas if the flame goes out — and uses no pilot lights. A propane detector rounds out the safety features. Most have an electric solenoid gas valve at the tank that must be turned on by a switch with a prominent indicator light so it is not left on when not actually cooking – the valve shuts the gas at the tank.
More regulations here.
??? What century are these people in?
Every European air conditioner unit I have seen, works in reverse as a heater during the winter. This is hardly rocket science.
And the trouble with replacing CFC gasses in air conditioners, is that the cheaper manufacturers have been using methane as an alternative. It was a methane fridge that set light to the Grenfel tower block in London, killing more than a hundred people. (New fridges have been exploding, up and down the country recently….)
Green technology and engineering is half baked nonsense. My sister changed her toilet to a water-saving model. So now you have to flush four times, and use twice as much water as before. This is Greenery in action – a fantasy world totally detached from reality.
Ralph
Ralph ==> If you are familiar with the US, you will know that it is NOT common here for a/cs to be reversible and act as heating units. This is true in most of the Rest Of the World — where cheap air conditioners rule the roost in peoples windows.
Even the newer variable-speed inverter a/c units in the US do not necessarily have heat pumps features.
Google “buy variable-speed inverter air conditioner” and compare features.
The problem of UK fridges exploding now that they use hydrocarbons (such as isobutane) as a refrigerant rather than CFCs has been discussed extensively. http://theunhivedmind.com/news/2017/06/18/flashback-alert-over-new-wave-of-exploding-fridges-caused-by-environmentally-friendly-coolant/
I am looking at installing ceiling fans because I remember that the hotel in Ibiza had these when I had a holiday there one June and it is much less expensive than air conditioning.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceiling_fan
This may relate. It’s from this about daylight savings time.
https://phys.org/news/2010-03-daylight-energy.html
This could be achieved by comparing Arizona (no daylight savings) to a neighbor New Mexico.
An issue with the air-source heat pumps is that they are being touted as replacements for furnaces in the RGGI states. Synapse Energy’s “The RGGI Opportunity 2.0” claims 9 million tons of CO2 could be avoided by shifting 1.3 million furnaces to heat pumps. They state “Heat pump technology has existed for decades, and these units are commonplace in Europe and Asia, but high-performing systems that function well in cold-weather climates as in many of the Northeast states have just recently begun to make inroads in the United States.”
I don’t care how well high-performing systems function. Below 40 deg F there is dramatically less heat in the air to extract and when you get down to so cold that you really want heat, there isn’t enough heat in the air to keep your house warm. So you have to have auxiliary heat. Those added costs and the unintended consequences of having to deal with a larger winter peak with markedly less solar available are ignored.
Roger ==> You are quite right when discussing heat pump systems that rely on the outside air for heat. The generally accepted cut-off point is about 40 degrees F — under that they are not really appropriate. Their best use is in temperate climates and as three season room-temperature regulators — heating and cooling as necessary.
While nothing in this essay is talking of them, Heat Pumps systems that use well water from two wells (one source and one sink), however, can be appropriate in many more areas as the water temperature of deep well water is around 52 degrees F.
There are also systems which store heat underground in summer and retrieve it in winter
This article demonstrates what is wrong with the skeptic strategy of proving that the warming is less “severe” than claimed. WARMING IS GOOD. Warmer temperatures mean better health, longevity, and biodiversity.
I asked the man at the US National Ice Core Lab in Denver what “Climate Optimum” meant. He thought it referred to extremes.
Optimum is a high school word. It should not be misunderstood by college graduates, but it is.
Before all the screaming began, warm periods were called “climate optimum” because the wos more human and wildlife well-being at those times.
This fact is not just “cute.” It is most of the war.
I have worked in the building automation management/ energy efficiency field directly since 1997. The number we used to use to calculate savings/usage in most commercial buildings and educational facilities was 40% lighting, 35% cooling, 25% plug loads. The easiest and quickest way to save energy costs was to replace lighting from T12 to T8 and add automated scheduling which resulted in about 30% reduction in the lighting portion of the bill and about a 2 year payoff. We used this saving to pay for HVAC upgrades and maintenance wish list items which had a 5 to 7 year payoff. For commercial buildings a large chunk of the savings came from reducing the peak demand charges. Starting about 2004, most of the industry had finished with the easy lighting upgrades. T5 lamps came out but the cost did not offer a quick payback so it wasn’t implemented widely. The same time HVAC started to be the largest single energy using item. Reversible Heat pumps and variable speed fans started to become popular. Most variable speed motors save energy because of the way the system is sized. Most systems are sized for the 97% Cooling day, a few are sized for 99% cooling day. Meaning 97% or 99% of temperature cooling degree days are below this point. No designer, engineer, or technician wants to be on the hook when a system is undersized. So the natural response is to oversize the system to largest the budget can provide. The variable speed motor is used to right size the motor for all those days when conditions are below design. The pump/ fan energy curve gives a 50% reduction in energy used with a 25% reduction in speed. But the pump / flow curve is not the same relationship and will vary depending on the construction and motor design, so the efficiency curve is more complicated. After the fan/pump motor efficiency is tackled, the next item in a cooling system to address is the compressor efficiency. This is best address by monitoring delta pressure and delta temperature within operational design across the compressor. Otherwise the flow can slow too much and you can slag your compressor, or push too much flow and the efficiency suffers and the compressor seals have issues.
The different types of refrigerant offer differing levels of efficiency depending on the operational conditions of pressure and temperature. The earlier refrigerants used a lower pressure and a less extreme temperature range. It was easier to build and maintain the system. The newer refrigerants require more complex systems to maintain the same effectiveness of the previously used refrigerants. Ammonia as a refrigerant has a poor COE. An ammonia chiller is only worth using if you already have a significant amount of waste heat to try to recover, otherwise use an air-cooled or even better a water cooled chiller.
Enough theory, my last house with 1400 sq ft had an central AC from 1973 and a compressor from 1992. I would guess it was close to a SEER 9 or 10 rating. I replaced the windows, installed a radiant barrier in the attic, and dropped my electrical costs from summertime bills of $200/month to $110/month. ( I kept my cooling setpoints between 78 and 82).
I moved across town to a house built in 2003 with 2700 sq ft and two units with 20 SEER ratings. With better windows and more attic insulation, my summer electrical bill hasn’t exceeded $75 with cooling setpoints between 74 and 78. For a house the biggest difference is in insulation and proper fenestration management.
For most of the US, the easy energy savings have been done. Now energy engineers have to use more creative and costly efforts to reduce a smaller pool of energy.
I am skeptical that a future refrigerant will magically jump out of the periodic table and provide an amazing increase in refrigerant efficiency near standard temperature and pressure. I am highly skeptical that the effort to force more changes is about the environment and not money and control.
Automation EIT Engineer
For most of the US, the easy energy savings have been done. Now energy engineers have to use more “creative and costly efforts to reduce a smaller pool of energy.”
From my personal experience most existing homes leek too much air resulting in high heading and cooling cost. Yes most are insulated. However isolation doesn’t do a lot of good if air goes through the weeping holes in window and thorough seams in heating and cooling ducts in the ceiling. Most people treat it as fact that AC has to be on all the time to keep a home cool. In a well sealed home with insulation AC really only needs to be on for a few hours to keep the home cool for most of the day. In most cases you don’t need to spend a lot of money to block air leak in walls and duct work but most people don’t want to do the work. Instead most think installing new window is the best way to reduce heating and cooling cost. No window however at the most expensive step and may not help much.