I am building a deck for a very interesting individual ... he is way too analytical... well in our many conversations .... well, he is actually doing the talking ....nonstop... he drops this little dissertation on HC12a... "the molecules are larger less leakage ... non ozone depleting if escaped ... yada yada yada" ... "and we had the duct temperatures done to 36 degrees" ...WHAT?
Now I can live without a/c (I currently am in both cars - one a compressor issue the other just a charge ...) but what my brain heard was " and you can chill your beer while you work on your car just by idling with the A/C on"


Anyone using this?
HC 12a
--
Happy Motoring! 86' 244 "Grey Mare" '87 245 "Grasshopper"

Comment further done the thread about HFC-152a. Seems to work much better, and is more friendly than 134a. I think the issue for many manufacturers, and the government, is the potential for a flammable gas, even in small amounts, leaking into the passenger compartment. Most of the design work on new A/C systems using HC refrigerants are a secondary loop system. Keeps the loop for the HC seperate from the loop that runs in the passenger cpmpartment. Did a Google on HFC-152a and one of the first hits was an SAE paper written by a Volvo engineer on design an implementation of just such a system.

It's hydrocarbon-based, likely mostly Propane. I wouldn't feel good driving around with pressurized Propane at the front of my car. Despite all the seller's website's talk about Gov't approvals in various countries of hydrocarbon-component refrigerants, here's a quote from the US Environmental Protection Agency's website:

"May hydrocarbon refrigerants be used to replace CFC-12, commonly referred to as "Freon® ," in cars?

No. It is illegal to use hydrocarbon refrigerants like HC-12a® and DURACOOL 12a® as substitutes for CFC-12 in automobile or truck air conditioning under any circumstances."

As for environmental friendliness - the sellers sure try to play that card - why do we suppose there are vapor recovery devices on all those gasoline pump nozzles? It's because hydrocarbon vapors are highly unfriendly to the environment.

I note they state it is "...designed as a drop in replacement for R-12..." That's a nice word, "designed". Kinda gives you a warm, reassured feeling.

When they can truthfully substitute "designed" with "approved by Ford/Volvo/GM/Toyota...the EPA, as a drop in...", etc., I'll consider it.
--
Bob (son's 81-244GL B21F, dtr's 83-244DL B23F, 'my' 94-944 B230FD; plus grocery-getter Dodge minivan, hobbycar 77 MGB, and a few old motorcycles)

As pointed out, it's not safety that is the reason the EPA says it's illegal. It's Dupont and MACS that pushed to protect their own interests. Think about it - there's a crap load of money to be made when you're the only one doing it. Look at how much consumers had to spend when R-12 was phased out. Look at how much R-134a is costing now. When the new refrigerant is released to replace R-134a, and you know it will happen, do you want to bet that it will require some more changes in the A/C system that will cost consumers a lot more money? It keeps them folks rich, doesn't it?

HC refrigerants are approved under German TUV, which their strictness makes UL/EPA/DOT/etc. look like laughing stock.

OTOH, HC refrigerants are cheap, and due to its better efficiency, less than a pound would be necessary in most cars. I can't imagine a few ounces leaked out of a car to be any worse than a bar full of beer bellied guys. Neither is anywhere close to what a cow generates, so is it really of significant concern?

As for combustion ... it is only if at particular concentrations and temperature - no different from any other gas That includes HCFC, which is noted to be combustible "under elevated pressures and high temperature". Conditions that live under the hood of a car like in the high pressure hose near an exhaust manifold.

BTW, R-134a contains ethane ... a hydrocarbon. Oops.

-- Kane ... thought we went through all this before too.
--

While I would never deliberately mislead anyone, take into consideration that any information and advice provided was at no cost to you.

"It's hydrocarbon-based, likely mostly Propane. I wouldn't feel good driving around with pressurized Propane at the front of my car. "
How about in the back? As in propane powered vehicles? A lot less propane in a refrigeration system.

The problem is The US is an extremely litigous capitalistic society. The chemical companies don't want to give up their control of the huge a/c and refrigeration market. HC's are not patentable and easily obtained. So they spread fear of explosions. (If gasoline were a new product being introduced today, it would be too volatile, explosive, flammable to put in cars.)

R134a may have 0 ozone depleting potential but its global warming potential is quite high (I think it's 1300 GWP).

"why do we suppose there are vapor recovery devices on all those gasoline pump nozzles?
More likely fear of ignition. Though smog also.

"It's because hydrocarbon vapors are highly unfriendly to the environment."
Methane is an HC so don't f..t
--
1980 245 Canadian B21A with SU carb and M46 trans

Trev - Propane conversions used to be big - especially fleet use like taxis and delivery. Very few nowadays, as price parity with gasoline is close, cost of conversion has risen steeply, and EFI cars have decent gas mileage. Tanks used in those conversions were trunk-mounted, up against the rear seat bulkhead, so about 3 ft from the bumper. Also very thick-walled steel. Compare to your AC Condenser!

Additionally, every underground parking garage in Propane's heyday had a sign at the entry "No Propane-Powered Vehicles". I presume this is because any leak of the heavier-than-air Propane would accumulate in a low spot rather than dissipate, thus, big explosion hazard.
--
Bob (son's 81-244GL B21F, dtr's 83-244DL B23F, 'my' 94-944 B230FD; plus grocery-getter Dodge minivan, hobbycar 77 MGB, and a few old motorcycles)

"Propane conversions used to be big - especially fleet use like taxis and delivery"
If you've driven behind a propane powered taxi, then the propane's up front. Cars do get rear-ended. I haven't said that propane is safe. But it is safe enough for use in numreous vehicles, including those operating indoors.

In factories/warehouses, for example, it's the gasoline powered vehicles that are required to stay outdoors while the propane powered vehicles have free access to moving around skidded materials.

"I presume this is because any leak of the heavier-than-air Propane would accumulate in a low spot rather than dissipate, thus, big explosion hazard."
Couldn't the same can be said for gasoline?

Don't you find it strange/ironic that you are forced to use a refrigerant that contributes to global warming? The reason we have refrigerants is to help us deal with environmental temperatures we find high and uncomfortable. Wouldn't introducing a refrigerant that increases global warming result in higher temps causing us to demand even more refrigerant? Who's going to profit from that?

Anyhow, you first post indicates that you put great faith in the EPA. Are you sure they are answering to the needs of the environment and not that of the lobbyists in Washington?
--
1980 245 Canadian B21A with SU carb and M46 trans

Yes, it appears that many countries use HC based refrigerants. There is some discussion that HC based refrigerants will replace 134a sometime in the future, because 134a is not as ozone friendly as many people believe. But most HC based refrigerant usage is in stationary equipment, not mobile A/C. You can go to the EPA website and find all the refrigerants that are currently approved for use in mobile A/C applications. Most of the ones that are widely hawked on the internet are not approved.

Helped a neighbor move an old 1940's NORGE fridge out of his mom's basement last week and when we took it to the NYC Recovery/Recycling station they FREAKED!!!

Evidently it used Ammonia as a coolant (it was still working and did a great job on cases of Jenny) and they said it was a real PITA to deal with. We spent 30 min filling out all the DEP HAZMAT paperwork that the Ammonia required.

Wonder what other stuff is out there lurking...

Hi Stoney,
Many old campers( I had a 1972 Serro Scotty) use an ammonia reftigerant setup in them. Once it got going it kept food and BEER cold as the local packy.




Dan

Servels are everywhere electricity isn't. I think I recall discussions citing Freon as the wonderful, safe replacement for ammonia absorption refrigeration. Before I was born.

If you have broadband and like Bob and Ray... Gas Refrigeration
--
Art Benstein near Baltimore

" think I recall discussions citing Freon as the wonderful, safe replacement for ammonia absorption refrigeration. "
It is. Trouble is its safe for animals and not ozone.
--
1980 245 Canadian B21A with SU carb and M46 trans

How about waiting for the new freon.
R152a
R134 is going through then roof on price and at last check 30lbs cost was $289.00 this is a ripoff
Rodney