|
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.
6 Volvos in SoCal, from '64 to '94. See profile for fleet infomation.
|
