Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 02:24:32 GMT
From: "James Sweet" <jamessweetnospamail.com>
Subject: Re: 9000 air-conditioning service?


> > You mean, the theoretical effect of an unproven poorly researched > theory? That "hole in the sky"? > Well either way, the ozone layer is important enough that I'd rather make some relatively simple changes today rather than risk finding out I was wrong when it's too late. > > Yup. No different to the ozone layer, but not banned and doesn't work > as well. Boy, I'm glad we're concentrating on _important_ environmental > things, aren't you? > R-134a does NOT have the same effect on ozone, it's an HFC (hydroflourocarbon), which lacks the chlorine molocules of both R-12 which is a CFC(chlorofluorocarbon) or R-22 which is an HCFC (hydrochlorofluorocarbon). It's the chlorine that reacts to rapidly break down ozone, and CFC's are very stable compounds which means they hang around for a long time in the atmosphere. The hydrogen molecule in HCFC's causes them to break down much more quickly so they have only 5% the ozone depletion factor as CFCs. HFC's have no ozone depletion factor but they are considered a greenhouse gas so it's still illegal to vent them to the atmosphere, that part seems a bit strange to me since those little air duster cans are tetrafluoroethane which is just R-134. As for whether or not CFC's caused the hole in the ozone, we can measure significant quantities of the compound in the upper atmosphere, it's just basic chemistry that chlorine rapidly breaks down ozone, that's all the evidence I need to say go with the nearly trivial change to R-134.

Return to Main Index

The content on this site may not be republished without permission. Copyright © 1988-2019 - The Saab Network - saabnet.com.
For usage guidelines, see the Saabnet.com Mission and Purpose Page.
[Contact | Site Map | Saabnet.com on Facebook | Saabnet.com on Twitter | Shop Amazon via TSN | Site Donations]