Can We Slow Global Warming By Phasing Out Super-Pollutant HFCs? (msn.com) 46
"There's one big bright spot in the fight against climate change that most people never think about," reports the Washington Post.
"It could prevent nearly half a degree of global warming this century, a huge margin for a planet that has warmed almost 1.5 degrees Celsius and is struggling to keep that number below 2 degrees..."
[M]ore than 170 countries — including the U.S. — have agreed to act on this one solution. That solution: phasing out hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), a group of gases used in refrigerators, air conditioners and other cooling systems that heat the atmosphere more than almost any other pollutant on Earth. Pound for pound, HFCs are hundreds or even thousands of times better at trapping heat than carbon dioxide.
Companies are replacing HFCs with new gases that trap much less heat. If you buy a new fridge or AC unit in the United States today, it'll probably use one of these new refrigerants — and you're unlikely to notice the difference, according to Francis Dietz, a spokesperson for the Air-Conditioning, Heating and Refrigeration Institute, a trade group representing U.S. HVAC manufacturers... But that invisible transition is one of the most important short-term tactics to keep Earth's climate from going catastrophically off-kilter this century. HFCs are powerful super-pollutants, but the most common ones break down in the atmosphere within about 15 years. That means stopping emissions from HFCs — and other short-lived super-pollutants such as methane — is like pulling an emergency brake on climate change.
"It's really the fastest, easiest and, some would say, the only way to slow the rate of warming between now and 2050," said Kiff Gallagher, executive director of the Global Heat Reduction Initiative, a business that advises companies and cities on cutting greenhouse gas emissions. The only other solution that comes close to the speed and scale of slashing HFCs would be dimming the sun, a much more controversial and potentially dangerous option... [P]hasing out HFCs now "would buy us a little bit of time to develop other solutions that maybe take longer to implement," said Sarah Gleeson, a climate solutions research manager at Project Drawdown, a nonprofit that models how much different strategies would slow climate change. It could also keep the planet from crossing dangerous climate tipping points this century.
Companies are replacing HFCs with new gases that trap much less heat. If you buy a new fridge or AC unit in the United States today, it'll probably use one of these new refrigerants — and you're unlikely to notice the difference, according to Francis Dietz, a spokesperson for the Air-Conditioning, Heating and Refrigeration Institute, a trade group representing U.S. HVAC manufacturers... But that invisible transition is one of the most important short-term tactics to keep Earth's climate from going catastrophically off-kilter this century. HFCs are powerful super-pollutants, but the most common ones break down in the atmosphere within about 15 years. That means stopping emissions from HFCs — and other short-lived super-pollutants such as methane — is like pulling an emergency brake on climate change.
"It's really the fastest, easiest and, some would say, the only way to slow the rate of warming between now and 2050," said Kiff Gallagher, executive director of the Global Heat Reduction Initiative, a business that advises companies and cities on cutting greenhouse gas emissions. The only other solution that comes close to the speed and scale of slashing HFCs would be dimming the sun, a much more controversial and potentially dangerous option... [P]hasing out HFCs now "would buy us a little bit of time to develop other solutions that maybe take longer to implement," said Sarah Gleeson, a climate solutions research manager at Project Drawdown, a nonprofit that models how much different strategies would slow climate change. It could also keep the planet from crossing dangerous climate tipping points this century.
Every reduction in greenhouse gas emissions helps. (Score:2)
For instance, if the worst HFC is 1,000 times as heat-trapping as carbon dioxide but we're dumping a million times as many pounds of it into the air, the "emergency brake" is measurable but statistically insignificant. Also, since HFCs are 100s or 1000s of times more heat-trapping, what's the breakdown? 1000s sounds
Re:Every reduction in greenhouse gas emissions hel (Score:5, Informative)
Also also, the replacements for HFCs... what are their heat-trapping properties? 50x carbon dioxide? 90? 3? A half? Math matters.
Well, one of them, R-744 refrigerant is 1X CO2 (a GWP of 1). That's because it's just CO2. It works just fine as a refrigerant, but it does require some high pressures in the heat ranges it needs to work in, so the equipment has to be fairly heavy duty. Then there are things like R-1234yf which is a Hydrofluoroolefin (HFO) rather than an HCL. Its GWP is just 4, so it is 4X CO2 (technically, it actually produces a strong greenhouse effect, but the GWP is also based on duration, and it breaks down really fast in the atmosphere). It would be really great since it has similar efficiency to R134A (which it is targeted towards replacing, except for the slight downside of being flammable (not terribly so, though). The GWP of R-290 is even better than R-1234yf and just 3, but since it's propane, it has maybe a little bit worse of a flammability issue. Then there's R-32, which is an HCL, but has a GWP of only 675 ("only" being relative of course since it is hundreds of times the others, and is also a bit flammable. The refrigerant it aims to replace, R-410A has a GWP of 2088, so R-32 is an improvement there, plus, slightly less of it is required than R-410A, so that also reduces the leak potential (which also means less global warming potential than R-410A, but that is not captured in GWP, which measures heat trapping potential over time per unit mass).
Then there are blended refrigerants like R454B, which is just R32 and R1234yf mixed in about a 2/3rd to 1/3rd ratio with a GWP of 466. The point of it is mostly economics, with a bit of efficiency gain. R1234yf itself is more expensive, and so are the compressors needed for it. So the blend allows for cheaper gas and cheaper equipment while still hitting a lower GWP target than the R-410A it is intended to replace.
I should note that, out of those, while the R744 (CO2) technically has a GWP of 1. If the gas comes from the atmosphere in the first place and the power to extract it comes from a non-fossil source, the virtual GWP for it should be 0. I note that because I also want to note that one of the unknowns for the other refrigerants is what the environmental cost is to produce them in the first place. For example, propane has a GWP of 3, but it is a product of natural gas extraction and refining, and a heck of a lot of methane is just dumped into the atmosphere in that process. Methane has a GWP an order of magnitude higher than propane, and it is difficult to even figure out how much methane dumping should be attributed to every gram of propane. Same goes for the other refrigerants. There are some externalities that may affect their real GWP.
Also, I should mention that the GWPs for these should be based on a 100 year scale from what I can find. There is a 20 year scale and a 100 year scale that these are normally measured on and the numbers can be different. Some of the gases can linger well past 20 years and some are basically completely gone from the atmosphere in a matter of days.
Re: Every reduction in greenhouse gas emissions he (Score:2)
If you ban natural gas to households you will get rid of a huge amount of methane emissions from leaks, malfunctions and mishandlings.
My dudes (Score:1, Insightful)
To tackle the kind of problems we're facing we would need fundamental changes and I just don't see any of that happening before the problems basically wreck civilization.
The billionaires know global warming is a problem and they're building bunkers and buying up water rights. They are literally preparing for the crisis they caused and could effortlessly stop.
Re: (Score:2)
"Your 'hungry children' are some of the fattest because of that shit."
Citation please. It would be far more accurate to say they are NONE of the fattest.
HFCS is terrible for health, exactly as terrible as sugar. "Ya'll" restarting "the sugar exports" is more of "that shit".
Re: My dudes (Score:2)
HFCS is cheap, so companies put it in bread, soup, and other places it doesn't belong because people love that shit.
Re: (Score:2)
"...so companies put it in ... places it doesn't belong..."
Why doesn't it belong? It is a functional replacement for sugar and it is cheap because it is subsidized. It is literally designed for the use, the very definition of "belongs".
HFCS is NOT inherently cheap, nor is it functionally different than sugar. Leave to /. MAGA posters to tell us once again how ignorant they are.
Re:My dudes, we're farked (Score:1)
Yes sir, and since we gave up our power and wealth to these evil people, we're fucked and they know it; indeed just look at all the greedy selfish people being led around by their greed by those who stole all our capital. Thanks to Nixon for a fiat currency and the Republican party for selling out America, although few politicians have any integrity and those who do, like Bernie Sanders, never survive a corrupt party process. When the rich control the political parties they control who we elect, which is wh
Old news (Score:5, Informative)
Of course it would help. Just look at a refrigerant chart for global warming potential. A lot of the older ones have already been phased out to reduce ozone depletion potential, but their replacements were almost as bad in terms of global warming potential, which we weren't as worried about at the time.
For example, R-12's high ozone depletion potential also had an extremely high global warming potential, but its replacements like R22 and later R134a are still relatively high for global warming potential. These are being replaced with R600a (isobutane, which is flammable) and R1234yf, which is a blend of gases that have very different maintenance requirements due to partial pressures (one gas can leak out over time but leave the others, making the mixture less efficient and then you'd have to purge and replace the entire charge, not just top it up). It's a complex issue.
As we know more about these gases, hopefully we can resolve this... Obviously the sooner, the better.
Re: (Score:2)
Some of the newer refrigerants lower the GWP to around the range of 30% or so of the old ones, which is a decent reduction. Others though, reduce it by factors of a thousand or more. Most of those have some drawbacks like flammability, require for heavier duty equipment, etc. but would make the global warming potential negligible.
Re: (Score:3)
Just look at a reference like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
R-12 (aka Freon) was phased out due to its ozone depletion potential, but it also had terrible global warming potential. The main issue is that it would persist in the upper atmosphere for hundreds of years.
R-134a is its replacement which has zero ozone depletion potential, but still a significant global warming potential.
Finding replacement for this, you see a lot of manufacturers accepting the risk of using a flammable gas and going with somet
Re: (Score:3)
...and R1234yf, which is a blend of gases that have very different maintenance requirements due to partial pressures (one gas can leak out over time but leave the others, making the mixture less efficient and then you'd have to purge and replace the entire charge, not just top it up).
Are you sure on that? I thought R1234yf was a homogeneous refrigerant, not a blended one. Are you sure you're not thinking of R-32A/R1234yf blends, which could experience the issues you're describing?
Re: (Score:2)
R600a is right out. Burning real estate is a no go.
Thought this was done... (Score:1)
Years ago, when we realized that the ozone layer in the atmosphere was disintegrating due to HFCs. The ozone layer has mostly recovered since then.
Re:Thought this was done... (Score:5, Informative)
It was CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons) not HFCs that were destroying the ozone layer. And yes, the human race stopped using them after the 1987 Montreal Protocol was created, and the ozone layer recovered. HFCs don't destroy ozone, but they are greenhouse gases.
Re: (Score:2)
The ozone layer is still recovering but, yes, the change in our collective actions has done the job of reversing the damage we caused.
Re: (Score:3)
Rush Limbaugh, the famous non-scientist and opinionated blowhard, made the same argument you just did. And you're both wrong.
Humanity introduced chlorine (from CFCs) into the atmosphere. To put it succinctly, chlorine destroyed ozone faster than the sun could make it. Thankfully we started phasing out the use of CFCs in 1987, and the ozone layer has recovered.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What a moron.
What decade is this headline from? the 80s? (Score:2)
in any case, if even the medium impacts of global warming are true, those of us alive to see them are screwed because we simply haven't done enough soon enough
Re: (Score:2)
Because soon there will be major disasters and and loss of life and land as the ice sheets melt.
A note, the ice caps are indeed going to melt if global warming continues long enough... but not "soon".
Not this century, anyway. IPCC prediction for sea level rise by 2100 is 0.43-0.84 meters. There are some outlier cases that are slightly higher, but not complete melting.
See https://www.ipcc.ch/srocc/chap... [www.ipcc.ch]
Re: (Score:2)
A note, the ice caps are indeed going to melt if global warming continues long enough... but not "soon".
I think here we need to make a clear distinction between melt, and melt away completely. They are already melting, but that melting should take a long time to complete and the poster you replied to did say "as the ice sheets melt" rather than "once the ice sheets melt". Anyway, as they stand, those sea level rise predictions are already pretty scary. Not just for flooding, but how they affect ocean currents.
Re: (Score:2)
We're not talking about "Ice is gone" but about "Ice melts and the sea level rises"
Many people would probably not care if there is ice or not, but they care if their house is under the sea level.
I can't be the only one (Score:2, Funny)
I didn't even realize that High Fructose Corn syrup was a Super Pollutant.
Bad for the planet too? (Score:1)
Can We Slow Global Warming By Phasing Out Super-Pollutant HFCs?
Wow, I knew high-fructose corn syrup was a dietary problem, but ...
There Will Always Be a Super Pollutant (Score:2)
When I was growing up refrigerators and cars used Refrigerant 12, also known as Freon or CFC-12. It was non-flammable, efficient, nominally non-poisonous and safe, and easily made. It was even a critical ingredient in asthma inhalers. It had one problem, however. It was a Super Pollutant that punched tiny holes into the ozone layer. (It was only later, after the ozone problem was solved by banning CFCs, did global warming numbers begin to pop up next to replacement refrigerants like HFC-134a as well as hi
Re:There Will Always Be a Super Pollutant (Score:5, Interesting)
Freon or CFC-12. It was non-flammable, efficient, nominally non-poisonous and safe, and easily made
Bit of a caveat on the non-flammable and non-poisonous. Like you said, it was nominally non-poisonous, until exposed to fire. At that point it became phosgene gas.
Also, your central argument is a bit dubious. We are talking about factors of up to thousands in terms of global warming potential and you pointed out yourself the relative cheapness of r12. If your question is why we can't just let economics steer us to ecologically better refrigerants, it seems like you answered your own question. Anyway, it turns out that CO2 itself makes a very good refrigerant and it is very cheap and widely available. It just requires heavier duty equipment to use. Sometimes, industry needs a kick in the form of regulations to move away from problematic materials. Heck, industry has frequently shown that it will follow the sunk cost fallacy and frequently not adopt new technology that would significantly reduce its costs and increase profits.
Just MANAGE global warming (Score:1)
It's too cold right now. We need global warming: it just has to happen at the right places - northern US and Canada, Russia, Scandinavia, Greenland and Iceland. While somehow not happening in tropical or equatorial regions. If the Arctic icecaps melt, it should overall dilute sea water, and make it easier for countries that process sea water for their water needs
And naturally (Score:2)
The various manufacturers are doing everything in their power to avoid switching once and for all to propane as a refrigerant because that one isn't patentable. Zero ozone depletion and 3x warming vs. CO2 (while R32 is 675x warming). And, of course it's much easier to dispose of. Capture it as usual and then cook burgers with it.
Re:And naturally (Score:4, Informative)
The various manufacturers are doing everything in their power to avoid switching once and for all to propane as a refrigerant because that one isn't patentable.
Actually, most domestic refrigerators these days use isobutane, which is not patented (and under the right sort of unfortunate circumstances, it can and does go boom). Many residential A2L HVAC systems use R-32 refrigerant, which is no longer under patent protection. A2L classification means it is "mildly flammable". It may have been true in the earlier days of refrigerant phaseouts that it was all about the patent money, but the industry really has run out of magic rabbits to pull out of their hat this time around. Flammable refrigerants are back on the menu.
just (Score:3)
phase out people.