EPA Proposal on R-134a: The End Is Near

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

babbittd

Joined
Aug 17, 2014
Messages
217
Location
Massachusetts
http://www.motor.com/article.asp?article_ID=2229
MOTOR Magazine August 2014


As reported in the Auto Care Association’s Capital Report in mid-July, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has issued a proposed rule that, if finalized, would prohibit the use of R-134a as a refrigerant in new motor vehicles beginning in model year 2021. Also, beginning in 2016, the EPA is proposing to no longer permit the use of R-134a as an aerosol in consumer products, some of which are automotive products.

Pointing to the high global warming potential of R-134a, the agency is seeking to list the substance as an unacceptable substitute for an ozone-depleting substance (ODS) under the Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP). Under SNAP, the EPA reviews alternatives to ODS to find substances that pose less overall risk to human health and the environment.

For motor vehicles, the EPA is listing three alternative refrigerants that could be used for new vehicles—R-1234yf, R-744 and R-152a—all of which were determined to have a lower GWP than R-134a.

The EPA is also proposing to list the following refrigerant blends as unacceptable in new vehicles beginning in model year 2017: R-426A (also known as RS-24), R-416A (HCFC Blend Beta or FRIGC FR12), R-406A, R-414A (HCFC Blend Xi or GHG-X4), R-414B (HCFC Blend Omicron), HCFC Blend Delta (Free Zone), Freeze 12, GHG-X5 and HCFC Blend Lambda (GHG-HP).

The EPA’s proposal does not, however, impact refrigerants used to service vehicles currently on the road. Therefore, shops and DIYers will continue to be able to service current vehicles with R-134a.
 
Originally Posted By: babbittd
Pointing to the high global warming potential of R-134a, the agency is seeking to list the substance as an unacceptable substitute for an ozone-depleting substance (ODS) under the Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP). Under SNAP, the EPA reviews alternatives to ODS to find substances that pose less overall risk to human health and the environment.

...

The EPA’s proposal does not, however, impact refrigerants used to service vehicles currently on the road. Therefore, shops and DIYers will continue to be able to service current vehicles with R-134a.

Sounds good to me.
 
R600/290 blend does fine.

Couldn't believe the availability of 134 in the States versus here, so gotta do what you have to.
 
OK, so R-12 was banned around 1994, because it damaged the ozone layer and this gave us R-134a by EPA decree. Now the EU is already banning R-134a because of poor global warming properties. Automakers are already being offered tax incentive credits to make the change now, by EPA decree.

Also, my buddy in the auto HVAC business says that although R-134a will not be banned outright, there are going to be HUGE taxes on it. Start stocking up now.

I know, no politics, but I gotta wonder about the $$$$' the EPA has cost all of us.
 
Originally Posted By: beechcraftted
OK, so R-12 was banned around 1994, because it damaged the ozone layer and this gave us R-134a by EPA decree. Now the EU is already banning R-134a because of poor global warming properties. Automakers are already being offered tax incentive credits to make the change now, by EPA decree.

Also, my buddy in the auto HVAC business says that although R-134a will not be banned outright, there are going to be HUGE taxes on it. Start stocking up now.

I know, no politics, but I gotta wonder about the $$$$' the EPA has cost all of us.


+1

I was one of the first groups to be EPA certified (universal) in the early '90's by the Refrigeration Engineers Service Society (RSES). So I've been around this since the beginning.

IMHO, HFO-1234yf is driven by Dupont/Honeywell. Daimler and VW (when I last checked) are still refusing to use it (at great cost to them) for safety reasons.

Don't think for a moment that they (refrigerant manufacturers/lobbyists) didn't know the GWP of R-134a when it was forced on the scene. R-152a is virtually a straight drop in for R-134a, has shown up to 20% increase in fuel mileage, no more flammable than HFO-1234yf, and a GWP if about 140. So why not use it? Because it's been around a long time and the refrigerant manufacturers wouldn't make a huge profit on it.

I had to drop several grand on new equipment for R-410a. Of course I have to pass that along to the customers. The same will hold true for HFO-1234yf.

I guess this is the "down side" to capitalism (of which I'm a great believer). I wouldn't mind it so much except this is being pushed during a floundering economy. I see this first hand every day.

Again, I'm not trying to start a "firestorm", and won't take part beyond this post. It's just my 2 cents worth........... Now I feel better.
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
jetmech1, great post, I concur with your assessment.


Thanks. I said I wasn't going to post beyond this, but I'm going to have to break my own rule. Why is important.

I just looked up the MSDS of R-1234yf and R-152a. If I'm reading this right, the German's got this right. It's been a while since I've had HAZMAT training while working for the freight airline, but if I'm reading this right R-1234yf is much more flammable than R-152a. R-1234yf is a Class 1 and R-152a is Class 2. Please correct me if I'm wrong on this assessment, but HFO-1234yf is way more dangerous.
Here's the links: I just checked them in preview. The first one take a moment or two to load.

R-1234yf MSDS

R-152a MSDS

Universal Global Harmonized MSDS Classifications Page 10 and 11 of this PDF are the important ones.

I'm going to follow this thread.

Thanks,
Mark
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: beechcraftted
OK, so R-12 was banned around 1994, because it damaged the ozone layer and this gave us R-134a by EPA decree. Now the EU is already banning R-134a because of poor global warming properties. Automakers are already being offered tax incentive credits to make the change now, by EPA decree.

Also, my buddy in the auto HVAC business says that although R-134a will not be banned outright, there are going to be HUGE taxes on it. Start stocking up now.

I know, no politics, but I gotta wonder about the $$$$' the EPA has cost all of us.

Have my 15lb cylinder already.
 
How much money do we need to spend for the latest EPA feel good tree hugger program?

The US chases its bogus green agenda with while other countries out-produce us using "dirty" technology while climbing past us as world economic powers.

All the while we can't buy a light bulb for less than $5 and our automobiles cost 25% more due to federal emissions and CAFE requirements.

Nero would be shopping for a fiddle.....
 
Originally Posted By: SilverC6
and our automobiles cost 25% more due to federal emissions and CAFE requirements


Umm, while I kinda agree with your point
Your argument doesn't hold up, because car prices have kept in line with Inflation +/- $750
Considering how equipment standards, safety standards, AND EMISSIONS COMPONENTS, have all risen sharply.

.....I'd call it about even

The title and mindset of this thread with it's fear mongering and end nearing, Is almost the same arguments when we legislated Seatbelts, And non land yachts that belch out black smoke and 10 to the gallon.........that would promptly burst into flames if bumped.
 
Originally Posted By: SilverC6
How much money do we need to spend for the latest EPA feel good tree hugger program?

The US chases its bogus green agenda with while other countries out-produce us using "dirty" technology while climbing past us as world economic powers.

All the while we can't buy a light bulb for less than $5 and our automobiles cost 25% more due to federal emissions and CAFE requirements.

Nero would be shopping for a fiddle.....


So, screw "green" for a second. Let's stick with national security and economics.

1. Right now, our whole economy is at the mercy of global petroleum prices. Our domestic production reduces their leverage on us, but it's still there. Every time some nutjob in the Middle East sneezes, we have to wring our hands over what it means. If he's one of our nutjobs, we have to manage the PR disaster. If he's not, then we have to decide whether to commit thousands of lives and trillions of dollars wading into the morass to help "fix the problem."

Can you imagine how different things would be if we were much less dependent on petroleum? That, combined with our domestic production, would put US in the saddle. Every corrupt oil-producing nation could disintegrate and we wouldn't have to care -- not to mention that WE would be the ones with the leverage on THEM, and not the other way around.

2. Hard to overstate the cost savings and quality of life benefits of clean air and water. Regulations played a clear role here.

3. It's no secret that IQ scores rose and crime rates fell in patterns that directly corresponded with the ban on leaded fuel and the reduction of lead in the environment.

Besides: On the whole, cars in this country are so much cheaper than in other countries, it's hysterical...


I don't support everything the EPA does, and I hate that we are so utterly fixated on fuel economy while so many other concerns fall by the wayside. I just think it's a mistake to write off everything the EPA does as being part of a "green agenda." The reasons and benefits are often quite stark, even if the methods are questionable.
 
Which countries are "climbing" past the US with a lack of "US Tree Hugger Feel Good..."

China with it's system of top-down control "Managed Capitalism" and a massive credit bubble?

If there isn't a bigger and more fragile house of cards in the history of humanity, than I'll (end up) eating my hat.

Let's see, who else, the over-managed, over-burdened with regulation EU countries that are now said to be in yet another economic depression?

Nigeria?

Brazil?

Where is this land of magical growth that you speak of?
 
Earnings in the US is plummeting as we race toward a third world ecomomy.

Growth has shifted to all areas of the globe whose labels are on all the goods you buy.
 
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: SilverC6
How much money do we need to spend for the latest EPA feel good tree hugger program?

The US chases its bogus green agenda with while other countries out-produce us using "dirty" technology while climbing past us as world economic powers.

All the while we can't buy a light bulb for less than $5 and our automobiles cost 25% more due to federal emissions and CAFE requirements.

Nero would be shopping for a fiddle.....


So, screw "green" for a second. Let's stick with national security and economics.

1. Right now, our whole economy is at the mercy of global petroleum prices. Our domestic production reduces their leverage on us, but it's still there. Every time some nutjob in the Middle East sneezes, we have to wring our hands over what it means. If he's one of our nutjobs, we have to manage the PR disaster. If he's not, then we have to decide whether to commit thousands of lives and trillions of dollars wading into the morass to help "fix the problem."

Can you imagine how different things would be if we were much less dependent on petroleum? That, combined with our domestic production, would put US in the saddle. Every corrupt oil-producing nation could disintegrate and we wouldn't have to care -- not to mention that WE would be the ones with the leverage on THEM, and not the other way around.

2. Hard to overstate the cost savings and quality of life benefits of clean air and water. Regulations played a clear role here.

3. It's no secret that IQ scores rose and crime rates fell in patterns that directly corresponded with the ban on leaded fuel and the reduction of lead in the environment.

Besides: On the whole, cars in this country are so much cheaper than in other countries, it's hysterical...


I don't support everything the EPA does, and I hate that we are so utterly fixated on fuel economy while so many other concerns fall by the wayside. I just think it's a mistake to write off everything the EPA does as being part of a "green agenda." The reasons and benefits are often quite stark, even if the methods are questionable.


A former head of the CIA made a similar National Security argument as this.
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
R600/290 blend does fine.

Couldn't believe the availability of 134 in the States versus here, so gotta do what you have to.


HC refrigerants are superior!! I'd say the lack of availability did you a fave.

I've been looking at OZ Chill's hydrocarbon 410a replacements
 
Originally Posted By: jrustles
Originally Posted By: Shannow
R600/290 blend does fine.

Couldn't believe the availability of 134 in the States versus here, so gotta do what you have to.


HC refrigerants are superior!! I'd say the lack of availability did you a fave.

I've been looking at OZ Chill's hydrocarbon 410a replacements


clearly superior, one of my lecturers in University has been plugging them since I was at Uni...backed with science...made my own 'though.

Funnily when I have someone tell me what I can't do, I point out that their new super duper high efficiency fridge is HC filled these days.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

wemay
  • Locked
LSPI: A KNOCK ON THE NEWEST ENGINES 2/4/16
2
Replies
35
Views
18K
SteveSRT8
MolaKule
  • Locked
NASA and Mars Topics
Replies
5
Views
1K
Al
Back
Top