Has anyone used EnviroSafe refrigerant?

Originally Posted by Skippy722
Originally Posted by Avery4
Also, let's not forget that the new and ridiculously expensive R1234YF refrigerant that the EPA approved for use in new cars is "mildly flammable", whatever the heck that means. If the stuff wasn't a million dollars a can I would buy one and make a video of my own flammability tests since I couldn't find any videos of any independently performed real world flammability tests like holding an open flame to it and seeing if it burns.


Don't forget that when R1234YF burns, it releases toxic and corrosive hydrogen fluoride, as well as carbonyl fluoride. Carbonyl Fluoride reacts violently with water, forming yet more hydrogen fluoride, and hydrogen fluoride converts to hydrofluoric acid on contact with moisture.

That is true, 134A is the same way. For this reason some argue that a more flammable refrigerant like propane that doesn't turn into deadly gases when burned is safer.
 
Originally Posted by mk378
Red Tek is the same thing. Considering that real R-134a can be bought for less than these fly by night hydrocarbons the choice for me is easy.

The point of using hydrocarbon refrigerants instead of R134a isn't because its cheaper to buy, the point is to extend the life of the system, improve performance and efficiency, and be more environmentally friendly. Also, these aren't fly by night companies making this stuff. Duracool has been around since 2004, Envirosafe has been around since 1996, Red Tek has been around since 1998, and many other manufacturers of hydrocarbon refrigerants have been around for a good number of years as well.
 
Last edited:
Just found this article. Leaking R12A ignited and filled the entire bus with flames, killing 18 passengers and seriously injuring 2. Not sure how it happened, people reported that the AC didn't work well and that the bus smelled strongly of strange gas, so it sounds like the system had a bad leak that filled the bus with gas and it was somehow ignited. Here's the article. http://elsiglo.com.pa/cronica-roja/tragedia-cresta-infierno-06/24088743

English translation: "THE BUS OF DEATH

Lidia Atencio was free that day, but a colleague asked her to change her shift, due to commitments, and she never thought that this change would become an indelible mark on her existence.

The afternoon of October 23, 2006, passed like any other, Lidia took bus 8B-06 at 1:20 that afternoon, in El Valle de San Isidro.

The journey was going to be short in time, since the bus was on the North Corridor-Ciudad BolÃvar route, no more than 20 minutes to the stop in Perejil, at least that's what she thought, a nurse from the Children's Hospital.

The fire

Halfway through the corridor, passengers began to feel an irritating fire, but none claimed anything, there was heat in the ship, the air conditioning did not work well and a strong smell of a strange gas was felt on board.

The bus continued without stopping, Lidia recalled when she arrived at the toll booth near MartÃn Sosa Avenue, the driver, Prospero Ortega Justavino, stopped the bus for five people to get off. The heat inside the car was already unbearable.

About 500 meters from the toll booth, in front of the Hosanna church, a lot of smoke was coming out of the bus. Prospero, somewhat scared, stopped, went down with his assistant, opened the cover of the transport engine and immediately a huge flare. he got out and invaded the interior of the bus.

Screams of men, children and women exploded from within in panic and despair to save their lives. The bus had no emergency exit door and was completely closed, the tragedy was just beginning.

Lidia, sitting in the last positions on the left row of 8B-06, felt a general weakness. "I was conscious, but I felt that I could not get up, I thought about God, I was sure that I was not going to die, something inside me told me," recalled the nurse.

He does not know how he got out of the interior, but remember that someone broke the glass of one of the windows of the bus, located almost in the middle, where the 24 survivors of the bus threw themselves with a crash, many of them were hit by falling from the height of the huge vehicle .

The flames advanced from the front, there was the engine and the source of the fire. HC 12 A gas, used as a refrigerant in the air conditioning system. [censored] moved quickly and grabbed the only entrance and exit doors, the steering wheel part, and the rest of the car.

Death

In less than 9 minutes everything was over, only ambulance sirens were heard, patrols, groans of the wounded and laments of the survivors who still could not believe what happened, Lidia was safe and said shortly before passing out: 'I'm fine , take care of that gentleman that he if it is bad ".

Lidia was referring to Luis Contreras, his body was turned off by firefighters and paramedics, his skin was bleeding and tearing itself, on his back, stomach, arms, face and legs.

Contreras recalls that he was helped out by the driver of another less deadly bus, who stopped to help. "I left everything burned, but conscious, it was in the hospital emergency room that I passed out when the doctors tried to save my life," he explained.

In those nine minutes the flames silenced the last screams of 18 Panamanians, including five children who were cremated inside the bus.

One of those children was Iván, his grandmother took him to play soccer in Albrook, he wanted to be a professional soccer player, but neither he nor his grandmother could go out.

The scene was Dantesque, typical of Alighieri's [censored]. Faces struck by physical pain when falling to the ground, intoxicated by the smoke and turbidity of the inhaled air and by the fear of not having died. Others with their hands covered their eyes to dispel their tears.

On the floor, there was a smell of burned meat, smoke and pain. Fire ambulances, private and public hospitals made space between the road congested by traffic blocked by the event.

Of 42 passengers on bus 8B-06, 18 died and 24 survived. Luis and Lidia were the survivors who were most affected by the La Cresta tragedy. She underwent surgery twice at the Memorial Hospital in Houston, Texas, in the United States, but Luis traveled five times and had 17 surgeries on different parts of his body.

Whose fault is it?

According to lawyer Luis MartÃnez, legal representative of 10 of the survivors, HC 12 A gas, used on bus 8B-06, has been banned in the United States since 1990, "because it is a super explosive gas."

According to the lawyer, a Panamanian company introduced the gas to Panama. Meanwhile, a banking institution financed the bus, brought by land through Central America.

MartÃnez maintains that in Panama a correct investigation was not carried out, the prosecution exempted corporations and individuals from liability, while he became the executioner of three humble people who are the weakest in the chain of responsibility.

For his part, Contreras, a cabinetmaker by profession and, like Lidia, affected by severe burns, assured that 'here there was no investigation, many things were overlooked and we are not satisfied with what was done, we lost here because some people from the government they were involved. '

The demand

Almost two years later, in 2008, the lawyer MartÃnez sued in the city of Kansas, United States, the gas manufacturing company. In July of this year, and after 12 years of the tragedy that cost 18 Panamanians their lives, the legal team reached an agreement with the US company.

According to MartÃnez, the company assumed part of its responsibility and reached an agreement with the Panamanian plaintiffs. The judge will take around 4 months, after accepting said agreement between the parties to resolve the case, the lawyer said.

The lawyer did not detail the type of agreement that was reached with the US company, nor the figures, but it is expected that before the end of this year, the case will be solved with respect to the aforementioned lawsuit.

Finally, MartÃnez assured that once the process is concluded in the United States, he will proceed to sue the government of the time and the Panamanian State internationally.

Meanwhile, Zuleyka Moore, prosecutor who initiated the investigation of the bus 8B-06 case, told El Siglo that the part carried out by the prosecution under its responsibility, was carried out correctly and all the stages established by law were considered and the Constitution.

Moore replied that, in this case, the State has been sued on more than two occasions, but the claims have not been admitted.

The driver of the burned down bus in La Cresta, Prospero Ortega and the owner Ariel Ortega, were sentenced to 40 months in prison, by the First Circuit judge of the Criminal Branch of the First Judicial Circuit of Panama, Rolando Quezada Vallespi.

Quezada criminally declared responsible for the fire on bus 8B-06, in which 18 people died.

As an accessory penalty, once the main sentence was completed, both were sentenced to the impediment of driving motor vehicles for the same term.

Both Lidia Atencio and Luis Contreras consider that in this case not all the victims were served justice."
 
Last edited:
Yeah, it is illegal to use this stuff in ANY MVAC a/c system.

As far as the EPA is concerned, any refrigerant other than R-12 in MVAC is a replacement for R-12. In order to be used it must be SNAP listed. There are no hydrocarbon refrigerants on the SNAP list. Further, all blends were delisted in 2017. https://www.epa.gov/snap/substitute...edium-duty-heavy-duty-and-road-vehicles. On top of that, No vehicle OEM or parts manufacturer approves it nor with they warranty a failed component found to have anything other than the correct refrigerant and oil in it.
 
Originally Posted by Shannow
Oh, I thought that we were talking about 6 ounces of gas exploding a car...

My main concern is what happens if there is an accident that smashes the condenser as this is far more likely than the evaporator developing a large enough leak to fill the car with enough gas to become an explosion hazard. As I said I don't think a refrigerant fire from an accident would necessarily be a serious threat to the people inside the car as they would probably have more than enough time to escape before the fire reached the interior. However, if the gas ignites it could burn the car to the ground, destroying the car and creating the exact problem we are trying to avoid by using flammable refrigerants in the first place (environmental damage).

If the evaporator did develop a large enough leak to fill the car with enough gas to blow it up, I think there could be more of a risk to people around it than the people inside the car. I certainly wouldn't want to be standing next to the red car in the video below when it exploded! The flying glass could easily blind someone. 300 grams or 10.5 ounces of refrigerant isn't a totally unreasonable amount either, I charged my Civic with 7 ounces (198 grams) of Envirosafe refrigerant and is a small car, a lot of similarly sized cars take significantly more gas.

The second demonstration with 150 grams (5.3 ounces) of refrigerant was much less dramatic, but I'm not aware of any car the size of the one in the video that takes so little gas. A smaller car might, but if it did it would be at a higher concentration due to less air in the cabin and therefore probably produce a more dramatic explosion than shown in the second demonstration. Design changed could be made to the system to reduce the charge amount like smaller heat exchangers and piping, but the problem is that would result in decreased performance and efficiency, negating the second major benefit of hydrocarbon refrigerants (increased performance and efficiency).
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by Timmastertech
Yeah, it is illegal to use this stuff in ANY MVAC a/c system.

As far as the EPA is concerned, any refrigerant other than R-12 in MVAC is a replacement for R-12. In order to be used it must be SNAP listed. There are no hydrocarbon refrigerants on the SNAP list. Further, all blends were delisted in 2017. https://www.epa.gov/snap/substitute...edium-duty-heavy-duty-and-road-vehicles. On top of that, No vehicle OEM or parts manufacturer approves it nor with they warranty a failed component found to have anything other than the correct refrigerant and oil in it.

EPA SNAP requirements only apply to replacements for ozone depleting substances (R12 in this case). R134a is not an ozone depleting substance, therefore replacements for it don't need to be (and aren't going to be) SNAP listed. Do you really think the EPA would still be allowing the sales of all these R134a replacements for MVAC applications if using them for their intended purpose was really illegal?

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-11/documents/hc12apet3.pdf

From page 15 of the above EPA document: "Hydrocarbon Blend B may still be marketed as a second generation substitute for ozone-depleting substances for use in refrigeration and air-conditioning systems.
The SNAP rule does not regulate the legitimate substitution of Hydrocarbon Blend B for
first generation non-ozone-depleting substances. It is not EPA's role to promote a specific
product, nor to make declarations concerning the regulation of Hydrocarbon Blend B by
other jurisdictions. It should be noted that other federal statutes, or state or local
authorities, may regulate the marketing of Hydrocarbon Blend B in particular refrigeration
or air-conditioning end-uses."




From pages 15 and 16: "Is it legal to replace HFC-134a in a motor vehicle with hydrocarbon refrigerants
such as DURACOOL 12a® and HC-12a®?
"In certain circumstances, the replacement of HFC-134a in a motor vehicle with
hydrocarbon refrigerants might be permitted. At a minimum, in order to avoid
violating the Clean Air Act, the motor vehicle air-conditioning system must have
either been originally designed for use with HFC-134a refrigerant, or must have
been previously retrofitted from CFC-12 to HFC-134a refrigerant, AND no sham retrofit must have occurred to convert the system to the hydrocarbon refrigerant. In order to avoid violating other laws, the replacement of
the refrigerant must not violate any state or local prohibition on the use of
flammable refrigerants in motor vehicle air-conditioning systems.

The following 18 states ban the use of flammable refrigerants such as HC-12a®
and DURACOOL 12a® in motor vehicle air-conditioning, regardless of the
original refrigerant: Arkansas, Arizona, Connecticut, Florida, Idaho, Indiana,
Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah,
Virginia, Wisconsin, Washington, and the District of Columbia.
"EPA and Hotline staff will not, based solely on facts given in a phone call or
letter, determine the legality under the SNAP program of using a hydrocarbon
refrigerant in a motor vehicle retrofitted to use HFC-134a, because the
determination depends on many factors, including the nature of the retrofit from
CFC-12 to HFC-134a, the reason for the retrofit, and the exact procedure and
timing involved.
If you plan to change a car from HFC-134a to a hydrocarbon refrigerant such as
HC-12a® and DURACOOL 12a®, you should consider that auto manufacturers
have stated that changing the refrigerant in new vehicles designed for use with
HFC-134a will void the warranty and may damage the system. If the air
conditioner on a new car or truck is not working, consult a qualified mechanic or
your dealer."
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by Shannow
Oh, I thought that we were talking about 6 ounces of gas exploding a car...


The situation with 300g in the video linked above looked pretty bad. The stoichiometric dosing in the video you provided also didn't look great. If that were to happen when driving for whatever reason, loss of control would be assured.

I'm also not sure how many psi overpressure the human body can tolerate, but something makes me think it's not many.

That said...

- the accident scenario doesn't bother me, because if a condenser is damaged, while it could cause an underhood fire, it's not evident to me that it would cause any risk to the passengers.
- an ignition source would still have to be present

The one that worries me slightly is a leaky evaporator in a sitting car gets just enough buildup in the cabin, and then a spark from an action (keyless entry, courtesy lights, etc) causes a flash. Not necessarily in a populated cabin, but still could be big damage.

I think the commercial blends have an odorant added. Plus, in an operating vehicle with make up cabin air, I'm not sure one could get to a flammable mixture without noticing it, and I'd suspect that as much leaves as is leaked in most times. Car cabins aren't air tight, and there is some external makeup in most all cases, even in recirc mode.

What bothers me with these blends is that one component can escape faster, and then you have no good way to know your ratio. Thus you're stuck with a situation where it's possibly not right, not working, etc. Thus to remediate, I guess one has to vacate the entire system each time?

The other thing I don't fully understand is why the vendors recommend against charging into a vacuum. They want some air, and if not done that way, you can get big pressure spikes on the high side supposedly. That recommendation doesn't make a ton of sense to me.
 
Originally Posted by JHZR2
Originally Posted by Shannow
Oh, I thought that we were talking about 6 ounces of gas exploding a car...


The situation with 300g in the video linked above looked pretty bad. The stoichiometric dosing in the video you provided also didn't look great. If that were to happen when driving for whatever reason, loss of control would be assured.

I'm also not sure how many psi overpressure the human body can tolerate, but something makes me think it's not many.

That said...

- the accident scenario doesn't bother me, because if a condenser is damaged, while it could cause an underhood fire, it's not evident to me that it would cause any risk to the passengers.
- an ignition source would still have to be present

The one that worries me slightly is a leaky evaporator in a sitting car gets just enough buildup in the cabin, and then a spark from an action (keyless entry, courtesy lights, etc) causes a flash. Not necessarily in a populated cabin, but still could be big damage.

I think the commercial blends have an odorant added. Plus, in an operating vehicle with make up cabin air, I'm not sure one could get to a flammable mixture without noticing it, and I'd suspect that as much leaves as is leaked in most times. Car cabins aren't air tight, and there is some external makeup in most all cases, even in recirc mode.

What bothers me with these blends is that one component can escape faster, and then you have no good way to know your ratio. Thus you're stuck with a situation where it's possibly not right, not working, etc. Thus to remediate, I guess one has to vacate the entire system each time?

The other thing I don't fully understand is why the vendors recommend against charging into a vacuum. They want some air, and if not done that way, you can get big pressure spikes on the high side supposedly. That recommendation doesn't make a ton of sense to me.

Great point about losing control of the vehicle, I didn't think of that but it's definitely a consideration. Even if the blast doesn't seriously injure or kill the people in the car, losing control and crashing certainly can. Fortunately the risks of this happening are extremely low though, I have never seen or heard of an evaporator suddenly developing this serious of a leak. Also, since propane and butane are heavier than air, I have heard that a lot of the gas will escape through the condensation drain tube if the evaporator develops a slow leak while the car is parked, but I have no idea how true that is as.

The accident scenario does bother me because I don't want to lose my car in a minor accident, but an even worse scenario that I just thought of is the possibility of someone being trapped in the burning vehicle or unconscious after an accident. Then again if the system is filled with 134a and the car catches fire for whatever reason after an accident and traps someone, the person would likely be sitting in a car full of deadly fumes from the burning refrigerant.

The Envirosafe refrigerant does have an odorant added to it, it has a pine scent. Duracool has a rotten egg scent, but I read somewhere that having mercaptan (the chemical that smells like rotten eggs) in the AC system is bad for a reason I can't recall at the moment, so the pine scent Envirosafe uses may be better.

These refrigerants will fractionate if charged as a gas or if the system develops a leak, I have had a problem with this. I accidentally broke the low side service port cap and Honda made it proprietary, so by the time Honda got the cap in some of my refrigerant leaked out. One way to test to see if the refrigerant is fractionated is to check the standing pressure in the system and compare it to a known good can or a pressure temp chart. Before topping off, I compared the standing pressure in my car's system with the pressure in a can of refrigerant that was sitting in my garage and therefore at the same temp as the refrigerant in the car and the pressure in the car's system was lower by about 10 PSI, indicating that it fractionated. More propane leaked out than butane because propane is a higher pressure refrigerant. I released the charge and vacuumed the system before recharging to be safe, I got a case of 12 cans of this refrigerant for a good price so I have plenty of it.

I wondered the same thing why Envirosafe recommends not pulling a vacuum and I actually asked them, here was their response: "Because of the way its made. If you wish to pull a vacuum, we suggest using the industrial 134a replacement. The only refrigerant you cannot pull a vacuum with is the refrigerant with dye." Whatever that means.

Hydrocarbon refrigerants don't react with oxygen and moisture to form corrosive acids like typical refrigerants do, but you still don't want air in the system because it takes up space in the system and reduces its efficiency since it won't condense into a liquid and participate in the refrigeration cycle. Having air in the system actually increases head pressure because it reduces the condenser's performance by taking up space that could be used for heat transfer, effectively making it smaller. Even worse, enough moisture in the system can freeze up the TXV and cause the system to not work at all. For these reasons, you must thoroughly vacuum the system before recharging no matter what refrigerant you choose to use if you want your system to work correctly.
 
Last edited:
With a can of R134a only $4.88 at walmart - I will keep using the correct recommended freon in my cars. Using these types of substitutes can be dangerous as well as cause issues to a repair shop's equipment and contaminate their freon tank.

No Thanks.
 
Note that the date on the document that you are siting is 1998 and the most current EPA rules are from 2016. The second paragraph of that document even explicitly states that the EPA at that time denied OZs request that 12a be added to the snap list. Bottom line, if it isnt on the snap list, you cant put it in a mobile air conditioner Amen, end of story. But go on thinking whatever you want. I have only spent my entire adult life in the mobile air conditioning industry. I was only consulted on the rules the EPA issued in 2016. I obviously have absolutely no clue what I am taking about
 
Originally Posted by Timmastertech
if it isnt on the snap list, you cant put it in a mobile air conditioner Amen, end of story.

What you are saying is correct. FOR R12 SYSTEMS. As I said, the SNAP program applies to ozone depleting substances only. Notice that the EPA's SNAP page says nothing about replacements for global warming substances. https://www.epa.gov/snap

"SNAP was established under Section 612 of the Clean Air Act to identify and evaluate substitutes for ozone-depleting substances. The program looks at overall risks to human health and the environment of existing and new substitutes, publishes lists and promotes the use of acceptable substances, and provides the public with information"

As I said- Do you really think the EPA would still be allowing these products to be sold for use in MVAC systems if using the product for its intended purpose was a violation of federal law? That "R12a" stuff sure didn't fly because it was deemed by the SNAP program as an unacceptable substitute for R12 due to its flammability, so they have been selling the same stuff as an R134a replacement ever since they weren't allowed to sell it as an R12 replacement since replacing R134a with flammable gas is not a violation of federal law.
 
Its not illegal to sell it its illegal to use it. The part you are missing is, per the EPA, EVERY refrigerant for MVAC is considered a replacement for R12. R134a is a replacement for R12, R1234yf is on the snap list because its a replacement for R-12. Therefore, as R12 is the baseline, every refrigerant is a replacement for an ozone depletant. I can put whatever I want in a can and sell it to you, its not illegal until it is put in a system.

Now say you ignore all that and charge it anyway. Now that system isnt full of refrigerant, its full of hazardous waste. There isnt equipment or standards to field recycle anything other than R-12, R-134a or R-1234yf. Its not legal to vent because once its in a system its refrigerant and sections 608 and 609 clearly prohibit venting of refrigerant. Even CO2, abundant in the atmosphere, once it is in a system its now R-744 and illegal to vent. SO we cant recycle it, we cant vent it, so we have to recover and destroy it. Disposing of contaminated refrigerant costs me north of 75 bucks a pound. Refrigerant should always be identified with a refrigerant identifier as a first step any time the refrigeration circuit is opened. I can tell you exactly what is in a system with an identifier and with a 1234yf system identification is mandatory as in the machines wont recover unless the refrigerant is pure.
 
Originally Posted by Timmastertech
Its not illegal to sell it its illegal to use it. The part you are missing is, per the EPA, EVERY refrigerant for MVAC is considered a replacement for R12. R134a is a replacement for R12, R1234yf is on the snap list because its a replacement for R-12. Therefore, as R12 is the baseline, every refrigerant is a replacement for an ozone depletant. I can put whatever I want in a can and sell it to you, its not illegal until it is put in a system.

Now say you ignore all that and charge it anyway. Now that system isnt full of refrigerant, its full of hazardous waste. There isnt equipment or standards to field recycle anything other than R-12, R-134a or R-1234yf. Its not legal to vent because once its in a system its refrigerant and sections 608 and 609 clearly prohibit venting of refrigerant. Even CO2, abundant in the atmosphere, once it is in a system its now R-744 and illegal to vent. SO we cant recycle it, we cant vent it, so we have to recover and destroy it. Disposing of contaminated refrigerant costs me north of 75 bucks a pound. Refrigerant should always be identified with a refrigerant identifier as a first step any time the refrigeration circuit is opened. I can tell you exactly what is in a system with an identifier and with a 1234yf system identification is mandatory as in the machines wont recover unless the refrigerant is pure.

Why did the EPA immediately put a stop to the sales of R12a and R22a pretty much as soon as they hit the market because they are illegal replacements for ozone depleting substances but the EPA has allowed R134a replacement to be sold for the last 20 or more years? Seems to me that since the EPA doesn't allow the sales of those refrigerants because they are illegal, they wouldn't allow the sales of R134a replacements if they are illegal either.

Also, some refrigerants can be vented. The EPA has exempted R600a (isobutane), R290 (propane), and R744 (Co2) from the recovery requirements because they are natural and pose no significant threat to the environment. Since Envirosafe refrigerant is made out of R600a and R290, it is legal to vent it.

https://www.epa.gov/mvac/epa-regulatory-requirements-mvac-system-servicing

https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0580-0036
 
Originally Posted by Avery4
Originally Posted by Timmastertech
Its not illegal to sell it its illegal to use it. The part you are missing is, per the EPA, EVERY refrigerant for MVAC is considered a replacement for R12. R134a is a replacement for R12, R1234yf is on the snap list because its a replacement for R-12. Therefore, as R12 is the baseline, every refrigerant is a replacement for an ozone depletant. I can put whatever I want in a can and sell it to you, its not illegal until it is put in a system.

Now say you ignore all that and charge it anyway. Now that system isnt full of refrigerant, its full of hazardous waste. There isnt equipment or standards to field recycle anything other than R-12, R-134a or R-1234yf. Its not legal to vent because once its in a system its refrigerant and sections 608 and 609 clearly prohibit venting of refrigerant. Even CO2, abundant in the atmosphere, once it is in a system its now R-744 and illegal to vent. SO we cant recycle it, we cant vent it, so we have to recover and destroy it. Disposing of contaminated refrigerant costs me north of 75 bucks a pound. Refrigerant should always be identified with a refrigerant identifier as a first step any time the refrigeration circuit is opened. I can tell you exactly what is in a system with an identifier and with a 1234yf system identification is mandatory as in the machines wont recover unless the refrigerant is pure.

Why did the EPA immediately put a stop to the sales of R12a and R22a pretty much as soon as they hit the market because they are illegal replacements for ozone depleting substances but the EPA has allowed R134a replacement to be sold for the last 20 or more years? Seems to me that since the EPA doesn't allow the sales of those refrigerants because they are illegal, they wouldn't allow the sales of R134a replacements if they are illegal either.

Also, some refrigerants can be vented. The EPA has exempted R600a (isobutane), R290 (propane), and R744 (Co2) from the recovery requirements because they are natural and pose no significant threat to the environment. Since Envirosafe refrigerant is made out of R600a and R290, it is legal to vent it.

https://www.epa.gov/mvac/epa-regulatory-requirements-mvac-system-servicing

https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0580-0036


Also, this refrigerant being harmful to the environment thing is a blatant scam in my opinion. R134a is sooooo harmful to the environment that we must spend money having it recovered so it doesn't get into our atmosphere and it must be phased out to protect our planet, but anyone can go buy a can of it sold as air duster to blow dust out of computers and venting that to the atmosphere is somehow legal? I realize that a lot of air duster is made from R152a which has a much lower GWP than 134a, but plenty of air dusters that use 134a are available. I don't know about you, but that seems a bit suspicious to me... I'm all for taking steps to protect our planet where possible and practical, but I feel that these new supposedly more environmentally friendly refrigerants have more to do with making big chemical companies like Dupont and Honeywell money than protecting our environment.
 
Originally Posted by Skippy722
Don't forget that when R1234YF burns, it releases toxic and corrosive hydrogen fluoride, as well as carbonyl fluoride. Carbonyl Fluoride reacts violently with water, forming yet more hydrogen fluoride, and hydrogen fluoride converts to hydrofluoric acid on contact with moisture.

There is that and when R134a burns, it creates phosgene gas, highly toxic and also known by the name chlorine gas.
 
R134a won't create phosgene gas when it burns, R12 and R22 will though. Phosgene gas is created by the decomposition of chlorine, R134a doesn't contain chlorine and therefore won't produce phosgene.
 
I have an update. My 2005 Civic's condenser was punctured by something that flew up and hit it while driving down the highway and my Envirosafe refrigerant leaked out. No fire or explosion, but I needed to replace the condenser. What a shame since I replaced it only 3 years ago when I rebuilt my AC system. Anyways, I decided to go back to R134a refrigerant when I replaced the condenser and I can't really say I notice much difference either way. It still cools off pretty quick, the compressor still bogs the engine down by the same small amount, it still works great while driving down the highway, and its performance is still mediocre at idle as it always has been since the car was new. The pressures aren't much different either, at idle on a 90 degree day it still runs around 45 PSI on the low side and around 160 PSI on the high side.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by Kestas
For any car that has an open grille, I fit 1/4 inch hardware cloth to stop punctures.

That wouldn't be a bad idea
 
Back
Top