r22 or 410a

[omar21]

im in the process of purchasing a new central heating & cooling system.the system the salesman is offering uses r22 is this the right move.Ive read going with 410a can be risky.

[CottyGee]

im in the process of purchasing a new central heating & cooling system.the system the salesman is offering uses r22 is this the right move.Ive read going with 410a can be risky.
You can safely go with either. There's no risk in going with 410a, and R22 should be available without problems for the life of your unit.

That said, I see no reason not to go with 410a. I'd rather have the refrigerant that's going to be in production. Carrier has been using it for more than 10 years. I think that's plenty of time to work out the kinks! :D

[referrob]

poor brazing/install practices or ignorance is the only reasons anyone would steer you away from 410a. 410a is a good refrigerant, and a long term one at that. stay away from any dealer who trys to talk you out of a product that has been on the market for 10+ years and states that it is not a proven reliable gas. they are not a proven and reliabe company.

[timebuilder]

im in the process of purchasing a new central heating & cooling system.the system the salesman is offering uses r22 is this the right move.Ive read going with 410a can be risky.

When someone tells you that you should use a new refrigerant because someone had used it for more than 10 years, let that idea give you pause.

Ford has been making crappy cars for a lot longer than that, and that is no reason to buy one.

You can use whichever you want, but remember: the guy you are working with is the one who will be around to fix your system when it breaks, and the government bureaucrats who have pushed R410A will not.

[hivacer]

R-410 a units are slightly better in my opinion. All higher end lennox units use 410a. There is no risk involved in using r410a other than having someone that cannot properly install it.

[fixitmanmc]

If you are considerering a heat pump, 410a generally produces a higher hspf, (heating season performance factor), which compares energy efficiency. 410a prices are dropping and 22 prices are rising.

[beenthere]

Another r22 or r410a debate.

Do a search on this site.
You'll find many opinions about it.

Unfortunately for you, if you like this contractor and waht to use him, you are probaly better off going with 22.
As he may not know how to handle r410a properly. Which could cause you trouble down the road.


Hopefully, by the time your system needs replaced again, he will have learned.

[tinknocker service tech]

when 410 came out i refused to work with because of fear of the unknown
finally after few years and realizing it is going to stay i went to a few classes on it

If installed properly it is fine. Well it would seem the proper way isn't all that much different then 22> most have gotten lazy and dint follow proper with 22 a lot of of the time because it is more forgiving. PEO oil isn't as forgiving and there is no room for cheating as with 22.

If a tech has been following proper procedures with 22 then to switch over to 410 inst a big deal at all.

I could be wrong but most of the bugs were lack of knowlege and stress lelated on coils and other components

With 410-a cheat and not following the proper procedures to the letter when installing the equipment will come back and BITE you hard in the a$$

[aircooled53]

I have work in the industry for a number of years,and I was not really into
R410a until I started servicing and selling Carrier Infinity system. The company I am employed with does take the extra steps in the installation of the system to insure that there is no moisture and welds are check with nitrogen.:)

As far as the efficiency of R-22 vs R-410A there is about 5-8% better in the newer refrigerant R-410A.:cool:

[beenthere]

As far as the efficiency of R-22 vs R-410A there is about 5-8% better in the newer refrigerant R-410A.:cool:



Don't confuse refrigerant effiency with system effiency.

I know your not, but some people may think that a 13 seer r410a is more eff, then a 13 seer r22 from your post.

[Sparkplug101]

I found this link on R-22 verses 410A
www.410a.com

[timebuilder]

I found this link on R-22 verses 410A
www.410a.com (http://www.410a.com)

That site is an R410A "advocacy" site, and not the site of a disinterested third party.

[Hvacman2]

You'll only have the choices for 3 more years and then r 22 equipment will be gone. Sure you'll still be able to get r22 for many years to come. Take this into consideration. If anything should happen to your equipment and your forced to replace it. You'll have to replace your indoor coil and lineset again.
I've been telling my customers that exact thing and given the choice again , they alll choose r 410a. Remember a new system is an investment in your home and your comfort. Go with a reputable contractor and go with a name brand if you can afford it and you'll have a 20 year plus system.

[elkhvac]

When someone tells you that you should use a new refrigerant because someone had used it for more than 10 years, let that idea give you pause.

Ford has been making crappy cars for a lot longer than that, and that is no reason to buy one.

You can use whichever you want, but remember: the guy you are working with is the one who will be around to fix your system when it breaks, and the government bureaucrats who have pushed R410A will not.


The Ford Bronco my father in-law bought new in 1982 still runs great. All original, 140K miles. I guess Fords are like HAVC equipment, if you know how to properly work in it, they can last a long time. That '82 Bronco...it will be my 12 year old son's first car. :D

If the guy working on your system now, does not learn how to work with 410a, he won't be around later.

[bob hubbard]

Summer has just started here and Ive already had three 410 a leakers just less than 5 years old ! Yea I had some r22 leakers too but most of those are 10 - 20 years old ! I feel abit sorry for the homeowners sold on this puron / globle warming hype ! Sorry but im not a big fan of poe oil . I got a bid in on replacing 2 of them with new r22 systems . Bob h

[timebuilder]

The Ford Bronco my father in-law bought new in 1982 still runs great. All original, 140K miles. I guess Fords are like HAVC equipment, if you know how to properly work in it, they can last a long time. That '82 Bronco...it will be my 12 year old son's first car. :D

If the guy working on your system now, does not learn how to work with 410a, he won't be around later.

I think it's an error to regard HVAC systems like your father in law's Bronco. Having worked on several hundred Fords, from the Escort to the LN-9000, I know that any Ford can be made to run for a long, long time. The necessary ingredients are always the same: time and money. Fords seem to soak up a lot of both compared to other vehicles.

I'll be learning to work on R410A systems, and unless we retire, all of us here will be doing exactly that. In fact, if the industry fails to deal with the issues that are unique to the R410A construct, we will be lining our pockets with our customer's money thanks to a government edict.

Now, I'm not going to turn down any of that money, just like you won't. BUT, I feel that it IS incumbent on every citizen to inform himself of the dynamics that are driving this change. The best dynamic for change is the market, where producers and consumers meet, and by their actions, reveal the best choices.

So, what we have here is not so much, as the expression from "Cool Hand Luke" goes, "a failure to communicate," but it IS a failure to be sufficiently engaged in the decisions made by government bureaucrats who will cause all consumers to spend more on a technology that they did not, by their choices in the marketplace, demand.

And THAT is the dynamic of change that will cost them more money and aggravation than they expect.

[dash]

Summer has just started here and Ive already had three 410 a leakers just less than 5 years old ! Yea I had some r22 leakers too but most of those are 10 - 20 years old ! I feel abit sorry for the homeowners sold on this puron / globle warming hype ! Sorry but im not a big fan of poe oil . I got a bid in on replacing 2 of them with new r22 systems . Bob h


Less then 5 yr ,isn't the part (coil I assume) under warranty?

We haven't seen any increase ,that we can tell,in the number of leaks with Puron/R410a.

[bob hubbard]

The customers wanted it priced both ways ! Most these home owners are misinformed ! Puron guys told them NO more r22 !!! Theres always going to be a replacement for R22 . http://www.icorinternational.com/

[timebuilder]

I have been told that R407C is going to be a popular retrofit, if one becomes necessary.

I doubt if there will be any need for retrofitting, since R22 will certainly be recycled from machines being taken out of service, even after new R22 is no longer manufactured. At that point, all of the R22 machines will be reaching the end of their service life, and most of the units being installed will have variable speed compressors to replace the older technology, perhaps with R410A being replaced by some other new refrigerant.

[beenthere]

The customers wanted it priced both ways ! Most these home owners are misinformed ! Puron guys told them NO more r22 !!! Theres always going to be a replacement for R22 .


Its not a question of a replacement gas for 22.

R22 units won't be made any more come 2010.

The leaks you found, were either manufacturing defects, or install caused problems, not a problem with r410a.

[bob hubbard]

I really wish someone knew what was really goin to happen in 2010 ! But for now im going with what we do know ! last year at this time we didnt have a drop in like nu22 . So what do we know now ? poe oil absorbs moisture like a sponge . We now have a drop in replacement for r22 . For now The best choice for an homeowner is R22 . Bob h

[jrbenny]

You won't see any government rollback of the mandate to eliminate r-22. After Jan 2010, there will be no more R-22 in new equipment. There have been far too many dollars invested in the change.

[kuryakin]

Well, the answer is pretty simple, actually.

1. The highest efficiency units out there are almost exclusively R410a.
2. R22 will be getting expensive, and when things get hot, it will make all sorts of acids that'll contaminate everything. R410a takes a lot more heat before that happens.
3. It's been the "future" for over 10 years. R410a has proven itself.
4. All the R22 'advocates' who have dissed R410a to me seem to simply be unwilling to learn new things. They like what they like, and it's really no more complicated than that.

#4 is the one you should look into. If the contractor you like is in category #4, forcing him to use R410a may be problematic...

[timebuilder]

Well, the answer is pretty simple, actually.

1. The highest efficiency units out there are almost exclusively R410a.
2. R22 will be getting expensive, and when things get hot, it will make all sorts of acids that'll contaminate everything. R410a takes a lot more heat before that happens.
3. It's been the "future" for over 10 years. R410a has proven itself.
4. All the R22 'advocates' who have dissed R410a to me seem to simply be unwilling to learn new things. They like what they like, and it's really no more complicated than that.

#4 is the one you should look into. If the contractor you like is in category #4, forcing him to use R410a may be problematic...

Don't forget #5, Ilya.

#5 Very soon, you won't have a choice, thanks to a government edict and citizen complacency.

The sad truth is that this is "the future" (as proponents like to say) because this is an IMPOSED future.

I believe the market makes better choices than a bureaucrat can.

Yours, Napoleon Solo.

[bob hubbard]

95 percent of my sales are the lowest seer units ! The best bad for the buck is the 13 seer units ( The higher seer the longer the payback ) so your theory of 410 having the highest seer is true but doesnt fit the needs of most home owners buying equipment ! This is also true with your variable speed units sold ! Saleman are the home owners worst enemy's . Buy the 13 seer standard units and stay away from 410a ! Bob h

[tpa-fl]

95 percent of my sales are the lowest seer units ! The best bad for the buck is the 13 seer units ( The higher seer the longer the payback ) so your theory of 410 having the highest seer is true but doesnt fit the needs of most home owners buying equipment ! This is also true with your variable speed units sold ! Saleman are the home owners worst enemy's . Buy the 13 seer standard units and stay away from 410a ! Bob h

Please explain how switching over to R410a and variable speed air handlers are BAD for home owners. There can be some arguments made for R22 over R410 (but very few), but I definitely can't see where variable speed air handlers AREN'T the best choice for homeowners. Then again, if 95% of you sales are bottom-end, you and your customers are chasing the almighty dollar and forgetting why you're spending money in the first place.

[bob hubbard]

Variable speed should be sold as a comfort thing . The only time a variable speed systems saves you money over the standard pcs motors are in fan/on 24/7 - 12 months a year . my systems is at rest at least 4 months . Everyone doesnt drive a 50,000 dollar hummer and getting from point a to point b has nothing to do with low end . It has to do with comfort . If the standard equipment keeps your cool and warm than why waste your money on extras ? Insulate your exterior walls or put in better windows would be a good choice . Your 410a is more exspensive than r22 and the poe oil was the wrong choice of oil because of its mositure problems ! The pressures are 1.6 percent higher than r22 and with that your chances or leaks go twice as much with the 410a . Getting moisture out of a 410 systems cant be done as well as r22 and so the extra cost of return trips to replace driers and labor become a higher cost to the home owner ! Most home owners are told no more r22 in 2010 and they sold a 410 system as the future . This is NOT the whole truth . Most whole sale suppliers in my area didnt even stock 410a units till last year ! And some are just now doing class's on 410 ! 10 years of 410a ? Nah ... Its been more like 1-3 years Bob h

[jrbenny]

If you only sell higher efficiency equipment on pay pack, you will not make many sales.

[kuryakin]

USUALLY the market makes better choices. The truth is, R410a does, in fact, perform better than R22, or even R407c dropped into R22 apps. And there is also no doubt that stratospheric chlorine is in fact an evil thing.
I have ZERO doubt that Nordyne would not have been able to achieve SEER 23 on their IQDrive systems without R410a. At least not without additional technology.


Don't forget #5, Ilya.

#5 Very soon, you won't have a choice, thanks to a government edict and citizen complacency.

The sad truth is that this is "the future" (as proponents like to say) because this is an IMPOSED future.

I believe the market makes better choices than a bureaucrat can.

Yours, Napoleon Solo.

[kuryakin]

IMHO, I think you're wrong on nearly every count. Leaks are not more likely due to the added pressure. Leaks happen because of poor quality, either at the factory or in the field. I agree, POE isn't the best choice, PVE oils are much better. And moisture is only a problem if you're careless. Refrigerant cost is marginal compared to system cost. Not sure that matters.
And yes, R410a has, in fact, been out there for over 10 years. It has an excellent track record.
The Hummer analogy is also a poor one. I've seen units of comparable SEER, and the price difference between R22 and R410a is truly small, usually. And here, if you spend more for higher efficiency, you DO pay less in energy, all other things being equal.
Like I said, it's typical resistance to change.

I expect to be skewered for these, so... <G>


Variable speed should be sold as a comfort thing . The only time a variable speed systems saves you money over the standard pcs motors are in fan/on 24/7 - 12 months a year . my systems is at rest at least 4 months . Everyone doesnt drive a 50,000 dollar hummer and getting from point a to point b has nothing to do with low end . It has to do with comfort . If the standard equipment keeps your cool and warm than why waste your money on extras ? Insulate your exterior walls or put in better windows would be a good choice . Your 410a is more exspensive than r22 and the poe oil was the wrong choice of oil because of its mositure problems ! The pressures are 1.6 percent higher than r22 and with that your chances or leaks go twice as much with the 410a . Getting moisture out of a 410 systems cant be done as well as r22 and so the extra cost of return trips to replace driers and labor become a higher cost to the home owner ! Most home owners are told no more r22 in 2010 and they sold a 410 system as the future . This is NOT the whole truth . Most whole sale suppliers in my area didnt even stock 410a units till last year ! And some are just now doing class's on 410 ! 10 years of 410a ? Nah ... Its been more like 1-3 years Bob h

[beenthere]

Most home owners are told no more r22 in 2010 and they sold a 410 system as the future . This is NOT the whole truth . Most whole sale suppliers in my area didnt even stock 410a units till last year ! And some are just now doing class's on 410 ! 10 years of 410a ? Nah ... Its been more like 1-3 years Bob h

This is the truth.

They will not be making r22 units in 2010.

Call your brands tech support, or your brands sales rep, and ask them if they will be making units that can use nu22 in 2010.
Don't fool yourself into thinking that they will.

First r410a system that the company I worked at put in was back in 1998.
So its atleast 9 years that r410a has been around.

[beenthere]

We only have a 3 1/2 to 4 month cooling season.

We sell mosre 13 SEER single stage A/C's then 15 SEER 2 stage.
But we do sell the higher SEER 2 stage VS blower systems. But never for savings for A/C. We sell them on comfort.

We sell 15 SEER 2 stage heat pumps for savings and comfort.

Your market is what you make of it.

You think think your customers only want low price, and many of them are that way, offer higher end equipment for comfort as an upgrade on your next couple of estimates, and see what happens.

[timebuilder]

USUALLY the market makes better choices. The truth is, R410a does, in fact, perform better than R22, or even R407c dropped into R22 apps. And there is also no doubt that stratospheric chlorine is in fact an evil thing.
I have ZERO doubt that Nordyne would not have been able to achieve SEER 23 on their IQDrive systems without R410a. At least not without additional technology.

It's not merely resistance to "something new." It's the fact that the "something new" is being forced on people that is the unfortunate entr&#233;e that brings R410A to the market scene. Not a very good introductory promotion.

As far as leaks are concerned, people have been making coils thinner every year for decades now. It will take some extra copper, now very expensive to use in new unit construction, to encase the higher pressures of this new wundergas. All of this will work out, of course, but at a higher cost to the consumer because a government body "says so," rather than it being the superior choice for every application. Frankly, it is not best for every application.

As far as stratospheric chlorine is concerned (and no one has explained to me how we have millions of swimming pools gassing off chlorine into the atmosphere without ozone damage) most of the effect hat was claimed against the ozone layer was ascribed to CFC's. R12 has an ozone depletion factor of 1.0, and R22 has a factor of 0.05. That doesn't sound like whole lot of "evil" to me, and I have some specific knowledge of evil.

Nordyne may have indeed needed R410A to make that IQ machine. I believe that technology is truly the future of such units, but I would prefer that it stand on its own merits, and not some misguided attempt to respond to questionable claims of environmental impact (see the factor mentioned above) while other more pressing environmental matters, such as flatulent cows, exists today.

http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article2062484.ece

R410A has an "excellent track record"....in a fraction of the market. Perhaps that is because the consumer remains unimpressed, and will buy it more out a lack of choice than higher SEER numbers.

[timebuilder]

They will not be making r22 units in 2010.

That's fine, but it will not be market driven. It will be by regulatory fiat and frankly, because of fear.

[dash]

It's not merely resistance to "something new." It's the fact that the "something new" is being forced on people that is the unfortunate entr&#233;e that brings R410A to the market scene. Not a very good introductory promotion.

As far as leaks are concerned, people have been making coils thinner every year for decades now. It will take some extra copper, now very expensive to use in new unit construction, to encase the higher pressures of this new wundergas. All of this will work out, of course, but at a higher cost to the consumer because a government body "says so," rather than it being the superior choice for every application. Frankly, it is not best for every application.

As far as stratospheric chlorine is concerned (and no one has explained to me how we have millions of swimming pools gassing off chlorine into the atmosphere without ozone damage) most of the effect hat was claimed against the ozone layer was ascribed to CFC's. R12 has an ozone depletion factor of 1.0, and R22 has a factor of 0.05. That doesn't sound like whole lot of "evil" to me, and I have some specific knowledge of evil.

Nordyne may have indeed needed R410A to make that IQ machine. I believe that technology is truly the future of such units, but I would prefer that it stand on its own merits, and not some misguided attempt to respond to questionable claims of environmental impact (see the factor mentioned above) while other more pressing environmental matters, such as flatulent cows, exists today.

http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article2062484.ece

R410A has an "excellent track record"....in a fraction of the market. Perhaps that is because the consumer remains unimpressed, and will buy it more out a lack of choice than higher SEER numbers.


We were 80&#37; Puron/R410a two years ago,it's not a fraction everywhere!

consumers here are impressed or they wouldn't be buying it!

Your way of thinking belongs in the ARP section,as I've said before!


Trust me,from here on it's Puron!!!lol!!!Though I don't doubt your knowledge of evil,Puron just ain't it!!lol

[tpa-fl]

Variable speed should be sold as a comfort thing . The only time a variable speed systems saves you money over the standard pcs motors are in fan/on 24/7 - 12 months a year . my systems is at rest at least 4 months . Everyone doesnt drive a 50,000 dollar hummer and getting from point a to point b has nothing to do with low end . It has to do with comfort . If the standard equipment keeps your cool and warm than why waste your money on extras ? Insulate your exterior walls or put in better windows would be a good choice . Your 410a is more exspensive than r22 and the poe oil was the wrong choice of oil because of its mositure problems ! The pressures are 1.6 percent higher than r22 and with that your chances or leaks go twice as much with the 410a . Getting moisture out of a 410 systems cant be done as well as r22 and so the extra cost of return trips to replace driers and labor become a higher cost to the home owner ! Most home owners are told no more r22 in 2010 and they sold a 410 system as the future . This is NOT the whole truth . Most whole sale suppliers in my area didnt even stock 410a units till last year ! And some are just now doing class's on 410 ! 10 years of 410a ? Nah ... Its been more like 1-3 years Bob h

Are you selling boxes or are you selling home comfort systems? If you're trying to beat the next guy's price, then you're in the wrong field -- go sell window shakers. They'll "get the job done", although even those offer true variable-speed blowers that operate by temperature demand now. Even my backup "hurricane" 1/2 ton window shaker has 90 discrete fan speeds. The US & Canada are the only places I've seen single-speed, single-stage systems as standard. Everywhere else we're seeing mini-splits and ducted systems with variable-speed blowers, inverter-driven compressors, and they're CHEAPER than what we pay for the single-stage crap here. Quieter too.

What part of the backwoods do you live? R410a's been available and been sold in this area since at least 2000. When I solicited quotes for installing an AC at my other home back in 2001, half of them were R410 systems. This isn't a new-fangled technology that will be going away. Yes, pressures are higher and they're not as rugged as the systems of old, but the R-22 systems made today aren't going to last 30+ years like the units they're replacing did. Thin coils, cheaper parts, designed obselecence. Call it whatever you want, the equipment made today for both R410 & R-22 is JUNK compared to the way they used to build 'em....but that's also where the efficiencies come in. It also means that the industry now needs to do things PROPERLY. Guessing when charging refrigerant levels, touching the suction line to see if it's "beer can cold" shouldn't have been done in the past, but many did. Now the new equipment is more precise and the people who used to half-arse it tend to be the ones complaining the loudest. I'm not saying you do jobs half-arsed, just talking about what I've seen in my area.

I don't agree that R-22 is killing the environment, BUT for right or wrong, we're stuck with it. I will point that it is convenient that R-22 is found to be "bad" around the time Dupont's patent was running out. Auto mechanics and even HVAC mechanics started complaining when electronic controls became the norm. Yes, they ARE more finicky than the old standbys, BUT you can do far more with them...and comparing apples to apples in terms of performance and quality, electronics are cheaper. After you've used it for 5 or so years, you'll be used to it...and then in another 15-20 years, the patents for R410 will come due and they'll find some reason to get rid of it and we'll all be complaining again. R410a's what we're stuck with, so learn about it and deal with it -- the future of your business will depend upon it.

[beenthere]

That's fine, but it will not be market driven. It will be by regulatory fiat and frankly, because of fear.


I didn't mean that r410a systems are market driven.

I meant what type(low, or high end) equipment you sell is up to you.

[kuryakin]

Like I said, resistance to change.
The stratospheric chlorine issue is well known. See:
http://www.fluorocarbons.org/en/info/brochures/fact_03.html
Simple chlorine doesn't make it that high. CFCs and HCFCs do. And given the exceptional persistance of these gasses, yes even 0.05 is evil. I appreciate your opinion and stubbornness, but they are no substitute for data.

All the argument about leaks is NOT backed up by data. If you have something to show us, please do. It'll only make us all more informed. Where I live, no installer has had increased problems from R410a.

And yes, R410a does, in fact, have an excellent track record. And given the greater efficiency of the newer equipment that uses it, it helps with the energy problems this world has. All around, a good thing.

And yes, I don't like the government telling me what to do any more than the next guy. But that doesn't make this mandate a bad thing in and of itself.


It's not merely resistance to "something new." It's the fact that the "something new" is being forced on people that is the unfortunate entrée that brings R410A to the market scene. Not a very good introductory promotion.

As far as leaks are concerned, people have been making coils thinner every year for decades now. It will take some extra copper, now very expensive to use in new unit construction, to encase the higher pressures of this new wundergas. All of this will work out, of course, but at a higher cost to the consumer because a government body "says so," rather than it being the superior choice for every application. Frankly, it is not best for every application.

As far as stratospheric chlorine is concerned (and no one has explained to me how we have millions of swimming pools gassing off chlorine into the atmosphere without ozone damage) most of the effect hat was claimed against the ozone layer was ascribed to CFC's. R12 has an ozone depletion factor of 1.0, and R22 has a factor of 0.05. That doesn't sound like whole lot of "evil" to me, and I have some specific knowledge of evil.

Nordyne may have indeed needed R410A to make that IQ machine. I believe that technology is truly the future of such units, but I would prefer that it stand on its own merits, and not some misguided attempt to respond to questionable claims of environmental impact (see the factor mentioned above) while other more pressing environmental matters, such as flatulent cows, exists today.

http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article2062484.ece

R410A has an "excellent track record"....in a fraction of the market. Perhaps that is because the consumer remains unimpressed, and will buy it more out a lack of choice than higher SEER numbers.

[timebuilder]

Like I said, resistance to change.
The stratospheric chlorine issue is well known. See:
http://www.fluorocarbons.org/en/info/brochures/fact_03.html
Simple chlorine doesn't make it that high. CFCs and HCFCs do. And given the exceptional persistance of these gasses, yes even 0.05 is evil. I appreciate your opinion and stubbornness, but they are no substitute for data.

All the argument about leaks is NOT backed up by data. If you have something to show us, please do. It'll only make us all more informed. Where I live, no installer has had increased problems from R410a.

And yes, R410a does, in fact, have an excellent track record. And given the greater efficiency of the newer equipment that uses it, it helps with the energy problems this world has. All around, a good thing.

And yes, I don't like the government telling me what to do any more than the next guy. But that doesn't make this mandate a bad thing in and of itself.

Change is good. Wise change. Change based on fear, or change based on wholly ineffective measures, is not wise. It's costly to consumers, and is not what it pretends to be. What is worse is that people know that this is not wise, but everyone whistles along like the sky would fall of they break the code.

"fluorocarbons.org" is a group under "cefig," the European Chemical Industry Council. The member companies have invested countless millions based on fear. That does not bode well for any sense of independent impartiality that might have helped their credibility. Just like an R410A info site, it is apparent that they have their own axe to grind.

Even if you were correct in your assertions, such as "simple chlorine does not", I would still be resistant to such unwise measures as the Montreal Protocol, which conveniently leaves out the two most populous nations on earth. The effect of that omission suggests to me that this in not so much a scientific as it is a political movement.

Is there independent research that suggests that the actions being taken by the signers of the Protocol will be effective in protecting the ozone layer? Nope. Not a single assertion of that. There is plenty of research that says that the targeted substances reach the stratosphere, but no research that suggests that ALL of the chlorine in the upper atmosphere was carried there as a part of a more complex molecules.

Tell me, who has done research to support the assertion that simple chlorine does not reach the stratosphere? To answer that question, you must first ask who has a financial motivation to do that research, and the answer to that question is "no one does."

So to summarize:

R22 has a mere five percent of the ozone depletion factor of R12,

the two most populous countries on earth can still make and use as much R12 (and other CFC's) as they want, which is the substance with the highest opined risk to stratospheric ozone. Hundreds of thousands of American vehicles still use R12 as well.

And we are eliminating R22 because... what was that reason again? Fear? Feeling good? Justifying the huge R&D investment of companies that feel forced to get on the bandwagon or go out of business? That's not exactly compelling evidence. Sorry. In fact, it is a self-fulfilling prophecy when a company "must" put significant resources into a new machine design, and then wow, they can show some sort of advances. Advances are always being made, they had no other choice but to focus on R410A, and the consumer will pay more as a result.

Yes, we are limiting ourselves while others are not so limited, and we are artificially altering our market dynamic and forcing consumers to pay more for the same effect: cool air.

Our efforts are completely overshadowed so that they are nulled out by other producers and sources that could be even more damaging as new socio-political groups emerge in third worl countries that are not signers of the Protocol or its amendments. Those groups demand the benefits of comfort technology, and their countries are surpassing the greenhouse gas production of the US that some are worried about.

Not to mention those cows.

As for leaks, if there is a problem with the higher pressures causing failures in consumer equipment, you will have data to look at soon enough if that is the case. Of course, at that point, the consumer will be bearing the added costs, and there will be steps taken to correct that situation. And, the consumer will pay more.

The buck always stops with the consumer. Protecting the environment is a wonderful thing. In this case, the consumer's cost goes up, and it is unlikely that the environment is being protected.

At that point, this set of actions makes less and less sense.

[timebuilder]

We were 80&#37; Puron/R410a two years ago,it's not a fraction everywhere!

consumers here are impressed or they wouldn't be buying it!

Your way of thinking belongs in the ARP section,as I've said before!


Trust me,from here on it's Puron!!!lol!!!Though I don't doubt your knowledge of evil,Puron just ain't it!!lol

I would observe that your way of thinking belongs in a sales brochure, LOL!

Indeed, it is a lie told by environmental extremists and it is the fact that other countries are not facing the same restrictions and sanctions that is the "evil," not the use of a new refrigerant that we will no doubt find to be very profitable.

You and I will make a lot of money as a result of this government-inspired refrigerant changeover. I may have to buy a new car and put "R410A" on the license plate, LOL!

Evil always arrives with a smile, expressed concern and compassion, and seems reasonable. It is on that basis that we willingly give up our freedoms.

[dash]

I have been told that R407C is going to be a popular retrofit, if one becomes necessary.

I doubt if there will be any need for retrofitting, since R22 will certainly be recycled from machines being taken out of service, even after new R22 is no longer manufactured. At that point, all of the R22 machines will be reaching the end of their service life, and most of the units being installed will have variable speed compressors to replace the older technology, perhaps with R410A being replaced by some other new refrigerant.



Currently less then 5% is being recycled,it'll have to get a lot better for R22 to be in great supply.

Little to no enforcement by the EPA ,so very little recyling.

[kuryakin]

Alas, this action makes total sense. I dislike the fact the government stepped in, but when it comes to environmental issues, well, it's their job.
5% of something that has a half life of thousands of years is still VERY VERY BAD!!
The research is out there. Salt spray does not make it to the ozone layer, rain, et al, washes it out. Pool chlorine doesn't make volatile chlorine compounds, you smell reaction products from the monatomic oxygen that's made. High altitude balloon sampling has proven the devastating effects of covalently bound chlorine that gets there because these compounds are too stable to be broken down in the lower atmosphere.
Bottom line, all political blustering aside. R410a solves the ozone depletion problem from refrigerants. It also adds efficiency, which helps both our energy situation and lowers CO2 emissions from power plants. Also two very good things. The fact that not all nations have joined in with the Montreal protocol doesn't mean the rest shouldn't. Gotta start somewhere.

R410a is here, as is R134a for cars. At least with R410a, they also designed in some added efficiency, instead of finding a drop in. It's a win for everyone. Let us not kid ourselves too much here.


Change is good. Wise change. Change based on fear, or change based on wholly ineffective measures, is not wise. It's costly to consumers, and is not what it pretends to be. What is worse is that people know that this is not wise, but everyone whistles along like the sky would fall of they break the code.

"fluorocarbons.org" is a group under "cefig," the European Chemical Industry Council. The member companies have invested countless millions based on fear. That does not bode well for any sense of independent impartiality that might have helped their credibility. Just like an R410A info site, it is apparent that they have their own axe to grind.

Even if you were correct in your assertions, such as "simple chlorine does not", I would still be resistant to such unwise measures as the Montreal Protocol, which conveniently leaves out the two most populous nations on earth. The effect of that omission suggests to me that this in not so much a scientific as it is a political movement.

Is there independent research that suggests that the actions being taken by the signers of the Protocol will be effective in protecting the ozone layer? Nope. Not a single assertion of that. There is plenty of research that says that the targeted substances reach the stratosphere, but no research that suggests that ALL of the chlorine in the upper atmosphere was carried there as a part of a more complex molecules.

Tell me, who has done research to support the assertion that simple chlorine does not reach the stratosphere? To answer that question, you must first ask who has a financial motivation to do that research, and the answer to that question is "no one does."

So to summarize:

R22 has a mere five percent of the ozone depletion factor of R12,

the two most populous countries on earth can still make and use as much R12 (and other CFC's) as they want, which is the substance with the highest opined risk to stratospheric ozone. Hundreds of thousands of American vehicles still use R12 as well.

And we are eliminating R22 because... what was that reason again? Fear? Feeling good? Justifying the huge R&D investment of companies that feel forced to get on the bandwagon or go out of business? That's not exactly compelling evidence. Sorry. In fact, it is a self-fulfilling prophecy when a company "must" put significant resources into a new machine design, and then wow, they can show some sort of advances. Advances are always being made, they had no other choice but to focus on R410A, and the consumer will pay more as a result.

Yes, we are limiting ourselves while others are not so limited, and we are artificially altering our market dynamic and forcing consumers to pay more for the same effect: cool air.

Our efforts are completely overshadowed so that they are nulled out by other producers and sources that could be even more damaging as new socio-political groups emerge in third worl countries that are not signers of the Protocol or its amendments. Those groups demand the benefits of comfort technology, and their countries are surpassing the greenhouse gas production of the US that some are worried about.

Not to mention those cows.

As for leaks, if there is a problem with the higher pressures causing failures in consumer equipment, you will have data to look at soon enough if that is the case. Of course, at that point, the consumer will be bearing the added costs, and there will be steps taken to correct that situation. And, the consumer will pay more.

The buck always stops with the consumer. Protecting the environment is a wonderful thing. In this case, the consumer's cost goes up, and it is unlikely that the environment is being protected.

At that point, this set of actions makes less and less sense.

[timebuilder]

Currently less then 5% is being recycled,it'll have to get a lot better for R22 to be in great supply.

Little to no enforcement by the EPA ,so very little recycling.

Interesting. I have recovered refrigerant on every major repair of a system that had refrigerant in it.

If prices rise, I'll bet that number begins to get much larger.

[timebuilder]

Alas, this action makes total sense. I dislike the fact the government stepped in, but when it comes to environmental issues, well, it's their job.
5&#37; of something that has a half life of thousands of years is still VERY VERY BAD!!
The research is out there. Salt spray does not make it to the ozone layer, rain, et al, washes it out. Pool chlorine doesn't make volatile chlorine compounds, you smell reaction products from the monatomic oxygen that's made. High altitude balloon sampling has proven the devastating effects of covalently bound chlorine that gets there because these compounds are too stable to be broken down in the lower atmosphere.
Bottom line, all political blustering aside. R410a solves the ozone depletion problem from refrigerants. It also adds efficiency, which helps both our energy situation and lowers CO2 emissions from power plants. Also two very good things. The fact that not all nations have joined in with the Montreal protocol doesn't mean the rest shouldn't. Gotta start somewhere.

R410a is here, as is R134a for cars. At least with R410a, they also designed in some added efficiency, instead of finding a drop in. It's a win for everyone. Let us not kid ourselves too much here.

"Alas" is right. Alas, we are convinced that our puny actions will have some effect on this system. We imagine that others who are not taking the same steps we are will have their (supposed) environmental damage overcome by our heroic efforts.

I know of no balloon samples that have proven that none of the chlorine in the upper atmosphere comes from pools. Is it not theoretical that you must have more complex compounds to be there? If so, than this is a matter of "opinion," and not science fact. No chemist I know has been aware of such a study. In fact, isn't the lack of effect by pool chemicals considered to be a foregone conclusion? Is someone out there proving something they consider to be a basic tenet? I don't think so.

Suppose for a minute that no pool chlorine makes it to the stratosphere. Suppose that CFC's are still the environmental "evil" you describe. No matter whether you think it is government's job to impose regulatory fiat using unproven science as its basis, there is one indisputable fact regarding the Protocol. Whatever we do is meaningless, I repeat MEANINGLESS without China and India. I do not have the number at my fingertips, but I saw an article recently that described a thriving illegal CFC trade out of China, exceeded only by pirated DVD's. If an end user is buying illegally imported CFC's, then what is the likelihood that the chemical will be handled according to regulation?

Whatever net saving we might calculate from less power plant CO2 emissions is made up by the additional service vans running around changing out units with this new, unwanted refrigerant as people who think they are helping the planet or imagine some energy savings have their R22 units replaced with R410A . The best thing that can be said about that is that the R22 will be recovered and may be used elsewhere in existing equipment.

Net positive impact on the planet from our laws, illegal importation and use, and fear of environmental damage: zero.

Don't kid yourself that you are doing anything but make yourself feel good if you are ascribing something positive and effective to this dynamic. The environment remains the same, costs rise, and consumers pay while a freedom is lost.

That puts us on the left side of the abscissa.

[kuryakin]

Time, all I can tell you is do a google and wikipedia search, and make up your own mind. The data is out there. The reliable, accurate, scientific data. Go look for yourself. Ignorance of the facts doesn't make them untrue.
R410a has also been proven reliable. Not sure where you're getting your info on 'unwanted service calls', around here, R410a systems have been every bit as reliable as R22 systems, if not more so.
We have to start somewhere. And you'll never get to the truth with your eyes closed.

I KNEW this was going to start a fight!! <G>


"Alas" is right. Alas, we are convinced that our puny actions will have some effect on this system. We imagine that others who are not taking the same steps we are will have their (supposed) environmental damage overcome by our heroic efforts.

I know of no balloon samples that have proven that none of the chlorine in the upper atmosphere comes from pools. Is it not theoretical that you must have more complex compounds to be there? If so, than this is a matter of "opinion," and not science fact. No chemist I know has been aware of such a study. In fact, isn't the lack of effect by pool chemicals considered to be a foregone conclusion? Is someone out there proving something they consider to be a basic tenet? I don't think so.

Suppose for a minute that no pool chlorine makes it to the stratosphere. Suppose that CFC's are still the environmental "evil" you describe. No matter whether you think it is government's job to impose regulatory fiat using unproven science as its basis, there is one indisputable fact regarding the Protocol. Whatever we do is meaningless, I repeat MEANINGLESS without China and India. I do not have the number at my fingertips, but I saw an article recently that described a thriving illegal CFC trade out of China, exceeded only by pirated DVD's. If an end user is buying illegally imported CFC's, then what is the likelihood that the chemical will be handled according to regulation?

Whatever net saving we might calculate from less power plant CO2 emissions is made up by the additional service vans running around changing out units with this new, unwanted refrigerant as people who think they are helping the planet or imagine some energy savings have their R22 units replaced with R410A . The best thing that can be said about that is that the R22 will be recovered and may be used elsewhere in existing equipment.

Net positive impact on the planet from our laws, illegal importation and use, and fear of environmental damage: zero.

Don't kid yourself that you are doing anything but make yourself feel good if you are ascribing something positive and effective to this dynamic. The environment remains the same, costs rise, and consumers pay while a freedom is lost.

That puts us on the left side of the abscissa.

[timebuilder]

Time, all I can tell you is do a google and wikipedia search, and make up your own mind. The data is out there. The reliable, accurate, scientific data. Go look for yourself. Ignorance of the facts doesn't make them untrue.
R410a has also been proven reliable. Not sure where you're getting your info on 'unwanted service calls', around here, R410a systems have been every bit as reliable as R22 systems, if not more so.
We have to start somewhere. And you'll never get to the truth with your eyes closed.

I KNEW this was going to start a fight!! <G>

Oh, don't get me wrong., Ilya. It's not a "fight."

It's a spirited debate about opinions, assumptions, and unproven assertions made by people with an anti-capitalist agenda.

And I didn't say "unwanted service calls," I said "unwanted refrigerant."

To me, a "wanted refrigerant" would be one chosen by consumers based on factors they themselves found to be in evidence, rather than a refrigerant which is basically being forced on consumers by default.

Now, if droves of consumers expressed their heartfelt concern for the environment and chose all R410A units because they wanted to have whatever perceived benefits were coincident with their use, I'd be the first one to lead the parade. But, to use your word, "alas," this is not the case, and I believe we are essentially being sold a bill of goods under the banner of "we know what's good for you" thinking.

[kuryakin]

1. How can a refrigerant that's more environmentally friendly, more efficient, and more thermally stable be unwanted?
2. Since consumers don't feel the effect of ozone depletion directly, how can they decide? I hate big government too, but this is NOT a 'conspiracy theory'. And the environment doesn't care about the politics, it cares about the technical issues. And ozone depletion by CFCs is factual. All you need to do is look.
3. Last I checked, the EPA IS a government agency, and it's their JOB to regulate that which is harmful to the environment.

Don't confuse your politics with the reality of all this.
Alas... <G>


Oh, don't get me wrong., Ilya. It's not a "fight."

It's a spirited debate about opinions, assumptions, and unproven assertions made by people with an anti-capitalist agenda.

And I didn't say "unwanted service calls," I said "unwanted refrigerant."

To me, a "wanted refrigerant" would be one chosen by consumers based on factors they themselves found to be in evidence, rather than a refrigerant which is basically being forced on consumers by default.

Now, if droves of consumers expressed their heartfelt concern for the environment and chose all R410A units because they wanted to have whatever perceived benefits were coincident with their use, I'd be the first one to lead the parade. But, to use your word, "alas," this is not the case, and I believe we are essentially being sold a bill of goods under the banner of "we know what's good for you" thinking.

[timebuilder]

1. How can a refrigerant that's more environmentally friendly, more efficient, and more thermally stable be unwanted?

Easily. Our new wundergas is not being sold to us because it was desired by consumers. It is being sold because it will allow companies to stay in business under an edict of a government bureaucracy that outlaws its predecessor. That's not market pressure, it's socialist dogma.

As I said, if consumers all had a continuing choice of refrigerants and machines, and everyone used the information they had, and then decided on the new gas, then I would be out in front singing its praises. That's capitalism. That's a representative republic. That's the Wisdom of Crowds (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wisdom_of_Crowds).

Instead, we have the old "we know better than you do" argument. Rubbish. Let them make their case to the American people, and put it to a referendum. I can tell you how that will go when they realize they will be paying more for the same effect, cooled air, and then they will be angry. When they find out that it will make no difference to the environment, they will be livid.



2. Since consumers don't feel the effect of ozone depletion directly, how can they decide? I hate big government too, but this is NOT a 'conspiracy theory'. And the environment doesn't care about the politics, it cares about the technical issues. And ozone depletion by CFCs is factual. All you need to do is look.

No, it is not a conspiracy theory. It is a political agenda driven by socialists. The technical issues are interesting, but they mean nothing unless, at a minimum, everyone takes the same action. Without that, we are a shrinking percentage of the effect that is being presented as being damaging to the environment, and the others who are not taking our actions are growing larger and becoming the dog, leaving us as the tail.


3. Last I checked, the EPA IS a government agency, and it's their JOB to regulate that which is harmful to the environment.

It is their job to to execute their mandate with wisdom, something very difficult for most government agencies to do. Most find it impossible. In this case, they see only to the end of their regulatory noses. Beyond their noses, and beyond the folks who negotiate treaties, not enough other people in other lands are on board to make a difference to the layer of syrup on my pancakes, much less an ozone layer. None of those folks have to run for office, so it is up to the well informed consumer to see this farce and act upon it. Most bureaucrats know that the public can be abused quite a bit without complaint. One need only to look at the tax system to realize that individual rights are marginalized regularly.


While we could debate whether the R22 refrigerant is truly "harmful," a draw at best, the monumental lack of wisdom in having one country take an action by which few others would be impacted is folly. Since not all of the important countries are on board, we are facing the wind and happily wetting our own pant legs.


Don't confuse your politics with the reality of all this.
Alas... <G>

The reality, alas, is that regardless of whether R22 presents an environmental threat or not, our efforts will be futile without everyone taking the same action, and then enforcing that action. That is not happening, and it WILL NOT happen. In fact, there is a great deal of doubt that any benefit would be realized if ALL peoples in ALL lands took the same actions as we are.

So, we are telling ourselves a comforting lie, one designed to make us feel better. It's like saying that Islamists don't really want to kill the infidel. It's a piece of bad information, and following it will have a bad result. In this case, the bad result is that none of the good intentions of R410A will be fulfilled. Over many years, just as we would have expected anyway, more efficient machines will use less power, just like my 13 year old refrigerator uses less energy than the one it replaced. That would happen without R410A, and if consumers chose the new refrigerant based on it merits and not a government edict, I would be behind this wholeheartedly.

But, Ilya, that is not what is happening.

If R410A is a great refrigerant, then let people choose it.

Unless people can freely choose their preferred refrigerant, any argument is tainted. Unless all people take the same action, any restriction is useless. Unless the market is the deciding factor, we are no better than the iron curtain.

If we allow tyranny, we only think we are better.

[kuryakin]

OK, ask a bunch of consumers about R22 vs. R410a, and you'll get a LOT of blank stares. They just don't know. They don't know about R12 vs. R134a either. Or R500, or...
So, yes, R410a is definitely an improvement. Clearly. And the consumer isn't even close to being aware of this controversy, much less 'socialism in the HVAC industry'. Sheesh, get real. It's better all the way around. And the industry SHOULD be offering its best. Given the performance improvements I have already mentioned (and it's been proven), the environmental advantages (and it's been proven), etc., it's a step CLEARLY and CONVINCINGLY in the right direction. In time, R22 will disappear, as R12 is nearly extinct. And the ozone layer will begin to recover. And we're saving energy along the way.
Get over it.


Easily. Our new wundergas is not being sold to us because it was desired by consumers. It is being sold because it will allow companies to stay in business under an edict of a government bureaucracy that outlaws its predecessor. That's not market pressure, it's socialist dogma.

As I said, if consumers all had a continuing choice of refrigerants and machines, and everyone used the information they had, and then decided on the new gas, then I would be out in front singing its praises. That's capitalism. That's a representative republic. That's the Wisdom of Crowds (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wisdom_of_Crowds).

Instead, we have the old "we know better than you do" argument. Rubbish. Let them make their case to the American people, and put it to a referendum. I can tell you how that will go when they realize they will be paying more for the same effect, cooled air, and then they will be angry. When they find out that it will make no difference to the environment, they will be livid.




No, it is not a conspiracy theory. It is a political agenda driven by socialists. The technical issues are interesting, but they mean nothing unless, at a minimum, everyone takes the same action. Without that, we are a shrinking percentage of the effect that is being presented as being damaging to the environment, and the others who are not taking our actions are growing larger and becoming the dog, leaving us as the tail.



It is their job to to execute their mandate with wisdom, something very difficult for most government agencies to do. Most find it impossible. In this case, they see only to the end of their regulatory noses. Beyond their noses, and beyond the folks who negotiate treaties, not enough other people in other lands are on board to make a difference to the layer of syrup on my pancakes, much less an ozone layer. None of those folks have to run for office, so it is up to the well informed consumer to see this farce and act upon it. Most bureaucrats know that the public can be abused quite a bit without complaint. One need only to look at the tax system to realize that individual rights are marginalized regularly.


While we could debate whether the R22 refrigerant is truly "harmful," a draw at best, the monumental lack of wisdom in having one country take an action by which few others would be impacted is folly. Since not all of the important countries are on board, we are facing the wind and happily wetting our own pant legs.



The reality, alas, is that regardless of whether R22 presents an environmental threat or not, our efforts will be futile without everyone taking the same action, and then enforcing that action. That is not happening, and it WILL NOT happen. In fact, there is a great deal of doubt that any benefit would be realized if ALL peoples in ALL lands took the same actions as we are.

So, we are telling ourselves a comforting lie, one designed to make us feel better. It's like saying that Islamists don't really want to kill the infidel. It's a piece of bad information, and following it will have a bad result. In this case, the bad result is that none of the good intentions of R410A will be fulfilled. Over many years, just as we would have expected anyway, more efficient machines will use less power, just like my 13 year old refrigerator uses less energy than the one it replaced. That would happen without R410A, and if consumers chose the new refrigerant based on it merits and not a government edict, I would be behind this wholeheartedly.

But, Ilya, that is not what is happening.

If R410A is a great refrigerant, then let people choose it.

Unless people can freely choose their preferred refrigerant, any argument is tainted. Unless all people take the same action, any restriction is useless. Unless the market is the deciding factor, we are no better than the iron curtain.

If we allow tyranny, we only think we are better.

[dash]

Interesting. I have recovered refrigerant on every major repair of a system that had refrigerant in it.

If prices rise, I'll bet that number begins to get much larger.


So it's the law and there's noncompliance,where's it going now??you recover,what does the company do with it??

[timebuilder]

OK, ask a bunch of consumers about R22 vs. R410a, and you'll get a LOT of blank stares. They just don't know. They don't know about R12 vs. R134a either. Or R500, or...
So, yes, R410a is definitely an improvement. Clearly. And the consumer isn't even close to being aware of this controversy, much less 'socialism in the HVAC industry'. Sheesh, get real. It's better all the way around. And the industry SHOULD be offering its best. Given the performance improvements I have already mentioned (and it's been proven), the environmental advantages (and it's been proven), etc., it's a step CLEARLY and CONVINCINGLY in the right direction. In time, R22 will disappear, as R12 is nearly extinct. And the ozone layer will begin to recover. And we're saving energy along the way.
Get over it.

Please do not mis-characterize what I have said.

If consumers don't know something, then they speak with the people who sell the equipment, and ask them which they think is better. The do their own due diligence. The come here. The check the web. They get a referral. They decide which machine is best for them, at their price, and for their needs.

That will no longer be an option soon. People who believe they "know better" will make the choice for them.

I did not say there was "socialism in the HVAC industry." I DID say, and I DO say, that there is socialism in government bureaucracies. And there is most CERTAINLY socialism in the environmental movement. That idea is counter to the nature of our country.

Now you might think it's better if some government agency makes decisions for us, but I don't. I think the industry SHOULD be offering its "best." And I also think that people should determine what is "best" for themselves.

Let's look at the statements in your closing comments, before the dismissive "get over it," as if the concerns of a free citizen are not worth discussion. Alas.

Paraphrasing:

"There are performance improvements that have been proven."

Yes, and most people will never realize them because of the years it will take to compound the savings will often exceed the average six to seven years that a typical American family lives in a home. Then, they move to a home that will not likely have this new technology. Savings? A little, if they buy the more expensive unit. Maybe Al Gore will buy one for one of his three homes.

"The environmental advantages have been proven."

On paper, yes. The reality is that nothing we do will make any difference unless everyone does what we are doing, and then it is only a theoretical improvement. No one knows how long, or even "IF" the ozone layer will recover, because no one has proved that Man is the cause of its current condition. Neither can anyone say what impact the efforts we make will have compared to the lack of efforts made by others. I view that as a zero-sum game at best.

Clearly and convincingly a step in the right direction?

I'd agree, if the market was making that statement.

The market clearly has no opportunity to speak, because this change is by force, not choice. Does that sound like a free people to you? Not me, my friend. But you may believe that you know better than most people. That's socialism, and it is not what made us great.

Maybe you need to click on that link about the Wisdom of Crowds. It's the basis of a free society.

If someone wants to choose R410A for any or all, or even NONE of your reasons, that's fine with me. I just think it should be a choice, and not the only one. That's a free market, and a free people.

[kuryakin]

Please do not mis-characterize what I have said.

If consumers don't know something, then they speak with the people who sell the equipment, and ask them which they think is better. The do their own due diligence. The come here. The check the web. They get a referral. They decide which machine is best for them, at their price, and for their needs.
Get real. That's not most consumers.
That will no longer be an option soon. People who believe they "know better" will make the choice for them.
And of course, R410a is, IN FACT, better.
I did not say there was "socialism in the HVAC industry." I DID say, and I DO say, that there is socialism in government bureaucracies. And there is most CERTAINLY socialism in the environmental movement. That idea is counter to the nature of our country.
So what? R410a is, IN FACT, better.
Now you might think it's better if some government agency makes decisions for us, but I don't. I think the industry SHOULD be offering its "best." And I also think that people should determine what is "best" for themselves.
The industry came up with R410a. Not the government.
Let's look at the statements in your closing comments, before the dismissive "get over it," as if the concerns of a free citizen are not worth discussion. Alas.

Paraphrasing:

"There are performance improvements that have been proven."

Yes, and most people will never realize them because of the years it will take to compound the savings will often exceed the average six to seven years that a typical American family lives in a home. Then, they move to a home that will not likely have this new technology. Savings? A little, if they buy the more expensive unit. Maybe Al Gore will buy one for one of his three homes.
Incorrect. The difference in cost between an R22 and R410a system of equal performance is TINY. And at the high end, R22 simply doesn't cut it.
"The environmental advantages have been proven."

On paper, yes. The reality is that nothing we do will make any difference unless everyone does what we are doing, and then it is only a theoretical improvement. No one knows how long, or even "IF" the ozone layer will recover, because no one has proved that Man is the cause of its current condition. Neither can anyone say what impact the efforts we make will have compared to the lack of efforts made by others. I view that as a zero-sum game at best.
The science proves it too. All you need to do is a little research. Denial isn't research.
Clearly and convincingly a step in the right direction?

I'd agree, if the market was making that statement.

The market clearly has no opportunity to speak, because this change is by force, not choice. Does that sound like a free people to you? Not me, my friend. But you may believe that you know better than most people. That's socialism, and it is not what made us great.
The environment is glad the change was made.
Maybe you need to click on that link about the Wisdom of Crowds. It's the basis of a free society.
The environment doesn't care about crowds. It cares about ozone depleting chemicals. R410a is a great solution to that problem.
If someone wants to choose R410A for any or all, or even NONE of your reasons, that's fine with me. I just think it should be a choice, and not the only one. That's a free market, and a free people.
Whats' your point? The environment should suffer here, when it doesn't have to?

[dash]

Oh, don't get me wrong., Ilya. It's not a "fight."

It's a spirited debate about opinions, assumptions, and unproven assertions made by people with an anti-capitalist agenda.

And I didn't say "unwanted service calls," I said "unwanted refrigerant."

To me, a "wanted refrigerant" would be one chosen by consumers based on factors they themselves found to be in evidence, rather than a refrigerant which is basically being forced on consumers by default.

Now, if droves of consumers expressed their heartfelt concern for the environment and chose all R410A units because they wanted to have whatever perceived benefits were coincident with their use, I'd be the first one to lead the parade. But, to use your word, "alas," this is not the case, and I believe we are essentially being sold a bill of goods under the banner of "we know what's good for you" thinking.

They did choose Puron/R410a ,you may argue ,no you will argue ,they did it for the wrong reasons,but they did it!

[timebuilder]

They decide which machine is best for them, at their price, and for their needs.
Get real. That's not most consumers.

It does not have to be "most consumers." That's how a free society works. Some will, some won't, and it is not the function of a free people's government to change that.



That will no longer be an option soon. People who believe they "know better" will make the choice for them.
And of course, R410a is, IN FACT, better.

That's an opinion. Some agree with you. Others do not. Your opinion is not more valuable than theirs. And, you failed to address my point.



I did not say there was "socialism in the HVAC industry." I DID say, and I DO say, that there is socialism in government bureaucracies. And there is most CERTAINLY socialism in the environmental movement. That idea is counter to the nature of our country.
So what? R410a is, IN FACT, better.

According to you. That's not a great imperative. It represents the basis of YOUR choice, not that of other folks. And, you failed to address my point.



Now you might think it's better if some government agency makes decisions for us, but I don't. I think the industry SHOULD be offering its "best." And I also think that people should determine what is "best" for themselves.
The industry came up with R410a. Not the government.

The industry came up with this because they saw that the government was outlawing the refrigerant they were using. If R410A was superior, no one would have to outlaw R22. People would simply stop buying it or using it, without the force of law. That's how a free market works.



Savings? A little, if they buy the more expensive unit. Maybe Al Gore will buy one for one of his three homes.
Incorrect. The difference in cost between an R22 and R410a system of equal performance is TINY. And at the high end, R22 simply doesn't cut it.

R22 doesn't cut it because no one is thinking about making it work. They have given up on it, and placed all of their R&D dollars into working with R410A. This isn't because they wanted to. They were forced to. And consumers will pay for it.

And, as I said, most homeowners will never see significant savings because they have chosen R410A. It IS a nice idea, though. A warm, fuzzy feeling.


No one knows how long, or even "IF" the ozone layer will recover, because no one has proved that Man is the cause of its current condition. Neither can anyone say what impact the efforts we make will have compared to the lack of efforts made by others. I view that as a zero-sum game at best.
The science proves it too. All you need to do is a little research. Denial isn't research.

Neither is your opinion. There is no research that demonstrates that Man is the cause. There is only hypothesis and opinion, and no hope of getting everyone to cooperate in an all-out effort that might make some sort of regulatory requirement bear any fruit. This means that all such proponents are left with is good feelings, snide remarks, and ad hominem attacks. But, those don't make an argument. They do reveal who the socialists are, though.



But you may believe that you know better than most people. That's socialism, and it is not what made us great.
The environment is glad the change was made.

There is no evidence that there is any change in the environment that can be ascribed to something we either did do or did not do.



Maybe you need to click on that link about the Wisdom of Crowds. It's the basis of a free society.
The environment doesn't care about crowds. It cares about ozone depleting chemicals. R410a is a great solution to that problem.

R410A is a theoretical solution to a theoretical problem. It does not provide any effect on the environment because of the many non-theoretical people that are not practicing what we are being forced to practice.

In other words, if the environment were to experience some anthropomorphizing feeling at all, it would more likely be a feeling of disbelief that we are doing something that makes no sense in terms of affecting the condition of said environment. In fact, it the environment could be "glad" about anything, it is that it was not created by a committee of humans.




If someone wants to choose R410A for any or all, or even NONE of your reasons, that's fine with me. I just think it should be a choice, and not the only one. That's a free market, and a free people.
Whats' your point? The environment should suffer here, when it doesn't have to?

Apparently, your point is that we should launch headlong into a fruitless search for environmental change, based on some theoretical work upon which many scientists disagree, and if we examine our path at all, we should reach no conclusion other than we should do it because it seems to make sense, even if there are millions of others whose activities will more than counter any impact for which we can hope. That is, to be kind, a pipe dream.

If the environment is "suffering" (another anthropomorphizing of something without consciousness) then it will continue to do so until, at a minimum, all people on the planet begin to follow the same guidelines. Drop me a note when that happens. I'm sure I will have a great-grand-nephew somewhere that can read it in his nursing home.

[timebuilder]

They did choose Puron/R410a ,you may argue ,no you will argue ,they did it for the wrong reasons,but they did it!

Let me ask you a question.

If someone asks you, "your money or your life," do you consider that to be a choice?

[dash]

They decide which machine is best for them, at their price, and for their needs.
Get real. That's not most consumers.

It does not have to be "most consumers." That's how a free society works. Some will, some won't, and it is not the function of a free people's government to change that.



That will no longer be an option soon. People who believe they "know better" will make the choice for them.
And of course, R410a is, IN FACT, better.

That's an opinion. Some agree with you. Others do not. Your opinion is not more valuable than theirs. And, you failed to address my point.



I did not say there was "socialism in the HVAC industry." I DID say, and I DO say, that there is socialism in government bureaucracies. And there is most CERTAINLY socialism in the environmental movement. That idea is counter to the nature of our country.
So what? R410a is, IN FACT, better.

According to you. That's not a great imperative. It represents the basis of YOUR choice, not that of other folks. And, you failed to address my point.



Now you might think it's better if some government agency makes decisions for us, but I don't. I think the industry SHOULD be offering its "best." And I also think that people should determine what is "best" for themselves.
The industry came up with R410a. Not the government.

The industry came up with this because they saw that the government was outlawing the refrigerant they were using. If R410A was superior, no one would have to outlaw R22. People would simply stop buying it or using it, without the force of law. That's how a free market works.



Savings? A little, if they buy the more expensive unit. Maybe Al Gore will buy one for one of his three homes.
Incorrect. The difference in cost between an R22 and R410a system of equal performance is TINY. And at the high end, R22 simply doesn't cut it.

R22 doesn't cut it because no one is thinking about making it work. They have given up on it, and placed all of their R&D dollars into working with R410A. This isn't because they wanted to. They were forced to. And consumers will pay for it.

And, as I said, most homeowners will never see significant savings because they have chosen R410A. It IS a nice idea, though. A warm, fuzzy feeling.


No one knows how long, or even "IF" the ozone layer will recover, because no one has proved that Man is the cause of its current condition. Neither can anyone say what impact the efforts we make will have compared to the lack of efforts made by others. I view that as a zero-sum game at best.
The science proves it too. All you need to do is a little research. Denial isn't research.

Neither is your opinion. There is no research that demonstrates that Man is the cause. There is only hypothesis and opinion, and no hope of getting everyone to cooperate in an all-out effort that might make some sort of regulatory requirement bear any fruit. This means that all such proponents are left with is good feelings, snide remarks, and ad hominem attacks. But, those don't make an argument. They do reveal who the socialists are, though.



But you may believe that you know better than most people. That's socialism, and it is not what made us great.
The environment is glad the change was made.

There is no evidence that there is any change in the environment that can be ascribed to something we either did do or did not do.



Maybe you need to click on that link about the Wisdom of Crowds. It's the basis of a free society.
The environment doesn't care about crowds. It cares about ozone depleting chemicals. R410a is a great solution to that problem.

R410A is a theoretical solution to a theoretical problem. It does not provide any effect on the environment because of the many non-theoretical people that are not practicing what we are being forced to practice.

In other words, if the environment were to experience some anthropomorphizing feeling at all, it would more likely be a feeling of disbelief that we are doing something that makes no sense in terms of affecting the condition of said environment. In fact, it the environment could be "glad" about anything, it is that it was not created by a committee of humans.




If someone wants to choose R410A for any or all, or even NONE of your reasons, that's fine with me. I just think it should be a choice, and not the only one. That's a free market, and a free people.
Whats' your point? The environment should suffer here, when it doesn't have to?

Apparently, your point is that we should launch headlong into a fruitless search for environmental change, based on some theoretical work upon which many scientists disagree, and if we examine our path at all, we should reach no conclusion other than we should do it because it seems to make sense, even if there are millions of others whose activities will more than counter any impact for which we can hope. That is, to be kind, a pipe dream.

If the environment is "suffering" (another anthropomorphizing of something without consciousness) then it will continue to do so until, at a minimum, all people on the planet begin to follow the same guidelines. Drop me a note when that happens. I'm sure I will have a great-grand-nephew somewhere that can read it in his nursing home.


Totally wacked out,WOW!

[dash]

Let me ask you a question.

If someone asks you, "your money or your life," do you consider that to be a choice?

Even more Wacked out!

Take to the ARP section,ie section 8!LOL

[beenthere]

Time, read the many other threads pro's have about their confusion with r410a, then tell us how the general public could make an informed decision about which gas to use.

[kuryakin]

Sorry, I'm not stating opinion, I am stating facts. All you need to do is a bit of research, and you'll know what I said is factual as well. It's not a matter of who agrees or not, it's what the data say.


They decide which machine is best for them, at their price, and for their needs.
Get real. That's not most consumers.

It does not have to be "most consumers." That's how a free society works. Some will, some won't, and it is not the function of a free people's government to change that.



That will no longer be an option soon. People who believe they "know better" will make the choice for them.
And of course, R410a is, IN FACT, better.

That's an opinion. Some agree with you. Others do not. Your opinion is not more valuable than theirs. And, you failed to address my point.



I did not say there was "socialism in the HVAC industry." I DID say, and I DO say, that there is socialism in government bureaucracies. And there is most CERTAINLY socialism in the environmental movement. That idea is counter to the nature of our country.
So what? R410a is, IN FACT, better.

According to you. That's not a great imperative. It represents the basis of YOUR choice, not that of other folks. And, you failed to address my point.



Now you might think it's better if some government agency makes decisions for us, but I don't. I think the industry SHOULD be offering its "best." And I also think that people should determine what is "best" for themselves.
The industry came up with R410a. Not the government.

The industry came up with this because they saw that the government was outlawing the refrigerant they were using. If R410A was superior, no one would have to outlaw R22. People would simply stop buying it or using it, without the force of law. That's how a free market works.



Savings? A little, if they buy the more expensive unit. Maybe Al Gore will buy one for one of his three homes.
Incorrect. The difference in cost between an R22 and R410a system of equal performance is TINY. And at the high end, R22 simply doesn't cut it.

R22 doesn't cut it because no one is thinking about making it work. They have given up on it, and placed all of their R&D dollars into working with R410A. This isn't because they wanted to. They were forced to. And consumers will pay for it.

And, as I said, most homeowners will never see significant savings because they have chosen R410A. It IS a nice idea, though. A warm, fuzzy feeling.


No one knows how long, or even "IF" the ozone layer will recover, because no one has proved that Man is the cause of its current condition. Neither can anyone say what impact the efforts we make will have compared to the lack of efforts made by others. I view that as a zero-sum game at best.
The science proves it too. All you need to do is a little research. Denial isn't research.

Neither is your opinion. There is no research that demonstrates that Man is the cause. There is only hypothesis and opinion, and no hope of getting everyone to cooperate in an all-out effort that might make some sort of regulatory requirement bear any fruit. This means that all such proponents are left with is good feelings, snide remarks, and ad hominem attacks. But, those don't make an argument. They do reveal who the socialists are, though.



But you may believe that you know better than most people. That's socialism, and it is not what made us great.
The environment is glad the change was made.

There is no evidence that there is any change in the environment that can be ascribed to something we either did do or did not do.



Maybe you need to click on that link about the Wisdom of Crowds. It's the basis of a free society.
The environment doesn't care about crowds. It cares about ozone depleting chemicals. R410a is a great solution to that problem.

R410A is a theoretical solution to a theoretical problem. It does not provide any effect on the environment because of the many non-theoretical people that are not practicing what we are being forced to practice.

In other words, if the environment were to experience some anthropomorphizing feeling at all, it would more likely be a feeling of disbelief that we are doing something that makes no sense in terms of affecting the condition of said environment. In fact, it the environment could be "glad" about anything, it is that it was not created by a committee of humans.




If someone wants to choose R410A for any or all, or even NONE of your reasons, that's fine with me. I just think it should be a choice, and not the only one. That's a free market, and a free people.
Whats' your point? The environment should suffer here, when it doesn't have to?

Apparently, your point is that we should launch headlong into a fruitless search for environmental change, based on some theoretical work upon which many scientists disagree, and if we examine our path at all, we should reach no conclusion other than we should do it because it seems to make sense, even if there are millions of others whose activities will more than counter any impact for which we can hope. That is, to be kind, a pipe dream.

If the environment is "suffering" (another anthropomorphizing of something without consciousness) then it will continue to do so until, at a minimum, all people on the planet begin to follow the same guidelines. Drop me a note when that happens. I'm sure I will have a great-grand-nephew somewhere that can read it in his nursing home.

[timebuilder]

Sorry, I'm not stating opinion, I am stating facts. All you need to do is a bit of research, and you'll know what I said is factual as well. It's not a matter of who agrees or not, it's what the data say.

Having been involved in various science disciplines, including teaching a science course in the college classroom, I can say without reservation that data does not equal conclusions.

There are several reasons for that:

how the data is collected and collated

the intent of the act of data collection

the conclusions sought from the data.

If we were to take more time, we might find even more troubling aspects of "data."



Now, let's assume (I know..) for a moment that the correct interpretation of the available data suggests that Man is the cause of all environmental anomalies. Let us further assumne that the steps we have undertaken are effective at halting and reversing the trends we find most disturbing. I know that's an absurd assertion, but bear with me.

If there is only one group of people on the planet taking some sort of steps to limit the activities that they believe have caused environmental damage, and there is an even larger and growing population that does not share either the concerns, understanding, or the willingness to take the same limiting steps in response to the aforementioned data, then whatever we are doing is certainly doomed to fail at whatever perceived "good" we are trying to accomplish. An analogy might be a boat taking on water, with one person bailing the water out while two others drill new holes to let water in.

At that point, all we are left with is a false sense of accomplishment and a delusion that we are in some way making effective inroads to our perceived problems.

And, that, to use a clinical term, is "crazy."

The beauty of things like a functional representative republic and the reasoning behind the Wisdom of Crowds is that better solutions and ideas are inevitably found by markets than they are by a smaller group of cloistered "leaders."

And that means better choices for both the environment and the consumer.

[timebuilder]

Time, read the many other threads pro's have about their confusion with r410a, then tell us how the general public could make an informed decision about which gas to use.

Since I have written in a large amount of those threads, let me answer you directly.

The primary mover in a purchase decision is value. Value must be perceived in order to have meaning for a consumer. People have made the Toyota Camry the vehicle of choice for that precise reason.

No one had to be a member of SAE to see the value.

No one needed a degree in finance.

No one had to know how to build a tire, refine gasoline, or even change oil to perceive the value.

To extend this analogy, imagine that the government took all the other cars off the market in 1985 because they thought the Camry would run more cleanly, leaving us with only one choice.

Would the Camry be as good as it is today without those other choices?

No. Without competition form the other makers, the Toyota might be as good today as the 1994 model. This is also why socialism does not function well.

Left to our collective wisdom, the Wisdom of Crowds, we make better decisions thant bureaucrats are capable of making.

Finally, manufacturers know what they think makes a new R410A machine a better choice. There is literature, there are statistics, and there are claims about efficiency. In the near term, both anecdotal (my neighbor says...) and product literature will lead most consumers to make one choice or another.

But soon, there will only be ONE choice. And that is the problem.

[kuryakin]

No, it's an advantage. Proliferation of refrigerant types has no upside. More chances for cross contamination, more chances for techs to make mistakes, etc.
One choice is best, as long as it's the best choice for the application. And R410a is the best choice presently.
R22 was never considered all that great from a design standpoint. R410a has it all over R22.

>>But soon, there will only be ONE choice. And that is the problem.

[beenthere]

So do you think people would have said get rid of leaded gasoline, if they had the choice.

[kuryakin]

At the time, no. But there is little doubt engines, the environment, et al, are much better off with tetraethyllead gone from gasoline. Even the hot rodders comment on how much cleaner engines are inside without that nasty stuff. The 80% drop in environmental lead exposure is, of course, a good thing.

>>So do you think people would have said get rid of leaded gasoline, if they had the choice.

[dash]

At the time, no. But there is little doubt engines, the environment, et al, are much better off with tetraethyllead gone from gasoline. Even the hot rodders comment on how much cleaner engines are inside without that nasty stuff. The 80% drop in environmental lead exposure is, of course, a good thing.

>>So do you think people would have said get rid of leaded gasoline, if they had the choice.

No ,Time says we need a choice!!!

[airsome]

Just a few years ago, standard practice when changing out
a system was to vent old refrigerant (R22) from the bad equipment
and release it to atmosphere.

This was the prescribed method.

Many of the techs who learned this method are still in business.
Many of the techs who learn on-the-job learn from these
old-school techs.

Many techs think they are smarter than environmental scientists.

Many modernly trained techs rub shoulders with old techs and
resort to their methods.

The point, and the fact of the matter is, R22 is not getting
recycled. Some shops do it, but others laugh.

It's not just a matter of procedure or intelligence or concern for
the environment or economics. It is a matter of what we see
others doing and striving not to be different.

It's freaking social science! Unfortunately, too many of us
are bound by it.

[kuryakin]

What choice? Poison the environment when we don't have to? You DO realize that lead compounds are extremely toxic, right?


No ,Time says we need a choice!!!

[airsome]

Copied from a previous post, 4-06-2007,
and tweaked for clarification:

Our company buys R22 in pallet quantities (40 cans/pallet).
About 3 years ago (I think), we paid $X for a 30# can of R22.

(The "X" is mine.)

A few months ago the price was 2X.
A few weeks ago the price was 2.3X.
Recently the price was 2.6X.
Now the price is 3.5X
...
3 years ago the price of R410 was around 8.8X.
Now it is about 1.75 times the current price of R22.

[timebuilder]

Even more Wacked out!

Take to the ARP section,ie section 8!LOL

This is what someone does when they run out of argument, they make an "ad hominem" attack on the person. This is the adult equivalent of yelling, "oh yeah? your mother wears army boots!"

However, it does make some people feel better, and that's really what their argument is about: feeling good.

In a free market, the ability to make a choice is fundamental. The market can easily determine the superior product.

[timebuilder]

No, it's an advantage. Proliferation of refrigerant types has no upside. More chances for cross contamination, more chances for techs to make mistakes, etc.
One choice is best, as long as it's the best choice for the application. And R410a is the best choice presently.
R22 was never considered all that great from a design standpoint. R410a has it all over R22.

Well, I'm relieved.

Is that "the great and powerful Oz" I see there behind the curtain? :D

[timebuilder]

So do you think people would have said get rid of leaded gasoline, if they had the choice.

Well, I'm one of the people who installed the first unleaded pumps, for the Sunoco Company. And I have spent some time with all of the components in engines. Cleaner engines are more due to beeter detergent additives in fuel and oil, and better fuel control assocaited with electronic fuel injection, and not due to a lack of lead in fuel. When I was a little boy, I saw pictures of "lead fouling" on spark plugs, but in practicce I never saw it myself on a plug in the following 12 years, which is about the time that we went to unleaded gas.

For many years, people had a choice of leaded and unleaded gasoline. If lead did not tend to coat the catalyst and make it ineffective, we might have had some additional years of choice. So, the cat converter technology made the fuel filler restrictor opening a requirement, and because cars with cats could only run on unleaded, we went to unleaded 100%.

The effects of the lead used in gasoline are expressed in generally accepted scientific conclusions. There are many repeatable experiments that can be performed, and accurate, cause and effect conclusions reached because of those repeatable experiments, and the cover a range of disciplines from the mechanical to the biological.

So, to specifically answer your question, given a choice of spending hundreds of dollars to replace a cat, or choosing to use unleaded, then yes, the consumer would choose the unleaded gasoline.

[timebuilder]

Just a few years ago, standard practice when changing out
a system was to vent old refrigerant (R22) from the bad equipment
and release it to atmosphere.

This was the prescribed method.

Many of the techs who learned this method are still in business.
Many of the techs who learn on-the-job learn from these
old-school techs.

Many techs think they are smarter than environmental scientists.

Many modernly trained techs rub shoulders with old techs and
resort to their methods.

The point, and the fact of the matter is, R22 is not getting
recycled. Some shops do it, but others laugh.

It's not just a matter of procedure or intelligence or concern for
the environment or economics. It is a matter of what we see
others doing and striving not to be different.

It's freaking social science! Unfortunately, too many of us
are bound by it.

Since 1994, I have only seen one tech vent refrigerant, and that was an accidental venting due to lack of experience. I have never advocated venting since we have had the equipment that can recover the refrigerant.

From a market standpoint, I was able to recover some 20 lbs of refrigerant in a service fleet environment, and saved several hundred dollars in R12 cost as I was able to weigh in the charge to the next vehicle that was being serviced.

Once again, it was the recovery technology and the market forces of saving money on the refrigerant that provided a driving force to keep that R12 from being vented into the atmosphere. It only makes sense that R22, which is said to have less environmental impact, will be similarly recovered.

If it's the law, you recover. Simple.

[timebuilder]

What choice? Poison the environment when we don't have to? You DO realize that lead compounds are extremely toxic, right?

"Poison the environment" sounds pretty dramatic.

There are many toxic compounds that enter the "environment" every day. Almost all of them involve some arbitrary standard, and there is often some sort of cost/benefit tradeoff involved.

Shall we try and come up with a list of "poisonous" or "toxic" compounds that are released into the environment every day, and try to eliminate them? Perhaps we could start with CO.

I think that life would not be very pleasant without many of our typical toxic compounds.

[kuryakin]

I take it this means you concede my point. Thank you.


Well, I'm relieved.

Is that "the great and powerful Oz" I see there behind the curtain? :D

[bob hubbard]

If people american people were as worried about the enviroment as you say they are , Than why are they still buying and driving BIg suv - hummers and all these big dual wheel trucks for driving back & forth to work ? Why dont they buy the smaller hybird cars / electric ! last time I was in looking at a new work van I checked out the standard size pickup truck and they wer getting 35 k for them ! The american public is more worried about the price per gallon than the impact their having on the inviroment with the gas guzzlers they drive ! Bob h

[jrbenny]

Yep. Wanna see my new truck? :D

[kuryakin]

There's a difference between using toxic compounds, and releasing them. TEL is EXTREMELY toxic, and aerosolized lead from tailpipes, alas, is an extremely efficient way of delivering this poison to EVERYBODY. Eliminating TEL from gasoline was a VERY good thing.

Just like the elimination of R22 and switching to R410a is a VERY good thing. And in a properly sealed system, neither one SHOULD be released. At least R410a is FAR less damaging, while delivering better efficiency.
Just to get this back on topic....


"Poison the environment" sounds pretty dramatic.

There are many toxic compounds that enter the "environment" every day. Almost all of them involve some arbitrary standard, and there is often some sort of cost/benefit tradeoff involved.

Shall we try and come up with a list of "poisonous" or "toxic" compounds that are released into the environment every day, and try to eliminate them? Perhaps we could start with CO.

I think that life would not be very pleasant without many of our typical toxic compounds.

[timebuilder]

I take it this means you concede my point. Thank you.

Sorry, that would be a "negative." ;)

[timebuilder]

There's a difference between using toxic compounds, and releasing them. TEL is EXTREMELY toxic, and aerosolized lead from tailpipes, alas, is an extremely efficient way of delivering this poison to EVERYBODY. Eliminating TEL from gasoline was a VERY good thing.

Just like the elimination of R22 and switching to R410a is a VERY good thing. And in a properly sealed system, neither one SHOULD be released. At least R410a is FAR less damaging, while delivering better efficiency.
Just to get this back on topic....

I think to compare lead, which has repeatable scientific experimentation to support conclusions regarding toxicity, and the impact of R22 on the atmosphere, which has no repeatable experimentation to support the hypotheses being offered as conclusions, is to make a comparison of some typical disparate fruits.

I believe that the proper course is to bring the conclusion AND the hypotheses to the marketplace and let the public decide based on compelling arguments, or not-so compelling arguments, as the case may be.

And, to help return to the topic, if R410A is a better refrigerant, then people will choose it without R22 being eliminated. And that is the point of my remarks, that we are losing the ability to allow the free market to identify the superior product, just like a Camry over a Taurus or a CD over an LP record.

If R410A is a good a some folks are saying it is, such as you, then it needs no guaranteed market, free of competitiors, in order for its properties to receive favor.

[beenthere]

I think to compare lead, which has repeatable scientific experimentation to support conclusions regarding toxicity, and the impact of R22 on the atmosphere, which has no repeatable experimentation to support the hypotheses being offered as conclusions, is to make a comparison of some typical disparate fruits.

I



If R410A is a good a some folks are saying it is, such as you, then it needs no guaranteed market, free of competitiors, in order for its properties to receive favor.


Its comparing the publics ability to make the proper choice.


Unleaded gas was guarrantied a market place. We had no chice.

[timebuilder]

Its comparing the publics ability to make the proper choice.


Unleaded gas was guarrantied a market place. We had no chice.

People were willing to purchase cars with catalytic converters. They made a market choice. For many years, leaded fuel was available. In fact, avgas still uses lead, because it really is better for valves to have lead in fuel, and engines run better with lead. They are working un unleaded for planes, but there is worry that engine failures will increase. Hot rodders buy avgas because of its high octane and its lead content.

Now, if people were similarly convinced that R22 needed to be avoided, they would start buying R410A machines all on their own, without the necessity of outlawing it.

[beenthere]

The gov set emision standards that cars could not reach using leaded gas, or without catalytic converters. So people had no choice when buying new cars. But to buy cars with catalytic converters.

Around here, average gas does NOT have lead in it.

You can buy lead additive though.

[tpa-fl]

The gov set emision standards that cars could not reach using leaded gas, or without catalytic converters. So people had no choice when buying new cars. But to buy cars with catalytic converters.

Around here, average gas does NOT have lead in it.

You can buy lead additive though.

AVGas = aviation fuel. Keep in mind propeller planes still use engines with carburettors. Considering how difficult it is to "pull over" to address engine problems when in-flight, this is a good thing.

[beenthere]

AVGas = aviation fuel. Keep in mind propeller planes still use engines with carburettors. Considering how difficult it is to "pull over" to address engine problems when in-flight, this is a good thing.


LOL... DOH..

I was tierd when I read the other post.

Thanks for the correction.

[kuryakin]

Obviously, none of this is true. And obviously, the world is a MUCH better place for R410a and unleaded gas. Although most things should be market driven, environmental concerns NEVER are. Therefore, something else has to happen.


People were willing to purchase cars with catalytic converters. They made a market choice. For many years, leaded fuel was available. In fact, avgas still uses lead, because it really is better for valves to have lead in fuel, and engines run better with lead. They are working un unleaded for planes, but there is worry that engine failures will increase. Hot rodders buy avgas because of its high octane and its lead content.

Now, if people were similarly convinced that R22 needed to be avoided, they would start buying R410A machines all on their own, without the necessity of outlawing it.

[timebuilder]

Obviously, none of this is true. And obviously, the world is a MUCH better place for R410a and unleaded gas. Although most things should be market driven, environmental concerns NEVER are. Therefore, something else has to happen.

On the contrary, not only do I have expert knowledge in this area, but the importance of the market is unequivocal in a capitalist economy.

For instance, let's look at the opinions of those who consider themselves to be the most interested in preserving the environment. What would life be like if we implemented the ideas from the "something else has to happen" camp?

Should we drive cars? No, we should walk or use bicycles. Some environmentalists embrace mass transit, but others say that even that puts too many greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. What effect would that kind of decision have on our economy?

Should we use air conditioning? Many environmentalists say "no," and opine that it is a sign of capitalist decadence. No more HVAC allowed. We'll use a table fan, instead. That would be cute for a while, sort of like living in a Jimmy Stewart movie. Not much fun, and perhaps a million seniors would die from the heat, But, we'd save a lot of carbon going into the atmosphere, and that's the environmental "god" they worship.

Those are just two examples of how our economy could easily come to a grinding halt when people with very good intentions override the market vote of the people.

So, in summary, the best way for an economy of free people to choose a superior product, whether cars or refrigerants, is to "vote" through the market.

The market never fails to make the best decisions, using the Wisdom of Crowds. That concept and basic truth is the basis of the freedom experienced in the United States in particular, and in free societies in general.

Thanks for a spirited discussion of a basic tenet of freedom and economics.

[timebuilder]

AVGas = aviation fuel. Keep in mind propeller planes still use engines with carburettors. Considering how difficult it is to "pull over" to address engine problems when in-flight, this is a good thing.

Yes.

All propeller aircraft that do not have turbine engines use "avgas," which is now 100 Low lead, or 100LL. It still has enough lead to address the mechanical issues of reliability and performance.

It is possible to have engine modifications made to accet auto fuel, but that requires an SYTC or supplemental type certificate, and most FBO's do not offer auto gas on the ramp. Guys with older, smmall airplanes that fly VFR out of their own grass runways use most of the auto gas in avaition.

Turbine engines use "Jet A," a highly refined and filtered kerosene.

The next big thing in flying is the new diesel engines for propeller airplanes. No lead in that fuel, and lower long-term operating costs for the owner.

[kuryakin]

Then you missed the point. If we're going to have HVAC, then we should have environmentally appropriate HVAC, meaning NO HCFCs, CFC, or PFCs.
If we're going to have cars, we should have environmentally appropriate powerplant designs. No one will argue (at least not with relevant and verifiable facts) that HFC refrigerants are an appropriate choice, given what we know. No one will argue (at least not with relevant and verifiable facts) that proliferation of refrigerant types is a bad thing. No one will argue (at least not with relevant and verifiable facts) that lead free fuels has made for better cars, a better environment, etc.

Not exactly sure what point you're trying to make here. If you're saying mandating R410a or other chlorine free refrigerant is a bad idea, clearly you're wrong. If you're saying lead free gasoline is a bad idea, clearly you're wrong. At the end of the day, it's the results that count.


On the contrary, not only do I have expert knowledge in this area, but the importance of the market is unequivocal in a capitalist economy.

For instance, let's look at the opinions of those who consider themselves to be the most interested in preserving the environment. What would life be like if we implemented the ideas from the "something else has to happen" camp?

Should we drive cars? No, we should walk or use bicycles. Some environmentalists embrace mass transit, but others say that even that puts too many greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. What effect would that kind of decision have on our economy?

Should we use air conditioning? Many environmentalists say "no," and opine that it is a sign of capitalist decadence. No more HVAC allowed. We'll use a table fan, instead. That would be cute for a while, sort of like living in a Jimmy Stewart movie. Not much fun, and perhaps a million seniors would die from the heat, But, we'd save a lot of carbon going into the atmosphere, and that's the environmental "god" they worship.

Those are just two examples of how our economy could easily come to a grinding halt when people with very good intentions override the market vote of the people.

So, in summary, the best way for an economy of free people to choose a superior product, whether cars or refrigerants, is to "vote" through the market.

The market never fails to make the best decisions, using the Wisdom of Crowds. That concept and basic truth is the basis of the freedom experienced in the United States in particular, and in free societies in general.

Thanks for a spirited discussion of a basic tenet of freedom and economics.

[tpa-fl]

The next big thing in flying is the new diesel engines for propeller airplanes. No lead in that fuel, and lower long-term operating costs for the owner.

Any idea which planes might be going this way? Personally I think it's a great idea. The original airships (blimps) used diesel engines and their simplicity and efficiency seem like a good idea. I know Volvo was investigating doing a turbine diesel-electric passenger car for awhile but haven't heard much on it as of late. Propulsion was strictly electric, with the turbine diesel and battery bank providing the power. Supposedly was nearly silent and very responsive.

[kuryakin]

They aren't. The last development in piston aircraft engines during WWII were diesels. Gas turbines proved to be FAR more durable, reliable, lighter, and eventually, more fuel efficient.
Turbines are LOUSY for cars, because their part load efficiency is really awful.
Diesels for cars, on the other hand, are a great idea.


Any idea which planes might be going this way? Personally I think it's a great idea. The original airships (blimps) used diesel engines and their simplicity and efficiency seem like a good idea. I know Volvo was investigating doing a turbine diesel-electric passenger car for awhile but haven't heard much on it as of late. Propulsion was strictly electric, with the turbine diesel and battery bank providing the power. Supposedly was nearly silent and very responsive.

[timebuilder]

Then you missed the point. If we're going to have HVAC, then we should have environmentally appropriate HVAC, meaning NO HCFCs, CFC, or PFCs.
If we're going to have cars, we should have environmentally appropriate powerplant designs. No one will argue (at least not with relevant and verifiable facts) that HFC refrigerants are an appropriate choice, given what we know. No one will argue (at least not with relevant and verifiable facts) that proliferation of refrigerant types is a bad thing. No one will argue (at least not with relevant and verifiable facts) that lead free fuels has made for better cars, a better environment, etc.

Not exactly sure what point you're trying to make here. If you're saying mandating R410a or other chlorine free refrigerant is a bad idea, clearly you're wrong. If you're saying lead free gasoline is a bad idea, clearly you're wrong. At the end of the day, it's the results that count.

I have your point just fine. Your point is that you don't believe the market can be trusted to preserve the environment. Not true. And, people who are at the front lines of the "environmental movement" are being correctly characterized in my post. They don't want HVAC, or cars, or airplanes or meat, or even people in certain places. They are sadly misguided, worshiping the creation instead of the creator.

No, I am not saying that R410A is a "bad idea," but yes, I AM saying that MANDATING it in a free market economy certainly IS a "bad idea." Obviously, lead in fuel still has terrific advantages, as I like to burn leaded fuel whenever I can, along with some 60,000 licensed pilots who fly piston aircraft.

If at the end of the day it is only the "results that count," you would be happy with a dictatorship of the intelligentsia. I would not. That's not our mandate as a nation, and it is described by the founders as "tyranny."

So, if R410A is so good, then let it compete and make R22 unattractive because of all the efficiency I see people posting about.

That would make more sense that having government say, "we know better than you do."

[timebuilder]

Any idea which planes might be going this way? Personally I think it's a great idea. The original airships (blimps) used diesel engines and their simplicity and efficiency seem like a good idea. I know Volvo was investigating doing a turbine diesel-electric passenger car for awhile but haven't heard much on it as of late. Propulsion was strictly electric, with the turbine diesel and battery bank providing the power. Supposedly was nearly silent and very responsive.

Answers. (http://www.answers.com/topic/aircraft-diesel-engine)

[timebuilder]

They aren't. The last development in piston aircraft engines during WWII were diesels. Gas turbines proved to be FAR more durable, reliable, lighter, and eventually, more fuel efficient.
Turbines are LOUSY for cars, because their part load efficiency is really awful.
Diesels for cars, on the other hand, are a great idea.

The main reason diesels are seeing a resurgence in aircraft use is due to better quality engines and the high cost of turbines. The diesel engines will have a MUCH lower cost per hour compared to a PT-6, the most-used turboprop engine on the planet. By putting maintenance into the hands of a piston A&P mechanic, the cost drops right away. Eliminate the hot section inspection and repair, and the lifetime cost of operation will drop by over 50%. As noted in the answers article above, the cost of 100LL avgas is higher in Europe than it is here, as is flying in general. We fund our airspace system from fuel taxes, and they have user fees, which often forces pilots to think first about money and second about safety.

I very much like the idea of diesel cars, having owned one, and I particularly like the idea of biodiesel.

[kuryakin]

Obviously, it IS true. R410a IS better for the environment, just like unleaded gas is, and the market wasn't going for those without a nudge. IF R410a isn't so good, list what's wrong with this refrigerant.

Leaded fuel has NO advantages. Except that it's cheap octane. And even that's not so true anymore. List ANY REAL advantage leaded fuel has.

Yes, at the end of the day, it's the results that matter. The environment, and therefore mankind is better off without leaded fuel. It's already better off with R410a, and the phaseout of HCFCs and CFCs. Like I said, environmental issues are NEVER a consideration in the marketplace. Hence the reason we have an EPA.

I have already accepted that you're wrong on this. It's OK.


I have your point just fine. Your point is that you don't believe the market can be trusted to preserve the environment. Not true. And, people who are at the front lines of the "environmental movement" are being correctly characterized in my post. They don't want HVAC, or cars, or airplanes or meat, or even people in certain places. They are sadly misguided, worshiping the creation instead of the creator.

No, I am not saying that R410A is a "bad idea," but yes, I AM saying that MANDATING it in a free market economy certainly IS a "bad idea." Obviously, lead in fuel still has terrific advantages, as I like to burn leaded fuel whenever I can, along with some 60,000 licensed pilots who fly piston aircraft.

If at the end of the day it is only the "results that count," you would be happy with a dictatorship of the intelligentsia. I would not. That's not our mandate as a nation, and it is described by the founders as "tyranny."

So, if R410A is so good, then let it compete and make R22 unattractive because of all the efficiency I see people posting about.

That would make more sense that having government say, "we know better than you do."

[timebuilder]

Obviously, it IS true. R410a IS better for the environment, just like unleaded gas is, and the market wasn't going for those without a nudge. IF R410a isn't so good, list what's wrong with this refrigerant.

Leaded fuel has NO advantages. Except that it's cheap octane. And even that's not so true anymore. List ANY REAL advantage leaded fuel has.

Yes, at the end of the day, it's the results that matter. The environment, and therefore mankind is better off without leaded fuel. It's already better off with R410a, and the phaseout of HCFCs and CFCs. Like I said, environmental issues are NEVER a consideration in the marketplace. Hence the reason we have an EPA.

I have already accepted that you're wrong on this. It's OK.

When did you get to decide what a "real" advantage is?" I find your trust of bureaucracy a little disturbing.

Lead fuel advantage: the only approved fuel type for commercially operated airplane piston engines that use gasoline. That's really the only advantage needed. Without it, most gasoline airplanes cannot legally fly. Some recreational aircraft use autogas as described earlier. The second advantage is that lead lubricates the valve seats of the exhaust valves.

On a Saturday at the airport, several people would show up to by 100LL for their race cars. Best performance, hardest use, and these guys want 100 low lead. Now, they could simply have added an octane boost, couldn't they? They didn't.

And, I have accepted that you think you are somehow better qualified to guide policy than most Americans, and that is DEAD wrong. You have not been able to respond with anything substantive to my comments, so I have decided that you have no desire to examine this issue. I think the basis of a free society is a pretty important aspect when it comes to what choices a consumer can make.


If it is as you say, that these things the government has mandated are in and of themselves "better," then no regulation is needed. If R410A is so muich better, why in the world would we need to outlaw R22? After all, if R22 isn't as good as R410A, people would just naturally stop using it right?

However, if certain things are not better, then that's the reason for the regulation. It's simple. Aviation has looked at unleaded fuel and found it wanting for over 30 years now, and that is the most critical application for a fuel. Only now will you see alternatives being investigated, like diesel, because until now, nothing else was good enough to take the place of 100LL.

If you are an young athlete, you can compete and win, or have your daddy go to the store and buy you a trophy. R410A had its daddy buy the trophy. We will never know if the match would have turned out differently.