GM is apparently putting this into their 2013 vehicles instead of R-134a, and sounds like all automakers will follow.

- R-1234yf is only being produced by a single factory, jointly built by Honeywell and DuPont
- Automakers get fuel economy credits for using it, to raise their fleet "fuel economy" ratings
- It's going to cost between $70/lb at wholesale, or about 5-6x more than R-134a
- It's less efficient at transferring heat than R-134a (which is already less efficient than some other refrigerants), requiring additional heat exchangers or larger heat exchangers
- It's mildly flammable, requiring heavy duty evaporators and condensers to keep EPA certification
- Current R-134a equipment is not compatible with R-1234yf

So the government, via fuel economy incentives, is essentially forcing the automakers to use R-1234yf, thus making it the new national standard, despite the fact its inferior in performance and extremely expensive. I'm sure DuPont and Honeywell didn't have any lobbying going on here...

You summed it up pretty well there. The BIGGEST reasons HFO-1234yf is being switched to is it's Global Warming Potential (GWP) is 4, where R-134A is 1430. Big scary number sounds impressive, huh? So what if it's flammable and more dangerous, and you have to buy all new equipment to work on it? It's better for the environment!

I remember when R12 and R502 (which were excellent refrigerants) were phased out. I work with R404A now, mostly.

All I can say is..the Ozone repairs itself. And, we should outlaw volcanoes.

Can you still get R22 for home A/C?

quote Originally posted by Wichita: Can you still get R22 for home A/C?

It is still available where I work.

It gets kind of hot for use in Phoenix, though.

This just seems like a lose-lose for the consumer...buy new equipment, pay more for the refrigerant, all for a product that doesn't cool as well. And to me it reeks of special interests and lobbying.

quote Originally posted by masospaghetti: This just seems like a lose-lose for the consumer...buy new equipment, pay more for the refrigerant, all for a product that doesn't cool as well. And to me it reeks of special interests and lobbying.

its notf for us. its to us. frustrating too

quote Originally posted by fogglethorpe: All I can say is..the Ozone repairs itself. And, we should outlaw volcanoes.

Myth #1: Volcanoes emit significant amounts of global warming gases.

Myth #2: Volcanoes emit significant amounts of ozone destroying chemicals.

People using false data to mislead the public. In both cases (global warming and ozone depletion), the culprit is humans--not nature.

Volcanic vs. Anthropogenic CO2

Myth: Volcanoes Causing Ozone Depletion

quote Originally posted by rinselberg: Myth #1: Volcanoes emit significant amounts of global warming gases. Myth #2: Volcanoes emit significant amounts of ozone destroying chemicals. People using false data to mislead the public. In both cases (global warming and ozone depletion), the culprit is humans--not nature. Volcanic vs. Anthropogenic CO2 Myth: Volcanoes Causing Ozone Depletion

I suppose, but only if one considers annual emissions of .3 gigatons to be an 'insignificant' amount--and only if one reads the tiny print at the bottom of the article.
*Terry Gerlach is retired from the U.S. Geological Survey where he was a volcanic gas geochemist. The views expressed are his own.

quote Originally posted by maryjane: I suppose, but only if one considers annual emissions of .3 gigatons to be an 'insignificant' amount--and only if one reads the tiny print at the bottom of the article. *Terry Gerlach is retired from the U.S. Geological Survey where he was a volcanic gas geochemist. The views expressed are his own.

Volcanoes emit about 0.3 gigatons of CO₂ per year. Humans: About 35 gigatons. So anthropogenic CO₂ is one hundred times more significant than volcanoes.

This (Gerlach) is the most credible data that I have found with Google.

The U.S. Geological Survey found it credible enough to post on their webpage (6/14/2011):

VANCOUVER, Wash. — On average, human activities put out in just three to five days, the equivalent amount of carbon dioxide that volcanoes produce globally each year. This is one of the messages detailed in a new article "Volcanic Versus Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide" by Terrance Gerlach of the U.S. Geological Survey appearing in this week's issue of Eos, from the American Geophysical Union.

"The most frequent question that I have gotten (and still get), in my 30 some years as a volcanic gas geochemist from the general public and from geoscientists working in fields outside of volcanology, is 'Do volcanoes emit more CO2 than human activities?' Research findings indicate unequivocally that the answer to this question is "No"—anthropogenic CO2 emissions dwarf global volcanic CO2 emissions," said Gerlach.

Gerlach looked at five published studies of present-day global volcanic CO2 emissions that give a range of results from a minimum of about one tenth of a billion, to a maximum of about half a billion metric tons of CO2 per year. Gerlach used the figure of about one-quarter of a billion metric tons of volcanic CO2 per year to make his comparisons. The published projected anthropogenic CO2 emission rate for 2010 is about 35 billion metric tons per year.

Gerlach's calculations suggest present-day annual anthropogenic CO2 emissions may exceed the CO2 output of one or more supereruptions per year. Supereruptions are extremely rare with recurrence intervals of 100,000-200,000 years; none have occurred historically, the most recent examples being the Toba eruption 74,000 years ago in Indonesia and the Yellowstone caldera eruption in the United States 2 million years ago.

As in all fields of scientific research, there continues to be efforts to improve estimates and reduce uncertainties about how much CO2 is released from the mid-ocean ridges, from volcanic arcs, or from hot spot volcanoes, but agreement exists among volcanic gas scientists about the significantly smaller amount of volcanic CO2 compared to anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

http://www.usgs.gov/newsroo...ss_home#.UCwvP46R8tU

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 08-15-2012).]