Talk:Refrigerant

Natural refrigerants
There are a number of natural refrigerants that are growing in popularity and cause little or no harm to the climate – including CO2, ammonia, propane and water.

Helpful here might be the German-language Wikipedia, which lists them all:

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%A4ltemittel#Nat%C3%BCrliche_K%C3%A4ltemittel

There is also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_refrigerant

-- Fph GmbH (talk) 15:52, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Relative performance/efficiency of the new refrigerants
I would like to know if refrigeration systems using the new refrigerants are more efficient or less efficient than systems that use traditional refrigerants (R-12 / R-22). In other words, do the more environmentally-friendly refrigerants come at a price of reduced efficiency? Or is it a win/win situation? 71.219.245.174 (talk) 17:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

It depends. Certainly going to HFC blends from R22 was a step down in efficency. There are different refrigerants out there, like R290 (propane) and thelike which offer greater efficency than HFC's, lower GWP's and other benefits. However being explosive limites there use.

In general there are always compromises to make. Refrigerants used in commercial situations (i.e. Supermarkets) are generally a collection of compromises between safety (toxicity, fire risk etc), energy usage, cost, and enviromental impact (GWP, and ODP etc). For Chilled Applications in Supermarkets, there is no clear winner as each has its own trade offs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.177.194.73 (talk) 16:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Toxic or not
article R-744 says: R744 operates more efficiently than systems using R-134a. Its environmental advantages (GWP of 1, non-ozone depleting, non-toxic, non-flammable)

but this article "did say": (appears to be resolved)

One of the most promising alternatives is the natural refrigerant CO2 (R-744). Carbon dioxide is non-flammable, non-ozone depleting, has a global warming potential of 1, but is toxic and potentially lethal in concentrations above 5% by volume.

please resolve that issue, cos those quotes contradict itself --Elthe (talk) 19:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

And the article on CO2 says CO2 is NOT toxic.

Propane is nontoxic?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.150.72.183 (User ) 20:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Carbon dioxide is most certainly non toxic. It is after all the gas that gives beer (and other fizzy drinks) its fiz.  Whoever put that in the article may be geting confused with carbon dioxide being an asphyxiant.  In such a scenario it is not the presence of carbon dioxide that kills but the absence of oxygen which it will readily displace.  Propane is generally non toxic in relatively low concentrations, but if deliberately inhaled in quantity, it will act like many other 'recreational drugs' and can cause death due to overdose.  It should also be borne in mind that large concentrations also diminish the amount of oxygen being inhaled.  As it has been tagged as {cn}, I have deleted the claim.  DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 14:16, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Refrigerant Recovery
Shouldn't we have an article or a mention of refrigerant recovery? What about recovery machines? I'd do it myself, but I don't know enough about either to really make a good entry. What do you guys think? PantherFoxie 16:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with you; I'd think a mention in this article would be sufficient. Unfortunately I'm not really qualified to write it either. - Geekosaurus(talk) 00:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

+1 I came here looking for information on just that. 66.38.56.124 (talk) 19:15, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Change the wording from compound to chemical
Argon and Krypton are refrigerants, but are not compounds. GWatson &#149; TALK 07:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe any gas can be used as a refigerant, no matter what its boiling point, whether elemental, compound, or mixtures (I suggest gaseous substance, or gas). Air, a mixture, is of interest in general applications. Liquids, solids, magnetic fields, and coherent light can also be used (and are used) as refrigerants in specialized applications. David Spector (talk) 23:41, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Misinfomation?
"This will ban potent greenhouse gases such as the refrigerant HFC-134a—which has a GWP of 1410—to promote safe and energy-efficient refrigerants."

I am currently taking HVACR courses and the book says "HFCs are considered to have zero potential for ozone depletion... and ...only slight effect on global warming." Quoted from Mondern Refrigeration and Air Conditioning 18th Edition, Capter 9, pg337 section 9.1.4 -Unsigned post


 * No, HFCs are considered significant global warming gases. The overall quantities are small compared to CO2, but the GWPs are often very high, and global use of refrigerants are increasing rapidly, exacerbating the problem.  See this article.LaTeeDa (talk) 11:46, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * You may be correct, but you and other article authors are asking that your statements/conclusion be taken on faith. The article is largely devoid of acceptable scientific secondary sources, and your reference to a NYT article does not satisfy any criterion for citations on scientific questions. See also next comment below. LeProf


 * What wikipedia policy precludes the use of the most notable daily newspaper in the United States as a source for this article?50.147.26.108 (talk) 19:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, the NYT article does actually link to a "study", underneath the barely-coherent doomsday sensationalism. But at least they linked to a study, so that's "good journalism" by today's standards: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/335/6071/922. Apparently the ozone-depleting GHGs contribute 0.32W/m^2, compared to 1.5W/m^2 for CO^2, as of 2000. That's a lot higher than I would have expected, but at least the new HFCs have much less global warming potential than the old CFCs. HFC-134a is half to a third the global warming potential of CFC-11, depending on lifetime. These numbers should probably be in the actual article, I should be able to do that tomorrow if nobody else wants to. Crazy2be (talk) 07:16, 28 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Doing some more reading, I can't square this number with my previous understanding or any other sources. Does nobody talk about it just because it's already been emitted? https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases says that "Flourinated Gasses" are a mere 3% of 2015 greenhouse gas emissions, which seems way off from the ~20% that study states. Granted, we are comparing annual emissions vs current sum, and US vs world, but surely there isn't an entire order of magnitude difference here? Crazy2be (talk) 07:44, 28 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Ok, I found a better source, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas#Natural_and_anthropogenic_sources, which links to http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.html. This gives very similar numbers to the study linked by the NYT article. The total halocarbon forcing is 0.3574W/m^2, but HFC-134a is a mere 0.0108W/m^2 of that total. This is primarily owing to it's much lesser concentration, 70ppt for HFC-134a vs 527ppt for CFC-12. I suppose this must be due to restrictions on sale and disposal enacted worldwide? Either way the reduction is remarkable.

This leaves us with both statements being true. HFC-134a remains a powerful greenhouse gas, on the same magnitude as CFC-11. However, its overall contribution is quite minor, because its emission is so much more effectively prevented.

Well, there goes an hour. ^^ Crazy2be (talk) 08:03, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

The naming system is not accurately described. For example, it does not explain why R-718 is water vapor. Please refer to http://www2.dupont.com/Refrigerants/en_CA/products/understanding.html for an accurate description of the numbering system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.111.111.161 (talk) 23:01, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't have numbers, or WP:RS, but I suspect that this is wrong. Some pounds of refrigerant go in a car, and might last 100,000 miles. Driving those miles generates tons of CO2. If the gas mileage is reduced slightly, the excess CO2 will more than make up for the GWP of the refrigerant. As well as I know (no WP:RS), the Europeans didn't check this. Gah4 (talk) 20:10, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't have numbers, or WP:RS, but I suspect that this is wrong. Some pounds of refrigerant go in a car, and might last 100,000 miles. Driving those miles generates tons of CO2. If the gas mileage is reduced slightly, the excess CO2 will more than make up for the GWP of the refrigerant. As well as I know (no WP:RS), the Europeans didn't check this. Gah4 (talk) 20:10, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Needs More Information
As R-22 is a refrigerant, please show a graph relevant to its refrigeration properties. A Pressure - Enthalpy (P-h) and/or Temperature - Entropy (T-s) diagram would be very informative. These can be obtained from any of several sources, perhaps the best being ASHRAE. 69.178.161.114 (talk) 18:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)Andrew

What is this?
If a refrigerant is described as "Carb. Anhydr.", what is the chemical involved? Mjroots (talk) 07:48, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Carbon dioxide Synonyms: Carbonic anhydride aka R-744; CO2 without water content 84.197.184.6 (talk) 21:27, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I think some kind of coordinated approach to the article is needed
What would it take to make this a Good Article? Step back and think about what the coverage should be. what sort of organization is best and about how long should each section be? I think this approach will drive more to article improvement than improving little bits of what is here or adding little bits.


 * I guess some coverage of new or obscure or sexy refrigerants is OK. But it's kind of a side light to just explaining the basics.


 * We really should have a summary lead also instead of the current one (which is really "purpose" or "application", i.e. is one of the sections.)


 * The bulleted list of refrigerants could use some work too. Maybe a sortable wikitable.  And some thought on what goes in and what stays out (e.g. make sure sure cover those with most pounds of usage).

The page gets very high hits (20,000 per month, which is about 20 times the median of recent FAs, about 30 times the median of recent GAs). It is obviously a core topic for mechanical engineers and of interest to chemists. So the work to sit down and really sketch out and build up meaty sections would be worthwhile.
 * In this professional chemist's opinion, the article is in unpresentable shape, and should be largely redacted—full contents moved to talk, and short, accurate, fully referenced stub article set to appear in its place, until the content that was in place can be fully reviewed by a WP and subject matter expert. The article as it currently stands is a subject matter and ethical embarrassment (for its content quality, see third point in Section entitled "Misinformation?" above, and the plagiarism it contains throughout), and no one with any chemical knowledge or understanding of academic honesty (see ) should tolerate its continued presence. LeProf. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.179.92.36 (talk) 12:01, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

TCO (talk) 00:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I would add to your list that there should probably be more material on ozone depletion and esp. global warming, and efforts to develop low GWP refrigerants. A list of common refrigerants should include GWPs.LaTeeDa (talk) 13:22, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

salt systems?
What about lithium bromide (use in aborption chillers)? Is that considered a refrigerant or is the term reserved for gases?TCO (talk) 00:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Explanation of POV tag
I am relaying this information, but did not create this tag or its explanatory content.

The POV tag contains an original reason (visible when editing), and that reason does not appear in the tag in the article (and so is invisible when reading). It also does not seem to appear anywhere here in Talk.

Here is the original explanation hidden in the tag, so that it is easily read somewhere:

POV| article not written in a purely scientific manner, describing how refrigerants/refrigeration works, instead, reading as if written with an environmentalist agenda| date=February 2013

Per WP, the tag needs to remain until this reason is addressed (see tag). LeProf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.179.92.36 (talk) 13:16, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It certainly is poor. Yes, the concentration on how evil these chemicals are, is prominent among the defects. Presumably this comes from a conservative POV that chemicals in general are evil. By way of correction, my preference would be for a more engineering than scientific slant. What surprises me, however, is the paucity of editorial activity compared to the plenitude of griping here in the gripe page. Jim.henderson (talk) 03:09, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I think the article has improved enough this year to drop the flag. Jim.henderson (talk) 23:34, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Tag removed. Vsmith (talk) 18:16, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

"hydroflurocarbons"
Why spell them "hydroflurocarbons" in the article? Not bothering to take the time to make sure words are spelled correctly is part of the reason this projecct is not regarded seriously, or properly encyclopedic, by many people. 173.89.236.187 (talk) 04:01, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

History
The section on history gives little history. There should be a timeline, and discussion of the earliest forms of refrigeration.Royalcourtier (talk) 04:29, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Water as a refrigerant
this section needs a serious clean up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.112.159.7 (talk) 06:38, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Emissions from automobile air conditioning are a growing concern because of their impact on climate change.
The article says: Emissions from automobile air conditioning are a growing concern because of their impact on climate change along with a cn. Since an automobile might run 100,000 miles or more, and emit maybe 100,000 pounds of CO2 during that time, and hopefully the refrigerant is recovered, it seems to me that it is a relatively (compared to CO2 emission) small contributor to climate change. As well as I know, Europe is considering this, though, so maybe cn is right. It should be known, though, if the replacements make more or less efficient air conditioners. Gah4 (talk) 05:22, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

A useful text block about environmental dumping of harmful appliances?
I have removed this text from the examples section of climate justice because it doesn't fit well there. It's not really about climate justice. I imagine it could be moved to another article - perhaps this one? Here is the text:

Environmental dumping of harmful appliances
The growing use of cooling appliances like air conditioners and refrigerators is projected to be one of the top drivers of global electricity demand growth in the coming years. As demand for cooling appliances has grown, environmental dumping of energy inefficient electronic products into developing countries has increased. These inefficient cooling appliances include used and near end-of-life appliances that use refrigerants with either high global warming potential (GWP) or super polluting greenhouse gases like hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) which are ozone-depleting substances (ODS). An end to environmental dumping of such products is critical in mitigating climate change and ensuring climate justice for communities that are being dumped upon.

EMsmile (talk) 00:15, 13 May 2021 (UTC)