Talk:Sustainable automotive air conditioning

Balance
This article seems highly based on propaganda from the promoters of carbon dioxide. Most of the references are to www.alliance-co2-solutions.org and the very title "The Cool War" and the (doubtfully licensed) logo appear to come from there. If that phrase is used neither by the chemical companies, nor by the press to the extent that readers would be expected to know or look up its meaning, then perhaps it should not be the title of this article.

The mission statement "To reject the refrigerant CO2 in car air conditioning, delay an industry-wide decision of carmakers, and develop new non-natural refrigerants." is unfair, as if it had been formulated by its opponents. Instead of the evil-sounding "non-natural", one might refer to "fluorine-based" as in the EurActiv article. And "delay" hints that the final decision would be for carbon dioxide anyway.

If the claimed debate actually exists (and with this much money at play, it should), then this article would benefit from some references to statements of the chemical companies, and in particular any rebuttals they may have to the asserted advantages of carbon dioxide. When CO2 technology is "faster to heat and cool a car", it should be mentioned whether the comparison is against the current HFC-134a or against the proposed new refrigerants.

www.alliance-co2-solutions.org and R744.com both display the same contact phone number (+32 2 230 3700), and the domains are registered to Domains by Proxy. Perhaps a link to just one of these sites would suffice, then. 213.216.199.53 22:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think we should give priority to how a term "sounds" subjectively over its actual meaning. e.g.'evil-sounding "non-natural" ' covers any compound that does not occur naturally, rather than just "fluorine-based". We must not put political-correctness over accuracy in scientific writings.  I agree, however that such words as "propaganda" can be used in an improper or vague manner and can then certainly be misleading.
 * Also, while avoiding any inaccurate accusations, we should point out that there is potentially more money to be made in "non-natural" refrigerants, and that in the history of mankind such considerations have on occasion outweighed the considerations of what would be best for everyone. GentleMiant (talk) 23:41, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, I have tagged this article with a NPOV. Hopefully someone out there who knows a bit more about automotive refrigerant dealings will be able to come in and balance this out, but until such time, I see this as the only appropriate action. I also have concerns about the title. "The Cool War" doesn't seem very professional or logical here. Maybe it should be "R744 Usage Debate"? Or perhaps the whole thing should just be merged into an existing article on refrigerants and climate change? I'm not exactly certain of what would be the best course of action here, but we need to do something to be sure.--Jt 03:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this whole article needs to be re-written. I'm a chemist and could do it, but don't have the time. (accidentally landed here) Lots of claims are made that are engineering or chemical in nature, with no evidence really offered. I'd like to see some information of thermal conductivities for the compounds of interest. I don't know the thermal conductivity of supercritical CO2 offhand, but I'm sure it would be relevant. 75.157.27.217 (talk) 03:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it could be important to mention that, because CO2 is so cheap and environmentally friendly, the reservoir in such a system could hold an additional amount of R744 that could keep a vehicle cool with the engine off. GentleMiant (talk) 01:14, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Misleading
"Pure hydrocarbon refrigerants also have a short lifetime in the atmosphere, weeks to months, whereas CO2, being more chemically stable, persists longer in the atmosphere (ultimately causing more global warming compared to hydrocarbon based refrigerants)"

Since those hydrocarbons break down into CO2, and the hydrocarbons themselves are much more powerful greenhouse gases than CO2, the net result is that the hydrocarbons themselves are much worse for the environment. "ultimately causing more global warming" is either misleading or flat out wrong. I would go with the latter. 75.157.27.217 (talk) 03:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * True! The main thing is that, if a car leaks out 200g of hydrocarbon per year, then it will damage the environment more than 200g of CO2 per year. However, this is totally dwarfed by the 1-2 tons of CO2 it will produce per year by burning fuel to actually drive around!. Although that is not the point of this article, I suppose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buckethed (talk • contribs) 10:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Sustainable automotive air conditioning. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070930191617/http://www.europeanvoice.com/archive/article.asp?id=28529 to http://www.europeanvoice.com/archive/article.asp?id=28529

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 04:27, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion
This is a space to discuss the proposed deletion of the Sustainable automotive air conditioning article. My inclination is to delete it for the reasons outlined below, but I would appreciate a discussion with anyone who feels otherwise.

I do not believe this article meets the criteria for encyclopedia content, and at this point it has been so heavily altered in response to WP:PROMOTION that I don't even know what WP:N issue to flag it as. Sustainable automotive air conditioning is not an event, it's not an organization, it's not a social or environmental movement. There are certainly issues of WP:FORUM but structurally it doesn't really discuss a concrete topic. The previously flagged issues of WP:DISPUTED and WP:V have also stood for over a decade now without resolution.

Vegantics (talk) 20:23, 13 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Merge to Automobile air conditioning. I don’t know enough about the subject to know if any of the content is worth keeping but if merged hopefully more knowledgable people would have a chance to save anything worthwhile whilst deleting most of the content. If no one has any objection I will boldly merge it. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:10, 15 April 2023 (UTC)