CO2 vs HFO, let battle commence.

[TheInsider]

I've written an article about this but since this is my first post I can't post links, so please look at my homepage in my profile.

[desA]

Welcome TheInsider. Is see this is your first post. I have read your blog, but fail to understand the reasoning behind your apparent crusade.

For the record, I am a proud member of the R744 community & am currently actively researching & developing CO2-based heat-pump systems. The R744 community have an excellent library of information on CO2 technology, with an excellent design review handbook now available for download.

The reasons for my migrating towards CO2 are its environmental impact, as well as the positive temperature lift this refrigerant can provide. CO2 does have some technical challenges to overcome. Amongst these are the high operating pressures, lack of experience in the RHVAC industry, repairability, controllability (bi-stability).

HFO's, despite their flammability & toxicity issues, will find their place in manufacturers of HFC-based systems, as a drop in alternative. This will be acceptable in static systems, where the minor flammability potential can be managed.

Not everyone will migrate to CO2, and many will prefer to use the HFO's. In the end, the marketplace will determine which route is the better one.

[NoNickName]

I read your article and I think you completely missed the spot on R744 news. Nowhere R744 suggests its a high GWP refrigerant. It stresses the point on toxicity, low performance and low availability which you completely ignored.
Are you "TheInsider" on the inside of DuPont?

[US Iceman]

Is this promotion for your blog or a new refrigerant?

I think a better topic would be the falsification of data that supports global warming (now being called climate change, just to have all of the bases covered).

[Brian_UK]

I've written an article about this but since this is my first post I can't post links, so please look at my homepage in my profile.

Apart from advertising your blog what is it you would like to say or ask?

[mad fridgie]

Well I do know that I prefer CO2 in my Coke and Pepsi, do not think it would taste that good, with HFO in it.

[TheInsider]

I just felt that the article was misleading, so I wrote something about it. R744.com is great website with a lot of useful information (the handbook is fantastic and I recommend it to anyone). Both CO2 and HFO will have their places.

I have read your blog, but fail to understand the reasoning behind your apparent crusade.

Thank-you for reading my article and for your accurate input on HFO and R744 desA - I agree with you totally. (But one article is hardly a crusade.)

I only disagree with the way R744.com wrote that particular article. If you compare the original article from Purdue University to the quotes presented by R744.com you will clearly see the issue.

Nowhere R744 suggests its a high GWP refrigerant.

Researchers from Purdue University and NASA have confirmed fluorine-containing compounds, contained in HFCs but also in the newest generation of chemical refrigerant HFO, as the most effective global warming agents. The study warns also against their powerful cumulative climate impact over time, stressing the urgency of moving to fluorine-free solutions.

Surely the above from R744.com suggests so?

Is this promotion for your blog or a new refrigerant?
Apart from advertising your blog what is it you would like to say or ask?

I just want to start a debate. I have no affiliations whatsoever with refrigerant manufacturers.

I think a better topic would be the falsification of data that supports global warming

Maybe, but it wouldn't be relevant to this thread.

I tried to look for information comparing HFO and CO2 on this forum but couldn't find anything truly significant. I envisage HFO vs CO2 (as is already happening with MAC) in the very near future.

[TheInsider]

Ah man, can't edit my posts!

[NoNickName]

Researchers from Purdue University and NASA have confirmed fluorine-containing compounds, contained in HFCs but also in the newest generation of chemical refrigerant HFO, as the most effective global warming agents. The study warns also against their powerful cumulative climate impact over time, stressing the urgency of moving to fluorine-free solutions.

Surely the above from R744.com suggests so?

No, it doesn't. It just states that repeated leakages of HFO's over time have a cumulative impact surely higher than natural refrigerants. Which is true.
And for a site advocating R744 is a balanced opinion, in my eyes.