Home Mobile Archives Reader Blogs Register Login

Friday, September 28, 2007

Was the CFC Scare a Scam?

After spending Billions and Billions of Dollars?

This must have far-reaching consequences,” Rex says. “If the measurements are correct we can basically no longer say we understand how ozone holes come into being.” What effect the results have on projections of the speed or extent of ozone depletion remains unclear.

The rapid photolysis of Cl2O2 is a key reaction in the chemical model of ozone destruction developed 20 years ago2 (see graphic). If the rate is substantially lower than previously thought, then it would not be possible to create enough aggressive chlorine radicals to explain the observed ozone losses at high latitudes, says Rex. The extent of the discrepancy became apparent only when he incorporated the new photolysis rate into a chemical model of ozone depletion. The result was a shock: at least 60% of ozone destruction at the poles seems to be due to an unknown mechanism, Rex told a meeting of stratosphere researchers in Bremen, Germany, last week.

Other groups have yet to confirm the new photolysis rate, but the conundrum
is already causing much debate and uncertainty in the ozone research community. “Our understanding of chloride chemistry has really been blown apart,” says John Crowley, an ozone researcher at the Max Planck Institute of Chemistry in Mainz, Germany.

“Until recently everything looked like it fitted nicely,” agrees Neil Harris, an atmosphere scientist who heads the European Ozone Research Coordinating Unit at the University of Cambridge, UK. “Now suddenly it’s like a plank has been pulled out of a bridge.” ...

So now 20 years after CFC’s have been banned there’s some doubt as to the science that led them to be banned.  Now to be honest I was always skeptical of the science behind that because it’s my nature to be so when they use scare tactics to sell their theories.

Suppose that this research stand up and it turns out that this was all a bunch of whale dung.  Who’s responsible for the fraud?  The scientists that predicted it?  The politicians that jumped on the bandwagon?  The international nanny-staters?

The fact is that the costs of banning CFC’s probably amounted to hundreds of Billions of dollars.  (I made the number up).  If this research shows that we were misled then those people responsible should be asked to come up with the cash to make it right. 

Comments

Was the CFC Scare a Scam?

Maybe that’s the wrong question.  Maybe we should be asking if any environmental “causes” are not scams.


If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

robert108 on September 28, 2007 at 07:35 am
Avatar for Greg

You mean I’ll be able to put R12 back in the older cars? That R134 blended refrigerant is so finnicky, not knowing whether it wants to be a liquid or a gas.

Greg on September 28, 2007 at 07:43 am

Greg: After many years of denial and obstruction, the CFC ban may go away.  If you’re still alive by then, you might be able to get R12, but it will be very expensive.  I remember when you could get a 12 ounce can of it for 99 cents.
The real goal of environmentalism is to make technology so expensive we can’t afford it.


If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

robert108 on September 28, 2007 at 07:51 am

DDT scam revisited in another substance.  I agree, robert, virtually all eco causes are scams.  Proves the old saying that the way to hell is paved with good intentions.


The Supreme Court is a bunch of black robed tyrants

docdave on September 28, 2007 at 07:57 am

Greg: After many years of denial and obstruction, the CFC ban may go away.

I know how we can make the CFC scare go away immediately.  All we have to do is point out how replacing CFCs with “safer” refrigerants and propellants causes us to use more fossil fuels.  We already know that R134a is less efficient than R12.  Just think about how much extra gasoline has been burned and how much extra evil CO2 has been emitted since all cars were switched over to R134a in the mid 90s.

kbiel on September 28, 2007 at 08:30 am

kbiel: Very good point, but I’m not so optimistic about making the change quickly.  Even though the silicone breast implant scare was revealed to be a big lie, it took years to implement reintroducing them, and they have never regained their market share.


If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

robert108 on September 28, 2007 at 08:45 am

kbiel: I think the real agenda of environmentalism is not to do anything about the environment, but to damage technology and Western free-enterprise economics.  They have already succeeded with the ban on R12.  It almost doesn’t matter that the truth has been revealed.  They will simply go on to something else, like “global warming”, for instance.  Oh, wait!  That’s already happened.


If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

robert108 on September 28, 2007 at 08:48 am

Of course, r108. I’m not that naive.  That was typed with tongue planted firmly in cheek.

kbiel on September 28, 2007 at 10:02 am

kbiel: Since I have no way of determining whether you meant it or not, I tend to assume you meant it unless you indicated otherwise.  My mindreading program is down right now.  /humor


If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

robert108 on September 28, 2007 at 10:40 am

Secondly even if R-12 were okayed, not many companies would want to invest the capital in it when they’ve invested so much capital $$ in the replacements.

I think you are mistaken there.  All it takes is one company who’s willing to invest in a cheaper more effective technology.  If one business in one part of the world were to start manufacturing the world would beat a path to their door.


What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.


The Whistler's signature
The Whistler on September 28, 2007 at 12:03 pm

Secondly even if R-12 were okayed, not many companies would want to invest the capital in it when they’ve invested so much capital $$ in the replacements.

I know that this is an academic exercise as the environuts will never admit that any of their sacred cows might be a worthless idol (DDT, anthropogenic global warming, holes in the ozone, endangered species, etc.), but let me say this.  If ever we get over this stupid CFC scare, the market will decide what is most cost effective.  If R12 has significant savings in manufacturing and handling costs over R134a or anything they have in the research pipeline now, you can bet that car manufacturers will switch back in a heartbeat.

kbiel on September 28, 2007 at 12:05 pm
Avatar for Bike Bubba

Keep in mind here that what the article says is that it’s possible that the rate of ozone destruction is about 10x less from R12 and other “light” CFCs than earlier believed.  So they’re still saying that there is an effect, but it’s not as big as they believed earlier.

I actually took a look at the data, and here’s what it said IMO:

1.  They do have soundings of CFC levels (not just Cl2O2) into the stratosphere, and they are consistent with diffusion of a heavy molecule upwards; exponentially less as you go upwards.  CFCs are getting up there.

2.  The soundings of ozone levels do indicate a decline; the hypothesis is not without support, though it’s been a short time period.

At any rate, we’ll get a repeal and an apology about the same time we get the same for DDT and other things.  Keep a watch on the weather in Hell if you’re hopefull.

Bike Bubba on September 28, 2007 at 12:06 pm

I think that it would start in some country and snowball from there.  It’s the better mousetrap thing.


What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.


The Whistler's signature
The Whistler on September 28, 2007 at 12:25 pm

If ever we get over this stupid CFC scare, the market will decide what is most cost effective.

Only if the restrictive regulations are removed.  That’s the difficult part.


If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

robert108 on September 28, 2007 at 02:08 pm

First, R-134A is not a blended refrigerant, it is 1,1,2,2 tetrafluoroethane (F2H1C - F2HC). R-22 is being replaced by R-410A which is a blend of R-32 &
R-125.

It might interest you to know that R410A is a better refrigerant than R22A; in fact, SEER levels higher than 13 are only possible by using R410A.  On the other hand, R12 is a better refrigerant than R134.
R22A and R410A are used in home air conditioning, while R12 and R134 are used in auto air conditioning and in refrigerators and freezers.


If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

robert108 on September 28, 2007 at 02:18 pm

I think the real agenda of environmentalism is not to do anything about the environment, but to damage technology and Western free-enterprise economics. 

While partially true, that isn’t the entire picture. i.e. the banning of DDT mostly affected 3rd world countries where malaria is rampant.  I believe the ‘real’ real agenda of the environ wackos is the elimination of us wasteful beings from the planet.  They want the global populations to be drastically smaller and what is left of humanity after the population reduction eking out an existance stone age style.


The Supreme Court is a bunch of black robed tyrants

docdave on September 28, 2007 at 02:36 pm

Absolutely true, DD.  In fact, the Third World fallout was probably and unintended result of the DDT ban; the real target was the USA.


If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

robert108 on September 28, 2007 at 02:44 pm

That should be: ”an unintended result...” It was meant to cripple our agriculture industry.


If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

robert108 on September 28, 2007 at 02:46 pm

Funny part is that our agri industry was boosted by the DDT ban. It is the poor of the 3rd world who are being murdered by the environazis. And yet we refuse to hold these murdering fucks accountable for their crimes against humanity.

Exactly why is that?


Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

2Hotel9 on September 28, 2007 at 06:04 pm

While 410A is a better mousetrap, it also runs at a much higher pressure which tends to lend
itself to more fugitive emmissions, compressor failures etc. given the choice, I’d rather stay with R22.

Well, you can talk tradeoffs, and the problems with R410A that you list are all solvable with increased technology, but if minimum SEER goes to 14 or more, R22 will be off the market.
Personally, I don’t buy the environmental scareology, but the govt does.


If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

robert108 on September 30, 2007 at 08:18 pm

Glue: My point was that, even though R22 is still available, an increase in minimum SEER will effectively remove it before the deadline. Could be next year.


If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

robert108 on October 1, 2007 at 08:14 am
Avatar for Bike Bubba

Probably good to define what we mean by a “better” refridgerant.  One could theoretically maintain an arbitrarily high efficiency ratio (e.g. SEER) with just about any compound with a liquid to gas phase change, and what we’re really getting at with a “good” compound is that it does so at a reasonable temperature and pressure vs. where we live.

And Gluemanchu, well put on how ill-chosen regulations can simply move emissions from one nation to another.  One warning for you; you’re coming awfully close to what I’d have to guess is disclosing your company’s confidential information, and your employer might be able to track you down via IP address.

You make a great point; I just don’t want to see you fired for it.

Bike Bubba on October 1, 2007 at 11:33 am
Avatar for dn0121

You can get a seer higher then 13 with R22.  Look at the Trane SL19i.  Hishgest seer of 19 and its running R22.

dn0121 on October 12, 2007 at 06:24 am
Page 1 of 1        

Post a Comment


Before commenting, please recite:

Grant me the serenity to ignore the trolls,
the courage to debate with honest opponents,
and the wisdom to know the difference.

Name   
Email   
URL   
Human?
  
 

Upload Image    

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Note: Notifications will only be sent to confirmed email addresses.