Inherently more efficient refrigeration available to US
KC-watts
Solar Expert Posts: 37 ✭
Something about the EPA has finally allowed hydrocarbon refrigerants to be used in consumer products occurred in 2011. Europe has had a head start on these non-CFC/HFC refrigerators, so it shouldn't take too long to start enjoying the benefits HC refrigerants. Seems HC's are easier to compress lowering noise, and has better heat transfer, what some site as a 15% energy savings. And for a catastrophic failure of refrigeration in remote locations (if that didn't cause a catastrophic failure of the cabin through explosion) repairs are green and easy by venting to air the remaining HC refrigerant, fixing the leak, pumping down the system, then refilling with a few lbs of propane or isobutane. Who wants to be first once they are available in home sized models?
Comments
-
Re: Inherently more efficient refrigeration available to US
Bring back the Crosley IcyBall ammonia fridge! http://crosleyautoclub.com/IcyBall/crosley_icyball.html
A couple of reflective automobile windshield covers to hit the boiler with 4x suns, and it's free ice for all.Powerfab top of pole PV mount | Listeroid 6/1 w/st5 gen head | XW6048 inverter/chgr | Iota 48V/15A charger | Morningstar 60A MPPT | 48V, 800A NiFe Battery (in series)| 15, Evergreen 205w "12V" PV array on pole | Midnight ePanel | Grundfos 10 SO5-9 with 3 wire Franklin Electric motor (1/2hp 240V 1ph ) on a timer for 3 hr noontime run - Runs off PV ||
|| Midnight Classic 200 | 10, Evergreen 200w in a 160VOC array ||
|| VEC1093 12V Charger | Maha C401 aa/aaa Charger | SureSine | Sunsaver MPPT 15A
solar: http://tinyurl.com/LMR-Solar
gen: http://tinyurl.com/LMR-Lister , -
Re: Inherently more efficient refrigeration available to USBring back the Crosley IcyBall ammonia fridge! http://crosleyautoclub.com/IcyBall/crosley_icyball.html
A couple of reflective automobile windshield covers to hit the boiler with 4x suns, and it's free ice for all.
Ammonia is very flammable, yet nobody bats an eye towards all the Norcold absorption fridges in RV's or putting a bunsen burner under that icy ball. BTW thanks for the link, I always wanted to know what came of Doc Browns 1885 ice machine invention. -
Re: Inherently more efficient refrigeration available to USAmmonia is very flammable, yet nobody bats an eye towards all the Norcold absorption fridges in RV's or putting a bunsen burner under that icy ball. BTW thanks for the link, I always wanted to know what came of Doc Browns 1885 ice machine invention.
From the Wikipedia entry on anhydrous ammonia:
"The combustion of ammonia in air is very difficult in the absence of a catalyst (such as platinum gauze), as the temperature of the flame is usually lower than the ignition temperature of the ammonia-air mixture. The flammable range of ammonia in air is 16–25%". -
Re: Inherently more efficient refrigeration available to US"The combustion of ammonia in air is very difficult ...
It is still, however, extremely toxic.
Just out of curiosity, what is happening when we hear of explosions in older ammonia-based refrigeration plants? Simple pressure explosions from blocked pipes?SMA SB 3000, old BP panels. -
Re: Inherently more efficient refrigeration available to US
Ammonia has been used in Dometic (as well as ithe makes) as well as large commercial freezers for years. I do know that Dometic had a recall a number of fridges due to fire hazzard from ammonia leakage. I Persoanlly have had a coule of cooling units fail, but never a fire issue.
I am not sure of the physics but I have always assumed that mechanical compressors are more efficient use of BTUs, but I have NI evidence to support that thesis.
Tony -
Re: Inherently more efficient refrigeration available to US
Interestingly, there does appear to be some push-back from folks that work with Ammonia based systems. Ammonia is "self alarming"--with small leaks, people will smell/be affected by the amonia before there is a risk of explosion or poisoning.
The push behind using CO2 (carbon-dioxide) has been an issue because it is heavier than air and people will just "fall asleep" if they go down into a low spot with settled gas there. Simiilar issues with other refrigerants too.
Interestingly, Europe and probably the US are starting to work with various propane and other hydrocarbons as refrigerants.WASHINGTON, DC, December 14, 2011 (ENS) - The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency today issued a rule making greener refrigeration gases legal in household refrigerators and some commercial freezers.The agency added three hydrocarbons as acceptable alternatives in household and small commercial refrigerators and freezers through EPA's Significant New Alternatives Policy program, SNAP, which evaluates substitute chemicals and technologies for ozone-depleting substances under the Clean Air Act.
The new rule legalizes the hydrocarbons propane, isobutane, and a chemical known as R-441A as refrigerants.
We seem to be going around in circles here (fluorocarbons were to be the "safe" replacement for the other options from almost a hundred years ago). I guess the justification is the amount of HC's is small. And compared to a natural gas stove or propane version has upwards of an "unlimited' supply of gas available (pipeline/external tank). And a little bit in a fridge is not going to be a big safety issue.
-Bill
Near San Francisco California: 3.5kWatt Grid Tied Solar power system+small backup genset -
Re: Inherently more efficient refrigeration available to US
Had an experience with an ammonia based fridge in a mobile trailer couple years ago. Friend of mine called me, they called me, having trouble breathing. It was leaking. We cut a line to drain it, he wasn't getting it fixed, and wow, talk about taking our breath away. Hahaha For some reason had to cur the line to get the frigging thing outside. Had to take hige breaths, run in, do a bit of work, then dash for the door again. Finally got it removed, but took a couple of wks before they could live in it again.
I was tempted to try refilling an old fridge with propane one time, but figured the propane might react in a bad way with the lub oil, so didn't. -
Re: Inherently more efficient refrigeration available to US
Just like the differences between the newer versions of Freon and the old stuff, there are differences in the thermodynamic behavior that may well not work out without corresponding system changes:waynefromnscanada wrote: »I was tempted to try refilling an old fridge with propane one time, but figured the propane might react in a bad way with the lube oil, so didn't.
Size of orifice, high side and low side pressures, size of the heat exchanger coils to account for different temps and exchange efficiency, compressor internals and seals as well as the lube oil. Even knowing how much by weight to charge with would be an issue. You might have to zero in on the right charge by monitoring pressures in operation.
Determining in advance whether it would be a viable drop-in replacement would require access to the design calculations for the original configuration.SMA SB 3000, old BP panels. -
Re: Inherently more efficient refrigeration available to US
Toxic, yes, no argument there, at least for a loose definition of the word. Anhydrous ammonia has an extreme affinity for water; if you breathe it in high concentration it will suck the water out of your lung tissues and combine with it to form ammonium hydroxide, a very caustic base. You will drown in pulmonary edema in short order.It is still, however, extremely toxic.
Just out of curiosity, what is happening when we hear of explosions in older ammonia-based refrigeration plants? Simple pressure explosions from blocked pipes?
30+ years ago a tanker truck took a freeway flyover in Houston too fast and went over the guardrail. Several people were killed, as I remember. For months afterward there was a circle of dead grass a couple of hundred feet in diameter at the site that showed how far the bubble of ammonia expanded before it started to dissipate. Nasty stuff.
I believe that an explosion in an ammonia refrigeration system can be caused by a leak which brings water into the system, which freezes in the expansion orifice and clogs it. Pressure builds... -
Re: Inherently more efficient refrigeration available to US
From what I have seen on the RV forums the problem with RV fires is sometimes/often/who knows, improperly installed absorption units and just plain poor quality (one report substandard copper tubing). There is currently a great deal of attention and a number of lawsuits. The thread on iRV2 http://www.irv2.com/forums/f59/norcold-lawsuit-filed-147372-3.html about half way down the page and one of the links to a video of the result http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wp2u6d3EQRg&feature=youtu.be
Other references elsewhere indicate a series of recalls and fixes that do not work. One current solution is to replace the unit with an Amish cooling unit which seems to work. -
Re: Inherently more efficient refrigeration available to US
Propane (R-290) is a much more efficient refrigerant than the "eco-friendly" refrigerants now being marketed at huge profit margins. Likewise with R-600/ R600a.
R290 is/was a satisfactory substitute for R-12 and it is used safely around the world in some huge refrigeration systems. The whole refrigerant market is screwed up by environmental hype and profiteering. Each "improvement" which is supposed lessen the ozone hole puts a bigger hole in the consumers pockets and more money in the big corporations pockets.
This reminds me of the Halon fire suppression debacle and unleaded gas. One more ruse to stick it to the consumer pushed by corporate lobbyists and joined by rabid but ignorant earth savers.
We are finally getting a common sense approval on something that really improves efficiency. Better sell of your stock in companies that produce patented refrigerant formulas quick.
I'll gladly use a propane charged heat pump or refrig. in my home. I'm not skeered! -
Re: Inherently more efficient refrigeration available to US
Call me "rabid but ignorant" if you like, but show me how changing the content of gasoline to stop ICE's from spewing lead into the environment was a bad idea. Tetraethyl lead is very nasty stuff. Just because there is a cost associated with it doesn't mean that it's a scam.thehardway wrote: »Each "improvement" which is supposed lessen the ozone hole puts a bigger hole in the consumers pockets and more money in the big corporations pockets.
This reminds me of the Halon fire suppression debacle and unleaded gas. One more ruse to stick it to the consumer pushed by corporate lobbyists and joined by rabid but ignorant earth savers. -
Re: Inherently more efficient refrigeration available to US
Whereas discussion is good, political ranting is not.
Simply a reminder from your friendly forum moderating staff. -
Re: Inherently more efficient refrigeration available to US
I don't care who started it. Don't make me come back there!Cariboocoot wrote: »Whereas discussion is good, political ranting is not.
Simply a reminder from your friendly forum moderating staff.
Sorry, Dad.
-
Re: Inherently more efficient refrigeration available to US.. show me how changing the content of gasoline to stop ICE's from spewing lead into the environment was a bad idea.
:-) A more defensible argument could have been made about the mandatory oxygenation of gasoline blends that first took us down the MTBE road, which in 20-20 hindsight was a mistake. *
The current system (ethanol, etc.) reduces some known pollutants, but may have an overall adverse effect on greenhouse gasses because of reduced engine efficiency and thus higher CO2 emissions.
Just because something is a moving target is not an excuse for not doing your informed best to hit it!
Another argument which can legitimately be raised is what effect lobbying and political expediency have on scientific and engineering decisions. But as has been mentioned, that is only a subject for dinner table conversation here if we remain polite. :-)
*: And yes, I am familiar with the fact that MTBE was very attractive to the refiners since it was a waste product they would have had problems getting rid of if they had not added it to the gas.SMA SB 3000, old BP panels. -
Re: Inherently more efficient refrigeration available to US
I had a chemistry professor in college who was also affiliated with a large petrochemical company. During a lecture he told us about the research that led to the inclusion of tetraethyl lead as an additive to gasoline to make it burn more uniformly. He said that it took as long as it did to find it because the research methodology was just to try everything on the shelf to see what it did, and it took them that long to get down the alphabet to the T's.:-) A more defensible argument could have been made about the mandatory oxygenation of gasoline blends that first took us down the MTBE road, which in 20-20 hindsight was a mistake. *
The current system (ethanol, etc.) reduces some known pollutants, but may have an overall adverse effect on greenhouse gasses because of reduced engine efficiency and thus higher CO2 emissions.
Just because something is a moving target is not an excuse for not doing your informed best to hit it!
Another argument which can legitimately be raised is what effect lobbying and political expediency have on scientific and engineering decisions. But as has been mentioned, that is only a subject for dinner table conversation here if we remain polite. :-)
*: And yes, I am familiar with the fact that MTBE was very attractive to the refiners since it was a waste product they would have had problems getting rid of if they had not added it to the gas. -
Re: Inherently more efficient refrigeration available to USI had a chemistry professor in college who was also affiliated with a large petrochemical company. During a lecture he told us about the research that led to the inclusion of tetraethyl lead as an additive to gasoline to make it burn more uniformly. He said that it took as long as it did to find it because the research methodology was just to try everything on the shelf to see what it did, and it took them that long to get down the alphabet to the T's.
Funny professor.
Really you all know chemistry was quite an advanced science by the time lead was being added to "fake up" the octane ratings. "Edison research" (try everything until you find what works) was pretty much out of the picture by then.
The fact that unleaded gas was used before (6:1 compression ratios, no radical timing advancing) and since proves it is not actually necessary. -
Re: Inherently more efficient refrigeration available to US
I'm sorry. I thought there was something about refrigerators here.
......I'll try another thread. :-) -
Re: Inherently more efficient refrigeration available to USCariboocoot wrote: »Funny professor.
Really you all know chemistry was quite an advanced science by the time lead was being added to "fake up" the octane ratings. "Edison research" (try everything until you find what works) was pretty much out of the picture by then.
Maybe so, but he said it with a perfectly straight face in a classroom lecture situation. He was a heavy hitter in the petrochemical scene there in Baton Rouge, too, and at one time had been one of the principals of Ethyl Corporation. I took him at his word. -
Re: Inherently more efficient refrigeration available to US
david,
don't worry as the guys got sidetracked again. i'm sure they got the hint when you posted that.
carry on. -
Re: Inherently more efficient refrigeration available to US
I apologize ggun. I got caught up in my excitement about the EPA finally using a little common sense and failed to use prudence. I should not have started name calling.
Lead is a toxic substance and yes it is good not to put it into the environment. The problem with the logicused in removing it from gasoline was that it aided in making the combustion process much more efficient, thus burning less gas as a whole. The replacement for it is worse chemically and not as efficient. When lead was removed it lowered efficiency, just like mandating R12 phaseout and going to R134 etc.
Lead worked well to maintain good seals around valves and cylinder walls while preventing preignition thus allowing higher compression ratios and more horsepower (work) produced per gal of fuel burned. Engine power dropped by approxmately 40% in 1971&1972 using unleaded gas and smog controls. This meant we had to burn almost twice as much fuel to go the same distance or do the same work.
The problem was not lead (although I am not saying lead in the environment is good), lead does not make smog, it is too heavy, the real problem was the high sulfur and nitrate oxides coming from low grade, poorly refined gasoline that caused the toxic air and smog. They could only get rid of these by 1) using more expensive bases and refining methods or 2) using catalytic converters (which were not compatible with leaded gas) so rather than clean up the fuel, we opted to outlaw leaded fuel and push catalytic converters. The gaseous cocktail mixture being spewed out of cars today is much worse than leaded exhaust was and much more likely to be breathed in and cause bodily harm than the lead was as it is all airborne. Catalytic converters do not work properly when cold or when old and most of your cars today are old enough to not burn properly (ie, malfunctioning O2 sensors, plugged EGR, bad catalytic converter, worn or dirty plugs, dirty injectors, etc.)
When leaded gas is "burned", the lead does not vaporize into a gaseous form. It is merely expelled as particulate matter which is very heavy and falls to the ground in a very short distance. No more harmful to humans than lead wheel weights falling off your tires beside the road.
My only point is that we need to look at the overall impact of regulations. Ethanol blended fuel is a net loss in efficiency and also impacts the food chain. Lead removal is a good idea only if you can gain efficiency and find a better alternative. There was no cost effective, practical and efficient equivalent to Halon at the time its manufacture was banned. R12 should have been replaced with propane instead of 134a.
Here is the MSDS on all listed refrigerants. Determine for yourself whether you would rather deal with flammability issues or toxic, ozone depleting gasses. I know where I fall.
http://www.refrigerants.com/msds.aspx -
Re: Inherently more efficient refrigeration available to USthehardway wrote: »I apologize ggun. I got caught up in my excitement about the EPA finally using a little common sense and failed to use prudence. I should not have started name calling.
Lead is a toxic substance and yes it is good not to put it into the environment. The problem with the logicused in removing it from gasoline was that it aided in making the combustion process much more efficient, thus burning less gas as a whole. The replacement for it is worse chemically and not as efficient. When lead was removed it lowered efficiency, just like mandating R12 phaseout and going to R134 etc.
Lead worked well to maintain good seals around valves and cylinder walls while preventing preignition thus allowing higher compression ratios and more horsepower (work) produced per gal of fuel burned. Engine power dropped by approxmately 40% in 1971&1972 using unleaded gas and smog controls. This meant we had to burn almost twice as much fuel to go the same distance or do the same work.
The problem was not lead (although I am not saying lead in the environment is good), lead does not make smog, it is too heavy, the real problem was the high sulfur and nitrate oxides coming from low grade, poorly refined gasoline that caused the toxic air and smog. They could only get rid of these by 1) using more expensive bases and refining methods or 2) using catalytic converters (which were not compatible with leaded gas) so rather than clean up the fuel, we opted to outlaw leaded fuel and push catalytic converters. The gaseous cocktail mixture being spewed out of cars today is much worse than leaded exhaust was and much more likely to be breathed in and cause bodily harm than the lead was as it is all airborne. Catalytic converters do not work properly when cold or when old and most of your cars today are old enough to not burn properly (ie, malfunctioning O2 sensors, plugged EGR, bad catalytic converter, worn or dirty plugs, dirty injectors, etc.)
When leaded gas is "burned", the lead does not vaporize into a gaseous form. It is merely expelled as particulate matter which is very heavy and falls to the ground in a very short distance. No more harmful to humans than lead wheel weights falling off your tires beside the road.
My only point is that we need to look at the overall impact of regulations. Ethanol blended fuel is a net loss in efficiency and also impacts the food chain. Lead removal is a good idea only if you can gain efficiency and find a better alternative. There was no cost effective, practical and efficient equivalent to Halon at the time its manufacture was banned. R12 should have been replaced with propane instead of 134a.
Here is the MSDS on all listed refrigerants. Determine for yourself whether you would rather deal with flammability issues or toxic, ozone depleting gasses. I know where I fall.
http://www.refrigerants.com/msds.aspx
No harm, no foul. About lead... are you sure that the lead effluent from the combustion of leaded gasoline is elemental lead and not some soluble lead compound that will leach into ground water? Even if so, I submit that aspirable lead fines are more hazardous to health than are discarded lead wheel weights. I have nothing against using propane as a refrigerant as long as flammability safety issues are handled. -
Re: Inherently more efficient refrigeration available to USNo harm, no foul. About lead... are you sure that the lead effluent from the combustion of leaded gasoline is elemental lead and not some soluble lead compound that will leach into ground water? Even if so, I submit that aspirable lead fines are more hazardous to health than are discarded lead wheel weights. I have nothing against using propane as a refrigerant as long as flammability safety issues are handled.
Lead is extremely heavy. Unless chemically bonded or actively transported by something light (think flaking lead paint or sanding lead paint), it tends to stay put quite well. As for lead in ground water or drinking water, lead occurs naturally in ground water without any help, unless the water is acidic and very turbid, the lead seems to precipitate out and not make it to points of consumption. If it didn't we would have some real trouble. Think about how many years pipe was made from lead and after that how many years lead was used to solder copper and brass pipes and even still today, lead is used in the manufacture of many brass plumbing fittings to ensure it machines well. 90% of todays homes have exposed lead in the solder joints of their plumbing. There is probably as much or more trace mercury, uranium arsenic and other toxins in our ground water as there is lead.
All galvanized pipe, roofing and gutters have generous amounts of iron, zinc, lead and tin. this goes directly into water sheds or with galv. pipe straight into your glass of drinking water.
Lead is ubiquitous. Car emissions was probably the most benign source of lead in the environment as it was well dispersed and not highly concentrated, this allowed it to be naturally filtered and precipitated. Car batteries have probably been 100X worse for the environmentWe have really hijacked this post..... Sorry guys ! -
Re: Inherently more efficient refrigeration available to US
Hijacking continued: An important difference about lead emissions from vehicle engines is that the lead particles produced are fine enough to stay airborne for a long time. Long enough to be inhaled (no way out of the body from there) or deposited on nearby surfaces from which they can be ingested directly or via transfer to food handling equipment.thehardway wrote: »Car emissions was probably the most benign source of lead in the environment as it was well dispersed and not highly concentrated, this allowed it to be naturally filtered and precipitated.
Experimental results showed a very strong correlation between toxic lead levels in children and their proximity to surface streets and freeways. Over a many block distance.SMA SB 3000, old BP panels. -
Re: Inherently more efficient refrigeration available to US
look guys, you are not being very nice doing this as you could've taken the hint and created a new thread on the subject should you wanted to continue this. you would also be making work for us mods to create a new thread with the selected posts in it. it could be just as easy to delete these off topic posts too and force you to do it. what do you say as to what way you want to do this as you are making me a bit upset as you should know better especially after being told.
btw, i'm not threatening to delete the posts as we do frown on having to delete posts, but i was making a point. -
Re: Inherently more efficient refrigeration available to US
I will stop talking about lead, etc., but threads do wander; it's nothing new or unique.look guys, you are not being very nice doing this as you could've taken the hint and created a new thread on the subject should you wanted to continue this. you would also be making work for us mods to create a new thread with the selected posts in it. it could be just as easy to delete these off topic posts too and force you to do it. what do you say as to what way you want to do this as you are making me a bit upset as you should know better especially after being told.
btw, i'm not threatening to delete the posts as we do frown on having to delete posts, but i was making a point. -
Re: Inherently more efficient refrigeration available to US
I will cease and desist from my hijacking activity here in the spirit of the board. I might point out I always tried to at least bring it back to refrigeration regardless of the rabbit trail rant bit without success. If anyone wishes I would be happy to pick this back up and defend my position in a new thread. Maybe title it Leaded vs Unleaded?
Thank's Niel for being a good moderator and a good sport.
As to the flammability issues of propane, isobutane etc. They cannot explode or combust in an oxygen deprived closed system. So what about leaks? Well, yes, a leak into an enclosed space could cause a problem if it encountered an ignition source, but remember, the non flammable refrigerants are deadly or can cause serious harm just by breathing them, and they give no odor ques that they are leaking. A propane leak gives you plenty of odor. (its hard to get rid of even after the leak is stopped) and it does not cause serious injury when breathed at concentrations likely to be encountered by a leak. Propane is heavier than air and will not float around where it is likely to encounter ignition sources like a stove or a light switch. Bigest danger would be a pilot light which would likely burn off vapor before concentrations reached explosive levels. Don't get me wrong, propane is dangerously flammable and explosive, but people are familar with the smell and the likely hood of a leak big enough to cause explosion is unlikely without someone first smelling it. It is no more or less dangerous than a propane fireplace, furnace or water heater.
I'm waiting to hear how insurance companies and underwriters are going to react to this. Will we see an increase in insurance rates? -
Re: Inherently more efficient refrigeration available to USthehardway wrote: »A propane leak gives you plenty of odor. (its hard to get rid of even after the leak is stopped)
Keep in mind that the smell you associate with natural gas and propane, etc. is an odorant chemical (one mercaptan or another, same family of chemicals as skins use.) which is deliberately added.
There is no reason for a manufacturer using it as a refrigerant not to odorize it, and it may even be a legal requirement, but the gas itself is odorless.
But, you may say, when methane is produced by waste decomposition or cow farts, I can smell that. Absolutely, but what you are smelling is not the methane itself. :-)SMA SB 3000, old BP panels.
Categories
- All Categories
- 222 Forum & Website
- 130 Solar Forum News and Announcements
- 1.3K Solar News, Reviews, & Product Announcements
- 191 Solar Information links & sources, event announcements
- 887 Solar Product Reviews & Opinions
- 254 Solar Skeptics, Hype, & Scams Corner
- 22.3K Solar Electric Power, Wind Power & Balance of System
- 3.5K General Solar Power Topics
- 6.7K Solar Beginners Corner
- 1K PV Installers Forum - NEC, Wiring, Installation
- 2K Advanced Solar Electric Technical Forum
- 5.5K Off Grid Solar & Battery Systems
- 424 Caravan, Recreational Vehicle, and Marine Power Systems
- 1.1K Grid Tie and Grid Interactive Systems
- 651 Solar Water Pumping
- 815 Wind Power Generation
- 621 Energy Use & Conservation
- 608 Discussion Forums/Café
- 302 In the Weeds--Member's Choice
- 74 Construction
- 124 New Battery Technologies
- 108 Old Battery Tech Discussions
- 3.8K Solar News - Automatic Feed
- 3.8K Solar Energy News RSS Feed