TL: HFCS - HEADED FOR CATASTROPHE FACTS SO: GREENPEACE INTERNATIONAL, (GP) DT: 1996 "The present situation, when CFCs and in a little longer perspective the HCFCs are being banned by international agreement, it does not seem very logical to try to replace them by another family of related halocarbons, the HFCs, equally foreign to nature. In any case it must obviously be much preferable to use natural compounds, which are already circulating in quantity in the biosphere and are known to be harmless." * -Professor Gustav Lorentzen (Norway) TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Editorial 2. Phasing-Out or Phasing-In ? 3. Heating the Planet with HFCs 4. HFCs Fuel the Climate Time Bomb 5. HFCs Test Less Efficient Than Natural Alternatives 6. Four Additional Reasons to Avoid HFCs 7. Why Use HFCs When Environmentally Safer Alternatives Exist ? 8. Planned Obsolescence For Developing Countries 9. Governments Edge Towards Controls on HFCs 10.What Can You Do ? EDITORIAL The ozone layer protects all life from the deadly ultraviolet rays of the sun. The industrialized world has severely damaged the ozone layer by pumping tens of millions of tonnes of ozone destroying substances (ODSs), such as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs)into the atmosphere. Every 1% ozone depletion results in at least 2% increase in the amount of UV-B radiation reaching the earth. Higher levels of UV-B radiation increase the risk of severe damage to human health, e.g. eye diseases, skin cancer, immune system suppression. Increased dosages of UV-B also endanger crops, forests, plants, marine life and wildlife. Scientists predict the ozone crisis will be with us for many decades to come, and the greatest levels of ozone depletions will occur around the turn of the century. Major chemical companies like Du Pont, ICI and Elf Atochem, have made billions of dollars in profit from the sale of ozone destroying chemicals around the world. Even when it became evident 20 years ago that CFCs were harming the ozone layer, the chemical companies continued to vigorously market their dangerous products. [PICTURE N/A: ILLUS. BY D.SMITH - CHEF BAKING THE PLANET WITH HFCS] When the international community finally moved to control the production of CFCs and HCFCs through the Montreal Protocol, the chemical industry took it as a challenge to develop new products to maintain its lucrative worldwide monopoly. Today, the industry is promoting hydrofluorocarbons(HFCs) as replacements for CFCs and HCFCs. HFCs pose no direct threat to the ozone layer, but are very powerful global warming gases. They also have other negative environmental impacts. Clearly, HFCs can not be the solution to ozone depletion. They merely replace the ozone crisis with yet another environmental disaster. Products utilizing safer alternatives for virtually every application of CFCs and HCFCs exist. For example, in refrigeration and air conditioning, these products use natural refrigerants, such as hydrocarbons, carbon dioxide, air, water and ammonia. Despite the political and economic machinations of the chemical companies, environmentally safer substances and technologies are finding their way into the marketplace. Dr. Joe Farman , the British scientist who discovered the ozone hole over Antarctica ten years ago, likened the chemical industry's haste to replace CFCs with HFCs and HCFCs as "out of the frying pan, into the fire". ** HFCs are environmentally destructive chemicals and are therefore obsolete. They are a poor investment for both industrialized and developing countries, and most certainly for the planet. Isn't it time they were banned ? * Lorentzen, Gustav (Prof. dr.techn. ,Trondheim, Norway) : "The Use of Natural Refrigerants, A Complete Solution to the CFC/HCFC Predicament": Paper reprinted in the pre-print copy of the"Proceedings of the International Conference: New Applications of Natural Working Fluids in Refrigeration and Air Conditioning: A Contribution to Reduced Global Warming and Energy Consumption" (May 10-13, 1994, Hannover, Germany) : International Institute of Refrigeration, Commission B2 : Commission of the European Communities, Directorate-General for Energy (DG XVII) [Return] ** Farman, Joe "Replacing CFCs with HFCs and HCFCs: Out of the FRying Pan, Into the Fire" 1992 [Return] PHASING-OUT OR PHASING-IN ? Under the terms of the Montreal Protocol On Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, industrialized countries are presently committed to ending production of CFCs and HCFCs in 1996 and 2030, respectively. Developing countries are committed to a 100% reduction in CFC production by 2010, and have yet to agree to any phase-out date for HCFCs. The 1994 Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion of the United Nations Environment Programme states that one of the few significant steps the world can take towards speeding up the recovery of the ozone layer during the next fifty years is the total elimination of the emissions of HCFCs by the year 2004.* Although European Community countries are committed to eliminating HCFCs by 2015, and some are planning a 1998 phase- out date, the current global HCFC phase-out dates are sorely inadequate. Meanwhile, to replace their shrinking global markets in CFCs and HCFCs, the chemical industry is flooding the world with HFCs. Because HFCs are not ozone destroyers, they do not come under the purview of the Montreal Protocol. There are no binding controls on the emissions of HFCs at the present time. Such controls are very much needed. They should be immediately implemented through the United Nations Framework Climate Convention. * UNEP, "Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 1994: Executive Summary", August 19, 1994. [Return] HEATING THE PLANET WITH HFCs It is estimated that the global production of the most commonly used HFC (HFC-134a), if unregulated, will increase to 230,000 tonnes by the year 2005 ; 500,000 tonnes by 2025; 1 million tonnes by 2050 ; and could reach over 2,500,000 tonnes per year later in the next century . 1 million tonnes is more than the total 1989 global emissions of CFCs. Approximately 50% of HFC-134a production is for automotive air conditioning, 15% for domestic refrigeration, and most of the remaining 35% for commercial and residential air conditioning and supermarket refrigeration. Over a twenty year time-span, the global warming potential (GWP) of HFC-134a is estimated to be 3,200 times that of carbon dioxide (CO2). Presented more graphically, the global warming impact of a worldwide annual production of at least 200,000 tonnes of HFC-134a equals roughly the CO2 emissions of an industrialized nation the size of France or the UK. A recent report by the Dutch Government concluded: "If HFCs are to be used to replace CFCs without restriction, global HFC emissions may increase to 1931 Mtonnes CO2 equivalent per year by 2035. If HFCs are also used as substitutes for HCFCs, emissions could double to 4665 Mtonne CO2 equivalent per year in 2035. These HFC emissions equal 7% and 17% respectively of present CO2 emissions."* * Kroeze, C. "Potential Effect of HFC Policy on Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions in 2035", National Institute of Public Health and Environmental Protection, Bilthoven, The Netherlands, September 1994: Study commissioned by the Air Directorate, Directorate-Generate for Environmental Protection of the Dutch Ministry of Housing, Physical Planning and Environment; project # 773001. [Return] HFCs FUEL THE 'CLIMATE TIME BOMB' Widespread use of HFCs will contribute significantly to global warming and climate change. Climate change is one of the biggest threats to the future of both the human race and the environment. It is brought about by the progressive heating of the atmosphere through heat trapping greenhouse gases creating an atmospheric blanket around the earth. As temperatures gradually increase we can expect an unpredictable series of worsening shocks and disasters. Like the biblical plagues that befell Pharaoh, scientists predict that climate change will result in: More frequent and more intense storms, droughts and floods. * Increased forest and bush fires. * New varieties and greater abundance of pests. * Changing patterns of human diseases and the spread of diseases such as malaria and the bubonic plague. * Loss of coastal lands and creation of hundreds of millions of environmental refugees. * Severe disturbances to aquatic and terrestrial sources of human food. * Collapse of the global insurance industry and other exposed financial institutions. There are already signs that this warming has had an impact:* * The eight hottest years on record have all occurred since 1980. * 1990 was the hottest year since records began. * 1994-95: Worst floods in North Europe in 60-100 years. * Since 1987 there have been at least 15 'billion dollar' climate related natural disasters, with none before that date, and with insured losses of over $50 billion. * Greenpeace International, "Climate Time Bomb: Signs of Climate Change from the Greenpeace Database", Executive Summary, June 1994. [Return] HFCs TEST LESS EFFICIENT THAN NATURAL ALTERNATIVE REFRIGERANTS The Total Equivalent Warming Impact (TEWI) rating measures the efficiency of a refrigerant by combining its direct and indirect global warming contribution. Direct contribution is the Global Warming Potential (GWP) of a substance leaked into the atmosphere, compared to the GWP of CO2. The indirect contribution is the greenhouse effect generated by the electricity needed to run an appliance during its lifetime. The producers of HFCs dismiss the high global warming potential of their products by claiming that in optimized equipment the TEWI of HFCs is lower than that of natural refrigerants. This claim is incorrect. In both domestic and commercial refrigeration the TEWI of HFC-134a, for example, is actually higher than its natural refrigerant alternatives. A 1994 UNEP Information Paper writes: "Testing to date shows that refrigerators with HC-600a [isobutane] systems are nearly always more efficient than equivalent ones using HFC-134a and often more efficient than those using CFC-12. "* Combining these test results with the nearly zero global warming potential of hydrocarbons indicates that the TEWI rating of hydrocarbon domestic refrigeration technology will be lower than those using HFCs. Meanwhile, the energy efficiency of hydrocarbon-based domestic Greenfreeze refrigerators is constantly improving . For example, in 1994 Bosch-Siemens reported energy savings of up to 50% with a 360 liter unit. This super efficient refrigerator is completely CFC, HCFC and HFC-free. It has the energy consumption of .10kWh/100 liters-- the equivalent of a 15 Watt light bulb. In 1995, Electrolux Compressors is introducing a new hydrocarbon compressor that is 30% more efficient than existing models. In supermarket refrigeration Westward Refrigeration of Gloucester conducted TEWI tests for the major UK retailer Sainsbury. Two HFC & HCFC systems were compared with an ammonia based secondary cooling system. The tests concluded that the overall TEWI of the system using ammonia was 5% less than that of a HCFC 22 / HFC-134a system, and 17% lower than the system using HFC-404a.** These tests convinced Sainsbury to install an ammonia based secondary cooling system in a new superstore in Horsham, Sussex, even though just 18 months earlier the company stated "it is madness to suggest that a modern supermarket might equip with ammonia".*** * UNEP, "Elimination of CFCs from Domestic Refrigeration Manufacture": Information Paper, OzonAction Information Clearinghouse, OzonAction Programme, July 1994: Section 2.2.1, p.4 [Return] ** ENDS Report 236, September, 1994, p.28 [Return] *** ENDS Report 236, September, 1994, p.28 [Return] FOUR ADDITIONAL REASONS TO AVOID HFCs 1. HFCS COST MORE: Compared to their natural refrigerant counterparts, as well as the ODSs they are to replace, HFCs are expensive. For example HFCs are 6 to 12 times the current cost of HCFC-22 and 2 to 3 times the cost of hydrocarbons. Ammonia in the UK costs less than 1 Pound per kg., HCFC-22 costs around 2 pounds per kilo, and HFC blends cost well over 15 pounds per kilogram. * Additional costs are incurred because conventional refrigerator lubricants will not dissolve in HFCs. HFC-134a, for example, needs ester oil. Synthetic ester oil is patented, and its price is several dollars per litre more expensive than commonly used mineral oils. The present costs of HFCs would increase steeply if they were to become subject to a 'global warming tax' which was equivalent to the carbon/energy tax proposed by the European Commission. 2. HFC PRODUCTION RESULTS IN TOXIC WASTE: The manufacture of HFCs is directly linked to the production of organochlorines, a class of chemicals that are persistent and toxic, and have been targeted for phase out. Throughout the manufacturing process, toxic intermediary and by-products are released into the environment . Approximately 10% of the total HFC-134a production weight is toxic waste, which pollutes our air, soil and water. 3. HFCS LEAK MORE: Virtually all cooling systems leak. However, because of their smaller molecular structure HFCs are more prone to leak than CFCs. This represents thousands of tonnes of emissions, considering for example, that the annual rate of CFC leakage in the UK refrigeration and air conditioning industry is about 20% of the total charge. Furthermore, in car air conditioning the leakage rate is even greater. Approximately "65% of the cooling agent in mobile air conditioning leaks away unavoidably."** Refrigerant loss in a typical car air-conditioning unit occurs within two to five years, and on average, when a car is brought in to a garage for A/C service, only about 40% of the original 2kg charge is left.*** Up to 50% of the global HFC-134a production is for automobile air- conditioning. 4. HFCS REQUIRE STRINGENT QUALITY CONTROLS: HFC-134A IS AN UNSTABLE SUBSTANCE WHICH CAN CAUSE PROBLEMS IF IT IS CONTACT WITH SMALL QUANTITIES OF WATER OR OTHER IMPURITIES. IT REQUIRES STRINGENT MANUFACTURING AND SERVICING CONTROLS WHICH ARE ESPECIALLY DIFFICULT TO ACHIEVE IN VERY HUMID CLIMATES AND POSES A FURTHER PROBLEM FOR MANY DEVELOPING COUNTRIES. HFC-134A IS ENTIRELY UNSUITABLE AS A DROP-IN REPLACEMENT FOR CFCS. * OUTLOOK ENVIRONMENTAL NEWS BULLETIN FOR APV REFRIGERATION AND FREEZER, ISSUE 2, OCTOBER 1994. [RETURN] * KROEZE, C. "POTENTIAL EFFECT OF HFC POLICY ON GLOBAL GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS IN 2035" [RETURN] * MAKHIJANI AND GURNEY, 1992 [RETURN] WHY USE HFCS WHEN ENVIRONMENTALLY SAFER ALTERNATIVES EXIST ? ENVIRONMENTALLY ACCEPTABLE ALTERNATIVES EXIST FOR ALL USES OF HFCS. THESE UTILIZE NATURAL REFRIGERANTS SUCH AS HYDROCARBONS, CARBON DIOXIDE, AMMONIA , AIR AND WATER, AS WELL AS ALTERNATE TECHNOLOGIES. [PICTURE N/A: GREENFREEZE REFRIGERATOR PROD. LINE, DKK SCHARFENSTEIN GMBH IN GERMANY] GREENFREEZE DOMESTIC REFRIGERATORS: In 1992 Greenpeace inspired the development of Greenfreeze. Unlike most household refrigerators, Greenfreeze contains neither HCFCS nor HFCS. Greenfreeze technology employs naturally occurring hydrocarbon substances in the foam insulation and as the coolant. This planet-friendly technology has spread rapidly. It is estimated that by the year 2000, 40 million greenfreeze fridges will be produced in europe alone. Greenfreeze will soon be produced in China, India, Australia and Latin America. GREENFREEZE SUPERMARKET REFRIGERATION: Numerous environmentally concerned supermarkets throughout Europe are using HCFC/HFC-free 'Greenfreeze' technologies, using secondary systems for both chilling and freezing capacity. Secondary cooling systems use coolants such as water, brine, glycols, silicon oils or a new product called Flo-ice TM, to circulate through refrigeration cabinets. The coolant itself is chilled, through a heat exchanger, by a primary refrigeration circuit using ammonia or hydrocarbons. The primary circuit is usually located in a safely isolated plant room in the back of the store. [PICTURE N/A: DIAGRAM OF SUPERMARKET COOLING SYSTEMS] EXAMPLES OF EUROPEAN SUPERMARKETS USING GREENFREEZE TECHNOLOGIES INCLUDE: Cactus Store in Bereldange, Luxembourg; Migros Store in Wohlen, Switzerland; Edeka Store in Hildesheim, Germany; and Sainsbury's in Horsham, UK. SUPPLIERS OF GREENFREEZE ALTERNATIVE SUPERMARKET REFRIGERATION SYSTEMS INCLUDE: multinational companies such as Linde, Elektrolux, Sabroe, ABB Stal, York, Integral. HYDROCARBON-BASED HOME AIR CONDITIONERS: The large Italian manufacturer De'Longhi is launching a new line of propane cooled portable air conditioners called Pinguino ECO in 1995. HFC FREE AUTOMOBILE AIR CONDITIONER: Researchers at Sintef Refrigeration Engineering, the Norwegian Institute of Technology have successfully tested a Mobile Air Conditioner (MAC) using CO2 as the refrigerant. Other researchers are successfully testing hydrocarbons. HYDROCARBON DROP-IN REPLACEMENTS FOR CFCS AND HCFCS: Calor Gas of the UK is marketing a line of hydrocarbon refrigerants as drop-in replacements for CFCs and HCFCs. Iceland, the large British retailer of frozen foods is presently testing the Calor products in domestic freezers, delivery vehicles and commercial plants. Flo-Ice TM is another drop-in replacement in supermarket refrigeration. "There are some developing countries, e.g. India and China...with a substantial domestic market...which are self reliant in the manufacture of both refrigerants and related hardware . The developing countries cannot afford double changes. They would prefer to assess the merits and demerits of the possible alternatives before making a final choice so as to continue to maintain their current technological independence...."* - Dr. Sukumar Devotta (Engineering Services, National Chemical Laboratory, India) PLANNED OBSOLESCENCE FOR DEVELOPING COUNTRIES [Picture N/A: POLI.CART. - DUMPING OF OBSOLETE EQUIP ON AFRICA - BY D.SMITH] Today, the chemical industry is aggressively marketing obsolete HCFC and HFC technologies for use in developing countries, where refrigeration is a high growth industry. Much of this marketing is done through the enormous influence the chemical giants wield within the World Bank and the Multilateral Fund of the Montreal Protocol. The industry steers these bodies, which are the financial implementing agencies entrusted to assist developing countries phase-out CFCs, towards primarily providing funding for HCFC and HFC based projects. But HCFCs and HFCs are environmentally harmful. They can only be considered as "transitional substances", meaning that they will have to be replaced by environmentally more acceptable substances in the near future. This takes two steps to accomplish what could be done in one. It also doubles the costs. Double costs are incurred in retrofitting equipment, changing production lines, and training of personnel. Developing countries can least afford the chemical industry's 'planned obsolescence' approach. Industries which continue to use HFCs and HCFCs may eventually find themselves at a competitive disadvantage as export markets dwindle for products containing these substances. These industries will then have to incur additional costs as they are compelled to switch to environmentally more acceptable alternatives. Developing countries are far better off embracing technologies that are environmentally safer, less expensive and have a more promising future. Furthermore, it makes sense for developing countries to utilize naturally occurring substances, instead of depending on patented synthetic chemicals. * Erkman, Suren, "Excerpts from an interview with Dr. Sukumar Devotta (Head, Engineering Services, National Chemical Laboratory, Pune, India), March 30, 1994: as faxed to Ravi Sharma, Down To Earth, April 12, 1994 [Return] GOVERNMENTS EDGE TOWARDS CONTROLS ON HFCs "Is R134a (HFC-134a) a six lane highway stretching far into the future, or a cul-de-sac going nowhere? " - Editorial, Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Magazine, November 1993 International pressure is mounting towards restrictions on the emissions of HFCs under the United Nations Framework Climate Convention. The Climate Convention (signed by 167 nations at the Earth Summit in Rio, June 1992 ) states that emissions of greenhouse gases, including HFCs should be returned to their 1990 levels by the year 2000. Public pressure is needed to push governments over the edge towards effective controls on HFCs. STEPS IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION: UNITED KINGDOM In its first report, issued January 25, 1995, the British Government Panel on Sustainable Development recommended that "the Government should set targets for phasing out ozone depleting substances and HFCs in each key industrial sector, and should explore the scope for market incentives to encourage the development and introduction of alternative technologies."* NETHERLANDS A recent report circulated by the Dutch Government calls for: (a) No use of HFCs if not essential; (b) Avoidance of HFCs having relatively high Global Warming Potential (e.g. HFCs-134a & 404a); and (c) Avoidance of relatively "leaky" applications (e.g. automotive air conditioning).** This, in effect, would constitute a ban on the use of HFCs on all three criteria. The Dutch Government believes that the first option is the most effective way of dealing with HFC emissions. UNITED STATES The US Administration announced in October, 1993 its concerns regarding the global warming potentials of HFCs. "Due to high global warming potentials, high atmospheric lifetimes, and increasing emissions, hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) are a growing contributors to the climate change problem...[President Clinton] "is directing the EPA to use its authority under the Clean Air Act to narrow the scope of uses allowed for HFCs with high global warming potentials where better alternatives exist."*** * British Government Panel on Sustainable Development, First Report, January 25, 1995, Sir Crispen Tickell, Chair. [Return] ** Kroeze, C. "Potential Effect of HFC Policy on Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions in 2035", Op. Cit. [Return] *** US Climate Change Action Plan, 19 October, 1993 [Return] WHAT YOU CAN DO TO HELP PREVENT GLOBAL WARMING BY ELIMINATING HFCs Write, talk, fax, e-mail your government and your supermarket. Demand your government legislates an immediate ban on the production and use of HFCs in your country, or the import of products to your country that utilize HFCs. Demand your government sponsors an international ban on the production of HFCs, under the United Nations Framework Climate Convention. Demand your government supports the immediate phase-out of all ozone destroying chemicals, including HCFCs, under the auspices of the Montreal Protocol; Demand your local supermarket change over from CFCs to Greenfreeze - not HCFCs or HFCs. Use your consumer power to support those industries, supermarkets and products that do not use CFCs, HCFCs or HFCs. ACT RIGHT NOW