Sustainable automotive air conditioning

Sustainable automotive air conditioning is the subject of a debate – also known as the ''Cool War'' – about the next-generation refrigerant in car air conditioning. An advocacy group, ''The Alliance for CO₂ Solutions'', supports the uptake of carbon dioxide (CO₂) as a refrigerant in passenger cars, and the chemical industry is developing new chemical blends.

The Alliance for CO₂ Solutions propositions the car industry to replace more unsustainable chemical substances with the natural refrigerant like carbon dioxide (CO₂, R744/ R-744) in car cooling and heating. They claim that this would lead to 10% fewer emissions from new cars, potentially reducing global greenhouse gas emissions by 1%.

Opponents of the advocacy group claim that CO₂ refrigeration technology is not cost-efficient nor safe, and support the development of new chemical refrigerant blends instead.

Background

A debate had emanated from the decision of the European Union to phase out the current high global warming refrigerant HFC-134a in car air conditioning from January 2011 onwards. To comply with the legislation carmakers have to decide on new refrigerants, as they typically need 3 to 4 years to develop and introduce a new car platform including the new air conditioning system.

Arguments

Arguments for CO₂

The Alliance for CO₂ Solutions and its supporters agree that the refrigerant CO₂ is:

*More environmentally friendly with the lowest global warming potential (GWP) of all currently used and proposed refrigerants. CO₂ does not deplete the ozone layer. Because the carbon dioxide used in car air conditioning is a recycled industrial waste product, it is an environmentally neutral solution. The Alliance claims that using a CO₂-based air conditioning system will reduce total car emissions by 10%, thereby sparing the planet 1% of total greenhouse gases.
*More technically ready because CO₂ models have been developed and tested in all climates, being now ready for mass production. They are faster to heat and cool a car, and show superior performance in over 90% of all driving conditions.
*More cost-efficient because as a refrigerant itself, CO₂ is cheap and worldwide available. The servicing of CO₂ systems will be less costly and less complicated than that of present systems. For the consumer, the total cost of ownership is lowest with CO₂ as it will significantly cut fuel consumption by the air conditioning device. Carmakers have to make an initial investment estimated at €20 per unit, with no additional costs once CO₂ Technology enters into mass production.
*Usable in Heat Pumps because at least one CO₂ system under development can act as a heat pump, supplying cabin heat and windshield defrosting even before the engine has warmed up.
*Although the Alliance may not mention it, since CO₂ is so cheap and relatively harmless to the environment, the reservoirs in such systems could store additional liquid R744 to keep a vehicle cool even when the engine (or compressor) was not running.
*Technology is readily developed long ago. During the RACE Project from 1994 to 1997, financed by the EU with nearly 2 Million Euros, main producers of cars agreed to develop CO₂ car AC systems. Se

The result was that car AC systems for CO₂ small cars are 45% more expensive than HFKW Units and that for the luxury class the additional cost was irrelevant. There is a final presentation of the Project containing this data.

Arguments against CO₂

CO₂ Technology requires the design of completely new high-pressure systems whereas so-called "drop-in solutions" (the adaptation of current systems to new substances) are potentially more cost-efficient.

The Alliance for CO₂ Solutions claims, however that the initial costs of CO₂ systems will be around €5 higher than drop-in solutions and that over a car's life cycle, CO₂ air conditioning systems will be more cost-efficient than any currently used or proposed new chemical blends. (see #Arguments_for_CO2, Arguments for CO₂).
has been classified as Safety Class A1 (low-toxic, non-flammable refrigerant) by the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) – the highest safety class possible. As the charge of CO₂ to the air conditioning systems is very small (200-400 g) there is no real danger for the passengers, even in case of accidental release.

Arguments for non-CO₂ refrigerants

*Refrigerants such as the Greenpeace-developed ' Greenfreeze', based on purified butane/ propane mixtures, are entirely 'natural', and due to increased efficiency over refrigerants such as R134a, allow the use of very small amounts of refrigerant to be used.
*The use of pure hydrocarbon refrigerants, which are 'backward compatible' with even early Freon (R-12) car air conditioning systems, would allow these systems to be easily converted (without modification), increasing their efficiency, and preventing further release of harmful R-134a and R-12 to the atmosphere.

Arguments against non-CO₂ refrigerants

Butane and propane are very flammable petroleum products; they are used as fuels for gas barbecue grills, disposable lighters, etc. Like gasoline, to which it chemically is closely related, propane tends to explode if mixed with oxygen and ignited in an enclosed container.

The use of highly flammable hydrocarbon gases such as butane and propane as automotive refrigerants raises serious safety concerns. The EPA, in evaluating motor vehicle air conditioning substitutes for CFC-12 (Freon, or R-12) under its SNAP program, has classified as "Unacceptable Substitutes" other "Flammable blend of hydrocarbons" because of "insufficient data to demonstrate safety." The EPA defines "Unacceptable" in this context as "illegal for use as a CFC-12 substitute in motor vehicle air conditioners". All of the refrigerants which the EPA approved for motor vehicle use in place of CFC-12 (as of 28 September 2006) contain no more than 4% of total flammable hydrocarbons (butane, isobutane, and/or isopentane). Therefore, it appears unlikely, for safety reasons, that EPA will approve 'Greenfreeze' or similar hydrocarbon-based refrigerants for automotive use.

History

In September 2007, the German Association of the Automotive Industry (VDA) officially announced its decision to use CO₂ as the refrigerant in next-generation air conditioning. A working group at the European Automobile Manufacturers Association (ACEA) proposed drafting an industry-wide common position. Reports later claimed VDA members would avoid complying with the EU directive through legal loopholes.German TV explains car industry boycott of EU law
/ref>

Positions

* ttps://web.archive.org/web/20110719201533/http://www.greenpeace.de/themen/klima/nachrichten/artikel/vda_gegen_den_rest_der_welt/ Greenpeace Germany - News Release 6 September 2007br>Alliance for CO2 Solutions - Press Release 6 September 2007Alliance for CO2 Solutions - Press Release 30 July 2007Alliance for CO2 Solutions - Press Release 13 June 2007
* ttps://web.archive.org/web/20070930165229/http://www.umweltbundesamt.de/uba-info-presse-e/2007/pdf/pe07-027.pdf German Federal Environment Agency (Umweltbundesamt) - Press Release 8 May 2007

Media coverage

Spiegel-Online.de (06/09/2007)ENDS Europe Report - August edition
*
European Voice (07/07/12)Euractiv (07/06/26)
* 07/06/18)

See also

*Automobile air conditioning
*EcoCute, is an energy efficient electric heat pump that uses carbon dioxide as a refrigerant

References

External links

R744.com Website dedicated to CO₂ TechnologyShecco.com
*

{{DEFAULTSORT:Cool War
Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
Automotive cooling systems
Sustainable design