Click here to Find a Contractor in your area.
Welcome! Here are the website rules, as well as some tips for using this forum.
Need to contact us? Visit

what the heck ?

Is someone is playing with some of the statistics, or should we simply consider the source of this news?

I looked up the Global Warming Potential of a number of different alternatives in use today (134a, 410a, etc.) and <a href="">found them to be in the sub-2000 range</a>, whereas the likes of the gases they replaced, like R-11 (GWP ~4,000) or R12 (GWP 3-85,000) seem to have a GWP also. (see <a href="">engineeering toolbox</a>, <a href="">HEPCO</a>)

Could the Professor clarify the actual GWP of R11 and R12, as the engineering toolbox and the japanese sites have very different numbers?

And, does anyone have any stats on how much CO<sub>2</sub> is being emitted via other sources right now and how comparable the GWP of the vented refrigerant gases is?

Perhaps I need to read more... The HVAC manual the professor wrote looks very complete, so I am glad I bought it!


  • D lux_2
    D lux_2 Member Posts: 230
  • Eugene Silberstein
    Eugene Silberstein Member Posts: 1,380
    Sad But True

    True indeed.

    The purpose of the Montreal Protocol and the Clean Air Act of 1990 was to reduce damage to the ozone layer by eliminating the production of, and reducing the use of CFCs and HCFCs.

    Global warming was not a concern at the time, as substances commonly found in the atmosphere, such as carbon dioxide, contributed to global warming but did not contribute to the depletion of statospheric ozone.

    Go figure.
This discussion has been closed.


It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!