The alternatives could be worse

The industry’s problem that lies behind the slow uptake of the alternatives is that specifiers and installers will be required by statute to use the green refrigerants such as ammonia and hydrocarbons but will not be given any corresponding statutory protection from claims arising purely from the fact that such refrigerants are inherently less safe than the hfcs they replace.

It is not necessary to prove negligence if the escape of X’s ammonia or propane/butane causes the evacuation of Y’s building, lost revenue amounting to £millions per minute in the City. Also “Safety is first, second and third” according to the ODPM; and the HSE is looking for “consultants” to put in the dock over site safety, so we have been warned not to expect any sympathy here too.

Apologies to BSj as the messenger but some of the remarks reported from speakers at recent conferences are irritating half truths that should not pass without comment.

‘HFCs have a strong global warming potential.’ The reason that hfcs will form an increasing percentage contribution to global warming is mainly due the reduction in the contributions from cfcs and hcfcs and the reduction of methane and CO₂ emissions.

The statistics are misleading out of context. ‘These technologies . . . are efficient and reliable’. Technologies are not the same as fully engineered and tested machines, and even when machines exist, their total effect on the environment will not be predictable. Screw chillers are only just becoming as efficient, reliable and quiet as the centrifugal machines they replaced for instance.

‘History shows that banning works’. It does by definition, especially if you ignore the faults or even the non-existence of the alternatives. How many of us are suffering from the banning of lead/tin solders on copper pipework?

The alternative solders are much harder to use reliably without fearsomely corrosive fluxes and the alternative jointing methods suffer from safety problems like lack of electrical continuity.

Ewen Rose says use of hfcs is ‘annoying and unnecessary’. But he is not responsible for developing the alternatives – or for using them safely.

One feels justified in asking Greenpeace to leave the soft targets alone . We are as aware of and as worried by global warming as they are . Greenpeace should aim for the harder targets within their stated programme for saving the globe, such as population control and statutory reduction of car and aircraft use, or of rationing of domestic energy demand within the home.

John Moss, consultant to Arup R&D