Is this a brave step towards a cut in greenhouse gas emissions? Or a knee-jerk reaction, which has more to do with old fashioned economics than environmental matters, and which is likely to cause more problems than it solves?
Some UK air conditioning manufacturers seem to think it's the latter. The Federation of Environmental Trade Associations (FETA) believes the Danish proposal has too many loopholes which seem to benefit that country's air conditioning industry.
FETA points out that in the proposal document, Danish domestic manufacture and export of hfcs and hfc equipment is not banned. The Federation comments: "The Danish measure protects local industry by permitting Danish manufacture and export of hfcs and hfc equipment.
"This underlines the Danish government's willingness and interest in allowing its own industry to invest and profit from hfc technology, while protecting it from international competition in its domestic market. This is unacceptable both in terms of its effect on the European single market and on European trade."
It is easy to understand why UK manufacturers should react to what could be construed as protectionist measures. But economic matters should not be allowed to stand in the way of one country's attempts to help the environment. However, there are those who believe a ban on hfcs is not the best way forward in the immediate future.
David Butler, principle consultant at the Building Research Establishment's Environmental Engineering Centre, says: "All but hardline environmentalists recognise that hfcs are currently important alternatives that are helping the rapid transition from cfcs and hcfcs."
However, Butler says that it is probably only a matter of time before a UK government phases out hfcs. The current Government has already put a cap on the increase in hfcs. Its Climate Change Programme says that hfcs are not sustainable in the long-term.
The main problem, of course, is that hfcs are themselves alternatives to cfcs and hcfcs which were phased out for their damaging impact on the environment. Unfortunately, the potential replacements for hfcs which are available today, such as ammonia and hydrocarbons, can carry with them other disadvantages. Poisonous and flammable substances are not ideal for use in and around occupied buildings.
Butler says that the Danes have a different attitude to this than we do in the UK, or the USA: "The Scandinavians tend to accept the dangers (of using the current hfc alternatives). They engineer them out as far as possible. They are much more willing to use them than we are. In the USA companies won't use substances like ammonia for air conditioning purposes, simply because of the level of litigation that exists over there."
And of course, if hfcs are phased out, then engineers will need more training to deal with the current alternatives on offer. "If you are trying to use alternatives such as ammonia, you need experienced engineers to use it properly. There are only a few companies with that kind of skill", says Butler.
Other environmentally friendly methods of air conditioning and cooling are being explored. Butler mentions magnetic and thermo acoustic research. "All sorts of esoteric methods are being looked into. But large companies in the USA are putting money into that research, including the Ford Motor company."
He adds though that even the researchers would admit that nothing will emerge for at least another decade.
Whatever the solution to the hfc question, the answer seems to be to look for it slowly and steadily. Unless, like the Danes, we're prepared to take a few risks.
Source
Building Sustainable Design
