I would suggest that this is more appropriate to EnviroNet than here.
This is a typical semi-political tirade full of half-truths and
downright lies.
What it does not say is that CFCs are terrible global warmers, far worse
than the products that replace them. Had we kept status quo on CFCs, the
effect on climate change would be far worse than it is. This is measured
by its GWP (or Global Warming Potential). This is an index of its effect
on climate change, referred to carbon dioxide=1. There are several ways
of determining the GWP, depending on the time scale, so you can get
different nos. within a small range.
Let's have a look at CFC-113, the old "Freon" (R) solvent we loved to
emit when cleaning our assemblies. The GWP (WMO figure) is 6030. This
has been largely replaced by "no-clean" techniques or water cleaning,
both with GWP=0 (not strictly true for water, but near enough because of
strong negative feedback in the atmosphere). So all that evaporated
solvent with a high GWP is no longer being emitted. Ah, you say, but
some are using HCFCs, HFCs and HFEs. Let's have a look at them:
- HCFC-225 (Asahiklin-225) has a GWP of 180 or 620 (depending on the ca
or cb isomer). IOW 9.7 to 33.5 times better than CFC-113
- HFC-43-10mee (Vertrel) has a GWP of 1700 (pure) with typical blends
for electronics cleaning of GWP ~700. IOW, ~8.6 x better than CFC-113
- HFE solvents (Novec) have a GWP (pure) of 320 with typical blends of
GWP ~200. IOW ~300 x better than CFC-113.
Similar ratios exist for refrigeration, aerosol propellant, foam-blowing
CFCs etc., their substitutes always having lower GWPs.
In addition, because HCFCs and HFCs are more expensive than CFCs, they
are used more parcimoniously and modern conservation, recovery and
recycling techniques mean that the emissions are far lower, today.
Many domestic fridges use HCs (butane/propane blends) today. These have
a GWP of about 3, or 2000-3000 x better than CFC-11 or CFC-12 used
heretofore.
I had the honour to spend many years on a UNEP Montreal Protocol
Technical Options Committee (I chaired the electronics chapter) whose
task was to recommend substitutes for the various ozone-depleting
solvents. Part of our remit was to avoid recommending any alternative
with a high GWP, such as containing PFCs. My colleagues on committees
for refrigeration, aerosols, foam-blowing etc. had similar remits.
I can therefore state, with confidence, that the replacement of CFCs has
resulted in a very considerable drop in the average GWP of emissions and
the quantity of emissions has also dropped, despite increased demand for
refrigerants etc, compared with 20 years ago.
I know both Blaise Horisberger and Lambert Kuijpers, cited in this
article, very well and I have worked closely with both gentlemen. I feel
very confident that their quotations have been taken out of context of
much longer discussions. I'm copying this message to both these persons,
for their information, explaining that the original message is on a
netlist run by an electronics industry trade organisation.
Fox probably has some agenda to publish such a misleading journalese
article.
That having been said, I do not say that we should rest on our laurels:
there is still a lot of work to reduce GHG emissions, especially CO2 and
CH4, and any reduction of fluorocarbon emissions is also very desirable,
even though these make up only a small percentage of total, global GHG
emissions.
Brian
Gary Crowell wrote:
> They've finally figured out that the substitutes for Freon are worse for
> the environment than Freon ever was...
>
> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,209520,00.html
>
>
> Gary Crowell
> Micron Technology
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------Leadfee Mail List provided as a service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8d
> To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in
> the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF Leadfree
> To temporarily stop/(start) delivery of Leadree for vacation breaks send: SET Leadfree NOMAIL/(MAIL)
> Search previous postings at: http://listserv.ipc.org/archives
> Please visit IPC web site http://www.ipc.org/contentpage.asp?Pageid=4.3.16 for additional information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or 847-615-7100 ext.2815
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
--
http://www.cypenv.org Cyprus environment/energy
http://www.cypenv.org/worldenv World environment/energy
http://www.cypenv.org/weather Cyprus weather
http://www.cypenv.org/smf/index.php Environment/energy forums
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cypnature/ Cyprus nature forum
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------Leadfee Mail List provided as a service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8d
To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in
the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF Leadfree
To temporarily stop/(start) delivery of Leadree for vacation breaks send: SET Leadfree NOMAIL/(MAIL)
Search previous postings at: http://listserv.ipc.org/archives
Please visit IPC web site http://www.ipc.org/contentpage.asp?Pageid=4.3.16 for additional information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or 847-615-7100 ext.2815
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
