You must log in or register to comment.
I forget where I saw this, but apparently “the hole” is in the polar regions… that get less direct sunlight… and therefor produce less ozone.
Same thing with acid rain. Remember acid rain? When was the last time you heard someone fear mongering about acid rain? Doesn’t really happen anymore, because we passed policies reducing the sulfur content in highway and maritime fuels. Less sulfur being emitted into the atmosphere means less sulfuric acid is formed in clouds meaning the rain is less acidic. We did it.
only recently with maritime fuels and these are still used iirc. the big deal was removal of sulfur dioxide from coal powerplant exhaust by scrubbing it with chalk suspension (which also gives a lot of cheap gypsum) removal of sulfur from gasoline and diesel is technically easier but also there’s a technical reason because sulfur poisons catalysts used to turn shitty gasoline into slightly better gasoline
That’s the problem with stupid people. When there’s a crisis and people solve it they just go “see there wasn’t a serious crisis”, and next time they go “nothing happened last time, it’s exaggerated”
You are only allowed to fix things if you don’t tell people you are fixing them and most critically don’t tell them what it will cost. The problem occurs when someone aware and nefarious seeks power they can point out all the ‘expensive and worthless’ things that were done by their opponents. We now all live in ‘the problem occurs’ time period.
ignorant*
Yeah?
But what about Y2K? All those programmers and companies stressed over it and nothing happened! /s
That’s the problem when you live in an information bubble. I clearly remember reports about the ozon layer starting regenerating.
Why do idiots and ignorants still have that much influence? That’s the real mystery!
The internet works as amplifier and they also are more likely to vote in EVERY election.
They have it easier though.
It’s easy to spout off nonsense over and over on repeat. It takes time to sit there and explain how that nonsense is wrong, and by the time you’ve handled that the person you corrected has already moved on and started spouting more nonsense.
I had to learn about this stuff to get my refrigerant certification. If you want to claim that CFCs aren’t that big of a deal then you are a fucking dumbass.
1 atom of chlorine can destroy 100,000 atoms of ozone. For every 1 part of chlorine that enters the atmosphere 100,000 times that amount of ozone is destroyed. Not only that, it also absorbs and traps infrared and other types of radiation heat and stops it from escaping the atmosphere. That is just one of the elements in CFCs and they all do severe levels of damage, they aren’t very stable so they break down easy and ever atom of its compound gets to interact to it’s full effect. Shit’s really bad.
i think i’m qualified as a chemist
as far as ozone goes, CFCs are bad, HCFCs are less bad but still bad, bromine is even worse, iodine would be worse than bromine but also it’s expensive and the only compound that would be slightly useful would be CF3I which decomposes very quickly. so we can actually maybe see it used in the future, because it’s basically fine
as far as GHG potential goes, the thing that is important are C-F bonds, these bonds do the IR absorption, and how fast that thing decomposes. if you introduce weak bonds decomposition is faster, a lot. C-F bonds are very strong, C-Cl a bit less but we don’t want to do that. C-H are okayish, any double bond is also weak. so this is why CFCs and PFCs are very bad, because they last very long. HFCs are a maybe, not good enough so some are getting phased out now, with less fluorine these get flammable too. and HFOs degrade fast, so they’re basically fine but also are expensive
the more C-F bonds and the less C-H bonds we have the less flammable thing gets, but also more stable, and by the time things get flammable it just makes more sense to switch to hydrocarbons. there are some very niche mixes that would comply with GHG requirements and are nonflammable but very few people actually need it and maybe they’ll get waivers anyway
Hey Chemist. Tell me about methane. We’re about to get a lot of that.
Not a chemist but if you’re comparing methane to refrigerants it doesn’t even come close. Methane has a GWP of 27. That means it’s 27 times worse than CO2. However, even the “environmentally friendly” HFO refrigerants like R-454a being used now have GWPs in the hundreds. If you look at the last gen of refrigerants like R-404a and R-410a which are still in use in most equipment you’re looking at GWPs in the thousands and sometimes over ten thousand. Hell, just a few weeks ago I was working with R-508b which has a GWP of 13,396 and an atmospheric lifetime of 5,524 years.
The only common refrigerants you’ll find which have a GWP near methane are the hydrocarbon refrigerants like R-290 aka propane. However those can only be used in small appliances due to the flamability concerns. It probably wouldn’t be a great idea to have several hundred pounds of liquid propane coursing through the walls of a grocery store for example (especially with how bad many grocery stores leak). The gold standard though for environmentally friendly refrigeration is R-744 aka carbon dioxide. It has a GWP of 1 making it the most environmentally friendly common refrigerant out there. However right now it is only used in heavy commercial and industrial refrigeration due to the cost of equipment designed to operate at the pressures required to use it. Also CO2 has a nasty habit of going supercritical at temps most places regularly reach during the summer so R-744 systems need to be designed to operate as transcritical systems which also adds a ton of complexity and cost.
propane/butane/isobutane (gwp much lower than 0.1) is weaker ghg than methane because it decomposes faster, and i thought that for large installations the best choice, by far, is ammonia (0 gwp). you don’t have to circulate ammonia around, there’s glycol loop for that. carbon dioxide is really good if you need -80C, at common AC/freezer/whatever temperatures it loses efficiency and has way too high pressure. (wouldn’t high pressure systems also leak, even more than regular ones?)
there’s also Ikon A, ancient (patent-free) refrigerant mix that is R-152a and CF3I aka R-13I1 that also has gwp around 20-30 but also it’s not flammable, in fact it’s a pretty good fire suppressant because of iodine content. it would comply with all restrictions but it’s expensive tho
worst offenders are perfluorinated gases. CF4 is 5300x as bad as CO2 and lasts 50000 years, SF6 is 17500x as bad and lasts 3200 years. some of the oldest refrigerants were also rather bad, R12 is 10800x worse and lasts 100 years. phasing them out was accidentally a good choice for two reasons
Ammonia is great but it’s also kind of religated to being it’s own thing in the refrigeration industry because of its incompatible with copper/brass which makes it incompatible with almost all standard refrigeration tools and equipment. Basically anyplace that runs an ammonia system will have their own techs because nobody else will work on it. It’s pretty common for heavy industrial refrigeration but not much outside of that. It is also deadly in case of large leaks which makes people shy away from it.
CO2 though is already in use for grocery store rack refrigeration systems. Aldi is a big user of them. You also can’t actually go below -40C with on a CO2 system without risking forming dry ice in the pipes. As far as efficiency goes, the big impact is from transcritical operation but even then it really doesn’t make a big enough impact to negate the benefits. Rack refrigeration systems can already be hilariously efficient with high end equipment and CO2 equipment is always high end. CO2 also has a remarkably high coefficient of expansion compared to most refrigerants which gives you some pretty big efficiency gains in that regard which ballances out most of the losses. As far as leaks go I haven’t noticed that they leak any more or less than conventional systems, however when they do leak, CO2 is dirt cheap. The only real downside I’ve seen about these systems are, transcritical complexity, sheer cost, and for some reason they seem to plug oil filters more often.
i’ve noticed biologists keeping CO2 cylinders connected to something near their -80C freezers, that’s why i assumed it works for this kind of temperatures
Might be for keeping an inert atmosphere. Normally nitrogen would be the gas of choice for that but CO2 is cheaper and easier to store in bulk so if they don’t absolutely need nitrogen then I could see CO2 being used instead. Basically you just keep the chamber slightly positively pressurized with CO2 to keep the oxygen out.
As far as temp keeping goes though basically all of the ultra low temp freezers (those not using liquid nitrogen anyways) I’ve seen use R-508b along with a medium temp refrigerant like R-404a or R-448a in a cascade setup to achieve those temps. I’ve never seen CO2 used for ultra low temp refrigeration due to it’s nasty habit of turning solid below about 100PSIG.
I have just read and learned more about refrigeration, gasses/compounds and R values in the last 10 minutes than I ever thought I would in a lifetime.
shit sure is interesting though, as someone who grew up with the whole ozone hole thing.
thank you scientists and fellow lemmings.
TiL… a lot!
i don’t think it’s gonna come from persian gulf for some time
we probably don’t have to worry about clathrates too hard, permafrost is a different thing. i’m not a biologist, but i can tell you that in regular soil in many places there are bacteria that both produce and consume methane (and also hydrogen). i don’t know how well this topic is studied
Don’t health clubs put bromine in pools to clean them? It can’t be good for people then either, yeah?
that’s different
fluorine, chlorine, bromine, and iodine are the “halogen” elements and theyre all very reactive
bromine is a better disinfectant for hot water and chlorine is better for cold water because of how well they dissolve in water at various temperatures; fluorine is too reactive (would react with the water) and iodine is rarer and less soluble
the way they disinfect is by being unstable and reactive and reacting with microbes and hurting them; because microbes are so tiny they dont have much protective skin so they are easily killed by reactive chemicals
in a big multicellular organism they only attack the very surface cells, and the cells are not destroyed so do not open up deeper layers when attacked
putting such things in pools isnt much of an environmental hazard because reactive things will quickly react with various chemicals and form stable compounds, and the levels are low
on the other hand, halocarbon chemicals such as CFCs specifically catalyze ozone decomposition, and are stable, so they tend to end up in the upper atmosphere without decomposing
this kind of bromine is fine because it doesn’t reach ozone layer, it’s not much worse than regular chlorine bleach
I thought someone shot Matt Walsh in the neck? Oh wait it was the other guy identical to him in every aspect that matters
It was a Goyper that did it though.
Nick Fuentes needs to be thrown head first into a prison cell and left to rot.
Man different times. Imagine if this happened now.
Countries passing regulation for a common good? Sounds too woke for me!
There’d be lots more 80s hair to battle the woke ideal.
Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer 1985 Am I a joke to you?
Yes, since it did not work as well. It was proto good. A hipster of a convention that needed a follow up by a real Canadian one, with teeth and brawn and chiseled good looks.
And a bulge between the legs.
Funny story too. They had a bounty system, you got paid for bringing in the cfc’s to get rid of them. So manufacturers started quiet;y making it just to trade it in.
Ever seen all the news about renewable power growing exponentially? No? It’s because good news is boring and noone has agenda to propagate it.
Actually this is reported on often here in Australia, where renewables (mainly solar) are making drastic changes to our power grid and energy system.
Matt Walsh is a walking trashcan lid flapping in the wind.
We need to bring back bullying, but just for people like Matt Walsh
Matt Walsh could very well be a self-hating dyslexic individual who thought his condition was a personal failing and is taking out his hate on everyone.
Do it will climate change - now.
We tried. Then fascists bought by oil showed up.
Too much money in oil and coal etc.
This is why we have laws and rules.
And that is why oil and coal companies bought politicians
The Ozone Layer keeps it warm in the summer, cool in the winter, and it keeps out the sheep.
Then how do we sleep?
