Sustainable automotive air conditioning
Sustainable automotive air conditioning is the subject of a debate – nicknamed the "Cool War" – about the next-generation refrigerant in car air conditioning. An advocacy group, "The Alliance for CO Solutions", supports the uptake of carbon dioxide (CO) as a refrigerant in passenger cars, and the chemical industry is developing new chemical blends. The Alliance propositions the car industry with the goal of replacing more unsustainable chemical substances with the natural refrigerant carbon dioxide (CO, R744/ R-744) in car cooling and heating. Their claim is that this would lead to 10% fewer emissions from new cars , potentially reducing global greenhouse gas emissions by 1%. If CO Technology is applied in other sectors, such as commercial and industrial refrigeration, heat pumps for water heating etc., they claim it may save up to 3% of the world's greenhouse gases. Opponents of the advocacy group claim that CO refrigeration technology is not cost-efficient or safe, and support the development of new chemical refrigerant blends instead. Background. A debate had emanated from the decision of the European Union to phase out the current high global warming refrigerant HFC-134a in car air conditioning from January 2011 onwards. To comply  with the legislation, carmakers have to decide on new refrigerants as they typically need 3 to 4 years to develop and introduce a new car platform including the air conditioning system. Arguments. Arguments for CO. The Alliance for CO Solutions and its supporters agree that the refrigerant CO is: Arguments against CO. CO Technology requires the design of completely new high-pressure systems whereas so-called "drop-in solutions" (the adaptation of current systems to new substances) are potentially more cost-efficient. The Alliance for CO Solutions claims, however that the initial costs of CO systems will be around € 5 higher than drop-in solutions and that over a car's life cycle, CO air conditioning systems will be more cost-efficient than any currently used or proposed new chemical blends. (see Arguments for CO). Arguments against non-CO refrigerants. Butane and propane are very flammable petroleum products; they are used as fuels for gas barbecue grills, disposable lighters, etc. Like gasoline, to which it chemically is closely related, propane has a tendency to explode if mixed with oxygen and ignited in an enclosed container. The use of highly flammable hydrocarbon gases such as butane and propane as automotive  refrigerants raises serious safety concerns. The EPA, in evaluating motor vehicle air conditioning substitutes for CFC-12 (Freon, or R-12) under its SNAP program, has classified as "Unacceptable Substitutes" other "Flammable blend[s] of hydrocarbons" by reason of "insufficient data to demonstrate safety." The EPA defines "Unacceptable" in this context as "illegal for use as a CFC-12 substitute in motor vehicle air conditioners". All of the refrigerants which EPA approved for motor vehicle use in place of CFC-12 (as of 28 September 2006) contain no more than 4% total flammable hydrocarbons (butane, isobutane, and/or isopentane). Therefore, it appears unlikely, for safety reasons , that EPA will approve 'Greenfreeze' or similar hydrocarbon-based refrigerants for automotive use. History. In September 2007, the German Association of the Automotive Industry (VDA) officially announced its decision to use CO as the refrigerant in next-generation air conditioning. Other carmakers from Europe and the rest of the world may follow the German lead. A working group at ACEA, the European carmakers' association, was to be drafting a common position on the issue to be adopted across the whole industry by end-2007. However, on 9 April 2009, German public television channel ARD aired a report claiming that VDA members  would be using loopholes in the law to avoid complying with the EU directive.