GWP is a comparative number, with CO2 as the baseline. Here is a comparison of the different refrigerants and the EU requirement.
In early February, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced its plans to issue a proposed rule that would eliminate the use of R134a as a refrigerant in new motor vehicles and as an aerosol in many consumer products. According to the press release, this action is being taken in support of President Obama’s Climate Action Plan, which aims to “develop an ‘all-of-the-above’ strategy for reducing emissions of greenhouse gases in the U.S.”
I hate to say it, but I told you this was coming almost 5 years ago in a blog I wrote for our online community, the AutoPro Workshop.
What does this all mean for our industry? Will we see a repeat of the R12 phase-out many of us experienced firsthand? Will we be performing retrofits to older systems, and if so, with what?
To understand the future, we need to review a little history.
Climate change and R134a
Get used to seeing this label, and notice both the flammability warning and the qualified technician-only symbol. Image courtesy of MACS
No matter your personal opinions on global warming and climate change, most authorities agree that R134a is not a good thing for the environment. Quantities of R134a in our atmosphere have grown steadily over the years, and it (along with other hydrofluorocarbons, or HFCs) acts as an insulating blanket surrounding our planet. Its lifespan is estimated at more than 13 years, so the impact is multiplied over time.
How it all got there is a matter of debate, but let’s just say that is one reason organizations like the Mobile Air Conditioning Society (MACS) and noted members of the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Interior Climate Control committee have been advocating the ban of small DIY cans of refrigerant like those you can find in every Walmart in the country.
Sold in 10-pound containers, expect R1234yf to cost about 10x more than 134a. Image courtesy of DuPont
The European Commission was the first to act on HFCs, or “F” gases. In 2006 or so (EU Directive 2006/40/EC), it officially banned the use of R134a in new model platforms for sale in the European Union beginning Jan. 1, 2011, and gradually phasing out use in new vehicles for sale all together Jan. 1, 2017.
What model year are we in? Keep that in mind.
Specifically, the EU MACS Directive requires the use of a substitute refrigerant that has a Global Warming Potential (GWP) under 150. GWP is a comparative measurement of how greenhouse gases trap in the atmosphere, with carbon dioxide as the baseline (CO2 has a GWP of 1). R134a has a GWP of 1,300, meaning 1 gram of R134a is 1,300 times more harmful that 1 gram of CO2. While it will not meet the requirements in the EU for use in new cars, it is important to note that this directive is not a phase-out, but a phase-down. That means vehicles on the road already can continue to use R134a until they naturally pass out of the fleet.
The EPA’s proposed rule means the same thing here in the United States. They are not banning the use of R134a EXCEPT for use on new vehicles. So the answer to one of the questions on everyone’s mind is that there are currently no plans to retrofit any existing R134a system to a different gas. Thank goodness, you’ll be saying, as we continue this discussion.
So, with what are we going to replace R134a? You might think you know the answer.
The contenders
Each refrigerant requires its own dedicated RRR machine. Can’t wait to see what happens when R1234yf is fitted to hybrids. Another machine? Image courtesy of Robinair
The search for a replacement for R134a featured several possibilities. Nearly any gas can be used as a refrigerant. It all depends on the pressure/temperature relationship of a gas on just how effective it may be. With that in mind, let’s take a look at some of the early contenders.
One of the first to be considered was R744, or carbon dioxide. Kind of hard to beat the gas used as a baseline, isn’t it? But the use of R744 (every refrigerant receives a nomenclature beginning with the letter R) posed some problems. The system itself requires high operating pressures, in excess of 2,000 psi, and some automakers thought that was not a good thing to have in the passenger cabin.
One solution to this potential safety hazard was the use of a “secondary loop” design. In this design, a coolant fluid (antifreeze) was cooled by the refrigerant circuit and then passed into the cabin, where the coolant was used for the transfer of heat. It prevents the exposure of high pressure in the cabin by keeping all the refrigerant components under the hood, but increases cost and complexity.
Always good practice, checking the quality of the refrigerant in the car before recovery will be mandatory on R1234yf systems. It’s incorporated into the RRR equipment.
R744 is not as efficient as R134a, according to some sources, and cars equipped with this refrigerant in the U.S. might do a dandy job when the car is in Fond du Lac, Wis., but fall short when faced with the demands a city like Phoenix would place on it. In addition, the impact of greenhouse gases not only is measured as a result of the gas itself, but the energy consumed by the vehicle to operate the air conditioning system. Some claim that R744, overall, actually pollutes more when considering this additional factor.
Another potential candidate was R152a, a refrigerant commonly found in those little canned air products you use to blow the dust out of your computer’s keyboard. Its properties were similar to R134a, making system design changes relatively simple to accomplish. Unfortunately, R152a is classified as a flammable material. Considering all the stuff that can catch fire under the hood of any car, this factor could be mitigated with the addition of safety features but that represents extra cost in production.
Both alternatives also faced serviceability concerns, and raised questions on whether additional certifications should be required before allowing technicians to work on them. But let’s be real. Joe Bob doesn’t have any certifications now and is trying to fix R134a systems in his driveway based solely on how his dad used to do it back in the R12 days. Any shop that has seen a car come in with an overcharged system, or one filled with something other than the correct refrigerant, knows that requiring certification and enforcing it are two very different things.
Considering a new leak detector? Make sure it works on HFC and HFO gases. Image courtesy of Yellow Jacket
A third gas presented as an alternative is the one that eventually won out: R1234yf, also known as HFO1234yf. With a GWP of <1 (according to the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), it certainly meets the requirements of the European Union directive. Its pressure/temperature characteristics also are close to that of R134a, making it almost a “drop-in” replacement.
Naysayers at first pointed out that R1234yf is also flammable — albeit “mildly flammable” — but numerous tests performed by automakers and SAE Cooperative Research Projects have proven time after time that the refrigerant is safe for use in automotive A/C systems. Though behind schedule and past the deadline required by the MACS Directive, the first cars equipped with R1234yf were sold in Europe in March 2012 (as reported in the European Fluorocarbons Technical Committee newsletter).
Problem solved?
Remember, the EU MACS Directive only applied to vehicles built for sale in the European Union countries. No other country in the world, including the U.S., had made any indication that it would follow suit. There was and is, however, a huge incentive for domestic manufacturers to make the switch. It’s called CAFE, or Corporate Average Fuel Economy, and it is the fleet fuel efficiency mandates issued by the Federal government.
Currently, CAFE standards require that the average fleet fuel economy for cars and light trucks meet or exceed 54.5 mpg by the 2025 MY. That explains the growth of hybrid and diesel offerings, and the renewed interest in hydrogen fuel cells. But even that may not be enough for some manufacturers, who need to earn or buy “credits” they can use to offset the mandate. Some companies, like Tesla, have an abundance of credits and sell them to other manufacturers like product. Alternatively, credits can be earned by using green systems, and HFO1234yf air conditioning systems qualify.
GM was the first American company to add R1234yf systems to its product lines, specifically the Cadillac XTS, and has plans to expand the use over time to all their models. Chrysler has since announced that it, too, will be making the move (not all at once, but over time) on its lineup. Asian manufacturers have already added some models to their North American market offerings utilizing the new gas.
But one of the very first carmakers to produce an HFO1234yf-equipped car for sale in the U.S. was Mercedes-Benz (Daimler). Certain 2013 SL-class models arrived equipped with 1234yf systems (made in late 2011/early 2012). That was, however, going to lead to a firestorm in the industry later that same year.
Daimler pulls out
Replacing the desiccant anytime you service an A/C system is always good practice and typically easy enough. But at least one make (Chrysler) is making this an unserviceable part on its 1234yf systems, requiring condenser replacement instead. Image courtesy of Delphi
Not long after these models made their way on shore, Daimler issued a press release that stated, in part, that its own testing revealed what it considered serious safety issues related to the use of R1234yf. Daimler also announced a recall of the models it already had produced using the new gas, and its plans to refit them with R134a.
On top of that, Daimler stated (for the record) that it would not abide by the EU directive and would continue to use R134a in its product lines for sale across the globe until a suitable replacement (in their opinion) could be found. To date, no other OEM has backed Daimler’s claim — although some German automakers have stated that CO2 is their preferred choice. This wasn’t all that surprising to some, because the German automakers had been relatively steadfast in their desire to use R744, and in their resistance to 1234yf, from the beginning.
This led to more soap opera developments than an episode of “All My Children.” Many criticized the methodology of Daimler’s findings and remarked that they, along with their German counterparts, had all been part of the original testing of the now-questioned refrigerant. Member nations of the EU were openly critical of the automakers’ refusal to meet the Directive’s requirements — and of the German government for enabling them to do so. In fact, formal infringement proceedings against Germany were initiated on Jan. 23, 2014.
Is it really a matter of safety? This is my personal opinion, but consider the facts: The German automakers were bent on using CO2. Other automakers were not so keen on the idea, though, for reasons we’ve already discussed. Daimler and the others were directly involved with the selection process, and even the German automotive trade association (VDA) called for a global consensus on what single refrigerant would be used, and for obvious reasons. After extensive testing involving more than a dozen vehicle manufacturers and even more suppliers, it was agreed that HFO1234yf would be the best choice.
Yet here we are. As one editorial review put it, it’s akin to the age of VHS versus Beta. Sony was convinced, until the end, that Beta was the better of the two. In my humble opinion, we are seeing a similar situation here. Only it’s not going to cost the manufacturers, it’s going to cost us.
Now what?
There are several challenges facing those in the A/C service and repair business. But we’ve overcome challenges before. Image courtesy of Robinair
First, don’t throw out your R134a equipment just yet. Even though it is highly likely the EPA will use its authority under the Clean Air Act to mandate the phase-out of R134a, it will be just that — a phase-out as opposed to a phase-down. That means that all the vehicles currently out there using R134a will continue to do so until they fade from the landscape. No retrofits, and that’s a good thing, considering the high cost of HFO1234yf (Chrysler MSRP at your local dealer is $1,236.80 for a 10-pound container).
Second, consider HFO1234yf a refrigerant that is here to stay. Fortunately, the learning curve for servicing and repairing these systems is not too steep. Basic operation and troubleshooting will be the same as we’re used to on R134a systems.
You will, however, need dedicated service equipment to work on these vehicles. RRR machines will be equipped, and require, some form of refrigerant identification before they will allow you to recover what’s in a car, and the mildly flammable classification will necessitate different storage and handling techniques. Additionally, evaporators used in cars equipped with the new gas are more robust to prevent potential leaks in the cabin and must be replaced with a new, certified unit — no soldering and no junkyard swaps.
From a purely business standpoint, you might ask yourself whether it’s time to enter the HFO1234yf service market. These cars will be under factory warranty for some time, so unless you’re a collision shop that needs to recover or recharge systems after repair, or your shop is in a market not easily serviced by a dealer, you might want to hold off awhile to see that develops in the A/C landscape.
And that leads us to Point No. 3: What other refrigerants might we see in the future? Peering into the crystal ball I used 5 years ago, I see R744 appearing in the European models. That means another dedicated piece of equipment — and, at the least, formal training for dealing with such a high-pressure system. I don’t foresee the average shop servicing these cars any more than shops today service Euro drivability issues, but some of our readers who specialize in European service might keep a watchful eye on the horizon, as the drama in the European Union continues to unfold.
Under the radar is a potential challenger to HFO1234yf: R445a. Produced by Mexichem and also referred to as AC6, it’s a blend of 85 percent 1234ze(E), 9 percent 134a and 6 percent 744. Said to be significantly cheaper than HFo1234yf, it is also a low GWP refrigerant that is at press time awaiting addition to the EPA Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) list of approved gases; SAE is already working on standards. If picked up by manufacturers concerned over cost, that would mean yet another dedicated machine and equipment a shop would have to invest in to service these systems.
Potentially, shop owners and technicians could be looking at dealing with four different refrigerants instead of the one (OK, maybe two if you count the few R12 cars still out there) in the foreseeable future. How soon? HFO1234yf is here today, and I’m betting R744 will be on the scene within the next few years. Although these new systems will be under factory warranty, collision shops and independents in remote areas may have to deal with them well before that warranty expires.
Will it be worth staying in the A/C business? Will we be seeing mobile A/C specialists like we see mobile diagnostic guys today? It’s going to be a challenge, for sure. But we, as an industry, have risen to the challenges of the past. I suspect we’ll rise to this one, too.
Subscribe to Motor Age and receive articles like this every month…absolutely free. Click here
