Talk:The Cool War

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Balance

This article seems highly based on propaganda from the promoters of carbon dioxide. Most of the references are to www.alliance-co2-solutions.org and the very title "The Cool War" and the (doubtfully licensed) logo appear to come from there. If that phrase is used neither by the chemical companies, nor by the press to the extent that readers would be expected to know or look up its meaning, then perhaps it should not be the title of this article.

The mission statement "To reject the refrigerant CO2 in car air conditioning, delay an industry-wide decision of carmakers, and develop new non-natural refrigerants." is unfair, as if it had been formulated by its opponents. Instead of the evil-sounding "non-natural", one might refer to "fluorine-based" as in the EurActiv article. And "delay" hints that the final decision would be for carbon dioxide anyway.

If the claimed debate actually exists (and with this much money at play, it should), then this article would benefit from some references to statements of the chemical companies, and in particular any rebuttals they may have to the asserted advantages of carbon dioxide. When CO₂ technology is "faster to heat and cool a car", it should be mentioned whether the comparison is against the current HFC-134a or against the proposed new refrigerants.

www.alliance-co2-solutions.org and R744.com both display the same contact phone number (+32 2 230 3700), and the domains are registered to Domains by Proxy. Perhaps a link to just one of these sites would suffice, then. 213.216.199.53 22:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, I have tagged this article with a NPOV. Hopefully someone out there who knows a bit more about automotive refrigerant dealings will be able to come in and balance this out, but until such time, I see this as the only appropriate action. I also have concerns about the title. "The Cool War" doesn't seem very professional or logical here. Maybe it should be "R744 Usage Debate"? Or perhaps the whole thing should just be merged into an existing article on refrigerants and climate change? I'm not exactly certain of what would be the best course of action here, but we need to do something to be sure.--Jt 03:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this whole article needs to be re-written. I'm a chemist and could do it, but don't have the time. (accidentally landed here) Lots of claims are made that are engineering or chemical in nature, with no evidence really offered. I'd like to see some information of thermal conductivities for the compounds of interest. I don't know the thermal conductivity of supercritical CO2 offhand, but I'm sure it would be relevant. 75.157.27.217 (talk) 03:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Misleading

"Pure hydrocarbon refrigerants also have a short lifetime in the atmosphere, weeks to months, whereas CO2, being more chemically stable, persists longer in the atmosphere (ultimately causing more global warming compared to hydrocarbon based refrigerants)"

Since those hydrocarbons break down into CO2, and the hydrocarbons themselves are much more powerful greenhouse gases than CO2, the net result is that the hydrocarbons themselves are much worse for the environment. "ultimately causing more global warming" is either misleading or flat out wrong. I would go with the latter. 75.157.27.217 (talk) 03:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

True! The main thing is that, if a car leaks out 200g of hydrocarbon per year, then it will damage the environment more than 200g of CO2 per year. However, this is totally dwarfed by the 1-2 tons of CO2 it will produce per year by burning fuel to actually drive around!. Although that is not the point of this article, I suppose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buckethed (talk • contribs) 10:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)