Live data from Hacker News

Emissions of banned, ozone-depleting chemical CFC-11 have climbed 25% since 2012

washingtonpost.com

131–140 of 163 posts

Re: Emissions of banned, ozone-depleting chemical CFC-11 have climbed 25% since 2012

#131
post #63

As an engine mechanic, Hanlons Razor comes to mind. We once had a "thief" in our garage who was stealing expensive welding gasses and getting away with it. Sometimes she would steal whole tanks, other times she would siphon tanks until they were almost dry. We took to naming her Shirley. After about a month we caught the culprits. The tank theft was due to a manager in another location who was greedily stealing our g…

The insurrection of the safety valves is real.

This week on Everest: https://www.instagram.com/p/Bi1lmwJDyrG/

Re: Emissions of banned, ozone-depleting chemical CFC-11 have climbed 25% since 2012

#132
post #2

> also because alternatives exist, making it hard to imagine what the market for CFC-11 today would be. Well I've heard of someone who was stockpiling and was planning to sell banned Freon. That was years ago. There is a black market for it because equipment that uses it doesn't simply work on newer approved stuff. If I randomly heard about it, chances are there are more insantces of it. And if there is demand someon…

>There is a black market for it because equipment that uses it doesn't simply work on newer approved stuff.

There's a black market because laymen flip out if you tell them you're refilling their A/C with propane/butane and lubricants.

Re: Emissions of banned, ozone-depleting chemical CFC-11 have climbed 25% since 2012

#133
post #2

> also because alternatives exist, making it hard to imagine what the market for CFC-11 today would be. Well I've heard of someone who was stockpiling and was planning to sell banned Freon. That was years ago. There is a black market for it because equipment that uses it doesn't simply work on newer approved stuff. If I randomly heard about it, chances are there are more insantces of it. And if there is demand someon…

>There is a black market for it because equipment that uses it doesn't simply work on newer approved stuff. There's a black market because laymen flip out if you tell them you're refilling their A/C with propane/butane and lubricants.

Aren't there documented cases of r600 explosions when used in non r600 equipment? I mean, my chest freezer uses butane, but it was built for it. My refrigeration training is limited so I am genuinely curious, I was always taught to NEVER mix refrigerants or attempt a retrofit like that, but I could be wrong/ignorant.

Re: Emissions of banned, ozone-depleting chemical CFC-11 have climbed 25% since 2012

#134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about just having police visit? They're more likely to apprehend the owners of the facility (you know, the actual culprits) and to preserve evidence of exactly what has occurred. Also in many nations they are less likely than a "missile strike" to kill everyone present.

Sure, but what if the corruption goes very high up, and the police do nothing? Or it’s an uncooperative rogue state? Do we just let the ozone burn?

Sometimes it's quite difficult to remind oneself that those with inexplicably martial attitudes are more likely to be deluded victims of the war media than actual employees of the military-industrial complex.

Re: Emissions of banned, ozone-depleting chemical CFC-11 have climbed 25% since 2012

#135
post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shady countries? Those are people and regular families...

Why does that idea repulse you? We see it regularly with countries high on the corruption scale. And given what we know about the tragedy of the commons, it makes sense to make money on a global tragedy (CFCs). I (a CFC producer) can make more than the loss everyone takes. Transparency International tries to uncover "shady" countries. You can see the results here: https://www.transparency.org/news/feature/corruption_…

Your logic and economic explanations are sensible. The term "shady countries" was the phrase I reacted upon, and only that. Shady government officials, businessmen, deals? Sure. Shady countries? It sounds extremely wide and viewed from a position of privilege.

Re: Emissions of banned, ozone-depleting chemical CFC-11 have climbed 25% since 2012

#136
post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you read the original paper linked in the Wikipedia article you cited? https://www.researchgate.net/publication/246650409_Large_Los...

Nope, none of this stuff crossed my mind for decades. Learning I should google everything before making a comment.

Don't be discouraged! The quickest way to learn is how you've done it here. Post something egregiously wrong, and wait for us HN know-it-alls to pounce. Don't worry about the internet points; they're cheap compared to new knowledge. Of course, HN would be tedious if it were full of this sort of thread, so the downvotes are certainly appropriate. I would have cast some myself had others not already done so.

Re: Emissions of banned, ozone-depleting chemical CFC-11 have climbed 25% since 2012

#137
post #67

Now I know I'm old, because the headline refers to CFCs by symptom than by name... (Wikipedia article about the guy behind them, no one-trick pony: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Midgley_Jr. )

>In 1940, at the age of 51, Midgley contracted poliomyelitis, which left him severely disabled. This led him to devise an elaborate system of strings and pulleys to help others lift him from bed. This was the eventual cause of his own death when he was entangled in the ropes of this device and died of strangulation at the age of 55 Wow.

Environmental historian J. R. McNeill opined that Midgley “had more impact on the atmosphere than any other single organism in Earth’s history”,[19] and Bill Bryson remarked that Midgley possessed “an instinct for the regrettable that was almost uncanny”.[20]

Re: Emissions of banned, ozone-depleting chemical CFC-11 have climbed 25% since 2012

#138
post #5

The overall, just-worrying-factor of this aside, I think it's rather surprising that "someone, somewhere" is putting up CFC-11 in the atmosphere and somehow the only way people got a hold of this was by looking at the ozone layer. If that's indeed the case, that would be a reminder that though there's a lot of information about a lot of stuff nowadays, much of what matters to us can still be going on on completely in…

> EDIT: Alternatively, and more innocently, this could be due to the end of the life-cycle of several appliances in Second/Third World countries -- or maybe even First World (do you know anyone with an aging fridge?). While a lot of people might have done away with their old fridges a long while ago, those that didn't might be seeing them all fail nearly at the same time.

The original paper takes a stance on this.[1]

> It seems unlikely that the increased CFC-11 emissions are related to faster releases from banks or from inadvertent production. Increases in bank-related emissions are thought possible from the demolition of buildings that contain CFC products, although these emissions are expected to be small and only slowly increase over time 22 . Furthermore, an increase in CFC emissions resulting from the decommissioning of buildings is anticipated to occur initially in developed countries in which most CFC-11 was used in the 1970s. However, atmospheric measurements suggest, for example, a decline in US emissions from 2008 to 2014, which is consistent with inventories 23 (a qualitative update suggests no substantial increases in emission after 2014). If reported production values are accurate, our results would require a doubling in the fractional release rate from CFC banks over the past 15 years and a substantial increase in emissions from banks since 2012, both of which seem improbable (Fig. 2b; Extended Data Fig. 9)

> ... These considerations suggest that the increased CFC-11 emissions arise from new production not reported to UNEP’s Ozone Secretariat, which is inconsistent with the agreed phase-out of CFC production in the Montreal Protocol by 2010.

[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0106-2

Re: Emissions of banned, ozone-depleting chemical CFC-11 have climbed 25% since 2012

#139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly, as a third-world citizen, I just can't fathom why anyone here would give a shit about ozone layer. We are extremely dismissive of those issues here because we care about the future of humanity and Earth a lot less that first-world populace. We have no incentive to protect the Earth so that children of first-worlders can live healthily in 2050 whenever. You fucked us all up with colonialism and whatnot, and…

You idiot, this is about you too. When the glaciers dry up in the Himalayas is that going to make first or third worlders' lives worse?

I hold Pakistani nationality too but thanks for playing. My family’s at risk too.

Re: Emissions of banned, ozone-depleting chemical CFC-11 have climbed 25% since 2012

#140
post #101

Back of the envelope calc says this is about the weight of say a dozen passenger cars or say 1 passenger car (weight) per month over a year? Doesn't sound like a major industrial operation to me and how many tons are STILL out there in old air conditioners and refrigerators that could be leaking?

You're out by a factor of 1000.

Yeah you're right - sorry about that - need to buy a much bigger slide rule :-)
Post reply on HN