Scientipic Whiz-Dim

Hydrofluorocarbon (HFC)


 Kara Rogers

Alternative Title: HFC

Hydrofluorocarbon (HFC), any of several organic compounds composed of hydrogenfluorine, and carbon. HFCs are produced synthetically and are used primarily as refrigerants. They became widely used for this purpose beginning in the late 1980s, with the introduction of the Montreal Protocol, which phased out the use of chemicals such as halons and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) that contribute to the depletion of Earth’s ozone layer. However, while HFCs have an ozone depletion potential of zero, they are potent greenhouse gases, and thus their manufacture and use became increasingly regulated in the 21st century.

In general, HFCs are relatively nonflammable, chemically stable, and nonreactive. Many are colorless, odorless gases, but some—such as HFC-365mfc (1,1,1,3,3-pentafluorobutane)—are liquids at room temperature. As refrigerants, HFCs are used in a wide variety of cooling systems, from refrigerators and freezers to automotive air-conditioning units. HFCs are also used as blowing agents in the production of polymer foams; as firefighting agents (having replaced halons); as solvents in cleaning products for plastics and metals and in plasma etching for semiconductor technology; and as propellants in metered-dose inhalers prescribed for the treatment of asthma.

There are different routes to the synthesis of HFCs. For example, HFC-134a (1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane, C2H2For R134a), one of the most widely used HFCs, can be prepared from trichloroethylene or tetrachloroethylene through halogen exchange and hydrofluorination, in which chlorine is replaced by hydrogen and fluorine, or through isomerization followed by hydrogenolysis, in which hydrogen is used to split an isomer into the desired reaction products. Other HFCs may be prepared through the fluorination of olefins (unsaturated hydrocarbons containing at least one carbon-carbon double bond) with hydrogen fluoride.

Once released into the atmosphere, HFCs decompose relatively quickly; for example, the atmospheric lifetime for HFC-134a is about 14 years. (CFCs, by comparison, can remain in the atmosphere for 100 years.) The breakdown of HFCs occurs in the troposphere (the lowest portion of the atmosphere), where they are split by reactions with hydroxyl radicals (∙OH). Within the troposphere, the carbon-fluorine bonds in HFCs are highly effective at trapping solar radiation (specifically, infrared radiation) and redirecting that radiant energy toward Earth’s surface. This so-called positive radiative forcing effect contributes to global warming (about 14% of future warming in a low-carbon world).

In 2007 the average 100-year global warming potential (GWP) of HFCs was estimated to be 3,770 times that of carbon dioxide (the standard reference chemical for GWP calculations); weighted averaging (based on HFC consumption) predicted a 100-year GWP of 2,400 by 2040. Warming potential, however, varies widely for the individual HFCs. The GWPs of HFCs range from 53 to almost 15,000. The most commonly used is HFC 134a with a 100-year GWP of over 100.

HFC-23 (trifluoromethane, CHF3), which is generated as a by-product in the production of the hydrochlorofluorocarbon HCFC-22 (chlorodifluoromethane, CHClF2), has an atmospheric lifetime of 270 years and a 100-year GWP of 11,700, which surpasses known GWPs for some of the most environmentally harmful CFCs. HCFC-22 has been banned in Europe because of this, and a substitute HFC with GWP of only 3 found. That alternative should be investigated by the United States as a much less harmful mobile refrigerant in a carbon-constrained world.

HFCs have become increasingly abundant in Earth’s atmosphere. For example, between 1978 and 2005, atmospheric concentrations of HFC-23 increased from about 3 to around 18 parts per trillion (ppt). Likewise, concentrations of HFC-134a increased from levels that were undetectable prior to the 1990s to about 35 ppt in 2005. Because they are anthropogenic (human-generated) sources of positive radiative forcing, HFC emissions have been targeted for reduction by the Kyoto Protocol. Every molecule of HFC production can be expected to eventually escape to the atmosphere. Their use as refrigerants is virtually assured in a planet that is heating up.

Kara Rogers, supplemented with information from Greenpeace and IPCC by Paul Suckow


A solution for today and tomorrow

Lest our interest in the deep wisdom of the foggy past keep us from clearly seeing and addressing the greatest challenge of our present (and future), let me repeat this suggestion that is taking off in the U.S.: It’s going to take a solid price against fossil carbon to allow free markets begin to work for us rather than against us to tamp down global heating due to excess greenhouse effect. And putting all of that money straight back into the pockets of citizens will move us faster toward greenhouse gas mitigation and climate change adaptation than can any other means.

The numbers bear out; with just around 0.06% of the GDP redirected into a carbon fee and rebate to the people, overall GDP goes up forever while costs of climate change are minimized. When it comes to climate change, as you’ll find in the link to the US National Climate Assessment released last week, the difference between “minimized costs’ and ‘usual costs’ is already almost too big to begin to imagine.  The online presentation is highly recommended.  It’s not political or skewed to a special audience.  And it effectively communicates what the U.S. and the world is facing right now.

A solution.

I dream of the big energy companies seeing the light before everyone else does and stepping up to administer a climate emergency “fee and dividend” program on behalf of the world’s governments to begin charging and rebating a significant and rising fee on fossil carbon at first domestic point of sale in every nation – at the mine, wellhead or port of entry! I think this could be done painlessly enough for the consumer by raising the fee/dividend amount in concert with market-driven price increases…each penny for big oil would mean another penny for the consumers too. Gasoline would go up in price twice as fast as it does now, but half that increase would go right back into the wallet on a per-capita, perhaps monthly or some faster basis. Not a dime of these funds would be kept by the energy companies who volunteer to collect them. Not a dime would get mucked up at the halls of Congress or the IRS. The whole rising fee would go back to the people who need it…to buy newer, more efficient cars, houses and appliances, to cope with increasing allergies and diseases, to minimize their exposure to ever-increasing costs of fossil fuels and their unfunded social costs. This is a good idea.  It will work.  Let’s get to it!