home A/C and R-22 - cost per lb

Page 3 of 4  


Yes some of replacement Refrigerants use some mixture of propane/beuteen etc whatever, the Refrigerants are approved by OSH that is all one needs to know! And yes are whole lot more efficient then old 22,12,and 502, and specially over 134 and 410, 410 is efficient on high pressure but very lousy on low pressure/temperatures....

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
grumpy used improper usenet message composition style by unnecessarily full-quoting:

Oh really?
==============Journal of Environmental Science and Engineering Dec 2010, Volume 4, No.12
A Comparative Study on the Performance and Environmental Characteristics of Alternatives to R22 in Residential Air Conditioners for Tunisian Market
Abstract: This paper presents the simulation results of a 9000 BTU/h air conditioner with some selected fluids that have been assessed for their suitability as alternatives to R22 for air conditioners. Only those refigerants with zero Ozone Depletion Potential (ODP) are considered.
Ther performance of 11 refigerants were comparatively studied using the simulation software NIST Cycle_D. R134a, R290, R600, R404A, R407B, R407C, 407D, R410A, R410B, and R417A are considered in this study.
The thermal performance obtained with R134A and R290 (propane) are very close to those of R22. The power consumption of the units operating with R404A, R407C, and R410A are higher in the range of 22-31% with respect to R22. For units operating with 407A, R407B, R407D, R407E, and R410B, the electric consumption is higher in the range 10-23%. For R600, the power consumption was in the range 6-8%.
For all the fluids, the COP (Coefficient of Performance) is lower by 7-24% compared to R22 except for R600 for which the COP is higher by 7-9% and R134A and R290 which exhibit the same COP as R22. When considering the thermal and environmental parameters, R290 (propane) is identified as the best candidate for R22, provided safety aspects of using R290 are addressed. ================= I was wrong about R22 having better efficiency than R134a (it has the same efficiency / COP) but R410 (A or B) is a big loser in terms of electrical efficiency and COP compared to R22. R410a is what you will get when you install a new A/C system these days.
But clearly, propane (R290) is the way of the future for residential air conditioning, as a drop-in replacement for R22 and R12.

Again, R22 is (was) one of the most efficient working fluids - equivalent to R134. Not sure how it compares to R12. R12 probably has a higher COP than R22, but it's a major ozone killer compared to R22.
See also:
============http://www.hychill.com.au/pdf/cpohcr.pdf
Conclusion: Hydrocarbon refrigerants have environmental advantages and are safe in small quantities. R290 (propane) can replace R22 and HC mixtures can replace R12 and R134a in applications using positive-displacement compressors.
HC refrigerants are completely soluble in and compatible with hydrocarbon lubricants. HC liquid absorbs only trace amounts of water, like R12, so HC refrigerants are completely compatible with R12 driers. HC refigerants with appropriate vapor pressures are drop-in replacements for CFCs on equipment using thermostatic expansion valves. =============
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You do realize that your source is a study of using R134A and R410 in OLD R22 based systems, don't you? It's being used in systems that were never designed for it. It says nothing at all about the efficiency when used in new systems that are designed for R410. If the efficiency is so lousy, how is it that we had 10 SEER R22 systems that are being replaced by new 14 to 18 SEER R410 systems?

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
" snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net" wrote:

Assuming 40 degrees evaporating temperature and 105 degrees condensing temperature.
R410A gauge pressures will be 344 head and 119 suction R22 gauge pressures will be 211 head and 68 suction
R410A compression ratio calculation:
344 + 15 (14.7 psi atmospheric rounded up) = 359 psia 119 + 15 = 134 psia
359/134 = 2.67:1 compression ratio, R410A
R22 compression ratio calculation:
211 + 15 = 226 psia 68 + 15 = 83 psia
226/83 = 2.72:1 compression ratio, R22
Practically a tie. So in terms of compressor work-load, it's pretty equal. The higher pressures in the R410a system require a thicker compressor shell, and the long-term durability / cost-of-ownership of the entire system has yet to prove itself. The lubricating oil used in R410a absorbs more water than the mineral oil used in R22, so that's another factor.
R410a will also be phased out (or phased down) so who knows if owners who have switched from R22 to R410 will again face the cost of switching in 10 years (to R600?).
The compressor is one of two components responsible for maintaining a pressure difference in the refrigeration circuit. The other component is the metering device at the inlet to the evaporator. For residential air conditioning, a target indoor evaporating temperature is around 40 degrees F. What OEMs have been doing for some time now when playing the SEER game is to lower the condensing temperature, which would concurrently lower the head/discharge pressure. With evaporating temperatures/pressures fairly constant, a lower condensing pressure lowers the compression ratio of the compressor, which in turns reduces energy required to run the pump.
Until R410 came along, OEMs kept making larger and larger condensing units for the same nominal tonnage ratings to reduce head pressure for R22 systems. Not only was that the goal, but the larger coils made for better subcooling of the condensed liquid so there would be a corresponding gain in net refrigeration effect in the evaporator (how much actual refrigeration occurs after the refrigerant is cooled immediately downstream of the metering device).
One thing to consider is the difference between ECM and PSC motors and their effect on SEER ratings, which have nothing to do with what the working fluid in the AC system is.
I could replace the HVAC blower and condenser fans on an R22 system with ECM motors and raise the SEER of the system.
Are any compressor motors ECM these days?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Does all of the above mean that you agree that the R410 systems that are being sold are in fact as efficient or substantially more efficient than the R22 systems they replace and that using R410 is not a significant issue from an efficiency standpoint?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I ca not comment on whole but perhaps the answer to you question if current 410 systems are more efficient ten the old 22 systems my answer would be yes but not as is giving to people by industries. The reason that is more efficient is because condensers are made more efficient so that heat can be removed much quicker, any system depend on transfer of heat. Maintenance R410 will never be able to compete with R22 of cost and easiness for service.

Does all of the above mean that you agree that the R410 systems that are being sold are in fact as efficient or substantially more efficient than the R22 systems they replace and that using R410 is not a significant issue from an efficiency standpoint?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

What answers exactly are "industries" giving that are false? Pretty much what I've heard is that the R410 systems are safe for the environment because of the R410 and that the systems are a lot more energy efficient than the typical older systems they replace.

Sure, that's part of it. They've also changed and improved other major components too. Larger evaporators, ie N coil instead of A, scroll compressors, etc.

What do you think the cost differential is between what R410 costs and what R22 used to cost prior to the phase out? Allowing for inflation over the last decade, I don't see it as being a huge difference. R410 is probably a little more expensive. But in the overall cost of a repair bill when you need to add enough to matter, it shouldn't make a big difference. Not sure what the issue is that you're referring to with ease of service.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
" snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net" wrote:

All the parts of a 410 system must be built to handle the higher working pressures. That makes it more expensive. Leaks that happen because of higher working pressure will reduce system efficiency over time.
Comparing the heat exchanger size and design of 410 vs 22 is disengenuous - you could have just as easily (and more cheaply) built more capable heat-exchangers for r22 systems.
I'd like to see a comparison (real dollars spent by real home owners, real dollars saved over time, etc) if someone takes a 15 to 25 year-old R22 system that needs a recharge and instead of replacing it with a new r410 system, charge it with R290 (propane).

R410 effect on ozone is nil (that is true) but as a greenhouse gas, it's not that good. R410 will be phased down in 10 or 15 years, probably will be replaced with r600.

Again, from a carnot-cycle point of view, and from real-world working pressures and compression ratio analysis, there is no difference between the two systems. If you replace a small A-frame r22 with a larger N-frame R410, you can't say that your increase in system efficiency has anything to do with the r410 circulating in the lines.
And again I ask -> does the use of ECM motors (plenum fan, condenser fan) get factored into SEER ratings?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I don't see that in the installed cost of a new system. The systems today are about the same cost as the ones that they replace, adjusted for inflation. That is if you take an entry level system from 20 years ago, which was 10 SEER and compare it to a 14 SEER system today. Factor in utility rebates, govt rebates, and lower operating costs and they are less expensive than the old ones they replaced.

Nonsense. If a pipe or component is going to fail, it's typically from corrosion, a bad braze joint, etc. And I'd say the probability of that isn't dependent on the system pressure. And if you get a leak, it's not really an efficiency issue, because before very long with a typical leak, it's not going to run anymore.

But who cares? It's that the new R410 systems are a lot more efficient that's the bottom line. Exactly how they got there doesn't matter to the consumer.

You could try it and tell us. If it works you could have a new business. Of course the problem is that a 20 year old system that needs recharging, probably has a serious problem that caused it to need recharging.

Who cares? It's not like a car or power plant that's BURNING fuels that release CO2. Any release of R410 is going to be so small, it's irrelevant, except maybe to an environmental nut.
 R410 will be phased down in 10 or 15 years, probably

I never claimed that it did. Nor do I recall seeing manufacturers make that claim. What I see them usually saying is that R410 is environmentally friendly, R22 is phased out, and that the new systems using R22 are a lot more efficient than the old systems.

I guess you could address that to the folks that do the ratings. AFAIK, the only ECM motors used would be for the blower motor in the furnace, if it has one.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

What answers exactly are "industries" giving that are false? Pretty much what I've heard is that the R410 systems are safe **************************************************** Yes R410 is safer as to what defiantly not regarding pressures, yes it is safer as to Propane R290 and it is Environment friendly because it does not have chemicals in it, that effects the atmosphere, as to other studies we will have to wait for few years before truth comes out. The efficiency does not come from Refrigerant regardless of type it comes from design at hole package. Note; from experience I got compressors on R134 and R410 do not hold up as good as on 12or 22. I have replace few on the brand new equipment that came directly from OEM so the sales pitch from suppliers don't work with me. Ratting is big mish mash there is no NBS anymore so the manufacture doing they own rattings just like cars, have any one ever got gas milege according to manufacture addvertisment, do I need to say more!!!
for the environment because of the R410 and that the systems are a lot more energy efficient than the typical older systems they replace.

Sure, that's part of it. They've also changed and improved other major components too. Larger evaporators, ie N coil instead of A, scroll compressors, etc.

What do you think the cost differential is between what R410 costs and what R22 used to cost prior to the phase out? Allowing for inflation over the last decade, I don't see it as being a huge difference. R410 is probably a little more expensive. But in the overall cost of a repair bill when you need to add enough to matter, it shouldn't make a big difference. Not sure what the issue is that you're referring to with ease of service.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Nice edit, completely changing the context of what I said.
"What answers exactly are "industries" giving that are false? Pretty much what I've heard is that the R410 systems are safe for the environment because of the R410 "

No shit Sherlock. I've been saying that from the start. The point is that you can get a system today that uses R410, is a lot more efficient than the typical system it replaces and adjusted for inflation, they cost about the same. In other words, all this bitching about R22 vs R410A doesn't matter.

If you have more than a rare failure on brand new compressors, either you're using crap eqpt or you're doing something wrong.

You don't need to get the exact MPG the manufacturer claims to believe that cars that get 25 highway get significantly better mpg than those that are rated 18 mpg.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

it matters because if "they" didn't outlaw R22 you could get it at a decent price and that would in many cases be the most economical choice if you have an existing R22 system that needs repair.
the only reason switching to a new system is more economical is because of the artificially high cost of the R22.
the point is that there is no INHERENT economic advantage between R22 and R410A but yet we are forced to update
Which brings me to my question...
If you top off an R22 system with R290, do you have to remove all the R22 and replace it with R290 or can they be mixed?
Mark
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Let's consider how it is that an old R22 system comes to need refrigerant. It's typically because a major component, like the compressor has burned out. Or maybe the evaporator or condensor has corroded and sprung a leak. Those repairs aren't cheap and are going to cost a major portion of what you could get new eqpt for. You'd have to be nuts to pour money into it regardless of the price of R22. Compressor shot? $1000 even with the price of R22 when it was cheap. At today's prices, it's $1200. In the words of Hillary Clinton
"What difference does it make?"

BS. New systems have SEERS of 14+. The typical R22 systems they are replacing have SEERS of 10. That is a huge difference in efficiency and operating cost. Now, I'm not saying everyone should run out and replace their system today. But if you have an old R22 system that needs a major repair, the answer is likely yes. And it could be yes even if the systems is still running fine. It depends on the climate, AC usage, and electricity cost.

Not in the refigerant, no. NEver said there was, only that there is an economic advantage in what it costs to operate that new R410 system compared to the typical 20 year old R22 system that needs a big infusion of R22 to keep it running.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 5/18/2013 8:19 PM, snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

Most refrigerant top off's are needed for leaks in the system and not compressor burnouts. stretching of the A-coil etc is quite common. causing microscopic leaks.
Or maybe the

Actually, That statement is pretty spot on. The new system will not last as long as the R22 system in most cases. But you will get more service calls for rebalancing the cooling gases.

Due ..of course to a much larger Condensing coil and A-coil system. For those of you that are not too bright....Check the size of that equipment. Also note that many furnaces are now only 33 inch tall in order to facilitate the overlarge Acoil

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That statement is spot on? The only reason a new system is more economical is because of the high cost of R22? The fact that a new system is typically SEER 14, while the old one it replaces is SEER 10, doesn't affect the economics? Good grief! It's operating cost will be substantially less.

Who cares exactly how it's achieved? The simple fact is that a cost effective R410A system is available that has a huge efficiency increase compared to the old system it replaced. Contrary to your nonsense, that is a huge economic advantage and the consumer doesn't care how exactly it's achieved.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
" snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net" used improper usenet message composition style by unnecessarily full-quoting:

He also talked about the R410 systems not having as long a service life as the r22 systems, and also leakage issues.

Someone faced with fixing a leak and re-charging an R22 system would be paying substantially less for that repair if the cost of R22 wasn't being made artificially higher due to politics.
The artificially high cost of R22 changes the economics and payback equation for the home owner and makes the high cost of replacing the entire system with R410 seem more comparable to fixing the existing R22 system.
No one is disputing the differences in operating costs between the two systems. You seem to be minimizing the upfront costs for tearing out the old system and installing a new one. The amortization schedule (or rate-of-payback) for these sorts of things are never what they claim to be.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The "leakage issue" is a red herring. The new systems may not last as long as systems from 30 years ago, but I don't see that as being an R410 issue. Most residential eqpt one buys today doesn't typically last as long as the system from 30 years ago. A gas furnace, a dishwasher, for example and they don't use R410.

Oh please. We've been through that a dozen times. If you need a pound of R22 to top off a system, it doesn't make much difference in the cost. The cost of that R22 is $16. Even if it needs a whole system charge, it's not so high it's the end of the world. It's just that if a system needs a whole charge, it's probably because it's had some major failure. And in that case, most people with good sense, would decide that it's not worth fixing the 25 year old system and instead replace it with a new system that uses 40% less energy.

See above.

Actually, grumpy, pax, whatever his name is, well he is disputing it. And I'm not minimizing the costs of a new system. I just think that typically if a system needs a whole lot of R22, then it's very likely because it's had a major failure, eg the compressor is shot, the coils are shot, etc. In that case, it makes no sense to me to be bitching about the cost of R22, because even if R22 were 25% of the price it is today, it wouldn't make sense to do a major repair to that old system. And if it just needs a pound or two of R22, then it's still not that much and if they want to just add the R22, nothing stopping them from doing so.
In other words, I don't buy this nonsense that it's the high cost of R22 that's forcing people to needlessly convert to new eqpt.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
It's been a while since I needed to know this, but I remember that it's illegal to mix refrgerants. So, there is the artificially high cost of removing the (artificially expensive) R-22 before adding propane. Needs to be done with a EPA approved machine, done by a certified technician. . Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus www.lds.org . .
Which brings me to my question...
If you top off an R22 system with R290, do you have to remove all the R22 and replace it with R290 or can they be mixed?
Mark
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

What about autofrost contains some butane. R12 replacement.
Greg
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
To my knowledge, it's still not legal to mix refrigerants. . Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus www.lds.org . .
rg...

What about autofrost contains some butane. R12 replacement.
Greg
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.