- Thread starter Jiles
- Start date
Geo-TH,In
Well-known Member
I was told that you could get in trouble selling r12 in small cans. So I sold all my r12, three 30# bottles and small cans to a man, a friend, who has an HVAC business, cash only, no receipt. I had purchased my r12 before it was taxed. Bought ten 30# bottles. Sold it when I no longer had a refrigerator or AC that used it.
Hobo,NC
Well-known Member
- Location
- Sanford, NC
It should fetch $10 fast and $20 slow... The last I sold was on consignment @ $20 a can. It took me a year to move 12 cans I did not make anything on it, it was to help a bud out.
dr sportster
Well-known Member
I sold mine for 50 cents a can then the guy told me he will resell them at Carlisle for 15 bucks each.
Eldon (WA)
Well-known Member
I still have 3 cans on the shelf...I think they have a price of 99 cents still on them.....the good old days!
jimg.allentown
Well-known Member
Legally, you are required to have an EPA card to buy, sell, or use R-12.
Last time I bought any, it was for an R-12 system and it cost around $40 for a 12 ounce can. Still, I am sure that there are plenty of "off the grid" transactions taking place.
FYI - Propane makes an excellent drop-in replacement for R-12. But, it is flammable.
R-134a is a good substitute if you change the oil in the system to either PAG or Ester oil.
There is already talk about replacing the R-134a. Apparently that little French chemical company's patent is running out on that one.
Last time I bought any, it was for an R-12 system and it cost around $40 for a 12 ounce can. Still, I am sure that there are plenty of "off the grid" transactions taking place.
FYI - Propane makes an excellent drop-in replacement for R-12. But, it is flammable.
R-134a is a good substitute if you change the oil in the system to either PAG or Ester oil.
There is already talk about replacing the R-134a. Apparently that little French chemical company's patent is running out on that one.
tiresntracks
Member
Unfortunately, its not the little French chemical company, its the EPA. They want something more environmentally friendly. Also it will use less in the A/C system. Its called R1234yf. It will cost about 10 times more than 134a.
jimg.allentown
Well-known Member
Follow the money. Most of the "reasons" for the elimination of R-12 were based on bad science. Is it just a coincidence that DuPont's patents were running out on the R-12 when it became suddenly so "environmentally unfriendly?" Is it also a coincidence that R-134a is also nearing the end of its patent life? I think not. Whether you agree or not, the big chemical companies are getting away with repeated and blatant violations of the anti-trust laws. They are also getting the EPA to rubber stamp whatever they want them to.
And, from what I hear, the proposed new refrigerant is flammable. I'm about ready to just get a BBQ tank and some adapters to run my automotive A/C.
And, from what I hear, the proposed new refrigerant is flammable. I'm about ready to just get a BBQ tank and some adapters to run my automotive A/C.
tiresntracks
Member
Its usually about money, although I'm not sure if its about DuPont's patent running out. Supposedly, 134a will stay in the upper atmosphere for 25 years and 1234yf will decompose in 3 to 4 years. Based on questionable science, like you said. Its flammable, that's why some car makers don't want to use it. That, and it costs $120 a pound.
jimg.allentown
Well-known Member
First, I do not believe that any of it actually gets to the upper atmosphere in any quantity.
Second, the "hole in the ozone" can be traced to other causes than R-12.
Ozone is a molecule of Oxygen. As is the oxygen we breathe. Most common molecule is O2. Ozone is O3. As such, the bond between the atoms is weaker in an O3 molecule. Ozone is by nature an unstable molecule that is formed by exposure to high levels of UV light or heavy electrical discharge. It is the constant exposure to UV light that creates and maintains the ozone layer in our upper atmosphere. There are parts of our atmosphere that are not exposed to direct sunlight for extended periods of time. Since ozone is continually decaying and being reformed, this process does not take place over the polar regions during their periods of darkness, and the ozone simply decays into O2. At some point, upper level winds will move this "hole" away from its point of origin. At this point, ozone will be reformed and the "hole" disappears. If this were not the case, the ozone layer would have decayed and been depleted many thousands of years ago.
So, who has a vested interest in eliminating R-12 to be replaced with yet another patented product from the same producer?? Now, who has a vested interest in replacing their (expiring patent) R-134a with yet another PATENTED product??
Better yet, if this new proposed refrigerant is flammable anyways.......
Why not just use propane. It is basically cheap, plentiful, and has yet to be shown to be environmentally unfriendly. Hmmmmmmm??????? It also probably has better heat transfer properties.
Again. Follow the money.
Second, the "hole in the ozone" can be traced to other causes than R-12.
Ozone is a molecule of Oxygen. As is the oxygen we breathe. Most common molecule is O2. Ozone is O3. As such, the bond between the atoms is weaker in an O3 molecule. Ozone is by nature an unstable molecule that is formed by exposure to high levels of UV light or heavy electrical discharge. It is the constant exposure to UV light that creates and maintains the ozone layer in our upper atmosphere. There are parts of our atmosphere that are not exposed to direct sunlight for extended periods of time. Since ozone is continually decaying and being reformed, this process does not take place over the polar regions during their periods of darkness, and the ozone simply decays into O2. At some point, upper level winds will move this "hole" away from its point of origin. At this point, ozone will be reformed and the "hole" disappears. If this were not the case, the ozone layer would have decayed and been depleted many thousands of years ago.
So, who has a vested interest in eliminating R-12 to be replaced with yet another patented product from the same producer?? Now, who has a vested interest in replacing their (expiring patent) R-134a with yet another PATENTED product??
Better yet, if this new proposed refrigerant is flammable anyways.......
Why not just use propane. It is basically cheap, plentiful, and has yet to be shown to be environmentally unfriendly. Hmmmmmmm??????? It also probably has better heat transfer properties.
Again. Follow the money.
travis miranowski
Member
I had 5 cans that I ended up just giving away. With all the freeze-12, biofreeze, products on the market for less than $5.00 a can it makes R-12 almost worthless. Besides that most equipment in regular use
has been converted to r134a by now anyway. 15 years ago.....$25-50 a can!!
has been converted to r134a by now anyway. 15 years ago.....$25-50 a can!!
Hobo,NC
Well-known Member
- Location
- Sanford, NC
Freeze-12 is a blend of 80% r-134a and 20% r-142b (THAT'S WHAT i GOOGLED) so why not just use 134A and for-go a blend of 134a.
tiresntracks
Member
It sounds like you are arguing with me, for some reason. I agree with most everything you have said. I haven't researched DuPont's relationship with the EPA, but I'm not much on conspiracies. I don't even know who holds the patent on 1234yf, but its very likely DuPont. Other than that, I think your info is right on.
Hobo,NC
Well-known Member
- Location
- Sanford, NC
Some systems just don't take kindly to 134a. My 77 Ford f350 does not like 134A. If I took the time I could help it but its at the bottom of my to-do list and probably will stay there.
I have had 100's of conversions work as well are better than 12 I did learn what to run from :wink:
On any AC conversion are not air flow across the condenser will make it are break it.
jimg.allentown
Well-known Member
Actually, just putting some information out there. Not meaning to argue. Back in 1992, all of the mechanics in the dealership where I was working had to go through the EPA course on automotive refrigeration. We were told that this would be a requirement to continue servicing air conditioners. This course also wandered into other types of refrigeration units. After it all, we all got our EPA cards for servicing refrigeration. The course was more propaganda than anything. The whole reasoning behind the elimination of R-12 was a bit bogus. That being the case, why was R-22 still in use commonly 20 years later? Using the same science, one would think that ALL freons were equally bad for the environment. The big boys have been blowing smoke up our butts for a good long time it would seem.
One of my pet peeves is the sale of small cans of refrigerant to untrained, uncertified DIYers at about every parts store. That should be outlawed. An EPA card at minimum should be required to buy any refrigerants.
One of my pet peeves is the sale of small cans of refrigerant to untrained, uncertified DIYers at about every parts store. That should be outlawed. An EPA card at minimum should be required to buy any refrigerants.
tiresntracks
Member
I'm not sure that everyone should have to have an EPA card (which I do) to buy small cans of refrigerant, but I think the ones with hoses attached to them should be illegal. If you are going to be working on an A/C system, you should at least know enough about them to own a set of gauges.
tractorguy2
Well-known Member
There is a lady here in town that buys stuff on yard sales and then resells on ebay. She bought six cans of R12 at a yard sale and
sold them on ebay for $106.00.
sold them on ebay for $106.00.
Similar threads
We sell tractor parts! We have the parts you need to repair your tractor - the right parts. Our low prices and years of research make us your best choice when you need parts. Shop Online Today.
Copyright © 1997-2024 Yesterday's Tractor Co.
All Rights Reserved. Reproduction of any part of this website, including design and content, without written permission is strictly prohibited. Trade Marks and Trade Names contained and used in this Website are those of others, and are used in this Website in a descriptive sense to refer to the products of others. Use of this Web site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy TRADEMARK DISCLAIMER: Tradenames and Trademarks referred to within Yesterday's Tractor Co. products and within the Yesterday's Tractor Co. websites are the property of their respective trademark holders. None of these trademark holders are affiliated with Yesterday's Tractor Co., our products, or our website nor are we sponsored by them. John Deere and its logos are the registered trademarks of the John Deere Corporation. Agco, Agco Allis, White, Massey Ferguson and their logos are the registered trademarks of AGCO Corporation. Case, Case-IH, Farmall, International Harvester, New Holland and their logos are registered trademarks of CNH Global N.V.
Yesterday's Tractors - Antique Tractor Headquarters
Website Accessibility Policy