> the destruction process permanently neutralizes the chemical
This raises a few questions in my mind. TFA makes it sound like the refrigerant boogeyman is a problem of fixed quantity. It sounds like after we've destroyed all the refrigerant, it can cause no more harm, but clearly these refrigerants must be manufactured on a continual basis?
Can refrigerants not be recycled? What materials go into the creation of refrigerants? Is anything of value lost in destroying refrigerants, besides the energy that went into making them?
The refrigerants we use have changed. R22 was replaced by R410a and that will eventually be replaced by units that can run on R290, or less ideally R32 or another.
The organisation at work here are targeting developing countries who've been much slower to migrate to less harmful refrigerants, but old units are being cycled out for new ones, so new demand for janky old refrigerant (from failing units, so likely contaminated) is lower than you might think.
This makes sense, thanks for clarifying. So the refrigerants in use are effectively obsolete, and after they're reclaimed and destroyed, should pose no further risk, as there are better options available.
This raises a few questions in my mind. TFA makes it sound like the refrigerant boogeyman is a problem of fixed quantity. It sounds like after we've destroyed all the refrigerant, it can cause no more harm, but clearly these refrigerants must be manufactured on a continual basis?
Can refrigerants not be recycled? What materials go into the creation of refrigerants? Is anything of value lost in destroying refrigerants, besides the energy that went into making them?