INTERVIEW
the product with the lowest GWP (Global Warming Potential). For example, when we evaluated the impact of R134a in cars, we found that 85% of the carbon impact came from the fuel used to power the air conditioning system and only 15% from the direct GWP of the product. As we reduce the GWP to very low levels, the focus shifts to energy effi ciency. Additionally, we need to consider the environment in which the product operates. Factors like fl ammability and toxicology also infl uence our choices. That’s why the industry is fragmented now. We have multiple products like R444A, R456A, and R485A because each is designed for specifi c applications. We’ve invested much time and eff ort into creating an exciting range of products off ering low-impact LCCP solutions for diff erent needs while ensuring energy effi ciency and safety.
How do your products diff er from those
of your main competitors? The choice of refrigerant product depends on the application. For instance, in the automotive sector, we have R456A, a drop-in replacement for R134A that works well in MAC systems. It’s a lower GWP alternative to R134A but incompatible with R1234YF vehicles. On the other hand, we recently launched R444A, a drop-in for R1234YF, designed to match performance and signifi cantly reduce TFA generation while focusing on supply chain, price, and supply assurance within the UK market.
Giving customers choices is essential so they aren’t stuck with just one product or supplier. They should have multiple options to pick the best fi t for their needs. We’ve worked hard to build a relevant product portfolio for the UK market, including the 473A product for the -75°C deep freeze sector, especially for transport companies like the Maersk Container
Download the ACR News app today
Industry. We’ve developed bespoke products that have been very successful and well-received. In a competitive environment, we aim to provide a range
of product choices that work in diff erent applications, ensuring we meet various customer needs and off er the best solutions possible.
Are current legislation goals achievable? Yes, I believe these goals are achievable, but the transition
will be challenging for the industry to accomplish quickly. When we look at legislation, like the Montreal Protocol, it’s a global regulation that has been successful in repairing the ozone hole. However, recent F-gas reviews show that regulations vary between regions, such as Europe and the US, making it complicated for a capital-intensive industry like ours to navigate. Frequent changes in regulations add to the diffi culty, and enforcing these rules consistently is crucial. Illegal trade issues can also hinder our ability to invest in new products. This all ties back to your question about achievability. We need an environment where we can make signifi cant R&D investments and the supply chain to support these products.
I sympathise with regulators, as achieving global consensus and regulating eff ectively is challenging. Ideally, we should focus on LCCP (Life Cycle Climate Performance) to build effi ciency, but that’s quite complex. GWP (Global Warming Potential) is more straightforward and understandable, so it’s often used as a regulatory measure. While the goals are achievable, the path to get there is
not straightforward. The industry will need to adapt and innovate to meet these challenges.
I’m
particularly excited about the fl uorine energy materials group, which localises and secures the battery materials supply chain in the US.
www.acr-news.com • February 2025 15
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40
