Can any type of refrigerator work without a chemical refrigerant?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the feasibility of refrigerators operating without chemical refrigerants, particularly focusing on alternatives like Peltier devices and the implications of using traditional refrigerants. Participants explore various refrigeration methods, their efficiency, and the associated risks of toxicity and environmental impact.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question whether a mini fridge can operate solely on electricity without toxic chemicals, suggesting a need for clarity on what constitutes a "toxic chemical."
  • There are mentions of Peltier devices as a potential alternative, but concerns are raised about their efficiency compared to traditional refrigeration cycles.
  • Participants discuss the historical use of ammonia as a refrigerant and the implications of modern refrigerants, including their toxicity and flammability.
  • Concerns about local toxicity and the risks of refrigerant leaks are expressed, particularly in non-traditional settings for refrigerators.
  • Some participants argue that government regulations limit the choice of refrigerants and emphasize the importance of proper maintenance to prevent leaks.
  • There is a discussion about the environmental impact of refrigerants, including references to the ozone layer and the need for responsible disposal of refrigerants.
  • One participant challenges the notion of avoiding "extra baggage" in refrigeration technology, suggesting that all systems carry inherent risks.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the topic, with no clear consensus on the viability of refrigerants without chemicals or the efficiency of alternatives like Peltier devices. The discussion remains unresolved with competing perspectives on safety, efficiency, and environmental impact.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the complexity of defining "toxic chemicals" and the implications of using various refrigerants, as well as the regulatory landscape affecting refrigerant choices. The efficiency of alternative refrigeration methods and their environmental impact are also points of contention.

LightningInAJar
Messages
274
Reaction score
36
Poster has been reminded to show more effort and research in their questions at PF
TL;DR
[Same as title]
I was just wondering if a mini fridge could ever work on electricity alone with no toxic chemicals inside?
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
So in all of your Google searching for methods of refrigeration, what cycles and methods have you found? Please post at least 4 links to your reading, and ask specific questions about that reading. Thank you.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Vanadium 50, sysprog and phinds
Peltier Device. Now please ask a well-considered question.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: russ_watters, sysprog and berkeman
This thread caught my eye, as my grandfather worked in an ice plant where they made 100 pound blocks of ice using ammonia as a refrigerant. He would always come home with a half block or so in his pickup truck and chip it up in a cooler where there was always some ice cold Coca-Cola
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: sophiecentaur, russ_watters, berkeman and 3 others
LightningInAJar said:
I was just wondering if a mini fridge could ever work on electricity alone with no toxic chemicals inside?
In addition to the effort complaint, the term "toxic chemical" is extremely broad and ill-defined. Generally, everything that has atoms is a "chemical" and basically all of them are toxic if misused. Perhaps you are referring to working fluids vs solid state? Do we include or exclude solid-form toxic chemicals? And why stop at toxic? Some modern refrigerants have reduced toxicity, meaning they are unlikely to kill you by inhaling them if they leak. But the downside is they are more likely to burn-down your house (they are flammable hydrocarbons).
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Likes   Reactions: berkeman and dlgoff
russ_watters said:
In addition to the effort complaint, the term "toxic chemical" is extremely broad and ill-defined. Generally, everything that has atoms is a "chemical" and basically all of them are toxic if misused. Perhaps you are referring to working fluids vs solid state? Do we include or exclude solid-form toxic chemicals? And why stop at toxic? Some modern refrigerants have reduced toxicity, meaning they are unlikely to kill you by inhaling them if they leak. But the downside is they are more likely to burn-down your house (they are flammable hydrocarbons).
Yes of course. Anything that poses a risk to health compared to the least dangerous of electronics.
 
LightningInAJar said:
Anything that poses a risk to health compared to the least dangerous of electronics.
What exactly is your end game? You do realize that using the Peltier device for cooling/refrigeration is much less efficient than regular refrigeration cycles, so that requires a lot more burning of fossile fuels to do that cooling, right? Are you asking about in the next century when we will mostly be using renewable energy sources to power everything?
 
  • Love
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: russ_watters and dlgoff
berkeman said:
What exactly is your end game? You do realize that using the Peltier device for cooling/refrigeration is much less efficient than regular refrigeration cycles, so that requires a lot more burning of fossile fuels to do that cooling, right? Are you asking about in the next century when we will mostly be using renewable energy sources to power everything?
You mean...there's tradeoffs? :wideeyed:
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: sophiecentaur, dlgoff, phinds and 2 others
  • #10
berkeman said:
What exactly is your end game? You do realize that using the Peltier device for cooling/refrigeration is much less efficient than regular refrigeration cycles, so that requires a lot more burning of fossile fuels to do that cooling, right? Are you asking about in the next century when we will mostly be using renewable energy sources to power everything?
I don't wish to waste energy but certainly am largely thinking about local toxicity. In particular putting a fridge unit in a room that typically wouldn't have one.
 
  • #11
LightningInAJar said:
I don't wish to waste energy but certainly am largely thinking about local toxicity. In particular putting a fridge unit in a room that typically wouldn't have one.
And you are worried about that fridge exploding and leaking out its refrigerant?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Vanadium 50
  • #12
berkeman said:
And you are worried about that fridge exploding and leaking out its refrigerant?
Essentially yes. I sold an air conditioner a few months back because apparently you need to remove refrigerants in order to recycle or sell for parts. I don't want anything with extra baggage.
 
  • #13
LightningInAJar said:
Essentially yes. I sold an air conditioner a few months back because apparently you need to remove refrigerants in order to recycle or sell for parts. I don't want anything with extra baggage.
Sorry, why did you sell it? Global warming?
 
  • #14
LightningInAJar said:
I don't wish to waste energy but certainly am largely thinking about local toxicity. In particular putting a fridge unit in a room that typically wouldn't have one.
You actually don't really have a lot of choices nor should there be a lot of concerns there. Regardless of what you have it should be in good condition and maintained, and when it comes to refrigerant choice, you really don't have much of a choice. Government regulations make the choice for you.
LightningInAJar said:
Essentially yes. I sold an air conditioner a few months back because apparently you need to remove refrigerants in order to recycle or sell for parts. I don't want anything with extra baggage.
Well, yeah, if you like to dispose of old devices by dis-assembling them and selling them for parts, that's not really allowed for refrigeration devices (as an individual). You need a certified technician (both for legal and safety reasons) to recover the refrigerant. There's no getting around that.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Likes   Reactions: dlgoff and berkeman
  • #15
But I don't think this is a local toxicity issue. The oizone hole is being remediated as we speak because you must dispose of the old freon in a responsible way.
Chlorodifluoromethane is mildly toxic to breathe but if you fill your room with nitrogen you will also die. Why do you need a local refrigerator? (one big fridge is much better than many small ones)
 
  • #16
berkeman said:
Sorry, why did you sell it? Global warming?
Mostly didn't have room and it wasn't as affective anymore.
 
  • #17
hutchphd said:
But I don't think this is a local toxicity issue. The oizone hole is being remediated as we speak because you must dispose of the old freon in a responsible way.
Chlorodifluoromethane is mildly toxic to breathe but if you fill your room with nitrogen you will also die. Why do you need a local refrigerator? (one big fridge is much better than many small ones)
What type of fridge is known for giving off nitrogen?
 
  • #18
LightningInAJar said:
What type of fridge is known for giving off nitrogen?
Nitrogen isn't normally used in compressor type refrigerator devices, it is however used to test the leak tightness of a HVAC system by pumping it into the system and checking the pressure after certain time intervals.
So after more than 100 years of using fridges your now afraid of them , why?
We have even gotten rid of chlorine components within those refrigerants in order to not affect the ozone layer , it is very rare for a fridge to leak if operated as per manufacturer instruction , and a small leak won't do you no harm unless ofcourse you never come out of your room and never open the window that is.

I really can't see your point, sorry.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Tom.G
  • #19
Nitrogen was given as an example of something that - while technically non toxic - will still kill you if something goes wrong. Basically your statement
LightningInAJar said:
I don't want anything with extra baggage.
is unrealistic. At best you can precisely define kind of an 'extra baggage' you want to avoid and select optimal solutions based on your definition, but there is no universal answer, and the question is way to handwavy.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: hutchphd and russ_watters
  • #20
@LightningInAJar has yet again thrown a stone into the PF pond and is just watching the ripples. His claim of wanting to learn is very suspect.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: dlgoff, Vanadium 50 and Averagesupernova

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
4K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K