As my poor co-workers are only too aware, I have an unholy fondness for potato chips. Few things give me more pleasure at lunchtime than scanning the blogosphere while crunching my way through a bag, dribbling little crumbs down into my keyboard.
Lovely? Oh, yes.
Among other things, it results in a keyboard that needs to be cleaned periodically. Yeck. But last year when I embarked on a little office spring cleaning, I made a shocking discovery: those little compressed chemical dusters (pictured above) are basically greenhouse gas bombs. In some cases, using up just a single canister is the climate equivalent of driving my Honda Civic from Seattle to New York City and then back to Chicago, even allowing for plenty of side trips.
Needless to say, I was apalled. I even briefly considered a mini crusade against the things.
I also ended up having several interesting conversations about the canisters. Two in particular stood out: one with an industry representative and another with an advocate from Australia. In case folks are interested, I’ll share what I learned.
First, a little context. The dusting canisters contain one of two kinds of climate-wrecking hydrofluorocarbons, HFC-134a or HFC-152a (these are sometimes called tetrafluoroethane and 1,1-difluoroethane, respectively). Here’s why it matters:
- 134a is roughly 3,300 times as powerful as carbon-dioxide over a 20 year period.
- 152a is still awful for the climate, but it’s only about one-tenth as powerful as 134a.
These chemical compounds are also used in refrigerators, air conditioners (especially in vehicles), some medical devices, and in some industrial applications.
What I learned from the industry rep. (He was a super nice guy and extremely informative, but he asked not to be named.) I asked why anyone would use 134a when 152a is available.
The reason, apparently, is manifold. 152a has less “blasting power” and is therefore less useful for removing my potato chip crumbs. It’s also more expensive. There’s also some minor concern with the flammability of the 152a. While both compounds are considered “not flammable” according to government tests—and while 152a spray will extinguish a candle—134a is the only such compound that has a flammability rating of zero. It simply can’t be ignited by a flame, which some people allege is a concern when sprays are being used in heated conditions such as with a copier or overhead projector. Other compounds, or additives to the compounds, generally result in sprays that are cheaper, but that are also odorous, flammable, and less powerful.
He also insisted that there aren’t good substitutes available for the industrial and refrigerant applications of the compounds. (We didn’t spend a lot of time talking about these uses, as I’m mainly interested in the dusting canisters for now.)
So that’s basically the schtick. Mind you, I’m not vouching for these explanations, just relaying them to readers. It seems to me that the commenters to my initial post on the subject were exactly right: there are dozens of better and climate-friendlier ways to clean a keyboard including using breakthrough innovations such as “gravity and shaking,” “a damp cloth,” “a feather duster,” and even “a dishwasher.”
What I learned from Australia, and in particular from Brent Hoare who is the Community, Government and Industry Relations Manager for the Green Cooling Council. Seeing as how Brent knows roughly 9 million times more than I do on this subject, I’m just going to quote liberally from his email to me (with permission, of course):
While it’s great to see the very powerful global warming HFC gases getting any attention, there are many frivolous uses of these substances, including paint ball guns, spiderman web blaster toys, silly string, window ‘snow’ sprays, wine bottle openers, and yes, even dog poo freeze sprays…
The far more substantive issue is the use of HFCs in automotive air conditioning and commercial refrigeration because of the very high leakage rates. Domestic and Commercial air con are also big and rapidly growing slices of the HFC emissions pie. Whilst these gases are thought to contribute around 2% of radiative forcing emissions now (let’s remember they’ve been with us for less than 20 years), projections are they could reach 8% or more by 2050, so they must be a priority for phase out now.
The Europeans are doing this from 2011 in new model vehicles and in all vehicles by 2017, and CO2 is the leading contender to replace HFCs in vehicles, in spite of efforts by DuPont and Honeywell to get a new low GWP HFC-1234yf to market (see www.r744.com). Here in Australia highly purified hydrocarbon refrigerants are widely accepted in the service market, and although available in the US too, still face large regulatory barriers, which is a shame as they have very little environmental impact and great performance and cost advantages.
CO2 is also making great strides in supermarket refrigeration in Europe and Australia, and is being introduced in Thailand and soon elsewhere in Asia, but very little seems to be happening in the US, in spite of very progressive proposals from the California Air Resources Board to crack down on fluorocarbon emissions…
What else? For readers who just can’t get enough of this stuff, Brent suggest this blog post, a paper called “F For Forgotten? Why Potent Industrial Greenhouse Gases Need More Attention,” and a paper called “Keeping Cool Without Warming the Planet: Cutting HFCs, PFCs, and SF6 in Europe.”
So I just thought I’d pass this stuff along to readers. Sure, it’s obscure stuff—and it’s obviously less important than how we treat clean coal or transportation-sector emissions — but as we enter an era of serious climate policy it’s worth getting this kind of information into circulation. It could very well be that one of the many things we should do for climate protection is devise better industrial products. And on a smaller scale, we should probably figure out a smarter way to clean our keyboards too.
Randi
I mean really folks…don’t we humans have better things to do than come up with “dog poo freeze spray”? Honestly, folks. Get over Rover’s warm poo. Poo is natural and if you have issues with picking up Rover’s warm poo, then maybe you had better re-evaluate that relationship. Because, given the opportunity, he’d eat your poo whether it was warm or frozen. That’s unquestionable dedication and loyalty to you on his part. Now pick up the warm poo and stop destroying our planet!
Aaron Silverberg
I’ve eaten over my keyboard for years, the crumbs don’t seem to impede the keyboards function in the least. About twice a year I turn the thing upside down, gently tap it and then vacuum. Who needs one of those spray cans?
Matt the Engineer
Here’s a quick crash course on the state of the refrigeration industry. Originally we had R-11. It was cheap, easy to get, and efficient. But it was eating our ozone level, and had a global warming potential (GWP) of 4000. So it was banned, and now we have R-22. But it still eats some ozone (half as much), and has a global warming potential (GWP) of 1700. Thanks to LEED (a building rating system) that looks down on R-22, most manufacturers offer an option of R-134A (GWP=1300), R-407C (GWP=1610), or R-410A (GWP=1890). In 2010 R-22 will no longer be manufactured.The problem is that all of these refrigerants are strong greenhouse gases. We started out with the goal of ending ozone depletion, and the greenhouse gas issue is an afterthought. Notice your example of a terrible refrigerant – R-134A – is our best performer with regard to greenhouse gases (although the literature I’ve read pegs it at 1300 x as bad as CO2, not 3300x). Why don’t we switch to something else? Efficiency and cost. R-134A, for example, is great at medium temperature refrigeration, but would be terribly inefficient for lower temperatures. I believe CO2 requires higher pressures and requires oil-free parts, so designing such a device is expensive, plus I believe there are efficiency issues there as well. If I’m wrong about the efficiency issue, I’d love to push it for use here.Hmmm… Here‘s a study that seems to say that due to efficiency loss in CO2 systems you’re better off with a high-efficiency system and let your savings at the coal plant compensate for your greenhouse impact.
John A. Ardelli
Personally, I prefer not to eat at my computer at all for exactly this reason… 😛
Sophia Katt
A computer-smart Boeing friend taught me a few years ago to unscrew the back of my similarly becrumbed keyboards (cookie crumbs) and run the top part of the board through the dishwasher. The portion with the electronics can then be aircan swiped with one or two very small blasts, holding the can at least 18 inches away from the board.Don’t let your dog find the little screws while the top part is in the dishwashers. Guess how I know that this is bad…
Andy Andersson
A vacuum cleaner works well.
Rhonda Peterson
A small but important clarification: “Inflammable” means the same as “flammable” – can easily catch fire. The opposite is “nonflammable” or “fireproof.”More to the point, I keep a clean, 1” paintbrush at my desk and quickly whisk my keyboard while waiting for programs to load.
Eric de Place
argh! Rhonda, that kills me. Just kills me. I pride myself on not making stupid mistakes like that… I’m gonna change the the post to make the grammar non-boneheaded.
Virginia
While my problem with keyboards generally runs in the vein of spilling liquids on them (a very expensive problem indeed if you like nice keyboards), I think the following is still a useful tidbit.If you do decide to take your keyboard apart, be *extremely* careful not to touch the rubbery doo-hickey with all of the copper filaments in it. Even a little bit of oil from your finger can render one of your keys inoperable. In my experience, the “gravity method” is your best bet, perhaps occasionally followed with the vaccum. Only take the sucker apart as a last resort. Trust me. Typing with a faulty “e” or “shift” key can truly be one of the most aggravating things on earth!!
Julie
Once a year, I buy a whole stack of used “Natural” style keyboards from RePC for my students (they’re great for new keyboard learners, and I don’t want the parents to feel they must spring for new ones). I disassemble them, run all the parts except the acetate circuits and circuit board through the dishwasher (I wipe the acetate clean if necessary), and when I’m sure they’re totally dry, I reassemble and test them. I only have one failure in about 50—and those may have been dead in the first place. It’s quite simple to do, as long as you pay attention to how to put them back together as you take them apart. The keyboards come out much cleaner than they would if they’d only been blasted with “canned air”.
John OBrien
The big box office supply stores have keyboard cleaner/blasters powered by the same CO2 cartridges that power whipped cream dispensers, airguns, and Clarabelle the Clown “Seltzer” bottles (any other warm fossils reading this)? Admittedly, the CO2 in these is “sequestered,” but not for long and CO@ still has only a 1:1 GHG ratio. Also, plain old compressed air, IF it’s dry is useable. Another option: Cellophane wrap your bloomin’ keyboard! or get a “waterproof” foldable one! One final option: wear a bib when keyboarding. John O.Brien
Virginia
My Dad sent the following after I sent him this page, and I thought it was useful:There are some brands of compressed air that are not harmful to the atmosphere. You can also use air from an air compressor (watch for too much pressure/volume of air), or you can also buy air tanks (Harbor Freight is a good inexpensive place) and take them to the gas station and fill them up with air to take home to do your cleaning. The best place to fill them is a truck stop as you can get higher pressure air there, and your tank will last longer. Again watch out that you don’t use too much pressure/volume of air, or you might blow the keys right off of your keyboard.