Halon Replacements

[JamesG]

Hi All,

I've been looking into halon replacement possibilities for a client who wants to do as little rework on the existing systems (and would therefore like to swap just the bottles and nozzles if possible).

I know there are potential issues with this, such as those gases which need a higher concentration may lead to over pressurisation of the room (which, due to the type of facility is likely to be reasonably well sealed), but I have a couple (actually, on rereading this there are a few, rather than a couple) of questions which I hope your collective experience and knowledge may help me with:

- Have any of you managed to carry out a successful straight swap between Halon and a replacement gas system by just replacing the bottles and nozzles (I am slightly sceptical about suppliers who claim it is that straight forward)

- Many of the gases that most closely resemble Halon in terms of required concentrations, extinguishing modes etc – ie the ones which are most likely to be a straight swap – have very high global warming potentials.  This is not necessarily something my client will worry too much about as they do not intend setting the systems off too often (!) but I am concerned that in a few years if global warming continues to be an issue of concern to the governments of the world these too may require phasing out.  Does anyone have any feeling on the likelihood of this happening (those of you with a finger on the pulse of our wonderful policy makers in Whitehall)

- I understand that there is a working party with the defence agencies of the US / UK, oil companies and gas suppliers, called the “Advanced Agent Working Group” which are looking at this specific issue to establish a “drop in” replacement for halon systems.  Does anyone have any information / contact names for this group?

As ever, my regards to you all and thanks (& apologies for the rambling).

James Goodstadt

[Chris Houston]

– have very high global warming potentials.  This is not necessarily something my client will worry too much about as they do not intend setting the systems off too often (!) but I am concerned that in a few years if global warming continues to be an issue of concern to the governments of the world these too may require phasing out.  Does anyone have any feeling on the likelihood of this happening (those of you with a finger on the pulse of our wonderful policy makers in Whitehall)

I've met a few people who market these systems.  I have seen no evidence that systems with "high global warming potential" are likly to have any restrictions placed on them.  I think in the grand scheme of things, the environmentalists have many many higher priorities......I've got no Whitehall connections, these are just my opinions.

[Ken Taylor]

We went for the inert naturally-occuring gas replacement rather than swapping one synthetic for another. Without any fingers on pulses, and leaving aside the possibility of HFCs following CFCs into disrepute, the 'gut reaction' to a world being filled with complicated chemicals with uncertain effects and reactions in fire or on life in general was to use something we have been breathing in and out for centuries and which, if necessary, could be discharged whilst persons were evacuating. New nozzles, pipework and control gear were installed but this was probably a good thing anyway.

[JamesG]

Chris, Ken

Thanks for your responses.

Cheers

James

[peterm]

We as a company only use the inert gas option because we beleive that chemical extingushants will be banned at some point in the future. One particular popular chemical suppresent has already been banned in Sweeden, Switzerland and one other country the name of which escapes me.