• MetaCubed@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    108
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I agree with you that we should be exploring alternatives, but aircon is extremely energy efficient for how much thermal energy it moves (reaching 400% efficiency in some cases) . The problem isn’t aircon itself, but what is being used to power it (coal/natural gas power plants)

    In fact the technology behind aircon can be expanded into a heat pump to both heat and cool, being more efficient than electro-resistive or gas heating. There’s even water heaters that will actually cool the area they’re in and use the heat they gather from the space to heat the water.

    Technology Connections has a great series of videos that go in depth on both heat pumps and aircon.

    • spongebue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah, “air conditioning powered by solar/wind/hydro” can feel like it’s one big Rube Goldberg machine to make air cool, but the reality is that it comes together to make something that can scale really easily. I can’t imagine coming up with a design like what’s in OP for an apartment complex or condo building.

      Source: just made it up, but also a Technology Connections fan. All that’s to say, feel free to correct me with a little data

      • Lazz45@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        They actively use this design in large buildings (with a modern twist). Its known as a chilled water system: https://hvactrainingshop.com/how-a-chilled-water-system-works/

        Or you have ones that do not run at all during the day, and only chill/freeze the water at night on excess power/cheap power: https://www.buildinggreen.com/news-article/making-ice-night-cool-buildings

        The second system I linked would then let the ice slow melt over the day as its way of actively chilling air passing through its exchanger.

        These systems work by chilling water instead of air, which has a much higher heat capacity. Meaning, it can accept much more thermal energy per unit mass before raising its temperature by 1 kelvin. You are able to build a single, very well designed, and efficient refridgeration unit that can provide HVAC services to up to multiple high rise buildings. This reduces waste and reduces the usage of coolant/refridgerant.

        This system can be reversed in the winter (heating the water instead of chilling) with geothermal heat, solar heat, or if no “green” options are readily available, natural gas direct fire heat can be extremely efficient compared to electric coil

      • Beliriel@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        It scales pretty easily. A Yak’chal is basically an early version of a cooling tower. And they regularly get used for bigger house complexes.

    • grue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      400% efficiency is good, but it’s not better than the ∞% efficiency you get from something that doesn’t require fuel input to begin with. (I’m pretty sure the Technology Connections guy would agree on that point.)

      If nothing else, think of it this way: even if you still want to use air conditioning to make sure you get all the way down to comfortable room temperature or whatever your target is (which a Qanat, although able to achieve a >15°C ΔT, might or might not be able to do reliably), it’ll still give you a big head start and greatly reduce the amount of energy needed. It’s a lot like using a ground-source heat pump instead of an air-source one. What’s not to like‽

      • MetaCubed@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        Sorry my point wasn’t that we shouldn’t explore other options to use instead of/in tandem with A/C. I was entirely pointing out that the use of an AC/heatpump is by itself, in absence of the context of what is used to power it, a non issue as its one of the most efficient electric heating/cooling technologies we have.

        Wind catchers could be, and likely are a great technology to adapt for wider use, though I can’t speak to that, I’m not an HVAC engineer.

      • TheSaus@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        IIRC for every watt of electricity, 4 watts of energy get moved from the inside bit of your AC to the outside unit

      • Redex@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        What the other guy said. It’s down to the fact that you aren’t actually heating/cooling down a room, you’re just moving the heat already there around. E.g. in winter, instead of producing your own heat with electricity, which is 100% efficient, you take heat from the outside and put it inside, using a lot less energy in the process than if you were to create the heat inside of your home.

        Though I’m not sure if it’s that efficient, I think I heard it’s more around the 150-200% mark, but I’m not sure.

        • Claidheamh@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I think I heard it’s more around the 150-200% mark

          Most cheap air conditioners have COPs (coefficients of performance) around 3.2-3.5, which means 320-350% efficiency. In real world conditions, the best systems reach 4.5, though the theoretical limit is about 8.0.

          • chronically_crazy@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            3.2-3.5 is also on a good day. It might not be as efficient when the outside temperature differences are further away from your thermostat setting inside, though if you have a geothermal setup, then you’ve got peak efficiency year round.

      • MetaCubed@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Sorry, my notifications have been messed up because of the lemmy.world issues! Some other people have already answered but I’ll still reply :)

        A heat pump’s efficiency is measured differently than that of a gas furnace.

        The actual unit for heat pumps is the Coefficient of Performance (CoP). This measures the power input (electricity) VS the power output (heat). A “400% efficiency” as I put it, is a CoP of 4, meaning that for every watt of power used, 4 watts of heat energy are moved. As some other people pointed out, depending on the quality and technology of the heat pump and the interior/exterior temperature, the actual range of a heat pump is a CoP of anywhere from 2-5.5 (the theoretical, perfect maximum is 8.8). The efficiency of the heat pump does dip as the temperature of the region it’s pulling heat energy from lowers, there’s less energy available to move, so it has to work harder. This is why heat pumps in regions with especially cold winters have what’s usually called “emergency heat” which brings us to…

        Electrical heating. This works by pushing electricity through a wire to heat it up. Directly turning electricity into heat. Electrical heating always has a CoP of 1 (terms and conditions apply). For each watt of electrical power consumed, 1 Watt of heat energy is produced.

        Finally we have gas heating, which is still the only option for some areas for various reasons. Gas heating efficiency is not measured with CoP but instead with Annual Fuel Utilization Efficiency, simply a number that represents what % of the fuel burned is actually turned into useful heat energy. I’m finding AFUE ranges of 76-97% as a general range for modern furnaces. If a furnace has an AFUE of 90%, that means that when it burns an amount of fuel representing 100 units of heat potential (I’m not using a unit, BTUs confuse and terrify me) then 90 of those units will be turned into usable heat, and 10 of them will be waste, whether that is heat that leaves via the chimney or is simply unburnt fuel.

        TLDR: 400% means 4x more energy is moved than is used, I apologize for the wordiness, I find this stuff rather interesting