The U.S. Olympic team is one of a handful that will supply air conditioners for their athletes at the Paris Games in a move that undercuts organizers’ plans to cut carbon emissions.
I’m not sure what you think is happening here, but energy is just being moved around. Air conditioners aren’t just belching out extra heat. If air conditioners were 100% efficient then they’d break even on heating, but in reality they’re much better than that, pretty much all air conditioners are at least 200% but most are more than that. This is achieved by using the same effect that your refrigerator uses - the radiator behind the freezer isn’t mega hot, right? You could look into vapor-compression refrigeration to learn more.
ACs are heat pumps that use temperature differentials to move heat from one side to another. There are inherent losses there (e.g., moving 1000kJ of heat out of a room might take 500kJ, for 200% efficiency). That excess 500kJ is dumped outside into the world along with the 1000kJvof heat, creating a local heat island effect. That’s why ACs consume electricity, and that’s where the energy goes.
The radiator behind the freezer isn’t mega hot because of advances in insulation that limit the amount of heat that needs to be moved and advances in efficiency when operating in specific temperature regimes. A modern fridge consumes 400kWh a year, which averages out to 1.1kWh/day, or 45W continuous draw. That’s about the same as a laptop charger. But, well, obviously your house is much larger than your fridge. A fridge might average 400L in volume, but your house averages more like 600000L (1500x more).
If you could move heat around without incurring losses, you could use that to construct a perpetual motion machine. Conservation of energy is a thing and entropy always increases.
Realistically the heat added via electricity is likely going to be added to the compressor itself not the radiator so ofcourse the radiator will be cooler. Also, a laptop charger has to convert from AC to DC so they will always consume more than the listed power output.
If we want to really dive into the depth of the subject though, more thermal energy is created, stored, and radiated in heat islands from cars than air conditioning. You’d be hard-pressed to heat the planet via electricity when the sun is really the thing doing all the work here. If the AC is powered via solar it’s a big nothing burger really, especially if the solar panels are in the same geographical area as there would be no exporting energy to different locations.
Now, let’s consider all the cars, planes, and asphalt that will be used for the olympics. Seems to me the best way to reduce the effects of climate change in this scenario is to not have the olympics unless it is walked to.
“Cooling is a big contributor to global warming. Much of the existing cooling equipment uses hydrofluorocarbon refrigerants, which are potent greenhouse gases, and use a lot of energy, making them a double burden for climate change. Even with the phasedown of hydrofluorocarbons required by the Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol, business as usual means emissions from refrigeration and air conditioning are expected to double by 2030 and triple by 2050, rising from 7 per cent of global GHG emissions today. Right now, the more we cool, the more we heat the planet.”
This is a bit like complaining that electric heaters are a big problem because they use a lot of energy and may contain greenhouse gas products inside them.
There are entire industries belching thick black smoke into the atmosphere because it’s slightly cheaper than the clean alternative. That’s where climate change efforts should be focused, not on the small creature comforts provided for humans so that they don’t suffer in the heat.
“small creature comforts” like air conditioning and the refrigerants used in them make up 7% of global GHG emissions. How about you take your air conditioning apologism and fuck off?
Where do you think the energy for electric heating and cooling comes from? Thin air?
AC still makes up like 7% of global GHG emissions. That’s more than aviation and computing… Combined. That’s on par with the entire iron and steel industries. In fact, it’s almost on par with the GHG emissions of all agriculture output and is expected to exceed the entire agriculture industry’s GHG emissions before 2050.
Except when we have 100% renewable low emission electricity and transition away from CFC refrigerants, they’ll essentially drop to zero emissions. There’s nothing particularly bad about air conditioning. It is more and more becoming a necessity for survival due to climate change. If you don’t like that, your target is the fossil fuel industry, not the working class people who use air conditioning to avoid suffering.
Meanwhile, animal agriculture will always be extremely harmful to the environment due to methane, nitrous oxide, and various other issues. I’m happy for you to criticise people for using air conditioning if you’ll commit to going vegan.
You do realize that renewables still have an emissions footprint from manufacturing, transportation, deployment, transmission, and recycling/retirement… Right? That they’re limited lifespan disposable goods? So are batteries.
Moreover, each new solar panel has an opportunity cost in that it could be used to supplant fossil fuels in an area of the world that would actually benefit from it, rather than helping a facility THAT ALREADY HAS A TEMPERATURE CONTROL SYSTEM cool things down further because Americans are too spoiled with their extreme electricity consumption patterns to do anything else.
I’m just stating the facts. But as a European I have to say I’m pretty surprised by the attitudes in this thread. Almost no one I know has AC and we do just fine, seems folks are awfully protective of their AC. Obviously there are worse offenders in other industries but the source I gave you shows that by 2050 AC could be over 20% of GHG emissions, from 7% today which is still nothing to sneeze at.
Here are some more facts (though the source kinda sucks, Quora):
Indirect Environmental Impact: Even if the electricity powering your air conditioner comes from renewable sources like solar or wind power, there are still environmental impacts associated with the production and installation of the air conditioning unit itself. Manufacturing the units, transporting them, and disposing of them at the end of their life cycle all have environmental consequences.
Energy Efficiency: The energy efficiency of the air conditioning unit is crucial. Even if the electricity comes from renewable sources, using an inefficient air conditioner will still consume more energy than necessary, putting strain on the grid and potentially increasing demand for non-renewable energy sources during peak times.
Heat Island Effect: Air conditioning can contribute to the urban heat island effect, where cities are significantly warmer than rural areas due to human activities. This can have various environmental impacts, such as increased energy consumption, air pollution, and health risks.
Refrigerants: Air conditioners use refrigerants that can be potent greenhouse gases if leaked into the atmosphere. Some older refrigerants like hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) have a high global warming potential. Using air conditioners with environmentally friendly refrigerants can help mitigate this impact.
My point is that the anti air conditioner stuff is just greenwashing, that’s all. The facts are that air conditioning isn’t a particularly bad technology in any way.
Sure, of course, air conditioners have environmental impacts, that’s obvious - but so does building solar panels or electric cars.
Inverter heat pumps are one of the obvious solutions to mitigate climate change because they’re much, much more efficient than other forms of heating and cooling, we should be pushing for them to become common in Europe, not jumping on some bandwagon we don’t really understand because traditionally Europe hasn’t been hot enough to need it.
France’s energy supply is almost entirely nuclear, which isn’t the easiest to ramp up and down on a minute-by-minute basis.
All electricity has some GHG footprint, and not using that electricity by definition has a lower GHG footprint. Plus, AC creates a heat island effect that forces other city occupants to also install AC, making the outside increasingly miserable over time.
What’s wrong with AC if it’s powered by renewable electricity?
They could sell that renewable energy to Germany who only burns hydrocarbons
I didn’t see the /s, so In case you’re being serious, here’s the wiki for Germany renewable energy. There’s a lot more than hydrocarbons going on.
A bit hyperbolic much?
Hydrocarbons are about 30-40% of their mix.
Nothing really, unless the system leaks refrigerant and isn’t taken care of promptly.
CO2 can be used as a refrigerant now
This is a shit take that completely ignores the laws of thermodynamics. Where do you think all that heat goes?
I’m not sure what you think is happening here, but energy is just being moved around. Air conditioners aren’t just belching out extra heat. If air conditioners were 100% efficient then they’d break even on heating, but in reality they’re much better than that, pretty much all air conditioners are at least 200% but most are more than that. This is achieved by using the same effect that your refrigerator uses - the radiator behind the freezer isn’t mega hot, right? You could look into vapor-compression refrigeration to learn more.
I don’t think you understand thermodynamics.
ACs are heat pumps that use temperature differentials to move heat from one side to another. There are inherent losses there (e.g., moving 1000kJ of heat out of a room might take 500kJ, for 200% efficiency). That excess 500kJ is dumped outside into the world along with the 1000kJvof heat, creating a local heat island effect. That’s why ACs consume electricity, and that’s where the energy goes.
The radiator behind the freezer isn’t mega hot because of advances in insulation that limit the amount of heat that needs to be moved and advances in efficiency when operating in specific temperature regimes. A modern fridge consumes 400kWh a year, which averages out to 1.1kWh/day, or 45W continuous draw. That’s about the same as a laptop charger. But, well, obviously your house is much larger than your fridge. A fridge might average 400L in volume, but your house averages more like 600000L (1500x more).
If you could move heat around without incurring losses, you could use that to construct a perpetual motion machine. Conservation of energy is a thing and entropy always increases.
Realistically the heat added via electricity is likely going to be added to the compressor itself not the radiator so ofcourse the radiator will be cooler. Also, a laptop charger has to convert from AC to DC so they will always consume more than the listed power output.
If we want to really dive into the depth of the subject though, more thermal energy is created, stored, and radiated in heat islands from cars than air conditioning. You’d be hard-pressed to heat the planet via electricity when the sun is really the thing doing all the work here. If the AC is powered via solar it’s a big nothing burger really, especially if the solar panels are in the same geographical area as there would be no exporting energy to different locations.
Now, let’s consider all the cars, planes, and asphalt that will be used for the olympics. Seems to me the best way to reduce the effects of climate change in this scenario is to not have the olympics unless it is walked to.
AC/DC converter losses are on the order of 10%. Negligible, and don’t change the point. Your pedantry is noted and ignored.
This is reddit level cringe lol. You didn’t have to reply to say nothing.
Reporter: [REDACTED]
Reason: Breaks Community Rules
Community rules against the laws of thermodynamics 😂
Can you ban people for spurious reports too thx
It’s still bad for the environment, even if powered with green electricity.
Care to elaborate how?
Sure!
“Cooling is a big contributor to global warming. Much of the existing cooling equipment uses hydrofluorocarbon refrigerants, which are potent greenhouse gases, and use a lot of energy, making them a double burden for climate change. Even with the phasedown of hydrofluorocarbons required by the Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol, business as usual means emissions from refrigeration and air conditioning are expected to double by 2030 and triple by 2050, rising from 7 per cent of global GHG emissions today. Right now, the more we cool, the more we heat the planet.”
Source
This is a bit like complaining that electric heaters are a big problem because they use a lot of energy and may contain greenhouse gas products inside them.
There are entire industries belching thick black smoke into the atmosphere because it’s slightly cheaper than the clean alternative. That’s where climate change efforts should be focused, not on the small creature comforts provided for humans so that they don’t suffer in the heat.
“small creature comforts” like air conditioning and the refrigerants used in them make up 7% of global GHG emissions. How about you take your air conditioning apologism and fuck off?
Are you vegan?
Where do you think the energy for electric heating and cooling comes from? Thin air?
AC still makes up like 7% of global GHG emissions. That’s more than aviation and computing… Combined. That’s on par with the entire iron and steel industries. In fact, it’s almost on par with the GHG emissions of all agriculture output and is expected to exceed the entire agriculture industry’s GHG emissions before 2050.
Except when we have 100% renewable low emission electricity and transition away from CFC refrigerants, they’ll essentially drop to zero emissions. There’s nothing particularly bad about air conditioning. It is more and more becoming a necessity for survival due to climate change. If you don’t like that, your target is the fossil fuel industry, not the working class people who use air conditioning to avoid suffering.
Meanwhile, animal agriculture will always be extremely harmful to the environment due to methane, nitrous oxide, and various other issues. I’m happy for you to criticise people for using air conditioning if you’ll commit to going vegan.
You do realize that renewables still have an emissions footprint from manufacturing, transportation, deployment, transmission, and recycling/retirement… Right? That they’re limited lifespan disposable goods? So are batteries.
Moreover, each new solar panel has an opportunity cost in that it could be used to supplant fossil fuels in an area of the world that would actually benefit from it, rather than helping a facility THAT ALREADY HAS A TEMPERATURE CONTROL SYSTEM cool things down further because Americans are too spoiled with their extreme electricity consumption patterns to do anything else.
I’m just stating the facts. But as a European I have to say I’m pretty surprised by the attitudes in this thread. Almost no one I know has AC and we do just fine, seems folks are awfully protective of their AC. Obviously there are worse offenders in other industries but the source I gave you shows that by 2050 AC could be over 20% of GHG emissions, from 7% today which is still nothing to sneeze at.
Here are some more facts (though the source kinda sucks, Quora):
Indirect Environmental Impact: Even if the electricity powering your air conditioner comes from renewable sources like solar or wind power, there are still environmental impacts associated with the production and installation of the air conditioning unit itself. Manufacturing the units, transporting them, and disposing of them at the end of their life cycle all have environmental consequences.
Energy Efficiency: The energy efficiency of the air conditioning unit is crucial. Even if the electricity comes from renewable sources, using an inefficient air conditioner will still consume more energy than necessary, putting strain on the grid and potentially increasing demand for non-renewable energy sources during peak times.
Heat Island Effect: Air conditioning can contribute to the urban heat island effect, where cities are significantly warmer than rural areas due to human activities. This can have various environmental impacts, such as increased energy consumption, air pollution, and health risks.
Refrigerants: Air conditioners use refrigerants that can be potent greenhouse gases if leaked into the atmosphere. Some older refrigerants like hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) have a high global warming potential. Using air conditioners with environmentally friendly refrigerants can help mitigate this impact.
And here is some more information on what European countries are doing to reduce the use of them, even to the point of dictating how low you can set the temperature and banning it in shops that leave the door open.
My point is that the anti air conditioner stuff is just greenwashing, that’s all. The facts are that air conditioning isn’t a particularly bad technology in any way.
Sure, of course, air conditioners have environmental impacts, that’s obvious - but so does building solar panels or electric cars.
Inverter heat pumps are one of the obvious solutions to mitigate climate change because they’re much, much more efficient than other forms of heating and cooling, we should be pushing for them to become common in Europe, not jumping on some bandwagon we don’t really understand because traditionally Europe hasn’t been hot enough to need it.
In France high demand periods are met with fossil. The rest of the time it’s mainly just nuclear. We don’t have enough renewable energy
France’s energy supply is almost entirely nuclear, which isn’t the easiest to ramp up and down on a minute-by-minute basis.
All electricity has some GHG footprint, and not using that electricity by definition has a lower GHG footprint. Plus, AC creates a heat island effect that forces other city occupants to also install AC, making the outside increasingly miserable over time.