Besides that, they are becoming more efficient, and there are alternative approaches to control temperature at homes.
Besides that, they are becoming more efficient, and there are alternative approaches to control temperature at homes.
Responsible environmentalists should set an example for everyone else and move to an area where heat isn’t required, then they can also choose to live without air conditioning.
The Texas power grid failed in the winter, not the summer.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/texas-power-use-breaks-reco...
It could fail this summer due to insufficient capacity relative to demand. Alerts and calls for conservation have been provided starting last week, this time the lion's share of the increased risk can be attributed to air conditioning alone.
This occurred for a different reason in the winter because it got so unusually cold that the nominal water content of the natural gas froze in critical places within the delivery system and the gas could not be provided to the gas-fired electrical power plants. Unprecedented electrical climate-control demand was also a factor then.
When we were freezing in the dark with nothing but electrical heaters and no electricity, I didn't know how the traditional homes having natural gas connections fared. Nobody has gas lights any more but plenty still have gas heating & cooking. Natural gas is also often supposed to fuel household emergency generators, maybe they were OK to some extent. Liquified propane is a much more expensive alternative fuel gas and that's stored on site, but it could also possibly become obstructed by ice if it gets cold enough.
One thing about the way natural gas burns and electricity is made.
Traditionally it takes enough gas to heat 3 homes in order to produce the electricity to heat one home.
Regardless of price.
Not all of the energy from the gas is recovered either way, and after the electricity is delivered to the residence it is converted to heat more efficiently than gas but it's too late then to say there is a favorable comparison overall.
This leaves gas heat still less environmentally detrimental compared to electrical heat when the electricity is from a gas fired plant.
Pricing between these options when available can be expected to exaggerate uncertainties when comparing apples to oranges so there is that. Your pricing may vary, greatly.
Then there's the traditional thing about the way electricity heats and the way it cools.
Once you've got the electricity and you want to use it for temperature control, then it takes about 4 times as much electricity for an air-conditioner to make it one degree cooler than it takes for an elecric heater to make it one degree hotter.
Those electric heaters are wicked efficient on an electrical kWh basis.
But if you're on batteries you could easily conclude that any electric climate control is out-of-the question.
The remaining math can be derived from your own personal situation, and most often it can reveal why air-conditioning was considered nothing but a luxury item for so many generations until consumption got completely out-of-control.
Also, AC needs energy during clear summer days - exactly when it’s the cheapest to deliver by PV. With minimal effect on climate.
It’s finally gaining in popularity, and depending on weather conditions a modern heat pump can provide heating several times more efficient than straight up burning fuel even if you’re producing electricity from that fuel.
When your electricity is nuclear or hydro (or other renewables but that tends to be a bit sticky in winter) it’s manna.
When people say that AC costs correlate with solar power, they are pointing out that the same solar energy that increases heat gain for buildings during the bright hours also increases photovoltaic output which can be used to compensate for that heat gain.
I may be wrong here, no scientific data behind this.
> As far as I know, modern appliances use gasses without this problem. It also holds for fridges.
Completely wrong, and the exact opposite of reality.
The currently-used gases are such a problem that the plan is to phase them out for new one in the upcoming years. Just do a search for "R410a phase out".
> Because of the global warming potential of many HFC refrigerants, the latest amendment to the Montreal Protocol, the Kigali Amendment, has proposed to phase-down the use of refrigerants such as R-410A. The phase down is expected to begin sometime in the 2020’s. The leading replacement for R-410A refrigerant is a pure, single component refrigerant called R-32, which has one-third the global warming potential of R‑410A.
* https://www.goodmanmfg.com/resources/hvac-learning-center/hv...
One possible replacement is R-32:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Difluoromethane
Automotive AC has already moved to HFO-1234yf (from R-134a, Freon):
> An increasingly important environmental concern is the disposal of old refrigerators—initially because freon coolant damages the ozone layer—but as older generation refrigerators wear out, the destruction of CFC-bearing insulation also causes concern. Modern refrigerators usually use a refrigerant called HFC-134a (1,1,1,2-Tetrafluoroethane), which does not deplete the ozone layer, unlike Freon. R-134a is becoming much rarer in Europe. Newer refrigerants are being used instead. The main refrigerant now used is R-600a, or isobutane which has a smaller effect on the atmosphere if released.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refrigerator#Disposal
* https://homeaffluence.com/what-coolants-are-primarily-used-i...
Assuming we have one AC installation per person in developed countries, and each installation releases its full contents once every ten years, it would increase the carbon footprint of people in developed nations from ~10T/yr to ~10.02-10.1T a year.
Don't get me wrong - we should minimise the release of such gases and find better gases for AC, but it is not a significant issue right now.
But more importantly, even if we put all the energy produced by humanity into space heaters, we wouldn't be able to increase the planet's temperature by any measurable amount.
To give you a sense of perspective - Humanity produces 4 TW of electricity on average at any given moment. Sun delivers at that same moment 170,000 TW of energy.
Sure, moving the heat outside makes the environment slightly warmer, but that's nothing compared to the significant amounts of solar energy getting trapped because you made the energy to run your a/c by burning coal or any other fossil fuel
(Also - the volume of every place where you could reasonably want A/C is negligible compared to the volume of the earth's atmosphere, so that isn't as much of an issue)
What he said was a true statement and the effects are real and quantifiable. https://news.asu.edu/content/excess-heat-air-conditioners-ca...
However energy is generated by burning fossil fuels
AC specifically allowed more economic activity in large areas of the world which drove more power usage which drove more AC in an increasing spiral. It's not the only energy multiplier, but cities like Dubai would not exist in anywhere near its current size and thus energy requirements without aircon, and instead economic acitivty would go to places with less energy overhead (you don't need aircon in anywhere near the same amounts in Istanbul for example)
… you say that like it’s a bad thing…