Home AC use and global warming (solar, pollution, heating, buying)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Just wondering if those who believe that each persons actions are overheating the climate of the earth, use AC? Air Conditioning obviously adds heat to the air. First it requires the power plants to burn more fossil fuel, and second because it sends additional hot air from homes into the outside air.
Many of the people who are concerned about global warming (it's not about "believing in" it), live in places that don't require A/C. IDK what the rest of them do. But what it would take to cut back on industrial pollution, would be to cut way back on on convenience items and the standard of living in general, which, let's face it, is built on buying a lot more than we really need to be healthy and contented.
But yeah, parts of the Southwest, for example, and the South possibly, should be depopulated, because the regions aren't habitable without A/C. Although people obviously did get by in the South, before A/C.
MOD: I changed the thread title to be more respectful, as per the sticky
"Air Conditioning obviously adds heat to the air. First it requires the power plants to burn more fossil fuel, and second because it sends additional hot air from homes into the outside air."
The reasoning of your second point is completely incorrect. That is simply movement of heat within a larger system. Over time such effects cancel each other out.
Your first point has validity in pointing out that energy is used in air conditioning, but you don't get to require a link to fossil fuel, as that is an error of logic. Power can come from hydroelectric (common here in the southeast) or solar, wind, or other non-fossil fuel source. Also, AC in the southwest includes evaporative cooling using water, the same process that keeps forests from being deserts.
But yeah, parts of the Southwest, for example, and the South possibly, should be depopulated, because the regions aren't habitable without A/C. Although people obviously did get by in the South, before A/C.
Just wondering if those who believe that each persons actions are overheating the climate of the earth, use AC? Air Conditioning obviously adds heat to the air. First it requires the power plants to burn more fossil fuel, and second because it sends additional hot air from homes into the outside air.
I once calculated this because I heard the argument before. Using a very liberal estimate on the coal and oil we have burned over the last 100 years I came up with something like 40,000 years to create the same amount of heat delivered to earths surface by the sun in a few seconds.... give or take a few thousand years or seconds. It's an inconsequential amount relative to the sun.
Far better to cool the planet proactively. For example, scatter pulverized sea salt into marine layer clouds, thereby brightening them, which will reflect more solar radiation from the sun back into outer space. Or perhaps a system of translucent space parasols stationed at the L1 Lagrangian Point between the Earth and our Moon. Or perhaps inject dissipative reflective aerosols into the upper atmosphere to reflect, say, 1% of solar radiation into outer space.
Your first point has validity in pointing out that energy is used in air conditioning, but you don't get to require a link to fossil fuel, as that is an error of logic. Power can come from hydroelectric (common here in the southeast) or solar, wind, or other non-fossil fuel source.
Your logic is not right. The fact is, 63% of US power comes from fossil fuels. You can't just say that a region uses hydro so it can use as much power as it wants without affecting climate change - the US power grid is cross linked and shared so what one region does affects everyone. If people in an area like the Pacific Northwest, which is mostly hydro power, all quit using AC then there would be excess power available from the PNW to export to say, California, and California would not have to generate as much power from dirty plants.
Many of the people who are concerned about global warming (it's not about "believing in" it), live in places that don't require A/C. IDK what the rest of them do. But what it would take to cut back on industrial pollution, would be to cut way back on on convenience items and the standard of living in general, which, let's face it, is built on buying a lot more than we really need to be healthy and contented.
But yeah, parts of the Southwest, for example, and the South possibly, should be depopulated, because the regions aren't habitable without A/C. Although people obviously did get by in the South, before A/C.
Ruth, you may want to re-think your argument on the south and southwest. From a total energy standpoint, I'm pretty sure it takes a lot more energy (on an annual basis) to maintain a comfortable temperature inside comparable homes in Wisconsin or Montana than it does in Georgia or Arizona. It all depends on the number of "heating or cooling degree days" at a specific location, which is essentially the difference in temperature between the desired interior temperature and the outside temperature. Now, other factors come into play, like direct sunlight, humidity, wind, etc., but look at it this way - I believe Phoenix, AZ has an annual average temperature of about 70°F, while Billings, MT has an annual average of less than 50°F. The home in Billings will use more energy over the course of a year to maintain an interior temperature of 70°F than the house in Phoenix, simply because the annual average is farther from the desired interior temperature. With respect to the large diurnal swings found in the desert, these can be mitigated by having a well-insulated home with a large "heat-sink" value, that allows the interior temperature to trend close to the daily average, which again is closer to the desired internal temperature. The reason northern and eastern portions of the US are more highly populated, is due to 1) history, they were "discovered" and populated first; but more importantly, 2) generous amounts of annual rainfall, which allows crops to be grown via natural precipitation.
Bottom line, you may want to re-focus your attention toward depopulating the states above about the 37° latitude if your goal is to reduce carbon emissions from home climatization.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
