Hacker News Reader

Comment by RcouF1uZ4gsC | Hacker News Reader

The solution to keeping cool indoors is air-conditioning. Given the way we are (not) curtailing our carbon emissions, the world of the future is going to be warmer than it is now with more frequent heat waves. Air conditioning will literally save lives. We need to get the infrastructure and economy in large portions of the world to the point where the vast majority of the population will be able to afford air conditioning and the infrastructure supports air conditioners running all the time.

View on HN

Occasionally I'm surprised at the little pockets of "anti-tech" that pop up in the HN crowd. Perhaps we just burn out on tech sometimes?

People forget what a boon to human kind, to the human mind such things like inexpensive artificial light, mechanized temperature control, industrial farming and manufacturing and such really are.

Its fun to play at virtue by switching off the AC and popping open window (thinking that the AC is some sort of sin of weakness) while completely forgetting that you've never had malaria because AC is ubiquitous in your area.

We are, perhaps, rightly gun-shy of trusting too much in technology because of some last century's indiscretions, but I don't think that a return to the age of cholera is the solution. At some point, we're going to have to get over it and have some hope again that we can use the fantastic tools of human science to start fixing some the the big problems.

That's a long way of saying that the answer is not to turn off the AC (and smugly tell the developing world that they're not allowed to have it either), the answer is to find a better way to power everyone's AC without doing the damage to our world that it previously did.

We are up to the challenge.

AC isn't that energy expensive. People just think of it as a 'luxury' and assume it must use more power, or they're used to how car ACs destroy gas mileage (but running any electrical appliance off a car engine is very inefficient)

Running an AC in a warm part of the world consumes vastly less power than heating in a cold part of the world does. Moving south reduces GHG emissions, all else being equal.

> Air conditioning will literally save lives. We need to get the infrastructure and economy in large portions of the world to the point where the vast majority of the population will be able to afford air conditioning and the infrastructure supports air conditioners running all the time.

This isn't wrong, and even LKY concurs:

> Air conditioning. Air conditioning was a most important invention for us, perhaps one of the signal inventions of history. It changed the nature of civilization by making development possible in the tropics.

> Without air conditioning you can work only in the cool early-morning hours or at dusk. The first thing I did upon becoming prime minister was to install air conditioners in buildings where the civil service worked. This was key to public efficiency.

Also note that we already have energy sources that can let us reliably run air conditioning without dumping CO2: nuclear energy. The climate problem isn't unsolvable, it's been solvable for decades, the only thing between us and solving it is our weird and irrational (burning coal or making solar-panels kills far more people) fear of nuclear fission.

Not sure how AC is the solution to climate change...Forgetting about the economical barriers (more than 30% of this world doesn't even have running water, let alone AC), you have to pay a price to nature whenever you try to reverse entropy. For every 1kW of energy you remove from your isolated system, you put at least 1.3kW into the global system. This energy has to come from some where like fuel which creates even more carbon emissions. AC will only increase the effects of the heatwave.

I wonder, where is the line when air conditioning starts to consume more energy than heating, over the year? How far south or north is the breakeven point, where people tend to spend about an equal amount of energy for both?

>how far south or north is the breakeven point

Depends on the person. If you're used to using A/C and you take it for granted you'll use it a heck of a lot more. I used to sit in DC traffic in a black truck with no A/C every day on my way home and sitting in traffic was the part that sucked. The temperature wasn't an issue because it's what I was used to. I'm fine with box fans around the house.

My girlfriend starts complaining and wants me to put the window A/C in when the temperature hits 80ish.

Guess who was raised where A/C was common and who wasn't.

Temperatures in North America are such that with proper ventilation A/C is in fact optional (though it's certainly nice in some places). Whether or not people use it is mostly based on availability and culture. If you convinced everyone that A/C or heating is for liberals the "A/C vs heating" break-even map in the US would look a lot like the red/blue voting map which would be kinda funny.

They said it was the solution to keeping cool indoors. I don't know how you read "keeping cool indoors" as "climate change", but the two aren't the same thing.

Sounds like a vicious circle.

Too much carbon in the atmosphere warming the climate? Of course the solution is to build more air conditioners and blast out more carbon. /s

Why would we opt for air conditioning instead of improving our building practices and performing retrofits to require less energy input?

Even on the equator traditional approaches are nicer than air con - not least because AC dries the air so uncomfortably. I'm the one who turns the hotel air con off, opens a window and turns the fan on. :)

If we really get the vast majority of the world using air con we may as well get them to power their homes by diesel generators 24/7 too and be done with the planet, environment and any claims to care for it.

> Even on the equator traditional approaches are nicer than air con - not least because AC dries the air so uncomfortably.

Where I live, the summers are muggy. Having ACs double as dehumidifiers is usually a blessing.

OTOH, when I'm at hotels in the SF Bay area, the AC dries the air out so much that I often shut it off at night, choosing the lesser of two evils.

> If we really get the vast majority of the world using air con

Let me guess you are not from a region where its hot and humid. That is a deadly combination, your overall efficiency drops with such a combination.

So I guess animals need to develop tech to survive?

I'm pretty sure animals have much bigger issues to worry about than outside temperature, like loss of habitat.

Warming outside temps is loss of habitat.

Especially the Pika, which needs very specific temperatures that are only found at high elevations to maintain thermoregulation. Global warming means that they will literally die of heat exhaustion during future summers as the temperature increases at higher elevations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pika

Edit: specifically the American Pika

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_pika

No they'll survive just fine without, sloshing like evolutionary sludge into every nook and cranny that supports life as they always have.

We don't need tech to survive either, so long as we don't mind living like animals!

Or they won't. Sixth mass extinction.

Well, that's a terrible idea, except when needed to prevent actual death. Nothing like waste heat generation AND carbon emission generation (to say nothing of manufacturing costs and possible refrigerant leaks).

Thankfully I choose to live in a temperate climate so my heating costs are minimal (gas) and cooling costs are 0.

Sure, but AC will just cause more carbon emissions.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com