Air Conditioning, Electricity, Technology, and Global Warming

[Stevicus]

One appliance could determine whether India, and the world, meet climate change targets

I saw this story about more people in India buying air conditioners, and it shows that there's the other side of global warming and what the future may be like - regardless of who supports or doesn't support the lip service many people give to global warming.

Raheel Shaikh had worked his way up from a $90-a-month entry-level job in digital marketing to a position that paid 10 times as much. He remodeled the two-room apartment he shares with his parents, bought a motorbike and was planning his wedding in January.

Finally, this summer, the 30-year-old Shaikh splurged on the new must-have item for the upwardly mobile Indian: an air conditioner.

On a warm afternoon in November, Shaikh sat inside his living room and explained how the $800 Japanese appliance quietly exhaling overhead had made it easier for his parents to sleep in the deadening tropical heat of Mumbai, India’s commercial capital, and bearable to work on his laptop late into the night. It had also pleased his fiancee to know she would move into an air-conditioned home.

But all that crisp air will carry mammoth challenges.


The average air conditioner sucks 20 times as much energy as a ceiling fan, and studies show that space cooling accounts for 40% to 60% of the peak energy load during the summer in hot Indian cities such as Mumbai and New Delhi. By 2030, Abhyankar projects, the explosion in air-conditioning alone will raise India’s electricity demands by 150 gigawatts, the equivalent of adding three economies the size of California to its power grid.

Most of that electricity will come from coal, pumping out more of the carbon emissions that are blamed for worsening pollution, respiratory diseases, millions of premature deaths and hotter air temperatures — which will only push people to buy more air conditioners.

I've never been to Mumbai, but I live in a hot climate where air conditioning is considered a necessity. Not so much this time of year, since it's only expected to get up to a bone-chilling 81° today. (Brrrr...cold)

Seriously, though, this is an angle of the global warming debate which seems often ignored, since more and more places in the world are catching up to the West in terms of technology and infrastructure. Billions of people around the world want the same standard of living, which includes air conditioners, cars, and other luxuries which are taken for granted in the West - and which consume a lot of electricity and require much more infrastructure.

It's easy for those of us in the West to talk about how we support efforts to curb global warming, since most are living in the lap of luxury and consuming energy like a bunch of hogs. But does that mean we would deny other parts of the world the same standard of living that we have come to enjoy under the pretext of "saving the planet"?

 

[Vee]

It is completely normal for them to want a more comfortable life. Who doesn't? But the earth has finite resources and they are badly distributed and highly wasted.
One of the ways to address that problem would be to develop technologies that don't depend on fossil fuels. They would also consume something (wind, sun, etc) but the overall impact on the planet would be much less significant.
Another thing that needs to end is this ridiculous culture of throwing everything way and buy new. Companies should have to produce items of good quality that will last a long time and can be fixed if necessary. Last year I had to buy a new printer because the one I had, which was only 3 years old, had a little problem. Turns out that it was cheaper for me to throw it way and buy a new one than replace a small piece inside
Also essential for the future of the environment is that people need to start consuming a lot less meat and animal products. No one wants to hear about it, but the animal industry is the biggest polluter in the world and a small portion of the land used to raise animals could be cultivated to nourish the entire planet.
The earth could provide everyone with a good standard of living and healthy conditions, but not if we continue to live the way we do today.

 

[Revoltingest]

The underlying problem.....
Too many people to allow everyone to have our lavish lifestyle.
The solution....
Crush the foreigners, & keep them dirt poor.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Seriously, though, this is an angle of the global warming debate which seems often ignored, since more and more places in the world are catching up to the West in terms of technology and infrastructure. Billions of people around the world want the same standard of living, which includes air conditioners, cars, and other luxuries which are taken for granted in the West - and which consume a lot of electricity and require much more infrastructure.

It's easy for those of us in the West to talk about how we support efforts to curb global warming, since most are living in the lap of luxury and consuming energy like a bunch of hogs. But does that mean we would deny other parts of the world the same standard of living that we have come to enjoy under the pretext of "saving the planet"?

Those concerned with greenhouse gas emissions aren't asking others to use less power, just cleaner sources for it. Heaters and air conditioners can be powered by clean energy.

India probably gets a lot of hours of high sun annually in many or most areas. The trick will be to get their homes fitted with panels. But I suspect that those who can afford air conditioning and the power bill to support it are not far from affording solar panels, especially with subsidization. Right off the bat, you save the cost of the power bill.

Crush the foreigners, & keep them dirt poor.

Global warming will do that for you. The poorest will be the hardest hit, since they are least mobile and least able to acquire water and other necessities. If your home or mine becomes submerged or too hot, we can move. And we will be able to find and afford the other things we need to live.

 

[sayak83]

One appliance could determine whether India, and the world, meet climate change targets

I saw this story about more people in India buying air conditioners, and it shows that there's the other side of global warming and what the future may be like - regardless of who supports or doesn't support the lip service many people give to global warming.

I've never been to Mumbai, but I live in a hot climate where air conditioning is considered a necessity. Not so much this time of year, since it's only expected to get up to a bone-chilling 81° today. (Brrrr...cold)

Seriously, though, this is an angle of the global warming debate which seems often ignored, since more and more places in the world are catching up to the West in terms of technology and infrastructure. Billions of people around the world want the same standard of living, which includes air conditioners, cars, and other luxuries which are taken for granted in the West - and which consume a lot of electricity and require much more infrastructure.

It's easy for those of us in the West to talk about how we support efforts to curb global warming, since most are living in the lap of luxury and consuming energy like a bunch of hogs. But does that mean we would deny other parts of the world the same standard of living that we have come to enjoy under the pretext of "saving the planet"?

Well, the Paris Agreement contained provisions whereby developed countries will invest in implementing high efficiency technologies in developing nations. But Trump shredded it.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The underlying problem.....
Too many people to allow everyone to have our lavish lifestyle.
The solution....
Crush the foreigners, & keep them dirt poor.

Such a solution is pretty much what opened the doors for Communist Revolution in the 20th century. And military intervention during the 19th and 20th to keep things good for Americans.

 

[Revoltingest]

Such a solution is pretty much what opened the doors for Communist Revolution in the 20th century. And military intervention during the 19th and 20th to keep things good for Americans.

The crushing must never end.
But it shouldn't be "military intervention"....it should be "military crushing".

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The crushing must never end.
But it shouldn't be "military intervention"....it should be "military crushing".

Yup. Gotta have an excuse to keep military spending outrageously high.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yup. Gotta have an excuse to keep military spending outrageously high.

No, crushing is cheap.
Just drop bombs, destroy things, & kill massive quantities of people.
It's nation building that's costly....& it does the opposite of crushing.

And crushing can be done by robots....wearing pigtails.

 

[columbus]

The underlying problem.....
Too many people to allow everyone to have our lavish lifestyle.
The solution....
Crush the foreigners, & keep them dirt poor.

I think that is already underway. The war for control of dwindling resources, in a world where increasing numbers of the poor expect a higher standard of living.

Take the invasion of Iraq. Does anybody still believe that it was about "democratizing" the middle East? Rescuing the Iraqis from a tyrant? US security?
While that war was getting underway, the world was full of nasty governments that we didn't care about. Osama bin Laden was still making videos and reorganizing Al Qeda. North Korea was spending themselves broke on nuclear weapons and the missiles needed to use them. But the Bush administration decided to invade our old ally Iraq.
No, the invasion of Iraq was about control of the gulf oil fields. All of them. From our new military bases in Iraq we could even control Iran.

Or Trump's dumping the Paris Accords, because if wealth and power aren't flowing into the USA then it can't be fair. Why should we in the USA pay any more to fuel our SUVs and air-condition our Mcmansions, when those dirt poor Chinese people aren't cutting back either?
I think WWIII has already started myself.
Tom

 

[Revoltingest]

I think that is already underway. The war for control of dwindling resources, in a world where increasing numbers of the poor expect a higher standard of living.

Take the invasion of Iraq. Does anybody still believe that it was about "democratizing" the middle East? Rescuing the Iraqis from a tyrant? US security?
While that war was getting underway, the world was full of nasty governments that we didn't care about. Osama bin Laden was still making videos and reorganizing Al Qeda. North Korea was spending themselves broke on nuclear weapons and the missiles needed to use them. But the Bush administration decided to invade our old ally Iraq.
No, the invasion of Iraq was about control of the gulf oil fields. All of them. From our new military bases in Iraq we could even control Iran.

Or Trump's dumping the Paris Accords, because if wealth and power aren't flowing into the USA then it can't be fair. Why should we in the USA pay any more to fuel our SUVs and air-condition our Mcmansions, when those dirt poor Chinese people aren't cutting back either?
I think WWIII has already started myself.
Tom

How much oil do we get from Iraq?
How much did we spend to invade?
The puny former is dwarfed by the ginormaous latter.
We don't do anything so useful as waging war for profit....we
do it for the greater good....a very perverse greater good.

 

[Stevicus]

Those concerned with greenhouse gas emissions aren't asking others to use less power, just cleaner sources for it. Heaters and air conditioners can be powered by clean energy.

India probably gets a lot of hours of high sun annually in many or most areas. The trick will be to get their homes fitted with panels. But I suspect that those who can afford air conditioning and the power bill to support it are not far from affording solar panels, especially with subsidization. Right off the bat, you save the cost of the power bill.

My understanding is that solar energy has steeper start-up costs, but that it balances out over time. However, I'm not all that well-versed on the actual numbers or costs involved. We have an abundance of sun here in the desert, and solar panels are more and more common. Yet our main power plant still mostly uses coal. There's also a nuclear plant (Palo Verde) northwest of here. There are some conspiracy theories as to why we still mostly use coal, oil, and uranium for energy, as opposed to solar and wind.

But what would it actually take to power a city of a million people using only solar or wind power? If it's possible, why haven't we done so already?

And why do air conditioners consume so much energy? Electricity bills commonly double or even triple during the summer months, all because of air conditioner usage, which dwarfs the amount of energy consumed by lights and other appliances. I'm not an engineer, so I'll admit I'm out of my element here, but some of these things are perplexing to me - especially considering the huge advances we've made with smartphones, computers, and other devices. Why can't our engineering geniuses make similar advances with these big box A/C energy hogs which haven't advanced one iota since I was a kid?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

My understanding is that solar energy has steeper start-up costs, but that it balances out over time. However, I'm not all that well-versed on the actual numbers or costs involved.

We spent about $8000 six years ago to fit our home with 8 solar panels and a solar hot water heater. It eliminated 100% of our electric bill and 75% of our propane expenditures. It will have paid for itself by some time this year and be generating power for us at no cost thereafter for as any more years as it lasts (25 year guarantee).

The price of the system has gone down since we bought it.

what would it actually take to power a city of a million people using only solar or wind power?

Nobody would be powering a city. This isn't a collective or government effort. One powers a household or business.

 

[Revoltingest]

We spent about $8000 six years ago to fit our home with 8 solar panels and a solar hot water heater. It eliminated 100% of our electric bill and 75% of our propane expenditures. It will have paid for itself by some time this year and be generating power for us at no thereafter for as any more years as it lasts (25 year guarantee).

The price of the system has gone down since we bought it.

I'm glad you mentioned that.
With such systems becoming cheaper & better,
& with interest rates low, it just might be time for
me to look into such things. I have some idle
cash just itching to be put to work.

My shop is so well insulated & sealed that even
in sub-zero weather, it only takes 700 watts to
keep it above freezing. Solar cells could handle
that easily

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I'm glad you mentioned that.
With such systems becoming cheaper & better,
& with interest rates low, it just might be time for
me to look into such things. I have some idle
cash just itching to be put to work.

My shop is so well insulated & sealed that even
in sub-zero weather, it only takes 700 watts to
keep it above freezing. Solar cells could handle
that easily

Good idea. It's the right thing to do and profitable to boot. Win-win.

You've probably already switched out your incandescent bulbs for LEDs.

 

[Revoltingest]

You've probably already switched out your incandescent bulbs for LEDs.

I long ago switched out T12s for T8s & T5s, & then those for LEDs.
And incandescents for CFLS, & then those for LEDs.
Of course, I replaced exterior HPSs & LPSs with LEDs too.

I love arcane initialisms!
Btw, be careful to not throw a LPS bulb (low pressure sodium) in the trash.
They can cause a nasty fire.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

My understanding is that solar energy has steeper start-up costs, but that it balances out over time. However, I'm not all that well-versed on the actual numbers or costs involved. We have an abundance of sun here in the desert, and solar panels are more and more common. Yet our main power plant still mostly uses coal. There's also a nuclear plant (Palo Verde) northwest of here. There are some conspiracy theories as to why we still mostly use coal, oil, and uranium for energy, as opposed to solar and wind.

But what would it actually take to power a city of a million people using only solar or wind power? If it's possible, why haven't we done so already?

And why do air conditioners consume so much energy? Electricity bills commonly double or even triple during the summer months, all because of air conditioner usage, which dwarfs the amount of energy consumed by lights and other appliances. I'm not an engineer, so I'll admit I'm out of my element here, but some of these things are perplexing to me - especially considering the huge advances we've made with smartphones, computers, and other devices. Why can't our engineering geniuses make similar advances with these big box A/C energy hogs which haven't advanced one iota since I was a kid?

Modern cities need sustainable energy-

i.e. energy production that is sustained when the wind drops, the sun goes down and the subsidies dry up

Worth remembering though that far more energy is consumed globally in heating than cooling, i.e. the best way to curb energy use would be to raise global temps... along with many other benefits, easier said than done unfortunately

 

[Stevicus]

Modern cities need sustainable energy-

i.e. energy production that is sustained when the wind drops, the sun goes down and the subsidies dry up

Yeah, that makes sense. But can the energy be stored somehow so that it can be sustained when the wind drops or the sun goes down? I guess I'm wondering just how advanced the technology is at this point and what's actually possible. If it was possible that an hour of sunlight absorbed by a single solar panel could store enough energy to power a house for six months, then it might be worth pursuing. But if that's not possible or beyond our technological capabilities, then I would concede that it may be just a pipe dream.

Worth remembering though that far more energy is consumed globally in heating than cooling, i.e. the best way to curb energy use would be to raise global temps... along with many other benefits, easier said than done unfortunately

Yes, I can see that. However, one thing I would observe is that most of the hotter climates exist in the developing countries which previously didn't have the means or resources to have air conditioning on a widespread scale. Now that they're catching up, they're going to want more and more of it (such as with India and other countries). This may tip the balance of how much energy is consumed in heating vs. cooling.

I would also note that heating can be accomplished with more primitive technologies, such as simply burning wood. Until air conditioning was invented, humans didn't really have any technological options for getting cooler. We just had to endure the heat.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Yeah, that makes sense. But can the energy be stored somehow so that it can be sustained when the wind drops or the sun goes down? I guess I'm wondering just how advanced the technology is at this point and what's actually possible. If it was possible that an hour of sunlight absorbed by a single solar panel could store enough energy to power a house for six months, then it might be worth pursuing. But if that's not possible or beyond our technological capabilities, then I would concede that it may be just a pipe dream.

I agree with you - I've nothing against 'alternative energy' if it was viable like your example- but I think there are practical reasons why after all this time and money, they are still 'alternative'

And last I checked that breakthrough battery tech is only about 2 years away, or exactly where it was about half a century ago!

If there was an economically viable way to store massive amounts of electricity- conventional power plants would already be using it, which have to constantly adjust output in advance to meet demand- this is tricky enough when you can actually control the gas/ coal/ fuel rods etc. Solar and wind peak when demand is off-peak- so they can never replace conventional 'sustainable production' plants.

Yes, I can see that. However, one thing I would observe is that most of the hotter climates exist in the developing countries which previously didn't have the means or resources to have air conditioning on a widespread scale. Now that they're catching up, they're going to want more and more of it (such as with India and other countries). This may tip the balance of how much energy is consumed in heating vs. cooling.

I would also note that heating can be accomplished with more primitive technologies, such as simply burning wood. Until air conditioning was invented, humans didn't really have any technological options for getting cooler. We just had to endure the heat.

It's an interesting question, though I think the discrepancy is pretty large- fundamentally the ave global temp is below what we feel as comfortable.. also heat is a lot more important than AC! life and death v luxury accessory..

 

[Hockeycowboy]

It is completely normal for them to want a more comfortable life. Who doesn't? But the earth has finite resources and they are badly distributed and highly wasted.
One of the ways to address that problem would be to develop technologies that don't depend on fossil fuels. They would also consume something (wind, sun, etc) but the overall impact on the planet would be much less significant.
Another thing that needs to end is this ridiculous culture of throwing everything way and buy new. Companies should have to produce items of good quality that will last a long time and can be fixed if necessary. Last year I had to buy a new printer because the one I had, which was only 3 years old, had a little problem. Turns out that it was cheaper for me to throw it way and buy a new one than replace a small piece inside
Also essential for the future of the environment is that people need to start consuming a lot less meat and animal products. No one wants to hear about it, but the animal industry is the biggest polluter in the world and a small portion of the land used to raise animals could be cultivated to nourish the entire planet.
The earth could provide everyone with a good standard of living and healthy conditions, but not if we continue to live the way we do today.

I'm not sure about Global "Warming"...I'm currently in the Southern United States, and I'm FREEZING!!!