tandempower

I try to analyze how industrial technologies will further evolve or if they've hit a dead-end in terms of being able to progress further. AC got more energy-efficient with the advent of heat-pumps a few decades ago, as well as updates in refrigerants that were less hazardous environmentally. Heat-pumps are the most efficient way to cool air, but they still use substantially more energy than fans without AC, so the question is whether further energy-efficient innovations will take the form of smaller indoor spaces, better insulation or both.

The more radical innovation that is possible with AC, however, involves reducing the addictive quality of it. AC is basically addictive because the more you acclimate to chilled indoor temperatures, the more you need to turn down the thermostat to achieve the same effect. Gradually, people end up with condensation on their windows (and in the walls) and they feel more and more uncomfortable outdoors because of the growing contrast with the indoor comfort they've programmed their bodies to deem comfortable.

So some new technologies in dehumidification coupled with fans to move air instead of chilling it would be beneficial for both energy-efficiency and health reasons. The bigger picture, however, is that the culture of temperature-shock between outdoor and indoor areas should be addressed. This is where the addiction is and why people are becoming more and more alienated from outdoor recreation and transportation (LCF).

enigmaT120

I'm not agreeing with much else, but I certainly felt the temperature shock Monday when I got to Yakima for a workshop. The other people with me and I all went running a few miles in the 102 degree weather. It felt hot but I had drunk so much water it didn't bug me. But going inside where the hotel had my room's thermostat set to 70 was awful. I like AC but it should be set much closer to the temperature people would be acclimating to. At least I could adjust it in my own room to 80.

Walter S

True. When I quit driving I went from riding recreationally for 30 miles in the morning to commuting 40 miles RT on my bike. The big difference was riding in the afternoon heat instead of the comparatively cool pre-dawn breeze.

A few weeks after that started, I began being comfortable with much higher temperature inside. I started getting chilled at the temps I liked before. My thermostat slowly went up about five degrees after some adjustment.

I did not do that to conserve energy or resources or money (in spite of those effects). I did it because paying money to be uncomfortably cold is pretty absurd.

Dahon.Steve

+1

Today's buses do not have sliding windows anymore. Before 1970, the windows on a bus would be 50% wide open most off the time leaving a cool draft inside the cabin. That is not the case anymore. Today's modern bus usually have a small pop open window near the top that provides little ventilation.

I had the unfortunate experience of being on a bus in 90% degrees with not air conditioning. It was an absolute OVEN inside and the bus driver had to drive with the front door wide open! It was totally illegal!

Roody

And a cold day would be even worse!

Roody

I think design of the building would help to reduce AC usage while maintaining comfort.

Keep It Cool, Keep It Hot - Historical Ventilation And Heating Plan > News > About > The Richardson Olmsted Complex
Kirkbride Planned Institutions - Asylum Projects

loky1179

You'd feel better about genetically engineered insects than you would about AC on buses? No thanks. There are downsides to AC, but at least they are well understood. The downsides to genetic engineering, I suspect, will only be discovered after they've been unleashed on the natural environment, when it is too late to do anything about it. Unless the answer is MORE genetic engineering, to fix the problem they created. Who knows, maybe that is the plan all along.

wolfchild

Looks like LCF/public transit utopia.

Walter S

Genetic engineering is our only hope now. We've gone too far down the road of controlling nature and human evolution.

tandempower

I am divided on genetic engineering. Generally, I think we tend to be too hasty with technological application and fail to consider fully enough the functionalities that nature has developed through eons of innovative evolution.

On the other hand, I look at problems and consider how to solve them. The problems of natural indoor air are largely solved by dusting and cleaning, but there are insects like roaches and spiders that act as nature's cleaning crew for spots that escape human hygiene. Since there are drawbacks to allowing such insects to flourish indoors, the question is whether they can be genetically engineered in ways that reduce the harm they do while allowing them to continue performing their cleaning function.

If people can't overcome their fear of insects, maybe the next-best solution is to design nanobots that crawl around eating dust/mildew/etc., which are powered by the food/fuel they are consuming. These would basically be insects but presumably people would be more comfortable with them because they are totally artificial. The irony of this is that natural insects might turn out to be a better technology than anything humans can create, simply because nature has ironed out all the glitches through the evolutionary process.

This issue of insects seems to run parallel to the popular discussion of whether to genetically engineer mosquitos for the sake of controlling mosquito-borne diseases.

Also, it should be noted that air-conditioned buildings cause humid outdoor air to condense in various spots, which causes growth of mildews, molds, insects, etc. This effect might even be worse than in non-air-conditioned buildings where there is less cold to cause condensation.

Roody

It looks like poorly done PhotoShop to me.

jade408

$100 is much cheaper than the costs where I live. My commute is ~$8 a day depending on how I decide to get over the Bay. That might sound expensive, but the bridge toll is $6 and the cheapest parking near my office is about $15 per day. Maybe more.

Dahon.Steve

The transit option is the best tool for the carfree. I remember my father telling me (before we had car) the bus was his legs. I've come to accept this and enjoy taking public transit. We don't need a bicycle to travel long distances and transit is there for those who want to live and work along the bus or rail line.

I have a $6.00 dollar commute (one way) into New York City. I can bring this down to lightly more than $2.00 dollars by incorporating a bicycle. Since I'm carfree, I can afford to splurge on transit. That's the beauty of transit, you can use it or not but it's always there in case you need it.

jade408

Transit is also the fastest option (I guess a helicopter is faster but not so practical. ). I would not drive no matter what! The commuter bus ride is about 25 minutes with a 7 minute walk. The drive, no carpool lane would take 45-60 minutes. The train is not faster in my case as it takes 7-10 minutes (bike or bus) to get there, 18-20 minutes on the train, and a 7 min walk on the other side. The bus is literally across the street from my place.

As I have gotten older my acceptable walking amount has decreased. When I was younger 2 miles felt reasonable and could be done in any shoes. Now if it is more than about 1/2 mile I need to be a bit strategic about shoes. Over a mile means I need to think about bag weight too.