Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 14 to 19 of 19

Thread: Compatibility

  1. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Keokuk, IA
    Posts
    5,520
    Wiki says R410a is does have a high GWP. But at what quantities are we talking about? I think with global warming we're sometimes barking up the wrong tree. Rather than focusing on energy conservation and looking at net lifecycle energy use, as well as looking at controlling certain natural sources of GHG's, we go after "easy targets".


    You want rational solutions to cut CO2 emissions. Lets try reducing the global human population which will then reduce both methane and CO2 emmissions from livestock and humans.


    In my opinons, naturla soruces of Co2 outweigh human produced soruces to such a degree that they are nearly insignificant. We human like to think we cna control the planet, but in reality, we're still just along for the ride. The eco system is far, far more adapatable than we give it credit for.

    Normal climate shift cannot be rules out as a cause for flucuating global temperatures. We simply have too little data over to small of a time peridod to prove otherwise. There are too many vairables in the equation that we cannot predict.

    There's also far to much money involved on both sides of the argument to trust any of the conclusions that have been drawn.

  2. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Keokuk, IA
    Posts
    5,520
    If you want a green solution, then build a highly insulated home with a large heavily insulated water tight room the basement. Have it filled wiht blocks of ice in the winter and ciculate air across in in the summer for AC. Problem solved with 300 year old technology. Up until the early 1900's, they used to have huge ice harvest all across the Mississippi river from about where I live on North to St. Paul, MN. Everyone had ice boxes to keep food fresh year round. Homes were built ot take advantage of fresh ventilation. That's why most homes had over 25% of wall area covered in windows compared to under 20% now.

    1 ton of cooling capacity is about equivalent to melting 1 ton of ice... hence the term. So at 35 cubic feet per ton in a home that needs on average 1 ton of cooling every 24 hours lets say you'll need 300 cubic feet of ice. So you could fill a if you could fill a 20'x25' room with water, and turn it into basically a tube and shell heat exchanger with a plunum of stainless steel pipes. Then you circulate indoor air for cooling in the summer, then circulate air that below freezing through it in the winter to refreeze the ice.

    To improve latent capacity, you could even mix in a small ratio to propylene glycol to lower the freezing point a little.

    Heck you can even use the condensate to flush your toilets and water the garden if you want.


    You know, the above idea doesn't sound crazy with some newer highly efficient designs. Bulding a water tight room and some thin wall SS tubing doesn't sound any more expensive than drilling wells for geothermal and you don't need a compressor to transfer the energy.

  3. #16
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Wake Forest, NC
    Posts
    352
    Quote Originally Posted by motoguy128 View Post


    You want rational solutions to cut CO2 emissions. Lets try reducing the global human population which will then reduce both methane and CO2 emmissions from livestock and humans.

    Curious: Which people should we kill to achieve this global human population reduction? We were commanded by God to be fruitful and multiply. Recently many stuffy-headed intellectuals tell us we are overpopulated and will destroy the planet. Whatever happened to trusting God that he created a planet capable of sustaining us? Im not advocating abusing the planet, be a good steward, but are you going to tell me that my 6 children are the precursor for the planet's demise? Im sorry sir, I dont agree with that line of reasoning?

    I think I just opened a can of worms...
    It's not rocket-science...

    It's electromechanical thermodynamic engineering

  4. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Keokuk, IA
    Posts
    5,520
    Quote Originally Posted by HVACTechNC View Post
    Curious: Which people should we kill to achieve this global human population reduction? We were commanded by God to be fruitful and multiply. Recently many stuffy-headed intellectuals tell us we are overpopulated and will destroy the planet. Whatever happened to trusting God that he created a planet capable of sustaining us? Im not advocating abusing the planet, be a good steward, but are you going to tell me that my 6 children are the precursor for the planet's demise? Im sorry sir, I dont agree with that line of reasoning?

    I think I just opened a can of worms...
    You could try something crazy like forcing certain 3rd world contries to be self sufficient or stop having 5 children when they can only afford or have hte resources to feed 1. Actually, 300 years ago most of these cultures were self sufficient. European colonization and the ensuing revolutions and political instability have resulted in populations that struggle to survive.


    But realistically, the panet WILL limit the human population one way or another. We cannot destroy the planet. We can however make it unihabitable or limit the maximum ppulation it can sustain. But either way, it will recover.

    Look at a small pond stocked with fish. if there isn't enough food, the fish die. If it gets too hot, the oxygen levels drop and the weakest fish all die off and equilibrium is restored.


    For humans, at some point a super virus will come along that we can't treat or the population will get large enough that the food supply can swing low enough to result in widesread famine.

    It will limit itself one way or another. I suppose it doesn't hurt to be proactive in preventing that. But I think a little more common sense and better using our reasearch dollars woudl be more beneficial.


    For example... "everyone" knows you must replace old supposely inefficeint windows with new repalcement windows. But look at hte lifecycle costs. You had a wood window, that's serviceable and cna be made jsut as tight as a new window. Add a strom window of recut the sashes to install double glazes glass and you have equal or better performance. On theflip side, how much energy and petrolium does it take to fabricate a vinyl window frame. How long iwll it last before it has to be repalced? Does the incremental energy it saves over the window it replaces offset the energy needed to fabricate it? What is the impact of putting the old window into a landfill? Now, every 20-30 years you'll have to throw those repalcement windows into a landfill too.

  5. #18
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Wake Forest, NC
    Posts
    352
    Respectfully sir I am not ok with "forcing" anyone to stop having children. What gives me or you or anyone else the right to do that? I do agree that the thought is crazy though.

    Also, if a supervirus or some other form of the natural balancing of the population is going to come along at some point and put everything into its proper numbers, what would be the point of trying to limit the population of our own abilities? Seems like God will reduce it when he sees fit anyway.
    Last edited by HVACTechNC; 08-31-2011 at 09:46 AM. Reason: Wasn't done ranting yet.
    It's not rocket-science...

    It's electromechanical thermodynamic engineering

  6. #19
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Cincinnati, Oh
    Posts
    4,926
    Quote Originally Posted by motoguy128 View Post
    Wiki says R410a is does have a high GWP. But at what quantities are we talking about? I think with global warming we're sometimes barking up the wrong tree. Rather than focusing on energy conservation and looking at net lifecycle energy use, as well as looking at controlling certain natural sources of GHG's, we go after "easy targets".


    You want rational solutions to cut CO2 emissions. Lets try reducing the global human population which will then reduce both methane and CO2 emmissions from livestock and humans.


    In my opinons, naturla soruces of Co2 outweigh human produced soruces to such a degree that they are nearly insignificant. We human like to think we cna control the planet, but in reality, we're still just along for the ride. The eco system is far, far more adapatable than we give it credit for.

    Normal climate shift cannot be rules out as a cause for flucuating global temperatures. We simply have too little data over to small of a time peridod to prove otherwise. There are too many vairables in the equation that we cannot predict.

    There's also far to much money involved on both sides of the argument to trust any of the conclusions that have been drawn.
    I found Wiki's source for that, did a search on the site, and nothing came up for 410a.

    This is from the EPA:

    Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6)

    The global warming potential of SF6 is 23,900, making it the most potent greenhouse gas the IPCC has evaluated. SF6 is a colorless, odorless, nontoxic, nonflammable gas with excellent dielectric properties. SF6 is used for insulation and current interruption in electric power transmission and distribution equipment, in the magnesium industry to protext molten magnesium from oxidation and potentially violent burning, in semiconductor manufacturing to create circuitry patterns on silicon wafers, and as a tracer gas for leak detection.

    Like the other high GWP gases, there are very few sinks for SF6, so all man-made sources contribute directly to its accumulation in the atmosphere. Measurements of SF6 show that its global average concentration has increased by about 7% per year during the 1980s and 1990s, from less 1 ppt in 1980 to almost 4 ppt in the late 1990’s (IPCC, 2001).

    source:
    http://epa.gov/highgwp/scientific.html


    Electrical Transmission and Distribution. The primary user of SF6 is the electric power industry. Because of its inertness and dielectric (non-conductive) properties, SF6 is the industry's preferred gas for electrical insulation, current interruption, and arc quenching in the transmission and distribution of electricity. SF6 is used extensively in circuit breakers, gas-insulated substations, and switchgear. The U.S. inventory report provides detailed descriptions on SF6 emissions from electrical transmission and distribution and how they are estimated (see the Chapter entitled “Industrial Processes").

    source:
    http://epa.gov/highgwp/sources.html


    Like I said, in respect to other sources, R410a overstated. It has a gwp of 1700 and change.
    "Better tell the sandman to stay away, because we're gonna be workin on this one all night."

    "Dude, you need more than 2 wires to a condenser to run a 2 stage heatpump."

    "Just get it done son."

    Dad adjusted

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Comfortech Show Promo Image

Related Forums

Plumbing Talks | Contractor Magazine
Forums | Electrical Construction & Maintenance (EC&M) Magazine
Comfortech365 Virtual Event