4 ms·

At risk of sounding like a ludite or troll, why aren't these used in modern times? Earth architecture is so efficient and cost effective, it seems.

by spraak 8y ago

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
saeranv 8y ago
Well evaporative cooling, and ground-source energy similar to this does get used in modern architecture. Cooling towers are used to evaporatively cool waste heat from the circulating water in HVAC systems. Thermal labryinths, or earth ducts directly transfer heat to and from the earth, ground source heat pumps do as well through refrigerant loops.
zabuni 8y ago
They work much better in dry climates that cool down massively at night, and require that digging that far into the ground doesn't make you hit the water table.
eesmith 8y ago
I read an article on this topic about a month ago, but I can't find it now. In short, cheap energy in the post-war US meant that mechanical heating and cooling were affordable. Builders moved away from a vernacular architecture style, which had adapted to the local environment, to a more standardized style that was cheaper to make. While it didn't cover this detail, I think another aspect was that many people decided to move to other parts of the country, and wanted the architecture of where they came from. For example, people from the NE who moved to the desert SW and wanted a Cape Cod bungalow-style house. The vernacular architecture in the SW is for thick adobe walls and small windows. The walls are thick enough that it takes 12 hours for the heat of the day to reach the interior, and help keep it warm during the cold nights. While it's a better fit to the local weather, it's also more expensive to build than a stick-built home + insulation + A/C and heating systems. (Traditional adobe can be built using local mud, but that needs yearly maintenance, because the rains will wash it away.)
- spraak 8y ago
  Thanks for your perspective. I think cost is interesting, because the cost of conventional building with air conditioning and heating doesn't seem to factor the long term earth or environmental cost. My suspicion is that these actually cost a lot more to maintain if cost to the earth and long term natural resources is accounted for. But I'm just speculating so far.
  - eesmith 8y ago
    Yes, the price of fossil fuel use does not include the full impact costs. The IMF report at http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2015/wp15105.pdf http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2015/wp15105.pdf estimates: > Post-tax energy subsidies are dramatically higher than previously estimated—$4.9 trillion (6.5 percent of global GDP) in 2013, and projected to reach $5.3 trillion (6.5 percent of global GDP) in 2015. Secondary articles on the topic at https://www.pri.org/stories/2015-06-07/imf-true-cost-fossil-fuels-53-trillion-year https://www.pri.org/stories/2015-06-07/imf-true-cost-fossil-... and http://priceofoil.org/fossil-fuel-subsidies/ http://priceofoil.org/fossil-fuel-subsidies/ . That's about $800/person for the world's population.
xxxdarrenxxx 8y ago
Is it current population sustainable though. Is it enough space to freeze produce of a city of half a million people? Many modern inventions are what they are because of nothing more than mass pop. Farm vehicles instead of horses pulling to feed millions instead of 1000's like wise printing press/internet to let millions read instead of 1000's. World population now is magnitudes larger than in ancient times. While these inventions might be cost effective. You probably need an area the size of texas full of these cooling buildings to get the same "bandwidth" for current human population. Not to mention you'd need 1000s of trucks because these do not fit in the space of a fridge. I have a strong feeling these do not work at all on small scale. The issue is same with wind and solar power. The physical surface area needed to get the same power per square inch is too much. I think to get the same global power output with wind turbines alone we don't even have enough space and also needs abyssmal amounts of raw fossil fuels and materials to build. Cost effective =/= efficency/entropy

At risk of sounding like a ludite or troll, why aren't these used in modern times? Earth architecture is so efficient and cost effective, it seems.

by spraak 8y ago

At risk of sounding like a ludite or troll, why aren't these used in modern times? Earth architecture is so efficient and cost effective, it seems.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

saeranv 8y ago

Well evaporative cooling, and ground-source energy similar to this does get used in modern architecture. Cooling towers are used to evaporatively cool waste heat from the circulating water in HVAC systems. Thermal labryinths, or earth ducts directly transfer heat to and from the earth, ground source heat pumps do as well through refrigerant loops.

zabuni 8y ago

They work much better in dry climates that cool down massively at night, and require that digging that far into the ground doesn't make you hit the water table.

eesmith 8y ago

I read an article on this topic about a month ago, but I can't find it now. In short, cheap energy in the post-war US meant that mechanical heating and cooling were affordable. Builders moved away from a vernacular architecture style, which had adapted to the local environment, to a more standardized style that was cheaper to make. While it didn't cover this detail, I think another aspect was that many people decided to move to other parts of the country, and wanted the architecture of where they came from. For example, people from the NE who moved to the desert SW and wanted a Cape Cod bungalow-style house. The vernacular architecture in the SW is for thick adobe walls and small windows. The walls are thick enough that it takes 12 hours for the heat of the day to reach the interior, and help keep it warm during the cold nights. While it's a better fit to the local weather, it's also more expensive to build than a stick-built home + insulation + A/C and heating systems. (Traditional adobe can be built using local mud, but that needs yearly maintenance, because the rains will wash it away.)

spraak 8y ago
Thanks for your perspective. I think cost is interesting, because the cost of conventional building with air conditioning and heating doesn't seem to factor the long term earth or environmental cost. My suspicion is that these actually cost a lot more to maintain if cost to the earth and long term natural resources is accounted for. But I'm just speculating so far.
- eesmith 8y ago
  Yes, the price of fossil fuel use does not include the full impact costs. The IMF report at http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2015/wp15105.pdf http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2015/wp15105.pdf estimates: > Post-tax energy subsidies are dramatically higher than previously estimated—$4.9 trillion (6.5 percent of global GDP) in 2013, and projected to reach $5.3 trillion (6.5 percent of global GDP) in 2015. Secondary articles on the topic at https://www.pri.org/stories/2015-06-07/imf-true-cost-fossil-fuels-53-trillion-year https://www.pri.org/stories/2015-06-07/imf-true-cost-fossil-... and http://priceofoil.org/fossil-fuel-subsidies/ http://priceofoil.org/fossil-fuel-subsidies/ . That's about $800/person for the world's population.

xxxdarrenxxx 8y ago

Is it current population sustainable though. Is it enough space to freeze produce of a city of half a million people? Many modern inventions are what they are because of nothing more than mass pop. Farm vehicles instead of horses pulling to feed millions instead of 1000's like wise printing press/internet to let millions read instead of 1000's. World population now is magnitudes larger than in ancient times. While these inventions might be cost effective. You probably need an area the size of texas full of these cooling buildings to get the same "bandwidth" for current human population. Not to mention you'd need 1000s of trucks because these do not fit in the space of a fridge. I have a strong feeling these do not work at all on small scale. The issue is same with wind and solar power. The physical surface area needed to get the same power per square inch is too much. I think to get the same global power output with wind turbines alone we don't even have enough space and also needs abyssmal amounts of raw fossil fuels and materials to build. Cost effective =/= efficency/entropy