6 ms·

I invite you to come up with a "heated up pile of rocks" solution for those places: https://i.redd.it/5bgjdbyj08sz.jpg https://i.redd.it/5bgjdbyj08sz.jpg http

I invite you to come up with a "heated up pile of rocks" solution for those places: https://i.redd.it/5bgjdbyj08sz.jpg https://i.redd.it/5bgjdbyj08sz.jpg https://i.redd.it/hu4ljikj0ej31.jpg https://i.redd.it/hu4ljikj0ej31.jpg https://i.redd.it/gonyuxg5cr401.jpg https://i.redd.it/gonyuxg5cr401.jpg Most people on this planet don't live in HVACed single family houses. That's what the grandparent meant by your "bubble".

WalterBright 5y ago
> Most people That still leaves billions of people. What's your solution? Rolling blackouts? > those places Many multi-unit buildings have central heating. Which means central thermal mass "batteries" are more cost-effective on a per-unit basis.
- bryans 5y ago
  Walter, you are making up science in your head that does not actually exist. I would highly encourage you to do some actual research before you continue to make these incredibly uninformed comments. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29186001 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29186001
  - WalterBright 5y ago
    > Because it takes 3-5x as much energy to heat rock than water And 100% of that energy gets recovered as it slowly returns to ambient temperature. You're confusing heat with temperature. > you are making up science in your head that does not actually exist You should be careful about making such statements. You're quite wrong. The heat going into the rock will be 100% returned. All of it. Where do you imagine it will go?
    - bryans 5y ago
      No, Walter, you're confusing energy with temperature. If it takes 1 kWh of electricity to increase the temperature of water by 1 unit (thereby releasing 1 unit of heat to the atmosphere), it takes 3-5 kWh of electricity to increase the temperature of a rock by 1 unit. That's called inefficiency. I'm done trying to explain 6th grade Earth science to you. You're either trolling or extremely unwilling to accept reality, so unless you have actual evidence for any of your claims, please stop pretending that you're some super genius who knows better than every scientist and engineer on the planet.
      - WalterBright 5y ago
        > you're confusing energy with temperature The energy comes back out of the rocks in the form of heat. 100% of it. No losses. Energy in equals energy out. If you heat the rock by 1 degree, in cooling off 1 degree it will release 100% of the heat absorbed. > you're some super genius who knows better than every scientist and engineer on the planet I suggest you ask an actual thermodynamicist, not a 6th grader. I don't need to present evidence that conservation of energy applies. After all, it's the law.
        bryans 5y ago
        This is getting beyond ridiculous, Walter, and you're making things up again. At no point did I or anyone else on the planet ever suggest that heating a rock by 1 degree will release less than 1 degree of heat. As I've explained multiple times now, it's a matter of where the heat originally came from, and it requires 3-5x MORE ENERGY to impart the THE SAME AMOUNT OF HEAT to a rock as it does water. That's the entire point, and is the portion of thermodynamics that you keep pretending doesn't exist. I'm not sure how many more times or ways I can explain this to you, because you clearly don't want to accept that the original heat input doesn't magically manifest itself. I've provided you with evidence for all of this, but you're still making the same baseless argument. Your ignorance of the subject is exhausting to engage with, so if that was your intent, I guess you win today's Troll Award. But you're still completely wrong about the science, you're unwilling to provide any evidence to back up your claims (because the evidence doesn't exist), you have no basis for your argument at all, and you should be ashamed of yourself for insisting otherwise in such an aggressively arrogant manner.
        WalterBright 5y ago
        > At no point did I or anyone else on the planet ever suggest that heating a rock by 1 degree will release less than 1 degree of heat. Yet you said it was only 20% efficient. Where did the 80% of the energy go? > it requires 3-5x MORE ENERGY to impart the THE SAME AMOUNT OF HEAT to a rock as it does water No, it doesn't. It's the same. Unless you've confused heat with temperature. Or you didn't try to heat the rock in an enclosed, insulated box, and the rocks were radiating the heat away almost as fast as it was applied. "Heat is a form of energy that can be transferred from one object to another or even created at the expense of the loss of other forms of energy." https://www.physicsclassroom.com/Class/thermalP/u18l1d.cfm https://www.physicsclassroom.com/Class/thermalP/u18l1d.cfm QED.
- lambdadmitry 5y ago
  Same as Macron's: spending time and effort on reliable generation (i.e. nuclear) instead of wasting it on feel-good drop-in-a-bucket non-solutions. Every single one of those houses can be cooled or heated up if you have energy available on request, no need for massive piles of rocks here and there It also means more thermal losses and huge thermal masses required to make any difference.

WalterBright 5y ago

> Most people That still leaves billions of people. What's your solution? Rolling blackouts? > those places Many multi-unit buildings have central heating. Which means central thermal mass "batteries" are more cost-effective on a per-unit basis.

bryans 5y ago
Walter, you are making up science in your head that does not actually exist. I would highly encourage you to do some actual research before you continue to make these incredibly uninformed comments. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29186001 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29186001
- WalterBright 5y ago
  > Because it takes 3-5x as much energy to heat rock than water And 100% of that energy gets recovered as it slowly returns to ambient temperature. You're confusing heat with temperature. > you are making up science in your head that does not actually exist You should be careful about making such statements. You're quite wrong. The heat going into the rock will be 100% returned. All of it. Where do you imagine it will go?
  - bryans 5y ago
    No, Walter, you're confusing energy with temperature. If it takes 1 kWh of electricity to increase the temperature of water by 1 unit (thereby releasing 1 unit of heat to the atmosphere), it takes 3-5 kWh of electricity to increase the temperature of a rock by 1 unit. That's called inefficiency. I'm done trying to explain 6th grade Earth science to you. You're either trolling or extremely unwilling to accept reality, so unless you have actual evidence for any of your claims, please stop pretending that you're some super genius who knows better than every scientist and engineer on the planet.
    - WalterBright 5y ago
      > you're confusing energy with temperature The energy comes back out of the rocks in the form of heat. 100% of it. No losses. Energy in equals energy out. If you heat the rock by 1 degree, in cooling off 1 degree it will release 100% of the heat absorbed. > you're some super genius who knows better than every scientist and engineer on the planet I suggest you ask an actual thermodynamicist, not a 6th grader. I don't need to present evidence that conservation of energy applies. After all, it's the law.
      - bryans 5y ago
        This is getting beyond ridiculous, Walter, and you're making things up again. At no point did I or anyone else on the planet ever suggest that heating a rock by 1 degree will release less than 1 degree of heat. As I've explained multiple times now, it's a matter of where the heat originally came from, and it requires 3-5x MORE ENERGY to impart the THE SAME AMOUNT OF HEAT to a rock as it does water. That's the entire point, and is the portion of thermodynamics that you keep pretending doesn't exist. I'm not sure how many more times or ways I can explain this to you, because you clearly don't want to accept that the original heat input doesn't magically manifest itself. I've provided you with evidence for all of this, but you're still making the same baseless argument. Your ignorance of the subject is exhausting to engage with, so if that was your intent, I guess you win today's Troll Award. But you're still completely wrong about the science, you're unwilling to provide any evidence to back up your claims (because the evidence doesn't exist), you have no basis for your argument at all, and you should be ashamed of yourself for insisting otherwise in such an aggressively arrogant manner.
        WalterBright 5y ago
        > At no point did I or anyone else on the planet ever suggest that heating a rock by 1 degree will release less than 1 degree of heat. Yet you said it was only 20% efficient. Where did the 80% of the energy go? > it requires 3-5x MORE ENERGY to impart the THE SAME AMOUNT OF HEAT to a rock as it does water No, it doesn't. It's the same. Unless you've confused heat with temperature. Or you didn't try to heat the rock in an enclosed, insulated box, and the rocks were radiating the heat away almost as fast as it was applied. "Heat is a form of energy that can be transferred from one object to another or even created at the expense of the loss of other forms of energy." https://www.physicsclassroom.com/Class/thermalP/u18l1d.cfm https://www.physicsclassroom.com/Class/thermalP/u18l1d.cfm QED.
lambdadmitry 5y ago
Same as Macron's: spending time and effort on reliable generation (i.e. nuclear) instead of wasting it on feel-good drop-in-a-bucket non-solutions. Every single one of those houses can be cooled or heated up if you have energy available on request, no need for massive piles of rocks here and there It also means more thermal losses and huge thermal masses required to make any difference.