4 ms·

Do you think people shouldn't be living in Chicago (or most of Canada and the US midwest for that matter) because without heating it's just completely inhospita

by brabel 3y ago

Do you think people shouldn't be living in Chicago (or most of Canada and the US midwest for that matter) because without heating it's just completely inhospitable to human life during the winter? Or pretty much all Australian cities in summer?

pkulak 3y ago
Relying on a coat for survival is very different from relying on an HVAC system. One has no moving parts, requires no external inputs, and is routinely handed out for free to those who can’t afford them.
afavour 3y ago
Heating is considerably more energy efficient than having to run ACs all over the place. And if you need to go outside when it's cold you can: you add layers of clothing. In Arizona, in the middle of summer, you could be buck naked and you'd still overheat (and get burnt, to boot).
- rcme 3y ago
  Until the widespread use of heat pumps, AC was much more energy efficient than heating.
- triceratops 3y ago
  > Heating is considerably more energy efficient than having to run ACs all over the place. That's actually incorrect. Heating takes considerably more energy. When you're cooling you're looking at a temperature delta of at most 20 degrees C/45 degrees F between outside and inside. When you're heating, it can be easily be twice that. Or even more, in parts of Canada or the Great Lakes states. Air conditioning is a heat pump and can achieve up to 300% efficiency. Whereas most houses in cold climates use furnaces, which have at most 98% efficiency. Now that we have more efficient cold-climate heat pumps all of this may gradually change. But as of right now, what you're saying is wrong.
  - elcano 3y ago
    Heating under usual winter conditions would consume more energy than cooling under practical conditions. Yes. But that's very different than claiming than cooling is more efficient than heating. In A/Cs the ratio of energy (in the form of heat) removed to energy consumed is very low, around 10-15%. In furnaces the ratio of energy added to energy consumed is around 90%, which was pretty good until the emergence of heat pumps. There almost all the energy consumed is added to the output in addition to all the energy removed from the other side. That's why the efficiency in heat pumps is beyond 200%. In summary, no. Cooling is not more efficient than heating. But given the temperature differential when cooling the energy consumption is usually higher.
    - triceratops 3y ago
      > In A/Cs the ratio of energy (in the form of heat) removed to energy consumed is very low, around 10-15%. Why is that? Obviously I'm referring to efficiency in practice. In theory, heating and cooling should be equally efficient for a perfect heat pump, right?
  - mindslight 3y ago
    > Air conditioning is a heat pump and can achieve up to 300% efficiency. Whereas most houses in cold climates use furnaces, which have at most 98% efficiency. No. You can't directly compare "efficiency" numbers across different energy sources. My understanding is that the efficiency of gas powered electricity generation is around 33%, meaning that powering a heat pump with a COP of just under 3 will be of similar end-to-end efficiency as burning the gas directly in a condensing boiler/furnace.
    - triceratops 3y ago
      End-to-end efficiency calculations are tricky and depend on a lot of variables.
      - mindslight 3y ago
        Sure, but that doesn't mean you can throw your hands up and make an argument comparing nameplate efficiencies of things with different energy sources. I'm well aware the figure in my above comment could be off by a decent amount due to transmission efficiency, what specific plants are generating marginal power, etc. But it's at least framing the comparison right.
- megaman821 3y ago
  Heating takes considerably more energy than cooling. Especially since most heating is done with natural gas, if homes were heated with a heat pump it would already 2-4x more efficient. Then if you look at the temperature delta between outside and room temp, the cold climates have a much larger difference. Taking 100 degree air down to 75 takes less energy than bring 20 degree air up to 65.
chickenpotpie 3y ago
I haven't formed an opinion on the matter yet, but I do think there's a large difference between it being too cold and too hot. If I'm too cold and my power goes out I have a lot of options to survive. I can put on more clothes, get under a blanket, light my furniture on fire, etc If I'm too hot and my power goes out, I die. Once the wet bulb temperature gets above a certain level in shade, there's nothing that can be done to stop me from dying except Air Conditioning.
- addisonl 3y ago
  Wet bulb isn’t an issue in notoriously dry Phoenix. If your power goes out in Phoenix you jump in a pool.
  - chickenpotpie 3y ago
    What? That doesn't make any sense at all. The whole point of wet bulb temperature is to adjust for humidity. Also only 33% of Phoenix homes have a pool. Using a pool as a solution to prevent people from dying is a "let them eat cake" idea
    - CarVac 3y ago
      It's not an issue because Phoenix is always dry, so the wet bulb temperature is always low.
      - chickenpotpie 3y ago
        The wet bulb temperature of Phoenix still gets very high. Last July, there was an average wet bulb temperature of 73 degrees Fahrenheit. 95 degrees will kill a healthy human, it takes much less to kill a vulnerable person or someone performing manual labor. Climate change is only going to raise that number.
    - addisonl 3y ago
      Like the other commenter who already corrected you, it makes perfect sense if you actually understand how wet bulb works, here’s a calculator for you: https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/wet-bulb https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/wet-bulb Hint: Phoenix is at 17% humidity today, even their all time high of 122 doesn’t push the wet bulb temp out of the safe range.
tptacek 3y ago
People have lived in the midwest since long, long before modern heating.

by brabel 3y ago

pkulak 3y ago

Relying on a coat for survival is very different from relying on an HVAC system. One has no moving parts, requires no external inputs, and is routinely handed out for free to those who can’t afford them.

afavour 3y ago

Heating is considerably more energy efficient than having to run ACs all over the place. And if you need to go outside when it's cold you can: you add layers of clothing. In Arizona, in the middle of summer, you could be buck naked and you'd still overheat (and get burnt, to boot).

rcme 3y ago
Until the widespread use of heat pumps, AC was much more energy efficient than heating.
triceratops 3y ago
> Heating is considerably more energy efficient than having to run ACs all over the place. That's actually incorrect. Heating takes considerably more energy. When you're cooling you're looking at a temperature delta of at most 20 degrees C/45 degrees F between outside and inside. When you're heating, it can be easily be twice that. Or even more, in parts of Canada or the Great Lakes states. Air conditioning is a heat pump and can achieve up to 300% efficiency. Whereas most houses in cold climates use furnaces, which have at most 98% efficiency. Now that we have more efficient cold-climate heat pumps all of this may gradually change. But as of right now, what you're saying is wrong.
- elcano 3y ago
  Heating under usual winter conditions would consume more energy than cooling under practical conditions. Yes. But that's very different than claiming than cooling is more efficient than heating. In A/Cs the ratio of energy (in the form of heat) removed to energy consumed is very low, around 10-15%. In furnaces the ratio of energy added to energy consumed is around 90%, which was pretty good until the emergence of heat pumps. There almost all the energy consumed is added to the output in addition to all the energy removed from the other side. That's why the efficiency in heat pumps is beyond 200%. In summary, no. Cooling is not more efficient than heating. But given the temperature differential when cooling the energy consumption is usually higher.
  - triceratops 3y ago
    > In A/Cs the ratio of energy (in the form of heat) removed to energy consumed is very low, around 10-15%. Why is that? Obviously I'm referring to efficiency in practice. In theory, heating and cooling should be equally efficient for a perfect heat pump, right?
- mindslight 3y ago
  > Air conditioning is a heat pump and can achieve up to 300% efficiency. Whereas most houses in cold climates use furnaces, which have at most 98% efficiency. No. You can't directly compare "efficiency" numbers across different energy sources. My understanding is that the efficiency of gas powered electricity generation is around 33%, meaning that powering a heat pump with a COP of just under 3 will be of similar end-to-end efficiency as burning the gas directly in a condensing boiler/furnace.
  - triceratops 3y ago
    End-to-end efficiency calculations are tricky and depend on a lot of variables.
    - mindslight 3y ago
      Sure, but that doesn't mean you can throw your hands up and make an argument comparing nameplate efficiencies of things with different energy sources. I'm well aware the figure in my above comment could be off by a decent amount due to transmission efficiency, what specific plants are generating marginal power, etc. But it's at least framing the comparison right.
megaman821 3y ago
Heating takes considerably more energy than cooling. Especially since most heating is done with natural gas, if homes were heated with a heat pump it would already 2-4x more efficient. Then if you look at the temperature delta between outside and room temp, the cold climates have a much larger difference. Taking 100 degree air down to 75 takes less energy than bring 20 degree air up to 65.

chickenpotpie 3y ago

I haven't formed an opinion on the matter yet, but I do think there's a large difference between it being too cold and too hot. If I'm too cold and my power goes out I have a lot of options to survive. I can put on more clothes, get under a blanket, light my furniture on fire, etc If I'm too hot and my power goes out, I die. Once the wet bulb temperature gets above a certain level in shade, there's nothing that can be done to stop me from dying except Air Conditioning.

addisonl 3y ago
Wet bulb isn’t an issue in notoriously dry Phoenix. If your power goes out in Phoenix you jump in a pool.
- chickenpotpie 3y ago
  What? That doesn't make any sense at all. The whole point of wet bulb temperature is to adjust for humidity. Also only 33% of Phoenix homes have a pool. Using a pool as a solution to prevent people from dying is a "let them eat cake" idea
  - CarVac 3y ago
    It's not an issue because Phoenix is always dry, so the wet bulb temperature is always low.
    - chickenpotpie 3y ago
      The wet bulb temperature of Phoenix still gets very high. Last July, there was an average wet bulb temperature of 73 degrees Fahrenheit. 95 degrees will kill a healthy human, it takes much less to kill a vulnerable person or someone performing manual labor. Climate change is only going to raise that number.
  - addisonl 3y ago
    Like the other commenter who already corrected you, it makes perfect sense if you actually understand how wet bulb works, here’s a calculator for you: https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/wet-bulb https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/wet-bulb Hint: Phoenix is at 17% humidity today, even their all time high of 122 doesn’t push the wet bulb temp out of the safe range.

tptacek 3y ago

People have lived in the midwest since long, long before modern heating.