Slashdot Mirror
New Heating Technology Uses Seawater and Carbon Dioxide (csmonitor.com)
Kenneth Stephen writes: While some enterprises have used sea-water for cooling, others are starting to use this for heating. and thereby cut back greatly on the carbon footprint of large facilities. What makes this technique even more fascinating is that a key component of this technology is carbon dioxide — the greenhouse gas that has climate watchers so worried.
An Alaska aquarium recently announced "the first installation of CO2 refrigerant heat pumps to replace oil or electrical boilers in a conventional heating system in the United States" after 7 years of development, and predicts they'll now save up to $15,000 each month on their heating bill.
Well, that's good news.
Carbon dioxide is a trace gas in the atmosphere. If too much of this is done, we'll run out of carbon dioxide. That will kill plants and make the Earth a very cold place. This seems like a bad idea to me.
Especially this bit about compressing the CO2 to over 2,000 psi to heat it. I assume this process is powered by fairy dust, unicorn farts, politicians speaking honestly, or some other such magical limitless power source? This is Slashdot - give me the physics, not the fluff piece.
" they'll now save up to $15,000 each month on their heating bill."
Ha ha
Feel free to point out if I'm wrong.. But, isn't this just like a huge mini split? Using CO2 instead of um.. Freon, or whatever they put in them these days?
Stick a huge finned thing out in the ocean, cycle some refrigerant around it, transfer heat from one side to the other? Requires electricity and it's not like.. you're *consuming* CO2 and removing it magically?
The article seemed to describe exactly what the mini-split in my living room does, only on a much higher scale, and with C02 as the transport medium instead of some other rare gas?
You all missed the point. The point is that the refrigerant is CO2. If it leaks no damage like other refrigerants and it is very abundant cheap to replace. In fact a system could be designed to automatically replace the refrigerant by extraction the refrigerant from the locale environment.
I'm not sure why it's such a big deal. While CO2 heat pumps are new-ish, they aren't groundbreaking.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
I first read the title as "New heating technology uses sweater..." and thought, "They're not even trying anymore!"
My first thought was "CO2 as a refrigerant - its kind of toxic isn't it? I wouldn't want to be around if a pipe broke."
Then I thought "Ammonia is also used as a commercial refrigerant, and that is also toxic. Which is worse?"
I haven't found any good answer online. Nobody seems to want to talk about toxic concentrations of ammonia in air, just in blood. Then there are all sorts of other complications - what quantities and pressures would be used for comparable CO2 and NH3 refrigeration plants? Does the lower density of NH3 mean it will disperse faster? Are you a whole lot worse off after being nearly killed by NH3 than after being nearly killed by CO2? Is CO2 more likely to take you by surprise, so you don't realize your danger until it is too late?
In summary - is it better to be near a catastrophically failed NH3 or CO2 refrigeration plant? What about other refrigerants used at a similar scale?
Here's an NH3 refrigerant accident: http://www.reuters.com/article...
And here's a CO2 one: http://www.fluorocarbons.org/m...
Interestingly this last link refers to CO2's 'low toxicity'.
Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
The Key takeaway here is saving $15k a month on heating bills.
If the savings are representative or what can be achieved elsewhere, the economics and payback period work out, then it's a Win-Win.
The surest way to bring someone over to your Environmentalists side is to show people they can save lots of money. Haranguing them about the CO2 and driving up energy costs...not so much.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
So if the boiler breaks now you flood your house with CO2 and kill everyone in it? Doesn't sound like a good idea to me.
So why does 'Climatedot' keep repeating this LIE over and over, EVERY day?
http://motls.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/175-nations-signed-paris-climate.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+LuboMotlsReferenceFrame+%28Lubos+Motl%27s+reference+frame%29
www.climatedepot.com
www.wattsupwiththat.com
http://m.phys.org/news/2016-04-alaska-aquarium-fossil-fuel-seawater.html
It's just a heat pump.
13 years to break even.
"Since starting the system we have averaged just over $4000 savings on electrical energy cost per month"
OTOH, they're saving a large amount on heating bills. That should translate to less energy use, and since they're replacing oil-fired boilers less direct GHG emissions. That's not unusual for heat pumps - they're the most efficient way to heat/cool a space or process on an annual basis. Unfortunately, compared to an oil- or gas-fired boiler, they're complicated and require regular (perhaps frequent) maintenance, so it would be interesting to see some kind of long-term followup, and if I were them I wouldn't scrap the boiler just yet - backup will be necessary in their climate.
The CO2 refrigerant (working fluid) thing is interesting. It's been done before, and I think even a couple of car a/c systems now use it. It has disadvantages, including the need to operate at much higher pressures than conventional refrigerants. However, the conventional refrigerants all have other problems (ozone destroying, hazardous, flammable, etc.) and mostly have a higher global warming potential when released to the atmosphere than CO2. So using CO2 minimizes the GW potential of the system if there's a failure. Again, given the issues involved, would be interesting to see some long-term followup.
Sounds like it makes sense in Alaska where the water is presumably already cold during the winter. http://www.industrialheatpumps...
"We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
I've never fully understood how the thermodynamics works out when you run the heat pump in the counterituidive direction.
Normally one uses a heat pump to take heat from a hot object and transport it to a cold object. this is intuitively obvious. the heat pump is, logically, just like a fan accelerating the transport of what was going to happen eventually anyhow.
I also can see how these can work past that logical point when you are using it as an airconditioner. It creates a cold object in the room, colder than the room, and puts a hot oject outside that is hotter than the outside air. Here one is going past the point of "what was going to happen anyhow" and actually pumping heat from the room to a hotter object outside.
the key take home point here however is this takes energy. The total heat you are dumping outside is MORE than the heat you extracted inside. This is the sum of the inside heat plus the heat of the work you used.
Okay so far so good. Now when it comes to heating the house how does this become more efficienct than just using the electricity you would have powered the pump with to heat the house directly (resistive heating)? This I cant see. is there an easy way to see how one gains efficiency by pumping heat out of a cold object to the hot side, over the direct resistive heating?
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
I'm predicting that somebody will complain that using seawater is going to change the "natural" temperature of said seawater and will therefore affect the flora and fauna in the water and therefore humans are evil usurpers of the planet.
this total ignorant bullshit doesn't belong on slashdot.
not a new technique. been around for 50+ years.
does not USE CO2 in the way the summary says, and not in a way that would matter to global warming. It CONTAINS CO2, in a closed loop.