Looking at this image got me thinking, we should really use natural technology first amd supplement it with artificial technology as that would save more power and lower maintenance demands
this post was submitted on 24 Jul 2023
165 points (97.7% liked)
Solarpunk
5418 readers
17 users here now
The space to discuss Solarpunk itself and Solarpunk related stuff that doesn't fit elsewhere.
Join our chat: Movim or XMPP client.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Swamp coolers are great for low humidity environments, and we continue to use them there. Unfortunately, they're not great where humidity gets high.
However, this is not a simple swamp cooler - it's a ground heat sink system powered by natural convection.
If it were just a swamp cooler - yes. I have experimented with pure swamp coolers and they're not very effective near a sea.
All technology, by definition, is artificial. But there is a continuum of environmental impact depending on the technology and environment—digging a hole in the dirt with a wooden stick has negligible effects on the health of the local ecosystem; digging a hole in the dirt with a nuclear pulse device not so much.
But nuclear pulse devices are excellent for propulsion if you need to move stuff between planets, and have negligible environmental impact in the already radiation-soaked vaccuum of space.
All technology, by definition, is artificial.
Probably passive (taking advantage of energy and natural laws already present in the environment, like wind and convection) vs. active (making use of secondary forms of power like electricity, burning fuels, etc.) is a better distinction. If all you gotta do is e.g. at most open some vents at one time of day and close them at another, and not rely on the delivery of external power sources from human industry, calling it "passive" is pretty fair.
I like this passive vs. active distinction. A sailboat vs. a motor ship. And a hybrid approach that uses naturally occuring energy flows when feasible; artificial energy sources when not.
Generally the issue is space/foot print. The efficiency energy wise is usually pretty good, but the amount of space vs what area gets covered (and this is forgetting bells and whistles like actually controlling the temperature) is usually abysmal. This only works on a small scale for few people that are willing to forgo accuracy and control.
Thank-you for commenting that because I hadn't considered that
Though I do think tempreture control can be done with technology supplementation
For example having technology read the tempreture in an area and then close a vent to stop natural cold or hot air once the desired tempreture is reached
Edit: and have technology supplement cool pr warm air if there isn't enough of that from natural air
And I am wondering how much the air tower itself can be made smaller while retaining function
How do you define "natural" vs "artificial" here, and what's to say modern air conditioning doesn't already build on what we know from old methods?
What do you think they could have meant?
I don't know.
The post is an example.
The question remains: what makes this natural and AC artificial?
Right... And you don't see any glaring differences between to two?
There are differences, obviously, but I don't know which of those differences would make one of them natural. Nature didn't create either of them; they are both man-made constructions.
But using your intuitions, which one do you think the person responded to above meant as more natural?
Probably the one that doesn't use electricity, right?
It feels like being obtuse for no reason.
You are correct
I used the words "natural technology" because it felt like the best word to describe natural solutions like the air tower in the image
So, electricity is unnatural and hence bad? Is that the point being made here? Because the original opinion was that we should focus on natural solutions over artificial ones, and I asked the question in an effort to understand why they would say that.
Instead of arguing against a guess (or "intuition") of what they mean, I think it's constructive to find out exactly what they mean first. That way we're not just talking past one another in the typical, polarized internet fashion.
That's not what being said at all
Electricity is a form of energy but its created using other forms of energy and there are losses from conversion becsuse we don't have 100% efficency so it would be better to use other forms of energy that are naturally present when possible to avoid losses of energy from converting them to electricity
Then you only need to use electricity as necessary
Where did I say any of that?
I'm not arguing for good or bad anything. What do you think this conversation is?
Reread this discussion. I was exclusively talking about how it's blatantly obvious that a tunnel with water to chill air is more natural than an AC unit - and you're pretending to not understand that.
Stop trying to fight and we wouldn't be taking past each other.
OP didn't even say one was worse or better. He just said to look for lower maintenance and energy use. And again - that's blatantly obvious between an AC unit and a TUNNEL WITH WATER.
I'm not claiming you said anything was good or bad. The very top comment, which is what I responded to, said "we should really use natural technology first amd supplement it with artificial technology". That's not your comment. And then you got into the discussion with all these non-answers to my question, implying that something is "blatantly obvious" instead of actually answering my simple question. It only needed to be a single plain answer, but here we are knee-deep in noise and passive-aggressive attacks.
I want to to write out, so it's in a permanent record on your account that you don't know which one of those two is more natural.
Copy and paste this if you truly can't tell: "I, tias, have no clue what's more natural - an AC Unit or a tunnel with water."
Because that's what you're saying right? You can't tell right?
Can you honestly not tell which is more natural between an AC UNIT and a TUNNEL WITH WATER? You really can't tell?
P.S. You 100% said I was arguing that electricity was bad.
You: "So, electricity is unnatural and hence bad? Is that the point being made here?"
Again, in that instance I wasn't talking about what you are arguing. The only thing I've wanted to find out since the beginning of this discussion is what the original comment meant. This isn't about you.
And no, to me "natural" means created by nature and "artificial" means created by humans. So neither is natural. But that's not relevant because we're not talking about my definition of natural. We're talking about what they meant.
Do you not see that my whole point of asking is to understand the other person's view instead of adding my own assumptions? That words do not mean exactly the same thing for everyone? I don't know why this makes you so upset. Is it bad to try to understand the other person's ideas before arguing about them?
I've never seen someone other than my middle school students resist critical thinking this hard.
My first comment was asking you what you THOUGHT THEY meant. And you said I don't know. You couldn't even try to work it out? When it's blatantly obvious. When they even explained it in their comment? They literally outlined what they wanted in their comment. Why did you ignore that part of it to focus on natural vs unnatural?
You're also already arguing about them - even after you said you don't know. Its getting real fucking obvious you're just looking for a fight. That's why you had to push an argument onto me - that you then pretended you didn't do.
Yikes. Putting someone this rigid and unempathetic in a teaching position makes me worried for society. These kind of values are what makes people polarized and unable to understand one another. It's the opposite of what we need right now.
You've gone to doing exactly what I was trying not to do with OP, i.e. to put words in my mouth. Somehow you now think your assumptions about what I meant are more valid than what I say I meant. I don't see a point in continuing this conversation since I'd just be a hostage to your interpretations. Bye.
Get called out for being disingenuous and then run away. Nice.
When did I put any words in your mouth? What did I say you said? What did I imply you said?
Edit: lololol at not even taking accountant. Just going to downvote and run away. Can't say what words I put in your mouth can you? Because I didn't. I asked you question for clarification and you took it as an attack.
What I'm talking about is natural technology like the air cooling tower in the image
And artificial technology that's made using electricity and circuit boards
I do believe relying on natural stuff and supplementing it with technology to enhance and / or expand upon a feature of a technology or to serve as a feature that cannot be attained by natural means
Technology supplementation should only be really used when necessary
But, that won't make NEARLY as much money for everybody that wants to sell you shitty solutions.
This works fine in low humidity environments (deserts), but not in humid environments where the water cannot evaporate to absorb heat from air. And humid, hot environments are the most dangerous (see wet bulb temperature).
There are plenty of tutorials that explain and teach to build a swamp cooler—basically, all you need is a bucket with lid, a fan, wadding and water.
When a wind tower is integrated with a quanat system, it works even in humid.
The key is drawing in air through underground passages - either irrigation channels or just cellars. The ground acts as a cold store (heat sink), cooling incoming air before it enters the house.
The tower + wind catcher has no thermal role - it must simply create low pressure and keep the draft going.
Then it's not really a swamp cooler, but using the soil/rock as a giant heatsink to conduct heat from the air. That heat of course will warm up the rock over time reducing efficiency, but this could be countered by letting water flow through these channels. Giving a hybrid between evaporative/swamp cooling and heatsink. I'm sure some physicist who knows thermodynamics could elaborate further how well such a system would work.
Correct. The ground is a MASSIVE heat sink, but can only absorb and transmit heat so quickly (how much thermal conductivity it has; just the mathematical reciprocal of insulation/resistance). Having a large contact area and/or water helps a lot. If you can get down to the ground's natural/ambient water table, it'll conduct a lot better than dry dirt and rock (not to mention that evaporation can help with sufficient air flow).
If you make use of flowing water, probably it's just going to be a matter of the temperature of the source of water, as it'll likely eclipse (depending on rate and volume of flow) what gets absorbed by the ground. Unless it's a closed loop, in which case you're essentially just increasing the surface area of ground you're transmitting to (and you'll need to take advantage of convective flows like with the air, or you'll have to actively pump to keep the flow going).
Absolutely. Lots of societies have used passive heating and cooling systems, well-suited to local climates. And we could learn a lot from them to help decrease our energy use.
There's a lot of places you can build (partially) underground to take advantage of relatively stable ground temperature and natural insulation, too. Ain't just fictional hobbits that lived in holes in the ground.
view more: next ›