# Thread: The problem of air conditioners heating up Earth

1. In India, the number of air conditioners are expected to grow exponentially. 2/3 of electricity in India is produced by coal and gas. So the air conditioners exponentially warm up Earth both from the electricity production and by directly heating the air outside. The air conditioner turns electricity into heat and moves heat from inside to outside. Inside the house there are other heat sources such as computers etc.

Let's say hypothetically that the electricity production is dealt by moving into nuclear power. Thus carbon dioxide emission is reduced. How about the air conditioner problem heat exhaust problem. How can that be fixed? Is this mathematically possible or impossible (I want to understand thermodynamics better):

By clever usage of compressors and decompressors, the AC would boil up water. The water vapor would roll a turbine which would store electricity into a battery. This battery would be connected to home electricity. The water vapor would be cooled down and condesed again, yet to be boiled up again. As a result, the AC would emit less heat outside and instead turn that heat into energy, storing it in the battery. The compressor/decompressor part would use electricty (and add heat) but that electricity would be taken from nuclear power.

Will that be efficient and viable?

2.

3. Originally Posted by jimhoyle
Let's say hypothetically that the electricity production is dealt by moving into nuclear power. Thus carbon dioxide emission is reduced. How about the air conditioner problem heat exhaust problem. How can that be fixed?
1) More efficient air conditioners
2) Non-AC heat mitigation (albedo changes mainly)
By clever usage of compressors and decompressors, the AC would boil up water. The water vapor would roll a turbine which would store electricity into a battery. This battery would be connected to home electricity. The water vapor would be cooled down and condesed again, yet to be boiled up again. As a result, the AC would emit less heat outside and instead turn that heat into energy, storing it in the battery.
That would violate the laws of thermodynamics, so it won't work.

4. Waste heat - total heat generated directly by fuel burning and indirectly from the heat from the end uses - has been estimated at about 1% of anthropogenic warming forcing, ie accumulated heat due to Greenhouse Gases is about 100 times the heat from waste heat.

This study by Flanner, M. G. (2009) "Integrating anthropogenic heat flux with global climate models" estimated that waste heat accounted for a global average 0.028 Watts per square metre versus 2.9 Watts per m2 for greenhouse warming.

If the energy is coming from zero emissions sources then more energy use is possible whilst still decreasing the overall contributions to global warming - although if overall energy use grows to 100x current use, entirely from zero emissions sources (and I suppose 10 billion people aspiring to the extravagantly wasteful prosperity of developed industrialised nations will push it in that direction) then we could still have a global warming problem, based on waste heat. Still a lot less of a global warming problem than with global growth based on unrestrained growth of the use of fossil fuels.

5. Ken, Good insight.

How about https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnkoe...E#1c6486736744 – a quote: "only about two or three dozen people globally, all experts in thermo-acoustics, truly understand this process."

Is that machine useless? The headline says "could just save the planet", but the text says it has 40–50 % efficiency. While traditional AC's efficiency could be something like 50 % or even 85 % (best case scenario), according to: https://www.quora.com/How-efficient-...r-conditioners