Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Change?"

Communicate with fellow Zoners

Moderators: SkiDork, spanky, Bubba

killyfan
Blue Chatterbox
Posts: 128
Joined: Feb 27th, '17, 09:44

Re: Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Chang

Post by killyfan »

OK sounds all good. Maybe we can be friends some day if we ever do get to meet for a beer. Truce.

On another sideline now... YIPPEEEE to the link below. Thanks again Mike - you're a stellar example of socially responsible leadership. And I always see you properly dressed in the winter too!

http://www.inthesnow.com/new-solar-array-killington/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
In a world where you can be anything, why not choose to be kind...
Bubba
Site Admin
Posts: 26275
Joined: Nov 5th, '04, 08:42
Location: Where the climate suits my clothes

Re: Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Chang

Post by Bubba »

killyfan wrote:OK sounds all good. Maybe we can be friends some day if we ever do get to meet for a beer. Truce.

On another sideline now... YIPPEEEE to the link below. Thanks again Mike - you're a stellar example of socially responsible leadership. And I always see you properly dressed in the winter too!

http://www.inthesnow.com/new-solar-array-killington/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Whoever wrote that article needs an education in energy. :roll:
"Abandon hope all ye who enter here"

Killington Zone
You can checkout any time you like,
but you can never leave

"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function" =
F. Scott Fitzgerald

"There's nothing more frightening than ignorance in action" - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
User avatar
Mister Moose
Level 10K poster
Posts: 11596
Joined: Jan 4th, '05, 18:23
Location: Waiting for the next one

Re: Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Chang

Post by Mister Moose »

Bubba wrote:
killyfan wrote:OK sounds all good. Maybe we can be friends some day if we ever do get to meet for a beer. Truce.

On another sideline now... YIPPEEEE to the link below. Thanks again Mike - you're a stellar example of socially responsible leadership. And I always see you properly dressed in the winter too!

http://www.inthesnow.com/new-solar-array-killington/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Whoever wrote that article needs an education in energy. :roll:
My first two thoughts reading that article are

How good a choice is Killington/Pico for Solar given the "Killington cloud"?

How much efficiency gain does "Freeaire" refrigeration deliver?
Freeaire is a Vermont-based company which installs systems that use cold, outside air to refrigerate coolers instead of using high energy consuming compressors to cool stored food. Retrofitting all the coolers has greatly reduced energy usage and has reduced CO2 emissions by 13.2 tons a year.
Refrigerators are heat pumps. The energy used to transfer that heat, plus the waste heat go into the air as.... heat. This is less heat the HVAC system needs to deliver, less hydrocarbons being burnt to deliver that heat. So waste heat indoors in the cool months is a good thing 9 months out of the year. The Freeaire system actually increases the CO² output from the heating system to replace the waste heat of the indoor compressors. (Most lodges are closed in the summer.) Transferring CO² usage from your electric bill to your heating bill falsely inflates the ecological benefit.

In addition, warm lodge air through conduction and infiltration warms the coolers and is then drawn outside by the Freeaire system. More inefficiency.

I suspect the Freeaire system is more about feel-good from an energy 3 card monte game than do-good.

Now if the old walk-in cooler compressors were located outside, then the new system would be more efficient, but why not locate the compressors inside where the waste heat is desirable?
Image
killyfan
Blue Chatterbox
Posts: 128
Joined: Feb 27th, '17, 09:44

Re: Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Chang

Post by killyfan »

The cloud is not as much of a problem in the Pico parking lot as it is over on the top of the big hill... Many homes and businesses in the Green Mountains use solar to cover or offset some of their electric costs.
In a world where you can be anything, why not choose to be kind...
User avatar
Mister Moose
Level 10K poster
Posts: 11596
Joined: Jan 4th, '05, 18:23
Location: Waiting for the next one

Re: Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Chang

Post by Mister Moose »

killyfan wrote:The cloud is not as much of a problem in the Pico parking lot as it is over on the top of the big hill... Many homes and businesses in the Green Mountains use solar to cover or offset some of their electric costs.
Right. But the big ones I see are in the Champlain valley. I'm sure there's quite a variation on the useful wattage/sf per year generated based on location.

Anyway, today's Dilbert seems to comment on the subject.
Dilbert 6 25 17.jpg
Dilbert 6 25 17.jpg (191.83 KiB) Viewed 315 times
Image
Big Bob
Postinator
Posts: 6568
Joined: Feb 23rd, '06, 17:17
Location: Where the host of Dancing with the stars lives.

Re: Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Chang

Post by Big Bob »

Moose, doesn't the heat that warms the inside cooler come from the room in the first place?
2 hours and 10-minute drive to K
2023/2024 Ski Days: 30 days for the season
Killington: 12/14, 1/4, 1/9, 1/11, 1/17, 1/23, 1/31, 2/5, 2/20, 2/26, 3/4, 3/20, 3/25
Loon: 11/29, 12/8, 12/21, 1/8, 1/19, 1/22,1/30, 2/7, 2/15, 3/1, 3/8, 3/22
Sunday River: 3/12
Sugarloaf: 3/13, 3/14
Cannon:1/15, 2/22
User avatar
Mister Moose
Level 10K poster
Posts: 11596
Joined: Jan 4th, '05, 18:23
Location: Waiting for the next one

Re: Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Chang

Post by Mister Moose »

Big Bob wrote:Moose, doesn't the heat that warms the inside cooler come from the room in the first place?
Yes
Image
Woodsrider
Slalom Racer
Posts: 1377
Joined: Jan 12th, '14, 21:34

Re: Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Chang

Post by Woodsrider »

Mister Moose wrote:
Bubba wrote:
killyfan wrote:OK sounds all good. Maybe we can be friends some day if we ever do get to meet for a beer. Truce.

On another sideline now... YIPPEEEE to the link below. Thanks again Mike - you're a stellar example of socially responsible leadership. And I always see you properly dressed in the winter too!

http://www.inthesnow.com/new-solar-array-killington/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Whoever wrote that article needs an education in energy. :roll:
My first two thoughts reading that article are

How good a choice is Killington/Pico for Solar given the "Killington cloud"?

How much efficiency gain does "Freeaire" refrigeration deliver?
Freeaire is a Vermont-based company which installs systems that use cold, outside air to refrigerate coolers instead of using high energy consuming compressors to cool stored food. Retrofitting all the coolers has greatly reduced energy usage and has reduced CO2 emissions by 13.2 tons a year.
Refrigerators are heat pumps. The energy used to transfer that heat, plus the waste heat go into the air as.... heat. This is less heat the HVAC system needs to deliver, less hydrocarbons being burnt to deliver that heat. So waste heat indoors in the cool months is a good thing 9 months out of the year. The Freeaire system actually increases the CO² output from the heating system to replace the waste heat of the indoor compressors. (Most lodges are closed in the summer.) Transferring CO² usage from your electric bill to your heating bill falsely inflates the ecological benefit.

In addition, warm lodge air through conduction and infiltration warms the coolers and is then drawn outside by the Freeaire system. More inefficiency.

I suspect the Freeaire system is more about feel-good from an energy 3 card monte game than do-good.

Now if the old walk-in cooler compressors were located outside, then the new system would be more efficient, but why not locate the compressors inside where the waste heat is desirable?
You neglect to take into account the huge energy offset by not running the compressor in the winter, which drastically reduces net CO2 production. Compression is far more energy intensive than heating.
The compressor does not reject heat the condenser does. Plus locating the condenser inside would make warm months unbearable. The Freeaire system provides significant energy savings from the controls alone.
killyfan
Blue Chatterbox
Posts: 128
Joined: Feb 27th, '17, 09:44

Re: Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Chang

Post by killyfan »

Sgt Eddy Brewers wrote: What is the Sagan quote? I might really like it.
.
.
.
If I got a tattoo it would be counter to the prevailing programming of my youth = "If it feels good...do it!!"

That terrible advise has harmed our culture.

Better advice (and a good tattoo) = "Duty before Desire."

As to the CO2 issue the KEY word in that sentence, which you choose to diminish is: SOME.

In my well-considered scientific analysis...SOME means almost none. Or...not enough to matter given the vast array of other impacts.
Are we causing other problems? Yup. More significant than CO2? Yup.
Went hiking with the kid again yesterday and so figured I'd just take a picture for you. It's the obvious quote... After having spent another half day with this kid I am just further impressed. He's a 45 year old with a philosophy degree or two inside an 18 year old high schooler's body. Hope his parents are proud of him. Here's the rest of the quote for people that don't know it - the kid couldn't afford the whole tattoo, so he just went with the end:
Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there--on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam. ~Carl Sagan, A Pale Blue Dot
Good choice on the tattoo idea - you should do it. It doesn't hurt very much at all and your students would think you are cool.

I wasn't diminishing the key word of "SOME" - to me that statement reads as yes, I agree. In my book "some" is enough to warrant attention. If we can take baby steps and perform simple tasks to help the cause, then why not just do that? And agreed that humans are causing more significant problems - don't get me started. Obviously I'm a fan of the human race - I just think we do a lot of stupid stuff that runs us all into trouble. Most done unknowingly, but a lot not.
Attachments
IMG_2647.jpg
IMG_2647.jpg (66.73 KiB) Viewed 275 times
In a world where you can be anything, why not choose to be kind...
User avatar
Mister Moose
Level 10K poster
Posts: 11596
Joined: Jan 4th, '05, 18:23
Location: Waiting for the next one

Re: Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Chang

Post by Mister Moose »

Woodsrider wrote: You neglect to take into account the huge energy offset by not running the compressor in the winter, which drastically reduces net CO2 production. Compression is far more energy intensive than heating.
The compressor does not reject heat the condenser does. Plus locating the condenser inside would make warm months unbearable. The Freeaire system provides significant energy savings from the controls alone.
Yes the condenser does transfer more heat than the compressor. They are often co-located so I didn't bother distinguishing.

Now stop and think about your first and second statement. You are looking at electricity consumed, I'm looking at total energy.

What happens to the energy used by the compressor? Heat from resistive losses, heat from friction, from compression, and heat from the work done in running the refrigerant around the circuit, which comes out the condenser. The final stop of all energy use is heat. (Sure, you can do work and store energy either chemically or gravitationally, but when you use that stored energy the final stop, again, is heat.)

In the winter heat is good. Killington is a winter resort that closes many lodges in the summer, and whose peak walk in cooler demand is in the winter.

If all this heat is directed into the building, the HVAC plant needs to provide less heat, and less fuel is consumed. If you exhaust any of that heat outside, as the Freeaire system does, you lose that heat outdoors. All the warmed air in the walk-in cooler that gets exchanged with cold outside air is wasted. This heat from the warmed air from the walk-in is coming from the heated building. That's the loss in efficiency I'm talking about.

Now envision a system that has the compressor and the condenser located inside the building, with no air exchange for the walk-in. In the winter, all the heat produced is used to warm the building. In the summer, you could easily direct the unwanted extra heat from the condenser outdoors through the same type of duct work.

So in the cool months, the Freeaire system will use less electricity, but lose more net energy. The heat lost with Freeaire is vented outside. Without the Freeaire the heat is retained indoors. The greater use of electricity indoors without the Freeaire is transferred to heat. This heat (from the compressor as you point out) means less fuel is burned by the HVAC plant. It is not wasted.

So to sum up, without Freeaire: More electricity used by the compressor but less composite energy of the HVAC/walk-in total.
With Freeaire less electricity (which requires more HVAC fuel burned to replace the loss in heat produced by using that extra electricity) but greater total energy/fuel consumed as you are venting heat from the building outside. That vented heat must be replaced by burning more propane or fuel oil.

And of course in the summer the Freeaire system has no advantage.
Last edited by Mister Moose on Jun 26th, '17, 07:48, edited 1 time in total.
Image
Sgt Eddy Brewers
Slalom Racer
Posts: 1145
Joined: Aug 24th, '11, 14:57

Re: Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Chang

Post by Sgt Eddy Brewers »

killyfan wrote:
Went hiking with the kid again yesterday and so figured I'd just take a picture for you. It's the obvious quote... After having spent another half day with this kid I am just further impressed. He's a 45 year old with a philosophy degree or two inside an 18 year old high schooler's body. Hope his parents are proud of him. Here's the rest of the quote for people that don't know it - the kid couldn't afford the whole tattoo, so he just went with the end:
Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there--on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam. ~Carl Sagan, A Pale Blue Dot
Good choice on the tattoo idea - you should do it. It doesn't hurt very much at all and your students would think you are cool.

I wasn't diminishing the key word of "SOME" - to me that statement reads as yes, I agree. In my book "some" is enough to warrant attention. If we can take baby steps and perform simple tasks to help the cause, then why not just do that? And agreed that humans are causing more significant problems - don't get me started. Obviously I'm a fan of the human race - I just think we do a lot of stupid stuff that runs us all into trouble. Most done unknowingly, but a lot not.
Ok about HIS tattoo. Cool enough quote but its huge and distracting and forever. For me its just too much of a "hey notice me " thing... may be the coolest guy on the planet but for me it doesn't add to his coolness quotient. Don't need my students to think I am cool...they are still kids and although I am well-liked so are some of the very worst teachers.

My attitude about tattoo is the same as my attitude about science which is: WRITE IT IN PENCIL.

Which translates into: if you are smart you are likely to need to change your mind about almost anything...you just DO NOT know what you may need to change your mind about, our minds hide our errors from us. Tattoos violate the "write it in pencil" rationale so don't plan on any tattoos (although I may have to change my mind about that!!)

As for the CO2 issue...are you teasing?

"I wasn't diminishing the key word of "SOME" - to me that statement reads as yes, I agree. In my book "some" is enough to warrant attention."

Some attention?? How about obsession? Besides the endless scouring all the popular scientific literature on the topic I have probably read close to 100 full papers on various aspects of how CO2 impacts the earth climate system. Still at it when I have spare time. I LOVE scientific riddles. Spent a lot of time recently trying to evaluate the claims in this VERY LARGE paper (and the critics responses!):
Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics
https://arxiv.org/pdf/0707.1161.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And looking for interesting stuff off this interesting collation of peer-reviewed skeptic papers.
http://notrickszone.com/global-warming- ... GHHNG.dpbs" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If I gave this any more attention it would be a full time job.

So my focus is primarily about trying to validate a theory before I respond to it. The "CO2 drives climate" theory is almost certainly wrong so...lowering your carbon footprint because some folks hold that theory to be true is....dumb. I literally try to INCREASE my carbon footprint...for rational scientific reasons...not some non-sense logic from a discredited theory. In my opinion (scientifically not politically motivated) YOU are damaging the planet by attempting repress the enrichment of atmospheric CO2 which is ACTUALLY GOOD for the planet. But I like you anyway because your motivations are compassionate.

If we talk about OTHER environmental issues which require some sacrifices we may well agree.
Ski the edges!
Woodsrider
Slalom Racer
Posts: 1377
Joined: Jan 12th, '14, 21:34

Re: Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Chang

Post by Woodsrider »

Mister Moose wrote:
Woodsrider wrote: You neglect to take into account the huge energy offset by not running the compressor in the winter, which drastically reduces net CO2 production. Compression is far more energy intensive than heating.
The compressor does not reject heat the condenser does. Plus locating the condenser inside would make warm months unbearable. The Freeaire system provides significant energy savings from the controls alone.
Yes the condenser does transfer more heat than the compressor. They are often co-located so I didn't bother distinguishing.

Now stop and think about your first and second statement. You are looking at electricity consumed, I'm looking at total energy.

What happens to the energy used by the compressor? Heat from resistive losses, heat from friction, from compression, and heat from the work done in running the refrigerant around the circuit, which comes out the condenser. The final stop of all energy use is heat. (Sure, you can do work and store energy either chemically or gravitationally, but when you use that stored energy the final stop, again, is heat.)

In the winter heat is good. Killington is a winter resort that closes many lodges in the summer, and whose peak walk in cooler demand is in the winter.

If all this heat is directed into the building, the HVAC plant needs to provide less heat, and less fuel is consumed. If you exhaust any of that heat outside, as the Freeaire system does, you lose that heat outdoors. All the warmed air in the walk-in cooler that gets exchanged with cold outside air is wasted. This heat from the warmed air from the walk-in is coming from the heated building. That's the loss in efficiency I'm talking about.

Now envision a system that has the compressor and the condenser located inside the building, with no air exchange for the walk-in. In the winter, all the heat produced is used to warm the building. In the summer, you could easily direct the unwanted extra heat from the condenser outdoors through the same type of duct work.

So in the cool months, the Freeaire system will use less electricity, but lose more net energy. The heat lost with Freeaire is vented outside. Without the Freeaire the heat is retained indoors. The greater use of electricity indoors without the Freeaire is transferred to heat. This heat (from the compressor as you point out) means less fuel is burned by the HVAC plant. It is not wasted.

So to sum up, without Freeaire: More electricity used by the compressor but less composite energy of the HVAC/walk-in total.
With Freeaire less electricity (which requires more HVAC fuel burned to replace the loss in heat produced by using that extra electricity) but greater total energy/fuel consumed as you are venting heat from the building outside. That vented heat must be replaced by burning more propane or fuel oil.

And of course in the summer the Freeaire system has no advantage.
We are missing each other here Moose. The Freeaire Polar Power System is simply an air side economizer. Same concept that has been used for years to reduce energy usage in building HVAC systems. It is used in every combined cycle plant I have ever worked in to save fuel cost. It is the preferred method for cooling data centers to save energy. It is a well proven concept.

The cold outside air is free. No energy gets expended removing the heat. Think the opposite of solar thermal. Fans are used to draw the cold air in (fans use far less energy than compressors). As the air warms in the walk-in cooler fans reject the warmer air outside; air which is still much colder than the air inside the lodge. Total system energy consumption is reduced. If you don't believe me run an energy balance calculation. I'm sure there are plenty of well documented ones online.

I agree that heat recovery from compression makes sense but only is you have to run the compressors.

Also, the Freeaire System uses advanced controls, which in itself, compressors running or not, creates efficiencies.

Even better, here is what Killy had to say:
"Since 2007, Killington Resort has converted 12 walk-in coolers to Freeaire Refrigeration. Freeaire, a Vermont-based company, created and installs systems that use cold, outside air to refrigerate coolers instead of using high energy consuming compressors to cool stored food.

HOW MUCH ENERGY DOES FREEAIRE REFRIGERATION SAVE?
During the 2011-12 ski season the cooler at Rams Head ran for 125 days. During that time, the energy use dropped nearly 1,700 Kilowatt hours from when cooling was entirely compressor-based. This single, seasonal cooler’s electrical savings reduced our carbon footprint by 1.1 tons of CO2. Savings can be found in year round coolers as well as seasonal coolers. A year round cooler uses roughly 8,500 Kwh less than it did before the installation of the Freeaire system in a one and a half year period. This one cooler reduces Killington Resort’s carbon emissions by 2.51 tons of CO2 in the same amount of time.

Retrofitting all of the coolers here at Killington Resort with the Freeaire system has greatly reduced energy usage, and has reduced CO2 emissions by 13.2 tons a year."
http://www.killington.com/site/culture/ ... ndex.html/
Bubba
Site Admin
Posts: 26275
Joined: Nov 5th, '04, 08:42
Location: Where the climate suits my clothes

Re: Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Chang

Post by Bubba »

Woodsrider wrote:
Mister Moose wrote:
Woodsrider wrote: You neglect to take into account the huge energy offset by not running the compressor in the winter, which drastically reduces net CO2 production. Compression is far more energy intensive than heating.
The compressor does not reject heat the condenser does. Plus locating the condenser inside would make warm months unbearable. The Freeaire system provides significant energy savings from the controls alone.
Yes the condenser does transfer more heat than the compressor. They are often co-located so I didn't bother distinguishing.

Now stop and think about your first and second statement. You are looking at electricity consumed, I'm looking at total energy.

What happens to the energy used by the compressor? Heat from resistive losses, heat from friction, from compression, and heat from the work done in running the refrigerant around the circuit, which comes out the condenser. The final stop of all energy use is heat. (Sure, you can do work and store energy either chemically or gravitationally, but when you use that stored energy the final stop, again, is heat.)

In the winter heat is good. Killington is a winter resort that closes many lodges in the summer, and whose peak walk in cooler demand is in the winter.

If all this heat is directed into the building, the HVAC plant needs to provide less heat, and less fuel is consumed. If you exhaust any of that heat outside, as the Freeaire system does, you lose that heat outdoors. All the warmed air in the walk-in cooler that gets exchanged with cold outside air is wasted. This heat from the warmed air from the walk-in is coming from the heated building. That's the loss in efficiency I'm talking about.

Now envision a system that has the compressor and the condenser located inside the building, with no air exchange for the walk-in. In the winter, all the heat produced is used to warm the building. In the summer, you could easily direct the unwanted extra heat from the condenser outdoors through the same type of duct work.

So in the cool months, the Freeaire system will use less electricity, but lose more net energy. The heat lost with Freeaire is vented outside. Without the Freeaire the heat is retained indoors. The greater use of electricity indoors without the Freeaire is transferred to heat. This heat (from the compressor as you point out) means less fuel is burned by the HVAC plant. It is not wasted.

So to sum up, without Freeaire: More electricity used by the compressor but less composite energy of the HVAC/walk-in total.
With Freeaire less electricity (which requires more HVAC fuel burned to replace the loss in heat produced by using that extra electricity) but greater total energy/fuel consumed as you are venting heat from the building outside. That vented heat must be replaced by burning more propane or fuel oil.

And of course in the summer the Freeaire system has no advantage.
We are missing each other here Moose. The Freeaire Polar Power System is simply an air side economizer. Same concept that has been used for years to reduce energy usage in building HVAC systems. It is used in every combined cycle plant I have ever worked in to save fuel cost. It is the preferred method for cooling data centers to save energy. It is a well proven concept.

The cold outside air is free. No energy gets expended removing the heat. Think the opposite of solar thermal. Fans are used to draw the cold air in (fans use far less energy than compressors). As the air warms in the walk-in cooler fans reject the warmer air outside; air which is still much colder than the air inside the lodge. Total system energy consumption is reduced. If you don't believe me run an energy balance calculation. I'm sure there are plenty of well documented ones online.

I agree that heat recovery from compression makes sense but only is you have to run the compressors.

Also, the Freeaire System uses advanced controls, which in itself, compressors running or not, creates efficiencies.

Even better, here is what Killy had to say:
"Since 2007, Killington Resort has converted 12 walk-in coolers to Freeaire Refrigeration. Freeaire, a Vermont-based company, created and installs systems that use cold, outside air to refrigerate coolers instead of using high energy consuming compressors to cool stored food.

HOW MUCH ENERGY DOES FREEAIRE REFRIGERATION SAVE?
During the 2011-12 ski season the cooler at Rams Head ran for 125 days. During that time, the energy use dropped nearly 1,700 Kilowatt hours from when cooling was entirely compressor-based. This single, seasonal cooler’s electrical savings reduced our carbon footprint by 1.1 tons of CO2. Savings can be found in year round coolers as well as seasonal coolers. A year round cooler uses roughly 8,500 Kwh less than it did before the installation of the Freeaire system in a one and a half year period. This one cooler reduces Killington Resort’s carbon emissions by 2.51 tons of CO2 in the same amount of time.

Retrofitting all of the coolers here at Killington Resort with the Freeaire system has greatly reduced energy usage, and has reduced CO2 emissions by 13.2 tons a year."
http://www.killington.com/site/culture/ ... ndex.html/
On what are you basing the CO2 savings?
"Abandon hope all ye who enter here"

Killington Zone
You can checkout any time you like,
but you can never leave

"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function" =
F. Scott Fitzgerald

"There's nothing more frightening than ignorance in action" - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
freeski
Post Office
Posts: 4699
Joined: Feb 13th, '13, 19:55
Location: Concord, N.H.
Contact:

Re: Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Chang

Post by freeski »

Who hasn't wondered why you can't use the cold winter air to refrigerate. Was glad to see Killington doing it. A little more innovation and it may catch on.
I Belong A Long Way From Here.
Woodsrider
Slalom Racer
Posts: 1377
Joined: Jan 12th, '14, 21:34

Re: Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Chang

Post by Woodsrider »

Bubba wrote:
Woodsrider wrote:
Mister Moose wrote:
Woodsrider wrote: You neglect to take into account the huge energy offset by not running the compressor in the winter, which drastically reduces net CO2 production. Compression is far more energy intensive than heating.
The compressor does not reject heat the condenser does. Plus locating the condenser inside would make warm months unbearable. The Freeaire system provides significant energy savings from the controls alone.
Yes the condenser does transfer more heat than the compressor. They are often co-located so I didn't bother distinguishing.

Now stop and think about your first and second statement. You are looking at electricity consumed, I'm looking at total energy.

What happens to the energy used by the compressor? Heat from resistive losses, heat from friction, from compression, and heat from the work done in running the refrigerant around the circuit, which comes out the condenser. The final stop of all energy use is heat. (Sure, you can do work and store energy either chemically or gravitationally, but when you use that stored energy the final stop, again, is heat.)

In the winter heat is good. Killington is a winter resort that closes many lodges in the summer, and whose peak walk in cooler demand is in the winter.

If all this heat is directed into the building, the HVAC plant needs to provide less heat, and less fuel is consumed. If you exhaust any of that heat outside, as the Freeaire system does, you lose that heat outdoors. All the warmed air in the walk-in cooler that gets exchanged with cold outside air is wasted. This heat from the warmed air from the walk-in is coming from the heated building. That's the loss in efficiency I'm talking about.

Now envision a system that has the compressor and the condenser located inside the building, with no air exchange for the walk-in. In the winter, all the heat produced is used to warm the building. In the summer, you could easily direct the unwanted extra heat from the condenser outdoors through the same type of duct work.

So in the cool months, the Freeaire system will use less electricity, but lose more net energy. The heat lost with Freeaire is vented outside. Without the Freeaire the heat is retained indoors. The greater use of electricity indoors without the Freeaire is transferred to heat. This heat (from the compressor as you point out) means less fuel is burned by the HVAC plant. It is not wasted.

So to sum up, without Freeaire: More electricity used by the compressor but less composite energy of the HVAC/walk-in total.
With Freeaire less electricity (which requires more HVAC fuel burned to replace the loss in heat produced by using that extra electricity) but greater total energy/fuel consumed as you are venting heat from the building outside. That vented heat must be replaced by burning more propane or fuel oil.

And of course in the summer the Freeaire system has no advantage.
We are missing each other here Moose. The Freeaire Polar Power System is simply an air side economizer. Same concept that has been used for years to reduce energy usage in building HVAC systems. It is used in every combined cycle plant I have ever worked in to save fuel cost. It is the preferred method for cooling data centers to save energy. It is a well proven concept.

The cold outside air is free. No energy gets expended removing the heat. Think the opposite of solar thermal. Fans are used to draw the cold air in (fans use far less energy than compressors). As the air warms in the walk-in cooler fans reject the warmer air outside; air which is still much colder than the air inside the lodge. Total system energy consumption is reduced. If you don't believe me run an energy balance calculation. I'm sure there are plenty of well documented ones online.

I agree that heat recovery from compression makes sense but only is you have to run the compressors.

Also, the Freeaire System uses advanced controls, which in itself, compressors running or not, creates efficiencies.

Even better, here is what Killy had to say:
"Since 2007, Killington Resort has converted 12 walk-in coolers to Freeaire Refrigeration. Freeaire, a Vermont-based company, created and installs systems that use cold, outside air to refrigerate coolers instead of using high energy consuming compressors to cool stored food.

HOW MUCH ENERGY DOES FREEAIRE REFRIGERATION SAVE?
During the 2011-12 ski season the cooler at Rams Head ran for 125 days. During that time, the energy use dropped nearly 1,700 Kilowatt hours from when cooling was entirely compressor-based. This single, seasonal cooler’s electrical savings reduced our carbon footprint by 1.1 tons of CO2. Savings can be found in year round coolers as well as seasonal coolers. A year round cooler uses roughly 8,500 Kwh less than it did before the installation of the Freeaire system in a one and a half year period. This one cooler reduces Killington Resort’s carbon emissions by 2.51 tons of CO2 in the same amount of time.

Retrofitting all of the coolers here at Killington Resort with the Freeaire system has greatly reduced energy usage, and has reduced CO2 emissions by 13.2 tons a year."
http://www.killington.com/site/culture/ ... ndex.html/
On what are you basing the CO2 savings?
I quoted Killington. So its not my calculation. But those numbers are a significant under estimate based on eGRID, U.S. annual non-baseload CO2 output emission rate, year 2012 data.
Post Reply