• janus2
    link
    fedilink
    101 year ago

    well technically it is powered, just directly by wind and water kinetic energy, probably(?) much more efficiently than if it had been converted to electricity first

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          111 year ago

          No, I’m being genuine. It’s theoretical and all, but if you were to put up a windmill in the same spot instead of a tower, it’s possible traditional air conditioners would be able to cool the building to the same degree while also providing surplus electricity. It’s also possible that you wouldn’t, and I don’t know the answer. It would also be interesting to compare it in different ways as well, like rather than asking “If a windmill was here” we could ask “The energy removed from the wind by the tower”, because that would indicate scalability problems if one windmill was indeed able to cool one building, but maybe 100 wouldn’t be able to cool 100. All hypothetical, but air conditioners/heat pumps are actually very efficient, so it’s possible an active design could be more efficient than a passive one in this situation. At least, until someone does the math

          • @hamid
            link
            41 year ago

            Another thing to note, to your point, is that a windmill breaks down and requires energy to repair. These wind towers in Yazd are still there and doing the same thing from hundreds of years ago

            • janus2
              link
              fedilink
              31 year ago

              Very true. The best machines have the fewest moving parts

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              21 year ago

              True, and it wasn’t meant as an attack at all, just a question out of curiosity. The towers are super cool

          • janus2
            link
            fedilink
            31 year ago

            Exactly, I have no idea. The “probably(?)” in my comment should have been a “maybe,” probably maybe.