Sharing this post from mildyinteresting Community because I think you’ll be interested in it over here in the solarpunk community

Sorry if I have accidentally reposted it

  • x4740N@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    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

    • roguetrick@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      1 year ago

      Swamp coolers are great for low humidity environments, and we continue to use them there. Unfortunately, they’re not great where humidity gets high.

      • perestroika@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        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.

    • Shurimal@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • StrayCatFrump@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        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.

        • Shurimal@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

    • pjhenry1216@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • x4740N@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        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

    • tias@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      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?

      • Platomus
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        What do you think they could have meant?

              • Platomus
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Right… And you don’t see any glaring differences between to two?

                • tias@discuss.tchncs.de
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  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.

        • x4740N@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          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

    • scmstr@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      But, that won’t make NEARLY as much money for everybody that wants to sell you shitty solutions.

  • Shurimal@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • perestroika@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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.

      • Shurimal@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • StrayCatFrump@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          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).

  • StrayCatFrump@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    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.