this post was submitted on 19 May 2025
46 points (83.8% liked)
Technology
70259 readers
3660 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It says the current tech is only 15% efficient vs current AC which is 20-30%, so no it would be more expensive to run. Since it doesn't exist as a product yet, we can't really compare initial installation costs, and probably not maintenance costs either. Hopefully they can improve on the efficiency, but there may be a theoretical maximum efficiency and I have no idea if that's higher than 30% or not
Yeah, you could probably achieve 15% cooling efficiency with regular old nitrogen or methane instead of fluorocarbons.