I'm not trying to impress you with big numbers, but if I used any different numbers it'd be wrong :blink:
The numbers I gave are how much energy would have to be transferred to increase that temperature, which is quite different to the ammount of energy used by an office. I'll assume you're familiar with diagrams showing how much energy going into something comes out as what. A lightbulb, is 95% inefficient (or so my physics teacher says), so, no arguing, most of that energy going in is being pumped out as heat to be dispelled somehow, however, I'm talking about a conventional lightbulb, not a flourescent tube similar to what is used in the majority of offices, they are much more efficient. But a computer, ok, so AMD chips pump out a lot of heat, but not everything becomes heat, how much of a monitor comes out as heat, and how much as light?, I'd need to get hold of hard numbers to see how much of it is heat.
Now, the dissipation, not all of it has to go through this cooling, since this isn't air conditioning, the windows don't have to be shut, buildings lose a lot of heat through ceilings and walls too. Ok, so the second law of thermodynaics says that it can't get cooler outside than in just passing the heat through walls, only to an equal temperature, so if you want it cooler, you've only got to take it down from the equilibrium temperature.
You also have to keep the people warm, if it's so hot that you need cooling, then there won't be heating on, so some energy could get absorbed by the people and keeping just about everything else in there at a constant temperature.
So, 3 years to change, that's assuming that no energy whatsoever leaves the lakes, as someone has already mentioned, the water flows out of Lake Ontario, as I've already mentioned, heat will conduct and convect out of the water. And what of winter? when the buildings won't have to be cooled so much, but the weather will be cooler, sapping the heat back out of the lakes, I hear that the winters get VERY cold around there. The total cycle will take longer and that's if it ever happens at all.
What might have been a better idea is if they found some way to use it to heat water for the city or another heat pump can be used to turn that heat into electricity B)
It can't be a totally stupid idea, otherwise they wouldn't be trying it. (oh, wait, knowing governments nowadays...). Perhaps they plan to see what effects it has and then use it on larger lakes, where it would take even longer
however, that is a very good point that hadden't really crossed my mind. Oh and thankyou for the mind workout, I won't be forgetting thermal physics anytime soon.
-Bob
The numbers I gave are how much energy would have to be transferred to increase that temperature, which is quite different to the ammount of energy used by an office. I'll assume you're familiar with diagrams showing how much energy going into something comes out as what. A lightbulb, is 95% inefficient (or so my physics teacher says), so, no arguing, most of that energy going in is being pumped out as heat to be dispelled somehow, however, I'm talking about a conventional lightbulb, not a flourescent tube similar to what is used in the majority of offices, they are much more efficient. But a computer, ok, so AMD chips pump out a lot of heat, but not everything becomes heat, how much of a monitor comes out as heat, and how much as light?, I'd need to get hold of hard numbers to see how much of it is heat.
Now, the dissipation, not all of it has to go through this cooling, since this isn't air conditioning, the windows don't have to be shut, buildings lose a lot of heat through ceilings and walls too. Ok, so the second law of thermodynaics says that it can't get cooler outside than in just passing the heat through walls, only to an equal temperature, so if you want it cooler, you've only got to take it down from the equilibrium temperature.
You also have to keep the people warm, if it's so hot that you need cooling, then there won't be heating on, so some energy could get absorbed by the people and keeping just about everything else in there at a constant temperature.
So, 3 years to change, that's assuming that no energy whatsoever leaves the lakes, as someone has already mentioned, the water flows out of Lake Ontario, as I've already mentioned, heat will conduct and convect out of the water. And what of winter? when the buildings won't have to be cooled so much, but the weather will be cooler, sapping the heat back out of the lakes, I hear that the winters get VERY cold around there. The total cycle will take longer and that's if it ever happens at all.
What might have been a better idea is if they found some way to use it to heat water for the city or another heat pump can be used to turn that heat into electricity B)
It can't be a totally stupid idea, otherwise they wouldn't be trying it. (oh, wait, knowing governments nowadays...). Perhaps they plan to see what effects it has and then use it on larger lakes, where it would take even longer
however, that is a very good point that hadden't really crossed my mind. Oh and thankyou for the mind workout, I won't be forgetting thermal physics anytime soon.
-Bob