tallowood wrote on Nov 14
th, 2008 at 8:44pm:
There was nothing controversial about diverting rivers flow and using irrigation till we reached boundary of limitation. The same will eventually happen with solar energy.
Fridges don't reduce entropy in environment only within own walls but extra energy dissipates outside increasing temperature around them. Harnessing solar will mean not consuming the energy but redirecting it and changing its form but doing so more energy will be consumed then saved. None of human build devices are 100% or more thermodynamic efficient.
However with all that if efficiency can be increase from say 90% to 91% it is worth doing providing that generation of energy and it's usage don't produce harmful wastes. In this way solar is preferable to burning carbon or to nuclear.
Re your comments on Fridges, yeah it's always a local effect. I understand the Laws of Thermodynamics.
All refrigerative cooling diverts heat outside. In the scheme of things, that's not a big problem. As I'm sure you're aware, the greenhouse effect is all about increased solar heating of the planet, and this extra heat captured from the sun makes all other heat sources look insignificant by comparison.
As far as your comments on harmful wastes are concerned, tell me more. Full Life Cycle Analysis has already been carried out on these devices. It's an EU requirement for any renewable energy devices that are used as carbon offsets.
The efficiency is actually much higher than electrically powered refrigeration systems, especially if you take into account transmission and generation losses, electric motor efficiency losses etc.
Solar Cooling is a no-brainer in cases where passive cooling is not practicable - in other words existing buildings that can't be redesigned.
The only reason it hasn't been adopted in Australia yet is that we're a little behind the 8-ball in adopting it. However in terms of passive cooling and building design concepts, we're actually world leaders. We export the technology.