Every time I have been in one of these "naturally ventilated" facilities designed to "not need AC" due to "passive cooling", they've been uncomfortably hot.
It just feels like industrial scale gas-lighting, and no one in charge can admit it doesn't work afterwards because too much was spent on it.
Is stacking solar on the roof and AC's inside really so uneconomical?
It doesn't have to be all-or-nothing. Too many buildings are build with complete neglect of the environment, with huge swathes of glass facing the sun. Then we have huge chillers try to compete and bring down the temperature. A little consideration goes a long way.
I'm convinced there's forces out there who are trying to make these projects deliberately not work so that we can all collectively discredit the idea.
Naturally ventilated airports would probably have issues with fumes. Might not be a great idea.
If I believe correctly the Dyson headquarters was designed to be fairly efficient as well.
My father in laws house was intentionally designed to be naturally ventilated, thermal mass concrete slab in the middle, etc. And it's comfortably cool even on 40 degree days.
> Naturally ventilated airports would probably have issues with fumes.
I'm confused. Do you mean from the food places? Those need proper extraction anyway. Or the cars/planes? Then mechanically ventilated airports take the air basically from outside anyway.
>“Our objective is to maintain an indoor air temperature identical to the outdoor temperature while generating an airflow of 1 metre per second to reduce the perceived temperature for passengers.”
Every time I have been in one of these "naturally ventilated" facilities designed to "not need AC" due to "passive cooling", they've been uncomfortably hot.
It just feels like industrial scale gas-lighting, and no one in charge can admit it doesn't work afterwards because too much was spent on it.
Is stacking solar on the roof and AC's inside really so uneconomical?
It doesn't have to be all-or-nothing. Too many buildings are build with complete neglect of the environment, with huge swathes of glass facing the sun. Then we have huge chillers try to compete and bring down the temperature. A little consideration goes a long way.
Wasn't a problem in such a building I visited but it had an essentially massive thermal battery (mass) cooled at night.
I'm convinced there's forces out there who are trying to make these projects deliberately not work so that we can all collectively discredit the idea.
Naturally ventilated airports would probably have issues with fumes. Might not be a great idea.
If I believe correctly the Dyson headquarters was designed to be fairly efficient as well.
My father in laws house was intentionally designed to be naturally ventilated, thermal mass concrete slab in the middle, etc. And it's comfortably cool even on 40 degree days.
> Naturally ventilated airports would probably have issues with fumes.
I'm confused. Do you mean from the food places? Those need proper extraction anyway. Or the cars/planes? Then mechanically ventilated airports take the air basically from outside anyway.
> Ceiling fans with a 7.5-metre (24.6ft) diameter help to circulate the air.
Giant fans are rather different than "natural ventilation" mentioned in the headline.
>“Our objective is to maintain an indoor air temperature identical to the outdoor temperature while generating an airflow of 1 metre per second to reduce the perceived temperature for passengers.”
so it's not "cooled" at all
Thats correct, but warm air that is moving cools you more than the same air when it's still.
The smell of jet fuel often (not always though) gives me a splitting headache.
But in small doses it smells great.