« PREVIOUS ENTRY
Did the Old Masters trace their paintings? Pt. 2
NEXT ENTRY »
Eunoia

Toronto has just launched a pioneering project to air-condition downtown office buildings by using ice-cold water from Lake Ontario. It’s a very neat idea, and it works like this: A company called Enwave pumps water from the bottom of the lake into a heat-transfer plant. At the plant, the coldness of the lake water cools down water in adjoining pipes — transferring the chill to Enwave’s system. That coldness is used to cool down the buildings. The lake water is never physically mixed with any other water, to prevent contamination; it is eventually pumped back out to the lake, albeit a bit warmer.
According to the Toronto Star, it’ll save so much energy — and thus reduce so much greenhouse-gas output — that it is the equivalent of taking 8,000 cars off the city’s streets. Enwave’s web site points out:
A permanent layer of icy-cold (4°C) water 83 meters below the surface of Lake Ontario provides naturally cold water. This water is the renewable source of energy that Enwave’s leading-edge technology uses to cool office towers, sports & entertainment complexes and proposed waterfront developments.
But here’s the problem: Just how “renewable” is the coldness of the lake? If the Enwave system were to grow massively, and every city on the shores of Lake Ontario were to set up heat-exchange systems, wouldn’t it eventually start to warm up the lake? That could lead to some pretty wild environmental effects, partly because the warming would be happening not at the surface — where the flora and fauna are more adaptive to fluctuations in heat — but down deep below.
I don’t mean to be alarmist about this. I actually think it’s a really cool idea, and odds are an environmental-impact study would show a net benefit from Enwave systems: i.e. even if they warmed the world’s oceans and lakes, they’d offset global warming in general by reducing greenhouse gases.
But what bothers me is how the language of this project fudges the basic laws of physics. The lake’s coldness isn’t “permanent” at all. It’s a historic and environmental artifact of the evolution of that region of the world’s geography, and it can and will change. When you pump coldness out of that system, you are — by definition — pumping heat back in, and there are no magical elvish air-conditioners sitting at the bottom of Lake Ontario making things colder just, y’know, because. Sure, the warming effect might be non-noticeable, but it’s not non-existent. I’d expect this sort of magical, free-lunch, 2+2=5 crap to come from the dinosaur thinkers in the oil, gas and coal industries, or their political cronies — but not from a genuinely environmental company.
Again, none of this is to detract from the coolness — no pun intended — of Enwave’s technology. I love it! But the public already misunderstands the basic physics of how the world works, and we don’t need more misdirection.
I'm Clive Thompson, a writer on science, technology, and culture. This blog collects bits of offbeat research I'm running into, and musings thereon.
Currently, I'm a contributing writer for the New York Times Magazine and a columnist for Wired magazine. I also write for Fast Company and Wired magazine's web site, among other places. Email or AOL IM me (pomeranian99) to say hi or send in something strange!
A long German word for “noticing when ads are being customized based on your surfing history”
“El Ajedrecista” — an analog chess-playing computer from 1912
“How did you find my site?” and Vannevar Bush’s memex
» visit the Collision Detection archives
May 20, 2011 » 02:28 PM
From Christopher Kennedy’s very droll book “Neitzsche’s Horse”.
July 28, 2010 » 07:35 AM
“Wr” - S
July 06, 2010 » 10:05 AM
My Xbox broke, and I was trying to Google some possible technical solutions, when I noticed that Google appears to be encouraging me to make a typo. I suppose it’s possible that Google’s algorithms know that typing “wont” instead of “won’t” would produce better results.
June 29, 2010 » 05:00 PM
On the other hand, when I tried the test for multitasking, I was pretty abysmal. I performed worse than people who identify themselves as heavy multitaskers, and those who identify as low multitaskers.
June 29, 2010 » 04:58 PM
I finally got around to trying out the interactive “test your distractability and multitasking” page at the New York Times, which they put up alongside their story earlier this month about how computer distractions are eroding our lives.
According to the test, I guess I have good focus — I’m not very distractable!
» see all of my photos on Flickr
ECHO
Erik Weissengruber
Vespaboy
Terri Senft
Tom Igoe
El Rey Del Art
Morgan Noel
Maura Johnston
Cori Eckert
Heather Gold
Andrew Hearst
Chris Allbritton
Bret Dawson
Michele Tepper
Sharyn November
Gail Jaitin
Barnaby Marshall
Frankly, I'd Rather Not
The Shifted Librarian
Ryan Bigge
Nick Denton
Howard Sherman's Nuggets
Serial Deviant
Ellen McDermott
Jeff Liu
Marc Kelsey
Chris Shieh
Iron Monkey
Diversions
Rob Toole
Donut Rock City
Ross Judson
Idle Words
J-Walk Blog
The Antic Muse
Tribblescape
Little Things
Jeff Heer
Abstract Dynamics
Snark Market
Plastic Bag
Sensory Impact
Incoming Signals
MemeFirst
MemoryCard
Majikthise
Ludonauts
Boing Boing
Slashdot
Atrios
Smart Mobs
Plastic
Ludology.org
The Feature
Gizmodo
game girl
Mindjack
Techdirt Wireless News
Corante Gaming blog
Corante Social Software blog
ECHO
SciTech Daily
Arts and Letters Daily
Textually.org
BlogPulse
Robots.net
Alan Reiter's Wireless Data Weblog
Brad DeLong
Viral Marketing Blog
Gameblogs
Slashdot Games