New refrigeration idea isn't really new

New refrigeration idea

This is similar to the hype for fusion breakthrough recently in one respect. The idea that you can repeal the laws of thermodynamics may be implied in this article. The article references a new idea in refrigeration, which supposedly is superior to the ones being employed now.

The new process involves the use of ions to cause a phase change from a solid to a liquid. This is said to cause a drop in temperatures, which is what is desired. This process is said to be useful in refrigeration and possibly climate control.

There is nothing really new here. The process currently being employed also involves phase changes. The difference is that the new one goes from solid to liquid, and presumably back to solid in a looping process; but that really wasn't discussed enough in the article. The article only mentioned the phase change from solid to liquid, but not back to a solid again. This may not be an easy process, nor economical...

We are supposed to like this because it does away with a "greehouse gas". However, if it proves not to be superior in any respect, what are we to do when these zealots demand that we switch to this new process?

Since it involves the same type of processes ( phase changes) as the current systems, what is the advantage besides getting rid of "greenhouse gases"? What if there isn't any greenhouse effect? ( Like I have been saying, AGW is a fake.) Are we all supposed to drop everything that works okay for a new gizmo that isn't even proven to work?

If it is more energy efficient, that might be useful. However, the article really doesn't discuss that. It has to be demonstrated that it is more energy efficient, unless the claim that the laws of thermodynamics no longer apply. The laws of thermodynamics were thought up by dead white guys anyway. /sarc

It is also a bit sobering that a "conservative" type blog reported this. Once again, we are helping the left win the war of ideas. The premise is that there is a problem with current systems because of AGW. Why accept that premise?

If it can be shown that it is safe, effective, and reliable; the device could gain a foothold in the marketplace on its own. That would be true particularly if it is also cheaper. But I wouldn't count on that.