Again, they’re not using water for its properties. Heat transfer efficiency is low on the list of priorities. Cost, both upfront and running, is the deciding factor
Surely you must realise heat transfer efficiency and cost are closely linked, right? You haven’t told us anything we don’t already know. Of course this is about saving money, that’s already obvious.
I’m not sure what argument or point you’re trying to make here. Why do you think they’re using water, exactly? And surely you must realise how efficiency and cost are linked?
It’s money. The goal is to save as much money as possible.
Businesses, corporations, contractors, investors. All the people making decisions are trying to save every bit of money possible.
Surely you realize heat transfer efficiency isn’t linked to the cost of water. Which doesn’t even show up on the balance sheet.
You seem to have a hard time understanding that water is used because it is cheaper than the alternatives which already exist. This new development won’t replace water while the water remains cheap.
Why do people keep acting like a company wanting to save money is a revelation? It’s so blindingly obvious, there’s no need to tell everyone all the time?
Their argument was that companies don’t care about efficiency, they just want to save money. Without realising they’re the same thing. As far as I can tell, they were arguing with themselves.
Cost and efficiency may not be the same at all. If the true cost of a utility like water aren’t being passed on to the businesses, then they don’t need to focus on efficiency.
See literally any of the giant farms with legacy water rights in California to understand why there is very little incentive for them to become more efficient with water usage.
Again, they’re not using water for its properties. Heat transfer efficiency is low on the list of priorities. Cost, both upfront and running, is the deciding factor
Surely you must realise heat transfer efficiency and cost are closely linked, right? You haven’t told us anything we don’t already know. Of course this is about saving money, that’s already obvious.
Who’s us? I didn’t struggle understanding what they said at all
I’m not sure what argument or point you’re trying to make here. Why do you think they’re using water, exactly? And surely you must realise how efficiency and cost are linked?
I don’t know how to be any clearer.
LOW COST > HIGH COST.
It’s money. The goal is to save as much money as possible. Businesses, corporations, contractors, investors. All the people making decisions are trying to save every bit of money possible.
Surely you realize heat transfer efficiency isn’t linked to the cost of water. Which doesn’t even show up on the balance sheet.
100 * 0 = 100000000 * 0
Do you genuinely think I didn’t know businesses want to save money? Why are you telling me this?
You seem to have a hard time understanding that water is used because it is cheaper than the alternatives which already exist. This new development won’t replace water while the water remains cheap.
Are you talking about evaporative cooling? Because this new system still very much uses water, in a closed loop.
And I’m aware water is cheap, it falls out of the sky.
After your previous comment, i thought that about you as well.
Why do people keep acting like a company wanting to save money is a revelation? It’s so blindingly obvious, there’s no need to tell everyone all the time?
You’re the one who asked. Don’t ask questions you don’t want answers to, i guess?
Their argument was that companies don’t care about efficiency, they just want to save money. Without realising they’re the same thing. As far as I can tell, they were arguing with themselves.
Cost and efficiency may not be the same at all. If the true cost of a utility like water aren’t being passed on to the businesses, then they don’t need to focus on efficiency.
See literally any of the giant farms with legacy water rights in California to understand why there is very little incentive for them to become more efficient with water usage.