Healthy scepticism

I'm no scientist, but the science of how things work fascinates me.

When I come across something that seems too good to be true particularly in the environmental space, I look for answers from people who know science.

This morning I read about an amazing innovation - a portable air conditioner that requires no power to operate. Here are the highlights paraphrased from the article above:

• When liquid nitrogen turns into gas nitrogen, it produces pressure in the form of icy cold air. A company in Israel has found a way to capture that pressure, put it in a box, and force it out of some vents, effectively creating a self-powered air conditioner
• The pressure is a natural process, so needs no electricity or other power source to happen
• The "air" that shoots out is actually nitrogen, an inert gas that we breathe every day
• The founder stated that "we are using liquid nitrogen, which is a byproduct of the oxygen manufactured for hospitals."
• The idea came to the inventor after she visited Rome in summertime, and noticed the outdoor eateries were empty because it was simply too hot to sit outside - so this unit is intended to be used outdoors
• Depending on how often the a/c is used, the nitrogen would need topped up roughly every 5-7 days
• The company claims the unit is 100% environmentally friendly, since it uses no power and produces a harmless inert gas as both it's by-product and the actual thing that cools you down

Amazing right? If you're thinking that all sounds a bit too good to be true, here's some science I found (from a 5-minute Google):

• Nitrogen is not cheap - the liquid itself is not expensive, much cheaper than say beer, but the units it needs to be transported in are specialised and can be very expensive. Any costs saved from not powering the unit by electricity is mostly gone by buying nitrogen
• Nitrogen is also not very easy or very safe to transport. Much of the 100% environmentally friendly claim is due to the unit not needing external power to operate - there's a supply-chain issue here. Nitrogen needs to be sourced and transported in specialised vehicles with ventilation (it can't travel inside a cargo for example) so again, transportation obliterates any savings made.
• While we breathe nitrogen every day, the amount we breathe is an exact amount - if we were exposed to high volumes of it, we could lose consciousness within a few breaths. If nitrogen completely outnumbers oxygen in the air, we suffocate. So the fact that it's an outdoor unit is actually non-negotiable - it can never be used indoors.

The fact that the unit uses nitrogen is the main innovation but also the main concern.

No question that it's innovative and clever, but it's also not the perfect system that the founder is claiming it to be. What it's done though, is pushed the boundaries of thinking. It's demonstrated a different way of solving a problem - air-conditioning - that's existed for a long time, and taken it outdoors where it hasn't really been taken much before.

I have two main thoughts here.

The first is to approach innovations like this with some healthy scepticism. I wouldn't shoot this idea down at all, and hope that's not how it sounds - it's amazingly clever, but they're talking up the pros without mentioning any of the cons. Maybe it's deliberate spin or maybe it's an oversight. Always worth questioning.

The second is to see questionable solutions like this one as stepping stones to better solutions. They have obstacles to overcome, which will be raised, and will be hard to ignore, so future iterations will deal with them. It's a win for innovation.

If this is the prototype for an electricity-free air conditioner, the next iteration might be even safer and cleaner.

Here's a concept picture: