Europe is testing air conditioners that don't use any refrigerants at all

Skye Jacobs

Posts: 2,137   +62
Staff
The big picture: A new generation of cooling technology is beginning to move from lab testing into early real-world trials, as researchers and startups look for ways to cool buildings without relying on traditional refrigerants. The push comes as demand for air conditioning accelerates in Europe, where rising temperatures are exposing the limits of both existing systems and the buildings they are meant to cool.

Several of these new approaches are now being tested. Some rely on metals that cool when stretched and released. Others use semiconductors, magnetic fields, or pressure-sensitive materials to move heat without the chemical refrigerants used in conventional air conditioning. Most are still in early stages, but the activity reflects a growing effort to rethink how cooling works at a fundamental level.

The urgency reflects how quickly climate conditions are shifting beyond what much of Europe's infrastructure can handle. In late June, temperatures exceeded 40 degrees Celsius in parts of the region, triggering a surge in demand for cooling equipment. In France, shoppers forced their way into stores to grab portable air conditioners and fans before supplies ran out. The International Energy Agency estimates that by 2050, two-thirds of households worldwide could have air conditioning.

Europe remains behind other markets, with about 20% of households using air conditioning, compared with roughly 90% in the United States. In the UK, adoption is closer to 4%. But that gap is expected to shrink as heat waves become more frequent, ..particularly in countries where air conditioning has not historically been a priority.

Cooling is no longer just about comfort. It affects productivity, sleep, and public health, especially during prolonged periods of extreme heat. Research has linked access to air conditioning with lower mortality rates during heat events, including an estimate that nearly 200,000 premature deaths among people over 65 were avoided globally in 2019.

At the same time, scaling conventional air conditioning presents its own set of challenges. Most systems still rely on refrigerants that cycle between liquid and gas to transfer heat. While effective, they are energy-intensive and carry environmental risks. Cooling already accounts for about 3% of global greenhouse gas emissions, and demand for electricity used in cooling is expected to more than triple by 2050.

The refrigerants themselves are under increasing scrutiny. Fluorinated gases, widely used today, can have a global warming impact thousands of times greater than carbon dioxide if they leak. The European Union moved in 2024 to phase them out. "In the next few years, air conditioners and heat pumps using these gases won't even be able to be sold here," Fabian Voswinkel, an energy-efficiency policy analyst at the IEA, told Wired. Alternatives such as propane and ammonia are available but introduce trade-offs, including flammability and toxicity.

Those limits are pushing researchers toward solid-state cooling, a category of technologies that eliminates the need for refrigerants altogether. Instead, these systems rely on materials that change temperature when exposed to external forces such as mechanical stress, electrical current, or magnetic fields.

At Saarland University in Germany, researchers are testing nickel-titanium alloys that generate a cooling effect when stretched and released, a process known as elastocaloric cooling. Early results suggest the approach could lower indoor temperatures by 5 to 10 degrees Celsius and operate more efficiently than conventional systems.

The team, led by Paul Motzki, is working with Irish company Exergyn to develop refrigerant-free heat pumps and expects initial deployment in new buildings within the next few years. Motzki said the technology "could lead to disruption, even a paradigm shift, because the technology is so different from established cooling systems."

Other companies are testing different approaches. Mimic Systems is testing a semiconductor-based heat pump that uses electrical currents to move heat, with a prototype installed in an apartment in Vancouver. Germany-based Magnotherm is developing cooling systems that rely on magnetic fields and plans to test them in a German supermarket chain before expanding into air conditioning. In the UK, Cambridge spinout Barocal is working with plastic crystals that release heat when compressed and has raised $10 million in seed funding.

For now, most of these systems remain unproven at scale. Lindsay Rasmussen, who works with climate-tech startups at Third Derivative, said the technologies are "promising, but unproven at scale," adding that "the space can move quickly if the right capital and partnerships are in place." Their path to market may depend on whether large manufacturers adopt and scale them.

Even with new technologies, rising cooling demand cannot be addressed through equipment alone. Much of Europe's building stock was designed to retain heat, and dense urban areas tend to trap it. Researchers and policymakers are increasingly calling for a "cooling hierarchy" that prioritizes reducing heat buildup through design measures such as shading, ventilation, and reflective materials before turning to mechanical systems.

Some cities are already experimenting with broader infrastructure solutions. Paris has expanded its district cooling network, which circulates chilled river water through underground pipes to cool public buildings. Voswinkel said such efforts reflect a growing recognition that adapting to rising temperatures will require more coordinated planning.

Permalink to story:

 
As an American, I can't wait to use these! Sucks that Europeans won't be able to use them, you guys will have to keep baking in those concrete coffins at a rate higher then American pew pee deaths.
Yes the rate of Europeans getting warm in buildings is higher than American pew pee deaths, that's a cold hard (or should we say WARM!!!) fact we can all get behind
 
I struggle to understand why European adoption of air conditioning has lagged other regions of the world, when air conditioning is also one of the most energy-efficient forms of heating as
well as cooling. I know air conditioners decades ago struggled to heat in sub-zero (Celsius) temperatures, but CO2-refrigerant aircon units can work efficiently down to -10C, which would cover the southern parts of Europe (Spain, Portugal, France, Italy, UK, Germany, etc), the bulk of the European population. The idea that air-conditioning is only needed for cooling is 60s/70s-era thinking.
 
I feel there is a reason why most air-conditioners are still using gas/ refrigerant that makes it the most popular option. The reason is likely cost. Replacing it sounds like a great idea, until it hits the market and nobody buys it over conventional refrigerant based air conditioners due to high price.
 
Meanwhile AI data centers around the world are burning through huge amounts of energy and turning the planet into a furnace forcing a technology down peoples throats that nobody wants. Will Sam Altman, Elon Musk, Jensen Huang and Mark Zuckerberg be made personally accountable and be forced to make reparations for the climate catastrophe they are knowingly bringing down on the rest of us?
 
I feel there is a reason why most air-conditioners are still using gas/ refrigerant that makes it the most popular option.
No, the primary reason is efficiency. Solid-state Peltier cooling, for example, is generally about 1/3 the efficiency of refrigerant-based systems, meaning it would require triple the electricity to operate. Conversely, evaporation systems (aka "swamp coolers") are more efficient than refrigerant systems, but only in hot, arid regions. They also consume large amounts of fresh water, and have other drawbacks as well.

But rest easy, if and when one of the alternatives discussed in the article is developed to the point it actually does win on efficiency, it'll be widely adopted. The fear, though, is that the myopic authoritarian regimes in Europe will simply mandate adoption outright, whether or not it makes sense.
 
Meanwhile AI data centers around the world are burning through huge amounts of energy and turning the planet into a furnace forcing a technology down peoples throats that nobody wants.
You are becoming increasingly detached from reality. Total power consumption by AI is some 0.5% of total world electric use, and infinitesimal compared to what the planet receives from that large fusion reactor we call the sun -- more solar heat strikes the planet in 10 seconds than is generated by AI in an entire year.

As for the asinine absurdity of claiming that "no one wants AI", that's rather than a 1890s pig farmer claiming no one wants that new-fangled electricity in their homes.
 
You are becoming increasingly detached from reality. Total power consumption by AI is some 0.5% of total world electric use, and infinitesimal compared to what the planet receives from that large fusion reactor we call the sun -- more solar heat strikes the planet in 10 seconds than is generated by AI in an entire year.

As for the asinine absurdity of claiming that "no one wants AI", that's rather than a 1890s pig farmer claiming no one wants that new-fangled electricity in their homes.

So... basically you are saying:
- AI farms (mainly in the US and eventually China) are ok because they "just" consume as much power as 415 million people. So... That makes it ok lolol

- the same but as 10 seconds of the sun's solar energy... So it's ok...despite we can't "capture" even a tiny fraction of it ... Big LOLOL

- so, the AI which can and is already making: water, pollution, energy costs, unemployment rise despite not being truly necessary, you compare it with the electricity which was really necessary for about everything.

Great comparisons you make LOLOL
 
Yes the rate of Europeans getting warm in buildings is higher than American pew pee deaths, that's a cold hard (or should we say WARM!!!) fact we can all get behind
Pew pew has a lot more indirect effects.

At the same time, global warming is causing this new reality for Europeans, they can't be blamed for something new that is happening in their region.
And those refrigerants are a real problem, the generations after us still need to live here, we can't poison the air and soil for them.
Growing airco usage might even be the reason that climate change is accelerating. (Due to refrigerants).

Personally I don't envy Americans, they have lots more problems with their food quality, forbidden substances, pew pew, unaffordable education or healthcare, crazy cheetoh leading them, etc
 
I struggle to understand why European adoption of air conditioning has lagged other regions of the world, when air conditioning is also one of the most energy-efficient forms of heating as
well as cooling. I know air conditioners decades ago struggled to heat in sub-zero (Celsius) temperatures, but CO2-refrigerant aircon units can work efficiently down to -10C, which would cover the southern parts of Europe (Spain, Portugal, France, Italy, UK, Germany, etc), the bulk of the European population. The idea that air-conditioning is only needed for cooling is 60s/70s-era thinking.
Easy answer, the general populace in a lot of the European countries have bought into the climate change hysteria and think that mass adoption of A/C will doom the world! And their leaders push the hysteria pretty hard, even though you can easily find instances of blatant hypocrisy. Rules for thee, but not for me.

They would rather have their old and vulnerable people die from heat-related causes (very preventable) than dare defy the climate change cult.
 
Easy answer, the general populace in a lot of the European countries have bought into the climate change hysteria and think that mass adoption of A/C will doom the world! And their leaders push the hysteria pretty hard, even though you can easily find instances of blatant hypocrisy. Rules for thee, but not for me.

They would rather have their old and vulnerable people die from heat-related causes (very preventable) than dare defy the climate change cult.

So the politicians are tricking people into not using air conditioning to alleviate the increased heat from the climate change you say isn't happening? That's some odd logic
 
I struggle to understand why European adoption of air conditioning has lagged other regions of the world, when air conditioning is also one of the most energy-efficient forms of heating as
well as cooling. I know air conditioners decades ago struggled to heat in sub-zero (Celsius) temperatures, but CO2-refrigerant aircon units can work efficiently down to -10C, which would cover the southern parts of Europe (Spain, Portugal, France, Italy, UK, Germany, etc), the bulk of the European population. The idea that air-conditioning is only needed for cooling is 60s/70s-era thinking.

Several reasons that have nothing to do with recent politics or technology. Remember that most of Europe has been industrialized for hundreds of years, long before even north America, like before the USA was even a country. So for nearly 200 years before the proliferation of electricity they had already built a society around coal heating, modernizing that to use gas is much more straightforward than converting everything to use electricity and coal/gas are much more efficient at heat generation in many ways.

Buildings are also built very differently there than in many other parts of the world, they don't have much insulation but they have large mass which holds heat overnight and a lot of natural ventilation for cooling - great for mild summers but not great for central AC and not easy to modify for the necessary ducting.

Electricity is also much more expensive in Europe so AC is a large expense especially if you already have a cheap and reliable source of heat so you'd only be benefitting from that expense for cooling. It was also not nearly as necessary in the past as in recent years, Europe is warming at a faster rate than anywhere else in the world.

Heatpumps are the best solution for Europe and there are CO2, propane, etc systems that aren't too terrible environmentally, but much of the populace there is propagandized against them by industries dependent on the older technologies the same as Americans are for oil industry products vs electric cars and solar/wind.

Check out the heatgeek stuff on YouTube to see some folks in the trenches trying to convince conservative Europeans to install heat pumps or like the ones they have.
 
So... basically you are saying:
- AI farms (mainly in the US and eventually China) are ok because they "just" consume as much power as 415 million people. So... That makes it ok lolol
I interpret "lolol" as giggling inanely. Instead of that, why not face facts? I debunked a specific argument: that AI was "making the earth a furnace". To debunk your strawman argument, one nearly needs to note that AI is improving the lives of billions of people, and many uses of AI are saving not only energy, but reducing the consumption of countless other resources. Enhanced AI routing during shipping, for example, is saving tens of millions of gallons of diesel fuel, as well as reducing loss and waste of shipped perishables. AI-based irrigation is saving billions of gallons of water, as well as reducing the use of fertilizer and pesticides -- and increasing crop yields in the process, to help feed a hungry earth.
 
I interpret "lolol" as giggling inanely. Instead of that, why not face facts? I debunked a specific argument: that AI was "making the earth a furnace". To debunk your strawman argument, one nearly needs to note that AI is improving the lives of billions of people, and many uses of AI are saving not only energy, but reducing the consumption of countless other resources. Enhanced AI routing during shipping, for example, is saving tens of millions of gallons of diesel fuel, as well as reducing loss and waste of shipped perishables. AI-based irrigation is saving billions of gallons of water, as well as reducing the use of fertilizer and pesticides -- and increasing crop yields in the process, to help feed a hungry earth.
Responding to a straw-man argument with yet another straw-man argument that you cannot prove is supposed to what???? Specifically, improving the lives of "billions" of people? This reminds me of the oft mis-quoted Carl Sagan phrase "Billions and Billions" when he never actually said that in the original Cosmos.
:rolleyes:
 
Specifically, improving the lives of "billions" of people?
Indisputably improving the lives of all 8.3 billion of us. Here's one of many millions of examples:


For those who don't read the story, an AI model found a hidden signal denoting sudden cardiac death in the ECGs of supposedly healthy adults. The signal had been there all along, unnoticed by human doctors. Now that it's been identified, doctors can intercede with pacemakers or ablative surgery saving as many as 300,000 lives in just the US alone.

Those whose only experience with AI is playing with free chatbots while you eat Cheetos on your sofa probably should just remain silent on the subject.
 
So... basically you are saying:
- AI farms (mainly in the US and eventually China) are ok because they "just" consume as much power as 415 million people. So... That makes it ok lolol

- the same but as 10 seconds of the sun's solar energy... So it's ok...despite we can't "capture" even a tiny fraction of it ... Big LOLOL

- so, the AI which can and is already making: water, pollution, energy costs, unemployment rise despite not being truly necessary, you compare it with the electricity which was really necessary for about everything.

Great comparisons you make LOLOL
Responding to a straw-man argument with yet another straw-man argument that you cannot prove is supposed to what???? Specifically, improving the lives of "billions" of people? This reminds me of the oft mis-quoted Carl Sagan phrase "Billions and Billions" when he never actually said that in the original Cosmos.
:rolleyes:

Not bothering to educate oneself before criticizing others is an interesting choice.

It is entirely possible to critically evaluate the genuine environmental costs of AI infrastructure without resorting to hyperbolic emotionalism or passive-aggressive posturing; which adds zero value to a technical discussion.

Weaponizing 'LOLs' or debating misattributed pop-science quotes does not change math or sound remotely intelligent.

AI absolutely has a real carbon footprint that requires strict regulatory and energy-grid management, but it is also one of our most potent tools for resource optimization.

Serious discussions require looking at both sides of the ledger, not just the one that feeds a preferred narrative. Being “right” is perhaps the most pointless of reasons to argue anything.

* According to data from the International Energy Agency (IEA), while data center growth is indeed accelerating rapidly, global electricity consumption from data centers remains a tightly managed fraction of overall demand. Even under increased infrastructure strain, the Global Energy Review notes that traditional growth drivers—such as industrial expansion, standard commercial buildings, and household appliances—heavily dominate global power consumption far more than current tech infrastructure.
https://www.iea.org/reports/energy-and-ai/energy-demand-from-ai

* Tracking mid-to-large-size commercial transport fleets has demonstrated that AI-based dynamic rerouting can dramatically optimize resource allocation. Empirical data published via ResearchGate on Smart Logistics confirms AI route optimization can reduce fuel consumption and localized carbon emissions by 15–30% relative to traditional, manual planning methods. Real-world logistics metrics, from platforms like Shyftbase and fleet deployment case studies, can corroborate an immediate 10–20% drop in active fuel usage upon deployment.
https://www.researchgate.net/public...d_fuel_consumption_through_route_optimization

* Field trials assessing the impact of Variable Rate Technology (VRT) and algorithmic scheduling showcase drastic drops in resource waste. According to data cited by the European Commission's Joint Research Centre, field-level AI customization reliably reduces total fertilizer consumption by 15–30%. Peer-reviewed agronomic data in ScienceDirect also indicates that AI-driven decision systems help increase water-use efficiency by up to 15.5% while also reducing environmental threats like toxic nitrate leaching by a massive 40–45%.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S037837742600079X

The concept of systemic impact is documented in the National Institutes of Health (NIH) PMC Archives, which outline how macro-level AI tools are used for climate modeling, macro-grid infrastructure routing, and city planning. Rather than relying on consumer-facing chatbot adoption metrics, the true scale of AI’s reach sits in backend infrastructure—such as financial transaction fraud detection algorithms, global weather forecasting models, and mapping APIs that dictate everyday urban navigation across the globe.

The data is there. It is absolutely traceable for anyone who bothers to educate themselves. I’m sure there are plenty of metrics showing where it is inefficient and harmful as well—which would only serve to prove that this is a complex technical discussion worth having. Or, keep pretending feelz = smrts if you think works for you.
 
I've been buying various AC units for decades, and I recently bought a window unit that is WAY more efficient than the previous several I owned. I also got a brand new central air unit installed in 2023, which work extremely well. These new units use far less electricity, so I know that the tech has improved massively over the past few decades. I hope they make a more eco alternative, but it really needs to be equally as efficient or better than the current refrigerant tech, which really has gotten a lot better.
 
Solid-state cooling sounds fantastic until you remember that every promising laboratory technology eventually has to survive a landlord buying the cheapest unit available.
 
This is not what the citizens want.

"The urgency reflects how quickly climate conditions are shifting beyond what much of Europe's infrastructure can handle. "

Let me write this properly. Climate conditions are not shifting it's Europe brains that are draining
 
I will be impressed when we can start breathing outdoor air inside. Our structures need to be more like Apple's new Apple park, Apple park is a step in the right direction but it is just the first step.
 
This is not what the citizens want.

"The urgency reflects how quickly climate conditions are shifting beyond what much of Europe's infrastructure can handle. "

Let me write this properly. Climate conditions are not shifting it's Europe brains that are draining


100% CORRECT
 
Absolutely mind boggling that so many don't have a clue , this has absolutely zero to do with climate it's about CONTROL .

The mainstream media will never ever allow anything to be reported that doesn't fit their narratives , things that directly conflict with media narratives are suppressed and buried . Mainstream search engines will never ever link to non mainstream media approved sources and the reason for that is because non mainstream sources are the ones who report the true facts . Intelligent people know how to find them but the majority of the population does not but I can assure you if you get your info from mainstream sources you're being intentionally deceived .
 
The part that amazes me it how "Global" issue are responsible for "Regional" issues. The last uproar about this was when the southern US was in quite the heat wave and the global warming crowd was telling us it was all our fault. However, a quick check of global conditions had Europe having a cold wave and closer to home, the great lakes had record ice that winter. Heat waves and cold fronts come and go, and declined between the last peak of 1.8 Deg F in 2016 and 2023 (according to NOAA). The biggest thing about this is CO2 is a trace gas in the atmosphere, and corresponding changes do not match with the fluctuations. Let's not forget the hockey stick graph the UN put out that did not come to pass.

Is the globe warming? Possibly. Is it warming enough for a cataclysm? Probably not. Is CO2 the reason? NO, the correlation between increases in temperature change and CO2 in the atmosphere do NOT correlate.

Lastly, refrigerants were all changed for the first time 30 years ago, not for global warming, but ostensibly due to the "ozone hole", another debatable topic. After using the new refrigerants for 30 years, all of the sudden NOW they become a problem and must be changed again. (Keep in mind there is no CO2 used in refrigerants). Why now?
 
Back