New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

A Better Way to Cool Ourselves

A new technique doesn’t deprive us of fresh air. And because it uses less energy, it’s good for the climate as well

Individual air conditionars poke through the windows of a tall building.

Air-conditioning, the old way.

Global economic development, in combination with climate change, is expected to result in over a billion new consumers installing air-conditioning systems in their homes and businesses in the coming decades. The International Energy Agency (IEA) has predicted that by 2050 energy demand for indoor cooling will be 300 percent higher than present-day levels, making cooling by far the largest use of electricity in the global buildings sector. These estimates were made before the COVID-19 pandemic, however. Our research shows that, if the expanded indoor fresh air requirements that were adopted to combat COVID-19 transmission persist after the pandemic, this predicted increase will occur much sooner.

To understand this impending air-conditioning boom, one must acknowledge the historically synonymous, and troublesome, relationships between the terms “air conditioning,” “cooling” and “ventilation.” Air-conditioning (AC) does not necessarily equate to cooling people, and it does not necessarily deliver fresh air. In fact, in a typical “air-conditioned” building more than 50 percent of the cooling you experience has nothing to do with the air temperature, but instead with the temperature of the walls and other surfaces surrounding you. Still, with the majority of us growing up with thermostats that only measure air temperature, these misconceptions have led to a dependence on air-conditioning for comfort.

Since the mid-20th century, the main mode for supplying cooling and ventilation to people in indoor environments has been through central air conditioning systems. The longstanding expectation is that AC can deliver both thermal comfort and air quality to buildings at the same time. To prevent excessive heat loss, buildings have been designed with sealed envelopes, which do not allow on-demand fresh air as we would get if we were able to open windows in an office building, for example. Air-conditioning technology changed the way we design buildings, recirculating conditioned air for efficiency at the cost of disease transmission.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


If we continue to conform with the current building cooling paradigm, the health of occupants and a building’s energy efficiency will remain competing factors. This raises the question: how can we provide healthy indoor environments and at the same time avoid an uptick in energy consumption? Is there an alternative to AC that can still provide thermal comfort but without needing to cool large volumes of fresh air?

As an international collaboration of researchers from institutions in the U.S., Canada, Europe and Singapore, we developed a simple, cheap, scalable solution to keeping people comfortable without regulating indoor air temperature. Our technology relies on the concept of radiant heat transfer, which involves the cooling or heating of the surfaces surrounding people, instead of cooling or heating the air. We all experience radiant heat transfer, even if we’ve rarely heard the term. Radiant heating is the feeling of the hot sun on our face during a cool spring day. Radiant heating is the direct warmth of a campfire keeping us toasty during a cool summer night. Radiant cooling is the same physics, but in the opposite direction. Radiant heat always flows from warmer to cooler surfaces. Just as the campfire loses its heat to our cool skin, and we feel warm, on a hot summer day, we can surround our body with cold surfaces, and feel comfortable. We lose our body heat to the cool surfaces around us.

In an initial demonstration of our radiant system that we installed in Singapore, called the “Cold Tube,” we made people feel cool with 100 percent fresh air using 50 percent less energy, and therefore, half the associated carbon emissions required by a typical air conditioner. In our latest research, we show that this technology can be used in every major climate zone, and would result in an average energy savings of 10–45 percent, while increasing ventilation substantially in critical spaces like public schools.

When we install radiant cooling surfaces in buildings, we separate the devices we use to ventilate the building from the devices that keep us feeling thermally comfortable. We can actually keep the windows open with a radiant cooling system, liberating us from the trap of historical air-conditioning where contaminants recirculate inside along with cold air. With radiant cooling, we can build truly sustainable and healthy buildings—during a pandemic and beyond.

This is about education, too. In our own lives, we may all be accustomed to adjusting a thermostat that only controls the indoor air temperature, but this is a legacy of the air-conditioning sector as it arose in the early 20th century. In order for radiant systems to become widely adopted, people need to understand how they work and how to control them. If you wanted to install today a radiant temperature thermostat in your home, one which could regulate the surface temperatures of your walls, ceilings and floors, you would first need to find contractors who know how to install a radiant system, and then get accustomed to the notion of getting comfortable by changing the temperature of surfaces, not the air.

Major technological change always requires a significant cultural shift—one that pervades multiple sectors of society. In the case of the built environment, designers, trades, real estate owners and building occupants all need to be on board. And if the government is serious about investing in infrastructure, we need to collectively take the opportunity to reconsider old paradigms and not invest in the status quo. Because if we are going to fight and win against the climate emergency and still keep people healthy indoors, it’s time to consider more sustainable alternatives to air conditioning.

This is an opinion and analysis article.

Forrest Meggers, Ph.D., is director of CHAOS (Cooling and Heating for Architecturally Optimized Systems) Lab at Princeton University where he is jointly appointed faculty in the School of Architecture and the Andlinger Center for Energy and the Environment and works to challenge standard paradigms in the built environment through innovation and demonstration.

More by Forrest Meggers

Dorit Aviv, Ph.D., AIA, is an assistant professor at University of Pennsylvania's Weitzman School of Design, where she directs the Thermal Architecture Lab, a cross-disciplinary laboratory at the intersection of thermodynamics, architectural design and material science.

More by Dorit Aviv

Adam Rysanek, Ph.D., is an assistant professor of Environmental Systems at the University of British Columbia's School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture where he directs the Building Decisions Research Group, which develops resilience-focused building technologies and design methods for a warming world.

More by Adam Rysanek

Kian Wee Chen, Ph.D., is currently a postdoctoral researcher with Andlinger Center for Energy and the Environment, Princeton University where he works on the development and use of advanced digitals tools to support the collaborative design process of the built environment.

More by Kian Wee Chen

Eric Teitelbaum, Ph.D., currently an engineer at AIL Research in Hopewell, NJ, thinks the best way to understand something is to build it yourself, and constantly challenges himself to build and evaluate concepts geared at reducing building energy consumption.

More by Eric Teitelbaum

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe