navitron
 
Renewable Energy and Sustainability Forum
UK's most popular Renewable Energy Forum February 09, 2012, 08:16:16 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Anyone wishing to register as a new member on the forum is strongly recommended to use a "proper" email address - following recent spam/hack attempts on the forum, all security is set to "high", and "disposable" email addresses like Gmail, Yahoo and Hotmail tend to be viewed with suspicion, and the application rejected if there is any doubt whatsoever
 
Recent Articles: Yingli Green Energy's PV Module Ranks No.2 in TUV Rheinland Energy Yield Test | Navitron Solar Showers at Glastonbury for Year 5! | Lights go on in Sierra Leone
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: is the nibe fighter systems cost effective?  (Read 3209 times)
djh
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1167


« Reply #15 on: March 12, 2010, 12:54:40 PM »

There is a German building standard which says 7 litres of heating oil/ 6m3 of natural gas (70kWh) per year per m2 of floor area.

There's another German building standard that says 15 kWh/m2  stir which is more appropriate for modern eco-houses.

Part of the motivation to develop Passivhaus was to understand why houses built to previous German standards failed to perform when built, just as British ones still do.
Logged

Cheers, Dave
rhys
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1031



« Reply #16 on: March 12, 2010, 01:27:07 PM »

I would argue that the thermal mass on the underflooor negates the need for weather compensation, as the floor doesn't have a snowballs chance (pun intended) of reacting in time.

I have to agree though, that ASHPs are the "in thing" at the moment, but basically wholly unsuitable to most domestic applications, GSHP have their place, but again they are being mercilessly (and ill-advisedly) sold into any four walls by unscrupulous sales men who have little or no understanding of building design and thermal performance.
Useful posts here which explain weather compensation - my understanding has always been that by learning the reponse time of the building to differing internal and external temperatures and by varying the flow temperature,  they are a "good thing" especially with UFH and particulary UFH with a heat pump. Like any other building "mass" heavy walls etc. UFH has a reponse time.
http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=189
Logged
dhaslam
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4379



« Reply #17 on: March 12, 2010, 03:09:00 PM »

Weather compensation doesn't achieve much when you are using an air to water heat pump.   If anything the  flow temperature needs to be reduced in cold weather to avoid  inefficient running.   
Logged
rhys
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1031



« Reply #18 on: March 12, 2010, 03:46:25 PM »

Well I always understood thats was the point, and why for example an Ecodan air to WAter has a weather compensation controller pretty much as standard, so that the flow temperature is reduced where possible. Longer running at a lower temperature?
Loads about this here
http://ecodanlive.mitsubishielectric.co.uk/pdf/ecodan%20quick%20start%20manual.pdf
Logged
martin
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 10832



WWW
« Reply #19 on: March 12, 2010, 03:50:25 PM »

Which in the context of the original question is somewhat akin to "can we tweak the settings to get better mpg out of the Hummer?".............
the answer being to ditch the Hummer............. Cool
Logged

Unpaid volunteer administrator and moderator (not employed by Navitron) - Views expressed are my own - curmudgeonly babyboomer! - http://www.farmco.co.uk
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.16 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!