Better Energy Saving Solution

http://www.withouthotair.com/ the best source of information to compare options

IMO the heat storage capacity of a water tank is far better. The solar energy is captured during the day and stored as hot water which is circulated at night to boost interior temperatures. A properly designed system will supply both domestic hot water and room heating.

You'd need a lot of panel and plenty of sun to do both, it rather depends on your location.
Here in the cloudy UK there's not a hope in hell of providing much solar heating during winter, but you might just take the chill of the water going into the hot water cylinder to save some power.
Del
(Mind, my sunny disposition keeps our house cosy)

mjb, I couldn't agree with you more -----that's exactly what I designed and am not building presently to augment my Hydronic system here.

BTW, howdy neighbor!

The answer to 'Which is the better system?' will differ for for different dwelling types, and different locations and surroundings.

Defining what constitutes 'better' is also required.

That said, assuming unlimited space for installing collectors and similar man hours required for installation, a comparison of amount of heat transfered to the dwelling air per (life time) cost the glazed plate is likely to provide more heat at a similar cost or similar heat at a lower cost than the system circulating fluid.

This estimation is based primarily on the significanty higher cost to build and maintain the more complex fluid system. This money, if invested in additional collector area of the flat plate, is likely to provide a significantly more heat.

The likely higher efficiency of a circulating fluid system will be dwarfed by the effect of additional collector suface area.

As i said initially factors location and dwelling type can greatly affect the comparison...

Solar water heater with proper insulated storage facility so that same service is available when solar energy is not available. From the energy conservation point of view solar energy is preferable as it is free and does not create any byproducts

GA

Its the only way to go.....I have basically done much the same.....

Main difference being that my house is over 100 years old, therefore the windows are not as large as I would make them in a new build.....but my yearly heating and hot water (with no solar assist) is about $750 per year - and my wife likes it HOT!!!

I agree with the insulation, but a pellet stove is the way to go. I have a 3000 sq ft house that I heat from November through March with 2-2.5 tons of pellets @ $195 a ton. The house stays at @ 78 F all winter day and night. The stove cost was $2500. We recieved a $1500 tax break during tax time.

Since two pellet making plants moved into my area the prices have been dropping I was told next year a ton should be around $175.

We had a cold spell in November, and the threat of power cuts which would kill the gas central heating of course as the pump and controls would stop.
Now Mrs Cat has never liked the badly built tacky 6os pretend stone fireplace and the chimney needs some minor repair.... soooo.
I thought this year we might rip out the fireplace, slap in a smoke free woodburner, new flue and patch up the chimney.
That should keep me out of mischief and be handy for occaisional use (I have a small supply of wood from my bow making exploits).
Del

I like the pellet stove over the wood-burner mainly because it's a lot easier to maintain, a half bucket of ash a week. Plus its 96% efficient so no heat escaping the pipe making it safer with the kid.

They have one-man pellet making machines so, you can make your own pellets. Just use the scrape wood from your bow making shop. Heat your house plus sell some on the side.

I'm sure this would keep you busy and Mrs Cat happy.

I shall have a look at the pellet option, cheers.
Del

Del,

you need a good supply of CHEAP and GOOD wood, which I actually have here, but I still went for the pellets stove as it lights and shuts down fully automatically, according to the built in program timer. That is a difficult thing to achieve with a wood burner.....

My pellets stove burns about 7 Kilos of pellets when run continuously in about 18 hours, and produces about 2.5KW of heat (it seems like more!) continuously, warming basically the whole house. The gas heating supplies hot water and "Tops-Up" the room temperature if and when needed only.

Pellets are far cheaper than the amounts of wood a friend burns in a similar sized house......and his house is colder than mine......and he works FAR harder keeping it full of wood!!!

I paid €1650 for my unit about 5 years ago, similar units today cost around €1000-1200......

Pellets usually cost between €250-300 per ton including delivery here near Frankfurt, Germany. A Ton usually is almost enough for a complete (and long and cold) winter.....

Last year I bought 4 tons at €150 a ton, including delivery, on ebay.....I started on the first Ton last February and its almost finished now, probably about 2 weeks left!!

If I could turn the pellets burner down a little more I would, but I am running on the lower limit already......nowadays it is easier to buy one that has a lower "minimum" heat setting......

The only parts I have used are the replacement of the heat element, I am on the third one already - about "par" for the course, the Chinese ones cost about €25 each (what I have used up to now), the next one is of European manufacture, it should last far longer......but costs double!

We will see if it delivers at least double the life or not!!!!

Cheers, like I said, this will only be for occaisional use...although with fuel cost going ever up I'd be sensible to plan for the worst.
I'll investigate and report back once I start demolishing the house fireplace.
Del

What I completely neglected to mention is IF you decide on a wood burning stove, which one to buy!!!

I started a new wood pellets thread today to help possible buyers. Look there is you need more information as there are many pitfalls!!!

Pellet stoves are great IF you have good electrical service. Once you lose electricity, a pellet stove makes a good boat anchor. There is no electricity to feed forced air to burn the pellets. They don't burn worth beans without it. PLUS there is no power to run the auger to dispense the pellets into the cup. I would not consider owning one again without a secondary means of heating which doesn't use electricity.

Bill

...or, have a small alternator with a petrol engine. I have big batteries and a small inverter as well, all from my camping van for camping where no power is available. Just bring that close to the house and run an extension cable or two.

My pellets burner needs only about 350 watts for the first 10 minutes and then about 50watts to run.......it really just depends on how long your power failures generally are battery wise!

If you don't have a clue how long (usually!), go for the small (cheap) petrol generator......the one I bought for about US$100 can run 24x7 as long as you keep filling the tank with the right mix!!! 2 Kwatts.

I could even run my central heating/hot water and a few lights at the same time if I wished....a "cheaper" fix you cannot find......

Buying a good wood stove and installing it will be far more expensive......

The Petrol Alternator can also go camping or whatever, as its not fixed in your house to be used once in every 3 years or less!!

Having both systems means having wood and pellets, so you are basically stuck with wood only, cutting, feeding it, in the middle of the night to if its the only heating system......thats a lot of work!! No thanks.....

Wood has the problem, which I believe I already mentioned before, that the smoke is bad for your health and for the hundreds of people that live near to a wood burning stove.....fine particle menace.....

Think with your head, not your heart......

Thanks Andy!!

I was just hearing all the comments about pellet stoves being a universal panacea, but no one mentioning the drawbacks.

As everyone can see, Andy knows the problems, AND has a very good solution. The only further comment I have (to readers) is DO NOT run your generator in the house. That is another good way to get dead.

It sure seems to me, Andy, that we had this same discussion a couple of years ago <snicker>

Everyone have a nice toasty New Year

Bill

We did? I had completely forgotten.... Well done in remembering and reminding this old Guy!!

I've learnt a lot about pellets burning (and wood stoves!) since our last chat!! (assuming it was more than 3 years ago at that point!!)

Especially with regard to the pollution aspect, the work aspect I understood before I bought the Pellets Stove!!

I can earn a more money with my translations in the hours (days really) that I used to use for collecting, cutting, storing and carying wood......my back is really much happier nowadays......as well as my pocketbook...... to pay for pellets of course.......

I was wondering why your stove required more power when starting, but that became evident. Yours must be top of the line. Ours, we had to start by putting a handfull of pellets in the pot, adding some kerosene (or lighter fluid... or charcoal lighter) and starting it with a match.

Here, we bought pellets by the pallet load (approximately a ton) of 40 pound bags. We brought them home in the back of my brothers pickup, and had to unload them by hand into the garage, so we did not get out of the back breaking work.

Laters...

Bill

Very few stoves now are the old self starters, plus you loss alot of the efficiency of the stove without a auto-starter and thermostat.

I can't see how you can compare the 20-30 minutes of work to load a ton of pellets and the 15 minutes to unload it; to the work it takes to make a cord of wood. I barely work up a sweat after two tons.

It only took a minute or two to load the pellets. They loaded them with a forklift. Regretfully we didn't have a forklift at home.

Mine has an igniter and programmer, thats just so that you can get it to turn itself on before you get up on cold mornings, a feature I REALLY like!

But as the validity of the element is not checked in any manner by the software, if the element is broken, you can light it with a match the same way you do......though I tended to use a firelighter in my tests.....

If delivered, they come on a pallett, moveable with anything that can move a pallet, I get them in the garage that way.

Our bags are either 15Kg or big bags of 1 Metric Ton.......

Either way my back suffers almost not at all.

I tend to use 20 liter buckets for the house.

Two buckets = 15Kg = 35 Hours of continuous burning.....

15Kg = 33 lbs = 35 Hours of continuous burning.....I paid €150 per Metric Ton last year.

I bought 4 metric tons at that rate and I am including all the costs of deleivery....that was the delivered in my garage price!!

Say US$3-20 for a 15Kg sack......and I will be OK for a few years more!!

Since I don't live in a 3rd world country or out in no man's land, I haven't had that issue. In 20 years I've had my two pellet stoves the power might have gone out a dozen times for no more then 15 minutes, just about enough time to get the blanket out and start snuggling with Mrs Baker.

You can also buy a small generator, battery back up, and/or simply move somewhere with a reliable electrical source.

Oh so true.

I bought a seventy's vintage house. I could tell which way and how hard the wind was blowing by the rattles of the windows. They were the two sets of glass sliders. The so called weather stripping in them was so bad that mice could enter the basement. Much to the enjoyment of the then cat.

Replaced all windows with Argon filled thermal pane units. Had the attic reinstated up till R-40. When I was removing one window and installing a patio door, it rained hard that night from the East. Saw water running down the inside walls, yet to be finished. My house is Stucco.

Called a buddy and re- stuccoed the house with 2" of foam board underneath. Went through at least thirty tubes of caulking, to seal what I could see.

Had an air infiltration test done and the result is that I could use an HRV unit due to the tightness of the envelope.

My next step is to have spray-foam done on any area that can be accessed.

It can be done. All it takes is time and thought, and yes money. Other than saving money, my main concern was comfort.

Tank of hot water heated by an internal coil carrying anti-freeze in a roof solar system with an expansion tank. Parts are relatively cheap, a refrigerator sized tank will hold thousands of btu, no pressure, no really high temps, Use a car heater core radiator per room, bronze pumps with stainless magnetic impeller. Controller for panel, thermostat for circulating pump in rooms. Works for me. Third installation.

The most effective strategy is usually to focus on demand to set priorities for energy conservation. You will notice that insulation is a very popular answer, and a very good one, as it has low cost to benefit ratio, and can satisfy the goal of reducing demand from space heat systems, both in AC and Heating. (maybe 10 months per year) This makes it superior (usually) to pure space heat schemes, because they are only optimized in colder months. (maybe 5 months per year)

There are two energy demands that are very consistent, however. One is electricity, (for most folks). PV systems are robust, with very good longevity, and with incentives and SREC sales, can be very good investment projects. But they are generally expensive, so would fall to the bottom of the list until less costly, higher return projects are complete.

The other constant demand is domestic hot water. Solar hot water, with systems that create heated coolant, are easy to manipulate. They are effective, the demand is daily, for most folks. We find that it does not usually make sense to incorporate space heat systems into these projects unless you increase collector size by about 300%, at a minimum. This is because space heat demand is usually inverse to production, ie the panels are producing less when you need them the most. We don't want to rob Peter to pay Paul. (Taking heat from the system for space heat, but having to buy energy to make DHW is not effective). The main advantage is that most pump and control systems (we use evacuated tube solar collectors) will manage 4 collectors, (versus one we might use for just DHW) so the cost is not as high as you might expect, to increase capacity. Schemes to use that heat are endless.

Using existing infrastructure for spaceheat is generally effective and efficient.

Hope this helps.

I wonder if running a pipe around the bottom of the wall ,that is designed to look

like wall trim,then forcing the heated air out through holes in it could be an

option for those wanting the floor to have heat running across it.

The Interior of automobile muffler pipes might be a good filter design.

Dear Cikondu,

a solar water heater probably has an electric element that you could energize to provide heat when the sun was not working. In that case, if you want to be warm anytime, the solar hot water heater is better. Wait a minute, I bet you already have a hot water heater. Hmmm.

People who live in "normal" houses are usually not very comfortable with forced air solar space heat, because these systems rely on very good insulation (very low heat loss) and solar orientation to work. Also, most "normal" houses don't a have a handy massive heat sink, (like a tile floor on a slab) the heat is kind of only there when it's sunny.

A water tank will keep you warmer. A solar space heat box will certainly be inexpensive to operate.