Solar water heating system..

Brits are known for tolerating eccentrics, but the UK seems to have more restrictions on looks than France, where we can invoke liberte' and egalite' and call this kind of lawn ornament "art." French people deeply respect art, to the point of setting aside 6% of the cost of public works for art...

Nick

Reply to
nicksanspam
Loading thread data ...

Pooh Bear wrote

Then that would be completely stupid.

The frogs generate a lot of their mains power from nukes, so it makes no sense to be minimising the use of that.

It is in fact the most sensible way to generate power today and any solar system will waste more resources in the construction of the solar system. In spades with a relatively high tech approach to solar like the one being discussed.

Reply to
Rod Speed

snipped-for-privacy@XReXXSolar.usenet.us.com wrote

Only by one eyed fools who havent got a clue about the basics.

It isnt. Largely because the MUCH higher capital cost cant be justified economically. In spades in France where the bulk of electrical power comes from nukes which dont even consume natural resources in the generation of the power.

And then there's the resouces wasted with the relatively high tech approach to solar hot water in the system being discussed.

Its mostly basic economics. The MUCH higher capital cost with the system being discussed wont even pay for the electricity that would otherwise be used if you have to borrow that money, or even if you just forego the interest on the extra cash etc.

Just another rabid one eyed pack of lies on the economics.

Solar does make good economic sense with SOME situations, most obviously with solar pool heating where the capital cost is minimal, and the losses very high.

Solar can also make sense with air heating, particularly when its designed into the house before construction, but its hardly ever good value for water heating when offpeak mains power is available.

Reply to
Rod Speed

Yes it would indeeed, since the same amount of money spent on more effective means of energy efficiency would reduce energy requirements by a greater amount ( with better attendant benefits on carbon load )

I should have said 'perceived virue' really.

Yup. Concentrate on insulation first. I'll bet there's some room for improvement.

Graham

Reply to
Pooh Bear

I neglected to question the cost of energy in France. What is it?

In California, it's all about trimming the tiered usage. The DWH sellers quote the price comparisons at "tier 5" rates. The baseline rates don't rise, but the high tiers do. Those KWh are currently $0.51. My DWH is propane, currently at $1.69 per gallon, up from $1.07 in 2002.

That is the difference between Nick's coil of hose and the $6000 I was quoted for an installed system. ;-)

I am considering both, and neglected to keep an eye on the cost differential, since they both seem like a good idea in my area. The solar pool heater will cost less than any other style of heater... but it is entirely optional, so the "savings" is harder to justify. The solar blanket could be considered sufficient. The solar heater also fits the usage pattern. The heat is there when the usage is desired.

Offpeak mains power. Another caveat. I think showers would tend to be offpeak for most people. Some mental agility is required to do the laundry offpeak, or maybe not, depending on the lifestyle. Offpeak KWh is still $0.30 at the high tier usage.

Retrofitting some solar air heating is on my list. I have a few months to think about that one. I like the Solar Sponge, and it would fit neatly into my current home design.

formatting link

Reply to
dold

I agree. If it were hot water, it would be a waste of effort to heat it.

- Logan

Reply to
Logan Shaw

I beg to differ. It's not hard to generate enough hot water to pay for a DHW system in reduced electric costs. Pay back for my system vs. electricity would be about 100 months. Not great, but I know many systems running over 10 years with no capital additions, so it's workable. Since I'm not _on_ grid, and use propane for hot water, payback is quicker.

Reply to
Derek Broughton

It works in Nova Scotia, it'll work in Britain. That's exactly what we have.

Reply to
Derek Broughton

Gaham:...... you will never stay shut up....ya business or no business but you muust poke ya f****ng nose in every one's business....... after all you proved Ya Certified Asshole

Reply to
fukuspamer

snipped-for-privacy@XReXXSolar.usenet.us.com wrote

Nothing special, because they have a lot of nuke generators now.

What anyone with a clue uses is the offpeak rate for hot water.

Nope, the one being discussed is a lot more high tech than Nick's.

Yeah, they're very simple, often just black plastic tubing on a flat roof. The pump etc is already there to.

It isnt hard to justify it on the longer season of viable water temps.

Maybe, but its rather more irritating to use.

Its really the only sensible way to do hot water.

The water tank is heated in off peak times and used any time you like.

Plenty pay nothing like that. I only pay 5c myself.

Its much better to do it at the house design stage.

MUCH too small for my taste. I've got 7 8'x8' myself.

Reply to
Rod Speed

Derek Broughton wrote

You have to get down on your knees to beg properly.

Dont believe it when its calculated properly.

Dont believe it, show the numbers.

Nope, not when its calculated properly.

Sure, thats why I said what I said about mains power.

Reply to
Rod Speed

Where are yours?

$30 MINIMUM per month for electric hot water heating at my home. $3000, installed, for a complete solar DHW system.

Show me the numbers.

No, you said it wasn't workable with mains power. I just said it's even faster when off-grid.

Reply to
Derek Broughton

It isn't fair to denigrate the construction costs of solar, and ignore the construction and infrasturcture costs of a nuclear power plant. They do require some natural resources to build and run.

That's what I meant. Nick's system is closer to a viable price point, but if you ask for a professionally installed system, it's the high tech variety.

I have a Feherguard cover reel. No problem at all to take off, minimal to put back if you remember while you're still in the pool.

So your economic comparisons are far out of line from mine. I have a 6x better payback than you.

Next time ;-) I have a new neighbor building a home on an empty lot. I will be trying to give as many helpful hints as I can, as a precursor to my own construction in the future.

Pics? Design? I have a convenient spot to put some, and I will let aesthetics limit the total size. Did you use a Solar Sponge style?

I also haven't decided whether to plumb the hot air into the prime living area, or into the central heat air intake, which is conveniently nearby.

Separate plumbing seems more straightforward. I wouldn't have to coordinate the heated air flow with the central heating run time.

Reply to
dold

snipped-for-privacy@XReXXSolar.usenet.us.com wrote

What matters is the cost TO THE INDIVIDUAL.

The individual considering which way to go with hot water gets no say on what the state chooses to do with nukes.

Yes, but nukes last a hell of a lot longer than individual solar hot water systems do.

Not necessarily as high tech as the particular one being discussed tho.

Still even easier to have a completely automated system with no cover at all.

You sure you're paying 30c for offpeak ?

With a VERY atypical offpeak power rate.

And what matters is the OP's offpeak power rate, not yours or mine.

Mine is completely integrated into the house design,

7 8'x8' patio doors on the north side of the house which is 100' running East/West. I'm in the southern hemisphere.

There's another 6 on the south side, only the bathrooms and toilets have normal windows, all rooms have full outside access with those patio doors. The smallest bedrooms have one of them, the largest bedroom has two. The biggest main room has 5 and the smallest main room has 3.

That gives a very pleasant outside/inside effect when the outside isnt too hot in summer, and there is a full run of trees all along the south side. That environment is much cooler in summer when say I come home from shopping.

In winter I bask in the sun thru those big doors, in the biggest main room most of the daytime.

6' eaves all down the N side, calculated with the sun angles to let all the sun in in winter and none in the summer.

Nope, nothing like it. Completely integrated into the house design, like I said.

Reply to
Rod Speed

Derek Broughton wrote

You need that anyway, you cant use pure solar almost anywhere.

I just replaced my storage hot water system after 30 years for $500

You didnt.

No I didnt. I said it wasnt usually GOOD VALUE.

You also claimed that its viable on grid too.

Reply to
Rod Speed

how about the old reliable "batch" or "bread box" style solar heater?

formatting link

Reply to
digitalmaster

Nor do I have any input as to whether various rebates and incentives are the right way for the community at large to go. I can only look at the impact that the programs have on my situation.

formatting link
baseline rate is only $0.08. That rate is very stable, but also is not very much energy per month, varying by the season and location.

As always. The local conditions for that person are all that matters. Solar insolation, utility rates, Tax laws, appraisal patterns, cost of labor, cost of materials, construction codes, etc. It's hard enough to make comparisons across different utilities in the same state, much less the 50 states here, or to a different country.

I saw a house recently built that looks like all doors on the long side. I thought that was for the view. I hadn't pondered the orientation. A look at Google Earth makes me think all those doors are Southwest exposure, but that should be hot in the summertime, without deciduous tree cover.

That is sorely lacking at my house. Stubby eaves at a steep angle, so I can't even add additional cover in a pleasing fashion.

I might have a closer look at that house with no trees. Maybe it has long shallow eves.

Reply to
dold

In the summer the sun is more directly overhead so the extra glass on the south side should not make the house hot.in the winter the sun is lower on the horizon so it shines in through the glass more.

Reply to
digitalmaster

Those are still the cost to the individual.

Like I thought, that 30c is utterly bogus.

Plenty for off peak hot water.

Yes, and FOR THE OP, ITS HIS ELECTRICITY COST THAT MATTERS.

Not yours or mine.

And I said that FOR THE OP, ITS UNLIKELY TO BE ECONOMICALLY VIABLE TO GO SOLAR.

Yeah, thats pretty much what mine is at the E and W ends of the N wall. There's a section in the middle which has normal wall, with two normal windows in the kitchen area of the two main rooms, and the N bathroom, but its mostly glass otherwise.

Mine is that on the S side, that side has a public park.

Yeah, I have no windows at all on the E and W sides.

Yeah, mine's a flat roof.

Reply to
Rod Speed

The rub to this argument is - more HOURS of daylight in the summer. This fact coupled with higher outside temps, WILL MAKE A HOUSE WITH SOUTH FACING WINDOWS WARMER IN THE SUMMERTIME THAN A HOUSE WITH NO SOUTH FACING WINDOWS!!!

Reply to
Robert Gammon

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.