Hi,
Why apply economic reasoning only to the sensor? The replacement of the pipes of the heating does not bring much whereas the cost is enormous and will NEVER make profitable: as much put solar collectors.
I did not apply economic reasoning, I did not talk about return on investment, amortization period, I reasoned energy efficiency, for the same price, it is possible to install a larger energy capture area with flat sensor, so to produce more renewable energy, so save more non-renewable resource.
I also did not talk about the total replacement of the heating system, I argue that a former heating system is often not regulated in terms of energy consumption, the replacement of old regulations is not so expensive and allows you to make substantial savings.
How does the higher temperature of the circuit increase waste? It is certainly necessary to isolate behind the radiators ... By cons, we can store more heat.
The higher the temperature, the more losses there are.
Isolate behind the radiators? and the roof, and the double glazing, and ... all the rest?
The speech of the heating engineers? just change the regulation, the opposite of the heating engineers who set the installations to 60 ° C or more "to be sure" ...
My speech (illustrated by the strainer): isolate, isolate, isolate and then see for the rest.
I was talking about vacuum heat pipe sensors: there is no water in it. Obviously, the transport water circuit is drained in the absence of sun, so the water remains at internal temperature of the house and does not freeze: when it goes back, it does not have to take 20 or 30 ° for nothing.
My plan sensor empties exactly the same way, still hot water is stored inside the house, no need for expensive and fragile vacuum sensors to do that.
In addition, with concentrators, we could put a single tube for 2m2 ...
This only collects the direct radiation, it turns out that diffuse radiation represents nearly 50% of the annual energy available in our regions.
Yes, except that currently a stratified balloon costs a fortune, while 2 balloons well insulated standards cost nothing, especially recovered at the dump of the corner ... And increase the storage of hot water.
A standard, cheap, properly used balloon laminates very well, beware of the marketing arguments.
But that's what we do every day while taking a shower
This is an image in response to
it is better to cool the water before returning it to the sensors
I did not find any arguments, so the argument is surprising.
No difference, the nuclear is just used to heat a boiler, it is more complicated because of the dangers of the fuel.
Totally different, it is not a boiler in the nuclear, but a steam generator, the operation is absolutely not the same.
I was at the theory level: the principle of the cycle is always the same, it needs a hot source and a cold source, even if we do not go up to vaporization.
Absolutely not, in the case of the nuclear, it is the second principle of the thermodynamics, principle of Carnot (see on google for more details), which applies (transformation of heat in work), in the case of solar thermal conventional, we are dealing with simple heat exchange, it is totally different (yield of 30% max for Carnot, 100% for thermal exchanges, not counting the losses dependent on the insulation of the elements, go, 95% with the losses).
And as common sense would like to be able to make electric cogeneration with solar at home, the rise to steam becomes an attractive option.
Sorry to have yet to contradict, in the context of cogeneration, for the production of electricity, it is precisely about heat transfer in work (to turn a generator, principle of Carnot), the theoretical maximum expected return being 30 %, the solar collectors, even under vacuum having, at about 200 ° C a miserable yield, the total yield is very probably lower than the yield of simple photovoltaic panels, it is also out of reach of a particular (complex and delicate to implement, fragile [moving parts]).
The total efficiency is good, since the 70% losses are taken up in thermal, with a total yield of 100% (I neglect purely thermal losses, and the efficiency of the alternator), the problem is the energy starting, thermal sensors even under vacuum, at 200 ° C, 5%, 10% yield?
either for 1 m2 = (1000W * 10%) = 100W = (30W electic + 70W thermal).
This is my opinion, which obviously only involves me.
The cheapest energy is the one you do not consume.
cordially
Keke
http://solaire.open-dream.org