forums energies: society, ecology and clean technologies

After reading various articles from forum, I read that the aerothermal heat pump system replacing, for example, an oil heating was not ecological, and not necessarily economical. I thought I would orient myself on this (DIMPLEX LA 17 PS, COP 3,6) but suddenly it cools me down a bit.

Same for photovoltaic, a priori it is not very ecological from what I read on the forum. I also inquired about the efficiency of a polycrystalline photovoltaic module with a power of 210 W SHARP: 13%.

In short, what to do? My house is well insulated (very well even). I keep the fuel?

I also inquired about a wood stove but we do not have enough storage space and in addition it is either pellet or logs, but not either one or the other indifferently.

What to do??

Once again, the important thing is to take a good inventory!

Where is the house, what is the annual fuel consumption; how do you make your hot water? Can the regulation be improved, are there double glazing or are you talking about lighting?

Photovoltaics is for reselling ... It is a financial investment which, unlike shares on the stock market, generates less CO2 than the rest ...
I have to sign my order in the next few days. My wife's wish is to offset the nuclear kWh consumed by our electric cars.

The heat pump is a comparable choice but not always economically wise ...
By -7 ° C, the Dimplex drops to 11kW max and its COP to 2.6.
How much we offer it to you.

My handsome thermal engineer brother was surprised that I had not chosen this solution and that I was staying on town gas (while I plague my gas supplier who is guzzling by increasing the subscription by 250% ).
It must be said that my new gas condensing boiler will only make 12kW for less than 2.500 € incl.
The day when the heat pump technology will be at a correct price (less than 4.000 € TTC for an AIR / WATER), I ask myself one and I cancel the gas ...
For the moment all heat pumps are overcharged (like most PV installations and solar water heaters.

For the heat pump I am offered all inclusive (equipment, installation, etc. and excluding tax credit) € 18. I think I can lower the price.

Fuel consumption, I do not remember too much, will find out.

For insulation: the energy diagnosis is at "C", "95". Excellent insulation everywhere, quite old house (before the war I think), thick brick wall, double glazing everywhere, etc.
In diagnosis "GES" it is in the "C" also according to my memories.

At the level of bulbs we will put almost only low consumption.

Electric hot water (we want it to stay that way).

The house is isolated (more than 100 meters from any other dwelling).

The orientation is south with an ideal slope for solar panels (but I come back to the fact that it is not necessarily green as a solution ...).

There you have it, if it helps!

Your persistence does not surprise me, but it pains me ...

I have been trying for a long time to lead a fight against what I call (a little badly) the "ayatollahs" of ecology (the followers of extreme solutions).

So I suggest you first "philosophize" a little.

1) There is, I think, in this world, no ideal solution. Therefore, rule 1: you will be satisfied with the "sub-optimal"! ("better than nothing" solutions, but obviously open to criticism ...)

2) As a consequence, against the criticisms of the "ayatollahs" you will arm yourself. It's not that hard. Just look at the limits of any "religion" for 3 minutes ...

3) Your choice you will make, and you will assume it!

Therefore, from what is written on forums you will be wary. Note that it is not that difficult, since you will read one thing and its opposite ...

On what you evoke:

1) I am one of those who write against the replacement of fuel boilers by heat pumps, especially air-something. I specify (normally always), that I consider that the greatest danger is nuclear. So MY choice, between CO² and nuclear, is CO². And I assume.

I spare you all the arguments on the yields which fall (in the case of aerothermal energy) when it is cold, the impact on the networks at the limit of rupture (I am going to equip my pellet boiler with a generator , because I fear that during the next real cold period, the EdF network will implode).

But I would respect you totally if after some thought, you install a CAP. So just a piece of advice: wait a little longer, following the disappearance of the tax credit, many companies have knives in their throats. Prices may fall further. And there will also be bankruptcies ... Wait until the sorting is done! At the moment, fuel is not expensive, there is no urgency (financial - ecological, it may be something else).

To tell you: at work, we have bungalows. I had the bread racks (convectors) replaced by air-air heat pumps. In this case, this will reduce electricity consumption, while increasing comfort (air conditioning - we reached + 40 ° C in summer). So, we can be "against" and install it ... In winter, for sure, we will consume less electricity. (And summer more!)

2) That said, I appreciate your concern to reduce your CO² footprint.

A few avenues that I suggest you explore, before "deciding":

- pellets, no room, you tell me: have you thought about outdoor storage? (for example, a lean-to nicely clad in wood, with the silo in it); it is sure that since it was my choice, I will try to influence you in this direction, but I will not sue you (no "fatwa" !!!). So there is neither nuclear nor fossil CO², for hot water and heating. My CO² footprint has been halved, all of a sudden. Total cost: € 17; net cost, tax aid / credit deducted: almost € 500 (power of 10 kW, WITH condensation, ie an additional cost of approximately € 000 gross; € 15 additional cost of tax credit deducted).

- the second source of families' CO² footprint, we often forget, are cars. At home, my direct oil consumption was 50% fuel, 50% fuel for 2 cars (rural housing, isolated, we work two, very irregular schedules imposed).

I bought / equipped the "family" (we have 3 children) with LPG. Low gain in terms of CO² borrowing, but a spectacular jump in terms of particle emissions (almost reduced to zero; used oil almost as clear as when I poured it in!), NOx ... So a small step! Cost: negligible (the second-hand "gasoline" car, unsaleable, was underpriced compared to an equivalent HDI of around € 3; equipment cost: € 000); financial benefit: 3% overconsumption, but fuel price differential of 200%; therefore 25% on my fuel consumption.

I am in the process of replacing an old turbodiesel with a C1 that I will also put on LPG. Reduction in consumption from 7,5 l to 4,5 l. So something like - 40% in terms of CO² footprint (maybe even more; it's not a "break", but still a step forward). Cost: around € 8 (scrapping premium deducted - in 000-door air-conditioned version - NB: another compromise, I air-condition my cars because I had a heart attack, can no longer stand the hot weather; I admit and I assume, so much worse for the ayatollahs!). Gain = conosmmation. TRansformation with tax credit (€ 5). At my expense: € 2. Depreciable over 000 km (suspiciously - consumption "too low", so it's a bit "crazy" project for a technician / economist pure and hard!).

In the long term, I am considering either a second "puppy" of the kind, or, with the departure of the children (currently still: carpooling), to switch to the scooter.

CESI: I have since 2002, a CESI. Today with pellets, it is perhaps no longer totally "profitable" (I would have had to stay on fuel, ironically!). But solar showers are better. It's psychological. Ayatollahs cannot understand. And this prevents me from leaving the boiler in the summer for the DHW (wear?). AND I put the washing machine and dishwasher on it (which reduces my "nuclear" footprint a bit).

In your house in the countryside, with "view on the south", it is sure that I will think of something like a veranda, to "bioclimatize" the house a little. Have you considered this? I also think about it at home. Not done yet !

I still have rainwater recovery projects (recycling my fuel oil tank - not done), lagooning (to "biodigrate" our wastewater and turn it into biomass for the garden - compost) ... In my head !

For the PV, there is a debate on what forum. With Citro, I am one of those who encourage. For me, it is without reservation. Not "naively", but because it is profitable. Because I think that we must put the system in front of its contradictions and use the "subsidized price" to increase the price of electricity, the only way to reduce consumption. Because if not, EdF will add nuclear power plants (see their last "loan" launched this week, to put it mildly - something like "allow them to remain leader in the production of electricity without CO²" = in short, nuclear ; they do not invest in wind or PV, they buy the electricity of others; it is others who invest; on the other hand, nuclear power is indeed them).

Others are against, because it cannot be "generalized" because it is subsidized. It’s true. In the meantime, we let them build the power plants ???

I'll be tempted to take advantage of it before it's over! (But my roof on the south side is already well "mimicked" by skylights and the CESI). I think anyway, even if it's not easy because of this ...

Well, I realize that I was even longer than usual ...

Ludo59 wrote:
I keep the fuel?

I also inquired about a wood stove but we do not have enough storage space and in addition it is either pellet or logs, but not either one or the other indifferently.

After philosophy, a technical point.

How much is your fuel consumption per year?

Did you know that the quantity of pellets by mass is double the fuel consumption (1000 l fuel = 2 tonnes of pellets) and that the bulk density is around 1 kg / m300 (the pellets "flow" in the 'water).

So the increase in the storage volume required is real, but it is not "always" prohibitive (we go to the ceiling, especially in the case of a self-built silo, that adapts exactly to the volume of the room - see what I did here (towards the end):

https://www.econologie.com/forums/photos-cha ... t5995.html

Citro said:

For now all heat pumps are overcharged

I hate this use of the term "overcharging". I would like that in this kind of case we use "offered at too high a price".
The term overcharge applies to other situations and never at the quotation stage.
Learn to negotiate guys: take your time, play the competition, find out about wholesale prices, etc ...

For our friend, I think he shouldn't make any decision until he knows his consumption and 17000 euros for a heat pump seems really expensive to me! (about 2 x too much) But with a COP of 4 or 5, how many years should you use it to catch up with the price?

elephant wrote:Citro said:

For now all heat pumps are overcharged

I hate this use of the term "overcharging". I would like that in this kind of case we use "offered at too high a price".

You were right to take me back.
I expressed myself poorly and agree with your remarks.

What I wanted to say; and I often reason like that; is what the seller offers me for this price ...
I then analyze the technological content, the raw material used ... and I compare ...
In the present case, we propose a heat pump whose technology is nothing extraordinary and manufactured with fairly standard materials. The machine weighs less than 200kg and is worth the price of a car of at least as elaborate technological content but weighing 1000kg ...
Even taking into account a production in "small series" ... the proposed price remains prohibitive ...

For the oil tank I had thought, if we changed the type of heating, to make a water collector (5 liters), but it seems that even very well cleaned with karcher and all, there are still fumes and fuel oil residues making the water unusable.

In terms of fuel consumption, the former owner used around 2500 liters of fuel oil per year (ie one tank filling every two years); I think we will not consume more.

For the pellets, there is an unnecessary floor, but I don't think that a simple parquet can support a weight of 4 tons!

Ludo59 wrote:For the pellets, there is an unnecessary floor, but I don't think that a simple parquet can support a weight of 4 tons!

The grain was stored well in the attics on "a simple parquet".
The question does not lie so much in the parquet floor as in what supports it (the beams).
I well remember my grandfather's attic above the house. The grain (as dense as the pellets) was only distributed on the surface and not in a pointed pile in order to distribute the load and avoid overloading the beams in their middle. The grain was stored closest to the walls and therefore to the anchor points of the beams which supported the parquet.