[Strawbale] [SB-r-us] re: Passive Heating

[Shody Ryon]

--- activism98201 at verizon.net wrote:

> It is my understanding that double-pane windows ARE
> OK, and that you should specifically request ones
> that have less iron(?) in them: tell the window
> folks that you're wanting them for solar gain.  The
> solar-gain loss in double-pane is minimal compared
> to the insulative properties of the extra pane (read
> "savings of heat loss that vs. single-pane).

Thanks for the heads up on the double-glazed solar
gain glass.

> Standard design should look to minimize total glass
> area on pole-facing sides of buildings as well as
> for east and west-facing windows.

That is my understanding also. Tightly sealed thermal
drapes that do not allow convection with living space
air may be a compromise, depending on many details.

> NOTE: I'm still not sold on the 2L bottle solution,
> as one then has to pull down the heat (takes energy,
> non-passive energy).  Concrete can still be
> preferable when all factors are considered: much has
> been stated about up-front costs, but I believe that
> this group is mainly looking at total costs, which
> operational costs are a big component of. 
> Personally I'm a fan of the KISS principle: concrete
> is simple and presents no threat of system failure
> (unless some really bad things happen, like the
> earth opens up and swallows your house) (of course
> there's the environmental impacts, but one has to
> measure the total energy costs, operational as well
> as construction).
> 
> 
> -Mark Nagel
> Everett, WA

There are so many variables in slab prep and design. I
wish it was straight forward and simple. I was on a
job where a slab was poured on an underground spring,
what a mess.

The smallest piece of under slab 15 mil plastic I can
find costs $700, bringing the cost to about $1200 more
for the slab.

Laren claims the on going cost of heating a house with
a slab is higher than wood (cost could mean amount of
solar energy), therefor the on going operational cost
is included in the lower cost of wood.

The amount of electrical energy used to move the air
from a thermal attic to a living space in a single
level house is very low. Multiple levels I do not know
about, but he commonly designs multilevel houses, so I
assume it would be energy efficient also.

He has addressed this issue recently stating that if
even lower electrical requirements are wanted or
needed, such as for an off-grid project, cycling water
would use a lot less energy. I do not know if this
ultra low energy system could circulate water through
a hydronic system as energy efficiently also, I doubt
it, but it wouldn't take a lot of engery, generally
speaking, to circulate it as the circulation of the
water through the system is not usally an issue accept
in drain back systems.

Part of the idea is to have the solar collection area
uninsulated on the collection side and the thermal
storage and living area insulated. This sounds
obvious, but a lot of designers might get mixed up
with this. This requires transferring warm and cool
from an uninsulated area to an insulated area
efficiently and distributing it in the living space.

The 2L thermal storage system is designed to be easy
to use, low maintenance; daily and over time, energy
efficient, little consequences from neglect, low
initial cost, not much down side. I haven't seen or
used one so all this is is recycled internet info.


      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and 
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.  http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ