http://www.solarthermalworld.org/node/1125 

Forget the toy installations, join the big ones. From 8,000m2 onwards this price is on offer under German investment conditions (depending on cheap loans ! )

See for more informations : 

http://www.solarthermalworld.org/node/1053

and to compare the Irish with the German subsidy situation see

http://www.res-legal.eu/index.php?id=1&L=1

What I am not convinced of is the energy/cost benefit of installing a solar space heating system like yours and as such don't like to recommend it as a space heating option when the client may have other options mostly in terms of improving home insulation.  This is is the original topic we began our conversation with and I said that whilst it is possible to create heat with solar in a space heating situation to make it meningful would require high cost.: my quote from above:

“Having said that you will get some heat in winter from solar but the investment required to make it meaningful in terms of space heating is all dependent on how deep your pockets are..  “

Can I assume that you agree with this from your comment: 

“that ST home heating can be done in Ireland. Contrary what you try to tell the consumers. Maybe not justified in  financial benefits or by energetic ammortisation.  But neither so is the preparation of DHW with the aid of ST energy with subsidised methods.”

I obviously disagree with you on the solar DHW comment due to the results from what you call my “joke” and “amateur” research.  I should add here that we have also sponsored research in a number of academic institutions (LIT  and GMIT) around the country to bring verification to the results that you so readily dismiss - maybe when these studies are complete you'll believe me?

I would also like to add that although I think the system you installed is not for everyone I do think it is an interesting set up and I congratulate you on your efforts.  I am very interested in how it performs - if you do have any figures that you can give us in the future that would be great.

You wrote:

"You have failed to come back with any meaningful figures to back up any of your assertions particularly in relation to your own system."

Why haven't you asked for it?

When you write that it is your aim to sell ST systems then one wonders why that is?

Isn't it the issue to save on primary energy and becoming energy independant and to protect the enviroment why the taxpayer has to fork out on subsidies?

I haven't seen any ST installation in Ireland which comes up with only one of these points.  Do you have a sample? Certified by an independant body? 

I've seen energy meassurements done in a similar aproach previously to your office' sink supply system - a joke, payed by the tax payers to dupe the consumers. Done by amateurs claiming to do scientific work.

This is how the government dupes the people. Subsidising cars, heat pumps, solar thermal systems ect....

The usage of ST energy can be done in rural and in urban areas without taxpayer's money. Fully self catering investments, with guaranteed energetic ammortisation. No doubt about it, all we have to do is to look to Australia or China.

Where there are no subsidies and these things cost a fraction. A fraction of he primary energy input, a fraction of the monetarian input.

As said, I haven't seen any ST installation in Ireland where the primary energetic input into the system justifies the primary energy saved by using it. Including my own.

But sure you have some meassured/calculated results on this? Maybe some "academic institution" has the numbers?

You wrote:

"You definitely have not convinced me of the benefits of your system...."

This isn't my issue.

But I have shown to you -and the readers of this forum -that ST home heating can be done in Ireland. Contrary what you try to tell the consumers.

Maybe not justified in  financial benefits or by energetic ammortisation.  But neither so is the preparation of DHW with the aid of ST energy with subsidised methods.

Unless you convince us (smiley), backing this claim up with any "figures of note".

You see, washing hands with warm water for some two thousand Euros or heating the home for ten thousand Euros makes a difference to the planet. A difference of eight thousand Euros worth of primary energy. Whilest the one thing is necessary - the home heating- and the other thing isn't.

The Japanese government has ordered last year that all public buildings have to have the warm water systems to be taken out of function, except for sport and health care, hospitals and the like. Not that they have orderd to replace the fossile/nuclear hot water suply with ST energy systems. No,  this would be a waste of energy.

The figures you have shown with your DIY meassurement in your office are not to be used when counting energy consumption. That's for sure. European standards (EN) tell us clearly that energy consumption must be meassured at the point of consumption.

Imagine the owner of the petrol station dips a stick into his fuel storage tank and then charges you accordingly ...

Imagine the lady at the supermarket till won't scan the items you put onto the desk but goes back to shelfs counting what went into the shelf, charging you for it....

Absurd, but that is your calculation method when looking at the benefit of your ST energy. Be serious when meassuring energy consumption.

Try to understand that  CONSUMED energy is in no way related to PRODUCED energy. Or to  STORED energy.

The CONSUMER is duped when sold stored energy.

All the best with it.

I really think you are missing the point,  We sell solar systems becasue we want to see renewable energy being used instead of fossil fuels - if a person would prefer to persist with electricty to heat their water then we are not the company to approach obviously.

With regards Solar what we need in Ireland are verifiable results on how solar will perform in Ireland and not the sales pitch that you are criticsing above - (We agree on this by the way).  This is why we are compiling data with our test system here and with other tests in academic institutions around the country to come up with real figures for Irish householders - not the confusing efficiency figures that can be manipulated to make a product look better than it is.

With regards our customers we speak to people everyday about their requirements - we have supplied over a thousand systems in Ireland to date - we know what the Irish customer requires.

Why you don't believe me when I say that the system I am measuring produces 800 kWh of useable is strange,  I have given you solid measurements and a resonable comparison to real life energy demand in the 5Kwh/120L figure.  You have failed to come back with any meaningful figures to back up any of your assertions particularly in relation to your own system. Here at Ecologics we sell systems that we are sure can produce the desired amount of energy and are priced to be a sure investment,  we need to be confident of this as our customers are our best advertisement hence the research into realistic performance.

You definitely have not convinced me of the benefits of your system because you have not backed them up with any figures of note.  I and readers of this forum would be very interested in knowing the measured energy output of your system (not the fact that you bought x amount of oil last year and less this year)  and becasuse you keep mentioning costs and the taxpayer can you give us a breakdown of the cost/benefit relationship of your investment in solar thermal space heating that you say is quite lucrative?

The other point which you miss is that Ireland is fast becoming an urban living space.  Solar space heating on the scale of the system that you present in the images above is not a realistic scenario for the vast majority of people living with small gardens in a housing estate with limited budgets.  However a solid performing and affordable solar DHW system is a realistic option open to all members of the public.

Hi Heinbloed,

The way you are approaching the measurement of used energy in a DHW system is incorrect.  Any house with a DHW cylinder uses some form of heat producing instrument to heat the water in their cylinder.  This is the point were energy is required not at the taps. 

To determine the amount of energy required to heat water in a cylinder we use the formula Q=cmΔT,  where:

In our 120 Litre cylinder here, to heat water to 45 degrees ( a decent hot shower) with 10 degree ambient temperature of water coming into the building requires about 5Kwh of energy.  (0.001162778 x  120 X 35 = 4.88kWh )  This 5 kwh could come from an immersion,  oil/gas boiler or from a solar system - it doesn't matter about the source of energy it still requires 5 kWh to do the work.

When the person has a bath/shower and if it's a long one they could use all the water in that cylinder.  The energy then used in that 45 degree shower was 5 kWh.  Over the last 10 months our solar system has transferred 800Kwh to the cylinder for use* - this is an average of about 2.7 kwh a day (800 kwh / 300 days).  If 120L of 45 degree water is required every day then our 30 tube solar system is providing a little over 50% of the person's daily hot water requirement.  In reality more energy is provided on summer days than in the winter but the yearly average is a useful figure.

As a company working in the solar industry providing solar systems to people everyday this is the calculation that we need to come to in order to fairly inform our customers of the performance of the system they are buying.  We need a solid figure as to what amout of energy the system will really deliver particularly in comparison to the other heating methods such as gas/ oil or electricty - all of which deliver energy to the cylinder.  Talking about energy use at the taps is not very useful to the normal householder who gauges their energy use by their gas/oil or electricty bill which relates to energy provided to the cylinder.

*Just a note on our solar system here - the panel is installed at a shallow 70 degrees which means it is nearly upright, this introduces about 10 - 20% inefficiency according to CIBSE so we might reasonably assume that we could get another 100kWh or so out of the system if installed on a standard roof at about 40 degrees.

You don't need much phantasy for this.

THIS IS REALITY !!

A waste of taxpayer's money. Well the exchequer can have €150 back on this, the VAT (smiley).

Under these conditions the pump station is payed as well, the insulated pipe work included. " Free " energy. Thanks to the subsidies.

Why not going for it, ecologics?

You would be the first company in the world able offering "free" energy, thanks to the mad subsidy politics of an incompetent gouvernment.

The Irish Farmers dump "free" milk powder in Africa ruining the local farmers there, so why not ruining the fossile energy industry here in Ireland ?

Killing the fossiles like Shell and ESB with their own arms. It's in your hands.

I can provide you with the knowledge and you do the "dirty work" (pressing the  'ironic button' hardly !).

My English seems to be very bad...

To an open system stagnation doesn't matter. The water can boil-off/evapourate at 100 degrees Celsius. And will be replaced when demanded.

A drain-back system doesn't boil at all. The water drains back into a storage tank before it boils, reaches a temperature above 95 degrees Celsius.And before it freezes as well.

Think about a roof, a raindrain, a water barrel and a pump with a gardenhose: The water in the barrel is pumped up to the roof where it is warmed up when running down over the slates. It runs down into the barrel. From where it is pumped up again.

As soon as the pump is switched off the circulation stops. No freezing, no boiling. Plain and effient.

So there is no temperature of 100 degrees Celsius at the pipe work, the sealant rings ect..No expansion barrel. No Glycol. No emergency valve. No metal tubing/pipes. Nothing but collector, plastic pipes and a storage tank plus pump.

The thermal loss of a vacuum? Eta 0. Eta zero.  So no need for thermal sensors. A timer at the pump. No cables from and to the collector. 

Plain.

This makes the ST system based on an open drain back method easy to install and gives a very long lifetime with no maintenance involved. An efficient investment for everyone. Without subsidies, cheaper then any other method of using renewed energy.

About evacuated glas tubes:

( "2. You recommend a u-pipe vacuum tube - how can these be used in a drainback system as the fluid within the u-pipe will remain within the panel when the pump shuts off.?  If no antifreeze is used in the system then this would be at risk of freezing in winter.")

Not all vacuum tubes hold surplus clutter in them. Like U-pipes or heat pipes.The vacuum is the best insulant mankind knows.

I never recommended U-pipes or heat pipes, just the oposite. I consider these as trash. Inefficient, expensive. Leading to overheating and pressure, reducing the efficiency of the investment. Millions of households and industries use vacuum tubes with nothing but a vacuum and water in them. Like me for example.

Only the horizontal collector pipe-where the vacuum tubes end in- is drained to a certain amount, about 2/3. Not the vacuum tubes themself. Why should they? The vacuum holds the water in the tubes above freezing temperatures after all.

The recent winter showed temperatures below minus 12 degrees Celsius here in Cork. No freezing in the tubes. These ST systems are guaranteed for Wisconsin/USA with minus 32 degrees Celsius. No problem. Pure water, no antifreeze.

The combination of two methods, namely drain-back plus open, is far more efficient then anything else.

2.7 m2 of collecting surface (4m2 total surface) for €700.- incl. the stand. Or around € 600.- at e-bay. These are  consumer prices and incl. VAT

They're the only ones where a pay-back/ammortisation can be expected. Because of their low costs and their long life time.

All the other subsidised ST systems never pay-back. An open secret of the trade. Therfore subsidies are needed.

The Chinese have no subsidies for private energy consumption. They must see a pay-back when going for ST. Therefore technical clutter has no chance there. Only the open systems using evacuated tubes are a market sucess in China.

You're welcome to watch such a system working in Ireland.

In your earlier posts you've said that the 800kWh are PRODUCED by the system.

I quote your post from the 15th of January:

“As I mentioned in my post above this 800kwh figure is of usable energy - i.e. it is the heat delivered to the cylinder and used.  Our test system is actually our hot water system for our office here which we use for hand washing, dishes etc.. with no other heat source being used to put heat into the cylinder.  If conventional  heat sources (e.g. electricty, gas or oil) were used to produce the same amount of usable hot water over the past 8 months  then we would have had to produce 800 kwh of heat energy using those means.”

as well  you're posting at the 14th of January:

“Our test system here of 30 tubes has produced 800kwh in 10 months and we expect it to hit about 1000kwh for the year - this is the actual usable energy delivered to the cylinder as opposed to the energy produced by the collectors.”

These two posts of yours CLEARLY state that the figure of 800kWh is NOT derived at the point of consumption, namely the water tap.

Please state clearly if the meassuring device was mounted at the tap or not. Try to understand that useable energy stored in the tank is not the same as used energy at the tap. (A coal mine holds so and so much useable energy. But that is far more than what is actually used at the coal power plant. Which in turn is only a fraction of what is used behind the electric meter, what is actually used by the consumer)

On the 15th of January you speak about ” no other heat source being used to put heat into the cylinder” and on the 14th of January you speak about   “energy delivered to the cylinder” …..

Which means CLEARLY that the energy which was used at the tap was NOT meassured at all.

In fact the meassured 800kWh where not the USED energy. Only the PRODUCED energy. According to your statements.

A heating system is complex. Losses occuring due to storage losses for example are not presented in the USED energy number.  A common trick to talk-up efficiency of a system, usually done by boiler sales men and heatpump cowboys.

Neither the stated efficiency of a condensing boiler nor the COP of a heatpump presents the efficiency of a heating system. Only what is actually needed/tapped counts, has to be compared with the energetic or financial  investment. To stay serious when talking about energy efficiency.....

Something many people can't keep seperate. Similar to the difference between the energy produced by the car engine and the energy consumed by the car engine….how much energy it actually needs to get 1 person from A to B is a miracle for most drivers.

About the waste of energy:

Solar energy is not wasted. It shines anyhow.

It is the electric energy which is wasted running circulation pumps when using so called ” heat dumps”.

It is the energy wasted for maintenance of the ST system if this needs regular checking/replacing of the anti-freeze.

It is the energy wasted to build and install heat dumps.

It is the energy which is wasted installing a ST system that does not perform when energy is most needed - in Winter.

It is the energy wasted by prematurely aging of a ST system by putting it under stress like heat and pressure.

The standard meassurement when saving energy in an office is to de-install the  hot water system. A common method used around the globe, also in Ireland. Simple and efficient.

There is absolutly no need to have hot water in an office. The Japanese gouvernment has now de-installed all hot water systems in their offices. So are doing all the major offices of banks and insurances.

The boilers are simply switched-off.

Replacing waste with waste produces nothing else but more waste.

The sun casts many times more energy onto our planet than mankind uses. No one would come up and say it is wasted. Wasted is the fossile energy to produce inefficient equipment people claim they have to have. To harvest solar energy for example.

Getting more with less to cover a meagre demand is a way out of this rat race.

The energy balance sheet to wash hands and dishes under avarage home or office situations with hot water is negative. A waste of resources.

Again my question:

Why was the energy meassurement device not placed at the tap?

In your last post you've clearly stated again - I quote from it

“…You expressed yourself very clearly and we are talking about the same thing.  The 800Kwh figure is the energy that was used  or consumed  by us in Ecologics to heat our water over the last 8 months. “

My words seem to have been not clear enough, excuse my bad command of the English language (smiley):  There is a difference between used energy/consumed energy to warm up the water ( as you call it yourself ) and the usefull energy actually  tapped.

So please again: why was the energy meassuring device not placed at the tap? 

Thanks!

heinbloed said:

Hi Admin!

Maybe I didn't express myself clearly :

My question is : how much of UESD thermal energy was produced, meassured at the tap of the sink with the test installation you mentioned ?

My question was not how much ” useable “  energy was produced ( quote:” ..this 800kwh figure is of usable energy….” ).

Note the difference beween 'useable' and 'used'.

Similar to the energy uptake via a sunbath on the beach and how much calorific energy was saved because of this.

Compare it with the difference between energy “used” for home heating and the energy “produced” by the apliance.

The ST installation seen at the link I've posted  produces some hundred kWh per day in summer delivered to the storage tank, but I use only a fraction of it…..

Within 4 Summerdays the 5.7 m3 tank is going from cold (10 degrees Celsius ground water) to boiling, the apliance steaming like a geysir. But I use only very little of this.

So it makes no sense to calculate “produced” energy. Only the “consumed” energy counts for the investor/consumer looking for a balance sheet. Ot to the installer who wants to design a solar heated house.

Hi heinbloed

You expressed yourself very clearly and we are talking about the same thing.  The 800Kwh figure is the energy that was used  or consumed  by us in Ecologics to heat our water over the last 8 months.  This energy all came from the 30 tube solar system we have installed here.  I am not confusing this figure with the energy produced by the panel which would be a higher figure than 800kWh due to the system losses inherent in the pipework and cylinder - when I have all the figures collated for the year I should be able to figure out the difference between these two numbers and come up with an overall system efficiency.  But the 800Kwh figure is solid,  this is the amount of energy that we have used to get hot water to our taps..  (not so hot last week but it's in the mid 30s this week  ((it's January for those reading this at a later date.. ))

You say that your system produces 100s of Kwh a day but you use only a portion of this - is this not the wasteful design you were criticsing earlier? Why install a system producing energy that you do not use?

Maybe I didn't express myself clearly :

My question is : how much of UESD thermal energy was produced, meassured at the tap of the sink with the test installation you mentioned ?

My question was not how much " useable "  energy was produced ( quote:" ..this 800kwh figure is of usable energy...." ).

Note the difference beween 'useable' and 'used'.

Similar to the energy uptake via a sunbath on the beach and how much calorific energy was saved because of this.

Compare it with the difference between energy "used" for home heating and the energy "produced" by the apliance.

The ST installation seen at the link I've posted  produces some hundred kWh per day in summer delivered to the storage tank, but I use only a fraction of it.....

Within 4 Summerdays the 5.7 m3 tank is going from cold (10 degrees Celsius ground water) to boiling, the apliance steaming like a geysir. But I use only very little of this.

So it makes no sense to calculate "produced" energy. Only the "consumed" energy counts for the investor/consumer looking for a balance sheet. Ot to the installer who wants to design a solar heated house.

heinbloed said:

Did the delta-T experiment deliver any results?

Hi Heinbloed,

I didn't bother in the end as I'm trying to come up with a complete set of annual figures that might realistically apply to an average operating system which runs on default settings ( 6 degrees on and 4 degrees off).  This is so we can have a better idea of how these panels really perform in an average Irish situation.  Messing around with the delta T in an attempt to improve performance could distort this figure too much and give misleading results.  Maybe 'll look at it again after March when I have a full set of yearly results.

heinbloed said:

When you say one of your systems ” produced 800kWh per year ” then how much of conventional energy did it actually save? For this calculation one has to know how much of it was USED. And then compare this USED solar thermal energy with the amount of energy which would have been used if there had an alternative energy source been used.

Hi Heinbloed,

As I mentioned in my post above this 800kwh figure is of usable energy - i.e. it is the heat delivered to the cylinder and used.  Our test system is actually our hot water system for our office here which we use for hand washing, dishes etc.. with no other heat source being used to put heat into the cylinder.  If conventional  heat sources (e.g. electricty, gas or oil) were used to produce the same amount of usable hot water over the past 8 months  then we would have had to produce 800 kwh of heat energy using those means.