Pac or gas condensation?

[scince]

it's not wrong, (ps: in an electrically heated dwelling it is mandatory to have a chimney, but not for the same reasons)
And the best of the best, it would still be possible to be able to do without heating by having a house designed intelligently

"Heating is nothing more than constant adaptation to construction errors". Günter Lang from IG Passivhaus Österreich

[chatelot16]

in case of long power failure it is not heating the most serious lack: it is electricity

hence the advantage of the real generator: in my experimental capacity it makes both heating and electricity

of course everyone does not want to run almost constantly a small generator more or less noisy: but as a rescue solution it is impeccable: a small group has less than 200 euro is 2000w electricity and 8000w heat

of course the exhaust must be seriously evacuated: much more risk of carbon monoxide than a home

[Did67]

Ben 20 000 € it's still usually a pac water / soil - water ...
.

There, see first post, we spoke well PAC air-water ...

That said, I should check the tax code (it changes all the time! Down). Air-Air, for sure, no more tax credit. Air-water, I leave a question mark.

Rates are also falling, that's for sure too ...

So your comment (PAC funded by us all) is a little less true today ... That's all. Just a nuance, it does not sweep the argument.

[scince]

Tax credit :
Pac Air / Water: 25%
Pac Soil / Water: 40%

source:
http://ecocitoyens.ademe.fr/financer-mo ... nt-durable
http://ecocitoyens.ademe.fr/financer-mo ... nt-durable[/ Url]

[Did67]

... except that I would opt for a gas condensing boiler rather than a low temperature, even if it is more expensive.

Like that, it does not seem necessarily rational. On one side, we reason; on the other, it's like that ...

So just a reminder:

1) A condensing boiler only condenses if the water return to the circuit is sufficiently cold. So that means adapted transmitter: heated floors or adapted radiators (called "high performance")

2) The better the insulation, the easier it will be to get. In a very well insulated house, a transmitter at 25 ° delivers enough calories to maintain a temperature of 20 ° even in very cold weather because the losses of the house will be low (all these figures to the ladle, to indicate the principle).

3) Condensation, for a boiler of the same technology, brings only a maximum gain of 10%! The difference between the PCI (lower heating value) and the PCS (Higher Calorific Value) is of this order of magnitude. So in ideal conditions where it condenses a max! As soon as the return is warmer, some of the water vapor is not condensed, and this figure goes down.

Here. Now you choose ...

Ditto for a CESI. I made readings on mine (in Alsace). The "return on investment" is debatable, depending on the source we refer to. At current prices, I don't think it's really "profitable" compared to gas and even fuel or pellets ...

Now I have one! It's not just "profitability" in life. Maybe one day, even, profitability will be death.

And the price of energy will surely go up. No amortization of the invetisation you have made.

Should rather do the opposite reasoning: I have 10 000 €. What do I do with it? More insulation? more efficient heating? VMC DF? THIS ?

If you have 5 x 10 000 €, it's easier to answer !!!

[scince]

1) A condensing boiler only condenses if the water return to the circuit is sufficiently cold. So that means adapted transmitter: heated floors or adapted radiators (called "high performance")

Hello, in view of what you say, I would also look for a gas condensing boiler with low temperature heating floor

For the profitability of CESI, if you take 3 baths a day in a corner bath ca can become interressant ^^

[Did67]

There you are right.

One of the "problems" if I can put it that way, is that a CESI only has a fixed cost, the more you use it, the more "profitable" it becomes!

Which is not strictly speaking "econological".

You let the hot water run when the weather is nice and you calculate how much it "would" have cost if you had heated it with fuel, gas or electricity. Obviously, you get your stake back faster.

But everyone can see that this is called "wasting" water.

I therefore propose the following "econolic" reasoning:

- I am "econologist", so first of all I reduce my consumption and avoid waste ...

- afterwards, there remains the incompressible "minimum"

- and here I compare: how much would it cost me (investment + consumables + maintenance) over the "reasonable" lifespan of the installation; I do this for technique A, technique B or technique C ...

And here, the conclusion will make sense.

I claim that today, in Alsace, with the costs of current energies, it is not won for the CESI installed by a craftsman, if we reason so! Same aid and tax credits deducted. Sorry. I would like it though. Remind me already all those who were against the carbon tax ??? (Yes, the energy does not cost enough, you can turn the problem as you want, but I remain confident, it will come).

AND as said elsewhere, even not "profitable", I have one. Because there isn't just profitability in life. Finally, there is already too much "profitability" that rots our lives. I admit being sometimes shocked that among the "econolo" too, this argument seems to be "number one" ...

[chatelot16]

if you do not waste hot water the solar heating of hot water does not save much, especially when you can not find a washing machine and dishwasher that can use solar hot water!

there is a period of the year when it takes a little heat and where the sun can be used: as long as you have to spend money on solar energy, it is absolutely necessary that it can also be used for heating: if not is really wasting material

[I Citro]

if you do not waste hot water the solar heating of hot water does not save much, especially when you can not find a washing machine and dishwasher that can use solar hot water!

there is a period of the year when it takes a little heat and where the sun can be used: as long as you have to spend money on solar energy, it is absolutely necessary that it can also be used for heating: if not is really wasting material

The idea is interesting. In theory...

In my case, I have a wall-mounted condensing boiler, devoid of water heater (heating only).
However, this boiler, the first model of the brand, makes it possible to ensure the addition of a water heater by deriving the heating circuit in the exchanger of a water heater (3 motorized channel valve).
My boiler ensures the relief of my solar water heater when it can not provide.

We can therefore perfectly imagine that the solar water heater could provide a solar heating supplement in winter if the conditions are required ...
It would be enough (in my case) to set the correct instructions in the control system of the boiler so that it pumps the calories of the water heater without starting its burner ...

In practice, during this winter, the solar water heater was not able to retrocede calories to the circuit of radiators ...

[scince]

eh eh

They talk about it here http://www.terra-economica.info/Le-chau ... 10632.html

Finally, I still have hope that the state will create a "hot water feed-in tariff", so that we can sell our hot water at an advantageous price to make CESI profitable in less than 5 years, well that implies just to set up a hot water network next to the cold water one in the streets, that's just the little problem