AMI: call for interest on "energy storage"

[dedeleco]

There is nothing personal about conviction.
The diffusion of heat is verified and validated experimentally with this distance of progression as the square root of time, repeatedly very often as soon as one heats, cools or soda.

Complex, huge or simulated calculations can be wrong if we forget essential elements as we sometimes see with disasters!
So not properly taking into account earthquakes for our homes and nuclear power plants and possible tsunamis is much more dangerous than drilling a few holes too much or less, if they are cheap !!!
The orders of magnitude are much more essential than complex calculations and simulations, which only reflect the simple assumptions taken at the start.
Thus not taking the 6,5m tsunamis into account while there have been in Japan several higher even reaching 33m in the last century makes perfectly useless the hundreds of thousands of pages of calculations of these nuclear power plants.

Likewise in France, Switzerland, etc. for our homes and nuclear power plants, with the risks of earthquakes and even tsunamis, with systematic underestimation taking into account only those of history, while the next will be at a unexpected place, on a fault that went unnoticed.
Feedback is falsely reassuring, because the risk is only taken into account after disaster, instead of researching the real risks scientifically, such as improving security after Fukushima, shows that this risk had been systematically ignored and underestimated total cooling failure for a very long time, the cause of all major nuclear accidents.

Also I am wary of complex simulations which can hide beautiful errors.
Identifying orders of magnitude is more fundamental.

This system is a Canadian well preheated in summer for winter.
However, given their price, Canadian wells are often undersized, even with PAC, good between day and night, but little more.
Evaluating the necessary dimension is very simple without simulation or calculations (a few lines), but fundamental, for summer, winter it is necessary in the range of 1000m3 !!
With or without PAC, the size required is the same.

For me, blocking is the price of drilling and therefore it is crucial to lower the price, in material, by simplifying it, even if it takes time.
No need to simulate if I can't drill myself repeatedly !!!
Because 25 to 75 holes over 3m depending on the thermal needs of the old house.
In addition in the PACA region I do not risk much, since in winter the soil is already at 15 ° C, heating it a little more, even if there is little left !!
But I'm on rock, not very hard nevertheless.

I am not an R&D department !!!
I identify the difficulties before !!

A rudimentary simulation is easy, however.

[Obamot]

A rudimentary simulation is easy, however.

... it would be in your interest ...

Note that if the rock comes close to the surface (which I assume since you noticed that there was some ...), you will have a problem to isolate this rock between -3 and -6m so as to that it does not create a thermal bridge a little further - anywhere - elsewhere (with the cold temperatures of the ground => without you even knowing it ...) and eat all your energy potential ...

Your idea of ​​hacker hacking is interesting, but how do you plan to reassemble the rubble? And what if a sag blocks you from deep equipment? You inevitably need a "tubing" during the course of advancement.

Another risk is to fall on a pocket of ... gas and there, with the power supply of the perforator, that can make BOOM ...!

Here, here, if the "traditional" pneumatic equipment is what it is ... it is that there are good reasons, no ...

Finally yet another advantage of drilling at medium depth, you make a drilling and basta! Whereas if we count possible "Unsuccessful attempts", and time lost in "Development", in the end your solution will necessarily cost you more!

€ 40 for a complete PAC installation (included) according to Christophe VS € 000 for a medium depth drilling ... can't we find it expensive? There is room for the rest ...

[dedeleco]

Fun !!

Another risk is to fall on a pocket of ... gas and there, with the power supply of the perforator, that can make BOOM ...!

little chance of falling on gas at 10m depth, because it has already come out alone on the million years!
And others would have benefited before, just by building their house !!

Note that if the rock comes close to the surface (which I assume since you noticed that there was some ...), you will have a problem to isolate this rock between -3 and -6m so as to that it does not make a thermal bridge a little further - anywhere - elsewhere (with the cold temperatures of the ground => without you even knowing it ...) and you eat all your energy potential ...

sentence which puzzles on the comprehension of the diffusion of heat which in the rock is roughly isotropic (the rock is not formed of copper plates separated by insulation in glass wool to have a thermal bridge via the copper !! )
The ground is not colder than elsewhere and does not "eat" the stored heat faster than the diffusion allows, 3m to 6m over 4 months between summer and winter!
The rock or clay does not change anything except the diffusion constant D (to a factor of 10 on D depending on the soil and to within 3 on the root of D)
By measuring the temperature in the borehole over time, we know the importance of thermal diffusion in the rock, after heating.
And it is not a building with thermal bridges in the middle of a good insulation !!

how do you plan to reassemble the rubble?

with the injected water it goes back well for those.
read the links with karcher or pressurized water solutions:
https://www.econologie.com/forums/post161910.html#161910
https://www.econologie.com/forums/post161981.html#161981

At medium depth

a single well drilling loses more heat by diffusion, because its surface on volume is large, which did not do www.dlsc.ca !!
We must drill in large numbers so as to have a global spherical or cubic cylindrical volume as in www.dlsc.ca . where the diffusion volumes of the various boreholes overlap decreasing the losses.
This is fundamental and makes a single drilling ineffective.
Finally the surface at my place is not accessible to machines of the drilling type on wheels and I prefer personal portable solutions at low prices.

[Obamot]

Yes that's it, I try to be "amusing", only I had just seen a report on the shale (but not fundamentalist ^^) then inevitably ... when we see a garden well farting 5m from a cottage, it's funny ... you tell yourself that it could be dangerous for others ... so you send the news up, because you are thinking about your next ... Good night.

PS: well, apart from that, everything is going well, you have your "solution" ... Good luck for the "tests".

[Aumicron]

Considering the huge number of houses with insufficient foundations that have had crack problems with droughts, I am very
wary and moisture vapor migrating from hot to cold, by heating the ground, via cracks, humidity migrates from hot to cold slowly and can destabilize the foundations !!

So be extremely wary of underfloor heating under old houses !!! !!

Exactly. The problem of drought-related cracks often occurs in the presence of so-called "swelling" clay. It is partly the result of the difference in humidity under the house (it stays there) and around (it disappears).
This is the reason why I recommend the installation of a waterproof membrane on the surface around the house. Thus, the differences in humidity will no longer be present below the foundations but above the membrane.

For example, for a house of 100 m² (10 x 10) we can imagine a membrane 5 m wide all around the house. This may solve the problems of runoff and cracking.

And in addition:

Evaluating the necessary dimension is very simple without simulation or calculations (a few lines), but fundamental, for summer, winter it is necessary in the range of 1000m3 !!

Thanks to the membrane, we now have a covered area of ​​400 m². To reach your 1000 m3, it "suffices" to heat 2.5 m deep. And the technique of pebble tunnels, which is sometimes strongly criticized here, seems to me to be quite possible at perhaps acceptable costs.

[dedeleco]

To reach your 1000 m3, it is "enough" to heat 2.5 m deep

is not enough, because the heat between summer and winter diffuses over 3 to 6m and therefore the heated volume must be close to this depth, otherwise the summer heat rises well before winter.
In addition to keep it as best as possible, the volume must be as compact as possible close to a sphere, with the minimum surface to volume ratio, since the surface loses heat over 3 to 6m.
They respected that at, www.dlsc.ca

In addition, on an old house, it is difficult to install a waterproof membrane 5m wide underground, without removing everything around the house, garden, terrace, etc.
I am not sure that this is enough, because the roots of plants weave far underground to dry it and with a heat wave the diffusion of water can be faster than that of heat, by cracks in the clay which dries .

I think that we must remain very cautious on old houses with weak foundations on clay which dries under the foundations which should be on deep piles.

A pile house could use the piles to heat the soil in the volume encompassed by the piles, and again after studying the behavior of the soil to be sure of their real immobility which is not guaranteed, because normally the soil in depth has a very stable temperature which disturbed can cause movements.

[Obamot]

To reach your 1000 m3, it is "enough" to heat 2.5 m deep

is not enough, because the heat between summer and winter diffuses over 3 to 6m and therefore the heated volume must be close to this depth, otherwise the summer heat rises well before winter.

This is what you tell us - and if it worked, to heat an old building - before being so affirmative, wouldn't it be better first by the “proto” stage. Do it and let's talk about it again ...

[Obamot]

A priori it would seem a good idea Aumicron, but basically I think it is not in all cases. It can even be worse than evil, to do that in certain areas, if the building was not designed accordingly from its construction! It is not for nothing that we place drains around the houses, to take advantage of a foundation and by putting stones of different particle sizes etc.
By doing this we can disrupt the drainage cycles without solving anything, since the humidity movements in the soil are done opportunistically / randomly, without we being able to know on the surface, what is really happening in the basement ( even if we try to predict it).

By putting such a membrane, we move the problem to an area where there is NO drainage. And where it really is to act, it is no longer useful ... Result of the races, it may be that the distribution changes and that a properly drained area is found "overwhelmed".
While the house represents a weight of tens or even hundreds or thousands of tonnes, I let you imagine the possible effect of modifying its base empirically. Even the usefulness of the foundation soles can be questioned, since a sag could then occur where it is not desirable, especially since in the ground, a house is an obstacle to the water of runoff that spreads underground in the earth ...

And that personally, is something that I would not do without knowing the location of the house and the nature of the soil etc, because no one knows how this "modification" will behave with use.

We have already seen houses dragged by landslides, after the construction of a road or above average precipitation. These phenomena are not as rare as we think.

[dedeleco]

the “proto” stage

exists operating at:
http://www.dlsc.ca/DLSC_Brochure_f.pdf
http://www.dlsc.ca
and it is only the diffusion of the basic heat and the necessary volume increases like the thermal losses of the house, with a conservation of the heat all the better the higher the volume, like 3000m3 !!.

A www.dlsc.ca they only took 15m2 of sensor on the garage per house, with a fairly low storage volume, which is very little and for an old house, you need the whole roof of cheaper summer sensors, 50 to 100m2 .

So the problem is to drill as cheaply as possible !!

The prototype exists at www.dlsc; ca very real and functional !!

If for 2 to 3 old houses we make the same volume of storage as www.dlsc.ca , there will be no problem of lack of heat, because each house will have 52/3 = 17 times more heat than each of the 52 houses of dlsc.ca !!

So he lower the price of shallow boreholes !!!
and it's resolved !!!

[Obamot]

The prototype exists [...] very real and functional !!

What a great barrel! For the 1% of the existing building stock, no more! Not for your house, nor traditional constructions ...

At Dlsc they only took 15m2 of sensor on the garage per house, with a fairly low storage volume, which is very little and for an old house, you need the whole roof of cheaper sensors in summer, 50 at 100m2.

An old traditional house will quickly absorb / dissipate the little heat available. Especially since we should not refuse to see that there are ALSO other problems (you are starting to know them no ...).

the “proto” stage

exists operating at:

There should not be cared a little of the world, damage and counterproductive a vision so little "enlarged". And all that, just for a question of "depth of drilling". Why not admit as I do, that everything can work but that the drilling depth must be adapted according to needs and context?

If for 2 to 3 old houses we make the same volume of storage as www.dlsc.ca , there will be no problem of lack of heat, because each house will have 52/3 = 17 times more heat than each of the 52 dlsc houses

If we also start in this thread to do in the ease of the syllogism, then where do we go ...

How can we pretend to generalize, saying that "Since it would work with passive houses, it would work with an old traditional house," just with a calculation like yours, done with a ladle! You forget the thickness of the walls to be heated, the thermal insulation, the frequent cold bridges with this type of construction. And don't tell me "Let yours, etc." because I'm talking to you about the 99% of the remaining building stock, as a whole !!!

I do not want to be disparaging and say what I think of such an attitude, so I prefer to be silent on this point! : - /

Too bad for you if you want to convince YOU with your "personal will", rather than doing it "scientifically" ...

But in the meantime, stop saying a little bit to say "it would work" in YOUR CASE, in zero emissions to heat old traditional houses (even stone) such as TIENNE. Because that's what we're talking about. Until proven otherwise, you still know absolutely nothing about it, and even, basically, you are not so convinced yourself, since you considered for a time that the idea of ​​the "proto", was not zero.

Your link - adapted to your case - doesn't even have the value of a proto, since they use an auxiliary gas power plant. As much as you could not do without a heat pump or additional wood heating ...

Then you did not solve the problem of "cheap" drilling, you say it yourself ... Bringing up the earth with water under pressure is not exactly the same as rubble ... Attention ! Mébon, since your proto is not necessary ...

In the meantime, stop calling “panacea” a bit, a solution that would only possibly work in 1% of cases! Thank you.