Summer geothermal solar heating project for winter

[Obamot]

Obamot sinks Did67, by not trying to meet its precise objective with EPFL and the infinity of possible solutions, very expensive.
He should stop his bashing action [...] with his avalanche of fallacies !! [...]

Uh, it's not fair to say that. everyone will have been able to assess, thatat no point did I disparage anyone or anything in my post. So calm down, it would be better not to start again.

I consider that there are "two schools":
- one with multiple wells (Canadian)
- the other with one or two wells ... (increased geothermal energy).

They're worth what they're worth ... and they are not to be opposed, since they have different fields of application. Furthermore, none is particularly economical to carry out compared to the other (until proven otherwise).

So I don't really see where the problem is?
So let's stop eating for nothing. Thank you

[dedeleco]

Drowning in a big scoundrel wave from EPFL is enough to sink the ship !!

[Obamot]

Dedeleco who talks about fallacies ...?! He must be the only one to think that of my posts!

In this word, there is notably an intention to harm. So beware of semantics ...

In addition, everyone can give information in a forum, after each to form his opinion. Isn't that how it works?

Well, now there is one here who should put his jealousy (or something ...?) On the back burner, he who claims to be "scientific world " unless you consider yourself a villain: you shouldn't have a reason to be in a forum where we share everything ..!

[chatelot16]

the storage of solar energy in summer to heat the winter seems to be already well used in holland, but by storing directly in the aquifer!

the advantage is that there is no need to truffle the soil with a large number of boreholes: in a good aquifer a single borehole can pump a large amount of water
http://www.fruits-et-legumes.net/ACTUAL ... uifere.pdf

the heat returned ranges from 75% to 0% depending on the behavior of the aquifer

I can see that in Holland with huge greenhouse surfaces that can heat a huge amount of water ... I have less hope for a small installation and a tablecloth that flows in the direction of the Rhine

but despite everything we see in this pdf a simulation with a flow speed of the water table of 0,8m / d which does not seem to be catastrophic

[dedeleco]

Obamot, forget that 'injecting lime milk (simplified and ecological cement) under a few Bars, this lime seeps far into the loess or sand, then slowly sending air with CO2, this cheap lime insinuated very far, slowly becomes again, the good solid limestone CaCO2 at the start, solid, dear to chatelot16, blocking the circulation of water, with certainty and not expensive at all !!!!

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaux_%28mati%C3%A8re%29

So we can seal this loess everywhere at the bottom and on the periphery, to the point that the water remains trapped in this loess, like a nice cheap tank !!!

Only the price is to be studied, but it will be much lower than that of other less ecological junk !!

And there are no unknowns on the flow of the aquifer.

[Obamot]

Well why not, indeed !!!

Cement milk can be made with all kinds of things:
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ciment

... depending on the goal. Whose lime ... certain cases require adding latex-type adjuvants to the mixture, or even a "mass water repellent"...

I said no less, already here:
https://www.econologie.com/forums/post232569.html#232569

[Did67]

it seems to me quite possible ... but does not exist commercially ... it would look like a heat pump, but with a piston engine instead of the compressor

Yes, it exists!

Stirling engines: http://www.whispergen-europe.com/productspec_fr.php

Rankine engines: http://www.exoes.com/index.php?p=3&PHPS ... f75m3&l=FR

But this is not what I wanted to do! 90% of lost energy remains, in this case ...

[chatelot16]

with your figures, electrical energy is sold 5 times more expensive than thermal energy

a 10% efficiency thermal engine therefore yields just half the sale of heat at 3euro / kwh ... it is always better than losing completely

but I see your concern coming: you have to value more than 70% of your heat to be entitled to the best price for buying electricity ... I still see something a little stupid ... but we have to do with

so you have to look for customers a little further to sell heat ... and the pipes are expensive

is there any other house nearby that could be interested in this heat? even if the length of the pipe is not immediately profitable for energy, but is justified to be sure to sell more than 70% of the heat

[chatelot16]

...

[Did67]

1) Yes, there is also the idea of ​​passing the 70% recovery milestone, but it is not essential. Nothing tells me, moreover, that underground storage will be recognized. And many tell me that it would probably be the opposite! At best, it would be energy recovered. But ultimately, we always come across someone who interprets the texts in their own way; When it comes to paying, it's never won.

2) No, the main difficulty is that we have a lot of heat intermittently! Not favorable to Stirling or Rankine! They should be rotated 365 days a year!

If it is necessary to add buffers, etc ... We will lose temperature, therefore yield, with additional costs ...