Home Improvement Asked by Matthias Duyck on April 21, 2021
This is from a typical North Western European housing perspective where most (older) buildings will not have forced air/AC/heat pumps etc. for various reasons, and most houses are only heated using gas powered central heating with water based radiators for transport. This means if you want fresh air in winter, you’re opening a window and wasting energy in the air that was heated.
I understand the workings of forced air-to-air heat exchangers and how they can warm or cool fresh air coming in and how that could improve the energy loss situation. My question is, is it that much better than just forcing fresh air in to mingle with the stale air and having the over-pressure leak out, perhaps at the opposite end of a room or low to the ground where it is colder?
Of course I understand that you will lose some efficiency over a heat exchanger, as you will be leaking a mix of air containing also a lot of stale energy out that has not properly transferred energy. But is it that much worse considering the added complexity of a heat exchanger? Any other downsides/advantages I should be aware of?
This is a simple question requiring a complex answer...!
What you are asking is the cost-benefit tradeoff of installing a heat exchanger. How much will you save on heating costs, vs what does it cost to purchase and operate the exchanger. And you wish to compare that to forced air ventilation.
Factors to consider:
This linked article shows a pay-back time of 5-years, but of course, it all depends on your parameters. The data in these calculations use imperial units, but it's a good example. You'll find similar calculations elsewhere, and I wouldn't be surprised if your local energy supplier has some detailed data, considering the cost of energy and your climate (Belgium? Netherlands?)
https://home-energy.extension.org/cost-effectiveness-of-installing-heat-exchangers/
Personally I have found that in mild climates (North West Europe, Western Canada / North Western USA) the heat loss due to cracked-open windows or natural ventilation pales in comparison to the house's heat lost through building envelope cracks & radiation losses. The heat exchanger makes much more sense in areas with long winters down to -10C ... -20C.
One reason is the obvious temperature of the taken-in air, but the other is the local building code for insulation. Milder climate regions often have looser insulation requirements, and so the total energy loss is less impacted by ventilation.
Correct answer by P2000 on April 21, 2021
In my son's new build, he did a lot of research on HRV bc his is a hyper energy efficient new home. He selected Lunos modules (made in Germany, I believe). The American source is linked below. They are pretty pricey! I know this borders on a product recommendation, but just wanted to share what he found. I installed them.
They have 3 speeds and 2 modes of operation. In HRV mode, they cycle every 70 seconds between pulling in air and removing it. They accomplish the HRV via a heat absorbing matrix that the air goes thru. They are paired so one is pulling air in and the other is removing it, so as to avoid a pressure differential in the house. Then after 70 seconds they reverse rolls to recapture the heat from the HRV medium.
Best placement per pair are as far away as possible. They are super quiet. They are powered by low voltage cable (T-stat cable) from the control box which consists of a transformer and a mode selector. I think they draw about 5-7 watts each!
He and his wife & kids have been in the house for a few months now, his electric bill is very very low (did a mini-split system) and he really likes how it turned out.
Answered by George Anderson on April 21, 2021
Get help from others!
Recent Questions
Recent Answers
© 2024 TransWikia.com. All rights reserved. Sites we Love: PCI Database, UKBizDB, Menu Kuliner, Sharing RPP