REPP logo banner adsolstice ad
site map
Google Search REPP WWW register comment
home
repp
energy and environment
discussion groups
calendar
gem
about us
employment
 
REPP-CREST
1612 K Street, NW
Suite 202
Washington, DC 20006
contact us
discussion groups
efficiencyefficiency hydrogenhydrogen solarsolar windwind geothermalgeothermal bioenergybioenergy hydrohydro policypolicy
Greenbuilding Archive for April 2001
307 messages, last added Tue Nov 26 17:25:16 2002

[Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [GBlist] Zero Energy House on Washington Mall (fwd)



Ted: Have I offended you too in another life? I don't recall, so please explain why you failed to correct the clear ignorance of standard engineering terms displayed by John Herbert, John D'Angelo & Malcolm. I seemed to have incurred their rath for merely quoting from various reports; including the DOE evaluation of GFX that assumed "100%" Conversion Efficiency (CE) in the "Table 1" inserted below. Maybe Milton Pravda, an NBS (now NIST) Grant evaluator rounded off 99.5% to 100%. 
 
    The report by Old Dominion U. summarized @ www.oikos.com/gfx/tests.html actually measured the Energy Factor (EF) of several "green-bundles" and reported the EF range of a tankless water heater as 0.98 to 1.0. They used standard experimental procedures and may have rounded off a meter reading of 99.5%, for all I know. Call them to complain for not quoting 0.99999999 +/- ????.
 
                            Would you have me misquote these reports?
 
    Also, the definition of CE is (Hot-Water-Power-Out/Site-Power-In). The denominator does not include "source" power at either a power plant, gas well, oil well, or the Sun! Similarly, the definition of EF for a water heater is (Hot-Water-Energy-Out/Site-Energy-In) over a specific time period with a given hot-water draw schedule.
 
    If you take issue when one rounds off a measurement to 100%, will you become aghast when the standard measurement of EF exceeds unity if applied to heat pump water heater (HPWH) and DHR systems?
 
    Like-it-or-not, standard definitions for EF & CE can both exceed unity (100%) if either a HPWH or GFX is bundled with a tank-type electric water heater. Domestic HPWH's like Hot Shot or Environmaster cannot be bundled with tankless water heaters. Consequently, standing loss causes the water heater EF to fall below the heat pump's C.O.P. That's why the Old Dominion report shows an EF range between 1.7 & 1.9 for a GFX-Tankless Bundle compared 1.33 & 1.57 for a HPWH/Tank-Type Bundle.

TABLE 1
SIMPLE PAYBACK SUMMARY FOR REDESIGNED THIN-FILM HEAT EXCHANGER
Source: DOE Grant Evaluation of GFX Recommendation No. 382, OERI No. 009925 Dec. 1986

Energy Source

Conversion

Efficiency

Energy Cost

Dollar Savings

per Year

Simple Payback in Years

(Without Interest)

Electrical

100%

8.66¢.kWh

103.49

2.09

Natural Gas

76%

$6.35/106 Btu

34.09

6.34

Oil

55%

$1.00/gallon

53.48

4.04

Notes:    1. Energy saving for an average household is 1195 Kw-hr thermal per year.
             2. Installed cost of heat exchanger is $216. [New Construction]
(Table entries are based on Pravda's 53% design. Today's version, Doucette's Model G3-60 offers over 60% efficiency)

    Are we having fun yet?
Carmine
=====================================================
WaterFilm Energy Inc.; P.O. Box 128; Medford, NY 11763
Voice: 631-758-6271 [Fax: 631-758-0438]
Email: gfx-ch@msn.com Web: http://oikos.com/gfx/
=====================================================
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ted Shelton" <ted655@hotmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2001 12:20 AM
Subject: Re: [GBlist] Zero Energy House on Washington Mall (fwd)

>      PORTION of previous POST....  Of course, Carmine was referring to a
> "local" efficiency,
> Malcolm is correct, at the best plants in the world the overall
> energy conversation efficiency is at best only 36%, mainly
> due the primer mover loss and transmission losses.
>
> Electric water heating is convenient to the home user,
> but the overall efficiency is very, very low indeed.
>
> Regards,
> John Herbert
> _______________
>     if electrical resistive heat is the most expensive form, then, in the
> final end how is it efficient? I can understand easy, reliable, safer, less
> per unit bought, faster install, more versatile-- but I don't see the
> efficiency claim. At least based on BTUs-Watts.
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at
http://explorer.msn.com
>