"raden" wrote in message
...
In message , Solar Flare
writes
Stop whining about using it when it doesn't work.

Just so far from having a first clue

prime presidential material there


Good luck with that.

"raden" wrote in message
...
In message , Solar Flare
writes
ditto.

Cutting off the text below the signature is ***YOUR*** browser's
problem. Don't blame others for it.

'Scuse me you septic ****

that's the point of a sig sep - to remove what comes under it
from
subsequent posts

but then, you're arrogant and stupid, a bit of a waste of time
telling
you

--
geoff



--
geoff

"Doctor Drivel" wrote in message
reenews.net...

"Solar Flare" wrote in message
...
Stop whining about using it when it doesn't work.

** plonk **

It seems to me that the glycol/heat exchanger system has a lot more
cost and risks than the simple drain-back system described. For one,
the heat exchanger will cost several hundred dollars itself, although
it depends upon the heat storage tank being used. I believe a
drainback can also be the heat storage tank. For another, it will not
be as efficient as directly pumping the water--the exchanger will lose
some of the heat, putting it into the ambient temperature of the room
if it's a closet install. Then, the extra equipment involved means
more things will go wrong generally.

In message , Solar Flare
writes

.... Absolutely nothing

'kin forriners

--
geoff

wrote in message

Lets say it saves £20 a year heating dhw only.

Energy Cost Savings and Return on Investment [ROI]:

.. An average family of four uses 70 gallons of hot water per day -
.. at a cost of $480 per year*
.. The typical solar water heater will save 80% of heating costs -
.. or $384.00 per year
.. A typical heater with hardware will cost:
.. Do-it-yourself Kit - $1750
.. Contractor installation - $2700
.. The tax-free return on investment would be:
.. Do-it-yourself Kit - 21.7% ROI [$384 / $1766]
.. Contractor installation - 14.2% ROI [$384 / $2700]

*Based on 72°F incoming water heated to 140°F in Florida with an electric
rate of $0.09 per kilowatt plus standby heat loss from a new water heater.
Your savings may vary based on your usage, temperature, climate and electric
rate.

Calculate your own Tax-Free Return On Investment [ROI]:

$ _____ Estimated Savings
$ _____ Divided by Unit Cost
%_____ Equals ROI
http://shop.solardirect.com/product_...roducts_id=188




-

On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 20:05:40 -0500, Solar Flare wrote:

Stop whining about using it when it doesn't work.

Good luck with that.

PLONK

--
Scorched Earth Party: Seeing the world through
blood-colored glasses.

In article ,
says...

"David Hansen" wrote in message
...

Differing systems and differing usage patterns and requirements make a BIG
difference in the decision. Being prepared to wait for the HW is a big
help whereas always wanting instant HW works against the solar methods.

How many domestic hot water systems ALWAYS want instant hot water?

And even if they want it, do they NEED it?

It's nice to have but not essential.


It can depend on your personal schedule. If you have to take a
shower early in the morning, before going to work, then you
aren't going to have time for a solar system to heat up some
water.

If you don't need to be showered and out the door so early, then
you can wait.

Sure, you could just take cold showers all the time, but that
would be a real bummer.


--
Want Freebies?
http://www.TheFreeStuffList.com/
Check The Free Stuff List

On Wed, 8 Mar 2006 20:22:41 -0800 someone who may be Antipodean
Bucket Farmer wrote this:-

If you have to take a
shower early in the morning, before going to work, then you
aren't going to have time for a solar system to heat up some
water.

If the hot water cylinder is properly insulated then there should be
plenty of solar heated water for a shower or two in the morning.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 20:11:33 -0500 someone who may be Steve Spence
wrote this:-

top or bottom posting has nothing to do with content interest.

In my experience it does.

What I hate is scrolling through three pages of reposted
material

Indeed. However, that has absolutely nothing to do with whether
someone posts their reply at the top or the bottom. Rather it
depends on whether the poster is polite enough to trim unnecessary
material.

I also find those that don't trim generally have little interesting
to say.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On Wed, 8 Mar 2006 18:03:05 -0500
"Solar Flare" wrote:

I personally find that most people disregard bottom posts at all if
they are long and not really hot topics.

Why is it that top posters think the alternative is bottom
posting and in either case quoting the whole original. Doesn't anyone read
RFCs anymore ?

The effort is too high to scroll to the bottom of the post and then
back up to find the first text that isn't indented and has a ID/header
of the poster somewhere at the top end of the post.

The idea is to quote enough material and only that much to
establish context and reply beneath the quted material in interleaved
style. There is no need to scroll to the bottom of the post.

What a stupid system bottom posting was before threading browsers.

Quoting the entire message and putting a response at either end is
stupid. The normal USENET convention predates browsers by more than a
decade.

--
C:WIN | Directable Mirror Arrays
The computer obeys and wins. | A better way to focus the sun
You lose and Bill collects. | licences available see
| http://www.sohara.org/

"David Hansen" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 8 Mar 2006 20:22:41 -0800 someone who may be Antipodean
Bucket Farmer wrote this:-

If you have to take a
shower early in the morning, before going to work, then you
aren't going to have time for a solar system to heat up some
water.

If the hot water cylinder is properly insulated then there should be
plenty of solar heated water for a shower or two in the morning.

I had a full morning bath the other day from the previous day's sun.

Mary

"raden" wrote in message
...
In message , Solar Flare
writes

... Absolutely nothing

'kin forriners

Maxie, he is not quite. He is Moose ****er. He salutes the Queen (God bless
her cotton socks).

"Mark" wrote in message
...

wrote in message

Lets say it saves £20 a year heating dhw only.

Energy Cost Savings and Return on Investment [ROI]:

. An average family of four uses 70 gallons of hot water per day -
. at a cost of $480 per year*
. The typical solar water heater will save 80% of heating costs -

It might do in Florida, not in cloudy northerly regions.

. or $384.00 per year
. A typical heater with hardware will cost:
. Do-it-yourself Kit - $1750
. Contractor installation - $2700
. The tax-free return on investment would be:
. Do-it-yourself Kit - 21.7% ROI [$384 / $1766]
. Contractor installation - 14.2% ROI [$384 / $2700]

*Based on 72°F incoming water heated to 140°F in Florida with an electric
rate of $0.09 per kilowatt plus standby heat loss from a new water heater.
Your savings may vary based on your usage, temperature, climate and
electric
rate.

Calculate your own Tax-Free Return On Investment [ROI]:

$ _____ Estimated Savings
$ _____ Divided by Unit Cost
%_____ Equals ROI
http://shop.solardirect.com/product_...roducts_id=188




-

On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 15:41:59 -0400 someone who may be Derek
Broughton wrote this:-

There is no such thing as zero risk.

Agreed, but that seems at odds with what you then typed.

how do you guarantee that it's always sufficiently drained?



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

daestrom wrote:

I cut my DHW heating by somewhere between 1/3 and 1/2 by installing a
waste-water heat-exchanger. Running hot water for a shower and letting
all
the energy go down the drain (literally), just doesn't make sense. Of
course, this system only recovers heat from *running* water, so baths and
dish washing doesn't affect it.

I leave the dish-water in the sink until it reaches room temperature. It's a
little too low-tech for my taste, but it works :-)

I have one of the largest units and it is a two-pass type so is not the
most
efficient model they have. Mine cost only about $270, did the
installation myself.

http://www.gfxtechnology.com/

I wish I'd known about those earlier. I can't see a way to retrofit one to
work with my main bathroom - slab on grade, all the plumbing through the
slab. I could recover waste heat from the second bathroom & kitchen.
--
derek

David Hansen wrote:

On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 15:41:59 -0400 someone who may be Derek
Broughton wrote this:-

There is no such thing as zero risk.

Agreed, but that seems at odds with what you then typed.

how do you guarantee that it's always sufficiently drained?

I don't follow? My entire point is if you can't guarantee that - or even
that it's a vanishingly small likelihood - then it's too risky for most
Canadian homeowners. It'll work for most folks in the UK. When I was a
child outside London, we would only rarely have frozen pipes in completely
uninsulated outside walls. A little insulation eliminates the problem
completely. When you have to spend weeks with temperatures well below
freezing, it's a whole different matter.
--
derek

David Hansen wrote:

On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 15:58:30 -0400 someone who may be Derek
Broughton wrote this:-

Handling them... Maybe they're tougher than they look, but something so
like a 4' fluorescent tube doesn't inspire confidence.

The glass is rather stronger than that found in fluorescent tubes.

An engineer friend tells me that they also frequently suffer from
seal failure.

That certainly was a problem with some designs.

Why would you put a lip there?

Why personalise the discussion by asking what I would do?

Sorry, why would one put a lip there? Really, it's not personal, it's just
a matter of not buying poor designs.

The fact
is that there is likely to be a small lip, if only to retain things.

No need for it to be anything more than a millimeter.

I have no idea how much attention manufacturers pay to detailing in
terms of shedding snow, but I imagine UK manufacturers pay it no
attention.

otoh, I was talking about a local Nova Scotian manufacturer, who put a _lot_
of thought into snow...
--
derek

wrote:

SJC wrote:
"Tony Wesley" wrote in message
oups.com...
wrote:
What exactly is the risk you refer to in a system designed to be
riskless?

The risk that the system will not work exactly as designed.

These guys show a draindown system as one of their options.
I don't think that they would recommend something unproven.
http://www.thermomax.com/Drain%20Down%20DHW.htm

"Those guys" show a system that is reliable as long as that valve opens.
Also, what makes you think they're "recommending something" for northern
climates - they're in Maryland, for heavens sake!

Why does he think there is a risk of incompetent engineering in one
system but not another?

Valves fail. It's not incompetent engineering.

In a glycol-loop system, even if the pump breaks down there's no risk of
flooding. Even if it gets cold enough to freeze the glycol (!!) you have
at most a few gallons of it in the loop. So far, all you've told me about
drain-down systems is that they're safe. Convince me.
--
derek

Solar Flare wrote:

ditto.

Cutting off the text below the signature is ***YOUR*** browser's
problem. Don't blame others for it.

Don't be an ass. It's a recognized convention that "-- " indicates
end-of-text, and _most_ newsreaders truncate everything after that to avoid
everybody forwarding all the unnecessary .sigs. It's really simple to just
ensure that, if you must top post, you don't supply a .sig beginning with
"-- "
--
derek

On Thu, 09 Mar 2006 09:26:23 -0400 someone who may be Derek
Broughton wrote this:-

There is no such thing as zero risk.

Agreed, but that seems at odds with what you then typed.

how do you guarantee that it's always sufficiently drained?

I don't follow?

If there is no such thing as zero risk then wanting a guarantee is a
trifle strange.

My entire point is if you can't guarantee that - or even
that it's a vanishingly small likelihood

Zero risk and as low as reasonably practical are two different
things.

When you have to spend weeks with temperatures well below
freezing, it's a whole different matter.

Indeed. There are a number of countries that have lots of snow to
contend with, for at least part of the year, including Canada.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

"daestrom" wrote in message
...

"Derek Broughton" wrote in message
...
Ron Purvis wrote:

I think you are off on your figures. According to
http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/solar/apps/sdhw/dhwsave.htm the typical home
uses
20 gallons of hot water per day for the first two persons and 15 gallons
of hot water for each additional person. That would be 25,550 gallons of
hot water per year for a family of four.

OK, I'll accept those numbers. Anyone got a better figure on the average
cost of heating water? My numbers for heat required are, if anything, on
the low side, but at $25/million BTU, and only 25,000 gallons per year,
you're talking $250/year (somebody else said $20/month, so same
ballpark).
Still plenty to make a commercial solar water heater pay off.


I cut my DHW heating by somewhere between 1/3 and 1/2 by installing a
waste-water heat-exchanger. Running hot water for a shower and letting
all the energy go down the drain (literally), just doesn't make sense. Of
course, this system only recovers heat from *running* water, so baths and
dish washing doesn't affect it.

I have one of the largest units and it is a two-pass type so is not the
most efficient model they have. Mine cost only about $270, did the
installation myself.

http://www.gfxtechnology.com/

Use one of these and save 1/3 of DHW costs, install solar panels and cut 50%
of that and add one of these and DHW should cost a penny or two.

Zenex, in Plymouth has introduced a "top box" that fits on a condensing
boiler's flue (patented). Out of the boiler into the box and out again to
outside. The return pipe pass through the top-box and out to the boilers
return. This appears a big "leap" in making condensers more efficient.

They announced it pre-Xmas, but now it is on sale.
http://www.zenexenergy.com/downloads/HVR10-REPRINT.pdf
http://www.zenexenergy.com/

It extracts even more latent heat from the flue of a condensing boiler.
They claim, with some independent validation, that a "condensing" boiler can
save 30% of its heating bills. There are no moving parts.

They claim that a combi (for US people a combined hydronic boiler and
on-demand DHW heater) can deliver 50% more water flow for the same input -
so a 12 litres per min job will be 18 litres, a big hype that fills a bath
pretty fast instead of a leisurely fill.

They are developing a 15kW combi that delivers 12 litres/min - a little
better than the average combi around. 12 litres is normally only achieved
by a 28kW boiler. So, at 15Kw it is not oversized for the CH in flats, and
the case size can be kept down.

They plan a box for a non-condensing boilers too, that will bring
non-condenser into condensing territory.

They claim the price will fall from £595 as production gears up. If it gets
to half, and it does what they say, then this is copst effective and can
save a lot of fuel, the bigger the house the more fuel saved.

David Hansen wrote:

On Thu, 09 Mar 2006 09:26:23 -0400 someone who may be Derek
Broughton wrote this:-

There is no such thing as zero risk.

Agreed, but that seems at odds with what you then typed.

how do you guarantee that it's always sufficiently drained?

I don't follow?

If there is no such thing as zero risk then wanting a guarantee is a
trifle strange.

I beg to differ. I've made it quite clear that, imo, one can not get the
risks to an acceptable level for my climate. It doesn't matter whether
such a situation is achievable.

My entire point is if you can't guarantee that - or even
that it's a vanishingly small likelihood

Zero risk and as low as reasonably practical are two different
things.

I'm not even interested in "as low as reasonably practical". "Practical",
from the engineers viewpoint, means there will be failures.

When you have to spend weeks with temperatures well below
freezing, it's a whole different matter.

Indeed. There are a number of countries that have lots of snow to
contend with, for at least part of the year, including Canada.

Snow's a smaller problem than cold. In fact, we don't get much snow when it
gets really cold.
--
derek

On Thu, 9 Mar 2006 15:21:57 -0000 Doctor Drivel wrote :
It extracts even more latent heat from the flue of a condensing
boiler. They claim, with some independent validation, that a
"condensing" boiler can save 30% of its heating bills. There are
no moving parts.

My Glow-worm 28CXi is 90.3% efficient so by my understanding at full
burn that's 31kW being burned and 3kW going out the flue. And they
are going to save me 30% of that 31kW = 9.3kW extracted from 3kW.
I'll pass.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser http://www.sda.co.uk/qsedbuk.htm
[Latest version QSEDBUK 1.12 released 8 Dec 2005]

Calculated using 13C/KW not 9c for a start

Remember this new thing call ed fuel recovery charge - well we get stuffed
with it and it is going up again this month

Our KW cost 2 years ago was one of the lowest in the US at 7c/KW

Figure it out

Granted I have a high electric bill from other things but HOT water is
defintely the highest cost


--

David B Turner
Island Computers US Corp
2700 Gregory St, Suite 180
Savannah GA 31404
Tel: 912 447 6622 X201
Cell: 912 447 6622 X252
Fax: 912 201 0402
Email:
Web: http://www.islandco.com
=====================================
All orders are subject to the following terms and conditions
of sale. These should be read before ordering.
http://www.islandco.com/warranty.html

"Doctor Drivel" wrote in message
reenews.net...

"Mark" wrote in message
...

wrote in message

Lets say it saves £20 a year heating dhw only.

Energy Cost Savings and Return on Investment [ROI]:

. An average family of four uses 70 gallons of hot water per day -
. at a cost of $480 per year*
. The typical solar water heater will save 80% of heating costs -

It might do in Florida, not in cloudy northerly regions.

. or $384.00 per year
. A typical heater with hardware will cost:
. Do-it-yourself Kit - $1750
. Contractor installation - $2700
. The tax-free return on investment would be:
. Do-it-yourself Kit - 21.7% ROI [$384 / $1766]
. Contractor installation - 14.2% ROI [$384 / $2700]

*Based on 72°F incoming water heated to 140°F in Florida with an
electric
rate of $0.09 per kilowatt plus standby heat loss from a new water
heater.
Your savings may vary based on your usage, temperature, climate and
electric
rate.

Calculate your own Tax-Free Return On Investment [ROI]:

$ _____ Estimated Savings
$ _____ Divided by Unit Cost
%_____ Equals ROI
http://shop.solardirect.com/product_...roducts_id=188




-

OH

Keep in mind we have to wash at least once a day
I am from the UK but have developed the habit of washing every day instead
of every week
I the UK you can get away with it (washing only your smelly bits!) but here
you stink about 9 months out of the
year in 90F+ weather if you don't shower

Oh - someone takes a bath in our house maybe twice a year.
And showers are for about 10 Minutes max

What else uses crap loads of power

Dishwasher? Robert Bosch - good quiet one
Electric Dryer? Maytag New within last 3years
Pool Pump? 1.25HP
Washer (does not heat water)

Comments


--

David B Turner
Island Computers US Corp
2700 Gregory St, Suite 180
Savannah GA 31404
Tel: 912 447 6622 X201
Cell: 912 447 6622 X252
Fax: 912 201 0402
Email:
Web: http://www.islandco.com
=====================================
All orders are subject to the following terms and conditions
of sale. These should be read before ordering.
http://www.islandco.com/warranty.html

"Doctor Drivel" wrote in message
reenews.net...

"Mark" wrote in message
...

wrote in message

Lets say it saves £20 a year heating dhw only.

Energy Cost Savings and Return on Investment [ROI]:

. An average family of four uses 70 gallons of hot water per day -
. at a cost of $480 per year*
. The typical solar water heater will save 80% of heating costs -

It might do in Florida, not in cloudy northerly regions.

. or $384.00 per year
. A typical heater with hardware will cost:
. Do-it-yourself Kit - $1750
. Contractor installation - $2700
. The tax-free return on investment would be:
. Do-it-yourself Kit - 21.7% ROI [$384 / $1766]
. Contractor installation - 14.2% ROI [$384 / $2700]

*Based on 72°F incoming water heated to 140°F in Florida with an
electric
rate of $0.09 per kilowatt plus standby heat loss from a new water
heater.
Your savings may vary based on your usage, temperature, climate and
electric
rate.

Calculate your own Tax-Free Return On Investment [ROI]:

$ _____ Estimated Savings
$ _____ Divided by Unit Cost
%_____ Equals ROI
http://shop.solardirect.com/product_...roducts_id=188




-

In message , "David Turner,
Island Computers US Corp" writes
Calculated using 13C/KW not 9c for a start

Remember this new thing call ed fuel recovery charge - well we get stuffed
with it and it is going up again this month

Our KW cost 2 years ago was one of the lowest in the US at 7c/KW

Figure it out

Granted I have a high electric bill from other things but HOT water is
defintely the highest cost


The computer illiterate wannabe septic's done it again

no context because what he was replying to follows his sig sep

here ...



"--

David B Turner
Island Computers US Corp
2700 Gregory St, Suite 180
Savannah GA 31404
Tel: 912 447 6622 X201
Cell: 912 447 6622 X252
Fax: 912 201 0402
Email:
Web: http://www.islandco.com
=====================================
All orders are subject to the following terms and conditions
of sale. These should be read before ordering.
http://www.islandco.com/warranty.html

"Doctor Drivel" wrote in message
reenews.net...

"Mark" wrote in message
...

wrote in message

Lets say it saves £20 a year heating dhw only.

Energy Cost Savings and Return on Investment [ROI]:

. An average family of four uses 70 gallons of hot water per day -
. at a cost of $480 per year*
. The typical solar water heater will save 80% of heating costs -

It might do in Florida, not in cloudy northerly regions.

. or $384.00 per year
. A typical heater with hardware will cost:
. Do-it-yourself Kit - $1750
. Contractor installation - $2700
. The tax-free return on investment would be:
. Do-it-yourself Kit - 21.7% ROI [$384 / $1766]
. Contractor installation - 14.2% ROI [$384 / $2700]

etc, etc"


--
geoff

"Doctor Drivel" wrote in message
reenews.net...

"daestrom" wrote in message
...

"Derek Broughton" wrote in message
...
Ron Purvis wrote:

I think you are off on your figures. According to
http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/solar/apps/sdhw/dhwsave.htm the typical home
uses
20 gallons of hot water per day for the first two persons and 15
gallons
of hot water for each additional person. That would be 25,550 gallons
of
hot water per year for a family of four.

OK, I'll accept those numbers. Anyone got a better figure on the
average
cost of heating water? My numbers for heat required are, if anything,
on
the low side, but at $25/million BTU, and only 25,000 gallons per year,
you're talking $250/year (somebody else said $20/month, so same
ballpark).
Still plenty to make a commercial solar water heater pay off.


I cut my DHW heating by somewhere between 1/3 and 1/2 by installing a
waste-water heat-exchanger. Running hot water for a shower and letting
all the energy go down the drain (literally), just doesn't make sense.
Of course, this system only recovers heat from *running* water, so baths
and dish washing doesn't affect it.

I have one of the largest units and it is a two-pass type so is not the
most efficient model they have. Mine cost only about $270, did the
installation myself.

http://www.gfxtechnology.com/

What was the payback period?

I have a family of five. Even with a low-flow shower head, that works out
to about 34000 gallons of water a year. Of course it's mixed hot and cold
to create just a nice 'warm' shower of about 100F. The average year-round
water supply temp for me is 55F. So that works out to about 127 Therms of
NG a year. When I bought the thing, NG was $0.80/therm. The payback with
that 5% interest on $270 worked out to just about three years. With NG
prices running $1.30/therm, it's under 2 years. But mine has already paid
for itself.

daestrom

"David Turner, Island Computers US Corp" wrote in
message ...
OH

Keep in mind we have to wash at least once a day
I am from the UK but have developed the habit of washing every day instead
of every week
I the UK you can get away with it (washing only your smelly bits!) but
here
you stink about 9 months out of the
year in 90F+ weather if you don't shower

Oh - someone takes a bath in our house maybe twice a year.
And showers are for about 10 Minutes max



You're British and you don't have COLD baths and showers???

You must be from the s**th!

Mary


--

David B Turner
Island Computers US Corp
2700 Gregory St, Suite 180
Savannah GA 31404
Tel: 912 447 6622 X201
Cell: 912 447 6622 X252
Fax: 912 201 0402
Email:
Web: http://www.islandco.com
=====================================
All orders are subject to the following terms and conditions
of sale. These should be read before ordering.
http://www.islandco.com/warranty.html

"Doctor Drivel" wrote in message
reenews.net...

"Mark" wrote in message
...

wrote in message

Lets say it saves £20 a year heating dhw only.

Energy Cost Savings and Return on Investment [ROI]:

. An average family of four uses 70 gallons of hot water per day -
. at a cost of $480 per year*
. The typical solar water heater will save 80% of heating costs -

It might do in Florida, not in cloudy northerly regions.

. or $384.00 per year
. A typical heater with hardware will cost:
. Do-it-yourself Kit - $1750
. Contractor installation - $2700
. The tax-free return on investment would be:
. Do-it-yourself Kit - 21.7% ROI [$384 / $1766]
. Contractor installation - 14.2% ROI [$384 / $2700]

*Based on 72°F incoming water heated to 140°F in Florida with an
electric
rate of $0.09 per kilowatt plus standby heat loss from a new water
heater.
Your savings may vary based on your usage, temperature, climate and
electric
rate.

Calculate your own Tax-Free Return On Investment [ROI]:

$ _____ Estimated Savings
$ _____ Divided by Unit Cost
%_____ Equals ROI
http://shop.solardirect.com/product_...roducts_id=188




-

wrote in message
...
Derek Broughton wrote:

"Those guys" show a system that is reliable as long as that valve opens.

Aha. I've been thinking drainBACK, as in "the water drains back when the
pump
stops, by gravity, with no valve."


Unless there is a permanent vent at the top, it won't 'drainBACK'. Of
course if there *is* a permanent vent at the top, you may need a way to
catch the water that comes out the vent when the pump is running (unless you
like ice on your roof). And it would be preferable that you don't have to
go up on the roof to clear out the vent and catchment in the dead of winter
with a foot of snow on the roof.

If single valve failure is a great concern, then two valves is a simple way
of providing redundancy. Of course, depending how the system is configured,
two check valves may provide quite high reliability. But then you probably
will need more pumping power with vents, so it may not be worth it all.

daestrom

"daestrom" wrote in message
...

"Doctor Drivel" wrote in message
reenews.net...

"daestrom" wrote in message
...

"Derek Broughton" wrote in message
...
Ron Purvis wrote:

I think you are off on your figures. According to
http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/solar/apps/sdhw/dhwsave.htm the typical home
uses
20 gallons of hot water per day for the first two persons and 15
gallons
of hot water for each additional person. That would be 25,550 gallons
of
hot water per year for a family of four.

OK, I'll accept those numbers. Anyone got a better figure on the
average
cost of heating water? My numbers for heat required are, if anything,
on
the low side, but at $25/million BTU, and only 25,000 gallons per year,
you're talking $250/year (somebody else said $20/month, so same
ballpark).
Still plenty to make a commercial solar water heater pay off.


I cut my DHW heating by somewhere between 1/3 and 1/2 by installing a
waste-water heat-exchanger. Running hot water for a shower and letting
all the energy go down the drain (literally), just doesn't make sense.
Of course, this system only recovers heat from *running* water, so baths
and dish washing doesn't affect it.

I have one of the largest units and it is a two-pass type so is not the
most efficient model they have. Mine cost only about $270, did the
installation myself.

http://www.gfxtechnology.com/

What was the payback period?

I have a family of five. Even with a low-flow shower head, that works out
to about 34000 gallons of water a year. Of course it's mixed hot and cold
to create just a nice 'warm' shower of about 100F. The average year-round
water supply temp for me is 55F. So that works out to about 127 Therms of
NG a year. When I bought the thing, NG was $0.80/therm. The payback with
that 5% interest on $270 worked out to just about three years. With NG
prices running $1.30/therm, it's under 2 years. But mine has already paid
for itself.

Nice one daestrom, you obviously did your homework on payback. This company
have been threatening to setup in the UK (or have an agent) for a time.
Googling brings up some very encouraging feedback, and seems a better
investment than solar. The US government sites speak highly of it.

Unfortunately most homes here don't have basements, as they do in the USA,
so difficult to locate in a house. I see they have just brought out a batch
processing unit that can be located anywhere, so clawing back bathwater is
possible not just shower water. They use a controller and pump, so more
complicated. As my 4 year girl likes splashing about in a bath, the payback
might be a bit longer for me using the shower version.

But looks like they can be DIYed. One copper inside another, differential
controller and a pump. They work by the water spiralling around the pipes
and sticking to the sides as gravity pulls the water down. If a pump forced
water through too fast maybe it would not do this and heat wasted. Just a
thought. The pump's speed would have to be calculated.

Currently most people just would not believe they actually worked.

"David Turner, Island Computers US Corp" wrote in
message ...
For what it costs I see no talk of timers/solar/cost comparisons etc

I installed a hot water heater timer in our house 3 months ago

It is on from 7-9:30am then 5:30 to 10pm.

That means it is only actually running (actual power availability that is)
about 7.5 hours
The insulation is good enough that it is not drawing power than for maybe
half of that

At 13C/KW in Savannah GA that ain't much (heater is 4500W 50 Gallon)
Ergo = $4.38/day which is at most $131.63 per month

In reality it is running about 1/2 of that, so it is costing about
$65/month
to heat water !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

FYI That is almost $800 per year (minimum) to have hot water


And without the timer, it would have cost about the same. The heater
doesn't draw 4500W when the water is already hot and no-one uses any.

Timers on HW heaters only reduce stand-by losses. Those times the heater
would kick on simply because the tank cooled through ambient losses (unless
you take cold showers because of the timer being set wrong ;-).

daestrom

"Mary Fisher" wrote in message
t...

"David Turner, Island Computers US Corp" wrote in
message ...
OH

Keep in mind we have to wash at least once a day
I am from the UK but have developed the habit of washing every day
instead
of every week
I the UK you can get away with it (washing only your smelly bits!) but
here
you stink about 9 months out of the
year in 90F+ weather if you don't shower

Oh - someone takes a bath in our house maybe twice a year.
And showers are for about 10 Minutes max

You're British and you don't have COLD baths and showers???

You must be from the s**th!

Spoken like a true Yorkshire Lass. Mary is Yorkshire the equivalent of
Arkansas?

"raden" wrote in message
...
In message , "David Turner,
Island Computers US Corp" writes
Calculated using 13C/KW not 9c for a start

Remember this new thing call ed fuel recovery charge - well we get stuffed
with it and it is going up again this month

Our KW cost 2 years ago was one of the lowest in the US at 7c/KW

Figure it out

Granted I have a high electric bill from other things but HOT water is
defintely the highest cost


The computer illiterate wannabe septic's done it again

no context because what he was replying to follows his sig sep

here ...



Actually, the entire previous message is contained below. Must be your
screwed up settings. The server shows his (David's) message, followed by
'Docter Drivel's message. You saying your news-reader is worse than
OhOh-Express???

daestrom


"--

David B Turner
Island Computers US Corp
2700 Gregory St, Suite 180
Savannah GA 31404
Tel: 912 447 6622 X201
Cell: 912 447 6622 X252
Fax: 912 201 0402
Email:
Web: http://www.islandco.com
=====================================
All orders are subject to the following terms and conditions
of sale. These should be read before ordering.
http://www.islandco.com/warranty.html

"Doctor Drivel" wrote in message
reenews.net...

"Mark" wrote in message
...

wrote in message

Lets say it saves £20 a year heating dhw only.

Energy Cost Savings and Return on Investment [ROI]:

. An average family of four uses 70 gallons of hot water per day -
. at a cost of $480 per year*
. The typical solar water heater will save 80% of heating costs -

It might do in Florida, not in cloudy northerly regions.

. or $384.00 per year
. A typical heater with hardware will cost:
. Do-it-yourself Kit - $1750
. Contractor installation - $2700
. The tax-free return on investment would be:
. Do-it-yourself Kit - 21.7% ROI [$384 / $1766]
. Contractor installation - 14.2% ROI [$384 / $2700]

etc, etc"


--
geoff

"David Turner, Island Computers US Corp" wrote in
message ...
OH

Keep in mind we have to wash at least once a day
I am from the UK but have developed the habit of washing every day instead
of every week
I the UK you can get away with it (washing only your smelly bits!) but
here
you stink about 9 months out of the
year in 90F+ weather if you don't shower

Oh - someone takes a bath in our house maybe twice a year.
And showers are for about 10 Minutes max

What else uses crap loads of power

Dishwasher? Robert Bosch - good quiet one
Electric Dryer? Maytag New within last 3years
Pool Pump? 1.25HP
Washer (does not heat water)

Comments


While not a lot, the refrigerator comes to mind. Being in GA, do you run
A/C very much? That can add quite a bit.

daestrom

Hi
I'm not technical but just to let everyone know that quite a lot of local authorities have access to grant monies towards installing solar heating and solar power in general. And there is a big seller of the panels and relevant bits on ebay. As with everything, not all panels are the same quality.

In message , daestrom
writes

"raden" wrote in message
...
In message , "David Turner,
Island Computers US Corp" writes
Calculated using 13C/KW not 9c for a start

Remember this new thing call ed fuel recovery charge - well we get stuffed
with it and it is going up again this month

Our KW cost 2 years ago was one of the lowest in the US at 7c/KW

Figure it out

Granted I have a high electric bill from other things but HOT water is
defintely the highest cost


The computer illiterate wannabe septic's done it again

no context because what he was replying to follows his sig sep

here ...



Actually, the entire previous message is contained below. Must be your
screwed up settings. The server shows his (David's) message, followed
by 'Docter Drivel's message. You saying your news-reader is worse than
OhOh-Express???

It's there because I copied and pasted it you simpleton. Note the "what
he was replying to follows his sig sep

here ..."

which I put in to show I was reproducing it

top posting , with his sig sep at the bottom of his post, but above what
he was replying to means that it's cut out of the next post

or are you really too thick to understand this simple concept

--
geoff

daestrom wrote:

wrote in message

... I've been thinking drainBACK, as in "the water drains back when the
pump stops, by gravity, with no valve."

Unless there is a permanent vent at the top, it won't 'drainBACK'.

Au contraire. It will, with a collector above an unpressurized tank with
the ends of the supply and return pipes underwater and a small hole above
the water line. This would need less pumping energy than a system with
the return pipe above the water line. Neither needs a vent at the top,
if plumbed with all pipes downhill.

Nick

"raden" wrote in message
...
In message , daestrom
writes

"raden" wrote in message
...
In message , "David Turner,
Island Computers US Corp" writes
Calculated using 13C/KW not 9c for a start

Remember this new thing call ed fuel recovery charge - well we get
stuffed
with it and it is going up again this month

Our KW cost 2 years ago was one of the lowest in the US at 7c/KW

Figure it out

Granted I have a high electric bill from other things but HOT water is
defintely the highest cost


The computer illiterate wannabe septic's done it again

no context because what he was replying to follows his sig sep

here ...



Actually, the entire previous message is contained below. Must be your
screwed up settings. The server shows his (David's) message, followed by
'Docter Drivel's message. You saying your news-reader is worse than
OhOh-Express???

It's there because I copied and pasted it you simpleton. Note the "what he
was replying to follows his sig sep

here ..."

which I put in to show I was reproducing it

top posting , with his sig sep at the bottom of his post, but above what
he was replying to means that it's cut out of the next post

or are you really too thick to understand this simple concept

Maxie, he thought it was already there. Hold on boy.

wrote in message
...
daestrom wrote:

wrote in message

... I've been thinking drainBACK, as in "the water drains back when the
pump stops, by gravity, with no valve."

Unless there is a permanent vent at the top, it won't 'drainBACK'.

Au contraire. It will, with a collector above an unpressurized tank with
the ends of the supply and return pipes underwater and a small hole above
the water line. This would need less pumping energy than a system with
the return pipe above the water line. Neither needs a vent at the top,
if plumbed with all pipes downhill.

Nick

You have to maintain the water level in the tank, otherwise no drain down.
The air hole in the pipe needs to be exposed when the pump is operating. If
the water level is too high then no drain down. Some sort of level
maintaining mechanism needs to be installed, such as a ballcock valve and
float. Then if this fails an overflow is needed. This is self regulating,
but you can do it by making a level line and using a hose pipe I suppose.

I'm new to these groups. And I think I "top post." That is, add my comments
above the text that inspired my response in the first place. From my
perspective (using MS Outlook) it makes it easier to follow the threads
reading the top thread and clicking on the various responses if the
respondents "top post."

If they post under a copy of the original, I have to read it again scrolling
down to find the response. Not the easiest approach (again, from my
perspective).

And, I suspect I am an A.S.S. (American Senile Sitizen)

Enjoy

"Derek Broughton" wrote in message
...
Solar Flare wrote:

ditto.

Cutting off the text below the signature is ***YOUR*** browser's
problem. Don't blame others for it.

Don't be an ass. It's a recognized convention that "-- " indicates
end-of-text, and _most_ newsreaders truncate everything after that to
avoid
everybody forwarding all the unnecessary .sigs. It's really simple to
just
ensure that, if you must top post, you don't supply a .sig beginning with
"-- "
--
derek