dennis@home wrote:

Given that the average air temp in the UK appears similar to the ground
temp

No.

Thats incorrect.

air varies at this time of year from may +5 to -5 here anyway = over a day.

Subsoil is pretty constant at a meter down at about 2-4 degrees.

It's was a little warmer in winter, due to summer solar heat and
geothermal energy, and its never as warm in summer.

ASir source can gice up at very low temps..-25C and you want see a lot
of eat out, when youy need it.

They are beter in urban situations., because you can pump waste heat
from all tehe cars :-)


how much extra does a GSHP save over an ASHP? I was toying with the
idea but I would need a bore hole for a GSHP and they are not cheap.
Also as the heat for the GSHP is actually solar there must be a problem
replacing the heat in the bore hole if the neighbours also decide to
drill them, there isn't enough land in the cities to absorbed the solar
radiation needed.


geothermal...there was a nice Swedish scheme that use the (insulated)
ground under the house and a pond in summer to run the aircon. Heated up
a huge block of subsoil, and pumped it all back in winter. Cool idea.

I wonder if BT or the cable co would notice if I pulled my collectors
along their ducts?

would be **** all use if you did. need contact with wet soggy ground.

Roger Chapman wrote:
Tim Lamb wrote:

snip

600m seems a lot. Is that the normal sort of length for a ground
loop and (without the well) how much land would be needed?
a lot depends on the soil. dry sandy is crap, wet soggy clay is
very good. I was quoted 200-400m in clay, no loop within 2 meters of
any other, for 12kw peak.
so 400 square meters minimum, for me, 800 squares better.

0.1 to 0.2 of an acre seems to give me a better idea of the size.
Should fit in some (but by no means all) back gardens but
installation would make a complete mess of said garden even if it is
practicable to dig the trenches at 2 metre centres. If I ever get
round to it I might consider the adjacent field instead but that
could bring its own problems.

If I ever get round to GSHP using buried pipe I will try to *mole* it
in rather than trench. Subsoils here are clays and gravel and I have
pulled 50m lengths of blue poly for water supplies without problems. I
like the manifold idea as pulling loops with more than two legs would
be difficult. Luckily the *moles* will fill with water so there is no
lack of contact.

IIRC moles can't get down to the sort of depth really needed for heat
pumping but I would be glad to be proved wrong even though the back lift
on my neighbours tractor doesn't work properly so I would have to hire
the equipment to do it.

On a connected topic there is a particular form of plough used to make a
form of land drain. Can anyone tell me what it is called please. We have
a very boggy hollow that really needs draining presumably because the
land drain has collapsed. I can't find the actually drain but even if I
could I lack the resolve to dig out and rebuild what might be as much as
100 yards of drain having spent a couple of weeks last Autumn on a
section less than 15 yards long.

Mire a 3 ton digger and do in in a couple of amusing days.

Roger Chapman wrote:
JimK wrote:
On Feb 2, 12:56 pm, "dennis@home"
wrote:
Given that the average air temp in the UK appears similar to the
ground temp
how much extra does a GSHP save over an ASHP? I was toying with the
idea but
I would need a bore hole for a GSHP and they are not cheap. Also as
the heat
for the GSHP is actually solar there must be a problem replacing the
heat in
the bore hole if the neighbours also decide to drill them, there isn't
enough land in the cities to absorbed the solar radiation needed.

Ground temperatures are much more even than air temperatures and the
deeper you go the more constant the temperature.

so are you saying the deeper you drill the colder it gets?

The deeper you go the warmer it gets but ISTR TNT saying here quite
recently that the major source of near surface heating is solar.

It is..but even so in winter, the deeper the warmer. Average UK temps
and that reflects the subsoil, are about 9C.

Go deep enough and thats what you find.

Hence the need for a s deep a pipe run as is practicable with a digger.

Generally a couple of meters max.

In message , Roger Chapman
writes
Tim Lamb wrote:

snip

600m seems a lot. Is that the normal sort of length for a ground
loop and (without the well) how much land would be needed?
a lot depends on the soil. dry sandy is crap, wet soggy clay is
very good. I was quoted 200-400m in clay, no loop within 2 meters
of any other, for 12kw peak.
so 400 square meters minimum, for me, 800 squares better.

0.1 to 0.2 of an acre seems to give me a better idea of the size.
Should fit in some (but by no means all) back gardens but
installation would make a complete mess of said garden even if it is
practicable to dig the trenches at 2 metre centres. If I ever get
round to it I might consider the adjacent field instead but that
could bring its own problems.
If I ever get round to GSHP using buried pipe I will try to *mole*
it in rather than trench. Subsoils here are clays and gravel and I
have pulled 50m lengths of blue poly for water supplies without
problems. I like the manifold idea as pulling loops with more than
two legs would be difficult. Luckily the *moles* will fill with water
so there is no lack of contact.

IIRC moles can't get down to the sort of depth really needed for heat
pumping but I would be glad to be proved wrong even though the back
lift on my neighbours tractor doesn't work properly so I would have to
hire the equipment to do it.

I would expect to get between 2 and 3 feet. The water table is at about
18" during the Winter. I have an old single leg subsoiler which can be
fitted with a short length of 2" steel pipe to form the hole for the
collector pipe. The usual trick is to run the subsoiler through the
ground first to check for obstructions and then couple up the pipe for
the pull.

On a connected topic there is a particular form of plough used to make
a form of land drain. Can anyone tell me what it is called please. We
have a very boggy hollow that really needs draining presumably because
the land drain has collapsed. I can't find the actually drain but even
if I could I lack the resolve to dig out and rebuild what might be as
much as 100 yards of drain having spent a couple of weeks last Autumn
on a section less than 15 yards long.

Try mole plough:-) Lots of horsepower needed to pull one.

AFAIK mole drains only work in certain soils and then only for a limited
period.

Drain to where? Do you have a ditch or pond? What is the soil? Why not
hire in a mini digger, there must be lots laid up.

regards

--
Tim Lamb

On Feb 2, 7:21 pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
Roger Chapman wrote:
JimK wrote:
On Feb 2, 12:56 pm, "dennis@home"
wrote:
Given that the average air temp in the UK appears similar to the
ground temp
how much extra does a GSHP save over an ASHP? I was toying with the
idea but
I would need a bore hole for a GSHP and they are not cheap. Also as
the heat
for the GSHP is actually solar there must be a problem replacing the
heat in
the bore hole if the neighbours also decide to drill them, there isn't
enough land in the cities to absorbed the solar radiation needed.

Ground temperatures are much more even than air temperatures and the
deeper you go the more constant the temperature.

so are you saying the deeper you drill the colder it gets?

The deeper you go the warmer it gets but ISTR TNT saying here quite
recently that the major source of near surface heating is solar.

It is..but even so in winter, the deeper the warmer. Average UK temps
and that reflects the subsoil, are about 9C.

Go deep enough and thats what you find.

Hence the need for a s deep a pipe run as is practicable with a digger.

Generally a couple of meters max.

or a borehole?
JimK

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

snip

On a connected topic there is a particular form of plough used to make
a form of land drain. Can anyone tell me what it is called please. We
have a very boggy hollow that really needs draining presumably because
the land drain has collapsed. I can't find the actually drain but even
if I could I lack the resolve to dig out and rebuild what might be as
much as 100 yards of drain having spent a couple of weeks last Autumn
on a section less than 15 yards long.

Mire a 3 ton digger and do in in a couple of amusing days.

I have an old mini digger so I suppose I could dig it out but making
good would still be hard work and the volume of water doesn't really
deserve much in the way of a drain.

JimK wrote:

snip

On a connected topic there is a particular form of plough used to make a
form of land drain. Can anyone tell me what it is called please. We have
a very boggy hollow that really needs draining presumably because the
land drain has collapsed. I can't find the actually drain but even if I
could I lack the resolve to dig out and rebuild what might be as much as
100 yards of drain having spent a couple of weeks last Autumn on a
section less than 15 yards long.

are you trying to actually create a drain with this plough? or break
up the so called "pan" between subsoil and topsoil with a "subsoiler"
plough?

The source of the water is only really a seep which is why I didn't
manage to find where it has come from when I dug for it a year or two
back. I was hoping than ploughing a 'molehole' would provide sufficient
to drain a puddle than always forms in front of a particular gateway at
the beginning of winter.

Land drains in these parts consist of 2 walls about 6" apart and 6" high
built of loose pieces of local stone covered by a selection of larger
stones. The Romans built drains that way but considerably better
constructed. Most around here are either collapsed or silted up, or even
ploughed out when traditional grassland was ploughed up during WW2.

"Calvin Sambrook" wrote in message
...
"dennis@home" wrote in message
...

... Also as the heat for the GSHP is actually solar there must be a
problem replacing the heat in the bore hole if the neighbours also decide
to drill them, there isn't enough land in the cities to absorbed the
solar radiation needed.


You're in good company with that sort of misconception. Darwin went to
his grave struggling to reconcile his calculations for the age of the
earth based on his theory of evolution with those of Fahrenheit (IIRC
although it could well have been Kelvin, history was never my strong
point) who calculated how hot the earth should be given that the only
source of heat was the sun. Of course that was before anyone knew about
radioactivity.

In the case of GSHPs you're operating at a much smaller scale so you can't
really consider the system as closed. Effectively you're sucking heat out
of the earth but as there's an awful lot there in the first place you can
consider it nearly infinite. That said, I did read recently about some
town scale GSHP schemes (Southampton springs to mind) which will need to
consider the cooling effect they will have on the ground as it will make
their schemes less efficient over the decades.


That's what I said, if the neighbours do the same the ground temp drops
because there isn't an infinite heat source in the ground.

"dennis@home" wrote in message
...

"Calvin Sambrook" wrote in message
...
"dennis@home" wrote in message
...

... Also as the heat for the GSHP is actually solar there must be a
problem replacing the heat in the bore hole if the neighbours also
decide to drill them, there isn't enough land in the cities to absorbed
the solar radiation needed.


You're in good company with that sort of misconception. Darwin went to
his grave struggling to reconcile his calculations for the age of the
earth based on his theory of evolution with those of Fahrenheit (IIRC
although it could well have been Kelvin, history was never my strong
point) who calculated how hot the earth should be given that the only
source of heat was the sun. Of course that was before anyone knew about
radioactivity.

In the case of GSHPs you're operating at a much smaller scale so you
can't really consider the system as closed. Effectively you're sucking
heat out of the earth but as there's an awful lot there in the first
place you can consider it nearly infinite. That said, I did read
recently about some town scale GSHP schemes (Southampton springs to mind)
which will need to consider the cooling effect they will have on the
ground as it will make their schemes less efficient over the decades.

That's what I said, if the neighbours do the same the ground temp drops
because there isn't an infinite heat source in the ground.

Similar. The heat you're tapping into is mostly coming from underneath
rather than from the sun. The problems being suggested for the town sized
schemes have more to do with the rate of transfer of heat from the deeper
earth rather than the quantity available. For your purposes it's pretty
much infinite provided you go down far enough, which might only be a few
metres anyway depending on conditions.

Now things might get interesting way into the future when our civilisation
approaches the boundary of what the theoretical physicist Karu calls "type 1
civilisations". At that point we would be able to extract *all* of the
energy from the earth. We're quite some way off that though so I wouldn't
fret just yet.

"Calvin Sambrook" wrote in message
...


That's what I said, if the neighbours do the same the ground temp drops
because there isn't an infinite heat source in the ground.

Similar. The heat you're tapping into is mostly coming from underneath
rather than from the sun. The problems being suggested for the town sized
schemes have more to do with the rate of transfer of heat from the deeper
earth rather than the quantity available. For your purposes it's pretty
much infinite provided you go down far enough, which might only be a few
metres anyway depending on conditions.

I doubt if I could go deep enough to find any geologically active bits
around here and the heat coming up from the core is not significant AFAIK.

JimK wrote:
On Feb 2, 7:21 pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
Roger Chapman wrote:
JimK wrote:
On Feb 2, 12:56 pm, "dennis@home"
wrote:
Given that the average air temp in the UK appears similar to the
ground temp
how much extra does a GSHP save over an ASHP? I was toying with the
idea but
I would need a bore hole for a GSHP and they are not cheap. Also as
the heat
for the GSHP is actually solar there must be a problem replacing the
heat in
the bore hole if the neighbours also decide to drill them, there isn't
enough land in the cities to absorbed the solar radiation needed.
Ground temperatures are much more even than air temperatures and the
deeper you go the more constant the temperature.
so are you saying the deeper you drill the colder it gets?
The deeper you go the warmer it gets but ISTR TNT saying here quite
recently that the major source of near surface heating is solar.
It is..but even so in winter, the deeper the warmer. Average UK temps
and that reflects the subsoil, are about 9C.

Go deep enough and thats what you find.

Hence the need for a s deep a pipe run as is practicable with a digger.

Generally a couple of meters max.

or a borehole?

good, but expensive.


JimK

Roger Chapman wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

snip

On a connected topic there is a particular form of plough used to
make a form of land drain. Can anyone tell me what it is called
please. We have a very boggy hollow that really needs draining
presumably because the land drain has collapsed. I can't find the
actually drain but even if I could I lack the resolve to dig out and
rebuild what might be as much as 100 yards of drain having spent a
couple of weeks last Autumn on a section less than 15 yards long.

Mire a 3 ton digger and do in in a couple of amusing days.

I have an old mini digger so I suppose I could dig it out but making
good would still be hard work and the volume of water doesn't really
deserve much in the way of a drain.

well just fill it with hardcore, topsoil over, and let the water run
underneath it all.

That's how this garden works.

Tim Lamb wrote:

snip

IIRC moles can't get down to the sort of depth really needed for heat
pumping but I would be glad to be proved wrong even though the back
lift on my neighbours tractor doesn't work properly so I would have to
hire the equipment to do it.

I would expect to get between 2 and 3 feet. The water table is at about
18" during the Winter. I have an old single leg subsoiler which can be
fitted with a short length of 2" steel pipe to form the hole for the
collector pipe. The usual trick is to run the subsoiler through the
ground first to check for obstructions and then couple up the pipe for
the pull.

On a connected topic there is a particular form of plough used to make
a form of land drain. Can anyone tell me what it is called please. We
have a very boggy hollow that really needs draining presumably because
the land drain has collapsed. I can't find the actually drain but even
if I could I lack the resolve to dig out and rebuild what might be as
much as 100 yards of drain having spent a couple of weeks last Autumn
on a section less than 15 yards long.

Try mole plough:-) Lots of horsepower needed to pull one.

AFAIK mole drains only work in certain soils and then only for a limited
period.

Drain to where? Do you have a ditch or pond? What is the soil? Why not
hire in a mini digger, there must be lots laid up.

The soil is far from ideal. Mostly hard clay with stone inclusions but
with some soft spots in unexpected places. The shortest route to open
water (a once culverted stream) is probably less than 100 yards but that
might be slightly uphill and in any case somewhere close to the stream
is the mains water supply to an isolated house which was allegedly moled
in long before I moved here in 1978. I don't know how deep that is but I
suspect it is fairly close to the surface.

dennis@home wrote:


"Calvin Sambrook" wrote in message
...


That's what I said, if the neighbours do the same the ground temp
drops because there isn't an infinite heat source in the ground.

Similar. The heat you're tapping into is mostly coming from
underneath rather than from the sun. The problems being suggested for
the town sized schemes have more to do with the rate of transfer of
heat from the deeper earth rather than the quantity available. For
your purposes it's pretty much infinite provided you go down far
enough, which might only be a few metres anyway depending on conditions.

I doubt if I could go deep enough to find any geologically active bits
around here and the heat coming up from the core is not significant AFAIK.



You don't have to find geologically active bits dennis.

Go down any coal mine - below a mile its about 30C plus


This is a well written article IMHO

http://www.gecco2.com/consultant/gec...ce-energy.aspx

Calvin Sambrook wrote:

You're in good company with that sort of misconception. Â*Darwin went to
his grave struggling to reconcile his calculations for the age of the
earth based on his theory of evolution with those of Fahrenheit (IIRC
although it could well have been Kelvin,


It was Lord Kelvin

AJH

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Go down any coal mine - below a mile its about 30C plus


How many Watts/m2?

I've a well in the garden but I suspect I'd freeze it if I took more than a
few hundred Watts out of it.

So how deep a borehole to get 5kW out?

AJH

andrew wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Go down any coal mine - below a mile its about 30C plus


How many Watts/m2?

I've a well in the garden but I suspect I'd freeze it if I took more than a
few hundred Watts out of it.

So how deep a borehole to get 5kW out?

wrong question.

but you can get 5kW out of about 200m of subsoil, so try 200m. Not deepo
enough to have serous geothermal heating tho.


ideal house. Insulation barrier and 'cold room' cellar underneath.
freeze the **** out of it and pump the heat from uninsulated walls in
contact with the subsoil.

If you have a cellar, tank it, fill with water and put a coil in that.


AJH

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

You don't have to find geologically active bits dennis.

Go down any coal mine - below a mile its about 30C plus

Does not compute.. go down a cave, its nowhere near 30C.
Mines have stuff in them that warms them up, people, machines, etc.

Even if it did I have no chance of boring down 1700 m.


This is a well written article IMHO

http://www.gecco2.com/consultant/gec...ce-energy.aspx

Well it is well written and agrees with what I said

"Ground Source Energy is latent heat within the top 100m or so of the earths
surface which is generated and replenished from the sun. "

A bore hole will only work as long as the neighbours don't get the same idea
as there isn't enough spacing between the homes for the sun to replace the
heat.

In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes

If I ever get round to GSHP using buried pipe I will try to *mole*
it in rather than trench. Subsoils here are clays and gravel and I
have pulled 50m lengths of blue poly for water supplies without
problems. I like the manifold idea as pulling loops with more than
two legs would be difficult. Luckily the *moles* will fill with water
so there is no lack of contact.


you hope. here they use moles to drain fields ;-)

I know:-)

This is flood plain land. Historically, the Lea valley was used for
water cress production. Ditches were dug at the edge of the flood plain,
presumably to intercept clean spring water from the valley sides. The
strip I have in mind is sandwiched between the ditch and the river.
Meanders will have deposited permeable gravels through the subsoils and
any hole deeper than 18" in winter contains water.

I assume there will be convection/mingling of underground water allowing
heat extraction from shallow pipes. Trenching would be problematic and
the EA have an input to *works* within 8m of the bank.

As an aside of the deep well system... the danger of linking two or more
underground water bodies was mentioned in my original discussion. I
suppose they are concerned that a new well might put contaminated water
in contact with drinking water supplies.

regards

--
Tim Lamb

On 30 Jan, 18:36, "Stewart" wrote:
My son will soon be building a new house and intends to install a ground
source heat pump, hopefully as a main source of hear in conjunction with
solar panels.
He will be location the underground pipework in a pond beside the house.
The pond may be about 150 metres by 50 metres by 1.5 metres deep; it is in
Perthshire.
Does amyone have experience of ground source heating? *How effective is it?
Can it ever act even for a short while as the primary heat source?
Is there an independant body that would give professional advice?
Thank you.

Dear Stewart
I recommend that your son (and you?) knuckle down to some serious
reading and study. I know FA about this apart from O level physics
from about 1962! I spent about 3 months studying and reading it up in
order to be in a position to judge the snake oil salesmen I came
across selling heat pumps. I looked at the whole range. I made the
serious mistake of listening to a firm called Ice Energy who entered
into a contract to survey my site and whose final work did not comply
with the contract to survey and whose service fell below what a
reasonable lay man would call "fit for purpose". It cost me £500 and
my suggestion that they pay some of it back (some because not all of
their work was unfit for the purpose) has fallen on deaf ears.
I eventually designed my own system which has proven to be efficient
in practice.

I opted for a straight line style of collector as this from simple
physics is the most efficient COLLECTOR per metre run. If you have a
pond then that is probably the best possible source of collection but
for my money I would put it in the ground just a few inches under the
soil at the bottom of the pond. You will get the neat transfer with no
complications of needing to take it out when / if you have to drain
the pond or clean out the base and less chance of damage.

If I did my design again I would have knocked the house down (it was a
refurb) and put in a foot of insulation a la ~Passivhaus. The need
for a heat pump is largely eliminated but I would get one regardless
but just the smallest one possible to heat up DHW

I would also have a couple of buffers
one for DHW
one for Heating
into each buffer I would have as many sensible sources as I could for
input
eg solar water (with a thermostatic switch to go from DHW to CH when
DHW is up to temp
Wind generation DC Heating element say 1.5 kw +
AC input from the grid
Gravity primary circulation from a wood burning/ multifuel? heater
with a back boiler (will need to be near the buffer for gravity
circulation)
I would not bother with PV but would set aside a location for later
installation when the price comes down

http://cms.atics.co.uk/3/heatpump.html

is a link where you can see quite a lot of the work I have done in the
past

Chris

dennis@home wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

You don't have to find geologically active bits dennis.

Go down any coal mine - below a mile its about 30C plus

Does not compute.. go down a cave, its nowhere near 30C.

Have you been down a mile deep cave, Dennis.?

I HAVE been down deep mines.

I am not lying.



Mines have stuff in them that warms them up, people, machines, etc.


Oh really. Ypou mean that all that solid rock they are in contact with
is a perfect insulator.

Even if it did I have no chance of boring down 1700 m.


This is a well written article IMHO

http://www.gecco2.com/consultant/gec...ce-energy.aspx


Well it is well written and agrees with what I said

"Ground Source Energy is latent heat within the top 100m or so of the
earths surface which is generated and replenished from the sun. "


Read on. As you get deeper, the heat rises. Due to getting near the
earth's core.

You didnt bother to read hat bit though.

I originally said, that the top 100 meters or so is more or less
constant temperature from the median of the air temp. About 9C in this
part of the world. Below that it gets hotter and hotter.



A bore hole will only work as long as the neighbours don't get the same
idea as there isn't enough spacing between the homes for the sun to
replace the heat.



more dickbrained half assed analsyis.

Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes

If I ever get round to GSHP using buried pipe I will try to *mole*
it in rather than trench. Subsoils here are clays and gravel and I
have pulled 50m lengths of blue poly for water supplies without
problems. I like the manifold idea as pulling loops with more than
two legs would be difficult. Luckily the *moles* will fill with
water so there is no lack of contact.


you hope. here they use moles to drain fields ;-)

I know:-)

This is flood plain land. Historically, the Lea valley was used for
water cress production. Ditches were dug at the edge of the flood plain,
presumably to intercept clean spring water from the valley sides. The
strip I have in mind is sandwiched between the ditch and the river.
Meanders will have deposited permeable gravels through the subsoils and
any hole deeper than 18" in winter contains water.

I assume there will be convection/mingling of underground water allowing
heat extraction from shallow pipes. Trenching would be problematic and
the EA have an input to *works* within 8m of the bank.

As an aside of the deep well system... the danger of linking two or more
underground water bodies was mentioned in my original discussion. I
suppose they are concerned that a new well might put contaminated water
in contact with drinking water supplies.

regards

That might work then.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

You don't have to find geologically active bits dennis.

Go down any coal mine - below a mile its about 30C plus

Does not compute.. go down a cave, its nowhere near 30C.

Have you been down a mile deep cave, Dennis.?

I HAVE been down deep mines.

I am not lying.

No one said you were AFAICS.

Mines have stuff in them that warms them up, people, machines, etc.


Oh really. Ypou mean that all that solid rock they are in contact with is
a perfect insulator.

Even if it did I have no chance of boring down 1700 m.


This is a well written article IMHO

http://www.gecco2.com/consultant/gec...ce-energy.aspx

Well it is well written and agrees with what I said

"Ground Source Energy is latent heat within the top 100m or so of the
earths surface which is generated and replenished from the sun. "


Read on. As you get deeper, the heat rises. Due to getting near the
earth's core.

You didnt bother to read hat bit though.

I originally said, that the top 100 meters or so is more or less constant
temperature from the median of the air temp. About 9C in this part of the
world. Below that it gets hotter and hotter.



A bore hole will only work as long as the neighbours don't get the same
idea as there isn't enough spacing between the homes for the sun to
replace the heat.



more dickbrained half assed analsyis.

OK so explain where the extra energy is going to come from?
You stated that it comes from the Sun.
You posted a link that says the same.
I happen to agree.
So if the housing density is high as it is here just explain where the
energy is going to come from if there are suddenly a lot of bore holes
sucking heat out of the ground.
Just do the maths and state how many square meters of land are needed per
dwelling if you are so certain you are right.
As an approximation I will assume the 200m run of pipe work spaced no closer
than 2m implies the experts think you need 400 m2.

On Feb 3, 1:29*pm, "dennis@home"
wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in ...



dennis@home wrote:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

You don't have to find geologically active bits dennis.

Go down any coal mine - below a mile its about 30C plus

Does not compute.. go down a cave, its nowhere near 30C.

Have you been down a mile deep cave, Dennis.?

I HAVE been down deep mines.

I am not lying.

No one said you were AFAICS.



Mines have stuff in them that warms them up, people, machines, etc.

Oh really. Ypou mean that all that solid rock they are in contact with is
a perfect insulator.

Even if it did I have no chance of boring down 1700 m.

This is a well written article IMHO

http://www.gecco2.com/consultant/gec...-source-energy....

Well it is well written and agrees with what I said

"Ground Source Energy is latent heat within the top 100m or so of the
earths surface which is generated and replenished from the sun. *"

Read on. As you get deeper, the heat rises. Due to getting near the
earth's core.

You didnt bother to read hat bit though.

I originally said, that the top 100 meters or so is more or less constant
temperature from the median of the air temp. About 9C in this part of the
world. Below that it gets hotter and hotter.

A bore hole will only work as long as the neighbours don't get the same
idea as there isn't enough spacing between the homes for the sun to
replace the heat.

more dickbrained half assed analsyis.

OK so explain where the extra energy is going to come from?
You stated that it comes from the Sun.
You posted a link that says the same.
I happen to agree.
So if the housing density is high as it is here just explain where the
energy is going to come from if there are suddenly a lot of bore holes
sucking heat out of the ground.
Just do the maths and state how many square meters of land are needed per
dwelling if you are so certain you are right.
As an approximation I will assume the 200m run of pipe work spaced no closer
than 2m implies the experts think you need 400 m2.

That's not a "bore hole", FFS.

MBQ

"Man at B&Q" wrote in message
...


MBQ

Sod off you are about as useful as drivel.

On Feb 3, 2:15*pm, "dennis@home"
wrote:

As an approximation I will assume the .

That's not a "bore hole", FFS.

MBQ

Sod off you are about as useful as drivel.

I'm beginning to think you ARE Drivel, or a close relation.

A "bore hole" GSHP is a vertical system, probably a sq m or two all in
surface area. Not "200m run of pipe work spaced no closer than 2m
implies the experts think you need 400 m2"

If you don't like being corrected, don't post crap in the first place.

MBQ

"Man at B&Q" wrote in message
...
On Feb 3, 2:15 pm, "dennis@home"
wrote:

As an approximation I will assume the .

That's not a "bore hole", FFS.

MBQ

Sod off you are about as useful as drivel.

I'm beginning to think you ARE Drivel, or a close relation.

A "bore hole" GSHP is a vertical system, probably a sq m or two all in
surface area. Not "200m run of pipe work spaced no closer than 2m
implies the experts think you need 400 m2"

So you think its going to get all its solar energy out of a 4 m2 space, you
really are being stupid.


If you don't like being corrected, don't post crap in the first place.

Don't start arguing again I don't like having to call you stupid and I like
it even less when you are so obviously stupid.

dennis@home wrote:

So you think its going to get all its solar energy out of a 4 m2 space,
you really are being stupid.


Apparently the earth's core shoves about about 4x10^13W and is about
5x10^14 square metres. About 0.1W / square metre. It better be
insolation...

However you can get it from your neighbour's gardens and ground water -
unless you all start doing it.

Now how's about this idea:

Get yourself a water-cooled generator. Feed the coolant into your
heating system, motor will run happily with coolant around boiling so
that's easy. That's maybe a third of your energy with conventional CHP.

Another third comes out as mechanical energy, you can run a heat pump
with that or make electricity and use that. Again, conventional CHP.

The last third comes out as the hot exhaust. Why not blow that on the
cold end of a heat pump? Take it down to near freezing and you've even
got most of the latent heat of condensation from the water.

Andy

On Feb 3, 8:00*pm, "dennis@home"
wrote:
"Man at B&Q" wrote in ...



On Feb 3, 2:15 pm, "dennis@home"
wrote:

As an approximation I will assume the .

That's not a "bore hole", FFS.

MBQ

Sod off you are about as useful as drivel.

I'm beginning to think you ARE Drivel, or a close relation.

A "bore hole" GSHP is a vertical system, probably a sq m or two all in
surface area. Not "200m run of pipe work spaced no closer than 2m
implies the experts think you need 400 m2"

So you think its going to get all its solar energy out of a 4 m2 space, you
really are being stupid.

A *BORE HOLE* goes deep enough not require recharging from solar
energy.

A system of pipe laid out over a large area may well require solar
recharging, I leave that to others.

You seem unable to distinguish between the two.

If you don't like being corrected, don't post crap in the first place.

Don't start arguing again I don't like having to call you stupid and I like

It takes two to argue.

it even less when you are so obviously stupid.

Kettle, pot, black.

MBQ

"Man at B&Q" wrote in message
...
On Feb 3, 8:00 pm, "dennis@home"
wrote:
"Man at B&Q" wrote in
...



On Feb 3, 2:15 pm, "dennis@home"
wrote:

As an approximation I will assume the .

That's not a "bore hole", FFS.

MBQ

Sod off you are about as useful as drivel.

I'm beginning to think you ARE Drivel, or a close relation.

A "bore hole" GSHP is a vertical system, probably a sq m or two all in
surface area. Not "200m run of pipe work spaced no closer than 2m
implies the experts think you need 400 m2"

So you think its going to get all its solar energy out of a 4 m2 space,
you
really are being stupid.

A *BORE HOLE* goes deep enough not require recharging from solar
energy.

Balls.
A 200m borehole is not deep enough to tap into geothermal energy in the UK.
Try posting to alt.iceland.D-I-Y.


A system of pipe laid out over a large area may well require solar
recharging, I leave that to others.

You seem unable to distinguish between the two.

You obviously can't so don't waste peoples time.

Andy Champ wrote:

Get yourself a water-cooled generator. Â*Feed the coolant into your
heating system, motor will run happily with coolant around boiling so
that's easy. Â*That's maybe a third of your energy with conventional CHP.

Another third comes out as mechanical energy, you can run a heat pump
with that or make electricity and use that. Â*Again, conventional CHP.

The last third comes out as the hot exhaust.

10 years ago we had a 3 cylinder Lister with an asynchronous (capacitively
excited) 10kVA genset. We achieved around 20% conversion of fuel to
electricity. In those days the fuel cost/kWhr was about the same as grid
electricity/kWhr, now it's double.

We reckoned 33% waste heat to coolant 66% to exhaust, the 33% was enough for
our purposes. The big problem that hit conversion efficiency was sizing the
genset for the peak load and only averaging about 20% of that. I'd do it
differently now. The O+M costs of running 2000+ hours/year aren't
insignificant nor the capital depreciation on GBP4000 genset cost then.

AJH

dennis@home wrote:


"Man at B&Q" wrote in message
...
On Feb 3, 2:15 pm, "dennis@home"
wrote:

As an approximation I will assume the .

That's not a "bore hole", FFS.

MBQ

Sod off you are about as useful as drivel.

I'm beginning to think you ARE Drivel, or a close relation.

A "bore hole" GSHP is a vertical system, probably a sq m or two all in
surface area. Not "200m run of pipe work spaced no closer than 2m
implies the experts think you need 400 m2"

So you think its going to get all its solar energy out of a 4 m2 space,
you really are being stupid.


But the solar energy comes from the whole area..each persons house
occupies a LOT more than that area.

more than enough for the average household as it happens. If mutiplied
by 50% (pump factor) and if taken as an average.

average insolation is about 100W/sq meter. Over the year.

Typical outside temps are an average of 9C, so for say 19C indoors,
that's a 10C drop.

Taking a smallish house as a cube of say 100 sq meters floor area, total
external area is 600 sq meters.

That will in some way be warming the ground it stands on at a rate of
10,000W - 10KW average.

so to achieve thermal balance we need a U value of 10000/600 divided by
10 degrees C.
about about 1.6 or so. Well within current standards.

Ergo a house receives enough solar energy to completely heat it.
Provided that the ground under it gets the benefit of that warmth in
summer, and its pumped out again in winter.








If you don't like being corrected, don't post crap in the first place.

Don't start arguing again I don't like having to call you stupid and I
like it even less when you are so obviously stupid.

dennis@home wrote:


"Man at B&Q" wrote in message
...
On Feb 3, 8:00 pm, "dennis@home"
wrote:
"Man at B&Q" wrote in
...




On Feb 3, 2:15 pm, "dennis@home"
wrote:

As an approximation I will assume the .

That's not a "bore hole", FFS.

MBQ

Sod off you are about as useful as drivel.

I'm beginning to think you ARE Drivel, or a close relation.

A "bore hole" GSHP is a vertical system, probably a sq m or two all in
surface area. Not "200m run of pipe work spaced no closer than 2m
implies the experts think you need 400 m2"

So you think its going to get all its solar energy out of a 4 m2
space, you
really are being stupid.

A *BORE HOLE* goes deep enough not require recharging from solar
energy.

Balls.
A 200m borehole is not deep enough to tap into geothermal energy in the UK.
Try posting to alt.iceland.D-I-Y.


That is irrelevant. The borehole taps stored heat from the whole mass
surrounding it. Essentially what counts is how much area of ground it
'has to itself.

It cant be smaller than the plot of land the house stands on, and as I
have shown, that's adequate to heat the subsoil more than enough in the
summer.


A system of pipe laid out over a large area may well require solar
recharging, I leave that to others.

You seem unable to distinguish between the two.

You obviously can't so don't waste peoples time.



when the blind lead the blind, they both shall fall into a ditch.

If you examine the numbers you find out what GSHP works, and solar
panels dont.

The solar panel collects from at best a few square meters. The GSHP,
even in a borehole scenario, collects from several hundreds.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:


"Man at B&Q" wrote in message
...
On Feb 3, 8:00 pm, "dennis@home"
wrote:
"Man at B&Q" wrote in
...



On Feb 3, 2:15 pm, "dennis@home"
wrote:

As an approximation I will assume the .

That's not a "bore hole", FFS.

MBQ

Sod off you are about as useful as drivel.

I'm beginning to think you ARE Drivel, or a close relation.

A "bore hole" GSHP is a vertical system, probably a sq m or two all
in
surface area. Not "200m run of pipe work spaced no closer than 2m
implies the experts think you need 400 m2"

So you think its going to get all its solar energy out of a 4 m2 space,
you
really are being stupid.

A *BORE HOLE* goes deep enough not require recharging from solar
energy.

Balls.
A 200m borehole is not deep enough to tap into geothermal energy in the
UK.
Try posting to alt.iceland.D-I-Y.


That is irrelevant. The borehole taps stored heat from the whole mass
surrounding it. Essentially what counts is how much area of ground it 'has
to itself.

It cant be smaller than the plot of land the house stands on, and as I
have shown, that's adequate to heat the subsoil more than enough in the
summer.

No you haven't.
You have quoted a load of guff that is inconstant with the stuff you have
previously quoted.
You even invented some sort of irrelevant cube to create a bigger m2 figure
in the hope we wouldn't notice.
If the land area was enough I wouldn't need a bore hole and all the
companies say I do.
A bore hole is just a way of "stealing" some of the heat from the neighbours
AFAICS and will soon cause trouble if everyone does.
The only way I can see a bore hole working well is if I use active cooling
in the summer and shove the heat back down the hole.


A system of pipe laid out over a large area may well require solar
recharging, I leave that to others.

You seem unable to distinguish between the two.

You obviously can't so don't waste peoples time.



when the blind lead the blind, they both shall fall into a ditch.

If you examine the numbers you find out what GSHP works, and solar panels
dont.

I have examined the numbers and someone is making them up.
You either need the area to put the collectors in or you don't, there is no
magical increase in available area just because you sink a borehole.
I have no doubt that boreholes work ATM, they are few and very far between,
however its a lot of cash to put down a hole only to find that the
neighbours all do the same and make it not work in twenty years time.
The solar panel collects from at best a few square meters. The GSHP, even
in a borehole scenario, collects from several hundreds.

dennis@home wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

You don't have to find geologically active bits dennis.

Go down any coal mine - below a mile its about 30C plus

Does not compute.. go down a cave, its nowhere near 30C.
Mines have stuff in them that warms them up, people, machines, etc.

I am intrigued. Caves with a vertical depth of more than a mile, where
in the world is that? But perhaps more pertinent to temperature at depth
where in the world will you find an unflooded cave below local sea level
let alone a mile below.

wrote:
On 2 Feb,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

You don't have to find geologically active bits dennis.

Go down any coal mine - below a mile its about 30C plus

There are (were before MT closed them down) hot mines and cold mines, wet
mines and dry mines gassy mines and safe mines. It all depends on the
geological conditions.

No they were not cold mines. They were coal mines.


All mines get hot as you go deeper.

Roger Chapman wrote:
dennis@home wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

You don't have to find geologically active bits dennis.

Go down any coal mine - below a mile its about 30C plus

Does not compute.. go down a cave, its nowhere near 30C.
Mines have stuff in them that warms them up, people, machines, etc.

I am intrigued. Caves with a vertical depth of more than a mile, where
in the world is that? But perhaps more pertinent to temperature at depth
where in the world will you find an unflooded cave below local sea level
let alone a mile below.

fascinating article here.

http://www.eoearth.org/article/The_C...of_Coal_Mining
At a mile below ground, temps of 120F.

On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 09:04:38 +0000, Roger Chapman
wrote:

I am intrigued. Caves with a vertical depth of more than a mile, where
in the world is that?

http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com...pest-caves-in-
the-world/1185

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ng...re4/learn.html

Seems there are quite a few with that sort of depth but it probably
isn't in a continuous vertical drop.

The South African diamond and gold mines are 3.5km deep and are
heading for 5km at such depths the temp is 70C...

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2003/YefimCavalier.shtml

But perhaps more pertinent to temperature at depth where in the world
will you find an unflooded cave below local sea level let alone a mile
below.

Donno if the deepest caves listed above go below sea level or not but
don't forget the heat will tend to be the same at the same depth from
the surface (assuming the mantle is at the same depth).

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 23:22:06 +0000, andrew wrote:

The big problem that hit conversion efficiency was sizing the genset for
the peak load and only averaging about 20% of that.

Our absloute peak load is just over 7kW at breakfast with a ring on
for porridge, grill on for toast, kettle on for tea and coffee
machine on for coffee. Our base load is about 1kW or 15% ish.

Most other peaks are around 3kW from the kettle they could be knocked
back by not having a rapid boil kettle of course.

I'd do it differently now.

Would that be a battery bank and 10kW invertor to meet the peaks with
a smaller set to provide base load and top the batteries up?

--
Cheers
Dave.

"Roger Chapman" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

You don't have to find geologically active bits dennis.

Go down any coal mine - below a mile its about 30C plus

Does not compute.. go down a cave, its nowhere near 30C.
Mines have stuff in them that warms them up, people, machines, etc.

I am intrigued. Caves with a vertical depth of more than a mile, where in
the world is that? But perhaps more pertinent to temperature at depth
where in the world will you find an unflooded cave below local sea level
let alone a mile below.

There are a few about, but its not really relevant..
mines are hot because of the mining that goes on.
It takes a lot of energy to mine and it heats up the mines a lot.
However I don't have a mine to extract the waste heat from, just some land
which isn't enough or a bore hole if I can be sure it will still be working
in 20 years time or use air which is what the original question was.. how do
air sourced heat pumps compare to ground sourced ones?