MDC Posted January 12, 2023 Share Posted January 12, 2023 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jan/12/energy-house-20-tests-tech-that-aims-to-make-homes-greener-and-cheaper-to-run This looks like fun. I expect a lot of people on here could have saved them the effort, but that's not the point. I'm pleased they are using infrared ceiling panels, which I've found are frowned upon at this forum. There's hope yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Posted January 12, 2023 Share Posted January 12, 2023 This is really cool. Think it was on the radio this morning but only caught a bit of the piece. The claims of infra-red are what are frowned on. In the right circumstance they are as effective as anything else. I plan to have a ceiling or mirror panel in my bathroom - short term immediate heat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joth Posted January 12, 2023 Share Posted January 12, 2023 It's fine that they're including IR panels in their experiments, but this stuck out: Two competing heating systems are being tested inside: an electric-based system utilising infrared panels, some of which are disguised as ceiling coving, as well as a water-based system that uses heated skirting boards combined with an air source heat pump. “As we put these really warm coats on to our homes, we don’t need as much energy to heat them,” says Novakovic. “So the big question we’re asking is, do we do it with heat pumps and hot water or with electricity?” Aside from the fact that both ASHP and IR panels are "doing it with electricity", it seems ridiculous to bill this as the big question that justifies the £16M project... Once again the main story about fabric first build quality has been lost in the debate around which bit of fancy tech we can add on top to heat an already low enery demand building. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radian Posted January 12, 2023 Share Posted January 12, 2023 "Home is rated A, with running annual costs reduced to £11 thanks to the solar panels." Er, that's got to be BS surely? Annual means getting through winter with weeks where there may be no solar. £11 of gas is 100kWh which won't meet the hot water demand alone. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan F Posted January 12, 2023 Share Posted January 12, 2023 10 minutes ago, Radian said: "Home is rated A, with running annual costs reduced to £11 thanks to the solar panels." Er, that's got to be BS surely? Annual means getting through winter with weeks where there may be no solar. £11 of gas is 100kWh which won't meet the hot water demand alone. Depends if you consider income due to PV export, or if using telsa tarriff for example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radian Posted January 12, 2023 Share Posted January 12, 2023 5 minutes ago, Dan F said: Depends if you consider income due to PV export, or if using telsa tarriff for example. But that's a very specific, small, amount. Why not just say zero if a few more sunny days would be all it would take to cancel all costs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteamyTea Posted January 13, 2023 Share Posted January 13, 2023 10 hours ago, Radian said: got to be BS surely I suppose it comes down to interpretations of what they mean my zero energy. All the talk is about Net Zero, which I think is a reasonable aim at the moment. In the future it may not be. Main thing is that people are seriously working on it, rather than just talking about it. I don't think that generation has to be on site to qualify, it just has to be dedicated generation. I would like to see a row of old terraces that are converted to Net Zero, without combustion technology, that would be a real challenge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterW Posted January 13, 2023 Share Posted January 13, 2023 I can guarantee neither of these was built to the developers standard quality regime as I’ve seen their Coppersmith and I’ve seen more airtight shopping bags … 11 hours ago, George said: The claims of infra-red are what are frowned on. In the right circumstance they are as effective as anything else. I plan to have a ceiling or mirror panel in my bathroom - short term immediate heat. Mirror panels tend not to be IR but are just radiant panel heaters stuck to the back of the mirror. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Posted January 13, 2023 Share Posted January 13, 2023 Surely any sort of radiant heat (that is, primarily transmitted via radiation rather than convection or conduction) is by definition an infra-red heater? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteamyTea Posted January 13, 2023 Share Posted January 13, 2023 38 minutes ago, George said: Surely any sort of radiant heat (that is, primarily transmitted via radiation rather than convection or conduction) is by definition an infra-red heater? Not really. Radiation happens at all frequencies, or wavelengths, if you prefer. Some frequencies are absorbed better by some elements (bond strength, orbital paths/angles/distances). Marketing loves it when people do not understand physics and think that a seemingly simple, and rational explanation, explains it all. The biggest problem with Infrared heating is it cannot run at a high temperature, so needs a lot of area. This causes the ratio between the emitter to the receiver to be large. It makes no difference to the amount of energy needed to heat an object, but the power delivery, the W/m² is low. Just heating the air in the building is probably best. That way, we breath in warm air. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Posted January 13, 2023 Share Posted January 13, 2023 Yeah but anything hot will be emitting infra-red. I'll probably end up just sticking up a bathroom bar heater anyway. Just checked the prices for the mirrors... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteamyTea Posted January 13, 2023 Share Posted January 13, 2023 1 hour ago, George said: Yeah but anything hot will be emitting infra-red A UV radiation source won't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joth Posted January 13, 2023 Share Posted January 13, 2023 Fwiw I imagine a huge amount of the detail was lost in the newspaper editorial process. Our house went to The Times and the result that was published bore very little relationship to the facts I quoted to the reporter. For example: Me: annual heat energy demand has been reduced by 90% Press: household energy bill reduced by 90% Etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Posted January 13, 2023 Share Posted January 13, 2023 10 minutes ago, SteamyTea said: A UV radiation source won't. I'm definitely at the limit of my decades old A-level physics... but I don't think you can commonly buy UV heaters. Not sure I want to turn my bathroom into a tanning parlour / skin cancer room. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteamyTea Posted January 13, 2023 Share Posted January 13, 2023 33 minutes ago, George said: but I don't think you can commonly buy UV heaters. Sunbeds Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Posted January 13, 2023 Share Posted January 13, 2023 (edited) 49 minutes ago, SteamyTea said: Sunbeds I'd argue that is a UV emitter. You don't need heat to tan / sunburn. Indeed, if you filled a sunbed with regular bar heating elements I think you'd grill the human. Presumably ionising must take less energy than heat transfer. Edited January 13, 2023 by George Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now