3 ms·
That has significant costs on the energy efficiency of buildings and would blunt a lot of the progress we're making on combating climate change. Not saying it
by shalmanese 5y ago
That has significant costs on the energy efficiency of buildings and would blunt a lot of the progress we're making on combating climate change.
Not saying it shouldn't be done but it should be done in a smart way that balances between tradeoffs.
- lostmsu 5y agoDoes it? I thought energy expenditure to maintain indoor temperature is mostly due to heating/cooling, not due to moving air to or from heat exchanger. E.g. it is cheap to rotate the air in the building in a closed loop through a filter.
- thrdbndndn 5y agoYeah, I can't see how the operating cost would be much different. I do think the initial cost to install/upgrade to such system would be substantial, though (as in, existing systems may not have the capacity to ventilate that much.)
- Robin_Message 5y agoYou can use heat exchangers between outlet and inlet air to mitigate a good portion of the energy cost I believe.
- stkdump 5y agoIf the outflow is not compressed, you can transfer at most half of the heat and that is under perfect conditions.
- lhopki01 5y agoThat's not quite right. If the airflows are in opposite directions then you can transfer more heat. Since as the hot air cools it encounters progressively colder air ensuring there is always a temperature gradient to transfer heat. These systems are about 60%-90% efficient at transfering heat.