Econology forum in englishHeat Storage in the Earth from the Sun

Topics about this forum and the econology in english speaking language for people who are not not understanding french language.
dedeleco
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
Messages : 9211
Inscription : 16/01/10, 01:19
x 4

Message non lupar dedeleco » 01/06/12, 14:36

Compared to a nuke plant, this technology is more than one billion times simpler !!!

It is also more than one billion less dangerous !!

I can dril by myself !!!

Il I find inexpensive hand drilling for small diameter not sold in supermarkets, but used by some on econology for water well !!

The PE tube cost 28€ for 100 meters, for solar panels and inside the earth !!

Conventional insulation is suffcient outside !!

It is suffcient for storing solar heat inside the ground of the earth.

But many like complex expensive solutions !!
0 x

Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
Messages : 11085
Inscription : 22/08/09, 22:38
Localisation : regio genevesis
x 65

Message non lupar Obamot » 01/06/12, 15:04

As usual, you don't answering about what you missed...

By the way:

1) your link IS NOT about a "zero emission" project (because they also use a gaz plant).
2) this project is not applicable to any type of building.

(And you forgot to mention all that points, most of the time).

Last, but not least: a nuclear plant is NOT «a brand new complexe technology», it come from ...the fifties and except the safety, not much sophisticated to understand than a controlled steamer.
0 x
« L'important n'est point le chemin vers le bonheur, l'important c'est le chemin »Lao Tseu
dedeleco
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
Messages : 9211
Inscription : 16/01/10, 01:19
x 4

Message non lupar dedeleco » 01/06/12, 15:43

Obamot a écrit :As usual, you don't answering about what you missed...

By the way:

1) your link IS NOT about a "zero emission" project (because they also use a gaz plant).
2) this project is not applicable to any type of building.

(And you forgot to mention all that points, most of the time).

Last, but not least: a nuclear plant is NOT «a brand new complexe technology», it come from ...the fifties and except the safety, not much sophisticated to understand than a controlled steamer.


Always the same wrong sentences :

(because they also use a gaz plant).


Auxiliary gas is not fot home heating, but only as a complement for solar hot water in winter, bathing, because we refuse to use water only at 30°C, which is sufficient for me, for bathing.

www;dlsc.ca have been very careful, to not mix all the problems, like Obamot, separating home heating, the biggest expense, from hot water, so that it is working and not a failure, by a mixing completely diifferent problems ?

The home are heated in winter by summer sun and rejecting this beautiful working solution, because some gaz is used to complement hot water solar panel, when there is no sun, is completely misleading and a lie by Obamot.

EPR is a complex new brand for the security, because complete security is impossible with any nuke.

On the contrary, the summer solar heat for winter is a very very old technology, used simply by our ancestors, in the underground caves, more than 20000 years ago when it was very cold and thus living in mild temperature of 13°C compared to -20°C outside in winter.

This method is the same, improved by storing in the earth the heat of the sun for the winter, using the diffusion of heat taking a time like the square ot the distance :

One year over 3 to 6 meters, 100 years over 30 to 60 meters only !!!

2) this project is not applicable to any type of building.


is completely wrong !!

Because storing is made outside of the building, under parkings, roads, or gardens, so that any old building, can be heated with this method with solar thermal panels on the roof or any free place under the sun.

Nothing prevents to make this in my old houses, only that some material for simple drilling is not usually found and times necessary to improve and simplify, what other complicate needless.

Wrong ideas prevents to see the real working solution.

Moreover, econologie is earning money, by the without end advertising of the cheating trickery of the Windeo wind turbines !!
0 x
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
Messages : 11085
Inscription : 22/08/09, 22:38
Localisation : regio genevesis
x 65

Message non lupar Obamot » 01/06/12, 18:55

Dedeleco a écrit :Because storing is made outside of the building, under [...] garden[s]

I suppose they could build the heat storage under your garden, kindly without disturbing earthworms...! :mrgreen:

Previously Dedeleco a écrit :«But only projects, often quite expensive, and the big red truck will destroy completely all my garden of my old houses»
https://www.econologie.com/forums/post234179.html#234179


Hilarious isn't it ? :mrgreen:

PS: no one will care about your other points imho, so...
0 x
« L'important n'est point le chemin vers le bonheur, l'important c'est le chemin »Lao Tseu
Avatar de l’utilisateur
Remundo
Modérateur
Modérateur
Messages : 8391
Inscription : 15/10/07, 16:05
Localisation : Clermont Ferrand
x 125

Message non lupar Remundo » 01/06/12, 22:19

Obamot a écrit :"Thanks a lot" for killing the sujet of Alerte.Schiste! (By cutting most of my posts and pasting them here).

The links are done to speak about heat storage here,

This subject must not pollute the shale gas' sujet.

Simple :idea:
0 x
ImageImageImage

Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
Messages : 11085
Inscription : 22/08/09, 22:38
Localisation : regio genevesis
x 65

Message non lupar Obamot » 01/06/12, 23:09

You saw the result...! Read the introduction... What does mean?

What is in common?
— Real price of a wellbore... Very interesting to know.
— Closer technic to build a wellbore.
— Same equipment required.
— Same potential dangers.
— Same know how...

I'm sorry but I don't specially agree in this case Remundo. But no problem to me. :P
0 x
« L'important n'est point le chemin vers le bonheur, l'important c'est le chemin »Lao Tseu
Avatar de l’utilisateur
Remundo
Modérateur
Modérateur
Messages : 8391
Inscription : 15/10/07, 16:05
Localisation : Clermont Ferrand
x 125

Message non lupar Remundo » 02/06/12, 06:47

The technics are the not same for drilling a dwelling geothermal hole (depth max 50 m and mainly vertical) and a huge net of underground pipes (vertical and horizontal,(several km of length and depth and fracking the stones with high pressure corrosive liquids).

Thus the comparison between the costs is difficult, simply because the goals of a fracking wellbore and a geothermal drilling of surface are totally different.

But the sujet is interessant, that's why I have created this one, and moreover, it improves our English :D

@+
0 x
ImageImageImage
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
Messages : 11085
Inscription : 22/08/09, 22:38
Localisation : regio genevesis
x 65

Message non lupar Obamot » 02/06/12, 09:18

Remundo a écrit :The technics are the not same for drilling a dwelling geothermal hole (depth max 50 m and mainly vertical)

Up to the area...
I guess you never read this thread, also created by Christophe:
https://www.econologie.com/forums/stockage-e ... 10470.html

From -20 m to -200 m is peanut imho (reason why I disagree Dedeleco at this point: too much expensive for a gain between 12,5°C to 18°C only. Not enough, reason why it require an "heat pump" to be efficient, and so on... ).
The EPFZ suggest 300 meters. But it's also not enough, because they are border line. To be sure, the best is between 400 m and 500 m.
And this is NOT for a straight geothermal application, but to refill and increasing temperature in the hot season, for to extract and exploiting it in the cold season. The top of temperature in the winter, can be obtain after two years of exploitation (is like a charger with batteries...)

Remundo a écrit :Thus the comparison between the costs is difficult, simply because the goals of a fracking wellbore and a geothermal drilling of surface are totally different.

Ok, ok, but I don't care about that. Only I would like to have an estimation: of what is the «economic price», according to a big campaign of rehabilition of houses. For example, impulsed to a large scale, by a government (dreaming is good...).

Remundo a écrit :But the sujet is interessant, that's why I have created this one, and moreover, it improves our English :D

@+

...hope it's not to late for the rest of us... :mrgreen:
0 x
« L'important n'est point le chemin vers le bonheur, l'important c'est le chemin »Lao Tseu
dedeleco
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
Messages : 9211
Inscription : 16/01/10, 01:19
x 4

Message non lupar dedeleco » 02/06/12, 10:28

This sentence is completely wrong :

From -20 m to -200 m is peanut imho (reason why I disagree Dedeleco at this point: too much expensive for a gain between 12,5°C to 18°C only. Not enough, reason why it require an "heat pump" to be efficient, and so on... ).


look and read please www.dlsc.ca a working solution, that Obamot has not read carefully, as usual with hiim.

It is heating 52 homes (only houses heating and not bathing water, which is another problem with other free solutions ) without any "heat pump" and with a depth of 32m only !!

For a single old home, you can limit at 12m of depth, with small diameters bore hole with hand boring machine, without all the big red trucks shown and used by Obamot, that are used for drilling for gaz over hundred kilometers of land in USA !!

The solution of Obamot, typical for recovering gaz, is the best to have no more any garden over centuries !!

A simple solution is possible and Obamot missed this inexpensive solution.
0 x
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
Messages : 11085
Inscription : 22/08/09, 22:38
Localisation : regio genevesis
x 65

Message non lupar Obamot » 02/06/12, 15:53

I never miss something about that... I guess, so... :lol:

Again and again, you would continue as a "never end story". Provide a SERIOUS calculation (not such advertised by this brand) and we could talk...

— project, that you report, is not efficient enough for conventionnal houses (we already targeted the application domain of that kind of houses, many, many times in french);

— because is more complexe;

— it use fossil energy (that I don't want), especially if applied to non-passive houses, who represent 98% of the today market (according to official statistics);

— is expensive to build for what it is, to my eyes. Because it require a storage place (for gaz, fioul, PAC or whatever) it's risky, and that is about the same cost than the fluid tank of Jenni;...>

— btw, what is the bargain if you need to invest in both: conventionnal and renewable equipment? You double the costs, potentially problems and also the amortization costs for a none benefit situation for years;

— is expensive to service (multiply the holes, you multiply also potentially the problems) so I don't know why you are a lot suspicious about only one wellbore (with an interleaved of two "U tube" design);
— most of houses, don't have a sufficient surface to install a collector plant;

— you never provide any independent calculation that proved if it really working in such condition;

— moreover, what is not fair from your side: you never considered the Jenni houses as a serious and better competitor, because it's concept don't use fossil energy anymore, that give "zero emission", and zero cost in the cold season.

— and last but not least, they don't take profit enough – of all the available surface of the roof to collect solar thermic energy – that make me very suspicious about the efficiency (especially for a canadian project, when you know how much it's cold over there);

...so, stop it please. :lol:

Stop your repetitions, stop your link, stop the discussion to focus only on the issues that you would consider useful unilaterally, stop your long posts that dosen't make sense, stop your flood. Stop it now.

Thanks !
0 x
« L'important n'est point le chemin vers le bonheur, l'important c'est le chemin »Lao Tseu


Revenir vers « Econology forum in english »

Qui est en ligne ?

Utilisateurs parcourant ce forum : Aucun utilisateur inscrit et 1 invité