jonr
Registered Users
Basic Member
Posts:335
 |
| 05/13/2009 7:34 AM |
|
Say I ran hydronic tubes through the middle of ICF wall blocks. Also that I had well water, so I had an infinite source of low cost 50F water. I could, in a heating case, run 50F well water through the walls whenever the middle of the ICF fell below 40F (< 10F outside). I could have some type of automatic drainback system in case of failure (to prevent freezing issues).
In the cooling case - keep the middle of the ICF at 60F and I may not need AC at all.
May not be cost effective, but somewhat interesting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
imoldfella
Registered Users
New Member
Posts:13
|
| 05/17/2009 11:10 PM |
|
Well, maybe if you are in a very dry climate. Here on the East cost you would be cool and clammy because of the humidity.
You might want to google information about the Energon office building - the largest passivhaus office building. It uses a similar approach. They were overall pleased with the approach, but noted some issues with overcoming the inertia when weather or usages change. |
|
|
|
|
engineer
Registered Users
Veteran Member
Posts:1159
|
| 05/18/2009 7:09 AM |
|
Keeping ICF walls warm won't keep a house warm. Most heat losses are through windows, doors and via infiltration. Warming the concrete center would result in limited heat getting into the house owing to the foam between it and the interior.
Same applies to cooling. Cool insuated walls would have limited effect against solar gain, and allowing / causing any building component's temperature to be below dewpoint would be folly.
|
|
Without data, you only have an opinion. |
|
|
Manfred
Registered Users
Basic Member
Posts:202
|
| 05/18/2009 9:13 PM |
|
No heatpump geothermal wall is a start of a very good concept. Being able to achieve a constant concrete core temperature of, lets say, 68F will reduce the delta T from the inside to the concrete core. The concrete core then becomes an independant entity - independant from the interior and the exterior. How so? Because the concrete core is constantly fed a pre-determined stable water temperature form the geothermal storage.
So yes, jonr, you are onto something good. But geothermal temp alone will not do it. You need to get solar gain into the ground. |
|
Manfred Knobel
Moss Pointe Builders, Inc. |
|
|
jonr
Registered Users
Basic Member
Posts:335
|
| 05/19/2009 6:27 AM |
|
Given that the ICF has insulation on each side, I suspect that one could use a single 1/2" tube in each cavity. Should help with plumbing costs. On the other hand, I agree - it won't actually heat the interior, it will just slow heat loss. In cooling mode, it would add very slightly to interior cooling and would have no effect on infiltration and other losses. So it becomes a cost efficiency question. People have told me that just adding more insulation is cheaper and simpler.
|
|
|
|
|
Manfred
Registered Users
Basic Member
Posts:202
|
| 05/29/2009 8:08 AM |
|
| By providing fluid pipe into the concrete wall cavity at a certain temperatur (minimum 50-55F - higher is possible) you are creating essentially a thermal barrier or a temperature barrier. The R factor becomes a non-issue and the delta T is reduced, hence less energy requirement to maintain inside temp and humidity. |
|
Manfred Knobel
Moss Pointe Builders, Inc. |
|
|
jamesmacdonald1
Registered Users
New Member
Posts:70
|
| 05/29/2009 8:22 AM |
|
| Using an ICF system with insulation on the exterior (Durisol or equivalent) might make a difference to this debate? |
|
|
|
|
Manfred
Registered Users
Basic Member
Posts:202
|
| 05/29/2009 1:05 PM |
|
| the difference would be that the durisol product, even though considered an ICF, does not provide an effective thermal break to to the concrete core. I might be wrong here. Jonr has raised the question of whether it would be advantageous to create a concrete core "climate" and therby reducing energy consumption. His thought is correct in basics. |
|
Manfred Knobel
Moss Pointe Builders, Inc. |
|
|
phxphun
Registered Users
New Member
Posts:6
|
| 06/03/2009 2:14 PM |
|
| jonr - Your idea has been discussed in a few other threads in this forum. "In Wall Heat in ICF" for example, and a few others. You might also research 'Isomax'... they are doing this. Mostly in Europe I believe, but are starting projects here in the U.S. now. Donnerwetter or Zeroenergy can help you... they're both quite knowledgeable of this concept. |
|
|
|
|
Donnerwetter
Registered Users
New Member
Posts:89
|
| 06/03/2009 6:18 PM |
|
Phxphun
Thank-you for your kind words and confidence. I have personally assisted in the installation of the "Solar House 3" in Luxembourg (1998) and yes THIS DOES WORK. The Solar House 5 (by Opale; Poland) built in 2005 is compiling some remarkable data as to both Heating and cooling energy usage. (less than 10kwh/m2/year).
Studies have found that a "lop-sided ICF" (2" EPS - 6" Concrete - MgO2/Hardie/or Viroc Board) works the best; however this system is designed to work with all ICF's; thus creating a "Supercharged" or "Hybrid" ICF walling system.
jonr - Where are you located?
Remember when Oliver and Wilbur Wright invented Flight? Comments than were "If man were meant to fly - than God would have given him Wings". ...and today we do it without a propeller!!!
Enhancements and improvements to a great building system (all ICF's) might very well be this!!! |
|
|
|
|
jonr
Registered Users
Basic Member
Posts:335
|
| 06/03/2009 8:49 PM |
|
Isomax does look like the same idea, thanks.
Say such a system eliminates 50% of the wall conduction loss but leaves air infiltration, windows, floor and ceiling the same.
Is it worth doing (say that you are already using ICFs and have a well)?
Example location: Lower Michigan
|
|
|
|
|
Manfred
Registered Users
Basic Member
Posts:202
|
| 06/07/2009 6:41 AM |
|
| Lower Michigan has about 1150 kWh/m2/a (year) of irradiance. An Isomax house would only use about 250 kWh/m2/a. It is free energy! Provided by the sun, stored in the earth. How cool is that!? |
|
Manfred Knobel
Moss Pointe Builders, Inc. |
|
|