I am looking at wood pellet systems, ground source and air heat pumps, solar panels and wind turbines. Which of the above is the best/best combination? I want the house to be comfortable but also have the smallest heating bill possible whilst reducing carbon emissions. I live in Ireland.
2006-08-09 23:08:09 · 7 answers · asked by phil_intime 1 in Environment
A good thick coat.........
2006-08-09 23:11:11 · answer #1 · answered by ? 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I'd ignore wind or solar sources...while environmentally friendly, they will be prohibitively expensive.
We have a lot of clients that are looking for alternatives to expensive oil or gas heating.
One thing you could do is look into a higher efficiency furnace. That's probably the best option. Since you're in Ireland, I'm not sure how easy it is for you to get a high efficiency furnace, but I can't imagine it's that difficult. Look for a furnace that has a high fuel-to-output % rating. Something above 90% would be preferrable.
Depending on how old your furnace is, you could only have a 60-75% efficiency (meaning that up to 40% of your oil is not actually heating your home). A higher efficiency furnace will convert more oil to heat, causing you to need less oil, which causes the oil company to store less, which causes less pollution from externaities like oil shipping, oil rigging, etc. This helps you and the environment.
Wood pellet stoves are another option. They are fairly inexpensive and wood pellets tend to burn long and with fewer total emissions than are associated with oil or gas (according to manufacturer's websites). I did a bit of research on wood pellet stoves recently for my internship. They seem like a viable alternative to traditional fuels, but you also need storage for a large amount of wood pellets. The pellets will also likely need to be imported or shipped and that can be costly. Contact a wood pellet stove dealers near you (check online for Ireland wood pellet dealers...there are likely very few).
HTH
2006-08-10 03:00:14 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
I would suggest that a heat pump would be the most practical. In case you aren't familiar with a heat pump it is, in effect, a refrigerator, but whereas the refrigerator uses the evaporator to produce low temperature ambiance, a heat pump uses the condenser to provide high-temperature heating. It does what the name suggests: it pumps energy from a cold source up to a high enough temperature to heat the house. For every kWh you pay for in operating costs you should get 3 or 4 kWh of heating. Snag?
You must have a large source of low temperature energy at hand, say a river - unless you want to freeze your garden! 'Air' heat pumps are likely to involve bulky equipment!
2006-08-10 04:03:38 · answer #3 · answered by clausiusminkowski 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
All heating systems that use "free energy" (like wind or sun) are more or less eficient. The problem is the investment costs.
Check each of them, calculate the installation costs and compare with your current costs. You will finb that, as a rule of thumb, you can recover the costs of any solar or wind installation within 3 to 6 years...
So, unless you intend to stay in your house for at least 5 years, it is not worth it.
2006-08-09 23:19:23 · answer #4 · answered by just "JR" 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The most important thing is to make sure that your house i well isolated.
Wind turbines are nice but it's a waste to use high-quality energy such as electricity for heating. If you purchase a wind turbine, it's probably better for you as well as for the environment to sell your surplus electricity to the grid and spend the money on fuel.
2006-08-09 23:39:12 · answer #5 · answered by helene_thygesen 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
heat pump & depending where you are, solar panel and/or wind turbine, you may also be able to sell excess energy back to the grid.
2006-08-09 23:38:29 · answer #6 · answered by Auggie 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'd look into a geothermal heat pump. It costs a lot but if you're really wanting the "greenest" option, that would be it.
2006-08-10 02:35:14 · answer #7 · answered by Gekko 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋