News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Insulation: First the body, then the home (2011) by citrin_ru on Tuesday January 31, 2023 @04:38AM (#34593177)
Heat recovery ventilation is more energy efficient than an old breathable house. But unfortunately it is not common even in new buildings. If you own a home you probably can install one but renters are out of luck.
Re:Insulation: First the body, then the home (2011) by londons_explore on Tuesday January 31, 2023 @06:51AM (#34593967)
Heat recovery ventilation is still a technology in its infancy.

Typically only around 90% of the energy is recovered, even in ideal conditions.

That sounds good, but considering that for 'good air', you really want to be replacing the air fully every 10 minutes. That means after ~1.5 hours, you've lost nearly all the heat in your home.

Combine that with the fact the 90% is an ideal figure - in more typical installations it might be more like 50% because the incoming and outgoing airflows are not balanced, the heat exchanger is full of fluff and dust, and the humidity of the air is such that lots of energy is lost to the latent heat of vaporization.

Is it worth having one if you want a well ventilated house? Yes. Will it be worth replacing it in 5-10 years when more efficient models get designed...? Probably also yes.

Re:Insulation: First the body, then the home (2011) by valenterry on Tuesday January 31, 2023 @07:31AM (#34594262)
> That sounds good, but considering that for 'good air', you really want to be replacing the air fully every 10 minutes.

That obviously does not make any sense. You at least want to know the volumne of the room/house before giving any number...

Re:Insulation: First the body, then the home (2011) by anonymous_sorry on Tuesday January 31, 2023 @09:34AM (#34595450)
It's not obvious to me why this doesn't make sense.

What "Replacing the air fully" equates to in terms of volume is already a factor of the size of the room/house.

You might want to know what volume of air that actually was to understand energy usage, but gp was talking about air quality, not energy efficiency.

Re:Insulation: First the body, then the home (2011) by valenterry on Tuesday January 31, 2023 @09:58AM (#34595795)
> What "Replacing the air fully" equates to in terms of volume is already a factor of the size of the room/house.

Exactly. If one person lives in a castle, do we need to replace all the air every hour? Certainly not. If we are talking about a person in a 5sqm room (for sleeping) then replacing all air every hour won't be sufficient.

There are more factors besides the number of people and the air volume, but I really didn't want to go into so much detail.

Re:Insulation: First the body, then the home (2011) by throw0101c on Tuesday January 31, 2023 @07:14AM (#34594114)
> Typically only around 90% of the energy is recovered, even in ideal conditions.

As opposed to the 0% of energy recovered when a house "breathes" (i.e., leaks like a sieve) and lets out all the conditioned air?

> That sounds good, but considering that for 'good air', you really want to be replacing the air fully every 10 minutes.

[citation needed]

ASHRAE 62.2 does not mandate nearly that much air exchange. A 2,000 sq. ft. (200 sq. m) home is about 20,000 cu. ft. of volume, and needs about 100 cfm of ventilation. And some folks (e.g., Lstiburek) think ASHRAE (at least the newer revisions) is too high:

* https://www.energyvanguard.com/blog/lstiburek-has-new-ventil...

* https://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/article/how-much-fresh-...

Re:Insulation: First the body, then the home (2011) by Dork1234 on Tuesday January 31, 2023 @11:18AM (#34597115)
Most homes are getting 4 to 7 air changes per hour just from leakage, 100cfm is nothing compared to that.

It should be tied to the ACH value of the construction, as well as tied to occupancy sensors in each room.

Re:Insulation: First the body, then the home (2011) by kyberias on Tuesday January 31, 2023 @07:18AM (#34594156)
The standard to replace all air is about 2 hours which is 12 times longer than the 10 minutes you stated here.
Re:Insulation: First the body, then the home (2011) by dagw on Tuesday January 31, 2023 @07:47AM (#34594404)
That sounds good, but considering that for 'good air', you really want to be replacing the air fully every 10 minutes.

What country are you in that has such standards? In Sweden the official recommendation in the building standards is once every other hour.

Re:Insulation: First the body, then the home (2011) by alliao on Tuesday January 31, 2023 @08:02AM (#34594531)
I once heard that Swedes sleep with windows open, sounds like way more ACH than building standards?
Re:Insulation: First the body, then the home (2011) by jeltz on Tuesday January 31, 2023 @10:25AM (#34596249)
Only during the summers and due to lack of air conditioning. That is no related to air quality.
Re:Insulation: First the body, then the home (2011) by Dork1234 on Tuesday January 31, 2023 @11:11AM (#34596982)
HRV have been around for 30+ years. I wouldn't call it infancy, just not main stream.
Re:Insulation: First the body, then the home (2011) by changoplatanero on Tuesday January 31, 2023 @11:42AM (#34597457)
> That means after ~1.5 hours, you've lost nearly all the heat in your home.

As far as I know most of the heat in my home is stored in solid objects like the walls and not the air. Replace all the air and you still have the heat

Re:Insulation: First the body, then the home (2011) by PaulDavisThe1st on Tuesday January 31, 2023 @12:58PM (#34598850)
Unless you live in an adobe/stone/brick house, the thermal mass of your walls is pretty small. Traditional plaster would add a limited amount to a stud-framed house, but in most US houses, what you've said isn't true.
Re:Insulation: First the body, then the home (2011) by mharig on Thursday February 02, 2023 @09:17AM (#34626772)
And the ventilation ducts and filters are nice hotbeds for mold and bacteria.