Ny considerable advantage to a forced air-to-air heat exchanger over just cleverly positioned positive pressure forced air intake

energy efficiencyheating

This is from a typical North Western European housing perspective where most (older) buildings will not have forced air/AC/heat pumps etc. for various reasons, and most houses are only heated using gas powered central heating with water based radiators for transport. This means if you want fresh air in winter, you're opening a window and wasting energy in the air that was heated.

I understand the workings of forced air-to-air heat exchangers and how they can warm or cool fresh air coming in and how that could improve the energy loss situation. My question is, is it that much better than just forcing fresh air in to mingle with the stale air and having the over-pressure leak out, perhaps at the opposite end of a room or low to the ground where it is colder?

Of course I understand that you will lose some efficiency over a heat exchanger, as you will be leaking a mix of air containing also a lot of stale energy out that has not properly transferred energy. But is it that much worse considering the added complexity of a heat exchanger? Any other downsides/advantages I should be aware of?

Best Answer

This is a simple question requiring a complex answer...!

What you are asking is the cost-benefit tradeoff of installing a heat exchanger. How much will you save on heating costs, vs what does it cost to purchase and operate the exchanger. And you wish to compare that to forced air ventilation.

Factors to consider:

  • Required or desired ventilation rate, usu. depends on occupancy and your tolerance to flatulence
  • Number of heating degree days, from local climatological data
  • Heat exchanger efficiency, e.g. 60-80%, or 0% for ventilation without exchanger
  • Electricity consumed by exchanger, including its fan and defroster
  • Cost of heating, based on your local price of electrical or hydrocarbon energy
  • Purchase cost for the heat exchanger sized appropriately for your dwelling

This linked article shows a pay-back time of 5-years, but of course, it all depends on your parameters. The data in these calculations use imperial units, but it's a good example. You'll find similar calculations elsewhere, and I wouldn't be surprised if your local energy supplier has some detailed data, considering the cost of energy and your climate (Belgium? Netherlands?)

https://home-energy.extension.org/cost-effectiveness-of-installing-heat-exchangers/

Personally I have found that in mild climates (North West Europe, Western Canada / North Western USA) the heat loss due to cracked-open windows or natural ventilation pales in comparison to the house's heat lost through building envelope cracks & radiation losses. The heat exchanger makes much more sense in areas with long winters down to -10C ... -20C.

One reason is the obvious temperature of the taken-in air, but the other is the local building code for insulation. Milder climate regions often have looser insulation requirements, and so the total energy loss is less impacted by ventilation.

Related Topic