Jeremy Cash wrote:The best thing to do with a good theory is test it. Take lots of pictures, documentation, etc. and share your findings with us.
C.J. Murray wrote:I would not recommend this for the following reasons:
1) People gotta be in the greenhouse at some point and there is no way to guarantee no CO was produced along with the CO2 and water vapor.
2) Plants need oxygen too, not just CO2.
3) The water vapor is gonna condense on everything and it'll be a rainforest.
Marcus Zed wrote:I have been thinking about this recently for my own use, and here is what I came up with:
An absorption chiller (water/lithium bromide) DOES NOT USE HEAT TO COOL, it uses vacuum to evaporate the refrigerant (water), a dessicant (lithium bromide solution) to absorb the water vapor in order to maintain the vacuum, and heat to re-concentrate the dessicant by boiling off the water.
In commercial systems, all of this usually happens simultaneously (so that you need heat to run the system as well as power for the pumps), but there is no reason that it needs to.
If you retrofitted a small absorption chiller with a VERY LARGE dessicant storage tank and very large used dessicant tank, you could use heat whenever it was available to reconcentrate dessicant, even if your system was not cooling at that time. This heat could come from whatever stove you use for cooking/baking or other process. Because the system is primarily plumbing, you could put the cookstove, dessicant boiler, and dessicant storage tank in a seperate building with little difficulty, thermally isolating it from the building you are trying to cool. The commercial systems I have looked at feed dessicant at low pressure, so elevating the bottom of the tank a few feet above the evaporator could give you all the pressure you would need.
In order to actually run the evaporator and circulate the chilled water requires electricity. If you found appropriate DC motors, this part of the system could be run directly off of a modest-sized solar panel directly without the losses from an inverter or battery storage.
There should be a thermal mass wall completely shaded within the building to be cooled (I doubt you EVER really wasnt solar gain in south Florida). The wall should be as tall as you can make it, and can include the convection tubes described above.
Each component of the system works whenever the necessary energy source is available.
Whenever you cook or bake, you are also re-concentrating dessicant.
Whenever the sun is shining, you are pumping refigerant and dessicant to produce chilled water which is circulating through your heat-sink wall and cool it.
Whenever the interior temperature of the house is significantly above that of the heat-sink wall, the passive convection design will draw that heat back into the heat sink.
There is no reason that these processes have to take place at the same time, since the concentrated dessicant stores the value of the heat in chemical form.
<span xmlns:dct="http://purl.org/dc/terms/" href="http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text" property="dct:title" rel="dct:type">Concept for off-grid absorption cooling</span> by <span xmlns:cc="http://creativecommons.org/ns#" property="cc:attributionName">Albin Marcus Zuech</span> is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.
Sunny Soleil wrote:My husband and I have this dream to get food forests every mile or so, that will provide for everyone's food needs in the future.
aman inavan wrote:I don't know the answer but it brought up another question
Could you build a hugelkultur bed over a tree stump instead of labouring to remove a stump
Springtime Homes wrote:My main argument is something I am very familiar with: Labor Costs and Hidden Costs. The two projects I saw involved HUGE amounts of labor and took a long time to complete. Big crews of workers came every day to the job site for weeks and I doubt any of them were fueling with B100. Luckily these carbon costs were minimized by being infill projects, but this was a pretty substantial hidden carbon cost that my SIP homes do not incur. Another very difficult to calculate hidden carbon cost is the fuel that it took these workers to complete their labor (food).