|
|
|
|
|
by MichaelZuo
1108 days ago
|
|
> Seems like the big drawback of the positive-pressure approach would be flushing the heating/cooling out, too (as you've said in the article). There are lots of enthalpy recovery systems on the market, some that can recover >75% of the 'waste' energy, though mostly aimed at larger customers. You need to do a cost-benefit analysis to see if it makes sense to spend the upfront cost. |
|
Guessing that there are two main scenarios there:
1. A leaky house where positive-pressure causes flows to come out of various leaks all around.
2. A well-sealed house where positive-pressure causes flows to leave through a well-defined channel.
The first-case might be harder to recover heat/coolness from, as the (high/low)-temperature air might leak in a way that'd be harder to make use of it.
The second-case would seem to offer a stream of warmer/cooler air that could be used with a heat-exchanger or heat-pump or something.
To note it, well-sealed houses might have issues with relatively poor ventilation, making positive-pressure more desirable -- much like how the OP describes wanting to keep CO2-levels down with their positive-pressure system.