Hunting for replacement ERVs

ventilation, ,

It was time to research replacement ERVs (Energy Recovery Ventilator) after two of our units broke down in 2020. A couple of key aspects re-emerged in that process.

  1. The heat recovery efficiency of our Recoupaerator 200 DX was unmatched based on HVI (Home Ventilation Institute) data, which was confirmed with my own testing.
  2. It looked like the Recoupaerator 200 DX was the only residential ERV on the U.S. market that used an enthalpy wheel for the heat and moisture transfer.

Other residential ERVs use a static core heat exchanger, or core in short. Unlike an enthalpy wheel, the core functions on the principle of cross flow.  The exhaust and fresh stream flow across each other in the core without mixing. In the process thermal energy is transferred through the core’s membranes. And if we want to get all technical, we are talking about sensible energy (heat) and latent energy (moisture).

The cores come in two shapes: square and hexagonal. And this apparently small difference has a big impact when it comes to energy recovery. A hexagonal core has more surface area and thus provides more opportunity for sensible and latent energy transfer.

A quick review of product specifications led me to conclude that an ERV with a square core would be out of the question for us, because of the rather poor energy recovery rates.

Looking at products with a hexagonal core, I was left with three available options:

  • Zehnder CAQ350 ERV
  • Panasonic FV-20VEC1, and
  • Broan ERV200 ECM (also sold under the Venmar brand name).

To help in the decision making process, I pulled the HVI performance data for each product so that I got a good comparison.

The three hexagonal core options appeared to be all in close range of each other. Zehnder seems to be a little bit of an outlier on the net air flow side for the test data, while the Panasonic and Broan are in close range.

Looking at the power consumed in watts, it was a close race, where Broan emerged with the least power consumption.

As for the energy recovery rate – or if you prefer the technical term, the Adjusted Sensible Recovery Efficiency (ASRE), we have another close race with Zehnder squeezing into first place, closely followed by Panasonic and Broan.

These were useful data to have, but I still was left without a clear preference between the three options. So I began to look at cost. And remember, these were pre-inflation prices. Zehnder came in just above $3,000, Broan landed just under $3,000, and Panasonic just under $2,000.

It looked like I was left with two favorites in this horse race: Panasonic and Broan.

Between the two, the Broan ERV seemed to be the most compatible. It has similar dimensions to the old Recoupaerator 200 DX and as such would fit nicely into the ventilation closet. It also had very similar controls and low voltage auxiliaries, just like the Recoupaerator 200 DX.

The Panasonic also had very similar dimensions to the old Recoupaerator 200 DX and as such would fit nicely into the existing ventilation closet. But its controls seemed rather primitive, and the auxiliary controls for some reasons all required line voltage. And it was unclear what advertised auxiliary controls would actually be available.

Based on my past experience, I was not in the mood to bet all my money on one horse. Diversifying my investment seemed to be a safer path to take. So I ended up ordering one Panasonic FV-20VEC1 and one Broan ERV200 ECM to replace the two failed Recoupaerator 200 DX.

Related posts:

Failure of Recoupaerator 200 DX

ventilation,

The pandemic brought a kind of perfect storm for many of us. In our case, it was ventilation related. Two of our ERV’s broke down – right when we really needed to rely on good ventilation. Although, considering what other folks had to endure, ours wasn’t really a perfect storm but more of an inconvenient breeze.

We had three Recoupaerators 200 DX Energy Recovery Ventilators by UltimateAir in our building, one for each apartment. And as mentioned in the past, these ERV’s were one of my favorite green building gadgets.

Six months into the pandemic, the ERV for the garden unit broke down, followed by the one on the 1st floor. You may be asking: “What is the big deal? Just get replacement parts, or a new unit”.

I tried. I contacted UltimateAir, and got crickets chirping. I eventually found out that UltimateAir went out of business at the beginning of the pandemic.

I was now sitting on three ERVs with no tech support or good way of obtaining parts or even a replacement unit. That this was a disappointing experience is an understatement. I loved the setup, effectiveness and efficiency of these ERVs from UltimateAir.

But it looked like it was time to let go and research alternative products that I could use as replacements. And that had its own challenges because of the supply chain issues that reigned during that time.

We did the only thing that we could do: Ventilated the old fashioned way by opening windows, tried not to think too much about the associated energy penalty, and remained hopeful that the supply chain would eventually unclog.

Related posts:

How close to net-zero are we?

project rationales, , ,

To answer this question, let’s look at the data for the solar year 2020 when our electrical use included space conditioning.

Our annual use totaled 13,428 kWh that year, while our annual production amounted to 11,390 kWh. The solar array produced enough electricity to cover 85% of our annual consumption.

To reach net-zero, we would need to be at 100% or above. So we are around 15% short of net zero and had some more homework ahead of us.

The moving goal post…

When we embarked on the project in 2009, all-electric homes were not a thing yet, heat pumps were hard to find, and solar arrays were uncommon.

At the time my focus was on using a solar hot water system to heat the building and for domestic hot water, and a photovoltaic array to cover our electrical needs. But I always found myself on thin ice when attempting to cover space heating and domestic hot water with a solar hot water system alone. In other words, getting away without a natural gas connection seemed impossible, which made the net zero goal hard to reach.

I pivoted my focus into significantly reducing the overall energy load of our building. If I had to use natural gas as an energy source, I wanted to use as little as possible. That put us on the path of our deep energy retrofit.

And it paid off.

Interim results in 2012 showed that our improvements reduced our electrical consumption by an estimated 57% and preliminary results from 2016 showed that we reduced our heating needs by an estimated 80%.

A lot has happened since 2009. Green building technologies that once were only known from excotic places like Europe or Asia suddenly made an appearance in the U.S. market, such as heat pumps. And with that, my focus on solar hot water fell away, because heat pumps emerged as a more economic option that I still could use, even if the sun was not shining.

Reducing the general electrical load of a building also has become easier since 2009 with increasingly efficient energy star appliances, LED lighting, etc.

What is standing in the way of net zero?

Yet we are not net zero, to my chagrin. What is standing in the way are two key factors:

  1. That we still rely on natural gas for cooking, domestic hot water, and occasional heating. And we still have a gas dryer.
  2. That our solar array is not large enough to cover 100% of our energy needs should we go all electric.

The second point should be reasonably easy to solve. Because we have reduced the energy load of our building significantly, we have enough room to expand our solar array to cover 100% of our energy use. And we plan on doing so – eventually – once technology catches up.

Regarding the first point – our natural gas connection – it helps to know how much natural gas goes towards what source in our building.

Analyzing our utility bills over the past seven years revealed that about 1,000 therms (77%) went towards space heating, with only 300 therms (23%) going towards domestic hot water, ranges, and the dryer.

The 300 therms seemed to be easy to solve. We can replace our gas dryer with a condensing dryer. The gas ranges can be replaced with induction stoves. And the heat pump water heater technologies have improved to the point where we could say goodbye to a gas fired water heater too.

As for the 1,000 therms going into space heating, one could argue that we solved that problem already with the addition of our minisplits. We used them to heat our building during the solar year 2020, and it worked.

But there is a problem: we drank the kool aid.

We originally, and occasionally still rely on our hydronic heating system, powered by a high efficiency boiler. The steel baseboard radiators and radiant floors deliver a comfort during the heating season that is unmatched.

The good news is that we potentially could replace our boiler with an air-to-water heat pump that used CO2 (R744) as a refrigerant. These units are slowly making an appearance in the U.S. market and are able to deliver 130F water even at very low exterior temperatures. 130F would be a suitable temperature for our hydronic heating system and domestic hot water.

Not only that, but an air-to–water heat pump would be two to three times more efficient than our high efficiency boiler. In other words, it would only require half or one third of the energy input to produce the equivalent of 1,000 therms heating output.

I am hopeful to eventually replace our boiler with an air-to-water heat pump and solve the 1,000 therms that were needed for space heating.  We subsequently could cut our natural gas supply to the building, and yet still enjoy the comfort of our hydronic heating system.

That must be expensive!

In the big picture, what is the cost of doing nothing?

And on a project basis, if it is expensive depends on one’s mindset.

Most of our system decisions, such as the heating system, were not solely based on the economics of the day, or “what is the cheapest system I can get.” We were comfortable investing in systems with a longer payback period as long as they came with:

  1. a high level of energy efficiency,
  2. some level of resiliency and longevity,
  3. improved indoor comfort and health without an energy penalty, and
  4. systems that were somewhat future-proof so that they could adapt to technology upgrades.

This required a lot of research and careful planning at the onset of our project. And it required a lot of luck, as we were gazing into the future trying to predict the path green building technologies would take.

And in practical terms?

It appears that our utility room layout could accommodate the switch from boiler to air-to-water heat pump without revamping the whole hydronic heating or domestic hot water layout.

And because we were mindful when we installed an all new electrical metallic tubing (EMT) based electrical system, providing 240V for the induction stoves and potentially the condensing dryer should just be a matter of simple rewiring.

The one item that wasn’t even remotely on the radar in 2009, and that I still have to wrap my head around, is how best to integrate and accommodate EV charging stations.

In summary: We are not net-zero yet. We are fairly close, and we know the path that will take us there.

Related posts:

Photovoltaic ROI

renewable energy, , ,

In the previous two posts, we studied the electrical production from our 26 module, 8.58 kW array from 2020 to 2023 and compared it against our electrical consumption for the 2020 solar year.

The actual monetary savings of our photovoltaic array over the first three years averaged $1,257 per year, which is slightly more than we expected. At this rate, we are on track to make our $10,047 investment on the array back by year eight.

Looking to the future, if this savings rate continues, the array will have also paid for most of the $31,971.04 roof project investment (the cornice repair, parapet repairs, and reroofing) by year 25.

Slicing and dicing the savings

Our solar installer, Lisa Albrecht from All Bright Solar, shared an Excel spreadsheet with me that allowed me to take a detailed look at our savings. I input the various charges from our electrical bill plus the electricity we pulled from the grid, the electricity we fed back into the grid, and our monthly rollover credits, and it shows me what I would have paid without our solar array versus what we actually paid.

Our savings per solar year (April 1st through to March 31) were as follows:

2020 solar year$1,175.76
2021 solar year$1,232.94
2022 solar year$1,361.86
Three year total$3,770.56

Our savings follow closely the Return on Investment (ROI) calculations that Lisa shared with us when planning the installation of our solar array.

Our out of pocket investment into the solar array was $10,047 after the various rebates. Subtracting the first year’s savings reduced our liability from $10,047 to $8,888 (prediction), or $8,871 (actual). In other words, our ROI for the first year exceeded the prediction by $17.

Subtracting the second year’s savings from the net gain/loss of the first year reduced our liability to $7,697 (prediction), or $7,638 (actual), with the ROI exceeding the prediction by $59 – and so on…

As I mentioned in a previous post, the state incentive we received is based on how much kilowatt hours our 8.58 kW photovoltaic array is predicted to produce over the first 15 years.

10% of that incentive is withheld until year 15 and released as long as we meet the predicted production target. Because our production is exceeding the prediction, it would be safe to assume that we can add another $1,160 incentive payout to year 15 in our ROI calculation.

So far we are on track to make our money back on our $10,047 investment by year eight, giving us an ROI of 12.5%. After that, we can pocket all the savings from our 8.58 kW photovoltaic array. If Lisa’s predictions hold true, we would also have saved around $31,838 on our electrical bills for our 4,500 sf building with its three apartments by year 25.

That $31,838 would cover 99.5% of the cost for our roof project (the reroofing, cornice repair, and parapet repairs).

That all said, I don’t expect to exactly meet these ROI targets, because the numbers don’t account for maintenance and repair costs we may face over the next 25 years. But we hope to get close to them.

At this point I feel I need to clarify again that the savings are not just because we bought into a renewable energy system and slapped a photovoltaic array onto our roof. These savings were made possible because our deep energy retrofit significantly reduced the overall energy load of our building first, which then was followed by a renewable energy investment.

Related posts:

Photovoltaic production vs. electricity used

renewable energy, , ,

We looked at the monitoring data from our inverter for our 26 module, 8.58 kW array in the previous post. To understand how the solar array production offsets our energy used, I compared it to our monthly usage data from our electrical bill for the solar year 2020 (April 1st, 2020 till March 31, 2021).

Solar year 2020Our building
(kWh)		One household in our building
(kWh)		Illinois household
average (kWh)
Based on 2021 EIA data
Electricity used13,4284,4768,736
Electricity produced11,3903,797
Annual deficit2,038679

The table above shows the energy use data for our 4,500 sf building as a whole, and for each of the three households (apartments).

The solar array produced enough electricity to cover 85% of our total annual electricity consumption during the solar year 2020. It effectively reduced our electricity use to 679 kilowatt hours (kWh) per year per household, which was less than the average monthly Illinois household use of 728 kWh (Based on 2021 EIA data).

Our monthly bill per household for the solar year 2020 averaged $11.24 compared to the Illinois average of $95.56 for 2021 (Based on 2021 EIA data).

A key takeaway from these data is that even prior to factoring in any solar production, our deep energy retrofit has resulted in a 49% reduction in energy use when compared to the average Illinois energy consumption per household.

Once factoring in the photovoltaic array production our energy consumption was reduced by 92% compared to the Illinois average.

2020 solar year review

The gray column in the chart above represents the amount of kilowatt hours the 4,500 sf building with its three apartments/households used any given month. September was a low use month with only 633 kWh, while February was a high use month with 2,139 kWh.

The blue column is the energy we produced with our photovoltaic roof array for any given month. We discussed these data in the previous post.

The green (and orange) column reflects the kilowatt hour rollover month by month, which is a product of the net-metering agreement with our utility. It is the difference between kilowatt hours used and kilowatt hours produced and carried over to the next month.

Take April for example: The difference between the 825 kWh used and 1,094 kWh produced is 269 kWh (rollover). In May the difference is 463 kWh. Add the rollover of 269 kWh from April, and we end up with 732 kWh rollover for May, and so on.

From April to September, our production was exceeding our consumption, and we were building our rollover nest egg for the winter. Starting with October, our consumption exceeded our production, and we slowly began to eat into our rollover credits. By January, we had used up all rollover credits and started to run a deficit (-299 kWh), meaning that for the first time since April 1st 2020, we actually pulled energy from the grid for which we would be invoiced.

At the end of the solar year, the building had used a total of 13,428 kWh, which was offset by 11,390 kWh production from our photovoltaic roof array. That left us with a deficit of 2,038 kWh,  for which we would be invoiced.

How does this compare?

Data published for 2021 by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) lists 10,632 kWh as the average annual electricity consumption for a U.S. residential utility customer. 2021 EIA data for Illinois lists an average annual consumption of 8,736 kWh per residential utility customer, or household.

kWh use per yearkWh use per month
U.S. household average10,632886
Illinois household average8,736728
One household in our building w/o solar4,476 (actual)373 (actual)
One household in our building  household w/ solar679 (actual)57 (actual)

When adjusting the numbers for our building to a household basis for the solar year 2020, we get 4,476 kWh use per apartment per year. If we factor in our electrical production, we are down to 679 kWh per apartment per year. The numbers for our building include space conditioning (heating and cooling).

2020 solar year billing

Because the cost per kilowatt hour, service charges and net metering agreements vary by energy provider and service area, this section may be mostly useful to our Chicago readers.

Our electrical bills for the building for the solar year 2020 added up to $404.47.

As mentioned above, we did not pay for any electricity until our rollover credit ran out in January. We were still responsible for delivery charges on our bill (i.e. customer and meter charges). They averaged $12.83/month from April through December, leading to a total of $115.47.  Delivery charges don’t go away because we are still connected to and benefit from the electrical grid.

For January, February, and March, we paid a total of $289 for the 2,038 kWh deficit we accumulated for the building over those three months.

The table below compares our average bills on a apartment/household basis to those for residential customers in Illinois, based on 2021 EIA data.

Average month billAverage Electrical cost per year
Illinois household$95.86$1,150.32
One household in our building$11.24$134.82

More about our actual savings and ROI on our photovoltaic array in the next post.

Related posts: