自然与机械通风
你好，
I’ve been reading quite a bit regarding air tight construction and the subsequent need for mechanical ventilation. One of the articles written many years ago “Are HRVs Cost-Effective?” surprised me, as I had always assumed the only option for an air-tight home was either HRV or ERV. I never knew about exhaust-only and supply-only ventilations. Also surprising was that HRV/ERVs are not always cost-effective, especially in a climate such as mine. Given this, I am now questioning the true energy savings of air-tight construction.
Given that exhaust and supply-only ventilation systems provide no heat transfer between exhaust air and supply air, then how are air-tight homes with these systems any more energy-efficient than comparable natural ventilation (ignore for now the IAQ)? In other words, if we built a house that was somewhat non-leaky, and just under the threshold for requiring mechanical ventilation, and this system provided naturally-ventilated fresh air at about the same rate a supply-only system would provide, then how is the supply-only system any better?
会欣赏任何见解。谢谢，
林恩
GBA详细资料库
由气候和房屋部件组织的一千个建筑细节的集合
答复
依赖新空气泄漏的一些缺点包括：
1. If it's leaky enough to get enough air on mild days, you'll get way more than you want on the coldest days, when it will hurt your energy use and comfort the most.
空气可能来自淡黄岩的地方，可能会带来氡。
3. exfiltration可以在冬季携带水分，并在冬天沉积露水或霜冻，导致在弹簧中腐烂和模具。
机械通风可以解决即使没有热量恢复，也可以解决一些问题，但随后仍然存在能源成本和在室外温度和湿度下供应通风空气的舒适问题。
对我来说，机械通风系统的一个关键优势是放入高质量过滤的能力。需要这取决于您当地的污染水平和对过敏原的敏感性。
Overall, I think that once you consider the comfort issues, the cost is pretty easy to justify.
Thanks for your response Charlie. Your first comment is an excellent rationale I didn't previously understand. Your second and third comments, however, don't appear to be mitigated by exhaust-only or supply-only systems. In those cases, air is still forced through your building envelope (through leaks, cracks and holes), right? So, I think that means the IAQ still suffers. But, maybe I'm still confused. But regardless, I was more curious about the energy efficiency aspects. To pay extra for air tightness, then pay more again for the mechanical ventilation, then have to pay again for a dedicated duct system (to get the full IAQ) and HRV/ERV. Difficult to justify the upfront costs if the overall energy savings are small. If we decide to install an exhaust or supply-only system instead, then we lose the health benefits as well. It's tough to know the best course to take. Thanks again.
是的，问题2仍为排气，仅供供应3款。可以具有平衡的机械通风系统，带有供应风扇和排气扇，因此入口和出口都没有通过意外泄漏，但省略热回收。它很少完成，但它确实提供了省略热交换核心的成本节约，以及不需要像管道（如果有的话）的成本节约，因为供应和排气不需要走在一起。
您是否熟悉无导管的HRV / ERV单位，如LunoS？他们不便宜，但他们确实避免了管道安装成本。您也可以在大房子里使用几个较小的ERV单位而不是一个大的单位。
另一个选择是供应或exhuast只有一个explicit passive vent for inlet or outlet, to avoid problems 2 or 3. In theory, you could even do passive vents only, and open and close them according to measured air quality and air flow through them, adjusting them automatically or manually according to the ventilation need and wind/stack effect conditions.
这也是我一直在考虑的事情，目标是在4A区建造一个“相当良好的房子”。具有良好的户外空气质量，我想知道通过物理氡屏障和没有气体器具的级别基础可以通过平板完成多少。如果我使用任何类型的空气处理器，我可以看到它是一种可以将室外空气带入室外空气，并像超级机会过滤一样过滤。我仍然对拉链护套和录音似乎感兴趣，但我奇异的是甜蜜的气候与清洁空气相对温和，特别是如果只有1000到1500平方英尺。
Eli,
A lot of builders here in coastal BC are opting for a balanced ventilation system with no heat recovery. Even in this mild climate I do hear a lot of complaints about comfort, as the code requires the air-supply to be into the bedrooms.
通过泄漏或敞开的窗户提供的机械过度的机械的大优势，就像查理所说的一致性。虽然是自然通风的房屋移动的空气量疯狂地波动。
我会补充一点，不仅机械通风提供了一致性，而且还允许控制。如果需要，控制允许您改变条件的通风量。没有办法“调整”泄漏......
账单
谢谢你们的评论，这是非常有帮助的。