Closed RomainNouvel closed 7 years ago
Sounds like a good idea, they are technically the missing link between energy conversion and energy use. Currently, I would vote for connected to distribution system, but I'm open for other opinions.
I agree. We were discussing the same issue today internally. Emitter types in industry could be heat exchanger, direct infusion of steam, jacketed vessel, ...
Request of Change:
@RomainNouvel, we had the the question how to model heat recovery from Emitter
related processes. E.g. the emitter is an oven, how to model that a part of the heat can be reused, e.g. at the back of the oven. If we define the oven as an EnergyConversionSystem
, we could use the relation to FinalEnergy
to model that. So the question is, should we add the same relation as for EnergyConversionSystem
to Emitter
so that Emitter
can produce and consume FinalEnergy
? Quite complex question, from a technical point EnergyConversionSystems
and Emitters
are very similar, both convert energy, either by its form or by its temperature.
And what about electrical emitter? Should we add the same structure as for 'ThermalDistributionSystemand
PowerDistributionSystemand add
Emitter` as well to the electrical part, e.g. a lighting system?
I propose to close this issue and continue the discussion under issue #137
ok
Emitters (also called end use unit or zoning system) have been modelled in an earlier version of the Energy ADE (0.4.3) before to be removed for simplification purpose. They mainly relate to the end use types SpaceHeating, SpaceCooling and Ventilation. It could be interested to integrate them again in the schema, either directly connected to the EnergyDemand object or as attribute of the DistributionSystem. Emitters could be an object with as attributes: emitter type (radiators ect.), heatExchangeType, installed power, number etc...