2006
DOI: 10.17660/actahortic.2006.719.24
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Novel Methods of Heating and Cooling Greenhouses: A Feasibility Study

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2006
2006
2015
2015

Publication Types

Select...
3

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Hamer et al (2006) compared different cooling systems to maintain the same greenhouse temperature as with natural ventilation for North West European conditions while de Zwart (2005) designed different cooling systems with a capacity to keep the greenhouse completely closed, even at maximum radiation levels. Return on investment is poor except for the direct and indirect evaporative cooling (Hamer et al, 2006;de Zwart, 2005). Anton et al (2006) compared different cooling and mechanical ventilation systems for Spanish conditions.…”
Section: Energy Efficient Coolingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Hamer et al (2006) compared different cooling systems to maintain the same greenhouse temperature as with natural ventilation for North West European conditions while de Zwart (2005) designed different cooling systems with a capacity to keep the greenhouse completely closed, even at maximum radiation levels. Return on investment is poor except for the direct and indirect evaporative cooling (Hamer et al, 2006;de Zwart, 2005). Anton et al (2006) compared different cooling and mechanical ventilation systems for Spanish conditions.…”
Section: Energy Efficient Coolingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…With the trend to more "closed greenhouses" aiming at completely controllable conditions also in the more moderate climates, energy efficient cooling/dehumidification systems are subject of model and experimental studies. Hammer et al (2006) used integrated physical and physiological models to compare different cooling systems aiming at the same greenhouse temperature as obtained with natural ventilation while de Zwart (2006), compared different cooling systems with a capacity to keep the greenhouse completely closed, even at maximum radiation levels. Return on investment of the evaluated cooling systems is poor except for the direct and indirect evaporative cooling (Hammer et al, 2006;de Zwart et al, 2004;de Zwart, 2005).…”
Section: Cooling and De-humidifyingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Hammer et al (2006) used integrated physical and physiological models to compare different cooling systems aiming at the same greenhouse temperature as obtained with natural ventilation while de Zwart (2006), compared different cooling systems with a capacity to keep the greenhouse completely closed, even at maximum radiation levels. Return on investment of the evaluated cooling systems is poor except for the direct and indirect evaporative cooling (Hammer et al, 2006;de Zwart et al, 2004;de Zwart, 2005). Using a water layer in a rainwater basin under the greenhouse floor as a direct evaporative cooling system turned out to be less efficient and cost effective compared to convectional methods (Campen, 2006).…”
Section: Cooling and De-humidifyingmentioning
confidence: 99%