You specified a storage capable of supplying up to five days of heat for
'cloudy' days. Yet you have *not* given any clue as to how that storage
will be 'charged', nor how long it would take to 'charge' it.
Are we to assume that you take 360 days to 'charge' it, and then 'discharge'
it in 5 ? Without including the storage in the energy balance, you have
nothing. No basis for 'charging' the tank means there is no viable way to
use the storage.
Now that's just admitting you don't know. You're just *guessing* how well
the storage will be recharged.
To do that, you must get away from the 'average' energy influx to specific
daily levels. You're suggestion about using coin-flips between 0x and 2x
isn't really very good. Look at weather data and you'll see the probability
of a cloudy day *increases* if the previous day was cloudy. "Cloudy days"
are not completely independent events (such as a coin flip). So you are
more likely to have two cloudy days in a row (and some other time have two
sunny days in a row).
Except increased losses.
To get anything meaningful, you *have* to model the heat storage. That
means accounting for the transfer of heat from the sunspace to the storage,
the constant loses from the storage (either to the house, the ambient, or
both depending how you arrange things), and the supply from storage to the
house. That would include some 'if-checks' to turn on/off the various
Incorrect. Your reading skills and logic seem to have deteriorated lately.
All you've done is assume that days that are sunnier than average will put
enough energy into the storage tank to meet the needs of days that are less
sunny than average. And you know what happens when you assume.
Do you have any evidence to support this article of faith?