Comments on: PassivHaus – its about saving energy

By: joeknight

joeknight — Fri, 10 Dec 2010 17:44:21 +0000

I think the Passivhaus standard can be a key component in acheiving the coveted Zero Carbon Home, as it utilises fundamental principles which we all understand, that of energy efficiency, energy conservation. Coupled with use of renewable energy sources, e.g. ground source heat pumps, solar panels, it is felt, such ambitious low energy, low Co2 targets can be reached.

See http://www.energy-measures.com/passivhaus/

By: Nick

Nick — Sun, 07 Nov 2010 13:41:50 +0000

I think you’ve hit on a very fundamental issue at the heart of modern construction on a residential level. Generally speaking, when considering single properties there are more important considerations than just the value added quality of any additional energy related work; namely any initial launch costs, the longevity of the system used and the level of maintenance.
What we as architects need to be focusing on is promoting concepts that provide a more holistic answer to the problem of reducing the carbon footprint (not even taking into account whether this is indeed the issue to begin with) of homes.
Whilst I agree with your new starting point, I disagree with your assessment of what can and cannot be done with the production of renewable energy. What we must aim to do is create a plus energy society, one where the flow of energy is high enough, and constant enough that is abundant and cheap.

Great article Su, gonna send you some retweet love!

By: Tweets that mention PassivHaus – its about saving energy — Just Practising -- Topsy.com

Sun, 07 Nov 2010 13:30:22 +0000

[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Su Butcher and Architects League, UK Construction. UK Construction said: RT @Subutcher Comment on my blog: Any studies comparing cost of trad built and passivhaus offices? http://bit.ly/9l0mL5 [...]

By: tony benson

tony benson — Sat, 06 Nov 2010 20:59:20 +0000

I recently came across a Passivhaus project in Kent which was an office built by a developer with experimentation in mind . They had a huge input from German Arcitects with the expertise .
Simplified, The design included large masses of concrete and a single skin of lightweight concrete blocks with at least 300 mm of polystyrene
attached externally as insulation .They also had triple glazed windows as standard and data recorded HVAC to provide optimum summer and winter temperatures . The materials to build it were not particularly green but the claims for the saving on energy / heating bills were amazing .
Does anyone know where there have been studies to compare build costs between traditionally built offices with a Passivhaus say in Germany where they are light years ahead with this technology.
I just have an amateur interest in this and all sustainable building .
I also have an interest in Rammed earth building and low tech solutions such as at CAT and Pines calix Dover .

Sadly all these ideas do in the end boil down to initial build cost which is what prevents more projects from proceeding . the secret is surely to persuade everyone that the long term investment is wortyh it .

By: Nick

Nick — Mon, 11 May 2009 09:36:41 +0000

We are building 8 new flats and I really wanted to make it an ecological development, in particular I thought a combination of solar panels, heat pumps, and underfloor heating would result in a magnificent scheme. Sadly the £ didn’t work out. There is the goodwill, but not the financial incentive.

By: Nick Grant

Nick Grant — Sun, 10 May 2009 10:00:35 +0000

Yes I agree! Very heartening to hear support for a rational and more cost effective approach to energy efficiency.

The airtightness issue that you flag up is worthy of more discussion. Leakyness may be ‘useful’ in reducing condensation and stuffiness in some poorly vented buildings but has no benefit in buildings with proper controlled ventilation, eg MEV or MVHR. Leaky buildings are cold and draughty and warm moist air leaking into the insulation can cause structural damage. However people continue to confuse uncontrolled leakyness with proper ventilation.

Ironically Passivhaus certification requires a maximum leakage of 0.6 ac/h at 50 Pa because airtightness is actually a very cost effective way to save energy. However it requires a step change in design to make such a tight (by UK standards) target routinely achievable.

As with all other aspects of PH, airtightness can’t be bolted on as a contractual requirement but has to be designed in.

The fact that airtighness, building form, orientation, insulation etc are hard or impossible to retrofit is a really good reason for focussing on the core design rather than blowing the budget on toy renewable that could be added later – if they are ever proved to work.

Sorry my comments as long as your post.

Nick

By: martin brown

martin brown — Sun, 10 May 2009 09:24:49 +0000

Su, great article. I would comment that the Carbon Hubs definition of Zero Carbon for the UK uses PassivHaus as an inspirational standard. (as reported on their roadshow and documentation)

I see three challenges for PassivHaus – on construction quality, on end users & lifestyle and on addressing existing homes and the whole commercial industrial and public building stock.

I will post in more detail over on my isite blog at http://www.fairsnape.wordpress.com