smarthinking
Registered User
- Messages
- 24
I agree with Krissovo,
I finished a self-build in Wexford in 2006 (garage & lawns still ongoing).The cost of these so-called passive houses do not tie in with real house values.The only change I would make is I would dry-line the inside face of the masonry walls.I think it's much more cost effective to build this way.I think the cost & QUALITY of these installers of heat pumps, wood pellet boilers etc. will need another few years to perfect.
Can anyone tell why the cost of house insurance is different for timber frame houses.Would be interested to find out why?
The most important factor in passive houses is the workmanship and attention to detail.
There's the problem with passive houses
2 dwellings build last year in carlow are passive, they get their heat from solar gains, from internal gains ie heat from people, heat from machines etc... they are so well insulated and airtight that they dont need a large heating system. These dwellings in carlow have only one heating mechanism, this is a small electrically run element in the ventilation system that is only to be used on very cold days.
A passive house has to be certified to show it uses, on average, less that 15 kwhr/m2/yr.... compare that to a house rated C1 under current min building standards which uses 150 kwhr/m2/yr.
[broken link removed]
I would be interested in hearing from anyone living in a passive house that the house is cheaper to run.
Personally I built a bungalow & in the next few years I will install a HRV system (at the minute using wall vents).Even now I have no issues with airtightness.Still stand over the fact that u can achieve an A-rated masonry house (dry-lined) and that is a significantly cheaper way of building than some of the alternatives being suggested.
How u heat the house is a separate issue.
im sorry, wexford dude, it seems like im picking issues with you, but its definitely not deliberate, its just that your posts probably reflect the general consensus.... and theres some mis-information and misunderstanding out there regarding this whole 'energy conservation' issue.
Firstly, theres no co-relation between a 'certified passive house' and an 'A rated' dwelling under the BER.
have a read of this article: [broken link removed]
You are correct in that you would be able to achieve an a rating with a masonry build, however without due care to airtightness it would be very difficult. Its easy just to keep over specifying insulation to counteract bad airtightness, but in the end, its more economical to ensure good workmanship than to overspecify insulation.
secondly, HRV systems installed into a dwelling with bad airtightness is simply a false economy. Without getting an airtightness test done you wont know what level of tightness you have. If you have an open fire, forget about HRV. Plus, HRVs loose quite a significant amount of efficiency in single storey dwellings.
The factors that affect a building energy rating are, in order of importance, in my opinion:
1. orientation, design and passive solar gains
2. insulation levels
3. air tightness
4. control over heating system
5. type of heating system
its my opinion that the more emphasis that is put on the first 3 factors, greatly diminishes the requirement of the last two, ie if you have a well designed and orientated dwelling, with high levels of insulation and airtightnes, then you wont actually need any heating system at all.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?