[Greenbuilding] Aggressively Passive: Building Homes to to the Passive House Standard

[David Posada]

There was a long and lively discussion recently on the PHNW group list about how the PHPP spreadsheet treats on-site PV vs on-site Solar Hot Water, the rationale behind the PE factor of  0.7, and an analogy of grid-tied PV generation can sometimes be more of a "carbon offset:" 

http://groups.google.com/group/PassiveHouseNW/browse_thread/thread/4e76b643b2310a6b#

On a less technical note, when you hear glowing praise for PH from some corners, frustration and discontent from others, I'm reminded of the maxim "if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail," and the inherent compromises of any tool. 

Some standards and rating systems are rather blunt tools, others far more precise. It seems the more precise and accommodating a tools is, the more difficult it can be for lay-people to learn and apply. 

For an engineer with many tools in their kit, and the wisdom to know the limitations and best practices for each one, they can make good calls on when one approach makes the most sense, and when it is requiring less meaningful effort. 

For others, the nuances may be less clear or important, and they see a particular tool such as Passive House as being for them the most appropriate means to an end. 

Part of the challenge is with so many tools vying for our attention, support, and dollars, their developers, promoters, reviewers and critics have to make countless assumptions and compromises both to make the tools useable and to explain them to the world. With the shifting fortunes of praise and popularity is easy to see how a lot of money, respect, and pride is at stake. I think it can be especially frustrating for people who have dedicated years to advancing better understanding of building systems to see the public's eyes glaze over and reach for the latest shrink-wrapped package. 

These comments from a new member may seem obvious or off-topic, but I felt compelled to offer them out of my own disappointment in watching how the conversation sometimes goes downhill when the value/ relevance/ worthiness of PH or LEED are being debated in different forums. We all love a good discussion and learn a lot from the debating the details, but I think something can get lost in the fray. 

I don't think this is a problem in this group, or limited to just the PH topic - people are exceptionally good here at clarifying their assumptions, finding common ground, and not taking blustery conclusions personally.  

When we venture outside of this circle as advocates and ambassadors for green building, I just wanted to make one proposal: I think we can be more effective at promoting a more responsible built environment if we acknowledge the common purpose of different tools, the inherent compromises of any approach, and how the balance of these strengths and weakness work for different contexts. Apologies if this sounds too idealistic or preachy. 

David Posada
Portland, Oregon