[Greenbuilding] first certified Passive House in Canada

[John Daglish]

Bonjour John,

Why 0.6 because at this point after optimising the fabric heat losses
you can use an the HRV heat recovery
ventilation as the heating source, the peak load 10W/m2 with less than
50°C heating elements avoiding burnt dust particles at around 0.3 ACH
air changes per hour. Higher
air changes in the continental dry winter climate leads to the air
being too dry to maintain comfort (albeit there are other mechanisms
that can mitigate this problem).

The peak heat /cooling load of 10W/m2 is an alternative but preferred metric to
the 15kWh/m2.yr, it being used to fit into existing German / European
energy metrics.

Regarding the PHPP planning package (calculation sheet) and calculation there is a copy
here (I think it may be a little disabled) :
http://www.passive-on.org/CD/


Cordialement

-- 
John DAGLISH
www.batirsain.org



Wednesday, January 26, 2011, 5:45:14 PM, you wrote / vous ecrirez:

JS> Hi Shawna! (sorry I had no time for a visit...)
JS> So how do we answer the question "Why 0.6ACH at 50, not 0.5?"?
JS> Would you agree then that all the homes that you built and tested from 0.61 to 1.0 are not good low-energy houses?  I bet they are.
JS> I would also argue that it is the primary energy use of the home that matters.  I do not understand why a house with 0.2ACH at 50 and one with 1.2 ACH at 50 with the same primary energy use are not
JS> considered equal, because the environment will consider them so.
JS> Now if the house is 3.2ACH at 50 we know from experience that comfort, condensation and performance problems result so clearly that is too high for our climate and much warmer climates.
JS> We also know from experience that 1.5 of the R2000 spec is pretty safe on all these levels.
JS> So the limit is somewhere around 1.5.
JS> For energy, the goal should be 0.0
JS> Back to "Why 0.6, not 1.2, or 0.9".

JS> On the PV topic, I agree that one cant make the ROI of PV pay (in Ontario or anywhere) without subsidies.  They dont make sense on ROI. Period.  
JS> I cant make a 0.6ACH at 50 single-family house get its annual heating load down to under 15 kWh/m2/yr (the PH max) in North Bay, or Winnipeg without spending a lot more than 25K. And if any of your
JS> ground floor walls is shaded by neighbouring buildings, fences, trees, etc, it becomes darn near impossible. Neither NZE or 15 kWh/m2 heating use makes any ROI sense for single family homes in
JS> cold climates.  Rowhouses, apartments OK, duplexes in Halifax and Windsor, maybe.    Note that several houses have shown than solar hotwater systems (SHW) can cost as much to generate hotwater as
JS> unsubsidized PV run through a heat pump.  So PV is expensive, but SHW aint cheap either.  PH lets me use SHW to reduce energy, but it wont let me use PV ragardless of cost.

JS> The CMHC Equilibrium NZE homes spent an awful lot of money getting the heating load down to the 25 to 35 range in Calgary, Edmonton, and Ottawa.  Reducing the heating load to half that (when you
JS> already have R60-80 in the roof, triple glazed fiberglass windows, etc) is quite expensive.  Those same houses, dropped into Darmstadt Germany, would meet the PH space heating and annual primary
JS> energy targets. 

JS> PS (most NZE designs with 200-300 m2 of floor area in Northern US and Southern Canada require 6-8 kW PV arrays, which costs more than 25K, I would estimate closer to 50K).


JS> On 2011-01-26, at 9:31 AM, Shawna Henderson wrote:

>> Hey Ross and John,
>> 
>> Here in NS, we have several small production builders who consistently come in at <1 ACH at 50, Keith Sawlor hit 0.29 (I personally did that test, about 15 years ago!!). On all of our custom design
>> jobs, 0.5ACH @ 50 is the target on our bid documents. While not all builders hit that, they are consistently coming in at less than 1 and some are bang on, because they have long-standing crews
>> who can do the air sealing work. Ross, I'm with you on the NZE house $25,000 PV extravaganza, which might make sense where there is a decent FIT, like ON, but here in NS, where ComFIT comes into
>> play April 1, there is still no real business case for it (ie, ROI sucks). We ensure that the design and planning allows for 3 to 7 kW PV on the roof and with conduit (not wiring) in place and
>> wall space in the mechanical area for inverter and controls, roof mount and any extra bracing etc in place as homeowner dictates. When it's affordable/cost-effective, homeowner can have it
>> installed.
>> 
>> I agree with John on the issues around the energy modelling, and that a set of dogmatic rules leads us right back to the one-size-fits-all approach, which leads us right back to the problem of
>> large tract builders and 1,000s of spec homes in GTA every year that are not meeting the +20-year-old R2000 standard, but are building to a one-size-fits-all approach, just using a different set
>> of dogmatic rules driven by a different set of requirements ($/sf vs W/sf).
>> 
>> Cheers from mighty chilly Halifax
>> 
>> Shawna
>> 



JS> _______________________________________________
JS> Greenbuilding mailing list
JS> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
JS> Greenbuilding at bioenergylists.org

JS> to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
JS> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/greenbuilding_lists.bioenergylists.org