[Greenbuilding] Last call
Ross Elliott
homesol at bell.net
Thu Jul 5 22:53:58 CDT 2012
Hi all,
I just want to let everyone know that if you or someone you know wants to
take the full 9-day Certified Passive House Consultant training in Toronto,
you need to sign up before the end of the day tomorrow, otherwise the course
may be cancelled if we’re not going to break even on costs. We have two
instructors flying from the US and plane fares get more expensive if
reserved too late.
For a course description and instructions for application and payment, go to
http://www.homesolbuildingsolutions.com/course-1/
Thanks,
Ross
From: Randy Proven [mailto:randyproven at hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2012 10:39 PM
To: homesol at bell.net
Subject: RE: [PBC-members] Energuide Calculation
Ross I used PHPP but it is my first one and I just got the package, I may
not have done it correctly but will run it again. I have had the same
experience with Hot2K it only goes so far. My other calculations are based
on actual consumption. There are no other builders out here that I know of
doing any thing like what you people are doing,and I just want to say I
really appreciate this forum.
Randy
_____
From: homesol at bell.net
To: randyproven at hotmail.com
Subject: RE: [PBC-members] Energuide Calculation
Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2012 22:56:48 -0400
Randy, did you use HOT2K or PHPP to determine your kWh/m2/yr, and how did
you calculate your floor area, by the Passive House method or interior
finish of exterior walls? It can make quite a difference.
I’ve only used HOT2K on my house so far, PHPP is next, it may reach the
EnerPHit standard of 25 kWh/m2/yr. I’ll post results as soon as I do my
final run, have to finish installing my heating system first.
If you get to 15 or even 25, chances are you’ll also beat 120, although
that’s not always certain in a typical North American house, even with
energy efficient lighting and appliances, one satellite box on a plasma TV
could put you over.
Ross
From: Randy Proven [mailto:randyproven at hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2012 3:44 PM
To: relliott at homesol.ca
Subject: RE: [PBC-members] Energuide Calculation
Hi Ross,
So how does your house stack up to the Passive standard. KW/h M2 per year
lets me compare apples to apples does it not . We are in Winnipeg Mb the
last house we built used R100 ceiling R42 walls R54 floor .56 AC/h @50Pa (
infill 25' lot) all electric. June 2011 to June 2012 all consumption was at
55kw/h M2 per year. We are running solar hot water and ground loop tempering
for HRV. It was a warm winter I should translate this into 5600 degree days
from (4678 June to June) for an accurate picture. Is'nt 120 kw/h M2 per
year a little high given LED lites and Energy efficient appliances for
Passive House total consumption?
Randy
_____
From: relliott at homesol.ca
To: pbc <mailto:pbc-members at lists.passivebuildings.ca>
-members at lists.passivebuildings.ca
<mailto:pbc-members at lists.passivebuildings.ca>
Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2012 15:00:50 -0400
Subject: Re: [PBC-members] Energuide Calculation
As you can see from the calculation, a house twice as energy efficient as
the benchmark (EnerGuide 80) scores a 90, and three times more energy
efficient a 95. It’s in gigajoules, and related to annual energy use,
including heating, cooling, ventilation, hot water, lighting and plug loads,
minus solar and internal gains, with default values for some of these that
make it pretty difficult to see building envelope changes reflected in the
rating beyond an ERS 86 without adding renewables.
On the other hand, a house half as energy efficient as the benchmark scores
a 60, and three times worse = ERS 40. So the ERS rating is 50% less when
three times worse, but only increases by 18% (theoretically, ignoring
default values) if three times better. It’s the lack of linearity that’s
part of the problem with higher performance levels.
Even my own house, with R-60 roof, R-50 walls, triple low-e krypton
fiberglass windows, R-30 basement & slab and 1.0 ACH50, with a ground source
heat pump and solar hot water only gets to a 93. Further changes to the
building envelope have no effect.
Suffice it to say it’s a slightly flawed system that’s due for overhaul
soon.
We’ve found the best way to explain that so-called law of diminishing
returns is to apply it to the lifespan of the house, with a modest
multiplier of 2% annually above inflation for fuel cost escalation. Then it
becomes pretty obvious that small changes can have big savings over the
longer term. If the break-even point is less than 20 years (5% straight
annual return on investment), that’s a better return than most stocks these
days. When you apply the upgrade costs of feasible improvements to a 25 year
mortgage at today’s low rates, then deduct the energy savings, you’ll
usually end up in a cash-positive position from day 1 – in other words, the
better house actually costs less to own than the cheaper house. It’s our
abilities to properly explain this to people that will determine whether
high performance homes really catch on among regular homebuyers or remain
the domain of elite greenies.
Ross
From: pbc <mailto:pbc-members-bounces at lists.passivebuildings.ca>
-members-bounces at lists.passivebuildings.ca
<mailto:pbc-members-bounces at lists.passivebuildings.ca>
[mailto:pbc-members-bounces at lists.passivebuildings.ca] On Behalf Of Stuart
Fix
Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2012 1:01 PM
To: Passive Buildings Canada Members
Subject: [PBC-members] Energuide Calculation
Hi Mike,
See attached, this is an extraction from a larger document, but these 4
pages outline an Energuide rating calculation. You can do it by hand using
these formulas, though the result might differ slightly than what the rater
version of HOT2000 would spit out.
Cheers,
Stuart Fix, P.Eng., LEED® AP
PHI Certified Passive House Designer
MASc. Building Science
Mechanical Engineer
<http://www.renubuildingscience.com/> ReNü Building Science Inc.
<http://www.renubuildingscience.com/>
52 Airport Road | Edmonton, Alberta | T5G 0W7| C. 780.554.8192 |
<mailto:sfix at renubuildings.com> sfix at renubuildings.com
From: pbc <mailto:pbc-members-bounces at lists.passivebuildings.ca>
-members-bounces at lists.passivebuildings.ca
<mailto:pbc-members-bounces at lists.passivebuildings.ca> [mailto:pbc
<mailto:pbc-members-bounces at lists.passivebuildings.ca>
-members-bounces at lists.passivebuildings.ca
<mailto:pbc-members-bounces at lists.passivebuildings.ca> ] On Behalf Of Mike
Burgess
Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2012 10:53 AM
To: Passive Buildings Canada Members
Subject: Re: [PBC-members] "Leaky, uncomfortable, energy guzzling"? - CHBA
takes offence
Thanks Ross
I do appreciate this forum and how it helps me make my way through this
material. I had asked the question of why the rating would stop increasing
at a certain level. I do have an answer of sorts.
An example: An annual heating cost of $1.00 for each unit U
An initial cost of $1.00 for each unit R
Costs associated
with upgrading from level to level:
For R=1 U=1.0
Initial cost
$1.00 Annual savings $ .50
For R=2 U=0.5
Initial cost
$2.00 Annual savings $ .25
For R=4 U=0.25
Initial cost
$4.00 Annual savings $ .125
For R=8 U=0.125
They are diminishing returns.
But the other side of the question still stands: Does anyone know how the
energuide number is calculated?
Cheers Mike
On 2012-07-01, at 7:01 PM, Ross Elliott wrote:
Unfortunately, using HOT2K to model 4 points higher than OBC is almost as
high as it will go with building envelope only. After 86, or 87 tops,
nothing will budge the rating except adding renewables. And even then it
tops out again around 92-93. What good is a rating system that only allows
ten points max. between ENERGY STAR 2012 and Passive House + heat pump +
solar panels?
The new rating system has been sent around for review, but that doesn’t mean
they’re anywhere near releasing it, could be a couple more years before we
see an EnerGuide rating going from 100 (Code) to 0 (net zero) along with a
kw/m2/yr. and total kwh/yr. on the label. And what’s happening with HOT3K,
which is a much more powerful modeling tool? When can we expect to see that
released with no bugs, ready to use for modeling the next generation of high
performance homes?
Put that on the list for what PBC should be lobbying for
Ross
From: pbc <mailto:pbc-members-bounces at lists.passivebuildings.ca>
-members-bounces at lists.passivebuildings.ca
<mailto:pbc-members-bounces at lists.passivebuildings.ca>
[mailto:pbc-members-bounces at lists.passivebuildings.ca] On Behalf Of Mike
Burgess
Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2012 6:27 PM
To: Passive Buildings Canada Members
Subject: Re: [PBC-members] "Leaky, uncomfortable, energy guzzling"? - CHBA
takes offence
I quite agree: Buyers won't make it happen, builders can't, so what about
the NRC and the building code?
The NRC has a lot of information, Hot 2000 is widely used, and the energuide
program is available. It appears that most of the structure is already in
place; What is needed now is the desire to put it all together and make it
work.
My experience has been that as soon as you start keeping score, the score
changes. What better incentive for homebuyers to buy a more energy
efficient house than the fact that their new house scored four points higher
than their brother in law's.
Happy Canada Day MIke
On 2012-06-27, at 7:00 PM, Ross Elliott wrote:
In my opinion, the way we build houses today with minimal regard for thermal
bridging, very little actual commissioning of air barriers (except R-2000
and ENERGY STAR homes), windows that fall far short of basic cold-weather
comfort and condensation criteria, inadequate ventilation systems that
usually have no heat recovery, or if they do, only at around 60% recovery
efficiency, basements with cold floors and damp walls, poor indoor air
quality, no HVAC commissioning, no regard for solar orientation, and
materials choices based on the lowest first-cost rather than health and
durability are all significant issues we should address before we consider
Canadian housing to have reached perfection. Typically a brand new ENERGY
STAR / 2012 Ontario Building Code house already has an annual energy bill of
close to $3000, which at annual fuel cost escalation rates of around 3%
above inflation will see energy costs TRIPLE to $9,000 real dollars in only
one generation (that’s conservative, considering the increases forecast for
electricity, although some claim natural gas will continue to stay low –
personally I believe energy costs will triple in after-inflation dollars in
about 20 years); are those really the homes we want to leave our kids?
That makes today’s new homes increasingly expensive energy pigs in the near
future, particularly based on what the next generation of new housing will
look like, IF we actually do start ramping up the Code by 25% energy savings
every 5 years as planned until we meet the 2030 Challenge. I realize the
Canadian Home Builders Association, of which I'm a member, will do
everything in their power to fight this progression and will try to prevent
houses from becoming more energy efficient than they already are (at the
will of big builders and developers). They honestly believe there’s no
further need to improve after 2012. They seem to believe Canadians build the
most energy efficient houses in the world, with minimal environmental
impact, and CHBA has published the statistics from NRCan's Energy Use Data
Handbook to “prove” it.
However, keep in mind that most of the energy efficiency gains seen in
housing over the past 2 decades have simply been due to the housing market
moving to low-e windows and condensing gas furnaces, not intentional
building envelope improvements (full height basement insulation and R-40
attics don’t count for much). CHBA even gives builders energy-saving credit
for tearing down thousands of older houses and replacing them with slightly
more energy efficient “infill”! While the housing industry crows about how
much progress they've made in 30 years, the fact is they're still using 2x6
@ 16” o.c., batt insulation and leaky poly air / vapour barriers from back
in the 1980s despite irrefutable evidence that we can do better, and should
do better in a cold climate. They seem content to let the Europeans and
Americans make all the progress and move towards net zero or near-net-zero
housing over the next couple of decades while we continue to pat ourselves
on the back for “a job well done”.
I don't blame the builders, for whom I have the greatest of respect. They
strive to build the best houses they can BASED ON WHAT THE BUYER WILL PAY
FOR. Many of the builders I work with would be glad to build only
super-energy-efficient homes, if they didn’t have to do so with their own
money, and although a small minority of homebuyers will pay extra for ENERGY
STAR, R-2000 and Passive Houses, the vast majority simply want the lowest
level of energy efficiency allowed by Code, because first-cost is all they
understand.
Buyers won't make it happen, builders can't make it happen. So what's the
solution? Although I'm a libertarian at heart, in this case we need decisive
government intervention. Only through progressive and predictable Code
increases in energy efficiency, where all builders are on the same level
playing field, will we be able to cut the energy use of homes by over 75%,
thereby preparing the stage for net-zero-energy homes for the next
generation, homes that will not only meet all their own energy needs but
also charge up the family car while emitting no greenhouse gases. Amory
Lovins has shown it can be done now, if only there were enough political
will.
While the housing industry sanctions status quo houses as being the pinnacle
of energy-efficiency achievement based on a flimsy record of incidental
energy efficiency improvements to components while barely making any changes
to the actual building envelope, and defends housing’s unnecessary
greenhouse gas emissions based on a comparison with increasing emissions in
other sectors, there is a small minority of people who are ready to follow
the lead of the Europeans, and the Americans, in building houses we can be
proud to leave our grandchildren – after all, how long should a well-built
house last? Some first owners know they have a responsibility to the future
to make the right decisions.
So in my defense, describing Canada’s new housing stock as “leaky,
uncomfortable, energy-guzzling” is a completely relative term, based on my
own personal opinion of what we CAN do rather than what most new houses
actually do, If a $3000 vs. a $1500 or $600 annual energy bill doesn’t count
for “energy-guzzling”, and 5 ACH50 vs. 1.5 or 0.5 ACH50 doesn’t count as
“leaky”, and windows that chill you sitting next to them on a cold day, with
water running down them if you dare to have reasonable humidity levels in
the house, and thermal bridges throughout the house that even the cheapest
of thermal cameras can easily see everywhere, doesn’t all count as
“uncomfortable”, that’s only because the average homebuyer has no point of
reference, they have no idea what truly energy efficient housing feels like.
But the Europeans and Americans do, and so do I and many of my (Canadian)
clients.
Please join me in advancing home energy performance - thanks.
Ross Elliott LEED-AP, CPHC
President
<http://www.homesol.ca/> <image001.jpg>
83 Little Bridge Street, Suite 109
Box 1133, Almonte, ON K0A 1A0
(613) 278-0467 / (613) 256-0427
Fax (613) 256-2223
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication is for the exclusive and
confidential use of the intended recipient, and should not be distributed or
shared without permission. If you are not the intended recipient please
notify the sender, and delete this message and its attachments from your
computer.
_______________________________________________
PBC-members mailing list
PBC <mailto:PBC-members at lists.passivebuildings.ca>
-members at lists.passivebuildings.ca
<mailto:PBC-members at lists.passivebuildings.ca>
http://lists.passivebuildings.ca/listinfo.cgi/pbc-members-passivebuildings.c
a
_______________________________________________
PBC-members mailing list
PBC <mailto:PBC-members at lists.passivebuildings.ca>
-members at lists.passivebuildings.ca
<mailto:PBC-members at lists.passivebuildings.ca>
http://lists.passivebuildings.ca/listinfo.cgi/pbc-members-passivebuildings.c
a
_____
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com/>
Version: 2012.0.2178 / Virus Database: 2437/5110 - Release Date: 07/04/12
_______________________________________________ PBC-members mailing list PBC
<mailto:PBC-members at lists.passivebuildings.ca>
-members at lists.passivebuildings.ca
<mailto:PBC-members at lists.passivebuildings.ca>
http://lists.passivebuildings.ca/listinfo.cgi/pbc-members-passivebuildings.c
a
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/greenbuilding_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20120705/eff1e70b/attachment.html>
More information about the Greenbuilding
mailing list