Passive houses disadvantaged by DEAP

CJhaughey

I am not sure how many of you either get or read ConstructIreland but there is a very interesting article in the latest issue about how the DEAP process is actually disadvantaging very low energy houses.
A lot of the problem seems to be in how electricity use is penalised.
The downgrading of one of the most efficient houses in Europe to a B1 standard shows that the calculation is somewhat flawed.
It seems as though it would bump the rating up if the house had a pellet burning stove or similar installed when it would in most circumstances be superfluous.

sydthebeat

in the case of a passive houses in carlow, they are certified passive and have a small electrical element as back up in the HRV system...

The way DEAP is set up it means this electrical element has to be considered the main source of heating, thus giving very inaccurate values of energy usage and the resultant rating.

The only way of counteracting that is to have the dwelling actually certified by the PHPP institute which would show energy usage at less than 15kwhr/m2/yr.

if it was my house i would have the PHPP cert hung proudly on the wall while the BER cert would be stashed away in a drawer under a pile of dish towels.

sinnerboy

CJhaughey wrote: »

It seems as though it would bump the rating up if the house had a pellet burning stove or similar installed when it would in most circumstances be superfluous.

Worse that that - to comply with Building Regulations you must install renewable technologies to provide min 10 Kwh/m2/year - whether the house requires it or not - cut and paste from the CI article

Lars Pettersson’s house does boast 6m2 of solar thermal panels with an accompanying 300 litre tank, a system that produces 2099 kWh of hot water annually. However, because of its size (289m2), the house would need a 14m2 solar array and a 750 litre water tank - a system totally surplus to requirements - to comply with current guidelines from solar thermal alone. “Lars’ house has all the heating technologies it needs,” Ronan Rogers says, “yet it doesn’t comply with the regulations.”

If I can broaden this out ( sorry mod's ) - this article outlines what so many of us have been saying for a long time . The hierarchy of energy conservation - in order of importance is

1 Insulation
2. Air tightness / Ventilation strategy
3. Efficient heat source

Get the first 2 right - and the 3rd becomes - in the case of passive houses - close to redundant for space heating . ( Of course you still have to have hot water )

.

heinbloed

(I've read the article as well.)This Irish energy rating system was made to help the building/property/banking industry, to be able to comply with new demands and be still profitable.Yust imagine the building energy rating would be based on energy demand only.....the nation's wealth would be based on a negative equity.The national economic system would collapse, no more loans. The BER pass was not made to help the consumer saving on energy.In most EU countrys the type of energy supply(gas, pellet,solar etc) is not a decisive matter for the rating in the energy pass, nor is the kind of ventilation an issue as such. Only the energy demand is important(kWh/m2a).There are no bonus points for HRV or solar technic. How that is covered what must be covered is the owner's business.If the state wants a political decision on the national energy consumption then we must raise the price for energy. The Irish/British building energy rating system won't reduce the energy consumption of the two nations.It protects vested interests against the suspicious eye of the world and that of the voters ("See,we have dome something without hurting you...."), for a while at least.I live in a solar heated house, hardly no boiler switched on at all. No ventilation system except the manual. My house would score only an A3 or B1 rating-so what? Those who know what they want know where to shop.Willing to pay a price justified on demand and on quality.If energy prices are not brought up substantially (for example by clever taxing) then who cares about an energy pass when buying a property?Those nations with the lowest fuel prices have the biggest cars and so it is with the housing issue as well.

fishfoodie

Not terribly surprising really.

First off software models rarily reflect reality, so they must constantly be updated.

Second, this is Ireland, the constuction lobby & the Greens cooked up BER & they inevitably skewed it towards their perception of reality. This means that the Construction lobby wants to de-emphasise the value of insulation; because insulation is only paid for once. The emphasis on 'renewable' energies is a little more rational, as helps avoid our reliance on non-native fuel sources. The problem is that its never more efficient to have 1000x70% efficient power supplies Vs 1x 60% efficient power supply.

The problem everyone faces, down the road, is that BER ratings are going to be a metric that people use to compare houses; & if BER ratings fall into disrepute we'll be left with a White Elephant that puts the voting machines into the shade in comparison to the amount of money invested in them !

From my point of view as an intenting self-builder, I'd like to see a cost/m2/Person part of BER. This would comprehend the HW/Heating requirements of a person living in a given home & would make the source of the Power for Heating & HW irrelevant.

sinnerboy

fishfoodie wrote: »

Not terribly surprising really.

First off software models rarily reflect reality, so they must constantly be updated.

Second, this is Ireland, the constuction lobby & the Greens cooked up BER & they inevitably skewed it towards their perception of reality. This means that the Construction lobby wants to de-emphasise the value of insulation; because insulation is only paid for once. The emphasis on 'renewable' energies is a little more rational, as helps avoid our reliance on non-native fuel sources. The problem is that its never more efficient to have 1000x70% efficient power supplies Vs 1x 60% efficient power supply.

The problem everyone faces, down the road, is that BER ratings are going to be a metric that people use to compare houses; & if BER ratings fall into disrepute we'll be left with a White Elephant that puts the voting machines into the shade in comparison to the amount of money invested in them !

From my point of view as an intenting self-builder, I'd like to see a cost/m2/Person part of BER. This would comprehend the HW/Heating requirements of a person living in a given home & would make the source of the Power for Heating & HW irrelevant.

BER is an EU provision transposed into Irish law

http://www.sei.ie/index.asp?locID=151&docID=-1

The BER cert MUST be issued on standardised occupancy factors . But the BER assesor can help you by manipulating DEAP inputs based on actual intended occupancies

You have to link the heat source to the cost/m2/person - different fuels have different costs

sydthebeat

fishfoodie wrote: »

Not terribly surprising really.

First off software models rarily reflect reality, so they must constantly be updated.

Second, this is Ireland, the constuction lobby & the Greens cooked up BER & they inevitably skewed it towards their perception of reality. This means that the Construction lobby wants to de-emphasise the value of insulation; because insulation is only paid for once. The emphasis on 'renewable' energies is a little more rational, as helps avoid our reliance on non-native fuel sources. The problem is that its never more efficient to have 1000x70% efficient power supplies Vs 1x 60% efficient power supply.

The problem everyone faces, down the road, is that BER ratings are going to be a metric that people use to compare houses; & if BER ratings fall into disrepute we'll be left with a White Elephant that puts the voting machines into the shade in comparison to the amount of money invested in them !

From my point of view as an intenting self-builder, I'd like to see a cost/m2/Person part of BER. This would comprehend the HW/Heating requirements of a person living in a given home & would make the source of the Power for Heating & HW irrelevant.

The DEAP software was never designed to 'reflect reality'..... It was designed as a tool to compare units on a standardised basis. If you want to assess your build bsed on the realty situation then used the PHPP software. This is a very very detailed assessment based on proposed usage of the dwelling.

The problem i have with the BER assessment i sthat it gives a projected costs to run per year for different factors ie space heating, hot water , lighting etc. In doing so clients have the first real piece of information to use when deciding on installing renewables.
eg, on a sample C1 rated house i have, without solar comes in at 162, with solar comes in a 154.... fuel costs on the results page show a drop of €100 per year when solar is incorporated. Try recommending solar heating when clients can see that it could take them 60 years to reap the benefits...... obviously i know that thats not the reality, but explaining it to then despite the fact is immensly difficult.

Mellor

fishfoodie wrote: »

Second, this is Ireland, the constuction lobby & the Greens cooked up BER & they inevitably skewed it towards their perception of reality.

This is completely untrue.

This means that the Construction lobby wants to de-emphasise the value of insulation; because insulation is only paid for once.

Insulation values have a ceiling. If BER and DEAP help promote aspects such as air tightness then its a plus.

The problem everyone faces, down the road, is that BER ratings are going to be a metric that people use to compare houses; & if BER ratings fall into disrepute we'll be left with a White Elephant that puts the voting machines into the shade in comparison to the amount of money invested in them !

A white elephant, or an elephant in the corner.

From my point of view as an intenting self-builder, I'd like to see a cost/m2/Person part of BER. This would comprehend the HW/Heating requirements of a person living in a given home & would make the source of the Power for Heating & HW irrelevant.

Cost/m2.person would be incredibly flawed.
As an example, a semi-D. Same spec. In one lives young newly weds. Next door lives, older couple with 2 teenagers. Obviously the house with 4 people have half the Cost/m2.person value. The number soon means nothing.

It also applies to a design calculation.
3 Bed, 4 people assumed.
Cost/m2.person value given, 2 or 3 (or 5) move in, value is again flawed and pointless.

fishfoodie

I realise I don't have anything like the depth of knowledge of others on here, so I can only add my perceptions.

Mellor wrote: »

This is completely untrue.

okay, I know I prejudiced, but I have to ask myself why for example in the case of topic under discussion, Passive Houses, are so disadvantaged; if we are just aligning ourselves to the EU ?

I prefer to discuss Conservation, which is something I believe it, & has has value, as opposed to Carbon footprints, which is something I think is total bovine extrement

My tinfoil hat is firmly in place when it comes to anything to do with the construction trade in Ireland.

Mellor wrote: »

Insulation values have a ceiling. If BER and DEAP help promote aspects such as air tightness then its a plus.

The point which I was looking at, was the bias in the DEAP s/w which relys upon a passive house having a 'renewable' heat source. This favors whom ?

I don't think too many on here would disagree with the argument that all SEI grants have done for most things, is add to their cost !

My preference is to spell out to people the relative benefits of different options & let them make the choices. Hence part of my looking for a Euro value people can hang their hats on.

Once you start specifying what suppliers & options people can use, you immediately impact the pricing.

Mellor wrote: »

A white elephant, or an elephant in the corner.

In the corner you can probably count them as a heat source. The white variety is what I'm afraid of.

Mellor wrote: »

Cost/m2.person would be incredibly flawed.
As an example, a semi-D. Same spec. In one lives young newly weds. Next door lives, older couple with 2 teenagers. Obviously the house with 4 people have half the Cost/m2.person value. The number soon means nothing.

It also applies to a design calculation.
3 Bed, 4 people assumed.
Cost/m2.person value given, 2 or 3 (or 5) move in, value is again flawed and pointless.

I agree it wouldn't be easy. I kinda imagined something like a ready reckoner showing costs per year based on say, working single person, couple, nuclear family, stay at home single person.

Each of those options would have an estimatible water, heat & electrical use which could be plugged in. I'm not looking for something like a set of steam tables, just something that will allow a purchaser to make informed decisions to compare different housing options & apply some kind of scale of cost that will be relevant.

Anyhow, just my thoughts as a consumer. Keep up the good work folks, I'm learning a lot !

topcatcbr

fishfoodie wrote: »

okay, I know I prejudiced, but I have to ask myself why for example in the case of topic under discussion, Passive Houses, are so disadvantaged; if we are just aligning ourselves to the EU ?

I prefer to discuss Conservation, which is something I believe it, & has has value, as opposed to Carbon footprints, which is something I think is total bovine extrement

Carbon emmisions are the way we calculate the amount of greenhouse gasses we emit in heating our houses by using a renewable fuel this impacts the mpcder Bovine Extrement on the other hand is mostly methane gas a far worse greenhouse gas but has nothing to do with passive houses or DEAP.

My preference is to spell out to people the relative benefits of different options & let them make the choices. Hence part of my looking for a Euro value people can hang their hats on.

The BER is only there so prospective purchasers can easily see a difference between two similar homes without technical jargon.

Once you start specifying what suppliers & options people can use, you immediately impact the pricing.

The DEAP or BER does not recommend any suppliers or product brands

I agree it wouldn't be easy. I kinda imagined something like a ready reckoner showing costs per year based on say, working single person, couple, nuclear family, stay at home single person.

The BER and DEAP do not rate the people who live in a house but instead rate the house. If you rate a dwelling based on how the current occupants use it what good will this be to a prospective purchaser who may have a different view on how much heat they require and energy they consequently use.

Each of those options would have an estimatible water, heat & electrical use which could be plugged in. I'm not looking for something like a set of steam tables, just something that will allow a purchaser to make informed decisions to compare different housing options & apply some kind of scale of cost that will be relevant.

RKQ

Passive house being poorly treated because of Electricity use is no surprise.
Geothermal heat pumps suffer the same problem!

Electricity generation may not be "clean enough" in Ireland but the consumer should not be penalised for that. We, the general public, have no control on how electricity is generated.

Geothermal is a highly efficient way to generate heat but this seems to be ignored.

heinbloed

The consumer wanted it cheap and got it cheap. Consumers are voters who's votes can be bought. Own fault when the deal wasn't understood.