EU introduces energy performance standards for housing January 1st, 2020

Run_to_da_hills

EU's new regulation: Ban the construction of ordinary family houses starting January 1st, 2020. From then on only ugly and compact so-called 'passive houses' will be allowed.

Newly constructed government offices are to be passive by 1018.

I cannot forsee too much building of these in this country with approximatly 1/4 million abandoned houses in ghost estates across the country.

"A passive houses are essentially an ugly cube that covers its energy needs by a perpetual motion machine or something that has the same carbon footprint. Also, it's super perfectly isolated so that the CO2 you exhale by breathing will never get out of the house. The EU apparatchiks see another advantage in the passive houses: if you fart thrice during a harsh winter, you will either suffocate or freeze which will reduce the population growth.

At this moment, there only exist 15,000 of passive houses in the world, mostly in Germany, Austria, and Scandinavia. But they should suddenly become a majority. The construction of such an inferior passive house is 10-15 percent more expensive than the construction of a proper house. So what would you expect before 2020?"

http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/06/eu-banned-heated-family-houses-built.html

PDF of EU Document.

Aka Ishur

http://www.ecn.nl/fileadmin/ecn/corp/Nieuwsbrief_NL/2006/Illustraties/Passief_bouwen_02.jpg

not the worst looking family home i'd say

Nody

Yes, EU should be damned for suggesting to build houses that have thick walls and are well insulated to stop the heat seeping out instead of the cardboard houses done now...

Run_to_da_hills

Nody wrote: »

Yes, EU should be damned for suggesting to build houses that have thick walls and are well insulated to stop the heat seeping out instead of the cardboard houses done now...

No doubt someone will "do well" out of all this. Will there be special planning fees / certificates to comply?.

Scofflaw

Nody wrote: »

Yes, EU should be damned for suggesting to build houses that have thick walls and are well insulated to stop the heat seeping out instead of the cardboard houses done now...

We demand the right to shoddy housing! After all, we're good at it. Also, we desperately need to pay the ESB and other energy suppliers as much as possible.

Some information about the Directive:

• It's a recast of a 2002 Directive on the energy standards of buildings, which required better energy efficiency (c. 40%)
• The 2002 Directive was adopted into Irish law in 2006 by way of several SIs or amendments to Irish law*
• Buildings have to be zero-emission by 2020, but the member states are to set intermediate targets for 2015

*SIs & amendments:

European Communities (Energy Performance of Buildings) Regulations 2005 (S.I. No. 872 of 2005: These regulations, made in December 2005, amend the Building Control Act 1990 to enable Building Regulations to be made transposing the EU Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD).

· Building Regulations (Amendment) Regulations 2005 (S.I. No. 873 of 2005): These regulations amended Part L of the Building Regulations on Conservation of Fuel and Energy to transpose Articles 3,4 and 5 (part) of the Directive. They provide the legal basis for the introduction of the new building energy performance methodology for new dwellings (Dwellings Energy Assessment Procedure- DEAP).

· Building Control Bill 2005; Sections 4 and 5 of the Bill transpose Article 5 of the Directive in relation to the consideration of alternative/renewable energy systems during design of new buildings over 1,000m2. They also transpose Article 7 on Building Energy Rating (BER) of new and existing buildings (when existing buildings are offered for sale or letting); and on the display of BER in public service buildings This Bill is currently before the Dáil.

And so on - but the hysterical claim that the EU is to "ban the building of ordinary family homes" is more fun, consisting as it does almost entirely of good emotive trigger words:

The European Union has adopted a regulation that will ban the construction of ordinary family houses, starting from 2020. Only the so-called passive houses will be allowed

Now, if new family homes are to be required to be energy-efficient, you could equally well have written that as "EU requires new housing to be completely energy efficient by 2020", and by 2020 the new 'ordinary family house' will be a good deal better built than it is now. Given that very little of the cost of a house is the construction costs (remember?), it's hard to see who is supposed to have a problem with this other than our saintly developers.

amused,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Thread title changed to be slightly less hysterical and slightly more informative.

moderately,
Scofflaw

danbohan

Nody wrote: »

Yes, EU should be damned for suggesting to build houses that have thick walls and are well insulated to stop the heat seeping out instead of the cardboard houses done now...

the problem is not with eu or the builders , its with the idiot buyers who accepted that standard of house build in first place.

Macha

Retrofitting will have a much bigger impact on the Irish housing stock than greater standards for new build. Not that this revised Directive isn't welcome, of course.

Cookie_Monster

"A passive houses are essentially an ugly cube that covers its energy needs by a perpetual motion machine or something that has the same carbon footprint. Also, it's super perfectly isolated so that the CO2 you exhale by breathing will never get out of the house. The EU apparatchiks see another advantage in the passive houses: if you fart thrice during a harsh winter, you will either suffocate or freeze which will reduce the population growth.

At this moment, there only exist 15,000 of passive houses in the world, mostly in Germany, Austria, and Scandinavia. But they should suddenly become a majority. The construction of such an inferior passive house is 10-15 percent more expensive than the construction of a proper house. So what would you expect before 2020?"

why post all that nonesensical ****e instead of a proper discussion?

1 these houses look much better than the current stock of grey and white boxes that dominate.

2 why wait till 2020?

thebman

Not only is this long overdue, it demonstrates why people will not be lining up to buy properties from developers with loans in NAMA and why we will lose so much from NAMA.

People are demanding higher standards from property and all the boom houses will soon be worthless unless heavy investment is made. The developers can't afford this investment.

I welcome this move by the EU. I desire higher building standards as the cosy cartel of Irish construction has failed to provide the quality of housing we need and can have in the 21st century. Long overdue measures and I can only hope these houses will be required to be fitted for Fibre broadband access too. Its time we thought ahead in this country.

molloyjh

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

EU's new regulation: Ban the construction of ordinary family houses starting January 1st, 2020. From then on only ugly and compact so-called 'passive houses' will be allowed.

Newly constructed government offices are to be passive by 1018.

I cannot forsee too much building of these in this country with approximatly 1/4 million abandoned houses in ghost estates across the country.

"A passive houses are essentially an ugly cube that covers its energy needs by a perpetual motion machine or something that has the same carbon footprint. Also, it's super perfectly isolated so that the CO2 you exhale by breathing will never get out of the house. The EU apparatchiks see another advantage in the passive houses: if you fart thrice during a harsh winter, you will either suffocate or freeze which will reduce the population growth.

At this moment, there only exist 15,000 of passive houses in the world, mostly in Germany, Austria, and Scandinavia. But they should suddenly become a majority. The construction of such an inferior passive house is 10-15 percent more expensive than the construction of a proper house. So what would you expect before 2020?"

http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/06/eu-banned-heated-family-houses-built.html

PDF of EU Document.

First off that blog is obviously a load of tripe. The house is not a complete vacuum. After all we all open our doors and windows from time to time at the very least. The comment may just as well be:

The EU has demanded that all houses are as cost effective and environmentally friendly as possible thus saving you money and protecting the environment at the same time.

Those damn dirty elites!

jacaranda

molloyjh wrote: »

First off that blog is obviously a load of tripe. The house is not a complete vacuum. After all we all open our doors and windows from time to time at the very least. The comment may just as well be:

The EU has demanded that all houses are as cost effective and environmentally friendly as possible thus saving you money and protecting the environment at the same time.

Those damn dirty elites!

That raises an interesting point. Many of the modern constructed houses and offices assume no one wants to open a window. I love fresh air and hate environments which are not regularly aired. I also seem to remember that it wasn't long ago that we wre told how important it is to air our buildings to avoid a build up of Radon gas.

My view is that this sort of regulation is symptomatic of the overregulation that typifies so much of modern day living, and I am much more in favour of giving us all choice, rather than nanny state compelling us to do as nanny state says.

Scofflaw

jacaranda wrote: »

That raises an interesting point. Many of the modern constructed houses and offices assume no one wants to open a window. I love fresh air and hate environments which are not regularly aired. I also seem to remember that it wasn't long ago that we wre told how important it is to air our buildings to avoid a build up of Radon gas.

Indeed - I hate the "this building is climate controlled and all windows are sealed" thing, whether in buildings or on trains.

jacaranda wrote: »

My view is that this sort of regulation is symptomatic of the overregulation that typifies so much of modern day living, and I am much more in favour of giving us all choice, rather than nanny state compelling us to do as nanny state says.

It's up the market, then, to come up with energy efficient buildings that let you have the windows open. The state doesn't dictate that windows stay closed - only that buildings reach a certain level of energy efficiency.

cordially,
Scofflaw

atech

Just taught I'd clear up a few points ye have raised about passive houses:

Firstly, the radon/C02 and sealed windows issue: All passive houses use mechanical ventilation heat recovery (MVHR) which replaces the air in a building with fresh air at set intervals (usually the entire volume of the building every 3 hours) so there is no build up of radon or co2.
Ideally windows should be kept closed in cold weather so not to let free heat escape but many passive houses turn off their (MVHR) during summer and open the windows when there is no need for any heating.

MVHR filters the air also so you are actually getting cleaner air which is a major advantage to anyone with allergies.

Secondly, the design of a passive house: It is true that using a compact form is more energy efficient but it is not a necessity, it just tends to be cheaper to achieve a passive house that way.
I have attached two pictures of Irish passive houses, 1 certified since 2006, the other currently being constructed.
I wouldn't say these are massively different in design from what has been built in the last 10 years.

Thirdly, the additional cost to build a passive house: For a detached house it probably does cost 10-15% more than a current regulation (B1 rated) house but obviously the quality of materials and workmanship has to be much better to achieve the passive house standard which is 6-8 times more energy efficient. Over the term of a mortgage though it could very easily break even because of the reduced heating costs and any savings made for the remainder of the buildings lifetime is a plus. Market wise it would be worth more also.

Just taught ye should know a bit about them before making some very questionable opinions.

jacaranda

atech wrote: »

Just taught I'd clear up a few points ye have raised about passive houses:

Firstly, the radon/C02 and sealed windows issue: All passive houses use mechanical ventilation heat recovery (MVHR) which replaces the air in a building with fresh air at set intervals (usually the entire volume of the building every 3 hours) so there is no build up of radon or co2.
Ideally windows should be kept closed in cold weather so not to let free heat escape but many passive houses turn off their (MVHR) during summer and open the windows when there is no need for any heating.

MVHR filters the air also so you are actually getting cleaner air which is a major advantage to anyone with allergies.

Secondly, the design of a passive house: It is true that using a compact form is more energy efficient but it is not a necessity, it just tends to be cheaper to achieve a passive house that way.
I have attached two pictures of Irish passive houses, 1 certified since 2006, the other currently being constructed.
I wouldn't say these are massively different in design from what has been built in the last 10 years.

Thirdly, the additional cost to build a passive house: For a detached house it probably does cost 10-15% more than a current regulation (B1 rated) house but obviously the quality of materials and workmanship has to be much better to achieve the passive house standard which is 6-8 times more energy efficient. Over the term of a mortgage though it could very easily break even because of the reduced heating costs and any savings made for the remainder of the buildings lifetime is a plus. Market wise it would be worth more also.

Just taught ye should know a bit about them before making some very questionable opinions.

I refuse to believe that a mechanical system is as effective as the old fashioned way of opennig a windoe and letting the wind blow through a house, when it comes to Radon gas. As any mechanical system requires power to use , it is also far less "green" than simply opening windows, as necessary.

Personally, I don't like the environment of buildings which are designed to be lived in with the windows kept firmly shut. perhaps I am just not used to it, but getting used to it is something I think I'd have problems with.

Scofflaw

jacaranda wrote: »

I refuse to believe that a mechanical system is as effective as the old fashioned way of opennig a windoe and letting the wind blow through a house, when it comes to Radon gas. As any mechanical system requires power to use , it is also far less "green" than simply opening windows, as necessary.

Personally, I don't like the environment of buildings which are designed to be lived in with the windows kept firmly shut. perhaps I am just not used to it, but getting used to it is something I think I'd have problems with.

The mechanical ventilation heat recovery mentioned is a heating system - opening the windows in winter won't heat the building, and heating the building with windows open is hugely wasteful! The MVHR system is a lot more energy efficient than that, obviously. In summer, you don't need to be heating the building the whole time, so you can have the windows open.

cordially,
Scofflaw

nesf

jacaranda wrote: »

I refuse to believe that a mechanical system is as effective as the old fashioned way of opennig a windoe and letting the wind blow through a house, when it comes to Radon gas. As any mechanical system requires power to use , it is also far less "green" than simply opening windows, as necessary.

You don't tend to open the windows to let air in during cold spells in winter though.

marco_polo

nesf wrote: »

You don't tend to open the windows to let air in during cold spells in winter though.

Forgive the off topicness, but you've never met my girlfriend.

nesf

marco_polo wrote: »

Forgive the off topicness, but you've never met my girlfriend.

Allow me to rephrase:

Sensible, normal and sane people don't open windows to let air in during a cold spell in winter...

Scofflaw

nesf wrote: »

Allow me to rephrase:

Sensible, normal and sane people don't open windows to let air in during a cold spell in winter...

Also guilty as charged, I fear...

guiltily,
Scofflaw

nesf

Scofflaw wrote: »

Also guilty as charged, I fear...

guiltily,
Scofflaw

Just found out my wife's been doing it behind my back all these years.... :pac:

ei.sdraob

This should probably be moved (or linked?) into the Irish economy forum (and be of interest to the accommodation and the selfbuild forums too)

As someone who spend a small fortune on bringing a new home to very high standard, i can say that this will make 99% of the homes in this country "obsolete" and very expensive to retrofit

and has serious repercussions for NAMA who think they be turning a profit in 10 years time while sitting on a pile of rapidly depreciating and badly build "assets"

Scofflaw wrote: »

The mechanical ventilation heat recovery mentioned is a heating system - opening the windows in winter won't heat the building, and heating the building with windows open is hugely wasteful! The MVHR system is a lot more energy efficient than that, obviously. In summer, you don't need to be heating the building the whole time, so you can have the windows open.

cordially,
Scofflaw

provided the house is airtight (very hard to achieve) MHRV systems are great

* get fresh clean air thru the house
* which is filtered (great if you have allergies)
* save heat and heating costs, air coming is within 1 degree of air coming in usually, which more than offsets the cost of running one @ ~20W
* no need to make holes in your building walls for vents or windows

taconnol wrote: »

Retrofitting will have a much bigger impact on the Irish housing stock than greater standards for new build. Not that this revised Directive isn't welcome, of course.

and thats where the Greens like yourself are wrong, ignoring new homes

homes are still being build (still well above the long term average of 10000 a year) and people in new homes cant avail of grants for insulation, solar heating etc

retrofitting most of the existing stock to passive standards would be nearly impossible, in many cases it would be cheaper to knock them down and build again (i kid you not)

pop-over to the self-build forum to see how much attention and work is required to bring a home to a high standard

Macha

ei.sdraob wrote: »

and thats where the Greens like yourself are wrong, ignoring new homes

Are you able to deal with me as an individual, instead of treating me like I have to answer for every single opinion of the entire environmental movement?

As it stands, I said nothing about ignoring new build. What I said was that retrofitting is more important.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

homes are still being build (still well above the long term average of 10000 a year) and people in new homes cant avail of grants for insulation, solar heating etc

That is incorrect. The latest predictions show a figure of 7,500 new builds this year.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

retrofitting most of the existing stock to passive standards would be nearly impossible, in many cases it would be cheaper to knock them down and build again (i kid you not)

pop-over to the self-build forum to see how much attention and work is required to bring a home to a high standard

I'm aware. I worked with the architecture practice that drew up the SEAI guidelines for retrofitting to passiv haus standards.