2011 Part L Regulations

mj_mam

Finding it very hard to achieve a pass in these regulations with the heating I plan on having.

Basically I want an oil cooker/range as my main heating system, heating all radiators. After that I want a solid fuel burning stove in the sitting room as my secondary heating system, heating all upstairs radiators.
Inputting these into the software, the engineer cannot get the pass rate.
(Also like to add I have insulated slabs and a 5m sq solar panel aswell)

The only way I can achieve a pass is by putting in a wood pellet burning stove along with the oil cooker, which I do not want to install.

These new regulations are a joke, very hard to pass, without spending an almighty fortune on some sort of heating system not even wanted.

sydthebeat

Where would we be if we all did what we wanted?

The regulations are there for a reason, and are a minimum baseline requirement.

rayfitzharris

sydthebeat wrote: »

Where would we be if we all did what we wanted?

The regulations are there for a reason, and are a minimum baseline requirement.

Maybe in a free country  ?

But seriously it is becoming crazy hard to meet the regs under certain circumstances. We're looking at an un godly amount of solar panels along with an oil burner in a very well insulated new build. And there's only 2 of us!

And don't mention wood pellet boilers I've already seen a house almost burned down because of these useless junk yokes being pushed on us poor home builders. Look up the <snip> boilers fiasco, more of em in the metal scrapyard now than are still in use!

Often the tried and tested ways are best for a reason..

I'd love to be proved wrong, I've no great love of oil either I can tell you.

But I believe that I should have the choice to go with technologies that are proven over long periods of time and not to be force fed the nanny states latest fad! Anyway rant over back to DEAPer issues...

edit: read forum charter
sydthebeat

sydthebeat

ray, theres no one forcing anything upon you.... in fact one of the easiest ways to meet the regulations is to use a manual wood burning stove.

the requirement to provide some of your energy by renewable means is an absolute no brainer. How you do that is up to you.

obviously though, if you are building a 3000 sq ft southfork mac mansion you may not like the consequences.

mj_mam

sydthebeat wrote: »

Where would we be if we all did what we wanted?

The regulations are there for a reason, and are a minimum baseline requirement.

Completely understand they are there for a reason, but to consider I'm installing solar panels, insulated slabs, and an oil main heating system, and still cannot pass unless I install a wood pellet rather than solid fuel stove.

We seem to be paying now for the silly decisions of the government the past 20years.

Very frustrating.

BryanF

mj_mam wrote: »

Completely understand they are there for a reason, but to consider I'm installing solar panels, insulated slabs, and an oil main heating system, and still cannot pass unless I install a wood pellet rather than solid fuel stove.

We seem to be paying now for the silly decisions of the government the past 20years.

Very frustrating.

have you seen the construct Ireland piece on PV and Part L. Maybe a 1kw system would be an option

sydthebeat

mj_mam wrote: »

Completely understand they are there for a reason, but to consider I'm installing solar panels, insulated slabs, and an oil main heating system, and still cannot pass unless I install a wood pellet rather than solid fuel stove.

We seem to be paying now for the silly decisions of the government the past 20years.

Very frustrating.

if you choose to use oil and solid fuel, well, theres economic costs to these choices.
You could still meet your renewable requirement by solar alone, i wonder if your engineer has looked at providing some solar towards space heating.

also, it doesnt have to be a wood pellet stove, any dedicated wood burning stove will do.

yes, at the end of the day its onerous to meet the regulations, but thats the industry standard right now... and its a standard designed to keep energy running costs down and to keep our country from being fined for carbon emissions.

rayfitzharris

sydthebeat wrote: »

ray, theres no one forcing anything upon you.... in fact one of the easiest ways to meet the regulations is to use a manual wood burning stove.

the requirement to provide some of your energy by renewable means is an absolute no brainer. How you do that is up to you.

obviously though, if you are building a 3000 sq ft southfork mac mansion you may not like the consequences.

Thanks for the wood burning stove idea syd, I genuinely didn't know that was an option to meet renewables requirements.
My apologies about mentioning company names, I believe they are no longer in business so didn't know there was commercial implications here. Also just to note, no mac mansion, I wish lol. Just trying to build a modest 2 story traditional style house.

Anyone know the cost per kw of logs?

Cheers

randombar

I for one thing the regs are there for all the right reasons, when oil prices go even more through the roof and you find yourself looking for alternative ways of heating the house then you'll be glad you have alternatives.

mj_mam wrote: »

(Also like to add I have insulated slabs and a 5m sq solar panel aswell)

To be fair even without the regs that really is a no brainer, I found myself going over and above the regs in a few different places to save money in the long run. 150mm cavity with 100mm dry lining and insulated slab means my oil bill was 170 euro last year.

Remember your house will be there for the next 100 years, affordable oil bills wont.

mj_mam wrote: »

And there's only 2 of us!

How many bedrooms in the house for only two of you?

clint_eastman

Hi Garycocs,
Quick question... do you have another heating source other than oil? €170/year is a tiny amount, roughly less than a litre/day throughout the heating season, Oct-Apr? Just out of interest....

beyondpassive

Theres a few anomalies in the Deap algorithms. (I don't really understand them word s either but makes me sound clever). A legacy of using an old UK SAP calculator as the basis for the new ultra low energy standards.

It is more difficult for a small compact building to achieve a good EPC (energy performance coefficient)

As the buildings energy demand drops to meet Part L 201, less energy is being used by the building, therefore a larger renewables component is needed. Its a bit bizare and we explained this to Sean Armstrong in DoECLG building standards at the Part L 2011 consulatation.

Our standard Spec for Part L 2011 heating systems is gas or LPG 8-12kW boiler backing up 2 or 3 banks of tubes with a 1000l Accumulator with about 60% dedicated to the underfloor and a wood burning stove as supplemental heat. Our option B is being taken up on an increasing number of jobs. 12kW horiz Geothermal heat pump with 600L accumulator and underfloor backed up by 2.4kWp (10m2) Solar Photovoltaic panels, with inverter and elec element in the accumulator.

Apples and oranges really. Havent gone for wood chip pellet or log gassifying boiler as they have a reputation. Our approach is to concentrate on insulation, airtightness , MHRV and thermal bridge elimination and after that the choice of heating system is almost an irrelevence. Well worth Visiting Justin O'Keefe's house in Delgany Wicklow, he does site visits for housebuilders to see what a heating system for a low energy house looks and feels like (no connection).

randombar

clint_eastman wrote: »

Hi Garycocs,
Quick question... do you have another heating source other than oil? €170/year is a tiny amount, roughly less than a litre/day throughout the heating season, Oct-Apr? Just out of interest....

Have a small inset stove in the living room and a bigger wood burning one in the kitchen with a back boiler.

New build and a warm enough winter last winter might have had something to do with it too.

mj_mam

GaryCocs wrote: »

I for one thing the regs are there for all the right reasons, when oil prices go even more through the roof and you find yourself looking for alternative ways of heating the house then you'll be glad you have alternatives.

mj_mam wrote: »

(Also like to add I have insulated slabs and a 5m sq solar panel aswell)

To be fair even without the regs that really is a no brainer, I found myself going over and above the regs in a few different places to save money in the long run. 150mm cavity with 100mm dry lining and insulated slab means my oil bill was 170 euro last year.

Remember your house will be there for the next 100 years, affordable oil bills wont.

mj_mam wrote: »

And there's only 2 of us!

How many bedrooms in the house for only two of you?

When I originally wanted to install a solid fuel cooker aswell, with some heating runnin off it, I was way off the requirement to pass the regulations. So I have changed to oil.

We have 4 bedrooms, for the 2 of us and a toddler. I don't see how the number of bedrooms can be questioned, as we are planning for the future.

sydthebeat

mj_mam wrote: »

When I originally wanted to install a solid fuel cooker aswell, with some heating runnin off it, I was way off the requirement to pass the regulations. So I have changed to oil.

We have 4 bedrooms, for the 2 of us and a toddler. I don't see how the number of bedrooms can be questioned, as we are planning for the future.

the number of bedrooms really has nothing to do with it, so we can park that.

the whole premise of the building regulations is to provide a 'certain' portion of your demanded energy by renewable means.

you should be able to consult with either your engineer or whomever is carrying out the provisional BER assessment and see different ways to meet the regulations... there are numerous ways.

However, by choosing oil as your main heating fuel, you are limiting yourself to reasonable alternatives. The standard way to meet regs currently is by means of solar, condensing oil boiler and using a dedicated wood burning stove. the next popular way to meet regs is by using heat pumps with under floor heating.

some other alternative shave already been mention here. PV cells, using wood as your main fuel etc.

you have to understand that by making specific choices such as oil, there are knock-on economic choices.

rayfitzharris

sydthebeat wrote: »

mj_mam wrote: »

When I originally wanted to install a solid fuel cooker aswell, with some heating runnin off it, I was way off the requirement to pass the regulations. So I have changed to oil.

We have 4 bedrooms, for the 2 of us and a toddler. I don't see how the number of bedrooms can be questioned, as we are planning for the future.

the number of bedrooms really has nothing to do with it, so we can park that.

the whole premise of the building regulations is to provide a 'certain' portion of your demanded energy by renewable means.

you should be able to consult with either your engineer or whomever is carrying out the provisional BER assessment and see different ways to meet the regulations... there are numerous ways.

However, by choosing oil as your main heating fuel, you are limiting yourself to reasonable alternatives. The standard way to meet regs currently is by means of solar, condensing oil boiler and using a dedicated wood burning stove. the next popular way to meet regs is by using heat pumps with under floor heating.

some other alternative shave already been mention here. PV cells, using wood as your main fuel etc.

you have to understand that by making specific choices such as oil, there are knock-on economic choices.

Hi syd, thanks to your advice I've managed to meet my renewables and have been able to reduce the size of my solar panels to a more reasonable 5sqM. A few things about the DEAP calcs still confuse me:

1 there seems to be no option to select solar as your secondary water heating source on the energy requirements section.
I think (from memory now) that electric is the only option here.
Is solar already accounted for when you fill out the aperture size and efficiency bits on dedicated solar section?

2 Even by choosing a very efficient condensing oil burner (95.3% firebird model) + wood burning stove (w/ boiler, also a secondary water heater) I seem to fail carbon emissions bit ( very last figure) on the part l results tab. I've tried various combinations of oil burners and stove efficiencies but no joy.. Also tried bumping up the solar array size, no effect either. Is this mostly down to living area size and building fabric u-values?

Walls Have 80mm cavity xtratherm + 62mm insulated slab
Floors 200mm xtratherm board
Roof 500mm fiberglass
Windows triple glazed 0.86 u value

Thinking that should count as well insulated ?

randombar

mj_mam wrote: »

When I originally wanted to install a solid fuel cooker aswell, with some heating runnin off it, I was way off the requirement to pass the regulations. So I have changed to oil.

We have 4 bedrooms, for the 2 of us and a toddler. I don't see how the number of bedrooms can be questioned, as we are planning for the future.

The reason I was questioning the number of bedrooms is you say earlier there's only 2 of us, there's only two of us in our house too now but hopefully there'll be a few more so I prepared for that in the build by over speccing the solar panels etc (you can never have enough hot water)

One thing I did when building was put air ducts in by the stoves/fireplace, I think that reduces certain things, i.e. sucks cold air in from outside rather than the warm air from the room.

sydthebeat

ray, is this your first time using deap or do you use it as part of your work?
there are certain areas you would look at to meet your CPC and EPC before amending your building fabric.

rayfitzharris wrote: »

1 there seems to be no option to select solar as your secondary water heating source on the energy requirements section.
I think (from memory now) that electric is the only option here.
Is solar already accounted for when you fill out the aperture size and efficiency bits on dedicated solar section?

there is a facility to offer some of your solar as space heating in the renewables tab... check the SEAI site for this excel sheet
Electricity as a secondary heating source is not an option if you have any fireplace or stove..... and anyway, electricity would destroy your EPC.

rayfitzharris wrote: »

2 Even by choosing a very efficient condensing oil burner (95.3% firebird model) + wood burning stove (w/ boiler, also a secondary water heater) I seem to fail carbon emissions bit ( very last figure) on the part l results tab. I've tried various combinations of oil burners and stove efficiencies but no joy.. Also tried bumping up the solar array size, no effect either. Is this mostly down to living area size and building fabric u-values?

Walls Have 80mm cavity xtratherm + 62mm insulated slab
Floors 200mm xtratherm board
Roof 500mm fiberglass
Windows triple glazed 0.86 u value

Thinking that should count as well insulated ?

ill revert back to my question above here.....
if you dont use deap and know it inside out, then id suggest you engage a professional who can run through your options.
the build fabric you have specified above is above standard so its the 'little things' in deap thats letting you down.

Villain

How does deap know how much carbon is going to be used, is it possible to set the temp that the house will be kept at i.e. a house well insulated with stats set to 16c will burn an awful lot less carbon a house with stats set to 22c?

sydthebeat

DEAP is a tool used to compare like with like, therefore it makes assumptions that are applied across the board.
it assumes 21 degrees in living area and 18 degrees elsewhere.


the specific energy and carbon usage of the dwelling is almost totally dependent on the actions of its inhabitants.

Villain

sydthebeat wrote: »

DEAP is a tool used to compare like with like, therefore it makes assumptions that are applied across the board.
it assumes 21 degrees in living area and 18 degrees elsewhere.

Which imo is totally crazy, 21c is far far too high, that is a huge assumption to make and renders the calculations useless.

sydthebeat

Villain wrote: »

Which imo is totally crazy, 21c is far far too high, that is a huge assumption to make and renders the calculations useless.

I cant agree there.

DEAPs main function is to assess compliance with building regulations and secondary function is to produce BER certificates.

If you want to calculate specific energy usage in your dwelling then DEAP is not the tool to use. The PHPP is much much more specific in its calculations and should be used for this purpose.
Anyone who uses DEAP will know its limitations and should be able to describe these to clients who are looking for specific calculations.

Villain

But assessing compliance is based on huge assumptions and thus can't be accurate?

sydthebeat

Villain wrote: »

But assessing compliance is based on huge assumptions and thus can't be accurate?

if, on assessing the compliance, the same assumptions are made across the board for every situation then it is fair.

Accuracy is not the goal. As i have said before, for specifics DEAP is NOT the tool to use.

Villain

I would say applying the same assumptions across the board is unfair, someone who chooses Oil for ease of use as a heating source but has a target temp of 16c in living areas and 14c in bedrooms is been unfairly punished and will be forced to add solar/wood burning stoves etc at extra costs to comply simply because the system can't take into account how much carbon they will "actually" use rather that what the tool assumes they will use.

Thank god my house was above wall plate level by 2008, this stuff is complete nonsense!

sydthebeat

Villain wrote: »

I would say applying the same assumptions across the board is unfair, someone who chooses Oil for ease of use as a heating source but has a target temp of 16c in living areas and 14c in bedrooms is been unfairly punished and will be forced to add solar/wood burning stoves etc at extra costs to comply simply because the system can't take into account how much carbon they will "actually" use rather that what the tool assumes they will use.

Thank god my house was above wall plate level by 2008, this stuff is complete nonsense!

well your entitled to you view, but the vast majority of people in this country wouldnt live under those cold conditions.

Villain

sydthebeat wrote: »

well your entitled to you view, but the vast majority of people in this country wouldnt live under those cold conditions.

Based on what information do you believe that? and 16c is very far from been cold!

But even if there is data to support that my main point is the inability of a person to input what temperature they will have in their home so DEAP can give true results instead of making silly assumptions.

sydthebeat

Villain wrote: »

Based on what information do you believe that? and 16c is very far from been cold!

But even if there is data to support that my main point is the inability of a person to input what temperature they will have in their home so DEAP can give true results instead of making silly assumptions.

you still do not get the fact that DEAP is not used for specific calculations...

ive banged my head against this wall long enough.

Villain

Ok so you don't need DEAP to say that you comply with Part L?

My head is getting sore too

sydthebeat

Villain wrote: »

Ok so you don't need DEAP to say that you comply with Part L?

My head is getting sore too

where in gods names did you pull that one from????

nowhere did i say that, in fact i said

DEAPs main function is to assess compliance with building regulations

if you dont agree with the process fair enough, but at least understand it before forming an opinion on it.

beyondpassive

Villain wrote: »

Based on what information do you believe that? and 16c is very far from been cold!

My missus thinks the thermostat starts at 22.

Villain wrote: »

But even if there is data to support that my main point is the inability of a person to input what temperature they will have in their home so DEAP can give true results instead of making silly assumptions.

DEAP purpose is to make silly assumptions. Its not a design tool its an asset rating tool. It compares the build to a standard house built in 2005 and rates the building based on assumed energy use in very particular circumstances. This enables all residential building stock to be roughly compared with a simplified tool. As SYD mentioned if you want to calculate your energy use to accurately predict what your actual is likely to be for your site, your usage pattens, your components etc you need a comprehensive modelling package. The best static one is PHPP and the better dynamic simulators are IES-VE and designbuilder.

The goal of DEAP is to move the building stock towards lower energy use. Unfortunately it dosent consider the energy and carbon cost of your house being miles from services with two 4x4's in the drive. It also suffers from letting people think that cosyboard inside a cavity wall is a low energy solution.

Villain

sydthebeat wrote: »

where in gods names did you pull that one from????

nowhere did i say that, in fact i said


if you dont agree with the process fair enough, but at least understand it before forming an opinion on it.

Well I've used the software so I have some understanding of it.

Ok so

L3 For new dwellings, the requirements of L1 shall be met by: -
(a) providing that the energy performance of the dwelling is such as to limit the calculated primary energy consumption and related carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions insofar as is reasonably practicable, when both energy consumption and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are calculated using the Dwelling Energy Assessment Procedure (DEAP) published by Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland;

(b) providing that, for new dwellings, a reasonable proportion of the energy consumption to meet the energy performance of a dwelling is provided by renewable energy sources;

Now am I wrong in saying that DEAP has to make an assumption of the temperature the living space will be kept at to calculate the energy consumed?

The result of that calculation will play a part in whether or not a house is compliant?

If the answer is yes then DEAP imo should be able to have a variable that allows for the temperature of the home to be input by those who will live in the home and the calculation should be reflect that rather than some stupid assumption of 21c!

sydthebeat

Villain wrote: »

Well I've used the software so I have some understanding of it.

Ok so


1. Now am I wrong in saying that DEAP has to make an assumption of the temperature the living space will be kept at to calculate the energy consumed?

2. The result of that calculation will play a part in whether or not a house is compliant?

3. If the answer is yes then DEAP imo should be able to have a variable that allows for the temperature of the home to be input by those who will live in the home and the calculation should be reflect that rather than some stupid assumption of 21c!

1. correct
2. correct

3. not correct.
Firstly, 21 degrees in the living area and 18 degrees elsewhere is reflective of the average temperatures used. The temperatures you suggest would be commonly accepted as a cold house.
Secondly, the same regulations must be applied to everyone.
If you dont agree, fine....

Villain

sydthebeat wrote: »

Firstly, 21 degrees in the living area and 18 degrees elsewhere is reflective of the average temperatures used. The temperatures you suggest would be commonly accepted as a cold house.
Secondly, the same regulations must be applied to everyone.
If you dont agree, fine....

Where is this average been calculated from?

16c is not cold very far from it.

The same regulation based on what people actually use yes but it should not be based on flawed assumptions that don't allow for user input. It's seriously flawed and I don't really see how you can't see that?

sydthebeat

Villain wrote: »

Where is this average been calculated from?

16c is not cold very far from it.

The same regulation based on what people actually use yes but it should not be based on flawed assumptions that don't allow for user input. It's seriously flawed and I don't really see how you can't see that?

The BRE Institute from numerous surveys from 1970 onwards.

DEAP, if used to compare like with like, is not flawed.
DEAP, if used to calculate specific usage is flawed, totally, which has been said over and over gain here.

Villain

You think the BRE know what the average temperature is in Irish homes?

DEAP is flawed no doubt about it, it will let you enter specific details on a boiler but not what temperature it will maintain in a home - crazy imo

sydthebeat

Villain wrote: »

You think the BRE know what the average temperature is in Irish homes?

DEAP is flawed no doubt about it, it will let you enter specific details on a boiler but not what temperature it will maintain in a home - crazy imo

:rolleyes:

how else could you compare different boilers if the target temperature wasn't the same?

by the way thats a rhetorical question.

Villain

lol you really are missing the point, I give up.

just do it

So lets just say you write a regulation that allows you to input your ambient living temperature in order to work out your renewable energy requirement. Who in their right mind would enter anything other than 16oC, despite the average person desire to have their living space at 21oC or greater?! Whilst this regulation has it's faults, it would be ridiculous to allow the average Irish developer to enter the temperature if his choosing.

just do it

Villain wrote: »

16c is very far from been cold!

Maybe as an outside temperature, but as an internal temperature it is cold. Have you an internal thermometer?

Villain

LOL Yes I do, I probably have 10 times more thermometers than most people, see my sig

The DEAP software can be twisted to meet the regulations anyway, so just because people might not enter the true temperature is not a reason to exclude it.

Making an assumption as to what people will keep the temperature at makes the whole task invalid imo especially when a temperature of 21c is been applied, which seems to have been picked from the sky.

sas

Villain wrote: »

LOL Yes I do, I probably have 10 times more thermometers than most people, see my sig

The DEAP software can be twisted to meet the regulations anyway, so just because people might not enter the true temperature is not a reason to exclude it.

Making an assumption as to what people will keep the temperature at makes the whole task invalid imo especially when a temperature of 21c is been applied, which seems to have been picked from the sky.

You have a great tolerance for cold. 16c is cold, you are in the minority in being happy to live at that temp. Cheap heating bills though so good for you.

Funny how the British 21c (DEAP) falls so close to the German 20c (PHPP) for comfortable interior temperature. So I don't believe it was picked from the sky at all.

sydthebeat

Villain wrote: »

LOL Yes I do, I probably have 10 times more thermometers than most people, see my sig

1. The DEAP software can be twisted to meet the regulations anyway, so just because people might not enter the true temperature is not a reason to exclude it.

2. Making an assumption as to what people will keep the temperature at makes the whole task invalid imo especially when a temperature of 21c is been applied, which seems to have been picked from the sky.

1. DEAP is the only way of showing compliance. By saying 'twisted' are you somehow alluding to inputting false information?

2. I told you where its from. If you bother to investigate for yourself you will see the vast amount of investigation and research thats gone into setting these standards. Just because you do not agree with them does not render them invalid or flawed. you have yet to put forward any reaonable argument as to why you think 16 degrees living and 14 degrees elsewhere should be considered as acceptable temperatures.


The Building Research Establishment (BRE,1985) considers 18-21°C as a comfortable temperature, whereas the UK Government recommends 21°C as an adequate level for living rooms, with 18°C recommended for other areas (DEFRA, 1999). The World Health Organisation (1987) recommends 18°C, with an increase of between 2 and 3 degrees for those vulnerable to the effects of cold strain (i.e. the elderly, the young etc).

Relationship between Home Temperatures and Health Impact
Energy Action Scotland (1998) and Raw et al (2001) developed a set of guidelines in relation to
household temperature and health impacts:2
- 21°C is a comfortable temperature for the population including older people
- 18°C is defined as a ‘minimum temperature for population as a whole – little health risk
although older and sedentary people may feel cold’
- Between 16°C and 12°C ‘… respiratory problems become more common with some
cardiovascular risk’
- Exposure to temperatures between 12°C and 9°C for more than two hours causes core
body temperatures to drop, blood pressure to rise and increased risk of cardiovascular
strain
- Finally, temperatures of 5°C or less lead to a ‘significant increase in the risk of
hypothermia’.

Villain

sydthebeat wrote: »

1. DEAP is the only way of showing compliance. By saying 'twisted' are you somehow alluding to inputting false information?

I was simple saying not allowing temperature to be input as a variable because people could lie is not a good reason to exclude it.

sydthebeat wrote: »

2. I told you where its from. If you bother to investigate for yourself you will see the vast amount of investigation and research thats gone into setting these standards. Just because you do not agree with them does not render them invalid or flawed. you have yet to put forward any reaonable argument as to why you think 16 degrees living and 14 degrees elsewhere should be considered as acceptable temperatures.

My argument is very reasonable I personally have lived at those temperatures and even below for the past two years, so to me its correct just the same as the model of boiler I choose will suit me, DEAP allows me to enter one of those variables but not the other!

sydthebeat wrote: »

The World Health Organisation (1987) recommends 18°C, with an increase of between 2 and 3 degrees for those vulnerable to the effects of cold strain (i.e. the elderly, the young etc).

You see if that 18°C was used it would make a huge difference to the amount of energy required, but my main point is people should be able to enter what they will have in their home!

Oh and re your edit: - Between 16°C and 12°C ‘… respiratory problems become more common with some cardiovascular risk’

I haven't had one cold or flu since I moved home and maintained 16c, as where I often had them in my previous home when the temperature was higher!

sydthebeat

Villain, for the last time, what you do specifically with your dwelling has nothing to do with DEAP or complying with Building Regulations or not.

Its good that you are carbon conscious, and its good for you that you can live comfortably at 16 deg and save on heating bills... but thats not normality for most people.

Hypothetically, you could sell that house tomorrow to someone who cannot live comfortably at 16 deg, or even 20, or even 22.

Therefore, in order to compare houses in ireland (and to set minimum standards) we use a comparative tool called DEAP where everyone is subject to the same standards and assumptions (ie there also an assumption of occupancy based on the floor area).
If you dont agree with the assumed standards, fine. But there are based on real evidence and research.

Villain

sydthebeat wrote: »

Villain, for the last time, what you do specifically with your dwelling has nothing to do with DEAP or complying with Building Regulations or not.

Its good that you are carbon conscious, and its good for you that you can live comfortably at 16 deg and save on heating bills... but thats not normality for most people.

Hypothetically, you could sell that house tomorrow to someone who cannot live comfortably at 16 deg, or even 20, or even 22.

Therefore, in order to compare houses in ireland (and to set minimum standards) we use a comparative tool called DEAP where everyone is subject to the same standards and assumptions (ie there also an assumption of occupancy based on the floor area).
If you dont agree with the assumed standards, fine. But there are based on real evidence and research.

I understand that and I am outlining the issue with it, and it works both ways i.e. someone could be compliant at 21c but could actually have the living area at 25c and in reality be very far from compliant.

I'm simply pointing out the system is flawed, badly flawed imo and the assumption seems to be based on some 30 year old research from the UK rather than current data from Ireland!

sydthebeat

Villain wrote: »

1. I understand that and I am outlining the issue with it, and it works both ways i.e. someone could be compliant at 21c but could actually have the living area at 25c and in reality be very far from compliant.

2. I'm simply pointing out the system is flawed, badly flawed imo and the assumption seems to be based on some 30 year old research from the UK rather than current data from Ireland!

1. that shows EXACTLY the need for standardised methods.... and shows again that the specific use is not reflected in DEAP

2. Do not question the research without investigation by yourself. I have only posted here a short snippet from a 2009 SEAI document. There is vast amounts of research done on this and im not going to spoon feed it to you.


at the end of the day you seem to assume DEAP does (or should do) something it simply doesnt....

Villain

sydthebeat wrote: »

1. that shows EXACTLY the need for standardised methods.... and shows again that the specific use is not reflected in DEAP

Well you see that is where we disagree I think it shows the current system is flawed.

sydthebeat wrote: »

2. Do not question the research without investigation by yourself. I have only posted here a short snippet from a 2009 SEAI document. There is vast amounts of research done on this and im not going to spoon feed it to you.

I've looked at the research and it's sources are poor and there is no data for this state.

sydthebeat wrote: »

at the end of the day you seem to assume DEAP does (or should do) something it simply doesnt....

I'm not making any assumptions, DEAP does enough of that , I'm pointing out how badly flawed it really is. You seem to think its fine, I don't!

sydthebeat

You see it as flawed because you expect it to do something its not designed for. I know what its for so i accept it for what it is.

just do it

Villain wrote: »

LOL Yes I do, I probably have 10 times more thermometers than most people, see my sig

Fair enough, your signature isn't visible on the mobile version though! Fair duece to you living at 16oC, you must have a great collection of jumpers:D.

The DEAP software can be twisted to meet the regulations anyway, so just because people might not enter the true temperature is not a reason to exclude it.

I can't say I know anything about the use of it but that doesn't surprise me really. The bigger concern in this country is the lack of building control in the first instance. As things stand there are no reprecusions for building a house that doesn't meet the regs.

sinnerboy

Anyone who thinks DEAP can be twisted in ANY way is flat WRONG. SEAI run a tight regime of auditing. Certs are revoked and assesors do lose their licence.

rayfitzharris

sydthebeat wrote: »

ray, is this your first time using deap or do you use it as part of your work?

Hi Syd,
No this is only my first time using it, I've read through most of the manual though. (and am becoming familiar with all the tables etc ) and am not averse to learning what I need to about it.

I will of course be getting a BER accessor in before I begin, but at the moment I'm in the financial investigative stage I suppose.
Trying to get a handle on what will be required and its associated expense to meet the part L requirements, and what my options might be to meet these requirements.