Is Passive Haus building "worth it"??

SeanoChuinn

I just wanted to start a discussion about this topic to get a feel for peoples attitude. I am 100% for the whole idea of Passive Haus, and have had many conversations with users here who have built or are also 100% behind the idea, but I have heard and read a few interesting things of late.
I have a friend at home currently building a standard house, direct labor. All the standard bells and whistles of minimum 2 inch insulation in 4 inch cavity walls. 4 inch insulation in floors and standard roof insulation, standard double glaze windows etc etc etc. I asked him a question had he ever considered a passive house (or close to) build to help with heating costs etc. and his response was "the BER guy told me there's no need for triple glazing or over the top insulation, you'll still get a B1 or B2 rating"
Now my friend is a pretty shrewd individual, I'd even go so far as to say tight and he also said the additional costs of whatever euro a sq foot extra for passive just wasn't worth it.
I've also read threads on this forum where people have invested the additional capital to get to a close to passive or at least higher BER rating and yet only managed a B2 or B3 after all that, leaving them frustrated. So is it worth it??
Are the BER rating people an independent body? Or can someone just get the qualification and start testing and giving this kind of advice?
Is there a general public attitude prevalent that "i'd rather save the money now" and have a home leaking heat and pushing up heating costs for the owners rather than invest in something that's long term beneficial for the home owners, their wallet and the planet?
Just some thoughts. Thanks for reading!!!!

NIMAN

Surely they would save money on heating costs, irrespective of what BER rating they are given?

I know the BER rating might be a bit of a disappointment, but if I built a house and saved money heating it, which is going to be a major cost for us all i the future, I wouldn't be too worried about the BER rating (unless I planned on selling it).

Lantus

there is a difference between building a house like your friend is and putting in some or all of the elements of passivehaus and actually specifying a passivhaus standard and getting exactly that. (In other words if the builder does not deliver they don't get paid or have to rectify until it meets the required standards.)

passivhaus delivers a super low energy building which to mankind's shame was developed almost 50 years ago and is not even close to being implemented as a bare minimum which we can start to really build on.

SeanoChuinn

I assume they would have NIMAN, I think they'er disappointment came from the fact that they had hoped to get a higher rating. Had invested the time, effort, costs etc and when the house got rated it only came in at a B2 or B3. Obviously this isn't a bad result at all, and would no doubt have reduced heating costs, just a poorer result than they were hoping for. It raised the question in that thread of why did they bother. I know my friend is planning on not selling, its a one time build, so the BER rating will make no difference from a future sale point of view.
It was really attitudes, including my own, I am questioning, not the idea. Like investing in resources to get a B2 or B3 rating is not money wasted. You're right Lantus shame on us for not adapting this as a standard rather than an exception. I understand where his mind was at when my friend told me it would cost an additional 3k to install triple glazing windows for example and he saw it as a waste of money. Money is hard to come by, but he couldn't see the longer term goal maybe, that the 3k spent right now might save him that 3k or more in home heating oil costs in the future.

L1011

If people are obsessing over a BER rating, which is highly subjective and extremely unscientific, that's their problem. The investment in insulation etc should be done solely on economic grounds - what it'll save them - rather than on what a bit of paper says.

topcatcbr

MYOB wrote: »

If people are obsessing over a BER rating, which is highly subjective and extremely unscientific, that's their problem. The investment in insulation etc should be done solely on economic grounds - what it'll save them - rather than on what a bit of paper says.

100% agree with this

While the BER rating is usefull it is only a guide. It is not scientificly accurate. It is not ideal for design purposes.

The original concept for it was as an add on service by already qualified construction professionals. However this is not how it ended up.

There are many people now doing BER surveys with little or no previous construction skills.

I stopped doing them as a result of the poor standard of other assessors.

The passive haus calculations are far more thorough. Anyone fully competent in building would see this.

Your friend might have gotten a cheep BER cert for his home however he defiantly got cheep advise.

If you are considering building at least get someone who understands passive haus (house) design. You'll be glad in the end.

I'm not sure going fully passive haus is right for everyone but many of the principles are hard to argue against.

jmayo

MYOB wrote: »

If people are obsessing over a BER rating, which is highly subjective and extremely unscientific, that's their problem. The investment in insulation etc should be done solely on economic grounds - what it'll save them - rather than on what a bit of paper says.

Exactly.
From what I can see BER rating means jack sh**.
You could have a fairly good BER rating and yet could have draughts etc that means your house is cold and losing heat.

FFS the whole idea of a passive house is not to get a good BER rating, but to ultimately cut down on the expense of heating the place and thus using energy which more than likely means the use of non renewable fossil fuels.

The one piece of advise I would have on passive houses is to make sure it is done right and no corners are cut.
It is no use spending a fortune on insulation, triple glazing, etc if you then don't spend the money to get the heat exchanger pump and piping right.

It is marvellous how often people spend a fortune on things, usually the ones on show, and neglect the important hidden items.

sbsquarepants

Building to passive house standards will undoubtedly result in a higher standard end product and a more comfortable living environment, but the economies are not so clear cut. Yes it will cost considerably less to run, but it will also cost considerably more to build. Figures vary wildly depending on who you ask, but as a general rule I find it best not to just take the word of the person selling you the product.
As far as I can see (and I'm by no means an expert by the way) you would be talking in the region of 25 to 35 years to reach the break even point, but that being said, I think energy prices are only going to go one way for the foreseeable future so that could reduce significantly - or some new breakthrough could see it stretched to 100 years who knows!
So it is most probably a worthy endeavour, environmentally speaking, but by no means the short cut to massive savings that some people put it forward as.

Lantus

MYOB wrote: »

If people are obsessing over a BER rating, which is highly subjective and extremely unscientific, that's their problem. The investment in insulation etc should be done solely on economic grounds - what it'll save them - rather than on what a bit of paper says.

This is why we have endured such slow improvements to our approach to more energy efficient buildings. as long as we could get oil and gas out of the ground for next to nothing there was no need to conserve energy as you could burn it so cheaply. As the energy price increases we have moved to improve our building standards.

When you say economically determined there are huge problems here. Firstly we are entering an age of energy uncertainty as most of the large reserves are now used up and we start to clutch at straws with fracking and other methods. Buildings tend to last for 50-200 years and so economic assessments done today wont reflect the conditions of tomorrow.

To be truly economically insulated I would look to take out as much uncertainty as possible with relation to future energy prices and availability. If there was no gas tomorrow a passivhaus would still provide a comfortable environment and with PV and wind could still operate to some degree without grid power.

BryanF

SeanoChuinn wrote: »

I have a friend at home currently building a standard house, direct labor. All the standard bells and whistles of minimum 2 inch insulation in 4 inch cavity walls.

that wont comply with current building regs

I asked him a question had he ever considered a passive house (or close to) build to help with heating costs etc. and his response was "the BER guy told me there's no need for triple glazing or over the top insulation, you'll still get a B1 or B2 rating"

• most houses built post TGD L 2011 will be minimum A3
• you can do a one week course, pay a reg fee, get PI and call yourself a BER assessor.
• your friend should not be getting advice from them, the certifying professional should be advising them and ultimately checking that the house complies with current building regs

Now my friend is a pretty shrewd individual, I'd even go so far as to say tight

tight and shrewd are different things, but i understand those that can't afford to borrow more for better long term comfort and energy savings

and he also said the additional costs of whatever euro a sq foot extra for passive just wasn't worth it.

define worth it, comfort and lower running costs in the long term seem good enough reasons to me

I've also read threads on this forum where people have invested the additional capital to get to a close to passive or at least higher BER rating and yet only managed a B2 or B3 after all that, leaving them frustrated. So is it worth it??

you dont seem to understand the BER process.

• you cannot directly compare the Passiv haus (PH) system with the BER system.
• the BER takes little account of air-tightness or thermal gains and at a certain point (not as low than the PH standard) it seeks renewable energy solutions over a fabric first approach.
• in short the BER system from approx a B2 rating requires renewable energy systems, to improve the rating where as the PH standard deals with reducing heat demand and doesn't specify that you need renewables
• the PH calculation has been proven much more in-depth and accurate than the BER process

Are the BER rating people an independent body?

the SEAI as i understand are set up by gov as part of our EU commitment to reduce carbon

Or can someone just get the qualification and start testing and giving this kind of advice?

yes, that why you shouldnt be getting constrcution/building regs advice froma BER assessor unless their update architects/ arch techs/ engineers or surveyors

Is there a general public attitude prevalent that "i'd rather save the money now" and have a home leaking heat and pushing up heating costs for the owners rather than invest in something that's long term beneficial for the home owners, their wallet and the planet?

IMHO its not an 'attitude', people just aren't clued in, and in a recession its penny's instead of debenhams OR daewoo instead of golf + many still have the bigger is better instead of smaller/better built/easier to heat..

topcatcbr wrote: »

the BER rating is usefull it is only a guide. It is not scientificly accurate. It is not ideal for design purposes.

agreed

The original concept for it was as an add on service by already qualified construction professionals. However this is not how it ended up.
There are many people now doing BER surveys with little or no previous construction skills.

thats the problem

I stopped doing them as a result of the poor standard of other assessors.

same as that + the market was saturated and undercutting its self, making it financially impossible to do a proper job

The passive haus calculations are far more thorough. Anyone fully competent in building would see this.
Your friend might have gotten a cheep BER cert for his home however he defiantly got cheep advise.
If you are considering building at least get someone who understands passive haus (house) design. You'll be glad in the end.
I'm not sure going fully passive haus is right for everyone but many of the principles are hard to argue against.

agreed

jmayo wrote: »

You could have a fairly good BER rating and yet could have draughts etc that means your house is cold and losing heat.

agreed

FFS the whole idea of a passive house is not to get a good BER rating, but to ultimately cut down on the expense of heating the place and thus using energy which more than likely means the use of non renewable fossil fuels.

agreed + comfort people alway neglect the importance of comfort. if you stand beside an average double glazed unit, you feel the cold from outside, if you do the same beside a well fitted triple glazed unit, you wont feel the cold or see condensation on it (or on the inside at least)

it should be noted a PH still requires a heating source (albeit smaller than average) & electricity to run its MHVR.

The one piece of advise I would have on passive houses is to make sure it is done right and no corners are cut.

agreed, but that's why there is a stringent certification process

It is no use spending a fortune on insulation, triple glazing, etc if you then don't spend the money to get the heat exchanger pump and piping right.
It is marvellous how often people spend a fortune on things, usually the ones on show, and neglect the important hidden items.

agreed

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Building to passive house standards will undoubtedly result in a higher standard end product and a more comfortable living environment, but the economies are not so clear cut. Yes it will cost considerably less to run, but it will also cost considerably more to build.

the gap between the 2011 TGD part L regs and the passive standard are narrowing. the greatest expense is the certification of equipment and components this will come down as more products get certified

Can passive ever be viable?
note that with the introduction by Mr Hogan of the 2013 building control actthis gap between the passive house and the building regs will be closer than ever - as self-builder are going to be few a far between...

As far as I can see (and I'm by no means an expert by the way) you would be talking in the region of 25 to 35 years to reach the break even point,

im not sure thats the case if we are comparing like with like (2011 regs v ph standard)

but that being said, I think energy prices are only going to go one way for the foreseeable future so that could reduce significantly - or some new breakthrough could see it stretched to 100 years who knows!
So it is most probably a worthy endeavour, environmentally speaking, but by no means the short cut to massive savings that some people put it forward as.

what about comfort?

MYOB wrote: »

If people are obsessing over a BER rating, which is highly subjective and extremely unscientific, that's their problem. The investment in insulation etc should be done solely on economic grounds - what it'll save them - rather than on what a bit of paper says.

i agree with the unscientific bit but it not just about cost it should be about comfort also

SeanoChuinn

I had never considered that the BER rating could be as such well-intentioned but somewhat worthless (yes i know its not completely worthless) I know there are multiple people back home with the qualification to do a BER rating on homes, and agree topcat that standards are probably non-existent except for a minority of people like yourself doing the tests.
I know in my own mind its a change of attitude. Whether we like it or not Oil and Gas prices are going to rise exponentially, I currently work in Canada in the Oil and Gas industry and to see peoples attitude of "it'll go on forever" where there's a circle of money which makes people, including myself, ignore the obvious facts that we are very quickly coming to a plateau of production and supply and very soon prices will reflect that. Never mind the environmental costs.
This original discussion was started because of a statement my friend made and an unwillingness to invest in future proofing his home, again it comes back to attitude, I'd like to think when i return home that we can see that value and that it doesn't come down solely to "economically determined" factors but rather a broader sense of environmental give back, obviously personal/family health and comfort.
Thank you all for the opinions. Much appreciated.

SeanoChuinn

Wow thanks BryanF I certainly am in the dark regarding the whole BER process and the Passive House process. I am only hoping to educate myself through reading, research and conversations like this one so that when the time comes to invest in my home I can have the knowledge and understanding to hire the right people and make the right decisions.

L1011

BryanF wrote: »

i agree with the unscientific bit but it not just about cost it should be about comfort also

Well yes, but I'd have hoped that most people had got to a stage where their dwelling can be comfortably heated even if it costs an astronomical amount? Although I do still see a fair few houses in my parents 1980s-built estate with their original single glazed wooden windows that I know for a fact leak air and water like crazy so maybe not...

MicktheMan

In general, attitude comes from experience and a lot of people have never experienced living in a truly comfortable & healthy (& affordable) home. Therefore the attitude of "ah sure we'll throw a bit more insulation at it and a couple of solar panels on the roof" prevails and we continue to build and tolerate substandard homes regardless of the BER rating.
Like others on this thread, I was one of the original BER assessors who have subsequently left due to the farce it has become.

To me simply put, the PH standard stands for quality & comfort, proven time and time again to deliver what it says on the tin. A BER cert is in many ways the opposite.

fclauson

NIMAN wrote: »

Surely they would save money on heating costs, irrespective of what BER rating they are given?

I know the BER rating might be a bit of a disappointment, but if I built a house and saved money heating it, which is going to be a major cost for us all i the future, I wouldn't be too worried about the BER rating (unless I planned on selling it).

BER does not work properly when you get down to the low energy end of things - it tries to mix "renewable contribution" with "energy used"

Both PHPP and BER are based on the same original EN model (13790 I think) but then BER uses assumptions wheres as PHPP uses facts

BER was well intentioned originally but now does not give a true running cost of a build

Lantus wrote: »

there is a difference between building a house like your friend is and putting in some or all of the elements of passivehaus and actually specifying a passivhaus standard and getting exactly that. (In other words if the builder does not deliver they don't get paid or have to rectify until it meets the required standards.)

...

True - thermal bridges is the elephant in the corner - yes you can put 200mm of insulation in the floor and 250 fully pumped cavity wall but if the junction between the two is not specified correctly then its like leaving you trousers un-tucked into your shirt (you get a very cold tummy !!)

MYOB wrote: »

If people are obsessing over a BER rating, which is highly subjective and extremely unscientific, that's their problem. The investment in insulation etc should be done solely on economic grounds - what it'll save them - rather than on what a bit of paper says.

Not unscientific - it just make too many assumptions which are often not right - its basic maths is sound

If you rip apart the BER calcs and the PHPP calcs you actually get very close to the same energy demand numbers

jmayo wrote: »

There is no use spending a fortune on insulation, triple glazing, etc if you then don't spend the money to get the heat exchanger pump and piping right.

It is marvellous how often people spend a fortune on things, usually the ones on show, and neglect the important hidden items.

Too true - be maniacal on detail and accept nothing less than perfect

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Building to passive house standards will undoubtedly result in a higher standard end product and a more comfortable living environment, but the economies are not so clear cut. Yes it will cost considerably less to run, but it will also cost considerably more to build. Figures vary wildly depending on who you ask, but as a general rule I find it best not to just take the word of the person selling you the product.
As far as I can see (and I'm by no means an expert by the way) you would be talking in the region of 25 to 35 years to reach the break even point, but that being said, I think energy prices are only going to go one way for the foreseeable future so that could reduce significantly - or some new breakthrough could see it stretched to 100 years who knows!
So it is most probably a worthy endeavour, environmentally speaking, but by no means the short cut to massive savings that some people put it forward as.

Break even should not be the only measure - you might only be on this earth for the next 30 years so ignore that part - its about comfort & pleasure

You could buy a Merc or a cxxxpy little car - both will take you from A->B but which would you rather travel in.

And when the price difference between the regulations in the build that the Merc vs the other must reach with Part L 2011 then those few extra €€€ are worth it.

SeanoChuinn wrote: »

Wow thanks BryanF I certainly am in the dark regarding the whole BER process and the Passive House process. I am only hoping to educate myself through reading, research and conversations like this one so that when the time comes to invest in my home I can have the knowledge and understanding to hire the right people and make the right decisions.

You might like to take a look at https://www.facebook.com/Passive.House.Wexford

My total heating & hot water bill for 2013 was €0 (ZERO) - by using a balance of PV and a Heatpump I generated 4200Kwh of electricity and my heating & h/w user 4180Kwh. I used the grid as an inter seasonal store for the electricity generated in the summer to be used in the winter (solar thermal fails in this regard)

Supercell

I'm also quite interested in this as we would like to build (have built) our next home as passive as financially possible/sensible.
Its probably going to be about 120-150 sq meters in size and will be a two story detached house.

In terms of payback in heating and maintenance cost whats likely to be the payback period over building a (Irish) standard house of the same size? (for arguments sake lets say with a BER of around B3 as a rough guide).

We looked into solar on our existing house and figured the payback period would be around 10 years by which time we'll probably have moved or if not the heating system would require a major overhaul again so not worth it.

BryanF

Supercell wrote: »

I'm also quite interested in this as we would like to build (have built) our next home as passive as financially possible/sensible.
Its probably going to be about 120-150 sq meters in size and will be a two story detached house.

In terms of payback in heating and maintenance cost whats likely to be the payback period over building a (Irish) standard house of the same size? (for arguments sake lets say with a BER of around B3 as a rough guide).

We looked into solar on our existing house and figured the payback period would be around 10 years by which time we'll probably have moved or if not the heating system would require a major overhaul again so not worth it.

A3 would be the min requirement for a house of that size under the current regs.
What heating source did you have in mind? And want maintaince costs would you like to consider? When you say heating and maintaince cost payback, is that accounting for cost of the borrowed money?

How would you assess the standard 'Irish' BER project with the passive certified project?

Solar won't meet the current regs on its own. what factors did you consider when you looked at solar payback? Looking back now, what did you factor in for fuel price rises, and how does that compare?

Supercell

Heating source is going to be whatever is cheapest, am purely interested in this from a cost benefit perspective rather than eco credentials, though they are nice to have of course, but secondary with a wife and kids to feed and clothe on single income.
Money will be saved rather than borrowed.
Maintenece costs - well none would be great!, cheapest most reliable if possible.

The Irish BER isnt of couse directly comparable to a passive house but its a start. I know when I got work done on my current house moving from and E2 to a C3 was like night and day in terms of comfort and heating cost! The old man lives in a B1 house and its a noticable step up from our C3 but he had it built several years ago. A3 sounds pretty good, though I assume a passive house costs even less to heat. Does it cost more to maintain in general?

Are passive houses in general built for eco credentials in the main or over 10/15/20 years is there a payback that makes the extra efffor worthwhile, thats really what I'd like to know.

Regarding the solar, i just calculated based on present cost of heating by gas. That would have to rise aound threefold in the next 10 years or so to make solar financially more attractive.

fclauson

I did reply on this - my post disappear with all the Boards.ie work they did yesterday

the main maintenance cost running a PH is MHRV filters (about €50 per set) - see
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=194972617374517&set=a.163708813834231.1073741828.154344008104045&type=1


1

BryanF

Same as that two lengthily posts of mine missing

sbsquarepants

fclauson wrote: »

Break even should not be the only measure - you might only be on this earth for the next 30 years so ignore that part - its about comfort & pleasure.

I agree. I think passive house is a great idea, but mis-sold in a lot of cases. The general spiel put forward is do this and you'll save a fortune in heating bills etc, which is just not true. Your heating bill will be lower, but that's basically because you've paid a couple of decades worth in advance!
As you rightly suggest, it should be sold as do this and you'll simply have a better house to live in.

jester77

I have a passiv haus, energy bills are about 70% of what they would cost if it was not passiv. It's cold out at the moment but the house doesn't need a lot of heating to keep it warm. The recirculation of warm air around the house is nice, but the constant drone of the ventilation system does get on the nerves when you are sitting in the room and everything else is quiet.

fclauson

jester77 wrote: »

I have a passiv haus, energy bills are about 70% of what they would cost if it was not passiv.

I hope you mean 70% less than ...

It's cold out at the moment but the house doesn't need a lot of heating to keep it warm. The recirculation of warm air around the house is nice, but the constant drone of the ventilation system does get on the nerves when you are sitting in the room and everything else is quiet.

Then the house cannot be passive certified - there are very strict noise limits required for PH units

The manufacturer or supplier shall provide acoustic data, measured as described in EN 13141-7 for the noise radiated through the casing of the unit and from the duct connections, at the maximum of the nominal air-flow range. This shall be accompanied by sufficient technical data on the means to limit the sound pressure levels to < 25 dB(A) in living rooms to < 35 dB(A) in the plant room containing the unit and to < 30 dB(A), in other rooms.

jester77

fclauson wrote: »

I hope you mean 70% less than ...

It's a KfW-70 rated house, which means it has to use a minimum of 70% of the energy of what a Kfw-100 house would use.

fclauson wrote: »

Then the house cannot be passive certified - there are very strict noise limits required for PH units

The manufacturer or supplier shall provide acoustic data, measured as described in EN 13141-7 for the noise radiated through the casing of the unit and from the duct connections, at the maximum of the nominal air-flow range. This shall be accompanied by sufficient technical data on the means to limit the sound pressure levels to < 25 dB(A) in living rooms to < 35 dB(A) in the plant room containing the unit and to < 30 dB(A), in other rooms.

Thanks for that info, good to know. Where in the room would I measure the sound level? My couch is right under the vent in the living room and when everything is off I can hear the drone, it's not very loud but distracting at the same time. It's the only room where I notice it. Once I move away a meter or 2 from underneath the vent I can't hear it all. The ventilation system has also 4 settings, 1-4. 1 would be for when no one is in the house for an extended time and 4 would be for when a large number of people are in the house or if there was a lot of showers being taken at the same time. At which level would one measure the sound output?

The room with the equipment is in the basement, definitely louder than 35dB but can't be heard outside the room.