Making a house energy efficient

Rather than get a builder out to tell us how to make a home energy efficient and throw in superfluous work in the process (a bit like bringing the car to the mechanic before an NCT; he'll throw in work that doesn't need to be done and charge you), who could we get that is more impartial to come out and advise us on making the house more energy efficient - e.g. what would be the most efficient radiators, insulation, flooring etc

Thanks.

Also, are concrete floors more efficient than timber flooring? I distinctly recall T&G flooring being the preferred flooring on "quality" houses back in the 1980s.

What are the benefits of concrete over T&G (or other?) timber flooring?

cruizer101

Post up more details here and you will get good advice, also have a read through some threads here.

How much are you currently spending on energy costs?
What is your heating source for both heating and hot water, oil, gas, soild, electricity?
What kind of house are you in, semi/detached bungalow, what existing insulation do you have, cavity walls, attic insulation?

If you put up more details people will advise.

In term of professional, you can get engineers to advise rather than just the builder.

BrokenArrows

You can spend a fortune on making a house energy efficient but if you go too far you will never recover the costs in savings on your bills.

Start with the basics:

• Attic & Roof Insulation (Heat rises)
• Insulation between the different floors of the house to keep the heat on the floor youre heating.
• External wall cavity insulation
• Double Glazing Windows (Modern double glazing has much better insulating properties than one fitted 20 years ago)
• Modern maintained efficient central heating boiler.
• External doors with good seals which dont allow drafts to get in.

Then if you have money to burn you can start dealing with:

• Under floor heating.
• Wooden floors will feel warmer in your bare feet but not sure what impact they have on the actual temperature vs concretre.
• Solar heating

MicktheMan

BrokenArrows wrote: »

You can spend a fortune on making a house energy efficient but if you go too far you will never recover the costs in savings on your bills.

Start with the basics:

• Attic & Roof Insulation (Heat rises)
• Insulation between the different floors of the house to keep the heat on the floor youre heating.
• External wall cavity insulation
• Double Glazing Windows (Modern double glazing has much better insulating properties than one fitted 20 years ago)
• Modern maintained efficient central heating boiler.
• External doors with good seals which dont allow drafts to get in.

Then if you have money to burn you can start dealing with:

• Under floor heating.
• Wooden floors will feel warmer in your bare feet but not sure what impact they have on the actual temperature vs concretre.
• Solar heating

Completely disagree with the majority of this in our climate (assuming Ireland).
As someone who tests houses for actual (rather than theoretical) heat loss mechanisms for a living, I can confidently say that lack of insulation is not the reason why >95% of houses are poor for heat retention. And to make it worse, these kind of "pub talk" recommendations can make it nearly impossible to address the real underlying issues.
OP, google "Heat Loss Survey" to find independent professionals to advise.

Btw, I am not having a go at BrokenArrows but rather the general industry that spout insulation, insulation and yet more insulation is the solution. IT'S NOT:)

gutteruu

MicktheMan wrote: »

...... but rather the general industry that spout insulation, insulation and yet more insulation is the solution. IT'S NOT:)

Then what is? I'm assuming your talking more cold bridges/leaks/drafts etc? I couldn't see the argument against some cheap rolls of rockwool etc. Maybe not the external insulation or triple glazing given its price but surely a basic level of insulation upgrade helps dramatically?

I would have agreed with Brokenarrow that price has to come into it at some point. Some people go mad spending that they could no way recover.

BrokenArrows

MicktheMan wrote: »

Completely disagree with the majority of this in our climate (assuming Ireland).
As someone who tests houses for actual (rather than theoretical) heat loss mechanisms for a living, I can confidently say that lack of insulation is not the reason why >95% of houses are poor for heat retention. And to make it worse, these kind of "pub talk" recommendations can make it nearly impossible to address the real underlying issues.
OP, google "Heat Loss Survey" to find independent professionals to advise.

Btw, I am not having a go at BrokenArrows but rather the general industry that spout insulation, insulation and yet more insulation is the solution. IT'S NOT:)

Obviously insulation is not the complete solution but its the most basic starting point.
If you had a house with no insulation then regardless of what else you did it would be cold.

Edit: Since you are someone who tests houses for actual heat loss why dont you give us a list of the top causes in your opinion for heat loss?

rustynutz

MicktheMan wrote: »

Completely disagree with the majority of this in our climate (assuming Ireland).
As someone who tests houses for actual (rather than theoretical) heat loss mechanisms for a living, I can confidently say that lack of insulation is not the reason why >95% of houses are poor for heat retention. And to make it worse, these kind of "pub talk" recommendations can make it nearly impossible to address the real underlying issues.
OP, google "Heat Loss Survey" to find independent professionals to advise.

Btw, I am not having a go at BrokenArrows but rather the general industry that spout insulation, insulation and yet more insulation is the solution. IT'S NOT:)

I'm subscribing to this thread to see what is suggested as I would have thought adding insulation would be the starting point to a more energy efficient house

Calahonda52

rustynutz wrote: »

I'm subscribing to this thread to see what is suggested as I would have thought adding insulation would be the starting point to a more energy efficient house

The key to this discussion is to consider how insulation actually works and what else is required to make it work:

So rather than repeating myself from numerous other threads on this topic, I am going to pose the question as follows:

To keep it simple, lets stick with

1. Rockwool
2. Fibre glass
3. Wood fibre

What is common to all three?

To help with the thought process, what is the primary function of a wind cheater jacket, when worn over say a nice aran sweater in a force 5 wind?

As a further clue: why is it not a good idea to compress the above three?
This would seem to fly in the face of the more insulation is better argument so let's compress it to add more in the same space.

Marks will be allocated for effort!:D

rustynutz

Calahonda52 wrote: »

The key to this discussion is to consider how insulation actually works and what else is required to make it work:

So rather than repeating myself from numerous other threads on this topic, I am going to pose the question as follows:

To keep it simple, lets stick with

1. Rockwool
2. Fibre glass
3. Wood fibre

What is common to all three?

To help with the thought process, what is the primary function of a wind cheater jacket, when worn over say a nice aran sweater in a force 5 wind?

As a further clue: why is it not a good idea to compress the above three?
This would seem to fly in the face of the more insulation is better argument so let's compress it to add more in the same space.

Marks will be allocated for effort!:D

Sorry, my tiny little brain cannot comprehend what you are trying to communicate - except maybe the obvious, compressing insulation is not recommended as it looses its properties when compressed, are you also trying to suggest draftproofing should also be considered? Please enlighten me oh wise one

Calahonda52

I wish I was the wise one!

Yes indeed I am suggesting draught proofing, or air tightness as it is also know because air is the insulant in the insulation.
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/thermal-conductivity-d_429.html

If air can pass through the material, such as rockwool, then it is useless, simples

hence the value of the wind jacket. it keeps the warm air in the wooly jumper from being blown away.


The same applies to the XPS and similar, its the Alufoil that keeps the air in... it starts off as gas but is eventually replaced with air, over time.

edit, compressing the material drives out the air....

PCeeeee

So the traditional cold roofs are an issue? Given that the cold air circulates above the insulation, presumably drawing the nice warm air in the insulation out?

dathi

Calahonda52 wrote: »

I wish I was the wise one


The same applies to the XPS and similar, its the Alufoil that keeps the air in... it starts off as gas but is eventually replaced with air, over time.

..

xps is extruded polystyrene it does not have a foil coating on the outside "to keep the air in" it relies on its closed cell structure. polyisocyanurate (pir) is the insulation with the foil outer layer.

Calahonda52

dathi wrote: »

xps is extruded polystyrene it does not have a foil coating on the outside "to keep the air in" it relies on its closed cell structure. polyisocyanurate (pir) is the insulation with the foil outer layer.

Which is why I am not the wise one:D
Much obliged.:)

Calahonda52

PCeeeee wrote: »

So the traditional cold roofs are an issue? Given that the cold air circulates above the insulation, presumably drawing the nice warm air in the insulation out?

Only the top few inches unless the air passes through the insulation as opposed to across it.
Any lads I have worked with pumping cellulose on to flat attic ceilings always add on a few cms to cover this issue off.

However the issue of air ingress into insulation at the eaves die to soffit vents is a poorly understood problem, especially when the men with vans come and roll out insulation across the ceiling joists, allowing air gaps under the new rolls...

cnocbui

MicktheMan wrote: »

Completely disagree with the majority of this in our climate (assuming Ireland).
As someone who tests houses for actual (rather than theoretical) heat loss mechanisms for a living, I can confidently say that lack of insulation is not the reason why >95% of houses are poor for heat retention. And to make it worse, these kind of "pub talk" recommendations can make it nearly impossible to address the real underlying issues.
OP, google "Heat Loss Survey" to find independent professionals to advise.

Btw, I am not having a go at BrokenArrows but rather the general industry that spout insulation, insulation and yet more insulation is the solution. IT'S NOT:)

Rather than saying what isn't, it would be more to your credit if you said what you think is.

As someone who personally experienced the fun of crawling around the attic of an uninsulated bungalow installing fiber glass wool and experienced the very substantial difference in comfort thereafter, I would welcome reading about what I did wrong and should have done instead.

Calahonda52

cnocbui wrote: »

Rather than saying what isn't, it would be more to your credit if you said what you think is.

As someone who personally experienced the fun of crawling around the attic of an uninsulated bungalow installing fiber glass wool and experienced the very substantial difference in comfort thereafter, I would welcome reading about what I did wrong and should have done instead.

No need for that.

rustynutz

Calahonda52 wrote: »

I wish I was the wise one!

Yes indeed I am suggesting draught proofing, or air tightness as it is also know because air is the insulant in the insulation.
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/thermal-conductivity-d_429.html

If air can pass through the material, such as rockwool, then it is useless, simples

hence the value of the wind jacket. it keeps the warm air in the wooly jumper from being blown away.


The same applies to the XPS and similar, its the Alufoil that keeps the air in... it starts off as gas but is eventually replaced with air, over time.

edit, compressing the material drives out the air....

There you go, it wasn't that hard for you to explain after all, big pat on the back for you

MicktheMan

gutteruu wrote: »

1.Then what is? I'm assuming your talking more cold bridges/leaks/drafts etc? I couldn't see the argument against some cheap rolls of rockwool etc. Maybe not the external insulation or triple glazing given its price but surely a basic level of insulation upgrade helps dramatically?

2. I would have agreed with Brokenarrow that price has to come into it at some point. Some people go mad spending that they could no way recover.

1. There are 3, and only 3, types of heat transfer; Conduction, Convection & Radiation. Insulation addresses only the 1st one (conduction) and at that, due to our mild climate in this country relative to say central Europe, heat loss by conduction is not the main heat loss mechanism at play in the majority of houses. However, we have a relatively very windy climate and therefore lack of air tightness trumps conduction heat loss nearly everytime (and I'm not not talking about the old building stock here; nearly 50% of houses I test are built in the last 10 years!). Of course, the insulation industry doesn't like to hear this and are quite happy to flog their insulation products to all and sundry knowing quite well that it makes very little difference once the first layer on insulation is in place and done properly.
Heat loss by radiation is also worth noting and taking account of in the overall scheme of things.
2. If I want to make a return on investment, I invest in the stock market. If I want to make my home more comfortable / healthier I invest in the building. All the (BS) talk of recovering investment and payback, to me, is nonsense. Common sense must apply.

MicktheMan

BrokenArrows wrote: »

1. If you had a house with no insulation then regardless of what else you did it would be cold.

2. Edit: Since you are someone who tests houses for actual heat loss why dont you give us a list of the top causes in your opinion for heat loss?

1. If I had a choice to live in a "super insulated" house with no thought to airtightness or an airtight / appropriately ventilated house with no insulation whatsoever, I would choose the latter in our climate. If I had the same choice in central Europe, I would choose the former. Horses for courses.:)

Edit
2. I just have.

MicktheMan

rustynutz wrote: »

I'm subscribing to this thread to see what is suggested as I would have thought adding insulation would be the starting point to a more energy efficient house

And that's exactly what the insulation industry want you to think.

embraer170

MicktheMan wrote: »

1. If I had a choice to live in a "super insulated" house with no thought to airtightness or an airtight / appropriately ventilated house with no insulation whatsoever, I would choose the latter in our climate. If I had the same choice in central Europe, I would choose the former. Horses for courses.:)

Would you mind explaining why?

MicktheMan

embraer170 wrote: »

Would you mind explaining why?

In our very mild but windy climate, more heat is lost through lack of air tightness in buildings than lack of insulation. The opposite is true in central Europe where wind pressures are much less and winter temps are very much lower.

wexfordman2

MicktheMan wrote: »

1. There are 3, and only 3, types of heat transfer; Conduction, Convection & Radiation. Insulation addresses only the 1st one (conduction) and at that, due to our mild climate in this country relative to say central Europe, heat loss by conduction is not the main heat loss mechanism at play in the majority of houses. However, we have a relatively very windy climate and therefore lack of air tightness trumps conduction heat loss nearly everytime (and I'm not not talking about the old building stock here; nearly 50% of houses I test are built in the last 10 years!). Of course, the insulation industry doesn't like to hear this and are quite happy to flog their insulation products to all and sundry knowing quite well that it makes very little difference once the first layer on insulation is in place and done properly.
Heat loss by radiation is also worth noting and taking account of in the overall scheme of things.
2. If I want to make a return on investment, I invest in the stock market. If I want to make my home more comfortable / healthier I invest in the building. All the (BS) talk of recovering investment and payback, to me, is nonsense. Common sense must apply.

That last statement alone is one reason why I personally would not hire you to look at or advise on my house.

R3covering investment and payback is vital, I don't want to spend thousands on work on my house that is going to give very little savings in respect to heating costs, I would be mad to... Just as I would be mad to hire someone who says payback is bs.

MicktheMan

wexfordman2 wrote: »

That last statement alone is one reason why I personally would not hire you to look at or advise on my house.

R3covering investment and payback is vital, I don't want to spend thousands on work on my house that is going to give very little savings in respect to heating costs, I would be mad to... Just as I would be mad to hire someone who says payback is bs.

It is really of no concern to me who you hire / don’t hire to advise you:).

My comments on payback are simple; anyone who decides on upgrade measures based mainly on payback time / roi are missing the point. Upgrade works should deliver a more comfortable / healthier environment as well as better efficiency of the energy source used to create said environment. Whether this translates into a meaningful payback is of secondary importance (in reality, a lot of the savings on energy costs are absorbed in better comfort). People spend ‘000s every day of the week on their homes without a thought to payback, why should an energy upgrade be any different?

mp31

MicktheMan wrote: »

In our very mild but windy climate, more heat is lost through lack of air tightness in buildings than lack of insulation. The opposite is true in central Europe where wind pressures are much less and winter temps are very much lower.

Before I google 'improving air tightness in buildings' or some such thing, can you please give your advice on improving airtightness in a house built in 1998, Kildare, two story, detached, 9 inch hollow block construction with external waterproof render, UPVC double glazing, internally insulated with approx 30-40mm pink fibreglass (Rockwool I think) with polythene sheet on top followed by the plasterboard layer. It was built at a time with no thought to air-tightness and I'm wondering what sort of work can be done to improve this and hence improve comfort and reduce heating bills.

The most common approach suggested by many people on these forums is external wall insulation but you're suggesting improving air-tightness first - is that right?

MicktheMan

mp31 wrote: »

Before I google 'improving air tightness in buildings' or some such thing, can you please give your advice on improving airtightness in a house built in 1998, Kildare, two story, detached, 9 inch hollow block construction with external waterproof render, UPVC double glazing, internally insulated with approx 30-40mm pink fibreglass (Rockwool I think) with polythene sheet on top followed by the plasterboard layer. It was built at a time with no thought to air-tightness and I'm wondering what sort of work can be done to improve this and hence improve comfort and reduce heating bills.

The most common approach suggested by many people on these forums is external wall insulation but you're suggesting improving air-tightness first - is that right?

Until you have the house tested for airtightness as part of a heat loss survey, it is pointless giving you advice as there is no way of knowing where you are starting from. I've tested houses which on the face of it are identical but in reality were poles apart. Also to be taken into account is your budget and long term plans for the house. In addition, when addressing airtightness of a building, attention must also be paid to how the building will be ventilated after the air tightness work is completed. Not addressing this aspect will lead to damp and mould.
As regards ewi, you are correct in that you see a lot of talk about improved airtightness with ewi including in sales blurb. Nothing could be further from the truth, ewi does not address airtightness (it would be akin to repairing a puncture on a bicycle wheel by patching the tyre rather than the inner tube). Also, where the primary heat loss mechanism is air leakage, installing ewi will have no meaningful effect until the air leakage is addressed.

hatchman

Could you give examples of what sort of work is normally carried out post a survey ?

MicktheMan

hatchman wrote: »

Could you give examples of what sort of work is normally carried out post a survey ?

I can but won't, sorry. (why would I give away for free to strangers on the internet that which I charge others for):).
However, the following publication is worth a read: "S.R. 54:2014 Code of Practice"

Stoner

MicktheMan wrote:

I can but won't, sorry. (why would I give away for free to strangers on the internet that which I charge others for)

Mick you seem to miss the point of these forums.

We all do exactly that. The industry is full of people who try to turn understandable tasks into black arts.

This is not a commercial driver for you here so please stop posting in this way. There is a balance in not giving information away and trying to advertise for free. You are on the wrong side of it at the moment.

Right2Write

MicktheMan wrote: »

1. If I had a choice to live in a "super insulated" house with no thought to airtightness or an airtight / appropriately ventilated house with no insulation whatsoever, I would choose the latter in our climate. If I had the same choice in central Europe, I would choose the former. Horses for courses.:).

There's more to living in a house than simple energy efficiency. People spend more time indoors now than in previous generations and air quality is important for our health, arguably more important than heat. I'm sure you've come across 'sick building' syndrome etc., and people are concerned about increases in asthma & respiratory ailments generally.

I note you say that in our climate that you'd like to live in a 'airtight / appropriately ventilated house'. That means restricting all natural ingress/ egress of air, no open fireplace and preferably no chimney at all, having all doors and windows closed and tightly draft stripped and then some sort of mechanical ventilation / heat recovery system to pull in hopefully clean air and spread it around the house.

Whilst it sounds grand in theory, no thanks. I'll be happier to live in my slightly draughty house at times and pay a small fraction more on fuel. It also does my soul good to look into the stove at night and open the door to look at the glowing coals and logs.

You keep your hermetically sealed box

cnocbui

I have a hermetically sealed box, except the building regs called for all these mandatory vents in the walls so it isn't hermetically sealed at all. I am at a complete loss to understand why a big issue is made over sealed houses and yet they are required to be unsealed. Seems to me it's a bit like building a submarine and then drilling multiple holes through the hull.

MicktheMan

Stoner wrote: »

1.Mick you seem to miss the point of these forums.

2.We all do exactly that. The industry is full of people who try to turn understandable tasks into black arts.

3.This is not a commercial driver for you here so please stop posting in this way. There is a balance in not giving information away and trying to advertise for free. You are on the wrong side of it at the moment.

1. Which is what exactly?

2. Don't understand; what industry?

3.You think I am posting here to advertise my business? What utter nonsense. Go back through my 1700 odd posts on boards, spanning the guts of a decade, and see if there is a pattern of self promotion. :mad:

MicktheMan

Right2Write wrote: »

There's more to living in a house than simple energy efficiency. People spend more time indoors now than in previous generations and air quality is important for our health, arguably more important than heat. I'm sure you've come across 'sick building' syndrome etc., and people are concerned about increases in asthma & respiratory ailments generally.

I note you say that in our climate that you'd like to live in a 'airtight / appropriately ventilated house'. That means restricting all natural ingress/ egress of air, no open fireplace and preferably no chimney at all, having all doors and windows closed and tightly draft stripped and then some sort of mechanical ventilation / heat recovery system to pull in hopefully clean air and spread it around the house.

Whilst it sounds grand in theory, no thanks. I'll be happier to live in my slightly draughty house at times and pay a small fraction more on fuel. It also does my soul good to look into the stove at night and open the door to look at the glowing coals and logs.

You keep your hermetically sealed box

Well the title of the thread is "Making a house energy efficient".:)
I 100% agree with you about the importance of indoor air quality to one's health and wellbeing which is exactly why I advocate a "build tight, ventilate right" approach to building / renovating. Which, btw, does not rule out a solid fuel stove if that is what is one's preference.

Your hermetically sealed box comment says more about you than me.

MicktheMan

cnocbui wrote: »

I have a hermetically sealed box, except the building regs called for all these mandatory vents in the walls so it isn't hermetically sealed at all. I am at a complete loss to understand why a big issue is made over sealed houses and yet they are required to be unsealed. Seems to me it's a bit like building a submarine and then drilling multiple holes through the hull.

Houses are made air tight to prevent uncontrolled air passing into / out of a house. Ventilation is designed to allow the controlled exchange of internal moist stale air with external dry air to provide for a healthy indoor air quality.

wexfordman2

MicktheMan wrote: »

Well the title of the thread is "Making a house energy efficient".:)
I 100% agree with you about the importance of indoor air quality to one's health and wellbeing which is exactly why I advocate a "build tight, ventilate right" approach to building / renovating. Which, btw, does not rule out a solid fuel stove if that is what is one's preference.

Your hermetically sealed box comment says more about you than me.

Your a pleasant sort of chap aren't you.

dathi

cnocbui wrote: »

I have a hermetically sealed box, except the building regs called for all these mandatory vents in the walls .

part F of the the building regs does not call for mandatory holes in the walls for ventilation . it sets out the amount of ventilation required for the property. and how to achieve this with heat recovery ventilation ,passive stack ventilation, or natural ventilation. (hole in wall). most houses are built with hole in wall ventilation because it is the cheapest method. the other common miss conception is around the term "airtightness" air-tightness is not about building a hermetically sealed box . rather it is about preventing uncontrolled air leakage from and into the building , while providing enough ventilation to keep the building healthy.

bungaro79

mick, or anyone other expert in this area, so i'm buying a detached house (built in 2003) with a c2 energy rating. on the engineers report and ber it gives recommendations of changing the front door and bit more insulation in the attic as the main areas to save heat. so i have looked into air tightness (was hoping to self build but that's not happening now) but realistically can you retrospectively improve a house without having to pay huge amounts??
from a talk i went to with a passive build company, they was talking about the exact fitting together of timber frames (to the millimetre, not sure how exact these are in a normal build) and how there are a couple of air tightness tests during the build to catch anything. i understand that you don't want to give out loads of information for free but if i have an idea of what my realistic outlay or options could be then at least i could compare it to the costs from the ber report.
thanks

MicktheMan

bungaro79 wrote: »

1. but realistically can you retrospectively improve a house without having to pay huge amounts??
2. i understand that you don't want to give out loads of information for free but if i have an idea of what my realistic outlay or options could be then at least i could compare it to the costs from the ber report.
thanks

1. It depends and it is almost a waste of time to try work out what may be going on over the internet. Why? For example, stand in the middle of any room, look around 360 degrees both horizontally and vertically, note all the junctions (e.g. wall to window frame or wall to floor) and penetrations of walls, floors and ceilings. Now, every single one of these junctions and penetrations have the potential to be leaking. Do the same for every room in the house. Now consider what may be going on behind built in units etc. How to address these depends on a multitude of things, not least how relative one leakage type is compared to others and what type of structural buildup is present to start with.

2. It's not that I don't want to; I can't without a thorough site survey and test. If I was inclined I could probably list off dozens and dozens of different items but they would be of little use to anyone. I really cannot stress enough that the 1st step to properly tackling heat loss by convection (lack of air tightness) is to test for air tightness which should be part of any decent heat loss survey. At the end of the survey, you will be in no doubt where to concentrate on and what to do. Your question is akin to calling a doctor, telling him/her you don't fell well and asking him/her to give you a list of potential diagnoses and cures:)

mp31

MicktheMan wrote: »

1. It depends and it is almost a waste of time to try work out what may be going on over the internet. Why? For example, stand in the middle of any room, look around 360 degrees both horizontally and vertically, note all the junctions (e.g. wall to window frame or wall to floor) and penetrations of walls, floors and ceilings. Now, every single one of these junctions and penetrations have the potential to be leaking. Do the same for every room in the house. Now consider what may be going on behind built in units etc. How to address these depends on a multitude of things, not least how relative one leakage type is compared to others and what type of structural buildup is present to start with.

2. It's not that I don't want to; I can't without a thorough site survey and test. If I was inclined I could probably list off dozens and dozens of different items but they would be of little use to anyone. I really cannot stress enough that the 1st step to properly tackling heat loss by convection (lack of air tightness) is to test for air tightness which should be part of any decent heat loss survey. At the end of the survey, you will be in no doubt where to concentrate on and what to do. Your question is akin to calling a doctor, telling him/her you don't fell well and asking him/her to give you a list of potential diagnoses and cures:)

Apologies for what may be a stupid question... but is it better to get a heat loss survey and air tightness test done in the winter when the colder weather shows up the heat loss better/easier on the thermal imaging camera?

MicktheMan

mp31 wrote: »

Apologies for what may be a stupid question... but is it better to get a heat loss survey and air tightness test done in the winter when the colder weather shows up the heat loss better/easier on the thermal imaging camera?

Not stupid question at all. You are correct in that a internal / external temperature differential of min 10 degrees is generally required for thermal imaging to be at it's optimal, so yes most surveys are done during the heating season. In certain circumstances, pre-dawn surveys are done where certain conditions are required. However, an airtightness test can generally be done anytime (once its not too windy).

RuMan

Who exactly does Air tightness tests ? Do they also do insulation tests.

I'm looking at putting in a new heating system/insulation in an old house. I was looking at getting some sort of energy audit before starting down that road.

MicktheMan

RuMan wrote: »

1. Who exactly does Air tightness tests ?
2. Do they also do insulation tests.

3. I'm looking at putting in a new heating system/insulation in an old house.
4. I was looking at getting some sort of energy audit before starting down that road.

1. Air tightness testers;)
2. They may, it depends on their training / experience / background. A heat loss survey which includes both a blower door test (for airtightness) combined with thermal imaging is probably what you need. The knowledge & experience of the surveyor would also be important.
3. How old is house?
4. It might just be the best few quid you spend on the project (I would say that, wouldn't I:)). Btw, a Building Energy Rating type survey (BER) is generally next to useless because no tests of any description are done.

gutteruu

MicktheMan wrote: »

Btw, a Building Energy Rating type survey (BER) is generally next to useless because no tests of any description are done.

Woooaahh! Thats a big statement. Just to clarify, BER assessors need to have a qualification and most are qualified experienced engineers. There is merit to their opinion regardless of any tests. Not everything is as simple as a hole

the_pen_turner

the problem with the ber is that it is all theoretical. you go to site and see whats there. then fill it in and get your result.
it doesnt allow for how everything is put together.
i would rather have a double glased window fitted properly than a tripple fitted poorly

gutteruu

the_pen_turner wrote: »

it doesnt allow for how everything is put together.
i would rather have a double glased window fitted properly than a tripple fitted poorly

I would disagree. As I said not everything is a hole. Things like sizing heating correctly / recommending installation of zoned heating / thermostatic rad valves / upgrading insulation, even down to replacing halogen lights with LEDs etc etc.

Holes are 1 small items and usually very easily sorted. This tread evolved into a heat loss one but the original premise was energy efficiency and a good BER report would stump a heat loss survey any day IMO.

the_pen_turner

The ber has a lot of uses. But it is no substitute for a proper survey includin air tightness.

MicktheMan

gutteruu wrote: »

Woooaahh! Thats a big statement. Just to clarify, BER assessors need to have a qualification and most are qualified experienced engineers. There is merit to their opinion regardless of any tests. Not everything is as simple as a hole

Not a big statement at all. I said nothing good, bad or indifferent about BER assessors. My comment was aimed at the BER assessment in itself and I stand by it.

RuMan

MicktheMan wrote: »

1. Air tightness testers;)
2. They may, it depends on their training / experience / background. A heat loss survey which includes both a blower door test (for airtightness) combined with thermal imaging is probably what you need. The knowledge & experience of the surveyor would also be important.
3. How old is house?
4. It might just be the best few quid you spend on the project (I would say that, wouldn't I:)). Btw, a Building Energy Rating type survey (BER) is generally next to useless because no tests of any description are done.

House is 1950's. Will need rewiring and new heating system. Being extended at the back so will involve new windows there.

Before starting need to try and figure out best way to minimise heat loss ( and heat). Insulation was put in before and it's a well built house.