[bldg-sim] politics or science?

[john.d vnu]

Hello Stephen,

There are some figures in the final report of the European Cephus
project (passive house), see p 90 4.6 Financial
viability. They range from an extra investment over current national
standards of 2% to 17%. These are for high energy efficient buildings
<15kW/m2.an heating requirement provided by internal gains, heat recovery
ventilation, high levels of insulation and high performance triple
glazing (maximises heat gain & minimisaes heat loss).
No additional heating systems are required.

http://www.passivehouse.com/07_eng/news/CEPHEUS_final_long.pdf

Best regards

John DAGLISH
France

Thursday, October 27, 2005, 9:01:19 PM, you wrote:

PS> Hi Renee 
 
PS> While the article refers to US politics, it's not much different up here in
PS> end result. The truth (as usual) is somewhere in the middle. It is very easy
PS> to demonstrate diminishing returns on insulation levels, so there is a
PS> science basis to the position that increasing insulation is not justifiable
PS> (past a certain point - usually considerably higher than the industry is
PS> used to providing, unless we are talking about Alaska, Yukon, NWT or
PS> Nunavut). The Model National Energy Code of Canada for Buildings (MNECCB)
PS> plotted the lowest life-cycle values for insulation and set them as the
PS> reference point by region (degree days) and fuel type (based on 1992 fuel
PS> prices).
 
PS> What MNECCB did not do was calculate the impact of downsizing heating and
PS> cooling systems in response to increased thermal control in perimeter zones.
PS> This increases the complexity of the calculation significantly, but is the
PS> beginning of the science based argument to show the benefit of increased
PS> insulation levels beyond currently legislated limits. 
 
PS> There is a growing consensus in Canada that the MNECCB needs to be upgraded,
PS> and the complexity of the system will be under review. If you know of any
PS> group that has undertaken these types of broad scope multivariable studies,
PS> I would be extremely interested in the results. Of course, that's for
PS> heating dominated climates.
 
PS> Best Regards,
PS> SFP



PS> Stephen Pope, OAA, MRAIC 
PS> for 
PS> Natural Resources Canada / CANMET Energy Technology Centre  
PS> Sustainable Buildings & Communities / Commercial Buildings Section 
PS> 580 Booth St., 13th Flr, D5,   Ottawa    ON    K1A 0E4  Canada
PS> tel. (613) 947-9823  cel. (613) 324-1642, fax (613) 996-9909 
PS> email spope at nrcan.gc.ca,  web  <http://buildingsgroup.nrcan.gc.ca/>
PS> http://buildingsgroup.nrcan.gc.ca  

  

PS> -----Original Message-----
PS> From: bldg-sim at gard.com [mailto:bldg-sim at gard.com]On Behalf Of Renee J.
PS> Azerbegi
PS> Sent: October 27, 2005 2:21 PM
PS> To: bldg-sim at gard.com
PS> Subject: [bldg-sim] politics or science?



PS> Debate Continues Over Increasing Insulation Efficiency 


 

PS> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/24/AR2005102401
PS> 786.html
PS> <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/24/AR200510240
1786.html>> 

 

PS> I keep hearing about this in the news - is it all lobbyists at work are is
PS> there any science to the statement "The Energy Department issued a statement
PS> on Sept. 28, the day before a key vote by a code-setting body, saying it
PS> could not support more stringent "R-values" -- which measure the resistance
PS> of insulation to loss of heat -- because there is "still inadequate data on
PS> the cost and implementation" of the increase."

 

PS> If anyone is modeling the impact and cost of insulation levels, I would
PS> think it would be someone on this building simulation list! Please let us
PS> all know what the status is on this if you know. 

 

PS> Sounds like the DOE is supporting turning off the lights but not supporting
PS> reducing on-site natural gas consumption, and gas rates are expected to
PS> increase significantly this winter in the US - 45 to 70%!



PS> Renee Azerbegi

 



PS> =====================================================You received this
PS> e-mail because you are subscribed 

PS> to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list.  To unsubscribe 

PS> from this mailing list send a blank message to 

PS> BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM



PS> ======================================================
PS> You received this e-mail because you are subscribed 
PS> to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list.  To unsubscribe 
PS> from this mailing list send a blank message to 
PS> BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM



-- 


======================================================
You received this e-mail because you are subscribed 
to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list.  To unsubscribe 
from this mailing list send a blank message to 
BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM