Passive houses use up to 90% less energy to heat and cool: one of the most energy-efficient ways to build

[Redaktion]

Passive houses can reduce heating and cooling requirements by up to 90%. This energy-saving architecture for a sustainable future began in Canada in the 1970s. Although this special type of energy-efficient construction has not yet become a trend, it could become a pioneering solution for future living.

https://www.notebookcheck.net/Passive-houses-use-up-to-90-less-energy-to-heat-and-cool-one-of-the-most-energy-efficient-ways-to-build.787459.0.html

[toto1234]

Why do we have climate propaganda articles on NOTEBOOK(!!!)check now ?

Of course, your biased article forgot to mention that most of the existing houses cannot be converted to passive houses, because of prohibitive costs or simply technical imposibilities
And that for new construction, building a passive house in average 20%, and up to 30% more than the regular ones.

[A]

Why do we have climate propaganda articles on NOTEBOOK(!!!)check now ?

Of course, your biased article forgot to mention that most of the existing houses cannot be converted to passive houses, because of prohibitive costs or simply technical imposibilities
And that for new construction, building a passive house in average 20%, and up to 30% more than the regular ones.

You clearly did not read the article, the article talks about NEW houses built in the last 10 years. Not converting old houses

Even if it costs 20-30% more, it would pay for itself within around 5-10 years. Which is well worth it for buildings that are going to be around 100 years

On top of that, it reduces demand on infrastructure and creates self dependence. Which are all good things

[Andrew Rudge]

Why do we have climate propaganda articles on NOTEBOOK(!!!)check now ?

Of course, your biased article forgot to mention that most of the existing houses cannot be converted to passive houses, because of prohibitive costs or simply technical imposibilities
And that for new construction, building a passive house in average 20%, and up to 30% more than the regular ones.

You clearly did not read the article, the article talks about NEW houses built in the last 10 years. Not converting old house.

There is always somebody trying to deflect the argument.


Even if it costs 20-30% more, it would pay for itself within around 5-10 years. Which is well worth it for buildings that are going to be around 100 year.

Payback times are basically never. Most of the elements that give you these efficiencies, glass packs, PV and thermal solar, HMVR, unvented water systems will need replacing every 20 to 25 years. It was the same with the boilers, invest in a high efficency boiler (save £150 a year)10 to 15years life max. Or do I keep my 34 year old glowworm which never let's me down?
 It's all about saving energy, not about saving money, and saving energy will cost you money.

On top of that, it reduces demand on infrastructure and creates self dependence. Which are all good things

I'd challenge the reduction on infrastructure bit fully support self dependence, if only it wasn't to expensive!! Andy.

[kek]

Why do we have climate propaganda articles on NOTEBOOK(!!!)check now ?

Of course, your biased article forgot to mention that most of the existing houses cannot be converted to passive houses, because of prohibitive costs or simply technical imposibilities
And that for new construction, building a passive house in average 20%, and up to 30% more than the regular ones.

You clearly did not read the article, the article talks about NEW houses built in the last 10 years. Not converting old houses

Even if it costs 20-30% more, it would pay for itself within around 5-10 years. Which is well worth it for buildings that are going to be around 100 years

On top of that, it reduces demand on infrastructure and creates self dependence. Which are all good things

lol @ thinking those houses will last a century. At most I can see them going for 3 decades.

Also, cool article I guess, but pretty useless if they literally don't share details of what makes those houses better.

[ArsLoginName]

Also, cool article I guess, but pretty useless if they literally don't share details of what makes those houses better.

It mentions some of the tech. It's all simple stuff like thicker walls, overhangs on windows and doors to reduce summer heating but not so long of overhangs to prevent solar heat gain in the winter, triple panel windows with low-E glazings and solar control, and optimal angle to the sun. Those 4 will make a large difference in heating & cooling. Obviously a tight construction to prevent leaks both directions.

[A]

Payback times are basically never. Most of the elements that give you these efficiencies, glass packs, PV and thermal solar, HMVR, unvented water systems will need replacing every 20 to 25 years. It was the same with the boilers, invest in a high efficency boiler (save £150 a year)10 to 15years life max. Or do I keep my 34 year old glowworm which never let's me down?
 It's all about saving energy, not about saving money, and saving energy will cost you money.

I'd challenge the reduction on infrastructure bit fully support self dependence, if only it wasn't to expensive!! Andy.

Solar panels payback in most places is 3-10 years, but it would be faster if it was built with the house as it is far less work when doing it new. The warranty on the panels is 25 years, but will easily last 30-50+ years. But when a house is made with solar in mind, you benefit a lot more due to more optimum angles for all owners in the future


Solar thermal lasts even longer, and you can actually do both solar pv and solar thermal in the same system. Making your solar pv run more efficiently, while also generating heat

When a house is better designed for something, it is much cheaper to do replacements of the parts that need to be done, without breaking down half the house

And less energy use is less infrastructure needed, regardless of if it is electricity or gas, more usage means more local infrastructure needs to be built to support it. That money comes from somewhere

[A]

Solar panels payback in most places is 3-10 years

They never payback in _most_ places actually. Only in places with state incentives and expensive electricity (and a great sun of course), which is not many countries really. And most of these calculations are made using just the panel cost, without the infrastructure, maintenance and batteries (those are typically just another $10-20K every 10 years).

Even if it costs 20-30% more

I love how easily you neglect 20-30% increase in building cost and then are mad about +$200 soldered Apple RAM prices. )

[hugh mungus]

Why do we have climate propaganda articles on NOTEBOOK(!!!)check now ?

Of course, your biased article forgot to mention that most of the existing houses cannot be converted to passive houses, because of prohibitive costs or simply technical imposibilities
And that for new construction, building a passive house in average 20%, and up to 30% more than the regular ones.

"Why does a tech news outlet report on technology???? waaaaaaah daddy save me from facts and logic!!!!! my feeble snowflake mind cant comprehend it!!!!"

[sheshirdzhija]

Why would you put an ALL GLASS image for such an article? It is the complete antithesis to a passivhaus.

Guys,come on, SOME standards are needed for these lifestyle articles as well.