Comments on: The Great Ventilation Debate – Live at Affordable Comfort!

By: Pauline Guntlow, Brookside Construction

Pauline Guntlow, Brookside Construction — Fri, 19 Dec 2014 00:02:28 +0000

Excellent discussion. Any
Excellent discussion. Any chance of showing this as a webinar?

By: Josh Lloyd

Josh Lloyd — Tue, 20 May 2014 19:37:20 +0000

We just had a building
We just had a building inspector tell us to disconnect the continuous run operation on the bathfans in a multifamily project because he does not want the negative pressure in the units that this ventilation strategy will create. Which of course now leaves us scrambling with how to meet our ventilation requirements for LEED & Energy Star V3.

By: Allison Bailes

Allison Bailes — Fri, 16 May 2014 01:09:13 +0000

Armando:
Armando: Based on what I heard there, I think you'll see them beginning to address this issue.

Charles: Yeah, I'm not crazy about the exhaust-only ventilation strategy myself.

Bill S.: True, but do we really need to add that level of complexity to homes?

Steve: Yes, and as Amy Musser wrote recently, we probably shouldn't think of water vapor as a pollutant at all.

David B.: Yep. He really did say that.

Shawna H.: Sorry you missed it. It was a good one. Nice to meet you while you were there, though!

Glen G.: Indeed! That was a point made during the debate, and one that I think ASHRAE is beginning to address.

John P.: Oops. You're right, of course. And the blame for that goes to me, not Joe. I extrapolated from what he actually said to the high-rise case. I've edited the article to remove that bit.

And yes, ventless/vent-free/unvented/room-vented/lung-vented appliances should definitely be addressed by 62.2, in my opinion. We discussed that a little bit in my interview with Paul Francisco last year.

David E.: Yes, outdoor air quality is certainly a critical factor in ventilating homes. We discussed that a little bit in my interview with Iain Walker earlier this year.

By: David Eakin

David Eakin — Thu, 08 May 2014 06:27:30 +0000

Sidebar comment: Interesting
Sidebar comment: Interesting factoid from a recent local news source - most of the counties in my locale (SouthCentral PA) received an unsatisfactory air quality rating by the EPA. Most notorious pollutant - ozone.
All the ventilation standards to date assume that outside air is better than inside air. No science to back this up either.

By: John Proctor, P.E.

John Proctor, P.E. — Wed, 07 May 2014 04:42:28 +0000

"In a high-rise building
"In a high-rise building that's not compartmentalized well, units at the top can experience a positive pressure from the stack effect."

Fine, but 62.2 is for low-rise not high rise buildings.

On another note -- what are people's thoughts about "vent-free" appliances? Standard 62.2 can now address these.

By: Glen Gallo

Glen Gallo — Wed, 07 May 2014 00:38:52 +0000

Great Post Allison as usual.
Great Post Allison as usual. I think one question I would like asked is should there be regional rules for ventilation? Does the same strategy in Northern Plains state make sense in the Deep South. Should San Diego and Saratoga Springs FL have the same measures and methods of ventilation?

By: David Butler

David Butler — Wed, 07 May 2014 00:02:17 +0000

Thanks for the recap... wish
Thanks for the recap... wish I could been there. I just read Mike Rogers' ACI wrapup, where he quoted Paul Francisco as saying that the 2013 standard wasn’t quite ready, but they released it because it was due to be released. Wow.

Yes, 63.2 needs some work. Maybe they'll accept Joe back.

By: Steve from Detroit

Steve from Detroit — Tue, 06 May 2014 20:23:05 +0000

Allison, great job moderating
Allison, great job moderating. This was a great panel and it was the one I was waiting for all week. What a great group of experts in one place. I appreciated Rick Karg reminding everyone that moisture is not the only pollutant/issue we are addressing with ventilation. I know I get hung up on that issue. Pollutant isolation and filtration are two issues I am now pursuing more info and direction on as I continue to make recommendations for healthy indoor air quality.

By: Bill Smith

Bill Smith — Tue, 06 May 2014 19:38:51 +0000

Until we have better methods
Until we have better methods we're not going to be able to have a true standard. The standards are based on assumptions about building conditions that, as Paul Francisco acknowledged, we don't know most if the time.

What we need is an IAQ-CPU. A modestly priced sensor and control panel that would know the humidity, CO2, temperature and pressures inside and out. The system could vary the ventilation to compensate for the actual conditions. It should know if the HVAC system is operating, if a (shower, range, washer, dryer etc.) is running. I'm sure there are other parameters that might be helpful, but I'm not currently designing the system ;-)

A system like that might get us to where we are only wrong 50% of the time. Eventually even that might improve.

We have all the parts we would need off the shelf. We'd need to reduce cost and make an integrated package that is EASY TO INSTALL AND USE. A reasonably priced module that promises better IAQ sounds like an easy sell in upscale homes, initially. It should then work it's way into other segments of the market as people get used to the idea.

Does such a thing exist? Any manufactures got a glimmer in the eye?

Unless we know the actual conditions we're ventilating for we are going to be wrong most of the time.

By: Armando

Armando — Tue, 06 May 2014 18:49:47 +0000

62.2 and M1503.4, Kitchen
62.2 and M1503.4, Kitchen Make-up Air, have the same issues, as far as I’m concerned. You cannot tell me that the same amount of dry and cold air should be brought into a house in Wisconsin or New England as it does in dry El Paso or humid New Orleans. ICC, ASHRAE and Industry practitioners must address common sense solutions to these problems. I wonder if all those PhDs get in the way of thinking… ha!