Comments on: Passive House — The Only Place Where Real Innovation Is Happening?

By: Trent R

Trent R — Thu, 03 Oct 2013 10:44:39 +0000

Attaining Passive House
Attaining Passive House standards doesn't require big bucks, just proper research. Windows is what makes or breaks a passive house design. Triple pane windows can get pricey but one can get uPVC windows like Intus which will give you excellent ratings: U-Values of 0.17, AI ratings of < 0.03 cfm/ft², and most importantly SHGC of 0.37 - 0.60 which will work for a wide range of climates.

By: Allison Bailes

Allison Bailes — Wed, 21 Aug 2013 18:53:08 +0000

Wow! What a great discussion.
Wow! What a great discussion. Thanks for all the comments, everyone. I think the the passion here, on all sides, indicates that PH is definitely having an impact, at least on how we think about these high performance homes. And yes, perhaps I didn't consider all of the ways that PH is/can be innovative. I haven't played with the PHPP or WUFI Passive yet, so maybe that's where PH is most innovative. Or perhaps it's as Bill Smith said: "Don't look for the innovation in PH, look for the innovation that comes out of it."

Albert Rooks, I look forward to getting together when I'm out in Seattle next month. I saw Sam Hagerman recently and may take a trip down to Portland as well to see the PH projects there.

Alex Sawyer, when I make back to Philly, I'll let you know. I haven't been back there since I moved away in 2000 after two years on the Main Line, so it'd be nice to go back for a visit. We were just talking last night about a high-gravity Dogfish Head beer that you apparently can't get outside the Philly area.

By: Ted Kidd

Ted Kidd — Sun, 18 Aug 2013 08:16:13 +0000

Awesome post Allison!

Great comments. Particularly poignant to me was P, Cameron, and Kurts.

Pj, crazy to deify a meaningless amount of projects and ignore all the jobs being redone wrong.

Cameron – “We Don’t Need No Steenking Innovation, We Need Implementation!” Allison, need an editor?

Curt, frustrating to see OCD over meaningless increments when there is so much opportunity to take huge slices out of consumption in existing buildings.

This article about Rick Chitwoods work illustrates the path I wish we could all get behind –
http://bit.ly/rickchitwood

By: Ken Levenson

Ken Levenson — Sat, 17 Aug 2013 16:03:10 +0000

Allison,

Allison,
Thank you for the mention of 475 High Performance Building Supply. Whether, incremental, revolutionary, innovative, derivative, disruptive, scaleable or no - Passive House, it seems, has supercharged a much wider audience in building science and the possibilities of low energy building in the US and many places around the world - Sweden excepted of course!;) - starting with the center of the known universe, The New York Times.

We feel lucky to wake up every day and participate in this exciting transformational time.

By: Alex Sawyer

Alex Sawyer — Fri, 16 Aug 2013 15:52:17 +0000

The Europeans did a fairly
The Europeans did a fairly extensive study on the back end performance of passive houses.

http://www.eceee.org/library/conference_proceedings/eceee_Summer_Studies/2003c/Panel_2/2047schnieders

By: Mike Steffen

Mike Steffen — Fri, 16 Aug 2013 06:31:31 +0000
Brownyn,

Brownyn,

Not a problem. My point was that the standard is really great - it sets a high bar and is worthy of pursuit - yet actual performance matters more than predicted performance and the reality is that many models do not accurately predict actual performance. AND many buildings are not operated as per the design. If the PH standard is considered a design standard, then it's probably appropriate to leave operational data out of the certification process, however still it would be useful to have that information. It would help in continuing to validate and improve the modeling software as a tool.

By: Bronwyn Barry

Bronwyn Barry — Fri, 16 Aug 2013 02:59:25 +0000
How much data is enough?
How much data is enough? Yikes people. I'd wager there's more monitored data collected on Passive House projects around the world than on projects for any other certification. (Easy to find if you care to dig a little.) I've worked on two that are being monitored up the Wazoo by the DOE, and there are dozens more across the globe.

I too appreciate the rigor of the Living Building Challenge, but given that there are only 5 of them (?) in the world to date, this standard is more aspirational than practical. Not sure it is scalable either and I've heard an architect who designed one claim challenges with cost effectiveness.

This is a classic case of the perfect being the enemy of the good. I wish you the best of luck finding a perfect standard - and a great place to put your dehumidifier. :)

By: Mike Steffen

Mike Steffen — Fri, 16 Aug 2013 02:20:10 +0000
Speaking of results-oriented
Speaking of results-oriented approach, the one thing that continues to bug me about the PH standard and certification is that it is based on modeled performance only. I appreciate the rigor and accuracy of the model (PHPP) but the rigor of the standard would suggest that certification ought to be based on actual measured performance. Or at least there ought to be a requirement to submit measured performance data (incl. utility bills)for say two to three years of building operation. People serious enough to be building to this standard are likely collecting the data (or ought to be) so this would not be an onerous requirement and again I would argue it's consistent with the rigor of the standard. To my knowledge, the LBC is the only standard that requires this at present and I beleive that is a great credit to the integrity of that standard.

By: Alex Sawyer

Alex Sawyer — Thu, 15 Aug 2013 04:44:41 +0000

Mr La Vadera’s comments made
Mr La Vadera’s comments made me curious, so I did a little digging and found this:

http://theenergycollective.com/znesheiwat/208421/swedens-quest-be-first-oil-free-nation 

Apparently his comments about the Swedes have some teeth. Huh.

By: Bill Smith

Bill Smith — Wed, 14 Aug 2013 20:16:43 +0000
One thing this discussion has
One thing this discussion has done is make me go take another look at PH. In general I like the mostly results oriented approach. While I still don't expect PH to become the de facto building norm it could well drive innovation in standard building practice.

One possible scenario. A clever builder builds a few PH buildings and realizes along the way that (s)he has come up with a very expedient air sealing routine. That method, applied to conventional techniques allows production builders to regularly hit, say, 1.5 ACH/50. It's not 0.6 but it would be a big step forward.

My point is; don't look for the innovation in PH, look for the innovation that comes out of it.