Replies

1. GBA Editor
   Martin Holladay | Dec 13, 2014 07:06am | #1

   Jin,
   Thanks very much for alerting us to the publication of this draft standard.

2. GBA Editor
   Martin Holladay | Dec 13, 2014 07:14am | #2

   A quote from the Executive Summary: "PHIUS+ certification [of Passivhaus buildings in North America] that uses European energy metrics and specific standards as written has resulted in (broadly speaking) passive-solar-esque designs with a tendency to overheating, and discouragingly high cost premiums. Adjustments to the criteria are necessary to redeem the promises of the passive building standard for North America."

3. GBA Editor
   Martin Holladay | Dec 13, 2014 07:22am | #3

   Another quote: "The low PHPP defaults [for miscellaneous electrical loads] are grossly unrealistic, a discrepancy that must be fixed."

4. 
   jinmtvt | Dec 13, 2014 09:48am | #4

   If i understood correctly, it was lower and gave way too much "free space" for designs,
   and then total real usage results ended up higher than what was predicted.

   So far i like what i see,
   i need to read it another type to be able to understand more ... took the day to read it through other chores.

   Too bad they did not include a few graphs of the analytical results of windows in their models,
   would've been fun to compare to our discussions over here.

   I also remember reading about ground heat loss that may be wrong calculated,
   could help fix the " 48" sub slab insulation " problem.

   If i recall you are cited at one place Martin :)

   Also,
   being there .... i might as well thank you all at GBA for pushing me to learn about building science,
   after roughly 2 years of reading and participation here, i can read this paper and not feel completely lost !!

5. 
   jinmtvt | Dec 14, 2014 03:02am | #5

   MArtin,
   would it be possible for you to ask someone from the TC to show us the results of their run on different windows ??

   Passages of the conclusion :

   Under the both-and system (limits on peak loads and annual demands), more projects will likely
   find themselves challenged on peak loads and source energy instead of annual heat demand. It
   will tend to favor higher occupancy and more efficient forms of housing.

   Of course, it would be an exaggeration to claim that this new system would deliver cost
   optimality/competitiveness for any particular real project. But it should be much closer; it is
   more nuanced, and should at least help to avoid pushing designs way out into diminishing
   returns, or leaving a lot of feasible energy savings on the table. There is a natural tension
   between performance maximization and cost minimization.

   """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

   Could someone explain the relation between " source energy"
   and a per human maximum of 6K kw/h
   vs peak load and total heating energy ?
   is it one or the other or does it need to meet the 3 criteria?

   6k kw/h per resident pushes up to 24K kw/h for a 2+2 family ...quite a bit nah ?
   that would be supp to heating/cooling energy ?

6. 
   jinmtvt | Dec 17, 2014 04:11pm | #6

   Not to be a bummer, but i thought that many of us here would be interested in reading the proposed modified standard and discuss about it .

   Lack of interest for PHIUS standard or simply nobody came back for commenting ?

7. 
   jinmtvt | Dec 17, 2014 08:51pm | #7

   Technical committee of PHIUS are taking comments on the new standard draft :

   https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1pwBAxZY8HWxWWpUNuQ47hTR8w6mbc8G69GL2BXpSlxo/viewform?c=0&w=1&mc_cid=2cd3445cbd&mc_eid=0fcf5c3510

8. 
   jackofalltrades777 | Dec 19, 2014 02:15pm | #8

   Triple Pane uPVC windows like Intus that are not passive house "certified" but still are passive house "suitable" so in other words they can be used in passive houses to attain PH certification. The cost is less than other passive house certified windows. The cost to certify a window is high so the cost is then passed down to the window itself.

   I really like the way PHIUS is gearing up their standards to reflect each individual climate zones in the US. The "one standard fits all" approach did not work so I applaud the PHIUS for thinking outside of the box.

9. 
   Andrew_C | Dec 20, 2014 12:31pm | #9

   Interest levels vs comments- [re: 6.]

   Jin: I suspect that it is not lack of interest in PH per se, rather that most people either don’t have the time to read the entire source document, or they don’t have the background to completely comprehend it, so they would prefer that an “expert” read and summarize it for them. If one never reads original source material, that’s probably a loss; reading Cliff Notes (or whatever the equivalent is today) is never as informative and satisfying as reading the original book or seeing the play live. However, it’s a starting point, and everyone has time constraints of one sort or another. I’ve not read the 2012 IRC, for example, but I appreciate the articles/blogs on it at GBA and some of the resulting discussions and subsequently learn a bit.

   Complete aside: there is something in your (word processor/email program) that creates a lot of unnecessary carriage returns in your text. I find that it distracts from your messages. Perhaps there’s a simple fix? Or, it's just me adjusting to monovision.

10. 
    jinmtvt | Dec 20, 2014 01:51pm | #10

    Andrew:: i am using Opera browser and having hard time with formatting.
    Sometimes it will auto-break lines, sometimes not, hard to predict and there is a difference between home and work formatting ... guess i will have to consider another browser as they killed original opera a year ago.

    Back to topic ..
    Well this is not a 3 hours reading, and even though i understand only parts of it, it is still very interesting to read ( and i've learned a things or two each time i go through it ) .
    Anyhow ...

11. GBA Editor
    Martin Holladay | Dec 20, 2014 03:46pm | #11

    Andrew,
    I will be presenting the Cliff Notes version in about two weeks, unless some more pressing issue prevents me from doing so.