Solar passage

[A.D. 44]

Hello,

It's good. It is not a "colander". But it is still average! The standard was not so severe at the time ... It is 110 kWh / m² and per year in the west. Classification C. The RT2012 is 50. Classification A.

Inner insulation (ITI), I guess, alas ??? [Because it cuts thermal inertia; thermal inertia is in walls and slabs; if ITI, the walls are behind the insulation, outside; they do not participate in the inertia!]

we must distinguish the bbio from the rest!

the energy performance of the building is not always exceptional (or even really superior) on a RT2012 compared to a RT2005. Going from an ITI with 100mm to 120mm, plus a few more adhesive bits here and there, does not bring down heating needs alone !!!

the kWh / m² stories can very well be obtained using active energy systems (such as PáC most of the time).

[Did67]

I was not in the details! The question was: Is not it better to isolate (by resuming the discussion at the beginning: we had no indication on the house, age, insulation ...).

A ladle, we are now at the stage: it is not a heat strainer as it was built much in the 80 years ... And almost always, in this case, the forumers ask themselves the question: "what means of heating to reduce the bill or to be more" green "or both?".

My mania is to know first of all if it is not a colander, in which case the insulation is essential before all (and sometimes enough!), Before thinking heating. We agree that a true thermal diagnosis is a little more complex, but that when we rough ideas, is not necessary!

The house is "only RT2005": I can't be wrong with 110 kwh / m² and per year. So around 10 kwh per year for 000 m². Or 100 l of fuel. I must not be beside the plate with a classification C. And as an "average" rating. Or I'm wrong ?

[A.D. 44]

I do not think you're mistaken ... overall RT2005 navigate in these waters (obviously with more or less successful examples).

It is especially on the performances of RT2012 that I am more circumspect ...

I am not pro building (and that we can of course oppose), but it happens that I will visit willingly the building sites in progress (if only to satisfy my curiosity ...).

Frankly I do not see any major evolution in the constructive mode between the RT2005 and 2012. Aside from 100 to 120mm LDV in ITI, and some improvements on sealing (joinery ... etc). It remains of the ITI and we do not care as royally of the orientation, the compactness ... etc.

In fact most of the change is in the implementation of different active heating systems from before: with AC, pellets, or CET for hot water and VMC DF badly laid.

There are of course some exceptions of well-done constructions with ITE and all the toutim ... but it does not represent the majority of the new.

[Did67]

Yes, I was probably too fast on the RT2012 (but that was not the subject, since it is about solar heating, and the house is RT 2005).

[A.D. 44]

yes it's heartbroken HS ... but I find it sad that we did all this ramdam around the super new thermal regulation 2012 ... to finally get there. It's very disappointing ...

In short ... I share (mostly, but not quite) your opinion on the subject posted.

[Did67]

It would not bother me at all that you complete / correct. I feel a little lonely. And am in no way a specialist!

I am sorry, and react in this sense, that often the first question is "how to find an economical and / or ecological means of heating". I therefore systematically encourage people to think globally: insulation / heating / regulation ...

Sometimes, it's a little missed!

[A.D. 44]

here :

The sun has a disadvantage for heating: it is not very present when it is cold (short days, low angle of incidence and sometimes, even if I know it never rains in Brittany, overcast!).

it goes without saying that the solar field is much less important in winter ...

However, if the sensors are well exposed (orientation and inclination without mask), it is quite possible to recover also outside the summer period.

solar is better for a water heater, because hot water is also needed in summer, when the sun is plentiful; we can therefore cover about 50% of the needs

50% ... it is possible to get more over the year.

it is obviously only my opinion ... based on my findings.

[falcon1208]

I don't quite understand you when you say "the only buffer is in the slab". If I put a well thermally insulated tank in series I would have a system whose thermal mass will be the sum of that of the slab plus that of the tank.

No ?

[Did67]

I was on a "direct solar PC" scheme, without a buffer.

NB: if you put on a tampon, when the sun comes back after 3 days of absence, and your whole system has completely cooled down, the hot water produced will above all raise the temperature of the tampon, if you put one. And still not heat the house. It will only heat up after "a while", when buffer and PC are "hot" (eg 25 ° min).

[Did67]

50% ... it is possible to get more over the year.

it is obviously only my opinion ... based on my findings.

This is approximately what I obtained, according to an approximate "monitoring" on mine: operating time of the circulator / circuit flow (there is a water meter in the circuit) / average delta t ... Very rough. Rather a little less.

It depends a lot on the climate [a few patches of fog spoil my life - 200 m higher, I would often be in the sun!] And on the "flexibility" of the users [postpone laundry, dishes, showers on sunny days, as much as possible ; not easy if you don't want conflicts].