All near-positive habitat in 2020, 2010 / 31 / EU directive!

Christophe · by **Christophe** » 13/03/12, 22:28

The European Union wants new buildings "almost positive / passive" for all in 2020 and from 2018 for public buildings !!

Extract:

Article 9

Buildings whose energy consumption is almost zero

1. Member States shall ensure that:
Member States shall establish these minimum requirements for
energy performance in accordance with article 4.

a) by December 31, 2020, all new buildings
have almost zero energy consumption; and

b) after December 31, 2018, new occupied buildings
and owned by public authorities are at almost zero energy consumption.

Member States develop national plans to
increase the number of buildings whose consumption
of energy is almost zero. These plans may include targets
differentiated by building category.

Full text to find out what "almost zero" means: https://www.econologie.info/share/partag ... DCdhla.pdf

Will have to move ... I ask that this but when I see the building trades, the hash of solar premiums and some architects who still do not know the definition of "climatism" ... I wonder if 6 years it will be enough to update ...

At work !!

Capt_Maloche · by **Capt_Maloche** » 13/03/12, 22:45

Weird

In France RT 2012 meets BBC status, ie approx. 50 KWh of primary energy / year and per m² depending on the region

the next is RT 2020 which is even more restrictive and a priori with a lower level of consumption
but to say that all buildings will have to produce more than they consume, do not dream
French texts are not yet out

How to make a heritage building protected by the Architects of French buildings in the city center with solar and wind masks as efficient as a new building in open land?

Unless the policy of the city is a whole with wind, photovoltaic fields and the transformation of organic products into gas or equivalent, I do not see

Christophe · by **Christophe** » 13/03/12, 22:51

We are talking about new buildings there! For renovation the directive speaks, Article 7, with flats:

as far as this is technically, functionally and economically feasible.

= the Elysée Palace, the Senate and the dilapidated public buildings ... we can still wait a while ...

Otherwise with "some" solar thermal and PV panels on the roof and above all a good management of energy storage / buffering (this is THE key) then it is possible ...

See the case of Abalone: https://www.econologie.com/abalone-batim ... -4192.html

There remains the solar orientation, quite difficult to manage in town ...

dedeleco · by **dedeleco** » 14/03/12, 00:22

We always forget www.dlsc.ca !!!

the middle · by **the middle** » 14/03/12, 07:34

We are talking about new buildings there! For renovation the directive speaks, Article 7, with flats:

Quote:
as far as this is technically, functionally and economically feasible.

= the Elysée Palace, the Senate and the dilapidated public buildings ... we can still wait a while ...

Otherwise with "some" solar thermal and PV panels on the roof and above all a good management of energy storage / buffering (this is THE key) then it is possible ...

Exactly, we can wait again, and again.
I am very surprised by what is happening in my village which has few financial means:
We have several schools, whose walls are old and not insulated at all, rotten windows, single glazing.
Heating must cost a fortune.
It seems to me that a loan to remedy this problem would quickly pay for itself! I wonder why nothing is done, for me, it is a financial suicide of my town.

Christophe · by **Christophe** » 14/03/12, 08:55

The answer is quite simple: out of € 1 of fuel oil sold, the State replaces a large part (50 to 60%) ... In the end, with other taxes and duties on oil distribution companies, the cost is much lower than you think: 60 to 70% less than the displayed price ...

And therefore the return on investment from the point of view of the State 2, 3, 4 times longer (= 15, 20 to 30 years?). So is it just profitable? For an economist official whose openness is well known, the answer is easy to guess ...

But the cost is still just as important for future generations, the climate ... and incidentally, of course, taxpayers!

Nevertheless there are renovations: for example, the institute of St Hubert saw its chassis changed 2 or 3 years ago ...

Christophe · by **Christophe** » 14/03/12, 09:08

dedeleco wrote:We always forget www.dlsc.ca !!!

Because the lobbies want it! : Cheesy:

the middle · by **the middle** » 14/03/12, 10:06

The answer is quite simple: out of € 1 of fuel oil sold, the State replaces a large part (50 to 60%) ... In the end, with other taxes and duties on oil distribution companies, the cost is much lower than you think: 60 to 70% less than the displayed price ...

I don't agree with you.
It seems to me that my commune has a budget, and that the money to heat the schools in my village comes from the commune, not from the state.
but I may be wrong, in fact I don't know anything about it at all ..

I will scratch the thing to find out the truth.
In any case, it hurts me to see so many calories lost stupidly
..

the middle · by **the middle** » 17/03/12, 10:43

A gendarmerie is under renovation in my corner, I saw that they also put solar panels, but what is strange, I saw a van of a company which builds swimming pools : Shock:

Christophe · by **Christophe** » 17/03/12, 10:52

Uh maybe they want to power a solar SPA? : Mrgreen:

Otherwise it may be a reconversion or a diversification of the swimming pool business?

lejustemilieu wrote:I don't agree with you.
It seems to me that my commune has a budget, and that the money to heat the schools in my village comes from the commune, not from the state.

Yes it is likely but who pays the municipalities if it is not the percentage of the PPI which is due to them ... and therefore which passes through the federal state?

Join an algorithmic censorship-free community of enthusiasts, technicians, scientists or engineers. Ads removed after registration.

All near-positive habitat in 2020, 2010 / 31 / EU directive!