Consumption hallucinating fuel oil!

[jean63]

You can imagine the cost! and the reduction of floor space !!!!

There are new thin multi-layer insulators 2cm thick = 20cm of maos rock wool it is very expensive.

[pluesy]

You can imagine the cost! and the reduction of floor space !!!!

bof if I can afford to build a house I determine the area I need and then I make the walls around this area if it is 1 m thick it does not matter ... in the old building the standard it was 50 to 60cm of solid rocks ...
straw or rock wool is still easier to lay than rubble stone and the primary cost is largely offset by the savings achieved (almost no heating) in the long term

[jean63]

You can imagine the cost! and the reduction of floor space !!!!

bof if I can afford to build a house I determine the area I need and then I make the walls around this area if it is 1 m thick it does not matter ... in the old building the standard it was 50 to 60cm of solid rocks ...
straw or rock wool is still easier to lay than rubble stone and the primary cost is largely offset by the savings achieved (almost no heating) in the long term

With thick walls, the best solution may be insulation from the outside, so you benefit from the significant thermal inertia of the walls (the heat is stored and you feel less the external thermal variations and the 'summer is the opposite, the walls keep freshness => no need for air conditioning !!).
It is true that if you have a beautiful exposed stone wall, this is not the solution.

the standard is 0.15 W / mK ° minimum or a minimum R of 6.66 but you will have a little more info here

but me personally if I built a house I will put an R of 15 to 30 or 50cm to 1 m of rock wool or better (more eco-friendly) hemp or straw

I do not understand how you make hold vertically such a thickness of rock wool without it tends to settle in time ....... and maybe "immediately" !!!

[pluesy]

I do not understand how you make hold vertically such a thickness of rock wool without it tends to settle in time ....... and maybe "immediately" !!!

at the insulation level it's not the materials that are missing ...
there are rigid and semi rigid panels in rock wool, glass wool, expanded / extruded polistyrene, polyurethane foam ect .... instead of sticking them on the wall you lay them flat on the ground ...
the standard widths being 60 and 120 cm it makes you a coef R of 15 or 30 (R = 5 for 20cm) if you put 15 thicknesses of 20cm you have a super-insulated wall 3m high ...

note that the expanded polistyrene serves as a sub-layer for the floating screeds in reinforced concrete so it resists compression well ...

for me the most optimal shape for a house is the circular shape (with a living area equal to the surface of the walls with the outside and smaller) for example for 100 m2 (10mX10m) a square house will be 40 meters perimeter while a round will make 35.5 meters of perimeter (11.3 m in diameter) the worst form in terms of energy is the rectangle L-shaped or multibranch star-style houses (with the star pay to heat it ) the square is a lesser evil if you are not allergic to the originality of the circular ...

[Christophe]

bof if I can afford to build a house I determine the area I need and then I make the walls around this area if it is 1 m thick it does not matter ... in the old building the standard it was 50 to 60cm of solid rocks ...

According to my memories of heat transfer, from a certain thickness the "on" insulation is almost used for nothing (improvement of a few% at exponential prices). It is therefore not ecological to over-isolate ... (we must take into account the ecological costs of manufacturing and transporting materials ...)

Generally the "standard" sizes offered by the manufacturers are a good compromise between efficiency and cost ...

[Sat-going]

completely agree with christophe, even the sellers of materials say it, and yet their interest and to sell.

[zac]

for me the most optimal shape for a house is the circular shape (with a living area equal to the surface of the walls with the outside and smaller) for example for 100 m2 (10mX10m) a square house will be 40 meters perimeter while a round will make 35.5 meters of perimeter (11.3 m in diameter) the worst form in terms of energy is the rectangle L-shaped or multibranch star-style houses (with the star pay to heat it ) the square is a lesser evil if you are not allergic to the originality of the circular ...

Hello
You never had to live in a mill, because for 50m² usable you need 75m² real; well yes there is no wardrobe or rounded bed and in the cupboards (custom made) you lose a lot of space because bobonne folds the sheets and square towels
@+

[pluesy]

hi zac

you can do between the two exagonal or octagonal the whole walls are straight and the pieces look like portions of cheese ...
I told myself that if the igloos typis the huts and the boxes of our ancestors was round it is that they certainly had their reasons better resistance to the wind maybe ...

[zac]

Hello

Surely but if you want isolated, inexpensive, spacious and with a garden where the vegetables do not freeze too much; the top is 4 or 6 40pied reformed refrigerated containers (1000 € the end).
You just have to assemble in a merry-go-round, connect and equip.
@+

[jean63]

Hello

Surely but if you want isolated, inexpensive, spacious and with a garden where the vegetables do not freeze too much; the top is 4 or 6 40pied reformed refrigerated containers (1000 € the end).
You just have to assemble in a merry-go-round, connect and equip.
@+

Hello Reunion! Is the weather nice there?

It's a great idea: that's where they should house our homeless people during the winter: well laid out and putting a few windows in it, it can look like a mobile home.

What is the size of an ext / int fridge container?

1000 euros, is that the price of 4? do you find that in ports like Le Havre or Marseille?