DPE: unbelievable but true!

Construction of natural or ecological habitat: plans, design, advice, expertise, materials, geobiology ... House, construction, heating, insulation: you have just received one or more quotes. Can't choose? State your problem here and we will advise you on the right choice! Help in reading DPE or environmental energy diagnostics. Help with the purchase or sale of real estate.
LOGIC12
I understand econologic
I understand econologic
posts: 116
Registration: 28/01/08, 05:41
Location: twelve o'clock Pyrenees
x 5

DPE: unbelievable but true!




by LOGIC12 » 02/12/10, 03:16

Hello: I had a DPE for a studio in the south of France (condominium built in 79-80)
Brick wall, against brick partition of 5 cm and between LV 5CM.
Located at 3ème and penultimate floor, so heated above and below.

A single door window single glazed, because originally there was a gas boiler for such a small housing, we hastened to turn to avoid a subscription and maintenance of the boiler, the economy was paying a much of the electricity.

Equipment :
- an 2000 w oil bath radiator, used on a single resistor is 1000 watts and amply sufficient for the main room.
- Shower room: not cold since in the middle of the building: radiator blowing 1000 watts used just the time of occupation: toilet, or shower, and no more than 5 mn because very quickly hot.

- an electric water heater of 30 liters sufficient for one person (power 2000 watts)

- two electric plates, a microwave, coffee maker, TV etc ...

If we take the EDF bills on 3 years, the maximum annual conso was 2128 kw. Since a studio is small, sometimes we go on a weekend, so we will be very wide and increase to bring this conso 2128 3000 annual kw.

Let's calculate the conso at m2 3000 / 21 = 142,85kwh / m2 / an.

We are surprised to see that this conso enters the label C called THPE label: very high energy performance .... who thought it ??

However, given the date of construction, the studio can only enter the label F (ordinary building) whose conso range is 331 to 450kwh / m2 / year.

The diagnoser with his magic box and his software delivered by our government finds me, take care 439kwh / m2 / an. Which is largely 3 times higher than the actual conso above 142,85kwh / m2 / an.

So, I say, or this DPE is a huge joke, a sad humbug, we are paid to depreciate a home with more than inflated results. Either we are great students, and even, do not be afraid of words, gifted.

Go from class F to class C if we consider the results, we skip 3 classes anyway ...

I feel like we're being manipulated a lot. Cars are selling badly, even if the automobile industry is under perfusion with the scrap premium, then, we must operate another industry: insulation, double glazing, new energies etc ... And for it to work, we we panic with exorbitant figures that do not correspond to anything.

In addition, there are many, and they are many parallel with the labels of fridges ABC, but you must know that it is very different

ACCOMMODATION A: BBC label less than 50kwh / m2an

HOUSING B: Label called "positive" 51 to 90kwh / m2 / year

HOUSING C: THPE 91 label to 150

HOUSING D: HPE 151 label to 230

HOUSING E: RT label. 2005 231 to 330

HOUSING F: 331 ordinary 450 frame

HOUSING G: energy-intensive building from451 kwh / m2 / year

Conclusion, DPE not at all reliable.

some people bought a house chosen for a better ECD than the others, and when they moved in, they could not go beyond 18 ° with the convectors fully. They were told that they had no recourse because ECD is only informative and can not be challenged. It's the oeu that it's complete pipo ... let it be said.

The diagnosticians who have real estate agencies as clients, if they do diags like mine, the agency changes "dairy", so they have a chance of being better, CQFD.

Have no confidence in this paper towel, ask the energy bills on 3 years, it will be a little more reliable.
Last edited by LOGIC12 the 02 / 12 / 10, 20: 03, 3 edited once.
0 x
User avatar
navel
I learn econologic
I learn econologic
posts: 35
Registration: 22/11/10, 08:53




by navel » 02/12/10, 09:15

It might not be a scam if your apartment is heated by your neighbors. This could be the case with a building with not too insulated floors. Your neighbors are elderly people who love their thermal comfort?

It would be interesting to know the real overall conso of the building and compare it to its ranking.
0 x
LOGIC12
I understand econologic
I understand econologic
posts: 116
Registration: 28/01/08, 05:41
Location: twelve o'clock Pyrenees
x 5

INCREDIBLE DPE BUT TRUE.




by LOGIC12 » 02/12/10, 10:11

Hello: the "floor" is a concrete slab. Below is a studio, like this whole side of the building. There are only young people who do not necessarily roll on gold and therefore do not overheat.

So, it is rather better to be "heated" above and below, and moreover normally the DPE takes into account the housing situation.

So, I still insist that the big exaggeration has one goal: to manipulate the spirits to make the economy work, which is struggling with the crisis.

That said, I am not at all hostile to isolation or improvement of the insulation, I totally agree to tend towards zero conso, but calm, think, do not be sheep of panurge.

And the 250 euros that I paid, I would have preferred to put the improvement of the insulation, it would have paid me a piece of double glazed window for example.
0 x
jessle
I understand econologic
I understand econologic
posts: 107
Registration: 27/10/07, 23:08




by jessle » 02/12/10, 10:17

And luckily the ECD is just


The unit for a DPE is kwhep / m2 / an

ep for primary energy
so for electricity multiply by 2.58
These 2.58 correspond to the online loss between the place of production and your meter

now take your calculation multiply by 2.58 and see your ranking.
142.85 (your actual consumption) * 2.58 = 368.55kwhep / m2 / year
so rank F
0 x
User avatar
Gaston
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 1910
Registration: 04/10/10, 11:37
x 88




by Gaston » 02/12/10, 10:30

jessle wrote:The unit for a DPE is kwhep / m2 / an
Exact.
Which proves that for the home buyer, it is useless because what is billed is not the kWhep, but the kWh "on the meter".
0 x
User avatar
Did67
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 20362
Registration: 20/01/08, 16:34
Location: Alsace
x 8685




by Did67 » 02/12/10, 10:35

Not only is it "fair" in the sense of calculation, but it is "fair" in the moral sense: it reestablishes the truth around the hoax of electric heating and charges the user, rightly so that things are comparable, the heat that EDF sends into these huge towers of nuclear power plants

So do not rebel against the DPE. But against electric heating! When you "consume" 1 calorie, initially there were 2,58!
0 x
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79126
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10974

Re: DPE distorted: incredible but true!




by Christophe » 02/12/10, 10:59

LOGIC12 wrote:Let's calculate the conso at m2 3000 / 21 = 142,85kwh / m2 / an.

We are surprised to see that this conso enters the label C called THPE label: very high energy performance .... who thought it ??

However, given the date of construction, the studio can only enter the label F (ordinary building) whose conso range is 331 to 450kwh / m2 / year.

The diagnoser with his magic box and his software delivered by our government finds me, take care 439kwh / m2 / an. Which is largely 3 times higher than the actual conso above 142,85kwh / m2 / an.


The answer explanation has just been given above: a DPE is calculated in Primary Energy and we must therefore apply the 2.58 coefficient to all electric kWh.

On the other hand logically you should have had 142.85 * 2.58 = 368.55 and not 439 ... maybe the records of the diagnoser are based on another measurement period where it was colder? See also the cost of DHW that can be distinguished from heating.

It would be best if you scan us the DPE in question.

Also, a DPE denounces the heat pump manure because the COP is divided by 2.58 :) In my humble opinion, many people who are equipped with geothermal will be surprised to have a DPE so crappy .. : Cheesy:
0 x
User avatar
minguinhirigue
Éconologue good!
Éconologue good!
posts: 447
Registration: 01/05/08, 21:30
Location: Strasbourg
x 1




by minguinhirigue » 02/12/10, 13:42

Logic 12, I quite agree that the DPE tool is criticable because it does not necessarily reflect the cost of energy consumption.

But as everyone has said here, the DPE remains very relevant because it highlights the energy consumption real housing.

However, it is dramatic that the diagnoser who worked for you is not able to move a little away from his software to assess consumption using your bills. At least to average between the calculated value (439kwhep / m2 / year), and the value consumed (368.55kwhep / m2 / year) in recent years ... The studio would stay in F ...
0 x
LOGIC12
I understand econologic
I understand econologic
posts: 116
Registration: 28/01/08, 05:41
Location: twelve o'clock Pyrenees
x 5

DP E INCREDIBLE BUT TRUE.




by LOGIC12 » 02/12/10, 13:59

HELLO: Ecologically speaking, electric heating is bad, wood heating is great.

But in a 21 m2 studio, can we install a wood heater ????


For very small housing, we have no better than electricity.

And Christmas garlands that are installed and operated at the expense of the taxpayer, even though with the cold, we have to import electricity, we could do them the DPE too. And near my home, I have a stadium that is lit in the evening as in daylight, even when there is nobody.

And we're going to feel guilty about reasonably heating a studio with a small electric heater.

Common sense would want to keep the electrical energy for the most indispensable.

As for the DPE, if one makes the calculation of primary energy it would be necessary that everything be specified, what the occupant consumes in kw on the meter so what he pays, already it is what interests him most, this which would not prevent to specify the rest.

Or we put 4 sweaters, two pants, and two pairs of socks, we wash with cold water and we will be classified A.

And I'm not talking about the amalgam that many people make with the label of fridges.

It should be known that the E LABEL RT 2005 insulation standards from 2005 is an excellent ranking.
0 x
User avatar
Did67
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 20362
Registration: 20/01/08, 16:34
Location: Alsace
x 8685




by Did67 » 02/12/10, 19:34

For my part, I did not intend to blame anyone.

Right, you attacked very hard by ... making fun of the DPE ["Distorted DPE: incredible but true ...!"]! So accept that this turns against you.

For example, you could have asked the question. Say you do not understand ...

Now the DPE is indeed a very limited notion. The method is approximate. But a real diagnosis would require "drilling" the partitions, etc. The cost would be 5 €!

After that it is not forbidden either to inquire before: what is measured? Finally, estimated to the ladle!
0 x

Go back to "Real estate and eco-construction: diagnostics, HQE, HPE, bioclimatism, natural habitat and climatic architecture"

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 78 guests