Future ecological standards for habitat

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.
Théohoho
I discovered econologic
I discovered econologic
posts: 3
Registration: 12/02/10, 12:58

Future ecological standards for habitat




by Théohoho » 12/02/10, 13:19

Hi Hi !
I am currently in 1st grade and my TPE (supervised personal work) concerns the construction of ecological habitats.
Part of my file deals with the evolution of this type of construction in the future, and I therefore seek laws, or standards which will be implemented in the coming years to limit the energy consumption of buildings.
In my research, I find texts talking about future standards but without citing them.
I saw that the RT 2012 standard of the Grenelle project will be functional in 2012, but if you know others it interests me! (I thought for example that following the Copenhagen summit new laws could have been imagined.)
Thanks in advance =)
0 x

Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 72562
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 8035




by Christophe » 12/02/10, 13:31

For 2012 there is nothing concrete at the moment.

Otherwise look at this: https://www.econologie.com/forums/normes-et- ... t9153.html

Knowing that these current labels and standards affect less than 1% of housing, the future would already be greener if 100% of existing housing was brought up to standard.

I mean by talking about "future standards" I don't see too much interest ... given that they are not retroactive ...
0 x
Do a image search or an text search - Netiquette of forum - Support the forum doing Useful shopping
Théohoho
I discovered econologic
I discovered econologic
posts: 3
Registration: 12/02/10, 12:58




by Théohoho » 12/02/10, 14:00

From what I found, all the housing built in 2020 will have to be ecological. If this information is correct it is already a good advance in the field, and it deserves to be mentioned. Especially if I work on the construction of ecological habitats, I have to talk about evolution.

Thank you for your link, I will look for it.
0 x
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 72562
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 8035




by Christophe » 12/02/10, 14:09

Yes it is good to make standards but the best standard which is not retroactive will not have a rapid impact on the "stock" of housing ... just like the ban on asbestos which does not concern than NEW installations. There are still millions of m² of asbestos all over France, but it is indeed banned!

In addition, you will see that by reading the link and by applying the calculation methods many OLD houses can be considered as "passive" provided that it is a climatic minimum (ie that the archi has not not doing anything in relation to the environment of the house) and that its inhabitants make wise technological choices.

In our case, permit 1981, we are considered passive and yet we work at home (therefore overconsumption of electricity). Everything is encrypted on the 2nd page: https://www.econologie.com/forums/normes-et- ... 53-10.html

By that I mean: don't expect everything from standards ... especially not hypothetical futures.

If all the dwellings were put in RT2020 in 2005, the impact would be infinitely more positive than if 100% of the new dwellings were in RT2020 ...

I know that the teachers don't really like this kind of reasoning but in your TPE this deserves to be said and developed ... supporting figures :)
0 x
Do a image search or an text search - Netiquette of forum - Support the forum doing Useful shopping
Théohoho
I discovered econologic
I discovered econologic
posts: 3
Registration: 12/02/10, 12:58




by Théohoho » 12/02/10, 14:25

Yes I hadn't seen it like that it's true. But it would be necessary to rebuild, or to reorganize everything and the expenses would be enormous so it is not very feasible.
I will still talk about it, and use your results to justify.
thank you very much for your help :D
0 x

Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 72562
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 8035




by Christophe » 12/02/10, 14:26

You're welcome and if you send us your report when it's finished it would be very nice ...

Yes it would not be given but the renovation would not cost more than relocating everyone in the new ... and when we see how the government can waste OUR money ... there would be enough to give for the renovation ...

The analogy with asbestos is very interesting in this case I think ...
0 x
Do a image search or an text search - Netiquette of forum - Support the forum doing Useful shopping
User avatar
zorglub
I posted 500 messages!
I posted 500 messages!
posts: 501
Registration: 24/11/09, 10:12




by zorglub » 12/02/10, 16:45

this is why sometimes it is better to destroy and rebuild than to invest in illusory and costly renovation
0 x
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 72562
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 8035




by Christophe » 12/02/10, 17:41

Yes, uh I just saw that there were 2 zorglub on the forums.

You and https://www.econologie.com/forums/membre8441.html a link between you 2? :?: : Cheesy:
0 x
Do a image search or an text search - Netiquette of forum - Support the forum doing Useful shopping


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 22 guests