Standards and labels: BBC or Passive House? Who says what?

[I Citro]

Thank you for this excellent TOPIC.

I also discover this value of 120 kWh / m² / year.

In computational software, I saw an allusion to PHPP that I mentioned recently. I would like to try it on my house ...

From memory, with the values ​​of my consos, it would be necessary that my conso of gas decreases of 40% to reach the announced 120kWh. These 10 last years, I consumed about 140 kWh / m² / year in gas for the only post heating and DHW.
My domestic electricity consumption (excluding electric vehicles) is of the order of 35 kWh / m² / year.

In a year, I would have the results of the new boiler and the CESI ... should I then reduce the figures of my photovoltaic production?

[Christophe]

You're welcome, Citro! Send your data in MP and make the calculation cf below ...

Here I tried to do a calculation spreadsheet to see where everyone is with respect to these 4 normalizations BBC, it works also for the apartments.

The results are quite surprising and especially very disparate.

I based myself on:
a) climate zone and altitude = H1b and 400m = coef. of 1.4.
b) surface of the dwelling (this is the SHON in fact) = 170m²
c) energy consumption: electricity, fossils and wood = 4000 kWh and 3 Tons of wood briquettes or pellets (4.5 kWh / kg)

It's based on the synthetic table BBC labels and standards above.

And here are the results:



Notes:

- Our house is not particularly well insulated but we have 65m² of solar panels. This surely helps to obtain "fairly good" results (mid season = 0 heating)

- We do not heat the 170 m² permanently but it is the SHON that counts so ... I take it into account.

- I have not removed the "pro" part of the electricity consumption (800 to 1000 kWh I think) or the heating for that matter (no reason to do so)

- In 2 case on 4, our case meets the criteria: RT2005 (easy pfff, fingers in the nose! 30.35 on 250 !!) and Passive House (predictable given the limit of 120 kWH Ep high) but we are just at the high limit on heating (15.88 against 15 kWh asked). The "precision" of the measurement of wood consumption is low (I put 3 tons = 6 to 7 steres = 5 to 6 big bags of briquettes) ...

Not far from effinergie but very far from obtaining Minenergie which is the label the most difficult to obtain (at least when one warms with wood ...)

- No matter how well we meet "energy efficient inhabitant" standards, we still consume the equivalent of almost 1500 L of oil per year (for 2)!

- I find the effinergie method a little unfair with regard to the climate, because the ratio of the climatic coef is only 1.875 between the extreme "cases" (house in Nice and house at> 800m in the Vosges)!

- Regarding the RT2005, there is something paradoxical:
a) on the one hand, they give the heating limits not to be exceeded in "Fossil energy" (therefore wood which is not a fossil energy = 0?)
b) on the other hand, they give 1.0 a coef of the wood (so it should be 0.0 right?).

So I do not really know where the reality is, in our case, I took into account the wood at 1.0.

- Estimating the electricity consumption "excluding household appliances" (for all except Passive House) is difficult, I simply took 50% in our case

- Airtightness is not taken into account

- The "pro" methods indicated in the table are surely much more precise than a simple calculation on energy bills but hey ... to see where we are, it's already good!

Here, the spreadsheet is raw foundry so it is better to paufiner but if someone wants it as is, I can spin him in private (without the notice eh!)

I can also do the calculations for you in private or public if you give me your data a), b) and c).

[bernardd]

(without the notice eh!)

Bad luck, she is the most interesting ;-)

Thank you for this beautiful work.

Overall, the coefficients to find the primary energy (it is the acronym EP in KWh EP?) I find a little weird in these standards.

For electricity, it should be 4 rather than 2,58, because the technical efficiency of nuclear generation is less than 30%, but the production figures do not take into account the consumption of power stations and the uranium or transport sector, which amounts to 16% of losses. We are therefore at 25% of yield (30% * 84%). We must take into account the 20% non-nuclear electricity, but that does not look far and transport must be taken into account anyway.

For the rest, we should consider the gray energy from the oil production, and I have the feeling that it is more than 20% of losses, so the factor should be more than 1,2.

For wood, it is mainly renewable sun. As the solar collectors are not counted, ie to 0, for the wood only the gray energy should be taken into account, and I imagine it must be less than 20%, so the coefficient should be lower than 0,2.

[Did67]

- The "pro" methods indicated in the table are certainly much more precise than a simple calculation of energy bills, but hey ... to see where we are, it's already good! ...

The standards, on a basis of calculation, are made to determine the "theoretical" quality in a way of housing (even if you buy off plans).

Hence the fact of setting rules (necessarily arbitrary) and the methods used to make the calculation.

It is therefore "a potential". Like the theoretical consumption of a vehicle or the energy classification of household appliances ...

Another thing is then the "realized", which actually depends on what you do.

A "thermal wreck" could appear as a "passive house" if we calculate on the basis of consumption and if it is a residence occupied only in the summer, if we only have barbecues and shower under the garden hose. .

This is not to say that calculations based on consumption and invoices are not interesting, like "dashboards". Quite the contrary. But they are not a "labeling" (which will determine the "theoretical" consumption and the classification: 'the thermal wreck will be calculated as if it were occupied, if the usgares lived there "normally" and it will have a catastrophic classification - normal !).

For example, this answers your question about the SHON (which you do not occupy). So that obviously plays on your consumption. But the calculation would determine how much your house would consume if it was fully occupied and heated normally. And that's normal. A family who buys or rents it does not necessarily want to live in a room ...

[Christophe]

Ben we could rediscuss a long time if standards are good or not ... that's not the purpose of this topic!

They have the advantage of providing orders of magnitude in order to compare 2 dwellings ... This is their goal.

For example, you know I would be taking into account the local DJUs rather than the year and the region. With a unit in: kWh / m².DJU we can compare 2 homes in 1 at a glance without having to make climate corrections!

We've already talked about it, I do not know where forums... I know not everyone was for ...

It would take another figure that takes into account the number of inhabitants of the housing ... because the more there is inhabitant in a housing, the more it is econological (gray energy of construction ...)

We could even make one ourselves with the association! Eco-friendly house label (which would take into account the PRICE for the equipment because the passive house whose price per m² is double or trible compared to the same conventional house (RT2005 therefore) well it stinks ... because everything € contains its "gray pollution").

Well who made his calculations or wants to do them? I received no MP ...

[Capt_Maloche]

Hi Toff

I see that you try thermal labels and regulations, good plan!

And I agree to integrate these values ​​in relation to local DJUs, rather than to a region

Personally, I am in zone H1, I have a boiler fuel oil with a bad performance (losses body of heating), thermal bridges everywhere, roof spaces with 10cm of old wool of glass, walls in brick + insulation 4cm lined hollow briquette which gives me a Coef U of 0.7 W / m².K, double windows 4 / 20 / 4 UG 1.4, Ah and a veranda single glazing South-East unheated (exploited in mid season thus,) a basement understanding a flat of 60m ² unoccupied maintained with 15 ° C, in short not the panacea but:

I consume 2 600L of fuel oil per year for heating and DHW
About 2 600 x 10KW.h / Kg x 0.855 Kg / L / 220m² = 101 KW.H ep / m².an

I had never paid attention, but this consumption makes my 1973 home conform to the RT2005 H1 area

like what, except for electrical fixtures and appliances, it's pretty easy to get 50KW.h / m².an

[Christophe]

About 2 600 x 10KW.h / Kg x 0.855 Kg / L / 220m² = 101 KW.H ep / m².an

Uh errite mistake my captain, it is 10 kWh / L of oil and not per kg! You are therefore at 26000 / 220 = 118 kWh / m² + coef. possible 1.1 ...

I had never paid attention, but this consumption makes my 1973 home conform to the RT2005 H1 area

Exactly ... that's what I wanted (too) to put forward via this topic. Now you have the advantage of having a large area (but less than we relate to the number of inhabitants! This is also a point that should be taken into account)

Now you are already lucky to have had isolated 1973 walls! Many accommodations from this period do not have one!

[Capt_Maloche]

For the PCI I did not really check, in fact I copied TON laius https://www.econologie.com/pouvoirs-calo ... s-534.html

PCI / PCS in kCal / kg

Hexane 10780 / 11630
Octane: 10705 / 11535
Benzene: 9700 / 10105
Styrene: 9780 / 10190
Heavy oil: 9550
Heating oil: 10030

Pig, you put it in Kcal ... it does not exist anymore (hop a pirouette )

But yes, indeed it is 10.25 KW.h / Liter (more practical) is 12 KW.h / g

Which brings us to 2 600 x 10KW.h / Kg Kg / L / 220m ² = 118 KW.H ep / m².an (I stay RT 2005 ... which is pretty crazy in sum)

report this to the DJUs:
At moaaa it is always colder in winter than the T ° indicated on the weather map (up to minus 4 ° C less per night, it is -20 ° C the night of 7 at 8 January, while it was -15 ° C at Etampes at 20km from there ..)
In my case, the nearest records are the Orleans DJU, either on the winter 2008 / 2009 = 2702 DJU base 18 ° C or 19 ° C inner

DJUs in Paris are 10% lower
This year's DJUs are also 10% higher than the winter 2007 / 2008 DJUs (warming you said? )
and for info they are -50% in Nice

In short,

[Capt_Maloche]

And so, ignoring installation efficiencies:

Bch = 24 x (Max losses for 1 ° C difference) x DJU / 1000

In my case:

26 000 = 24 x 2702 / 1000
Let there be losses / ° C = 400 W / ° C base 18 ° C (19 ° C int.)

and therefore by -7 ° C ext. my theoretical losses would be:
400 x (19 - (-7)) = 10W

I know that my boiler has a performance annual 80% rotten
my actual losses would be around 10 800 x 0.80 = 8600W

Coherent

And by -20 ° C: 12 500W anyway
When I think that it is a boiler of 35Kw which is installed in the basement , whose power I reduced to 18Kw to increase efficiency (see blue flame burner)
https://www.econologie.com/forums/ameliorati ... t5172.html

[Christophe]

For the PCI I did not really check, in fact I copied TON laius https://www.econologie.com/pouvoirs-calo ... s-534.html

Ben don't blame "my" numbers: these numbers are good and you did a Monday morning reading ... Was the weend hard?

Rah these engineers ... always the fault to others!
We will not make a fromton!

Hey your boiler is still not so bad since you put it in blue flame, it has at least an excellent combustion efficiency! https://www.econologie.com/forums/ameliorati ... t5172.html

You want the spreadsheet file to see?