Christophe wrote:Quiet ...
Take my example of the villa of the Riviera used in secondary residence: it passes BBC according to the sole criterion of kWh / m².an ... as indeed most second homes! Too easy ... do not you think?
I would simply like to work for more understanding in the figures given on the energy efficiency of homes!
And houses (supposedly) passive where halogen turn 14h a day it makes me laugh ... or rather laugh yellow ...
..
1) Yes, I'm calm! Yes, we can search better
2) I do not agree with you: we labbelise a building, not the use that possible fools make!
So this BBC villa, if I buy it, knowing how I'm going to use it, I know what's waiting for me; That's what I expect from a label.
Your A ++ freezer, if you put it in your veranda in full sun in summer, it will not have the performance advertised. The label is "to be able to ... used in such standardized condition". It's always like that because it has to be comparable (and verifiable).
3) Exactly. Let us work. For this it must be simple, understandable, comparable, verifiable.
4) It will not be passive long since the lighting is included in the case of passive houses.
Then you will never be able to keep fools off
Ditto for the PRIUS who drive to UN in the city center. (NB: it's less worse than Landcruisers!)
5) A conviction of old con: you will never advance a schmilblic whatever it is by justifying your reasoning by the errors of the others!
Corollary: it's too easy to justify its small mistakes by the big nonsense of others ...
But here I become a philosopher ...