First renovation of a house with a positive energy balance

Heating, insulation, ventilation, VMC, cooling ... short thermal comfort. Insulation, wood energy, heat pumps but also electricity, gas or oil, VMC ... Help in choosing and implementation, problem solving, optimization, tips and tricks ...
bidouille23
Grand Econologue
Grand Econologue
posts: 1155
Registration: 21/06/09, 01:02
Location: Britain BZH powaaa
x 2




by bidouille23 » 12/12/12, 03:09

evening slut,

bob you say: "When I see someone say" what I think should be obligatory ", I take out my guillotine." well go out go out :) , think two minutes and you will see why I say this, and why I am not the only one to say it;).
Now everyone is free at the moment to sell t make crap, in view of the result the observation is not pretty pretty ...
So I persist, low energy construction see passive, allowing a comfort of life, so a good recharging of the batteries and the head is as well as a medicine, therefore should be mandatory, and especially for the builders of suburban housing in fact ;) ...

find out bob you will see France it is not the model applied in the world and it is not the best example far from the side of consumer respect ...

short each one his idea;)
0 x
BobFuck
I posted 500 messages!
I posted 500 messages!
posts: 534
Registration: 04/10/12, 16:12
x 2




by BobFuck » 12/12/12, 08:20

bidouille23 wrote:think two minutes and you will see why I say this, and why I am not the only one to say it;)


Nobody (except the big ones full of money) buys a car which consumes 20l / 100, and yet, it is not obligatory ... I invite you to reflect on this point ...
0 x
User avatar
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 28725
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 5538




by Obamot » 12/12/12, 10:09

Well no, in construction so far, the "big lots of money»It is precisely those who have had the means to have themselves built or to renovate constructions that would consume as little as possible, if I am not mistaken ...!

Others can not, for lack of higher costs: amha it is therefore the opposite of your example in the automobile in fact, right!?!

Indeed, those who struggled to buy a small house, took the cheapest, and necessarily not too well insulated ... Poorly designed construction and therefore expensive to maintain (driving costs like a big engine, except that is in a Trabant ...)

And as I understand it, Bidouille rebels against it and not even only for questions of comfort and well-being (I presume). In this sense he is so right ... Clap! Clap! Clap ... I applaud with both hands.

And daring to say that it should be mandatory, indeed upsets consciences: but it is however what should be done (and not only in construction, but in so many areas ... Agri-food, medicine, etc ... and of course the "negationism of reality» : Cheesy: )

So why would it be so important to do this in construction? Well:
- because the states, by reducing their energy bill, would also reduce their dependence on fossil fuels and would at the same time solve the huge problem that reappears each time like a sea snake: security of energy supply (main argument of pro-nuclear).
- moreover, safeguarding the heritage, and the buildings is part of it, and this is very necessary in our "society of mediocrity", if we do not want to continue to impoverish the middle class, and make the less privileged accessible to property. in order to perpetuate the investment of a whole small family, without then subjecting it to the vagaries of heavy reinvestment to preserve the built capital! In the grante tradition of the myth of Sisyphus;
- mental health itself plays a significant role in this context, and not only in terms of the "search for beauty" via architectural standards ... Since adding to the deprivations that the purchase of a house implies, there are deprivations linked to savings in heating, which in turn imply deprivations of comfort ... And this happens even in cheap rentals that are heated with electricity and whose tenants bear the huge heating bills in dilapidated and poorly insulated homes! And all this based on a miscalculation of end-of-candle savings, which is only a huge waste: because this is where we realize that the cheap is expensive, much more expensive than the fair price, because poor investment makes peanut in terms of insulation! So at the price per tonne, an insulation made in the rules of art will cost hardly more expensive than a shoddy job (10% tell us the engineers ... Laughter would have regard to energy savings, n ' is this not....)
- making it “compulsory” would mean that the rules of the game would be the same for everyone, and that consequently, the standards applicable in the end would not cost anything at all (this is indeed the role they lack: the accompanying measures), but it would be the opposite since very quickly (from the start of construction of the building), the savings in heating would amortize hundreds of times the initial investment (the small 10% difference at the start ) over the overall life of the constructions. Since, moreover, their resale value would really increase with the number of years! And we would no longer need to raze buildings, under the pretext that it would cost more to redo everything ... (!!!) There there is no longer any need to procrastinate ...
- and Last but not least, world military spending would hardly be justified in the event of a loss of attractiveness of fossil fuels!

It goes without saying that in such a context, one can only be FOR the subsidization of such constructions (intelligently done), in the case where the constructions produce MORE energy than they consume - it is not theft but rather good management, certainly different, but just seen from a different angle than a gesture based on a system promoting selfishness and the squandering of energy resources not paid at their fair price - since the State released two times winner. Besides, if we start from the principle that recourse to aid would be theft, then in this case who steals who (?) When one savagely draws from resources which have taken several billion years to build up under the crust earthly...!
- on the contrary, that "would stimulate growth", since we try so hard to do it, this is at least one concrete measure that would go in the right direction and that would not detract from the commitment of an economy by investments in the wrong direction (and this is indeed the role of the state than to take political measures in this direction, right?);
- it would also reduce the burden of SMEs (perhaps it would have to start with them, since among the main first-time buyers the heads of SMEs seem the most active, and the work provided in construction is also carried out by a fringe significant of said SMEs, either directly or by boomerang effect, and that too is a vector of growth) ...
- it goes without saying that this would contribute, for the countries, to reduce dependence on oil with as a corollary a revision of their geopolitical strategy and therefore more so much of allegiance to the schemes of the oil wars, drifting for too long towards the spiral of the terror that ensues from it, a country ruined for centuries and millions of dead, with the demographic explosion that we see soon after and which constitutes a real unresolved threat that is not taken into account in scientific calculations ... And not even for a supposed commitment of these countries towards democracy (tell me if I am wrong, see Afghanistan, a dead country, Vietnam remained communist, Iraq became a chasm not compensated by the extraction of oil, and all these countries from which everyone finally withdraws, ultimately with an always catastrophic result);
- and therefore, it would also have an impact on world peace, since fossil fuels would lose the attraction at the same time ... (I could speak well "at present"In my corner, once is not custom ...)
- in any case, the State would not lose out in this type of large-scale deal, since once the works have been amortized, equalization in the purchase of the energy produced by the building could then very well be used to finance other work of the same type on other constructions, and so on! So considering the colossal oil bill, it would only be a drop of water, a kind of small initial investment, while at the same time, the synergy effect on the economy would be considerable!
- and it is not utopian, many constructions in my corner, consume nearly 3'000 € of fuel to heat in a single cold season for a small family (if they heat with electricity, I do not dare not even calculate the price of the painful), which means that a few heating seasons only, may be enough to amortize "home-made" work, this is precisely where a government would have everything to gain from funding this type of works (all or partially), since the cost would be lower, so do not skimp on the "support" measures that could be implemented, such as mandating a prime contractor to supervise the works - even if it means obliging the owners to have a part of it carried out by ad-hoc companies - since the owners could not avoid it and at least 10% of the work would be taken care of, if not all - because passivation of houses requires a level of expertise is becoming more and more important: as Bidouille reminded us with the pressurization of houses to check for tightness, dew point or whatever (with thermography to the key) in order to have the guarantee that the construction meets the standards, and above all to avoid any misfortune for the owner - thus, having it done in the rules of the art, would not lose investment on renovation by throwing money out the window, but well to gain.
- some, like Bernardd, even consider that it would not be for the owners to make the investments in the photo voltaic, but that it would be for the companies holding the concessions of electric networks to do it, the latter having capital for that and being able to ensure the maintenance of the facilities, as well as their safety and amortization over the long term (the owner would then receive a fee depending on the useful area exploited, the advantage being that he could receive this amount at the end of the work (and not at the end of the depreciation once they are ... dead!) they would no longer need to wait to have a positive impact and the help of State would be less relevant ...

As already said elsewhere in this forum, it would take a kind of "Mashall Renewable Energy PlanAt European level, and this type of measure would be one of them. Precisely the path that Germany and Switzerland are following (with all the new enabling laws that go in this direction).
0 x
BobFuck
I posted 500 messages!
I posted 500 messages!
posts: 534
Registration: 04/10/12, 16:12
x 2




by BobFuck » 12/12/12, 10:40

Obamot wrote:Well no, in construction so far, the "big lots of money»It is precisely those who have had the means to have themselves built or to renovate constructions that would consume as little as possible, if I am not mistaken ...!

Others can not, for lack of higher costs: amha it is therefore the opposite of your example in the automobile in fact, right!?!


Yes, it's the opposite: it would be equivalent to keeping a 25-year-old car that consumes 20l / 100 because you cannot change it. The question that prompts reflection is therefore: why?

> It goes without saying that in such a context, we can only be FOR the
> subsidization of such constructions

If something works, there is no need for subsidies, which inevitably lead to higher prices and favor "fashionable" (but which do not work) solutions to the detriment of innovation.

For your family which is ruining in fuel oil, the good question is:

- if they are tenants, why can't they move to a decently isolated dwelling?

- if they are owners, why the work of ITE of a barrack, which should be inexpensive and amortized quickly, so that the question does not even arise to do or not, are they in practice impossible to amortize, leading those who do not think to offer to subsidize them, and expensive to the point that few are interested, which leads those who think even less to want a law to force them to ruin ?

For example, an ITE is worth 20 € / m2. Cellulose wadding in the attic is almost worthless. There remain the windows which are roughly worth € 150 each. So all amortized in 3-4 years for your oil burners, with a credit on such a short line, the financial costs are very low ...

The fact that it costs 5x more than it is worth is a much more interesting question than all the other piposophical rantings ...
0 x
aerialcastor
Grand Econologue
Grand Econologue
posts: 865
Registration: 10/05/09, 16:39
x 21




by aerialcastor » 12/12/12, 10:58

Bobfuck wrote:For example, an ITE is worth 20 € / m2. Cellulose wadding in the attic is almost worthless. There remain the windows which are roughly worth € 150 each. So all amortized in 3-4 years for your oil burners, with a credit on such a short line, the financial costs are very low ...



Yep prices in reality it's more like 10 times that ...
An ITE on EPS with plaster is 120 € per m² excluding scaffolding, a window worthy of the name is 1200 € (precisely a 200 * 220ht sliding lift from MC France is 1077 € HT plus 150 € of installation with compriband and jointing tariff artisan and MC France is just the middle range)) and insulation is 30 € / m² in insufflation for 36cm (I have no price for blowing).
0 x
Save a tree, eat a beaver.
It is no use to succeed in life, what it takes is to miss his death.
BobFuck
I posted 500 messages!
I posted 500 messages!
posts: 534
Registration: 04/10/12, 16:12
x 2




by BobFuck » 12/12/12, 12:13

The EPS is worth € 50 / m3 at the factory, or € 10 / m² for 20cm of thickness. You can multiply by 2, counting the transport, the glue and the coating. The rest is taxes, margins, and a little labor ... and presto, we get to 150 € / m².

Cellulose wadding in bulk costs 20-25 € HT per m3 public price, so we can estimate that it is worth 2-3x less out of the factory. Your price per m² corresponds to € 83 incl.tax / m3, so there is quite a difference! ...

And it's the same for windows, it's worth 50 to 100 € per m² roughly speaking.
0 x
aerialcastor
Grand Econologue
Grand Econologue
posts: 865
Registration: 10/05/09, 16:39
x 21




by aerialcastor » 12/12/12, 12:32

I don't really see the point of talking about raw material prices. What matters is the price you will pay.

What you are doing is comparing the price of a car to that of a ton of scrap, we can't learn much from it ...
0 x
Save a tree, eat a beaver.

It is no use to succeed in life, what it takes is to miss his death.
User avatar
Did67
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 20362
Registration: 20/01/08, 16:34
Location: Alsace
x 8685




by Did67 » 12/12/12, 12:34

Mandatory / not mandatory: RT2012 applies; it makes "compulsory" a design with results similar to the BBC for any new construction (deposit of driving license).

Borloo, in his time, had announced the "passive" as obligatory standard to the horieon I do not know any more? 2020 ???

Will it be done ???

For the rest (old), no obligation.
0 x
User avatar
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 28725
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 5538




by Obamot » 12/12/12, 12:59

"Piposophical rantings" ??? Image No but isn't that guy insulting me ...?

Image first of all my comments about subsidy were only there to make it clear that the issue concerns the community and I do not think I betrayed the idea of ​​Bidouille there, since it was in relation to him that I answered. They are more to qualify, since proposals have been made to avoid them: it is therefore not what I personally want indeed! And there must be plenty of ways to see the resolution of this problem.

Our "new friend" Bob who wants to "shave for free" wrote:
Obamot wrote:Well no, in construction so far, the "big lots of money»It is precisely those who have had the means to have themselves built or to renovate constructions that would consume as little as possible, if I am not mistaken ...!

Others can not, for lack of higher costs: amha it is therefore the opposite of your example in the automobile in fact, right!?!


Yes, it's the opposite: it would be equivalent to keeping a 25-year-old car that consumes 20l / 100 because you cannot change it. The question that prompts reflection is therefore: why?

So what? I am as suspicious of those who say, "tomorrow we shave for free»!

Whatever angle you take a problem from, it comes at a cost, and anyway, sooner or later someone has to pay the bill!

So the reasoning of our "new friend", goes in the direction of shaving everything (and already that is not free) and then rebuilt? I'm exaggerating, but it's just to make people understand that the State has its share of responsibility, since in the construction industry, we have known these problems since well before the seventies (and even until the dawn of time. ) ..

Also funny that in his calculation per m2, Bob did not count gray energy - he also doesn't know that more than 95% of the building stock is old, in general not properly insulated! So the proposal is fair since the pouillème which did not profit from it can be compensated thereafter ...
This is where equalization must come into play "who is well" Not being an economist with a big face, I leave that to those who are the experts: mrgeen: : Cheesy: as by way of example: the large insurance companies (so I mean the banks) who they know "pick up the pieces", to value them at five to ten times their price and to pass them on to you, having taken from your insurance policy contributions, which means that it has not cost them a round! And even in the event of bankruptcy or default on mortgage repayment: it's costing them peanut! (The guys who lost everything to the subprime know something about it: they who will have to pay until the end of their days, even though they have been divested of real estate. Fortunately, in Europe there are new laws against this!)

I am amazed that someone who wishes "Screw the system" has such a narrow mind that he sometimes needs to miss a few diopters to see where the real problems of our economies are, largely washed out by speculation by hawks and other "genius punters" ... Is he one of them? , he who seems to sometimes defend some paradigm of ultra-liberalism in a barely veiled way?

BobFuck wrote:
Obamot wrote:It goes without saying that in such a context, one can only be FOR the subsidization of such constructions


If something works, there is no need for subsidies, which inevitably lead to higher prices and favor "fashionable" (but which do not work) solutions to the detriment of innovation.

What do these "About piposophiques"? What is the definition of our "new friend"? Does he want to talk about real estate speculation (?) Or the interest of the populations as a whole or even the preservation of the environment ...
I summarize: the "speedtrading " it works! Is it good? I let him find the answer. Yet it was subsidized with a thousand billion, with the reward of a monumental kick in the rear end of the economies of countries "in the name of restoring a fair balance of sovereign debt "... But excessive sovereign debt which is the work ... of the bankers themselves, whose role and job is to assess the ability to borrow it to repay. That works well, but "is it good?". The "billiard hit" that has destabilized all the markets to get them out of their adjustment variables (and lead to the insolvency of the States) is also their work, is that good? Has he already forgotten it?
I did not hear much BobF ** k protest against this form of delinquency which leads straight to the "Forced subsidization" nor demanded that the culprits be treated like any common criminal. Nor even that speculation transactions are taxed (like him he is as a simple Beijing)
I hope at this stage he will understand why it is possibly first his crappy's words, which are piposophical!

I leave the rest, all that ultimately shows so little evidence of imagination that one wonders even if his contradictory remarks are not just there to troll this evil thread: and honestly I have something else to do ... : Cheesy: : Mrgreen:
0 x
bidouille23
Grand Econologue
Grand Econologue
posts: 1155
Registration: 21/06/09, 01:02
Location: Britain BZH powaaa
x 2




by bidouille23 » 12/12/12, 14:45

Hello ,


First of all Bravo Obamot for this superb explanation which is indeed a literal translation of the bottom of my thought :) .
you would not work in the building industry you;) ...

: Mrgreen: bob would say me a while ago, crazy dog ​​go to war ... Come on breathe bob neural necrosis is waiting for you;) ...

So for the calculation of a quantity of wadding the trick lol is that we do it from the density;), you follow me ...

and suddenly the wadding you buy by the kilo;), since you choose the injection density which varies depending on the location;) and need.

In short, your price of 25 euros per m3, guys, well, I don't understand at all :) .

a small calculation facility:

http://www.univercell.fr/services/calcu ... nivercell/

Finally to give you an idea I pay it 1 euros / kg ttc or 12.5 euros the bag of 12.5 kg;) ...

or a small example:

here to have machine which injected more than 55 kg / m3 I have not yet had, therefore 55kg / m3 max, for 300mmm of thickness for example and for 1m² that makes us two bags is app 25 euros

if now I take for my m² a thickness of 180mm and 45kg / m3 which is generally sufficient (and in any case there will be settlement in ten years and we will only do a wadding supplement ... ) it gives us:

basically a bag so 12.5 euros per m2, in short nothing to do with your whimsical price.

Then for aid in France since this year there are aid

http://www.anah.fr/les-aides/conditions-generales.html

they range from 25% to 70% of the cost of the work depending on the case and the financial situation of the home (only for homes over 15 energievore).

So before saying nonsense you have to find out.

Then what is expensive in the works is the manpower too, to do it even by having the right directives of course, see technical assistance, is the cheapest solution but for that you have to want to get out the fingers as have said;), and therefore do the opposite of what society is trying to make us do ...

It is a company that makes slackers, not that they do nothing but, they do everything for their business and suddenly so tired become lazy once returned (which is quite logical considering that they are tired ) .... But it's done on purpose like that you consume ready-made stuff;) ....


In short instead of slashing windmills reread everything that has been said and you will undoubtedly find two or three good ideas there;), and a certain logic in the long term and not in the short term as it is practiced has the present time (so to speak on all construction, it is calculated obsolescence it is consumption calculating, it is the law of the market of a society based on perpetual growth (which must therefore be maintained ) etc etc etc)


Did you see arte last night on the eco-village eco-hamo ??? (I (took the thing short it must have a way to get the mug in redif it was around 2am, I will try to mug the links;))
so in it he presented eco villages in america those, one of which was sponsored by another, the oldest one, which at the base is nothing other than a village created by the american government, all inhabitant were at the base of the researchers who therefore worked on site to develop a viable model of small self-sufficient village, now if I understood correctly there are other people who took over the place, and hoooo MIRACLE from MIRACLE , they have been for more than 15 years self-sufficient and the other village (the new one who is being helped therefore) has been for 7 years I cross, electricity water food, and it barter.
So in addition to having homes built in a thoughtful way he lives without money it is beauuuuuuuu ....

but to come

http://www.france5.fr/et-vous/France_5_ ... _logis.htm

with

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maison_organique here are still some great thrifty achievements.
One last thing bob looks at everything that was thought of in the 70s, a lot of things are obvious now, look at the construction methods grebb etc etc and you will see that your small calculations are in fact only a small part of the work of learning well led by society do not displease you but reassure yourself, we have all gone through it, the whole thing is to open our eyes and to see things but it is with time that we gradually understands.

With understanding come the choices but as you say you have to ask yourself the right questions and above all want to hear and see what others want to say to you, and see and hear what is not said by others but who tells you push you to do what in the end you don't want ....

go go go go I have a headache there .... : Mrgreen: on this good day see you later;)
0 x

Back to "Heating, insulation, ventilation, VMC, cooling ..."

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 343 guests