New RT2012 planned for 2011!

[Capt_Maloche]

Well, it's accelerating, it's good

http://www.actu-environnement.com/ae/ne ... _8617.php4

The building sector, which consumes more than 40% of final energy and contributes nearly a quarter to national greenhouse gas emissions, is currently the subject of much attention. The Grenelle of the environment has indeed planned to generalize the concept of Low Consumption from 2011 for public and tertiary buildings and from 2013 in the residential. In other words, the building permits deposited from January 1, 2011 for public and tertiary buildings and from January 1, 2013 for residential must have a primary energy consumption of less than 50 kilowatt hours per square meter per year on average. This is two times less than what is currently being done: '' the current thermal regulations (RT 2005) are equivalent to 110 kWh / m2 / year on average with a maximum of 250 kWh / m2 / year ''

[Capt_Maloche]

To reach 50Kw.h / m² a year you have to have positive sources of energy, it's a balance

the energy of winter solar radiation is taken into account in the calculation where the importance of the exposure and glazing surfaces, the contributions of solar panels, Canadian wells ...

and it is a ratio to m²: if you have too much outside surface for a small floor area, you do not pass, I had the case on a small poorly exposed pavilion which is more


In short, the architects will have to take all these factors into account for their designs, and we are here to assist them.

[Capt_Maloche]

Resumption of a message from Christophe:

In short, the architects will have to take all these factors into account for their designs, and we are here to assist them.

Ah yes if we count the energy produced in the house it is obviously attainable ... it will cost less than looking for passivity for the same result!

By putting 20 m² of PV (ideally PVT) in each new construction, we could achieve this easily ... without too much worrying about "climatism" and insulation even if these 2 points are essential! Because when it comes to air conditioning, don't ask too much of the "chain builder" of cinderblock houses with the minimum legal insulation ... which still constitute 90% of new houses!

At the price of current housing, (prohibitive and highly speculative in certain regions) 20 m² of PVT, that's less than 10% of the price excluding VAT of a house ... excluding land and costs !!

Obviously we prefer to buy a new car ... than to put solar, ah the world of consumption is "well" done ...

[Christophe]

To reach 50Kw.h / m² a year you have to have positive sources of energy, it's a balance.

Especially in kWh EP (= taking into account electricity) it is simply impossible to get there without production in the house (and apart from requiring PV there is not much else as alternatives, wind turbines only working in some regions...)...

But we should remove this doubt about whether or not all electricity is taken into account by RT! According to the text that you quote it is therefore ALL consumption (electricity included?) But on the other hand the electricity consumption is closely linked to the behavior of occupants, so it is difficult to obtain a "building permit" ...

ps: I put "very severe" in the title!

[Woodcutter]

No, normally heating + cooling + ventilation and that's it.

[Capt_Maloche]

(extract from the criteria for labeling a passive house):
3. The primary energy required for all uses of the household (heating, DHW, household electricity) must not exceed 120 kWh / (m2a).

So with too many halogens, it won't be passive for long! This is what I said and the source (which was in the site on the passive house which I had linked).

So yes, labels have their limits. However, some points that you raise are already taken into account.

Finally :

1) I don't think DJU is understandable

2) I do not believe that we can label in a relevant way anything other than the intrinsic qualities of the house; brfe the "good use". That's another thing. I take the example of ube washing machine A +. If you spin it around for a sock, the next day for a handkerchief, the next day for your towel, it will be a disaster. It is not the machine which is in question but the fool who uses it.

So to come back to halogen: if it is installed permanently by the contracting authority, the house does not deserve to be labeled; if it is added by the occupant, it is a fool - who can be labeled - the house is not in question ...

[Capt_Maloche]

Here is essentially an extract from the RT2005 in force today:

13. POWER CONSUMPTION FOR LIGHTING
13.1 AREA OF APPLICATION
13.1.1 TYPES OF BUILDINGS COVERED
This method is applicable to commercial buildings. It does not cover the buildings of
housing.
13.1.2 WHAT LIGHTING TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT?
The following lighting should not be taken into account when applying the method:
• outdoor lighting,
• office accommodation lighting,
• parking lot lighting,
• security lighting,
• lighting intended to highlight objects or goods.
This last category covers:
• art objects such as paintings, sculptures, art objects with lighting
incorporated (chandeliers ...) but not decorative lighting,
• localized lighting intended to highlight restaurant tables.
However, it does not cover the architectural elements that are part of the building such as
walls, doors, stairs, ceilings.
The method does not cover specialized lighting intended for carrying out specific processes. he
it is not possible to provide an exhaustive list of these particular lights but they cover
in particular: stage lighting in premises used for entertainment and entertainment under
reserves that this lighting comes in addition to a general lighting and that it is ordered
by a dedicated control system accessible only to authorized personnel.
All other lighting devices must be taken into account when applying the
method.
13.2 CALCULATION OF THE FINAL ENERGY CONSUMPTION FOR LIGHTING THE
CECL BUILDING
13.2.1 CECL

However, the electrical energy consumed by heating equipment is taken into account.

[Capt_Maloche]

And then look at yourself, here are the texts of the RT2005

ThC RT2005 rules

ThE RT2005 Rules

[Christophe]

Ah well here! Thank you for the extract, so there is no lighting in the accommodation ...

For the 2 .pdf Maloche thank you too but ... ah ah ah Maloche! Aren't they a bit heavy? This is from BE's working document ...

[Did67]

@ Capt_Maloche "

The quote doesn't repeat your "mockery" on my Fisher-Price keyboard!

1) I have always typed with two fingers ... I am from a generation that discovered computers at a very advanced age.

2) I know I should re-read and correct. Sometimes I have the time and in general I do it (all my posts are not as rowdy!). Sometimes I don't have it !!!

3) Christophe knows it and will forgive me: I am recovering from a heart attack two and a half years ago. And since ... I often slip up when I speak and reverse my two fingers on the keyboard. It gets worse when I'm tired at the end of the week. Unfortunately, I am not "affected enough" and still have to work full time. Sometimes I'm knocked out - no choice ...

However, I believe I got away with "only" these after-effects - knowing that I could be dead! So I talk about it at ease ...

I also still believe that I have the ability to reason - which I leave to everyone to appreciate ...

Like what it can happen to everyone to be naughty without knowing it, or wanting it.

PS 1: there, I made an effort not to sink!

PS 2: I understand that this is humor ...