fw: RE: From Japan to Moldova
Dan,
Even the Swedes (IG Passivhus Sverige), whom you hold up as a role model, have joined the hundreds, from Japan to Moldova, and across the U.S. and Canada, asking PHIUS to stop calling its program Passive House.
If PHIUS wants to be the best standard in the world, it should do it by being the best, not by appropriating the name of the Passive House standard.
All due respect - I know and appreciate that you are a genuine believer and have put a ton of selfless work into PHIUS.
Yours,
Hayden
From: "Dan Whitmore" <dwhi...@hammerandhand.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2015 3:31 PM
To: Passive...@googlegroups.com
Cc: adam.c...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: What does PHIUS want?
Hayden-
For me, I see many of these difficulties stemming from the ambiguities of the label under which we are working to build 'the best buildings in the world'. For the most part, this open-ness has been utilized as a strength.
As Bronwyn states, there are 40,000+ Passive House structures in the world. Are 100% of these heated with the equivalent of a hair dryer? Clearly not. As only about 10% of them are even 'Certified' by some agency, how many are even designed/constructed to one of the handful of Passive House metrics?
Looking at those 40,000, how many are in jurisdictions which don't utilize the parameters of the Passivhaus Institute aka the Passive House Institute? I'd posit that there are a good percentage, yet they are included in the message that this is a successful building movement (which it is, thankfully).
I find it disingenuous to say that the PHIUS+ Standard is not a Passive House Standard when there are many and changing definitions, even from your chosen authority. Yes, the parameters and defining metrics have been designated at differing touch-points, but they're all built around this core idea: utilizing passive measures to reduce space conditioning needs by up to 90% and then using this terrifically effective strategy as a part of reducing total building energy needs by game changing levels.
The ship of accepting a more open definition of 'Passive House' sailed from the European docks years ago. As I stated in an earlier post, ask the Belgians, Swedes, Norwegians, Finns, Swiss, and the Italians. Tossing out platitudes about how PHIUS is undermining the idea of Passive House and the numbers as defined by the entrusted German Scientists (I almost feel like they are being held up as the sacred Founding Fathers) is by design divisive. This resonates more as a protectionist move than an analysis of how to address energy consumption and build this movement as a whole.
To be clear, the basis of the recent Standard Adaptation is founded in both science and building practice and it is intended to move 'the best buildings in the world' further forward.
As a practitioner who is actively working on these structures, I can tell you fundamentally that both the 'Passive House Classic' and PHIUS+ Standards are terrifically difficult levels of efficiency to reach. The differences between them are nuanced and do need better definition; this will be forthcoming. They, with all the other Passive House paths, can actually affect how humans impact the globe especially when we work together.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Passive House Northwest" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
PassiveHouseN...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.