Hayden Robinson
Hello everyone,
Please join me, and more than 100 others from 10 states and 15 countries, in petitioning PHIUS to distinguish its new standard with a distinctive name.
PHIUS’s desire to innovate is great. Critical evaluation of Passive House is constructive. And I am glad to see the Passive House criteria being tested in the marketplace of ideas (see Katrin’s and Mike Eliason’s takes). But I believe that having conflicting standards competing under the same name will be counterproductive for both. Let’s avoid confusion – here’s a link:
The Passive House Petition (http://signon.org/sign/the-passive-house-building)
Now ask you friends!
The petition represents individual opinions. It is not sponsored by any organization.
Yours,
Hayden
Hayden Robinson AIA
hayden robinson architect
Joseph_Ba...@nps.gov
the two sets of standards?
thanks.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Joseph D. Balachowski
Historical Architect
National Park Service
Pacific West Regional Office
909 First Avenue, Suite 500
Seattle, WA 98104-1060
206-220-4269
206-220-4159 fax
joseph_ba...@nps.gov
* ** *** **** ***** **** *** ** *
There probably aren't many jobs that can be reduced to rule-following and
still be done well. [M.B. Crawford, PhD., motorcycle mechanic.]
Dan Whitmore
nomenclature and would like instead to encourage the PHI to work to
better integrating the Standard into non-Central Euro climates. Katrin
put forth the potential of a more climate specific metric in her
initial blog post: http://passivehouse.us/blog/?p=36
My understanding of that idea is as follows: Passive House as a
concept is a child of the '70s and the move to make our buildings
significantly more energy efficient. Specifically to create structures
which strongly emphasize use of 'passive' elements, as opposed to
'active' ones, to meet the needs of the occupants. An original cousin
of Passive Solar. The Passive House Standard was then developed by two
smart physicists in Sweden (incl Dr Feist) to mean a building which
has it's space conditioning Peak Heating Load needs met by delivering
the heating via the necessary fresh air delivery system, an amount
defined as no more than 10 kWh/m2. This allowed an economic dip in the
cost of the structure due to elimination (or great simplification) of
a substantial heating system. The savings of which could be
transferred to compensate for the added cost of the envelope upgrades.
The 'magic dip' in the PHI graph. Those this was soon seen as too
rigid a definition as not all buildings wanted, or were able to have,
the ventilation deliver the heating needs.
So, new definition expands the Standard to include buildings which
have and annual space conditioning need less than or equal to 15 kWh/
m2a. Why 15? Because it closely corresponds to the needs for a
building in Central Europe which can have it's heating met by 10kWh/m2
via the ventilation.
Oh, but that's only for buildings in with no cooling needs. Another
new definition includes 15 kWh/m2a for cooling also. Why 15 this time?
Because it's what's allowed for heating.
The Standard continues to expand in new climates, significantly in the
US, which has a minimum of 7 distinct climate zones as opposed to
Germany's 1.
Looking at the original definitions of the Standard, there is a
specific economic element to the concept: utilizing the 'dip' in cost
for the mechanical system to partly compensate for the additional
expenses of the envelope. This economic element also relates to a
level of embodied energy needed to establish the necessary efficiency.
To ignore this important original aspect is, in my mind, to limit the
potential application of the concept. Feist himself has spoken to this
possibility is the past. If the Building Science continues to
function: hugely reduced energy needs to condition the space by
maximizing gains and minimizing losses; maintaining interior comfort
for the occupants (including the Mean Radiant Temp and of all radiant
surfaces); ensuring the integrity of the structure.
PHIUS is looking at the possibility of altering the magic 15 (which
PHI has already done in the case of retrofits, for specifically
economic considerations), either up or down, based upon significant
climactic differences from the original reference climate of Central
Europe.
Is this new territory? Yes. Is this a new brand or concept? No.
Was this brief? No, sorry.
-Dan
On Mar 19, 1:20 pm, Joseph_Balachow...@nps.gov wrote:
> Can someone provide a [hopefully succinct] summary of the conflicts between
> the two sets of standards?
>
> thanks.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Joseph D. Balachowski
> Historical Architect
> National Park Service
> Pacific West Regional Office
> 909 First Avenue, Suite 500
> Seattle, WA 98104-1060
>
> 206-220-4269
> 206-220-4159 fax
mike eliason
zone. generally, yes - but there are 5 climate zones (koppen map)
between germany, austria and swiss alps. the climate zones in the US
are closely related to the USDA hardiness map (which has been creeping
northwards, merci a global warming)
climates in germany range from USDA climate zones 4-8a - and in
europe, USDA zones 3-10 (corresponding w/ h-t zones 6-2, maine-
orlando)
http://www.tropenland.at/trp/cont/exotenKlima/usda-zone/usda-zonen-karte-europa.asp
Hayden Robinson
desire to improve upon the current state of low energy building technology.
But creating altered criteria, and naming them Passive House, is like
starting a new automobile company and naming it Toyota; the confusion would
make things harder for everyone.
Joseph, The basic difference is that Passive House has the same heating
demand requirement for all climates, while the PHIUS standard proposes to
relax that requirement for some locations. That may be a reasonable
proposal, but it is not what the rest of the community defines as Passive
House. Distinguishing the PHIUS standard with its own name would make life
easier for all of us.
Hayden Robinson AIA
HAYDEN ROBINSON ARCHITECT
206.691.3445
www.HaydenRobinson.com
-Dan
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Passive House Northwest" group.
To post to this group, send email to Passive...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
PassiveHouseN...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/PassiveHouseNW?hl=en.
Jesse
to making a difference on a large scale. By adjusting standards per
climate, less money will do more. Inevitably this will create more
interest in Passive House, making it easier for those on the fence to
hop over to the "efficient" side. For millions of Canadians, the cost-
effectiveness of a well-crafted standard would easily become the
imperative.
This petition wasn't circulating until iPHA walked through the door.
This seems like a vote of loyalty.
Jesse
Hayden Robinson
It's good to hear from you. I agree, optimization is key. I'm an architect,
not a researcher, so I look to the folks at LBNL, ORNL, RMI, PHIUS, and PHI,
to figure out what optimal is. Their work allows me to do my job well.
As the petition says, "PHIUS's desire to innovate is commendable, and the
larger conversation around potential improvements to the Passive House
standard is healthy". Everyone benefits from open competition. It encourages
better technology. Clarity and openness allow competition. Confusion and
controversy stifle it. The PH petition's only request is that a new
standard, which in this case diverges fundamentally from PH criteria,
distinguish itself by a new name. This will allow architects, builders, and
their clients to choose the appropriate standard for their projects.
I'd like to emphasize that the PH petition is not sponsored by any
organization. I posted it on Friday around noon, emailed about 25 people,
and have been surprised by its growth since then.
-Hayden
Hayden Robinson AIA
HAYDEN ROBINSON ARCHITECT
206.691.3445
www.HaydenRobinson.com
-----Original Message-----
From: passive...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:passive...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Jesse
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2012 10:50 PM
To: Passive House Northwest
Subject: Re: Passive House Petition
Jesse
--
Jesse
kwh/m2 value is relaxed because...
"The economic viability of such a building is rather low, and thus the
Central European definition is not justified."
[http://web.byv.kth.se/bphys/copenhagen/pdf/171-1.pdf]
For southern Europe, "...it seems possible to obtain performances that
are better that the 15 kWh/m2year energy need defined by the standard
using moderate levels of insulation, moderate air tightness, solar
protections and night ventilation, heat recovery on exhaust air in
winter, and a reversible heat pump both for winter space heating and
for reducing the summer temperature peaks."
[http://www.eceee.org/conference_proceedings/eceee/2009/Panel_7/7.402/
paper]
These are European Passive House report recommendations, which follow
inline with what Katrin is saying, when she tells us 15 kWh is dead.
Jesse
the sake of clients. However, we need to consider that for PHI to come
in and solely claim the name Passive House, is to undermine the work
that PHIUS has done to get Passive House a foothold in the US. Change
their name, and they have to rebuild their reputation because future
inquiries for Passive House will be directed toward PHI.
Also, I think that by signing the petition, those who aren't planning
to retrain or affiliate with PHI are signing their death wish. Its
been hard enough educating people about Passive House and getting
clients motivated to follow through. So in this way I think this is a
very politically charged petition.
In the spirit of open competition, wouldn't it be best to let the
market decide who champions the name.
Respectfully,
Jesse
Hayden Robinson
I agree, establishing a new brand will take work. But, creating relaxed
performance criteria, and claiming they meet the PH standard, isn't open
completion. At least not in my view.
Like you said, optimization is the key. And PHIUS may have a better idea.
They should be confident and let it stand on its own merit. Their current
strategy seems like a PR nightmare. All their competition would have to do
is point out that "it's not really Passive House", and PHIUS would end up
spending a bunch of time defending their use of the term. Why risk
marginalizing their program as "fake Passive House"? Why not give it its own
name and promote it as better-faster-smarter?
PHIUS's plan would hurt all of us. By creating disagreement about exactly
what the standard is, they risk making the whole PH community look inept.
And that gives those who want it more ammunition against the common
objectives we all share.
If my thinking is off, I'm happy to be set straight. Anyone else have a take
on this?
Yours,
Hayden
Hayden Robinson AIA
HAYDEN ROBINSON ARCHITECT
206.691.3445
www.HaydenRobinson.com
-----Original Message-----
From: passive...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:passive...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Jesse
Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2012 8:26 PM
To: Passive House Northwest
Subject: Re: Passive House Petition
Respectfully,
Jesse
--
Rob Harrison AIA
Rob Harrison AIA
Jesse
Europe. However, I did spend a few months traveling around Europe and
collecting information.You can read my undergraduate paper, which
previews some of the major low-energy building movements, particularly
in Austria and Switzerland. There is a handy chart near the end of the
paper. I did fail to note that while Finland uses the +20kWh/m2
heating limit, Passivhuscentrum, in Sweden, uses a 10 kWh/m2 limit for
apartment buildings and 12 kWh/m2 for single family homes, and a 4 kWh
bonus for extreme latitudes. go figure??? Although, it seems that
Passivhuscentrum is catering to public, multi-family projects in the
south...a climate not unlike New England.
http://blogs.evergreen.edu/thojes06/files/2012/01/Evolution-of-the-House1.pdf
Hope this helps,
Jesse Thomas
mike eliason
I agree, we SHOULD play together nicely. Here's to hoping a grassroots
PH movement teams up w/ PHI and establishes the correct Passivhaus,
and not the mcpassivhaus+ program that seems to be underway. I
honestly don't see how relaxing the standard makes it 'more
affordable' - it doesn't really, it just fudges the numbers for
appearing so. Is Passivhaus supposed to be the best energy standard
(for now anyway?), or watered down for widespread adoption
(Energystar!)?
And as you say, Thorsten is doing it in 14,000 HDDs (sure, detached
housing requires some mental gymnastics - is that such a bad thing? He
is living in one of the most extreme climates) and folks are building
very affordable in 7400 HDDs (Chris Corson).
Minergie P is TM'd standard w/ massive support from industry/banks/
gov't. Uses slightly different standard as well also based gross floor
area instead of TFA, different source factors...
Ireland, DK and UK all use PHI approach, I believe. My understanding
of Austria is there are 2 paths to (state?) certification.
1. is the PHI 15kWh/m2a or better for TFA
2. is 10kWh/m2a based on BGF (bruttogrundflaeche, or gross area)
Frankly, I haven't see any typologies where you hit 2 without already
hitting 1. Sure, there are lots of buildings in Vorarlberg that are
'naehepassivhaus' - but damn do they look good, perform well and
utilize uber modern building practices (CLT/brettstapel/prefab'd
cellulose & OSB wall panels, etc). I'm not sure which Sweden falls
under - but most of the PH projects I've seen fall under the 15kWh/
m2a. Most of them are MFH - but let's be honest, something like 90% of
Stockholm is MFH... Cheaper construction costs, more energy efficient.
Oh, and utilization of district heating. Damn socialists!
Furthermore, this disjunction appears to be an out for product mfrs
getting their products certified - so... Yeah... Facepalm.
Jesse - were you able to make it to Vauban? I had several friends that
lived in the studentendorf when working in Freiburg. That place is a
great example, loved going back in lieu of honeymoon a few years ago.
When things get slow, I'm often tempted to send off a resume or just
pack up the family and live there...
Hayden Robinson
Yes it is nice to hear what people are thinking, and I am enjoying the thoughtfulness of the responses.
I think keeping Passive House un-trademarked was a generous move by the PHI; it allows groups like Passive House Northwest, to use the name. And it allow those who are making buildings, that meet the criteria, to call them Passive House without spending a bunch of money on certification. But that generosity backfires if groups self-define PH criteria, and it becomes another trendy, generic term. I don’t think Passive House will be the last word in high-performance building technology. But, I do think it benefits us to keep our terminology clear and meaningful. It would be a shame if, a few years from now, anyone with a tube of caulk started promoting their work as Passive House.
Jesse
inspiring place.
Before you pack up your bags...I talked to an architect Uli Mayer who
worked on many of the Vauban houses. He himself was packing up for
various reasons. Mostly it appeared that he was tired of the effort it
took to manifest those types of projects (co-op passive). But don't
let that stop you. We all have to chase our dreams at one point in our
lives.
I had a chance to step into a Hermann Kaufmann home, a real treat. As
you say, "they look damn good."
Sweden has, yes, mastered district heating...with most of its housing
heated this way.
An interesting fact: Sweden has..."The same energy use in buildings
and industry in 1970 as today, dispite more floor area, an 11%
increase in population, and increased production." [Janson 13]
David Posada
My two cents on PHP (Passive House Politics... Passive House Petition... )
At the risk of making gross generalizations, it's been said there are two kinds of people in the world:
"Parts to Whole" thinkers, and "Whole to Parts" thinkers.
(Parts to Whole (PtW) thinkers prefer to examine and understand all the parts of a system or argument before they agree with it or accept it. They like to deal with the specifics. Whole to Parts (WtP) thinkers tend to recognize and agree to the value of the "big picture" first, and see the parts as details that can be figured out later, or less important, since they can change due to specific context or interpretation.)
PH present a paradox: it is so detailed and precise in it's calculations and PHPP is a tool only Parts to Whole thinkers can love. But when they question the parts, it falls on the deaf ears of Whole to Parts thinkers who find the overall approach so effective and compelling.
To use PHPP well you have to be a PtW thinker, but they may question the detailed assumptions and find exceptions that seem valid. If those details aren't addressed sufficiently, they may to lose faith in the whole system, or look for alternatives. When PtW people try to point these issues out, the WtP thinkers don't agree, because they think the critics aren't seeing the forest for the trees, throwing out the baby with the bathwater, getting bogged down in details that are minor in comparison to the value of the "whole." They probably feel that flawed or not, this tools offers a more compelling, effective, or appealing approach to energy savings than anything they've seen yet. It puts deep energy savings in reach of people and builders who otherwise wouldn't have the tools to do so.... "this is something you can get people and agencies to rally behind, all tools have their flaws, so let's just run with it."
I believe many of the debates and divisions that have arisen around PH bring out these two different mind-sets, and explain the frustration that each side has with the other and the apparent intractability of their positions. And when you add the cultural variables of a tool and system developed and administered in another country, many nuances get lost in translation.
The issue, I think, is that we see two completely different "problems" to be solved: on one hand some are focused on issues of kWh/climate data/terminology/questions of "rigor", and on the other hand we see people who might say those arguments are splitting hairs and getting away from the original concepts and intent of PH. Both sides are deeply concerned about how all this affects the public understanding and adoption of PH. Both sides have concerns about the clarity and strength and effectiveness of the "brand." Both sides respect and appreciate the work of other PH advocates but are frustrated with how others are seeing the issues and making their choices on how to move forward.
I think the cultural and communication issues around this debate may be the elephant in the room. Since our different mindsets have such an impact on how we understand and view these questions, I have a hard time seeing how they can be resolved by restating and repeating our different positions. And I'm not sure if this petition moves us forward or backward. (I confess to be more of a Whole-to-parts thinker) It seems we need to shift the discussion, or re-define the "problem" that we are trying to solve; I worry that some of the PH debate itself has led to more confusion, creation of different factions and camps. My hope is that in recognizing some the underlying differences in how we think and communicate about these issues we can reduce some of the ire and misunderstanding that tends to divide us and get us off track from our common goals.
Sorry if this sounds preachy or fuzzy.
David Posada
Portland, Ore
From: passive...@googlegroups.com [mailto:passive...@googlegroups.com]
On Behalf Of Hayden Robinson
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2012 10:24 AM
To: passive...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: Passive House Petition
Yes it is nice to hear what people are thinking, and I am enjoying the thoughtfulness of the responses.
I think keeping Passive House un-trademarked was a generous move by the PHI; it allows groups like Passive House Northwest, to use the name. And it allow those who are making buildings, that meet the criteria, to call them Passive House without spending a bunch of money on certification. But that generosity backfires if groups self-define PH criteria, and it becomes another trendy, generic term. I don’t think Passive House will be the last word in high-performance building technology. But, I do think it benefits us to keep our terminology clear and meaningful. It would be a shame if, a few years from now, anyone with a tube of caulk started promoting their work as Passive House.
-----Original Message-----
From: passive...@googlegroups.com [mailto:passive...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of mike eliason
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2012 1:25 PM
To: Passive House Northwest
Subject: Re: Passive House Petition
Rob,
From: passive...@googlegroups.com [mailto:passive...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Rob Harrison AIA
Adam Cohen
Certified Passivhaus Consultant - North America and Europe
Structures Design/Build, LLC
5104 Bernard Drive
Roanoke, VA 24018
Web site: www.structuresdb.com
Passivhaus information: http://www.passivehousedesign.us/
Jim Burton
learned about in my PHCT class - the 2000 Watt Society. In my mind
there's a "social equity" aspect to the Passive House Standard, and
the notion that we all, no matter what climate we're in, limit
ourselves to a single, agreed upon amount of energy. It will help
equalize the discrepancy that currently exists between the more
developed and less developed parts of the world, and stands as a
rigorous benchmark we can use to help recover from the climate crisis
we've caused. Does that make it hard, or impractical, or unfeasible
for some in more extreme climates? Of course it does, but maybe that's
OK. Not to say people shouldn't live in extreme climates, but we
should know that if we do, we have to work even harder to meet the
fair limit the Passive House Standard represents.
Jim Burton
On Mar 22, 10:23 am, "Hayden Robinson" <em...@haydenrobinson.com>
wrote:
> thoughtfulness of the responses.
>
> I think keeping Passive House un-trademarked was a generous move by the PHI;
> it allows groups like Passive House Northwest, to use the name. And it allow
> those who are making buildings, that meet the criteria, to call them Passive
> House without spending a bunch of money on certification. But that
> generosity backfires if groups self-define PH criteria, and it becomes
> another trendy, generic term. I don’t think Passive House will be the last
> word in high-performance building technology. But, I do think it benefits us
> to keep our terminology clear and meaningful. It would be a shame if, a few
> years from now, anyone with a tube of caulk started promoting their work as
> Passive House.
>
> Hayden Robinson AIA
>
> hayden robinson architect
>
> 206.691.3445
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Passive House Northwest" group.
> To post to this group, send email to Passive...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> PassiveHouseN...@googlegroups.com.
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Passive House Northwest" group.
> To post to this group, send email to Passive...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> PassiveHouseN...@googlegroups.com.
>
> - Show quoted text -
Skylar Swinford
Jesse
University in Basel, they suggested that the Minergie-A house was for
the 2kW people. Minergie-A is a nearly-zero-energy house <15kWh/m2
heating, ventilation, and how water. How is the 17,500 kWh
(2k*24hours*365days) proportioned in a person's lifestyle? This is
something I've been curious about since the PH training.
This is for Rob,
my notes on Minergie which is hard to find online...
Minergie: 38 kwh/m2 primary energy for Heating, ventilation, hot water
Minergie-P: 30 kwh/m2 for Heating, ventilation, hot water
Further requirement of airtightness, and household electricity limit
MInergie-A: 0/15 kwh/m2
Same as Minergie-P, but with requirements for lighting and grey
energy
Grey energy 50 kilo-watt hours per square meters. [Bastien]
PV offsets grey energy?
Satisfies the 2k diet?
Fits definition of “Nearly Zero Energy Building” [Minergie]
Jesse
Hayden Robinson
Skylar,
It seems like the implication is that some are entitled to more energy because of where they live? And that others need to expect less to make up for that? I don’t know whether or not performance criteria should be regionalized. Or if they do, or should, have something to do with global fairness. But, I’m not sold on the idea that northern regions automatically get more energy.
Applying the concept of equity to regional energy use suggests that the same kinds of building should be built everywhere, and that energy should be an equalizer. One of the things that I enjoy about Passive House is its unintended suggestion that different places ought to have their own ways of building. Even in my lifetime, a same-everywhereness has spread across the county and world. I think we have become less rich as a result. Like I said, I don’t know if building standards should be regionalized. But, if Passive House encourages regions to be different, I think that’s a good thing.
Hayden
Jim Burton
As I understand it, the 2000 Watt metric IS the current world average,
per capita. That includes people in the US, who use on average about
12,000 Watts, and people in Bangledesh, who use something like 400. If
we (and others in the developed world) limit ourselves to 2000 Watts,
that will bring the worldwide average down significantly, which is the
direction we need to go.
Jim
Hayden Robinson
David, Adam,
I’ve read the post a couple of times. The thinking is sophisticated and subtle. But I’m having trouble applying the ideas about PtW vs WtP to the conversation around calling the PHIUS standard “Passive House”. Could you help me connect the dots?
Hayden
Jesse
referring to Swedish Passive House heat demand as +10kWh/m2, which in
fact should be the peak heat load limit of 10 W/m2. Sorry.