3 ms·

Neither of your links say that passive houses are easier in cold climates.

by D13Fd 4y ago

eesmith 4y ago
Under the section "Tropical climate needs" at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_house#Tropical_climate_needs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_house#Tropical_climate... > Passive cooling, solar air conditioning, and other solutions in passive solar building design need to be studied to adapt the Passive house concept for use in more regions of the world. > There is a certified Passive House in the hot and humid climate of Lafayette, Louisiana, USA, which uses energy recovery ventilation and an efficient one ton air-conditioner to provide cooling and dehumidification. Earlier, "In August 2010, there were approximately 25,000 such certified structures of all types in Europe. The vast majority of passive structures have been built in German-speaking countries and Scandinavia."
- D13Fd 4y ago
  I saw that, nothing there says that cold climates are easier.
  - eesmith 4y ago
    I see "easier" as meaning different things. 1) it's easier in the Scandinavian and German-speaking countries because passive house building materials are easier and cheaper to acquire ("other countries may spend 8% more on constructing Passive Houses than conventional buildings because the Passive House components may not be readily available" - "Examing the Prospective of Implementing Passive House Standards in Providing Sustainable Schools", https://aip.scitation.org/doi/pdf/10.1063/1.5031991?casa_token=1mS5tC87w2cAAAAA:pSa-3L_Xkw6hD4OzhtbdKR9PBd6RFgC7WNNDLM39R7Wn9TYj1hWQKzxTPMayQ0_0Ui4sx12DJi5QbQ https://aip.scitation.org/doi/pdf/10.1063/1.5031991?casa_tok...) 2) it's easier in cooler areas because there's more experience in how to build for those climates (as Wikipedia points out). 3) it's easier in cooler areas because the energy saved is higher, and so easier to justify economically. "Passive Houses for different climate zones" at https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378778815301481?casa_token=J2iuQFwFvasAAAAA:xqevsxcea3IhIm77-y261NysqChNZDnLg51ETKOdBfk3ip6U0sS7gc7IkRPMfDulHl0xh0vYHQ https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S037877881... shows "Energy demands of the Reference Passive Houses in the different locations" in Table 3, with: Yekaterinburg Tokyo Shanghai Las Vegas Singapore Abu Dhabi Total saving 96% 90% 87% 86% 79% 77% Those are all good savings in power use, but clearly better in colder climates. (Sorry, I can't find TCO.) 4) From my understanding, it's easier to well-insulate and let body heat and appliances provide the heat, using the cool exterior to regulate temperature, than it is to deal with cooling and humidity issues in warmer climates to bring the internal temperature to the "inner comfort range" specified by the Passivhaus Institute, Fig. 8 of the link in 3).

Neither of your links say that passive houses are easier in cold climates.

by D13Fd 4y ago

Neither of your links say that passive houses are easier in cold climates.

Under the section "Tropical climate needs" at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_house#Tropical_climate_needs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_house#Tropical_climate... > Passive cooling, solar air conditioning, and other solutions in passive solar building design need to be studied to adapt the Passive house concept for use in more regions of the world. > There is a certified Passive House in the hot and humid climate of Lafayette, Louisiana, USA, which uses energy recovery ventilation and an efficient one ton air-conditioner to provide cooling and dehumidification. Earlier, "In August 2010, there were approximately 25,000 such certified structures of all types in Europe. The vast majority of passive structures have been built in German-speaking countries and Scandinavia."

D13Fd 4y ago
I saw that, nothing there says that cold climates are easier.
- eesmith 4y ago
  I see "easier" as meaning different things. 1) it's easier in the Scandinavian and German-speaking countries because passive house building materials are easier and cheaper to acquire ("other countries may spend 8% more on constructing Passive Houses than conventional buildings because the Passive House components may not be readily available" - "Examing the Prospective of Implementing Passive House Standards in Providing Sustainable Schools", https://aip.scitation.org/doi/pdf/10.1063/1.5031991?casa_token=1mS5tC87w2cAAAAA:pSa-3L_Xkw6hD4OzhtbdKR9PBd6RFgC7WNNDLM39R7Wn9TYj1hWQKzxTPMayQ0_0Ui4sx12DJi5QbQ https://aip.scitation.org/doi/pdf/10.1063/1.5031991?casa_tok...) 2) it's easier in cooler areas because there's more experience in how to build for those climates (as Wikipedia points out). 3) it's easier in cooler areas because the energy saved is higher, and so easier to justify economically. "Passive Houses for different climate zones" at https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378778815301481?casa_token=J2iuQFwFvasAAAAA:xqevsxcea3IhIm77-y261NysqChNZDnLg51ETKOdBfk3ip6U0sS7gc7IkRPMfDulHl0xh0vYHQ https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S037877881... shows "Energy demands of the Reference Passive Houses in the different locations" in Table 3, with: Yekaterinburg Tokyo Shanghai Las Vegas Singapore Abu Dhabi Total saving 96% 90% 87% 86% 79% 77% Those are all good savings in power use, but clearly better in colder climates. (Sorry, I can't find TCO.) 4) From my understanding, it's easier to well-insulate and let body heat and appliances provide the heat, using the cool exterior to regulate temperature, than it is to deal with cooling and humidity issues in warmer climates to bring the internal temperature to the "inner comfort range" specified by the Passivhaus Institute, Fig. 8 of the link in 3).