3 ms·
> 0,5 W/m2/K. That was a good number in 1980 lmao (or in the US maybe), passive houses are often 1/5th of that. I'm talking 25cm+ of rockwool in the walls, 40c
by toasty228 7mo ago
> 0,5 W/m2/K.
That was a good number in 1980 lmao (or in the US maybe), passive houses are often 1/5th of that. I'm talking 25cm+ of rockwool in the walls, 40cm on the roof and triple pane windows, mostly facing south, reasonably shaped house that conserve heat by design, etc.
0.5 W/m²/K is a good value.... for a window, certainly not for the overall house, for a wall it wouldn't even pass code in most of Europe
> That's entirely unrealistic to cover with batteries with current battery technologies alone
It already is a reality for many people.
- friendzis 7mo ago> passive houses are often 1/5th of that. > 0.5 W/m²/K is a good value.... <...> for a wall it wouldn't even pass code in most of Europe There's a mix of miscommunication and wat. I'm using approximate floor area values here, not perimeter walls. 0.1 W/m2/K for a WALL is definitely not a "passive" house, that's barely A++. > I'm talking 25cm+ of rockwool in the walls, 40cm on the roof and triple pane windows, Yep, this gets you something like 0.5 realistic, maaaaybe up to 0.3 in the models.
- friendzis 7mo ago> > > That's entirely unrealistic to cover with batteries with current battery technologies alone > It already is a reality for many people. Megawatt-hour level home-battery installs? Show us a picture. That's literally a room full of batteries. The actual reality is having ten or so kilowatt-hours to balance rooftop solar.