New Thermal Regulation 2005 (RT2005)

[jean63]

The majority of people who build put ELECTRIC HEATER ....... POINT !!!! it is the least expensive to install: a few convectors and we pump directly into nuclear power plants ... and we do not send CO2, but long live the good waste that lives millions of years !!!!

These are not ready to put sensors on their roof.

Yesterday, on France Inter, Yann Artus Bertrand, who strives to be green, replied to the journalist who told him that he had to be rich to be green that housing estates were being built with wooden houses of 110m² for 110 € and that it was not more expensive than "traditional" houses with the advantage of no longer having a heating bill (passive houses with Canadian wells).

..He is right, but how many wooden houses (very well insulated) are built in France in% tage? in my opinion it is very WEAK !!!

[vttdechaine]

The implementation of RT 2005 will generate an additional cost of 5 to 9%.
A "normally" well-designed building will not have difficulty meeting this standard.
For those who think that the implementation of this standard is not enough and that it does not allow a lot of savings remember all the same that this is the minimum requirement to be observed in the context of new construction.
It does not make sense to compare RT 2005 to standards far above other countries. These other standards are not themselves "minimum" standards.
We can always do better it's true. This will be the role of RT 2010 and 2015. We cannot transform all new construction into HQE-HPE-Cpe -20 ... etc
In the meantime heat up to 19 ° C and put on sweaters .

[jean63]

citro wrote:

The RT2005 is still far from the labels MINERGIE or PassivHaus ...
France is however associated, as a member country of Europe to the CEPHEUS low energy house project, that is to say consuming less than 15Kwh / m² / year. It is proven that this objective has been achieved to obtain modern comfort, whether the house is built in the north of Sweden or in the south of Spain ...

... yes but I am not sure that this consumption of 15Kwh / m² / year can be obtained in any condition of SITUATION of the house: well oriented to the South / South West + well protected from the north winds. ..etc, which is not the case with many housing estates facing due north - I can see that in my village - and which, moreover, can "have their feet in the water" quickly at the first flood (which is another "generous" subject) ..... there is work to be done to reach 15 Kwh / m2 / year !!

Another thing..Targol gave me the address where is the diagram relating to the thicknesses of insulation (which I speak about above in this post) and to their "performance" in terms of insulation ==>

.... we can clearly see the advantage of isolating up to 15 cm thick, beyond that there is discussion, the gain should not be huge compared to the cost !! to your calculators.

That was it (in subject "fuel too expensive?", I wrote ==>

My opinion is that we must not go too far in the thickness of insulation.

Moreover Targol (I believe) gave a diagram in a post which shows that from a certain thickness, it no longer becomes "profitable" in terms of insulation to add cms and cms of insulation. ..... it's peanuts and the insulation is expensive + you have to ventilate the house anyway, even if it is in double flow VMC, we send hot air outside to heat the sparrows !!!

In 1985 I put 15 cms in the walls and 20 cms in the roof ..... at the time it was well above the standards required for a heating other than electrical (by the low temperature soil / boiler supply gz natural).

[Modify Targol Modo] direct insertion of the image instead of a link [/ modify Modo Targol]

[vttdechaine]

15 / m² / year is really super super balèse ! We can always do it, but we must stop making all neophytes believe that it is possible and "easy". Today, the constraints in "conventional" new construction of good quality revolve around 100 / m² / year (DHW included but without lighting of common areas).

At best I saw 23 / m² / year and it was quite a beautiful piece of design and manufacturing.

But it is true that in the end, nothing but orientation does a lot.

[jean63]

15 / m² / year is really super super balèse ! We can always do it, but we must stop making all neophytes believe that it is possible and "easy". Today, the constraints in "conventional" new construction of good quality revolve around 100 / m² / year (DHW included but without lighting of common areas).

At best I saw 23 / m² / year and it was quite a beautiful piece of design and manufacturing.

But it is true that in the end, nothing but orientation does a lot.

We must stop telling anything! If we are going towards mild winters, I want to believe that the losses will decrease but hey, we always want to be the best in the consumption at home, with his car, ... etc ... and most often it is ALL FALSE, we want to have fun by telling anything.

[Other]

Hello,
The insulation is also used for heat waves in summer.
Certain also say here not serious the heating, one saves on the heating! but in summer when go cook what we all do air conditioning! Like the Americans, they eat more current in summer than winter.
A well-insulated house prevents heat from entering the house, at night you store the friache ..
Andre

[jean63]

Hello,
The insulation is also used for heat waves in summer.
Certain also say here not serious the heating, one saves on the heating! but in summer when go cook what we all do air conditioning! Like the Americans, they eat more current in summer than winter.
A well-insulated house prevents heat from entering the house, at night you store the friache ..
Andre

You are right André.

The ideal is a house insulated from the outside and with walls having a high thermal inertia to keep the cool inside (or the adobe walls - earth + straw - as in Africa or some old houses in my region, not far towards Lyon / Roanne -the country of camel1-).

In my case, there are 20 cm of rock wool in the hollow walls without thermal bridges + red cedar cladding, and 20 cm in the roof.

The wooden frame has a drawback: no thermal inertia in the walls. I know something about it, the temperature rises slowly during the day, but it is easy to make it drop at night by making drafts (picture windows and open windows) because we are in the countryside and the temperature drops well the night. If in the future temperatures were to rise again in summer, I will consider the Canadian well.

Another important precaution: close the shutters securely where the sun "beats" strong => otherwise greenhouse effect.

In the end no need for air conditioning. In hot weather, it can go up to 25 - 27 ° C maximum. We withstood the heat waves particularly that of 2003 (15000 dead in France - mainly elderly people)

[vttdechaine]

We must stop telling anything! If we are going towards mild winters, I want to believe that the losses will decrease but hey, we always want to be the best in the consumption at home, with his car, ... etc ... and most often it is ALL FALSE, we want to have fun by telling anything.

How do you know that we are moving towards mild winters?
Some say that the warming would vary the sea currents and that Europe would end up in the snow.
Here too, we must stop saying anything.

[vttdechaine]

You are right André.

The ideal is a house insulated from the outside and with walls having a high thermal inertia to keep the cool inside.
High inertia does not only bring benefits. This means for example that it is impossible to heat or cool the housing quickly. It's not great when you come back from vacation for example.

The wooden frame has a drawback: no thermal inertia in the walls.
Yes. There is inertia but limited. There are techniques to overcome these phenomena otherwise wooden frame constructions could not see the light of day and would be unlivable. The problem is that currently the French design offices in the building are not yet very receptive to the wooden structure.

I know something about it, the temperature rises slowly during the day, but it is easy to make it drop at night by making drafts (picture windows and open windows) because we are in the countryside and the temperature drops well the night. If in the future temperatures were to rise again in the summer, I would consider the Canadian well.

Another important precaution: close the shutters securely where the sun "beats" strong => otherwise greenhouse effect.
The sunbreaker is still better. We keep the exterior brightness while protecting ourselves.

In the end no need for air conditioning. In hot weather, it can go up to 25 - 27 ° C maximum. We withstood the heat waves particularly that of 2003 (15000 dead in France - mainly elderly people)
The figure of 15 dead has always puzzled me. Were these people in good health or did the heat wave accelerate their death? In the first case, in fact, the heat wave left 000 dead. In the second case, the heat wave precipitated the death of 15 people in France. It's always a drama but it's very different in spirit.

The systems to increase inertia or play with it are available: green roof, geothermal (reversible in some cases), Canadian well ...
For the moment I am working on a project where a whole part of the building will be buried to benefit from the geothermal effect of the ground precisely and avoid air conditioning. In my opinion (well ... my sense today), there is only this method that can give real good results in the long term.

[I Citro]

15 / m² / year is really super super balèse ! We can always do it, but we must stop making all neophytes believe that it is possible and "easy". Today, the constraints in "conventional" new construction of good quality revolve around 100 / m² / year (DHW included but without lighting of common areas).

At best I saw 23 / m² / year and it was quite a beautiful piece of design and manufacturing.

But it is true that in the end, nothing but orientation does a lot.

We do not want to make neophytes believe that it is "easy", but IT'S POSSIBLE We even arrive by digging our brains a little to make 50Kw / m² / year in the renovation of old!

We can therefore reasonably think that making a new construction that will consume 100kw / m² / year is a scandal!
For the same reason I refuse to buy a new car, I would make it myself.