Targol wrote:
As you know, there are certain tried and tested recipes that make it very possible to limit the energy dependence of a home without costing the eye of the head.
- Make small collective instead of individual
- isolate appropriately from the outside (and not with inner doublings as is done in 98% of buildings in France)
- Study the layout of the rooms to establish buffer areas in the North (cellar, garage) to isolate the rooms to live losses,
- study the location of buildings based on climate and openings (I would like to know how many builders are asking the question of the orientation of windows and prevailing winds)
Yes yes I am aware of all this ... fortunately by the way. But it is precisely thanks to all these tricks of construction that one descends to 100. When I talk about 100 it's with a thoughtful construction ... not without.
In addition, there is a MAJOR element that you forget to take into account: if the cost price of a house depends a lot on its cost of construction, the importance of this initial cost decreases as time goes by. passes to give way to the cost of maintenance and operation. As, in general, one builds to live a certain time in the house, it can become very profitable even in relatively short term (5ans) to invest a little more in the construction to limit the recurrent charges.
Depreciate solar panels, a collective wood-fired boiler or a complete geothermal system over 5 years, I don't really believe in it. Also, saying to a buyer "spend more because later you will spend less" is very nice but very theoretical. Indeed, if your budget is € 250, you will not be able to put more money for the environment simply because you will not have it. We can tell you that there will be an economy at the end, it will be necessary to reduce elsewhere (surface for example) to be able to afford the panels and the rest.vttdechaine wrote:I have long since stopped believing in Santa Claus or considering (even worse) that some have knowledge and others are unable to think and understand nothing.
I am impatiently awaiting your "magic formula" to go down to 50kW while remaining at a reasonable cost. I will enthusiastically apply your ideas and see if 100 kW is as outrageous as you say.
I think the poor investment / energy cost ratio of most homes is because most new individual builds are done by developers.
These, to reduce the costs of design, have a catalog of ready-made houses (designed there are 10aines of years and a little updated from time to time). However, the main specifications of these houses is to use standard techniques to save money on the implementation and to entrust it to any company.
When someone wants to buy a house, he chooses from the catalog and we arrange to "put" the house on the ground without looking too much at the orientation.
+1. Hence sometimes the denomination of "cardboard house" for these dwellings. All the developers, promoters, builders are not to be put in the same basket however.
In short, without believing in Santa Claus either, I think that we can at least lower by a third the consumption of this kind of dwelling WITHOUT CHARGE TO THE INVOICE only by designing them better, by changing the construction techniques and adapting them to their location.
+ 1. On the other hand, I do not think that these constructions are at present 100k but much more.
A little discussion with someone from ADEME the other day. If I have a reno operation that goes under the 100 k it is ok for a grant. So I say 50 ....