Viewing 11 posts - 16 through 26 (of 26 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #35265
    SimmondsMills
    Participant

    See https://www.aecb.net/forum/index.php?topic=2134.0 (I HAVE CORRECTED THIS LINK)
    re observations on Mechanical Ventilation and Heat Recovery (MVHR) relevant to this thread.
    By the way (BTW) MVHR is now to be called Heat Recovery Ventilation (HRV) or as my children call it 'The Wind Machine' (TWM) – in order to lose the 'MECHANICAL'/'IRON LUNG' connotations that get some people so over excited….

    #35266

    And in discussion with Wolfgang Feist at the AECB conference this year, he said that the ducts are still very clean now 18 years on.

    #35267
    Nick Grant
    Participant

    Andy, what are we allowed to call MEV these days?

    #35268
    David Olivier
    Participant

    Is this renaming part of the UK tendency to re-shuffle the chairs or reorganise the company/govt. dept. and feel one is accomplishing something?!

    The whole topic was studied in detail by the R-2000 Program in Canada which found that airtight houses with MVHR were healthier in some respects than conventional houses. Actually I awlays refer to them being draughtproof as that is a more attractive concept.

    I can't really see much better acronyms than MVHR and MEV. Comfort ventilation sounds rather bland and wind machine might be misunderstood.

    I hope the TSB projects will include a number with MEV, not just MVHR. On my calculations, MVHR appears to be a waste of money unless buildings can be made as tight as Andy's house, since MEV neutralises the background air infiltration throiugh cracks and gaps, whereas MVHR doesn't.

    D.

    #35269
    Nick Grant
    Participant

    David

    Your MEV v MVHR analysis was excellent and made me think re our own house should I ever get around to fine tuning.

    Nick

    #35270
    Alan Clarke
    Member

    I hope the TSB projects will include a number with MEV, not just MVHR. On my calculations, MVHR appears to be a waste of money unless buildings can be made as tight as Andy's house, since MEV neutralises the background air infiltration throiugh cracks and gaps, whereas MVHR doesn't.

    D.

    Unfortunately with the TSB measures being rated for cost effectiveness in SAP, MEV won't feature as SAP assumes that MEV performs the same as natural ventilation but with additional electrical consumption.

    Alan

    #35271
    SimmondsMills
    Participant

    I have uploaded in the file' section a pdf showing Relative humidity levels and temperatures and gas consumption for the period nov 09 – end jan 2010.
    see database entry at https://www.aecb.net/cbpd/viewProject.php?id=7#downloads

    We are working on a lovely new 'front end' for the database and also will be using it to show the TSB Retrofit projects in the near future in conjunction TSB. Hence it will be come a fully searchable and good looking combined database for refurbished and new build low energy buildings.

    #35272
    Peter Bayer
    Participant

    Andy

    Given that £45,000 equates to around 30% of the price of a semi ( £150,000 around here ) I think there is some way to go before passive house refurb is seen as affordable. The people who would benefit the most struggle to afford basic maintenance, at this level whole areas would be left out in the cold.
    It might be an idea to define affordable, what percentage of house price would be acceptable to:-
    a, House owner occupiers?
    b, Grant providers?
    c, Landlords?

    Peter

    #35273
    SimmondsMills
    Participant

    Also – if you spend less on energy efficiency measures on homes, then all the savings are going to be taken up in increased comfort levels (temp.) rather than actual energy (fuel bill) and emissions savings. given post below – implying we shouldn't feel guilty about living in warmer houses (UK has coldest homes in europe?) then green deal levels of investment will result in warmer homes, but prob not lower bills or emissions.

    #35274
    Peter Bayer
    Participant

    Given the lack of government action in these matters I keep hoping for the price breakthrough that will lead to mass adoption, hence asking for an opinion on where that price point might be ( clearly not £45,000 )
    I fully accept your case as put in your last three posts but as with most on here you're preaching to the converted, I just worry about how to win people round while all things eco as perceived as luxuries for the privileged.

    #35275
    SimmondsMills
    Participant

    When I say that the Government has not done its sums, I am not forgetting DECC advisor Prof. David MacKay's book and ongoing work with DECC, however what I am saying is that extensive energy efficiency appears to be an underrecognised and under utilised resource, if it was better recognised that would change DECCs '2050' pathway options to a low carbon future (I am told it is hard to use the DECC site to model engery efficiency propoerly), so energy efficiency as applied particularly to buildings is too important a potential to be left unresearched. This means that I prefer to see pioneers try to drive down the costs of low energy refurbs, but we shouldn't allow costs to dictate the level at which we pitch national refurbishment levels, say, if it ends up after pioneering stage costing an average of say £30,000/house (maybe work spread over a period of time) for a level of retrofit that allows increased comfort and c. 60 – 80% (measured) water and space heating energy reduction, then as it benefits UK as a whole as well as the tenant/owner, then the investment in these meaures should reflect that – so a mixture of self finance with grant funding or interest free loans, paid back over 25 – 30 years. Large scale adoption of this approach would negate the need to build #no. power stations of whatever sort and will be cheaper for UK plc (ie all of us) than just building more supply. I realise that there are currently no big businesses fighting for energy efficiency, in the way that they are more interested in investing in supply side options. With deregulated energy markets, 'least cost planning' is not possible and therefore no financial benefit to big business to invest in efficiency (?) that just makes peoples houses warmer and cheaper to run.

Viewing 11 posts - 16 through 26 (of 26 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.