Just released at the conference last week
PH premium
PH plus
PH classic
PH Energy Conservation building

figures on the left are your heat demand. figures on the right is the remainder of your primary energy demand (which includes DHW demand, aux electricity and domestic electricity)
PH Classic 15kwh/m2a heat demand/ 115kwh/m2a is the remainder (120 total including 15 heat demand)

So take a 200m2 house x 15kwh/m2a = 3000kwh/a
to produce a kwh using oil or gas costs about 10cents per kwh. so thats 300€ per year for heating (£247/a)
your DHW demand could be up to 30kwh/m2a.

I think its the amount of energy supplied by Renewable Energy Solutions (RES). All part of the goal to get to nearly zero energy buildings (NZEBs).

All good.

In essence as far as I can see, these add in consideration of on-site PV/wind/methane generation etc as contribution to electrical/cooking/water heating demand. In 'PH Classic' you were free to do these as an alternative to (minimised) grid supply, i.e. good idea but outside the PH calc.

Still no integrated consideration, though, of solar gain as contribution to space heating, except for that kind of solar gain that comes in thro windows and (if a bit of storage is desired) falls on heavy floors/walls.

The latter is a primitive way of harnessing solar gain, which carries with it danger of summer overheating, and therefore must be limited in its scale and therefore in its contribution to space heating. Better ways to do it are quite capable of capturing enough, indeed surplus heat right thro Dec/Jan, without risk of summer overheating.

Still, neither Classic PH nor the two new grades take this possibility on board - you're free to provide 'back up heating system' in this way, i.e. good idea but outside the PH calc.

But that 'outside the PH calc' attitude closes the door on the possibility that a building-integrated solar capture/storage delivery design could produce surplus heat right thro Dec/Jan, allowing the stringency of insulation/airtighness standards to be relaxed by a calculated degree - and still fall squarely within high PH targets.

Agree with both fostertom and Doubting_Thomas, other than that I think that the mistake was to make the appliance grading system open-ended at the wrong end. New more-efficient appliances should be getting G, H, I… ratings. Or, when they realized the problem, they should have gone to A1, A2, … A9…

But, yes, adding complexity to the rating system doesn't help - you might was well just quote the kWh/(m²·a), etc, figures, e.g., Passive House 15/120, PH 15/90/60, etc.

Apart from Ed's queries about elementary arithmetic, and leaving aside 'easier' Enerphit, these new categories don't give anything away in terms of stringent targets. So I don't see the slippery slope.
In fact PHI has nicely drawn a line in the sand and refused those bloomin' Americans who want an 'easier' PH standard 'to suit the American market'.

Posted By: fostertomthese new categories don't give anything away in terms of stringent targets

Does that mean that you do have a good reference as to what the new targets actually are but aren't telling us, or does it mean that you haven't realized that we don't know what the targets are yet and so don't know why I asked for a reference?

But apart from facts, back in the land of marketing, the slippery slope is all about brand dilution.

Posted By: fostertomBut I don't get any hint that it's a dilution - why should it?

Simply having multiple levels is a dilution of the brand - it might not weaken the actual requirements at all but still will make things less clear cut and cause confusion.

As far as I can see they are just preparing for the new Europe wide building regs that will be implemented in 2020.

Posted By: fostertomBut if these new levels are just add-ons to the otherwise untouched or at least undiluted fabric standard, then why not? They should make it clear that fabric standard is same as ever.

Tom,

The point is, now your average lay customer asks for a PassivHaus and the first response is "which type?" Then they have to sit through an explanation of all the models in the range.

Although the standard may or may not have changed, the 'menu' of PH types begins to grow in the same way you can't just get a 'coffee' in most coffee shops. It has to be something like 'frothy macchiato with a hint of lemongrass'*

*can you tell I'm a tea drinker..?!

Most people I know just want to know how much extra it will cost (a separate argument) - having different types just makes that comparison even harder.

I'm pretty sure the type of customer asking for a PassiveHaus can get the concept of Classic, Plus and Premium without straining too many brain muscles

Responding to that in terms of cost should just be a simple "Base Build plus X, Y and Z percent ", firmed up later with an appropriate LZC assessment for renewable options and a review of non heating demand and non regulated electricity consumption.

Different criteria, but akin to say BREEAM assessments targeting Good, Very Good or Excellent - it's possible to say within a matter of minutes what the cost burden as an addition to base build will be - type of thing that cost consultants live for.

Going back to the PH renewables, then it doesn't really matter if it's all gained from one technology, or a basket of technologies - cost per kW might vary, but cost per kWh isn't that different

Regards

Barney

We've been working on getting Passive Houses to Zero with a few years now.
They usually use 15kWh/m2.annum for hot water, 20kWh/m2.annum for heating and 20kWh/m2.annum for electricity so 55kWh/m2.annum.
Sufficient Solar Thermal heating reduces the heating to 1kWh/m2.annum and the hot water figure to 1kWh/m2.annum, so for a 160m2 house a 4kWhP PV array is usually sufficient to get it to zero.

If I was launching a new Passive House standard I'd add an extra page to the PHPP calculation called Solar Heating and it would show how many m2 of solar is required to get a house to zero.
The biggest cost in Passive Houses is still all the gadgets and machines, like ducted HRV, Heat pumps, stoves, solar hot water etc,.

That will be e-smoke filled rooms

It is because we use the wrong measure. I dislike kWh/m^2.