Thread by @EfficiencyLast

We think Passiv is important aspirationally. Those who try to make it more are advocating for a world that overspends on EE.

You set your goals too low and achieve them, you don't know how far you could have gotten.

For example, air sealing. Most set a goal and stop when they reach it

In our practice we set multiple goals, and have been continuously surprised by how far the first goal is exceeded.

This gets us to "really good house."

Ed Kisiel took his first house we built together to 1400cfm50.
(2 story 4600 sf over full basement)

Getting to "really good house" takes $15-25k more.

Getting to Passiv takes $75-150k more.

"really good" follows standard practices and materials builders are familiar with.

Passiv requires complete overhaul of practices, materials,

...a FRIGHTENING amount of risk for a market that has averaged under 200 projects a year over the last decade...

Let's talk about the energy numbers.

In my climate zone (5), energy use intensity per sf of the average home is 40-80.

"Good house" is 20.

Passiv is 10.

In what world is the incremental cost justified?

"good house" doesn't justify on energy savings alone.

The market has no "adder" for EE, Solar, or EUI.

But by going from average to "good house" we harvest stacking benefits which include comfort, control, health, durability, and resilience.

Yes, Passiv achieves these too...

But they are NOT an incremental benefit adder when comparing Passiv to "good house."

In fact, I've heard reports that sometimes, under certain conditions, Passiv houses are hard to control and uncomfortable.

And can we agree that "bragging rights" are stacking benefit the average homeowner cannot afford to spend much on?

...And maybe we need to agree that bragging rights are an incremental benefit that environmentalists should avoid wasting money on if they truly believe this climate problem is urgent?

Sorry, back to incremental energy savings.

My background is Economics. My gut wants to look at how many kWh the incremental investment between Passiv and Good saves.

Can we also agree that saving a kWh has all the same values as renewable producing a kWh?

Either way, we are simply harvesting energy.

Put another way, if you have $100,000 to spend, which investment gets us to environmental goals faster:

Passiv is aspirational, but for most it's unachievable.

There is a new approach that allows home builders to achieve all the significant goals of passiv, without all the barriers.

For now we're calling it "good house."

Just like passiv, it doesn't justify on energy savings.

Not in a thousand years.
Not in a million years when compared to solar

Also just like passiv, the stacking benefits are significant to the homeowner / occupant.

And unlike passive, we think there are a huge number of new home buyers / builders that can afford the incremental cost of going Good.

So, what IS the rough incremental counterfactual cost of a saved annual kWh when going from typical to good, and good to passive?...

Well, I have some rough numbers on Passiv, but @TomMoyerUT built and lives in one.

Coming from him they're more compelling

And I'm pretty sure he'd like to see passiv be a Corvette at a Chevy dealership instead of a Corvette at a Corvette dealership.

In the meantime, hear our case studies of projects we've worked on including at least one of 5 or 6 "good house" new builds.

bit.ly/CaseStudiesEne…

Also, I'd like to invite @Guay_JG into the conversation.

He's 70% of the way through building "good" in Utah, and is painfully aware of how the many seemingly small barriers (most HVAC contractor's don't/can't/won't install ASHP!) that can drag a build back to "just do to code."