Dreadnaught

@NSS That's good. What's the shape of the building (form factor, it has a huge effect), fairly compact? Good levels of insulation in the walls, roof and floor? Air tight with MVHR?

@NSS sounds like a good figure. Have you modelled your house in PHPP? The most recent iteration of my house (117m² TFA, single story, not yet built) is 49.2 kWH.m2a for Entire Primary Energy Demand. More iterations and re-designs yet to come. Form factor is very poor at 4.69 (largely unavoidable because of planning constraints).

@NSS I should have said that the heating demand limited to ≤15kWh/m2.yr is for space heating only, not to include domestic hot water (DHW). More details here: https://www.passivehouse-international.org/index.php?page_id=150

For comparison, the limit for the passive-house standard for the "Entire Primary Energy Demand" is ≤120kWh/m2.yr (with heating demand limited to ≤15kWh/m2.yr).

@epsilonGreedy, could you consider starting a blog? Finding the time might be difficult I realise but if it’s photo laden it might not take too long. I for one would find it interesting. And I think you have a lot to contribute. I joined the forum about the same time as you, and I have been consistently impressed that you seemed to be picking things up more quickly than me. I have already learnt a lot from the threads you started. And, as I said in a PM to you some time ago, I generally enjoy your contributions, and I recognise that some of them are somewhat tongue-in-cheek, as I think you yourself acknowledged.

@pdf27 Yes, I agree about summer cooling. Something I am thinking about. Am considering a low cost (sub £1000) air-to-air heat pump (otherwise known as an air conditioner) just for summer cooling. My approach is however still a work in progress so I might change my mind.

Very interesting to see your site clearance photos as I am researching site clearance for my plot. Thank you.

Yes. And that disregards the capital and installation costs, and maintenance charge, of a gas boiler, which makes the decision even easier for a new build like mine. I am even thinking of going for electric-resistance heating only removing even the costs associated with an heat pump.

This tweet seems significant, but I am not entirely sure how. I guess it will enable houses heated entirely using electricity, which is what I plan for my near passive house, to more easily comply with the SAP requirements. I wonder if it will also feed through to PHPP and the calculations of primary energy demand. So after much delay SAP10 is out for review from BRE (it was originally going to be called SAP2016). The carbon factors are updated (thankfully), along with many other positive changes. […]The SAP10 grid elec carbon factor is set at 0.233kgCO2e/kWh (down from 0.519) & mains gas is set at 0.210 (= 0.233 with a 90% boiler). This reflects the huge decarbonisation of the grid over the past few years. https://twitter.com/NigelBanks_ilke/status/1031797729121460225

With only the most limited of knowledge of the circumstances in question, and with the benefits of hindsight in light of the knock on consequences for the rest of her build, it strikes me that in @lizzie's case rectification may have been insufficient. Perhaps a solution similar to that for @PeterStarck might have been better. That is to cut up the slab, cart it away, and start again. Just an uninformed guess. (For clarification, as I recall MBC had nothing to do with @PeterStarck's build.)

This one quoted paragraph prompts me to post again. I have been mostly refraining as others seem eager to hear more from Polly in debate with other BH members. I admire @JSHarris and others for gamely entering the fray with civility and restraint. Scientific words have precise meanings. For me, this paragraph is an example of riding a coach-and-horses across those meanings. It sounds science-y but for those versed in the subject*, it prompts open-mouthed astonishment at its ridiculousness. It is perhaps worth reminding ourselves that Polly's employer, and by extension Polly herself, has a financial interest in this subject. Personally, I would prefer that such financial interests were kept from BuildHub. They are prone, in my opinion, to dilute and muffle debate and to dissimulate. After consideration, I believe that the mods took a decision to allow it in this case. My feeling from reading all the contributions to this thread is that this has been a popular decision. To pick up on @richi's earlier thoughts about reaching a conclusion, I would find it interesting to see a poll of those who had read this thread from end-to-end exploring two questions: (1) whether this company's claims are proven; (2) on the wider question of allowing companies to be members of our forum. I wonder what others think. (* as a young man, 20+ years ago, I gained a brace of degrees in related subjects)

Perhaps a key safe, empty, as a honey trap for thieves and the key hidden elsewhere?

What conclusion can we reasonably foresee? Are we expecting Polly to say something like: "Oh yes, I see what you mean now and the error of my ways. I will resign from my role at this company forthwith and cease the promotion of pseudo science"? I suspect that we have heard all that Polly has to say on this subject, shallow as her contribution has been, and we are in to repetition and the necessity of evasion. Or am I mistaken?

There are also gypsum moulded ones like these examples, but I am surprised by how fearsomely expensive they are:

In our local authority, there is a duty planning officer, a service intended to handle questions about how to navigate the planning system and to deal with the most minor planning questions. Its a free service. I spoke to them twice about the best planning strategy for my plot. On both calls (you can book a call or attend in person), to my delight as the conversation progressed the chatty duty planning officer freely volunteered an opinion about my proposal, which I had emailed in ahead of time, and even followed it up with an email afterwards confirming what she had said. As a consequence, I had received much of what I needed for free, and much more quickly (within a couple of days) than by going the route of a formal pre-app consultation (which I am led to believe have much longer lead times and are much more involved).

I am interested in the huge Agar Grove development of Passive House dwellings in Camden, London. I wonder, is anyone else interested in or connected with it? I will be keeping an eye on it. For those interested, more details here: https://www.hawkinsbrown.com/projects/agar-grove

Good point @ProDave. Oh actually, this should be in the Building Regulations forum, not Planning Permission. Could a mod move it?

A PYC tweet today: https://www.ukgbc.org/news/government-confirms-local-authorities-can-set-energy-standards-beyond-part-l-in-nppf/ My summary: The Government yesterday published its revised National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Government said as part of the consultation: "local authorities are not restricted in their ability to require energy efficiency standards above Building Regulations". This implies local authorities can can set energy standards beyond Part L now, but just didn't realise it. I would love for a UK local authority to mandate something close to the Passive House standard.

I am interested to know whether this would add anything to using a WebKit Content Blocker (as I use). WebKit content blocking is fast, uses a compiled rules-based blocking engine (which can include the prevention of loading the offending content, and much more besides). My guess is that when using a MacOS or iOS device (iPhone or iPad) and using an up-to-date WebKit blocker with Safari, using Pi-Hole would neither offer superior blocking nor be faster. I am happy to be contradicted. (More details here about WebKit content blocking here: https://webkit.org/blog/3476/content-blockers-first-look/.)

With this somewhat enthusiastic dissection, we can now assess the internal qualities of the wall construction ?

Hi Russell, with your level of practical knowledge, I think that I for one would benefit hugely from reading your blog, particularly as you are doing almost everything yourself. And don't spare us the nitty gritty detail. And an occasional photo across your lovely lake would be a cherry on the cake.

Could the tubes be blinded, labelled only A and B with only Nick knowing which is which?

Welcome! Looks like you have lovely country views. And good luck with the start.

@Onoff @newhome, that's very kind of you. Thank you. However, I first need to work out a design for an apparatus that could conceivably work. That's quite a challenge for me as I have no engineering experience. I am starting from zero.

Yes, that looks like a promising idea. Thank you. Will research that.