Browse Forums Eco Living Re: RANT: Why we're not eco..... 61Nov 15, 2008 11:30 am And you can install Low-E double glazing to keep the heat out and flip the panes at night to keep the heat in. "ECOECO" At 'EcoEco', we design windows, we design the best windows, we do it for you, so that when you’re happy we are happy. Tel. 1800 326 326 Re: RANT: Why we're not eco..... 62Nov 15, 2008 11:37 am EcoClassic And you can install Low-E double glazing to keep the heat out and flip the panes at night to keep the heat in. Hello EcoClassic. I note that you are WERS rated. A warning to other readers that some operators are not. What is the added premium for Low-e double glazing with UPVC frames? Most quotes I have heard are from 100-200% upwards. Re: RANT: Why we're not eco..... 63Nov 15, 2008 11:43 am dymonite69 Alternatively, you can store all the sun's energy via single pane glazing on the north side and store it on exposed thermal mass. At night time, you draw over your insulated window treatments and the residual energy contained in the dwelling keeps the house warm at night. But what if you don't like curtains?? The thick bulky curtains that you need for insulation really aren't 'me'. I just can't visualise them in our house. There is another problem with this too. Where we live currently, we lose the sun behind a hill at 2:30 in mid winter. We don't want to be closing our curtains at 2:30 to keep the heat in, when there are still 3 hours or so of daylight left. 'chelle We have a hand-over date...15/10...but I won't hold my breath! http://people-in-glass-houses.blogspot.com/ Re: RANT: Why we're not eco..... 64Nov 15, 2008 12:13 pm dymonite69 EcoClassic And you can install Low-E double glazing to keep the heat out and flip the panes at night to keep the heat in. Hello EcoClassic. I note that you are WERS rated. A warning to other readers that some operators are not. What is the added premium for Low-e double glazing with UPVC frames? Most quotes I have heard are from 100-200% upwards. Yes tested to N4 and WERS rated. Low-E adds about 20% and PVC adds about 30% over standard double glazed aluminium. Thanks "ECOECO" At 'EcoEco', we design windows, we design the best windows, we do it for you, so that when you’re happy we are happy. Tel. 1800 326 326 Re: RANT: Why we're not eco..... 65Nov 15, 2008 12:51 pm 'chelle dymonite69 Alternatively, you can store all the sun's energy via single pane glazing on the north side and store it on exposed thermal mass. At night time, you draw over your insulated window treatments and the residual energy contained in the dwelling keeps the house warm at night. But what if you don't like curtains?? The thick bulky curtains that you need for insulation really aren't 'me'. I just can't visualise them in our house. There is another problem with this too. Where we live currently, we lose the sun behind a hill at 2:30 in mid winter. We don't want to be closing our curtains at 2:30 to keep the heat in, when there are still 3 hours or so of daylight left. We are going with insulative honeycomb/cellular blinds for a sleek modern look http://www.turnils.com/ImageVault/Image ... ndler.aspx If your solar access is not advantageous than specials windows do need to be considered. Don't forget lighting a house is far cheaper than heating a house. Re: RANT: Why we're not eco..... 66Nov 15, 2008 12:52 pm EcoClassic Yes tested to N4 and WERS rated. Low-E adds about 20% and PVC adds about 30% over standard double glazed aluminium. Thanks And single glaze vs double glaze? Re: RANT: Why we're not eco..... 67Nov 15, 2008 1:12 pm dymonite69 Don't forget lighting a house is far cheaper than heating a house. Hmmm, yes, but I think I would go a bit crazy if I closed the curtains every day in winter at 2:30...I need light! 'chelle We have a hand-over date...15/10...but I won't hold my breath! http://people-in-glass-houses.blogspot.com/ Re: RANT: Why we're not eco..... 68Nov 15, 2008 2:03 pm dymonite69 EcoClassic Yes tested to N4 and WERS rated. Low-E adds about 20% and PVC adds about 30% over standard double glazed aluminium. Thanks And single glaze vs double glaze? Depends on options and mix...
Double glazed aluminium awning = 130% (U value 3.5) Double glazed aluminium awning with Low-E = 150% (U value 2.7) Double glazed PVC = 150% (U value 2.7) Double glazed PVC with Low-E = 180% (U value 2.1) "ECOECO" At 'EcoEco', we design windows, we design the best windows, we do it for you, so that when you’re happy we are happy. Tel. 1800 326 326 Re: RANT: Why we're not eco..... 69Nov 15, 2008 9:59 pm EcoClassic Windows is the biggest energy leak in any design. Actually the ceiling is the biggest energy leak usually followed by poor weathersealing and weatherisation of the dwelling. Then comes windows and walls and lastly floor. http://www.yourhome.gov.au/technical/fs47.html http://www.yourhome.gov.au/technical/fs45.html Re: RANT: Why we're not eco..... 70Nov 16, 2008 10:55 pm dymonite69 EcoClassic Windows is the biggest energy leak in any design. Actually the ceiling is the biggest energy leak usually followed by poor weathersealing and weatherisation of the dwelling. Then comes windows and walls and lastly floor. http://www.yourhome.gov.au/technical/fs47.html http://www.yourhome.gov.au/technical/fs45.html From your second link... Windows and glazing In terms of energy efficiency, glazing is a very important element of the building envelope. In insulated buildings it is the element through which most heat is lost and gained. Glazing transfers both radiant and conducted heat. "ECOECO" At 'EcoEco', we design windows, we design the best windows, we do it for you, so that when you’re happy we are happy. Tel. 1800 326 326 Re: RANT: Why we're not eco..... 71Nov 17, 2008 12:17 am EcoClassic In terms of energy efficiency, glazing is a very important element of the building envelope. In insulated buildings it is the element through which most heat is lost and gained. Glazing transfers both radiant and conducted heat. Exactly. First spend your $$$ on weather sealing and good insulation. That will make a BIG difference to your energy bill (may drop it by more than a half). If you have money left over, then add insulated window units but the savings become incrementally less. See here for a case example: Energy bill (initial) $2435 pa After draught proofing $983 After wall insulation + double glazed retrofit $875 After upgrading ceiling insulation to R3.5 $814 http://www.ecomaster.com.au/casestudy_05.cfm Re: RANT: Why we're not eco..... 72Nov 17, 2008 6:36 am dymonite69 EcoClassic In terms of energy efficiency, glazing is a very important element of the building envelope. In insulated buildings it is the element through which most heat is lost and gained. Glazing transfers both radiant and conducted heat. Exactly. First spend your $$$ on weather sealing and good insulation. That will make a BIG difference to your energy bill (may drop it by more than a half). If you have money left over, then add insulated window units but the savings become incrementally less. See here for a case example: Energy bill (initial) $2435 pa After draught proofing $983 After wall insulation + double glazed retrofit $875 After upgrading ceiling insulation to R3.5 $814 http://www.ecomaster.com.au/casestudy_05.cfm Errr - you're quoting a commercial case study to promote their product and services to support your argument? "ECOECO" At 'EcoEco', we design windows, we design the best windows, we do it for you, so that when you’re happy we are happy. Tel. 1800 326 326 Re: RANT: Why we're not eco..... 73Nov 17, 2008 8:03 am EcoClassic Errr - you're quoting a commercial case study to promote their product and services to support your argument? Yes. Pretty bad advertisement for a company huh? They try to give a real life example of using their products. They seem to indicate that the more you spend on them, the less money you get back on your energy bill. They saved their client big $$$ from a relatively cheap service - draught proofing. After that the savings became a little hard to come by. Adding their double glazing achieved nothing like the 40-60% reduction in energy you quoted. In what context was your figure.? Their example is hardly surprising. The effects are at the best multiplicative, not additive. 50% reduction with one intervention with 50% by another one gives a quarter of the original (50%x50%) not a 100% reduction ( 50% - 50%). Re: RANT: Why we're not eco..... 74Nov 17, 2008 4:22 pm dymonite69 EcoClassic Errr - you're quoting a commercial case study to promote their product and services to support your argument? Yes. Pretty bad advertisement for a company huh? They try to give a real life example of using their products. They seem to indicate that the more you spend on them, the less money you get back on your energy bill. They saved their client big $$$ from a relatively cheap service - draught proofing. My point was that you have asked me to provide non-commercial proof for my claims when you write elsewhere in the forum (windows & Doors - see below). Yet here you are quoting a company's advertising blurb to support your case. I feel you are manipulating the data to suit your argument. This case study is about as accurate as Mars bar commercial saying it gives you energy. Where is the empirical evidence? Under what conditions were the data derived? What's the address? dymonite69 EcoClassic Since most have walls and a roof then windows represent 40% - 60% of heat loss (or gain). So if you have 3x the insulation then you will reduce the 60% to 20% and save 40% on your heating or cooling. As I said I have no commercial interests to declare. If you have other primary research (non-commercial) data then feel free to share with us all. Please give us your non-commercial empirical data. Meanwhile.. let's get on the same page, agree with me on something, for a given house design in a given orientation: -
2. U values represent the energy in watts consumed to compensate for energy losses/gains through windows (m2/ deg Celsius), yes? 3. Therefore, disregarding all other energy losses/gains in the home, the amount of energy required to compensate for the losses/gains through windows and bring the temperature in the home to a comfort level is the result of the calculation: - (window area) x (u value) x (temperature difference, external to desired internal). 4. Nothing else you can do to the fabric of the home can alter that, it is a fact - correct? 5. The amount that the total above represents as a percentage of the total energy losses or gains for any home will vary as a percentage according to the remaining losses/gains in the home? Yes? Thanks for the debate, I appreciate your input and your passion. "ECOECO" At 'EcoEco', we design windows, we design the best windows, we do it for you, so that when you’re happy we are happy. Tel. 1800 326 326 Re: RANT: Why we're not eco..... 75Nov 17, 2008 7:06 pm EcoClassic Errr - you're quoting a commercial case study to promote their product and services to support your argument? dymonite69 Yes. Pretty bad advertisement for a company huh? They seem to indicate that the more you spend on them, the less money you get back on your energy bill. EcoClassic Yet here you are quoting a company's advertising blurb to support your case. I feel you are manipulating the data to suit your argument. EcoClassic Meanwhile.. let's get on the same page, agree with me on something, for a given house design in a given orientation: -
2. U values represent the energy in watts consumed to compensate for energy losses/gains through windows (m2/ deg Celsius), yes? 3. Therefore, disregarding all other energy losses/gains in the home, the amount of energy required to compensate for the losses/gains through windows and bring the temperature in the home to a comfort level is the result of the calculation: - (window area) x (u value) x (temperature difference, external to desired internal). 4. Nothing else you can do to the fabric of the home can alter that, it is a fact - correct? 5. The amount that the total above represents as a percentage of the total energy losses or gains for any home will vary as a percentage according to the remaining losses/gains in the home? Yes? 1 to 4 - All yes. These are all calculations to model the impact of convective heat transfer 5 - No. You haven't considered other factors. Modeling energy gains and losses is complicated by diurnal variation. It's never at equilibrium. If it were than it would be a simple matter of using just the formulae above. People also conceptualise temperature as something given to you by the weather station or read off your thermometer at home. This measures air temperature but does not consider the 'operative' temperature of the environment. The building can also act as a capacitor. There is more than enough energy on a sunny day not only to keep the house warm but the excess can be stored in the thermal mass of the building that forms a source of useful energy that is independent of convective transfer (you quote the Your Home manual that 1m2 of window admits as much energy as a bar radiator i.e. 1 kw - this calculation is a reasonable estimate based on the solar insolation in most capital cites). This leads us to consider another factor which is harder for most people to grasp - thermal comfort. This is a function of several physical factors; that includes not only ambient air temperature but also air movement, humidity and lastly mean radiant temperature. Each of these act together to provide an 'operative temperature' experienced by the individual. Low U windows mainly influence ambient air temperature. However, the 'free' stored energy gained by the building during the day can raise the mean radiant temperature of the house. Whilst windows are relatively transparent to long wave heat energy (except for low-e windows) through which some of this energy passes, it is the direct irradiation of the occupants which also contributes to the sensation of warmth and comfort. EcoClassic Thanks for the debate, I appreciate your input and your passion. Thank you. I enjoy this as long it in in the spirit of discovery. It also helps me try to explain things better in a way that people can understand. Re: RANT: Why we're not eco..... 76Nov 17, 2008 8:14 pm dymonite69 EcoClassic Errr - you're quoting a commercial case study to promote their product and services to support your argument? dymonite69 Yes. Pretty bad advertisement for a company huh? They seem to indicate that the more you spend on them, the less money you get back on your energy bill. EcoClassic Yet here you are quoting a company's advertising blurb to support your case. I feel you are manipulating the data to suit your argument. You would think that a company that deals with a raft of eco-products would try their best to push all of them ... Or maybe expect that they would...
2. Push the product or service that yields the highest margin. Or 3. Push the product or service that they have - I think it unlikely the company can provide cost effective double glazing when there are 100s of companies who make this who can compete much better than they. dymonite69 5 - No. That is "no" to... the percentage that heat loses in windows represent in a whole house is relative to the total heat losses in the whole house... "No", you say??? "ECOECO" At 'EcoEco', we design windows, we design the best windows, we do it for you, so that when you’re happy we are happy. Tel. 1800 326 326 Re: RANT: Why we're not eco..... 77Nov 17, 2008 8:27 pm It's been interesting to read this debate although I admit I have skimmed in parts. But a couple of quick questions
1) Does neither of you have access to AccuRate and can simply take a reasonable design and compare the energy use with single vs double glazing? That would be a lot simpler than a long and rambling argument 2) Burbank markets their Future line mainly on the basis of being 7 star rate, not on the basis of individual eco-oriented inclusions. You would expect them to go for best bang-for-buck i.e. the cheapest way to achieve that rating. And guess what, they use double glazing. Either Burbank are silly or double glazing gives good efficiency gains for the price. (On the other hand maybe they are just silly... a H3nley rep yesterday tried to tell me that 7 or 8 stars is easy to get and many of their houses would probably meet this because they have energy efficient appliances ) Re: RANT: Why we're not eco..... 78Nov 17, 2008 8:39 pm russell 1) Does neither of you have access to AccuRate and can simply take a reasonable design and compare the energy use with single vs double glazing? That would be a lot simpler than a long and rambling argument Not me, sorry. But the data in AccuRate is WERS. So it won't deviate much from the results in WERS. If it does I would look at AccuRate... russell 2) Burbank markets their Future line mainly on the basis of being 7 star rate, not on the basis of individual eco-oriented inclusions. You would expect them to go for best bang-for-buck i.e. the cheapest way to achieve that rating. And guess what, they use double glazing. Either Burbank are silly or double glazing gives good efficiency gains for the price. Burbank made a policy decision to go double glazed and use that as their marketing position. Others "appear" to achieve the same result with 3mm single glazing russell (On the other hand maybe they are just silly... a H3nley rep yesterday tried to tell me that 7 or 8 stars is easy to get and many of their houses would probably meet this because they have energy efficient appliances ) I think you can write "Henley"... they are not so shy . Yes appliances make all the difference, you just cut out the little stars on each appliance and stick them all on your 3mm single glazed windows - hey presto 27 star windows... "ECOECO" At 'EcoEco', we design windows, we design the best windows, we do it for you, so that when you’re happy we are happy. Tel. 1800 326 326 Re: RANT: Why we're not eco..... 79Nov 17, 2008 9:15 pm EcoClassic Or maybe expect that they would...
2. Push the product or service that yields the highest margin. Or 3. Push the product or service that they have If I were a slightly less honourable company than I would get my foot in the door by pushing the product which gives the highest benefit for the lowest cost (but not suggest to the customer that all the other products won't get you the same bang for your buck). And yet that's what this company didn't do. Re: RANT: Why we're not eco..... 80Nov 17, 2008 9:25 pm EcoClassic That is "no" to... the percentage that heat loses in windows represent in a whole house is relative to the total heat losses in the whole house... "No", you say??? The net loss is constant but one needs to consider the gain side of the equation. That was implicit in your initial question. Your model for the net thermal energy contained in the building assumes that energy transfer is in stable equilibrium. Your previous calculations are based on a non-varying flux of incoming energy and outgoing energy based on the insulative effects of its components. It assumes that the temperature gradient remains constant and that it is impossible to get an energy 'credit' which can be 'dipped' into to provide sufficient warmth for its occupants. Passive solar design is about using the surplus energy obtained during the day to payback at night. That sucks! Hope it all works out. Good to move away from steel anyway for all your reasons, but it's also thermally poor. 16 18180 Hi All, I just wanted to close this topic out with an update. So we ended up agreeing to a number with the insurance company, and after an extensive amount of hand… 8 24156 A Sabco spin mop, minimal moisture, not very regularly. I was told these hybrids are water resistant 🤷♀️ 2 9315 |