WSU Energy Program Logo
Bonneville Power Administration Logo
  • Home
  • About
  • Database
      • Browse
      • Energy Systems
        • Building Envelope
        • Electronics
        • HVAC
        • Irrigation
        • Lighting
        • Motors & Drives
        • Multiple Energy Systems
        • Power Systems
        • Process Loads & Appliances
        • Refrigeration
        • Transportation
        • Water Heating
      • Sector
        • Agricultural
        • Commercial
        • Industrial
        • Residential
        • Utility
  • TAG Portal
      • 2017 Residential Lighting TAG (#14)
      • 2016 Multifamily Building TAG (#13)
      • 2015-1 Commercial HVAC TAG (#11)
      • 2014 Residential Building TAG (#10)
      • 2014 Commercial Building TAG (#9)
      • 2013 Information Technology TAG (#8)
      • 2013 ALCS TAG (#7)
      • 2012 Smart Thermostat TAG (#6)
      • 2012 LED Lighting TAG (#5)
      • 2011 Energy Management TAG (#4)
      • 2010 HVAC TAG (#3)
      • 2009 HVAC TAG (#2)
      • 2009 Lighting TAG (#1)
  • Webinars
    • Webinar Archives
  • Glossary
>

Summary

Passive House

Building Design: Passive House vs. Conventional

A voluntary residential design and construction standard originating in Europe focused on maximizing performance of a home's thermal envelope in order to reduce the heating or cooling load to less than 4.75 kBtu/ft2-yr in any climate zone.

Synopsis:

The Passivhaus standard was first conceived in 1988 from a conversation between two European University Professors. Through several research projects this concept was developed into a robust standard. As of 2010, an estimated 25,000+ structures have been built to the Passivhaus standard in Europe. The standard is applied to both residential and commercial buildings.

In 2006, the first home built to the Passivhaus standard In the United States was built in Bemidji, Minnesota. In the United States the Passivhaus standard is referred to as the Passive House Program (PHP). Despite its recent arrival to the United States market, the PHP has gained quick acceptance by several regional energy efficient construction advocates and associations throughout the country.

What sets the PHP standard apart from other nationally and regionally recognized energy efficient building programs is its rigorous focus on the performance of the building envelope. Most noteworthy is that the standard limits a home to 4.75 kBtu/sf/yr in primary energy for the heating load and 38.1 kBtu/sf/yr in primary energy for whole house energy consumption. These targets are achieved primarily by maximizing R-values, reducing or eliminating thermal bridging and limiting air leakage rates by improved process and improved air-sealing materials. In general, to achieve these targets, a Passive House will see R-values above 45 for walls, 65 for ceilings and 65 for floors with window U-factors between 0.1 and 0.2 in US DOE climate Zone 4-5 . Characteristics of the building encloser will vary significantly with climate. Design optimization and certification are verified with the use of a proprietary tool, the Passive House Planning Package (PHPP) which is based in an Excel spread sheet.

Energy Savings: 50%
Energy Savings Rating: Limited Assessment  What's this?
LevelStatusDescription
1Concept not validatedClaims of energy savings may not be credible due to lack of documentation or validation by unbiased experts.
2Concept validated:An unbiased expert has validated efficiency concepts through technical review and calculations based on engineering principles.
3Limited assessmentAn unbiased expert has measured technology characteristics and factors of energy use through one or more tests in typical applications with a clear baseline.
4Extensive assessmentAdditional testing in relevant applications and environments has increased knowledge of performance across a broad range of products, applications, and system conditions.
5Comprehensive analysisResults of lab and field tests have been used to develop methods for reliable prediction of performance across the range of intended applications.
6Approved measureProtocols for technology application are established and approved.

Status: Next Steps based on Identification Stage (Stage Gate 1): Accept

Details

Passive House

Building Design: Passive House vs. Conventional

A voluntary residential design and construction standard originating in Europe focused on maximizing performance of a home's thermal envelope in order to reduce the heating or cooling load to less than 4.75 kBtu/ft2-yr in any climate zone.
Item ID: 243
Sector: Residential
Energy System: Multiple Energy Systems--Design
Technical Advisory Group: 2011 Energy Management TAG (#4)
Average TAG Rating: 2.07 out of 5
TAG Ranking Date: 09/29/2011
TAG Rating Commentary:
  1. Not really energy management
  2. Not a technology per se.
  3. Almost certainly not cost-effective. Does not seem like energy mgmt.
  4. Voluntary rarely has significant penetration. Much more support for advanced codes and standards.
  5. Already exists.

Synopsis:

The Passivhaus standard was first conceived in 1988 from a conversation between two European University Professors. Through several research projects this concept was developed into a robust standard. As of 2010, an estimated 25,000+ structures have been built to the Passivhaus standard in Europe. The standard is applied to both residential and commercial buildings.

In 2006, the first home built to the Passivhaus standard In the United States was built in Bemidji, Minnesota. In the United States the Passivhaus standard is referred to as the Passive House Program (PHP). Despite its recent arrival to the United States market, the PHP has gained quick acceptance by several regional energy efficient construction advocates and associations throughout the country.

What sets the PHP standard apart from other nationally and regionally recognized energy efficient building programs is its rigorous focus on the performance of the building envelope. Most noteworthy is that the standard limits a home to 4.75 kBtu/sf/yr in primary energy for the heating load and 38.1 kBtu/sf/yr in primary energy for whole house energy consumption. These targets are achieved primarily by maximizing R-values, reducing or eliminating thermal bridging and limiting air leakage rates by improved process and improved air-sealing materials. In general, to achieve these targets, a Passive House will see R-values above 45 for walls, 65 for ceilings and 65 for floors with window U-factors between 0.1 and 0.2 in US DOE climate Zone 4-5 . Characteristics of the building encloser will vary significantly with climate. Design optimization and certification are verified with the use of a proprietary tool, the Passive House Planning Package (PHPP) which is based in an Excel spread sheet.

Baseline Example:

Baseline Description: Conventional design and construction strategies
Baseline Energy Use: 10.8 kWh per year per square foot

Comments:

Taken from 2011 RBSA (http://neea.org/docs/reports/residential-building-stock-assessment-single-family-characteristics-and-energy-use.pdf?sfvrsn=8). Used overall average of all single-family homes.

Manufacturer's Energy Savings Claims: Currently no data available.
Best Estimate of Energy Savings:

"Typical" Savings: 50%
Energy Savings Reliability: 3 - Limited Assessment

Comments:

Wide range of possible savings, depending on how well this is done. 50% is fairly conservative, assuming that most of HVAC is eliminated, but other loads are relatively unchanged from standard.

Energy Use of Emerging Technology:
5.4 kWh per square foot per year What's this?

Energy Use of an Emerging Technology is based upon the following algorithm.

Baseline Energy Use - (Baseline Energy Use * Best Estimate of Energy Savings (either Typical savings OR the high range of savings.))

Technical Potential:
Units: square foot
Currently no data available.
First Cost: Currently no data available.

Cost Effectiveness:

Simple payback, new construction (years): N/A

Simple payback, retrofit (years): N/A

What's this?

Cost Effectiveness is calculated using baseline energy use, best estimate of typical energy savings, and first cost. It does not account for factors such as impacts on O&M costs (which could be significant if product life is greatly extended) or savings of non-electric fuels such as natural gas. Actual overall cost effectiveness could be significantly different based on these other factors.

Reference and Citations:

James Brew, 01/01/2011. Achieving Passivhaus Standard in North America: Lessons Learned
ASHRAE Transactions

Lynn Meyer, 07/12/2012. Passive Housing for an Aggressive Region
U.S. Department of Energy

Katrin Klingenberg, 08/23/2012. PHIUS + and DOE Challenge Home Partnership
Passive House Institute US

Lynne Clearfield, 01/31/2011. Passive House, Aggressive Conservation
Solar Today , 25

Stephen Frey, 03/03/2011. Passivehaus to our Haus?
Metropolis Magazine

Thomas Bednar, 09/25/2013. Performance and Experiences with Austrian Demonstration Projects for Lowest-Energy Houses (Passive Houses) in Social Housing
ASHRAE

Jeff Wendland, 04/09/2012. The “Passive House:” Finally a Reality
Home Energy Pros

NAPHN, 01/01/2014. Welcome to the North American Passive House Network
North American Passive House Network

Passive House Institute, 09/14/2011. PHPP (Passive House Planning Package) Software
Passive House Institute

PH, 01/01/2014. Passive House Alliance Homepage
Passive House Alliance - United States

iPHA, 01/01/2014. The International Passive House Association Homepage
International Passive House Association

IPHC, 05/19/2007. Information on Passive House
International Passive House Conference

PHNW, 01/01/2014. Passive House Northwest Home Page
Pacific House Northwest

PHIUS, 01/01/2011. What is a Passive House?
Passive House Institute US

Wikipedia, 02/02/2014. Passive House
Wikipedia

Rank & Scores

Passive House

2011 Energy Management TAG (#4)


Technical Advisory Group: 2011 Energy Management TAG (#4)
TAG Ranking: 39 out of 59
Average TAG Rating: 2.07 out of 5
TAG Ranking Date: 09/29/2011
TAG Rating Commentary:

  1. Not really energy management
  2. Not a technology per se.
  3. Almost certainly not cost-effective. Does not seem like energy mgmt.
  4. Voluntary rarely has significant penetration. Much more support for advanced codes and standards.
  5. Already exists.


Contact
Copyright 2023 Washington State University
disclaimer and privacy policies

Bonneville Power Administration Logo