planning:calculating_energy_efficiency:energy_balances_-_background
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision | |||
planning:calculating_energy_efficiency:energy_balances_-_background [2018/06/22 12:46] – [What is the correct reference value?] cblagojevic | planning:calculating_energy_efficiency:energy_balances_-_background [2020/08/03 14:57] (current) – [Discussion about the purpose of heating] wfeist | ||
---|---|---|---|
Line 46: | Line 46: | ||
- There are often critical remarks about the the calculation method too:\\ ** Can (stationary) U-values be used in calculations at all? Isn't the heat storage more important than the thermal insulation, and isn't the whole U-value calculation method incorrect? | - There are often critical remarks about the the calculation method too:\\ ** Can (stationary) U-values be used in calculations at all? Isn't the heat storage more important than the thermal insulation, and isn't the whole U-value calculation method incorrect? | ||
\\ | \\ | ||
+ | ==== Can a similar approach also be used to calculate the cooling demand? ==== | ||
+ | |||
+ | Yes, it can. It is exactely the same balance - the utilisation factor will now be applied to potentially remaining heat losses. This is implemented as the active cooling sheet in PHPP.\\ | ||
+ | |||
+ | It is also possible, to give an assessment of the thermal comfort if no active cooling is available: The is based on the [[: | ||
+ | | ||
+ | \\ \\ | ||
===== Reference area: Treated Floor Area ===== | ===== Reference area: Treated Floor Area ===== | ||
planning/calculating_energy_efficiency/energy_balances_-_background.1529664383.txt.gz · Last modified: 2018/06/22 12:46 by cblagojevic