In this essay, we have compared a conventional house to a passive house. The houses
shared the same local conditions; they have the same living area and the same layout. The
differences between the houses were the different construction solutions for the roof, the
outer walls, the floor and the heating system. Both the houses qualify the standards from
BBR and the passive house also lives up to FEBY
s special conditions.
The purpose with the essay was to examine if it really is profitable to build small hoses as
passive houses. We chose to answer the question through studying the investment costs on
the houses and investigate how different they were. Then, with consideration to the
difference in energy consumption between the two, do a cost analysis to reach a verdict.
From our cost analysis, we gather that it will cost around 5 percent more to build the house
as a passive house. Although, at the same time the energy consumption will decrease with
37 percent per year, this leads to a saved amount of 3424 kr per year. We gather that during
the first 21 years of living in the house, we will not regain our investment. Finally at year 22
and thereafter we will make a saving, it turns out to be about 96 000 kr over the time of 50
years living in the house.
2012. , 119 p.