Passive House Calculator

Fifteen kilowatt-hours a square metre a year, which is about a ninth of an ordinary house.

Clear
Annual heating demand2,250 kWhPassivhaus, 15 kWh/m²/yr
Primary energy limit18,000 kWh/yreverything, not just heating
Airtightness required0.6 ACH at 50 Pawhere most of the saving actually comes from
Heating cost563at 0.25 per kWh
A typical existing house of this size19,500 kWh/yr8.7 times as much
Annual saving against that4,313
Per day6.16 kWh
Airtightness is the requirement people find hardest and where most of the saving lives — an ordinary house leaks five to ten times the Passivhaus limit, and heating air that immediately escapes is the largest loss in most buildings. Insulation without airtightness achieves far less than the numbers suggest.

The formula

annual heating = floor area * kWh per m2 per year

Fifteen kilowatt-hours a square metre

That is the Passivhaus limit for space heating, and it is roughly a ninth of what an ordinary existing house uses. The standard is defined by performance rather than by construction: it does not tell you what to build, only what the finished building must achieve.

Airtightness does most of the work

The 0.6 air changes an hour at 50 pascals is the requirement people find hardest, and it is where most of the saving comes from. An ordinary house leaks five to ten times that, and heating air that immediately escapes is the single largest loss in most buildings. Insulation without airtightness achieves far less than the figures suggest.

Which is why ventilation becomes mandatory

A building that airtight cannot rely on draughts, so mechanical ventilation with heat recovery is not an optional extra but part of the standard. It recovers 75 to 90 % of the heat from outgoing air, which is what makes the low heating demand possible at all.

How much to trust a footprint

Life-cycle figures for the same product routinely differ by a factor of two between studies, because deciding what to count — the farm, the packaging, the shop, the drive home, the disposal — is a methodological choice rather than a measurement. The numbers here are central estimates from published meta-analyses. They are reliable for comparing one option against another, which is what people actually use them for, and not reliable to the second significant figure.

The other thing worth keeping in view is scale. Individual choices matter and they are not where the emissions are: the difference between the best and worst quartile of beef producers is larger than most people's entire dietary footprint, and that is a question about agriculture policy rather than about shopping.