[throw0101c]

> What a discovery. That's not the case of 99,99% of buildings on this planet though.

Which is already being addressed:

> Key to the PGH approach is balancing expenditures and gains. Where other programs use specific energy-use targets or other criteria, and the building code establishes a baseline (“the worst house you can legally build”), a PGH goes above code until it stops making financial sense. On some new homes, that may be not far above code, and on other projects performance may rival that of a Passive House, but in most cases it will be somewhere in between those two standards.

* https://www.prettygoodhouse.org/economics

Being able to live at 22C, 40-60% RH, and filtered air exchange via ERV, isn't as difficult as going to the moon. An increase of 5-10% in building cost for better air sealing, a little more insulation (and reducing thermal bridging), and some mechanicals isn't crazy.

[pjerem]

> An increase of 5-10% in building cost for better air sealing, a little more insulation (and reducing thermal bridging), and some mechanicals isn't crazy.

Yes but you forgot the part where the vast majority of the world population don't live in a brand new building.

Insulating my not so old house (1998) to be up to the modern norms would cost me something like 50/60k€.

[throw0101c]

> Insulating my not so old house (1998) to be up to the modern norms would cost me something like 50/60k€.

I grew up in a house built in ~1898. I know about old houses. There was still some piping in it for gas lighting (before electricity was "invented").

[hd95489]

But it is crazy a new home is like 300k just for the house maybe closer to 400-500k for anything decent on the coasts. 30-50k buys a lot of electricity or nat gas.