Quote:
Originally Posted by Jedi Ninja
The thermal imaging is cool, but the scores do not pass the sniff test. The old, poorly insulated homes in Bowness have the highest scores, while the newer homes in Cougar/Aspen etc. rate poorly. The scores correlate almost perfectly with ground elevation, perhaps there is something they need to account for in terms of either background temperature levels (being warmer down low) or something to do with the elevation of the aircraft versus ground elevation.
|
Quote:
|
Part of that difference may reflect the fact that the heat loss index weights for the larger living areas and stricter building code in effect at the time those subdivisions were developed, but Hay said it may also point to the fact that some new homes are not as well built as they’re billed.
|
I think the above is key. The scores aren't being directly compared to each other but from that statement it appears that if two house one built in the 1930s and one built in the 2000 emit the same amount of heat the one built in 1930 will have a better score. I would rather see raw data in terms of watts / squate foot or watts per property.
The scores you are seeing are predicable given the above as an 1930's house would get credit for insulating the roof whereas the 2000 house alread has its roof insulated.
I think I need to read more into the methodology of computing the score. This is one of my pet peaves with "SCORES". Why not just give data and let people do their own comparison.
EDIT: It does look like they give you data when you drill down to the actual house. Very disappointed that a brief outline of methodology is not found on their website. Now I have to read the 3 papers they linked.