GBA Logo horizontal Facebook LinkedIn Email Pinterest Twitter Instagram YouTube Icon Navigation Search Icon Main Search Icon Video Play Icon Audio Play Icon Headphones Icon Plus Icon Minus Icon Check Icon Print Icon Picture icon Single Arrow Icon Double Arrow Icon Hamburger Icon TV Icon Close Icon Sorted Hamburger/Search Icon
Q&A Spotlight

Passivhaus Design in Minnesota

Is Passivhaus certification so important that it justifies building an R-80 wall?

Structural insulated panels are one option that a GBA reader is considering for the R-80 walls he will need in order to achieve Passivhaus certification for his new house.
Image Credit: Craig Miller Productions

As net-zero energy and Passivhaus-certified houses become more commonplace, it’s not at all unusual to hear of exterior walls rated at R-40 or R-50. But that’s not going to be nearly good enough for Tom Schmidt, who’s building a 3,800-square-foot house in Minnesota.

R-80 is more like it, and the walls need to be “cost-effective” as well as not too thick.

Schmidt’s quest has apparently been prompted by a design that places living space over a garage. According to Schmidt’s Passivhaus consultant, this configuration brings with it some energy penalties and results in the need for additional insulation.

“We have already gone through a couple passes to make it as efficient as possible and are at the point where the only change left that would have a big impact would be to take the garage out from under the living area and have it separate,” Schmidt explains in a post at GBA’s Q&A forum.

“I like the current design (it took us two years to get to this point between the back and forth with my wife) and I want to have the house certified. I could pass on the certification and still have a very high-performing house, but honestly I think it’s cool and want it.”

Schmidt says he has investigated a number of options and is currently leaning toward structural insulated panels filled with expanded polystyrene (EPS).

“Vacuum insulated panels sound interesting, but I don’t know if they are meant for an entire external envelope,” he adds. “The goal is to still keep it cost effective. I just don’t want a 3-foot wall to do it.”

Are Schmidt’s goals achievable? And even if they are, are they reasonable? That’s the topic for this Q&A Spotlight.

Return on investment is clearly not important

GBA senior editor Martin Holladay suggests that Schmidt might want to emulate the details used by Thorten Chlupp (a builder in Alaska who built R-75 walls insulated with cellulose) or the details used by Tom Marsik (a builder in Alaska who built 28-inch-thick R-103 walls insulated with cellulose).

Holladay says that the least expensive way to get to the R-value that Schmidt is looking for is probably with a double-stud wall 22 inches thick that’s packed with cellulose insulation. “Of course,” he adds, “on the day that your insulation contractor comes to do the dense packing, you’ll need several tractor-trailer loads of cellulose.”

What about dense-packing the walls with hundred dollar bills? (That was Stephen Sheehy’s suggestion.) Or, Jesse Thompson suggests, building two rigid geodesic domes, one inside the other, with a vacuum pump that evacuates the space between then.

This is the kind of thing that gives Passivhaus construction a bad name, says Peter L. It’s really about bragging rights and seeing how much money a homeowner can use for construction.

It’s all crazy talk, says Nick Welch. “Stuffing a 3,800-square-foot house with R-80 walls to get a [Passivhaus] certification is like putting five Prius engines in a Hummer so you can drive in the carpool lane,” he writes. “…However, it also piques my morbid curiosity, and I would love to see pics of it actually built this way.”

Schmidt has no illusions about the quixotic nature of his pursuit. “I fully realize I am likely at a point where the [return on investment] is difficult to justify or ever pay itself back,” Schmidt replies. “I am essentially over-engineering something that doesn’t need it to meet the demands of a standard that doesn’t handle my particular design very well. All to satisfy my desire to have a piece of paper that says my house meets a particular standard.”

In reality, Schmidt is chasing the wrong goal

There’s no real reason to design R-80 walls, writes Dana Dorsett, because it should be possible to win Passivhaus certification with walls in the R-50 neighborhood, even in Climate Zone 7. But having conditioned space over the garage probably won’t work.

“The other way to go would be to shoot for net zero energy rather than Passive House, buying your thinner walls with a PV-clad roof,” Dorsett says “It’s probably less expensive overall, and you could probably keep the space over the garage.”

With the cost of a photovoltaic (PV) system now under $4 a watt in Dorsett’s area (and $2 a watt in Germany), and the availability of high-efficiency ductless minisplit heat pumps, there are more appealing avenues that Schmidt might choose.

“In 20 years, when it’s time to replace the heat pumps and/or PV,” he says, “the PV will cost less than half as much, and the heat pumps will have gained in efficiency. The full life cyle cost of heating with ductless heat pumps and $3/watt PV is on par with natural gas in some places, and in 20 years it will be dramatically cheaper than it is today, making the 50-, 75-, 100-year outlook even more favorable for site-produced power and heat pumps than over-the-top super insulation.

“Methinks R-80 is only ‘cost-effective’ in terms of meeting your certification goals, but those certifications have little to do with breaking even on energy costs over the next 100 years, or what’s actually nice for the planet,” Dorsett says.

But if you insist, there are ways to get there

One way of accomplishing the R-80 wall, says Jerry Liebler, is to use a double 2×4 wall filled with mineral wood or blown-in fiberglass. With an overall wall thickness of 19 1/2 inches (plus drywall and sheathing), Schmidt would get to R-82. And, Liebler adds, the added cost over an R-40 wall would be about $2 a square foot.

Whatever you do, writes Jason Hyde, you’re going to need a multi-layered assembly, and no matter what wall assembly eventually wins, it will be thick.

“Build a SIP home and clad it with outstation,” Hyde continues. “Basically a double-stud wall but the inner wall is [a] SIP. This outsulation could be [dense-packed cellulose], blown fiberglass, mineral wool, whatever. The main advantage here is that you get SIPs up quickly (weathered in) and then can proceed with the outsulation. The drawbacks here, in addition to the standard SIP drawbacks, are that you still must frame an outer wall.

“I would have suggested doing what Go Logic has been doing (successfully) and do a stick frame clad with SIPs,” he says, “but to hit R-80, your inner wall would need to be made out of 2x10s or 2x12s.”

If the problem is the garage below the conditioned space, adds AJ Builder, possibly the solution would be to beef up the garage doors. “So, maybe install two garage doors, one behind the other — superinsulated custom doors,” he says. “Be kind of cool to have a stack of doors opening with about a foot of lift delay each… Watching the babies go up and down would make hanging out in front of them in your Tesla a great place to be. Pop a cold IPA.”

Our expert’s opinion

Here’s what GBA technical director Peter Yost has to say:

There are two questions posed here: Can Schmidt’s goals be achieved? And are they reasonable? These two questions may seem mutually exclusive, given the design and the requirements of the Passivhaus standard. But I would argue that Schmidt’s goal of Passivhaus certification is clearly attainable, and that he simply needs to convince his lender and/or the next owner of his home that what he did is reasonable. (Translation: valuable to the next owner).

I have argued before that selecting the interest rate for payback analysis is pretty much a Ouija board exercise for even relatively short-lived goods but completely speculative for long-lived durable goods like buildings. (For more information on payback calculations, see this BuildingGreen blog, or this article by Martin Holladay: Payback Calculations for Energy-Efficiency Improvements.) If the energy performance improvements that Schmidt is considering last beyond his ownership, he just needs to find someone willing to pay for the features he has selected. This is true regardless of whether the feature is an R-80 wall or a granite countertop.

I think that a great way to design, market, or underwrite a “wildly” performing home is to link extraordinary performance with resilience: make the home self-sufficient in the face of extreme events or crises. The “payback” seems like a pretty silly singular rationale for super-high-performance in the face of the grid going down or a hurricane making every home in your neighborhood except yours uninhabitable. BuildingGreen founder Alex Wilson is spending most of this time now on this issue; see the Resilient Design Institute.


  1. Debra Glauz | | #1

    "According to Schmidt's Passivhaus consultant, this configuration brings with it some energy penalties and results in the need for additional insulation." Please elaborate on these penalties.

  2. User avater GBA Editor
    Martin Holladay | | #2

    Respose to Debra Glauz
    The energy penalty is increased heat flow through the building envelope (floors, walls, and roof).

    The cause of this energy penalty is a stretched-out shape instead of a compact shape.

    The closer one can get to achieving a compact shape (for example, a cube), the better the thermal performance. Bump-outs, ells, and cantilevered floors are a problem, because they increase the surface-to-volume ratio.

    That's the issue that Tom Schmidt was referring to when he wrote, "We designed it to have living space over the garage. My understanding from the Passive House consultant is that based on how Passive House calculates everything, you are penalized by having a tuck-under like we do."

  3. Debra Glauz | | #3

    Thank you. I understand efficient shapes. I was just making sure there wasn't some obscure penalty for parking a car underneath a living space.
    Sounds like surface/floor ratio is high so super insulating the garage ceiling, along with super insulating walls and ceiling for the living space over garage is not going to get the job done.

  4. Skip Harris | | #4

    Not cost effective, but interesting...
    When folks talk about minimizing surface area and using vacuum panels the punch line "but it only works for spherical chickens in a vacuum" comes to mind. Yes, this is extreme, but if someone really wants to do this impressive insulation level rather than, say, renting a nice shore house on Cape Cod for ten weeks, who am I to judge? And we often learn from principles taken to extremes, so go for it!

  5. Nick T - 6A (MN) | | #5

    trade offs?
    With the crazy wall structure i would think the cost would be quite high for this incremental amount of R... I would think that things like windows would be easier to upgrade ? Or better ventilator? etc?

    Or some other dial adjustment?

    Also it seems odd that someone would be so gung ho to be "certified" yet purposely make the house inefficiently laid out? Also seems odd that a few extra wall surfaces (buffered from outdoor conditions by garage walls/door) would cause this dramatic of an increase in needed R... (especially since the garage is likely at least somewhat insulated, (since its a mcmansion...))

    Kind of like buying a Prius to be enviro friendly... but then leaving it parked in the garage and driving your truck every day to work..... :-/

  6. Donald Jahnke | | #6

    I agree it is cheaper to do
    I agree it is cheaper to do PV than add all the R value for a trophy but if that's what the customer wants you build it for him. I would rather see thicker sip panels than stud walls with blow in as it still settles gravity always wins. There are a number of those built in northern MN and an infrared drive by shows that after a couple years they all settle. I wonder if they thought of a sip floor over the garage to separate the spaces.

  7. John Klingel | | #7

    Don J: "There are a number of those built in northern MN and an infrared drive by shows that after a couple years they all settle." As far as I know, cellulose packed more densely than natural settling density (1.75 to 2 pcf?) will not settle. Besides, if it did settle and the wall packing were continuous with the lid, it would not matter; you'd just have to go blow a tad more around the perimeter of the lid. That said, settling under a window would be problematic, so pack well to start with.

  8. Christian Corson | | #8

    Wait a minute?
    Hmmmm. When I plug in one of our Certified, foam free (except for sub slab and window install, the two area's that I believe should be vapor closed) cellulose filled projects, in Minn, MN. The AHD stays exactly the same. The Peak load stays the same. The primary energy demand (source energy) rises slightly. From say 99 kWh/M2a to 102 kWh/M2a. Still well within PH standards.

    Me thinks this r 80 thing has nothing to do with PH, and more to do with design/planning/consulting.

    If you want to trade R80 walls for ineffective geometry,insolation,poor glazing specs/ cheap doors whatever. That is fine. Dont have a discussion about PH. These are design issue's. Not PH issues.

    Fairbanks Alaska has 14000+ HDD , Minneapolis is around 7500HDD. Belfast Me. 7500HDD

    I would not look to Thorstons REMOTE walls unless you want a perfect example of how to build an outstanding house in Fairbanks. A 14000 HDD climate that stays light and dark for extreme periods of time.

    R80 in MN? Yes, in the roof. And then some.

Log in or create an account to post a comment.



Recent Questions and Replies

  • |
  • |
  • |
  • |