That is one of the problems: most people think in terms of ROI (return on investment) alone, rather than balancing that with what is simply what is the right thing to do, or what is the best thing to do. Not to mention that it is far more than just about money. It's about year-round comfort by maintaining the same temperature; it's about health, due to very low dust and no mould; it's about building longevity since, if it's built right, it won't have mould, rot, or insect issues. Less maintenance means lower costs in the long-term.
One of the main problems is industry. Industry in general can be very resistant to change and so is very slow to adopt new methods and technologies. This is often because "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." If what they do "works," then why change? Of course, that is often just ignorance of how relatively poor things are built compared to what they could be. And industry is usually powerful and can lobby governments to be able to keep doing what they're doing.
There are jurisdictions of various sorts, such as cities, around the world where Passive House (PH) is the standard for any new building.
It may sound like it, but that is far from the truth. There are single family and multi-family dwellings, large office buildings, apartment buildings, schools, supermarkets, and social housing. In my province there is even a car dealership that is certified PH.
Here is good example that wasn't a new build, but a retrofit (EnerPHit in Passive House talk), reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 94%:
https://www.eraarch.ca/projects/ken-soble-tower-transformation/
(EnerPHit is a slightly more relaxed standard than PH, as it is much more difficult to hit the targets of PH in an existing building, largely due to the difficulties in achieving a low enough airtightness and reducing thermal bridges.)
The best part is, it's for seniors. Just like other jurisdictions in the world where all social housing has to be built to the PH standard, this gives some of the poorest the cheapest bills. From a Christian perspective, that helps the poor by being a good steward of earthly resources.
Another example:
https://vancouver.ca/home-property-development/coal-harbour-project-phase-2.aspx
"Passive House certification is an internationally recognized certification for ultra-low energy buildings that generally require 90% less heating energy and 60% less overall energy than typical buildings in Vancouver."
I'm not sure what you mean building "in the dirt for insulation."
Not through those two things alone, no. But windows are the best bang for the buck, as they account for 25-30% of residential heating and cooling costs, according to the U.S. Department of Energy. There are a number of additional things to reduce energy use, such as increasing airtightness, reducing thermal bridging (where materials transfer heat, in various ways, through walls, roofs, etc.), and having good ventilation, typically using an HRV which can recover upwards of 90% of heat already in a building (must be minimum 75% for PH).
That's a huge oversimplification. For one thing, windows built to PH standards are going to last far longer than standard windows. You'll be replacing standard windows two or three times, minimum, before you replace PH windows, as long as the installation was done correctly. As I stated already, a house built properly to the standard will have no maintenance issues as far as the structure is concerned.
But, it also depends on where one lives and the energy costs, as well as the size and design of the building. The U.S. may have relatively cheap energy compared to other places in the world. Even then, the monthly cost is going to vary depending on where one lives in the U.S. Florida has a very different climate than Phoenix, Colorado, and Chicago. In many locations, it can and does save people hundreds of dollars a month on their heating and cooling costs.
And that is a problem with buyer mentality, rather than being willing to pay additionally for the right reasons or consider the other benefits. The main benefit is significantly lowering energy use and the stress on the environment. Of course, the more people that build to that standard, the cheaper it becomes for everyone.
First, that isn't just homes, as I pointed out earlier, but it does include many multi-family buildings. Second, if people don't know about it, and most don't, they aren't going to build to it. Third, many people in the world live in very poor countries, where many don't even really have homes. Looking at the map, it's easy to see that most PH buildings are in wealthier countries. If it's hard to get a standard home built in a poor country, then a PH is likely going to happen.
Yes, a large majority are in colder climates because they work really, really well. The bonus is that if the power ever goes out in the dead of winter, the house will never reach freezing, so no burst pipes. But some are also in hot climates because as long as they're built accordingly, they work well to keep the heat out.
For sure. I am not at all rich and live in a 1,050 sqft (above grade), 1980's townhouse. My electric bill last month was $126. That's cheap for where I live, and that's summer (winter obviously gets more expensive). Single family homes are regularly in the hundreds of dollars just for electricity, which typically is only used to heat the home by providing energy to a furnace running natural gas.
It's going to depend on where it's built, as temperature and humidity determine what materials and amounts of those materials are needed, and the overall design. But, take the city of Vancouver in Canada, for example, for which any new municipal building must be built to Passive House standards. Building there to that standard has come down to around 2-7% additional cost over a building built to common industry standards.
If someone is building a new house, 2-7% additional cost isn't really much at all. If I remember correctly, there have been some that have built for right around the same cost.
