To achieve minimal energy use, the design and construction of zero energy buildings differ significantly in their formal image from conventional buildings. In conventionally designed buildings the emphasis is usually on reducing the initial construction cost to a minimum. Designers do not consider the costs of maintenance, operation, HVAC, energy life cycle analysis; content with complying to the limit with what is established in the building codes of the place.

In the EEC position, each decision on the important selection of each subsystem is evaluated in terms of its future consequences with respect to its energy demand, for which the life cycle energy analysis technique is used. EEC designers allow an increase in the initial construction cost if this can reduce energy demand and operating costs. A postulate for the design of an EEC is energy first.

In addition to using renewable energy, zero energy buildings are also designed to make use of energy gained from other sources, including appliances, efficient lighting, and harnessing metabolic heat (people). Buildings are optimized to take advantage of the sun's energy (passive house), use of thermal mass in order to keep the interior temperature constant regardless of external temperature variations, also raising the average interior temperature by several degrees in order to achieve hygrothermal comfort with the help of thermal insulation or super insulation. Currently there is all the knowledge and mature technology to build an EEC.

Designers typically use sophisticated numerical simulation tools that allow for consideration of a wide range of design variables such as building orientation (relative to the sun), the type and location of windows, shadows cast by other buildings or by the building itself, the depth of glazing relative to the exterior surface of walls, thermal insulation values ​​in the house subsystem, sensible heat and latent heat content of the air, the efficiency of heating, lighting and other equipment as well as the local climate. These simulations help designers know how the building will perform before it is built, and will allow them to model the financial implications and construction costs.

The designer architect or architecture studio usually hires an environmental or bioclimatic consultant to advise him or her and provide the initial design guidelines that will later be adjusted in the preliminary and project stages. Usually the environmental consultant is made up of an interdisciplinary or transdisciplinary team in which architects, engineers, physicists, industrial designers and technologists participate. This depends on the magnitude and complexity of the building.

One of the key areas of debate regarding zero energy buildings is the balance between energy conservation and the use of renewable energy.

Most zero energy building designers have the position that "consuming more equals generating more" is not enough, but quite the opposite. The building in its conception, construction and operation must demand the minimum amount of energy, and this minimum demand must be covered by renewable energies. This leads us to think about what is postulated by the passive house together with an energy efficient building. This, on the other hand, implies greatly exceeding the standards proposed by the building standards and codes of the majority of countries that have such instruments for regulating the energy quality of construction.

However, while it is recognized that energy conservation is an important piece in the game, a good number of designers consider this to be of lesser importance, and value more “active” techniques (solar photovoltaic energy, wind energy, etc.) to compensate for the energy or heat deficit.

There is a debate about the concept of a "zero energy" building among environmentalists, academics and the market. The former find that many of the built and disseminated cases do not take into account the energy return rate (ERR) when evaluating the environmental impact of the building. This means that the aim is for the building not to consume energy during its period of use. While many buildings constructed and published only consider energy expenditure in the building's operating and operating cycle, others, particularly those that underwent certification; They consider in the equation the energy cost involved in implementing the systems necessary to achieve this.

Because of this, some zero-energy buildings may fall into marketing hype rather than end-to-end lifecycle energy savings.

It may happen that in some cases the definition of a zero energy building is understood incorrectly and an example would be that a person who placed a generator and two hundred barrels of oil in their house would automatically obtain a "zero energy building", since throughout its period of use they would not need to consume energy from outside.

If we take into account that this oil or coal is also used in the manufacture of photovoltaic panels, "Battery (electricity)" batteries, tanks, etc., and also accounting for the energy used in obtaining the materials necessary for their production (mining extraction, blast furnaces, glass melting, transportation...), it is understood that the concept of "zero energy", when limited to the daily use of the building, represents only one part of the equation, and that it can lead to a wrong application.

There are professionals without sufficient training and environmental awareness who could use the concept in the wrong way and massively implement solar thermal and/or electrical generators and achieve a self-sufficient building from urban service networks and although in principle it may seem paradoxical, they are not the most ecological. This is because they are forced to oversize the active energy collection facilities, in such a way that they may never pay off.

To illustrate this, you can imagine a home that uses solar panels for heating. If you intend not to depend on outside energy (which is not what is regularly done), you will have to install enough panels to heat the home even on the coldest week of the year. If this is done, there will be panels that will only save energy one week a year; the coldest Therefore, the energy and economic cost invested in these panels will never be recovered. From one perspective, the optimal result is achieved by assuming the support of conventional energies during that colder month, that is, seeking "low energy", instead of pursuing "zero energy".

These assessments in many cases are discursive and do not have technical or scientific support, since in the current state of knowledge of the subject there is no reliable information on the energy content of all the materials and inputs involved in a construction of these characteristics. For this, it is necessary to know exactly the origin and greenhouse gas emissions of each material that enters a construction site. There will be inputs that come from China, where the energy matrix focuses on coal, others that could come from Germany or Spain with a constant growth in renewable energies. The construction and operation phase is possible to know and simulate with sufficient precision, but not the energy content of each material and the finished work. Even less is the greenhouse gas content.

It is a developing knowledge in the world at this time and therefore the need to relativize this discussion. If we seek to assert, each actor in the controversy must show technical and scientific work that supports their position for or against.

A positive energy building produces more energy than it uses, using concentrated photovoltaic solar technology.

To achieve minimal energy use, the design and construction of zero energy buildings differ significantly in their formal image from conventional buildings. In conventionally designed buildings the emphasis is usually on reducing the initial construction cost to a minimum. Designers do not consider the costs of maintenance, operation, HVAC, energy life cycle analysis; content with complying to the limit with what is established in the building codes of the place.

In the EEC position, each decision on the important selection of each subsystem is evaluated in terms of its future consequences with respect to its energy demand, for which the life cycle energy analysis technique is used. EEC designers allow an increase in the initial construction cost if this can reduce energy demand and operating costs. A postulate for the design of an EEC is energy first.

In addition to using renewable energy, zero energy buildings are also designed to make use of energy gained from other sources, including appliances, efficient lighting, and harnessing metabolic heat (people). Buildings are optimized to take advantage of the sun's energy (passive house), use of thermal mass in order to keep the interior temperature constant regardless of external temperature variations, also raising the average interior temperature by several degrees in order to achieve hygrothermal comfort with the help of thermal insulation or super insulation. Currently there is all the knowledge and mature technology to build an EEC.

Designers typically use sophisticated numerical simulation tools that allow for consideration of a wide range of design variables such as building orientation (relative to the sun), the type and location of windows, shadows cast by other buildings or by the building itself, the depth of glazing relative to the exterior surface of walls, thermal insulation values ​​in the house subsystem, sensible heat and latent heat content of the air, the efficiency of heating, lighting and other equipment as well as the local climate. These simulations help designers know how the building will perform before it is built, and will allow them to model the financial implications and construction costs.

The designer architect or architecture studio usually hires an environmental or bioclimatic consultant to advise him or her and provide the initial design guidelines that will later be adjusted in the preliminary and project stages. Usually the environmental consultant is made up of an interdisciplinary or transdisciplinary team in which architects, engineers, physicists, industrial designers and technologists participate. This depends on the magnitude and complexity of the building.

One of the key areas of debate regarding zero energy buildings is the balance between energy conservation and the use of renewable energy.

Most zero energy building designers have the position that "consuming more equals generating more" is not enough, but quite the opposite. The building in its conception, construction and operation must demand the minimum amount of energy, and this minimum demand must be covered by renewable energies. This leads us to think about what is postulated by the passive house together with an energy efficient building. This, on the other hand, implies greatly exceeding the standards proposed by the building standards and codes of the majority of countries that have such instruments for regulating the energy quality of construction.

However, while it is recognized that energy conservation is an important piece in the game, a good number of designers consider this to be of lesser importance, and value more “active” techniques (solar photovoltaic energy, wind energy, etc.) to compensate for the energy or heat deficit.

There is a debate about the concept of a "zero energy" building among environmentalists, academics and the market. The former find that many of the built and disseminated cases do not take into account the energy return rate (ERR) when evaluating the environmental impact of the building. This means that the aim is for the building not to consume energy during its period of use. While many buildings constructed and published only consider energy expenditure in the building's operating and operating cycle, others, particularly those that underwent certification; They consider in the equation the energy cost involved in implementing the systems necessary to achieve this.

Because of this, some zero-energy buildings may fall into marketing hype rather than end-to-end lifecycle energy savings.

It may happen that in some cases the definition of a zero energy building is understood incorrectly and an example would be that a person who placed a generator and two hundred barrels of oil in their house would automatically obtain a "zero energy building", since throughout its period of use they would not need to consume energy from outside.

If we take into account that this oil or coal is also used in the manufacture of photovoltaic panels, "Battery (electricity)" batteries, tanks, etc., and also accounting for the energy used in obtaining the materials necessary for their production (mining extraction, blast furnaces, glass melting, transportation...), it is understood that the concept of "zero energy", when limited to the daily use of the building, represents only one part of the equation, and that it can lead to a wrong application.

There are professionals without sufficient training and environmental awareness who could use the concept in the wrong way and massively implement solar thermal and/or electrical generators and achieve a self-sufficient building from urban service networks and although in principle it may seem paradoxical, they are not the most ecological. This is because they are forced to oversize the active energy collection facilities, in such a way that they may never pay off.

To illustrate this, you can imagine a home that uses solar panels for heating. If you intend not to depend on outside energy (which is not what is regularly done), you will have to install enough panels to heat the home even on the coldest week of the year. If this is done, there will be panels that will only save energy one week a year; the coldest Therefore, the energy and economic cost invested in these panels will never be recovered. From one perspective, the optimal result is achieved by assuming the support of conventional energies during that colder month, that is, seeking "low energy", instead of pursuing "zero energy".

These assessments in many cases are discursive and do not have technical or scientific support, since in the current state of knowledge of the subject there is no reliable information on the energy content of all the materials and inputs involved in a construction of these characteristics. For this, it is necessary to know exactly the origin and greenhouse gas emissions of each material that enters a construction site. There will be inputs that come from China, where the energy matrix focuses on coal, others that could come from Germany or Spain with a constant growth in renewable energies. The construction and operation phase is possible to know and simulate with sufficient precision, but not the energy content of each material and the finished work. Even less is the greenhouse gas content.

It is a developing knowledge in the world at this time and therefore the need to relativize this discussion. If we seek to assert, each actor in the controversy must show technical and scientific work that supports their position for or against.

A positive energy building produces more energy than it uses, using concentrated photovoltaic solar technology.