ᐅ Heating System Question for New Build KfW 70: Air Source Heat Pump + Solar, Ice Storage?

Uwe82 schrieb:
I think the building insurance is more expensive. And the fire department is not very enthusiastic about photovoltaics either

No, it isn’t. You shouldn’t choose insurance only based on the price.

nordanney schrieb:
No, it’s not. You shouldn’t choose insurance based on price alone.

If you have a more expensive policy that includes photovoltaic coverage, it comes out the same as a cheaper one with additional costs later; in total, you pay for the service... if you have the more expensive policy but no photovoltaic coverage, you’re paying too much. Either way, you end up paying for photovoltaic coverage in the end.

Saruss schrieb:
If you have a more expensive one that includes photovoltaic, it comes down to the same as a cheaper one that then has additional costs—in total, you pay money for the performance... if you have the more expensive one without photovoltaic, you’re paying too much. In any case, you pay for photovoltaic on top.

That is only partially true. Even without a photovoltaic system, I would have taken the insurance. For me, it was important that certain points were covered. For that, I had to choose an insurance that automatically includes the photovoltaic system. That’s why I have NO additional insurance costs for the photovoltaic system; the cost share for a photovoltaic system (usually systems up to 10 kWp are automatically included with reasonable insurance policies) is negligible since the damage rate is extremely low (this is what one of the largest insurance companies in Germany states internally). Anyone who takes out extra insurance for a photovoltaic system is throwing money away and should rather reconsider their home insurance.

“Cheap” insurances are cheap but then offer only limited coverage. It’s similar to the repeated discussions here about “cheap” houses that in the end are not really cheap.

There is still a lot of misinformation on this topic. Personally, I no longer have a separate insurance policy and include my photovoltaic system under the building insurance. This costs only about half, approximately 20 euros.

The 1500 euros cover the fully installed system, including scaffolding and everything else.

If an inverter, for example, breaks down after 15 years, why should I insure the minimal residual value? And even if I did: 20 euros times 20 years equals 400 euros, which corresponds to 80 euros per kWp. This still keeps my cost under 10 cents per kilowatt-hour.

I can only speak for my own self-consumption, which has been around 38-39% since the beginning.

Why buy new household appliances? Once electricity is in the wiring, it is no longer distinguishable, even for household devices.

To clarify for you: the feed-in tariff is fixed for 20 years, and after that, it ends. Afterwards, only market prices apply, so it makes more sense to use the electricity yourself. By then, there will be affordable storage solutions and electric cars where I can very well use my own generated electricity.

If the electricity price from the energy provider rises, I don’t care about the reasons or components behind it: I still have to pay! And prices will increase!

Therefore, photovoltaic systems become more profitable every year because my savings grow accordingly.

Part of my electricity costs, about 39%, are fixed over the lifetime of the photovoltaic system, approximately 35-45 years, or decrease significantly after 20 years. This represents the best protection against inflation!

With only 0.1% interest and electricity price increases of 3%, this makes perfect sense.

Your 4% returns are just wishful thinking; I am realizing my profit in reality.

@nordanney
You either insure the photovoltaic system through the building insurance or get a separate policy that covers electronics/hail damage, etc. Contents insurance is a different matter.

Whether 10 cents per kilowatt-hour is realistic can be calculated easily. Taxes on self-consumption are estimated for small systems since the entire photovoltaic electricity production does not need to be reported. Recording the fed-in kilowatt-hours is sufficient. Anyone, such as a retiree or a parent with children who doesn't pay taxes anyway, is in a good position.

Fire departments handle photovoltaic systems without any issues. You shouldn’t believe every article from sensationalist tabloids. There are photovoltaic fire switches for this purpose, and if one is not present, the system can simply be disconnected with diagonal pliers. It’s not necessary to exaggerate every small problem into a major issue.

But I suspect that some critics might be employed by the fossil fuel industry.

Uhtred schrieb:
Taxes on self-consumption are estimated for small systems because the total photovoltaic electricity production does not need to be recorded. It is sufficient to record the fed-in kWh. Pensioners/couples with children who do not pay taxes anyway are off the hook.

That is incorrect!
You need to measure your self-consumption (which is quite straightforward) and assign a value to it. This value is currently set at the price you pay for the electricity you purchase, including the fixed basic fee (administrative guideline from the Ministry of Finance). You must pay VAT on this amount and also include it in your profit and loss statement so that the annual result can be included in your income tax return and taxed at your personal income tax rate. Nothing is estimated here, and it is not allowed.

How do you imagine the annual accounting to work? There are bookkeeping and tax obligations that unfortunately cannot be avoided—unless you simply ignore tax law. Even if you are not required to file an income tax return, it does not change the fact that you MUST handle VAT and the profit and loss statement.

P.S. The VAT issue applies only if you opt for the “proper” entrepreneur status. My fingers typed household contents insurance by mistake—it should of course say homeowner’s insurance = building insurance.

Uhtred schrieb:
There is still a lot of misinformation here. Personally, I no longer take out a separate insurance policy; my photovoltaic system is covered under my building insurance. That costs only half as much, about 20 euros.
The 1500 euros is the total installed cost, including scaffolding and everything.
If an inverter fails after, say, 15 years, why would I insure its minimal residual value? Even if I did: 20 euros x 20 years equals 400 euros, which results in about 80 euros per kWp. So even then, I stay under 10 cents.
I can only give my own self-consumption rate, which has been 38-39% from the start.
Why buy new household appliances? Once electricity is in the wiring, it is indistinguishable—even for household devices.
To clarify for you: the payment rate is fixed for 20 years and then ends. After that, only market prices apply, which is why people prefer to consume their own electricity. Until then, there are affordable battery storages and electric cars, where I can make good use of my own power.
If the utility’s electricity price rises, I don’t care what component caused it—I have to pay it! And prices are going up!
Therefore, photovoltaic systems become more profitable every year because I keep saving more.
Part of my electricity price, about 39%, is fixed for the lifetime of the photovoltaic system, approximately 35-45 years, or decreases significantly after 20 years. This is the best protection against inflation!
With a 0.1% interest rate and 3% annual electricity price increases, it only makes sense.
Your 4% is just a pipe dream; I have my profit in reality.

You keep mentioning the 1500 euros, but that figure isn’t accurate. In relevant forums, people regularly post their offers and ask for evaluations, and there you find higher prices for systems like the one you describe (over 20 years lifetime, high quality, e.g., in coatings, with no assumed cleaning costs, etc.), often about 20% higher, around 1800 euros.
Achieving 1000 kWh/kWp only happens with an optimally positioned roof (not everyone has that) and under ideal conditions every year; on average, most get around 900 kWh/kWp or similar—about 10% less. Taken together, you quickly end up running at a loss if you feed electricity into the grid; anything else is pure optimism.
There are new inverters with 20-year warranties, but that’s a different calculation.
Either your 10 cents are incorrect and it’s really 12-14 cents, or you don’t get the quality you describe. Everyone can check their own offers on costs and calculate accordingly. I think other forums exist where people have even more expertise for these calculations. I believe it’s important to tell other users the hard truth: it really depends on the individual case, and you can’t just assume these 10 cents, which are quite low!
Regarding buying new devices: I meant that to achieve as high self-consumption as possible (not that old devices stop working, so please don’t imply that), you might want to upgrade or network parts of your home towards smart home technology for optimization.
Oh, and by the way, Uhtred, I’m living that “pipe dream.” I still have an old savings contract with enough credit for a solar system and about 4% interest. Luckily, the bank can’t cancel it, and I don’t want to. I have that profit every year—in reality! You don’t have any profit in reality yet; you have many years of losses first!
Assuming a 6 kWp system with perfect values (1000 kWh/kWp per year) and very low costs of 9000 euros (maybe with own labor during installation), that’s about 6000 kWh generated in the first year, of which around 40% is self-used. You get 0.12 euros x 3600 kWh = 432 euros for feed-in and save 576 euros in electricity costs annually compared to an expensive supplier (excluding VAT, so calculated pro-solar and not fully realistic). After 9 years, you would just have covered the purchase price, in the absolute best case of your numbers (with zero interest and zero additional costs). In 9 years, however, I already have accumulated 12,809 euros with interest. So in just under 12 years, we break even, and only from then on do you make real profit, not just in pipe dreams. But only if you don’t have to buy a new inverter then or face any other additional costs mentioned in forums (and I can think of several). In 12 years, I could buy a much larger solar system with that money—much larger, if you’re right and solar keeps getting cheaper. So who will have managed better then?
We can take a look in 15 years at what costs you have documented. Maybe some forum members already have solar systems older than 10 years and can report their experience; that would be even better than our speculation.