Ask a questionQuestion?

ᐅ Construction method: 36.5 cm aerated concrete or 17.5 cm masonry with 14 cm external insulation (ETICS/EWI)

Created on: 1 Apr 2017 11:50
M
MaJess
Original post
Hello,

we are currently deciding on a construction company. Our main question right now is how we should build our house. We have one offer with a 36.5 cm (14 inch) aerated concrete wall with plaster, and another offer with a 17.5 cm (7 inch) aerated concrete wall plus 14 cm (5.5 inch) external thermal insulation composite system (ETICS) using mineral textured plaster as the top coat with a 2 mm (0.08 inch) grain size, and a base plaster with colored stone plaster as the top coat.

We are very inexperienced with building and do not know which option is better. The house will be built in a quiet village with no traffic noise. It is important for us that we do not have high heating costs, but that the walls can breathe and there is no risk of mold growth.

We appreciate any tips and advice.

The heating system in offer 1 would be gas plus solar, while offer 2 includes an air-to-water heat pump.

Best regards
N
Nordlys3 Apr 2017 11:56
#31
Let's do it the way we want. Others take different approaches. We are completely divided here anyway.
Y
ypg3 Apr 2017 22:45
#32
Nordlys schrieb:
Let’s just do things our own way. Others take different paths. We’re completely divided here anyway.

Ventilation systems are not some new nonsense; they have proven themselves over decades in public buildings. And why would anyone want to heat outside air in winter?

This has bothered previous generations as well, which is why the rule of airing out briefly and as little as necessary was developed.

As often as I agree with you in your posts, I also notice that you can be quite stubborn and think conservatively on some points. Unfortunately, you sometimes express this as if anything new that costs money and you won’t have is nonsense.

Regards, Yvonne
jaeger5 Apr 2017 21:58
#33
ypg schrieb:
Ventilation systems are not a new fad but have been proven over decades in public buildings.

Yes, although this is naturally also influenced by local legislation. In the Netherlands, about 10 years ago, over 80% of new residential buildings were equipped with ventilation systems. Today, this figure is below 30%. Now everyone can form their own opinion.
N
Nordlys5 Apr 2017 22:59
#34
What bothers me about these systems, besides the initial cost, is that they consume electricity to ventilate, require regular maintenance to prevent becoming unhealthy, and that I have to install something in the house to handle ventilation—something that has been effectively solved with windows for around 2000 years.
Y
ypg5 Apr 2017 23:41
#35
Nordlys schrieb:
What bothers me about these systems, besides the purchase price, is that they consume electricity to ventilate, require regular maintenance—otherwise they become unhealthy—and that I have to install something in the house to ventilate, which has been solved with windows for about 2000 years.

People didn’t have windows at all 2,000 years ago.
I wonder if people back then were just as narrow-minded about letting valuable, hard-earned firewood heat simply escape outside. They were probably quite happy to keep warmth inside the house and grateful for any new advancements.

And about "artificial air..." just keep quiet if you don’t know what you’re talking about.

Regards, Yvonne
11ant6 Apr 2017 00:37
#36
The obsession with minimizing heat loss sometimes reaches absurd levels—going as far as contradicting the energy savings it aims to achieve. The amount of ventilation required makes much more sense when considered directly. The balance between progress and conservation cannot be found in an "ideal" way—whenever someone leans too far forward, there also needs to be someone who leans back equally. This is what makes the difference between turning and capsizing.
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/