Hello everyone,
During the planning phase of building a house, you inevitably come across forums about home construction and topics related to energy standards. I have already read several books and browsed various websites on the subject. I should mention that I am not a professional in this field. What I have noticed is that the entire topic of "economic / ecological home construction" is heavily influenced by commercial interests. The so-called "smart" consumer is often misled by marketing terms and a government-led campaign for "CO2-efficient building." Books or websites dealing with this subject often do not provide clear, comprehensive assessments.
In the "better" literature, insulation materials are compared in terms of insulation value and whether they are expensive or affordable. However, I still cannot determine what makes the most sense for my individual case. I simply do not want to spend excessive amounts of money, especially on things that do not add value, such as polystyrene insulation. If additional costs for a particular heating system are reasonable over a feasible period, then yes.
Our current goal is to build a simple single-family home with about 130 - 140 sqm (1400 - 1500 sq ft). The house should cost around €200,000 (without outdoor landscaping, floor coverings, land, or additional construction-related costs; our expectations are modest).
I am interested in knowing, based on the current state of technology, what is the most energy-efficient and cost-effective building option?
Energy-saving regulation / building standards according to KfW, yes or no, and if yes, which level?
Solid construction or prefabricated house?
Condensing boiler technology or heat pump?
Thank you very much for your answers!
Best regards
During the planning phase of building a house, you inevitably come across forums about home construction and topics related to energy standards. I have already read several books and browsed various websites on the subject. I should mention that I am not a professional in this field. What I have noticed is that the entire topic of "economic / ecological home construction" is heavily influenced by commercial interests. The so-called "smart" consumer is often misled by marketing terms and a government-led campaign for "CO2-efficient building." Books or websites dealing with this subject often do not provide clear, comprehensive assessments.
In the "better" literature, insulation materials are compared in terms of insulation value and whether they are expensive or affordable. However, I still cannot determine what makes the most sense for my individual case. I simply do not want to spend excessive amounts of money, especially on things that do not add value, such as polystyrene insulation. If additional costs for a particular heating system are reasonable over a feasible period, then yes.
Our current goal is to build a simple single-family home with about 130 - 140 sqm (1400 - 1500 sq ft). The house should cost around €200,000 (without outdoor landscaping, floor coverings, land, or additional construction-related costs; our expectations are modest).
I am interested in knowing, based on the current state of technology, what is the most energy-efficient and cost-effective building option?
Energy-saving regulation / building standards according to KfW, yes or no, and if yes, which level?
Solid construction or prefabricated house?
Condensing boiler technology or heat pump?
Thank you very much for your answers!
Best regards
B
Bauherr20188 Aug 2017 07:39New attempt:
I have to say, my expectations of this forum have been 90% disappointed so far. Most responses feel like a random chat. As mentioned, the remaining 10% are an exception. I probably share some of the blame, as my question was likely too vague. However, I have little experience and perhaps expected too much.
I just wanted to independently learn which energy-related aspects (standards, building materials, construction methods) are useful not only for general contractors but also for me. The budget question is certainly relevant in this context but should not trigger a fundamental debate.
Thanks for your response. We are planning with approximately 200,000 euros (+/-). Additional costs outside the scope of work description, such as roller shutters and a side door, currently amount to 15,000 euros. The 200,000 euros refers only to the basic equipment, not the extras. It’s like buying a car. What is economical for me? Petrol, diesel, hybrid, or electric. That is what I want to find out. I am happy to provide information about our planning that is necessary to help with the decision-making process.
I have to say, my expectations of this forum have been 90% disappointed so far. Most responses feel like a random chat. As mentioned, the remaining 10% are an exception. I probably share some of the blame, as my question was likely too vague. However, I have little experience and perhaps expected too much.
I just wanted to independently learn which energy-related aspects (standards, building materials, construction methods) are useful not only for general contractors but also for me. The budget question is certainly relevant in this context but should not trigger a fundamental debate.
ypg schrieb:
I read about polystyrene on one hand, and a price that's 10% above your "limit" on the other. That’s also just one quote. The price under your construction contract will be different later.
Thanks for your response. We are planning with approximately 200,000 euros (+/-). Additional costs outside the scope of work description, such as roller shutters and a side door, currently amount to 15,000 euros. The 200,000 euros refers only to the basic equipment, not the extras. It’s like buying a car. What is economical for me? Petrol, diesel, hybrid, or electric. That is what I want to find out. I am happy to provide information about our planning that is necessary to help with the decision-making process.
H
HilfeHilfe8 Aug 2017 07:49Consider hiring an architect, although with a budget of 200k it probably won’t be feasible.
It’s all nonsense anyway. One person prefers chocolate cake, another likes strawberry tart.
One used to enjoy strawberry tart, but the last one didn’t sit well with him.
You can apply this to house building as well.
You’ll get 10,000 different opinions here.
It’s all nonsense anyway. One person prefers chocolate cake, another likes strawberry tart.
One used to enjoy strawberry tart, but the last one didn’t sit well with him.
You can apply this to house building as well.
You’ll get 10,000 different opinions here.
Bauherr2018 schrieb:
I just wanted to independently learn which energy-related aspects (standards, building materials, construction methods) are useful not only for general contractors but also for me. The question seems a bit strange to me. The general contractor builds for you, not for themselves.
In general, you can expect that contractors build to meet at least the minimum requirements (KfW standards). If you want more (such as KfW 55, Passive House), then you need to build better walls (walls as a representation of energy efficiency features). And that is more expensive. It is rare that someone builds thicker walls than necessary in a standard build. So there is usually nothing to cut out. This is why the budget is relevant. You can’t simply cut costs within your budget.
It’s like buying a car: all have four wheels and an engine. If you leave something out, it just won’t work. And with your budget, you won’t get a hybrid, let alone electric, and a gasoline car is already quite tight.
All the energy-related measures I know of have an effect, namely energy savings. Whether they are financially worthwhile depends, among other things, on the future development of energy prices. However, these savings seem completely irrelevant to you, and you evaluate them solely based on whether they benefit your personal finances, not the generations after you. With such extreme positions, an open debate is difficult because many participants here are more interested in finding a meaningful position for their own control settings.
H
HilfeHilfe8 Aug 2017 08:08kaho674 schrieb:
The question seems quite absurd to me. The general contractor (GC) is building for you, not for themselves.
Generally, you can assume that GCs build to meet the minimum requirements (KfW). If you want more—like KfW 55 or passive house standards—you have to build better walls (walls as a stand-in for energy efficiency features). And that is more expensive. It’s rare for a builder to use thicker walls than necessary in a standard build. So, there’s no cutting corners there. That’s why the budget matters. You can’t make cuts with your budget.
It’s like buying a car: they all have 4 wheels and an engine. If you remove any of that, it won’t run well. With your budget, you won’t get a hybrid, let alone an electric vehicle, and even a gasoline car is already tight.Diesel is supposed to be affordable
B
Bauherr20188 Aug 2017 08:2077.willo schrieb:
All the energy efficiency measures I know of do have an effect, namely energy savings. Whether they are financially worthwhile depends, among other things, on future energy price developments. However, you seem to completely disregard these savings and evaluate them solely based on whether they benefit your personal finances and not the generations after you. With such extreme positions, an open debate is difficult because many here are more interested in finding a position on the dial that makes sense to them. That is not entirely true; otherwise, I would not have considered an offer for a KfW 55 house with a heat pump. The question here is how it really looks in practice, or if it is like the "diesel scandal," where car manufacturers determine and report fuel consumption and emission values that do not reflect real-world conditions.
Similar topics