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
Bauherr2018 schrieb:
I probably bear some responsibility myself, as I likely phrased my question too vaguely. On the other hand, I still don’t understand why the topic has shifted to electric cars now...
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
C
chand19868 Aug 2017 15:5511ant schrieb:
On the other hand, I don’t really understand why the topic has shifted to electric cars now…You’re absolutely right, sorry to the OP :-(
The connection was the question of whether to choose photovoltaic panels + heat pump or a gas boiler. At the moment, the latter is cheaper.
From my subjective view, the former is better and more future-proof.
Marvinius II8 Aug 2017 15:57This no longer has anything to do with the original question. I’m also happy to let a physicist keep their belief in #charging to the car# and will now take my leave.
B
Bieber08158 Aug 2017 16:15chand1986 schrieb:
Better and more future-proof in my subjective view: the first option. To relate this to cost-effective building: the argument only holds if the homeowner drives a lot. A special case, in my opinion. (Footnote: It is also assumed that the solar power harvested during the day can be stored overnight in the car.)
In my opinion, it is still more economical to leave out all that and build "simply." If needed, photovoltaic systems can be retrofitted later; countless roof owners have proven this back when generous incentives were still available.
chand1986 schrieb:
Why? That makes sense for a minority of passenger cars, and it would also be helpful for freight transport. But the average passenger car is parked over 90% of the time and hardly ever driven. In that case, refueling should be done then. The real question is, do I even need to refuel at all anymore? The vision is that energy supply, in whatever form, will be delivered directly via the road. Then you would only need small batteries for off-road trips.
Back to the house. I grew up with shipping, which has a strong Anglo-Saxon influence. The motto: Keep it simple, rugged, and seaworthy. Functionality, ease of maintenance, operational reliability, minimal automation, and a lot of mechanics that can be repaired even in Mombasa... this approach is also valid for building technology. The cheapest investment is always the one where the technician never has to come. Therefore: gas, controlled air ventilation, solar only for hot water, no mechanical ventilation with heat recovery, no KNX, no smart home, no steam oven, no AAAAA++++ dishwasher, no unnecessary gadgets. That’s my perspective. Karsten
Similar topics