Good evening,
I hope this is the right place for my topic. I would like to hear your opinion about our energy consultant.
We are currently in the detailed planning phase of our semi-detached house with our independent architect. The architect designed the semi-detached house to meet the Energy Efficiency Standard 55. For support as an expert, an energy consultant provided us with a fee proposal of 2,850 euros. Half of this amount would qualify for funding under the KfW program.
Believing that we would meet the KfW 55 standard, we accepted the offer. However, after several meetings with the architect and the energy consultant’s calculations, it has now become clear that we will not achieve the 55 standard with our project, but only the 70 standard, which no longer qualifies for funding. Our energy consultant is now insisting on the originally agreed price.
He argues that the calculations already done, the ongoing support, and the issuance of the energy performance certificate justify this fee. As a goodwill gesture, he is willing to reduce the fee so that he receives a total of 2,400 euros for supporting a KfW 70 project—which, as mentioned, is no longer eligible for funding.
Are these fees typical? In my opinion, the offer was based on the wrong assumption, as we only agreed under the belief that he would assist us with a KfW 55 project.
Does anyone have advice on how to proceed?
Best regards
I hope this is the right place for my topic. I would like to hear your opinion about our energy consultant.
We are currently in the detailed planning phase of our semi-detached house with our independent architect. The architect designed the semi-detached house to meet the Energy Efficiency Standard 55. For support as an expert, an energy consultant provided us with a fee proposal of 2,850 euros. Half of this amount would qualify for funding under the KfW program.
Believing that we would meet the KfW 55 standard, we accepted the offer. However, after several meetings with the architect and the energy consultant’s calculations, it has now become clear that we will not achieve the 55 standard with our project, but only the 70 standard, which no longer qualifies for funding. Our energy consultant is now insisting on the originally agreed price.
He argues that the calculations already done, the ongoing support, and the issuance of the energy performance certificate justify this fee. As a goodwill gesture, he is willing to reduce the fee so that he receives a total of 2,400 euros for supporting a KfW 70 project—which, as mentioned, is no longer eligible for funding.
Are these fees typical? In my opinion, the offer was based on the wrong assumption, as we only agreed under the belief that he would assist us with a KfW 55 project.
Does anyone have advice on how to proceed?
Best regards
Mastermind1 schrieb:
Moreover, it has now become more or less mandatory due to the ventilation issue.
Otherwise, the architect would have to obtain a written release from liability in case of mold development. Very few architects agree to that. Then an inexpensive window rebate ventilation system is installed, and that also releases the architect from liability.
Whether this is sensible or not, I do not want to argue about.
Once again, why doesn’t the architect consider using Ytong? At 36.5cm (14 inches), it is even slightly thinner than your lightweight aggregate brick sandwich wall, attaching mailboxes is easier, it is relatively affordable as a masonry material, and its large format also reduces labor costs. You gain the 5,000 repayment grant and lose no interior floor space.
What’s the downside? Ytong may have inferior sound insulation compared to your sandwich brick.
If you don’t want that, my advice would be to opt out of KFW 55. It simply isn’t worthwhile if the subsidies end up entirely in the hands of the companies. Karsten
What’s the downside? Ytong may have inferior sound insulation compared to your sandwich brick.
If you don’t want that, my advice would be to opt out of KFW 55. It simply isn’t worthwhile if the subsidies end up entirely in the hands of the companies. Karsten
M
Mastermind15 Jun 2018 13:03Window rebate ventilation might make sense in rental properties, at least for me, Max....
And just because someone says you'll only save 100€ in energy costs doesn’t convince me. I'd like to see the calculation. That’s too simplistic, especially if a ventilation system is already included...
Nowadays, air-source heat pumps are often sold as the affordable option.
Unfortunately, they are only cheap in terms of initial purchase price. With better insulation or improved wall construction, you can often use a smaller heat pump, which already saves some money.
If you also consider government subsidies such as BAFA, you’ll notice that a much more efficient ground-source heat pump isn’t significantly more expensive than an air-source heat pump.
Depending on the source, new builds can receive between 4000€ and 4500€ in subsidies for ground-source heat pumps.
If you provide some labor yourself, you can set up a heat source with earth collectors, flat collectors, or trench collectors for roughly 1000€ to 2000€, without needing a borehole.
You then also save energy costs each year by switching from an air-source heat pump to a ground-source heat pump.
Example:
Required heating energy plus domestic hot water: 13,000 kWh.
Air-source heat pump with a seasonal performance factor (SPF) of 3.5.
Ground-source heat pump with an SPF of 5.
13,000 kWh ÷ 3.5 = 3,714 kWh electricity demand
13,000 kWh ÷ 5 = 2,600 kWh electricity demand
At €0.25 per kWh electricity cost, switching the type of heat pump alone saves nearly €280 per year.
In your case, I would definitely run more detailed calculations to see if a combination of a better block plus switching the type of heat pump might be the much better long-term solution.
You’re still flexible. You just need to make that clear to your architect.
For the architect, it’s obviously easier to plan by the book and apply their fee schedule accordingly.
But you want the perfect solution for yourself, not a generic standard plan.
Musketier schrieb:But fundamentally, you should be aware... Just because an architect insists on one type of block doesn’t mean it’s the "miracle brick."
Then a cheap window rebate ventilation system is installed, and the architect is off the hook. Whether that makes sense or not, I don't want to argue about.
And just because someone says you'll only save 100€ in energy costs doesn’t convince me. I'd like to see the calculation. That’s too simplistic, especially if a ventilation system is already included...
Nowadays, air-source heat pumps are often sold as the affordable option.
Unfortunately, they are only cheap in terms of initial purchase price. With better insulation or improved wall construction, you can often use a smaller heat pump, which already saves some money.
If you also consider government subsidies such as BAFA, you’ll notice that a much more efficient ground-source heat pump isn’t significantly more expensive than an air-source heat pump.
Depending on the source, new builds can receive between 4000€ and 4500€ in subsidies for ground-source heat pumps.
If you provide some labor yourself, you can set up a heat source with earth collectors, flat collectors, or trench collectors for roughly 1000€ to 2000€, without needing a borehole.
You then also save energy costs each year by switching from an air-source heat pump to a ground-source heat pump.
Example:
Required heating energy plus domestic hot water: 13,000 kWh.
Air-source heat pump with a seasonal performance factor (SPF) of 3.5.
Ground-source heat pump with an SPF of 5.
13,000 kWh ÷ 3.5 = 3,714 kWh electricity demand
13,000 kWh ÷ 5 = 2,600 kWh electricity demand
At €0.25 per kWh electricity cost, switching the type of heat pump alone saves nearly €280 per year.
In your case, I would definitely run more detailed calculations to see if a combination of a better block plus switching the type of heat pump might be the much better long-term solution.
You’re still flexible. You just need to make that clear to your architect.
For the architect, it’s obviously easier to plan by the book and apply their fee schedule accordingly.
But you want the perfect solution for yourself, not a generic standard plan.
This is a special topic, but please no bashing of trickle vents in window frames. We have one with an exhaust fan, and it works perfectly. Perfectly! I emphasize that. You could also criticize mechanical ventilation systems with heat recovery, since it’s rather contradictory to move into an airtight plastic bubble for energy saving reasons and then say, “Help, I’m suffocating; I’m installing a forced ventilation system that runs on electricity.”
I cannot understand the statement from your energy consultant/architect. The exterior walls with a thickness of 37.5cm (15 inches) have a U-value of 0.20.
If you have not made any planning mistakes regarding the windows or the insulation of the slab (especially concerning the insulation of the basement/floor slab), then a detailed thermal bridge assessment should easily suffice.
Of course, it’s possible that your building design is “uneconomical.” But for a standard rectangular building shape, it should be enough.
By the way, we are also constructing a KfW 55 standard building with a 36.5cm (14.5 inches) brick (T8 unfilled) that also has a U-value of 0.20. For us, the crucial factor is also the detailed thermal bridge assessment.
Is the detailed thermal bridge assessment included in your offer? Was it offered to you? If not, make sure to get it! And don’t agree to paying around 500€ per thermal bridge or anything like that—go for an all-inclusive package.
If you have not made any planning mistakes regarding the windows or the insulation of the slab (especially concerning the insulation of the basement/floor slab), then a detailed thermal bridge assessment should easily suffice.
Of course, it’s possible that your building design is “uneconomical.” But for a standard rectangular building shape, it should be enough.
By the way, we are also constructing a KfW 55 standard building with a 36.5cm (14.5 inches) brick (T8 unfilled) that also has a U-value of 0.20. For us, the crucial factor is also the detailed thermal bridge assessment.
Is the detailed thermal bridge assessment included in your offer? Was it offered to you? If not, make sure to get it! And don’t agree to paying around 500€ per thermal bridge or anything like that—go for an all-inclusive package.
Mastermind1 schrieb:
Ventilation is primarily a matter of comfort.
Moreover, it has become more or less mandatory nowadays due to ventilation regulations. Which regulation forces you to prioritize comfort?
Otherwise, the architect would have to exempt themselves from liability in writing if mold occurs. The architect certainly cannot be held responsible for the homeowner’s habits. Therefore, there is no legal basis, since regularly airing rooms is considered reasonably expected.
That said, I agree with you: a mechanical ventilation system with heat recovery is a convenient way to avoid manual airing and always have fresh air. For allergy sufferers, it also provides filtered air.
From an energy-efficiency point of view, I would never install a mechanical ventilation system, but for comfort or to prevent mold, definitely yes.
Similar topics