ᐅ Which heating method would you choose and why?

parcus schrieb:
According to this model, there are infinitely many calculation results, which can also be freely manipulated via the parameters.

That is incorrect; you always get only one result! What would be the point of manipulating the parameters? 😕

parcus schrieb:

Example: annual demand. Just the variable of user behavior alone ranges from .......

Correct. In the economic comparison above, user behavior is taken into account. However, this is considered equally in every alternative. Even if this assumption is inaccurate, this deviation applies to all solutions being compared. So where exactly is the problem?

parcus schrieb:

You only get a result if you estimate user behavior subjectively (if you know the users) or otherwise arbitrarily define it.

You always have to make assumptions; otherwise, you could never plan. You also assume traffic loads without knowing if they will actually be reached in practice, right? How would you size a domestic hot water system without first estimating consumption? How would you design a heat source for a geothermal heat pump without initially assuming a possible extraction capacity depending on soil type? How would you size a ventilation system without defined air exchange rates beforehand?
If you followed your objections, you would never be able to produce a proof of compliance with energy efficiency regulations.
So I really don’t understand this discussion.
You have clearly not grasped the point. It is not about finding the absolute truth, but about highlighting differences.

Good luck

Wrong, you always get only one result! What would be the point of manipulating the parameters? 😕

You can obtain results for the different states within the model. Simulation model – Wikipedia
This applies to every CA technique, including CAD.

I never said that you cannot calculate a specific state based on defined parameters.

Correct. In the economic comparison above, user behavior is taken into account. However, this applies equally to every alternative. Even if this was assumed inadequately, this deviation is reflected in all solutions being compared. So, what is the problem?

You are giving the answer yourself:
That the break-even points all differ because they were assumed inadequately.

Best regards

parcus schrieb:

You’re giving the answer yourself:....

My response referred to: "Even if this was assumed insufficiently, this deviation is included in all comparable solutions."
You really don’t understand! It’s not about the accuracy of the single data point, but about the difference between them! We apply this daily with the energy saving regulation verifications, so it should be clear to you. No quantitative conclusions about future consumption can be drawn from the verification, since the standardized input parameters have nothing to do with the actual conditions. Nevertheless, a qualitative assessment is possible. We also use this tool in every KfW verification!

parcus schrieb:

The break even points all differ because they were assumed insufficiently.

Break even points are derived from payback calculations and are not suitable for economic comparisons of, for example, heating systems! Why? Quite simply, because the benefit is not capital, but a room temperature of, for instance, 20°C (68°F); that means payback is never possible. An economic efficiency calculation is therefore, for example, as follows:

If I only consider energy costs, it looks like this instead:

Good luck

The break-even point in economics is the stage where revenue and production costs are equal, resulting in neither profit nor loss.

This is where heat is generated.

As someone with a business economics background, I am not particularly interested in the energy saving regulations, but rather in contribution margins and fixed costs.

The annual primary energy demand used as proof for the KfW is of no use here.
Moreover, it is possible to “buy” values in the energy saving regulations, for example through solar thermal systems or photovoltaic installations.

Best regards

Hello,

parcus schrieb:
The break-even point ...

parcus schrieb:
Heat is generated here.

Exactly, that’s how I also represented it.

parcus schrieb:
The annual primary energy demand as evidence for the KfW is of no use here.

I unfortunately cannot see any significant connection to my statements regarding economic feasibility calculations. Who intended to do something with the primary energy demand?

parcus schrieb:
Moreover, values can be "bought" in the Energy Saving Ordinance, for example through solar thermal or photovoltaic systems.

That is generally known. Less well known is that it can actually be a poor purchase.

Good luck

Hello,
I am currently planning an air source heat pump combined with a ventilation system. Photovoltaic panels will be added later.