Hello!
I would like to hear your opinions on the topic of underfloor heating and wooden plank flooring:
I want to have a floor that feels as warm and natural as possible, because it is breathable. Therefore, parquet and laminate are not an option. I find wooden planks ideal, maybe even spruce/fir.
Wooden planks are installed on a special substructure, as far as I have seen... So I could probably save on screed in those areas.
But how do you construct something like this in combination with underfloor heating? Support elements to the concrete slab can only be placed between the pipes/tubes, right?
I would like to hear your opinions on the topic of underfloor heating and wooden plank flooring:
I want to have a floor that feels as warm and natural as possible, because it is breathable. Therefore, parquet and laminate are not an option. I find wooden planks ideal, maybe even spruce/fir.
Wooden planks are installed on a special substructure, as far as I have seen... So I could probably save on screed in those areas.
But how do you construct something like this in combination with underfloor heating? Support elements to the concrete slab can only be placed between the pipes/tubes, right?
H
hampshire18 Feb 2019 16:11Lumpi_LE schrieb:
For example, more electricity, higher operating costs, and greater environmental impact. That depends on the overall concept.
Our implementation is carbon neutral, and as long as feed-in tariffs are available, it is cost-neutral over the course of the year.
Wood (for the masonry heater) comes from our own beech forest behind the house. It regenerates faster than we consume. No long transportation distances. Modern stoves have no soot issues as long as the wood quality is good. Photovoltaic system produces about 9,800 kWh per year. Overall, it generates more than we need if we use infrared panels instead of the stove for convenience.
Whether the investment is cheap or expensive depends entirely on materials, suppliers, and workmanship. Aesthetics add extra cost for photovoltaic systems just as they do for stoves. There is room for flexibility. You have to want and find a plot with forest.
Oh, so you already have an infrared heating system and you find it comfortable?
I have only experienced it once before, in a KfW40 prefabricated house. I found it terribly uncomfortable and wouldn’t have been able to stay there for long.
The electricity consumption of a heat pump is also much lower – but the initial investment is, of course, higher.
I have only experienced it once before, in a KfW40 prefabricated house. I found it terribly uncomfortable and wouldn’t have been able to stay there for long.
The electricity consumption of a heat pump is also much lower – but the initial investment is, of course, higher.
H
hampshire18 Feb 2019 16:43Tested, found to be good, and now under construction. The infrared panels are technically not necessary (except for the bathroom) but provide convenience for when you’re sick or don’t feel like heating, as well as frost protection when away during winter. The covered terrace also benefits from infrared panels for extended outdoor seating. The main heat source is a masonry heater, which keeps electricity consumption low.
C
chand198618 Feb 2019 18:38Whether you heat from the inside or the outside doesn’t matter. As a result, the air near that surface warms up, causing convection.
I won’t even comment on the nonsense of considering wood fires as CO2 neutral. Oil and coal are also trees in a different form. Just saying.
In the end, the temperature is what truly affects the indoor climate. It doesn’t matter which heating system is used to achieve it.
I won’t even comment on the nonsense of considering wood fires as CO2 neutral. Oil and coal are also trees in a different form. Just saying.
In the end, the temperature is what truly affects the indoor climate. It doesn’t matter which heating system is used to achieve it.
H
hampshire18 Feb 2019 20:00chand1986 schrieb:
I won’t even comment on the nonsense of considering wood fires to be CO2 neutral. Oil and coal are also trees in another form, just saying.
l Wood burning releases CO2. Trees absorb CO2. Whoever replants as much as they burn is CO2 neutral in terms of balance. That is exactly our local cycle on our own property. The cycle is CO2 neutral, not the wood fire itself.
You are missing that point.
C
chand198618 Feb 2019 20:15Cycles are always neutral at the end of a process. So what is the point of that statement?
The fact is that burning wood affects the climate in the same way as burning oil, coal, or gas. If you first cut down a living tree for that, it is even worse.
In the end, everything is a cycle. What happens along the way is what matters.
The fact is that burning wood affects the climate in the same way as burning oil, coal, or gas. If you first cut down a living tree for that, it is even worse.
In the end, everything is a cycle. What happens along the way is what matters.
Similar topics