Hello everyone,
Even though the topic of the "right" building services technology and its various advantages has already been discussed extensively, I still cannot answer the general question of whether a KfW 40 plus house is truly advantageous for me.
In many parts of the forum, it is mentioned that, purely for economic reasons, the standard according to the Energy Saving Ordinance (EnEV) is recommended and that the additional costs for a KfW house generally do not pay off. I find this hard to understand.
We are currently planning the construction of a new single-family house built with solid construction, without a basement, with approximately 200 m² (2,150 sq ft) of living space and underfloor heating. Without going too much into detail (although general and undetailed comparisons are always difficult), I would like to present the following simplified calculation:
Additional costs for KfW 40 plus compared to the Energy Saving Ordinance standard:
Ground source heat pump (deep drilling): €12,000 (€20,000 instead of a gas boiler with solar system for €8,000)
Ventilation system with heat recovery: €12,000
Photovoltaic system with storage: €15,000
Total additional costs: €39,000
Subsidies:
Repayment waiver through KfW 40 plus: €15,000
BAFA subsidy for geothermal energy: €4,500
Remaining additional costs: €19,500
Is it really the case that these additional costs of €19,500 do not pay off over a reasonable period? (There are further costs for KfW 40 plus, for example for construction supervision; however, these are largely also subsidized, e.g. through the KfW 431 program).
Furthermore, a low-interest loan (currently 0.9%) of up to €100,000 can be obtained from KfW, and other banks do not treat KfW loans as regular loans, which additionally improves one’s creditworthiness.
Would you still say that, based on these figures, a KfW 40 plus house is not economically viable?
Thank you very much for your insights!
Even though the topic of the "right" building services technology and its various advantages has already been discussed extensively, I still cannot answer the general question of whether a KfW 40 plus house is truly advantageous for me.
In many parts of the forum, it is mentioned that, purely for economic reasons, the standard according to the Energy Saving Ordinance (EnEV) is recommended and that the additional costs for a KfW house generally do not pay off. I find this hard to understand.
We are currently planning the construction of a new single-family house built with solid construction, without a basement, with approximately 200 m² (2,150 sq ft) of living space and underfloor heating. Without going too much into detail (although general and undetailed comparisons are always difficult), I would like to present the following simplified calculation:
Additional costs for KfW 40 plus compared to the Energy Saving Ordinance standard:
Ground source heat pump (deep drilling): €12,000 (€20,000 instead of a gas boiler with solar system for €8,000)
Ventilation system with heat recovery: €12,000
Photovoltaic system with storage: €15,000
Total additional costs: €39,000
Subsidies:
Repayment waiver through KfW 40 plus: €15,000
BAFA subsidy for geothermal energy: €4,500
Remaining additional costs: €19,500
Is it really the case that these additional costs of €19,500 do not pay off over a reasonable period? (There are further costs for KfW 40 plus, for example for construction supervision; however, these are largely also subsidized, e.g. through the KfW 431 program).
Furthermore, a low-interest loan (currently 0.9%) of up to €100,000 can be obtained from KfW, and other banks do not treat KfW loans as regular loans, which additionally improves one’s creditworthiness.
Would you still say that, based on these figures, a KfW 40 plus house is not economically viable?
Thank you very much for your insights!
Nordlys schrieb:
19,500 additional costs. The house with gas would have roughly $1,000 in gas costs per year and 2,000 kWh of electricity per year for two people, with proportionally more for three, etc.
The KfW 40 Plus house saves the gas, breaking even after 19.5 years, but due to the geothermal heat pump and controlled ventilation system, the electricity demand will probably double. So in the end, you’re clearly looking at around 30 years to break even. If you also calculate what would happen if you had not invested the 19,500 in KfW 40 but instead invested it in ETFs tracking the DAX or S&P indices over 30 years, it becomes completely unprofitable. K. There’s really no need to write more on this topic.
Of course, you can... but you don’t have to.
Just keep building 40+ and be “part of the solution.”
The question is: part of which problem? Probably the new Porsche of the builder, insulation supplier, heat pump manufacturer, etc...
H
hampshire5 Apr 2019 23:52My costs are about 10% higher. Comparing prices per kWp is not sufficient because I save a lot of roof tiles, don’t need additional mounts, and no electrician has to go onto the roof, etc.
In return, I get a more attractive roof and a safer house since the voltage stays below 120 V.
In the end, the house is of higher quality, so the money invested offers good value.
In return, I get a more attractive roof and a safer house since the voltage stays below 120 V.
In the end, the house is of higher quality, so the money invested offers good value.
W
wurmwichtel6 Apr 2019 14:21robin1988 schrieb:
...
Remaining additional costs: €19,500... That amount is enough to heat our house for 32 years, and we have no expenses for maintaining extra technical systems.
hampshire schrieb:
I end up with almost 10% higher costs. Comparing prices per kWp (kilowatt peak) doesn’t tell the full story, since I save a lot on roof tiles, don’t need additional mounting brackets, no electrician has to go onto the roof, etc.
In return, I get a more attractive roof and a safer house, since the voltage stays under 120V.
In the end, the house feels higher quality, so the money spent has good value.I would strongly doubt that. You can definitely share a price; no one here forbids that. We were also interested in a flush-mounted system for aesthetic reasons, but the additional costs were so significant that, considering the lower energy yield, it was almost questionable whether it would pay off at all.
Besides that: One roof tile costs practically nothing, so you hardly save anything there; the mounting brackets don’t cost much either, and an electrician doesn’t have to go onto the roof even with an attached (mounted) system.
Fire safety is also much more critical with a flush-mounted solution. Usually, “higher quality” only applies to your own perception.
It definitely looks better, but really only if you have skylights; otherwise, from about 20 meters (65 feet) away, you can hardly notice the difference.
For me, the rooftop system is installed on it, and I can hardly see the installation when I am on the property. From my point of view, it’s just money wasted. The visually questionable perceived value won’t be paid off later anyway. With a photovoltaic system, it’s all about amortization, nothing more and nothing less. Also, rooftop solutions have better efficiency in summer due to improved ventilation underneath. At least that’s what I’ve heard.
Similar topics