ᐅ KfW 40 or better in solid construction without additional insulation possible?
Created on: 18 Nov 2019 08:44
S
Specki
Hello,
I was initially set on a timber frame construction for my future house. However, I am now reconsidering solid construction because it does have its advantages. Ideally, I would prefer this without additional external insulation, as that would be redundant and insulation typically does not last as long as the masonry itself. Poroton seems the most appealing option to me at first glance.
But is that even feasible? Are there bricks (or other solid building blocks) that on their own meet the KfW 40 standard, or possibly perform even better?
Does anyone have experience with this? Has anyone actually built something like this?
I’m open to discussion if you believe additional insulation makes sense. However, no “Styrofoam” will be used on the exterior walls; if anything, it will be an alternative material.
The comments I would rather avoid are those suggesting a lower energy standard would be sufficient. I will not build anything below KfW 40.
Thanks in advance for your input.
Best regards,
Specki
I was initially set on a timber frame construction for my future house. However, I am now reconsidering solid construction because it does have its advantages. Ideally, I would prefer this without additional external insulation, as that would be redundant and insulation typically does not last as long as the masonry itself. Poroton seems the most appealing option to me at first glance.
But is that even feasible? Are there bricks (or other solid building blocks) that on their own meet the KfW 40 standard, or possibly perform even better?
Does anyone have experience with this? Has anyone actually built something like this?
I’m open to discussion if you believe additional insulation makes sense. However, no “Styrofoam” will be used on the exterior walls; if anything, it will be an alternative material.
The comments I would rather avoid are those suggesting a lower energy standard would be sufficient. I will not build anything below KfW 40.
Thanks in advance for your input.
Best regards,
Specki
N
nordanney18 Nov 2019 13:29Specki schrieb:
Solid construction with a ventilated rainscreen facadeThat’s also not really cheapSpecki schrieb:
How about lower heating costs over the next 60 years.... Save money, no matter the cost. Moving from KfW 55 to 40 mainly means more expensive technology. If anything, insulate to a KfW 40 level but keep the technology at the KfW 55 standard.
In terms of costs, the difference is about 50 euros per year. Even if it becomes 4 times as expensive due to CO2 taxes, resource scarcity, and so on... recalculate your additional costs based on that.
@Scout where exactly is the technical difference between KFW55 and KFW40?
A heat pump and controlled mechanical ventilation will be included anyway!
What I officially do and what not will depend on whether there are any additional subsidies and if they are worthwhile...
I believe the difference in KFW subsidies is around 5,000€ (about 5,000 EUR). So if I build to the KFW40 insulation standard anyway, I could afford equipment that is 5,000€ (about 5,000 EUR) more expensive without paying a cent extra. The question is, what exactly is the more expensive equipment?
A heat pump and controlled mechanical ventilation will be included anyway!
What I officially do and what not will depend on whether there are any additional subsidies and if they are worthwhile...
I believe the difference in KFW subsidies is around 5,000€ (about 5,000 EUR). So if I build to the KFW40 insulation standard anyway, I could afford equipment that is 5,000€ (about 5,000 EUR) more expensive without paying a cent extra. The question is, what exactly is the more expensive equipment?
I built to KfW 55 standards but did not take the subsidy because I would have needed the KfW assessor for that, and the loan was unattractive.
The topic is complex.
If you already have a heat pump and controlled ventilation system, you won’t need additional technology for KfW 40. Only from 40+ onwards do further measures become necessary.
The topic is complex.
If you already have a heat pump and controlled ventilation system, you won’t need additional technology for KfW 40. Only from 40+ onwards do further measures become necessary.
A Passive House has a more expensive building envelope. This includes the foundation slab, walls, windows, roof, and insulation.
However, it makes a difference whether you hire a builder who says, "Well, if you insist on that kind of setup, we’ll build it," or one who specializes exclusively in KfW 40, KfW 40+, and Passive House standards.
Why don’t you want a solid timber house?
@Scout Which costly technology makes the difference?
However, it makes a difference whether you hire a builder who says, "Well, if you insist on that kind of setup, we’ll build it," or one who specializes exclusively in KfW 40, KfW 40+, and Passive House standards.
Why don’t you want a solid timber house?
@Scout Which costly technology makes the difference?
Specki schrieb:
I believe the difference in the KfW subsidy is 5,000€. So if I’m already building to the KfW40 insulation standard, I could afford equipment that is 5,000€ more expensive without paying anything extra. The question is, what would be the more expensive equipment? A biomass heating system or a ground source heat pump instead of an air source heat pump, possibly with a battery storage system.
A domestic hot water circulation system is then also prohibited...
If you insulate from the outside anyway, a few more centimeters won’t increase the cost significantly, but the equipment required by KfW for certification will.
Similar topics