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
To be honest, I wouldn’t change my preferred building method just to meet KfW 40 standards. Especially not if the reason given is environmental concerns.
We have been living in our KfW 55 house for 4 months now and have used 1650 kWh (with an air-to-water heat pump and an electric car), so what’s the point of the KfW 40 craze? Most people don’t really understand it, but still insist on it no matter what.
We have been living in our KfW 55 house for 4 months now and have used 1650 kWh (with an air-to-water heat pump and an electric car), so what’s the point of the KfW 40 craze? Most people don’t really understand it, but still insist on it no matter what.
Lumpi_LE schrieb:
Does the car really consume that much?
Over the last 4 months, our house, somewhere between 55 and 40 (m²) (590 and 430 (ft²)), used a total of 500 kWh.
#xxxwanzvergleich ... I would check the electricity meter then; something is definitely off, good for you!
Bookstar schrieb:
I would check the electricity meter; something definitely seems off, which is good for you! Are you sure it’s 500 kWh (550 kWh)? I find that extremely low! But even better for your budget.
I don’t really have a comparison to refer to! I can’t use my apartment as a reference since everything there is divided over 4 units based on square meters. But 1650 kWh (1815 kWh) for heating, hot water, car charging, and household electricity over 4 months seems low to me at first glance.
Similar topics