ᐅ Decision between KfW55 and KfW40 Plus standards

Created on: 1 Dec 2019 23:44
J
John333
Hello everyone,
we are currently planning our house and are considering whether the extra cost from KfW55 to KfW40 plus is "worth it." By worth it, I mean both the payback period and, of course, other advantages and disadvantages, such as a central ventilation system versus a decentralized one.
Our general contractor offers the following standard options (alternatives are possible in consultation):
  • KfW 55 (no extra cost): aerated concrete blocks 36.5 cm (14 inches), air-to-water heat pump, underfloor heating, decentralized ventilation system
  • KfW 40 plus (€25,000 surcharge): aerated concrete blocks 42.5 cm (17 inches), air-to-water heat pump, underfloor heating, central ventilation system, photovoltaic system + energy storage

My specific questions are:
1) What potential savings can be expected due to lower heating costs, electricity costs, and feed-in tariffs, assuming energy price increases, maintenance, repairs, or total failure of components are excluded? I understand that many factors play a role and this is hard to calculate, but perhaps it is possible to give at least a rough range based on comparison values and considering the following information:
  • The house is located in NRW (mild climate)
  • Roof orientation and pitch are almost ideal for photovoltaic
  • The house has no basement and with the 42.5 cm (17 inches) blocks a living area of 190 m² (2045 sq ft)
  • 2 adults and 2 small children
  • 3 kWp photovoltaic system, 6.5 kWh battery (assumed)
  • Indoor temperature about 23°C (73°F), bedrooms about 21°C (70°F)
  • I am aware of the additional KfW funding options; however, the interest rate of the KfW loan is less favorable than that of our bank, so the advantage would be reduced to €8,150

2) What other advantages and disadvantages exist between KfW40 plus and KfW55?
3) Any further tips on how to make a good decision?
Thank you very much in advance for your assessment!
J.
W
world-e
18 Dec 2019 08:59
Lumpi_LE schrieb:

No, with KfW it’s only 50 or 60 now, which is noticeably different compared to 70.
Do you have a source for that? I’ve never heard of it. I have KfW40 without the plus, so only photovoltaic without storage. For me, it’s normally set to 70% soft.
W
world-e
18 Dec 2019 09:03
I found it; it is stated in the conditions of KfW. For KfW40+, it is limited to 60%. If you use a different subsidy for the battery storage, the limit is even reduced to 50%.
S
Specki
18 Dec 2019 09:06
With good battery management, this should not be a problem. The battery is prioritized for charging once it exceeds 60%.

I am not sure how exactly this is controlled technically or if there are already good solutions for it, but I can imagine it being possible.
G
guckuck2
18 Dec 2019 09:11
On sunny days, depending on the system size, 40-60 kW come from the roof. You can neither use nor store this energy efficiently. Therefore, subsidies for energy storage should always be considered critically. Maybe 60% efficiency is still acceptable, but at 50%, it stops making sense.
L
Lumpi_LE
18 Dec 2019 09:35
Specki schrieb:

With good battery management, this shouldn’t be an issue. The battery should be prioritized for charging once it exceeds 60%.

As @guckuck2 already mentioned, this is completely irrelevant.
We also had a battery subsidy program. It would have been 3000€ for a 10 kWh battery, but limited to, I believe, 60% state of charge (the supply temperature limit was also 50°C (122°F)). I then calculated the losses using a somewhat more complex Excel spreadsheet, and the result was almost exactly 3000€.