ᐅ KfW financing – is it necessary or not?

pagoni2020 schrieb:

Strictly by the book or was that in the building description?? "You shall know them by their deeds" -

I completely agree with you.
It’s definitely not the case that everything ran perfectly during our build—in fact, quite the opposite. But energy efficiency was simply very important to us during the construction. I may be repeating myself, but: I don’t judge anyone who has different priorities when building a house. It’s not mandatory at all to build to KfW standard. You do it if it matters to you. Or you don’t. But I find it frustrating when people hide behind weak arguments or try to downplay it.

It’s like if I ask, “Do I have to buy organic meat from a local farm?”—no, I don’t have to. I can choose not to. I could come up with a thousand reasons why eating meat is bad overall and why buying organic meat wouldn’t make sense, so in the end, to save money, I just buy the cheaper meat.
But none of that changes the fact that organic meat is generally more ecological than factory farming.

pagoni2020 schrieb:
Unfortunately, I also experience that these eco-labels (see above) are often used as a free pass for all kinds of things. Whenever someone truly lives this lifestyle consistently and without compromise, I have the utmost respect for that. Unfortunately, I see too many organic product shoppers driving SUVs, eating pineapples, or enjoying trendy food items from around the world while on vacation in Costa Rica...

Unfortunately, that is true. On the other hand, would nature benefit more if the same person, in addition to driving an SUV, eating pineapple, and taking long-distance vacations, also lived in an environmentally unfriendly house and used electricity from lignite coal? So just because someone preaches one thing and practices another doesn’t automatically mean their message is false. Which in turn doesn’t mean it is true either—only that hypocrisy does not prove the (in)accuracy of a statement. Low-emission energy generation and production should not only be pursued out of environmental awareness, but also driven by basic self-preservation instincts.

saralina87 schrieb:

[...] and I think there is a reason why one thing is subsidized and the other is not.

I would be very cautious with that argument. There are often even more factors involved than when simply looking at the life cycle assessment of building materials and technology.

Overall, I just want to advocate for reducing black-and-white thinking here. Not everything that is subsidized by KfW and similar organizations is automatically environmentally beneficial or better.

We also have a heat pump because back in 2013, when it came to gas, I recognized the high dependence on Russia. But the world is changing.
Just as electricity is currently being hyped, it’s possible that gas could see a resurgence in a few years since it can be produced environmentally friendly through power-to-gas technology and transported much more easily via the existing gas pipelines from offshore wind farms in the North Sea/Baltic Sea or from photovoltaic installations in the Sahara, compared to transporting electricity through power lines.

Just imagine if everyone switches their homes and cars to electricity in the coming years.
Where do you think the electricity will come from then? The old lignite power plants, which are currently kept as backup, might be restarted. Not to mention that our power grid is not designed for that level of demand.

Smialbuddler schrieb:

Overall, I just want to advocate for reducing black-and-white thinking. Not everything that is funded by KfW and similar organizations is automatically environmentally beneficial or better.

Exactly!
We should also not forget that (understandably) construction often follows KfW standards because there is significant financial support from the government for it. I believe these statistics would look different without these substantial subsidies.
Nevertheless, I fully support strongly promoting innovation and ecology, and I am on board when something is objectively sensible.
However, I find it difficult to rely solely on appealing labels from sales shelves or the bold use of such terms. A bit more attention and critical questioning of the entire package seem appropriate.
Government funding is often simply the result of persistent lobbying efforts (see, for example, light bulbs) and therefore is not inherently a convincing argument.

From an environmental perspective, it would probably make much more sense to invest significantly more in renovating existing buildings rather than promoting KfW 40 or 55 standards. The effort required to improve a house from 40 kWh/(m²·a) to 30 kWh/(m²·a) is likely as costly as upgrading a house from 200 kWh/(m²·a) to 80 kWh/(m²·a). (see Pareto principle).

However, there are probably fewer lobbyists supporting this.