My question about building a new KfW 55 or better house: What exactly does it mean? Yesterday, I spoke with the managing director of a public construction company, and he advised me not to build a KfW house.
a) You would need a building supervisor (who is also specialized in this field).
b) If you insulate the house well, etc., the additional costs are low.
Furthermore, he recommended using a gas boiler + solar including battery instead of an air-to-water heat pump + solar including battery. The initial costs are much lower, and you will never recover the higher acquisition costs.
I am a bit confused. I originally planned to build at least a KfW 55 house.
For your information, our plot is fully developed, and a gas connection is available.
a) You would need a building supervisor (who is also specialized in this field).
b) If you insulate the house well, etc., the additional costs are low.
Furthermore, he recommended using a gas boiler + solar including battery instead of an air-to-water heat pump + solar including battery. The initial costs are much lower, and you will never recover the higher acquisition costs.
I am a bit confused. I originally planned to build at least a KfW 55 house.
For your information, our plot is fully developed, and a gas connection is available.
K
knalltüte24 Jun 2020 15:46Well, sometimes you just have to ask yourself what you really want (living quality / comfort / indoor climate, etc.).
If, like in our case, the result is already a timber-framed house with controlled ventilation and photovoltaic panels, then achieving a KfW40(+) standard home is not far off (financially).
Our funding amounts (see above) are definitely not comparable to a "standard" energy-efficient house. However, I still trust my gut feeling that building my KfW40+ duplex costs less than just following the Energy Saving Ordinance or aiming for KfW55.
The ecological impact is also very important to us. This means we sometimes make decisions that are not connected to funding but are ecologically better (though more expensive). This isn’t always possible, but often is. (For example, flooring, wall coverings, paints, etc.)
If, like in our case, the result is already a timber-framed house with controlled ventilation and photovoltaic panels, then achieving a KfW40(+) standard home is not far off (financially).
Our funding amounts (see above) are definitely not comparable to a "standard" energy-efficient house. However, I still trust my gut feeling that building my KfW40+ duplex costs less than just following the Energy Saving Ordinance or aiming for KfW55.
The ecological impact is also very important to us. This means we sometimes make decisions that are not connected to funding but are ecologically better (though more expensive). This isn’t always possible, but often is. (For example, flooring, wall coverings, paints, etc.)
saralina87 schrieb:
We like the idea that our house is relatively self-sufficient. You are self-sufficient only if you have no grid connection. Everything else is an illusion. As soon as you have to feed even just 1 kWh back into the grid in summer because you can’t use it yourself, you are 100% not self-sufficient.
saralina87 schrieb:
I don’t think it’s a big discussion. Maybe not for you.
saralina87 schrieb:
A fossil fuel (which also makes you dependent on foreign countries) can never, in my view, be even remotely ecological compared to a heat pump. Three villages away there is a large biogas plant that doesn’t generate electricity, feed it into the grid, or waste the residual heat, but conditions the biogas and feeds it into the natural gas grid. In the downstream network, there is hardly any industry at the moment, but almost exclusively residential customers. So the gas that comes out of my tap is, except for rare exceptions, not Russian gas; regardless of the tariff chosen. The exact opposite applies to electricity. I pay for good hydropower green electricity but live in the catchment area of a nuclear power plant, and thanks to Kirchhoff’s and Ohm’s laws, that is exactly what comes out of my socket.
saralina87 schrieb:
Even more so with proper insulation. Have you ever checked how much embodied energy is in such an EPS KfW55-standard house? Over its lifetime, you can hardly burn that much energy compared to a simple energy-saving regulation house.
saralina87 schrieb:
There are actually people who feel more comfortable if their house has a good ecological footprint. Yes, but unfortunately in most cases this has little to do with mindfulness towards the environment, and more to do with placing oneself on a morally superior level in order to self-righteously judge the actions and values of those who think and act differently.
saralina87 schrieb:
I think there is a reason why one is subsidized and the other is not. Unfortunately, the reason is too often lobbying.
S
saralina8724 Jun 2020 17:19Okay, to summarize:
KFW = nonsense
BAFA = nonsense
Using alternative energy in new construction = nonsense
And in general: Anyone who claims to build ecologically and says they do it simply because it matters to them is just doing it to point fingers at others. Gas is great, and Germany’s goal to phase out fossil fuels by 2050—is that foolish? Biogas plants and the huge cornfields are fantastic, so overall gas is great!
Everyone satisfied?
(Just out of curiosity: What exactly is the problem if it matters to me and I build that way—no, no EPS insulation, don’t worry)? So why does someone have to forcefully try to convince me that it’s all nonsense? And who exactly is being missionary here?)
KFW = nonsense
BAFA = nonsense
Using alternative energy in new construction = nonsense
And in general: Anyone who claims to build ecologically and says they do it simply because it matters to them is just doing it to point fingers at others. Gas is great, and Germany’s goal to phase out fossil fuels by 2050—is that foolish? Biogas plants and the huge cornfields are fantastic, so overall gas is great!
Everyone satisfied?
(Just out of curiosity: What exactly is the problem if it matters to me and I build that way—no, no EPS insulation, don’t worry)? So why does someone have to forcefully try to convince me that it’s all nonsense? And who exactly is being missionary here?)
N
nordanney24 Jun 2020 17:29saralina87 schrieb:
Okay, so to summarize:
Kfw = nonsense
BAFA = nonsense
Going for alternative energies in new construction = nonsenseI actually agree with you on that. If it’s only about ecology, then all of that is nonsense, because buying a used house is the most ecological option.P
pagoni202024 Jun 2020 17:31saralina87 schrieb:
Okay, so to summarize:
Kfw = nonsense
BAFA = nonsense
Focusing on renewable energy in new construction = nonsense
And anyway: Anyone who claims to build ecologically and does so simply because it matters to them is just trying to point fingers at others. Gas is great, and Germany wanting to move away from fossil fuels by 2050—is that stupidity? Biogas plants and the vast cornfields are great, and overall gas is wonderful!
Everyone satisfied?
(Just out of curiosity: What exactly is the problem if it’s important to me and I build that way? So why try to forcefully convince me that it’s all nonsense? And who here is actually being missionary?) Um... WHERE does it say that? I don’t see anyone saying this; neither those for nor against. That’s actually what most people here have been getting at—that it’s NOT black and white, as you seem to have perceived it.
Your somewhat aggressive response surprises me a bit, and the words “forcefully” and “nonsense” come solely from you.
From what I’ve read, the discussion was mostly about nuance.
A different opinion doesn’t mean your project or values are nonsense. I share the ecological mindset but am critical (which is different from being grumpy) and I do learn something from the discussion.
I don’t believe anyone here is trying to ruin your project just because they express a different or more nuanced opinion.
Originally, we only planned to build according to the Energy Saving Ordinance and not to meet any KfW standard. However, the general contractor typically constructs houses that already achieve good KfW 70 values — I know, KfW 70 doesn’t officially exist anymore, just as a reference.
By the end of our negotiations, including our custom features, we had effectively put together a house close to the KfW 55 standard.
For financial reasons, we decided to go for that because of the subsidized loan. €120,000 at 0.75% interest is already attractive, but with the grant, it made financial sense for us.
To meet the standard, we only needed perimeter insulation (an additional €2,550) and an energy consultant (an additional €3,500). Half of the energy consultant’s fee is reimbursed by KfW, so the net cost for the consultant is only €1,750.
€1,750 plus €2,550 equals €4,300 in additional costs, while we receive an €18,000 repayment grant.
By the end of our negotiations, including our custom features, we had effectively put together a house close to the KfW 55 standard.
For financial reasons, we decided to go for that because of the subsidized loan. €120,000 at 0.75% interest is already attractive, but with the grant, it made financial sense for us.
To meet the standard, we only needed perimeter insulation (an additional €2,550) and an energy consultant (an additional €3,500). Half of the energy consultant’s fee is reimbursed by KfW, so the net cost for the consultant is only €1,750.
€1,750 plus €2,550 equals €4,300 in additional costs, while we receive an €18,000 repayment grant.
Similar topics