ᐅ 2 Houses – One or Two Heating Systems? – Your Recommendations

Hi, we are planning to build two houses: one detached house of about 150 m2 (1,615 sq ft) and one bungalow of about 80 m2 (860 sq ft). It is still undecided whether they will be built as an extension directly next to each other or offset by 5 m (16 ft).

In both cases, they will be connected through the basement/garage.

What is more practical – a single large heating system for both houses, which might be cheaper but also more complex, or two smaller, independent heating systems that require separate maintenance?

For reference:

https://www.hausbau-forum.de/threads/einfamilienhaus-mit-ebenerdiger-elw-auf-hang.38750/

Thanks in advance!

Ventreri schrieb:

What is more practical – cheaper but also more effective?

It is more practical to have two small heaters. Cheaper (but also less effective) is one heater. Cheaper in terms of initial costs, not operation. Although these are not huge amounts.

Definitely two. Even if you want to sell them separately at some point.

Having two heating systems is more practical in case of separation later on.

At a minimum, I would recommend planning for two technical rooms and preparing a complete second main service entry. For a project size of "a duplex"—regardless of whether the units are attached directly or separated by a gap—pooling capacities is not very promising: it is unlikely to significantly reduce peak loads, and any efficiency gains that might be achievable could easily be offset by transmission losses. Considering the missing full abandonment of a second multi-utility entry—which I do not only mean the component with the same name—this clever idea could very well turn out to be a non-starter. In my assessment, a small combined heat and power unit only becomes worthwhile starting from two duplexes (that is, four halves). Here, there is only one unit, and moreover "asymmetrically" as a "mixed doubles" arrangement with very differently sized residential units. That would be a fool’s errand.

---

https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/

11ant schrieb:

At a minimum, I would plan for two technical rooms and prepare a complete second house connection. For a batch size of "a semi-detached house"—regardless of whether they are directly attached or separated by some distance—pooling the capacities is still not very promising: it will hardly lead to a significant reduction in peak loads, and any efficiency gains that might be achievable can easily be offset by transfer losses. Taking into account the lack of a complete waiver of a second multi-utility connection—not just referring to the component with the same name—this clever idea could well be a case of overpromising with little practical benefit. In my assessment, a small combined heat and power unit (CHP) really only becomes worthwhile starting at two semi-detached houses (that is, four halves). Here, there is only one CHP, and that one is "asymmetric," a "mixed pair" with very different unit sizes. That would be a fool’s errand.

Hi 11ant, thanks for your reply. Maybe it’s too late for me, and my eyes are closing… but I don’t understand a word of your post. It seems like you’re saying “better two heating systems than one big one,” right?