ᐅ New Single-Family Home Construction – Gas or Air Source Heat Pump + Photovoltaic System + Energy Storage?

Survival.





Additional text required to submit.

pagoni2020 schrieb:

On the other hand, does this consensus include pointless electricity consumption from technology considered standard today?

Sorry, but that’s just empty talk that doesn’t help anyone.
Just because energy is wasted elsewhere doesn’t mean we can’t do the right thing somewhere else.

So why choose gas at all for a new build?
Just because the installation might be somewhat cheaper?

Because more and more countries are banning gas heating systems, gas will likely become much cheaper in the future! ;-)

RotorMotor schrieb:

Just because waste occurs in some areas doesn’t mean we can’t do the right thing in others.

This implies, conversely, that waste is acceptable if you do something “right” somewhere else (like not using a gas heating system)… an interesting perspective. For your information, I am absolutely AGAINST waste and try to hold myself to that standard rather than judging others. Many people sit on their own large pile yet complain about others. A popular pastime nowadays.

RotorMotor schrieb:

So why would anyone even choose gas for a new build? Just because the initial cost might be a bit lower?

Of course, that can be questioned—I understand that. I never claimed gas was the ideal solution. However, technologies like heat pumps are also not scientifically undisputed, just like the current trend toward electric mobility. There are clearly better options, but people don’t buy them simply because they are too expensive. Isn’t that the same for gas buyers? Just at a different cost level—they go for the cheaper option.

We know that single-family houses in general can be harmful, and that is completely overlooked here. To me, it’s somewhat like banning plastic straws on cruise ships.

And let’s be honest. Around 90% of environmentally marketed features are installed mainly because the government covers 35% or more of the cost. Please tell me the percentage of these installations if no subsidies were available. The same applies to electric cars—if there were no grants or other benefits, sales would drop. Often, these products are bought because of government incentives, not out of genuine environmental awareness.

Here you can observe an almost frantic rush to take advantage of any and all incentives, or frequently the intention to profit from them or simply accept them because they’re free. People don’t always know what kind of house they’re building, but they definitely want the maximum subsidies—everything is included!

If heat pumps and similar technologies were not so heavily subsidized, their adoption rates would definitely crash; so much for ecological consensus. That consensus often only applies when it’s state-funded—I rarely see or read about people practicing real personal sacrifice. It’s exactly that genuine commitment that I deeply respect!

@RotorMotor By the way, arguments tend to be less effective when delivered cheekily or rudely. In my opinion, such behavior doesn’t really align with the mentioned social consensus, or does that only apply to gas heating and not to manners?

pagoni2020 schrieb:

So, does that mean you can waste energy if you do something "right" elsewhere (like not using a gas heating system)... interesting perspective.

How do you come to that conclusion?
This thread is about heating systems, and all the other stuff, plus your old diesel, just keeps coming up from you.
It simply doesn’t belong here.

pagoni2020 schrieb:

Heat pumps are not scientifically undisputed.

This could get interesting if you contribute some content on that topic instead of immediately bringing up cars again.

pagoni2020 schrieb:

@RotorMotor By the way, arguments tend to lose impact if you come across as cheeky or rude. Somehow, in my opinion, that doesn’t quite fit the mentioned social consensus—or does that only apply to gas heating systems and not to behavior?

Sorry if I’m a bit blunt here and there, but constantly avoiding the actual topic doesn’t really help, does it?

I just get the impression that you might feel a bit guilty about your gas heating system?
How did that come about, and why did you still decide to go with it? Or did you simply not look into the topic thoroughly?

RotorMotor schrieb:

This thread is about heating systems, and you keep bringing up all that other stuff and your old diesel.

No, I read above that there is a general, common "consensus" on what is ecological. Anything else would not be considered socially acceptable "behavior."

RotorMotor schrieb:

You are the only one who keeps bringing up all that other stuff and your old diesel.
It simply doesn’t belong here.

Sorry, I guess I forgot to ask you first. If the original poster, as the authorized person, objects, I won’t comment further. Whether you like my old Passat or the other stuff is not really important to me.

RotorMotor schrieb:

It could get interesting here if you contributed some content related to this topic instead of immediately bringing up cars again.

Sources showing that heat pumps and other currently subsidized technologies are also viewed critically in scientific discussions, and that there are more innovative approaches in the energy sector, can be found via any search engine. You can manage that. I generally have little patience for right-wrong arguments, but how can someone be condemned (as socially unacceptable behavior) just for considering a gas heating system? Apparently, that does happen...

RotorMotor schrieb:

Sorry if I’m perhaps a bit too direct here and there,

Please call it what it is—bold and rude! Unfortunately, the opposite of that is not supported by government funding.

RotorMotor schrieb:

I just have the feeling that you might have some guilt about your gas heating system?
How did that come about and why did you still decide on it? Or did you simply not inform yourself about the topic?

The explanation you requested:
Currently, I am living with a gas heating system, which I could not decide on myself. Still, I believe it’s possible to use it sparingly if one chooses to. Without knowing you, I bet that my overall energy consumption (including gas) is significantly lower than yours, probably because I come from a generation where saving was the highest priority. It wasn’t possible to live more ecologically than my parents’ generation (my childhood). Compared to that, even an environmentalist today lives in almost decadent excess.

In the new house, I wouldn’t have a guilty conscience just because of a gas heating system; however, I did decide against it—not primarily because of subsidies but for other reasons. As I said before, I respect those who consciously live ecologically without subsidies, out of personal conviction. Massive government subsidies and then presenting oneself as a committed environmentalist strikes me as hollow. Funding and free money are the main motivators, rarely ecological awareness!
Your question remains unanswered: how many people would have chosen the ecological option without subsidies? 😀
In the new construction, I will not have a gas heating system but a wood stove combined with infrared heating. I’m sure I’ll be criticized for that, since almost only one approach is accepted as the "consensus" here.
However, I have examined this issue in great detail (partly documented here) and implemented it in cooperation with a scientist, an architect, an experienced energy consultant, and the Saxony Energy Agency. I therefore believe I have made an ecologically justifiable decision. Nevertheless, this does not align with the so-called "consensus" mentioned here, so I will continue living as an outsider.