ᐅ New Single-Family Home Construction – Gas or Air Source Heat Pump + Photovoltaic System + Energy Storage?
Created on: 25 Apr 2021 14:18
N
nullhorn
Hello everyone,
I will be building a house in 2021/2022 and will live in it myself. It’s a 10x10 meter (33x33 feet), 1.5-story standard single-family house. The roof is a pitched roof with a 40-degree pitch, ridge direction North/South (so the roof faces East/West and can be equipped with photovoltaic panels).
Now, my question: Gas is available in the area. Which heating technology would you recommend?
Gas? Air-source heat pump + photovoltaic + battery storage? Ground-source heat pump? Or something completely different?
And who can give me advice like this without any hidden profit motives (like heating installers always pushing gas, etc.)?
Regards,
Flo
I will be building a house in 2021/2022 and will live in it myself. It’s a 10x10 meter (33x33 feet), 1.5-story standard single-family house. The roof is a pitched roof with a 40-degree pitch, ridge direction North/South (so the roof faces East/West and can be equipped with photovoltaic panels).
Now, my question: Gas is available in the area. Which heating technology would you recommend?
Gas? Air-source heat pump + photovoltaic + battery storage? Ground-source heat pump? Or something completely different?
And who can give me advice like this without any hidden profit motives (like heating installers always pushing gas, etc.)?
Regards,
Flo
D
Deliverer5 Sep 2021 19:18No, wait. I’ll address that directly.
Except flying, yes. With a heat pump.
Reluctantly. Keyword "ideology."
What exactly are you trying to say? You’d rather save (which is difficult) 10 euros per month, even if it means everyone else has to suffer? Sounds harsh – maybe provocative. But in the end, that’s what it is.
Climate is NOT an ideology. It’s a consensus. Which brings us back to the beginning of my “provocative” statements.
rick2018 schrieb:
@Deliverer with such provocative statements, I hope you haven’t built a single-family house, don’t own a combustion engine vehicle, don’t fly, and don’t have any children...
Except flying, yes. With a heat pump.
rick2018 schrieb:
@Deliverer
Let’s keep things realistic.
Reluctantly. Keyword "ideology."
rick2018 schrieb:
@Deliverer
Gas is still a legitimate way to heat nowadays. Electricity is getting more expensive too.
What exactly are you trying to say? You’d rather save (which is difficult) 10 euros per month, even if it means everyone else has to suffer? Sounds harsh – maybe provocative. But in the end, that’s what it is.
rick2018 schrieb:
@Deliverer
Choosing the “sweet spot” between cost and ideology.
Climate is NOT an ideology. It’s a consensus. Which brings us back to the beginning of my “provocative” statements.
D
Deliverer5 Sep 2021 19:20Isokrates schrieb:
Why does the government promote heat pump technology ...Because there really is no other option left. They have tried. ;-)
Deliverer schrieb:
Because it really can’t be done any other way. They tried. ;-)Honestly, I don’t believe that. Why? Because only people who already have enough money benefit from the subsidies.
Do you think a family living on a gross income of €4000 (about $4300) cares about heat pumps?
Let alone a single person who, if lucky, earns a net income of €2000 (about $2150).
In many cases, they don’t even know what a heat pump is. And if they do, they probably don’t care, since unlike us in this forum, they simply have to focus on making ends meet.
I wrote this in another thread:
First World Problems.
I agree with you that something needs to change. Including attitudes.
But right now, only the privileged can afford that.
D
Deliverer5 Sep 2021 19:52We are here in the "house building forum." This is about new construction. I never said that an unemployed person heating their rental apartment with gas is an idiot.
Regarding the other points: In the beginning, electric cars were also mainly bought by those who could afford very expensive vehicles. Now, when considering the full cost, electric cars are the more affordable option for many. Soon, only the wealthy will be able to afford vintage cars.
Another example: photovoltaic systems. Twenty years ago, you needed a lot of money, financial support, and patience (until the investment paid off). This process helped develop the technology to the point where it is now practically unmatched in affordability. That was a good thing, too, wasn’t it?
Regarding the other points: In the beginning, electric cars were also mainly bought by those who could afford very expensive vehicles. Now, when considering the full cost, electric cars are the more affordable option for many. Soon, only the wealthy will be able to afford vintage cars.
Another example: photovoltaic systems. Twenty years ago, you needed a lot of money, financial support, and patience (until the investment paid off). This process helped develop the technology to the point where it is now practically unmatched in affordability. That was a good thing, too, wasn’t it?
@Deliverer then you are not being consistent with your ideology 😉
For many homeowners, 5,000 to 15,000 euros for a photovoltaic system is still too expensive. No matter how "affordable" it has become, with that amount of money they can cover their electricity costs for a long time.
If money is available, it’s obviously easier to do some greenwashing when building a single-family home.
However, that doesn't make it truly "green."
Subsidies are usually not that great. And just because they exist doesn’t mean it’s the only right way. Look back through history at what has been subsidized.
Oh, fuel cell heating systems are also subsidized. But according to your view, that’s the wrong approach.
For many homeowners, 5,000 to 15,000 euros for a photovoltaic system is still too expensive. No matter how "affordable" it has become, with that amount of money they can cover their electricity costs for a long time.
If money is available, it’s obviously easier to do some greenwashing when building a single-family home.
However, that doesn't make it truly "green."
Subsidies are usually not that great. And just because they exist doesn’t mean it’s the only right way. Look back through history at what has been subsidized.
Oh, fuel cell heating systems are also subsidized. But according to your view, that’s the wrong approach.
Ok… to really break this down completely….
€4,000 gross for a family and €2,000 for a single person equals unemployed? Bold claim.
Electric cars a cheaper alternative, when a family-sized car costs around €40,000 (about $44,000)?
By the way, there’s a reason why all major companies provide their higher earners with electric cars. And it has nothing to do with environmental protection.
Solar panel systems cheap? Can an average earner afford a photovoltaic system at an assumed €1,200 per kWp (about $1,300 per kWp)?
Probably not.
I stick to it, everything you say is correct. But only feasible for the top percentage of the population.
Genuine environmental protection looks different.
Those who can afford it even get money back.
That is a farce.
€4,000 gross for a family and €2,000 for a single person equals unemployed? Bold claim.
Electric cars a cheaper alternative, when a family-sized car costs around €40,000 (about $44,000)?
By the way, there’s a reason why all major companies provide their higher earners with electric cars. And it has nothing to do with environmental protection.
Solar panel systems cheap? Can an average earner afford a photovoltaic system at an assumed €1,200 per kWp (about $1,300 per kWp)?
Probably not.
I stick to it, everything you say is correct. But only feasible for the top percentage of the population.
Genuine environmental protection looks different.
Those who can afford it even get money back.
That is a farce.
Similar topics