ᐅ Install the chimney as a precautionary measure

Hello!

My wife and I are currently planning to build a single-family house (KFW 55 standard, approximately 175 m² (1880 ft²) of living space, heat pump).

We are unsure whether to install a chimney.

We would primarily use a stove for coziness. So, it’s more about the appearance rather than an additional heat source.

Theoretically, an electric fireplace would also serve this purpose.

The downside of a “real” stove is that it likely emits significant amounts of pollutants, and wood as a fuel is sometimes criticized.

The financial aspect is not a primary concern for us in this matter.

Since it would be almost impossible to retrofit an interior chimney later on, we are considering installing one as a precaution. Of course, it would still need to be properly sealed at the top. An external chimney is not an option due to the floor plan.

We might still initially choose an electric fireplace.

[B]Now my main question:[/B]

Is it possible to leave an interior chimney unused long-term or even permanently, or could this cause problems for the house?

I imagine that moisture might enter unnoticed somewhere or thermal bridges might develop...

We would really appreciate your opinions and advice! 🙂

You don’t use a chimney that is in operation every day throughout the year. At least during the summer, it usually remains unused for several months. Many people do not use their fireplaces daily either.

However, I believe that if you are already deciding against a proper fireplace now because of concerns about emissions and criticism of wood burning, you will probably feel the same way in a few years. The trend is clearly moving in that direction. Requirements for fireplaces and stoves are becoming increasingly strict. Our fireplace from the old house, which we installed in 2005, would only have been allowed for use until 2024.

I also think that the requirements regarding pollutant emissions will need to be tightened in the future. The DUH has recently focused on diesel vehicles. Additionally, the CO2 footprint (in the short term) is high once the bark beetle wood is burned.

Yesterday, I was riding my bike in the city, and after I got back, my wife couldn’t believe where I had been because I apparently smelled like a campfire.

Maybe we should consider a gas fireplace? My wife originally really wanted a fireplace. However, the chimney didn’t fit into the floor plan. Now we watch fire videos on Netflix and YouTube.

OWLer schrieb:

I also think that emission standards will need to be tightened in the future regarding pollutant output. The environmental organization DUH has recently targeted diesel vehicles. Additionally, the CO2 balance (in the short term) is poor as soon as the beetle-infested wood is burned.

Yesterday I rode my bike into town, and when I returned, my wife couldn’t believe where I had been because I supposedly smelled like a campfire.

Maybe we should consider a gas fireplace? My wife originally really wanted a fireplace. However, the chimney didn’t fit into the floor plan. Now we just watch fire videos on Netflix and YouTube.

Could you explain that CO2 balance? As far as I know, when wood is burned, it releases the CO2 it absorbed while growing. It doesn't get more neutral than that, assuming the CO2 emissions from harvesting the wood are neglected.

I love that smell, and for me, neither a gas fireplace nor especially YouTube or Netflix can compare.

motorradsilke schrieb:

Could you please explain the CO2 balance? As far as I know, a tree releases the same amount of CO2 when burned that it absorbed during its growth. It doesn’t get more neutral than that, especially if you neglect the CO2 emissions from harvesting the wood in the forest.

By that logic, oil and lignite coal would also be considered CO2 neutral. It always depends on the timeframe you consider. We need to reduce CO2 emissions now and over the coming decades. The fact that the tree regrows over a rolling period of 100 years doesn’t help our current situation.

“Naturally,” your firewood would eventually be replaced by coal or oil and therefore mostly no CO2 reduction at all.

OWLer schrieb:

By that reasoning, crude oil and lignite coal would also be considered CO2 neutral. It always depends on the timeframe you consider. We need to reduce CO2 emissions now and over the coming decades. The fact that the tree regrows over 100 years on a rolling basis doesn’t help our current situation.
“Of course,” your firewood would eventually also become coal or oil and largely no CO2.

Well, the tree dies anyway without being cut down and then releases the same amount of CO2 as it decomposes, without its energy being used. New trees are planted to replace the harvested ones, which absorb CO2 again.
This is not comparable to oil and gas.