Hello, we own a 20-year-old house with a wall-mounted boiler.
Model: Sieger HG11.
Since our exhaust gases are vented through a wall connection rather than through the roof, the boiler’s hot water output was limited to a maximum of 24 kW.
Now our boiler is nearing the end of its service life, and before requesting multiple quotes, I wanted to kindly ask here what the cost might be.
A new wall-mounted unit is to be installed, preferably again with a wall vent. The local chimney inspector has approved this.
Our house has a heated area or living space of 110 m3 (3,885 ft3).
Annual gas consumption is approximately 11,000 kW.
Model: Sieger HG11.
Since our exhaust gases are vented through a wall connection rather than through the roof, the boiler’s hot water output was limited to a maximum of 24 kW.
Now our boiler is nearing the end of its service life, and before requesting multiple quotes, I wanted to kindly ask here what the cost might be.
A new wall-mounted unit is to be installed, preferably again with a wall vent. The local chimney inspector has approved this.
Our house has a heated area or living space of 110 m3 (3,885 ft3).
Annual gas consumption is approximately 11,000 kW.
kati1337 schrieb:
If we all stop having children, we could go back to installing gas boilers and oil heating systems because then there would be no one left to preserve the climate for. The Earth itself wouldn’t really care. A few million years after we go extinct, it would recover just fine. That would be absolutely "green." But here we are again with "shades of gray and colors." What am I willing to give up, and what not? What am I ready to sacrifice for climate protection?
It just means that a childless person living in an old house heated by gas who flies on vacation might, under certain circumstances, do more for the environment than someone with children living in a KfW 40+ standard house with a heat pump who rides a bike.
kati1337 schrieb:
We’re drifting off-topic 😀 But no, it’s not really broken. Currently, we have two small gasoline cars, but we don’t need two cars anymore. We plan to sell both in the medium term and buy an electric vehicle. Right now, though, it’s not really economical because we drive so little. We’re moving closer to family, so the 550cm (340 miles) trip will no longer be necessary. However, we will need to change vehicles in the future because our family car is currently an Audi A1, and my husband drives a Smart. The family car is too small, we hardly ever use the Smart, and we also need an automatic transmission since my husband can’t or isn’t allowed to drive a manual. So, an electric vehicle seems like a good choice. From what I gathered in another thread, you want to build a new house there. And the small carbon footprint is gone. The new build weighs significantly more than years of commuting…
R
RotorMotor6 Feb 2022 13:00rick2018 schrieb:
I think when we say “large” we mean different house sizes. How do you come to that?
Less guessing, more facts please.
If you don’t know something, it’s perfectly fine to ask.
rick2018 schrieb:
I’m talking about houses with 500m2 (5380 sq ft) and more (large single-family homes and multi-family homes). So what?
Usually, a larger volume means a better volume-to-surface ratio.
Sure, a big house consumes more energy overall, but that doesn’t make it less efficient.
rick2018 schrieb:
Why a heat pump isn’t so practical there? It’s perfectly logical: because higher supply temperatures are needed due to performance losses. What exactly do you mean by performance losses caused by house size?
A higher heating demand can be met with larger heat generators.
I’ve never heard that big heat pumps are generally inefficient.
Again, you’re welcome to back up your statements or support them with numbers.
rick2018 schrieb:
From what I gathered in another thread, you want to build new there. And then the small carbon footprint is gone. New construction weighs significantly more than years of commuting… Here, house size and the amount of concrete play a major role.
Instantaneous water heaters installed in multi-family buildings must have a minimum temperature of 60°C (140°F). This is a regulation due to legionella prevention… which is not efficient with heat pumps.
I never said that large heat pumps are not efficient.
However, to quickly heat a large volume of water, peak power is required. Heat pumps are not designed for this.
The autocorrect changed "pipe losses" to "power losses." Due to longer pipes, higher supply temperatures are necessary.
I never said that large heat pumps are not efficient.
However, to quickly heat a large volume of water, peak power is required. Heat pumps are not designed for this.
The autocorrect changed "pipe losses" to "power losses." Due to longer pipes, higher supply temperatures are necessary.
rick2018 schrieb:
But to quickly heat a large amount of water, you need peak power. Heat pumps are not designed for this.I have to agree with that. For our household of three, it’s sufficient, but if there’s a day when I’ve just taken a bath, dad has showered, and then the child unexpectedly needs a bath, the hot water runs out quickly, and it takes a bit of time before it’s hot again.
RotorMotor schrieb:
In this case, the size of the house and the amount of concrete used play a major role.Oh come on, you can easily make up for a little extra concrete by not having kids 🙄
Similar topics