ᐅ Installation of a Gas Heating System in New Construction 2023/2024

Almost all heat pumps, with few exceptions—specifically the new units using propane as a refrigerant—are extremely harmful to the environment and should more or less be banned.

Quick question: How many homeowners currently have a modern heat pump using propane?

Comparisons are often made with Norway or Denmark, where cold winters and electric heating are common. However, this is not an issue there because electricity costs 4 cents per kilowatt-hour. Here, we pay over 40 cents.

Incomes in Norway are significantly higher than in Germany, and yet they pay only a tenth of the German electricity price. We are clearly talking about completely different circumstances.

At an electricity price of 4 cents per kilowatt-hour, electrically heating a supply water temperature of 60 degrees Celsius is feasible and could be economically viable for a heat pump. In that case, you could keep radiators. But this is where the government’s interest in climate protection quickly ends.
Apart from that, we neither have the grids nor sufficient electricity for such massive electrical consumption.

Heat pumps also have a limited lifespan of about 15 years. Insurance for heat pumps typically covers a maximum of 15 years. Beyond that, it gets difficult.

Of course, I have underfloor heating in my bathrooms, which is also comfortable. But I simply do not want underfloor heating in the other rooms. I just don’t feel comfortable with it. Similarly, I don’t feel comfortable in these new airtight, highly insulated houses.
The living climate in most new homes is a disaster. Of course, nobody admits this.

The whole climate discussion is, in fact, an illusion. When it comes to energy storage for photovoltaics and wind power, there has been no real progress.
Actual global emission reduction? None to speak of.

There are still pointless cheap flights (20 euros to fly to Rome), alternative transport concepts are still missing, cruise ships continue to emit huge amounts of exhaust gases, and our gas, wood, and coal are shipped in. Instead of coming from Russia, coal now comes from Australia. Environmental protection? What is that?

I have a property with a stream at the back. Am I allowed to build a small hydropower plant there within the framework of renewable energy generation? Completely emission-free to save CO2 as demanded by the government?

It’s not possible. Or try applying for a proper photovoltaic system of more than 100 kWp. Renewable energy is far from a reality there.

And to put it bluntly, using rhetoric typical of AfD, the economic location Germany and its citizens are being coldly expropriated and will be.

Bausparfuchs schrieb:

Quick question. Who among the homeowners already has a modern heat pump running on propane gas?

Yes, here.

Bausparfuchs schrieb:

There are still senseless low-cost flights (20 euro for a flight to Rome), alternative transport concepts are still missing, cruise ships are emitting endless exhaust fumes, and our gas, wood, and coal are shipped in by boat. Instead of coming from Russia, the coal now comes from Australia. Environmental protection? What is that?

You’re right, except for the conclusion that any other step in that direction would therefore be wrong.
This form of argumentation is known as sophistry. It’s a rhetorical trick described by Schopenhauer called the dialectical stratagem. Nowadays, it’s also called whataboutism.
Maybe it works in talk shows or among the so-called educational precariat for sensational headlines, but it’s not a productive form of discussion.

Bausparfuchs schrieb:

I have a property with a stream at the rear part of my land. Am I allowed to build a small hydropower plant there as part of renewable energy generation? Completely emission-free to save CO₂ as required by the government.

It’s not possible. Or try applying for a decent photovoltaic system over 100 kWp. Renewable energies aren’t that widely supported here after all.

Really, have you tried both? With photovoltaics, you can still argue about the grid and grid stability.
But I actually don’t understand a small hydropower plant on a stream. What’s the legal background for that?

Bausparfuchs schrieb:

But this only annoys me secondarily. My oil heating system built in 1992 works perfectly. I bought the heating for 14 euros once.
I need 1000 liters (264 gallons) of heating oil for my 180 sqm (1940 sq ft) living area living space, and I do the maintenance myself. I can handle boiler cleaning, changing the nozzle, and occasionally replacing the ignition electrode on my own.

Then you are no longer allowed to operate it if it is older than 30 years...
My parents have an apartment in a multifamily building built in 1995, with a gas heating system from 1992 (no idea why the heating is older than the building). At the last homeowners’ meeting, the property manager said the heating system has to be replaced because it is older than 30 years. Regardless of whether it still works or not...
Question to the group: is this really the case? What will happen now to all the gas heating systems in multifamily buildings from 1993–1995 (the last major construction boom)? Do they all have to be removed now just because they are over 30 years old?

Year of construction and commissioning are two different things.

Heaters older than 30 years must be replaced. However, this refers to the commissioning date.
The heating system is commissioned by the chimney sweep during a safety inspection. From that point, the 30-year period starts.

My oil heater was built in 1992. It was installed in a house and only operated there for 2 years. In 2006, I bought it and removed it myself. It was then installed in my home in 2012. So it can still run here for another 19 years. And what exactly is supposed to break?
You can replace the burner completely, swap out the control unit, or change the boiler. It is very unlikely that the boiler itself will fail. Even in the worst case, if the boiler cracks, it can be welded. And if not here, there are certainly suitable spare parts available in Poland for another 20 years. I see no issues here at all.

With gas heating, it is probably a bit more complicated, since safety-related components come into play. The law has not been finalized yet, so we should wait and see. Otherwise, the best business in the coming years might be trading spare parts for used heating systems.

Pacmansh schrieb:

This is the text I am referring to, although admittedly it was just quickly googled and I haven’t thoroughly checked if there is a newer version, which I couldn’t find immediately:
“Contrary to subparagraph 1, the placing on the market of parts of equipment necessary for the repair and maintenance of existing equipment is permitted for a period of up to ten years from the date on which the placing on the market was banned, according to Annex IV, provided that the repair or maintenance does not result in an increase in the capacity of the equipment or an increase in the quantity of fluorinated gases contained in the equipment or used fluorinated gases.”

That sounds a bit different, and while trying to find the original text, I also came across a version that does not include the ten years. So there are definitely multiple versions. And ten years after 2030 would still only be 17 years for my heating system. As a diesel vehicle owner, I am just understandably wary when it comes to grandfathering provisions.

This appears to be the current version:
"The ban on placing on the market equipment components prohibited under this regulation should not apply to parts necessary for the repair and maintenance of existing, already installed equipment, to ensure that these installations can be repaired and maintained throughout their entire service life. This prevents the unjustified replacement of existing energy systems and infrastructure, which could negatively impact decarbonization efforts."