Hello
We have only been using the pump for 4 months (new build). At the moment, we find that with an indoor temperature of 25°C (77°F), it is pleasantly warm. Do you really save much electricity by lowering it to 23°C (73°F) or 22°C (72°F)? Or does it not make much difference whether it is 25°C (77°F) or 22°C (72°F)?
We keep it constant at one temperature setting.
Thank you
We have only been using the pump for 4 months (new build). At the moment, we find that with an indoor temperature of 25°C (77°F), it is pleasantly warm. Do you really save much electricity by lowering it to 23°C (73°F) or 22°C (72°F)? Or does it not make much difference whether it is 25°C (77°F) or 22°C (72°F)?
We keep it constant at one temperature setting.
Thank you
B
Bauexperte30 Jan 2015 12:26Hello,
But definitely better than KFW55 if you want to avoid any disappointments later on.
A conversation with an energy consultant will provide good insight here, as it is not the case that the often-cited competitor always and easily achieves certification at the standard KFW55 level using exhaust air heat pump systems.
Regards, Bauexperte
Cascada schrieb:
Although I don't have any personal experience, what can be gathered from many problem reports in relevant forums is that the house should be at least KFW55 or better for this system to work satisfactorily and cost-effectively...
But definitely better than KFW55 if you want to avoid any disappointments later on.
A conversation with an energy consultant will provide good insight here, as it is not the case that the often-cited competitor always and easily achieves certification at the standard KFW55 level using exhaust air heat pump systems.
Regards, Bauexperte
B
Bauexperte30 Jan 2015 12:41Hello,
In my experience, homebuilders tend to match their provider like a lid fits a pot. So, if someone naturally opts for the cheap version and is resistant to advice, they will get exactly what they deserve. That’s why, from my perspective, it is only fair that there are providers who specialize in that type of customer.
Actually, basically yes. The first decision should be quite simple:
Are you the type who prefers proven technology? Then go for gas. This doesn’t limit you at all, because if your first boiler fails, you can still switch to newer technology later. Since the latest generation of gas condensing boilers, consumption costs are similar to those of an air-to-water heat pump—of course, always depending on the heating and showering habits of the household residents.
If you’re willing to let go of old habits, then you should choose a heat pump. Whether it’s an air-to-water heat pump, air-to-air heat pump, or ground-source heat pump depends on the energy efficiency of the new building, as well as the site conditions and, of course, your budget.
One more thing—if you choose reputable providers rather than cheap suppliers, they will not offer you low-quality technology. Across different gas brands, for example, Stiebel, Vaillant, Buderus, and many other well-known manufacturers offer good equipment tailored to the heating load calculation.
Best regards, Bauexperte
sirhc schrieb:
First of all, the basic question is which technology you want: oil, gas, or heat pump. Then which type of heat pump: air/ground/deep ground, etc. If you go for air, there will probably be cheap, standard, and luxury options, all of which would fit the heating load calculation. Surely there isn’t just one manufacturer and model.
In my experience, homebuilders tend to match their provider like a lid fits a pot. So, if someone naturally opts for the cheap version and is resistant to advice, they will get exactly what they deserve. That’s why, from my perspective, it is only fair that there are providers who specialize in that type of customer.
sirhc schrieb:
Finding the right one is certainly not easy.
Actually, basically yes. The first decision should be quite simple:
Are you the type who prefers proven technology? Then go for gas. This doesn’t limit you at all, because if your first boiler fails, you can still switch to newer technology later. Since the latest generation of gas condensing boilers, consumption costs are similar to those of an air-to-water heat pump—of course, always depending on the heating and showering habits of the household residents.
If you’re willing to let go of old habits, then you should choose a heat pump. Whether it’s an air-to-water heat pump, air-to-air heat pump, or ground-source heat pump depends on the energy efficiency of the new building, as well as the site conditions and, of course, your budget.
One more thing—if you choose reputable providers rather than cheap suppliers, they will not offer you low-quality technology. Across different gas brands, for example, Stiebel, Vaillant, Buderus, and many other well-known manufacturers offer good equipment tailored to the heating load calculation.
Best regards, Bauexperte
I want reliable technology—nothing cheap, but I also don’t want to overpay just for a brand name.
To put it in car terms: for me, a Skoda Octavia, VW Passat, and Audi A4 are roughly equivalent in terms of technology, safety, fuel consumption, and space. I would choose the Passat or the Octavia because I don’t see the point in paying an extra 2,000 EUR (about 2,200 USD) just for Audi’s rings.
What I want—and I think most people with a limited budget want—is good value for money. That means comparing the size of the living space to the costs, as well as the heating system in relation to its costs. This applies both to the purchase price and operating expenses. The additional costs should pay off within the first 5 to 10 years; then I’m happy to invest more upfront. But if it takes 20 or 30 years to break even, it’s probably only suitable for enthusiasts and idealists. By then, other technologies will be available, and this is before what’s currently installed has even started to amortize. For example, my father had very good experiences with gas boilers from Vaillant and didn’t even consider other heating methods. Now he’s exploring heat pumps and ventilation systems, and he seems to find those options interesting and worth discussing.
By now, a ventilation system seems more important to me than the choice between an air-to-water heat pump and gas. But I also prefer underfloor heating over radiators and wonder if these can be combined effectively. Domestic hot water heating should be supported with solar energy, and a stove for the transitional seasons and cozy warmth is essential for us.
I need to organize all my thoughts and maybe describe my ideas in combination. It’s a complex topic... and I don’t want to get myself tangled up in the details. It doesn’t have to be option X or Y at all costs, just because one is fundamentally great and the other fundamentally nonsense. The combination of upfront costs and daily operating expenses should be the most cost-effective and, of course, reliable for us.
Best regards
To put it in car terms: for me, a Skoda Octavia, VW Passat, and Audi A4 are roughly equivalent in terms of technology, safety, fuel consumption, and space. I would choose the Passat or the Octavia because I don’t see the point in paying an extra 2,000 EUR (about 2,200 USD) just for Audi’s rings.
What I want—and I think most people with a limited budget want—is good value for money. That means comparing the size of the living space to the costs, as well as the heating system in relation to its costs. This applies both to the purchase price and operating expenses. The additional costs should pay off within the first 5 to 10 years; then I’m happy to invest more upfront. But if it takes 20 or 30 years to break even, it’s probably only suitable for enthusiasts and idealists. By then, other technologies will be available, and this is before what’s currently installed has even started to amortize. For example, my father had very good experiences with gas boilers from Vaillant and didn’t even consider other heating methods. Now he’s exploring heat pumps and ventilation systems, and he seems to find those options interesting and worth discussing.
By now, a ventilation system seems more important to me than the choice between an air-to-water heat pump and gas. But I also prefer underfloor heating over radiators and wonder if these can be combined effectively. Domestic hot water heating should be supported with solar energy, and a stove for the transitional seasons and cozy warmth is essential for us.
I need to organize all my thoughts and maybe describe my ideas in combination. It’s a complex topic... and I don’t want to get myself tangled up in the details. It doesn’t have to be option X or Y at all costs, just because one is fundamentally great and the other fundamentally nonsense. The combination of upfront costs and daily operating expenses should be the most cost-effective and, of course, reliable for us.
Best regards
W
willWohnen10 Feb 2015 20:39Hello,
I can add two more points: When doing all the calculations, the warranty periods and the likelihood of repairs for each system should also be considered.
For various reasons, we decided on a heat pump (not yet in use), but I am very skeptical about whether it pays off financially – because there are many moving parts, the warranty periods for heat pumps are short (for obvious reasons), and repairs are expensive.
The second point is maintenance costs. In my opinion, gas systems cost about 200 euros per year (this may vary depending on the region). The heat pump is better in this regard, as it basically requires no maintenance. I’ve heard different stories – if you end up with a defective pump, you’re just out of luck.
Advantage of the heat pump: No burner, so no ash and no carbon monoxide inside the house.
I can add two more points: When doing all the calculations, the warranty periods and the likelihood of repairs for each system should also be considered.
For various reasons, we decided on a heat pump (not yet in use), but I am very skeptical about whether it pays off financially – because there are many moving parts, the warranty periods for heat pumps are short (for obvious reasons), and repairs are expensive.
The second point is maintenance costs. In my opinion, gas systems cost about 200 euros per year (this may vary depending on the region). The heat pump is better in this regard, as it basically requires no maintenance. I’ve heard different stories – if you end up with a defective pump, you’re just out of luck.
Advantage of the heat pump: No burner, so no ash and no carbon monoxide inside the house.
N
nordanney10 Feb 2015 21:13Many moving parts in a heat pump? It’s just a compressor like in any refrigerator – those also last forever, even with continuous operation. This is a technology that is almost 150 years old and well proven. Therefore, no maintenance is needed, as you mentioned.
When I think about the costs of constant repairs for our gas condensing boiler (from 2001), so many things could have broken down over the years...
When I think about the costs of constant repairs for our gas condensing boiler (from 2001), so many things could have broken down over the years...
W
willWohnen10 Feb 2015 21:21@nordanney: Seriously, multiple repairs even? The people I know with gas condensing boilers have never had any issues. Although, one of them recently had water in the chimney, and somehow that caused dampness in the floors and walls of the basement, which now need to be dried out. It’s not the gas condensing boiler itself causing the problem, I guess this can happen with any system that uses a chimney. They probably should have had the chimney inspected regularly, which they didn’t even know about.
With the heat pump, there’s at least the large rotor. Some friends once had a faulty temperature sensor, and it was disproportionately expensive to replace it; apparently, a lot had to be taken apart to access it.
With the heat pump, there’s at least the large rotor. Some friends once had a faulty temperature sensor, and it was disproportionately expensive to replace it; apparently, a lot had to be taken apart to access it.
Similar topics