ᐅ 2016 KfW Efficiency House 55 based on reference values (U-values)
Created on: 5 Oct 2015 21:40
W
world-e
Hello,
has anyone examined the alternative verification of a KfW Efficiency House 55 based on reference values, which will come into effect from April 2016? Reference values are given to achieve a KfW 55 house:
Roof surfaces, top floor ceiling, dormers U ≤ 0.14 W/(m²·K)
Windows and other transparent components Uw ≤ 0.90 W/(m²·K)
Exterior walls, floor ceilings facing the outside air U ≤ 0.20 W/(m²·K)
However, the U-values do not seem very good to me, especially since the requirements will be tightened again by 20–25% in 2016 and rather correspond to the current KfW 40 standard. In my opinion, the U-values of a current KfW 40 house are considerably better.
I would appreciate your opinions. Thank you.
Best regards
has anyone examined the alternative verification of a KfW Efficiency House 55 based on reference values, which will come into effect from April 2016? Reference values are given to achieve a KfW 55 house:
Roof surfaces, top floor ceiling, dormers U ≤ 0.14 W/(m²·K)
Windows and other transparent components Uw ≤ 0.90 W/(m²·K)
Exterior walls, floor ceilings facing the outside air U ≤ 0.20 W/(m²·K)
However, the U-values do not seem very good to me, especially since the requirements will be tightened again by 20–25% in 2016 and rather correspond to the current KfW 40 standard. In my opinion, the U-values of a current KfW 40 house are considerably better.
I would appreciate your opinions. Thank you.
Best regards
B
Bauexperte25 Feb 2016 13:07Bauhaus schrieb:
Am I reading your chart correctly that the combination of gas + solar has not been allowed at all since 2016? No, gas + solar is still possible; it is just significantly more expensive than before to comply with the energy saving regulations. With increased effort (more insulation → primary energy demand), gas as a heat carrier is (still) less attractive compared to electricity.
Best regards, Bauexperte
Bauexperte schrieb:
Hello,
It's rather difficult to create a reliable quote since every single-family house needs to be calculated individually; a three-family house even more so.
*I* personally wouldn’t even want to build to KfW 55 standard; are you sure I am the right person to address your considerations to?
I currently have a bungalow configured as a two-family house with 280 sqm (3014 sq ft) of living area and 92 sqm (990 sq ft) of partial basement on my desk; for this, I obtained a quote from our specialist planner to achieve KfW 40+ standard. The following information was returned:
...
At a total price of €23,840.00 including installation, assuming optimal south-facing orientation.I’m just trying to understand it. It would be frustrating to find out later that, for example, a KfW 55 building envelope combined with an affordable attic or system could actually meet KfW 40 standards.
It remains an interesting topic, and I hope we make progress here soon or at least set the right course.
Bauexperte schrieb:
Changes in the Energy Saving Ordinance
The Energy Saving Ordinance was updated on January 1, 2016. From that date on, building permit / planning permission applications can only be submitted for houses complying with the 2016 Energy Saving Ordinance. There are essentially two key changes from 2014 to 2016:
- The primary energy demand must be improved by 25%
- The primary energy factor for electricity is reduced from 2.4 to 1.8 (25%)
The reference building (definition of U-values for the building envelope) remains unchanged. For a house with a heat pump, these changes effectively cancel each other out. A house with a gas condensing boiler and solar thermal system must achieve the 25% savings in other areas.A significant change is that the reference building previously applied only to the primary energy demand, but from January 1, 2016, it also applies to the transmission heat loss.
KfW70 has always been based on the reference building.
KfW70 is 30 percent better in terms of primary energy demand than the reference building and 15 percent better in terms of transmission heat loss.
The 2016 Energy Saving Ordinance is 25 percent better in primary energy demand, but for transmission heat loss, the requirements only match the reference building.
Therefore, KfW70 is stricter than the 2016 Energy Saving Ordinance in both criteria. The reference building itself is not particularly demanding compared to current building standards. For example, the U-value of the exterior envelope is 0.28 W/(m²·K).
I am currently having the energy-saving regulation calculation done. I’m curious whether it will meet the KfW 55 standard according to the new requirements as of 01.04.16. Contractually, KfW 55 based on the 2014 Energy Saving Regulation is guaranteed. Do you think 20cm (8 inches) of mineral wool insulation with a thermal conductivity of 0.035 W/(m·K) on the top floor ceiling to the unheated roof is acceptable?
For KFW55, it’s somewhat low but can be compensated by other building components.
KFW55 according to the 2014 Energy Saving Ordinance is still the current KFW program and remains the valid Energy Saving Ordinance.
There is no separate 2016 Energy Saving Ordinance. When this is mentioned, it refers to the changes already included in the 2014 Energy Saving Ordinance that came into effect on 01.01.2016. This should be understood because there is no new Energy Saving Ordinance 2016 law.
On the contrary, from 01.04.2016 there are even simplification procedures, which among other things allow easier proof (for example, regarding thermal bridge minimization – 0.035 instead of 0.05 by following the thermal bridge catalog).
KFW55 according to the 2014 Energy Saving Ordinance is still the current KFW program and remains the valid Energy Saving Ordinance.
There is no separate 2016 Energy Saving Ordinance. When this is mentioned, it refers to the changes already included in the 2014 Energy Saving Ordinance that came into effect on 01.01.2016. This should be understood because there is no new Energy Saving Ordinance 2016 law.
On the contrary, from 01.04.2016 there are even simplification procedures, which among other things allow easier proof (for example, regarding thermal bridge minimization – 0.035 instead of 0.05 by following the thermal bridge catalog).
Similar topics