ᐅ District Heating KfW55 - KfW70 Costs for Ventilation and Exhaust Systems
Created on: 1 Sep 2017 21:35
Z
zizzi
Hello everyone,
we are planning a bungalow.
We initially decided on KfW 70 because the payback period for KfW 55 is relatively long (the equipment that needs to be installed requires maintenance, can break down, and partly also consumes electricity). The highway is approximately 500 m (550 yards) from the property and despite a noise protection forest, it is still quite loud. Therefore, we want to plan a ventilation system, probably without heat recovery (ventilation with closed windows).
Today I found out that the property where we want to build is supplied with district heating.
The costs are as follows: one-time fee €9,500, annual basic price for 2017 calculated at €450 (subject to change), energy costs at 5.2 Ct./kWh (subject to change). The formulas for price adjustments are included in the contract (not yet signed) but they are not easily understandable for everyone.
There is an advantage here: the primary energy factor is 0.43 (certified and valid until 2024). According to the energy supplier (municipal utility), the representative told me that KfW 55 standards can only be met with additional thermal insulation compared to KfW 70 (without further measures).
What are your opinions on the resulting maintenance costs, experiences with district heating, and KfW 70 versus KfW 55?
we are planning a bungalow.
We initially decided on KfW 70 because the payback period for KfW 55 is relatively long (the equipment that needs to be installed requires maintenance, can break down, and partly also consumes electricity). The highway is approximately 500 m (550 yards) from the property and despite a noise protection forest, it is still quite loud. Therefore, we want to plan a ventilation system, probably without heat recovery (ventilation with closed windows).
Today I found out that the property where we want to build is supplied with district heating.
The costs are as follows: one-time fee €9,500, annual basic price for 2017 calculated at €450 (subject to change), energy costs at 5.2 Ct./kWh (subject to change). The formulas for price adjustments are included in the contract (not yet signed) but they are not easily understandable for everyone.
There is an advantage here: the primary energy factor is 0.43 (certified and valid until 2024). According to the energy supplier (municipal utility), the representative told me that KfW 55 standards can only be met with additional thermal insulation compared to KfW 70 (without further measures).
What are your opinions on the resulting maintenance costs, experiences with district heating, and KfW 70 versus KfW 55?
First, because it is more cost-effective. Second, because it is technically simple and therefore less prone to failure. Third, because keeping it simple is a lifestyle choice valued by many people. (You can drive a Tesla or a Dacia; which one is ultimately more environmentally friendly from production to final recycling is not clearly determined).
Regarding airflows.
In our bathroom, we installed an extractor fan made by Helios, featuring variable speed control, humidity detection, and a filter insert. Additionally, each window in the house is equipped with a trickle vent from Regel Air. That’s all.
Karsten
Regarding airflows.
In our bathroom, we installed an extractor fan made by Helios, featuring variable speed control, humidity detection, and a filter insert. Additionally, each window in the house is equipped with a trickle vent from Regel Air. That’s all.
Karsten
In both cases, there is comfort, but I find that controlled ventilation with heat recovery offers less comfort. Many people report disturbing noises, sometimes inappropriate humidity levels, and what I see as the biggest downside is the ductwork used to carry the air, where germs can develop that can never be completely cleaned.
From an economic perspective, I am not entirely sure that the heat recovery option is better, as initial investment costs, maintenance expenses, electricity costs, and replacement of defective equipment all need to be considered.
Is the heat recovery option better for the environment? Initially, it is said to be, but the production and installation of the components and materials involved in heat recovery also require energy, and these systems cannot operate without electricity. When all these factors are taken into account, only then can we really say whether heat recovery is environmentally friendly.
After research and consideration, I have decided on the simpler option, without heat recovery.
From an economic perspective, I am not entirely sure that the heat recovery option is better, as initial investment costs, maintenance expenses, electricity costs, and replacement of defective equipment all need to be considered.
Is the heat recovery option better for the environment? Initially, it is said to be, but the production and installation of the components and materials involved in heat recovery also require energy, and these systems cannot operate without electricity. When all these factors are taken into account, only then can we really say whether heat recovery is environmentally friendly.
After research and consideration, I have decided on the simpler option, without heat recovery.
Similar topics