ᐅ Energy Saving Regulation 2016 / KFW55 Standard / Gas and Solar in 2016
Created on: 1 Dec 2015 20:37
G
Grym
I have a question regarding the 2016 energy saving regulation. It is often stated that the transmission heat loss is reduced by 20 percent, but I cannot find this figure, unlike the change in primary energy demand, in the legal text. Instead, it says:
Does this actually mean that these reference values have not applied before and only became valid from January 2016? Is the 20-percent tightening only implicit or calculated?
Furthermore, the KFW55 standard is based on these reference values concerning transmission heat loss. KFW55 corresponds to 70 percent, so is KFW55 about 30 percent stricter than the 2016 energy saving regulation regarding this parameter?
This is also suggested by the simplified benchmark values for KFW55, e.g., thermal bridge allowance 0.05 x 0.7 = 0.035 or 0.28 x 0.7 = 0.2. “Simplified” is relative, as you still have to calculate all thermal bridges.
Then the equation that KFW70 is roughly equivalent to the 2016 energy saving regulation is definitely not correct. KFW70 is at 85 percent of the reference values, while the 2016 energy saving regulation refers to 100 percent of the reference values. Therefore, KFW70 is still 15 percent stricter regarding transmission heat loss than the new energy saving regulation. Only in comparison of primary energy are the values closer, where KFW70 demands 70 percent and the energy saving regulation a tightening by 25 percent, so 75 percent.
This brings us to gas plus solar in 2016. A KFW70 house exceeds both primary energy demand and transmission heat loss requirements of the 2016 energy saving regulation. If there were KFW70 houses with gas plus solar before, there will continue to be. The requirements of the Renewable Energies Heat Act are met by the system under point I. 1.) a) aa).
Any opinions? Corrections? Counterarguments? Theories? Other comments?
From January 1, 2016, the specific transmission heat loss related to the heat-transmitting building envelope of a new residential building must not exceed 1.0 times the corresponding value of the respective reference building.
Does this actually mean that these reference values have not applied before and only became valid from January 2016? Is the 20-percent tightening only implicit or calculated?
Furthermore, the KFW55 standard is based on these reference values concerning transmission heat loss. KFW55 corresponds to 70 percent, so is KFW55 about 30 percent stricter than the 2016 energy saving regulation regarding this parameter?
This is also suggested by the simplified benchmark values for KFW55, e.g., thermal bridge allowance 0.05 x 0.7 = 0.035 or 0.28 x 0.7 = 0.2. “Simplified” is relative, as you still have to calculate all thermal bridges.
Then the equation that KFW70 is roughly equivalent to the 2016 energy saving regulation is definitely not correct. KFW70 is at 85 percent of the reference values, while the 2016 energy saving regulation refers to 100 percent of the reference values. Therefore, KFW70 is still 15 percent stricter regarding transmission heat loss than the new energy saving regulation. Only in comparison of primary energy are the values closer, where KFW70 demands 70 percent and the energy saving regulation a tightening by 25 percent, so 75 percent.
This brings us to gas plus solar in 2016. A KFW70 house exceeds both primary energy demand and transmission heat loss requirements of the 2016 energy saving regulation. If there were KFW70 houses with gas plus solar before, there will continue to be. The requirements of the Renewable Energies Heat Act are met by the system under point I. 1.) a) aa).
Any opinions? Corrections? Counterarguments? Theories? Other comments?
G
Goldi091119 Jan 2017 21:45Ask me again in six months. We are starting the planning phase with the architect in a week and aim to begin construction around August/September.
G
Goldi091119 Jan 2017 22:41It is definitely possible; it’s always a question of how much additional investment is involved.
G
Goldi0911110 Jan 2017 18:08Correct, that is also one of many things we are not 100% sure about yet. Since I would like to build with a 36.5cm (14.4 inches) thick T7 mineral wool and a controlled residential ventilation system, solar panels might not be necessary.
Similar topics