ᐅ Energy Saving Regulation 2016 or KfW 55 Standard for a Bungalow with Air-to-Water Heat Pump and Controlled Mechanical Ventilation, Optional Photovoltaic System
Created on: 5 Jun 2019 08:25
M
micric3
Good morning,
We are currently in the preliminary planning phase and are being flooded with information from various builders.
The topic of the "Energy Saving Ordinance 2016 or KfW 55 standard" especially leads to additional discussions.
The current concept for a household of four is as follows:
- Underfloor heating + air-to-water heat pump / controlled mechanical ventilation system combo, for example Vaillant recoCOMPACT (alternative: Nibe 730/750)
- Photovoltaic system ready for later retrofitting
- No gas connection possible/available
Opinions from some builders:
- KfW 55 was only attractive because of the low interest rates compared to traditional bank loans
- Currently, few are building to KfW 55 standard; the Energy Saving Ordinance 2016 is 'back in trend'
Calculation from another builder:
30 cm (12 inches) exterior masonry instead of 24 cm (9.5 inches) exterior masonry (both according to Energy Saving Ordinance 2016) = (costs €3,750)
(Additional costs for KfW 55 with 36.5 cm (14 inches) exterior masonry, floor slab insulation, increased roof insulation, and KfW 55 calculations and documentation were (costs €14,680))
I would like to hear some opinions on this:
Good luck
Michael
We are currently in the preliminary planning phase and are being flooded with information from various builders.
The topic of the "Energy Saving Ordinance 2016 or KfW 55 standard" especially leads to additional discussions.
The current concept for a household of four is as follows:
- Underfloor heating + air-to-water heat pump / controlled mechanical ventilation system combo, for example Vaillant recoCOMPACT (alternative: Nibe 730/750)
- Photovoltaic system ready for later retrofitting
- No gas connection possible/available
Opinions from some builders:
- KfW 55 was only attractive because of the low interest rates compared to traditional bank loans
- Currently, few are building to KfW 55 standard; the Energy Saving Ordinance 2016 is 'back in trend'
Calculation from another builder:
30 cm (12 inches) exterior masonry instead of 24 cm (9.5 inches) exterior masonry (both according to Energy Saving Ordinance 2016) = (costs €3,750)
(Additional costs for KfW 55 with 36.5 cm (14 inches) exterior masonry, floor slab insulation, increased roof insulation, and KfW 55 calculations and documentation were (costs €14,680))
I would like to hear some opinions on this:
Good luck
Michael
Simply unjustified criticism, promoted by Nixschwör.
Our air-to-water heat pump only achieved an annual performance factor of 4.3 last year for domestic hot water and heating, but it still represents the most cost-effective solution. If I also include the photovoltaic system, even more so.
If the green hype doesn’t fade, there will be a CO2 tax in two years, and the choice between gas and heat pump will be taken out of our hands anyway.
Our air-to-water heat pump only achieved an annual performance factor of 4.3 last year for domestic hot water and heating, but it still represents the most cost-effective solution. If I also include the photovoltaic system, even more so.
If the green hype doesn’t fade, there will be a CO2 tax in two years, and the choice between gas and heat pump will be taken out of our hands anyway.
N
nix zu schwör11 Jul 2019 20:27@Lumpi_LE
You don’t seriously believe that all manufacturers intentionally report poor performance values for their heat pumps to the BAFA, do you?
Photovoltaics don’t make much of a difference either, since the cost of self-produced kWh is far too high; we’ve already paid for the subsidies through our taxes.
I plan energy-efficient houses up to passive house standards every day. Of course, a homeowner wants to see a positive return on their investment, that’s just how it is. The fact that a heat pump is often the result in new builds has nothing to do with efficiency, but with politics.
As always, it’s important to consider who truly benefits from our political decisions. In the end, the subsidies also come from our taxes.
You don’t seriously believe that all manufacturers intentionally report poor performance values for their heat pumps to the BAFA, do you?
Photovoltaics don’t make much of a difference either, since the cost of self-produced kWh is far too high; we’ve already paid for the subsidies through our taxes.
I plan energy-efficient houses up to passive house standards every day. Of course, a homeowner wants to see a positive return on their investment, that’s just how it is. The fact that a heat pump is often the result in new builds has nothing to do with efficiency, but with politics.
As always, it’s important to consider who truly benefits from our political decisions. In the end, the subsidies also come from our taxes.
nichts zu schwör schrieb:
You don’t seriously believe that all manufacturers intentionally report poor performance values for their heat pumps to BAFA, do you?What makes you say that?
nichts zu schwör schrieb:
I design energy-efficient houses up to passive house standard every day.Well, then it seems you clearly don’t know your job very well, as is the case for most people. Subsidies and taxes have nothing to do with this assessment—do you also refuse to eat bread because it actually costs €10 (about $11)?
B
boxandroof12 Jul 2019 13:33nichts zu schwör schrieb:
I design energy-efficient houses up to passive houses every day.It is difficult to take you seriously given your generalized, unrelated, or repeatedly debunked statements.If you are truly designing for others and not just lobbying within the forum, then unfortunately you confirm my perception of some planners involved in construction: a lot of hot air and a personal agenda that should not override the client’s interests.
It would certainly benefit both you and this discussion if you engaged constructively with the points raised here.
N
nix zu schwör23 Jul 2019 12:39@Lumpi_LE und @boxandroof
The difference from your assumptions is quite simple: I stick to facts and manufacturer data because these must be proven in a thermal insulation certificate.
Subsidies and taxes have nothing to do with this consideration at all, or do you avoid eating bread because it actually costs 10€?
Of course, you can be that ignorant if you don’t pay any taxes yourself.
But that doesn’t change the technical facts.
Without specifying the primary energy factor, heat pumps wouldn’t have been installed just like in the 2002 Energy Saving Ordinance. That is, no one will buy the €10 bread when there is also a €5 option available.
No widely used energy generation method currently has a worse efficiency than photovoltaics. Storage in batteries and CO² is completely aside. That is precisely why this technology is subsidized. Nobody would want to have photovoltaics on their roof if the kWh cost three times as much.
But you see for yourselves that you cannot provide evidence for your claims.
Ask yourselves why...
These are just as much myths as the claim that an exterior wall built to the 2016 Energy Saving Ordinance would cost less than a wall subsidized to KfW55 standard. For both, you would have to use a T7 or comparable brick.
On the contrary, there is also the depreciation from 2020/2021, since this year the Building Energy Act 2019 (GEG2019) is supposed to come into force.
So who is lobbying here and aiming to financially harm home builders?
The difference from your assumptions is quite simple: I stick to facts and manufacturer data because these must be proven in a thermal insulation certificate.
Subsidies and taxes have nothing to do with this consideration at all, or do you avoid eating bread because it actually costs 10€?
Of course, you can be that ignorant if you don’t pay any taxes yourself.
But that doesn’t change the technical facts.
Without specifying the primary energy factor, heat pumps wouldn’t have been installed just like in the 2002 Energy Saving Ordinance. That is, no one will buy the €10 bread when there is also a €5 option available.
No widely used energy generation method currently has a worse efficiency than photovoltaics. Storage in batteries and CO² is completely aside. That is precisely why this technology is subsidized. Nobody would want to have photovoltaics on their roof if the kWh cost three times as much.
But you see for yourselves that you cannot provide evidence for your claims.
Ask yourselves why...
These are just as much myths as the claim that an exterior wall built to the 2016 Energy Saving Ordinance would cost less than a wall subsidized to KfW55 standard. For both, you would have to use a T7 or comparable brick.
On the contrary, there is also the depreciation from 2020/2021, since this year the Building Energy Act 2019 (GEG2019) is supposed to come into force.
So who is lobbying here and aiming to financially harm home builders?
B
boxandroof23 Jul 2019 13:40Nobody disputes that photovoltaics are subsidized here. That is widely known and by no means an argument for anything.
I’m not making any claims; thankfully, I don’t have to deal with calculations according to the energy saving ordinance or other bureaucratic formalities, but instead share my real experience as a homeowner. I have filed away our energy saving ordinance calculation—it’s not useful for serious planning.
I’m out of here.
I’m not making any claims; thankfully, I don’t have to deal with calculations according to the energy saving ordinance or other bureaucratic formalities, but instead share my real experience as a homeowner. I have filed away our energy saving ordinance calculation—it’s not useful for serious planning.
I’m out of here.
Similar topics