ᐅ Energy Saving Ordinance, KfW 55, KfW 40, or KfW 40 Plus

Hello everyone,

due to an interesting topic that has come up around our house construction plans and is causing us some serious questions, I’d like to put this question out there:

Which standard should we build to (Energy Saving Regulation, KfW 55, KfW 40, or KfW 40 plus)?

We are not ideologues, meaning our decisions are mainly based on two criteria:
1) Cost-effort (i.e. which option pays off over the long term)
2) Future viability

-> We are in our early/mid-30s and therefore expect the house to last a long time
-> We expect energy prices to rise

What has happened?
-> We were determined that if we build, it will only be a KfW 40 plus house. Assumption: Insulation has reached its peak development, with little potential left. The top level of insulation has been achieved. The development potential still lies with heat pumps and storage systems.
Therefore, we wanted an air-source heat pump, with as large a solar system as possible (9.99 kWp), plus an appropriate battery storage. Controlled ventilation would be a must in all variants. Goal: to produce all the electricity we need ourselves and end the year with a net zero balance. In other words, no electricity costs or any other energy expenses.

The following challenge then arose:
In our region, there are virtually no general contractors or shell contractors who offer this kind of solution at all. The only company we could build with relatively easily is the well-known one from Bad Fallingbostel. We’ve already had several discussions there, but I’m not entirely convinced. Sure, there are many advantages, but also some things that bother me.

Now we have gone on another tour through local providers.
The consensus: about 70% build to Energy Saving Regulation or KfW 55 standard. One company showed such incompetence in the first meeting and then zero customer service afterward that we can no longer imagine that they can deliver a house with a functioning heating system. One company is now insolvent. Another offers a maximum of KfW 55 (without any option to upgrade). Another would basically build anything for us but thinks anything above KfW 55 is nonsense.

In short: Our idea faces absolutely no support (except in Bad Fallingbostel). And now we are starting to wonder which path might actually be the right one (based on the points mentioned above).

I hope I’m not starting a debate that ultimately ends up as a “matter of belief.” The problem is that every scenario can apparently be made to "look good" with the right calculations.

I look forward to your experiences, opinions, and perhaps calculations on this topic.

Best regards

CarinaJ

From an economic perspective, it’s about the energy saving regulations. The rest is a green thumb.

@matte1987
Thank you for your reply. Could you please explain a bit more why?
And what about future viability?

Do the math. We’re building with a general contractor, following only the standard energy-saving regulations. Predicted gas costs are $700 per year, electricity for two people is $65 per month or about $800 per year. That’s roughly $1,500 per year for energy. If your goal is zero energy consumption, what investment will that require? For additional insulation, extra technology, and don’t forget that technology comes with maintenance costs and eventual replacement costs. You need a high-performance heat pump or geothermal energy, a lot of photovoltaic panels, an expensive mechanical ventilation system with heat recovery instead of simple trickle vents in the windows — what does all that cost? 30 times more? So 20 years’ worth of energy consumption. Now you say, yes, but gas and electricity prices will go up. I say, sure, but your entire technology also generates technician bills. Plus, you wouldn’t have to finance those saved 30 years of energy costs with interest and loan repayment. And… are those 30 years even enough, or seriously, how much more expensive will a 40+ year-old house be really? Karsten

Well, there isn’t much to explain…

Assuming heating costs of 600-800€ per year for a house of average size (excluding hot water, since I use about the same amount in every house), savings of 200€ to even 300€ per year on the heating supply are possible.

If I take 300€ as an example, that means saving 6,000€ over 20 years with constant energy prices.

On the other hand, there is an additional investment needed to meet the respective standards. The higher the standard, the higher the necessary investment.

For me, after initially having to comply with KFW55, I moved away from it because I wasn’t satisfied with certain aspects of the KFW program, and I didn’t think the effort was worth it.

Of course, you can also get a repayment grant from them, but I exclude that from my calculation since it goes towards the energy consultant, who is not actually required under the energy saving regulations.

My conclusion remains:
If you have the money for such energy standards and it is important to you, go for it. But don’t do it for the wrong reasons, hoping to generate lifetime savings from it.

I don’t have an exact comparison without mixing apples and oranges. I haven’t found a supplier offering, let’s say, 55 and 40 plus standards.

One supplier said the difference for the Energy Saving Ordinance 55 is 7,000 euros, and for 40 plus you have to add around 40,000 euros.