Hello everyone!
A quick question:
Why do people actually add solar thermal systems to their gas heating?
Is it because they have to comply with the energy saving regulations?
Wrong, you are allowed to skip solar thermal if other measures reduce energy consumption by at least 15%.
Example:
I’m planning a KfW-55 house with gas heating, solar thermal, controlled ventilation with heat recovery, and excellent insulation.
Now I remove the solar thermal system. What happens?
I lose the KfW-55 status and end up with KfW-70, so I lose a €2,500 subsidy. But I save €6,000 by not installing solar thermal. The operating costs increase by €50 per year due to the missing solar thermal, which adds up to €1,000 over 20 years. So overall, I still save €2,500.
Savings:
€6,000 saved by not installing solar thermal*
- €2,500 lost KfW-55 subsidy
- €1,000 higher operating costs due to no solar thermal*
=======
€2,500
Sounds like an attractive alternative, or is there a major calculation mistake somewhere?
The whole calculation would also apply to a KfW-85 house, which would qualify as a KfW-100 house without the solar thermal.
Best regards
jx7
PS:
Please don’t bring up heat pumps or pellet heating; this is not meant to start a fundamental debate about gas versus heat pumps (with sharp increases in energy prices, heat pumps will eventually become more cost-effective). The initial question is simply: "If using gas, then maybe without solar thermal?"
* Source: xxx-Heizungsvergleich-de "Gas + 5sqm solar thermal"
A quick question:
Why do people actually add solar thermal systems to their gas heating?
Is it because they have to comply with the energy saving regulations?
Wrong, you are allowed to skip solar thermal if other measures reduce energy consumption by at least 15%.
Example:
I’m planning a KfW-55 house with gas heating, solar thermal, controlled ventilation with heat recovery, and excellent insulation.
Now I remove the solar thermal system. What happens?
I lose the KfW-55 status and end up with KfW-70, so I lose a €2,500 subsidy. But I save €6,000 by not installing solar thermal. The operating costs increase by €50 per year due to the missing solar thermal, which adds up to €1,000 over 20 years. So overall, I still save €2,500.
Savings:
€6,000 saved by not installing solar thermal*
- €2,500 lost KfW-55 subsidy
- €1,000 higher operating costs due to no solar thermal*
=======
€2,500
Sounds like an attractive alternative, or is there a major calculation mistake somewhere?
The whole calculation would also apply to a KfW-85 house, which would qualify as a KfW-100 house without the solar thermal.
Best regards
jx7
PS:
Please don’t bring up heat pumps or pellet heating; this is not meant to start a fundamental debate about gas versus heat pumps (with sharp increases in energy prices, heat pumps will eventually become more cost-effective). The initial question is simply: "If using gas, then maybe without solar thermal?"
* Source: xxx-Heizungsvergleich-de "Gas + 5sqm solar thermal"
In my opinion, KfW financing only makes sense if you are already building a house that meets the KfW requirements.
It is usually not worthwhile to adapt a house that was planned without considering KfW standards just to qualify for KfW financing.
However, there is no hassle if you take out a KfW loan through your regular bank.
It is usually not worthwhile to adapt a house that was planned without considering KfW standards just to qualify for KfW financing.
However, there is no hassle if you take out a KfW loan through your regular bank.
oleda222 schrieb:
It is almost never worthwhile to retrofit a house originally designed without KfW standards to meet KfW requirements.I'm not sure if I understand this correctly. The energy saving regulations have to be met anyway. I assume that the house will already be somewhat below the maximum allowed values. We just need to ensure it is at least 15% better to be able to omit solar thermal systems. We don't intend to specifically try to meet KfW requirements.
I think I now understand where our "misunderstanding" lies.
My question or assumption was initially that proving compliance with the energy-saving regulations is equivalent to having a KfW certification, since the KfW certification goes beyond just proving compliance with the energy-saving regulations.
However, it seems that it is sufficient to demonstrate the targeted reduction of the energy-saving regulations using the two key figures in the energy-saving regulation certificate – and that no additional costs arise in this regard, since an energy-saving regulation certificate must be provided anyway.
My question or assumption was initially that proving compliance with the energy-saving regulations is equivalent to having a KfW certification, since the KfW certification goes beyond just proving compliance with the energy-saving regulations.
However, it seems that it is sufficient to demonstrate the targeted reduction of the energy-saving regulations using the two key figures in the energy-saving regulation certificate – and that no additional costs arise in this regard, since an energy-saving regulation certificate must be provided anyway.
Exactly, as long as you follow the requirements of the Energy Saving Ordinance, you can improve insulation, install more technical equipment, or do whatever you want.
This has nothing to do with KfW funding until you want to apply for it. Then, in addition to the Energy Saving Ordinance, you must also meet the KfW requirements for the respective programs.
This has nothing to do with KfW funding until you want to apply for it. Then, in addition to the Energy Saving Ordinance, you must also meet the KfW requirements for the respective programs.
B
Bieber08158 Jan 2016 11:47In Germany, you are only allowed to build a house if you comply with the Energy Saving Ordinance and the Renewable Energy Heat Act (in addition to other requirements, for example, the structural engineering must meet the necessary standards). You cannot simply build whatever you want.
The KfW offers particularly favorable loans for houses that are even "better" (= more energy-efficient) than those that only meet the legal (minimum) requirements. (KfW also provides other loans for which this does not apply... The conditions for these loans are set by KfW.)
The KfW offers particularly favorable loans for houses that are even "better" (= more energy-efficient) than those that only meet the legal (minimum) requirements. (KfW also provides other loans for which this does not apply... The conditions for these loans are set by KfW.)
Similar topics