ᐅ How can you bypass energy-saving regulations and avoid bureaucratic hassle?
Created on: 8 Jul 2017 19:26
F
Farilo
Hello everyone,
Is it possible to build without following the energy saving regulations?
I want to avoid unnecessary insulation and similar measures. At the same time, I want to maintain the great indoor climate that exists in this building from 1959.
Although it was barely insulated, the house remains completely dry and the indoor climate is excellent.
I am planning to build an extension that fits this outstanding indoor climate. All these modern insulation methods are not helpful in this case.
Does anyone have some kind of exemption from the energy saving regulation and can share how they obtained it?
Thanks in advance.
Best regards
Is it possible to build without following the energy saving regulations?
I want to avoid unnecessary insulation and similar measures. At the same time, I want to maintain the great indoor climate that exists in this building from 1959.
Although it was barely insulated, the house remains completely dry and the indoor climate is excellent.
I am planning to build an extension that fits this outstanding indoor climate. All these modern insulation methods are not helpful in this case.
Does anyone have some kind of exemption from the energy saving regulation and can share how they obtained it?
Thanks in advance.
Best regards
Tego12 schrieb:
But I’m not saying that the moon landing is disputed, even though there is a certain group claiming it was faked. The moon landing was real, but its televised version was re-filmed. However, that is really off-topic.
chand1986 schrieb:
That is incorrect. The economic value of insulation is the money saved on heating/cooling energy PLUS the added value of the property attributed to the insulation. ... or a loss in value from the perspective of a potential buyer who sees the insulation material as a liability. Oh, how proud we were of asbestos cement back then.
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
11ant schrieb:
... or a drawback in the eyes of a potential buyer who views the insulation material as a legacy risk. Oh, how proud people once were of asbestos cement.Well, luckily you sleep on the floor, sit only on sheepskin in the living room, drink your milk straight from the cow’s udder, and brush your teeth with a miswak. And during all these activities, there isn’t even a thick layer of stone and plaster between you and the harmful plastic.
You guys are always so emotional! Insulation is not a bad thing. However, insulated older buildings often cause problems. The materials need to be compatible with each other. If I wrap an early post-war house, built simply, in heavy insulation, I easily get mold spots where it stays cold and damp. You have to be more careful with that. Maybe just keep the new windows that aren’t so drafty anymore. Maybe improve insulation in the roof and on sloping ceilings with glass wool or mineral wool. That’s it.
A new build can be designed from the start to work properly and be well insulated.
The ventilation issue remains, though. Either controlled mechanical ventilation or forced ventilation through the windows. That goes against the insulation concept but it’s healthier. I personally refuse to buy a car with sealed windows and just compensate with air conditioning. I hope you understand the metaphor.
Regarding cost-effectiveness: there is a lot of misuse of calculations that don’t add up. I’ll give you an example: we are supposed to produce hot water through renewable energy. Okay. We are supposed to use as little primary energy as possible, especially from fossil fuels (wood-burning stoves apparently don’t count, they seem to be considered eco-friendly, smile). But if – like in our case – 110 sqm (1184 sq ft) is occupied by only two people who don’t have a bathtub, but do have a dishwasher and a shower, the most economical and ecological solution would be a modern gas boiler with condensing technology without hot water storage. A hot water tap at the kitchen sink with an instantaneous water heater, the same in the shower, with two showers of 3–4 minutes a day is perfectly fine, cold water only at the hand basin, and in the guest WC as well. That’s it. Windows with forced ventilation, that’s it. This saves construction costs, gas, and the small amount of electricity needed for two showers is negligible. Controlled mechanical ventilation is not necessary, so more electricity saved. But energy-saving regulations don’t want this kind of house. They require solar panels (which small manufacturers in China assemble who knows how), or controlled mechanical ventilation, or air-to-water heat pumps, or geothermal systems, or biogas district heating. But they allow the wood stove. For us, I am certain that what the regulation demands is economic nonsense. And ecologically too. – Karsten
A new build can be designed from the start to work properly and be well insulated.
The ventilation issue remains, though. Either controlled mechanical ventilation or forced ventilation through the windows. That goes against the insulation concept but it’s healthier. I personally refuse to buy a car with sealed windows and just compensate with air conditioning. I hope you understand the metaphor.
Regarding cost-effectiveness: there is a lot of misuse of calculations that don’t add up. I’ll give you an example: we are supposed to produce hot water through renewable energy. Okay. We are supposed to use as little primary energy as possible, especially from fossil fuels (wood-burning stoves apparently don’t count, they seem to be considered eco-friendly, smile). But if – like in our case – 110 sqm (1184 sq ft) is occupied by only two people who don’t have a bathtub, but do have a dishwasher and a shower, the most economical and ecological solution would be a modern gas boiler with condensing technology without hot water storage. A hot water tap at the kitchen sink with an instantaneous water heater, the same in the shower, with two showers of 3–4 minutes a day is perfectly fine, cold water only at the hand basin, and in the guest WC as well. That’s it. Windows with forced ventilation, that’s it. This saves construction costs, gas, and the small amount of electricity needed for two showers is negligible. Controlled mechanical ventilation is not necessary, so more electricity saved. But energy-saving regulations don’t want this kind of house. They require solar panels (which small manufacturers in China assemble who knows how), or controlled mechanical ventilation, or air-to-water heat pumps, or geothermal systems, or biogas district heating. But they allow the wood stove. For us, I am certain that what the regulation demands is economic nonsense. And ecologically too. – Karsten
Tego12 schrieb:
sit only on sheepskin in the living room, drink your milk straight from the cow’s udder and ... read this nonsense on a papyrus tablet with free-flowing electrons.
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
Nordlys schrieb:
If you stick with the system, you can skip it. For example, with colors from Keim.
Google has plenty of information on how to apply clay plaster. It’s expensive. Karsten Thanks!
What kind of additional costs should one expect per square meter of wall? Do you have any idea?
Similar topics