Hello, we own a 20-year-old house with a wall-mounted boiler.
Model: Sieger HG11.
Since our exhaust gases are vented through a wall connection rather than through the roof, the boiler’s hot water output was limited to a maximum of 24 kW.
Now our boiler is nearing the end of its service life, and before requesting multiple quotes, I wanted to kindly ask here what the cost might be.
A new wall-mounted unit is to be installed, preferably again with a wall vent. The local chimney inspector has approved this.
Our house has a heated area or living space of 110 m3 (3,885 ft3).
Annual gas consumption is approximately 11,000 kW.
Model: Sieger HG11.
Since our exhaust gases are vented through a wall connection rather than through the roof, the boiler’s hot water output was limited to a maximum of 24 kW.
Now our boiler is nearing the end of its service life, and before requesting multiple quotes, I wanted to kindly ask here what the cost might be.
A new wall-mounted unit is to be installed, preferably again with a wall vent. The local chimney inspector has approved this.
Our house has a heated area or living space of 110 m3 (3,885 ft3).
Annual gas consumption is approximately 11,000 kW.
It’s not just the concrete. Other materials also need to be extracted, manufactured, processed, and transported.
Not entirely serious:
Concrete accounts for about 590kg CO2 per ton of concrete.
Current life expectancy is 78.6 years for men and 83.4 years for women.
Per child, 58 tons of CO2 per year.
For boys = 7,726.77 tons of concrete
For girls = 8,198.64 tons of concrete
That’s enough to build a basement :p
Not entirely serious:
Concrete accounts for about 590kg CO2 per ton of concrete.
Current life expectancy is 78.6 years for men and 83.4 years for women.
Per child, 58 tons of CO2 per year.
For boys = 7,726.77 tons of concrete
For girls = 8,198.64 tons of concrete
That’s enough to build a basement :p
Appetizing argument.
But why stop at unborn children and kids?
What do you conclude from the fact that the CO2 footprint of adults is likely even higher? And even higher for adults in first-world countries? And then significantly (!) higher for the wealthy in those countries?
That alone is reason enough to build a mausoleum.
But why stop at unborn children and kids?
What do you conclude from the fact that the CO2 footprint of adults is likely even higher? And even higher for adults in first-world countries? And then significantly (!) higher for the wealthy in those countries?
That alone is reason enough to build a mausoleum.
Have I suggested a conclusion? No, I have not.
Nor can/will/should I assign a CO2 budget to specific groups or discourage having children.
I already mentioned earlier that people without children tend to have less environmental impact than those with children (58 tons of CO2 per child per year).
This doesn’t mean that childless individuals couldn’t be more considerate, but their carbon footprint is simply smaller.
Those advocating here in the forum who have single-family homes and children should keep this in mind.
They prioritize their desire to have children over climate protection (which is their right). Additional CO2 reductions are still required.
Why should others have to compensate for that?
In the extreme case that @kati1337 already mentioned, the carbon footprint would almost not matter.
The Earth would recover over millions of years. But, of course, that is purely theoretical nonsense.
Nor can/will/should I assign a CO2 budget to specific groups or discourage having children.
I already mentioned earlier that people without children tend to have less environmental impact than those with children (58 tons of CO2 per child per year).
This doesn’t mean that childless individuals couldn’t be more considerate, but their carbon footprint is simply smaller.
Those advocating here in the forum who have single-family homes and children should keep this in mind.
They prioritize their desire to have children over climate protection (which is their right). Additional CO2 reductions are still required.
Why should others have to compensate for that?
In the extreme case that @kati1337 already mentioned, the carbon footprint would almost not matter.
The Earth would recover over millions of years. But, of course, that is purely theoretical nonsense.
Hangman schrieb:
Oh, come on, a little extra concrete can be offset by not having kids 🙄 Unfortunately, I can’t manage that extra concrete. I don’t know any legal way to become childless again :P
Dark humor aside – I find the whole house vs. children debate quite pointless. In my opinion, having offspring and thus preserving the species is the primary purpose of all life. I have nothing against people choosing not to have children, but once we start converting people into CO2 equivalents, it just becomes absurd.
The reason why a child means amount X of CO2 ultimately comes down to our (accustomed) lifestyle. Even before the industrial age, when we started digging up and burning fossil fuels, humans had children for thousands of years with a CO2 footprint of zero, just like the adults.
In some respects, I agree with you.
However, species preservation does not mean overpopulation or population growth, but rather a population adjusted to the habitat.
As you correctly pointed out, emissions also depend on lifestyle.
On average, each person is responsible for a certain amount of CO2, not just children. That is simply the case.
The discussion was not about house versus children. Anyone who wants to build a house and have children should do so if that is their wish. But then please don’t point the green finger (not the thumb).
Insisting that others compensate for selfishness is questionable.
However, species preservation does not mean overpopulation or population growth, but rather a population adjusted to the habitat.
As you correctly pointed out, emissions also depend on lifestyle.
On average, each person is responsible for a certain amount of CO2, not just children. That is simply the case.
The discussion was not about house versus children. Anyone who wants to build a house and have children should do so if that is their wish. But then please don’t point the green finger (not the thumb).
Insisting that others compensate for selfishness is questionable.
kati1337 schrieb:
I think the suggestion to consider a heat pump here is justified. This is a forum, and if only the gas boiler has been mentioned so far, it’s legitimate to point out heat pumps. Labeling them outright as nonsense (or something similar, I don’t remember the exact wording from page 1) isn’t quite fair.
There are many families (including us) who currently heat with an air-to-water heat pump. We saw the signs and secured an electricity supply contract with a fixed price until the end of 2022 at the end of 2021. We currently heat our home with less than €54 per month (around $57) — for heating, hot water, and ventilation. No gas boiler can manage that given today’s gas prices.
Besides, using gas means you’re highly dependent on the countries that supply it. And at the moment, our reserves are so low that it’s even making headlines in the media.
Regarding China/Xi and the claim they do nothing about CO₂ emissions: As much as I dislike or do not want to defend the Chinese regime and their human rights practices, much of what is said about this is simply false. I highly recommend the "Graslutscher" blog. There’s a very detailed article about China and climate change. It takes about half an hour to read, but it’s excellently structured, well-researched with many sources, and very interesting. You’ll be surprised when you compare the consumption of gas heating systems to your own usage and investment...
We heat over 200m² (about 2,150 sq ft) with room temperatures above 24°C (75°F).
Monthly gas consumption costs us €75 (around $79), including hot water, of course...
If you exclude your photovoltaic system, your monthly costs will probably be even higher.
How many square meters do you heat, and what room temperature do you maintain?
Similar topics