ᐅ Insulation in the 1970s Compared to Today, Modern Insulation, Heating Costs
Created on: 5 Nov 2012 10:29
M
meisterlampe
I would be interested in an assessment of how much higher heating costs (in percentage) you can expect in a house built around 1970 with solid construction according to the standards of that time (including windows), compared to modern insulation as commonly used today.
Are there significant differences? This concerns exterior walls and the roof.
Where are the biggest heat losses likely to occur? Exterior walls, windows, or the roof?
Which renovations would be particularly necessary, and which ones less relevant?
Thank you
Are there significant differences? This concerns exterior walls and the roof.
Where are the biggest heat losses likely to occur? Exterior walls, windows, or the roof?
Which renovations would be particularly necessary, and which ones less relevant?
Thank you
Musketier schrieb:
Insulation reduces the amount of heat required. As a result, the existing heating system may be oversized and operate inefficiently. The energy savings achieved through insulation can thus be partially offset. Absolutely correct! Are you a professional—perhaps a colleague?Best regards
M
meisterlampe6 Nov 2012 13:56Makes sense to me, thanks for the information!
€uro schrieb:
Absolutely correct! Are you a professional – a colleague?
Best regards.No. Complete beginner, but I have read many of your posts.
Reading educates.
Musketier schrieb:
Nope. Complete beginner.. In that case, you are ahead of many so-called professionals! Respect!Best regards
We have an oversized oil heating system (approximately 80-100 kW (270,000-340,000 BTU/h)).
It was designed in the early 1990s for two large buildings with an estimated 1,000 m² (10,760 sq ft) of residential and commercial space. In between, the system only had to heat two apartments (totaling 200 m² (2,150 sq ft)) for three people and provide domestic hot water for one person. Because of that, I am quite familiar with the inefficiency issues. Burning money would probably have been more efficient.
Now, at least, it is allowed to operate at 60-70% capacity and the domestic hot water system is separate.
It was designed in the early 1990s for two large buildings with an estimated 1,000 m² (10,760 sq ft) of residential and commercial space. In between, the system only had to heat two apartments (totaling 200 m² (2,150 sq ft)) for three people and provide domestic hot water for one person. Because of that, I am quite familiar with the inefficiency issues. Burning money would probably have been more efficient.
Now, at least, it is allowed to operate at 60-70% capacity and the domestic hot water system is separate.
Musketier schrieb:
.... Therefore, I am quite familiar with the problem of inefficiency. Burning banknotes might have been more effective Here you have touched on a major sensitive issue. Oversizing the heat generator is one of the biggest sources of energy loss. Anyone who thinks it is a relic of the past is seriously mistaken. Even today, heat generators are often significantly oversized, usually due to the builder’s uncertainty—he does not trust his own calculations, if he has any at all. Following the motto: more is better! However, in this case: far too much causes significant harm! Even today, regional, site-specific climate data are not taken into account. For heat generators, a blanket allowance is usually added, often completely unjustified, onto the design heating load! How strange, now the heat generator also becomes more expensive. Suspicious minds might think there is an ulterior motive here.
Best regards.