ᐅ Is it worth choosing KfW55 instead of KfW70 with an additional cost?
Created on: 16 Dec 2015 07:50
W
Watcher78
At the moment, we are planning a KfW70 house (controlled residential ventilation with heat recovery and an air-to-water heat pump). For an additional cost of about €8,000, we could upgrade to KfW55. This means more insulation would be required. As far as I know, the basement, the ground loop, and the house itself would need thicker insulation, and some work on the windows might also be necessary.
If I take advantage of the KfW loan, the interest rate for KfW70 is 1.4%, and for KfW50 it is 0.75% plus a €2,500 repayment subsidy. When you calculate the interest and the bonus, I would save almost €5,500 in interest, €3,000, and receive the €2,500 subsidy.
Now I wonder whether this is still worth it or not. Clearly, the house with KfW55 should consume less energy over time, but can this really be calculated so simply to justify the investment? Is it reasonable to say the house would have around €50 less heating costs per month?
What would you do?
If I take advantage of the KfW loan, the interest rate for KfW70 is 1.4%, and for KfW50 it is 0.75% plus a €2,500 repayment subsidy. When you calculate the interest and the bonus, I would save almost €5,500 in interest, €3,000, and receive the €2,500 subsidy.
Now I wonder whether this is still worth it or not. Clearly, the house with KfW55 should consume less energy over time, but can this really be calculated so simply to justify the investment? Is it reasonable to say the house would have around €50 less heating costs per month?
What would you do?
Hello Watcher,
Financially, it probably won’t pay off. You don’t mention the size of the house, but with around 150 sqm (1,615 sq ft), your heating costs will be about €50 per month. The savings potential, as nordanney already pointed out, will likely be around €10 per month at best.
That means annual savings of €120, which you have to pay for with a €2,500 investment. Since you also have to pay interest on that €2,500, your net savings will be about €100 per year. This results in a return on investment (ROI) of 25 years.
From a financial perspective, a clear: forget it!
If you want to do it for your green conscience, that’s another matter. However, there are plenty of example calculations showing that after a while, the effort for additional insulation is not worthwhile from an ecological standpoint either. In other words, there comes a point where extra insulation doesn’t even save the energy that was used in its production. Depending on the calculation, this point lies roughly between KfW 70 and KfW 40 standards. Which calculation is correct, no one can really say. What is certain, though, is that ecologically the “jump” from KfW 70 to 55 doesn’t bring much benefit anymore.
If you want to do something for the environment, consider cycling to work or better yet, avoid air travel. A single family flight from Düsseldorf to Crete produces roughly the same emissions as your heating system uses in a year! A Caribbean vacation could heat your house for several years!
The only remaining argument might be a possibly higher resale value of a KfW 55 house. In 20–30 years, energy regulations will probably come into effect that will make our houses look like “drafty shacks.” Who knows…?!
Best regards,
Andreas
Financially, it probably won’t pay off. You don’t mention the size of the house, but with around 150 sqm (1,615 sq ft), your heating costs will be about €50 per month. The savings potential, as nordanney already pointed out, will likely be around €10 per month at best.
That means annual savings of €120, which you have to pay for with a €2,500 investment. Since you also have to pay interest on that €2,500, your net savings will be about €100 per year. This results in a return on investment (ROI) of 25 years.
From a financial perspective, a clear: forget it!
If you want to do it for your green conscience, that’s another matter. However, there are plenty of example calculations showing that after a while, the effort for additional insulation is not worthwhile from an ecological standpoint either. In other words, there comes a point where extra insulation doesn’t even save the energy that was used in its production. Depending on the calculation, this point lies roughly between KfW 70 and KfW 40 standards. Which calculation is correct, no one can really say. What is certain, though, is that ecologically the “jump” from KfW 70 to 55 doesn’t bring much benefit anymore.
If you want to do something for the environment, consider cycling to work or better yet, avoid air travel. A single family flight from Düsseldorf to Crete produces roughly the same emissions as your heating system uses in a year! A Caribbean vacation could heat your house for several years!
The only remaining argument might be a possibly higher resale value of a KfW 55 house. In 20–30 years, energy regulations will probably come into effect that will make our houses look like “drafty shacks.” Who knows…?!
Best regards,
Andreas
W
Watcher7816 Dec 2015 11:54@ BeHaElJa – but I already mentioned in my first post that something would need to be done about insulation and possibly the windows. I’m still waiting for a clear statement on exactly what. My point was just whether it’s generally worth considering or if it’s better to stick with KfW70. If, theoretically, I were to save only €5 per month, then I could save myself the additional cost of currently €2,500, assuming the extra expenses really remain around €8,000.
nordanney schrieb:
Then you might save about €5–15 per month—that’s not much.
Completely overlooked, since it’s hard to grasp, is the value of the house itself. Which house would you prefer to buy today (a 20-year-old property): the one that was already built very well energy-wise back then, or the drafty shack? That’s how people will judge YOUR house in 20 years as well. So the savings alone hardly justify the investment. The difference is really small. And in 20 years, both houses will probably be considered "drafty shacks" again, since standards will have evolved to the point that a 20-year-old house will be seen as equally good or bad, regardless of whether it met KfW55 or KfW70 standards. Therefore, in my opinion, the investment is not justifiable even when considering possible resale value.
Or did I misunderstand you?
Best regards
Similar topics