My question about building a new KfW 55 or better house: What exactly does it mean? Yesterday, I spoke with the managing director of a public construction company, and he advised me not to build a KfW house.
a) You would need a building supervisor (who is also specialized in this field).
b) If you insulate the house well, etc., the additional costs are low.
Furthermore, he recommended using a gas boiler + solar including battery instead of an air-to-water heat pump + solar including battery. The initial costs are much lower, and you will never recover the higher acquisition costs.
I am a bit confused. I originally planned to build at least a KfW 55 house.
For your information, our plot is fully developed, and a gas connection is available.
a) You would need a building supervisor (who is also specialized in this field).
b) If you insulate the house well, etc., the additional costs are low.
Furthermore, he recommended using a gas boiler + solar including battery instead of an air-to-water heat pump + solar including battery. The initial costs are much lower, and you will never recover the higher acquisition costs.
I am a bit confused. I originally planned to build at least a KfW 55 house.
For your information, our plot is fully developed, and a gas connection is available.
N
nordanney26 Jun 2020 15:32parcus schrieb:
This means the final energy demand of a new building according to the building energy law is between 45 and 60 kilowatt-hours per square meter of usable floor areaThat’s not too bad.It was never really about passive houses; all KfW houses are active houses.
The KfW70 standard has already been discontinued in new construction subsidies.
At some point, the KfW55 standard will likely follow. But this is exactly about the comparison.
It is still a question today which DIN standard is actually used to calculate the energy-saving regulation. We saw this when we switched to DIN 18599.
The KfW70 standard has already been discontinued in new construction subsidies.
At some point, the KfW55 standard will likely follow. But this is exactly about the comparison.
It is still a question today which DIN standard is actually used to calculate the energy-saving regulation. We saw this when we switched to DIN 18599.
parcus schrieb:
because building a KfW55 house is simply cheaper than building a house according to the Energy Saving Ordinance This statement is new as well as interesting to me. Despite additional structural thermal insulation, more energy-efficient mechanical systems, and professional supervision, a KfW construction is supposed to be cheaper than a building complying with the Energy Saving Ordinance?
I assume that most people build houses with the intention of not moving out again anytime soon.
Seriously, does anyone really believe that if a house is sold in, say, 2052, anyone will still remember its classification as a KFW 85, 70, 55, or 40 house?
Even when looking at the current market for used properties, if you find a relatively new house from the 2000s, I doubt that being classified as KFW 100, KFW 85, or KFW 70 makes a significant difference in the price. Buyers are usually just glad to have found a young used property at all; factors like location, supply, and demand mainly determine the price.
I think resale value is a highly overrated argument.
Seriously, does anyone really believe that if a house is sold in, say, 2052, anyone will still remember its classification as a KFW 85, 70, 55, or 40 house?
Even when looking at the current market for used properties, if you find a relatively new house from the 2000s, I doubt that being classified as KFW 100, KFW 85, or KFW 70 makes a significant difference in the price. Buyers are usually just glad to have found a young used property at all; factors like location, supply, and demand mainly determine the price.
I think resale value is a highly overrated argument.
P
pagoni202026 Jun 2020 17:10parcus schrieb:
It’s again interesting to see how politics influences facts
and leads to completely nonsensical claims, such as gas being comparable to an air-to-water heat pump.
Every air-to-water heat pump failed to meet the energy-saving regulation until 2014. Only when politics decided to simply raise the primary energy factor politically did air-to-water heat pumps become economically viable, resulting in cheaper building methods, as even relatively poor building envelopes became feasible.
Every general contractor or prefab house manufacturer must have been pleased. Because where did the additional profit go...
Photovoltaics generally cover about 25% of private households’ energy needs, and the energy is generated at the wrong time.
The electricity actually supplied cannot be CO₂ neutral, since the total regenerative energy produced in Germany just about covers the current digitalization demand.
Even experts like Prof. Lesch have no solutions for the future here.
At least politics trusts citizens to calculate and think logically.
That’s why KfW40+ houses are only subsidized with battery storage. Which is an ecological disaster similar to all electric cars. No one will pay €21,000 for a new battery in an ID3 after 8 years. The old battery currently can only end up in an incineration plant because it is not recyclable. The environmental damage and child labor involved in lithium and cobalt mining in Africa or Latin America aren’t even mentioned.
Whether KfW55 or not is currently not even a question, because a KfW55 house is simply cheaper to build than an energy-saving regulation house. That’s without even considering the lower operating costs.
Then comes in 2021/22 a huge loss in value of energy-saving regulation houses when, according to the new building energy law, only new builds as passive houses will be approved.
One must never forget that many political decisions are often strongly influenced by lobby groups. Which are not the lobby of the average consumer.
Because if the government suddenly loses revenue from the mineral oil tax, which energy source can this tax then only be applied to? Interesting!
What would your logically sensible recommendation be for a home builder in 2020 based on this?
A valuation will always remain as long as people live in buildings, and hopefully there will also be support for existing properties. Even though the subsidies are currently very generous and almost every barn is being converted into a multi-family house. At least, we have never had so many barns under renovation as since January with the changes to the KfW subsidies.
Similar topics