ᐅ KfW financing – is it necessary or not?

saralina87 schrieb:

I don’t feel like anyone is trying to ruin my project. Rather, I feel like there is a strong effort to prove that an “eco-house” (please note the quotation marks) is basically no more ecological than a house built to energy-saving regulations. And with all due respect, I still consider that to be wrong.

No, no. It’s just repeatedly argued that the measures required by KfW standards are not necessarily ecological.

Somehow the statement gets twisted on the way from me to you. I’m saying that a heat pump, lots of insulation, and so on don’t automatically result in an ecological house, because most calculations don’t take into account the embodied energy (manufacturing, disposal, etc.). You understand that I basically consider both the same and think that all ecological considerations are unnecessary anyway.

And about the quote above: you’re building according to KfW standards, right? You must know that an “energy-saving regulation house” and a “KfW” house can differ simply because the energy-saving regulation house fails to meet one of the various mandatory requirements for KfW. That can happen quickly—and says nothing about the actual ecological benefit.

But enough spamming, sorry.

Ybias78 schrieb:

And you’re not broke yet because of all those huge additional costs?

No, the house is actually very efficient. We just didn’t build it according to KfW standards – for example, the heating system.

Okay. Thanks for the active participation. I will actually take a closer look at the requirements for a KFW 55 house and compare the additional costs with the available subsidies.

Ybias78 schrieb:

Ecology is always a matter of perspective. You can’t just calculate the savings; you also have to consider the environmental costs of production. Take electric cars, for example. While you do save CO2, the battery production alone requires a lot of water and generates significant CO2 emissions.

And does premium gasoline come straight out of the ground next to the gas station producing zero CO2 during production, making it better?

If you criticize the environmental impact of battery production, please also include the damage caused by crude oil extraction and transportation to the refinery. I mean, oil is well known for basically flowing from the tap and being perfectly clean, with never any spills during pumping. Then please also account for the fact that refining crude oil into gasoline is very energy-intensive. Don’t forget to include what happens to the waste products generated during production (think heavy fuel oil). Oh, and remember the truck transport from the refinery to the dealer or gas station. And then, of course, keep in mind that gasoline is ultimately burned in the engine.

So, when I consider the full environmental balance of gasoline—from the moment the crude oil is extracted until it is burned in the engine—I honestly don’t find gasoline or heating oil any more environmentally friendly than batteries.

Smialbuddler schrieb:


Somehow the message always gets twisted on its way from me to you.
I’m saying that having a heat pump, plenty of insulation, and so on does not automatically mean an ecological house, because most calculations do not account for embodied energy (manufacturing, disposal, etc.).
You understand that I basically equate both and find all ecological considerations unnecessary anyway.

On what basis do you make that statement? Is it scientifically supported somehow, or do you have a study regarding your “embodied energy”?

A quick Google search (energy consumption to produce PUR panels) gives me several studies (first and second results) showing that the energy required to manufacture a PUR panel is already offset during the first heating season. They mention 80–100 kWh per square meter in manufacturing, but savings of up to 160 kWh per square meter per year. Even if disposal costs the same amount of energy as manufacturing, it’s paid back after just two years of heating.

But first, you talk about embodied energy you heard somewhere. Sure, you could argue those sources come from the PUR industry itself, but show me another study or calculation that refutes this.

Neueshaus2020 schrieb:

But first, people talk about embodied energy that they heard somewhere. Sure, you can say these documents come from the rigid polyurethane (PUR) industry itself, but show me another study or calculation that disproves it.

Why be so aggressive right away? My point is simply that many people (especially those trying to sell something) tend to oversimplify the calculations and ignore these costs involved in production and disposal. And of course, that is embodied energy you mention. In the case of rigid PUR panels, apparently at a ratio that is acceptable. That’s great. If the raw materials are sustainably sourced, even better.
But this aspect is too rarely included in discussions. It should be handled more consciously. Because not everything comes out looking good—and is still promoted.