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.
S
Smialbuddler25 Jun 2020 08:53A good summary can be found, for example, by googling "Baugorilla ecological balance energy demand." (And no, the conclusion is not that insulation is bad.)
Some posts ago, the discussion also focused more on eligibility for subsidies as an ecological indicator. I find @hampshire to be an excellent example for this.
Of course, I support building sustainably. It’s just not that black and white or easy to clearly identify what truly is ecological.
Some posts ago, the discussion also focused more on eligibility for subsidies as an ecological indicator. I find @hampshire to be an excellent example for this.
Of course, I support building sustainably. It’s just not that black and white or easy to clearly identify what truly is ecological.
N
Neueshaus202025 Jun 2020 08:57Smialbuddler schrieb:
Why be so aggressive right away? That wasn’t meant to be aggressive. However, I believe a lot of statements made here are simply unfounded or based on hearsay. I don’t think anyone here is an energy expert, whether in construction itself or the production or disposal of data materials. Still, claims are made that, upon a little research, can be quickly put into perspective. Unfortunately, linking to sources is not allowed here, so it’s difficult to have a factual discussion supported by evidence. But I find it hard to accept making statements without any proof or context.
Neueshaus2020 schrieb:
But first, some words about embodied energyThere is a Swiss study that deals with the proportion of embodied energy in house construction. Just the shell of the building contains roughly 2,000 kWh per m² (0.09 kWh per ft²), and slightly less energy is required for building services, interior finishes, and the facade. So in total, you end up somewhere around 3,500 to 4,000 kWh per m² (0.33 to 0.37 kWh per ft²). This means approximately 500,000 kWh for a completed 160 m² (1,722 ft²) house. Last year, we used about 9,000 kWh of gas and 3,000 kWh of electricity. So everyone can easily calculate how long you would need to live in the house until your ongoing energy consumption becomes a bigger environmental burden than the initial construction itself.
The background regarding embodied energy is this: anyone who wants to live truly environmentally friendly should not build new, but rather use existing buildings. Burning the energy in the operational phase that was consumed during construction is difficult to justify. Measures to reduce operational energy consumption are generally commendable and welcome, but in terms of the embodied energy of the building structure, they are only a drop in the bucket.
N
Neueshaus202025 Jun 2020 09:16All well and good, MayrCh.
But we are not talking about the total energy required for building the house, rather about the additional energy needed for insulation or other heating systems that reduce energy consumption. The original question in the thread was whether KFW 55 is necessary or not. The question of new construction is not part of this at all. So your argument completely misses the point.
But we are not talking about the total energy required for building the house, rather about the additional energy needed for insulation or other heating systems that reduce energy consumption. The original question in the thread was whether KFW 55 is necessary or not. The question of new construction is not part of this at all. So your argument completely misses the point.
Neueshaus2020 schrieb:
Your argument completely misses the point.MayrCh schrieb:
Measures that reduce operating energy consumption are certainly commendable and welcome, but when considering the embodied energy of the building structure, they are just a drop in the ocean.This contains the answer to the question of whether KfW 55 makes sense ecologically from an end-of-life perspective. Whether it’s the Energy Saving Ordinance, KfW 55, or something else: energy savings only pay off after decades when you take into account the energy used during construction, often not until after the building’s service life has ended. I thought that was clear from the context. Economic factors must be considered separately. If it’s cost-effective—why not?
Similar topics