Hello everyone,
During the planning phase of building a house, you inevitably come across forums about home construction and topics related to energy standards. I have already read several books and browsed various websites on the subject. I should mention that I am not a professional in this field. What I have noticed is that the entire topic of "economic / ecological home construction" is heavily influenced by commercial interests. The so-called "smart" consumer is often misled by marketing terms and a government-led campaign for "CO2-efficient building." Books or websites dealing with this subject often do not provide clear, comprehensive assessments.
In the "better" literature, insulation materials are compared in terms of insulation value and whether they are expensive or affordable. However, I still cannot determine what makes the most sense for my individual case. I simply do not want to spend excessive amounts of money, especially on things that do not add value, such as polystyrene insulation. If additional costs for a particular heating system are reasonable over a feasible period, then yes.
Our current goal is to build a simple single-family home with about 130 - 140 sqm (1400 - 1500 sq ft). The house should cost around €200,000 (without outdoor landscaping, floor coverings, land, or additional construction-related costs; our expectations are modest).
I am interested in knowing, based on the current state of technology, what is the most energy-efficient and cost-effective building option?
Energy-saving regulation / building standards according to KfW, yes or no, and if yes, which level?
Solid construction or prefabricated house?
Condensing boiler technology or heat pump?
Thank you very much for your answers!
Best regards
During the planning phase of building a house, you inevitably come across forums about home construction and topics related to energy standards. I have already read several books and browsed various websites on the subject. I should mention that I am not a professional in this field. What I have noticed is that the entire topic of "economic / ecological home construction" is heavily influenced by commercial interests. The so-called "smart" consumer is often misled by marketing terms and a government-led campaign for "CO2-efficient building." Books or websites dealing with this subject often do not provide clear, comprehensive assessments.
In the "better" literature, insulation materials are compared in terms of insulation value and whether they are expensive or affordable. However, I still cannot determine what makes the most sense for my individual case. I simply do not want to spend excessive amounts of money, especially on things that do not add value, such as polystyrene insulation. If additional costs for a particular heating system are reasonable over a feasible period, then yes.
Our current goal is to build a simple single-family home with about 130 - 140 sqm (1400 - 1500 sq ft). The house should cost around €200,000 (without outdoor landscaping, floor coverings, land, or additional construction-related costs; our expectations are modest).
I am interested in knowing, based on the current state of technology, what is the most energy-efficient and cost-effective building option?
Energy-saving regulation / building standards according to KfW, yes or no, and if yes, which level?
Solid construction or prefabricated house?
Condensing boiler technology or heat pump?
Thank you very much for your answers!
Best regards
B
Bauherr20188 Aug 2017 11:52just found this:
Klima-innovativ.de/pages/kosten.HTML What do you think about it?
Klima-innovativ.de/pages/kosten.HTML What do you think about it?
T
toxicmolotof8 Aug 2017 12:14daniels87 schrieb:
This often happens because the smart homeowners turn off the support from the electric heating element to save a few dollars per month. [...] In my opinion, this is often saving money in the wrong place. Even if it’s 10 euros more per month, it really doesn’t matter.Seriously? If you make this argument (which might be justified), at least back it up with realistic numbers.
If your house requires 50 euros per month for the heat pump, 10 euros for additional electric heating capacity is a drop in the bucket.
Nordlys schrieb:
There are Romanian crews who can do that and work for cash without payroll costs. And without value-added tax. Your post overall sounds a lot like insider information from customs control. Not the KGB, but customs.
Less meat – says the hotdog eater.
Sausages are not meat. I’m only the second generation not a butcher, you can believe me on that.
Bauherr2018 schrieb:
I probably share some of the blame because I likely asked my question too vaguely. But I have too little experience and maybe expected too much.
I just wanted to independently find out which energy-related aspects (standards, building materials, construction methods) are beneficial not only for general contractors (GCs) but also for me. The budget question is certainly necessary in this context but should not trigger a fundamental debate. Oh. Yes, then you actually asked the question in a very misleading way.
This question is quite different, but equally difficult to answer in a “one-size-fits-all” way:
Take the example of heating technology, considering only the energy source and method, leaving aside underfloor heating or radiators. The ongoing operating and maintenance costs are much higher than the installation costs – but the contractor only earns on the installation (they don’t get any bonus from the gas company based on your consumption, for example). Just this difference in the “basis for calculation” shows how views on what’s better for whom can vary.
Or with wall construction: I can’t tell you whether the builder makes a higher margin per cubic meter of Styrofoam insulation or per cubic meter of Poroton or Ytong blocks. That is likely marginal for them – what matters is securing the contract. If a KfW subsidy (or similar funding) makes it more likely that you can afford a slightly larger house than without, they will take that into account. They have no stake in energy policy – their business is to arrange building blocks so that a house is created which is worth the money to you.
Building materials are just a means to an end for them to complete houses. The shell is essentially just a carrier for the interior fittings, where the profit margins are higher than on the walls. That explains why they pay little attention to it. They want materials their crews can process efficiently – this is important for productivity. They don’t want to calculate which combination of construction materials and insulation achieves which U-value for every project. Including brick or cladding, hardly any contractor has more than three wall assemblies on their menu. With or without bay windows, outside there’s just a few options.
I think, considering your expectations of the variety of choices you think you have, you are still very much in theory. Adjust that in practice based on concrete offers from Müller, Huber, and Schmitz.
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
11ant schrieb:
Less meat – says the hotdog eater.
Sausages are not meat. I’m only the second generation not working as a butcher, you can believe me on that. Oh yes, you omnivores make a distinction there, for whatever reason. But I think the environmental impact is the same.
Bauherr2018 schrieb:
just found this:
Klima-innovativ.de/pages/kosten.HTML What do you think about it?This is good. Payback period for air-to-water heat pump compared to gas is 20 years, which is too long. The costs of the ground collectors are interesting if the site is suitable. Karstenkaho674 schrieb:
Oh yes, you omnivores do make distinctions there, for whatever reason. But I think the environmental impact is the same. I just had a vegetarian meal. Pasta with green pesto and Parmesan. That’s it.
Similar topics