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
See, it works! Where is the house located? Which region? Is it plastered or clad with bricks? The 163 square meters (about 1750 square feet) plan is also ours. Yesterday we received invoice 9 out of 10. Once that is paid today, we still have 70 left from the total of 285 all-inclusive.
Invoice 10 will again be 16,300, the garage is still to come, 7,500. Electricity is already paid. Gas, water, and telecom are still pending and together total around 5,000. Painter and floor fitter are still to come with 4,000. Additional wall constructions are still coming with 2,000. That sums up to just under 35,000. Then another 5,000 for the kitchen, totaling 40,000. That leaves 30,000 for the landscaping contractor. He doesn’t need that much; probably half will be enough.
In conclusion, if nothing major gets out of control from now on, we will get the house up for around 270,000.
So, we can still afford some curtains and such, 2017. Karsten
Invoice 10 will again be 16,300, the garage is still to come, 7,500. Electricity is already paid. Gas, water, and telecom are still pending and together total around 5,000. Painter and floor fitter are still to come with 4,000. Additional wall constructions are still coming with 2,000. That sums up to just under 35,000. Then another 5,000 for the kitchen, totaling 40,000. That leaves 30,000 for the landscaping contractor. He doesn’t need that much; probably half will be enough.
In conclusion, if nothing major gets out of control from now on, we will get the house up for around 270,000.
So, we can still afford some curtains and such, 2017. Karsten
C
chand19869 Aug 2017 15:30The region in Germany would also interest me. Price per square meter without furniture and kitchen about 1750€? That would be the size of interest for the original poster.
Well, that’s really taking frugality to asceticism. In my first apartment during training and university, the small kitchen in the 40 sqm (430 sq ft) apartment without a dishwasher and microwave, with self-assembly and lower-priced materials, cost me about half that amount. I only treated myself to induction cooking.
Nordlys schrieb:
Then another 5 kitchen
Well, that’s really taking frugality to asceticism. In my first apartment during training and university, the small kitchen in the 40 sqm (430 sq ft) apartment without a dishwasher and microwave, with self-assembly and lower-priced materials, cost me about half that amount. I only treated myself to induction cooking.
chand1986 schrieb:
Really? You can drive across Europe from the far north to the extreme south electrically without running out of battery—and this is already happening during the early stages of the charging network development. Traveling west to east isn’t comparable yet.
What internal combustion engine vehicle are you comparing it to? A similarly sized BMW 5 Series with comparable performance weighs nearly 200 kg (440 lbs) less. (And “comparable performance” is even generous for the combustion engine.)
You list “natural sciences” as your profession. Then just discard the barely relevant factor of energy density—the eighth-most relevant at best—and focus on what really matters. Range doesn’t automatically come from energy density.
Look only at the driving range. Which group of drivers actually needs more than 1000 km (620 miles) in one go? Very few. If charging comes to the car rather than the other way around, you’ve won. Then smaller ranges are sufficient. It’s telling that this has been understood much better in sprawling Scandinavia than in relatively densely populated Germany, reflecting the typical German attitude of “we’ve always done it this way.”
That the electric vehicles available for sale today don’t come from Germany (even though we are supposedly the car nation) and that Americans and Chinese consider the German market largely irrelevant should give us pause.Then just connect 45 million electric vehicles to the grid at the same time and see what happens...
Maybe that’s where the real problem lies, just a suggestion.
If you include the energy used to produce the batteries, the picture changes again.
And yes, Germany is the car nation. Just because electrifying the powertrain has made vehicle development easier doesn’t mean Germany has been left behind.
As far as cells are concerned, Tesla reportedly used laptop batteries. I don’t see what’s pioneering about that.
Tesla is a ticking time bomb anyway. They are still operating at huge losses overall.
C
chand19869 Aug 2017 15:58arnonyme schrieb:
Then connect 45 million electric vehicles to the grid at the same time and see what happens...When are vehicles charged? Mostly at night. Would the nighttime gap be enough for that? Absolutely.
arnonyme schrieb:
If you include the energy used to produce the batteries, the picture looks different again.I have. It does not.
arnonyme schrieb:
As for the cells, Tesla, as far as I know, uses laptop batteries. I don’t see what’s pioneering about that.If that’s not pioneering, why hasn’t any of our companies done it? Seems pretty simple... The standard line from our industry back then was: “Such a car can’t be built.” Then one was built, using laptop batteries. Embarrassing.
arnonyme schrieb:
Tesla is a ticking time bomb anyway. They are still making huge losses overall.Who cares? Investors are committed, the money is there. No need for short-term profits. Besides, they currently have the only relevant battery production in-house. Everyone else has to buy batteries. They’ve bought themselves a 5-10 year lead through their massive investments.
If a deeper discussion is desired, please move to the OT forum.
Marvinius II9 Aug 2017 16:24Is this American manufacturer of cars with laptop batteries, who doesn’t need to make a profit, actually paying you when you promote them so persistently? After all, there are users here who can and are willing to spend a significant amount of money. But the topic is house construction!
S
Steffen809 Aug 2017 16:30Egon12 schrieb:
We built in 2015/16, one and a half stories (140 m² (1507 sq ft)), moved in May 2016 for 163,000 plus utility connections, painting, and some flooring.
All in all, including the land, additional construction costs, carport, fence, topsoil, driveway and terrace paving, and furnishings (cabinets, kitchen, etc.), we paid about 290,000.
With inflation and the new energy saving regulations, everyone has to calculate that themselves, but the house would probably cost around 170,000 today.
To answer the question: we built quite simply with 36.5 cm (14 inches) solid masonry, triple glazing, gas condensing boiler, and solar thermal system on the roof.
If the system on the roof ever breaks down, it will just be disconnected and that’s it. Around 1700… or 1600 in the far east, no one complains. What I no longer believe are figures like 1300 or 1400 EUR… nobody builds like that TODAY (2017/2018). At least not with a somewhat acceptable level of equipment and without having to learn Polish.
Similar topics