ᐅ Single-Family Home Energy Saving Regulation 2016: Is Additional Insulation Recommended by Developers Worthwhile?

Tichu78 schrieb:
Wow, the statement about aerated concrete and Poroton really bothers me. Such a general comment completely misses the point. You need to achieve a certain overall "energy efficiency" for the entire house. It has nothing to do with just the exterior wall or insulation alone.

In principle, you are absolutely right. The overall balance is what matters. If one element is "weak," the others have to compensate. But in my example (36.5cm (14.4 inches) aerated concrete, monolithic), I doubt whether the necessary compensatory measures are still economically viable.

Tichu78 schrieb:
Are you aware of how much extra cost you have with a gas boiler to meet the energy saving regulations / energy performance requirements?

Yes, pretty much exactly 9,500. Did you miss my previous post? In that post, I asked whether the 4,200 for additional insulation might pay for itself, so that the gas boiler "only" has to save 4,300 (considering a 10-year period).

Tichu78 schrieb:
You meet the energy saving regulations much more easily with a heat pump and far less insulation craziness that costs you a lot of money.

Uh, yes??? I already mentioned that.

Tichu78 schrieb:
Could it be that your "advisor" is interested in selling you something?

I don’t have an advisor, just a salesman—and he wants to sell me a house. Whether it’s gas or an air-source heat pump is completely irrelevant to him. And whether the air-source heat pump ends up with a seasonal performance factor of 1.5 or not as well.....

Tichu78 schrieb:
My arguments in favor of the air-source heat pump:
Investment costs are reasonable (probably gas is cheaper)

No, it’s not—as mentioned above. Would you also like to answer my question?

BeHaElJa schrieb:
I think the chimney for gas is really not that relevant for the living space calculation.

In a typical single-family house, it usually runs along with all the other water pipes on the inside of the utility room upwards, so there is basically no loss of living space.....

The gas connection would have consumed the additional costs for the air-to-water heat pump in our case. Therefore, the choice of heating system was not really up for discussion. Also, if we had used gas, a solar thermal system for hot water would have had to be installed on the roof to meet the energy saving regulations (EnEV). By the way, we achieved KfW 70 standard without any insulation—just with the bricks and the air-to-water heat pump.

You also have to consider the additional costs of insulation in potential renovations. We only need to repaint occasionally and don’t have disposal costs for insulation or the need to install new insulation. And honestly, I’m willing to accept the slightly lower soundproofing if it means having a house that is significantly more fire-resistant. Have you ever seen a house with insulation catch fire? If not, just look it up. Besides, the soundproofing level of a 36 cm (14 inch) solid brick wall is completely adequate for a normal new build neighborhood.

Sure, the new energy saving regulations have stricter requirements; a 36 cm (14 inch) brick wouldn’t be sufficient anymore. Regarding room size, whether a child’s room is 10 cm (4 inches) larger or smaller doesn’t really matter, as long as no small openings are left.

ölschlamm schrieb:
Whether the necessary compensatory measures are still economically viable overall with my example (36.5cm (14 inches) aerated concrete monolithic), I dare to doubt.


Yes, quite exactly 9500,- Did you not read my previous post? And with my post I had asked whether the 4200 for additional insulation might possibly pay for itself, so that the gas boiler only needs to recover "just" 4300,- (consideration period 10 years).


Um, yes??? I had already written that as well.


I do not have a consultant, only a salesperson – and he wants to sell me a house. Whether it is gas or an air-to-water heat pump doesn’t matter to him at all. And whether the air-to-water heat pump ends up with an annual performance factor of 1.5 also...


No, it isn’t – see above. Would you also like to answer my question?


In a standard single-family house, these pipes often run together with all the other water pipes along the inside of the utility room going upwards, so there is actually no loss of space at all...

And what leads you to doubt? Do you have all the numbers in black and white? Or is it just a feeling?

How did your post calculate the 4200€? Probably just a statement without figures? Or did they show the math? Did it take your financing into account? What energy price increase was assumed for the next 10 years? What about maintenance costs? How do they know which heat pump it will be? Has a heating load calculation already been done?

It is not indifferent to them what you buy; they want to sell you the option that earns them the most. And how do you arrive at an annual performance factor of 1–2?

I cannot answer your question. At most, I could list the parameters I know from my own building project.

You obviously didn’t understand what I was trying to explain! How should I know whether your thicker roof insulation is worthwhile? That depends on so many factors. Clearly, if you insulate more, you save energy. But how much? You have to do the calculations yourself... maybe you get a result. How it will actually look once the heating is running... you will see then.

You also can’t calculate that? Find someone who does heating load calculations. Provide them with various data for roof insulation, floor insulation, windows, exterior walls, room temperatures, ventilation rates, etc. The calculation will probably cost as much as the savings you expect.

Your builder has zero understanding! They might know what the materials and labor cost, but nothing more. They’re not interested in how economical it ultimately is for YOU. It is economically viable for THEM (and the bank)! Because they have concrete current figures and YOU as the buyer. That settles it. YOU only have economic viability if everything turns out as YOU assumed (or as someone like your builder predicted). And if not? Miscalculated, wrong decision—tough luck! So good luck in your search for the optimum.

BeHaElJa schrieb:

W. Pickartz is certainly not wrong when he says that complying with the energy saving regulation from next year onwards is already sufficient to build an energy-efficient and cost-effective house. Just take a look at the requirements of the energy saving regulation and compare them with the standard house from 1995.

What exactly are you trying to tell me with that?

That a KFW100 house from 2016 would have been considered uneconomical nonsense 20 years ago because it was too well insulated.

So? Are you now saying they were wrong back then just because it’s profitable today?