Hello everyone,
We want to build a single-family house of about 170m² (1,830 sq ft).
Originally, I thought we would definitely build to KfW 70 standard, maybe even KfW 55. But in discussions with builders, we are always advised against it, as the additional costs supposedly won’t pay off and there wouldn’t be any significant energy savings later on. What do you think? How are you building?
We definitely want to use brick for construction, and we are still undecided about the heating system—gas or heat pump.
We want to build a single-family house of about 170m² (1,830 sq ft).
Originally, I thought we would definitely build to KfW 70 standard, maybe even KfW 55. But in discussions with builders, we are always advised against it, as the additional costs supposedly won’t pay off and there wouldn’t be any significant energy savings later on. What do you think? How are you building?
We definitely want to use brick for construction, and we are still undecided about the heating system—gas or heat pump.
S
Sebastian7912 Feb 2015 10:32I’m not the only one who disagrees with your opinion—what is such a response supposed to accomplish?
So what now? I only linked to information from KFW—it can’t be interpreted the way you say.
I’m familiar with common practice being different too—as you described, that’s how it works here as well. But in my opinion, that’s not correct either—though I don’t care. However, that wasn’t the question...
So what now? I only linked to information from KFW—it can’t be interpreted the way you say.
I’m familiar with common practice being different too—as you described, that’s how it works here as well. But in my opinion, that’s not correct either—though I don’t care. However, that wasn’t the question...
B
Bauexperte12 Feb 2015 10:45Hello,
Regards, Bauexperte
Lexmaul79 schrieb:What do you expect from me? I reply based on our practical experience, and so far, I haven’t received any feedback from the KfW—in no single case where funds were requested in 2015—that anything has changed! I even took the time to call one of our architects about this, and his response was something I probably should have anticipated: “oh yes, the internet experts who always know better.”
I’m not the only one who disagrees with your opinion—so what’s the purpose of such a response?
Lexmaul79 schrieb:There are many people who have swallowed a lot of untruths. If you want to align yourself with their opinion, that is your right. However, that doesn’t make their statements true—at least not for the part I deal with on a daily basis.
So what now? I only linked official information from the KfW—there is no way to interpret it the way you suggest.
Lexmaul79 schrieb:So you’ve decided that you tolerate sloppy work where you are. Interesting that the KfW accepts this if something has actually changed. Have you ever considered, or perhaps are you afraid, that the KfW might come down hard with a thorough review at the end of the construction project? Or could it be that you applied for the funds in 2014? Or... or... or...
I’m familiar with common practice being different—just as you say, that’s also how it works here. But in my opinion, that’s not correct either—but I don’t really care. However, that wasn’t the question...
Regards, Bauexperte
T
toxicmolotof12 Feb 2015 10:47It is undisputed that the forms must be signed by a certified expert.
There is also general agreement among all parties that construction supervision by an expert is required starting from KFW55 or better.
Now the discussion is only about: construction monitoring at KFW70, with Bauexperte on one side and Lexmaul on the other, and I’m no longer sure.
But it’s quite simple:
A call to KFW clarified that construction supervision has been mandatory for all energy efficiency standards since the program update! Previously, it was only required starting at 55 and better; now it is mandatory even at 70.
So Lex is probably right. Sorry, Bauexperte.
PS: As long as the energy consultant takes responsibility, an architect supervising the execution can carry out the inspections, but construction supervision must be carried out without fail and must be guaranteed with liability by the energy consultant.
There is also general agreement among all parties that construction supervision by an expert is required starting from KFW55 or better.
Now the discussion is only about: construction monitoring at KFW70, with Bauexperte on one side and Lexmaul on the other, and I’m no longer sure.
But it’s quite simple:
A call to KFW clarified that construction supervision has been mandatory for all energy efficiency standards since the program update! Previously, it was only required starting at 55 and better; now it is mandatory even at 70.
So Lex is probably right. Sorry, Bauexperte.
PS: As long as the energy consultant takes responsibility, an architect supervising the execution can carry out the inspections, but construction supervision must be carried out without fail and must be guaranteed with liability by the energy consultant.
S
Sebastian7912 Feb 2015 10:49Yes, those so-called experts on the internet... sorry for speaking up as a layperson.
Especially since it was immediately taken as an attack on their own expertise – that was never my intention.
Especially since it was immediately taken as an attack on their own expertise – that was never my intention.
B
Bauexperte12 Feb 2015 10:53Hello,
Regards, Bauexperte
Lexmaul79 schrieb:I can reassure you – that is not how I interpreted your posts. As the saying goes from the Rhineland, if you join the game, you also have to help set it up.
Above all, that it is immediately taken as an attack on one’s own competence – that was definitely never my intention.
Regards, Bauexperte
B
Bauexperte12 Feb 2015 11:07Hello Tox,
It doesn’t have to be that way.
As I see it, this is how it is generally handled; otherwise, the costs for an external expert witness would have to be significantly higher. But I also don’t know anyone who would voluntarily challenge a structural engineer or energy consultant. In that sense, the person liable takes on a manageable risk.
Regards, Bauexperte
toxicmolotow schrieb:
Lex is probably right about that. Sorry Bauexperte.
It doesn’t have to be that way.
toxicmolotow schrieb:
PS: As long as the energy consultant takes responsibility, an architect overseeing the execution can carry out the inspections, but site supervision must definitely happen and be reliably guaranteed by the energy consultant in a liable manner.
As I see it, this is how it is generally handled; otherwise, the costs for an external expert witness would have to be significantly higher. But I also don’t know anyone who would voluntarily challenge a structural engineer or energy consultant. In that sense, the person liable takes on a manageable risk.
Regards, Bauexperte
Similar topics