Hello everyone,
The planned construction start for our approximately 160m² (1,722 sq ft) bungalow is scheduled for early 2013. We are currently still in the planning phase. Now the question arises: which heating system should we choose? Can you recommend anything?
I would like to move away from oil or gas heating systems. Technically, I am already convinced of pellet heating, but I would prefer to be independent. What alternatives are left then? Heat pump?
Best regards, EarlGrey
The planned construction start for our approximately 160m² (1,722 sq ft) bungalow is scheduled for early 2013. We are currently still in the planning phase. Now the question arises: which heating system should we choose? Can you recommend anything?
I would like to move away from oil or gas heating systems. Technically, I am already convinced of pellet heating, but I would prefer to be independent. What alternatives are left then? Heat pump?
Best regards, EarlGrey
M
Martin20616 Sep 2012 21:37Why "everything"?
This has happened to me for the first time. It seems my PC and this forum haven’t synchronized yet (
I have been deeply involved in the topic of "house + heating" since 2005 ...to broaden my horizons.
And I have also completed a nice practical project ...with permanently affordable energy costs and a high comfort factor ...affordable! )
This has happened to me for the first time. It seems my PC and this forum haven’t synchronized yet (
I have been deeply involved in the topic of "house + heating" since 2005 ...to broaden my horizons.
And I have also completed a nice practical project ...with permanently affordable energy costs and a high comfort factor ...affordable! )
M
Martin20619 Sep 2012 02:49Well, if I had my own wood, I would probably do the same.
So, I just burn a few logs now and then (about 2 cubic meters per year).
If you need to buy wood, I think it is no longer cost-effective (unless you have a reliable source with "super cheap" prices).
For a new single-family home, I think the choice will usually be between geothermal heating and gas.
Or, if moving towards a passive house, possibly an air-source heat pump or solar heating.
So, I just burn a few logs now and then (about 2 cubic meters per year).
If you need to buy wood, I think it is no longer cost-effective (unless you have a reliable source with "super cheap" prices).
For a new single-family home, I think the choice will usually be between geothermal heating and gas.
Or, if moving towards a passive house, possibly an air-source heat pump or solar heating.
Do you think that a modern energy-efficient house built to the 55-70 standard as a prefabricated timber frame construction with an air heat pump, supported additionally by a wood stove, and controlled ventilation including a 6 kWh (6 kWh) photovoltaic system is the right choice for a new build? This is how I have planned it so far. What are your thoughts?
VanTide schrieb:
What do you think about this? First, the actual demand (power, energy) for heating, hot water, and ventilation must be determined! The building, climate location, and user behavior are directly interconnected. A one-sided and separate consideration usually leads to avoidable, excessive consumption and investment costs.Best regards
M
Martin20619 Sep 2012 18:58You’re asking for our opinion... here’s mine:
- KfW70 is already outdated for future renovation standards—I recommend at least KfW55.
- I like timber frame prefab construction because it’s easy to increase insulation levels—for example, using 100mm (4 inches) of external insulation instead of 60mm (2.4 inches). This method typically offers thin wall builds with high insulation performance, saving space and allowing more natural light inside.
- An air-source heat pump depends on the region and is usually not ideal for KfW70 standard houses. However, several factors influence this, such as your location, how cold the winters are, and the quality of the planning.
- I consider mechanical ventilation with heat recovery a must these days. I would also consider moisture recovery/regulation and definitely include an earth-to-air heat exchanger.
- In my opinion, photovoltaics are not part of the heating or thermal concept, but rather a separate investment (financial asset).
(PS: 6kWh is nothing... but a 6kW system output is significant, producing about 5,500–6,000 kWh/year.)
Question:
Would geothermal energy work for you, and if so, why didn’t you choose it?
Regards,
-Martin-
- KfW70 is already outdated for future renovation standards—I recommend at least KfW55.
- I like timber frame prefab construction because it’s easy to increase insulation levels—for example, using 100mm (4 inches) of external insulation instead of 60mm (2.4 inches). This method typically offers thin wall builds with high insulation performance, saving space and allowing more natural light inside.
- An air-source heat pump depends on the region and is usually not ideal for KfW70 standard houses. However, several factors influence this, such as your location, how cold the winters are, and the quality of the planning.
- I consider mechanical ventilation with heat recovery a must these days. I would also consider moisture recovery/regulation and definitely include an earth-to-air heat exchanger.
- In my opinion, photovoltaics are not part of the heating or thermal concept, but rather a separate investment (financial asset).
(PS: 6kWh is nothing... but a 6kW system output is significant, producing about 5,500–6,000 kWh/year.)
Question:
Would geothermal energy work for you, and if so, why didn’t you choose it?
Regards,
-Martin-
To summarize...
An air-to-water heat pump is not suitable as a heating system for a KfW 70 house located in the Alps or Harz regions. In areas where temperatures frequently drop below -15°C (5°F) in winter, an air-to-water heat pump can be borderline depending on the severity of the winter (although it is still more cost-effective than gas, the advantage of the air heat pump becomes significantly smaller). It generally operates without problems only in climate-favorable areas of Germany.
Unfortunately, the recent winters have become somewhat colder, making the air-to-water heat pumps less efficient, which manufacturers probably did not anticipate due to climate warming.
Regarding operating costs, an air-to-water heat pump still has enough advantage over a gas heating system (about 25% lower operating costs in central Germany). However, when including higher initial investment costs plus possible loan interest and screed drying expenses, the air-to-water heat pump (for a 130 m² (1,400 ft²) house) only pays off after more than 10 years.
Therefore, an air-to-water heat pump is best suited for a passive house or KfW 40 house and can be operated reliably throughout Germany.
Is this a fair summary? Please correct me if I’m wrong...
An air-to-water heat pump is not suitable as a heating system for a KfW 70 house located in the Alps or Harz regions. In areas where temperatures frequently drop below -15°C (5°F) in winter, an air-to-water heat pump can be borderline depending on the severity of the winter (although it is still more cost-effective than gas, the advantage of the air heat pump becomes significantly smaller). It generally operates without problems only in climate-favorable areas of Germany.
Unfortunately, the recent winters have become somewhat colder, making the air-to-water heat pumps less efficient, which manufacturers probably did not anticipate due to climate warming.
Regarding operating costs, an air-to-water heat pump still has enough advantage over a gas heating system (about 25% lower operating costs in central Germany). However, when including higher initial investment costs plus possible loan interest and screed drying expenses, the air-to-water heat pump (for a 130 m² (1,400 ft²) house) only pays off after more than 10 years.
Therefore, an air-to-water heat pump is best suited for a passive house or KfW 40 house and can be operated reliably throughout Germany.
Is this a fair summary? Please correct me if I’m wrong...
Similar topics