ᐅ Which heating system is best for our KfW 70 house without a basement?

Created on: 1 Jul 2011 15:16
E
Exilhamburger
Hello,

we have been considering for a while which heating system to choose. The house will be a KfW 70 energy efficiency standard. We don’t have a basement but a utility room.

Oil, gas, pellets, or perhaps geothermal energy or a heat pump?

What a difficult question. Who has experience in this area?

The house will be about 140m² (1,500 sq ft) in size.

It is also planned to install a solar system on the roof. The geothermal package alone costs almost 15,000€; is an additional insulation package costing nearly 4,000€ really necessary?

Thank you very much for your experiences.
€uro
11 Aug 2011 13:54
TomTom1 schrieb:
...So: gas and solar for hot water...
What a sweeping nonsense!

Best regards
T
TomTom1
12 Aug 2011 07:34
€uro schrieb:
What a general nonsense!

Best regards.

Good morning!

Experiences were asked for – and we chose gas and solar.

It is nonsense and not very helpful to point to "specific conditions" regarding heat generators, HVAC, solar thermal systems, single-family house, photovoltaic, and heat pump:p!

Best regards,
TomTom.
€uro
12 Aug 2011 10:33
TomTom1 schrieb:
...- and we decided on gas and solar...
Well, that’s fine for you, but it certainly doesn’t mean it’s a universally practical solution.
Please share here how many kWh were actually “harvested” by the solar system.
Just post the data from the heat meter here. Then also include the details about the electricity consumption of the solar controller and the solar circuit pump.

Kind regards
T
TomTom1
12 Aug 2011 12:28
Hello, €uro!

I'll write it again very slowly 😀. "Gas and solar for hot water."

How much electricity should I realistically be able to generate with that? Maybe through static charging?

Regards,
TomTom.
T
ThomasW69
12 Aug 2011 12:38
I'll write it again very slowly 😀. "Gas and solar for hot water."

How much electricity should I realistically be able to generate with that? Maybe through static electricity?

None at all, but when calculating the system’s efficiency, you need to factor in that the solar circulation pump requires electricity to operate. Unfortunately, quite old and power-hungry pumps are sometimes still installed to keep the systems cheap.

It is normal that a solar thermal system may sometimes be less efficient, but if that leads everyone to switch back to wood or pellets, that’s not a solution either. On one hand, that fuel is only cheap because many people still use gas or oil, and if everyone switched, there would be serious consequences. For example, cities and towns would suffer from poor air quality again (I remember that well from the former East Germany), and on the other hand, the prices for pellets and wood would skyrocket because not that much new wood grows sustainably. Currently, there is still a large surplus, which is why it remains affordable.

During the cold periods of the 15th and 16th centuries, almost all heating in Germany was done with wood. Back then, in Thuringia where the Thuringian Forest now stands, large areas were deforested. Considering that far fewer people lived here at the time, I don’t even want to imagine where the wood for today’s demand would come from if everyone used 100% wood heating. Well, at least we still have some rainforests. 🙄

I think alternative heating methods should definitely be considered. Among them, I find solar thermal to be the most efficient. After all, we have a fusion reactor up in the sky that will provide free energy for the next 4 billion years without worries about waste disposal or operational safety.
€uro
12 Aug 2011 14:58
TomTom1 schrieb:
...How much electricity could I possibly generate with this? Maybe through static charge?

Well, this is where the problems begin. 😉
Who mentioned "generating electricity"? Energy is measured in the SI unit kWh, which is completely independent of the energy source!
But I see there is no heat meter, so just keep on "believing" then. 😀

Best regards.