2 houses - 1 or 2 heaters? - Your recommendation

Hi, we will build 2 houses, 1 single-family house of about 150 m2 and 1 bungalow of about 80 m2. Whether we build them as an extension directly next to each other or offset by 5m is still open.

In both cases, they will be connected by the basement/garage.

What is more sensible - cheaper but also more effective? One large heating system for both houses or 2 smaller ones that operate independently (but also need to be maintained).

Here again for reference:

https://www.hausbau-forum.de/threads/einfamilienhaus-mit-ebenerdiger-elw-auf-hang.38750/

Thanks to you all in advance

What is more clever - cheaper but also more effective?

Two small heaters are more clever. Cheaper (but also not as effective) is one heater. Cheaper in terms of purchase cost, not in operation. Although these are not huge amounts.

Definitely two. Even if they are to be sold separately at times

More practical in case of later separation are 2 heaters.

At least I would provide two technical rooms and pre-install a complete second house entry. In the batch size "a semi-detached house" - secondary whether attached or with a gap in between - pooling capacities is still not very promising: it will hardly lead to any significant reduction of peak sums, and efficiency gains if at all achievable can easily be offset by transmission losses. Taking into account the missing complete renunciation of a second multi-utility entry - by which I do not only mean the part with the same name - this ingenious coup could very well be a non-starter. In my assessment, a mini combined heat and power plant only begins to pay off from two semi-detached houses (so four halves) at the earliest. Here there is only one, and that also "asymmetrically" as a "mixed double" of very differently sized residential units. That would be foolishness.

At least I would provide two technical rooms and prepare a complete second house entry. In the batch size "a semi-detached house" - whether attached or with a gap is secondary - pooling capacities is still not very promising: it will hardly lead to a significant reduction of peak totals, and efficiency gains, if achievable at all, can easily be offset by transport losses. Taking into account the absence of a full waiver of a second multi-utility entry - by which I mean not only the part of the same name - this brilliant coup could well be just hot air. In my assessment, a mini combined heat and power plant becomes worthwhile at the earliest from two semi-detached houses (thus four halves). Here there is only one, and that also "asymmetrically" as a "mixed double" of very differently sized residential units. That would be nonsense.

Hi 11ant, thanks for your reply. Maybe it’s too late for me, my eyes are just closing... but I don’t understand a word of your post. However, it apparently reads like "better 2 heating systems than one big one", right?