swatfish
2017-02-02 10:03:34
- #1
Hello first of all dear home builders
I have dealt with the topic of energy saving for a long time, calculated a lot (economic perspective), I have worked through arguments and calculation models and above all of course with the physical basics. Then I looked at and studied the marketing of various companies and standard setters. And of course studies that stand for or "against" the [Enef], [KFW], etc. in their results.
My result is that all arguments in the sense of "spend more money and then you save energy" are completely correct! )) ATTENTION they are not economical!!! So you spend a lot of money, you have to be willing to afford that because you pay for it. No matter whether you get the money via [KFW] or or or in the end you have to work for it. Sometimes it costs more sometimes less (depending on interest) but there is no gift or paying back less than borrowed.
Regarding energy savings.
If it is said that you save energy that is correct, but how much you save is often calculated extremely simply and with an interest-oriented approach. If I save 50% heating costs that is 50 euros from 100 euros; if you compare that with the effort, that costs many thousands of euros and the maintenance of complex constructions to maintain the saving value also costs money.
In addition, unfortunately, one has to say that energy efficiency values are laboratory values.
Simple example: super modern house with open hallway directly to the living room... energetically very well executed. When the front door is opened, several cubic meters of air with a lot of energy escape. A laboratory will not open this door, but you will at home and then the values are no longer correct.
If you get a child and then another one, the door is suddenly opened more than twice as often and then the consumption changes again by a multiple.
Another example, double or triple-glazed window panes? In a double-glass, solar energy (infrared "light") can be converted into heat indoors. This is free! and absolutely climate-neutral (to use a buzzword ). With triple glazing, this energy (infrared "light") is completely filtered, so you have to compensate for this missing energy via the heating system and that costs money and additional technical equipment which often causes follow-up and maintenance costs.
But you get sold the triple glazing and gladly pay more when you hear energy saving. !!Economic efficiency = 000!!! (Moreover, window insulation in the building envelope accounts for an extremely small factor but is played up very much!)
By now, there are enough studies and practical examples that confirm exactly what I feared, that the promise is never kept; on the contrary, often there are even opposite effects, that energy saving measures even become more expensive in the energy balance.
The reason is also simple but extremely neglected by sales channels. Around us is energy and the sun, for example, produces depending on location and solar position an average of 600-800 watts per square meter. Most insulation measures insulate this energy from outside to inside, so it has to be produced again inside the house (complete nonsense!!)
But through this you can clearly see why suddenly a highly energy-efficient construction becomes energetically expensive outside the laboratory. So you spend a lot of money on construction and the saving potential shrinks as well.
In addition, none of these energy values consider the health aspect! and that should actually come first. But I believe that is not the question here, just a hint from me! And if you convert health into monetary values and energy expenditure, it could well fit here ))
So the more is promised, the less of the promised will happen! (this can also be calculated if you would include factors for the error potential)
Thank you very much for this thread, I see that many private individuals are thinking about it!! Stay critical and question the marketing strategies and ask yourself who benefits! (the one who shouts the loudest "YOU YOU YOU"
I have dealt with the topic of energy saving for a long time, calculated a lot (economic perspective), I have worked through arguments and calculation models and above all of course with the physical basics. Then I looked at and studied the marketing of various companies and standard setters. And of course studies that stand for or "against" the [Enef], [KFW], etc. in their results.
My result is that all arguments in the sense of "spend more money and then you save energy" are completely correct! )) ATTENTION they are not economical!!! So you spend a lot of money, you have to be willing to afford that because you pay for it. No matter whether you get the money via [KFW] or or or in the end you have to work for it. Sometimes it costs more sometimes less (depending on interest) but there is no gift or paying back less than borrowed.
Regarding energy savings.
If it is said that you save energy that is correct, but how much you save is often calculated extremely simply and with an interest-oriented approach. If I save 50% heating costs that is 50 euros from 100 euros; if you compare that with the effort, that costs many thousands of euros and the maintenance of complex constructions to maintain the saving value also costs money.
In addition, unfortunately, one has to say that energy efficiency values are laboratory values.
Simple example: super modern house with open hallway directly to the living room... energetically very well executed. When the front door is opened, several cubic meters of air with a lot of energy escape. A laboratory will not open this door, but you will at home and then the values are no longer correct.
If you get a child and then another one, the door is suddenly opened more than twice as often and then the consumption changes again by a multiple.
Another example, double or triple-glazed window panes? In a double-glass, solar energy (infrared "light") can be converted into heat indoors. This is free! and absolutely climate-neutral (to use a buzzword ). With triple glazing, this energy (infrared "light") is completely filtered, so you have to compensate for this missing energy via the heating system and that costs money and additional technical equipment which often causes follow-up and maintenance costs.
But you get sold the triple glazing and gladly pay more when you hear energy saving. !!Economic efficiency = 000!!! (Moreover, window insulation in the building envelope accounts for an extremely small factor but is played up very much!)
By now, there are enough studies and practical examples that confirm exactly what I feared, that the promise is never kept; on the contrary, often there are even opposite effects, that energy saving measures even become more expensive in the energy balance.
The reason is also simple but extremely neglected by sales channels. Around us is energy and the sun, for example, produces depending on location and solar position an average of 600-800 watts per square meter. Most insulation measures insulate this energy from outside to inside, so it has to be produced again inside the house (complete nonsense!!)
But through this you can clearly see why suddenly a highly energy-efficient construction becomes energetically expensive outside the laboratory. So you spend a lot of money on construction and the saving potential shrinks as well.
In addition, none of these energy values consider the health aspect! and that should actually come first. But I believe that is not the question here, just a hint from me! And if you convert health into monetary values and energy expenditure, it could well fit here ))
So the more is promised, the less of the promised will happen! (this can also be calculated if you would include factors for the error potential)
Thank you very much for this thread, I see that many private individuals are thinking about it!! Stay critical and question the marketing strategies and ask yourself who benefits! (the one who shouts the loudest "YOU YOU YOU"