Different Heating Concepts Compared

What is supposed to be advantageous about that ... gas connection including basic fee for which bad weather scenario?

In variant 1, a photovoltaic support is sensibly missing .. instead of the solar thermal system from variant 2.

In winter, for example, you hardly reach 60 degrees without additional pressure. A heat pump already has a hard time reaching 60 degrees at subzero temperatures. Anything significantly below that is too dangerous because of bacterial growth.

It's not about me, but about sensible concepts today. With the current interest rates, you could save yourself the extra cost for underfloor heating and photovoltaics, heat the house with an air-to-air heat pump, and come up with something small and traditional for the hot water.

How would the differences be in operating costs? Are there significant differences in heating between air-to-water underfloor heating vs. air-to-air heat pump multisplit?

1. How do you come up with 60 degrees? If we assume something like that, then there is no point in discussing meaningfulness. 2. The significant differences are all in the thread linked above

It’s not about me, but about concepts that make sense today.

Today covers a wide range. Even if we exclude unrenovated old buildings... from passive houses to renovated old buildings with, let’s say, 60 kWh/sqm (which would then be about Efficiency House 100), you can’t apply the same recipe. And even if you only consider new buildings, you still have a range from EH55 to passive houses with correspondingly more or less sensible heating concepts. If you want to do without underfloor heating, you take an air-to-air heat pump and heating elements in the ventilation. Hot water then via domestic water heat pump. It can’t be so inefficient that you make up for a gas connection with the respective fees again. Alternatively, you save money on the domestic water heat pump and use a boiler with an electric heating element.

... at 60 degrees. Anything significantly below that is too dangerous due to microbial contamination

Hi, this blanket statement is, of course, nonsense for a single-family house, which is usually the topic in this forum...

What incredible fees come up for the gas connection? If you want to have gas installed in your house anyway, better get a complete gas heating system with solar thermal right away. The thing with the ban etc. Won't happen and gas and oil prices won't rise massively either. Because then easily 50% of the population simply won't be able to heat adequately anymore. We already have 21% AfD in the polls...

This is often forgotten by the heat pump enthusiasts. Yes, it makes sense in new buildings. But at least 70% of the buildings in Germany are not suitable for it without further measures. What are they supposed to heat with then? With the hot air from the forum users here?

Solar thermal is at least as useful as photovoltaics. Since May, we haven't burned a single kWh of gas. For that, 5m² suffice for me, which cost about a thousand. Photovoltaics is just not a good deal at a 4% interest rate and still quite high prices.

The thing with the ban etc.
Will not happen and gas and oil prices will not rise massively either. Because then easily 50% of the population simply would no longer be able to heat sufficiently. We already have 21% AfD in the polls...

This is often forgotten by the heat pump enthusiasts. Yes, they do make sense in new buildings. But at least 70% of the buildings in Germany are not suitable for them without further measures.
What are those supposed to heat with then? With the hot air of the forum members here?

what do you think the whole, now Europe-wide, energy policy is about? The Building Energy Act, BEW and "fit for 55" prescribe this and there is no changing that.
The CO2 price will certainly rise to €200/t (probably more). At present, I think it is around €35/t.
That already significantly increases the pressure on conventional energy producers.