Energy Saving Ordinance 2016 or KFW 55 for bungalow with air-water heat pump & controlled residential ventilation, optional photovoltaic

The sale of photovoltaic electricity is subsidized. However, the installation of the systems itself is not.
This means that producing one kWh of electricity using photovoltaics costs about 4-5 cents in a private household. Selling it on the open market would not be cost-effective, which is why there is a subsidy that guarantees a purchase price.
But to claim that production is uneconomical is, especially from the perspective of the homeowner who acts as an end customer in the electricity market and encounters corresponding conditions, absolute nonsense.

Incorporating one’s own political views into the “advice” given to customers is, to put it mildly, unprofessional.

Regarding the Building Energy Act 2019, it should be noted that the latest draft by the federal government sets the current Energy Saving Ordinance standard for new buildings as the definition of the low-energy house. While political debates continue, the doomsday predictions that only passive houses will be built in the future are not current.

@

You cannot omit the insulation if it must already be proven according to the Energy Saving Ordinance 2013. Furthermore, you forget the thermal bridge surcharge, because with it you can no longer apply an optimized flat rate for the building. This means not only is your calculation wrong, but no KfW house is achievable at all, no matter how poor.
[/SIZE]

Currently, according to the latest status of the thermal protection verification with circulation and 10 cm Styrodur under the floor slab, the Ht value of the place is 0.14 and is currently narrowly missing KWF 40. When I enter the values into the well-known Energy Saving Ordinance heating load calculator, I get somewhere around 2.5 kW... and so I am still below my MHW heating load, as long as the general contractor does not come to me with a 5 kW heat pump and a design temperature for the floor heating flow of 35°C, I am happy.

Furthermore, just nonsensical blub blub... You don't even know what to say, because what you write simply makes no sense at all..

The acquisition, creation, and feed-in are subsidized. The 4-5 ct/kWh are only achieved with a modern MW power plant in the current Frauenhofer study ISE dated 29.5.2019. The problem remains storage, since the energy occurs at times when it is not needed in the private household. (Cold winter night) The photovoltaic electricity generation costs increase by approx. 2.7 €ct/kWh.

For comparison: coal power 3-7 ct/kWh, gas power 6-9 ct/kWh.

Quote on self-consumption:

The self-consumption user cannot consider the full difference between their gross electricity price (for consumption from the grid) and the Renewable Energy Act remuneration (as an estimate for their electricity generation costs) as a "profit." On the one hand, self-consumption increases the fixed costs per externally purchased kilowatt-hour. If the same connection costs are spread over a smaller electricity consumption quantity, the electricity purchase becomes more expensive (ct/kWh). It should also be noted that taxes and levies may apply when electricity is taken from a photovoltaic system for self-consumption, depending on the tax classification of the system.

Completely incoherent what you are writing there. Oh dear. I'd better leave it, it only drives you crazy.

This is what Fraunhofer (ISE) writes, not me, see quote.
But you can also use the current numbers from Elon Musk and his Powerwall from SolarCity. Current figures have also been published for this. The average efficiency of the new system is 15%.
Degradation of up to 25% after one year reduces the value to as low as 11%.
See also manufacturer warranties, which generally do not exceed 80% after the end of the 20-year depreciation period.

You can also publicly view the subsidies, such as those from KfW or the ongoing feed-in tariff.

These are simply technical and economic data about this technology, as there are for other technologies.