f-pNo
2013-06-18 13:45:01
- #1
Hello everyone,
thanks for the information.
At the beginning, I have to point out again my layman status. Therefore, I am not sure whether I have correctly assigned the abbreviations used.
Ht = heating technology
qp = according to Google, could be quality inspection
Of course, I am aware that the KfW requirements are composed of the combination of heating technology and insulation, windows, doors, etc. However, I do not know how the individual factors each affect (except that if you reduce one, you have to strengthen another component to maintain a similar standard – simply put).
We had dealt extensively with the topic beforehand and often read that air-water heat pumps are officially rated down to -15 degrees but often already fail at below -10 degrees. Therefore, although they are cheaper, we decided against these systems.
So far, there is actually no calculation of the heating demand. However, his suggestion of the geothermal heating system (he almost exclusively builds with geothermal) also suited us very well, as we were thinking in the same direction. He gave us one statement on this (I do not have the documents at hand right now, so I can only write it from memory) – he assumes an energy demand of 50 watts per square meter. Thus, we need a pump with 8.5 kW output (if I got it right).
Regardless, his note about "giving up the KfW70 standard" is at first only a suggestion/a thought experiment. The problem is that I unfortunately cannot understand how maintaining the insulation for KfW70 or dropping the standard affects consumption. Accordingly, I cannot really understand the sense or nonsense of this measure. I have now made an appointment with an energy consultant for next week, although I do not know to what extent this appointment will actually be helpful, as it is just a preliminary consultation.
At least the rear wall (in the slope) will be made of reinforced concrete. In addition, a supporting wall will be built centrally here, which in my opinion also consists of reinforced concrete.
We had seven companies do a roadshow. This provider, who made the statement about the significantly underestimated transport/disposal fees, was actually a franchisee. I think we are talking about the same one.
However, we noticed similar statements with almost all providers. We were already slowly despairing. Our idea was a city villa with a basement. However, I already feared back then that we could have problems with groundwater layers, which could make building a basement difficult (white tub).
We got the contact to our construction company by recommendation. Unlike the other companies, no salesperson came here, but a construction engineer. He had looked at the plot before our conversation (the plot is flat at first, then there is a 3 m embankment and then flat again). In addition, since he also suspected the groundwater layer – which was then confirmed by the soil survey – he made us an alternative proposal. We immediately liked this. In our initial ideas, I had also vaguely seen the problem that the terrace would have to be built directly into the slope (= great view), but I never really pursued it further. He recognized this point immediately and solved it by building into the slope (terrace now on the ground floor).
The salespeople never addressed these problems and concerns (although we had partially taken pictures of the plot), but only pursued their sales script. Only when reading the building description did we realize what was missing. Our construction company actually includes most of the additional costs and explicitly points them out to us.
As you can see, I do believe that after a long search we found a reasonable construction partner. But better to ask a little more than too little.
By the way – greetings from the Mosel-Saar region.
f-pNo
thanks for the information.
At the beginning, I have to point out again my layman status. Therefore, I am not sure whether I have correctly assigned the abbreviations used.
Ht = heating technology
qp = according to Google, could be quality inspection
Of course, I am aware that the KfW requirements are composed of the combination of heating technology and insulation, windows, doors, etc. However, I do not know how the individual factors each affect (except that if you reduce one, you have to strengthen another component to maintain a similar standard – simply put).
We had dealt extensively with the topic beforehand and often read that air-water heat pumps are officially rated down to -15 degrees but often already fail at below -10 degrees. Therefore, although they are cheaper, we decided against these systems.
This guy is really funny
Am I right in assuming that no calculation of the heat demand was made? Or in other words, that no TGA planning is available, nor planned, nor any heat load calculation commissioned or will be? You can only decide which heat generator (HG) is ultimately to be used after submitting an exact calculation. This calculation also determines the amount and location of the insulation. Only with this is it possible to decide whether and if so, how much insulation can be omitted where at the expense of which disadvantage or not.
Statements like "we leave something out here, then it will be fine" are not very helpful and always remind me of the gas/water/sh**-guys from long ago who roughly estimated the size of the boiler.
So far, there is actually no calculation of the heating demand. However, his suggestion of the geothermal heating system (he almost exclusively builds with geothermal) also suited us very well, as we were thinking in the same direction. He gave us one statement on this (I do not have the documents at hand right now, so I can only write it from memory) – he assumes an energy demand of 50 watts per square meter. Thus, we need a pump with 8.5 kW output (if I got it right).
Regardless, his note about "giving up the KfW70 standard" is at first only a suggestion/a thought experiment. The problem is that I unfortunately cannot understand how maintaining the insulation for KfW70 or dropping the standard affects consumption. Accordingly, I cannot really understand the sense or nonsense of this measure. I have now made an appointment with an energy consultant for next week, although I do not know to what extent this appointment will actually be helpful, as it is just a preliminary consultation.
What exactly do you mean here: "the cladding of reinforced concrete parts will be done with about 2 cm less Styrofoam"? Is the basement being constructed from reinforced concrete?
At least the rear wall (in the slope) will be made of reinforced concrete. In addition, a supporting wall will be built centrally here, which in my opinion also consists of reinforced concrete.
And out of purely professional curiosity: are you building with a franchisee? That would explain your statement in the other thread regarding the incompletely named ancillary construction costs.
We had seven companies do a roadshow. This provider, who made the statement about the significantly underestimated transport/disposal fees, was actually a franchisee. I think we are talking about the same one.
However, we noticed similar statements with almost all providers. We were already slowly despairing. Our idea was a city villa with a basement. However, I already feared back then that we could have problems with groundwater layers, which could make building a basement difficult (white tub).
We got the contact to our construction company by recommendation. Unlike the other companies, no salesperson came here, but a construction engineer. He had looked at the plot before our conversation (the plot is flat at first, then there is a 3 m embankment and then flat again). In addition, since he also suspected the groundwater layer – which was then confirmed by the soil survey – he made us an alternative proposal. We immediately liked this. In our initial ideas, I had also vaguely seen the problem that the terrace would have to be built directly into the slope (= great view), but I never really pursued it further. He recognized this point immediately and solved it by building into the slope (terrace now on the ground floor).
The salespeople never addressed these problems and concerns (although we had partially taken pictures of the plot), but only pursued their sales script. Only when reading the building description did we realize what was missing. Our construction company actually includes most of the additional costs and explicitly points them out to us.
As you can see, I do believe that after a long search we found a reasonable construction partner. But better to ask a little more than too little.
By the way – greetings from the Mosel-Saar region.
f-pNo