KfW BEG funding stopped 261, 262, 263, 264, 461, 463, 464

We are now missing nearly €75,000 in financing. The only way to still manage the project will be to build the house at the absolute minimum standard with a gas boiler and without controlled residential ventilation. Cheers to climate protection, Mr. Habeck!

Assuming you depreciate your house over 50 years – that would be €1,500 per year that you could/must now save at the purchase price. How much more energy would you actually consume annually in the standard compared to 40+? That is, in kWh AND in money? And how much more CO2 would that cost, and how expensive would the saved CO2 be per kg? Would it still look impressive then? And: couldn't you save significantly more CO2 for the money or – horrible to say – store it in a CO2 sink (he said "Jehowa":eek: ...)?

Your pulse can settle back to 60 again;)

Here is a very, very big thank you for being able to relieve the fear of so many in the forum. Can you be elected to a political office?

Is there no moderator here? What is being discussed here, that everything is more expensive because of green, that some can only afford a house because of the current subsidy, who belongs to which class with how much money ... Does something like this really belong in such a current topic? Anyone looking for real information here is lost ...

There is no real additional information at this time.

You have absolutely zero chance of success. The approach of the KfW is legally correct.

I would still find a lawsuit good because, in this context, the resulting media coverage is, in my view, informative and important for the citizens. Even if the government wins in court, the amateurism and, my subjective assessment, "moral bankruptcy" will become clear.

I would still find a lawsuit good because the resulting media coverage in this context is, in my view, informative and important for the citizens. Even if the government wins in court, the dilettantism and, my subjective assessment, "moral bankruptcy" become clear.

Presumably no legal expenses insurance would pay, as the chances of success are almost zero. And the question is whether the people who now have to pay more anyway due to the subsidy or the loss of the subsidy want to afford an expensive legal dispute out of pure idealism.

I am also affected and will now switch down to KfW 55 from KfW 40 EE. That is then 25,000 EUR cheaper.

Where exactly is the moral bankruptcy supposed to lie?