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

This is madness... just pure madness... Three years ago we installed a new gas heating system in our rental building...

That is called ideology. In my opinion/experience, madness is easier to mitigate than ideologies.

Funding applications for 700 renovations vs 24,200 new buildings (of which only 3,000 are KfW40) clearly show the wrong incentives from a climate policy perspective.

I am interested in why those are wrong incentives. (No provocation.) A KfW 55 house is better than a building energy law house, so the funding achieves its goal or am I seeing that wrong? A KfW 40 house or passive house is of course even better, but in my opinion small steps are also important. Or from your point of view, is KfW 55 not even a small step regarding environmental protection? I don’t want to question your assessment "wrong incentives," but I would like to understand it.

Then it’s just built the cheapest way and all the eco-saving gimmicks stay out. If that’s what you want, be my guest. Without all these incentives, nobody would come up with the idea to build in the regions of 40/+/EE/XYZ by themselves.

I assume the builders will not be given the choice. So far I have understood it as either you have to build according to a high environmental standard or not at all. (So KfW 50 should --> without funding become the standard or maybe even KfW 40.)

Admittedly, today you really have to make an effort to get below the 55 standard as a home builder. But gimmicks like photovoltaics, batteries, controlled residential ventilation, energy consultants, etc. are then no longer absolutely necessary. You can live just fine without them if needed.

Maybe even better than "if needed." I will report when our house is finished, since we are only building according to the building energy law. Besides, I plan to hold an "open house day" for the forum members who are interested. Then informed assessments will be possible.
I am looking forward to photovoltaic systems, though, and we will have it prepared so we can start right away when proper storage systems are available. And we will also get a wallbox at the same time as we get the car. :)

... a.) social housing - nowhere to be seen ...

And social housing then looks like the place where you wouldn’t want to live with children if you have a choice.

It’s just bad luck for those who want to get in where there is nothing left. Nothing more than bad luck.

I would call it "personal misfortune" rather than "bad luck," at least that’s how I understand the reactions of those affected. It’s part of life, but when it is politically forced (by abrupt "blocking" within hours), it is, in my opinion, wrong.

I assume that by the time all the technical stuff has paid off, it will either be broken or the maximum lifespan will be near, or technically it will be outdated anyway.

I am really very curious about our house, whether it is really that bad since we are only building according to the building energy law. Also about the electricity and gas bills.

I am interested in why these are perverse incentives. (No provocation.) A KfW 55 house is better than a Building Energy Act house, so the subsidy achieves its goal, or am I wrong? A KfW 40 house or passive house are of course even better, but small steps are also important in my opinion. Or from your point of view, is KfW 55 not even a small step regarding environmental protection? I do not want to question your assessment of "perverse incentives," but I would like to understand it.

The logic behind the "perverse incentive" is that EH55 is already basically the standard and it makes little sense to subsidize a standard that is already being implemented by the majority. If people are already building EH55 anyway, then it is just a windfall effect that does not bring any improvement. The critical question here is, of course, whether the standard would really be standard without the subsidy, that is, whether the subsidy actually creates incentives. Our general contractor said, "you basically don’t build below 55 anymore today," but for example, we also had an offer from Town & Country. There, upgrading to EH55 with the subsidy would have been practically cost-neutral and without the subsidy, we would not have done it.. My personal position on this is that the subsidies themselves are way too high and the state should better relieve burdens elsewhere. Less bureaucracy, fewer expensive and often only moderately sensible regulations. Lower fees at the notary, for example... what the 15-minute process for registering a land charge costs is an absolute madness...

I am interested in why these are perverse incentives. (No provocation.) A KfW 55 house is better than a building energy law house, so the subsidy achieves its goal, or am I mistaken? A KfW 40 house or passive house is of course even better, but small steps are, in my opinion, also important. Or from your point of view, is KfW 55 not even a small step in terms of environmental protection? I do not want to question your assessment of "perverse incentives," but I would like to understand it.

The perverse incentive lies in the fact that statistically, for one euro of subsidy for renovation in old buildings, you can save ten times as much CO2 compared to if you invest the same euro in a KfW 55 project versus the building energy law. New buildings are much more problematic in terms of energy consumption during manufacturing than during operation. And this has been little considered so far. Also as a sweetener for the construction industry, which has an extremely strong lobby.

Our last apartment before the children was in a small residential block from 1938. About 50 apartments in total on the street. Simple wall thickness, uninsulated. Windows double-glazed from the 1970s. Heated with night storage heaters. In the bathroom, the water on the tiles on the exterior wall froze in winter. The property once belonged to the city but was sold to an investor to balance the budget. The new landlord then issued all new contracts as graduated rents. Nothing has been renovated to this day. This is what needs to be addressed.

If there is still money left over, why not?

If that is the case (the feeling of "too much money" has unfortunately been foreign to me so far), why should one give up their construction project? That was the only point I referred to (can be gladly re-read if needed).

Maybe it escaped you that the price development in construction nowadays is quite different than in 1980 or whenever.

Thanks, I didn’t know that; when you live as a hermit in the forest you don’t get to know everything. Wait, I have to water the daisies first...

will cost you significantly more next year

Oh, so in the good old days it was different..... I had also forgotten (progressive senility). Back then (1990) construction interest rates quickly rose from 8 to 9.5%, but I’m sure that can also be debated away somehow.
What bothers you about the statement of what I personally experienced and forces you to make such a biting comment against me? Or is it maybe the offended dog that barks there..... who, by the way, still has heaps of money "left over" after building the house? So where exactly is the problem for you?

So you pull your plans forward as early as possible accordingly

You only do that if you can afford it and only then. I could not afford that, and unlike nowadays, it was 8 years with a lot of personal work. If you can afford it, that’s ok, then I certainly was not addressing you with that, but only those who now apparently want to end their project and are even willing to pay penalty interest for it.

Maybe it escaped you that the price development in construction nowadays is quite different than in 1980 or whenever.
What you postpone today will cost you significantly more next year. The 5% inflation we are having anyway right now is not enough for that. So you pull your plans forward as early as possible accordingly. If there is still money left over, why not?
God, how I love it when the old-timers compare their homebuilding times, when a basement cost a stable 15,000 D-Mark for years and you could still negotiate hard with craftsmen, to 2022...

Arrogance paired with apparently trained unfriendliness seems to be your trademark if you disparagingly call me an "old-timer" here, etc. As you could have read, this is not my first building project in life, which is why I have at least one personal comparison that I have even described self-critically (sorry for this apparently unknown foreign word to you).
Could you briefly give me the address for the 15,000 DM basement price and the unique chances for a carefree dream house at that time that I apparently missed?
Your pain seems great; your whining alone and not even your insults will make it less. By imagining that everything was golden in the past, you only drive yourself faster into the abyss: hello down there :D, it’s just raining…….
Those who can and want to read are at an advantage here as well; I expressed a thought. Know-it-alls like you rather make other forum members (not me) hold back more and more with their projects and stories, so as not to get it thrown at them so overbearingly. KfW funding was free until recently, decency would still be free and even unlimited; that would be a chance, wouldn’t it?
Dear forum colleague. Even I have not overlooked the change in the construction sector. If you were to read my posts, you could find numerous critical and annoyed comments about it, including that I do have understanding for the problems of today’s building generation and my children’s. But the pain only grows if you tell yourself that in the past golden flakes rained down from the sky. Every era has its advantages and disadvantages; you too can be glad to be able to do without some of today’s disadvantages.
I understand that, and I am currently no different. Nevertheless, it doesn’t hurt to critically question yourself and your decisions once in a while to possibly find a solution you can live with before you abandon the project. That’s all I meant by it. In the end, I might have no laid-out front yard or just a sunshade instead of a roof or—as in our case—I simply have no garage for 30 years and only the simplest vehicle fleet, but still a beautiful house and at all a house. I think you understand what and how I mean it.

For the reduction from 55 to 40, the tax saver roughly pays 800 euros per ton of CO2 saved (with gas heating and 50 years of depreciation).

For comparison: saving 1 ton of CO2 through reforestation costs around 20 euros; biodiversity, fine dust filtration, the well-being from green bathing, and O2 production come as an extra bonus.

The perverse incentive lies in the fact that statistically, for one euro of funding for renovation in old buildings, you can save ten times as much CO2 as if you invest the same euro in a KFW55 project compared to the Building Energy Act.

However, the problem is that in renovations, the high standards are often very difficult and laborious to achieve. The mentioned house from '38 cannot simply be renovated to EH55 with a heat pump, as you effectively rebuild half the house. I think here the goal of achieving the highest possible savings is simply standing in its own way. For many existing buildings, a renovation to EH100 would be more than sufficient.

I think you understand what and how I mean (it).

Yes, of course. We are currently also planning with a parasol, possibly adding an awning later (the classic kind with a crank ;) ). Regarding the garden, I wanted to decide some things only once the house is more or less standing. It’s all hard to estimate just on paper. At the moment, for example, I feel like we hardly have a garden... but that could also be because of the piles of earth spreading out ;)