KfW - construction: is it necessary or not?

I just want to point out that not everything carrying the label "this makes my house an eco-house" actually leads to a house that is less harmful to the environment. Many things sound good in the brochure, but overall, it might even be more harmful/resource-intensive than a "conventional" solution. On the contrary, I often unfortunately feel that especially building owners who build an "eco-house" tend to be very missionary. Without really taking all components into account.

A little self-information is certainly part of it, provided that building ecologically is important to you – but yes, the label is quickly given. Funny that you feel that, I rather have the feeling that you are considered a freak if you decide to build like that. As I said: Personally, I do not care at all how others think about it.

No. Suppose you build your house with a heat pump and use 100% green electricity. Since there is only a limited amount of this electricity available, electricity must be generated with coal or gas to compensate for your consumption. This can lead to the fact that it would be ecologically better to produce little CO2 with an effective condensing boiler than to produce electricity with "a lot" of CO2 in a coal power plant.

... see Tolentino’s post, I don’t have to write that again. By the way, a boiler also needs electricity...

With the new pipelines, gas prices stay low.

Is that so? Forever and ever? I have my doubts about that (which might be unfounded, I gladly admit).

What I do find a bit hypocritical, however, is pretending that eco-houses and heat pumps and alternatives are not better anyway than, for example, gas heating, because people also drive cars... That doesn’t make sense. Either I want to build ecologically or I don’t.

That’s exactly what I mean.

Let’s take gas vs. heat pump.
Now you would have to offset the following (probably even more):

[*]Lifespan of gas boiler vs. heat pump
[*]Manufacture of the devices: which materials, from where, how sustainably sourced (side note: even "local wood" is an ecological nightmare if Eastern European primeval forests are being cleared), how processed, what pollutants are produced, what working conditions prevail
[*]Operation: gas vs. electricity, please don’t forget to include the manufacturing accounting for the almost always necessary photovoltaics, which are expensive, as well as the consideration of whether the self-sufficient house is really overall more effective/efficient than if, for example, renewable electricity is produced centrally, also include that gas suppliers already offer tariffs with at least compensation concepts like reforestation, CO2 certificates, etc.
[*]Disposal of the devices: the same game backwards as with manufacturing

Hm. It’s not all that clear-cut anymore. I don’t know what you really end up with. I lack experience, time, and data for that. It also depends individually on the building size and usage behavior. But it’s not as clear-cut as you feel. Even a gas heating system can be the more ecological solution.

Green electricity always includes bioenergy. Then wood and other plants are simply burned. They just grow back

Green electricity always includes bioenergy. Then wood and other plants are simply burned. They just regrow

Always? That probably depends more on the electricity provider. Naturstrom invests only in wind and hydropower and already considers the ecological balance when building the plants. Berliner Stadtwerke invests in regional renewable electricity generation.
And then there is nothing wrong with bioenergy in sustainable biomass production and use. It is indeed a renewable energy source.
Admittedly, it does not mean deforesting primeval forests in Brazil for biofuel.

Oh, and back on topic:
I also think KFW is not necessarily needed. I build without it myself.
But it is not a fundamental question of ecological standards, rather KfW loans are more of an economic thing. And then it probably also depends on the construction company whether you end up with a positive economic balance.

You could also build totally ecologically without KfW. Whether you would still meet the requirements is another matter.

That's exactly what I mean.

Let's take gas vs heat pump.
Now one would have to balance the following (probably much more):

[*]Lifespan of gas boiler vs. heat pump
[*]Manufacturing of the devices: which materials, where from, how sustainably sourced (digression: even "local wood" is an ecological nightmare if Eastern European old-growth forests are being cleared), how processed, what pollutants arise, what working conditions prevail
[*]Operation: gas vs. electricity, here please don’t forget the manufacturing calculation on the practically always conditional photovoltaics, which is expensive, also the consideration of whether the self-sufficient house is really overall more effective/efficient than, for example, if regenerative electricity is generated centrally, also include that gas suppliers already offer tariffs with at least compensation concepts like reforestation, CO2 certificates etc.
[*]Disposal of the devices: reverse process to manufacturing

Hmm. It's not quite so clear-cut anymore. I don’t know what the real conclusion is. I lack experience, time, and data for that. It also depends individually on the building size and usage behavior. But it’s not as clear-cut as you think. A gas heating system can also be the more ecological solution.

You know, I rely on all studies regarding the ecological balance of the respective components and think there is a reason why one is subsidized and the other is not.
If I’m completely wrong about that: that’s okay too.
Nevertheless, and just boiled down: natural gas is limited, I don’t even want to talk about fracking. Geothermal energy, on the other hand, is unlimited. At least that’s a point that’s maybe undisputed?

Green electricity always also includes bioenergy. Then wood and other plants are burned. They just grow back

As I said, a boiler also needs electricity. Unfortunately, nobody has invented the jack-of-all-trades yet. But if we now also start debating whether green electricity or nuclear power electricity is more ecological, then it gets a bit silly. Right?

I have no doubt whatsoever that people feel as comfortable in their house with a good ecological balance (however comprehensively that is measured) as others do in their house. But that does not necessarily mean that nature (and that is what it’s all about) fares better with an "eco house" than with a "normal" house.
I generally have difficulty with certificates, standards, and formulas that are used in a sensational way, because they are of no use if daily behavior does not correspond.
Unfortunately, I also experience that these "eco badges" (see above) are gladly used as a free ticket for all sorts of things.
Whenever someone truly lives this consistently, really consistently, I have the utmost respect for that.
Unfortunately, I see too many Alnatura shoppers in SUVs, eating pineapples or stylish food products from all over the world while on vacation in Costa Rica......
I will install an air conditioner and yet I am sure that in daily life and in comparison to many others I have a pretty decent ecological balance.
Strictly according to the Bible or was that written in the building description?? "By their deeds you shall know them"—