KfW - construction: is it necessary or not?

I don't feel like anyone wants to ruin my project. I much more have the feeling that people are determined to prove to me that an "eco-house" (please note the quotation marks) is basically no more ecological than a house built according to the Energy Saving Ordinance. And that, with all due respect, I still consider to be wrong.

No, no. Just keep pointing out that the measures required by KFW standards are not necessarily ecological. Somehow the statement gets twisted on the way from me to you. I say that a heat pump, lots of insulation &co. does not necessarily result in an ecological house, because in most calculations the grey energy (production, disposal, ...) is not taken into account. You understand that I basically equate both and find all ecological considerations unnecessary anyway. And about the quote above: you are building according to KfW. You must know that an "Energy Saving Ordinance house" and a "KfW" house can come about because the Energy Saving Ordinance house simply does not meet one of the various mandatory conditions for KfW. That happens quickly—and simply says nothing about the actual ecological benefit. But enough spamming, sorry

And you’re not broke yet because of all the exorbitant additional costs?

No, the house is actually very efficient. We just didn’t build it according to KfW guidelines – for example, heating.

Ok. Thanks for the active participation. I will actually take a look at the conditions for a KFW 55 house and offset the additional costs against the funding.

Ecological impact is always a question. You must not only calculate the savings but also the environmental costs of production. Take electric cars, for example. You do save CO2, but just the battery production for the car is very, very water- and CO2-intensive.

And super gasoline comes directly out of the ground next to the gas station and therefore produces zero CO2 during production and is thus better?

If you criticize the environmental costs of battery production, then please also include in your calculation the environmental damage caused by crude oil extraction and transport to the refinery. I mean, oil is well-known for practically flowing from the tap, being absolutely clean, and nothing spilling when "tapped." Then please also calculate that the refining process is very energy-intensive to actually make gasoline from crude oil. Please also factor in what happens to the production waste products (keyword heavy oil). Oh yes, and please don’t forget the transport by truck from the refinery to the dealer or gas station. And then please also remember that the gasoline is ultimately burned in the engine.

So if I consider the entire environmental balance of gasoline, from the moment of extraction as crude oil to the moment it is burned in the engine, honestly, I do not find gasoline or heating oil to be truly more environmentally friendly than batteries.

Somehow the statement always gets twisted on the way from me to you. I say that a heat pump, a lot of insulation, etc. does not necessarily result in an ecological house, because in most calculations the gray energy (production, disposal, ...) is not taken into account. You understand that I basically equate both and find all ecological considerations unnecessary anyway.

On what basis does this statement of yours arise? Is it somehow scientifically founded or do you have a study on your "gray energy"?

A quick Google search (energy expenditure for manufacturing PUR boards) brings me several studies (first and second result) showing that the energy required to produce a PUR board is already amortized in the first heating season. They talk about 80-100 kWh per square meter in production, which saves up to 160 kWh per year per square meter. Even if disposal costs as much energy as production, it is saved again after two years of heating.

But first tell me something about gray energy that you picked up somewhere. Of course, one can say these documents come from the PUR industry itself, but show me another study/calculation that refutes this.

But first, telling something about grey energy that one has picked up somewhere. Sure, you can say these documents come from the PUR industry itself, but show me another study/calculation that disproves it.

Why be so aggressive right away? My point is simply that many people (especially those who want to sell something) simplify the calculation and do not take these costs of production and disposal into account. And of course, this IS grey energy that you mention there. In the case of PUR boards, apparently in a ratio that is okay. That’s great. If the raw materials are sustainably sourced, etc., it’s even better. But exactly this is taken into account far too rarely in discussions. It should simply be treated more consciously. Because not everything comes off so well – and is still promoted.