Newly built single-family house - gas or air heat pump + photovoltaics + storage?

Survival.





Weiterer Text um abschicken zu können.

On the other hand, meaningless power consumption through technology perceived as today's standard is included in this consensus?

Sorry, but that's just blabla that doesn't help anyone. Just because waste occurs in other areas doesn't mean you can't do the right thing somewhere else. So why should one even choose gas for a new building? Just because the acquisition might be somewhat cheaper?

Because more and more countries are banning gas heating and gas will therefore become completely cheap in the long run! ;-)

Just because waste occurs elsewhere doesn’t mean you can’t simply do the right thing somewhere else.

This means conversely that you can waste if you do something "right" somewhere else (no gas heating).... interesting approach. Just for your information. I am absolutely AGAINST waste and I also try to align myself accordingly and judge others less. Many sit on their own big pile and complain about others. A currently popular sport.

So why should anyone even choose gas for a new building? Just because the acquisition might be somewhat cheaper?

Of course you can question that, even I can understand that. Nowhere have I named gas as the ideal solution. Nevertheless, for example, heat pumps are not scientifically undisputed, just like the current trend toward e-mobility. There are definitely better options but people don’t buy them simply because they’re too expensive for them. The gas buyer isn’t doing something different either, right? Just on a different cost level – he chooses the cheaper option. We know that detached houses per se are harmful, but that is completely neglected here. To me, that’s somewhat like banning plastic straws on cruise ships. And let’s be honest. 90% of the so-called ecological features are installed solely because they are subsidized by 35% or more by the government. Please tell me what the percentage of installations would be without those subsidies. The same applies to e-cars if there were no grants or other benefits. Often they are only bought because they are state-sponsored and not out of genuine ecological awareness. Here you can observe an almost hectic rush for any kind of subsidy or often the intention to make a profit from it or just take it because it’s free. You don’t know which house you are building but definitely maximally subsidized, everything is taken! If heat pumps etc. were not so heavily subsidized, their share would plummet, so much for ecological consensus. That usually only applies when it’s paid for by the state; I rarely see or read about genuine personal sacrifice. It is precisely THAT for which I have the greatest respect! By the way, arguments tend to come across worse when you become cheeky or rude. Somehow that doesn’t quite fit in with the mentioned social consensus in my opinion, or does that only apply to gas heating and not to behavior?

Does it mean in reverse that you can waste if you do something "right" somewhere else (no gas heating)....interesting approach.

How do you come to that?
This thread is about heating systems, with all the other stuff and your old diesel car it’s only you who keeps bringing that up.
It simply doesn’t belong here.

Heat pumps are scientifically not undisputed

It could get interesting here if you contribute some content on this topic and not immediately come back to cars again.

By the way, arguments tend to work worse if you become cheeky or rude while making them. Somehow, in my opinion, that doesn’t quite fit the mentioned social consensus or does that only apply to gas heating systems and not to behavior?

Sorry if I am perhaps a bit too direct now and then, but constantly going around the actual topic somehow doesn’t help, does it?

I just have a feeling that you might have a bit of a guilty conscience because of your gas heating?
How did that come about and why did you still decide on it? Or did you simply not deal with the topic?

This thread deals with heating systems, with all the other stuff and your old diesel it’s always you who keeps bringing it up.

Nope, I read up there that there is a general, common "consensus" about what would be ecological. Anything else wouldn’t be socially "acceptable behavior".

with all the other stuff and your old diesel it’s always you who keeps bringing it up.
Simply has no place here.

Sorry, I apparently forgot to ask you beforehand. If the thread creator, as the rightful owner, objects to it, I won’t write about it anymore. Whether you like my old Passat or that other stuff is not really important to me.

This could get interesting if you contributed some content on this topic and didn’t immediately bring up cars again.

Sources proving that heat pumps and other currently subsidized technologies are also seen critically in scientific contexts and that there are more innovative approaches in the energy sector can be found with any search engine. You can manage that.
I basically can’t do much with the left-right-wrong-right argumentation, but how could a person be condemned per se (asocial behavior) just because they are considering a gas heating system? Apparently, that does exist after all...

Sorry if I might be too direct here and there,

Please call it as direct as it is, namely cheeky and rude! Unfortunately, the opposite is not subsidized by the KfW.

I just have the feeling that you might already feel a bit guilty about your gas heating?
How did that come about and why did you still choose it? Or did you simply not deal with the topic?

The explanation you asked for:
Currently, I live with gas heating, which I could not decide myself. Nevertheless, I see that you can use it sparingly if you want. Without knowing you, I bet that my overall energy consumption (including gas) is significantly lower than yours, probably also because I come from a generation where saving was the supreme commandment. It was impossible to live more ecologically than my parents’ generation (my childhood), compared to which even an ecologist nowadays lives in almost decadent abundance.

In the new house, I wouldn’t feel guilty just because of a gas heating system; nevertheless, I chose against it, but subsidies were not the origin of my heating decision. As I said before, my respect goes to all those who live consciously also without subsidies, out of their own conviction. Massive, state subsidies and then presenting oneself as a confessed ecologist, I find pathetic. Subsidies and free money are the dominant driving force, rarely ecological awareness!
Still unanswered by you is the question about the number of people who would have chosen the ecological option even without subsidies... :D
In the new building, I won’t have gas heating but a wood stove with infrared heating. For that, I’ll also be attacked partly since here almost only one direction is accepted as the "consensus".
However, I have dealt with it extremely thoroughly and in depth (partially readable here) and then implemented it in cooperation with a scientist, architect, and an experienced energy consultant as well as the Saxon energy agency, so I believe I have made an ecologically justifiable decision. Still, I don’t meet the "consensus" mentioned here and will continue living on asocially.