Passive house as a logical consequence? Are there counterarguments?

  • Erstellt am 2015-02-20 19:54:17

nathi

2015-02-22 22:41:01
  • #1
KfW40. Passive house would probably have only brought a different calculation, a certification, and a guarantee that the Blower Door n50 is below 0.6. According to experiences from construction blogs, almost all houses with our provider have an n50 at least smaller than 0.7 anyway. Therefore, the differences were marginal and I didn't even ask about the price anymore.
 

Vogtländer

2015-02-22 23:22:48
  • #2
So we are getting the energy-plus house for €210,000 (€1750/m²) fixed price (Energy Saving Ordinance reference house offer would be €160,000 so about 30% less). Rough data: 120 m², timber frame construction, 10 kWp photovoltaic, - NO polystyrene on the walls, no heating but a fireplace, no heat pump, central controlled residential ventilation with heat recovery and geothermal exchanger, box windows, ...

When all the subsidies come in, I reduce the rate by about €100 per month, and since I also use €100 less electricity per month and €50–80 less gas/oil, I have about €300 more that I can put into the loan installment. At an interest rate of 1.5% that we have, this means we can borrow €80,000 more and the "warm rent" is just as high as for an Energy Saving Ordinance 2014 reference house.

So in our case, this means that although I have additional investments of about 30% (€60,000), I actually have a slightly lower monthly burden thanks to the lower interest rate and the savings on ancillary costs.

That I will also get money from the electricity feed-in, because I certainly will not consume 9,000 kWh per year and energy prices will also rise, has not yet been taken into account.
 

nathi

2015-02-22 23:30:40
  • #3
Is that now also a passive house?
 

Vogtländer

2015-02-22 23:35:00
  • #4
yes, no heating, floor/walls/roof all U-value of 0.10
box windows U-value 0.5 ...

... a passive house with photovoltaic and battery, making it a plus-energy house.
 

nathi

2015-02-22 23:43:54
  • #5
So it would be a passive house without photovoltaics and battery? I'm just asking precisely because a plus-energy house initially has nothing to do with a passive house.
 

nathi

2015-02-22 23:49:56
  • #6
What is the surcharge according to the Energy Saving Ordinance for the pure passive house, that is without photovoltaics and battery?
 

Similar topics
29.04.2010Energy Saving Ordinance 2009 even without solar?16
26.10.2014Long single-story log house, on a long narrow plot13
30.04.2015KFW70 with gas-solar heating65
15.12.2019Aerated concrete exterior wall vs. Energy Saving Ordinance13
06.08.2015Photovoltaics for hot water26
19.10.2015New energy saving regulation from 2016 -> What to build?30
23.10.2015Prefabricated house heating: Gas / Air heat pump / Underfloor heating22
10.01.2017Energy Saving Ordinance 2016 / KFW55 / Gas + Solar in 201628
24.12.2015Single-family house, Energy Saving Ordinance 2016, developer recommends additional insulation - is it sensible?39
09.05.2016Compliance with the 2016 Energy Saving Ordinance with the following heating14
03.07.2016U-value of windows - differences15
25.06.2016How important is the U-value of interior walls?12
13.04.2017U-value of windows: 1.3 - is an upgrade worth it?16
06.02.2018Solar for hot water/heating or better photovoltaic for electricity?21
07.05.2020U-value outer wall 0.26 - is that okay?13
06.11.2018Ytong Energy Saving Regulation 25cm stone thickness allowed - Who has experience?17
24.07.2019Energy Saving Ordinance 2016 or KFW 55 for bungalow with air-water heat pump & controlled residential ventilation, optional photovoltaic47
03.09.2019KFW40(plus) standard multifamily house cannot be achieved40
05.01.2020Gas heating + photovoltaics possible without proof15
18.07.2024New building with granny flat: Photovoltaic - Electricity - Heating16

Oben