Passive house as a logical consequence? Are there counterarguments?

Well, if Wikipedia says so, then it must be true It's not like everyone who can operate a computer is allowed to write something there, right... whether you know about it or not...

And to prove that, you tried it right away, or what? At least it would be a suspicious coincidence that someone completely uninvolved edited the Wikipedia article this morning to show 30%-40% additional costs. But it isn’t as simple as you claim, as you can see by the fact that this change was reversed after 9 minutes because, unlike the original statement, it is not supported by sources.

I really don’t have any patience for kindergarten-level stuff anymore, let me know if you have any evidence.

With your "I'm right and all of you have no clue" attitude, I would hold back on statements like kindergarten level.

But hey... Just go to an architect, general contractor, or someone else and have a normal house planned and get a quote first. Once you have that, you only need to say that you'd like to upgrade to a passive house for 2% more.

They will definitely be rushing to your door.

But as already written above:
Luckily, we couldn't care less.

With your "I'm right and all of you have no clue" I would hold back on statements like kindergarten level.

Where did I claim something like that? I had numbers of 2% in mind, Bauexperte told me to search again, I did that and found figures of 5%-15% and corrected myself accordingly.

Otherwise, I just asked for evidence because I can't imagine where the costs come from. Especially since the sources I found refer to different values.

I have now also googled for a few minutes and found values between 11 and 14%, all from sites I would want to identify as "[Passivhaus nah]". Therefore, I assume the lower limit of the cost deviation. Furthermore, these sources/studies are significantly older than 3 years.

Our construction execution as a 55er house confirms this for me, because we are already significantly more expensive (about 10%) than the standard energy saving ordinance.

I hardly believe that even with an additional 5% I would have gotten anywhere near a PH.

You can gargle as long as you want... you will only find the calculated or offered prices... and those can gladly be the 5-15%... but the reality looks different. Prices are constantly changing and rarely going down... as soon as a study is published, it is actually already outdated...

And when I keep reading that you can get a 150 sqm penthouse for 1200€/sqm, you simply cannot take those sites seriously...

Our construction as a 55 house confirms this to me, because we are already significantly more expensive now (about 10%) than the standard Energy Saving Ordinance.

I hardly believe that with an additional 5% I would have even remotely achieved a PH.

I don’t believe that either.
Since this is being discussed very passionately here, I have now also looked around. I have read Wikipedia and the like, but many posts are already ancient.

Therefore, I had an offer calculated based on our current house build. That means I raised the energy standard from the Energy Saving Ordinance to Passive House. The other conditions remained the same!

City villa with 2 full floors, no basement. 154 sqm floor area.

Price increases compared to Energy Saving Ordinance: a staggering 49%!!!

Since we also had our house calculated for KFW 55, here is this calculation as well: additional costs for a Passive House of 36%!!

Anyone who now presents a Passive House ecologically as the ultimate must take a look at the production of the predominantly used materials and think about future generations with regard to disposal and so on.

My personal conclusion: Anyone who believes that building a Passive House acquires a green conscience is mistaken.

The way a house is built always depends on personal preferences as well as the respective financial possibilities.