Which heating method would you choose and why?

According to this model, there are infinitely many calculation results, which can also be freely manipulated via the parameters.

Wrong, you always get only one result! What would be the point of a manipulation of the parameters?:confused:

Example annual demand. Just the adjustment screw user behavior is enough from .......

Correct. In the economic comparison above, user behavior is taken into account. However, this is done equally for every alternative. Even if this was assumed inadequately, this deviation applies to all solutions being compared. So where exactly is the problem?

But you only get a result if you subjectively estimate user behavior (provided you know the users) or otherwise arbitrarily define it.

You must always make assumptions, otherwise you could never plan. You also assume traffic loads without knowing whether they will actually be reached in practice – right? How would you dimension a hot water preparation if you don't base it on a consumption beforehand? How would you carry out a source development for a groundwater heat pump without first assuming a possible extraction capacity depending on the soil type? How would you design a ventilation system if air exchange rates are not defined beforehand?
If one were to follow your objections, you would never be allowed to produce an energy saving ordinance verification.
So I don't understand this discussion now.
You really have not understood the point. It is not about finding the absolute truth, but about making differences clear.
Best regards

Wrong, you always get only one result! What would be the point of manipulating the parameters? :confused:

That you get results for the different states in the model.
This applies to every CA technique, including CAD.

Nowhere do I say that you cannot calculate a specific state at certain predefined parameters.

Correct. In the above economic efficiency comparison, usage behavior is taken into account. However, this is done equally for every alternative. Even if it was inadequately assumed, this deviation affects all solutions to be compared. What is the problem now?

You give the answer yourself:
That the break even points all deviate, because it was inadequately assumed.

Best regards

You give the answer yourself:....

My answer referred to: "Even if this was insufficiently assumed, this deviation is included in all solutions to be compared."
You really don’t understand! It’s not about the accuracy of the individual point, but about the difference between them! We practice this daily with the energy saving regulation proofs, so it should actually be clear to you. From the proof, no quantitative conclusions about a later consumption can be drawn, since standardized input parameters that have nothing to do with the actual conditions are used. Nevertheless, a qualitative assessment is possible. We also use this instrument in every KFW proof!

That the break even points all differ, because it was insufficiently assumed.

Break even points are taken from amortization calculations and are not suitable for economic comparisons of, for example, heating systems! Why? Relatively simple, because the benefit is not capital, but a room temperature of, for example, 20°C, i.e., amortization can never occur. Therefore, an economic calculation looks like this, for example:



If I only consider the energy costs, it looks like this:



Best regards

The break-even point or the break-even point in economics is the point at which revenue and costs in production are equal, and thus neither loss nor profit is made.

Here heat is produced.

As a business economist, I am not really interested in the Energy Saving Ordinance, but rather in contribution margins and fixed costs.

The annual primary energy demand as proof for the KfW is of no use here.
Moreover, one can "buy" values in the Energy Saving Ordinance,
e.g. through solar thermal energy or photovoltaics.

Best regards

Hello,

The break-even point ...

Heat is produced here.

Exactly, that's how I had presented it as well.

The annual primary energy demand as proof for the KfW is of no use here at all.

Unfortunately, I cannot see any significant connection to my statements regarding economic calculations. Who wanted to do something with the primary energy demand?

Furthermore, one can "buy" values in the Energy Saving Ordinance.
For example, through solar thermal or photovoltaics.

That is generally known. Less known is that it can indeed be a bad purchase.

best regards

Hello,
I am currently planning: air-source heat pump in combination with a [Raum-Lüftungsanlage]. Later also photovoltaics.