Which heating method would you choose and why?

We are also currently facing this difficult decision. However, we have already agreed on 3 systems; I just waver back and forth daily between exactly these two variants. We want to build in summer 2012, and here are some key data about the house:

Solid house made of 30cm Poroton bricks + 10cm ETICS polystyrene
Approx. 135 sqm living space
Triple glazing
Decentralized ventilation system Schiedel AERA Comfort (without heat recovery, as we are not convinced of it, we do not want fresh air from a duct system, but want to minimize ventilation heat losses)
Roof structure with 20cm insulation between rafters
BRAAS roof tiles
Basement as a white tank, 30cm concrete + 10cm perimeter insulation, floor insulation in the basement screed
Large window area facing south, but also dormers facing north.
Designed for 2 adults and 2-3 children

So here are my considerations regarding the heating system:
We want a heat pump, that much is certain (so please do not try to convince me otherwise ;-).

a) Ground-source heat pump (Alpha Innotec) with probe drilling (for us probably up to approx. 80m possible with 45W/m efficiency, clay soil)
b) Air-source heat pump with COP >3.5 (Alpha Innotec) in monovalent operation
c) Air-source heat pump with COP >3.5 (Alpha Innotec) + solar thermal for heating support (8-12sqm collectors)

Possibly, a normal tiled stove in the living-dining area could be added, intended to provide support during the transitional seasons.

Climatically speaking, we are not in a really favorable region, so rather medium to lower average temperatures compared to climatically favored regions, for example in southern Germany.

I would be very interested, completely independent of investment costs, in what would make the most energetic sense. Of course, the investment costs would also be interesting, although the sole air-source heat pump would be the "cheapest"... but is that "economical" for our planned house?
We would like to achieve KfW 70, which should be feasible. Do you see chances for KfW 55, and what else would be necessary for that?

Thank you very much in advance for the help!

Hello,

....I would be interested, quite independently of the investment costs, in what would make the most sense energetically. Of course, the investment costs would also be interesting,...

The question can only be answered reliably if the actual demand has been calculated beforehand!

....We would like to achieve KfW 70, which should also be doable. Do you see chances for KfW 55, what else would be necessary for this?

The same answer here, calculate first, i.e. determine where the problem lies! Ht´ or Qp´´ or even both. Sometimes the jump to KfW 55 is possible with only minimal effort.
Best regards

.....

How silly can one react to such a clumsy promotional event? ;-) Admin? Best regards

Hi,
we have also dealt with this question. I think it is wrong to consider costs exclusively. In addition, I would definitely include the following properties in the decision:
- Reliability
- Performance / Speed
- Cleanliness / Odor burden
- Space requirements
- Safety
- Convenience

If I could choose freely, I would make the following ranking:

1. Gas heating (if gas is available, does not apply if you first have to install a tank.)
Gas is a convenient and clean option if you have gas on site. It is expensive, no question. But I think that all energy sources will always rise roughly proportionally (demand / supply) – anything else would be a surprise. So that would not be an argument against it for me. The gas heating is compact – a small room or a corner is enough. It is quite reliable, powerful, and fast when higher demand occurs. The installation effort is manageable, the technology is well-known and proven. I would only be skeptical about the risk of explosion – but this is rather rare. ;)

2. Geothermal
Since there is no gas here, we decided on geothermal.
Advantage: clean option, little effort during operation; disadvantage: slow response time, high effort during installation. Additionally, we planned photovoltaic and a chimney for sudden temperature drops in winter.

3. Air heat pump
Similar to geothermal, but for me still decisive disadvantages: ugly in the garden, noise nuisance (although little), lower efficiency.

4. Pellet heating / Wood heating:
Advantage: independent from classical suppliers, I would always choose a stove that can also burn normal wood, preferably also coal, fast reaction time, power.
Disadvantage: space requirement for fuel, odor nuisance, ensuring long-term supply of fuel, fire risk / fire protection to consider, elaborate (heating every day if you don’t plan automation), I could also imagine that sometimes something gets jammed and the technology is not so reliable, but that is pure speculation.

5. Gas tank
When we compared gas prices for a gas tank in the garden, it blew us away and we immediately set the offers aside again. Maybe that was just an unlucky coincidence. In any case, I would not want to put a gas tank in the garden, and the prices for liquid gas are higher than expected. Otherwise, the advantages and disadvantages are of course similar to 1.

6. Oil heating
I personally find oil completely unsuitable. But that is just a personal thing. Actually, it is fast, powerful, proven technology, you can get it everywhere, installation effort is manageable, convenient and reliable – but the smell! I find the smell of oil in the house and garden disgusting, a tank in the garden is also terrible, oil is also expensive and you also need quite a bit of space for it. That’s why it’s last place for me.