View Single Post
  #8  
Old 23.08.2017, 12:20
Mikers Mikers is offline
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Vaud
Posts: 2,518
Groaned at 150 Times in 103 Posts
Thanked 4,502 Times in 1,726 Posts
Mikers has a reputation beyond reputeMikers has a reputation beyond reputeMikers has a reputation beyond reputeMikers has a reputation beyond reputeMikers has a reputation beyond reputeMikers has a reputation beyond repute
Re: House with Electric heating

Quote:
View Post
They are giving people 15 years to come up with something different.

Often, the houses are old and have bad insulation. It's from a time when nuclear power-plants produced cheap energy all day...

If you have such a system, it's time to think about alternatives - because they are expensive and take a very long time to amortize.

If you look at the slides in the 2nd link, you'll see that the difference in the requirements for maximum energy-usage between Muken 2008 and Muken 2014 is just 700ml of heating oil equivalent per sqm.
That's not really a huge difference, Muken 2000 specified 9l vs. 4.8l in 2008.

There is clearly the law of diminishing returns at work here (also, I'm asking myself if and how gray energy usage is taken into account here - fabrication of insulation or cement for a new building is very expensive, from an energy point of view).

Anyway, your thinking is a bit naive: when was the last time reason got the upper hand over a political agenda?
I dont speak German im afraid so I can't comment on the slides, but I really do agree with your last bit - this is just political posturing over common sense.

Regarding the point "if you have such a system its time to start thinking of alternatives" when you look at what it really means its just ridiculous.

A completely new inulation layer, plus heat pump plus pipework into the house plus roadworks to get the source is going to be around 150k in switzerland.

so lets say I say "christ your right, Im slaughtering the environment with my solar panels, i must change it for a heat pump" thats 15,000 per year for 10 years, so 1200 CHF per month, from right now, for the next 10 years. Given I can hardly stay afloat with the costs of the kids currently and given that my solar generated electrical heating does not pollute, can you give me the rationale for changing ? Saying "but its green" doesnt matter - i have green energy and more and more central electricity comes from hydro and other such sources.

(note I dont me you as in aggressively you, I mean objectively, i.e. the question is to switzerland law makers).

Its an absurd policy. There is, without doubt, a way to get people off electrical and onto renewables and thats to refund 75% or more of the cost of doing so. If there was a real tangible benefit to me which would mean I could carry on affording to provide for the kids while going to a renewable energy like a heat pump I would do it. WHile the proposition is to financially ruin myself so that a political argument over what is meant by "green" is satisfied, I will pass.
Reply With Quote
The following 5 users would like to thank Mikers for this useful post: