you decide for insulation instead of a heat pump, so you are also deprived of much more important than the effects of primary energy savings: cost of stability and energy independence. An insulation reduces the heat requirement, the conventional heating system persists, however. This results continue Emissions, maintenance and chimney sweeps are considered and, ultimately, rising oil and gas prices continue to go fully into account the cost of heating. If the effect of reducing demand when prices are rising already repealed the medium term, the heat pump would continue to ¾ of the heat demand by providing free geothermal energy available. It is this relationship to the stability and independence leads to heating (a 10% increase in electricity tariff charged only for ¼ the cost of heating processes, but the heating costs also rise by only 2.5%) is.
Often it is also argued that investment costs for a first right, after subsequent implementation of insulation measures, however, make large geothermal heating, such a procedure uneconomical. One example is a 200 m2 house, built in the eighties used, which would be supplied by a 15kW heat pump with borehole 225 meters. This would require about 30,000 €. If one now an insulation from unraveling and reduces energy consumption by 20%, could be enough of a heat pump with 12 kW and 180 meters of ground probes. This facility would, however, still an investment of € 27,000 required, so that ultimately € 3,000 could have been avoided. In this case you forget, however, that after the insulation, geothermal heat is more widely available and reduce electricity costs disproportionately for the heat pump to reduce demand. The pay of "excessive" heat pump system would therefore only have a disproportionate erhöhen.quelle the payback period: Stoltenberg-energie.de
0 comments:
Post a Comment