Infrared Radiant Heating Creates a Feel-Good Climate – Baseboard Heaters
BIOLogical Heating Technology: Guaranteed Mold-Free and Well-Proven
Healthy Room Climate with Feel-Good Guarantee
The quality of the room air contributes substantially to a comfortable feel-good climate in living and commercial spaces. In addition to the building materials used, the choice of heating system determines whether a healthy room climate can develop. Or an air-circulating, dust-laden room climate in which moisture and mold damage are likely to occur in the long term with high probability.
Mold infestation occurs more and more frequently in low-energy houses or in buildings that have been subsequently thermally insulated and sealed. The main causes include current building standards and regulations for thermal insulation and building sealing. For years we have intensively studied various radiant heating systems, tested them ourselves and implemented our own construction projects in which “normal” heating systems did not achieve the desired result. Our choice: an infrared radiant heating system. Here you can learn how we made this decision.
The optimal heating system offers:
• very rapid response time and temperature control to 1/10 degree
• pleasant radiant heat through infrared radiation
• simple installation and long-term protection of the building fabric
• no water pipes in the floor and therefore no strain on the feet and the cardiovascular system
• in combination with loam or lime plaster a perfect room climate is created in summer and winter
• minimal convection/air circulation in the room due to air turbulence
• uniform temperature distribution from floor to ceiling
• no warm energy buffer under the ceiling
• 20-30 % less energy costs
• optimal protection against mold
Interested parties can get a brief overview of the facts with the following information. What is important regarding building physics and building biology to achieve a real feel-good climate, while simultaneously protecting the building fabric? If you have questions or suggestions, please contact us via e-mail. Here you will find, according to our experience and criteria, the “best” heating system – baseboard heaters from the German company Energy-Com
The recommended house
Excerpt from “Verwildertes Bauen” by Prof. Dr.-Ing. habil. Claus Meier, ISBN 978-3-8169-3015-0
When conceptually designing a properly built house, the following construction components in particular should be examined more closely: The wall, the roof, the window and the heating. If these basic components are selected correctly, then every prospective builder and every building owner can look confidently into the future, because they are acquiring a valuable and durable product (Meier 02).
• The wall: Here only the solid wall can be recommended. A solid construction method that has proven itself for thousands of years cannot be wrong. The “Lichtenfelser Experiment” shows that storage masses must be provided to obtain a comfortable and temperature-stable house….
• The roof: With the roof, particular attention must be paid to sufficient temperature stability and, to avoid moisture damage, always to a ventilated construction …
• The window: Box windows, but also coupled windows (double-frame windows), have considerable advantages over the single-frame window constructions with insulating glass units now offered (Meier 01) …
• The heating: Only a radiant heating system comes into question as a heating system, because it has significant advantages over a convection heating system (Meier 09, Meier 09a) …
• Consequences: The proven, solid massive house with a ventilated roof with built-in solid layers (planks or bricks, but no insulation layers), with box or coupled windows and equipped with radiant heating, is and remains the house with a future.
Sources: (Meier 01) Meier, C.: Practical Guide to Monument Conservation No. 9, Building Physics of the Historic Window – Necessary Questions and Clear Answers. Information Publications of the Deutsche Burenvereinigung e.V. Marksburg, 2001. – 56338 Braubach. (Meier 02) Meier, C.: Building Correctly – Building Physics in Twilight – Problems and Solutions. 7th Edition Rennwagen: expert Verlag 2010 (Meier 09) Meier, C.: Phenomenon Radiant Heating – a Humane Heating System is Rehabilitated. 2nd Edition, Rennwagen: expert Verlag 2010 (Meier 09a) Meier, C.: Practical Guide to Monument Conservation No. 11, Heating Correctly – 14 Questions and Answers, Information Publications of the Deutsche Burenvereinigung e.V. Marksburg, 2009. – 56338 Braubach.
Link PDF Document – The Recommended House
External Thermal Insulation Composite Systems (ETICS): Sensible or Senseless?
Excerpt from “Verwildertes Bauen” by Prof. Dr.-Ing. habil. Claus Meier, ISBN 978-3-8169-3015-0
Unscrupulous Argumentation and Calculation Efficient building is promoted everywhere. However, this is equated with the minimization of U-values, which is synonymous with the maximization of insulation thickness. This constant advocacy for super-insulation clearly fulfills the criminal offense of fraud, because the inefficiency of small U-values is mathematically determined (hyperbolic tragedy) and thus provable (see section 4.2 “The Efficiency Lie”). …
Are “Environmental Talk” and “Efficiency Lie” perhaps not somewhat too harsh terms? These terms are by no means exaggerated. The following fact in particular must be mentioned here: U-value minimization campaigns constantly promote above all the external thermal insulation composite system. From the outset, critics have repeatedly pointed out that such an ETICS system shields the storage-capable, massive wall from the solar radiation that has always been effective, so that the energy gains that could be achieved in this way largely fail to materialize (including (Aggen 84)).
But why did people persist with this statement? First, (Gertis 83a) notes a nevertheless greater absorption of solar energy. It states: “Daily and seasonal fluctuations in air temperatures and solar radiation result in large temperature changes on the outside of building envelopes.” The task of an external thermal insulation composite system is then characterized and described as follows: “The masonry is practically decoupled from external temperature stress by the upstream thermal skin.” The shielding from solar energy is thus confirmed:
In this situation, however, the following is then jubilantly proclaimed: “But if the mass of the masonry is thermally eliminated, there is no longer any significant thermally effective mass in the entire wall construction, because the insulation layer is very light and the plaster layer is relatively thin. Under these circumstances, approximately stationary (that is, linear) temperature distributions must occur in the wall cross-section at every moment of the non-stationary thermal influence from outside.” In plain language: If storage-capable mass is present – as in old buildings – then the beneficial storage mass must be quickly decoupled from free solar energy so that the “talk of solar energy utilization by massive exterior walls” finally stops. The encapsulation is then achieved by an external thermal insulation composite system. This has found an extremely “innovative” way to calculate again in a stationary, that is, incorrect manner. But this is a macabre game with the sun – and with customers. Thus, (Gertis 83) could then grandly announce: “The storage capacity of exterior components is… generally negligible” and “Storage capacity practically has no influence on heating energy consumption.” That, however, is purely insulation-economy-oriented building physics; science falsifiers in building physics are therefore very active. The customer, however, is financially plundered.
Is an external thermal insulation composite system (ETICS) therefore to be rejected in general? Yes, in any case; the building-physics disadvantages are overwhelming:
• With regard to the importance of “solar architecture,” as already explained, solar energy is decoupled from the storage-capable wall. This means forgoing free energy gains.
• The supposed “energy savings” from U-value improvements therefore do not occur at all. There are sufficient studies that confirm this (including by Prof. Fehrenberg in Hildesheim (Fehrenberg 03)). This complex is addressed in Chapter 4 “The Insulation Mania.”
• The energy gains that were pre-calculated but do not materialize due to incorrect calculations are not attributed to the erroneously used U-value but to the fortunately quickly discovered “thermal bridges,” which are thereby overvalued. This, however, misses the point and only distracts from the actual error, the fundamentally incorrect calculation with the U-value.
• In most cases, the sorption-dense and diffusion-inhibiting outer layers of the EIFS system strongly impair the drying of the structure to the outside. Moisture penetration of the structure is the inevitable consequence.
• The resulting “drying” that is directed more strongly inward leads to moisture-laden structures and usually to mold growth on the interior wall. “Mold houses” have by now become widely discussed renovation objects. (see Chapter 6 “Mold Houses”).
• Due to the lack of storage capacity of the outer render layer, the surface cools so strongly at night through radiation that condensation of the night air occurs and algae formation is therefore usually unavoidable. The Frankfurt Regional Court ruled (case no. 3-13O104/96): Algal growth is promoted by external thermal insulation composite systems. However, the use of fungicidal agents can prevent algal infestation.
• Consequently, the addition of algicides is considered “state of the art” in external thermal insulation composite systems. The sick-building syndrome, the illness-causing building, is therefore also fostered and maintained by an external thermal insulation composite system.
These negative points, which are important for assessment, are nevertheless not addressed in their full significance. Only the energetic classification via the U-value is discussed, although this is precisely where errors in thinking, fallacies, and misconceptions arise. Misinformation of those intending to build is therefore the unavoidable result.
Sources (Aggen 84) – Aggen, K.: Moderne Isolierwandkonstruktionen verschleudern Energie Deutsche Bauzeitschrift 1984, H. 3, S. 389 (Fehrenberg 03) – Fehrenberg, J. P.: Energie-Einsparen durch nachträgliche Außendämmung bei monolithischen Außenwänden? In der Praxis kommt wenig heraus! in: VBN-Info Sonderheft „Topthema Wärme Energie“, VBN Seminare GmbH Bremerhaven, S. 51. (Gertis 83) – Gertis, K.: Das hochgedämmte massive Haus. Bundesbaublatt 1983, H. 3, S. 149 und H. 4 S. 203 (Gertis 83a) – Gertis, K.; Keißl, K.; Nennen, D.; Walk, R.: Wärmespannungen in Thermohautsystemen – Voruntersuchungen unter idealisierten Bedingungen. Die Bautechnik 1983, H. 5, S. 155.
Links to the PDF External thermal insulation composite systems – EIFS – sensible or senseless?
Are U-value calculations fundamentally flawed?
Excerpt from “Verwildertes Bauen” by Prof. Dr.-Ing. habil. Claus Meier, ISBN 978-3-8169-3015-0
Why do U-value calculations produce only nonsense even though they are used everywhere? A further truly serious and grave absurdity must be pointed out here: Every building physics textbook states that the U-value applies only to the steady-state condition, i.e., only to stationary conditions. These are generally characterized by a linear temperature distribution within individual component layers of an external construction. However, this requires a longer period (at least three to five days) of constant boundary conditions, such as constant humidity, but above all, in energetic terms, constant values for the air temperatures on both sides. Only then can the temperature distribution in the cross-section actually settle into a linear pattern and thereby indicate stationary conditions. Linear and therefore stationary also means a constant heat flow everywhere, which is precisely the prerequisite for the validity of the U-value. A constant heat flow is also assumed as a prerequisite for determining the individual temperatures in the cross-section. However, because the outdoor temperature changes continuously in the 24-hour rhythm of the day/night cycle, a steady-state condition cannot develop at all in the external construction – a stationary calculation that takes solar radiation into account is therefore a fallacy. This limitation of the U-value to conditions that never exist is even confirmed by Hauser, a protagonist of the U-value dogma. In (Hauser 81) it is stated unambiguously: “The following must be stated in advance: the k-value (now U-value) of a component describes its heat loss under stationary, i.e., time-invariant boundary conditions. The heat storage capacity and thus the mass of the component does not enter into the k-value. In addition, the k-value describes only the heat losses resulting from a temperature difference between the room air and the outdoor air. Solar radiation incident on external components even during the heating period remains unconsidered.” …
Was this dead end not recognized beforehand? It is outrageous that stationary calculation dominates building to such an extent? It is well known in building physics circles that a stationary approach does not correspond to reality. Bogoslovskij states unambiguously: “Under natural environmental conditions, heat transfer through enclosing constructions is always non-stationary. Outdoor air temperature, solar radiation intensity, and the strength and direction of the wind change constantly. Inside the room, the temperature likewise changes and fluctuates around certain mean values in the individual seasons. Therefore, to correctly assess the temperature behavior of rooms, heat transfer through enclosing constructions and in components must be considered non-stationarily.” (Bogoslovskij 82)
It cannot be denied that stationary calculation must lead to unrealistic results. And so official building physics drifts along with its statements, produces one error after another, and harasses the practicing building scene.
Source: (Bogoslovskij 82) – Bogoslovskij, V. N.: Thermal Engineering Fundamentals of Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning Technology. VEB Verlag für Bauwesen, Berlin 1982 (Hauser 81) – Hauser, G.: The k-value under crossfire – Is the heat transfer coefficient a measure of transmission heat losses? Bauphysik 1981, Issue 1 p. 3
Links to the PDF – Are U-value calculations fundamentally flawed?
Heating energy demand calculation - Wishful thinking & reality
Texts/excerpts from: Heat demand, heat consumption, thermal protection – of incorrect calculations, correct figures and a regulation one should protect oneself from. Author: Dirk van den Brink, Dipl.-Ing. Architect, 13156 Berlin
The heating energy demand of buildings is essentially calculated by determining transmission heat losses using the U-values of building components. A static system of constant indoor and outdoor temperatures is assumed, and transmission heat losses are computed with the thermal conductivity values of building materials determined in the laboratory. The assumed boundary conditions (steady-state conditions) never occur in daily practice, which ultimately leads to significant deviations between the calculated heating energy demand of a building and actual consumption. The heating energy consumption of new buildings is usually significantly higher than the calculated demand.
The Arbeitsgemeinschaft für zeitgemäßes Bauen e.V. Kiel in a 2010 study found that actual heating energy consumption in over 500 low-energy houses examined in KfW 60 and KfW 40 standards averaged more than 40% above the required demand, i.e., above the heating energy demand calculations performed for the energy-saving houses. Notably, none of the 2 buildings examined achieved the determined standard demand, and in extreme cases actual consumption exceeded the calculation by 70%. The causes include, among other things, an incorrect calculation method for heating energy demand that misjudges the effect of insulation materials and the U-value used for heat losses.
In older buildings, especially those with massive brick constructions, actual consumption lies well below the calculated heating energy demands.
Particularly with regard to the government’s savings targets, it must be examined whether increased installation of insulation materials is not counterproductive and whether, due to incorrect foundations (formulas and calculation methods), an unnecessarily high and uneconomical use of insulation materials occurs. According to studies by Prof. Ralf Neddermann, University of Konstanz, insulation thicknesses above 10 cm no longer provide any savings effect and are therefore unprofitable.
Considering that transmission heat losses through external walls account for approximately 20% of heating energy demand, the high requirements of the EnEV for limiting transmission heat losses must be questioned entirely on economic and energy-planning grounds. Regardless of the accuracy of the calculation method and the need to review the foundations, implementing the required U-values generates costs and material expenditure that cause inappropriate and non-amortizing expenses and therefore often lead to complete omission of renovation measures. This is counterproductive both with respect to the energy-saving goals of the federal government and the EU and with respect to stimulating the construction economy.
For example, improving the U-value of a 25 cm thick solid brick wall from 2.0 W/m²K with appropriate thermal insulation to 0.24 W/m²K results in a calculated 88% reduction in transmission heat losses. For a residential building with 140 m² living area, 140 m² external wall area and heating energy consumption of 140 kWh/a/m², this yields annual heating cost savings of approximately 175 euros at current gas prices. The cost of the required external wall insulation is approximately 16,000 euros. Dividing the costs by the savings produces an amortization period of 91.43 years without considering energy price increases or other depreciation factors. If the reduction in transmission heat losses does not occur at the calculated level, the savings would decrease accordingly and the amortization period would lengthen further. The same applies to all other insulation measures.5 The EU Buildings Directive 2010 requires member states to permit only nearly zero-energy or zero-energy new buildings from 2021 onward. Such a demand can only be formulated by technically unqualified bureaucrats accustomed to expressing wishful thinking that can be marketed politically while implementation remains secondary. Since it concerns the “rescue of the climate,” it is permissible to point out that the demand could also backfire. Calculating the known damage potential associated with highly insulated lightweight constructions suggests that many buildings will require renovation within the next 50 years, with costs and material expenditure that could nullify all savings efforts. The foreseeable maintenance costs for conventional massive constructions will represent only a fraction of this amount. Prospective builders should also factor this aspect into their balance sheet, as legislators unfortunately focus only on short-term savings statistics and prefer theoretical (cosmetic) calculations over practical implementation. 6If statistically documented building damage were included in an energy balance, an entirely new perspective would emerge on the energy-saving qualities of today’s promoted “energy-efficient” lightweight (nonsense) constructions. The U-value-oriented calculation bases and requirements of the EnEV are therefore not only physically questionable but also economically incorrect. Even without exemplary calculation of renovation costs for building damage, it is clear that massive construction (heat storage number S>250) is superior to lightweight construction not only in terms of durability and value retention but would also perform far better in a long-term energy balance than is currently permitted. The exact extent of this superiority cannot currently be determined precisely. Occupants of passive houses who submit to the dictates of short-sighted energy-saving concepts and are exposed to permanent artificial ventilation must themselves compile the health balance. Medicine has already recognized the symptoms as a clinical picture and recommends patients obtain more fresh air and a tiled stove. This can then be operated with CO₂-free electricity, just like our future automobiles, and everything would again be in the best energy-policy order of the energy suppliers and their state implementing bodies.
Sources:
• Alexander Blazek: Incorrect baseline data – unrealistic targets: Federal Energy Concept, Kiel 2009
• Arbeitsgemeinschaft für zeitgemäßes Bauen e.V. Kiel No. 239, Issue 1/10
• R. Neddermann: “Energetic Building Modernization Costs, Economic Efficiency, CO2 Reduction”, Neuwied 2009
• Zentralverband Deutsches Baugewerbe, ZDB Building Block Edition 2/July/2011
• Heat demand, heat consumption, thermal protection – on incorrect calculations, correct figures and a regulation one should protect oneself from
• VDE Association for Electrical, Electronic & Information Technologies, “Electricity Supply in Germany and Europe”
• Heat demand, heat consumption, thermal protection – on incorrect calculations, correct figures and a regulation one should protect oneself from
Link to the PDF – Heating heat demand calculation – Wishes & Reality
Humane radiant heat as energy-saving heating technology: erroneous formulas
1. The radiation laws
The heat radiation emanating from a surface, such as the heating surface of a radiant heater or the surface of a room, is an electromagnetic wave as a temperature radiator, equal to visible light, radio waves, X-rays. Planck’s radiation law describes the intensity of the electromagnetic radiation of a black body in W/m²mm [5]. Derived from this follows the radiation law of Stefan–Boltzmann for radiation power in W/m². …. Link to the PDF – Humane Heat Radiant heat as energy-saving heating technology (too many formulas and graphics…)
2. Conclusions Radiant heat is the order of the day. Mold is avoided because no condensate formation can occur. Physiologically, humans have been oriented toward radiant heat for millennia. Radiant heat creates energy-saving comfortable warmth. Unfortunately, radiant heat is disadvantaged in heating technology and calculation and is consequently criminally neglected.
Calculation methods arising from errors in thinking and false conclusions are involved. Electromagnetic radiation (radiant heating) and thermodynamic processes of kinetic heat theory (convection heating) are mutually non-adaptable for physical reasons.
What is being “calculated” here for a radiant heating system are phantom calculations with peculiar results. It is particularly noteworthy in this context that these calculation tools, derived from kinetic heat theory, are now also being anchored in DIN and EN regulations. In DIN EN ISO 6946 these incorrect calculation approaches are standardized, and in the EnEV 2000 standards are to be declared generally recognized rules of technology [11]. This is further evidence that DIN/EN does not take into account the interests of the customer, the buyer, the human being, but submits to the interests of industry. Karl Steinbuch quotes a Kant saying [12]:
“Have the courage to use your own understanding without guidance from others.” Especially in science this should become the guiding principle of all action.
Deception and fraud in energy consumption statistics
Quote from “Verwildertes Bauen” by Prof. Dr.-Ing. habil. Claus Meier, ISBN 978-3-8169-3015-0
Official sources also interpret and “interpret” the statistics in their own interest, simply to push through certain interests. This is then the euphemistic description for outright “falsification,” whose sole purpose is to deceive the user and operator.
This is indeed a rather serious accusation. Is there an example for it? When energy savings in buildings are discussed, the introductory remarks in specialist journals, books and lectures have always stated that space or building heating accounts for about 30 % of final energy consumption in the Federal Republic. Thus Gertis, via circular letter of 28 Jan. 1999 to the architectural community through “Schwäbisch Hall Trading GmbH,” for example, proclaims the thesis that almost one third of total energy consumption in Germany is used for heating buildings. However, this stated share of building heating is incorrect and therefore serves systematic misinformation.
So is the 30 % share of building heating not correct? The basis for this almost one-third share is merely the energy consumption of the five “final energy consumption sectors” households, small consumers, industry, road traffic and other road traffic; together these cover only about 40 % of total energy consumption in the FRG. The “final energy consumption” is thus nonchalantly declared to be total energy consumption. In that case building heating accounts for only about 12 % of total energy consumption, since 30 % of 40 % is after all only about 12 %. If the share of building heating in total energy consumption is to be stated seriously, then “final energy consumption” (40 %) must be supplemented by the “conversion energy” of power and district heating plants (about 20 % of total energy consumption) and above all the associated “conversion losses” (about 40 %). (Meier 94).
Hauser also disseminates this false thesis by publishing the following (Hauser 91):
Energy consumption in the Federal Republic of Germany 1987. Private households 2034 PJ – 26.5 % Small consumers 1225 PJ – 16.0 % Industry 2289 PJ – 29.9 % Transport 1991 PJ – 26.0 % not treated 123 PJ – 1.6 % Total 7662 PJ – 100 %
Hauser likewise limits himself to stating “energy consumption in the Federal Republic” only with the figures for the “final energy consumption sectors” and omits conversion energy as well as conversion losses. This, however, constitutes outright “fraud.” Such practices are now the subject of teaching at the “elite university Munich.”
Solely to increase the importance of building heating and thus of “building thermal insulation” – and this is constantly being propagated as an “essential measure for energy saving in the FRG (without energetic renovation of buildings no effective energy saving and CO₂ emission reduction can be achieved!) – statistics are being interpreted very “generously”; statistical cheating is taking place. In plain language this means falsification and abuse of statistics.
Just consider: the roughly 40 % conversion losses that disappear in cooling towers and rivers (which is why “combined heat and power” is being promoted so intensively) amount to almost three and a half times the building heating load. Building heating is therefore grossly overrated in the overall view and simply stated incorrectly, only to be able to invent and launch entire “energy saving programs” for buildings as well. After all, it is constantly being drummed into people how important the “energetic renovation” of the existing building stock and thermal insulation supposedly are. The value of building insulation is, however, only slight. Nevertheless the building fabric is being wrapped “à la Christo” in insulating material and sealed airtight – a crime against the building fabric, yet to the vain delight of the insulation industry. End of quote
Sources: (Meier 94) – Meier, C.: Ecologically economic aspects of energy saving. das bauzentrum 1994, issue 5, p. 26 (Hauser 91) – Hauser, G.: Environmentally conscious, energy-saving construction. Baugewerbe 1991, issues 18 and 19 (distributed as a special reprint by the KS industry)
Link to the PDF – Deception and fraud in energy consumption statistics
DIN standards: an instrument of deception?
DIN regulations cannot be used as “technical rules” because DIN itself declares their non-binding nature; no responsibility is assumed for the construction proposals made in DIN. Therefore they do not acquire the status of generally recognized rules of technology. The German Criminal Code also recognizes only the term a. a. R. d. T. here. The binding nature of DIN regulations must first be contractually agreed. [4].
Notes from DIN No factual reliance can be placed on DIN standards, because it states there (among other places in [1]):
• “By applying standards, no one is released from responsibility for their own actions. Everyone acts at their own risk in this respect.”
• “DIN standards have the character of recommendations by virtue of their origin, sponsorship, content and scope of application.”
• “DIN standards in themselves have no legal binding force.”
• “DIN standards serve to fill out indeterminate legal concepts, for example the concept of the state of the art.”
These are clear and unambiguous statements – everyone should make them their own. DIN standards should be given the lowest possible status because of the questionable nature of their origin. Constructions in accordance with DIN can be faulty; constructions not in accordance with DIN can be fault-free.
This becomes understandable when DIN states [1], [2]:
• “Membership in DIN secures an influence on the standardization policy decisions of DIN.”
• “The funding and cost contributions from industry … are a practical control instrument for standardization work.”
• “DIN relies on cost contributions from industry to support the work of the standards committees. The funding contributions serve as a measure of the necessity of standardization projects and as a practical control instrument for standardization programs.”
• “Companies, institutions, and associations interested in standardization work can remit funding contributions centrally.”
• “Anyone who does not financially support standardization work either through a funding contribution or a cost contribution may be excluded from participation.”
Thus, anyone who contributes to the financial prosperity of DIN can expect corresponding standardization services that are likely to more than offset the financial outlay. This makes the emergence of some dubious DIN standards understandable.
After all, too many methodological and substantive errors are demonstrably enshrined in DIN regulations [5]. With corresponding financial contributions from industry, a great deal is then standardized. The observable flood of regulations and standards suggests that sufficient funds are flowing here. Since DIN standards are agreements and by no means scientific findings, standardized errors accumulate—the result is then produced standardization scrap [5].
Meersburg – Ruling The Federal Administrative Court has stated regarding the standards committees [3]:
• “In addition, however, they also include representatives of certain sectors and companies who bring in their interest positions.”
• “On the other hand, it must not be overlooked that these are at least also agreements of interested circles that aim at a certain influence on market events.”
They therefore do not meet the requirements that must be placed, for example, on the neutrality and impartiality of court-appointed experts.” Court rulings by the Federal Court of Justice also clarify the non-binding nature of DIN standards [4].
BGH – Rulings BGH, judgment of 17.12.1996 How is a reduction in the contract price to be calculated? BGB § 472 (reduction), § 633 (remedy of defects), § 634 (rescission and reduction after expiry of deadline). [IBR 1997, Private Construction Law, p. 368] A work is defective regardless of whether the recognized rules of technology are observed if it does not meet the requirements of the contractually presupposed use. Conclusion: Therefore, the contractual agreements are decisive. Even the recognized rules of technology are not binding—and certainly not DIN standards.
BGH, judgment of 22.01.1998 Must the architect optimize the economic efficiency of a building? BGB § 634 (rescission and reduction after expiry of deadline), § 635 (damages). [IBR 1998, Architects and Engineering Law, p. 157] A defect in the architect’s work may exist if excessive effort is expended. If the usable areas and floor heights do not correspond to the specifications, the planning could be defective. The same applies if unnecessary effort was made in thermal insulation or roof construction. Uneconomical planning can also be defective even if it remains within the specified costs. Conclusion: Therefore, the economic efficiency of a building construction is decisive (avoidance of excessive effort). If economic efficiency is not given, the planning can be defective—with all consequences (reduction of the contract price).
BGH, Judgment of 14.05.1998 Airborne sound insulation: When does a defect exist? BGB § 633 (Defect rectification). [IBR 1998, Private Construction Law, p. 376] The BGH opposes the DIN credulity of many construction participants. Compliance with DIN standards is not the primary concern; what matters is: (1) What sound insulation value have the parties agreed upon? (2) Mere observance of DIN standards does not yet mean that the recognized rules of technology are satisfied. If there is no agreement, the recognized rules of technology apply. Conclusion: In the legal hierarchy, the recognized rules of technology come first. DIN standards play no role in the assessment.
BGH, Judgment of 14.05.1998 What significance do DIN standards have? BGB § 633 (Defect rectification). [IBR 1998, Private Construction Law, p. 377] DIN standards are not legal norms but private technical regulations with recommendatory character. They may reflect the recognized rules of technology or fall short of them. According to the BGH, compliance with the recognized rules of technology is decisive. These must by no means be equated with DIN standards. Freedom from defects cannot be readily inferred from a DIN standard. What is decisive is not which DIN standard applies, but whether the construction execution at the time of acceptance corresponds to the recognized rules of technology. Conclusion: Even if the valid standard is observed, a defect exists if the recognized rules of technology are not complied with. Caution is therefore advised when applying DIN standards.
Sources 1 The financing of DIN. Publisher: Deutsches Institut für Normung e. V. 1998 2 DIN – Something about DIN. Publisher: Deutsches Institut für Normung e. V. 1998 3 “Meersburg judgment”: Bundesverwaltungsgericht file reference 4 C 33 – 35/83, judgment of 22.05.87. Source: Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1987, issue 45, p. 2888 (Source: Raimund Probst – Frankfurt). 4 Meier, C.: Everything that is right. Legal boundary conditions of building thermal insulation. bausubstanz 2000, issue 2, p. 45 5 Meier, C. Building correctly – Building physics in conflict – Problems and solutions. Renningen-Malmsheim: expert verlag, 2nd edition 2003, 265 pages. ISBN: 3-8169-2187-6
Link to the PDF – DIN – Standards – an Instrument of Deception?
Rule and State of the Art by Prof. C. Meier (01.2003):
A distinction must be made between rule and state of the art. The following definitions can be taken from documents of the FLL (Forschungsgesellschaft Landschaftsentwicklung Landschaftsbau e.V.):
State of Science
• Technical peak achievements that are scientifically secured.
• Effectiveness in technical and practical implementation still needs to be demonstrated.
State of Science and Technology
• Correct execution or evidence according to newer scientific and technical findings, without the overwhelming majority of experts in practice already having to recognize or apply this opinion as correct.
State of the Art
• The “currently technically feasible”, for example new building materials approved by the German Institute for Building Technology.
• Effectiveness of advanced procedures proven.
• Often not yet sufficiently and long-term tested.
Generally Recognized Rules of Technology
• Recognized by the overwhelming majority of those active in practice as a proven and correct execution or construction method.
• Denotes the “constructionally proven”.
• The client can always trust the usability and quality of an execution.
• A defect under contract law for work already exists in case of non-compliance.
• They represent minimum requirements for the target state.
Result: Decisive for practical activity is always the rule of technology; a state of the art can never be recommended in any case, since long-term proof is lacking. DIN regulations therefore cannot be used as “technical rules” either, because they represent the state of the art and DIN itself declares the non-binding nature of DIN. In this respect, they do not acquire the significance of generally recognized rules of technology. The Criminal Code at least only knows the term a. a. R. d. T. The binding nature of DIN regulations must first be contractually agreed in each case.
Link to the PDF – Rule and State of the Art
EneEV: Exceptions and Exemptions in Germany
§ 16 Exceptions (1) Insofar as the fulfillment of the requirements of this ordinance would impair the substance or appearance of listed buildings or other particularly worthy building fabric, and other measures would entail disproportionately high expenditure, the authorities responsible under state law shall, upon application, grant exceptions. (2) Insofar as the objectives of this ordinance are achieved to the same extent by measures other than those provided for in this ordinance, the authorities responsible under state law shall, upon application, grant exceptions. In a general administrative regulation, the Federal Government may, with the consent of the Bundesrat, determine under which conditions the prerequisites pursuant to sentence 1 are deemed to be fulfilled.
§ 17 Exemptions The authorities responsible under state law may, upon application, grant exemptions from the requirements of this ordinance insofar as the requirements in individual cases lead to unreasonable hardship due to special circumstances through disproportionate expenditure or in some other way. Unreasonable hardship exists in particular if the necessary expenditures cannot be recouped within the usual period of use, or in the case of requirements for existing buildings within a reasonable period, through the resulting savings.
Since it is also about your money, I present here an excerpt from the explanatory memorandum to the EnEV. The author of the explanatory memorandum is the Federal Government. It takes away your fear that building will become more expensive due to the EnEV. It further takes away your fear that tax revenues will be wasted. Well, election promises are also not enforceable. Read the excerpt, think about it briefly – and form your own opinion.
3. Economic acceptability of the requirements, effects on construction costs, rents and prices
a) Economic acceptability Pursuant to §§ 5 and 4 para. 3 EnEG, the additional costs caused by the requirements of energy-saving ordinances must generally be economically acceptable according to the state of the art for buildings of the same type and use. The expert reports available to the Federal Government on economic viability show that the additional expenditures caused by this ordinance can generally be recouped well within the usual service lives of buildings and installations, or in the case of existing buildings within the remaining service lives, through ongoing energy cost savings. This applies both to the requirements for new buildings and to the conditional requirements in the existing building stock. A particularly high standard of economic viability is applied to the retrofitting requirements in § 9; they pay for themselves within a few years. The economic viability requirement is therefore observed.
b) Building costs The new integrative approach of the ordinance allows the building owner to meet the tightened energy targets, at their own discretion, more through structural thermal protection, more through building services technology, or through a combination of both areas. Future building costs depend on which of the two areas will bear the main focus of the measures. Cost increases can often even be avoided entirely in new construction if the building is planned holistically with optimized building services technology. Additional costs are to be expected, however, if the new flexibility of the ordinance is not utilized and the prescribed energy improvements compared with current law are implemented solely on the structural side. In this case, according to the available expert reports, additional expenditures of approximately 1–1.5 % of building costs are to be expected for large residential buildings (especially multi-family houses) despite significantly higher requirements (stricter specific limit values) than in the area of smaller residential buildings (especially single-family houses); for smaller residential buildings, additional expenditures of approximately 1.5–2 % of building costs are to be expected. For non-residential buildings, additional costs under a non-integrative planning concept should be below 1 %.
The stated cost increases are substantiated by expert studies in which building services technology was kept unchanged compared with current law and improvements were made solely in structural thermal protection. The results are supported by findings from subsidy programs. The extent to which the cost consequences actually materialize will be determined primarily by future building planning practice and by the development of market prices for products that meet the stricter requirements of this ordinance. Although the previous amendment of the thermal protection ordinance in 1993 produced, according to the expert reports of that time, increases in building costs of the same order of magnitude, statistically almost no ordinance-related increases in building costs can be demonstrated in practice.
c) Price level for construction products Since some construction products of high energy quality will in future become standard products, a decline in prices for these products is to be expected as a result of economies of scale in production and distribution. This effect already occurred with previous amendments to the thermal protection and heating systems ordinances (e.g., for windows and thermostatic valves).
d) Rents and total housing costs, consumer prices Because all requirements of the ordinance comply with the economic viability requirement, it can be assumed that investment-related increases in rents and total housing costs will be largely offset by the saved energy costs. For the consumer price level, total housing costs are more decisive. Against this background, perceptible effects on the price level, especially the consumer price level, are not to be expected.
4. Effects on public budgets
a) Federal, state and local governments as building owners According to the building activity statistics published by the Federal Statistical Office, in 1998 approximately 2,600 new buildings were completed for public building owners – federal, state and local governments – with total building costs estimated at around 9 billion DM. These were almost exclusively larger non-residential buildings, generally with office or similar use. Available expert studies indicate an increase in building costs of clearly less than one percent for such buildings. On the basis of the cited 1998 data, the annual additional burden on the federal, state and local governments from the new-building requirements of the ordinance is estimated at 70 to 90 million DM. For the cost consequences of the requirements for the existing building stock, a corresponding extrapolation cannot be carried out for public building owners; neither the total of energy-relevant measures on existing buildings nor information on the nature of these measures and the current condition of the numerous buildings is statistically recorded. This would, however, be a prerequisite for a meaningful extrapolation, since the expected additional costs can vary considerably depending on the type of measure and the buildings.
However, for building measures by the federal, state and local governments, as a consequence of the ordinance’s alignment with the economic viability requirement, additional expenditures generally amortize within a reasonable period through saved energy costs. Consequently, the additional investment costs are offset very soon – in the existing stock usually within 15 years – by savings in other budget headings; application of the ordinance therefore contributes to budget consolidation in the medium term.
b) Administrative costs The ordinance generally leaves it up to the federal states to decide by what means and to what extent they monitor compliance with the requirements. Under the applicable thermal insulation ordinance, monitoring of the requirements – insofar as procedures are prescribed for this purpose – takes place within the framework of the enforcement of building regulations law. The Energy Saving Ordinance requires no change to this practice and therefore causes no additional enforcement costs for the federal states and municipalities. Notable additional administrative costs for determining and publishing the comparative benchmarks for information – Academy for Health, Sport and Prevention e.V. 2020 Page of 3 4 Energy consumption values (§ 13 para. 6) can be avoided because extensive use of the findings from consumption-based billing of heating and hot water costs is provided for.
Link to the PDF – EneEV – Exceptions and Exemptions Germany
Questionable DIN Standards
Questionable DIN Standards (EnEV, DIN 4108, DIN EN 832, DIN EN ISO 6946) by Prof. C. Meier 01.2003
The DIN standards contain too many methodological errors. What follows is a brief selection. The pages refer to the book: Meier, C. Richtig bauen – Bauphysik im Widerstreit – Probleme und Lösungen. Renningen-Malmsheim: expert verlag, 2nd edition 2003, 265 pages. ISBN: 3-8169-2187-6
EnEV 2002 § 15: Rules of technology (p. 162): Standards, technical regulations and other provisions of other Member States of the European Community belong to “recognized rules of technology” if the required level of protection with regard to energy saving and thermal insulation is permanently ensured. Comment: The required level of protection is not a benchmark for “generally recognized rules of technology”; DIN standards, technical regulations and other provisions do not ensure durability, but rather permanently uneconomical constructions (§17 “Exemptions”).
DIN 4108:
• (p. 164/165): 1960 version: “In layered exterior components, improper arrangement of layers can lead to the formation of condensation”. Comment: Today, according to DIN, up to 1 liter (½ liter) of condensate per square meter of external envelope can arise as an annual balance (state of the art).
• (p. 165): “Condensate precipitation during the evaporation period is not to be taken into account in calculations”. Comment: This agreement leads to a methodological error, because the most incorrect unventilated roof construction with enormous moisture damage is thereby always classified as “harmless according to DIN” – a construction scandal.
• (p. 166): Temperature calculations and μ-values in the condensation proof apply only to the steady-state condition.
Comment: The steady-state condition is unrealistic, especially with massive building materials.
DIN EN 832:
• (S. 166): The heating energy requirement is calculated using the U-value. Comment: The U-value applies only to the steady-state condition, which never occurs – the sun alone ensures that.
• (S. 166): It states: “The annual solar gains can be neglected”. Comment: This statement is incorrect.
• (S. 167): For the radiation coefficient hr in W/m²K, the mean temperature from surface and sky is used. Comment: Favorable counter-radiation from the Earth's surface as relief is ignored.
• (S. 167): The formulas for the radiation coefficient lack the values c and r. Comment: The storage capacity of an absorbing wall is therefore not taken into account.
• (S. 167): Radiation is calculated from the difference between outside air and sky temperature. Comment: Only the surface temperature is decisive here and not the outside air temperature, as they differ greatly.
• (S. 168): The difference in absorbed radiant energy is released immediately and exclusively to the air (stationary model with absorption). Comment: Air is diathermic for radiation; the stored energy is ignored. These assumptions are therefore completely inaccurate.
• (S. 168): A calculation example in Annex L ends with a scatter of ±43.3%.
Comment: Such a calculation method is an engineering scandal.
DIN EN ISO 6946:
• (S. 169): As always, only the U-value is used. Comment: The U-value applies only to the steady-state condition, which never occurs.
• (S. 169): It states: “The heat transfer resistance also neglects any influence of short-wave solar radiation on external surfaces”. Comment: This means ignorance of free solar energy.
• (S. 169): Layers and areas are defined and mean values are calculated. Comment: This instruction is impractical, complicated and far too confusing.
• (p. 169): An ”error estimation” is offered. Comment: This pseudoscientific camouflage is only intended to distract from the methodological errors of a stationary calculation.
• (p. 169): In Appendix A, radiation and convection are treated uniformly for the heat transfer coefficient (dimension W/m²K). Comment: This is physically absurd. Radiation is diathermic, thus does not heat air.
• (p. 170): The heating output of a radiant heater is calculated proportional to the ”excess temperature”. Comment: The heating output is proportional to the fourth power of the absolute temperature. This assumption is therefore incorrect; it leads to absurd results.
• (p. 170): Unventilated air spaces are also treated ”uniformly” for radiation and convection in Appendix B. Comment: This is therefore also incorrect.
• (p. 170): In Appendix B, the radiation exchange factor E is used to determine the ”heat transfer coefficient for radiation”. Comment: Here everything is physically mixed up – a scientific confusion.
• (p. 170): In Appendix B.3, the procedure is analogous. Comment: Everything is wrong everywhere.
• (p. 170): Appendix C deals with the U-value calculation of trapezoidal insulation layers. Comment: Since the efficiency threshold is at a maximum of 6 to 8 cm thickness, this is blind activism and a pseudoscientific absurdity.
Conclusion: DIN standards contain so many methodological and substantive errors that they can indeed no longer be taken seriously.
Link to the PDF – Questionable DIN Standards
Radiation exchange, radiation output and heating output:
The theory of standardized heating technology understands radiation exchange as radiation output and is therefore unable to correctly calculate the actual heating output of radiating surfaces. An example for better understanding: with two equally warm radiating surfaces arranged opposite each other at 80°C surface temperature, the radiation exchange is indeed correctly zero due to the difference formation – but not their heating output – a serious error in established heating design. Everyone quickly realizes that it becomes very warm when standing between the radiators, whose difference is indeed 0 but the radiant heat emission is perceptible. “
“Over the entire range of a possible radiation temperature between 20 and 75° C, the common heating theory therefore underestimates an additional radiation output of approx. 400 W/m2 for radiation into the half-space. For cavity radiation (the cavity model of Max Planck also applies to interior spaces due to analogous radiation conditions), the discrepancies are even greater (approx. 800 to 1200 W/m2).
Link to the PDF – Radiation exchange, radiant power and thermal output
Burning questions and concrete answers:
Existing housing stock and thermal protection: Critical remarks on the Energy Saving Ordinance
Concrete answers to burning questions by Prof. Dr.-Ing. habil. Claus Meier, Architect SRL
Building has tradition; building also means cultural development in construction. Established experiential knowledge and proven construction methods from earlier times must be preserved; buried knowledge must be made present and usable again, especially since “newer developments” too often prove to be faulty. The new Energy Saving Ordinance (EnEV) in particular is being hotly debated; opposing views clash sharply. Caught in the conflict of opinions, the interested layperson faces this back-and-forth helplessly. What is correct now and what can one rely on? What must be done and what consequences must be drawn?
1. What does thermal protection mean in existing buildings? The basis for required building thermal protection is always the climate. In the Mediterranean region, construction is sustainably massive using materials with good storage capacity. Solar radiation is so intense that protection against it is necessary. Massive construction is also excellent for nighttime cooling, as it can release the energy absorbed during the day at night. This creates a balanced, pleasant indoor climate. In the far north with very low (or no) solar radiation, “lightweight” constructions with good insulating effect are more necessary. The igloo (snow is a poor heat conductor) can be cited here as a traditionally conditioned example. We in Central Europe lie in between and need both. The storage effectiveness and insulating capacity of an external construction. This makes sense and has therefore also developed historically in this way. Storage is more favorable with heavy, massive building materials; insulation is more favorable with light, porous building materials. Therefore, a well-balanced construction lying between insulation and storage must be chosen. This is the traditional massive construction, brick construction. A solid combination of both properties creates healthy living conditions in our latitudes and, moreover, saves energy. The Energy Saving Ordinance takes no account of these necessities.
2. Why does storage help save energy? Life on the (storage-capable) Earth we owe to the sun. Solar radiation warms only matter – but not air. Without this beneficial energy source, the planet would be cold and uninhabitable. Everyone knows the pleasant warmth of the sun’s rays; high-alpine skiers enjoy them even though sub-zero temperatures prevail. Especially in winter with a low sun, storage-capable walls are particularly favorably supplied with energy. When this free energy transfer is absorbed, the energy balance of the building is also favorably influenced. Massive absorbers, transparent thermal insulation, solar collectors and photovoltaics are well-known techniques for making solar energy usable. However, this type of technical utilization is quite expensive because it requires additional apparatus. There are also favorable alternatives to solar energy utilization. The simple and proven massive external wall has served well for centuries as a massive absorber without additional investments. The stored solar energy stops the heat flow from inside to outside by means of a heat flow from outside to inside. In this respect, stored solar energy reduces the transmission heat losses of a building. To make sensible use of free solar energy, the golden mean between insulating capacity and storage capacity should be aimed for here. The restriction to insulation alone (i.e., the k-value) therefore does not lead to an energetically optimally coordinated external wall in our latitudes, because construction must be for summer as well as for winter. The naturally present storage capacity of massive external walls receives no consideration whatsoever in the Energy Saving Ordinance.
3. What does the k-value mean? In building thermal protection the k-value is present everywhere. It is derived from Fourier’s heat conduction equation, which is always invoked. The original equation consists of five parts that describe the following characteristics: • a) the storage capacity of the building material, • b) heat conduction in the three directions inside-outside, top-bottom and sideways, whereby the latter two remain unconsidered, so that only the inside-outside direction remains. • c) solar radiation as an additional heat source. This general equation, which applies to the non-stationary state, is now completely transformed for the stationary state by the mathematical operation of “setting to zero.” The k-value, which then applies only to the steady state and forms the basis for all energy demand calculations, results solely from this transformation; oddly enough, reference is made here to “European standards.”
This setting to zero of the general equation, however, has devastating consequences for the energy balance of an external wall and thus for the actual transmission heat losses: • a) Storage capacity is set to zero; that means the k-value does not take into account this property of an external wall as an energy absorber, which is so valuable in our latitudes. • b) A constant heat flux density, which forms the basis for every temperature calculation, is assumed or presupposed. The reality of a massive external wall, however, shows heat flux densities that differ everywhere in magnitude and direction. • c) Solar radiation is also assumed to be zero. This, however, can only be simulated in a climate chamber; in reality, radiation is always present, even if it is only diffuse radiation, which after all accounts for about 40 % of direct radiation. A north-facing window also delivers solar heat gains. In this respect the k-value is merely a computational fiction. Energy consumption analyses therefore also show the discrepancy between calculation and consumption. Massive, storage-capable walls consume less energy than calculated; lightweight constructions, however, consume more than calculated. The erroneous nature of a k-value calculation is thereby revealed; the unreliability is unmistakably demonstrated. Existing buildings are thus disadvantaged. In the Energy Saving Ordinance, however, calculations are made solely with the k-value.
4. How are transmission heat losses described? Despite these decisive errors, the administration and industry-friendly science dogmatically cling to the k-value that applies only to the steady state. Although it logically always delivers incorrect results, the k-value is elevated to the fatal symbol of thermal protection and is used in all energy demand calculations. The k-value applies only to the stationary state, the steady state, which never occurs in the 24-hour rhythm of a day/night period.
Why then does the k-value play such a dominant role? In heating technology the k-value has always been used for sizing radiators and the boiler in heat demand calculations. With previous massive buildings the faulty calculation results in oversizing of the heating system. This is tolerable because a certain heat buffer is thereby created. With current lightweight constructions in layered construction, however, the k-value leads to undersizing because the thermal bridge effect is accounted for in a methodologically faulty manner. Even with the dynamic simulation models used to maintain a specified room air temperature, only the k-value valid for the steady state is always used for the external wall. The cooling loads that are so important for the heating engineer are calculated in order to avoid overheating due to solar energy entering through the windows. Possible nighttime setbacks are also addressed. All these theoretical investigations use the unrealistic k-value; they therefore cannot be cited as justification for correctness either. The use of the k-value in the Energy Saving Ordinance is and remains erroneous.
5. Does a tightening of the k-value lead to the desired energy savings? The amendments to the thermal protection ordinances for the purpose of increased energy savings consist continuously in a tightening of the requirements – that is, the k-values. If the validity of the k-value were once assumed despite its erroneousness, then there are two reasons that render this constant tightening, again especially with the Energy Saving Ordinance, absurd: these are the influence of thermal bridges and mathematics. With a lightweight construction in layered construction the influence of thermal bridges increases dramatically. The thermal bridge share of the k-value is not an absolute value, as considered in the Energy Saving Ordinance, but depends on the construction and the “requirement level.” What is theoretically gained through “smaller k-values” is partly lost again through increased thermal bridge losses. With lightweight construction, thermal bridges are a problem. With monolithic massive construction, on the other hand, thermal bridge losses hardly play a role: first, they are minimized by a more favorable temperature distribution in the wall and second, they are advantageously overlaid and eliminated by the absorption of solar energy. The tightening of the requirement level by lowering the k-values, however, becomes particularly nonsensical for mathematical reasons.
The function of the k-value is a hyperbola that no longer allows small k-values to save energy sustainably; they are no longer efficient; economic efficiency is then no longer given either. This fatal law of nature states: 5 cm insulation results in a k-value of 0.8 W/m²K 10 cm insulation results in a k-value of 0.4 W/m²K 20 cm insulation results in a k-value of 0.2 W/m²K 40 cm insulation results in a k-value of 0.1 W/m²K
Doubling the insulation merely leads to a halving of the k-value. What a macabre game when “tightening the requirement level”. This energetically useless installation of super-insulations alone is the reason why only percentage savings are ever spoken of. In each of the individual steps listed above, the k-value is reduced by 50% each time, which suggests a “tremendous” energy saving. In reality, the smaller k-values represent negligible quantities. Therefore, there can be no question of environmental relief at all.
If one also considers that the “improvement” of the k-value by 0.1 W/m²K yields about 0.40 DM/m² (construction area), then it becomes clear that the limitless lowering of k-values is senseless. Feasibility is a false, a fraudulent path for sensible energy-saving measures. The Energy Saving Act requires economic efficiency in § 5. Compliance with the k-values required in the Energy Saving Ordinance therefore also violates the economic efficiency requirement in the Energy Saving Act. It is irresponsible that the ordinance issuer, through the Energy Saving Ordinance, de facto demands violations of the law from the architect, the planner, the investor.
6. What disadvantages arise with lightweight construction? Due to the one-sided, stationary view (good insulation through small k-values), this construction trend towards lightweight construction unfavorably influences the indoor climate through overheating. This automatically leads to uncomfortable living conditions that can only be mitigated with high technical effort. Barracks climate is the natural consequence. The departure from solid construction (storage) and the turn towards k-value-minimizing lightweight construction (insulation) ultimately means increased energy consumption through cooling in summer and non-use of solar energy in winter, means increased environmental pollution through hazardous waste and increased susceptibility to damage through moisture damage. All these disadvantages are avoided by monolithic solid construction. The Energy Saving Ordinance sets the wrong course for building.
7. Can energy be saved in old buildings with thermal insulation? Currently, the stationary thinking and calculation of established building physics dominates building thermal protection. This one-sidedness disadvantages old buildings. Thermal insulation made of insulating material is very light and therefore not capable of storage. The great insulating effect is achieved solely through the k-value calculation. For lightweight constructions and lightweight houses, insulating material must therefore be installed. The traditional old building with its heavy building fabric has a high storage capacity that can usefully utilize the free solar radiation available. In old buildings, the storage capacity of the construction can therefore be taken into account, so that “effective” k-values result from the consideration of absorbed solar radiation, which can even be lower than stationary calculated “super-insulations”. Solid buildings are also low-energy houses. In this respect, externally applied thermal insulation would only eliminate the advantage of a storage-capable wall and thereby devalue it energetically, apart from other disadvantages such as preventing moisture transport to the outside and/or inside due to sorption-tight layers. However, it must be assumed that these are at least 38 cm thick, approx. 300 kg/m² heavy solid walls that already contain a relatively favorable insulation component themselves and then contribute the missing component for the “energy-saving construction” through the storage capacity of the external wall. Therefore, if thought and calculated non-stationarily, thermal insulation in solid construction, and thus also in old buildings, is out of place. This finding is of particular importance for old buildings, since now the “necessity” (?) is proclaimed to have to “upgrade” the old building stock energetically due to “poor k-values”. Experience shows that this then means wrapping with thermal insulation material in order to be able to calculate low k-values in accordance with DIN 4108. However, this packaging strategy in the Energy Saving Ordinance hardly gains additional energy.
8. Is a tight building envelope sensible in old buildings? The airtightness of the components surrounding the interior space (wall, ceiling) has always been required. This was necessary to avoid condensate due to cooling of the warm indoor air flowing outwards in the external wall component. In solid buildings, airtightness is always guaranteed (plastered external wall and solid ceiling). In skeleton constructions, however, complete airtightness can only be achieved with difficulty in terms of construction and craftsmanship. Therefore, in lightweight construction, it has so far been state of the art to choose ventilated wall or roof constructions so that any condensate could be ventilated away. With the abolition of ventilated construction through “full thermal protection”, moisture damage occurs in lightweight and skeleton constructions due to air flow as a result of air leaks that cannot always be avoided constructively. Building damage cases are increasing rapidly. However, this characterizes the unventilated lightweight and skeleton construction overall as a rather questionable construction. Instead of returning to ventilated construction in such “windy” solutions, the “airtightness test” is born (as always, an attempt is made to remedy one error with a second error). The justification given is not the expected moisture damage, but the associated energy losses. However, the energy losses caused by air leaks are negligibly small compared to the necessary hourly air change. To complete the confusion, the Energy Saving Ordinance now confronts “all” buildings with the airtightness test, although for solid buildings, and thus also for old buildings, there is no risk of condensate formation in the external wall structure. In this respect, for example, the slogan “airtightness reduces energy loss”, with which offices advertise the “blower door measurement”, means misleading the customer. However, this also opens up a promising market that would not have arisen in the first place if the “generally recognized rules of technology” had been observed.
9. Can thermal insulation damage old buildings? Building damage due to condensate such as mold indoors and algae formation outdoors is increasingly occurring in practice. The proposed therapies always lead to “better insulations”. However, this does not eliminate the causes of the building damage. Condensate only ever occurs when air is cooled to the dew point temperature. However, this is significantly determined by the relative humidity of the air. This refutes the argument that the cause of condensate formation is primarily inadequate thermal insulation with too low a wall surface temperature. It is not the k-value that is to blame, but the excessively high relative humidity. Even “very good” insulation cannot prevent condensate formation at high air humidity. Wrapping old building fabric with insulating material for reasons of condensate avoidance would therefore be the most wrong approach, since the much more serious cause of condensate formation, the high relative humidity of the room air due to tight windows, is not eliminated thereby.
The disadvantages would be: