4 ms·

I think you misunderstand what "economic lifetime" means here. It is mostly relevant for tax purposes. In other words: if you build a house for $X and live in

I think you misunderstand what "economic lifetime" means here. It is mostly relevant for tax purposes. In other words: if you build a house for $X and live in it then for tax purposes it is assumed that (on average) after a 100 years you must have been spending $X for maintenance so that you can sell the building for $X. If you have spent more money, then you can't deduct that from tax (exceptions exist). Or in yet other words: if you don't spend anything for maintenance then after 100 years (on average) the building will be worth nothing, meaning that it will cost the same to rebuild it compared to fix it. But since most people maintan their buildings, i.e. fix the roof when it starts leaking, fix the doors and windows when they break or are not airtight anymore etc., buildings are much older than 100 years. 100 years is the _minimum_ time before it's even worth to rebuild on average.

yayachiken 4y ago
These maintenance tasks are exactly what this discussion is about. You will do major work on roof or facades every 50 years or so. This is exactly the opportunity where you pretty much get insulation for free. After 100 years the house will have been all but structurally rebuilt once, just for upkeep reasons. You perform energetic renovations together with the upkeep tasks. And when the house is old enough, the monument protection agency will even force you to do it by that time.
- valenterry 4y ago
  Let me quote you: > The expected economic lifetime of a building in Germany is approximately 100 years. Which means that on average, the house will be torn down and rebuilt after at most 100 years, because additional upkeep would not make economic sense. This is just wrong. An economic lifetime of 100 years does not mean that the (on average) buildings will be torn down and rebuilt after at most 100 years. And I have already explained why that is. Please read my post again and try to understand it. > You will do major work on roof or facades every 50 years or so. This is exactly the opportunity where you pretty much get insulation for free. No. This is also just wrong. Yes, when major work on roof or facades have to be done, this is usually the best opportunity to also improve insulation. But you don't "pretty much get insulation for free". Unless you have a very uncommon definition of "pretty much for free". Mind that I'm not saying that insulation isn't worth it or anything like that. I'm just pointing out that some parts of what you are writing are wrong. And the sources you cited are not supporting your claims. That's all.
  - yayachiken 4y ago
    Please don't forget that my claim is in the context of somebody else claiming that insulating all housing in Europe would at least take 100 years. Now you are literally redefining the terms I use and then quoting them back to me to argue your new semantics, are you serious? On average, a house is considered to last 100 years in Germany. Call it economic lifetime or whatever else you want. I still stand by that claim, as it is common knowledge. I quoted specific numbers on the housing stock which are consistent with that claim (though no proof of causation, as there are plenty of reasons why we have a lot of new stock, for example in general rising number of buildings.) And of course the insulation is not "for free", but the additional costs are usually worth it. I also mentioned that many people decide irrationally because they do not want the work associated with planning and ordering the maintenance to be performed. None of this matters to show that the above mentioned claim how long renovation of the current housing stock will take is completely out of the world. Note that I am by no means a civil engineer or architect, but following the discussion and researching the topics associated with the Energiewende in the different sectors for over a decade now. I may still well be wrong in this instance. But you won't convince me of that if you try to prove me wrong on semantics and just asserting that I were intellectually unable to understand your arguments. So please also state some relevant facts and sources to support your claims if you want to try further to convince me, otherwise continuing this discussion is probably a waste of time for me as we both will probably not learn anything new. Thanks.
    - valenterry 4y ago
      > But you won't convince me of that if you try to prove me wrong on semantics > (...) > On average, a house is considered to last 100 years in Germany. First please define what you mean by "last" so that we share the same semantics and then provide a source on this. And if you mean that a building will have been destroyed and rebuild after 100 years on average then I doubt this claim - after making such a strong claim I think it's up to you to provide evidence. > I quoted specific numbers on the housing stock which are consistent with that claim Are you referring to https://www.bauprofessor.de/wirtschaftliche-nutzungsdauer-gebaeude/ https://www.bauprofessor.de/wirtschaftliche-nutzungsdauer-ge... ? Because if you do, then again, you misunderstand what they are talking about. Also, don't forget that average house-ages are misleading due to WW2 where a lot of old houses got destroyed. So you can't e.g. just take the average age of existing houses, that doesn't work. > And of course the insulation is not "for free", but the additional costs are usually worth it. Look, I agree with you - but the way you said it before is so exaggerated and easy to misunderstand that it's no wonder that you are getting these kind of responses. This is a very emotional topic and it's good to try to adjust the language accordingly. > I also mentioned that many people decide irrationally because they do not want the work associated with planning and ordering the maintenance to be performed. It's easy to call someone irrational - but why do you think they don't want this work to be performed. How comes? I doubt that you assume they want the planet to die, so what do you think are their reasons?

yayachiken 4y ago

These maintenance tasks are exactly what this discussion is about. You will do major work on roof or facades every 50 years or so. This is exactly the opportunity where you pretty much get insulation for free. After 100 years the house will have been all but structurally rebuilt once, just for upkeep reasons. You perform energetic renovations together with the upkeep tasks. And when the house is old enough, the monument protection agency will even force you to do it by that time.

valenterry 4y ago
Let me quote you: > The expected economic lifetime of a building in Germany is approximately 100 years. Which means that on average, the house will be torn down and rebuilt after at most 100 years, because additional upkeep would not make economic sense. This is just wrong. An economic lifetime of 100 years does not mean that the (on average) buildings will be torn down and rebuilt after at most 100 years. And I have already explained why that is. Please read my post again and try to understand it. > You will do major work on roof or facades every 50 years or so. This is exactly the opportunity where you pretty much get insulation for free. No. This is also just wrong. Yes, when major work on roof or facades have to be done, this is usually the best opportunity to also improve insulation. But you don't "pretty much get insulation for free". Unless you have a very uncommon definition of "pretty much for free". Mind that I'm not saying that insulation isn't worth it or anything like that. I'm just pointing out that some parts of what you are writing are wrong. And the sources you cited are not supporting your claims. That's all.
- yayachiken 4y ago
  Please don't forget that my claim is in the context of somebody else claiming that insulating all housing in Europe would at least take 100 years. Now you are literally redefining the terms I use and then quoting them back to me to argue your new semantics, are you serious? On average, a house is considered to last 100 years in Germany. Call it economic lifetime or whatever else you want. I still stand by that claim, as it is common knowledge. I quoted specific numbers on the housing stock which are consistent with that claim (though no proof of causation, as there are plenty of reasons why we have a lot of new stock, for example in general rising number of buildings.) And of course the insulation is not "for free", but the additional costs are usually worth it. I also mentioned that many people decide irrationally because they do not want the work associated with planning and ordering the maintenance to be performed. None of this matters to show that the above mentioned claim how long renovation of the current housing stock will take is completely out of the world. Note that I am by no means a civil engineer or architect, but following the discussion and researching the topics associated with the Energiewende in the different sectors for over a decade now. I may still well be wrong in this instance. But you won't convince me of that if you try to prove me wrong on semantics and just asserting that I were intellectually unable to understand your arguments. So please also state some relevant facts and sources to support your claims if you want to try further to convince me, otherwise continuing this discussion is probably a waste of time for me as we both will probably not learn anything new. Thanks.
  - valenterry 4y ago
    > But you won't convince me of that if you try to prove me wrong on semantics > (...) > On average, a house is considered to last 100 years in Germany. First please define what you mean by "last" so that we share the same semantics and then provide a source on this. And if you mean that a building will have been destroyed and rebuild after 100 years on average then I doubt this claim - after making such a strong claim I think it's up to you to provide evidence. > I quoted specific numbers on the housing stock which are consistent with that claim Are you referring to https://www.bauprofessor.de/wirtschaftliche-nutzungsdauer-gebaeude/ https://www.bauprofessor.de/wirtschaftliche-nutzungsdauer-ge... ? Because if you do, then again, you misunderstand what they are talking about. Also, don't forget that average house-ages are misleading due to WW2 where a lot of old houses got destroyed. So you can't e.g. just take the average age of existing houses, that doesn't work. > And of course the insulation is not "for free", but the additional costs are usually worth it. Look, I agree with you - but the way you said it before is so exaggerated and easy to misunderstand that it's no wonder that you are getting these kind of responses. This is a very emotional topic and it's good to try to adjust the language accordingly. > I also mentioned that many people decide irrationally because they do not want the work associated with planning and ordering the maintenance to be performed. It's easy to call someone irrational - but why do you think they don't want this work to be performed. How comes? I doubt that you assume they want the planet to die, so what do you think are their reasons?