Cheap new world? Comparison of the energy costs of a fossil-based and a green household

Whether a sustainable lifestyle is financially worthwhile for households is a matter of public debate. The high initial investment in particular reinforces the prejudice that switching to renewable energies is the morally correct but expensive alternative to a fossil-fuelled lifestyle. A cost comparison carried out by DIW Econ on behalf of Enpal B.V. suggests that the opposite is true.

The cost comparison shows that the costs of households that make intelligent use of energy from sustainable sources (‘new world’) are lower than the costs of comparable households that use conventional energy sources (‘old world’). To this end, a static model was used to calculate and compare the costs for basic needs, heating and mobility over 25 years.

A wide range of households with different consumption and investment patterns can benefit from a sustainable lifestyle. Households with consumption patterns typical of owner-occupied households can save an average of 19% (around €104,000) over 25 years through sustainable consumption compared to a fossil fuel-based lifestyle. Households with a lower or higher propensity to invest also save in the new world. Buying a photovoltaic system and a heat pump, for example, means higher investment costs but lower running costs, e.g. through the use and feed-in of self-generated electricity. Overall, the low running costs outweigh the investment and households benefit from choosing sustainable alternatives.

PDF Download of this publication