Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So how much additional money was spent to save $100 a month?
your thinking of a retro fit or not looking at the right number. a conventional home of the same size that i linked. the power bill would be more like $350-400 a month.
so if you are building new. the idea is to build as effiently as possible in the first place. this reduces the size of the PV needed drasticaly. also power cost are not going to stay the same over the life of the structure.
so even if the cost of power stayed the same for the next 4-5 years. the system has more then paid for it self in that time. off-grid systems cost alot more then what i am refering too. the system we put on our homes is a grid tied system. so there is no costly batteries. the homes are so efficient that even when the hvac is on. there is still excess power. so your gaining power credits all day. wich out wieghs the grid usage at night.
this is the same thing for smaller homes, and in such cases the builders of these smaller homes are doing so with several hundred homes in a sub-division, plus the cost of roads, setting up infrastructure to support the small homes, lighting for the streets, continued support after for road clearing after a snow storm, and much much more.
small homes just dont pop up out of the ground when planting a seed, and they cannot go without infrastructure support and public works
a large home on a lot outside the city that is energy independent does not need someone to come clear the drive, does not need street lights, does not need an entire infrastructure built up to support it.
This is comparing apples and oranges. There are plenty of large houses built on tracts that require all the city infrastructure. There are plenty of small houses built out in the country that don't have the same infrastructure. It is no comparison when you compare a large house out in the country with a small house in a development. They are two different things with hugely different variables that are not germane to how energy efficient each house is.
Compare the same house, same infrastructure, same location, same number of floors and style to get an intelligible comparison.
well here is why a larger structure looks better on a computer model and actualy is more percentage wise more efficient then a smaller structure.
say you have a room 10x10 and another room 100x100. ok...
now both are air/vapor tight structures same type of windows and 1 door.
now... no matter how good the windows are. there is still going to be radiant heat come thru those windows. also when you open and close the door. you will have alot higher percentage wise of air/vapor excahnge on the smaller structure.
This is comparing apples and oranges. There are plenty of large houses built on tracts that require all the city infrastructure. There are plenty of small houses built out in the country that don't have the same infrastructure. It is no comparison when you compare a large house out in the country with a small house in a development. They are two different things with hugely different variables that are not germane to how energy efficient each house is.
Compare the same house, same infrastructure, same location, same number of floors and style to get an intelligible comparison.
and I have, read earlier my comparison of two houses of equal construction methods, both scored equally well in terms of energy efficiency when tested with equal equipment.
That's what we're saying - a large house is less eco-friendly unless you throw a lot of money into it to mitigate for it's inherent wastefulness.
I think that really sums it up .
Eco-friendly goes beyond writing the utility bill each month, it's about not taking up more than you need and can use. If you can live in a 1000 square foot home comfortably, that's going to be a more eco-friendly choice than living in a 4000 square foot house.
Eco-friendly goes beyond writing the utility bill each month, it's about not taking up more than you need and can use. If you can live in a 1000 square foot home comfortably, that's going to be a more eco-friendly choice than living in a 4000 square foot house.
Are you suggesting that your thought of "not taking up more than you need and can use" rule be put into law? Should the government decide what square foot requirement per person should be an enforceable standard? What would you propose doing with the residences of Al Gore, John Edwards, and Bill Gates? Will certain people be exempt from regulations?
If your answer is that everyone can decide for themselves, and it is a personal choice based on your beliefs, than I'm all for it. If you feel that the governmment should mandate such things, than I am not.
Are you suggesting that your thought of "not taking up more than you need and can use" rule be put into law? Should the government decide what square foot requirement per person should be an enforceable standard? What would you propose doing with the residences of Al Gore, John Edwards, and Bill Gates? Will certain people be exempt from regulations?
If your answer is that everyone can decide for themselves, and it is a personal choice based on your beliefs, than I'm all for it. If you feel that the governmment should mandate such things, than I am not.
The only government mandates that have been brought up here are the building codes in some municipalities that require certain efficiency standards for houses over a certain size. I don't think anyone here is advocating for some sort of governmental limit on a "reasonable" living space.
Hypocrites... NO home is a "green" home... you want green living, live in a studio apartment with 1 kid (better yet, be more green and no kid at all)... if you live in a house, any house, you are destroying the environment... it is better to build apartments and stuff everyone in a studio... you should reuse dirty dishes, only flush toilets after ten usages, and never buy any merchandise from any store... do any of the above and you are contributing the destruction of the world...
The only government mandates that have been brought up here are the building codes in some municipalities that require certain efficiency standards for houses over a certain size. I don't think anyone here is advocating for some sort of governmental limit on a "reasonable" living space.
I totally agree with you. The posters have been extremely detailed and informative with technical answers, something that an engineer finds refreshing. My comment was on the statement
"Eco-friendly goes beyond writing the utility bill each month, it's about not taking up more than you need and can use."
That in my opinion goes well beyond a good discussion on efficiency standards and building codes. I tend to bristle when someone is preaching to me that I may be taking up more space than I need or could use.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. 
