I would pay a 10-15 % prem. for a energy efficient house such as ICF, insulated concrete formation, which is proven to cut energy usage significantly. They even have some nice styles too. But if I want one it would be a 200% premium I believe because there is a shortage of concrete, and it would be a custom build, in the US. I read we export 1/3 to China of what we have. Imagine an energy efficient home that has wonderful soundproofing too! P.S. I just wanted to add I was originally looking into in for it's sound proof stats, but the stats on energy efficiency are there too. One of the reason I own a house is I can't stand to hear ppl. through crappy const. townhouses like most are built in the US. Having just come back from Europe, the build with concrete and some brick. You can almost never hear your neighbors, at all, even in a government owned flat. The thickness of the double pained windows is so much greater too and we have the same climate as they do in the winter, in Denver. If I could just get a townhouse that was truly well build and energy efficient I would probably sell this house as I don't enjoy the upkeep.
A few years ago, when we had the energy deregulation disaster in Calif, I looked into solar installation for my house. Even with the enormous rebate programs at the time, my investment recoup period was about 7 years. Without the rebates it was around 13-15 years. You have to run the numbers for yourself because your energy usage determines the recoup length. And that doesn't consider the carry cost (opportunity cost) of the $15k+ initial investment otherwise the recoup period would be double for me. YMMV
Americans make krappy stuff. I want to get past this strategy development work I'm finishing up here and find some place that makes more sense. I've always hated krappy stuff and always lived in the US, it's getting desperately old.
toc, That's a facinating concept. Can you tell us in laymens terms how the technology works? I read once that scientists were thinking of placing metal towers out at sea that when struck by lightning, would convert salt water to hydrogen via electrolysis. Is this a similar thing? Runningbear
I honestly believe Americans can and do make some really great stuff, but we have a disposable mentality, that's the real problem. Europeans pay alot for stuff, with VAT, and they treat it well. VAT is not the answer by any means. But a generational shift in attitude about paying for quality and treating things with more respect is IMO.
Solar is presently expensive compared to fossil fuel options. The average payback period is 15 years without rebates. PV cells are expensive to make and won't be getting much cheaper. In Australia, the government has just lifted the rebate to $3000 per home, which is pretty good considering that a solar system increases the value of your property. Remember, your buying an asset. Rather than giving $15,000 away to the power company. Solar is an ideal solution to future energy needs because power is generated during peak usage times, like 3pm on a hot summer day when everyone is running their air conditioners. One of the most cost effective solar options is a rather old technology that uses freznal lenzes to focus the suns rays. Have a look at: www.greenandgoldenergy.com.au The real answer lays with the newer technologies that don't use silicon. These are 5 to 7 years away from commercialisation and are predicted to be comparable with coal at at 5c per kilowatt hour. Another serious contender is solar hrdrogen - producing hydrogen directly from sunlight using titanium oxide and galium cells. This option will be become very attractive in the not too distant future and will effectively allow people to produce their own hydrogen for use in their vehicle. Biofuels are not a long term option. They put extra strain on agricultral resources. And if you have to choose between food or fuel. Food is a better option in a survival sense. The only answer is renewables. In 20 years, china's energy consumption will exceed the entire world's currently usage. All the biofuel in the world will not satisfy 10% of that. Runningbear
I came across this sometime last year and thought it was interesting and original. A twist on solar power in a way. http://www.enviromission.com.au/index.htm
I don't know, people always underestimate how long it takes for new technologies to become feasible. Remember in the 80s when it was predicted that in 15 years, superconductors would be carrying our electricty? Where are those people now? If they say 5-7 years, figure it'll be between 25 years and never. I've been hearing all the predictions about solar for decades. I've concluded that it will remain a tiny energy source for another couple of generations.... or longer.