Hi Bob,
I'm using the "Reply To Group via Email". Maybe that will get more folks
to chime in.
This post is going to be pretty long (patting myself on the back, etc.),
so my apologies.
About EV's: yes, people who buy a Tesla probably go for sexy. Personal
preference I guess. To me, cost and range per charge are more important
than appearance. In March of 2017, I bought a 2017 Nissan Leaf new off
the lot. While the range per charge for my Leaf was nowhere near what a
Tesla was then, the range I got was, and is, plenty for my needs. Cost
was the deciding factor. I got the cheapest trim package, not because it
was the least expensive, but because that package had everything I
wanted. At the time, Xcel Energy, my local utility, partnered with
Nissan. As an Xcel customer, if I committed to buy a Leaf, Nissan paid
the dealer $10,000 toward the purchase price. After tax, license, dealer
prep etc. the cost of the car was about $34,000. Tack on the Federal EV
tax credit of $7,500 and the car cost less than half price. I've heard
it said that it's better to be lucky than good. The timing on this deal
tends to support that. I've found that an EV is better in cold weather
than an ICE car. Sure, my battery doesn't hold as much charge in cold
temperatures as it does in warm weather, but the same is true for the
lead-acid batteries in ICE cars, and if you let the water-antifreeze mix
get to far on the water side, the ICE engine can freeze up completely,
whereas an EV is always ready to go at the push of a button. Currently,
Xcel and Nissan have got another incentive going, this time with Nissan
paying $6,000 to the dealer, and there's still some Federal tax credit
in the mix as well. Xcel has a big presence in Colorado, so people on
this list living in Colorado should check with Xcel to see what's
available in the way of incentives.
I live in Minneapolis. My house was built in 1921 and it's not suitable
for PV. I don't have a south-facing roof and I have serious shading
issues. Also, my yard is not big enough for ground-mounted PV. Xcel
Energy to the rescue yet again (this post is sounding like an ad for
Xcel!). Several years ago, Xcel (which has numerous wind farms)
instituted a program called Wind Source. Basically, Wind Source is an
accounting program that allows a customer to have...for a modest monthly
fee...part or all of their electric bill charged against the wind power
Xcel generates in 100 watt chunks. Naturally, I signed up for Wind
Source at 100%. Since you have no way to determine how any given
electron at the outlet was generated, going with Wind Source is like
buying a Terrapass for my house. All of the electricity I use at home
is, for all intents and purposes, renewable, and as I charge my Leaf
from an outlet in my garage, my car is wind powered too! My most resent
electric bill shows that last months' Wind Source fee was $10.06. I can
live with that. If anyone in this community who reads this email has an
electric utility that has access to renewable sources of energy, check
with them to see if they offer a program like Wind Source, and if they
don't, suggest to them that they contact Xcel Energy and ask about it.
A few years ago, Minnesota and Xcel Energy teamed up to institute
community solar gardens in this state. The state advertised when
building permits would become available and prospective developers had
to show that they had the financing to follow through with construction.
Over 400 permits were issued on the first day! The program was nearly
overwhelmed! Community solar gardens are a good way for people who, like
me, have homes that are unsuitable for PV, or they just don't like the
look of PV panels. ASES has lots of information about solar
gardens...how they work and how to get into one. Check it out.
Efficiency, my mantra. In 2006 when An Inconvenient Truth came out, I
went hog wild, bought a lot of CFL's and changed every light bulb in my
house. A year later, a couple I know were moving to Portland, Oregon.
They had a pair of nearly new window air conditioners they didn't think
they'd need and didn't want to haul halfway across the continent, so
they said I could have them if I wanted them. I had a pair of air
conditioners and while they still worked as designed, they were somewhat
older so I took the newer ones and swapped out my older ones. A year
after that, I got to wondering if what I had done amounted to anything
significant, so I called up Xcel and asked them for as many years of my
electrical usage as they would give me. I specified usage, not cost.
They sent me the previous three years. This turned out to be perfect.
The oldest year was the year before An Inconvenient Truth and provided
me with a baseline year to compare against the later two years. The
middle year was after changing the light bulbs, and the newest year
reflected the light bulb change and the newer air conditioners. My usage
dropped by 1/3rd! Now that's significant. Efficiency works big time.
I note that often when one home in a neighborhood goes solar, others
start to pop up. I think that there's a strong "Keeping up with the
Joneses." thing going on. That may be shallow, but if it will get more
panels on rooftops, then I'm all for it!
Michael
Original Message:
Sent: 2/20/2021 9:42:00 AM
From: Bob Scheulen
Subject: RE: Costs Not Widely Discussed
I've found that although the cost for these improvements can be hefty, the bigger issue is how people feel about them. So far they've been sold as being better for the environment, or saving money over the long term, but the community of people who respond to that is apparently not large. I don't know for sure, but while it seems people bought the Prius for largely environmental reasons, I see people buying Teslas largely because they're cool. One of the reasons I think EVs will take over is because many people seem them as being cool as opposed to environmental, although clearly the environmental aspect is a motivation also. There seems to be a certain degree of cool for PV also, but less so. When my house was on the solar tour, people were far more interested in my PV system than all the insulation in my walls, yet its really the insulation that makes it a better house. In the case of PV, I'm not totally convinced that all of us owning our own systems is the best way, and I've certainly seen scenarios where the power company makes some deal with you to use your roof. The financial situation with improving energy efficiency is all on the homeowner though. When I see new construction, its almost always all code-minimum insulation, and so I think crap and more crap. Its an inferior product. If the price of energy were to ever skyrocket again like it did in the 70s, that would be financially obvious, but I feel like money can't be the main motivation, but I don't know the answer. I only know that when people buy houses now, they don't think about insulation, and they don't even really think about indoor air quality--its kitchen appliances, fancy bathrooms etc. I've seen plenty of houses with expensive appliances, but cheap vinyl windows. Go figure. When it comes to existing buildings, the first thing people want to do is redo that dated bathroom and/or kitchen. The building industry always wants to sell trendy stuff, and then 30+ years later it ends up in the landfill, and the remodel budget goes into that instead of energy upgrades. Again, this is only what I see, I don't know how widespread it really is.
I'm guessing everyone in Minnesota is about to get a very big energy bill due to the deep freeze, but I'm also betting that not many people will think that means their house is under-insulated.
Anyhow, my point really is that I think its more about changing mindsets. My thought is that if people looked at skinny 2x4 or even 2x6 walls and thought--wow that's thin, the cost would be less of an issue. Thick walls and some decent level of air sealing ought to be the norm, because its a better building. In my view, the issue with PV is really separate--its just a question of where to put it and who owns and maintains it. You're certainly right that energy efficiency makes the PV make more sense, I just don't know that its selling point to the general public.
Maybe someone else will chime in...
------------------------------
Bob Scheulen
bobs@sensiblehouse.org
------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: Feb 19, 2021 08:23 PM
From: Michael Bean
Subject: Costs Not Widely Discussed
One of the barriers to PV adoption has been the up front cost of the PV system. This is a serious sticker shock problem and is why the more effecient a home can be made, the smaller the PV system can be for the house to perform as desired. Up front costs can be minimized as well as locking in lower operating costs. It seems to me that that is where marketing can be focused...at least to start with. We need someone in this community who has marketing skills to step up. I'm sure some of this is being done, but it needs to be a lot more visible. Also, there are other ways to get a PV system such as leasing, and in some places, through an assessment on property tax bills...sort of a payment plan that spreads out the cost over time. There must be other ways to get it done as well.
Michael
------------------------------
Michael Bean
Retired
evonrheinhausen@goldengate.net
Original Message:
Sent: Feb 19, 2021 06:56 PM
From: Bob Scheulen
Subject: Costs Not Widely Discussed
I agree that the financing aspect has to be dealt with also. Some banks offer energy efficient mortgages, but they don't seem to be widely advertised. I've also heard a lot of reluctance about air sealing from homeowners---it feels "unnatural" to them, but then having a lot of very cold air leaking thru your walls isn't a very pleasant proposition, even for those who don't care much about climate change. There is also a general resistance to change in the building industry. So its not just the upfront cost that is a barrier in my experience--there are multiple barriers. I participate in a green building group trying to break thru those barriers---but I'm starting to think that the problem is really one of marketing, which really isn't the specialty of anyone in my group. In my experience its way easier to sell a PV system than a lot of air-sealing and an HRV. What's further frustrating is that insulation/air-sealing is not something that is easy or cheap to retrofit, but its relatively affordable up front (I say relatively because I know that an HRV alone adds at least $2k (often more) to the total cost, and air sealing is a labor cost.
Your point about EVs and the gas tax is interesting--in this case I think EVs will take over no matter what, so its going to have to be addressed. My current solution is to mostly ride my bike or walk, but I figure my next car will probably be an EV.
------------------------------
Bob Scheulen
bobs@sensiblehouse.org
Original Message:
Sent: Feb 19, 2021 03:05 PM
From: Michael Bean
Subject: Costs Not Widely Discussed
Hi Bob,
You make good points. I guess that getting out information about making homes more energy efficient, and why it makes sense from a monetary standpoint, is what's needed. Also, home buyers need to know which lenders are knowledgeable about these issues.
With regard to the part of my previous post about EV's, I received my registration renewal notice in the mail today. This year, the Electric Surcharge is $75.00. Again, if you good folks don't live in Minnesota, what are your states doing about replacing gas tax revenue?
Michael
------------------------------
Michael Bean
Retired
evonrheinhausen@goldengate.net
Original Message:
Sent: Feb 19, 2021 07:56 AM
From: Bob Scheulen
Subject: Costs Not Widely Discussed
The upfront cost of the HRV is like the upfront cost of PV panels--its pays for itself over time, although its harder to put a savings on the HRV. The issue with air tightness is that "natural" ventilation (ie air leaks) provide a highly variably amount of fresh air--highly dependent on the weather. So in order to have sufficient fresh air during moderate, low wind weather, you get excessive air leakage when its -10 and blowing. So you tighten up. Up to some level you don't really need an HRV, but what that level is depends heavily on personal choices and to some degree on climate--the less moderate weather you have the more likely you either have enough air leakage or you have the windows open. The other issue is how careful you are about what gets brought into the house (toxics), but for many people the main "pollutant" is actually water vapor--so mold becomes the issue. My house in western Washington was measured at 2.3ACH50....tighter than common, but not even close to the .6ACH50 that the passivehouse people build. I have never needed an HRV, but I'm careful about what I bring in, and we use the bath/kitchen fans to clear moisture. If I were to build it now instead of 15 years ago, I would make it tighter than I did and heat with a heat pump.
I've never seen an actual saving calculation (ie payback time). You'd have to calculate your heat loss at both air leakage rates and then for the "tight" version add back the energy to run the HRV, then cost out the savings over time to get the payback period. Given your cold winter, I'm guessing the savings would be substantial.
But the other issue is that there is cost involved in making the house tight. Plus my experience is that most builder don't know how. Its not just sealing around windows and doors, but you have to seal around every penetration, limit the number of penetrations and tape all the sheathing joints--I don't know what you'd do if you don't have sheathing--only that housewrap isn't really an air barrier.
In the green building community, these questions get discussed all the time, because up-front costs are a big barrier to people asking for energy efficient houses. Often the barrier is just that houses are already expensive, and most customers don't take much of a long term perspective.
------------------------------
Bob Scheulen
bobs@sensiblehouse.org
Original Message:
Sent: Feb 17, 2021 02:45 PM
From: Michael Bean
Subject: Costs Not Widely Discussed
Hi all,
I don't know if these topics have been discussed before, and if they have, my apologies.
I have two things I'd like to talk about...one about EV's, the other about energy efficiency.
For the last two years, at least, Minnesota (where I live) has charged an EV surcharge in the area of 70+ dollars when you register your EV. I've not seem this discussed and no one from the Motor Vehicle Department has made an announcement about why this is being done, but I think I have a good idea why. Most (all?) states get a large share of their money for road maintenance from a tax on every gallon of gasoline pumped into an ICE vehicle. EV's carry their weight around on wheels just as ICE vehicles do, so the roads get wear and tear no matter what powers any particular vehicle. As more and more EV's replace ICE vehicles, states are going to feel the pinch to their revenues. Over time, I expect the yearly surcharge will go up. The surcharge is how Minnesota is responding to the fall off of gas tax revenue. How are other states coping?
I've seen a lot of talk about making building envelopes tighter and tighter in new house construction and/or older house retrofits so you don't heat or cool the great outdoors. Occasionally, heat recovery ventilators are mentioned, but no one mentions that such ventilators are not optional. As the building envelope gets tighter and tighter, indoor air pollutants like particles from cooking, having a smoker in the house, volatile chemicals outgasing from a variety of sources, as well as carbonmonoxide from natural gas appliances (a good reason for electric appliances like stoves and/or induction cook tops, etc.). I'm sure there are other sources of indoor pollutants that need to be expelled from the house. Ventilators are a not cheap item, but you rarely hear about the unavoidable need for them. They are a costly item, but if it's explained to anyone looking to get a more efficient house, said person won't get sticker shock and say "The heck with it." and just go with traditional building. I'm pretty sure that manufacturers are working night-and-day to get costs down because the market is huge with a lot of money to be had. What's needed are databases that gather together lists of materials and equipment that improve efficiency when building or retrofitting a house (or any building, really). Maybe what's left of the Energy Department and the Environmental Protection Agency (thinking about Energy Star here). The Forest Stewardship Council could be of help. All of this information should be gathered together in one place so builders, contractors and home buyers can find out what's available and what they cost at any given time when decisions need to be made. Has someone already done this?
------------------------------
Michael Bean
Retired
evonrheinhausen@goldengate.net
------------------------------