If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
|
Posted by ta on November 5, 2009, 9:40 pm
"The Actual Costs of Owning a Home are the MONTHLY COSTS, NOT the
Purchase Price
Actual Costs = Monthly Costs + Hidden Costs
It is a misconception that the more we reduce a building's
environmental footprint, the more money we have to spend. While it is
true that many "greener" options will require more hard earned
dollars, the best options will actually save you money from the very
first month.
Payback is one way of looking at an energy investment. For example: if
one spends 30k dollars on a PV solar system, how many months or years
will it take to make that money back in lower, monthly energy bills?
There are some serious flaws to using a payback approach:
1. Most people finance, which changes the initial purchase price into
monthly, mortgage payments.
2. Monthly, energy bills are always rising and increasingly unstable
making future calculations only a guess.
3. Payback does not account for the millions of hidden costs
associated with nuclear and fossil fuel use and dependency.
Purchase Price versus Monthly payments
People buying a home do not really pay the purchase price. Mortgage
payments + energy/utility payments are the actual costs one pays to
live in a home. The best investments add only a few dollars to your
mortgage payment, but will bring your energy bills down by double or
triple that amount, saving money from the first month of occupancy.
Forget the earth, invest in yourself.
The best investment in our climate is always an air-tight,
continuously-insulated envelope. Secondly, heating/cooling systems
since they represent the largest portion of monthly, energy costs.
Money spent in these two areas can increase monthly-mortgage payments
slightly, but will dramatically reduce monthly-energy bills.
Financing offers you the ability to own a home. It also offers an
opportunity to save alot by spending a little.
The right building envelope and space conditioning investments
outperform almost any other investments and dramatically reduces
environmental impact (if you're into that kinda thing).
Mortgage + Monthly Energy Bills =Actual Cost of Home
example:
Conventionally built green home
$750 + $100 = $850
Passive Solar, SIP built Green home
$756 + $42 =
$798
This home would have a higher purchase price and mortgage payment, but
from the first month of occupancy it would be more affordable. It
would also be more comfortable, better protected from rising energy
costs, safe in a winter power outage, and would enjoy a probable,
higher re-sale value with less days on the market. It would also be
half of the environmental foot-print of the other "green" home."
http://www.springtimehomes.com/green_building_costs
|
|
Posted by tg on November 6, 2009, 8:12 am
> "The Actual Costs of Owning a Home are the MONTHLY COSTS, NOT the
> Purchase Price
> Actual Costs =3D Monthly Costs + Hidden Costs
> It is a misconception that the more we reduce a building's
> environmental footprint, the more money we have to spend. While it is
> true that many "greener" options will require more hard earned
> dollars, the best options will actually save you money from the very
> first month.
> Payback is one way of looking at an energy investment. For example: if
> one spends 30k dollars on a PV solar system, how many months or years
> will it take to make that money back in lower, monthly energy bills?
> There are some serious flaws to using a payback approach:
> 1. Most people finance, which changes the initial purchase price into
> monthly, mortgage payments.
> 2. Monthly, energy bills are always rising and increasingly unstable
> making future calculations only a guess.
> 3. Payback does not account for the millions of hidden costs
> associated with nuclear and fossil fuel use and dependency.
> Purchase Price versus Monthly payments
> People buying a home do not really pay the purchase price. Mortgage
> payments + energy/utility payments are the actual costs one pays to
> live in a home. The best investments add only a few dollars to your
> mortgage payment, but will bring your energy bills down by double or
> triple that amount, saving money from the first month of occupancy.
> Forget the earth, invest in yourself.
> The best investment in our climate is always an air-tight,
> continuously-insulated envelope. Secondly, heating/cooling systems
> since they represent the largest portion of =A0monthly, energy costs.
> Money spent in these two areas can increase monthly-mortgage payments
> slightly, but will dramatically reduce monthly-energy bills.
> Financing offers you the ability to own a home. It also offers an
> opportunity to save alot by spending a little.
> The right building envelope and space conditioning investments
> outperform almost any other investments and dramatically reduces
> environmental impact (if you're into that kinda thing).
> Mortgage + Monthly Energy Bills =3DActual Cost of Home
> example:
> Conventionally built green home
> $750 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 + =A0 =A0 $100 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =
=A0 =A0 =A0 =3D =A0 $850
> Passive Solar, SIP built Green home
> $756 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 + =A0 =A0 $42 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =3D
> $798
> This home would have a higher purchase price and mortgage payment, but
> from the first month of occupancy it would be more affordable. It
> would also be more comfortable, better protected from rising energy
> costs, safe in a winter power outage, and would enjoy a probable,
> higher re-sale value with less days on the market. =A0It would also be
> half of the environmental foot-print of the other "green" home."
Ta, people have simply been brainwashed into this payback nonsense.
When someone puts a weird ugly turret on a McMansion, what is the
'payback'? Why are features having to do with energy consumption
subject to this analysis when others aren't? Why do people renovate
kitchens and baths when the fact that they will never recoup their
investment has been well established for decades?
As the article points out, a well built well insulated house will be
more comfortable to live in and have a better resale value than one
that isn't, and that's no matter what happens to the climate or oil
prices or anything else. Duh.
-tg
> http://www.springtimehomes.com/green_building_costs
|
|
Posted by ta on November 6, 2009, 10:25 am
> > "The Actual Costs of Owning a Home are the MONTHLY COSTS, NOT the
> > Purchase Price
> > Actual Costs =3D Monthly Costs + Hidden Costs
> > It is a misconception that the more we reduce a building's
> > environmental footprint, the more money we have to spend. While it is
> > true that many "greener" options will require more hard earned
> > dollars, the best options will actually save you money from the very
> > first month.
> > Payback is one way of looking at an energy investment. For example: if
> > one spends 30k dollars on a PV solar system, how many months or years
> > will it take to make that money back in lower, monthly energy bills?
> > There are some serious flaws to using a payback approach:
> > 1. Most people finance, which changes the initial purchase price into
> > monthly, mortgage payments.
> > 2. Monthly, energy bills are always rising and increasingly unstable
> > making future calculations only a guess.
> > 3. Payback does not account for the millions of hidden costs
> > associated with nuclear and fossil fuel use and dependency.
> > Purchase Price versus Monthly payments
> > People buying a home do not really pay the purchase price. Mortgage
> > payments + energy/utility payments are the actual costs one pays to
> > live in a home. The best investments add only a few dollars to your
> > mortgage payment, but will bring your energy bills down by double or
> > triple that amount, saving money from the first month of occupancy.
> > Forget the earth, invest in yourself.
> > The best investment in our climate is always an air-tight,
> > continuously-insulated envelope. Secondly, heating/cooling systems
> > since they represent the largest portion of =A0monthly, energy costs.
> > Money spent in these two areas can increase monthly-mortgage payments
> > slightly, but will dramatically reduce monthly-energy bills.
> > Financing offers you the ability to own a home. It also offers an
> > opportunity to save alot by spending a little.
> > The right building envelope and space conditioning investments
> > outperform almost any other investments and dramatically reduces
> > environmental impact (if you're into that kinda thing).
> > Mortgage + Monthly Energy Bills =3DActual Cost of Home
> > example:
> > Conventionally built green home
> > $750 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 + =A0 =A0 $100 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0=
=A0 =A0 =A0 =3D =A0 $850
> > Passive Solar, SIP built Green home
> > $756 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 + =A0 =A0 $42 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =3D
> > $798
> > This home would have a higher purchase price and mortgage payment, but
> > from the first month of occupancy it would be more affordable. It
> > would also be more comfortable, better protected from rising energy
> > costs, safe in a winter power outage, and would enjoy a probable,
> > higher re-sale value with less days on the market. =A0It would also be
> > half of the environmental foot-print of the other "green" home."
> Ta, people have simply been brainwashed into this payback nonsense.
> When someone puts a weird ugly turret on a McMansion, what is the
> 'payback'? =A0Why are features having to do with energy consumption
> subject to this analysis when others aren't? =A0Why do people renovate
> kitchens and baths when the fact that they will never recoup their
> investment has been well established for decades?
I agree with you that cost/benefit should not be the sole
consideration for "building green". But even if you narrowly define
"cost" in terms of constructions costs, it *still* works out in your
favor, even in the short term (depending of course on how "green" you
really go).
> As the article points out, a well built well insulated house will be
> more comfortable to live in and have a better resale value than one
> that isn't, and that's no matter what happens to the climate or oil
> prices or anything else. Duh.
> -tg
> >http://www.springtimehomes.com/green_building_costs
|
|
Posted by tg on November 6, 2009, 11:59 am
> > > "The Actual Costs of Owning a Home are the MONTHLY COSTS, NOT the
> > > Purchase Price
> > > Actual Costs =3D Monthly Costs + Hidden Costs
> > > It is a misconception that the more we reduce a building's
> > > environmental footprint, the more money we have to spend. While it is
> > > true that many "greener" options will require more hard earned
> > > dollars, the best options will actually save you money from the very
> > > first month.
> > > Payback is one way of looking at an energy investment. For example: i=
f
> > > one spends 30k dollars on a PV solar system, how many months or years
> > > will it take to make that money back in lower, monthly energy bills?
> > > There are some serious flaws to using a payback approach:
> > > 1. Most people finance, which changes the initial purchase price into
> > > monthly, mortgage payments.
> > > 2. Monthly, energy bills are always rising and increasingly unstable
> > > making future calculations only a guess.
> > > 3. Payback does not account for the millions of hidden costs
> > > associated with nuclear and fossil fuel use and dependency.
> > > Purchase Price versus Monthly payments
> > > People buying a home do not really pay the purchase price. Mortgage
> > > payments + energy/utility payments are the actual costs one pays to
> > > live in a home. The best investments add only a few dollars to your
> > > mortgage payment, but will bring your energy bills down by double or
> > > triple that amount, saving money from the first month of occupancy.
> > > Forget the earth, invest in yourself.
> > > The best investment in our climate is always an air-tight,
> > > continuously-insulated envelope. Secondly, heating/cooling systems
> > > since they represent the largest portion of =A0monthly, energy costs.
> > > Money spent in these two areas can increase monthly-mortgage payments
> > > slightly, but will dramatically reduce monthly-energy bills.
> > > Financing offers you the ability to own a home. It also offers an
> > > opportunity to save alot by spending a little.
> > > The right building envelope and space conditioning investments
> > > outperform almost any other investments and dramatically reduces
> > > environmental impact (if you're into that kinda thing).
> > > Mortgage + Monthly Energy Bills =3DActual Cost of Home
> > > example:
> > > Conventionally built green home
> > > $750 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 + =A0 =A0 $100 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =3D =A0 $850
> > > Passive Solar, SIP built Green home
> > > $756 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 + =A0 =A0 $42 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =3D
> > > $798
> > > This home would have a higher purchase price and mortgage payment, bu=
t
> > > from the first month of occupancy it would be more affordable. It
> > > would also be more comfortable, better protected from rising energy
> > > costs, safe in a winter power outage, and would enjoy a probable,
> > > higher re-sale value with less days on the market. =A0It would also b=
e
> > > half of the environmental foot-print of the other "green" home."
> > Ta, people have simply been brainwashed into this payback nonsense.
> > When someone puts a weird ugly turret on a McMansion, what is the
> > 'payback'? =A0Why are features having to do with energy consumption
> > subject to this analysis when others aren't? =A0Why do people renovate
> > kitchens and baths when the fact that they will never recoup their
> > investment has been well established for decades?
> I agree with you that cost/benefit should not be the sole
> consideration for "building green". But even if you narrowly define
> "cost" in terms of constructions costs, it *still* works out in your
> favor, even in the short term (depending of course on how "green" you
> really go).
I'm not so sure, from my research into building. I think you have to
be careful (as with the health care business) not to allow the
discussion to be framed by the opposition, and that's partially what's
going on here. It is all a shell game, and you have to realize how
vulnerable people are to that.
The choice isn't presented as having insulation or not having
insulation; it is presented as a place with those ugly turrets v a
place without them, for the same price. People will always pick the
ugly turrets, because they think that will impress people. So the cost
benefit for them is not the same as it is for us. Face it, with all
the talk about efficient cars, the buzz is still all about cupholders
and 'styling'.
This is a very tough problem, and I don't think it gets solved without
Gummint Socialist building standards. That way there's a level playing
field.
-tg
> > As the article points out, a well built well insulated house will be
> > more comfortable to live in and have a better resale value than one
> > that isn't, and that's no matter what happens to the climate or oil
> > prices or anything else. Duh.
> > -tg
> > >http://www.springtimehomes.com/green_building_costs
|
|
Posted by ta on November 6, 2009, 2:43 pm
> > > > "The Actual Costs of Owning a Home are the MONTHLY COSTS, NOT the
> > > > Purchase Price
> > > > Actual Costs =3D Monthly Costs + Hidden Costs
> > > > It is a misconception that the more we reduce a building's
> > > > environmental footprint, the more money we have to spend. While it =
is
> > > > true that many "greener" options will require more hard earned
> > > > dollars, the best options will actually save you money from the ver=
y
> > > > first month.
> > > > Payback is one way of looking at an energy investment. For example:=
if
> > > > one spends 30k dollars on a PV solar system, how many months or yea=
rs
> > > > will it take to make that money back in lower, monthly energy bills=
?
> > > > There are some serious flaws to using a payback approach:
> > > > 1. Most people finance, which changes the initial purchase price in=
to
> > > > monthly, mortgage payments.
> > > > 2. Monthly, energy bills are always rising and increasingly unstabl=
e
> > > > making future calculations only a guess.
> > > > 3. Payback does not account for the millions of hidden costs
> > > > associated with nuclear and fossil fuel use and dependency.
> > > > Purchase Price versus Monthly payments
> > > > People buying a home do not really pay the purchase price. Mortgage
> > > > payments + energy/utility payments are the actual costs one pays to
> > > > live in a home. The best investments add only a few dollars to your
> > > > mortgage payment, but will bring your energy bills down by double o=
r
> > > > triple that amount, saving money from the first month of occupancy.
> > > > Forget the earth, invest in yourself.
> > > > The best investment in our climate is always an air-tight,
> > > > continuously-insulated envelope. Secondly, heating/cooling systems
> > > > since they represent the largest portion of =A0monthly, energy cost=
s.
> > > > Money spent in these two areas can increase monthly-mortgage paymen=
ts
> > > > slightly, but will dramatically reduce monthly-energy bills.
> > > > Financing offers you the ability to own a home. It also offers an
> > > > opportunity to save alot by spending a little.
> > > > The right building envelope and space conditioning investments
> > > > outperform almost any other investments and dramatically reduces
> > > > environmental impact (if you're into that kinda thing).
> > > > Mortgage + Monthly Energy Bills =3DActual Cost of Home
> > > > example:
> > > > Conventionally built green home
> > > > $750 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 + =A0 =A0 $100 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0=
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =3D =A0 $850
> > > > Passive Solar, SIP built Green home
> > > > $756 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 + =A0 =A0 $42 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =3D
> > > > $798
> > > > This home would have a higher purchase price and mortgage payment, =
but
> > > > from the first month of occupancy it would be more affordable. It
> > > > would also be more comfortable, better protected from rising energy
> > > > costs, safe in a winter power outage, and would enjoy a probable,
> > > > higher re-sale value with less days on the market. =A0It would also=
be
> > > > half of the environmental foot-print of the other "green" home."
> > > Ta, people have simply been brainwashed into this payback nonsense.
> > > When someone puts a weird ugly turret on a McMansion, what is the
> > > 'payback'? =A0Why are features having to do with energy consumption
> > > subject to this analysis when others aren't? =A0Why do people renovat=
e
> > > kitchens and baths when the fact that they will never recoup their
> > > investment has been well established for decades?
> > I agree with you that cost/benefit should not be the sole
> > consideration for "building green". But even if you narrowly define
> > "cost" in terms of constructions costs, it *still* works out in your
> > favor, even in the short term (depending of course on how "green" you
> > really go).
> I'm not so sure, from my research into building.
So you're not buying the math provided by the builder above?
> I think you have to
> be careful (as with the health care business) not to allow the
> discussion to be framed by the opposition, and that's partially what's
> going on here. =A0It is all a shell game, and you have to realize how
> vulnerable people are to that.
> The choice isn't presented as having insulation or not having
> insulation; it is presented as a place with those ugly turrets v a
> place without them, for the same price. People will always pick the
> ugly turrets, because they think that will impress people. So the cost
> benefit for them is not the same as it is for us. =A0Face it, with all
> the talk about efficient cars, the buzz is still all about cupholders
> and 'styling'.
> This is a very tough problem, and I don't think it gets solved without
> Gummint Socialist building standards. That way there's a level playing
> field.
> -tg
NC has implemented some "healthy built home" standards, which helps
set the bar at least minimally low.
http://healthybuilthomes.org/
> > > As the article points out, a well built well insulated house will be
> > > more comfortable to live in and have a better resale value than one
> > > that isn't, and that's no matter what happens to the climate or oil
> > > prices or anything else. Duh.
> > > -tg
> > > >http://www.springtimehomes.com/green_building_costs
|
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 > last >>
| Similar Threads | Posted | | The Benefits Of Building With Steel | October 13, 2007, 12:47 pm |
| Little green airlines? | June 2, 2008, 1:46 am |
| "Green" Construction | December 11, 2008, 9:32 pm |
| Therma-Green Corporation | January 7, 2008, 4:32 pm |
| Dwyer Green Building | September 16, 2008, 1:58 am |
| green roofs in Mexico | April 20, 2009, 3:15 pm |
| Information On Any Subject FREE From the Green Machine | September 24, 2006, 3:52 pm |
| MEEF CyberShow Top Ten Green Products in 2006 | December 27, 2006, 12:36 pm |
| Green building products for home improvement | September 6, 2008, 1:50 am |
| Mint Green: a wild and wicked approach to roofing a cabin | August 11, 2007, 12:18 pm |
|
|
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap
> Purchase Price
> Actual Costs =3D Monthly Costs + Hidden Costs
> It is a misconception that the more we reduce a building's
> environmental footprint, the more money we have to spend. While it is
> true that many "greener" options will require more hard earned
> dollars, the best options will actually save you money from the very
> first month.
> Payback is one way of looking at an energy investment. For example: if
> one spends 30k dollars on a PV solar system, how many months or years
> will it take to make that money back in lower, monthly energy bills?
> There are some serious flaws to using a payback approach:
> 1. Most people finance, which changes the initial purchase price into
> monthly, mortgage payments.
> 2. Monthly, energy bills are always rising and increasingly unstable
> making future calculations only a guess.
> 3. Payback does not account for the millions of hidden costs
> associated with nuclear and fossil fuel use and dependency.
> Purchase Price versus Monthly payments
> People buying a home do not really pay the purchase price. Mortgage
> payments + energy/utility payments are the actual costs one pays to
> live in a home. The best investments add only a few dollars to your
> mortgage payment, but will bring your energy bills down by double or
> triple that amount, saving money from the first month of occupancy.
> Forget the earth, invest in yourself.
> The best investment in our climate is always an air-tight,
> continuously-insulated envelope. Secondly, heating/cooling systems
> since they represent the largest portion of =A0monthly, energy costs.
> Money spent in these two areas can increase monthly-mortgage payments
> slightly, but will dramatically reduce monthly-energy bills.
> Financing offers you the ability to own a home. It also offers an
> opportunity to save alot by spending a little.
> The right building envelope and space conditioning investments
> outperform almost any other investments and dramatically reduces
> environmental impact (if you're into that kinda thing).
> Mortgage + Monthly Energy Bills =3DActual Cost of Home
> example:
> Conventionally built green home
> $750 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 + =A0 =A0 $100 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =