Would you pay more for an enviromentally friendly house?

Question

New technology such as solar water heating throughout the house are available now. I'm wondering if its worth putting this inside my house.

Answer 1

No

Answer 2

I can't even pay for a regular house, so my answer is no

Answer 3

First go for superinsulation and super-sealing everything.  This will minimize the heating and airconditioning cost whatever you do.  It is the cheapest way to save future $.

Next look at solar heating.  If you are talking about putting this into your existing home, check out Nick Pine's "solar closet" stuff.  A well insulated sunroom or just home built solar collectors could add a large portion of the heat to a well insulated hoouse.

Solar water heating poses the problem of antifreeze or drainback, but significant savings are available because you can collect heat in the summer when it is easiest to collect.

Save the photovoltaic panels for last.  Generating your own electricity sounds really cool, but it is high in cost and maintenance for relatively low return.  If you go online and price out a system that can replace your existing electric utility power you may find a price tag that exceeds $50,000.  Hard to somehow turn that into a savings.

BuildItSolar.com has lots of ideas, too.

Answer 4

If people can afford it, it is a great idea, but Middle Class America cannot afford this as the price of a House has jumped Sky High. Also the Disabled Community cannot afford it either.

Answer 5

definitely, i do and i know many of my close friends would too. the thing is that politicians/big org would never invest in those green energy theyd prefer spend trillions into wars for fuel...

Answer 6

I would if it were cost effective--but it usually doesn't seem like it is.  

Why does it have to cost so darn much to save the planet?

Answer 7

Yes and so do many people. Building Energy Rating in Europe is showing people how expensive non-environmentally friendly house designs are to run and a price differential is already occuring. Invest as much as you can in renewables, passive solar design etc and it will pay for itself in reduced running costs and leave you with a house worth more in the future.

Answer 8

Absolutely, because not only will I be helping to save the planet, but it would be cheaper to run in the long run.

Answer 9

I have been looking into the same thing.  It seems that solar power for a new home is more expensive up front, but the reduction in electric and gas bills is phenominal.  The systems vary in price.  I was interested in getting the shingles that have a thirty year warranty.  With these shingles I would get rid of large gaudy panels and a section of my south facing roof 10' by 10' would be enough to produce 2kW.  For more information about different solar items and prices check this site. <<>>http://www.powerupco.com/panels/unisolar...

Answer 10

Yep. You will have lower energy bills each month. Plus, when you sell the house, it's a great selling point because the new owners they will have lower energy bills.

Answer 11

no

the cost of home are bad enought smart building in the first place will make it more enviormentally sound

like location place it near a tree where you will get shade in the winter

get better quality windows and doors and insulate the walls more

that is the most i am going to do

Answer 12

Certain things such as solar water heating and home solar electricity do make economic sense in some areas.  I had a solar water heating in my house three homes ago, and our monthly utility bills were tiny.  It's a worthwhile investment that can pay for itself over time

Generally speaking though, no, I couldn't afford to pay any more, not in California.  Over the past few years the cost of building permits and other government fees has driven the cost of new homes far too high in California so at the moment I can't buy a house at all.  Builders have to charge an additional markup on top of all government fees to please their accountants in their "profit margin" calculations, so the final cost fo the government fees to the builder gets multiplied by the time we see it incorporated into the home sales price. The fees were increased dramatically in recent years to pay for other tax cuts, a way of sneaking the cost right back to us (although much less equitably distributed).  

The rising cost of new homes allowed all resale homes to go up as well.  Then people took out loans on the higher value, so values dipped and interest rates went up, people couldn't refinance to fixed rate loans and foreclosures started.  Now California is at the front of the mortgage/banking industry issues.  

In California we need to take cost out of home ownership, not add more in.  Reduce building fees, and provide tax credits for building and living choices that reduce the need for new power plants: shared walls, solar, etc.  In the Southwest a tremendous amount of energy savings can be realized by requiring elements of passive solar design, without adding noticeably to the costs.