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.
Oh, and perhaps some of those new homes and mcmansions that were built, may of had to adhere to more strict building codes. Such as requiring a heat pump be installed for homes the colder climates, or solar shingles installed in the southwest region.
Heat pumps are much less energy efficient in colder regions. They are only adequate to a median temperature of 35 degrees, below that the electric heat strips, which use 4-5 times the energy, are on almost continuously. This is why you rarely see them above the Mason-Dixon line.
You may be referring to geothermal though which is a different animal altogether, and quite efficient. They are expensive to initially install though, roughly 20k for a standard house.
I have inspected (I am a building inspector) several "passive" solar houses in my area and they are extremely efficient by design, and not overly expensive to build in relation to standard construction cost. If you build one and are willing to stay for 5 plus years it would easily pay for itself. As this type of construction becomes more prevalent, the costs associated will drastically reduce.
Heat pumps are much less energy efficient in colder regions. They are only adequate to a median temperature of 35 degrees, below that the electric heat strips, which use 4-5 times the energy, are on almost continuously. This is why you rarely see them above the Mason-Dixon line.
You may be referring to geothermal though which is a different animal altogether, and quite efficient. They are expensive to initially install though, roughly 20k for a standard house.
I have inspected (I am a building inspector) several "passive" solar houses in my area and they are extremely efficient by design, and not overly expensive to build in relation to standard construction cost. If you build one and are willing to stay for 5 plus years it would easily pay for itself. As this type of construction becomes more prevalent, the costs associated will drastically reduce.
Heat pumps are much less energy efficient in colder regions. They are only adequate to a median temperature of 35 degrees, below that the electric heat strips, which use 4-5 times the energy, are on almost continuously. This is why you rarely see them above the Mason-Dixon line.
You may be referring to geothermal though which is a different animal altogether, and quite efficient. They are expensive to initially install though, roughly 20k for a standard house.
I have inspected (I am a building inspector) several "passive" solar houses in my area and they are extremely efficient by design, and not overly expensive to build in relation to standard construction cost. If you build one and are willing to stay for 5 plus years it would easily pay for itself. As this type of construction becomes more prevalent, the costs associated will drastically reduce.
Yes, I meant geotherrmal, sometimes they used to refer to them as a heat pump around here, but they are so important in cold climates to reduce energy consumption. They save about half on your bill. About all they are is a vertical tube or coiled tubing buried in the back yard, with an electric air pump hooked into the furnace.
Tried to talk a friend into getting one for their new house they had built a couple years ago. He didnt do it, and then winter came along and he's complaining about his $600 heat bill for Feb last year. I tried to talk him out of buying the place to begin with, oh well. For new construction, I support new codes that require them. Is 20K that much, if it pays for itself in 5 years, and costs about 10% give or take, of the entire construction ?
Yes, I meant geotherrmal, sometimes they used to refer to them as a heat pump around here, but they are so important in cold climates to reduce energy consumption. They save about half on your bill. About all they are is a vertical tube or coiled tubing buried in the back yard, with an electric air pump hooked into the furnace.
Tried to talk a friend into getting one for their new house they had built a couple years ago. He didnt do it, and then winter came along and he's complaining about his $600 heat bill for Feb last year. I tried to talk him out of buying the place to begin with, oh well. For new construction, I support new codes that require them. Is 20K that much, if it pays for itself in 5 years, and costs about 10% give or take, of the entire construction ?
Geo-thermals are great. When I finally move to the house I will be in for a long time (once the kids are all gone) I will probably install one. My parents neighbor has had one for about a dozen years with zero problems. I guess the price tag in regards to new construction would be dependant on the price point of the house. I would find it a hard sell in a 150k starter home, for example. The main expense is running pipes 125' underground in a vertical loop setup or ~10' underground (depending on frost line) over a long span for a horizontal. It makes perfect sense to start at 50 plus degrees as a baseline instead of 20 or less! It really helps more on the a/c side in my area. We get two months of 95 high humidity days, but winters tend to be mild. I am starting to see better energy efficiency practices implemented on the more expensive homes, but rarely geo-thermal setups. I imagine in 10-15 years it will be more common.
My ideal house would be stone and log with a monolithic slab...and a Hyperion mini-nuclear reactor.
$600 heating bills, ouch!
Not off topic at all, IMO. Those big houses that were built during the boom use alot of electric and natural gas. That just drives up the demand for fossile fuels, and costs everyone more, even those trying to save energy. If anyone would of, Al Gore would of pushed for stricter codes. This is a crying over spilled milk thread to me, but its the fools that say they would vote for GW over again, that blow me away.
I hope everyone knows that these huge deficits and bailout expenditures will have to be paid for soon. And "growing the economy" is not going to happen to provide the extra revenue needed over the next four years. Increased taxes are just around the corner, and this is why I would prefer Obama in there, because he wont stick it to the middle class. The rich made out pretty good under GW, had their taxes cut, with plenty of pork in key sectors to profit and gain. They should be the ones to pay the bill this time.
I also want UHC done right to save us on medical costs like the way most other countries do it, but thats a different topic. GW has shaken my faith in the republican party, I want to see what the democrats will do over the next four years with their man in the whitehouse. It better be tax and pay the bill, not tax and spend. We may need to abandon both parties and find some new ones if they fail.
Many people say the President does not really have that much impact on the economy. I strongly disagree. If Al Gore would have won the Presidency things would be greatly different:
We would have an environmentally progressive energy policy and gasoline would not cost so much
"Progressive energy policy" (read "socialist")
Is this really what you want?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Refugee56
We would not be in Iraq (Saddam would be in power but closely monitored by the International Community)
And, we would have probably been attacked again, several times, with even more devastating results, paling 9/11 in comparison, because the terrorists had other plans in work. Gore would not have taken any action after 9/11, preferring instead to seek legal action (as if it were possible) and cry to the U.N., which wouldn't do anything anyway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Refugee56
The credit crisis would not have occurred due to tougher regulations and anti trust regulation
It was the Democrats that relaxed the regulations in the first place, and it is Democrats that are in control of Freddie and Fanney, so why would they do anything different than what they have already done? They caused this mess. This started under Bill Clinton. It was his administration that created the crisis. It has only just now come to a head.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Refugee56
How else would the current issues facing America be different if Al Gore was wrapping up his second term this year?
Perhaps the upside of that scenario would be that the Democrats would never be allowed to return to power again (if Gore had even been allowed a second term, which I doubt)
And, we would have probably been attacked again, several times, with even more devastating results, paling 9/11 in comparison, because the terrorists had other plans in work. Gore would not have taken any action after 9/11, preferring instead to seek legal action (as if it were possible) and cry to the U.N., which wouldn't do anything anyway.
It was the Democrats that relaxed the regulations in the first place, and it is Democrats that are in control of Freddie and Fanney, so why would they do anything different than what they have already done? They caused this mess. This started under Bill Clinton. It was his administration that created the crisis. It has only just now come to a head.
Perhaps the upside of that scenario would be that the Democrats would never be allowed to return to power again (if Gore had even been allowed a second term, which I doubt)
Thank God, we didn't elect him!
Oh yes, Thank God!
Tell me how the hell we can be in worse shape? One would have to be a drooling idiot to want a dry drunk like Bush and Vampire leech SOB such as Cheney running the show. McCain is in bed with Phil Graham, the pig that de-regulated Wall Street so that he and others like him could suck the blood out of the sap American working guy. Are you blind to what has just transpired here? The Bush Crime Family, which McCain is part of, turned Wall Street into a private Casino..and you are thanking God that Gore was not in the White House? Donald freakin' Duck would have done a better job than this vile administration. They have hacked away at this country. We are up the creek and they will retire to Dubai, laughing their fat, ugly asses off at how it easy it was to dupe America. They have wiped those same fat, ugly butts with our Constitution, and you are thankful! For shame on you, to make such a comment. Do you even know who Phil Gramm is? Do you have a clue to what has transpired here? I think not. What action after 9/11 did W take? Huh? He attacked and occupied a sovereign nation to enrich his war mongering cronies. DId he get Osama Bin Laden? They have bankrupted our treasury and the tax payer will foot the bill. They have killed and maimed thousands and they will retire to enjoy their riches. The only God they bow to is the almighty dollar and they defecate on the citizens of this country.
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.
