Actually, it's a harder sell when you quantify it- people seem to want simple-payback in 3-7 years or fuggedaboudit! (Which is a ridiculously high discount rate, of course.) Only the accountants cozy up to quantifying it.

It's an easier sell to do the walk-through when its 5F outside and let them feel for themselves that the walls & windows don't feel cold, and how it's hard to tell with your eyes closed whether you're standing next to a window or not.

It's an easier sell to do the walk-through when its 5F outside

Unfortunately, that leaves very few days when you can sell your house. None of them in the prime sales period.

There will always be a few people that will believe you when you wave your arms and say "much greener" and "more comfortable". But they will probably end up buying the house with radiant barriers.

"For example, air to water heat pump based systems where you could use water or even ice tanks as storage."

There are examples of that now on large and small scales: http://www.ice-energy.com/ice-bear-energy-storage-system

I agree. The first real challenge is overcoming the wasteful habits our civilization has become so accustomed to - just look at some of the facts on the waste habits of North America alone on this page about home renovation debris. The second is getting people to invest for returns tomorrow rather than right now! Believe me, I know, convincing someone to pay $XX,XXXX or even $X,XXX for savings in the long-term is a long-shot in itself.

Posted By McFish on 21 Apr 2014 04:11 PM
Of course, a knowledgeable investor/buyer would only pay current cost of a PV system; since PV costs are declining rapidly, that component is getting smaller.

What is "current cost"? Cost to add to new construction, to their exisitng home? Labor rates increase yearly with inflation - the overall product/system cost may be approaching the point where installation/work will force a minimum pricepoint.

Just wanted to throw my 2 cents in on this debate as I too am trying to build a super insulated home. The ROI is probably minimal because here in texas, homes are thrown up like cardboard boxes. Nobody seems interested in savings, and bigger is always better in everyone's mind set. So with a bigger house is higher utilities and that's ok with these folks. My theory is if it makes you feel good and you break even at the end, you won the game.

On another note, oil prices are dropping and there will be some wide spread job losses in the energy sector. Houston may get hit hard, and while everyone is enjoying the lower gas cost, your electric bills won't be dropping anytime soon. Funny thing is with the holidays right around the corner, news agencies are all a buzz about the economy is booming right now. Maybe for the Chinese, as we don't buy made in USA anymore. So it's going to be interesting to see what happens as oil companies start to shut down and opec brings oil back to 150 a barrel next year.

Bryan1978: In Houston's climate you get a lot more out of designing in some thermal mass and designing out solar-gain from windows than you get out of high-R.

Avoiding stupid-attacks like installing air handlers & ducts in an unconditioned attic above the insulation, creating dozens of unnecessary penetrations of the air-barrier is also key.

The cost-adder for getting to "Net Zero Ready" is small to none in most of TX- it's more about the design (and implementing it correctly), than it is about high-R or super-performance windows. As the price of PV continues to crash, going Net Zero putting the PV on a 30 year mortgage will likely have favorable monthly cash flows on day-1 in much of TX too. IIRC The Peoples Republic of Austin will be requiring Net Zero Ready for all new home construction beginning in 2015.

people seem to want simple-payback in 3-7 years

That's because that's how long they intend to keep the home. There is no sense at all of creating a home that will save energy over it's entire lifetime. Only as long as they own it.

Posted By ICFHybrid on 26 Nov 2014 08:34 PM

people seem to want simple-payback in 3-7 years

That's because that's how long they intend to keep the home. There is no sense at all of creating a home that will save energy over it's entire lifetime. Only as long as they own it.

Unless you can take your PV (panels, inverter, batteries) with you to the new home.

Assuming correct orientation and slanting of the roof can PV panels replace shingles? That way the extra cost for PV panels is less and the payback shorter.

Unless you can take your PV (panels, inverter, batteries) with you to the new home.

You can buy and install a new set for the new home. That way there will be two energy-saving, less polluting homes out there instead of just one.

If you look carefully, what I said was that there was no sense OF creating an energy saving home, not that there was no sense IN creating one.

Posted By joe.ami on 27 Apr 2014 10:16 AM
"I think Slenzen framed the discussion nicely. I would like to see the data as well. His point about education is a very valid argument to put forth."

I hope part of the "education" we refer to is that the value of high performance houses is not just a math problem. How about comfort.

I think that to a certain extent math and comfort are the same. I'm no contractor so my experience is based on just a few cases but what I see is this:
For the ease of explanation lets assume 71F is the ideal room temperature. People with air tight well insulated houses set their thermostat at 71F.
When setting the thermostat at 71F in a leaky house the temperature will be 71F too. But because it's leaky there are all sorts of uncomfortable drafts. Usually you can't really locate them like a open window but the house just doesn't feel well. That's 'solved' by setting the thermostat to 73F.

I don't know if there is any scientific basis for the above but if there is, I think load calculations shouldn't be based on room temperature but on how hot it feels.
A leaky house requires more energy to heat to the same temp as a non leaky house. And requires even more energy to heat to the same comfort level.
I hope anyone understands what I mean because I have a hard time explaining this...

Posted By ICFHybrid on 27 Nov 2014 10:48 AM

Unless you can take your PV (panels, inverter, batteries) with you to the new home.

You can buy and install a new set for the new home. That way there will be two energy-saving, less polluting homes out there instead of just one.

If you look carefully, what I said was that there was no sense OF creating an energy saving home, not that there was no sense IN creating one.

My reply wasn't based on IN or OF. It was based on the discussion which is the payback time most people want. That period is often based on how long they stay in their house. And that was what I was answering. People who stay 5 years in a house usually don't install things that pay back in 5+ years. They only think with their wallet, not if they are being green or not. For such people it would be nice to take their PV stuff with them to their other home when they will start benefitting financially from their investment.

For such people it would be nice to take their PV stuff with them to their other home

Oh. It's that time of year when you have to look at a bunch of college application essays and think critically about writing habits.

Maybe people should consider taking it with them, but what's the cost to move it these days versus the cost of springing for it in the first place? I can't remember how long its been since people actually wanted to bring their appliances with them during a move. Maybe back in college.... :-) The cost of PV arrays has gone down tremendously. It's only attitudes that haven't changed near as much.

SubZeros and Wolfs don't move and their cost is north of $10K per unit. Saw Kyocera panels advertised at $0.99/watt the other day. That makes a 10 kW array cost about as much as a "professional" range. Maybe quite a bit less considering the labor and incidental materiel costs to de-install and re-install the PV.

What's the payback time on granite countertops, I wonder? They don't move either, but that doesn't stop people from putting them in to the tune of $10K or $20K no matter how long they plan to stay.

Please read and try to understand my previous post. If you can't college may be a good option.

Get of your high horse.

I think what you are saying is that people are tremendously shortsighted and selfish. Moreover, they're willing to help mortgage their children's future by wasting fossil fuels for some worthless and gratuitous "luxury" like granite instead of investing in PV panels.

I'm curious what you think a "high horse" is. This is, after all, a green building blog, isn't it?

It often seems like the amount of effort that someone devotes to satisfying a ROI criteria is inversely proportional to amount of disposable income that they possess. Someone with much disposable income will readily purchase luxury items that may not have any ROI at all. Someone with little disposable income (or someone who just cares about how they spend their disposable income) will do a very careful ROI analysis before spending their disposable income on energy efficient house items. Given that the number of people with little disposable income far exceeds the number of people with much disposable income by a wide margin, this would imply that energy efficient house items will need to pass ROI scrutiny before they will gain wide acceptance.

his would imply that energy efficient house items will need to pass ROI scrutiny before they will gain wide acceptance

Sure, I think we all realize that uphill battle. But, how do granite countertops and luxury appliances generate ROI? All they've ever done for my friends is generate stunningly expensive service calls.

I would not classify granite countertops as passing ROI scrutiny. I would not classify granite countertops as being energy efficient house items either…unless one places them next to passive solar fenestration and uses them as a thermal mass, LOL! People who spend their disposal income on granite countertops likely could care less about expensive service calls or the environment…and likely care more about impressing their friends… However, this is still a free country and people are entitled to spend their disposal income however they want in their misguided pursuit of happiness…no matter how ignorant, selfish or vain that they may be.

Granite is a durable naturally occurring material that isn't ridiculously energy intensive to quarry or freight to the site. Compared to the lifecycle emissions of concrete it's a green DREAM!

Yes it's expensive, but so what? Is a Tesla somehow less green than a Prius or Leaf by virtue of it's upfront cost?

Most people want to live in a house that suits their taste & comfort- it's not merely an investment vehicle with minimum IRR requirements on every aspect. Stone finishes (even marble staircases) aren't particularly bad for the enviroment, even if they're not as renewable as bamboo or wood, or as cheap as concrete or ceramic.