Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Zero energy ready homes are coming

energy.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 454 posts

Re: Zero energy ready homes are coming

#221

Post by coffeebeqn »

jimt1234 wrote: post #91
s1artibartfast wrote: post #13

This is a pet issue of mine, having lived in two off grid homes going back to the 80's. The barriers are not materials, technology, or labor, but purely regulatory. I could take my current home off permanently grid with solar today for less than 10k but to do so would be illegal. Permitted grid connected solar costs 5x that and disconnecting from the grid is not permitted.

I'm just curious: what happens if a home owner installs a bunch of solar panels and batteries, declares the property "off grid" (for electricity), then simply stops paying the local utility. I'm sure the local utility will stop service, which is what the home owner wants by going "off grid". But does it go beyond that? Will the local utility put a lien on the house? Will the local utility send any unpaid "fees" to co…

Paying for what? You pay for the kWh you use and the transfer of said energy. If you don’t use any energy or disconnect your service I don’t see why would that be a problem

Re: Zero energy ready homes are coming

#222

Post by rr888 »

pchristensen wrote: post #159
johnweldon wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Generally speaking, people will always choose to spend money living as close to their ideal as they can, with the resources they are able to give toward it. The fact that so many people choose to live in suburbs, or the "sticks", suggests that there is something desirable to _them_ about living there. I.e. the same spending power required to live in a house in the suburbs, or rurally, could usually be used to live in…

No one is questioning that people want to live in suburbs. People object to the government power preventing any additional development in these low density areas. These areas are desirable, but economically uncompetitive.

> economically uncompetitive

How can you say that? Usually nice suburbs pay huge amount in taxes that subsidize urban cores.

Re: Zero energy ready homes are coming

#223

Post by coffeebeqn »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #74
aclatuts wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Disconnecting from the grid is overly romanticized. What you get from paying the utilities is a team of people who will fix equipment issues due to failure or the environment. If your home battery system has issues, scheduling someone could take a day or more. Off grid electrical services isn't popular enough to be on call 24/7. And getting parts may get take even more time. Equipment failure could take your electric…

I totally agree that it is not for everybody, but I think there is a place for it and think there should be fewer barriers . I've seen a few people quoted more than 500K for PG&E to run power to their house. That can buy a lot of redundancy and peace of mind. Similarly, many cities have power outages longer than 24 hours on an annual basis in California. At this point most people in my neighborhood have gas generator…

Heck for 500k you can start your own Solar power plant and serve the neighborhood

Re: Zero energy ready homes are coming

#224

Post by loeg »

hahaxdxd123 wrote: post #110
onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is all very expensive to build and maintain, and the cities and municipalities are left to foot the bill. Look, I hate Single Family Housing as much as anyone - but roads are BY FAR the most expensive part of infrastructure you mentioned - and those are financed by gasoline taxes. If the people in the sticks are buying a lot of gas, they're paying a lot more taxes for the roads, too. It'd be nice if property t…

> Look, I hate Single Family Housing as much as anyone - but roads are BY FAR the most expensive part of infrastructure you mentioned - and those are financed by gasoline taxes. I don't think that's true. Gasoline taxes aren't high enough to pay for roads. https://frontiergroup.org/resources/who-pays-roads/ It seems as of 2015, 50% of road related costs came out of general taxes. And as gas taxes have remained fairly…

> It seems as of 2015, 50% of road related costs came out of general taxes.

Note that in the context of the "half came from gas taxes," the article is only talking about highway funding. Local road funding isn't covered by Fed gas taxes at all.

Re: Zero energy ready homes are coming

#225

Post by johnweldon »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #215
johnweldon wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A major reason for the preference is the lower price per square foot in the suburbs than in higher density areas. I think that's a big part of it, but also people choose suburbs and rural living for reasons more to do with quality of life rather than cost.

Which is fine. The proposal isn't a law against low density housing, it's to remove the laws against high density housing.

I think the original comment proposal was (my, slightly sarcastic, paraphrase) "stop incentivizing anything but urban infrastructure and living, everything else is a ponzi scheme"

I agree with your proposal.

I have no objection to removing laws against high density housing.

Re: Zero energy ready homes are coming

#226

Post by IncRnd »

xthrown1 wrote: post #182
prottog wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cities pay market price for food coming from the hinterlands but at the same time they pay a subsidy to the same hinterlands that grow that same food? Doesn't sound like market price anymore. It's nonsensical to say that just because the tax receipts of a suburb doesn't pay in full its roads and bridges, its existence is necessarily subsidized by the rest. Does a city pay in full for its share of the US Navy whose pr…

The majority of US taxes come from cities. It's the hinterlands that are free riding on the US armed forces.

> It's the hinterlands that are free riding on the US armed forces.

Yet.

"In every region of the country, recruitment rates were higher in rural and exurban counties than in urban counties. Only urban counties in the South had recruitment rates above the national average. Cities in the Northeast, Midwest and West all had rates well below the national average." [1]

[1] https://dailyyonder.com/largest-share-army-recruits-come-rur...

Re: Zero energy ready homes are coming

#227

Post by coffeebeqn »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #86
boringg wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually rooftop solar isn't dirt cheap where we are. And typically requires an electric service upgrade - you also need to make sure you aren't near the end of your roof life as you'll need to upgrade your roof as well. I'm all for it where it makes sense but it isn't a blanket statement.

I mean dirt cheap and absence of cumbersome regulations and requirements. For example, you can find panels as low as $0.07/kwh these days. My primary complaint is in agreement; solar is not cheap once you take them into account

What period of time is that kWh over?

Re: Zero energy ready homes are coming

#228

Post by coffeebeqn »

jedberg wrote: post #29
s1artibartfast wrote: post #13

This is a pet issue of mine, having lived in two off grid homes going back to the 80's. The barriers are not materials, technology, or labor, but purely regulatory. I could take my current home off permanently grid with solar today for less than 10k but to do so would be illegal. Permitted grid connected solar costs 5x that and disconnecting from the grid is not permitted.

How would you get enough panels and all the support equipment for $10K if there were no regulations? I'm looking into it right now and I don't see a path to that.

Buying used panels bulk, DIY most of the the install.. I’m not sure how much kWh you would end up with but could be a decent amount. Battery storage is probably the most expensive part if you want overnight power

Re: Zero energy ready homes are coming

#229

Post by pxeboot »

johnweldon wrote: post #140
xyst wrote: post #64

I just see this as another subsidy for single family housing developments. The home may be "zero energy ready" or whatever greenwashing term they want to use. But the fact is they are spending that energy in driving from the sticks (in some cases >20 miles away) and back, driving from their home to the grocery store and back, driving to areas of interest (ie, parks, restaurants, doctors appointments). All of this is…

Generally speaking, people will always choose to spend money living as close to their ideal as they can, with the resources they are able to give toward it. The fact that so many people choose to live in suburbs, or the "sticks", suggests that there is something desirable to _them_ about living there. I.e. the same spending power required to live in a house in the suburbs, or rurally, could usually be used to live in…

>The fact that so many people choose to live in suburbs, or the "sticks", suggests that there is something desirable to _them_ about living there.

Many people I know would rather live in the city, but the upfront cost of a house in the suburbs are much lower.

Re: Zero energy ready homes are coming

#230

Post by johnweldon »

masfuerte wrote: post #197
yieldcrv wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Convince them not to want it

Stop convincing them to want it

My somewhat libertarian take is that they themselves are best suited to judge what they should or shouldn't want.

Not that there isn't a time for trying to bring a different perspective. But we should do it with humility, rather than assuming they're just wrong or misguided.

So... yes "stop convincing them" is a valid argument. "convince them not to" is slightly shakier moral ground.

Post reply on HN