I hate planet earth.

[StageLeft]

I came across solar water heaters just now, they use solar panels on the house thermally to heat the water in your house. finehomebuilding.com said that in the north east they can take about 80% of the water heating bill out of a typical home. I googled this claim and another link said that their cost really is not bad and that you can typically get return on investment in 4-8 years. They last for 15-20, so it would make sense. There are also some tax incentives to this.

Has anybody done this? I know that solar electric panels on my house are absolutely not a cost-effective thing to do and still only their for dreamers and people who love mother earth, but what about a solar water heater or other such things?

 

[destrekor]

meh... just go to your nearest forest, chop down trees, cut up into log chunks, throw into a giant bin that has a large enclosed water container above it, light fire, and voila - natural water heater.

 

[FoBoT]

my dad did that 30 years ago
he tapped the cold water inlet to the hot water heater and ran it outside the house to a black garden hose that he unwound on top of the roof and then routed it back down into the house and into the water heater
cost like, $3.50 or whatever to do it

worked quite well

 

[Strk]

Geothermal heat pumps are pretty nice for home heating too

The cost is around double a regular furnace, but they reduce heating bills between 30-60%, so in a cold climate, you would recoup the cost pretty quickly. It seems a lot of the heating, cooling and electronics (appliances, TVs and other stuff with high energy star ratings) stuff is worthwhile if you're going to do the upgrade anyway. The one that seems to be kind of lousy still is electricity. Solar panels cost too much. It takes too long to recoup the cost on those.

 

[kalrith]

I think more basic things like focusing on holding the heat/cool in are more cost-effective. Things like extra insulation, sealing everything, possibly replacing windows, etc. I would think a good wood stove could be a good investment, especially if you're able to find firewood for free.

 

[SphinxnihpS]

Fires always make sense.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: kalrith
I think more basic things like focusing on holding the heat/cool in are more cost-effective. Things like extra insulation, sealing everything, possibly replacing windows, etc. I would think a good wood stove could be a good investment, especially if you're able to find firewood for free.

Don't get me wrong, that stuff can make a huge difference, but windows specifically are expensive. While the improvement can be pretty big, replacing windows can go well into the thousands.

 

[Bu B3ar]

solar panels on your house do make sense if you're willing to invest in enough of them. in the US you can get what are called RECs, or Renewable Energy Credits, which are earned for a certain amnt of MWh produced. You can sell the RECs on the market, and have been known to fetch anywhere from $70-$700. You can use all the power you generate, you don't have to sell that, although if you do generate more than you use you can sell it back to the grid as well. b/w the tax incentives, the reduced energy costs, and the profits from selling the RECs, you pay off your system in about 10-15 years, leaving 5-15 years of earning power, depending on your panels.

the water heater is def worth it, assuming you get enough sun and you use enough hot water. spend a little more upfront, and you end up making $$ in the long run. new solar panels are quite durrable, and are getting increasingly more efficient.

 

[vi edit]

Originally posted by: kalrith
I think more basic things like focusing on holding the heat/cool in are more cost-effective. Things like extra insulation, sealing everything, possibly replacing windows, etc. I would think a good wood stove could be a good investment, especially if you're able to find firewood for free.

The home I'm getting ready to have built for me adheres to that concept. Instead of having low energy using HVAC units, have a house that needs less instead. (of course a combination of the two is even better).

Our builder has some very unique construction techniques that prevent heat loss and has some pretty insane with his insulating methods. The house is thermal imaged after it's done for heat loss and then certifed by an Energy Star surveyor if it meets their ratings.

He has 4200 sq/ft homes in the midwest averaging about $150 a month in gas & electric bills.

That "Energy Star" package cost me about an $4,000 which is still a bit less than geothermal or other sorts of hybrid setups. Other builders would much rather throw a 2nd HVAC unit or zoned unit on there but with the insulating techniques this guy uses those really aren't necessary.

 

[BassBomb]

winter might pose a problem to the solar panels if you attach it to your roof

 

[MrWizzard]

Dad did that in our house, the setup was like 5 big panels. 4x6 I think maybe a bit bigger.

During the summer our gas bill would go to almost 0 because of it. Was well worth it, while it worked, Big pain to get down while the roof was being re-roofed though.

We also insulated all the hot water pipes too.

 

[kalrith]

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: kalrith
I think more basic things like focusing on holding the heat/cool in are more cost-effective. Things like extra insulation, sealing everything, possibly replacing windows, etc. I would think a good wood stove could be a good investment, especially if you're able to find firewood for free.

Don't get me wrong, that stuff can make a huge difference, but windows specifically are expensive. While the improvement can be pretty big, replacing windows can go well into the thousands.

This is why I said possibly. Some decent, but not super-insulating, windows might not be worth replacing. However, some older windows might be so drafty that they would warrant the expense of replacing all the windows. There probably are diminishing returns once you get to a certain level of insulating windows and going beyond that to uber-expensive windows probably doesn't warrant the extra expense.

vi edit, It sounds like you went a good route. If you want to add a low-energy HVAC unit later on, you already have good insulation in place to hold that energy inside instead of trying to heat and cool your entire neighborhood.

We bought a house a year ago that was completely remodeled. It had all new windows and they sprayed a bunch of insulation in the attic. It's 1770 sq. ft. not counting the basement, and we used less than 400 gallons of propane ($480 at today's prices) for all of last winter. Our old house was only 900 sq. ft. but had lots of drafts. It cost about the same in natural gas to heat the much-smaller house.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: vi edit

Originally posted by: kalrith
I think more basic things like focusing on holding the heat/cool in are more cost-effective. Things like extra insulation, sealing everything, possibly replacing windows, etc. I would think a good wood stove could be a good investment, especially if you're able to find firewood for free.

The home I'm getting ready to have built for me adheres to that concept. Instead of having low energy using HVAC units, have a house that needs less instead. (of course a combination of the two is even better).

Our builder has some very unique construction techniques that prevent heat loss and has some pretty insane with his insulating methods. The house is thermal imaged after it's done for heat loss and then certifed by an Energy Star surveyor if it meets their ratings.

He has 4200 sq/ft homes in the midwest averaging about $150 a month in gas & electric bills.

That "Energy Star" package cost me about an $4,000 which is still a bit less than geothermal or other sorts of hybrid setups. Other builders would much rather throw a 2nd HVAC unit or zoned unit on there but with the insulating techniques this guy uses those really aren't necessary.

Can you tell me what he's doing for the basement? I have spent probably 10 hours reading about basement insulation in the past couple of weeks. I'm remodeling mine soon and ripping out the batt insulation blankets off the wall and putting rigid insulation up against it only (I may put batts in the stud cavities, too, but no vapor barrier).

Anyway solar electricity still isn't worth it. I'd need like $40k or more to do my house and I don't even use electricity for heating. Plus the panels don't have an infinite lifespan.

winter might pose a problem to the solar panels if you attach it to your roof

Snow doesn't generally sit on the roof but you can deal with this by running warm water through the panels 24/7 or using anti-freeze in them (in which case it just feeds a coil in the heater; your actual water doesn't go to the roof.

 

[vi edit]

Our builder subscribes to this building theory for his basement walls:
http://www.buildingscience.com...i-001-the-perfect-wall

He does block foundations. Then coats it with a very expensive moisture barrier. Then encapsulates it in a couple inches of rigid foam for insulating.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: vi edit
Our builder subscribes to this building theory for his basement walls:
http://www.buildingscience.com...i-001-the-perfect-wall

He does block foundations. Then coats it with a very expensive moisture barrier. Then encapsulates it in a couple inches of rigid foam for insulating.

This link appears to apply to above-ground only (?). I've read what I can find on building science and it, finehomebuilding, and even department of energy (albeit with heavy references back to buildingscience) all are on the rigid bandwagon.

That rigid foam for the basement is he putting it inside? Apparently the absolute best is rigid outside of the basement block but it's still quite tricky to get in place properly and not get destroyed (and not look ugly), so inside flush on the wall is second best. Is he doing the rigid for the basement rim joists, too?

 

[vi edit]

He drops the foam on the outside. He puts nothing on the inside. Not sure what is done on the rim joists. I'm still waiting for my hole to get dug

I'll be sure to take some picks when things get underway.

 

[BassBomb]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

winter might pose a problem to the solar panels if you attach it to your roof

Snow doesn't generally sit on the roof but you can deal with this by running warm water through the panels 24/7 or using anti-freeze in them (in which case it just feeds a coil in the heater; your actual water doesn't go to the roof.

Yeah I don't know what part of NY you are in.

I meant it from the standpoint that snow covering your solar panels could reduce the effecitveness.

How will the water remain heated in the case of rain or no sunlight? Or is it on the spot heating, where it will heat up when you need it (wasting water in that case)

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: BassBomb

Originally posted by: Skoorb

winter might pose a problem to the solar panels if you attach it to your roof

Snow doesn't generally sit on the roof but you can deal with this by running warm water through the panels 24/7 or using anti-freeze in them (in which case it just feeds a coil in the heater; your actual water doesn't go to the roof.

Yeah I don't know what part of NY you are in.

I meant it from the standpoint that snow covering your solar panels could reduce the effecitveness.

How will the water remain heated in the case of rain or no sunlight? Or is it on the spot heating, where it will heat up when you need it (wasting water in that case)

All of these have a backup in case weather is bad, which is electric or gas, so in turn that backup ensures hot water is always in the tank, and that water is what would get pumped back out to ensure they don't freeze. Sounds risky to me--if the power goes out for long you end up with frozen pipes/panels on the roof. I'm not sure in which climates they go away from that system to one using antifreeze...