Hey, we can all afford this, right?
In March 2020, I was living in a one-bedroom apartment in West Hollywood with my wife, our three small dogs and one annoyed cat. Our plan had been to move “back east” sometime in the vague future, but when our jobs went remote thanks to the pandemic, and we were suddenly both working from that one-bedroom, we knew it was time.
As we made our final drive out of L.A., wildfires blazed in our rearview mirrors. Destruction we thought would happen years in the future was unfolding in real time, cementing our decision to relocate to a place with promising long-term climate projections — a move we were able to make due to our savings and employment flexibility, privileges that were not lost on us. (snip)
And so, with the help of a climate change map from the New York Times, we narrowed down our search to the seemingly unlikely Rochester, N.Y. — a charming city situated on Lake Ontario with a surprising amount of vegan-friendly restaurants (no small bonus, as we are both longtime vegans and animal activists).
Climate change map? Good grief
Now that we had found an area that was relatively promising insofar as climate, we dug deeper into what types of homes are the most eco-friendly. We considered both the structure itself — learning that refurbishing existing properties creates fewer carbon emissions than building new ones — as well as the ongoing carbon cost to heat and power a home. It became clear that moving to a climate-refuge city wasn’t enough; we needed to go net zero, and we needed to do it in an old house.
Let’s skip through all the climate cult stuff to
As for us, the costs came out to $27,318 for the geothermal system, $15,215 for the solar, $15,703 for the insulation and $23,873 for the windows — after state rebates and other incentives, which can significantly reduce the price tag of transitioning a home to net zero. While $82,000 and change is still very expensive, and not doable for many Americans — and only possible for us thanks to low-interest financing and a relatively low-priced house — the incentives may make the undertaking more within reach than you’d expect.
$82,000. That’s not saving you money. What’s your energy bill monthly? $200? It will take 34 years to break even. Nice not having to depend on the electric grid, sure. Insulation is never a bad thing. Better windows? Sure. Still, 34 years for this cult belief. And, of course, as the elitist notes, not doable for many Americans. And, if you see the article, the author pretty much looks just like you’d expect, with died hair, nose ring, over sized glasses, and a pride flag. Oh, a middle age, affluent white liberal.
I looked at geothermal when I was deciding to buy a new furnace. My house is all electric, so my only choice was to switch to propane – natural gas is not available. I could have dug the hole for the underground portion myself (several friends have tractors with backhoes).
The problem is that the crazy part of the investment – burying the ground loops – comes with a maximum life expectancy of 25 years. At which point you have to dig it up and start again. Now I doubt I will be in my home for that long, but I also doubt that the next homeowner would replace it, since an electric furnace is about 5 to 10 grand today, depending on how much WiFi you want controlling your furnace. (Mine has no WiFi – see the image at this link for how I feel about that.)
Our fossil-fueled car sellin’ host quoted and wrote:
Here in the wilds of eastern Kentucky, I bought a fixer-upper home, as he did, on 7.92 acres, with 500 feet of river frontage, for $75,000.
Now, we’ve put money into it: $13,000 for a 32 x 24 bole building garage/shop, about $18,000 for a new kitchen.
But instead of $27,318 for a new geothermal system, we spent roughly $1,500 on a new propane fireplace, so we’ll be able to stay warm when the heat pump won’t keep up or the sparktricity fails, or when we just want to sit in front of the fire and read a book.
There’s a matter of how much we, or our daughters, get out of this place when we sell, or croak, and part of that has to take into consideration home prices in eastern Kentucky. If we had put $82,000 into this place, the obvious question is: would we get $157,000 out of it, here?
Of course, the article author has his own considerations, and apparently the money to make it happen. His money, his choice.
But perhaps he told us something he didn’t intend to tell us: that no, most people don’t have an extra $82,000 to put into their house, when there are less expensive routes to take.
The photo caption from the article:
‘Nuff said!
Ridiculing these Americans for being LGBGT as they actually sacrifice to make America better. And you’re the smart one.
We see your picture daily. ‘Nuff said, LOL.
Rochester is quite cold being only 3 miles from Canada. It has 2x as many heating days as Raleigh.
Fuel oil in NY is currently 5 bucks a gallon. Figure 5 gal a day winter? That adds up pretty fast. The geothermal? How long for that payback? Let’s see let’s say 10 years. 2700 per year will it save you 200 bucks per month year round? When fuel oil is 5bucks delivered?
Ohhh and Dana in Rochester wages are higher fast food workers get 14.50 twice KY’s minimum wage.
The article said $325/month for energy. So the recoup time would be about 20 years, assuming that energy costs stay $325/month for the next 20 years. It’s reasonable to expect the energy costs to increase.
Plus they’ll have a more comfortable home, more demand if they sell, and the contentment in knowing they’re doing something for the common good.
Classic Mx Teach. Whine that liberals don’t follow their own advice on global warming, and in the next breath whine when liberals invest $82,000 to greatly reduce their carbon footprint.
Mx Teach: the author pretty much looks just like you’d expect, with died hair, nose ring, over sized glasses, and a pride flag
Mx Dana: The writer, left, and her wife in front of their Rochester net-zero home. ‘Nuff said!
Unable to have anything constructive to type, they both resort to ridiculing the women.