Doug - you have strong feelings and opinions, I'm not sure where they are coming from, and there is nothing wrong with feelings and opinions, except that the facts show they may be misplaced, at least in my situation, the only situation with which I have intimate knowledge.
80% is about what I believe is normal and I have seen that number used many times. It is workable, with a fair bit of effort (and wood heat), to be close to energy efficient in a specially built home with a family dedicated to energy self sufficiency in many parts of the US. As soon as you get into areas of extreme heat or cold, the equation flies out the triple glazed window.
This doesn't fit me. The equation has not flown out of the window. The year prior to out solar install we used 11,300 kwh, and that was after substantial effort to reduce usage. Our current goal is further reduction to 9000 kwh. In nine more months I will let you know how we did. The goal is household energy 100% wood and solar for heat and electric needs. We are dedicated to conservation, cutting costs closer to what's needed rather than wanted. We simply look at this as money in our pockets for other important things.
We live in an area of extreme cold (regular periods of -20'sF and -30'sF) and brief periods of extreme heat and humidity (1-2 weeks during the summer, +90F). Our home was built in 1956, not specially built at all, and we have added insulation and upgraded windows; 1500 sq ft + 1500 sq ft basement. Wood heat (4 cords of aspen) now meets 80% of our space heating requirement. I look to solar to fill in the 20% plus meet other electric needs for dhw and general service. No LP, NG, or oil fuels at all.
Running a/c is a hydro nightmare .... Even our home in Southern Ontario with all the insulation and fresh county air at night is impossible for us to live in during a heat wave when the humidity is high unless we turn on the a/c.
I assume So Ontario was well populated before there was a/c. It is completely possible for people to live without it, always has been. Not everyone can afford a/c. I'm not suggesting that a/c does not provide great comfort. I'm glad you have the income to buy that level of comfort. We have no a/c and won't get it, although many of our neighbors have it and enjoy its benefits. I suspect most of them would say too that it is impossible to live without it.
The reality is that very few people (as a % of population) can heat with wood or pellets and few people can install solar in their residence. Without substantial government subsidies, solar is not realistic and all the numbers I have ever seen from science (not solar promoters) bear this out.
I don't know the truth of this on a national basis. I know where I live a great many people heat with wood or pellets. Modern wood gasification boilers and furnaces are very low in emissions. Cost-wise they are competitive and from a cost of energy perspective they are significantly less expensive than all fossil fuel sources.
Solar is realistic without subsidies, and if subsidies and govt benefits for fossil fuel energy sources would be eliminated, solar would be even more realistic without subsidies. Solar subsidies are a tiny fraction of subsidies and benefits for fossil fuel energy sources. In a level playing field solar will win almost every time. In Minnesota a recent non-subsidized solar installation bid for $250 million was less expensive than bids for the same power fueled by fossil fuels, primarily natural gas.
A major issue impeding faster expansion of solar is a cultural mindset that the investment should pay off in just a few years. No coal, nuclear, or hydro power plant was ever built or would be built if it had to pay off in a few years. These are major investments with life spans of 30 years and longer. So is solar, and viewed properly in the long term solar, even at today's prices, is a very good investment.
Few homes in cities are built to work well with wood heat and few are oriented correctly to use solar in any meaningful way. The stats that I found was that over 50% of the US population lives in apartments or multi-family dwellings, which make the use of either of these next to impossible.
Probably true in part, but no one is suggesting that every residence have its own wood heating appliance and its own solar array. Heat energy from biofuels on a district basis is very feasible. Solar in large arrays of power plant capacities are the future.
Sadly, whenever the gov't gets involved, costs rise due to the stupidity and waste of all gov'ts.... The switch to LED lights should have taken place years ago. If everyone got rid of all incandescent lights, a fair number of power plants in the US could be shut down tomorrow.
You can't have it both ways. Govt imposed energy standards have been the driver to more efficient lighting and the end of incandescent light. Not govt stupid and not govt wasteful. No govt = anarchy, and no society has survived as an anarchy.
I'm not trying to put a damper on your effort to be energy efficient. I would like to see more effort made to help convince the 10's of millions who can't build an energy efficient house find the easy ways to be more energy efficient and save $$
Thank you, and I agree.
![[Hearth.com] $9 heating and electric bill combined](/talk/data/attachments/126/126107-ccf011104369b40a2905ec16206b445c.jpg?hash=05IsR7vqhW)
