On Oct 1, 7:00*am, wrote:
On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 23:24:39 -0700 (PDT), ransley





wrote:
On Sep 30, 11:57*pm, wrote:
On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 02:02:04 GMT, aemeijers wrote:
Solar -electric- point of use, probably won't be cost-effective any
time soon. The big moneymaker is passive solar, designed into the house.
South-facing window wall, Correctly-sized overhangs and plantings for
the part of the year when you want shade, heat mass storage, planned
airflow that can be altered to suit the season, yada yada yada. *That
plus modern insulation and energy-efficient appliances and lighting
(including as much natural light as possible), can reduce the energy
requirements a lot cheaper than providing more grid or solar electricity
would cost.

The big active winner is water heating, either the pool heater or the
domestic hot water.

I am amused this idiot who spends 600$ a *month cant figure out he
needs to upgrade everything and thinks 600 *month is normal I paid 38
last month in a harder area in a larger house

When Ransley is in a position to call someone an idiot, it's time for
them to pause and take stock...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


It would at least be a good idea to find out what the guy's cost per
KWH for electricity is. Otherwise, you're comparing apples and
oranges with a $600 electric bill, particularly since the poster said
a similar house in a community served by another electric company
would be $200.