by shortonsense » Thu 15 Oct 2009, 20:02:21
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', ' ')So the time is approaching when a super-efficient solar homestead (like mine) will be more "valuable" then a 5,000 sq. ft. energy-sucking mcmansion. Energy analysis will tell you that right now, not current real estate valuations.
A reasonable statement. Lets see how it works.
The McMansion requires $300/month to heat, cool, pump water around, etc etc. Pee's "homestead" costs $0.
$300 X 12 X 30 = Nominal costs over 30 years of $108,000.
So Pee's home could be expected to be priced $108G's more to make up for the incremental utility cost difference.
So...do we buy a $300G McMansion, or a $408G Pee home? It strikes me that the financing/interest cost difference alone might make up the difference. So someone buying the McMansion on a 15 year mortgage would save more than enough of the $108G's to make the McMansion a steal. What about taxes? Some places taxes might be $1000/year, others might be $3000/year. That $2000/year offset, if it goes towards the McMansion, means now we are down to only a $1000 X 30 differential = $30G's.
I don't know Pee, it strikes me that it sure might take more than a base differential of $300/month to make something half the size, hidden in the tree's and parked next to a humanure pile attractive.
And considering that nearly all the cost of the heating and cooling of the house will be natural gas dependent rather than crude dependent, and we have supplies of that for a couple centuries or so, it might not be a smart move to bet the farm on the value of your place just yet.