My family and I are planning on building a new house. We found a floorplan we like. The builder who offers the house we want can build it three ways.

The first way is a LEED silver certified (more energy efficient than even a Energy Star built home) normal home with central air and a gas furnace and a tankless gas water heater. This home has about $10k of tax incentives that come with it.

The second way is basically the same home with the addition of a couple of solar panels that produce about 30% of the homes electricity. That package adds $12k to the price but has about $18k of tax incentives that come with it.

The third way is an all electric house but with way more photovoltaic panels and solar water heater panels as well. That home is called a "net zero house". It supposed to produce 100% of the power that it needs. In fact they supposedly over-size the solar package to produce a little more so I may get money back from the electric company each month. This package adds $45k to the price of the house but has $31k in tax incentives with it.

I would have to use the tax incentives up over a course of several years (too bad I can't get the money back all at once). All houses would be connected to the electric grid. We are staying currently in an all electric apartment, roughly half the size of the proposed house, although probably not built nearly as well. Our electric bill the past few months has been $200+ a month.

So I'm asking you, fellow 4runner friends, which house would you build and why. Anybody have a house like the above mentioned? Pros? Cons? Help us decide.

Just do full solar panel one, Not often do you have the chance to fully get off of the grid, and if you can incorperate the cost of it which is only $16k after the incentives into your morgage, than why not, then you won't have keep paying for an electric bill that will constantly go up as time goes on, and it is a great selling point for the house when you approach the time you want to sell. It will pay for itself, whether that be over a 10 year period or when you sell the house.

I would also invest in some batteries to store some of the energy for when you can't pull enough juice when it cloudy for a couple days.

P.S. That is only $6k more than the first option, it won't really take long to make that money back. And with the way oil prices are projected over the next few years, the solar hot water is a great solution.

It is hard to know what benefit you will gain from a tax incentive unless we now and can understand your financial position.

I had my home built to the Energy star cert and did receive some write offs. It really doesn’t cost allot more to build that way, just pay attention to the details.

The tech is changing so fast you have to wonder if you are going to "shoot yourself in the foot" by buying equipment than can become obsolete so quick. You don't want to buy into and be stuck with a system that 2 years latter that technology has left it behind.

Saving energy and doing the right thing is what is important. I built my home in 06 and where I am at the cost of utilities aren't that high compared to other places so even if I wanted to get off the grid I couldn't find anybody in the area selling or installing any solar panels or any other product. About the only thing I could have done was have my own well dug, but even than it wasn’t practical for me. I have also looked into wind but my area isn’t even close to ideal for that.

If the builder has done allot of the net zero homes and can show you multiple examples of happy customers than I might think about it.

Financially I don't think it is a good move. I would suspect that by the time you came even close to paying off the extra cost there would be many more efficient and affordable systems. Your older system at that point may become so out dated that it cannot be maintained.

If you want to be a guinea pig and a trend setter it maybe for you, I personally like the idea but can’t justify the cost at this time.

A big factor in that decision for me would be what percentage of the the overall cost is this.

100k house = probably wouldn't do any "upgrades"
500k house = probably would do everything.

Almost technology is outdated in a couple years, with that state of mind you better not buy a car or computer because a better one is gonna come out next year.

Whether it will be outdated or not, it will get him off the grid and he will have a couple less bills to pay for each month. And it will pay for itself over time whether it is outdated or not by then.

From what you are explaining it sounds like you are saying its a technology that isn't developed enough, but it is developed enough so that it will work and pay for itself, It's not like the electric car which works for 2 hours and then needs 4 times that amount of time to get it working again. It's a technology that is a little expensive and the government wants it to stay like that, just enough so that can say they are investing in "green" technologies and they don't want them to be cheaper and more efficent because then everyone would have them and they would lose quite alot of taxes from the companies, and the big electric companies would lose their shirts.

1. This is new tech we are talking about. You can always expect a car to have tires and use some sort of common available fuel. You can always expect to find parts. This is the same with computers, older tech can usually be used with newer tech at least for a while because they are established products. This isn't the case with alternative power.

You probably won't be able to go to the corner hardware store to and get parts for your home energy system but you probably could go to a local dealership or even a parts store for a part for you brand new car and you could probably find local support for your brand new computer.

It is kind of like the VHS vs. Beta times. There may be a few good companies offer different types of products, some of them will be long forgotten by the time you need parts to fix their system. If your system happens to be made by one of those companies you may be SOL when it comes to maintaining your systems. You have to look at complete cost of ownership and long term usability, not just the next few years.

2. I agree completely. There will be companies that jump on board. Look at Kodak. They stood to lose allot when we stopped using film and went digital but they adapted. There will be companies that jump on board but there will be allot of unseen obstacles before getting off the grid will be possible on a large scale, if it ever happens at all.

Hail? What is the cost of repairing these panels? Tree falling on it? Tornado or just high winds? Are they durable?

For me, i rather spend my money elsewhere (like media room!), but i have no idea if the tax incentives are worth it down the road.

I have a house that is the energy star...so, it ain't anything fancy. However, for me, the BIGGEST difference is the direction your house faces and how many windows you have. My house faces south...so, the sun rises and sets to the sides of my house. I have large bay windows in my living room and also many big windows in my family room (and master bedroom). Thiese windows would bankrupt me if my house faces east or west. So, for my house, the sun almost never hits the interior of my house directly (it gets in via normal size windows in our secondary bedrooms, mostly 1 per room). We get to enjoy our bay window along with patio in comfort due to this. So, i would HIGHLY recommend a north-south direction for your house...and skip on these high cost/high maintenance (PURE SPECULATION b/c i have no idea about these panels!!) solar panels.

BTW, congrats on a new home...sounds like a great home!!

You bring some very valid points, i guess the OP has to weigh out his options now.

Some very good points in the above posts. Thats why I love posting on this site! Some points I have thought about as well. Just as Ross posted, I worry about "shooting myself in the foot" when it comes to solar power. I mean, it seems like they make advances in tech alot. I wouldn't want my system to become outdated and therefore not be servicable. The base house is going to be around $220k if that helps. The tax incentives I would get back at tax time. If I applied the tax incentives straight to principle it would knock 6years off the loan (full solar option). Or I guess I could put them in an account and help supliment the monthly payment. The solar power system is warrentied for 25years. The inverter it uses is warrentied for 10 years. Of course thats if the manufactor makes it that long. I believe they use 310Solar for a manufactor. They are a local (NM) company. On another hand, like Thai said, I would almost rather spend the money elsewhere. I would like a newer pickup truck. My current truck is paid for but my family is outgrowing it and its just wearing out.

Anyone else have any thoughts on the idea?

I like option 2.

You're in the right state for option 3! Map

Thai brought up good points on the durability of the panels. I would also heavily consider the panel manufacturer's reputation and longevity. A considerable warranty would be a necessity for me since I know of no one with any solar panels at all (granted it isn't common in the NE). I would expect the home owner's insurance to be higher too. Landscaping would need to be based around the panel layout as well. I'm not sure what kind of maintenance is required for the panels or the accompanied system but if it's within your budget, option 3 sounds great.

If all the questions and concerns I would have on option 3 couldn't be answered to my satisfaction and included in the contract, then option 2 is a good compromise.

Insurance is another thing you need to check into. You don't want to find out after the fact that you don't have the coverage you should.