In article ,
says...

In article 107555478376348352.875653bmckeenospam-
, says...

iBoaterer wrote:
In article 185336218376284656.888165bmckeenospam-
, says...

iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,
says...

"iBoaterer" wrote in message
...

In article 1493745639376183490.518525bmckeenospam-
, says...

JustWait wrote:
On 12/2/2012 12:59 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 1 Dec 2012 12:43:53 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

http://tinyurl.com/crdb3z9

If you really think this will be a net zero home you are delusional.
That tiny solar array won't even run the A/C for a 4500 sq/ft house.

You can pay a lot of electric bills for the half million extra this
house costs over the garden variety megabuck Rutenburg house.


Even if it was a zero sum home. Those that can afford a 4000'+ home
should
be able to afford electricity. Part of our housing problem is all these
middle class or lower people who just needed a large mansion. Hang the
cost vs. income, I got a cheap loan!

Affording electricity has NOTHING to do with it.


--------------------------

It has lots to do with it in this case.

No, it doesn't.
How much energy are those solar panels going to save? Consider the energy
to make a small home system. Cheaper to buy the electricity, and may even
be more energy efficient.

It's a net zero home, fool. You do know what that means, don't you?

How much energy was expended to generate the "net zero"?

You are babbling like Scotty now.....

Bill is talking reality and you are trying argue that the cost of the
materials, production of, installation and operation of your "net zero"
home is irrelevant when determining if it is cost effective or not.