"To earn an energy star, a home must meet strict guidelines for energy efficiency set by the U.S Environmental Protection Agency." These homes will in the long run save you a lot of money because you'll be spending less money on electricity each month but they are rather pricey. Thoughts? Would it be better to spend a lot of money on an energy star home or buy a cheaper one and try to make it energy efficient yourself?
I like the idea, but my main worry would be the fact that those types of homes are way out of reach of the masses as I reckon you'd need a lot of capital upfront, and only then would you be able to enjoy the benefits in the long term. I'm guessing for a lot of people the latter would be more feasible, and even then, they may still have to spread costs and do it over many years.
Maybe its different elsewhere - but as this is something that was implemented a few years ago where I live - that doesn't just apply to new homes but also existing ones - I have to say that much as its a great idea and very definitely a step in the right direction - so far - it unfortunately appears to be one of those things - that looks way better on paper than in does in reality. For the simple reason that - as anything related to “ green “and especially energy saving methods generally have such a highly over-inflated price attached them - that it would take almost a lifetime to see a return on any investment made - instead of encouraging people to invest in these new energy saving homes - its turned the housing market in the opposite direction. As apart from the high price of these new energy saving properties being out of reach for the average person as well as enough to put people off - particularly as they are way smaller than the average house - but as its now compulsory for all older homes being sold - to have an energy saving certificate confirming that they meet the same required standards as the newer homes in terms of energy efficiency - the once highly sought after new properties that were generally snapped even before building had been completed - are now sitting around in their millions unsold - as the majority of population have now switched to buying previously owned rather new - which apart from the latter being cheaper - are now considered better value for money - as you get more house/space for the money. So yes - I too would say that its probably way more cost effective to do it yourself - particularly as not only would doing that help spread the cost - but more importantly - as it would give the opportunity of being able to shop around for the best deals on materials - it may well work out significantly cheaper that first imagined.
I agree that it is probabl more cost effective to do it your self. We have a home that is about 50 years old, the windows have been replaced for suppose to be more effect ones but I can still feel the cold thru the windows. The house needs to be inslated better also, in the lower level you can feel the cold from the walls and the doors need to be fitted better. Those are some simple things that would help to same money and energy all people can do. I thnk one of the bigs ones is in our hands, turn off lights we are using and turn off the water when not using it.
