Must Read: Samsung Galaxy S4 review

Topic: Telcos

Green construction project targets 5 states with 'no electric bill' homes

Summary: SolarCity and Shea Homes are teaming up to create homes with technologies and features designed to be so energy-efficient, that they should run entirely on solar power.

Heather Clancy

By for GreenTech Pastures |

Solar developer SolarCity and private home builder Shea Homes (which has been around since 1968) have whipped up a combination of renewable energy technology, green building materials and energy-efficiency systems that it plans to sell as "no electric bill" homes.

Think about that for a moment: imagine no utility bill from your local utility provider. Pretty weird concept, no? Even weirder that this is being offered as part of the purchase price of the home.

SolarCity and Shea Homes are promising these homes in five states to start: Arizona, California, Florida, Nevada and Washington. That's where the home builder has Active Lifestyle and Trilogy communities; it is the first time SolarCity will expand into Florida and Nevada. The plan represents one of the largest net-zero electricity home construction projects in the United States, according to the two companies.

Shea Homes is not new to the green home construction game. In the past four years, it has built 3,000 Shea Green Certified homes. It figures those homes have helped save the owners a collective $7 million in energy costs or about 65 million kilowatt-hours of electricity.

What goes into one of these SheaXero homes (like the photo featured above)?

There are 11 "energy-saving features" being touted, including Trane heating, ventilation and air-conditioning systems, Jenn-Air Energy Star appliances, and dual-pane, low-e windows. These design elements will help homeowners save thousands of dollars in energy costs, while SolarCity's solar panels will help generate the electricity needed to keep things running. All of these features are included in the purchase price of the homes.

Topic: Telcos

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

49 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion

  • That works out to $583 per year per home

    or $48.61 a month. For that privilege, you get to pay an extra $500 a month on your mortgage bill. Oh, yeah. That makes a lot of financial sense. But, hey, you're saving the planet, right?
    baggins_z
    Reply Vote

    • You are horrible at math and reading comprehension

      Yes, if construction of all 3,000 homes was completed 4 years ago and they were occupied the whole time, your math would be correct. However, the article states that those 3,000 homes were built over the course of the last 4 years, not 4 years ago. If you assume 750 homes built per year over that span the math is very different.
      lumpy_blumpkin
      Reply Vote

      • You are correct. It actually turns out to be $78 a month assuming

        750 homes are built per year. So instead of paying $500+ a month to save $48.61, you are paying $500+ a month to save $78 a month. Why $500+ a month? Because in order to get one of these green homes at the same price as a typical normal home, you have to give up 45% of your living space (1200 vs. 2169 sqft). So, in order to maintain the same amount of space, you have to pay through the nose. It's the same old environmental mantra: Do with less or you're evil.
        baggins_z
        Reply Vote

      • Little "Magic Math" there, Baggy?

        baggins_z -- using hard numbers to support a point is of course useful . . . when the *source(s)* of those numbers are identified. The numbers in your claim appear to have been snatched out of thin air and tossed into the stew. If that's not the case and you do have creditable sources for your numbers, then identify them explicitly, preferably with links.

        You do this in your second comment, in the form of a reply to yourself, as well. Where do you get that to balance out increased mortgage costs -- according to you -- of $500+/month, the buyer has to settle for 1200 square feet versus 2169 square feet? That is a difference of 969 square feet; what an odd number, as is 2169. That difference measures about 31.128 feet on each side in a square -- another odd number. By the way, I'm an American resident for a quarter of a century in Asia, now single, and that difference of 969 square feet represents app. 440 square feet *more* than my apartment has -- and I have plenty of room. In fact, I have enough room two people could easily live here. As a great many people in this part of the world do. I personally know people who live in, for example, in a 4-person family -- in 400 square feet or even less. And no, I'm not talking about poor people, but middle-class ones who understand the efficient use of space so they can have room for the TV, entertainment center, computer, furniture, household items such as refrigerators (though those are typically smaller here than in the U.S.), etc. Of course, among the very poor, cro2wding and homelessness are indeed terrible -- just as it is with our truly impoverished and homeless in America, where some of our most unfortunate people sleep in cardboard boxes, under bridges, etc.

        You appear to think it's somehow morally defective to make do with less. And in accusing those who feel we can do so of being guilty of calling people who disagree with them "evil," that's an absurd over-generalization. As absurd as it would be to accuse the immensely rich -- say an older couple whose several children have all grown up and left home but the parents decided to stay in their bought-and-paid-for 4,000-square-foot home -- selfish, greedy, uncaring. I've known couples in that situation, including some who finished paying for their homes about the same time as the housing market collapsed, triggering the Great Recession. Aware they couldn't reasonably sell their existing home, they took another route -- downsizing how *much* space they actually use. Sealing off unused rooms, including the air-conditioning/heating ducts, for instance. Installing energy-efficient AC/heating systems in the remaining space, in some cases.

        Don't be so quick to toss around meaningless, unsubstantiated numbers -- nor accusations that are nothing more than vile personal attacks, ad hominem ones.
        MekhongKurt
        Reply Vote

    • ??

      Where did you get that the homeowner is paying 500 more a month for their mortgage? did you read that somewhere? Did you think in this market that perhaps that's just a marketing advantage to sell homes when things are not selling? Or did you actually read that somewhere? Because I've done my research and the numbers reflect that the homeowner may pay a bit more today but as energy prices increase (like gasoline prices they inevitably do) the fixed cost of the mortgage will PROTECT them from increasing energy prices and save the homeowner butt loads of money!!
      Meeshmiller
      Reply Vote

  • Motivation

    And, I would suggest saving themselves $'s is not the purchaser's main motivation in investing in this sort of home.
    sillsd
    Reply Vote

    • Agreed. It's to give themselves a sense of superiority over others

      who aren't as "enlightened." There's money to be made feeding people's egos.
      baggins_z
      Reply Vote

      • tax dollars for clean energy

        why shouldn't you pay a little for it. You get the benefit of cleaner air, cleaner water, less dependence of foreign oil and the paying the price of the wars we wage to get it.
        3weekend
        Reply Vote

      • Like I said

        it's all about feeling morally superior and not reason. Where do you think the materials and energy come from to manufacture solar panels? Are you even aware of the toxic chemicals used in their manufacture (I'm guessing not). So until you can find a way to make solar panels from faerie dust, using them doesn't do jack squat with regards to clean air, clean water, or using less oil. But you do get to feel all superior and special by spending my money (gov't subsidies) to buy them.
        baggins_z
        Reply Vote

      • Funny

        It's funny. Guy spends $30k to put a pool in his back yard and everyon's just fine with it. Guy spends a few extra $$ to build an energy efficient home and do his part to reduce CO2 emissions and to some people he might as well be a minister for the Church of Satan.

        A sad comment on the values of the anti-environmental Right in this country.
        dsf3g
        Reply Vote

      • This is most enlightening

        So you're offended by voluntary conservation efforts because you see them as a way for environmentalists to feel morally superior to "just plain folks" like yourself? It's almost as if waste and pollution were patriotic duties.

        Might it not instead be the case that certain people are making good faith (but possibly misguided) efforts to take better care of the planet that is their home?

        Forgot to mention:

        Relating to your monicker, I'll note that in Tolkien's writings, it is consistently the wicked (especially orcs) who pollute and destroy the land, while the righteous preserve and restore it for it's own sake. The profit motive itself does appear to be something that would appeal more to Saruman than to any of Tolkien's heroes.
        John L. Ries
        Reply Vote

      • Who's feeling superior here?

        I've reduced my utility bills through simple steps -- without spending a penny on energy-efficient bulbs or the like. My comfortable lifestyle hasn't been affected one iota. Do I fell "superior"? -- Not in the least. I just feel lucky I was able to figure out a way to do it *without* have to self-flagellate or wear a hair shirt.

        *Your* criticism, however, positively *reeks* of a sense of superiority -- a very false one.
        MekhongKurt
        Reply Vote

      • Silly comment

        "it's all about feeling morally superior and not reason." And the entire rest of that comment, baggins_z.

        How insufferably ignorant, judgmental, and downright stupid.
        MekhongKurt
        Reply Vote

      • feeding people's egos

        If, as you say, there is money to be made feeding people's egos, then the Right must really hate you. You feed your own ego, and are depriving someone of an income via ego feeding! You are a regular left wing radical commie pinko hippy freak! For shame...
        michaellashinsky@...
        Reply Vote

  • Just to let you know - you can do this yourself

    If you build a energy efficeint home - and put solar on top of it - which we did.
    You get energy bills of 25 dollars a month - max. The solar power generated sells for up to 200-400 a rec. And this means that you get all the money you spent on power back if your solar power grid can generate 1 rec per year.

    This cost us 11K of which 60 percent was refunded by governmentment subsidies. Therefore.... 3000 dollars plus energy efficient home means energy independence!

    I don't think this adds 500 dollars a month to your mortgage. But we paid cash
    mriphysician
    Reply Vote

    • Hey, if you want to buy solar panels for your home pay

      for it yourself and quit using my money.
      baggins_z
      Reply Vote

      • tax dollars for clean energy

        why shouldn't you pay a little for it? You get the benefit of cleaner air, cleaner water, less dependence of foreign oil and the paying the price of the wars we wage to get it.
        3weekend
        Reply Vote

      • Why?

        Why? You're using his money to pay for the military that keeps the oil flowing from the Middle East to your Hummer.
        dsf3g
        Reply Vote

      • not using your money

        The state of CA is mandating 33% of electricity comes from renewable resources. PG&E and other CA utility companies are increasing their rates to pay for this. If not your neighbor then someone will take the rebates. Because the fact is whether you like it or not the money is set aside to help encourage folks to go green. You can take a drill and put it up a polar bears hole if you like but you're just being a jerk not helping anyone. Look at the facts that solar is here. You are going to see it everywhere! the only unfortunate thing is that not everyone's roof qualifies for solar. I guess those folks can think about wind if that works with their HOA. But we can't continue to rely on dirty resources.
        Meeshmiller
        Reply Vote

      • Why *not* use your money? -- YOU use ours.

        Increased health-care costs. Reduced life spans for structures. Efforts to eliminate pollution, including poisonous ones, from our air, water, and soil. Welfare the oil-gas and nuclear industries. Higher prices for everything from electricity to apples because some people use so much the price is driven up.

        All of it MY money coming out of MY pocket because of those who "can't be bothered."

        Watch out who you accuse of using -- by which you clearly mean "stealing" -- "your money." The 40% I pay in federal, state, and local taxes would undoubtedly plummet if YOU stopped using MY money, baggins_z.
        MekhongKurt
        Reply Vote
CNET Join | Log In | Privacy | Cookies Close