Spending $ now to eliminate recurring costs?

[jazz4cash]

In our area(northeast), being on a well would decrease property value. Public water is much more desireable-no concern about water quality, no potential for well to run dry, no potential for costly repairs, no hard water issues, etc.

That’s true if city water is not already hooked up, but OP will still use city water on the home and only rely on well for pool and sprinkler system. Now that we know the cost for those items the cost savings should be a plus for property value

 

[Buckeye]

In my neighborhood in S. Fla, at least 30% of the homes are on a well. I can tell because they leave rust stains on the sidewalk and then bitch and moan whenever the HOA sends out notices to clean up.

I have a pavered driveway and patio, so no way I want rust stains to deal with.

But it can mean the difference of about $100 a month on a water bill. And yes sprinklers are needed to have a lawn here, even used sparingly in the wetter months. June was very dry and hot and our city-water bill topped $200, but that's a rare high for us.

We are very lucky in our Central Florida city to have reclaimed water for irrigation. $68 is a high monthly utility bill which includes water (for house and occasional pool top off), sewer, twice weekly garbage, once weekly yard waste and recycle, and reclaimed irrigation water (allowed to irrigate twice weekly unless you have new plants or grass). A bill I don't mind paying!

 

[RobLJ]

And now for something different, but I just put solar on the roof (waiting another week for Nevada Energy to install the meter, so I can turn it on).

The payback period is about 9 years, but I also was sitting on a bunch of cash at about 1.7%.

We're replacing one car with an Electric Car (probably a used Bolt), so that drives down the payback to 7 or so years, depending on how much we pay for the Bolt and how much we get for selling the car (it's worth more than I thought, almost as much as a used Bolt), and how much we drive the Bolt (mostly daily drives).

The above is based on Nevada Energy raising rates 4%/year, which I think is conservative/likely, but is a key factor. Of course increases could be less, although I doubt less than 3%. After 9 years, obviously, is the big pay out, and the system is only waranteed for 20 years. The inverter and the optimizers are the most likely to fail outside this period.

So, an "investment" with negative gains for 9 years, then potentially a very nice gain afterwards. However, one way of semi-controlling a key inflation cost way down the pike.

If/when the AC fails, a very high efficiency SEER heat pump replacement probably will pencil out, but I'll have to do a lot of research on that (my son did this in the Central Valley of CA, after his AC failed).

 

[Urchina]

Tb001, a couple of questions:
1. Is your groundwater basin under adjudication, or headed that way? That will impact the quantity of water you can pull. Your regional water board will be able to tell you.
2. Deep well or relatively shallow? We looked into having a well drilled in the Inland Empire (great groundwater, flat area, very rural) at a family property and got cost estimates of $50k. That's a lot of city water. (We didn't drill the well)
3. You may have has this experience, but getting the drill rigs, cement truck, pumper trick etc. can rip up the land pretty good.
4. Electricity to run the pumps is not cheap. We have family on a well in Northern CA and they don't irrigate much because of this very reason.
5. Water quality? If it's very hard water or has contaminant issues it may not be good for it's intended use without treatment.

 

[Music Lover]

4. Electricity to run the pumps is not cheap. We have family on a well in Northern CA and they don't irrigate much because of this very reason.

I've always thought the power draw of a well pump wasn't that high, but what do I know? Do you know how much power a well pump uses?

 

[tb001]

Tb001, a couple of questions:
1. Is your groundwater basin under adjudication, or headed that way? That will impact the quantity of water you can pull. Your regional water board will be able to tell you.
2. Deep well or relatively shallow? We looked into having a well drilled in the Inland Empire (great groundwater, flat area, very rural) at a family property and got cost estimates of $50k. That's a lot of city water. (We didn't drill the well)
3. You may have has this experience, but getting the drill rigs, cement truck, pumper trick etc. can rip up the land pretty good.
4. Electricity to run the pumps is not cheap. We have family on a well in Northern CA and they don't irrigate much because of this very reason.
5. Water quality? If it's very hard water or has contaminant issues it may not be good for it's intended use without treatment.

These are good questions.

I’m not sure re adjudication. It’s possible it’s headed that way—there is a very heavy water user near us who has been ordered to stop pumping when wells reach a certain level, but that hasn’t happened yet and things seem to have replenished significantly since that time.

Depth is the big unknown. We’ve been told ~800-1000 feet is what we should plan for, but the cost estimate at the high end is 1500ft. Two of the wells right near us are 600ft, which is the estimate at the low end.

Re the damage, no direct experience but from the pictures they showed us, it looks like it will cause a total mess! We have a large front lawn area that would be the best location, so a mess, but easily fixable.

Electrical should be covered by solar. We did complete swap of leds and a number of other energy saving things after getting solar and are generating more than we use.

Good question re water quality. For irrigation I don’t think there are any issues—the drillers told us even sediment filters aren’t needed much here. I would imagine that changes if we wanted to use for household.

 

[Rianne]

There are lots of threads here on solar panel cost/justification. You should review them as a starter. Also, many power companies are starting to charge line connection fees and other fees for your solar installation. There are lots of factors to determine if it is wise to invest thousands of dollars for a solar installation and those systems are unique to each locality.

Most people you ask about their solar installation will be biased and really not understand the payback, if any. Usually, the payback period is long (decades) and many users don't understand or want to discuss maintenance, operating and replacement costs. If you put a system in with battery backup for periods when there is no power being generated, the system can get real costly. If it snows where you are, panels with snow on them are not effective. Etc...

My SIL recently got sold (talked into) a solar setup where she lives in northern Wisconsin. After about one year, they are not happy as the system is not efficient and their so energy savings is much less than "advertised".

Good luck!

Our winters can be brutal. That's why I prefer to talk to solar owners rather than sales. We'll proceed with caution. I get the benefit in AZ, NM, FL, Nevada etc. Still not sure for this area.

 

[frank]

I have a well and it is a 3/4 hp 12 gpm pump. the electrical cost to run it is minimal. we only use it to supply water to two households. no pool, no irrigation. I think a pump like this is only about 15 amps total and depending on what size tank you have runs very little. I figure it costs about 12. dollars a month to run ours. If you consider that the cost of public sewer and water are going to keep increasing annually because of new regulations and increased demand. I think a well is a good investment. As far as installing the well, I would check everyone in a pretty wide area, espescially rural areas as they seem to be cheaper. the last well I had put in was about 20 years ago and the price difference between a large company with lots of new equipment and advertising and someone who works in rural areas is quite a bit.

 

[RobLJ]

Our winters can be brutal. That's why I prefer to talk to solar owners rather than sales. We'll proceed with caution. I get the benefit in AZ, NM, FL, Nevada etc. Still not sure for this area.

Yes; in the Southwest and much of the West it is easier to pencil out than in the Midwest or Northeast. Even here in Nevada, without net metering it would be difficult to make a case for individual solar; community or large utility level solar is different and is, in general, cost effective for new sources or even to replace coal. (Nevada re-instituted net metering after the Regulatory Commission did what Nevada Energy wanted briefly and cancelled it in 2017.) With costs continuing to drop, in 5-10 years it may be worth considering in many areas. But so much is dependent on state/utility regulations, utility cost of electricity, house siting, the fed credit, etc, everyone should carefully consider their own, often peculiar circumstances. My oldest son's utility cost in the Central Valley of Cali was sufficiently high that he installed about 3 years ago. His experience has been very good. I'll report back a couple times this year after mine is turned on (hopefully in a week).

Spending money wisely on reducing energy demand (energy efficient appliances; LED lighting; caulking; insulation, etc) almost always has a much quicker payback and should be done before solar. Which reminds me I have a few more floodlights to switch out (I thought they would burn out this year).

 

[gauss]

There is usually too much life-cycle financial uncertainty in these type of projects for my taste. This can be especially the case when someone is trying to "sell" you something and they have precanned business cases to show payback periods given their assumtions.

My strategy has always been to keep the funds invested in the markets and let them appreciate and then spend when I really need to.

If I really wanted to buy down my future retirement costs, then I would likely purchase a SPIA or defined-term annuity. In this case you will have a guaranteed return as long as you stay below your state guarantee limit -- at least under present law.

-gauss

 

[PJHawk]

Well since 1968

We live in CT where public water is not available. Original well dug in 1968. Bought the house 25 years ago with pump #2 still running. It is on it's 3rd pump, installed 2 years ago. New variable speed pumps are great. I get 75 PSI. Wells do have issues. We had E-coli in the water table due to construction down the street. Needed to add bleach to kill. Well head got hit by lightening once and blew the controller box off the wall. Have generator to make sure I can get water when long blackouts. Water costs electricity plus repairs and upgrades over time.

 

[Chuckanut]

LED bulbs are a good investment.

I tossed a number of perfectly new/good incandescent bulbs when I realized that keeping them was far more expensive than buying LED bulbs.

 

[Music Lover]

I tossed a number of perfectly new/good incandescent bulbs when I realized that keeping them was far more expensive than buying LED bulbs.

I put a box of a couple dozen by the road and someone took them. Every light in my house and garage is LED except for the one in the garage door opener which I'll replace with LED when it eventually burns out.

 

[frank]

how does led compare to flourescent lamp and ceiling bulbs as far as operating cost? I thought there was minimal difference.

 

[Aerides]

how does led compare to flourescent lamp and ceiling bulbs as far as operating cost? I thought there was minimal difference.

LED bulbs run at about 1/4 to 1/3 the consumption of florescent ones. The heat they give off is lower too.

 

[ERD50]

LED bulbs run at about 1/4 to 1/3 the consumption of florescent ones. The heat they give off is lower too.

I think you mean compared to "incandescent" (the old, 'Edison', filament bulbs).

LEDs aren't a big savings over fluorescent. Maybe a little, depending on type. Poster can look it up, it's not hard to do a search on it.

Also, maybe a bit of semantics, but the lower heat isn't really a "too" thing, it's a "because of" thing. The heat is the product of inefficiency, the energy that isn't turned into light is turned into heat. They are different ways of saying the same thing. Kind of like saying "it's cheaper, and less expensive!".

-ERD50

 

[tb001]

On leds, now that we have ones we like, they’re great. It took me forever to find the right hue for some types of fixtures. I think we bought every led bulb on the market! We ended up using a 0.5W equivalent in sconces/chandeliers where the primary function was mood lighting. What’s interesting is that the line from the switch apparently carries enough residual power to light up these tiny bulbs at a very low level, so the lights are always on. Not noticeable during the day, but it is at night.

 

[Sunset]

.... Every light in my house and garage is LED except for the one in the garage door opener which I'll replace with LED when it eventually burns out.

It would be cheaper to replace the bulb immediately.

 

[samclem]

It would be cheaper to replace the bulb immediately.

Maybe, maybe not. If the 60watt light is on for 6 minutes per day at the avg US electrical rate of 13 cents per kwh, it costs 28 cents per year in electricity. If an LED bulb would use 8 cents in electricity, then we're saving just 20 cents per year. It seems to me these LED bulbs are decreasing in cost by more than 20 cents per year, and if so, it is best to wait.

 

[Aerides]

I think you mean compared to "incandescent" (the old, 'Edison', filament bulbs).

LEDs aren't a big savings over fluorescent. Maybe a little, depending on type. Poster can look it up, it's not hard to do a search on it.

Also, maybe a bit of semantics, but the lower heat isn't really a "too" thing, it's a "because of" thing. The heat is the product of inefficiency, the energy that isn't turned into light is turned into heat. They are different ways of saying the same thing. Kind of like saying "it's cheaper, and less expensive!".

-ERD50

Well I did google to check the ratio before posting (fluorescent vs. LED). As far as the heat thing, I mean "too" as in it's an added benefit - for me. I have 6 high hats in my kitchen. So when I'm working on a big dinner every little bit of heat reduction in the room is good afaic (no matter how it happened).

Regardless of the consumption or heat, replacing a bulb every 7-20 years vs. every year is a good thing, and one less chance to slip off a ladder too.

 

[ERD50]

Originally Posted by Aerides View Post
LED bulbs run at about 1/4 to 1/3 the consumption of florescent ones. ....

Well I did google to check the ratio before posting (fluorescent vs. LED). ....

Not sure where you found this info, it didn't match my knowledge of things, and my quick google backed me up.

Just a quick review at Home Depot shows a fluorescent tube to be ~ 81 lumens/watt (2850/32), and an 60W equivalent LED to be ~ 89 lumens/watt (800/9), pretty close, almost 1/1, not anywhere near 1/4 to 1/3rd.

I'm sure you are thinking LED versus incandescent (old school filament, Edison style). The higher efficiency of the old fluorescent tubes is one big reason why they were used so much. LEDs might provide other advantages, but efficiency compared to the old fluorescent tubes is about the same.

-ERD50

 

[N02L84ER]

Sorry ERD50, I think Aerides is correct. Even by your numbers, the fluorescent tube consumes 32 watts to produce the equivalent light and the LED consumes 9 watts. 9/32 = 0.28. 1/4 = 0.25. 1/3 = 0.33.

 

[ncbill]

Even with the cheapest LED bulbs I've found I'm much happier with their color than I was with any of compact fluorescent (CF) bulbs I had installed to re-lamp from incandescent.

Except for one (shielded) closet light I've now replaced all CF bulbs with LED bulbs in my home.

Only a few incandescent bulbs are left, primarily in a few chandeliers that are rarely used.

 

[harley]

I'm all in with LEDs now that they've found ways to offer warmer colors. Those early bright blue/white bulbs were miserable.

I also though there was a significant electricity saving for LEDs over CFLs. And the warm up time is a big deal for me. I hated going into a room (or especially my attic), flipping the switch, and having to wait 2 minutes before I can really see.

 

[ERD50]

Sorry ERD50, I think Aerides is correct. Even by your numbers, the fluorescent tube consumes 32 watts to produce the equivalent light and the LED consumes 9 watts. 9/32 = 0.28. 1/4 = 0.25. 1/3 = 0.33.

No, it isn't equivalent light. The numbers are all there in my post.

The 32 watt tube produces 2850 lumens.
The 9 watt LED produces 800 lumens.

Efficiency (Pout/Pin) is lumens per watt.

The Fluorescent tube comes to 81 lumens/watt (2850/32),
The LED comes to ~ 89 lumens/watt (800/9).

Maybe the "60 Watt equivalent" phrase I copy/pasted threw you off, but that's just a description of the LED compared to a filament bulb of similar lumens. It isn't part of the fluorescent tube to LED comparison.

-ERD50