Assuming you live in an older part of the city... you guys can get hit with some pretty serious winds Have you thought about some kind of quick disconnect setup - something that'd let you remove the panels and store them somewhere safe inside until the tropical stuff moves through?

You strip the house of all exterior siding, then build out frame work to allow about 10-12 inches of high density insulation. On new construction you can aim for 2 feet of insulation. The house is then sealed for air loss. Generally you need an air to air heat exchanger for fresh air exchange.

The idea came about with solar house heating. If you minimize the heat loss, you can minimize the heating. In college, we modeled many solar house designs but found that super-insulating was the most cost effective, even without the solar heating!

The latest mounts are good for 150mph. The ones I use could be removed, but my roof is steeper than where I'd want to work.

Helped a cousin build an 1800 SF house. The plan was to install a geothermal unit for heat, A/C, and some hot water output. He later decided to purchase a wood-fired boiler to provide heat for the house, enclosed porch and garage.

The walls in the house are double walls (two 2x4s) with a thermal break between, open cell foam stripping. Triple pane windows. Walls are dense-packed cellulose. We decided to drop the geothermal unit and the extra expense and go with a standard ducted split. 2.5 tons cools the house to 72 degrees and keeps the humidity around 40-45%. When I ran the numbers from the amp draw in the compressor, it was going to cost around $75/month to run the A/C 24/7. The A/C doesn't run 24 hours a day, so actual cost would be lower. In that case, I cannot see reasonable payback on the geothermal unit, without government subsidies. It all depends on the specific application.

I definitely recommend spending the time and money for better insulation. However, I haven't found a way to integrate spray foam. It's too expensive, compared to cellulose.

The ideal path, IMO, to obtain energy efficiency in a new home is:
insulated slab (for moderate or cold climates)
Thick walls
Quality windows (with roof overhangs adjusted to take advantage of solar heat gain)
Good construction methods and attention to detail (air sealing)
Ductwork IN conditioned space or an unvented attic (big gains)

It truly is an all-encompassing effort, engaging many trades and skilled craftsmen. It's a shame so many fall for the bigger is better mantra with regards to housing, therefore settling for crappy construction, poor insulation, mediocre HVAC, and poor energy efficiency.

John, for your existing home, insulation in the walls would be a big gain. IN lieu of blowing cellulose in the walls (a compromise solution), you could strip the exterior siding and install foamboard. That's actually a good solution in many ways, but only feasible if you're ready for an exterior facelift.

Also, if you only have 10 years left on your roof, I wouldn't install PV. The panels may delay degradation of some parts of the roof, but the roofing that's left uncovered will continue to deteriorate.

Would you buy from a company named "Swastika Solar Solutions" ?

Swastika Solar Solutions India - led lightsled tubes Importers

Isn't ductwork in the foundation better than running through the attic?

Flying debris though - that'd really tear the things up.

Most construction around here is slab on grade, so ductwork in the foundation isn't easy. If you're building new, design the house to permit ductwork in the living space.

If you're referring to ductwork in a crawlspace, I think it's bad unless that space is sealed and insulated. The issue is the humidity. The tape and insulation don't last in that damp environment.

Another issue with ductwork in a vented crawlspace or attic is duct leakage. When ducts leak, your house is pulled into vacuum, and outside air must be pulled inside the house. It's equivalent to cracking a window open. Would you want a window open when it's 90 outside? How about when it's 25?

OK show of hands, how many people here are really dumb enough to think that PV panels are cheap or getting cheaper? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?

PV panels are very, very expensive. It's just that the consumer does not directly pay for them, the TAXPAYER pays for them for the consumer.
Take a gander at this from Stanford university:
http://www.stanford.edu/~kgilling/BollingerGillingham_PeerEffectsSolar.pdf
To summarize, this is what a solar panel REALLY COSTS:
$3 per watt rebate
Net metering, buying back the excess at MUCH HIGHER RATES than normal
15% tax credit
$3.3 billion direct subsidy in California alone
30% federal tax credit

So, if the taxpayer was not forced to pay for nearly all of these solar panels, how many do you think there would be?
NONE!
No one would be stoopid enuogh to waste money installing these extremely expensive and innefficient and unreliable systems if the gubmint didn't steal our money and waste it by paying for other people's solar systems.

I'm a screaming liberal greenie, but I have to agree with you.

However, without some sort of subsidy, would the technology still evolve? You can bet your sweet bippy that other governments are subsidizing their own development efforts.

Other countries are subsidizing solar PV quite heavily with feed-in tariffs and other programs - Germany, Spain, Italy, etc. China has a big subsidy program, for up to 1/2 the equipment cost and $0.60-0.90/watt, plus large incentives for the panel manufacturing. They are investing in the future.

They are PRETENDING to invest in the future. They are really investing in a fantasy.
If the stuff doesn't work, doesn't last long enough to pay for itself, where's the future? In the toilet.

Why do some people just automatically expect a magic wand to wave and solve a problem? The technology to make PV panels work efficiently DOES NOT EXIST.
People sometimes just accept the fantasy that if we try hard enough long enough some magical breakthrough will occure and the problem will be solved.

They've been working to develop PV CELL technology since 1883! THAT'S 128 YEARS!
This is not some new thing that's in it's infancy of R&D.
A whole bunch of very, very smart people have spent their entire lives trying to solve this problem with very little success.

They had solar panels on skylab, they've had em on all kinds of satellites since the early days, and they only reason they worked halfassed well was because they were hit by strong direct sunlight that wasn't filtered through the atmosphere.
Even with all the money and research done to develop that technology for NASA (billions), guess what the number one failure mode of a space craft or satellite with PV panels?
The panels.

Spot on.

fwiw, I had a long (hours) conversation with one of those guys. A German who had spent quite a bit of his life looking at gathering other spectrum, using other materials. (other than the narrow spectrum/materials now used) He went on about some of the better experiments, where they could grab a similar amount power from a different spectrum. . . and the material used . . . would last for a few milliseconds. (at best)

Even though he saw funding to continue indefinitely, he was looking to make a career change. ...to do something that might actually prove fruitful. :-/

I'm really torn on this. Since ALL energy on this planet is solar in one form or another, the efficiency of grabbing it directly from the source is very appealing.

But, I definitely don't like the idea of our tax dollars being wasted on lousy technology. Those 10's of millions of dollars now go to the private sector, with the thought that they will innovate and it will add a bunch of jobs as well.

There is no technical reason why solar panels can't be very efficient, we just haven't figured it out yet. I think the problem is that social engineers are trying to jam these energy alternatives down our throats before they are ready. Which is fine right up until they use my money to do so. If there is a viable business model in "green" energy, I guarantee the Exxon's of the world will invest billions of their own dollars in making it work.

"we just haven't figured it out yet."

The thing is, we've figured out a Whole lot of it, some time ago. For example, we know that using solar for heating hot water utilizes more of the available spectrum than PV's. ...yet, like you, people really gravitate towards the idea of PV's.

Just becaus your computer got 1000x better in just a few years, doesn't me PV's will follow suit. --it's a completely different set of problems.

even magic will not cure the fantasies in your head, sammy

PV solar is a well-proven technology, tho expensive right now

R&D is going to make them more efficient and cheaper

Sky Lab was a long time ago

oh, and how long have we been developing the internal combustion engine???

Actually, subsidies hold back development, since the incentive (reducing cost) to get better isn't there.

The sale price of Panels are coming down. But Panels are only part of the cost. If you want 24/7 power from solar Panels, you need to store the energy. If you are storing energy, you need batteries. Batteries are big and they are not cheap.

I just quoted an off-grid solar project for backup power. They wanted 144 x 2000 Ah x 2V batteries. My cost on those batteries was $68,000. That is 576 kWh of storage. At 90% conversion efficieny (better inverters) you'd be able to run your refrigerator, 20 CFLs, a Laptop, 42" LCD TV, for about 2.5 weeks. My house in the summer would run for about 3 days on that...

With the exception of CATS, computer controlled fuel injection with O2 sensors and lighter materials, the IC hasn't changed much since the 1930's. I have text books on ICs from the 1930's that cover even fuel injection, super charging and turbocharging.

The fuel efficiency on cars isn't coming from the engines, it is coming from reducing weight and making the bodies more areodynamic. There are some improvements from fuel injection, but not as much.

Fuel economy took a hit in the 1990's, as the weight of cars increased with the mandatory protective systems.

What taxes get paid along with your electricity bill? For example, when you buy gasoline there are state and federal taxes. So as our nation's fuel consumption decreases (through driving less miles or buying more fuel efficient vehicles) there's been talk from our government to change vehicle registration to be reflected by miles driven, instead of gasoline consumed. You know, because now our government (who's been quite vocal in pushing green green green) has discovered that fuel efficiency isn't so good for tax revenue.

So if loads of people start becoming more energy efficient at home (whether through solar, wind, geothermal, capping their farts or whatnot) what part of the government or industry is going to suddenly realize they're facing a shortage of income? You know, the part of government that we have to save by increasing taxes somewhere else to make sure their jobs are secure.

That's true off grid, but in many places the grid has to buy your excess at the same rates it charges. So your meter runs one way in the day and the other way at night. The power company acts as a virtual battery.