this post was submitted on 11 Dec 2024
71 points (100.0% liked)

AskUSA

184 readers
144 users here now

About

Community for asking and answering any question related to the life, the people or anything related to the USA. Non-US people are welcome to provide their perspective! Please keep in mind:

  1. !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world - politics in our daily lives is inescapable, but please post overtly political things there rather than here
  2. !flippanarchy@lemmy.dbzer0.com - similarly things with the goal of overt agitation have their place, which is there rather than here

Rules

  1. Be nice or gtfo
  2. Discussions of overt political or agitation nature belong elsewhere
  3. Follow the rules of discuss.online

Sister communities

  1. !askuk@feddit.uk
  2. !casualuk@feddit.uk
  3. !casualconversation@lemm.ee
  4. !yurop@lemm.ee
  5. !esp@lemm.ee

Related communities

  1. !asklemmy@lemmy.world
  2. !asklemmy@sh.itjust.works
  3. !nostupidquestions@lemmy.world
  4. !showerthoughts@lemmy.world

founded 2 weeks ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] eksb@programming.dev 14 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

One reason is bad laws. I would love to replace my natural gas boiler and steam radiators with an electric heat pump system. It would be more efficient, cheaper to run, be able use solar power, and keep my house more comfortable.

But state law requires that buildings meet a specific efficiency requirement, which my house does not meet because it is 170 years old. I understand why they have that requirement for new construction, but it is stupid to not have an exception for old buildings.

[–] FoxyFerengi@lemm.ee 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I was looking at what I'd need to get a heat pump installed yesterday, before the state website even started discussing the different types there were links to weatherization programs and efficiency requirements. My house is about 70 years old, even with insulation updates in the 00s it's a drafty bitch

[–] SirQuackTheDuck@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

Our home is from the 19th century, but with modern insulation it's still fit to be heated with ACs and a heat pump. We've opted not to since that's a big ass unit and we're limited on space, but it could work.

We did have to replace isolation basically everywhere and we still need to replace some door frames, but the total cost was just a few thousand euros, before govt funding.

Doing almost all of the work yourselves saves a fuckton of money.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Did you look into it though? Anything you can do to weatherproof your home is far cheaper than paying forever to heat or cool it.

I’m in a similar situation but less so. My house is only half the age but well built so not too leaky. My state strongly encourages efficiency measures and they’re not a bad idea. However since their criteria is “recommended” insulation, I’m “ok”. Basically since I have two layers of fiberglass in my attic, I’ve “done all I could”. However I did have to have an insulating contractor out to say “yep, can’t do any more”

Now my only problem was that I have functioning (but old) heating and a/c so wanted to save up a few years, but now I need to decide whether I have to try asap to get the incentive while it lasts