Renovator8- I seriously doubt a modern Title 24 home would be drafty. The efficiency of fireplaces is not bad. I mean you aren't going to get 96% but 80% is definitely possible. Take away the high cost electric for distribution and I suspect it is cheaper. I would think with Tier 5 rates, that the electric fan distribution would represent 30% of heating costs. Now with that in mind, does all fireplaces seem like such a bad idea? Add in a tight house with 40 degree lows and distribution is not an issue. When people build tighter homes (Title 24 requires some tightness) they can backtrack to point heating sources like fireplaces. It is talked about all the time on green building sites. Usually they are referring to mini splits but the rational is the same. Title 24 combined with 40 degrees outside means very little heat loss and very little temp gradients around the house. A fireplace can cost $2k and if you have 8, that is well within the average HVAC budget. Sure most get a/c for that but the OP doesn't need it. I doubt we are talking large masonry work in all the bedrooms. Think of no maintenance, no filter changes. But really think about no electric use to move the heat around. There is no one answer to heating homes in the US. CA favors NG more than anywhere else.

Peegee, I had the same frustration. All I want is to see the house... I tried a few entry points from the site, and then, forget it. If it's not user-friendly, HGTV may not need my Web clicks for their advertisers. Regarding the lack of green building, my layperson's understanding is that this incentive for new builds ended in 2013. If HGTV planned this house to be showcased after Dec. 31, 2013, then green building wasn't a priority, unfortunately, for the network to highlight with this home. This is my understanding of the tax incentive, and, if true, would explain the lack of focus on "green" for this new build.

"It's my understanding that most winners stay in the house as a vacation, pick a few of the nicest decor pieces -- and the vehicle-- then sell it. Otherwise most won't be able to pay the taxes." then they pay a ton in taxes... back a time I worked with a number of auditors. They said never spend even a night there - it'll cost ya big money. and yes, taxes, heating, cooling would be way up there! This home doesn't hold much interest to me. I saw it coming on and changed the channel. Just for fun if I see it on again, I'll watch it. I usually don't like any of the décor in those homes. Most homes those designer/teams people do on the shows would make me scream "noooooooooooooooooo!".

so you would know that leverage increases risk. This is not true. A levered firm will be more risk than the same firm unlevered. However, that is different than saying that leverage increases risk for several reasons. Essentially, the overall risk of adding debt to a firm depends on the overall risk of the underlying assets. For example, $100 invested in Enron stock in September of 2000 was more risk than having $100 invested in Enron and $100 invested in Apple, even if your marginal debt is $100. Moreover, this is largely not true for highly liquid assets. Essentially, having $100 and owing $100 is the same financial position as having $0 and owing $0. Looking at our example, you have added $500,000 of debt, but you have also added $500,000 of highly liquid investments. you had a good run in the longest bull market in history but it could also have gone the other way and you could have lost your 500k investment and now the bank owns your home. This statement is incorrect for several reasons. First, I have been doing this for 25 years now so the recent bull market isn't really relevant. Since the 1929 collapse (when the modern market was introduced) there has not been a single down five year period, and only a couple of small down three year periods. I put money in the market in 2003 and after 2008 I was still in the black. Meanwhile my house wasn't liquid at all. So had I needed cash, I would have had it available, the credit freeze didn't bother me at all. Additionally, the equity market recovered much faster than housing, two years after the collapse the market was back at 95% of pre-crisis value. Next, properly diversified investment portfolios don't just go to zero. They may lose some value, but it isn't like one day you have money and the next day you don't. One day you have money and the next day you have a bit less. Finally, houses are riskier. It is much more likely that your house will decrease in value than it is your investment portfolio will decrease in value. Above you mentioned a scenario where I could lose my house. However, in reality it is much more likely to lose your house or health from a maintenance issue. The house that is across from one my rentals has a foundation problem, the owner who purchased it in January of 2011 for $210,000 cash just sold it for $130,000 in November of 2018. Had he financed $168,000 and invested that amount he would have had $401,000 in investments and maybe fixed the house instead of giving it away because he can't afford the $80,000 to repair the house.