I always enjoy threads dealing with energy-efficient homes, as our plan is to, within the next few years, build a home that is as energy-efficient as possible. Like teresa b (above) originally considered, we have thought about an ICF home and geothermal. The ICF concept is still almost unknown in our area. A few years ago, we attended a home show, and not only was ICF not represented, no one with whom we spoke knew what we were talking about. Fortunately, I have located a builder in the area who has some experience with the Logix ICF system, so I hope to speak with him in the future. Another interesting thing -- at a party last night, I spoke with a guy who has one of those Hardy (brand) woodburning furnaces, the type that is located outside the home, with underground lines connecting it to a heat exchanger located in the standard heating system. It also preheats water going into the water heater, to save on water heating costs. Something else I will consider!

davidtay: That's terrific. I appreciate you posting the links. The first link would be the bulb of interest: http://www.amazon.com/Dimmable-Base-Light-White-1116ww/dp/B003L4YY5E/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=hi&qid=1284173971&sr=1-1 I found them listed here as well, for about 30% less: http://www.ledlightbulb.net/store/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=1_80&products_id=623 My biggest concern of course would be the limited light output if I were to stay with the original fixture. I would go from having the capacity for 300 watts of incandescent light to 100 watts. It's probably not enough for my needs. There's an alternative chandelier by the same manufacturer that may be a great option with these LED G9's. The model I'm thinking of would require 9 of these bulbs. If I went with regular Halogen G9's, the fixture would require a ridiculous 675 watts! If I used the LED G9's instead, I'd end up with the potential equivalent of 225 watts of incandescent light (perfect for my needs) yet would only need 27 watts to juice it. I think that's pretty terrific. Here's the replacement chandelier: This really may be a great option, especially considering it would require less than 10% of the electricity of the original fixture. The downside is that this second chandelier is over twice the cost of the one I was originally considering. I guess I'd just need to decide whether I can afford the indulgence. Thanks for pointing out the LED G9's. John

Ionized: FYI: I put those formulas into an Excel spreadsheet so that they were more plug-n-chug. The original estimate for payback on my gas tankless was 5 years vs a standard 40 gal tank heater.(~a $500 difference in installed price - DIY) The revised payback with lower gas prices is 8 years. That's okay, but not great - but that's compared to a standard gas tank. I couldn't use a standard gas tank without re-lining my chimney or using a powervent. The powervent was the same cost as the tankless - so it's all savings for me. All that said, I live in central Indiana where it can get downright cold. Everything in my 100 year old house is gas incl. furnace, water heater, range and dryer. My average gas bill (budget) is $46 - and that's before the mild winter this year and the foam insulation I added on the basement walls and joist pockets. My winter electric bill is $35. I keep things at 68-70 degrees inside. The continuous hot water is very nice, not having a big tank is great, but not having anxiety attacks over utility bills is wonderful. Of course it's not just the water heater, it's the 92% furnace and insulation and such... I still have the original windows though. Even with the reduced cost of natural gas, if someone can install a tankless at a reasonable cost (no re-doing the gas service) I would advise that people consider it. In hot climates, the heat pump water heater sounds like a great option - esp in electric only situations.

I think you are exactly right jannicone, although I whenever I consider that point, I sort of shake my head. I get that most people don't value energy efficiency like I do, and that's fine, but sometimes experience's like schreibdave's seem a bit irrational to me. Our new, roughly 2600 sq ft home will cost the same or less per month in total utility costs to live in than our current 900 sq ft home. It will also be a lot more comfortable (temperature, air quality, etc. etc.). Yes, it costs a little more up front, but the much maligned-in-this-thread payback period for the difference in cost will be well within the period of time we plan to live in the house. Most of the energy efficiency aspects we chose were not THAT expensive. I guess I just don't understand why most prefer the trade-offs required for lower initial cost, which usually means houses built as cheaply as possible (except for the granite countertops). It seems like finding the lowest possible initial cost is all people consider, regardless of the balance of cost of ownership. With the right choices, it costs much less money overall to have a somewhat higher initial cost and pay for that in the monthly mortgage payment, than have a somewhat lower mortgage payment and pay much higher energy costs every month forever (in a less comfortable house). We knew before we started building that almost no one would be willing the pay the same premium we are willing to for the energy efficiency aspects of our home if we needed to sell it. In my rural area, people regularly accept $300+/month energy bills, even on houses where the cost of sealing some ducts and adding a little insulation would pay itself back in less than a year, and the house would be more comfortable. People around here have $ for everything else in the world besides replacement windows for their leaking, single pane windows, which would start saving them money every month very quickly. I don't get it. (Apologies if I sound smug, I just don't understand "saving" money on less insulation and poor windows so you can buy a much larger HVAC system and nicer countertops.....does not compute).