A woman in California has spent the past two years (and a decent chunk of money) installing and testing out all sorts of energy-efficient, environmentally friendly, money-saving improvements in her home. In the process, she’s discovered that some improvements are so simple and so cost-effective that it’s dumb not to make the change. Yet at the same time, she also learned that some trendy practices are difficult, expensive, and probably not as good for the environment as a lot of people think.
The woman we’re talking about is Susan Carpenter, who writes the LA Times’ “Realist Idealist” column. After two years of budget-conscious eco-pimping out her California bungalow, she’s ready to deliver judgment on upgrades that many homeowners consider either for the sake of the earth, money, or both.
Carpenter gives first- and second-place awards to the installation of gray water and solar power systems, respectively. It seems pretty clear that these upgrades help the environment. Water from laundry machines and sinks that would have otherwise been funneled into a sewer now stays on her property and is used to water her yard. By going solar, Carpenter is not using fossil fuels and is not creating greenhouse gases. From the purely financial point of view, however, these upgrades don’t get quite as clear a thumbs up. The gray water system cost about $2,000, and over two years, Carpenter estimates she’s saved a little under $100 in water costs. Her sewer bill is $3.30 cheaper each month too. Seems underwhelming.
After rebates and tax credits, Carpenter’s solar power system cost half of what it normally would on the open market (she paid just under $6,000). After that, her electricity is essentially free, provided she plugs in strategically (she recharges her cell phone during off-peak hours, when electricity is cheaper). The solar system is expected to work for 20 years, so as a pure investment it should pay off down the line (provided no cheaper, more efficient technology becomes available sooner).
Carpenter also weighs in on her new composting toilet ($627 installed, and she refuses to use it for No. 2), and on her fruitless efforts (excuse the pun) to raise food on her property. For her, attempts at growing fruits and veggies was an utter failure:
Having transitioned my low-water ornamental landscape to edibles, I’d say this is a project for people with time, money and a love of gardening and cooking. It isn’t a job for single mothers with high-stress jobs who’d rather not spend their precious down time watering, pulling weeds and bringing in their harvest.
Joining a CSA (community supported agriculture) group proved much better for her sanity, her yard, and her pocketbook. Carpenter also quickly gave up on the trendy practice of raising chickens. After spending $530 on the chicks, coop, and feed, she yielded a grand total of four eggs, and then, sadly:
L.A. may be a sprawling metropolis, but it isn’t devoid of wild animals. Some people have coyotes. I’ve got possums and raccoons, which breached my coop and gobbled down my ladies.
That’s the problem with getting back to nature: Nature can and often does take over.
As so often is the case, simple, cheap, age-old solutions can have a bigger impact than the installation of a complicated, expensive new system. Take an outdoor laundry line, as Carpenter explains:
Clothes dryers account for 5% to 10% of a home’s energy use. I have one, but I use it only if I’m desperate… For me, the low-tech laundry line is about the easiest and simplest thing I can do to reduce energy use and greenhouse gas emissions.
It also costs next to nothing to string a laundry line up, and drying your clothes outside reduces your electricity bill. That’s an upgrade well worth the money.