Apples to Oranges
To: dave_helmut
The original article was specifically dealing with a specially built house, so I replied with that assumption.
At no point in your earlier message did you mention the parameter of "having to retrofit an existing design with solar", only in your response now did you mention this restriction in the comparison.
That said, one can (at somewhat greater expense) retro-fit an existing tract home to improve its energy efficiency significantly. This alone would provide substantial savings, as I think you are alluding to.
If one then considers such add-ons as solar and wind power to further reduce reliance on fossil fuel power, as well as eliminating the substantial energy transportation costs, there is much more to be saved.
Your example is interesting - I would expect a house built and "applianced" conventionally to require so much electricity that an estimate for solar power could well be in excess of $50,000 in addition to the house. That said, improving the initial house up to a certain point would provide better bang for the buck than buying bigger solar panels - perhaps a combined "spend" of $40,000 to achieve the same results. On the other hand, a house built to run successfully on solar power would deliver significant benefits when running on the grid (using about one third the electricity).
As for electric car sacrifices - the only two I see in practice are initial cost and horsepower. Safety and comfort are bogus arguments as far as I have experienced. I do not see the Volt, the EMev or otehr state of the art e-cars as any less comfortable or safe (and perhaps more comfortable and safer than many cars).
Your own comparison of car and house technologies is unfortunately itself an apples and oranges comparison. Car technology has advanced hugely over the last 20 years, with todays cars absolutely pushing the boundaries for efficiency for internal combustion engines, with the vehicles themselves being ever lighter yet stronger and safer. The best electric platform is less than 30% lighter than its gas-engined counterpart. I the realm of houses, there is an enormous gulf to bridge. In Germany, engineers are creating houses that require 0 active heating, that cost little more than an average conventional house. The U.K. which gets mild winters has mandated triple glazing in new construction, and is very active in such areas as passive solar heating, yet Canada where we have several weeks each year of -20 c temperatures still only requires double glazing. My point is that homes can still EASILY be doubled in efficiency at relatively low cost.
