patrick.net

"Now Hydrogen generation make it completely possible to live off grid."

huh?

Swan,

There is bad technology, and then there is bad technology *selection*, bad planning, bad regulation and bad policy.

I don't think technology is the problem.

And lwog is right about hydrogen energy storage technology. Coincidentally it is a good example of bad technology *selection*.

I think houses are dropping in value because assets go up and down.

Real Estate valuation responds very powerfully to the collective purchasing power of the public, especially the investor-speculator subclass.

This decade saw capital gains taxes on real estate drop to zero, interest rates halved, income taxes burden on the wealthy significantly reduced, lending underwriting totally abandoned, DTI limits raised if not abandoned through widespread borrower fraud, and the abandonment of amortization or even full interest payment, plus the rise of CDOs (and a money supply that doubled 1998-2008) that provided the money to power this train.

Remote work is possible for some people but not much or most people. It will increasingly buoy land values in desirable areas as more people work remotely, but it's a second-order effect.

("but it was the CRA that caused the bubble", snicker)

All these served to inflate the purchasing power of the buyer. And buy we did.

Now that the speculative rush is largely over, houses are returning to their intrinsic value, which is their capitalized rents.

The argument in the FPP is a good one, about how freeways enabled people to live on cheaper land (until everyone does this and the freeway becomes unusable for commuting at normal hours).

It may be possible living off grid but unless you want to home-school your children it's pretty tough. My general requirements are 30 minutes to a Trader Joes, Costco, Target, and Chipotle.

And once robotic technology advances to the point that I, an RN, can work from home then I'll be living on the beach in Mexico! Just hope the network doesn't go down during a code.

Seriously, how many jobs allow for telecommuting?

Anyone hear about 'passive houses'. Something worth looking into.

http://www.rootdesignbuild.com/shift_house.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_house

It's a house with a lot of insulation really. I think it's a shame that most houses don't require much more insulation, even in california. They use other techniques including heat pumps, but those are expensive. It requires bringing in heavy equipment to drill a hole and lay pipework within it.

Just good insulation would help so much.

"Seriously, how many jobs allow for telecommuting?"

If your job can easily be telecommuted it may well be telecommuted out the state.
As a RN you may be luckier than others ...

Certainly we can say large pools of jobs that are not location important can be moved elsewhere.
The success of the telecommunication revolution has its own price for workers.

"Not to mention, we’ve had the technology to do remote work for 15 years now. How much work is being done remotely? Many companies have tried it and pulled back in house, even though it costs a lot more to have office phones, electricity, desks, and office rent. It just didn’t work out that well for most positions."

It certainly has worked. Whole groups of different functions have moved out of he SF Bay area and set up shop out of state.
Here is some numbers from LinkedIn .. Intel by employees as registered users by state.

SF Bay Area 4866
Sacramento 4074
Portland 9304
Arizona 5114
Isreal 2994
India 2886
China 1770
Malaysia 1166
Boston 1066

And this is very typical numbers you would find. These groups collaborate with each day within their groups and outside their own location.

"Current houses are devaluing for many reasons, but one reason is that long term, they are a bad technology."

Blah Blah Blah. Many already have electricity, gas, and cable wiring. There still some idiots out
there pimping 'smart homes' with this or that gadget to make a nickel. Prices are devaluing because
of the massive over-hyping and marketing of homes.

Government spending gone wrong.

As we have seen back 10 years with VC, there was too much money chasing too few good ideas.
The result was a bubble and a blow up. Comical that Obama doesnt get this with the same VCs
standing next to him.

If anyone wants to create alternative energy programs to directly benefit the nation its more likely going to succeed using the NASA model and not the Dot.com model. The money is kept with the program and spent with its controlled means. Many of these Solar companies will fold with the government funds wasted.

Troy says

I think houses are dropping in value because assets go up and down.
Real Estate valuation responds very powerfully to the collective purchasing power of the public, especially the investor-speculator subclass.
This decade saw capital gains taxes on real estate drop to zero, interest rates halved, income taxes burden on the wealthy significantly reduced, lending underwriting totally abandoned, DTI limits raised if not abandoned through widespread borrower fraud, and the abandonment of amortization or even full interest payment, plus the rise of CDOs (and a money supply that doubled 1998-2008) that provided the money to power this train.
Remote work is possible for some people but not much or most people. It will increasingly buoy land values in desirable areas as more people work remotely, but it’s a second-order effect.
(”but it was the CRA that caused the bubble”, snicker)
All these served to inflate the purchasing power of the buyer. And buy we did.
Now that the speculative rush is largely over, houses are returning to their intrinsic value, which is their capitalized rents.
The argument in the FPP is a good one, about how freeways enabled people to live on cheaper land (until everyone does this and the freeway becomes unusable for commuting at normal hours).
It may be possible living off grid but unless you want to home-school your children it’s pretty tough. My general requirements are 30 minutes to a Trader Joes, Costco, Target, and Chipotle.

Your last statement here got me - 30 minutes to chipotle, target ,etc. Hopefully you mean "walking" to those places

Quadrant is one of the most poorly designed and poorly built houses I have ever seen in my life!! There is just so much wasted space

----------------------
Bryan Adam
http://buderim.fastrealestate.com.au "Buderim real estate"

g_ashish_y@rediffmail.com

No thank you go play fort somewhere else.

@thomas.wong87

The problem with the Nasa comparision, is that Nasa went to the moon, and that operation worked very well. They didn't have to build affordable, or repeatable equipment. They had one goal, get to the moon.

Alternative energy has so many vectors and approaches that need to be worked though, that one company simply couldn't research all of the different types of energy available. We require so much energy that, that one solution isn't going to cut it. We'll need dozens.

For the conspiracy theorists, the possibilities of sabotage could be endless. Ignoring better paths for paths that will lead no where. Taking a path that will succeed but will require all platinum components, and thus too expensive to ever use. There would be so many vectors for sabotage.

The government really needs to seed some competition, and that is what they're doing. Many people will walk off with some money and do nothing with it. Others will try their best and fail. But really, we only need a handful to succeed in getting anywhere. Even 2-3 breakthroughs could be amazing for us. We will still need more alternatives than those 2-3 to sufficiently feed our energy needs, but at least we will have tried a few different paths and will have a better idea of where to go. If we only had gone down one path and it had failed, we would need to start over again and try a new one. This is really a shot gun approach. It's probably got a better chance of success than Nasa ever would have.

PK,

Agree that NASA heroics is not the right model for renewable energy development. They are much better at wasting energy than at saving it. Space flight of any sort is a gigantic expenditure of energy.

TW87,

I think NASA can be useful if they can be re-trained to use their considerable expertise in mechanical and materials engineering for energy purposes. But they really are going to have to develop a completely different mindset.

If Obama can re-task NASA for renewable energy development, and we never did another manned space flight, I'd be perfectly satisfied. Launching satellites, okay, launching people, no way.