6 ms·

Lessons learned after living in an off-grid rental

38 points by lxm 4y ago

ralph84 4y ago
> The cabins are handmade by Treesign, a local builder of tiny homes. Each house had to be hauled into position by a truck along several miles of dirt roads. This isn't sustainable living, it's a niche luxury product.
- null_object 4y ago
  > This isn't sustainable living, it's a niche luxury product. I agree, this article is a mis-characterization of what 'off-grid' should mean: not only do these sorts of cabins have all modern utilities, they're also constantly serviced by the owners, who themselves need to drive around to each of them, probably destroying any 'ecological' benefit they might otherwise have. In nordic countries cabins similar to this have existed for centuries - the only change here is that they've become a commodity for middle-class city-dwellers. Also by placing them in the middle of forests instead of (mostly) near the edges or alongside some water, these cabins simply give affluent vacationers the chance to experience the illusion of 'returning to nature' or living in some idealized 'primitive' state, at the cost of someone else needing to (literally) clear up their shit afterwards, and also transport water and other essentials deep into the woods, which would otherwise be free of traffic and disturbance to the animals and flora that have been there for millennia. As for the suggestion in the article that they could extend the season through the winter with some sort of battery top-up (because of the lack of natural light), anyone who has experienced trying to get to a place out in the countryside (and even near to a road, let alone in the middle of a forest), after a meter of wet snow has fallen would never even dream of suggesting this as a vacation option. Not only would the experience turn into one of raw survival (which might even be doubtful if the heating failed), but living in an isolated spot with barely 3 or 4 hours daylight each day would be stretching most people's endurance.
  - ajuc 4y ago
    The ultimate sustainable living is a commie-block in a reasonable small, walkable city with a good public transport and services mixed with residential areas. If you do that - it doesn't matter what the source of heating, energy etc. is, and what kind of a car (if any) you drive. Even if it's all coal and fossil-fuel powered - you are order of magnitude more sustainable than people living in suburbs with solar panels, heat pumps and Teslas simply because you waste so much less energy on building and transporting stuff to make living there possible.
    - danhor 4y ago
      No doubt it's greener, but not by an order of magnitude. Looking at the car: A large part of emissions are produced during manufacturing, especially for electrical cars. Driving less helps, but not an order of magnitude. Same with heating. A heat pump just needs (generally speaking around) 1/3 of the energy, so you really need a large size differential to get to an order of magnitude. People living in a large city also have better access to an airport, which generally leads to more flights and more emissions (in total still less, but not great).
      - ajuc 4y ago
        It's order of magnitude, easily. For example - if you live in a commie-block - you don't need and often you don't have the option to own multiple cars per family. Often you don't own a car at all. Parking space is at premium and walking/public transport solves most of your transporting needs anyway. So that's the difference between producing 1.75 cars per family vs let's say 0.75 in the city. And then driving let's say 5000 km per year vs let's say 30 000 km per year. And changing these cars every 3 years vs every 6 years. Heating is another thing. Surface area of my block is maybe 4 times the surface area of a detached house. But it houses 16 times more people. But that's nitpicking. The big thing is infrastructure. How many km of roads, cables, pipes, etc do you need per 1 detached house vs 1 flat in a commie block? How much concrete and steel do you use for that? How much energy is spent building and maintaining that infrastructure over the years? My 4-stories commie block houses 16 families in a plot that would be roughly equivalent to a plot where 1 detached house would stand in the countryside. And it's pretty low-density as far as city planning goes. You could easily make it much denser. There's a small park and a playground in that plot of land. So that's ~1/16th the infrastructure to service the same number of people compared to the countryside. And building the infrastructure is cheap compared to maintaining it for decades. The real unsustainable part of suburbia is maintaining all the extra infrastructure that low population density housing requires. If anything - 1 order of magnitude was an underestimate.
  - bigiain 4y ago
    > at the cost of someone else needing to (literally) clear up their shit afterwards, and also transport water and other essentials deep into the woods, which would otherwise be free of traffic So, Burningman for suburban families…
- ramesh31 4y ago
  We’ve had these for decades, and they’re called trailers. But slap some shingles on it and call it sustainable, and you can charge middle class people $200 a night for the privilege of it.
- stephen_g 4y ago
  That in itself isn’t necessarily that unsustainable - prefabrication (as long as the factory is somewhat close to the final site) can be much better than building on site because you need to move the thing once instead of having multiple workers travel out to the remote site every day for weeks, plus hauling in all the materials and then hauling out a lot of waste. Tools in the factory can be powered by electricity from the grid (and factory roofs are usually pretty good for solar), whereas on a remote site you would probably be using a diesel generator. So there are potentially a lot more pros than cons.
- dingdingdang 4y ago
  The point that the owner is openly looking to "buy a Ford F-150 Lightning pickup truck" in order to drive around and battery pump the individual houses just makes the whole thing mega awful for me - at that point surely the proper green option would be to have a little wood-stove in each house which would easily be offset by the natural bio-sequestering in large surrounding woods!!??
  - dsfyu404ed 4y ago
    >at that point surely the proper green option would be to have a little wood-stove in each house which would easily be offset by the natural bio-sequestering in large surrounding woods!!?? Even if you lived on a plot of forest that provided enough timber sustainably satisfy your energy needs (obviously everybody can't but why not let those who can/want to do so?) you'd still have every idiot coming out of the woodwork to complain about local air quality. It's easier just fractionally poison some watersheds half a world away building batteries and then charge up those batteries with grid electricity of mixed provenance giving you a veneer of plausible deniability than deal with the idiots next door who have a small but easy to quantify gripe.
  - avianlyric 4y ago
    They use LPG for heating and cooling already. The battery isn’t needed for that, so a wood stove wouldn’t change anything. Their primary issue is that there just isn’t much sun light in the winter. Not only is the duration very short, maybe 7 hours total per day, but the angle of incident is extremely low (sun doesn’t rise very far), making shading a serious issue. Conversely electricity consumption will be higher because lights need to be on longer, due to the reduced daylight hours. To top it all of, be so far north also means the intensity of sunlight is lower, so the energy delivered by a each sq meter of solar panel is lower compared to a similar panel near the equator. Put that all together, and collecting enough energy for functional illumination, and pumping water can become a real challenge.
- MisterTea 4y ago
  The interiors of these things are so sterile that it completely detracts from the natural surroundings. It's like a sci-fi story where a room in an affluent city apartment is teleported to the middle of the forest. It's lame to even try and call this off-grid living. This is glamping for people who are too afraid to leave the city behind. A real off-grid cabin is like a hunting shack or a boy scout cabin: four walls, a roof, beds, a table, and an outdoor shit house. Heat is optional from a fireplace or gas/kerosene heater. A step up would be indoor plumbing and a basic kitchen.
fedeb95 4y ago
Interesting what "off the grid" means today. - full internet access - a pletora of internet capable devices Not exactly my definition. Plus, spending 600€ + 125€ a month for internet isn't exactly something everyone can afford.
- guntherhermann 4y ago
  I don't agree, I'd say Kris Harbour lives "off grid" and he has an internet connection. https://youtu.be/lSt96KFFHxA https://youtu.be/lSt96KFFHxA
- jillesvangurp 4y ago
  Off grid simply means no grid connection. These days that indeed can mean very few compromises with respect to modern comforts like working internet, hot showers, heating, electricity, etc.
  - nonameiguess 4y ago
    So "grid" only means public utilities networks? You can't connect to central service providers via pipe or wire, but you can via radio? The Internet equivalent of generating your own electricity and heat would seem something like generating your own readers and content, talking to yourself via http payloads rendered into a browser. As soon as you're purchasing service from an ISP to get onto a shared network, that sounds an awful lot like a grid.
    - uxp100 4y ago
      Grid means the electrical grid. That’s it, and it’s typically the only utility that is available in rural areas. Many off-grid people don’t have these weird ideological hang ups that HNers project onto them, they simply want to live on land they own, and electrical service is impossible or extremely expensive.
  - SkeuomorphicBee 4y ago
    Some people would disagree with your definition of "grid" that doesn't include internet. I can imagine different people defining "grid" in one of three ways: 1. Physical infrastructure that runs uninterrupted all the way to your home. E.G. Electric grid, gas pipes, copper/fiber telecom wires. 2. The above plus big wireless infrastructure as well, so being on range of a cellphone tower would be on-grid. 3. The whole network of human society, so any instant on-demand exchange of goods or information would mean on-grid. So having internet trough Starlink would definitely be on-grid for definition #3, and maybe on-grid for #2 as well if conceptually you put a mesh of LOE satellites in the same category as a mesh of telecom antennas (which I personally lean towards).
drewcoo 4y ago
The dude was in a cabin in the woods for a week on vacation. It was off-grid, but he insisted on glamping with his family and carried a bunch of his own tech in. That's the sort of thing that people go to remote off-grid cabins to get away from!
- bl0rg 4y ago
  I think his point might have been to show what's currently possible in an off-grid setting. The reasons for wanting to live off-grid will vary from person to person - some might appreciate the disconnect from the modern world, others might simply want to increase their self-reliance.
dncornholio 4y ago
Wow, the cabin even has a kitchen? What's worth the read here? Living off grid doesn't involve eating raw meat all day?
sigwinch28 4y ago
With regards to water usage: >But that meant a fairly severe (but simple) change in behavior, like shutting off the water while lathering up in the shower or brushing teeth. I am legitimately surprised that people leave water running during the 2+ minutes when brushing their teeth.
- astura 4y ago
  I've noticed many people have horrible toothbrushing technique and only spend 15-20 seconds total on toothbrushing.
- fedeb95 4y ago
  This is my takeaway from the article as well. Using "severe" as adjective reveals a lot about who wrote it...
- juve1996 4y ago
  People don't bother saving things they have in abundance.
  - sigwinch28 4y ago
    Wow, this reflects on me so much especially w.r.t. things I use in the bathroom: toilet paper, toothpaste, soap, etc.
kkfx 4y ago
I've built a new home, NOT off-grid but capable of a limited autonomy and I'm FAR less optimistic than the author: first of all I'm living far south (French Alps of the south) so in a far more p.v. friendly place, with less cold for less time in winter and still a circadian thermal Δ that makes cooling needed only when the Sun shine. It's not a cabin but a home so with far more room for equipment. For the home I see I need to double my p.v. to 10kWp JUST to achieve a bit more than 50% self-consumption of the year, from 72% maximum in spring/summer to 35% of November-February. WFH to recharge A BIT from p.v. my EV with a realistic relative autonomy I need around 10kWp three phase, not single phase. Witch means three time the plant and it's costs, space etc. Still NOT reaching autonomy. Not counting the usable life of LiFeP storage and NMC cars... With my actual setup I can POTENTIALLY halving by home storage operation life be autonomous just from late May to September being VERY attentive in all I do, without counting the car. With a theoretical 10kWp x 3 I might be reasonably autonomous also for car (limiting my trips much) just from June to August. Actually my time-machine is offline and my body live 365 days per year, regardless of the season and actual hours of Sunlight or heating/cooling needs... Oh, and I also need to eat, being unable to create my own food out of my land (except for VERY limited amount of veggies, fish and meat casually hunted in a limited period of the year)... Oh, and of course I need many gears, starting from p.v. who is built by factories unable to run on p.v. themselves.............
- Ballas 4y ago
  You should really do an energy audit to figure out why you are using so much power. There is likely a more optimal way of spending your money to optimize your energy requirements. I have 5kWp and that generates more than double my needs on average (albeit in an even more solar friendly location than you).
  - kkfx 4y ago
    It's not that much power, it's simply the normal home needs: being a new home it's ALL electric, heating/cooling, cooking, hot water, ... if you have a classic home where for instance heating/cooling is not needed of course the story SEEMS different until you do a bit of conversion: - 1 standard m³ CH₄ is ~10.36kWh - LPG in standard m³ is ~12.80kWh in kg ~10.87kWh - 1kg of pellets ~4-5 kWh - 1 liter of heating oil (it's name vary from country to country, but it essentially diesel in the west) is ~11.1kWh - 1kg of reasonably dry coal is ~10 kWh Once you compute ALL your energy consumption you'll see similar data. Oh, of course, in mere math terms I can produce 110-130% of my overall consumption from the grid. BUT that's just math, it's not autonomy because it compute locally generated energy vs locally absorbed energy from the grid. Autonomy means you have to store or use ALL the energy you produce. Look at your self-consumed energy not the balance between what you give to the grid and what you get from it. To dig more: - try to measure how much energy you use for heating/cooling - how much for hot water - how much for cooking - how much for VMC if any - how much for the car You'll might be astonished about the result in mere kWh.
barney54 4y ago
To his point about watching his water consumption, the apartment building I lived in 20 years ago lost water (the water pump broke). We had to carry up all of the water we used to our fourth-floor apartment for six weeks. We were incredibly careful how we used water.

38 points by lxm 4y ago

> The cabins are handmade by Treesign, a local builder of tiny homes. Each house had to be hauled into position by a truck along several miles of dirt roads. This isn't sustainable living, it's a niche luxury product.

null_object 4y ago
> This isn't sustainable living, it's a niche luxury product. I agree, this article is a mis-characterization of what 'off-grid' should mean: not only do these sorts of cabins have all modern utilities, they're also constantly serviced by the owners, who themselves need to drive around to each of them, probably destroying any 'ecological' benefit they might otherwise have. In nordic countries cabins similar to this have existed for centuries - the only change here is that they've become a commodity for middle-class city-dwellers. Also by placing them in the middle of forests instead of (mostly) near the edges or alongside some water, these cabins simply give affluent vacationers the chance to experience the illusion of 'returning to nature' or living in some idealized 'primitive' state, at the cost of someone else needing to (literally) clear up their shit afterwards, and also transport water and other essentials deep into the woods, which would otherwise be free of traffic and disturbance to the animals and flora that have been there for millennia. As for the suggestion in the article that they could extend the season through the winter with some sort of battery top-up (because of the lack of natural light), anyone who has experienced trying to get to a place out in the countryside (and even near to a road, let alone in the middle of a forest), after a meter of wet snow has fallen would never even dream of suggesting this as a vacation option. Not only would the experience turn into one of raw survival (which might even be doubtful if the heating failed), but living in an isolated spot with barely 3 or 4 hours daylight each day would be stretching most people's endurance.
- ajuc 4y ago
  The ultimate sustainable living is a commie-block in a reasonable small, walkable city with a good public transport and services mixed with residential areas. If you do that - it doesn't matter what the source of heating, energy etc. is, and what kind of a car (if any) you drive. Even if it's all coal and fossil-fuel powered - you are order of magnitude more sustainable than people living in suburbs with solar panels, heat pumps and Teslas simply because you waste so much less energy on building and transporting stuff to make living there possible.
  - danhor 4y ago
    No doubt it's greener, but not by an order of magnitude. Looking at the car: A large part of emissions are produced during manufacturing, especially for electrical cars. Driving less helps, but not an order of magnitude. Same with heating. A heat pump just needs (generally speaking around) 1/3 of the energy, so you really need a large size differential to get to an order of magnitude. People living in a large city also have better access to an airport, which generally leads to more flights and more emissions (in total still less, but not great).
    - ajuc 4y ago
      It's order of magnitude, easily. For example - if you live in a commie-block - you don't need and often you don't have the option to own multiple cars per family. Often you don't own a car at all. Parking space is at premium and walking/public transport solves most of your transporting needs anyway. So that's the difference between producing 1.75 cars per family vs let's say 0.75 in the city. And then driving let's say 5000 km per year vs let's say 30 000 km per year. And changing these cars every 3 years vs every 6 years. Heating is another thing. Surface area of my block is maybe 4 times the surface area of a detached house. But it houses 16 times more people. But that's nitpicking. The big thing is infrastructure. How many km of roads, cables, pipes, etc do you need per 1 detached house vs 1 flat in a commie block? How much concrete and steel do you use for that? How much energy is spent building and maintaining that infrastructure over the years? My 4-stories commie block houses 16 families in a plot that would be roughly equivalent to a plot where 1 detached house would stand in the countryside. And it's pretty low-density as far as city planning goes. You could easily make it much denser. There's a small park and a playground in that plot of land. So that's ~1/16th the infrastructure to service the same number of people compared to the countryside. And building the infrastructure is cheap compared to maintaining it for decades. The real unsustainable part of suburbia is maintaining all the extra infrastructure that low population density housing requires. If anything - 1 order of magnitude was an underestimate.
- bigiain 4y ago
  > at the cost of someone else needing to (literally) clear up their shit afterwards, and also transport water and other essentials deep into the woods, which would otherwise be free of traffic So, Burningman for suburban families…
ramesh31 4y ago
We’ve had these for decades, and they’re called trailers. But slap some shingles on it and call it sustainable, and you can charge middle class people $200 a night for the privilege of it.
stephen_g 4y ago
That in itself isn’t necessarily that unsustainable - prefabrication (as long as the factory is somewhat close to the final site) can be much better than building on site because you need to move the thing once instead of having multiple workers travel out to the remote site every day for weeks, plus hauling in all the materials and then hauling out a lot of waste. Tools in the factory can be powered by electricity from the grid (and factory roofs are usually pretty good for solar), whereas on a remote site you would probably be using a diesel generator. So there are potentially a lot more pros than cons.
dingdingdang 4y ago
The point that the owner is openly looking to "buy a Ford F-150 Lightning pickup truck" in order to drive around and battery pump the individual houses just makes the whole thing mega awful for me - at that point surely the proper green option would be to have a little wood-stove in each house which would easily be offset by the natural bio-sequestering in large surrounding woods!!??
- dsfyu404ed 4y ago
  >at that point surely the proper green option would be to have a little wood-stove in each house which would easily be offset by the natural bio-sequestering in large surrounding woods!!?? Even if you lived on a plot of forest that provided enough timber sustainably satisfy your energy needs (obviously everybody can't but why not let those who can/want to do so?) you'd still have every idiot coming out of the woodwork to complain about local air quality. It's easier just fractionally poison some watersheds half a world away building batteries and then charge up those batteries with grid electricity of mixed provenance giving you a veneer of plausible deniability than deal with the idiots next door who have a small but easy to quantify gripe.
- avianlyric 4y ago
  They use LPG for heating and cooling already. The battery isn’t needed for that, so a wood stove wouldn’t change anything. Their primary issue is that there just isn’t much sun light in the winter. Not only is the duration very short, maybe 7 hours total per day, but the angle of incident is extremely low (sun doesn’t rise very far), making shading a serious issue. Conversely electricity consumption will be higher because lights need to be on longer, due to the reduced daylight hours. To top it all of, be so far north also means the intensity of sunlight is lower, so the energy delivered by a each sq meter of solar panel is lower compared to a similar panel near the equator. Put that all together, and collecting enough energy for functional illumination, and pumping water can become a real challenge.
MisterTea 4y ago
The interiors of these things are so sterile that it completely detracts from the natural surroundings. It's like a sci-fi story where a room in an affluent city apartment is teleported to the middle of the forest. It's lame to even try and call this off-grid living. This is glamping for people who are too afraid to leave the city behind. A real off-grid cabin is like a hunting shack or a boy scout cabin: four walls, a roof, beds, a table, and an outdoor shit house. Heat is optional from a fireplace or gas/kerosene heater. A step up would be indoor plumbing and a basic kitchen.

fedeb95 4y ago

Interesting what "off the grid" means today. - full internet access - a pletora of internet capable devices Not exactly my definition. Plus, spending 600€ + 125€ a month for internet isn't exactly something everyone can afford.

guntherhermann 4y ago
I don't agree, I'd say Kris Harbour lives "off grid" and he has an internet connection. https://youtu.be/lSt96KFFHxA https://youtu.be/lSt96KFFHxA
jillesvangurp 4y ago
Off grid simply means no grid connection. These days that indeed can mean very few compromises with respect to modern comforts like working internet, hot showers, heating, electricity, etc.
- nonameiguess 4y ago
  So "grid" only means public utilities networks? You can't connect to central service providers via pipe or wire, but you can via radio? The Internet equivalent of generating your own electricity and heat would seem something like generating your own readers and content, talking to yourself via http payloads rendered into a browser. As soon as you're purchasing service from an ISP to get onto a shared network, that sounds an awful lot like a grid.
  - uxp100 4y ago
    Grid means the electrical grid. That’s it, and it’s typically the only utility that is available in rural areas. Many off-grid people don’t have these weird ideological hang ups that HNers project onto them, they simply want to live on land they own, and electrical service is impossible or extremely expensive.
- SkeuomorphicBee 4y ago
  Some people would disagree with your definition of "grid" that doesn't include internet. I can imagine different people defining "grid" in one of three ways: 1. Physical infrastructure that runs uninterrupted all the way to your home. E.G. Electric grid, gas pipes, copper/fiber telecom wires. 2. The above plus big wireless infrastructure as well, so being on range of a cellphone tower would be on-grid. 3. The whole network of human society, so any instant on-demand exchange of goods or information would mean on-grid. So having internet trough Starlink would definitely be on-grid for definition #3, and maybe on-grid for #2 as well if conceptually you put a mesh of LOE satellites in the same category as a mesh of telecom antennas (which I personally lean towards).

drewcoo 4y ago

The dude was in a cabin in the woods for a week on vacation. It was off-grid, but he insisted on glamping with his family and carried a bunch of his own tech in. That's the sort of thing that people go to remote off-grid cabins to get away from!

bl0rg 4y ago
I think his point might have been to show what's currently possible in an off-grid setting. The reasons for wanting to live off-grid will vary from person to person - some might appreciate the disconnect from the modern world, others might simply want to increase their self-reliance.

dncornholio 4y ago

Wow, the cabin even has a kitchen? What's worth the read here? Living off grid doesn't involve eating raw meat all day?

sigwinch28 4y ago

With regards to water usage: >But that meant a fairly severe (but simple) change in behavior, like shutting off the water while lathering up in the shower or brushing teeth. I am legitimately surprised that people leave water running during the 2+ minutes when brushing their teeth.

astura 4y ago
I've noticed many people have horrible toothbrushing technique and only spend 15-20 seconds total on toothbrushing.
fedeb95 4y ago
This is my takeaway from the article as well. Using "severe" as adjective reveals a lot about who wrote it...
juve1996 4y ago
People don't bother saving things they have in abundance.
- sigwinch28 4y ago
  Wow, this reflects on me so much especially w.r.t. things I use in the bathroom: toilet paper, toothpaste, soap, etc.

kkfx 4y ago

I've built a new home, NOT off-grid but capable of a limited autonomy and I'm FAR less optimistic than the author: first of all I'm living far south (French Alps of the south) so in a far more p.v. friendly place, with less cold for less time in winter and still a circadian thermal Δ that makes cooling needed only when the Sun shine. It's not a cabin but a home so with far more room for equipment. For the home I see I need to double my p.v. to 10kWp JUST to achieve a bit more than 50% self-consumption of the year, from 72% maximum in spring/summer to 35% of November-February. WFH to recharge A BIT from p.v. my EV with a realistic relative autonomy I need around 10kWp three phase, not single phase. Witch means three time the plant and it's costs, space etc. Still NOT reaching autonomy. Not counting the usable life of LiFeP storage and NMC cars... With my actual setup I can POTENTIALLY halving by home storage operation life be autonomous just from late May to September being VERY attentive in all I do, without counting the car. With a theoretical 10kWp x 3 I might be reasonably autonomous also for car (limiting my trips much) just from June to August. Actually my time-machine is offline and my body live 365 days per year, regardless of the season and actual hours of Sunlight or heating/cooling needs... Oh, and I also need to eat, being unable to create my own food out of my land (except for VERY limited amount of veggies, fish and meat casually hunted in a limited period of the year)... Oh, and of course I need many gears, starting from p.v. who is built by factories unable to run on p.v. themselves.............

Ballas 4y ago
You should really do an energy audit to figure out why you are using so much power. There is likely a more optimal way of spending your money to optimize your energy requirements. I have 5kWp and that generates more than double my needs on average (albeit in an even more solar friendly location than you).
- kkfx 4y ago
  It's not that much power, it's simply the normal home needs: being a new home it's ALL electric, heating/cooling, cooking, hot water, ... if you have a classic home where for instance heating/cooling is not needed of course the story SEEMS different until you do a bit of conversion: - 1 standard m³ CH₄ is ~10.36kWh - LPG in standard m³ is ~12.80kWh in kg ~10.87kWh - 1kg of pellets ~4-5 kWh - 1 liter of heating oil (it's name vary from country to country, but it essentially diesel in the west) is ~11.1kWh - 1kg of reasonably dry coal is ~10 kWh Once you compute ALL your energy consumption you'll see similar data. Oh, of course, in mere math terms I can produce 110-130% of my overall consumption from the grid. BUT that's just math, it's not autonomy because it compute locally generated energy vs locally absorbed energy from the grid. Autonomy means you have to store or use ALL the energy you produce. Look at your self-consumed energy not the balance between what you give to the grid and what you get from it. To dig more: - try to measure how much energy you use for heating/cooling - how much for hot water - how much for cooking - how much for VMC if any - how much for the car You'll might be astonished about the result in mere kWh.

barney54 4y ago

To his point about watching his water consumption, the apartment building I lived in 20 years ago lost water (the water pump broke). We had to carry up all of the water we used to our fourth-floor apartment for six weeks. We were incredibly careful how we used water.