Good analysis. And kudos to the author for saving money. But still 21.6MWh per year excluding solar production seems too high for a household. I use electric heating and drive an electric vehicle, and my household annual energy consumption is about one fifth of that.
Their total household usage was actually ~17.3 MWh depending on what data source you're using for their usage.
Given 6 MWh of exports with only 3.2 MWh of total solar production, they are cycling their powerwall to get paid for the fact that their off-peak rate is half the price of their peak export tariff rate which is inflating the number you're looking at.
In my house I only run LED lighting and an occasional oven, some phones and laptops, a cycling fridge and two weekly wash cycles, in other words, virtually no electricity. I'm at like 2 kWh per day.
The ~45 kWh a day for this family is gigantic compared to mine, like >20 of my homes in one.
But I don't have an electric car, nor electric heating or cooling, nor an electric stove.
If you have say a standard electric car like a Peugeot 208 which uses 15 kWh per 100km, and you both drive one hour (say 60km) to work and back, five days a week, that's already 25 kWh per day.
My heating bill (gas, europe) is an order of magnitude of my electric bill. Even if I'd electrify it (cheaper), it'd likely be an additional 10 kWh per day.
If you have slightly more fancy lifestyle (they run home-servers and a hottub for example), you can easily get to 45 kWh.
I think the fair comparison is to look at a household total energy expenditure (energy & $). My household has a low electrical share, theirs has an almost exclusive electrical share.
I ran my power bill for a small single family home through chatGPT and it was interesting. Cold winters/hot summers, electric stove, air conditioning during summers, and nothing else out of the ordinary that uses power.
- Base electricity: 17 kWh/day (10 in months without AC)
- Heating (currently gas): 33 kWh/day
- Heating (if I switched to heat pump with COP 3): 10 kWh/day
- EV charging at 10k miles/yr: 9 kWh/day
Total if I was fully electrified: 36 kWh/day, or 13 MWh/yr
I had a old, cheap, used Dell R710 that I bought used in ~2016 until 2025. It only took a few months of running a new, much more efficient server to pay for its self.
My EliteDesk G4 idles at 11W with 4 drives, so it’s not too bad. I really wish we could get something cooler, but it does the job beautifully. I see 150+ for the Dell, ouch.
Not all homes are made equal: different appliances & electronics from different vintages, etc.
I have 2 EVs (Tesla and BMW), an electric oven, and a homelab rack (but no HVAC), and my usage was 34.4 MWh last year — with 100% from Solar and Powerwall.
I’m waiting on a quote for an hvac that uses its waste heat for the home hot water. Im irritated that I’m cooling the house, pushing out hot air, and heating water at the same time.
Get a basic heat recovery unit, it basically has no moving parts (just a few fans) and good ones recover 90%+ of the heat going out of your house. It's almost useless if you don't have an airtight envelope though.
All in one systems with water heating are way too complex and _will_ fail relatively quickly, mini heat pumps won't last 10 years, and by the time it dies you won't be able to find a replacement for your specific model
> All in one systems with water heating are way too complex and _will_ fail relatively quickly, ...
Can you offer some evidence of this? I don't see how adding a refrigerant to water heat exchanger after the compressor, before the reversing valve, could possibly hurt the longevity of a system.
> ... mini heat pumps won't last 10 years, and by the time it dies you won't be able to find a replacement for your specific model
Thing with mini-splits is you replace the entire unit so it doesn't matter.
> Can you offer some evidence of this? I don't see how adding a refrigerant to water heat exchanger after the compressor, before the reversing valve, could possibly hurt the longevity of a system.
The nearly infinite amount of forum posts about heat pumps dying prematurely and costing thousands and thousands to fix. You don't see how adding complexity on top of complexity in a complex system add points of failures ?
> Thing with mini-splits is you replace the entire unit so it doesn't matter.
I forgot this is an american centric forum and things are just made cheap/disposable because "it's cheaper'
This makes me sad. I’m in a 1940s house where the lack of it being airtight is a key reason it’s still standing as it leaks and the airflow dries it. Water flows down the inside of the brickwork, and the cavity is well ventilated.
On that avenue, I do push hot air from my homelab into my upper garage for heat. If it below 50deg outside I also bring in some cold air from outside. Both are somewhat free offsets for heating/cooling.
We brought down our energy consumption substantially over the years starting not so far from that high figure, including swapping out racks of Sun servers for an RPi or two, and we are now slight net exporters of utility energy and with it roughly zero carbon...
external wall insulation and triples glazing first! We did it and made winter ~10 degress warmer, and summer 15 degrees cooler. its cheaper than the solar/battery install.
I was really surprised too - our family (with electric car and a lot of tech) uses only a third of the energy used in TFA!
Still, even with our lower usage, solar still makes sense (especially with a South-facing roof) because electricity is so damned expensive in the UK :(
That’s about double the average household so I would imagine spending that money and effort into energy efficiency would pay off way better that solar and batteries.
Yea, averages don't work well when talking about single units without any further details.
How many sq/ft is the house?
Is it filled with windows facing south?
Are they firing a continuous laser beam at the moon?
2-3x usage is actually pretty typical when looking at a single house when comparing to average. It's when you start getting close to an order of mag difference that you're an outlier.
I have an electric car, one powerwall (pre musk midlife crisis) and 5kw solar. we consumed 6mwhrs in 2025. Gas heating and hotwater, about 190w base because of networking, servers and shit left on.
In 2025 I produced 6.5MWh (solar) and consumed 12.7MWh (excluding solar production); this is a family of 4 in a 4 season climate with electric heating and a single electric car.
That was my highest year over the past 5 years.
An additional EV can really add up, especially if both people have long commutes.
I used about 64MWh last year, not counting what I used for EV charging (Which is on a separate meter). I also produced about 20MWh from Solar. With the EVs I would guess the total is around 70MWh.
Some of this extra is certainly my 6kw homelab + HVAC for that. ;)
An average EV battery is what, around 70kWh? Add in a bit of charging losses and we'll say maybe 75kWh being generous here, and that's assuming a nearly dead battery to a full charge. Doing that every month is then 900kWh, or 0.9MWh/yr. That's ~4% of the energy usage of 21MWh/yr.
An average EV gets what, ~3.5mi/kWH? An average US car does ~12,000mi/yr. That theoretical average EV would then use ~3.5MWh. Two would be ~7. But this author is in the UK, where the average car only does ~7,500mi/yr or so or a little over 2MWh/yr. So for their two UK cars, assuming they drove an average mileage in an average EV efficiency, they would likely have used something like 4.3MWh/yr for their cars. About 20% of their total electricity usage. This drops a good bit if they're really getting closer to 4mi/kWh in efficiency, which is likely if they're not driving on many highways like one does in the US.
EV charging inefficiency typically loses 10-25% of the input energy, depending on temperature and battery level (low temps are bad, very low or high battery level also bad for efficient transfer).
It's more a stress test showing that even with unusually high consumption, solar + batteries + tariff optimisation can still materially change the cost curve
This number can mean wildly different things depending on the size of your house (and location).
I live in the Bay Area, CA in a 1,500 square foot house and consumed 7.8MWh in 2025 and 7.6 MWh in 2024.
Digging a bit more into our solar system data:
We produced a bit over 9MWh in solar each year and it looks like our Enphase batteries discharged 2MWh each year.
It's high but it really depends on your lifestyle and appliances.
If you have a heat pump water heater and heat pump based floor heating you'll use 1/4th of the energy as the same house with resistive water/floor heating.
A house which barely passed regulation from 2010 will consume 5-10x the energy of a certified passive house.
etc.
That being said I think you have to draw the line somewhere. I'd much rather have inefficient appliances (resistive boiler/heaters) and be fully solar powered than spend 50k in heatpumps and other gimmicks that are rated for 10 years and cost a kidney in maintenance and the eventual replacement.
Overly complex and fragile in the long run, the savings are meaningless if you're already self sufficient. I'd much rather spend the money in insulation and self sufficiency than these voodoo appliances.
That's my reasoning my new build house with plenty of land. In other scenarios it might be more beneficial to go for them.
Heatpumps are a proven technology, have been in use for more than a hundred years, and are one of the most efficient (and thereby cost-effective) ways to manage heat.
They're also technically simpler and have fewer components that can wear out. And they're a single system that works both for cooling and heating, rather than needing multiple system investments.
The majority of experts believe that its the future technology stack to manage heat, not a gimmick at all.
That having been said, always start with good insulation first.
It all comes down to building techniques, insulation, airtightness, eliminating thermal bridges, &c. There are also many low tech solutions for heating/cooling, such as air/air heat exchanger couples with ground/water or ground/air heat exchanger at a fraction of the price and a fraction of the maintenance.
Of course the average american living in a mcmansion which wouldn't pass regulations in 1992 Poland cannot use such solutions, but really it isn't a problem of climate, you'll find passive houses from africa to norway and everywhere in between, most of them without heat pumps
It depends where you live, where you get your electricity from, for how much, &c. It's an amazing tech don't get me wrong, and of course youtube tech nerds love these kind of things, no surprise here, I just don't think it's the silver bullet everybody imagine it is.
I'm talking about geothermal water/water installs for central heating.
No one is heating their place with air/air heat pumps besides americans who haven't figured out that heating spaces via air is shit tier in term of comfort and efficiency
> No one is heating their place with air/air heat pumps besides americans who haven't figured out that heating spaces via air is shit tier in term of comfort and efficiency
At least here in Finland a lot of people do. Very popular choice when replacing old oil furnaces (and as a "replacement" for direct electric heating offcourse)
Geothermal heatpump is something people mostly think about when building new.
Air heatpumps with the inside unit start from around 1000€ and 300€ to 500€ for the install. The price is mainly based on the size of the house (and in big houses you will need multiple or one with multiple inside units)
A fireplace for the couple really cold weeks to cut down the electricity bills are popular but people had those even before the air heatpumps so nothing new really.
Separation of concerns is the king of avoiding pricy maintenance and headaches.
You can already do most of that with a passive heat recovery ventilation system coupled to a ground/water exchanger. All systems are independent and the most high tech equipments you need are fans and a water pump
Only using ductwork for heat recovery ventilation without also using it for heating and cooling means more complexity, instillation costs, and maintenance issues etc. Further moving air allows you to use dramatically less material for heat exchangers.
Net result higher efficiency, fewer things that can break, fewer locations something can break, and lower risks of water damage to your home etc.
