Through an agreement with the building sector, the Australian Government has resolved to eliminate worst energy performance practices through a national standard approach to minimum performance requirements for buildings, see Greenhouse Office website.
Based on this advice, the Australian Building Codes Board is set to consider the introduction of five-star energy regulations in all new homes when it meets today.
But the Housing Industry Association say it is all a crock. According to their media release:
The regulations will not deliver a significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, nor making significant inroads into energy savings. By 2020 they will have imposed a $31.5 billion cost on Australian families for a saving of just 0.8 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Well the housing industry would say that wouldn’t they.
Better designed houses means savings on electricity bills. The HIA cost figures do not reflect energy savings, and I doubt very much they are particularly accurate in any case.
Here’s a media release that puts the lie to the HIA:
http://www.sustainability.vic.gov.au/resources/documents/051106_5StarResearch.pdf
Jennifer – how can saving energy and money be bad? Energy efficiency is the easiest and cheapest method of helping and every little bit helps.
Ender, I was interested in testing the cost:benefit ratio as claimed by the HIA. It looks like Steve has provided a useful link. Though interestingly the HIA claim their figures are based on Greenhouse Office calculations – but I haven’t checked.
Jen – where is the HIA report?
I was sent a media release by a reader of this blog who asked if I would post it. There is no report. He was evidently interested in the whole issue and perhaps a bit skeptical – perhaps looking for comment. Full text is here:
HIA urges ‘sense and sustainability’ for energy rules
The Housing Industry Association is concerned that more energy regulations are about to be imposed on home builders despite mounting doubts over their environmental benefits.
HIA Senior Executive Director Building Services and Planning, Elizabeth Crouch, said the Australian Building Codes Board is set to consider the introduction of five-star energy regulations in all new homes when it meets on Friday.
“These regulations are not delivering a significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, nor making significant inroads into energy savings,” she said. “However, by 2020 it will have imposed a staggering $31.5 billion cost on Australian families for a mere saving – estimated by the Australian Greenhouse Office – of just 0.8 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions.
We challenge the ABCB to show leadership on this issue. The board should confront the broader energy efficiency debate rather than acquiesce in the imposition of yet more costly requirements on new home buyers.”
The Australian Productivity Commission identified that heating and cooling – the two key energy factors in housing – contribute a mere two per cent to greenhouse gas emissions and represent only five percent of energy consumption.
“This is backed by the Victorian Competition and Efficiency Commission which says there is no clear evidence that the costs of existing Victorian building energy regulations are delivering the expected environmental benefits.”
Ms Crouch said the figures clearly show that the only significant impact of five-star energy regulations will be on housing affordability. “A Victorian Government survey of more than 600 builders indicates that the Victorian model of five-star regulation adds 6.04 per cent, or more than $15,000, to the average cost of a home,” she said.
“HIA is also disappointed that regulators have ignored the industry’s own efforts to move voluntarily to a national four-star energy rating for houses in the spirit of the Kyoto Protocol on climate change.
“The ABCB should suspend these proposals until a full and independent evaluation of all building energy regulations is undertaken, as proposed by the Productivity Commission.
“This will provide the credibility currently lacking in the current building energy regulations and open the way for a sensible and cost–effective energy efficiency policy to be adopted nationwide.”
Further information:
Elizabeth Crouch 0419 868 684 Glenn Evans 0414 186 907
Steve – If the HIA is a suspect source, so is the Vic office of sustainability. “I’m from the government and I’m here to help you” being some of the most frightening words a citizen can hear!
It appears from the govt media release that the cost is largely for solar hot water or a rainwater tank.
It also claims savings of $50 per year from the rainwater tank. That seems a bit optimistic to me. Does anyone know how much mains water you can get for $50 in Victoria? A cynic might suggest it’s a way for the govt to distract people from the need for a new dam.
So the solar hot water, saving $100, and the other measures saving $200, may be worthwhile, but the rainwater tank looks a bit dodgy.
Anyway ,why can’t people be allowed to make up their own mind how they spend their money?
“Anyway, why can’t people be allowed to make up their own mind how they spend their money?”
Are you advocating legalisation of illicit drugs and unrestricted pornography as well?
We live in a society. We value individuality so long as it doesn’t significantly compromise the values/wellbeing of other individuals.
PS. The media release I linked to discussed an *independent* report completed for the VIC government.
PPS. regarding $50 worth of water: should I include the cost of infrastructure to supply the water when i work that out, or should i just look at the volume costs, ie cents/Litre?
Steve – I will confine my discussion to the subject at hand.
The media release lists three average benefits. The costs shown only relate to two of those three benefits. The figures are misleading in that average benefits are shown, but a range of costs are shown. The actual report no doubt covers all this, but you pointed to this document as giving the lie to the HIA release. It doesn’t.
Doesn’t the cost of mains water include infrastructure costs, amortised over their useful life? I think it probably does.
I don’t know what the cost of water is in Vic, do you? How big a tank could you fill for $50? How big a tank would you need to contain this water given useage and refill during an average year?
These are quite reasonable questions.
If the state is going to mandate how I spend my money, it needs to make a very strong case that it is in the public good. There is the forestry example in another post to warn us of the dangers of government intervention.
Ok to clarify
The Australian Building Codes Board is meeting to discuss implementing a 5-star building standard for new homes across the whole of Australia.
This standard relates to a home’s thermal design – how much energy is required to keep it cool in summer and warm in winter.
Victoria had already implemented a 5-star requirement for new homes, since July 2004.
In addition to the 5-star requirement, the VIC policy requires the home builder to also install EITHER a solar hot water system OR a raintank.
The Housing industry media release posted by Jen is about the implmenetation of 5-star across the country.
The media release I linked to is about the Victoria policy that includes 5-star.
The costs in my media release include the cost of meeting the 5-star standar PLUS the cost of either a solar hot water system or a raintank.
So the cost of the 5-star standard alone is less than in my media release.
——
Does the cost of mains water include infrastructure costs? It would include maintenance, but I’m not sure it would include initial construction costs, since existing infrastructure is all publicly owned and built by the taxpayer. If a new dam for example is to be built, then the price of water would probably have to go up to pay for it. Ditto a Sydney desalination plant.
———————-
Raintanks
Cost of water:
I think it is about $1.20 per kilolitre, plus fixed access charges.
So $50 (ignoring fixed charges) is about 40 kilolitres.
If we assume that you collect rain from only 100m2 of roof, then 40 kilolitres = 400mm of rain
(1 kilolitre = 1m3 of water, 100 x 0.4 = 40m3 = 40kL)
Melbourne annual rainfall: 600-900 mm
Average roof area of a home: about 200m2
$50 sounds ok, though i’m sure that, if you only look at the private cost benefit, and ignore the public, buying a rainwater tank is not going to save you money. Water is too cheap.
Hidden costs of rainwater/mains water mixed system;
cost of pressure pump for rainwater
cost of elec to run said pump
cost of maintaining/replacing pump
cost of filter to purify unpurified urban roof water
cost of maintaining filter
cost of continually cleaning gutters (if near trees)
cost of backflow prevention to rainwater to mains
etc etc
Most backyards are too small to have a big tank, a house could get by with a 22,000 litre tank as its only supply but small ones have limited capacity with excess rain running out as stormwater so will require mains.
You could run tank water only with mains to top up but will need a generator to run pump during blackouts.
Not so easy..
“The Australian Productivity Commission identified that heating and cooling – the two key energy factors in housing – contribute a mere two per cent to greenhouse gas emissions and represent only five percent of energy consumption.”
This seems to be a bit dodgy. This reference
http://www.sustainable.energy.sa.gov.au/pages/advisory/residential/energy_use/heat_cool/heating_cooling.htm:sectID=14&tempID=53
seems to indicate:
“Over a year your combined household heating and cooling energy use may well contribute around 26% of your total energy use. ”
This reference confirms it and is a great resource for building energy efficient homes
http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/yourhome/technical/fs00.htm
Heating water and heating/cooling is 42% of energy used by the graph on the page.
It would seem that the HIA report is incorrect.
A few years ago a developer I know ran a competition for an energy saving house in suburbia. The house had to be built to a budget.
The most efficient house looked like a shed and was rejected as impractical for suburbia. No one would buy it.
A better looking house was double the budget, again no one would buy it.
So the developer bought the rights to the second house and built it whilst removing most of the costly energy saving devices, they had no option.
The house was advertised as “winner of energy saving comp.”
Just stumbled on to this link which contradicts the HIA report as well
http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@.nsf/0/e584ebb026618e0aca256bcd00827314?OpenDocument
It figures the heating/cooling + hot water to be about 45% as well.
rog – there are many passive solar houses that do not look like sheds. Houses such as this one
http://www.ruralbuilding.com.au/range_retreat/meridian.asp
are not sheds by any measure.
Budget methods can be as simple as insulation, solar hot water, proper orintation on the block, NOT having a black tile roof, NOT having west facing panoramic windows and so on. All these measures are not costly.
* cost of pressure pump for rainwater
That would be included in the $5,000 figure i quoted
* cost of elec to run said pump
Not much
* cost of maintaining/replacing pump
Not much
* cost of filter to purify unpurified urban roof water
Not needed – just use rainwater for garden, toilet, and perhaps laundry
* cost of maintaining filter
n/a
* cost of continually cleaning gutters (if near trees)
n/a
the water still flows through doesn’t it? You would have the same gutter clearing problems whether or not you have a raintank
* cost of backflow prevention to rainwater to mains
included in $5k cost
That $5k cost also includes plumbing to toilets.
Don’t need a 20kl rainwater tank to meet your whole home water requirement. Just put in a 3-5kl tank (most homes have room) and reduce your water consumption. My earlier calc assumed this approach.
etc etc
A 3-5kl tank would last you no time at all and does not justify the cost of infrastructure.
You should check on the backflow prevention, an approved 25mm RPZ costs $600 supply only. Some areas require a higher class, especially if there are dialysis machines close by. Backflow prevention devices should be routinely checked by qualified operators.
A decent pump to run showers etc $600. Some people have families and you need a pump that will do multi[ple outlets.
When we lose power I use a 6kva generator, about $1600. All motors draw 1/3rd more than their rating just to start.
We use all water saving devices, drought hardy plants, twin flush toilets (what a con they are)
Currently we run 45kl tank for the house and 68kl tank for other activities, plus a dam for topping up. Three pumps, around $3,000 total and we are self sufficient in water.
Ender that Meridan house looks like a >$300K, is that cheap? Looks like a beach house, cost of land how much?? Most first home land house packages are <$300K.
I see the builder wont put a $ on it, I have been to a few of these solar style builders and they dont like to talk $$, they hold seminars and sell you on the benefits, which are assumed. The houses dont sell well as they stand out in suburbia.
Most project builders will freely advertise the price and list inclusions.
Ender – The pie charts I saw related the different energy uses to greenhouse emissions, not the same as percentage energy use, but probably a fair correlation. This is for household consumption, whereas I think the HIA reference was to total energy consumption of all sectors. The APC report is 554 pages, maybe later!
Steve – If we assume $50 buys about 37klitres at the marginal rate in Melbourne, then we need about a 5 – 10 kL tank. Say $1000 – $2000 dollars fitted and ready to work. If we save $50 a year, that’s 20 to 40 years before we start to show a gain. Whereas $1000 dollars invested at 5% yields $2600 in 20 years and $2000 yields $14000 in 40 years. Provided of course you can find some way of preventing the government spending it on yet more hare-brained schemes.
rog – It is not cheap by any measure however you do not have to go to this extent. A ‘normal’ project house can be oriented correctly and insulated at almost no extra cost. It can only take putting the correct length shades over north facing windows. For most latitudes 900mm will allow winter sun in and exclude summer sun as in summer the sun is at a higher angle. These are simple and cheap measures.
A 3-5kL tank connected to toilets only and also used for garden is about $4-5k in a new home.
As indicated in previous calcs, a tank this size would save around $50 in water costs per year. I’m not arguing to become self sufficient on water, but you can reduce your mains water consumption by a lot by doing toilets and garden with a smaller tank than the huge amount of storage rog has.
As indicated before, it does not have a good private cost benefit ratio – not when you have a mains water supply and the price of water is so low.
but it looks better when you consider the public cost-benefit as well, when you look at the billion dollar cost of new dams or desal plants etc.
Lots of rainwater tanks is like a distributed dam.
“Provided of course you can find some way of preventing the government spending it on yet more hare-brained schemes.”
Like a dam that won’t fill up or a desalination plant?
“Like a dam that won’t fill up or a desalination plant?”
They’re good examples Steve. A dam with a good catchment area, on the other hand, makes more sense.
Being blessed from my filial relationship with the founder of the Canberra Environment Center, I find Greenies have no understanding of bartering (these days called exchanging money for goods and services) in their utopian ideal.
I have many years personal experience using solar panels and “ecologically” sustainable solutions.
They don’t.
And worryingly don’t comprehend the difference.
Cost of water from your very own tank
Tank (5kl) plus infrastructure $5,000 capital
Opportuniity cost of capital at 7% = $350 pa
Maintenance at 2% of capital = $100
So far we have got to $450 pa which divided by twice the actual cost of mains water: 450/$2.40 = 187.5 kilolitres. How would you fit 187.5 kilolitres into a 5 kilolitre tank? Seems like you would have to fill and empty it about every 10 days all year. If you caught rain off a 200m2 roof, you would need 25mm of rain every 10 days, which would put you in a 900mm rainfall zone with perfect year-round distribution.
In Perth, where water from the self-funded
Water Corporation costs about 60c/kl, and desalination is going to cost less than $1.20 per kl, and it doesn’t rain much if at all for about 5-6 months of the year, 5 kl is only for people who like a drop of rainwater to make a cup of tea.
Recycling grey water onto the garden interests me much more because it doesn’t involve so much storage and could save about 100kl of water a year. Capital costs still may kill it though.
Having spent most of my life living on my own water supply, I have recently found the urban water supply to be relatively cheap and it doesn’t break down in the middle of summer when you’re working 300km away for the week.
Ender – I’m told the startup current on any pumps involved with recycling systems is a relatively big cost in the overall balance (wish otherwise). Do some monitoring but don’t get zapped!
Perhaps if the Vic govt told people their $1000 dollar tank holds $6.75 worth of water it might portray the true picture. Actually, if they were very frugal with water, their tank could hold as little as $3.90 worth.
Startup currents – I assume that this could be problem for pressure pump systems that can start and stop many times a minute. I understood that startup current on small 1 phase motors could be about 6 times running current, but it’s a very short spike. I think this would be a minor problem if you direct the recycled water to a use such as the garden where the pump could run for some time. I used to use a relatively large pump to lift water against a 40m vertical head into a storage tank, and I estimated that electricity cost was only about 6c/kl, minor compared to the cost of capital.
But if you have enough water to keep the pump busy for half an hour or more at a time, you run into the high capital cost of water storage. I am uncertain about my preference for recycling, it just seems that the cost of storage can be supported by a much higher level of through-put because we use the shower and washing machine all the time and storage can be minimised.
Boxer – will try to find out more. I know I did get a brief “tutorial” from someone who had instrumented a recycling system and that the startup current on the “pump” was considerable. I didn’t feel it was many times per minute or anything like that. I’ll find out more details.
Startup current is only a problem if you are running the pump from an inverter. An induction motor can easily have a startup spike of 6 times the running current however it is only present for milliseconds. Some inverters that are not capable of handing it will trip out.
Selectronic and Latronic inverters have a ratings that are similar to this:
Continuous power 2500W
1/2 hour rating 3100W
Surge (5 secs) 7500W
This one can easily start a 1000W induction motor and is the smallest one of the range.
There is no real extra cost – just but a quality inverter that has a high surge rating. A lot of the cheaper ones do not have this feature. The final trap is that these ratings are 25 degC. At 40 degC the inverter is derated. You have to size them in Perth at 40 degs otherwise the inverter will work fine in winter however will trip out in summer.
Thanks Phil. So far my recycling water is only a dream, but if someone has instrumented a system, that would be very valuable information. I like a green garden (and a small lawn) but worry about the amount of water.
Ender – are those inverters easily sourced? On a different application, how suitable are they for vehicle/mobile use, or are they large and heavy for fixed installations? Any idea (just approximately) how much you derate them for 40deg?
How timely !
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200511/s1517394.htm
Last Update: Saturday, November 26, 2005. 12:50pm (AEDT)
Sustainable development: the way of the ‘Future Shock’
Young architects and town planners at a conference in Brisbane are calling for stronger legislation to encourage sustainable development.
The Queensland University of Technology “Future Shock” conference has been organised to put ideas in place for a more sustainable way of life.
Convenor Kate Wagner says governments need to do more to ensure developers use simple measures, such as solar panels and rainwater tanks.
Ms Wagner also says delegates are looking at ways to raise community awareness about the need to make changes.
“If you actually moved into a house and you saw the benefit of having the solar panels there, and your immediate electricity bills going down, all those types of things, then it’s a far easier way of getting the acceptance,” she said.
“It’s the remodelling of the houses that we have at the moment where we are having the real problem.”
On inverters – we use inverters in FWDs to run laptops. Normal ciggy lighter outlets don’t do good enough job for long field work.
Boxer – have a look at both these Australian manufacturers:
http://www.selectronic.com.au/
http://www.latronics.com/
These inverters are designed for Australia. If you look in the specs they have 40deg ratings if not derate them 20 or 30%.
This site is a goldmine for mobile power
http://www.outbackmarine.com.au/
It has everything and is resonably priced.
BTW I have no connection with any of these companies – mores the pity.
Collecting field data – savvy field operators use PDA’s which need even less energy than laptops.
Mining company types are therefore more expert at using and implementing sustainable energy than any one else.
But we ar usually criticised as profiteering.
Usually by idiots.
A report from Queensland’s Office of Sustainable Energy (circa 1998) revealed that stand-alone renewable systems in the Daintree were twenty-times more expensive than similar systems in Boulia.
My property operates a 24 volt (1700 A/H) hybrid system with a 24 panel solar array, micro-hydro turbine and engine-generator.
For in excess of $60,000 of stand-alone electricity infrastructure, we pay between 20 to 30 times the cost of other Queenslanders that benefit from (supposedly statewide) equalized tariffs.
Ender – thanks for links. It’s hard to get around the right device fit for purpose.
Some field ops need laptops to hold the terabytes of data from the seismic microarrays and neutrino flux anomalies.
Australian Greenhouse Office
(The username and password are located in the members packs)The Greenhouse Unit also coordinates the implementation of the Western Australian G…