Energy efficiency

[fatprop]

Note that the title of energy efficiency on this thread is actually the most prominent thing all of us can do in the shorter term.

On average, Australia's housing industry builds glorified wooden tents that are wasteful, then compound things by putting in progressively larger devices (HVAC) to deal with the shittiness of build.

If we had some decent government policy on domestic building standards (commercial buildings have NABERS) then most places could probably install a fairly small solar + battery system as a network resource that also benefits the consumer.

Distributed Energy Resources (and their Providers - called DERPs *snigger*) are the next step to a resilient grid.

Ask anyone selling power back to the grid. Oh wait that's me!

The replacement in inefficient old houses with modern energy efficient houses is an interesting conundrum. At what point does inefficiency justify the replacement energy costs?

And then we get into the benefits of retrofitting, insulation etc

It is the same argument that is in agriculture and irrigation, as the cost of water/limits on water usage increase the justification of open channels vs pipes vs the next level

It is why I have always like James Hanson's carbon fee and dividend approach. Tax the carbon and pass out the "dividend" to each individual so they can make choices.

 

[Pfitzy]

The replacement in inefficient old houses with modern energy efficient houses is an interesting conundrum. At what point does inefficiency justify the replacement energy costs?

They don't even have to be "old" houses. Both the modern build house I've lived in had massive energy flaws:

The 3br/1/1 we bought in 2000 didn't even come with wall or ceiling insulation. The 5br/2/2 we have now uses a massive, inefficient (non-inverter) air conditioner, has downlights that need clear space around them for insulation, and huge windows facing west.

Older houses in some cases have better design and materials in terms of good timber construction and smaller windows and entryways. They also tend to be on larger blocks with more vegetation/trees, and their microclimate is superior to the new stuff going up on blocks under 400sqm with 2 storeys and no eaves.

Of course, as they age, the maintenance bills climb, and with the increasing heat cycles, some eventually need air conditioners installed.

I think a portion of a carbon tax could help stand up industries like double glazing and energy efficient building products, in order to make running a house cheaper.

I also think it should be compulsory to design for minimum 4kW solar and a 6kWh battery on new build houses. Battery is going to be increasingly important to regulate output from solar systems, rather than leaving the grid at the mercy of fluctuating output.

One of the issues with solar is it can simply mask easy to fix issues - I certainly didn't understand any of my own energy usage before getting the system. Part of the install cost was the value in education, as it turns out (tho some won't change their habits anyway).

 

[fatprop]

They don't even have to be "old" houses. Both the modern build house I've lived in had massive energy flaws:

The 3br/1/1 we bought in 2000 didn't even come with wall or ceiling insulation. The 5br/2/2 we have now uses a massive, inefficient (non-inverter) air conditioner, has downlights that need clear space around them for insulation, and huge windows facing west.

Older houses in some cases have better design and materials in terms of good timber construction and smaller windows and entryways. They also tend to be on larger blocks with more vegetation/trees, and their microclimate is superior to the new stuff going up on blocks under 400sqm with 2 storeys and no eaves.

Of course, as they age, the maintenance bills climb, and with the increasing heat cycles, some eventually need air conditioners installed.

I think a portion of a carbon tax could help stand up industries like double glazing and energy efficient building products, in order to make running a house cheaper.

I also think it should be compulsory to design for minimum 4kW solar and a 6kWh battery on new build houses. Battery is going to be increasingly important to regulate output from solar systems, rather than leaving the grid at the mercy of fluctuating output.

One of the issues with solar is it can simply mask easy to fix issues - I certainly didn't understand any of my own energy usage before getting the system. Part of the install cost was the value in education, as it turns out (tho some won't change their habits anyway).

And housing policy could solve the problem by increasing the quality of new homes. But that will increase new housing costs in a political world that needs to keep housing costs down

It is a tough balancing act

 

[Pfitzy]

And housing policy could solve the problem by increasing the quality of new homes. But that will increase new housing costs in a political world that needs to keep housing costs down

It is a tough balancing act

I think implementation of policy would bring cost of these additions down rapidly, with appropriate subsidy measures that tail off as the market stabilises.

When people ask me about solar/battery, I ask what else they're doing to reduce their energy. Particularly if they are building from scratch, the chance to wrap all those costs into the mortgage is a key driver to efficient outcomes: passive design, smart deployment of air con, double glazing for problem areas as a minimum, whole house as a luxury.

Urban design is also key - most places are being built with wall & ceiling insulation and that is great, but when they're all jammed up against each other, the opportunity for green space to act as a heat sink steadily becomes a problem.

My house radiates heat long after the sun has gone down on hot days. Its bollocks.

 

[boyo]

The replacement in inefficient old houses with modern energy efficient houses is an interesting conundrum. At what point does inefficiency justify the replacement energy costs?

And then we get into the benefits of retrofitting, insulation etc

It is the same argument that is in agriculture and irrigation, as the cost of water/limits on water usage increase the justification of open channels vs pipes vs the next level

It is why I have always like James Hanson's carbon fee and dividend approach. Tax the carbon and pass out the "dividend" to each individual so they can make choices.

Like a price on carbon?