Matusik - cheaper energy efficiency for your home

Most government ESD initiatives involve rebates for apparently environmentally friendly things like ceiling insulation; rain tanks; solar hot water systems and heat pumps. Being environmentally friendly these days essentially equates to adding more to our homes, not less. I think we have the wrong end of the stick.

In recent weeks, I have been writing about making the most of what we have - using under- utilised housing; reducing HECS debt or using superannuation in lieu of the FHOG, and maximising development around our existing infrastructure. In short, we need to start running our cities like a business - "waste not, want not," "a dollar saved is two less you need to earn," and all that.

The same applies to environmentally sustainable housing. Apparently, every dollar spent in Australia creates 1kg of CO². A 25 year old tree, by way of comparison - and again, this is what I am told - absorbs the same amount of CO² every year.

As an example and as attractive as the idea of harnessing the sun's power might be, solar PV panels are the most expensive way - bar none - to cut greenhouse gas emissions. It costs between $10,000 and $15,000 upfront to put a standard 1.5 kilowatt system on your roof. Under the new Renewable Energy Bonus scheme, announced last month by the federal government, a rebate of up to $1,000 is available for ceiling installation and solar hot water systems. Yet spending a couple of hundred dollars with your local sparky will save you the same amount of energy as new solar panels.

How? By installing a master kill switch at the front door, which shuts down all but the essential electrical items in the house, and also by placing an LED light in the laundry, which lights up when off-peak power is available. Running your washing machine, clothes dryer and dishwasher at that time can save the average household up to $600 per year. Killing the non-essential power each time you leave home can save over $400 per year. But I suppose it is hard to show off, and keep up with the Joneses at the same time, if no one can see how environmentally friendly you are.

This same attitude needs to apply to how we build new houses. Up to 20% of all building material that arrives on a typical residential building site is thrown away. We need to design our houses around building products, rather than the other way around. Less time and wastage on site would do wonders for reducing our urban footprint.

Also, a five-star energy rating effectively translates to an 85% saving in energy. Going for another star, which will be law for new homes later this year, gains very little in terms of energy efficiency but is likely to cost heaps. It could cost as much as $10,000 extra for having a standard three-bedroom house meet the proposed six-star energy rating.

Source: Matusik Missive, 24 March 2010

« Back to Blog index

Back to top