Good thoughts. I am

Good thoughts. I am confused about one thing though. I went to an architect specifically to get an energy efficient home (and a relatively modest one at that) and the cost is projected at $1,000,000. This does not include the land.

I was gobsmacked. I can get the same building specs from a regular builder for quite a bit less than half this. This means it make no economic sense at all for me to build an efficient building. I'd be more than happy to pay an extra $200k for an energy efficient home, but half a million extra is way too much.

So where are these builders and/or building designs that are only slightly more than the cost of a regular building as mentioned above. I'd be very excited to know how to do this cost effectively.

Please help! Anyone!

James, Did you mention

James,

Did you mention "bells and whistles" in your preamble to your architect? The current territory of the architect/energy efficient home is the very rich/very large home owner.

Drop me a line at bill@infolocal.com.au and I will offer a few suggestions.

A great piece. The

A great piece.

The convergance of Peak Oil with Climate Change is generating problems for houses that were built with the assumptions of benign weather and limitless cheap energy.

I know that it is becoming increasingly difficult - and expensive - to keep my own house within a comfortable temperature range.

New housing design standards and practices need to be created. These standards need to consider not just the new realities of hot summers and expensive energy, but the realities that are likely to emerge within the lifespan of the house - which is likely to include more incidence of extreme weather, and energy costs that make air-conditioning a very unattractive prospect.

James, you might check into

James, you might check into building a straw-bale house. Some state building codes permit them, and some rural areas have virtually no building codes.

Straw-bale has an R-50 insulation value and is supposed to be cheaper than conventional building.

Good luck getting a loan to do this in most areas! If it were me, I'd do most of the building myself.

There are a lot of books on straw-bale construction. You can find excellent ones at Barnes & Noble.

Short-term, people can do a

Short-term, people can do a lot to cut heating costs. We've forgotten how our grandparents managed: They heated only one room in winter.

I well remember visiting my grandparents' home when it was cold as hell outside and passing through the frigid front parlor to the French doors that led to a combination sitting-room/dining-room that was heated with a coal stove. There was no central heat or other heat source of any kind.

Those old houses had no insulation, so even if you heated only one room, everyone still huddled around the coal stove on very cold days. Bedrooms were completely unheated.

You can duplicate this energy-saving technique in your home, just by hanging doors so that your living area can be completely closed off from the rest of the house. You can then heat only one room. Heat the bathroom only when it's in use. LIkewise the kitchen.

Electric space heaters are an option for doing this, but other options include natural gas or propane wall heaters--which will put out 32,000 BTUs--or one of those fake fireplaces that comes with a mantle, which can be electric, natural gas, or propane.

I heat this way, and my heating bills are a fraction of what they would otherwise be.

The water heater is another energy hog, heating water 24/7, when you probably only use hot water for an hour or two a day. It can be turned off at the breaker when not in use. When you turn it back on, you should have hot water 20 minutes later. Since breakers these days are often rather shoddy affairs, it might be wiser to install a switch. I keep intending to do this. I know from experience that if you're not using the water heater (because of plumbing repairs, etc.) it knock at least $20/month off your electric bill.

For all your ideas about

For all your ideas about rising home prices, mortgages, and paying the bills, and for the 20 million people not invited to the Australia 2020 Summit, the online community created a wiki so people across Australia could post, discuss, and vote on the best ideas for the country. It’s totally a grassroots effort. It’s free, can be anonymous, and isn’t being sponsored by any political party, business, union, or special interests. It’s just people who want to encourage an online national brainstorming session.

The site is at http://ozideas.wetpaint.com. There are pages for over 20 different issues (including housing) and even an online petition to get the best ideas heard at the actual Summit.

The more people know about it, the more ideas are submitted, and the better the discussion. It’s a great way for everyone to participate in the summit.

Jim
Wiki Creator

Christine featured on last

Christine featured on last weeks SBS insight program, http://news.sbs.com.au/insight/city_limits_541199

After watching the SBS program I was left pondering as to how Christine would have answered the question: "Which is better, high density housing which is relatively easy to service with public transport (but which makes self sufficiency for water, food, and energy an impossibility), or low density housing which is much harder to service with public transport (but in which water, food, and energy self sufficiency is more achievable)." For that matter what is Greens policy on cities, are you in favour of high density or low density?

I am of the view that solving the commuting cost and time problem is best addressed through a change in legislation. Make the employer bare the costs of employees commuting, and also pay the employees for the time that they spend doing it. Under this paradigm there is an incentive for employers to employ as locally as possible, provided of course that the people are sufficiently qualified, and an incentive for businesses to move closer to their work force in order to increase competitiveness. This will not solve the problem, but its a step in the right direction, and its a step which could be taken tomorrow.

James, their is no reason

James, their is no reason that an energy effiecient house should cost much more than a "regular" house. I think some builders and architects over design and spec out things that are not cost effective but make people feel good. I am currently building my own house and have found one common thread with contractors I have gotten bids from, they know very little if anything about energy efficiency, and what little they do know cost gobs of money and are of little value. That is why I have decided to do it myself. At this point in construction I am right at $53.00 per sq foot of living area. About half of "normal" construction in this area Omaha Nebraska USA. If you could find somebody to do this it would run 100-$125 per sq foot so not much if any extra. The problem is finding somebody that will build it using the latest technologies and being reasonable on their bid and not gouging. The reason I am doing myself is contractors are not willing to be reasonable and they are not familiar with new technologies. My heating will be completely off grid, I am using solar air heaters and solar radiant heat in the floors. This is a 2880 sq foot house and I will not have a heat bill from the power company because of the design features and insulation I have used.

You can see pictures of my house at http://www.nebraskasolarsolutiosn.com

Martin

A fantastic brief on a

A fantastic brief on a serious issue, I have spent some time in the building industry and there's nothing more frustrating than having to work through your day contributing blood & sweat to yet another monument to ignorant short term reactionary economics.
James you whip like a rawhide genius, the responses are all there. As you can see above its entirely probable that you just chose the wrong architect. How much did the consultation cost?

There's a movement in the ACT which is attempting to retro design existing low income housing for more sustainable living, both environmentally and for health. (surprising how these are often not connected at all)

Simple additions like an air trap at the front door (for a cold climate especially) ie another door and small atrium to stop hot air leaving the home under pressure every time its opened. Deciduous vines on north facing walls, composting and veggie gardens, energy efficient appliances, rain water catchment and small grey water systems. All retro fitted to a home which ironically probably had tenants with a more sustainable living ethos than the more recently devolved consumer.

Its actually cheaper to design and construct a single home along environmentally conscious lines rather than the other way if approached sensibly and costs considered over a 10 year period. Unfortunately the real devil here is the momentum of scale economics. It took the American EPA over 30 years to have the auto manufacturers and fuel industry's remove lead from petrol (Devra Davis "when smoke ran like water" a good read), it may take just as long to have the hugeness of the construction industry to actually implement intelligent design criteria.

I have just returned from a job of work assisting installing an off grid solar system on a property where attempts to mitigate capital costs resulted in the new kit home owner including cheaper fully electric storage hot water, electric oven, etc with their oddly orientated kit home.
The additional costs to supply and build the PV & Diesel hybrid system to provide energy for this power hungry home are only mitigated by greenhouse grants system, the end result is still a false economy.

These people exist within a culture that prides itself in rejecting 'greeny' ethos as impractical and extremist, because of this they are often blinkered to many well thought out concepts. In the same manner as some environmentalists refuse to see the forestry industry as actually necessary. (even if tragically mismanaged).

Its the same culture that exists within the building industry. Architects and engineers aside, the folk who actually implement the ideas are on an entirely different level, less involved with the oxygen rich strata that has no problem moving a 10 tonne steel beam with a pen or mouse.

Developers often become confused in the same way as the new home owners above, immediate economic limitations demand short cuts with negative effects which will be felt for years.
Just like the building and big finance industries, just like the whole of the energy & resource sector, there are still many Local councils with legislators and employees who believe that Global warming and environmental issues are just Greeny propaganda.
These are getting older and are less likely to change their attitudes with every passing day.

Until encouraged into seminars and work training programs or by hip pocket imperatives it will continue to be extremely difficult to shepherd the herd through the gate.

A few tv shows and magazine articles and some dodgy green points system just will not cut it.
It has to come from both ends, we have to apply a pincer tactic, federal legislation, State encouragement and council level education incentive and imperatives.

No new development should be able to go ahead with out its principles having had at least a high school level certificate education in environmental design for healthy and sustainable living. Not being able to abrogate responsibility and future personal moral liability to a few haplessly disconnected architects and engineers would be a good start.

Bless their little overpaid wings.

I think the piece overstates

I think the piece overstates the difficulties Aussies face. It's not true that we have no control over our power consumption, and thus bills. In the one-tonne CO2 lifestyle piece I wrote about nine guidelines for living a lower-carbon intensive lifestyle. Six of them, #2-#6, are things which will reduce your bills overalll,

2. use cool drinks and fans not airconditioning, jumpers and hot drinks not heating, hang washing out to dry, change to CFLs and pull plugs out on appliances not in use
3. Don't fly in aircraft at all.
4. bye-bye cars: for a journey under 5km, walk. Under 15km, bike. Over that, public transport.
5. consume mainly fresh fruit and vegies, grains and legumes, avoid processed containerised food
6. reduce meat consumption to under 12kg/year (0.25kg/week)
7. for consumer goods, borrow rather than buy, secondhand rather than new

The ABS said that in 2003-4 the average Australian household spending was $893 weekly.
- about $185 on food, alcohol and tobacco
- $139.25 on transport, $125.08 of which on cars
- about $25 on domestic fuel and power

My suggestions if followed - let's forget about buying secondhand and stuff for the moment - would save about $85 on food and drink, $15 on domestic fuel and power, and $100 on transport, or $200 weekly in all.

Of course not in all suburbs is there public transport available, but many journeys are short and could be walked or biked. I don't know of any Aussie surveys of different trip lengths, but to give us an idea this Swedish survey in 2001 found "most trips are short, 40 per cent are shorter than 3km, 56 per cent are under 5 km." So it's quite plausible for the average Aussie household, even absent public transport, to halve their vehicle use; this would double their vehicle's life, halve their fuel use and maintenance needs, so that the $125.08 on the car would become $75.93, a saving of $50.16. Added to the food, drink, and domestic fuel and power savings, this gives us $150 in all.

Thus, the average Aussie household can by simple everyday measures save $150-$200 a week. That'll make a big difference to families feeling financial pressure, and will pay off a mortgage quite a bit more quickly.

Absolutely we should have more mass transit, better-designed suburbs, energy-efficient housing, and so on - but we don't have to wait until that happens to get acting.

It's quite reasonable that a federal Senator will focus on what government can do; but we should not forget what we as individuals can do. We often look for difficult and expensive solutions when simple and money-saving solutions are already here. We could put in heaps of insulation, spending something like $8,000, and save 10kWh electricity a day on the AC - or we could turn off the 2,500W AC, turn on a 50W fan and have a cool drink - and also save 10kWh a day. Spend money and save energy, or save money and save energy. Of course, this requires us to change our lifestyle a bit, and a politician who wishes to be re-elected will probably not want to tell us we're responsible for our own problems.

Again, government action absolutely has a place. But individual action does, too.

You could say the same about

You could say the same about water, that no-one would change unless forced to by law or circumstance. And yet progressive pricing (in Qld) or trivial water restrictions (in Vic), combined with an "every drop counts" advertising campaign... has reduced water consumption, roughly halving it in domestic Brisbane, dropping it by 25% or so in Melbourne.

If it works for water consumption, I don't see why it shouldn't work for electricity, natural gas, petrol, etc consumption.

Make the call, combine it with pricing and laws, subsidies and tariffs, and so on - and people will respond.

Gary @20. As a counter to

Gary @20. As a counter to the cynical, I was at an abattoir yesterday. Now forgetting the inefficiencies and ethics of meat eating for a moment, you would expect an abattoir to be in red neck reactionary territory. Well they are reactionary - to price.

They have covered both of there wash down ponds and are now generating enough power from the methane to run the entire plant and sell power back to the grid. Not only that but the tallow, that doesn't end up in soap, makes biodiesel and powers their delivery fleet.

I was heartened by this story anyway as it means their is hope. This abattoir has decided that peak oil is a very real threat to business, and that electricity is only going to get more expensive.

BilB @22 Earth berm walled

BilB @22 Earth berm walled houses are not that unusual in Australia, and I happen to live in one. The beauty of this system is that 1 metre below the surface, the earth temp is a constant 17 degrees C in my region. No need for cooling in Summer, and in winter it is much easier to raise the temp a few degrees from 17 degrees than from the minus 3 or 4 outside - this can be done with trombe walls and be solar passive. The earth berms also make the roof accessible for gutter cleaning, solar panel maintenance etcetera.

Whilst a clear sod roof is a beautiful thing, the problem for Australia is that it makes rainwater recovery near impossible. In fact you would have to water the roof in Oz to keep it alive so that the plants could shade and cool the roof. Otherwise you would end up with a very hot large thermal mass directly overhead. Not to mention the super strength roof members required and the leak potential. The extra cost over a well insulated, water harvesting, light coloured tin roof is enormous (by a factor of 4 from memory). There are a few earth shelter houses in Oz, but not many can justify the extra expense and lack of water harvesting ability.

Aesthetic consideration? A sod roof covered with solar panels, solar HWS, TV antenna and satellite dish, is probably not such a beautiful thing.

mcfarm (comment 25) your

mcfarm (comment 25) your home sounds efficient, but I bet you do not live in a suburb of a major city. No council would approve the design for suburbia.

What we need are practical, very energy efficient home designs (not architect designed due to costs involved), that can be designed and built by the local home builder, yet still receive approval from the local council. The homes also need to be priced at a level where the average young family can afford to buy (probably smaller and cheaper than the current home designs). These are the energy consumers of the future, not the mac-mansion owners of the present, who probably have the money not to worry about the amount of energy they consume.

Kiashu (comment 19) sounds more like a socialist manifesto than a number of solutions. As I have said in a number of comments, emission reductions will need to start with business reductions that are positive savings on their profit and loss statements. If any Government tries to legislate to force savings, that severely impact the living standards of the average Australian, you can bet they will be thrown out at one of the following elections.

From every thing I have heard over the past few months, I believe we will still be talking about emission reduction targets, or how to meet them, for the next 10+ years.

Mcfarm, Apart from better

Mcfarm,

Apart from better temperature control the key features of the Wells formula are dual use of limited space and aspect control. Consider Sydney's middleage suburbs (starting from Rockdale and arcing half way around the city) where houses were built on long narrow blocks near to fences on either side. Most of the windows in these houses were on the long sides shaded by neighbours houses and curtained for privacy. A substantially useless formula as both a living space and a recreation space. And todays houses designed for acreage but built on 600 sq metre blocks are no better. Furthermore todays houses are roofed and guttered in materials approaching half a millimetre thick. We are charging headlong into an insurance catastrophy. As extreme weather strengthens the trend now is for whole suburbs at a time to be affected by fire, hail, wind, and tornedoes. The Wells formula is vulnerable only to flood, and that is a risk for the contents, not the house.

Grass roofs are more of a gimmick. The thickness of the overburden is the key element in supporting a healthy landscape of trees, shrubs, garden plants, and turf, above without requiring watering. I should hasten to add that I have never built one of these houses, though the time may not be too far away. If my current house was destroyed in a bush fire I would seriously consider this as the replacement.