From: bernie@metapro.DIALix.oz.au (Bernd Felsche)
Subject: Re: Energy conservation (was: Nuclear waste (was Australian Research Reactor Proposal)
Organization: MetaPro Systems, Perth, Western Australia
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 01:49:56 GMT

In <2637@grivel.une.edu.au>
   drobinso@mendel.une.edu.au (D.Robinson) writes:

>In article <1992Dec5.055538.22843@metapro.DIALix.oz.au> bernie@metapro.DIALix.oz.au (Bernd Felsche) writes:
>>The only one (IMHO) that's immediately available, though at
>>considerable cost is smarter use of existing energy
>>resources. But then, how do you convince home-owners and
>>home-builders to build houses which are energy-efficient and
>>cost $20,000 more to build?

>Read the CSIRO booklet 'Five star energy efficient homes', or something
>like that.  Most of their recommendations actually cost nothing to implement.
>Also, they tend to increase the resale value.

Now how many project home builders have implemented *any* of
the recommendations? Certainly not the volume builders as
far as I'm aware. And the reason is not only ignorance (on
the part of the buyers as much as the builders), but also
the increased costs in a competitive market.

It costs money to only have windows on the north and south
building faces. It costs money to have wider eaves to shade
the very popular deep windows from the morning and afternoon
sun, yet allow the winter sun to sneak through and heat the
interior.

Why it costs more is because it is a change from the norm.
As I said before; as the energy efficient homes become more
popular, the costs will fall because the builders and
architects will get better at it. At this point in time,
only those who have a real understanding of energy costs and
balances, as well as the extra money to pay for a better
design, do conserve in a practical way.

>Indeed building an energy-efficient home may actually be cheaper.  The cost
>of insulation is definately less than buying and installing a wood heater.

Ahh, but wood heaters are very expensive compared to a $20
electric heater, which requires no human intervention to
consume 2.4 kW all day long. Two of those won't buy enough
pink batts to insulate the dunny.

>The biggest problem is that, in this climate where most people operate wood 
>heaters for 6-8 months of the year, pumping out carcinogens into the 
>atmosphere, it's a bit difficult to believe you can do without such heating 
>with better housing design.

Crikey... I wouldn't like to live where you do. Here we need
heating for 1-2 months in an average house.

Better housing design can conserve sufficient energy and
retain sufficient energy in the house so that on a sunny
winter's day, you have to deliberately lose heat to keep the
temperature comfortable. Very few people design homes to
that sort of standard, and they do charge the customer for
the design, though the cost is quickly recovered.

Credibility is something that is difficult to achieve.
Perhaps some of the less tight-fisted builders could build
project homes for display, which exercise some of the
principles of energy-efficient building design.

>>Some energy providers provide feeble incentive like
>>subsidising the cost of compact flourescent lights (where

>I know some power companies in the US do, along with other incentives.
>But they are commercial companies who have worked out what it would cost
>them to build new power stations.  Is it really happening in Australia?

SECWA offered a $5 cash-back on compact flouro's. I'm not
sure if it was a serious effort, or one to soothe the Greenies.

>>If we have to pay $400 million for a new base-load power
>>station, wouldn't an equivalent subsidy of $10,000 (average)
>>to 40,000 homes be a more conservationist approach?

>Or try a more softly softly approach.  First even out the charging system
>so that all domestic on-peak electicity is charged the same per kw hour (to 
>give an incentive for more energy efficiency).  Make this and the proviso that
>electricity providers have to offer loans to customers for improvements
>in energy efficiency (repayable against the energy savings incurred) a 
>condition for getting permission to build new power stations.

It already is charged out evenly over here. Makes no difference.
The real point is not to have to build new power stations for a long time.

A reference which I have at home shows per/capita energy
usage vs energy consumption. I don't recall off-hand where
Australia stands, but within the same band of GDP of
"developed" nations, the USA had double the energy
consumption of (West) Germany, and almost 3 times that of
Switzerland. [ I'll confirm those figures RSN ]

>New houses could belong to the same scheme.  Buyer to get costs of insulation 
>etc set against a loan from energy provider, and paid for from savings in
>energy costs.

New sub-divisions also need planning considerations for
energy conservation, so that orientation of the houses is
optimal, not the profit to the devceloper.
-- 
+-----+ Bernd Felsche                     _--_|\  #include <std/disclaimer.h>
| | | | MetaPro Systems Pty Ltd          /      \ bernie@metapro.DIALix.oz.au
| | | | 328 Albany Highway,              X_.--._/         Fax: +61 9 472 3337
|m|p|s| Victoria Park, Western Australia 6100  v        Phone: +61 9 362 9355