Eco friendly homes reduce power bills and ensure your home is energy efficient. So, how do the ratings work, and what should you look out for when building an energy efficient home?
Find out here:
4 Likes
Background: Under the Nationwide House Energy Rating Scheme (NatHERS) the best rating is ten stars. Six stars is the regulatory minimum required of most new homes in Australia.
Our study examined the websites of Australiaâs largest volume home builders to see how they explained the energy efficiency of their homes to potential buyers. We found logos and language that could mislead consumers about the energy-efficiency performance of those homes.
No websites we examined actually used the official NatHERS logo. Instead, some builders had created their own version of a six-star logo. Each example we found showed a grouping of six stars only, suggesting a rating of six out of six was the best rating.
Buyers are likely to interpret these logos as meaning six stars is superior or excellent performance, rather than the minimum performance benchmark that applies to all new homes. One logo went further, claiming six-star âsustainabilityâ â when a NatHERS rating only measures thermal energy efficiency.
We also found statements on websites that inaccurately equated a six-star rating with a high energy performance. The website of one builder suggested six stars was a âsuperiorâ measure of service or quality. Another linked six stars with broader sustainability performance and commitment (not just thermal energy efficiency). One volume builder even described a six-star rating as an âawardâ!
4 Likes
Who could have expected the developers to be less than totally honest? It beggars belief that workers so freely move between finance, development, politics, and used car trading without ever lifting their games.
4 Likes
Apparently Oz will be moving to mandatory 7 star ratings for new houses in October '23. There are the usual whines that this will increase the cost, shutting out starry-eyed young couples from their dream home yada yada. This seems unlikely to me given that in many cases significant improvements can be made in energy performance at little or no cost (sun orientation, roof colour, etc). Such low-hanging fruits are frequently available to pick when you look at all the new developments where houses are oriented to the street or the view and 90% of roofs are dark grey. As well when raising such standards previously the capital cost was not great overall.
As well great savings can be made by simply building somewhat smaller houses. As a nation we like to flaunt our extra bedrooms where nobody sleeps, multiple bathrooms where people rarely pee and entertaining areas that are rarely celebrated. Not to mention designer kitchens where they rarely cook more than cheese on toast or a grilled chop.
If increased stars does mean increased cost it will put up mortgage repayments. However a more efficient house will repay in reduced energy costs every quarter.
I have three questions, the first fairly factual. Where can you find a household energy star calculator that is free to use and doesnât need a degree in environmental engineering to operate?
The second a little fuzzier. Given the combination of rising cost of living and promises, and the need, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions hugely, how will new home builders be persuaded to get serious about wanting a home for performance too and not just looks?
The third is way off in the weeds. Keeping in mind the need to collectively make huge GHG savings how will our society deal with older houses that are often very energy inefficient? We have had educated, and somewhat educated, articles in the media weekly for years telling us how to update our house and our practices to save energy.
I would like to see some solid figures but my impression is that for many the result of that information campaign is to whinge a lot about growing bills and take little action. One reason is the perception (or possibly the reality) that while there are long term benefits to energy-use renovation, the upfront cost for an existing house is prohibitive. As a society ought we approach this problem collectively (and what would that be) or leave it to the individual to deal with?
2 Likes
There may be others?
Our now not so recent experiences (2016) of planning an extension suggest your Q3 is the elephant in the room.
It leads to:
Has anyone factored in the cost of all the select/restricted quasi professionals required to provide the certified assessments and solutions?
Will they be legally directed to act in the best interests of the home owner in recommending practical low cost options?
Or will they be free to take the opportunity and fleece the customer?
For most consumers with established housing trying to navigate to an honest and cost effective outcome. Where will they go for an unbiased opinion or umpire when it all seems too hard?
Iâm yet to see how the 7 out of 10 score relates to different environments and designs of existing housing. Iâm assuming it means something very different if one lives in Melbourne or Tasmania, in comparison with Brisbane or Darwin. Note these cities are also in different jurisdictions.
I found the following of some interest.
â7-star housing is a step towards zero carbon â but there's much more to do, starting with existing homes
Our Government has our backs?
Make what you will of the following, there is no free lunch. Given the CSIRO is credited with supporting one of the solutions, should it be free for all Australians to use?
1 Like
There are opinions around that say the construction industry is often behind in this area. That could include not gaining new skills in understanding and implementing energy efficiency requirements, not caring or doing the least possible to get though it. Execution of detail is as important as choice of design in getting to a proper standard - but doing it right takes time. Any design that is out of the ordinary is viewed with great suspicion, a declaration that it will cost more and scoffing behind the hand as owners donât know anything. The industry is very conservative, change is very hard to do. Apprentices already have fossilised attitudes because they are taught by their masters to do it the way the master was taught not according to standard.
In my experience the attitudes of builders and tradesmen is generally to do whatever it takes to get it done and any reference to standards is a distraction and annoyance. Real men (it is always men) get things built despite such problem not utilising such resources.
I donât want to bag the builders only. There are already processes that donât work very well regarding certifying basic standards of the Building Code of Australia and detailed engineering requirements. Daily we see new examples of construction projects that do not meet standards and are just plain unsafe. The woman in the street wonders how multi-level apartments are found to have inadequate foundations after being passed and above ground construction and fit-out were approved to go ahead. Such failures can create intractable problems because remedy becomes ridiculously expensive and the owner(s) ends up with no money and no house. Now and then an inspector is severely chastised with a strand of damp spaghetti.
Politicians have responsibility. NSW Planning Minister scraps order to consider flood, fire risks before building is just one case of back-sliding. Minister Roberts has been much more fond of developers and their wants than the voters for years but he isnât the only one.
Owners have responsibilities too. I mentioned preferring looks to function before. You could add choosing a builder based on price and forgetting to verify their qualifications and past performance. Any time there is a major problem with a build all concerned will be facing added cost, time and aggravation but still the stars in the eyes obscure vision, the budget is at set 110% instead of 90% and promises and quotations are accepted that shouldnât be. Many know far more about how cars or gadgets work than houses despite their house being the biggest asset they will ever have.
Getting all this together in the next few years will be like herding cats. Some States are keen to get on with it but of course they will each want to do it their way.
1 Like
Having seen this in the past, 2012 there is always an alternative political view point.
More like trying to herd cats and dogs in one?
Noted the CSIRO offers an interesting appraisal of recent new builds.
Example NSW
Or QLD
For Qld the gap to 7 stars is from 6.5
For NSW a more challenging jump from 5.9
1 Like
The Climate Council has given this topic a chapter in their recent ten point plan.
Australiaâs buildings account for around 20
per cent of our emissions (due to consumption
of electricity and energy in buildings)
(ClimateWorks 2020). Cost-effective solutions
to tackle this problem already exist, so this is a
logical area to focus on.
Emissions from buildings in Australia must drop
to net zero â ideally by 2030. In the building
sector, most of the solutions required to achieve
zero emissions are mature and commercially
competitive, and emerging solutions could
further reduce costs.
This is mainly to do with:
âș Smarter design to enhance energy
efficiency; and
âș Electrification powered by renewables,
particularly heating and hot water services.
Electrifying buildings, and increasing their
thermal efficiency, paired with efficient
appliances and household solar has the triple
benefit of emissions reduction, while also
improving the comfort and wellbeing of people
who live and work there, and reducing energy
bills. The key barrier in the building sector is
deployment of solutions at the scale required.
As before while knowing where we have to get to we are left to wonder how.
2 Likes
The 75% reduction is ambitious.
Itâs more a vision or policy statement than a plan.
How does one put the âten point planâ into proper context?
The Climate Council does itself no favours when it double dips the percentages across the 10 points. They add up to 106%. There is an asterisk next to one stat that in part explains why this is so. But only when one understands where the data is coming from.
It may have been more helpful in presenting the vision to seperate our personal contributions to emissions from those connected to enterprise, government and services.
IE
Consumers can choose to purchase and drive or not drive an EV, install solar PV with batteries and improve home electrification. Consumers have to their account only 30% of the total of current emissions.
The other 70% of emissions are outside our direct control. Unless one argues they are all within the control of our elected representatives.
P.S. (some added content and observations on NatHERS outcomes).
Looking to the NatHERS 2022 star bands summary and Brisbane as a nearby region.
Our home over the previous 12 months with 3 adults used approx 2920kWh of electrical energy for home heating and cooling to meet our needs. A rather small 120m2 total living area. We typically heat for 18-20C winter comfort and cool to 25C in summer, but only for the areas in use and when natural conditions do not deliver comfort.
This equates to approx 88 MJ/m2 annual equivalent. On the updated 2022 star bands, the same as a 4 star home. To get to 7 stars weâd need to halve that.
Reality is that paying a NatHERS accredited professional to rate our home would not take into account how we use our energy. The star rating would not change if we installed PV battery storage and took the home off grid. IE consuming minimal grid power for all uses. Just not heating and cooling. Itâs likely though the cheapest way for us to achieve the equivalent of 10 stars given our 5kW solar PV system exceeds our daily consumption on 90% of the days of the year.
We would also get an extra star for having a large shaded outdoor living space. 11 stars!
Iâm supportive of rating new housing designs using tools that support NatHERS. It sets a standard that offers a consistent outcome if used in the best interests of the purchaser.
For existing homes a similar approach has the potential to make many excavator demolition scrap, and others expensive renovations. The family home for many will no longer be an asset but more like a 30 year old ICE, past itâs prime, useful only on a fine Sunday for a drive in the country.
The current direction suggests a new MacMansion with 500 m2 of floor area and a 7 Star rating will be OK even if it draws all itâs energy from the grid. In comparison it appears an older and smaller home that uses a similar amount of total energy will be scored a failure at 3-4 Stars even if 100% self powered from renewables.
Some interesting questions and answers.
Source: âBuilding rating tools | YourHome
- Is the rating of a building element, such as a window, a true representation of its performance in the real world?
No. The performance of a building element needs to be considered in context. âŠ. - Is the rating of a whole building a true representation of its performance in the real world? Not necessarily. Some tools (known as predictive tools) predict the energy use of a building, and some tools rate the actual energy use. âŠ
- Does the rating system address relative size in assessing the overall impact?
No. A 400m2 home and a 150m2 home may have the same star rating. However, the larger home will use more resources and embodied energy in its construction than the smaller home. ⊠- Do building ratings take into consideration all the environmental impacts?
No rating tool can incorporate every environmental impact and some incorporate a broader range of impacts than others, but better ratings will generally lead to better environmental outcomesâŠâŠ
1 Like
