Page 1304 - Week 04 - Tuesday, 23 March 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
software to analyse a range of house designs which were brick and tile typical first house designs. Their results showed that moving a typical house from five stars to seven stars only cost in the order of $4,000, as long as the house was reasonably well positioned on the block, it was well insulated and double glazed windows were used where appropriate. I have also seen examples where moving from five stars to seven stars, in fact, saves costs, because what you are doing is reducing some inappropriate windows.
These changes can result in a substantial reduction in energy use when compared to five-star houses, with a 24 per cent reduction for six-star houses and a 45 per cent reduction for seven-star houses. Eight-star houses I understand could save around 75 per cent on both water and energy compared to an average house. There has certainly been quite a bit of modelling done which would suggest that the most cost-effective new house these days is a seven-star house with PV panels on the roof and the owners signing on to the ACT government’s feed-in tariff. This will be the most financially attractive option for new house buyers.
Depending on how people live in your house, the payback period for building more sustainably can be very short—in fact, within a year or two, or less possibly. There is also a range of other side benefits, such as increased comfort for residents, reduced loads on the electricity grid and, of course, as has been demonstrated by ABS, higher resale values.
Just as a recent example of how being sustainable is a sound economic solution, last week there was a Canberra Times story about the University of Canberra, which has recently produced the new UCan village, which consists of five-star energy rated residential buildings. Five stars is a current requirement for single residences but not for multi-units. The UCan village does not have any air conditioning. The buildings are well designed, and they just do not need it. They have found that, with their existing buildings, they were paying over $10,000 a month in air-conditioning bills for 240 units. For 500 units with the new design, it is about $500 a month for air conditioning. That demonstrates that sustainable building design saves you money in the short term and the long term.
The measures they have used include good ventilation, shading over windows, solar power on the roof, double glazing, and, for winter, in-slab gas-powered hydroponic heating. This is a very good move for the university, because it is both the owner and the operator, and it will mean that uni students will have access to affordable housing.
In terms of transport, Molonglo is an opportunity to create a community with modern, sustainable public transport where the goal of a one-car household is achievable for residents. To increase the usage of public transport, Molonglo will need to have public transport that is available to all new residents. As I mentioned earlier when talking about the planning committee report, we need bus services. This was a recommendation of the planning committee, so I am hopeful it will be implemented in Molonglo. Bus services will need to be ready when the first stage of the development is ready, so that when residents move to Molonglo they are not forced to unnecessarily purchase and use private vehicles, which, of course, also will put more strain on city parking areas and will not end up developing unsustainable transport habits because that is, unfortunately, the only option available to them.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video