Dear organisations,
Shame on you that in 2022 after 13 years of no change from the pathetic 6 Star energy efficiency standard, for lacking the ambition and determination to immediately demand net zero for the National Construction Code (NCC), and only demanding the marginally better 7 Star energy efficiency standard delivering just 24 per cent energy savings and emissions reductions.
Shame on you for calling for this mandate within three weeks of the government setting their commitments to a floor of 43 per cent emissions reductions by 2030, when 7 Star energy efficiency will only reduce total housing emissions by 3.8 per cent by 2030 and only by 13.4 per cent by 2050 when we are supposed to (by magic it seems) get to net zero.
A net zero mandate would eliminate all emissions from new housing, reduce housing emissions by 16 per cent by 2030 and 56 per cent by 2050. We could then have focussed all of our attention on getting the existing stock of homes to net zero instead of adding to the stock that immediately needs more expensive retrofits and solar to get to net zero.
As Adam Bandt says: “you can’t put the fire out while putting petrol on it”.
A net zero mandate for housing in volume two of the NCC would also create precedent for updates for other buildings in volume one.
Shame on you for not ensuring that all new homes were equipped with solar power.
A net zero standard would have ensured this – a 7 Star mandate will not contribute to the government’s target for 82 per cent renewable power by 2030. If all new homes do not have solar contributing to this target, then much heavy lifting will have to be done, at great public expense no doubt, to deliver grid renewable energy.
A net zero home with solar power could also be future-proofed with excess solar and electric vehicle charging (ideally bi-directional V2H or V2G to help the transition to 100 per cent renewable power by putting 20 car batteries storing excess daytime power for night time use. Anecdotal evidence is that homeowners oversize solar installations for these reasons. These value-adds should be embraced with enthusiasm as opportunities by our house building and solar industries, but Australia is not an enterprise culture – all change is judged with suspicion by most companies.
Shame on you for making new homes less affordable. You make great play of the 7 Star home being more affordable than the 6 Star home but totally miss that the net zero home is even more affordable again with three to five times lower energy costs than the additional mortgage payments for the net zero measures.
Shame on you for believing Australia’s mostly luddite home building industry that even 7 Star was a hard ask, whereas a net zero home is simply a reasonably energy efficient home with sufficient solar power on its north facing roof to meet the building loads. Arguably, net zero is even easier than 7 Star!
Shame on you for pretending to care about the climate emergency and our children and grandchildrens’ survivable futures, whilst half the globe is in unprecedented heat-wave, drought and bushfire, whilst the other half is suffering unprecedented flooding but you still won’t demand net zero from new homes even when this makes them more affordable?
So where are the angels?
Well, 24 councils in Victoria are stepping up to demand net zero in the Victorian planning instruments. Will Lily d’Ambrosio be true to her advocacy and support this demand?
Here are the angels: Darebin, Ballarat, Banyule, Bayside, Boroondara, Frankston, Glen Eira, Greater Bendigo, Greater Dandenong, Greater Geelong, Hobsons Bay, Knox, Maribyrnong, Mitchell, Moonee Valley, Moreland, Mornington Peninsula, Port Phillip, Stonnington, Strathbogie, Warrnambool, Whitehorse, Whittlesea and Yarra councils.
This represents approximately half the Victorian population and planning activity. Isn’t it obvious to all of our local governments that they have to get behind this effort to mitigate climate change at least as vigorously as they plan to adapt to it? Think bushfire, flooding, storm-surge, erosion, insurance blighted areas… and the list goes on.
There is simply no excuse for not demanding net zero now. We cannot wait another year, never mind 13 years, to mandate net zero. Further resources, information and actions are available from Campaign for Net Zero Emission Homes.
And if or when this fails we must make NCC energy provisions immediately redundant by exceeding them with state and territory amendments and local government planning ordinances that mandate net zero. We will need to keep the pressure on to correct this appalling blunder as soon as possible – we’ve already run out of time! Or else “Don’t Look Up”!
Sincerely,
Nigel Howard for the Net Zero for the National Construction Code V2 Campaign
Our electricity system is rapidly decarbonising, providing lots of renewable energy in the middle of the day. It’s far more important to get thermal efficiency right, reducing demand in the evening, than mandate solar panels on every home. Slapping solar on the roof and calling it a ‘net zero’ home doesn’t reduce its emissions when it’s drawing power from the grid in the evening. We need homes that are optimised for a 100% renewable grid, not homes that boast of being net zero but are far from it.
You make a reasonable point, but it’s purely rhetorical – it’s still better to also have Net Zero Homes with solar on the roof as well as a decarbonising grid right?
No. A ‘Net zero home’ as it’s commonly defined means you’re ‘netting out’ emissions – using solar exports to net out consumption of emissions intensive energy at night/low-level light conditions. And when you hit a particular penetration of solar in the grid (which will be in a few years) additional daytime solar won’t add much to decarbonisation. Storage is great, but expensive and emissions intensive, and the amount of storage an all-electric home needs to be fully off-grid is very large. The best thing environmentally for new homes is that they minimise energy consumption overnight and in winter – this delivers maximum emissions reductions today and into the future. Solar PV is a nice to have, but not nearly as essential. As other Rob said, a solar tent is one of the worst things to add to the grid and the environment.
In summary – all-electric homes that are thermally efficient and charge their water heating in the day is the No1 priority. Solar is *great* to add today, but as time goes on there will be so much solar on the grid it will become less and less important that you, personally, have solar. This isn’t rhetoric – it’s energy systems 101.
Another way of putting it – we need the entire energy system to be *zero emissions* as fast as possible, and homes need to support that goal. As commonly defined, *net zero* homes allowing netting-off energy emissions between day and night that actually slows the transition of energy+homes to *zero*.
thank you Nigel Howard -a provocative position but good to see a firm comment -I am a House Energy Assessor and I can tell you it is difficult work to get many houses to perform at 6 stars let alone 7 Stars -it is going to be interesting times having to deal with angry clients but I think we all agree that zero energy performance is important to achieve and as you mention then we need to start on the existing 1 star houses that populate the country -surely the govt needs to give support (low interest loans) to help bring these houses up to scratch -Im not holding my breath !!!
Great letter. Thank you, Nigel Howard!
Nigel, to make the transition to renewables and a net zero system as fast as possible, managing demand through better energy efficiency is an important step. It’s not good enough to build tents with solar panels and call them “net zero” – what you are arguing for here risks being weaker, not stronger, for climate action. We need renewables AND better thermal efficiency, I.e. lifting NatHERS ratings. There’s more to do, including getting off gas.
I’m not sure about your priorities – what matters more, a survivable future or reduced energy consumption? Net Zero helps to deliver a survivable future – CRTICAL, energy efficiency reduces energy costs and perhaps increases comfort – Nice to Haves. Net Zero delivers 4 times faster emissions reductions than 7*. The tent with solar panels on actually will contribute more to a survivable future than a 7* home. Please explain in what conceivable way that a Net Zero mandate could risk being weaker, not stronger, for climate action. We all know that 7* will be gamed furiously by homebuilders and very hard to enforce, but there’s no hiding from the annual energy bill with CO2 emissions on it – that’s probably the real reason Net Zero is so confronting – but also so essential.