Energy Efficiency for Small Business and Sustainability Advantage Programs: Greensynergy now eligible to provide Energy Audits

11th November, 2009

Great News! Greensynergy Consulting is now eligible to provide energy audit services under the above NSW Government Programs. Through an arrangement with David Howard of Partners Energy at Alstonville, we can service clients  throughout NSW, but will focus on the Mid-North Coast and New England regions.

For information on the programs:

Download the Energy Efficiency for Small Business Brochure and Energy Efficiency for Small Business Registration Form or go to www.environment.nsw.gov.au/sustainbus/smallbusenergy.htm

For the Sustainability Advantage program download the Energy Saver and Resource Efficiency Brochures or go to www.environment.nsw.gov.au/sustainbus/sustainabilityadvantage.htm

If you need any advice, please email or call.

Matthew Parnell


Oz Article: Panic, little ones, it’s the Carbon Monster

From Today’s Australian 2nd November, 2009

IF you don’t reduce your carbon footprint, then puppies will drown and bunny rabbits will die. And a terrifying, jagged-toothed monster with crazy hooked hands will descend from the clouds to eat you up.

Believe it or not, that is the message being delivered by the British government to children, in a L6 million ($10.7m) advertising campaign designed to scare the next generation witless about the alleged horrors of global warming.

Taking environmentalist propaganda to a new low, the TV ad shows a father reading a nightmarish bedtime story to his perturbed-looking young daughter.

He tells her of a land where the “weather is very, very strange”. There are “awful heatwaves” and “terrible storms and floods”. A cartoon bunny is shown crying as it starves on the dried, cracked earth, while elsewhere a puppy drowns in floodwaters.

Above it all, a sooty, blackened monster – CO2 made hideous flesh – surveys the horrors with a grotesque grin on its face.

And just in case the little girl, and the millions of children that the TV ad is aimed at, thinks this is merely a twisted fairytale, her father makes clear that it is reality.

It is the “horrible consequence”, he says, of human beings using too much CO2, much of which comes from “everyday things like keeping houses warm and driving cars”.

In short? Children who live in warm houses and who get lifts to school or football practice should feel guilty, because their evil antics are causing dogs to die and cute rabbits to go hungry.

Not surprisingly, the ad has caused a storm. Nearly 400 people have complained to Britain’s Advertising Standards Authority. Some are disturbed by the ad’s scientific illiteracy (how one gets from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s relatively sober reports about changing weather patterns to a cartoon dog drowning in a flooded city is anybody’s guess). Others have slammed the government for knowingly and deliberately – and with taxypayers’ money – scaring kids.

Yet the ad is only an extreme version of what has become mainstream environmentalist policy in recent years: terrifying children.

The environmentalist ethos, whether it is spouted by official bodies or radical, dreadlock-sporting campaigners, presents itself as caring and considerate, yet it is shot through with the politics of fear.

In place of grown-up, adult debate about the future, environmentalists continually use scaremongering – conjuring up horrid, squalid future scenarios based more on their fantastic imaginations than scientific fact – to try to force people to lower their horizons and change their behaviour.

And this green politics of fear is starting to have a detrimental effect on children.

As popular culture bombards kids with messages about a fiery, bunny-hostile future, and as many schools in Britain and elsewhere rebrand themselves as “eco schools”, devoted to reducing children’s carbon footprints as much as expanding their minds, so children are becoming paralysed by fear.

In 2007, a survey of 1150 seven to 11-year-olds in Britain found that more than half had lost sleep as a result of worrying about climate change.

“It’s making me and my friends go mad,” said a 12-year-old girl.

The children were most likely to be kept awake thinking about “the possible submergence of entire countries” and the “welfare of animals”, indicating that hysterical, fact-lite, The Day After Tomorrow-style scare stories about worldwide flooding or the wiping out of polar bears have hit children where it hurts.

Worryingly, the survey also found that one in seven children blamed their own parents for the coming climate doom. This suggests that environmentalists’ emphasis on the destructiveness of people’s everyday behaviour – their driving habits, their food choices, their holidays – has successfully convinced kids that all adults, even mummy and daddy, are dirty and dangerous.

Indeed, environmentalist activists now cynically exploit children’s fears to try to get them to snitch on their parents. A book called How To Turn Your Parents Green, by James Russell, encourages children to “nag, pester, bug, torment and punish the people who are merrily wrecking our world”, that is, grown-ups, or “Groans”.

It tells kids to become “Guardians of a Glorious Green Future” and to get their parents to sign up to a “Glorious Green Charter”. Traditionally, it has only been the most authoritarian regimes on Earth – think Mao’s China or Stalin’s Soviet Union – that encouraged children to spy on and squeal on their parents. Now environmentalists do it, too, though with a Little Green Book rather than a little red one.

When I was a child in the 1980s, the spectre of nuclear war was used to keep children in a permanent state of panic; today climate change plays that role. We should be wary indeed of any campaign that makes children feel scared and guilty and even drives them mad, and which turns them against their own parents.

Brendan O’Neill is the editor of Spiked Online.

As someone who has actively worked in promoting behaviour change and sustainability for over 30 years, I find the kind of advertising described in this article as nothing short of appalling. It is counterproductive and immature. Not to mention that it goes against all the principles of the social aspects of sustainability. We will achieve nothing by fear – such fear mongering is largely responsible for the far right-wing backlash trying to undermine the climate-change response by any means possible.

We have some major issues to deal with, so lets get on with it – and lets not scare the children and horses in the process!

Matthew


Home Insulation Scheme Downgraded

Monday 2nd November 2009

While fully supportive of the idea to get as many older houses fitted with ceiling insulation, I believe the the Federal Government’s Home Insulation Scheme is seriously dodgy; and now the Feds are downgrading the amount of the subsidy from a maximum of $1600 to $1200. While the argument is based on a winding back of the stimulus funding as our economy picks up, it is a convenient excuse to cover up for a very poor program design and limiting the damage, especially as caused by installers claiming the full rebate by overstating the area of insulation installed.

As I see it the problems are:

  • Flooding the industry with unqualified installers (one of whom was killed by electrocution by putting a reflective foil staple through a cable).
  • Importing of insulation that does not meet Australian Standards
  • Poor installation practices such as:
    • Leaving bags of insulation in ceilings uninstalled
    • Insulating around access hatches so it looks like insulation has been installed
    • Scattering batts generally in the roof
    • No neat fitting between ceiling members or cutting to fit odd spots
    • No overlapping at tops of walls
    • Not insulating to the full width of the ceiling (its hard to see that last row of batts around the edges from an access hatch
    • Covering halogen light fittings, causing house fires
  • Collusive tendering between individual contractors to get around the two quotes requirement
  • Installing less than $1600 worth of insulation but overstating the area and charging $1600 (losses to the government are substantial from this rort alone)
  • Good insulation companies in the industry affected by competition from dodgy installers
  • False claims about job creation (depending on whether you regard jobs for visiting backpackers as job creation)

What a mess! It wouldn’t surprise me if this program is canned within six months altogether. At least the $1600 option for solar hot water systems still remains. And there is a lesson in this: the solar rebate option must be paid for by the householder and a rebate sought; the insulation rebate is handled at point of sale, thus allowing for all the above corruption to emerge.

This is a classic case of a desirable sustainability initiative being completely buggered up by bad policy, bad program design and bad politics. And don’t get me started on the Home Sustainability Assessment/Green Loans Process!


Bongil Bongil Walk

Tuesday 6th October

Some images from my bushwalk yesterday in Bongil Bongil National Park: Bundageree Creek track from Tucker’s Rocks to Bundagen headland via littoral rainforest on sand (very rare) then back to Tucker’s Rocks via beach. Fantastic display of staghorns and elkhorns.

Just a question: why are 4 wheel drives still allowed on a National Park beach?

Rainforest on the Bundageree Creek Walk

Rainforest on the Bundageree Creek Walk

Variety of life growing on a tree trunk

Variety of life growing on a tree trunk

Looking south on the beach at Bongil Bongil NP

Looking south on the beach at Bongil Bongil NP


The Australian Coal Association’s CPRS Contradiction

Tuesday 29th September

Bernard Keane describes a very interesting take on the rather curious industry view of the Fed Governments Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. This is is the kind self-serving view that is regularly voiced by various climate change deniers in industry (and politics). It sadly demonstrates that their critique of the CPRS is not based on a constructive approach to dealing with climate change – it shows a very cynical view, which reduces any goodwill towards their position in the debate. Their cynicism means that anything said by the ACA cannot be trusted in future. They have effectively sidelined themselves from the CPRS debate by their cynical efforts to manipulate public opinion.

Their view also shows up the “zero sum game” mentality in the economic debate about a future CPRS: a view usually associated with the Left and their perception that the size of the cake never increases. In industry and business,  the ZSG mentality is disingenuous and shows how dumb they can be in their understanding of how economies actually work. Any change is seen as a cost imposition, rather than as a new opportunity for profit and better environmental outcomes. I wish these otherwise intelligent people would just grow up!

From Crikey.com

Canberra correspondent Bernard Keane writes:

The Australian Coal Association’s campaign against the Government’s emission trading scheme has been undermined from the outset by the Association’s own website, which features material that directly contradicts the claims in its campaign, and by the CFMEU, which has attacked the campaign as “blatantly dishonest.”

The campaign was unveiled yesterday with considerable fanfare due to the involvement of Neil Lawrence, who was responsible for the successful “Kevin ‘07” Labor advertising campaign before the last election.

The ACA claims in its campaign that the CPRS will “cost the industry more than $14b over 10 years”, cause 16 coal mines to close prematurely and cost 9000 jobs. The figures are drawn from an Association-commissioned report by ACIL Tasman which compared a CPRS-based reference with “business as usual”, involving significant industry growth. The 16 mine closures forecast are all of mines that would have closed anyway within a few years under “business as usual”. The 9000 figure relied on an employment multiplier of 3 i.e. only 3000 coal mining jobs were actually forecast to be lost.

But two links below the campaign video on the ACA website, the Association linked to an article “Boom forecast for coal output”. The article includes industry estimates that 13 new coalmines would be opened and $23 billion invested in the sector between now and 2015. ABARE figures that the industry saw $10.4b in new investment in the month of April 2009 alone were also quoted. Conversely, the article quoted the Minerals Council of Australia rejecting ABARE speculation that a Japanese carbon levy might reduce demand for Australian coal. Apparently moves to reduce greenhouse emissions in Japan won’t affect Australian coal but similar moves here will be a disaster.

The import of the article is clear: the effects of the CPRS even when modelled by industry-hired consultants will be swamped by industry growth fuelled by Asian demand.

Crikey emailed the ACA early this morning inviting comment on the disparity between the campaign and the material linked to by the Association. No response had been received by deadline, but the link to the “Boom forecast for coal output” article was moved off the front page during the morning. Google Cache shows the original page before the change.

It’s yet another example of the extraordinary disparity between the optimism and endless growth spruiked by industry leaders when talking to investors and the financial media, and the apocalyptic forecasts that accompany their demands for compensation under the CPRS.

The key mining union, the CFMEU, has also savaged the industry campaign.

“Industry research predicts mining jobs will increase by 120 per cent on 2006-07 levels in Queensland by 2030 under the Federal Government’s plan for tackling climate change,” CFMEU mining president Tony Maher said.

“Australian coal mining companies are extremely profitable and will continue to be well into the future under the Federal Government’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. This scare mongering is purely a cynical bid by mining giants to squeeze more money in compensation out of Australian taxpayers.”

Dead right. And the Association’s own website shows why.


How big can a dwelling be, and still be “green”?

Tuesday 29th September

Just thinking about some issues to do with improvements to the energy efficiency parts of the Building Code of Australia in terms of the recent ABC TV series “The World’s Greenest Homes”. The one common thread running through the program was the sheer size of the houses – very much demonstrative of thinking that going green meant you can build as big as you like. It seems that this misses the point completely: a reductionist approach to technology without thinking through the process as compared to a whole systems perspective, that is, really thinking through your impacts.

However, it was clear that most of the Australian houses shown were much smaller than the North American examples. It was clear that the American green houses were excessive in just about every way. If this is a model for housing the world sustainably, then we are on a seriously wrong path!

It seems to me that any house to be seriously labelled “green”, we should also look at footprint efficiencies in use of space. We need a debate about how big a house or dwelling can be and still be “green”.

With the BCA looking at a 6 star standard, this will be really important. As very small footprint dwellings are heavily penalised under the star rating system, it will be the case that smaller, lightweight, low embodied energy buildings with a higher surface to volume ratio will have difficulty meeting 6 stars, when huge, heavy buildings over 400m2 may readily achieve it.

Note that such large buildings have a much greater embodied energy. There are, as yet, no penalties in the BCA for such profligate energy use.

Further, the rating system does not project the total expected energy usage for thermal comfort: a 150m2 house capable of comfortably accommodating a family of 4, using 80MJ/m2 per annum, uses significantly less energy than, say a 250m2 house for the same size family with a better star rating at 60MJ/m2 per annum.

So, when talking of the “greenness” of a house, we should take into account the embodied energy and the total floor area of the building, in addition to the total energy per m2 per annum.


New Project for Greensynergy: Energy Audit of Bellingen Golf Club

Friday 25th September

Received confirmation yesterday for Greensynergy to carry out a Level 2  energy audit for the Bellingen Golf Club at Bellingen, NSW. This is the first project in the Bellingen Sustainable Business Network sustainability audit scheme (hopefully the first of many!). Greensynergy is working with the Bellingen Chamber of Commerce to promote a low-cost scheme of energy, water and waste audits for as many businesses in Bellingen as possible. This will be how the myriad small businesses at Bellingen can contribute to the Bellingen’s performance as part of the global Transition Towns initiative to combat climate change.

The focus at Bello GC is the energy usage for refrigeration and catering functions, with some lighting and building fabric efficiency issues to consider.


New Domestic Fuel Cell Technology from Ceramic Fuel Cells Ltd

Monday 21st September

A colleague from Sydney alerted me to this new domestic fuel cell technology Blue Gen from Ceramic Fuel Cells P/L. Ceramic Fuel Cells claim they are capable of generating electricity from reticulated natural gas and providing energy for hot water and waste heat for home heating.

Go to www.cfcl.com.au/Assets/Files/BlueGen_Launch_Information_(Web)_May-2009.pdf

The opportunities for carbon reduction from distributed generators like this will be fantastic when available (these fuel cells are not on market yet, only in development stage). As for the domestic application – they are definitely good for cold climates where heat recovery systems attached for heating. At an $8000 + price tag, there would need to be incentives to people to install these, as their more efficient use of energy has a major social and economic dividend in terms of more efficient use of energy from generation at end point use and distribution of excess to the local grid. (This is also the unsung aspect of solar grid feed systems – greatly reduced system losses, now about to be recognised by a 4:1 tariff advantage). As they are only geared for natural gas, they will be of use where that service is available. Scaled-up versions will be good for commercial/industrial CBD sites.

Gas-powered fuel cells are a very efficient, lower carbon way of generating electricity for domestic use from fossil fuel sources: as such they are a fantastic transitional technology.  But I think the real killer application for these at domestic/commercial level will be to charge plug-in hybrid cars or to link in with fuel-cell powered cars. The long view should see these evolve as part of solar power systems, to remove gas from the mix.

Possibly the evolution of the solar powered fuel cell car may supersede in-home systems, by pushing the fuel cell processor out into the car boot, where it becomes available to to a smart grid wherever plugged in! These fuel cells may be very much part of the energy mix in the next few years.


Bushlight – Don’t kill it Kev!

Wednesday 16th Sept.

On this evenings 7.30 report, there was a story about the impact of the sudden killing of the remote area renewable energy scheme. It focussed on the Bushlight program at my old place of employment, the Centre for Appropriate Technology in Alice Springs.

The Bushlight program is probably the best scheme in the country offering technical assistance to remote indigenous communities across Central Australia, The Cape, the Top End, the Kimberleys and Pilbara. Its impact has been so positive and so well set up and run. And CAT is an Indigenous organisation, employing and supporting indigenous people. When squillions are being spent on failed housing programs, it is hard to justify dumping on the best example of its kind. They should take the $40million off the housing consultants + govt depts that is being wasted and give it to Bushlight.

The question is, why would Kevin Rudd/Penny Wong/Jenny Macklin/Peter Garret support the killing off of such a successful indigenous program? Are they that disconnected from reality? Don’t they realize that the application of solar energy in remote Australia is significant in creating cost efficiencies and helping to bring the cost of PVs down?

Well done to Tig Armstrong and his team at Bushlight and CAT. Hope Kev et. al. see sense.


BCA Energy Efficiency for 2010 + Beyond: good + noble, but difficult to implement > Needs more work!

I’ve just looked through the ABCB’s document outlining their energy efficiency regulations for 2010 and beyond. Its mostly all good, with some lost opportunities. I have a few comments and observations for what its worth – you be the judge. I’m not sure I’ll bother to send to ABCB and ABSA yet – small consulting firms in the regions don’t get much consideration for their points of view. I think this blog might be more effective. Anyway, here are my thoughts:

Vol 1 Class 3+5-9

  • The new conditioned space definition won’t clear up existing ambiguity. This is the single biggest cause for argument, and a means for many, many buildings to avoid fabric insulation and glazing assessments.
  • The BCA should clearly state what is meant by conditioned space in terms of expected comfort conditions for different climates, regardless of whether aircon will be installed or not. As it stands, a passively designed building without aircon, relying on natural ventilation could, according to the way the BCA is enforced, be exempt from insulation and glazing regs! I know this is not the intent, but I’ve had many such debates with clients looking for the path of minimum compliance.
  • Good to see that windows will be caulked in frames.
  • Good to see aircon system specs are tightened up a bit.
  • I would like to see lighting density levels for more typical spaces – often have to guess and interpolate an appropriate figure.
  • The new insulation information has not been identified: but it needs to be re-drawn. There are major conflicts between R-values for air spaces in the tables in the BCA and the R-values for air spaces in the AccuRate database as used in Classes 1,2 + 4 buildings. There should be consistency across all building types.
  • The air gap R-value tables in the BCA are very poorly written, and can be interpreted any number of ways. Don’t’ aggregate the information: show exactly the arrangement of foils and air gaps.
  • The lists of material R-values is very basic – I always seem to be reaching for various manuals and texts to look for the missing thermal conductivities.
  • The glazing tables should be re-written. Many of the tables in warm climates wipe out the U value in the calculation. They effectively say that Low E glass or double-glazing has no role in a warm climate. How wrong is that? What about conductive heat gains from warm air masses against fully shaded glass?
  • Good to see that maintenance manuals are required in J8 – now it will be much more difficult to fudge J8.
  • Do something about differential issues between base buildings and fitouts. Some base building shells are avoiding section J assessments; and the later fitouts have minimal assessments done because it is assumed an assessment was done on base buildings.
  • Many shop fitouts are clearly not being assessed according to section J? How so?
  • There are no systems for Councils and Certifiers to apply energy efficiency properly; rarely is work inspected; rarely are buildings assessed in a comparative way. It is hard to get clients to do things properly when they point to buildings up the road that appear to have avoided the regulations entirely!
  • The BCA must be clearer about substantiation: Councils and Certifiers are now accepting one-page letters certifying compliance with zero substantiation: Tighten this up!

Vol 1 Class 2 + 4 part/Vol 2 Class 1

  • The requirements for Class 1 single dwellings are being raised from 5 to 6 stars; The requirements for Class 2/4 are being raised by more than 2, as the requirements range from 3.5 to 4 stars. This is worth doing, but will be very hard to achieve in moderate climates without some review.
  • Even the ABCB’s own research identified that it is hard to push a block of units to average 5 stars in any climate; it also identified an anomaly in Climate Zone 2 for Brisbane and recommended that Star Rating bands for such zones be reviewed
  • I agree: it is even worse in the southern part of Climate Zone 2, such as here in Coffs Harbour: I have been calling for this for the last couple of years, but my requests have fallen on deaf ears. In Coffs Harbour, I have found it impossible to pass some blocks of units, with any strategy using AccuRATE. I re-modelled them in NatHERS for an easy pass (This option is gone now).
  • In mild climates our total energy allowance is very narrow ( compared to cold climate with allowances of 300mJ/m2 per year), but we have to design for both summer and winter, with quite different strategies (unlike cold climates, where mild summers are well handled by winter design).
  • It is quite easy to achieve 6 stars in a cold climate, but very difficult in a climate like Coffs – the software identifies that high-mass multi-residential buildings can build-up excessive heat, and cannot cool down (I have modelled such units with permanent holes in the wall and still cannot get a pass, even with sea breezes so strong you can’t stand up!)
  • Also, in mild climates, a lightweight Class 1 building with full energy efficient specification cannot readily reach 5 stars, and often won’t reach it without the addition of internal mass – there is no strategy that will push a lightweight building to 6 stars in such a climate. Its as if a lightweight building has a “set point” in any given climate, beyond which it cannot be pushed, as the summer strategy reduces winter performance and the winter strategy reduces summer performance. This is a sleeper issue for the building industry, and when they discover this, all hell will break loose!
  • I think 6 stars with a 5 star average will be very hard to achieve in multi-residential developments; and in lightweight in single residential construction without a total review of the Star-Rating Bands.
  • There is also an anti-small floor area bias that will prevent small units of lightweight construction achieve 5 stars in any warm climate. I recently did a modelling exercise on a small freestanding unit of lightweight construction with high levels of energy efficiency that did not reach 5 stars in any warm climate in Australia. (Yet, the same building achieves 5 stars comfortably in cold climates) In some places it didn’t hit 4 stars. A 6-star rating for such buildings is totally out of reach with any lightweight specification. This will be hugely significant for affordable housing programs.
  • I think that the COAG view that all residential dwellings be 6 stars is misinformed, and doesn’t understand the limitations of the software, and that there could be errors in the Climate Data and Star Rating Bands.

Basix in NSW

  • A pass in Basix will be even more difficult to achieve under the new Code, although it is not yet clear how the revised star ratings will be “transmogrified” into the Basix environment.
  • Basix is hugely problematic for thermal issues. Most single dwellings go through the DIY tool, which is essentially the BCA Deemed-To-Satisfy.
  • However, a building that passes DIY often is under 4 stars when modelled with AccuRATE, and does not pass the Basix caps for the thermal simulation compliance pathway. So DIY is up to a 1.5 star free kick to the project home industry. I hope that this disappears in the BCA 2010 NSW provisions – there is nothing yet to indicate this.
  • Get rid of Basix DIY if it cannot be made commensurate with AccuRATE results.
  • The project home building industry, will find it very difficult if DIY disappears, and we go to full thermal simulation at 6 stars – for them, it will be a jump from 3.5 stars to 6 stars. Again, this is a sleeper issue for that part of the industry
  • The Basix Summer and Winter caps make it very difficult to pass in warm climates with a definable winter – because summer and winter strategies conflict with each other in such climates; the conflict is more significant under Basix with its separate caps than for the national star-rating-based standard. This is even more pronounced in multi-residential developments where the whole development must pass both summer and winter average caps.
  • There is a possibility that the separate Basix caps for specific climate zones have been generated on false assumptions. They should be reviewed along with the national Star-Rating Bands.

Final Thoughts (for now)

Going to a 6 star standard is worth doing. But all the anomalies, free kicks, software errors and Star-Rating bands should be reviewed and fixed before it comes into force. Also, there has to be some clear thinking as to how energy for lighting and hot water are incorporated into the energy rating software, and how Basix is altered to be consistent, as it has water and energy included, but as separate measures, not as part of the thermal software. Also, we’ll have a situation where a cold climate building using hundreds of MJ/m2/annum will achieve 6 stars when a warm climate building using a fraction of the MJ/m2/annum will fail. This is patently absurd.

If these don’t get fixed, the building industry will revolt against an otherwise worthy raising of sustainability standards. And we’ve fought too long to get the regulations to where they are today. This is not my last word on the subject! There will be more things that come to mind, and I’ll write about these in due course.