What price do you believe or price would you happily would pay for, the different sustainable products available for your home.?
Say, Solar PV, Solar heating, solar cooling, solar lighting, solar swimming pool pump controllers, etc.
Try be specific & relative- respective to say, you think you would happily pay $10,000 or $2000 for heating of three bed house at 90% heat supply, all year round,(leaving 0-10% accounting for cold nights) which would last ten, fifteen years. Or swimming pool pump system coverage 10m x 6m, litreage (###) and you would happily pay $1000 or $4000,lasts five years/more - no maintenance, this would save you $xxx in electricity annually. Or correct insulation of walls and ceiling to eliminate heat loss, in return for low heating/energy use?
Detail is important as different types of products will outlast others in efficiency and longevity as we all know. It will be all relative as transparency may show where over pricing is and where genuine return on investments are or could be.
The aim is to get a guide of what peoples expectations are when it comes to purchasing such products as against to what the present market is selling them for. What do you believe is an acceptable price for turning your home sustainable and efficient for you or the environment.? 
The cost of sustainable change.
(26 posts) (10 voices)-
Posted Saturday 15 Feb 2014 @ 2:45:55 am from IP #
-
axess
MemberHi Eamon,
The first rule is to use less of everything-
Do you need a big house?
Build your smaller house to conserve energy and adapt to future change. Live on one level if possible. Use the Japanese principle of multiple use rooms.
Any technological add-ons can be a smaller size because the demand management is already in place. Buy high quality well built items that have had good industrial design input. Buy products that can be repaired and use them appropriately.
Some people live to get stuff for nothing or the lowest possible price. Service is often overlooked or people then have unrealistic expectations of both performance and servicing. Sometimes you do actually get what you pay for!
Posted Saturday 15 Feb 2014 @ 3:31:27 am from IP # -
Morbo
MemberI suppose its a feel good market of a different kind. Some pay for a sports car, even though they are a bit old and bold and the seats are to narrow for some weird reason. Others pay thousands for water tanks and PV while being fully aware the ROI exceeds their and the products life span. As with any feel good market some products are pretty overpriced. And some are plain useless.
As for pools, I thought with water restrictions they are a thing of the past?Posted Saturday 15 Feb 2014 @ 6:33:23 am from IP # -
Bushwalker
MemberI represent that Morbo!
The water tank is a requirement in our locality. Council will not approve any plans without a minimum sized tank (20KL). It is true that I upped the capacity to provide better water for my family and the savings are real but not enough to pay off the cost of the tank.
And the PV is well on the way to paying itself off, even at the silly price we paid for it.
By the way, I'm not sure what you mean by the sports car seat being too narrow.
I'd love to move into a beaut small and sustainable house. Unfortunately, I am not the sole stakeholder in that decision, so my role is to improve the efficiency of this oversize house as best I can, knowing that future occupants will reap the benefits.
We just have to do the best we can...
BW
Posted Saturday 15 Feb 2014 @ 7:00:29 am from IP # -
nhand42
MemberEamon said:
What price do you believe or price would you happily would pay for, the different sustainable products available for your home.?
Say, Solar PV, Solar heating, solar cooling, solar lighting, solar swimming pool pump controllers, etc.I don't think cost drives the decision making process. Many sustainable products aren't economically viable in the long-term; they're purchased for other reasons, many of them emotional, some of them irrational.
For me, I'm after comfort and convenience and low-maintenance. So I'll spend money on double-glazed windows and insulation not because I care about the financial outcome, but because it makes my living conditions more comfortable.
I didn't bother with PV cells on my most recent house build, even though PV can be financially rewarding. The reason is there was nowhere I could put the PV cells without ruining the aesthetics of the house. That was an emotional decision.
I'm building a wicked-bed vegetable garden even though I know this will cost more than simply buying fresh produce from the farmer markets. I'm doing it because I enjoy tinkering in the garden.
Some of the sustainable technologies are explained with dubious pseudo-science. I suspect these products don't work, even if the salesmen are well-meaning. That doesn't stop people from buying those products because of the way they "feel" about the purchase. It makes them feel better and that's a perfectly valid reason.
It seems our society is increasingly concerned only with financial outcomes. Governments talk only about surpluses, budgets, and not about happiness or progress. As if they think the secret to humanity can be found in an accountants ledger. So don't worry about the price. The reasons people have for buying sustainable products are many and varied. I suspect cost is frequently the least of their concerns.
Posted Saturday 15 Feb 2014 @ 8:17:27 am from IP # -
Morbo
Membermaybe Eamon wants to sell something, just fishes for the price?
I soon will get the 3rd water tank. Incl pump this will be ROI in 100 years. The council saves on it, less strain on the storm water system.
PV panels thanks to Tony and his cronies 28 years or more.
The solar hot water will be the same.Posted Saturday 15 Feb 2014 @ 10:05:39 am from IP # -
Eamon
My opinion will count for little, as I am much more pessimistic about our prosperity in the decades ahead than most here.
I believe few of the items you mention are sustainable at all. Sustainability may mean continuing to operate without either the electricity grid or private motor transport. Things that break down, you may have to fix from your own resources and skills.
I think my house in a small town will be liveable for the indefinite future on this basis. People who live in the benign climate of the north coast of NSW can probably sustain themselves quite well.
I think there are great gulfs between people's assumptions on this subject.Posted Saturday 15 Feb 2014 @ 12:28:43 pm from IP # -
Morbo
Membergas and coal prises will rise big time and so will fuel. So there will be lots of whinging, complaining and government handouts.
Sustainable and self-sufficient are big words. I suppose energy saving would be more appropriate. A few backyard tomatoes won't make me self-sufficient, they just taste better. Unless I use every drop of water 3 times, a 100m^2 roof won't get me off grid. 1.5kW PV just offsets my electricity consumption, the SHW just does 100% in summer.
No idea if prices on these things will come down. But I suppose the purse will force more and more people to use less energy and water.Posted Saturday 15 Feb 2014 @ 8:41:37 pm from IP # -
axess said:
The first rule is to use less of everything-Do you need a big house?
Build your smaller house to conserve energy and adapt to future change. Live on one level if possible. Use the Japanese principle of multiple use rooms.
Any technological add-ons can be a smaller size because the demand management is already in place. Buy high quality well built items that have had good industrial design input. Buy products that can be repaired and use them appropriately. Wter restrictions are in place in certain areas and yes pools seam to going'out of fashion' However there is the other side whereby natural sand/gravel/filtration systems exist for those who are keen to maintain a pool.
Some people live to get stuff for nothing or the lowest possible price. Service is often overlooked or people then have unrealistic expectations of both performance and servicing. Sometimes you do actually get what you pay for!
Hi axes, yes agreed, smaller house smaller needs, however relative to this smaller house, for you to make it sustainable or close to- How much would you be prepared to pay relative to your beliefs, payback, health return, ease of lifestyle and pride you gain from knowing you have achieved?
Re - Morbo and Bushwalker, yes agreed if you were on an income of $250k sustainability is not your worry and you can pay whatever price it comes at. Thats if earning that amount - would you be considering sustainability. All houses no matter what the size can be elevated to sustainable status -no matter what, its the constrictions of council, visual look and fin ace that are normally the issue, as in why I asked the question.
don't think cost drives the decision making process. Many sustainable products aren't economically viable in the long-term; they're purchased for other reasons, many of them emotional, some of them irrational.nhand42 " For me, I'm after comfort and convenience and low-maintenance. So I'll spend money on double-glazed windows and insulation not because I care about the financial outcome, but because it makes my living conditions more comfortable." I like your thinking, if only we could apply that across the whole spectrum of building products and the consumer. PV -aesthetics, agin one of the considerations as cost did not come into it. Vegi garden - thats pride, pleasure and return for a higher cost. Return is immense.
Yes, you are right about the world we live in, but how else do we get on or along with society if we do not participate partially or majority within it. If we fight it without aim or justification, where will it get us. If we work with it and get the aim or return then we have progress, in turn what we want via negotiation.
If the products we are talking about were correctly priced (lower or higher), ignoring market influence (demand) do you think use would become a greater goal in most people lives, would the products be 'everyday' in society.Morbo - re panels, tank etc. Do you think that the products should be drastically cheaper to give you an average say -ten year ROI or do you think Gov. or council should step in to subsidise so that your products give ten year ROI, however as you say they too get ROI "The council saves on it, less strain on the storm water system."
Capsilla, - not sure your position, but there is always a means even if its not off grid or non motor. You are 100% right "I think there are great gulfs between people's assumptions on this subject."
It is these gulf's, backed by why including cost,ROI, pride and gyration ROI that I have placed the questions. Where it will take us, will be interesting.
Morbo, you mentioned oil and gas prices being relative, if they were index linked to sustainable so that the consumer payed say only $3k for PV and $2.5 K for water and $3.5k for active heating/cooling, would the proposal of sustainability be socially interesting.Posted Sunday 16 Feb 2014 @ 2:43:02 am from IP # -
Morbo
Memberthere is differences in tank prices, for aquaplate ones (thats what the architect wants) it could be in the 100s, or about 30% or so.
Did SHW panels come down in price, once the rebates disappeared?
Charging a more realistic price for water and energy would cause trouble. 6 months of rein in Melbourne. Then 2 days of sun and people starting watering their plants. For hours. And complain water prices were a scam and the news about the dams being at 60% are just scare tactics.
Govt handouts will be abused. Plus $150 for plumbing in a rain water tank, hm, jjust gets me a leaf buster, PVC cement and some teflon tape. Maybe rather an incentive, if tanks really are in use, less charges for stormwater? There are seemingly conditions on how much surface area is allowed to be sealed in new development? Seen next doors approvel drawings mentioning extensive plant surfaces or so. Hm, to an ant a few m^2 maybe extensive.
Maybe its not about the price. Green in here still smells of un washed hippie and against progress. The developed world is way ahead on that. Be it because of lack of ressources, lack of willingness do send their armies to get some, or be it, because they messed up their environments years ago and learned from it. Learned in so far,that polluting processes have been outsourced.Posted Sunday 16 Feb 2014 @ 5:45:26 am from IP # -
Greg C
MemberI am happy to pay more, how much it depends on what is actually affordable. Our passive solar house cost about as much as the neighbours across the road which is two story and would have been at least 70% larger. Did I think I made a mistake, definitely not, his house faces west and his only saviour is the A/C and a large tree on our block.
Since we have lived here for 25years and while we tried to have the most efficient white goods some were bought into the house. Since 2003 they have been wearing out so most have been replaced. In every case, environmental performance was top of the list of things we looked at. The top load Hoover was the first to go and we settled on a Miele front loader which in 2003 was $2500. More than double the cost of other front loaders but more efficient and likely to be long lasting. We could afford it because DJs offered 2 years interest free finance. We replaced the dishwasher and the fridge under the same regime. It has pulled the houses electricity consumption down by about 2MW/Hrs per year. This is worth about $600 dollars per year so I guess they have paid for themselves. This was not the main aim though, the object is to reduce our impact as much as we can afford and not based on any reasonable payback.
A good case of this is the car I bought just over a year ago. The most environmentally friendly car on the market is the Toyota Prius. At about $37k it is way more than I have ever payed for a car, in fact the first new car I have ever owned. Using the same principals in buying white goods I never even test drove it. I was originally looking at a second hand one then Toyota offered 1.9% finance so repayments turned at only a little more and it is more efficient than the previous model. Will it ever pay for itself, probably not but in the meantime we are enjoying fuel costs about 1/3 of the car it replaced. It regularly beats the govt figures for fuel consumption and as a vehicle it is roomy in the back, and plenty of boot space. It makes a perfect family car. Why do people feel they need SUVs. The water tanks to will never pay for themselves either.
The current thing is to augment the solar PV system with battery storage. This will make the solar PV more cost effective but the the upfront cost is too much at the moment. However attractive finance might tip the balance.
Posted Sunday 16 Feb 2014 @ 7:51:10 am from IP # -
Greg
MemberThe only problem with all of this is that those that do the sustainable thing are in the minority. I'm not saying it has not improved but a massive way to go.
How many people would agree to remove all fuel subsidies ? How many companies would agree ? Tax incentives to use fossil fuels ... how does that make sense?
http://www.ata.org.au/forums/topic/12380Posted Sunday 16 Feb 2014 @ 10:53:06 pm from IP # -
Greg C
MemberI agree Greg, things seemed to have gone backwards in recent years. The Sustainable House Day is not what it used to be for example. However that is no excuse for those that get it, to do everything in their power to live sustainably and to keep trying harder as time goes by and improvements make it possible. However the situation is looking like it will improve fairly soon. We are going to have a lot warmer weather in the next few years and solar panels are at a price where they don't really need subsides. All is now needed is batteries to fall to a price where it is viable to go off grid, at least for some part of the day. I cannot wait for the day when I can give Energy Australia the finger.
Posted Monday 17 Feb 2014 @ 6:38:56 am from IP # -
Point being - if sustainable products were "affordable", (being within 'general household' price range), would the uptake of consumers grow exponentially to the degree that pressure (not demand) would be relieved from the energy boards and infrastructure. Regional homes and towns would not need enormous service supplies to these areas and in turn they would be self sustainable. This would also allow for some home dwellers to move to areas otherwise restricted because of lack of service supply. Industry bodies would have to rethink their supply strategies. Very similar to internet supply many years ago, when every where you looked you were charged even at cafes for wifi access, now there is free wifi available at most open spaces. The next strategy for the internet is the NBN, if it ever succeeds.
But what if sustainable energy supply became the same as 'wifi internet' supply due the the accessibility of the products so easily available. We would not be stressing about, energy costs going up or restricted access to sustainable sources, it would be a given. Use as much electricity as you want -its free, use as much heating or cooling as you want -its free, point drawn at water, it may be free but it is limited.....Posted Thursday 20 Feb 2014 @ 2:35:29 am from IP # -
Chip
MemberInteresting discussion but there will never be a consensus out of it. In economies where so much expenditure is on discretionary rather than essential items, the nature and mix of returns on expenditure are different for everybody. Add to that the opportunity cost of expenditure and it gets even more complex.
A person who puts $10k worth of pv on their roof may get $3k worth of satisfaction that friends and neighbours think he's done a good thing, $5k he used here rather than spend on a trip which he believes has a negative effect on global environment and the ROI on the other $2k is fantastic!
We are so lucky to have choices. Even people who may class themselves as poor in Australia are not driven by hard economics with all their choices. Just glance in their trolley in the supermarket!
So perhaps if we eased up on the economic rationale for expenditure on "sustainable" products and services then we'd be less likely to discourage people from what they believe are good things but which economists may argue are the wrong things.
Do economic rationalists ever enjoy dinner at a restaurant?
Posted Thursday 20 Feb 2014 @ 9:12:07 pm from IP # -
Buzzman
MemberThe real problem is the notion that it is the "cost of sustainable change" that is the issue.
Rather the emphasis should be reversed, such that it is the "cost of unsustainable ongoing develoments" that is the issue.
From a purely economic poisnt of view, the "true cost" of our actions is rarely if ever factored into the overall "cost" of our lifestyles.
If it were, then some of those "uneconomic" but sustainable choices would seem much more sensible, economically.
For example:
- the price on carbon, that we are still fighting to achieve in a realstic fashion....- the real cost of the electricity grid being borne by those who actually create the demand that results in the 'peak demand events' that require the gold-plating of infrastructure that in turn causes the price rises....
Truth is, those who use less power are actually subsidising the provision of power to those who use much, much more of it.
If the cost per kilowatt was made to reflect the ACTUAL cost of use 'at the time it's being used' then those profligate consumers would see hikes in their bills that would provide an incentive to reduce consumption. Then all those 'too expensive' sustainable choices would be much more cost-effective and ROI would be improved dramatically.
But that would involve regulation changes, which would involve finding a govt with a backbone capable of withstanding the political slaughter that might eventuate if peoples' bills suddenly rose again.
Wait till the per kilowatt cost reaches 50-60c, rather than the 30c it is currently. At that rate the cost of going solar and off-grid is much more ROI-realistic than it is at present, mainly due to the stupidly low price the retailers are required to pay for solar generation, around 8c.
If the retailers were required to pay 'market price' than small-scale solar gen would be 'an earner' and thus make much more sense to many more people.
But the bottom line, as Cat pointed out, is that our *western lifestyle* is ultimately unsustainable, and reducing THAT is not going to be easy, and that's why it's not happening.
Govt could be doing a LOT more, by increasing the reductions in consumption of appliances, by demanding increases in efficiency, for example, and requiring older homes to have ceiling insulation fitted before they are "allowed" to fit A/C.
But regulation is always resisted by the population, who are not willing to accept that they *can't* live the lifestyle they *want*.
It's only when faced with zero choice that people will begin to realise they have to change - first their attitudes, then their consumption patterns.
This happened globally, in peacetime, only during the Great Depression. Perhaps this is what we need as an incentive..??
Posted Friday 21 Feb 2014 @ 2:17:03 am from IP # -
Morbo
Memberhttp://www.aemo.com.au/
highest price for energy was 6 ct per kwh yesterday 8AM. So the 8 ct per kWh tariff is already more than other suppliers get. The remaining 24 ct per kWh are for that sub standard grid that drops out at least once per year.
With all the subsidies soon gone there is no more excuse that renewable energy bumps up electricity prices.
I would be happy to pay those 6 ct per kWh peak....Posted Friday 21 Feb 2014 @ 11:03:52 am from IP # -
Bushwalker
MemberMorbo, you left the profit margin handed to the middlemen. I think the prices went up 20% when they appeared on the scene.
BW
Posted Friday 21 Feb 2014 @ 2:04:37 pm from IP # -
Morbo
Memberso there is providers, generators and someone else? Or are you talking about providers? Ala, "in your area prices went up 18% but if you go with us and make your house energy efficient, you get 8% discount?" By energy efficient the door knocking backpacker means change the light bulbs, as if that on its own makes a weatherboard energy efficient?
Posted Friday 21 Feb 2014 @ 8:22:47 pm from IP # -
Bushwalker
MemberThere are generators, wholesale markets, distributors, and retailers.
There used to be basically a government owned one stop shop. They generated the power, delivered it to the consumer via government owned infrastructure and dealt directly with the consumers.
So basically there are now companies or government entities which generate the power for profit and a pseudo market system full of parasitic middle men all taking their cut.
Posted Friday 21 Feb 2014 @ 9:56:37 pm from IP # -
Buzzman
MemberBw is correct. The one-stop shop was always going to be cheaper than multiple layers of 'for-profit' companies. Look at Greenslips in NSW for example. Used to be all GIO, and cheap, now mulktiple companies, all scratching to earn a living, and is no longer cheap.
In the electricity market what we have now is the regulator (AER), the Commission (AEMC), the Market Operator (AEMO), the generators, the transmission grid corps, distributors, and retailers.
So each of them needs to be funded out of what we pay for our "power".
Most of the cost of the 'line-of-supply' is made up of the "Service Access Fee", but the *actual* cost per kilowatt goes to the retailer, who then pays the generators.
So although the "maximum wholesale price" is set by the regulator, the retailers all 'hedge' the price by locking in contracts at varying price ranges for varying load periods, and the difference between what we pay and what they pay is their 'margin'.
Or at least, that's sort of what I recall from a discussion I had with people from AER.
Add to that the fact that most (probably all) the State govt owners of the former State-owned distributor/generators were 'creaming' the profits off the top to shore up dodgy State Budgets, and you begin to understand why the infrastructure upgrades have been put off for so long.....the bureacrats in charge of the State monopolies had political masters to whom they could not say "no" - hence why the econo-rats always argue that market-based ownership is "better".
Frankly, now that the regulator sets the price, and the utilities have to come up with business plans for upgrading infrastructure, in order to get Weighted Average Capital Cost allowances for any price increases, it kinda takes the 'political masters' out of the loop.
Hence why we should still fight to keep it Public in NSW.
And no, I am not a member of the Union, nor do I or anyone I know work for the State-owned corps....it's basic maths.....the less layers, the less skimming.
Also, one of the reasons why we should still keep gen and dist in State ownership is the Act of Parliament that govern them usually have a 'local interest' provision covering social and environmental considerations of their actions.
The econo-rats argue this distorts the market, as does the State's ability to get lower-cost finance than private equity, but this is in *OUR* best interests as consumers, so we should be arguing against privatisation for that reason alone.
The point being it all distorts the market in *our* favour....not the "investors" in the privatised corps.
Posted Friday 21 Feb 2014 @ 11:32:49 pm from IP #
