There are good reasons to buy your home off the back of a truck.

WHEN Andrew and Tilley Govanstone first saw their house, it was in Vermont, in Melbourne’s eastern suburbs.

“It was ideal,” Mr Govanstone recalls. “It was a classic 1950s Australian home. It had a lot of glass down one side – but it was all facing east.”

But the house’s poor orientation didn’t matter. A few months later, it was delivered to their vacant block in Portland, in four parts. There, it landed on new stumps, with the glass oriented north to best catch the sun.

That was 15 years ago. It cost $40,000 to purchase and move the home, plus rewiring, plumbing and re-plastering costs. “For $50,000 we got a fantastic split-level house. Every day we wake up in there is a pleasure,” he says.

Before they decided to recycle an old house, the couple had drawn up plans for a brand new dwelling. They had previously lived in a passive-solar designed home and become hooked on the comfort, natural light and cheap bills.

They wanted one of their own. “But the reality was that it was going to cost hundreds of thousands of dollars and we didn’t want to spend that sort of money,” Mr Govanstone says.

Illustration by Robin Cowcher

By relocating a house they could get the orientation right, at least. And it gave them another kind of comfort too.

“We were able to pay it off very quickly,” he says. “We know other people who’ve made the same decision and have been very happy, because they’re not paying for it with their lives: they’re not locked into significant mortgages. It is extremely liberating.”

But it’s not without pitfalls – a lot can go wrong if the dwelling isn’t transported with care. Mr Govanstone suggests asking the moving contractor for the details of recent customers. Likewise, it’s smart to check your council’s rules before you invest too much time.

Under the building regulations, relocated houses are expected to meet the six-star rules, but surveyors have discretion to allow partial compliance where that’s not possible.

If that’s the case, is it still a good environmental choice? Ralph Horne, director of the centre for design at RMIT, says the life cycle benefits of reusing materials are significant. Unless you’re moving it a very long distance, the transport impact will be small in comparison.

For ongoing performance, consider whether the design suits the climate zone in the new location (for example, a Queenslander won’t cope well in Castlemaine) and the appropriateness of the orientation.

“Our studies of new housing in Victoria show you can lose a star of energy rating performance – and pay higher bills – if you point the house in the wrong direction,” Mr Horne says.

Relocated houses usually need to be re-plastered, and that’s a perfect chance to install insulation.

“The costs of the second-hand dwelling are much lower than a new one, and some of the savings should be ploughed into upgrades: adding insulation, sealing gaps and cracks, and adding double-glazing or shading according to the local climate,” he says.

As well as re-orienting their house, the Govanstones laid insulation in the ceiling and walls. They’ve since invested in a 5-kilowatt solar array and begun to replace the old windows with double-glazing. The next items on their list are solar hot water and underfloor insulation.

“With every passing year the microclimate within the house gets better,” he says.

Read this article at The Age online

Reducing our impact requires more than efficiency alone

IN 1940, Dr Ted Trainer’s father bought a bush block 20 kilometres southeast of central Sydney, and called it Pigface Point. Dr Trainer and his family still live there and, by choice, their way of life has changed little.

The skills popularly associated with wartime austerity – darning, patching, fixing and vegie growing – remain prized at Pigface Point. Just four solar panels provide enough power for six residents living in the main house and a caretaker’s cottage.

Dr Trainer has built his own windmill and rigged up motors and pumps attached to the 12-volt electricity supply.

“I like to talk about my lifestyle being that of a scruffy peasant. I almost never buy anything new. But there’s no sense of deprivation or hardship whatsoever,” he says. “In consumer society we work three times too hard, for the sheer idiocy of producing all the junk we don’t need.”

Instead, he spends his time on his research and hobbies – among them, sculpture, model-making and painting.

Dr Trainer, a conjoint lecturer at University of New South Wales, is a sociologist and long-time environmental campaigner. His way of life is more than a matter of personal freedom. He argues that renewable energy alone won’t be sufficient to mitigate climate change and overcome resource scarcities.

“There’s overwhelming case now that our level of production and consumption is far beyond anything that’s remotely sustainable and it has to be dramatically reduced,” he says. “Lifestyle changes of a kind that are to do with changing your showerhead fittings or buying a Prius are totally inadequate.”

Illustration by Robin Cowcher

In an essay on the Simpler Way website, ‘How cheaply could we live and still flourish?’, he outlines his rough calculations about the footprint of a society based on his kind of radically simple living.

Although he concedes that most people would prefer a life less austere, he believes the inhabitants of a thoughtfully designed town could enjoy their lot on less than one-tenth of today’s largess.

“We have to move to systems that are mainly localised,” Dr Trainer says. “I’m talking about big changes that will take a long time. Don’t worry, just start doing the things you can in your household – and more importantly, join in community initiatives – the common gardens, swap networks and skill banks.”

New Yorker writer David Owen shares some of Dr Trainer’s preoccupations. In his new book, The Conundrum, Mr Owen challenges the notion that we can overcome environmental problems by way of more efficient technology alone.

For example, although modern artificial lighting is vastly more economical than candles, that doesn’t mean we use less energy on lighting. Rather, we’ve chosen to illuminate every corner of the night.

Likewise, he suggests, a truly green car might be one with no air conditioning or radio, uncushioned seats, a low top speed and terrible fuel efficiency. “You’d be able to get your child to the emergency room,” he writes, “but you’d… take public transportation to work.”

In other words, an eco-friendly vehicle is one that you don’t drive. For householders and policymakers, Owen’s argument is that frugality must come before efficiency.

“If we impose limits on our consumption of fossil fuels, advances in efficiency will enable us to live well with less damage; if we pursue efficiency alone, we will only make our problems worse,” he writes.

Read this article at The Age online

Green developers are getting a toehold in the market.

FIFTEEN years ago, when Mike Hill and Lorna Pitt sought financing for their eco-housing development, WestWyck, the response wasn’t wholly enthusiastic.

“We put up our model for funding and the banks were really sceptical about the shared facilities,” Mr Hill recalls.

The ground has shifted since then. In the planning for the next stage of development, their financiers pushed them to add more communal features.

“They said the most popular aspect of WestWyck has been the shared living,” he says. “They put it down to a Brunswick thing, but we think it’s a broader market change.”

For the second stage, Mr Hill has teamed up with BioRegional, the founder of the One Planet framework – a set of principles to help property developers, businesses and governments reach for the highest environmental and social standards.

While those goals remain well off the radar for most new housing projects, the changing attitude of the banks is a sign of what is becoming possible. BioRegional recently established an office in Australia and it has already held discussions with several developers and councils.

Ed Cotter, from BioRegional Australia, says the One Planet framework springs from an analysis of ecological, water and carbon footprints – figuring out what the Earth can produce renewably and what’s required to for us live within those means.

To help individuals achieve that “one planet lifestyle”, developers must aim to meet a series of targets, including that buildings are carbon and water neutral by 2020, and only 2 per cent of domestic waste ends up landfill (by total weight produced).

Illustration by Robin Cowcher

The goals are “stretch targets”, Mr Cotter says – even more so in Australia because of our current reliance on coal and cars. But the stretch is necessary. “If everyone lived like an average Aussie, we’d need four planets to sustain our lifestyle.”

For Mr Hill, the framework is appealing because it’s internationally recognised and covers more than the thermal efficiency of the dwellings.

“We like it because it’s a cradle-to-grave set of indicators, from the way in which people work on the project through to post-occupancy – the food people eat and the way they move around,” he says.

Set on the site of the old Brunswick West primary school, WestWyck is already an unusually green development. The first stage, finished in 2008, comprised 12 dwellings – some new and some converted from the old schoolhouse.

The terrace houses were rated up to 8.5 stars, and grey and blackwater treatment systems were built into the site, along with water tanks and landscaping to reduce stormwater runoff. An early study completed by CSIRO found that occupants were using nearly two-thirds less water than average.

The new plans allow for another 18 apartments and extra communal facilities – a shared function area, workshop and a spare room that residents can book for overnight visitors.

Mr Hill says his other major focus is on sustainable transport. He’s aiming to radically cut car use and ownership, and promote public transport, bike riding and walking instead.

Among the incentives will be covered bicycle parking, a WestWyck bus shelter and a designated space for a car share vehicle. Car owners will pay for parking on a sliding scale, with four-wheel drives attracting the highest fee. Electric vehicle–owners will get their spot for free, along with free GreenPower for recharging.

Read this article at The Age online 

Can community-funded solar panels transform our skyline?

WITHIN year and a half, 400 photovoltaic panels could be glinting from a single commercial roof in the City of Yarra – and all of them will be owned by the local community.

The medium-scale solar project would be the first of its kind in Australia. It’s kicking off next Saturday, May 19, at a public meeting in Clifton Hill organised by Yarra Climate Action Now.

Neil Erenstrom, a volunteer with the group, says they’re conducting a pre-feasibility study and have begun to identify possible hosts, such as factories, schools or large retailers.

“We’re looking at installing about 100 kilowatts, which will produce enough energy to power about 40 typical households in Yarra,” he says.

The project won’t power households directly; instead, the co-operative will sell the electricity to the owner of the building, at a price roughly equivalent to the domestic retail rate. Investors from the community will receive dividends for as long as the panels are producing – probably about 25 years.

Mr Erenstrom is a solar photovoltaic engineer. He’s worked in the industry for eight years, but this project would allow him to participate in another way. “I want to see solar electricity everywhere and I think it’s starting to become financially viable. But I’m a renter, so I can’t put solar panels on my own roof,” he says.

The community-solar scheme is targeted at people who, like him, can’t install their own renewable electricity.

In the City of Yarra, nearly half of all residents are tenants – almost double the proportion across the rest of the city. And many more live in apartment buildings, have heritage overlays or roofs that are shaded or poorly oriented for catching the sun.

The group has learnt from the funding and ownership model established by Hepburn Wind, a community-owned wind farm near Daylesford. But because it will operate on an even smaller scale, its administration costs will have to be minimal.

“We’ll need a very efficient, skin-and-bones type operation, with lots of volunteers and probably some grant funding,” Mr Erenstrom says.

For the time being, the project will make the best financial sense on buildings where the panels’ output is “behind the meter and below the load” – that is, it will be used to offset normal usage.

But as time goes on, the business case is only going to get better. “The price of panels fell by about 40 per cent in 2011 and could do the same again this year,” he says.

Several other community groups have got the same idea. By the bay, Locals Into Victoria’s Environment (LIVE) has met with the Port Phillip council with a view to funding hundreds of panels for the new roof on the South Melbourne Market.

“We’d be like a stall holder, except we wouldn’t be selling fruit and vegetables – we’d be selling clean, renewable electricity to people in the market,” says David Robinson, from the group.

It’s very early days, but they’re hoping to secure financing to install the panels and on-sell them to local investors. If it’s successful, Mr Robinson says they’ll make the template available for any community to follow.

“We don’t plan on stopping at just this one roof in Port Phillip,” he says. “We have lots of big-box buildings with roofs that have nothing on them other than tin.”

Read this article at The Age online

Illustration by Robin Cowcher