I think that the government/Green Party initiative to insulate New Zealand’s housing stock is brilliant both in a general sense in that it will knock tens of billions of dollars off our public health bill over time and in a personal sense in that I’ve recently bought a 1920′s villa and the place is like a fucking deep freeze.
And that’s the mystery. Why have people have been living in this house for 80 to 90 years with no insulation and no proper heating? And why is almost every house in New Zealand like that? I guess it seems normal until you spend a few years living overseas and realise that the rest of the developed world spends winter in relative comfort inside insulated, centrally heated homes.
Exactly! I spent winter as a kid in NZ camped in front of the electric heater with a book. On a recent trip back home I watched my brother-in-law nail up the plaster board to the inside of his new extension with no insulation inside – apparently I have become “soft” so far away from home.
Comment by John McMullan — May 27, 2009 @ 8:57 am
perhaps it all seemed relatively tropical to the early Scottish settlers. That plus the life wasn’t meant to be easy outlook they brought with them.
It is odd. The villa and bungalo were designed for Southern California. But even our quite recent townhouse – which has the modern lots of glass look – doesn’t have double glazing.
Comment by Neil — May 27, 2009 @ 9:01 am
same same.
my first flat back in wellington was a joke, but the second was brand-spanking new. just running my PC in my room on a cold saturday morning was enough to warm it up.
we’ve been in an apartment for the past two winters, and our power bills have been really low. warm, dry, “hush-glass” on the windows.
and all this for the cost of a three-bedroom chiller in the burbs.
the insulation initiative is a good one. i’m glad the nats carried it over from labour’s government.
Comment by Che Tibby — May 27, 2009 @ 9:24 am
I suspect the slightly temperate climate – as opposed to say, Scandinavia – is an issue. You don’t freeze or bake *most* of the time, you act like you can get away with crappy houses.
It’s the reverse of the food poisoning thing. If it’s *mostly* cold enough that you can sort of get away with poor food hygiene, you get cavalier and start poisoning yourself.
That or we’re not a nation of deep thinkers.
Comment by lyndon — May 27, 2009 @ 9:41 am
Yes but have YOU insulated it? Sounds like not.
We just don’t want to spend the money on things like that.
Comment by Gareth — May 27, 2009 @ 9:50 am
First of all, our forebears were a lot tougher than we are, and before antibiotics they also tended to die randomly of a lot of things other than a nippy morning. Once the houses were built, in Auckland at least, it isn’t quite cold enough in the winter to justify spending thousands on insulation and it isn’t quite hot enough in summer to justify air conditioning. So people buy neither and just put on a extra jumper in the winter and complain about the lack of sleep for three weeks in the summer.
Comment by Tom Semmens — May 27, 2009 @ 9:58 am
Anyone have any idea just how far $1500 would get you?
Comment by StephenR — May 27, 2009 @ 10:07 am
I agree, I don’t think we live in a cold enough climate for central heating, but if most houses were properly insulated and has proper windows without mile wide gaps we would be fine. My concern, as a person who rents a 100 year old house, is that there is nothing for people who rent. There is no law to say that a landlord must provide a healthy dry house, only that they should provide the means (ie a electrical output) to heat a house. T
Comment by jumpingonabandwagon — May 27, 2009 @ 10:10 am
singapore at least.
Comment by Che Tibby — May 27, 2009 @ 10:15 am
yeah, the temperature isn’t such an issue as dampness. hot and damp is annoying, but cold and damp equals ongoing colds.
our current place is warm *and* dry, and i haven’t had a cold to mention for at least two years.
Comment by Che Tibby — May 27, 2009 @ 10:18 am
Yes but have YOU insulated it? Sounds like not.
We only moved in a couple of weeks ago. Insulation and a wood burner are top priorities.
Comment by danylmc — May 27, 2009 @ 10:23 am
Ha, fair enough then and excellent timing on your part :>
Is retro-fitted double glazing normally included in these plans? My place is a great passive solar design (north-facing glass streaming sun onto a concrete floor) but would do better with double glazing to trap that heat better through the evening
Comment by Gareth — May 27, 2009 @ 10:26 am
it is pretty easy to insulate the ceilings at least.
just climb up there, take out whatever crap they’ev left you, and cut batts to measure.
under-floor stuff is a nightmare. i have memories of crawling on my back in 60-70cm spaces and having to staple batts up behind chicken wire. coughed fibreglass for days.
Comment by Che Tibby — May 27, 2009 @ 10:39 am
The reality is the cost benefits are pretty marginal. The Otago study came up with a return of 1.73 over 30 years at a 5% discount rate. So you have to really squeeze the numbers to get close to a decent return. As others have pointed out, as a population we don’t rate it as an investment.
So the free marketer in me asks why taxpayers should be funding it when homeowners see other priorities? Note similar subsidies already exist and the number taking them up have been underwhelming to say the least. Not sure what will change under a new scheme.
I have heard arguments that there is a market failure due to the turnover of houses. People move every 7 years or so and that is not enought time to recover the costs of insulation and, because it is out of sight out of mind, $5k on a new bathroom is probably more value enhancing than batts. People also probably don’t factor it into renting decisions.
That said, if I had a pitched roof house with an uninsulated loft space, putting batts in would be a no brainer IMO, but then it’s somethign my family did 30 years ago so I’m programmed that way.
PS You don’t have an option about double glazing any more. Any renovations impacting the windows will require their replacement with DG windows.
Comment by insider — May 27, 2009 @ 10:55 am
I’ll have to try and find it but apparantly that is false. Colds have no correlation with cold and damp.
Comment by insider — May 27, 2009 @ 11:02 am
1.73 at a 5% discount rate isn’t really squeezing the numbers? That seems like a really valid return on investment for Govt.
I think the market failure is in the time-period as you said, the lack of direct-linking in people’s minds between the insulation and their health, and the even less direct linking between that insulation to public health costs and their taxes. The external costs are not easy to directly build into people’s decision making.
Comment by Gareth — May 27, 2009 @ 11:02 am
Oh, and interesting re DG, thanks for that. I guess my question is will that renovation now count as “insulating” under this fund?
Comment by Gareth — May 27, 2009 @ 11:03 am
apparently not (but i could be wrong). the partner’s parents are getting insulation put in under this or a similar scheme very soon, and the windows are not included.
Comment by Che Tibby — May 27, 2009 @ 11:10 am
Right, which is probably fair enough as the “insulation ROI” is probably not as strong for that as some relatively cheap bats or polysterene.
Although heat loss through windows is much greater than it is through floors.
Comment by Gareth — May 27, 2009 @ 11:12 am
Well Treasury would disagree. They say for health programmes use 20 years project lifespan as after that the benefits are too small to play a role and that 6% is the lowest discount rate they tend to use. Lower rates would only be used in exceptional circumstances. So I’d say 5% over 30 years is pushing it.
Comment by insider — May 27, 2009 @ 11:17 am
I have DG on very large window spaces. It’s great for soundproofing particularly against the weekend;s southerlies. I’m not sure about its thermal benefits – they probably do work. Branz no doubt will have tested it to death. I think the best thing is thermal drapes. Depressing to have them drawn during the day.
Comment by insider — May 27, 2009 @ 11:20 am
Historian Tom Brooking of the University of Otago has done some interesting research on how New Zealand’s early colonial history and the promotion of migration involved creating a myth that New Zealand was a South Pacific tropical version of the Mediterranean, and that this had ongoing impact on the New Zealand psyche and the way we built our nation. Essentially New Zealanders believed the myth that NZ was a really warm and moderate climate, and our infrastructure and houses were built on top of this myth. This is the best explanation that I’ve come across for the crap housing we’ve got.
Bryce
Comment by Bryce Edwards — May 27, 2009 @ 11:37 am
In terms of ROI for the government, having a large proportion of the workforce on sickleave at any given time over winter due to colds, chest infections etc can’t be doing much for our productivity. Hard to quantify but a very real cost.
under-floor stuff is a nightmare. i have memories of crawling on my back in 60-70cm spaces and having to staple batts up behind chicken wire. coughed fibreglass for days.
There’s a large, excavated basement area under the house so this part should be pretty easy. Which makes it even weirder that nobody has bothered to staple up some foil at any stage in the last few decades.
I think Bryce had a pretty good thery – isn’t it amazing how dreams and misconceptions can perpetuate themselves down through the ages . . .
Comment by danylmc — May 27, 2009 @ 11:52 am
Plus, we’re wannabe Australian. Hence school uniform shorts and going barefoot in winter. And now we’re dependent on tourism, so truth is treason.
Mind you, half of us enjoy warmer winters than Australia’s capital.
Comment by sammy — May 27, 2009 @ 11:57 am
In the Otago study they spent nearly $2k per house and achieved a 0.5 deg increase in room temperatures and reduction in time temperatures were below 10 deg.
I just can’t see that scale of change having a significant health impact. While people said they “felt” better and warmer and were not going to the doctor as much, GPs did not report any significant change in attendance. Similarly hospital admissions for respiratory issues showed no significant change.
Comment by insider — May 27, 2009 @ 12:16 pm
Somebody mentioned rentals. In the UK a landlord is required to have an energy performance certificate to show how much it costs to heat and run the house. It would be great to have that here so demand would swing towards rental properties that have proper insulation.
Regarding ROI, the only reason it’s not much better is that, despite the cost of power in NZ, there is still no carbon cost associated with burning fossil fuels. The pollution and environmental effects are still not being accounted for.
Will
Comment by William — May 27, 2009 @ 12:25 pm
Yeah, but Treasury don’t care about people’s comfort. Unless they can quantify it explicitly in monetary terms. There’s more to this than health. There’s being warm and happy, and not sitting in cold discomfort with sore joints because the house is not much warmer than the ambient temperature.
This is why Labour were a bunch of fools to oppose this policy for so long. Warm people are happy people. Happy people don’t tend to want to vote their Government out of office.
I’m happy the Government is doing this. But I’m a little unhappy with the $1500 subsidy. The way to do this is with zero interest loans with long payback times. Still a subsidy like the one being offered, but in a better form and ultimately cheaper for the Government. California has a law which does this, and then requires the balance to be transferred to the next home owner when the property is sold. Which addresses the high-turnover market failure problem. It’s really worth a look.
Comment by George D — May 27, 2009 @ 12:27 pm
Totally agree on the housing turnover problem, and slightly with regards to subsidies. Which is why I would have chosen a slightly different model – see below.
Also, rental properties should come with ratings – Red for totally uninsulated, Orange for ceiling, Green for ceilings, floors and DG windows.
Comment by George D — May 27, 2009 @ 12:30 pm
there is that myth floating around, ain’t there.
my life-long experience is that they’re strongly correlated.
Comment by Che Tibby — May 27, 2009 @ 12:31 pm
the foil only has a lifespan of about 10 years. do foil *and* bats or you’ll be spending money again in future.
Comment by Che Tibby — May 27, 2009 @ 12:34 pm
this rings true. for starters much of the early experience of aotearoa was in place like paihia or kororareka, where it is much warmer in winter.
it also sells better to disaffected south englanders.
Comment by Che Tibby — May 27, 2009 @ 12:37 pm
Use of foil is depreciated. If it’s not installers getting zapped as they put a staple through a live wire, it’s owners getting zapped as a stapled wire goes live subsequently. When my mum got hers put in it was only the phone got futzed up.
Comment by lyndon — May 27, 2009 @ 12:46 pm
So why don’t you move?
Comment by Clunking Fist — May 27, 2009 @ 12:48 pm
Or you could draw the drapes at night. It would be cheaper.
Comment by Clunking Fist — May 27, 2009 @ 12:49 pm
I would like the carbon cost of my electricity to be netted off against the carbon emissions savings I make by not consuming insulation materials manafactured and distributed in carbon producing processes.
This is espacially important since a large portion of NZ power is generated by process that has no carbon footprint.
Comment by cj_nza — May 27, 2009 @ 12:49 pm
Sure thing – of course you do the calculation as a Whole of Life thing right? I’d love to see how the emissions of producing a few dozen sqms of batts once stacks up against 20-odd years of the power loss you’d get. I should think the carbon balance still favours the batts.
Comment by Gareth — May 27, 2009 @ 1:00 pm
I think you’ve just described the status quo. If you don’t pay for insulation and you are not paying a carbon cost then you have the current NZ housing situation, I’d say.
But if fuel costs a bit more because of a carbon tax, but you have good insulation to reduce consumption, the link between pollution and fuel burnning is clear on your bills. And there’s greater incentive to reduce fossil fuel use for alternatives – which are much more competitive now that externalities have been accounted for.
70% roughly of NZ power comes from renewables. That’s excellent by international standards, but it could be 100% or, we could use 30% less power by insulation and efficiency measures.
Comment by William — May 27, 2009 @ 1:01 pm
“In the UK a landlord is required to have an energy performance certificate “
Oh FFS: why can’t you just ASK the prospective landlord what insulation the property has? Why must the frickin’ state get involved? It’s not as if it is immature unworldly CHILDREN that go around renting houses.
Most of the commenters here sound like they have half a brain or more, but are still so innocent and child-like that they need the gummint to help them decide which house to rent.
Dear God, do ALL of you work in the public sector (or aspire to)? And I’m not just pissed cos I already paid for DG, insulation & aircon and so miss out on the subsidy, it is just so random and untargeted, one more scheme for the scheming to rort. Have you all not noticed that as soon as you subsidise something, the price goes up? Is this perceived “need” REALLY a priority over health and education? (Ditto cycleways, families commission, BMW limos, biodiesel distilled from Brownley’s fat arse, etc.)
[After calming down] I always thought we didn’t have central heating and those other mod-cons because we enjoy a lower material standard of living than, for instance, European countries. When I was living in the UK, many told me that central heating was not a mainstream feature of housing until well into the 70s. (I have wondered if that may have had something to do with North Sea Oil/gas rather than wealth.) Now that we are materially wealthier than we were in the 70s and 80s, the relative cheapness of these features means more folk are choosing them WITHOUT the gummint doling out my money. What’s changed that we suddenly need/want aircon in cars (don’t mention (the lack of) global warming): we are richer plus it is cheaper.
“Regarding ROI, the only reason it’s not much better is that, despite the cost of power in NZ, there is still no carbon cost associated with burning fossil fuels. The pollution and environmental effects are still not being accounted for.”
Here we go! Tell me Will: how will you charge carbon tax on Danyl’s woodburner? Ban them outright like Chch, or like the EU gummint did with patio heaters?
Comment by Clunking Fist — May 27, 2009 @ 1:13 pm
Why is burning recently dead trees transported to your home on a diesel truck “good”, whilst burning the piped gaseous byproduct of long dead trees and dinosaurs “bad”? Especially when natural gas does not release particulates into the atmosphere?
Comment by Clunking Fist — May 27, 2009 @ 1:16 pm
So much to reply to, and so little time… “why can’t you just ASK the prospective landlord what insulation the property has? Why must the frickin’ state get involved? It’s not as if it is immature unworldly CHILDREN that go around renting houses”
The state must get involved so that individuals do not have the option of polluting without paying, and without being aware they are polluting. It’s about creating a social and market pressure to be responsible (for both landlord and tenant). Much like I’m sure you were told in school not to spit even though, in theory, that infringed your personal freedoms.
With regard to the wood burner, as long as the forest is certified sustainable then there is no carbon cost.
Comment by William — May 27, 2009 @ 1:25 pm
I used to live in a drafty old workingman’s cottage in Lyall Bay – subject to the full ferocious force of the local southerlies from Cook Straight. The night after installing ceiling batts in was the first time I had heard the thermostat controlled heater switch itself off (which it continued to do, on and off, all night long). Say what you want with any number of studies, but from my experience, the difference was truly astonishing in terms of thermal comfort AND energy reduction.
Of course, by the next winter I’d saved up for and installed a heat pump, and have never looked back since… having the whole house warm instead of huddling into one closed off room certainly improves health and happiness – even if it probably uses more energy in the process…
Comment by Sam — May 27, 2009 @ 1:31 pm
But that isn’t to say that the State should be involved in these activities – unless they are willing to back-pay me for my private efforts…
Comment by Sam — May 27, 2009 @ 1:33 pm
Because the trees were part of the short-term carbon cycle anyway and were eventually going to rot if nothing else. They may have even been planted specifically because there was a market for pellets, which would make processing and transporting them the only carbon cost.
Whereas the gas was good and locked underground until some monkeys dug it up.
That said, a heat pump would probably be better, though not as charming.
Comment by lyndon — May 27, 2009 @ 1:34 pm
Ha, quite the rant there sir.
Easily answered though – “Why must the frickin’ state get involved?” Because the state pays for our healthcare costs and the carbon emissions from power usage (given we aren’t putting our Kyoto liabilities on emitters). So the individual isn’t faced with the true costs of their (in)actions. Even putting aside state funding of those things, people do not act in a fully rational economic sense when faced with paybacks over long time periods, no matter what von Mises wants you to think :>
Comment by Gareth — May 27, 2009 @ 1:51 pm
If the state organises the market to take correct account of externalities like CO2, pollution, resource depletion etc then you will be paid back for your own efforts when the house is sold.
Your house will be in demand and will command a higher price because all the work has been done.
Comment by William — May 27, 2009 @ 1:56 pm
I’m not worried about payback (or I wouldn’t have invested in it) – my last sentence was a throwaway comment which was supposed to raise questions regarding the equity of the scheme for those who have recently undertaken such work, sans subsidies. in effect, i will pay twice – once for my own home, and again through my taxes for somebody else’s…
Comment by Sam — May 27, 2009 @ 2:23 pm
“polluting without paying”
Well, who are these people with free electric and gas? Prosecute them I say. As cj_nza says, most NZ electricity is carbon free. Stop equating CO2 with pollutanats. Burning wood produces a shitload more pollution than burning natural gas.
“the trees were part of the short-term carbon cycle anyway and were eventually going to rot if nothing else” Assuming you disregard that we cut or burnt down all that lovely native timber and instead plant exotics which we feed with fossil fuel derived fertiliser…
(Now THERE’S a merketing angle: organic fire wood. Not free range, obviously, as that would imply you are burning native timber.)
Comment by Clunking Fist — May 27, 2009 @ 2:29 pm
Yes, it was a rant: a real dump, and I do apologise!
But here goes, easily answered back:
“Because the state pays for our healthcare costs” No: I pay for your healthcare costs through my taxes, sir. The state has no way of creating wealth for itself, so it takes mine (a third of my wages) and spends that.
“Because the state pays for the carbon emissions from power usage” well, they’re (we’re) being ripped off: most of our electric comes from rain-water and snow-melt. Of course, if you stop buying into the whole CO2=evil, thing, your concerns would disappear and we could again allow citizens to decide what to spend their money on.
Comment by Clunking Fist — May 27, 2009 @ 2:34 pm
“by the next winter I’d saved up for and installed a heat pump” you dirty libertarian, how dare you choose to do that of your own free will. You will be sent for reprogramming.
Comment by Clunking Fist — May 27, 2009 @ 2:35 pm
“externalities like … resource depletion ”
Err, that would be internalised by prices going up. Compare diamonds and water.
Look how we waste water: gumints try (and fail) and do what the market does for free: price water at a level that minimises waste.
Comment by Clunking Fist — May 27, 2009 @ 2:37 pm
““Because the state pays for our healthcare costs” No: I pay for your healthcare costs through my taxes, sir. The state has no way of creating wealth for itself, so it takes mine (a third of my wages) and spends that.”
Sorry, can’t ‘reply’ directly for some reason.
That doesn’t change the point though does it – the state uses our taxes to pay for healthcare. It STILL removes the direct link between the cost of healthcare from poor insulation and the cost of said insulation.
Comment by Gareth — May 27, 2009 @ 2:47 pm
Sigh – William (+George D) you claim that people don’t value the long term benefits and therefore the state must step in. Patently untrue. Any improved house will have more value over its unimproved neighbour. For awhile we all went for the outdoor bbq, then the rage was for indoor spa bath, kitchens became the latest must have house addition and along came heatpumps and warm houses.
A great example of this, is to compare a Wellington “working man’s cottage circa 1880′s – 1900) nasty small two/three room places within which to raise eight kids. Compare that to a McMansion in the suburbs – society does move along the value chain based on increasing wealth.
Even in a housing decline a house with a heatpump and/or good insulation will provide a better return through have higher liquidity (more ability to be sold even if the price is not going in the direction you want). Yes there are significant health benefits, but society does price those into there home buying decisions. Sometimes that tradeoff can seem short sited, but then these people maybe choosing paying food bills (or if a student, for friday drinks) over extra heating. Now before you jump on me – yes the world is not perfect, but for every dollar you move to a pet project (to save the babies) you need to consider how many dollars you took away from somewhere else and how many more babies could have been saved under that project (you need to assess against the counterfactual).
Also Treasury Cost benefit analysis does include qualitative and quantitative assessment including social costs/benefits. Many people claim thsi is unture mostly beause they have a bad business case to begin with and don’t want to hear that there proposal doesn’t have as many benefits objectively as they thought it did (subjectively).
Comment by What would Hayek say — May 27, 2009 @ 2:48 pm
With regard to the wood burner, as long as the forest is certified sustainable then there is no carbon cost.
So how did that forest get to your woodpile?
Comment by insider — May 27, 2009 @ 3:39 pm
I found it wierd when I first lived in NZ (in Wanaka, ffs) to find that houses didn’t have double glazing or central heating.
I think it’s the same reason as why people drive shitty cars, wear cheap clothes, etc. Everyone does it, so there isn’t any pressure to upgrade to show off. (I quite like this concept, but I would be keen for central heating and a big log fire). There is probably room for a sociology study here.
But there’s an external cost in having high-energy, cold, houses, so it makes sense for government to act. I don’t see how it’s going to help rental properties – that needs a minimal standard below which you aren’t allowed to rent a place out.
Comment by Rich — May 27, 2009 @ 4:07 pm
Rich, are you from the UK where folk try to keep up with the Jones?
Here in NZ we have the opposite, the tall poppy syndrome: you’re a flash git if you drive a nice car. It’s all envy mixed with peer pressure.
Comment by Clunking Fist — May 27, 2009 @ 4:56 pm
“But there’s an external cost in having high-energy, cold, houses, so it makes sense for government to act.”
They already have: if you use more electricity, you pay more.
“I don’t see how it’s going to help rental properties – that needs a minimal standard below which you aren’t allowed to rent a place out.”
Well, what if I’m unable to pay the going rate for these superhouses? Then the gummint needs to give me money to pay the rent, but then that just ups the asking price. If I want to cram my (hypothetical) family of 8 into a shitty 2 bedroom house cos the rent’s cheap, what business is it of yours or the gummint’s?
Comment by Clunking Fist — May 27, 2009 @ 5:02 pm
Frankly I’m sick to death of hearing how I should insulate my house. It’s a 1900s villa quite low to the ground with a very drafty floor. You would think in this day and age the technology should be there to insulate it, but it’s all too difficult apparently.
I did have one chap come around and say that he could dig trenches to get access to the back, but then he had some kind of breakdown and never came back.
Yes! This is a solicitation. If anyone knows of a real company, in Wellington, that can actually do this kind of thing then please respond. I’m more than happy to pay – and more than the heating saving might appear to be worth. I want warm feet!
Comment by Mark Wright — May 27, 2009 @ 5:13 pm
Yeah, just be thankful you owned a house, where you had the choice.
Now you’ve given me an idea. Any insulation related improvements implemented by the tenant are billed to the owner. Why not?
Comment by George D — May 27, 2009 @ 5:30 pm
Sometimes that tradeoff can seem short sited, but then these people maybe choosing paying food bills (or if a student, for friday drinks) over extra heating. Now before you jump on me – yes the world is not perfect, but for every dollar you move to a pet project (to save the babies) you need to consider how many dollars you took away from somewhere else and how many more babies could have been saved under that project (you need to assess against the counterfactual).
Yes. Most rented houses are tenanted by those who do not have the buying power to demand insulation. Or are irrational and would rather spend their money on other things.
Most houses are owned by people who will sell them before the energy efficiency has paid for itself and will not be properly compensated by the next owner, are renting them and do not pay for the electricity.
Market FAIL. Which is why having a Government intervention makes sense. I’m still not in favour of the manner of the intervention, but it needs to happen.
If you could point me to where Treasury decided to include comfort and happiness in their evaluations, I’d be pleasantly surprised.
Comment by George D — May 27, 2009 @ 5:47 pm
Whoops, first para quote FAIL there.
Comment by George D — May 27, 2009 @ 6:36 pm
Back to the slums of Hazlewood Ave for you!
Comment by Wayne Phillips — May 27, 2009 @ 8:06 pm
BTW if the place you bought was built in the 1920’s, it’s not a Villa but it might be a Bungalow. Villas are Victorian era.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Villa#Later_usage
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bungalow
Comment by Ron — May 27, 2009 @ 11:32 pm
I have the answer.
http://web.mit.edu/krugman/www/mushy.html
Comment by George D — May 28, 2009 @ 12:08 am
Carpet & underlay? Maybe underlay with a layer of foil! Glue, foil, then underlay and carpet.
What? You LIKE your polished wooden floors? Boy you are SOOO irrational (according to some).
Comment by Clunking Fist — May 28, 2009 @ 8:10 am
brilliant! But the british cannot relax yet, although things may have improved since I left there. EVery cafe had the same fare: bluberry muffin, low-fat blueberry muffin, chocolate muffin and an unpsecified savoury muffin. And then the paninis, all bought in of course, not made on the premises.
Comment by Clunking Fist — May 28, 2009 @ 8:17 am
Sigh. I know. Friends have carpeted their nice polished wooden floor and say they should have done it years ago.
But it seems vaguely sacrilegious to carpet over such nice native timber. I just can’t bring myself to do it.
Comment by Mark Wright — May 28, 2009 @ 8:57 am
@mark wright “But it seems vaguely sacrilegious to carpet over such nice native timber. I just can’t bring myself to do it.”
if you want the best of both, bring up the wooden floorboards, and fill the foundations with styrofoam and the blood of takahe.
then put the floorboards back down.
Comment by Che Tibby — May 28, 2009 @ 9:15 am
George – I’d point you to the Treasury Cost benefit primer in particular section 2.3 Identify costs and benefits
http://www.treasury.govt.nz/publications/guidance/costbenefitanalysis/primer/07.htm#_toc2.3
You may also want to look at section 4.5 Intangibles, http://www.treasury.govt.nz/publications/guidance/costbenefitanalysis/primer/20.htm#_toc4.5
Both allow the consideration of comfort and happiness. I find very few people actually understand Cost benefit analysis (and fewer still monte carlo analysis).
Many people operate and make decisions on a well worded emotional message – witness the numerous TV ads by celebrites to save “insert cause here” and these people then seek to dismiss analysis saying it does not include health, happiness etc because the results conflicts with the emotional marketing message they are selling. You need to remember – they are trying to sell you something, that you may not otherwise need – for example see the germ ads put out by cleaning product companies.
Comment by What would Hayek say — May 28, 2009 @ 9:23 am
“the Whole of Life thing right?”.
I did not realise that when people say “we are going to insulate our house” they mean throwing some bats on the ceiling.
I have bats (on my ceiling).
“The average home loses 34 per cent of its heat through the ceiling, 13 per cent through the floor, 26 per cent through the windows, 27 per cent through the walls.” (source: the article Danyl linked to)
So if we talk insulation we talk at least ceiling, walls and windows. For me (in addition to what I have) that is at least walls and windows.
The carbon cost, of manufacture now starts to look a bit more serious is it not, melting silica and all that. The current window panes need to make place for double glazed. The carbon cost of manufacture of these original, now defunct panes heading for the landfill?
But perhaps I am a bit too narrow focussed perhaps I should include whole of life in my calculations ?, why not whole of cycle and start where raw materials are mined and lets include the cost of transportation refinement, installation and decoration (plaster/paint) (not just throwing bats on a cailing).
Building insulated houses is good, I agree. There is however a cost fiscal and environmental in starting to significantly inulating existing property.
If you intend to “tax” me for “carbon”
then consider “carbon” and not “electricity”.
Comment by cj_nza — May 28, 2009 @ 12:20 pm
The gummint may even give you $1500 of my money and Che’s toward the cost.
Comment by Clunking Fist — May 28, 2009 @ 2:04 pm
NZ desperatly needs better housing, I love NZ in summer but during winter I feel like I live in a 3rd world country. I hate to say it but I was never this cold in Scotland and we enjoy winters there, because we get to admire it from a warm, insulated and dry distance…unlike NZ where the winter lives ‘indoors’…
Nz Winter is CRAP!
Muzzerino.
Comment by Murray — June 4, 2009 @ 10:15 am