Home Trusted by 600,000+ buyers

Intelligent design: Wise up and build for the climate

By: Professor Deo Prasad
28 March, 2012

There may be no belching smoke stacks to be seen, but every time we thoughtlessly put up a poorly designed structure or resort to energy-intensive solutions to cool, heat, and operate an inefficient building we are pushing the greenhouse gas emissions curve up.

In Australia, our built environment currently represents a huge "carbon debt".

Our mission is to turn this trend around. We are re-envisioning the ways buildings are conceived and made. We want to produce carbon positive building products and develop an evidence-base so our cities can be transformed by well-thought-out policies and planning innovations.

We intend to slash emissions by about 10 million tonnes per annum, and we have seven years of Federal Government funding to do it.

Building with concrete and steel is a gas

This might seem overly optimistic. National emissions have been on a steady trajectory upwards since the global community began to seriously worry about global warming, and our team is looking for all these savings in just one major sector; the buildings around us.

Since 1990, Australia’s emissions have increased from 418 million tonnes to 545 million tonnes (2009) or by over 30 per cent. But we believe deep, meaningful cuts in emissions are possible, affordable, and can be achieved without compromising our living standards.

Building houses significantly increases our emissions. Electricity consumption in houses and apartments accounts for around 16.5 per cent of Australia’s emissions. There is also the energy "embodied" during the production and disposal of building materials.

For every tonne of concrete and cement about an equivalent tonne of greenhouse gases is emitted. This makes up around 10 per cent cent of emissions worldwide. Steel production comes in closely behind. These are the two materials at the very heart of modern construction techniques.

Simple, smart changes make a lot of difference

But change doesn’t have to mean turning back the clock (although rediscovering the uses and beauty of natural, renewable materials does help). Instead we’re looking for ways to integrate solutions into our daily lives, rather than trying to tack solutions onto our decidedly environmentally unfriendly world.

One way of doing this is to take on Australia’s rooftops. We should integrate solar panels into roofing panels, so that the minute the roof is on the building starts to pay back its carbon debt by pumping power into the grid. The same goes for cladding systems which absorb energy and turn it into power.

Using these kinds of products as standard fixtures, not afterthoughts, is a simple, easy way of integrating deep, meaningful emissions cuts into the fabric of our cities.

Improving materials can also help. We are also working on reducing the carbon footprint of cement and concrete. Recycling the fine fly-ash waste from coal-fired power stations and using it to replace much of the carbon component of concrete can reduce emissions.

Materials scientists at UNSW have already patented and commercialised a greener steel-making process. It reduces emissions by up to 16 per cent; instead of burning coke in an electric arc furnace to power the system, it uses waste plastic and used tyres.

Sliding down the cost curves

But, what about the huge stock of buildings we already have? Many of these are poorly designed for the Australian climate and cost an ever increasing fortune to cool and heat.

One of our research briefs is to provide evidence-based answers to some of the big social and psychological questions about why we live beyond our environmental means. Why, for example, do people make so many so-called "perverse choices"?

Why do they buy a cheap, new home even it will gobble energy because of its short-sighted design, and so will be much more expensive to live in over the long term? Is there a simple answer like redesigning financial products to encourage people to spend more wisely upfront?

The bottom line for change is affordability. Environmentally friendly products will never be "mainstreamed" unless they can compete on price. Solar panels are a good example. Mass production means prices have fallen so dramatically that a 1.5 KW system can be purchased for $4000 today. With rising electricity prices it will pay for itself in a few years.

The biggest lifetime cost in office buildings is the salary of workers, so a greener building which measurably can increase worker productivity by 1-5 per cent (in different case studies) can deliver a huge advantage to tenants. The added building cost can be recovered within two to three years in many cases.

The CRC is interested in evidence base for high performing buildings so rental discussions can be better informed. It is interested in "closing the loop" in terms of environmental, social and economic factors so designers can use this knowledge to deliver ‘measurably better buildings’.

The key now is to join the dots linking all the great innovations already on the market, or waiting in the wings. If we work out how to bring good ideas together and to then link them to our real world markets we can meet our target: saving 30 million tonnes of emissions a year by 2027 from Australia’s built environment alone.

Deo Prasad is Professor and Program Director of Sustainable Development at UNSW's Faculty of the Built Environment.

Have your say...

We welcome thoughtful comments from readers
Reload characters
Type the characters you see in this box. This helps us prevent automated programs from sending spam.
Chuck Solide | Sunday, April 1, 2012, 6:29 PM
Dr Prassad: at the risk of stepping on quite a few toes, I feel that I must "tell it like it is", and the scientific community are not immune from blame. The major problem is ignorance. We have politicians calling the shots who are totally devoid of any scientific knowledge. They direct bureaucrats who similarly have absolutely no scientific knowledge. The hubris of both these groups prevents them from admitting that they lack the skill nor have no real knowledge of the subject matter, yet they will still "railroad" through legislation for all sorts of new iniatives regardless of the negative outcome. An example. Building codes were altered some time ago to ensure homes had a particular insulation rating. Promising to put curtains on an unshaded window of a poorly designed house would garner "Brownie points". Notwithstanding the fact that once the suns rays have gone through the glass, the heat is in the home interior and thermo-siphoning will distribute it. The clincher was that if you didn't have quite enough points, you could promise to put in a rainwater tank! I defy anyone to explain how an outdoor water tank will effect the heat absorption of a badly sited, badly designed, badly constructed house. Mudbrick homes were generally unable to achieve enough points in this scheme, even though they are far warmer in winter and cooler in summer, (with minimal energy input), than the "architect designed McMansions" which seem to pass with flying colours. If the scientific community, many of whom are supported by the public purse, had spoken out when scrapping of incandescent globes was first mooted, we may have been able to have an "informed" debate. Instead, politicians pushed through laws which banned an admittedly power hungry, (but 100% recyclable) light source in favour of halogens and compact fluorescents. The former of which generates copious heat which must be mitigated by using more electricity for air-conditioning. The latter with poor light output, erratic service life, a slew of toxic components which makes them a environmental nightmare, and an enormous amount of embodied energy which its proponents are happy to gloss over, should hardly be considered a "better" alternative. Professor, you and your fellow scientists need to band together, stand up and be counted, and loudly point out the folly of lots of these half-baked schemes. If you choose not to become involved, you become just another part of the problem. My Dad used to say that if you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything. Time to speak out .....this is the only earth we've got!! Chuck Solide, Melbourne
Goldie | Friday, April 6, 2012, 12:00 AM
All this talk and interest about solar and its benefits is at odds with our governments and the electricity industry who have decided after encouraging and subsidising people who install them that is was all a big mistake and that it is adding to the cost of power bills and must go. Juliar's tax will fix it but don't expect it to impact global emissions as others don't share our desire for self flagellation at this time and possibly never.
Taanja | Friday, April 27, 2012, 4:51 PM
Surely the first step is stop these ridiculous covernants imposed by councils that roofs have to be black or grey. Every new estate in Sydney has dark coloured roof tiles. What better way to attract the greatest amount of heat that requires additional insulation and air conditioning. We need a "Stop Dark Roof Tiles" campaign.