Applied to Saving Saving ($/Yr) Payback (kg/Yr) ($) (Yrs) Across stock Solar - first 81.7% 7,502 864 8,366 677.6 $174.5 $3,825.4 21.9 Solar - analysis 81.7% 7,064 795 7,859 632.4 $163.4 $3,825.4 23.4 When Implemented Solar - first 81.7% 9,186 1,058 10,244 829.7 $213.6 $4,684.1 21.9 Solar - analysis 81.7% 8,650 973 9,624 774.4 $200.0 $4,684.1 23.4 Undertaking the low flow shower rose measure after the high efficiency gas water heater upgrade reduces the average savings by around 5%, leading to a slight increase in the stock average payback. However, the low flow shower rose upgrade measure remains the most cost effective upgrade measure. TABLE A57: IMPACT OF THE ORDER OF THE WATER HEATING UPGRADES ON SAVINGS – LOW FLOW SHOWER ROSE Energy Saving (MJ/Yr) Av. GHG Av. Av. % Houses Av. Cost Measure Gas Elec Total Saving Saving Payback Applied to ($/Yr) (kg/Yr) ($/Yr) (Yrs) Across stock LF Shower Rose - 56.7% 1,333 69 1,402 94.7 $57.9 $48.8 0.84 analysis LF Shower Roes - after HE Gas water 56.7% 1,331 0 1,331 73.6 $54.5 $48.8 0.89 heater When Implemented LF Shower Rose - 56.7% 2,352 122 2,473 167.1 $102.3 $86.0 0.84 analysis LF Shower Roes - after HE Gas water 56.7% 2,349 0 2,349 130.0 $96.1 $86.0 0.89 heater A6: Assumptions for Upgrade Analysis Energy tariffs and greenhouse coefficients The greenhouse gas emission coefficients and energy tariffs which have been used in the OGA study analysis are provided in Table A48. The greenhouse coefficient for natural gas uses the figure from the National Greenhouse Accounts Factors workbook for 2012.
Applied to Saving (kg/Yr) Saving ($) ($/Yr) Payback (Yrs) Across stock Solar - first 81.7% 7,502 864 8,366 677.6 $174.5 $3,825.4 21.9 Solar - analysis 81.7% 7,064 795 7,859 632.4 $163.4 $3,825.4 23.4 When Implemented Solar - first 81.7% 9,186 1,058 10,244 829.7 $213.6 $4,684.1 21.9 Solar - analysis 81.7% 8,650 973 9,624 774.4 $200.0 $4,684.1 23.4 Undertaking the low flow shower rose measure after the high efficiency gas water heater upgrade reduces the average savings by around 5%, leading to a slight increase in the stock average payback. However, the low flow shower rose upgrade measure remains the most cost effective upgrade measure. TABLE A57: IMPACT OF THE ORDER OF THE WATER HEATING UPGRADES ON SAVINGS – LOW FLOW SHOWER ROSE Energy Saving (MJ/Yr) Measure % Houses Applied to Gas Elec Total Av. GHG Saving (kg/Yr) Av. Saving ($/Yr) Av. Cost ($/Yr) Av. Payback (Yrs) Across stock LF Shower Rose - analysis 56.7% 1,333 69 1,402 94.7 $57.9 $48.8 0.84 LF Shower Roes - after HE Gas water heater 56.7% 1,331 0 1,331 73.6 $54.5 $48.8 0.89 When Implemented LF Shower Rose - analysis 56.7% 2,352 122 2,473 167.1 $102.3 $86.0 0.84 LF Shower Roes - after HE Gas water heater 56.7% 2,349 0 2,349 130.0 $96.1 $86.0 0.89 A6: Assumptions for Upgrade Analysis Energy tariffs and greenhouse coefficients The greenhouse gas emission coefficients and energy tariffs which have been used in the OGA study analysis are provided in Table A48. The greenhouse coefficient for natural gas uses the figure from the National Greenhouse Accounts Factors workbook for 2012.
Existing-Victorian-Houses-Energy-Efficiency-Upgrade-Potential-Word-Sep-2016.docx