Talk:Nationwide House Energy Rating Scheme

Original research

Virtually all of the Controversies section presents unattributed opinion. Most of it sounds plausible but Wikipedia does not publish original research. The opinions must have been published elsewhere and referenced as such.--Russell E (talk) 08:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Could the person who added that section please contact me as I am personally interested in finding out more even if it is not referenced etc.--Russell E (talk) 10:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I think this section should be moved to discussion until references can be provided and the quality improved. Some of the "controversies" raised are not relevant to the article topic. I've created a copy below. Unspeakably jack large (talk) 05:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Controversies

The rating system does not consider factors such as sustainable materials, electricity sources, waste treatment and transportation to, from and within urban environments.

- This is valid point, it's a limitation of assessing a building by it's thermal performance only and could be including in discussion of what is included in assessment, referencing NatHERS perhaps Unspeakably jack large (talk) 05:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

There are a number of ways the user of the FirstRate software can cheat the program to achieve higher star ratings, many such techniques have been learned by TAFE students as they learn the program, it is not difficult to learn and requires only selecting particular variables whose values are inherently inaccurate.

- Surely entering in incorrect data is not cheating, it's lying and isn't really a software issue. Unspeakably jack large (talk) 05:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Keeping the above in mind, some elements such as draught strips, insulation, etc can be selected in FirstRate but may never be included in the final drawings. In many cases, builders do not install particular systems properly, this combined with many other factors means that the completed building can be sometimes have a rating of up to 3 stars different from its initial rating.

- Dodgy builders is a planning issue. This could be covered under the description of the process (ie that this is done before approval to build and not necessarily confirmed when built). Unspeakably jack large (talk) 05:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The legislation was passed before there was actually a method to rate the buildings, the software was rush released and as a result is inaccurate and inappropriate.

- This is a loaded political statement that would be difficult to attribute. Each state has it's own legislation, so the legislation would need to be identified. Unspeakably jack large (talk) 05:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The ratings were seen as a quick short-term answer to a problem that the government at the time had to deal with and as a result, no long term solution exists and the problem itself remains mostly unsolved.

- Reference required plus a rewrite stating the problem. Sustainability Victoria claims that energy use is down 50% on pre 5 star levels [1]

Large companies such as Simmonds, AV Jennings, etc, have been accused of cheating the rating system to achieve higher stars to market their pre-built product homes as more environmentally friendly.

The rating system does not deal with many of the problems inherent in low-density urban environments.

- It should not be hard to find a reference for the environmental problems with low-density housing, though I'm not sure it's relevant to the topic

FirstRate and the Green Star system has been the subject matter of a prolific running joke within the building industry within Metropolitan Melbourne since its creation, and has become synonymous with issues government inaction and short-sightedness in the industry.

- Bar talk, not fact Unspeakably jack large (talk) 05:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Many explain[who?] that the anti-progressive nature of Australia's building industry requires tough action and long-term solutions when dealing with issues of sustainability to counter ingrained attitudes.

- This should be removed as it's inflammatory and not relevant to the topic (House Energy Rating- not sustainability or the state of the Australian building industry) Unspeakably jack large (talk) 05:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Aesthetic considerations

Hi, I'm just wondering if this in any way limits the style of house you can build? Does it rule out certain looks at all? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.198.96.131 (talk) 00:25, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on House Energy Rating. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081004224006/http://www.library.unsw.edu.au/~thesis/adt-NUN/uploads/approved/adt-NUN20071003.110139/public/ to http://www.library.unsw.edu.au/~thesis/adt-NUN/uploads/approved/adt-NUN20071003.110139/public/
• Added archive http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20090519091627/http%3A//www.makeyourhomegreen.vic.gov.au/www/html/1824%2Dhome%2Dpage.asp to http://www.makeyourhomegreen.vic.gov.au/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:13, 7 November 2017 (UTC)