Trigger Warning: Community contains mostly bad environmental news (not by choice!). Community may also feature stories about animal agriculture and/or meat. Until tagging is available, please be aware and click accordingly.

🪲

Aussie Zone Rules.

Golden rule - be nice. If you wouldn’t say it in front of your ~~grandmother~~ favourite tree, don’t post it.
No bigotry - including racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia. You are allowed to denigrate invasive plants or animals.
Be respectful. Everyone should feel welcome here. Except invasive plants or animals.
No porn. Except photos of plants. Definitely not animals.
No Ads / Spamming. Except for photos or stories about plants and animals.
Nothing illegal in Australia. Like invasive plants or animals. Exotic microbes and invasive fungi also not welcome.
Make post titles descriptive with no swear words. Comments are a free for all using the above rules as a guide. Fuck invasive plants and animals.

🐝

/c/Aussie Environment acknowledges the Traditional Owners of the land, sea and waters, of the area that we live and work on across Australia. We acknowledge their continuing connection to their culture and pay our respects to their Elders past and present.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

If you’ve got a dark roof, you’re spending almost $700 extra a year to keep your house cool - One Step Off The Grid (onestepoffthegrid.com.au)

submitted 8 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

21 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 9 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (3 children)

ABC TV mentioned something about NSW backpeddling on banning black rooves when developers said it would cost an extra $7K per house. I'm struggling to find where this was from or anything that supports it -- perhaps I misheard?

Best I can find is this:

“[T]he approach taken … would have undermined the economics of delivering housing across the spectrum including social and affordable housing as well as private housing,” Mann said. “This would be a disaster for providing key worker housing, ie teachers, nurses, those on low income and disability housing.”

I'm no tile manufacturer, but surely black-pigmented clay is more expensive than unpigmented (white, terracotta & brown) clays? And unpigmented concrete tiles are also much lighter than black tiles (esp if you choose the right aggregate)? Perhaps they're only thinking of the most expensive and most white options (full-body stannic oxide pigmented clay & white cement)?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

I would imagine it's more about the commonly used kind of shingles that are just paper, tar and sand. They're incredibly cheap, but also mostly black because of the tar, and they do absolutely nothing for insulation like a ceramic or clay tile would. Actual tiles are already expensive. Especially the red terracotta spanish style ones.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago

I never really understood the rationale either, but we are talking about shitty colorbond rooves. For non Aussies that's a tin roof, western Sydney new developments are plagued by this, a dystopia of zero trees, houses with dark rooves that almost touch each other and surprise surprise, temperature breaking new records every summer.

Why it is more expensive to make a tin roof of a light colour rather than dark is beyond me. Why the government would give a fuck about greedy developers margins even less, but I have a theory.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago

You can make black with just charcoal, but white is usually made with more expensive chemicals like Aluminum and Titanium.