Retrofit of Existing Subsidy Houses (RET)

Overview

Between 1994 and the start of 2001 over 1.1 million low cost houses were built with government subsidies that were provided under the Reconstruction and Development Programme (RDP) of the post-apartheid government that took office in 1994. These houses were built at low cost, but they are not designed for people with low incomes - they require high maintenance cost. No energy efficient building procedures have been used with the result that the overwhelming number (as high as 97% in some cold winter areas) of RDP housing occupants find their houses too cold in winter and too hot in summer. To overcome this deficiency occupants spend a large percentage of their limited resources on energy to achieve thermal comfort: a cost that could have been avoided with better planning.

Low-income house

The cumulative negative effect of the lack of thermal efficiency of low-cost housing is severe. Not only does it contribute to the energy crisis in South Africa, but it also negatively affects the health of the occupants as well as the ecology. For example, the 2004 FRIDGE report states that annual productivity losses and healthcare costs due to illness and death caused by air pollution in South Africa - of which pollution caused by households constitutes a substantial portion - could be set at R17.51 billion.

Retrofit of Existing Subsidy Houses

In the Retrofitting of Subsidy Housing Project (RET) we experiment with designs to improve the poor thermal performance of the millions of low-cost houses that have already been built and are still being built with taxpayers’ money. It stands to reason that retrofitting will always be more costly and less efficient than building properly in the first instance. The Retrofitting process is also inconvenient to the inhabitants.

Retrofit of Existing Subsidy Houses

The aim is to find ways in which existing low-income houses, that generally are extremely energy-inefficient, can be made efficient by way of retrofitting suitable technology.

During 2008 Nova retrofitted energy efficient technology to 10 low-income houses in eMbalenhle, near Secunda in the Mpumalanga province, and monitored the technical and social effects. The project was funded by ISOVER and THRIP (a fund of the Department of Trade and Industry).

The results of the thermal intervention were as follows (using Nova's criteria):

  • Effectiveness Positive: the duration of daytime comfort levels achieved in the test houses were 217% higher than that of the control group.
  • Desirability Positive, even dramatic: people felt better about themselves and about life as a whole
  • Affordability Negative: The cost of implementation is too high. ISOVER has undertaken to investigate possibilities to cut material and labour costs
  • Sustainability Uncertain: will be monitored over time
  • Beneficiality Uncertain: the longer term impact on the health of the household as a system will be monitored over time
  • Repeatability Negative, due to high costs

Potential: Currently, a second phase of design is being conducted in order to curb costs and thereby reaching a situation where all the Nova criteria will be satisfied. Four possibilities are being investigated:

  1. The possibility to make the technology affordable by generating income from the trading of carbon credits (the technology leads to a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions of approximately two ton CO2eq p.a.)
  2. The use of more affordable materials
  3. The use of a subsidy
  4. The possibility of self-help exists, thereby reducing the cost of installation and the inconvenience factor as well as the risk of crime

Reports available: Holm et al, 2008. Assessment on the Impact of Retrofitted Insulation Technology on the Quality of Life of Low-income households. Nova Institute: Pretoria.