Most of NZ gets cold enough to need (at least) double paned windows, and all of NZ needs low-emissivity glass to reduce heat gain in summer. I believe the same is true of Australia.
NZ's current building standards are state of the art for the 1970s.
As gp said, specifying ordinary modern designs, materials and and fittings (by European standards) gets you looked at as though you're from outer space.
NZ's housing stock is cold, damp, and mouldy inside for the most part. Not coincidentally NZ has one of the highest rates of asthma in the world.
I went through a process of building an energy-efficient house, with double paned windows, thermo-resistant window frames, aerated concrete blocks, roof insulation and what not. This came at a significant surplus in my region, where 99% of the construction comes without it, and I got outer space looks all the time.
According to my calculations, the return on investment on reduced electricity costs will come in about 100-200 years, if not more.
In the meantime, if my house will end up in the market, it would hardly sell for any premium over any other house of similar footage in that area, so it's unlikely I would ever recover these costs.
First of all, that's generically false. Almost every new housing unit in this world should use triple glazing. It's just great insulation and it will reduce both heating and cooling bills and you know, climate change and all that jazz.
Secondly, NZ, OK, maybe it won't need even double glazing. But aren't AU summers super hot?
> Almost every new housing unit in this world should use triple glazing
I agree that it "should". The added costs don't justify it, that's why it usually doesn't. In my region, ROI on triple glazing is in hundreds of years.
