[GSBN] Fwd: Embodied energy comparisons: SB vs Stick-built

[Bill Christensen]

At 12:12 PM +1300 2/16/09, Graeme North wrote:
>Andrew replies to Derek

>>On that basis, if Jane and Joe Bloggs are going to build a house,
>>there is the potential for them to build it in such a way that it,
>>overall, removes CO2 from the atmosphere. They can do that by reducing
>>the CO2 emitting materials and technologies, And by increasing the
>>ones that have a net absorption. They will have to work pretty hard at
>>this, but it can be done. IF they build it bigger, and the extra size
>>comes from timber, straw and other carbon-storing materials, (shingle
>>roof, timber floor, timber window frames) then the net effect will be
>>that their house has removed more CO2 from the atmosphere than it has
>>emitted. This will include things like having their own solar hot
>>water system, probably their own on site electricity generation, and a
>>few other things.  If the extra size also requires more aluminium
>>window frames (bad), more steel roof, more concrete floor, lots more
>>copper wiring and plumbing, then they may find they are emitting more
>>CO2 overall. So, yes, bigger CAN be better.

This appears to assume that both the smaller and bigger houses are 
zero energy use homes or net (non-carbon releasing) energy producers.

Otherwise it would follow that the larger home, all other things 
being equal, would use more energy and therefore release more CO2. 
I'm sure you're aware that the lifetime energy use of a building 
typically outweighs the embodied energy expended in building it.



-- 
Bill Christensen
<http://greenbuilder.com/contact/>

Green Building Professionals Directory: <http://directory.greenbuilder.com>
Sustainable Building Calendar: <http://www.greenbuilder.com/calendar/>
Green Real Estate: <http://www.greenbuilder.com/realestate/>
Straw Bale Registry: <http://sbregistry.greenbuilder.com/>
Books/videos/software: <http://bookstore.greenbuilder.com/>