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

[John Swearingen]

 Small houses seem to work out best in the long run when heating & cooling
is conventional, even though their relative initial cost may be greater.
It's hard to imagine a larger building sequestering more CO2 than a small
house with an adjacent grove of trees.

A green roof, besides contributing significantly to summer cooling,
sequesters some CO2.  Do you have a idea of the percentage of CO2 that is
sequestered in a typical garden?  Since the plants usually end up rotting,
albeit for reuse,  this seems a different case from trees.

John

*(As a complete aside, does anyone have a**guess if/how much people would be
prepared to pay for such a gadget -*
*that calculated the CO2 impact of a particular house design?)*

Energy 10 software includes a calculation of the annual emissions of a
building, and they might be interested in incorporating such impacts into a
"life cycle *environmental* cost" calculation.


On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 8:15 PM, Andrew Webb <andrew at thegreenwebb.com>wrote:

> Doesn't this assume that the building will last longer than the trees would
> if not cut down and processed?  Surely building nothing would release the
> least C02, so building small would be next best?
>
> -Andrew Webb
> .......
>
>>  So, yes, bigger CAN be better.
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
> GSBN mailing list
> GSBN at greenbuilder.com
> http://greenbuilder.com/mailman/listinfo/GSBN
>



-- 
John Swearingen

Skillful Means
www.skillful-means.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sustainablesources.com/pipermail/gsbn/attachments/20090215/2465354f/attachment.htm>