[GSBN] Embodied energy comparisons: SB vs Stick-built
lotan-build at lotan.ardom.co.il
lotan-build at lotan.ardom.co.il
Mon Feb 16 19:02:10 UTC 2009
Is it fun to build with.
Alex Cicelsky
Center for Creative Ecology
a non-profit education institute supported by
Amuta Tzel Hatamar, Israel tax exempt no. 580347029
Friends of Lotan, USA 501(c)(3), no. 17053031035036
Kibbutz Lotan
D.N. Eilot 88855 Israel
Tel: +972-(0)54-979-9009
Websites: <http://www.kibbutzlotan.com/> www.kibbutzlotan.com
<http://www.birdingisrael.com/> www.birdingisrael.com
<http://www.kibbutzlotan.com/creativeEcology/ga/index.htm>
_____
From: John Swearingen [mailto:jswearingen at skillful-means.com]
Sent: Monday, February 16, 2009 9:02 PM
To: ArchiLogic at chaffyahoo.ca; (private, with public archives) Global Straw
Building Network
Subject: Re: [GSBN] Embodied energy comparisons: SB vs Stick-built
Ok, since we've decided that embodied energy is of less or equal
significance as life-cycle energy use, I would suggest that any materials or
forms of construction be evaluated on at least these areas:
1. Does the material contribute structurally
2. Does the material contribute thermally (insulation)
3. Does the material provide thermal storage (mass)
4. Does the material provide fire safety
5. Does the material contribute to the local economy
6. What are the manufacturing environmental costs
7. What are the transportation and wastage environmental costs
8. Is the material a by-product, waste-product, or recycled
9. Is the material bio-degradable, recyclable or land-fill
10. Is the material toxic in manufacture, use or disposal
11. What is the expected life-span of the system (resistance to
environmental damage)
Feel free to add.
John
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 10:34 AM, RT <ArchiLogic at yahoo.ca
<mailto:ArchiLogic at yahoo.ca> > wrote:
By way of putting some numbers to what Andrew was talking about earlier WRT
life cycle cost dwarfing embodied energy cost, an excerpt from a recent post
to the REPP/CREST Greenbuilding List:
http://listserv.repp.org/pipermail/greenbuilding_listserv.repp.org/2009-Janu
ary/009751.html
<http://listserv.repp.org/pipermail/greenbuilding_listserv.repp.org/2009-Jan
uary/009751.html>
" ... from the seminal paper done by Cole and Kernan years ago
==========copied material =============
<snip>
The data shown here represent average operating energy consumption between
Vancouver and Toronto climatic conditions, assuming conventional levels of
envelope and equipment energy efficiency.
The initial embodied energy remains constant at 4.82 GJ/m2 over the 50
year period which was examined, while the recurring embodied energy
increases from zero at the time of building completion, to a cumulative
value of 6.44 GJ/m2 by year 50. The operating energy eclipses both forms
of embodied energy at a cumulative value of 70.28 GJ/m2 and represents
just over 85% of the total energy at the end of the 50-year period.
This relationship has prompted some practitioners to conclude that
embodied energy is comparatively irrelevant. However, as the level of
operating energy efficiency is improved, the contribution of embodied
energy to total energy becomes more significant.
<snip>
=======end of copied material ========= "
*
And on the subject of tools for evaluating environmental impact, another
excerpt from a recent message posted to the same list:
http://listserv.repp.org/pipermail/greenbuilding_listserv.repp.org/2009-Febr
uary/010158.html
<http://listserv.repp.org/pipermail/greenbuilding_listserv.repp.org/2009-Feb
ruary/010158.html>
========= copied material ============
... under the auspices of Canada Mortgage & Housing Corp
(www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca <http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca> ) a spreadsheet
application "OPTIMIZE" was developed to
"...assist building researchers and designers in estimating the
life-cycle energy,
material flows and environmental impact of residential assemblies and
buildings"
-- essentially a means to evaluate the Green-ness of a proposed design and
do the necessary tweaking at the design stage (ie before the mistakes have
been concretised in the Real World).
The output, in chart & table form, using recognisable English where text
was used, provided
- breakdowns for energy flows, both embodied and life-cycle
ie energies of materials aquisition,operating,
maintenance/replacement,
construction, demolition, disposal/recovery, fuels)
- AsBuilt & Life Cycle Embodied Energy & Weight Breakdown by
Commodity for a list
of about 60 material types
- Breakdown of Air Emissions and External Costs
-Breakdown of Indoor Air Pollutants
-Breakdown of Outdoor Emissions with weights for each and their $
co$t
itemised for CO2, particulates, NOx, SO2, VOCs, Methane,CO,
Arsenic,Beryllium,
Cadmium, Chromium,Copper,Mercury (blah,blah,blah,) ... Nuclear,
Hydro
...with a dollar cost per person housed as the last line of output.
OPTIMIZE made its appearance well over 15 years ago and no doubt, there
have been a number of similar software programs put out there since then.
<snip>
============ End of Copied Material ============
But back to Joyce's original query about embodied energy comparisons of
stick-built ve SB, as Andrew pointed out, it's like asking "how long is a
piece of string".
I would venture that one of el Lupo's (aka John Glassford)
earthen-plastered, loadbearing SB houses in Australia is several magnitudes
lower in embodied-energy than one of his twin-brother-by-different-mothers
(aka the Skillful Meany) Portland cement plastered, seismic-resistant SBH on
a thickened-edge reinforced concrete slab foundationed California SB houses.
I would further venture that I could build a stick-framed house that is more
energy-efficient and lower in embodied energy than either. But I could also
build one that is higher in EE as well.
That is to say, a comparison such as that suggested by Joyce would probably
be meaningless.
It would be more useful I think, to simply provide charts (North American,
European, Aus/NZ sourced ) of the embodied energies of the most common
materials that are used in making a SB house and show a sample calculation
as to how to use the numbers, showing the same calculations for a "typical"
Green-built, stick-framed home for the sake of comparison so that the reader
will have an inkling of where her design stands in the embodied-energy
spectrum.
--
=== * ===
Rob Tom
Kanata, Ontario, Canada
< A r c h i L o g i c at ChaffY a h o o dot C a >
(manually winnow the chaff from my edress in your reply)
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection
aroundhttp://mail.yahoo.com <http://mail.yahoo.com>
_______________________________________________
GSBN mailing list
GSBN at greenbuilder.com <mailto:GSBN at greenbuilder.com>
http://greenbuilder.com/mailman/listinfo/GSBN
<http://greenbuilder.com/mailman/listinfo/GSBN>
--
John Swearingen
Skillful Means
www.skillful-means.com <http://www.skillful-means.com>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sustainablesources.com/pipermail/gsbn/attachments/20090216/81df9f11/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 11997 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.sustainablesources.com/pipermail/gsbn/attachments/20090216/81df9f11/attachment.jpg>
More information about the GSBN
mailing list