[GSBN] The Meany Materials Evaluation List (was re: Embodied energy comparisons: SB vs Stick-built)

[RT]

On 17/02/2009, at 8:39 AM, Derek Roff wrote:

> Is this the best use of this material?

> Right now, I look on ethanol this way.  To produce a marginal (perhaps
> negative) energy source, we have impacted food supply and general wealth  
> and health in Mexico among other places.


> --On Monday, February 16, 2009 11:01 AM -0800 John Swearingen
> <jswearingen at skillful-means.com> wrote:
> 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:
>   ? Does the material contribute structurally
>   ? Does the material contribute thermally (insulation)
>   ? Does the material provide thermal storage (mass)
>   ? Does the material provide fire safety
>   ? Does the material contribute to the local economy
>   ? What are the manufacturing environmental costs
>   ? What are the transportation and wastage environmental costs
>   ? Is the material a by-product, waste-product, or recycled
>   ? Is the material bio-degradable, recyclable or land-fill
>   ? Is the material toxic in manufacture, use or disposal
>   ? What is the expected life-span of the system (resistance to
> environmental damage)

A couple of items that are notable by their absence from the above list  
are:

      - Will use of the material, either by itself or as a result of being  
combined
        with another material being used, have any deleterious effects on  
occupant health,
        either in the short or long term ?

      - Is the material being configured in a manner that lends itself to
        easy deconstruction when its useful service life comes to an end
        and can it be easily recycled or reused at that time ?

      - Is the material produced or harvested from within a 300 km radius  
of the building site ?

The answers to these questions would probably best be rated on a scale of  
something like zero to five rather than "yes" or "no", since in many cases  
it will be a matter choosing the lesser of a number of evils or degrees of  
"fun".


But off-topic, WRT the Derelict's view on ethanol, I agree that it's  
insane to take food and food-producing lands to produce fuel for vehicles  
however not all ethanol fuels are derived from food sources.

Here in Ottawa, there is a company that has developed a process to produce  
ethanol fuels derived from cellulosic wastes like crop residues (ie straw,  
corn stalks).
  www.iogen.ca

I'll leave it to you to decide which is the better use for straw... to be  
sequestered in the walls of houses or to be converted to fuel for vehicles  
so that crazy presidents in the future won't feel the need to invade  
sovereign nations to secure petrol supplies.

-- 
=== * ===
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 around 
http://mail.yahoo.com