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

Wed Feb 18 23:12:08 UTC 2009

Hi All,

I might be wrong but I'm reading the flurry of communication lately as a bit
of a sign that we are all a bit slowed down work wise; economy or winter
(for us northies) or both? but I must say I'm appreciating the quality.
Anyway...

I'm always a fan of the "it depends" answer and the recognition of the
"flaws" in the questions (I've been averaging all the lengths of the string
in the craft room and will have an answer for you by next lifetime), but as
hard as it is to put out numbers that can be taken out of context later it
seems like it would be nice to have data on the economic impacts, embodied
energy, sequestered carbon and comparative thermal performance of four
simple wall assemblies, maybe 12 ft long with the same 3ft x4ft window in
each.  (Boy I sure love single sentence paragraphs, hope you all could
follow the above).

For us in California I would like to know: standard 2x6 title 24 (minimum
energy performance compliant) wall, high performance 2x6 wall with best
accepted thermal detailing, load bearing straw bale with floating window
buck, and a post and beam straw bale with the window mounted to full height
2x framing.

As I write this I'm swimming in the feeling of the futility of this exercise
but my assumption is that we'll see that the conventional wall has far less
economic (distilled net energy from previous and potentially ecologically
disastrous efforts) and embodied energy. The added costs of the roof and
foundation for the thickness of the bale wall and the extra cost in
detailing the bale wall will be really significant economic and embodied
energy "costs". And that it might not payback easily in the thermal
performance unless the project is designed to last much longer than it's
mortgage, factoring in the carbon sequestration could really tip the
argument. My thinking would be to get numbers attached to the value of
durable natural energy efficient design.

Therefore Durability has always been high on my top ten list of ecological
design priorities which go something like:
1. Build as small as you can for the activities you want to house.
2. Invest the savings from building smaller in quality and durability.
3. Make all of it as personally beautiful, inspiring, and soothing to live
in as your understanding allows; so that the building will be loved and
cared for as it evolves.
4. Use materials that are as close to how they occur in nature as can make
them durably beautiful.
5. Organize the materials to serve the activities and health of the
occupants as passively as possible.
6. Adjust materials use in proportion to their availability in your area.
7. Maximize the value to the occupants of materials that are scarce and/or
require lots of manufacturing or transportation.
8. Design and build with the evolution, recycling, and decomposition of the
building in mind.
9. Review the Design so that the costs/impacts can be recuperated and
ideally overcome by the benefits.
10. Maximize the Labor vs. materials ratio in the project - investing the
most in local economies (high economic multiplier) and minimizes the risks
of unintended consequences in the manufacturing, and make good use of the
most enjoyably renewable resource on the planet, people.

This is my attempt to frame the statements non technically toward what to do
instead of what not to do; and to hopefully guide us to doing the best we
can with what we know now. (My greatest design question still is since the
bulk of the negative impacts of our efforts seem to come from unintended
consequences - How do we design for what we don't yet know - biomimicry has
been the best answer that's come so far).

But it sure would be great to be able to quantify some of these concepts and
adjust the priorities accordingly. It's just not something I'm capable of or
I probably would have tried it by now. I would love to have any input on
these that you are willing to share. Especially with regards to how best to
factor in the Carbon

I think the Skilled John's list is great and I would group all of them in
under different priorities above. The issue always seems to me to be once
you've answered each question as to what degree (relative to what standard)
it is more yes or no, how do you compare it's relative value to the other
answers.

I love Derek's question of highest value and I've tried to address that with
items 1,2,3,7 & 9 but think it could be worked in more explicitly.

Well, sorry so long. I hope this is as valuable for some of you as it is for
me, thanks for all your input on the refinement of "what we know now."

Tim "caring and trying" O-K

On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 8:26 AM, Joyce Coppinger <jc10508 at alltel.net> wrote:

>  Count me as in favor of adding Andrew.
>
> Joyce
>
>
> on 2/16/09 4:00 PM, David Eisenberg at strawnet at aol.com wrote:
>
>  Good idea!
>
> David
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Graeme North <graeme at ecodesign.co.nz>
> To: (private, with public archives) Global Straw Building Network <
> GSBN at greenbuilder.com>
> Cc: Andrew Alcorn <jandrew.alcorn at gmail.com>
> Sent: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 2:53 pm
> Subject: Re: [GSBN] Embodied energy comparisons: SB vs Stick-built
>
> Dear all
>
> I suggest that Andrew Alcorn be added to this list - he has been involved
> in earth and strawbale building research and design for many years and is
> one of the few researchers I know of who is delving deeply into this
> embodied and related  energy stuff in buildings
>
> In addition it will save me forwarding on loads of emails to him, and his
> replies to you
>
>
> cheers
>
>
>
> Graeme
> Graeme North Architects
> 49 Matthew Road
> RD1
> Warkworth
> tel/fax +64 (0)9 4259305
>
> graeme at ecodesign.co.nz
> www.ecodesign.co.nz <http://www.ecodesign.co.nz><http://www.ecodesign.co.nz>
>
>
>
> On 17/02/2009, at 8:39 AM, Derek Roff wrote:
>
> How about a more abstract one:
>
> Is this the best use of this material?
> Are we diverting/consuming a material from some other more important use?
>
> This is sort of the flip side of recycling- removing things from the market
> that have other uses.  The poster child for this kind of dilemma is crude
> oil.  Oil pundits like to say it has a million different uses, from
> pharmaceuticals to fertilizers to building materials.  Instead, we burn 99%
> of it, getting the lowest possible use from an amazing 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.
>
> I don't have an example in mind for this kind of misuse of a material as it
> relates to the building industry.  Perhaps others can suggest one.
>
> Derelict
>
>
> --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)
> Feel free to add.
>
> John
>
>
>
>
>
> Derek Roff
> Language Learning Center
> Ortega Hall 129, MSC03-2100
> University of New Mexico
> Albuquerque, NM 87131-0001
> 505/277-7368, fax 505/277-3885
> Internet: derek at unm.edu
>
> _______________________________________________
> GSBN mailing list
> GSBN at greenbuilder.com
> http://greenbuilder.com/mailman/listinfo/GSBN
>
>
>
> =
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> GSBN mailing list
>
> GSBN at greenbuilder.com
>
> http://greenbuilder.com/mailman/listinfo/GSBN
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above.  See yours in just 2 easy steps!
> <http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1218822736x1201267884/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072%26hmpgID=62%26bcd=febemailfooterNO62><http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1218822736x1201267884/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072%26hmpgID=62%26bcd=febemailfooterNO62>
> *
>
> ------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> GSBN mailing list
> GSBN at greenbuilder.com
> http://greenbuilder.com/mailman/listinfo/GSBN
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GSBN mailing list
> GSBN at greenbuilder.com
> http://greenbuilder.com/mailman/listinfo/GSBN
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sustainablesources.com/pipermail/gsbn/attachments/20090218/5462cc9d/attachment.htm>