[GSBN] Embodied Energy - SB vs Stick-built

[forum at lamaisonenpaille.com]

I understand that the heating/cooling energy of a building far outways 
the energy used to build it. Yet, the amount of energy used for the 
build itself that can be saved by making well informed choices is far 
from negliable. Also, the building might be taken down well before we 
thought it would be. The point being that we are only sure about the 
savings accomplished during the build. Future savings are much less certain.

When showing CO2 calculations in an objective way one should mention the 
amount of CO2 'spent' for the build seperate from that 'temporarily 
stored'. I found it interesting to read that we can turn wood into coal 
and that this preseves a certain amount of CO2. But I doubt very much 
that this will happen with wood from old buildings. Reducing this 
complexity to just 1 number is not going to help decission makers to 
make a well informed choice. I'm not suggesting that this is what Andrew 
is trying to do. I'm just getting rid of my frustration on what I see 
happening in 'green marketing'. The whole CO2 discussion is complex and 
social aspects (an other benifit of goin' local) should also be part of 
the decission making process.
Yes, the technical aspects of life are complicated. And I'd probably get 
very bored if they weren't.

André - filled up with gaz - de Bouter
France