[GSBN] Embodied Energy - SB vs Stick-built

[Jim Carfrae]

Hello All

In a conventional build, the heating and cooling energy does outway the embodied energy used in construction, but the balance is different in a straw bale (or any low energy) building. I would like to quote from Carol Atkinson's MSc Thesis - (hope you don't mind Carol) which I think puts the relationship between energy use and embodied energy in perspective

The embodied energy in the average house is often quoted at 100,000 kWh. If the
annual energy demand of that house is 20,000 kWh, the energy embodied in
construction soon becomes insignificant. However, if energy in use could be reduced
to 5,000 kWh per annum in a more efficient house, the embodied energy then
becomes a major part of the building’s lifetime energy consumption (Borer, 2005
page 97). If 50,000 kWh could be saved on the construction of this more efficient
home it would provide the energy to run the building for an additional 10 years,
significantly reducing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in the process.

Cheers

Jim

Jim Carfrae
PhD Research Student

Room 119, Reynolds Building
University of Plymouth
Drake Circus
Plymouth
PL4 8AA

jim.carfrae at plymouth.ac.uk
07880 551922
01803 862369
________________________________________
From: GSBN-bounces at greenbuilder.com [GSBN-bounces at greenbuilder.com] On Behalf Of forum at lamaisonenpaille.com [forum at lamaisonenpaille.com]
Sent: 20 February 2009 08:28
To: (private, with public archives) Global Straw Building Network
Subject: Re: [GSBN] Embodied Energy - SB vs Stick-built

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
_______________________________________________
GSBN mailing list
GSBN at greenbuilder.com
http://greenbuilder.com/mailman/listinfo/GSBN