[GSBN] Embodied Energy - SB vs Stick-built

[John Swearingen]

Of course 'large' and 'small' are pretty relative (see 'Material World' for
a very graphic illustration of that.
http://www.menzelphoto.com/books/mw.html).

On a side note, I'm a little disappointed to know that building a larger
house doesn't make it green just for the amount of CO2 that's sequestered.
 It goes down along with my argument that 'the faster you drive through an
intersection the less chance you have of getting hit.'

John



On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 2:14 AM, Jim Carfrae <jim.carfrae at plymouth.ac.uk>wrote:

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



-- 
John Swearingen

Skillful Means
www.skillful-means.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sustainablesources.com/pipermail/gsbn/attachments/20090220/dd4971f5/attachment.htm>