[GSBN] Embodied/embedded energy figures
Chris Magwood
chris at chrismagwood.ca
Wed Oct 19 00:04:28 UTC 2011
I have written other things that would be appropriate for bathroom
walls, but I'll send those off-list!
On 11-10-18 7:41 PM, Bob Theis wrote:
> Chris Magwood's article reminds me of a poem I read on the wall of a
> relative's bathroom decades ago:
>
> Turn off the lights
> In the darkness you will hear the rivers
> Whispering their thanks.
>
>
> On Oct 18, 2011, at 3:46 PM, Graeme North wrote:
>
>> An interesting discussion indeed, thanks to you all.
>>
>> In my opinion, chasing what I call "fugitive" energy savings at often
>> considerable cost of resources-rich and energy-intensive systems is
>> very dubious work, which ends up supporting the overuse of resources.
>>
>> One wonderful example, installing huge quadruple glazed windows,
>> facing the wrong way for passive solar design, and then placed in a
>> hugely oversized houses.
>>
>> As I see it, this sort of so-called 'green' architecture largely
>> supports business as usual, despite the inherent un-sustainability of
>> this. A huge house that is six-star rated can be far tougher on the
>> environment than a tiny house that might achieve no star rating at
>> all. Tick-box rating systems tend to 'less bad' buildings rather
>> than outcomes that are 'good', or ecologically restorative.
>>
>> An approach that reduces the use of resources will help. One really
>> good way to reduce environmental impact is to do less. Simple. I get
>> potential clients coming to me wanting a really environmentally
>> sustainable house who then describe a
>> 300 sq. m. building for just two people. As a starting point I offer
>> to halve (at least) their environmental impact (fantastic!) -- by
>> designing a building half the size.
>>
>> I also question (/and here I risk swearing in church/) the whole
>> philosophy of tightly sealed "passiv haus" which are then
>> mechanically ventilated. The energy intensive approach this
>> embodies is also up there at the doubtful end of the spectrum it
>> seems to me. Great until the power goes out.
>>
>> cheers
>>
>>
>> Graeme
>> Graeme North Architects
>> 49 Matthew Road
>> RD1
>> Warkworth
>> tel/fax +64 (0)9 4259305
>> graeme at ecodesign.co.nz <mailto:graeme at ecodesign.co.nz>
>> www.ecodesign.co.nz <http://www.ecodesign.co.nz/>
>>
>>
>> On 18/10/2011, at 3:43 AM, strawnet at aol.com <mailto:strawnet at aol.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> slightcorrection - I meant to say that the size of the operating
>>> energy didn't reduce the size of the embodied energy...
>>>
>>> David
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: David Eisenberg <strawnet at aol.com <mailto:strawnet at aol.com>>
>>> To: Global Straw Building Network <GSBN at sustainablesources.com
>>> <mailto:GSBN at sustainablesources.com>>
>>> Sent: Mon, Oct 17, 2011 7:33 am
>>> Subject: Re: [GSBN] Embodied/embedded energy figures
>>>
>>> I'd like to chime in with appreciation of the discussion here and to
>>> echo Jim and Tom's observations but to also say that in my
>>> experience - as a long time proponent of the importance of embodied
>>> energy here in the US, that it was the energy efficiency folks who
>>> dismissed the importance of embodied energy continually until the
>>> last few years, not those of us involved in greening the built
>>> environment. Their argument was that if you compared operating and
>>> embodied energy, you would see that embodied energy was
>>> insignificant. My argument was that we were talking about a
>>> significant number dwarfed by a huge number, but the size of the
>>> embodied energy did not mean that the embodied energy was not
>>> important, just that it was made to look insignificant by the size
>>> of the operating energy. They often used percentages to compare the
>>> two and I would say, okay using that method, what is the percentage
>>> of embodied energy when operating energy is zero? And how much have
>>> you increased the embodied energy in order to get to net-zero? My
>>> view is that that is the bigger issue...we're typically using much
>>> higher embodied energy materials and systems in most of these
>>> buildings to get to low operating energy performance - which
>>> amplifies the problem. And the global warming potential also
>>> typically goes way up.
>>>
>>> The other aspect of this is the assumption that we will have the
>>> affordable and available energy to continue to build energy
>>> intensive buildings the way we're been doing it. A tenuous
>>> assumption at best. Regardless, it would be great to have more
>>> research and better documentation for the spectrum of natural
>>> building materials and systems.
>>>
>>> Thanks for the great dialogue.
>>>
>>> David Eisenberg
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 2:53 AM, Jim Carfrae
>>> <jim.carfrae at plymouth.ac.uk <mailto:jim.carfrae at plymouth.ac.uk>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I would agree with Tom that we are losing sight of the
>>> importance of embodied energy.
>>>
>>> If you compare a well built SB house to the equivalent Passiv
>>> Haus they can both reduce their energy in use to a similar level.
>>> But looking at their total energy dept over 60 years, the Passiv
>>> Haus (built with conventional materials) will have a higher
>>> energy dept, with up to 40% of its dept tied up in the fabric of
>>> the building.
>>>
>>> The more you reduce energy in use, the greater the proportion of
>>> your energy dept over time will be in the materials you use.
>>>
>>> As Tom points out it depends on the source of figures you use,
>>> but using the Bath data a quick comparison of straw and expanded
>>> polystyrene is interesting:
>>>
>>> To achieve the U value of a typical SB wall (0.17 Wm2K) using
>>> polystyrene, you would need a thickness of 135mm.
>>> For each square metre of wall at the given thickness of each
>>> material:
>>> The straw has an embodied energy of 9.5 MJ
>>> The expanded polystyrene has an embodied energy of 419 MJ
>>>
>>> So a short and simplified answer to the question 'why use
>>> straw?' could be 'because the conventional equivalent has over
>>> 40 times the embodied energy!'
>>>
>>> This is a pretty gross generalisation, but is still food for
>>> thought!
>>>
>>> I presented a paper called 'The Leechwell Garden House' at the
>>> PLEA conference in Brussels this summer that discussed this
>>> issue. You can download a copy from my website, along with other
>>> SB related research:
>>> http://www.carfrae.com/downloads/index.html
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> Jim
>>>
>>> J M J Carfrae PhD
>>> Environmental Building Group
>>> School of Architecture
>>> University of Plymouth
>>> Drake Circus
>>> Plymouth PL4 8AA
>>> UK
>>>
>>> jim.carfrae at plymouth.ac.uk
>>> <mailto:jim.carfrae at plymouth.ac.uk><mailto:jim.carfrae at plymouth.ac.uk
>>> <mailto:jim.carfrae at plymouth.ac.uk>>
>>> 07880 551922
>>> 01803 862369
>>>
>>> On 17 Oct 2011, at 09:12, Tom Woolley wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear all
>>>
>>> Here is the link to the Bath database that Bruce couldn't find
>>>
>>> http://www.bath.ac.uk/mech-eng/sert/embodied/
>>>
>>> However Craig Jones who has done most of the work on this has
>>> now moved into the private sector and works for "Sustain"
>>> http://www.sustain.co.uk/
>>> Craig.Jones at sustain.co.uk
>>> <mailto:Craig.Jones at sustain.co.uk><mailto:Craig.Jones at sustain.co.uk
>>> <mailto:Craig.Jones at sustain.co.uk>>
>>>
>>> While I think Craig and Geoff at Bath have done a great job on
>>> this, to keep the issue of embodied energy on the agenda,
>>> it worries me that the ICE database is treated with almost
>>> biblical respect in many refereed publications.
>>>
>>> Bath has never had proper funding for original research on ICE
>>> and so much of the data has been gathered from here there and
>>> everywhere.
>>> This means that the data provided by many commercial companies
>>> has not necessarily been independently verified
>>> Some of us would question figures given for the embodied energy
>>> of natural materials for instance.
>>>
>>> I would be interested to know where embodied energy figures on
>>> the agenda in other countries ( for something I am currently
>>> writing)
>>> In the UK, organisations like the AECB and the Passiv Haus
>>> people are pushing the argument at the moment that energy in use
>>> is the only thing that matters.
>>> I though we had got rid of this debate years ago but it has
>>> resurfaced
>>>
>>> While the greenies have been dismissing embodied energy , the
>>> commercial sector has embraced it recently, a strange reversal
>>> For instance see the work of Gareth Roberts at Sturgis on carbon
>>> profiling
>>> http://sturgiscarbonprofiling.com/?paged=3
>>> Its worth downloading their RICS Redefining Zero publication
>>> While it doesn't say anything about strawbales it does provide a
>>> very interesting methodology.
>>>
>>> We are launching the Alliance for Sustainable Building Products
>>> in Parliament on November 16th
>>> I have a one page leaflet about this but I think you cannot add
>>> attachments to these emails so if anyone would like this please
>>> sent an email to my personal address
>>> tom.woolley at btconnect.com
>>> <mailto:tom.woolley at btconnect.com><mailto:tom.woolley at btconnect.com
>>> <mailto:tom.woolley at btconnect.com>>
>>>
>>> Tom
>>>
>>>
>>> On 14 Oct 2011, at 19:47, Bruce King wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> The University of Bath (UK) has the best database I know of, but
>>> I can't find the link.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Bruce King, PE
>>> Director of EBNet
>>> Ecological Building Network
>>> the art and science of building well
>>> bruce at ecobuildnetwork.org
>>> <mailto:bruce at ecobuildnetwork.org><mailto:bruce at ecobuildnetwork.org
>>> <mailto:bruce at ecobuildnetwork.org>>
>>> PO Box 6397
>>> San Rafael, CA 94903 USA
>>> (415) 987-7271
>>> follow us on Twitter: @EBNetwork
>>> blog: http://bruceking.posterous.com/
>>>
>>> On Oct 14, 2011, at 11:37 AM, Chris Magwood wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> I'm working on a research paper and I'm trying to find good,
>>> reliable information on embodied energy (or embedded energy) in
>>> building materials. I have some good papers from Australia and
>>> some stuff from CMHC, but I'd be glad to receive suggestions for
>>> other sources.
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>> Chris
>>>
>>> --
>>> www.chrismagwood.ca
>>> <http://www.chrismagwood.ca/><http://www.chrismagwood.ca/>
>>> www.endeavourcentre.org
>>> <http://www.endeavourcentre.org/><http://www.endeavourcentre.org
>>> <http://www.endeavourcentre.org/>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> GSBN mailing list
>>> GSBN at sustainablesources.com <mailto:GSBN at sustainablesources.com>
>>> http://sustainablesources.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/GSBN
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> GSBN mailing list
>>> GSBN at sustainablesources.com
>>> <mailto:GSBN at sustainablesources.com><mailto:GSBN at sustainablesources.com
>>> <mailto:GSBN at sustainablesources.com>>
>>> http://sustainablesources.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/GSBN
>>>
>>> Tom Woolley
>>>
>>> Rachel Bevan Architects
>>> 80 Church Road
>>> Crossgar
>>> Downpatrick
>>> BT30 9HR
>>> tom.woolley at btconnect.com
>>> <mailto:tom.woolley at btconnect.com><mailto:tom.woolley at btconnect.com
>>> <mailto:tom.woolley at btconnect.com>>
>>> 028 44 830988
>>> www.bevanarchitects.com
>>> <http://www.bevanarchitects.com/><http://www.bevanarchitects.com
>>> <http://www.bevanarchitects.com/>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> GSBN mailing list
>>> GSBN at sustainablesources.com
>>> <mailto:GSBN at sustainablesources.com><mailto:GSBN at sustainablesources.com
>>> <mailto:GSBN at sustainablesources.com>>
>>> http://sustainablesources.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/GSBN
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> GSBN mailing list
>>> GSBN at sustainablesources.com <mailto:GSBN at sustainablesources.com>
>>> http://sustainablesources.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/GSBN
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> GSBN mailing list
>>> GSBN at sustainablesources.com <mailto:GSBN at sustainablesources.com>
>>> http://sustainablesources.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/GSBN
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> GSBN mailing list
>>> GSBN at sustainablesources.com <mailto:GSBN at sustainablesources.com>
>>> http://sustainablesources.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/GSBN
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> GSBN mailing list
>> GSBN at sustainablesources.com <mailto:GSBN at sustainablesources.com>
>> http://sustainablesources.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/GSBN
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GSBN mailing list
> GSBN at sustainablesources.com
> http://sustainablesources.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/GSBN
--
www.chrismagwood.ca
www.endeavourcentre.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sustainablesources.com/pipermail/gsbn/attachments/20111018/5b1ea019/attachment.htm>
More information about the GSBN
mailing list