[GSBN] Embodied/embedded energy figures

Wed Oct 19 00:11:43 UTC 2011

Graeme,

I really appreciate your comments about building small.

In the near future I intend to build several structures here in Vietnam
following traditional styles prior to Western influence.
The concept is quite simple: between two posts spaced every few feet or so,
there is a bamboo mat.
This mat is then plastered on both sides.
Here are two pictures:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/22013094/Architecture/IMG_0358.JPG
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/22013094/Architecture/IMG_0361.JPG
This is far from being the prettiest that I have seen,
but these structures are small and can be constructed for almost nothing.
I prefer a thatch roof over such a structure.
Are any of you familiar with this technique?

Paul Olivier

On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 5:46 AM, Graeme North <graeme at ecodesign.co.nz>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
> www.ecodesign.co.nz
>
>
> On 18/10/2011, at 3:43 AM, strawnet at aol.com wrote:
>
> slight correction - 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>
> To: Global Straw Building Network <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>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>
>> 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>
>>
>> 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>
>>
>> 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>
>> 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/>
>> www.endeavourcentre.org<http://www.endeavourcentre.org>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> GSBN mailing list
>> 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
>>
>> Tom Woolley
>>
>> Rachel Bevan Architects
>> 80 Church Road
>> Crossgar
>> Downpatrick
>> BT30 9HR
>>  tom.woolley at btconnect.com<mailto:tom.woolley at btconnect.com>
>> 028 44 830988
>> www.bevanarchitects.com<http://www.bevanarchitects.com>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>
>  _______________________________________________
> GSBN mailing listGSBN at sustainablesources.comhttp://sustainablesources.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/GSBN
>
>   _______________________________________________
> GSBN mailing list
> 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
>
>

-- 
Paul A. Olivier PhD
27C Pham Hong Thai Street
Dalat
Vietnam

Louisiana telephone: 1-337-447-4124 (rings Vietnam)
Mobile: 090-694-1573 (in Vietnam)
Skype address: Xpolivier
http://www.esrla.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sustainablesources.com/pipermail/gsbn/attachments/20111019/cc6de164/attachment.htm>