<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=windows-1252" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.18904">
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Dear all,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Thank you for your insights. I am still that sort
of hobbyist like 15 years ago ;-)))</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>If the PCF calculation is that specific with
the origin on the cementbased products, like Paul explains, that seems to be
excellent. I doubt if cheap Italian cement here on the market in Brittany
is of the same procedure as from Germany. So we miss a proper PCF
label...</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>How straw and wood is seen as neutral however, even
without analysing the purpose/use and different sorts of wood, says
there are no such differenciations yet in the calculations. Those
computerprograms seem to produce too simple results on their
simple input. One of the arguments of the Oekoinstitut in Darmstadt of not
getting into straw as Carbon negative is: its rarely used in buildings.
</FONT><FONT size=2 face=Arial>We might need a lot of big-bale buildings for
being heard. Isn't it fun to stimulate better research approaches and
... tools?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>CO2 is again just one facet for product
comparisons, another is SO2 and of course water. The waterfootprint of
straw is 0, isn't it?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Greetings from Brittany,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Martin Oehlmann</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT: 10pt arial; BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=paul.olivier@esrint.com href="mailto:paul.olivier@esrint.com">Paul
Olivier</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=GSBN@greenbuilder.com
href="mailto:GSBN@greenbuilder.com">(private, with public archives) Global
Straw Building Network</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Friday, May 07, 2010 10:01 PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [GSBN] embodied energy and
sequestration</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>Since 1990 I spent a lot of time designing separators for the
cement industry. These dense medium separators at times could handle up to 80
tons per hours of automobile and industrial shredder residue. Multiple
separations were required to meet the highest safety requirements within
Europe as set by the German government. Instead of putting this organic
material in landfill or incinerating it, it was used to make cement. The BTU
content of this material reached as high as 12,000. When burning this fuel,
the cement kilns were able to make cement at a negative energy cost. The ash
from this organic waste was vitrified and remained harmlessly in the
cement.<BR><BR>The heat and residence time in a cement kiln are very high, and
the cement kiln has to be one of the best means of disposing of many types of
liquid and solid wastes. Dumping these wastes in a landfill or incinerating
them are totally inadequate. Cement kilns take in a lot of waste that should
go nowhere else.<BR><BR>I can assure you all that I spend all of my time in
the development of technologies that benefit the environment, and I can
state unequivocally that a cement kiln is not always a bad
thing.<BR><BR>Thanks.<BR>Paul<BR>-- <BR>Paul A. Olivier<BR>Louisiana
telephone: 1-337-447-4124 (rings Vietnam)<BR>Mobile: 063 399 7256 (in
Vietnam)<BR>Skype address: Xpolivier<BR><A
href="http://www.esrla.com/">http://www.esrla.com/</A></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>