[GSBN] Fwd: Embodied energy comparisons: SB vs Stick-built

[Graeme North]

More from Andrew

Interesting notion of Andrew's that local doe not matter - I think it  
really does matter for reasons of building local economies and  
resilience, and for shortening local feedback loops - using a distant  
PVC plant to make your stuff does not seem justifiable to me in any  
other terms expect those Andrew puts forward below - there's more to  
our choices than carbon storage

By the way - trees are not nearly as good at carbon storage as  
healthy pasture which stores carbon in the soil - (which it seems is  
where most of the carbon in the world is stored).  So much for carbon  
guilt credits by asking someone somewhere to plant a tree for you -  
especially when good pasture is used for the plantings unless in a  
very integrated holistic system of husbandry.

No easy answers

Graeme
Graeme North Architects
49 Matthew Road
RD1
Warkworth
tel/fax +64 (0)9 4259305

graeme at ecodesign.co.nz
www.ecodesign.co.nz


Begin forwarded message:

> From: Andrew Alcorn <jandrew.alcorn at gmail.com>
> Date: 19 February 2009 8:14:41 PM
> To: Graeme North <graeme at ecodesign.co.nz>
> Subject: Re: [GSBN] Embodied energy comparisons: SB vs Stick-built
>
> Hi Graeme
>
> Joining the list sound sensible... I did use to be on it, or it's
> ancient equivalent, over a decade ago.
>
> Andrew
>
> Hi Tim
>
> All good ideas - your list. Unfortunately, intuition isn't a reliable
> indicator of sustainability performance. Even after years of work in
> this field, mine's been seriously caught out more than once.
>
> Straw bale works, even with more concrete footing and more roof. Of
> course, a timber floor is better again.
>
> As a long-time embodied energy researcher, I feel entitled to proclaim
> that embodied energy is not the best way to measure sustainbility. It
> has its uses - its good in making comparisons. Actually, money is
> pretty good, but that requires more work to be able to say exactly how
> good. Money captures lots more aspects of the (damaging) human
> enterprise than energy does. Teddy Goldsmith (The Ecologist) captured
> this when he declared that the environment will not be saved until the
> economy collapses. But that all opens another, larger, can of worms...
>
> Measureing performance in a whole-wall way is a good idea. But,
> actually, you need to do it in whole-house way. That's when you find
> stuffing as much carbon-storing material in as possible is the best
> strategy.
>
> Small needs to be related to the number of occupants. If you go
> *slightly* bigger, but include another person into the household,
> that's better. Comparing houses on a per-capita annulised basis is the
> only reliable way I know of to make accurate comparisons.
>
> Longevity is important. If you can get each item in the house to last
> longer, then you use fewer resources to do repairs and maintenance
> over the life of the house. Hence, materials that don't need painting
> are good. The exception to this rule, curiously, is carbon based
> materials (timber and SB). If you replace them at more frequent
> intervals, and carefully bury the removed items, then over the life of
> the house you end up storing more carbon in the ground, which means
> there's less in the atmosphere.
>
> Another good strategy (which I know will generate a lot of indiganant
> hot air) is to use asa many plastic products as you can bear.
> (Personally I detest the stuff and don't use it for anything.) The
> reason is that plastic represents carbon fossil fuels that get turned
> into stuff, instead of being turned into transport fuel and burnt, and
> then re-buried. That is, the carbon comes out of the ground, then
> after a few years goes back into the ground, without having been
> turned into atmospheric CO2. Basically, its better for the oil-and-gas
> stream to be, as much as possible, diverted to solid objects that get
> re-buried. But, only use plastic things when you can't use wood. Using
> wood means a lower atmospheric CO2 level than using plastic does.
>
> Looking after people is a good idea, but, actually, the planet doesn't
> care if a few more people die from cancer because of poisonous
> materials, so its hard to rate low-toxicity materials as high as
> minimising climate change effects. Which brings us to another can of
> worms...what/who are we trying to be good sustainable citizens for -
> human beings, or other species? Humans are REALLY bad for
> bio-diversity, generally. (This is a question I put to my students.
> Often the answer I get isn't the same as the one I get from ordinary
> folk.)
>
> No. Don't adjust materials to what's locally available. Use what is
> going to give the best life-cycle performance for the house. Don't
> worry about transport distances - they're such a distant second as to
> be a total red-herring.
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> Andrew
>
> 2009/2/19 Graeme North <graeme at ecodesign.co.nz>:
>>
>> Graeme
>> Graeme North Architects
>> 49 Matthew Road
>> RD1
>> Warkworth
>> tel/fax +64 (0)9 4259305
>>
>> graeme at ecodesign.co.nz
>> www.ecodesign.co.nz
>>
>> Begin forwarded message:
>>
>> From: Tim Owen-Kennedy <timok33 at gmail.com>
>> Date: 19 February 2009 12:12:08 PM
>> To: "(private, with public archives) Global Straw Building Network"
>> <GSBN at greenbuilder.com>
>> Subject: Re: [GSBN] Embodied energy comparisons: SB vs Stick-built
>> Reply-To: "(private, with public archives) Global Straw Building  
>> Network"
>> <GSBN at greenbuilder.com>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> I might be wrong but I'm reading the flurry of communication  
>> lately as a bit
>> of a sign that we are all a bit slowed down work wise; economy or  
>> winter
>> (for us northies) or both? but I must say I'm appreciating the  
>> quality.
>> Anyway...
>>
>> I'm always a fan of the "it depends" answer and the recognition of  
>> the
>> "flaws" in the questions (I've been averaging all the lengths of  
>> the string
>> in the craft room and will have an answer for you by next  
>> lifetime), but as
>> hard as it is to put out numbers that can be taken out of context  
>> later it
>> seems like it would be nice to have data on the economic impacts,  
>> embodied
>> energy, sequestered carbon and comparative thermal performance of  
>> four
>> simple wall assemblies, maybe 12 ft long with the same 3ft x4ft  
>> window in
>> each.  (Boy I sure love single sentence paragraphs, hope you all  
>> could
>> follow the above).
>>
>> For us in California I would like to know: standard 2x6 title 24  
>> (minimum
>> energy performance compliant) wall, high performance 2x6 wall with  
>> best
>> accepted thermal detailing, load bearing straw bale with floating  
>> window
>> buck, and a post and beam straw bale with the window mounted to  
>> full height
>> 2x framing.
>>
>> As I write this I'm swimming in the feeling of the futility of  
>> this exercise
>> but my assumption is that we'll see that the conventional wall has  
>> far less
>> economic (distilled net energy from previous and potentially  
>> ecologically
>> disastrous efforts) and embodied energy. The added costs of the  
>> roof and
>> foundation for the thickness of the bale wall and the extra cost in
>> detailing the bale wall will be really significant economic and  
>> embodied
>> energy "costs". And that it might not payback easily in the thermal
>> performance unless the project is designed to last much longer  
>> than it's
>> mortgage, factoring in the carbon sequestration could really tip the
>> argument. My thinking would be to get numbers attached to the  
>> value of
>> durable natural energy efficient design.
>>
>> Therefore Durability has always been high on my top ten list of  
>> ecological
>> design priorities which go something like:
>> 1. Build as small as you can for the activities you want to house.
>> 2. Invest the savings from building smaller in quality and  
>> durability.
>> 3. Make all of it as personally beautiful, inspiring, and soothing  
>> to live
>> in as your understanding allows; so that the building will be  
>> loved and
>> cared for as it evolves.
>> 4. Use materials that are as close to how they occur in nature as  
>> can make
>> them durably beautiful.
>> 5. Organize the materials to serve the activities and health of the
>> occupants as passively as possible.
>> 6. Adjust materials use in proportion to their availability in  
>> your area.
>> 7. Maximize the value to the occupants of materials that are  
>> scarce and/or
>> require lots of manufacturing or transportation.
>> 8. Design and build with the evolution, recycling, and  
>> decomposition of the
>> building in mind.
>> 9. Review the Design so that the costs/impacts can be recuperated and
>> ideally overcome by the benefits.
>> 10. Maximize the Labor vs. materials ratio in the project -  
>> investing the
>> most in local economies (high economic multiplier) and minimizes  
>> the risks
>> of unintended consequences in the manufacturing, and make good use  
>> of the
>> most enjoyably renewable resource on the planet, people.
>>
>> This is my attempt to frame the statements non technically toward  
>> what to do
>> instead of what not to do; and to hopefully guide us to doing the  
>> best we
>> can with what we know now. (My greatest design question still is  
>> since the
>> bulk of the negative impacts of our efforts seem to come from  
>> unintended
>> consequences - How do we design for what we don't yet know -  
>> biomimicry has
>> been the best answer that's come so far).
>>
>> But it sure would be great to be able to quantify some of these  
>> concepts and
>> adjust the priorities accordingly. It's just not something I'm  
>> capable of or
>> I probably would have tried it by now. I would love to have any  
>> input on
>> these that you are willing to share. Especially with regards to  
>> how best to
>> factor in the Carbon
>>
>> I think the Skilled John's list is great and I would group all of  
>> them in
>> under different priorities above. The issue always seems to me to  
>> be once
>> you've answered each question as to what degree (relative to what  
>> standard)
>> it is more yes or no, how do you compare it's relative value to  
>> the other
>> answers.
>>
>> I love Derek's question of highest value and I've tried to address  
>> that with
>> items 1,2,3,7 & 9 but think it could be worked in more explicitly.
>>
>> Well, sorry so long. I hope this is as valuable for some of you as  
>> it is for
>> me, thanks for all your input on the refinement of "what we know  
>> now."
>>
>> Tim "caring and trying" O-K
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 8:26 AM, Joyce Coppinger  
>> <jc10508 at alltel.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> Count me as in favor of adding Andrew.
>>>
>>> Joyce
>>>
>>>
>>> on 2/16/09 4:00 PM, David Eisenberg at strawnet at aol.com wrote:
>>>
>>> Good idea!
>>>
>>> David
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Graeme North <graeme at ecodesign.co.nz>
>>> To: (private, with public archives) Global Straw Building Network
>>> <GSBN at greenbuilder.com>
>>> Cc: Andrew Alcorn <jandrew.alcorn at gmail.com>
>>> Sent: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 2:53 pm
>>> Subject: Re: [GSBN] Embodied energy comparisons: SB vs Stick-built
>>>
>>> Dear all
>>>
>>> I suggest that Andrew Alcorn be added to this list - he has been  
>>> involved
>>> in earth and strawbale building research and design for many  
>>> years and is
>>> one of the few researchers I know of who is delving deeply into this
>>> embodied and related  energy stuff in buildings
>>>
>>> In addition it will save me forwarding on loads of emails to him,  
>>> and his
>>> replies to you
>>>
>>>
>>> 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 <http://www.ecodesign.co.nz>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 17/02/2009, at 8:39 AM, Derek Roff wrote:
>>>
>>> How about a more abstract one:
>>>
>>> Is this the best use of this material?
>>> Are we diverting/consuming a material from some other more  
>>> important use?
>>>
>>> This is sort of the flip side of recycling- removing things from the
>>> market that have other uses.  The poster child for this kind of  
>>> dilemma is
>>> crude oil.  Oil pundits like to say it has a million different  
>>> uses, from
>>> pharmaceuticals to fertilizers to building materials.  Instead,  
>>> we burn 99%
>>> of it, getting the lowest possible use from an amazing material.
>>>
>>> Right now, I look on ethanol this way.  To produce a marginal  
>>> (perhaps
>>> negative) energy source, we have impacted food supply and general  
>>> wealth and
>>> health in Mexico among other places.
>>>
>>> I don't have an example in mind for this kind of misuse of a  
>>> material as
>>> it relates to the building industry.  Perhaps others can suggest  
>>> one.
>>>
>>> Derelict
>>>
>>>
>>> --On Monday, February 16, 2009 11:01 AM -0800 John Swearingen
>>> <jswearingen at skillful-means.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Ok, since we've decided that embodied energy is of less or equal
>>> significance as life-cycle energy use, I would suggest that any
>>> materials or forms of construction be evaluated on at least these
>>> areas:
>>>
>>>
>>>   ? Does the material contribute structurally
>>>   ? Does the material contribute thermally (insulation)
>>>   ? Does the material provide thermal storage (mass)
>>>   ? Does the material provide fire safety
>>>   ? Does the material contribute to the local economy
>>>   ? What are the manufacturing environmental costs
>>>   ? What are the transportation and wastage environmental costs
>>>   ? Is the material a by-product, waste-product, or recycled
>>>   ? Is the material bio-degradable, recyclable or land-fill
>>>   ? Is the material toxic in manufacture, use or disposal
>>>   ? What is the expected life-span of the system (resistance to
>>> environmental damage)
>>> Feel free to add.
>>>
>>> John
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Derek Roff
>>> Language Learning Center
>>> Ortega Hall 129, MSC03-2100
>>> University of New Mexico
>>> Albuquerque, NM 87131-0001
>>> 505/277-7368, fax 505/277-3885
>>> Internet: derek at unm.edu
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above.  See yours in just 2 easy  
>>> steps!
>>> <http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1218822736x1201267884/ 
>>> aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx? 
>>> sc=668072%26hmpgID=62%26bcd=febemailfooterNO62>
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> GSBN mailing list
>> GSBN at greenbuilder.com
>> http://greenbuilder.com/mailman/listinfo/GSBN
>>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sustainablesources.com/pipermail/gsbn/attachments/20090220/7dc77df0/attachment.htm>