[GSBN] Embodied/embedded energy figures

Tue Oct 18 23:41:35 UTC 2011

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sustainablesources.com/pipermail/gsbn/attachments/20111018/f3f231e8/attachment.htm>