[Strawbale] Strawbale Digest, Vol 71, Issue 9

Marko Stepanovic s_live at live...
Thu Oct 20 15:22:46 CEST 2011

If anyone have surveying of estimate or quantum surveying, from any Straw Bale object, it would be grate to send me! I need this for my diploma work on subject Straw Bale Bulding. And when I finish I can send this to enyone who need this material. I made a manual for diffirent types of bulding and fire tests, and a lot of other staf. Thanks in advice!

> From: strawbale-request at amper....muni.cz
> Subject: Strawbale Digest, Vol 71, Issue 9
> To: strawbale at amper....muni.cz
> Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 12:00:02 +0200
> Send Strawbale mailing list submissions to
> 	strawbale at amper....muni.cz
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> 	http://amper.ped.muni.cz/mailman/listinfo/strawbale
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> 	strawbale-request at amper....muni.cz
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> 	strawbale-owner at amper....muni.cz
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Strawbale digest..."
> Today's Topics:
>    1. Re:  Embodied/embedded energy figures (RT)
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 12:53:13 -0400
> From: RT <ArchiLogic at yahoo...>
> To: GSBN <GSBN at sustainablesources...>
> Cc: SB Yahoos <SB-r-us at yahoogroups...>, EuroSB
> 	<strawbale at amper....muni.cz>
> Subject: Re: [Strawbale] Embodied/embedded energy figures
> Message-ID: <op.v3lybvbn4f5a3n at t60-pc>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15; format=flowed;
> 	delsp=yes
> On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 20:41:18 -0400,  wrote:
> > On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 in GSBN Digest, Vol 7, Issue 24
> > David Eisenberg wrote:
> > To: Global Straw Building Network
> [<snipped> & <pasted>]
> >> energy efficiency folks... dismissed the importance of embodied energy
> >
> >> argument was that if you compared operating and embodied energy,
> >> embodied energy was insignificant
> >
> >> 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?
> >
> >> 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 above message in its entirety and the thread to which it belongs can  
> be viewed at
> http://sustainablesources.com/pipermail/gsbn/2011q4/001616.html
> )
> In the much of the non-First World, people have been living in zero energy  
> (ZE) or near ZE homes for centuries, many of those houses being made of  
> low embodied-energy, natural materials.
> In the First World, the lowest per-capita energy consumption figures are  
> associated with those households whose annual income is under $20k ...  
> while the energy consumption of households whose income is in the six  
> figures can be as much as double or more that of the under-$20k households.
> Not too long ago in the US news media, there was a piece trumpeting a new,  
> 5000 sq ft, Net-Zero Energy home, no doubt costing a $bazillion or  
> $gazillion.
> And if you Google "Net-Zero Energy Homes" no doubt you will find some  
> quotes about how NZE will add about $100 -$120k to the cost of a new home.
> We know from experience here in Canada (ie in a 7500 - >11,000 heating  
> degree-days/yr climate) over the past three decades or so that one can  
> build very energy efficient homes where about 75% of the building's  
> heating load can be provided via passive means and the cooling load is  
> practically nil, and the house would not look much different than a  
> conventional home, the incremental cost for energy-efficiency improvements  
> (read: higher levels of insulation, better air-sealing strategies) costing  
> about 10% over conventional "built-to-Code" construction ... which is to  
> say that it is possible to minimise the energy consumption for space  
> heating/cooling to near-zero, even in Cold Climates ... simply via   
> siting, orientation, massing, appropriate levels of insulation and  
> effective air-sealing. (Note that the preceding can all be accomplished  
> utilising "natural" and low embodied-energy materials if one so desires.)
> 	(And "yes" air-tight construction is an absolute necessity when the
> 	building envelope utilises higher levels of insulation
> 	re: Graham North's comment:
> 	> I also question (and here I risk swearing in church) the whole  
> philosophy
> 	> of tightly sealed "passiv haus"  which are then mechanically ventilated.
> 	An ineffective air-sealing strategy will result in moisture problems
> 	for the envelope materials, higher-than-necessary energy consumption
> 	for space heating/cooling, poor interior air quality and poor occupant  
> health.
> 	Air-tight construction does not necessarily imply mechanical ventilation.
> 	Exhaust-only, passive-inlet ventilation strategies (EOPIVS) are entirely
> 	possible, but only in relatively mild climates (ie <6500 HDD/yr),
> 	smaller houses (ie under 1200 sf) and single-storey dwellings.
> 	However, without mechanical ventilation (ie a device with energy recovery
> 	on the exhaust air stream) there will be about 20% higher-than-necessary
> 	energy consumption for space heating/cooling, assuming that the house
> 	occupants are being provided with the minimum ventilation recommended by
> 	ASHRAE (ie the worst ventilation rate below which the house occupants
> 	are subjected to health risks due to poor interior air quality (IAQ).)
> But returning to the topic of NZE ...
> If the building's energy requirements for space heating/cooling are  
> already minimised to near-zero (ie 75% of total provided by passive means)  
> at a minimal incremental cost (ie the 10% mentioned, as is typical for  
> homes built in Canada that meet or exceed the almost three decades-old  
> R2000 performance standard) ... then the balance of the energy consumption  
> of that household is attributed to lifestyle.
> Lifestyle determines the amount of energy a household consumes for hot  
> water heating, lighting, appliances, electronics.
> 	(If one Googles "Domestic Energy Consumption" or such-like one will come  
> up
> 	with figures that are in the following neighbourhood,
> 	(chosen from Wiki for ease of copying since most "real" data
> 	will likely be available as PDF documents) :
> ======Copied material with no assertions as to accuracy
>   but in rough, general agreement with other sources ==============
> 	Average domestic energy consumption per household in temperate climates
> 	Heating................ 12,000 kWh/yr
> 	Hot Water..............  3,000 kWh/yr
> 	Cooling/Refrigeration... 1,200 kWh/yr
> 	Lighting................ 1,200 kWh/yr
> 	Washing & Drying........ 1,000 kWh/yr
> 	Cooking ................ 1,000 kWh/yr
> 	Misc Electric Load......   600 kWh/yr
> ======== End of copied material ====================
> It is the energy consumption for the latter (ie lifestyle vs building  
> envelope) that determines the amount of active solar gizmology that would  
> be required to bring that household to Net-Zero Energy. If a house  
> requires $100k-or-more-worth of solar panels to bring that house to NZ,  
> that's got nothing to do with "the energy-efficient folks".
> While the idea of having NZE house is laudable, the reality is that for  
> people who are living in locales that are grid-connected and electricity  
> is being supplied to the consumer typically at rates of $0.12/kWh (or  
> less), installing photo-voltaics at $2-$8 per watt of supply capacity to  
> bring that household to net-zero would be feasible only for upper-level  
> income households.
> Point being, the rants that have appeared on this List so far against  
> "energy-efficient buildings" are, I would argue, misdirected.  I would  
> venture that the rants should be directed at consumptive lifestyles-- a  
> matter of personal choices.
> I would further venture that the "embodied-energy signifcant or  
> insignificant" debate is unnecessary.
> Any competent evaluation of environmental impacts for a design that  
> aspires to be truly "Green" would include energy breakdowns for  
> embodied-energy AND total operating energy (ie life-cycle energy),  
> consideration for (if not breakdowns for) air emissions, water  
> consumption, habitat destruction, occupant health (ie breakdowns of indoor  
> air pollutants) , maintenance/replacement material costs etc.
> -- 
> === * ===
> Rob Tom
> Kanata, Ontario, Canada
> < A r c h i L o g i c  at  Y a h o o  dot  CA >
> (manually winnow the chaff from my edress if you hit REPLY)
> ------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Strawbale mailing list
> Strawbale at amper....muni.cz
> http://amper.ped.muni.cz/mailman/listinfo/strawbale
> End of Strawbale Digest, Vol 71, Issue 9
> ****************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://amper.ped.muni.cz/pipermail/strawbale/attachments/20111020/36458639/attachment.html>

More information about the Strawbale mailing list