[Strawbale] Strawbale Digest, Vol 71, Issue 9
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
> 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;
> 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
> 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
> 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
> > 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
> 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
> 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
> End of Strawbale Digest, Vol 71, Issue 9
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Strawbale