<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family:Tahoma
}
--></style>
</head>
<body class='hmmessage'><div dir='ltr'>
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!<br><br><div>> From: strawbale-request@amper....muni.cz<br>> Subject: Strawbale Digest, Vol 71, Issue 9<br>> To: strawbale@amper....muni.cz<br>> Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 12:00:02 +0200<br>> <br>> Send Strawbale mailing list submissions to<br>> strawbale@amper....muni.cz<br>> <br>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit<br>> http://amper.ped.muni.cz/mailman/listinfo/strawbale<br>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to<br>> strawbale-request@amper....muni.cz<br>> <br>> You can reach the person managing the list at<br>> strawbale-owner@amper....muni.cz<br>> <br>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific<br>> than "Re: Contents of Strawbale digest..."<br>> <br>> <br>> Today's Topics:<br>> <br>> 1. Re: Embodied/embedded energy figures (RT)<br>> <br>> <br>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------<br>> <br>> Message: 1<br>> Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 12:53:13 -0400<br>> From: RT <ArchiLogic@yahoo...><br>> To: GSBN <GSBN@sustainablesources...><br>> Cc: SB Yahoos <SB-r-us@yahoogroups.com>, EuroSB<br>> <strawbale@amper....muni.cz><br>> Subject: Re: [Strawbale] Embodied/embedded energy figures<br>> Message-ID: <op.v3lybvbn4f5a3n@t60-pc><br>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15; format=flowed;<br>> delsp=yes<br>> <br>> On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 20:41:18 -0400, wrote:<br>> <br>> > On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 in GSBN Digest, Vol 7, Issue 24<br>> > David Eisenberg wrote:<br>> > To: Global Straw Building Network<br>> <br>> [<snipped> & <pasted>]<br>> >> energy efficiency folks... dismissed the importance of embodied energy<br>> ><br>> >> argument was that if you compared operating and embodied energy,<br>> >> embodied energy was insignificant<br>> ><br>> >> They often used percentages to compare the two and I would say,<br>> >> okay using that method, what is the percentage of embodied energy<br>> >> when operating energy is zero?And how much have you increased the <br>> >> embodied energy in order to get to net-zero?<br>> ><br>> >> we're typically using much higher embodied energy materials and systems <br>> >> in most of these buildings to get to low operating energy performance- <br>> >> which amplifies the problem. And the global warming potential also <br>> >> typically goes way up.<br>> <br>> ( The above message in its entirety and the thread to which it belongs can <br>> be viewed at<br>> http://sustainablesources.com/pipermail/gsbn/2011q4/001616.html<br>> )<br>> <br>> In the much of the non-First World, people have been living in zero energy <br>> (ZE) or near ZE homes for centuries, many of those houses being made of <br>> low embodied-energy, natural materials.<br>> <br>> In the First World, the lowest per-capita energy consumption figures are <br>> associated with those households whose annual income is under $20k ... <br>> while the energy consumption of households whose income is in the six <br>> figures can be as much as double or more that of the under-$20k households.<br>> <br>> Not too long ago in the US news media, there was a piece trumpeting a new, <br>> 5000 sq ft, Net-Zero Energy home, no doubt costing a $bazillion or <br>> $gazillion.<br>> <br>> And if you Google "Net-Zero Energy Homes" no doubt you will find some <br>> quotes about how NZE will add about $100 -$120k to the cost of a new home.<br>> <br>> We know from experience here in Canada (ie in a 7500 - >11,000 heating <br>> degree-days/yr climate) over the past three decades or so that one can <br>> build very energy efficient homes where about 75% of the building's <br>> heating load can be provided via passive means and the cooling load is <br>> practically nil, and the house would not look much different than a <br>> conventional home, the incremental cost for energy-efficiency improvements <br>> (read: higher levels of insulation, better air-sealing strategies) costing <br>> about 10% over conventional "built-to-Code" construction ... which is to <br>> say that it is possible to minimise the energy consumption for space <br>> heating/cooling to near-zero, even in Cold Climates ... simply via <br>> siting, orientation, massing, appropriate levels of insulation and <br>> effective air-sealing. (Note that the preceding can all be accomplished <br>> utilising "natural" and low embodied-energy materials if one so desires.)<br>> <br>> (And "yes" air-tight construction is an absolute necessity when the<br>> building envelope utilises higher levels of insulation<br>> re: Graham North's comment:<br>> > I also question (and here I risk swearing in church) the whole <br>> philosophy<br>> > of tightly sealed "passiv haus" which are then mechanically ventilated.<br>> <br>> An ineffective air-sealing strategy will result in moisture problems<br>> for the envelope materials, higher-than-necessary energy consumption<br>> for space heating/cooling, poor interior air quality and poor occupant <br>> health.<br>> <br>> Air-tight construction does not necessarily imply mechanical ventilation.<br>> Exhaust-only, passive-inlet ventilation strategies (EOPIVS) are entirely<br>> possible, but only in relatively mild climates (ie <6500 HDD/yr),<br>> smaller houses (ie under 1200 sf) and single-storey dwellings.<br>> However, without mechanical ventilation (ie a device with energy recovery<br>> on the exhaust air stream) there will be about 20% higher-than-necessary<br>> energy consumption for space heating/cooling, assuming that the house<br>> occupants are being provided with the minimum ventilation recommended by<br>> ASHRAE (ie the worst ventilation rate below which the house occupants<br>> are subjected to health risks due to poor interior air quality (IAQ).)<br>> <br>> <br>> But returning to the topic of NZE ...<br>> <br>> If the building's energy requirements for space heating/cooling are <br>> already minimised to near-zero (ie 75% of total provided by passive means) <br>> at a minimal incremental cost (ie the 10% mentioned, as is typical for <br>> homes built in Canada that meet or exceed the almost three decades-old <br>> R2000 performance standard) ... then the balance of the energy consumption <br>> of that household is attributed to lifestyle.<br>> <br>> Lifestyle determines the amount of energy a household consumes for hot <br>> water heating, lighting, appliances, electronics.<br>> <br>> (If one Googles "Domestic Energy Consumption" or such-like one will come <br>> up<br>> with figures that are in the following neighbourhood,<br>> (chosen from Wiki for ease of copying since most "real" data<br>> will likely be available as PDF documents) :<br>> <br>> ======Copied material with no assertions as to accuracy<br>> but in rough, general agreement with other sources ==============<br>> <br>> Average domestic energy consumption per household in temperate climates<br>> <br>> Heating................ 12,000 kWh/yr<br>> Hot Water.............. 3,000 kWh/yr<br>> Cooling/Refrigeration... 1,200 kWh/yr<br>> Lighting................ 1,200 kWh/yr<br>> Washing & Drying........ 1,000 kWh/yr<br>> Cooking ................ 1,000 kWh/yr<br>> Misc Electric Load...... 600 kWh/yr<br>> ======== End of copied material ====================<br>> <br>> <br>> It is the energy consumption for the latter (ie lifestyle vs building <br>> envelope) that determines the amount of active solar gizmology that would <br>> be required to bring that household to Net-Zero Energy. If a house <br>> requires $100k-or-more-worth of solar panels to bring that house to NZ, <br>> that's got nothing to do with "the energy-efficient folks".<br>> <br>> While the idea of having NZE house is laudable, the reality is that for <br>> people who are living in locales that are grid-connected and electricity <br>> is being supplied to the consumer typically at rates of $0.12/kWh (or <br>> less), installing photo-voltaics at $2-$8 per watt of supply capacity to <br>> bring that household to net-zero would be feasible only for upper-level <br>> income households.<br>> <br>> Point being, the rants that have appeared on this List so far against <br>> "energy-efficient buildings" are, I would argue, misdirected. I would <br>> venture that the rants should be directed at consumptive lifestyles-- a <br>> matter of personal choices.<br>> <br>> I would further venture that the "embodied-energy signifcant or <br>> insignificant" debate is unnecessary.<br>> <br>> Any competent evaluation of environmental impacts for a design that <br>> aspires to be truly "Green" would include energy breakdowns for <br>> embodied-energy AND total operating energy (ie life-cycle energy), <br>> consideration for (if not breakdowns for) air emissions, water <br>> consumption, habitat destruction, occupant health (ie breakdowns of indoor <br>> air pollutants) , maintenance/replacement material costs etc.<br>> <br>> -- <br>> === * ===<br>> Rob Tom<br>> Kanata, Ontario, Canada<br>> < A r c h i L o g i c at Y a h o o dot CA ><br>> (manually winnow the chaff from my edress if you hit REPLY)<br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> ------------------------------<br>> <br>> _______________________________________________<br>> Strawbale mailing list<br>> Strawbale@amper....muni.cz<br>> http://amper.ped.muni.cz/mailman/listinfo/strawbale<br>> <br>> <br>> End of Strawbale Digest, Vol 71, Issue 9<br>> ****************************************<br></div> </div></body>
</html>