|
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@amper....muni.cz > Subject: Strawbale Digest, Vol 71, Issue 9 > To: strawbale@amper....muni.cz > Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 12:00:02 +0200 > > Send Strawbale mailing list submissions to > strawbale@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@amper....muni.cz > > You can reach the person managing the list at > strawbale-owner@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@yahoo...> > To: GSBN <GSBN@sustainablesources...> > Cc: SB Yahoos <SB-r-us@yahoogroups.com>, EuroSB > <strawbale@amper....muni.cz> > Subject: Re: [Strawbale] Embodied/embedded energy figures > Message-ID: <op.v3lybvbn4f5a3n@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@amper....muni.cz > http://amper.ped.muni.cz/mailman/listinfo/strawbale > > > End of Strawbale Digest, Vol 71, Issue 9 > **************************************** |