Away you go.
Discussion Forum
Discussion Forum
Up Next
Video Shorts
Featured Story
A custom finish carpenter shares how he designed and outfit his two-car garage shop with all the tools, jigs, and accessories he needs to comfortably do great work.
Featured Video
Highlights
"I have learned so much thanks to the searchable articles on the FHB website. I can confidently say that I expect to be a life-long subscriber." - M.K.
Replies
If the trees I fell are trees I planted, is that good or should I let them fall of their own accord in a windstorm and rot??
PS: even some of the trees my kids planted in grade school have over a MBF of sawlog in them (DF), some that I planted are even bigger. Plan on building a bandsaw mill in a few years.
Edited 1/11/2009 4:43 pm ET by junkhound
Tulip Poplar (Liriodendron Tulipifera) heartwood is quite green when it's sawn -
mellows to a pleasant brown after a year or so tho....
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0061373567/bookstorenow99-20I got it from one of the kids for Xmas, highly recommend it for a good woodyhttp://www.tvwsolar.com
I went down to the lobby
To make a small call out.
A pretty dancing girl was there,
And she began to shout,
"Go on back to see the gypsy.
He can move you from the rear,
Drive you from your fear,
Bring you through the mirror.
He did it in Las Vegas,
And he can do it here."
I don' know a lot about this but just to try and get the discussion on the track that I THINK you intended, take a look at this web page: http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/community-news/sustainably-harvested-wood-66120201
Thanks for the link. I started this in response to the direction discussion was going in the ICF vs wood thread. The economy of the island I live on is dependant on unsustainable harvested lumber. I don't have much useful to offer, but am interested in other peoples take on the issue.
If it's the best product for the same price as any alternatives, then....
Yes, wood is most environmentally beneficial.
A La Carte Government funding... the real democracy.
If it's the best product for the same price as any alternatives, then....Yes, wood is most environmentally beneficial.
The price of a material has no correlation to its environmental impact - either negative or positive. Let's not confuse the issue the way the EPA or NRC has often done.
And "best product" is a meaningless qualification if you don't specify best for what?
Best for the quick profit of the builder?
Best for a cheap house for the owner?
Best for the global or local economy?
Or best for the environment?
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
"The price of a material has no correlation to its environmental impact - either negative or positive. Let's not confuse the issue the way the EPA or NRC has often done."
I'll decide what I determine is the definition based on my understanding of what is best for society.
You decide yours. You don't have any authority to instruct me.A La Carte Government funding... the real democracy.
"Best product for the best price" has nothing whatsoever to do with environmental impact.
The question was not "what is best for the society" but which is greener (has the least negative environmental impact. Those are completely different questions.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Edited 1/11/2009 11:51 pm ET by Riversong
The highest output for the least input maximizes the use of resources.
GreenA La Carte Government funding... the real democracy.
Could be a question of semantics. I agree the more efficiently we use a given material reduces waist. But, I think we can agree that economics are only part of the picture.
We may agree that emotion can play a part in the decisions made regarding materials used, but the only true measure is money.
Money is the only constant in measuring what resources are used for any given product. Lower cost = fewer inputs.A La Carte Government funding... the real democracy.
Curious what makes you say <money is the only constant in measuring what resources are used for any given product>Especially with all the economic news flying around, seems of all the things money is, constant isn't one of them.If you're saying it takes some green to build green, it depends. But trees/wood are/is pretty much a perpetual motion machine... so, I'd say you can't get much greener than wood for whatever it's use.http://www.tvwsolar.com
I went down to the lobby
To make a small call out.
A pretty dancing girl was there,
And she began to shout,
"Go on back to see the gypsy.
He can move you from the rear,
Drive you from your fear,
Bring you through the mirror.
He did it in Las Vegas,
And he can do it here."
"Curious what makes you say <money is the only constant in measuring what resources are used for any given product>"
Money is a measurement of value for a good or service. Having it is proof that someone has performed a service or supplied a good for which someone else is willing and able to buy (the proof that someone else was served). Money can then be exchanged for other, totally different, goods and/or services that would be difficult or impossible to easily value. What other measurement is as widely accepted?
The relative value is not a constant (inflation/deflation), but the use of money is the ONLY universally accepted means of placing a value on a good or service.
A lower cost (decided by a free market) product ALWAYS makes society, as a whole, better off because the inputs are least for given outputs.
In another word....
Green.A La Carte Government funding... the real democracy.
...the use of money is the ONLY universally accepted means of placing a value on a good or service.
Hardly. Humans traded long before what we now recognize as money was invented. True value is determined only by how a thing or experience enhances our lives qualitatively. Money is one of the poorest measures of true value.
A lower cost (decided by a free market) product ALWAYS makes society, as a whole, better off because the inputs are least for given outputs.
Hardly. Lower cost gasoline, for instance, encourages more driving and more purchases of SUVs.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
>A lower cost (decided by a free market) product ALWAYS makes society, as a whole, better off because the inputs are least for given outputs.In another word....Green.<So, like Chinese or Indian steel that come from here, and then back?Okaaay, now I'm curious where you got that definition?http://www.tvwsolar.com
I went down to the lobby
To make a small call out.
A pretty dancing girl was there,
And she began to shout,
"Go on back to see the gypsy.
He can move you from the rear,
Drive you from your fear,
Bring you through the mirror.
He did it in Las Vegas,
And he can do it here."
Lowest input/unit of output is always the best for society regardless of who in that society (world population) receive the most benefit (or least/no) benefit.
Any increase in cost above the required minimum is cost to society as a whole. Simple MacroEconomics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage
A La Carte Government funding... the real democracy.
Edited 1/12/2009 6:37 pm by Hackinatit
You make the Popeil Pocket Fisherman, don't you?http://www.tvwsolar.com
I went down to the lobby
To make a small call out.
A pretty dancing girl was there,
And she began to shout,
"Go on back to see the gypsy.
He can move you from the rear,
Drive you from your fear,
Bring you through the mirror.
He did it in Las Vegas,
And he can do it here."
Ha!
No
A La Carte Government funding... the real democracy.
We may agree that emotion can play a part in the decisions made regarding materials used, but the only true measure is money.
This is the greatest fallacy of modern capitalism and consumer culture, and the root of all evil (one might say).
If money is the only true measure of worth, then you are worth nothing since you don't have a price tag. Neither are your children or your wife. Neither is a joyful moment, or a beautiful sunset.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
If money is the only true measure of worth, then you are worth nothing since you don't have a price tag. Neither are your children or your wife. Neither is a joyful moment, or a beautiful sunset.
All of those (and an infinity of humans, dreams and memories) are "priceless".
Money is the true measure of "how green" a product or service is because it measures how many inputs are required to meet a need or desire.A La Carte Government funding... the real democracy.
All of those (and an infinity of humans, dreams and memories) are "priceless".
Money is the true measure of "how green" a product or service is because it measures how many inputs are required to meet a need or desire.
That might be true if the market wasn't completely distorted by subsidies, tarrifs, taxes and speculation.
Many social "bads" are subsidized by our government, such as nuclear power, and the environmental costs are not included in the price of so-called "goods" - they are considered "externalities". It cost a fortune to clean up the Exxon-Valdez oil spill and that expense did not represent social value - quite the contrary - yet it increases the gross national product and "improves" the economy.
And many of those "priceless" things, like the work of a home-maker or parent, are not figured into the value of what we produce. If a worker cannot perform his daily work without his/her spouse taking care of things at home, then the value of that homework should be added to the value of what the worker produces.
Speculation completely distorts real value, as we have seen in the US housing market and Wall Stree derivative trading, both of which have destroyed our economy.
It's for this reason that the Kingdom of Bhutan has switched from measuring "gross national product" to "gross national happiness", a much truer measure of value.
Until we stop using money to represent an artificial and highly distorted value, we will have no chance of building a sustainable society. Money is nothing but a convenience to facilitate trade - it represents nothing real.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
That might be true if the market wasn't completely distorted by subsidies, tarrifs, taxes and speculation.
Watch it... you almost agreed with me. I admit that outside forces do alter the current price of a resource, but the value of a product will always fluctuate. What may be the most efficient use of capital one day will almost certainly be different at another time. The only way to measure that efficiency on a universally accepted scale is with currency.
Many social "bads" are subsidized by our government, such as nuclear power, and the environmental costs are not included in the price of so-called "goods" - they are considered "externalities". It cost a fortune to clean up the Exxon-Valdez oil spill and that expense did not represent social value - quite the contrary - yet it increases the gross national product and "improves" the economy.
Costs of social "bads" are most often recaptured by the legal system through punitive damages. Those added costs alter the future cost structures to include prevention of future social costs.
And many of those "priceless" things, like the work of a home-maker or parent, are not figured into the value of what we produce. If a worker cannot perform his daily work without his/her spouse taking care of things at home, then the value of that homework should be added to the value of what the worker produces.
Agreed that there are opportunity costs associated with certain outputs. Individuals must (and do) include the costs of foregone earnings in their daily/lifestyle decisions.
Speculation completely distorts real value, as we have seen in the US housing market and Wall Stree derivative trading, both of which have destroyed our economy.
Nothing destroys markets. Capital finds its way to productive (profitable) activities... once an activity causes losses, it is abandoned. The market is always alive and well. Tumultuous at times, terrifying at others, but always functioning to find the most efficient means to produce.
It's for this reason that the Kingdom of Bhutan has switched from measuring "gross national product" to "gross national happiness", a much truer measure of value.
"Happiness" is not universally quantifiable and is, therefore, unable to define anything of economic value.
Until we stop using money to represent an artificial and highly distorted value, we will have no chance of building a sustainable society. Money is nothing but a convenience to facilitate trade - it represents nothing real.
The most sustainable society quickly discovers those activities that are wasteful of resources. Currency (as a facilitator of trade) is most easily measured and allows society to quickly discover waste. Quick action to correct those inefficient uses of resources make for a much healthier and prosperous population.
A La Carte Government funding... the real democracy.
Nothing destroys markets. Capital finds its way to productive (profitable) activities... once an activity causes losses, it is abandoned. The market is always alive and well. Tumultuous at times, terrifying at others, but always functioning to find the most efficient means to produce.
I see you are a True Believer in the Capitalist Market fairy, and no amount of evidence or argument is going to shake your faith.
True believers are truly dangerous creatures, because they disguise ignorance as wisdom and falsity as truth.
George Orwell and Eric Hoffer (The True Believer, 1951) understood this well.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
There ya go!
You've claimed your opinion supercedes all others and you have called me a name. I can't place a monetary value on our exchange.... so I'll consider it "priceless".A La Carte Government funding... the real democracy.
You've claimed your opinion supercedes all others and you have called me a name.
Never have and never will. This isn't about opinions, as we know the value of those. This is about economic fallacies and that category of people who, like religious fundamentalists, accept the mythology uncritically and with blind obedience.
It was you, in fact, who called yourself a name - perhaps an appropriate one:
Hackinatit.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
True believers are truly dangerous creatures, because they disguise ignorance as wisdom and falsity as truth.
I'm feeling better to know that "truly dangerous creature" is NOT calling me a name. I feel so much more... human.
A La Carte Government funding... the real democracy.
Edited 1/15/2009 9:28 pm by Hackinatit
True believers are truly dangerous creatures, because they disguise ignorance as wisdom and falsity as truth.
I'm feeling better to know that "truly dangerous creature" is NOT calling me a name.
You're as confused about semantics as you are about economics.
Calling a mountain lion a "trule dangerous creature" is not "calling it a name" but naming it for what it is.
Frankly, I'd rather face a mountain lion than a Capitalism True Believer.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
You're as confused about semantics as you are about economics.
Calling a mountain lion a "trule dangerous creature" is not "calling it a name" but naming it for what it is.
Frankly, I'd rather face a mountain lion than a Capitalism True Believer.
I'm no longer confused about the semantics since you've so politely clarified the statement. Regarding Economics, however, I am not confused nor wrong.
I am glad to be "dangerous"... the creature part is kinda iffy considering my having thumbs and all.
Don't be scared about meeting me face to face. I prefer hiking Mt. Hood and its shadows.A La Carte Government funding... the real democracy.
your monumental arrogance and niave blind support of only one acceptable method of construction (yours) says volumes about your character.
If you have vision beyond your own little world you would understand the issues involved instead of blinding finding support data for your position..
The classic case is Hawaii and your instamce that only your method of construction is acceptable. Totally ignoring the destrction of wood in Hawaii due to extremely aggresive termites..
I feel sorry for your students.. or should I say deciples..
your monumental arrogance and niave blind support of only one acceptable method of construction (yours) says volumes about your character.
Since you made the above up out of thin air, it actually speaks only to your character. I have never suggested that there is only one answer to all problems, as you continue to do - as evidenced in your foisting ICFs onto a Hawa'ian who stated clearly he wasn't interested nor did it make any sense in his climate.
What I don't understand, Frenchy, is why you continue so persistently to put your foot in your mouth.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Edited 1/16/2009 2:28 pm ET by Riversong
I also explained to him why and it has nothing to do with insulation.. . You really should read before you write.
You really should read before you write.
I'm one of the few people on earth who actually read every word, every punctuation mark, every syntactical structure. I don't miss a thing. I've been a copy editor.
Perhaps you should engage your brain before activating your typing fingers.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Edited 1/16/2009 9:23 pm ET by Riversong
Costs of social "bads" are most often recaptured by the legal system through punitive damages. Those added costs alter the future cost structures to include prevention of future social costs. Doesn't this inevitably lead to a question of regulations, and or
legislation?
Which is counter to the idea that Free markets are self correcting
as your post implies.
Doesn't this inevitably lead to a question of regulations, and or legislation?Which is counter to the idea that Free markets are self correcting as your post implies.
Socially Harmful practices are controlled by the free market. Those that are harmed "punish" those committing the harm through the legal system. Loss prevention efforts are then implemented (regulation and risk management costs) to prevent the same harms from occuring in the future. If a company cannot profitably produce while incurring those added costs, a competitor that can will take that share of the market.
A common misunderstanding of "Free Marketers" is that we believe all legislation/regulation is bad. Most bad law, in my opinion, is law that favors one competitor/country/beneficiary over another.
Often, (wish it were always) regulation/legislation is implemented as a "social" loss control because of a newly discovered hazard. By making law, legislators insure that all competitors have a common "fixed social cost" to include in their business models. Those failing to follow those laws risk potentially catastrophic damages and failure. A La Carte Government funding... the real democracy.
Aren't there circumstances where "reactionary" legislation
is inappropriate? Times that preemptive action is necessary to
avert an unacceptable consequence. Times where the natural evolution of free market forces have
failed to turn the tide soon enough to avert a crises. Isn't saying the market will punish those that deplete our natural
resources akin to closing the barn door after the horses have already
left? The free markets are a positive force for wealth and (if guided properly) prosperity.
That's not to say economics is the answer to all lifes troubles. It takes thoughtful leadership and an enlightened people to make wise decisions.
Aren't there circumstances where "reactionary" legislation is inappropriate? Times that preemptive action is necessary to avert an unacceptable consequence.
Yes and yes
Times where the natural evolution of free market forces have failed to turn the tide soon enough to avert a crises.
Yes
Isn't saying the market will punish those that deplete our natural resources akin to closing the barn door after the horses have already left?
No. There are substitutes... remember whale oil lamps?
The free markets are a positive force for wealth and (if guided properly) prosperity.That's not to say economics is the answer to all lifes troubles.
I never typed that "answer to all life's troubles" theory nor do I believe it. Wealth and prosperity are measured at the individual level. A positive force for one is different than a positive force for another. Free markets allow individuals to strive for any level of success they deem appropriate within the confines of the law.
It takes thoughtful leadership and an enlightened people to make wise decisions.
Wise decisions aren't limited to thoughtfullness nor enlightenment... it seems those qualities most often get in the way of good ol' common sense.A La Carte Government funding... the real democracy.
I don't understand the Whale oil reference...A positive force for one is different than a positive force for another. Free markets allow individuals to strive for any level of success they deem appropriate within the confines of the law. I think by and large I agree with you.
The sticking point is environmental issues. Heck I guess it
would extend to social health in general.
If the problem in question is a universal commodity (as in a
clean, healthy, sustainable environment) individual liberties
become suspect.
Are you a "Trekkie" by any chance?
"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few". These are the dirty details that can't be entrusted to the
market place. Personally I'm not to comfortable with the Gov.
minding the store either. :) All this is to get back to: commerce is not going to lead us
out of this unhealthy and unsustainable situation we find
ourselves in.
It most certainly is a powerful tool we need to use, but
I don't feel we can entrust our future to a blind process. I'll not argue with common sense. Thoughtful, enlightened,
common sense- all good ingredients.
...commerce is not going to lead us out of this unhealthy and unsustainable situation we find ourselves in.
How right you are, though it's not commerce that's the culprit but corporate capitalism.
Most of the Founding Fathers were as distrustful of corporations and banks as they were of central government, which is why they not only created a democratic republic with checks and balances but also strictly limited the lifespan and powers of corporations. A corporation's partners who "lobbied" Congress were charged with bribery and the corporate charter was revoked.
But, in spite of their dire warnings, the corporations and bankers came eventually to run the nation (apparently into the ground), to guarantee strict limits on government regulation (often writing the regulations themelves), and never looking beyond the bottom line and short-term profit, typically at the expense of not only the environment and the public good but also of their employees and the "structurally" unemployed (required by capitalism in order to limit wages).
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Wise decisions aren't limited to thoughtfullness nor enlightenment... it seems those qualities most often get in the way of good ol' common sense.
Yes, it's apparent that you have no use for either. And what you claim to be "common sense" is common only to unenlightened and thoughtless adherents of the mythology of "free market" capitalism.
"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." <!----><!----><!---->
- John Kenneth Galbraith<!----><!---->
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Edited 1/15/2009 9:02 pm ET by Riversong
Yes, it's apparent that you have no use for either. And what you claim to be "common sense" is common only to unenlightened and thoughtless adherents of the mythology of "free market" capitalism.
I'm unenlightened, thoughtless and have no common sense because I completely disagree with you.
I'm certainly glad you aren't calling me names, 'cause I bet you have some real doozies floating across overly fertile grey matter.
Still, though, mankind is better today than yesterday as a result of all that bad corporate capitalism finding ways to use resources more efficiently than yesterday. That will continue to be the case regardless of your wishfull thinking. I truly believe you are happy hating the system that brought you this wonderful technology (and every other technology) to chew me about my understanding of the world. I really do hope you gather satisfaction from this exchange we've had across time zones in the blink of an evolutionary eye. I've certainly enjoyed your enlightening me on my lack of understanding.
Capitalism is the source of the greenest use of resources. It drives mankind forward on its quest to produce the highest return for the fewest inputs. Competition continues to challenge the minds of those searching for currency profits through the service of making mankind healthier, more comfortable and happier.
You can argue with the truth to infinity, but it is still true.A La Carte Government funding... the real democracy.
I'm unenlightened, thoughtless and have no common sense because I completely disagree with you.
This has nothing whatsoever to do with me. It has to do with what you represent yourelf to be - the epitome of what Galbraith condemned.
Still, though, mankind is better today than yesterday as a result of all that bad corporate capitalism finding ways to use resources more efficiently than yesterday.
The only measure by which humanity is "better off" today is in having more stuff, which does not equate to a better life or more happiness - in fact, often equates to less.
And the only thing that Capitalism does "efficiently" is exploiting natural and human resources for the sake of short-term profit, leaving a dying world and wars and poverty and misery in its wake.
You can argue with the truth to infinity, but it is still true.
Of course. And God made the world in seven days because its all true. It must be nice to be so simple-minded.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
This has nothing whatsoever to do with me. It has to do with what you represent yourelf to be - the epitome of what Galbraith condemned.
Sure it does have to do with you and your wishes for the unwashed to follow your guiding light.
The only measure by which humanity is "better off" today is in having more stuff, which does not equate to a better life or more happiness - in fact, often equates to less.
We aren't measuring happiness. Remember... it's priceless. More useful stuff does, however, make most people happier. I know I'd be unhappy ripping all my building lumber with a handsaw.
And the only thing that Capitalism does "efficiently" is exploiting natural and human resources for the sake of short-term profit, leaving a dying world and wars and poverty and misery in its wake.
You're being exploited? I wasn't aware you'd had your freedom of choice taken from you. That's gotta blow big time. Maybe you just left it by your truck keys.
When we kill ourselves from exploiting Mother Earth's natural resources, what good will the leftovers be to the remaining creatures? We may as well use them efficiently while they are still able to be enjoyed.
Of course. And God made the world in seven days because its all true. It must be nice to be so simple-minded.
Theology isn't one of my interests nor is bantering about yours or anyone's beliefs on God. I do, however, take a wee bit of offense to being labeled "simple-minded". I know you mean it under the best of intentions, but I prefer to just be a reliable, loyal, analytical, precisionist type "C" personality who loves his family, liberty and an occasional hoppy beverage.
A La Carte Government funding... the real democracy.
So, how green is wood again?
Depends what state yer in... of mind.http://www.tvwsolar.com
I went down to the lobby
To make a small call out.
A pretty dancing girl was there,
And she began to shout,
"Go on back to see the gypsy.
He can move you from the rear,
Drive you from your fear,
Bring you through the mirror.
He did it in Las Vegas,
And he can do it here."
Pretty darned green, in my book.
I had a brief discussion yesterday with the local plans examiner. One of the things I asked him about was "continuous foundation walls". Sure seems like a lot of concrete to me. I think it would be nice to use point loads and reduce the need for all that concrete.
It's been a slow process, but I'm starting to see the intersection between what I consider "natural" building and what others call "green". I'm really glad for that, and for everyone who throws their opinions and ideas out there. Thanks to all.
So, piers? Fill me in on the idea.
Yeah, maybe piers, I'm not sure.
Just trying to look at the way I build, think about building, and questioning pretty much everything.
I've been thinking the same way ever since working in North Carolina, seeing how amazingly well the old houses on piers worked until they were closed in and insulated in the 1970s.I can say a lot more about that if you like, I got to look closely at some of these houses.Anyway, in almost all conditions there is no reason why piers would not work. And with modern building technology, the spans are no problem whatsoever.You are on to something good. Let's run with it a little.
Well...as usual, I just have a bunch of questions, Dave. Not much to contribute.
One of the issues the plans examiner mentioned, that I haven't researched yet, is that our seismic zone requires shear braced walls to be fastened to what he termed a "continuous footing" to counteract building tip over. Still, even if I take his wording literally, it seems as though a footing with limited stemwall, or piers, would still save concrete.
One positive thing about piers is the protected
outdoor space created. Lots of urban designers playing with that these days.
Here's how I see the overturn question; every model code has some language that says the code is not intended to preclude alternatives, and any good engineer can figure out the overturn.Seems to me that if the floor assembly is viewed as a system, that is, a shear membrane, it shouldn't be too difficult to demonstrate enough restraint against overturn.I got to put a few houses back on the piers after they were knocked off, and it was interesting. The only reason they came apart in the first place was the houses were doing pretty well until probably about the time of the energy crunch in the 1970s and they were insulated and closed in. This was back before Big Joe Lsiburek roamed the earth, and moisture control was not widely understood.Prior to closing the undersides of the house in they stayed pretty dry. Once wet, termites and rot soon followed. The connection to the piers was compromised, then you get a little bump from a big tree overturned onto the house (hurricane), and the house comes off the piers.From what I've seen, that would not be too hard to address. We just need to figure out how to take full advantage of the benefits of piers, like keeping the underside of the house dry while not letting the water and sewer freeze.As for the bearing competence of piers, in most all soil conditions there is no reason why they wouldn't work. Houses just don't usually weigh too much for that.As for the span, I think it's easy enough. Between engineered lumber and shear walls, I don't think the span between properly spaced piers is any concern at all.I'm all for it. If the concrete is not needed and not providing some real benefit, I say don't use it.
As for the bearing competence of piers, in most all soil conditions there is no reason why they wouldn't work. Houses just don't usually weigh too much for that.
You might be surprised if you added up all the live and dead loads. For instance, a two-storey house with a full concrete foundation in a 40 psf snow load area will have a uniform foundation load of 2463 lbs/linear foot. If on 1 ton/sf soil, a continuous footing need only be 15" wide, but a pier spaced 8' oc will require a footing of almost 10 SF. A pier along simply can't support that weight, even on better soil.
As for the span, I think it's easy enough. Between engineered lumber and shear walls, I don't think the span between properly spaced piers is any concern at all.
If you had to span that 8' with SPF #2 lumber, it would require a 10x14 timber.
I'm all for it. If the concrete is not needed and not providing some real benefit, I say don't use it.
I'm all for reducing concrete in a home, which is why I use either a shallow, frost-protected foundation or a rubble-trench foundation with shallow reinforced grade beam. I'm certain, though, that seismic and wind codes would frown on such simple solutions. And that's a bit odd, since high-rise buildings in seismic zones are built on teflon pads so that they are kinetically deboupled from the moving earth. My foundations serve the same function.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Well, heck, let's bat this one around the park a few times.<<You might be surprised if you added up all the live and dead loads . . . A pier along simply can't support that weight, even on better soil.>>I don't doubt your figures, and your point is well taken. There are certainly times when piers would not be a good idea.Nonetheless, I am once again confounded in these calculations by experience. There are homes all over the southern US that have been on piers for a long time.<<For instance, a two-storey house with a full concrete foundation in a 40 psf snow load area>>OK, how about a single story house, no concrete foundation [remember, we're on piers], no snow load? What does that weigh?Taking a somewhat different angle on piers, what about helical piers?We just recently put one end of a two story townhouse with a full concrete foundation and stucco exterior onto helical piers. Under engineering supervision, no less. Then we severely compromised the bearing conditions under what was formerly the foundation. Long story. Worked great.I can't help but think this is a useable idea. I spent a summer working under a diesel hammer setting wood pilings. The bearing competence is impressive.<<<<As for the span, I think it's easy enough. Between engineered lumber and shear walls, I don't think the span between properly spaced piers is any concern at all.>>>><<If you had to span that 8' with SPF #2 lumber, it would require a 10x14 timber.>>That's one way of looking at it. If the whole wall were a shear membrane you could cut that. If you were using engineered lumber, you could cut it again. I've carried roofs (a very heavy roof, 12"-14" beams on about 3' centers with 2x T&G and BUR, snow load and all) and the engineer had no problem with a couple of TJIs with 3/4" CDX top and bottom. A 16" box beam. He gave us up to 20' span. It worked.If were talking a wood frame wall with cell . . . cell . . .ahem, cellulose (see, you knew I could say that word), how much more weight?Remember, no foundation, just the wall.It can be done.<<<<I'm all for it. If the concrete is not needed and not providing some real benefit, I say don't use it.>>>><<I'm all for reducing concrete in a home, which is why I use either a shallow, frost-protected foundation or a rubble-trench foundation with shallow reinforced grade beam. I'm certain, though, that seismic and wind codes would frown on such simple solutions. And that's a bit odd, since high-rise buildings in seismic zones are built on teflon pads so that they are kinetically deboupled from the moving earth. My foundations serve the same function.>>I'm with you all the way on the rubble trench. It just makes good sense, and it works. Your sense of how it works is right on the money, btw. If the thrust line doesn't leave the middle third of the wall, the building cannot fall down. There are a lot of good reasons why the rubble trench keeps everything where it is supposed to be.I work in seismic 2B, and rubble trenches are widely accepted. I think if they were invented yesterday some engineering geek might pitch a b*tch, problem is, we have all these buildings that have been around for at least 100 years some as much as a tad over 300 years, and they are still standing up just fine.If I had my way we'd use a whole lot more of those.
One of my customers has a house on concrete piers that was built about 30 years ago. It looks to have maybe 4 yards of concrete under it as opposed to the 15-20 yards that a perimeter foundation would require. There are issues with securing the "crawl" space both visually and in terms of critter intrusion, but I don't see any problem with doing it at all.
Glad you joined in with that one.<<There are issues with securing the "crawl" space both visually and in terms of critter intrusion, but I don't see any problem with doing it at all.>>I've been thinking that over, and trying to critique approaches I've seen. The older way I've seen is lattice to keep the big critters out. Recently I saw a steel stud curtain wall with stucco, that seemed OK, too.Seems like it's worth a closer look.
With piers, you get great airflow/ventilation with all that that implies. Lattice work around here is done for the larger dogs, but most the smaller critters have to be discouraged with more violent methods. I have seen rather creative installations of insect screen that will work for a while.
Whatever happened to the discussion of logging practics and lumbering
Have any of us considered bamboo, it grows really fast, and claims to be very strong when properly joined. Just asking, I really have little to add other than goofy ideas.
Dan
<<Whatever happened to the discussion of logging practics and lumbering>>I'm still batting that one around, thinking about how to present it here. I want to contribute something useful to the question of what (specifically) is "green" without getting us off on an irrelevant tangent. Riversong gave us a great template in general terms in another thread, of course the challenge is to unpack that.The trouble is once again, what "responsible" forestry would look like depends completely upon what you are trying to accomplish, and on what scale.All human activity, anywhere, has some consequence for an ecosystem. At some point the question becomes as much about how much activity as what type of activity.Any human activity in a wild area has consequences for that particular area which are different than the effect that same behaviour would have upon other areas. Humans are part of nature, they are not part of wilderness.If we're not talking about wild areas, but managed industrial agriculture operations, that has implications for the ecosystem as well.I should have something pretty soon. I'm slow. <G><<Have any of us considered bamboo, it grows really fast, and claims to be very strong when properly joined. Just asking, I really have little to add other than goofy ideas.>>I think a lot of folks are looking at it. And your ideas are not goofy. Everyone who is willing to participate should do so.
Catskinner. I think there is such a diverse amount of logging that intelligent discussion can quickly divert to the same sort of disagreement that Riversong and I are in..
I've seen sustainable log harvesting done with Mules on a selective basis. Where the forest is carefully regulated to support a broad diversity of species. I've also seen clear cutting done and even helicopter harvesting which must be the ultimate in energy consumption..
Harvesting a farmers wood lot is differant than harvesting logs in steep or mountainous terrrain.
Beyond any doubt you are correct. We use the same word for many different activities.This is a very valuable discussion and I don't want to see it stalled into a flat spin over some minor details.The major point that I think is worth preserving is that green building happens in a much larger and entirely inescapable context, that is, the world we live in.If we can get past energy efficiency and embodied energy (useful topics but a small part of the big picture) to the wider questions of GB, it becomes evident that some wood is easily within the parameters of what we would agree is green (sounds like Riversong does an exemplary job with this), and some wood is definitely not.Again, it is contextual.
I'm really sorry that there is such a differance between Riversong and myself.. It's taking away from an otherwise great discussion.. I believe we both want to get to a similar goal. That is wise use of the earth we live on..
I have been rather steady in my support of a method of building which has value over more tradional methods of home construction. I accept that it isn't perfect..
The discussion is certainly contextual.. location, location, location.. what works and is green in one location may be completely wrong in another. What a DIY might do is certainly differant from what a Skilled contractor might achieve..
We can't even discuss money because of the variety of factors which affect the input.. Mississippi versis New York City.. North Dakota Versis LA
Rural versis urban.
Yep. <G>If we stay with this discussion long enough, we'll get to money.
I think there is such a diverse amount of logging that intelligent discussion can quickly divert to the same sort of disagreement that Riversong and I are in..
Frenchy, you're more than a bit confused. We don't have a "disagreement". That implies two equally-sound and well-supported opinions.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
I realize to someone who uses one number to reflect what hundreds of thousands of different loggers do against someone who has nearly 2 decades of working with actual sawmills and loggers a bit one sided. But go ahead and pontificate on your one number theory. It is a free world and you are entitled to your opinion..
I realize to someone who uses one number to reflect what hundreds of thousands of different loggers do against someone who has nearly 2 decades of working with actual sawmills and loggers a bit one sided.
What "one number" could you possibly mean, since I'm the only one in this discussion who has been supporting my arguments with dozens of reputable sources and irrefutable data.
I assume, then, that in your years of working with local loggers and mills, you've investigated "hundreds of thousands of different loggers"? I've also worked with loggers and foresters and sawmills for at least three decades, but I don't make generalizations from my own limited experience - I use data from qualified sources, like the US Forest Service.
It is a free world and you are entitled to your opinion.
How big of you. But I don't have opinions, I have facts.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
<<How big of you. But I don't have opinions, I have facts.>>You have a comprehensive set of carefully selected facts that support your opinion. The US Forest Service has its own agenda, too, and you know that.It's not too hard to present a factually accurate argument that is still badly biased.In the interest of getting something worthwhile out of this discussion, will you admit that the way you do forestry (or at least the kind of forestry you support) is a little different than the way some of the big companies do it?
You have a comprehensive set of carefully selected facts that support your opinion.
Now you're being as deliberately biased as Frenchy.
There are propagandists, like Frenchy, who develop weak and irrational opinions and then search desperately for facts or statements which might support them.
Then there are those, like myself, raised by two scientists and educators and weaned on the scientific method and deductive reasoning, who carefully investigate the available evidence, discern the reliability of witnesses and proponents, analyze the correlations and contradictions, weigh the alternatives, and then come to conclusions based on reason and sound judgement.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Another words all your training and experiance is that you trust your opinion more than others opinions..
Well that's obvious..
A lot of extremely well trained and educated people are completely wrong..
However you aren't completely wrong. In many things we're in agreement..
As far as I can determine our sole disagreement lies with foam vs. paper. You claim foam is evil and bad and I point out that paper isn't perfect either..
Can you deny that the creation of paper is the second greatest polluter in the nation?
Another words all your training and experiance is that you trust your opinion more than others opinions..
There is no expression in the English language "another words". As I've already pointed out the expression is "in other words".
I don't share "opinions" about building methods and materials. I share facts and very well informed conclusions. And I don't trust opinions of people who refuse to either consider the facts or employ logical reasoning in their arguments.
You claim foam is evil and bad and I point out that paper isn't perfect either..
Only simple-minded fundamentalists use terms such as "evil". I merely describe the known environmental impacts of foam - impacts which you continue to ignore. Instead, you turn the know hazards of foam plastics upside down and pretend that they're benefits, such as its inability to decompose.
A CIWMB (California Integrated Waste Management Board) Report finds that “in the categories of energy consumption, greenhouse gas effect, and total environmental effect, EPS’s environmental impacts were second highest, behind aluminum.â€
Discarded polystyrene does not biodegrade and is resistant to photolysis. Since the foamed kinds not only float on water, but also blow in the wind, it is often abundant in the outdoor environment, particularly along shores and waterways. According to the California Coastal Commission, it is now a principal component of marine debris.
Very little polystyrene is recycled and the small percentage that is does not create more polystyrene but is used as fillers in other plastics which then are not recycled and end up in the dump.
Can you deny that the creation of paper is the second greatest polluter in the nation?
I can't deny what cannot be rationally concluded. There are so many forms, types and impacts of pollution (air, water, soil, human, animal, flora, climatic...) that there is no way to compare one with another.
But, yes, the paper and pulp industry is a very polluting one (as are all industrial-scale enterprises), and one of the biggest impacts of paper is that it fills 35% of our landfills. So any diversion of paper from that wastestream is an environmental positive.
Another simple fact which you choose to ignore because it doesn't support your prejudices.
The bottom line is that no produce made from non-renewable fossil fuels can be considered green. Our exploitation of fossil fuels was the beginning of the end of a healthy environment. It is only because of fossil fuel use that the climate is now irrevocably changing and that species are going extinct at 1000 x the normal rate.
We are literally killing our life support system because of our addiction to fossil fuels. And our heavy use of concrete (the most used resource on earth after water) is one of the major contributors to climate change as well.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Ever hear of the hair of the dog?
Another words (grin) taking a little drink to minimise the agony of a hang over.
Urban areas really don't have enough trees to provide firewood for even a few hours of heat.. since the vast majority of Americans live in urban areas and not in New Hampshire oil or gas is used to heat many homes.
The better the insulation the longer the heat created is retained.. the less oil is imported and pollution created..
Frankly I'd rather have an insulation that does a better job than ground up paper.. but you use what you want.. it's still a free country..
Another words
My kids used to call the Red Lobster the Red Monster
Funny how we all hear things differently ala Emily Latela
Butterfly was once a flutterby
Edited 1/21/2009 6:31 am by homedesign
Butterfly was once a flutterby
It IS a flutterby, since that's exactly what it does: flutter by.
There's nothing buttery about a butter fly, and we all know that butter doesn't fly.
Just as a dragonfly is neither a dragon nor a fly - it's a skeeterhawk, since it dive bombs on 'skeeters and eats 'em up.
Some folks just can't tell a spade from a shovel!
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Edited 1/21/2009 5:53 pm ET by Riversong
noun
South Atlantic U.S.See dragonflydrag·on·fly (drăǵən-flī́)
noun Any of various large insects of the order Odonata or suborder Anisoptera, having a long slender body and two pairs of narrow, net-veined wings that are usually held outstretched while the insect is at rest. Also called Also called regionally darner, darning needle, devil's darning needle, ear sewer, mosquito fly, mosquito hawk, needle, skeeter hawk, snake doctor, snake feeder, spindle
The American Heritage¯ Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth EditionCopyright © 2005, 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated 2005.Published by Houghton Mifflin. All rights reserved.
About · Privacy · Advertise · Careers
© 2009 Ask.com
But the important question- Is it a
Sub
Grinder
or a Hoagie ?
Is it a SubGrinder or a Hoagie ?
I've found that it tastes better when it's a hoagie.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
I forgot Hero! I'm a Hoagie man too. Thought Vt. was land of the Grinder.
what about a "Po Boy"
stephen
So, true!
That's a Chicago thing right?
I spent the first 22 years of my life in the Chicagoland area and I've never heard of a "Po Boy".I don't think it's from Chicago, although maybe I just didn't get out enough. I do like to eat though...
Jon Blakemore RappahannockINC.com Fredericksburg, VA
New OrleansUsually called subs up here(ohio)--- but my mom(kentucky) always called 'em Heros Had a similar thing in New Orleans in 1980 called a "Po Boy" where they will put ANYTHING on 'em-------even oysters.
stephen
New Orleans it is.http://www.poboys.com/My penance will be a future visit and authentic Po-Boy experience.
my son was down there doing some volunteer work last spring and says they still make 'em--so you are good to go,:>)
stephen
Had an oyster po' boy in Durham, NC last week... don't care what they call them, as long as oysters are involved.http://www.tvwsolar.com
I went down to the lobby
To make a small call out.
A pretty dancing girl was there,
And she began to shout,
"Go on back to see the gypsy.
He can move you from the rear,
Drive you from your fear,
Bring you through the mirror.
He did it in Las Vegas,
And he can do it here."
Are you trying to tell me the data came form the US Forest Service? That's all?
That's like looking out a key hole to decide what time it is..
Are you trying to tell me the data came form the US Forest Service? That's all?
That's like looking out a key hole to decide what time it is..
You mean that little federal agency assigned to inventory the forest resources of the nation?
As opposed to your perspective from talking to millwrights and loggers in your neighborhood?
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Edited 1/20/2009 8:38 pm ET by Riversong
Having done a couple of houses and more additions than I can count on pier foundations, I have found a few drawbacks that occur consistently. Structurally developing sufficient shear is a problem without some solid walls. A hybrid with piers around the perimeter and a solid core works best. This also allows for an insulated space to bring utilities up without freezing.Plumbing is a real pain. Most runs have to be below the joists (and thus visible) and rough-in has to occur in two stages or sheathing the underside of the joists is near impossible. Traps, especially those for showers, are hard to insulate.The house has to be set high enough to allow you to work underneath which doesn't suit all sites or styles. It also makes handicapped access more difficult.Rather than just having a perimeter to seal, you now have the total floor area of joists that need sheathing and insulating. In most cases once the house is built the owners close in the perimeter with lattice or some other skirting. What you end up with is a bit like the underside of most mobiles: a poorly closed in crawlspace with any number of pests.None of this necessarily means piers are a bad idea. Especially for a small addition they are often a simple, cheap, non-intrusive way to build, but it is definitely a trade off which requires some thought.
helical piers could you expand on this?
30+ years ago an engineer said plywood box beams are strong as heck and don't take as much material to get loads of strenght. His caveat it is to low tech for most people!Does any one use steel I beams anymore?
I don't think you meant to reply to me as I don't know what helical piers are. :)I still use I beams. I have two that are exposed in my main floor ceiling. They are only 6" deep and span some 15 ft. They also work as an interesting element to break up the ceiling and I sometimes hang from the bottom chord to do chin-ups.
sorry for stepping on you finger (bad pun intended), must have forgot to check the to box?
Dang digital tengs.
I see a lot more folks useing I beams around here, and termites and siesmec are not issues.Just thought with I beams you could span loads and keep the rim termite free. Don't know the energy input for steel vs concrete et al, but in its place, might be a good alternative. Also metal prices are falling.
Helical piers look like big screws or a big auger. They are driven with a hydraulic unit that also measures resistance through the pressure. At a certain resistance in certain soil you know a real lot about the mechanical properties of the pier.Run a web search on helical piers, they are interesting.As for box beams, yes, they are very strong under evenly distributed load. Not difficult engineering, but not a DIY job, either.Steel? Yeah, I like using it. Anyone who is into green building will say there is no such thing as an un-precious metal, so I would not use it indiscriminately, but if it's the best choice for the job, it's great.
A hybrid with piers around the perimeter and a solid core works best. This also allows for an insulated space to bring utilities up without freezing. Another example of the old timers being way ahead of us. Most of the Greek Revivals around here have a small basement with
the rest being a crawlspace. Best of both worlds.
Smaller hole to dig with less stone to lay. While still providing
a root cellar (mostly full of furnaces and water heaters now). While the rest goes from ground to house as quickly as possible.
To quickly usually, as I spend to much time crawling around under there
trying to pour footings and replacing rotten plates.
Henley,
When you cut and paste a quote from someone else, please change the color or put it in "quotes" or <carrots> so we can differentiate it from your own words.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
My browser doesn't support the color thing. There have been many discussions about it. In short, I would if I could.
My browser doesn't support the color thing.
Then use one of the other two options I suggested, such as everyone else does.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
"My browser doesn't support the color thing."All you have to do is include the following code in your post:<font color=blue>Text here to have the color changed.</font>Then, every place where you need a new paragraph just write <p>Finally, select the "Check here if HTML tags are in the message (not including signature)." down below. Not that big of a deal.
Jon Blakemore RappahannockINC.com Fredericksburg, VA
Let's see, like this-
All you have to do is include the following code in your post:
Thanks!
What you end up with is a bit like the underside of most mobiles: a poorly closed in crawlspace with any number of pests. I think many of those short comings come from trying to use
piers to replicate a "normal" house. Riversong posted a cool picture of an entirely different take
on a "house". Build to suite the material and some of those problems
go away. It's elevated and uses the under belly as a design statement.
In fact being elevated can make access to the mechanicals easier.
Many other aspects but I don't have the picture in front of me.
View Image
View Image
Cool.
Riversong posted a cool picture of an entirely different take on a "house". Build to suite the material and some of those problemsgo away.
But, as you can see from the pictures, it invites more "problems" such as becoming just another place to store materials.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
I remember your aversion to excess belongings. One
I share wholeheartedly. We are in the minority on that one.
I feel it's more appropriate to accommodate peoples stuff
then to deny them adequate space for it. Besides that could be a good place for the livestock!
"I think many of those short comings come from trying to use
piers to replicate a "normal" house."I have found most people try and "domesticate" elements of the design that don't look like what their neighbor has. Another advantage of piers is in areas prone to flooding. Some of the rebuilding in New Orleans had some really interesting pier construction. They do tend to be almost a story off the ground which, as you say, can eliminate some of the problems I have found.
<<Structurally developing sufficient shear is a problem without some solid walls. A hybrid with piers around the perimeter and a solid core works best. This also allows for an insulated space to bring utilities up without freezing.>>Seems like I remember seeing some of the older houses in Southern New England done that way, especially the ones on steep hills.<<None of this necessarily means piers are a bad idea. Especially for a small addition they are often a simple, cheap, non-intrusive way to build, but it is definitely a trade off which requires some thought.>>Thank you -- there is no substitute for experience.
I was poking around the Building Science website recently and read an opinion (supported with phrases like "delta T" and other stuff over my head) that in an unconditioned crawlspace - by far the most common type around here - it would be far more effective to hold the (fiberglass) insulation to the bottom of the floor joists, then apply a continuous layer of rigid insulation to the bottom of the floor joists.
Seemed logical enough. From there it doesn't seem like much of a stretch to sheath the bottom of the rigid insulation to protect it.
I'm thinking all the plumbing could be carefully preplanned for and encased in a small core(s), similar to what someone posted earlier about "root cellers".
What you describe is exactly the technique we used in the pole buildings. One additional item was the use of foil above the rigid insulation.
They can't get your Goat if you don't tell them where it is hidden.
One additional item was the use of foil above the rigid insulation.
If you're bringing the fiberglass to the bottom of the joist, as described, then the foil will do nothing. A radiant barrier has to have an air space next to it. And you're placing a wrong-side in winter vapor barrier on the floor assembly, one that will also contain any floor leaks.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
I should not have used the word "Exact" in my reply, I overlooked his statement of insulation to the bottom of the joists. The floor was insulated to the code standards of the time (R-19 for the early houses I did like this , R-30 for the later ones) in all the houses the batt insulation was held high in the joist space (joists were commonly 2x 12) so there was an airspace for the radiant barrier to work.
Theory at the time was that there was little convective heat loss or conductive heat loss down through the floor in comparison to the walls, roof so a radiant barrier at the floor made sense to the thinking at the time. (Pre Joe & Building Science days)
As for vapor diffusion little vapor is transmitted through the glue line of the plywood floor and the plumbing was always enclosed within a service space that was ground coupled to prevent freezing. Not sure I understand what you mean by "floor leaks". If you are referring to actual water leaking into the floor cavity then the foil won't have much effect because the underside of the joists was sheathed with CDX ply that would trap the leaking water anyway.
They can't get your Goat if you don't tell them where it is hidden.
Theory at the time was that there was little convective heat loss or conductive heat loss down through the floor in comparison to the walls, roof so a radiant barrier at the floor made sense to the thinking at the time. (Pre Joe & Building Science days)
A radiant air space is most effective in a floor with heat moving downward. It's possible to get up to R-9 in a 4" air gap with one low-emissivity surface (foil).
What has Joe or others said to disagree with this, other than perhaps the problem with dust on the surface of the foil?
Not sure I understand what you mean by "floor leaks". If you are referring to actual water leaking into the floor cavity then the foil won't have much effect because the underside of the joists was sheathed with CDX ply that would trap the leaking water anyway.
Yes, I was refering to leaks from mopping or spills or plumbing leaks. I don't like to put any kind of water impermeable barrier underneath an exposed floor. I want the assembly to be able to dry to the exterior.
While CDX has a dry cup permeability of about 0.75, it has a wet cup perm of 3.5 - so as it gets soaked it will allow water vapor (but not liquid water) to pass.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
I am aware of where the radiant barrier is most effective. That is why I installed it there.
Nothing Joe said disagrees with that. I was simply commenting that this was before Joe and Building Sciences research into quantifying and publishing to a wide audience the mechanisms of actual heat loss and vapor flow in houses. Thanks for the input on the plywood. How would you keep vermin out of a pier or post supported buildings floor insulation?
What insulation do you use in the floor systems of your dwellings and is it vermin proof?
Edited 1/18/2009 11:16 pm by dovetail97128
How would you keep vermin out of a pier or post supported buildings floor insulation?What insulation do you use in the floor systems of your dwellings and is it vermin proof?
For exposed floor systems, I use fiberglass batts (because they are moisture tolerant) and underlay the joists with EPS foam board for thermal break and air barrier, and then install 1/2" hardware cloth under that to protect from rodents.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
From there it doesn't seem like much of a stretch to sheath the bottom of the rigid insulation to protect it.
Except the foam board will still allow some drying downward. Put CDX or some such vapor barrier and you'll trap moisture in the floor assembly.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Seems reasonable.With a little thought there ought to be a way to take care of any condensation, exactly as we do in roofs.I'd like to try this. I don't see how the moisture control challenge is insurmountable, we already figure it out somehow in roofs and floors that overhang.
I have built quite a few houses on poles. Several with no concrete at all except the flat work for drives and parking. Even did one where the garage floor is concrete on wood framing supported by poles.
Same issues with the critters and the closing off the underside as concrete pier houses or buildings, other than that not a very difficult engineering feat. Doubt the style of construction would pass the "Green" and "EE" test posed by some though because of the preservative used in the poles.
They can't get your Goat if you don't tell them where it is hidden.
You could pour concrete columns, couldn't you? Replace the pressure treated wood with concrete?
The engineering would be different as the poles maintain a resistance to bending all the way to the tops of them. Simple engineering fix though in the attachment of the structure to the concrete piers.
They can't get your Goat if you don't tell them where it is hidden.
<<I have built quite a few houses on poles.>>I'd like to read more about your experience with that.<<Doubt the style of construction would pass the "Green" and "EE" test posed by some though because of the preservative used in the poles.>>I think it's just about time to revisit the topic of "what is green" -- EE and energy efficiency are two small but significant components of a much larger and far more comprehensive design approach.
Homes like this were popular among a certain set of people here back in the late 70's, technique was much the same as that used for pole barns.
Most of the homes weren't much different than a pier and beam home.
Use treated posts instead of the concrete piers. Posts were set to engineer calculated depths , post sat nothing more than a gravel bed at the bottom of the hole then had gravel tamped around them though on occasion we had to pour a small concrete pad at the bottom of the hole.
Built up girders connected the posts and joists were either hung between the girders or set atop them.
Some single story homes then went to platform framing for the upper structure, some (mostly 2 story structures) the poles themselves carried through and supported the roof structure. In the 2 story homes wall panels were framed to fit between posts or enclose the posts by being supported on the girders/joist system that was run beyond the exterior of the post line.
A utility core was always built to handle the incoming and outgoing utilities. There was an article in "Frame Building News" , Jan. 2000 edition (A Challenging Post Framed House)on one of the houses I worked on. Owner was a premier wood products engineer here in Ore. who had extensive training and real world practice on pole structures. His house is a basic octagon with descending portions of smaller octagons attached to the main structure as the house flows a hillside. It is a hybrid in that in some areas posts run full height and in others the structure is platform framed.
It has a seasonal creek that runs beneath the structure as a water feature. Couple of scanned pics of it attached.
They can't get your Goat if you don't tell them where it is hidden.
Very cool. Thanks!
One of the more fun projects I have worked on for sure. Design as you go and an involved onsite engineer to figure the stuff out for ya!
(Plus he wore a set of bags and got dirty, that's him on the step ladder in the one pic!)
They can't get your Goat if you don't tell them where it is hidden.
Often, (wish it were always) regulation/legislation is implemented as a "social" loss control because of a newly discovered hazard. By making law, legislators insure that all competitors have a common "fixed social cost" to include in their business models. Those failing to follow those laws risk potentially catastrophic damages and failure.
Except, of coure, for those corporations large and wealthy enough to buy (excuse me lobby) politicians in order to either have regulators hamstrung or regulations written by the industry for their own benefit (as Cheney did as soon as he took office with his secret Energy Task Force, which decided to take out Saddam Hussein for the benefit of the oil company and Halliburton CEOs who sat on it).
But, other than graft, corruption, billions in lobbying payola, markets manipulated by Madison Avenue, preferential subsidies and liability limitation for selected industries.... the "free" market works beautifully.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
the only true measure is moneyMoney is the only constant in measuring what resources are used for any given product. I'd say, the entire concept of "Green" building is to abandon that
very paradigm. Rampant consumerism, and pursuit of momentary profits are the principals at work in the current situation, and recent history. Free markets have proven to be strong system of economic growth. that's not to say they make for wise societal decisions. Money can only dictate an immediate course of action. One that will
yield fruits from any given transaction.
What it can't do is protect and nourish the populace. There is no
mechanism for the betterment of future generations. No, I have to disagree.
Money, is not a "real World" bottom line. It is a tool, that
is often misused and almost universally misunderstood. What ever "Green" ultimately means, it is looking beyond
immediate and selfish gains.
Could be a question of semantics.
What else can it be but semantics? We're discussing words and concepts.
I agree the more efficiently we use a given material reduces waist.
Actually by consuming less we reduce our waist. Resource-efficiency reduces waste.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
"The highest output for the least input maximizes the use of resources."
I could agree, IF, ALL costs were in the accounting -
most every product/behavior contain costs that are not accounted - water use/pollution, CO2, air pollution, and on - -
then there are govt subsidies that distort the input/output ratio - corn is subsidized and so distorts the true cost of ethanol (itself subsidized) - forest circus builds roads for logging = distortion of input/output ratio - and on and on -
the following is an important concept in regards to life on earth and the true cost of things -
""The Tragedy of the Commons" is an influential article written by Garrett Hardin and first published in the journal Science in 1968.[1] The article describes a dilemma in which multiple individuals acting independently in their own self-interest can ultimately destroy a shared resource even where it is clear that it is not in anyone's long term interest for this to happen. The essence of the commons dilemma has been discussed by theorists since ancient times, but not under that name. It has also been studied more recently, such as in game theory....
....The metaphor illustrates the argument that free access and unrestricted demand for a finite resource ultimately dooms the resource through over-exploitation. This occurs because the benefits of exploitation accrue to individuals or groups, each of whom is motivated to maximize use of the resource to the point in which they become reliant on it, while the costs of the exploitation are borne by all those to whom the resource is available (which may be a wider class of individuals than those who are exploiting it). This, in turn, causes demand for the resource to increase, which causes the problem to snowball to the point that the resource is exhausted. The rate at which exhaustion of the resource is realized depends primarily on three factors: the number of users wanting to consume the commons, the consumptiveness of their uses, and the relative robustness of the commons....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons "there's enough for everyone"
The highest output for the least input maximizes the use of resources.
Green is about minimizing, not maximizing, the use of resources.
And, yet again, you use vague terms without defining them.
What is the "highest output? And what inputs are you including to determine "least input? Natural resources, fossil fuels, human labor, financial capital, human suffering?
Without defining your terms, the statement is meaningless.
If you're trying to describe"efficiency" (which is not the same thing as "green"), then a far better definition is: using the fewest resources to achieve a desired output.
But that is not a definition of "green" since it is only a measure of the efficiency by which we achieve our desires, regardless of whether those goals are beneficial or destructive.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
"Green is about minimizing, not maximizing, the use of resources."
I disagree.
Maximum output per unit of input (as measured by currency) is Green.
Minimum input for desired output (as measured by currency) is Green.
These are not limited by the TYPE of input or output (resources).
Those who purchase a good or service determine the desired output (demand).
You want to define Green as minimizing desired output.... that's just telling people what to do.A La Carte Government funding... the real democracy.
Maximum output per unit of input (as measured by currency) is Green.
Only as long as you measure green by greenbacks. Taking your maxim to its logical conclusion, filling the world with the maximum amount of stuff would be "green".
Those who purchase a good or service determine the desired output (demand).
Pure economics - nothing whatsoever do to with "green". People desire all kinds of things which destroy the environment and our own life-support systems. Heck, people demand all kinds of things which destroy their own health. Ain't even close to "green".
You want to define Green as minimizing desired output.... that's just telling people what to do.
It's "telling people what to do" only if they really want to live "green" instead of using the term "green" to greenwash a completely unsustainable lifestyle, as you keep attempting to do.
Your definitions are about as close to "green" as Twinkies are to being a health food.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
It's "telling people what to do" only if they really want to live "green" instead of using the term "green" to greenwash a completely unsustainable lifestyle, as you keep attempting to do.
I'm explaining my definition of Green.
I think your definition and assumptions are wrong.A La Carte Government funding... the real democracy.
I'm explaining my definition of Green.
What you're describing is nothing but greenwashing - calling a thoroughly wasteful and completely unsustainable economy "green" in order to make yourself feel better or to sell some snakeoil to unsuspecting customers.
Get outside and take a walk in the woods if you want to get an idea about what green really means. Almost nothing in modern human culture is green.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Wood, like any natural resource, is "green" only if used responsibly and sustainably.
But wood has innate advantages that no other building material has:
Forests, Carbon and Climate Change: A Synthesis of Science Findings
USING WOOD PRODUCTS TO REDUCE GLOBAL WARMING
The use of wood products can reduce the amount of CO2, a major greenhouse gas, in the atmosphere, which in turn may reduce global warming. Wood can accomplish this in several ways: storing carbon in forest and wood products, as substitution for fossil-fuel intensive products like concrete and steel in housing construction, and as biomass that replaces fossil fuels to generate process heat and electricity (half of energy used in the wood products industry is from waste wood). When trees absorb CO2 from the atmosphere, carbon is stored in wood at about 50% of its mass. Trees release oxygen back to the atmosphere. The carbon remains in wood in a forest or product until it is either combusted, or chemically or biologically decomposed, returning CO2 to the atmosphere. A significant amount of carbon is stored in the forest and in wood products for a long period of time. Carbon is stored in wood products in houses, which remain in service, on average, for at least 80 years; at the end of its service life it is stored in modern landfills for even greater duration (wood buried in landfills does not decompose). Total carbon stored in wood products, or saved when wood is substituted for a material such as concrete in house framing, can be greater than the total carbon sequestered in a forest where no action is taken in terms of harvesting, fire or biological damage.
Solar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Edited 1/11/2009 9:45 pm ET by Riversong
If you mean how green is it to build with wood, I think it has the potential to be very green.
Just for example, let's say you own a woodlot and mill enough lumber from that lot to frame a house that stands for 100 years.
Over the same 100 years the seedlings you replanted in the woodlot after harvesting the original logs have grown to replace at least a similar amount of comparable wood.
That would be "sustainable", wouldn't it?
And of course, you can't treat the lumber used to build the house with anything harmful to the environment so that it can decompose and nourish another generation of vegetation when it outlives it's useful life as a house part.
So you wouldn't be "downcycling" that resource, right?
And you COULD harvest those logs and build that house without the use of electricity (and save any generation pollution) if you really wanted to take it to an extreme green experience.
All the sawdust and off cuts, from the harvesting of the logs, right down to the shavings from the jackplane used to straighten the floorboards could just mulch right back into Mother Earth - no harm done.
Yes. All in all, wood can be a very green choice. At least in my opinion.
Jim
That's fine except the vast majority of Americans live in urban environments..
Take those 303 million people and use the amount of land you've got devoted to growing replacement trees and we quickly run out of country long before we run out of people..
So based on current population that's not sustainable..
Who do you suggest we kill to make room for your plan? Any volunteers?
You gotta be related my in-laws...http://www.tvwsolar.com
I went down to the lobby
To make a small call out.
A pretty dancing girl was there,
And she began to shout,
"Go on back to see the gypsy.
He can move you from the rear,
Drive you from your fear,
Bring you through the mirror.
He did it in Las Vegas,
And he can do it here."
How many acres does it take to harvest enough trees to build a home?
Jon Blakemore RappahannockINC.com Fredericksburg, VA
One other question is involved.. How much time?
Well there are all sorts of other questions such as average rainfall required to grow trees and how much is suitable soil.. (Trees don't grow well in rocks) altitude and all the rest of the issues required to grow trees..
Let's set all that aside for now and consider that America has less than 2% of her old growth forests left..
That means much of the wood that grew originally has been replaced with plantation grown trees, monoculture..
I'm sorry but that's not sustainable..
"One other question is involved.. How much time?
Well there are all sorts of other questions such as average rainfall required to grow trees and how much is suitable soil.. (Trees don't grow well in rocks) altitude and all the rest of the issues required to grow trees.."
Frenchy,
You made a statement:
"Take those 303 million people and use the amount of land you've got devoted to growing replacement trees and we quickly run out of country long before we run out of people..
So based on current population that's not sustainable.."
I'm asking how many acres it takes to produce enough wood to build a home. If you're determining that there is not enough land for 303 million people, you must know how many acres it takes.That is what I'm trying to figure out.
Jon Blakemore RappahannockINC.com Fredericksburg, VA
Jon
simple math
America has less than 2% of her old growth forests left. That's in only about 200 years..
Actaully I suspect we've gone from 80% to less than 2% in just the last 50 years..
America has less than 2% of her old growth forests left. That's in only about 200 years..
Actaully I suspect we've gone from 80% to less than 2% in just the last 50 years..
Vermont has gone from 80% forested in the 18th century, to 80% deforested in the 19th century, to 80% forested today. And that happened as the human population and number of homes expanded.
It's not hard to reverse these trends.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Gone from 80% forested to 80% deforested and back again..
At what cost?
No longer do those beloved white pine grow so straight and strong as to form the basis of masts coveted by the English Navy. Her forests are no longer the home of broad bloodiest. Chestnut isn't as common as dandelions and many other species are threatened.
Gone from 80% forested to 80% deforested and back again..
At what cost?
Actually, it cost nothing since it happened on its own in a natural forest progression once the sheep pastures were abandoned.
Now Vermont's forests are teeming with a vibrant silvan community of life and there's more than enough woodland for sustainable harvesting of lumber and fuel wood as well as wild game of every sort.
25 Vermont schools are heated with wood-chip boilers and our biggest city, Burlington, has a wood-fire electrical generation plant.
The natural regeneration of Vermont's forests has cost nothing and offered almost immeasurable benefits.
We have more than 500 self-employed loggers, and 12,000 people working in our forest products industry, 85% of whom work close to home. We have 2 large veneer mills, 200 sawmills, and cut a million cords of wood a year, bringing more than a billion dollars into Vermont.
We produce 100 million board feet of hardwood lumber, and another 100 million board feet of softwood lumber. There are more than 600 wood product manufacturers or craftspeople in the state, mostly in the more rural areas.
6% of the state's energy comes from wood, including two wood-fired electrical generation plants and two major office complexes heated exclusively with wood as well as industrial plants and many homes. Our wood-based energy is worth more than $34 million a year.
I'd say we're doing OK by our forests. They also provide almost unlimited recreational opportunities, including the VAST snowmachine trail network, the Long Trail which is the oldest wilderness trail system in the nation, and a bottom-to-top of state cross-country ski trail, the Catamount.
Speaking of Catamount, we also have mountain lions returning to Vermont, a large moose population, too many deer to count, black bear, fisher, coyote, fox and wild turkeys in every corn field.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
What happened to the sheep and the markets and mills they fed?
They can't get your Goat if you don't tell them where it is hidden.
What happened to the sheep and the markets and mills they fed?
I guess there isn't the same market for mutton there used to be, or for wool with all the competition from polyester fleece.
But the last two farm families who tried to import some beautiful Friesian sheep had their flocks seized and destroyed by the USDA for fear, falsely based, on "mad sheep disease.
http://www.chelseagreen.com/bookstore/item/madsheep
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Actually I was asking about the trade off from farm to timberland. There were thousands employed in Vermont's wool trade, mills etc.
Trying to see what the trade offs were for the state as sheep farming died out and the trees regrew. I don't believe anything has only an upside.
They can't get your Goat if you don't tell them where it is hidden.
Actually I was asking about the trade off from farm to timberland.
The tradeoff is that we are now only 38% food self-sufficient. But that had as much to do with inmigration of "flatlanders" as it did the shift from farm to woodland.
Heck, if it weren't for the early flatlanders (mostly from Taxachusetts), Vermont would still be an independent republic.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Riversong--
You have mentioned wood as a heat source a few times in this and "the other" green building discussion, and you state that it is the only heat source in your green homes (other than the primary solar source.) Just out of curiousity, how efficient is wood when used this way? Is there available on line a measure of carbon footprint of using wood as a heat source across various "burning" technologies?
I remember having a now-old technology but fashionable at the time air-tight wood burning stove in the house where I used to live, and remember that technology resulting in a substantial amount of pollution. How advanced are the combustion technologies today?
If everyone in the U.S. used wood as a heat source, do you think this would be a good or bad thing?
Thanks, Steve
You have mentioned wood as a heat source a few times in this and "the other" green building discussion, and you state that it is the only heat source in your green homes (other than the primary solar source.)
First, I don't consider the houses I build to be "green", as I still use some non-natural materials, and not all my houses have only wood and solar heat.
Just out of curiousity, how efficient is wood when used this way? Is there available on line a measure of carbon footprint of using wood as a heat source across various "burning" technologies?
How efficient compared to what? As I've said, using renewable cellulosic fuels is the only carbon-neutral or carbon negative fuel-using heating technology (except for burning dung).
I remember having a now-old technology but fashionable at the time air-tight wood burning stove in the house where I used to live, and remember that technology resulting in a substantial amount of pollution. How advanced are the combustion technologies today?
Since 1988, the EPA has set strict limits on particulate emissions from new wood-burning appliances:
EPA's mandatory smoke emission limit for wood stoves is 7.5 grams of smoke per hour (g/h) for non-catalytic stoves, and 4.1 g/h for catalytic stoves. Today, all wood stoves and fireplace inserts, and some factory-built fireplaces, sold in the United States must meet this limit. Stove manufacturers have improved their combustion technologies over the years, and now some newer stoves have certified emissions in the 1 to 4 g/h range.
Even the new outdoor wood boilers, notoriously dirty and unregulated, now have a voluntary two-phase EPA compliance program to move them towards 6.1 g/hr average particulate emissions.
If everyone in the U.S. used wood as a heat source, do you think this would be a good or bad thing?
If everyone in the US did the same of anything, it would have too large an impact on the environment. There are too many of us living a far too consumptive lifestyle.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Taxachusetts Is that anywhere near Pennsyltucky ?
riversong,
my oldest son just came back from visiting his girlfriend in Vermont.
the girlfriend, in previous conversations has made clear that Vermont is a place like no other-- for example she notes that since vermont is so small-- if you get on a plane almost anywhere flying to vermont there will be 3-4 people you know on the same flight. my son(writer,runner,rockclimber and ever so slightly "slacker") was pretty impressed with what he saw of Burlington and surrounding small towns( I guess they are ALL small towns actually?) But- I notice that since my son became involved with the girlfriend from vermont-- it's really suprising how OFTEN Vermont actually comes up in the media-- typically in an article about Locavores, small scale sustainable businesses, co-operative ventures among local businesses, artisanal cheese and what have you. It often sounds like a small business paradise, but I am sure there is a flip side as well.
the girlfriend explains to us- that in Vermont-even the Republicans would be considered liberal-------- but that the democrats aren't so much extreme liberals as EVERYONE,in general is essentially libertarian at any rate----I won't suprise me if my son ends up in Vermont-with or without the girlfriend
stephen
It often sounds like a small business paradise, but I am sure there is a flip side as well.
For some people, Vermont's flip side is called winter. Like my state, Maine, Vermont's climate keeps out a lot of people. If you hunt, fish, ski, snowshoe or just like to play in the snow, our climate is OK.
Except for blackfly season.
Edited 1/13/2009 11:04 am ET by smslaw
For some people, Vermont's flip side is called winter.
Actually, we get the most tourists here in the Mad River Valley in winter. Two major ski destinations, among the 18 in the state.
And not a one of them can drive worth a dam on snowy/icy roads.
Our "bad" season - during which the natives leave town - is mud season.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Edited 1/13/2009 3:53 pm ET by Riversong
flatlander?- Pshaw!
actually- we are from akron( from the greek akros?), summit county( self explanatory) Ohio highest point on the canal-----heck--there is a continental divide a 5 minute bike ride from my house--flat lander indeed,:>) Actually--part of what my son was doing was walking up your highest hill--Mt. Mansfield? He says 30 plus inches of snow-they went to approx. 100 meters below the summit when things got pretty icy--ageed 1 set of crampons between 3 people wasn't smart--and turned back he now also thinks XC skiing is pretty cool--yet another non-renumerative sport to pour his energies into,LOLStephen
Actually--part of what my son was doing was walking up your highest hill--Mt. Mansfield?
Ain't no hill. That 4395' mountain, with a summit above timberline, can (as your son discovered) pose a formidable challenge to winter ascents.
He says 30 plus inches of snow-they went to approx. 100 meters below the summit when things got pretty icy--ageed 1 set of crampons between 3 people wasn't smart--and turned back
I attempted the summit with a Green Mountain Club group a couple weekends ago, and the wind chill turned us back (we had snowshoes and no crampons).
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
I've spent many a day crawling up and around that mountain. A special place indeed. For me the next twenty miles or so north from there on the long trail are some of the most pleasant to walk anywhere.
Only you east coasters would consider a mere 5000 ft. as a Mountain. <grin>
Considering your state tops out at 2301, I'd not be starting anything.Spheramid Enterprises Architectural Woodworks
Repairs, Remodeling, Restorations
They kill Prophets, for Profits.
Well at least I don't restrict my vision to a few hundred miles.. I've actually climbed the Sierra Nevada's/Rocky's and understand what real mountains are..
" 1 set of crampons between 3 people wasn't smart"Crampons? Things sure have changed. I climbed Mt. Mansfield as part of a group of students from Montreal's Dawson College in 1978. We didn't make the summit either as one girl lost the heel on her boot. '78 was the height of disco and a lot of us were wearing platform boots.
My first wife used to have me bury them on the trail..seems bears like them every month.Spheramid Enterprises Architectural Woodworks
Repairs, Remodeling, Restorations
They kill Prophets, for Profits.
yes- but did you do it in the middle of winter in 3 feet of snow?I don't know for sure-- but I get the idea that in the summer my son and his girlfriend( she is actually a better XC runner) -would have mostly run up as a training run
stephen
at any rate----I won't suprise me if my son ends up in Vermont-with or without the girlfriend
Oh no! Not another flatlander ;-)
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
There are negative aspects of Vermont of course. I would never be disparaging of the state but I will talk about
some of it's problems. There are many poor people in that state. Very poor.
As usual social and economic success has passed them by. With very rural isolated people everywhere you end up
with a mix of social problems and unique culture.
So, as to be expected there are many domestic abuse issues
and alcoholism. At odds with that is the huge influx of Flatlanders and cityfolk.
Large numbers of wealthy people have bought up and developed a big
portion of the state.
And yes that has brought both good and bad.
Some areas have become your typical "Shopping" centers. Granted they tend to be generally pretty and quaint but it is business as usual
in what once was a thriving family farm. Burlington is one of my favorite city hands down.
Yet it is no different in that there is a serious drug trade, many
unemployed, and all the usual host of urban problems.
All that said, I believe in many ways Vermont is a positive example
of what community can accomplish.
Not to disagree with you because I do think you are on the right track but this PDF from Vermont dated 2005 has some different figures than you have posted. http://www.vtfpr.org/includes/documents/ecimportfor.pdf Plus what has the cost to Vermont feeding Vermont been since the resurgence of the forest land? As of the latest figures I have seen Vermont supplies much less than 38% of it's own food (38% being the theoretical level that could be supplied if all food stuffs stayed in Vermont which they don't they are exported.) .
Edited 1/12/2009 9:55 pm by dovetail97128
As of the latest figures I have seen Vermont supplies much less than 38% of it's own food
Yup, it's a problem. But we're making great strides to redress this problem. Organic farms are legion in Vermont, as are CSAs and farmer's markets. There are still family dairy farms, though not many, and several have gone organic. Vermont's organic farming association http://www.nofavt.org/ is probably as active as any in the nation.
We have a vibrant Localvore movement http://www.vermontlocalvore.org/, several restaurants that buy only Vermont foods, and local food coops scattered in little gores and hamlets.
The Vermont Food Bank http://www.vtfoodbank.org/, that supplies food to the 270 local food pantries, works closely with farmers to get fresh, organic produce to the hungry. And I just helped close the deal for the Food Bank to buy it's own farm here in the Mad River Valley so they can guarantee fresh healthy food to the state's poor.
And there is a state-wide Farm-to-School program http://www.farmtoschool.org/VT/programs.htm to get fresh vegetables to our school lunch programs and to encourage students to learn to grow their own.
So, we're making headway.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Stop thinking locally start thinking at least with regard to this nation.. but globally would be better..
Minnesota is in a similar position In 1950 a survey of all larger trees (I think they used 20" as a standard reveled only 6 million trees with only a few hundred large white pines left..
Today we have over 22 million trees of the same size or bigger.. You speak of diversity. I'll make you species for species and a few extra besides.. (American bald eagles, timber wolves.) etc..
That does not mean that Vermont can supply the rest of the country with enough sustainable wood to meet the national needs.. Nor can Minnesota etc.. Even Russia with it's vast untapped siberian forests cannot supply enough wood to sustainably meet the worlds needs. Not to mention the energy cost of distribution..
I love and celebrate wood. However I accept it's weaknesses as well. Those old growth white oak logs that were harvested for use in my home. Would have released their carbon back into the atmosphere to add to the global warming issue if I had not paid to have them harvested and encapsulated inside my home..
I'm proud that they were sustainable harvested leaving less mature trees to grow.. I also accept that using a cable skidder was the only way to remove the bole from the steep terrain there were on . No team of mules could have dragged those beasts up that steep of hill. So yes we used chain saws to harvest them and yes we used diesel fuel to retrieve them and haul them to the mill.
I'm sure that your harvests use the same approach. Knowing the fincial constrants of many people I suspect that more than a little clear cutting goes on in your state as well. (as it does in my state)
By the way heating with wood while cheap is hard on the atmosphere..
Frenchy-- I think you are stating things that are your opinion-as fact---without them necissarily BEING facts
and-- maybe you are putting words in riversongs mouth----that were not really there???I would suspect that his position is- that he does what is feasible and green for vermont--I don't think he implies what is suitable for Vermont--is also green in LasVegas you are dodging some important questions- Jon asked , I believe, something to the effect of"how many trees go into a house?"-which you didn't answerI would ask
1)what is a sustainable sized house?
2) how many trees( or board feet if you prefer) need to go into that house?
3) how many houses,annually, NEED to be built each year?
4) what does it take to produce the lumber for those houses? I don't think we can really proclaim the situation sustainable-or not sustainable-without having actual answers to those 4 questions givn that we have a tremendous amount of older houses in many cities of the country that are not fully utilized---and we right now have what amounts to a backlog of recently built and un-sold,un-occupied houses--- the amount of houses that NEED to be built to keep pace with a growing population is quite possibly not anywhere near the amount you seem to think If we are going to have anything resembling green and sustainable homebuilding as a nation--- I wager that we are going to have to--at some point- put a quota on how many homes we ALLOW to be built in a year-----much like we are going to have to put a MPG quota on our nations auto producers the homebuilding industry recieves massive societal subsidies in the form of roads and infrastructure built, national forests logged, pollutants dumped into the atmosphere and the water by manufactureres and offgassing of materials used----the purchase price of a new home doesn't beginn to recapture the actual costs of building that home---in effect ,my lungs subsidize someone elses vinyl siding and foam board If we want to green things up--at some point we are going to have to start recapturing the ACTUAL costs--( probably through user/consumer taxes)-which will -in turn create financial incentives to operate more sustainably
stephen
You bring up very good and valid points..
How much wood is required to build a house?
I don't know..
However you also don't tell me how much of the acreage of America is suitable for growing trees..
I short circuted that whole question by pointing out that we have used up virtually all of our old growth forests and probably 80% in the last 50 years alone..
So whatever could grow in America was used in the last 50 years.
Tomorrows population will be bigger and the demand for housing will increase with it..
Riversong claims that plantation grown wood can meet those needs..
History has shown that it can't..
You are going in a tangent suggestion that perhaps we should restrict home construction.. (another whole subject indeed)
I would counter that with the idea that wood is not the only material we can build houses with.. Nor is stick framing the only way to build with wood.
But that is answering another issue. However it directly relates to the first issue here which is which is greener....
Finally (big divergent)
They are now recapturing waste carbon and CO2 and recycling it to make biodesiel, ethanol and cattle feed among other things..
In addition they are resequestering it in Canada to extract more oil from previously dry wells..
Another words they have found green ways to deal with the most evil byproduct of oil! (even nuclear radiation!)..
That was on National Geographic last night.
I would ask1)what is a sustainable sized house?2) how many trees( or board feet if you prefer) need to go into that house?3) how many houses,annually, NEED to be built each year?4) what does it take to produce the lumber for those houses?
Good questions.
Back in the 1950s and '60s, people thought it was normal for a family to have one bathroom, or for two or three growing boys to share a bedroom. Well-off people summered in tiny beach cottages on Cape Cod or off the coast of California.
In 1950, an American family of 3.37 people lived in a 983 SF house (292 SF/person). By 2006, the typical American family of 2.61 people lived in a 2349 SF house (900 SF/person). Oddly, this didn't seem to make the average American 3x happier or more comfortable. In fact, there has been an increase in homicide, suicide, mental illness and chronic disease during that period.
In 1950, a house required about 10.5 board feet of lumber (timber & panels) per square foot of finished space. In 1990, that increased to about 11 bf/sf. So the typical 1950s house required about 10,320 board feet, while a 2008 house (about 2800 sf) requires about 30,800 board feet.
New single-family house starts in the US in 2007 were about 1 million (and another 355,000 multi-family units). Even if we assume that all those were necessary for the growth of American households (which isn't close to the truth, since there's a housing glut on the market), we would need a sustainable lumber yield of about 42 billion board feet. The 2002 US forest production was 36 billion board feet of softwood lumber and another 11.25 billion board feet of panels (plywood and OSB).
If each of those 2007 homes were the size we considered acceptable in 1950, we would have required only 14 billion board feet total wood products (less than a third of our annual forest yield).
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Stop thinking locally start thinking at least with regard to this nation.. but globally would be better..
"Think globally, but act locally" is the motto of the sustainability movement.
Not "think parochially and act with prejudice", which seems to be your motto.
That does not mean that Vermont can supply the rest of the country with enough sustainable wood to meet the national needs..
Nor did I ever suggest such an absurd notion. I merely used Vermont as an example of reforestation that could be replicated in other states.
I love and celebrate wood. However I accept it's weaknesses as well.
You wildly exagerate its weaknesses in order to promote environmentally questionable alternatives.
Those old growth white oak logs that were harvested for use in my home.
You can't bemoan the loss of virgin forest and then proudly boast about your use of old-growth trees.
Knowing the fincial constrants of many people I suspect that more than a little clear cutting goes on in your state as well. (as it does in my state)
Vermont's settlers clearcut the land, but the old softwood forests have been naturally replaced with a northern mixed hardwood/softwood forest ecosystem which is more diverse and in some ways more healthy than what it replaced. Since the 1990s, heavy timber harvesting has been carefully regulated in Vermont.
By the way heating with wood while cheap is hard on the atmosphere..
Particulate emissions are regulated by the EPA for all new woodstoves since 1988, and - as I've stated many times - burning wood is carbon neutral.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
wow to correct just some of your errors you would take my whole day..
First we both agree that trees are a harvestable crop (done is a sustainable manner)..
That in no way precludes me from the bemoaning the loss of virgin forests..
The average age of white oak before interior rot starts is around 200 years. Many of The trees I harvested were actually past that prime period.. They could only be harvested due extremely steep terrain with modern cable skidders.
They were harvested in a sustainable manner.. trees under 100 years old were left for future harvest..
You minimize both wood's weakness and the enviornmental cost of harvesting it.. maybe that's why you feel that's why I respond as I do..
You used Vermont as an example of what other states should do.. I'm sorry that's not realistic.. Do you honestly think that there is enough wood in all of New England to meet even the needs of New York City? Frankly I can't imagine the amount of wood required to build the New World Trade Center or even if it would be remotely possible..
I'll disagree with you that burning wood is carbon neutral but that's another debate.. (I love a wood fire too!)
""In fact, the only way to harvest timber sustainably on a large scale for construction and other uses is to do so from plantations, just like we cannot sustainably harvest wild corn or wild blueberries for our current population.Managed plantations, that can be grown more efficiently and harvested with far less impact on the land (particularly on intact mature forest ecosystems), are the only sustainable method of wood fiber production and use."" ""Vermont has gone from 80% forested in the 18th century, to 80% deforested in the 19th century, to 80% forested today. And that happened as the human population and number of homes expanded."" How much of Vermont forest is managed plantation?
and
How well does the concept of monoculture managed plantations fit with the "green " concept of sustaining yield century after century? Most crops (even trees I think) cannot continue to be grown continually without intervening cycles of other plant life. I am unaware of any climax forests that do not have interrupted (by natures actions) life cycles.
They can't get your Goat if you don't tell them where it is hidden.
How much of Vermont forest is managed plantation? and How well does the concept of monoculture managed plantations fit with the "green " concept of sustaining yield century after century?
About the only tree plantations in Vermont are Christmas tree farms. With our appropriate-scale population (the most rural state in the US), and our extensive natural forests, we don't need plantations.
But for the overcrowded rest of the country, there's no way to supply the forest products in anything close to a sustainable-yield manner without managed plantations.
The problem is not the tree plantations. The problem is there are too many people and too much consumption per person.
If the rest of the country was as populous as Vermont, we could provide all our needs in a sustainable way.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Vermont has gone from 80% forested in the 18th century, to 80% deforested in the 19th century, to 80% forested today. And that happened as the human population and number of homes expanded.
The question I would have about this is, how much lumber is brought into Vermont from elsewhere now, and has this contributed to the reforestation? Here where I am, there used to be a lot of logging and local sawmills, and less standing timber. Now there is more imported Canadian lumber (and clearcuts to match), and more local standing timber.
Maybe this was covered, I didn't read the whole thread, mostly because so many of you are quoting Frenchy and arguing with him.
The question I would have about this is, how much lumber is brought into Vermont from elsewhere now, and has this contributed to the reforestation? Here where I am, there used to be a lot of logging and local sawmills, and less standing timber. Now there is more imported Canadian lumber (and clearcuts to match), and more local standing timber.
While some timber comes from Canada, Vermont is a net exporter of lumber, and Canada is the primary buyer of US lumber.
Contrary to what Frenchy might believe, the US has an almost endless supply of forest resources and construction lumber, and supplies much of North America.
The United States is the largest hardwood producer and exporter in the world, yet consumes nearly 90 percent of its production domestically.<!----><!----><!---->
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
you are forgetting the softwood tariffs from Canada into the US to compensate the lumber business, citing low stumpage fee's from crown land vs private land in the states. Our national softwood industry has been taking a kicking for years due to US lobbies acting against NAFTA. Don't get me going on Wheat and Cattle.
I think no one has addressed frenchy comment he asked about paint. I understood that is to get the best use out of a material a certian amount of upkeep is required. If that is factored into the dureabilty/longevity greenness of a product you can't get to mad at him.Even a stone castle needs upkeep but at a different rate than cedar lap siding. Heck my grandfather lived in a sod hut for years as he settled on a tree less plain. Lots of lumber 200 miles north but railways were taking it east, not to the sod busters. Many old homes and barn with field stone still stand, the one's that don't is cause the roof rotted 1st then the stone failed.How about adobe mud? Now thats green, straw bale houses?
Also don't forget the comfort factor, Me Mom remarked "they built a good house they used 2 layers of tar paper". But they wore woolies and used flannel sheets in the winter. and a big honking wood coal stove running 24/7. There expectation of shelter and ours has also changed post WW2. A common practice was to build the back of the fridge into the unheated porch to give it a little heat. and heat the porch not the house in the summer and they were a bunch of dumb old farmers using crude heat pumps and didn't even know it.Now as you sit ,the north forests are being eaten my the mountian pine beetle. leaving huge tracts of dead wood that has a 2-3 year harvesting window, then a nature mess.Did the government of BC manage it's forests? next time you pick up a 2x and it has a blue stain, you are using the last productive wood from that area for generations.If you want to juggle #s the social cost of proving stick framing and pulp and paper production can only be measured in generations. The shareholders of the big corps decide what the economics are only after the enviorment has been shoved down there throats, after years of high profits at a huge social cost.The market place has not place in Green. the perception of value and green only matter when you don't have them.The biggest cost of housing is how close it is to your workplace. Commuting from your home to work will forever use more energy unless we can live closer to our workplace, think suburbia and the office worker, In Toronto a 40 minute commute is OK in Regina 40 minute commute is intollerable.
So to answer the question is wood green? Depends on were it is build and how well you maintain it!
Vermont export all it's softwood lumber for pulp. According to the state information it has no softwood mills, only hardwood mills still in operation.
So softwood (house) framing lumber is an imported product.
They can't get your Goat if you don't tell them where it is hidden.
According to the state information it has no softwood mills, only hardwood mills still in operation. So softwood (house) framing lumber is an imported product.
Well that's odd, since I have a list of 16 Vermont softwood mills sitting on my desk, I've purchased from half of them, and those aren't nearly all of them - only the local ones. We have no softwood veneer mills, only hardwood.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Edited 1/14/2009 6:06 pm ET by Riversong
See according to you that information is invalid since a person can't referance that information on the web.. and thus you've been proven to lie..
Can I have the Web addresses of your local mills ?
They don't have a web address. (the one I use) the most modern equipment is a cheap calculator in the office..
According to Riversong they don't exist..
the most modern equipment is a cheap calculator in the office.. Sounds like most mills I've been to.
So, kind of a mute point isn't it?
Clearly you missed the point.. For clarification I've been dissed by Riversong because I don't post dueling web sites to refute his statements.. I was being Ironic..
No, I got your point. Let it go.
Clearly you missed the point.. For clarification I've been dissed by Riversong because I don't post dueling web sites to refute his statements.. I was being Ironic..
I've refuted all your arguments, not only because they are not backed up by reliable sources, but because they fail to pass the sniff test and are distorted by a powerful personal bias.
So your attempt at "irony" falls as flat as your illogical arguments.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
"simple math
America has less than 2% of her old growth forests left. That's in only about 200 years.."
Frenchy,
Your anecdote seems, to me, akin to comparing the gas guzzlers of the 1960's to the hybrids of today, or the insulation techniques of the 1920's (IE none or very little) to those of today. The fact that we've used up our old growth forests doesn't mean we couldn't do things differently in the future.
Besides, how much of that lumber was cut up for paper, wood stoves, packaging, etc.?
I would still like to know (I'm not trying to pick a fight, just interested) in your rationale for saying that 303m people could not house themselves with the 2.26 billion acres of land within the United States.
Jon Blakemore RappahannockINC.com Fredericksburg, VA
Besides, how much of that lumber was cut up for paper, wood stoves, packaging, etc.?
Wood stoves aren't made out of wood ;-)
View Image
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Not for long, at least.
Jon Blakemore RappahannockINC.com Fredericksburg, VA
Virtually any publication of the national forests will repeat that same number.. of 2% So yes I feel very confident in it..
You point out how cars of today are cleaner and more efficent than cars or an earlier period..
That's absolutely true.
Now shall we talk about numbers?
When I was born the population of America was under 150 million, today it's 303 million and they say it will hit 400 million before I'm expected to die.. Look at todays volumn of auto production compared to that of the 1950's.
IN addition That's a lot of houses.. then we can look at the size increase of the average home.. plus multiple home ownerships.. the demand for soft wood is quantifiably larger.
Just like the simple 2 door sedans of old gave way to todays SUV's with the increased demand for raw materials to build and energy to move them. You are argueing against every American's dream of bigger is better..
Housing is actaully worse.. starting around the 1950's seperate frame and body auto production came to a halt as more efficent unibody became the norm.
However we still build todays houses in the same basic manner as the model T was built.. Stick framing hasn't really changed since the 1920's
In another matter.......
Cut up for paper and heating purposes..........
Well that is the classic arguement.. paper is the #2 consumer of wood fiber, sometimes becoming #1. The production of paper is the 2nd largest pollutor in the nation.. (Last night National Geographic)
thus the use of cellulose is responsible for vast amounts of pollution which it is never "charged" with..
Paper production is the opposite of Green
It's use is trivial for heating purposes but that is a very good thing since few wood stoves burn cleanly and none fail to release massive amounts of carbon into the atmosphere.
"Virtually any publication of the national forests will repeat that same number.. of 2% So yes I feel very confident in it.. "
Come on, Frenchy!
I never asked about your statement that 2% of the old growth forests are left. I take your word for it- you could tell me it's negative 2% and I'll accept that.
My question for you was "how many acres it takes to produce enough wood to build a home."
You can wax eloquently for a long time about how the forests were cut down and for what reason, I don't care. What I do care about is how much forested land it takes to provide enough wood to build a house. I don't even care what size house you're talking about, just pick something.
Jim Blodgett suggested that one who cuts down all the trees for their home from their property, then replants those trees so they will yield as much or more lumber than what it would take to rebuild the house after a period of time, is green. I think that's a great idea, one that I'd like to think more about. Obviously it's not suitable for 100% of the population, but as Stephen H. pointed out it doesn't have to be since we already have a lot of houses.
You suggested that his plan would not work because we don't have enough land. I'm merely trying to figure out why you said that.
Jon Blakemore RappahannockINC.com Fredericksburg, VA
What I do care about is how much forested land it takes to provide enough wood to build a house.
We’re Growing More Wood Than We’re Harvesting<!----><!----><!---->
in 1920, timber harvest rates nationally were double the rate of forest growth<!----><!---->
by 1986, net annual growth was 3.5 times what it was in 1920.<!----><!---->
in 2000, there was 30% more timber volume per acre in the United States than in 1952.<!----><!---->
annual growth exceeds harvests and losses to insects and disease by 33% each year in the commercial forests.<!----><!---->
One-third of U.S. land is covered in forests; this is the No. 1 type of land cover in the country.<!----><!---->
<!----> <!---->
One-fifth of U.S. land is timberland; that is, capable of producing 20 cubic feet per acre of industrial wood annually. This constitutes 504 million acres.
20 cubic feet is 240 board feet. If it takes an absurd 30,800 BF of lumber to build today's 2800 SF house, then it would require an average of 128 acres per house - which means we have enough timberland to build nearly 4 million homes per year (last year we built 1 million single-family homes).
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Jon I said it because we started out with near 100% of the land covered with old growth forests. Today we have 2%
The real building started post WW2 so since then we've used at least 80% of our forest land and many places grown and harvested trees once or twice more..
Doesn't that make sense to you?
No those aren't exact numbers because it would be so difficult to calculate the numbers..
Size of the house, number of houses due to population growth etc.. all unknowns..
But my point is that it takes at least 60 years and sometimes more to have a forest grow to commerical harvesting point..
In addition we have need for land for farming and we have land that is unsuitable for growing trees.. so we cannot come up with one simple number can we?
"Jon I said it because we started out with near 100% of the land covered with old growth forests. Today we have 2%
The real building started post WW2 so since then we've used at least 80% of our forest land and many places grown and harvested trees once or twice more..
Doesn't that make sense to you?
Yes, I understand that, since WW2, we've cut down 80% of our forested land. That doesn't say anything about how many houses were built during that time, just that we cut down most of our trees.
Have you ever heard the phrase "causation does not imply correlation"? I think that may apply to your anecdote.
"But my point is that it takes at least 60 years and sometimes more to have a forest grow to commerical harvesting point.."
Okay, this is just perfect. According to you, the average house lasts 56 years. If we can stretch our houses just 4 more years, we will be at equilibrium.
"In addition we have need for land for farming and we have land that is unsuitable for growing trees.. so we cannot come up with one simple number can we?"
Farm land has nothing to do with it. I just want to know how much wood it takes to build a house. I don't know how to make that more clear.
Let me try this:
How many acres does it take to harvest enough trees to build a home?
Jon Blakemore RappahannockINC.com Fredericksburg, VA
Jon
where? Arizona? New Mexico? Kansas? Oklahoma? Nevada? Utah?
"where? Arizona? New Mexico? Kansas? Oklahoma? Nevada? Utah?"
I'll let you pick. You can choose any state you want, just tell me how many acres you need to generate enough lumber to construct a home. 1? 5? 25?
Jon Blakemore RappahannockINC.com Fredericksburg, VA
some loacations several thousand acres.
How many acres does it take to harvest enough trees to build a home?
Don't go yelling at Frenchy. It'll only keep him pushing his BS.
I answered this question back in http://forums.taunton.com/tp-breaktime/messages?msg=115053.89 and http://forums.taunton.com/tp-breaktime/messages?msg=115053.91
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
I know, I guess I'm feeling cranky.I do appreciate your answer, BTW.
Jon Blakemore RappahannockINC.com Fredericksburg, VA
Jon I didn't respond well to your question.. Let me try to do so without offending you.
How many acres does it take to grow enough wood for our needs?
Well all of them in 50 years.. plus the trees that replace those old growth monsters we've harvested will never be the same size as we harvested in 50 years. so there are 3 problems.
1st population growth,
2nd declining land available for forests.. (build a house in the forest and there are fewer acres to grow trees)
3rd. time.. to achieve the size (yield) some of those old growth monsters did we would have to give them at least another 200 years and some of those giants out west we'd have to give 1000+ years..
Now to show you that I grasp the real problem, there is a bridge.. the forests of Russia's Siberia which make our greatest forests look trivial in comparison.. Even those forests will be quickly denuded attempting to meet the housing needs of 7 billion people.
Having said that I believe that there are solutions using wood as a prime source of housing.. locally!
You hit the nail on the head.. Where you can, use wood from your own property to provide you shelter. However that has limits.. We need to supliment those treees with other materials. Plus we need to make our housing last longer than it currantly is..
We need to make the houses more durable so there will be less demand on our nations forests not more.
Part of making them more durable is building something that will be prized and valued in the future as much as for immediate needs..
Others have pointed out how many houses are torn down simply because they no longer are desireable. It's not a matter of upgrading trim or features.. too often the house itself is obsolete. Yet homes have survied for hundreds of years.. what features did they have which preserved them so long? Shouldn't those be incorporated into future designs?
OK I have prejudices. I like timberframed homes because they seem to be the most durable way to build a home that lasts centuries. Perhaps it's not the method but the size or the shape or window placement etc.. Whatever makes a home desirable for centuries is what we should focus our building efforts on..
How many acres does it take to grow enough wood for our needs? Well all of them in 50 years..
Complete fabrication.
I've answered this question with data from the USDA, but as usual, you refuse to acknowledge facts when they undermine your prejudices.
http://forums.taunton.com/tp-breaktime/messages?msg=115053.89
http://forums.taunton.com/tp-breaktime/messages?msg=115053.91
plus the trees that replace those old growth monsters we've harvested will never be the same size as we harvested in 50 years.
Since the primary environmental crisis we're now facing is global climate change, it is important to understand that an old-growth climax forest contributes more CO2 than it absorbs (because there is more decomposition than growth). While a transition forest or plantation forest is a carbon sink, and a well-managed forest using wood for buildings is carbon negative (as our homes become a carbon sink for generations).
Part of making them more durable is building something that will be prized and valued in the future as much as for immediate needs..
Exactly. Concrete and foam homes have no timeless aesthetic value that will be "prized in the future". Future generations will only wonder how we could have been both so short-sighted as to use non-renewable and environmentally-toxic materials with no aesthetic value.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Jon I said it because we started out with near 100% of the land covered with old growth forests. Today we have 2%
Just like Rush Limbaugh, you never let the facts interfere with your opinions.
I already blew this BS out of the water. Did you miss it?
http://forums.taunton.com/tp-breaktime/messages?msg=115053.91
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
It's use is trivial for heating purposes but that is a very good thing since few wood stoves burn cleanly and none fail to release massive amounts of carbon into the atmosphere.
Lies, damned lies, and propaganda.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
That means much of the wood that grew originally has been replaced with plantation grown trees, monoculture.. that's not sustainable..
In fact, the only way to harvest timber sustainably on a large scale for construction and other uses is to do so from plantations, just like we cannot sustainably harvest wild corn or wild blueberries for our current population.
Managed plantations, that can be grown more efficiently and harvested with far less impact on the land (particularly on intact mature forest ecosystems), are the only sustainable method of wood fiber production and use.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
I thought that you were a friend of the earth. Plantation grown forests , with all their weaknesses are not sustainable..
Biodiversity protects real forests and do not require massive amounts of pestacides nor various growth sprays etc.. to optimise the growth of commerically viable species..
In addition biodiversity produces a diverse ecoshpere which ecourages diversity in wildlife and other flora.
Plantation grown forests , with all their weaknesses are not sustainable..
Plantation forests are not meant to create sustainable ecosystems, only a sustainable crop - no different than planting a corn monoculture on farmland.
By harvesting wood for building from tree farms, we don't have to destroy the intact forest ecosystems, which we are eliminating now at a rate of an acre every second.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Frenchy,
I think Jims thoughts make senseyour position----makes at least one error in logic-and thereby breaks downyou assume 303 million--that's fine---except we aren't proposing 303 million new homes immediately my last house-- built in the '20's-- I would conservatively guess-- it's good for another couple generations( if society deems it worthy) my current house--1941--easily good for another 2-3 generations ( if society deems it worthy) further more-- my former house could have at one time sheltered 6-8 people in comfort according to the standards of the day--it now shelters 2
my existing house-- could quite easily and comfortably shelter 12 plus people with minimal effort--it regularly shelters 3-4 so-we aren't even nearly making full use of existing housing stock---the NEw houses that really NEED to be built are probably quite minimal in proportion to existing housing stock quantitesI think jims plan--makes a lot of sense-- but it would probably be even GREENER to adjust societal practices in regaurds to household sizes.
stephen
BTW- i run into this thinking all the time in regaurds to consumer items------purchase price is almost irrelevant to me--very far down on my list of criteria. when I buy something- I like it to STAY boughtso- I look most carefully at how LONG something is gonna last. wanna hear something funny?-- 25 years ago I bought a new pair of dress shoes---paid about $80--by far the most expensive article of clothing I had ever bought at that time-------25 years later those shoes are STILL my wedding/funeral/sunday-go-to-meeting shoes, LOL
we might be a better society if we bought and built houses the same way.
stephen
Well we have similar ideas.. I think that thinking of houses in terms of generations is extremely short sighted..
Centuries is more along my mind.. and not just a couple!
There are hundreds of homes built which are built to a cost rather than to a focus on durability.
To say that something is good enough because it will outlast the original mortage holder is shortsighted nor is the roofing material etc.. likely to endure.. . It needs to outlast the time required to grow it's replacement and should outlast many times even that..
Stick framed homes are just such an example.. OK it lasts 100 years.. However the paint which is used to protect that wood isn't sustainable by any stretch of your imagination..
"Stick framed homes are just such an example.. OK it lasts 100 years.. However the paint which is used to protect that wood isn't sustainable by any stretch of your imagination.."
You've used paint to show how wood structures are not sustainable before. What does painting the exterior of a building have to do with stick framing?
Jon Blakemore RappahannockINC.com Fredericksburg, VA
OK Jon build a stick framed house without using any paint..
Tell me how long it will last!
"build a stick framed house without using any paint.. Tell me how long it will last!"What does the structural system used have to do with its cladding? Stick framed houses can be clad in exactly the same way as timber frame, concrete or steel construction. Paint has nothing to do with it.
It all gets back to durability. Among the weakness of stick framing is it is made with soft woods.. wood that decays easily without protection..
If you build a house with soft woods without any protection from the elements within 20 years or so like as not it will be torn down.
Concrete and stone do not suffer the same weakness. Indeed if you look at the pyrimids you can see one of the extremes of duribility (and mind you that is relatively soft stone)
European timberframes are most often made with white oak which is known for it's decay resistance. However those homes are not simply nailed to gether because nails would quickly disolve in whilte oak and the building would then fall apart..
Frenchy - For this discussion to advance and not just circle into dead ends several established rules of argument are useful. The first being answering the question posed. What does anything you replied to me have to do with paint or cladding? which is what we were discussing.
The second is that once an opinion has been refuted by direct evidence, such as Riversong posting statistics that show a house's lifespan is not determined by its structural system but by other factors, you can't continue to hold that opinion. If you continue to do so you are operating on a system of faith, which has no place in these sort of discussions.
fingersand toes..
First this discussion started out on the merits of ICF versis stick framing which is part of this discussion.
Second I do not ever get into dueling web sources because we only go where our opinions are supported..
Not ever source of information is available on the web..
I have a whole library on books on the subject and have cited those without changing anyones opinion.
Indeed last night on National geographic there was a bit relavent to this discussion and I have already used that bit earler.
Indeed I want people to start using their own mind not parrot something they read.
If you read that you should beat your dog and rub his nose in his waste on a web site someplace, hopefully you are smart enough to not take that source as the final authority.
You are Sooooo FOS.
I have white oak logs pushing 200 yrs old, and cut nails are holding the ods and ends JUST FINE..if it ain't sopping wet, the tannic acid is virtually inert with steel. I broke a hammer trying to pull some of them, not the handle, the claw snapped.
man, you are really stretching to form your stupid hypthoses. every arguement you get into, yoy get told the same thing, YOU ARE WRONG,,,yet you keep switching gears and attacking from a new angle to prove you are not, but , you are still misinformed or misguided.
Try facts, not fairy tales.Spheramid Enterprises Architectural Woodworks
Repairs, Remodeling, Restorations
They kill Prophets, for Profits.
If it's not wet.......
That's rare indeed..
it is a fact that ferrious metals are attacked by the tannic acids in certain wood..
What do mean "thats rare indeed"?
I have nails that have been exposed to the elements..IRON hand wrought cut nails, you can't get them out of the wood.
They are far from dissolved. You ever try to un-nail a pallet of oak that was nailed green and now dried? Next to impossible.
You have washed up ashore of a different world..yes tanin attacks ferrous, but the reaction stops when the wood dries and the iron oxidizes. Other wise trains would be falling off loose tracks all over the world on oak ties and iron spikes.Spheramid Enterprises Architectural Woodworks
Repairs, Remodeling, Restorations
They kill Prophets, for Profits.
guess you've never heard of train derailments?
American is vastly reducing her railroad track mileage. we have less than a 1/3 of what we had at WW2
yet every sawmill in the nation is turning out railroad ties at $20.00 each.
Do you know what a gandydancer is? it's used to replace railroad ties periodically because even though the tie is treated with creosote the spikes loosen up!
Do you know what a gandydancer is? it's used to replace railroad ties
Apparently you don't.
A gandy is used to replace railroad ties. A gandydancer is the person who uses a gandy.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Glad to see that you agree with me that railroad ties are regularly replaced..
If you build a house with soft woods without any protection from the elements within 20 years or so like as not it will be torn down.
Only in the demented imagination of someone who is ardently enamored of concrete and petrochemical foam, and flailing for reasons to dismiss the most common building practice in America as worthless.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
I did not say that stick framing was worthless.. that is your word..
I said it is obsolete. Like building a model T Ford..
Henry Ford built a lot of them and thought that since he was selling so many he could keep on building it..
Most contractors use the same logic and since there are few options they sell them..
However once competition started selling their cars it cost Ford market share and profitablity..
Had Ford kept up he would have retained his 80% market share..
I think there is a lesson there..
"If you build a house with soft woods without any protection from the elements within 20 years or so like as not it will be torn down."Who here or for that matter anywhere else on earth or other parts of the universe would build a house without any protection from the elements? That is what a house is: an enclosure to protect you from the elements.Two posters have pointed out that you have confused a buildings structure with its cladding. Would you please admit that your comment about paint was a canard that added nothing but confusion to the discussion?
the comments made here say that wood is green.. that's nonsense. Some is but a lot isn't..
I listed just one reason why wood isn't green.. (among others)..
"OK Jon build a stick framed house without using any paint..
Tell me how long it will last!"
Maybe we're not talking about the same thing here.
When I say "stick framed", I'm referring to the structural members. You can have a stick frame house with brick veneer, slate roof, AL clad windows, skim coat plaster, etc. and not have a quart of paint on it. In fact, many mcmansions around here have "maintenance free" exteriors with no paint.
I know you're a big proponent of SIP's and ICF's- don't you have pretty much the same need for exterior cladding with those systems as you do with a stick frame house?
Jon Blakemore RappahannockINC.com Fredericksburg, VA
Good point Jon.. Yes we are in a trade off position here.. to build sustainably we must use non sustainable methods to protect the underlying material. Use of stone or brick etc.. depleats resources that are not renewable.. use of paint also is not renewable.
since they both demand nonrenewable resources to be used doesn't it from a duribility standpoint make sense to use the most durable and easily recycled material? (say stone?)
You could clad a house with stone and in 1000 years when it is no longer viable tear it down and reuse the stone to create the required building..
Since soft wood is unlikely to last 1000 years (even protected) it doesn't make much sense to build with something that won't survive as long as the rest of the materials.
That's why I appreciate the qualities of duribility.. Soft wood doesn't have those qualities.. Nor does cellulose.
Stick framed homes are just such an example.. OK it lasts 100 years.. However the paint which is used to protect that wood isn't sustainable by any stretch of your imagination..
Apparently, you have a very inelastic imagination (stuck, as it is, on concrete and petrochemical foam).
There are dozens of sustainable paints on the market today, based on clay, vegetable pigments, or milk proteins. There have always been natural shellacs, oils and waxes.
You should get out and stretch your imagination more often. It's become about as rigid as the concrete you so dearly love.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
I "love" durability, not any one product.. I accept concrete as an affordable replacement for stone which is the most durable material we can build with..
I accept foam as a durable insulation because I see nothing as effective or as durable.
I celebrate the beauty of wood and I wouldn't want to use it for pedetrian purposes to hide behind sheet rock..
Is there any wood anymore in the normal course of homebuilding in the US that comes from "virgin" forest?
I don't know, but I doubt it.
If the wood was planted by man; If more grows each year than is used; And if the milling process is less environmentally damaging that the manufacturing of any other practical alternative, then I would call it green enough.
Too short sighted. look at population growth. When I was born America had less than 150 million today we're at 303 million and before I expect to die it will reach over 400 million..
That means we need more and more wood!.
(a couple of points.. harvesting, milling of wood is very dirty with regard pollution.. )
Not nearly as green as advocates would have you believe..
Oh and I have old growth timbers in my home. Timbers that were growing when America had that disagreement with King George and Minnesota was occupied by indians.. So yes some virgin timber is still harvested..