ICF versus wood frame Which is greener?
The subject of the environmental impact of ICF construction popped up in another thread. It’s a subject I’ve had on my mind for a while, wondering whether ICF construction does make sense from an environmental point of view when compared to wood frame. I don’t know how to resolve it.
I’m sure there are some points everybody can agree on:
1. Concrete embodies a lot of energy. The amount of energy is probably quantifiable, except for the energy it takes to get the concrete to your job site and poured.
2. There’s more energy embodied in the foam, though there isn’t a lot of foam involved, typically about 0.56 pounds of form per sq foot of wall surface
3 There are certain to be some toxicity issues involved in the foam manufacturing.
4 Wood embodies a lot of energy in the harvesting, milling, kiln drying and shipping. Can that amount of energy be known?
5 Sheet sheathing goods embody quite a lot of energy and there is a level of toxicity to the glues which affects some people.
6 This might be controversial if somebody is in the mood for an argument: The lifespan of an ICF house will be greater than the lifespan of a modern wood frame house. I think it could easily be that the resolution of the whole question might be found in this point. If so, I might have to return to this discussion in a hundred years or so, if I remember it.
Imagine that the ICF house and the wood house under discussion are insulated to the same level and each take the same amount of energy to operate.
(In my opinion it is harder to achieve that level of energy consumption in a wood house than in an ICF house, but I know it can be done, with an effort.)
Anybody got any facts? Opinions?
Ron
Edited 12/23/2008 7:21 pm by ronbudgell
Replies
Ron, I was building green before most folks knew anything about it, and I've read, analyzed, and contributed to more discussions than I care to remember. So I don't usually get into them anymore, but you asked the perfect question.
The answer, as with anything in green building, is, "It depends."
What you have here is a design problem. There is no formulaic approach that substitutes for a thoughtful and considerate design that takes into account the site, the intended use, the reasonably projected useful lifespan, the disposition at the end of the useful life, the climate, the maintenance budget, the lifestyle of the occupants, who will likely follow those occupants, and so much more.
Embodied energy and energy efficiency are important, but they are just a very small part of a big picture.
As you can probably tell, I take a dim view of the NAHB and the LEEDS program. It's better than nothing, it's a step in the right direction, but their portrayal of themselves as leaders is a disservice.
The short answer to your question is a resounding "yes." ICFs are a superb component of greeen building when used intelligently.
The short answer to your question is a resounding "yes." ICFs are a superb component of greeen building when used intelligently.
You want an opinion? My opinion is that your "short answer" fails to account for the spectrum of life cycle energy issues, environmental impacts, human health factors, recyclability of materials, moisture mechanics, sustainability measures, local economic impacts, effects on building craft, or what "green" has to mean if it is going to move our culture toward a new paradigm.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
catskinner,
You are right that this is just a small part of a bigger picture. It's a small part I don't have much of a handle on.
I am a fan of ICF construction, but that's mainly because it's light work that I can still make some money doing. I feel like I'm too old to be framing houses now, but I can handle working with foam blocks that weigh about four pounds. (I do frame floors and roofs on these houses and given the help I've had lately, I might almost say I frame them alone.)
I live in an ICF house, too, and I don't really care about the cost of home heating fuel. It means very little to me. I have never lived in a house where I could say that before.
It's a function of design as much as construction. The same year I built this house, I also built another ICF house of the same floor area, but twice the surface area and huge windows, many facing north. They have to pay attention to the cost of heating fuel.
This kind of conversation, especially since it includes something like Riversong's contribution of hard numbers, is becoming much more relevant as the amount of operating energy for a house diminishes. The embodied energy in the materials becomes a larger proportion of the house's total energy cost amd must be considered.
Ron
concrete is not green, but its fire proof, hurricane proof termite proof and energy efficent, but its not green. So you cannot build with it.You have to use wood, wood that burns, wood that hurricanes love, wood that termite love, but its green.so in order to adapht and save life with security fire and safety, you cannot use the material because its not green.so to be happy and tell your friends that you build green you put your life on the line.Is green really the next hot topic are is safetythe public is really too stupid to know what they really need.
Ummmm... what's a hurricane?
I think there needs to be some factor for region. Even Riversongs' study in post #10 indicates an advantage to the high altitude southwest compared to the cold climates. Not sure why we're not considered cold, nine degrees today. Kid stuff for some of you.This is all anecdotal. This is a lumber challenged area. It all stinks. Starts bad and gets worse. My opinion after a working lifetime using doug fir in Calif. So one unintended bonus of using ICF's on my own house is I feel that I got a better job, carpentry wise. Without aggravation , important at my age. Heating is a tough comparison, as I have never lived in a cold climate in a framed house. I was a little disappointed, but my expectations may have been too high. I do know that many people use cooling here and I have no need. Visitors remark on how cool the house is.I live at 6000 feet near the four corners area.John
I think there needs to be some factor for region. Even Riversongs' study in post #10 indicates an advantage to the high altitude southwest compared to the cold climates.
But you missed the other salient point: in those climates where high mass walls result in measurable savings, the energy savings of an exterior-insulated mass wall is double that of the ICF walls.
Mass can be beneficial in some areas, but sandwiching the mass inside of two layers of insulation takes away most of the benefit.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
And, beyond about R-20 on mass walls, the savings don't increase.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
<<I think there needs to be some factor for region. >>Absolutely -- as I mentioned earlier, green building is always contextual.<<I live at 6000 feet near the four corners area.>>For all the reasons you described, ICFs are a good choice.<<This is all anecdotal.>>One of the concepts I will be introducing here is the value of anecdotal evidence in design. I only mean that pertly in jest. <G>Nobody should ever de-value a successful project just because they cannot provide an arithmetic justification for their success. Some of the greatest builders in modern history were the American railroad engineers. Guess what they did not have?That's right -- they had no ability to justify their designs arithmetically. The science had not been worked out yet.But the bridges are still here.
a weak tornado <grin>
Agreed on every point.Sym VanderRyn once said that every dollar spent in design was worth ten on site.I think he was being conservative. <G>
Okay, well, this is not scientific, but here's something I keep stumbling on as I read and hear more and more people sing the attributes of ICF buildings -
If we're talking about the long term advantages...I guess we have to define our terms...can we agree on 100 years?
If so, let me ask this - I wonder how many of the 100 year old buildings in use today are still in the same basic configuration and used the same way as when they were built?
I keep thinking about moving a window, or doorway, or changing a roofline in an ICF building. I really like the idea that I can easilly change or reconfigure a wood framed building as the years pass and needs change.
Is it fair to say that's a big advantage to wood framed construction? That maybe that adaptability could actually prolong the useful life of that building, even though the shell might not be a durable?
Jim, good to see you here and glad you joined in.<<If so, let me ask this - I wonder how many of the 100 year old buildings in use today are still in the same basic configuration and used the same way as when they were built?>>Right to the point. So when I'm building ICF I want to see as many considerations for adaptability built in as possible, right down to how I run the wiring and plumbing, and how I load walls and design trusses. Likewise for position on the site.<<I keep thinking about moving a window, or doorway, or changing a roofline in an ICF building. I really like the idea that I can easilly change or reconfigure a wood framed building as the years pass and needs change.Is it fair to say that's a big advantage to wood framed construction? >>I don't think so. Rather, I propose it's more a matter of carpenters thinking in terms of their traditional methods and the use of tools and techniques they are familiar with. There is nothing wrong with that as long as it does not become a limiting factor on progress.When I'm building an ICF house, if we're coming up off a monoslab I'm happier topping the concrete out at 9'4' rather than 8'-0". You get great natural light, a lot of design flexibility, and with a little forethought in the rebar placement and you can put a door or a window anywhere you want, anytime you want.ICS Blount makes a chainsaw that cuts concrete no more trouble than a sawzall in wood. Likewise, most places I've been there is someone who does concrete sawing as part of their business. I've paid between $3.50 and $10 per linear foot depending upon the difficulty of the cut. In any case, the retrofit is simple and inexpensive. It's just not something most carpenters are used to.<<That maybe that adaptability could actually prolong the useful life of that building, even though the shell might not be a durable?>>Adaptability is a critical component of green building. Durability is also a key, and more durability is not always better. Everything comes at a cost, and those costs need to be weighed.
If there is a serious need to move a door or change a window on an ICF home a concrete saw is all that is required to do it in quick order..
Have you seen the chainsaws that use diamond blades to make square cuts? You punch through a ICF wall just like it's wood.. make nice square corners and still be able to work through really thick concrete forms.. Much faster than the old circular saw concetre cutters.
Jim
Adaptability is a big question. Did you ever read Stewart Brand's book, "How Buildings Learn"? He proposes that buildings either adapt and change or die, although there are obviously exceptions.
You are right too in saying that ICF structures are not easy to change. It's not as simple as sawing a hole where you want it. You must also provide structural support for whatever is over that hole, and the loads are greater than in a wood house.
There's a lot of things going on in modern houses which are going to make them a PITA to change in future. Radiant floors, concrete overpours, trusses, I-joists, everything, in fact which isn't just wood. Think about trying to match a piece of vinyl siding that was installed maybe 20 years ago. They don't make that pattern any more.
I'm thinking that you are right, but that the adaptability problem is not just an ICF problem.
Ron
You know, I never gave a lot of thought to the way I-joists (lauded by many as a green material) limit structural adaptability of a building. No question, though, they do. Roof trusses are a more obvious example.
I am thinking about a slightly larger topic. For many years I've been thinking "who is buying all these new homes? Is our population growing at such an astounding rate that there is a demand for all these homes?"
I think you are right about how important adaptability is, regardless of what materials are used in building. In the drive to reduce labor costs, to make houses more affordable to the initial owner, we have taken a short sighted approach.
But we are still dependant on the marketplace. Customers continually demand more and more for their money. I understand that, but I think it's a huge part of the problem facing any significant change in the way we build.
if we build with concrete think of how many trees we could save, the squirrels will be happy. and everybody like the squireels
excellent point Jim.
Let's avoid lambasting McMansions and deal with adaptability and durability.. I have a natural bias towards solid wood because I was able to harvest mine locally and due to sizes available I'm able to span large areas. Not all are able to do that.. plus costs would enter into it and buying lumberyard materials would make solid timbers too expensive for most..
However the use of manufactured trusses and floor joists does somewhat limit what can be done to modify a home for future use.. In my case almost all the interior timbers are surplus to structural needs. Thus virtually my whole house could be emptied and redesigned as the need arises..
That cannot be said of many homes using manufactored joists and trusses..
There have been several fires in down town Mpls. where the whole building was involved in fire.. afterwards the timbers were sandblasted and reused because they had not been structurally weakened beyond a safe point..
A similar fire involving TGI's and mfg. roof trusses would have the building totaled..
Fire safety too has been discussed to death here with TGI's and MFG. roof trusses.. Bottom line any time dimensionally smaller material is used there is less time for firefighters to recover fire victims before the building collapses..
Let's avoid lambasting McMansions and deal with adaptability and durability
The primary factor influencing both embodied energy and operating energy is building size. So McMansions are inherently "ungreen", if they are either larger or more extravagant than is necessary for basic shelter.
In my case almost all the interior timbers are surplus to structural needs.
Which makes your house very resource INefficient.
There have been several fires in down town Mpls. where the whole building was involved in fire.. afterwards the timbers were sandblasted and reused because they had not been structurally weakened beyond a safe point..
Yes, and this would be the case with structural timbers. Non-structural (aesthetic) timbers are simply a waste of precious resources.
Fire safety too has been discussed to death here with TGI's and MFG. roof trusses.. Bottom line any time dimensionally smaller material is used there is less time for firefighters to recover fire victims before the building collapses..
Not "any time dimensionally smaller material is used". It depends on the fire resistance of the entire assembly. A stick-framed building with dense-pack cellulose is far more fire-resistant than a timber frame wrapped with SIPs.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
You know, I never gave a lot of thought to the way I-joists (lauded by many as a green material) limit structural adaptability of a building. No question, though, they do. Roof trusses are a more obvious example.
Of course they do. And this is yet another example of how technological "solutions" create more problems - called unintentional consequences, or blow-back.
I am thinking about a slightly larger topic. For many years I've been thinking "who is buying all these new homes? Is our population growing at such an astounding rate that there is a demand for all these homes?"
It's not so much population growth, but the growth in single-parent and retired couple households, with people demanding (and architects and builders providing) larger and more expensive homes for smaller households.
While the average family size is declining and aging 40% of new homes have 4 or more bedrooms, 24% of new homes have 3 or more bathrooms, 50% of homes have single heads of household, 1 in 4 Americans want at least a 3-car garage, the average home requires almost 14,000 BF of lumber and 19 tons of concrete, and since 2001, the percentage of Americans with 2nd homes has increased 24%.<!----><!----><!---->
In the drive to reduce labor costs, to make houses more affordable to the initial owner, we have taken a short sighted approach.
And, perhaps the biggest contribution to short-sightedness, to make our buldings more profitable for the builder.
But we are still dependant on the marketplace. Customers continually demand more and more for their money. I understand that, but I think it's a huge part of the problem facing any significant change in the way we build.
That's passing the buck. Each of us can draw lines we're not willing to cross. I know local architects, for instance, who will turn down any residential project larger than 3,000 sf. Each of us has our share of the responsibility to contribute to positive changes in our cultural paradigm.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
>>>>I am thinking about a slightly larger topic. For many years I've been thinking "who is buying all these new homes? Is our population growing at such an astounding rate that there is a demand for all these homes?" >>It's not so much population growth, but the growth in single-parent and retired couple households, with people demanding (and architects and builders providing) larger and more expensive homes for smaller households.What's happened in the marketplace, I suspect, is more a matter of builders fixating on, and buyers *settling for*, a certain kind of product. Size is only one distinctive feature of McMansion style. Even more, it's a failure to adapt to local site conditions and individual client needs. The failure begins with local government, in restrictive, unimaginative zoning policies. These policies drive up the cost of land. To compensate, builders favor large houses, cheap materials, and cookie-cutter plans.The failure is aggravated by bad schooling. Builders are being trained, not educated. School resources are focused on college-bound super-achievers at the high end, and dysfunctional families at the low end. In the middle, or upper-middle, our country lacks a high-quality system of trades education and certification some other places have. So there is a shortage of knowledge and skill to respond to specific local needs.Meanwhile, people are forgetting how to speak a shared language of simple, vernacular building forms. A traditional "pattern language" fosters competent local decision-making, even in the absence of formal schooling. We've been ceding those decisions to the likes of KB Homes. They design a product for profit in a broad market segment, not a product evolved for a particular community, or adapted for a particular site and family.
Edited 12/25/2008 8:13 am ET by tom21769
I'm one of those people whove bought a couple homes in the last 10 years. Never built a new one, but I've been rebuilding the one I have. One thing that is left out of this conversation is how much the American family dynamic has changed. Families are ALOT more mobile now. When we have family in town, we have them in for a week at least, and the number of people under our roof expands x3... all with the same amount of bedrooms and bathrooms as we have every other day of the year. I keep an extra car JUST for when people come in from out of town.
Our kids are young, but I've got to start planning now how our house will not only accompany our existing relatives - but the new ones our kids will start bringing home.
I'm planning now for making my house bigger, more energy eficient, and more useful.<!----><!----><!---->
Tu stultus esRebuilding my home in Cypress, CAAlso a CRX fanatic!
Look, just send me to my drawer. This whole talking-to-you thing is like double punishment.
One thing that is left out of this conversation is how much the American family dynamic has changed. Families are ALOT more mobile now.
It's the same conversation and the same dynamic that's contributed to the rise of larger homes for single heads of households, children-out-of-the-nest couples, and retired couples. It's a growth in hedonism and avarice at the expense of not only the rest of the world but of our children's children and their children.
When we have family in town, we have them in for a week at least, and the number of people under our roof expands x3... all with the same amount of bedrooms and bathrooms as we have every other day of the year. I keep an extra car JUST for when people come in from out of town.
The majority of the world's people live 12 to a room and two or three to every bed. But we need three extra bedrooms for occasional guests and a couple extra bathrooms so everyone has their privacy and convenience. Two, three, four cars - half of them SUVs. The earth is dying because of our extravagance and unconscienable consumption. 30,500 children dying every day, half of them from malnutrition - because we need 3000 sf homes.
Our kids are young, but I've got to start planning now how our house will not only accompany our existing relatives - but the new ones our kids will start bringing home. I'm planning now for making my house bigger, more energy eficient, and more useful.
The primary determinant of energy consumption of a house is size. The primary determinant of the health of a nation is what it does for "the least of these". You might consider starting to plan to leave a habitable world for your grandchildren.<!----><!----><!---->
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Well said. Thank you.
Que? I want to provide my guests with space to stay while they spend extended time with me and my family... and that places pleasure above everything or is greedy? A divorced father who remarries to someone already with kids buys a home with extra bedrooms for his own kids to sleep in when he has them... that's destroying society? A retiered couple moves out of their 3 bedroom colonial, and into a 6 bedroom McMansion which now allows them to host the families of their three children over the summers and during the major holidays - they are taking away from their grandkids...how?
The majority of the world is poor. If you gave those families the choice of having sex with their FIL laying next to them, or having sex in their own bedroom, I'd have to guess most would choose their own space away from family. And let me tell you, I am not hopping in the sack with my dad - his kicking in the middle of the night would keep the whole bedroom of people awake! Most of the worlds people would probably like to sit on a comfy sofa too - they don't not because they don't choose to, but because they can't afford it.
As far as people dying of malnutrition - I'd like to see that direct causation of McManions to starving kids. From what I understand, malnutrition is caused by a whole lot of things that have nothing to do with consumption, but have alot to do with local social and political realities.
The primary determinant of energy consumption is the quality of its construction, and the availability of better materials. Big house on average use more energy only because MOST homes are poorly built with inferior materials. Of course a bigger poorly built home uses more energy than a smaller poorly built home! As for my home, I'm going through room by room looking for ways to make it more livable and lovable for decades. I'm also making it much more energy efficient, besides using the footprint of the land better.
Being close to clergy, I hear alot of that bs get sent up and shot down on a regular basis. Save that conversation for a different thread, unless you've somehow managed to make your building philosophy cure mentally ill chonicly homeless people... but then still talk about it in a different thread. It just comes off as sanctimonious otherwise - that's Tavern talk!
Tu stultus esRebuilding my home in Cypress, CAAlso a CRX fanatic!
Look, just send me to my drawer. This whole talking-to-you thing is like double punishment.
It sounds like you have your head in the sand on this one.
I might. But I'd like to hear a reasoned argument why. So would the divorced dad who would like to have his kids over and make them feel like they have a home with them. So would the grandparents who have a house too big for themselves, but plenty big for the whole family for long extended stays.
Please explain why we are all bad people.
Tu stultus esRebuilding my home in Cypress, CAAlso a CRX fanatic!
Look, just send me to my drawer. This whole talking-to-you thing is like double punishment.
we just had our daughter and two grandsons for the last month.... then our SIL joined us for the last week
most of the time we rattle around.... but we are the last hub left in the town we all grew up in
we run an extended stay motel for my siblings, my cousins, my last aunt and uncle.... all the nephews and neices
all our future plans include at least 3 bedrooms...
when i design homes for people whose stated goal is to leave their next house feet first.... i always assume a minimum of 3 bedrooms...
one for them...one for the kids, and one for the extended caregiverMike Hussein Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
By your logic, everyone should have a large house with lots of extra heated, cooled, finished space so that everyone else can come and visit them in comfort. Creating and maintaining all of that space consumes too many resources. Look at what's being done to the planet in order to provide you with all of this "stuff".
To evaluate a general house size as it's being discussed
one would need to seriously consider current and future
social trends.
As it stands now, many families live separately from one another.
While also relocating very often. This would seam to lend credence
to the idea that smaller more adaptable dwellings are needed.
Historically several generations have lived together. Indeed homes
were passed down from one to another. This would make for a situation
where accommodating larger numbers was important. Also, the uses of
particular spaces become more formal and static. While our world is vastly different then years gone by some universal truths do apply.
Caring for the elderly is always a necessity. Often it is the families need and responsibility to find a way to provide it. One old
and useful option is co-habitation. I see know reason to assume this
system would not become more prevalent in the future.
This more communal way of life, is far more affordable economically
and environmentally. So in short, Size not such an easy question. But, it does matter ;)
Exactly!
Think about the post WWII building boom. All these home I see were so that every soldier could have their own roof, then it became every worker, and so on. The building style (SFH) was geared to one type of social unit - if you became a different social unit you had to be in a different place (Condo, Assisted living).
I understand people thinking the simple formular of Big = Bad. How about working from a different thought: Smarter = Better?
Size matters less than how well the building can self scale. If more houses had better planning for the full range of lifestyle, then they could better assist society as a whole.
Just imagine more houses built with that second floor that can be closed off from the rest of the house. With a simple modification, they could be made into independent apartments. In this economy today, those houses could absorb the families who were forclosed into rentals, and those rentals could provide a steady income for the family owning it during economic shocks like this. People could stay in their own neighborhoods, go to their same schools and care facilities. That's not that hard to do - we all have those tools already.
Tu stultus esRebuilding my home in Cypress, CAAlso a CRX fanatic!
Look, just send me to my drawer. This whole talking-to-you thing is like double punishment.
Actually the whole "passive house" thread feeds into this conversation quite a bit. A big house with minimal energy use - can't happen here? That's just a lack of imagination!
Tu stultus esRebuilding my home in Cypress, CAAlso a CRX fanatic!
Look, just send me to my drawer. This whole talking-to-you thing is like double punishment.
About half the assuptions you are making are correct.
Large house: Not sure what constitues "large", but our 5 bedroom house at 1700 sq' is smaller than just about anything else I've seen in the issues of FHB. A house - depending on climate - may or may not require large indoor areas. I'm in SoCal, we spend half the day outside year round. In Buffalo or Chicago, we would probably need more enclosed space - like a basement. Personally, I think most every house could benifit from a basement, especially in hot climates where they are rarer.
Extra Heated/Cooled spaces: This is where I really disagree. If anyone in the design process spent two minutes thinking about how a family of four might use a house with 6 bedrooms, then I think alot of your concern on those unused spaces goes away. If you can plan the arrangement right, you can take the extra space and facilities right out of your HVAC envelope. Simplest way to do that is make the extra zone the upstairs with its own HVAC setup, insulate the floors and ceiling - then shut the door when no one is using it.
Finished space for comfort: So how are second spaces normally furnished? With castoffs from the Primary spaces. We have at our house a large outdoor space that's a covered patio. Takes resources to outfit that space, right (just like it would if it were a seperate upstairs living room)? We furnished it with the couch set that was sitting in our living room that we were replacing. Instead of dumping it, we recycled it. I see lots of families doing that (Too often with pillows, unfortunatly. My parents have a pillow in the closet from the 70's that I think is better for wiping dishes with :(
Tu stultus esRebuilding my home in Cypress, CAAlso a CRX fanatic!
Look, just send me to my drawer. This whole talking-to-you thing is like double punishment.
All you have to do is look at the quantity of built residential space now vs. 50 years ago, on a per capita basis. This country is awash in poorly built, overly large houses that will not last very long and will be expensive (fossil fuel intensive) to heat and cool, not to mention maintain. The construction of all of this stuff has been a huge, horrible, short-sighted mistake that is going to cost this country dearly, in fact it is already. Low density sprawl into agricultural land too far from jobs and commerce. Oops.
I'm happy to hear your house is 1700 SF and not 3700 SF, but everywhere I go in this country I see a lot of the latter.
None of this is really intended as a personal criticism of you, but your attitude that you need extra space to accommodate occasional visitors... the idea that some crowding and discomfort is a horror to be avoided at all costs... that attitude is part of what fuels the overconsumption going on in this country.
Nothing a little depression wouldn't cure...
No slight taken, I assure you.
This is an important conversation to have, because we are on the cusp of a whole new way of living. Energy is only cheap for about one or two more years, then we are going to see the mother of all snap-backs.
How do we build for the future? What do we do with all the crummy housing stock we already have? How hard should we beat people who don't keep their tires properly inflated ;)
Tu stultus esRebuilding my home in Cypress, CAAlso a CRX fanatic!
Look, just send me to my drawer. This whole talking-to-you thing is like double punishment.
>>How hard should we beat people who don't keep their tires properly inflated
Probably not that long before new vehicles all have onboard air pressure monitoring.
The lousy housing stock, that's a tougher question. If history is an indicator then the McMansions of today will become the multi-unit cheap apartments of tomorrow.
Probably not that long before new vehicles all have onboard air pressure monitoring.
Hummers already do, so they must be "green" ;-)
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
creating and maintaining all that space consumes too many resources...
Or not! Are you suggesting that the family home be vacated upon the last child leaving? If so then a whole new house must be built and more land removed from farming or whatever to build the house on. Not to mention the social disruption of leaving an old familar neighborhood filled with friends and neighbors.
In addition young familes according to your approach would be required to move into a one bedroom home, move from that to a 2 bedroom home upon birth of their first child etc..
In your approach look at the number of houses required to maintian maximum utilization of space as compared to one large 3 bedroom home that starts out too big but gets filled and eventually emptied out again..
I know Americans move every 5 years on average but is that a good thing for the enviornment?
Geez Paul!Pete
<<The primary determinant of energy consumption of a house is size. The primary determinant of the health of a nation is what it does for "the least of these". You might consider starting to plan to leave a habitable world for your grandchildren.>>OK, I found something we agree on.
Paul there is a genuine need for larger homes in your case and in mine.. this is not a wish thing. we honestly need bigger homes if we're to accomidate more people in a comfortable manner..
I honestly believe that a single large home is more efficent than three smaller homes.. and that is the situation I'm facing.. I've 2 girls growing up and they and their families can start out on a small house and keep moving up or remain in a sinlge large home.
They will not remain if their privacy is lost or they feel cramped.. but each family member adds to the btu total generated and thus lowers purchased energy requirements.
The social advantages of multigenrational homes is well documented..
You missed at least one critical factor.. fiberglas, celluliose, or foam have about the same amount of embedded energy. Wood framed houses need insulation to operate any where near as efficently as an ICF house would. So the forms are a basic wash with the insulation in the stick framed. Now if we can trade off the energy embedded in the stick framing to the energy embedded in concrete we have somewhat near the same amount of energy..
Please note that in many cases wood isn't harvested locally but shipped around the country. Whereas most concrete is made from locally mined materials.
Your point 6 is critical.. lifespan.. if the wood framed house is placed where toxic materials must be used to protect it from the ravages of insects (termits, carpenter ants) Plus periodically painted to protect it from water damage. You have a higher energy level to maintian a wood framed home than a ICF built home.. plus the shorter lifespan of a wood framed house. Means the wood framed home must have whatever multiplier effect is required to achieve the level of durability that a ICF home achieves..
no...that's not a true statement.... celloulose has nowhere's near the same embedded energy as fg or foamMike Hussein Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
please think Mike..
Harvesting the trees made into pulp to create the paper in the first place requires a lot of energy.. chainsaws, big logging trucks, dozers, log grapplers, etc. etc. etc. Not to mention the equipment at the plant that makes the wood pulp into paper and then the trucks that deliver the paper to the first user plus the recycling trucks that pick up the used paper and the equipment used to turn it into celluliose insulation.. all of them use energy!
did you read any of the above posts ?
all of that is already facotred into the mfr & distribution of cellulose
it still wins the embodied energy contest Mike Hussein Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
Mike I have rarely seen a study which did not include some bias (either pro or con) so it's critical to examine the study for validity and bias..
The last study I looked at which I felt was credable showed similar numbers for all three insulations with regard embedded energy..
But even those I question because wouldn't the energy involved in transportation create massive differances? for example the oil.
If it's shipped via super tanker from the mideast the embedded number would be massively greater than if it's pipelined from Alaska or Canada.. or even gathered domestically.
With variables such as that how can solid numbers be used and thus how can they be given any credibility?
Same goes for concrete.. how remote are the sources for the material? How are those materials delievered? One nearby plant has it's own quarry where they simply dig out thematerials seperate them and recombine them back together.. while another plant gets all it's material delivered via train..
What are valid numbers in that situation?
The use of any arbitrary numbers is a real cause to question the validity of the source of that information.
The last study I looked at which I felt was credable showed similar numbers for all three insulations with regard embedded energy..
Show us the data. No other source suggests that's the case.
But even those I question because wouldn't the energy involved in transportation create massive differances? for example the oil.
Average shipping distances are factored into the numbers.
With variables such as that how can solid numbers be used and thus how can they be given any credibility?
I have data from at least a dozen sources, and they all agree. That suggests credibility.
The use of any arbitrary numbers is a real cause to question the validity of the source of that information.
While all these EE numbers are approximations and averages and can't take into account local variables, the numbers aren't "arbitrary".
It's your refusal to accept the consensus on these numbers which suggests that your bias is getting in the way of your judgements.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Riversong.. It's true I do have bias, I did extensive research before I selected my approach to building.. I had a clean sheet and knew only one thing.. I wanted to save energy..
In the end I did.. the previous home was 1/2 as large and had 1/3 the number of windows. It was extremely well insulated and during the deconstruction I looked for flaws in the insulation/vapor barrier.
The old home cost me $500 a month to heat and using the same furnace (I believe in recycling) this one costs me $200 a month to heat.. the old one was stick framed this one uses ICF's and SIP's
That's my bias!
I've a theory why it's so but they are only theory's. Who cares? My costs for heating and cooling are very small compared to what they were. they will continue to be much smaller than neighbors bills with more conventional construction..
As for your data sources.. I suppose I could go on the web and find a dozen sources that will attempt to convince me the earth is flat.
The simple fact is that a conventionally built house 1/2 the size with a third the number of windows cost me $500 a month to heat and this one costs me $200 a month to heat..
Anybody got any facts? Opinions?
1. Concrete embodies a lot of energy. The amount of energy is probably quantifiable, except for the energy it takes to get the concrete to your job site and poured.
Concrete has 1.3 MJ/Kg = 559 BTU/lb = 83,836 BTU/cf. It also has the highest global warming contribution of any building material in the amounts used.
Let's use AMVIC 11" ICFs as an example with about 0.625 pounds EPS per square foot of wall and 0.513 cf of concrete per sf wall.
For a 1000 sf building (25' x 40' x 8'), a single would have 1040 sf of wall.
Embodied energy of the concrete would be 447 therms (1 therm is roughly equivalent to a gallon of #2 fuel oil).
2. There's more energy embodied in the foam, though there isn't a lot of foam involved, typically about 0.56 pounds of form per sq foot of wall surface
Embodied energy of the EPS would be 327 therms (Therm = 100,000 BTU).
The steel rebar woud add another 96 therms.
For a total of 870 therms EE.
3 There are certain to be some toxicity issues involved in the foam manufacturing.
Polystyrene is classified according to DIN4102 as a "B3" product, meaning highly flammable or "easily ignited". Products Evolved When Subjected to Heat or Combustion: Toxic levels of carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, irritating aldehydes and ketones.
Expanded polystyrene is not easily recyclable because of its light weight and low scrap value. It is generally not accepted in curbside programs. Expanded polystyrene foam takes a very long time to decompose in the environment.
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€
4 Wood embodies a lot of energy in the harvesting, milling, kiln drying and shipping. Can that amount of energy be known?
KD lumber has 2.5 MJ/kg = 1075 BTU/lb = 29,020 BTU/cf
At 20% of wall area in framing, that would contribute 35 therms.
Let's compare the ICF wall with a simple 2x6 24 oc with 2x3 flat interior cross-hatch 16 oc with dense-pack cellulose and 1/2" CDX sheathing.
We'll compare clear walls (no doors and windows).
5 Sheet sheathing goods embody quite a lot of energy and there is a level of toxicity to the glues which affects some people.
CDX has 10.4 MJ/Kg = 4471 BTU/lb = 152,023 BTU/cf
It would contribute 66 therms of EE.
Contrary to what Frenchy claimed, cellulose has less embodied energy than any insulation material except straw bales.
It has 1.8 MJ/Kg = 7.52 BTU/lb = 2257 BTU/cf (at 3 pcf density).
It would contribute 11 therms to the envelope, for a grand total of 112 therms.
That's 758 therms less EE, or 13% as much EE as the ICF wall.
If I used 1" softwood sheathing in lieu of CDX (which can be sourced from a local mill, supporting the community economy), I could save 41 therms for a total of 71 therms, or 8% of the ICF wall.
6 This might be controversial if somebody is in the mood for an argument: The lifespan of an ICF house will be greater than the lifespan of a modern wood frame house. I think it could easily be that the resolution of the whole question might be found in this point. If so, I might have to return to this discussion in a hundred years or so, if I remember it.
I don't think this is a reasonable assumption. Polystyrene is vulnerable to mechanical damage, UV degradation, insect infestation, acetone solvents, and fire. Reinforced concrete foundations often crack upon settling or shifting, and there would be no way to inspect the concrete - ever - for problems.
Contrary to what some here claim, I do not accept that an ICF wall system is nearly as amenable to design adaptability over time as a wood-frame house, just as a house that uses any kind of trusses (light wood roof or floor, TJIs) is as easily modified as a stick-built structure. And adaptability for future uses and future occupants is a key feature of longevity. Houses that aren't easily modified will end up in the landfill.
Imagine that the ICF house and the wood house under discussion are insulated to the same level and each take the same amount of energy to operate. (In my opinion it is harder to achieve that level of energy consumption in a wood house than in an ICF house, but I know it can be done, with an effort.)
It's almost effortless to get similar efficiencies with a wood-frame structure. The above example, simple to build, woud offer an as-built clear wall R-value of 23.1 (not including interior or exterior finishes).
AMVIC claims an R-22 for their wall, not including mass effects. On the other thread, I posted quotes from and links to two studies, one in Canada and the other by Oak Ridge Lab, that demonstrated no efficiency improvement of ICF over wood frame. The best mass enhancement comes from exterior-insulated concrete and the least from concrete sandwiched between foam.
Another ORNL study showed some enhanced mass effect, but primarily in moderate climates that experience significant daily temperature fluctuations, such as Pheonix (1.43 x R). But in northern climates, the enhancement was almost nothing (1.07 in Minneapolis).
In addition to the significant EE difference and the significant difference in environmental impacts, toxicity and recyclability (with no demonstrated difference in durability), a wood-frame cellulose house will handle moisture far better since the materials are permeable and moisture-tolerant and have sufficient "moisture mass" (the equivalent of thermal mass) to buffer indoor RH. Concrete also has those properties, but not when it's locked behind plastic foam.
The cross-hatched cellulose house will be just as efficient, just as quiet, just as (or more) comfortable, and I believe more durable than anything made with concrete and plastic foam.
In terms of "green", I think there's no contest.
Solar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Edited 12/24/2008 12:02 pm ET by Riversong
Edited 12/24/2008 3:05 pm ET by Riversong
What is your opinion of mass-compensated thermal performance?
What is your opinion of mass-compensated thermal performance?
If you mean mass-enhanced thermal performance, I addressed that above. ORNL determined that internal mass (exterior insulation) and CIC (concrete-insulation-concrete) are the most effective, while ICI (insulation-concrete-insulation, such as ICFs) and exterior mass (interior insulation) were less effective.
They also determined that the multiplier effect of thermal mass is most evident in moderate climates that experience broad daily temperature swings (1.43 in Pheonix). In cold climates with little daily temperature difference, such as Minneapolis, there was almost no effect (1.07). And mass effects are greater in hot climates.
Thermal Mass and R-value, Environmental Building News, April 1, 1998:
http://www.buildinggreen.com/auth/article.cfm?fileName=070401a.xml
"Clearly, high-mass materials used in exterior walls perform better than would be expected based solely on their steady-state R-values. But the actual thermal performance is highly dependent on where the building is located. Nearly all areas with significant cooling loads can benefit from thermal mass in exterior walls. The sunny Southwest, particularly high-elevation areas of Arizona, New Mexico and Colorado, benefit the most from the mass effect for heating. In northern climates, when the temperature during a 24-hour period in winter is always well below the indoor temperature, the mass effect offers almost no benefit, and the mass-enhanced R-value is nearly identical to the steady-state R-value."
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Edited 12/24/2008 12:22 am ET by Riversong
You did not state your opinion or describe your experience, you simply referenced some studies.I'm trying to figure out if I think you actually have any idea of what you are talking about based on real-world application and experience.
You did not state your opinion or describe your experience, you simply referenced some studies.
Are you suggesting that an opinion is of more value than carefully controlled studies? That personal anecdote is more valuable than building science?
I'm trying to figure out if I think you actually have any idea of what you are talking about based on real-world application and experience.
Since I'm the only one who addressed all the questions raised, and in minute detail with considerable supporting data and references to tests performed by internationally-recognized labs, that's a very odd statement unless you have some ulterior motive.
If you're asking about my real-world experience with ICF buildings, I have none. They don't meet my minimum standards for green building. But I've been a ground-breaking builder of superinsulated passive solar homes for more than 25 years, have received national recognition for my work, have built some of the most energy- and resource-efficient homes in the country, and I teach sustainable design and construction as well as building science and structural, thermal and moisture engineering.
So, I suppose you might say that I have some idea what I'm talking about.
How about you? Or do you base your work on opinion and anecdotal evidence?
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
<<If you're asking about my real-world experience with ICF buildings, I have none. >>That's pretty much what I would have guessed.<<But I've been a ground-breaking builder of superinsulated passive solar homes for more than 25 years, have received national recognition for my work, have built some of the most energy- and resource-efficient homes in the country, and I teach sustainable design and construction as well as building science and structural, thermal and moisture engineering.>>Good for you. Thank you for your contributions to a most worthwhile cause.<<How about you? Or do you base your work on opinion and anecdotal evidence?>>I've built a few that worked great. If I thought you were a little more open minded I might try to make the case for their benefit, but I think I'd be wasting my time.
I'd love to read whatever you have to say.
I try to keep an open mind. And the past few years I've been studying trying to come to an understanding of what consitutes responsible building.
So much of the cannon contradicts not only itself, but my intuition. It's been both eye opening and disconcerting.
To date, all I've been able to do is recognise a few techniques I can integrate into my current methods. I am hoping it will all coalesce at some point into a clear philosophy.
I'm all ears (eyes really) and I'm sure many others would be interested in reading what you have to say.
<<I'd love to read whatever you have to say.>>Thanks, Jim. I stayed away from the computer for Christmas, but for better or worse <G> I'm back. I see there has been a fair amount of activity on this thread. After I get caught up I'll see what I can add.<<I try to keep an open mind. And the past few years I've been studying trying to come to an understanding of what consitutes responsible building.>>I've always respected you for that.<<So much of the cannon contradicts not only itself, but my intuition. It's been both eye opening and disconcerting.>>This is where careful thinking weighed against your own experience pays off. Green building is always, in every instance, contextual. Energy efficiency is an important component, but it is not the whole story.<<To date, all I've been able to do is recognise a few techniques I can integrate into my current methods. I am hoping it will all coalesce at some point into a clear philosophy.>>That is right on the money. Above all, this is applied philosophy. Back when I started doing this people were reluctant to build green because it cost more. We called it the "green tax". It finally occured to me that the investment capital required to get around that would be intellectual. And with a little thought, planning, and design, there we are.<<I'm all ears (eyes really) and I'm sure many others would be interested in reading what you have to say. >>OK, I'll get adter it, and thank you for the encouragement.
OK, where do you want to dig into this?The pros and cons of ICFs?Why might ICF be considered green?How do we think about "green"?
<<So much of the cannon contradicts not only itself, but my intuition. It's been both eye opening and disconcerting.To date, all I've been able to do is recognise a few techniques I can integrate into my current methods. I am hoping it will all coalesce at some point into a clear philosophy.>>That's as good a point of departure as any.I'm supposing that anyone who is thinking about green building is probably also noticing that we've got a real problem on our hands. My usual lecture involves a closer look, but I think you've got a pretty good handle on that.Nonetheless, it's worth noticing that there is a case to be made that the mess we're in, as it relates to the building trades, happened one house at a time. From there is is perilously inviting to run headlong into philosophy, sociology, economics, market psychology, and so on, and I'd like very much to come back to that, but at least for right now I want to stick to more immediate concerns.If we can see an economy as the collective expression of individual preferences in the exchange of goods and services, then it is easy to see that anything --anything -- that any builder does to do a better job is a step in the right direction.There is simply no good reason to get mired down in extraneous detail that may or may not even be relevant or significant when we can get to work instead. As has been pointed out by someone much smarter than me, "Numbers will confess to anything if you torture them long enough." We're all going to be doing this for a long time, and we can always make refinements and improvements.Riversong gave us a superb list of considerations in his most recent post. I would go so far as to say it could serve as a design template. If he doesn't mind, I'd like to run through it point by point, because he has given us a lot of good things to discuss.So, for ICFs -- as a foundation, I do not see any way to beat them for most types of construction. If you are in a situation where a monoslab, pier and beam, or rubble-trench will work, then great, I think those would all be preferable given the right application. But in general, if an architect draws CMU, I usually ask "Why not ICF?"As for building the walls to roof bearing out of ICF, as you can tell I think it's a real good idea sometimes.The factor of "protection" is simply not as minor or irrelevant or regionally restricted as others have suggested. Any coastal area or anywhere that hurricanes or tornadoes are likely, ICFs are a great choice. That's a lot of area.And if we include seismically active areas, suddenly ICFs are looking pretty good for an awful lot of the country.Part of evaluating embodied energy or energy efficiency or any other measure of efficiency is to always bear in mind the distinction between "efficient" and "effective".For example, I spent a while in the military at an interesting time in history. We were not terribly efficient by some measures, but by golly we were effective.Put differently, we are not building engineering experiments for peer review, we are building homes for people to live in. If they live in Tornado Alley, they might like the idea of trading a little embodied energy for durability and safety. Besides, I have yet to see anything I would regard as a thorough and meaningful accounting of this whole embodied energy idea. Sure, I understand concrete takes energy to make and deliver and stand up. So does everything else we use. Gotta keep it in perspective. Cost-benefit.One of the raging debates in green building was succinctly summarized for me by Betsy Pettit of Building Science Corp. (That's Joe Lstiburek's operation.) A few years ago she and I were talking about design philosophy, and she pointed out that Joe and I would never agree, because he was "light and tight" and I was "mass and class."While I suspect all my class is low, I appreciate her comment and her intent. And it is right to the point.The "light and tight" philosophy works very well in climates with with wide seasonal temperature swings, otherwise relatively benign meteorological conditions, stable geology, easy access to materials (close to shipping terminals), a strong industrial orientation, and a skilled labor force.In other words, it's a fairly sophisticated approach that depends at its core on the assumption of a trained and skilled labor force and additional inputs of energy for heating and cooling. I've seen some of this modern technology go badly awry in the details. That's no reason to avoid it, just a caution. As for the additional inputs; super-insulated is a mechanical separation from the environment, which as I noted, in some circumstances is desirable.As for the "mass-and-class" approach, it's more widely known as mass-compensated thermal performance. This design philosophy is more suitable for climates that can take advantage of diurnal temperature swings, also where solar gain is practical.Some recent advancements make this far more widely applicable than previously supposed.As I mentioned earlier, I have built ICF homes in a 6,001 degree-day climate, and these homes need no additional heating or cooling whatsoever to remain comfortable year round.So as we consider all this energy-stuff, I think it's useful to weigh that against the total energy consumption for the operation of the structure over the course of its useful life.In this regard, ICFs can come out a big winner.Keep going?
So as we consider all this energy-stuff, I think it's useful to weigh that against the total energy consumption for the operation of the structure over the course of its useful life. In this regard, ICFs can come out a big winner.
How, then, do you respond to the two studies which concluded that there was no significant thermal advantage to an ICF building beyond the additional R-value?
Monitored Thermal Performance of ICF Walls
http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/odpub/pdf/65863.pdf
Insulating Concrete Forms: Comparative Thermal Performance
http://www.pathnet.org/sp.asp?id=1005
The first, by the Canadian Housing and Mortgage Association concluded:
"The ICF wall assembly studied in this research project had an insulating value that was fairly close to the nominal insulation value of the polystyrene layers of insulation. While minor thermal bridges through the wall system were detected, the more severe bridges that were found were due to penetrations through the ICF system and did not represent a weakness in the ICF wall system.
No thermal mass impact or higher effective insulation value was observed. However, the air leakage testing found the building to be relatively airtight and this can, for the most part, be attributed to the ICF wall system. The energy savings associated with the reduced air leakage alone are significant and would continue to accrue over the life of the building as the amount of air leakage through the ICF wall section would not be expected to increase to any great extent over time.
Additionally, the ICF wall system provided a significant thermal buffer between indoor and outdoor conditions, which would provide for enhanced comfort conditions within the building."
And the other, prepared by the NAHB Research Center for HUD, which compared an ICF plank house, an ICF block house, and a conventional 2x4 stick-framed house, which concluded that:
There was not significant difference in air leakage test results among the three homes. This lack of difference may reflect the dimensions, volume, and relatively limited wall area of these simple, affordable homes.
The two ICF homes were approximately 20%more energy efficient than the wood-frame house. This difference is largely due to the higher effective R-value of the ICF walls and continuous insulation at the slab.
BLAST modeling of energy use produced results very similar to actual energy use. The results suggest that the contribution of thermal mass and ground-coupling effects to the overall energy efficiency of the ICF homes was not significant.
"While no dramatic thermal comfort differences were apparent between the ICF and the wood-frame homes, several thermal comfort measures showed slight but significant better performance for the ICF homes."
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
""How, then, do you respond to the two studies which concluded that there was no significant thermal advantage to an ICF building beyond the additional R-value?"" Can you define the term " thermal advantage" ? I read both reports and do not see the term used in the conclusions of either , nor am I certain I understand exactly what you mean by it. Also My reading of the conclusions indicates that there is significant air infiltration gains to be had using ICF and as an added bonus occupant comfort levels would be higher.
They can't get your Goat if you don't tell them where it is hidden.
""How, then, do you respond to the two studies which concluded that there was no significant thermal advantage to an ICF building beyond the additional R-value?""
Can you define the term " thermal advantage" ?
Reduction in heating and cooling load.
I read both reports and do not see the term used in the conclusions of either
What the Canadian monitoring study concluded was "No thermal mass impact or higher effective insulation value was observed."
The US comparative study concluded: "In general, the ICF homes were approximately 20% more energy efficient than the wood frame house. Given the three homes similarities in air tightness, the increased energy-efficiency is largely due to the higher effective R-value of the walls and continuous insulation at the slab...No dramatic comfort differences were noted between ICF and wood-framed construction, but the ICF home had several thermal comfort measures showing a slight improvement."
A further analysis of this study concluded: "In the final report, NHAB researches concluded that this 20% difference was caused by the R-7 difference in wall R-values (ICF wall R-value was about R-20, conventional 2x4 wood stud wall R-value was about R-13). However, simulation data developed by ORNL for a similar 1300 ft2 one story house suggests that for the same climate a difference between R-20 and R-13 should yield a maximum 8 to 9% difference in annual whole building energy consumption. This suggests that most likely thermal mass related energy savings during the NAHB ICF study were in the neighborhood of 11%."
This conclusion is speculative, but if correct would indicate a marginal improvement in energy-efficiency, not the 50%-100% improvement often ascribed to high-mass walls. And any improvement is highly climate-dependent (see below).
Also My reading of the conclusions indicates that there is significant air infiltration gains to be had using ICF and as an added bonus occupant comfort levels would be higher.
That was an assumption in the Canadian study, which did not have a comparison house. The US comparison study indicated that all houses had equivalent air-tightness (see above).
Additionally, a 2001 National Renewable Energy Laboratory study concluded: "In this climate [Pueblo CO], incorporating massive building materials is an effective strategy for ensuring smaller diurnal indoor temperature swings in low-energy residential building designs...Massive building construction most effectively improves comfort during the cooling season only when the mass can be pre-cooled at night. If the mass cannot be pre-cooled, then it is likely that the indoor temperatures will be higher than a comfortable level during the summer. It is also important that the mass be located within the conditioned space and insulated on the exterior."
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy01osti/29537.pdf
To prove that last point, Oak Ridge National Laboratory compared four building mass strategies:
- Exterior thermal insulation, interior mass (Intmass) <!----><!----><!---->
- Exterior mass, interior thermal insulation (Extmass) <!----><!---->
- Exterior mass, core thermal insulation, interior mass, and (CIC) <!----><!---->
- Exterior thermal insulation, core mass, interior thermal insulation (ICI). <!----><!---->
They concluded: "The thermal mass benefit is a function of wall material configuration, climate, building size, configuration, and orientation. From ten analyzed U.S. locations, the most beneficial for application of thermal mass are Phoenix, AZ and Bakersfield, CA."
The Phoenix house earned a DBMS (dynamic benefit for massive systems) of 1.43 (times nominal R-value). Houses in Atlanta and Denver earned 1.24-1.25 and in Miami and Minneapolis 1.06-1.07 (virtually same as low-mass house).
<!---->They also concluded: "<!---->Comparative analysis of sixteen different material configurations showed that the most effective wall assembly was the wall with thermal mass (concrete) applied in good contact with the interior of the building. Walls where the insulation material was concentrated on the interior side, performed much worse. Wall configurations with the concrete wall core and insulation placed on both sides of the wall performed slightly better, however, their performance was significantly worse than walls containing foam core and concrete shells on both sides."
In every case, ICF walls performed noticably worse in their mass effect than mass walls with exterior insulation (see graphic attached).
Additionally, they concluded: "For high R-value walls, up to 8% of the whole building energy could be saved in Minneapolis and 18% - in Bakersfield when wood-framed walls were replaced by massive wall systems. Thermal mass layers must be in good contact with the interior of the building in these walls.
<!----> <!---->
Whole building possible energy savings in houses built with ICF walls were estimated as well. Three houses with 800-3000 ft2 of floor area were simulated for this purpose. It was found that for ten U.S. locations, ICF walls of R15 and R20, the average potential whole building energy savings (ICF house vs conventional wood-framed house) can be between 6 and 8%."
http://www.ornl.gov/sci/roofs+walls/research/detailed_papers/thermal/index.html
An article about "Thermal Mass and R-Value" at BuildingGreen.com, states that: "The mass effect is real. High-mass walls really can significantly outperform low-mass walls of comparable steady-state R-value—i.e., they can achieve a higher “mass-enhanced R-value.†BUT (and this is an important “butâ€), this mass-enhanced R-value is only significant when the outdoor temperatures cycle above and below indoor temperatures within a 24-hour period. Thus, high-mass walls are most beneficial in moderate climates that have high diurnal (daily) temperature swings around the desired indoor setpoint."
http://www.buildinggreen.com/auth/article.cfm?fileName=070401a.xml
So the evidence to date indicates that high-mass walls can improve thermal efficiency by 6% to 8% in a heating-predominant climate (potentially more in a cooling climate), but good contact with the interior space is required for optimum performance. This means that ICF wall systems are - from a thermal perspective - a poor application of mass and insulation, and only marginally better than conventional wood-frame walls.
Given that it's very simple to improve wood-frame walls to outperform ICF walls, the thermal benefits alone are not a justification, and the other purported benefits - with the sole exception of increased reistance to extremely improbable events - are questionable at best.
Edit: attachment is in post #142 below.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Edited 12/27/2008 12:20 pm ET by Riversong
Edited 12/27/2008 12:35 pm ET by Riversong
Edited 12/27/2008 12:17 pm ET by Riversong
Here's the attachment.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
114345.139 in reply to 114345.125 """"How, then, do you respond to the two studies which concluded that there was no significant thermal advantage to an ICF building beyond the additional R-value?""Can you define the term " thermal advantage" ?Reduction in heating and cooling load."""" Can not the same thing be said about Larson truss, or your modified Larson truss designs as compared to standard construction practices?
The ""thermal advantage" can be gained through either more insulation or reducing air leakage in the building envelope. Out of curiosity when the claim is made for the cellulose insulation "green" factor does that include the embodied energy of the borate treatment?
Clearly not a recycled material and the source here in this country is a very large open pit mine in Kern co. ca.
Same type of source as is used for concrete materials. I am not a proponent of ICF, nor of any particular style of energy efficient building style, I am simply trying to wade through the various claims and counter claims made by industry and adherents of each. In the big picture of things a style that won't be used by the majority of builders is just as ineffective as one 1/2 as effective but used by the majority of builders.edit for sp. error.
Edited 12/27/2008 12:40 pm by dovetail97128
Can not the same thing be said about Larson truss, or your modified Larson truss designs as compared to standard construction practices?
The same thing? That there is little thermal advantage to a high-mass structure, particularly when the mass is not coupled to the interior?The ""thermal advantage" can be gained through either more insulation or reducing air leakage in the building envelope.
Of course, but that's not the claim of ICF proponents, which is that the thermal mass effect is significant.
Thermal mass is important, but only if used appropriately and within limits. I use thermal mass floors, for instance, as direct-gain solar storage. But excess mass, or the incorrect ratio of solar glazing to mass, will make a building perform poorly.
Out of curiosity when the claim is made for the cellulose insulation "green" factor does that include the embodied energy of the borate treatment?
If you're refering to the embodied energy numbers for cellulose, yes it's almost entirely due to the borates, and it still has less than any other insulation material except straw.
I am not a proponent of ICF, nor of any particular style of energy efficient building style, I am simply trying to wade through the various claims and counter claims made by industry and adherents of each.
As am I. Industry claims, of course, are almost always suspect and often wrong or misleading. The claims of ICF proponents are almost entirely anecdotal and not substantiated by studies.
In the big picture of things a style that won't be used my the majority of builders is just as ineffective as one 1/2 as effective but used by the majority of builders.
I agree. But this is a consequence of the distorted value system upon which our entire culture is now based (quick profit over environment, personal gain over social good) - and it's the direct cause of every one of the global crises we're now facing: peak oil, unalterable climate change, water and air pollution, soil depletion and erosion, species extinction exceeding the last great exctinction, human population overshoot, global economic collapse, mass starvation and uncontrolled epidemics, perpetual warfare for the remaining finite resources.
So, as long as we persist in using quick and profitable methods without regard for the full range of impacts - ecological, social, and economic - and without considering the "next seven generations" as "primitive" people do, then we will only continue to excacerbate the crises or at best minimally slow the destruction of the earth.
Is that really what we want?
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Edited 12/27/2008 12:54 pm ET by Riversong
Edited 12/27/2008 12:54 pm ET by Riversong
""As am I. Industry claims, of course, are almost always suspect and often wrong or misleading. The claims of ICF proponents are almost entirely anecdotal and not substantiated by studies."" Is that in fact the claim or is the claim that by using ICF you combine savings in regards to the total energy expended in constructing a high mass insulated building? Savings are accrued through not using form work, gains in envelope integrity, insulation, and labor savings while integrating high mass into the building. VA Tom's PAS houses (while not applicable to every location) go the whole system one better IMO. but they will never become the mainstream building technology I don't believe.
They can't get your Goat if you don't tell them where it is hidden.
Is that in fact the claim or is the claim that by using ICF you combine savings in regards to the total energy expended in constructing a high mass insulated building?
Savings are accrued through not using form work, gains in envelope integrity, insulation, and labor savings while integrating high mass into the building.
It's only an ancillary claim that ICFs are easier (less labor and equipment intensive) to build, and others have disputed this.
The primary industry claim is that the "effective R-value" is as much as double what the insulation R-value indicates. This is an extreme exageration not supported by any evidence. And, if - as studies demonstrate - sandwiching mass between two layers of insulation is one of the least effective ways to incorporate mass, then the claims break down further.
The easiest way to eliminate formwork is to eliminate or significantly reduce the use of concrete (high embodied energy, high global warming contribution). Envelope integrity and insulation levels are easily achieved with much more conventional options (some of them much greener) - so that is no argument for ICFs.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Edited 12/27/2008 3:35 pm ET by Riversong
it is not a claim from me.. it is a fact!
Stacking concrete blocks is a skill not easy to master. However putting together foam leggos requires no skill whatsoever. My sister-in-law finished my first attempt. she had no construction experiance at all and only my drug slurred 20 minute instruction to guide her.. It came out beautiful!
Poured concrete was massively more expensive and not something a DIY could do.. Stacking stones is not allowed as a foundation, so we are left with wood foundations and all the contraversy that contains or slab on grade.
Once a foundation is in it really is extremely simple to keep on going.. pick up a foam leggo, put it together, spray the seams with great stuff and toss in rebar....... next!
If that's not easier than stacking, and putting cement between concrete blocks you and I have a differant definition of easy..
""Can not the same thing be said about Larson truss, or your modified Larson truss designs as compared to standard construction practices?The same thing? That there is little thermal advantage to a high-mass structure, particularly when the mass is not coupled to the interior?"" No, the same thing in that the higher levels of insulation and air tightness are where the effectiveness lies.
They can't get your Goat if you don't tell them where it is hidden.
No, the same thing in that the higher levels of insulation and air tightness are where the effectiveness lies.
Yes, but those qualities can be achieved in many ways, including much greener ways, so they add nothing to the (largely baseless) argument for ICFs.
The salient point of those studies was that ICF's do not offer any more air-tightness or insulation value than similarly-insulated wood-frame homes, and that the thermal mass benefit was very small if any (cold and hot climate houses had no net benefit).
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
I've built a few that worked great. If I thought you were a little more open minded I might try to make the case for their benefit, but I think I'd be wasting my time.
Unless or until you're willing to make a well-substantiated argument for ICF over wood-frame, beyond just stating your opinion, I'll accept the above as an admission that you have no argument to make.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
<<Unless or until you're willing to make a well-substantiated argument for ICF over wood-frame, beyond just stating your opinion, I'll accept the above as an admission that you have no argument to make.>>You've really got quite the attitude, don't you?Let me be a little more specific -- I've built ICF homes in a 6,001 degree-day climate that need no heating or cooling to remain comfortable year round.Look, I don't know anything about you or your work, and certainly we all need all the help, good work, and thoughtful contributions we can get. It looks to me like you are doing that. How you build is of no concern to me if it works for you and your clients. While I personally do not find your expert credentials in any way persuasive, if it helps you, it doesn't bother me. I've met plenty of experts, some actually do know a thing or two, some have no idea what they are talking about, and many fall somewhere in between.Doesn't really matter, does it?But I do know enough about science to know that the way you formulate a question is determinative of the range of answers, what you choose to accept as legitimate evidence further restricts the results, and the way you measure the results further shapes the conclusion.What I am inviting you to see is it might help you as a builder to expand your horizons, that's all. Nothing personal.I've also been at this long enough to recognize that energy efficiency is just part of the puzzle, likewise for embodied energy. There is a lot more to green building, and a lot of ways to achieve it. Dismissing a material out of context might unnecessarily deprive a builder of an otherwise valuable option.
You've really got quite the attitude, don't you?
Excuse me. Weren't you the one who was unwilling to even debate the issues?
What I am inviting you to see is it might help you as a builder to expand your horizons
Perhaps it is you who should heed your own advice? The courses I teach in sustainable design and construction are the most comprehensive of any at a school (YesterMorrow) that is renowned for its sustainability (or green) focus and commitment.
I've also been at this long enough to recognize that energy efficiency is just part of the puzzle, likewise for embodied energy. There is a lot more to green building, and a lot of ways to achieve it. Dismissing a material out of context might unnecessarily deprive a builder of an otherwise valuable option.
And, if you had been paying attention, you might have noticed I've addressed many of the contextual issues and multiple variables involved in green or sustainable building - in this thread and others.
In addition to material choices (embodied energy, durability, recyclability, toxicity, enrivonmental "externalities" and life-cycle costs, bioregionality, and functionality), and the obvious issue of operating costs, there's also issues of wise siting, water consumption and pollution, transportion requirements, "fit" into the local development plan and relationship to other social functions and commercial zones, impacts on family and community, life-style effects (ecological footprint), relationship to the natural environment and other species, and even the spiritual dimension of place.
Ultimately, a house can be considered truly "green" or sustainable only if it facilitates human re-intregration into the web of life and helps restore the imbalances that our previous architectural (and lifestyle) choices have created.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
<<You've really got quite the attitude, don't you?Excuse me. Weren't you the one who was unwilling to even debate the issues?<<What I am inviting you to see is it might help you as a builder to expand your horizonsPerhaps it is you who should heed your own advice? The courses I teach in sustainable design and construction are the most comprehensive of any at a school (YesterMorrow) that is renowned for its sustainability (or green) focus and commitment.I've also been at this long enough to recognize that energy efficiency is just part of the puzzle, likewise for embodied energy. There is a lot more to green building, and a lot of ways to achieve it. Dismissing a material out of context might unnecessarily deprive a builder of an otherwise valuable option.And, if you had been paying attention, you might have noticed I've addressed many of the contextual issues and multiple variables involved in green or sustainable building - in this thread and others.>>*********************************************************As a gesture of good faith I am going to pretend I never read any of that. Your attitude might play well at YesterMorrow, I dare say you might not fate so well elsewhere.So how about you drop the snotty intellectual bit and we work together, OK?<<In addition to material choices (embodied energy, durability, recyclability, toxicity, enrivonmental "externalities" and life-cycle costs, bioregionality, and functionality), and the obvious issue of operating costs, there's also issues of wise siting, water consumption and pollution, transportion requirements, "fit" into the local development plan and relationship to other social functions and commercial zones, impacts on family and community, life-style effects (ecological footprint), relationship to the natural environment and other species, and even the spiritual dimension of place.Ultimately, a house can be considered truly "green" or sustainable only if it facilitates human re-intregration into the web of life and helps restore the imbalances that our previous architectural (and lifestyle) choices have created.>>Well said. You just saved me a lot of typing.Start to finish, that is 100 percent on the money.[edit for quote marks]
Edited 12/26/2008 11:53 pm by Catskinner
Your attitude might play well at YesterMorrow, I dare say you might not fate so well elsewhere. So how about you drop the snotty intellectual bit and we work together, OK?
The only "attitude" I have is one of dedication to accurate and reliable information in the building sciences and appropirate technologies in the building trades. Which means I'm going to challenge you and any others who don't meet those standards.
Now, if you really want to "work together" you might drop the judgements and personal attacks and stick to the topic.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
<<Which means I'm going to challenge you and any others who don't meet those standards.>>You were doing great right up to there.
Wow! You two are very pleased with yourselves indeed. Does this qualify as a pissing contest?
jimjim,
Man, I've learned things here from riversong and catskinner.
Use it.
Ron
Thanks, Ron.That's the point -- that we all learn something useful. If there was not something of value coming out of this I would certainly not put this much effort into it.
Have you read our last few exchanges?If so, then you should read more carefully.Mr. Riversong is a remarkably intelligent, skilled, competent, dedicated, thoughtful, and experienced professional who has made and continues to make significant contributions to the field.We just have a few minor doctrinal differences based upon our individual experiences and personal inclinations.I thought I made that clear. <G>
Riversong,
That is an amazing analyses. Quite appalling results.
The real situation is actually a bit worse than you propose in that most residential structures are built with ICFs with a 6" concrete core, not a 4" core. Myself, I have never seen a 4" core block in use. Getting concrete to flow properly around all the steel in lintels is hard enough in a 6" core block.
I can't duplicate your calculation of 42,000 therms for your example ICF building.
Using your figures, but adapting to a 6" core block (0.5 cf of concrete per sf of wall), here's what I get:
0.5 cf/sf-wall x 83 836 btu/cf = 41918 btu/sf
41 918 btu/sf x 1040 sf = 43 594 720 btu
43 594 720 btu/100 000 = 436 Therms
Something should be added to this to indicate the EE of the reinforcing steel. Each sf of wall can be considered to have 1 linear foot of 10M steel, so 1024 ' of 10M steel in your example building. Total weight of steel, about 750 pounds. (10M is 3/8".) I can't seem to find a number for the energy content of steel.
The number for the EE of the foam seems high, too, for 500 pounds of foam. I am ignorant on this subject and will accept your figure, though.
However, I think you can agree that one can achieve energy savings both immediately and long term by using ICF foundations instead of conventional foundations for houses.
A typical poured wall with removable forms will be 8" thick and some people are still pouring 10" in some situations. Few builders would add more than 2" of XPS foam insulation to that below grade. On the other hand, the ICF has only 6" of concrete thickness, plus steel and, usually, 5" of EPS foam.
Less EE and lower operational heat losses.
Ron
I can't duplicate your calculation of 42,000 therms for your example ICF building.
Thanks for catching a significant error - I guess I was working too late on this last night and added an additional factor into the spreadsheet formula. I've edited my post to correct for this and to adjust for an 11" ICF (6" concrete) wall with rebar.
The correct numbers are:
873 therms EE for 11" ICF with 6" concrete and rebar
112 therms EE for 7" cross-hatched wall with cellulose and CDX (87% less than ICF)
71 therms EE for same wall with pine board sheathing (92% less than ICF)
And, even though these numbers are much smaller, any additional embodied energy can be justified only if it results in a clear operating energy savings so that the initial energy investment will be paid back. Since there is no evidence of energy savings with ICF walls over similarly-insulated wood-frame walls, then the extra embodied energy (not to mention the global warming contribution and other toxic impacts) cannot be justified.
The number for the EE of the foam seems high, too, for 500 pounds of foam.
Remember that petrochemical foam is pure energy that requires significant additional petrochemical energy to manufacter.
However, I think you can agree that one can achieve energy savings both immediately and long term by using ICF foundations instead of conventional foundations for houses.
I'm not at all sure that would be the case. An 8" concrete wall with 2" exterior XPS would have an EE of 816 therms (a little less than the ICF wall) and, because of the higher DBMS for externally-insulated mass walls there probably would be a very similar thermal performace, in addition to the fact that heat loss to the ground is about half as much as to the air in winter.
I'm still not seeing a good case for ICF.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Edited 12/24/2008 1:11 pm ET by Riversong
An 8" concrete wall with 2" exterior XPS would have an EE of 816 therms
Does that include the energy needed for the formwork (steel recycles, but has high EE), and the "waste factor" of the wood bracing and walers and the like?
Presuming, of course, that the design predicates using a standard form height and not needing some custom-sized forms.Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
An 8" concrete wall with 2" exterior XPS would have an EE of 816 therms
Does that include the energy needed for the formwork (steel recycles, but has high EE), and the "waste factor" of the wood bracing and walers and the like?
Those figures are for the material before it gets to your site. They don't include site work or site waste. That's our job - to minimize waste of labor and materials in construction.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
let solve this.I have a concrete block house with cells filled with concrete, r 15 in the wall, r 80 in the attic. my power bill run $29. its totally electric, I have a shop with compressors and welding machine.
Attached is a chart showing the ecological benefits of building with wood over steel or concrete for embodied energy, global warming, air pollution, water pollution, and solid waste.
Notice that a survey of actual service life of North American buildings showed no correlation between structural material and durability.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Riversong,
I really hate petty quibbling, but here I go anyway - I still get a lower number for the EE of your example house. I get 447 therms for the concrete content of the 6" core wall instead of your 500 -something.
The reason the EE number for the foam seems so low to me is because of the rough equivalency you noted : 1 therm = 1 gal no 2 oil. Simply considering that oil as crude refinery feedstock, which I know perfectly well is not accurate, indicates that it would take well over a ton of feedstock and oil consumed to manufacture the 500 or so pounds of EPS on that example house.
I can't find my own source for the EE of foam, though. The manufacturers associations seem to walk all around that topic, and avoid it. Can you confirm that number? The energy that can be recovered by burning EPS is pretty close to the energy in the same weight of furnace oil.
Ron
I really hate petty quibbling, but here I go anyway - I still get a lower number for the EE of your example house. I get 447 therms for the concrete content of the 6" core wall instead of your 500 -something.
Not quibbling at all. I posted the cubic footage rather than the EE - it should be 447 therms based on AMVIC's dimensions. But my total EE for the ICF wall was correct at 870 therms.
The reason the EE number for the foam seems so low to me is because of the rough equivalency you noted : 1 therm = 1 gal no 2 oil. Simply considering that oil as crude refinery feedstock, which I know perfectly well is not accurate, indicates that it would take well over a ton of feedstock and oil consumed to manufacture the 500 or so pounds of EPS on that example house.
Low? Before you said you thought it was too high.
I can't find my own source for the EE of foam, though. The manufacturers associations seem to walk all around that topic, and avoid it. Can you confirm that number? The energy that can be recovered by burning EPS is pretty close to the energy in the same weight of furnace oil.
You're not going to find EE numbers from the manufacturers, unless they're selling a low EE product. The recoverable energy in a material is only a fraction of the EE, since mining, milling manufacturing and transport energy is non-recoverable.
Here is one source:
http://www.victoria.ac.nz/cbpr/documents/pdfs/ee-coefficients.pdf
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
I'm going to consolidate all of my rebutals in one..
First you claim to build stick framed homes to last 100 years.. well good for you.. however the average age of an American home before it is either torn down or so completely remodeled as to basically be a start over is 56 years.. (little over 5 1/2 decades)
Since the vast majority of deconstruction debris winds up in landfills. Taking wood and releasing the carbon content in a land fill contributes to global warming.
However timberframed homes have another history altogether.. There are plenty of books on the subject. Ted Bensen has written several of them and the life of timberframed homes is measured in centuries not decades.
That is the reason my home has the interior timbers. Some of my timbers are over 200 years old and it would be a crime to build it to 56 year standards.. By massively overbuilding and interlocking all of the timbers with mortice and tenions etc.. the house will not suffer should a tornado happen or some other event which would destroy most homes.
Next when I said we shouldn't lambast McMansions I believe you mistook what I believe.
I frankly don't approve of them except in very limited conditions. The limited condition is when space is honestly needed for multi generational living.. I believe that 3 generations living in a single home can reduce the footprint on the earth greater than 3 small homes can. (not to mention the social benefits)
Next take a SPF 2x4 and toss it into a fire and at the same time toss a large oak timber into the fire
Which will fail quicker?
One last point!
All the timber used in my home is harvested locally and thus uses no massive amounts of energy to transport it.. I was present when most of it was harvested.. the farmer who sold the wood picked out trees near the end of their natural life and great care was used not to damage smaller less mature trees. The very definition of responsible harvesting of wood.
Many trees were actually past the point when they should have been harvested and they were not used by me (white oak has a normal life of about 200 years before it begins to rot from the inside).
I've a theory why it's so but they are only theory's. Who cares?
You obviously don't care. Because I'm giving you documented building science and it doesn't shake a bias you've developed based on a single experience comparing apples to oranges.
But, if you're a builder you should care to know whether theories have any basis in fact and science.
First you claim to build stick framed homes to last 100 years.. well good for you.. however the average age of an American home before it is either torn down or so completely remodeled as to basically be a start over is 56 years.. (little over 5 1/2 decades)
What's your source? A survey of the service life of North American buildings done in 2004 showed that the expected life of NON-RESIDENTIAL wood-frame buildings is 51 years (that would include a lot of warehouses and commerical buildings), while the largest number of existing wooden non-residential buildings were 76-100 years old, and the percentage of buildings demolished for structural reasons was 3.5% (most were demolished because of redevelopment, lack of maintenance or no longer suitable for needs). And most of the buildings demolished because of physical condition were 76-100 years old.
http://www.cwc.ca/NR/rdonlyres/67D42613-BF5D-4573-BD43-C430B0B72C08/0/Service_Life_E.pdf
The study concluded:
"While wood is believed to have a short life expectancy due to risk of fire or biodegradation, the wood buildings in our study had the longest life spans. The majority of demolished wood buildings were older than 75 years, while over half of all the demolished concrete buildings fell into the 26-50 year category. These data indicate that wood structural systems are fully capable of meeting longevity expectations. In addition, wood might well be a preferred material in a design scenario that recognizes actual service lives are short – in those cases, materials that enable easy building modification for changing needs and materials that are easy to recover when the building is decommissioned would be favored."
And:
"In sustainable design, "durability" is increasingly being included on priority lists under the assumption that designing for longevity is an environmental imperative. However, this is unsupported in the absence of life cycle assessment and accurate lifespan predictions. In the worst case, designing for longevity can lead to design choices that are well-intentioned but, in fact, yield poor environmental results. For example, a building component with low embodied environmental effects, such as wood cladding, can be replaced many times before totaling the high embodied effects of a material such as brick. If the brick cladding ends up in landfill after 40 years of use, it was a poor choice on an environmental basis. The best environmental scenario for that brick is recovery at year 40, for re-use in another project. Rather than attempt to predict the future and design permanent structures with an infinite lifespan, we are probably better off in acknowledging our inability to make such predictions and instead design for easy adaptation and material recovery."
Since the vast majority of deconstruction debris winds up in landfills. Taking wood and releasing the carbon content in a land fill contributes to global warming.
House Deconstruction is becoming a growth industy. Here in VT, up to 85% of the materials in a wood-frame building can be - and are being - re-used.
A foam and concrete building, on the other hand, will all go to the landfill at the end of it's useful life and none of it can be reused, except perhaps for fill.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Edited 12/24/2008 11:26 pm ET by Riversong
Edited 12/24/2008 11:33 pm ET by Riversong
Edited 12/24/2008 11:34 pm ET by Riversong
Very interesting subject and facts. I would disagree with this statement however. ""A foam and concrete building, on the other hand, will all go to the landfill at the end of it's useful life and none of it can be reused, except perhaps for fill."" Apparently Vermont hasn't caught on to the recycling of concrete yet. Foam can also be recycled, that it isn't being recycled is a fact for now but then most wood isn't either.
Yes wood can be , but in fact most is not.
They can't get your Goat if you don't tell them where it is hidden.
Apparently Vermont hasn't caught on to the recycling of concrete yet.
Since most recycled concrete is road paving, which is then recycled into road bed material, and since 80% of Vemont's roads are gravel and only the interstates are concrete (others are asphalt), we don't have the need for it like the rest of you do.
Foam can also be recycled, that it isn't being recycled is a fact for now but then most wood isn't either.
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polystyrene:
Expanded polystyrene is not easily recyclable because of its light weight and low scrap value. It is generally not accepted in curbside programs. Expanded polystyrene foam takes a very long time to decompose in the environment and has been documented to cause starvation in birds and other marine wildlife. According to the California Coastal Commission, it is a principal component of marine debris. 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€
Yes wood can be , but in fact most is not.
While 155 million tons of concrete and asphalt is recycled each year, mostly for road beds, 14 million tons of wood is recycled (either reused or burned for energy or turned into mulch). 32% of all wood in the municipal solid waste stream is now recovered, and it's estimated that another 46% is recoverable.
It's also much less costly to recover wood waste than to recover concrete, unless the concrete is recycled on site (such as for road reconstruction). And concrete recycling requires a considerably larger energy input than recycling wood.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Edited 12/25/2008 12:12 pm ET by Riversong
Just as I said. BTW why use tonnage as the metric, how about volume? Foam weighs less than wood, wood less concrete/asphalt. Roman built concrete structures have survived for over 2000 years, but comparing historical use and life of concrete vs. wood is an inherently unfair comparison, concrete as a building material was "lost" for almost 1500 years. I don't disagree with the points you are making, but the "spin" is still present.
They can't get your Goat if you don't tell them where it is hidden.
This issue about "recycling" wood, or concrete.
As long as people don't put a toxic preservative on it wood will decompose and mulch back into the earth won't it? Providing some level of nutrients to regenerate other life? Similar to what happens when a tree dies and rots on the forest floor?
Can't really say the same for concrete, can we?
Some batch plants are able to use crushed concrete as aggregate in new concrete. I don't know how prevalent this is but I know it is being done. After the '89 Loma Prieta quake in N Cal I believe they crushed and reused quite a bit of the pancaked 880 freeway. The drop and crushing operation was near the freeway site.
Yeah, I think that's good, David. I really do. They are making aggregate for the new concrete by grinding up the old. I'm all for that type of thinking. I think they do the same with asphalt roofing materials and asphalt road materials...maybe even gypsum, I'm not sure.
But I question the (long term) sustainability of building with steel and concrete instead of wood. Wood regenerates itself, and other life forms. Concrete and steel are manmade, which makes me question disposal/long term effects of using them, of basing our economy on building techniques that rely on them.
Clearly there are pros and cons to whatever point of view you support. I guess that's what makes it such an engaging topic. And it matters. This is not just trivial conversation.
I know what you're saying. My house existed it first 80 years with a post and pier foundation... a handful of flat fieldstones and short chunks of 6x6 from the site. When I wanted to alter it, I'm the one who brought the concrete.
Jim
The problem is decomposing wood creates off gasses which contribute towards global warming.
Thus the ideal place for wood is in a tree that is 2000 years old not in a landfill generating methane.
The problem is decomposing wood creates off gasses which contribute towards global warming.
Wood is carbon-neutral. It cannot return to the atmosphere any more carbon than it took out of it during it's growth. And, for the time period between initial growth and decomposition or burning, it's a carbon sink - sequestering that carbon from the atmosphere.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Well we are in agreement on something..
In an ideal world since we are sending too much carbon in the atmosphere it would be better for our planet to reduce it's release.. wood which doubles in longevity would naturally reduce relase twice as long..
Tmberframed homes which last centuries hold release of that carbon for centuries..
Further if a timberframed home is torn down for some reason large sized beams would be highly prized and far less likely to wind up in landfills than would 2x4's
Mind you I approve of reuse of old wood even 2x4's As I tore down my old house I saved as much material from the old place as I could..
Knowing the original age of the central core structure of my house some of the 2x4's proably came from those 2000 year old Douglas fir that were harvested and made into 2x4's
Still blocking and small lengths of 2x4 went into the dumpster. Not because I wanted to but because of building code issues.. (I wasn't allow to have debris around for more than 30 days and with the time requirement and limited space available I was compelled to do so)..
Tmberframed homes which last centuries hold release of that carbon for centuries..
There are ancient timber buildings in Europe, but most timber-framed structures in the US don't last any longer than stick-built. Most US timber-frames are probably here in New England and they're regularly being taken down or rebuilt as the massive timbers suffer rot and insect infestation. It's much more expensive to replace a timber than to replace a 2x4.
some of the 2x4's proably came from those 2000 year old Douglas fir that were harvested
According the the US Forest Service, the life-span of a Doug Fir is 300 years.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
well you'd better get another source because some of the Douglas fir and Giant Sequoias etc. last that long. There are pines that last even longer..
"Most US timber-frames are probably here in New England "
You need to get out more.
Ever been to Lake Tahoe?
Where's Mike Callahan we we need him?
You didn't answer my question.
Quite a bit of the discussion from Riversong has been indicative of a strong northeastern bias. I don't know if that is the case, but it would not surprise me a bit if he were working in Vermont or New Hampshire, more likely Vermont.I've seen this before.
Geez...Like Tahoe isn't cold...
Lol.
I need to sic my LEED Platinum Award winning archy brother on him...I think you remember that, don't you?
darcy
(His new title is Senior Designer of Sustainable Design...lol. I kid him about it, but he's a really busy guy.)
You've brought up what I think is one of the pivotal points in this discussion -- I keep saying "contextual", but I think you are more concise and to the point -- "regional" is easier to get a handle on.I've been hanging out here on Taunton's discussion board in its various forms since about mid-1997, I think. And If I had to identify the fourth greatest source of controversy (#1 being liberal/conservative, #2 cellulose good/bad, #3 to vent or not to vent (a roof), then #4 is failing to recognize that the problem in one part of the country is the solution in another.New Englanders are a funny bunch that way, especially the ones from Vermont. There is this strange attitude of cultural, moral, intellectual, and practical superiority that I could never quite get used to.And yes, it does seem to come from not getting out enough. But that's OK, if it works for them, I'm all for it.
"New Englanders are a funny bunch that way...:
Oh geez, now see what you have done???
What is Pif gonna say?
For some reason, Riversong refuses to answer me. Guess I could bump it up again with a nah, nah, nah...my brother is smarter than you are...maybe not.
PS. I hear ya, though...thanks for your thoughts.
<<"New Englanders are a funny bunch that way...:Oh geez, now see what you have done??? What is Pif gonna say?>>Piffin is going to flat out laugh his butt off and rub my nose in that one good and proper.See, I'm pretty sure he knows a few things about me that most folks here don't.But I'll spill the beans -- my family settled in the area from St. Albans to Montreal. Some were there before the Pilgrims showed up, some came down from Quebec, and some from Nova Scotia.I just had the sense to leave, that's all. <G>
Well Paul is smarter than most here.
I can see him sloopng your nose in it now...
lol...and Happy New Year to you and yours.
New Englanders are a funny bunch that way, especially the ones from Vermont. There is this strange attitude of cultural, moral, intellectual, and practical superiority that I could never quite get used to.
It's simply a historical fact:
Vermont Firsts in the Nation
<!----><!----><!---->
1775 The first Revolutionary soldier to shoot a British soldier was Solomon Brown, of New Haven, at the Battle of Lexington on April 19.1777 The first Constitution to outlaw slavery, the first to abolish the requirement that voters must be property owners, the first to prevent a person from being transported out of the state for a crime committed within, and the first to provide for a state university. 1777 The first stars and stripes flag to lead American armed forces on land was the Bennington Flag, used at the Battle of Bennington on August 16.1777 The first Constitution to provide for a system of public school education. <!----><!---->
1783 Lemuel Haynes becomes the first African-American Pastor of a white congregation in America. <!----><!---->
1785 The first marble quarry was started in East Dorset by Isaac Underhill. 1785 The first copper currency minted by a state was authorized by the Vermont General Assembly and made by Reuben Harmon, Jr. in Rupert. 1790 The first U.S. patent, signed by George Washington, was issued to Samuel Hopkins of Pittsford for making potash out of wood ashes. Potash is used to make soap.1791 The first state admitted to the Union after the ratification of the Constitution. 1791 Justin Morgan brought the first Morgan Horse to be foaled from Springfield, Massachusetts to Randolph, Vermont.1799 The first seeding machine patent was issued to Eliakim Spooner. 1802 The first canal was built in Bellows Falls.1804 The first educational society was established in Pawlet. 1813 The first geographic globe factory was established by James Wilson of Bradford, who made the first artificial globe.1814 The first school for higher education of women was established by Emma Willard in Middlebury. 1814 The first steel carpenter's square was invented by Silas Hawes of Shaftsbury. 1815 Vermont was the first state to give women an opportunity to get better education. Emma Willard founded higher education for women in Middlebury, Vermont. Until this point women had no or barely any opportunities to get an education beyond grammar school. <!----><!---->
<!----> <!---->
1819 The first private military college, Norwich University, was established in Norwich by Captain Alden Partridge. It offered the first Civil Engineering course. The college later moved to Northfield. FAMOUS VERMONTER: Joseph Smith (1805-44) Founder of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons).FAMOUS VERMONTER: Brigham Young (1801-77) Second president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.1821 FAMOUS VERMONTER: Alexander Twilight (1795-1857) First person of African-American descent to graduate from a U.S. college (Middlebury in 1825) and to serve in a state legislature.1823 The first Normal school excusively for the preparation of teachers was established by S.R. Hall in Concord. Hall also wrote the first textbook on teaching and was the first person to use the blackboard in the classroom. 1830 The first platform scale was built by Thaddeus Fairbanks in St. Johnsbury. 1830 The first fishing spoon lure was invented by Julio Buel of Castleton. 1834 The first sandpaper was invented by Isaac Fischer in Springfield. 1837 The first marble-cutting saw was invented by Hiram Kimball of Stockbridge.1837 The first patent for an electric motor (used for a printing press) was issued to Thomas Davenport of Brandon. 1844 Laughing gas was discovered by Gardner Colton of Georgia. Horace Wells of White River Junction was the first person to use laughing gas as an anesthetic for pulling teeth.1846 The first postage stamp used in America was made in Brattleboro. 1846 The first steam-heated factory was the Burlington Woolen Company. 1853 The first safety elevator was invented by Elisha Graves Otis.FAMOUS VERMONTER: Stephen A. Douglas (1813-61) Served as a U.S. Representative from Illinois (1843-47). Best known for his series of debates with Abraham Lincoln in 1858.1861 With the (incorrect) understanding that Lincoln's war was to free the slaves, Vermont was the first State to offer troops in the Civil War. <!----><!---->
<!----> <!---->
1862 The first agricultural land grant college act, proposed by Senator Justin Smith Morrill of Vermont, was signed by President Abraham Lincoln. FAMOUS VERMONTER: John Deere (1804-86) Produced the first commercially feasible, self-scouring steel plow from a broken saw blade, before establishing a company in Moline, Ill, in 1868 ,which manufactured farm implements.1869 The first pulp paper mill was established by William A. Russell in Bellows Falls. Russell later became the first president of the International Paper Company. 1869 The agriculture society for dairymen, the Vermont Dairy Association, was organized in Montpelier. 1881 FAMOUS VERMONTER: Chester A. Arthur (1830-86) Born in Fairfield. 21st U.S. President from 1881-85.1896 The first state absentee voting law was enacted. 1891 The first flat turret lathe, a basic industrial tool, was invented by James Hartness of Springfield. 1896 The first state absentee voting law was enacted. <!----><!---->
<!----> <!---->
1898 FAMOUS VERMONTER: Adm. George Dewey (1837-1917) A commander of the U.S. Navy. Secured his place in history during the Spanish-American War, when his fleet defeated Spain in Manila Bay, off the Philippines coast on May 1, 1898.FAMOUS VERMONTER: Andrew Ellicott Douglass (1867-1962) Born in Windsor. An archaeologist and astronomer; known as the father of dendrochronology (the method of dating events by analyzing the rings of trees).FAMOUS VERMONTER: Wilson "Snowflake" Bentley (1865-1931) Born in Jericho Center. Began sketching snowflakes he observed under his microscope as a teenager. He later made more than 5,300 photos of snowflakes.1903 The first person to cross the entire United States by automobile was Dr. H. Nelson Jackson, a Burlington physician, who started out from San Francisco. 1907 The first horse farm operated by the United States government was established in Middlebury. 1909 The first Boy Scout Club was organized in Barre by William F. Milne, a Scottish immigrant. 1910 The first long distance hiking trail, Vermont's 265-mile Long Trail, was begun in 1910 by James P. Taylor, and completed in 1930. 1919 The first 300-mile endurance horse race was from Burlington to Camp Devens, MA. 1923 FAMOUS VERMONTER: (John) Calvin Coolidge (1872-1933) Born in Plymouth on July 4, 1872. 30th U.S. president from 1923-29.Early 1930's Gasoline tax implemented to pay for road construction and maintenance.1934 The first Air Traffic Regulations course was set up at Norwich University in Northfield. 1935 The first state symphony orchestra was organized, with Alan Carter of Rutland as its conductor. 1937 The first state anti-sit-down strike legislation was enacted. 1940 Ida M. Fuller of Ludlow receives the first social security check ($22.54) and first social security number (00-000-001) on January 31.1941 The first wind turbine used to generate power for an alternating current power system, was operated at Grandpa's Knob in Castleton. FAMOUS VERMONTER: Rudy Vallee (1901-86) Band leader, vocalist, radio and movie star.1950 Vermont's Republican Senator George Aiken was the first to challenge Joe McCarthy's communist witchhunt and later the first to suggest that we simply declare "victory" and withdraw from Vietnam. <!----><!---->
1952 The first Olympic gold medals in women's skiing were won by Andrea Mead of Rutland. 1953 Vermont passed the nation's first bottle bill in the nation.<!----><!---->
<!----> <!---->
1954 The first woman elected Lieutenant Governor in US history was Consuelo N. Bailey. 1957 The first experimental eye surgery with a laser beam was performed at the University of Vermont. 1964 FAMOUS VERMONTER: Billy Kidd - Silver medalist (skiing) at the 1964 Olympic games in Innsbruck, Austria.1968 The first state to outlaw billboards, on March 23.<!----><!---->
1970 Vermont was the first with a state-wide environmental review board.
1972 FAMOUS VERMONTER: Barbara Cochran - Gold medalist (skiing) at 1972 Olympic Games in Sapporo, Japan.1976 FAMOUS VERMONTER: Bill Koch - Silver medalist (Nordic Skiing). First American to medal in an Olympic nordic skiing event.1976 The first American gold medal in the Olympic three-day individual equestrian event was won by Tad Coffin of Strafford. 1984 FAMOUS VERMONTER: Madeleine Kunin - Born in Switzerland, moved to Vermont at the age of 6. Vermont's first woman governor, elected in 1984. Served three terms before becoming President Clinton's deputy secretary of education in 1993. U.S. Ambassador to Switzerland 1996-99.1985 The first college for dyslexic students - Landmark College, Putney.1981 Vermont had a Socialist mayor of a major city (Burlington) and the first Democratic Socialist (though he now calls himself an Independent) in Congress in more than 40 years – now Senator Bernie Sanders. Bernie also founded the predecessor to Vermont's Progressive Party, the nation's only successful third party, and founder of the Progressive Caucus in Congress.<!----><!---->
<!----> <!---->
1993 FAMOUS VERMONTER: Patty Sheehan - Born in Middlebury, now lives in Reno, NV. 13th inductee into the LPGA's Hall of Fame in 1993.1993 FAMOUS VERMONTER: John LeClair (1969- ) Born in St. Albans. The first native Vermonter to play for the NHL. First American to score 50 goals in three consecutive seasons. First NHL player to score two overtime goals to win two Stanley Cup final games. He did it in his rookie season (1993) as a Montreal Canadien.1997 The first woman elected to the post of Adjutant General of the National Guard in the U.S. was Martha Rainville. 2000 Vermont was the nation's first to allow legal unions of #### and lesbian couples. <!----><!---->
2001 Senator Jeffords was the first to stage what Trent Lott called a "coup of one" by leaving the Republican Party and shifting the balance of power to the Democrats. <!----><!---->
2006 The first state to elect a city Mayor with Instant Runoff Voting – and a Progressive to boot!<!----><!---->
<!----> <!---->
2008 Brattleboro and Marlboro became the first towns to vote to arrest Bush & Cheney.<!----><!---->
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Excuse me you idiot.
Did you not see that my brother won the very first LEED platinum award?
I'm may have to call him just to kick your loud-mouthed a$$!
It's fine if you have good infromation to share, I just wish that you wouldn't let your ego and attitude interfear with it.
As well, I suggest that you hit the road.
As I questioned earlier...do you ever get out of the house?
Have you ever been to Tahoe????
Or Cali?
Trust me, it's not a frikkin' beach.
Your attitude is sure to ruin you.
Attitude........read your message...cool off!I admit your bro is smarter than Riversong, but I do learn from Riversong. Is he a pain? Probably to some, but so are many others at times.Pete
I admit your bro is smarter than Riversong
Be careful about making untested assertions and assumptions.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
I'm courius just what makes you feel superior to others? You sure make plenty of assertions. but I don't see any studies confirming your superiority to others here..
RS,
Just trying to appease her.
Most on the forum are smarter than me and I'll readily admit it.Just being on BT with you and others is and education. I do like it when the classroom is less hostile.Keep up the good work.Pete
I do like it when the classroom is less hostile.
Pete, amen to that
The classroom is improving.
BTW I just moved back to Plano .. Go Wildcats
The problem is decomposing wood creates off gasses which contribute towards global warming.
In their report Forests, Carbon and Climate Change A SYNTHESIS OF SCIENCE FINDINGS, the The Oregon Forest Resources Institute of Oregon State University College of Forestry concluded:
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. 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.
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.
Literature indicates that wood building products such as lumber, plywood and oriented strandboard (which excludes paper products) placed in modern landfills stay indefinitely with little or no decay, thus continuing to store carbon (Skog and Nicholson 1998).
The Global Warming Potential Index (GWPI) for the steelframed design is 26% greater than the woodframed design, and the concrete-framed design is 31% greater than the wood-framed design.
http://www.oregonforests.org/media/pdf/CarbonRptFinal.pdf
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
In 17 1/2 years of working around remodelers I've seen exactly one home deconstructed but 99.9% of the homes I've seen demolished have become land fill.
It is still more economically viable to demolish and land fill than to deconstruct.
frenchy.... any place you have old settlements , you have old houses
the exception seems to be the temporary mining towns... and places that were devastated by disaster... like chicago.... san francisco....
i work on lots of framed hoiuses that were not even built with foundations.... many of the old summer shingle style victorians were built on cedar posts.... but no one would drwam of tearing them down....
generally speaking ... the only woodframed homes that have not survived were usually temporary housing built for the military
Levittown is approaching 58 years and shows no sign of becomming a tear-down community
the only tear downs around here are those on waterfront or waterview.... not because there is anything wrong with the structure
as long as communities continue to represent their original demographics, the wood framed homes that comprise them continue to be maintained and remodeled
we have 400 year old colonials here... i see no reason that any of the new houses i built will not see their 100th birthdayMike Hussein Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
Mike,
How far are you from places like Block Island? Places where stone structures are common or buildings with stone or brick veneer?
Which house would you suspect requires more exterior maintinace? Stone, brick houses? Or wood clad houses?
I'm sorry if that sounded snotty, I honestly didn't mean for it to be.. I'm trying to make a point..
Wood has relatively high maintinace requirements compared to concrete.
As for towns like Levitown, etc.. How many dumpsters of construction debris would you estimate has left there with remodeling and etc.. (I don't know it it would ever be possible to collect such data)
I do know that wood which winds up in a dumpster most often winds up as land fill creating methane..
As to why some of your homes won't see their 100th birthday. I'm fully prepared to credit you with excellant construction techniques.. yet the once resource we don't have more of is land..
Meanwhile our population is 303 million and growing.. (my second granddaughter was recently born <grin> ) it's expected to reach 400 million before I die. desireable land is getting to be a greater and greater premium. thus focing what you and I believe to be normal acceptable sized homes into dumpsters and replaced with homes that reflect the price paid for the land..
Mind you Block Island land that was used for those fabulous palaces of the gilded age probably cost less than prime water front does now.. (even adjusted for inflation)
block island has very few stone structures, and almost no brick ones
many ne colonials have stone elements.... like a stone end ... but stone and brick both require maintenance too
what's your point ?..... whatever the vernacular..... wood, stone, brick....they are all maintained and surviveMike Hussein Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
It is still more economically viable to demolish and land fill than to deconstruct.
As usual, Frenchy, you've got it bass-ackward.
Demolition and landfilling is becoming increasingly expensive. The costs, particularly for high-tonnage material like concrete, can be prohibitive. And more and more landfills are reaching capacity and being decomissioned.
Deconstruction is a money-making operation. There are a growing number of businesses making a profit by deconstruction. As the economy deteriorates, the market for used building materials and fixtures will only continue to grow.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
please read your own words..
deconstruction is a growing business. Since demolution is not shrinking that means that deconstruction hasn't yet replaced demolution..
As for landfills filling up, I'm certain that is the case in some locations.. it's not universal however.
Instead of landfills being decomissioned I find that they are converted to methane production to provide electric cogeneration.. (I've sold a lot of methane generators in my day)
With the added revenue stream of electric genration there are more of them created because it now is economicaly viable.. There is a site in St. Paul exclusive for construction waste.. Various materials are seperated out and either reused or sent to their own recycling area.. No doubt much of the tonnage you report comes from sources such as this..
First I don't care which theory worked because they worked.. there was a dramatic reduction in energy costs using the construction method I choose. Dramatic! I had stick framed before and I went to using foam as my insulation media and my costs plummeted.
Now there are plenty of documented sources that will explain it but that doesn't matter! I wanted to use less energy and I did!
This dueling source stuff is complete nonsense! We can sit here pasting various source data untill the cows come home and you will not accept mine nor will I accept yours..
You know why?
Because mine work!
As for your claim that some buildings last 100 years, again the source I have is that the average American home is 56 years old untill it is either torn down or so dramtically remodeled as to be effectively torn down.
Carefully reread your source and you won't find a conflict with that statement because they list reasons why they are torn down.
I live on Lake Minnetonka Minnesota.. the average age of homes being demolished around here is 30 years.. homes that are either dramatically remodeled or torn down in the various suburbs reflects the post war building boom. Only a small handful of inner city homes achieve that sort of age. Considering the number of homes built preWW2 and compare the number to the homes built post WW2 there is simply no way that the age of Minnesota's housing stock can exceed 100 years old.
We are typical for the midwest and west. You will be hard pressed to find housing in California approaching 100 years old. In Vermont I can see that possiblity. Vermont after all missed much of the immediate post war building boom.
Your source clearly displays it's bias claiming that wood is superior to brick for durability and suitablity as a siding. I know of no one who who tears off brick to replace it with wood clap boards..
Well the much of the brick I used came from hwy 12 were it was the paving surface from 1906 untill 1987
Again it doesn't matter!
Because timberframed homes outlive stick framed homes by centuries!
If as you claim you prefer to work with wood, why not build in a manner that celebrates wood and exhalts your skills rather than hides it behind sheetrock?And gives the wood a far greater chance at a life that will exceed the time required to grow it's replacement..
* if you must accept the inferior stick building you can do as my brother-in- law did. Use spray foam as an insulation media..
Replacing fiberglas isulation with foam he increased the size of his house by 1/3 yet the existing boiler was too large and he replaced it with a single electric water heater..
Because mine work!
Frenchie, shouting won't make your arguments more sound, it will only broadcast your bias more loudly.
First I don't care which theory worked because they worked.. there was a dramatic reduction in energy costs using the construction method I choose. Dramatic! I had stick framed before and I went to using foam as my insulation media and my costs plummeted.
You can make no claims that anything "worked" since you haven't shown any data or objective analysis of the comparative efficiency of the two buildings. The only rational conclusion is that you are comparing a properly-built ICF house to a very poorly-built stick frame house. Not even apples to oranges, but apples to rotten apples.
Now there are plenty of documented sources that will explain it but that doesn't matter! This dueling source stuff is complete nonsense! We can sit here pasting various source data untill the cows come home and you will not accept mine nor will I accept yours..
You haven't shared a single source of reliable data or analysis, so there is no "duel" -only one person offering objective information and another offering unevaluated anecdote and unsubstatiated opinion.
As for your claim that some buildings last 100 years, again the source I have is that the average American home is 56 years old untill it is either torn down or so dramtically remodeled as to be effectively torn down.
I didn't make a "claim" - I offered proof. You continue to make claims and offer no sources to back them up.
I live on Lake Minnetonka Minnesota.. the average age of homes being demolished around here is 30 years
Even if I accept your undocumented statement, that alone would be meaningless and add nothing to your arguent. Most homes are torn down because people want bigger ones or other redevelopment occurs, not because they are structurally unsound.
We are typical for the midwest and west. You will be hard pressed to find housing in California approaching 100 years old.
Since the midwest began to be settled by Europeans in the 1750s, there are surely old houses there. But since we didn't steal California until 1846, it would be largely Mexican structures that would be older than 162 years, but the state has been occupied for 15,000 years.
Your source clearly displays it's bias claiming that wood is superior to brick for durability and suitablity as a siding. I know of no one who who tears off brick to replace it with wood clap boards..
You're confusing your personal - and very limited - experience (which is the source of your bias) with a carefully performed continent-wide survey of buildings.
Because timberframed homes outlive stick framed homes by centuries!
Except we're comparing wood-framed houses with foam/concrete houses. The only reason stick-framed houses haven't lasted centuries, is that there wasn't small-dimension sawn lumber and machine-made nails until the early 1800s. But St. Mary's Catholic Church in Chicago, a balloon-framed wooden structure, has been standing for 175 years. There is no reason it won't stand for another 175 years.
If as you claim you prefer to work with wood, why not build in a manner that celebrates wood... if you must accept the inferior stick building you can do... Use spray foam as an insulation media..
Celebrate wood by burying it in plastic?
Every reliable source suggests that there is nothing at all "inferior" about wood-framed construction, and that it is far more green than building with concrete and plastic foam.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Edited 12/25/2008 12:45 pm ET by Riversong
Those who have used foam either in ICF's, SIP's or via spraying into stick framed cavities report significant reduction in energy costs..
I keep giving you a fact which you steadfastly ignored which is why I keep expanding the size of the print in a vain hope that you will acknowledge that there are plenty of sources which point out the failures of stick framing..
Since you like sources of information I refer you to Fine homebuilding issue 56 page 36-42 Fiberglas per inch has an R value of 2.5 while foam has a R value of 6 per inch.. in addition fiberglass is what cheap furnace filters are made of because it flows air through it freely.. Foam does not allow air movement.. (celluliose is 3.2 to 3.7 per inch) air movement thru denspack celluliose is possible but far less than fiberglas.
Tyvex is required with stick built homes. Lacking it dramatically greater heating bills are the norm because stick built houses leak a lot more air through them than ICF homes, SIP homes, or foam sprayed stick built homes.
The report also points out flaws in celluliose. Quote" Because it's a organic fiber that can burn it must be treated....... Moisture is bad news for celluliose. The fire resistant chemicals can leach out under wet conditions and it also decreases the R-value.
Further it speaks about Cancer and fiberglass If you contact victims of fiberglas 11143 lakeshore No. Lake of the Pines, Auburn Calif. 95603 they can provide you with an impressive and frightening collection of documents from such places as the national cancer institute
Stick faming is not rated to withstand 200 MPH winds as ICF's are.. the wood used in stick framing burns unlike concrete.. Stick framing is subject to all the weakness of wood. Which is vulnerable to water damage and must be protected from decay. Wood is also vulnerable to insect damage and must be protected with toxic chemicals injected in the ground surround the home to prevent termite infestation..
Last I heard there were no concrete termits or concrete eating carpenter ants.. nor will concrete rot if rained upon..
I notice you carefully tap danced around my suggestion of building with wood via timberframing rather than covering up your work with sheetrock..
Which by the way answers your rebuttal about covering up your work with spray foam).. It's covered with sheetrock anyway! foam gets you R21 capabliity,, fiberglas gets you R-8 3/4 and celluliose gets you R-12 1/4 in a typical 2x4 stud bay..
If you eliminate the stud you lose 20% of the wall which is down graded to R-3.5 because of the Thermal bridge effect of a stud..
as for the nonsense about the west.. me may have started out there back then (such data is available in a variety of history books so you will either have to look it up or take my word for it)..
however the population of Las Vegas in 1900 was 11
California's population was also tiny and much of the housing stock prior to that burned down or was shaken down in various earthquakes. You might check that since you want confirmation of my sources..
As for Bias I pointed out the very real bias in the study you gave.. You choose to ignore it
Again!
As for limited? Well I've been working in the housing construction industry full time for 17 1/2 years plus I had taken a great interest in the subject for decades prior to that.
In fact the first set of plans drawn up for this house were stick framed, that dates back 22 years..
Stick framing is comparable to the model T of my grandfathers period. It's been around a long time and it's being passed by with more efficent better methods of construction..
Only diehards such as yourself cling to obsolete hand cranks and manual spark advance..
Myself, I celebrate wood.. I expose it as a prime feature rather than hide it with sheetrock and paint..
you're making it up again...eps has a common r-value of 3.85....... not 6.0Mike Hussein Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
page 38 issue 56 Fine home building..
frenchy.... ESAD...
eps has an r-value of 3.85
polystyrene 6.0..... sometimes 7.0
what are your icf's made of ?
what are your sips made of ?Mike Hussein Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
eps has an r-value of 3.85
polystyrene 6.0..... sometimes 7.0
EPS and XPS are polystyrene
I think you mean closed-cell polyurethane has an R-value of 6 (from 5.5 - 6.5).
Open-cell polyurethane (Icynene) has an R-value of 3.6
Polyisocyanurate, foil-faced, has an initial R-value of 6.8, and aged of 5.5.
XPS is 4.8
EPS is 3.8
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
I dont' know why you continue this, Frenchy, since every one of your arguments is easily proven to be wrong.
Those who have used foam either in ICF's, SIP's or via spraying into stick framed cavities report significant reduction in energy costs..
Do you walk to school or carry your lunch?
A "significant reduction" compared to what? Compared to an uninsulated wall cavity, sure. But not compared to an equally well-constructed stick-frame house. The studies I quoted and linked to have demonstrated that.
there are plenty of sources which point out the failures of stick framing..
Just as there are plenty of sources discussing the failures of concrete and anything else which suffers from poor design, poor planning, poor workmanship, or poor maintenance. That poorly-built things fail is not the issue.
Fiberglas per inch has an R value of 2.5 while foam has a R value of 6 per inch.. in addition fiberglass is what cheap furnace filters are made of because it flows air through it freely.. Foam does not allow air movement.. (celluliose is 3.2 to 3.7 per inch) air movement thru denspack celluliose is possible but far less than fiberglas.
Who's arguing that fiberglass is better than anything? I've consistently stated that fiberglass is the worst insulation on the market. Foam and cellulose both restrict air movement, but cellulose breathes and stores moisture - an essential element of a thermal envelope - and foam does not.
Tyvex is required with stick built homes. Lacking it dramatically greater heating bills are the norm because stick built houses leak a lot more air through them than ICF homes, SIP homes, or foam sprayed stick built homes.
Plastic housewraps are neither required (by code) nor necessary. Tests have shown that rosin paper and felt work as well or better - and have for a hundred years. Stick-frame houses leak because they are insulated with fiberglass and have poor workmanship. My stick-frame cellulose house one of the tightest in the Vermont Energy Star program. Again, cellulose and wood breathe - foam does not.
The report also points out flaws in celluliose. Quote" Because it's a organic fiber that can burn it must be treated....... Moisture is bad news for celluliose. The fire resistant chemicals can leach out under wet conditions and it also decreases the R-value.
The borate fire-retardent, which is also organic and completely non-toxic to humans, also serves as an insecticide and an irritant to rodents, keeping out two of the most persistent problems in any insulation system. The borate-treated R-value of cellulose is higher than any other fibrous insulation and unless it gets drowned in water, it does not leach out over time.
Contrary to your assertion that "moisture is bad news for cellulose", the fact is that cellulose is good news for moisture, since it can safely absorb and release 30% of its weight in water, and is so hygroscopic that it draws moisture away from and protects wood framing. As a moisture sink, it also buffers indoor RH which foam cannot do.
Stick faming is not rated to withstand 200 MPH winds as ICF's are.. the wood used in stick framing burns unlike concrete.. Stick framing is subject to all the weakness of wood. Which is vulnerable to water damage and must be protected from decay. Wood is also vulnerable to insect damage and must be protected with toxic chemicals injected in the ground surround the home to prevent termite infestation..
Unless you're planning on building atop Mt. Washington in NH, where the world's highest windspeed of 231 mph was recorded, there's simply no need for that kind of protection. The maximum 3-second gusts during Katrina were 113 mph and many houses suffered little or no wind damage. During huricane Andrew, the second most powerful cat5 to hit the US, the houses that survived best were wood-framed and built by Habitat for Humanity. The maximum wind speed in 90% of the US is 90 mph.
Termite poisoning is not required if metal termite flashing is properly installed, and there is no need even for PT sills with a good capillary break. As I've said before, wood-frame houses with dense-pack cellulose are among the most fire-resistant. And if they burn, they don't release such toxic gasses as foam-filled houses.
Last I heard there were no concrete termits or concrete eating carpenter ants.. nor will concrete rot if rained upon..
But foam offers a hidden entrance for termites to attack any abutting wood. And concrete does crack and spall if the ground settles or liquifies from rain saturation. And, with foam on both sides, the damage is not visible.
I notice you carefully tap danced around my suggestion of building with wood via timberframing rather than covering up your work with sheetrock..
No dance at all. The issue was irrelevant to the comparison between wood-frames and ICFs. I don't use timber frames because authentic timber framing is a cost-prohibitive for most people, it uses more timber resources and makes renovation more problematic.
Which by the way answers your rebuttal about covering up your work with spray foam).. It's covered with sheetrock anyway! foam gets you R21 capabliity,, fiberglas gets you R-8 3/4 and celluliose gets you R-12 1/4 in a typical 2x4 stud bay..
Not at all. The issue you brought up was about the relative "greenness" of timbers vs sticks. My answer was that there's nothing green about burying natural wood in plastic, particularly when it reduces the durability of the wood by making it more vulnerable to moisture, since the foam cannot protect wood the way cellulose does. And anyone still building either 2x4 exterior walls or using fiberglass cannot enter the kingdom of "green". Just another straw man argument!
If you eliminate the stud you lose 20% of the wall which is down graded to R-3.5 because of the Thermal bridge effect of a stud..
It's very easy to build a stick-frame house without thermal bridging.
As for Bias I pointed out the very real bias in the study you gave.. You choose to ignore it
All you pointed out was that the objective analysis of that study didn't agree with yor bias. To prove bias in the study, you'd have to either show where their methodology is flawed or compare it to a more objective study. You did neither.
As for limited? Well I've been working in the housing construction industry full time for 17 1/2 years plus I had taken a great interest in the subject for decades prior to that.
Time in the trades does not equate either to useful experience or to the acquisition of knowledge or judgement. It equates most of the time to the accumulation of bias.
Stick framing is comparable to the model T of my grandfathers period. It's been around a long time and it's being passed by with more efficent better methods of construction..
In fact, more than 90% of American homes are made of wood, and today's cutting-edge wooden homes are like the hybrid and electric cars that are but distant relatives of the Model T.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Edited 12/25/2008 6:20 pm ET by Riversong
too spell it out in short simple sentences..
Those who previously had well constructed, well insulated stick framed houses and remodeled them using foam reported a lower energy cost..
Those who have replaced stick framed houses with SIP's or ICF's report even lower energy costs..
My previously well built well insulated home that I doubled in size and tripled the windows now costs me $200 a month as compared to previously it cost me $500 a month. The same furnace, roughly the same cold weather and actually higher fuel costs.
My sister who removed her fiberglas and celluliose insulation and replaced it with sprayed in foam was too hot using her old boiler and has switched to an electric water heater.
My neighbor who simply removed the old insulation and sprayed in foam has cut their costs by $200 a month..
Tyvex is required by code around here.. tar paper isn't approved.. Again I refer you to issue 56 where they showed a dramatic reduction in energy costs using Tyvex over tar paper.
You are flat wrong with your assertion about moisture being good for celluliose.. With the same 30% moisture content celluliose loses a significant portion of it's R- value. Since foam cannot absorb foam it's R value is unaffected.
By the way argue with Fine home building.. I refer you to page 38 of issue 56
I quoted them exactly (that's why the word quote and the parentheses)
As for wind speed.. obviously you aren't aware of tornado's and yes hurricanes.. it doesn't need sustained speeds to tear roofs off and once roofs are removed only the strength of walls will withstand wind damage.. No stick framed home will survive a Tornado once it's roof is off.. ICF's will up to 200 MPH..
Talking about toxic gases released in a house fire is nonsense! Carpets couches, various furniture, and etc. will release far more toxic smoke than any insulation.. Don't you know anything about fire?
If you did you'd also understand the fire triangle and why fire is less likely in a ICF home than any stick framed home..
As for flashing barriers being ok protection against termites, explain that to the residents of Hawaii. Not all termite infestations can be stopped by barriers. I'll dig up what fine Home building said about the subject for you..
So you do admit your wood work is covered by sheetrock? Rather than celebrating it by doing timberframing? Poor use of wood.
Unlike those who spend the majority of their time repeating the same process over and over. I was constantly exposed to a tremendous variety of techniques and approaches to construction. I'd visit thousands of worksites annually. You on the other hand might build a handful of homes using the same basic techniques. Any differances in techniques or methods earned instant questioning from me.. I loved my job and took a great deal of interest in doing it well.. that meant I knew as much or more than the people I sold equipment to.. I was active on boards and freqently gave safety lectures etc.
I read everything I could and had no invested interest in building another model T
Those who previously had well constructed, well insulated stick framed houses and remodeled them using foam reported a lower energy cost..
If what you're saying is "increasing R-value lowers energy consumption", that's a simple logical tautology (A = A). But that says nothing about the relative merits or particularly "greenness" of foam.
And people's "reported" energy savings always has to be taken with a grain of salt. I've had people tell me they bought a new, more efficient car and it must get double the mileage because every time they fill the tank it costs half as much (not mentioning that the gas tank is half the size).
Those who have replaced stick framed houses with SIP's or ICF's report even lower energy costs..
Once again: apples to orages. Replacing an energy-inefficient house of any type with a more efficient house will lower energy costs. That says nothing about either stick-framed houses of SIPs or ICF houses. Once again, that's a simple logical tautology.
My previously well built well insulated home that I doubled in size and tripled the windows now costs me $200 a month as compared to previously it cost me $500 a month. The same furnace, roughly the same cold weather and actually higher fuel costs.
Since it's physically impossible to double the size and triple the window area and reduce the heating fuel consumption by 60% without making the thermal envelope five times more efficient, then either you're admitting that the "previously well-built well insulated home" was a piece of #### or the new house doesn't perform as you claim - either way you're not telling the truth.
Tyvex is required by code around here.. tar paper isn't approved.. Again I refer you to issue 56 where they showed a dramatic reduction in energy costs using Tyvex over tar paper.
Codes are way behind current building science - most still require a vapor barrier. Since I don't hve issue 56 and you've failed to offer reliable website links, I can't respond to the specifics that you claim are in that article. But housewrap alone cannot make a "dramatic reduction in energy costs" except in the most poorly-built homes. Paul Fisette, director of building science at UMass Amherst and other building scientists have demonstrated that building paper works as well or better than plastic housewrap.
You are flat wrong with your assertion about moisture being good for celluliose.. With the same 30% moisture content celluliose loses a significant portion of it's R- value. Since foam cannot absorb foam it's R value is unaffected.
I can't be wrong in an assertion that I didn't make. I said that cellulose is good news for moisture because it buffers it (like thermal mass does with excess heat), and it protects wood framing from rot while non-hygroscopic materials like plastic foam will concentrate moisture in the wood. EPS and Icynene foams are water permeable and will adsorb water, which is why EPS cannot be used below grade and why Icynene has created mold problems in cathedral ceilings.
No stick framed home will survive a Tornado once it's roof is off.. ICF's will up to 200 MPH..
Fortunately, codes do not require that houses be designed to resist tornadoes, since it's not possible. And wood-frame houses are still the major type in hurricane zones, even with strict wind codes.
Talking about toxic gases released in a house fire is nonsense! Carpets couches, various furniture, and etc. will release far more toxic smoke than any insulation.. Don't you know anything about fire?
As a 30-year volunteer firefighter who has taken multiple certification classes in fire behavior, yes I do. It's all a matter of fuel load - volume of flammable materials. ICF houses have several times the volume of foam as typical furnishings.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Go back to your fire triangle.
Look at a ICF interior wall and explain to me where you get two of the three legs from? Hint; with ICF you have no transfer of heat to combustable materials (the concrete won't burn providing the fuel source).. the sheetrock won't burn providing a fuel source and the insulation will prevent thermal transfer. I was personally present when a fabricated corner made with SIP's according to instructions had a bon-fire ignited and burn for over an hour.. temp at the sheetrock reached over 1500 degrees yet temps on the outside skin of the SIP was only 50 degree above ambiant..
The foam that I've used has been treated so it will not support fire.. I can ignite it but once I remove the source of ignition the foam will self extinguish. (very handy when using the electric melter and working too slow causing the foam to burst into flame. By simply removing the melter the foam would stop burning)
A stick framed house once the sheetrock reaches ignition temp of the stud has the potential for fire assuming there is oxygen there we have fuel, heat, and oxygen. You claim that celluliose was breathable. (I believe you)
Next you're right I did make the thermal envelope more efficent over the previous stick framed house.. Now you begin to understand my insistance that ICF's & SIP's are more efficent than stick building..
Heck if it didn't work that way I'd be grumbling having been sold a bill of goods.. I gain nothing by convincing others to replicate my approach I won't sell a single more telehandler or piece of construction equipment.. But someone convinced me.. I want to help others realize that not all houses need to be made like a model T.. there is new technology out there and there is plenty of supportive evidence to prove it is more efficent..
It works so I want others to try it.. Those who have report similar results..
Next with regard the ability to withstand tornado's you really need to read the fine home building information regarding roof retention.. I cite page 129 of Tautons Framing Roofs. a F2 or 3 tornado will not cause that roof retention to fail.
A typical roof rafter built to code can be removed if each rafter has more than 208 foot pounds of force applied to it.. Using Simpson H7 connectors that is increased to 2,726 pounds per rafter. or by jamming a single 3/8ths inch lag screw into the rafter retention goes up to 2,783 pounds. The rafter itself fails. had the lag screw been properly installed failure would have gone up significantly from that number..
My approach requires over 15,000 pounds to remove and that does not take into consideration the mechanical fit of timberframing.
Finally as a rebuttal to your source of information I offer my source. My source for the efficency of tyvex over tar paper. is that same issue page 41 Steve Easley professor of building construction at Purdue university.I'm sure there is a fiberglas guy out there somewhere who has sources of information showing fiberglas as being superior to all other insulations..
Please stop getting sanctimonus about various sources you've dug up to support your position.. You do have something to gain supporting your position.. you've spent your life building stick framed houses and you wouldn't want to find out that you haven't been giving people as efficent house as possible..
The foam that I've used has been treated so it will not support fire.. I can ignite it but once I remove the source of ignition the foam will self extinguish.
Same as treated cellulose - and you were very critical of a material that required treatment in order to be firesafe.
Except, unlike cellulose, EPS will begin to soften, contract and melt and drip at temperatures above 212°F, allowing air (oxygen) into the void, and even SE fire-resistant EPS has an ignition point of 700°F - a house fire can easily reach 1100° in as little as 3 or 4 minutes.
A stick framed house once the sheetrock reaches ignition temp of the stud has the potential for fire assuming there is oxygen there we have fuel, heat, and oxygen. You claim that celluliose was breathable. (I believe you)
I didn't "claim" that cellulose is breathable - I stated a fact. But anyone familiar with building science understands that "breatheable" means permeable to water vapor, not to air. And anyone who knows cellulose knows that it is virtually impermeable to air - which is why it's approved as a firestop. EPS is most definitely NOT a firestop.
Next you're right I did make the thermal envelope more efficent over the previous stick framed house.. Now you begin to understand my insistance that ICF's & SIP's are more efficent than stick building..
So, again, all you're saying is that a more efficient house is more efficient. There's nothing inherent in ICFs that make it a more energy-efficient building system - independent studies have proven that. But, like Rush Limbaugh, you're one who never lets facts get in the way of your opinions. Your repeated "insistence" does not make it true - and its been proven false.
I want to help others realize that not all houses need to be made like a model T.. there is new technology out there and there is plenty of supportive evidence to prove it is more efficent..
You have offered not a shred of that purported evidence. All evidence is to the contrary.
Finally as a rebuttal to your source of information I offer my source. My source for the efficency of tyvex over tar paper. is that same issue page 41 Steve Easley professor of building construction at Purdue university.
Give me a link or cut and paste the article. Otherwise I have to assume that either you're misreading it or misquoting it or otherwise distorting the evidence as you have consitently done up to this point. Name-dropping wont' do. Show me the evidence.
I'm sure there is a fiberglas guy out there somewhere who has sources of information showing fiberglas as being superior to all other insulations..
In fact, the public relations departments of the major producers of fiberglass spent years spreading misinformation about cellulose and lobbying to have it banned as a fire hazard - in much the same way you're spreading disinformation about cellulose and alleged merits of ICFs.
you've spent your life building stick framed houses and you wouldn't want to find out that you haven't been giving people as efficent house as possible..
My houses have been documented to be among the most efficient in the country. My very first Larsen Truss cellulose house received a Citation of Excellence in a national energy- and resource-efficient design contest sponsored by the North East Sustainable Enery Association, and my last modified Larsen Truss cellulose house received an Energy Star 5+ rating (the highest) and was the second tightest house tested in Vermont.
My homes have an effective system heat load of 1.4 BTU/DD-SF, which is almost certainly 3 to 4 times more efficient that what you're building.
If I'm wrong, show me the numbers and documentation. If you can't, then I suggest you stop making a fool of yourself.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
On my own workshop I wrapped a timber frame with polyiso over pine t&g. I thought the "wrap and strap" foam boards would be cheaper than installing SIPs, due to lower up-front material costs, and because I could do it all myself (working alone) without heavy equipment. However, this turned out to be a very labor intensive method with a lot of on-site waste. There's not much use for excess little dinged up pieces of foam board cut to fit under a 9-in-12 roof. They just go out in the trash.And now that it's up, I do worry about fire in the foam wall. I also wonder about any moisture that might have been trapped inside the walls during construction. Although, almost all the wood (the timber frame and the paneling) is exposed to the interior so it can dry to one side.Dense-pack cellulose sounds like a good method. You can buy, locally, pretty much exactly what you need to fill your wall volume. Any left-overs can be tossed into the attic space. I would not need a crane or crew to install it. I also like the idea of a wall system that breathes with respect to moisture-management. However, the Larsen Truss looks like an very labor-intensive technique (something I disliked about my own "wrap-and-strap"). It's not a big learning departure from conventional stick-frame wall construction, which I like, but there's a lot more wall to construct.
I wonder if any production builders have come up with a way to speed it up, maybe by blowing the insulation into a panelized wall envelope?
Any fire-safety concerns could be addressed by proper blocking in addition to the retardants in the cellulose.I am not aware of any timber frame provider who offers a cellulose or cotton-batt panel system. Most of them sell SIP-based wall packages.
Tom.
My experiance using SIP's on my timberframe convinced me of the soundness of replacing them with ICF's I mean lifting a 2# foam form glueing it together with Great Stuff spray foam and tossing rebar into the foams was massively easier than screwing blocking onto the SIP's and then clamping the panels together to ensure a tight joint. Not to mention the "fun" of getting the adhesive to flow when it was 20 below out and the wind was whipping around from the North..
And I had $100,000 worth of brand new telehandlers as free demo's to use..
I still know that SIP's are the way to go for the roof but given my experiance with them on the walls I would simply continue the walls staright up to the rooF line with ICF's
I suspect the price would ahve been a wash but the speed was like one tenth the amount of hassle I had with SIP's. Untill I learned a short cut that a pro installer taught me and then I saved about 50% of the time but it was still much longer than ICF's would have been..
However, the Larsen Truss looks like an very labor-intensive technique. It's not a big learning departure from conventional stick-frame wall construction, which I like, but there's a lot more wall to construct.
Not if you're comparing it to other double-wall techniques. The modified Larsen Truss system is less labor and material intensive than any other, and provides a higher percentage of clear wall R-value in the as-built whole wall system. It's really quite simple to do, requiring no exterior staging as most of the connections are made from the inside and the trusses create a ladder around the entire house that is easy to ascend.
I wonder if any production builders have come up with a way to speed it up, maybe by blowing the insulation into a panelized wall envelope?
John Larsen, the inventor of the original Larsen Truss, intended to have it fabricated off-site in a truss manufacturing facility. This also could be done in a shop.
Any fire-safety concerns could be addressed by proper blocking in addition to the retardants in the cellulose.
No building inspector I've worked with has ever questioned the use of the cellulose as a fire stop or required any solid blocking. There's third-party documention to prove it's effectiveness.
I am not aware of any timber frame provider who offers a cellulose or cotton-batt panel system. Most of them sell SIP-based wall packages.
Maybe not in their packages, but Ted Benson - the father of modern timber framing - includes the Larsen Truss in his book as an option for insulating a timber frame.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Interesting stuff. Like many other threads, (especially ones on sound attenuation and roof venting) this discussion would become much more useful to readers if some of the proponents of various building systems could include sketches of typical wall and roof sections they use. For me anyway, it would make evaluating the differences between your preferred modified Larson truss system and Frenchy's double-timber framed-milled by friends-assembled by forklift-fastened by screws-sips.
In retrospect I wouldn't double timberframe and use SIP's. Instead I would have continued my ICF's right up along side the interior timberframe. I'd still use SIP's on the roof though.
Instead of the complex fitting of stone between timbers it would have been massively easier to simply stone all the way up and leave the exterior timbers out except for the gable ends and dormers.
this discussion would become much more useful to readers if some of the proponents of various building systems could include sketches of typical wall and roof sections they use.
Here's several web pages showing and describing my entire building system:
http://www.builditsolar.com/Projects/SolarHomes/LarsenTruss/LarsenTruss.htm
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Many thanks.
Since I provided you with the information you apparently needed to verify my claims all you've managed to do is prove your bias..
There is plenty of verification of my facts.. I quote the very web site that you are using as a source and you cannot figure out how to get onto it? That somehow I'm making things up?
You make wild claims about stick building because you have to.. Your business depends on it.
I make verified statements because I want others to investigate the possiblity..
You've invested you life in your model T construction buisiness While I followed other advice and got superior results.
Finally you dismiss timberframing as too expensive.. Well it is, if you buy a kit and install it.
However the national standard price paid for a 8'6" long 9"x7" hardwood timber is $20.00. Most mills will also sell an 18 foot long version for $40.00 (hardwood market report http://www.hmr.com ) they are railroad ties before treatment and made from any hardwood. Oak, ash, maple, black walnut, whatever! If I can do mortice and tenion work bulding my first house that should be easy for a man of your claimed experiance.. Once you've established a relationship with a sawmill getting other sizes is easy and cheap.
There is over 50,000 bd.ft. of hardwood in my house. It cost me under 50 cents a bd.ft. for all the cherry, black walnut, oak ash tamarack etc. in it.
That includes all the burl, fiddleback, and special wood I've used in it.. plus it is massively stronger than any house needs to be.. If you built a relatively modest 2500 sq.ft. timberframe no doubt you could frame it for around $5000.00 worth of materials.. maybe less if you selected wood that is in superabundance with no market like Ash..
Please tell me that you can frame a 2500 sq.ft. house with $5,000 worth of materials. (I need a good laugh!)
I make verified statements
Almost nothing you've claimed is verified - you mostly keep repeating that it works for you and your relatives - and I have offered scientific and objective rebuttals of each of them.
You've invested you life in your model T construction buisiness While I followed other advice and got superior results.
You have yet to share a heat loss analysis or an energy audit or blower door test for your house - nothing to verify the actual heating load.
My "model T" is several times more efficient than your rather ordinary ICF house. You house is significantly inferior to the ones I've built, and there is no justification for calling it "green" - which is what this thread is all about.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Where does the wood you use to build your houses come from? The pacific Northwest? Southern states plantations? Canada? Alaska? Mine came from within 50 miles of here..
My verified statements are from the source of this web site.. yours?
You use one means to test the theoritical heat loss. I use a simpler more direct method. Monthly Bills.
Ordinary ICF house? Have you seen pictures I've posted? Read about my costs?
You are talking out of your posterior when you say ordinary..
<<<<Have you seen pictures I've posted? >>>>
both of them ?
c'mon.....get realMike Hussein Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
Mike
there are two sites where pictures are posted and I believe there are 30 or more.. 85891.1 & 94941.1
I'll go count them for your benefit..
Yes there are 30 house pictures.. 25 at 85891.1 & 5 more at 94941.1
If my daughter returns my camera I'll post some more now that I know how but since she took it, she's gotten married, gone on a honeymoon, moved into her new apartment gotten started at a new career, gotten pregnant, gave birth and spent her first Christmas with her new baby here, all in 16 months..
Frankly any pictures she takes are far more valuable than any pictures I take so I'll let her keep it for now.. ;-)
Edited 12/27/2008 11:47 am ET by frenchy
Frenchy, here is a photo of your sustainable roof design?
View Image
The roof is plenty steep enough to prevent retention of snow loads or rain which means a long life for the wood shingles. They are installed with cedar breather because that is the best practice for longevity.
They are installed with cedar breather because that is the best practice for longevity.
The Cedar Shake and Shingle Bureau requires interwoven felt for longevity, durability and drainage of water to the surface.
http://www.cedarbureau.org/faq/installation.htm
Shingles shall be applied over spaced sheathing except where local building code requires solid decks for seismic regions, in wind-driven snow or high wind areas. Shakes installed with interwoven felt may be installed on a solid deck. The CSSB recommends using an 18" wide strip of Type 30 roofing felt laid over the top portion of the shakes and extending on to the sheathing. The bottom edge of the felt should be positioned above the butt of the shake at a distance equal to twice the weather exposure. Note: Building officials MAY approve eliminating felt interlayment between shake courses when tapersawn or tapersplit shakes are applied in snow-free areas at weather exposures of less than one-third the total shake length (3-ply roof). ALWAYS check with your local Building Official for project approval PRIOR to deviating from standard application guidelines. The felt interlay system forces water to the surface, thus assisting the proper water shedding in your roof.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
And? Didn't they also mention stainless steel fastners?
so .... let's not be leaping from shingles ..... to shakes.... and back again... each has their own recommended practiseare we talking about shingles.... or shakes ?Mike Hussein Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
I apologize, If you look they are shakes.
Frenchy, I was talkin about the roof design.. not the material.
It looks like you have a nice rainwater catching system goin on there.
I doubt the ICF manufacturers are ignorant of the studies that Riversong cites regarding the effectiveness of mass. I would think someone would make a "lopsided" block, extra foam on the outside and a minimum on the interior. Could be a super block for the extra cold regions. Does anyone know if this exists? I was unable to find one in my search, although I remember someone making thicker blocks on demand. Couldn't find them either.John
JohnCujie
QuadLock is an ICF with two thicknesses of foam available. It's a separable panel system, so there are four possible configurations of foam / concrete / foam.
The thinner panels are either 51 mm or 2 1/4" thick. The thicker panels are either 108 mm or 4 1/4", according to the website.
http://www.quadlock.com/
Ron
Then I should take pictures of the rest of the gutter ssytem I installed.. Some of it got pretty artistic.. (and works too)
you can't......... your daughter has your camera
what is it about daughters ? Mike Hussein Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
If dad's were smart they'd simply buy a camera for themselves and a duplicate for each female in their family.. then when they lose them all you can simply upgrade to the newest style! <grin>
You commented about a roof/tower/dormer conflict.
Frankly I hated it.. however due to building code restrictions that was what I was left with.. however there is no possiblity of trapped water.. First I built a cricket to prevent trapped water. Pitched at 4/12 then I coated the area with a double layer of Grace ice and water barrier and finally I formed a 12 guage copper pan with no seam anywhere near the bottom of the area involved.. and going up 3 feet on all sides to ensure that should heavy rainfall flood the area nothing can possibly get behind the copper .. That leads directly to the copper gutters curved around the tower..
In addition the layout is such that I can easily step out a window and check to make sure no trash accumulates. It's also the window used for access to the satelite dish (hidden from view from all but helicopter pilots <grin>)
Frenchy...I was being tacky
I was just tired of SIP....SIP...SIP....ICF...yadadyada
Mike is right you are ok ..just ease up on the SIPS
I am sorry
John
I realize I may come across as a bit of a reformed drunk at times.. preaching the 12 step program to everyone..
The alternative as I see it is to preach selectively. If we didn't have so many lurkers I could simply time my statements or in some other way attempt to coney my message.
Frankly in a perfect world we'd all stay on this web site and those with an interest can read what has been written thus far and refer others to these answers..
Most of which both pro and con are well written.
That's not how things work so I am forced to periodically get on my soap box and repeat myself..
For that I really do apologize to those who have heard it endlessly.. Please simply ignore me.
You're concerned about 870 therms of embodied energy in the ICF walls of your case study home, correct? And you're claiming that you're way ahead by reducing the embodied energy content to ~ 100 therms by your well-designed and carefully deployed sticks and cells approach. Do I understand your argument correctly?
According to DOE, the average Midwest US home uses 800-900 therms every heating season!
http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/brochure/oil_gas/rngp/index.html
Assuming that passive annual heat storage isn't an option and you're building above grade, and assuming that they don't have a ground source heat pump system, any TINY increase in heating/cooling efficiency over a 30 year period (much less a 50 or 100 year period!) is going to dwarf the embodied energy content of the building materials themselves, regardless which construction system/method you choose- or am I again missing something?!
The presence or absence of ANY windows on the north face of the building in a mostly-heating climate probably matters more than your choice of building materials over the life-cycle of the structure!
If the enbodied energy of the wall systems concerns you, you'd better pay close attention to labour- you can't neglect it or assume it's a wash. How far away your crew lives from the site, what they eat, and what sort of vehicle they drive will become important at the 100 therms per project level too. LOTS of therms there, with crews of people driving to site and back every day!
I agree totally with your criticism of the false "effective R" claims of ICF manufacturers in relation to thermal mass (heat capacity) effect. The studies you have posted confirm the obvious: the heat capacity is improperly deployed to be of any significant advantage. But ICFs are also an inherently idiot-resistant method of construction which offers other significant advantages-especially as a basement wall system.
If your alternative is to avoid going below grade via using rubble or grade beam foundations to minimize the use of concrete, it would seem that you have bought into the embodied energy argument a bit beyond reason in my view.
I don't disagree with you that a skilled builder can build a house as tight or tighter with sticks and cells and properly deployed air and vapour barriers than an amateur could achieve with ICFs- and that the skilled builder could accomplish same for less embodied energy as well. I just don't think that in overall life-cycle terms, the embodied energy content matters that much.
I know there's an ideological component to this: wanting to use local materials, recycled or renewables exclusively etc. But when we're burning fossil fuels to heat our homes primarily, reducing and hopefully eventually eliminating that fundamentally unsustainable practice needs to be our focus if we're concerned about sustainability. Embodied energy and the nature of the building materials themselves is totally secondary if you keep the ideology out of it.
Excellant points.. especially using professional crews who burn fossil fuels every day in transportation instead of building it yourself which requires no transportation energy..
Thank you very much.That is exactly the sort of information I was looking for.
You're concerned about 870 therms of embodied energy in the ICF walls of your case study home, correct? And you're claiming that you're way ahead by reducing the embodied energy content to ~ 100 therms by your well-designed and carefully deployed sticks and cells approach. Do I understand your argument correctly?
Close. Since I use rough-sawn board sheathing, my wall system has more like 71 therms (or 8% of the ICF wall). And that's just the wall system. There are additional EE savings in the rest of my structure and in interior and exterior finishes.
According to DOE, the average Midwest US home uses 800-900 therms every heating season!
But we're not discussing the "average" poorly insulated drafty house. We're comparing energy-efficient building systems.
any TINY increase in heating/cooling efficiency over a 30 year period (much less a 50 or 100 year period!) is going to dwarf the embodied energy content of the building materials themselves, regardless which construction system/method you choose- or am I again missing something?!
Yes, you're missing a number of things.
As we build houses more energy-efficient, which means less annual or life-cycle operating energy, then the initial and recurring (maintenance, replacement) EE becomes more significant. A modestly efficient house can require 10 to 20 years to payback it's entire EE investment through operating energy savings.
And, as I've said repeatedly, EE is only one of many factors to consider. More comprehensively, there's the life-cycle impacts of materials: including EE, CO2, air and water pollution, toxicity, solid waste, and social/community and local economic impacts.
The presence or absence of ANY windows on the north face of the building in a mostly-heating climate probably matters more than your choice of building materials over the life-cycle of the structure!
With efficient windows, that's not the case, particularly if considered in the broader context of livability of the house. A super-efficient house (like an underground house) that is dark and poorly ventilated with little visual connection to the outdoors is a house that few people are going to enjoy living in. Quality of life issues (real ones, not consumer ones, are also important elements of the value and long-term usefulness of a house).
If the enbodied energy of the wall systems concerns you, you'd better pay close attention to labour- you can't neglect it or assume it's a wash. How far away your crew lives from the site, what they eat, and what sort of vehicle they drive will become important at the 100 therms per project level too. LOTS of therms there, with crews of people driving to site and back every day!
I don't neglect it or make assumptions. I know exactly what it costs me to build these houses. I use local carpenters also to support the local economy and to pass on my building skills to others (a very valuable service that isn't accounted for in the cost of construction). It's even more important to consider wise siting as it effects the life-time commuting and errand requirements of the occupants. For this reason, scattered-site rural or suburban homes which are heavily car-dependent are decidedly "ungreen".
But ICFs are also an inherently idiot-resistant method of construction which offers other significant advantages-especially as a basement wall system.
If we attempt to make sophisticated skills like house-building "idiot-proof" then only idiots will be building our houses. Craftsmanship is also an element of a sustainable culture. Mindless assembly-line work is not.
If your alternative is to avoid going below grade via using rubble or grade beam foundations to minimize the use of concrete, it would seem that you have bought into the embodied energy argument a bit beyond reason in my view.
That's not just to reduce EE. It also reduces site disruption, excavation costs, and trucking tons of gravel fill. With a conventional full foundation, the concrete can contain the largest amount of embodied energy in a house and most of its CO2 contribution.
I know there's an ideological component to this: wanting to use local materials, recycled or renewables exclusively etc. But when we're burning fossil fuels to heat our homes primarily, reducing and hopefully eventually eliminating that fundamentally unsustainable practice needs to be our focus if we're concerned about sustainability. Embodied energy and the nature of the building materials themselves is totally secondary if you keep the ideology out of it.
While I agree that eliminating our dependence on limited stores of "ancient sunlight" is key to creating a sustainable world, attempting to do that by using concentrated energy in our building materials is a bit like waging war for peace.
And what you're calling "ideological" is what I'm calling green - it's not an intellectual or moral abstraction or diversion, but an essential element of living sustainably on the earth. We need to choose wisely every thing we consume, and eventually stop being "consumers" and start being contributors.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Where does the wood you use to build your houses come from? The pacific Northwest? Southern states plantations? Canada? Alaska? Mine came from within 50 miles of here..
Always within 50 miles or so. It's sourced from local mills that use locally-harvested timber. Some of it I harvest from the site myself.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Out of curiosity, what were the construction methods of the houses that tested higher than yours?Thanks, John
Out of curiosity, what were the construction methods of the houses that tested higher than yours?
If you mean the one house that the auditor said was tighter than mine - that was his own, which was a SIPS house. But he didn't claim that it was more energy-efficient than mine, only tighter to infiltration.
Once you get to extremely tight, incremental differences are irrelevant. In any case, a mechanical fresh air system is required.
Tight, alone, does not make a livable, healthy house. In fact, it can create a rather unlivable, unhealthy house if the thermal envelope cannot breathe and buffer water vapor or if the building materials contain toxic ingrediants.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
" You are flat wrong with your assertion about moisture being good for celluliose.. With the same 30% moisture content celluliose loses a significant portion of it's R- value. Since foam cannot absorb foam it's R value is unaffected."That is wrong. I have seen floats made with EPS and while it takes a while it will become water logged..
William the Geezer, the sequel to Billy the Kid - Shoe
"Fiberglas per inch has an R value of 2.5 while foam has a R value of 6 per inch.. in addition fiberglass is what cheap furnace filters are made of because it flows air through it freely.."They make window frame, car bodies, boats, and bathtubs out of fiberglass and I don't see then having air blowing through them."Foam does not allow air movement.. "That is strange because the air filter on my lawn mower is made from foam..
William the Geezer, the sequel to Billy the Kid - Shoe
Riversong
please read my statement to Mike Smith above.. there is massive energy embodied in celluliose insulation.. (not to mention adding the required chemicals to keep it fire retardant and prevent decomposition)
second it doesn't matter that ICF's aren't easily recycled.. they are far more durable then stick built homes and thus the foam will be contained for many more times the life of stick built homes..
In addition your numbers have almost no solid basis in fact Walk through a lumberyard and see where various wood comes from.. shipping wood over 1000 miles because there is a market willing to buy that product does not make for green use of the planet.
Finally please remember the story of the 3 little pigs.. he huffed and puffed but could not blow down the house made of bricks.. (unlike the house of straw and the house of sticks..)
Since there remains concrete from ancient Roman times but no wooden houses from that period I rest my case..
I have been following this thread with great interest. I am not very knowledgeable about the subject, and am learning a lot. As a spectator, though, I have to comment about the arguments used. Riversong provides a very detailed analysis comparing the two methods of building. Frenchy disagrees with the conclusion, and attacks the numbers by suggesting he "walk through a lumberyard". And finally, the crowning blow is accomplished by quoting fables: "Finally please remember the story of the 3 little pigs.. he huffed and puffed but could not blow down the house made of bricks.. (unlike the house of straw and the house of sticks..)". As if that is a legitimate argument.
Carry on,
John
kiddoc I would think you of all people would be suspicous of such arbitratory numbers as has been presented here..
Look at oil.
How much embedded energy is in oil? Doesn't it matter if the oil was put on a super tanker and shipped 1/2 way around the world or pumped from a pipeline in Alaska,Canada or even domestically?
How can one number fit all those variables?
Then we have efficencies which are also a variable as well as locations etc..
Nice neat numbers make a point but if the value of those numbers do not reflect real world variables how can they have any credibility?
Then concrete.. does the material in the concrete come from local sources or is it trucked in?
Numbers down to the decimal point are tidy but without knowing the bias of the number crunchers can they be trusted?
there is massive energy embodied in celluliose insulation
Because it's about 85% recycled, the original manufacturing energy doesn't get counted twice.
The extremely low embodied energy of cellulose doesn't even take into account the savings on land-fill volume or global warming contribution of incineration due to recycling of waste material.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Riversong.. please read my privious post.
Since you claim to like to build green may I assume that you build your homes durable enough for them to remain long enough to grow their replacement? If 80 year old trees are harvested then your homes will remain unmodified for 80 years? (it's about sustainability) How then do you deal with the paint, adhesives, nails, and other materials used in their construction?
Actaully shouldn't you build with something like adobe? Something with a virtural unlimited supply that decompses without releasing any carbon?
Since you claim to like to build green may I assume that you build your homes durable enough for them to remain long enough to grow their replacement?
I don't "claim to build green", but I claim to build reasonably sustainably. And I build for an expected 100 year lifetime for my structures. I have little doubt that they can easily exceed that timeframe. A building is sustainable only if it outlives the time it takes for the earth to replace or recycle all the resources consumed. My homes meet that standard.
Actaully shouldn't you build with something like adobe? Something with a virtural unlimited supply that decompses without releasing any carbon?
If I were really building green, I would be using all natural materials (which is virtually impossible). But wood, responsibly harvested and used, is carbon neutral. Concrete and petrochemical foams are huge contributors to global warming.
The Building You're In Fuels Global Warming <!----><!----><!---->
by Edward Mazria <!----><!---->
<!---->http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0304-07.htm<!---->
<!----> <!---->
"Buildings and their construction account for nearly half of all the greenhouse gas emissions and energy consumed in this country each year. Globally, the percentage is even greater."<!----><!---->
<!----> <!---->
"With about 5 billion square feet of new construction and 5 billion square feet of renovation taking place in the U.S. each year, the potential for reducing energy consumption and carbon dioxide emissions is enormous. This would put the U.S. well on its way toward meeting its international obligations and demonstrate a way for developing nations to cut emissions without sacrificing economic growth."
Forestry Commission Scotland
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Comparison
Carbon benefits of Timber in Construction<!----><!---->
<!---->http://www.frcc.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/Carbonbenefitsoftimberinconstruction.pdf/$FILE/Carbonbenefitsoftimberinconstruction.pdf<!---->
<!----> <!---->
"For all building types that have been assessed as part of this study, GHG emissions associated with the embodied energy of construction materials are lower if the timber content is increased. This study has demonstrated that, indicatively, it is possible to achieve up to an 86% reduction in GHG emissions by ncreasing the amount of timber specified in buildings. As trees grow, they sequester carbon from the atmosphere giving them a negative carbon intensity. These emissions reductions are achieved as timber is used to replace building materials that have high carbon intensity such as concrete and steel." <!----><!---->
<!----><!---->
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Edited 12/24/2008 1:19 pm ET by Riversong
Back to your original question;
<<The subject of the environmental impact of ICF construction popped up in another thread. It's a subject I've had on my mind for a while, wondering whether ICF construction does make sense from an environmental point of view when compared to wood frame. I don't know how to resolve it.>>
There are a lot of ways to look at this, and we've just barely scratched the surface before we went down the rabbit hole of embodied energy.
As I was beginning to outline for Jim, green building has an implicit coherence to it such that, given a proviso or two, if you grasp any thread and pull, eventually you get the whole ball of yarn.
One of those provisos would be context or perspective, which I think we've lost to a certain extent in this discussion. Embodied energy is one metric, but the evaluative model is not all that complete or uniform. So while ee certainly should be considered, it also needs to be weighted against many other factors and recognized for its limitations.
In any analytical model there comes a point of diminishing returns, and at that point we need to fit our design criteria into a wider frame of reference. Specifically, every design will have trade-offs. If there is a quality, property, or characteristic unique to ICFs that enable you to build a particular way that supports an overall environmentally responsible design intent, then yes, of course ICFs are a part of green building.
We have not discussed passive solar and mass-compensated homes. I am no stranger to people telling me that even though I have made it work in practice, it doesn't work in theory so I can't do it. <G>
Somewhere along the line if anyone is interested we'll go into that.
On the subject of perspective, it is perilously easy to get too close to the details and end up looking at the world through a cocktail straw so to speak. Or end up like the proverbial blind men describing the elephant.
Some years ago I worked with a company that specialized in alternative wall systems. We got pretty good with adobe, straw-bale straw-clay, ICF, Rastra, all kinds of stuff. We had the good fortune to have a number-cruncher in our midst who knew how to formulate an intelligent question. He also kept meticulous budget vs. job cost reports.
After quite a bit of effort at trying to come up with the "greenest" wall system, he pointed out something that may illustrate my point.
The spread between the least expensive and the most expensive wall system was somewhere around 4 percent of the total cost, and the wall system was in no case over 14 percent of the total cost of the house. It's really only a small piece of the puzzle. It just happens to be the one we identify with. Wall systems are tangible -- we relate easily to them as part of the building process.
The difference between the various wall systems when weighed against other places we could focus our energy led us to pay far more attention to other components of green building. While every decision counts, it's important to decide for yourself how much they should count. It is short-sighted to reject a useful technology on the basis of inappropriately restrictive criteria.
If we only considered embodied energy, toxicity, and pollution, it would be hard to buy a roll of bituthane.
So I am not advocating the indiscriminate use of concrete. But the thoughtful and intelligent inclusion of concrete as an integral component of a skillful design is another tool in the toolbox.
The folks who focus on energy efficiency in all its manifestations have many compelling arguments, and I appreciate their effort. But again, perspective. Any step in the right direction is a good step.
Well said. I too have worked over the last 35 years with a number of design types when it comes to energy efficiency and feel as you do.
There are a number of variables both geographically and site specific that make for good houses. Each must be considered. No single style or type is the "Be All" answer.
They can't get your Goat if you don't tell them where it is hidden.
Thanks.
i think that's a key thing....
if you get into building and designing structures with certain constraints...
like siting....insulating.... functional design.... energy use.... low maintenance..
you can certainly arrive at a structure that will outperform the norm
some other constraints are
you have to develop a market of customers that will hire you to build those structures and buy into the parameters you use to meet the specs
no market....no customers ... no ballgame
Mike Hussein Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
Mike,You hit the nail on the head when you said, "you have to develop a market of customers that will hire you to build those structures and buy into the parameters you use to meet the specsno market....no customers ... no ballgame"And this is also why incrementalism is the socially organic approach to change. Only a few people are ready to pay for radical change to the type of home they purchase, no matter how economical it might be. Change often makes us uncomfortable, so we seek to do it in manageable steps. It all comes down to the human factor.Bill
There are a lot of ways to look at this, and we've just barely scratched the surface before we went down the rabbit hole of embodied energy.
If, as it seems, you mean that EE is a diversion, I would have to disagree. While it doesn't address the many less tangible impacts of our housing choices, it is a relatively broad metric for ecological impacts and some social impacts as well.
Energy use in manufacture is a good correlative of the entire range of environmental effects. It is also a measure of the transportion distance - which is inversely related to the deep green issue of supporting the local community and local economy.
green building has an implicit coherence to it such that, given a proviso or two, if you grasp any thread and pull, eventually you get the whole ball of yarn.
I have not seen this to be the case. Most designers and builders who consider themselves "green" are focused only on one or two rather narrow parameters and never move beyond them to the broader context. The "green" certification programs similarly focus only on operating energy (Energy Star) or on a limited range of sustainability factors.
Specifically, every design will have trade-offs. If there is a quality, property, or characteristic unique to ICFs that enable you to build a particular way that supports an overall environmentally responsible design intent, then yes, of course ICFs are a part of green building.
But the goal of true green builders should be to minimize the number of trade-offs. The "if" you mention is the operative term. So far in this and other discussions, the positive qualities of ICFs seem to be their ease of use, particularly when skilled labor is unavailable. This is similar to the rationalization for using roof trusses - it's a way to reduce the custom house-building process to an outdoor assembly line. Craft is an essential ingredient to green building, and there is a general drift away from craft and skill and towards simple, easy, cheap and profitable. I don't consider those green values.
We have not discussed passive solar and mass-compensated homes. I am no stranger to people telling me that even though I have made it work in practice, it doesn't work in theory so I can't do it. <G> Somewhere along the line if anyone is interested we'll go into that.
Passive solar should be a foregone conclusion in green design. To not use the free available sun - for heating, cooling and daylighting - is foolish and irresponsible.
The as-built studies I've been quoting and linking to are not theoretical disputations but careful tests of the actual performance of these buildings. So, if you think you've "made it work" please share your success and whatever documentation you have.
We got pretty good with adobe, straw-bale straw-clay, ICF, Rastra, all kinds of stuff.
The spread between the least expensive and the most expensive wall system was somewhere around 4 percent of the total cost, and the wall system was in no case over 14 percent of the total cost of the house.
That's odd since, if used in the most appropriate way, natural building systems are considerably less expensive than conventional ones, in large part because most of the materials can be gathered on or near the site or purchased from the local economy.
When you consider that a straw bale or cob and plaster wall system takes the place of structure, sheathing, siding, insulation, and both exterior and interior finishes, then it amounts to more like 30% of a building project. It is not difficult to cut material costs by half or more and many such projects, even if led by a skilled and well-paid builder, incorporate the home-owners and work parties into the process - which makes the structure that much greener for the community-buiding that it facilitates..
If we only considered embodied energy, toxicity, and pollution, it would be hard to buy a roll of bituthane.
So? Bituthane can hardly be called a green material by any standard.
So I am not advocating the indiscriminate use of concrete. But the thoughtful and intelligent inclusion of concrete as an integral component of a skillful design is another tool in the toolbox.
As do I. And the best use of concrete is often the minimal use of it. For that reason, I've been using shallow, frost-protected foundations and rubble-trench foundations with shallow grade beams. In fact, the latter is what I used for this year's Green Building Intensive at Yestermorrow. Besides requiring very little concrete, a grade beam can be easily formed by the crew and the form boards protected with poly for reuse in the structure - instant recycling!
Any step in the right direction is a good step.
There are two problems with that incremental approach. First, unless we first clearly define the goal, we can't know what direction to step into. Second, since we are at a unique moment in the evolution of homo sapiens on earth, in which today's choices will determine whether our grandchildren will have a world to inherit, I'm not the least bit confident that baby steps are going to do anything but hasten our demise.
This is a time for bold, creative and transformative steps.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Edited 12/29/2008 1:01 am ET by Riversong
Riversong,
I have seen some work by the people you mention, those focussed so narrowly on one factor they will sacrifice the house's livability to it. They do seem to get around, don't they?
Ron
Craft is an essential ingredient to green building, and there is a general drift away from craft and skill and towards simple, easy, cheap and profitable. I don't consider those green values. Easy, cheap and profitable. To that I would like to add- Maintenance free. Our society has a deep aversion to maintaining the things
have. So many materials and building techniques are basically
untenable because of this strange biased.
My favorite example is the lime based stuccos. They require
re coating on a regular bases, but if cared for can last indefinitely.
Whereas Portland cement is flavor of choice. Difficult to maintain,
so it eventually needs repairs. which typically are an eyesore at best.
Lots of good stuff there to work with. I need to go tend to a few things right now, but I'll come back to this. You've identified some of the more interesting questions in green building and given us some great points for discussion.And by the way, your post at#117 was brilliant. My compliments. <G>
<<<<There are a lot of ways to look at this, and we've just barely scratched the surface before we went down the rabbit hole of embodied energy.>>>><<If, as it seems, you mean that EE is a diversion, I would have to disagree. While it doesn't address the many less tangible impacts of our housing choices, it is a relatively broad metric for ecological impacts and some social impacts as well.>>No, not a diversion at all. But it does need to be kept in perspective.<<Energy use in manufacturer is a good correlative of the entire range of environmental effects. It is also a measure of the transportion distance - which is inversely related to the deep green issue of supporting the local community and local economy.>>To some extent, yes. But it is just as important to weigh the energy use against the utility or value received. And we are in complete agreement about supporting the local economy.<<<<green building has an implicit coherence to it such that, given a proviso or two, if you grasp any thread and pull, eventually you get the whole ball of yarn.>>>><<I have not seen this to be the case. Most designers and builders who consider themselves "green" are focused only on one or two rather narrow parameters and never move beyond them to the broader context. The "green" certification programs similarly focus only on operating energy (Energy Star) or on a limited range of sustainability factors.>>I am in complete agreement with you about the importance of a broader context. I hope that has been and will continue to be obvious. If you have not seen this to be the case, then you have an unparalleled opportunity as a teacher which I do hope you will take advantage of.<<Specifically, every design will have trade-offs. If there is a quality, property, or characteristic unique to ICFs that enable you to build a particular way that supports an overall environmentally responsible design intent, then yes, of course ICFs are a part of green building.But the goal of true green builders should be to minimize the number of trade-offs. >>While a design with fewer compromises is usually preferable, I can't help but pay attention to the phrase "true green builders."Without a doubt there are some practices that should not be considered green, and it really does bother me to see an otherwise ordinary homebuilder dab a little lipstick onto a pig and call it green just because this is the marketing ploy of the day.However, I can't help but wonder if we'd get better long-term results by being a little more inviting, cooperative and inclusive. Sure, if someone is just a dishonest hack, then so be it. But if they are trying to do the right thing, then as a teacher, why wouldn't you say, "Hey, that's pretty good. Now look how this part here (maybe energy efficiency) fits into this part here (maybe site design) and look how you can now so easily do all these other things (like waste reduction, water catchment and so on)."If we're trying to get a broad-scale result, we need all the help we can get.<<So far in this and other discussions, the positive qualities of ICFs seem to be their ease of use, particularly when skilled labor is unavailable. This is similar to the rationalization for using roof trusses - it's a way to reduce the custom house-building process to an outdoor assembly line. Craft is an essential ingredient to green building, and there is a general drift away from craft and skill and towards simple, easy, cheap and profitable. I don't consider those green values.>>I would very much like to see your list of green values.And please understand that I am sincere. This is not a set-up or a way for me to find something to argue about. I think you and I are past that. We have way, way more in common as builders and environmentalists than we have differences.<<<<We have not discussed passive solar and mass-compensated homes. I am no stranger to people telling me that even though I have made it work in practice, it doesn't work in theory so I can't do it. <G> Somewhere along the line if anyone is interested we'll go into that.>>>><<Passive solar should be a foregone conclusion in green design. To not use the free available sun - for heating, cooling and daylighting - is foolish and irresponsible.>>Yes. I am all for nuclear power. We already have a reactor, it doesn't cost anything, and it's the right distance from us. About 93 million miles. <G><<The as-built studies I've been quoting and linking to are not theoretical disputations but careful tests of the actual performance of these buildings. So, if you think you've "made it work" please share your success and whatever documentation you have.>>Will do. That's going to be a long post and will need some drawings.<<<<We got pretty good with adobe, straw-bale straw-clay, ICF, Rastra, all kinds of stuff.The spread between the least expensive and the most expensive wall system was somewhere around 4 percent of the total cost, and the wall system was in no case over 14 percent of the total cost of the house.>>>><<That's odd since, if used in the most appropriate way, natural building systems are considerably less expensive than conventional ones, in large part because most of the materials can be gathered on or near the site or purchased from the local economy.>>Yes. And the million-dollar word there is "appropriate".There is so much I want to introduce to the discussion in that regard. Are you up for that one? I think there is a lot that still needs to be figured out.<<When you consider that a straw bale or cob and plaster wall system takes the place of structure, sheathing, siding, insulation, and both exterior and interior finishes, then it amounts to more like 30% of a building project. It is not difficult to cut material costs by half or more and many such projects, even if led by a skilled and well-paid builder, incorporate the home-owners and work parties into the process - which makes the structure that much greener for the community-buiding that it facilitates..>>That's one of those scenarios that look good on paper but there is more to the story. We've tried it and I have to say the results were usually not that good. I don't know if it would be useful to go into details or not, but having the homeowner help can really cause some problems, too.<<<<If we only considered embodied energy, toxicity, and pollution, it would be hard to buy a roll of bituthane.>><<So? Bituthane can hardly be called a green material by any standard.>>Again, perspective. If a little bit of window flashing is the difference between a durable home and a maintenance nightmare, I say use the bituthane.<<<<So I am not advocating the indiscriminate use of concrete. But the thoughtful and intelligent inclusion of concrete as an integral component of a skillful design is another tool in the toolbox.>>>><<As do I. And the best use of concrete is often the minimal use of it.>>Agreed. I think we might only differ on what is the right amount for "minimal". As I was refining my ideas on how to build a home with no requirement for mechanical heating or cooling or additional inputs of energy I spoke with an engineer who works for the DOE. He built such a home out of concrete.And oh my what a pile of concrete. Enough to bother even the likes of me. Sure, the house never went below 68 or above 72, but it was an aesthetic and ecological catastrophe by his own admission.<<<<Any step in the right direction is a good step.>>>><<There are two problems with that incremental approach. First, unless we first clearly define the goal, we can't know what direction to step into. >>I'm not sure I agree with that, but I will give it some more thought before I argue the point. I think we have a pretty good idea, however nebulous, of what "better" might look like.Further, I think the subject matter at hand is so wide that it is well beyond either of us to define it in it's entirety. Nor would it be necessary.For an analogy, which of course proves nothing, have you ever read G.E. Moore's Principia Ethica?<<Second, since we are at a unique moment in the evolution of homo sapiens on earth, in which today's choices will determine whether our grandchildren will have a world to inherit, I'm not the least bit confident that baby steps are going to do anything but hasten our demise.>>We have no disagreement about the severity of our situation.As several others have rightly pointed out here already, if you can't sell the job, you don't have a job. If the choice is between a step in the right direction and no step at all, I hope we'd all choose the former.As I mentioned earlier, which nobody has thus far picked up on, part of the way we got into this mess was one house at a time. One McMansion will not destroy an ecosystem. But some number of them, all together, do at some point become a problem.It's one of the principles of a certain brand of dialectics that you might be familiar with -- that at some point a change in degree results in a change in kind.Again, for another analogy (which again proves nothing but does illustrate my point), if we all kept our tires at the right pressure we'd save a fair amount of fuel. Taken at the national level, we're talking about a pretty significant amount, just a little bit at a time.Back when the focus of our attention was on turning part of Eastern Europe into hot glass on short notice, I could not help but notice that we would easily burn or waste more fuel in one morning of training that was used for the combined annual purpose of the town I grew up in.So does that mean we shouldn't check our tire pressure? Of course not.Anything we do to improve our situation improves our situation. Is it enough? Nobody knows. Is more better? Probably.Can you sell it right now? Can you sell part of it now and more of it later?<<This is a time for bold, creative and transformative steps.>>Indeed.You have described yourself as a teacher as well as a builder. I think that's great. We need more people doing that.What I would propose for your consideration; you can open a school, hang your sign out front or in the yellow pages or on the internet saying you are a teacher. And people might show up because you advertise that.But ultimately your significance as a teacher will be conferred upon you by your students. What I have seen here on Breaktime is a whole bunch of intelligent, skillful, well-motivated, experienced professionals, some of whom might genuinely be interested in what you have to say.But all of us here do need to make a living at this. We are in different parts of the country with different circumstances, skills, orientations, preferences, and client requirements. We might not be able to or even want to conform to the standards that you have determined are appropriate on the basis of your own circumstances, observations, and experience.As I have said here and elsewhere, the capital for green investment is intellectual. If you see yourself at the front of this movement, or even at the front of a classroom, it would be well for all of us if you would remember what it is that truly needs to be transformed.And I do very much appreciate your work and your participation here.[edit for quotation marks and spelling]
Edited 12/28/2008 9:28 pm by Catskinner
<!----><!----><!---->
<!----><!---->
I can't help but wonder if we'd get better long-term results by being a little more inviting, cooperative and inclusive.
There are, in both my experience and my understanding of history, two ways to facilitate social change. One is a more incremental process, requiring compromise and politics (the personal kind); and the other is a more radical vanguard movement that incites and infuriates and inspires. I do believe it's almost always been the latter which has resulted in significant shifts.
<!----> <!---->
I would very much like to see your list of green values.
See new thread "What Does Green Really Mean?
http://forums.taunton.com/tp-breaktime/messages?msg=114538.1
<!----> <!---->
<!----> <!---->
Yes. And the million-dollar word there is "appropriate". [use of natural materials and methods]
<!----> <!---->
There is so much I want to introduce to the discussion in that regard. Are you up for that one? I think there is a lot that still needs to be figured out.
I'm up for it. What I don't think is appropriate, for instance, is to try to use such a wonderfully low-tech material as straw bales to build a modern middle-class home with all the amenities. I know people who have done that and it's cost them more than comparably-efficient construction. But straw-bale and cob and other earthen materials are perfect for owner-built, simple, low-tech homes.
<!----> <!---->
<!----><!---->
I don't know if it would be useful to go into details or not, but having the homeowner help can really cause some problems, too.<!----><!---->
<!----><!---->
<!---->Most of the straw-bale and natural builders I know in New England include the home-owner, friends, family and community in their projects - sometimes they even turn them into workshops and charge people to participate and learn as a way to write down the cost to the home-owner. People here have had very good luck with it.<!---->
<!----><!---->
<!---->Years ago, I supervised a federally-funded Mutual Self-Help Building Program, in which I had to train 9 young families and singles to build one another's homes - and we had one year to complete them! We not only built exceptional houses (got many compliments from the finish carpenter), but the group bonded well and remained connected to one another.<!---->
<!----><!---->
<!---->I also organized and supervised a community building project (a la Habitat for Humanity) by which we built a superinsulated duplex (modified Larsen Truss) for a housing coop on community land trust land. We had more than 300 volunteers come help, and the level of quality was higher than in many custom homes.<!---->
<!----> <!---->
As I was refining my ideas on how to build a home with no requirement for mechanical heating or cooling or additional inputs of energy I spoke with an engineer who works for the DOE. He built such a home out of concrete.<!----><!---->
<!----> <!---->
And oh my what a pile of concrete. Enough to bother even the likes of me. Sure, the house never went below 68 or above 72, but it was an aesthetic and ecological catastrophe by his own admission.
We have one like that nearby - called by world-famous architect-owner (David Sellers) his 1,000-year home. It's a monstrosity. Completely concrete, inside and out.
<!----> <!---->
<!----><!---->
I'm not sure I agree with that [clearly defining the goal before moving forward], but I will give it some more thought before I argue the point. I think we have a pretty good idea, however nebulous, of what "better" might look like.
While I suspect that you have a much better handle on it than most, I'm reminded of the old Chinese proverb: "If you don't change the direction you're going, you're likely to end up where you're headed". One at least needs a pretty good map of the territory, even if the final goal is not yet in sight.
<!----> <!---->
Further, I think the subject matter at hand is so wide that it is well beyond either of us to define it in it's entirety.
<!---->I believe I've accomplished that (see new thread). And I could do it here in far fewer words. To the Native American peoples, medicine is anything that restores us to wholeness. Any move away from wholeness (within ourselves, with each other, and with the Earth) creates dis-ease. Green is good medicine.<!---->
<!----> <!---->
For an analogy, which of course proves nothing, have you ever read G.E. Moore's Principia Ethica? <!----><!---->
<!----> <!---->
His postulate that goodness cannot be defined? Like most Western philosphers, he was lost in his head. I was a philosophy major until I realized how vapid and largely useless it all was. The answers to all of lifes questions are to found in and through the heart (which, by the way, is the body's most powerful organ of perception and glandular homestasis - it is NOT a pump).
<!----> <!---->
<!----><!---->
It's one of the principles of a certain brand of dialectics that you might be familiar with -- that at some point a change in degree results in a change in kind.
Nature works by "fits and starts". The evolutionary process has been sharply discontinuous, not a gradualist process. I see more credence in the "hundredth monkey" phenomenon - that when a sufficient percentage of a population engages in a radically new or different behavior, the behavior suddenly and almost magically becomes universal.
<!----> <!----><!----> <!---->
Anything we do to improve our situation improves our situation. Is it enough? Nobody knows. Is more better? Probably.<!----><!---->
<!----> <!---->
<!---->Caution! More-is-better is the root of our problems. We must relearn, rather, that in almost all things less is better. Small is beautiful. "Use it up, wear it out, make do, or do without" was the credo of the old Yankee. It's time we relearn it.<!---->
<!----> <!---->
<!---->
But all of us here do need to make a living at this.
And isn't that the gist of the issue? What we call a "living" is seen by most of the world - even the developed world - as a horrible extravagance. What we need to make is a life.
you have an unparalleled opportunity as a teacher which I do hope you will take advantage of.<!----><!----><!---->
What I would propose for your consideration; you can open a school, hang your sign out front or in the yellow pages or on the internet saying you are a teacher. And people might show up because you advertise that.<!----><!---->
<!----> <!---->
But ultimately your significance as a teacher will be conferred upon you by your students. <!----><!---->
<!----> <!---->
<!---->No need to open a school - other's already have (and I'm no bureaucrat or administrator). I teach more than a dozen weekend classes a year at Yestermorrow Design/Build School here in Warren VT. Everything from structural, thermal and moisture engineering to "Thinking Like a Mountain: Sustainability from the Ground Up". And I have a faithful following of students who come back for more, many of whom tell me that the experience was inspiring if not transformative.<!---->
<!----><!---->
<!----><!---->
<!----><!---->
it would be well for all of us if you would remember what it is that truly needs to be transformed.
<!---->Yes - our hearts and minds and souls; and from that our culture and our world.<!---->
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Outstanding.
Hey, how do I change the color of the font?<<<<I can't help but wonder if we'd get better long-term results by being a little more inviting, cooperative and inclusive.>>>>
<<There are, in both my experience and my understanding of history, two ways to facilitate social change. One is a more incremental process, requiring compromise and politics (the personal kind); and the other is a more radical vanguard movement that incites and infuriates and inspires. I do believe it's almost always been the latter which has resulted in significant shifts. >>I think that's a reasonable observation, but I also think it's still a matter of perspective, context, and personal inclination. For sure Martin Luther King p#ssed a lot of people off but he got the job done. It's worth noting that the social phenomenon we ascribe to him happened at a particular point in history. He was not the first to notice that something was wrong, but he was able to deliver a message that enough people could hear at a time and place when the message could be heard.If he had tried the exact same thing in an earlier time we would have never even known his name.As I am sure is abundantly clear by now, I could not be any more supportive of your efforts, and the subject matter at hand is a lifelong professional and personal concern for me. We really don't differ by that much. I'm casting a little wider net and perhaps I'm a little more patient, that's all.<<<<Yes. And the million-dollar word there is "appropriate". [use of natural materials and methods]There is so much I want to introduce to the discussion in that regard. Are you up for that one? I think there is a lot that still needs to be figured out.>>>>
<<I'm up for it. What I don't think is appropriate, for instance, is to try to use such a wonderfully low-tech material as straw bales to build a modern middle-class home with all the amenities. I know people who have done that and it's cost them more than comparably-efficient construction. But straw-bale and cob and other earthen materials are perfect for owner-built, simple, low-tech homes.>>Agreed. There is something reprehensible about building these monstrosities . . . I've seen (heck, I've worked on 'em) straw bale homes that cost enough and wasted enough to shelter an entire village in Central America. It just made me a little sick the whole time, and made me a lot sick to hear the owner brag about their "green" home at the housewarming party.But we did learn a lot in the process, and no federal tax dollars were killed in the making of that story. <G> I like to think of it as private-sector financing for social and environmental progress.Perhaps more directly to what I suppose is the point of concern for anyone patient enough to still be reading along; If you fly across the country at an altitude that you can still see the ground, one of the things you see is a real lot of houses.What percentage of those folks in these houses are going buy all of this if it is outside their comfort zone? And if they were interested, could we meet the demand with a purist approach? Could we even stand the houses up fast enough to keep the bank happy?And of our friends reading along, what do they do if nobody is buying?I simply cannot find anything anywhere in the particulars of your philosophy or your practice to disagree with. In those regards I think your efforts are commendable, if not exemplary.And I'll be thinking of ways we can work together as I'm pumping concrete into ICFs.
Hey, how do I change the color of the font?
Cat,
I like your posts. Posts are easier for me to follow when quotes are in color.
I paste the text in the window..then highlight it and select from the drop down color list.
At least that's how mine works.
Edited 12/29/2008 10:19 am by homedesign
Thanks.
Hey, how do I change the color of the font?
You mean like this?
Unless you're in a different cyberworld, there should be four pull-down menus above the reply box, one for paragraph, one for font, one for size, and one for color. Just use your cursor (left click and drag) to highlight a section of text and then go to down arrow on the color menu and click on the hue of your choice.
What are you, some kind of Green luddite?
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Thanks.Yep, I'm still trying to figure out my cell phone.edit -- I went and looked, no pull-down menu.edit again -- I just figured it out. In the "My Forums" section it says this feature is only available for users on Internet Explorer 5.0 or later.I don't use IE. It isn't supported by Windows 3.0 and it makes this old 386 lock up. <G>Edited 12/29/2008 7:47 pm by Catskinner
Edited 12/29/2008 7:53 pm by Catskinner
I don't use IE. It isn't supported by Windows 3.0 and it makes this old 386 lock up.
Wow! You're using Windows? That's pretty modern, isn't it? ;-)
I started into computing with Fortran 2-d on an IBM 560 mainframe with punchcards.
My first personal computer was an IBM PS/2 model 25 (a one-piece like the Apples).
I used DOS-based software as long as I possibly could (and wrote hundreds of batch-file programs), but finally had to bite the bullet and upgrade to Windows. I hate it to this day. It's like modern cars - they don't work any better, only faster and with more gimmicks to cause problems and break down. Bells and whistles.
Similarly, internet speeds are light years ahead of the initial dial-up modems, but the graphics-intensive websites take longer to load than the text-based sites of years ago.
Is this progress?
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
>> Similarly, internet speeds are light years ahead of the initial dial-up modems, but the graphics-intensive websites take longer to load than the text-based sites of years ago.Well, you can always download and use Lynx, a text-only web browser. You might say it has less embodied energy than the mainstream browsers. >> Unless you're in a different cyberworld, there should be four pull-down menus above the reply box, one for paragraph, one for font, one for size, and one for color. I must be stuck in that colorless world where the Micro$oft sun does not shine. Ordinarily I use Firefox on Mac OS 10.3. No pulldowns. Internet 5.x for Mac does not seem to have the pull-downs, either.
<<Is this progress?>>You know we are in agreement on that one. <G>Interestingly enough, that is a full-circle question.We could ask, "what's progress?".I hope you are getting a good laugh out of that, because I know your mind works fast enough to tell that what I am thinking as I type this is, "what's green building?".
To get the font colors to change, just use the following HTML code:<p><font color=blue>Here is where you write the text that you want to be blue (or red, or green, etc.). To get the normal black color back, just close your text with this</font><p>BTW- the "<P>" is to start another paragraph, which you will need to use if you start using HTML in posts.<p>The final thing is to check the box marked "check here if HTML tags are in the message"
Jon Blakemore RappahannockINC.com Fredericksburg, VA
To get the font colors to change, just use the following HTML code:
Here is where you write the text that you want to be blue (or red, or green, etc.). To get the normal black color back, just close your text with this
BTW- the "" is to start another paragraph, which you will need to use if you start using HTML in posts.
The final thing is to check the box marked "check here if HTML tags are in the message"
Jon, I'm an old dog and that's a new trick. <!----><!---->
Here's the post above with the HTML box checked.
To get the font colors to change, just use the following HTML code:
Here is where you write the text that you want to be blue (or red, or green, etc.). To get the normal black color back, just close your text with this
BTW- the "" is to start another paragraph, which you will need to use if you start using HTML in posts.
The final thing is to check the box marked "check here if HTML tags are in the message"
Jon Blakemore RappahannockINC.com Fredericksburg, VA
Thanks, Jon.You got it, I'm using Firefox. <G>
"Unless you're in a different cyberworld, there should be four pull-down menus above the reply box, one for paragraph, one for font, one for size, and one for color."
Or if you're using Mozilla Firefox, which many do. In that case, you need to use HTML to get the different colors.
Jon Blakemore RappahannockINC.com Fredericksburg, VA
"Will do. That's going to be a long post and will need some drawings."I'd be interested in reading about your design also.John
Catskinner
Very well said indeed.
There is a lot more to the puzzle than the one factor and, I suppose, the most environmentally responsible thing you can say to somebody about building a new house is - don't. How likely are we to do that?
Ron
Catskinner
With all this talk about embodied energy there are massive and erroneous assumptions made that are often totally erroneous.
For example what is the source of the materials in the concrete.. are they local or trucked in? Same with wood for construction.. did those studs come from 1000 miles away or a local forest? How were they harvested? With the aid of helicopters? or by mule?
Where were they milled? what was the source of energy for the Mill, the kiln etc.. How far from the mill is the construction site?
There is simply no way numbers like that can be assumed and be valid..
Nor can theoretical efficiency numbers in the home be used. Again the potential for massive errors from reality is enormous.
There are some assumptions that are reasonable to make.
They require us to ignore individual situations and projects,and
embrace the larger building market.
Or work with the "Common" construction practices. Such as, your right wood is often shipped long distances. I think
that is a valid factor in all wood buildings. Masonry materials are much more locally produced (for obvious reasons). Yet is also true they have a very heavy cost as far as
EE in their creation.
These are valid points, but let's move on.
I think it's impossible to move beyond the EE issue if the goal is to build green..
For example.. Take the Southwest. All wood must come in from 1000 or more miles away.. however concrete is much more readily available.. However the only really green material would be hand formed adobe.
Hand formed adobe would be avilable in the Northest as well but not suitable because of the heavy rainfall.
Not only that but we have the matter of post building energy consumption.. adobe would be very poor with regard to energy consumption requiring walls over 5 feet thick to approach the R value in a 2x4 wall. For heating purposes. However thick adobe would be very good for cooling purposes..
I'm not saying ignore the EE issue.
But focus this discussion so progress and learning
can continue. Namely mine :) ICF buildings- what is their true EE cost?
Are there ways to use them more efficiently?
Can they be combined with other technologies to reach
a greater whole? Wood buildings- What is their true EE cost?
Are there way's to use them more efficiently?
Can they be combined with other technologies to reach
a greater whole? It seams to me the Double wall wood construction
falls within a discussion like that. Where as Adobe
is an entirely different discussion. So for starters- Can any one quantify the EE
in shipping a building package of wood 1000 miles?
It really depends doesn't it? In no particular order such as factors concerning your location, and local mini-climate?
Are you on the north slope of a hill/mountain? South slope? Direction of dominate view? Skill of local builders, Attention to details? Focus of concern? Style of home wanted and Size?
Are you a do-it-yourselfer with no experiance. A lot of experiance? Is low intial cost your highest priority or lowest future energy cost? Sensitivety to chemicals. trade offs you're willing to do. etc.. How long you intend to remain there.
Just for example let's look at roofing material.. asphault shingles, basic 3 tab or architectural grade? Cedar shake? clay tiles, cement tiles, etc..
Maybe you intend to hire local installers and you can only afford basic 3 tab.. maybe you're skilled enough to install clay tiles. Or the local tradesmen are only skilled with clay tiles etc..
Clay tiles while they seem relatively green have a great deal of embedded energy in them. The clay is dug from pits with big machines. Ground and prepared with other big equipment etc.. then becuase they need to go into an oven there all all those energy costs as well as shipping heavy clay tiles to the building site.. Now something as simple as getting tile up to the roof is a trade off. Yeh Perdo can do it on his back carrying tile up the ladder by hand but the amount of tile he can haul is limited so instead of one trip from town Pedro must take a dozen trips untill the job is done.. Since his car uses gas that's more energy!
or you could lift the tiles up to the roof with equipment but that too entails energy..
What numbers do we assign to each? What if the equipment used to put the tiles on the roof was already on site for other reasons? That's just one material..
Do you see the complexity of quantifing EE?
To divulge a bit.. a friend drives truck for a living and he had to haul a piece of construction equipment up to Alaska. On the way back he stopped at a local sawmill and picked up some cedar logs. When he got home he dropped the logs off in his driveway and the next time he was home started making hand split cedar shakes
14 sq.later he had $150 in hand split cedar shakes for his roof.. I'm guessing but the retail cost would likely have been north of $5000.00
Not much EE there as far as he could see.
Hand formed adobe would be avilable in the Northest as well but not suitable because of the heavy rainfall.
While adobe isn't used in the Northeast, there is growing use of cob (sand, clay and chopped straw) in natural buildings. While cob has an R-value of only about 0.5/in it can be mixed with pumice or other light aggregate to double it's insulating value.
Clay plasters are often used to seal the exterior of straw-bale buildings, typically with a lime plaster finish and natural earthen paints.
In the wet Northeast, broad roof overhangs, toe kicks and felt membranes over the lower courses are methods successfully used to prevent moisture problems and make the structures durable.
Also, light-straw clay-slip infill walls and clay slip-wood chip infill has been used to improve insulation values. There are lots of examples of natural earthen houses in the Northeast and earthen-strawbale houses have been standing in Nebraska for well over a hundred years.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
<<Also, light-straw clay-slip infill walls and clay slip-wood chip infill has been used to improve insulation values. >>I've had sort of amazing results with leichtlehmbau. But I don't think it's headed for industrial production any time soon. <G><<There are lots of examples of natural earthen houses in the Northeast>>I'd be real interested in seeing more about that.The biggest objection to adobe is the supposed regional restriction, which I have never quite believed. But I have no way to substantiate that skepticism.I'd like to think that a skilled builder could successfully use dirt as a building material anywhere. What do you know about this?<<and earthen-strawbale houses have been standing in Nebraska for well over a hundred years.>>I'm ready to go knock those f-ing houses down myself. I'm sick of hearing about them. OK, I'm just joking with you. <G>
http://crm.cr.nps.gov/archive/22-6/22-06-7.pdf
http://www.potkettleblack.com/natbild/nolan_o.html There is a surprising amount of this going on.
Good links. Thank you.In my experience, dirt is grossly underrated as a building material, as is straw. I don't expect to see subdivisions built this way anytime soon, but for those who are interested in building their own home it can work quite well.
In my experience, dirt is grossly underrated as a building material, as is straw. I don't expect to see subdivisions built this way anytime soon
If you look around, you'll notice more and more straw-bale developments. I mentioned a federally-funded senior complex in Kansas, and a land trust community in Charlotte VT. There's a straw-bale co-housing complex in Jackson OR, and schools and commercial buildings scattered around.
It's being used for elderly housing on the Navajo reservation. “Straw bale construction is at once an American invention and a sustainable answer to housing needs on and off the reservation.†— Rick West, Director, Smithsonian Institution, National Museum of the American Indian
Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis: Straw bale construction provides affordable, efficient housingHousing developers are experimenting with a variety of alternative building methods, including straw bale construction...
A sustainable straw-bale community of 20 homes is going up in New Zealand, and an eco-village in Eugene OR.
Sure, still a drop in the bucket, but it's already overflowing the bucket and spreading across the land.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
What happened to rammed earth? Haven't seen it mentioned in a while.John
What happened to rammed earth? Haven't seen it mentioned in a while.
Me neither. I believe that was a southwestern thing. Haven't know anyone doing that other than perhaps the Earthship folks.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
How would rammed earth be massive differant than adobe? (other than the use of more oil in the construction)
I've got some experience with both. Adobe is labor intensive and very expensive unless you have lots of relatives or friends willing to help and you make the bricks yourself.Rammed earth is a PITA. So far it is boutique technology for people who can afford the bragging rights, but I'm working on it.Yet another option that I have had some tentative success with is something that used to be called puddled adobe. I'm gaining ground on that one, but it's not quite ready for prime time.It is important to remember that all of these "alternative" traditional building methods are socially, politically, economically, and technologically contextual.When your family already owns the land, you aren't taking a loan from the bank, and you have a dozen family members who are willing to help and actually know what they are doing, that is one thing.If you have borrowed for the land and the construction, your time is limited (for any reason), and you or anyone associated with the job need to make a profit, that is another thing.
Well said..
I believe that sort of thinking needs to prevade all discussions of green. Another words there will never be a hard and fast answer to anything..
Location is critical, time is critical, money is critical etc..
What worked for me might cost others a marriage or be extremely expensive.. what works for one location may not work for the rest of the country..
<<It's being used for elderly housing on the Navajo reservation. “Straw bale construction is at once an American invention and a sustainable answer to housing needs on and off the reservation.†— Rick West, Director, Smithsonian Institution, National Museum of the American Indian>>If we're talking about the load-bearing straw bale homes that were built for old folks on the rez back around '98, I designed at least one of those foundations.Hmm, middle of nowhere, no money, no conventional code-approved building materials, no aggregate, no water, what to do?And as for the "drop-in-the bucket", yes, of course I'm for that. I'm filling that bucket as fast as I can, just like you.
Edited 12/30/2008 10:00 am by Catskinner
OK now we have a point of commonality. I agree that sod homes have endured a very long time (rarely though 100 years) that they too can be built efficently using little EE.
However should the 80+ % of materials in the rest of the house be put at risk by wall systems which really have little record of duribility?
I read with great interest the German built homes with tiny electric heaters as a heat source.. the one feature they had which I didn't was triple glazed windows and doors.. Luckily all my windows can be removed and replaced with such triple glazing when it becomes available.. I do have the interlock system in my most commonly used entrance door whereby heat cannot escape from the whole house nor cold enter without going through an air lock system..
While my size is larger than the German home my home is designed to be occupied by 2 or 3 related familes. Thus providing the social benefits of multigenrational living and the energy efficencies.
In my humble opinion one large home is superior to 3 smaller homes..
"With all this talk about embodied energy there are massive and erroneous assumptions made that are often totally erroneous."So how then do you propose we determine which materials are more "green"? Broad brush EE numbers maybe not be the perfect metric, but it's better than just ignoring the entire issue.
Jon Blakemore RappahannockINC.com Fredericksburg, VA
I am as concerned as the next person about the earth. However I do know one answer does not fit everybody.
So we all must take individual responsibility for our choices. Do not use wood sourced a long distance from the construction site.. Do not assume one material is taboo because someone else says so. Do our own homework and try to use good judgement in selecting materials for both embodied energy and duribility..
Building a house of straw may be appealing but hardly durable.. since the wall system accounts for maybe 20% of the materials selecting a material with poor duribility history means that 80% of the material selected for use will be at risk..
Again it is foolish to believe that one solution is the only answer. Do not dismiss because of size.. Large sized buildings can provide shelter for many more people comfortably than smaller buildings. Consider the pattern set by much of the rest of the world where multigenerational living is the norm not the exception..
Frenchy, that was well said, and entirely to the point.I hope this discussion continues. We've got a lot to figure out.
Building a house of straw may be appealing but hardly durable
As I said earlier, some of the first straw bale homes in the US, from the late 19th century, are still standing in Nebraska. Straw bale homes are being built from Central American to Quebec and western Canada as well as in Europe, with a commercial building now in Alberta.
There are a number of high-end straw-bale homes in the Ten Stones community near Burlington VT. A federally-funded senior housing center in Kansas was built of straw. They're accepted by code in California, Arizona and New Mexico as well as in Pheonix AZ, Boulder CO and Austin TX.
There's no reason a well-built and properly-maintained straw-bale house will be less durable than any other building method. And they are among the most pleasant and comfortable to live in and the most aesthetically pleasing, inside and out.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
I have no doubt that some exist I also know of one complete failure of a house less than a decade old.. An untimely rain is blamed.
However I do like outside the box thinking that they represent.
I have no doubt that some [durable straw-bale houses] exist I also know of one complete failure of a house less than a decade old.. An untimely rain is blamed.
Yet again, Frenchy, the exception makes the rule. One anecdote teaches us nothing about the value of the material or method.
I know of one commercial engineer-specified building that collapsed from a heavy snow. Does that make metal commercial buildings or engineers untrustworthy?
It's the big picture that matters, not the narrow perspective.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Ah but Riversong.. the number of straw bale houses is trivial compared to the number of ICF homes and SIP's paneled homes.
So a single failure amounts to 20% of the strawbaled houses I know about. You know of what millions of commerically engineered buildings? and know of one failure?
(heck I'll admit to at least knowing at least 3 failures, the problem I have is not knowing if the failure was due to errors in construction or flaws in design)..
At least with the straw bale house I know the flaw was caused by the builder allowing rain on the unprotected bales (he'd been told that they would dry completely once the roof was on and before they were encased)
So a single failure amounts to 20% of the strawbaled houses I know about.
You continue to make sweeping generalizations based on your very limited personal knowledge and experience.
That's the epitome of anecdotal information and personal bias.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
any material has to be considered in totality not with some arbitrary number..
a hunk of wood near it's source can be extremely green. When shipped 1000 miles away much of it's greeness is gone.. Then we have the method of harvesting and other considerations..
A stone may not be very green if shipped 1000 miles away but extremely green if obtained locally.. IF I grab a stone from a field it's extremely green.. however If I were to chip it off mount Rushmore .... <grin>
Then we have how is the material used? That chunk of wood exposed to the elements will quickly decay and add to the carbon load.. A stone won't decay anywhere nearly as quickly. . When it "decomposes" it doesn't add anything to the carbon load.
Considering the abundance of stone in this planet and the fact that stone is totally recycleable stone and the deriviatives of stone would not seem to be the villan it's painted by some..
Uh Einstien..when wood decays, it's not changing the form of carbon it has stored, it is sequestered. When it is burnt it will release it. Decay is not the same.
Keep trying tho' , just like a train wreck, I can't help but watch.
Don't get into a battle of wits with Riversong, you are woefully unarmed.Spheramid Enterprises Architectural Woodworks
Repairs, Remodeling, Restorations
They kill Prophets, for Profits.
look at the composition of methane gas caused by the decaying log..
I quit. You are an alien sent to save us..i bow to your methane and gas.
Can't fight stupid.Spheramid Enterprises Architectural Woodworks
Repairs, Remodeling, Restorations
They kill Prophets, for Profits.
He's right about the methane, small part of that equation... but trees grow back as... well... trees. Rock farming is much more specialized.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."
Falling leaves, dying grass..it's still an even trade. Without methane we'd never have had an atmosphere to begin with.Spheramid Enterprises Architectural Woodworks
Repairs, Remodeling, Restorations
They kill Prophets, for Profits.
There's something for every argument:http://en.allexperts.com/q/Global-warming-Climate-3851/2008/12/Trees-Burning-Rotting.htmFrenchy still ignores the concrete/foam manufacturing processcihttp://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 got a headache.
Its from beating it against the wall.
I think I'll quit now.Spheramid Enterprises Architectural Woodworks
Repairs, Remodeling, Restorations
They kill Prophets, for Profits.
I'm out too. The non-sequiturs and fuzzy logical leaps are amusing for a while, but it really makes any useful dialogue on these issues impossible.
Yes i'm done too! I can have the same discussion with a piece of oak in my shop and get more common sense answers. It was amusing for a while though...
I'm glad to talk about concrete..
First let me start out by saying I'm not the worlds expert on the subject.. I know only what I found out when doing the research on materials before selecting mine.
Well slightly more because I sold the mining equipment used to harvest materials to make concrete (and the equipment used to harvest wood)
Both are powered by the same engines so they have similar carbon foorprints..
However wood has many added carbon footprints. Both make a similar footprint hauling to the mill, both Mills use simular amounts of power to operate. Almost all concrete leaves the mill and travels by rail to mixing plants. Wood generally leaves the sawmill and travels to the Kiln by truck. Trains leave a smaller footprint..
The mixing plant is a lower consumer of power than a kiln thus likely to leave a smaller carbon footprint..
Distribution from that point if it's wood may be clear across country leaving a larger footprint than the local delivery of concrete.
All that is pure conjecture.. some times portland mix is shipped long distance too However it's usually made with local ingrediants which tends to reduce the carbon footprint..
In my case I know where local cement comes from the "portland" portion comes from Redwing where it is made. The rest, sand and gravel come from local pits..
Once you've watched both wood being harvested and concrete being made you understand in todays society neither one is really green.
They both could be green if we were on the frontier and doing it all ourselves. that last was really possible about 100 years ago..
Just to broaden your "research."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."
Yup. Up in Allentown, they used to collect the used solvents and tires and fire the cement kilns..I don't know if it is still happening, but it sure was noxious around there.
Our wood kiln at the sawmill I worked at was woodfired..with bark and tailings.Spheramid Enterprises Architectural Woodworks
Repairs, Remodeling, Restorations
They kill Prophets, for Profits.
With all this talk about embodied energy there are massive and erroneous assumptions made that are often totally erroneous.
Such as the redundant assumption above that the data on concrete are not accurate.
There is simply no way numbers like that can be assumed and be valid..
Environmental Issues<!----><!----><!---->
Portland cement manufacture can cause environmental impacts at all stages of the process. These include emissions of airborne pollution in the form of dust, gases, noise and vibration when operating machinery and during blasting in quarries, consumption of large quantities of fuel during manufacture, release of CO2 from the raw materials during manufacture, and damage to countryside from quarrying.
<!----> <!---->
An independent research effort of AEA Technology to identify critical issues for the cement industry today concluded the most important environmental, health and safety performance issues facing the cement industry are atmospheric releases (including greenhouse gas emissions, dioxin, NOx, SO2, and particulates), accidents and worker exposure to dust.
<!----> <!---->
The CO2 associated with Portland cement manufacture falls into 3 categories:
CO2 derived from decarbonation of limestone,
CO2 from kiln fuel combustion,
CO2 produced by vehicles in cement plants and distribution.
<!----> <!---->
The manufacture of Portland cement requires kiln temperatures exceeding 2500°F. While the heat of enthalpy is about 1.7 MJ/kg, the total process heat required can be as much as 5.6 MJ/kg, and the embodied energy of concrete can be as much as 1.9 MJ/kg (2.5 GJ/cy or 1.25 GJ/ton, 1.7 GJ/ton in situ)
<!----> <!---->
<!----> <!---->
Embodied Energy for Cement and Concrete Production<!----><!---->
<!----> <!---->
% by weight <!----><!---->
Btus per ton<!----><!---->
Btus/yard concrete<!----><!---->
Energy %<!----><!---->
<!----> <!---->
<!----> <!---->
Materials<!----><!---->
Hauling<!----><!---->
<!----> <!---->
Cement<!----><!---->
12%<!----><!---->
5,792,000<!----><!---->
504,000<!----><!---->
1,574,000<!----><!---->
94%<!----><!---->
<!----> <!---->
Sand<!----><!---->
34%<!----><!---->
5,000<!----><!---->
37,000<!----><!---->
29,000<!----><!---->
1.7%<!----><!---->
<!----> <!---->
Crushed Stone<!----><!---->
48%<!----><!---->
46,670<!----><!---->
53,000<!----><!---->
100,000<!----><!---->
5.9%<!----><!---->
<!----> <!---->
Water<!----><!---->
6%<!----><!---->
0<!----><!---->
0<!----><!---->
0<!----><!---->
0%<!----><!---->
<!----> <!---->
Concrete<!----><!---->
100%<!----><!---->
817,600
1,700,000<!----><!---->
100%<!----><!---->
<!----> <!---->
Notes:
Calculations of energy requirements for cement production based on figures supplied by the Portland Cement Association, 1990 data. Aggregate and hauling energy requirements based on data supplied by PCA and based on the following assumptions:
Cement hauled 50 miles to ready-mix plant
Aggregate hauled 10 miles to plant
Concrete mix hauled 5 miles to building site
Concrete mix: 500 lbs. cement, 1,400 lbs. sand, 2,000 lbs. crushed stone, 260 lbs. water per yard.
<!----> <!---->
<!----> <!---->
<!----> <!---->
Table 3: Fuel Use for Cement Production<!----><!---->
Fuel<!----><!---->
Thousand Btus per ton of cement<!----><!---->
Percent<!----><!---->
Petroleum products (diesel, gasoline, LPG)<!----><!---->
63.<!----><!---->
1.1<!----><!---->
Natural gas<!----><!---->
476.<!----><!---->
8.2<!----><!---->
Coal & coke<!----><!---->
3,524.<!----><!---->
60.8<!----><!---->
Waste fuel1<!----><!---->
286.<!----><!---->
4.9<!----><!---->
Electricity2<!----><!---->
1,443.<!----><!---->
24.9<!----><!---->
Total<!----><!---->
5,792.<!----><!---->
100.<!----><!---->
Sources:
Waste fuel includes used motor oil, waste solvents, scrap tires, etc.
Electricity figure includes primary energy used to generate the electricity.Source: Portland Cement Association, U.S. Cement Industry Fact Sheet, page 15. 1990 data.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
How then do you account for the local cement plant which uses locally sourced materials? There is a nearby plant which because of it's location can scoop up stone from one location on it's site and sand from another location. Even the cement comes from within a hundred miles dug and manufactured next to a railroad siding and delieved via rail to the suburb. This plant is in a local suburb not far from a hospital and major mall. ( The Mall of America is within 10-15 miles of this plant..) plus several strip malls are within blocks. A major zoo within a few miles!
In addition to exploiting the materials from the area it is also used as a recycling location where used concrete is brought to be recycled and reused.. Daily a scrap metal truck hauls rebar and other steel to the nearby resmelting plant where it is returned to become railroad track or rebar or a variety of other uses..
When eventually the "quarry" becomes played out it's expected to become prime realestate rather than continue to be exploited and a pit dug to be used as a landfill site as originally intended..
There is no blasting. Since the equipment used to extract the material doesn't run long distances it's operated very efficently.
Selling construction equipment allowed me access to many such quarries and a surprising number of such quarries operate with one front end loader a belt sorting machine and no other energy user.. if the cement plant is also located on site only the energy to run that plant is added.. but transport energy is decreased..
How then do you account for the local cement plant which uses locally sourced materials?
94% of the embodied energy in concrete is in the Portland cement because of the high temperature process required to manufacture.
Local, in this case, makes almost no difference at all.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Riversong..
This whole planet is made of stone.. Stone is abundant. Stone is also extremely durable. Stone is completely recycleable. Stone won't decay and add to the carbon load of the planet..
So once we accept stone as the ideal green material ......
Nor can theoretical efficiency numbers in the home be used. Again the potential for massive errors from reality is enormous.
Yes, if you don't know what you're doing.
But if you've developed a very sophisticated analysis tool and tested it repeatedly against real-world performance, then there's reason for confidence in the accuracy of the projections.
It's really not that difficult to do a detailed heat loss, heat gain analysis of a building design. I teach it regularly to my students. All it takes is the right inputs, the right formulas and a spreadsheet program.
Once the program is complete, it offers instant feedback for trying different combinations of options to find an optimal configuration.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
All formulas have one fundamental flaw.. Garbage in = garbage out. Another words any error in assumption reduces or eliminates the validity of the results..
Errors are normal.. (we're human and thus prone to them) I'll avoid mentioning some of the biggest errors by the brightest people but you're aware of them..
One thing that isn't potentially flawed is results..
By all calculations bumbee's can't fly. Yet they do. So who do we believe the theorticians or the bee itself as it flys by?
I'm sorry, that was really snotty and reviels my bias against theory.
You see when I built my home I didn't have a set of plans, I had a fundamental idea of building the most energy efficent house I could as green as possible. The building department accepted my sketches and I went forward with the idea.
I had no idea of costs or saving money. I simply felt I would be as efficent and build as well as humanly possible.. The compliments I've recieved from those who have seen my home are all the reward I need. (that and my dramatically lowed energy bills).
"By all calculations bumbee's can't fly. Yet they do. So who do we believe the theorticians or the bee itself as it flys by? "
With all due respect, Frenchy, you should check your facts before using them as an argument. I've posted the relevant information from Wikipedia below, but the gist is that it is a myth that "by all calculations bumblebees can't fly". Enjoy the reading.
John
According to 20th century folklore, the laws of aerodynamics prove that the bumblebee should be incapable of flight, as it does not have the capacity (in terms of wing size or beat per second) to achieve flight with the degree of wing loading necessary. Not being aware of scientists 'proving' it cannot fly, the bumblebee succeeds under "the power of its own ignorance".[24] The origin of this myth has been difficult to pin down with any certainty. John McMasters recounted an anecdote about an unnamed Swiss aerodynamicist at a dinner party who performed some rough calculations and concluded, presumably in jest, that according to the equations, bumblebees cannot fly.[25] In later years McMasters has backed away from this origin, suggesting that there could be multiple sources, and that the earliest he has found was a reference in the 1934 French book Le vol des insectes, they had applied the equations of air resistance to insects and found that their flight was impossible, but that "One shouldn't be surprised that the results of the calculations don't square with reality".[26]
Some credit physicist Ludwig Prandtl (1875–1953) of the University of Göttingen in Germany with popularizing the myth. Others say it was Swiss gas dynamicist Jacob Ackeret (1898–1981) who did the calculations.
In 1934, French entomologist Antoine Magnan included the following passage in the introduction to his book Le Vol des Insectes:
Magnan refer's to his assistant André Saint-Lagué, who was apparently an engineer.
It is believed that the calculations which purported to show that bumblebees cannot fly are based upon a simplified linear treatment of oscillating aerofoils. The method assumes small amplitude oscillations without flow separation. This ignores the effect of dynamic stall, an airflow separation inducing a large vortex above the wing, which briefly produces several times the lift of the aerofoil in regular flight. More sophisticated aerodynamic analysis shows that the bumblebee can fly because its wings encounter dynamic stall in every oscillation cycle.[27]
Another description of a bee's wing function is that the wings work similarly to helicopter blades, "reverse-pitch semirotary helicopter blades".
Bees beat their wings approximate 200 times a second, which is 10-20x as fast as nerve impulses can fire. They achieve this because their thorax muscles don't expand and contract on each nerve firing, but rather vibrate like someone plucking a rubber-band.
OH come-on I'm trying to make a simple point not a scientific treatise off the subject. <grin>
But surely you are familar with results oriented medicene.. if it sounds like the common cold and coughs like the common cold (and temp etc. like the common cold) we don't need lab tests to treat for the common cold now do we?
" But surely you are familar with results oriented medicene.. if it sounds like the common cold and coughs like the common cold (and temp etc. like the common cold) we don't need lab tests to treat for the common cold now do we? "
You're right, but how do we know what is a common cold, and what is a sinus infection? The former will resolve on it's own, and we don't have effective treatments. The latter also might resolve on it's own, but we do have effective treatments that will help it resolve quicker. The symptoms are the same, despite what you will hear from some doctors. The color of the snot doesn't tell you what is causing the snot. You can have fever with both, etc. It is only through legitimate studies that we can make more than a wild guess. It turns out that time is the factor. Most viral colds resolve withing about 10- 14 days. If your cold is lasting that long, the odds become greater with each day that it has become a bacterial infection. And we know this because the studies have been done on many patients using sinus washings.
I saw a patient of a partner several years ago who had congestion for 2 days. She had a cold, I diagnosed her, described what symptom relief she could use. As she was walking out, she ran into her doctor who asked how she was doing. She said not well, and was upset because I hadn't given her an antibiotic. That doctor, who was well known for overprescribing, wrote a prescription without examining her or even taking any history. I received a call from her mom about two hours later, stating that I didn't know what I was doing since I hadn't given her daughter a prescription for her "sinus infection". And as proof that it really was a sinus infection, her daughter was much better one hour after starting the antibiotic! So of course all the research done was invalid.
You built a fabulous house, for which you should be very proud. And obviously you have a very energy efficient house, and I don't think anyone would argue what your results in your particular circumstances were. But you cannot take a single case, or a handful of cases, and universalize the outcomes. And even though science can go astray, it is certainly more reliable than anecdote. The moral of the story is to argue the science, and not to try to counter physics with anecdote.
John
Going along with your story for merely a moment.
Isn't one of the real weakness we have is doctors over prescribing antibiotics? With the complications that result?
So yes there is a need for lab test in certain circumstances.. however over use of lab tests drive medical costs too high and prevent some from getting proper medical care.. Not to mention decreased long term resistance to antibiotics. You were right to forego tests in the case you cite.
I can only use anecdotes because While I have read extensively on this subject I have failed to memorize the source of the matter for everything which I've read.. While I still have a great deal of reference material it's not organized in such a fashion as to have instant finger tip access to the data.
(I was after all only building one house not making a career out of it)
For example I recited data this magazine published back with issue 56 word for word.. Instead of acceptance that data was dismissed because "he did not have ready access to that material" There are others who have kept back issues and they could be prevailed upon to confirm that I did indeed repeat word for word what was said..
We now have a case of dueling sources for contradictory information.
Sort of like when your drug company reps present you with data and then you read conflicting data from JAMA. Which would you accept? The magazine dedicated to providing doctors with pier reviewed information or the drug companies rep?
I have taken other contradictory positions such as the greater retention of screws, use of sawmill wood rather than lumberyard products, and the use of over thinned shellac.
I'm pleased with all the support I've received and can appreciate those who take the opposition..
At a minimum I feel I do a good service here.. Not everything that is correct is universally accepted and so if some find my position contrarian well I don't do this for popularity..
I can only use anecdotes because While I have read extensively on this subject I have failed to memorize the source of the matter for everything which I've read.. (I was after all only building one house not making a career out of it)
I was assuming that you were actually a builder with a broad range of experience upon which to draw some reasonable conclusions. It's not about "memorizing the source" but of understanding the science, otherwise it's not possible to make valid generalizations.
For example I recited data this magazine published back with issue 56 word for word.. Instead of acceptance that data was dismissed because "he did not have ready access to that material"
The data was not "dismissed", but rather ignored because it could not be verified. As I recally, you quoted an article by an unknown (to me) author and not a building science study.
We now have a case of dueling sources for contradictory information.
Putting one author's subjective interpretation against multiple, respected building science studies is not a matter of conflicting, equally-reliable sources - but rather, yet again, of anecdote vs. science. It's no contest.
Not everything that is correct is universally accepted and so if some find my position contrarian well I don't do this for popularity..
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
You have a clear preferance for stick building.. that makes your thinking rather rigid in my mind.. I came into this project with no preconcieved bias and really assumed I would stick build as was done by everyone else. My readings and research led me elsewhere and In fact to the use of SIP's first rather than ICF's
Right up to the decision point I believed I was going to settle for a poured concrete foundation.
The ease of using ICF's led me to be such an avid supporter of them..
For what it's worth Opus one of the largest developers in the area and indeed a large one by nationwide standards has used ICF's successfully on several of it's projects and to gain additional R value for our brutal climate add an outside layer of foam. They report it is simple and quick to do.. Their results of a reduction in energy consumption mirror mine.. (as I discussed this with one of the top executives of the company this weekend).
When I mentioned your wall system and discussed it he replied that they had briefly looked at it and quickly dismissed it because of the added time required to build and lack of permanence. (his words not mine)
You continue to dismiss the data even when I pointed out how simple it would be to confirm.. that indicates a regidity of thinking.
Finally I did list the author of the study on Tyvex who is a professor of building science at Purdue University. His conclusions are in diametric opposition to the position you took.
You dismiss my conclusions because you call them anecdotes.. yet they are based on published data same as yours..
That's a commonly used technique in marketing. Not valid, but commonly used..
"For what it's worth Opus one of the largest developers in the area and indeed a large one by nationwide standards has used ICF's successfully on several of it's projects and to gain additional R value for our brutal climate add an outside layer of foam. They report it is simple and quick to do.. Their results of a reduction in energy consumption mirror mine.. (as I discussed this with one of the top executives of the company this weekend)." How did they attach the finish exterior to the added foam? I'm assuming it didn't have the internal connectors that the ICF block have.John
they simply attached the new foam with glue and then screwed the foam into the strip connectors and then stucco'd (or actually drivit'd) the exterior..
In my opinion They could have also used brick ledge and then bricked the exterior or stepped back the wall thickness going form 15 inch foundation to a 9 inch or 11 inch which would have also given them a brick ledge. or if they really wanted a thick exterior suplimental foam taking a 15 inch brick ledge and using a 9 inch wall that could allow a 6 inch exterior suplimental foam and still retained a 4 inch brick ledge. (can you say hyper insulated?)
Edited 12/30/2008 6:03 pm ET by frenchy
You have a clear preferance for stick building.. that makes your thinking rather rigid in my mind.. I came into this project with no preconcieved bias
Not at all. I have a clear preferance only for that which meets honest standards for green or sustainable building. Wood-frame, straw bale, cob or adobe in the appropriate regions - those are all green building approaches.
When I teach the entire range of sustainability issues, covering the whole evolution of building practices and philosophies and all the core values upon which they're based, my students almost always end up making similar conclusions based on green criteria. And a surprising number of them choose to build something similar to what I call the "final evolution" of more than 25 years of super-insulated and passive solar building.
I've built with trusses, TJIs, sprayed foam and rigid foam and fiberglass and I've rejected them all as un-green. I've come to my system through a long process of elimination and of philosophical discernment of what is appropriate in building technology.
If you came into your one and only building project with "no preconceived bias" you surely came out of it with one.
Right up to the decision point I believed I was going to settle for a poured concrete foundation.
The ease of using ICF's led me to be such an avid supporter of them..
That's obvious, but if ease of use is the primary rationale (and then additional rationalizations are heaped on top as selling points), then you're missing 99% of the picture.
You continue to dismiss the data even when I pointed out how simple it would be to confirm.. that indicates a regidity of thinking.
You have not offered any detailed heat loss or comparative data - only a claim of a 60% reduction in heating costs for 3x the space, which is hugely inconsistent with any measured improvement for ICF over wood-frame in any of the studies.
So your information is simply not credible.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
The greatest weakness you have is that you are a professional. Naturally biased to selling what you do.. Good for you. People should believe in their work. However you use anecdotal agreements to support your conclusions.
There are going to be millions of houses built. A sizeable portion of them by owners.. Some of them are going to try to build more efficiently and with concerns about greenness. You claim your system is more efficient than normal construction, OK I can accept that. You also claim that you buy all your wood within 50 miles as I did, OK I can accept that.. but what about others?
In over 10 years the sawmill I buy from hasn't sold wood for another house. Except for the Amish I didn't ever hear of another builder building with sawmill wood (and I contact every sawmill in Minnesota, northeastern Iowa, and western Wisconsin and at least annually)
So the vast majority of wood comes from 1000+ miles away or more. There goes your green issue! What's more if you bother to watch typical commercial log harvesting operations you will see they use as much energy harvesting logs as quarries use to harvest stone..
The most durable buildings have all been stone or stone based.. Look at the pyramids etc..
Since there is Roman concrete that is over 2000 years old I accept concrete as an acceptable stone substitution.
Cement does not have the EE you assume it does. At least not all of it.. Nor does wood lack the EE you claim it does.. besides cement's use is pretty well mandated locally for foundations and other things and we did acknowledge that local trumps ideal. While you may be willing to build on timbers lying in contact with the ground or some other such non foundation. It would not be approved locally.
The weakness of stone is it's poor insulation qualities. Which ICF's cure.. There are other insulation on the horizon. New developments which are currently cost prohibitive, We never know when someone will find a use for whatever, say discarded biomass after the energy potential is removed from it or powdered banana peel?!?! ;-)
In the mean time I was forced to find code acceptable means to build what I considered a well insulated and durable building..
A building you refuse to accept can perform as well as it does. (is that because you didn't build it or approve of it's construction?) There are many ways you could if interested confirm or repute my statements.. Explain to me how I can post old and new energy bills, ask those who have visited my place, or ask someone local to stop over and confirm it.. My door is always open.
Edited 12/31/2008 9:13 am ET by frenchy
Frenchy, I think your comments are right to the point of this discussion and generally well placed. Certainly this discussion could go on at any length, and I hope it does. We've got some very sharp folks participating here on a topic of real importance.The title of the thread, "ICF versus wood frame Which is greener?" is a good question, or I would not have put this much effort into trying to answer it. As I suggested early in the discussion, and as you have summarized so well, the only responsible answer is -- like so much in green building -- "It depends."Lately we've come to the agreement that whatever embodied energy there is in ICFs is quickly recovered. And on the basis of this discussion, it would appear that the remainder of the objections are somewhat more intangible.I do not discount the significance of these intangible factors, there are may good reasons why anyone would choose to build a particular way. I only point this out to further illustrate that the evaluative criteria for intangible factors may be fairly complex, contextual, and not readily subject to arithmetic analysis.It's a tough call. There are some who are willing to see that while the challenge of figuring out 'what is green' is complex, it is not complicated. Then there are others who will complicate it beyond the possibility of significant benefit, and then profess to have the only right answer.Anyone who has been concerned with green building for any length of time has encountered someone who comes across as The Contrarian Defender Of The One True Faith. You know this guy, he has all the facts and figures, and if you don't see it his way, you are wrong.That's OK, he really isn't hurting anyone. <G>I used to work with a guy like that. It was like working with Wile E. Coyote with a calculator.As you have rightly pointed out, perspective is the key to a functional grasp of the practical applications of green building principles. What works great in far Northeastern New England is going to be a complete waste in the Southwest. What works great in Minnesota could be a life safety hazard in coastal Mississippi or Alabama.And perhaps even more to the point, what is real progress for a skilled craftsman who builds a few homes a year in any location is simply irrelevant to a Centex or Pulte or name your big builder of choice. Those guys might throw more building materials in the dumpster in one day than some of us might purchase in a year.They might want to do the right thing, too. But change for them, like so many of us, will be incremental and appropriate to the good and profitable function of our business. Another way of saying, 'responsive to the demand of our clients'.Looking at the big picture, if I can get a decent result out of a few thousand homes or an exemplary result out of just a few homes a year, you know what my answer will be;Both.
Anyone who has been concerned with green building for any length of time has encountered someone who comes across as The Contrarian Defender Of The One True Faith. You know this guy, he has all the facts and figures, and if you don't see it his way, you are wrong.
Ironic that you would choose to put it in such terms, since the only "true faith" that I've been defending is reason and science (and I am no idolater of science - it's an extremely narrow methodology which ignores the "intangibles" you refer to but which is accepted as the most objective approach to veracity).
And it is not I who has been "contrarian" but Frenchy and his ilk who continue to beat their heads against the ICF wall without any objective data or arguments, but merely anecdotal ignorance.
This argument has never been about "my way", but about rationally-justified objective standards for "greenness". Either a technology meets those standards or does not. It's a rather simple calculus, but most prefer their own prejudices to making the effort to study the issue.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
<<This argument has never been about "my way", but about rationally-justified objective standards for "greenness". Either a technology meets those standards or does not. It's a rather simple calculus, but most prefer their own prejudices to making the effort to study the issue. >>Fair enough. I'll buy it.
At #263 I replied to Frenchy,<<The title of the thread, "ICF versus wood frame Which is greener?" is a good question, or I would not have put this much effort into trying to answer it. As I suggested early in the discussion, and as you have summarized so well, the only responsible answer is -- like so much in green building -- "It depends.">>As I reflect further on this discussion, I'm seeing a distinction that we've approached but never engaged directly.We're throwing around the term "framing" as though it referred to a single particular way of building. This is simply not the case. I looked at the website that Riversong posted a link to earlier, in which he thoroughly describes his approach.By any conceivable standard, taken in context, his work is exemplary.On the other hand, as a young carpenter I spent about a year framing in the tracts. It was not at all uncommon for the garbage pile to be the second most prominent landscape feature, next to the house. And as junk goes, we were building pretty good junk, but I don't think we ever got featured in FHB.This experience was one of many that led me into green building.If I could will such a state of affairs into being, it would be wonderful if we all had access to the materials, skilled labor, time, and money that is implicit in the construction that Riversong describes on that website. But we don't.Looking at what was described there, working with a two or three really hot crews, I suppose I might be able to produce a dozen such homes a year. Working in the tracts, we had six crews each drying in a two-story three bedroom 2.5 bath home once every ten days. And they were selling faster than we could build them.I think might have been responsible for the county having to build a new landfill, I'm not sure. I know we kept some lumber salesmen and trash haulers in business.I'm closely involved with some folks who are looking at the condition of our forests and how this fits into some wider ecological problems. Short version of the story is what Riversong describes and what I was helping to do in the tracts is two different things.Two completely different kinds of framing, two completely different kinds of home, and two very different sets of environmental consequences.
What's a little surprising to me is that those "builders" (sic) who are erecting tract houses at a breakneck pace are still using mostly site labor rather than modular or factory-built units. The logical endpoint of more-faster-cheaper is to have all work done in an indoor, controlled and easily inspected environment.
I worked one winter years ago helping to plunk down 120 units of factory-built condos at Mt. Snow in VT in two developments. Six units to a foundation. We had two roofing crews, two siding crews, two interior finish crews - each crew a different subcontractor. I started on an exterior finish crew, was moved to interior finish, and then put in charge of interior punch list.
As I was completing interior details, the furniture, small appliances, lamps, kitchenware, towels & linens, and even artwork were brought in - and then the new owner would move in. They were selling units as fast as we could complete them.
One minor problem: these were the first multi-unit buildings manufactured by Huntington Homes of VT and they neglected to consider the crane slings (cable) that were required to set each box. This meant that there was a cables' width of air space between each unit and the last box on each foundation was six cable's off the foundation. The exterior and interior trim covered the gaps, but wind whistled through and water pipes began to freeze.
We had a big propane construction heater in each basement during set up and, when I had to climb into the attic in one unit, it was snowing in there from the humidity escaping up the hatch!
Fortunately (perhaps) several home manufacturers in New England are starting the move toward "green" prefab houses, in part due to a partnership with green architects associated with my school.
But this would seem to be the natural progression for "builders" (sic) who want to crank out houses and profits as quickly as they can.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Edited 1/1/2009 3:16 pm ET by Riversong
I wonder at the very same thing.That's quite a good story, btw.I've been toying with the idea of prefab for quite a while. I have not made any progress at all, but I think that the approach has some promise.I've seen impressive results in waste reduction using pre-cut framing packages, unfortunately the finished product was still the same cr*p we're trying to avoid.
That's quite a good story, btw.
There's more to it. The "clerk of the works" who supervised all the subcontractors, pitted one against another. If he didn't like somebody's work, he would have the other of the (two of each) subs fix the problem and then backcharge the first for the time of the second (without first asking the original sub to correct it!).
Then one of the partner-owners of the Huntington Homes company went to Florida and lost the company's money at the race track, and they stopped paying bills and the whole project shut down for a while.
I've seen impressive results in waste reduction using pre-cut framing packages, unfortunately the finished product was still the same cr*p we're trying to avoid.
I supervised the start of a house-building project on a community land trust in the hollers of TN in the 80's. One of our two prototypes was a modular unit designed by TVA to be pre-fabbed on a river barge (in the future of their wishful thinking). It had pre-fabbed wall sections (with horizontal framing and horizontal T-111), 4' oc floor trusses decked with 1-1/8" double T&G plywood, 8' oc roof trusses covered by site-built plywood panels with 2x10 horizontal purlins, exterior batt insulation and corrugated asphalt roofing. It was a nightmare.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
I used to sell equipment to one of the panelized builders.. He had a massive indoor factory designed to crank out wall panels quickly and efficently. He also had the cranes and telehandlers required to put things up.. however soon his overhead got to him and he stopped building profitably and went slowly backwards..
The slight economic savings by building indoors was offset by the massive overhead.. He was forced to compete with builders with no over head and they quickly drove him into bankruptcy.
I personally don't like using Styrofoam as a building
material.
There are many reasons it isn't considered green. As there there are other methods of making forms that don't
have these negative implications, perhaps the "convenience"
aspect is just that.
A trade off of "Green" and "sustainable" for ease of use. So, with (as this discussion has illustrated) the questionable
benefits of the actual insulation in the system and alternative
form methods that alleviate the need for Styrofoam while maintaining the air tightness, I have to question the over all "Greenness" of ICF's.
When you're burning fossil fuels to heat your home, using a fossil fuel-derived material like polystyrene foam to reduce that consumption is of precious little environmental consequence.
Reusable wood forms plus an alternative form of insulation for the below-grade walls is also a fine approach- if you have the forms, can adapt the layout to suit the forms you have (so you don't have to make disposable custom forms) AND you find cellulose an acceptable insulating material for below-grade walls. Personally, while I would be perfectly happy with dense-packed cellulose in my above-grade walls, I would not want it in my below grade walls in MY home. Once you've got the foam in the construction as an insulating material for its properties, using it as a form as well is just commonsense.
A (small) portion of the original fossil feedstock is wasted in conversion of the raw crude to styrene. Styrene production is very efficient with a very high yield- we've been making it for over sixty years, so we've gotten very good at it. As long as the polystyrene itself remains in the home, and any scrap remains in the landfill, it is essentially sequestered fossil CO2- no different than if it were left in the ground, except that it has been deployed for a VERY useful purpose- to reduce further wasting of fossil materials as FUEL. And even if it is landfilled after the home is demolished, it remains there for at least 10,000 years, which is better than any other carbon sequestration technology that I can imagine. To count 100% of the fossil-derived energy in the polystyrene foam material itself as "EE", or to account 100% of the losses associated with refining the source petroleum for its HOST of practical uses, is an engineering calculation error, no different than if you counted the calorific content of the wood or cellulose you use as EE. And yes, I understand where the carbon comes from and goes to when you use and then burn or biodegrade wood and cellulose.
Riversong: ideology has, in my book, a rough definition of "a belief system which not only alters a person's interpretation of fact, but which may also persist DESPITE contrary fact". While you clearly are not a dyed-in-the-hemp green ideologue, your argument does have a whiff of enviro-religionism about it, which affects your otherwise stellar credibility. While I personally am very concerned about sustainability, global warming mitigation/prevention and energy efficiency as desirable goals, I use an engineer's approach toward dealing with these issues. I try to keep it to the numbers- the energy and carbon accounting on a lifecycle basis- which is all the planet ultimately cares about.
What I think matters far less than what you do, because I am not a builder- I've built my own home and exceeded my energy conservation goals by a very wide margin. What I expended in additional EE to make my construction easier for a neophyte to execute successfully, I probably saved in not having professional crews drive here to do the work for me- not to mention all the economic activity I would have had to generate in order to earn the after-tax money to PAY all those people! While I'm the first to realize that not everyone has the skill or luxury of being able to build their own home, there is some virtue in having easy-to-use, idiot-resistant materials and systems like spray foam and ICFs available to those like me who DO.
Unless your super-insulated approach reduces the heat loss to 10% of what a "typical leaky home" loses, ie. approximating the annual heating/cooling performance of a PAHS home, your embodied energy content argument in support of your methods is at least a little disingenuous. And I would find a performance claim of that magnitude difficult to believe unless you've invented some kind of magical glazing material.
You further maintain that you make the ENVIRONMENTAL choice of not burying part of the home for EE reasons, instead choosing to put an equivalent number of square feet ABOVE grade where it is exposed to the full delta T between the conditioned space and the atmosphere. In engineering terms that makes very little sense to me.
I'm not saying that as a professional environmentally conscious builder you shouldn't be concerned about EE at all: I'm just saying that criticizing people who are on the "same team" for using materials and methods less "virtuous" than yours, smacks of ideology. If by use of ICFs, spray foam or something else you consider to be less than pure "green", they manage to reduce the energy consumption of the resulting home by 20% relative to the housing stock that's being constructed en masse right now, and if by so doing they do not increase the professional labour content of the home, they will have saved 100% of the difference in EE therms in five years- even if they do not do the work themselves. The remaining 25 to 95 years will continue to afford savings beneficial to the planet.
In my case, I doubled the square footage of an EXISTING home while REDUCING energy consumption in the new, combined home by 20% relative to the original home! I lose ZERO sleep over the EE of my construction, knowing how much I am saving in fossil energy EVERY YEAR. I used ICFs and carefully designed stick framing with spray foam- no dense-pack cellulose pros were to be found locally, and I did not feel that Mike Smith had taught me enough here to undertake this successfully by myself!
As to your notion that you know "exactly what it costs to make a home", you have dodged the issue of labour. You clearly know there's a difference between the cost of things and their net environmental cost. I guarantee there are more therms in labour in your homes than there are in the building materials themselves, if you draw the dotted line defining the "system" a little broader. There is no doubt an environmental optimum to be had between labour and materials if professional builders are involved, and this optimum can't be ignored.
A (small) portion of the original fossil feedstock is wasted in conversion of the raw crude to styrene. Styrene production is very efficient
Quite the contrary. Polystyrene contains 16,000 BTU/lb of material energy and 50,000 BTU/lb of embodied process energy. It's production is among the least efficient processes in building material manufacture.
As long as the polystyrene itself remains in the home, and any scrap remains in the landfill, it is essentially sequestered fossil CO2- no different than if it were left in the ground
Every drop of fossil fuel we extract from the ground - which WAS sequestered for millions of years - becomes part of our current environment and our current environmental problems, including fossil fuel depletion, global warming (from manufacture and incineration at end-use), water and air pollution, toxic load, landfill mass...
To count 100% of the fossil-derived energy in the polystyrene foam material itself as "EE", or to account 100% of the losses associated with refining the source petroleum for its HOST of practical uses, is an engineering calculation error, no different than if you counted the calorific content of the wood or cellulose you use as EE.
The material energy is NOT included in EE. EE includes only process energy: mining, manufacture, transportation.
And yes, I understand where the carbon comes from and goes to when you use and then burn or biodegrade wood and cellulose.
If you did understand this, you would understand that all use of wood is carbon neutral and all use of fossil fuels ultimately returns carbon to the atmosphere.
ideology has, in my book, a rough definition of "a belief system which not only alters a person's interpretation of fact, but which may also persist DESPITE contrary fact".
I agree completely. It is the defenders of ICF as a true green technology who refuse to recognize the facts, the science and the studies.
While you clearly are not a dyed-in-the-hemp green ideologue, your argument does have a whiff of enviro-religionism about it
I don't where hemp (yet). But if what you mean is that, in addition to the science I also base my conclusions and lifestyle on values, then I guess I'm guilty as charged.
I use an engineer's approach toward dealing with these issues. I try to keep it to the numbers- the energy and carbon accounting on a lifecycle basis- which is all the planet ultimately cares about.
I hardly think that an engineer can speak for Gaia. She is - by scientific accounts - a living, self-regulating organism. Organisms don't live on numbers, they live by the inherent values of the web of life which all indigenous peoples understood: don't take more than you truly need, leave enough for all other living creatures, consider the next seven generations, and don't dirty your bed.
While I'm the first to realize that not everyone has the skill or luxury of being able to build their own home, there is some virtue in having easy-to-use, idiot-resistant materials and systems like spray foam and ICFs available to those like me who DO.
But there are equally easy and FAR more green alternatives, such as FasWall.
Unless your super-insulated approach reduces the heat loss to 10% of what a "typical leaky home" loses, ie. approximating the annual heating/cooling performance of a PAHS home, your embodied energy content argument in support of your methods is at least a little disingenuous. And I would find a performance claim of that magnitude difficult to believe unless you've invented some kind of magical glazing material.
Why the arbitrary 10% in order to justify anything at all, let alone using less EE to achieve higher levels of efficiency. Magical glazing is not required. Current R-5 windows are more than adequate (particularly with moderate SHGC) to turn my building system into a PAHS. That's easy to document.
You further maintain that you make the ENVIRONMENTAL choice of not burying part of the home for EE reasons, instead choosing to put an equivalent number of square feet ABOVE grade where it is exposed to the full delta T between the conditioned space and the atmosphere. In engineering terms that makes very little sense to me.
You're making false assumptions. I do not add any additional above-grade space as a trade-off for eliminating the basement. I build houses that are significantly smaller than the current norm for people who are interested in living responsibly without a lot of "stuff". I can fit all mechanicals in a closet.
If by use of ICFs, spray foam or something else you consider to be less than pure "green", they manage to reduce the energy consumption of the resulting home by 20% relative to the housing stock that's being constructed en masse right now...
I have seen no data that demonstrates that an ICF house saves anything close to 20% over a comparably insulated wood-frame house.
In my case, I doubled the square footage of an EXISTING home while REDUCING energy consumption in the new, combined home by 20% relative to the original home!
That's wonderful, but it's the same kind of anecdotal "evidence" that Frenchy uses, and that shouldn't be the basis for a claim by an engineer - comparing a single apple to a single orange.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Styrene production is very efficient...
What you and the other supporters of plastic foam as a "green" material continue to ignore (so I'll post it again) is:
Expanded polystyrene is not easily recyclable because of its light weight and low scrap value. It is generally not accepted in curbside programs. Expanded polystyrene foam takes a very long time to decompose in the environment and has been documented to cause starvation in birds and other marine wildlife. According to the California Coastal Commission, it is a principal component of marine debris. 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€
Additionally:
Polystyrene is classified according to DIN4102 as a "B3" product, meaning highly flammable or "easily ignited". Consequently, though it is an efficient insulator at low temperatures, it is prohibited from being used in any exposed installations in building construction as long the material is not flame retarded e.g. with hexabromocyclododecane*. It must be concealed behind drywall, sheet metal or concrete. Foamed plastic materials have been accidentally ignited and caused huge fires and losses. Examples include the Düsseldorf International Airport, the Channel tunnel, where it was inside a railcar and caught on fire, and the Browns Ferry Nuclear Power Plant, where fire reached through a fire retardant, reached the foamed plastic underneath inside a firestop that had not been tested and certified in accordance with the final installation.
* Its primary application is in extruded (XPS) and expanded (EPS) polystyrene foam that is used as thermal insulation in the building industry. Typical HBCD levels in EPS are 0.7% and in XPS 2.5%. At present, according to BSEF, the brominated flame retardant industry panel, HBCD is the only suitable flame retardant for these applications. <!----><!----><!---->
<!----> <!---->
HBCD can be found in environmental samples such as birds, mammals, fish and other aquatic organisms as well as soil and sediment. On this basis, on 28 October 2008 the European Chemicals Agency decided to include HBCD in the SVHC (Substances of Very High Concern). HBCD has been found widely present in biological samples from remote areas and supporting evidences for its classification as Persistent, Bioaccumulative and Toxic (PBT) and undergoes long-range environmental transportation.<!----><!---->
<!----> <!---->
Due to its persistence, toxicity, and ecotoxicity, a global ban on HBCD is currently being considered under the framework of the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants.<!----><!---->
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
What should be just as important as the environmental issues consequent to our exploitation of fossil fuels and their resultant petro-chemical plastics, are the local and global political impacts.
Largely to maintain our access to fossil fuels (and other "strategic" resources), the US military budget since WWII has amounted to not only fully half of income tax revenues but equal to the combined total of all other nations on Earth.
Because of our addiction to fossil fuels (and plastics), we have been directly responsible for the deaths of many millions from our resource wars, such as the two current ones in Iraq and Afghanistan, and for the destabilization of entire regions of the world as well as the persistance of non-democratic and authoritarian regimes (such as the Saudi royal family, and Saddam Hussein when he was our ally).
A green nation does not waste limited financial resources on the military domination of finite resources, nor does it waste half of its public monies in death-making when it could be spent to improve the lives of its citizens.
These are direct consequences of our decisions to use plastics and other petrochemicals when alternatives exist. It's past time we begin to take responsibility for our choices and lifestyles.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
riversong..
Foam's ability to resist biodegradation is a good thing when it's in your walls and attic.
maybe you like biodegradeable materials in your walls and ceiling.. most don't like the idea!
Frenchy,
If you don't keep the water out of your shell you WILL
have problems regardless of your insulation type.
It is really a non argument. So cellulose will get wet and lose R value.
Foam will keep the framing members wet. Both ways the Sheetrock is toast. Both ways have potential for electrical fires.
Both ways can have serious consequences. Bottom line is you must keep the water out.
Good post. I think you expressed some ideas and opinions
very clearly and well.
Unfortunately, I don't agree. :) I think Riversong has already taken up any and all technological
arguments so I'll put in a longer view perspective. Regardless of weather the net. energy is a gain or loss in insulation
it must be renewable and biodegradable.
It does no good if your deferring your impact to another generation or time. Ideology, is inherent to a conversation of "Green" building. Granted proselytizing could be left out of it.
Defining that ideology is central to answering the myriad of questions relating to building in accordance with our environment and future.
moltennetal,
Very good point about the oil content of the EPS not representing carbon released, but carbon sequestered.
Do you have a number for how much oil is consumed in the manufacture of EPS?
Ron
Not exactly. We could leave it where it is and have nothing to sequester. Given the average life span of residential homes being rather short
in comparison to the lifespan of the petrochemicals, it's not sequestered in any meaningful way.
Very good point about the oil content of the EPS not representing carbon released, but carbon sequestered.
As I've already stated, this is a fallacy. The carbon was already sequestered by the natural and sustainable operation of the Earth and its web-of-life - deep in the ground for millions of years where Gaia intended it to stay. We have returned it to the surface environment where it has delterious effects on water, air, wildlife, human beings and the global climate (both geological and political).
It has been human exploitation of that sequestered carbon (ancient sunlight) in the last 100 years which has led to every environmental, technological and economic crisis that we're now facing.
Do you have a number for how much oil is consumed in the manufacture of EPS?
I've answered this a number of times. While polystyrene contains 16,000 BTU per pound of material energy, it requires more than 50,000 BTU per pound to manufacture. Additionally, it has more severe environmental impacts than almost any other product but aluminum.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Edited 12/31/2008 5:45 pm ET by Riversong
Additionally, it has more severe environmental impacts than almost any other product but aluminum. Isn't Titanium's impact much higher?
I don't know how broad a spectrum of materials this report covered, perhaps just those commonly found in the wastestream, but (once again):
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€
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
I know you probably went through many iterations before coming to the modified version of the Larson trusses that you use, but did you ever consider just framing the floors and 2"x4" walls conventionally and then balloon framing an outer wall without all the 1"x connectors and simply attaching it to the second floor rim joist with angles?Like you, I prefer framing at 24"oc but our code will not allow it for load bearing walls. If the walls were not joined,the inner wall could be 16"oc and the outer one left at 24"
I know you probably went through many iterations before coming to the modified version of the Larson trusses that you use, but did you ever consider just framing the floors and 2"x4" walls conventionally and then balloon framing an outer wall without all the 1"x connectors and simply attaching it to the second floor rim joist with angles?
I've built a number of double-wall houses, using 2x4 inner and outer walls, but it's wastefull of materials and labor. The modified Larsen Truss is quicker and easier and eliminates thermal bridging and allows me to use smaller members (2x2 or 2x3) for the outer chord of the truss (in the same way that roof and floor trusses can use lighter members).
Like you, I prefer framing at 24"oc but our code will not allow it for load bearing walls. If the walls were not joined,the inner wall could be 16"oc and the outer one left at 24"
Building codes rarely prohibit options, but require proof that they will perform as well as or better than what is prescribed. It is easy to prove that a parallel chord truss wall can carry more load than a single wall.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Interesting piece of information but irrelevant to the thread unless you can quantify the amount of EPS in that report that were waste from ICF's.
They can't get your Goat if you don't tell them where it is hidden.
Interesting piece of information but irrelevant to the thread unless you can quantify the amount of EPS in that report that were waste from ICF's.
Irrelevant? Only if you don't read it.
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€
They are not referring to landfill volume, but to environmental impacts of the entire life-cyle of EPS, primarily at the front end (manufacturing).
The EPA states:
<!----><!----> <!---->
"Acute (short-term) exposure to styrene in humans results in mucous membrane and eye irritation, and gastrointestinal effects. Chronic (long-term) exposure to styrene in humans results in effects on the central nervous system (CNS), such as headache, fatigue, weakness, and depression, CSN dysfunction, hearing loss, and peripheral neuropathy. Human studies are inconclusive on the reproductive and developmental effects of styrene; several studies did not report an increase in developmental effects in women who worked in the plastics industry, while an increased frequency of spontaneous abortions and decreased frequency of births were reported in another study. Several epidemiologic studies suggest there may be an association between styrene exposure and an increased risk of leukemia and lymphoma. However, the evidence is inconclusive due to confounding factors. EPA has not given a formal carcinogen classification to styrene."
Polystyrene is classified according to DIN4102 as a "B3" product, meaning highly flammable or "easily ignited". Consequently, though it is an efficient insulator at low temperatures, it is prohibited from being used in any exposed installations in building construction as long the material is not flame retarded e.g. with hexabromocyclododecane*.
*HBCD is the only suitable flame retardant for these applications. <!----><!---->
<!----> <!---->
HBCD can be found in environmental samples such as birds, mammals, fish and other aquatic organisms as well as soil and sediment. On this basis, on 28 October 2008 the European Chemicals Agency decided to include HBCD in the SVHC (Substances of Very High Concern). HBCD has been found widely present in biological samples from remote areas and supporting evidences for its classification as Persistent, Bioaccumulative and Toxic (PBT) and undergoes long-range environmental transportation.<!----><!---->
<!----> <!---->
Due to its persistence, toxicity, and ecotoxicity, a global ban on HBCD is currently being considered under the framework of the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants<!----><!---->
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Okay, so here's another thing I keep getting stuck on when reading about ICFs, even as a potential alternative to site built concrete forms.
We used to build forms with boards, pour the concrete, strip the forms, then use those same boards for sheathing, or in some cases framing members.
Early in my building career we used 5/8", and 3/4" plywood that way, but anyone who has done much remodelling has found dimensional sheathing, like 1x, used the same way. I often find floor joists and studs in older houses that were obviously once used as forms.
Labor intensive? Yes. But what's wrong with labor? When did we start basing virtually every decision on what's "cheaper"? Or "feasible"? The we all moan about the lack of skilled help available? Or complain about today's youth not wanting to work?
A lot of these standard practices are only "cheaper" to us. Today. I keep thinking about the long term effects of the products we build with, the way plywood, and more recently o.s.b., create permability issuses when we sheath walls and roofs with them, essentially trapping moisture inside the framing cavity.
I'm thinking seriously about trying to go back to milling and building with more lumber, and weening myself from the use of products that have to be made elsewhere, transported to my building site, then thrown into a landfill 100 years from now.
Am I a kook? Does anyone see the fatal flaw in this line of thought?
How the heck did we get to this point where we think everything has to come onsite from the lumberyard? (oh by the way, those trees onsite? Call the excavator, let's sell those trees as logs, them use the money to buy lumber)
I swear. I just don't get it.
Jim, I have used a lot of wood from a local sawmill. It is all harvested locally as well. I sided my shop in local cedar instead of buying it from the yard (their source is probably a Canadian clearcut). It makes a LOT of sense if you can do it. The sources here are fairly flaky and there is more time and hassle involved in buying their product, but it's still often worth it.
Most builders here still crib their foundations out of 1"x8" and use the stripped formwork as sheathing. It has several advantages. The excavation does not have to be level, the footing and wall are poured at the same time making them stronger, the sheathing breaths allowing the wall to dry, and there is usually so little waste leftover you can just huck it into the neighbour's yard.
Am I a kook? Does anyone see the fatal flaw in this line of thought?
Absolutely ;-) Welcome to the club.
Because I use shallow frost-protected foundations or shallow grade beams on rubble trench foundations, I use rough-sawn 2x for the formwork (protected with poly) and re-use them for floor joists and headers and blocking.
I use rough-sawn boards for wall and roof sheathing and for subfloors. Sometimes, I have the trees from the site milled locally. Otherwise, I go to local band-saw mills and get better quality framing lumber than what's available in KD at the lumberyard. - and it's full dimension, so I get exactly what I pay for.
It not only allows walls and roofs to breathe better, but it's much easier to handle boards than 4x8 sheetstock. And the little waste there is goes into my woodstove.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
<<<<Am I a kook? Does anyone see the fatal flaw in this line of thought? >>>><<Absolutely ;-) Welcome to the club.>>And what a wonderful club. There is an old Southern tradition that says one should do something on New Year's Day that you want to do often throughout the coming year. I've got my own tradition of reflecting upon those things from the past year that I am grateful for.As I count my blessings, I include the entire gang here.
Well Riversong we are in complete agreement on that subject. Local sawmill wood is the way to go!
My sawmill has little access to pine or other softwoods however hardwood while a bit heavier to lift generally is cheap especially when it's not wood that's typically got a large market.. Hackberry, Tamarack, Ash, Elm etc.. is suitable for many tasks..
My local sawmill sells that wood for 20 cents per bd.ft. Which is cheaper than you can buy sheetrock for.. In addition while it's supposed to be Mill run the sawmill let's me handsort as the wood comes off the saw and I wind up with a much higher grade than mill run..
Otherwise the sawmill gets 17Cents per bd.ft. selling the wood to pallet mills..
I can aslo get a bargin on wood ordered but not picked up.. That's how I got all that fiddleback maple for 10 cents. a bd.ft. It had been stickered up for a customer who failed to pick it up for over a year.. the wood had turned grey and even blackened some boards so the sawmill expected to loss it all to the shredder as mulch .. My offer of 10 cents was eagerly taken..
Once I ran it through the planner and saw it's beauty it sort of took my breath away!
I got my sister 5/4 ash for 15 cents the same way and most of my black walnut was purchased under a similar circumstance.. there was no market in the late 90's for darker woods like Black Walnut.. the demand was all for white woods like maple and birch. etc..
The sawmill had blackwalnut cants lying around and was about to send them off to the pallet mills when I made my offer. That's why all the exterior wood is black walnut.. it's both naturally decay resistant and very cheap. I got over 10,000 bd.ft. of black walnut for 17 cents a bd.ft.
"Well Riversong we are in complete agreement on that subject. Local sawmill wood is the way to go!"You have obviously never dealt with the L****e Brothers. They will cut great old growth D. Fir beams for you if they aren't out surfing or tending their plantations in the summer. If you do catch them they talk your ear off about buying land (to launder their cash) and starting a ranch in Nicaragua. Sometimes even going to HD is less trouble.
NO, I've never dealt with people like that.. far and away the vast majority of sawmill operators are friendly nice people.. I just checked my old records and I have 1620 mills in my territory.. well I'm sure there are a lot more but these are the only ones large enough to potentially need the sort of equipment I sold.
nothing like owning a sawmill to change your perspective on materials, is there? - major problems surround grading/certification of the sticks, if there are permitting/inspecting agencies involved - it's been a good discussion in this thread - thought provoking - my own philosophy tends toward less regard for upfront costs if they can be amortized by low maintanence, comfort, and safety - - and shelter always ought to have an exemption for 'art' - the US has made poor investments in shelter over the past several generations - high maintainence, expensive to operate, dependent on automobiles - wasteful and profligate - we will regret this in the coming lean times - "there's enough for everyone"
jim.... one of my first bosses built raised ranches almost exclusivelywe would do all the forming, pour a footing then we'd make 4x8 form panels with the studs going in the 4' direction
after the 4' wall was poured we'd strip the forms and they became the kneewalls on top of the 4' concrete wallthe left over forms moved on to the next jobMike Hussein Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
Riversong,
I know you have answered the question about the amount of energy EPS represents.
I still have a hard time believeing that number, but not for any reason I can explain easily. It seems to me that the packaging industry would not be using EPS to the extent it does if those numbers were correct. It seems to me that paper would be cheaper. Energy is money after all. The number you provided seems to show that it would take about five pounds of crude to produce about one pound of EPS, somewhere around one pound of product of the same energy level as oil and four pounds of oil gone into process.
But I do not have any numbers myself and I have spent enough time searching.
Ron
I know you have answered the question about the amount of energy EPS represents. I still have a hard time believeing that number.
It seems to me that the packaging industry would not be using EPS to the extent it does if those numbers were correct.
Well, given that US agribusiness uses 10 calories of energy to produce 1 calorie of food, it shouldn't be surprising. Our entire economy is exhorbitantly wasteful - that's why we're literally consuming the earth (100 species a day).
Packaging costs are merely passed along. You spend 11% of your grocery bill on packaging. Your grocery packaging represents 4$ to 37% of the weight of the food you buy, and that (and other) packaging becomes 32% of the municipal landfill stream by weight and 27% by volume.
The number you provided seems to show that it would take about five pounds of crude to produce about one pound of EPS, somewhere around one pound of product of the same energy level as oil and four pounds of oil gone into process.
Plastic is made from natural gas, which has an energy density (as does petroleum) of about 20,000 BTU/lb. If the EE inputs are primarily petroleum, then it would take about 2½ pounds (about a third of a gallon) of raw petroleum to embed 50,000 BTU per pound of styrene.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Riversong,
I made some wrong assumption in my rough figuring, I guess.
When the price of oil was at its peak, at 2.5 lb of input per pound of product, material costs alone at an ICF block forming plant would have been about 30% of the retail price of the final product at a job site. I had estimated it at about 60%, which is just too high.
Ron
Ron: Riversong has posted the same study numerous times in relation to the evils of EPS.
I agree with you: to a chemical engineer, the EE numbers don't add up.
Doing a little Googling I see the same figure used repeatedly in various documents for polystyrene (solid and as insulation): ~117 MJ/kg. A table listing the EE values for various materials (from a New Zealand website, listing sources) is quite informative. The source for this popularly used EE value for EPS is listed as "Sheltair Scientific, 1991"- not Dow Chemical or anybody who actually makes EPS, but a consultant tasked with calculating this figure. The same table lists a manufacturer's claim for the EE of cellulose insulating material as 3.3 MJ/kg, though it lists "recycled paper" (ie. what cellulose insulation is made FROM) as having an EE of 25 MJ/kg, so clearly the table has a few problems.
Styrene is made from ethylbenzene, which is both found naturally in crude and produced from benzene and ethylene (both produced by cracking and catalytic reformation of heavier constituents of crude). The primary use for ethylbenzene is as a constituent of gasoline.
Styrene is produced from ethylbenzene by a couple different methods: catalytic dehydrogenation with steam, or autoxidation followed by reaction with propylene to form styrene and propylene oxide.
Making EPS from styrene monomer is an exothermic process which requires precious little additional energy input. Pentane (a very low value crude derivative) is typically used as the blowing agent and has been so since CFCs were banned. The heat of polymerization boils the blowing agent, forming the bubbles in the foam.
It would be extremely surprising if the production of EPS consumed five times its energy content in its production. My reasoning is simple and based on something you can look up: pricing. Styrene is currently selling (industrial bulk pricing) for something like $1000/metric tonne, and benzene (the key feedstock) is roughly $800/metric tonne. There's no way that the production of styrene from ethylbenzene consumes even 1x the internal energy of the product styrene on the price basis alone.
EPS used in construction is not normally treated with flame retardants. It is normally covered with non-combustible materials, mandated by building codes.
The end result is simply this: if you save 80-160 therms of energy every year by reducing air infiltration by using ICFs instead of CONVENTIONAL wood frame/fibreglass construction, the ~800 additional therms of embodied energy content of the wall relative to what Riversong is talking about for his construction method becomes a wash after five years.
Unless you are not burning fossil fuels to heat the home in the first place, the difference on a fifty-year basis makes the embodied energy component trivial in comparison to the energy used to actually heat the home.
The earth ("Gaia" as Riversong so quaintly puts it) DOES care about the numbers: the tonnage of CO2 entering the atmosphere from FOSSIL sources. "Gaia" doesn't care whether the energy produced in the production of that CO2 was to make building materials or to heat the home. "She" cares only about the tonnage emitted over the lifecycle of the process.
The earth ("Gaia" as Riversong so quaintly puts it) DOES care about the numbers: the tonnage of CO2 entering the atmosphere from FOSSIL sources. "Gaia" doesn't care whether the energy produced in the production of that CO2 was to make building materials or to heat the home. "She" cares only about the tonnage emitted over the lifecycle of the process.
Hardly "quaint", the Gaia hypothesis is a comprehensive and highly predictive theory based on the 1960s research of James Lovelock when he worked for NASA and since corroborated by much data and analysis.
It's sadly humorous to hear an engineer claim he knows what Gaia cares about. Number theory does not exist in nature - it is an abstraction of an overly rational and narrowly quantitative mindset.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Wow- you try to quantify what you're doing numerically, using EE totals etc., but you don't believe the earth cares how much CO2 we dump into the atmosphere from fossil sources because "Gaia" doesn't believe in numbers?!
The Gaia hypothesis is just that- a hypothesis. Treating the Earth as some self-regulating super-organism is in my view a cozy anthropocentric over-simplification, just like the oversimplified mechanistic approaches we humans used in past. The interactions amongst the earth's climate and its ecosystems and the compositions of its oceans, land masses and atmosphere are too enormously complex to be simplified in either way. But saying that these systems are complex and inter-related by no means indicates that we know nothing nor will we ever know anything about!
I'm afraid that "Gaia" does care about the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere! And "she" doesn't care how the CO2 got there- by making materials from fossil fuels, or by heating a home with fossil fuels, or by burning ancestral forests to clear the land for beef cattle! And yes, the latter one IS different than the CO2 released from the sustainable harvesting of wood for construction OR fuel purposes (which is carbon neutral), as the ecosystem destroyed by these forest-burnings is more productive in atmospheric CO2 sequestration terms than the ecosystem that replaces it.
Again, I'm not taking issue with your attempt to reduce the EE of your construction methods- doing so is laudable, as is the focus on renewability and the use of local materials. It's just very important that the numbers you use in your EE analysis are accurate, based on science rather than on a nebulous irrational belief system. It's also very important that EE is used properly- as one input to a lifecycle energetic cost accounting. All I'm arguing is that even at 300 therms per annum heating load, the EE difference of 800 therms between your construction and ICFs is less than 3 yrs of heating load- a very small contributor to the total energy use to build and heat a home after ten years and a nearly negligible one after one hundred. For an "average" home, built using US code minimum construction, this difference is less than 1 year of heating load.
That 800 therms of EE is equivalent to, say, the decision to eliminate 100 sq ft of north-facing R5 windows from the design over the same period, given your 6000 degree-days example. I'm as willing to allow a person to use easy, low-skill materials in their construction to save labour and to permit them to do more of the work themselves, while also producing a very durable home, as I am to allow you to put windows on the north of a home so it feels like less of a box for the occupants.
Wow- you try to quantify what you're doing numerically, using EE totals etc., but you don't believe the earth cares how much CO2 we dump into the atmosphere from fossil sources because "Gaia" doesn't believe in numbers?!
I quantify my arguments so that they carry weight among people like you, and I expect others to similarly quantify their arguments.
But I did not say that Gaia doesn't care how much we polute her atmosphere, just that she cares in a qualitative way - numbers are a human-invented abstraction.
The Gaia hypothesis is just that- a hypothesis. Treating the Earth as some self-regulating super-organism is in my view a cozy anthropocentric over-simplification, just like the oversimplified mechanistic approaches we humans used in past.
It's now considered a full-fledged scientific theory because it has proved to have reliable predictive value. And, far from anthropomorphisizing the earth, the theory fits the evolutionary process and the self-regulatory facility of earth far more completely than any mechanistic theory. A mechanistic, or purely chemical/physical theory - by it's nature - is an oversimplification of a complex organic event. Only a biological theory could come close to expressing the complexity and fractal chaos of the entire bio-geological sphere.
All I'm arguing is that even at 300 therms per annum heating load, the EE difference of 800 therms between your construction and ICFs is less than 3 yrs of heating load
That's a false argument. By that argument, any EE expenditure would be acceptible as long as operating energy was high enough to exceed it in a few years. A correct argument would compare, as I have, the relative payback of one EE system vs. another available system. In that comparison, the ICF EE fares very poorly.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Nowhere did I say that you can neglect the world's ecosystems and treat the earth like a dead mechanism. But I similarly believe that treating the earth like some kind of super-organism is a dramatic over-simplification- an extrapolation to an absurd extent of something which does have a kernel of fundamental underlying truth- aka a myth. Human history is rife with myths, which help humans cope with their fundamental inability to understand the complex, and though these myths can have some instructive value, saying that they have predictive power is a bit of a stretch to say the least.
You've over-simplified my energetic lifecycle argument to the point of distorting it- reductio ad absurdum. To restate, if you take 100 years of 300 therms of heat load, which is roughly 1/3 of the heat load of the average US midwest home per the reference I've given, whether you used 100 or 900 therms of energy to build the structure in the first place is STILL essentially irrelevant in lifecycle energy accounting terms. That's a quantitative statement which is accurate. That my argument gets stronger the higher the heat loss is just makes it more relevant to MOST buildings that are being constructed today.
ICFs eliminate the need for much of the skill associated with obtaining airtight construction. Not all, but a significant portion of it. That makes this method accessible to people like me. They also virtually completely eliminate thermal bridging, something which is labour- and materials-intensive to achieve using frame construction with cellulose insulation. The trade off is the use of foam and concrete which do represent greater EE. There's no need to set up straw men to produce a false comparison between what are fundamentally different construction techniques producing fundamentally different homes.
Again, I take no issue with your choice of materials and methods whatsoever- I'm sure you provide excellent homes for your clients which do indeed have a very low EE AND more importantly, very low heat load. What I take issue with is your attempt to disparage the non-ideological choices of others who are attempting to achieve- and indeed on a lifecycle basis ACHIEVING- very similar results to what you're achieving- and managing to do so without the skill and experience that you have at your disposal.
<<Again, I take no issue with your choice of materials and methods whatsoever- I'm sure you provide excellent homes for your clients which do indeed have a very low EE AND more importantly, very low heat load. What I take issue with is your attempt to disparage the non-ideological choices of others who are attempting to achieve- and indeed on a lifecycle basis ACHIEVING- very similar results to what you're achieving- and managing to do so without the skill and experience that you have at your disposal.>>Thank you.
Off topic, but that's the kind of guy I am. I take issue with all these posts that refer to ICF's as idiot proof or the idea that they can be installed without any skill.I see it as concrete forming with a lightweight material. You still have to do carpentry including: understanding the building system, fabricating and installing rebar, building and installing door and window bucks, bracing straight and strong, pouring and vibrating the concrete. How many people want Frenchy's sister to build their house? <G>It's like in stick building telling someone to just nail the 2x4 on the "x". We all know how well that can work out.John
Never said ICFs could be used with NO skill! Like any method there are pitfalls to avoid and tricks to doing the work efficiently.
As a person who had never formed concrete before, period, but had decent carp skills, I used a consultant to help me do the layout and set the first couple of rows, and to direct the pour. We got lovely straight walls for very little effort- and saved BIG money relative to having someone in to do the job. I saved more doing my foundation work than I did on just about any other aspect of the project- with the exception of the kitchen cabinetry perhaps. The surprise bonus was how easy it was to do the electrical and to hang drywall on ICF walls- it was a breeze.
If I'd have known beforehand how easy it was to do a nice job with ICFs I'd have poured this addition to the eaves. Instead I built frame walls with staggered studs to minimize thermal bridging, and paid a mint for Icynene, only to have the foam guy screw up the foam install in my garage. No dense-pack cellulose guys in my neck of the woods, that I could find anyway.
Nothing is idiot-proof- but ICFs are far more idiot-resistant than stick framing is. Witness the ridiculously poor energy performance of the average stick-built home- not the fine specimens that people like Riversong or Mike Smith are building, but the average one which is wasting 800+ therms a year to heat! I'd suggest it would be tough to duplicate that with ICFs even if you were a bit of an idiot.
That's worth some embodied energy to me.
moltenmetal
I've told the story of my sister-in-law countless times. When I was bed ridden my sister-in-law with absolutely no prior construction experiance came over and finished the foundation for me. I think I had one row down and part of another.
She listened to drug slurred instructions from me for about 20 minutes untill I drifted off to sleep and when she left it was all nicely done..
True she wasn't an idiot but except for painting her bedroom she'd never ever done any construction work..
When I did the 1/2 round portico foundation with ICF's in the front of my house there was absolutely nothing in the book or video about how to do it yet if you look it's really very nicely done. (this summer once the dock is out I'll take pictures and post them so others can see how simple it is to do.. (what's more it didn't need any bracing <grin>
Now mind you the first house I ever built was this one, so experiance may speed things up but even total beginners should be capable of doing the work..
Nothing is idiot-proof- but ICFs are far more idiot-resistant than stick framing is. Witness the ridiculously poor energy performance of the average stick-built home
The same things are claimed for SIPS - ease of construction and significant efficiency improvement over conventional framing.
Well, check out this side-by-side performance comparison between two SIPS homes and one conventional 2x4 frame with exterior XPS home - all built by Habitat for Humanity volunteers. The SIPS homes were only marginally better and the overall energy cost predictions were actually a bit lower for the wood-frame home. And the study was done by the SIPS industry association!
http://www.sips.org/content/technical/index.cfm?PageId=160
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Human history is rife with myths, which help humans cope with their fundamental inability to understand the complex, and though these myths can have some instructive value, saying that they have predictive power is a bit of a stretch to say the least.
Like, for instance, the myth that rationality and science is the ultimate arbiter of truth?
What we moderns disparage as "myth" are systems of knowledge that far surpass science in creating an understanding of "the way things are". For example, almost every Western anthropologist who, in asking indegenous people how they learn which parts of a plant heal and which parts are poisionous, receive the universal response "we listen to the plants", invariably consider that to be a quaint metaphor for "trial and error" (which, of course, is the least effective way to gather knowledge, but the one that science is built upon and the only one we understand). In fact, all indegenous medicine people communicate directly with plants and animal (and often telepathically with each other), and many can shape-shift and time travel and vist the land of the dead to retrieve lost souls.
What science cannot understand and makes unnecessarily complex is quite simple, straightforward and clear to earth-based cultures. And every single such culture knows - in a way that we will never do - that the Earth is alive and that we are killing her by our profound ignorance.
And, by the way, if you would spend any time investigating the Gaia Theory, you would know that it is more highly predictive of the current (and past evolutionary) earth changes than any other theory. Like quantum theory, every time science wanders close to the edge of rationality and approaches the ancient mythologies, it becomes more predictive of "what is".
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
moltenmetal,
On the other hand, I can understand what I perceive to be Riversong's main point in all of the preceding - The same wethertightness and insulation value achieved in an ICF house can also be achieved in wood frame, and with less energy input. Less energy input has to be a good thing.
It's not the only thing, though.
ICF construction for single family resdiential is on the market as a premium product, still, thanks be, at a premium price and it is not really fair to compare the result to standard wood frame construction.
Myself, I think one of the best things about ICF construction is the solidity of it. Like a rock. We're coming to the end of a small winter blizzard here, now. There have been wind gusts up to 80km/hr and temperatures around -10C since sometime last night. My previous house would have been vibrating and shaking and the boiler would have been running hard to keep the house warm. Here, we can't feel the wind inside and we can't hear it either. I've had quite a small fire in the stove most of the day and the boiler has started only a few times to keep the basement up to temperature.
No wood house feels like this does.
And that's my anecdotal input.
Ron
No wood house feels like this does.
My wood-frame houses do.
That's my anecdotal information from several such homes.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Interesting account. Thank you.
The end result is simply this: if you save 80-160 therms of energy every year by reducing air infiltration by using ICFs instead of CONVENTIONAL wood frame/fibreglass construction, the ~800 additional therms of embodied energy content of the wall relative to what Riversong is talking about for his construction method becomes a wash after five years.
The only reliable comparative study of ICF vs conventional wood-frame houses was the one by ORNL which concluded:
"It was found that for ten U.S. locations, ICF walls of R-15 and R-20, the average potential whole building energy savings (ICF house vs conventional wood-framed house) can be between 6 and 8%."
So, until we get different comparative data (not anecdotal claims), it's fair to assume that the annual return on embodied energy investment is 6%-8% (and that's comparing, as you suggest, a "premium" system to a "conventional" system). Assuming a 2000sf house in a 6000 HDD climate, with a 300 therm annual heating load, the 18-24 therms annual savings would have a 33-53 year payback.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
I don't want to beat this topic to death, but I have to admit that this discussion has caused me to re-evaluate my opinion, which I'm always happy to do.So when you wrote;<<"It was found that for ten U.S. locations, ICF walls of R-15 and R-20, the average potential whole building energy savings (ICF house vs conventional wood-framed house) can be between 6 and 8%."So, until we get different comparative data (not anecdotal claims), it's fair to assume that the annual return on embodied energy investment is 6%-8% (and that's comparing, as you suggest, a "premium" system to a "conventional" system). Assuming a 2000sf house in a 6000 HDD climate, with a 300 therm annual heating load, the 18-24 therms annual savings would have a 33-53 year payback.>>I have to ask, is this based solely on R-value or are they taking into account air leakage as well?
The same table lists a manufacturer's claim for the EE of cellulose insulating material as 3.3 MJ/kg, though it lists "recycled paper" (ie. what cellulose insulation is made FROM) as having an EE of 25 MJ/kg, so clearly the table has a few problems.
For an engineer, you're not very discerning in how you interpret data.
That table showed the EE of virgin paper as 36.4 Mj/kg and for turning scrap paper back into the same original product (an energy-intensive operation) to require 23.4 Mj/kg (a 36% savings).
Cellulose insulation, however, requires very little process energy. It uses either post-consumer or post-industrial waste and simply shreds it and adds borate.
This re-uses a small amount of what would otherwise become the single largest part of America's solid waste stream.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
I for one think you make a very good point.
The energy saved has a direct effect on the "Green" equation. So to bring your point home, Please address the sequestering question raised before. the oil could be left where it is and not require sequestering.
Verses a probable two hundred year useful life span (Generous I know).
The raw energy content of the EPS itself doesn't count in the EE equation, or should not. It should not count any more than the raw energy content of the cellulose or wood used in the construction. Once EPS is made, its likely ultimate fate is landfill, where it will take at least 10,000 years to degrade back to something the environment can metabolize. Similarly you can find 100 year-old newspapers in landfills and if you keep them away from air, you can read them- landfills are storage systems for waste, not bioreactors intended for degradation of waste.
The energy content of the EPS or of the cellulose itself is therefore not in question. And by using EITHER in durable construction followed by landfill, you have forestalled the return of carbon to the atmosphere- you have, relative to putting these materiasl to other use such as burning them to heat your home, essentially "sequestered" the carbon they contain, keeping it from becoming CO2. In the case of cellulose, because the raw fibres themselves are of biological origin (ie. their own carbon content came from atmospheric CO2), there is no net contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere even if you were to compost the cellulose after demolishing the building. In the case of the EPS, 10,000 years is quite a while, even on the earth's timescale.
The energy used to produce the EPS or in the collection, re-processing, transport, distribution etc. of the cellulose is a different matter. That energy is gone forever, just like heat lost through walls or ceiling or windows or infiltration is lost forever.
Riversong and I are arguing about the magnitude of this latter energy for BOTH EPS and for cellulose, which DOES count toward EE. I've got to get some data from Dow or Nova or somebody who actually makes EPS to get a real handle on this figure, as the figure that is tabulated doesn't make sense to me- it almost certainly contains the entire energy of the raw material used to make the EPS, which is a fundamental error in EE calculation.
Riversong also seems to have ideological/values reasons for not wanting to use it- he considers it human-made ("unnatural") and therefore fundamentally suspect. He thinks cellulose is a greener insulating choice, and I agree with him everywhere except below grade. My only point is that construction using dense-packed cellulose as an insulating material requires far more skill to accomplish correctly than does ICF construction as an example, and that fundamentally puts it out of the hands of some people.
That cellulose is derived from a waste product makes it appear to be a more virtuous choice than if it were derived from a raw material like wood directly. But quite simply the earth doesn't care- the earth would prefer that we waste less paper and hence harvest fewer trees in the first place.
A thought before I read the other lengthy post and forget.
The energy used to produce the EPS or in the collection, re-processing, transport, distribution etc. of the cellulose is a different matter.
That energy is gone forever, just like heat lost through walls or ceiling or windows or infiltration is lost forever. I think, this is somewhere close to the point when economics will dictate the better option.
Unless I'm misunderstanding your statement, energy used to produce and transport etc. is not directly tied to "Green"
but more a question of affordability of implementation.
After all, most any effective insulation is better then none. I realize 10,000 years is a good long while. That is where ideology
come in to play. We have to decide if the principals of renewable and sustainability is truly important.
If not leaving unhealthy irreparable messes for the next guy
is a principle to uphold.
Economics only dictate the better option IF all the costs are truly represented in the economic calculation, and that's very tough to do to say the least. The same is true for an energetics balance like EE accounting- all the costs have to be in there, and assigning some of these becomes an ideological or values problem. If some costs, like the cost resulting from dumping CO2 into the atmosphere, are not included in the calc, the calc gets seriously distorted. The same is true if, due to lack of scientific rigour or deliberate fraud arising from ideology or other reasons, calcs are done incorrectly.
It's by the means of such distorted calcs involving embodied energy that you get people trying to argue that a Hummer is more environmentally friendly than a Prius, the argument in this case being that the EE of the batteries and hybrid system is greater than the energy saved via the greater fuel efficiency of the vehicle over its life. That such calcs are fundamentally flawed can be proven very simply via economics- even IF you forget about the costs of hard-to-quantify things like greenhouse gas emissions. So economics does have its uses- to prove or disprove things in the limit.
If your ideology tells you that anything that is not grown is mined, then yes by all means you must build out of what you can grow, and that only. And you'd better like Riversong pay close attention to how things have been grown, because intensive forestry and agriculture ARE mining too- just slower and more hidden than the digging-holes-in-the-ground variety. But putting ideology aside, in the real world, selecting materials and methods is a matter of real, quantifiable choices. You COULD build with wood pegs as our ancestors did, but nails DO save a lot of labour, and work extremely well, and can at least in theory be recycled to make more nails.
If you're still going to MINE your heatsource, the relative magnitudes of the mining MATTER. Mining a little to make insulation to save a LOT of mining to provide heat source is sensible. Mining NONE is better, but that too is an impossible idealization. What is optimum depends on lots of things.
Personally I see no problem with digging a hole in the ground and dry landfilling construction materials that can't be reasonably recycled. If they become energetically valuable in future, future generations can mine them to reprocess them. I don't think EPS in a landfill after a hundred years of productive use is anything to be ashamed of.
You make good points and I appreciate the rapport. I turned to economics precisely because I feel these arguments about
EE are spiraling outward with no discernable answer in the near future!LOL My thought is if there are two viable alternatives (which there certainly are) The choice will ultimately come down to as you say "Real
World" factors. Performance.
Cost.
Environmental impact. Of the three, Cost will most likely be foremost in an average homeowners mind. I think perhaps you make assumptions about my ideology, and perhaps
the value and role of ideals in this issue.
With out a balanced approached to our resources no material is
sustainable or indeed renewable.
that said some can (and have) been "Harvested" in a more productive cycle then others.
Which is a sore spot with all petroleum products.
Again, I'd like to revisit the issue Of disposal. Merely burying the waste in the hopes a future technology will be able to utilize it is
not a responsible or ecological answer.
I don't disparage the use of ICF's , but as all things there are problems to be resolved. I appreciate you belief that it's usefulness outweighs it's cost. My conjecture is you can't quantify the cost if you can't define
it's end game. In ideological terms- Making a mess you can't clean up is irresponsible.
Let me deal with the end game issue of ICF's
we have all heard long numbers before foam can dicompose and return to it's basic elements..
Is not that a good thing? Doesn't that offer the potential of longevity?
Longevity is a good thing isn't it?
Use whatever numbers you feel comfortable discussing duriblity and ICF's should remain viable longer than it's wood counterpart.
If your idea of a reasonable life span of material is the typical life of 50 years before most stick framed homes become obsolete then it's understandable why some object to ICF's.
If the full life time potential of ICF's of 1000+ years is used then we have a differant formula indeed..
Longevity is a good thing isn't it?
And we're using electricity that is produced by uranium fission reactions that produce waste which will remain highly toxic for tens of millions of years and we hope we can bury it safely somewhere....
So that must be a good thing.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
I think it was around 1890 when the electron was discovered. now we have whole systems based on use of the electron (like this computer and the web which provides information etc)...
It was only in the 1930's that we discovered a possible use for fission and by 1945 we had a war ending design which saved the lives of over a million people. We later went on and found a peaceful use of fission in powerplants.
To say the waste product of that use has to be buried because todays technology doesn't yet have a viable alternative is completely discounting mankinds creativeness.. Look at the waste product of many things and how we've found use for them.. then open your mind to the potential of mankinds creativeness say 100 years in the future..
Your vision is too short, too limited.
It was only in the 1930's that we discovered a possible use for fission and by 1945 we had a war ending design which saved the lives of over a million people. We later went on and found a peaceful use of fission in powerplants.
To say the waste product of that use has to be buried because todays technology doesn't yet have a viable alternative is completely discounting mankinds creativeness.. Look at the waste product of many things and how we've found use for them.. then open your mind to the potential of mankinds creativeness say 100 years in the future..
Your vision is too short, too limited.
And your vision, apparently, is so clouded by myth and prejudice that you can't see the forest for the trees in your backyard.
The bombing of civilian targets in Hiroshima and Nagasaki did nothing either to end the war (we knew the Japanese were desperately trying to surrender) nor to save any lives (that was the propaganda to justify war crimes to the American people - like WMDs has been more recently). What we DID do with that "creative" use of technology was incinerate hundreds of thousands of innocents, start a 50 year economically-devastating arms race which is now putting nuclear materials into terrorist hands, and then create the need for a "positive" use of the largest R&D expenditure in human history which led to 3 Mile Island and Chernobyl and millions of tons of permanently toxic wastes with no possibility for safe storage and depleted uranium weapons which have permanently poisoned Yugoslavia and Iraq and have killed tens of thousands of civilians and US troops (Gulf War Syndrome).
Our techological "creativeness" has always created more problems than solutions.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Please explain why a stick built becomes obsolete after 50 years? Isn't it because someone is tearing it down to put up a new house? If that same 50 year old small house was a timber frame, it would still be obsolete and be torn down.
Exactly.
That is why ideology is part of this question. If we don't
reanalyze our values and lifestyle "Green" is not a possibility.
Frenchy- The timeline perspective doesn't hold up precisely because the
vast majority of homes are so short lived. A two hundred year old home
is rare. There are some one thousand year old homes, but they are isolated examples at this point. So, you need to evaluate them on a more realistic timeline. By the by, those two hundred (and precious few, thousand) years old
homes were built entirely from natural resources.
It's hard to convince those who move an average of every 5 years the value of permanence. but I'll try.. There is a great deal of earth friendly appeal to homes which endure a long time because such homes can be sustainable.. In addition they help socially (I digress)
Moble homes can last for 50 years or more however the vast majority of them have a 20 year lifespan and some much less.. Stick framed is extremely weak way to build.. Structurally only a little stronger than moble homes. IN fact it could be claimed that moble homes subject to moving on a highway are actaully stronger than stick built homes..
Imagine if you built your homes in a building and delivered them on the freeway 100's of miles from the plant, do you think they would hold up?
As for natural products being what those 200 year homes are made of, frankly they didn't have foam or stainless steel 200 years ago to build with. So your point is lost..
"Moble homes can last for 50 years or more however the vast majority of them have a 20 year lifespan and some much less"Do you have any data to back that statement up? My neighborhood has about 50 houses, all but two were built about 40 years ago. That's anecdotal, I realize, but I just can't believe that some houses are only lasting 10-15 years.
Jon Blakemore RappahannockINC.com Fredericksburg, VA
Some can last 50 years or more I realize there are exceptions which is why I wrote some.. However tornado attractors (moble home parks in tornado alley <grin>) have a shorter life span and those which are frequently moved may have an even shorter life span.. Not to mention those along the coast line exposed to salt spray etc..
The numbers are at least a decade old but at one time I sold a moble home plant material handleing equipment and I read that in one of the trade magazines they had in their waiting room. Moble home plants are all about just in time building because they don't like to have surplus inventory sitting around so the numbers they use are probably pretty accurite..
I'm apologize, I misread your statement. I thought you were saying that stick built homes had a lifespan of 20 years or less.
Jon Blakemore RappahannockINC.com Fredericksburg, VA
Jon,
I believe it was Mother Earth News doing a report on housing sustainability said the average stick built house in America is 56 years old before it's torn down or so dramatically rebuilt it may as well have been.
No, that is the point. They didn't have these products, and yet their
products are treasured centuries later. If your home lasts that long, it won't be the foam that is admired.
Rather the care and skill you wove into it. Stick framing is and can be every much as valid as timber frame homes. I know your partial ( heck I prefer a nice frame myself) but stick framing is proven, and sustainable.
Timber frames in spite of certain opinions :) come and go with the forests they deplete.
History tells the story and proof is in the pudding. But all this is a digression. You can insulate any of these shells with any of the current products, So your point is lost. LOL!
Housing depletes forests not the style. I suspect wood content is as great in a stick framed house as a timberframed house.Will someone do the calculation for how many bd. ft. of wood are in a typical 2 story 2500 sq.ft. stick framed house? I'll do a similar calculation for how many bd.ft. are in a timberframe house. (ignore exterior siding, windows, doors, etc..) for the sake of simplisticy call all dimensions actaul.. another words a 2x4 is actaully 2"x4" etc. round up all fractions.. a 92 5/8ths stud becomes 93 inches long.. etc..
Well old style timberframes didn't have insulation.. they had mud and daub infill, later stuccoed on the exterior and plastered on the interior.. Normal seasonal shrinking and swelling of the timbers allowed gaps which caused the drafts typical of old timberframes..
Modern timberframes are built with SIP's which massively improve strength and insulation over any possible stick built option. Not to mention the difficulty of spraying celuliose on a winding day on the outside of a timberframe. Frankly I'd rather herd cats, and suspect that it would be impossible to do during the winter. (think about the details of construction of a stick built exterior panel). They could also be clad with ICF's which is the reason for my whole hearted admiration of them..
As for your statement that a stick frame is proven? Well yes! So was Henry Ford's model T but eventually improvements passed it by and as a result Ford lost market dominance and with it Market share.. Durable? Depends on your definition of durable.. by modern standards a Model T isn't very durable yet tens of thosuands of them still exist.
You seam to have entirely missed the point. The question is not Timber frame versus stick frame .
As both these forms can utilize any of the current insulation options
your not furthering the conversation. Yet, I'll digress with you. The history of timber frames dates back somewhere in the vicinity of
2000 years. Though out that time the availability of large timbers
has dictated the style of building.
Mid Evil Europe is often considered the high point in TimberFrame
artistry. And the level of skill displayed is a direct result of their
increasing scarcity of Timbers.
The next great age of Timber Framing came with the development of the new world, with it's seemingly endless virgin forests.
Again as the forests were depleted the building styles shifted.
A vague look at where we are now-http://www.eoearth.org/article/Beyond_Old_Growth:_Chapter_4Old growth forest North East- Less then 1%
South East- .5%
Great lakes- "No good inventories have been made"
Pacific North west - 6%
South West- "No generally accepted definition" Our timber resources were depleted well over a hundred years ago. The modern "Stick" building methods were in part developed based on
a more readily available wood lot. It's truly a fools errand for you to disprove the credibility of
modern stick framing techniques. Please let's not bother. As far as the Model T analogy-
Wouldn't it be more to the point to argue that they were replaced with more effective, efficient, affordable, dependable models?
At the same time often sacrificing intrinsic beauty, thus value. Sure sounds like the story of Timber Frames to me.Edited 1/4/2009 12:01 pm ET by Henley
Edited 1/4/2009 12:02 pm ET by Henley
Housing depletes forests not the style. I suspect wood content is as great in a stick framed house as a timberframed house.
A 2500 sf two storey 2x4 house (not including first floor deck, as that is not part of a timber frame) would require approximately 6,000 BF lumber in all its load-bearing frame (ext walls, center load-bearing partitions, 2nd floor deck, 2nd ceiling, roof). The same size timber frame house (according to http://timberframeconsultants.net/costs.htm) would require 10,814 board feet of lumber, and that does include any infill for the walls if they are not wrapped with SIPs.
Modern timberframes are built with SIP's which massively improve strength and insulation over any possible stick built option. Not to mention the difficulty of spraying celuliose (sic) on a winding day on the outside of a timberframe.
Timber frames insulated with SIPS are the most expensive building system and very few can afford them. They don't produce a "massively" stronger house than a modified Larsen Truss house or a house framed with TJIs - in each case the wall truss creates a structure every bit as strong or stronger than a SIPs panel.
And Larsen Trusses are a lower-cost and greener alternative for insulating a timber frame house. They don't require blowing cellulose from the outside, unless the trusses are also used over a cathedral ceiling, in which case a closed-ceiling blow is no more difficult from above as from below.
As for your statement that a stick frame is proven? Well yes! So was Henry Ford's model T but eventually improvements passed it by and as a result Ford lost market dominance and with it Market share.. Durable? Depends on your definition of durable.. by modern standards a Model T isn't very durable yet tens of thosuands of them still exist.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Housing depletes forests not the style.
Building with wood is either carbon neutral or carbon negative. Building with anything else contributes significantly to global warming (the greatest crisis ever to face humanity) as well as to general environmental degradation.
"LCA studies have consistently found substantial differences in the environmental impacts associated with constructing and operating a wide range of building types; in virtually every study in which wood has been compared to other construction materials, wood has emerged as the material with the lowest environmental impact."
- Consumption and Environmental Concerns, Jim Bowyer, Dovetail Partners, Inc. & University of Minnesota, 5/10/2007
Compared with a wood-framed house… <!----><!----><!---->
A steel-frame house 1 <!----><!---->
A concrete-frame house <!----><!---->
Energy required <!----><!---->
17% more <!----><!---->
16% more <!----><!---->
Carbon dioxide produced <!----><!---->
26% more <!----><!---->
31% more <!----><!---->
Air pollution <!----><!---->
14% more <!----><!---->
23% more <!----><!---->
Water emissions <!----><!---->
312% more <!----><!---->
Same <!----><!---->
Solid waste <!----><!---->
<1% less <!----><!---->
51% more <!----><!---->
1 In this case, a wood-frame, residential house was compared with a similar steel-frame structure in Minnesota . For the concrete-frame/wood-frame example, houses in Atlanta were compared. (from http://www.corrim.org/reports/)<!----><!---->
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
It's hard to convince those who move an average of every 5 years the value of permanence. but I'll try..
"Try" is the operative word. There is ZERO evidence that an ICF house has any more practical longevity than a wood-framed house, in spite of this constantly-repeated refrain from someone guilty of wishful thinking.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
There is no magic button which automatically self destructs a stick built house at 50 years. I picked an arbitrary number to point out the house made of sticks weakness. (think Three Little Pigs)
The discussion was about stick built verses stone's (concrete) durability.
However to answer your infered question, stick built housing is noteably weaker than Timberframed buildings, plus the size of those large timbers means that there is a greater likelyhood of recycled wood coming out of them..
You fail to show a weakness in stick built durability. What is this weakness you are going on about?
I think it was in Mother Earth News where they were discusing sustainable housing where I read that the average home in America is 56 years old before it is either torn down or so dramatically rebuilt that it may as well have been. (they had a source but I didn't note it)
They compared it to Timberframed buildings (barns ) with an average life span of 105 years.
Aside from that wood framed houses ignore paint which is required to protect them which uses a great deal of EE and requires frequent maintinence to prevent decay.
Timberframed homes would too if they weren't frequently clad with stone instead of wood.
Aside from that stick framed homes are structurally weaker than other methods of construction.. SIP's witch are foam surrounded by OSB is 200% stronger than the same stick built wall/roof will be. ICF's have a 200 MPH wind rating which no stick framed house will have and they have a 4 hour fire rating which no stick framed house could ever get.
Frenchy do you even read what you write?>>average home in America is 56 years old before it is either torn down or so dramatically rebuilt that it may as well have been<<Torn down or rebuilt, they are not falling down! Homes around here that are that old are all around 1000 sqft, which is why they are torn down. There is nothing wrong with them, they are too small and too costly to bring them up to modern housing standards! There is not a damn thing wrong with the structure though...Guess what if those same homes were 1000 sqft timber frames, and a few are, they still get torn down too. Your illusion of a timber frame outlasting stick built has no merit. Show us something that shows this but not some fact of older houses getting torn down!
You are looking locally and not nationally.
When built the lot of a 1000 sq.ft house was likely worth a $100 or so. Today that same lot is worth many, many times that number. Thus demanding a much more elaborate home to justify the price of land.. You are correct in that they cost too much to bring up to modern standards..
Small houses all tend to be built cheaply as possible which is why few 1000 sq.ft. timberframes are built..
But the matter is durability not dollars..
Stick framed homes even built to todays code are much weaker than SIP or ICF homes.
Modern Timberframes are merely trim work encased in SIP's. SIP's by themselves are 200% stronger than the equivant wall or roof stick built.. add the strength of the timbers and we have massive strength numbers.
ICF's are massively stronger than that. Both are many times more durable than stick framed homes..
Several here have listed a "weakness" of foam is it's failure to decompose.. some say that it lasts a 1000 years before decomposition while others claim 10,000 years.. Nobody will claim that a 2x4 or 2x6 tossed in a landfill will last one 100th of those numbers..
Wood will rot unless protected, wood burns, insects destroy wood. foam doesn't have those issues..
I have yet to see a house fall down and needing to be 200% stronger. If you are talking about hurricanes and tornadoes, then you are not looking nationally, furthermore a roof can blow off a icf home as easy as a stick built home. But with modern engineering and hold downs there should be none of that happening with either. You are just rambling on and have no facts, just a bunch of false fiction in your mind.So if the matter is durability show us some evidence. You keep going on about 50 years but don't back it up with nothing. The truth is that stick built last every bit as long. You see everything through "frenchy" colored glasses. Wood will rot, yes if exposed to the elements, but roofing and siding protect it. Wood burns, but light a fire in the living room couch of an icf home and find out what happens. A commercial buiding here had a fire that gutted the place and they still had to rebuild the whole building and it was icf. Insects are not an issue unless you prescribe to bad building practices.
Edited 1/3/2009 7:24 pm ET by Westcoast
"Insects are not an issue unless you prescribe to bad building practices."I live in the PNW rainforest and wage a constant war against carpenter ant invasions. The only damage I have had to my stick framed, fiberglass batt insulated house is the almost complete destruction of the band of styrofoam sm I used to insulate my second floor rim joists. I can only imagine what my house would be like if I had used ICF.
fingersand toes
Too bad you didn't build with SIP's or ICF's they are treated with borate which kills bugs..
most icf's are NOT built with borates..........and sips with borates are special orderMike Hussein Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
Come on, Mike. What's the point of accurate information?
hmmmm..... yur rite, of course...
what was i thinkingMike Hussein Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
Too bad you didn't build with SIP's or ICF's they are treated with borate which kills bugs..
They are treated with hexabromocyclododecane, which is so toxic to the environment that it is listed by the European Chemicals Agency as a "substance of very high concern" and a global ban is being considered under the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants.<!----><!----><!---->
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
I don't know where you get your data but my sheet clearly says borate..
frenchy,
Only one or two ICF products are treated to keep bugs out. I don't know which ones. Of the six or seven different ICF's I've used, I haven't yet come across a borate treated one.
Ron
My sheet on the forms say that they are treated with Borate and a fire retardant..
I accept that may not be the currant treatment but frankly what would foam have to do to protect concrete?
I mean last I knew termits carpenter ants etc.. weren't a big issue underneath roads etc..
I also read where it is rated as a Energy star partner. They also say they are recycleable and don't off gas, no fumes, odors, toxins or formedehyde or toxins
Polysteel uses PerformGuard.
http://www.polysteel.com/psform_performguard.htm
Jon Blakemore RappahannockINC.com Fredericksburg, VA
that's good news... i was wondering when they would catch on
<<<<
PolySteel Forms with Perform Guard¯ offerTermite & Carpenter Ant Protection
American PolySteel has licensed the patented termite-resistant technology, Perform Guard¯, from AFM Corporation, becoming the first insulating concrete form (ICF) manufacturer in the industry to incorporate this technology into its product.
Perform Guard is the only code-recognized method that allows foam plastic insulation to be installed below grade in the heavily infested termite areas of the country.
View ImageAs a result of complaints about termites infesting homes undetected by burrowing into and traveling under the foam used to insulate the foundation, the Southern Building Council voted in November of 1996 to ban the installation of foam plastic insulation below grade in the heavily infested termite areas of the U.S. This ban has had a devastating effect on the insulating concrete forms industry in these areas, and prevented homeowners from enjoying the significant benefits that an insulated foundation can provide.
A number of solutions have been proposed, explored and tested. However, AFM’s Perform Guard, which is a borate solution added to the foam during the polystyrene bead expansion process, is currently the only method recognized by the code as a proven termite and carpenter ant resistant solution.
PolySteel offers the only manufactured ICF form that Mike Hussein Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
Mike I owe you an apology.
I looked at the ingrediants of my AFM supplied SIP's and it clearly said something about borate. I also have the ICF literature they supplied at the same time..(which has the same sort of statement) However I wound up using Reward forms which talks about fire retardant etc.. and I foolishly assumed that it was the same thing as what AFM lists..
However careful reading showed me that it doesn't say the same thing.. thus you most likely are correct and I was wrong about borate as the ingrediant..
The only damage I have had to my stick framed, fiberglass batt insulated house is the almost complete destruction of the band of styrofoam sm I used to insulate my second floor rim joists. I can only imagine what my house would be like if I had used ICF.
Yes, this is yet another piece of propaganda from the ICF and foam industry: that their materials have "no food value for insects". But they fail to mention that they make ideal hidden entry points for insects to find the food in the house structure.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
West coast.. Hmm then I take it you haven't looked at a newspaper lately? Seems like every serious earth quake I see stick framed houses crumbled. I have the advantage of watching the progression of building code out in California and note the requirement for ever stronger construction techniques to prevent collapses in earth quakes..
When I visited new construction homes back in the 1950's I marveled at how flimsy they were compared to midwest construction. Sometime in the 1980's they caught up with midwest strength and now they are massively stronger than typical stick building here.. a lot more wood is used in addition to Simpson ties etc..
We have tornados but you have earth quakes..
The southern and eastern coast has hurricanes while the west coast simply endures storms..
Travel trailers meet code and may actually be stronger than a typical stick built home.. (try building your way and delivering the home at freeway speeds hundreds of miles)
You never cease to amaze me....I guess you are right, no one has ever seen concrete destroyed by an earthquake and no on has ever seen a roof blown off a concrete block building with a hurricane.
Edited 1/4/2009 1:04 pm ET by Westcoast
ICF's have a 4 hour fire rating which no stick framed house could ever get.
And this is a very misleading piece of industry propaganda.
While the tested ability of ICF walls to resist burn-though was 2-4 hours, compared to about 1 hour for a stick-frame wall, that vaunted ability to "contain" a fire will raise interior temperatures and incinerate every other piece of wood (roof?) in the building and put firefighters at far greater risk (such as what happened in the fatal 1999 Worcester MA warehouse fire in which six firefighters were lost.
The first thing firefighters do at a residential fire is to ventilate the building (cut holes) to release the intense heat. A building with any non-flammable envelope section (e.g. slate roof) will contain the heat and increase the destructiveness of the fire.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
"A building with any non-flammable envelope section (e.g. slate roof) will contain the heat and increase the destructiveness of the fire." Clarification: In Calif. in fire zones, we had to build with Class A assemblies from the ground thru the roof. Are you saying that this is counterproductive if there is a fire?Wouldn't you just break the windows in an ICF house?
John
Edited 1/4/2009 2:11 pm ET by JohnCujie
Clarification: In Calif. in fire zones, we had to build with Class A assemblies from the ground thru the roof. Are you saying that this is counterproductive if there is a fire?
Wouldn't you just break the windows in an ICF house?
Fire resistive building in CA, as I understand it, is for resisting external fires - forest fires.
We always attempt to ventilate the roof for exhaust and sometimes break windows, depending on location.
But breaking a window can accelerate a smoldering fire by introducing oxygen and cause flashover - the sudden explosive expansion of a "cold" fire.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Tragic fire. I understand the concept that you are trying to convey. Not uncommon for the old saw mills here to use aluminum roofing for the exact reason it melted and buckled and vented the roof as a far lower temperature than steel roofing, thereby allowing the fire to safely burn up with out tremendous heat buildup. But to be compare 18" of brick wall, no windows, walls reaching 80 ft. into the air, a building filled with asphalt impregnated cork insulation , with a fire inside that had visible smoke coming from the roof before the first fire fighters arrived on the scene and an ICF constructed dwelling isn't anywhere near a fair comparision.
They can't get your Goat if you don't tell them where it is hidden.
The same is true for an energetics balance like EE accounting- all the costs have to be in there, and assigning some of these becomes an ideological or values problem.
A values problem for sure, but don't obfuscate that by calling it ideology. It's a scientific judgement of what is "good" for the environment and what is "bad". The "goods" get put on the asset side of the balance sheet and the "bads" (which are often called economic "goods") go on the liability side.
If some costs, like the cost resulting from dumping CO2 into the atmosphere, are not included in the calc, the calc gets seriously distorted.
That depends entirely on what you're trying to quantify. If it's EE, then only the fossil fuel energy inputs need to be considered. If it's environmental life-cycle costs, then global warming contribution, solid waste generation, air and water pollution, toxic substance creation, resource depletion and wildlife impacts (among others) need to be included. But that wasn't the subject being debated here.
you get people trying to argue that a Hummer is more environmentally friendly than a Prius
Well, if keeping tires properly inflated makes a car "greener" then Hummers have automatically-inflating tires. Proof!
If your ideology tells you that anything that is not grown is mined, then yes by all means you must build out of what you can grow, and that only. And you'd better like Riversong pay close attention to how things have been grown
Absolutely. Eithe responsibly wild-crafted (best) or organically and sustainably grown and harvested. That's a no-brainer.
But putting ideology aside, in the real world, selecting materials and methods is a matter of real, quantifiable choices. You COULD build with wood pegs as our ancestors did...
In the "real world" most choices are made for pre-rational qualitative reasons. From a resource-efficiency perspective, timber frames don't make much sense (unless perhaps they are infilled with straw bales instead of a redundant frame wall or plastic), but precisely because they are built with pegs they are sought after for their qualitative appeal.
If you're still going to MINE your heatsource, the relative magnitudes of the mining MATTER. Mining a little to make insulation to save a LOT of mining to provide heat source is sensible. Mining NONE is better, but that too is an impossible idealization. What is optimum depends on lots of things.
Well, we can agree that NONE is best, but we disagree completely on what is possible.
And the notion of cost-benefit - mining a little to save a lot - is analagous to killing a few million Iraqis to save the bulk of them from tyranny and lead them toward democracy (excuse me, capitalism).
The Tairona or Kogi people of the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta highlands of Colombia, the only surviving pre-Columbian culture, who call themselves the Elder Brothers because they are so much more ancient than us (the younger brothers) have responsibility for maintaining the balance of the world - the Mother. They came out of seclusion in 1988 and allowed a BBC videographer to visit them to bring their message back to the younger brothers.
The message was that we must stop mining the heart of the Mother, for we are killing her, which they can see from their high perch at the top of the world. The Kogi are a community of high priests, or Mamas, who go through one of the most rigorous initiations in all of human history - living in the darkness of a cave for the first nine years of their lives while undergoing training from the elders. These Mamas understand Gaia in a way that we can never comprehend. They know of what they speak, and our survival as a species is dependent upon listening to and heeding their warning.
But, I suppose an engineer might not appreciate that.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
And the notion of cost-benefit - mining a little to save a lot - is analagous to killing a few million Iraqis to save the bulk of them from tyranny and lead them toward democracy (excuse me, capitalism).
Again with the reductio ad absurdum! And you were doing so well in your post until this point!
No, unless your clients are heating their homes with renewable resources, they are mining the earth for the VERY SAME resources that are used to make the ICFs. And you can indeed quantify just how much. It is similarly possible to calculate just how much, or how little, the EE component MATTERS when compared to the overall consumption of that home over its lifetime.
You too are mining a little to save a lot. You use nails so you can use sticks rather than timber-framing with pegs- because technology and fossil fuels afford you that option. You use MORE materials such as lumber and insulation and glass to provide a wall and ceiling system with better thermal performance. You use sawn timber which is neither sawn by hand nor by a water-driven sawmill- because you can. That you choose to do so means that you accept some mining as a necessary expedience toward constructing a home which your clients can afford to buy from you. All human activity, including the economic activity to pay you your fee, comes at some cost to the planet.
You are minimizing how much you mine the earth in what you do, which again is absolutely laudable. But while you can correctly say that your approach is "greener" than a higher EE approach IF your approach produces a home of EQUAL heating load, you can no longer make that claim if your product home is even modestly higher in heating load. That is, you cannot make such a claim unless you define "green" in a way other than simply how much mining is done on a lifecycle basis.
Again with the reductio ad absurdum!
A sound analogy is not a reduction to the absurd, however much you may not like the comparison.
No, unless your clients are heating their homes with renewable resources, they are mining the earth for the VERY SAME resources that are used to make the ICFs.
Some of them heat only with sun and wood.
All human activity, including the economic activity to pay you your fee, comes at some cost to the planet.
I've never denied that. Which is why I don't consider how I build - even as cutting edge as it is - is sustainable. I consider it "transitional" housing, to help move us toward a sustainable ecology.
But while you can correctly say that your approach is "greener" than a higher EE approach IF your approach produces a home of EQUAL heating load, you can no longer make that claim if your product home is even modestly higher in heating load.
Since the rather conservative HERS energy use predictions for my last house was 56% less than an IRC Energy Code house (and could have been even lower use if I had included an HRV or super windows), my houses have been consistently among the most efficient (except for the new trend toward high-cost and high-tech zero energy homes and Pasive Houses).
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Sorry, but your argument practically DEFINES reductio ad absurdum. You take the QUANTIFIED argument of life-cycle energy accounting on a (very low) heat load of your choosing, which clearly counters your obsessive concern with EE, and you argue with it by reducing my argument to the absurdity of saying that "any amount of EE is justified as long as the home wastes enough energy".
A truly passive home will blow yours out of the water on a energy lifecycle basis, regardless how much foam and concrete it uses in its construction- because aside from the passive approach, homes tend to use VASTLY more energy to HEAT than they do to BUILD. We agree that passive homes are an idealization not accessible to everyone- just like the homes you sell.
Good on your clients who use sun and wood to heat. For their homes ONLY, your low EE approach is defensibly ratiional on a lifecycle basis, provided they don't sell to new owners who don't like to haul wood. The rest are still getting great homes, no doubt.
Sorry, but your argument practically DEFINES reductio ad absurdum... reducing my argument to the absurdity of saying that "any amount of EE is justified as long as the home wastes enough energy".
That's not what I said. What I DID say was that "mining a little to save a lot" is not a constructive approach if mining any of said material is not only in itself damaging to the environment but supporting a paradigm which does inestimable damage to the environment to the point we are at today of a near-total collapse of the ecosphere (loss of 1A forest per second, species extinction at 1000x the background rate, 90% of ocean predators gone, 46,000 pieces of floating plastic per square mile of ocean, irreversible climate change).
A truly passive home will blow yours out of the water on a energy lifecycle basis, regardless how much foam and concrete it uses in its construction
Not on a full ecological life-cycle basis, which includes ALL the environmental and social impacts of our homes. And, if my clients could afford the extra cost, my homes can easily meet PassivHaus standards with super windows and an HRV.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
<<A truly passive home will blow yours out of the water on a energy lifecycle basis, regardless how much foam and concrete it uses in its construction- because aside from the passive approach, homes tend to use VASTLY more energy to HEAT than they do to BUILD. We agree that passive homes are an idealization not accessible to everyone- just like the homes you sell.>>I've been reading through your posts, and it seems to me you have a pretty good handle on all of these ideas, both in terms of wider context and in the technical details.My foremost concerns as a builder are quality and responsibility (both meant in the widest sense of the term), and I am always willing to entertain new ideas and re-examine old ones toward that end. All this talk about embodied energy has got me thinking about it, at least.For sure, it is just one small piece of a big puzzle. And the dangers of anyone claiming to be "scientific" are many. How numbers are analyzed, what data is regarded as relevant, how we constrain an argument with (necessary) assumptions, and so on.So anyway, I'm wondering if you'll help me look at this again, one small step at a time. I am not a scientist, I am a fairly simple-minded redneck who is sometimes builder and sometimes just dig stuff up with a track hoe and drag it around on a semi. But I am trying to understand the argument here. So far common sense tells me that some assumptions have not been made explicit.I looked at a whole bunch of websites just now. It looks like concrete has about 1,700,000 btu per cy. With 20 percent fly ash I can get that down to about 1,400,000 btu per cy. I know I can build a decent sized home with 36 cy in the walls.That's 50,400,000 btu in the concrete in the walls.Earlier in the discussion we saw that a home might reasonably use 300 therms a year. I see that a therm is 100,000 btu. So that's 30,000,000 btu per year, right?So if we're just looking at the concrete right now, and the home needs no heating system whatsoever, we get those btus back in one year and eight months, right?Am I missing something?
Catskinner: don't be so down on yourself! It looks like you've done the calc correctly. And you've got my point: the earth doesn't care whether you use the energy to make building materials or to supply heat for the home to lose. A BTU of EE is no different than a BTU of fossil fuel used to heat the home when considering the life-cycle impact of the home.
If you're using ICF, you also need to include the EE of the foam and of the rebar etc. in your calc. I still don't have a number for you for the EE of the foam from people who actually make the foam, but do hope to get that for you. I think you can take the EE number for the foam that Riversong used in one of his early posts as an upper limit- ie. there's little chance that the EE of the foam is higher than that number.
Thanks!<<If you're using ICF, you also need to include the EE of the foam and of the rebar etc. in your calc. >>I found a number for steel somewhere, I'll have to look for it. Rebar is not very impressive as steel goes, I suspect most of it is recycled junk anyway. I'll get a very close guess for the amount of steel that's used and post it here.<<I still don't have a number for you for the EE of the foam from people who actually make the foam, but do hope to get that for you.>>I'll look forward to that.Given this perspective, I'm having a bit of a challenge figuring out what the argument is about. We have to build homes out of something, and given the return on the investment, now I really don't see the problem.There is SO much to green building, and so many places we can apply ourselves to achieve worthwhile results. Seems to me that if ICF works for one's purpose, then there is nothing wrong with it, and if there is a better choice in other circumstances, that's great, too.
We have to build homes out of something, and given the return on the investment, now I really don't see the problem.
No problem, as long as the calculus is economic or a non-discriminating quantitative measure of environmental impact (i.e. 1 BTU of this is no different than 1 BTU of that).
Seems to me that if ICF works for one's purpose, then there is nothing wrong with it
That's the classic "ends justifies the means" argument.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
<<<<We have to build homes out of something, and given the return on the investment, now I really don't see the problem.>>>><<No problem, as long as the calculus is economic or a non-discriminating quantitative measure of environmental impact (i.e. 1 BTU of this is no different than 1 BTU of that).>>I was thinking that over quite a bit yesterday evening. We could go off on quite a tangent following your observation, and if enough folks see the value in that, perhaps it's worth starting another thread. This discussion is so worthwhile at so many different levels.Specifically, one of the things I see implicit in your comment (above) is that as we engage the idea of GB we run into some philosophical problems that are probably not regularly found in the province of ordinary residential construction.Quoting Huston Smith, "Science can deal with descriptive values (what people do like), but not normative ones (what they should like)." He also points out that "science cannot deal with . . . values, meanings, final causes, . . . "In any case, if I understand your point correctly, it is well taken.<<<<Seems to me that if ICF works for one's purpose, then there is nothing wrong with it>>>><<That's the classic "ends justifies the means" argument. >>That is a take on Kant I had not considered. Then again, I never paid a real lot of attention to him, anyway. <G> Of course you know I'm going to resist the notion that I'm even inadvertently attempting to construct a teleological argument, but I'm going to have to give a little thought as to exactly how I might accomplish that. Might take a while, like I said earlier, I am a slow thinker, even for a simple-minded redneck. <BG>For now I'll say that this is more a practical observation than anything else. The "greenest" thing we could probably do as a species right now is to make sure that a real lot of us do not reproduce, after all, population is what is driving this.But that ain't happening.Probably the second greenest thing we could do is shut off all of the lights (I mean in the whole city, everywhere)and go to bed when the sun goes down.For the most part, I think we can all agree that ain't happening, either.Then of course, we should probably all grow our own food.Right.And on, and on, and on.So, we all make our own peace on terms of engagement that seem practical to us. I'm quite certain that in the almost eleven years I've been hanging out here, I have never spoken so highly of anyone's work as I have of yours, and I am sincere in that praise. What you are doing, in the context that it happens in, is undoubtedly one of the gold standards of green building.You should be laughing at a good Categorical Imperative joke right about now. <VBG>
i wonder how much China's "1-child " policy has to do with their economic improvement ?Mike Hussein Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
I've wondered the same thing, and I don't think that there is an easy answer.Beyond a doubt, if we press this whole GB thang far enough, we're going to get to economics. When I'm introducing the idea of GB to an audience that is vaguely interested but generally uninformed, I will often use economics as a point of departure. It's something that everyone can relate to, and it is a convenient way to keep a foot on both sides of one of the more vexing chasms Western philosophy (the whole is/ought and fact/value sh*taree).The hook is to propose that we can understand an economy as the collective expression of individual preferences in the exchange of goods and services. In doing so we invite all of our modes of understanding to the table.So how this relates to China and the one-child policy?It has been said that if you want to understand modern China, you need to read Confucius and Marx, but if you can only read one, read Confucius. The deep foundation of that society does not have a social, psychological, or ethical precedent for a large majority of only children with disposable income.So what we see in the short run may not have much bearing on the long-run results.Man, this is what happens when you go through life at under 2 m.p.h. and then come home and turn on the computer. <G>
i wonder how much China's "1-child " policy has to do with their economic improvement ?
I understand it's also leading to widespread social breakdown. In traditional Chinese society, children take care of their elderly parents. Now there is, at best, one child to take care of two parents. And that one child probably lives in a dormitory in an urban area or a private apartment far away from their parents.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
I dislike casting one product as all good or all bad..
Look at a copper pit where whole mountains are swallowed up to produce copper.. Is copper a good product or a bad product?
Again doesn't it depend? We can replace it with aluminum flashing but it's life is massively shorter thus roofs will need faster replacement.. If you use a very durable product say clay tile or slate doesn't it make sense to use copper? What other choices do we have Plastic?, galvanized steel? We need something for roof flashing (or accept leaking roofs)
We've pretty much accepted that fiberglas is an extremely poor insulation material. that basically leaves us with old newspaper (celluliose) or foam..
I had celluliose and it wasn't good.. Do you blame me for perferring foam? The reason I like foam so much is the exact reason enviormentalists hate it. It's durable Wasn't it something like a thousand years or some such number for foam coffee cups to decompose in a land fill?
Do you suppose it would take that long for celluliose to decompose?
Inside walls and in the attic where it's far better protected than in a land fill wouldn't foam be the most durable material?
I also know that some hyper sensitive people cannot stand celluliose insulation. Yet have no problem with aged foam..
Then we have the strengths and weaknesses of each material.. Leaks happen.. very few older houses pulled apart don't find some decay where water got in where it shouldn't.
Water and celluliose are not a good match.. ignoring the potential of fireproofing leaching out, settling, or rotting.
wet celluliose has no r value. Wet foam has the same R value.. it wont settle and has no possiblity of leaching out.. plus we already estabished it's durability.
Here's one other feature of Foam.. it's ability to be structural!
Yeh you gain some real strength numbers with foam..
How much? well a SIP panel is 200% stronger than the same sized stick framed wall! (untill you work with them you will never understand how strong they are)..
Try to use celluliose in a structural manner! I think you'd have an easier time trying to get cats to march in formation.. (unless you greatly compress it which case it loses it's ability to insulate) Thus you need to use studs etc.. Which simply displace insulation thus reducing the total potential insulation value. In most cases the use of studs actually provide a thermal bridge so anyplace a stud is located the R value of insulation is eliminated and the stud conducts heat out and cold in.. locations where studs are doubled tripled or more there is effectively no insulation..
Finally we come to the matter of how thick does one insulation need to be to get a good R-value? Celluiose has an R- value of 3.2 to 3.7 per inch. Which is exactly were foam starts. Depending on which foam is used you go from that right up R 8 per inch for phenolic foam.. There is also something called cementitious foam which is making inroads in the south for ICF's It's R value is less, R 3.6 per inch but does not use any plastic in it's manufacture..
Any product that states out as trees is bleached and chemically modified to take ink and not bleed etc.. simply isn't that green. Mind you when plantation grown trees are grown and harvested for paper the equipment that does it is hardly green..
add to that the delivery to homes and etc.. uses a lot of EE then they are recollected (using more EE) and sent to be chemically treated again to prevent fire and decay (again more EE) packaged and shipped to the distribution center. (using more EE)
The celluliose is sprayed in and hopefully left to dry before it's sealed with a plastic vapor barrier and sheetrocked over..
I built my home to last langer than it will take to grow replacement trees. (hundreds of years) I know foam is easily capable of lasting that long without degradation in R value. I doubt celluliose is..
I had celluliose and it wasn't good.. Do you blame me for perferring foam?
Then you must have had a very poor installation. So, yes, I hold you accountable for making judgements on false premises.
The reason I like foam so much is the exact reason enviormentalists hate it. It's durable Wasn't it something like a thousand years or some such number for foam coffee cups to decompose in a land fill? Do you suppose it would take that long for celluliose to decompose?
Once again, you've got it backwards. You're confusing "durable" with non-degradable. Cellulose is biodegradable - plastic is not. That's one of plastic's environmental liabilities - not a strength.
I also know that some hyper sensitive people cannot stand celluliose insulation.
Years ago, when newspapers used petroleum-based inks, a small number of people reported allergic reactions to cellulose insulation. All newspapers now use soy-based inks and cellulose insulation is hypo-allergenic.
Water and celluliose are not a good match..
On the contrary, cellulose is one of the most water-tolerant materials we could use in a house.
a SIP panel is 200% stronger than the same sized stick framed wall!
Except in a fire, during which the plastic melts and loses 100% of its structural integrity.
Thus you need to use studs etc.. Which simply displace insulation thus reducing the total potential insulation value. In most cases the use of studs actually provide a thermal bridge
It's very easy to minimize thermal bridging in a wood frame wall. Cross-hatching, for instance, if you're not willing to use a double wall system.
Finally we come to the matter of how thick does one insulation need to be to get a good R-value? Celluiose has an R- value of 3.2 to 3.7 per inch. Which is exactly were foam starts. Depending on which foam is used you go from that right up R 8 per inch for phenolic foam..
Dense pack cellulose has R-3.8, which is the highest of any fibrous insulation and more than open-cell urethane foam. No foam offers more than R-6.8 in aged performance.
[re wood-based products] add to that the delivery to homes and etc.. uses a lot of EE then they are recollected (using more EE) and sent to be chemically treated again to prevent fire and decay (again more EE) packaged and shipped to the distribution center. (using more EE)
You continue to use a straw-man argument based on hot air. The actual EE of cellulose is documented as lower than any other insulation material except straw.
The celluliose is sprayed in and hopefully left to dry before it's sealed with a plastic vapor barrier and sheetrocked over..
Most cellulose is installed dry, damp-spray requires only 24 hours to dry, and no cellulose requires a vapor barrier.
Frenchy, you have a responsibility to stop spreading disinformation. You are not only demeaning yourself, but also FHB and even the ICF industry.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Edited 12/31/2008 2:33 pm ET by Riversong
Your patience appears to know no limit.
And they haven't even started discussing shellac yet
That is funny.Remodeling Contractor just on the other side of the Glass City
"cellulose insulation is hyperallergenic."
I hope you meant hypoallergenic!
John
I hope you meant hypoallergenic!
Thanks for catching the mistake. I've corrected the typo.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
How many things did you get wrong in that last diatribe?..
First if you get celluliose wet it loses R value.. Please don't try to deny that..
celluliose will absorb moisture from the air.. you've admitted such.. on a humid day when there is 100% moisture in the air if there is a way for air to access the celuliose there is a way for celluliose to absorb the mositure.
Ever look at soffit vents? There is your access point..
Foam is unaffected by moisture in the air!
Second if you believe you want to have something that can biodegrade in your walls is something you want then we have a whole new disagreement..
As you say Foam won't biodegrade which if you build a house to last for centuries foam is something you want..
Well I wasn't thinking of the ink sensitiveity, rather celluliose's ability to collect dust and not be cleaned.. SIPs can be kept dust free..
As for celluliose being water tolerable? Sure for a while untill it decomposes.
Fire and SIP's/ICF's, I bought AFM's SIP's (the factory is nearby so there was no shipping cost) one of the video's they have is where the build a room of SIP's according to code and lite a bonfire in it. They let it burn untill it burns itself out.. pretty well documented in that they have thermal couples stuck all around.. The temp on the wall got over 1350 degrees and yet the highest temp on the outside of the panel was only 50 degrees above ambiant..
No trick photography, no cutaways, you watch the fire start, burn, and burn itself out.. '
So tell me have you ever done the same to one of your rooms?
As for the suposed EE content in paper, maybe in hand made papeer made by crafts people.. but modern paper mills? Or do you choose to ignore paper's creation?
NO vapor barrier? Don't try to build around here!
frenchy..... esad.......
here's a test for you........ light a plumbing torch..... take a handful of cellulose.... put a penny in the middle and heat the penny until it glows cherry red
now take a handful of your foam, put a penny on top , and heat the penny
or....
you do the foam test....and i'll do the cellulose test
Happy New Year !.... hope things get better for you
only kidding about the esad partMike Hussein Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
Frenchy,
I've debunked every pseudo argument you've attempted to make. This debate, such as it is, is over.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
I dislike casting one product as all good or all bad.. I didn't do that. Don't forget, there is a topic of discussion going on-ICF versus Wood Frame Which is Greener. There are applications where insulating a section of
concrete can be achieved best with an ICF. That is different then building exclusively with them. Cellulose, has stood the test of time. Your personal opinion is just that.
We don't have to argue about it's merits, that has been done for us many times already. Foam performs exceedingly well and has it's place.
For me that place is reserved for when it is absolutely necessary. If there is an opportunity to use a natural, renewable,biodegradable
material in it's place- then I believe we should. As far as the copper thing; - Moderation in all things-
Edited 12/31/2008 3:30 pm ET by Henley
To a man with a hammer all things are nails.
You see I celebrate wood.. I want to display my best efforts not hide it behind sheetrock.
So if my approach differs from others who are vested in one approach That's a good healthy thing..
I use arguements not to convince those who don't want to use an open mind but instead to present differant thinking..WE are not concerned with only one answer.. in some cases foam is superior and in others celluliose might be the prefered insulation material..
I agree that foam is not great for the enviornment.. that's why I like it. Because it's not likely to be tossed in landfills if it's performing well for centuries.. ground up newspaper no matter how it's chemically treated is not likely to be as durable..
I bought a house once that had newspaper stapled up inside the walls.. Interesting reading because it was newspaper about the start of WW2. But it wasn't safe nor was it durable.. Add chemicals and grind things up and it improves but do we have we any proof that it will last?It doesn't have that long of a history and based on the celluliose That was used on this house it has clear flaws. Sure it's cheap, but the celluliose in the house I recently tore down to build this one used to absorb moisture from the air and wet celluliose is next to worthless as an insulation media. . America started using foam as an insulation material during WW2 and thus has a long history of successful use of it.. Many coolers and freezer's made with early versions of SIP's remain in use today over a half a century later.
The real issue is energy useage. miosture defeats the purpose of celluliose. even if it recovers after it dries out while it was wet there is effectively no R value to it.
Foam does not have that weakness..
so if for whatever reason celluliose gets wet and we lose R value we burn far more energy heating our homes than we save by using a recycled product..
The greatest weakness you have is that you are a professional. Naturally biased to selling what you do.. Good for you. People should believe in their work. However you use anecdotal agreements to support your conclusions.
Yes I am a professional - in the sense that I perform my work "professionally", with a high commitment to craft and to those I serve (the homeowner and the world). But I am not a business person or a salesman, and I do not market my services nor do I make a profit from what I do.
And all my conclusions are based on building science and the standards of authentic green (or sustainable) building. I don't have a clue what you mean by "anecdotal agreement".
You claim your system is more efficient than normal construction, OK I can accept that.
I don't make any claims. I state only what I can document. You have documented nothing, but make only claims.
So the vast majority of wood comes from 1000+ miles away or more. There goes your green issue!
You continue to ignore the date and make invalid conclusion based on your prejudices.
While air-dried softwood contains 0.5 Mj/kg EE, KD softwood contains 2.5 Mj/kg, or five times as much. But concrete and plastic foam contain almost three times as much on a volume basis. Those are the facts.
Cement does not have the EE you assume it does. At least not all of it.. Nor does wood lack the EE you claim it does..
Again, you choose to deny or ignore the facts in order to maintain your prejudices. I don't make "claims" but use documentable, accepted and valid scientific data and principles. You do nothing but make unfounded assertions.
There are many ways you could if interested confirm or repute my statements..
"Repute"? Perhaps you mean "refute", which is what I've done repeatedly with valid, data-based scientific arguments and objective studies.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
You claim that all cement has X amount of EE I showed you where you are wrong, you claim that all wood also has Y amount of EE and I repeated where you are wrong.
I'll tell you what. Go to any major big box store where building materials are sold.. look at the source of origin for the studs, posts, plywood, etc.. If you don't find some material that orginated 1000+ miles away I'll grant you your number..
If you find wood harvested with mules there I'll also grant you your number..
In the end you make claims to document this and that yet your statements carry no more validity than mine documentation..
You pick and choose what data you accept and refuse to accept that there are differances.. legitimate differances betwee the text book and reality..
There are other insulation on the horizon. New developments which are currently cost prohibitive, We never know when someone will find a use for whatever, say discarded biomass...
Perhaps here is the gist of this (endless) argument:
New developments are not "on the horizon" but have been available for more than 60 years in Europe and since the late 1980s here in the US.
FasWall fiber-cement ICFs are made with 85% waste wood (or other cellulosic material), mineralized to make it completely rot-resistant and alkaline so as not to support mold growth, and 15% cement and fly ash. Good old earthen clay is used in the processing of the cellulose, based on the ancient practice of earth/cellulose building.
They are manufactured with virtually no environmental impacts, have very low embodied energy, are recyclable, with mineral wool inserts they have R-24 insulation values, 55 STC (sound transmission coefficient), 4-hour fire rating with 0 flame spread and 0 smoke development, are termite-proof, freeze-thaw resistant, code-approved for all seismic zones, meets or exceeds building codes in all US states, requires less bracing than foam ICFs and only half the concrete, will cut with any saw and will accept screws so they require no strapping, are an excellent substrate for plaster and stucco, and are breatheable and hygroscopic so they will buffer indoor relative humidity. They are also cost-competitive with plastic ICFs, are just as easy to use, perform better in almost every way and are a true green alternative. They also keep the thermal mass in contact with the conditioned space, and so offer the thermal mass advantage that foam ICFs cannot.
They're manufactured in South Carolina and Oregon and are available for palletized shipment anywhere in the US.
http://www.faswall.com/product.html
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Thank you for acknowledging at least one potential solution..
there are others but none affordable locally.
I knew about those but the delievered price was massively cost prohibative. Plus there was nobody to guide me in the proper use or check my work prior to the pour..
That hopefully will be over come in the future..
Like many good ideas they must be widely available before they are widely used..
>> They are manufactured with virtually no environmental impacts, have very low embodied energy, are recyclable, with mineral wool inserts they have R-24 insulation values ...They sound great. Why are they not more widely used?
I have gotten pricing on the Faswall blocks and they are about twice the cost of normal (foam) ICF blocks, not including shipping. I think that may be a big factor in why they haven't caught on.
Jon Blakemore RappahannockINC.com Fredericksburg, VA
But surely you are familar with results oriented medicene.. if it sounds like the common cold and coughs like the common cold (and temp etc. like the common cold) we don't need lab tests to treat for the common cold now do we?
Apparently we do, since there has been a crisis in over-prescription of antibiotics for upper respiratory symptoms analogous to the common cold, and it's contributed a growing number of deadly anti-biotic resistant pathogen strains.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Thank you for making my point (and also that of Kiddoc)
If you go to the doctor and are told you have a cold many feel cheated if they don't come home with a perscription.
All formulas have one fundamental flaw.. Garbage in = garbage out.
Actually, the greatist problem with formulas, such as in a building envelope energy analysis, is that they are not sufficiently comprehensive. If the formula is good, then it's a simple matter to enter the correct inputs, and the outputs are objective and comparative from one building to another.
One thing that isn't potentially flawed is results..
Exactly the opposite is the case. While building envelopes can be analyzed and compared to one another without bias, actual energy consumption depends as much on occupant behavior as on the building itself and hence is a completely unreliable datum for comparisons.
The thermostat setpoint, the occupancy load, the number of hours per day of occupancy, the number of times and duration of door and window openings, the amount of cooking, bathing, washing and laundry, the frequency and duration of bath and kitchen exhaust fan operation, the opening and closing of curtains, shades and shutters, the number of plants and pets........ all these will significantly skew the energy consumption and make comparing one house to another an exercise in futility.
By all calculations bumbee's can't fly. Yet they do. So who do we believe the theorticians or the bee itself as it flys by?
I already responded to Piffin on this nonsense a couple of days ago:
The "science has proved that bees can't fly" urban myth originated in a 1934 book by entomologist Antoine Magnan, who discussed a mathematical equation by Andre Sainte-Lague, an engineer. The equation proved that the maximum lift for an aircraft's wings could not be achieved at equivalent speeds of a bee. That is, an airplane the size of a bee, moving as slowly as a bee, could not fly. Although this did not mean a bee can't fly (which after all does not have stationary wings like the posited teency aircraft), nevertheless the idea that Magnan's book said bees oughtn't be able to fly began to spread. It spread at first as a joke in European universities, at Sainte-Lague's & Magnan's expense. But later it became a "fact" among the gullible or the uneducated not smart enough to get the joke.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
<<Actually, the greatist problem with formulas, such as in a building envelope energy analysis, is that they are not sufficiently comprehensive. If the formula is good, then it's a simple matter to enter the correct inputs, and the outputs are objective and comparative from one building to another.>>OK, you've got me thinking about this again.Assume a 2,000 sf home built to a reasonably good and modern standard of care, like maybe that NAHB LEEDS BS. <G>Assume a 6,001 degree-day climate.Assume some average fenestration scheme and some normal activity by the occupants.Within some reasonable low to high range, how many BTU a year is going to be used to heat and cool this home?
Within some reasonable low to high range, how many BTU a year is going to be used to heat and cool this home?
As with Multivac, "Insufficient data for a meaningful answer."
- The Last Question, Isaac Asimov
“
And AC said: "LET THERE BE LIGHT!" And there was light--
â€
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
There's got to be some range available. We're not talking about a tar paper shack, and we're not talking about your best effort. The homes you are describing as the ideal, well, I suspect I could heat them with my dog and cool them with my beer.Just help us out here, this is not a point of contention.You are a builder, you know what the average home I described might look like. You've got that computer program, how hard would it be to plug some values in for an average?Or maybe someone else here is willing to do that.What is jumping off the page for me through the course of this discussion is that we have never quantified the amount of energy under examination in real terms.If we even had a wide approximation as a point of departure we could make some substantive progress rather than argue abstractions.So you, anybody, take a guess, preferably an educated one. Plus/minus twenty percent, how many BTU does it take in one year to heat and cool the home I described?
Catskinner..
Bear in mind ..these are only cunductive and airchange factors.
114460.85
Thanks!I'll check it out right now.
If we even had a wide approximation as a point of departure we could make some substantive progress rather than argue abstractions.
So you, anybody, take a guess, preferably an educated one. Plus/minus twenty percent, how many BTU does it take in one year to heat and cool the home I described?
I can't help with cooling loads, as I've had no need to deal with that. And, in addition, to heating/cooling loads, domestic hot water and electrical consumption are all inter-related and need to be considered as a whole, much like Energy Star and HERS ratings do.
Apparently, the typical American house would have a HERS rating of 130 (or 130% of the total energy load of an new IRC Energy Code house). The energy code house is the HERS baseline of 100, and an Energy Star house must have a HERS rating of no more than 85 in climate zones 1-5 and no more than 80 in climate zones 6-8. My last house was rated 46 (total predicted consumption 46% of an energy code house), though they use rather conservative (or liberal in terms of consumption) numbers.
A code-minimum slab-on-grade house with a cold attic in a 6000 HDD climate (what's with the 6001?), with a design minimum temperature of 0° and an average heating season temperature of 35°, solar availability of 1000 btu/sf-day, with an indoor setpoint of 65°, four-person occupancy, and typical window placement (not solar oriented), might require 240 therms of heating energy per year.
But, as you can see, there's a number of assumptions (and I'm only guessing about winter design temperatures and solar availability for that climate).
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Thanks.
Edited 12/31/2008 1:28 am by Catskinner
I am currently building an ICF home for myself out of Faswall's product. (Similar but I think better than durisol). It is NOT foam. THe blocks are from recycled wood chips (pallets, mill ends, etc) coated in somce cement. THe insulation is on the outside of the cavity only, meaning that you are not insulated away from the potential benefit of the concrete mass. The stacking is different since these require no adhesive. THey weigh about 25 lbs each, so they stay put better than foam. And the material breathes -- absorbs moisture and re-releases it -- like more normal building materials.
Check it out. The objections to a concrete structure are real. But foam is not the only option . Some people like autoclaved concrete blocks too.
I've seen those forms and they look to be rather interesting option.. they weren't readily available when I selected my ICF forms and their weight precluded shipment efficently.
Please let me know how your project winds up and any experiances you have.
I have a blog of my project. Really intended for far flung family, but you're welcome to look. http://www.beatricedohrn.blogspot.com. I work alone with one helper and have not stopped for winter, so work is slow!
Beatrice,I enjoyed your blog and also the company of another female carp on the forum. Give some thought to a hoophouse (photo gallery) for your garden. <G>It looks like a fine build and i'm looking forward to the cabinet-making era.Colleen
beatrice
read your whole blog..... very interesting...
congratulations on the progress
what are you going to use for windows, siding & trim ?Mike Hussein Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
THanks for the nice feedback. Plan to Put stucco straight onto the forms for most of the lower sections of the house -- the forms love stucco becusae they are porous and it bonds terrifically well to it. Plus they have no flex, so notthe usual flaking off problems when you have it on lathe.But because the look would be too tedious, we will use nuwave corrugated siding on the top of the middle volume. it's 7/8 deep profile. Like it. WIndows: Kolbe and kolbe. Trim: minimal at the metal, perhaps a relief board (hardiplank?) around the openings that gets stucco'd over and them painted a different color than stucco walls. The windows are to be set 2" into the deep (1') openings, so its not the usual framed house detail.
sounds neat.... and a lot of work.....
can you nail sing and trim right to Faswall ?
what are you going to do for your roof ?
we ( meaning many of us ) plan to be in Washington State around Yelm for the weekend of August 9th
you should think about meeting up with a lot of the crod that hangs out here
Mike Hussein Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
Hello again. I just saw your post on the other line about Hardiplank -- at least I think it was your post with the picture of the shingled storefront. I will need gutters on my house, but otherwise the clean crisp finish of the metal roofo nthat photo is very much what I am looking for and I was wondering if you can share any more details of how it is achieved. Thanks in advance.
That was my project. The roofing is 26g factory-painted standing seam steel, which is very popular here in Vermont. It's a bit pricey, but it's a 100 year roof.
It's made from either precut "pans" with turned up interlocking edges or formed on site (as this one was, from colored roll stock that's "extruded" through a forming machine on a little trailer.
This site shows how it's done:
http://www.bobvila.com/HowTo_Library/Standing_Seam_Metal_Roof_Basics-Metal_Roofing-A1983.html
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
While this discussion has given me much to think about, I still stand by my original position, that is, in the proper context, ICF is a superb material for green building.
As I've said, GB is always contextual, and there are no one-size-fits-all solutions. I build in the desert Southwest, between 6,500' and 8,500' ASL. From a GB perspective, what would be a great idea in a forested area in a temperate climate with plenty of skilled carpenters would be a terrible idea here.
I referred earlier to some ICF homes that need no heating or cooling system. I'm going to pick one of them out as an example, and explain how and why I did it. This may generate some debate about whether or not this home is green, that's OK, I'm up for it.
The client already had a floor plan and elevations drawn and the property was already purchased. This was a 1,740 sf 2BR 2 BA home with a pitched roof, a porch that ran down the length of the north side, thoughtful fenestration (I really liked Riversong's phrase about connection to the outdoors)and pretty good siting to take advantage of views and solar gain.
This job would have a high degree of homeowner involvement. These folks had been thinking solar since the 1970s and this was their dream home.
They had their hearts set on double adobe, but it was unlikely that they could afford it and they were insistent about the construction schedule, which was off by about six months for adobe.
They were also insistent on having three Trombe walls on the south elevation, one in each bathroom and a big one in the living room. I was disconcerted by this to say the least, as every Trombe wall I had ever seen was worse than useless. Another one of those things that looks great on paper. Anyone not familiar with the problem with Trombe walls, just ask.
I told the clients they should really abandon the idea because Trombe walls don't work. Their reply was, "We are paying you to figure this out. Get going."
The schedule was imperative, so I figured I could make this up as I went along and we began excavation. The first day we found that the soil under the building footprint was going to be a problem. Over 80 percent of the soil would pass a #200 sieve, and the native moisture content was 4 percent. That is pretty much cake flour. This means that the site is seriously unstable. The geotechnical engineer called for pulling out all of the soil 2 feet outside the perimeter and 4 feet below the bottom of the footings and replacing it.
I told him "forget it, we aren't doing that." If we had, these folks would not have been able to afford to build. That's over 400 bcy of soil out and another 400 ccy back. Not cheap.
One of the many advantages of ICF is the strength of the walls. Sure, if you are building in someplace that the glaciers ran over and has been undisturbed ever since, you don't need that strength. But if you are in seismic zone 2B on really seriously bad soil, that strength might save you a small fortune in money and building materials.
Anyone familiar with beam theory pays a lot of attention to the "D" dimension in their design ruminations. ICF to the top plate gives you a lot of "D". In other words, if we are trying to keep deflection under foreseeable loads below 1/600th of the span, a reinforced concrete beam 12' tall is pretty reliable, even if it is only 6" thick. <G>
So I'm thinking these ICFs give a finished appearance a lot like single adobe, worst case scenario the thermal performance will be equal to a well-built frame house, and it solves the bearing problem with the soils.
So we just over-ex'd the existing, recompacted it in place, and off we went.
Meanwhile, I'm thinking about these d*mned Trombes.
It has always bothered me, same as everyone else, that the mass in ICFs is thermally shielded from the inside and the outside. Fortunately, I had taken a few classes from someone who I believe is one of the true giants of green building in America today. This guy is amazing. One of the things he hammered into my head is, "The problem IS the solution."
I bet a bunch of folks reading this have already figured out where I'm headed.
It dawned on me that if the Trombe wall was an integral part of the ICF wall, then all of the concrete inside the wall was available as insulated thermal storage. Of course this was an epiphany for me, Joel was right, the problem is the solution.
So I cast the Trombes continuous with the rest of the ICF pour. We already had our overhangs on the roof worked out for seasonal shading, so the Trombes worked when they were needed and did nothing at all when they weren't needed.
I'm going to try to attach a sectional sketch of how I built them. As you know, I'm a Luddite green builder, so this might work. <G>
Compared to what the house would have cost using conventional methods, we saved the homeowner a lot of money. A real lot. After eight years, I can safely say that the Trombes worked. I saw the homeowner recently, he was still thrilled with his house. He told me, "The longer we live here the more we love it." They are near the railroad tracks, and if the windows are closed they do not hear the train.
If the ambient temp goes below 15 degrees for more than a day they will light a fire in the woodstove. Other than that the house heats itself and needs no cooling.
Incidentally, up until the time the plasterers showed up, we generated no waste on this job. We took a contractor trash bag full of lunch trash and the occasional materials packaging off the site once a week. Everything that could be re-used or re-cycled was. We took full advantage of any available industrial design model/module to minimize waste, and it worked.
We did a lot of other green stuff, but that's beside the point of the discussion.
So for climates with enough solar gain to make this work, I'd have to say ICF is a perfect green building material.
[ok the attachment didn't work, I'll try again. Quit laughing at me Riversong, this isn't funny <LOL>]
Edited 1/1/2009 10:24 pm by Catskinner
OK, I'll try again with that sketch of the Trombe section.An elevation would show vented and screened flashing at the top and bottom, otherwise it is pretty self-explanatory.The steel square tube is bolted to the concrete, stands up well to the temperature. The Shur-Seal is easy to use, durable, reliable, serviceable and not real expensive.Just tried to attach this sketch three times, keep getting an error message or the connection is interrupted. Such is telephone service in the third world. Oh well. Anyone who wants to see it, I'll try sending it by e-mail.[edit for spelling]
Edited 1/1/2009 10:50 pm by Catskinner
I still stand by my original position, that is, in the proper context, ICF is a superb material for green building... As I've said, GB is always contextual, and there are no one-size-fits-all solutions.
I trust we all agree that there are no one-size-fits-all solutions to building or anything else. But, unless we're going to be guilty of "green-washing" or using "green" as a description of everything better than the norm, we really have to use more accurate language such as energy-efficient or resource-efficient or regionally-appropriate.
Green, if it's to mean anything, means bio-mimicry: using nature's materials in organically-appropriate and non-destructive ways such that all fabrications can eventually return to the earth as nutrients for the next cycle. This is actually the law in Lower Saxony, Germany, where all manufactured goods must be taken back by their producers after their useful life and either recycled into other products or composted back to the earth.
every Trombe wall I had ever seen was worse than useless.
Well, not quite "worse than useless", but not very efficient or effective.
SOLAR COLLECTOR EFFICIENCY<!----><!----><!---->
•double-glazed windows 50%<!----><!---->
•dgw with R-4 shade 60%<!----><!---->
•thermo-siphon air panel (TAP) 34%<!----><!---->
•TAP with fan 40%<!----><!---->
•greenhouse/sunspace 20%<!----><!---->
•sunspace with fan 35%<!----><!---->
•flat-plate collector with fan 40%<!----><!---->
A trombe wall is basically a TAP with thermal mass. Originally patented by Edward Morse in 1881, it was ignored until 1964 when it was popularized by the engineer Felix Trombe. Now they incorporating many "improvements" which also make them more of an active than passive system, including: vents top and bottom with one-way flap valves or thermostatically-controlled louvers, operable outside top vent for summer ventilation, thermostatically-controlled fans.
No passive solar collector, however, is as efficient as HSGC south-facing windows, using the mass of the house for storage.
It has always bothered me, same as everyone else, that the mass in ICFs is thermally shielded from the inside and the outside. It dawned on me that if the Trombe wall was an integral part of the ICF wall, then all of the concrete inside the wall was available as insulated thermal storage.
And that seems like a liability. Because concrete is so conductive and has a high heat capacity, much of the heat will move laterally and be dispersed behind the insulation lowering the temperature of the exposed mass, with less consequent heat transfer into the living space.
After eight years, I can safely say that the Trombes worked.
Speculation or fact?
If the ambient temp goes below 15 degrees for more than a day they will light a fire in the woodstove. Other than that the house heats itself and needs no cooling.
It sounds like the house works beautifully (what's the HDD?), but that's not evidence that the trombe walls are working.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
<<<<It has always bothered me, same as everyone else, that the mass in ICFs is thermally shielded from the inside and the outside. It dawned on me that if the Trombe wall was an integral part of the ICF wall, then all of the concrete inside the wall was available as insulated thermal storage.>>>><<And that seems like a liability. Because concrete is so conductive and has a high heat capacity, much of the heat will move laterally and be dispersed behind the insulation lowering the temperature of the exposed mass, with less consequent heat transfer into the living space.>>You're missing something here, and I'm not sure what.During the day, the extra heat absorbed by the Trombe goes into the concrete in the walls and is stored there. Remember, the concrete core is insulated very well on both sides, which up until now was the problem. Then it is radiated into the house from the interior side of the Trombe. If I could get this .jpeg to load I think this would be clear. (All I get is a message that says the connection has been interrupted.)To create the Trombe I simply sawed out the ICF foam where I wanted the Trombe to go and formed the interior face even (flush) with the interior face of the foam. I then blocked out the exterior face flush with the inside of the exterior foam.<<<<After eight years, I can safely say that the Trombes worked.>>>><<Speculation or fact?>>Man, I know your sense of humor is dry, but I could use some emoticons right about now. <<<<If the ambient temp goes below 15 degrees for more than a day they will light a fire in the woodstove. Other than that the house heats itself and needs no cooling.>>>><<It sounds like the house works beautifully (what's the HDD?), but that's not evidence that the trombe walls are working.>>It's about 6,000.As for evidence, you can stand in front of the Trombes late at night and feel the heat pouring into the house. It's hard to believe how well it works until you feel it.Sure, I would have loved to have placed data loggers all over the inside of the walls and the house and get a computer model. Maybe someday I will.But I don't need any of that to tell me it's working.
FYI: Keeping the concrete mass accessible to the interior is one of the assets of the Faswall (SImilar to Durisol) blocks I am using as well. The insulation is between the outside and the concrete, not on the inside.
You're missing something here, and I'm not sure what.
During the day, the extra heat absorbed by the Trombe goes into the concrete in the walls and is stored there. Remember, the concrete core is insulated very well on both sides, which up until now was the problem.
Then it is radiated into the house from the interior side of the Trombe.
Perhaps it's you who are missing something.
Heat transfer, whether by conduction or radiation, requires a delta-T. BTUs don't go anywhere without it, no matter what quantity of them are stored in the mass.
By spreading out the BTUs into a larger quantity of mass (that between the EPS as well as the exposed mass of the trombe), the temperature of the trombe section will be lower (by a lot), and will tranfer less heat into the interior.
I don't deny that the system is working, but it would have worked a lot better if you had isolated the trombe mass from the insulated mass.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Edited 1/2/2009 2:13 pm ET by Riversong
<<Heat transfer, whether by conduction or radiation, requires a delta-T. BTUs don't go anywhere without it, no matter what quantity of them are stored in the mass.>>Now you tell me. All this time I've been doing my calcs on Phlogiston. <G>Of course that's how it works. <<I don't deny that the system is working, but it would have worked a lot better if you had isolated the trombe mass from the insulated mass.>>There is no way a 3' wide 8' tall 6" thick piece of concrete holds as much heat as is coming back out of those Trombes. The classic problem with passive solar is modulating diurnal and seasonal temperature swings. This is exactly what the mass inside the insulated walls does.The face of the Trombe gets seriously hot. This isn't Vermont. There is more heat going into the Trombe from the outside (solar radiation) than can be put directly into the house by convection off the back of the Trombe.The heat goes into the walls by conduction, as you describe, and concrete conducts heat well. The temp of the concrete around the Trombe is well above room temperature.Then, given the D-t as you describe, the concrete, which is above room temp, dumps the heat into the room all evening.For as hard as you've come out against ICF I can see why you might want to resist this. But I doubt if I will put much effort into arguing with a contrarian. That's such an inexpensive rhetorical posture to adopt, I don't see any return on the investment.If you are going to try to convince me that even though this works in practice but it doesn't work in theory so I could not possibly have done it, then your credibility around here is going to slip a little bit.I might even conclude that Mike Smith was right. He usually is. <G>
If you are going to try to convince me that even though this works in practice but it doesn't work in theory so I could not possibly have done it, then your credibility around here is going to slip a little bit.
If I'm a contrarian, then what would you call one who distorts another's argument in order to (attempt to) refute it?
I did not in any manner suggest that the trombe wall didn't work - in fact I explicitly acknowledged that it did - but I argued (quite rationally) that it would work far better if it was isolated from the ICF mass.
...unless your goal was to sequester the excess solar heat that the house couldn't accomodate, but that was not your assertion.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Edited 1/2/2009 6:37 pm ET by Riversong
I might do a lot of ignorant stuff, but I guarantee you that under no circumstances, for any reason, would I ever attempt to distort another person's position. That's bad philosophy and against the spirit of what we are trying to do here.It may be nothing more than the limitations of the medium. Something about this e-mail tends to be a little compressive; where I might want to take 1,500 words to develop an idea thoroughly in print, it seems that we tend to write much shorter stories here.In any case, if I came across that way, you have my sincere apology. We're here to discuss an idea on its merits, not play AM radio talk show host. I will try to be more clear in the future.<<but I argued (quite rationally) that it would work far better if it was isolated from the ICF mass.>>Not too sure about your logic, then. The reason it works is BECAUSE it is not isolated from the rest of the house.<<...unless your goal was to sequester the excess solar heat that the house couldn't accomodate, but that was not your assertion.>>Man, I'm feeling like the old lookout guy in the movie Blazing Saddles trying to tell the town that the new sheriff was . . . coming to town. <G>Yes, of course that is what I was trying to do, and the reason why it works. It's less a matter of if the house can accommodate it, but when the house can accommodate it consistent with the comfort of the occupants.Remember, the point of the mass is storage and modulation. Which is why the ICF works so well. The Trombe functions partly as a collector and partly as a gate.
Dave - I've been trying to follow this discussion but frankly, most of it is over my head (and I know I miss a lot of the important points because I end up skimming through what looks like vitriol while trying to follow the points).
Anyways, I well remember all the buzz about Thrombe walls in the early 80s. Seems a simple concept - heat absorbed by Thrombe when temperature is lower than heat source, then released into surrounding air when air temperature drops below temp of Thrombe. Poorly stated, but do I have the principle right?
And the reason concrete (or other masonry) works so well is that it absorbs and releases that heat slowly, right?
Yes, that's it.And no moving parts. <G>
Yeah, I thought so.So when you talk about a Thrombe section in an ICF building, then use the term "gate" (or maybe it was "gateway") I envision a sort of "path of least resistance" flow of heat.Are you saying there is a section of an ICF structure that takes in heat because that section of the wall is exposed to a radiant heat source instead of encapsulated in ICF? Then that same heat is conducted to other parts of the ICF structure which ARE encapsulated and more or less stored until they are conducted back out through the same exposed section when the ambient temperature drops?Is that what you're saying?
yes...that's what he said... he stripped the foam off one side of the icf for the trombe' wall sections and reformed it with ( plywood )after it set , he took off the (plywood ) and he had a trombe wall with an exposed side and a foam sidewhat i don't know is wether the trombe walls
were in the path of direct insolation ( radiation ) or they were just in a super heated area to absorb heat by convectionMike Hussein Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
Mike,
This isn't especially relevant to the present subject, but there are ICF forms which are easily adapted to one-sided forming.
With Integra-Spec, which is a separable panel system, you can leave off one wall of foam and substitute ply ripped precisely to the dimension between the web ties. Afterwards, you break off the flanges on the ties and remove the ply. I don't know what you do with 7 3/4" strips of plywood then, but you can easily get one exposed wall of concrete without wasting foam. You waste plywood instead.
Ron
"You waste plywood instead."Or maybe use it to sheath your roof.
Jim,
I'd have to lose some weight before I tried walking a roof sheathed with narrow strips of 1/2" ply.
Ron
Couldn't you form with panels? Full sheets?I've never worked with ICFs though. I am only imagining these ICF modification methods. Probably missing something.
Jim,
I've spent a lot of time working with ICF and I'm also struggling a bit trying to see how to form this.
Forming a hole for a window or door is nearly as straightforward as doing the same thing in conventional forming. This is quite different in that letting the concrete flow to the surface on one side presents the risk of hydrostatic pressure lifting the forms. Big trouble. Mud everywhere. Time for high boots.
There will also be pressure at the sides of the cut, which is not normally the case. The effect of that would depend on how close you are to other openings.
Bracing might be a problem too when you introduce an off-centre load. And you have to be able to straighten a wall after it is full of concrete, so you have to be able to push it around a bit without opening any seams. It has to be able to stay in the same plane as the rest of the formwork. The wall has to be flat.
It's going to take a little thought to get the installation details figured out..
I struggled when I was designing my house to come up with a plan to collect more solar heat. Nothing worked with all the other elements. (Solar water heating is coming. The infrastructure has been designed in.) This kind of collector would have worked, though. It seems a lot like getting something for nearly nothing.
Ron
Well, I really liked the question you raised about adding suface area with varigated forms.
Before I dozed back off I was thinking about leaving the insulation on the interior right behind the collector panel but removing it from other spots on the wall, like say 4 feet each side of the collector, or maybe a narrow strip directly above the baseboard...or maybe you'd use a wider ICF block for the bottom course and remove the material from the interior all along there...or maybe the heat would simply conduct into the slab and radiate from there...
Fun stuff, huh?
You know, honestly, though, I have to believe the forming/pouring/bracing issues would be the easy part. Figuring out the effective heat storage/transfer issues would be the challenge for me.
And you know what else? Every time I see your name on my screen - I remember that story you wrote and sent me along with that handsaw tooth setter (about the old time hardware store with everything on the high shelves?). That was a great little story - really enriched my life. Don't know if I ever thanked you for that. Thanks.
jim.. arcflash wants to know about staining FC siding
http://forums.taunton.com/tp-breaktime/messages?msg=114648.55Mike Hussein Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
Jim
You took care of the social niceties at the time. You were very welcome then and you are very welcome now.
Ron
You know, honestly, though, I have to believe the forming/pouring/bracing issues would be the easy part. Figuring out the effective heat storage/transfer issues would be the challenge for me.
You're quite right. Most of the clever thermal mass storage systems of the 70s and 80s failed to work as envisioned. Either insufficient heat transfer or insufficient delta-T or too complicated an active convection system or too much humidity and mold...
Which is why south-facing, properly shaded, double-glazed lowE high SHGC windows with appropriate interior direct-gain mass are still the most efficient solar collectors.
And they offer daylighting, views and passive ventilation, which few other systems (such as trombe walls) can do.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Which is why south-facing, properly shaded, double-glazed lowE high SHGC windows with appropriate interior direct-gain mass are still the most efficient solar collectors.How do the lowE windows work for heat gain? And, what are you using for your direct-gain mass?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 do the lowE windows work for heat gain? And, what are you using for your direct-gain mass?
They let the sun in and keep the heat from escaping. In a northern clime, even a clear double-glazed south window will offer an annual net gain of 1.2 therms per sf glass.
A high SHGC lowE window will do much better, depending on local solar availability, site solar shading coefficients, and orientation factor.
For up to 7% of floor area in south glazing, no additional thermal mass is required. For every sf of south glazing beyond 7%:
–5.5 SF sunlit thermal mass floor
–8.3 SF thermal mass wall
–40 SF thermal mass floor not in sun
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
5.5 SF sunlit thermal mass floor
–8.3 SF thermal mass wall
–
40 SF thermal mass floor not in sun I believe I understand the numbers, but materials must have a bearing... what have you been using for those specific areas?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."
I believe I understand the numbers, but materials must have a bearing... what have you been using for those specific areas?
The ideal interior solar thermal mass is a concrete floor 4" thick. Because heat tends to move at about 1" per hour in dense cementitious material, there will be a lag time of about 8 hours, which puts the maximum return for noontime sun at about 8 pm.
Of course the color of the "collector" has to be sufficiently absorptive to capture the infra-red.
For wall mass, I'll often place the woodstove facing south next to the center bearing partition, with a tiled hearth and surround. This serves double duty as both solar mass and woodstove thermal mass.
Without a slab floor, earth-toned tiles or flagstones or slate are effective or even a stained and not-too-shiny hardwood floor. And if the mass is more concentrated on the walls, then a more reflective floor will move the solar energy to the walls.
The key is to have the correct ratio of solar glazing to solar thermal mass. Otherwise the house can overheat when the sun shines and overcool when it doesn't.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
You missed the thermal mass of various products commonly used in homes wood, gypsum, marble stone etc.. while they all have various numbers attached to them they do contribute to the heated mass capable of retaining heat and yielding it as the interior cools..
You missed the thermal mass of various products commonly used in homes
No I didn't. You obviously missed what I posted.
No additional solar thermal mass is required if south glazing is no more than 7% of floor area.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Edited 1/4/2009 4:08 pm ET by Riversong
The ideal interior solar thermal mass is a concrete floor 4" thick. Because heat tends to move at about 1" per hour in dense cementitious material, there will be a lag time of about 8 hours, which puts the maximum return for noontime sun at about 8 pm.Of course the color of the "collector" has to be sufficiently absorptive to capture the infra-red.For wall mass, I'll often place the woodstove facing south next to the center bearing partition, with a tiled hearth and surround. This serves double duty as both solar mass and woodstove thermal mass.Without a slab floor, earth-toned tiles or flagstones or slate are effective or even a stained and not-too-shiny hardwood floor. And if the mass is more concentrated on the walls, then a more reflective floor will move the solar energy to the walls.The key is to have the correct ratio of solar glazing to solar thermal mass. Otherwise the house can overheat when the sun shines and overcool when it doesn't.Most of my building is stick on a crawl or basement. In the 70-80's, we did a lot of brick floors on 2x10s 12"o.c.. They work ok, but folks seem to like things a bit cleaner now. I'm also getting a little tipsy with concrete being green in some spots and not in others.Spray foam, insulated crawls, lowE windows, and hot roofs do work passively on keeping heat in the house in the winter. Cellulose would be greener than icynene. Natural wood and poly floor work ok. Do you think adding the appropriate 4" of concrete floor mass would contribute significantly to the energy savings/ greeness? I once worked on a house with concrete solar plenum floor, developed by NC State. It was patterned after this:http://www.ncsc.ncsu.edu/solar_house/NCSU_solar_house_design.cfmFirst real solar house I worked on, and I was just the framer/carp... Trombe walls worked, nice trimming it in the winter.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."
Note: if you cut and paste the post you're responding to, do something (color, quotes or <carrots>) to differentiate it from your response).
I'm also getting a little tipsy with concrete being green in some spots and not in others... Do you think adding the appropriate 4" of concrete floor mass would contribute significantly to the energy savings/ greeness?
I wouldn't consider concrete a "green" material, but it will make the house more operating-energy-efficient only if it's designed properly to function as solar or radiant-floor thermal mass.
I once worked on a house with concrete solar plenum floor
The alternative is some sort of active thermal storage system like a high-mass floor plenum with distribution fans and thermostatic controls, which would likely become necessary if using more than 12% of floor area in south glazing.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
<<I once worked on a house with concrete solar plenum floor> <The alternative is some sort of active thermal storage system like a high-mass floor plenum with distribution fans and thermostatic controls, which would likely become necessary if using more than 12% of floor area in south glazing.>>Actually, I was referring to Trombe walls that did work and were tied into the floor plenums. The plenum system was the HOs idea, he worked on the State project, and it was an active system. Took some tweaking on his part to tune it. <I wouldn't consider concrete a "green" material, but it will make the house more operating-energy-efficient only if it's designed properly to function as solar or radiant-floor thermal mass.>What I was wondering is do you think the "greeness" of the energy efficiency of the concrete as storage mass outweighs the un"greeness" in making the portland? Just being curious, not contentious.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."
Noticed this a couple of days ago.http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/dec/31/cement-carbon-emissions
Everything's better when it's measured by the tonne!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."
What I was wondering is do you think the "greeness" of the energy efficiency of the concrete as storage mass outweighs the un"greeness" in making the portland?
That's a tough call - everything is a trade-off.
I reduce my use of concrete by not pouring a full foundation and that gives me more leeway to use some for thermal mass as a slab, which then replaces the wooden floor system.
But if the use of a concrete slab makes it possible to utilize the free solar energy that's streaming in without making the house unlivable with wild temperature swings that require windows to be opened in the dead of winter - then I would say the trade-off is worth it.
But I still wouldn't call it "green". Green is what grows in the garden (and on the bread when you leave it out too long).
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Almost.Before pouring the concrete, I removed the foam on both the exterior and interior sides of the wall (about 3-0 by 6-8). The exterior I blocked out to flush with the inside of the foam to form a recess for the glazing, the inside I formed flush with the interior face for aesthetics. That way the wall finish is continuous.The heat comes in through the glazing, is stored in the walls behind the foam, and goes into the house through the concrete. The concrete is tiled so it don't look fugly and it planes out with the plaster.
Catskinner,
Now that is a very nice idea!
To form an area the size of patio door glazing you must have had to tie the two sides together. What did you use? Snap ties?
Ron
Now that is a very nice idea!
Something tells me he has been waiting to reveal something... like the sheriff from Blazing Saddles.
Edited 1/3/2009 5:30 pm by homedesign
Glad someone got the joke. <G>
Yes, snap ties and 2x4 walers on plywood. Just like back when we were young pups.
Catskinner, Have you found a new way to skin the cat?
can you upload photos from your 386?
Nothing I'd like more right now than to be able to load thid photo onto the website. <G>I keep getting an error message saying the connection was interrupted. Might could be just because it's a big file, I'm on dial-up, and I am a Luddite. I don't know. <G>
cat....... first
your pics should be in .jpg
2d... they should be around 100K max ( say 60K to 150K )
notice the pic below is 59KB... it was resized to 640 x 480 ... a good compromise size which gives good viewing and small file size
View Image
you can download shareware called Irfanview... most people use the tucows site....
in Irfanview you can modify pics and resize them.... then do a " save as"
and rename them so you will know they are the resized ones
i normally put them in a special folder so they are easy to find
then use the attach files button
when the screen comes up .. hit browze... go to the folder and select the pic you saved from Irfanview
download
and hit post
Mike Hussein Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
Edited 1/3/2009 11:15 am ET by MikeSmith
Edited 1/3/2009 11:25 am ET by MikeSmith
Edited 1/3/2009 11:26 am ET by MikeSmith
OK, thanks. I'll mess around with that later.
I'm workin' on it. <G>
Wait. You're saying you expose an EXTERIOR section of an exterior wall to collect the heat, heat conducts into the surrounding walls (and slab if it's not thermally isolated), then at least some of that heat radiates into the INTERIOR of the house through path(s) of least resistance wherever interior insulating material is removed?I realize I have over simplified it, but is this what you described?
Jim,
It's exposed to the sun but protected from the weather by patio door glazing which is set flush or close to the outside surface.
Ron
Yes -- that's it. You've got it.Here's why it works; in some climates (and only some), there is enough energy in the form of solar radiation to meet all of the needs of heating a home. In such a climate, twice a day the conditions are pretty good, twice a year the conditions are perfect, the rest of the time it's always a little to hot or a little too cold.But the assumption is that generally, the world is a nice place if you could modulate those swings in temperature.Up until now, the challenge of solar construction is to inexpensively and reliably store this energy and then get at it when you need it.The problem is solved by this use of ICFs, and no moving parts.It is critically important to recognize that there are climates in the continental US where this will not work so well.
It is critically important to recognize that there are climates in the continental US where this will not work so well.
Agreed.... And you are not a climatist
Yes.So please continue that thought, as I'm not clear on where you're headed with that.
Catskinner,
It just occurred to me that the glazed opening ICF heat collector (you got to come up with a name for it) does not have to be continuous to the inside in order to work.
If the outside is built as in your drawing but the inside is left as an intact panel of foam, then the heat collected will be distributed into the concrete core, raising its temperature and reducing the delta T between the interior and the concrete core. Result: less heat loss from inside.
With low-e glazing, the nighttime heat loss will probably not be excessive. (Need for numbers)
Heat gain in summer is less of an issue then too in that you wouldn't have the warm panel radiating heat. Summer heat gain doesn't seem to be a big deal anyway and would be less important as you get further south from where I am in that the sun's altitude at noon is higher further south, so more radiation reflected off, less passed through. You might have to shield the thing from the low afternoon sun.
If you live somewhere where you want to dump heat, then you install one or more of these things on the north side of the house and use different glazing.
What do you think?
Ron
I think that is a great idea.Actually, I think that is such an improvement I can't wait to try it.I'm so glad you've stuck with this discussion, this is really rewarding.
If the outside is built as in your drawing but the inside is left as an intact panel of foam, then the heat collected will be distributed into the concrete core, raising its temperature and reducing the delta T between the interior and the concrete core. Result: less heat loss from inside.
Only if the number of hours and quantity of sunshine is greater than the number of hours of heat loss outward.
Remember that exerior mass walls with inside insulation are the least effective. The most effective mass walls are interior mass with exterior insulation.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Riversong,
Only if the number of hours and quantity of sunshine is greater than the number of hours of heat loss outward.
We know the constraints. Perhaps not quite as well as you do, but, nonetheless, we're OK.
Collecting heat in this manner probably changes the situation re interior insulation. I think the interior insulation turns into an advantage in that the collected heat will become useful at a lower temperature. You don't need for the wall core to get to a temp above indoor temp. If it raises the temp of the core at all then it is reducing heat loss from inside to out, so any temperature above the average between inside and outside will do.
Suddenly, you are no longer depending on illusory "mass wall effects". You are collecting heat from the environment and using the concrete core as an active heat storage unit - which is effective at a relatively low temperature.
Ron
One of the governing factors on this whole idea of solar gain is whether you get enough sun at the right time in your location.I'm going to take a look at this and see if it is useful;http://www.nrel.gov/buildings/sunrel/here is the glazing system;http://www.ussky.com
Cat
I've run our of time. I'm due in front of the stove. I'll have to look at those links later.
You still have to come up with a name.
Here. in Nova Scotia, there is an architect who specializes in passive solar houses. He has a lot of experience. He says that any window facing south or 45 degrees either side of south is a net heat gain for the house over the year, mostly when it is most welcome, in winter.
Ron
OK, I'll check in later.I'd be real interested to find out what your architect thinks.I'd also like to ask him about how all this actually works. Since he is already thinking about all this stuff, he likely knows how many BTU per square foot you are getting there from the sun during the heating season and how much of that concrete will hold and how fast the energy will move.Seems like it would be a simple matter for him to figure out if this would work or not.
Edited 1/4/2009 5:19 pm by Catskinner
Catskinner,
I have to figure this out on my own, but if a very experienced archy thinks that south facing windows gain more heat than they lose in this location, then this ICF collector will gain more heat than it loses.
The problem is using that heat and not losing it.
The limitation is whether the heat can be transferred into the concrete fast enough given that the air gap will be small - about an inch between the glazing and the concrete. I don't know the answer to that.
This might require an experiment.
Got a name for it yet?
Ron
mooney is takenso that narrows the fieldMike Hussein Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
No name yet, but I'll think it over. Any ideas?I do appreciate your interest in this, and very much appreciate you taking this to an architect for review. If this does work in areas with less insolation than the Southwest, it could benefit many people, which is what I'm after.
Catskinner,
I think you misunderstood me. I don't plan to give it to the archy for review. I barely know him. I just quoted his opinion that a south facing window gains more heat than it loses in our location.
To me, that indicates that the glazed hole in the wall has the potential to gain more than it loses. The problem is getting that heat into the concrete without losses that would make it worthless.
The advantage of this over a window, if it works, is that it can go anywhere you have no strong objection to a black hole in your building. Window locations are more limited. I see too much glass as a problem anyway. To much light in the day, too much blackness at night. Cold air washing down off the glass surface, too much variablity in the daily temperature, or heat demands.
Riversong,
There is no possibility that this thing can collect as much heat from the environment as a window in the same location. In the first place, the temperature inside the glazing will be higher with the hole in the wall, making radiation losss a much bigger factor. (On the other hand the concrete affected doesn't need to get to a very high temperature to be effective.) If it can be persuaded to collect and store nearly as much heat as a window can, that would be great, because it would do it while still retaining an R-value in that portion of wall of about R-13, compared to a window's R-3 or R-4. And, no air leaks.
Ron
There is no possibility that this thing can collect as much heat from the environment as a window in the same location. In the first place, the temperature inside the glazing will be higher with the hole in the wall, making radiation losss a much bigger factor.
Well, we agree on this.
(On the other hand the concrete affected doesn't need to get to a very high temperature to be effective.) If it can be persuaded to collect and store nearly as much heat as a window can, that would be great, because it would do it while still retaining an R-value in that portion of wall of about R-13, compared to a window's R-3 or R-4. And, no air leaks.
So, you're suggesting a radiant mass tightly-coupled to a window instead of a collecting the energy (through the window) in the interior mass, which can then radiate and convect its heat to all interior surfaces and regions.
So imagine a small radiant slab about the size of a window that's heated on one surface. Would you place it 1" from the window with the heated surface facing out or place it deep in the living space?
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Good question. If the wall is 1" from the glazing only the sq./ft. of that wall section is radiating energy out through the glazing. But if you have a wall inside the house that is say 20' long and 8' tall then any portion of that wall that is in "line of sight" of the glazing would be radiating energy out through the glazing wouldn't it?
They can't get your Goat if you don't tell them where it is hidden.
If the wall is 1" from the glazing only the sq./ft. of that wall section is radiating energy out through the glazing.
But if you have a wall inside the house that is say 20' long and 8' tall then any portion of that wall that is in "line of sight" of the glazing would be radiating energy out through the glazing wouldn't it?
If the mass is 1" from the glazing (and in the case of this psuedo-trombe wall, separated by a sealed air cavity), then its surface is going to have a very elevated temperature when the sun is shining and a high delta-T, which will accelerate the three modes of heat transfer (conduction, convection, radiation). Some of that heat will move very slowly through the the mass (and in the case in contention, also laterally into ICF mass), but will lose most of its solar heat to the glass and the cold outside environment.
On the other hand, if the radiant heat is dispersed into the conditioned space, and reflected onto a number of surfaces, it will transfer the same BTUs but raise the surface temperatures much less and cause much less radiant return, most of which will radiate to other room surfaces (and people) rather than out the window. And since the temperature next to the window will be only room temperature, the delta-T will be much, much lower with much, much less consequent heat loss out the window.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Can you put numbers to those losses? How much radiant heat loss, how much convective and how much radiant in each scenario?
They can't get your Goat if you don't tell them where it is hidden.
Can you put numbers to those losses?
That's too dynamic a situation for me to model, even ignoring lateral heat transfer from the exposed mass to the ICF mass.
But here is what it appears to me:
Assuming an indoor air temp of 68° and outdoor air temp of 32°, and a sunny southwestern climate with 5 kWh/m² of average daily insolation (averaged over 8 hours of sunshine), it appears that an 8" thick concrete mass would have to rise to to 194° to create an equilibrium between solar temperature gain and conductive transfer through the mass to the interior.
At that temperature, the heat loss outward back through the double lowE glazing would be nearly 3 times as much as it would be if that glazing were a window and it was in contact with inside air (33 BTU/sf-hr as opposed to 12 BTU/sf-hr).
So, though there would be some unknown amount of heat transfer to the interior through the mass (in addition to what was conducted laterally), and while the same number of BTUs per hour will come in through the glazing whether it's a trombe wall or a window, there will be nearly triple the heat loss out the glazing as trombe wall over glazing as window.
That's the best I can come up with for now, but it corroborates the data I've seen in solar design manuals that a true trombe wall (which this isn't) is not nearly as efficient a solar collector as a window. Isolated collectors, like an attached sunspace (this is a cross between a sunspace and a trombe wall) can have collector efficiencies as low as 20%, while a window can be 60%-70% efficient.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Edited 1/5/2009 8:33 pm ET by Riversong
Edited 1/5/2009 8:34 pm ET by Riversong
Thank You . I appreciate the information. I will need to think about this .
They can't get your Goat if you don't tell them where it is hidden.
Riversong,
Are we talking about the same thing?
I think you are discussing the original design described by Catskinner, the one Mike posted the sketch of. We know that one works in his location. He said he has one in a house that is somewhere aroudn 8 years old and he knows it works.
I've been talking about a modification of that which might have wider application. The modification is to leave the inner foam wall of the ICF form intact. The section would be: glazing, airspace, 6" (usually) concrete core, inner foam, drywall.
The objective is not to transfer heat from the collection surface to the building interior, but to supply free heat to the concrete core of the ICF which would reduce heat loss from inside over the area affected.
I've been thinking about that CMHC study which you are familiar with. You will recall that they measured the temperature of the concrete core in several locations at the inside and the outside interface with the foam and found that the concrete temperature was always virtually identical between inside and outside and also very stable, no matter what was happening outdoors. There were some serious temperature swings outdoors during that study, but it made very little difference to the temperature of the concrete core.
That the temperature across the concrete was always nearly the same leads me to think that heat can move through concrete faster than you might think. On the other hand, the stability of the core temperature is a consequence of concrete's huge capacity to absorb heat, which implies slow rate of conduction.
The rate of heat absorption by and transfer through the concrete are probably the factors that decide whether this idea makes any sense in any location. To put it in perspective, it's NBD either way. The amount of heat lost through the walls of any well built house will be a fraction of the losses through windows and doors anyway.
As for comparing this to a window, it really makes no difference. You couldn't substitute this sort of heat collector for a window. There are transparency issues. You might be able to substitute a window for one of these but a collector of this sort can be installed at floor level, for instance, and windows seldom are.
I haven't had a chance to come up with any numbers on this yet. I'm not even completely sure I can find the information I need. I probably won't have time to try before the weekend.
Ron
I like your idea and I think I might try it a few different ways.What is central to the elegance of your proposal is that it cannot have any negative effects. If you don't cut out the inner layer of foam, then you have an airtight wall system that mostly has 4.5 inches of foam, and a couple of little places (about 2 percent of the wall system if you install two of these trombes)that only have 2.25 inches of foam.Compared to a normal fenestration scheme, that is simply insignificant.Moreover, you have effectively eliminated that canard of an objection to ICF ("but the thermal mass is isolated").What has been sidestepped throughout this entire discussion is that the only wasted solar energy is that which you do not use.As I see it, the only thing left to calculate is if you can get more energy into the mass during the day at whatever your location is than you will have leak out through the glazing at night.I'm glad you posted this idea. I think you are on to something.
you have effectively eliminated that canard of an objection to ICF ("but the thermal mass is isolated").
Actually, this removal of outside insulation makes it worse not better.
Thermal mass is most effective if insulated on the outside and not isolated from the interior space which it is designed to buffer.
It is moderately effective with insulation in the middle and mass on both inside and out.
It is less effective with mass in the middle and insulation on both sides.
And it is least effective with insulation on the inside.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
The modification is to leave the inner foam wall of the ICF form intact. The section would be: glazing, airspace, 6" (usually) concrete core, inner foam, drywall.
The objective is not to transfer heat from the collection surface to the building interior, but to supply free heat to the concrete core of the ICF which would reduce heat loss from inside over the area affected.
That would work in the winter only if the daily insolation gains outweighed the nightime (and cloudy day) thermal losses to the air. And in the summer it would cause a temperature rise indoors unless it was shaded.
CMHC study... found that the concrete temperature was...very stable, no matter what was happening outdoors.
Which is what made the mass effective - by moderating the ambient temperature swings. This function would be undermined by allowing daily solar gains and conductive losses.
the stability of the core temperature is a consequence of concrete's huge capacity to absorb heat, which implies slow rate of conduction.
Those are the qualities of effective thermal mass: high heat capacity (specific heat times volume) and moderate conductivity (not too high like steel and not too low like insulation).
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Riversong,
I think you are still missing it, or else I am.
In the CMHC study, they showed clearly, and I believe you have stated this several times, that the concrete core had no effect on the heating of that building. The direction of heat flow never changed for the three month duration. The concrete contributed to airtightness, but not at all to insulation.
Which is what made the mass effective - by moderating the ambient temperature swings.
This is not true. This function is a myth and does not exist in a pure heating situation (that ORNL study shows that, I believe) or, if it exists, it is a minor part of the whole picture. The idea here is to raise the temp of the core and turn it into active heat storage, whereas now the core is purely structural.
Portions of a south wall can become an active part of the insulation envelope, in a sense, not thermal mass or a trombe wall as we usually think of one. I suppose what I am proposing is a Trombe wall, though it is one which would do its job at a temperature well below room temperature.
That is one of the advantages here in that, in winter, when there is little heat available to be collected, that heat is applied to a relatively low-temp element, the core.
That would work in the winter only if the daily insolation gains outweighed the nightime (and cloudy day) thermal losses to the air. And in the summer it would cause a temperature rise indoors unless it was shaded.
Really, that goes without saying, don't you think? And it's a fairly easy matter to determine. Speaking of which, is the NASA site the best source of insolation data?
Ron
Edited 1/7/2009 6:07 am by ronbudgell
Got a link for the NASA site?Thanks.
Catskinner,
My question about whether NASA was the best source was not necessary. There can't possibly be better data anywhere else as easy to get as this:
http://eosweb.larc.nasa.gov/sse/
You have to register, which takes seconds.
You asked about the amount of steel in ICF forms? Allow for one linear foot of 10M, which I think is 3/8", per square foot of form. That's 0.376 lb/ft
Got a name for it yet?
Ron
Allow for one linear foot of 10M, which I think is 3/8"
We Yanks use 1/2" (#4, grade 40), which weighs 0.668 lbs/ft.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Riversong
I didn't know that. I use all 3/8" steel, except where I might be required to upsize for lintels or because of backfill pressure. Then, it depends.
Ron
I have read through many, but not all of the posts on this thread and offer the following: I use ICF's with 4" cavities for above grade home construction. I only use steel rebar around door and window openings. I use concrete that contains a steel fiber blend that was manufactured just for use in poured walls. This, along with ICF experience, eliminates any void problems in such a small wall cavity. The ICF's I use are manufactured about 4 hours driving distance from where I use them. The concrete plant I purchase concrete from uses sand quarried about 30 minutes drive time from the concrete plant. Even closer is the aggregate used. Fly ash is used as the cementous material and it comes from a clean coal plant about 30 minutes drive time from the concrete plant. I don't know about all the math behind the embodied energy figures you quoted early in this thread. Unlike you, however, I have participated in the construction of a couple of hundred homes, about 25 of which had ICF's for their exterior walls. I can take issues on several "problems" you mentioned with ICF walls. 1.) They aren't very adaptable-I disagree-only the exterior walls are concrete. Roofs, interior walls, and floors are still wood-at least in the houses I'm doing. I haven't found it to be any more difficult or time consuming to cut a hole in a concrete wall and a steel lintel that it is to cut a hole in a wood framed wall and add a header. A high percentage of European homes are concrete and a large percentage of them are hundreds of years old. They seem to be able to adapt them, I'm sure Americans can too. 2.) ICF's are subject to bug infestations, fire, and foundation settling-I don't completely agree-bugs, including termites, can burrow through the polystyrene portion of an ICF. However, it is not a food source nor is it attractive to bugs or termites. Sadly, the same cannot be said of wood. The polystyrene can burn but even if it does, the structural integrity of the ICF wall won't be compromised which would allow a home built with them to be more quickly rebuilt and with far less materials. A wood frame home will burn entirely. As far as foundation settling, etc., any home is subject to that, no matter what it's made of. As far as not "being able to see" cracks in my walls...quite frankly I'm not really too concerned, THEY ARE MADE OF 4" OF STEEL REINFORCED CONRETE. I'll take a 4", steel reinforced, poorly poured, full of voids, full of cracks, concrete wall over any wood framed wall any day. 3.) Cellulose walls perform just as well as ICF's-I strongly disagree...at least in real world applications-The brand of ICF I use has 2 3/4" of polystyrene on both sides of the concrete cavity for a total of 5 1/2" of polystyrene. My ENTIRE wall, except for the low e windows I use, EXCEEDS the rated r-value of 25 that the manufacturer claims. ORNL mentions in their study, if memory serves me correctly, (I haven't read it in years) that ICF walls were the only wall systems tested that when used, actually exceeded their rated R-value. Even if their study doesn't support that claim, a person cannot get around the fact that studs and OSB sheathing, (the typical construction method in my area), even when built with 2x6's, can't insulate as well as the cellulose the stud cavities contain. Any knucklehead with thermal imaging capabilty can see this in traditionally framed walls. 4.) Embodied energy-I don't know this subject as well as you clearly do-I can only say that NONE of the framing lumber used in our area, except for the Advantech subflooring, comes from anywhere close to here, unlike the ICF's and concrete I use. Further, NONE of the lumber is recycled whereas my cementous material at least started life as a waste product.
Finally, while being enviromentally friendly is important to me, it is not the sole factor I use when I build. Safety is a big issue as well. I don't think people riding out a tornado in a wood frame home spend much time thinking about how much greener their house is than one built with ICF's. In fact, I bet those little piggys wished they chosen something a little safer than wood.
I have read through many, but not all of the posts on this thread and offer the following:
I use ICF's with 4" cavities for above grade home construction. I only use steel rebar around door and window openings. I use concrete that contains a steel fiber blend that was manufactured just for use in poured walls. This, along with ICF experience, eliminates any void problems in such a small wall cavity.
The ICF's I use are manufactured about 4 hours driving distance from where I use them. The concrete plant I purchase concrete from uses sand quarried about 30 minutes drive time from the concrete plant. Even closer is the aggregate used. Fly ash is used as the cementous material and it comes from a clean coal plant about 30 minutes drive time from the concrete plant. I don't know about all the math behind the embodied energy figures you quoted early in this thread.
Unlike you, however, I have participated in the construction of a couple of hundred homes, about 25 of which had ICF's for their exterior walls. I can take issues on several "problems" you mentioned with ICF walls. 1.) They aren't very adaptable-I disagree-only the exterior walls are concrete. Roofs, interior walls, and floors are still wood-at least in the houses I'm doing. I haven't found it to be any more difficult or time consuming to cut a hole in a concrete wall and a steel lintel that it is to cut a hole in a wood framed wall and add a header. A high percentage of European homes are concrete and a large percentage of them are hundreds of years old. They seem to be able to adapt them, I'm sure Americans can too.
2.) ICF's are subject to bug infestations, fire, and foundation settling-I don't completely agree-bugs, including termites, can burrow through the polystyrene portion of an ICF. However, it is not a food source nor is it attractive to bugs or termites. Sadly, the same cannot be said of wood. The polystyrene can burn but even if it does, the structural integrity of the ICF wall won't be compromised which would allow a home built with them to be more quickly rebuilt and with far less materials. A wood frame home will burn entirely. As far as foundation settling, etc., any home is subject to that, no matter what it's made of. As far as not "being able to see" cracks in my walls...quite frankly I'm not really too concerned, THEY ARE MADE OF 4" OF STEEL REINFORCED CONRETE. I'll take a 4", steel reinforced, poorly poured, full of voids, full of cracks, concrete wall over any wood framed wall any day. 3.) Cellulose walls perform just as well as ICF's-I strongly disagree...at least in real world applications-The brand of ICF I use has 2 3/4" of polystyrene on both sides of the concrete cavity for a total of 5 1/2" of polystyrene. My ENTIRE wall, except for the low e windows I use, EXCEEDS the rated r-value of 25 that the manufacturer claims. ORNL mentions in their study, if memory serves me correctly, (I haven't read it in years) that ICF walls were the only wall systems tested that when used, actually exceeded their rated R-value. Even if their study doesn't support that claim, a person cannot get around the fact that studs and OSB sheathing, (the typical construction method in my area), even when built with 2x6's, can't insulate as well as the cellulose the stud cavities contain. Any knucklehead with thermal imaging capabilty can see this in traditionally framed walls. 4.) Embodied energy-I don't know this subject as well as you clearly do-I can only say that NONE of the framing lumber used in our area, except for the Advantech subflooring, comes from anywhere close to here, unlike the ICF's and concrete I use. Further, NONE of the lumber is recycled whereas my cementous material at least started life as a waste product. Finally, while being enviromentally friendly is important to me, it is not the sole factor I use when I build. Safety is a big issue as well. I don't think people riding out a tornado in a wood frame home spend much time thinking about how much greener their house is than one built with ICF's. In fact, I bet those little piggys wished they chosen something a little safer than wood. If you break up your post- we will be able to read it more easily.
first.. thanks henley for reposting that.... i wanted to take a nap when i saw all that run-on print
steven.... you ain't from around heah , r u ?
lots of what you say is true... except for these 2 paragraphs
<<<<<<2.) ICF's are subject to bug infestations, fire, and foundation settling-I don't completely agree-bugs, including termites, can burrow through the polystyrene portion of an ICF. However, it is not a food source nor is it attractive to bugs or termites. Sadly, the same cannot be said of wood. The polystyrene can burn but even if it does, the structural integrity of the ICF wall won't be compromised which would allow a home built with them to be more quickly rebuilt and with far less materials. A wood frame home will burn entirely. As far as foundation settling, etc., any home is subject to that, no matter what it's made of. As far as not "being able to see" cracks in my walls...quite frankly I'm not really too concerned, THEY ARE MADE OF 4" OF STEEL REINFORCED CONRETE. I'll take a 4", steel reinforced, poorly poured, full of voids, full of cracks, concrete wall over any wood framed wall any day.
3.) Cellulose walls perform just as well as ICF's-I strongly disagree...at least in real world applications-The brand of ICF I use has 2 3/4" of polystyrene on both sides of the concrete cavity for a total of 5 1/2" of polystyrene. My ENTIRE wall, except for the low e windows I use, EXCEEDS the rated r-value of 25 that the manufacturer claims. ORNL mentions in their study, if memory serves me correctly, (I haven't read it in years) that ICF walls were the only wall systems tested that when used, actually exceeded their rated R-value. Even if their study doesn't support that claim, a person cannot get around the fact that studs and OSB sheathing, (the typical construction method in my area), even when built with 2x6's, can't insulate as well as the cellulose the stud cavities contain. Any knucklehead with thermal imaging capabilty can see this in traditionally framed walls. >>>>>
unless your icf's are treated with borate or some other method... they are loaded with bugs and they make perfect paths for them to get into your wooden systems
you said yourself that only the walls are concrete...everything else is wood
para 3..... all of the superinsulated structures we're talking about that are insulated with cellulose have framing that avoids the problem of thermal bridging... so it make no sense to be comparing icf's to conventional stud walls
Mike Hussein Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
Mike,
Relative to it's size any bug will have to cross a desert of plastic eating all the way.. then there is no promise of landing on a NICE JUICY PIECE OF WOOD.
Since that wood is encased in plastic it's unlikely to have the sort of dampness which attracts bugs in the first place..
All that is purely academic.. if there are that many aggressive bugs around they will quickly destroy an untreated wood house. At worst there might be some minor thermal loss if such bugs make a home in the foam of an ICF house.
"All that is purely academic.. if there are that many aggressive bugs around they will quickly destroy an untreated wood house. At worst there might be some minor thermal loss if such bugs make a home in the foam of an ICF house." If you read my post above you will see that this has not been by experience either in my own home or elsewhere. The resort cabins I referred to are "Panabodes" a square log style of construction entirely made of cedar. There is virtually no damage to the wood portion of the buildings whereas the rigid insulation has been severely compromised.
I'll assume that you haven't treated the wood or surrounding area for pests then.. I haven't looked at your location either so you may be like me in a place where termites don't exist and carpenter ants look for soft decaying wood rather than attack dry solid wood.
That's not the way things are in much of the country however..
I'm a belt and suspenders kind of person so I made sure that my foam had borate in it and then put up shields to protect against any possible infestaion..
It sounds like that was neglected in the instance you site.. Sort of like failing to properly flash a window doesn't make Andersen a bad window manufacturer.
That's a funny sort of argument to make after your complaint that blown in cellulose is susceptible to moisture and walls cavities will inevitably take on some water.
Carpenter ants set up satellite colonies by sending winged scouts that settle on walls and roofs. If you can build a house tight enough to keep out an infestation of flying ants you have done something no one I know has.
Sure this is a regional thing, and sure there are ways to mitigate it, but the most common response by foam advocates is to claim it isn't a problem because foam isn't a food source, which is poor comfort to me at this point.
Land is extremely cheap in remote areas.. no one wants to live there.. There are no jobs. (food or water) If things are a dire as you claim those termites are eating something. If not starvation would have driven them out long before this.
Shelter is only one part of the equation.. food and water are the other two.
Edited 1/8/2009 2:04 pm ET by frenchy
That's a funny sort of argument to make
fingers, that's the only kind of argument frenchy knows how to make ;-)
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
First, my apologies about the spacing of my previous post to all those who found it bothersome. Quite frankly, I don't know how to change it. When I click on the hyperlink to post a message, I get a pop up box to type in, with no choices to change font size, type of font, or much to the annoyance of a few people here, line spacing. At any rate I thought I'd post a link to the manufacturer of the fibers I use. http://fibermesh.com/application.aspx?ID=2429 I am proud to say I was one of, if not the first person to use a production run of the product. I can assure you it went through extensive testing in pre-production. I can also tell you that I have had no negative experiences with the product either. And no, I have never been paid (maybe I should check into that?) nor given a discount to endorse the product. Let me also be clear about the bug issue. I am in Middle TN, and even though I build houses with concrete exterior walls, I ALWAYS do termite pretreats and additionally I pour a so called "termite strip" into my walls slightly above grade. Let them have their EPS below grade...I really don't care. Finally, this thread has touched on the primary issue at the core of so called "green building". (For the record, I hate the phrase but unfortunately it gets the point across) Just what does green really mean? As this thread has very well demonstrated, it depends on a great many factors, most notably, it depends on who you ask. In my area, I'm light years ahead of everyone else. By California standards I'm certain I suck. I don't care about low VOC paint and none of my customers even have any idea what that means. We do get lots of deadly tornados here and my customers do know what that means. Because of this, I have chosen ICF's to give my customers the best combination of energy efficiency and safety that I can. I like building with ICF's because of their other benefits as well. Like ANY type of building materials I have every used they are not perfect in every situation. They are, however, a very good fit here. As was pointed out in one of the posts above, where do you stop? I for one, won't be taking the Henry David Thoreau route and none of my customers will either. Green is, and always will be in my opinion, a moving target that no one will be able to get a "bullseye" on. Just be as green as your knowledge, budget, geographic location, market, etc. will allow you to be. That's good enough in my book.
r u dens ?
where is your "enter" key ?
<<<<
First, my apologies about the spacing of my previous post to all those who found it bothersome. Quite frankly, I don't know how to change it. When I click on the hyperlink to post a message, I get a pop up box to type in, with no choices to change font size, type of font, or much to the annoyance of a few people here, line spacing. At any rate I thought I'd post a link to the manufacturer of the fibers I use. http://fibermesh.com/application.aspx?ID=2429 I am proud to say I was one of, if not the first person to use a production run of the product. I can assure you it went through extensive testing in pre-production. I can also tell you that I have had no negative experiences with the product either. And no, I have never been paid (maybe I should check into that?) nor given a discount to endorse the product. Let me also be clear about the bug issue. I am in Middle TN, and even though I build houses with concrete exterior walls, I ALWAYS do termite pretreats and additionally I pour a so called "termite strip" into my walls slightly above grade. Let them have their EPS below grade...I really don't care. Finally, this thread has touched on the primary issue at the core of so called "green building". (For the record, I hate the phrase but unfortunately it gets the point across) Just what does green really mean? As this thread has very well demonstrated, it depends on a great many factors, most notably, it depends on who you ask. In my area, I'm light years ahead of everyone else. By California standards I'm certain I suck. I don't care about low VOC paint and none of my customers even have any idea what that means. We do get lots of deadly tornados here and my customers do know what that means. Because of this, I have chosen ICF's to give my customers the best combination of energy efficiency and safety that I can. I like building with ICF's because of their other benefits as well. Like ANY type of building materials I have every used they are not perfect in every situation. They are, however, a very good fit here. As was pointed out in one of the posts above, where do you stop? I for one, won't be taking the Henry David Thoreau route and none of my customers will either. Green is, and always will be in my opinion, a moving target that no one will be able to get a "bullseye" on. Just be as green as your knowledge, budget, geographic location, market, etc. will allow you to be. That's good enough in my book.>>>
First, my apologies about the spacing of my previous post to all those who found it bothersome. Quite frankly, I don't know how to change it. When I click on the hyperlink to post a message, I get a pop up box to type in, with no choices to change font size, type of font, or much to the annoyance of a few people here, line spacing.
At any rate I thought I'd post a link to the manufacturer of the fibers I use. http://fibermesh.com/application.aspx?ID=2429 I am proud to say I was one of, if not the first person to use a production run of the product. I can assure you it went through extensive testing in pre-production. I can also tell you that I have had no negative experiences with the product either. And no, I have never been paid (maybe I should check into that?) nor given a discount to endorse the product. Let me also be clear about the bug issue.
I am in Middle TN, and even though I build houses with concrete exterior walls, I ALWAYS do termite pretreats and additionally I pour a so called "termite strip" into my walls slightly above grade. Let them have their EPS below grade...I really don't care. Finally, this thread has touched on the primary issue at the core of so called "green building".
(For the record, I hate the phrase but unfortunately it gets the point across) Just what does green really mean? As this thread has very well demonstrated, it depends on a great many factors, most notably, it depends on who you ask. In my area, I'm light years ahead of everyone else. By California standards I'm certain I suck.
I don't care about low VOC paint and none of my customers even have any idea what that means. We do get lots of deadly tornados here and my customers do know what that means.
Because of this, I have chosen ICF's to give my customers the best combination of energy efficiency and safety that I can. I like building with ICF's because of their other benefits as well. Like ANY type of building materials I have every used they are not perfect in every situation. They are, however, a very good fit here.
As was pointed out in one of the posts above, where do you stop? I for one, won't be taking the Henry David Thoreau route and none of my customers will either. Green is, and always will be in my opinion, a moving target that no one will be able to get a "bullseye" on. Just be as green as your knowledge, budget, geographic location, market, etc. will allow you to be. That's good enough in my book.
i didn' read it because you couldn't take the time to figure it out.... so i won't take the time to read itMike Hussein Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
Let's see, an insult from someone who's either so lazy or unintelligent that they don't completely spell words like "are", "you", or misspell "dense"? The post is "Which is Greener", not "Let's school the newbie on how to make posts." My popup box that I type in when posting something lacks definitive margins, so don't presume that "I m dens"...r u?
did u find yur "enter " key ?Mike Hussein Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
Easy there fella.
It's a rough crowd sometimes, but don't take it personnel. Posting on a forum is not the same as "proper" writing. Lengthy
posts are difficult to read on small computer screens.
Plus, the general nature of the rapport is more of a back and forth.
More akin to hanging out in a bar or coffee shop then a college lecture hall. Try and make clear and concise statements. Keep them short and to the point. Then hit enter, and move on to the next. when your done, you can click "Preview" (on the bottom right) to view how it will appear. PS
No matter how brilliant you think you are someone will disagree,
and if they are truly annoying they will be right. PPS Everyone takes things the wrong way sometimes. This seams to be
the norm On-line. Be thick skinned for yourself and sensitive to others.
You beat me to it. Well said.
I didn't take it personal...it was just "#### for tat"...can he takewhat he can dish out? In my ongoing ancillary quest to please the crybabies, I have only been typing about 10 words or so, then hittingthe <enter> key 4 times (triple spacing...at least until it posts),and as you can see, the post ends up with narrow margins that aren'ttriple spaced. I'm afraid that's about all I'm willing "2 do".
gee, that wasn't so hard , was it ?and i even read the whole thing welcome to the forum....
now..... next point ...who do you think you're preaching to ?and whadda ya want ? a pat on the back for being green and energy conscious ? ok..... here ya go.... " ATTA BOY , STEVEN ! "if you think your going to give more than you receive here, then you're on the wrong forumbut hey, whadda i no ?Mike Hussein Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
"who do you think you're preaching to ?and whadda ya want ? a pat on the back for being green and energy conscious ?ok..... here ya go.... " ATTA BOY , STEVEN ! ""I wasn't looking for a pat on the back or trying to impress anyone.I am trying to engage a discussion in order to stimulate my thinking in ways that I wouldn't on my own resulting in increasedknowledge. Itemizing some of my building techniques was just an effort to show how green for some is not green for others.
So where are you building? You can also receive minor criticism for not filling in your profile. Only a single line answer required, no special spacing.John
Profile minimally updated.
"Plus, the general nature of the rapport is more of a back and forth.
More akin to hanging out in a bar or coffee shop then a college lecture hall."I couldn't agree more. In this part of Tennessee, if we had been sit-ting around a bar or coffee shop, and someone starting telling someone else how to talk or how to behave, they would likely havetheir teeth knocked out. And you just thought the lack of teethin these parts was due to poor dental hygiene. (For clarity, thatwas sarcasm...an attempt at humor)We may not be in a bar, but does anyone else think some of Mike's posts might indicate some heavy drinking? (Also a joke, everyonerelax)
"We do get lots of deadly tornados here and my customers do know what that means. Because of this, I have chosen ICF's to give my customers the best combination of energy efficiency and safety that I can."
So what does that have to do with green building? ICF's may be energy efficient, but if that's all your doing differently from anybody else are you really building green?
"Just what does green really mean?...
Green is, and always will be in my opinion, a moving target that no one will be able to get a "bullseye" on. Just be as green as your knowledge, budget, geographic location, market, etc. will allow you to be. That's good enough in my book."
So, if being "green" is a moving target, how do you know how "green" you can be within your budget, location, & market?
Jon Blakemore RappahannockINC.com Fredericksburg, VA
Jon, your comments also touch on another issue. Because of the moving target of being green, many contractors don't even bother.Too many "hardcore greenies" don't ever seem to be satisifiedno matter what people do...so they don't even try. Most contractors(at least in my experience) are conservative by nature and loatheto change. We should be encouraging and complimenting any stepsin the right direction, no matter how small, instead of saying, "Well that's just not good enough". (Kind of like when you tryand post to a website, contributing to an excellent discussion, and a few noisy crybabies complain about your line spacing...mostpeople would just give up...and the discussion would lack accordingly) Jon, ICF's, depending on where you are at, might have a lot to dowith being green. For the record, I also use Pex plumbing runin a manifold to submanifold setup and combined with tanklessnatural gas water heaters and recirculating pumps. This is so as notto waste energy heating water when it's not needed and to not wastewater waiting for hot water to arrive at your fixtures. I usedual flush toilets, high efficiency electric heat pumps, (sizedproperly by an engineer, with the unit and ductwork installed in conditioned space), R-50 cellulose blown into the properly ventilatedattic, radiant barrier roof decking, Low-E windows (which I try tohave a least one facing south when possible...along with a soffitwhose size has been mathmatically calculated to maximize wintersolar gain), I've been trying to install either painted cabinetsso they can be constructed, at least in part, with MDF...if that'snot appropriate for the design to try to use alderwood, I also predominately use pre-primed MDF trim, ALL cf lighting, etc, etc.The energy efficiency, sound dampening, and strength of ICF's make them an excellent choice for our area. They are only one significantpart of the green puzzle though. I hope everyone gets the sarcasm of my spacing. (That's just in casepeople who type things like "r u dense" couldn't figure out the joke)
What's so "Green" about MDF? Less wood I suppose, but lots of nasty glues and what not.
I have to agree with you.
Location is everything.. even micro climate!
Where I live (Minnesota) heating is everything. Issues that seem to dominate others don't even exist around here..
Water for example is really abundant around here. More than 10,000 lakes plus all the swamps and rivers and creeks etc.. it's actually difficult to find property that isn't water front <grin>
So I don't worry about wasting water waiting for it to get hot (I have really short runs anyway in spite of the size of my house) the heat that I lose is into the insulated envelope so it's not wasted and the abundant water makes preservation of water a matter of low priority.
Much as I wanted to I didn't use Pex for my water system.. Instead I've recycled the old CVPC and except for a rare fitting or 2 used all of it over again rather than toss it in the land fill.
So here is something that the average Green person would shake their head in horror over me saying that I'm green and I used CVPC plumbing..
It sounds like you're building very energy-efficient homes, but don't confuse that with green.
There's nothing green about petrochemical foam or MDF.
Artificial View Imagegreen.
And, by the way, playing adolescent t-i-t for tat and being deliberately annoying doesn't add anything to your credibility.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Edited 1/9/2009 2:02 pm ET by Riversong
You made one of my points exactly. By an admittedly low, local standard I'm very "green". By your standards and many others, I'mnot. Green is a moving target. That's the rub. To get a definative answer to the original post (ICF versus wood frame,Which is greener?) ICF, wood frame, and green all need to be clearly defined. While my homes can be energy efficient withoutbeing green, I don't think my homes can be green without being energyefficient. It's merely one step to becoming greener.Personally, I think a little t*t for tat, in moderation, can be fun. I like to talk trash on the basketball court too. Lighten up.
riversong.
That is merely your opinion that petrochemical is not green.. as has been pointed out to you. The energy cost of heating that place for the next 100 years or so will massive require more energy than building it..
Please do not confuse wood burning as a heat source as being more green than other fuel sources..
The energy saved in heating costs-
(compared to what would be interesting)-
is far from the entire picture. Possible heath risks Environmental impacts of producing and inability to dispose of the material. Geo-political implications. All these things have been brought up repeatedly. Your heating bill
is not well defined and it is only a piece of the puzzle.
That's the trouble. The simplist measure of efficency (the cost of heating a home) is always subject to dispute..
No 2 homes are excactly identical exposed to the identical micro climate.
So one method may produce lower heating bills but that is challenged because it's not done in a double blind manner..
Health risks? Yes the fibers in fiberglas have been the subject of many lawsuits about cancer.. Celluliose while newer doesn't have a perfect track record either.
Even foam which has been around since before WW2 has recently changed it's chemical composition as a result of concern about the enviornment and global warming..
So no system is perfect.
The issue of disposabliity is wrong.. foam can be recycled.. you can buy recycled foam for use as a pour fill material in cement block walls or other applications.. the price is really trivial.
As to geopolitical implications.. I refer you to the issue of the energy required to build something in the first place as compared to the energy required to heat that place for the next 100+ years. IF your goal is to reduce the import and consumption of oil then the most efficent insulation possible is required..
OK Henley, let's take this post apart piece by piece:
The energy saved in heating costs- (compared to what would be interesting)-is far from the entire picture.
Possible heath risks
There are health risks associated with both the production of materials ("natural" and synthetic), as well as with combusting fuels to produce heat. If the amount of fossil fuel burned to produce heat is 10x the amount of energy used in producing the home's materials, have you really significantly altered the health risk pattern by reducing the EE even 10-fold by using so-called "natural" materials?
Remember, fossil fuels are "natural" too. The energy in them originally came from the sun, and all the carbon in them came from the atmosphere. But that doesn't make them "green"- burning them releases CO2 that the earth took millions of years to sequester. If we take some of that carbon and use it to make durable building materials to build a home, then landfill them, we've done better than if we took that same amount of carbon and burned it to make heat which leaks off through the home to the atmosphere.
Environmental impacts of producing
In the case of foam, we're talking about the same source material...
and inability to dispose of the material.
I guess when the place we dispose of the "material" is the atmosphere (in the case of burning fossil fuels), it's "out of sight, out of mind"?! Foam buried in a landfill is FAR less of an environmental risk than the effluent of fossil fuel combustion discharged directly into the air we breathe! The stability of the foam means it lasts a very, very long time in its original form, which by definition means it represents little environmental harm when landfilled.
Geo-political implications.
Here natural gas would appear to be more "virtuous" than heating oil because the NG is by definition more "locally" produced- while it lasts that is. We're depleting natural gas reserves faster than any other form of fossil fuel- it won't be long until we're importing liquid NG in vast quantities just like we currently do crude oil.
All these things have been brought up repeatedly. Your heating bill is not well defined and it is only a piece of the puzzle.
Brought up and the implications repeatedly ignored or downplayed: your heating bill is pretty much EVERYTHING on a lifecycle basis. The EE of the construction materials is a small fraction of the lifecycle energy use, even if your energy efficiency in heating is very good indeed. That doesn't excuse random choice of materials, nor does it mean that choosing better ones is a total waste of time. But it DOES mean that if you sacrifice energy efficiency one iota to use "natural" materials with lower EE, you've done the world a disservice.
You can feel differently about so-called "synthetic" materials than you do about natural ones, but if you don't have sound reasons behind your beliefs you may actually be doing more harm than good.
<<You can feel differently about so-called "synthetic" materials than you do about natural ones, but if you don't have sound reasons behind your beliefs you may actually be doing more harm than good.>>I am SO grateful for your participation in this discussion.This isn't the point at which I want to go off on a tangent, but if we ever get going on forestry practices (something I do happen to have some perspective on), none of us will ever look at wood the same way ever again.As an answer to what is green or not, the best I could come up with early in this discussion was "It depends." As we progress though this examination of principles and practices, materials and methods, we are building a strong case for this position. Depending upon our circumstances, our available resources, and the demands of our clients, each of us will have to invest our intellectual, financial, and material resources in such a way that most closely suits the purpose at hand.Taken in context, the complexity and extent of the challenge we face demands nothing less.(That's a pretty nice way of saying "none of us actually have the slightest idea, we're just making this sh*t up as we go along", eh?) <BG>
Molten, The post your responding to, was intended to try and
keep us from walking in circles. The same points keep getting
raised, with no obvious answers. So, it's not that I even necessarily disagree but rather am looking
to fill in some gaps. - The concept of energy saved by "Synthetic" materials" justifying their use needs a counter point. What are we comparing it to? It
probably should be the best offerings of more natural materials.
I guess the most obvious is Cellulose. So what are the life cycle savings of 4" of foam VS R38 Densepack? If the material has potential heath risks in it's creation, use and beyond that SHOULD weight heavily on it's environmental impact. Fossil fuels are the talk of the hour, but there are other implications.
As I mentioned before, if you can't define it's continued effect on our immediate environment and it lasts indefinitely,
just saying "we can bury" it isn't a responsible answer.
Allow me to exaggerate for a moment- If hypothetically, The synthetic continued to leach poisonous material into the watertable for many years to come,
how could you quantify that against it's fuel savings? Efficiency is not the only factor in working towards"Green".
if it's fundamentally unhealthy, then it would fail the test I'm not ignoring your assertion that it came from the ground and will go back to the ground.
Rather I want to know what it is going to
do in our water table for the next 1000 years. It's a very "Sound Reason" to question. Natural Gas Well, I'm sitting on part of the Marseilles shale bank.
I can't say as I like it or am happy about it's development but..
It appears the continent has quite a supply and it will most likely be a better economic and political choice then oil. Again, it's not that I directly disagree with you, rather I
see a need for a clear look at what we are using and a judicious use
of all the beneficial elements.
Spill what you have on the forestry industry. Here, I'm beginning to think green may have as much to do with sustainability, as anything else. Wood seems pretty sustainable. and about anybody can work with it.Cut back on using wood, and we're using something else: plastic, steel, cement... not sustainable, and all with pretty harmful manufacturing processes. So, green, maybe responsible for this coil that we be shuffling on.Course gren clothing is something I'd like to see more of, too, bring back grass skirts <G>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."
That's going to be a long one.For now, let's just take two simple examples.1) I have this idyllic image of Riversong's locally harvested timber. In my imagination, it is coming out of a lot that is being thoughtfully managed for the genetic viability and uninterrupted reproductive continuity of all of the plant and animal species, all of the natural succession of a forest cycle is observed, habitat is not being destroyed, land management controls are in place so that runoff does not pollute nearby waterways (runoff from irresponsible land management can wipe out aquatic species), natural fire cycles are a component of the management plan, work is seasonally appropriate, and the existing biological diversity is maintained or enhanced.The wood is being removed at a rate that does not exceed the natural regenerative capacity of the forest. Everything harvested is used locally, minimizing the ecological consequences of transportation and supporting the local economy.(The ecological consequences of the transportation industry are stunning.)This wood is probably a sound GB choice.2) A clearcut.http://www.wildhorizons.com/photos/index.php?module=media&pId=102id=2273&category=gallery/human/pollution-global-warming&start=0/None of the above applies. [edit: I'm with you on the grass skirts.]
Edited 1/10/2009 6:03 pm by Catskinner
I'm with you on the clear cutting. We have an over abundance of that here... but if the area is not developed, it does grow back. Not exactly with the same quality of trees that came out, but ones that still convert a lot of CO2.Maybe better forest management, less production of "miracle" products?But then, there's this experiment:http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=128782http://news.duke.edu/2004/02/results_0204.htmlhttp://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/05/990518073338.htmI lived right next to this section of Duke Forest for 15 years. They pumped CO2 up 100' columns in a loblolly forest. Nicest scaffolding set up I have ever seen... might be able to pick some up cheap!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."
Interesting links, thanks.<<but if the area is not developed, it does grow back. Not exactly with the same quality of trees that came out, but ones that still convert a lot of CO2.>>Without a doubt, if there is a choice between trees growing back and trees not growing back, then re-growth is better. But if you look more closely at the way a forest works, clear-cutting is an ecological tragedy, and the re-growth after a clear cut has its own set of problems.To the untrained eye, when you look at a clear-cut some years after the trees start to grow again, you see a lot of trees, and you think, "good, there's trees."Upon closer examination, it's kinda like looking at a large family photo after a really terrible war. There is a generation missing. Forests work on a different timetable than people, so without a closer look, it's easy to misunderstand them. The good health of a forest (that is, the proper long term integrated function of the regional ecosystem, particularly regarding the watershed, habitat, and species diversity) depends in part upon a mixture of various kinds of trees, all at different ages. This is critical. There needs to be different trees of different types, all at different ages.Once you clearcut a lot, or even just manage it poorly for about 60 years, you build in a set of ecological problems that are very difficult to reverse. If this is interesting, I'll continue, but I don't want to derail this discussion. The only point I want to make clearly is that the use of some wood is certainly "green", the use of other wood, well, we are simply deluding ourselves if we think it is in any way more responsible than any other material.
I would be very interested in a new thread on sustainable forestry techniques, and I bet a lot of others would be too.
OK, thanks Mike. Glad to see you're following this one. I'll start putting together some key points and try to come up with the condensed version.
I as well would be interested in either a new thread or a continuation of this on that deals with forestry.Some might prefer a new thread, but I think the unique qualities of wood (it will regrow, it's easily recycled, it doesn't require much industrial processing or synthetic compounds, it disposed of CO2 when it's alive, etc.) make a discussion of forestry very germane to this thread.
Jon Blakemore RappahannockINC.com Fredericksburg, VA
Jon, either way I'm interested, but would feel bad for the folks who don't want to wade through 600 posts about "green" to discuss timber management. It certainly does apply to the discussion at hand though.
<<Some might prefer a new thread, but I think the unique qualities of wood (it will regrow, it's easily recycled, it doesn't require much industrial processing or synthetic compounds, it disposed of CO2 when it's alive, etc.) make a discussion of forestry very germane to this thread.>>That's kinda how it struck me, too -- as a logical continuation.OK, I'll start putting together the short version. It's a broad topic. Just coming up with a way to reliably re-introduce fire in one small area is enough to get a PhD.
Then also germain to this discussion is the fact that only 1/2 of the mass of a tree is removed from the forest in the form of a Bole. More carbon is released when the bole get's to the mill. Even more is released during construction..as sawdust and scrap..
So aside from being green we have most of a tree's squestered carbon released.
Wood can be commerically viable long before it has reached maturity..
"The only point I want to make clearly is that the use of some wood is certainly "green", the use of other wood, well, we are simply deluding ourselves if we think it is in any way more responsible than any other material."Ipe is a prime exampleSo, how do you feel about concrete bourbon barrels?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."
Snort,
Concrete would make superb bourbon barrels. Easily buried and forgotten for generations to come. Bury it with the nuclear waste.
Ron
I think I feel the same way about bourbon... just don't try aging my scotch in trex!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."
<<So, how do you feel about concrete bourbon barrels?>>Snort, that is the best laugh I've had in a while. Beautiful.As you can tell from my previous posts here, I am comfortable with the idea that life is full of little trade-offs. <G>
yeah, might just take a little extra charring... have to buy some extra carbon credits<G>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."
Catskinner,
That was very good about the evils of clear cutting..
If I can add to it somewhat, here are a couple other weaknesses of clear cutting..
You take a natural diverse forest and turn it into a monoculturre with all the weakness that entails. With a diverse forest natural protection of diverse species protect other species in addition should one disease take hold it will only affect one variety leaving the other varieties strong.. In addition the natural seperation that occurs will not only reduce transmission of disease but may completely isolate the disease..
Second when you harvest trees that have sequestered carbon since 1/2 of the tree remains in the forest to decompose you release 1/2 of the sequestered carbon.. more is released in the mill in the form of sawdust and other wood waste..
Bottom line from the point of being green wood while natural is not all good!
Only the portion that is used in construction for as long as long as it remains in the building does wood ever count as green. Since the average home in America last 56 years before it's torn down or so dramatically remodeled it may as well have been torn down we're not talking about a long period of sequestered carbon..
Celluliose hasn't had the 70+ years testing that foam has..
Well it has but the early stuff was horribly dangerous..
The early stuff they litterly nailed newspaper up on the walls.. you can imagine how poorly it insulated not to mention the fire danger!
Although when I tore the stuff off my old houses walls it made for some facinating reading since it predated the start of WW2 and went on well into the war years..
However some was totally rotted where water had gotten in and cause the newspaper to decay,, some was torn down by rodents and used as nesting material. Insects too found it to be a wonderful nesting material. and it all was waiting for a single spark to ignite and whoosh! House be Gone!
Celluliose has come a long way since then.. chopped up didn't have much of a market untill in the 1970's you started to see it mixed with chemicals to prevent fire and kill insects..
Some of the early stuff leached out easily but newer stuff has improved that. Around 1980 or so around here you began to see more insulation guys with chopper and clower equipment competing against fiberglas..
About that time foam started to make inroads as well. From the 1990's on spray in foam became almost as common around here as celluliose and has a much better reputation for energy savings..
I've watched hundreds of homes torn down some had celluliose and never once saw anyone recycle the celluliose.
Here's a question for you. would you use recycled, used celluliose insulation in a customers home?
Frenchy you certainly have an unusual perspective! :) No I wouldn't install used Cellulose in a client's house. I would not hesitate to throw it in mine.LOL!
Celluliose hasn't had the 70+ years testing that foam has..
Cellulose as a house insulation began in the 1950s. Dow invented Styrofoam in 1954.
Well it has but the early stuff was horribly dangerous..
There were rare allergic reactions by home occupants to the petrochemical inks used on the newspapers that were recycled. The problem was never the cellulose, it was the petrochemicals.
The early stuff they litterly nailed newspaper up on the walls.. you can imagine how poorly it insulated not to mention the fire danger!
Cellulose insulation was always recycled ground up newspapers, not egg cartons or the NYT "nailed up on the walls".
Why do you continue to make things up about a material whose name you can't even spell?
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
harsh..... you're harsh....frenchy is dyslexic.... at least he has an excuse...... me i'm just lazeMike Hussein Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
I pointed out cellulose's early use as an insulation material around the end of WW2. You claim 1950. newspaper is cellulose
fire, decay, rodents nests, etc.. were all early risks of cellulose. I take it you either didn't bother to read or took words out of context..
Second foam was actually used as an insulation material during WW2
I pointed out cellulose's early use as an insulation material around the end of WW2. You claim 1950. newspaper is cellulose
I never "claim" anything. I report the facts. Your claims, however, are consistently wrong.
Wood is cellulose, but we don't use the term cellulose insulation to describe wood, nor is it used to describe newspapers or egg crates used as wall insulation - unless you're deliberately trying to mislead.
fire, decay, rodents nests, etc.. were all early risks of cellulose.
Fire, decay, rodenst were all problems in any house or insulation type, particularly plastic foams. Cellulose insulation in walls reduced the fire hazard in homes, since fire spread is mostly due to cavity convection.
Second foam was actually used as an insulation material during WW2
As I already noted, Dow invented XPS in 1954. Polyurethane foam was invented in 1953.
http://inventors.about.com/od/pstartinventions/a/plastics.htm
http://www.ehow.com/about_4673650_history-polyurethane-foam.html
Do you make up everything you post here?
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
If you watch movies fimed during WW2 you'll see examples of foam used as insulation in refrigeration units in the pacific. I'll be honest I don't know who invented it..
Second the first use of cellulose was simple newspaper nailed up inthe wall cavities.. next it was ground up and poured on attic floors and finally it was treated with fire retardants.
Only you would define cellulose as chemically treated ground up newspaper that has been developed to the modern level as only the correct use of the word cellulose..
Second the first use of cellulose was simple newspaper nailed up inthe wall cavities..
Newspaper was never refered to as cellulose insulation. You're making this up.
Only you would define cellulose as chemically treated ground up newspaper that has been developed to the modern level as only the correct use of the word cellulose..
The insulation industry uses the term cellulose insulation to mean finely-ground newspapers, with or without additives.
Stop this relentless disinformation campaign.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Henley: yeah, I know, there's plenty of suspicion and backlash from the days of "better living through chemistry". Anything synthetic is now viewed as suspect. And anything "natural" somehow becomes inherently good.
The reality is that both natural materials and human-made ones have ecological implications in their discovery, production, use and ultimate disposal. Can we numerically quantify all of these in a way we can all agree? Absolutely not. To do so is to ask how much is a human life, or a species, or a degree of global temperature rise "worth"? It's inherently a values question, to which we're going to give our own answers according to our conscience.
So everything we humans do becomes an optimization exercise based ultimately on values. We have to weigh the value we derive from any action, use of materials etc. against the harm it causes.
While we may differ in values, what clearly still matters is the preponderance of use. We use vastly more fossil fuel for heating than we use in energy value in construction. To concern ourselves inordinately with the construction embodied energy value therefore is a distraction. Worse still, it can become a coat of green-wash over the major harm we're causing, which is the use of fossil fuels for heating.
Not that biofuels are without their harms: wood combustion is far from benign. Pyrolysis species both toxic and carcinogenic to humans are there in wood smoke just as they are in petroleum combustion effluent. So ultimately energy efficiency matters- even when your fuel souce isn't fossil fuels.
As to the unquantified future harm argument: EPS foam disposed of in a landfill is not a toxic leachate hazard. And wood or cellulose insulation disposed of in a landfill is not totally environmentally benign either.
Both types of materials can be recycled. That for the most part the labour and transporation cost involved in recycling either of them is not economically "worth it" at present is a commentary on how little our current economics reflect those hidden costs discussed earlier. Future generations will hopefully be smarter. Both classes of materials are very durable when used properly, so this won't be a concern for a long time.
As to your desire to use oil shale to get around the problems of foreign oil: unfortunately that proves my point. You assume that because it's local, that makes it good. Unfortunately, oil shale is SO vastly energy inefficient to produce that they still weren't commercially processing it in significant quantities when crude was selling for $140/barrel.
Energy inefficiency in fossil fuels production means that we need to burn through more of the resource to use it. Oil shale is also very low in hydrogen to carbon ratio- barely better than coal. These two factors combined make oil shale a terrible fossil fuel choice from a global warming and other environmental impacts perspective relative to natural gas, or even when compared to Saudi crude which still comes out of the ground under its own pressure.
That was good.If you keep up with all this clear thinking, next thing you know we're going to be talking about population, carrying capacity, and <shudder> morality in a dad-gum construction forum. <G>
moltenmetal,
"it won't be long until we're importing liquid NG in vast quantities just like we currently do crude oil."
You have been importing it in vast quantities for the past couple of decades. About 1/5 of US gas consumption comes from Canada. Canadian exports far exceed domestic use, too. Dumb, or what?
Ron
So what is green then? Does green=energy efficient?
Jon Blakemore RappahannockINC.com Fredericksburg, VA
I truly believe we are all trying to figure out what green means. That's what makes this post such a good one. There are a few elements most everyone agrees on (energy efficiency, sustainability, using recycled materials, etc.) but there's probably more to disagree on. And there's the question about where to stop...you can take it to excess and we could all build our own tepees and live off the land.
So what does "green" mean to you?Given that a complete (exacting and restrictive) definition may be impossible, at what point and upon what basis would you decide that a project was not green?
"So what does "green" mean to you?"I'm still learning. That's what appealed to me about this thread.Right now I'd say green is more about effort. Am I doing more or less everything I can do to be friendly to the enviroment while stillproviding my customers with what they want and within their specifiedbudget? My knowledge (or lack therof) is somewhat of a limiting factor as well. I read all I can on the subject, spar on messageboards, and soon, I hope to get by green builder certification fromNAHB. Clearly, energy efficiency is my primary bent at this point.For some reason I get more excited about it that I do about low VOCconstruction adhesives or hemp drapes."at what point and upon what basis would you decide that a project was not green?"This may be the best (and ironically probably the shortest) post onthis thread. To some degree it's what we are all trying to figureout. Let's take the original post for example. I don't have the knowledge to crunch the "therm" numbers like 'River' but I just findit difficult to believe that using concrete that's mixed with all local materials is worse on the enviroment than using wood that's harvested in Canada, milled in the US, and shipped several states away before it reaches it's final assembly point. But in anotherregion, wood might be harvested locally and the concrete materialsshipped from far away. It seems each job's "greeness" should be taken on a case by case basis. That's a good starting point for me.I've only been in residential construction since my early 20's butif it's one thing I've learned houses are all about compromise and being green is no different.
The issue of transporting wood over distances
keeps coming up.
Certainly relevant and aught to be addressed. I don't have the numbers to crunch but maybe someone does... There must be a table dealing with weight to fuel over given distance
ratios.
Probably need to work it out for Auto, Rail, and Tanker. It would have to be a very high number to compete with the
energy to heat those earthen materials to such temperatures.
You're starting to understand the complete impossiblity of using any set of numbers..
Wood.. is it harvested locally milled locally air dried and used locally?
What was used to kiln dry the wood at your local lumberyard? What about my local Home Depot which sold wood imported from Finland. (it was cheaper and better than wood that came from the pacific northwest)
This week your lumberyard may buy wood from Canada and next week because of cheaper prices it may come from Georgia.
Then the impossiblity of a decent set of numbers for a given house.. how far from the lumberyard? How far is that lumberyard from the railroad? What sort of material handling equipment is used at a lumberyard to load trucks and how efficent is it?
I still see forklifts from the 1950's in use at some yards, (they use a lot more fuel than the latest Japanese import). Not to mention the difficulty of deciding how well tuned up that engine is..
How is the wood unloaded once delivered?
Then we have the equation of workers..
One telehandler can replace 3 or 4 grunts. So the few gallons of fuel it uses is trival compared to the many gallons three or 4 pickups will use driving all over to various building sites from differant homes.
As Russia develops infrastructure to export all her wood we'll start to see Russian wood make inroads into our wood supply..lower labor costs than American or Canadian wood. Plus she has vast untouched areas of complete Virgin forests. With her recent discoveries of oil and mineral wealth development is inevitable.
Bottom line any one number for EE content is a total myth
Edited 1/10/2009 11:11 am ET by frenchy
last year a lot of our framing came from Austria
i was astoundedMike Hussein Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
>>The issue of transporting wood over distances
keeps coming up.
Certainly relevant and aught to be addressed.<<Hi Henley i just thought i would toss this in. Seems like a lot of people feel that concrete is fairly local and i assume for the most part it is.
Here is a link to a gravel mine in B.C. Canada that barges 6.6 million tonnes of gravel a year to San Francisco to get off loaded. It's a distace of 964 miles!!
It says because of the depleting supplies in California... what's next hey?
shipped via rail it could be cheaper than local (and use less energy) I can imagine the cost of delivering gravel through San Francisco traffic is pretty horrific.
Again it all depends doesn't it?
shipped via rail it could be cheaper than local (and use less energy) Well, that is part of my thought.
Shipping wood by rail is relatively cheap also.
Water even less. All in all it raises more questions then answers. On a side note- It highlights an over dependence on trucks.
<<I'm still learning. That's what appealed to me about this thread.>>Me too.<<Right now I'd say green is more about effort. Am I doing more or
less everything I can do to be friendly to the enviroment while still
providing my customers with what they want and within their specified budget?>>I'd say that's an excellent start. It would certainly pass muster on the basis of our brief digression into The Moral Foundations of Green Building (earlier in this discussion). <G>There are so many ways to look at this. I see that there is some activity over in a related thread on what is green building, I may go take a look at that. But for the purpose of this discussion, it is critically important to recognize that this question is broader than the context that we have thus far been trying to answer it in. The significance of that observation is that any attempt to arbitrarily restrict the scope of the discussion could be counterproductive to our purpose.Yes, we absolutely need bright, talented, daring, innovative thinkers with comprehensive experience, masterful construction skills, and unwavering commitment to get out on the bleeding edge of progress and report back to us. (Yes, of course I'm talking about you, Riversong. Who did you think? <G>)We also need our economy to remain intact (whatever that means), we all need to run a business, and we as a nation need to build a sh*tload of houses, schools, factories, bridges, roads, infrastructure for subdivisions, waste treatment plants, military facilities, cities, flood control projects, landfills, seaports, you name it. While we do this we need to think about air quality, water quality, resource depletion, human health, habitat improvement, species depletion, the list goes on.Taken at that scale, even the most modest efforts made across the spectrum of our industry will have a beneficial cumulative effect.Any good work you do is good work.<<"at what point and upon what basis would you decide that a project was not green?" This may be the best (and ironically probably the shortest) post on this thread.>>Thanks.<<It seems each job's "greeness" should betaken on a case by case basis. That's a good starting point for me.>>That's a good starting point for anyone.<<I've only been in residential construction since my early 20's but if it's one thing I've learned houses are all about compromise and being green is no different.>>You have already learned some things of value from your experience. Not everyone does. That is the beginning of wisdom.
Catskinner
I love what you wrote with one exception..
durability! If we're not going to run out of The earth's resources we have to stop building disposabale housing and start building lasting structures..
You are correct, I forgot durability, which factors heavily into all of my deliberations. Likewise for adaptability.When I first got interested in GB long ago I wondered why we do not adapt some materials and methods from commercial construction. I have been on commercial jobs where the skeleton of the building was saved, the guts and skin removed, and the building was in a new incarnation with relatively effort. So any analog to post and beam construction might be a component of GB if it is set up to be easily renovated or reformed to a different purpose.Even at that, durability is contextual. To take an extreme example, there are some cultures in the Southwestern US that regard living in the home of someone who has died as unacceptable. So building for them, concrete simply makes no sense, and steel would only make sense in the most limited application. The expected lifecycle of the building will be quite short.Conversely, if we're talking about a high-density, carefully planned infill residential or live/work project in a revitalized urban area with a stable economy, there is a great argument to be made for advancing or promoting the relative weight of durability on our list of design considerations.Again, it's contextual.I work hard to maintain a balance between being open-minded and critical, and to consider all of the ideas presented here upon their merit. Certainly, I am thinking far more carefully about ICF than I was before this discussion, to a surprising result. Because of the legitimate criticism ICF has received, I will in the future be more thoughtful and deliberate in their use. Because of the powerful exoneration they have received in other regards, I will use them without hesitation if they are the right tool for the job.
And there's the question about where to stop...you can take it to excess and we could all build our own tepees and live off the land.
You have it completely backwards.
We are now living (and building) to exhorbitant excess.
Living off the land is reducing our lives and our technology to the essentials - and that is the only way to be truly green.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Jon,
Yes that is certainly one part of the equation.. It's senseless to build a home that does not retain energy well no matter how "green" it was built.
It should also be built in a sustainable manner. That's not possible.. the use of some material such as concrete for foundations etc. is total unavoidable and no matter taking stone etc. from the earth is not sustainable..
At best we are now discussing degrees of sustainability. Build a house using all wood and you still need to paint it.. paint isn't sustainable..
Using recycled materials while greener than using new materials simply side steps the issue, it does not eliminate the issue..
I like to think of myself as "reasonably green".
I don't dispute you.. I agree that a home made from ICF's can use far less energy than a home made from wood over the homes lifetime..
"So what is green then?"
That's the question we are all grappling with, isn't it.
It's frustrating and complex, causing many people to throw up their hands and say it's just the latest trend, or nonsense. I'm just really glad I am part of an online community that cares enough to debate it.
So what is green then? Does green=energy efficient?
No. Energy-efficient means only energy-efficient.
See post #587.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
When both the heat source and the materials of construction are of natural materials sustainably harvested, then your "green" ideal is met. Some of your clients' homes are like that.
When the heat source is overwhelmingly fossil fuels, which are decidedly NOT green, then what matters is how much of this non-renewable resource we use on a lifecycle basis.
When you're burning fossil fuels for heat, green DOES equal energy efficiency.
When you're burning fossil fuels for heat, green DOES equal energy efficiency.
Only if you use industry greenwashing as your standard. Everyone wants to be considered "green". But that term, used in that way, is no different from "new and improved" - completely meaningless.
If you're talking about energy-efficiency, then use the term "energy-efficiency".
Everyone will understand that term, and you won't be pulling the wool over someone's ears.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Edited 1/11/2009 9:15 pm ET by Riversong
This is an interesting discussion, and I have been fortunate to learn something, but I'm curios if all your info is north american. Recently I was researching energy efficiency in new building and was surprised at the results that the new standards of superinsulation and heat recovery are having in some european countries, to the point of having to redesign heat sources so they are small enought to be sized to the units they are heating and still efficient. There may be something to learn from people who have had to pay outrageous fuel costs living in simalar climates for years.
I understand eactly what you are saying.. by my calculations the amount of heat required to maintain a comforatable temp went down by an astonishing amount in my new house.. I really couldn't find efficent enough furnace to meet the new lower demands.
However Our climate has some real extremes -40 is not all that unusual. To size a heating unit to meet those needs makes it really inefficent much of the rest of the year..
So to solve that I built in a multi stage heating system.
The first stage uses a single 50 Gallon electric water heater and that works to almost zero at which point I fire up a secondary electric water heater to supliment it to about 20 below. colder than that I fire up my old (recycled) Hi efficency forced air furnace aimed at the main source of heat loss, the windows.
True I have to mechanically select each mode. However I'm not wasting expensive energy when it's not required.
Having one sized unit for the total temp swings would be wildly inefficent most of the time..
"So what is green then? Does green=energy efficient?"
"No. Energy-efficient means only energy-efficient.
See post #587."
That was my point exactly.
Jon Blakemore RappahannockINC.com Fredericksburg, VA
That is merely your opinion that petrochemical is not green.. as has been pointed out to you. The energy cost of heating that place for the next 100 years or so will massive require more energy than building it..
You (and others) continue to confuse energy efficiency with green. Green is what nature makes available in a renewable and sustainable way, and what supports the web of life.
It is an elementary matter to determine what is truly green, but you seem to have difficulty with elementary truths when they undermine your prejudices.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
I'm sorry Riversong but can you please tell me who appointed you the green police?
To me building green means doing things which reduce as much as possible the use of oil.
That's differant from the use of oil in the construction of a building..
Construction is a one time event.. heating is required for the existance of the building.
I'm sorry Riversong but can you please tell me who appointed you the green police?
Because I'm one of the very few who are using the term "green" appropriately. You and most others are using it as a sales slogan (i.e. greenwashing).
The green living earth is an energy throughput system that uses renewable solar energy, collected photosynthetically by GREEN living things, converted by ingestion into energy for non-green living things, and then returned to the earth as nutrients for other green living things.
Any technology which uses renewable, non-polluting, compostable, no-waste materials and energy (solar), can be fairly called "green". Nothing else, particularly not the exploitation of deeply-buried "ancient sunlight" (fossil fuels) which the earth deliberately took out of the ecosphere for sequestration.
To me building green means doing things which reduce as much as possible the use of oil.
That's differant from the use of oil in the construction of a building..
That's reduction in use of non-renewable, highly polluting fossil fuels. You can call it energy-efficiency, but not green unless your intention is to deceive.
And there is no difference, except in life-cycle quantities, between the fossil fuels embedded in the house and the fossil fuels required to condition the house. It's all the same stuff, all just as toxic and ecologically destructive and anti-green.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
<<The green living earth is an energy throughput system that uses renewable solar energy, collected photosynthetically by GREEN living things, converted by ingestion into energy for non-green living things, and then returned to the earth as nutrients for other green living things.Any technology which uses renewable, non-polluting, compostable, no-waste materials and energy (solar), can be fairly called "green". Nothing else, particularly not the exploitation of deeply-buried "ancient sunlight" (fossil fuels) which the earth deliberately took out of the ecosphere for sequestration.>>That was worth repeating. <G>1)At the risk of getting both of us thrown out of here, are you interested in drawing a distinction between "green" and "sustainable"?2) You do realize the implications of your position for population, right?<<And there is no difference, except in life-cycle quantities, between the fossil fuels embedded in the house and the fossil fuels required to condition the house. It's all the same stuff, all just as toxic and ecologically destructive and anti-green.>>Strangely enough, that strikes me as an argument in my favor. <G>
Riversong.. Your assertion then that the use of wood is green does not stand up to close examination.
1
Only half of the mass of a tree is ever removed from the forest.. the branches and things not making the commerically viable bole valuable remain in the forest to release the squestered carbon.
More carbon is released in the mill in the form of sawdust and waste wood.
More carbon still is released during construction again from sawdust and scraps tossed into the dumpster.
Thus if we are lucky only a tiny amount of carbon remains sequestered in the building for the duration of the building..
2
Harvesting, gathering, milling, transporting of the bole from the forests consume massive amounts of oil.. Since forests tend to be spread out more oil is consumed than in quarries which are located in one area.
Use of oil in Distribution from the quarry and from the sawmill also tends to be greatly in favor of the quarry.. Stone isn't shipped from the pacific northwest or Alaska to New England like wood is..
3
Harvesting wood still is dominated by clear cutting with all the flaws involved..
In addition most forests are cleared of any commerically viable trees long before they've reached full maturity.
Oak can be commerically viable at 60-80 years while it reaches full maturity in 200 years.. (as a single example)
Thus a forest yields up it's carbon 2 or even 3 times in order to provide wood to build a house..and then remodel the house and replace the house when the house no longer meets the needs of society.
Finally so you appointed yourself as the green police, well I don't accept that appointment..
Thus your definitions are not the final word.. Not on this forum..
<<Finally so you appointed yourself as the green police, well I don't accept that appointment.. Thus your definitions are not the final word.. Not on this forum.. >>I gotta say, I do appreciate your effort to keep this discussion inclusive.As I pointed out earlier, we still have a bunch of roads, power plants, bridges, factories, high-rise offices, subdivisions, stores, municipal buildings, airports, landfills, waste disposal plants, military bases, apartment complexes, shopping malls, and a few houses left to build.It's all going to be built out of something, and we have the choice to do a better job or a worse job.Green certainly has to encompass what Riversong describes, but it also has to address thermal signature, light pollution, habitat loss, surface water quality, traffic patterns, transportation and distribution, life-cycle costs, disposal at the end of the useful life, long-term effects on land use, and so very much more.And directly to your point well-taken is the question of the rate of consumption of natural resources, and the effect that has on the regional and global ecology. That all has to be factored in as well.So at one end of the scale we get rid of about 7/8 of the world's population, the remaining people use whatever is within walking distance to fashion their shelter and eat from their own garden and go to sleep when the sun goes down. At the other end of the scale we (as a species) drown or suffocate in our own waste.Somewhere in the middle looks pretty good to me. <G>
Once again, Frenchy, you're completely making this up as you go.
see: http://forums.taunton.com/tp-breaktime/messages?msg=115053.9
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
stevenplank
Couldn't read it.
Paragraphs is what we need, not spacing. You know that.
Don't you?
Ron
"Paragraphs is what we need, not spacing. You know that. Don't you?"I never knew there were so many whiners in construction...Look, I'veeven tried another browser. It's some sort of technical issue. Notonly do I know how to type in paragraph form but I even know what indenting is. Hell, I can even diagram a sentence. I once had to diagram a sentence from Martin Luther King's "Letter from a Birming-ham Jail". He has a sentence in it almost a paragraph long that is perfect grammar. The computer I use is only a year old, runs on Vistaand has never given me fits of any kind. Unless you are a tech support guy I suggest we all try to get past this and increase ourcollective building wisdom.Are these all the same knuckleheads that complain every time a picturemakes it into FH that shows some obscure OSHA violation?
Listen, about the "enter" key.I could have read your first post, but it would have been very difficult. And I have young eyes.It's just good net etiquette to break up a post into readable chunks.You're saying that your "enter" key does not work, yet you can produce a post with 10 words per line and then a space between? It sounds like it's working just fine.
Jon Blakemore RappahannockINC.com Fredericksburg, VA
"It's just good net etiquette to break up a post into readable chunks."I know this. I'm 37. I was the part of the first generation to grow up with computers. (Anyone remember the TRS-80 Model III?)Considering the time frame I first got on, I was probably one of thefirst of the people on the internet ever. Just because I haven't posted here in a while, doesn't mean I don't have extensive postingexperience and along with that considerable knowledge of posting etiquette."You're saying that your "enter" key does not work, yet you can produce a post with 10 words per line and then a space between? It sounds like it's working just fine."When I click the <Reply> button to someone's post (notice the brackets...that's proper "net etiquette" for indicating a keystroke or hyperlink), the two browsers I use (explorer or opera) both opena new page containing the text box I am currently typing in now.The text box is about 10-12 average sized words wide. If I type allthe way to the right margin, the cursor automatically returns asthough I have hit the <enter> button. However, when posted, the message appears differently. When I type in the aforementioned textbox, if I allowed the cursor to automatically return on say, the lastword I just typed ("last" in this case), when it posts, the line break actually appears about a dozen or so words later than it appeared to me in the text box. This is what got a few individuals(I'm trying to be cordial) so worked up. In my effort to placatethose few so we could all get on with our lives and try to focuson the actual topic, I tried being a smart*ss by doing a postingwhere I hit the <enter> key BEFORE reaching then right margin of mytextbox. The smart*ss part was that I didn't just actually hit the key once but rather 4 times. When it posted it only appeared as it does now. I cannot tab to indent. I suppose I could just try using the space-bar to indent but quite frankly this thread isn't worth the effort.I've settled in at hitting the <enter> key twice when I reach the right margin of my text box which results in what you see here.
stevenplane,
<enter>The length of the line doesn't matter that much. I think it's a struggle to get the line as displayed on the board to be longer than a person's screen, requiring the reader to scroll. Ordinarily, I just type and let the program take care of line length. I take care of paragraph breaks.
<enter>Do you have the "WYSIWYG" box unchecked?
<enter>This software can be a little odd, though. Sometimes, for no reason I can identify, it decides to no longer allow me to enter letters wherever I want and push the existing text along to make room. Sometimes it decides I want to overtype the existing and I can't figure out how to stop it. Makes it hard to correct things.
<enter>Ron
I have to double space between paragraphs. I never thought much about VOCs as problems. Just some Cali mandate. http://toxics.usgs.gov/definitions/vocs.htmlI'm concerned enough now to heavily push it to my clients. Painters hate me<G>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."
Listen, I'm impressed by your internet resume.Just try this- every third sentence you write, hit the <enter> key. All we be well.
Jon Blakemore RappahannockINC.com Fredericksburg, VA
I'm 37. I was the part of the first generation to grow up with computers.
Are you as ignorant about the history of computers as you are about what is green?
I was programming computers several years before you were born, and I was a latecomer to them.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
"I was programming computers several years before you were born, and I was a latecomer to them."I said I was part of the first generation to GROW UP with computers.Also implied was accessability. My generation was the first to have routine access to computers.If you want to get techinal, the Antikythera "computer" predates any of us.
steven..... i was lusting after a TRS-80 when they came out
my first one was a TI-99... but they were both toys..
my first working computer was a dual floppy portable Osborne with a 5" screen
it came with Wordstar, some spreadsheet program and a database program
i started doing all my estimates and proposals on it and never looked back
the Osborne company died an untimely death because they announced a new generation machine.....
that stopped sales on the existing machine and they couldn't get the bugs out of the next generation fast enough to keep up with their rising debt... too slow to marketMike Hussein Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
Can you believe my "Trash 80" as it was lovingly called used audio cassettes for storage...no floppy...16k memory?
My buddy had a Commodore 64 that was SWEET!
By the way, now exlorer is giving me a pop up box with all kinds of font choices, etc...still can't indent. I guess there was a technical issue after all.
No need to indent. Just hit <return> TWICE when you want a paragraph break. Otherwise just let the computer handle the line spacing.
Like this.
I just put a rubber band on the etch-a-sketch knobs..made graphs like crazy, and ya only had to turn one knob..so there.Spheramid Enterprises Architectural Woodworks
Repairs, Remodeling, Restorations
They kill Prophets, for Profits.
If you want to get techinal, the Antikythera "computer" predates any of us.
That depends on what you're willing to consider a computer. The Antikythera mechanism was really a mechanical calculator, as was the abacus which predated it by nearly 3,000 years.
The "castle clock", an astronomical clock invented by Al-Jazari in 1206, is considered to be the earliest programmable analog computer.
What we now call computers really began with the theoretical Turing Machine (1936) and the first working electronic digital computer was ENIAC (1945).
It's almost scary how fast and far they've evolved since then, and a number of the predictions in Isaac Asimov's most famous science fiction story (considered the best sci fi of all time), The Last Question, have come to pass. Perhaps the rest of his story will as well.
http://www.multivax.com/
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
My goodness, we certainly have a lot of knowledge to exchange. It has taken me two
weeks to read it all and get caught up before adding my little story to the mix. I will
start out by saying that you are all partly right, so everybody just relax and enjoy.
My example of green, should really mess with your preconceptions, and fortify the
point that context really matters. My house has no insulation, no heat, and is very
comfortable nearly all the time. The secret to this miracle, location. We live in
Hawaii, with the windows open almost always, and not a furnace in sight. Of course
I will point out that the lumber to build the house, as well as nearly everything else
that we use, has to be shipped a minimum of 2500 miles, either by ship or plane!!
With the energy saved by not heating, we almost save enough to pay for all the
transportation costs of living on a remote island. I get some justification out of
still owning forest land in Washington, but I doubt that five acres of trees can offset
my crimes against the environment.
The only real green way to treat the planet is by population control and vastly
reducing the consumption of almost everything else, but the population is a long
way from practicing that, just look how much trouble municipalities have with recycle
programs. I will stop now, but be back tomorrow to see what I can learn.
Dan
handydan
It took me more then two weeks to read it all. You must be a fast reader.
Ron
Want to talk to me about termites in Hawaii?
Frenchy
We have two types that I know of, although I have no claim to being any entomologist. They are mostly of the type that swarm once or twice a year, at which time they are flying. I don't know of anybody that does not have at least a few of these in their home somewhere. The other less common, is the underground type that gain entrance by tunnelling in mud of their own making. These are the ones that can eat up beams in a hurry, I have personaly seen a 6 x 10 that looked to be half gone, in a commercial building that was only a year or two old. That was a pressure treated beam, with I think the old copper treatment, though I am not sure of that.
The tunnelers are pretty easy to discourage, and easy to catch if you are looking often enough, so even though they can do big damage, they normally are not a problem.
The fliers on the other hand, are small enough to crawl through window screen, and will eat through the sheetrock to get to treated studs. I have no idea how to keep them out, so I just spray chemicals into the little holes as we find them. Thankfully they don't eat very fast.
There are a few reasons to appreciate your cold weather, no termites is one of them.
Dan
http://www.termite.com/termite-control/new-ulm.htmlMike Hussein Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
Thank you very much Mr. Smith, probably more than Frenchy wants to know, but helpful to the rest of us. Your posts are more than worth the price of admission.
Have we answered the original question yet, which is greener, or do we just agree that any shade of green is at least a small improvement and hope to continue doing better as the trade improves?
Dan
See that's one place where I would think screams for ICF's not for the insulational value which as you point out is not needed but termits don't eat concrete..
See that's one place where I would think screams for ICF's not for the insulational value which as you point out is not needed but termits don't eat concrete..
Yes, you do a lot of screaming about ICFs.
If you want a termite-proof wall, then pour a concrete wall and insulate in on the inside.
An ICF wall that has the outer insulation turned into swiss cheese by colonies of termites is simply throwing away money. And, unless there is an excellent termite barrier to separate the outer foam from the framing, it makes an excellent hidden highway for the buggers to destroy the home.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
How are you going to pour that wall? Wood is too expensive in Hawaii to use for usch a purpose and steel forms require mega buck equipment to put in place efficently..
ICF's can be purchased with Borate in them and isolated to prevent infestation.
They are extremely user friendly and a decent do-it- yourself type of material.. You can easily save the cost of them over the cost of having a crew erect the forms for you.
Frenchy how many blocks can you fit in a container, and would you like to hazard a guess what it will cost to ship them to Hawaii? I am not really on themarket, as my jobs are all much smaller repair and maintenance, but I always like to wonder and dream about what the best answers would be. A big concern is still going to be keeping the littler critters out of the interior walls and roof framing. Keep me thinking!
Dan
I can't answer for a container, however I can answer for a semi. (53 ft long, 102 wide, 109 high.) average load 832 forms that's 702 straight forms and 130 corner forms.. of the 9inch forms.. one form covers 5.33 sq.ft. and 4.22 sq.ft in a corner.. (unless it's extended forms which then cover 5.55 sq.ft.
each form is 16"x 48 inch I'm guessing they weigh 2-3 pounds each. (pure guess)
go to http://www.rewardwalls.com to get full details..
I suspect that there might be a plant in Hawaii since they are relatively easily made and it would be such a natural fit.. check with the concrete companies..
As for interior and roof framing you could use steel joists..
A friend of mine was thinking of building an ICF house in Hawaii. He was going to need to ship them over in a container and I believe the cost was about $17K four years ago. Don't know if he did it or not.John
I suspect that there might be a plant in Hawaii since they are relatively easily made and it would be such a natural fit..
Tell that to the native Hawa'ians who never considered concrete or petrochemical foam to be "natural" and, like all sustainable indigenous cultures, used the building materials that grew all around them - which are invariably the most appropriate and "natural" for the locale.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Frenchy,
I believe that I have failed to communicate to you that we have no need for the insulation values offered by your favorite form blocks of foam. The favorite construction method is currently using galvanized steel framing, sometimes with fiberglass insulation if planning for AC, although it is not really needed if the home is set up to catch the normal breezes. As long as the house is below 1500 elevation, heating is just not needed. I have not checked, but I am willing to bet the plant is on the mainland, as the market here would not be very large.
I cannot imagine temps of -40, I have to run the freezer pretty hard just to get down to 0.
To actually be green, what we in Hawaii need to do is grow more groceries, thus eliminating some of the barges and container ships. This of course could be another lengthy discussion for another time and probably sight.
Dan
Dan I understand that clearly having spent time in Hawaii I know for example most homes have only one wall not an inner wall and outer wall as is so common in the rest of America..
The purpose of the forms is not to insulate. Rather a simple method for DIY to pour concrete walls. One up the outside can be coated with stucco (dryvit) and you have your finished outside. The inside could be treated either similarly or with normal sheetrock.
I agree that insulation is of nominal value in Hawaii. Only rarely does it warm up too much that ocean breezes won't keep you comfortable and also extremely rare does it chill off enough to require any sort of heating..
Just so you now I'm typing this in minus 22 below temp which is fully 5 degrees warmer than yesterday morning.. (I have lust in my heart!)
All,
This has been an interesting and long thread...After all this..
I am not sure if anyone has changed their minds about the materials that they have chosen.
The materials that are available...and the construction techniques that they are comfortable with.
Certainly not Frenchy.
When I think of what is locally available...I think of what is sold at the local material centers.
(never said I was green)
I think that it would be more useful to discuss the basics of building a healthy and durable home.
Attached is a photo of a home that does not even pass the "keep the Rain out" principle!
A modern durable home should be AIRTIGHT (not vaportight) and provide healthy programmable MECHANICAL ventilation.
All new built to code homes are too tight to avoid mechanical ventilation...sooo..we might as well build them as AIRTIGHT as we can and provide ASHRAE standard Air changes(IT"S THE LAW.)
Edit to say attachment is in the next post hopefully...arggg
Edited 1/16/2009 10:22 am by homedesign
Edited 1/16/2009 10:27 am by homedesign
Attachment
keep the rain out
oops forgot to downsize
Edited 1/16/2009 10:27 am by homedesign
frenchy said he has a cricket at that locationMike Hussein Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
I realize you haven't paid a lot of attention but there is something called a cricket which is designed to keep water from ponding in potential ponding areas.. You can put a drop of water or a fire hose up there and no water will remain moments later.
Due to the microclimate it is even free of leaves in the fall.. In addition if you look it is easy to walk out of the dormer windows and get to that area so if a branch should fall or something of that nature happen it is easy to get around that tower.. I designed it that way because the satelite reciever is set behind the tower and I assume that periodically that will require some attention..
Please do stop by or send someone by to confirm. If you continue to have doubts.. I believe I've already answered your inquiry before.
So, how come the door looks crooked? :)
Hey, it does look crooked!
I know it's not, but you are right it looks crooked.. Maybe it's the utility box which isn't yet reattached to the building and leans towards the door.
could be termites...
"Dan I understand that clearly having spent time in Hawaii I know for example most homes have only one wall not an inner wall and outer wall as is so common in the rest of America.."
What do you mean by that? Are you saying the interior and exterior finish are the same material?
Jon Blakemore RappahannockINC.com Fredericksburg, VA
yes!
What are the details- is it a cementitious parge coat over a CMU?
Jon Blakemore RappahannockINC.com Fredericksburg, VA
basically yes!
Although there are many other options available.. for example you can get brick ledge. That provides a 4 inch ledge to set bricks or stone on. (which I used) then you can take the brick ties and run them into the nylon cross ties.
You could also use differant sized forms to achieve the same thing.. For example if 4 inches isn't sufficent for some reason you could use a combination of 15 inch and 9 inch to get a 6 inch ledge or a 15 inch brick ledge and a 9 inch wall form to get a 10 inch ledge..
It's relatively easy to work a radius into straight forms. and there are forms available that are designed to work in a radius.
Are we still talking about construction in HI?
Jon Blakemore RappahannockINC.com Fredericksburg, VA
yes.
Frenchy,
You said:
"Dan I understand that clearly having spent time in Hawaii I know for example most homes have only one wall not an inner wall and outer wall as is so common in the rest of America.."
I asked:
"What do you mean by that? Are you saying the interior and exterior finish are the same material?"
After my request for clarification, you replied with:
"It's relatively easy to work a radius into straight forms. and there are forms available that are designed to work in a radius. "
I'm still asking about the unique construction that you mentioned they employed in Hawaii. It seems to me that your reply about the forms was in relation to ICF's. I'm just trying to figure out what the "inner wall" and "outer wall" comment meant.
Jon Blakemore RappahannockINC.com Fredericksburg, VA
Jon You asked in tradional Hawaiian construction the intere and exterior walls are often the same. Another words in most American construction we have an out wall a space (where insulation is placed) and an inner wall. (typically sheetrock).. studs seperate the inner and outer wall.
In Hawaii often the inner wall and outer wall were the same piece of wood..
Hopefully that clears up your apparent confusion..
you were reading things to handy dan and I can see how you got confused..
Frenchy,
I still have no idea what you're trying to describe.
"n tradional Hawaiian construction the intere and exterior walls are often the same. Another words in most American construction we have an out wall a space (where insulation is placed) and an inner wall. (typically sheetrock).. studs seperate the inner and outer wall."
Are you talking about a double stud wall? For instance, if using 2x4 nominal studs the wall thickness (not counting GWB, sheathing, exterior, etc.) would be 7"? Or are you just saying that the interior and exterior finishes are typically different with "normal" American construction?
" you were reading things to handy dan and I can see how you got confused.."
No, I was reading things you posted to me. I understand that you're talking about ICF's to Handydan, but that's not what I quoted.
Jon Blakemore RappahannockINC.com Fredericksburg, VA
No
I'm sorry I could be clearier for you.. I'll try again..
In typical Hawaiin construction there is no sheet rock on the interior. In addition the studs are turned 90 degrees to what is common in mainland practice..
Single wall pictureJohn
Frenchy, with a weather report like that, you should consider a plane ticket for wood trade of some sort. It has been a while since you were here, there has been a few improvements to our construction methods since they quit the single wall stuff that you mention. Most of the houses that I have been in, are very similar to standard for most of the US, with the notable exception of insulation and furnaces.
The hurricane protection of the concrete walls would be worth some consideraton, but I am curious about the impacts of earthquakes. We had 6.7 a little over two years ago, that lassted nearly a minute, and the buildings with most damage seem to be the concrete structures that were too stiff to sway around like a drunk. I prefer to fix sheetrock cracks instead of concrete cracks, but maybe they were flawed designs.
Dan
I'm sure this is probably a tangent for another discussion thread but shouldn't labor hours be part of the discussion on how "green" something is? Kind of like embodied energy?
If it takes an extra 500 man hours to use a given construction technique than another then the people performing the work had to do more traveling, eating etc. to perform that extra labor.
Just thought I'd toss that into the mix.
Personally I think it's going way too far...but that's kind of the point. I think embodied energy can be taken too far as well.
I don't think you are off on a tangent at all.Throughout this discussion we are engaging, bit by bit, the difference between "green", "energy-efficient", and "sustainable."There is some overlap, but they are different concepts.
interesting point but it dodges the real constant.. Cost..
In my case my labor is not only free but it's something I want to do..
Some like to play golf or drink in a bar.. some like to go hunting.. I like to build and create..
I don't like to draw so my plans are mere sketches to get approval from the building department. I don't want to be bothered with cost projections and budgets so I don't do that..
Wood is cheap, my time is free, and I want to do this stuff.. If the golf players could imagine the approach they use towards golf or drinking or hunting etc.. that is my approach towards building..
I did my design work by layout. When doing the front portico in ICF's for example I laid them out. Ran a string to the center point measured the resulting angle and then cut each ICF to that angle.. I laid out my roof trusses the same way. I spread timbers to reach the required span and laid timbers on top of the outline in the driveway that gave me the angles to cut everything at..Once I had a master I made duplicates untill I had enough done..
Math and design is for those not willing to do the work.
Edited 1/17/2009 12:39 pm ET by frenchy
If the golf players could imagine the approach they use towards golf or drinking or hunting etc.. that is my approach towards building..
Yah. About the same as Dick Cheney's hunting technique.
Math and design is for those not willing to do the work.
Engineering and design is for those who want a house that meets all the project objectives and structural and thermal requirements of code and quality construction. Anything else is guess work and a seat-of-the-pants, hope-you-didn't-miss-anything, trial-by-error process which will invariably result in unintended consequences.
I've made a good part of my living fixing the problems created by your approach.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Babe Ruth never took batting lessons.. AJ Foyt never went to driving school.. Thomas Edison, Alexandra Graham Bell, Orville and Wilbur Wright, Countless others have not been forced into standardization by schooling telling them what they can and cannot do..
People must be allowed to be unique, be creative.
Is it always successful? No! However improvements come only from non standarization of approaches to various matters.
I keep telling you how efficent my home is to heat. You claim it cannot be.. One of us is wrong.. What would it take for you to admit that it is you?
Finally...
Do not ever refer to me and Dick Cheney in the same sentence again..
I consider that extremely slanderous and highly offensive.
One of us is wrong.. What would it take for you to admit that it is you?
Proof.
But you can't offer that because you have no grasp of building science, building engineering, or math.
So all you can offer is opinion and anecdote.
Babe Ruth never took batting lessons.. AJ Foyt never went to driving school.. Thomas Edison, Alexandra Graham Bell, Orville and Wilbur Wright, Countless others have not been forced into standardization by schooling telling them what they can and cannot do..
Knowledge of math and science doesn't "force standardization" or "tell you what you can or cannot do", but it allows you to figure out what you can and cannot do successfully, and it allows you to communicate successfully with others.
Batting and car driving don't require the same level of skill and knowledge as designing, engineering and building a house. As for the others, they were intelligent enough not to require conventional schooling.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Edited 1/17/2009 5:19 pm ET by Riversong
Edited 1/17/2009 5:38 pm ET by Riversong
In a word Bullshif. Trial and error led to most of Edisons inventions and many of the developments we enjoy today..
Van Gogh didn't take art classes.. Orville didn't take flying lessons.. people succeed because they work at it and try what hasn't been done successfully.
As for proof I offered you plenty of proof.. I don't need a degree in engineering to subtract one heating bill from another.. That's something kids learn by the second grade.
We should all be congratulated on spending so much time and effort working on the WORLDS consumption problems. I believe that it includes a lot more than "green building" , but we have to start somewhere and this is what we do or know or are interested in.
Now for a few answers or clarifications 1. I am not Hawaian, moved here 10 years ago from Seattle. 2. Single wall construction has not been done here for quite a while, it consisted of exposed studs, and sometimes plumbing and wiring as well. The above example of beautiful wood working was not the normal application, but does illustrate the idea. 3. Any home of "normal" construction methods here, uses more energy getting the materials here, than it ever will to heat or cool. 4. I believe that any structure that is built to last longer than it will be useful is probably overbuilt. Why should we force people to tear down good buildings because they no longer serve the desired purposes. Plan accordingly please.
Dan
handydan
Explain how long a house should last please.. I mean there are homes in Italy that were built a thousand years or more ago. Some of the homes in France are nearly that old..
To me wastefulness is building a home that will only last 100 years because as you point out it must be replaced. THE WORLD IS GETTING MORE PEOPLE NOT LESS.
If we have to replace homes and build new ones as well we will consume vastly more of the world's energy resourcesand material resources than if we build well to begin with.
The single wall construction so common in the past is a perfect case where the local requirements have been suplanted by a me too generation willing to follow along like a herd of sheep.
Frenchy,
The point that I was so un-effectively trying to make, is there is little value in adding durability to anything that will be outdated before it is worn out. There is always a weak link to anything, and it seems to me that the houses of today face a tough time in being adaptable enough to stay useable for your projected hundreds of years.
At some point in time, my opinion only, it will make more sense to tear down the house than to update it with whatever the public wants to have at that time. Anything that uses more materials or energy to live well past that future point of time is wasting those resources. Change is happening faster and faster, and I would think that trying to predict housing trends a century in advance to be a very sketchy proposition at best. As somebody pointed out much earlier in this discussion most of the houses that ended up as landfill were torn down for style and size reasons, not that they were falling down. Sure most of them have some structural issues, but the economics is what did most of them in, in my humble opinion. Feel free to disagree as you see fit, we are still a free country!!
As for the single wall me too attitude, I think it had a lot to do with hiding wires and pipes, which are both becoming very popular in houses over here too. Only so much can be done from floor and ceiling mounted fixtures.
Dan
You weren't doing a poor job of stating your position.. It's one that is commonly shared by the vast percentage of contractors.
Shaped because you have to have regular work to eat regularly. <grin>
My point is differant. I come from the waste not want not school..
I realize that even in paradise resources are limited. Therefore we should make optimum use of them..
Here's where I tend to be a pragmatic realist. That not everyone who wants to should be allowed in Paradise.. there is a price of admission.. That price goes beyond the airline ticket to include the cost of living in a home that makes optimum use of resources rather than reflects the home they came from.
When I visited Hawaii there were certain things I fell in love with and some of those plantation homes with their single wall construction was among them.. Sheetrock has no place in paradice as far as I'm concerned..
I thought it was clever how they ran pipes and wiring in closets and inside walls and that showed me just what could be done..
Yes to those of use used to homes on the mainland single wall construction seems flimsy (and it actaully is) however that's all that's really required.
Modern stick built housing in Hawaii is as out of place a doublewide in Palm Beach Florida.
Trial and error led to most of Edisons inventions and many of the developments we enjoy today..
Thomas Edison was home schooled, self-educated and well-read. Yes he experimented by trial and error, with lots of catastrophic errors that often cost him his employment. But when he was told by an employee, Nicola Tesla (a true genius) that his most famous invention - DC generators - were a dead end and the future was in AC, Edison wasn't interested and in fact refused to pay Tesla what he had promised him for the several improvements he had made to the Edison system.
Van Gogh didn't take art classes..
Van Gogh was taught to draw at a school in the Netherlands and was an art dealer before he started to paint.
Orville didn't take flying lessons.. people succeed because they work at it and try what hasn't been done successfully.
Orville could hardly have taken flying lessons as there was nothing to fly, but it was Wilbur who was the driving force behind their inventions and Wilbur failed to get his high school diploma only because the family moved and it was only because a hockey stick knocked out his front teeth that he decided not to go to Yale.
As for proof I offered you plenty of proof.. I don't need a degree in engineering to subtract one heating bill from another.. That's something kids learn by the second grade.
Proof? An alleged comparison of two bills with no documentation to show what you were comparing. Yes, that's the kind of proof I would expect from a second grader.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
River,
While I agree with many of the things you have said, engineers and math don't always get the job done, at least not on their own.
Aerodynamicists, scientists, engineers, etc. claim that bumblebees shouldn't be capable of flight.
I believe in art grounded in science with excessive reliance on neither.
"Aerodynamicists, scientists, engineers, etc. claim that bumblebees shouldn't be capable of flight."Maybe this doesn't disprove your point, but the bumblebee thing has been proven to be using bad (or incomplete) science, it wasn't the science that was wrong.Of course, labs and tests are great, but like the scientist who incorrectly stated that bees can't fly, if the tests are not applied properly, you will get bad results.
Jon Blakemore RappahannockINC.com Fredericksburg, VA
Jon,
I believe the point Stevenplane was trying to make was valid.. In line with my post that I didn't need a degree in architecture to design and build my house.
We can digress and point out the flaws in homes designed by architects. Not all homes they design are flawed as well as not all homes designed by DIY's are flawed..
Flaws may exist to be sure but again that is another digression..
Bottom line? Not every thing that is done is done by those trained to do it.
Further, the certificate itself is of little real value in the quaility of the work done.. It's standard that most of what a person learns in college is of little use 5 years after graduation..
I am not minimising a degree (indeed I wouldn't have worked as I hard as I did to achieve mine if they had no value) however the degree itself is a passport not an ends to a means..
"I believe the point Stevenplane was trying to make was valid.. In line with my post that I didn't need a degree in architecture to design and build my house. "
I agree with your hypothesis. You have a very impressive house and your energy savings are impressive.
However, using a sample size of one is not really a great idea. I don't doubt that your renovated house is more efficient than the previous version, but how do you know that the steps you have taken are the most effective & efficient for everyone else? Especially when you have freely admitted that you don't really value your time.
"Bottom line? Not every thing that is done is done by those trained to do it."
Again, I'm in agreement. However, there is a difference between expecting those who are performing a task to be an expert and expecting that those who are entering in a debate about a topic that is hotly debated and difficult to answer.
For instance, I do not have much understanding about embodied energy. I roughly understand the topic, but I would have to do a lot of research to debate Riversong on the topic.
It's kind of like some articles in FHB. I remember there was an article written several years ago by a guy who built a retaining wall. It was his first retaining wall of this particular sort he had ever done. At the end of the article, he admitted that he would do several things differently on the next one.
I'm not knocking his knowledge or experience (he has more than me on that particular subject and is probably a very smart guy), but I remember thinking at the end of the article that I wish they could have found a smart guy who built these kinds of walls frequently. I know how to handle many roofing situations, but I don't have the depth of experience that Stephen Hazlett has on a roof so you won't see me writing any articles on roofing anytime soon.
Just as you reject the sentiment among some that the only opinion should be of those with an engineering degree (as well you should), I think you need to be willing to accept that sometimes the application of science can tell us an incredible amount about how our buildings are working.
Jon Blakemore RappahannockINC.com Fredericksburg, VA
Well written and effective counter argument.
Unfortunately it's wasted on me because I accept the premise you postulated. That properly done scientific testing can achieve great things..However I believe we both agree that not all progress comes from those so trained.
Long before I picked up a hammer I did my research and made my evaluations. Some of which originated on the pages of Fine Home Building.. However I went far afield from this magazine. There are volumes and volumes of data and reference matter which I won't bother to list because those who are most insistent on my listing such data have already made up their mind..
The very things which Riversong finds so objectionable I find of high value. For example he points out that foam will last 10,000 years or some such number in land fills I think is a great atribute towards building a durable structure.
Disposabality is only valuable if you build in a manner which ensure it will be disposed of.. Modest little places which will eventually need to be replaced. I contend that that method of construction is a flagrant waster of our resources.. I look at buildings that have endured many hundreds of years and pattern my building after them..
Embodied energy is also a subject which I have gone to a great length to try to take from a fact to a simple calaution made with flawed data. The idea that one number represents all wood is nonsense.. Catskinner is having difficulty writting on this very subject, I can understand why I had a list of over 3500 sawmills in my state alone and I regularly added to the list. I can't remember any sawmill that did things exactly the same way as another sawmill. One would be powered by electricity on the grid another generates it's own electricity still another run by an old Model A Ford Engine and a third by a modern Japanese Diesel.
Wood could be floated into position or hauled by skid steers or front end loaders or horses..
Wood will arrive at sawmills from an infinate number of locations via a variety of methods.. and harvested with an infinate variety of equipment..
How on earth is one number going to represent that?
How on earth is one number going to represent that?
Do you understand the concept of the statistical mean (average)? It's really quite simple.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
IF there was a standard method of collection of such data that would be possible. It would also be great burdon to small and medium mill owners. None of which have ever told me about filling such data.. (and believe me I hear their complaints all of the time when it comes to paperwork or data collection..)
I suspect your source may have taken a limited sampling of local mills and extrapolated a number.. not done proper research on the hundreds of thousands of mills.. many of which aren't even listed in anyones records..
I remember somewhere in the midst of all this that you mentioned using bathroom exhausts on timers as mechanical ventilation. Is that just to keep indoor moisture levels down? and if so do you think a humidistat would work instead of timers?
Edited 1/21/2009 12:28 am ET by fingersandtoes
I remember somewhere in the midst of all this that you mentioned using bathroom exhausts on timers as mechanical ventilation. Is that just to keep indoor moisture levels down? and if so do you think a humidistat would work instead of timers?
Fingers, I predict that you will get a very good answer from Riversong.
From what I have seen..I get the impression that Robert is one of the few people at Breaktime who understands the significance of providing healthy air exchange for our modern homes. Not just the tight homes but the built to minimum code homes also.....
I think that Catskinner (among others) has ignored this issue in his homes and believes that it does not apply to him.
This is an issue (fresh air exchange) that I really know very little about. I have always recommended to my customers that they install an "air to air exchanger" on the HVAC systems of their ICF homes and felt that was enough for dealing with any stale air issues. However, I have read some things that have led me to believe there's far more to fresh air than just that.
Recently, I was told by an HVAC engineer that the air to air exchanger for an ICF home was unnecessary unless the home was going to be occupied by shutins. He claimed that just a couple of exterior door openings per day brought in plenty of fresh air and then allow a properly sized heat and air unit to handle humidity levels.
He also recommended a few brands of units that adjust the humidity on the "front end" of their cycle and once that's completed, then adjust the temperature.
I'm learning and know enough to know I don't know nearly enough.
Recently, I was told by an HVAC engineer that the air to air exchanger for an ICF home was unnecessary unless the home was going to be occupied by shutins. He claimed that just a couple of exterior door openings per day brought in plenty of fresh air and then allow a properly sized heat and air unit to handle humidity levels.
That "engineer" should lose his license or be jailed for negligent homicide. Any house built to today's minimum energy code standards (and even some which are not) are too tight for adequate natural air exchange to maintain safe and healthy indoor air quality. And natural ventilation works only when the wind blows or there's a significant stack effect in the winter.
An ICF house is at least as tight as other constructions and will definitely require whole-house ventilation at a minimum of 0.35 air changes per hour (ACH). A heat recover ventilator (HRV) or energy recovery ventilator (ERV) - no one calls them air-to-air exchangers anymore - is an option for increased energy efficiency, but a simple balanced exhaust-only system with passive fresh air inlets will work fine, too.
But, like any mechanical system, it has to be properly sized, properly designed, properly installed and properly maintained to function properly and not cause additional problems. An unbalanced system, for instance, often caused by duct leakage in unconditioned spaces, can cause positive winter air pressure that moves moisture into the thermal envelope or negative summer air pressure that will suck moist outside air into the envelope - in each case causing mold, corrosion and decay problems.
In cooling climates, an ERV that's coupled to the heat pump ductwork can increase indoor humidity even when it's meant to reduce it, if it relies on the heat pump fan for circulation.
So get yourself an HVAC person who knows what they're talking about before making any decisions.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Edited 1/21/2009 5:49 pm ET by Riversong
steven,
Your engineer must live where there is no winter.
In an ICF house, you need mechanical ventilation in every room in the house. Every room will be as tight as the next one, if the house is built right. You build an ICF house in order to achieve maximum airtightness, and it's easy to achieve a very high standard. To then leave your ventilation - crucial to quality of life - up to the chance opening of a door is beyond stupid.
And, if you have winter, it makes no sense to choose an air exchange system without heat recovery. Without even considering the cost of the heat you would be discarding, I understand that the straight air exchangers tend to turn into large frost balls and quit working when it's cold out.
I remember somewhere in the midst of all this that you mentioned using bathroom exhausts on timers as mechanical ventilation. Is that just to keep indoor moisture levels down? and if so do you think a humidistat would work instead of timers?
Most energy codes require controlled mechanical ventilation to maintain indoor air quality. The common standard is 0.35 air changes per hour (and no less than 15 cfm per person).
The simplest system, since a bath exhaust fan is often required and always wise, is to use an efficient, quiet bath fan (I prefer Panasonic whisper series) and connect it to both an short-term timer for use when showering and a remotely-located 24'hour programmable timer for regulating the daily baseline air exchange rate.
An important function of air exchange is to keep indoor humidity levels down to the safe zone, usually 30%-40% in winter. Where codes or efficiency standards don't require a timer, it's possible to run the fan with a dehumidistat since elevated humidity is a good indicator of general toxic buildup. But the location of the dehumidistat makes all the difference. If it's in the bathroom, then it will clear that room but not function as whole-house ventilator. If it's too near the kitchen stove, it will be coming on too often. If it's right near the woodstove or in the sun, it might never come on.
I've done this, but better to use an intermittent timer in parallel with a programmable timer to guarantee both moisture source removal and adequate whole-house air exchange.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
About ten years ago our code was amended to make exhaust fans controlled by de-humidistats mandatory. It has had mixed success. Builders get constant call-backs from owners who can't figure out why the fan comes on by itself. For some reason it seems to be beyond the average person and they end up simply turning the dial to max and leaving it there, negating any usefulness. Which to me is a shame as it appeared to be a well functioning idea.Having seen how problematic this simple system has been makes me very wary about introducing HRVs. I am also temperamentally against adding another system which will require a whole infrastructure of maintenance and repair to exist, as usually once things reach a level of complexity that requires outside experts it ends up dis-empowering to the average citizen.I think you are on the right track trying to keep the solutions simple as opposed to looking to new complex technology to provide a fix. We have tried that way and it hasn't proven very useful in the long run.
Back to the alleged "greenness" of ICFs.
There is a spreadsheet-based EcoCalc available for free download that is a database of environmental life cycle costs of various building technologies.
It includes data on primary energy (EE), global warming potential, weighted resource use, water pollution and air pollution.
Every 1000 sf of ICF wall with exterior stucco and interior DW and latex paint costs:
EE: 188 GWP:16 Resource:87 Air: 2649 Water:1.11
Every 1000 sf of wood-frame wall with exterior pine and interior DW and latex paint:
EE: 68 GWP:3 Resource:16 Air:1054 Water:1.29
So, while the wooden house is marginally worse on water pollution, it's significantly better in all other environmental impacts (1/5 to 1/3 as much).
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
No insulation assumed in the wood wall?John
I assume it includes batt insulation, since the wood wall was assigned an R-value of 15.2 or so.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Riversong!
Hey buddy look at life operating costs will you? If you don't like the 56 year number for wood framed houses pick whatever number you can substainate. Then compare it with similar concrete/stone based houses of 6-800+ years old.. If you use say 100 years and then need to substanually rebuild it to deal with wear rot and other issues and compare that to homes lasting more than 8 times as long you need to multiply the cost of the wood home times 8
You claim to care about the earth. Then you need to look longer than the short 100 year lifespan that you are.. Durability is one key componant of life operating costs.
Hey buddy look at life operating costs will you?
First, we're not buddies.
Second, apparently you don't understand the concept of life-cycle costs. That includes all environmental impacts from the gathering of the raw materials to manufacture, transport, construction, operation, maintenance, repair, and ultimate disposal.
A wood-frame house has an ICF house beat manyfold.
Then compare it with similar concrete/stone based houses of 6-800+ years old..
Show me a single ICF house that's even 100 years old. There are thousands of wood-frame houses and other buildings in the US that are 200-300 years old.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Your objection to ICF is myopic and totally disingenous. Older homes had no insulation at all. Your preferance for shredded and chemically treated paper is valid only if a short time frame is considered.. There is no evidence at all that shredded paper will endure for even 100 years.. Yet you assure me the life cycle of foam is 10,000 years or so.
Set aside the matter of insulation and the relative benefits of foam over shredded paper. The issue is concrete or wood.. There is concrete from early Roman times that remain today, yet no such examples of stick built homes survive..
You are again fast and loose with woods.. wood framed houses is not the same thing as stick built homes.. You should know that with your claimed knowledge..
Finally the term buddy does not have to mean friend. However it's noteworthy that you rejected even that olive branch..
I think I'll copy these green threads and put them in a time capsule in the walls of my next job for the archeologists to analyze.Will Frenchy been seen as a Nostradamus type seer and Riversong an evil Rasputin? Or vice versa? Only time will tell.John
Your objection to ICF is myopic
If by "myopic" you mean seen with laser precision, then you're quite right.
Your preferance for shredded and chemically treated paper is valid only if a short time frame is considered.. There is no evidence at all that shredded paper will endure for even 100 years..
"Shredded newspaper" has been used as a house insulation a good deal longer than the current craze with foam. And newspaper in anaerobic conditions does not deteriorate (you can still read newsprint buried in landfills for many decades).
Yet you assure me the life cycle of foam is 10,000 years or so.
I never said any such thing. In fact, expanded plastic foam is extremely vulnerable to UV and mechanical degradation and, when it is landfilled, it disintegrates into tiny pieces which remain as permanent pollution and a threat to land and aquatic wildlife and birds. And that is only it's end-of-lifecycle impact. It's major impact is at the front end.
Set aside the matter of insulation and the relative benefits of foam over shredded paper. The issue is concrete or wood..
We're not talking about separate materials, but envelope systems. As a basement wall, ICF's do have the advantage of reducing the quanity of concrete, but they lose almost all the thermal mass advantage by having insulation on the inside, so there are far better ways to meet the same goals.
You are again fast and loose with woods.. wood framed houses is not the same thing as stick built homes..
Since 99% of wood-frame houses today are stick-built, it's reasonable to made the correlation. Timber frames can be beautiful, but they are almost always resource-intensive.
Apparently, you intend to continue this "dialogue" ad nauseum, even though you lost the debate several hundred posts earlier. Infinite repetition of a false argument does not make it true.
By your own admission, your bias toward ICFs comes from your own limited experience and other anecdotal evidence. You've failed to offer a single fact-based or science-based argument to support your opinions, and you persist like a Jehovah's Witness in trying to convince the unChurched that you have the one and only way to salvation.
Give it up Frenchy. It only demeans you.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Edited 1/24/2009 12:50 am ET by Riversong
Edited 1/24/2009 12:58 am ET by Riversong
Riversong..
I have plenty of sources to confirm my statements. I simply have choosen not to attempt to post my books and magazines and experiance etc.. that I based my research on. You clearly have a short shighted myopic view of the world. All oil bad, all wood good.. With that mind set you aren't willing to consider anybodies thoughts except your own. You've repeatedly displayed that.
Face it there isn't enough wood growing to house all 7 billion people in the world.. and since the vast majority people live in an urban enviornment not in a lightly populated rural area with abundant wood resources..The fire resistance of concrete is required in such densely populated areas the dominate our country.. Thus concrete is not going away..
You speak of papers ability to endure in a land fill for decades.. Again so what? if you build houses to last decades then maybe you'd have a point.. if however you look longer term then you can clearly see that shredded paper isn't the long term solution..
I'll bet you three finger-jointed, pre-cut studs you can't get the last post in this "debate" with Frenchy.
I dunno, RS could outlive the Frenchie..Frenchie'll blow a gasket at this rate.Spheramid Enterprises Architectural Woodworks
Repairs, Remodeling, Restorations
They kill Prophets, for Profits.
Hey Sphere,, will you please do me a favor? Frenchie is the female Frenchy is the male. It actaully works with any name end it IE and it's female end it Y and it's male.
LOL..yeah..ANY name..
Tell that to this guy...
View Image
You callin Eddie Van Halen a girl? Spheramid Enterprises Architectural Woodworks
Repairs, Remodeling, Restorations
They kill Prophets, for Profits.
actaully yes, now as to his sexual orientation.... <grin>
there are always exceptions that prove the rule.
He's had more hetro sex w/more women than you've probably met..besides tagging Valerie Bertinelli for 20 yrs at home.
I have little doubt of his S/O.Spheramid Enterprises Architectural Woodworks
Repairs, Remodeling, Restorations
They kill Prophets, for Profits.
You did notice the <grin> didn't you?
Eddie's?
These are my last words on this subject. There is no point in arguing with irrationality and prejudice.<!----><!----><!---->
The problem with Frenchy's relentless defense of the indefensible is that he's trying to do it in the wrong context.<!----><!---->
The topic of this thread is "ICF versus wood frame - Which is greener".<!----><!---->
If Frenchy (or any other ICF apologist) would limit their arguments to the modest energy-efficiency advantage of an ICF wall compared to a code-minimum wood-frame wall system, they could prove some minimal improvement.<!----><!---->
If they argued that, compared to a conventional cast-in-place 8" concrete foundation wall, an ICF wall reduces the consumption of concrete, one of the most ecologically-harmful materials we consume in enormous quantities - they would have a point. But not if they argued any cost advantage since it's double the cost per square foot of a concrete wall and about 25% more than a concrete wall with exterior XPS.<!----><!---->
If they attempt to argue that the life-cycle costs are lower, they would be contradicted by what's almost certainly the most thorough cost-benefit analysis ever performed on basement alternatives, by the National Research Council of Canada. http://irc.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/pubs/rr/rr199/part6_e.html<!----><!---->
That study demonstrated that the life-cycle costs of an ICF basement exceeded that of any other common basement insulating and finishing system, in spite of offering greater R-value than any of the others, which included 2½" exterior XPS (R-12), 1" exterior glass/mineral fiber (R-3.3), 3" exterior EPS (R-11.25), 2" exterior sprayed urethane foam (R-12), 3½ interior fiberglass (R-12), 3½" interior cellulose (R-12), 2" interior XPS (R-10), 2½" interior EPS (R-9.4), 2" interior sprayed urethane foam (R-12), and ICF (R-22).<!----><!---->
For a finished and thermally and moisture-protected foundation, the life-cycle cost of ICF is 21% more than an interior stud-and-fiberglass (or cellulose) concrete wall system, and 7% more than a concrete wall with 2½" exterior XPS.<!----><!---->
This study definitively disproves the life-cycle advantages of ICF. Other studies have disproved the thermal mass benefits and the alleged air-tightness benefits.<!----><!---->
Without cost-benefit life-cycle advantages, and a significantly higher initial cost, there is little support for using ICF's over conventional basement construction. But the primary failing of all of Frenchy's protestations is that by no reasonable measure of "greenness" or sustainability of building systems does ICF earn a place in the pantheon of earth-friendly methods and materials. While durability is an important measure, the ultimate test of greenness is whether the material is fully biodegradable and leaves no long-term waste. In nature, everything decomposes and recycles and there is no waste. <!----><!---->
No rational person can assert that the two building materials that most detrimentally impact the environment - concrete and petrochemicals plastics - no matter what their apparent short-term advantages, are by any stretch of the imagination "green".<!----><!---->
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Edited 1/25/2009 12:01 am ET by Riversong
Riversong,
Around here, basements that are meant to include living space are mostly constructed with the following section: 2" XPS with cement board protection above grade, 8" concrete (some people are still pouring 10"), 3 1/2" framed wall with either wood or steel studs and FG batt insulation, 6 mil poly, 1/2" GWB. This has been the way things get done for 15 years or more.
ICF is always superior to that in every way: initial cost, operating cost, elapsed time to finish, embodied energy, you name it. ICF in the right hands is also more likely to be flat, plumb, straight and on dimension, but that's another issue.
And the CMHC? Very impressive analysis, but, typically, it doesn't quite refer to the situation in the real world. There is no point in comparing ICF to wall sections that are not, in fact, used.
Ron
First, in trying to be objective, I'd have to say that this thread has demonstrated to me that wood is more "green" than ICF's, presuming you accept certain ideas about carbon as fact. River has been a big part of my conclusion, his arrogance and closemindedness not withstanding.
I would like to try to emphasize a point I tried to make in an earlier post. For me, green is only one of many factors involved in my decision of what type of materials/construction methods to use in a home. If green was the only factor I would be building teepees on wooded lots located near streams. (There are lots of cows here on our plateau that can be killed for their hides...as a bonus you have a years' worth of meat)
His convincing and seemingly scientificly based statistics aside, River is not always right about all things all of the time. (contrary to what he will tell you) It is simple human arrogance (an abundance of which River possesses) to think that mankind is changing the climate with the gasses we pump into the atmosphere when large scale volcanic eruptions (Pinatubo comes to mind...not sure of the spelling on that) produce more ozone delpeting chemicals in one eruption than all of mankind ever has.
Global warming (although I believe it is taking place) can only be proven to be taking place over the last hundred years. Anything more is only theory. Additionally, people like River always seem to dismiss the fact that we are still exiting an ice age. They must do so in order to advance a personal agenda by attempting to radically alter people's behavior.
Global warming, while I'm satisified exists, has also never been proven to be bad. Even if it was proven to be bad and even if you could prove man was causing it we have a small problem called CHINA.
You might be wondering why the attack on global warming and what does it have to do with the original thread post? River and so many others use the amount of carbon production as one of the primary measures of how "green" something is. As readily as they accept carbon production as bad I also dismiss it as being a non factor. At this point neither viewpoint can be overwhelmingly proven so as to make either viewpoint a fact. Once you take carbon production out of the equation I feel ICFs are greener. If you can factor carbon as part of your test of greeness, I can factor it out.
Finally, River posted a link which I read with anticipation. His claim of ICF basements costing more is patently false in Middle Tennessee. Much to my surprise the link he provided proves me correct within the first few paragraphs. Allow me to paraphrase...location must be taken into consideration when accurately figuring costs.
I can build a "finished" (that is to say it is to be sheetrocked living space) ICF basement for at least 30% less than other methods of basement construction USED HERE. 1.) There is not a single "non ICF" poured wall contractor in our County. Some guy from up North moved here and tried a couple of years ago and was out of business within a year. 2.) Block construction was the primary method used until I started using ICF's. Essentially they are/were used as a concrete form (a "grout mix" of concrete is used to fill the cells later) and a poor one at that. It is a labor intensive wall to say the least. 3.) "Superior Wall" systems (a precast wall system) has made a nice initial market push but seem to have hit a plateau because people are suspicious of the long term...having a multistory home sitting on a gravel foundation. 4.) That leaves ICF's. For a finished basement not only am I building for 30% less but that savings is labor savings....my materials cost more than the other two methods used here. (admittedly the manufacturing labor of the superior wall is added into the purchase price so I cannot accurately break down my labor/mat. cost against there's...only total installed cost)
In other words, I can assemble much faster in addition to the cost savings.
"3.) "Superior Wall" systems (a precast wall system) has made a nice initial market push but seem to have hit a plateau because people are suspicious of the long term...having a multistory home sitting on a gravel foundation."Most basement walls in this area are block, poured, or Superior... very few ICFs.I have not seen any problems with superior walls, structurally, and have them spec'd for our next if-the-economy-ever-picks-back-up project. Care to elaborate?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."
In our area, scientific proof of something being engineered well isn't necessarily a guarantee of success. I haven't heard of any problems of any kind with Superior walls.
In spite of my willingness to try new things my gut tells me to be suspicious of gravel foundations. I have no proof or science to give credence to my gut.
By local standards, I'm the most forward thinking guy around. So if I'm thinking that about Superior walls you can only imagine what others are.
If they had a cheaper installed cost locally than ICF's I would inform my customers about them and let them consider it as an option. As a general rule I only recommend something that is better or cheaper without sacrificing quality.
In our area, Superior walls are neither better or cheaper than ICF's.
<In our area, Superior walls are neither better or cheaper than ICF's.>My experience here has been the opposite. The ICF construction I've seen has been pretty squirrely, not a lot of good contractors. The gravel footings are way cheaper than concrete, and a little less environmentally impacting. Labor is less, speed is more, and it doesn't have to be parged.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."
What are these "Superior Walls" you guys refer to?
http://www.superiorwallsnc.com/Precast panels, craned onto a 10" gravel base/footing. They're usually set up in a couple of days... very nice, fast basement.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."
Sweet. You erect/connect them yourself, or hire a specialty sub contractor?
Superior Walls delivers and sets them. Builder prepares the dig and "footings."I am not sure if they will do custom wall heights. 8, 9, & 10' are what I've seen. Much better interior wall finish fastening than ICFs I've seen. It is another way, and another set of trade-offs<G>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."
That's the first I've heard of them, thanks.I doubt we could use a similar system out here on the glacial till and in our seismic zone, but it sure is interesting to learn what is the norm' in other locals.Hey. You know this musician James McMurtry?
Try this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-Q3grjC3-g&feature=relatedSpheramid Enterprises Architectural Woodworks
Repairs, Remodeling, Restorations
They kill Prophets, for Profits.
Never hoid of him, til now... doesn't look too danged green, though.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."
steve.... we do all poured foundations hereand with high water tables... i usually overdig all my holes ... install a pad of 12" of crushed stone... then pour our footings so... what we really have is a crushed stone footing...
if your only problem with Superior Walls is that they have a crushed stone footing , then you really have no problemlots of foundation schemes use a crushed stone footingMike Hussein Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
so... what we really have is a crushed stone footing... if your only problem with Superior Walls is that they have a crushed stone footing , then you really have no problem
It's never been a "brain" issue for me just one of the "gut".
If I haven't made it clear in previous posts I'll make it clear now. I have no "scientific" basis to not be using Superior walls.
Even though I'm only 37 I think I'm starting to get a little set in my ways...though it pains me to admit it.
Do you think thermal bridging is a problem with them at all?
Because of the type of concrete they use I'm guessing they are the strongest wall system out there.
i think Superior wall does well where they have little competition..
ie... where the usual alternative is a block foundationhere in our area i can open the yellow pages and find 20 foundation contractors witi 20 miles of my house..... almost any of which can form and pour a good foundationit sounds like you're concentrating on icf's because you can get what you need and keep contol of the finished producthere, i can get what i need by faxing my foundation plan to my sub... he'll give a price for matls & labornext point... thermal bridging.. it doesn't enter my equation... if i'm doing a foundation i'll usually include a finished or conditioned basement and there is no way i want to heat the mass of all that concrete
i isolate my slab with 2" of Performguard... and insulate the interior of the foundationone of the things i don't really comprehend about icf's is the procedure of screwing things to embedded plastic strips for siding or interior drywall..... almost all of the icf's we see around here are stucco finishMike Hussein Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
I was a "convert" to ICFs. A friend of mine, an old WWII pilot, showed me some forms in the early 90's (the name escapes me as I'm typing...the connectors were metal, not plastic). I thought, "Yeah, ok, that's neat" and quickly forgot about them. He always was trying to get ahead of the curve...always trying to identify the "next big thing".
Then in the late 90's a general contractor I did framing for, called me, wanting me to bid a house. The caveat was that I didn't have to frame the exterior walls. They were ICF.
Once I saw them in person, I was hooked.
I'm not sure what you mean when you refer to the plastic connectors. I have used many different brands through the years and have found all of them to have remarkably strong connectors. We just nail our vinyl siding onto them. (Yeah, I hate vinyl too but in our area customers think of it as a high quality product. Additionally, most new homes are built for retired folks and they don't want the maintenance involved with other siding types) We screw on brick ties. We screw/glue sheetrock. (using a special const. adhesive made for polystyrene...everyone here glues/screws to wood too)
As far as foundations go I parge them using the following method. Lath screwed to the plastic studs with stainless screws and good old fashioned concrete stucco. (scratch coat then finish coat) The stucco sticks to the polystyrene so well I think of the lath as nothing more than crack control.
There's only two synthetic stucco guys in town and they are sky high so that's not really an option.
Another reason I use ICF's here is that my framing crew does them. Seems like the foundation and walls are a lot more square and level when the guys that build them have to frame on them. I've also found it's a lot easier to teach framers ICF's than concrete guys. The block guys around here are primarily drunks...I wouldn't let most of them clean up the jobsite let alone lay a foundation.
You are right, quality control is one of the many factors that led me to ICFs.
stevenplane
I started using ICF after a series of hopeless subcontracted concrete foundations.
Out of square, wrong elevation, not plumb - and then they think I'm a harda$$ because I didn't want to pay in full.
One small job with a complicated layout, we made a full sized layout template. First thing the concrete guys did was cut it up and throw it aside. I said I thought I was doing you a favour, making the layout easy, but they didn't need my help. They could screw it up without any help at all.
Ron
So Ron, has the original question been answered to your satisfaction? Which is greener in your opinion now? Did the last months discussion change your opinion? Or has all of this just made everybody more convinced that they are right?
I will admit that I am thinking a little differently myself, but I am not sure that any real change has happened for me.
I guess that the greenest way to build would be to not build at all, and if you must, size and location certainly seem the most important concerns to me.
Thanks for starting all this
Dan
Handydan,
I was a lot more interested in the debate than in a resolution, so, after 800 posts, I got what I came for. I have enjoyed the process, mostly.
I also learned quite a lot and I am now convinced that if one must choose between ICF and wood frame purely on the basis of the damage each would do to our environment, then ICF loses, something I've rather suspected, anyway. How much it loses by is a question that I do not think was resolved here as I remain suspicious about some of the numbers I read, but I don't have anything better to offer.
That's the way you do have to think about it, too, not "which is better", but, "which does less damage". As you said, the only green solution is to not build at all. Leave the land alone.
Building is what I do, though, so I'm going to build and I'm going to build ICF whenever I can, because I can still make some money doing that.
Anyway, I like it. I like the idea of assembling something as weak as foam forms into a structure as strong as an ICF house. I like the process, which seems so simple, yet demands constant attention to detail to prevent problems. I really like the drama of the day of the pour, when I hope not to learn anything new about how to build ICF, but I often do have another lesson. I like the result of the work most. It is very satisfying to build something as solid as a concrete house. It really does feel different from a wood house.
One thing that came up here that I am still exploring is the idea of a solar heat collector to provide heat to the core of an ICF structure, which would enable harvesting radiation at a much lower level than most collectors. The temperature you need to make this work is quite low, so the collector efficiency can be low and the heat transfer rate can be low and it might still be worth doing.
Thanks for hanging in for all this.
Ron
How would you transfer the heat to the concrete core? Pex tubing poured in the wall? Would the thermal storage be for heating the interior of the structure? Hot water? Both?
Keep me posted...sounds like an interesting idea.
Steven,
The basic idea came from Catskinner, who bailed out of here 100-150 posts ago. Maybe I scared him by demanding he name this thing,
You remove the outer foam from a piece of an ICF wall facing south, or you form it up without foam in the first place. This hole should be a size that can be covered and made weathertight with easily available glazing. We were talking about patio door glazing units, but now I think they might be too big. I would likely be better to have a narrower band right across a house than to have a few large glazed holes.
If you were thinking ahead, you would have added corrugations to the exposed surface of the concrete to increase its surface area. Paint the concrete surface flat black, add the glass and make it weathertight and it should get pretty warm inside that small enclosure whenever the sun shines on it.
The easies way I can think of to transfer any heat collected into the core is to add more steel to that part of it: double the horizontal steel, put two or three vertical bars in every bay and extend this steel a couple of feet in all directions past the opening in the foam.
Any heat you can collect is useful if it serves to raise the temperature of the core somewhat above the average of indoor and outdoor temperatures. So you don't need to collect very much heat for this thing to work.
A portion of the core of your ICF wall is now a Trombe wall designed to be effective at a temperature below room temperature.
At a certain outdoor temperature, in full sun, this thing will reach an equlibrium point at which that portion of wall will not lose any heat from inside. That equilibrium temperature is below room temperature. Once the core gets to that point, it can prevent all heat loss from that portion of wall for some time without any more input.
What do you think?
Ron
<<The basic idea came from Catskinner, who bailed out of here 100-150 posts ago. Maybe I scared him by demanding he name this thing,>>Still here. Still thinking about a name. <G>I turned my attention to more immediate matters when Riversong determined for me on the basis of his superior intellect and incomparable logical prowess that I must be a fundamentalist Christian with distinctly 6th century inclinations. <G>This discussion just got too stupid to justify further participation for a while, but that seems to have calmed down.But if we're done with the intellectual equivalent of scale model train wrecks and we can all go back to talking about building good homes, I'm still in.
Catskinner,
Right from the beginning there have been several streams of thought running through this puddle.
Like you, I ignored one or two. I'm still ignoring one or two.
Ron
Excellent.Let's build something cool. <G>
Catskinner,
You're on, bud. What do we do? Meet in the middle? Kentucky or somewhere like that? I've always wanted to go to Kentucky. And Mushaboom, but I've been to Mushaboom.
Ron
Bring chainsaw and woodchipper and I'll supply all the coffee you can drink.Spheramid Enterprises Architectural Woodworks
Repairs, Remodeling, Restorations
They kill Prophets, for Profits.
Careful, we might have to take you up on that. <G> Could be a blast.Chainsaw and wood chipper . . . so do we investigate the suitability of a passive solar / rough timber frame / adobe/woodchip infill house in the Northeast?
Well , yeah..We'll then go and raid Gunners fridge and pester Grant for copper for our project. Sounds like a plan.Spheramid Enterprises Architectural Woodworks
Repairs, Remodeling, Restorations
They kill Prophets, for Profits.
Chainsaw and a woodchipper. Any chance you could make a detour through Toronto? My Mother-in-law lives there.
Edited 2/3/2009 7:44 pm ET by fingersandtoes
Then there is the disputed but provable superiority of a treated wood foundation in many metrics discussed in this thread, including dollar costs, DIY-friendliness, insect-resistance, embodied energy costs, sustainability, carbon sequestration, and the use of fewer trades for you profit-making/scheduling types, among other benefits illuminated here:http://forums.taunton.com/tp-breaktime/messages?msg=101158.1
What? No takers? <G>
Any idea costwise (materials only) treated wood foundation vs same in ICF's?
"It is hardly too strong to say that there are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters." -- Noah Webster
I figured mine about 8 or 9 years ago, but at the time, the treated wood and fasteners v. the ICFs were about the same price, $1.25/sq.ft of wall. The difference was the ICFs then had to be filled with concrete...by someone i'd have to hire.I liked the idea of the ICFs anyway and was pursuing it at the time, but an article came out in JLC about then about termites tunneling up through foam on a house to get to the wood. There was speculation that the ICFs were off-gassing a substance similar to the pheromones the termites used, a factoid i may have missed anyone mentioning so far in this long thread. We don't normally have termites here, either, but i did dig up some isolated instances where termites were a local problem and our climate IS getting warmer...have to plan ahead. I don't have current pricing. I would follow this up if you're interested, but there are so many more ICF systems now than before that i'd suspect the price could vary a lot, as indeed wood prices are volatile.
"Then there is the disputed but provable superiority of a treated wood foundation in many metrics discussed in this thread, including dollar costs, DIY-friendliness, insect-resistance..."
You had me until "insect resistance". Are you comparing PT wood to ICF or poured concrete?
Jon Blakemore RappahannockINC.com Fredericksburg, VA
I mean to compare the lack of insect interest in treated wood (mine is ground burial-rated, CCA-treated wood) compared to foam. Sorry for being unclear. I've had some bad experiences with insects using cracks in a [rental] concrete foundation to enter the house, though...even though concrete never cracks. <G>
You know about wood foundations more than I do, so here's a question I just thought of.Has the phasing out of CCA effected the PT foundation business? I know with ACQ you can get different levels of retention, just like CCA, but is it as good?
Jon Blakemore RappahannockINC.com Fredericksburg, VA
<<Has the phasing out of CCA effected the PT foundation business?>>I'm not in the business, just operating as a fairly skilled HO, so i can't tell if the switch affected sales, if that's what you meant, beyond ACQ being more expensive in general than CCA. I expect foam, being an petro product, suffered more in that department than the price of the wood treatment, but i haven't done a current price comparison of the various style of ICFs v. ACQ. As far as subbing the ACQ for CCA, the Southern Pine Council has a free, extensive, downloadable, 2 MG brochure on construction specs, methods, details, and tips from this page:
http://newstore.southernpine.com/cgi-bin/newsopine/product?;32;Interestingly, when i did a search of their pdf, they don't mention ACQ at all, only CCA. (Pages 11 and 12 have relevant info on that aspect.) I just got off the phone with a techie i called at the Council who told me that the ACQ is subbed straight across for the CCA in pressure treatment to the same .6 level, with the only caveat being SS fasterners are required everywhere and any Simpson hangers need to be the ones rated for ACQ...stuff we all already deal with above ground. I asked if CCA is still available for sub-grade use and he said there are a few treaters who use it for that and it's allowed by the EPA, but the only reason it would be preferable is the long history of CCA working so well. They expect ACQ to work equally as well against rot and bugs, but they just don't have the history yet to back up the expectation.I noticed in the brochure that in termite-prone areas, they recommend soil treatment as well. End treatment of any cuts if the treated wood is required, of course.
Colleen,
You must have alot of time on your hands if you read through this discussion.
It has been abandoned by the people who participated most because of the dissolution into acrimony that you will have noticed. Rather unfortunate, because there is a lot of valuable information buried in it.
As far as your question is concerned, I have no opinion on the environmental aspects of preserved wood foundations, but I have always been suspicious of their structural value and probable lifespan.
I have only ever tried to work on one, which was installed by others. This was more than 20 years ago. We walked away from that job as the foundation was way too far off square and level. It ended up being the subject of a lawsuit and was eventually torn down and the land sold. Meanwhile, I was out of work - and no deposit in hand.
Ron
It took me this long to get through the thread since i was away for awhile, so my wood foundation comments might not be timely even if they are apropos the subject. Not taking things personally is a spiritual quest of mine, so this thread provided a huge ROI of my time, something i thankfully have lots of bec my material needs are miniscule. If you'd only been called to fix one ICF foundation that hadn't been braced properly and blown out, you'd be initially ill-disposed toward them, too. It stands to reason no one would call you to fix a wood foundation that worked, but there are literally hundreds of thousands of them in Canada since the 1960s, when you guys were pioneering them on this continent. The one you walked away from suffered clearly from myriad quality issues that would plague ANY foundation.
I bow to the wealth of construction experience you contractors have on me, but this is one bit of the puzzle that i can contribute...and i absolutely know it's been unfairly overlooked by the metrics of "green", "sustainable", "energy-efficient" or whatever labels are in vogue now. Riversong posted in the wood foundation thread i linked; he couldn't find any objections beyond rejecting basements entirely, which trumped the positive EE and other figures i discovered. 20/20 vision is only so much of an asset if one is wearing blinders. I think this system bears looking into further for anyone interested in living lower on the food chain.
splints,
"20/20 vision is only so much of an asset if one is wearing blinders"
PERFECT!
About the preserved wood foundations, I was explaining my ignorance. I can still learn.
Ron
Oh, i wasn't targeting you at all with that statement, you know. <G> While it's generally been a disadvantage to me to work so much on my own and have to keep reinventing the wheel, sometimes it allows me a non-prejudiced perspective i wouldn't have if i were subject to the usual channels. The plastic dimple fabric for waterproofing is a good example of that: i still see guys tarring basement foundations, spending more time, labor, and materials for an inferior job they could have done in a couple hours and kept their clothes clean.
Guys like to get dirty so thats no problem !!
Talking dirty, are we? I just came in from my mid-season chimney-brushing with a stop at the compressor before i came indoors. All the metal brush bristle began falling out of the twisted-wire holder, too...odd thing after 13 years or so.Someone should invent a power tool you just send up from below, like that robot vacuum cleaner. Free me up to watch Oprah...
"there are literally hundreds of thousands of them in Canada since the 1960s, when you guys were pioneering them on this continent. "
That's a bit of an exaggeration, but brings up an interesting point: Wood foundations, which were pushed heavily by our government through the CMHC, are pretty much extinct in Canada now. Any speculation as to the forces that have made them disappear?
Not an exaggeration at all. By 1983, 8-10,000 PWF a year were being built in Canada. The latest estimate i read for the US and Canada when i did the last thread was 400,000.I'd be interested in the "forces that made them disappear", along with the backup info on that, as that doesn't jibe with the information i've gleaned.And i haven't found a website dedicated to wood foundation problems, as exist for failing concrete:
http://www.inspect-ny.com/structure/foundation.htmA guy named Roscoe Clark who teaches the system posted this:Permanent Wood Foundation System AcceptancesThe Permanent Wood Foundation System is accepted by the following major regulatory bodies and underwriting agencies, as well as by a growing number of states and local building codes and lending agencies. Note: The system is custom design by woodbasement.com.Model Building CodesNational Building Code 1996 edition. Building Officials and Code
Administrators International, Inc. (BOCA)
Uniform Building Code 1997 edition. International Conference of Building
Officials (ICBO)
One and Two-Family Dwelling Code 1995 edition. Council of American
Building Officials (CABO)
Standard Building Code 1994 and 1997 editions. Southern Building Code
Congress International Inc. (SBCCI)Federal AgenciesVerex Assurance, Inc.
Farmers Home Administration (FmHA)
Veterans Administration (VA)
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (FHLMC)
United States League of Savings Associations
Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA)Lending & Mortgage Insurance InstitutionsVerex Assurance, Inc.
Mortgage Guaranty Insurance Corporation (MGIC)
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (FHLMC)
Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA)
United States League of Savings Associations
Government National Mortgage Association (GNMA)Warranty & Fire Insurance InstitutionsInsurance Services Office (ISO)
Home Owners Warranty Corporation (HOW)And i haven't found a website dedicated to wood foundation problems, as exist for failing concrete:
http://www.inspect-ny.com/structure/foundation.htm
In the early 80's CMHC driven treated wood foundation construction was at it's peak and declined precipitously after that. I would guess there are less than 50 000 in Canada, and I doubt if 500 were constructed last year.
I'm not making any negative aspersions about treated wood foundations. Despite government backing and approval, the system has never gained acceptance as a mainstream practice. I wondered if you had any insights as to why that is so.
Last night i spent about three hours looking for support for your opinion that very few PWFs have been built, or that the number is falling to zero. However, i found just the opposite.I waded through the first ten pages of a google search for <Canada "permanent wood foundations"> and every return for <failures "treated wood foundations"> and found nothing to suggest there is anything but a growing acceptance of PWFs. Maybe your opinion is based on local markets? A number of builders in the upper Midwest are touting their expertise in such foundations. A Dec. 2008 edition of Extreme Makeover: Home Edition featured a PWF in a "green" house in MN built for a woman with health issues whose moldy concrete basement was making her sicker. I found copious trade references for treating lumber and panels for ground burial, including a supplier of SIPS using treated ply rated for ground burial. The industry wouldn't make/invent stuff for a non-existent market.I can give you a number of links for support for my "hundreds of thousands" of PWFs built. Most lump US and Canadian numbers together, though. Calling the Canadian Wood Council for hard data would cost me $.49 a minute from the States...maybe you could do that for us? I sent them an email requesting this information, but haven't heard back yet.
Edited 2/19/2009 2:16 pm by splintergroupie
The history of PWF's in Canada is essentially the history of CMHC's level of involvement in their development. The organization funded much of the initial research into their viability and promoted them heavily as it has various other progressive building innovations over the years. To understand how important their support is, you have to understand that they are the largest mortgage lender here, and were also heavily involved in building social housing.
One of their other areas of interest is in research and remediation of problem buildings, and it was in that capacity during the early 90's that they did much of their work on PWF's, both as earlier less successful foundations reached the premature end of their lifespans, and as the dangers associated with arsenic based preservatives became known. This at a time when the CMHC shifted its emphasis from energy conservation to environmental concerns.
By the the late 90's CMHC had concluded "PWFs would never threaten the viability of masonry or concrete foundation walls", largely due to the reluctance of builders and consumers to accept them, and the organization moved on to other enthusiasms. Once they were out of the game, PWFs pretty much disappeared.
I can't give you hard numbers for their use here (and while I admire your enthusiasm, I don't feel strongly enough about it to spent time on the phone finding out), but it's fair to say if they are being built they sure aren't being talked about. They are not referred to in architectural periodicals, construction journals, or real estate offerings. In fact, as you will have found in your Google searches, most of the references are still to CMHC work and a few industry sites designed to talk up their merits.
Again, I'm not making any judgements on their viability - I think the main roadblock to their acceptance was psychological - but be that as it may, up here in Canada they remain a slowly declining niche technology.
I didn't hear back on my email today to the CWC, so i'm going to email the Canadian Mortgage folks, too; i'm quite curious now, though probably not to the point of spending actual money to find out, lol. Here's a post i read last night on this site: http://www.inspectorsjournal.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=947&SearchTerms=PWFshane the builder
City: Foemost
State: Ab
Country: Canada
Learning Curve: Permanent Wood Foundations
Posted: Nov 24 2008 - 11:57:09 AM
"Up here in western Canada PWFs are the norm now. You don't see alot of concrete foundations anymore mostly due to the price of concrete. PWFs are a great way to build, though not many are being built to modern standards."
Foremost, Alberta. Population 524. A town located in the Badlands probably doesn't provide a great perspective from which to judge building trends. Surely they can't afford to support an inspector? There are only 244 houses.
I'm not sure i'd correlate the size of town someone lives in with his knowledge base. No offense, but your figures of 50K homes is off by a factor of 400% according to the most conservative estimates of existing PWFs i've found. Idaho Don in the earlier thread i linked insisted such a foundation is not allowed to be built on a concrete footer, but he mistook opinion for code that i showed him. You may well be correct in regard to the drop-off in PWFs in Canada, but i still haven't seen actual evidence of that.
I rec'd a rather badly written email back from the CWC "Help Desk" person saying CWC doesn't have stats on PWFs, suggesting the CMHC as well...my next stop.
I note that in Taunton's book on
Building an Affordable House by Fernando Ruiz (with a glowing review by our very own Catskinner, i might add), on pages 49-51, Ruiz lays out hard numbers for his savings using PWFs. One of his sub-chapters is titled "Treated-wood foundations gain converts". He says HUD and NAHB surveys show half of all homeowner complaints are related to concrete. Is that not an astonishing figure? Does a reverence for tradition justify such repetition of our past mistakes?
I don't have a grip on the Canadian market yet, but in a 2003 article in
Builder magazine:
"There are about 350,000 homes with treated wood foundations in the United States now, with about 10,000 more being built each year," Mason says. "Most distributors offer a 75-year warranty against deterioration of the wood. But it's really homeowners who are driving it. They like the comfort of a basement built with wood. You don't get the dampness you do with concrete walls. From the builder's perspective, it's easy. Their framers can build the walls even in winter, and they don't have to wait for concrete to cure."
PS: I hope you take this rebuttal in the spirit of discovery, as it was meant. No harm intended, but i tend to be tenacious.
Edited 2/20/2009 1:50 pm by splintergroupie
"I hope you take this rebuttal in the spirit of discovery, as it was meant"
Of course. I don't have any vested interest in this either way. They are not an option I would pursue here in Vancouver Island because of the regional peculiarities of our buildings here. We generally build on small crawlspaces or slabs. The excavations are not level and often include partial or completely building on rock. The framing crew crib up forms out dimensional lumber that follows the irregularities of the site, and this lumber when stripped is used in the house framing.
I think the reluctance of builders in Canada to adapt PWFs comes from several things. It is a method that does not adapt to large or multiple unit buildings which many in the construction trades work on regularly. It requires more forethought in handing point loads, where builders using concrete are used to assuming will be taken up by the foundation wall with out having to foresee where they will fall. It developed a bad reputation, mostly based on hearsay, due to several prominent early failures and unfortunately it is what I would call a counter-intuitive technology in that most peoples experience is that wood near or at ground level rots.
For it to be used on a widespread level, as it appears from what you say is occurring in areas of the US, it needs backing from large subdivision builders, which has not occurred here. While it may suffer from fewer failures than conventional foundations, the failures are viewed as being a result of the PWFs being a bad idea, whereas concrete failures are always attributed to the builder's neglegence.
The other issue I have only skirted around is the widely held belief that despite the excellent research it produces, the CMHC's track record includes involvement in most of the systemic building component failures that have occurred in Canada through it's promotion of various new technologies and building envelop systems that haven't worked out. A lot of people have been burned and they are reluctant to get burned again.
On a final note, while our intrepid inspector in Foremost may think they have taken over Western Canada, he has been living next to an unprecedented building boom in Calgary and Edmonton where I can assure you if he had spent any time he would have seen for his own eyes that PWFs are not being used. They don't call it the Badlands for nothing.
It seems we are looking at the elephant from different perspectives. So-called "green" building of all stripes, while the techniques have been available for years, also hasn't "caught-on" despite houses using 40% of the energy pie. That's just simply going to have to change; complacency isn't a solution.
This Green Building folder got almost no traffic in its earlier days, but that's changing, a microcosm of increased awareness that energy-saving measures are no longer of marginal economic value, but a national security imperative.
Building on ledge certainly takes more tricks that a wood foundation affords, but that condition is an exception, not the norm. My contention isn't that wood foundations will solve all building foundation issues, only that as a "green" alternative, speaking both environmentally and referring to that boring green currency the US is stuck with, it rocks.
I'm having trouble reconciling the idea that 50% of complaints by homeowners are connected to concrete, yet you cite the CMHC's proposing new technologies that have failed as a reason that wood foundations don't receive broader acceptance. Why aren't similar standards of customer satisfaction applied? I can count the complaints i've read about wood foundation on one hand.
Incidentally, were the new technologies proposed by CMHC at fault, or their execution by greedy or inept contractors? My reading of the massive housing failures in BC points to poor workmanship, not a failure of materials. From a 2003 letter in Realty Times by Jim Adair (bolding mine):
Although 33 of the 40 purchasers had heard of the leaky condo crisis, some were told a previous problem had already been fixed, some believed that concrete buildings were not subject to leaky condo problems, and some said they bought older condos because they thought they would be less likely to have undetected problems.
As you said, PWF is blamed when a PWF foundation fails, while contractors are blamed when concrete fails. Is it not worth correcting that perception?
In profligate times, pouring tons of concrete doesn't get much scrutiny. In more competitive times, however, i see advantages for a builder who can produce a more comfortable living space after simultaneously shaving days off the schedule and a few thousand dollars off the budget, yet ultimately affording bragging rights to the clients about their smaller carbon footprint.
That's GOTTA be easier to sell than a leaky concrete condo! ;^)
Edited 2/20/2009 4:08 pm by splintergroupie
"Incidentally, were the new technologies proposed by CMHC at fault, or their execution by greedy or inept contractors"
Because the CMHC is involved in both research and social housing, they often take the brunt of the failures that naturally occur when building a technique is being developed. They were in the vanguard of super-insulation in the late 70s but the buildings, most notably in Newfoundland, suffered widespread envelope failure due to the absence of vapour barriers. Their early ventures into PWFs suffered the same fate. They get it right eventually, but they do their learning on houses people unfortunately have to live in.
People never apply the same standards to new technologies as they do to the ones they are familiar with. Just as the hazards of existing products we use are somehow given a free ride, while new ones with similar risks are seen as unacceptable. Can you imagine the public accepting a new transportation technology that killed as many people as cars do? Or take the way the debate on the dangers of recreational drugs precludes the damage alcahol does.
I've found a 2004 mold and arsenic study done on ten houses in Saskatchewan 18-26 years old. Arsenic levels in the houses were very low, while mold levels fluctuated greatly and bore no relation to visual inspection of the wall for moisture. No conclusions were reached.
BC had a few problems with full-height PWFs in clay, in wet areas, but
this engineer thinks that 95% of the homes with PWFs are in good shape. I just didn't see any "wide-spread failure" you speak of, though i saw wide-spread media coverage of a few remediable failures in clay.
I've yet to read of a properly installed PWF that failed with similar drainage and waterproofing measures one would reasonably expect to use with a concrete foundation. One fellow who described his failed installation said it was installed to code, but then said his 2x6 walls were backfilled with silty soil to 5'-6", duh. Another described a badly bowed wall of studs 24" OC and 1/2" ply. Those builders should have had their hammers seized and impounded until further notice, same as if they had a wheelbarrow and a vibrator.
(The thing that really stuck out like a sore thumb in my several hours of reading about foundation failures today was block. If anything ought to be outlawed, that should! Yikes, the copious failures!)
One fellow mentioned his insurance company not covering a PWF. Some insurance companies won't cover houses with wood stoves, either. My house got insurance with both, however, so i suppose one simply needs to shop around.
An offshoot of a Canadian group making "RTM" (ready-to-move) homes, ATechBuilder, got a write-up just a few days ago in the Great Falls Tribune for currently drawing construction workers to a new installation in tiny Malta, MT. They build houses in-factory that look like real houses instead of trailers, supported during the move on a big flatbed by their PWF grade beams.
Greensmart Manufacturing of Dawson Creek, Calgary, and Fort St. John currently offer SIP panel foundations. CMHC is listed as the responsible party for six units to be built on Native lands (Lac La Croix), so they apparently haven't given up PWFs either.
One MN fellow who wanted to build a home using
SIP treated panels below grade had to stand on his head for the obstructionist BI, though:
Reminds me of the contortions friends of mine went through to get a strawbale permit, lo, these many years ago, which is now well-accepted technology. I adore those persevering types.
In conclusion (bec i have to get something else done eventually!), my findings are that PWFs are not at fault, but some cut-corner builders were. I find the market for them re-forming, despite early setbacks and unfair press. I agree with you that perception, not reality, drives the market, but perceptions can and will change if they are just flat wrong and costly to boot.
I'll stop bothering you, now, lol. I'm grateful for your providing a rock against which i could push in my pursuit of Truth, Justice, and so forth, because i've learned a ton in the last few days. Thank-you very much for your input and equanimity.
There is a thread about Wood Foundations going on in the Construction Forum. Surprised you haven't weighed in.
I've been gardening, but i'll check it out!
fingersandtoes,
I hadn't heard of the superinsulation business in Newfoundland, though I lived there and worked mostly in renovations until 1989. Can you tell me more?
I do know that in Eastern Newfoundland, a lot of techniques of weather sealing that work elsewhere are just not good enough. The weather is too tough for central Canadian techniques.
When I moved to Nova Scotia, I was appalled at how casual carpenters seemed to be about weatherproofing, but I have since learned that Nova Scotia isn't nearly as demanding an environment. The rough weather isn't as rough and there isn't as much of it.
Ron
B.C. Conservative MP John Cummins, citing internal documents he obtained earlier this year, alleges that the government was aware starting in 1980 that stringent federal home insulation requirements brought in to save energy prevented houses in wet climates - particularly in B.C. and Newfoundland - from "breathing" and drying out quickly after rainfall.
Cummins said he believes federal officials were aware in the early 1980s that a problem with conservation programs and the National Building Code were emerging, but buried those concerns because the potential liability costs were too high.
The documents include:
An Aug. 4, 1981, internal memo produced by officials from Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC), the federal housing agency, pointed to problems emerging at the time in Newfoundland.
"This condition demands early action by builders and homeowners, otherwise, early deterioration by rot of wood frame houses in Newfoundland, and most likely other parts of Canada, will reach major proportions," the memo stated.
"Being aware of the problem, CMHC could be delinquent in not bringing appropriate aspects of it to the attention of others."
The memo, signed by four officials, also cited a "public relations" concern.
"The issues are sensitive and management should be aware of the severity of the possible problems resulting from early deterioration."
fingers and toes,
They called it a "public relations concern". Somebody's house rotting away because they followed the most recent reccomendations is a "public relations concern".
Where is that from? I'd like to see the whole thing.
Seven or eight years ago, I was in an early "R2000" certified house, looking at it for a potential buyer. Stank of rot. A little further investigation (I couldn't really get into it - my customer didn't own it) led me to conclude it was rotten about up to the window sills all the way around. It had a brick veneer front. I don't know what else might have been holding it up. Drywall, maybe. It's still there, too. And it's probably worth a lot more money now than it was then.
Ron
http://www.johncummins.ca/docs/TELEGRAM%20-%20SEPT%2029%202005%20-%20ACCUSED%20OF%20COVERUP.doc.
There are heart-wrenching stories around here of Seniors who are on the hook for over $100 000 of repairs to their leaky condos. Millions of dollars and several years were spent on an official enquiry to conclude no one was to blame. Comforting isn't it?
"End treatment of any cuts if the treated wood is required, of course."
What's around these days that's any good? I've always used green #10 Cuprinol .............. haven't seen around in ages. Years ago it was penta and creosote ........ not good for the environment perhaps but effective.
"It is hardly too strong to say that there are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters." -- Noah Webster
What perhaps is a better question about a wood foundation is whether a poison is appropriate for the use. Penta and creosote that are subject to run-off are a different animal than having it buried deeply in the ground where the poison SHOULD be doing its job instead of running into a stream, e.g off a train trestle. A buried and covered foundation is a different risk factor than playground equipment. The CCA lumber actually shows little tendency to lose its treatment, and the ACQ even less; CCA was voluntarily removed from the market. I used copper napthenate as my preservative, standing a cut end in a bucket of it when necessary, but mostly i tried not to have any cut ends in the ground. I bought 16-footers and cut them in two bec they were higher quality than the 8-footers my supplier could get (go figure), but i oriented them cut-end-up and didn't even treat that end. I treated the cut ends of the bottom plates, but you can even let them run long in the footing trench if you prefer not to cut the PT end off.
Sphere,
I'm afraid the only tool they would let me cross the border with might be a teaspoon. I'm good at watching work though.
Ron
That would be fun. I've got a friend in Kentucky who is one heck of a good carpenter who might need something on the family farm if she still has it.
If you could easily do the foundation yourself and have a strong sturdy, insulated, and easy to finish foundation for much less would you be interested?
That's why I fell in love with ICF's
ICF foundations are as easy as using plywood forms... surely you can cut plywood?
ICF's are not cheaper...
Insulating a foundation is not a problem either.If you are doing it yourself you can save even more than a ICF foundation by using stud walls and shiplap, then re use the shiplap in building.
Edited 1/25/2009 12:42 pm ET by Westcoast
How ya gonna hang sheetrock on a poured concrete wall? With ICF's you just screw the sheet rock into the ICF. With ICF's there is no need to tear down anything, pull nails, and clean concrete..
In my case ICF's were cheaper by over $11,000 than having poured walls or concrete block done. and that doesn't include the value of insulation! OK I traded 2 days of work for that $11,000 but that's pretty good pay! $5,500.00 a day.... ?
Nearly everyone on the planet can lift a 2 or 3# foam block and set it in place like a big foam leggo.. I'll grant it takes a little bit more strength to lift a piece of rebar and snap it into place.
So are you saying you can build your own house but can't build a form-ply foundation yourself?
If my accountant brother can do it with no experience, anyone can!Since when do you put sheetrock on a foundation wall???
Once you start introducing DIY labour into the discussion, any comparisons are meaningless. If the CEO of a hedge fund takes the day off to build his IFC foundation do you include a percentage of his half billion dollar salary in the cost? And I still don't understand how something being easy to build by inexperienced workers makes it green.
couple of points to answer you.
One if the billion dollar a year hedge fund manager gets his kicks doing it do you want to deny him that?
Why on earth would someone want to chase a little white ball around a golf course when he can have someone else do it for him?
(see my point?)
DIY is greener than having others drive to your site and do it. (because presumably you're already there)
In addition poured concrete walls require big diesel equipment to carry the forms and put them in place.. So you're saving a big trucks fuel consumption 2 times.. first to put them into place and second to return them..(Plus ICF's use less concrete)
>> In addition poured concrete walls require big diesel equipment to carry the forms and put them in place.. So you're saving a big trucks fuel consumption 2 times.. first to put them into place and second to return them..(Plus ICF's use less concrete) <<What??? I get either plywood forms delivered by the form rental company, or i get ICF's delivered by the lumberyard... but form ply takes up a tenth of the space that ICFs do so they use a flatbed dual wheel pickup and a small trailer. Lumberyard with ICF's uses a big 'diesel" truck as you put it!So my lumberyard is about 8 miles from the house i am building right now, and my forms came from another contractor who is not using them right now and he lives a mile from this house. So using your logic Frenchie, this house is greener i assume!
Edited 1/25/2009 1:53 pm ET by Westcoast
You really do not know what you are talking about do you?
If you buy ICF's from a lumberyard you are nuts!
Either buy direct from the maker or contact the concrete company. Second The forms are foam, you can deliver them on a bicycle! I used my pickup and race car trailer. but for all they weighed I could have pulled them using a Pinto!
You rent forms? I thought you said that you used forms you made and then took the forms apart and reused the wood!
I haven't seen a plywood form used commerically in more than a decade.. oh maybe the odd scratch built one if the metal forms wind up being the wrong size or something..
No i said you can use shiplap and re use that. I live in a small town 35000 people, the lumberyard is the local rep. The regional rep is 100 miles away and they ship them in to the lumberyard.ICF's cannot fit in one pickup load , but i can fit a rancher crawl space size foundation on my pickup.So i build both ways with ICF's and regular formed concrete, nothing against either but i have to keep you corrected on your errors, that's all.
I am really surprised that you need to buy from a lumberyard.. what I know about lumberyard pricing is that you are paying a higher profit margin on things than if you buy them from the concrete plant that sells you the concrete..
I can see why you think they are expensive..
No I couldn't carry all the forms I needed in one trip and the pickup only took a relatively small amount.. the trailer carried most.. $20.00 worth of gas versis a $50.00 delivery fee.. but my time was free so maybe If I did it professionally I would have them delivered..
The concrete company's here are just concrete. I can get another supplier that delivers it to me on the job, but they involve more time with faxing etc, the local way is quicker as i can drop off my foundation plan and it's done.They are more expensive that's why. The cost to pour a formed wall and then insulate is cheaper even if i lived in the city where the distributor is.
"One if the billion dollar a year hedge fund manager gets his kicks doing it do you want to deny him that?
(see my point?)" No sorry I don't. You can't simply decide to remove the labour cost of any system because you happen to have friends or family that will do it for free. It's like saying Porches are less expensive than Hondas because your neighbour owns a dealership and gave you a huge discount."DIY is greener than having others drive to your site and do it. (because presumably you're already there)"Come on now. That makes no sense at all. I might already be there, but if I'm going to do every trades work as well as my own, I'm going to be driving to that site for months longer than usual. What's green about that?
Let me spell it out for you.. I enjoy the work.. it's differant from the mental gymnastics that go on daily in the sales game. I do physical work instead of going to a gym and work out and when I'm done I look at something I accomplished..
I don't like to sit in a bar and ruin my liver,, I don't enjoy hunting, fishing, or playing golf..
I know I'm not alone.. look at people who like to mess around in a garden or do wood working as a hobby..
I crawl under greasy old cars to restore them and that passion is shared by a lot of other people. Some very rich people like Jay Leno and Clive Cussler. Watch the Barrett Jackson auction sometime.. most of those cars going across the block cost the people who restored them far more money than they will get, but they can't wait to get rid of them because then they have room to do another one..
I know it is so funny watching Frenchie tip toe around everything! Like the saving 11,000 dollars!! Now he is saying it is wasted effort so i guess the money is not his point anymore!
You need to spend a little more care when reading.. I said that your brother wasted time building a plywood wall, tearing it down, removing the nails, and cleaning the plywood.. In addition he has to now deal with bare walls and no insulation..
What is wasted time if he is DIY? You keep going on about saving money... that's what my brother did too. Insulating with Styrofoam is not hard.... You need to quit contradicting yourself!
every single finished basement.
as for your brother, If he would try ICF's he'd never take the time to form plywood and then tear it back down, pull the nails, and then clean the plywood..
Wow! talk about wasted effort!
Don't forget my foundation was done by my sister-in-law with absolutly zero experiance doing any sort of construction work.. she had a 20 minute drug slurred intruction from me as I lay in bed..
So every point you try to make you come back and contradict yourself very quickly.Your original points a few posts ago was about ICF's being cheap and easy. You have done nothing to make a point. Your sister in law built it...so what. My brother built one, so what!ICF's are more money, and they take the same skill that it takes to do a standard foundation...that's it!
>>ICF is always superior to that in every way: initial cost, operating cost, elapsed time to finish, embodied energy, you name it. ICF in the right hands is also more likely to be flat, plumb, straight and on dimension, but that's another issue.
Are you quoting a study of some sort here, or just stating an opinion?
David,
Both those statements are my own conclusions drawn from my own experience.
I first worked for pay in home construction in 1970. I first worked with ICF in 1995.
You might say I am "just" stating an opinion, but it's an opinion drawn from a lot of hard-won experience. Understand - I have done it the other way, too, and I still do, sometimes.
Ron
David,
for a do-it-yourselfer ICF is a easy simple assembly and with nominal attention paid can result in a nice straight wall.
That takes it out of the specialists hands and puts it back into the hands of ordinary people without massive investments of either equipment or time..
Please do not be swayed by studies.. They need to be funded by someone and the percentage of purely unbiased studies done is virtaully nil..
What you will never see done is a in depth study that determines what the average citizen can achieve and at what cost.. No one can pay for that study.
"2" XPS with cement board protection above grade,"
What's the preferred method of finishing off the top of the cement board? Do the sill plates hang off 2-1/2" past the concrete foundation?
Jon Blakemore RappahannockINC.com Fredericksburg, VA
JonBlakemore
Many wood frame houses here are built in what I refer to as "R2000 style". The R2000 program is a set of standards of insulation and airtightness, not a construction style, but they are often achieved with wind braced wood frame and "sheathing" of 1 1/2" of foam, so covering the top isn't as big a problem as it appears to be.
The foam sheathing brings the whole wall surface out. Myself, I would cantilever the plate out the extra inch to make everything flush.
Ron
Edited 1/25/2009 2:52 pm by ronbudgell
Edited 1/25/2009 9:07 pm by ronbudgell
Congratulations to all. It seems that this bundle of arrogance and google enginnering has decided to "leave the buidling". Good ridance. Nice job Frenchy!
Are you nuts? You like Frency's fictions over proven facts that are verified by Gov't agencies and resources?
Go on and play with Frenchy, you're in his league.
Just think you could have learned something with an open mind.Spheramid Enterprises Architectural Woodworks
Repairs, Remodeling, Restorations
They kill Prophets, for Profits.
Sphere,
As has been pointed out, if initial "damage to the environment is the only concern sometimes stick framed wins out. If you are looking at life cycle numbers an ICF house will be more efficient over the long haul..
It's hard to think that way as a contractor since your very livelihood depends on building and rebuilding.. Plus the Average American moves every 5 years, so you have a constant market. However the least environmental damage done is the house not built. So if all houses would last indefinitely then there would be a minimal impact on the environment.
Since the longest lasting examples of durable homes are all made of stone or stone composite such as concrete Long term ICF's offer greater durability than wood..
Frenchy's fictions are entertaining at best. Riversong is a jerk deluxe. Contributes very little to the forum other than personal attacks and Googled "facts". I'm in the same league with neither, thank you. I have a great deal more in common with Riversong. I learn new things everyday, even from unlikely sources. The sarcasm of my post was obviously lost on you.
I considerd briefly that it was pure sarcasm, but lacking enough familiarity with you, I assumed your rejoice was genuine.
Googled facts are fine with me, saves me the time. Personal attcks I did not percieve as attacks more as frustrated out pouring while searching for the target. Frenchy don't hold still long enough to get dialed in on..he's off on a tangent every othet post.
Apologies if I missed your point, we have no emoticons for dripping sarcasm, so often it's disguised as wit or a left handed compliment.
Now as to the "debate'..I have a log home from pre-civil war..so I'd say I'll keep my predjudices close to my chest. (G)Spheramid Enterprises Architectural Woodworks
Repairs, Remodeling, Restorations
They kill Prophets, for Profits.
I'll be honest, I did not read much of the Fenchy/Riversong debate. Frenchy frustrates me on many occasions where I have and will continue to lash out. MEGO kept me away. The alein (that one truly made me laugh out loud, BTW) will continue to astound with his perspective and understanding of our planet.
The personal attacks I was refering to were directed at me, everytime I questioned or challenged something he (Riversong) posted that I disagreed with or at least had a different perspective about. Googled facts are fine but not a substitution for engineering education and background. I know more about psychrometics and indoor air quality than he ever will, yet ever discussion was ended quickly by arrogant shiddy remarks and attempts at condescention. I can dish it out and take it as well as anyone, but this only fun if there some real discussion mixed in. That didn't occur.
Are you suggesting that beyond pestering Riversong nearly to death with illogical canards Frenchy offered any serious refutation of any of Riversong's arguments?There are probably a few people on here that would annoy me if I spent some time getting to know them in the Tavern, and I'm sure I may annoy a few people too, but it's silly to let that get in the way of the discussion.
I am suggesting nothing of the sort. Every credible challenge to Riversong's technical like factoids (this DOES NOT include anything from Frenchy) were met with personal attacks and obscure, useless references. Frankly the exchanges between the two were like watching two real fat kids wrestle, briefly entertaining but ultimaltey sad.
It is a sad reflection on my character, but I could watch two really fat kids wrestle for hours.
Me, too. Or at least 1000 posts....
"...but I could watch two really fat kids wrestle for hours."
You're not alone, but in some countries, they call them Sumo. Here, its just WWE ot WWF or WTF...
"Aerodynamicists, scientists, engineers, etc. claim that bumblebees shouldn't be capable of flight."
That myth has been quoted here before, but it is just that, a myth.
From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bumblebee
The important part:
"According to 20th century folklore, the laws of aerodynamics prove that the bumblebee should be incapable of flight, as it does not have the capacity (in terms of wing size or beat per second) to achieve flight with the degree of wing loading necessary. Not being aware of scientists 'proving' it cannot fly, the bumblebee succeeds under "the power of its own ignorance".[24] The origin of this myth has been difficult to pin down with any certainty. John McMasters recounted an anecdote about an unnamed Swiss aerodynamicist at a dinner party who performed some rough calculations and concluded, presumably in jest, that according to the equations, bumblebees cannot fly.[25] In later years McMasters has backed away from this origin, suggesting that there could be multiple sources, and that the earliest he has found was a reference in the 1934 French book Le vol des insectes, they had applied the equations of air resistance to insects and found that their flight was impossible, but that "One shouldn't be surprised that the results of the calculations don't square with reality".[26]"
John
damn.... beat me to it...
Mike Hussein Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
david..... i've seen lot's of failed units.... but they were all on windows of which i couldn't tell their pedigree
i'm going on 34 years on my own now... and i can't think of any insulated units we've installed that have failed
i agree with you that they're out there
but... i bet if we had access to marvin & andersen's statistics, you would be favorably impressed
Mike Hussein Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
dunno - have you taken a close, critical look at them? - today I cleaned the 'atrium door' I bought in '82 - (M.P.I. 82-2 stamped in the aluminum between the panes) and it has started 'blooming' inside the panes (actually I first noticed it a couple years ago) - white spots - not real bad, and nothing you would notice from a distance - but to me, that's failure - it's going to get worse, till someday I/someone gets fed up and it ends up in the landfill - i can't clean it - I can't fix it - I can only live with it until I can't stand it anymore - I notice it every time I look - there's a 'Caradco' double awning in the bathroom with one sash nearly opaque, it's about 12 years old - I've got a new sealed unit for it, and to their credit, Caradco sent it to me for free - now I just need to remove the sash, disassemble, reassemble, replace, and figure out if the piece of weatherstrip that's come off the bottom of the sash is important - probably take half a day - I don't do this for a living - the high $ low-E argon filled unit upstairs south is the worst - it is 20 years old or so - Norco, I believe - it's just terrible - metal cladding has not held up either, blistered - it's a tough location - that's why I spent the money - bah - I've got other stories, but you get the picture - so - not anderson, not marvin - I can accept that there is quality differences, altho I believe the contention was put forward earlier in this thread that none of the window manufacturers own their own glass production lines - I always bought what the locals were selling - and since they were 'one of', I was happy for the service - I wonder if anyone has taken some 20 year old units of the sort Riversong uses back to the lab for evaluation...the past 10 years I've gone with shutters - interior and/or exterior and have gone to adding a storm sash (single glass surrounded by metal perimeter w/fuzzy gasket) screw clipped to wooden sash, forming a double glass sash - I'm sure it's less effective than sealed double glass, but....they can be disassembled and cleaned - I believe they might last 100+ years - seems like the high tech glass units promoted here share the same characteristics cited in excoriating ICFs - high EE, non-recyclable, and since I can't repair the failed glass in my shop, I call them 'non-repairable' - this is about 'green' isn't it?"there's enough for everyone"
don't know.... i'm not much of a fan of "green"... as i've said before... it seems to have been taken over by the marketing boys and it's leadership has a lot of the same shills who jumped on solar to make a buck when they passed the tax credits ib the '70's...
i'm for energy conservation....... and long term low maintenance.... even if it means using the synthetics
but glazing is so critical to both of those that i pay a lot of attention to claims
and action speaks louder than words
i want window / glass mfr's with track records.... i don't want to be twisting in the wind, hanging on the barbwire, tring to explain to my customers why their windows need replacing after 20 yearsMike Hussein Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
Mike,
"i'm for energy conservation....... and long term low maintenance.... even if it means using the synthetics"
Right on, man. I'm on yur side. And I'm going to be spelling like yu from now on too.
Ron
ron.... dint u mean spelling like me ......2 ?Mike Hussein Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
Mike,
eye stil hav a lot of lurning tu du.
Low overhead has always been my strategy, so I can spend the savings on parties - my experience with modern glazing makes me look hard at alternatives - I readily acknowledge I am an outlier in more respects than one- "there's enough for everyone"
I wouldn't make it a habit quoting wiki, especially around these message boards.
"I wouldn't make it a habit quoting wiki"
I would say that is better than spreading myths without any reference! :-)
John
steven..... the claim that bumblebees can't fly based on aerodynamics is a myth....
invented by someone who was not an aeronautical engineer.... in fact they obey all the laws and can fly.... you can look it upMike Hussein Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
Ok, fine. The fact it's a myth doesn't diminish my point that we cannot rely strictly on engineers, etc. nor can we rely strictly on trial and error in the field. We need a good balance of both.
This isn't a myth...they still haven't figured out exactly how wood glue works. I guess I should have used that analogy.
Your comments about engineers vs trial and error show that you have a misunderstanding about what engineering is.
Engineering is the blending of art and science - theory and conceptual design mixed with real world experience and testing.
ah, man....yur having a rough time w/ this crowd..
remember...
non illigitimi carborundumMike Hussein Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
Aerodynamicists, scientists, engineers, etc. claim that bumblebees shouldn't be capable of flight.
Sorry, but it's only those who have no grasp of science and engineering who spread such nonsense.
Bees Can't Fly<!----><!----><!---->
<!----> <!---->
The "science has proved that bees can't fly" urban myth originated in a 1934 book by entomologist Antoine Magnan, who discussed a mathematical equation by Andre Sainte-Lague, an engineer. The equation proved that the maximum lift for an aircraft's wings could not be achieved at equivalent speeds of a bee. i.e., an airplane the size of a bee, moving as slowly as a bee, could not fly. Although this did not mean a bee can't fly (which after all does not have stationary wings like the posited tiny aircraft), nevertheless the idea that Magnan's book said bees oughtn't be able to fly began to spread.<!----><!---->
<!----> <!---->
It spread at first as a joke in European universities, at Sainte-Lague's & Magnan's expense. But later it became a "fact" among the gullible or the uneducated not smart enough to get the joke. Later still it became a "fun" experiment to develop complex mathematical theories both to explain how insects fly, or why they can't -- scientific intellectual sophism.<!----><!---->
<!----> <!---->
<!----><!---->
Never underestimate human capacity for ignorance.<!----><!---->
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
shouldn't labor hours be part of the discussion on how "green" something is? Kind of like embodied energy?
Only to the extent that it impacts such things as you mentioned: commuting miles and other uses of non-renewable, environmentally-harmful products or processes.
Labor time will effect financial cost unless you're an owner-builder. But labor, like trees, is a renewable resource and is a social and economic benefit, not liability.
One of the measures of "green" is how much does a project or material or process support the local community, circulate money in the local economy (which has a large multiplier effect compared to sending money outside the community), encourage entrepreneurship and enterprise, etc.
So for my "green" projects, I'll always lean towards using local trade labor rather trading off saving site labor by relying more on factory labor (locally-sawn lumber, for instance, instead of manufactured materials).
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Handydan.
ICF's are rated up to 200 MPH wind speed.. (that's in a stand alone situation ie: roof blown off)
and a 4 hour fire rating.. (they are self extingushing, another words once the source of ignition is removed they won't continue to burn.
plus they conform to earthquake regulations and do extremely well in siesmec active regions.. They are approved in Los Angelos on RR25418 which I believe has some of the most stringent earthquake standards.
Sound transmission class of (STC) 41-65
it's a EPA's energy star manufacturing partner..
No offgassing, fumes, odors, toxins, or formaldehyde plus no HCFC's or CFC's emitted during the manufacturing process.
Uh, My daughter works for the airline so All I pay is a nominal fee to fly to Hawaii or anyplace else in the world.. (London is $105 away) plus because she get's various bonuses we can upgrade to first class or even fly completely free..
another words
The expression is "in other words".
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
An ICF wall that has the outer insulation turned into swiss cheese by colonies of termites is simply throwing away money. And, unless there is an excellent termite barrier to separate the outer foam from the framing, it makes an excellent hidden highway for the buggers to destroy the home.
River,
I always hear this claim and although I don't use borate treated forms I do always pretreat for termites and pour a termite barrier. However, I have never seen any evidence anywhere of termites ever actually doing this.
The only thing I have ever seen is pictures of unused ICF's that have been left outside for an extended period of time (they were yellowed) that became infested with some sort of bugs. The website claimed the bugs were termites.
Do you have any personal knowledge of termites turning ICF insulation to Swiss Cheese?
Do you have any personal knowledge of termites turning ICF insulation to Swiss Cheese?
No, because I don't use ICFs and I don't live in termite country. Here we have carpenter ants and pine/spruce borer beetles. They're bad enough.
Termites and other insects will tunnel though rigid foam of any kind. I suspect if you googled this you would come up with lots of cases and pictures. And no ground treatment is forever.
A quick Google search for "termite damaged foam board" came up with 68,700 hits.
Here's the first one http://news.ifas.ufl.edu/story.aspx?id=1276:
GAINESVILLE, FLA. --- Termites aren’t just out to eat the wood in your home. A new University of Florida study shows the voracious insects like to feast on your home's insulation, too — making it nearly 75 percent less effective.
In tests measuring how termites damage the thermal properties or insulation in homes and other buildings, three types of widely used construction materials -- 2-by-4 boards, five-ply plywood and foam board insulation -- were exposed to the pest for eight weeks by entomologists at UF’s Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences.
“All three building construction materials were damaged by termites, but the pest caused more damage to insulation than to either the wooden 2-by-4 or plywood samples.â€
...they were surprised to find that rigid foam board insulation was most heavily damaged by termites, with 12 percent of the material being removed by termites in eight weeks, causing a 27 percent loss in insulation values.
“In fact, the insulation materials are an almost ideal habitat because they protect the pest from cold temperatures.â€
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Vermont & northern Maine are kind of peculiar in their termite populations
but they do have some
Eastern subterranean termites
View ImageArea of Distribution: The Eastern subterranean termite is the most common and widely distributed termite in the USA, commonly found from southern Ontario, in all eastern states of the USA including Texas.
AREAS OF HIGH RISK IN VERMONT include Burlington-VT, Rutland and South Burlington.
Identification of Swarmers and Soldiers: Swarming generally occurs during the spring but occasionally a few smaller swarms may occur during the summer. Swarming most often occurs during the morning following a warm rain shower whereby the soil temperature is around 70°F.Mike Hussein Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
Mike I'm sorry but your map is incorrect.. Minnesota does not have termits.. on rare occasions termits may have been discovered in areas bordering Iowa but they aren't common or found nesting..
You also show them in up state wisconsin which they simply do not exist not in the Upper pensula of Michigan..
I'm told our extreme cold prevents them from surviving..
hah, hah, hah.... i always get a kick out of people who tell me there are no termites where they live.....
<<<<<
Termites? No way
View Image Many states require termite inspections before real estate can change hands. None are required in Minnesota because there are no termites here. That is why I was astounded a few years ago when I sold a home that was infested with termites. The buyer had an inspection and we all saw the mud tubes, but since none of us had ever seen a termite or a mud tube it just did not register.
When an exterminator later informed my buyer that the home had termites no one believed it. We were told over and over that there are no termites in Minnesota, maybe in Southern Minnesota but not here in St. Paul, we are just too far north. I later learned that there have been cases of termites in homes on the East side of St. Paul near 35 E, and there have been a couple of cases in South St. Paul.
I now know what to look for and can at least spot the obvious signs of termites. The type of termites that live here are call subterranean termites. They use mud tubes to travel from one place to another. The picture above shows what a mud tube looks like. They don't like light and the mud tubes keep them in the dark.
Learn more about termites>>>>>>Mike Hussein Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
There are no termites where I live...
But your map already knows that.
;-)
you don't need termites....you got plumbers, don't cha ?Mike Hussein Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
I give up...what's the joke?
I give up...what's the joke?
I think he's alluding to those big "termites" with their butt crack showing and their Milwaukee Sawsall.
View Image
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
I've enjoyed a lot of this thread, even tho it's been hard to keep up - I do have a question for you, Robert - your system relies heavily on high-tech glazing systems - doubled glass with low-E coatings and more - my experience with such systems has been unsatisfactory - a large percentage have failed - in my personal case, of the 12 'thermo-pane' (I use this as a generic term for sealed, double glazed glass panels), 5 have failed, two don't really qualify as transparent anymore - I have other anecdotal experiences with friends houses - in fact, I can't think of anybody that has had 20 years of experience with this 'modern' system that hasn't had to deal with failure - are you accounting for this short life situation when you are calculating the embedded energy/lifetime costs of your building systems?"there's enough for everyone"
your system relies heavily on high-tech glazing systems - doubled glass with low-E coatings and more -
LowE double-glazing is hardly either modern or "high-tech". In fact, it's considered the minimal glazing system today. Most window manufacturers don't even offer anything less.
my experience with such systems has been unsatisfactory - a large percentage have failed
Then you must either be using poor quality windows or poor installation methods. Double-glazed glass has a standard warrantee of 20 years, so most of them outlast that by a long measure.
The first generation of themal glass used single seals and were warranteed for 10 years, after which they often failed and fogged. I haven't seen that kind of failure in more than 20 years, and most of what I did see was due to incompatabilities in the sealants used for site-built fixed windows.
What do you propose? Single-glazed windows on a superinsulated house?
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Edited 1/16/2009 10:48 pm ET by Riversong
some I've used are salvage - a critical one on the south I paid the big $ for - guess which one failed most miserably -
they don't recycle and they are energy intensive to produce - similar criticism to ICFs -
- and gas tight, vacuum/gas filled, metal coated qualify as high tech - however old the technology - 'higher' tech may be available, I don't know - I believe I have read about windows to which electric current is applied, adjusting their transmission of various wavelengths of light - I'm not interested in windows that work only when plugged into the grid -
would you agree that the life of your favored window is less than the life of the Larson Truss wall in which it resides? - how much less?
What do I propose? - I propose a transparent glazing system I can clean - shutters are nice - here's the last window I built - tonight, the shutters are closed and the area comfortable - the glass is at least 120 years old - I suppose I could accept a storm window if necessary -
dunno - windows have been a weak point ever since someone decided to cut a hole in the wall -
how does replacing the glazing units in your houses 4 times in 100 years affect your 'green' calculations? I ask an honest question - not playing 'gotcha' - "there's enough for everyone"
how does replacing the glazing units in your houses 4 times in 100 years affect your 'green' calculations?
First, I don't accept your assumed replacement rate. Nor do I accept that modern windows are unrepairable. The sash can be replaced or the glazing unit in the sash (which can be fabricated by any glass company) without having to replace the frame if it's intact.
Second, the amount of operating energy they'll save will more than offset their ecological or financial replacement cost.
Even assuming only a 20-year usable life, here in cold VT (8500 HDD) with minimal insolation 900 BTU/SF-day, a double-glazed lowE south window with 10sf glazing would offer a net lifetime gain of 167 therms over a single-glazed window. Even at today's fuel prices of about $4/therm, that's a payback of $668.
An east or west lowE window will have 240 lifetime therms less heat loss than a single-glazed unit, or a payback of $960, while a north LowE window will have a payback of $1088.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
"...poor installation methods."BTW, would you expand/expound on the relationship of the installation methods and the longevity of the seal of the double pane glass unit?seriously, we've lived low on the food chain our whole lives (using the American scale) - a half dozen times over the past 30 years I've anted retail $ for 'good windows' - I have been unsatisfied in every case - short lived and 'unrepairable' (I know, you can acquire new sealed units and replace - keep your paperwork, hope the company can still be found, custom order, whatever)and then there is my friend with the lake house with $50,000 worth of glass facing the water - it ain't my style, but it is his - until there started to be spots and 'spider webs' in between the panels after 15 years - suffice it to say that the glass co (now owned by another company), retailer, and installers are all pointing fingers and ducking for cover - warrantee is of questionable value - I just have a hard time accepting such items as 'green' -
Edited 1/17/2009 12:47 am ET by DavidxDoud
would you expand/expound on the relationship of the installation methods and the longevity of the seal of the double pane glass unit?
I was referring to site-built windows. As I already stated, most seal problems that I've seen were due to using caulks (silicone) that were incompatible with the edge seals.
Years ago, I had to jack up an old carriage house that had been turned into a finished conditioned space and then had a second storey built on top of it because the sills were rotting.
The exterior wall of the carriage house had no framing, only heavy plank-on-plank construction, and someone had cut it and installed two large double-glazed picture windows.
When I removed the glazing units (no frames), I found a 3/8" groove compressed into the sill from the glass unit holding up the weight of the second floor and roof and significant snow load. The seals were undamaged on these double-glazed units and I reinstalled them. As far as I know, they're still in service in this commercial kitchen ten years later (and they were 10-20 years old when I worked on them).
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
There are no termites where I live...
You're right on the edge, though. (And, Frenchy, much of MN is within the danger zone).
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Yeah, it's probably just a matter of time.
Many states require termite inspections before real estate can change hands. None are required in Minnesota because there are no termites here.
Mike, you're confused. Frenchy said that there were no termits in MN, not termites.
Termits are close cousins to Kermit the Frog.
View Image
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Edited 1/16/2009 1:47 pm ET by Riversong
There you go making up maps again. Have you no shame?
one of the reasons for a lack of anectdotal information about the presence / non-presence of termites in ICF's is there just aren't a lot of icfs out there...and the people who uncover these .... remodelers and bug control people just don't get as much contact
however
icf's are foam.... and every foam i've seen.... that wasn't treated with borates ..... had termites and / or carpenter ants
you've done an alternate form of treatment.... surrounding the home with preventative... that should be followed on with periodic inspection / treatmentMike Hussein Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
River,
I guess everyone has a bad day...for such an intelligent guy, your last post was pretty weak.
I'd be really curious to know what thickness and type of "foam board" the study used. The brand of ICF I've been using recently has 2 3/4" of polystyrene. I doubt very seriously this is what they used. I also doubt that termites living in foam board that thick are going to have much impact on the insulation value. Even in the study you quoted, although foam board was burrowed through the MOST it's insulation value was affected the LEAST.
I really would like to know the details of the study...were the termites exposed to light or not, were they provided with food or not, was their moisture present or not, what temperature did they keep them at, etc., etc. In other words, how "real world" was the testing?
Laboratories aren't very good places to test wall systems of ANY kind. They should always be field tested. (Like ORNL does)
I suppose next you are going to start telling me laboratory R-values are a good indicator of actual R-value?
I'm sorry, but in all my years of working with ICF's I hear this theory come up again and again. Quite frankly, it sounds good too. That's why I take the extra precautions to deal with it. But not once have I ever seen or even heard of an actual occurance of termite or bug infestation of any kind in the polystyrene insulation of ICF's installed in the field.
Somebody let me know when they find some.
I guess everyone has a bad day...for such an intelligent guy, your last post was pretty weak.
Since I was not trying to prove anything, it can hardly be described as a weak argument. I was merely showing that there is evidence of termite destruction of EPS, which is largely hidden. You can dismiss the study out of hand without knowing its methodology or you can contact them if you really want to know.
I also doubt that termites living in foam board that thick are going to have much impact on the insulation value. Even in the study you quoted, although foam board was burrowed through the MOST it's insulation value was affected the LEAST.
Unfortunately, your doubt will have little effect on the voraciousness of termites. And, since the function of wood framing and plywood is not insulation, it is absurd to compare the loss of that function to the same significant loss in a material whose sole purpose is insulation.
Laboratories aren't very good places to test wall systems of ANY kind. They should always be field tested. (Like ORNL does)
In fact, laboratories are the best place to do initial testing, since variables can be controlled. Then, armed with baseline data, real world evaluations can be done for comparison.
I suppose next you are going to start telling me laboratory R-values are a good indicator of actual R-value?
I shouldn't have to tell you. Lab testing is the ONLY way to establish comparative standards for materials (and the only method allowed by codes and the various material standards organizations like ASHRAE). It's simple, then, with that baseline data to calculate as-built R-values, and field analysis has confirmed the reliability of computer modeling.
I'm sorry, but in all my years of working with ICF's I hear this theory come up again and again. Quite frankly, it sounds good too. That's why I take the extra precautions to deal with it. But not once have I ever seen or even heard of an actual occurance of termite or bug infestation of any kind in the polystyrene insulation of ICF's installed in the field.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. What is known about rigid foam is that it is the perfect medium for concealing insect vectors.
It is for this reason that ICF manufacturers routinely warn about the dangers of termite vectoring through foam and why codes require termite treatment or minimum separation from ground and other vehicles.
On the other hand, the sales pitch of the ICF industry, that "foam is not a food source for termites" is deliberately misleading, since termites and other boring insects will use the easily tunneled foam as the entry point to find food sources or simply to nest in a warm cozy area.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
omg... i thought the first sentence was
"deadly tomatoes".....
i gotta be more careful with my reading comprehensionMike Hussein Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
I have no relevant direct or theoretical knowledge to contribute to the debate here on the relative merits of the two systems, but do think in your situation you make a fairly compelling case.
My concern is that proponents of foam downplay the seriousness of insect infestations. I do quite a bit of work at a nearby resort that has 24 cabins, the majority of which rigid insulation under their roof sheathing. Years of seasonal carpenter ant invasions have pretty much hollowed out the foam boards leaving the roof decks largely unsupported.
Rigid insulation is often used not only to fill stud cavities, but also in applications where it forms part of the support for other building components - such as under slabs or behind siding. To assume that it is a material with great longevity can be a real mistake in some regions such as here in the PNW.
Could you space your text so it's more readable? It's about as dense as ICF walls ;-)
I use concrete that contains a steel fiber blend that was manufactured just for use in poured walls.
Do you have any documentation of the tensile strength that steel fibers add to a concrete wall? Other fibrous admixtures, such as fiberglass and polyester, are not a substitute for rebar. They are primarily for preventing shrinkage cracks, not for adding substantial tensile strength.
The ICF's I use are manufactured about 4 hours driving distance from where I use them. The concrete plant I purchase concrete from uses sand quarried about 30 minutes drive time from the concrete plant. Even closer is the aggregate used. Fly ash is used as the cementous material and it comes from a clean coal plant about 30 minutes drive time from the concrete plant. I don't know about all the math behind the embodied energy figures you quoted early in this thread.
It's great that the ingrediants for your concrete are local (that's true everywhere), but almost all the EE is from the high temperature process required to make Portland, which is also where its huge global warming contribution comes from.
That the material is partly recylced waste is great too, but it may have it's own set of environmental hazards.
Wikepedia: "Ash used as a cement replacement must meet strict construction standards, but no standard environmental standards have been established in the United States."
I can take issues on several "problems" you mentioned with ICF walls. 1.) They aren't very adaptable-I disagree-only the exterior walls are concrete.
Perhaps you can cut concrete as easily as a few studs (which I doubt), but this certainly limits a homeowner who might want to add an addition themselves or to hire some local carpenters to do it.
2.) ICF's are subject to bug infestations, fire, and foundation settling-I don't completely agree-bugs, including termites, can burrow through the polystyrene portion of an ICF. However, it is not a food source nor is it attractive to bugs or termites. Sadly, the same cannot be said of wood.
Except you use wood in your buildings and the foam is a hidden pathway for the bugs to get to the wood.
The polystyrene can burn but even if it does, the structural integrity of the ICF wall won't be compromised which would allow a home built with them to be more quickly rebuilt and with far less materials. A wood frame home will burn entirely.
A wood-frame house MAY burn entirely. If the fire ventilates itself, by burning though a roof or a wall section, it dramatically decreases the interior temperatures and the likelihood of flame spread or spontaneous flashover. Wood members that are only surface charred are often scraped, sealed with shellac and left in place during reconstruction.
A concrete home, however, will contain the heat and increase the probability of incineration of all wood-frame structures (load-bearing center walls, floor assemblies, roof assembly). In addition, concrete subject to high temperatures is subject to explosive spalling and embrittlement. Typically, all concrete walls need to be demolished after a major fire.
As far as foundation settling, etc., any home is subject to that, no matter what it's made of. As far as not "being able to see" cracks in my walls...quite frankly I'm not really too concerned
You should be. A concrete wall with structural cracks is no longer a structural wall. A shifted wood-frame wall remains a structural wall.
3.) Cellulose walls perform just as well as ICF's-I strongly disagree...at least in real world applications...My ENTIRE wall, except for the low e windows I use, EXCEEDS the rated r-value of 25
And I've never built a cellulose-insulated wall with such poor thermal performance as R-25. Even without my double-wall technique, it's very easy for any conventional builder to cross-hatch a 2x6 wall with 2x3s or 2x4s and get a true R-26 to R-27 wall with dense-pack cellulose. Add an inch of XPS on the outside and end up with R-31. If they don't like the interior cross-hatching, then going to 2" of exterior XPS would give R-30.
4.) Embodied energy-I don't know this subject as well as you clearly do-I can only say that NONE of the framing lumber used in our area, except for the Advantech subflooring, comes from anywhere close to here
Since you didn't enter any profile information, I can't tell where you come from. But there aren't many places in the US that don't have forests and sawmills. But regardless, even lumber that's shipped half way around the world has far less EE than anything made of concrete, petrochemical foams or steel. And EE is just one of many measures of environmental impact.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Riversong,
Polyester fiber mixtures are being used more and more in ICF work for exactly what you noted it is good for - reducing shrinkage cracking.
Steel is still used in lintels, beams and subgrade where tensile strength is needed.
Ron
<<Do you have any documentation of the tensile strength that steel fibers add to a concrete wall? Other fibrous admixtures, such as fiberglass and polyester, are not a substitute for rebar. They are primarily for preventing shrinkage cracks, not for adding substantial tensile strength.>>Check it out;http://kahuna.sdsu.edu/~sfrchttp://www.tfhrc.gov/structur/concrete/subj4.htmhttp://www.philjol.info/index.php/JRSCE/article/view/630/589Even with all this, my sense is that mix design and application is probably not a DIY proposition.
There can't possibly be better data anywhere else as easy to get as this:
http://eosweb.larc.nasa.gov/sse/
Be sure to use the "ground site" data, and not the meteorological (atmospheric) data.
And, to convert from kWh/m² per day to BTU/sf per day, multiply by 317.1
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Thanks, Ron. I'll take a look at that site.In seismic zone 2B our verticals are #4 24" oc up to 9'-4" as long as there is no retention behind the wall, #5 on each side of doors and windows, #5 top and bottom at lintels, doubled if the span gets big, and a #5 at the top, two if there is anything odd about the design.No name yet, but I'm thinking about it.
Riversong,
So imagine a small radiant slab about the size of a window that's heated on one surface. Would you place it 1" from the window with the heated surface facing out or place it deep in the living space?
That approaches the essence of what we've been discussing.
The answer is that I don't know which is the best heat collector. Nobody else does either. Cat and I just invented this.
On the one hand, having your piece of radiant slab inside will get you all of the incident radiant heat (that isn't reflected off) inside the building. But then, there's that R-4 hole in the wall losing heat through conduction even in the daytime while it is collecting radiant heat.
On the other hand, having the piece of radiant slab be part of the house's concrete core will ensure you will not get all the available radiant heat. But you'll get some of it and you'll still have that chunk of wall insulated to R-13 or so and more airtight than any window.
Now if you want a window in a particular location, then put in a window. If you don't want a window, you might still be able to use that portion of a south wall to gather heat for very little cost.
Ron
On the one hand, having your piece of radiant slab inside will get you all of the incident radiant heat (that isn't reflected off) inside the building. But then, there's that R-4 hole in the wall losing heat through conduction even in the daytime while it is collecting radiant heat.
Except that an R-4 "hole in the wall" facing south is a significant annual net heat gain, even in cloudy New England with high nightime and cloudy-day losses.
On the other hand, having the piece of radiant slab be part of the house's concrete core will ensure you will not get all the available radiant heat. But you'll get some of it and you'll still have that chunk of wall insulated to R-13 or so and more airtight than any window.
Maybe some heat benefit. But, since it takes about 8 hours for heat to move through 8" of solid cementious material, by the time any of the noontime solar heat reaches the interior (what hasn't radiated right back out the glass), the outside of the mass will be getting cold and reversing the heat flow from inside to out.
Now if you want a window in a particular location, then put in a window. If you don't want a window, you might still be able to use that portion of a south wall to gather heat for very little cost.
Or to create a minimally-insulated heat loss path through the wall, with a potential for a net loss.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
I have to figure this out on my own, but if a very experienced archy thinks that south facing windows gain more heat than they lose in this location, then this ICF collector will gain more heat than it loses.
Think again. A wall does not a window make.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
that us sky site was interesting .... i'd assume there are similar companys in all regionsMike Hussein Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
I'd think so, too. That is a very easy, reliable, and serviceable system even for a Luddite. <G>
frenchy... every year i go to JLC -live....and i stop at the various ICF booths.... i ask them all the same question :
"can i get your ICF's in borate treated"..... most give the BS line about how foam is not a food source and they don't need it
one actually told me they could fill my job from a southern plant, where they HAVE to treat the foam due to formosa termites.... but it would double the cost
SIPS are readily available to me with borates from my foam supplier
i will not install foam of any kind unless it is treated.... carpenter ants and termites are VERY prevalent in our area.... every time i open old walls with any untreated foam i always find the foam tunneled and occupied with every bug you can imagine
i have no idea when the icf mfr's are going to get real about this major problem
i was impressed with the Faswall system... it addresses two of my holdbacks
it is treated
and it is a nailable surface.....
apparently it costs a lot more than most ICF systems
meanwhile... i'll stick with interior insulated foundations and mooney wallsMike Hussein Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
Yes, that's it.
jim.... dave sent me this sketch..... and he made ME resize it and flip it
geesh.......
anyways... here it is....
View Image
Mike Hussein Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
Edited 1/3/2009 5:09 pm ET by MikeSmith
Thanks, Mike!
Catskinner,
I'm going to look for an opportunity to build a collector like this. What is the downside, besides the implications for the decorator? Will there be much heat loss during extended periods of cloud cover?
What do you think of adding forms to the outside to make serrations or ridges. You could easily double the surface area of exposed concrete and increase the rate of heat transfer. You wouldn't double the transfer rate beacuse the temperature in the enclosed space would be lower when the sun was on it than with a flat concrete surface.
Ron
<<I'm going to look for an opportunity to build a collector like this. What is the downside, besides the implications for the decorator? Will there be much heat loss during extended periods of cloud cover?>>Yes, there will be losses, about the same as a patio door. I've been thinking about an insulation scheme for such occasions.<<What do you think of adding forms to the outside to make serrations or ridges. You could easily double the surface area of exposed concrete and increase the rate of heat transfer. You wouldn't double the transfer rate beacuse the temperature in the enclosed space would be lower when the sun was on it than with a flat concrete surface.>>I think that is worth considering.
Yeah, that's what I thought he said. Simple. Elegant. Easy to adapt the principle to various heat sources and architectural styles. Exactly the type of idea that gets my attention once in a while. I think this has potential.I'm going to wait for Dave to come back and make sure I have this straight, though.You don't happen to know what some of the problems were with Thrombe walls in the 80s, do you? Maybe temperature regulation or uncontrolled conduction issues. Ron? Anyone?
Thrombe walls
It's trombe wall, after its populizer Felix Trombe.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Yes, that's it.The heat comes in through the double glazed patio replacement set from the sun hitting the concrete. The exterior face of the concrete is black stucco.More heat is coming in than can be convected out of the interior side of the exposed concrete, which is also 3' by 6'-8". The exposed concrete inside the house (tiled for appearance) is no larger than what is exposed outside.So the excess heat ends up being stored inside the walls, the 6" concrete core with foam on both sides. The only way this works is because the thermal mass is insulated from the living space and the outside.That's what I meant about "the problem is the solution." Riversong is of course correct about heat flows from warmer to cooler areas, which is also why this works. When the house is warm inside, nothing happens. When the house cools off inside, heat flows out of the walls into the house through the exposed concrete.The next question is,"How do you know how many of these to put in and where to put them to optimize the design." I don't know. We decided on the arrangement by the time-honored TLAR method. (That Looks About Right.) <G> It worked.What I would really like is to work with someone who can model such things, take the amount of solar energy available (this is already quantified), the specific heat of the concrete in the wall (how much energy will it store at what temp), the rate the concrete will move the energy at, and come up with a design algorithm.
The heat comes in through the double glazed patio replacement set from the sun hitting the concrete.
I assume, then, that an overhang was designed for complete summer shading and complete winter sun exposure. Otherwise this would result in considerable overheating in the summer.
More heat is coming in than can be convected out of the interior side of the exposed concrete
The heat transfer from the masonry to the interior would be both by convection and radiation, but either requires a significant delta-T.
So the excess heat ends up being stored inside the walls, the 6" concrete core with foam on both sides. The only way this works is because the thermal mass is insulated from the living space and the outside.
But the thermal mass (which works best when it's well-insulated on the outside) of the trombe wall is NOT insulated (except by glazing) from the outside and becomes a heat loss route for the mass inside the ICF foam as well.
That's what I meant about "the problem is the solution."
Sounds as if the "solution" became another "problem".
Riversong is of course correct about heat flows from warmer to cooler areas, which is also why this works. When the house is warm inside, nothing happens. When the house cools off inside, heat flows out of the walls into the house through the exposed concrete.
When the house is warm inside and the masonry mass is cooler, something does happen - heat loss. And heat will transfer from the exposed masonry to the interior only if it is not so dispersed in the ICF mass that its temperature does not rise above room temperature.
This is not a well-designed system, as you've admitted (it was not designed at all).
And there was no good reason to couple the trombe wall mass with the ICF mass because the beauty of masonry is that it conducts heat at approximately 1"/hour, so an ideal 8" thick mass will bring the noontime heat into the house at about 8 pm when it's most needed.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Edited 1/4/2009 12:57 pm ET by Riversong
""And there was no good reason to couple the trombe wall mass with the ICF mass because the beauty of masonry is that it conducts heat at approximately 1"/hour, so an ideal 8" thick mass will bring the noontime heat into the house at about 8 pm when it's most needed."" And how many hours pass before the Btus stored in the thermal mass reach stasis with the two shared spaces ? Seems to me you have only addressed one pie shaped section of the circle of the whole pie with your comment on the equation.
If the heat starts migrating into the living space after 8 hours then it will continue to do so for a period of time. How long is that time period? Can you pie chart the whole cycle?
They can't get your Goat if you don't tell them where it is hidden.
And how many hours pass before the Btus stored in the thermal mass reach stasis with the two shared spaces ?
That depends entirely on how quickly and to what extent the outside temperature drops below room temperature. But if by 8 pm the exterior of the thermal mass is colder than the interior, then the heat flow reverses and will continue to be a heat loss until it warms above room temperature sometime perhaps in the late morning of the next day. But, in a cold winter environment, it will be a heat loss vector for more hours per day than it will be supplying heat in the ICF wall configuration depicted.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
How then does this statement in answer to a question to you apply? ""114345.434 in reply to 114345.428 How do the lowE windows work for heat gain? And, what are you using for your direct-gain mass?They let the sun in and keep the heat from escaping. In a northern clime, even a clear double-glazed south window will offer an annual net gain of 1.2 therms per sf glass.A high SHGC lowE window will do much better, depending on local solar availability, site solar shading coefficients, and orientation factor.""
They can't get your Goat if you don't tell them where it is hidden.
Apply to what? I don't have a clue what you're asking.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
I will try to put things into perspective. "" 114345.432 in reply to 114345.425 And how many hours pass before the Btus stored in the thermal mass reach stasis with the two shared spaces ?That depends entirely on how quickly and to what extent the outside temperature drops below room temperature. But if by 8 pm the exterior of the thermal mass is colder than the interior, then the heat flow reverses and will continue to be a heat loss until it warms above room temperature sometime perhaps in the late morning of the next day. But, in a cold winter environment, it will be a heat loss vector for more hours per day than it will be supplying heat in the ICF wall configuration depicted. and then : "" How then does this statement in answer to a question to you apply?""114345.434 in reply to 114345.428How do the lowE windows work for heat gain? And, what are you using for your direct-gain mass?They let the sun in and keep the heat from escaping. In a northern clime, even a clear double-glazed south window will offer an annual net gain of 1.2 therms per sf glass.A high SHGC lowE window will do much better, depending on local solar availability, site solar shading coefficients, and orientation factor."" "" Seems you are contradicting yourself.
They can't get your Goat if you don't tell them where it is hidden.
Seems you are contradicting yourself.
You're still not offering a clear explanation of what you believe to be contradictory.
But a window is a different beast than a wall, particularly a wall that - no matter how massive - has negligible insulative value (~R 0.08/in).
The amount of solar gain of a mass wall is dependent on the texture and absorptivity of its surface, and any gain will conduct back outward while it's also being conducted inward through the mass. If the sun is shining when it's quite cold outside, the surface of the mass will heat up quickly and, with the large delta-T, lose heat very quickly to the environment. So the net gain vs solar availability is limited.
A window, on the other hand, doesn't rely on the absorptivity of its outer surface and the conductivity of its mass. It's solar contribution is by direct transmission through the mass into the interior, limited only by the angle of incidence and the SHGC of the glazing.
And, unlike a mass wall which is as conductive outward as it is inward, a high SHGC lowE window will pass most of the sun's spectrum but retain most of the radiant IR energy that returns to it from the masses of the house.
Now the trombe wall in question has exterior glazing and, if it is lowE (I don't recall), it will prevent some radiant heat loss from the outer surface of the mass, but since the mass is isolated from the interior (by its own thickness) and the outer surface will for many hours out of 24 be cool, there will be little radiant transfer towards the outdoors which the glazing can reflect.
On the other hand, the surface temperatures of the interior masses will be at or near room temperature and have a higher radiance which the lowE window is uniquely capable of deflecting. As we all know, the R-value of a double-glazed window does little to contain interior heat. It is the low emissivity/high reflectivity of the coating which is what makes it perform so well.
What makes this particular trombe wall far less than ideal is that it is not fully within the conditioned space and there is no provision for convective transfer of the high-temperature air between the mass and the glass when the sun is shining. So, not only is its function totally dependent on slow conduction, but it dissipates its heat gain laterally to the adjoining ICF mass wall, lowering its average temperature and slowing not only its conductive transfer but also its radiant and convective transfer of heat to the inside.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
uh....oh.... there you go again....posting something i have to agree with
cat's trombe would work a lot better if it were fully within the conditioned spsce
like on the interior wall''
it's hard to get them located far enough away so you actually have a useable room and they are in the suns angle unless you get into 2d tier glazingMike Hussein Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
I could be wrong (it happens more often than I'd like <G>), but what I think is missing from this discussion is context. That has been the theme for me throughout my investigations into green building, and I see it again here.Looking at the NREL website I linked for Ron, I see that during the winter season Providence, RI gets about 3 to 3.5 kWh/m2/day of insolation, Burlington, VT about 2.2 to 3.9, Olympia, WA about 1.This house I am referring to was built at about 35 degrees N, and it reliably gets at least 5.0, (sometimes more) during the same season.So the question is really, "Works well for where?"Every single assertion Riversong has made about thermal performance is absolutely true in his location. I do not doubt that he is building some of the very best imaginable homes for his climate. They would not work so well in the Southwest. I've tried super-insulated frame and it was not one of my more successful efforts.I have a different set of design criteria here. The biggest problems we face with passive solar design is overheating during the day and modulating the diurnal temperature swings.In this particular case, if the trombe were in the conditioned space and not connected to the inside of the walls all I would have built was an overheated house. I've remodeled a few failed solar homes (including Earthships), and the condition of too much heat during the day is just a different set of design challenges than what is ordinarily faced in the Northeast.I'm not saying this was a good idea for everywhere. My intuitive guess is that if one were building somewhere that got much less than less than about 5 kWh/m2/day, this would be, as Riversong points out, a net loss.Like I said back in the beginning, the only responsible answer to any gren building question is, "It depends." <G>
The biggest problems we face with passive solar design is overheating during the day and modulating the diurnal temperature swings.
Maybe I just don't understand passive solar design for a climate such as yours, but it seems your "solution" was to build several large inefficient solar collectors instead of a few small efficient collectors that also doubled as windows.
And, by the way, we get between 1.3 and 5.4 kWh/m² in Montpelier VT (closest weather station to me), with an average heating season insolation of 2.86 kWh/m² (1019 BTU/sf).
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
OK, now we are getting somewhere. I knew we would.Distinguish for me between "efficient" and "effective". Not the same thing. As I mentioned earlier, some part of my philosophy admittedly comes out of military experience -- spectacularly inefficient and equally effective. <G>OK, jokes aside, yes, you are 100 percent correct. By what we regard as the ordinary standards of "efficiency", mass-compensated design is simply inefficient. The only climate that m-c design works in is a climate in which there is too much heat at some point in the day. A moment's reflection should confirm that with out proof.I can't avoid another joke on that note, it just reminds me too much of George Carlin. "Think about how stupid the average American is. Now realize that half of them are stupider than that."<<Maybe I just don't understand passive solar design for a climate such as yours, but it seems your "solution" was to build several large inefficient solar collectors instead of a few small efficient collectors that also doubled as windows.>>Yes. A few small but efficient collectors would just overheat the house. The radiation is too intense and the temp swings are too wide. It's been tried here and it doesn't work.<<And, by the way, we get between 1.3 and 5.4 kWh/m² in Montpelier VT (closest weather station to me), with an average heating season insolation of 2.86 kWh/m² (1019 BTU/sf).>>So there is no way in the world this idea or any variant of it would work there. You need all the efficiency you can get. Particularly with what I remember about those long grey winter days.It's all about context.
The only climate that m-c design works in is a climate in which there is too much heat at some point in the day.
Actually, a high mass house works best in climates that regularly experience daily temperature swings both above and below indoor setpoint temperature, by dampening those swings. It works far less effectively (there's that word you like) in climates that are either predominantly warm or predominantly cold.
Yes. A few small but efficient collectors would just overheat the house. The radiation is too intense and the temp swings are too wide. It's been tried here and it doesn't work.
I don't buy that. Solar builders here in the northeast had the same problem before they figured out solar shading and mass-to-glass ratios. It's all in the balance. If this is the 6001 HDD climate you kept referring to, then direct gain passive solar would be efficient AND effective.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
<<<<The only climate that m-c design works in is a climate in which there is too much heat at some point in the day.>>>><<Actually, a high mass house works best in climates that regularly experience daily temperature swings both above and below indoor setpoint temperature, by dampening those swings. It works far less effectively (there's that word you like) in climates that are either predominantly warm or predominantly cold.>>Yes. I thought I made that clear. I guess I still need to work on my writing skills. In any case, we agree.<<<<Yes. A few small but efficient collectors would just overheat the house. The radiation is too intense and the temp swings are too wide. It's been tried here and it doesn't work.>>>><<I don't buy that. Solar builders here in the northeast had the same problem before they figured out solar shading and mass-to-glass ratios. It's all in the balance. If this is the 6001 HDD climate you kept referring to, then direct gain passive solar would be efficient AND effective.>>Would double adobe work in Great Barrington, MA or Torrington, CT? Probably not. But it works great all over the Southwest.At this point I must confess that I am at a complete loss as to what might persuade you, and I give up.
"Great Barrington, MA"? You know Great Barrington?
I knew quite a bit of New England many years ago. All dim memories now.Except for the food. When it comes to food, New England has the best of everything except barbeque. Nobody knows BBQ like (stand up and take yer hat off) Texas.God Bless Texas. <G>
Then there are the folks who like a night-time temperature setback, which should permit any "mass " (meaning heat capacity) to work more effectively by providing more delta T.
Then there are the folks who like a night-time temperature setback, which should permit any "mass " (meaning heat capacity) to work more effectively by providing more delta T.
I don't know if you're being sarcastic or serious. But set-back thermostats are dedidedly ineffective with high-mass homes or slow-response heating systems.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
hey man...... be careful who you say "depends" around..... some people are sensitive
but thank god you gave me "context" to hang my hat on...
yeah..... it's like that guy that wants to build his own fixed glass units..... each site is peculiar and very different requirements.... i can't conceive of your trombe design working in my locale.... yet in that house, at that location they were / are the cat's pj;sMike Hussein Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
I was wondering how long it would take before the "depends" joke showed up. <G><<. i can't conceive of your trombe design working in my locale.... >>It wouldn't.<< they were / are the cat's pj;s>>Now that was a pretty good triple-entendre. I was with the 106thARRS for a little while in the early 1980s.
what was your job on a hc-130 ?
we have a bunch of the ring c-130's fly over our house all the time in and out of quonset pointMike Hussein Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
We had 130s, H-3s and HH-53s there. I was training to go into Pararescue, but didn't.Edited 1/4/2009 9:48 pm by Catskinner
Edited 1/4/2009 9:49 pm by Catskinner
"I've tried super-insulated frame and it was not one of my more successful efforts." How did super insulated fail? I would think that it would have multi-climatic applications.John
<<I would think that it would have multi-climatic applications.>>It does.One of the underlying themes of this discussion which we have not yet made explicit is what happens to a design as it becomes more and more efficient.Take for example an old flathead (side-valve) gasoline engine that might run a long stroke at 6:1 compression and redline at just a few thousand rpm. By any modern standard it is inefficeint, but it will run reliably for generations. It will do exactly what it is designed to do, every time, under a wide variety of conditions. It doesn't care about temperature, quality of fuel, local electromagnetic pulses, atmospheric contamination, voltage fluctuations, nothing. It just keeps working.Now take a modern short-stroke, OHV, fuel injected, computer controlled, high-rpm engine. The epitome of efficiency until one little detail goes outside the operating parameters. The it doesn't work.There are no end of similar examples.So yes, you can always fit a high efficiency design to the environment. If the environment is severe enough (whatever that means to the system), at some point you lose functional redundancy and reliability.The Northeast simply isn't that tough of a design challenge -- the conditions are relatively stable. It gets a little cold and wet sometimes, that's about it. There are not a lot of freeze-thaw cycles in a year, little to no seismic activity, not much for wind once you get away from the coast, and the solar radiation is not that intense.And a lot of really smart people (some present in this discussion) have been looking at it for a long time. They've got it figured out.But as the design challenges become more severe, with more variables and (to borrow a radio metaphor) greater amplitude and frequency in those variables, efficiency can become the enemy of effectiveness.And if the house is not effective yo its purpose, then it is a waste of all of the labor and material that went into it. That makes arguing about minute increments of EE look ridiculous.Now I just wish I could argue as succinctly as Brownbagg. He said all this in just a few words back in the beginning and stopped. <G>
So yes, you can always fit a high efficiency design to the environment. If the environment is severe enough (whatever that means to the system), at some point you lose functional redundancy and reliability...efficiency can become the enemy of effectiveness.
Your car engine analogy holds up only if we're considering high-tech and difficult-to-controll efficiency improvements (which, unfortunately, much of the industry is doing).
Super-insulated efficiency does not have to mean any more high-tech than that side-valve long-stroke engine (I used to teach auto mechanics).
KISS, and we can have both efficiency and effectiveness.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
How did super insulated fail? I would think that it would have multi-climatic applications.
Of course it does. The first superinsulated house I built was in the mixed-humid climate of the Tennessee hollers. It was designed by a consortium of non-profit housing developers as the ideal low-cost home for Appalachia.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Well you did a pretty good job of answering the exact questions I was asking. Now, why does the location of the mass in your two examples affect the radiant heat transfer:
""but since the mass is isolated from the interior (by its own thickness) and the outer surface will for many hours out of 24 be cool, there will be little radiant transfer towards the outdoors which the glazing can reflect.On the other hand, the surface temperatures of the interior masses will be at or near room temperature and have a higher radiance which the lowE window is uniquely capable of deflecting."" Seems to my mind that the trombe section of the wall will be at near the room temperature or near what your interior mass would be. Distance from a low e glazing has appreciable effect on the ability to function that I know of.
They can't get your Goat if you don't tell them where it is hidden.
Seems to my mind that the trombe section of the wall will be at near the room temperature or near what your interior mass would be.
The inside of the trombe wall mass will be at or near room temp. The outside will be much cooler during the night or when the sun ain't shinin' and suckin' heat outward.
In a normal trombe wall, the entire mass in inside the conditioned space.
Distance from a low e glazing has appreciable effect on the ability to function that I know of.
????????????????????
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Sorry, dropped a part of the sentence in that post. ""Distance from a low e glazing has appreciable effect on the ability to function that I know of."" I meant to say : Distance of the mass from a low e glazing has no appreciable effect on the ability of the low e radiant barrier to function that I know of. In other words it doesn't matter where your mass is in relationship to the glazing, the glazing's performance isn't affected by the distance to the heat source so for considering radiant heat loss in these two cases it is a wash. There is no direct conductive heat loss to the outside air with the small section of trombe wall because of the airspace between glazing and wall , the radiant heat loss is the same as if it would be if the mass is located deep inside the building which leaves you only the convective heat loss from the loop air movement within the enclosed glazed area. Is the convective heat loss great enough to overcome the radiant heat gain?
They can't get your Goat if you don't tell them where it is hidden.