[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: GSBN:Re: A question about quantification of carbon sequestration in a bale and bale structures bale and bale structures
- To: "GSBN" GSBN@...
- Subject: Re: GSBN:Re: A question about quantification of carbon sequestration in a bale and bale structures bale and bale structures
- From: "moehlmann" moehlmann@...
- Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 14:51:13 +0200
- Reply-to: "GSBN" GSBN@...
- Sender: "GSBN" GSBN@...
Yes Rene and all, Robert should be in. I thought he had been proposed
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rene Dalmeijer" rene.dalmeijer@...
To: "GSBN" GSBN@...
Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 12:25 PM
Subject: Re: GSBN:Re: A question about quantification of carbon
sequestration in a bale and bale structures bale and bale structures
> If Robert Wimmer is not yet a member of GSBN I would like to propose
> him as a member. He is most probably the strongest advocate for SB
> building In Austria and his institute GrAT is doing invaluable work for
> the International SB community. They have doen extensive testing and I
> am sure they can give quite accurate numbers regarding the ecological
> footprint of SB.
> On Aug 30, 2006, at 11:45, Rene Dalmeijer wrote:
> > One of the discussions that was done recently regarding sustainability
> > was done how many earths ie how much natural resources are required to
> > give everybody the same type of housing as us USA-Western Europe. It
> > turns out we would need the resources of about 10 earths, therefore not
> > sustainable.
> > Based on this GrAT <a target="_blank" href="http://www.grat.at/cgi-bin/news.pl">http://www.grat.at/cgi-bin/news.pl</a> amongst others
> > developed the concept of the factor 10 house. A building that uses 10
> > times less resources then conventional building technology. A recent
> > project completed in 2005 is the S-house a zero energy house it uses
> > less energy then it creates. In this case sequestration becomes quite
> > important as building becomes the main negative ecological impact the
> > building has on the environment.
> > Rene
> > On Aug 30, 2006, at 02:13, Derek Roff wrote:
> >> My thoughts are in harmony with all who have commented so far. This
> >> discussion is helping me think about the question in more depth. I
> >> agree
> >> with David that we can't ignore the little things. Although cases
> >> will
> >> vary, little things can sometimes add up rapidly. For example, while
> >> I
> >> argued that the amount of carbon in the bales is fairly small, David
> >> pointed out that we might compare that to burning the same straw.
> >> Andre
> >> mentioned comparing SB to the carbon used when employing other
> >> building
> >> materials.
> >> When we compare building with steel or brick and burning several tons
> >> of
> >> straw, to building with straw and (hopefully) not burning that straw,
> >> then
> >> the carbon sequestration embodied in the building materials choice is
> >> multiplied. Using Andre's figures, choosing to build with straw locks
> >> up
> >> more than ten times the carbon that is simply contained in the bales.
> >> This
> >> is before we look at energy savings. That is an important
> >> calculation.
> >> All of which makes David's job harder, because he now has to figure
> >> out the
> >> relative carbon impacts of building with SB versus each alternative.
> >> Derek
> >> Derek Roff
> >> Language Learning Center
> >> Ortega Hall 129, MSC03-2100
> >> University of New Mexico
> >> Albuquerque, NM 87131-0001
> >> 505/277-7368, fax 505/277-3885
> >> Internet: derek@...
> >> ----
> >> For instructions on joining, leaving, or otherwise using the GSBN
> >> list, send email to GSBN@...HELP in the
> >> SUBJECT line. ----
> > ----
> > For instructions on joining, leaving, or otherwise using the GSBN
> > list, send email to GSBN@...HELP in the
> > SUBJECT line. ----
> Orange vous informe que cet e-mail a ete controle par l'anti-virus mail.
> Aucun virus connu a ce jour par nos services n'a ete detecte.