[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

Here is another item for consideration. Burning straw in the fields
versus baling it for removal. Farmers in Eastern Washington go either
way believing each is being responsible to the environment. Those that
bale and remove the straw have to spray the next year's crops to
control pests. Burning straw eliminates need to spray.


Christopher Stafford Architects, Inc.
1044 Water Street, #326
Port Townsend, WA 98368

On Aug 29, 2006, at 5:13 PM, 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
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.
mentioned comparing SB to the carbon used when employing other building

When we compare building with steel or brick and burning several tons
straw, to building with straw and (hopefully) not burning that straw,
the carbon sequestration embodied in the building materials choice is
multiplied.  Using Andre's figures, choosing to build with straw locks
more than ten times the carbon that is simply contained in the bales.
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 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.  ----