[GSBN] Fwd: Embodied energy comparisons: SB vs Stick-built
jswearingen at skillful-means.com
Sun Feb 15 22:38:32 CST 2009
Small houses seem to work out best in the long run when heating & cooling
is conventional, even though their relative initial cost may be greater.
It's hard to imagine a larger building sequestering more CO2 than a small
house with an adjacent grove of trees.
A green roof, besides contributing significantly to summer cooling,
sequesters some CO2. Do you have a idea of the percentage of CO2 that is
sequestered in a typical garden? Since the plants usually end up rotting,
albeit for reuse, this seems a different case from trees.
*(As a complete aside, does anyone have a**guess if/how much people would be
prepared to pay for such a gadget -*
*that calculated the CO2 impact of a particular house design?)*
Energy 10 software includes a calculation of the annual emissions of a
building, and they might be interested in incorporating such impacts into a
"life cycle *environmental* cost" calculation.
On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 8:15 PM, Andrew Webb <andrew at thegreenwebb.com>wrote:
> Doesn't this assume that the building will last longer than the trees would
> if not cut down and processed? Surely building nothing would release the
> least C02, so building small would be next best?
> -Andrew Webb
>> So, yes, bigger CAN be better.
> GSBN mailing list
> GSBN at greenbuilder.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Gsbn