[Greenbuilding] future of framing

[Matt Dirksen]

"Is cost really an issue?"

In relation to what form of measurement? Money? Time? Carbon footprint?
Moral? Psychic? Typically if one form of "cost" becomes less important,
it's because another one took it's place.

I'm still having a struggle to encourage co-workers, project managers, and
carpenters to have the courage and move beyond the "If my only tool were a
hammer... everything's a nail" mentality.

Matt




On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 12:51 AM, John Salmen <terrain at shaw.ca> wrote:

> Alans comment about quality of spf got me thinking about how I keep slowly
> changing my framing designs and where that might be leading - spf lumber
> truly sucks right now and so do the forests. I was a reluctant convert to
> engineered wood (19.2" floor assemblies) and now even sheathing. I am now
> thinking of becoming a total convert with framing designs now for eng.
> studs
> and wonder what comments people might have about using them. I've used them
> for 20' high shear walls but that is about it.
>
> Embodied energy seems equivalent, potentially better with less wastage.
> Better quality/stength on 24" framing (stiffer envelope as well, less
> movement allowing for better seals) and potential of reducing to 2x4 (even
> for 2 story).
>
> Is cost really an issue?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Greenbuilding [mailto:greenbuilding-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org
> ]
> On Behalf Of John Salmen
> Sent: July-23-13 8:51 AM
> To: 'Green Building'
> Subject: Re: [Greenbuilding] CF analysis of tearing down a house vs.
> renovation?
>
> Thanks for the article.
> What was interesting was the ranking of strategies.  High efficiency hvac
> and insulation being the most effective for energy savings with air control
> about 60% of those. What was also interesting is the comparison of pre-use
> (construction) energy of the standard house versus a energy efficient
> house.
> Standard being 6.1% of total energy and EE being 16%. Bad math would them
> imply about a 6% increase in the carbon footprint of the new EE
> construction
> (penalty of not utilizing existing energy expenditure??)
>
> My answer from a design/build knee jerk perspective would be that
> renovation
> is preferable for simple reasons. If the basic footprint and layout is
> modest in size and has no huge design flaws any existing structure can be
> insulated, made air tight and have a new energy system. Most significant
> renovations take a building back to structure and the largest items in a
> building in terms of embodied energy are typically structure (foundation
> primarily).
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Greenbuilding [mailto:greenbuilding-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org
> ]
> On Behalf Of John Straube
> Sent: July-23-13 5:42 AM
> To: Green Building
> Subject: Re: [Greenbuilding] CF analysis of tearing down a house vs.
> renovation?
>
> Love to hear the answer.  The difference in before to after energy use will
> be a major determinant of the answer.
> Attached is a 1998 LCA of a house in Michigan.  They found 93% of the
> ENERGY
> use over 50 years was due to operation, not embodied.  So materials and
> energy during construction is not that important in normal houses.  The
> question is, can you renovate to the same level of low energy performance?
> If that performance is quite low, embodied energy will be quote a large
> proportion.  If the building has a lifecycle of 75 or 100 years, then
> operation becomes more important.
> Complex question, but a worthy one!
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Greenbuilding mailing list
> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> Greenbuilding at bioenergylists.org
>
> to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
>
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/greenbuilding_lists.bioener
> gylists.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Greenbuilding mailing list
> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> Greenbuilding at bioenergylists.org
>
> to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
>
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/greenbuilding_lists.bioenergylists.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/greenbuilding_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20130725/b4e258f7/attachment.html>