<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoAcetate, li.MsoAcetate, div.MsoAcetate
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text Char";
margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:8.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.BalloonTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Balloon Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text";
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-CA link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>I skimmed – lot of charts and numbers that I can never absorb<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> Greenbuilding [mailto:greenbuilding-bounces@lists.bioenergylists.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Gennaro Brooks-Church - Eco Brooklyn<br><b>Sent:</b> July-23-13 10:06 AM<br><b>To:</b> Green Building<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [Greenbuilding] CF analysis of tearing down a house vs. renovation?<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Thanks John for that recap of the article. Now I don't have to read it. :)<br><br>On Tuesday, July 23, 2013, John Salmen wrote:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Thanks for the article.<br>What was interesting was the ranking of strategies. High efficiency hvac<br>and insulation being the most effective for energy savings with air control<br>about 60% of those. What was also interesting is the comparison of pre-use<br>(construction) energy of the standard house versus a energy efficient house.<br>Standard being 6.1% of total energy and EE being 16%. Bad math would them<br>imply about a 6% increase in the carbon footprint of the new EE construction<br>(penalty of not utilizing existing energy expenditure??)<br><br>My answer from a design/build knee jerk perspective would be that renovation<br>is preferable for simple reasons. If the basic footprint and layout is<br>modest in size and has no huge design flaws any existing structure can be<br>insulated, made air tight and have a new energy system. Most significant<br>renovations take a building back to structure and the largest items in a<br>building in terms of embodied energy are typically structure (foundation<br>primarily).<br><br>-----Original Message-----<br>From: Greenbuilding [mailto:<a href="javascript:;">greenbuilding-bounces@lists.bioenergylists.org</a>]<br>On Behalf Of John Straube<br>Sent: July-23-13 5:42 AM<br>To: Green Building<br>Subject: Re: [Greenbuilding] CF analysis of tearing down a house vs.<br>renovation?<br><br>Love to hear the answer. The difference in before to after energy use will<br>be a major determinant of the answer.<br>Attached is a 1998 LCA of a house in Michigan. They found 93% of the ENERGY<br>use over 50 years was due to operation, not embodied. So materials and<br>energy during construction is not that important in normal houses. The<br>question is, can you renovate to the same level of low energy performance?<br>If that performance is quite low, embodied energy will be quote a large<br>proportion. If the building has a lifecycle of 75 or 100 years, then<br>operation becomes more important.<br>Complex question, but a worthy one!<br><br><br>_______________________________________________<br>Greenbuilding mailing list<br>to Send a Message to the list, use the email address<br><a href="javascript:;">Greenbuilding@bioenergylists.org</a><br><br>to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page<br><a href="http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/greenbuilding_lists.bioenergylists.org" target="_blank">http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/greenbuilding_lists.bioenergylists.org</a><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><br><br>-- <br>Gennaro Brooks-Church<br>Director, Eco Brooklyn Inc.<br>Cell: 1 347 244 3016 USA<br><a href="http://www.EcoBrooklyn.com" target="_blank">www.EcoBrooklyn.com</a><br>22 2nd St; Brooklyn, NY 11231<o:p></o:p></p></div></body></html>