[Greenbuilding] Greenbuilding Digest, Vol 5, Issue 12
action jackson
benigncraft at gmail.com
Tue Jan 11 06:57:11 CST 2011
david posada,
well said- and preach on! I agree that all of the approaches need to be
embraced- anyone who says that one solution is the only solution should hang
up their tool belt.
And - yes we should embrace a multiplicity of solutions toward a common
goal. My comments were meant to help to define the goal (Saving our
lifestyle- or saving the conditions on the planet necessary for our SURVIVAL
as a species) These two goals are OFTEN at odds- hence the schism here. .
My only point in being somewhat acerbic but with tongue in my cheek was that
I do see that right now there is a lot of confusion as to whether we are
saving our lifestyles or saving our species.
And we should all encourage healthy debate- i agree with you wholeheartedly
that as ambassadors we need to embrace all approaches that are directed
toward the goal (once clarified) . There needs to be a multiplicity of
approaches. There needs to be a lively debate amongst ourselves.
SO I apologize if my comments were too divisive- it's hard to glean nuance
in a format like e-mail.
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 10:16 PM, <
greenbuilding-request at lists.bioenergylists.org> wrote:
> Send Greenbuilding mailing list submissions to
> greenbuilding at lists.bioenergylists.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/greenbuilding_lists.bioenergylists.org
>
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> greenbuilding-request at lists.bioenergylists.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> greenbuilding-owner at lists.bioenergylists.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Greenbuilding digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Aggressively Passive: Building Homes to to the Passive
> House Standard (David Posada)
> 2. That Natural Feeling (Frank Cetera)
> 3. new stove (Sacie Lambertson)
> 4. Re: new stove (Reuben Deumling)
> 5. Re: new stove (Sacie Lambertson)
> 6. Re: new stove (Corwyn)
> 7. Re: new stove (Clarke Olsen)
> 8. Re: That Natural Feeling (Gennaro Brooks-Church)
> 9. Re: That Natural Feeling (Gennaro Brooks-Church)
> 10. Re: Aggressively Passive: Building Homes to to the Passive
> House Standard (JOHN SALMEN)
> 11. Re: Aggressively Passive: Building Homes to thePassive House
> Standard (George J. Nesbitt)
> 12. Re: new stove (Frank Tettemer)
> 13. Re: Aggressively Passive: Building Homes tothePassive House
> Standard (Bob Waldrop)
> 14. Re: That Natural Feeling (JOHN SALMEN)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 20:42:31 +0000
> From: David Posada <DavidP at gbdarchitects.com>
> To: "'greenbuilding at lists.bioenergylists.org'"
> <greenbuilding at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Subject: Re: [Greenbuilding] Aggressively Passive: Building Homes to
> to the Passive House Standard
> Message-ID:
> <21C7D52B2DD2E54992990F3E8D0E2C458B575C at email.gbdarchitects.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> There was a long and lively discussion recently on the PHNW group list
> about how the PHPP spreadsheet treats on-site PV vs on-site Solar Hot Water,
> the rationale behind the PE factor of 0.7, and an analogy of grid-tied PV
> generation can sometimes be more of a "carbon offset:"
>
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/PassiveHouseNW/browse_thread/thread/4e76b643b2310a6b#
>
> On a less technical note, when you hear glowing praise for PH from some
> corners, frustration and discontent from others, I'm reminded of the maxim
> "if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail," and the
> inherent compromises of any tool.
>
> Some standards and rating systems are rather blunt tools, others far more
> precise. It seems the more precise and accommodating a tools is, the more
> difficult it can be for lay-people to learn and apply.
>
> For an engineer with many tools in their kit, and the wisdom to know the
> limitations and best practices for each one, they can make good calls on
> when one approach makes the most sense, and when it is requiring less
> meaningful effort.
>
> For others, the nuances may be less clear or important, and they see a
> particular tool such as Passive House as being for them the most appropriate
> means to an end.
>
> Part of the challenge is with so many tools vying for our attention,
> support, and dollars, their developers, promoters, reviewers and critics
> have to make countless assumptions and compromises both to make the tools
> useable and to explain them to the world. With the shifting fortunes of
> praise and popularity is easy to see how a lot of money, respect, and pride
> is at stake. I think it can be especially frustrating for people who have
> dedicated years to advancing better understanding of building systems to see
> the public's eyes glaze over and reach for the latest shrink-wrapped
> package.
>
> These comments from a new member may seem obvious or off-topic, but I felt
> compelled to offer them out of my own disappointment in watching how the
> conversation sometimes goes downhill when the value/ relevance/ worthiness
> of PH or LEED are being debated in different forums. We all love a good
> discussion and learn a lot from the debating the details, but I think
> something can get lost in the fray.
>
> I don't think this is a problem in this group, or limited to just the PH
> topic - people are exceptionally good here at clarifying their assumptions,
> finding common ground, and not taking blustery conclusions personally.
>
> When we venture outside of this circle as advocates and ambassadors for
> green building, I just wanted to make one proposal: I think we can be more
> effective at promoting a more responsible built environment if we
> acknowledge the common purpose of different tools, the inherent compromises
> of any approach, and how the balance of these strengths and weakness work
> for different contexts. Apologies if this sounds too idealistic or preachy.
>
> David Posada
> Portland, Oregon
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 16:11:19 -0500
> From: Frank Cetera <alchemicalfranklen at gmail.com>
> To: greenbuilding at lists.bioenergylists.org
> Subject: [Greenbuilding] That Natural Feeling
> Message-ID:
> <AANLkTi=VDG_3f01uX0+GNLiP41OJBbBUDAbdT3M=q4DP at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> AC - loving your sentiments, no doubt cause they somewhat echo mine. But
> getting folks in the green building arena in my town to think natural is a
> big goal. Making the connection to the Earth through natural materials,
> and
> not highly processed and manufactured from states away; having "openings"
> in
> the shell that make that connection to the natural environment; not
> worrying
> down to the smallest BTU if the energy saved in high-tech manufacture bests
> the energy lost in natural low/appropriate techniques when making
> decisions;
> using natural materials and eleme4nts instead of mimicking them with
> produced structures - a sliding metal wall with openings in it meant to
> create a flickering light inside the home that is reminiscent of leaves on
> a
> tree when you could just plant or save the tree.
>
> Ahhh, to not be "locked" away in my home, as I often feel locked away from
> the outside in my office or other public buildings that fight their hardest
> to keep all the elements out!
>
> ~Frank Cetera
> www.alchemicalnursery.org
>
> ------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 2
> > Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 10:47:47 -0500
> > From: action jackson <benigncraft at gmail.com>
> > To: greenbuilding at lists.bioenergylists.org
> > Subject: Re: [Greenbuilding] Greenbuilding Digest, Vol 5, Issue 9
> > Message-ID:
> > <AANLkTiksPEgr+-tT5+=k3MqXMfbMzu8G3Zkg1rK9HbMP at mail.gmail.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> >
> > hey folks -
> >
> > fer my two cents on passivehaus:
> >
> > AWESOME! now people can build homes to an inappropriate scale and have
> > little human physical connection to the outside environment. THAT will
> put
> > us more in touch with needs of the planet- surely!
> >
> > look- I think we all need to be honest about the conversation we are
> having
> > here- if it is about SURVIVING on the planet - humans have done quite
> well
> > (in some of the most inhospitable places on the planet i might add) and
> not
> > only survived but CULTURALLY THRIVED there- using small scale -low tech
> > shelters of local natural materials to take temporary refuge from the
> > outdoors- where they LIVED.
> >
> > if the conversation is about maintaining our lifestyles- then start the
> > number crunching- decouple yourself from the planet that sustains you
> > (because that knowledge will serve us well when we colonize mars) - and
> > rock
> > and roll !
> >
> > I prefer the planet we have -
> >
> > but I respect the solutions in either conversation- I just think we need
> > to
> > delineate clearly.
> >
> > to borrow an adage from the foodies (who i think parallel us in many
> ways)-
> > stands to reason- food /clothing /shelter
> >
> > *Eat food*. *Mostly plants*. Not too much.
> >
> > Build shelter.Mostly natural.Not too big.
> >
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/greenbuilding_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20110110/d49fcec6/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 15:40:34 -0600
> From: Sacie Lambertson <sacie.lambertson at gmail.com>
> To: Greenbuilding <Greenbuilding at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Subject: [Greenbuilding] new stove
> Message-ID:
> <AANLkTimJS8B6WuF=VpCw0Qtui328O4-hpC+AMaFC5GAb at mail.gmail.com<VpCw0Qtui328O4-hpC%2BAMaFC5GAb at mail.gmail.com>
> >
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> All, re the recent conversations about heating with wood, I ran across this
> interesting good looking new stove:
>
>
> http://3rings.designerpages.com/2011/01/05/bullerjan-canadian-lumberjack-designed-stove/
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/greenbuilding_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20110110/733f4b07/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 13:45:41 -0800
> From: Reuben Deumling <9watts at gmail.com>
> To: Green Building <greenbuilding at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Subject: Re: [Greenbuilding] new stove
> Message-ID:
> <AANLkTinnJ8GmZq-nhwNeRdEr1FP7ohn1Zp1Du0JK+s_F at mail.gmail.com<AANLkTinnJ8GmZq-nhwNeRdEr1FP7ohn1Zp1Du0JK%2Bs_F at mail.gmail.com>
> >
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Interesting. One would like to see some figures. It looks, well, different.
>
> On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 1:40 PM, Sacie Lambertson <
> sacie.lambertson at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > All, re the recent conversations about heating with wood, I ran across
> this
> > interesting good looking new stove:
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/greenbuilding_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20110110/a5e7b82f/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 15:59:33 -0600
> From: Sacie Lambertson <sacie.lambertson at gmail.com>
> To: Green Building <greenbuilding at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Subject: Re: [Greenbuilding] new stove
> Message-ID:
> <AANLkTi=xgMepmMnRf-b8OCota9LFGu2i3TAku2B-d-Kn at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> One of the iterations has what looks like ceramic inserts around the sides,
> which means it might hold and radiate heat, which for me is the secret of a
> good stove. Sacie
>
> *On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 3:45 PM, Reuben Deumling <9watts at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> *
> >
> > *Interesting. One would like to see some figures. It looks, well,
> > different.*
> > *
> >
> > *
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/greenbuilding_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20110110/8f209aa6/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 17:16:04 -0500
> From: Corwyn <corwyn at midcoast.com>
> To: Green Building <greenbuilding at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Subject: Re: [Greenbuilding] new stove
> Message-ID: <4D2B8524.2030105 at midcoast.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> On 1/10/2011 4:59 PM, Sacie Lambertson wrote:
> > One of the iterations has what looks like ceramic inserts around the
> > sides, which means it might hold and radiate heat, which for me is the
> > secret of a good stove. Sacie
>
> On the other hand the 'exhaust tubes' look like they are designed to
> lose as much heat to the room as possible.
>
> I would like to see a bigger door, something to catch the inevitable
> ashes and coals coming out of the stove.
>
> Thank You Kindly,
>
> Corwyn
>
> --
> Topher Belknap
> Green Fret Consulting
> Kermit didn't know the half of it...
> http://www.greenfret.com/
> topher at greenfret.com
> (207) 882-7652
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 17:47:34 -0500
> From: Clarke Olsen <colsen at fairpoint.net>
> To: Green Building <greenbuilding at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Subject: Re: [Greenbuilding] new stove
> Message-ID: <8057ABF0-1E61-4EA3-B91E-99210661DEC7 at fairpoint.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed";
> DelSp="yes"
>
> Efficiency cannot be achieved without separating heat extraction
> from combustion. I once had a fireplace grate
> consisting of similar steel tubes curving around the fire. A small
> fan would blow air through them: turning it on
> would suck so much heat out of the fire as to almost put it out!
> Later, I built a wood furnace with a water jacket
> in the firebox: it was a magnificent creosote condenser. Introducing
> a baffle isolating the firebox was the
> needed improvement.
>
> Clarke Olsen
> 373 route 203
> Spencertown, NY 12165
> USA
> 518-392-4640
> colsen at fairpoint.net
>
>
>
>
> On Jan 10, 2011, at 4:40 PM, Sacie Lambertson wrote:
>
> > All, re the recent conversations about heating with wood, I ran
> > across this interesting good looking new stove:
> >
> > http://3rings.designerpages.com/2011/01/05/bullerjan-canadian-
> > lumberjack-designed-stove/
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/20110110/2ab7f499/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 18:30:14 -0500
> From: Gennaro Brooks-Church <info at ecobrooklyn.com>
> To: Green Building <greenbuilding at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Subject: Re: [Greenbuilding] That Natural Feeling
> Message-ID:
> <AANLkTik5z+Lmcp2GSVgTFU7vx-u3-GNcO5P3Jbfq_+=m at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> This list, like most of the world, is roughly separated along two
> lines, those forward looking techies who value science and those
> backward looking naturalists who value tradition.
> In one camp you have the number crunching BTU types and in the other
> camp you have the adobe plaster types.
> I lean on the naturalist side. I figure if it worked for 2000 years
> for a civilization then it is worth looking into. I am suspect of the
> techies who use wunder science to try to support an unsupportable
> lifestyle. For example, if every person on the planet built along PH
> standards we would die off immediately. PH standards are for rich
> Western construction and relies heavily on cheap materials from poor
> underdeveloped countries, who by the way consume a LOT less energy per
> household per year than PH requirements.
>
> However, if every rich Western country built along PH standards we
> would be WAY ahead of the game and it would be a HUGE improvement over
> our current wasteful building. But it doesn't solve the issue for the
> rest of the "developing world" (in parenthesis since that term implies
> they are less evolved than us superior and more developed countries -
> irony).
>
> So for me the solution is to use PH for the time being as an
> improvement to current western building. Just like LEED is an
> improvement in some areas. But neither are valid long term solutions.
>
> In answer to Corwyn, my personal metric is the self invented Zero
> Brownstone Technique, which could be tweaked to any area but in my
> case is very specific to North Western townhouse construction. There
> is more on my site but is basically is zero waster during
> deconstruction, zero new materials during construction, and zero
> energy use in the final home. It is our goal. Right now the "right
> amount" of insulation based on this metric for a brownstone is about 6
> inches of polyiso, which by the way is a little more than what our PH
> building calls for that we are doing. That was a nice confirmation
> that my "hunch" was on the right track of the one of the best metrics
> out there right now.
>
>
> Gennaro Brooks-Church
>
> Cell: 1 347 244 3016 USA
> www.EcoBrooklyn.com
> 22 2nd St; Brooklyn, NY 11231
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 4:11 PM, Frank Cetera
> <alchemicalfranklen at gmail.com> wrote:
> > AC - loving your sentiments, no doubt cause they somewhat echo mine.? But
> > getting folks in the green building arena in my town to think natural is
> a
> > big goal.? Making the connection to the Earth through natural materials,
> and
> > not highly processed and manufactured from states away; having "openings"
> in
> > the shell that make that connection to the natural environment; not
> worrying
> > down to the smallest BTU if the energy saved in high-tech manufacture
> bests
> > the energy lost in natural low/appropriate techniques when making
> decisions;
> > using natural materials and eleme4nts instead of mimicking them with
> > produced structures - a sliding metal wall with openings in it meant to
> > create a flickering light inside the home that is reminiscent of leaves
> on a
> > tree when you could just plant or save the tree.
> >
> > Ahhh, to not be "locked" away in my home, as I often feel locked away
> from
> > the outside in my office or other public buildings that fight their
> hardest
> > to keep all the elements out!
> >
> > ~Frank Cetera
> > www.alchemicalnursery.org
> >
> >> ------------------------------
> >>
> >> Message: 2
> >> Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 10:47:47 -0500
> >> From: action jackson <benigncraft at gmail.com>
> >> To: greenbuilding at lists.bioenergylists.org
> >> Subject: Re: [Greenbuilding] Greenbuilding Digest, Vol 5, Issue 9
> >> Message-ID:
> >> ? ? ? ?<AANLkTiksPEgr+-tT5+=k3MqXMfbMzu8G3Zkg1rK9HbMP at mail.gmail.com>
> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> >>
> >> hey folks -
> >>
> >> fer my two cents on passivehaus:
> >>
> >> AWESOME! now people can build homes to an inappropriate scale and have
> >> little human physical connection to the outside environment. THAT will
> put
> >> us more in touch with needs of the planet- surely!
> >>
> >> look- I think we all need to be honest about the conversation we are
> >> having
> >> here- if it is about SURVIVING on the planet - humans have done quite
> well
> >> (in some of the most inhospitable places on the planet i might add) and
> >> not
> >> only survived but CULTURALLY THRIVED there- using small scale -low tech
> >> shelters of local natural materials to take temporary refuge from the
> >> outdoors- where they LIVED.
> >>
> >> if the conversation is about maintaining our lifestyles- then start the
> >> number crunching- decouple yourself from the planet that sustains you
> >> (because that knowledge will serve us well when we colonize mars) - and
> >> rock
> >> and roll !
> >>
> >> I prefer ?the planet we have -
> >>
> >> ?but I respect the solutions in either conversation- I just think we
> need
> >> to
> >> delineate clearly.
> >>
> >> to borrow an adage from the foodies (who i think parallel us in many
> >> ways)-
> >> stands to reason- food /clothing /shelter
> >>
> >> *Eat food*. *Mostly plants*. Not too much.
> >>
> >> Build shelter.Mostly natural.Not too big.
> >>
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 18:32:50 -0500
> From: Gennaro Brooks-Church <info at ecobrooklyn.com>
> To: Green Building <greenbuilding at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Subject: Re: [Greenbuilding] That Natural Feeling
> Message-ID:
> <AANLkTi=-57hqo6Ekq89zyjxVB2JeRRe3oOZCMz90i+XH at mail.gmail.com<57hqo6Ekq89zyjxVB2JeRRe3oOZCMz90i%2BXH at mail.gmail.com>
> >
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> correction: we build on the North Eastern US and not the North Western
>
> Gennaro Brooks-Church
>
> Cell: 1 347 244 3016 USA
> www.EcoBrooklyn.com
> 22 2nd St; Brooklyn, NY 11231
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 6:30 PM, Gennaro Brooks-Church
> <info at ecobrooklyn.com> wrote:
> > This list, like most of the world, is roughly separated along two
> > lines, those forward looking techies who value science and those
> > backward looking naturalists who value tradition.
> > In one camp you have the number crunching BTU types and in the other
> > camp you have the adobe plaster types.
> > I lean on the naturalist side. I figure if it worked for 2000 years
> > for a civilization then it is worth looking into. I am suspect of the
> > techies who use wunder science to try to support an unsupportable
> > lifestyle. For example, if every person on the planet built along PH
> > standards we would die off immediately. PH standards are for rich
> > Western construction and relies heavily on cheap materials from poor
> > underdeveloped countries, who by the way consume a LOT less energy per
> > household per year than PH requirements.
> >
> > However, if every rich Western country built along PH standards we
> > would be WAY ahead of the game and it would be a HUGE improvement over
> > our current wasteful building. But it doesn't solve the issue for the
> > rest of the "developing world" (in parenthesis since that term implies
> > they are less evolved than us superior and more developed countries -
> > irony).
> >
> > So for me the solution is to use PH for the time being as an
> > improvement to current western building. Just like LEED is an
> > improvement in some areas. But neither are valid long term solutions.
> >
> > In answer to Corwyn, my personal metric is the self invented Zero
> > Brownstone Technique, which could be tweaked to any area but in my
> > case is very specific to North Western townhouse construction. There
> > is more on my site but is basically is zero waster during
> > deconstruction, zero new materials during construction, and zero
> > energy use in the final home. It is our goal. Right now the "right
> > amount" of insulation based on this metric for a brownstone is about 6
> > inches of polyiso, which by the way is a little more than what our PH
> > building calls for that we are doing. That was a nice confirmation
> > that my "hunch" was on the right track of the one of the best metrics
> > out there right now.
> >
> >
> > Gennaro Brooks-Church
> >
> > Cell: 1 347 244 3016 USA
> > www.EcoBrooklyn.com
> > 22 2nd St; Brooklyn, NY 11231
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 4:11 PM, Frank Cetera
> > <alchemicalfranklen at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> AC - loving your sentiments, no doubt cause they somewhat echo mine.?
> But
> >> getting folks in the green building arena in my town to think natural is
> a
> >> big goal.? Making the connection to the Earth through natural materials,
> and
> >> not highly processed and manufactured from states away; having
> "openings" in
> >> the shell that make that connection to the natural environment; not
> worrying
> >> down to the smallest BTU if the energy saved in high-tech manufacture
> bests
> >> the energy lost in natural low/appropriate techniques when making
> decisions;
> >> using natural materials and eleme4nts instead of mimicking them with
> >> produced structures - a sliding metal wall with openings in it meant to
> >> create a flickering light inside the home that is reminiscent of leaves
> on a
> >> tree when you could just plant or save the tree.
> >>
> >> Ahhh, to not be "locked" away in my home, as I often feel locked away
> from
> >> the outside in my office or other public buildings that fight their
> hardest
> >> to keep all the elements out!
> >>
> >> ~Frank Cetera
> >> www.alchemicalnursery.org
> >>
> >>> ------------------------------
> >>>
> >>> Message: 2
> >>> Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 10:47:47 -0500
> >>> From: action jackson <benigncraft at gmail.com>
> >>> To: greenbuilding at lists.bioenergylists.org
> >>> Subject: Re: [Greenbuilding] Greenbuilding Digest, Vol 5, Issue 9
> >>> Message-ID:
> >>> ? ? ? ?<AANLkTiksPEgr+-tT5+=k3MqXMfbMzu8G3Zkg1rK9HbMP at mail.gmail.com>
> >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> >>>
> >>> hey folks -
> >>>
> >>> fer my two cents on passivehaus:
> >>>
> >>> AWESOME! now people can build homes to an inappropriate scale and have
> >>> little human physical connection to the outside environment. THAT will
> put
> >>> us more in touch with needs of the planet- surely!
> >>>
> >>> look- I think we all need to be honest about the conversation we are
> >>> having
> >>> here- if it is about SURVIVING on the planet - humans have done quite
> well
> >>> (in some of the most inhospitable places on the planet i might add) and
> >>> not
> >>> only survived but CULTURALLY THRIVED there- using small scale -low tech
> >>> shelters of local natural materials to take temporary refuge from the
> >>> outdoors- where they LIVED.
> >>>
> >>> if the conversation is about maintaining our lifestyles- then start the
> >>> number crunching- decouple yourself from the planet that sustains you
> >>> (because that knowledge will serve us well when we colonize mars) - and
> >>> rock
> >>> and roll !
> >>>
> >>> I prefer ?the planet we have -
> >>>
> >>> ?but I respect the solutions in either conversation- I just think we
> need
> >>> to
> >>> delineate clearly.
> >>>
> >>> to borrow an adage from the foodies (who i think parallel us in many
> >>> ways)-
> >>> stands to reason- food /clothing /shelter
> >>>
> >>> *Eat food*. *Mostly plants*. Not too much.
> >>>
> >>> Build shelter.Mostly natural.Not too big.
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
> >>
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 10
> Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 18:28:06 -0800
> From: "JOHN SALMEN" <terrain at shaw.ca>
> To: "'Green Building'" <greenbuilding at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Subject: Re: [Greenbuilding] Aggressively Passive: Building Homes to
> to the Passive House Standard
> Message-ID: <DA547CFA8BC747B9B5DDCD12583FD3B7 at JOHN>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Welcome to the list - great letter and thanks for the link to the PANW
> discussion - it was fun to read.
>
> As for being ambassadors for a better built environment I think one of the
> challenges with the 'toolbox' and accompanying vocabulary is that they can
> become prescriptive of what that built environment will be and houses
> people
> accordingly without really corresponding to actual use, social needs, or
> simply adapting. Like you say "...everything looks like a nail..."
>
> In medical terms this is called 'compliance' and is both a form of
> authority
> and management towards a desired medical outcome. Problems really only
> arise
> when the outcome does not match the need or diagnosis - or the prescribed
> need was part of the toolbox that did not match the patients actual needs.
>
> Compliance to a building code is similar in that it is recognition of
> certain community standards and a willingness to be part of our community.
> Codes change both in reaction to compliance and needs on the part of the
> community. Alternate 'codes' or methodologies (PA, NZE and predecessors)
> are
> part of that process of change but environmental and social planning are
> also a big part. As builders, designers, planners and community members we
> participate in all those aspects - so the tool box gets bigger if you are
> meeting the needs of the overall community.
>
> As an example the question of PV has been an interesting one for me as net
> metering and solar roofs have been discussed for a long long time and I
> participated in discussions on this with BC hydro 15 years ago. If a
> typical
> residential roof can generate 1/3rd more energy than the house consumes it
> seemed a 'no brainer' to utilize the footprint and grid connection of a
> residential roof.
>
> It was an appealing scenario but the main question then and now is 'who
> owns
> the roof'. Answering that question amounts to a paradigm shift of how we
> view housing and ownership - but realistically we have already experienced
> major shifts in how we use and 'own' homes that have yet to be designed for
> and provided for.
>
> On average we occupy a home for less than ? a day and most of that is spent
> sleeping (8.6 hrs on average). As a designer that tells me that a 'home'
> has
> to be ideally quickly responsive in terms of providing hvac and other
> necessities (hot water, aesthetics, views(?), daylighting(?). So however we
> fit individually into those averages our community as a whole does fit into
> that. Our community may occupy our home before and after us (we tend to
> move
> a lot as well) - so we are designing buildings that basically have to look
> after themselves for 1/2 the day without the benefit of our presence. Does
> PA, NZE provide for social occupancy or does it provide for the building in
> itself?
>
> A final comment is about scale. As a designer I've worked to minimize
> footprints and that is where a designer can excel in making a small space
> work. Ironically small homes as a single footprint are very wasteful of the
> materials, structure and systems needed to support them. Rowhouses,
> multistory strata and cohousing are much friendlier solutions.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> JOHN SALMEN ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN
> 4465 UPHILL RD,. DUNCAN, B.C. CANADA, V9L 6M7
> PH 250 748 7672 FAX 250 748 7612 CELL 250 246 8541
> terrain at shaw.ca
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: greenbuilding-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org
> [mailto:greenbuilding-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of David
> Posada
> Sent: January 10, 2011 12:43 PM
> To: 'greenbuilding at lists.bioenergylists.org'
> Subject: Re: [Greenbuilding] Aggressively Passive: Building Homes to to the
> Passive House Standard
>
> There was a long and lively discussion recently on the PHNW group list
> about
> how the PHPP spreadsheet treats on-site PV vs on-site Solar Hot Water, the
> rationale behind the PE factor of 0.7, and an analogy of grid-tied PV
> generation can sometimes be more of a "carbon offset:"
>
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/PassiveHouseNW/browse_thread/thread/4e76b643b
> 2310a6b#
>
> On a less technical note, when you hear glowing praise for PH from some
> corners, frustration and discontent from others, I'm reminded of the maxim
> "if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail," and the
> inherent compromises of any tool.
>
> Some standards and rating systems are rather blunt tools, others far more
> precise. It seems the more precise and accommodating a tools is, the more
> difficult it can be for lay-people to learn and apply.
>
> For an engineer with many tools in their kit, and the wisdom to know the
> limitations and best practices for each one, they can make good calls on
> when one approach makes the most sense, and when it is requiring less
> meaningful effort.
>
> For others, the nuances may be less clear or important, and they see a
> particular tool such as Passive House as being for them the most
> appropriate
> means to an end.
>
> Part of the challenge is with so many tools vying for our attention,
> support, and dollars, their developers, promoters, reviewers and critics
> have to make countless assumptions and compromises both to make the tools
> useable and to explain them to the world. With the shifting fortunes of
> praise and popularity is easy to see how a lot of money, respect, and pride
> is at stake. I think it can be especially frustrating for people who have
> dedicated years to advancing better understanding of building systems to
> see
> the public's eyes glaze over and reach for the latest shrink-wrapped
> package.
>
> These comments from a new member may seem obvious or off-topic, but I felt
> compelled to offer them out of my own disappointment in watching how the
> conversation sometimes goes downhill when the value/ relevance/ worthiness
> of PH or LEED are being debated in different forums. We all love a good
> discussion and learn a lot from the debating the details, but I think
> something can get lost in the fray.
>
> I don't think this is a problem in this group, or limited to just the PH
> topic - people are exceptionally good here at clarifying their assumptions,
> finding common ground, and not taking blustery conclusions personally.
>
> When we venture outside of this circle as advocates and ambassadors for
> green building, I just wanted to make one proposal: I think we can be more
> effective at promoting a more responsible built environment if we
> acknowledge the common purpose of different tools, the inherent compromises
> of any approach, and how the balance of these strengths and weakness work
> for different contexts. Apologies if this sounds too idealistic or preachy.
>
> David Posada
> Portland, Oregon
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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<http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/greenbuilding_lists.bioener%0Agylists.org>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 11
> Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 18:46:53 -0800
> From: "George J. Nesbitt" <george at houseisasystem.com>
> To: Green Building <greenbuilding at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Subject: Re: [Greenbuilding] Aggressively Passive: Building Homes to
> thePassive House Standard
> Message-ID: <4D2BC49D.2090503 at houseisasystem.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; Format="flowed"
>
> Dear John,
> I have enjoyed your critiques of PH, your BS (that's Building
> Science) Insight articles, your posts here on this forum, as well as
> your presentations in SF (San Francisco) this past, oops, last year. I
> agree with much of what you have to say, and agree that some some
> changes could help make PH more assessable in NA (North America).
> I had dinner with Dr. Feist in December which was great and I had a
> chance to clarify a few issues.
> I was recently elected to the Board of PHCA (Passive House
> California) and have been a certified Passive House Consultant since
> June, and my invitation to you, and perhaps Joe too to come and talk to
> us on a 4th Sunday at Pyramid Brewery in Berkeley still stands. We could
> changes meeting dates too to accommodate you.
> You have pickup up and understood some of the details better than
> some who have been through the training. I have made some clarifications
> below as needed.
>
> On 1/10/2011 7:44 AM, John Straube wrote:
> > As you may know, there are 3 numerical requirements of PH, with a
> > bunch of recommendations that vary with whom you speak to (of which I
> > dont think any are required) and what day you speak to them.
> > 1. 120 kWh/m2/yr of source energy
> This is for your all of your energy at your building site. And using the
> U.S. DOE average for source energy conversions need to be entered
> replacing the E.U. #'s. And the appropriate #'s for Canada should also
> be used.
> > 2. 15 kWh/m2/yr of annual space heating demand
> and 15 kWh/m2/yr for space cooling, this and heating are based on site
> energy use (as opposed to source energy)
> > 3. 0.6 ACH at 50 air tightness
> This is a multipoint pressure & depressurization test, and must pass
> both, equivalent to our ASTM-E779
> > and you should have a mechanical ventilation system.
> Correct, and wrongly assumed to have to be a balanced HRV or ERV, it can
> be exhaust or supply only. If you install a balanced system you can't
> have more than a 1Pa delta between rooms (this is a requirement per Dr.
> Feist)
>
> To be Certified, you have to submit plans, pictures & other
> documentation showing your project was built as it was modeled in the
> PHPP. You have to test the mechanical system and have it balanced to +/-10%
>
> A note on square meters, the EU m2 TFA (treated floor area) is a net
> usable square footage, it does not include stairs, and is only a % of
> other spaces. We typically use a gross exterior floor area, so without
> making an an adjustment to the floor areas the #'s can be off (I made
> this mistake 3 years ago, before I knew better).
> > You have to meet 120 kWh/m2/yr site energy regardless of PV.
> Correct, end of sentence
> > Sort of. In fact, the PHPP spreadsheet uses a factor of 0.7 to when
> > calculating the factor for PV: I assume this means in an all electric
> > house you could use up to 120/0.7= 170 kWh/m2/yr.
> No, there is no adjustments to any of the numerical requirements for PV
> generate electricity. There has been discussion about a small house,
> cold climate, and retrofit modifications, but I am not clear on if they
> are official yet and the exact details.
> > I do not know why PV is rated this way, since in a grid
> > interconnected system like PV, the best factor one would think was
> > possible is 1.0. Anyway, the problem is that the PHPP software
> > basically ignores the PV generated electricity in its verification:
> > you can add PV but it does not reduce the energy accounted for in the
> > 120 number.
> >
> > So yes, this limits the size of the PV array and would avoid very
> > large PV arrays on small houses. That is good. We can still have
> > largish PV arrays on large houses.
> > For a large house in Sonoma California, this results in an absurdly
> > bad house, even if it met the other two requirements of PH. A 300 m2
> > house (say 4500 sf) could use 300*120=36000 kWh. This is a large
> > amount of energy which could be provided by a 28 kW PV array, and
> > render the house net zero. This would meet PH's 120 requirement. But
> > it may not meet the 15 requirement for space heating and has nothing
> > to do with the airtightness. Meeting 15 is easily possible in Sonoma
> > (where heat pumps work very well). The only hard part is getting 0.6.
> > Of course, in Sonoma, 0.6 is a pretty stupid measure, since the
> > energy saved going from 1 to 0.6 is truly trivial. But if you want PH.
> My rough calculation based on actual output of PV in the SF Bay area
> would say it's an 18kW PV system to get to net zero source energy. Still
> honking large! Net Zero Site energy would be much smaller, and net zero
> Time Dependent Value (California's modified source energy) would be even
> smaller. Net Zero is not a trivial pursuit, especially in large house.
> >
> > Sensible economics would reduce the size of PV arrays on most house,
> > eg if it is cheaper to save energy in a specific project than it is to
> > produce it, a sensible design would choose to save energy. This is one
> > of the requirements that the Building America research program tries
> > to convey: use the lowest cost means of saving energy, and every home
> > reaches a point where PV is more economical than, for example, adding
> > another 2" of foam to a 12" thick layer under your slab (to pick a
> > favourite example).
> >
> > Now lets look at a small house in a cold climate like Minneapolis.
> > Say a 1500 sf house plus a basement, which would have a PH area of
> > maybe 130 m2. Thus we can only use 15600 kWh of energy of all types,
> > which would be 5770 kWh for an all electric house using the PHPP US
> > values. This would be hard to do all electric! Also total space
> > heating demand would be limited to 1950 kWh (=66 therms) regardless of
> > how this heating demand is met. This is really hard and kind of crazy
> > to achieve in a cold climate small house. Meeting this 15 number is
> > what drives many of the extreme and non-obvious decisions, not so much
> > the 120 number. At least this the case in cold climates and small
> houses.
> I think this is why they have considered a cold climate adjustment to
> the 15 kWh/m2/yr budget.
> >
> > For example, I currently live in a medium size house (1500 sf raised
> > ranch with a fully finished basement) in a coldish climate (7500 HDD
> > F). I cannot meet the 15 kWh/m2 demand number for space heating,
> > although I could likely meet the 120 number, and could reduce the
> > blower door number from 1 ACH at 50 to 0,6 ACH at 50 by spending another
> > $5000 or so (I looked at this during the retrofi: the payback for this
> > option was in the order of 100 years, and it was 4 times cheaper to
> > use PV to generate the energy saved than saving it this way). But I
> > could not get certification if I wanted to because I dont meet the 15
> > number: I am over twice this with R45 walls, R80 ceiling, R30 basement
> > walls, triple glazed R6.5 windows, etc. There is zero benefit to me,
> > society or the environment, to meet that 15 target but it is required
> > for PH. For a townhouse in a 5000 HDD F climate in, say Frankfurt
> > Germany, 15 would be a nice guideline (oh, I guess that is where PH
> > was developed..) but it still would not matter to the goals of good
> > buildings like the 120 number does. Oh, and I heat primarily with wood
> > from my own property, so the fact that I use more energy for heating
> > is pretty irrelevant.
> My congratulations to you if you are under the 120 kWh/m2/yr total
> source energy budget (without PV) even if you don't meet the 15
> kWh/m2/yr heating budget.
>
> You have achieved an equivalent level of performance, an energy
> efficient house, and that's is what we all should be trying to achieve,
> no mater what we call it!
> >
> > Just some more thoughts.
> >
> > On 2011-01-09, at 9:08 PM, Rob Dickinson wrote:
> >
> >> Interesting post, John.
> >>
> >> I'm afraid I need clarification on a few points.
> >>
> >> If I understand correctly, in PH you can't increase the amount of
> >> total kWHs available by adding a solar PV array beyond the energy
> >> allotment specified by 120kWh/m2/yr. To me, this makes some sense
> >> because it avoids the examples of very inefficient houses
> >> compensating by installing enormous solar PV arrays.
> >>
> >> But if one had an all-electric house and the exact amount of
> >> electricity allowed by the area formula (i.e. 120 kWh/m2/yr) were
> >> produced on-site using PV, wouldn't that that be more of a 1:1 source
> >> energy/site energy, and allow the full 120kWh/m2/yr? That would
> >> seem sensible. Or is PH not that sensible?
> >>
> >> Hopefully I have expressed my question clearly. I look forward to a
> >> response.
> >>
> >> Rob
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 5:44 PM, John Straube <jfstraube at gmail.com
> >> <mailto:jfstraube at gmail.com>> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> "I still find each day too short for all the thoughts I want to
> >> think, all the walks I want to take, all the books I want to read,
> >> and all the friends I want to see." ? John Burroughs (1837-1921)
> >> American naturalist, writer
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Greenbuilding mailing list
> >> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> >> Greenbuilding at bioenergylists.org
> >> <mailto: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
> >
> > Dr John Straube, P.Eng.
> > Associate Professor
> > University of Waterloo
> > Dept of Civil Eng. & School of Architecture
> > www.buildingscience.com <http://www.buildingscience.com>
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/20110110/c1b94403/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 12
> Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 22:01:28 -0500
> From: Frank Tettemer <frank at livingsol.com>
> To: Greenbuilding at bioenergylists.org
> Subject: Re: [Greenbuilding] new stove
> Message-ID: <4D2BC808.2060301 at livingsol.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> On Jan 10, 2011, at 4:40 PM, Sacie Lambertson wrote:
>
> All, re the recent conversations about heating with wood, I ran across
> this interesting good looking new stove:
>
>
> http://3rings.designerpages.com/2011/01/05/bullerjan-canadian-lumberjack-designed-stove/
>
>
> This stove is basically a newer version of an older idea from the
> sixties and seventies, called a "Free Flow" . The tubes were intended
> to extract and distribute a large amount of heat from the firebox.
> Nearly all of the ones that I knew of have self destructed rather
> quickly, as the inner surface of each tube would get very hot, and
> expand, around the much cooler outer surfaces. The welds between each
> tube would be torn apart by disproportionate expanding and non-expanding
> metal. Any of the Free Flows used in this cold Ontario climate were
> compromised, in less than a decade of service.
>
> Also, as Corwyn has pointed out, the stove did infact extract a lot of
> heat, which caused the fire to cool too quickly, and as a result, the
> second half of the burn, of each loading of the stove, went down hill
> fast, and caused a lot of incomplete combustion, and subsequent creasote
> build up in the chimney.
>
> It is, though, at first glance, a very sexy looking device. Makes you
> really want to think it will succeed.
>
> --
> Frank Tettemer
> Living Sol ~ Building and Design
> www.livingsol.com
> 613 756 3884
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 13
> Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 21:12:40 -0600
> From: "Bob Waldrop" <bwaldrop at cox.net>
> To: "Green Building" <greenbuilding at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Subject: Re: [Greenbuilding] Aggressively Passive: Building Homes
> tothePassive House Standard
> Message-ID: <AE996533B47D4D54A0225F132518FBB3 at your5c6d22d993>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
> reply-type=original
>
> OK, thanks for the clarification, it makes sense, now its more
> understandable. No thanks on the larger house, the one I have is plenty
> big
> for the five of us. Bigger houses mean bigger property taxes, and bigger
> energy bills, and MORE HOUSEKEEPING, as even if it were at the passive haus
> standard, we would have to pay for it, and my goal is to pay and use less,
> not more. Plus bigger houses hold more stuff and that is always a
> temptation.
>
> Sometimes I think we need a standard that no house can be called green if
> it
> is more than X sq ft/person typically habitating there. Not sure where
> that
> limit should be drawn, except to say that our house is plenty big for
> usn's,
>
> Bob Waldrop, OKC
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John Straube" <jfstraube at gmail.com>
> > No, Bob, PH is both smarter and dumber than that.
> > The energy metric is based on source energy: that is energy that feeds an
> > electric plant, or the gas used to transport and compress natural gas.
> > So if you house was all electric, it would be limited to 42 kWh/m2/yr
> > because the electricity grid in Germany requires 2.7 units of energy for
> > every unit of electricity (this is 3.35 in the United States, but the
> > PHIUS uses the ratio for the German power grid: no I am not making this
> > up).
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 14
> Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 19:16:18 -0800
> From: "JOHN SALMEN" <terrain at shaw.ca>
> To: "'Green Building'" <greenbuilding at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Subject: Re: [Greenbuilding] That Natural Feeling
> Message-ID: <B18DF77DD34642BC8FA393DB38EEED66 at JOHN>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> When I started with this as a work endeavour the term was 'appropriate
> technology'. It bridged a lot of disciplines but was mostly fostered by
> planning departments academically in the 70's as a geosocial and somewhat
> anthropological planning tool for '3rd world' development. We did have an
> expression though that the '3rd world starts at home'. The environmental
> movement at that time was literally concerned with the environment and a
> growing awareness of environmental degradation - nuclear issues, etc. The
> initial split was practical and political practice and had some
> philosophical basis at the time (Frankfurt school, adorno, etc.)
>
> Prior to that the environmental movement was either very much a literary
> movement (aka Thoreau) or unfortunately a somewhat fascistic movement based
> on nationalist/racial sentiment of organic 'traditional' inspiration
> (jugenstil, etc.) I worry about the degree of attachment or fanaticism that
> any concept or work practice deserves or warrants.
>
> I mistrust tradition as much as I mistrust any sentiment that is not
> informed or can demonstrate some knowledge base. A 2000 year old herbal
> recipe is not a sentiment it is a recipe which means it contains
> information
> that has been conveyed for a period of time. I may not understand the
> recipe
> or lack the knowledge to make it - or it may have lost some crucial piece
> of
> information over time and/or we may have lost some knowledge as to how to
> make the recipe work - I think that is the crucial distinction (the
> knowledge of how to make information real). Creating or recreating that
> knowledge (putting information to use)is I feel the only real
> responsibility
> - but with that is the implied responsibility of not putting the community
> at risk.
>
> I still like the term 'appropriate technology' as it is either appropriate
> or not and forms part of our knowledge base. I use clay plasters and other
> materials that some might consider 'natural' as I think they are
> appropriate
> and need to be used - and I can do that within my community and code and
> forward that knowledge and experience a little bit. It doesn't make me a
> backward looking naturalist - but I do value the tradition of my community
> when it seems worth valuing.
>
> John
>
>
> JOHN SALMEN ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN
> 4465 UPHILL RD,. DUNCAN, B.C. CANADA, V9L 6M7
> PH 250 748 7672 FAX 250 748 7612 CELL 250 246 8541
> terrain at shaw.ca
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: greenbuilding-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org
> [mailto:greenbuilding-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of
> Gennaro
> Brooks-Church
> Sent: January 10, 2011 3:30 PM
> To: Green Building
> Subject: Re: [Greenbuilding] That Natural Feeling
>
> This list, like most of the world, is roughly separated along two
> lines, those forward looking techies who value science and those
> backward looking naturalists who value tradition.
> In one camp you have the number crunching BTU types and in the other
> camp you have the adobe plaster types.
> I lean on the naturalist side. I figure if it worked for 2000 years
> for a civilization then it is worth looking into. I am suspect of the
> techies who use wunder science to try to support an unsupportable
> lifestyle. For example, if every person on the planet built along PH
> standards we would die off immediately. PH standards are for rich
> Western construction and relies heavily on cheap materials from poor
> underdeveloped countries, who by the way consume a LOT less energy per
> household per year than PH requirements.
>
> However, if every rich Western country built along PH standards we
> would be WAY ahead of the game and it would be a HUGE improvement over
> our current wasteful building. But it doesn't solve the issue for the
> rest of the "developing world" (in parenthesis since that term implies
> they are less evolved than us superior and more developed countries -
> irony).
>
> So for me the solution is to use PH for the time being as an
> improvement to current western building. Just like LEED is an
> improvement in some areas. But neither are valid long term solutions.
>
> In answer to Corwyn, my personal metric is the self invented Zero
> Brownstone Technique, which could be tweaked to any area but in my
> case is very specific to North Western townhouse construction. There
> is more on my site but is basically is zero waster during
> deconstruction, zero new materials during construction, and zero
> energy use in the final home. It is our goal. Right now the "right
> amount" of insulation based on this metric for a brownstone is about 6
> inches of polyiso, which by the way is a little more than what our PH
> building calls for that we are doing. That was a nice confirmation
> that my "hunch" was on the right track of the one of the best metrics
> out there right now.
>
>
> Gennaro Brooks-Church
>
> Cell: 1 347 244 3016 USA
> www.EcoBrooklyn.com
> 22 2nd St; Brooklyn, NY 11231
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 4:11 PM, Frank Cetera
> <alchemicalfranklen at gmail.com> wrote:
> > AC - loving your sentiments, no doubt cause they somewhat echo mine.? But
> > getting folks in the green building arena in my town to think natural is
> a
> > big goal.? Making the connection to the Earth through natural materials,
> and
> > not highly processed and manufactured from states away; having "openings"
> in
> > the shell that make that connection to the natural environment; not
> worrying
> > down to the smallest BTU if the energy saved in high-tech manufacture
> bests
> > the energy lost in natural low/appropriate techniques when making
> decisions;
> > using natural materials and eleme4nts instead of mimicking them with
> > produced structures - a sliding metal wall with openings in it meant to
> > create a flickering light inside the home that is reminiscent of leaves
> on
> a
> > tree when you could just plant or save the tree.
> >
> > Ahhh, to not be "locked" away in my home, as I often feel locked away
> from
> > the outside in my office or other public buildings that fight their
> hardest
> > to keep all the elements out!
> >
> > ~Frank Cetera
> > www.alchemicalnursery.org
> >
> >> ------------------------------
> >>
> >> Message: 2
> >> Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 10:47:47 -0500
> >> From: action jackson <benigncraft at gmail.com>
> >> To: greenbuilding at lists.bioenergylists.org
> >> Subject: Re: [Greenbuilding] Greenbuilding Digest, Vol 5, Issue 9
> >> Message-ID:
> >> ? ? ? ?<AANLkTiksPEgr+-tT5+=k3MqXMfbMzu8G3Zkg1rK9HbMP at mail.gmail.com>
> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> >>
> >> hey folks -
> >>
> >> fer my two cents on passivehaus:
> >>
> >> AWESOME! now people can build homes to an inappropriate scale and have
> >> little human physical connection to the outside environment. THAT will
> put
> >> us more in touch with needs of the planet- surely!
> >>
> >> look- I think we all need to be honest about the conversation we are
> >> having
> >> here- if it is about SURVIVING on the planet - humans have done quite
> well
> >> (in some of the most inhospitable places on the planet i might add) and
> >> not
> >> only survived but CULTURALLY THRIVED there- using small scale -low tech
> >> shelters of local natural materials to take temporary refuge from the
> >> outdoors- where they LIVED.
> >>
> >> if the conversation is about maintaining our lifestyles- then start the
> >> number crunching- decouple yourself from the planet that sustains you
> >> (because that knowledge will serve us well when we colonize mars) - and
> >> rock
> >> and roll !
> >>
> >> I prefer ?the planet we have -
> >>
> >> ?but I respect the solutions in either conversation- I just think we
> need
> >> to
> >> delineate clearly.
> >>
> >> to borrow an adage from the foodies (who i think parallel us in many
> >> ways)-
> >> stands to reason- food /clothing /shelter
> >>
> >> *Eat food*. *Mostly plants*. Not too much.
> >>
> >> Build shelter.Mostly natural.Not too big.
> >>
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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<http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/greenbuilding_lists.bioener%0Agylists.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.bioener
> gylists.org<http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/greenbuilding_lists.bioener%0Agylists.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
>
>
> End of Greenbuilding Digest, Vol 5, Issue 12
> ********************************************
>
--
Cheers,
Joshua Thornton
Founder/Director naturalbuild.ca
519 387 8787
info at naturalbuild.ca
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/greenbuilding_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20110111/eca603e5/attachment.html>
More information about the Greenbuilding
mailing list