Embodied Energy

Log Out | Topics | Search Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

Author Message Anonymous   Posted on Tuesday, August 12, 2008 - 04:05 pm:    Has embodied energy of building materials been quantified for LEED? Marc C Chavez Senior Member Username: mchavez Post Number: 320 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Tuesday, August 12, 2008 - 04:33 pm:    Are you asking a question or just poking under rocks looking for snakes to rattle. to answer the question - not really and not yet. In fact in some ways it's backwards: Aluminum - good, cause it's recycled/recyclable, Gypsum Board BAD (unless it’s recycled.) We all know that aluminum takes tons of energy to create where as gyp takes very little and yet these are not compared to analyze their true environmental footprint. (not to mention plaster vs gypsum which would be a more fair test (plaster = crushed and cooked lime stone vs gypsum (get it wet, squeeze it out, dry it) One of these years it probably will unless a REAL certification comes along that does take into account the whole cost of building and building materials. (remember bike rack = 1 point complete building exterior saved and reused = 1 point) talk about embodied energy Anonymous   Posted on Tuesday, August 12, 2008 - 05:33 pm:    I wanted to ask the question before I asked the sustainability consultant who proposed same in a project narrative (something about me not wanting to look too stupid). With variable amounts of energy to extract, process, manufacture, transport, and install any specific material, philosophically, how, for example, would one quantifiably(sp?) compare a building material/product manufactured "next door" to project vs. same (or even a less-energy-to-manufacture alternative) product that has to be trucked from 500 miles away...or even "worse" shipped from the other side of the world? My simplistic impression is that there are just too many factors...and subjective too...in order to even begin to "measure." Is there such a thing as measureable carbon footprints for various materials? Or would that be the same dilemma? Marc C Chavez Senior Member Username: mchavez Post Number: 321 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Tuesday, August 12, 2008 - 06:06 pm:    I don't know of any standard way (or organization or other) that has the ownership on calculating carbon footprint, laudable as that is. Maybe one of the true green experts in the bunch has an Idea. Robert W. Johnson Senior Member Username: bob_johnson Post Number: 169 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Tuesday, August 12, 2008 - 06:20 pm:    You might want to take a look at the GreenFormat material on the CSI website - my understanding is that it is system to get product manufacturers to provide comparable data on a wide ranging list of sustainable issues. Don't know how far it goes in the direction you are discussing but seems like it has the most comprehensive list of sustainable product issues in one location available at the moment. I beleive it is in the final stages of review and comment and revision before it goes out on the street. Peggy White, CSI, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: peggy Post Number: 20 Registered: 07-2007 Posted on Tuesday, August 12, 2008 - 07:16 pm:    The version of GreenFormat that the original team created tried to compile a list of questions that would at least open the door to obtaining accurate and useful information on LCA, carbon footprinting and embodied energy. The problem is that its a complicated issue with a lot of factors that need to be considered. Where exactly did the materials come from, how were they harvested/extracted, how were they transported, and so on. Things change rapidly. This week's response from a manufacturer might be different from last week's response. I don't know if the revisions made to GreenFormat since our version still include those original questions, which would provide some consistency for the beginnings of this type of research. Manufacturers are understandably hesitant about providing certain types of information, sometimes because they feel the information is proprietary, and sometimes because sourcing and transportation of materials is changing and evolving too rapidly. On the design side - unless we have accurate and current data, we're just chasing a mirage. Who's got that kind of time, and what's the point? There are several new entities who are touting their LCA tools, but I remain skeptical. This type of analysis is only as good as the data its based on, and nobody has the lock on ALL the data yet. Tis a conundrum..... Mark Gilligan SE, CSI Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 75 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Wednesday, August 13, 2008 - 02:43 am:    The problem is that carbon footprint and embodied energy are just two dimensions of a multi dimensioned solution space. The real problem is how to deal with tradeoffs between these issues. From my viewpoint it does not seem that there is a concensus as to what the problem is. Is it chemicals in plastics, the rape of our wilderness, or global warming? John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 939 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Wednesday, August 13, 2008 - 09:25 am:    Yes. Mark Gilligan SE, CSI Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 76 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Wednesday, August 13, 2008 - 11:12 am:    Then how do we decide how to balance things when the process to reduce our exposure to chemicals in plastics contributes to greater global warming. You can not do just one thing. Richard Howard, AIA CSI CCS LEED-AP Senior Member Username: rick_howard Post Number: 190 Registered: 07-2003 Posted on Wednesday, August 13, 2008 - 12:38 pm:    An organization called the Institute for Market Tranformation to Sustainability is attempting to develop a consensus standard for determining sustainability without allowing "greenwashing." You can visit their website at www.sustainableproducts.com and check out their SMART Building Product Standard and Scorecard. Peggy White, CSI, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: peggy Post Number: 21 Registered: 07-2007 Posted on Wednesday, August 13, 2008 - 01:26 pm:    Evaluation of sustainability is best done by the project team, by reviewing the basic facts about materials and whether the materials meet credible sustainable and performance standards - then WE can make the determination as to whether the product is the green we want for our project. Many manufacturers are finding success in the sustainable materials marketplace by simply being more open about the content of the materials in their products. Recycled content is a good example. It was not so long ago that this information was difficult to find, now its part of the typical technical data for many products. Steven Bruneel, AIA, CSI-CDT, LEED-AP Senior Member Username: redseca2 Post Number: 118 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Wednesday, August 13, 2008 - 01:48 pm:    Until all the facts are in, I encourage our project teams to try to stick with tried and true materials mentioned in the "Five Books of Architecture" by Vitruvius, that are manufactured within D Millaria of the project site. Mark Gilligan SE, CSI Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 77 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Thursday, August 14, 2008 - 01:44 am:    Several scientists recently determined the likely cause of mass die-offs of animal species in Australia about 40,000 years ago. The cause was over hunting by humans. The point being that our impact on the environment is not a new thing. So attractive as it may seem the answer is not going back to the past. Tony Wolf Junior Member Username: tony_wolf Post Number: 2 Registered: 11-2007 Posted on Thursday, August 14, 2008 - 10:46 am:    I'm for progress: it's really just another word for evolution. But evolution does go backward when it takes an unsuccessful branch. It's not really a question of going back to the past or not. It's a matter of responding to conditions, and the correct response in particular instances may be developing 'old' technology or behavior that we now see as the most viable answer.