4specs.com    4specs.com Home Page

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

4specs Discussion Forum » Sustainable Design Topics » Embodied Energy « Previous Next »

Author Message
Anonymous
 
Posted on Tuesday, August 12, 2008 - 04:05 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

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:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

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:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

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:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

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:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

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:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

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:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

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:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

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:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

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:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

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:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

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:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

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:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

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:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

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.

Add Your Message Here
Post:
Username: Posting Information:
This is a public posting area. Enter your username and password if you have an account. Otherwise, enter your full name as your username and leave the password blank. Your e-mail address is optional.
Password:
E-mail:
Options: Automatically activate URLs in message
Action:

Topics | Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Search | Help/Instructions | Program Credits Administration