>> a CMHC report has shown that urban waste materials (ie plastics +
>> wooden pallets) may be ground up to produce "bales" with essentially
>> the same structural and insulative qualities of their rural cousins,
>> straw bales.
> This seems like the act of desperation. ...[snip]
> Surley there is a higher-and-better use than this volume-intensive
> method of aggregating crap into building elements. [snip]
> the idea of 18" thick walls everywhere seems bizzare. What would
> Bucky Fuller have said about this one?
and
darons@payette.com wrote:
> Are we doing ourselves any favors by promoting the use of recycled
> plastics???
========= end of quoted material ==============
First of all, apologies for having posted incomplete information WRT the
Biocrete/Biobloc system in my previous post. Second, apologies for
perpetuating this discussion of SB which some may have had it up to
HERE with.... but Bruce made me do it.
I inadvertantly gave the wrong impression that recyled plastics were a
major component of the Bioblocs. Obviously, plastics are not very "bio".
Those who may have taken the time to look at the CMHC proof of concept
report will have noticed that three prototype blocks were tested.... and
that the report acknowledged that one of the prototypes was:
"a worst case mix of a substantial proportion of shredded polyethylene
mixed with shredded wood" (unquote)
All of the prototype blocks were only 14" thick... which for a
superinsulated wall, (or even a poorly insulated CMU + brick veneer wall
for that matter) is not an unreasonable dimension.
I don't think that anyone would question the appropriateness of making
superinsulated buildings (SIB) ...even in urban environments where space is
at a premium. Thicker walls is one of the necessary "evils" of SIB.
I challenge Bruce or anyone to suggest a wall system which provides
equivalent thermal and structural performance while maintaining a lower
environmental impact in terms of embodied energy, manufacturing emissions,
toxicity, and non-reusable waste generated.
I think that Bruce C. exhibits a fundamental misunderstanding of the
motivation behind these building systems (StrawBale and Biobloc).
This "crap" (or "organic fibre" as others prefer to call it), is currently
being burned on a vast scale (or buried in landfills) which, as you can
imagine, poses major problems.
While there may be "higher-and-better uses" in the future and under
development, storing the fibre in a minimally-processed building material
which functions both as structure and insulation ...and which arguably has
a (numerically) negative environmental impact ...strikes me as being fairly
"elegant" solution to the problem which is "do-able" right now.
As to the issue of whether these are "desparate times" or not and whether
acts of desparation are called for, well....
-- Rob Tom ---------- * ------------ be417@FreeNet.Carleton.ca Kanata, Ontario, Canada __________________________________________________________________ This greenbuilding dialogue is sponsored by Oikos (www.oikos.com) and Environmental Building News (www.ebuild.com). For instructions send e-mail to greenbuilding-request@crest.org. __________________________________________________________________