[Gasification] new studieson GHGfootprint ofbiofuelsdarkensthepicture so we can't see

[Greg and April]

No need to reply.

I just have two questions for you to consider-

How much did it cost to build it, and when was it built ( aka what was the 
building codes that were in effect at the time )?

My own house was built in 1979, and from the outside it looks like it has 
little steel in it, but builders plans show that the outside walls of the 
basement was made with steel re-enforced concrete, and the because the 
basement in unfinished you can also see the 10 inch steel I-beam that runs 
the entire length of the house, and more than half of the 8 ft long by 4 
inch ( dia. ) steel posts - all of which were required by building code that 
was in effect at the time.    The first level is a little smaller than the 
size of your place, while the basement is 2/3 the area.

Add in the duct work for the furnace and A/C and it will easily go several 
tons worth of steel in what is considered to be a conventional home for the 
time and place it was built.

Unless a home ( in the US ), was built before 1950/1960, more than likely 
it's going to have allot more steel in it than most people think.    In most 
cases, it's going to be required by the building codes, and most likely the 
more modern it is, the more steel it has in it, because building inspectors 
like steel - it's something that in most houses is going to last much longer 
than the wood.

Having worked security at more expensive homes in the area while they were 
under construction, I can honestly tell you that I have seen some places 
that have as much open space ( either as a living room or family room or 
even worse a combination room ) as big as either of our houses, and to get 
those open spaces, they end up using one or more steel beams ( in some cases 
thicker ) than the one in my home, to support the floors and sometime the 
beams are even in the walls, to support the structure.

I know that places can be built without steel ( or at least very little ), 
but enough problems occur when it is not used, to give building engineers 
and architects headaches when dealing with building codes, so they use it 
and are fairly free with it in the process, because it's so cheep 
considering the alternative.

In my early years, I worked for a remodeling agency and one time we actually 
had to remove a section of a wooden beam ( that had failed ) and replace it 
with a steel I beam - so I asked the architect why we just didn't replace it 
with another wood beam, and he told me that to span the given gap took a 
piece of wood that was a bare minimum 5x the cost of a steel I beam of the 
same capabilities, and perhaps 3x the size - because of the requirements put 
on it by building codes specified things like a certain amount of old growth 
wood or even more new growth wood.

I'm not saying it can't be done, just that it may not be legal, cost 
effective, resource efficient or a combination of those.    OTOH, if you or 
anyone else wants to pay the price of doing do, by all means go ahead.

Greg H.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Rolf Uhle" <energiesnaturals at gmx.de>
To: "Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification" 
<gasification at listserv.repp.org>
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 15:00
Subject: Re: [Gasification] new studieson GHGfootprint 
ofbiofuelsdarkensthepicture so we can't see


O.k., Greg, you conviced me.
The only thing I wanted to know is how my own place, a fairly conventional
150 m² stone/wood house can resist time with only 100 kg (at the most)
steel in it !