[Greenbuilding] Repost: reaching conclusions

[Corwyn]

>> On Jun 30, 2006, at 14:57, Michael lough wrote:
>>> Surely "Greenness" isnt fuzzy?
>>
>> Sure it is.  Take a very simple example, two green building styles, 
>> say cob
>> and strawbale.  We advance the technology to the point that we can 
>> make
>> zero-energy homes with either one.  But both straw and cob are limited
>> resources.  So, we end up with a mix of strawbale houses and cob 
>> houses,
>> and which one gets built next depends on the current supply of those 
>> two
>> resources.  Fuzzy.
>
> whata load of tosh

>
> cob and SB are not necessarily similar intheir greenness one has to be 
> more
> green than the other in terms of site energy environmental impact Not 
> fuzzy
> at all.
>
> If zero energy is the only criterion then maybe they are close but I am
> betting the straw needs a truck whereas the cob just needs a spade by 
> and
> large dont get mixing techniques if they produce the same effect its 
> labour
> losing
>
> hey its as clear as mud when you think about it eh?

I suspect I was not clear enough in my point as you have entirely missed
it.  Take two building methods call them A and B.  They are different
enough that they require completely different raw materials, but 
otherwise
perform exactly the same for all measures of greenness you care about.
Since the raw materials are of necessity limited, the greenest solution
will not be either one alone, but rather some mixture of the two 
depending
on current conditions and local details.  Thus, even the simplest case 
is
still fuzzy.

I was not trying to make any claims about either strawbale or cob, but
rather using them in a hypothetical situation.  Sorry for the confusion.

Thank You Kindly,

Corwyn

-- 
Corwyn
Kermit didn't know the half of it...
http://www.greenfret.com/
corwyn at greenfret.com