[Greenbuilding] mass-enhanced R-values :-(

[Don Eyermann]

Don Writes:
> Conversely, how much solar radiant heat energy would need to be 
> absorbed by the roof water heater in spring/summer/fall and be stored 
> in how much well insulated area underground, served in three radial 
> embedded tubing circuits, to store enough energy to augment that 55?
> during the cold periods of fall, winter and spring and raise the 
> temperature 15?F to keep the house comfortably warm...

Nick opines: 

A lot. And the house will be hideously expensive.

Refute:

This simplistic tubing system has been built into homes in Europe, Asia and
Africa with well documented results. The reality of its LOW COST and actual
performance (Freeing people from dependence on "dirty" energy and
eliminating so much pollution) has garnered significant attention from
people who were just as skeptical as you...the difference being they have
the vision to look past their own skepticism and honestly evaluate the
information. The proof having been repeatedly demonstrated and verified by
third party investigation has earned the system and the man their respect.
Respect by World Leaders, too and yes including even the Pope. They
understand and have appreciation for the implications, especially in poorer
countries and their citizens where they have 100% dependence on foreign
sources for fuel. So, Nick, do you have any compassion or "love" for any
other people and their energy cost plight?
I challenged you to do the materials cost and labor cost for your own
understanding. A few hundred feet of tubing and a few hours labor and a few
hundred dollars for excavation versus a few thousand dollars for an HVAC
unit and a few hours for installation and all the energy that it will then
NOT consume over its lifetime and the attendant pollution NOT released are
perfectly obvious differences even without your BASIC computer calculations.
It doesn't cost more NICK, it costs Less. It costs WAY less. Just like my
now larger partial ICF house costs less to operate than it did when it was
23% smaller with all exterior walls built with 2 x 6 and fiberglass
"breathing" walls.  

I think you have a wooden drum to beat and the facts we other contributors
offer are of no consequence to your non-seeing, disbelieving,
pre-conceptions. The latest report
http://www.ornl.gov/sci/roofs+walls/research/detailed_papers/dyn_perf/index.
html clearly showed that well insulated high mass walls work better than a
standard Well Constructed wood/fiberglass insulation wall baseline system by
a minimum factor of 1.47 and a max of 2.47 and yet you continue to beat your
"it don't work" drum. And the sad reality is that there are a large number
of marginally built wood/fiberglass insulation homes in the field. It is a
system that has an inherent opportunity for poor craftsmanship. Only a truly
conscientious builder will produce a finished product that lives up to the
1.0 baseline of the test. A significant percentage of the homes in Canada
and America will NOT pass the 1.0 baseline mustard because of the system
complexity and all the craftsmanship dependent steps in the process, and the
"hurry it up and let's get to the next job" mentality of a LOT of builders.
Workers can easily poorly install studs, batting and vapor barriers. It is
inherently less likely to attain the 1.0 baseline performance. An ICF
structure is manufactured as a block with a hollow space for filling with
mortar. The process is simpler. It is more attuned to the "hurry up"
attitude. It is less craftsmanship dependent and when it's done it will
out-perform a standard wood structure by a factor of 1.47 minimum. That
greater efficiency represents a huge tonnage of pollution not released into
the environment...even without our zero energy system. With the zero energy
system the benefits are mountainous. You're like a buggy builder faced with
the early horseless carriage...some of which were electric drive. Even Henry
Ford's wife preferred her electric car, because she didn't have to crank it
to start it and it drove smoother and was nicer riding (no jerkyness) and
quiet. You could take a lesson from that. ;-)

-----Original Message-----
From: greenbuilding-bounces at listserv.repp.org
[mailto:greenbuilding-bounces at listserv.repp.org] On Behalf Of Nick Pine
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2009 2:11 AM
To: greenbuilding at listserv.repp.org
Subject: Re: [Greenbuilding] mass-enhanced R-values :-(

Don Eyermann rants:

> IF YOU COULD GET THE WHOLE IDEA OF BURNING FOSSIL FUEL/TREES/NUCLEAR 
> FISSION FOR HEATING AND COOLING OUT OF YOUR HEAD THEN MAYBE WE COULD 
> HAVE A DISCUSSION.

Moi?

> The Massy Walls CAN be heated and cooled effectively by natural 
> geothermal/solar radiant energy by the fractional energy of a small 
> pump recirculating water continuously. This system works, it has been 
> reviewed by multiple third party agencies in several countries...

And the Pope.

> You are such a well brained BASIC computer language aficionado why 
> don't you take the few minutes to actually figure out the minimal 
> lengths of pipe it would take in 55?F earth to cool the water down and 
> re-circulate it back into the walls of a 1500 sq. ft. home preventing 
> the walls/interior from heating up in the first place in the summer.

OK. Send money.

> Conversely, how much solar radiant heat energy would need to be 
> absorbed by the roof water heater in spring/summer/fall and be stored 
> in how much well insulated area underground, served in three radial 
> embedded tubing circuits, to store enough energy to augment that 55? 
> during the cold periods of fall, winter and spring and raise the 
> temperature 15?F to keep the house comfortably warm...

A lot. And the house will be hideously expensive.

> How long would it take you to do that calculation?

Not long. First you'd have to send lots of money so we can better define 
the calculation.

> We're engaging an expert interested in this system to do our 
> calculations...

Good...

>... ICF homes really do use less energy than conventional wood homes

I believe that is true, especially if they are heated and cooled by 
fossil fuel, trees, or nuclear fission in every month of the year.

OTOH, ICF mass won't help a house that stores enough solar heat for a 
few cloudy days, if it's always warmer than outdoor air in the coldest 
month.

Jeannie writes:

> ... the original statement indicated that mass only benefits the 
> occupants when the outdoor temp swings above AND below the indoor 
> temp. This is simply not true.

I'm afraid it is. In rhetoric, a simple assertion demands no more than a 
counterassertion. Where are your numbers?

> Having mass in your walls is always a good thing, not a bad thing.

I'm afraid it is often bad. It can add to the price and embodied energy 
of a house and make night setbacks less effective in saving energy.

>... people who live in homes with thermal mass don't set their 
>thermostats to let it get hot while they're away at work then cool it 
>down before they come home.  In a house with thermal mass, you just 
>keep it the temp you want all the time, and it takes less energy to do 
>so.

I'm afraid you are incorrect. This is basic 300-year-old physics, 
Newton's law of cooling, aka Ohm's law for heatflow.

>A wall with thermal mass will outperform that system in virtually any 
>climate....

I disagree.

> but mass will kick ass in the desert.

Mass will kick ass almost anywhere some of the time, and kick ass in 
some deserts almost all of the time, but it can't kick ass in every 
climate all of the time.

> Our 8 inches of AAC is enough thermal mass that -- if there were no 
> HVAC at all -- the inside temperature of the house would settle at the 
> daily average and stay there without spiking or dipping.

... if it were white and all the windows were completely shaded and 
nobody lived inside or used electricity indoors.

> You can argue all day about whether mass works and how well.  But when 
> you've lived in a home with thermal mass, you find it distasteful to 
> consider anything else.

De gustibus...

Corwyn writes:

> See 
>
http://www.ornl.gov/sci/roofs+walls/research/detailed_papers/dyn_perf/index.
html
>
> Some configurations of high thermal mass walls improve performance 
> even in climates like Minneapolis

In Minneapolis, a wall with a 10-20 hour time constant (vs 1-2 hours for 
a fiberglass wall or 10-20 hours for the house itself) could save some 
energy in June (min 57.6, max 78.8 F), July (63.1, 84.0), and August 
(60.3, 80.7), but it won't help at all in December (10.2, 25.5), and a 
house that can keep itself warm with no fuel in December can keep itself 
warm with no fuel in the rest of the year and mostly cool itself with 
night ventilation ("enthalpy economization") in July. With humidity 
ratio w = 0.0117 in July, it might need some AC or dehumidification, or 
a ceiling fan, with or without massy walls.

Nick 


_______________________________________________
Greenbuilding email list
     Environmentally-preferable design, construction, building elements
List info:
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/greenbuilding_listserv.repp.org
List email: Greenbuilding at listserv.repp.org
Managed by BuildingGreen, Inc. http://www.buildinggreen.com
      publisher of Environmental Building News and GreenSpec
Hosted and archived by REPP / CREST http://www.crest.org
To get on the list:
  http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/greenbuilding_listserv.repp.org
  or mailto:greenbuilding-request at listserv.repp.org?subject=unsubscribe
To get off the list:
  http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/greenbuilding_listserv.repp.org
  or mailto:greenbuilding-request at listserv.repp.org?subject=unsubscribe