[Strawbale] Geopolymeric Cements

Thu May 10 07:36:11 CDT 2007

Hello

George Monbiot in his book Heat talks about geopolymeric cements being
made from readily available materials (including wastes) and being
produced at a much lower temperature than other cements.  My local
concrete folks have never heard of them.  Does anyone have any
experience with these?

Thank you  

-----Original Message-----
From: strawbale-bounces at listserv.repp.org
[mailto:strawbale-bounces at listserv.repp.org] On Behalf Of
strawbale-request at listserv.repp.org
Sent: May 9, 2007 6:06 PM
To: strawbale at listserv.repp.org
Subject: Strawbale Digest, Vol 11, Issue 17

Send Strawbale mailing list submissions to
	strawbale at listserv.repp.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit

http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/strawbale_listserv.repp.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	strawbale-request at listserv.repp.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	strawbale-owner at listserv.repp.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Strawbale digest..."

Today's Topics:

   1. an unsustainable policy (Alan Abrams)
   2. The Debate rages on, eh? (Kent)
   3. Re: bogus comparisons was: Anti Cement Folks (John Swearingen)
   4. Re: appropriate PC (Rene Dalmeijer)
   5. Re: [Strawbale} Anti cement folks (Ron Becker)
   6. Re: Straw for Timothy (Raftercat5 at aol.com)
   7. Re: Anti Cement Folks / an unsustainable policy (Hank Carr)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 13:18:12 -0400
From: "Alan Abrams" <alan at abramsdesignbuild.com>
Subject: [Strawbale] an unsustainable policy
Cc: Strawbale at listserv.repp.org
Message-ID: <004701c7925e$059c9f00$6501a8c0 at abrams19bc7ec2>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Ah-HA.  

Voila, Kleinzach!:

http://spiderweb.bantapubnet.com/ecostructure/200703/

-AA

The essay, "An Unsustainable Policy," by Ujjval Vyas, a LEED accredited
attorney who consults on emerging construction practices, throws a
rainbarrel of cold water on the "overselling of sustainability."  Vyas
rejects sermonizing:  

"...as long as sustainable building advocates continue to moralize, the
business community cannot take sustainable building seriously, except as
a
marketing ploy to manipulate public perception."  

PHEW!!!  

Rather, he calls for some serious objective study of costs and benefits
of
green methods and materials:  

"Until sustainable building begins to take seriously the issue of
building
performance (which is HW's focus)...it will remain more a plaything for
designers and conscience raisers rather than a set of solid business
practices."

Harsh indeed, but fundamentally true--if green is going to make a
significant contribution to mitigating climate change, it's got to
satisfy a
range of basic needs, including the owner-builder's perceived "rational
self
interests."

Alan Abrams

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 14:43:41 -0400
From: Kent <woldfamily at gmail.com>
Subject: [Strawbale] The Debate rages on, eh?
To: strawbale at listserv.repp.org
Message-ID:
	<8cb042a50705091143r17425dffxa268757ed1e5d64f at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

WOW..been a while since I kept up here ...I see things haven't changed
much..still arguing about lime vs cement.. seems a trivial subject in
comparison to the good alternative home building methods on the whole
can do
IF they were ever implemented on a more global basis..which is just how
likely to happen if we keep arguing over 'embodied energy' .. I tend to
agree with both sides in some fashion or other ...not that my antiquated
opinion means much around here anymore (or ever did for that matter)
like
other more vocal and somewhat more visible members of this board and
others
I have yet to build anything with bales.. unless you count a few
wintertime
doghouses that my outdoor pets sure enjoyed!
In the meantime as the 'experts' in the field argue fine points that may
or
may not be relevant to the bale building field in the long run.. how
many
are being turned off by arguments among the faithful.. reminds me of
churches that try to reach out but can't get along amongst the
members...
the doors soon close..FOREVER... is our door closing on being able to
build
more house for more people with lower total 'COST OF OWNERSHIP' and
greater
RETURN ON INVESTMENT...hmmm I guess that question is best left to
greater
minds than mine!
Answering relevant questions and making Bale Building more accessible
just
maybe should be the overall goal of our best minds.. instead of arguing
incessantly about lime vs plaster and speaking so far above the heads of
those that would like to become the faithful that they decide it just
isn't
worth trying to dig out the bits of trash from the rubble of
contention..
Oh well..just this old grumps opinion ...for what it is worth..
Kent (WG9)
ps..on a personal note I am now moved and a permanent resident of
Canada..so
that makes me what? A displaced American? Canuck wannabe? Just give me a
job
and let me do it.. looking now ..frustrating process!
John S ... good to see your still around.. hope your back is holding
out..had my surgery (two level fusion) and doing ok..

------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 11:46:14 -0700
From: "John Swearingen" <john.skillfulmeans at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Strawbale] bogus comparisons was: Anti Cement Folks
To: "Stone Tool" <owly at ttc-cmc.net>
Cc: STRAWBALE at listserv.repp.org
Message-ID:
	<9d3d82d00705091146y2b2a7848yea647b2cea13f59e at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"

On 5/9/07, Stone Tool <owly at ttc-cmc.net > wrote:
>
>
> Here's why:
>
> Cement and Lime are both lime based products, and the lime must be
> calcined which releases CO2 into the atmosphere as the lime is
converted
> from calcium carbonate to calcium hydroxide.    In this case lime
> produces more because cement is composed of only 75% lime

I could be wrong, but I believe you've got it backwards.  Lime
sequesters
CO2 when it sets, though not enough to make much difference. It is
cooked at
a lower temperature, and so, overall would have a lower embodied energy.

> This means that cement does not require much shipping, and in many
cases
> lime must be shipped many hundreds of miles to get to your building
> site.....Do you give a damn about the truth?

Let's take a little time to discover the truth, shall we.  You have an
interesting theory, about transportation costs and on the surface it
appears
self-evident. Embodied energy analysis is tricky, though. The devil is
in
the details.  Let's look a little deeper, in pursuit, as you suggest, of
the
truth.

First, there are 115 cement plants in the US, in 38 states. To me, that
means that there is still plenty of room for trucking, even thought the
plants are strategicly located to reduce transport costs.

According to the Portland Cement Association, then, a goodly amount of
your
"local" cement might have come from thousands of miles away:

"The gap between domestic production and consumption was filled in 2002
by
24.2 million metric tons of imported cement and cement clinker. About
56% of
cement and clinker imported in 2002 came from four major countries:
Canada,
Thailand, China, and Greece. Imports from Thailand, less than one
million
metric tons in 1998, surged to 4.3 million metric tons in 2002.

"Cement and clinker importation is generally cyclical. Typically smaller
amounts of cement are imported during recessions ? perhaps less that 5%
of
total national consumption ? but during boom times, imports can increase
to
20% or more of total national consumption."

So, that cement truck hauling down the highway with the American flag on
the
side might be smokin' some of that famous 'Thai clinker".  Oh, and
another
interesting tidbit: "Foreign companies now own approximately 81% of U.S.
cement capacity, up from about 22% in 1980."

> Let's remember that so called "embodied energy" is a huge
>
part of the cost of most products we buy.  If it takes more energy to
> produce and deliver, it will cost more........ that's pretty
> simple......

Ah, no sooo simple. The whole smoke and mirrors of the problem is that
the
embodied energy in a material, or more specifically the environmental
cost,
is not usually reflected in the relative purchase price of that item.
Just
a few examples, you can find many more in your local Costco, Wallmart or
Home Depot, where price rules over all other considerations:

   - Aluminum windows have a very high embodied energy,and vinyl windows
   have a high environmental cost, but they are cheap relative to wood
windows.
   - Tobacco is cheap, but cigarettes have been determined to carry with
   them a high cost to the government in health care: sickness, lost
work and
   death.
   - Death from smoking might be cheaper than a long life with emphysema
   (a cost of asbestos), but it's not a desirable social cost.
   - Synthetics and high-tech products generally have high embodied
   energy and environmental costs, but low labor costs, and so are
cheaper to
   buy (cotton vs. polyester).
   - Imported goods (you name 'em, we've got 'em) also reflect lower
   labor costs which greatly offset the higher transport costsm  etc.
etc.
   etc....

>         Shut off  you AC and your lights and refrigerator.....

Excellent idea!  Generation of electricity and fuels used for heating
and
cooling are a major of greenhouse gases   Make your home energy
efficient.

A recent NPR show on questions about global warming  (
http://mail.google.com/mail/?account_id=john.skillfulmeans%40gmail.com)
puts
things into perspective :

An average car in the United States emits about 4.5 tons of CO2
equivalence
into the atmosphere per year. A power plant, by contrast is 8.3 million
tons
for a coal-fired power plant. And you think about the difference in the
scale ? you may be driving your car significantly, but the kind of power
that you're choosing to purchase actually has a bigger impact over the
lifetime of those emissions. A difference between a hybrid and an SUV,
however, is quite significant.

*Harris: *And the power plants are about 40 percent of our
greenhouse-gas
emissions.

*Siegel: *Well, then that's still only accounting for about 60 percent
of
all the greenhouse emissions. Where is the rest coming from?

*Harris: *Industrial uses are a big part of it. And a lot of heating ?
for
example, buildings are a huge consumer of energy.

*Layke: *Globally, another source of emissions is actually land use
change.
And that is the difference between where the United States is in its
development pattern and other countries like Brazil or Indonesia that
have
very serious conversion going on from forests to agriculture in order to
help development cycles.

John "Disembodied Energy"  Swearingen

John Swearingen
Skillful Means, Inc.
Design and Construction
www.skillful-means.com

------------------------------

Message: 4
Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 20:59:06 +0200
From: Rene Dalmeijer <rene.dalmeijer at hetnet.nl>
Subject: Re: [Strawbale] appropriate PC
To: strawbale at listserv.repp.org
Message-ID: <d606a95b23696dd7066a7d68a5ab30eb at hetnet.nl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed

Dear flaxstraw,

Pc or even Fly ash cement is an open nerve on this list. As it is one 
of the products that is very difficult to avoid specifically in 
foundations. (not to forget the steel rebar). Many people on this list 
strive to minimise embodied energy (CO2) used in building their 
ecological house. Some push the envelope by limiting the use of high 
embodied energy materials altogether I am happy they do, as effectively 
I hope they are able to successfully push the envelope. The obviously 
ridiculous idea of using straw bales to build a house is a good example 
of envelope pushing Everybody is free to choose the level of greenness 
they seek.

What I personally strive for is a balance between low ecological impact 
(based on full life cycle analysis LCA), comfort and the fact that it 
should be possible in a heavily built up environment ie a city suburb. 
This means the foundation (and concrete piles) and ground floor use a 
substantial amount of fly ash cement (fly ash is not special here but 
the norm) and a prefab concrete/EPS floor system (this system uses the 
least amount of cement possible for a stone ground floor. These choices 
off course are strongly determined by local circumstances. Besides this 
the rest of the house is built using renewable/re-growable materials. I 
also have some mechanical systems like a heat pump and an ERV system 
but based on LCA this is not a bad deal and yes I use steel screws .
I would like not to use the cement in the foundation and ground floor 
but see no other suitable alternative as yet.

BTW It is possible to use pure lime plaster forgoing the use of any 
cement. But then again using lime instead of cement is not such a big 
deal. Can anybody say how much CO2 a pure lime plaster saves compared 
to a cement plaster?

As HW states transport can have a tremendous impact on the CO2 balance 
of so called green materials. The off-grid deep green house might be 
not so green as a std high rise downtown apartment once you take all 
the commutes into account, and how about LCA of the road to the off 
grid house?  Just  imagine what would happen if all we green folks move 
out of town is that a good idea, I doubt very much.

Times are changing what we do has consequences we are now more aware of 
then ever before. I hope we personally make the right choices for 
ourselves before beleaguering others with how they should make their 
choices.

Rene
On May 9, 2007, at 19:00, strawbale-request at listserv.repp.org wrote:

> It never ceases to amaze me that when anyone mentions cement that
> everyone goes on and on about how it is the root of all evils. Well
> it isn't. When we talk about cement stucco every limehead forgets
> that there is one part cement, two parts lime and six parts sand. Now
> if that isn't a lime stucco with a cement additive I don't know what
> it is. Furthermore, when people talk about cement stucco failures
> they forget to mention that it was placed on and forgotten whereas
> lime stucco must be tended to every few years or it will also fail.
>
> If we are going to compare products, please compare all components of
> the materials life cycle

------------------------------

Message: 5
Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 13:09:17 -0600
From: Ron Becker <ron45 at tularosa.net>
Subject: Re: [Strawbale] [Strawbale} Anti cement folks
To: Strawbale at listserv.repp.org
Message-ID: <6e1518fb2446a152447c544aa02863c8 at tularosa.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed

Beautiful Frank. Well said. The sound of that guy's  mind slamming shut 
was not a pleasant experience. I remember how shocked I was to learn 
that people on a strawbale list are not talking about a house of bales 
but an embodied energy gobbling behemoth and sticking some bales here 
and there so they can have their `lie' window so show off to the 
Yuppersons next door. They all stand around with their wine glasses 
going "yep we're green alright! I joined this list because I was 
looking for info on earthen plasters and there is some of that around 
for sure. But I'm sorry, I never thought strawbale construction would 
be infiltrated by the republiban. I'm outa here. You may be too if 
enough people whine about you mentioning forbiden subjects. `What's his 
name' forbid that they should be exposed to other viewpoints.
Ron

Those who question global warming have a financial or emotional 
interest in the status quo.

On May 8, 2007, at 4:50 AM, Frank Tettemer wrote:

> Stone, I'm sure you're not alone.
>
>> I'm sure I am not the only one here
>> who has arrived at this conclusion...... just the only one to say so.
>
> Even the President of the great US of A agrees with you.  He certainly
> does what serves him best.  But, gosh, I really shouldn't delve into
> politics here, nothing anti-administration, at least.
>
> And I really shouldn't discuss the consequences of Peak Oil on this
> list, 'cause it's not a truly proven fact,
> and anyway, what has that got to do with cement?  Besides, the only
> reason anyone on this list builds with SB's is to save money and be In
> Fashion.
> Plus, there's no alternatives to using cement ... not for a truly
> self-interested person who simply wants the Best structure for
himself,
> and to heck with everyone else, and their stinking obsession with the
> environment.
>
> No sir-eee, you're probably right.  Build with what you want, and
serve
> yourself best, that's what I always say.
>
> Frank Tettemer
> Living For Yourself ~ Building & Design
>
>
>
>> As I have said before the
>> "carbon footprint", "embodied energy", and other politically and
>> environmentally correct considerations .... DO NOT ENTER INTO MY
>> DECISIONS ON CONSTRUCTION AT ALL.........  I will build with the
>> materials I feel will serve me the best and that is all there is to 
>> it.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Strawbale mailing list
> Strawbale at listserv.repp.org
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/strawbale_listserv.repp.org
>

------------------------------

Message: 6
Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 15:28:56 EDT
From: Raftercat5 at aol.com
Subject: Re: [Strawbale] Straw for Timothy
To: strawbale at listserv.repp.org
Message-ID: <c65.132a6ca9.33737af8 at aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

From: "Timothy Minerd" <tfminerd at hotmail.com>
Subject: Re:  [Strawbale] Anti Cement Folks / an unsustainable policy
To:  Strawbale at listserv.repp.org
Message-ID:  <BAY101-F772A69448CD2A30BE5678C4440 at phx.gbl>
Content-Type: text/plain;  format=flowed

Greetings all

I've been silently reading trying to  take in as much data as possible.
That 
includes opinions as well as  statistical test information.  I
understand HWs 
frustration with being  plastered (or is that stucco) for willingly
using 
cement.  I also heard  an appeal from him, and it could be well serving
to 
this group to  hear.

Perhaps if there were a collection of: methods, experiences &  costs
that 
could be referenced, those looking for quick information could be
served, 
but more important (and costly) is to find hard data on general  costs, 
R-value, availability, etc. that could turn the eye of conventional
builders 
beyond a small but highly concerned group, and wouldn't that create  a
larger 
impact on the whole?

I care about cost of construction, but  also the cost to heat and cool
my 
home and structural  maintenance.

I'm even having difficulty finding straw alone.  (AAAaaaaa!!!)

I read about supercompressed bales that sound just  incredible, but
again 
that is in early stages fo testing.

I've read  attacks from both sides and neither are beneficial.  I hope
to see 
more  construction data.

Thank you for your consideration of this rambling  thought.

I'm going back to listening and learning.

TM

Timothy:  You can probably ask around about where to find straw at  your

local animal feed store, or where hay is sold.  Maybe they can talk to
the farmer 
they get it from to give you a call.  Or maybe you can look up  your
local 
Farm Market Bulletin (check online).  I'm SURE there's straw in  your
area.  
BTW...I haven't heard back from your wife about the SB house  stuff.
Hope to 
hear from her soon.
- Kathy

************************************** See what's free at
http://www.aol.com.

------------------------------

Message: 7
Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 16:06:20 -0400
From: "Hank Carr" <hank at dna.ca>
Subject: Re: [Strawbale] Anti Cement Folks / an unsustainable policy
To: "'REPP Strawbale'" <strawbale at listserv.repp.org>
Message-ID: <002f01c79275$83799240$5f66facd at DNA.CA.local>
Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="us-ascii"

Timothy Minerd wrote:

> Perhaps if there were a collection of: methods, experiences
> & costs that could be referenced, those looking for quick
> information could be served, but more important (and costly)
> is to find hard data on general costs, R-value, availability,
> etc. that could turn the eye of conventional builders beyond
> a small but highly concerned group, and wouldn't that create
> a larger impact on the whole?

Tim,

We've started to put together what I think you're talking about.  We've
begun to build a straw bale construction portal.  It seems to be a
fairly
popular destination even in its infancy as we're getting over 2000
sessions
per week from around 60 countries.

The portal is temporarily located here:

http://www.dna.ca/sbportal

It includes a long FAQ as well as some free complete plans.

With respect to this whole pro- vs. anti-cement thread the discussion is
really about the difference between practical environmentalism and
romantic
environmentalism.  If you go to Google and type in practical
environmentalism" there is LOTS of information.  I think that this is a
very
good article:

http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.14079/pub_detail.asp

Cement is neither good nor evil.  It is an inanimate building material.
Yes, it has a great deal of embodied energy and as a result is
responsible
for a great deal of CO2 production but it is extremely long lived, well
accepted, and readily available.  It also produces a plaster that is
easy to
reproduce and that has consistently good performance.

I've been a member of this list and SB-R-Us for years.  I have yet to
hear a
single substantiated story of a well built and well maintained cement
plastered straw bale wall failing.  There have been many examples cited
where the failure resulted from cracks or poor detailing but those
failures
would have occurred in earthen and lime plastered buildings as well.
Not a
single case.

There are plans on our straw bale portal for a 27' 8" x 27' 8" building
(25'
x 25' interior) building.  That building contains around 300 bales of
straw.
It would use less than a tonne of cement were it plastered with cement
plaster.  The atmospheric carbon sequestered in the straw when the
building
was built would be equivalent to 5.9 tonnes of atmospheric CO2.  The
average
energy savings here in Canada based on the CMHC study would be around
750 kg
per year.  Over an extremely conservative 50 year lifespan of the
building
the CO2 reduction as a result of that energy savings would be in the
order
of 37.5 tonnes.  By comparison the CO2 from the cement is rather small.

I started the Practical Straw Bale Construction list a few years ago to
complement the big two romantic straw bale construction lists and to
offer a
place where the environmental politics of the list members wouldn't get
in
the way of a practical discussion of the hows and whys of straw bale
construction.  It's now up to more than 350 members and is the fastest
growing straw bale construction list on the internet by far.  It will
never
replace this list or SB-R-Us, especially if you're planning to use lambs
wool to insulate your attic or plastered used carpet for your partition
walls but if you're going to be shopping at Home Depot it might be
useful.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/practical-sbc

All of the things that people like Chris Magwood in Canada and John
Swearingen in Australia are doing are definitely better for the
environment
than cement.  I've been working hard to reduce the amount of cement that
goes into the buildings that I've been drawing and we're looking at even
more radical (for us) changes in the next few months.  The uber-green
building isn't for everyone, though, and it's better that you do what
you're
comfortable doing than to do nothing at all.  I know...that isn't very
romantic of me to say but I'm a practical environmentalist.

Hank.

------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Strawbale mailing list
Strawbale at listserv.repp.org
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/strawbale_listserv.repp.org

End of Strawbale Digest, Vol 11, Issue 17
*****************************************