[Athens]

Want to be a better citizen of the world, read this post...

First we can start with homes. We should move away from wood frame homes and go towards concrete homes.

http://www.cement.org/homes/ch_sb_solidinvest.asp click link to see savings chart.
Overall a Concrete home saves between 30/40% energy and reduces the use of wood from our forests.

Lower Utility Bills
Concrete homes save energy in two ways. The mass of the concrete slows down the passage of heat or cold moving through the wall. With the same insulation, a concrete home stays warmer in the winter and cooler in the summer. Also, concrete walls are more air-tight than wood-frame walls. Since leaks account for a large percentage of energy loss in the home, concrete homes enjoy savings in energy consumption. That adds up to lower utility bills. A survey, conducted by Dr. Peter VanderWerf at Boston University, found that using insulating concrete forms (ICFs) reduces energy used for heating by about 44% and for cooling by about 32%.


Reduced Insurance Premiums
Concrete homes resist fire. They're stronger than wood frame homes and safer during tornadoes, hurricanes, and earthquakes. Insurance for concrete homes is often 15% to 25% lower. One insurance agent in St. Louis, Missouri, offers discounts on homeowners insurance policies of up to 25% for ICF homes. No one, however, can put a price on the peace of mind that comes with owning a concrete home.


Quiet Comfort
Concrete homes make the world go away - a haven from traffic and the neighbor's leaf blower. The mass of a concrete wall makes it an effective barrier to sound. Although some sound will penetrate the windows, a concrete home is often two-thirds quieter than a wood-frame home.


The Quality Payback
Concrete homes cost a little more than wood-frame homes. But lower energy bills and insurance premiums can offset the slightly higher mortgage payment. The real payback is in quality...the intangible benefits of a quieter and more comfortable home.

Second step is getting a hybrid gas/electric car. This will reduce emitions in the city/air and you will save on fuel costs and reduce the use of gas.

http://www.care2.com/channels/ecoinfo/hybrid

Why are Hybrid Cars a Good Idea?

Hybrid cars are good for the environment. They can reduce smog by 90 percent and they use far less gasoline than conventional cars.
Hybrid cars are economical. They can get up to 55 to 60 mpg in city driving, while a typical SUV might travel 15-20 miles per gallon, or use three times as much gas for the same distance!
Hybrids are better than all-electric cars because hybrid car batteries recharge as you drive so there is no need to plug in. Also, most electric cars cannot go faster than 50-60 mph, while hybrids can. Most electric cars need to be recharged every 50-100miles. .

Thrid, recycle. I dont need to pull up links for this one. Use a compost for biological waste, recycle your cans and papers (use a shredder to protect your document information as well).

Last, use energy saving devices, compact florecent light bulbs for example, they can use 80% less power further reducing your energy costs.

All said and done if most people attempted to do all these things the cost of energy would go down as the demand is curved. Even more can be done, I just listed the afforable, easy things. You can get solor cells on your roof reducing even more of your power needs, and in some cases excess power being generated turning you a profit. Changing buying habits, life style habits could further make a impact. I think if people realized that they could save both money and the enviroment by spending more upfront we all would be in a better position in the future.

[Pendergast]

Excellent post Athens.

I'd add that limiting purchases to what is necessary is another way to improve our conditions.

Using to the max what we already have, purchase stuff for our needs rather than for looks (like the latest generation of computer, except for people whose lives depend on it), etc.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Pendergast

Excellent post Athens.

I'd add that limiting purchases to what is necessary is another way to improve our conditions.

Using to the max what we already have, purchase stuff for our needs rather than for looks (like the latest generation of computer, except for people whose lives depend on it), etc.

Most ppl are lazy, im lazy and most people dont want to change there life style or the way they do things. That is why I focused on the concrete housing, and hybrid car, both are things that cost more up front but save you down the road and do not impact how you do things or your life style really. Secondary is the appliances you own, they too don't affect a persons life style or the way they do things. Thats 2 things alone save alot of energy, and in the long term money. And the extra benifits of being bug, fire and sound resistant are pluses as well. There are plug in electric hybrid cars that can get up to 200mpg, but you have to put in the extra effort to plug in. The self recharging electric hybrids on the other hand make a big impact and dont require us to change our way of doing things. So ya thats what I have to say about that.

[effgee]

You cite "cement.org", an industry association site, as a source for why a home built with concrete is more energy efficient than a wood frame one? C'mon ...



But you're correct of course - there's quite a few concrete products that offer far better insulation/energy efficiency than traditional wood-frame structures ... e.g., Ytong, what we in Germany call "gas/porous concrete block" - methinks in proper English that'd be called "areated concrete".

There's also traditional Brick blocks, filled with volcanic "pebbles" (Perlit), that offer the same energy efficiency as areated concrete.

In the end, it's mostly a question of how you insulate your house and where the building materials came from.

[tgags]

Great post.

I would also add the push towards utilizing tree-free paper - a solution towards deforestation, and ultimately our sustainability. There are fiber crops such as Knaf and Hemp that have the bebefits of extremely rapid growth and they also do not require the hazardous chemical bleaching during the pulping stage. There are a few paper companies that use this, but right now, because it is not as cost effective (primarily due to shipping from the areas where the fiber crops can be grown), it's not being used to potential and valuable natural forests are being destroyed at alaarming rates.

In 1995. there were less than 10% of the earth's natural forests left. The trees they plant in place to replenish do not compare to a hundred-year-old natural forests (natural forests are self sustaining and have built up immunites to pestulences, funguses, etc., to which man-planted tree farms can never match).

There was a book called "Clearcut", if you ever come across it, check it out. The logging industry actually paid it's employees to go out and destroy copies of this book, so it is diffucult to come across in libraries.

Not to come across as a radical tree hugger, but just like hybrid energy - it's something that is worth pursuing in the name of preserving the environment and ultimately, life sustainability.
I wrote a paper on this interesting topic in a horticulture class in college.

TG

[Athens]

Originally Posted by effgee

You cite "cement.org", an industry association site, as a source for why a home built with concrete is more energy efficient than a wood frame one? C'mon ...



But you're correct of course - there's quite a few concrete products that offer far better insulation/energy efficiency than traditional wood-frame structures ... e.g., Ytong, what we in Germany call "gas/porous concrete block" - methinks in proper English that'd be called "areated concrete".

There's also traditional Brick blocks, filled with volcanic "pebbles" (Perlit), that offer the same energy efficiency as areated concrete.

In the end, it's mostly a question of how you insulate your house and where the building materials came from.

Thats not where I found out about the advantages of concrete homes, I just found that site good to list it all in a easy to read maner. The local news did a story about them, BC Hydro recommends them and says the same thing and a show called Beyond 2000 which I havent seen in a few years also showcased the advantages. Its not just the power savings, the homes last longer, are resistant to bugs, fires and disasters. Lots of advantages.

[effgee]

Originally Posted by Athens

... Lots of advantages.

I know. 99.9% of all the homes here in Krautland are solid structures (various forms of brick, concrete, etc., etc.). You should've seen my face when I came to the US for the first time and the wife (back then gf) and I drove past a construction site ...

(me, euro-trash): "What are they doing over there??"
(wife, us citizen): "They're building a home, why?"
(me, euro-trash): "Out of two-by-fours and plasterboard? WTF is the matter with these people? Is the house supposed to be portable? Where's the basement?"
(wife, us citizen): "That's how most of the homes are built around here - wood-frame, no basement."
(me, euro-trash): " "

Later, after moving to the US and upon receipt of my first electricity bill, I understood why nobody gives a rat's behind about things like energy-efficiency ... compared to what we pay over here, it was (and probably still is) practically free.

If there's no incentive for doing so, why would people want to conserve resources or even consider that some/most of them are finite? Out of the goodness of their hearts? Surely not. And don't think for a second that we Europeans would behave an iota better if the roles were reversed.

Quick example: simply create a poll here in the Lounge and ask how many Europeans turn off their Mac over night and how many US/Canadian folks are doing so - I would almost bet money that the poll result would support my statement above.

I turn off my computers every night ... how about you?

[chris v]

Cement is made from limestone, which often times is quarried from environmentally sensitive Karst areas.

There's a give-and-take to any building material, environmentally. Though, yes, whatever we can do to be more energy efficient is important, obviously.

[Millennium]

Concrete is good, but there are better options. I've been intrigued by this design for a long time; it uses earth-based materials and barbed wire (no, the wire isn't visible). I'm also fascinated by some of the stuff that's going on with straw bale construction.

Hybrid cars are not a permanent solution to the problem, but they're certainly a step in the right direction. My wife and I are strongly considering hybrids for one or both of our next cars. I'm interested in the mods some people are doing to boost the mileage even further. That said, I'm worried about the carrying capacity of current models.

Recycling was common sense long before environmentalists made it popular. I've never understood why it didn't get popular much sooner than it did. I'm interested in fusion-torch development myself: the idea is to place waste into a fusion reactor or extremely hot flame. This sounds like an incinerator, but rather than causing traditional forms of pollution, this breaks waste down into its component atoms. These could then be sorted using a device similar to modern mass spectrometers, and then used as raw materials for new objects. In short, this stuff would give us the ability to recycle anything. Depending on how things work out, the reactors might also be usable for power generation.

As for energy-saving devices, once again fluorescent is good but there are even better methods: LED light bulbs are expensive, but you can't beat them for life expectancy or efficiency.

[ghporter]

The biggest problem with changing what people have their homes built from is changing building codes. At this point in time, I could NOT have a steel framed house built without about ten times the pre-construction work (and hassle) because of building codes. Earth sheltered homes are easier to get started than steel framed homes, and concrete has some advantages in this area too. But building codes in general are WAY behind the times in terms of acceptable building materials and construction techniques. Getting the bureaucrats out of the way of efficient home construction materials and methods (wherever you are) has to come before any group can make real progress.

[SVass]

Thomas Edison beat you to it!
http://flyingmoose.org/truthfic/edison.htm

[stevesnj]

The lumber industry would fight concrete homes tooth and nail. Concrete homes are fantastic I would want one...Looks like Fred Flintstone had it right.

FEMA should require homes in hurricane areas of the US be made of concrete...less money to put out for disasters and more for other US needs.

Originally Posted by chris v

Cement is made from limestone, which often times is quarried from environmentally sensitive Karst areas.

There's a give-and-take to any building material, environmentally. Though, yes, whatever we can do to be more energy efficient is important, obviously.

true but most the concrete used today is from recycled concrete

[Apple Pro Underwear]

would cement homes be good for termites too?

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Apple Pro Underwear

would cement homes be good for termites too?

Ya, for the most part the house itself is bug proof.

[Athens]

any one using those LED light bulbs?

[Kevin]

Athens, I haven't. But I want to. I LOVE LEDs.

What would be cool is a BLUE LED bulb.

Blue LEDs mezmerhypondopetize me.

[Doofy]

The single largest beneficial thing that everyone can do for the planet right now is to go veggie.

[Link]

1. Concrete homes:

I do not think they're necessarily the wisest things in earthquake areas. Concrete can crack and weaken with time even withh all that reinforcement.

2. Recycling:

Doing it! Everyone with a brain does that

3. CF lightbulbs...

Love the idea, despise the products. To this day, I've not seen *one* CFL I liked. Never bought one I liked either, whether it was a 4 for $3 at food4less pack, or a $8.99 lightbulb at target.. they either start off dim and need warming up, have a really bad tint [or look unnaturally COLD for a lightbulb), or are too big to fit in a normal lamp/fixture..

Not to mention most of them are picky, some can't be mounted upside down and others aren't supposed to be mounted right-side up! Plus if you stick em outside and you don't pay for the fancy kind, you have that weird looking design that gets spider webs and **** in it.

They also don't work with dimmers, most photocell sensors, or practically any 'fancy light management'.. sometimes they produce less heat but the trasnsformer in them tends to negate that one!

They also have weird side effects, one time I heard buzzing coming from one of our recessed fixtures that I guess was the capacitor going wonky.. and of course sometimes they have all the same problems as a regular florescent (humming/buzzing, dimming out and flickering, etc)...

But I do try to use them more, the whole wattage drop is well, too much to ignore. Let's see, what would I rather have, a set of 60w bulbs outside or 30w being consumed by both together?

Heat output, energy consumption, all of that is MUCH better, and the newer ones even have the nifty enclosures so that they look like floodlights or regular bulbs..

I'm surprised at $8 though you can get a dim-starting bulb that has a really grey-ish light output when at ~50 cents you can have a 1500hr bulb that "looks right"..

To me the "dim-starting" bulbs are really a safety problem too -- what if you're alone and turn on a light in a dark room? It takes longer for the room to get sufficiently bright...Not necessarily unsafe but unnerving for sure!

That all needs to be looked into, and I'm sure that said companies are trying to find ways since well, CFLs do sell pretty well from what I find I admit though, I haven't pulled a single CFL to this day for going out, it just had a problem that the regular bulbs did not.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Doofy

The single largest beneficial thing that everyone can do for the planet right now is to go veggie.

What? And kill all the plant life?


And you know who also takes up lots of energy with light bulbs?

THOSE STUPID HIPPIES WITH THEIR GROW LIGHTS!11

[strictlyplaid]

Originally Posted by Kevin

What? And kill all the plant life?


And you know who also takes up lots of energy with light bulbs?

THOSE STUPID HIPPIES WITH THEIR GROW LIGHTS!11

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Kevin

What? And kill all the plant life?


And you know who also takes up lots of energy with light bulbs?

THOSE STUPID HIPPIES WITH THEIR GROW LIGHTS!11

I wouldn't know. Would you?

[LilWolfChokingOnCigs68]

Concrete housing has been something that's been occupying my mind lately also. I've been thinking of a structure that would basically be impervious to the elements, storms, etc.. I think a jetsons style concrete home would fare quite well, offering great efficiency, extreme durability, and the fact that you only have to pour 2 things: The foundation, and the roof/walls. I'll try to find a pic later, but basically it's just a big convex bottlecap shape, like you sliced off the edge of an orange. Not quite a hemisphere, but all rounded like that. You leave arches (strongest opening) put in some glass, or fill up the arches with wood and insulation if you'd rather not have a window or door. Another really cool housing idea are yurts.



http://www.yurts.com/

Here's a neat one:

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by LilWolfChokingOnCigs68

Concrete housing has been something that's been occupying my mind lately also. I've been thinking of a structure that would basically be impervious to the elements, storms, etc..

Just build it out of stone.

[chris v]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Just build it out of stone.

The nicest houses in Texas are the historical ranch and farm houses that are built out of 18", 24" and even 36" blocks of limestone. I love 'em, and plan to own one, someday, whether I manage to buy an old 19th century place, or have one built myself, in the style.

[paul w]

Limestone? Hell, why not just move into a nice big cave? Think about it - year round AC, running water...

[ReggieX]

Originally Posted by Athens

Third, recycle. I dont need to pull up links for this one. Use a compost for biological waste, recycle your cans and papers (use a shredder to protect your document information as well)

Just a reminder: there are THREE r's as part of this, the first two are REDUCE and REUSE. In other words, stop buying so much disposable crap that you most likely don't need in the first place, and secondly find new uses for old things, buy used items, or make sure your old items don't just go into the trash immediately. Goodwill is always good for this.

Originally Posted by effgee

Quick example: simply create a poll here in the Lounge and ask how many Europeans turn off their Mac over night and how many US/Canadian folks are doing so - I would almost bet money that the poll result would support my statement above.

I turn off my computers every night ... how about you?

Mine are asleep when not being used, simple as that. I don't turn lights on when I don't need them, etc. And I don't even pay the bills! Just common sense tips coming from being a kid during the energy crisis of the 1970s. I've seen too many posts online by people who have multiple machines running all the time for no real good reason.

One of the worst things the former Conservative government did here in Ontario was introduce a price freeze on electricity after their bungling of the deregulation of the market. Where's the incentive to cut your usage when your price never goes above 4.8 cents a kwh, AND you get a rebate (paid for of course by your own taxes... )

[Eriamjh]

And how much does a concrete home cost compared to a home built with wood?

[historylme]

That's a great question.

I think adobe houses would also serve as building blocks.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

I wouldn't know. Would you?

Yes.. erm, I was once told that grow lamps take up alot of energy.

[KeyLimePi]

Concrete homes are no practical.

There's nothing wrong with using renewable wood for homes, so long as it's in moderation.

[chris v]

Originally Posted by paul w

Limestone? Hell, why not just move into a nice big cave? Think about it - year round AC, running water...

Muddy, slimy, uneven floor, sure, sounds great. Actually, I'd ideally like to buy a chunk of land with a cave on it, though. A lot of ranchers actually see caves as nuisances and are happy to sell them off. A group of cavers recently bought 260 acres wit two really significant caves on the property for the express purpose of creating a preserve.

I'd do that if I had the money.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Yes.. erm, I was once told that grow lamps take up alot of energy.

Somebody had a big garage, huh?

[sek929]

Most of the wood used in building (2x4s and the like) are from new growth Pine forest in New Zealand and Germany. The quality of wood is awful (huge growth rings, little stability), but at least they are growing trees to cut down instead of cutting down old growth forests.

I say people need to stop buying throw-away items, one use toilet flushers, and all that crap that gluts our landfills.

Concrete is not the answer, I'd say epoxy resin houses with Vinyl clad exteriors would outlast even concrete. Concrete will crack when put under temp changes, and with ice then forming in those cracks it would only worsen the situation. Instead of calling a carpenter when you have a leak now you need a concrete form-setter and those guys are busy year-round pouring foundations. Not to mention it holds coldness far more than traditional 2x6 exterior walls with insulation.

In certain areas wood houses are silly, but theres a reason some areas of the country still build with wood.

[effgee]

He wasn't really referring to "concrete" but to "concrete products" such as areated concrete (see link in my first post above) - and those do *not* crack (I have built a rather large home out of these areated concrete blocks).

"Concrete" per se, as used for building foundations, ceilings (here in Europe), walls, staircases, roof tiles, etc. will not crack either if it's mixed, handled and treated properly. If it would, I seriously doubt that any house over here would last longer than 20 yrs. - and amazingly enough, most of them last a helluva lot longer than that.

Also, without considerable effort, there is no way that you can build a wood-frame structure that comes even close in energy efficiency to the materials I mentioned above (areated concrete, brick in combination with volcanic pebbles). It's not impossible - not by a long shot - but by the time you get the same energy efficiency for the wood-frame and the solid structure, you could just as well have built a solid structure to begin with - cost- and time-wise. Not even mentioning the fact that in most geographies (climate, parasites, etc.), a solid structure will last longer and require less maintenance.

[sek929]

I stand corrected.

[sek929]

Post and beam houses are still around after 200+ years too

[ghporter]

I have a number of CF lamps throughout the house. Some are the coil-type that replace vanity lamps in the bathroom-and put out almost NO heat. The fixture came with EIGHT 60W clear "beauty" incandescent lamps. 480$%^& Watts of HEAT in my bathroom-IN CENTRAL TEXAS!!!! What moron thought that up? I've swapped half of them out for the coil CFs (which put out almost exactly the same number of lumens) and my bathroom is now bearable in the summer. And I'm saving 45W for EACH CF LAMP. That's 180W of savings right there. As the incandescents burn out, I'll replace them with CFs for even more savings.

The kitchen has a 10 foot ceiling and fixtures for FIVE 65W flood lamps. Sure that's pretty, but I got tired of hauling the ladder into the kitchen about once a month to replace one of those lamps. The last time two went out at once, so I went out and got five CF floods to replace them. That was, let's see...last year some time. I think I've paid for the CF floods already in incandescents I haven't had to replace. Again, I save 45-50W per each CF flood, or 225-250W.

Here in my study there's one overhead fixture-but the ceiling fan fixture only has room for a small lamp. Instead of getting an A15-base ceiling fan light that would heat the place up, I got a standard-base 100W equivalent CF light. Much cooler light for a cost of only 20W.

I should point out that all of the CFs I have are rated at a color temperature of approximately 3000K-which is significantly whiter than any incandescent I've ever seen.

If I could get LED lamps to replace either incandescents or CFs, I'd do it in a heartbeat. But they aren't available in the form factors I need-and they're certainly not affordable as alternatives yet.

[effgee]

Oh don't get me wrong - after my initial shock of seeing how homes are built in the US, I quickly came to accept the wood-frame structure as a great concept.

As long as you build your house in an area with moderate climate (not too hot in summer, not too cold in winter) and your material comes from a source that makes sense ("cultured" as you mentioned, not senseless deforestation), the wood-frame structure is hard to beat efficiency-wise (referring to $$$).

[sek929]

Indeed. Even in the last 5 years LVLs are pretty much the standard for beams (as strong as steel, plus won't warp in fire) and more and more composite materials made from scrap glued together are being used in all aspects.

Of course then they get 1000 board/ft of Mahogany for their deck

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by effgee

Oh don't get me wrong - after my initial shock of seeing how homes are built in the US, I quickly came to accept the wood-frame structure as a great concept.

As long as you build your house in an area with moderate climate (not too hot in summer, not too cold in winter) and your material comes from a source that makes sense ("cultured" as you mentioned, not senseless deforestation), the wood-frame structure is hard to beat efficiency-wise (referring to $$$).

Both the state of Texas and the Department of Veterans Affairs provide incentives for builders to use "engineered" materials (which includes building materials made from waste materials that come from the production of "clean-clear" lumber products), as well as to build in a significant amount of energy efficiency. My house (new in 2003) met those standards and then some-AND saves me a ton of money over the 25 year old house I left to move here. It's not perfect, but it's a damsight better...

As I said earlier, things move slowly in the building code world.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by KeyLimePi

Concrete homes are no practical.

There's nothing wrong with using renewable wood for homes, so long as it's in moderation.

Explain whats not practical about a home that resists bugs, fire, saved energy, last longer and is more resistant to earth quakes and other disasters?


For the guy that asked about price, 10 to 20% more, but long term its much cheaper to maintain, and holds a higher resell value. Other savings too which makes them over time much cheaper.

[sek929]

Considering you can't even get a run down shack around here for less than $350,000 I think the fully concrete homes are going to be put off for a while.

[Railroader]

Anyone here actaully live in a solid concrete/brick home?

I do. Can't stand it. It's expensive to heat and cool. I'll never buy a house built this way again.

What temp is it at 1 pm on a sunny July day in Michigan? I'll tell you, it's the same temp my house is at midnight that same day. The brick absorbs the suns rays and releases the heat all night long requiring me to run the A/C all night long. So if it's 90F at noon, it's 90F on my walls at night.

In the Winter the walls absorb the heat from the home and draw it out.

My energy bills more than doubled after moving from a wood framed house.

And noise is also a problem. Exterior noise is mostly eliminated, but interior noise echoes. A subwoofer revererates the entire house unless there's some furniture in the room to absorb the sound waves.

Also, brick homes are more expensive to maintain in my climate zone. In the Winter as water seeps into the cracks and freezes and expands, the mortar cracks and then needs to be retucked every 5-10 years. Concrete does not fair well in a freeze/thaw cycle envinroment.

The best housing in my area is wooden construction.

As for CF bulbs. I switched a few years ago. I have yet to replace a bulb fromt he initial installation.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Railroader

Anyone here actually live in a solid concrete/brick home?

Used to. But that's not surprising seeing as there are only really three construction materials here: concrete, brick, stone.

Stone is fantastic. Cool in Summer, warm in Winter. No problems with noise (either outside or inside) - the noise floor in a few of my rooms is really low. Pretty long lasting too - it'll be celebrating its 250th birthday next year.

Now, if only if was in a different country I'd be sorted...

[effgee]

Originally Posted by Railroader

Anyone here actaully live in a solid concrete/brick home? I do. Can't stand it. It's expensive to heat and cool. ...

While I have no doubt whatsoever that your statement is correct as far as your home is concerned, it's also important to note that your experience can absolutely not be generalized.

This is most likely caused by insufficient insulation (e.g., outer walls, roof, windows) and/or a large number of what we call "temperature bridges" (Wärmebrücke) in German, that is materials with terrible insulation characteristics that are exposed without insulation on the outisde of your building (e.g., ceilings made of solid concrete), and thus let the heat "creep out" and the cold "creep in" (or vice versa, depending on the season).

The cause of your problems is the contractor who built your home - not the material. Traditionally (and I'm referring to Europe/Germany here), there's two ways to build an outer wall:

• either you have one "shell", which depending on its composition (e.g. solid brick with embedded air bubbles or the brick filled with volcanic bubbles as mentioned upthread) thickness will require additional insulation (thickness of the wall is 24cm and below, see img "1") or can be built without additional insulation (thickness ≥ 36cm, see img "2"), or ...
• you have two "shell" structure, which is made of (I'm simplifying here for brevity's sake) an inner layer of brick (thickness approx. 15-20 cm), a layer of insulation (approx. 10cm) plus the "outer" shell (7.5-12cm) which can consist of a wide variety of materials, ranging from brick + plaster/daub to a solid white lime malm brick (see img "3")

If built properly, these walls will provide a level of insulation and energy efficiency that is very difficult to achieve when building a wood frame structure (would require roughly 20cm of insulation). These walls will never develop cracks caused by humidity and subsequent freezing of the water - and I mean never. The only way this can happen is if the contractor is a) an incompetent retard or b) cuts corners (e.g., leaving out what we call a "moisture barrier" in German) in order to save a couple of bucks and rip you off.

Again, I am not doubting for a second that you had (are having, respectively) are terrible experience with a solid structure home - I just want to make it absolutely clear that your problems are not the result of a flaw inherent in the building material itself.

Your problems were caused by an incompetent or greedy (maybe both?) construction company.

image 1:


image 2:


image 3:


P.S. Yup, I've been living in various kinds of solid structure homes for the better part of three decades. Studying architecture in college also taught me a thing or two about the building trade in general.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by effgee

While I have no doubt ***SNIP OF ONE OF THE BEST REPLIES EVER ON THE MACNN LOUNGE*** P.S. Yup, I've been living in various kinds of solid structure homes for the better part of three decades. Studying architecture in college also taught me a thing or two about the building trade in general.

AWESOME reply. Best I have ever read.

I wasn't clear in my post. My house does not have the outer sheathing you have depicted in your diagrams. It has a brick sheathing.

My house was constructed in 1900. It is an old house built with older construction techniques. It is SOLID. The construction of my house is (from outside to inside); an outer course of brick with a middle layer of a course of brick directly attached to the first layer of brick and finally with plaster applied to a wooden lath framework suspended an inch away from the inner layer of brick.

I also studies architecture (albeit for a very short time) and I know you simply can't say any one building method is best for all regions. In the region I live it is the most economical to build wooden framed homes. Both from a construction, air conditioning, and ongoing maintenance standpoint. Brick and concrete is terribly expensive here and due to the freeze thaw cycles it is labor intensive to maintain.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Railroader

Anyone here actaully live in a solid concrete/brick home?

I do. Can't stand it. It's expensive to heat and cool. I'll never buy a house built this way again.

As for CF bulbs. I switched a few years ago. I have yet to replace a bulb fromt he initial installation.

When I lived in Panama, the house was completely built of concrete-and it was a good thing, too. The exterior walls were built in layers; a layer of concrete on the outside, a layer of hollow masonry tiles in the middle, and a layer of concrete on the inside. That helped keep the heat-absorbing outer layer from radiating heat into the inside of the house. Throughout the Caribbean a lot of construction is completely of concrete for the same reason.

Without the thermal variation we experience even here in Texas, the concrete didn't crack over time, so the only upkeep needed was regular painting.

When I grew up in Southeastern Michigan, my bedroom was in the basement, which was made of hand-laid concrete blocks. It stayed much cooler than the upstairs in the summer, and only got a bit cooler in the winter. Concrete in an earth-sheltered design is a lot more effective than plain concrete alone. Further, if the design is something more than just a concrete version of a wood-framed house, (like those designs they used to show in Popular Mechanics, with air spaces between exterior and interior walls and so on), you get more efficient thermal properties. You still have to do something about the echo properties of interior walls, but that doesn't take too much work; you can always add furring strips and sheetrock inside interior concrete walls, which can help a lot. Or go Medieval and hang tapestries.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by ghporter

When I lived in Panama, the house was completely built of concrete-and it was a good thing, too. The exterior walls were built in layers; a layer of concrete on the outside, a layer of hollow masonry tiles in the middle, and a layer of concrete on the inside. That helped keep the heat-absorbing outer layer from radiating heat into the inside of the house. Throughout the Caribbean a lot of construction is completely of concrete for the same reason.

Without the thermal variation we experience even here in Texas, the concrete didn't crack over time, so the only upkeep needed was regular painting.

When I grew up in Southeastern Michigan, my bedroom was in the basement, which was made of hand-laid concrete blocks. It stayed much cooler than the upstairs in the summer, and only got a bit cooler in the winter. Concrete in an earth-sheltered design is a lot more effective than plain concrete alone. Further, if the design is something more than just a concrete version of a wood-framed house, (like those designs they used to show in Popular Mechanics, with air spaces between exterior and interior walls and so on), you get more efficient thermal properties. You still have to do something about the echo properties of interior walls, but that doesn't take too much work; you can always add furring strips and sheetrock inside interior concrete walls, which can help a lot. Or go Medieval and hang tapestries.

Brick and concrete are excellent for basements around here, but not for above grade construction. And if you build an Earth sheltered design where I live you better like it dark all the time because in the winter time it will be literally like living in a cave.

When I redid a back bedroom in this house I added furring strips, insulation and a layer of sheetrock on top the already existing lath and plaster. It's easily the most comfortable room in the house. Also the most expensive.

[effgee]

Originally Posted by Railroader

... My house was constructed in 1900. It is an old house built with older construction techniques. ...

Gotcha. That makes all the difference in the world, of course.

I lived in a similar, albeit younger (mid 1940s), home for 6 months - it wasn't too bad in summer (usually our summers are a bit cooler/less humid than for example your average east coast summer) but almost unbearable in winter. Not only were the heating costs off the chart, it also didn't matter how much you upped the room temperature, you always felt chilly.

The entirely un-insulated (solid brick) walls were cold to the touch all the time, the warm air would travel through them almost like it would through a sheet of metal (generally considered the material with the worst insulating characteristics) and you couldn't sit close to any outer wall without being wrapped in a blanket.

My professor in construction physics used to call this the "room climate", which is almost entirely independent of the room temperature itself (within certain limits, of course) - meaning that you can feel extremely uncomfortable (= cold/chilly) in a room even though the overall room temperature itself suggests that you should be perfectly fine.

And fixing these things, as I'm sure you've already discovered, is by no means a trivial matter ($$$- and effort-wise). Insulating the outer walls from the inside (e.g. styrofoam sheets covered with sheet rock/plasterboard) might help in improving the room climate but will do little to improve your heating/cooling expenses.

Completely insulating the outside of the house (wire hook structure in the old wall, a layer of insulation, moisture barrier, a layer of air + an outer layer of brick) would be the best course of action - but not only is that in itself very expensive, the result (usually) won't be as good as hoped for unless you do "whole shebang" - walls, windows (two sheets of glas, inside filled with special insulating gas) and of course the roof. Quite the significant investment ...



I'm nosy - are you renting your home or did you purchase it?

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by effgee

Gotcha. That makes all the difference in the world, of course.

I lived in a similar, albeit younger (mid 1940s), home for 6 months - it wasn't too bad in summer (usually our summers are a bit cooler/less humid than for example your average east coast summer) but almost unbearable in winter. Not only were the heating costs off the chart, it also didn't matter how much you upped the room temperature, you always felt chilly.

The entirely un-insulated (solid brick) walls were cold to the touch all the time, the warm air would travel through them almost like it would through a sheet of metal (generally considered the material with the worst insulating characteristics) and you couldn't sit close to any outer wall without being wrapped in a blanket.

My professor in construction physics used to call this the "room climate", which is almost entirely independent of the room temperature itself (within certain limits, of course) - meaning that you can feel extremely uncomfortable (= cold/chilly) in a room even though the overall room temperature itself suggests that you should be perfectly fine.

And fixing these things, as I'm sure you've already discovered, is by no means a trivial matter ($$$- and effort-wise). Insulating the outer walls from the inside (e.g. styrofoam sheets covered with sheet rock/plasterboard) might help in improving the room climate but will do little to improve your heating/cooling expenses.

Completely insulating the outside of the house (wire hook structure in the old wall, a layer of insulation, moisture barrier, a layer of air + an outer layer of brick) would be the best course of action - but not only is that in itself very expensive, the result (usually) won't be as good as hoped for unless you do "whole shebang" - walls, windows (two sheets of glas, inside filled with special insulating gas) and of course the roof. Quite the significant investment ...



I'm nosy - are you renting your home or did you purchase it?

I bought it. It's for sale.