Alan Liefting
2004-09-22 20:40:56 UTC
http://www.ascribe.org/cgi-bin/spew4th.pl?ascribeid=20040921.142651&time=15%2012%20PDT&year=2004&public=1
Tue Sep 21 15:12:35 2004 Pacific Time
Study Indicates Wood Is Most 'Green' Building Material
CORVALLIS, Ore., Sept. 21 (AScribe Newswire) -- A new report
concludes that wood is one of the most environmentally-sensitive
building materials for home construction -- it uses less overall energy
than other products, causes fewer air and water impacts and does a
better job of the carbon "sequestration" that can help address global
warming.
The research showed that wood framing used 17 percent less
energy than steel construction for a typical house built in Minnesota,
and 16 percent less energy than a house using concrete construction in
Atlanta. And in these two examples, the use of wood had 26 percent to 31
percent less global warming potential.
This $1 million study was prepared by the Consortium for
Research on Renewable Industrial Materials, a non-profit corporation of
15 research universities. It was published in the Journal of Forest
Products and is the first major update on this topic since a 1976 report
by the National Academy of Science.
The type of information and data provided in this report may be
increasingly useful as consumers and government agencies try to identify
construction techniques and materials for homes and other structures
that minimize environmental impacts, said James Wilson, a professor of
wood science and engineering at Oregon State University, and vice
president of this research consortium.
"There's a significant consumer movement and even some voluntary
standards that are interested in green, or environmentally conscious
construction methods," Wilson said. "We need to have a good
understanding of the overall effects that different types of
construction have in such areas as energy consumption, global warming,
air and water impacts, or solid waste disposal."
California and some other states are already moving towards
"environmentally preferable purchase" standards that identify the best
materials to use for energy conservation, environmental protection and
other issues, Wilson said. And it's quite possible that some states or
localities may legally require such approaches in the future for
construction of public buildings, he said.
After some experimentation with new building approaches such as
concrete or steel in recent decades, Wilson said, it appears that for
environmental purposes we may return to one of the most ancient,
tried-and-true materials of them all -- wood.
"We've seen a general substitution for wood in many aspects of
home construction for years, using less of it for siding, windows,
roofing, other purposes," Wilson said.
"Price and availability of wood were some of the factors
involved, along with building codes," he said. "And about five years ago
the steel industry began a big push for more use of steel in home
construction, which didn't accomplish as much as that industry hoped
for, but did have some impact."
The new study that was done looks at the total "life-cycle
assessment" of different construction products and techniques,
considering such issues as how materials are grown, mined, processed,
produced, used and ultimately disposed of, to give a better picture of
their overall impact on the environment. It considers effects on energy
use, air and water emissions, global warming and other topics.
Although many people are not aware of their overall makeup,
houses require a broad range of natural resources, such as limestone,
clay, iron ore, sand, gypsum, wood fiber, resins, coal and more. The
process of building them uses energy in the form of electricity, diesel
fuel, gasoline, wood, coal, or nuclear power. The cumulative impact of
using all these natural resources and energy can be significant in ways
that are not always apparent -- everything from the electricity used in
running a steel mill to the mining of raw materials or the diesel fuel
that powers a truck hauling logs.
Compiled in a database, this type of information can help
consumers, builders, architects, policy makers or government regulators
make more informed choices, Wilson said. This particular project
examined the implications of a wood frame housing design versus a steel
frame design for the cold Minneapolis region, and a wood frame versus
concrete design for the hot, humid Atlanta area.
In the Minneapolis example, steel framing, compared to wood,
used 17 percent more energy; caused 26 percent more global warming
potential; caused a 14 percent higher level of air emissions of concern;
more than 300 percent, or triple the level of water emissions of
concern; and had about the same solid waste disposal impact.
In the Atlanta example, concrete construction, compared to wood,
used 16 percent more energy; caused 31 percent more global warming
potential; caused a 23 percent higher level of air emissions of concern;
had the same impact on water emissions of concern; and created 51
percent more solid waste.
Wood had a particular value in addressing the global warming
issue, the data indicate. The growth of wood in renewable forests works
to "sequester" and remove carbon from the atmosphere, and fewer carbon
emissions are created in the processing needed to produce wood products
than their steel and concrete counterparts.
The report also suggested ways to redesign houses to lower
fossil fuel use, reduce the use of excessive amounts of materials,
recycle demolition wastes and other improvements.
In continued research, Wilson said, scientists hope to expand
their studies of wood and other types of construction materials as they
relate to even more environmental issues. It will consider more housing
examples, different regions of forest resources and manufacturing, use
of resins and other structural products that play a role in house
construction.
The data base created in this study will be freely available to
anyone, researchers say. More detail on the study can be found on the
Web at www.corrim.org.
Tue Sep 21 15:12:35 2004 Pacific Time
Study Indicates Wood Is Most 'Green' Building Material
CORVALLIS, Ore., Sept. 21 (AScribe Newswire) -- A new report
concludes that wood is one of the most environmentally-sensitive
building materials for home construction -- it uses less overall energy
than other products, causes fewer air and water impacts and does a
better job of the carbon "sequestration" that can help address global
warming.
The research showed that wood framing used 17 percent less
energy than steel construction for a typical house built in Minnesota,
and 16 percent less energy than a house using concrete construction in
Atlanta. And in these two examples, the use of wood had 26 percent to 31
percent less global warming potential.
This $1 million study was prepared by the Consortium for
Research on Renewable Industrial Materials, a non-profit corporation of
15 research universities. It was published in the Journal of Forest
Products and is the first major update on this topic since a 1976 report
by the National Academy of Science.
The type of information and data provided in this report may be
increasingly useful as consumers and government agencies try to identify
construction techniques and materials for homes and other structures
that minimize environmental impacts, said James Wilson, a professor of
wood science and engineering at Oregon State University, and vice
president of this research consortium.
"There's a significant consumer movement and even some voluntary
standards that are interested in green, or environmentally conscious
construction methods," Wilson said. "We need to have a good
understanding of the overall effects that different types of
construction have in such areas as energy consumption, global warming,
air and water impacts, or solid waste disposal."
California and some other states are already moving towards
"environmentally preferable purchase" standards that identify the best
materials to use for energy conservation, environmental protection and
other issues, Wilson said. And it's quite possible that some states or
localities may legally require such approaches in the future for
construction of public buildings, he said.
After some experimentation with new building approaches such as
concrete or steel in recent decades, Wilson said, it appears that for
environmental purposes we may return to one of the most ancient,
tried-and-true materials of them all -- wood.
"We've seen a general substitution for wood in many aspects of
home construction for years, using less of it for siding, windows,
roofing, other purposes," Wilson said.
"Price and availability of wood were some of the factors
involved, along with building codes," he said. "And about five years ago
the steel industry began a big push for more use of steel in home
construction, which didn't accomplish as much as that industry hoped
for, but did have some impact."
The new study that was done looks at the total "life-cycle
assessment" of different construction products and techniques,
considering such issues as how materials are grown, mined, processed,
produced, used and ultimately disposed of, to give a better picture of
their overall impact on the environment. It considers effects on energy
use, air and water emissions, global warming and other topics.
Although many people are not aware of their overall makeup,
houses require a broad range of natural resources, such as limestone,
clay, iron ore, sand, gypsum, wood fiber, resins, coal and more. The
process of building them uses energy in the form of electricity, diesel
fuel, gasoline, wood, coal, or nuclear power. The cumulative impact of
using all these natural resources and energy can be significant in ways
that are not always apparent -- everything from the electricity used in
running a steel mill to the mining of raw materials or the diesel fuel
that powers a truck hauling logs.
Compiled in a database, this type of information can help
consumers, builders, architects, policy makers or government regulators
make more informed choices, Wilson said. This particular project
examined the implications of a wood frame housing design versus a steel
frame design for the cold Minneapolis region, and a wood frame versus
concrete design for the hot, humid Atlanta area.
In the Minneapolis example, steel framing, compared to wood,
used 17 percent more energy; caused 26 percent more global warming
potential; caused a 14 percent higher level of air emissions of concern;
more than 300 percent, or triple the level of water emissions of
concern; and had about the same solid waste disposal impact.
In the Atlanta example, concrete construction, compared to wood,
used 16 percent more energy; caused 31 percent more global warming
potential; caused a 23 percent higher level of air emissions of concern;
had the same impact on water emissions of concern; and created 51
percent more solid waste.
Wood had a particular value in addressing the global warming
issue, the data indicate. The growth of wood in renewable forests works
to "sequester" and remove carbon from the atmosphere, and fewer carbon
emissions are created in the processing needed to produce wood products
than their steel and concrete counterparts.
The report also suggested ways to redesign houses to lower
fossil fuel use, reduce the use of excessive amounts of materials,
recycle demolition wastes and other improvements.
In continued research, Wilson said, scientists hope to expand
their studies of wood and other types of construction materials as they
relate to even more environmental issues. It will consider more housing
examples, different regions of forest resources and manufacturing, use
of resins and other structural products that play a role in house
construction.
The data base created in this study will be freely available to
anyone, researchers say. More detail on the study can be found on the
Web at www.corrim.org.