Alternative Power sources - Insulated Concrete Forms for Energy Savings

Author

Insulated Concrete Forms for Energy Savings

Nature Power Systems, LLC

2005-10-27, 8:21 pm

Does anyone have anything good or bad in building a home out of ICF
technology in order to save energy. It seems that this technology brings
lots of benefits towards energy savings. This with the addition of solar
technology would be a great combination.

Any positive or negative comments would be appreciated.

Thanks.

Ray

Solar Flare

2005-10-27, 9:21 pm

The claim is R36 and with concrete poured into it's form R50. Lots of thermal
mass but when does concrete have an R1.5 per inch? The forms at close range do
nt apear to have 7 inches of foam either. 4 maybe?????

Very quiet from external noise if that is wanted.

There is a lot of rebar to support the complete structure, including the second
floor (if two story) and the forms for the second story before the concrete is
filled in. I don't know how it supported all that beofe the pour.

The wiring is done with a chainsaw, with a depth stop, to make a slot into the
wall, the wiring pressed into it and caulking covering it. The electrical boxes
are special units, extra flat???? and the drywall is then glued on. No vapour
barrier required. Not sure how the plumbing goes in or how they get away with
wiring that close to the surface let alone the plumbing problems.

They are claiming no A/C will be required...ROFLMFAO

Looks very interesting but a pain to build with all the special items and
related costs. Person in my future neighbourhood has spent all year with lots of
family help building his home while the one beside me started later and has
passed him, working completely alone on a lstandard umber home with bigger
dimensions. To be fair, the lumber home guy is a renovator by trade and the
styrofoam guy is just a financial guy.

When doing a heat loss study, one soons finds out the walls are not the major
heat loss areas.

The ceilings and floors aren't going to be changed by the walls. It may be just
cheaper to insulate further with lumber construction and foam clad.

"Nature Power Systems, LLC" <naturepowersystems@frontiernet.net> wrote in
message news:aBc8f.10990$cg.9741@news02.roc.ny...
> Does anyone have anything good or bad in building a home out of ICF
> technology in order to save energy. It seems that this technology brings
> lots of benefits towards energy savings. This with the addition of solar
> technology would be a great combination.
>
> Any positive or negative comments would be appreciated.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Ray
>
>

dold@XReXXInsul.usenet.us.com

2005-10-27, 9:21 pm

In alt.solar.photovoltaic Solar Flare <sflare@hotmail.com> wrote:

> They are claiming no A/C will be required...ROFLMFAO

A friend of mine built a cinder block home partially in the North East top
of a hill. From the front, which is on the southwest side, it looks like a
single story, but on the back side it is a 2-1/2 story. There is a stone
patio on the sun side, with some sort of plumbing tying it to the house.

This is in an area where summer temperatures are 110f for several days in a
row. He has some deciduous shade foliage on a trellis on the sun side of
the house. He has no A/C. I haven't been in the house on a hot day, but
my wife has, and she said it is quite comfortable.

---
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8,-122.5

Derek Broughton

2005-10-27, 10:21 pm

dold@XReXXInsul.usenet.us.com wrote:

> In alt.solar.photovoltaic Solar Flare <sflare@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> A friend of mine built a cinder block home partially in the North East top
> of a hill. From the front, which is on the southwest side, it looks like
> a
> single story, but on the back side it is a 2-1/2 story. There is a stone
> patio on the sun side, with some sort of plumbing tying it to the house.

I used to live in Flare's neighborhood, and I can attest that a well
insulated concrete block building _can_ have very good energy efficiency,
but "no" A/C means you have to be willing to endure a few really horrible
days :-)

I now actually have an ICF home. I can't see that it is particularly
efficient. My solar-home builder friend hates them - he says it's a waste
of thermal mass to put the concrete behind insulation - but I think I've
got plenty of thermal mass inside the insulation so that's not really a
consideration.
--
derek

Ecnerwal

2005-10-27, 10:21 pm

In article <aBc8f.10990$cg.9741@news02.roc.ny>,
"Nature Power Systems, LLC" <naturepowersystems@frontiernet.net>
wrote:

> Does anyone have anything good or bad in building a home out of ICF
> technology in order to save energy. It seems that this technology brings
> lots of benefits towards energy savings. This with the addition of solar
> technology would be a great combination.
>
> Any positive or negative comments would be appreciated.

Well, I have yet to see one that does it right, in the sense that every
ICF system I've ever seen has insulation on both sides. A "proper"
system, IMHO, would have insulation on the outside, and either a
leave-in-place non-insulating form or a removable form on the inside.
That way, the thermal mass of the concrete is connected to the inside of
the house, and insulated from the outside - also, you don't have a bunch
of cyanide-gas-producing foam on the inside of the house if there is
ever a fire.

In practical terms, last time I went shopping, the "labor/cost saving
ICF" was $4400 before labor and concrete, while the complete job (labor,
concrete etc) with traditional forms was $5500, and I spent another $600
or so insulating just the outside, as makes best thermal sense. In total
cost the ICF was not remotely a deal.

Above ground, unless you have some issue such as being in Tornado Alley
(or having won the lottery) making it worthwhile to spend a LOT more on
your house, SIPs are a much better cost option than ICFs, while still
being very strong and very well insulated for energy savings.

Every person I know who has chosen to use ICFs has been less than
impressed with them in practice - the bracing suggestions provided by
the manufacturer should be considered to be somewhat below the bare
minimum, by their reports, and the crew has to be god-awful careful, as
they are very delicate as compared to traditional forms. Blowouts get
expensive fast...

--
Cats, coffee, chocolate...vices to live by

Steve

2005-10-27, 11:21 pm

"Nature Power Systems, LLC" <naturepowersystems@frontiernet.net> wrote in
message news:aBc8f.10990$cg.9741@news02.roc.ny...
> Does anyone have anything good or bad in building a home out of ICF
> technology in order to save energy. It seems that this technology brings
> lots of benefits towards energy savings. This with the addition of solar
> technology would be a great combination.
>
> Any positive or negative comments would be appreciated.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Ray
>

When I first saw ICF I thought the idea was great.

Now I'm not so sure it is the best approach.

From what I have been told the concrete is in contact with the ground and
since concrete is a better thermal conductor than foam, it will have a
tendency to stay near ground temperature.

Ground temperatures in the U.S. tend to be fairly stable and in the 50-60 F
range (depending on location).

This means that with ICF you have the thickness of the foam insulation on
one side of the block as insulation from a fairly constant temperature.

Another approach, which I find more appealing is Shotcrete or Solarcrete

http://www.cement.org/homes/ch_bs_shotcrete.asp

http://www.solarcrete.com/

With this approach the foam is in the center with a layer of concrete on
each side.

While I don't have any data to support the idea, intuitively this seems to
me like a better approach. The inside layer can act as a thermal mass for
use with passive solar.

I have also been investigating the foams used for both ICF and shotcrete. I
generally make a great effort to minimize on materials that outgas. With
the shotcreate approach the foam is inside the wall, so I would expect less
problem with outgassing. Better yet, some products claim to not outgas
VOC's, such as:

http://www.emegabuild.com/

There is what appears to be good information at:

http://www.greenhomebuilding.com/Qa...A.htm#shotcrete

Currently I'm in the information gathering stage for our next home. I
haven't made any decisions at this point, but I'm leaning toward finding
someone to do solarcrete or shotcrete with soy based polyurethane foam.

Steve

Solar Flare

2005-10-27, 11:21 pm

If we averaged 65 deg F outside all year long Plus or minus a few I could see it
but that thermal mass in our humid summers would just be another way of not
sleeping in the summer.

We rely or A/C or low thermal mass, for those without A/C to cool our houses
down at nights in order to get some sleep. Summer of 2005 was an exception. It
got hot and 95% humidity in June and stayed until a few weeks ago with the
nightly lows at 22-23C (74-75) all summer. Large thermal mass would have just
made the 93F temps continue into the morning and no sleep would have been had.

Big insulation is good almost anywhere but large dumb, thermal mass is only good
where average temperatures are OK. Say 90F during days and 50F at nights. The
average is what we want inside.

My trick in my next home is to phase shift this heat some with perhaps 2000 gal
of water mass and hydronic distribution. From day to early morning would be good
but for a week or two would be even better.

Now to tap into the earths core. Isn't that a real earth source heat pump?...LOL
Anybody sell a hot lava container?

"Derek Broughton" <news@pointerstop.ca> wrote in message
news:vl8833-n44.ln1@news.pointerstop.ca...
> dold@XReXXInsul.usenet.us.com wrote:
>
>
> I used to live in Flare's neighborhood, and I can attest that a well
> insulated concrete block building _can_ have very good energy efficiency,
> but "no" A/C means you have to be willing to endure a few really horrible
> days :-)
>
> I now actually have an ICF home. I can't see that it is particularly
> efficient. My solar-home builder friend hates them - he says it's a waste
> of thermal mass to put the concrete behind insulation - but I think I've
> got plenty of thermal mass inside the insulation so that's not really a
> consideration.
> --
> derek

Rob Dekker

2005-10-27, 11:21 pm

I have always been surpised with the differences in building materials used around the world,
mostly between the US and Northern Europe. Hardly any wood is used in Northern Europe.

I live in California now, in a wooden house with little insulation, but I grew up in Holland,
in the cold/windy lowlands. No AC required there for sure, but exceptional insulation is
necessary to keep the wind/rain/cold out and still have moderate heating cost.
Lumber is expensive in this small, densely populated country, but plenty of rivers and thus
brick and concrete are the materials of choice.

During the post-war reconstruction, explosive growth in Northern Europe required
low-cost homes that can still withstand the nasty elements. So here is how they built houses there:

Put up two-story high concrete walls for the sides of the house, with a triangle-shaped top
where a slanted roof will fit later. Put an entire block of houses up 'sliced-bread' style,
so you use the same concrete form to build identical walls, often 4, 8, 12 or more in
a block. The forms already have extensions for where electrical wires and outlets need to
indent into the concrete, so you do not need a chainsaw to put the electrical wires in later.
So most houses share a concrete wall with both neighbors.

Front and back of the house : pop-in two massive tripple-pane windows, or pre-fab
window/door panels. The big windows brings is a lot of light, which you need to stay sane
(it's pretty depressive in winter). The double or tripple-pane windows are great temp insulators.

To finish the thing off, apply 5 inch or more of (stone wool) insulation on the (concrete) sides,
and erect an outer wall with mostly brick (or other durable, estetically sound material).
The front and back are mostly windows, but the 'wall' parts of it (around the door etc)
are typically finished with brick also.

Put a (wooden) slanted roof on top, cover with clay-tiles (red or black; you must have
seen pictures), 10 inch of stone-wood on the inside of the roof, and the house is closed.

All in all, this method is extremely energy-efficient, although it was first first designed
to be a cheap, mass-production process. Not much labor is involved in building, except for laying
the brick of the outer wall. Often they compromise on the amount of brick by making the
windows larger, to reduce labor cost (and increase natural light in the houses).

Sheer mass of the double-stone, concrete/brick walls the double/tripple pane windows
and the 5 inch stone wool insulation keep temperature very stable.
The heater is off during the night, but inside it drops only 10F (70->60) overnight,
even though outside the wind is hauling at near freezing temps.

What a difference with my 'standard', poorly insulated, California home, which costs
three times as much to build as compared to a similar size home in Holland, and has
less than half the insulation value.

So, I'd say : Concrete is the way to go.

"Solar Flare" <sflare@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:UqudncHO46Xk_vzeRVn-1w@golden.net...
> The claim is R36 and with concrete poured into it's form R50. Lots of thermal
> mass but when does concrete have an R1.5 per inch? The forms at close range do
> nt apear to have 7 inches of foam either. 4 maybe?????
>
> Very quiet from external noise if that is wanted.
>
> There is a lot of rebar to support the complete structure, including the second
> floor (if two story) and the forms for the second story before the concrete is
> filled in. I don't know how it supported all that beofe the pour.
>
> The wiring is done with a chainsaw, with a depth stop, to make a slot into the
> wall, the wiring pressed into it and caulking covering it. The electrical boxes
> are special units, extra flat???? and the drywall is then glued on. No vapour
> barrier required. Not sure how the plumbing goes in or how they get away with
> wiring that close to the surface let alone the plumbing problems.
>
> They are claiming no A/C will be required...ROFLMFAO
>
> Looks very interesting but a pain to build with all the special items and
> related costs. Person in my future neighbourhood has spent all year with lots of
> family help building his home while the one beside me started later and has
> passed him, working completely alone on a lstandard umber home with bigger
> dimensions. To be fair, the lumber home guy is a renovator by trade and the
> styrofoam guy is just a financial guy.
>
> When doing a heat loss study, one soons finds out the walls are not the major
> heat loss areas.
>
> The ceilings and floors aren't going to be changed by the walls. It may be just
> cheaper to insulate further with lumber construction and foam clad.
>
>
>
> "Nature Power Systems, LLC" <naturepowersystems@frontiernet.net> wrote in
> message news:aBc8f.10990$cg.9741@news02.roc.ny...
>
>

Solar Flare

2005-10-28, 12:21 am

Depends on your climate. Here in Canada I would have to A/C more heat and
moisture out of this concrete mass to make my home comfortable. This means
turning the A/C on in late May and not turning it off until Late October or the
humidity will settle in and take days of continuous running to recover the
comfort again.

We get some nice weather too where we like to open windows and you wouldnt be
able to for fear of a hot day again. Quicker response is in order which means
low thermal mass. For dry climates/desert climates where hot during day and cold
at night thermal mass is desired to average out the temps.

"Rob Dekker" <rob@verific.com> wrote in message
news:YBf8f.22169$6e1.1721@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
>
> I have always been surpised with the differences in building materials used
around the world,
> mostly between the US and Northern Europe. Hardly any wood is used in Northern
Europe.
>
> I live in California now, in a wooden house with little insulation, but I grew
up in Holland,
> in the cold/windy lowlands. No AC required there for sure, but exceptional
insulation is
> necessary to keep the wind/rain/cold out and still have moderate heating cost.
> Lumber is expensive in this small, densely populated country, but plenty of
rivers and thus
> brick and concrete are the materials of choice.
>
> During the post-war reconstruction, explosive growth in Northern Europe
required
> low-cost homes that can still withstand the nasty elements. So here is how
they built houses there:
>
> Put up two-story high concrete walls for the sides of the house, with a
triangle-shaped top
> where a slanted roof will fit later. Put an entire block of houses up
'sliced-bread' style,
> so you use the same concrete form to build identical walls, often 4, 8, 12 or
more in
> a block. The forms already have extensions for where electrical wires and
outlets need to
> indent into the concrete, so you do not need a chainsaw to put the electrical
wires in later.
> So most houses share a concrete wall with both neighbors.
>
> Front and back of the house : pop-in two massive tripple-pane windows, or
pre-fab
> window/door panels. The big windows brings is a lot of light, which you need
to stay sane
> (it's pretty depressive in winter). The double or tripple-pane windows are
great temp insulators.
>
> To finish the thing off, apply 5 inch or more of (stone wool) insulation on
the (concrete) sides,
> and erect an outer wall with mostly brick (or other durable, estetically sound
material).
> The front and back are mostly windows, but the 'wall' parts of it (around the
door etc)
> are typically finished with brick also.
>
> Put a (wooden) slanted roof on top, cover with clay-tiles (red or black; you
must have
> seen pictures), 10 inch of stone-wood on the inside of the roof, and the house
is closed.
>
> All in all, this method is extremely energy-efficient, although it was first
first designed
> to be a cheap, mass-production process. Not much labor is involved in
building, except for laying
> the brick of the outer wall. Often they compromise on the amount of brick by
making the
> windows larger, to reduce labor cost (and increase natural light in the
houses).
>
> Sheer mass of the double-stone, concrete/brick walls the double/tripple pane
windows
> and the 5 inch stone wool insulation keep temperature very stable.
> The heater is off during the night, but inside it drops only 10F (70->60)
overnight,
> even though outside the wind is hauling at near freezing temps.
>
> What a difference with my 'standard', poorly insulated, California home, which
costs
> three times as much to build as compared to a similar size home in Holland,
and has
> less than half the insulation value.
>
> So, I'd say : Concrete is the way to go.
>
> "Solar Flare" <sflare@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:UqudncHO46Xk_vzeRVn-1w@golden.net...
thermal[color=darkred]
do[color=darkred]
second[color=darkred]
is[color=darkred]
the[color=darkred]
boxes[color=darkred]
vapour[color=darkred]
with[color=darkred]
lots of[color=darkred]
major[color=darkred]
just[color=darkred]
>
>

Rob Dekker

2005-10-28, 12:21 am

"Solar Flare" <sflare@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:mvWdnZil0OwDEPzeRVn-qw@golden.net...
> Depends on your climate. Here in Canada I would have to A/C more heat and
> moisture out of this concrete mass to make my home comfortable. This means
> turning the A/C on in late May and not turning it off until Late October or the
> humidity will settle in and take days of continuous running to recover the
> comfort again.

I am not sure if I understand you.

For temperature control, why you need to turn your AC on all summer long.
With massive amounts of thermal mass, your house would ideally stay at the
24 hour 'average' temperature of your climate. I do not know where you live
in Canada, but Toronto does not get above 20deg C in summer, which should be
quite comfortable in a concrete home without (much) AC usage.
http://www.worldclimate.com/cgi-bin...+1102+7162404G1

For moisture creep or moisture control, there are different ways of dealing with
that than using AC, depending on how bad the moisture gets.

But why do you think that thermal mass increases your moisture problem ?

>
> We get some nice weather too where we like to open windows and you wouldnt be
> able to for fear of a hot day again. Quicker response is in order which means
> low thermal mass.

Why not the 'old' way :
Close the windows once outside is warmer than you want inside,
and open them when outside temp is more desirable (like at night) ?
That is a quick response

> For dry climates/desert climates where hot during day and cold
> at night thermal mass is desired to average out the temps.

Totally.
I do not understand why they are building wood-frame homes in the desert.
Maybe just in-experience with any other building methods ?

>
>
> "Rob Dekker" <rob@verific.com> wrote in message
> news:YBf8f.22169$6e1.1721@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
> around the world,
> Europe.
> up in Holland,
> insulation is
> rivers and thus
> required
> they built houses there:
> triangle-shaped top
> 'sliced-bread' style,
> more in
> outlets need to
> wires in later.
> pre-fab
> to stay sane
> great temp insulators.
> the (concrete) sides,
> material).
> door etc)
> must have
> is closed.
> first designed
> building, except for laying
> making the
> houses).
> windows
> overnight,
> costs
> and has
> news:UqudncHO46Xk_vzeRVn-1w@golden.net...
> thermal
> do
> second
> is
> the
> boxes
> vapour
> with
> lots of
> major
> just
>
>

Iain McClatchie

2005-10-28, 1:21 am

Rob> I do not understand why they are building wood-frame homes in the
desert.
Rob> Maybe just in-experience with any other building methods ?

Concrete, even reinforced concrete, is not a great building material
where you expect earthquakes. It's much simpler to make a lightweight
wood house safe, because the strength to weight is better, and because
it can flex a bit.

nicksanspam@ece.villanova.edu

2005-10-28, 4:21 am

Rob Dekker <rob@verific.com> wrote:

>"Solar Flare" <sflare@hotmail.com> wrote:

>With massive amounts of thermal mass, your house would ideally stay at the
>24 hour 'average' temperature of your climate...

With smart controls, it might stay close to the daily min temp...

>Why not the 'old' way :
>Close the windows once outside is warmer than you want inside,
>and open them when outside temp is more desirable (like at night) ?

Or automate this with a whole house fan and a differential thermostat.

Nick

Derek Broughton

2005-10-28, 9:21 am

Rob Dekker wrote:

>
> "Solar Flare" <sflare@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:mvWdnZil0OwDEPzeRVn-qw@golden.net...
>
> I am not sure if I understand you.
>
> For temperature control, why you need to turn your AC on all summer long.
> With massive amounts of thermal mass, your house would ideally stay at the
> 24 hour 'average' temperature of your climate. I do not know where you
> live in Canada, but Toronto does not get above 20deg C in summer,

LOL. You seem to have managed to buy into the American version of "The
Great White North". Toronto rarely gets over _40C_ in summer - except at
pavement level. The 24 hour average in Toronto, in late July & August is
commonly over 20C - overnight lows are usually around there.
--
derek

dold@XReXXInsul.usenet.us.com

2005-10-28, 11:21 am

In alt.solar.photovoltaic Derek Broughton <news@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
> LOL. You seem to have managed to buy into the American version of "The
> Great White North". Toronto rarely gets over _40C_ in summer - except at
> pavement level. The 24 hour average in Toronto, in late July & August is
> commonly over 20C - overnight lows are usually around there.

Indeed. I was quite surprised to find that Laval (Montreal) is hotter than
my location in the summer, and colder in the winter.

--
---
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8,-122.5

daestrom

2005-10-28, 2:21 pm

<dold@XReXXInsul.usenet.us.com> wrote in message
news:djt8o3$7u0$1@blue.rahul.net...
> In alt.solar.photovoltaic Derek Broughton <news@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
>
> Indeed. I was quite surprised to find that Laval (Montreal) is hotter
> than
> my location in the summer, and colder in the winter.
>

I suspect the difference is those two large bodies of water close at hand.
We have milder temperatures here on Lake Ontario than they have in Albany
for that very reason.

daestrom

Bert Menkveld

2005-10-28, 9:21 pm

"Solar Flare" <sflare@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:mvWdnZil0OwDEPzeRVn-qw@golden.net...
> Depends on your climate. Here in Canada I would have to A/C more heat and
> moisture out of this concrete mass to make my home comfortable. This means
> turning the A/C on in late May and not turning it off until Late October
> or the
> humidity will settle in and take days of continuous running to recover the
> comfort again.
>
> We get some nice weather too where we like to open windows and you wouldnt
> be
> able to for fear of a hot day again. Quicker response is in order which
> means
> low thermal mass. For dry climates/desert climates where hot during day
> and cold
> at night thermal mass is desired to average out the temps.

I don't know where you are in Canada. I live in Ontario, near
Kitchener-Waterloo (about an hour's drive West of Toronto). We have a
rather old house that's not too well sealed or insulated (we're still
gradually improving that). However, one interesting feature is that an
addition was built at some time in the past. This left a brick wall running
right through the centre of the house. Also, the entire interior is
finished in plaster over plaster-board, meaning about an inch of cement-like
material on all the walls. All this seems to provide quite a bit of thermal
mass.

We don't run AC (though the house came with a central AC unit). As was
suggested by somebody else, we simply open the windows in the evening when
the temperature outside gets below the temperature inside. In the morning,
we close them again once the outside temperature rises above the inside
temperature. This certainly does not keep our house as cold as many
air-conditioned houses are kept during the summer, but it mostly keeps us
quite comfortable. There are some times when you get several hot days in a
row without good cooling off at night, and then things get hot and sticky
inside. However, in our climate, that's typically no more than a week or
two, and everyone in our family seems to be pretty good at sweating for
those days.

Of course, right now I'm thinking wistfully of the days of summer as
night-time temperatures are going below freezing again. We've got a great
climate -- as long as you like winter more than summer. (I'm a rather poor
Canadian that way.)

--
Bert Menkveld

> "Rob Dekker" <rob@verific.com> wrote in message
> news:YBf8f.22169$6e1.1721@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
> around the world,
> Europe.
> up in Holland,
> insulation is
> rivers and thus
> required
> they built houses there:
> triangle-shaped top
> 'sliced-bread' style,
> more in
> outlets need to
> wires in later.
> pre-fab
> to stay sane
> great temp insulators.
> the (concrete) sides,
> material).
> door etc)
> must have
> is closed.
> first designed
> building, except for laying
> making the
> houses).
> windows
> overnight,
> costs
> and has
> news:UqudncHO46Xk_vzeRVn-1w@golden.net...
> thermal
> do
> second
> is
> the
> boxes
> vapour
> with
> lots of
> major
> just
>
>

Rob Dekker

2005-10-28, 9:21 pm

"Iain McClatchie" <iain-3@truecircuits.com> wrote in message news:1130470227.302501.303470@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Rob> I do not understand why they are building wood-frame homes in the
> desert.
> Rob> Maybe just in-experience with any other building methods ?
>
> Concrete, even reinforced concrete, is not a great building material
> where you expect earthquakes. It's much simpler to make a lightweight
> wood house safe, because the strength to weight is better, and because
> it can flex a bit.
>

Hi Iain,

There are not that many earthquakes in the deserts (of Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico),
so there must still be another reason to build with wood there.

About concrete in Earthquake sensitive areas, yes, I hear that (strength/weight problem) a lot.
I am not convinced it is really true yet, because a well-constructed concrete structure is
is really exceptionally strong. After all, they build all high-risers with concrete (not wood),
and there are plenty of these here in San Francisco.

It might be that the US obsession with wooden homes is just a historically grown habit.
Wood used to be readily available pretty much everywhere, so the lumber industry
and construction would gain a lot of experience with wood. Once an entire industry
is finetuning any process for decades or even longer, it almost automatically becomes cheap.
That is (I think) why Northern Europe builds with concrete/brick, and the US builds
with wood.

Energy (oil/gas) was also dirt-cheap, so energy-efficiency (or thermal-mass temp equalization)
in homes was never an issue.Until now...

Rob Dekker

2005-10-28, 11:21 pm

"Derek Broughton" <news@pointerstop.ca> wrote in message news:lqg933-av6.ln1@news.pointerstop.ca...
> Rob Dekker wrote:
>
> LOL. You seem to have managed to buy into the American version of "The
> Great White North". Toronto rarely gets over _40C_ in summer - except at
> pavement level. The 24 hour average in Toronto, in late July & August is
> commonly over 20C - overnight lows are usually around there.
> --
> derek

Sorry Derek, I meant the 24-hour average does not get much above 20deg :
http://www.worldclimate.com/cgi-bin...+1102+7162404G1

I understand that it gets hot up there, but the whole deal with thermal mass is
that it equalizes the temperature, so AC (or heater in winter) does not need to work so hard.

As Nick suggested, with some smart opening/closing of windows you could
get a bit lower (or higher in winter) than the 24 hour average of your climate.

Now all this is not to outlaw AC totally. It is just that with enough thermal mass,
you iron out almost all day/night differences, and thus you can greatly reduce AC usage.
And likewise, in winter, you reduce heating costs.

With thermal-mass temp-equalization, excellent insulation is still the best
energy cost reducer. Both in summer and in winter.

There are many other energy savers to consider after that, like top-notch heat-exchangers in the
ventilation system, and moisture control, but there comes a point where you
need to take the heat that our bodies generate (up to 100W per person) into consideration,
regardless of the climate that you live in...
Now THEN we are getting somewhere :o)

Rob

Solar Flare

2005-10-29, 12:21 am

To clarify. Yes! I would like to get the average outside temperature in my home
24 hours per day

****IF***

the lowest temperature for our whole summer and then some was below 23-24C and
the humidity ever fell below 95% when the temp was that low, at 5 AM each day.

But it wasn't ever below that temp so if I averaged the outside temp and added a
few degrees, I would have lived and (not) slept at about 29C for four months
with 80-95% RH. Arizona is much more comfortable even with their 110F and ry
air. People that have done both understand this and prefer 120F in Arizona for
comfort.

Like Nick stated, if we could capture the lowest temperature then our homes
would have been about 23-24C all summer with 90% RH.

We need A/C in the summer ...well most summers anyway.

Spring and fall this thermal mass scheme can work.

"Rob Dekker" <rob@verific.com> wrote in message
news:hRA8f.7433$q%.6542@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "Derek Broughton" <news@pointerstop.ca> wrote in message
news:lqg933-av6.ln1@news.pointerstop.ca...
>
> Sorry Derek, I meant the 24-hour average does not get much above 20deg :
> http://www.worldclimate.com/cgi-bin...+1102+7162404G1
>
> I understand that it gets hot up there, but the whole deal with thermal mass
is
> that it equalizes the temperature, so AC (or heater in winter) does not need
to work so hard.
>
> As Nick suggested, with some smart opening/closing of windows you could
> get a bit lower (or higher in winter) than the 24 hour average of your
climate.
>
> Now all this is not to outlaw AC totally. It is just that with enough thermal
mass,
> you iron out almost all day/night differences, and thus you can greatly reduce
AC usage.
> And likewise, in winter, you reduce heating costs.
>
> With thermal-mass temp-equalization, excellent insulation is still the best
> energy cost reducer. Both in summer and in winter.
>
> There are many other energy savers to consider after that, like top-notch
heat-exchangers in the
> ventilation system, and moisture control, but there comes a point where you
> need to take the heat that our bodies generate (up to 100W per person) into
consideration,
> regardless of the climate that you live in...
> Now THEN we are getting somewhere :o)
>
> Rob
>
>

Solar Flare

2005-10-29, 12:21 am

Now tell me about your summer this year how many times the temp went below 23
degrees C from June to a few weeks ago. Also, do you have a job and have to get
sleep to perform it?

"Bert Menkveld" <bertATreentronicsDOTcom> wrote in message
news:4362b447@news.sentex.net...
> "Solar Flare" <sflare@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:mvWdnZil0OwDEPzeRVn-qw@golden.net...
>
> I don't know where you are in Canada. I live in Ontario, near
> Kitchener-Waterloo (about an hour's drive West of Toronto). We have a
> rather old house that's not too well sealed or insulated (we're still
> gradually improving that). However, one interesting feature is that an
> addition was built at some time in the past. This left a brick wall running
> right through the centre of the house. Also, the entire interior is
> finished in plaster over plaster-board, meaning about an inch of cement-like
> material on all the walls. All this seems to provide quite a bit of thermal
> mass.
>
> We don't run AC (though the house came with a central AC unit). As was
> suggested by somebody else, we simply open the windows in the evening when
> the temperature outside gets below the temperature inside. In the morning,
> we close them again once the outside temperature rises above the inside
> temperature. This certainly does not keep our house as cold as many
> air-conditioned houses are kept during the summer, but it mostly keeps us
> quite comfortable. There are some times when you get several hot days in a
> row without good cooling off at night, and then things get hot and sticky
> inside. However, in our climate, that's typically no more than a week or
> two, and everyone in our family seems to be pretty good at sweating for
> those days.

>
> Of course, right now I'm thinking wistfully of the days of summer as
> night-time temperatures are going below freezing again. We've got a great
> climate -- as long as you like winter more than summer. (I'm a rather poor
> Canadian that way.)
>
> --
> Bert Menkveld
>
>
>
>
>

nospam.clare.nce@sny.der.on.ca

2005-10-29, 3:21 am

On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 02:51:59 GMT, "Rob Dekker" <rob@verific.com>
wrote:

>
>"Solar Flare" <sflare@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:mvWdnZil0OwDEPzeRVn-qw@golden.net...
>
>I am not sure if I understand you.
>
>For temperature control, why you need to turn your AC on all summer long.
>With massive amounts of thermal mass, your house would ideally stay at the
>24 hour 'average' temperature of your climate. I do not know where you live
>in Canada, but Toronto does not get above 20deg C in summer, which should be
>quite comfortable in a concrete home without (much) AC usage.
>http://www.worldclimate.com/cgi-bin...+1102+7162404G1

You obviously were NOT in Toronto this summer. 30 some odd days over
30C (thats over 90F)
I'm 60 miles west of TORONTO and this summer was a real stinker.

>
>For moisture creep or moisture control, there are different ways of dealing with
>that than using AC, depending on how bad the moisture gets.
>
>But why do you think that thermal mass increases your moisture problem ?
>
>
>Why not the 'old' way :
>Close the windows once outside is warmer than you want inside,
>and open them when outside temp is more desirable (like at night) ?
>That is a quick response

>
>
>Totally.
>I do not understand why they are building wood-frame homes in the desert.
>Maybe just in-experience with any other building methods ?
>
>

nospam.clare.nce@sny.der.on.ca

2005-10-29, 4:21 am

On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 00:08:41 GMT, "Rob Dekker" <rob@verific.com>
wrote:

>
>"Iain McClatchie" <iain-3@truecircuits.com> wrote in message news:1130470227.302501.303470@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>Hi Iain,
>
>There are not that many earthquakes in the deserts (of Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico),
>so there must still be another reason to build with wood there.
>
>About concrete in Earthquake sensitive areas, yes, I hear that (strength/weight problem) a lot.
>I am not convinced it is really true yet, because a well-constructed concrete structure is
>is really exceptionally strong. After all, they build all high-risers with concrete (not wood),
>and there are plenty of these here in San Francisco.
>
>It might be that the US obsession with wooden homes is just a historically grown habit.
>Wood used to be readily available pretty much everywhere, so the lumber industry
>and construction would gain a lot of experience with wood. Once an entire industry
>is finetuning any process for decades or even longer, it almost automatically becomes cheap.
>That is (I think) why Northern Europe builds with concrete/brick, and the US builds
>with wood.
>
>Energy (oil/gas) was also dirt-cheap, so energy-efficiency (or thermal-mass temp equalization)
>in homes was never an issue.Until now...
>
>
>

As long as the US can steal the softwod from Canada and thumb their
noses at international law, the USA will continue to build with wood.

nospam.clare.nce@sny.der.on.ca

2005-10-29, 4:21 am

On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 13:23:15 +0000 (UTC),
dold@XReXXInsul.usenet.us.com wrote:

>In alt.solar.photovoltaic Derek Broughton <news@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
>
>Indeed. I was quite surprised to find that Laval (Montreal) is hotter than
>my location in the summer, and colder in the winter.

Might also be surprised to know that a large percentage of Ontario's
population lives as far south as much of Northern California.

nospam.clare.nce@sny.der.on.ca

2005-10-29, 4:21 am

On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 02:09:17 GMT, "Rob Dekker" <rob@verific.com>
wrote:

>
>"Derek Broughton" <news@pointerstop.ca> wrote in message news:lqg933-av6.ln1@news.pointerstop.ca...
>
>Sorry Derek, I meant the 24-hour average does not get much above 20deg :
>http://www.worldclimate.com/cgi-bin...+1102+7162404G1

Again, you were not in Toronto this summer. Even out here in "the
sticks" 60 miles west, there were MANY nights when it did not drop
below 25 overnight.

>
>I understand that it gets hot up there, but the whole deal with thermal mass is
>that it equalizes the temperature, so AC (or heater in winter) does not need to work so hard.
>
>As Nick suggested, with some smart opening/closing of windows you could
>get a bit lower (or higher in winter) than the 24 hour average of your climate.
>
>Now all this is not to outlaw AC totally. It is just that with enough thermal mass,
>you iron out almost all day/night differences, and thus you can greatly reduce AC usage.
>And likewise, in winter, you reduce heating costs.
>
>With thermal-mass temp-equalization, excellent insulation is still the best
>energy cost reducer. Both in summer and in winter.
>
>There are many other energy savers to consider after that, like top-notch heat-exchangers in the
>ventilation system, and moisture control, but there comes a point where you
>need to take the heat that our bodies generate (up to 100W per person) into consideration,
>regardless of the climate that you live in...
>Now THEN we are getting somewhere :o)
>
>Rob
>

nospam.clare.nce@sny.der.on.ca

2005-10-29, 4:21 am

On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 19:28:59 -0400, "Bert Menkveld"
<bertATreentronicsDOTcom> wrote:

>"Solar Flare" <sflare@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:mvWdnZil0OwDEPzeRVn-qw@golden.net...
>
>I don't know where you are in Canada. I live in Ontario, near
>Kitchener-Waterloo (about an hour's drive West of Toronto). We have a
>rather old house that's not too well sealed or insulated (we're still
>gradually improving that). However, one interesting feature is that an
>addition was built at some time in the past. This left a brick wall running
>right through the centre of the house. Also, the entire interior is
>finished in plaster over plaster-board, meaning about an inch of cement-like
>material on all the walls. All this seems to provide quite a bit of thermal
>mass.
>
>We don't run AC (though the house came with a central AC unit). As was
>suggested by somebody else, we simply open the windows in the evening when
>the temperature outside gets below the temperature inside. In the morning,
>we close them again once the outside temperature rises above the inside
>temperature. This certainly does not keep our house as cold as many
>air-conditioned houses are kept during the summer, but it mostly keeps us
>quite comfortable. There are some times when you get several hot days in a
>row without good cooling off at night, and then things get hot and sticky
>inside. However, in our climate, that's typically no more than a week or
>two, and everyone in our family seems to be pretty good at sweating for
>those days.

>
>Of course, right now I'm thinking wistfully of the days of summer as
>night-time temperatures are going below freezing again. We've got a great
>climate -- as long as you like winter more than summer. (I'm a rather poor
>Canadian that way.)

Hey Bert - I grew up just a few blocks from you on Riverside Drive
East. You are down by the old reservoir behind Riverside school,
right?

Jens Kr. Kirkebø

2005-10-29, 7:21 am

On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 00:08:41 GMT, "Rob Dekker" <rob@verific.com>
wrote:

>It might be that the US obsession with wooden homes is just a historically grown habit.
>Wood used to be readily available pretty much everywhere, so the lumber industry
>and construction would gain a lot of experience with wood. Once an entire industry
>is finetuning any process for decades or even longer, it almost automatically becomes cheap.
>That is (I think) why Northern Europe builds with concrete/brick, and the US builds
>with wood.

Central Europe may build more with concrete/brick but the northernmost
part (Norway, Sweden, Finland) build nearly exclusively with wood.

Ecnerwal

2005-10-29, 12:21 pm

In article <pu46m1h8eds5apm4gvbbgvb28mcjuj5f7n@4ax.com>,
nospam.clare.nce@sny.der.on.ca wrote:

> As long as the US can steal the softwod from Canada and thumb their
> noses at international law, the USA will continue to build with wood.

Judging by the grade stamps on some of the softwood in my building
project in Vermont (quite close to Canada), we are now importing from
Austria and Germany. Kinda silly IMHO, but nobody asks me. Fortunately,
with SIPs I'm not using much of it.

--
Cats, coffee, chocolate...vices to live by

Solar Flare

2005-10-29, 1:21 pm

Has nothing to do with technical details only if suitable wood goes there.

"Jens Kr. Kirkebø" <jkk@scm.no> wrote in message
news:2ig6m1d0a6gdgkf8eb7oskkigq239uibji@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 00:08:41 GMT, "Rob Dekker" <rob@verific.com>
> wrote:
>
grown habit.[color=darkred]
industry[color=darkred]
industry[color=darkred]
becomes cheap.[color=darkred]
builds[color=darkred]
>
> Central Europe may build more with concrete/brick but the northernmost
> part (Norway, Sweden, Finland) build nearly exclusively with wood.

Solar Flare

2005-10-29, 1:21 pm

Not quite. The southern peak of Ontario is the same latitude as N. Cal.

<nospam.clare.nce@sny.der.on.ca> wrote in message
news:q156m1po9coj1hqijhunpgep6b6c5uppug@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 13:23:15 +0000 (UTC),
> dold@XReXXInsul.usenet.us.com wrote:
>
>
>
> Might also be surprised to know that a large percentage of Ontario's
> population lives as far south as much of Northern California.

Solar Flare

2005-10-29, 2:21 pm

oooops.
"grows there"

"Solar Flare" <sflare@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6q6dnW0-_v9VAP7eRVn-vg@golden.net...
> Has nothing to do with technical details only if suitable wood goes there.
>
>
> "Jens Kr. Kirkebx" <jkk@scm.no> wrote in message
> news:2ig6m1d0a6gdgkf8eb7oskkigq239uibji@4ax.com...
> grown habit.
> industry
> industry
automatically[color=darkred]
> becomes cheap.
US[color=darkred]
> builds
>
>

Derek Broughton

2005-10-29, 4:21 pm

Rob Dekker wrote:

>
> "Derek Broughton" <news@pointerstop.ca> wrote in message
> news:lqg933-av6.ln1@news.pointerstop.ca...
>
> Sorry Derek, I meant the 24-hour average does not get much above 20deg :
> http://www.worldclimate.com/cgi-bin...+1102+7162404G1

I understood you to mean that, but I disagree. Those numbers show a monthly
average for both July & August of approximately 20C. Note, they'll be from
the weather station at Pearson Airport - much cooler than downtown - and a
monthly average of 20C implies there are a significant number of days,
probably weeks, where the daily average is over 20.

> I understand that it gets hot up there, but the whole deal with thermal
> mass is that it equalizes the temperature, so AC (or heater in winter)
> does not need to work so hard.

To take advantage of that you need sufficient mass to even out _all_ that
heat - passive solar designed homes will do it, but just having the mass
won't be much use.
>
> There are many other energy savers to consider after that, like top-notch
> heat-exchangers in the ventilation system, and moisture control, but there
> comes a point where you need to take the heat that our bodies generate (up
> to 100W per person) into consideration, regardless of the climate that you
> live in...
> Now THEN we are getting somewhere :o)

Yeah!
--
derek

twostik

2005-10-29, 7:21 pm

I am not qualified to give specs or any of the educated thoughts .But that
said in the last three years there have been four of these icf built within
a couple miles of me i have been in all of them they are quiet .in the
winter they can be heated for almost nothing.in the sumer they seem to stay
at a almost constant temp of 60 or so digrees
The most important part is the owners seem to love them.. Personally i would
never build that way.but i cant deny that the owners are very happy with
them.my 2c thanks

"Solar Flare" <sflare@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:UqudncHO46Xk_vzeRVn-1w@golden.net...
> The claim is R36 and with concrete poured into it's form R50. Lots of
> thermal
> mass but when does concrete have an R1.5 per inch? The forms at close
> range do
> nt apear to have 7 inches of foam either. 4 maybe?????
>
> Very quiet from external noise if that is wanted.
>
> There is a lot of rebar to support the complete structure, including the
> second
> floor (if two story) and the forms for the second story before the
> concrete is
> filled in. I don't know how it supported all that beofe the pour.
>
> The wiring is done with a chainsaw, with a depth stop, to make a slot into
> the
> wall, the wiring pressed into it and caulking covering it. The electrical
> boxes
> are special units, extra flat???? and the drywall is then glued on. No
> vapour
> barrier required. Not sure how the plumbing goes in or how they get away
> with
> wiring that close to the surface let alone the plumbing problems.
>
> They are claiming no A/C will be required...ROFLMFAO
>
> Looks very interesting but a pain to build with all the special items and
> related costs. Person in my future neighbourhood has spent all year with
> lots of
> family help building his home while the one beside me started later and
> has
> passed him, working completely alone on a lstandard umber home with bigger
> dimensions. To be fair, the lumber home guy is a renovator by trade and
> the
> styrofoam guy is just a financial guy.
>
> When doing a heat loss study, one soons finds out the walls are not the
> major
> heat loss areas.
>
> The ceilings and floors aren't going to be changed by the walls. It may be
> just
> cheaper to insulate further with lumber construction and foam clad.
>
>
>
> "Nature Power Systems, LLC" <naturepowersystems@frontiernet.net> wrote in
> message news:aBc8f.10990$cg.9741@news02.roc.ny...
>
>

Bert Menkveld

2005-10-31, 1:21 pm

Hi Clarence,

Yes, you are exactly right. Are you somebody I know and have foolishly
forgotten?

--
Bert Menkveld
bertATgreentronicsDOTcom

<nospam.clare.nce@sny.der.on.ca> wrote in message
news:an56m1pvbefc1vfdbrdtu1hhss0c597i3g@4ax.com...
>
> Hey Bert - I grew up just a few blocks from you on Riverside Drive
> East. You are down by the old reservoir behind Riverside school,
> right?

Bert Menkveld

2005-10-31, 1:21 pm

Hi Flare,

Well, yes, I do work for a living, right here in my little home office. It
is primarily thinking work rather than manual labour, so I guess I'm lucky
that way (although my brain does seem to slow down as the temperature climbs

.

I have not kept stats on temperatures this summer. We did happen to be on
vacation in the Maritimes during the two hottest weeks of July (we were COLD
in Nova Scotia and PEI). For the rest of the summer, we mostly kept
reasonably comfortable with the simple window open/close approach, though we
did have some uncomfortable nights.

Of course, some people have a harder time with being "comfortable" in warm
weather than others. However, it's worth remembering that up until 50 years
ago or so all of humanity lived without mechanical AC.

--
Bert Menkveld

"Solar Flare" <sflare@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1N-dnRNZXfn2ff_eRVn-ug@golden.net...[color=darkred]
> Now tell me about your summer this year how many times the temp went below
> 23
> degrees C from June to a few weeks ago. Also, do you have a job and have
> to get
> sleep to perform it?
>
> "Bert Menkveld" <bertATreentronicsDOTcom> wrote in message
> news:4362b447@news.sentex.net...

Derek Broughton

2005-10-31, 2:21 pm

"Bert Menkveld" <bertATreentronicsDOTcom> wrote:

> I have not kept stats on temperatures this summer. We did happen to be on
> vacation in the Maritimes during the two hottest weeks of July (we were
> COLD in Nova Scotia and PEI).

It was _lovely_ here (NS) in the latter half of July. Especially, as
compared to those hellish two weeks we spent in SW Ontario in mid-june!
--
derek

Solar Flare

2005-10-31, 8:21 pm

It got worse all summer from June...LOL

This year, Not always.

"Derek Broughton" <news@pointerstop.ca> wrote in message
news:sq2i33-bs2.ln1@news.pointerstop.ca...
> "Bert Menkveld" <bertATreentronicsDOTcom> wrote:
>
>
> It was _lovely_ here (NS) in the latter half of July. Especially, as
> compared to those hellish two weeks we spent in SW Ontario in mid-june!
> --
> derek

Nature Power Systems, LLC

2005-11-01, 10:21 pm

Thank you everyone for all of the input. I have been doing some research as
well and I found this document that compares an ICF home with an wood-frame
home. I found it very interesting.

Here is the link: http://www.pathnet.org/si.asp?id=416

Ray

Ecnerwal

2005-11-02, 10:21 am

In article <CiV9f.1000$lg.850@news01.roc.ny>,
"Nature Power Systems, LLC" <naturepowersystems@frontiernet.net>
wrote:

> http://www.pathnet.org/si.asp?id=416

Might be just a touch biased, and a comparison with other modern methods
might be more appropriate than a comparison with stud framing.

--
Cats, coffee, chocolate...vices to live by

Solar Flare

2005-11-02, 11:21 am

I guess since the advantages over framing was "none" in the end.

"Ecnerwal" <LawrenceSMITH@SOuthernVERmont.NyET> wrote in message
news:LawrenceSMITH-29ED38.08450102112005@news.verizon.net...
> In article <CiV9f.1000$lg.850@news01.roc.ny>,
> "Nature Power Systems, LLC" <naturepowersystems@frontiernet.net>
> wrote:
>
>
> Might be just a touch biased, and a comparison with other modern methods
> might be more appropriate than a comparison with stud framing.
>
> --
> Cats, coffee, chocolate...vices to live by

Market Theory

2005-11-03, 3:21 am

Rob Dekker wrote:
> I have always been surpised with the differences in building materials used around the world,
> mostly between the US and Northern Europe. Hardly any wood is used in Northern Europe.

Odd, I thought traditional scandinavian architecture was wood wood wood
(full scribed log comes to mind). I suppose you don't have many trees
left now.

A major difference between northern europe and north america
climate-wise is that the former hardly ever gets hot but there are
plenty of places in NA where it snows buckets in winter and is stinking
hot in summer.

cheers,
--mt.

LinkBot