<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Weighing the Value of Concrete Housing</title>
	<atom:link href="http://greenbuildingelements.com/2008/08/05/weighing-the-value-of-concrete-housing/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://greenbuildingelements.com/2008/08/05/weighing-the-value-of-concrete-housing/</link>
	<description>Reporting on Sustainably Built Environments from Bricks to Cities</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 23 May 2012 23:52:11 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: New Cement Absorbs Carbon Dioxide &#8211; Green Building Elements</title>
		<link>http://greenbuildingelements.com/2008/08/05/weighing-the-value-of-concrete-housing/comment-page-1/#comment-95523</link>
		<dc:creator>New Cement Absorbs Carbon Dioxide &#8211; Green Building Elements</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Sep 2010 14:34:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://greenbuildingelements.com/?p=557#comment-95523</guid>
		<description>[...] Novacem, however, uses magnesium silicates as a base for their cement. When removed from the ground, there is virtually no release of carbon into the atmosphere. Even better, during the process of creating cement, carbon is absorbed and fixed into the materials. Creating cement this way removes carbon from the environment. According to Evans, every ton of Novacem cement used could remove up to 850kg (1,873 lb.) of CO2. Homes can be built quickly and safely, without the huge carbon footprint that cement usually creates. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Novacem, however, uses magnesium silicates as a base for their cement. When removed from the ground, there is virtually no release of carbon into the atmosphere. Even better, during the process of creating cement, carbon is absorbed and fixed into the materials. Creating cement this way removes carbon from the environment. According to Evans, every ton of Novacem cement used could remove up to 850kg (1,873 lb.) of CO2. Homes can be built quickly and safely, without the huge carbon footprint that cement usually creates. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Philip Proefrock</title>
		<link>http://greenbuildingelements.com/2008/08/05/weighing-the-value-of-concrete-housing/comment-page-1/#comment-6690</link>
		<dc:creator>Philip Proefrock</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 Aug 2008 17:30:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://greenbuildingelements.com/?p=557#comment-6690</guid>
		<description>The comparison values I took were directly from the Moladi site, and, unless they&#039;re factually incorrect, can be interpolated for a 150-mm wall.  My comparison was approximate; I&#039;m sorry if I upset you, but from a non-sunny southwest perspective (where a better wall would be R-20 or so, the value of the Moladi wall (your number of R-1.764) is about as good (not precisely, but about as good) as single pane glass R-0.91.

Your quote about energy efficiency of building materials is very good, and talks about conditions where high mass walls can provide a positive benefit by delaying the infiltration of heat into a building.  That is usually done with simple local materials such as adobe (the mud hut &quot;Tim&quot; referred to earlier, perhaps) and very thick walls.  Do you have some performance data on how Moladi performs as a thermal mass wall (especially in comparison with a standard adobe wall) in delaying heat penetrating into a space?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The comparison values I took were directly from the Moladi site, and, unless they&#8217;re factually incorrect, can be interpolated for a 150-mm wall.  My comparison was approximate; I&#8217;m sorry if I upset you, but from a non-sunny southwest perspective (where a better wall would be R-20 or so, the value of the Moladi wall (your number of R-1.764) is about as good (not precisely, but about as good) as single pane glass R-0.91.</p>
<p>Your quote about energy efficiency of building materials is very good, and talks about conditions where high mass walls can provide a positive benefit by delaying the infiltration of heat into a building.  That is usually done with simple local materials such as adobe (the mud hut &#8220;Tim&#8221; referred to earlier, perhaps) and very thick walls.  Do you have some performance data on how Moladi performs as a thermal mass wall (especially in comparison with a standard adobe wall) in delaying heat penetrating into a space?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Philip Proefrock</title>
		<link>http://greenbuildingelements.com/2008/08/05/weighing-the-value-of-concrete-housing/comment-page-1/#comment-98226</link>
		<dc:creator>Philip Proefrock</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 Aug 2008 17:30:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://greenbuildingelements.com/?p=557#comment-98226</guid>
		<description>The comparison values I took were directly from the Moladi site, and, unless they&#039;re factually incorrect, can be interpolated for a 150-mm wall.  My comparison was approximate; I&#039;m sorry if I upset you, but from a non-sunny southwest perspective (where a better wall would be R-20 or so, the value of the Moladi wall (your number of R-1.764) is about as good (not precisely, but about as good) as single pane glass R-0.91.

Your quote about energy efficiency of building materials is very good, and talks about conditions where high mass walls can provide a positive benefit by delaying the infiltration of heat into a building.  That is usually done with simple local materials such as adobe (the mud hut &quot;Tim&quot; referred to earlier, perhaps) and very thick walls.  Do you have some performance data on how Moladi performs as a thermal mass wall (especially in comparison with a standard adobe wall) in delaying heat penetrating into a space?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The comparison values I took were directly from the Moladi site, and, unless they&#8217;re factually incorrect, can be interpolated for a 150-mm wall.  My comparison was approximate; I&#8217;m sorry if I upset you, but from a non-sunny southwest perspective (where a better wall would be R-20 or so, the value of the Moladi wall (your number of R-1.764) is about as good (not precisely, but about as good) as single pane glass R-0.91.</p>
<p>Your quote about energy efficiency of building materials is very good, and talks about conditions where high mass walls can provide a positive benefit by delaying the infiltration of heat into a building.  That is usually done with simple local materials such as adobe (the mud hut &#8220;Tim&#8221; referred to earlier, perhaps) and very thick walls.  Do you have some performance data on how Moladi performs as a thermal mass wall (especially in comparison with a standard adobe wall) in delaying heat penetrating into a space?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: moladi</title>
		<link>http://greenbuildingelements.com/2008/08/05/weighing-the-value-of-concrete-housing/comment-page-1/#comment-6576</link>
		<dc:creator>moladi</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 Aug 2008 22:15:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://greenbuildingelements.com/?p=557#comment-6576</guid>
		<description>Re: (This is about the same R-value as an uninsulated single-pane glass window provides.) Get your fact right Philip.  The external wall is 150 mm and not 100 mm.
From:http://www.coloradoenergy.org/procorner/stuff/r-values.htm
Poured Concrete R/Inch=.08 per inch or .08X(560/25.4)=.08X22.05=1.764 
Single glass-.91
The correct measurement for thermal conductivity moladi=0.54 W/m.K Glass=0.858 W/m.K

For yor info read below

Energy efficiency of building materials is determined by how it handles heat, how heat transfers through materials and how well materials hold or store heat. Remember, heat always moves from warm to cold, so during the summer, if the outside temperature is warmer than the inside temperature of a home, heat transfers through the walls from the outside in. Conversely during winter, if the inside air temperature is warmer than the outside, heat transfers from inside the home out.

There are a number of combinations of materials used in construction and their thermal mass and R-value efficiencies vary depending on how they are used in the region of the country (climate considerations). How efficient a system is and how much energy consumption is reduced depends on how fast heat transfers through materials, how well materials hold the heat and the fluctuation of outside temperature. High-heat capacity materials significantly reduce the time for the heat to pass or transfer through into the home. Often until late in the night, typically when systems are running more efficiently or consumers are being charged a lower rate for kilowatt usage from their utility company.


Mass effect is real. High-mass walls really can significantly outperform low-mass walls of comparable steady-stated R-value. However, the mass-enhanced R-Value is only significant when the outdoor temperatures cycle above and below indoor temperatures within a 24-hour period. High mass walls are most beneficial in moderate climates that have high daily temperature swings and nearly all areas with significant cooling loads can benefit from thermal mass in EXTERIOR walls. This is especially true for the sunny Southwest areas of Arizona, New Mexico and Colorado.

According to an article written by Jeffrey E. Christian and Jan Kosny titled &quot;Wall R-Values that Tell It Like It Is,&quot; wall systems with significant thermal mass have the potential, depending on climate, to reduce annual heating and cooling energy requirements below those required by standard wood frame construction with similar steady-state R-value. 
moladi=0.54 W/m.K Glass=0.858 W/m.K</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Re: (This is about the same R-value as an uninsulated single-pane glass window provides.) Get your fact right Philip.  The external wall is 150 mm and not 100 mm.<br />
From:<a href="http://www.coloradoenergy.org/procorner/stuff/r-values.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.coloradoenergy.org/procorner/stuff/r-values.htm</a><br />
Poured Concrete R/Inch=.08 per inch or .08X(560/25.4)=.08X22.05=1.764<br />
Single glass-.91<br />
The correct measurement for thermal conductivity moladi=0.54 W/m.K Glass=0.858 W/m.K</p>
<p>For yor info read below</p>
<p>Energy efficiency of building materials is determined by how it handles heat, how heat transfers through materials and how well materials hold or store heat. Remember, heat always moves from warm to cold, so during the summer, if the outside temperature is warmer than the inside temperature of a home, heat transfers through the walls from the outside in. Conversely during winter, if the inside air temperature is warmer than the outside, heat transfers from inside the home out.</p>
<p>There are a number of combinations of materials used in construction and their thermal mass and R-value efficiencies vary depending on how they are used in the region of the country (climate considerations). How efficient a system is and how much energy consumption is reduced depends on how fast heat transfers through materials, how well materials hold the heat and the fluctuation of outside temperature. High-heat capacity materials significantly reduce the time for the heat to pass or transfer through into the home. Often until late in the night, typically when systems are running more efficiently or consumers are being charged a lower rate for kilowatt usage from their utility company.</p>
<p>Mass effect is real. High-mass walls really can significantly outperform low-mass walls of comparable steady-stated R-value. However, the mass-enhanced R-Value is only significant when the outdoor temperatures cycle above and below indoor temperatures within a 24-hour period. High mass walls are most beneficial in moderate climates that have high daily temperature swings and nearly all areas with significant cooling loads can benefit from thermal mass in EXTERIOR walls. This is especially true for the sunny Southwest areas of Arizona, New Mexico and Colorado.</p>
<p>According to an article written by Jeffrey E. Christian and Jan Kosny titled &#8220;Wall R-Values that Tell It Like It Is,&#8221; wall systems with significant thermal mass have the potential, depending on climate, to reduce annual heating and cooling energy requirements below those required by standard wood frame construction with similar steady-state R-value.<br />
moladi=0.54 W/m.K Glass=0.858 W/m.K</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: moladi</title>
		<link>http://greenbuildingelements.com/2008/08/05/weighing-the-value-of-concrete-housing/comment-page-1/#comment-98225</link>
		<dc:creator>moladi</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 Aug 2008 22:15:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://greenbuildingelements.com/?p=557#comment-98225</guid>
		<description>Re: (This is about the same R-value as an uninsulated single-pane glass window provides.) Get your fact right Philip.  The external wall is 150 mm and not 100 mm.
From:http://www.coloradoenergy.org/procorner/stuff/r-values.htm
Poured Concrete R/Inch=.08 per inch or .08X(560/25.4)=.08X22.05=1.764 
Single glass-.91
The correct measurement for thermal conductivity moladi=0.54 W/m.K Glass=0.858 W/m.K

For yor info read below

Energy efficiency of building materials is determined by how it handles heat, how heat transfers through materials and how well materials hold or store heat. Remember, heat always moves from warm to cold, so during the summer, if the outside temperature is warmer than the inside temperature of a home, heat transfers through the walls from the outside in. Conversely during winter, if the inside air temperature is warmer than the outside, heat transfers from inside the home out.

There are a number of combinations of materials used in construction and their thermal mass and R-value efficiencies vary depending on how they are used in the region of the country (climate considerations). How efficient a system is and how much energy consumption is reduced depends on how fast heat transfers through materials, how well materials hold the heat and the fluctuation of outside temperature. High-heat capacity materials significantly reduce the time for the heat to pass or transfer through into the home. Often until late in the night, typically when systems are running more efficiently or consumers are being charged a lower rate for kilowatt usage from their utility company.


Mass effect is real. High-mass walls really can significantly outperform low-mass walls of comparable steady-stated R-value. However, the mass-enhanced R-Value is only significant when the outdoor temperatures cycle above and below indoor temperatures within a 24-hour period. High mass walls are most beneficial in moderate climates that have high daily temperature swings and nearly all areas with significant cooling loads can benefit from thermal mass in EXTERIOR walls. This is especially true for the sunny Southwest areas of Arizona, New Mexico and Colorado.

According to an article written by Jeffrey E. Christian and Jan Kosny titled &quot;Wall R-Values that Tell It Like It Is,&quot; wall systems with significant thermal mass have the potential, depending on climate, to reduce annual heating and cooling energy requirements below those required by standard wood frame construction with similar steady-state R-value. 
moladi=0.54 W/m.K Glass=0.858 W/m.K</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Re: (This is about the same R-value as an uninsulated single-pane glass window provides.) Get your fact right Philip.  The external wall is 150 mm and not 100 mm.<br />
From:<a href="http://www.coloradoenergy.org/procorner/stuff/r-values.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.coloradoenergy.org/procorner/stuff/r-values.htm</a><br />
Poured Concrete R/Inch=.08 per inch or .08X(560/25.4)=.08X22.05=1.764<br />
Single glass-.91<br />
The correct measurement for thermal conductivity moladi=0.54 W/m.K Glass=0.858 W/m.K</p>
<p>For yor info read below</p>
<p>Energy efficiency of building materials is determined by how it handles heat, how heat transfers through materials and how well materials hold or store heat. Remember, heat always moves from warm to cold, so during the summer, if the outside temperature is warmer than the inside temperature of a home, heat transfers through the walls from the outside in. Conversely during winter, if the inside air temperature is warmer than the outside, heat transfers from inside the home out.</p>
<p>There are a number of combinations of materials used in construction and their thermal mass and R-value efficiencies vary depending on how they are used in the region of the country (climate considerations). How efficient a system is and how much energy consumption is reduced depends on how fast heat transfers through materials, how well materials hold the heat and the fluctuation of outside temperature. High-heat capacity materials significantly reduce the time for the heat to pass or transfer through into the home. Often until late in the night, typically when systems are running more efficiently or consumers are being charged a lower rate for kilowatt usage from their utility company.</p>
<p>Mass effect is real. High-mass walls really can significantly outperform low-mass walls of comparable steady-stated R-value. However, the mass-enhanced R-Value is only significant when the outdoor temperatures cycle above and below indoor temperatures within a 24-hour period. High mass walls are most beneficial in moderate climates that have high daily temperature swings and nearly all areas with significant cooling loads can benefit from thermal mass in EXTERIOR walls. This is especially true for the sunny Southwest areas of Arizona, New Mexico and Colorado.</p>
<p>According to an article written by Jeffrey E. Christian and Jan Kosny titled &#8220;Wall R-Values that Tell It Like It Is,&#8221; wall systems with significant thermal mass have the potential, depending on climate, to reduce annual heating and cooling energy requirements below those required by standard wood frame construction with similar steady-state R-value.<br />
moladi=0.54 W/m.K Glass=0.858 W/m.K</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Green real estate development</title>
		<link>http://greenbuildingelements.com/2008/08/05/weighing-the-value-of-concrete-housing/comment-page-1/#comment-6349</link>
		<dc:creator>Green real estate development</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 Aug 2008 21:24:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://greenbuildingelements.com/?p=557#comment-6349</guid>
		<description>I am hard pushed to find anything that is green in the building world. This one for instance attached to my user name. I mean, how green can building a new island be?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I am hard pushed to find anything that is green in the building world. This one for instance attached to my user name. I mean, how green can building a new island be?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Green real estate development</title>
		<link>http://greenbuildingelements.com/2008/08/05/weighing-the-value-of-concrete-housing/comment-page-1/#comment-98224</link>
		<dc:creator>Green real estate development</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 Aug 2008 21:24:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://greenbuildingelements.com/?p=557#comment-98224</guid>
		<description>I am hard pushed to find anything that is green in the building world. This one for instance attached to my user name. I mean, how green can building a new island be?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I am hard pushed to find anything that is green in the building world. This one for instance attached to my user name. I mean, how green can building a new island be?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tim in Oxnard</title>
		<link>http://greenbuildingelements.com/2008/08/05/weighing-the-value-of-concrete-housing/comment-page-1/#comment-6348</link>
		<dc:creator>Tim in Oxnard</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 Aug 2008 21:01:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://greenbuildingelements.com/?p=557#comment-6348</guid>
		<description>Must be way better than living in a mud hut wouldn&#039;t you agree?What is with this &quot;carbon footprint&quot; BS anyway?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Must be way better than living in a mud hut wouldn&#8217;t you agree?What is with this &#8220;carbon footprint&#8221; BS anyway?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tim in Oxnard</title>
		<link>http://greenbuildingelements.com/2008/08/05/weighing-the-value-of-concrete-housing/comment-page-1/#comment-98223</link>
		<dc:creator>Tim in Oxnard</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 Aug 2008 21:01:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://greenbuildingelements.com/?p=557#comment-98223</guid>
		<description>Must be way better than living in a mud hut wouldn&#039;t you agree?What is with this &quot;carbon footprint&quot; BS anyway?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Must be way better than living in a mud hut wouldn&#8217;t you agree?What is with this &#8220;carbon footprint&#8221; BS anyway?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

