The Materials Question "PROBLEM"

[StyroHome]

I am always amazed when a PERFECT SOLUTION is offered, everyone turns into strangers.

 

The only reason I can think of is that the SOLUTION will not he benefit groups wanting to PROFIT from the SUFFERING of others.

The Perfect Solution is building with Structural Air because as stated in yellow, 60-70% of the construction cost is materials and Structural Air is 98% Air, a huge savings, benefiting the poor. 

Examples at: http://bre.ad/0ensgy

CLIP FROM The BLOG

2. Materials will constitute approximately 60-70 percent of construction costs depending on the type or combination used. The challenge is that house will be piloted in three different states (Gujarat, Chhattisgarh and Maharashtra) with different climatic conditions and availability of natural resources. We are exploring various cost options as part of the business plan to propose a combination of materials at minimized costs based on durability, environmental compatibility and availability. At the same time, the more homogenous the product, the less costly and the greater the possibility that it can be modular and be scaled.

 

[peter abrams]

Maybe perfect is relative 

As one who has gained valuable insight on and offline from this challenge

There is much to be learned

Perhaps the outgassing from these materials posses an issue,

Being unfamiliar with the process ,

Cannot say with certitude 

But yes

No profit-Needs prophet

Sent from my iPete

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "The $300 House" group.
To post to this group, send email to 300h...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
300house+u...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit the group at
http://groups.google.com/group/300house?hl=en?hl=en
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Visit our site at http://www.300house.com >>
Visit our blog at http://www.300house.com/blog >>
And tell your friends!

[harvey]

There are two immediate problems with this solution.  The biggest one is it is worthless without concrete.  The foam has no strength without the concrete.

The next biggest issue is it is made with foam plastic.  The foam plastics and the cement industries are the dirtiest environmentally.

The cost is also way out of line when it comes to $300.00 house goals.

It is environmentally abusive and economically unacceptable.  

[JMKO]

Harvey, the way I see it the problems are not so much with the use of
concrete and foam as such, the foam as insulation is a must if
insulation is required. The amount of concrete used is minimal so that
is well within the tolerable limits.

The main problem with this system is what the promoters put forward as
advantage, the "ECO-FRIENDLY" "NET ZERO" claim. Insulation is used, if
used well, for energy saving, not for comfort. The proudly presented U
values for walls of 0.11 and for the ceiling of 0.09 are irrelevant
for conditions with low 'DELTA T', the difference of temperatures from
inside and outside conditions, such as the tropical or temperate
climates. It is in effect counterproductive when the outside
temperatures are high, it will make the space created, the rooms
inside, unlivable without air-conditioning, the rooms can never be
cooled off without it, the high U value will prevent any heat transfer
under these conditions so the rooms will simply stay hot, ventilation
will not solve this problem. It works very well of course in severe
winter conditions, it requires little energy to keep the rooms warm.
In summertime it is not so great even in Sweden.

For the Slums, that is the subject of our discussions, energy
efficiency is not an issue in the same sense. The issue in not to
prevent the heat transfer, either way (outside/inside), the issue is
to create walls and ceilings that have a thermal mass, insulation does
not have it, soil or sand does. This is why the earth-bag solutions
were so popular among the winners of the $300 HOUSE contests.

You should not object to it just because "It is environmentally
abusive and economically unacceptable" but because it is the worst
possible solution for hot climatic conditions.