Some of the most fascinating products in our materials library are made from… well, trash. We applaud this approach because we are extremely adept at generating inordinate amounts of trash. According to the US EPA, in 2007 alone, “U.S. residents, businesses, and institutions produced more than 254 million tons of MSW” (Municipal Solid Waste) [...]
    We've created a template that defines our thoughts for a path from industrial age to sustainable age. During April we'll start discussing issues related to Energy Conservation. Click any of the boxes below to read more:
 Check out what we we're doing elsewhere on the web.
 |
  by kevin, on November 4th, 2009
part 5 of 5
Until my clients started asking questions I couldn’t answer regarding material preferences, I was following the same course. Why does the typical design path consider material selection so late in the process, if examined at all? Form and function are powerful drivers. A client can quickly experience the pain of a poorly functioning building, but environmental impacts borne of industrialized material production are generally indiscernible. Designers need to put resources forward for them to be a priority. Over the past five years I’ve employed an alternative process that moves material considerations to the opening phase. Today, I review material options with clients at the same time concepts are discussed, and long before creating form. My experience has been that clients are far more receptive to sustainable material conversations when they are proposed concurrent to design. Instead of form and function, I stress function and material. The most appropriate form is derived from matching the most suitable material to the highest functionality. I prefer to have my design be inspired by resources rather than bending them to my will. The diagram above is a modified version of what’s called the Delft Ladder. In 1980, the Dutch government published an order for building construction waste treatment, called the Ladder of Lansink. It was a top down approach that focused on areas such as prevention, element reuse, material reuse, useful application, incineration with energy recovery, incineration, and landfill. Over time, the ladder has evolved in response to changes in building construction and recovery technologies. A newer version incorporating these adjustments was introduced by the Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands with an expanded focus. The Delft Ladder focuses on key decision points in the building disassembly process – prevention, object renovation, element reuse, material reuse, useful application, immobilization with useful application, immobilization, incineration with energy recovery, incineration, and landfill. by kevin, on November 2nd, 2009 Panelite - Recycled Content part 4 of 5
Reused
Recycled Content
by kevin, on October 30th, 2009 Caba Barkskin - Rethink Technology part 3 of 5
Reused According to Architecture 2030, 1.75 billion square feet of buildings are torn down and five billion square feet is renovated each year in the United States. Another five billion square feet of new construction is added annually. With so much building stock getting demolished there should be ample supply of salvageable components. Structural steel, bricks, concrete block, stone, windows, doors, wall framing elements, some MPE components, and others are good candidates for reuse. Especially since many are composed of non-renewable natural resources. A definition of this category as building components that can be reused directly. Some may require refurbishment or alteration to enable a second or third life, but these are materials that keep their form and function in going from an existing building to a new building. One hurdle to clear is a lack of infrastructure. There are far more options for recycling raw materials than there are for salvaging services or operators of significant size or reach. There are many local or regional operators, but we’re unaware of any large national building material salvage exchange. For building component reuse to increase, improved infrastructure and easily accessible material markets will have to be built up. But building components are not the only candidates to consider. Many other industries can be explored for prospects. Other forms of construction can also lead to unexpected raw materials. In some regions, state surplus warehouses can be mined for components not previously considered in the built environment. Recycled Content There are three types of recycled content. Material salvaged at the the point of extraction – mine, well, forest, etc. – are called secondary materials; products made with waste collected at factories as part of manufacturing processes are called post-industrial; and products made with waste collected from products already in the market which have served a useful purpose are called post-consumer. The most important of the three are products composed of post-consumer waste since it lessens the amount of material typically headed to landfill or incineration. Post-industrial is also favorable, especially when a manufacturer creates new products from what would have previously been waste or discarded material. In the built environment, there are construction materials which already employ a high percentage of recycled content. Today, very little steel is consigned to the landfill. It and similar metals are relatively easy to remove from demolition. As much as ninety percent can typically be salvaged and returned to production plants, melted down, and mixed with virgin material. New technologies, such as color and shape recognition, have been developed to help automate material separation processes and retrieve more value from disassembled buildings. The construction industry is second only to packaging in its use of plastic. Most of us are familiar with the triangle symbol formed by three arrows enclosing the polymer type number. The symbol suggests all are recyclable, yet in reality most polymers end up in landfills as there are not recycling programs for all types of plastics. Even more difficult for anyone involved with building design or construction is the fact that most plastic used in buildings does not carry the symbol. Since few of us are polymer experts, far too much of the plastic in the built environment does not get recycled. For example, polyvinyl chloride (PVC) products technically can be recycled, but there are currently no recycling programs in place to do so. High impact polystyrene (HIPS) is a similar product, can be recycled, and there are a few companies currently offering product with a modest (fifteen percent) recycled content. The seven polymer code numbers are: 1 – polyethylene terephthalate (PET); 2 – high density polyethylene (HDPE); 3 – polyvinyl chloride (PVC); 4 – low density polyethylene (LDPE); 5 – polypropylene (PP); 6 – polystyrene (PS); and 7 – other, or a blend that cannot be separated or recycled. Of these, PET and the various polyethylene types are the easiest to be recycled. Many window and door systems are encased in PVC (code number 3), the best wall and roof insulation is expanded polystyrene (code number 6), polyester carpet is PET (code number 1), Tyvek vapor barrier is HDPE (code number 2), and vinyl flooring, wall coverings, and exterior sidings are all PVC (code number 3). In addition, buildings are full of code 7 products consisting of acrylics (paint), polymers (solid surfacing), and hydrocarbon derivatives. Knowing what type of plastic a product is, even if it doesn’t carry a polymer recycling symbol, helps you make design decisions. Especially when product manufacturers claim recyclability alone as an environmental attribute. Plastics are ubiquitous, but can be managed. New products are introduced regularly with higher percentages of post-industrial and post-consumer content. And manufacturers are getting more aggressive in their efforts to explore what can be done to modify existing product formulations to include more recycled material. One potential barrier is the complexity of some manufactured building materials. Many are hybrid composites made of both renewable and non-renewable resources, are too difficult or too expensive to disassemble compared to recovery value, and may have components that are too hazardous to retrieve. by kevin, on October 29th, 2009
part 2 of 5
These shortages did little to halt the pace of construction, but did lead to consequences just now becoming apparent. To alleviate a dearth in gypsum wallboard supply, builders turned to alternative sources. It’s estimated that 100,000 homes in twenty states were built with toxic wallboard imported from China which must be replaced (I’ll cover this issue in a follow-up post). According to National Underwriter, an insurance industry publication, rectifying the situation could cost $15 to $25 billion – which includes material exchange, legal fees, and health impacts. What will happen when natural resource supply cannot keep pace with demand? Or worse, when supply is dramatically reduced or extinguished? As mentioned in the previous blog post, if a resource becomes too scarce and expensive, incentive is created to seek abundant alternatives. But what happens when the alternatives are toxic, like the Chinese gypsum wallboard? What if the most abundant replacements are worse than the original material or product being substituted? These conditions may have been coincidence, once in a lifetime, and/or unlikely to repeat. But they demonstrate how sensitive and vulnerable the construction industry is to resource supply changes. Attempts to adapt were slow and, in some cases, dangerous. by aleida, on October 28th, 2009Image courtesy of Michael Schönitzer via Wikimedia Commons Have you ever thought about the word “renewable”? It’s become rather ubiquitous lately, particularly when applied to energy sources. Wind, solar, hydro, and geothermal are rock stars in the renewable energy line-up on the basis that there will always be wind, sunlight, waves, and raging heat [...] by kevin, on October 26th, 2009 Image courtesy of Stephen Codrington. Planet Geography 3rd Edition (2005) part 1 of 5
Humans are wired to consider scarcity over abundance. It’s a vital survival instinct to routinely focus attention on the risk of supply shortage. I’ve seen Dr. David Suzuki present a number of times and a memorable part of his lectures is the idea that we are the only animal on the planet that understands time. In particular, we understand the concept of past, present, and future. Humans have the ability to plan for the future, where other animals live in the moment. Combine that survival skill with a predisposition toward seeing scarcity and you have a powerful predilection for worst case scenarios. But it’s those two skills we need to harness most when considering natural resources. If the developing nations of the world – primarily China, India, and Brazil – were to consume resources at the same rate as the United States in their drive to achieve our standard of living, three additional planets would be required to supply their needs. If we were to look at income as just one measure of living standard, it took the United Kingdom more than one hundred years to double their income during the first industrial revolution. After it became industrialized, the US doubled income levels in fifty years. More recently South Korea did the same in twenty-five years, and China was able to do it in just nine. Advancing technology and an unstoppable human desire to advance will mean doubling at even faster rates in the future. According to the UN, there’s a direct connection between standard of living and resource consumption. Eighty-six percent of natural resources are consumed by the world’s richest twenty percent, while four fifths of humanity only consume fourteen percent. The poorest nations with the lowest standard of living consume the least resources. The US represents less than five percent of global population, yet it consumes forty percent of all natural resources. It’s an issue of math. If a country like China, who represents twenty percent of global population, consumes at the same rate as the US, there’s likely to be extreme scarcity of vital resources. If India, Brazil, and many others strive to do the same, there exists a looming problem requiring immediate attention. by aleida, on July 3rd, 2009About two years ago, I discovered YOLO Colorhouse paints. I immediately loved their color palette and since, at the time, they were one of just a handful of zero-VOC paint options available, they became a staple in our materials library. [...] by aleida, on February 9th, 2009At the Go Green Expo in Los Angeles a couple of weeks ago, there was a performance space carpeted with synthetic lawn. This weekend, as I reviewed Greenbuild 2009 speaking proposals, I came across one that extolls the environmental benefits [...] |
|
© 2012 thread collaborative, llc - All Rights Reserved |
|
