3 жыл бұрын
4 жыл бұрын
13 жыл бұрын
Пікірлер
@ragas2845 11 күн бұрын
One question. How do you know the exact amount of C02 that is stored in a plant/tree before it is harvested?
@floppyhair._. Ай бұрын
This was such a solid video on embodied carbon. Great work.
@douglasengle2704 6 ай бұрын
This video contains the UN Climate Change disclaimer. Global warming was officially stated at 1.1°C in 1991 and 1.06°C in 2022. There is no mechanism that would allow greenhouse gas behavior to cause global warming. The back of the United Nation's IPCC science report states it took its greenhouse gas samples at 20,000 meters altitude where it is common high school level knowledge there is no greenhouse radiant energy. This is typical practice for deceptive marketing to state legal data transparency protecting the perpetrators from fraud prosecution. Earth's greenhouse effect is frequently used as a primary example to high school students of a system always in saturation from the strong greenhouse gas water vapor absorbing all the greenhouse radiant energy from the earth with greenhouse gases within 20 meters of the surface that is all around us everyday and can't have its overall effect changed. There is no further greenhouse radiant energy to interact with greenhouse gases. At 1% average tropospheric water vapor over 99% of earth’s greenhouse effect is from water vapor. Water vapor would hold earth's greenhouse effect in saturation if it were the only greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. Arctic warming is taking place with the proving mechanism being warm Atlantic Ocean waters migrating deeper and more frequently into the Arctic Ocean warming it and the region. That warmer water is causing a few weeks less of reflective snow and ice coverage resulting in more solar heat gain to the Arctic region surface. Atmospheric CO2 levels of 1200 ppm about three times what they are today would greatly invigorate C3 plants the majority of plant life on earth greatly greening the planet. 0.4% of the atmosphere is CO2 and on average 1% is H20 water vapor. (1% H20)/(0.4% CO2) = 25. Water vapor is 25 times more present in the atmosphere on average than CO2. Water vapor has an CO2e of 18, 18 X 25 = 450 CO2e total for water vapor to 1 CO2e for CO2. The Earth’s oceans have 3-1/2 million sea floor volcanic vents warming the water and changing it’s chemistry that have not been systematically accounted for.
@262shiv 8 ай бұрын
4 floors , 10000sqft, only 209 tons of emissions...thats is around 24 people staying in the building...its just 8ton of carbon emission per capita for a home to stay for a long term....average hypocrite westerner and the maker of this video releases 15t co2/year, 1ton by flying from new york to London... So instead of concentrating on the massive emission from other sources..the world is concentrating on the release of minimal emissions from the buildings which are essential😅 Due to such propoganda, world will never be a better place to live😅
@262shiv 8 ай бұрын
This stupidity of EU/US and so called fake environmentalist is the reason why we ll never achive massive reductions in the carbon emissions.😢 Too bad everyone is following this absurdity
@oceancape Жыл бұрын
Why choose only 60 years. Maybe take a moment and focus on constructing buildings & homes that last 200 hundred years or more.
@chrismagwood971 Жыл бұрын
I agree that we should be doing everything we can to extend the expected lifespan of buildings. We use 60 years here because it is the "standard" timeline for life cycle assessment studies, not because we think buildings should only last 60 years.
@miko17ish Жыл бұрын
Thanks its very helpful
@mcmd0k Жыл бұрын
Great video 👍🏻 does anyone know how is GWP calculated per year? I have seen total GWP results which i know are for a 50 year period i believe, per m2 ( this is standard for LCAs for buildings) but sometimes as architects we are being asked to describe our design as kgCO2e per m2 per year. How would that be calculated?
@lockystuart4218 Жыл бұрын
Awesome video! Well done!
@BhanuPChauhan 2 жыл бұрын
Great insight into embodied carbon! But I am not sure how the energy consumption (especially fossil fuel based) by construction machinery/on site process during the construction phase is factored into this? There are a lot of other sources of emissions produced during months and years of construction. It only appears to be considering material lifecycle based carbon.
@chrismagwood971 2 жыл бұрын
You are right, we are calculating emissions on the "material phase" of the life cycle... all the emissions associated with harvesting raw materials, getting them to a factory and manufacturing a product (phases A1-A3). We focus here because this is the majority of emissions for building materials (65-85% of the full life cycle emissions), and because these emissions arise from the best data. We are not taking into account transportation emissions to the building site (A4), or emissions from construction (A5), partly because these are smaller (usually just 5-10% of life cycle emissions) and because they are site-specific and cannot be captured accurately in a generalized way. I tend to use a car analogy, where A1-A3 emissions are the "fuel mileage" and the thing that gets advertised because it's the most impactful, while A4 and A5 emissions are like the frequency of oil and brake changes... good to know, but not the basis of most decisions.
@BhanuPChauhan 2 жыл бұрын
@@chrismagwood971 Thanks for the explanation. Although, I find it hard to believe that a building is truly carbon drawdown --- capturing more carbon than it has and will produce since it did not capture any carbon in the first place. It was merely transferred/transformed by harvesting plants into building material and in the process, devoiding the plants of future capability of carbon capturing. Unless there's some magical carbon-capture device installed which in turn captures more carbon than what is emitted during its own lifecycle plus building's lifecycle; or the building produces more clean energy for itself and society than it needs in its entire lifecycle offsetting the embodied carbon completely. I might sound a bit amateur but just trying to see the bigger picture. :D
@chrismagwood971 2 жыл бұрын
@@BhanuPChauhan The carbon capture happens before the building is made, when the plant-based materials used in the building draw CO2 out of the atmosphere and incorporate the carbon into their structures. For non-timber plant materials, this carbon came out of the atmosphere recently and would have returned if not stored in a building. When the amount of carbon stored in the material exceeds the emissions generated to harvest and produce the material, the effect is net carbon storage. This kind of carbon capture and storage is among the strategies included in all IPCC reports and is considered necessary to meet climate targets.
@BhanuPChauhan Жыл бұрын
@@chrismagwood971 Broaching the same subject again, I think the carbon sequestration potential of plant-based materials can be overstated. While wood products and biobased materials may sequester some amount of carbon during their production and use, this carbon sequestration is generally considered to be part of the natural biogenic carbon cycle and should not typically be included in embodied carbon calculations unless there is some carbon offset by more plantation which should be transparently disclosed to avoid double-counting. When the building materials are disposed of or naturally biodegrade, the carbon that was sequestered during their production/use is eventually released back into the atmosphere in well under a century. In a research led by the University of Arizona, it was suggested that dead forests release less carbon into atmosphere than expected. "Trees killed in the wake of widespread mountain pine beetle infestations have not resulted in a large spike in carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere, contrary to predictions, a UA-led study has found." While it is possible for a building to reduce its carbon footprint or strive for a net zero status through the use of cleaner materials and carbon offsets, it is still unclear to me how a building can truly be net negative solely through the use of plant-based materials and without the use of any advanced carbon capture or storage system or next-gen technology.
@chrismagwood971 Жыл бұрын
@@BhanuPChauhan You are correct that the storage potential can be overstated. In our work (and in the BEAM tool we developed), we do not count any carbon storage value for virgin timber products, for many of the reasons you state here. However, for agricultural residues, short-cycle crops and waste stream fibers, there is strong justification that the carbon stored in this biomass were destined to become emissions in the short term, and that long-term (50+ years) storage in buildings has a demonstrably positive impact on total atmospheric CO2 levels (especially at scale). The fate of this carbon at the end of the material's life in a building may result in a new emission (and part of our climate response needs to be tracking those emissions and preventing them by re-use, re-cycling, conversion to biochar or other means). But durable carbon removals in buildings can play an important role in meeting our climate targets over the next century. I'm currently working on a paper with several climate scientists to make this case.
@enobongumoh1654 2 жыл бұрын
Direct embodied carbon
@mahshidmoghaddam7444 2 жыл бұрын
Thanks for this clear and coherent intresting explanation of embodied carbon and its drawdown through this amazing video! I enjoyed a lot!
@jonathancarter673 2 жыл бұрын
This is such a brilliant video. Thank you for it. I would like to know - if you produce polyurethane using 100% clean energy, how much carbon is stored / released over its life cycle considering how effective an insulation material it is and space efficient... and I assume energy efficient to transport and install.
@abhishekkulkarni3166 2 жыл бұрын
Really helpful Insights. Great fan of your work
@genocanabicea5779 2 жыл бұрын
You want to include at least 20% fiber for strength.
@crcurran 2 жыл бұрын
Doesn't this assume the buildings made from both types of material only last 60 years? Wouldn't concrete homes like ICF not only survive fire, tornado, and animal, bugs, it would last longer. The thermal mass that is more comfortable to the occupants especially in severe heat like the coming climate change. We have to ask... how is a house, not really, really well insulated, going to handle the higher temps and powerful storms in 2085? Is a house with a lot more thermal mass in the walls going to bear better when cost of power is much higher and more likely energy outages too due to climate change. Is a house with more thermal mass better for going off grid mid-century? Is it better under war conditions (Yes, this is a thing. THE USA is just lucky that war is almost non-existent on its shores but it's not immune.) What if an ICF house lasts 100-140 years compared to the 60-100 year old wood home? Locations that are prone to tornadoes and forest fires should consider 6" ICF so they we are not rebuilding these homes from scratch which has a huge carbon footprint. 2x4 flying in a tornado can go right through normal wood and sheetrock walls but not through an 6" ICF wall and it doesn't burn down easily either in forest fire. You can build with a carbon intensive material but do it right so it lasts longer and is super high performance requiring less HVAC tonnage installed and only electricity to power it with solar panels.
@williamlewis1805 Жыл бұрын
I am on a benge trying to understand actual uses of carbon captured and everything I find is this vague... So many assumptions made, so many questions skipped. It's like watching one of those old "ancient aliens" or flat earth documentaries". No Substance
@danielzapata8180 2 жыл бұрын
Thats my man !! Thank u so much!
@RedeemingFeatures 2 жыл бұрын
I'm loving living in my hempcrete home in South West Sydney.
@BuildersforClimateAction 2 жыл бұрын
awesome to hear!
@emrusso4625 2 жыл бұрын
I love the simplicity of this recording. In its simplicity, an important point is overlooked... The trees that grow, appear to grow pretty fast. From my understanding, newly planted trees do not begin to store a significant amount of carbon into the forest ecosystem until they are 30 years old. I fully support those who harvest trees intentionally and with respect. What I do not support is the mechanized clear cut logging of naturally grown forests promoted as "sustainable/renewable material." Land defenders who are disrupting the production of "renewable/sustainable" cedar shakes, are jailed on Vancouver Island to preserve the old growth rainforest ecosystems at Ada'itsx (Fairy creek). How do we account for the loss of annual carbon sequestration from the trees AND the forest ecosystem? Removing trees (& forest ecosystems) that have been sequestering carbon for years is equivalent to selling an asset. The overall carbon sequestration balance goes down. We can not afford this loss. I suspect there is a formula for true carbon sequestration related to "natural" materials that takes into account time. Straw grows in a season. In who's lifetime are trees "renewable"? To remove trees, removes their ongoing sequestration from the equation and is the opposite of what we should be doing "to go beyond incremental reductions in GHG emissions, and to begin drawing carbon out of the atmosphere."
@chrismagwood971 2 жыл бұрын
Hi Em, thanks for the thoughtful (and respectful) response! All of your points are absolutely on the mark. The video definitely simplifies the issue, in particular with forests/forestry as you point out. In our work in this area, we pay lots of attention to these issues. In fact, our estimator tool for the carbon footprint of building materials, BEAM, doesn't actually attribute carbon storage values to virgin timber products for exactly the reasons you describe. Our work is much more focused on using biomass that comes from agricultural residues and the waste stream, and not from harvested timber. While I do think that there are ways in which timber can be harvested there is currently no system by which the overall climate impact (let alone all the other impacts of forestry) are being adequately measured. To be honest, we only put the tree in the animation because we thought viewers might not understand that materials other than trees can go into buildings, and harvesting trees was a good shorthand visual for the process. We see a pathway to net carbon storing buildings that does not rely on counting carbon storage in timber products, and that is at the centre of our work.
@emrusso4625 2 жыл бұрын
@@chrismagwood971 I knew we were on the same page. Have appreciated your work & your books for years! I look forward to the day when the term "value" has little if any to do with $.
@BuildersforClimateAction 2 жыл бұрын
Here is our book on Pre-fab strawbale construction! newsociety.ca/books/e/essential-prefab-straw-bale-construction?aff=35
@michelerenae9998 2 жыл бұрын
I've always heard these type of walls should breathe, doesn't adding siding inhibit that?
@BuildersforClimateAction 2 жыл бұрын
Yes, these walls are vapour permeable. If you are putting siding on the walls you need to build out a rainscreen. This allows for any vapour migration to still pass though.
@BuildersforClimateAction 2 жыл бұрын
Essential Building Science by Jacob Deva Racusion would be a good book to dive into if you want to understand more. newsociety.ca/books/e/essential-building-science?aff=35
@harishankar7240 2 жыл бұрын
Is hemp brick water proof
@elliotramsden3266 2 жыл бұрын
Fantastic video. Extremely clear and visually appealing to understand. Thank you!
@daviesjh100 2 жыл бұрын
Hi, Love this video and would like to use it as part of an e-learning module here in the UK. Can I get permission to share this content.
@BuildersforClimateAction 2 жыл бұрын
Please email us through our website and we can chat further, thanks!
@daviesjh100 2 жыл бұрын
@@BuildersforClimateAction thank you for your reply. I have tried to contact you via your website but the messaging system is not working. Please provide me with a direct email address.
@BuildersforClimateAction 2 жыл бұрын
@@daviesjh100 Sorry about that, we have put in a request to repair the contact form. In the mean time you can contact us here: www.buildersforclimateaction.org/contact.html
@iknowyouwanttofly 2 жыл бұрын
If the best building was heated with biochar production it would be even better i think ?
@jopperdepopper 2 жыл бұрын
Interesting info about hemp shiv. Is there a follow-up about lime maybe?
@ChristinaEbisch 2 жыл бұрын
Brilliant presentation.
@ChristinaEbisch 2 жыл бұрын
Thanks, that was a real good summery. 🙏
@ilda2768 2 жыл бұрын
Thank you for creating these videos! Looking forward to the next part.
@ursulawalter 2 жыл бұрын
Absolutely great and necessary content. Thank you very much. Now, I’m having a terrible time looking for the information of the materials I’m considering for the house in the Amazon… I’m looking for being self sufficient and low impact; for instance I don’t know how to calculate the materials carbon fp and what would be the best solution for generate electricity: solar panels (could make the mirror effect and affect birds?), CH4 generators so we don’t contaminate the soil and rivers with our waste, wind mills??
@studillon76 2 жыл бұрын
Hi there. Thanks for your content. I am looking to build moulds for raised garden beds (as in this video -kzbin.info/www/bejne/mpXIlYCjqs9qrrs )so am not particularly fussy about insulating. What would you recommend for this? Thank you in advance.
@michaelenglund 2 жыл бұрын
Wood is great but the amount of climate gases in the atmosphere is already too big when starting to build no matter the material. Building with wood still is a problem, but less of a problem than building with concrete.
@forestlearning5049 2 жыл бұрын
Great questions! For us, it comes down to 'so, we have to build' and the question then becomes "what materials are we building with"? What alternative materials are available for us to use, and what is the full story of their extraction, manufacture and end of life phases. Wood stacks up on all three - it's the utlimate renewable! :)
@michaelenglund 2 жыл бұрын
@@forestlearning5049 In some cases it is possible to not build. Instead to convert or live differently as a single person. Would you still say you have to build if you knew that the climate went straight to hell for humanity?
@chrismagwood971 2 жыл бұрын
Hi Michael, Please see my response to Em Russo above for our more nuanced take on wood. The short version: we don't actually count carbon storage in virgin timber products in our calculations today, because we don't have sufficient data/reporting to understand the full climate impact of timber harvesting. It may be possible to build with wood in a way that helps the climate, but it's also reasonable to estimate that this is not the case today for the majority of wood being harvested.
@janjongert5165 2 жыл бұрын
one critical remark: the surface coloring indicates a growing emission and storage in time which isn't true nor necessary to make the point. Here visualisation enthousiasm interferes with the correct meaning of the graph
@sulomo 2 жыл бұрын
I noticed the same. Remove the area coloring cause it is both wrong and confusing.
@BuildersforClimateAction 2 жыл бұрын
The colouring indicates that either the emissions are still in the atmosphere and continuing to drive warming year after year (for the red colour) or that the carbon continues to be stored in the building year after year (for the green colour). The climate impact of emissions is not a single fixed number... it's the AREA above or below the line. This dynamic impact is not something that current LCA practice considers, though dynamic LCA approaches are beginning to emerge that reflect the climate impact over time.
@jamlo3278 2 жыл бұрын
Very interested in this obvious solution to building. I'm new to your informative channel and planning to build a structure myself soon. Looking to grow and produce myself the hempcrete for project. So I will be definitely doing more research. Ty Sir!
@Dumpercoin 2 жыл бұрын
Reading for my dissertation on off-site manufacturing and coming across this is gold
@BuildersforClimateAction 2 жыл бұрын
Happy to hear your like it!
@AllTraderKorea 2 жыл бұрын
Great explanation 👍! Will you also explain about what lime to use and if there is a need for any additives?
@BuildersforClimateAction 2 жыл бұрын
Thanks, All that info and much more can be found in our Hempcrete Masterclass. This video was just a sneak peak!
@MegaOcee 2 жыл бұрын
@@BuildersforClimateAction Hello I am interested. When and where can I access the class? Thank you so much.
@mariusducra 2 жыл бұрын
Hi Chris, do you have a clue how many tons of hempcrete does it take to build a 70 square meters house with a thickness of 14inch wall? Thank you!
@amurgcodru 2 жыл бұрын
You kind of need to provide more info... The questions of how much hempcrete is necessary depends if you want to insulate the floor, ceiling AND/OR roof (which inclination, etc) What's the house PERIMETRE? What's the wall length? Well, with the following info you can make your calculations. Hemp Hurd is 120~130 kg/m3 Hydrated lime is somewhere at 1900kg/m3 Water 1000kg/m3 When measuring -> 4 hemp hurd - 1 lime 1 water if 7mx10mx2.5 WITHOU floor, ceiling and roof hempcrete.. (7mx2.5m*2+10m*2.5m*2)*0.35m => +/- 30m3 of hempcrete material (use the previous measurings to calculate how much tons of each)
@beng5747 3 жыл бұрын
Two critical things to be clearly checked. 1. Can plants store that much amount of carbon? 2. Additional carbon emission process should be added: plant to carbon storage material. In the end, can this really offset whole carbon emission in the all value chain of the building construction process? (It stores even more than conventional construction)
@chrismagwood971 2 жыл бұрын
Hi Ben, thanks for your question/comments. The answer to your first question is, yes, plants can store that much carbon. Each year, the world grows billions of tonnes of agricultural residues (the plant matter left after we take the food bits away). For example, ~2 billion tonnes of grain straw is harvested annually and the ~4 billion tonnes of CO2 this has drawn out of the atmosphere is equal to the annual emissions of the country of India. We currently burn or rot nearly all of the agricultural residues (not to mention waste plant material like newspaper, cardboard, old clothing, etc) on the planet, returning all that CO2 back to the atmosphere. The potential supply of this material is much larger than the entire building industry can use... so yes, there is lots of it and it stores a lot of carbon. When we do the calculations of net emissions we always account for the planting, harvesting and production emissions that happen along the way... that's why the green line has a number of upward steps on its path, representing emissions that happen along the manufacturing and construction path. However, the vast majority of plant-based building materials store more carbon than is emitted throughout these life cycle phases. When these materials are incorporated into a building in sufficient quantity they can indeed offset the emissions of all the materials in the building. We have been using our BEAM tool to verify this, and have a number of case studies of actual buildings that get close to (or even exceed) net zero emissions from their materials.
@janekvahk67 3 жыл бұрын
How come burning in CHP plant is better than landflling? It makes no sense as in landfills some of the biogenic carbon will be sequestred.
@user-vd2cf5yr1z 3 жыл бұрын
thank u <3
@davidvanvliet5127 3 жыл бұрын
Always solid information from Chris based on research and first hand practical experience.
@BuildersforClimateAction 3 жыл бұрын
I appreciate that!
@sisrudhsivakumar1925 3 жыл бұрын
👏👏👏👏👏👏
@dougmcfarlane7378 3 жыл бұрын
What a brilliant video providing a clear, succinct explanation for how carbon-storing materials in building construction are an important part of combating the climate crisis!
@Michael-tn8eb 3 жыл бұрын
Excellent!
@bamirunz7434 3 жыл бұрын
Awesome video!! Thanks for the great insight.
@danielkrajnik3817 3 жыл бұрын
4:41 his name is maximus decimus meridius
@LAC-qs9pf 3 жыл бұрын
Thank you for this informative video 👏🏾
@alifeofpositiveimpact2042 3 жыл бұрын
Thank you very much for this video. It gives a clear explanation of embodied carbon. We embedded it in our blogpost: www.alifeofpositiveimpact.com/embodied-carbon/
@tomasderville6863 3 жыл бұрын
Great video, please keep it up!!!!
@soumario 3 жыл бұрын
Climate Change [not scientifically proven] & Environment Deterioration [evident but not proven] are completely different. Climate Change [not scientifically proven] & Global warming [debunked] are completely different. Greenhouse Gases & Carbon Emissions/Footprint are not the same.
@gaiadevelopment 2 жыл бұрын
Environmental Deterioration - do you really need it to be proven by some outside authority to be "proven"? Walk through an old growth forest, dive in an ocean reef, measure pollutants in groundwater, count wildlife population, and see for yourself how much it is degrading.