We live in Nashville, Tennessee, USA
www.permavations.com
Muzhik wrote:
I've been wanting to build a monolithic dome ever since I first read about them, almost a decade ago. The problem with the leaky windows and doors isn't the problem it used to be, as they've figured out how to do on the domes what the stick-built houses have been doing for years, that is, flashing (to direct water away from the opening) and caulking every single seam.
The resell question is still valid; but if you can keep good records to show that for the past 10 years (for example) you've only spent $500 on heating and cooling, your house insurance is WAY down because the entire building is fire-resistant, and you won't have to pay to have the shingles replaced or the roof replaced because, hey! There are no shingles or roof panels!
If you're worried about no straight external walls, there is a variation on the dome (I think Monolithic calls it an "Orion" model) where 8-foot sections of plywood are used to mold the concrete external walls, circling them together to form an octagon (at the minimum) shape, then pouring a ring beam on the top of those walls and inflating the dome there. This gives you flat walls for doors and windows as well as sofas and beds, while still providing most of the benefits of a dome.
pubwvj wrote:
As to concrete being eco-unfriendly, that is a myth. Concrete is almost entirely local sand and rock. It takes very little cement to make the concrete. Read up on the difference between the two. Once made the concrete lasts centuries or even millennia. Contrast this with wooden structures and such that must be rebuilt over and over at a high cost.
flaja wrote:
I've always heard that concrete is very energy intensive
Concrete is durable only when you make it like the Romans did.
pubwvj wrote:
No, it the confusion comes from concrete vs cement. Pound for pound, cement is energy intensive. BUT, cement is only one small component of concrete. Almost all of concrete is actually sand and stone. The cement is just the binder.
On top of that, concrete lasts virtually forever compared with wood and other materials. So even though it takes more energy to make initially that energy is spread out over time. A wood house is rated for 20 to 40 years. A concrete building can easily last centuries to millennia. That's a 10x to 100x longer time frame which makes the concrete much less energy intensive in the long run.
Wrong. The technology of concrete has advanced dramatically since the Romans.
The fact that some concrete isn't done well just means that some concrete isn't done well. Don't confuse that with well done work. The same is true of any project. A good wooden building will last several hundred years but most modern cheap wooden buildings fall apart after a few decades just like the sidewalk that is poorly done.
flaja wrote:
How does concrete compare with things like rammed earth, CEB and strawbale in terms of manufactured materials used; energy consumption of the finished building and long-term durability?
pubwvj wrote:
In dry climates with the right local materials the rammed earth will last fairly long but in others it won't last at all. I'm not interested in building a house that will melt away in a few years. I want hundreds to thousands of years of durability and low maintenance which is why I choose masonry which includes cement, a component of concrete, as a binder. In our climate and location cement is actually fairly locally available and the rest of the material (sand, pebbles and stones) are all very locally available making them an ideal choice. Being locally available is a big consideration.
For us concrete is local, ecological, low maintenance, durable and low energy. If you have to ship something in from far away then it's going to change the equation. I find it unfortunate that some people promote a myth of concrete being non-eco materials when the opposite is true. Don't be a slave to dogma.
pubwvj wrote:
Funny how you quote me but then don't read what I said.
We don't have the right materials locally for rammed earth so it isn't suitable for us.
By the way way, the USDA is quoted as saying that a Rammed Earth house can be built for 2/3rds the cost of conventional framed construction.
Rammed earth, with the appropriate local materials and climate,
it is still a myth that concrete is anti-green.
flaja wrote:I am not convinced of your claim {re: myth of concrete being anti-green}. Too many companies stand to make a profit by selling concrete for me to believe they are legitimately concerned about the environment.
Need more info?
www.earthenhand.com
Earthen Hand Natural Building
"If everyone makes a difference, the world will be different."
"If you want to save the environment, build a city worth living in." - Wendell Berry
"If you want to save the environment, build a city worth living in." - Wendell Berry