Hello and greetings to the community,
My girlfriend and I are considering building a house in the near future.
We already have a plot of land, so that issue is settled.
We have also decided on the type of house.
We want to avoid rising energy costs by building a passive house with solar panels on the roof.
Additionally, we definitely do not want wood as a building material but prefer traditional bricks or something similar.
In terms of design, we want something suitable for aging (i.e., accessible) and therefore a bungalow.
The dimensions for the house are already set: 15.50 meters (51 feet) wide and 11 meters (36 feet) long, which equals about 170.5 m² (1,835 sq ft).
Now to my questions:
- I have read a lot about passive houses online, and one site mentioned that it is almost impossible to build a bungalow as a passive house. Why is that?
- Are the costs for a bungalow cheaper or more expensive than for a two-story house?
- Is there a building material comparable in quality to brick?
- Is a passive house built with solid construction, i.e., bricks, significantly more expensive?
- Is there any way to get an approximate price estimate for our “dream house”?
Many thanks in advance
Regards
Hugh60
My girlfriend and I are considering building a house in the near future.
We already have a plot of land, so that issue is settled.
We have also decided on the type of house.
We want to avoid rising energy costs by building a passive house with solar panels on the roof.
Additionally, we definitely do not want wood as a building material but prefer traditional bricks or something similar.
In terms of design, we want something suitable for aging (i.e., accessible) and therefore a bungalow.
The dimensions for the house are already set: 15.50 meters (51 feet) wide and 11 meters (36 feet) long, which equals about 170.5 m² (1,835 sq ft).
Now to my questions:
- I have read a lot about passive houses online, and one site mentioned that it is almost impossible to build a bungalow as a passive house. Why is that?
- Are the costs for a bungalow cheaper or more expensive than for a two-story house?
- Is there a building material comparable in quality to brick?
- Is a passive house built with solid construction, i.e., bricks, significantly more expensive?
- Is there any way to get an approximate price estimate for our “dream house”?
Many thanks in advance
Regards
Hugh60
F
friedrich2727 Nov 2013 15:04All-rounder, I probably need to learn more about clay, but when it comes to sand, you seem to know your stuff.
Here is a headline from a serious source, not from a tabloid:
"There is a global race for valuable raw materials like oil and gas. However, largely unnoticed by the public, the industry is also competing for sand. This resource has become a sought-after smuggling commodity, with mafia organizations involved in its extraction. A filmmaker reveals the severe consequences of this overexploitation."
It may be true that sand is renewable, but evidently not as fast as it is needed.
What bothers me most about cement, clay, and steel is the high energy consumption during their production.
Best regards, Friedrich.
Here is a headline from a serious source, not from a tabloid:
"There is a global race for valuable raw materials like oil and gas. However, largely unnoticed by the public, the industry is also competing for sand. This resource has become a sought-after smuggling commodity, with mafia organizations involved in its extraction. A filmmaker reveals the severe consequences of this overexploitation."
It may be true that sand is renewable, but evidently not as fast as it is needed.
What bothers me most about cement, clay, and steel is the high energy consumption during their production.
Best regards, Friedrich.
A
AallRounder28 Nov 2013 07:25@Friedrich
I was waiting for that "argument." But you can make the same argument about wood. There is a "wood mafia" not only for tropical woods. Clay, sand, and wood all belong to renewable resources; you just have to let them regrow. Overexploitation occurs more or less evenly across all these resources, so wood is not different from other renewable materials in that respect. Or were you trying to claim with your post that there is no overexploitation and no "mafia" involved with wood?
I won’t even get into the energy debate—others have already argued that topic extensively.
I was waiting for that "argument." But you can make the same argument about wood. There is a "wood mafia" not only for tropical woods. Clay, sand, and wood all belong to renewable resources; you just have to let them regrow. Overexploitation occurs more or less evenly across all these resources, so wood is not different from other renewable materials in that respect. Or were you trying to claim with your post that there is no overexploitation and no "mafia" involved with wood?
I won’t even get into the energy debate—others have already argued that topic extensively.
F
friedrich2728 Nov 2013 08:01Yes, I was also waiting for your response. I actually intended to say goodbye for good, but now I have to write again. However, there is a difference. It’s related to climatic conditions, how the wood is sourced, how surfaces can be used “better,” which types of trees grow there, and what the wood is used for. I don’t worry about our forest, even if considerably more wood were used for building. I am more concerned about forests outside Europe. Mainly because the pointless tropical timber debate has devalued them, opening the door to other uses (e.g., oil plants, paper, gasification, and of course burning).
Yes, and this is where I see the difference compared to sand; sand is essentially the same worldwide, so it’s only a matter of time until we experience Asian-like situations here too.
It takes only seconds for the wood for a house in Germany to regrow—does that apply to other potentially renewable raw materials as well?
What annoys me is that the use of wood is repeatedly questioned under the label of “resource sustainability,” while for other building materials it is treated as if this isn’t an issue at all.
Best regards,
friedrich27
Yes, and this is where I see the difference compared to sand; sand is essentially the same worldwide, so it’s only a matter of time until we experience Asian-like situations here too.
It takes only seconds for the wood for a house in Germany to regrow—does that apply to other potentially renewable raw materials as well?
What annoys me is that the use of wood is repeatedly questioned under the label of “resource sustainability,” while for other building materials it is treated as if this isn’t an issue at all.
Best regards,
friedrich27
A
AallRounder28 Nov 2013 08:41friedrich27 schrieb:
I was waiting for your reply as well. friedrich27 schrieb:
I wanted to say my final goodbye, but now I have to write once more. Why not? Even if it might be somewhat off-topic, it is not completely unrelated, and if necessary, the original poster can simply ignore it.
friedrich27 schrieb:
There is a difference. It depends on the climate conditions, how the wood is sourced, how surfaces can be “better” utilized, which tree species grow there, and what the wood is used for. I don’t worry about our forest, even if a lot more wood were used in construction. You are very optimistic. In our eastern neighboring countries, as far as I know, large forest areas have definitely not been sustainably logged to make “quick money” exporting to Germany, whether as construction timber or firewood. Europe is not all the same (as we see daily in the news) — and neither is wood.
friedrich27 schrieb:
I am more concerned about forests outside Europe. Especially because the pointless debate about tropical wood has reduced its value and opened the door for other uses (e.g., oil crops, paper production, gasification, and of course burning). Profit margins are higher there, as are corruption and crime. So the forests in those regions are also at much greater risk.
friedrich27 schrieb:
Yes, and there I believe lies the difference with sand. Sand should be essentially the same everywhere in the world. That is a misconception. Some sands only occur in a single location worldwide (for example, carbonate sand in the Caribbean). Other sands are also rare. Whether that leads to conflicts is beyond my knowledge. But for so-called “rare earth elements” like scandium, lanthanum, or promethium, it certainly could be possible in the future, in my opinion. The largest share is quartz sand, which is also the most common.
friedrich27 schrieb:
So it is only a matter of time before we get Asian-style conditions here as well. It takes only seconds for wood for a house in Germany to regrow — is that also true for other renewable raw materials? What annoys me is that the use of wood is repeatedly questioned under the term “sustainability of the resource,” while with other building materials people act as if there is no problem.
Regards, Friedrich. Is it really better to present the problem the other way around now? In my opinion, certainly not.
A
AallRounder1 Dec 2013 21:25Keimal schrieb:
Hello,
If you’re already talking about raw materials, as I mentioned before, I would build the house with cement rather than wood. Wood is a very important raw material that is running out.
RegardsCement is a pure binder; you can’t build houses from it alone, but you can from mortar and concrete.
@Friedrich: now it’s your turn with the rapidly renewable Central European trees. I’m already getting teary-eyed, best regards from BB
Similar topics