Well first, sustainable is such a buzzword in architecture today, it's completely lost meaning.
It seems to me that in this case, they're referring more to the production of the building material vs. alternatives (steel mostly) being 'greener', and some slight improvement in the energy use of a building constructed using wood ,although in my experience it's got more to do with the detailing than wood vs. steel directly. These days, they nag about having too many studs in a wall displacing insulation, claiming the wood creates conduction zones and reduce efficiency. I haven't seen good numbers, but I'd bet it's like switching to LED light bulbs- sure a bulb will save you $7 a year in electricity, but it's a $28 bulb- will it last 4 years to outperform a $1 incandescent economically? For all the hype about hours on those bulbs, somehow the CFLs haven't really lived up to their hype, why would I expect the LEDs to live up to theirs? There's also the issue, at least out here, that code keeps getting bumped up to make stringer buildings (seems after every natural disaster) to the point that out here in earthquake country you see more and more steel moment frames going into residential construction to satisfy the engineering requirements over large openings like garage doors and large patio doors, or lots of windows especially in multiple story buildings. The next big earthquake might see the balance tipped to making steel the better solution economically, and it won't matter how green wood might be.
Truth is, most of our clients claim to want to build 'green', but once they see what the code requirements are, and look at the budget numbers for 'green' alternatives, they usually opt to go conventional, or at least less green. If you really want green, make things cheaper, and let the economy get going so people can afford it. Don't legislate it and slow the economy down at the same time.
Anyway, this program looks like more lobbyists getting government pork to help their industry, for whatever reason that doesn't really matter, to gain advantage over another competing industry, and using our tax dollars to do it. Government shouldn't pick winners (wood) and losers (steel), and should just stay out of it. Why should the USDA be involved in this at all?
Lifespan of LED bulbs: http://www.ehow.com/about_5394059_life-led-lights.html
I do wish they would cite their sources, but this does track with my knowledge of and experience with LEDs. They are low waste heat, low power consumption, high output, long lasting light sources. Frankly, as bulbs die in my own house, I will be replacing them with LED bulbs. And believe me, I am no tree hugger, just a cheapskate techie.
I completely agree that the government should absolutely NOT be involved in messing with the marketplace, and that this is the natural extension of convincing the people that the government can influence the market at will in ways that would have sent the Founders reaching for their firearms. Like the frog in the pot, we have been truly cooked. As for why the USDA is involved? I think it's because the use of wood is considered agriculture? I suppose? Be grateful they didn't try to use this as an excuse to create some new US Dept of Sylviculture or some such nonsense.
As for LEDs, it's not the LEDs I'm worried about- its the other little electronic bits they have in them, and the dispersal of heat issues I've heard some have. Don't get me wrong, I'm not totally against them- I advised my inlaws to get one for a high fixture that's hard to get to to change the bulb, but I don't always like the high color temp (sunshine white) of most LEDs for interior illumination, though they have some better color bulbs now.
From your link- "One of the many benefits of LED lights is their long life. Many LEDs put in service in the 1970s are still operating today. Their expected life span is estimated between 25,000 and 100,000 hours. The newer LED light bulbs, designed to replace standard household incandescent bulbs, have a life span of about 30,000 hours." Now that sounds good, but I've seen too many traffic signals, and truck taillights with portions of the LED matrix out to think thats really true, and the one's that really last long are simple reds. The bright whites are different. Then they say that incandescent bulbs last 1000 hours. I've had bulbs last ten years in frequently used fixtures- if you keep them from overheating, usually in fixtures that don't let them get too dusty, and the bulbs are of good quality (Dad used to get great bulbs from some disabled charity- man those were the best). The other thing that bugs me about both CFLs and LEDs is that they're sometimes hard to find in brighter lumen values (100w equivalent), and when you do they're usually even more expensive. I'd have to get more fixtures to have the amount of light I like in the house.
4 comments:
Too much carbon trapped already. Time to clean out my wood burning stove and fire up my Veyron.
Eric Hines
Well first, sustainable is such a buzzword in architecture today, it's completely lost meaning.
It seems to me that in this case, they're referring more to the production of the building material vs. alternatives (steel mostly) being 'greener', and some slight improvement in the energy use of a building constructed using wood ,although in my experience it's got more to do with the detailing than wood vs. steel directly. These days, they nag about having too many studs in a wall displacing insulation, claiming the wood creates conduction zones and reduce efficiency. I haven't seen good numbers, but I'd bet it's like switching to LED light bulbs- sure a bulb will save you $7 a year in electricity, but it's a $28 bulb- will it last 4 years to outperform a $1 incandescent economically? For all the hype about hours on those bulbs, somehow the CFLs haven't really lived up to their hype, why would I expect the LEDs to live up to theirs? There's also the issue, at least out here, that code keeps getting bumped up to make stringer buildings (seems after every natural disaster) to the point that out here in earthquake country you see more and more steel moment frames going into residential construction to satisfy the engineering requirements over large openings like garage doors and large patio doors, or lots of windows especially in multiple story buildings. The next big earthquake might see the balance tipped to making steel the better solution economically, and it won't matter how green wood might be.
Truth is, most of our clients claim to want to build 'green', but once they see what the code requirements are, and look at the budget numbers for 'green' alternatives, they usually opt to go conventional, or at least less green. If you really want green, make things cheaper, and let the economy get going so people can afford it. Don't legislate it and slow the economy down at the same time.
Anyway, this program looks like more lobbyists getting government pork to help their industry, for whatever reason that doesn't really matter, to gain advantage over another competing industry, and using our tax dollars to do it. Government shouldn't pick winners (wood) and losers (steel), and should just stay out of it. Why should the USDA be involved in this at all?
Lifespan of LED bulbs:
http://www.ehow.com/about_5394059_life-led-lights.html
I do wish they would cite their sources, but this does track with my knowledge of and experience with LEDs. They are low waste heat, low power consumption, high output, long lasting light sources. Frankly, as bulbs die in my own house, I will be replacing them with LED bulbs. And believe me, I am no tree hugger, just a cheapskate techie.
I completely agree that the government should absolutely NOT be involved in messing with the marketplace, and that this is the natural extension of convincing the people that the government can influence the market at will in ways that would have sent the Founders reaching for their firearms. Like the frog in the pot, we have been truly cooked. As for why the USDA is involved? I think it's because the use of wood is considered agriculture? I suppose? Be grateful they didn't try to use this as an excuse to create some new US Dept of Sylviculture or some such nonsense.
Mike, it's all nonsense now...
As for LEDs, it's not the LEDs I'm worried about- its the other little electronic bits they have in them, and the dispersal of heat issues I've heard some have. Don't get me wrong, I'm not totally against them- I advised my inlaws to get one for a high fixture that's hard to get to to change the bulb, but I don't always like the high color temp (sunshine white) of most LEDs for interior illumination, though they have some better color bulbs now.
From your link-
"One of the many benefits of LED lights is their long life. Many LEDs put in service in the 1970s are still operating today. Their expected life span is estimated between 25,000 and 100,000 hours. The newer LED light bulbs, designed to replace standard household incandescent bulbs, have a life span of about 30,000 hours."
Now that sounds good, but I've seen too many traffic signals, and truck taillights with portions of the LED matrix out to think thats really true, and the one's that really last long are simple reds. The bright whites are different. Then they say that incandescent bulbs last 1000 hours. I've had bulbs last ten years in frequently used fixtures- if you keep them from overheating, usually in fixtures that don't let them get too dusty, and the bulbs are of good quality (Dad used to get great bulbs from some disabled charity- man those were the best). The other thing that bugs me about both CFLs and LEDs is that they're sometimes hard to find in brighter lumen values (100w equivalent), and when you do they're usually even more expensive. I'd have to get more fixtures to have the amount of light I like in the house.
Post a Comment