Grand Designs 16 Nov 05

Just watched this week's episode, where the eco-punters were using environmentally friendly materials to build their dream house... when I tuned in, their builders were busy learning how to use 'limecrete' (lime-based concrete) to make the slab, and making a complete balls of it since it took weeks to set, in the middle of a freezing Welsh winter...

I'm just curious (having missed the start) - why is it so much more environmentally friendly to use lime-based concrete? I think they said the floor slab cost a whopping £15K MORE than the equivalent in conventional concrete. Wow, is all I can say.

David

Reply to
Lobster
Loading thread data ...

At least part of the explanation was that production and use of concrete liberates large amounts of CO2, whereas use of lime is much more carbon neutral.

Reply to
OG

In message , Lobster writes

Main reason I think is the energy used to produce the lime is a lot less than that required to produce cement, also as the lime sets it absorbs some CO2 from the atmosphere.

Reply to
chris French

Plant a few more trees round the house!

Reply to
Bob Eager

They should have had the limecrete made in the local concrete batching plant, and then delivered in one day.

The sussed the architect was trying loads of new stuff, with their money, and rightly pushed her out of the way before they ended up broke.

A lovley house though.

Rick

Reply to
Rick

It's not. This is a very pervasive myth which has grown over the past few years.

The arguments used by idiot greenies are:

  1. Lime production uses about half as much energy as cement production.

-- True, but you also end up using a lot more lime than cement - more than twice as much.

  1. Lime absorbs co2 as it sets.

-- True, but only the co2 it gave off while being baked.

What they don't take into account is the huge amount of energy required to deliver and lay this type of material when compared with cement based concrete. That slab took *6 weeks* to lay. That's a bunch of workmen working for 6 weeks, driving to work every day, heating their homes, eating etc. etc. Not to mention the big digger employed onsite throughout that time, and the limecrete mixer.

It's typical greenie bullshit, where they use a tiny part of the full picture to justify something.

Reply to
Grunff

I can't believe it. You did come out with reasoned argument there.

Reply to
Doctor Drivel

Some of the design worked for me but only in the "tall areas" the rest of it looked distinctly plain and totally unsuited to its surroundings.

As for the execution I'm not sure if it was a trick of the light but on the "gable end" where the roof wrapped over it looked very bashed about. Also on the render there appeared to be a distinct non continuous step join running horizontally around first floor level. They also appeared to have built up close to the edge of their plot rather than allow a reasonable garden space - looking out of those huge windows onto a bit of wire fence ruined what could have been a good view - upside down living would have been a more suitable approach in my view.

Reply to
Matt

It was £15k over estimate, don't know the basis of the estimate. (I'm not surprised they got upset though, if they'd been telling the architect that the budget was crucial and then the first major job was £15k over estimate.)

Reply to
Peter Johnson

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.