Home  5  Books  5  GBEzine  5  News  5  HelpDesk  5  Register  5  GreenBuilding.co.uk
Not signed in (Sign In)

Categories



Green Building Bible, Fourth Edition
Green Building Bible, fourth edition (both books)
These two books are the perfect starting place to help you get to grips with one of the most vitally important aspects of our society - our homes and living environment.

PLEASE NOTE: A download link for Volume 1 will be sent to you by email and Volume 2 will be sent to you by post as a book.

Buy individually or both books together. Delivery is free!


powered by Surfing Waves




Vanilla 1.0.3 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome to new Forum Visitors
Join the forum now and benefit from discussions with thousands of other green building fans and discounts on Green Building Press publications: Apply now.

The AECB accepts no responsibility or liability for any errors or omissions in the content of this site. Views given in posts are not necessarily the views of the AECB.



    • CommentAuthorbiffvernon
    • CommentTimeMay 31st 2008
     
    The trouble with most builders, even old first class tradesman type builders, is that they can be completely wrong. In fact they can be the worst type because it's tempting to have a great deal of respect for old first class tradesmen, and it's difficult to accept that they can be wrong.

    One needs to understand and respect the science, rather than the folklore.
  1.  
    That's rather a blanket statement Biff. I don't think you have demonstrated that Steve's 'old tradesman type builder' is wrong, or indeed what he is wrong about, you merely hint that he is.

    I also think anyone can be lured in by respect for either tradesmen, builders or indeed wholesalers and manufacturers. In this day and age it seems everyone wants to be seen to be green - whether they are or are not. Clearly some are very knowledgable and/or genuine, some are not - same in all walks of life.

    When I try to guage these things - I often ask myself who has the most to gain by distorting or ignoring the issues at hand.
    • CommentAuthorjon
    • CommentTimeMay 31st 2008
     
    I agree Mike, I have yet to see any real justification on a carbon basis for lime.

    I have, in the past, taken the trouble to follow contacts supplied on this forum re lime: There are potential technical problems with the use of lime. However, the contact names provided were not able to supply the information needed to make an evaluation.

    Thus I would generally specify OPC over lime for most applications (other than perhaps mortar on occasion) on both a carbon and technical basis.
    • CommentAuthorbiffvernon
    • CommentTimeMay 31st 2008
     
    But the fact is, Jon, that the use of lime mortar involves less CO2 emmision to the atmosphere than OPC mortar. What justification are you looking for?

    Mike, of course mine was a 'blnket statement'. I don't know this particular tradesman or the circumstances for which he was advocating 7:1 sand:OPC, but it is entirely possible that his views are wrong.

    Perhaps we have a Green Building Forum because we think that much of the practice of the building industry is very wrong.
    • CommentAuthorjon
    • CommentTimeMay 31st 2008
     
    "But the fact is, Jon, that the use of lime mortar involves less CO2 emision to the atmosphere than OPC mortar. What justification are you looking for?"

    I have seen no justification that, on a whole life carbon costing analysis, this is actually the case Biff. I suspect in many cases that it will prove in time to be worse than OPC: Particularly 'limecrete'. Maybe for mortars and other uses in some cases. But mortars are almost irrelevant compared to other construction carbon lifecycle costs.
    • CommentAuthorbiffvernon
    • CommentTimeMay 31st 2008
     
    Sorry Jon but I can't see your problem. At the risk of repetition, there are two main sources of CO2 in both lime and cement production. The fuel used in kilning and the CO2 evolved in the CaCO3 to CaO2 reaction. Lime kilning requires a lower temperature therefore less fuel therefore less CO2. With lime the CO2 evolved in the reaction is all reabsorbed from the atmosphere on setting so there is no net addition to the air, while cement sets by silicification which does not reabsorb significant amounts of the CO2.

    So, all other things being equal, lime results in less CO2 going into the atmosphere than OPC. If you want to know the numbers that last link I posted tells you how to do the arithmetic. Of course all other things may not be equal - you may be air-freighting your lime from New Zealand.

    Of course there are loads of other reasons why lime is a much better building material (except for airport runways, motorway bridges, multi-storey carparks and nuclear power stations, but we don't need any of them do we?). So that just leaves the foundations of wind turbines.
    • CommentAuthorjon
    • CommentTimeMay 31st 2008
     
    I don't disagree on some of your points Biff

    I have just said that on a whole life costing basis it does not appear to be justifiable compared to OPC. You are talking about initial capital carbon values. As I mentioned above, I think this is not an ethically justifiable argument.
  2.  
    Eh? Once all the carbonation is complete, there is no further CO2 contribution, whether the lime or OPC lasts in the building for ten years or a thousand.

    If you are talking about more than whole life, using lime to stick the bricks together means that when the building is pulled down the mortar can be knocked off easily and the bricks reused. With OPC you just get a heap of broken bricks and have to fire new ones at further fuel/CO2 cost. Just one of the many advantages of lime.

    "ethically justifiable argument"...explain please?
    • CommentAuthorludite
    • CommentTimeJun 1st 2008
     
    3 years ago I built my first ever brick wall. I got the recipie for the mortar from a readers digest DIY manual. I used cement powder and lime powder and sand - but forget what ratio. So, did I use lime or did I use concrete?

    I understood that I needed to add the lime so that if my wall fell down - pleased to say its still standing at the mo - I could reuse the bricks.

    As I was replacing an existing wall, I was reusing the bricks and it had been easy to knock off the existing mortar - so what ratio would that have been?
    • CommentAuthorMike George
    • CommentTimeJun 1st 2008 edited
     
    Hi Ludite, A widely accepted mix using a combination of Lime: Cement: Sand is 1:1:5. The older mix most likely contained no cement at all, the lime being mixed with some common aggregate in your area. In South Wales, they used a lot of ash resulting in what we locally call 'black mortar'
    • CommentAuthorjon
    • CommentTimeJun 1st 2008
     
    "Eh? Once all the carbonation is complete, there is no further CO2 contribution, whether the lime or OPC lasts in the building for ten years or a thousand."

    In very simple terms, if a building requires to be renewed, adding say 1 tonne of Carbon to the atmosphere every 20 years, this would be more damaging than a building that adds 1.1 tonne every 50 years. Thus, whether the building lasts 10, or 1,000 years is a very important factor.

    "ethically justifiable argument"...explain please?

    An argument that is based on ethics rather than some other consideration.
    • CommentAuthorludite
    • CommentTimeJun 1st 2008
     
    Do you mean I could have just used 2 scoops of lime and 5 of sand and forgotten all about the cement?
    • CommentAuthorMike George
    • CommentTimeJun 1st 2008 edited
     
    Yes, you could have but.... The main advantage of cement [used on its own] over lime is its 'setting time' It gains most of its strength very quickly - Partial set within 6hrs, quite hard within 24hrs Very hard within 30 days. Lime however can take a very long time to gain even partial strength, meaning the job often needs to be spread over a much longer period of time.

    To put this into context, 6 courses of concrete blocks can be laid in a single day with a cement based [or combination] mix. The following day another 6 on top, and so on. You cannot do this with lime and sand on its own.

    I know of a rebuilt church which literally took years to build, though it is certainly worth the effort. See
    http://www.museumwales.ac.uk/en/stteilo/
  3.  
    Ah, now we have it. Brickies can build faster with OPC than with lime. That's the ONLY advantage, and it's no advantage at all because it just allows the chuck-em-up-quick developers to build rubbish houses.

    Jon, you are going to have to put it in even more simple terms for the likes of me. Are you suggesting that a lime built house will not last as long as an OPC one? If so, 'tis nonsense.
    • CommentAuthorludite
    • CommentTimeJun 1st 2008
     
    Thanks Mike.

    Next question. Is Lime dangerous to breath or touch? ie. If i wanted to build something with Lime powder that I get from MKM, and some sand, could the kids help me do it or is it dangerous?
  4.  
    I would not let my children anywhere near powdered lime -it is not something you want to breath in. Cement is not nice in this respect either, though it is not as fine, meaning it is not quite as bad.

    Both cement and lime are also irritants, so not to be played with when wet either, again, I think Lime is worse. Get some in a cut and you will know all about it - for days afterwards - burns like hell.
    • CommentAuthorMike George
    • CommentTimeJun 1st 2008 edited
     
    Posted By: biffvernonAh, now we have it. Brickies can build faster with OPC than with lime. That's the ONLY advantage,


    No Biff not the only one, I think this is evident by the results of the poll so far; and the majority of the comments from those who have voted. [but I'm not going to get back on that roundabout again:bigsmile:]
  5.  
    Hydrated lime is really caustic stuff, its such a fine powder that it hangs in the air quite a long time, I always promise myself i'm going to wear a mask the next time i mix up and then usually I don't. but I should. also, ordinary hydrated lime-not the french hydraulic stuff- is better mixed a couple of days before it is used. very dangerous to breathe. and if used without gloves, will tend to make little holes in your hands over a couple of days.
    • CommentAuthorjon
    • CommentTimeJun 1st 2008
     
    "Jon, you are going to have to put it in even more simple terms for the likes of me."

    I'm sorry Biff. It doesn't get any simpler. To repeat, In very simple terms, if a building requires to be renewed, adding say 1 tonne of Carbon to the atmosphere every 20 years, this would be more damaging than a building that adds 1.1 tonne every 50 years. Thus, whether the building lasts 10, or 1,000 years is a very important factor.

    It may be worth your while reading about the subject if it interests you.
    • CommentAuthorludite
    • CommentTimeJun 1st 2008
     
    Thanks for the health and safety info. I thought it was bad stuff. I'll use up what I have left when the kids are out of the way.
  6.  
    Jon, I thought you were saying something significant, not just stating the obvious - that the lifetime of a building is the most important factor in the long run. But what's it got to do with comparing lime with OPC?

    Not much difference in alkalinity between cement and lime, they're both best kept well away from delicate skin, but lime does have a bit more tendency to blow about in the wind. Both are bad news if blown into eyes.

    If you are doing stuff with children, mix the lime with water a day or two before without the kids. Then there's no risk of dust blowing about. Get them to wear gloves and wash off any that does get on skin whether using OPC or lime. From the kids point of view, lime is easier as you don't have to worry about it setting. If you don't use it all up just put the mortar in a bucket/dustbin or whatever and cover with a little water. It will be fine the next day (or the next year). Just drain off the spare water and off you go.
  7.  
    The trouble with Kids is they don't have any fear, Its all very well tellung them to wear gloves, what happens when they start to throw the stuff around? or taste it? or scratch their little bottoms with their limey covered hands.

    I have young children - and I wouldn't let them anywhere near it.
    • CommentAuthorjon
    • CommentTimeJun 1st 2008
     
    "But what's it got to do with comparing lime with OPC?"

    If you accept that the societal discounting rates for carbon should be set to zero then you accept the annualizing argument. If you accept this (as you appear to above), then the embodied contribution made by a lime or cement mortar is insignificant (when each component is costed for carbon over its lifespan). Thus, in a case where you have to use a mortar, the only carbon consideration is the relative durability of the mortar (insofar as this may impact on other carbon producing elements of the building)

    If one were to try to extend the argument for lime into other processes, then proof would be needed of the longevity (and other normal structural properties of the material) by means other then heresay.
  8.  
    There is no way that I would ever let young children near cement, come to that. The chromium salts and other things in it react worse with my skin than lime, and my hands are like leather. I use lime every day, and take the usual precautions, but on the very rare occasions I use cement I find that even a small amount on the skin causes dryness, splitting and irritation very quickly. It's nasty stuff. OPC in the eyes - or anywhere else sensitive - is just as damaging as lime. If you want your kids to play at building, just give them wet sand. Keep them away from anything else.

    As for longevity, surely the fact that buildings made with lime mortar are still standing after several hundred years is rather more than hearsay.
    • CommentAuthorjon
    • CommentTimeJun 1st 2008
     
    "As for longevity, surely the fact that buildings made with lime mortar are still standing"

    The quote was:

    "If one were to try to extend the argument for lime into other processes, then proof would be needed of the longevity (and other normal structural properties of the material) by means other then heresay."

    Why, when talking about lime, is this type of response always used?
  9.  
    Raising children involves introducing them to hazards, crossing the road, riding a bike, rock climbing, and even bricklaying, in an appropriate manner. I no longer have young children. All four of them grew old.

    Jon, take a look at 200 year old buildings. The surviving ones are all built with lime rather than OPC.

    :)
    • CommentAuthorjon
    • CommentTimeJun 2nd 2008
     
    :wink:

    Yes, Biff, all the 200 year old buildings made with OPC (before it was invented) must have fallen down?

    More heresay masquerading as proof.
    • CommentAuthorludite
    • CommentTimeJun 2nd 2008
     
    My 2 are little. I want to introduce them to all sorts of stuff, but my main goal is to go to my grave knowing that they still have all their fingers, toes, eyes - and all their other bits and pieces. Unfortunately, I'm a bit cavalier when it comes to using stuff myself. I have used Lime, OPC, formaldehyde, caustic soda, excessive heat and probably lots of other stuff over the years - but what you do to yourself is different to what you allow your kids to do - until they can make up their own minds.
  10.  
    :clap:
    • CommentAuthortbhulse
    • CommentTimeJun 2nd 2008
     
    Never for residential use if you're an idealist - on the other hand try getting your BCO to agree! And if you figured out how, do let me know!
   
The Ecobuilding Buzz
Site Map    |   Home    |   View Cart    |   Pressroom   |   Business   |   Links   
Logout    

© Green Building Press