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

"Lobster" wrote in message
...
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.


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.

In message , Lobster
writes
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?

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.
--
Chris French

On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 23:26:11 UTC, "OG" wrote:

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.

Plant a few more trees round the house!

--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
Avenue Supplies, http://avenuesupplies.co.uk

On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 23:12:52 GMT, Lobster
wrote:

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

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

Lobster wrote:

I'm just curious (having missed the start) - why is it so much more
environmentally friendly to use lime-based concrete?

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

The arguments used by idiot greenies a

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.

2. 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 bull****, where they use a tiny part of the full
picture to justify something.


--
Grunff

"Grunff" wrote in message
...
Lobster wrote:

I'm just curious (having missed the start) - why is it so much more
environmentally friendly to use lime-based concrete?

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

The arguments used by idiot greenies a

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.

2. 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 bull****, where they use a tiny part of the full
picture to justify something.

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

On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 09:15:30 GMT, Rick wrote:

A lovley house though.

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.



--

On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 23:12:52 GMT, Lobster
wrote:

I think they said
the floor slab cost a whopping £15K MORE than the equivalent in
conventional concrete.

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.)