Environmental factors etc

[Deedee]

Hi all

I am inspired by the look and solidness of log homes and trying to get my bf to come to Vegas within the next 6-12 months and do the course with me (we are from Australia), but I cant get my head around the environmental impact. I see a couple of guys hugging a massive old tree on this website and my stomach drops a little because so many trees are needed for log homes. Having said that I dont know if the average timber home uses the same amount of timber once you take into account the timber frame and weatherboard cladding. Any thoughts on this and I dont want to offend anyone I just need to get it right in my head as well as become more aware.

Plus I am worried the cost will skyrocket once you have to buy the logs from a mill. We dont have land that is very forrest like and in many places you simply cant cut them down or they are spindly gum trees (native).

Any feedback that doesnt come with a brick bat will be appreciated. I have to say I fell in love with Pinecone Pam's house

Regards,

Dee

[loghousenut]

Deedee,


You'll never hurt my feelings with a "how green is your log home" question. I took a bunch of Ponderosa Pines that were not worth hauling to the mill and made a log home that will still stand long after most plywood palaces are ripped up to make room for whatever is next. True, I suppose there is an argument for leaving them standing or dropping them and burying them as a part of the Earths carbon bank, but I'm arguing from the perspective of a guy who wants to build a home for his Grandkids.

I suppose that if I'd taken a bunch of prime Douglas Firs and milled them into lumber and bought a bunch of siding and sheetrock it might have used fewer trees but it would not have been the same house. I'll let the engineers among us try to fight both sides with a bunch of numbers, but me... I'm building a log home.



As for this tree, it would have been worth $250 if I would have bucked it up and hauled it to the mill. Instead, I brought it home and turned it into a pretty cool ridgepole and the center ridgepole support in a home that will make my Great Grandkids smile.

By the way, you already told us that you are on our side... You love Pinecone Pam's home.

http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t55/loghousenut/Our%20Home/The%20ridgepole/P1000696.jpg

http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t55/loghousenut/Wow/Rafters9-2010441.jpg

http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t55/loghousenut/Floor8-2011022.jpg

[rreidnauer]

Without a doubt, a log home uses way more lumber than a conventionally framed home. But you must keep in mind, logs are a renewable, natural resource. Further, their use in a log home makes them a great carbon-sink by their shear mass. Yet another factor is the massive reduction of synthetic, fabricated materials required (fiberglass wall insulation, vinyl siding, etc) reducing production carbon emissions.

It's just not as simple as just worrying about how many trees are felled.

As for cost. Weigh all options. Even look into importing logs. Who knows, you might find a heck of a deal where you least suspect it!

Sent from my BlackBerry 8530 using Tapatalk

[StewartK]

If the question is "how many cubic feet of wood did your house use?" then log homes made out of real logs will probably lose every time.

But you also have to think about the carbon footprint of lumber and other building materials that you need to make a conventional house. Just the energy needed to cut logs into lumber is pretty high.

My house will need very little of that. Also no chemicals to treat with (pretty much forever).

[edkemper]

Dee,

Drag him to the class if you have to. It'd be fun having family down there. This style is the epitome of environmentally sound.

[Deedee]

thanks for the feedback :D all good points especially what else doesnt need to go into the house! looking at the photos made me feel really excited and wanting to jump on a plane and come over. we just dont have that building style here and there are many parts of our country that suit it.

a big LOL at the lady riding the broomstick (if its a man he's got bloody great legs!!:eek:

well i am going to spend some time going through the hundreds of posts as it is a wealth of information and LHN you are an absolute minefield of knowledge and the pics really help put the size into perspective.

thanks

Dee

[ivanshayka]

Keep in mind that the life of the log home is 2-3 times longer that the conventional build. IMHO.
Meaning that by the time you have to tear down the log home, you will probably build and tear down 2-3 conventional houses. Anybody correct me if I am wrong.

[ncgator]

DeeDee,

Here are some interesting takes on log home and timber construction from the kit and handcrafted industry verses traditional building methods (and they add carbon costs to their kits via processing the logs) :

http://www.precisioncraft.com/loghomesblog/index.php/the-carbon-footprint-of-log-homes/

http://www.truenorthloghomes.com/about/green.php

http://thegoodhuman.com/2012/02/20/saving-energy-in-a-log-home/

http://www.mountainonline.com/mountain-magazine/item/230-a-primer-on-logs

Something to remember is that the LHBA way of constructing the home does not have to worry about settling like the kits. So the maintenance issues about trim, doors and windows are also reduced.

[Deedee]

Keep in mind that the life of the log home is 2-3 times longer that the conventional build. IMHO.
Meaning that by the time you have to tear down the log home, you will probably build and tear down 2-3 conventional houses. Anybody correct me if I am wrong.

and the appearance is timeless! look at those 1970's homes brady bunch style (i owned one lol) and 1980's pastel nightmares.

[Deedee]

DeeDee,

Here are some interesting takes on log home and timber construction from the kit and handcrafted industry verses traditional building methods (and they add carbon costs to their kits via processing the logs) :

http://www.precisioncraft.com/loghomesblog/index.php/the-carbon-footprint-of-log-homes/

http://www.truenorthloghomes.com/about/green.php

http://thegoodhuman.com/2012/02/20/saving-energy-in-a-log-home/

http://www.mountainonline.com/mountain-magazine/item/230-a-primer-on-logs

Something to remember is that the LHBA way of constructing the home does not have to worry about settling like the kits. So the maintenance issues about trim, doors and windows are also reduced.

thanks gator checking the links now :)

[Yuhjn]

It's been said but bears repeating that trees are a natural and renewable resource. Compare that to manufacture, storage, and transport of siding, insulation, drywall, paint... Seems to me a log home is far greener than one built with traditional materials. As far as costs go, I'm sure you're going to pay more for logs in Aussie than someone building in the middle of a pine forest. But that doesn't mean you can't find the logs you need for a price that works.

But beyond all that, if I was going to build a traditional home I would still be very happy and grateful to have taken the class. It changed the way I think about homes, construction, and my place in the universe. If you look at all the pictures of these huge and amazing homes being built by students, it might make you suspicious that something is being taught in class that goes beyond the techniques and tools required to stack logs.

[hammerhead 67]

Not to anger any Greenies... but here goes.

Building "green" is the most over hyped thing to come down the pike since the "we are all going to freeze to death" environmental scare/scam of the 70's and the man made global warming cap and trade farce we have going now. The "Green" movement is an effort to remove more GREEN from YOUR wallet while foisting inferior products and materials on the public.

If we want to be honest we should endorse "common sense building" and focus on stuff that really makes sense.

We have been fixing up and flipping houses for 12 years and you would not believe how fast a home falls apart.
With modern codes, most homes built after say 1940 (depending on your location) are disposable with a max life of 30-40 years before MAJOR renovations and rebuilding are necessary. Plywood, OSB, Particle board are all short lived, especially in a high humidity or sunny environment. That means you have tons of toxic glue and wood degrading in your traditional stick built home. Add some siding either vinyl, Hardi board, asbestos, or ???? and now you have another collection of exotic and possibly toxic materials that will need to be replaced.

Compare that with a log. Keep it dry, treat it for bugs, and it will be around for a century or more. The older they get, the tougher they are.

Most of the greenies who freak out about cutting a tree are city dwellers who have never spent much time living in the outdoors. Stop mowing a pretty cow pasture and in 5 years you will have a thicket with trees taller than a man everywhere. Talk about the ultimate renewable resource !

Building with logs is great. No need to put that nasty fiberglass insulation in your walls. No need for cheap plastic siding or other stuff that will probably turn out to be cancer causing in 20 years. A low cost clean efficient home, that is what I call "green".

[IwLam]

I'm with you, hammerhead!
Well said.:)

[spiralsands]

Building "green" is the most over hyped thing to come down the pike since the "we are all going to freeze to death" environmental scare/scam of the 70's and the man made global warming cap and trade farce we have going now.

I remember the 70's and I can't remember a "freeze to death" scare. I was a wildlife biology student back then in Arizona and I DO remember the only environment "scare!" in the U.S. was for nuclear power plants as a result of the 3 mile Island disaster and revelations that corporate energy industry was falsifying safety records of the materials they were using and the construction methods of the new plants and undermining the effects of released radiation. However, in those exact same years, climate change was still unknown to the American public. 'Climate change' WAS being discussed in scientific papers that were being published in journals available to the university communities involved in ecosystem studies. However, they didn't call it climate change. There was no media-derived term for the observed increase in temperatures across the United States back then. In the late 1970's, there were already studies being done by biologists into the migration of flora and fauna from the south to the north in the United States. Species that were native to the southern states were found to be migrating further north as a result of the average annual temperature steadily increasing. Trees of the mid-south were being attacked and destroyed by pests that they had not developed natural immunity like the native species of the deeper south had. Wholesale destruction of native populations were beginning to appear because of these pest and species migrations. Of course, at the time, the politicos and the Rush Limbogs of the airwaves knew nothing of actual science and were not actually observing what was going on in nature so they had no need to rationalize and invent a debunking theory of scientific observation of climate change. Entire ecosystems were showing signs of stress in the 1970's yet at the time the scientists did not draw a conclusion as to why. They were just observers of the phenomena that has increased in an exponential manner to the present day. Now we are 40+ years into this rising earth temperature and people still want to say "It's just summer!" or "It's just sunspots!" Hmmm.

So what is building "green"? Is it building to satisfy an artificially derived code to impose maximum profits from the cost of permits, materials, bank interest and taxes? Probably not. Is it to build a house to only the size you NEED, using renewable resources and leaving a smaller pollution and consumer mess behind. Probably so. So "green" probably is what "green" uses up in resources and materials. "Green" is cheaper or it's not being done right. It is not 'trendy', or at least it should not be. It SHOULD be for the survival of the ecosytem as we know it. Species survival. That's the only real valid motive to say you want to build green. Anything other than that is just a parrot's response to one person's or another's political propaganda.

[edkemper]

Frances,

Amazing.

When you get right down to it, "we," those of us that were a product of the 60s, failed our country. We were going to treat people better. We were going to treat the earth better. Look what "we" created.

Then look at what one screwball (Skip) was able to leave behind. Skip created what we wanted 60 years ago. It seems to me this is what we had in mind. Simple, hard work, love and good for the earth.

Pretty cool when you think about it.

[mario kadu]

I remember a magazine cover from when I was a kid - probably the late 50's or early 60's - it might have been Popular Mechanics - that depicted the top of the Empire State Building sticking up thru a glacier, the headline was something like, "are we entering a new Ice Age?". So there was a popular belief (perhaps urban myth) that the climate was cooling. It was as I recall the thought that a cycle of glacial and interglacial periods exist based on a perceived pattern over the last 100,000+ years

I do think that cost cutting and contractor ethics are involved in home building of the last 50-60 years. My dad lives in a very solidly built house that was put up in 1950. It shows no signs of deterioration. However to build a similar house today would be very expensive; hard wood flooring, lath and plaster walls, "real" 2x4's etc. Unfortunately most new tract homes are a reflection of a throw away society and the desire for instant gratification. I really do believe that is why so many of us are enamored with the 'Skip-style' LHBA concept - solid and built to last.

[mario kadu]

Oops! my bad... I apologize.... i-pad decided that I didn't really mean <dawn of The ice age>

[edkemper]

In the "normal world," our newest homes are built to last one generation, if we're lucky. Yet we build facilities that house government that are designed to last over a hundred years. Then "we" build houses that will be able to oversee at least a couple of those government buildings come and go and we do it most of the time without owing anyone.

Funny how that works. It's pretty cool to be here.

[John W]

I remember a framer friend of mine back in the 80's talked about the 2X4's they were using compared to what was used before in the 50's and before. He said if you went to the sight on a cold morning, picked up a 2X4 and smacked the end on the ground, it would just shatter. The lumber companies developed and grow trees that grow very, very quickly, and the density of the wood is so much less now. Think about it, people used to build some furniture out of pine. That old growth pine was a fairly hard wood. Not anymore. You can pretty much carve a bust of LHN with your fingernail.

[hammerhead 67]

francis brings up a good point.
Survival of the ecosystem.

Contrary to current popular belief, the ecosystem is incredibly hardy. Huge money is being made pretending that the slightest offense will bring about the end of the world. A LOT of political power is being wielded because of this belief as well.

Yesterday I spent 15 minutes on the phone with our soil engineer regarding our perc test. Everything is good to go. Then I ask him.... IF you didn't have sufficient depth of good soil, why not truck in good soil to make a perc site ?

Thought his head was going to explode. "Because you cant" was the standard answer. I kept bringing him back to WHY? Septic water doesn't care where the dirt came from, whats the engineering reason behind it? There is almost zero tolerance for new waste water treatment methods in our state. There are several "new" treatment methods out there which have been shown to be MORE effective at lower cost for places where a traditional septic system wont work.

It all comes full circle to common sense and cost effectiveness. Finding that is hard when Billions of dollars of profits and political capital is at stake. (not to mention grants funding entire budgets of "science" departments)

Cutting trees for a log home is NOT an affront to the environment. In most cases it is a GOOD thing allowing the natural regeneration cycle to begin creating habitat diversity.

[Tom Featherstone]

News Flash! The Glaciers have been melting for over 40 years! In fact if they hadn't melted 10,000 years ago none of us would be living in North America today. This planet has been in constant change since the beginning and will continue to do so.

I do believe we should be good stewards of our home with wise use of our resources. Preservation of some and the use of others. Trees don't last forever for the most part and are "green" and renewable. Large tracts of land/trees are destroyed every year by fire or bug infestation instead of using them for lumber/homes/ toilet paper. You either utilize it or lose it. But I guess it's ok to exploit some kid from a third world country to make a bag to put your groceries in for a nickel a week if that makes you feel good about being an environmentalist.

This is so much about money... it's just the changing of hands of who will receive it and maybe the same people under a different name. And none of it is good for the majority that the pay the price for it.

This world was consider "Flat" at one time by the Best scientists of that time and throughout history most "scientist's" that stood on their "fact" were proven wrong before they were even dead..... and somehow we think we're different. Our vision is still limited and is very clouded by all the propaganda we receive on all sides of these issues, again this benefits the very few as we continue to fight amongst ourselves.

It's what they didn't tell you in school is what you should be looking to for answers. "Due Diligence" has been thrown out the window these days and how easily we get lead down a one sided opinion. As has it has been throughout human history... but we're much smarter eh? we have computers.

The Mayans have a 50/50 chance of having it right... we'll all find out come December 21

[loghousenut]

I think I'll just slowly build my log home and let the rest of you argue about this one. Pass me another muffin.

[dvb]

We used all beetle killed pine for our house. These tree were dead and now they have a new life as part of our family! I don't think you can get greener than that.

[LogSurfer2]

News Flash! The Glaciers have been melting for over 40 years! In fact if they hadn't melted 10,000 years ago none of us would be living in North America today. This planet has been in constant change since the beginning and will continue to do so.

I do believe we should be good stewards of our home with wise use of our resources. Preservation of some and the use of others. Trees don't last forever for the most part and are "green" and renewable. Large tracts of land/trees are destroyed every year by fire or bug infestation instead of using them for lumber/homes/ toilet paper. You either utilize it or lose it. But I guess it's ok to exploit some kid from a third world country to make a bag to put your groceries in for a nickel a week if that makes you feel good about being an environmentalist.

This is so much about money... it's just the changing of hands of who will receive it and maybe the same people under a different name. And none of it is good for the majority that the pay the price for it.

This world was consider "Flat" at one time by the Best scientists of that time and throughout history most "scientist's" that stood on their "fact" were proven wrong before they were even dead..... and somehow we think we're different. Our vision is still limited and is very clouded by all the propaganda we receive on all sides of these issues, again this benefits the very few as we continue to fight amongst ourselves.

It's what they didn't tell you in school is what you should be looking to for answers. "Due Diligence" has been thrown out the window these days and how easily we get lead down a one sided opinion. As has it has been throughout human history... but we're much smarter eh? we have computers.

The Mayans have a 50/50 chance of having it right... we'll all find out come December 21

Tom, you and I probably have more in common than we will ever know....I agree wholeheartedly, my friend! I can say this because I know if we met we would surely become fast friends ;)

And LHN, you are a wise man to proceed with your build and leave the arguments to those who "know more" than we do....I have to say I don't have much intelligence on this issue, but I feel there is some truth on both sides of the fence.

[Tom Featherstone]

Thanks Judy, for the kind words. I too agree that there is always more than one side to any story and that we the people need to communicate not retaliate. We all have more in common than not. I believe we need to agree on the things we can and work on the minor differences. I usually only go off when I hear regurgitated sound bites from one side or the other... I read all sides and take a little longer view of history... human history does repeat itself... oh how far we've moved ahead in some ways but not an inch in others. I engage only to get people to think.. of other possibilities.. no human has all the correct answers.. truth can be found in both as well as the propaganda of a position.

I too would rather spend my time just digging holes or cutting firewood. There can be more than one right answer as well as the known.. more than one wrong


Pass the muffins cuz!